Birds fly, but they don’t like it

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 24, 2014

Evolution, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Also: Emus and moas only look alike. Genes tell a different story.

Huge flightless birds like emus and moas may look alike, but their genes now tell us they are only distantly related. Ancient DNA reveals that birds lost the ability to fly on six separate occasions within 10 million years. It seems the extinction of the dinosaurs created a brief window for big ground-dwelling birds, before large mammals evolved.

and

While we think of birds as flying animals, Penny says their natural state is foraging on the ground. If there are no predators and no competitors for food, it makes sense for them to grow and lose the ability to fly.

So all those adaptations for flight just happened, because of competition in foraging?

Note: Emus have been successfully raised in Canada.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Piotr:
I wouldn't recognise it as a fair description of evolution.
Ignorance does that to people. It is a fair description of evolution to all of us who know what evolution posits.Joe_{May 27, 2014
May
05
May
27
27
2014
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT}

Piotr pleads ignorance. KF was referring to the alleged theory of evolution. It is very telling that you have no idea what it entails.
I wouldn't recognise it as a fair description of evolution. It's ironic that a fan of Laconian terseness needs so many long words to say nothing of substance.Piotr_{May 27, 2014
May
05
May
27
27
2014
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT}

Mung,
A simple question for Barb. What is the Greek word for cross? You’ve told us what Greek word does not mean cross, but not what Greek word does mean cross. Or is it your position that no such word existed in the Greek language of that time?
The word commonly translated as cross is “stauros” which, as has been explained repeatedly means “upright stake or pale”. Go to an interlinear translation and you will see 'stauros'. If you can find another word translated as cross, let me know. see definition at Wiki Also see: this website for more definitions and comparisons And this: various translations using the term cross It might be translated as “cross” depending on the translators, but the basic meaning—which Kairosfocus also pointed out—is upright pole or stake. And also see hereBarb_{May 27, 2014
May
05
May
27
27
2014
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PDT}

Piotr:
Sorry, but I don’t even know what it means. It looks like a bad case of logorrhea.
Piotr pleads ignorance. KF was referring to the alleged theory of evolution. It is very telling tat you have no idea what it entails.Joe_{May 27, 2014
May
05
May
27
27
2014
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT}

If birds evolved from flightless theropods then there should be some science to support this. How many mutations did it take and what genes were involved? That is the least that is required. If you don't have that then all you have is a bed-time story.Joe_{May 27, 2014
May
05
May
27
27
2014
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT}

KF: Do you mean this?
Could the backers of evolutionary materialism kindly humour us by providing the empirically grounded, observationally based evidence that he cause of the origin of birds was blind chance and mechanical necessity working through the differential reproductive success and resultant culling of incrementally inferior/superior varieties, based on chance variations or whatever variation thereof is favoured?
Sorry, but I don't even know what it means. It looks like a bad case of logorrhea.Piotr_{May 27, 2014
May
05
May
27
27
2014
03:57 AM
3
03
57
AM
PDT}

D: Let's hear the solid answer to 51. KF PS: King Leonidas was dead on point, in two words.kairosfocus_{May 27, 2014
May
05
May
27
27
2014
03:33 AM
3
03
33
AM
PDT}

as to: "You find all kinds of forms among them" ,,, and continually (re)drawing imaginary lines between all those different forms, every time a different form is found in the fossil record earlier than expected, is not scientifically demonstrating that transition between forms is possible. In fact, cladistics, as Berlinski has shown, is severely abused in the unrestrained imagination of Darwinists.
A One-Man Clade – David Berlinski – July 18, 2013 Excerpt: The relationship between cladistics and Darwin's theory of evolution is thus one of independent origin but convergent confusion. "Phylogenetic systematics," the entomologist Michael Schmitt remarks, "relies on the theory of evolution." To the extent that the theory of evolution relies on phylogenetic systematics, the disciplines resemble two biologists dropped from a great height and clutching at one another in mid-air. Tight fit, major fail.7 No wonder that Schmidt is eager to affirm that "phylogenetics does not claim to prove or explain evolution whatsoever."8 If this is so, a skeptic might be excused for asking what it does prove or might explain? http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/07/a_one_man_clade074601.html
And as pointed out to you before Piotr, when we look at empirical evidence itself, instead of looking at lines on a sheet of paper that was drawn by a 'Darwinian artist', Darwinian processes are found to be grossly inadequate towards explaining any transition in form:
“Any transition of form is pure fantasy. There is no demonstration of it.” Douglas Axe - co-author of Science & Human Origins - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxMmLakH2LQ "Charles Darwin said (paraphrase), 'If anyone could find anything that could not be had through a number of slight, successive, modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.' Well that condition has been met time and time again. Basically every gene, every protein fold. There is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in a gradualist way. It's a mirage. None of it happens that way. - Doug Axe PhD. http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5347797/
Thus what are we to trust, dogmatic Darwinian imagination or consistent empirical evidence? If one wants to to remain scientific, he will follow the evidence where it leads.bornagain77_{May 27, 2014
May
05
May
27
27
2014
03:22 AM
3
03
22
AM
PDT}

