Re: The Myth of Bird Evolution

On 4 Sep 2005 08:18:42 -0700, harunyahya2011@xxxxxxxxx copy and pasted
from http://www.harunyahya.com/70myth_bird_evolution_sci33.html to
news:<1125847122.063853.29300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

> The Myth of Bird Evolution
>
> HARUN YAHYA
>
>
>
> Recently, a 140-million-year-old fossil called Shenzhouraptor sinensis
> was discovered in the Yixian region of China. According to the
> evolutionary paleontologist Ji Qiang, this fossil was a missing link
> between dinosaurs and birds. The fact is, however, that this fossil
> possesses features that clash with the evolutionists' claims about the
> origin of birds. Not just this fossil, but also the whole body of
> paleontological data on the subject is at odds with the evolutionary
> theory. "The evolution of birds", like other claims made by Darwinism,
> is no more scientific than a fairy tale.
>
>
>
> Shenzhouraptor sinensis, The Impossible Transitional Form
>
> Evolutionists suggest that Shenzhouraptor sinensis was a transitional
> form that was able to fly and possessed both bird and dinosaur
> characteristics. This is, however, is in contradiction to other
> evolutionist claims on the origin of birds.
>
> Archaeopteryx, the oldest known bird, lived 150 million years ago and
> is in many respects no different from flying birds living today.

But in other respects shows huge differences. See
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html


> Shenzhouraptor sinensis, however, lived 140 million years ago, making
> it younger than Archaeopteryx. For that reason, it is impossible for it
> to be a transitional form, because birds with perfect feathers and the
> necessary anatomical structure for flight were living before it.

What is being claimed is that Shenzhouraptor has features transitional
between Archaeopteryx and modern birds. No one except creationists
disputes this.


> Archaeopteryx: Recent work shows it to be
> "much more birdlike than previously imagined".
> At this point, we need to make it clear that the evolutionist claims
> regarding Archaeopteryx, on of the principle icons of the theory of
> evolution for the last 100 years or so, have lost a great deal of their
> validity. It has been realized that this creature was a flying bird,
> possessing a flawless flight mechanism.

This is absolutely false. Archaeopteryx lacked fusion of the
metacarpals, an alula, and a triosseal canal, a V-shaped ulnare... you
get the idea.


> Attempts to compare
> Archaeopteryx to a reptile have failed entirely.

Absolutely false. I offer to debate this with "Harun Yahya", or anyone
else for that matter. But I won't have any takers.


> As Alan Feduccia, one of the leading ornithologists in the world, has
> stated, "Most recent workers who have studied various anatomical
> features of Archaeopteryx have found the creature to be much more
> birdlike than previously imagined," and "the resemblance of
> Archaeopteryx to theropod dinosaurs has been grossly overestimated."
> (1)

Even Feduccia now recognizes the similarities between certain theropod
dinosaurs and birds, but he now merely claims that these dinosaurs
*aren't* dinosaurs, but closely related to birds. See Feduccia (2002).


> Another problem regarding Archaeopteryx is that the theropod dinosaurs,
> which many evolutionists suggest were Archaeopteryx' ancestors,
> actually emerge after it in the fossil record, not before it.

No one claims that these dinosaurs that are dated after Archaeopteryx
are ancestors, merely closely related to the creatures that *were*
ancestors.


> This, of
> course, leaves no room for any "evolutionary family tree" to account
> for the origin of birds.

Except for Epidendrosaurus, Scansoriopteryx, and Pedopenna, all of which
are more primitive than Archaeopteryx, and predate it.


> The Squabbling Evolutionists
>
> The reason for the "dino-bird" and "feathered dinosaur" stories that
> frequently appear in the evolutionist press is simply an effort on
> their part to show that their claim that birds evolved from dinosaurs
> has been proven by fossil discoveries. The fact is, however, that none
> of these fossils has offered any scientific evidence at all for that
> claim. What is more, many evolutionists do not believe it either. For
> instance, renowned ornithologists Alan Feduccia and Larry Martin
> believe that it is totally an erroneous scenario. A college textbook,
> Developmental Biology reads:
>
> Not all biologists believe that birds are dinosaurs... This group of
> scientists emphasize the differences between dinosaurs and birds,
> claiming that the differences are too great for the birds to have
> evolved from earlier dinosaurs. Alan Feduccia, and Larry Martin, for
> instance, contend that birds could not have evolved from any known
> group of dinosaurs. They argue against some of the most important
> cladistic data and support their claim from developmental biology and
> biomechanics. (2)

The reference cited doesn't seem to be that reliable. Some of the
supposed differences it cites are "Archaeopterix has a wishbone
(furcula) and bird-like feet". A large number of theropod dinosaurs had
wishbones, and *all* had bird-like feet. Also, I notice that they can't
even spell "Archaeopteryx" correctly.


