[RonF]

"According to evolutionist dogma, at least a few of these should very quickly finish evolving back into something like a normal flying bird, once having escaped, and then the progeny of those few should very quickly fill the skies."

And I'd challenge this statement entirely. I've never seen any proponent of the evolutionary process state that it's a rapid process. And for the progeny to fill the skies, even if they did successfully reproduce, they'd have to find and successfully compete for a environmental niche currently non- or under-exploited by existing organisms. Since the evolutionary niche they've been bred for is "food for humans", they'd have to undergo extensive modifications to find some other niche.

Actually, this can be tested. Buy some chickens. Let them go. See how long they last. Not too long, I'm betting.

[AndrewC]

And I'd challenge this statement entirely. I've never seen any proponent of the evolutionary process state that it's a rapid process. And for the progeny to fill the skies, even if they did successfully reproduce, they'd have to find and successfully compete for a environmental niche currently non- or under-exploited by existing organisms. Since the evolutionary niche they've been bred for is "food for humans", they'd have to undergo extensive modifications to find some other niche.

Actually, this can be tested. Buy some chickens. Let them go. See how long they last. Not too long, I'm betting.

Interesting take, but even Talk Origins understands some of Ted's points. They don't agree with them, but they understand them

Talk Origins

Why are there no wild chickens?

There are wild chickens. But what Ted means here is, why haven't chickens living in the wild evolved better flight in 5000 years. And the answer is simple: 5000 years is too short a time to do so, not to mention that Ted has demonstrated no selection pressure in that direction, and the gene pool of "escaped chickens" Ted refers to is constantly being "pumped" with fresh escapees.