Sunday, September 2, 2012

Evolutionists' Confessions of the Impossibility of Reptiles Evolving into Birds

The impossible scenarios of evolution also require the life forms that emerged onto dry land, first evolved into amphibians, then reptiles and finally turned into flying creatures. Since evolutionists are convinced that birds had to have evolved in some way, they maintain that they evolved from reptiles.
But none of the physical mechanisms in birds-which have a totally different anatomy from that of terrestrial life forms-can be explained in terms of the gradual evolutionary model. First of all, birds' wings, and moreover even one single feather in these wings, represent an enormous dilemma for the theory of evolution. Evolutionists themselves state the impossibility of a reptile ever being able to fly, admitting that the idea conflicts with the fossil record.
William Elgin Swinton is an emeritus professor of zoology at the University of Toronto and dinosaur expert of the Natural History Museum in London:
There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved.234
Alan Feduccia is professor of avian evolution, paleobiology and systematics at the University of North Carolina:
How do you derive birds from a heavy, earthbound, bipedal reptile that has a deep body, a heavy balancing tail, and fore-shortened forelimbs? Biophysically, it's impossible.235
Evolutionist John E. Hill and James D. Smith are the authors of Bats - A Natural History:
The fossil record of bats extends back to the early Eocene.... [A]ll fossil bats, even the oldest, are clearly fully developed bats and so they shed little light on the transition from their terrestrial ancestor.236
Robert L. Carroll is a vertebrate paleontologist:
... all the Triassic pterosaurs were highly specialized for flight... They provide little evidence of their specific ancestry and no evidence of earlier stages in the origin of flight.237
Exactly 1 year ago, paleontologists were abuzz about photos of a so-called "feathered dinosaur," which were passed around the halls at the annual meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. The Sinosauropteryx specimen from the Yixian Formation in China made the front page of The New York Times, and was viewed by some as confirming the dinosaurian origins of birds. But at this year's vertebrate paleontology meeting in Chicago late last month, the verdict was a bit different: The structures are    not modern feathers, say the roughly half-dozen Western paleontologists who have seen the specimens... Paleontologist Larry Martin of Kansas University, Lawrence, thinks the structures are frayed collagenous fibers beneath the skin-and so have nothing to do with birds.238

Evolutionists' Confessions Stating the Impossibility of Reptilian Scales turning into Bird Feathers

Evolutionists maintain that reptile scales gradually turned into bird feathers by way of mutations and natural selection. However, as evolutionists themselves admit, this is anatomically and physiologically impossible, because reptile scales and bird feathers have totally different structures.
A. H. Brush is Professor of Physiology and Neurobiology at the University of Connecticut:
Every feature from gene structure and organization, to development, morphogenesis and tissue organization is different [in feathers and scales]... Moreover, protein structure of birds feathers are unique among vertebrates.239
 Alan Feduccia is a famous ornithologist at University of North Carolina:
Every feature of them has aerodynamic functions. They are extremely light, have the ability to lift up which increases in lower speeds, and may return to their previous position very easily.240
Feathers are features unique to birds, and there are no known intermediate structures between reptilian scales and feathers. Notwithstanding speculations on the nature of the elongated scales found on such forms as Longisquama... as being feather-like structures, there is simply no demonstrable evidence that they in fact are.241
Barbara J. Stahl is an evolutionist paleontology professor and senior faculty member at Saint Anselm College, Manchester:
No fossil structure transitional between scale and feather is known, and recent investigators are unwilling to found a theory on pure speculation... So far, the fossil record does not bear out that supposition.242
How [feathers] arose initially, presumably from reptiles scales, defies analysis...
It seems, from the complex construction of feathers, that their evolution from reptilian scales would have required an immense period of time and involved a series of intermediate structures. So far, the fossil record does not bear out that supposition.243

