|
Origin of Birds and Mammals
According to the theory of evolution, life originated and evolved in
the sea and then was transported onto land by amphibians. This evolutionary
scenario also suggests that amphibians evolved into reptiles, creatures
living only on land. This scenario is again implausible, due to the enormous
structural differences between these two classes of animals. For instance,
the amphibian egg is designed for developing in water whereas the amniotic
egg is designed for developing on land. A "step by step" evolution of
an amphibian is out of the question, because without a perfect and fully-designed
egg, it is not possible for a species to survive. Moreover, as usual,
there is no evidence of transitional forms that were supposed to link
amphibians with reptiles. Evolutionist paleontologist and an authority
on vertebrate paleontology, Robert L. Carroll has to accept that "the
early reptiles were very different from amphibians and that their ancestors
could not be found yet."30
Yet the hopelessly doomed scenarios of the evolutionists are not over
yet. There still remains the problem of making these creatures fly! Since
evolutionists believe that birds must somehow have been evolved, they
assert that they were transformed from reptiles. However, none of the
distinct mechanisms of birds, which have a completely different structure
from land-dwelling animals, can be explained by gradual evolution. First
of all, the wings, which are the exceptional traits of birds, are a great
impasse for the evolutionists. One of the Turkish evolutionists, Engin
Korur, confesses the impossibility of the evolution of wings:
|
SPECIAL LUNGS FOR BIRDS
The anatomy of birds is very different from
that of reptiles, their supposed ancestors. Bird lungs function in
a totally different way from those of land-dwelling animals. Land-dwelling
animals breathe in and out from the same air vessel. In birds, while
the air enters into the lung from the front, it goes out from the
back. This distinct "design" is specially made for birds, which need
great amounts of oxygen during flight. It is impossible for such a
structure to evolve from the reptile lung. |
The common trait of the eyes and the wings is that they can only function
if they are fully developed. In other words, a halfway-developed eye
cannot see; a bird with half-formed wings cannot fly. How these organs
came into being has remained one of the mysteries of nature that needs
to be enlightened.31
|
THE DESIGN OF THE BIRD FEATHERS
The theory of evolution, which claims that birds evolved from
reptiles, is unable to explain the huge differences between these
two different living classes. In terms of such features as their
skeleton structure, lung systems, and warm-blooded metabolism,
birds are very different from reptiles.
Another trait that poses an insurmountable gap between birds
and reptiles is the feathers of birds which have a form entirely
peculiar to them.
The bodies of reptiles are covered with scales, whereas the bodies
of birds are covered with feathers. Since evolutionists consider
reptiles the ancestor of birds, they are obliged to claim that bird
feathers have evolved from reptile scales. However, there is no
similarity between scales and feathers. A professor of physiology
and neurobiology from the University of Connecticut, A.H. Brush,
accepts this reality although he is an evolutionist: "Every feature
from gene structure and organization, to development, morphogenesis
and tissue organization is different (in feathers and scales). "
1 Moreover, Prof. Brush examines the
protein structure of bird feathers and argues that it is "unique
among vertebrates". 2
There is no fossil evidence to prove that bird feathers evolved
from reptile scales. On the contrary, "feathers appear suddenly
in the fossil record, as an 'undeniably unique' character distinguishing
birds" as Prof. Brush states. 3 Besides,
in reptiles, no epidermal structure has yet been detected that provides
an origin for bird feathers. 4
In 1996, paleontologists made abuzz about fossils of a so called
feathered dinosaur, called Sinosauropteryx. However, in 1997, it
was revealed that these fossils had nothing to do with birds and
that they were not modern feathers. 5
On the other hand, when we examine bird feathers closely, we
come across a very complex design that cannot be explained by
any evolutionary process. The famous ornithologist Alan Feduccia
states that "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". Then he continues, "I cannot really
understand how an organ perfectly designed for flight may have
emerged for another need at the beginning". 6
The design of feathers also compelled Charles Darwin ponder them.