I certainly don’t think finding fully functional birds earlier than expected in the fossil record, and having then stay virtually unchanged for 125 million years, reinforces your Kipling style ‘just so’ story as to how birds got their wings.
What the heck are you talking about? "Earlier than expected"? If birds come from flightless theropods, they can't be (and are not) earlier than the ancestral group of theropods, Eumaniraptora, including also troodontids and dromaeosaurids. They all existed in the Late Jurassic, at the right time to become bird ancestors. You find all kinds of forms among them, cursorial as well as arboreal, including small, lightweight feather critters capable at least of gliding (though they can't be classified as birds).Piotr_{May 27, 2014
May
05
May
27
27
2014
12:47 AM
12
12
47
AM
PDT}

A simple question for Barb. What is the Greek word for cross? You've told us what Greek word does not mean cross, but not what Greek word does mean cross. Or is it your position that no such word existed in the Greek language of that time?Mung_{May 26, 2014
May
05
May
26
26
2014
06:04 PM
6
06
04
PM
PDT}

#63 by kairosfocus
D, you mean they might try a Bain on me? To such, I say: molon labe! KF
No, I don't think they'll go that far in this case. Your comment #51 is very good. Your request is very accurate and valid. However, I assume you noticed the subtle sarcasm embedded in my previous comments ;-) My point is that those who lack sound arguments and also lack the humility to admit it, usually feel insecure, so they become mean and aggressive in their responses. Your comment #51 requested things that would make nervous a few folks out there. But that's their problem, not ours ;-) BTW, I just learned a new Greek expression I did not know. Thanks.Dionisio_{May 26, 2014
May
05
May
26
26
2014
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT}

Reciprocating Bill, I certainly don't think finding fully functional birds earlier than expected in the fossil record, and having then stay virtually unchanged for 125 million years, reinforces your Kipling style 'just so' story as to how birds got their wings. But hey if that is what you choose to believe go for it. ,,, A few more notes: Darwin’s Legacy - Donald R. Prothero - February 2012 Excerpt: In four of the biggest climatic-vegetational events of the last 50 million years, the mammals and birds show no noticeable change in response to changing climates. No matter how many presentations I give where I show these data, no one (including myself) has a good explanation yet for such widespread stasis despite the obvious selective pressures of changing climate. http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-02-15/#feature Darwin 'Wrong': Species Living Together Does Not Encourage Evolution - December 20, 2013 Excerpt: Charles Darwin's theory of evolution set out in the Origin of Species has been proven wrong by scientists studying ovenbirds. Researchers at Oxford University found that species living together do not evolve differently to avoid competing with one another for food and habitats – a theory put forward by Darwin 150 years ago. The ovenbird is one of the most diverse bird families in the world and researchers were looking to establish the processes causing them to evolve. Published in Nature, the research compared the beaks, legs and songs of 90% of ovenbird species. Findings showed that while the birds living together were consistently more different than those living apart, this was the result of age differences. Once the variation of age was accounted for, birds that live together were more similar than those living separately – directly contradicting Darwin's view. The species that lived together had beaks and legs no more different than those living apart,,, ,,,there is no shortage of evidence for competition driving divergent evolution in some very young lineages. But we found no evidence that this process explains differences across a much larger sample of species.,,, He said that the reasons why birds living together appear to evolve less are "difficult to explain",, http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/darwin-wrong-species-living-together-does-not-encourage-evolution-1429927bornagain77_{May 26, 2014
May
05
May
26
26
2014
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT}

BA,,,
And from a few months ago, we have evidence overturning that 2006 time line
My assertion was that "Copious fossil evidence documenting the presence of feathers of various degrees of complexity on numerous theropod species has been found since the first such discovery in 1996, permitting a much more detailed phylogenetic reconstruction the evolutionary history of the feather." In response to that, Barb says there are no forms to study. Obviously, she is wrong, as indicated by the XU article and its references, which document Chinese discovery of that copious fossil theropod evidence beginning more than 15 years ago. Your example reinforces my point, pointing to even further data.Reciprocating Bill_{May 26, 2014
May
05
May
26
26
2014
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT}