> Feduccia has this to say regarding the thesis of reptile-bird
> evolution:
>
> 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. (3)

Feduccia now believes that some dinosaurs were closely related to birds
(Feduccia 2002).


> Larry Martin, a specialist in ancient birds from the University of
> Kansas, also opposes the theory that birds are descended from
> dinosaurs. Discussing the contradiction that evolution falls into on
> the subject, he 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. (4)

Yet even Martin now recognizes a close relationship between certain
dromaeosaurs and birds (Martin 2004). Isn't it amazing what evidence can
do? Of course, I'm not sure how seriously we should take someone who
refers to "the maniraptoran crown group" (Martin 2004)


> The disagreement amongst evolutionists themselves stems from the fact
> that there is no evidence supporting an evolutionary origin for birds.

That's an out-and-out lie. There are a large number of similarities
between dinosaurs and birds.


> They can only build up speculations, just-so stories which are imposed
> on the public, misleadingly, as "scientific theories".

This is a lie as well, as we'll soon see.


> The Significant Structural Differences Between Birds And Dinosaurs
>
> Most evolutionists hold that birds evolved from small theropod
> dinosaurs. However, a comparison between birds and such reptiles
> reveals that the two have very distinct features, making it unlikely
> that one evolved from the other.
>
> There are various structural differences between birds and reptiles,
> one of which concerns bone structure. Due to their bulky natures,
> dinosaurs-the ancestors of birds according to evolutionists-had thick,
> solid bones. Birds, in contrast, whether living or extinct, have hollow
> bones that are very light, as they must be in order for flight to take
> place.

In fact, theropod dinosaurs had hollow bones as well.


> Another difference between reptiles and birds is their metabolic
> structure. Reptiles have the slowest metabolic structure in the animal
> kingdom. (The claim that dinosaurs had a warm-blooded fast metabolism
> remains a speculation.)

Stating that it's speculation doesn't make it false. The presence of
bird-style lungs (O?Connor & Claessens 2005) and primitive feathers
(Currie & Chen 2001; Padian et al. 2001; Chen et al. 1998; Xing et al.
1999; Xu et al. 2001) virtually guarantees that some dinosaurs were
warm-blooded.


> Birds, on the other hand, are at the opposite
> end of the metabolic spectrum. For instance, the body temperature of a
> sparrow can rise to as much as 48°C (118°F) due to its fast
> metabolism. On the other hand, reptiles lack the ability to regulate
> their body temperature. Instead, they expose their bodies to sunlight
> in order to warm up. Put simply, reptiles consume the least energy of
> all animals and birds the most.
>
> Yet, despite all the scientific findings, the groundless scenario of
> "dinosaur-bird evolution" is still insistently advocated. Popular
> publications are particularly fond of the scenario. Meanwhile, concepts
> which provide no backing for the scenario are presented as evidence for
> "dinosaur-bird evolution."
>
> In some popular evolutionist publications, for instance, emphasis is
> laid on the differences among dinosaur hip bones to support the thesis
> that birds are descended from dinosaurs. These differences exist
> between dinosaurs classified as Saurischian (reptile-like, hip-girdled
> dinosaurs) and Ornithischian (bird-like, hip-girdled dinosaurs). This
> concept of dinosaurs having hip girdles similar to those of birds is
> sometimes wrongly conceived as evidence for the alleged dinosaur-bird
> link. However, the difference in hip girdles is no evidence at all for
> the claim that birds evolved from dinosaurs. That is because,
> surprisingly for the evolutionist, Ornithischian dinosaurs do not
> resemble birds with respect to other anatomical features.

Yet surprisingly for the author, no one claims that birds are descended
from ornithischian dinosaurs.


> For instance,
> Ankylosaurus is a dinosaur classified as Ornithischian, with short
> legs, a giant body, and skin covered with scales resembling armor.

It's not a case of "scales resembling armor", but bones on the surface
of the skin.


> On
> the other hand, Struthiomimus, which resembles birds in some of its
> anatomical features (long legs, short forelegs, and thin structure),

Who claims that short forelegs is a similarity shared with birds??? No
one.


> is
> actually a Saurischian. (5)

Yet there is a sequence of saurischian dinosaurs displaying a gradual
change to bird-like hips. Why isn't this mentioned?