Evolutionists' Confessions About the Supposed Intermediate Form Archaeopteryx

Asked why there are no semi-winged or half-winged fossils, evolutionists refer to one life form in particular: the fossil known as Archaeopteryx, the best known of the small number of supposed intermediate forms all of which are invalid, so fiercely espoused by evolutionists.
According to their thesis, Archaeopteryx, the forerunner of present-day birds, lived around 150 million years ago and was a semi-bird possessing various reptilian characteristics. This unlikely tale is repeated in just about every evolutionist publication. The fact is, however, that the latest researches into Archaeopteryx fossils have shown that the creature was very definitely not any intermediate form, merely a highly perfect structured extinct species of bird with some features slightly different from those of present-day birds.
The evidence that Archaeopteryx was a true bird and not a semi-dinosaur, semi-bird transitional form can be summarized as follows:
1. The fact that it had no sternum, or breastbone, with the same structure as that in today’s flying birds was depicted as the most important evidence that Archaeopteryx could not fly. But the seventhArchaeopteryx fossil to be discovered in 1992 provoked enormous astonishment among evolutionist circles, because it did indeed possess a sternum of the kind evolutionists had for long failed to believe in. Naturemagazine said, "This attests to its strong flight muscles."244
This discovery totally invalidated the most fundamental basis for the claim that Archaeopteryx was a proto-bird lacking the full ability to fly. It has been realized that Archaeopteryx was a perfect species of bird that could fly 150 million years ago
2. On the other hand, one of the main proofs that Archaeopteryx was genuinely capable of flight is the animal's asymmetrical feather structure, identical to that in present-day birds, showing that it was able to fly perfectly.
3. Features that evolutionists rely on when portraying Archaeopteryx as an intermediate form are the claws on its wings and the teeth in its mouth. However, these features do not demonstrate that it was connected to reptiles in any way. Two living species of birds, the Taouraco and Hoatzin, also have claws that allow them to cling to branches. Yet they are fully fledged birds, with no reptilian characteristics whatsoever. Therefore, the idea thatArchaeopteryx was an intermediate form because of its clawed wings is totally invalid.

The Archaeopteryx Fossil

Nor do the teeth in Archaeopteryx's mouth make it a transitional form. In stating that its teeth are a reptilian characteristic, evolutionists are engaging in deliberate deception. Teeth are not a universal feature among reptiles. Some present-day reptiles lack teeth. The fossil record shows that there was another group that may be described as toothed birds that lived in the same period as Archaeopteryx, and even before and after it-indeed, until quite recent times.
Even more importantly, the tooth structure of Archaeopteryx and that of other toothed birds is very different from that of dinosaurs, birds' supposed evolutionary ancestors.

Archaeopteryx and Other Ancient Bird Fossils

In 1995, two paleontologists by the names of Lianhai Hou and Zhonghe Zhou, researching at the Vertebrate Paleontology Institute in China, discovered a new bird fossil they named Confuciusornis. This bird, the same age as Archaeopteryx, had no teeth, but its beak and feathers exhibited the same features as present-day birds. The wings of this creature, whose skeleton was also the same as that of present-day birds, had claws.


