Both your picks are shopped. Red is very hard to introduce into a line of birds where it was not in the wild type. Humans don't "evolve"--we select. You can only select for genes that are there. Red is not in the budgie population so there is currently no red budgie. It would take a very unusual mutation or cross-breeding to get it in there.
OK. Was this thread started to genuinely discuss this bird or was it started to only seem to be talking about the bird but in all actuality it's talking about something else entirely? I'm confused a bit. I honestly cannot tell, sorry.
It's successful, too. Depending, of course, on your definition of "Christian". People educated in the sciences, and that understand them, aren't considered "true" Christians, no matter WHERE their love and belief lies.
So, why is there no red in the budgie species? --Why would there be?
Evolution should be able to give us one, considering how many people have attempted to breed one. --Evolution is what happens in nature, not what is done by people. If people really wanted to breed a red budgie they possibly could. They made a red canary by outbreeding to a closely related species with red genes. Of course if no closely related species has red genes, well then they can't.
So, here we have one commenter saying it can't happen, and one(s) who say it can. --No one said it can't happen. Only that it hasn't. Which is true. And has bugger all to do with evolution.
Which of you, hardened evolutionists, is correct? --What?
So you argument is: 1) Artificial selection has not made a pointlessly red-colored budgie 2) Ergo natural selection (the process of animals adapting to their natural environment) is not true.
Forgive me for having no idea what #1 has to do with #2. I have tried. If you have a point, I have missed it. Entirely.
Perhaps you could start by telling me why you think evolution could only be true if budgies were red? From where I sit evolution could be true if budgies were pretty much any color, or didn't exist at all.
For a red budgie to arise, new genetic information has to be added, since a gene for the colour red, does not exist.
So, no matter how much breeding goes on, red will never be a colour that emerges. Even you admit that it would take cross breeding with another similar species (none) to introduce the gene.
The whole concept of evolution hangs ENTIRELY, on the premise, that new genetic information is added, for species to evolve. (NEVER been demonstrated). . This says to me, that you believe evolution to be true, despite evidence to the contrary. Thereby, making the point that it's faith based. You believe, NO MATTER what. (Which is fine by me!)
Just as an aside, there is a violet budgie. It is a dominate trait. Selective breeding of the most red of the violet budgies would likely eventually produce a red budgie. It's a very blue violet from what I saw, but regardless it takes red to make violet.
"For a red budgie to arise, new genetic information has to be added, since a gene for the colour red, does not exist"
Have you ever heard the word "Mutation"? Do you know what it refers to? (Hint - it is not a re-arranging of existing genetic information)
As far as never being observed, do you know how old the AIDs virus is? Not very - it appeared less than 100 years ago. Do you know the first recorded case of Hemophilia? The Queen of England - it did not exist until her gene was mutated.
"This says to me, that you believe evolution to be true, despite evidence to the contrary" What evidence would that be? I have never seen nor heard of any evidence that species cannot evolve, even unto a new and different species. Just claims by theists, from the rambings of their Good Book.
You know, the last time I debated evolution with a theist, it ended with her saying that when she saw cats giving birth to dogs, on every streetcorner, she would believe in evolution.
This is the beginning of how that foolish statement came about; you said no new genetic material was ever produced, and when shown to be false want another proof. So did she. First virus/bacteria, then small animal life, then bigger life, and finally cats giving birth to dogs. You've started out well.
It's highly unlikely that people produced the first green, or yellow or whatever budgie. What they DID do is bring different birds together in the hopes they would breed (as far as I know, artificial insemination has not progressed to the point of birds yet). People then, were the environmental factors that brought about the colors by allowing the specific birds to find each other.
This is not unusual in evolution, and is well documented. Environment can and does both separate and bring together groups of differing genetic details, which often changes the species into something it wasn't or might even produce a new species altogether.
Sure, I get that, but when humans alter things like dogs or cows they do so to make them easier to handle and for specific purposes. A cow to a whale is easy to understand and the evidence as well as animals in transitional states is evident. A hippo being just one example.
I would assume, based on the incredible diversity of life forms, that anything is possible.
As reason for this train of thought, if a single cell (first) life form can can diversify into plant, insect, vertebrate, invertebrate, mammal, bird, man. etc. I don't see "laws" limiting, virtually any outcome.
So terribly sorry that facts, knowledge, understanding, logic, reason and anything based in reality does not educate you. This is the Education and Science forum, not the religion forum. Why are you even here?
Study a little biology. You will find that something the size of a horse cannot fly because it cannot maintain the musculature required for flight. A large hay burner also cannot consume enough energy to fly - most birds eat insects, berries or other seeds or meat. All high energy foods, while the stalks of grain plants are not.
So the laws come out of Chemistry and Physics. Study those for a few years and you'll have a better handle on what biology can and can't do.
It can only do one thing. Describe how animals with beneficial mutations have more babies. If a mutation caused a horse to grow a horn, and that horse out-competed hornless stallions, evolution could mean he had a herd f horned horses within a few hundred years. However it probably could not get to flight for a mammal that size and a pink horse would probably be hairless and die before reaching sexual maturity due to skin damage.