NationStates Jolt Archive

I just had an interesting thought. Chickens cant fly, but they can sought of flap about and get off the ground a bit. So if someone bred together only the thinnest chickens with the biggest wings, after a few generations would you get chickens that could fly?

Fucking Hell. This is the most simple and effective argument against creationism and ID I have ever seen. Why would a "intellegent" designer give a bird wings if it is unable to fly?

Fucking Hell. This is the most simple and effective argument against creationism and ID I have ever seen. Why would a "intellegent" designer give a bird wings if it is unable to fly?
Duh, because he meant for that type of bird to be easy to farm for food. If they could fly they'd escape. God thinks of everything.

OMG to f00l t3h un b3lievers!!!111!!!11shift+1111!!:mp5: :sniper: :gundge:

;)

EDIT oh yeah the original post. I don't know it would probably take more then a few generations

Why would an "intelligent" designer design our bodies with superfluous or useless features? An appendix?

Why make the act of sex so comical?

Why should we wear clothes when other animals have fur and feathers that seem to work quite well?

This could go on...

Fucking Hell. This is the most simple and effective argument against creationism and ID I have ever seen. Why would a "intellegent" designer give a bird wings if it is unable to fly?

Pssssssssttt . . . . most creationists accept microevolution . . . . the type mentioned in this thread . . . . .

I've seen a chicken that could fly. It walked like a chicken, clucked like a chicken, then jumped into the air and flew like a quail. I think I found a missing link. Darwin be praised!

Fucking Hell. This is the most simple and effective argument against creationism and ID I have ever seen. Why would a "intellegent" designer give a bird wings if it is unable to fly?
ROFLMAO!!! Good question!

Many archeologists now believe that the branch of dinosaurs which gave rise to birds began with a flightless dinosaur which used rudimentary wings to climb trees faster. Since being able to fly away from danger would be a major survival characteristic, some of these "flapping dinosaurs" became capable of longer and longer "hops" and "flights," eventually giving rise to birds.

I see no reason why the same thing wouldn't apply to chickens, although it would take a very long time indeed to breed a species of chicken that could soar like an eagle. :D

The problem with flying chickens is that there would be even more chicken-shit than Congress has now! :D

Fucking Hell. This is the most simple and effective argument against creationism and ID I have ever seen. Why would a "intellegent" designer give a bird wings if it is unable to fly?
So they would be easier to catch by humans.

I mean Penguins gained better swimming due to their loss of flight.

Pssssssssttt . . . . most creationists accept microevolution . . . . the type mentioned in this thread . . . . .

I don't know. I heard many an argument saying "Where are all the birds with half a wing eh?"

Pssssssssttt . . . . most creationists accept microevolution . . . . the type mentioned in this thread . . . . .

"Microevolution" is "macroevolution." They're the same thing! ID proponents just use the terms to be able to pretend they're not.

So they would be easier to catch by humans.

I mean Penguins gained better swimming due to their loss of flight.
What did ostritches gain? Obviously an ostritch's lack of flight is evidence against evolution since it can't escape predators as well as a flying bird.

So they would be easier to catch by humans.

I mean Penguins gained better swimming due to their loss of flight.
Why didn't God make humans fly?

Why make the act of sex so comical?

Why should we wear clothes when other animals have fur and feathers that seem to work quite well?
Sex is comical??? :eek:

It's theorized that humans are "naked apes" because:

1. They may have gone through an aquatic phase where hair would slow them down in the water, so was lost through adaptation, or ...


2. It's primarily a device to enhance sex and increase bonding through greater skin contact, and thus more pleasant sensations.

Guess which one I favor! :D

I don't know. I heard many an argument saying "Where are all the birds with half a wing eh?"

Hiding from creationists with half a brain? :D

"Microevolution" is "macroevolution." They're the same thing! ID proponents just use the terms to be able to pretend they're not.

That's a funny joke. Microevolution operates on passing on variations that already exist in DNA. Macroevolution involves creating these variations in the first place, by random mutations.

Hiding from creationists with half a brain? :D
ROFLMAO!!! :D

"Microevolution" is "macroevolution." They're the same thing! ID proponents just use the terms to be able to pretend they're not.
No, they're not. Microevolution changes minor traits like color, size, et cetera. Macroevolution renders a species that is unable to reproduce with it's ancestor species.

So they would be easier to catch by humans.