Moreover, as starling murmuration, and globe spanning migrations testify, the 'quantum' navigation capability of birds is 'nothing short of miraculous':
Jim Al-Khalili and the Quantum Robin - video According to Quantum Physicist Jim Al-Khalili, the phenomenon Quantum Entanglement in Robins is "nothing short of miraculous." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jepgOQEvWT0 Featherweight songbird is a long-distance champ - February 2012 Excerpt: A tiny songbird weighing just two tablespoons of sugar migrates from the Arctic to Africa and back, a distance of up to 29,000 kilometres (18,000 miles), scientists reported on Wednesday. http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-02-featherweight-songbird-long-distance-champ.html To Birds, Storm Survival Is Only Natural, - November 12, 2012 "...powerful new satellite tracking studies of birds on the wing... reveal birds as the supreme masters of extreme weather management, able to skirt deftly around gale-force winds, correct course after being blown horribly astray, or even use a hurricane as a kind of slingshot to propel themselves forward at hyperspeed. ... Among a bird’s weather management skills is the power to detect the air pressure changes that signal a coming storm, and with enough advance notice to prepare for adversity. Scientists are not certain how this avian barometer works, yet the evidence of its existence is clear. ... ...once the storm had passed they took off, presumably heading back to where they wanted to be. “Birds have tremendous situational awareness...They know where they are and where they’re going, they’re able to fly back repeatedly, and they’ve shown an amazing ability to compensate for being pushed off track." http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/science/birds-have-natural-ability-to-survive-storms.html?_r=0 FLIGHT: The Genius of Birds – Starling murmurations – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GR9zFgOzyw Starlings - Murmuration http://vimeo.com/31158841
Verse, Quote, and Music:
John 14:4 “You know the way to the place where I am going.",, “Death is not the end, it is simply walking out of the physical form and into the spirit realm, which is our true home. It’s going back home.” – Stephen Christopher Alison Krauss-Gillian Welch - I'll Fly Away - music video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdRdqp4N3Jw
bornagain77_{May 26, 2014
May
05
May
26
26
2014
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT}

Of related note to Darwinian processes NEVER demonstrating the origin of functional information/complexity above that which is already present in life, it is interesting to note the exquisite design that is present in feathers:
FLIGHT: The Genius of Birds - Feathers - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2yeNoDCcBg Birds and Flight - Prof. Andy McIntosh - video http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/video/3 Evidence Of Design In Bird Feathers And Avian Respiration - Andy McIntosh http://journals.witpress.com/paperinfo.asp?pid=399 But Is It Evolution ? - February 2011 Excerpt: Airplane wings exploit some of the same aerodynamic tricks. But a bird wing is vastly more sophisticated than anything composed of sheet metal and rivets. From a central feather shaft extends a series of slender barbs, each sprouting smaller barbules, like branches from a bough, lined with tiny hooks. When these grasp on to the hooklets of neighboring barbules, they create a structural network that’s featherlight but remarkably strong. When a bird preens its feathers to clean them, the barbs effortlessly separate, then slip back into place. http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201102.htm#20110218a
In fact it is a major challenge for engineers just to copy the aerodynamics of bird wings much less improve on them:
The Marvelous Flight Capabilities of Birds - December 2, 2012 Excerpt: “Avian flight,” a new study,,,, “complex biotechnical architecture of avian wings,” the “magic structural wing asymmetries” so important for aeroelastic flight control, and the “extremely precise coordination of the complex wing beat motions, together with a perfect flight guidance and control performance.” Then there are the flight muscles, sense organs and “extremely developed cerebellum” functioning as a guidance and control computer center. These “biological elements communicate with lightning speed like an autopilot as a biotechnical marvel with unimaginable precision.” As the paper concludes, “With their spectacular flight capabilities, birds are really the inimitable flight artists of nature.”,,, Unimaginable precision. Spectacular flight capabilities. Extremely precise coordination.,,, A remarkable design that our best engineers still cannot figure out. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-marvelous-flight-capabilities-of.html Suddenly, It's OK to Say that Owls Are Engineered - February 14, 2014 Excerpt: With two other engineers, Jaworski is already working on designs for quieter blades for windmill farms, imitating the features of the owl's wing. "Commercial aircraft could also benefit from owl wing research," ,,, "The more closely you look at owl feathers, the more amazing they reveal themselves to be." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/02/suddenly_its_ok082211.html How Bird Wings Work (Compared to Airplane Wings) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jKokxPRtck Can Humans Improve on Nature? If So, What Does it Mean for Intelligent Design? – February 9, 2012 Excerpt: Now if they (Darwinists) can,, design a 747 that lays eggs that hatch into new 747s, then they will really be something to talk about. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/can_humans_impr055981.html Bending rules for animal propulsion - 18 February 2014 Excerpt: Animal propulsors such as wings and fins bend during motion and these bending patterns are believed to contribute to the high efficiency of animal movements compared with those of man-made designs. However, efforts to implement flexible designs have been met with contradictory performance results. Consequently, there is no clear understanding of the role played by propulsor flexibility or, more fundamentally, how flexible propulsors should be designed for optimal performance. Here we demonstrate that during steady-state motion by a wide range of animals, from fruit flies to humpback whales, operating in either air or water, natural propulsors bend in similar ways within a highly predictable range of characteristic motions. By providing empirical design criteria derived from natural propulsors that have convergently arrived at a limited design space, these results provide a new framework from which to understand and design flexible propulsors. http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140218/ncomms4293/full/ncomms4293.html
bornagain77_{May 26, 2014
May
05
May
26
26
2014
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT}

