Why Have Birds Never Gotten as Big as T. Rex?

[Michie]

Even the most massive birds have never reached the sizes of their dinosaur relatives​

Evolution has a fondness for big birds. During the past 66 million years, repeated on different continents and islands all over the world, avian dinosaurs have reached prodigious sizes and even become apex predators in their ancient habitats. Ten-foot-tall elephant birds strutted across Madagascar until a thousand years ago. The sharp-beaked “terror birds” of prehistoric South America were formidable carnivores for tens of millions of years. And the nearly seven-foot-tall, nut-cracking Diatrymastrutted through ancient forests of western North America in search of ripe fruit and nutritious seeds 45 million years ago. Such enormous birds almost seem like a return to the Mesozoic days of giant, feathery dinosaurs, which raises the question of whether such avians could ever reach Tyrannosaurus rex sizes.

Continued below.

Why Have Birds Never Gotten as Big as T. Rex?

Even the most massive birds have never reached the sizes of their dinosaur relatives

www.smithsonianmag.com

 

[BobRyan]

Even the most massive birds have never reached the sizes of their dinosaur relatives​

Evolution has a fondness for big birds. During the past 66 million years, repeated on different continents and islands all over the world, avian dinosaurs have reached prodigious sizes and even become apex predators in their ancient habitats. Ten-foot-tall elephant birds strutted across Madagascar until a thousand years ago.

Looks like a species of Ostrich

But I don't think true evolution had anything at all to do with its existence. Mutation, and variation within a kind is more like it.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Size is often regulated by the availability of food.
T-rex had lots of food during the Jurassic.

 

[FaithT]

I’d like YEC to explain how birds evolved from dinosaurs when they insist there was no evolution.

 

[David Lamb]

I’d like YEC to explain how birds evolved from dinosaurs when they insist there was no evolution.

Well, could you explain what you mean? How and why would a young earth creationist who doesn't believe in evolution explain how birds evolved from dinosaurs? That's like asking an atheist evolutionist to explain how God created mankind.

 

[stevevw]

Even the most massive birds have never reached the sizes of their dinosaur relatives​

Evolution has a fondness for big birds. During the past 66 million years, repeated on different continents and islands all over the world, avian dinosaurs have reached prodigious sizes and even become apex predators in their ancient habitats. Ten-foot-tall elephant birds strutted across Madagascar until a thousand years ago. The sharp-beaked “terror birds” of prehistoric South America were formidable carnivores for tens of millions of years. And the nearly seven-foot-tall, nut-cracking Diatrymastrutted through ancient forests of western North America in search of ripe fruit and nutritious seeds 45 million years ago. Such enormous birds almost seem like a return to the Mesozoic days of giant, feathery dinosaurs, which raises the question of whether such avians could ever reach Tyrannosaurus rex sizes.

Continued below.

Why Have Birds Never Gotten as Big as T. Rex?

Even the most massive birds have never reached the sizes of their dinosaur relatives

www.smithsonianmag.com

Why would birds want to be dinos. Having to keeplooking for tons of food to keep up their energy to survive. Always getting into fights and getting flesh wounds. Its a hard life for T Rex.

Now birds have a wonderful life, tweeting and singing in the forrest. Plenting of food in the tasty morsals of the forrest floor and the heaps of insects and fruit around. If that doesn't work out they can always come and feed off us humans at the beach or local park.

I mean they rule the sky so they have way more room up there. Plus they have all the trees and high places.

I also read birds navigation is in the quantum realm. So somehow their brains and vision can pickup some sort of field which allows them to navigate around the world without getting lost. Pretty well can find exact locations from halfway around the world.

So they have got it pretty good I reckon and will be actively trying to stay birds lol.

 

[The Barbarian]

Evolution has a fondness for big birds. During the past 66 million years, repeated on different continents and islands all over the world, avian dinosaurs have reached prodigious sizes and even become apex predators in their ancient habitats. Ten-foot-tall elephant birds strutted across Madagascar until a thousand years ago. The sharp-beaked “terror birds” of prehistoric South America were formidable carnivores for tens of millions of years. And the nearly seven-foot-tall, nut-cracking Diatrymastrutted through ancient forests of western North America in search of ripe fruit and nutritious seeds 45 million years ago. Such enormous birds almost seem like a return to the Mesozoic days of giant, feathery dinosaurs, which raises the question of whether such avians could ever reach Tyrannosaurus rex sizes.

For one thing, oxygen levels were higher then, maybe as much as 35% higher. So greater size was possible for the same body design.

 

[FaithT]

Well, could you explain what you mean? How and why would a young earth creationist who doesn't believe in evolution explain how birds evolved from dinosaurs? That's like asking an atheist evolutionist to explain how God created mankind.

I mean that birds DID evolve from dinosaurs.

 

[The Barbarian]

I mean that birds DID evolve from dinosaurs.

Strictly speaking, birds are dinosaurs.

 

[The Barbarian]

Well, could you explain what you mean? How and why would a young earth creationist who doesn't believe in evolution explain how birds evolved from dinosaurs? That's like asking an atheist evolutionist to explain how God created mankind.

Most creationists accept a limited amount of evolution. They prefer to call it something other than evolution, but they don't deny that it happens. How much would maniraptoran dinosaurs have to change to become a bird? Not very much, really.

 

[FaithT]

Strictly speaking, birds are dinosaurs.

Yeah, that really messed me up when I was Lutheran (LCMS) because they are YEC and don’t believe in evolution and I couldn’t couldn’t reconcile what they believe with what I know to be true. All the evidence is there for an old earth and evolution. I started this thread in case there was somebody who could refute my beliefs and prove me wrong but there isn’t.

 

[The Barbarian]

But I don't think true evolution had anything at all to do with its existence. Mutation, and variation within a kind is more like it.