I mean Penguins gained better swimming due to their loss of flight.
Nonsense! Unbeliever!

God made penguins unable to fly from the get go. He also gave them their oustanding swimming ability.

Get with the program...

Many archeologists and anthropologists now believe that the branch of dinosaurs which gave rise to birds began with a flightless dinosaur which used rudimentary wings to climb trees faster. Since being able to fly away from danger would be a major survival characteristic, some of these "flapping dinosaurs" became capable of longer and longer "hops" and "flights," eventually giving rise to birds.

My turn to ROFLMAO... I don't know too much about archeologists, but I'm quite convinced that anthropologists couldn't care less about the 'evolution' of chickens...

Why didn't God make humans fly?
He did. He gave them a mind capable of building airplanes, rockets and helicopters.

Why didn't God make humans fly?

JOKE: Cuz then everyone would fly out into space and suffocate.

I've seen a chicken that could fly. It walked like a chicken, clucked like a chicken, then jumped into the air and flew like a quail. I think I found a missing link. Darwin be praised!

Prairie Chicken! (http://www.caseywilson.com/birds/images/Prairie_Chicken_Fly.jpg)

Er. I dunno.

He did. He gave them a mind capable of building airplanes, rockets and helicopters.
So, back to the original question. Why didn't he make chickens fly, if we can fly?

No, they're not. Microevolution changes minor traits like color, size, et cetera. Macroevolution renders a species that is unable to reproduce with it's ancestor species.

And how does "macroevolution" happen? Through the steps that ID proponents call "microevolution." They are the same thing. "Macroevolution" is what you get from millions of years of "microevolution."

The problem with flying chickens is that there would be even more chicken-shit than Congress has now! :D

Heh. Zing!

My turn to ROFLMAO... I don't know too much about archeologists, but I'm quite convinced that anthropologists couldn't care less about the 'evolution' of chickens...
Good point. My bad. Changed. Thank you. :)

Heh. Zing!
Hehehe! Thank you, thank you. [ bows ] :D

So, back to the original question. Why didn't he make chickens fly, if we can fly?
His intention was for us to farm chickens as a food source. If they could fly that would be difficult.

And how does "macroevolution" happen? Through the steps that ID proponents call "microevolution." They are the same thing. "Macroevolution" is what you get from millions of years of "microevolution."
Ah, but when a creature is born that is "macroevolved", how does it find a mate?

His intention was for us to farm chickens as a food source. If they could fly that would be difficult.
But we can fly after them, right?

But we can fly after them, right?
Not early on, and even today our aircraft can't round up a flock of birds. Also, if chickens are a product of evolution, why are they so dependant on humans for their survival? How does an animal survive if it can't fly, can't fight, and it's nests are vulnerable to everything?

But we can fly after them, right?
[ Hops into his Sopwith Camel to chase after the frakkin' flying chickens! ] :D

And how does "macroevolution" happen? Through the steps that ID proponents call "microevolution." They are the same thing. "Macroevolution" is what you get from millions of years of "microevolution."

You got it backwards. Microevolution can only pass on traits made by macroevolution. Micro doesn't create traits, it only acts on them and passes them on.

Not early on, and even today our aircraft can't round up a flock of birds. Also, if chickens are a product of evolution, why are they so dependant on humans for their survival? How does an animal survive if it can't fly, can't fight, and it's nests are vulnerable to everything?

Because humans shortcircuited evolution by making sure the weak chickens survived. Anyway, I think chickens do fine in the wild.

His intention was for us to farm chickens as a food source. If they could fly that would be difficult.

If I'd designed chickens to be farmed as a foodsource, they'd be little more than fleshloaves. Possible ambulatory fleshloaves that ingest food, and taste like chicken. Why give them all that silly useless stuff like wings?

Oh wait, I think I get it! Some people specifically like eating chicken-wings. Riiiiiight.

Ah, but when a creature is born that is "macroevolved", how does it find a mate?

It won't be born "macroevolved." It will be born "microevolved" from the stage that preceeded it, which through time has come to no longer be what it started out as.

In the "modern synthesis" of neo-Darwinism, which developed in the period from 1930 to 1950 with the reconciliation of evolution by natural selection and modern genetics, macroevolution is thought to be the combined effects of microevolutionary processes. In theories proposing "orthogenetic evolution" (literally, straight line evolution), macroevolution is thought to be of a different calibre and process than microevolution. Nobody has been able to make a good case for orthogenesis since the 1950s, especially since the uncovering of molecular genetics between 1952 and the late 1960s.