And from a few months ago, we have evidence overturning that 2006 time line,,,
A new specimen of the Early Cretaceous bird Hongshanornis longicresta: insights into the aerodynamics and diet of a basal ornithuromorph. January 2014 Excerpt: The discovery of Hongshanornis longicresta, a small ornithuromorph bird with unusually long hindlimb proportions, was followed by the discovery of two closely related species, Longicrusavis houi and Parahongshanornis chaoyangensis. Together forming the Hongshanornithidae, these species reveal important information about the early diversity and morphological specialization of ornithuromorphs, the clade that contains all living birds. Here we report on a new specimen (DNHM D2945/6) referable to Hongshanornis longicresta that contributes significant information to better understand the morphology, trophic ecology, and aerodynamics of this species, as well as the taxonomy of the Hongshanornithidae. Most notable are the well-preserved wings and feathered tail of DNHM D2945/6, which afford an accurate reconstruction of aerodynamic parameters indicating that as early as 125 million years ago, basal ornithuromorphs had evolved aerodynamic surfaces comparable in size and design to those of many modern birds, and flight modes alike to those of some small living birds. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24482756
Moreover, as stated in the previous article, these early birds were more complex than modern birds:
When Dinosaurs Flew – February 4, 2014 Excerpt: “This isn’t a mode of flight we expected from Cretaceous birds,” Habib said, adding that its small size and overall shape are comparable to that of modern birds. “It was pretty much a Cretaceous starling with a larger tail like a mockingbird.” Transported to the modern world, it wouldn’t look like anything special to the casual observer, until a closer examination revealed claws at the end of the bird’s wings and tiny teeth in its beak.,,, http://dornsife.usc.edu/news/stories/1622/when-dinosaurs-flew/
Of note: ba·sal ?b?s?l,-z?l/ adjective technical adjective: basal forming or belonging to a bottom layer or base. ----------- Moreover, even if the fossil record did cooperate with you, you still have no empirical evidence that Darwinian processes can create functional information.bornagain77_{May 26, 2014
May
05
May
26
26
2014
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT}

D, you mean they might try a Bain on me? To such, I say: molon labe! KFkairosfocus_{May 26, 2014
May
05
May
26
26
2014
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT}

Barb says:
...there are no transitional scale-to-feather forms to study...
Answer is:
The origin and early evolution of feathers was poorly understood until feathered dinosaur specimens were discovered in western Liaoning. Feather-like filamentous integumentary structures or feathers of modern aspect have been found in all major coelurosaurian clades recovered from the Jehol shale beds (Norell and Xu 2005), including compsognathids, tyrannosauroids, therizinosauroids, oviraptorosaurians, dromaeosaurids and possibly troodontids. They are diverse in morphology, including single filaments, compound structures composed of either multiple filaments joined at the base into a tuft, or multiple filaments joined in series along a central filament, plumulaceous feathers and pennaceous feathers with both symmetrical and asymmetrical vanes (Chen et al. 1998; Ji et al. 1998, 2001; Xu et al. 1999a,b, 2000b, 2003b; Norell et al. 2002; Xu and Zhang 2005)…. In general, the feather morphologies of the Liaoning taxa display an evolutionary trend of increasing complexity and a distinctive distribution pattern as one approaches the base of Aves. The basal coelurosaurian compsognathids and tyrannosauroids have relatively simple, filamentous structures; the more derived coelurosaurian oviraptorosaurians have pennaceous feathers with symmetrical vanes; and the most bird-like dromaeosaurids have flight feathers with asymmetrical vanes. The available evidence suggests that relatively simple filamentous structures evolved phylogenetically earlier than the planar, pennaceous feathers; pennaceous feathers with asymmetrical vanes evolved later than the ones with symmetrical vanes; flight feathers and their homologues first appeared on the tail and arms, and later on the legs. Based on developmental data, Prum (1999) proposed a model of the origin and early evolution of feathers, which is largely congruent with the fossil evidence. Xu (2006) revised Prum’s model, suggesting the following evolutionary scenario of feathers: (1) the first feathers represented by single tubular filaments; then (2) distal branching of the filament appeared; (3) rachis and planar form of feathers evolved, which might be correlated with the appearance of a feather follicle; (4) feathers with fully closed symmetrical vanes evolved, followed by ones with asymmetrical vanes; finally, (5) feathers of modern type are degenerated from the flight feathers and their homologues while most other morphs might have reduced and lost from the avian body. This scenario suggests some distinctive feather features, such as their tubular nature and branching, evolved before the appearance of the feather follicle, emphasizes the significance of planar form in feather evolution, and underscores that the flight feather homologue might have evolved before other various feathers of modern birds. In general, this evolutionary scenario features both transformational and innovative processes, different from Prum’s that is characteristic of a total innovative process (Prum 1999). These evolutionary models could be tested by further discoveries of integumentary details on non-avian dinosaurs, particularly of more plesiomorphic morphologies on more basal taxa than the known feathered coelurosaurian species.... The Liaoning theropod specimens conclusively indicate that simple, filamentous feathers evolved first and pennaceous ones of modern aspect developed later in coelurosaurian evolution and both have nothing to do with flight. Furthermore, feathers with aerodynamic features evolved before the origin of avians.
XU XING and MARK A. NORELL, Non-Avian dinosaur fossils from the Lower Cretaceous Jehol Group of western Liaoning, China Geol. J. 41: 419–437 (2006)Reciprocating Bill_{May 26, 2014
May
05
May
26
26
2014
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT}

