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

KF:
PS: Barb, pardon a follow up; do you see why — as was recently discussed — it is reasonable on context [think, what did Simon of Cyrene carry for Jesus after he stumbled? how much would the upright part of a cross credibly weigh?] and on the reality of metonymy as a common figure of speech to understand the cross of Christ as being in the T or t shape, with a fairly prominent sign-board over Jesus’ head that is close enough to the traditional imagery that there is no good reason to impugn it and erect a barrage of hostile talking points to project on the common symbol?
I wasn’t attempting to impugn the cross; I was merely showing, via scriptural citations and secular historical evidence, that it has been used by religions other than Christianity and that, according to some historians, it is not the instrument on which Jesus was executed. It’s not about a figure of speech, it is about accurately translating the words used in Greek when copying the Bible. The KVJ uses the term cross when translating the word stauros. But other translators, notably W. E. Vine, a Greek scholar himself, state that the word should be translated as “upright pale” or “stake”.
Do you see the issue of setting up and knocking over a loaded strawman that arises when the occurrence of the word stauros in isolation from textual and historic context is used as pivot for such?
I don’t see any evidence that the word stauros was taken out of context in either the NWT or any other translation that I posted about in the other thread. There’s no strawman here; there’s only biblical exegesis. The Imperial Bible-Dictionary says that the word stauros? “properly signified a stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling a piece of ground.” The dictionary continues: “Even amongst the Romans the crux (Latin, from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole.” Thus, it is not surprising that The Catholic Encyclopedia states: “Certain it is, at any rate, that the cross originally consisted of a simple vertical pole, sharpened at its upper end.” This isn’t a fallacious argument; I’m using historical evidence to prove my point. There is another Greek word, xy?lon, that Bible writers used to describe the instrument of Jesus’ execution. A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament defines xy?lon as “a piece of timber, a wooden stake.” It goes on to say that like stauros?, xy?lon “was simply an upright pale or stake to which the Romans nailed those who were thus said to be crucified.” In view of the basic meaning of the Greek words stauros? and xy?lon, the Critical Lexicon and Concordance, quoted above, observes: “Both words disagree with the modern idea of a cross, with which we have become familiarised by pictures.” In other words, what the Gospel writers described using the word stauros? was nothing like what people today call a cross. Appropriately, therefore, the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures uses the expression “torture stake” at Matthew 27:40-42 and in other places where the word stauros? appears. Similarly, the Complete Jewish Bible uses the expression “execution stake.”
And, do you see why I therefore suggest that some rethinking is in order not only on a particular case, but more broadly on approach? [This is of course by way of follow up to an exchange a week ago.] That said, perhaps we should return to main focus.
I have considered other evidence, and I’m not sure exactly what you want me to re-think. What I posted came from (a) the Bible, and (b) Greek scholars and historians. If you believe that either of those sources are incorrect, then say so. I happen to agree with their conclusions, although I am very aware that the cross is venerated by most religions today.Barb_{May 25, 2014
May
05
May
25
25
2014
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT}

Has anyone got any insight into the identity of fossilized feathers? Is it possible to catalogue them as to their species for instance? If so are they all extant, or are any pegged as from long extinct birds? Any thoughts are appreciated.willh_{May 25, 2014
May
05
May
25
25
2014
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT}

PPS: All that noted, Wallace used feathers as a pivotal case study pointing to design. The complex integrated mechanism speaks loudly. And feathers have always been feathers -- especially those that carry out flight related functions.kairosfocus_{May 25, 2014
May
05
May
25
25
2014
04:19 AM
4
04
19
AM
PDT}

PS: Barb, pardon a follow up; do you see why -- as was recently discussed -- it is reasonable on context [think, what did Simon of Cyrene carry for Jesus after he stumbled? how much would the upright part of a cross credibly weigh?] and on the reality of metonymy as a common figure of speech to understand the cross of Christ as being in the T or t shape, with a fairly prominent sign-board over Jesus' head that is close enough to the traditional imagery that there is no good reason to impugn it and erect a barrage of hostile talking points to project on the common symbol? Do you see the issue of setting up and knocking over a loaded strawman that arises when the occurrence of the word stauros in isolation from textual and historic context is used as pivot for such? And, do you see why I therefore suggest that some rethinking is in order not only on a particular case, but more broadly on approach? [This is of course by way of follow up to an exchange a week ago.] That said, perhaps we should return to main focus.kairosfocus_{May 25, 2014
May
05
May
25
25
2014
04:14 AM
4
04
14
AM
PDT}