Another fossil, discovered in China in November 1996, provoked yet more controversy. The existence of this 130-million-year-old bird, calledLiaoningornis, was announced by Hou, Martin and Alan Feduccia in a paper published in Science magazine. This creature was identical to present-day birds in all respects, and yet was a contemporary ofArchaeopteryx. The only difference was the absence of teeth in its mouth. This went to show that, in contrast to evolutionist claims, toothed birds were in no way "primitive."
Another fossil that totally discredited evolutionist claim regardingArchaeopteryx was Eoalulavis. This animal was said to be 30 million years younger than Archaeopteryx-in other words, around 120 million years old-and its wing structure can still be seen in slow-flying birds today. This proved that living things, no different in many ways to present-day birds, were flying in the skies 120 million years ago.
These data proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that Archaeopteryx and other birds resembling it were not intermediate forms. These fossils did not demonstrate that different species of bird evolved from one another. On the contrary, they proved that various independent bird species not unlike Archaeopteryx and those alive today lived alongside one another.
In fact, the majority of evolutionists are well aware that Archaeopteryx cannot be an intermediate form, and that is simply an extinct species of bird.
Scientists describe such creatures as the platypus as mosaic creatures. That mosaic creatures do not count as intermediate forms is also accepted by such foremost paleontologists as Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge.245
The evolutionist magazine Nature described how, with every new Archaeopteryx fossil discovery, it was realized that the animal cannot have been half-bird and half-reptile, still unable to fly, but that on the contrary it was a fully flying bird:
The recently discovered seventh specimen of the Archæopteryx preserves a partial, rectangular sternum, long suspected but never previously documented. This attests to its strong flight muscles.246
Alan Feduccia:
In conclusion, the robust furcula of Archæopteryx would have provided a suitable point of origin for a well developed pectoralis muscle... thus the main evidence for Archæopteryx having been a terrestrial, cursorial predator is invalidated. There is nothing in the structure of the pectoral girdle ofArchæopteryx that would preclude its having been a powered flier.247
But in Archaeopteryx, it is to be noted, the feathers differ in no way from the most perfectly developed feathers known to us.248
Well, I've studied bird skulls for 25 years and I don't see any similarities whatsoever. I just don't see it... The theropod origins of birds, in my opinion, will be the greatest embarrassment of paleontology of the 20th century.249

John H. Ostrom is Professor of Geology Chair at Yale University:
No fossil evidence exists of any pro-avis. It is a purely hypothetical pre-bird, but one that must have existed.250
John H. Ostrom from Yale University, who actively studied specimens, has said that it is evident that we now need to look to periods porior toArchaeopteryx in order to seek the ancestor of flying birds.
From Science magazine:
No dinosaur had an embryonic thumb, though all birds have them, on the feet they use for landing … All dinosaurs have saw-edged teeth, with razor-like molars. Confuciosornis (a 142-million-year-old bird fossil) has no teeth. Although Archaeopteryx has teeth, they are not saw-edged, but are arranged in rows like nails. There are two wide spaces at the back of all dinosaur skulls. Birds do not have these. There is no link between them at all, not even down to the finest detail.251
True birds have existed at least as long as Archaeopteryx so that the latter could hardly have been their ancestor...252
Carl O. Dunbar is professor of paleontology and stratigraphy at Yale University:
Because of its feathers, [Archaeopteryx is] distinctly to be classed as a bird.253
Larry Martin is an American vertebrate paleontologist and curator of the Natural History Museum and Biodiversity Research Center at the University of Kansas:
To tell you the truth, if I had to support the dinosaur origin of birds with those characters, I'd be embarrassed every time I had to get up and talk about it.254
Nicholas Hotton is an American paleontologist at the University of Chicago:
Protoavis has a well-developed furcula bone and chest bone, assisting flight, hollow bones and extended wing bones... Their ears indicate that they communicate with sound, while dinosaurs' are silent.255
Richard L. Deem is an American biologist at the University of Southern California:
The results of the recent studies show that the hands of the theropod dinosaurs are derived from digits I, II, and III, whereas the wings of birds, although they look alike in terms of structure, are derived from digits II, III, and IV... There are other problems with the "birds are dinosaurs" theory. The theropod forelimb is much smaller (relative to body size) than that of Archaeopteryx. The small "proto-wing" of the theropod is not very convincing, especially considering the rather hefty weight of these dinosaurs. The vast majority of the theropod lack the semilunate wrist bone, and have a large number of other wrist elements which have no homology to the bones of Archaeopteryx. In addition, in almost all theropods, nerve V1 exits the braincase out the side, along with several other nerves, whereas in birds, it exits out the front of the braincase, though its own hole. There is also the minor problem that the vast majority of the theropods appeared after the appearance of Archaeopteryx.256

Evolutionists Also Admit That They Cannot Account for the Origin of Flies

In maintaining that in their supposition dinosaurs turned into birds, evolutionists suggest that some dinosaurs beat their forearms together in order to catch flies, eventually grew wings and took to the air. This theory is devoid of any scientific foundation and is merely a product of the imagination. But it also contains a logical vicious circle. Because the insect that evolutionists cite in order to explain the origin of flight was already able to fly to perfection!