Antievolutionists argue that there has been no proof of macroevolutionary processes. However, synthesists claim that the same processes that cause within-species changes of the frequencies of alleles can be extrapolated to between species changes, so this argument fails unless some mechanism for preventing microevolution causing macroevolution is discovered. Since every step of the process has been demonstrated in genetics and the rest of biology, the argument against macroevolution fails. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html)

What did ostritches gain? Obviously an ostritch's lack of flight is evidence against evolution since it can't escape predators as well as a flying bird.
Ostriches evolved out where a large bird that flies wont really survive. Unless they want to be scavengers. Obviously you have never seen an Ostrich run. They live out on the African planes and run hell fast.

someone had mentioned earlier that in bird evolution the wings were not originally used for flight, rather for balance and controlled short "hops".

not all modern birds fly. penguins swim and use their wings to assist them. there are several "running" birds - emus, roadrunners, ostriches. these birds will never fly - they use their wings for other purposes.

now, about the chickens... chickens are domestic birds. that is they have been adapted by man to live domestically. modern chickens wouldn't stand a chance in the wild. chickens do not fly because they were bred not to fly. they're bred to be meat factory elements. so, stupid birds which cannot fly or run very fast are ideal to pen.

maybe, if one was breeding them to become "racing chickens", they might regain flight.

What did ostritches gain? Obviously an ostritch's lack of flight is evidence against evolution since it can't escape predators as well as a flying bird.
Never tried to catch an ostrich, have you?

Never tried to catch an ostrich, have you?
Their vestigial wings don't help them run.

Ostriches evolved out where a large bird that flies wont really survive. Unless they want to be scavengers. Obviously you have never seen an Ostrich run. They live out on the African planes and run hell fast.
Sure they run fast, but what possible evolutionary benefit is there to giving up flight?

Macroevolution renders a species that is unable to reproduce with it's ancestor species.

Ah, but behavioral constraints must be factored in as well.

No, they're not. Microevolution changes minor traits like color, size, et cetera. Macroevolution renders a species that is unable to reproduce with it's ancestor species.

So, breeding a donkey with an ass creates a mule -- a new species that's unable to breed with it's ancestor species. Macroevolution at work! ID has been defeated, lets move on. :eek:

Sure they run fast, but what possible evolutionary benefit is there to giving up flight?

Simple. Flight is damned expensive in terms of calories (i.e. energy) expended. The bigger the bird, the more expensive it is to fly. Ostriches are the product of an environment were size was more of an advantage than the ability to fly. So they got big, and gave up flight because it was no longer worth the effort.

And as for why they haven't lost their wings yet - it takes time. Give them a few million years more and they may be entirely wingless.

:p

No, they're not. Microevolution changes minor traits like color, size, et cetera. Macroevolution renders a species that is unable to reproduce with it's ancestor species.

So, breeding a donkey with an ass creates a mule -- a new species that's unable to breed with it's ancestor species. Macroevolution at work! ID has been defeated, lets move on. :eek:

now, about the chickens... chickens are domestic birds. that is they have been adapted by man to live domestically. modern chickens wouldn't stand a chance in the wild. chickens do not fly because they were bred not to fly. they're bred to be meat factory elements. so, stupid birds which cannot fly or run very fast are ideal to pen.

Indeed. Many posters seem to have overlooked the fact that said birds are no more "natural" than Lake Nasser; they were, at the least, bred with aims of greater bulk and docility.

Their vestigial wings don't help them run.
Yes they do. They help to keep balance and have a longer stride, that's why they didn't disappeared completely.

The ostrich is a perfect example of evolutionary adaptation. Ostriches lost the ability to fly because at a time when they had no predators and thus became more energy efficient, grew larger and became better runners.

They live out on the African planes and run hell fast.
And if you live on a plane, what reason is there to fly, eh? :)

The ostrich lost its flight for similar reasons as kiwis and dodos. They can run damn fast, and therefore, flight is not needed. Ostriches use their wings for courtship, and also possibly for balance. Being 2-legged is very difficult (this is why humans have a lumbar lardosa and birds bob their heads when they walk) Penguins lost flight for better swimming. If you can swim or run, then flight isn't as helpful.

also, at one point not too long ago (maybe a few thousand years) the chicken could fly. They lost flight because of selective breeding. So in theory, it would not be very hard to regain the ability.