“The whole notion of feathered dinosaurs is a myth that has been created by ideologues bent on perpetuating the birds-are-dinosaurs theory in the face of all contrary evidence” Storrs Olson – curator of birds at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History
In any science you will always find a few oddball dissenters who steadfastly refuse to accept the mainstream interpretation of the evidence -- simply because they have their own idea and they like it better. Storr Olson and Alan Feduccia think birds evolved from more primitive archosaurs in the Triassic (rather than from theropods). Olson wrote the "open letter" (from which you quote) back in 1999, in the wake of the Archaeoraptor hoax. The fact that Archaeoraptor was a forgery made in China doesn't mean that other "dino-birds" are fake as well, and in the fifteen years since 1999 plenty of new fossils have been found. I wonder what Olson's current opinion is (Feduccia, as far as I know, hasn't given up). Anyway, Olson didn't think birds and their feathers were intelligently designed -- only that their ancestry was different from that proposed by other paleontologists.Piotr_{May 26, 2014
May
05
May
26
26
2014
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT}

Dino's flapped the arms while running uphill. You know, physics. Cool Science: http://ed.ted.com/lessons/how-did-feathers-evolve-carl-zimmerppolish_{May 26, 2014
May
05
May
26
26
2014
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

Reciprocating Bill writes,
Unfortunately, Awake! got the intended meaning of “Feathers are a little too perfect – that’s the problem” wrong. Here is that statement in context: “Feathers are a little too perfect – that’s the problem. Birds are so thoroughly adapted to their aerial way of life, and their feathers are so exquisitely designed for both flight and thermal protection, that feathers no longer bear any of the small but telling flaws that allow evolutionary biologists to see how feathers developed from reptilian scales. There are no obvious traces of how feathers came to be, so until evidence is found we can we can only look for the simplest explanation that accounts for all the known facts.” So the “problem” presented by feathers is not that they “give no indication that they ever needed improvement” but rather that the incremental evolutionary history of feathers is difficult to infer from their contemporary structure, due to their exquisite degree of adaptation. The article goes on to review several hypothesized evolutionary scenarios, and then notes that the solution to this problem will ultimately turn on the evidence
Evolution, an unguided process, cannot (by definition) design anything. If, however, one accepts that birds were designed to fly, then feathers do not pose a problem whatsoever in terms of scientific study. And, as pointed out above, there are no transitional scale-to-feather forms to study, which clearly presents a problem for evolutionists.Barb_{May 26, 2014
May
05
May
26
26
2014
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT}