Moreover, the perfect aesthetics of the peafowl's feathers had
made him "sick" (his own words). In a letter he wrote to Asa Gray
on April 3, 1860, he said "I remember well the time when the thought
of the eye made me cold
all over, but I have got over this stage of complaint..." And then
continued: "... and now trifling particulars of structure often
make me very uncomfortable. The sight of a feather in a peacock's
tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick! " 7
1 A. H. Brush, "On the Origin of
Feathers". Journal of Evolutionary Biology, Vol. 9, 1996, p.132
2 A. H. Brush, "On the Origin of Feathers". p. 131
3 Ibid.
4 Ibid.
5 "Plucking the Feathered Dinosaur", Science, Vol. 278, 14 November
1997, p. 1229
6 Douglas Palmer, "Learning to Fly" (Review of The Origin of and
Evolution of Birds by Alan Feduccia, Yale University Press, 1996),
New Scientist, Vol. 153, March, 1 1997, p. 44
7 Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason. Boston,
Gambit, 1971, p. 101
|
The question of how the perfect structure of wings came into being as
a result of consecutive haphazard mutations remains completely unanswered.
There is no way to explain how the front arms of a reptile could have
changed into perfectly functioning wings as a result of a distortion in
its genes (mutation).
Moreover, just having wings is not sufficient for a land organism to
fly. Land-dwelling organisms are devoid of many other structural mechanisms
that birds use for flying. For example, the bones of birds are much lighter
than those of land-dwelling organisms. Their lungs function in a very
different way. They have a different muscular and skeletal system and
a very specialised heart-circulatory system. These features are pre-requisites
of flying needed at least as much as wings. All these mechanisms had to
exist at the same time and altogether; they could not have formed gradually
by being "accumulated". This is why the theory asserting that land organisms
evolved into aerial organisms is completely fallacious.
All of these bring another question to the mind: even if we suppose this
impossible story to be true, then why are the evolutionists unable to
find any "half-winged" or "single-winged" fossils to back up their story?
Another Alleged Transitional Form: Archopteryx
Archaeopteryx fossil |
Evolutionists pronounce the name of a single creature in response. This
is the fossil of a bird called Archopteryx which is one of the most widely-known
so-called transitional forms among the very few that evolutionists still
defend. Archopteryx, the ancestor of modern birds according to the evolutionists,
lived 150 million years ago. The theory holds that some of the small-scaled
dinosaurs named Velociraptor or Dromeosaur evolved by acquiring wings
and then starting to fly. Thus, Archopteryx is assumed to be a transitional
form that diverted from its dinosaur ancestors and started to fly for
the first time.
However, the latest studies of Archopteryx fossils indicate that this
creature is absolutely not a transitional form, but a bird species bearing
some characteristics distinct from today's birds.
The thesis that Archopteryx was a "half-bird" that could not fly perfectly
was popular among evolutionist circles until not long ago. The absence
of a sternum, that is the chest bone, in this creature, or at least its
not being the way it is in flying birds, was held up as the most important
evidence that this bird could not fly properly. (The chest bone is a bone
found under the thorax on which the muscles required for flight are fastened.
In our day, this chest bone is observed in all flying and non-flying birds,
and even in bats-a flying mammal which belongs to a very different family.)
However, the seventh Archopteryx fossil found in 1992 caused great astonishment
among evolutionists. The reason was that in this recently found Archopteryx
fossil, the chest bone that was assumed to be long missing by the evolutionists
actually existed. This recently-found fossil was described in Nature magazine
as follows:
The recently discovered seventh specimen of the Archaeopteryx preserves
a partial rectangular sternum long suspected but never previously documented.
This attests to its strong flight muscles.32
This discovery invalidated the mainstay of the claims that Archopteryx
was a half-bird that could not fly properly.