> The Unique Structure of Avian Lungs
>
> Another factor demonstrating the impossibility of the reptile-bird
> evolution scenario is the structure of avian lungs, which cannot be
> accounted for by evolution.
>
> Land-dwelling creatures have lungs with a two-directional flow
> structure. Upon inhaling, the air travels through the passages in the
> lungs (bronchial tubes), ending in tiny air sacs (alveoli). The
> exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide takes place here. Then, upon
> exhaling, this used air makes its way back and finds its way out of the
> lung by the same route.
>
> In birds however, air follows just one direction through the lungs. The
> entry and exit orifices are completely different, and thanks to special
> air sacs all along the passages between them, air always flows in one
> direction through the avian lung. In this way, birds are able to take
> in air nonstop.

Another falsehood, contradicted by the Denton quote which follows.


> This satisfies birds' high energy requirements. Michael
> Denton, an Australian biochemist and a well-known critic of Darwinism,
> explains the avian lung in this way:
>
> This one-directional flow of air is maintained in breathing in and
> breathing out by a complex system of interconnected air sacs in the
> bird's body, which expand and contract in such a way as to ensure a
> continuous delivery of air through the parabronchi... The structure of
> the lung in birds, and the overall functioning of the respiratory
> system, are quite unique. No lung in any other vertebrate species in
> any way approaches the avian system. Moreover, in its essential details
> it is identical in birds. (6)

Yet there is evidence theropod dinosaurs had bird-like lungs. See
O?Connor & Claessens (2005).


> The important thing is that the reptile lung, with its dual-direction
> air flow, could not have evolved into the bird lung with its
> single-direction flow, because it is not possible for there to have
> been an intermediate model between them. In order for a living thing to
> live, it has to keep breathing, and a reversal of the structure of its
> lungs with a change of design would inevitably end in death. According
> to evolution, this change must happen gradually over millions of years,
> whereas a creature whose lungs do not work will die within a few
> minutes.
>
> Michael Denton also states that it is impossible to give an
> evolutionary account of the avian lung:
>
> ...In the case of birds, however, the major bronchi break down into
> tiny tubes which permeate the lung tissue. These so-called parabronchi
> eventually join up together again, forming a true circulatory system so
> that air flows in one direction through the lungs. ...Just how such an
> utterly different respiratory system could have evolved gradually from
> the standard vertebrate design is fantastically difficult to envisage,
> especially bearing in mind that the maintenance of respiratory function
> is absolutely vital to the life of an organism to the extent that the
> slightest malfunction leads to death within minutes. Just as the
> feather cannot function as an organ of flight until the hooks and
> barbules are co adapted to fit together perfectly, so the avian lung
> cannot function as an organ of respiration until the parabronchi system
> which permeates it and the air sac system which guarantees the
> parabronchi their air supply are both highly developed and able to
> function together in a perfectly integrated manner. (7)

"Perfect integration" isn't necessary. A scenario for the transition to
avian lungs has been presented by Paul (2001).


> In brief, the passage from a terrestrial lung to an avian lung is
> impossible, because an intermediate form would serve no purpose.
>
>
> Reptiles (and mammals) 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.

Unsurprisingly, "Harun Yahya" gets it backwards. The air enters the lung
from the *back*, and then leaves out the front.


> 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.
>
> Another point that needs to be mentioned here is that reptiles have a
> diaphragm-type respiratory system, whereas birds have an abdominal air
> sac system instead of a diaphragm.

Actually, different reptiles have different breathing systems.


> These different structures also make
> any evolution between the two lung types impossible, as John Ruben from
> Oregon State University, an acknowledged authority in the field of
> respiratory physiology, observes in the following passage:
>
> The earliest stages in the derivation of the avian abdominal air sac
> system from a diaphragm-ventilating ancestor would have necessitated
> selection for a diaphragmatic hernia in taxa transitional between
> theropods and birds. Such a debilitating condition would have
> immediately compromised the entire pulmonary ventilatory apparatus and
> seems unlikely to have been of any selective advantage. (8)

Ruben assumes that theropod dinosaurs had a crocodilian-style breathing
system. At least part of this claim is based on a crack in a fossil
which Ruben at al. interpret as a diaphragm, and the rest on a disputed
interpretation of another fossil. See Paul (2001).


> Another interesting structural design of the avian lung which defies
> evolution is the fact that it is never empty of air, and thus never in
> danger of collapse.

It's never in danger of collapse because it's rigid!


> Michael Denton explains the situation:
>
> Just how such a different respiratory system could have evolved
> gradually from the standard vertebrate design without some sort of
> direction is, again, very difficult to envisage, especially bearing in
> mind that the maintenance of respiratory function is absolutely vital
> to the life of the organism.