Just look at turkeys. Wild turkeys fly pretty well. Domestics dont. selective breeding

Ah, but when a creature is born that is "macroevolved", how does it find a mate?
Individual don't evolve, populations do.

I just had an interesting thought. Chickens cant fly, but they can sought of flap about and get off the ground a bit. So if someone bred together only the thinnest chickens with the biggest wings, after a few generations would you get chickens that could fly?


Ummm, you guys do know that chickens 'can' fly, right? That's why we clip their wings, so they can't fly over the fence...

Uh guys?

Most breeds of chickens can fly, albeit not all that well. If you don't clip their wings, you'll find them roosting in trees and flying out of their pens.

Where do you think the phrase "clip your wings" - meaning "restrict your movement or privledges" came from?

Ostriches - as mentioned by the poster above - is a much better example of wings without flight. Or penguins, although they probably use their wings like fins while swimming or something like that.

It's been interesting arguing from the other perspective, but I really can't come up with many arguments in favor of ID. Thanks for playing along folks.

We bred them so that they would not fly as far or as high, the far flying type slowly died out and the ground based stayed around for our use.

It's been interesting arguing from the other perspective, but I really can't come up with many arguments in favor of ID. Thanks for playing along folks.

You did very well.

We bred them so that they would not fly as far or as high, the far flying type slowly died out and the ground based stayed around for our use.

Not really. Red jungle fowl (Gallus gallus gallus), the likely ancestors of domestic chickens, are still around.

It's been interesting arguing from the other perspective, but I really can't come up with many arguments in favor of ID. Thanks for playing along folks.

Oh, so that's your game? I was wondering - you usually show more sense than an ID supporter. :D

You did very well.
Thanks. I guess it's like fighting southpaw. It doesn't come naturally, but you have to practice it once in a while to keep your skills sharp.

someone had mentioned earlier that in bird evolution the wings were not originally used for flight, rather for balance and controlled short "hops".

not all modern birds fly. penguins swim and use their wings to assist them. there are several "running" birds - emus, roadrunners, ostriches. these birds will never fly - they use their wings for other purposes.

now, about the chickens... chickens are domestic birds. that is they have been adapted by man to live domestically. modern chickens wouldn't stand a chance in the wild. chickens do not fly because they were bred not to fly. they're bred to be meat factory elements. so, stupid birds which cannot fly or run very fast are ideal to pen.

maybe, if one was breeding them to become "racing chickens", they might regain flight.
Three words: free range chickens

Three words: free range chickens
You find the "free range chickens" in the supermarket next to the "jumbo shrimp." :cool:

You find the "free range chickens" in the supermarket next to the "jumbo shrimp." :cool:
ROFLMAO! Good one! :D

You find the "free range chickens" in the supermarket next to the "jumbo shrimp." :cool:

Here's a truly "jumbo" freshwater shrimp:

Specimen against ruler (http://www.msstate.edu/dept/crec/prawn.jpg)
"Kentucky King" (http://southcenters.osu.edu/aqua/intro/sld013.htm)
Child holding pair of large specimens (http://www.papuaweb.org/gb/foto/muller/ecology/08/)
Exuvia (molted "skin") against ruler (http://mentuhotep.homestead.com/files/prawnmolt.jpg)
Owner (http://mentuhotep.homestead.com/files/justmolted.jpg)

Fucking Hell. This is the most simple and effective argument against creationism and ID I have ever seen. Why would a "intellegent" designer give a bird wings if it is unable to fly?
Well I'm not adressing the ID point here, but in evolutionary terms, the chicken genetically "outgrew" the necessity for its wings to fly (lack of predators, I'd assume), so the wings are just for show. Sorta like the human appendix.

Their vestigial wings don't help them run.

Sic. their "wings" have no actual function for flight, at preset, so why have them?

[Though they have function]...

What did ostritches gain? Obviously an ostritch's lack of flight is evidence against evolution since it can't escape predators as well as a flying bird.

You shitting me? Ever see an ostrich run? They can get over 40 mph (thats about 60 kmh right?) and hold it for an hour plus...

Chickens CAN fly..... just not from your KFC bucket.

Here's a truly "jumbo" freshwater shrimp:
*snip*
:eek:
okay guys. I need 3 gallons tartar sauce, 2 cocktail sauce, and about a dozen lemons.