On the other hand, the structure of the bird's feathers became one
of the most important pieces of evidence verifying that Archopteryx
was a flying bird in the real sense. The asymmetric feather structure
of Archopteryx is indistinguishable from modern birds indicated that
the animal could fly perfectly. As the famous paleontologist Carl O.
Dunbar states, "because of its feathers Archopteryx is distinctly to
be classed as a bird"33
Another fact that was revealed by the structure of Archopteryx's feathers
was the bird's warm-blooded metabolism. As it is known, reptiles and dinosaurs
are cold-blooded animals that are affected by environmental temperatures
rather than regulating their body heat independently. A very important
function of the feathers in a bird is the maintenance of the animal's
body heat. The fact that Archopteryx had feathers showed that it was
a real, warm-blooded bird that needed to maintain its body heat in contrast
to the dinosaurs.
Speculations of Evolutionists: The Teeth and Claws of
Archopteryx
The bird named Confuciusornis is the same age as Archopteryx. |
The two important points evolutionists rely on when alleging Archopteryx
to be a transitional form, are the claws on the bird's wings and its teeth.
It is true that Archopteryx had claws on its wings and teeth in its
mouth, but these traits do not imply that this living creature bears any
kind of relationship with reptiles. Besides, two bird species living today,
Taouraco and Hoatzin both have claws to hold onto branches. These creatures
are fully birds with no reptilian characteristics. That is why it is completely
groundless to assert that Archopteryx is a transitional form just because
of the claws on its wings.
Neither do the teeth in Archopteryx's beak imply that it is a transitional
form. Evolutionists make a purposeful trickery by saying that these teeth
are characteristic of reptiles. However, teeth are not a typical characteristic
of reptiles. Today, some reptiles have teeth while others do not. Moreover,
Archopteryx is not the only bird species that has teeth. It is true that
birds with teeth do not exist today, but when we look at the fossil record,
we see that both in the same age as Archopteryx and afterwards, and even
until fairly recently, a distinct bird genus existed that could be categorised
as "birds with teeth".
The most important point is that the teeth structure of Archopteryx
and other birds with teeth are totally different from that of their
alleged ancestors, the dinosaurs. The famous ornithologists Martin,
Steward, and Whetstone observed that Archopteryx and other birds with
teeth have teeth with flat top surfaces and large roots. Yet the teeth
of theropod dinosaurs, the alleged ancestors of these birds, are protuberant
like a saw and have narrow roots.34
The researchers also compared the wrist bones of Archopteryx and their
alleged ancestors, the dinosaurs, and observed no similarity between them.35
The studies of anatomists like Tarsitano, Hecht, and A.D. Walker revealed
that some "similarities" asserted to have existed between this creature
and dinosaurs as put forward by John Ostrom, a prominent authority who
claims that Archopteryx evolved from dinosaurs, were in reality misinterpretations.36
All these findings indicate that Archopteryx was not a transitional
link but only a bird that fell into a category that can be called "birds
with teeth".In brief, some particular features of Archopteryx do not
indicate that this living thing is a transitional form! Stephan Jay Gould
and Niles Eldredge, two Harvard paleontologists and world-wide famous
evolutionists, accept that Archaeopteryx is a "mosaic" living thing housing
various features in its form, yet that it can never be regarded as a transitional
form!37
The Imaginary Bird-Dinosaur Link
The claim of evolutionists trying to present Archopteryx as a transitional
form is that birds have evolved from dinosaurs. However, one of the most
famous ornithologists in the world, Alan Feducccia from the University
of North Carolina, opposes the theory that birds have a kinship with dinosaurs,
despite the fact that he is an evolutionist himself. Feduccia says on
the subject:
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.38
Larry Martin, a specialist on ancient birds from the University of Kansas,
opposes the theory that birds come from the same lineage as dinosaurs.