Creationist lack of imagination is a problem only for creationists.


> Moreover, the unique function and form of
> the avian lung necessitates a number of additional unique adaptations
> during avian development... because first, the avian lung is fixed
> rigidly to the body wall and cannot therefore expand in volume and,
> second, because of the small diameter of the lung capillaries and the
> resulting high surface tension of any liquid within them, the avian
> lung cannot be inflated out of a collapsed state as happens in all
> other vertebrates after birth. The air capillaries are never collapsed
> as are the alveoli of other vertebrate species; rather, as they grow
> into the lung tissue, the parabronchi are from the beginning open tubes
> filled with either air or fluid. (9)
>
> In other words, the passages in birds' lungs are so narrow that the air
> sacs inside their lungs cannot fill with air and empty again, as with
> land-dwelling creatures. If a bird lung ever completely deflated, the
> bird would never be able to re-inflate it, or would at the very least
> have great difficulty in doing so.

But since bird lungs are rigid, this will never happen.


> For this reason, the air sacs
> situated all over the lung enable a constant passage of air to pass
> through, thus protecting the lungs from deflating.
>
> Of course this system, which is completely different from the lungs of
> reptiles and other vertebrates, and is based on the most complex
> design, cannot have come about with random mutations, stage by stage,
> as evolution maintains. Thus, as Denton also mentions, the avian lung
> is enough to answer Darwin's challenge:
>
> "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which
> could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight,
> modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." (10)

But since a scenario for the evolution of bird lungs has been presented
(Paul 2001), Darwin can rest easy.


> Bird Feathers and Reptile Scales
>
> Another impassable gap between birds and reptiles is feathers, which
> are peculiar to birds. Reptile bodies are covered with scales, a
> completely different structure. The hypothesis that bird feathers
> evolved from reptile scales is completely unfounded, and is indeed
> disproved by the fossil record, as the evolutionist paleontologist
> Barbara Stahl once admitted:
>
> 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. (11)

But since that was written, intermediate structures have been found. See
Currie & Chen (2001), Padian et al. (2001), Chen et al. (1998), Xing et
al. (1999), and Xu et al. (2001).


> A. H. Brush, a professor of physiology and neurobiology at the
> University of Connecticut, accepts this fact,

He's changed his mind. See Prum & Brush (2002).


> although he is himself an
> evolutionist: "Every feature from gene structure and organization, to
> development, morphogenesis and tissue organization is different [in
> feathers and scales]." (12) Moreover, Professor Brush examines the
> protein structure of bird feathers and argues that it is "unique among
> vertebrates." (13)

This has since been shown to be false. See Schweitzer (2001) and
Schweitzer et al. (1999).


> There is no fossil evidence to prove that bird feathers evolved from
> reptile scales. On the contrary, feathers appear suddenly in the fossil
> record, Professor Brush observes, as an "undeniably unique" character
> distinguishing birds. (14) Besides, in reptiles, no epidermal tissue
> has yet been detected that provides a starting point for bird feathers.
> (15)
> Many fossils have so far been the subject of "feathered dinosaur"
> speculation, but detailed study has always disproved it. Alan Feduccia
> once wrote the following in an article called "On Why Dinosaurs Lacked
> Feathers":
>
> 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 (discovered 1969 Russia) ... as
> being featherlike structures, there is simply no demonstrable evidence
> that they in fact are. (16)

Feduccia has changed his mind about Longisquama. See Jones at al.
(2000). Citing an outdated reference shows that "Harun Yahya" isn't
doing research of the highest caliber. In fact, this reference
contradicts another "Harun Yahya" page at
http://www.harunyahya.com/dna07.php which tries to pass off Longisquama
as a real bird. For while "Harun Yahya" doesn't name the fossil on that
web page, the New York Times article referred to (Wilford 2000) shows
that it is indeed Longisquama. See
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50D13F734550C708EDDAF0894D8404482


> More recently, Feduccia, quoting Brush, has the following passage on
> the origin of feathers:
>
> Even birds' most scalelike features-the leg scutes (scales), claws, and
> the epidermally derived beak-are formed from a single category of
> protein, the -keratins. As Alan Brush has written regarding feather
> development, "The genes that direct synthesis of the avian -keratins
> represent a significant divergence from those of their reptilian
> ancestor."(17) (Note that the authors assume a reptilian ancestor for
> birds, but accept the genetic gap between these.)
>
>
> National Geographic's great hit, the perfect "dino-bird" Archaeoraptor
> soon turned out to be a hoax. All other "dino-bird" candidates remain
> as speculation.

