A bird with boobies would be a bust for evolutionists -- it would falsify evolution. Do you know why it would falsify evolution? This is along the same lines as Vade's query on how we know that T. Rex didn't sport B Cups. If you'd kept abreast of the discussion, you shouldn't be caught like a deer in the headlights -- you should be able to explain why I categorically said that breasts on a bluebird, while titillating, are an impossibility according to evolutionary theory.
A bird with boobies would be a bust for evolutionists -- it would falsify evolution. Do you know why it would falsify evolution? This is along the same lines as Vade's query on how we know that T. Rex didn't sport B Cups. If you'd kept abreast of the discussion, you shouldn't be caught like a deer in the headlights -- you should be able to explain why I categorically said that breasts on a bluebird, while titillating, are an impossibility according to evolutionary theory. I asked for an example of a prediction (i.e. something that is predicted, i.e. to declare or state in advance) made via evolutionary theory and you replied birds don't have mammary glands and frogs don't have feathers. Answers like this are among the things that have caused me to become skeptical of evolution.
Let me try using evolutionary theory to make a prediction: New England will beat St. Louis in Super Bowl XXXVI. On a last second field goal. HEY. IT WORKS.
Let me make another prediction. If a bird with boobs is ever found, evolutionists will declare it to be proof of evolution. And if this bird species was observed to evolve, say in a flock kept in captivity, and it was fertile but was unable to be bred with its relatives, and the species eventually evolved into a bat, I would pretty much accept macro-evolution.
But the objective and undeniable truth is that this has never been observed.