While discussing the contradiction evolution falls into on the subject,
Martin states:
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.39
To sum up, the scenario of the "evolution of birds" erected solely on
the basis of Archopteryx, is nothing more than a product of the prejudices
and wishful thinking of evolutionists.
The Origin of Mammals
As we have stated before, the theory of evolution proposes that some
imaginary creatures that came out of the sea transformed into reptiles
and that birds formed by the evolution of reptiles. According to the same
scenario, reptiles are the ancestors not only of birds but also of mammals.
However, there are big structural gaps between reptiles, which have scales
on their bodies, which are cold-blooded, and which reproduce by laying
eggs on the one hand and on the other, mammals, which have fur on their
bodies, which are warm-blooded, and which reproduce by giving birth to
their offspring alive.
An example of the structural barriers between reptiles and mammals is
their jaw structure. Mammals' mandibles consist of only one mandibular
bone and the teeth are placed on this bone. In reptiles, there are three
little bones on both sides of the mandible. Another basic difference is
that all mammals have three bones in their middle ear (hammer, anvil,
and stirrup). In all reptiles, there is a single bone in the middle ear.
Evolutionists claim that the reptile jaw and reptile middle ear evolved
gradually into the mammal jaw and ear. Yet the question of how this change
occurred remains unanswered. In particular, the question of how an ear
with a single bone evolved into an ear with three bones and how the process
of hearing kept on functioning in the meanwhile can never be explained.
Not surprisingly, not a single fossil to link reptiles and mammals is
to be found. This is why evolutionist paleontologist Roger Lewin was forced
to say that "the transition to the first mammal, which probably happened
in just one or, at most, two lineages, is still an enigma".40
George Gaylord Simpson, one of the biggest evolutionary authorities and
founders of the neo-Darwinist theory makes the following comment on this
fact that is quite perplexing for evolutionists:
The most puzzling event in the history of life on earth is the change
from the Mesozoic, the Age of Reptile, to the Age of Mammals. It
is as if the curtain were rung down suddenly on the stage where all
the leading roles were taken by reptiles, especially dinosaurs, in great
numbers and bewildering variety, and rose again immediately to reveal
the same setting but an entirely new cast, a cast in which the dinosaurs
do not appear at all, other reptiles are supernumeraries, and all
the leading parts are played by mammals of sorts barely hinted at in
the preceding acts.41
A bat fossil aged 50 million
years: no different than its modern counterpart.(Science,vol,154) |
 Evolutionists
propose that all mammal species evolved from a common ancestor.
However, there are great differences between various mammal species
such as bears, whales, mice, and bats. Each of these living beings
possesses specifically designed systems. For example, bats are created
with a very sensitive sonar system that helps them find their way
in darkness. These complex systems, which modern technology can
only imitate, could not possibly have emerged as a result of chance
coincidence. The fossil record also demonstrates that bats came
into being in their present perfect state all of a sudden and that
they have not undergone any "evolutionary process".
|
Furthermore, when mammals suddenly made their appearance, they were already
very different from each other. Such dissimilar animals as bats, horses,
mice, and whales are all mammals and they all emerged during the same
geological period. Establishing an evolutionary relationship among them
is impossible even within the broadest boundaries of the imagination.
Evolutionist zoologist R. Eric Lombard makes this point in an article
that appeared in Evolution magazine:
Those searching for specific information useful in constructing
phylogenies (evolutionary links) of mammalian taxa will be disappointed.42
All of these demonstrate that all living beings appeared on earth suddenly
and fully formed, without any evolutionary process. This is concrete evidence
of the fact that they were created. Evolutionists, however, try to interpret
the fact that living species came into existence in a particular order
as an indication of evolution. Yet the sequence by which living things
emerged is the "order of creation", since it is not possible to speak
of an evolutionary process. With a superior and flawless creation, oceans
and then lands were filled with living things and finally man was created.
Contrary to the "ape man" story that is imposed on the masses with intense
media propaganda, man also emerged on earth suddenly and fully formed.
|
