Evolution

Come on now, that's how evolutionists say flight originated, could be chickens are the evolutionary link they've been looking for.

 

Good point, I knew you would warm up to evolution eventually.

 

Ostrich, Emu?

 

I imagine the transitional stages from 4 legs to wings must not have been so great.
seems like it would be hard to thrive when you got neither legs nor wings, just some weird combo

 

I should have changed sides long ago, who knew finding the missing link in the evolution of flight would be so easy.

 

I don't know. This guy looks like he's haveing fun.

 

oh snap he has legs with flaps of skin.
didn't know that counts as a step towards a wing.

 

"Fossil could be missing link between dinosaurs and birds "

More...http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sciencea...missing-link-between-dinosaurs-and-birds.html

 

Which came first the chicken or the squirrel?

 

Birdosaur

 

if it never rain.. then I guess it never snowed either... so how do these guys fit in?

 

Seems to me you guys are using ridicule as your main argument against evolution. More than 20 genera of dinosaurs, mostly therapods, have been found with fossil feathers., and the feathers of one species have tesed postive for beta keratin, suggesting a realtionship to birds. The notion that feathers and wings would be of no use and would make the species more vulnerable isn't compelling. Feathers may have served as insulation or a display to potential mates. As for the question "what use is a half-wing" first posed in 1871 by Jackson Mivart, an article by Dial et al in BioScience (May, 2006) summarizes experiments indicating that flightless protobirds could have used their wings for hindlimb taction, giving them an advantage in pursing prey and escaping predators. Creationist efforts to dismiss Archaeopteryx as a funny looking bird with a lizard tail and teeth seem unconvincing to me. The notion that there is no evidence of macroevolution rests on denial of this and numerous other transitional species. Of course inference is involved, as is always the case with scientific evidence. That's the nature of the human condition.

But the larger point is that the theory of evolution so far is supported by a convergence of a large amount of evidence from a variety of disciplines: geology, paleontology, botany, zoology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, and genetics. So far it has stood the test of refutability: no rabbits in the Cambrian. For creationists to disprove evolution, it seems to me that they need to do more than to say that if there are gaps, a supernatural explanation must be true. What alternative scientific theory explaining so much empirical evidence and generating refutable hypotheses has been advanced by the creationist/ID camp?

 

Oh yea, I remember that guy, I got that issue of The Amazing Spider-Man.

 

he looks really gangster in that picture

 

I guess this means you voted for evolution.

 

You got it!

 

well I guess you are out of the Kristian Klub then, bro.

 

Yeah, man. That was one of the big tradeoffs, but I'm findin it possible to go on. It helps that I never heard of the group.

 

So, not so much of a trade-off then huh?

 

You got me there! Actually, I kinda think it's another one of my negative achievements in life to be kicked out of a group I never heard of. I figure it probably has some relationship to Klubkristain.com (which I've never checked out because my virus scan gives me warnings), or the Kool Kristian Klub, or the Krazy Kristian Klub, or the Konservative Kristian Klub (Hey, that's KKK isn't it? Hmmmm). Even if they'd let me in, I follow Groucho Marx's advice never to join groups that'd have me as a member.