An Example of Evolutionist Scenarios: Dinosaurs that Suddenly Developed Wings as They Chased after Flies

Humans are unable to rise and lower their arms even ten  times a second, yet some flies are capable of beating their wings 1,000 times a second. They also beat both their wings simultaneously. Even the slightest  lag in one wing would impair the fly's balance, but such an event never occurs.
Evolutionists should account for how the perfect flying ability in flies emerged, rather than coming up with scenarios about how flies induced a much clumsier life form-the reptile-to be able to fly.
Robin Wootton, an evolutionist British biologist, admits the signs of the sublime Creation in the fly and sets out the dilemmas inherent in the question:
The better we understand the functioning of insect wings, the more subtle and beautiful their designs appear... Insect wings combine both in one, using components with a wide range of elastic properties, elegantly assembled to allow appropriate deformations in response to appropriate forces and to make the best possible use of the air. They have few if any technological parallels-yet.257
Pierre Paul Grassé is the former president of the French Academy of Sciences and author of the book Evolution of Living Organisms:
We are in the dark concerning the origin of insects.258

234- W.E. Swinton, "The Origin of Birds," Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds, editor A.J. Marshall, New York: Academic Press, 1960, Vol. 1, Chapter 1, p. 1,
235- Alan Feduccia, "Jurassic Bird Challenges Origin Theories," Geotimes, January 1996, p. 7.
236- John E. Hill-James D. Smith, Bats: A Natural History, London: British Museum of Natural History, 1984, p. 33.
237- Robert L. Carroll, Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, p. 336.
238- Ann Gibbons, "Plucking the Feathered Dinosaur,: Science, Vvol. 278, No. 5341, 14 November 1997, pp. 1229-30.
239- A.H. Brush, "On the Origin of Feathers," Journal of Evolutionary Biology, Vol. 9, 1996, pp. 131-133.
240- Douglas Palmer, "Learning to Fly," Review of The Origin of and Evolution of Birds by Alan Feduccia (Yale University Press, 1996) in New Scientist, Vol. 153, March 1, 1997, p. 44.
241- Alan Feduccia, "On Why Dinosaurs Lacked Feathers," The Beginning of Birds, Eichstatt, West Germany: Jura Museum, 1985, p. 76.
242- Barbara J. Stahl, Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, Dover, 1985, pp. 349-350.
243- Ibid.
244- Nature, Vol. 382, August, 1, 1996, p. 401.
245- S. J. Gould and N. Eldredge, Paleobiology, Vol. 3, 1977, p. 147.
246- Nature, Vol. 382, August, 1, 1996, p. 401.
247- Storrs L. Olson, Alan Feduccia, "Flight Capability and the Pectoral Girdle of Archæopteryx, Nature, No. 278, 15 March 1979, p. 248.
248- A. Feduccia and H.B. Tordoff, in Science, 203 (1979), p. 1020.
249- Pat Shipman, "Birds Do It... Did Dinosaurs?," New Scientist, 1 February 1997, p. 28.
250- John Ostrom, "Bird Flight: How Did It Begin?", American Scientist, January-February 1979, Vol. 67, p. 47.
251- The Oldest Fossil Bird: A Rival for Archæopteryx," Science, Vol. 199, 20 January 1978, p. 284.
252- J. Marx, "The Oldest Fossil Bird: A Rival for Archaeopteryx?" Science, 199 (1978), p. 284.
253- Carl O. Dunbar, Historical Geology, New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1961, p. 310.
254- Pat Shipman, "Birds Do It . . . Did Dinosaurs?," New Scientist, p. 28.
255- "Paleontology: Fossil Revisionism," Science, October 1986, p. 85; Scientific American, September 1986, p. 70.
256- Richard L. Deem, "Demise of the 'Birds are Dinosaurs' Theory,"
257- J. Robin Wootton, "The Mechanical Design of Insect Wings," Scientific American, Vol. 263, November 1990, p. 120.
258- Pierre-P Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 30.

No comments:

Post a Comment