That's what evolution is. "Descent with variation" (Darwin) or "Change in allele frequencies in a population" (after rediscovery of genetics). You seem to have confused evolution with universal common descent.

 

[The Barbarian]

Yeah, that really messed me up when I was Lutheran (LCMS) because they are YEC and don’t believe in evolution and I couldn’t couldn’t reconcile what they believe with what I believe.

You do know that most Lutheran bodies accept that evolution is consistent with their faith, right? You can still be a Lutheran, albeit not of the Missouri Synod.

 

[BobRyan]

Not evolution - rather Mutation, and variation within a kind is more like it.

That's what evolution is. "Descent with variation" (Darwin) or "Change in allele frequencies in a population"

The "frequency" of eyes in the earth worm - is zero.
The "frequency" of wings on a dog - is zero
The "frequency" of a membrane-bound nucleus in a prokaryote is zero

Evolution is not accomplished by simply changing the frequency of one color of a dog's fur.
The frequency of a human brain in a fish - is zero.

(after rediscovery of genetics). You seem to have confused evolution with universal common descent.

I don't find either one to be established science fact.

 

[The Barbarian]

That's what evolution is. "Descent with variation" (Darwin) or "Change in allele frequencies in a population" (after rediscovery of genetics). You seem to have confused evolution with universal common descent.

The "frequency" of eyes in the earth worm - is zero.

You seem to have confused evolution with universal common descent. And now it appears you've confused genotype and phenotype.

However, earthworms have genes for vision...

Earthworm genomes, genes and proteins: the (re)discovery of Darwin's worms - PMC

Small incremental biological change, winnowed by natural selection over geological time scales to produce large consequences, was Darwin's singular insight that revolutionized the life sciences. His publications after 1859, including the ‘earthworm ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Like most subterranean organisms, earthworms have lost eyes. Which is (yes) evolution again. However their close relatives still have eyes.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1467803906000508

The "frequency" of wings on a dog - is zero

They already have all the genes for wings. They are just modified to run. Bats, birds, and pterosaurs use the same genes for wings. This makes perfect sense in terms of evolution, but it's an impossible problem for YEC.

The "frequency" of a membrain-bound nucleus in a prokaryote is zero

You got that wrong, too. Evidence shows that nucleated cells were produced by fusion of two prokaryotes. Would you like to learn about that? The cool thing is, some of these fusions kept separate genomes. That's the case in our cells. Want to learn how that is?

Evolution is not accomplished by simply changing the frequency of one color of a dog's fur.

That's just one example of the results of evolution. Again, you've confused phenotype and genotype.

The researchers realized that no single genetic mutation accounted for the five major color phenotypes. Dogs need mutations in two areas of the ASIP gene to get different coat patterns. Bannasch and colleagues renamed the phenotypes to better describe the variations: dominant yellow, shaded yellow, agouti, black saddle and black back. They also discovered that the haplotype for dominant yellow was much older than anticipated.

Dog Coat Patterns Have Ancient Origins

A newly released genetic study on dog coat colors sheds light on a subset of these patterns, unexpectedly leading to new questions about long-held tenets of dog evolution.

www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu

So there again, there is a change in allele frequencies. Nice example, that.

You seem to have confused evolution with universal common descent.

I don't find either one to be established science fact.

Since evolution is an observed fact, no point in denying. Remember, change in allele frequency (descent with modification), Once more, you've confused the observed phenomenon of evolution with common descent.

BTW, even knowledgeable and honest YECs admit that there is very good evidence for common descent. Would you like to learn about some of them and why they know this?

 

[FaithT]

You do know that most Lutheran bodies accept that evolution is consistent with their faith, right? You can still be a Lutheran, albeit not of the Missouri Synod.

Yeah but the only Lutheran churches near my house are LCMS and I don’t want to drive far to church. Anyway, my beliefs line up more with Catholicism. Unfortunately, the music at my church is horrible, IMO. It’s really dated.
i was in Destin Florida recently and we went to a Catholic Mass there and the music was really good. I seemed to recognize some of the songs but they modernized them somehow.

 

[BobRyan]

However, earthworms have genes for vision...

Earthworm genomes, genes and proteins: the (re)discovery of Darwin's worms - PMC

Small incremental biological change, winnowed by natural selection over geological time scales to produce large consequences, was Darwin's singular insight that revolutionized the life sciences. His publications after 1859, including the ‘earthworm ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Earthworms do not have eyes, optic nerves, or pupils, and they lack the genes necessary for these structures to form. They also do not have the photoreceptor cells and opsin genes that are essential for vision.

They already have all the genes for wings. They are just modified to run.

Not in the examples I provided

==================
The "frequency" of a membrane-bound nucleus in a prokaryote is zero .

So then 'acquiring one' is not a matter of increasing a non-existent feature since 100 x 0 is still zero. Obviously

You got that wrong, too. Evidence shows that nucleated cells were produced by fusion of two prokaryotes.

false.

1. Prokayrotes leave no fossils and no one has the video - you are simply holding on to guesswork as if wild guesses are "Science fact" no matter the observations in nature.

2. What "evidence shows" prokaryotes turning into Eukaryotes? Answer -- none.

Since evolution is an observed fact, no point in denying.

Mutation is an observed fact -- evolution is not. There are no leaps up the ladder of Taxonomy that is observed in real life. Only changes within a kind.

Remember, change in allele frequency (descent with modification),

Increased frequency in already present gene is not evolution.

For evolution from prokaryote to eukaryote - from eukaryote to Rabbit etc requires the addition of entirely new novel genes over time not simply "increase frequency" for already existing genes.

Shuffling 10 cards will never get you 52 distinct cards no matter how often you do it.