Creationists, if you start adding feathers to a lizard, at what point does it stop being a lizard and start?

Question

being a bird?

if I had scaly reptilian legs, layed eggs and exhibited the other numerous bird/reptile similarities, then maybe i would be a bird. what are YOU talking about

> Why don't you go to a kindergarten class and ask them ...

can't do that on-line while in my underwear having a beer

Answer 1

If you really want to see their heads explode try teaching them about Intersexed people.

Answer 2

When it has a beak instead of teeth and is warm blooded.

Which is why luvdalz68 it talking utter bollocks.

A lizard has scales and teeth and is cold blooded.
A bird has feathers and a beak and is warm blooded.

There are also other differences - current reptile have a three chambered heart, birds have four chambers like mammals.

Dinosaurs had scales and teeth, but were (most probably) warm blooded and had a four chambered heart.

So somewhere between reptiles and birds.

Creatures like archeopteryx had feathers and teeth. So between dinosaurs and birds.


If god created all creatures at the same time why are there zero big mammal species in the same geological strata as dinosaurs? Why are the no bird fossils either? But as soon as the dinosaurs disappear we start seeing more and more birds and larger and larger mammals.


Except I forgot. They were planted by Satan that way to confuse us.

Or was it that all the fossils were flood victims. I guess dinosaurs were worse swimmers than birds, so sank first. And mammals were better swimmers, so sank next, and humans were the best swimmer of all, so they sank last. Yeah, that must be it!

Answer 3

Ummm....It would be a lizard with feathers. If I started to put feathers on you, would you be a bird? What are you talking about?

**************
You point out the signs of a similar creation. Similarities show that the same Creator was involved in all of the creations.

A wooden dinner table, a wooden chair, and a wooden computer desk all have much in common. They are made of wood, have 4 legs, and 2 of the three are used to place objects on. One of them could be used...are they the same thing? Hardly.

Answer 4

Do you realize that you are asking a question that really deals with evolution on a genetic scale? For the purpose of understanding the seeming unidentifiable definition of a species? A definition that can be loosened when applied to examples like ring species, and the development of a gene pool over time? And you are doing so to a group who can barely understand what a theory is, or the basics of genetics?

Why don't you go to a kindergarten class and ask them to comment on the formation of a Palestinian State as it applies to the development of Israel while your at it?

Answer 5

Reptiles to birds is physically impossible. Consider the lung structure of both animals.

The avian lung

Drastic changes are needed to turn a reptile lung into a bird lung. In reptile lungs, the air is drawn into tiny sacs (alveoli, singular alveolus) where blood extracts the oxygen and releases carbon dioxide. The stale air is then breathed out the same way it came in. But birds have a complicated system of air sacs, even involving the hollow bones. This system keeps air flowing in one direction through special tubes (parabronchi, singular parabronchus) in the lung, and blood moves through the lung's blood vessels in the opposite direction for efficient oxygen uptake, an excellent engineering design.

How would the ‘bellows’-style lungs of reptiles evolve gradually into avian lungs? The hypothetical intermediate stages could not conceivably function properly, meaning the poor animal would be unable to breathe. So natural selection would work to preserve the existing arrangement, by eliminating any misfit intermediates.

Also, even assuming that we could construct a theoretical series of functional intermediate stages, would natural selection ‘drive’ the changes? Probably not—bats manage perfectly well with bellows-style lungs—some can even hunt at an altitude of over two miles (three km). The avian lung, with its super-efficiency, becomes especially advantageous only at very high altitudes with low oxygen levels. There would thus have been no selective advantage in replacing the reptilian lung.

We should probably not be surprised that Alan Feduccia's major work on bird evolution doesn't even touch this problem.

Some recent researchers of Sinosauropteryx's lung structure showed that ‘its bellows-like lungs could not have evolved into high performance lungs of modern birds.’

Interestingly, some defenders of dinosaur-to-bird evolution discount this evidence against their theory by saying, ‘The proponents of this argument offer no animal whose lungs could have given rise to those in birds, which are extremely complex and are unlike the lungs of any living animal.’ Of course, only evolutionary faith requires that bird lungs arose from lungs of another animal.

Answer 6

It doesn't.
If it has feathers, it's a bird. Period.
Archaeopteryx was just an unusual perching bird, like a Bird of Paradise. Nothing more.

Answer 7

call me a stupid skeptic, yet while larger hyperbaric stress would desire to enable people to stay 900 years, does no longer somebody have figured that out by utilising now? does no longer we be residing in pressurized domes? in case you particularly believed you are able to stay form of ten cases longer by utilising residing in a hyperbaric chamber, does no longer you do it? And has every physique raised lizards in a hyperbaric chamber to confirm in the event that they actually strengthen hundreds of cases extra beneficial? i could be throughout using my sizable lizard for 900 years yet, regrettably, I particularly have a feeling that somebody replaced into speaking out their you-understand-what while they wrote that. Edit: And, Mike, whether I typical your unverifiable incontrovertible fact that sin corrupted the gene pool (which i do no longer--look up Lamarck in case you opt to appreciate why), there remains one enormous subject: dinosaurs weren't enormous lizards! They have been reptiles, yet they weren't lizards. If a lizard grows to be extremely, extremely enormous, it nonetheless is extremely no longer a dinosaur. it extremely is going to likely be a brilliant lizard.

Answer 8

Don't know any feathered lizards, but I assume it would be a lizard with feathers.

You went to public school, didn't ya?

Answer 9

The problem is "if you". Lizards don't turn into birds by themselves. That requires the input of a nut or an evilutionist.

Answer 10

if we started putting scales on you at what point do you stop being a human and start being a snake? some people are closer to snakes than others....