Based on what? Since then, these discoveries have undergone extensive
testing to determine if they're forgeries. For instance, see Xu et al.
(2003). No other forgeries have been discovered. Anyone familiar with
the subject would know this.


> All news about "dino-birds" is speculative. Many claims on the subject
> have turned out to false. For example, the "feathered dinosaur" claim
> that was put forward in 1996 with a great media fanfare was also
> disproved soon. A reptilian fossil called Sinosauropteryx was found in
> China, but paleontologists who examined the fossil said that it had
> bird feathers, unlike modern reptiles. Examinations conducted one year
> later, however, showed that the fossil actually had no structure
> similar to a bird's feather. (18)

Completely false. From "Harun Yahya"'s own reference:

Meanwhile, Ji Quang, director of the Chinese Geology Museum in
Beijing, insists that the fibers are "obvious primitive feathers".

And from others sources:

"They look very much like feathers," says American Museum of
Natural History bird paleontologist Luis Chiappe, who saw the
fossil in Beijing last month with colleague and dinosaur expert
Mark Norell. [Gibbons 1997a]

It seems to have had something that some have thought might be
feathers. They're not feathers in a modern sense. [Ostrom in
Musante 1997]

...the structures are cylindrical and emerge from the skin in a
manner that is nearly unique to feathers and thus are likely to
have grown from cylindrical follicles. [Prum & Brush 2002]

...the tendency of finer filaments to angle away on both sides from
thicker structures all suggest a feather-like structure with
central shafts and plumulaceous barbs. [Currie & Chen 2001]


> Every other fossil that has been put forward as "feathered dinosaur" in
> the last 10 years is debatable. Detailed studies have revealed that the
> structures suggested to have been "feathers" are actually collagen
> fibers.(19)

This is false. The reference cited is *not* a detailed study, but an
news report. No "detailed studies" have been done that come to this
conclusion. The only "detailed study" which has been done has shown that
these structures are composed of beta keratins, just like feathers
(Schweitzer 2001; Schweitzer et al. 1999).


> The speculations in fact stems from evolutionist prejudice
> and wishful thinking. As Feduccia says, "Many dinosaurs have been
> portrayed with a coating of aerodynamic contour feathers with
> absolutely no documentation."(20)

Although the reference cited is from 1999, it's from the second edition
of Feduccia's "The Origin and Evolution of Birds". The identical passage
is in the first edition, published in 1996, before the feathered
dinosaurs were discovered in China. Documentation is now abundant.


> (One of the "feathered dinosaurs" in
> question, namely Archaeoraptor, proved to be a fossil forgery).

Ironically, the "Archaeoraptor" forgery was composed of two fossils,
both of which had feathers. No one disputes this. See Rowe et al.
(2001), Xu et al. (2000), and Czerkas et al. (2002).


> Feduccia sums the position up in these terms: "Finally, no feathered
> dinosaur has ever been found, although many dinosaur mummies with
> well-preserved skin are known from diverse localities." (21)

Feduccia wrote this in 1996. Once again, it's out of date.


> The Design of Feathers
>
> Another problem for the evolutionists is the fact that there is such a
> complex design in bird feathers that the phenomenon can never be
> accounted for without referring to intelligent design. As we all know,
> there is a long, stiff part that runs up the center of the feather.
> Attached to the shaft are the vanes. The vane is made up of small
> thread-like strands, called barbs. These barbs, of different lengths
> and rigidity, are what give the flying bird its aerodynamic nature. But
> what is even more interesting is that each barb has thousands of even
> smaller strands attached to them called barbules. The barbules are
> connected to barbicels, with tiny microscopic hooks, called hamuli.
> Each strand is hooked to an opposing strand, much like the hooks of a
> zipper.

This is hardly evidence of intelligent design. It's an argument from
incredulity.


> On just one crane feather, there are up to 650 hairs on the central
> tube. Each one of these is covered with some 650 tinier hairs.

Hairs? No one claims they're hairs, or describes them as such.


> And
> these tiny hairs are linked together by 350 hooks. The hooks come
> together like the two sides of a zipper. If the hooks come apart for
> any reason, it is sufficient for the bird to shake itself, or, in more
> serious cases, to straighten its feathers out with its beak, for the
> feathers to return to their previous positions.
>
> To claim that the complex design in feathers could have come about by
> the evolution of reptile scales through chance mutations is quite
> simply a dogmatic belief with no scientific foundation.