Mung continues, 1.
Conclusions are neither valid nor invalid. Validity applies to arguments.
Yes, and…? My argument was valid.
How do your derive your conclusion, Jesus was not crucified on a cross from your premise? Please explain the logic.
I have, on more than one thread here. If you cannot or will not be bothered to read what I post, then what is the point? Continue in your ignorance, then.
You mean like the Jehovah’s Witnesses? Don’t be a hypocrite Barb. You didn’t just claim they had an agenda, you identified them as “apostates.” You’re not judging, are you?
No, Mung, that is a statement of fact. Most—if not all—of the websites you linked to are run by former Jehovah’s Witnesses. They are obviously biased. Are you really not understanding this point? And many of them—whether they contribute to the site itself or are the site’s webmaster—are apostates. They voluntarily chose to leave, and they do have an axe to grind against the organization they left. Is your prejudice against this religion blinding you to this fact?
You’re not judging are you Barb? Don’t be a hypocrite Barb.
I’m not. You made a statement that you are qualified to judge whether or not Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christians. Were you being untruthful? Do you have such authority, and from what source? Don’t simply repeat the same phrase over and over again.
How does the Watchtower Society judge who is an apostate and who is not?
That’s often very easy. Many apostates are those who previously considered themselves Witnesses and who did the following: (1) attending meetings at the Kingdom Hall, (2) engaged in the preaching work that Witnesses are known for, and (3) followed the scriptural principles for Christian life. In various ways, they try to cause division amongst the congregation members (often by slandering or gossiping about others) and oppose the work that the Witnesses do. Some print their own literature that consists of little more than lies about the Witnesses. Once a person begins actively opposing the Witnesses by conduct and action as well as by words, then they’ve self-identified as an apostate.
Isn’t the judging of who is an apostate and who is not committed to Jesus Christ?
The judging of humankind as a whole is left to Jesus Christ. However, you ignore the point that Jesus Christ as King utilizes humans here on earth as part of God’s organization. You will hear the Witnesses refer to Jesus’s illustration of “the faithful and discreet slave” that provides (spiritual) food for Jesus’s followers on earth.
Is the Watchtower Society on an equal plane with Jesus Christ?
No. Please tell me you haven’t missed this point as well as the many others I’ve tried to make.
You cite no scholars, no scriptures to defend your points. A lie.
Then by all means, post the CVs of the relevant scholars from the websites you linked to. Post their credentials.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses are defined less by what they affirm than by what they deny. They are primarily opposed to orthodox Christianity.
Not really, but you seem to be on a roll here. Orthodox Christianity also does not hold to many scriptural principles. The Witnesses do make this known. It’s up to an individual to decide who is more closely following the teachings of Jesus Christ.
I, on the other hand, accept the majority of the orthodox faith while questioning futurism in general and dispensational premillennialism in particular. Barb, a JW, decided to challenge my preterist position.
Oh, here we go.
This brings into question the JW’s position. They claim that Jesus returned in 1914.
Mung knows very little about what the Witnesses believe, since he’s not listening to the one who’s trying to explain their beliefs to him. If anyone wants to know what the Witnesses have said about 1914, go here: http://www.jw.org/en/search/?q=1914
They claim that the generation alive in 1914 would not pass away before the end.
See above.
Sites on the internet that point out this false prophecy are judged “apostate.” Go figure.
Yes, they are, and for the reasons listed above. Do try and not be so obtuse.
Yet you ignore other Greek scholars.
Which ones have I ignored?
And you ignore the writings of Vine and Kedar that do not acknowledge the “rightness” of the translation of the NWT.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? I posted a quote as well as a letter from Kedar ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THE NWT WAS AN ACCURATE TRANSLATION. Kedar does not agree with what the Witnesses believe, but he had no problems with their Bible translation. No wonder you’re not getting the point. You’re not bothering to read anything I post, which might actually give you a clue. And you completely ignored the religion professor (BeDuhn) whose book indicates that the NWT is a scholarly translation. Please try to at least read what I posted and if you disagree with what those scholars stated or wrote, explain why.
stay on topic, please do not preaching Christianity here. I wish to see more scientific discussions.
Tell that to Mung. He’s the one who brought this discussion from another thread here since he can’t stand the fact that a Witness is on this site.Barb_{May 26, 2014
May
05
May
26
26
2014
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT}

#54 & #55 Recent experience in this same blog taught me the hard way that I should avoid asking general questions that might provoke answers like the ones I got more than once, telling me to study basic biology, to take formal classes, to buy books, to look somewhere else outside this blog, etc. Even the sample question suggested in #55 could still be narrowed down and itemized into more specific issues. However, I'm not ready for that yet. Need to dig deeper, but I plan to get there shortly (Dios mediante). Just pray for me, if you belong to Him who claimed to be VIA+VERITAS+VITA. If you don't, then I pray that you do :) Rev. 22:21.Dionisio_{May 26, 2014
May
05
May
26
26
2014
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT}

Unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution cannot account for feathers. That is because it cannot account for eukaryotes. Unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution cannot get beyond populations of prokaryotes given the starting point of populations of prokaryotes.Joe_{May 26, 2014
May
05
May
26
26
2014
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT}

#51 by kairosfocus
Could the backers of evolutionary materialism kindly humour us by providing the empirically grounded, observationally based evidence that the cause of the origin of birds was blind chance and mechanical necessity working through the differential reproductive success and resultant culling of incrementally inferior/superior varieties, based on chance variations or whatever variation thereof is favoured? That is, of body plan origin — particularly including flight based on the origin of the integrated system from skeleton to breathing to muscles to controls to feathers.
They might respond saying that the answer to your question is available online, you should search it yourself, because it would take many books with many pages to describe what you want to know. They'll say it's out there written somewhere, but your question is too general. So better more politely we should narrow down the subject and ask more specific questions, which are simpler to answer, because they require less text to describe the requested explanation. Thus the discussion may flow more smoothly. For example, since I'm studying the cell fate determination, differentiation and migration mechanisms in the first weeks of human development, one question could be about the origin* of the centrosome of the spindle apparatus operating on the intrinsic asymmetric mitosis of the zygote. That's an example of being fair and nice ;-) However, I'm not holding my breath while waiting for the answers. My wife say I don't look good when I turn blue ;-) (*) please, note that at this point I'm not interested in the origin of that stuff, but in how it currently works. However, I suggest the 'origin' question as an example of narrowing down the 'origin' questions to very specific issues, in order to invalidate the 'too general' argument.Dionisio_{May 26, 2014
May
05
May
26
26
2014
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT}