F/N: I didn't realise UD had so much of a WTTBS/ JW contingent. On theology, probably the best identification/summary of a common core is the Nicene Creed (which, contrary to Dan Brown is not a Constantine cookup, it first came out 325 then after 50 years of debate was strengthened 381). As the linked will show, it is based on the AD 55 record of the c 35 - 38 AD "official" testimony of the 500+, stated in 1 Cor 15:1 - 11 with context setting background and follow on info towards the Eschaton. Those debating Jesus may find here helpful, and here also on the triune conception of the one true God. KFkairosfocus_{May 25, 2014
May
05
May
25
25
2014
03:53 AM
3
03
53
AM
PDT}

"So why do they call themselves Christians? This is not for you to decide Mung. Theologically, Christians don’t agree on much. Catholics don’t believe Protestant ministers have Priesthood authority, Baptists don’t believe in modern prophets, and Mormons don’t believe the Pope is the vicar of Christ on Earth. Culturally, however, there’s a lot of common ground. The sanctity of life, marriage, and families in a social context far outweigh disagreements on Christian theology. The shared fight for religious freedom against the secularism of modern society dwarfs the interpretation of holy writ. This is where I focus my attention and would like to encourage you to do the same. "Christianity today has largely left the religion which he (Christ) preached, taught and lived, and has substituted another kind of religion altogether. If Jesus should come back to now, hear the mythologies built up around him, see the creedalism, denominationalism, sacramentalism, carried on in his name, he would certainly say, 'If this is Christianity, I am not a Christian.'" - Dr Fosdickhumbled_{May 25, 2014
May
05
May
25
25
2014
03:08 AM
3
03
08
AM
PDT}

Wow, Mung. You really have your knickers in a twist over the fact that there's a Jehovah's Witness posting here, don't you? Try getting over it. Ironically, you didn't refute anything stated in my original post about feathers, which was at least partially related to the OP.Barb_{May 24, 2014
May
05
May
24
24
2014
08:57 PM
8
08
57
PM
PDT}

Mung said: ... Yes, Jesus is the Holy One and King of Israel. I see what you are trying to show, but was there not also a human king in Israel, king Hezekiah in Jerusalem, when Isaiah penned those words quoted from Isaiah 43:15? Is there not enough latitude to see that the term king is not always so explicit or exclusive?willh_{May 24, 2014
May
05
May
24
24
2014
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT}

Eagle sounds scary Piotr. And yes, some big carnivorist birds went extinct. Some nasty ones yikes. But the article explains that there existed "a brief window for big ground-dwelling birds, before large mammals evolved." It could be argued that the eggs of big ground birds were threatened by small mammals and reptiles too in addition to big mammals. The "brief window" evo theory sounds cool though. Cool evo science.ppolish_{May 24, 2014
May
05
May
24
24
2014
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PDT}

ppolish: Mamy flightless birds did get bigger. The flying ones have to mind their weight. But they can be dangerous too: after all, they are the surviving theropods. Have you ever seen films showing Mongolians Kazakhs hunting wolves with golden eagles? You can watch them on Youtube. The only thing a grown-up he-wolf can do when followed by an eagle is run for his life. If the bird gets him, the poor devil's dead in a few seconds.Piotr_{May 24, 2014
May
05
May
24
24
2014
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT}

willh:
15 I am Jehovah, your Holy One, the Creator of Israel, your King.”
Mark 1:24 (NWT):
“What have we to do with you, Jesus the Naz·a·rene?? Did you come to destroy us? I know exactly who you are, the Holy One of God!”
John 1:49 (NWT):
49 Na·than?a·el responded: “Rabbi, you are the Son of God, you are King of Israel.”
Yes, Jesus is the Holy One and King of Israel.Mung_{May 24, 2014
May
05
May
24
24
2014
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT}

That's what I'm talking bout, Piotr, big tough survival of the fittest birds. Big fluffy feathers I could do without though:) As the mammals got bigger, why didn't the Big Birds get bigger too? Even a Honey Badger might care enough to avoid a 40 foot "Thunder Chicken".ppolish_{May 24, 2014
May
05
May
24
24
2014
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT}

