Dec 12, 2022 — CANADA (SUN) — A serial presentation of the book by author Harun Yahya.
Confessions of the Impossibility of Reptiles Evolving into Birds - Part One
The impossible scenarios of evolution also require the life forms that emerged onto dry land, evolved into first amphibians, then reptiles and finally turned into flying creatures. Since evolutionists are convinced that birds 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 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:
The [evolutionary] origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved. [cciii]
Alan Feduccia is Professor of Avian Evolution, Paleobiology and Systematics at 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. [cciv]
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. [ccv]
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. [ccvi]
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. [ccvii]
Confessions of 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 an anatomical and physiological impossibility, 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. [ccviii]
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. [ccix]
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 featherlike structures, there is simply no demonstrable evidence that they in fact are. [ccx]
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. [ccxi]
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. [ccxii]
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 so fiercely espoused by evolutionists.
According to their thesis, Archaeopteryx, the forerunner of modern 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 an extinct species of bird with some features slightly different from those of modern 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 modern flying birds was depicted as the most important evidence that Archaeopteryx could not fly. But the seventh Archaeopteryx 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. Nature magazine said, "This attests to its strong flight muscles." [ccxiii]
This discovery totally invalidated the most fundamental basis for the claim that Archaeopteryx was a proto-bird lacking the full ability to fly.
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 that Archaeopteryx was an intermediate form because of its clawed wings is totally invalid.
FOOTNOTES:
[cciii] 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,
[cciv] Alan Feduccia, "Jurassic Bird Challenges Origin Theories," Geotimes, January 1996, p. 7.
[ccv] John E. Hill-James D. Smith, Bats: A Natural History, London: British Museum of Natural History, 1984, p. 33.
[ccvi] Robert L. Carroll, Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, p. 336.
[ccvii] Ann Gibbons, "Plucking the Feathered Dinosaur,: Science, Vol. 278, No. 5341, 14 November 1997, pp. 1229-30.
[ccviii] A.H. Brush, "On the Origin of Feathers," Journal of Evolutionary Biology, Vol. 9, 1996, pp. 131-133.
[ccix] 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.
[ccx] Alan Feduccia, "On Why Dinosaurs Lacked Feathers," The Beginning of Birds, Eichstatt, West Germany: Jura Museum, 1985, p. 76.
[ccxi] Barbara J. Stahl, Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, Dover, 1985, pp. 349-350.
[ccxii] Ibid.