#51 by kairosfocus
Could the backers of evolutionary materialism kindly humour us by providing the empirically grounded, observationally based evidence that the cause of the origin of birds was blind chance and mechanical necessity working through the differential reproductive success and resultant culling of incrementally inferior/superior varieties, based on chance variations or whatever variation thereof is favoured? That is, of body plan origin — particularly including flight based on the origin of the integrated system from skeleton to breathing to muscles to controls to feathers.
Sir, FYI - we agreed that no bullying should be allowed in this blog. We can't ask anyone for information we know a priori they don't have any clue where to get it from. That's unfair. Rhetorical questions are not politically correct when they could potentially reveal the precarious situation some longstanding 'theories' are in today. The establishment might react with justified disappointment and remind us that we are just a bunch of ignorant creationist IDiots who don't understand the magic 'n-D evo' formula RM+NS+T (whatever that means). ;-)Dionisio_{May 26, 2014
May
05
May
26
26
2014
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT}

Reciprocating Bill wrote: ... Copious fossil evidence documenting the presence of feathers of various degrees of complexity on numerous theropod species has been found since the first such discovery in 1996 ... Is the progressive development of complex structures of flight feathers actually illustrated in these finds? I have tried to uncover details but run into generalities, evidences of feather type only, many poor fossil preservations with unclear structure, or such indirect indicators as 'quill knobs'. Flight restrictions included description of a creatures limiting skeletol structure but not a demonstration of an incomplete flight feather. There still seems a yawning gap in this important feather types progress. I would appreciate any direction to this.willh_{May 26, 2014
May
05
May
26
26
2014
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT}

as to this claim: This was written more than 20 years ago (in 1993). Copious fossil evidence documenting the presence of feathers of various degrees of complexity on numerous theropod species has been found since the first such discovery in 1996, permitting a much more detailed phylogenetic reconstruction the evolutionary history of the feather. that claim is simply false. In fact, as this following recent discovery revealed, the first evidence we have shows that Birds were complex from the start: When Dinosaurs Flew - February 4, 2014 Excerpt: A study published online by PeerJ on Jan. 2 detailed the examination of a startlingly complete and pristine specimen of an ancient, dinosaur-era bird: Hongshanornis longicresta, which flapped throughout what is now China roughly 125 million years ago during the early Cretaceous Period. This particular specimen, discovered a few years ago in rocks from northeastern China, is the latest example of the unexpected diversity of primitive birds that have been unearthed from that part of the world.,,, Roughly 90 percent of the skeleton is complete, with wings and tail so finely preserved that the outlines of feathers and what may be dark color bands on the tail can still be seen. That high level of preservation — particularly around the wings and tail — has allowed the team to perform an aerodynamic analysis of the bird, revealing how it likely flew. Michael Habib, assistant professor of research at the Keck School of Medicine of USC, analyzed the shape of the wings and tail and determined that the bird “flitted about,” bouncing through the air with bursts of flapping. The flying style is far closer to that found in modern birds than what was supposed of ancient flyers — which have been thought to rely more on gliding due to a lack of enough muscle mass in flying appendages to achieve flapping bursts. “This isn’t a mode of flight we expected from Cretaceous birds,” Habib said, adding that its small size and overall shape are comparable to that of modern birds. “It was pretty much a Cretaceous starling with a larger tail like a mockingbird.” Transported to the modern world, it wouldn’t look like anything special to the casual observer, until a closer examination revealed claws at the end of the bird’s wings and tiny teeth in its beak.,,, http://dornsife.usc.edu/news/stories/1622/when-dinosaurs-flew/ News for the Birds - May 7, 2014 Excerpt: Yanornis is called an ancestor of birds, but PhysOrg reported on April 18 that a fossil found in China shows that “the digestive system of the ancestors to modern birds was essentially modern in all aspects.",,, But if it was already “essentially modern” in the ancestors, and already integrated with the flight systems, where is the time for natural selection to have supposedly produced it? http://crev.info/2014/05/news-for-the-birds-2/ Modern birds, long thought to have arisen only after the dinosaurs perished, turn out to have lived alongside them - 2010 http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=winged-victory "Tracks of birds were found in the Dinosaur Cove in southern Victoria that date to 105 million years ago. The evidence indicates that true flying birds existed at the same time as dinosaurs during the Early Cretaceous. The evidence is a bird’s landing tracks. The tracks have a backward pointing toe that is the same as modern birds. ...The birds were estimated to be the size of a small heron by the scientists." (True flying bird tracks from dinosaur times discovered in Australia, October 28, 2013) http://www.examiner.com/article/true-flying-bird-tracks-from-dinosaur-times-discovered-australia How Birds Evolved by Incorrigible Storytelling - September 30, 2013 Excerpt: Aside from beginning with the Kipling-style title, Shurkin wrote a completely fact-free story, relying on nothing but imagination: in short, “The arms got longer, the legs got shorter, and they were flying.” - http://crev.info/2013/09/how-birds-evolved-by-incorrigible-storytelling/ Another Flap Over Dinosaur Feathers - October 31, 2012 Excerpt: The photo of 1995.110.1 shows only dark criss-cross markings on the bone that they “inferred to be traces left by shafted feathers.” They don’t bear any resemblance to actual feathers. This means that only one fossil had the carbonized impressions extending from parts of its forelimbs at some distance from the bones, leaving plenty of leeway to speculate about what they were, or whether they had any connection to the animal. Yet their artwork shows the adult with fully-fledged wing feathers, barbs, barbules and all, and even multiple colors!,,, There’s no way this specimen can have anything to do with the origin of avian flight. The authors did not even try to connect it to flight. http://crev.info/2012/10/another-flap-over-dinosaur-feathers/ “Feathers give no indication that they ever needed improvement. In fact, the “earliest known fossil feather is so modern-looking as to be indistinguishable from the feathers of birds flying today.” Yale University’s Manual of Ornithology—Avian Structure and Function “The whole notion of feathered dinosaurs is a myth that has been created by ideologues bent on perpetuating the birds-are-dinosaurs theory in the face of all contrary evidence” Storrs Olson - curator of birds at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History The hype about feathered dinosaurs in the exhibit currently on display at the National Geographic Society is even worse, and makes the spurious claim that there is strong evidence that a wide variety of carnivorous dinosaurs had feathers. A model of the undisputed dinosaur Deinonychus and illustrations of baby tyrannosaurs are shown clad in feathers, all of which is simply imaginary and has no place outside of science fiction. - Storrs Olson Bird Evolution vs. The Actual Fossil Evidence - video and notes http://vimeo.com/30926629bornagain77_{May 26, 2014
May
05
May
26
26
2014
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT}