Another falsehood. See Prum (1999) and Prum & Brush (2002).


> Even one of the
> doyens of Darwinism, Ernst Mayr, made this confession on the subject
> some years ago:
>
> It is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that finely
> balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates,
> or the bird's feather) could be improved by random mutations. (22)

I smell a quote mine. Unfortunately, all copies of this book in my area
are unavailable at the moment.


> The design of feathers also compelled Darwin to ponder them. Moreover,
> the perfect aesthetics of the pea***'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 pea***'s tail,
> whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!" (23)

Fortunately, we now have a better understanding of the origin of
feathers. See Prum (1999) and Prum & Brush (2002).


> In short, the enormous structural differences between bird feathers and
> reptile scales, and the astonishingly complex-and beautiful-design of
> feathers, clearly demonstrate the invalidity of the claim that feathers
> evolved from scales through blind natural mechanisms.

Complexity is not an argument against "blind natural mechanisms". Or
does "Harun Yahya" believe that every snowflake is designed?


> Conclusion
>
> The "dino-bird" stories that appear in the evolutionist press consist
> of biased analyses by evolutionist palaeontologists, and sometimes even
> of distortions of the truth. (In fact, one of the best-known
> "dino-bird" discoveries, the Archaeoraptor portrayed by National
> Geographic as incontrovertible proof of bird evolution, turned out to
> be a forgery produced by combining fossils of five separate specimens).

*Two* separate specimens. See Zhou et al. (2002).


> The "dino-bird" fossils in question are either those of extinct species
> of bird or of dinosaurs, and not one of them represents a "missing
> link" between birds and dinosaurs.

False. I challenge "Harun Yahya" to debate me on the topic.


> In fact, as we have seen above, it
> is impossible for dinosaurs to have evolved into birds and assumed bird
> characteristics by means of chance mutations.
>
> Thus the "dino-bird" hype that rages through the media consists of
> nothing more than a last-ditch attempt to shore up the collapsed theory
> of evolution. However, science and reason will always prevail over such
> misconceptions.

Why does "Harun Yahya" feel the need to spread his own misconceptions?
The fact checking, or lack thereof, in this post is appalling.


> LATEST EVIDENCE: OSTRICH STUDY REFUTES THE DINO-BIRD STORY
>
> Dr. Feduccia: His new study is enough to bury the 'dino-bird" myth.
> The latest blow to the "birds evolved from dinosaurs" theory came from
> a study made on the embryology of ostriches.
>
> Drs. Alan Feduccia and Julie Nowicki of the University of North
> Carolina at Chapel Hill studied a series of live ostrich eggs and, once
> again, concluded that, there can not be an evolutionary link between
> birds and dinosaurs. EurekAlert, a scientific portal held by the
> American Association for the The Advancement of Science (AAAS), reports
> the following:
>
> Drs. Alan Feduccia and Julie Nowicki of the University of North
> Carolina at Chapel Hill... opened a series of live ostrich eggs at
> various stages of development and found what they believe is proof that
> birds could not have descended from dinosaurs"...
>
> Whatever the ancestor of birds was, it must have had five fingers, not
> the three-fingered hand of theropod dinosaurs," Feduccia said...
> "Scientists agree that dinosaurs developed 'hands' with digits one, two
> and three... Our studies of ostrich embryos, however, showed
> conclusively that in birds, only digits two, three and four, which
> correspond to the human index, middle and ring fingers, develop, and we
> have pictures to prove it," said Feduccia, professor and former chair
> of biology at UNC. "This creates a new problem for those who insist
> that dinosaurs were ancestors of modern birds. How can a bird hand, for
> example, with digits two, three and four evolve from a dinosaur hand
> that has only digits one, two and three? That would be almost
> impossible." (i)

Feduccia and Burke (1997) make several *evolutionary* assumptions that
virtually guarantee that they'll get the results they expect. They claim
that certain developmental patterns aren't possible, and don't consider
the possibility that the first digit is in fact a prepollex.


> In the same report, Dr. Freduccia also made important comments on the
> invalidity-and the shallowness-of the "birds evolved from dinosaurs"
> theory:
>
> "There are insurmountable problems with that theory," he [Dr. Feduccia]
> said. "Beyond what we have just reported, there is the time problem in
> that superficially bird-like dinosaurs occurred some 25 million to 80
> million years after the earliest known bird, which is 150 million years
> old."

This is now known to be false, as shown above.