Mung wrote: ... they also teach that Jesus Christ is not a savior... Based on Isaiah chapter 43? Well it does seem that for the man Jesus Christ to be a savior of the Israelites from the Babylonians was somewhat impossible; he wasn't present as that man, and the Christ yet, to "bring down all the bars of the gates". However his Fathers roll as Israel's only savior in the case of a domineering 6th century BCE Chaldean empire is without question? Isaiah 43:14&15 (NWT) 14 This is what Jehovah says, your Repurchaser, the Holy One of Israel: “For your sakes I will send to Babylon and bring down all the bars of the gates, And the Chal·de?ans, in their ships, will cry out in distress. 15 I am Jehovah, your Holy One, the Creator of Israel, your King.”willh_{May 24, 2014
May
05
May
24
24
2014
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT}

p.s. The Watchtower also teaches that Jesus is both Lord and not Lord. And that the end is soon. From that same issue of Awake!:
Soon, however, Jehovah God will eliminate every trace of Adamic sin from all who exercise faith in the shed blood of his Son, Jesus Christ. “The wages sin pays is death, but the gift God gives is everlasting life by Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 6:23)
Mung_{May 24, 2014
May
05
May
24
24
2014
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT}

Instead of wings, birds should have evolved sharp sword appendages. Don’t mess with the chicken. Flight is for wussies.
Well, if you really annoy an ostrich, it can eviscerate you neatly with a single kick.Piotr_{May 24, 2014
May
05
May
24
24
2014
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT}

From the article “Feathers–A Marvel of Design”, Awake!, July 2007:
Awake! Is that the same magazine that claims that Jesus Christ is a created being?
Because Jesus was directly created by God when God was all alone, Jesus is rightly called the “only-begotten son” and “the firstborn of all creation.” ... Clearly, then, as the very first of God’s creations, Jesus could not be the Creator, “the only God.”
But doesn't the Watchtower also teach that Jesus is a god?
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. 2 This one was in the beginning with God.
Yet the Watchtower also teaches that in the beginning God was alone. It also states:
The Bible identifies Jehovah as the only true God. (Psalm 83:18; John 17:3) The prophet Isaiah recorded God’s own words when he said: “Before me there was no God formed, and after me there continued to be none. I—I am Jehovah, and besides me there is no savior.” — Isaiah 43:10, 11.
Not only then does do the JWs' teach that Jesus is both a god and not a god, they also teach that Jesus Christ is not a savior. So why do they call themselves Christians? But it doesn't end there.
The Scriptures do at times refer to actual persons as gods. However, a careful examination clearly reveals that the term “god” in these instances is not intended to designate these individuals as deities.
And yet if you look at the note in the New World Translation in John 1:1, quoted above, the note for "the Word was god" reads: Or “was divine.” So Jesus is both god and not god, a deity and not a deity, divine and not divine, and not our savior. These are the teachings of the JW's.Mung_{May 24, 2014
May
05
May
24
24
2014
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

One of the "fine tuning" puzzles these days in Physics is the "Hierarchy Problem" - why is Gravity so dang weak compared to the other forces of Nature. Earth Birds don't realize how lucky they are. Pretty darn lucky. Astronomically lucky. Magically lucky. Impossibly lucky. Have to love the luck.ppolish_{May 24, 2014
May
05
May
24
24
2014
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT}

Instead of wings, birds should have evolved sharp sword appendages. Don't mess with the chicken. Flight is for wussies.ppolish_{May 24, 2014
May
05
May
24
24
2014
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT}

From the article "Feathers--A Marvel of Design", Awake!, July 2007:
“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. To put it simply, even in theory, evolution could not produce a feather unless each step in a long series of random, inheritable changes in feather structure significantly improved the animal’s chances for survival. Even many evolutionists find it a stretch of the imagination that something as complex and functionally perfect as a feather could arise in such a way. Further, if feathers developed progressively over a long period of time, the fossil record should contain intermediate forms. But none have ever been found, only traces of fully formed feathers. “Unfortunately for evolutionary theory, feathers are very complicated,” states the Manual.
Barb_{May 24, 2014
May
05
May
24
24
2014
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply