BIRDS’ LUNGS

NEWS FLASH!


NEW! HOT OFF THE PRESS!!

“HOW DOES INSTINCT EVOLVE”

OR

Evolution's Soft Underbelly
by Asyncritus


AT LAST!

The Argument Darwin Dreaded…
The Argument No-One Has Developed Before…
The Argument to Which There Is

NO ANSWER FROM THE EVOLUTIONISTS!

35,000 viewers of my articles can’t all be wrong. Check Google for this subject and see!
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?board=17.30

100 pages of amazing facts and carefully reasoned arguments. Equip yourself! Give your children the knowledge to defend belief in Creation in class!

Get your copy here. Only $19.97 as pdf.
$27 plus $5 p&p in CDR format.

CDR Version

PDF $19.97 CDR $32.00

Published by phillauren.org


BIRDS’ LUNGS

As Darwin said, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down”

Here’s a prize example which pulverises it completely.

One of the very biggest stumbling blocks to the theory of evolution by gradual steps or in mighty leaps, is that group of magnificent creatures, the birds.

The theory at present, holds that the birds evolved from the reptiles. That the scales of reptiles somehow became frayed out and turned into feathers over millions and millions of years.

Look carefully at the scales on this snake.



Here’s a flight feather:



I’m sure you can see some of the visible problems involved in producing the flight feather from the scale. When we look at the detailed structure of the feather, the problems become astronomical, and the evolution proposal hopelessly absurd.

That somehow, a torpid, cold-blooded reptile turned into the warm-blooded bird with probably the highest metabolic rate in the animal kingdom. (In case the pedants are out in force, I am referring to the ectothermic and endothermic animals. Ectotherms have variable body temperatures, endotherms have constant body temperatures).

Whatever problems evolving that lot involved, they pale into insignificance in the presence of the one fact which I shall now describe. It is the difference between the lung of a reptile, and the lung of a bird.

To crudely illustrate the problems that the evolutionist has to account for, think of an ordinary balloon with air entering and leaving the balloon constantly full or partially deflated.

It enters the neck, goes into the balloon, and is squeezed out. BOTH INFLOW AND OUTFLOW USE THE SAME NECK. So air that is going to go out of the balloon, can mix with the air that’s just coming in. There is TWO WAY airflow.

That’s a reptile’s lung, very similar to ours. There’s a MIXTURE of incoming and outgoing air in our lungs.

Now think of one of those long, thin balloons, like the ones used at parties to make dogs and so forth, with a hole AT BOTH ENDS.

Bend it into a U shape, and blow into one end.

Air goes in at one end, and out the other, rather like a jet engine or a wind tunnel.

That’s how the bird’s lung works. IT USES ONE WAY TRAFFIC. There is NO MIXING of incoming and outgoing air.

How does the first sort of lung (in the reptile) become the second kind (in the bird)?

No evolutionary explanation for that fact is possible, and to hypothesise dinosaurs with feathers running round and turning into birds is a complete nonsense. Their lungs say so. As Michael Denton says:

“Just how such an utterly different respiratory system could have evolved gradually from the standard vertebrate design is fantastically difficult to envisage, especially bearing in mind that the maintenance of respiratory function is absolutely vital to the life of an organism to the extent that the slightest malfunction leads to death within minutes.”

So imagine a reptile whose lungs developed a big hole in the bottom for the air to flow through. Guess what? Yeah.

“Just as the feather cannot function as an organ of flight until the hooks and barbules are coadapted to fit together perfectly, so the avian lung cannot function as an organ of respiration until the parabronchi system which permeates it and the air sac system guarantees the parabronchi their air supply are both highly developed and able to function together in a perfectly integrated manner.”

Those are the headlines. Here is some more detail so any interested parties can examine them and satisfy themselves that the above description is correct. Follow the blue arrows in the exhalation diagram (the top one) and the inhalation diagram (below) to see that there is no mixing of incoming and outgoing air.

The advantageis that air, high in oxygen content, always moves unidirectionally through the lungs.”

Here is a more pictorial representation of exhalation. Just follow the blue arrows.




and inhalation:





The system is described as a counter-current/flow system, where air with the highest concentration of oxygen meets blood with the lowest concentration of oxygen across the membranes. It is an extremely efficient system, used by intelligent design engineers to maximize heat exchange or other. “In counter-flow heat exchangers the fluids enter the exchanger from opposite ends. The counter current design is most efficient, in that it can transfer the most heat.” Wiki.

Now you’ve looked at those facts, can you imagine how the one system could have evolved from the other?

Denker also raises the interesting point that “the avian lung cannot be inflated out of a collapsed state as happens in all other vertebrates after birth. … the air capillaries are never collapsed as are the alveoli of other vertebrate species; rather as they grow into lung tissue, the parabronchi are from the beginning open tubes filled either with air or fluid (which is later absorbed into the blood capillaries).”

This set of facts alone finishes any idea that a bird evolved from anything. This kind of breathing occurs nowhere else in the vertebrates. Birds have no ‘common ancestors’ - nor even close relatives.

Therefore birds are a completely unique creation, and did not ‘evolve’ from anything else.

I cannot see any possible mechanism whereby this could have evolved, and it is up to the gallant rearguard-fighting proponents to produce some explanation or the other, fanciful or otherwise. I think Goldschmidt’s idea was probably the best:

PS

Nice summary here:

http://www.science.org.au/nova/newsc.../104ns_002.htm

“When a bird breathes in, air does not go directly into the lungs. Instead, it enters the air sacs, where it is stored briefly before passing into the lungs at the next inhalation. In this way, air enters and exits a bird's lungs at different points - in via the air sacs, out via the windpipe - allowing them to maintain near-constant, one-way airflow through their lungs. This allows a countercurrent system to be set up between the air and the bloodstream, with air passing in one direction and blood in the other. The result is far more efficient gas exchange between air and blood than is possible in lizards, or even mammals.

The differences between animals that use air sacs and those that don't are striking. Birds extract more oxygen from the air than any other animal of comparable size. At sea level they are 33 per cent more efficient at extracting oxygen than mammals. At 1500 metres a bird may be 200 per cent more efficient. This gives birds a huge advantage over mammals at altitude. It also explains why geese can migrate over the Himalayas at an altitude that would kill a human.”
__________________

""This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.""—Sir Isaac Newton