> If one views a chicken skeleton and a dinosaur skeleton through
> binoculars they appear similar, but close and detailed examination
> reveals many differences, Feduccia said. Theropod dinosaurs, for
> example, had curved, serrated teeth, but the earliest birds had
> straight, unserrated peg-like teeth. They also had a different method
> of tooth implantation and replacement." (ii)

This has been known to be false for over ten years. See Currie et al.
(1993).


> This evidence once again reveals that the "dino-bird" hype is just
> another "icon" of Darwinism: A myth that is supported only for the sake
> of a dogmatic faith in the theory.
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> i - David Williamson, "Scientist Says Ostrich Study Confirms Bird
> 'Hands' Unlike Those Of Dinosaurs", EurekAlert, 14-Aug-2002,
> http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-08/uonc-sso081402.php
> ii - David Williamson, "Scientist Says Ostrich Study Confirms Bird
> 'Hands' Unlike Those Of Dinosaurs", EurekAlert, 14-Aug-2002,
> http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-08/uonc-sso081402.php
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________
>
> (1) Alan Feduccia, The Origin and Evolution of Birds, Yale University
> Press, 1999, p. 81
> (2) Scott F. Gilbert, "Did Birds Evolve from the Dinosaurs?,"
> Developmental Biology, Sixth Edition, chapter 16.4
> (http://www.devbio.com/chap16/link1604.shtml)

This link works better: http://www.devbio.com/article.php?id=161


> (3) Pat Shipman, "Birds Do It... Did Dinosaurs?," New Scientist,
> February 1, 1997, p. 28
> (4) Pat Shipman, "Birds Do It... Did Dinosaurs?," New Scientist,
> February 1, 1997, p. 28
> (5) Duane T. Gish, Dinosaurs by Design, Master Books, AR, 1996. pp.
> 65-66
> (6) Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, London, Burnett
> Books Limited, 1985, p. 210-211.
> (7) Michael Denton, A Theory in Crisis, Adler & Adler, 1986, pp.
> 210-212.
> (8) J. A. Ruben, T. D. Jones, N. R. Geist, and W. J. Hillenius, "Lung
> Structure And Ventilation in Theropod Dinosaurs and Early Birds,"
> Science, vol. 278, p. 1267.
> (9) Michael J. Denton, Nature's Destiny, Free Press, New York, 1998, p.
> 361.
> (10) Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First
> Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 189
> (11) Barbara J. Stahl, Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution,
> Dover, 1985, pp. 349-350.
> (12) A. H. Brush, "On the Origin of Feathers," Journal of Evolutionary
> Biology, vol. 9, 1996, p.132.
> (13) A. H. Brush, "On the Origin of Feathers," Journal of Evolutionary
> Biology, vol. 9, 1996, p.131.
> (14) A. H. Brush, "On the Origin of Feathers," Journal of Evolutionary
> Biology, vol. 9, 1996, p.133.
> (15) A. H. Brush, "On the Origin of Feathers," Journal of Evolutionary
> Biology, vol. 9, 1996, p.131.
> (16) Alan Feduccia, "On Why Dinosaurs Lacked Feathers," The Beginning
> of Birds, Eichstatt, West Germany: Jura Museum, 1985, p. 76.
> (17) Alan Feduccia, The Origin and Evolution of Birds, Yale University
> Press, 1999, p. 128
> (18) Ann Gibbons, "Plucking the Feathered Dinosaur," Science, vol. 278,
> no. 5341, 14 November 1997, pp. 1229 - 1230
> (19) Ann Gibbons, "Plucking the Feathered Dinosaur", Science, volume
> 278, Number 5341 Issue of 14 Nov 1997, pp. 1229 - 1230
> (20) Alan Feduccia, The Origin and Evolution of Birds, Yale University
> Press, 1999, p. 130
> (21) Alan Feduccia, The Origin and Evolution of Birds, Yale University
> Press, 1999, p. 132
> (22) Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species, Dove, New York,
> 1964, p. 296.
> (23) Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Volume II,
> >From Charles Darwin to Asa Gray, April 3rd, 1860
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More References:

Burke, A. C., & A. Feduccia. 1997. Developmental Patterns and the
Identification of Homologies in the Avian Hand. Science 278:666-668.

Chen P.-J., Dong Z.-M., and Zheng S.-N. 1998. An exceptionally
well-preserved theropod dinosaur from the Yixian Formation of China.
Nature 391:147-152.

Currie, P. J., & Chen P.-J. 2001. Anatomy of _Sinosauropteryx prima_
from Liaoning, northeastern China. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences
38(12):1705-1727.