F/N: Could the backers of evolutionary materialism kindly humour us by providing the empirically grounded, observationally based evidence that he cause of the origin of birds was blind chance and mechanical necessity working through the differential reproductive success and resultant culling of incrementally inferior/superior varieties, based on chance variations or whatever variation thereof is favoured? That is, of body plan origin -- particularly including flight based on the origin of the integrated system from skeleton to breathing to muscles to controls to feathers. KFkairosfocus_{May 26, 2014
May
05
May
26
26
2014
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT}

Barb quoted AWAKE!:
“Feathers are a little too perfect—that’s the problem,” notes Yale University’s Manual of Ornithology—Avian Structure and Function. Feathers give no indication that they ever needed improvement. In fact, the “earliest known fossil feather is so modern-looking as to be indistinguishable from the feathers of birds flying today.” Yet, evolutionary theory teaches that feathers must be the result of gradual, cumulative change in earlier skin outgrowths. Moreover, “feathers could not have evolved without some plausible adaptive value in all of the intermediate steps,” says the Manual.
Unfortunately, Awake! got the intended meaning of “Feathers are a little too perfect - that’s the problem” wrong. Here is that statement in context:
“Feathers are a little too perfect - that’s the problem. Birds are so thoroughly adapted to their aerial way of life, and their feathers are so exquisitely designed for both flight and thermal protection, that feathers no longer bear any of the small but telling flaws that allow evolutionary biologists to see how feathers developed from reptilian scales. There are no obvious traces of how feathers came to be, so until evidence is found we can we can only look for the simplest explanation that accounts for all the known facts.”
So the “problem” presented by feathers is not that they "give no indication that they ever needed improvement” but rather that the incremental evolutionary history of feathers is difficult to infer from their contemporary structure, due to their exquisite degree of adaptation. The article goes on to review several hypothesized evolutionary scenarios, and then notes that the solution to this problem will ultimately turn on the evidence:
”In discussing these theories, Philip Regal (1985) sounds a warning for all those who might predict any animal’s natural history on the basis of anatomy alone. Regal notes that the Gray Foxes….of California’s Channel islands are entirely insectivorous, a fact you would never guess from their anatomy or the natural history of other foxes. North America’s mightiest predator, the Grizzly Bear…subsists almost entirely on berries and ground squirrels through much of its range, again a fact its anatomy would never suggest. Until we have more fossil evidence we will never know how birds developed such complex adaptations to flight.”
This was written more than 20 years ago (in 1993). Copious fossil evidence documenting the presence of feathers of various degrees of complexity on numerous theropod species has been found since the first such discovery in 1996, permitting a much more detailed phylogenetic reconstruction the evolutionary history of the feather.Reciprocating Bill_{May 26, 2014
May
05
May
26
26
2014
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply