Can anything truly be perfect?

The very definition of perfection seems to be a contradiction. "Being free ... of flaws and defects" is a flaw in and of itself. Something classified as perfect would have to display every possible virtuous quality and no flaws.

Say there existed such a thing as the "perfect bird". Such a bird would, in fact, be flawed in two ways. First, the bird - even a perfect one - is still only a bird. The perfect qualities of other creatures (e.g. perfect underwater breathing) are unattainable unless the qualifications of the category "bird" were drastically changed. So the fact that a perfect bird is still an avian creature limits its perfection, and perfection will not tolerate limits.

Secondly, if such a bird were to achieve complete perfection, it would then encompass every perfect characteristic. It could not gain anything more and would be, by definition, unable to change. Such an unchanging bird would be immutably perfect. Can anything be perfect if it always remains in one condition; limited to that one state, cut off from change?

Also, if perfection is defined by the nature of flaws - of which the bird has none - what could the bird be compared to that would reveal such an ideal? This assumes that there could not exist an "anti-bird" for contrast, since an absolutely perfect bird could exist independently (not would, could). Even the concept of perfection alone, without the bird identification, seems impossible. In a world defined by opposites, such an absolute flawlessness could not be recognized. But does perfection have to be appreciated to be perfect? Perhaps some ideal manifestation exists, but as humans, we cannot discern it because we must compare and quantify, and cannot comprehend infinite or absolute.