Currie, P. J. & Zhao X.-J. 1993. A new troodontid (Dinosauria,
Theropoda) braincase from the Dinosaur Park Formation (Campanian) of
Alberta. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 30:2231-2247

Czerkas, S. A., & Xu X. 2002. A New Toothed Bird form China. In
"Feathered Dinosaurs and the Origin of Flight", edited by S. J. Czerkas,
pp. 43-61. Blanding, Utah: The Dinosaur Museum.

Feduccia, A. 2002. Birds are Dinosaurs: Simple Answer to a Complex
Problem. The Auk 119(4):1187?1201.

Gibbons, A. 1997a. Feathered Dino Wins a Few Friends. Science 275:1731.

Jones, T. D., J. A. Ruben, L. D. Martin, E. N. Kurochkin, A. Feduccia,
P. F. A. Maderson, W. J. Hillenius, N. R. Geist, V. Alifanov. 2000.
Nonavian Feathers in a Late Triassic Archosaur. Science 288:2202-2205.
Available on-line at:
http://arnica.csustan.edu/jones/Publications/pdf/Longisquama.pdf

Martin, L. D. 2004. A basal archosaurian origin for birds. Acta
Zoologica Sinica 50(6):978-990.
Available on-line at: http://www.actazool.org/downloadpdf.asp?id=1434

Musante, F. 1997. Lessons for the Future in Ancient Bones. The New York
Times. June 29, pg. CN3.

O?Connor, P. M., & L. P. A. M. Claessens. 2005. Basic avian pulmonary
design and flow-through ventilation in non-avian theropod dinosaurs.
Nature 436:253-256.

Padian, K., Ji Q., & Ji S.-A. 2001. Feathered Dinosaurs and the Origin
of Flight. In "Mesozoic Vertebrate Life: New Research Inspired by the
Paleontology of Philip J. Currie", edited by Darren H. Tanke & Kenneth
Carpenter, pp. 117-135, & plates 1-3. Bloomington: Indiana University
Press.

Paul, G. S. 2001. Were the respiratory complexes of predatory dinosaurs
like crocodiles or birds? In "New perspectives on the Origin and Early
Evolution of Birds: Proceedings of the International Symposium in Honor
of John H. Ostrom February 13-14, 1999 New Haven, Connecticut", edited
by J. Gauthier & L. F. Gall, pp. 463-482. New Haven: Peabody Museum of
Natural History, Yale University.

Prum, R. O. 1999. Development and Evolutionary Origin of Feathers.
Journal of Experimental Zoology (Molecular and developmental evolution)
285:291?306.

Prum, R. O., & A. H. Brush. 2002. The evolutionary origin and
diversification of feathers. The Quarterly Review of Biology 77:261-295.

Rowe, T., R. A. Ketcham, C. Denison, M. Colbert, Xu X., P. J. Currie.
2001. The _Archaeoraptor_ forgery. Nature 410:539-540.

Schweitzer, M. H. 2001. Evolutionary implications of possible
protofeather structures associated with a specimen of _Shuvuuia
deserti_. In "New Perspectives on the Origin and Early Evolution of
Birds: Proceedings of the International Symposium in Honor of John H.
Ostrom February 13-14, 1999 New Haven, Connecticut", edited by J.
Gauthier & L. F. Gall, pp. 181-192. New Haven: Peabody Museum of Natural
History, Yale University.

Schweitzer, M. H., J.A. Watt, R. Avci, L. Knapp, L. Chiappe, M. Norell,
& M. Marshall. 1999. Beta-Keratin Specific Immunological Reactivity in
Feather-Like Structures of the Cretaceous Alvarezsaurid, _Shuvuuia
deserti_. Journal of Experimental Zoology. 285:146-157.

Wilford, J. N. 2000. Fossil Discovery Threatens Theory of Birds'
Evolution. New York Times, June 23rd 2000, pp. A1, A16.

Xing X., Tang Z.-L., & Wang X.-L. 1999. A therizinosauroid dinosaur with
integumentary structures from China. Nature 399:350-354.

Xu X., Zhou Z.-H., & R. O. Prum. 2001. Branched integumental structures
in _Sinornithosaurus_ and the origin of feathers. Nature 410:200-204.

Xu X., Zhou Z.-H., & Wang X.-L. 2000. The smallest known non-avian
theropod dinosaur. Nature 408:705-708.

Xu X., Zhou Z.-H., Wang X.-L., Kuang X., Zhang F.-C. & Du X. 2003.
Four-winged dinosaurs from China. Nature 421:335-340.

Zhou Z.-H., J. A. Clarke, & Zhang F.-C. 2002. _Archaeoraptor_?s better
half. Nature 420:285.

.

Loading