Dec 15, 2022 — CANADA (SUN) — A serial presentation of the book by author Harun Yahya.
Confessions of the Impossibility of Reptiles Evolving into Birds - Part Two
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 modern-day birds. The wings of this creature, whose skeleton was also the same as that of modern birds, had claws.
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 modern 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.
Hoatzin
Another fossil, discovered in China in November 1996, provoked yet more controversy. The existence of this 130-million-year-old bird, called Liaoningornis, was announced by Hou, Martin and Alan Feduccia in a paper published in Science magazine. This creature was identical to modern birds in all respects, and yet was a contemporary of Archaeopteryx. 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 regarding Archaeopteryx 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 modern 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. [ccxiv]
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. [ccxv]
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 of Archæopteryx that would preclude its having been a powered flier. [ccxvi]
But in Archaeopteryx, it is to be noted, the feathers differ in no way from the most perfectly developed feathers known to us. [ccxvii]
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. [ccxviii]
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. [ccxix]
From Science magazine:
True birds have existed at least as long as archaeopteryx so that the latter could hardly have been their ancestor.. [ccxx]
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. [ccxxi]
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. [ccxxii]
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. [ccxxiii]
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. [ccxxiv]
Evolutionists also Admit They Cannot
Account for the Origin of Flies
In maintaining that 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 10 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 time 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 sublime design 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. [ccxxv]
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. [ccxxvi]
FOOTNOTES:
[ccxiii] Nature, Vol. 382, August, 1, 1996, p. 401.
[ccxiv] S. J. Gould and N. Eldredge, Paleobiology, Vol. 3, 1977, p. 147.
[ccxv] Nature, Vol. 382, August, 1, 1996, p. 401.
[ccxvi] Storrs L. Olson, Alan Feduccia, "Flight Capability and the Pectoral Girdle of Archæopteryx, Nature, No. 278, 15 March 1979, p. 248.
[ccxvii] A. Feduccia and H.B. Tordoff, in Science, 203 (1979), p. 1020.
[ccxviii] Pat Shipman, "Birds Do It . . . Did Dinosaurs?," New Scientist, 1 February 1997, p. 28.
[ccxix] John Ostrom, "Bird Flight: How Did It Begin?," American Scientist, January-February 1979, Vol. 67, p. 47.
[ccxx] J. Marx, "The Oldest Fossil Bird: A Rival for Archaeopteryx?" Science, 199 (1978), p. 284.
[ccxxi] Carl O. Dunbar, Historical Geology, New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1961, p. 310.
[ccxxii] Pat Shipman, "Birds Do It . . . Did Dinosaurs?," New Scientist, p. 28.
[ccxxiii] "Paleontology: Fossil Revisionism," Science, October 1986, p. 85; Scientific American, September 1986, p. 70.
[ccxxiv] Richard L. Deem, "Demise of the 'Birds are Dinosaurs' Theory," http://www.direct.ca/trinity/dinobird.html
[ccxxv] J. Robin Wootton, "The Mechanical Design of Insect Wings," Scientific American, Vol. 263, November 1990, p. 120.
[ccxxvi] Pierre-P Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 30.
