Re: The Latest Dino-Bird Hype And The Facts
- It always amazes me to see what mental gymnastics creationists go
through in order to assure themselves that evolution, which is
clearly supported by the fossil record, is only "hype." Evolution is
a fact. Speciation has been observed in our lifetimes. Why is this
such a threat to you? Because it contradicts strict interpretation of
a holy book? Maybe evolution is God's design. Get over it.
--- In email@example.com, ssp ssp
> The Latest Dino-Bird Hype And The Factsof fossils in China as evidence supporting the theory of evolution.
> Last week the world media trumpeted the recent discovery of a group
Beijing's Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology
issued a statement saying that one of the six fossils in the group
belonged to a "dino-bird with four wings" and that this extinct
creature was able to fly, or at least, glide down the trees.
Darwinist media once again dug out its tired "birds-evolved-from-
dinosaurs" propaganda, even though this theory has already been
disproved thoroughly and repeatedly.
>propaganda, for neither this "four-winged dino-bird" nor any other
> In fact, there is absolutely no evidence which would support their
scientific data supports the theory of birds having evolved from
>Archaeopteryx. This creature, one of the most celebrated fossil finds
> The new fossil is 20 million years younger than Archaeopteryx
> Most everyone who knows even a bit about paleontology has heard of
ever, was a bird that lived some 150 million years ago. The most
important thing about Archaeopteryx is that it's the oldest bird yet
found. No scientist has unearthed a bird fossil predating
>bird, with all the avian characteristics. Its asymmetrical feathers
> Another striking aspect of Archaeopteryx is that it was a bona fide
are the same as today's birds, plus its perfect wing structure, light
and hollow skeleton, sternum supporting flight muscles and many other
characteristics have convinced scientists that Archaeopteryx was a
bird fully capable of flight. 2
>those of modern birds were its clawed wings and the teeth in its
> Two aspects of Archaeopteryx which, however, largely differed from
beak. Owing to these two characteristics, evolutionists since the
nineteenth century have tried to portray this bird as a "semi-
reptile." But these characteristics do not point to a link between
Archaeopteryx and reptiles. Research shows that hoatzin, a bird
species still living today, also has claws on its wings in its
juvenile form. And Archaeopteryx was not the only "bird with teeth,"
as other bird species from past ages represented in the fossil record
also had teeth. 3
>Archaeopteryx as a "primitive bird" is incorrect, and scientists have
> So as we can see, the evolutionist thesis that characterizes
accepted that this creature looks very much like today's birds.
Kansas University Professor Alan Feduccia, one of the most prominent
ornithologists in the world, stated, "Most recent workers who have
studied various anatomical features of Archaeopteryx have found the
creature to be much more birdlike than previously imagined," The
Darwinist propaganda on Archaeopteryx is wrong, and Feduccia also
indicated that, until recently, "the resemblance of Archaeopteryx to
theropod dinosaurs has been grossly overestimated." 4
>characteristics to those of modern birds and having the power of
> In sum, then, Archaeopteryx is the oldest bird sharing similar
flight like them. And it is 150 million years old.
>years ago. They were already able to fly. If the evolutionists want
> The evolutionists' age problem
> Archaeopteryx demonstrates one key fact: Birds existed 150 million
to come up with some "ancestors of birds," these creatures must be
older than 150 million years.
>claim being thrown about worldwide are both extremely superficial and
> This fact alone is enough to show that the "four-winged dino-bird"
wrong. Because this Chinese fossil, called Microraptor gui-which the
evolutionists are trying to portray as the "ancestor of primitive
birds" is only 130 million years old-in other words, fully 20 million
years younger than the oldest known bird. Obviously, it is sheer
nonsense to present a bird "as the ancestor of primitive birds" when
there were birds flying in the sky 20 million years before this
creature even existed.
>which are supposedly ancestors of birds. Evolutionists who believe
> Actually this "age problem" exists in all the "dino-bird" fossils
that birds descended from dinosaurs claim that the ancestors of birds
were theropod dinosaurs which walked on two feet. However theropod
dinosaurs appear after Archaeopteryx in the fossil record. 5
Evolutionists always try to cover up this glaring contradiction. The
same cover-up efforts can already be seen in the news reports about
the Microraptor gui fossil. All the evolutionist newspapers and
magazines touting this fossil as a 130-million-year-old "primitive
bird" never bother to mention that Archaeopteryx was able to glide
flawlessly in the sky some 20 million years before that.
> Microraptor gui
> So, what is this so-called "four-winged dinosaur," in other words
>on this fossil, and the results may fundamentally alter the current
> It is too early to answer this question. Much research will be done
views on it. Similarly, all the "dino-bird" fossils put forward since
the beginning of the 1990s have all since been discredited. One of
the "feathered dinosaurs," Archaeoraptor, was a fossil fraud.
Detailed studies on other dino-bird fossils showed that
their "feathers" were actually collagenous fibers beneath the skin. 6
In the words of Professor Feduccia, "Many dinosaurs have been
portrayed with a coating of aerodynamic contour feathers with
absolutely no documentation." 7 In his book published in 1999, he
wrote, "Finally, no feathered dinosaur has ever been found, although
many dinosaur mummies with well-preserved skin are known from diverse
>Microraptor gui is, we should keep in mind the speculative and
> Therefore, when searching for answers about what exactly
prejudiced attitude of the evolutionists. This creature might have an
anatomical structure differing considerably from the "reconstruction"
sketches appearing in the media.
>corresponce, he writes:
> This has been noted by Professor Alan Feduccia, too. In a recent
>be looking at misplaced wing feathers, and it is difficult to
> "I am not yet convinced that the creature has four wings; we could
interpret. Too, the characters that link this animal to dromaeosaurs
are very tenuous. Certainly the tail is quite different from known
dromaeosaurs, and the claw is not a sickle claw, but only slightly
enlarged. Also, the pubis is more birdlike. Perhaps we are not
looking at flying dromaeosaurs, but a remnant of the early avian
radiation... some 20-30 million years beyond Archaeopteryx." 9
>the theory of evolution would not gain any credibility from this.
> And even if the projections about Microraptor gui prove correct,
Throughout history, tens of millions of species lived across a vast
biological spectrum, and many of these species became extinct through
time. Like today's flying mammals such as bats, past ages saw the
existence of winged reptiles (pterosaurs). Many different groups of
sea reptiles (for example ichthyosaurs) lived and then went extinct.
But the striking thing about this wide spectrum is that creatures
with different characteristics and anatomical structures appeared
abrubtly and fully formed, rather than on the heels of more primitive
ancestral forms. For example, we see all the complex structures of
birds appearing suddenly in Archaeopteryx. There are no
feathered "primitive birds." There is no "primitive flight." The very
notion of a primitive bird lung defies possibility, as the avian
lung - structurally very different from the reptilian and mammal
lung - has an irreducibly complex structure. 10
>all creatures appeared on earth through creation, not by naturalistic
> In sum, the fossil record continues to bear out the conclusion that
evolution. This latest round of dino-bird claims does not and cannot
change that fact.
>Protoavis fossil is the "oldest bird," this thesis is not widely
> (1) Although some have claimed that the 225-million-year-old
> (2)For further details see Harun Yahya, Darwinism Refuted: How TheTheory of Evolution Breaks Down in the Light of Modern Science,
Goodword Books, 2003.
> (3)For example, the 130-million-year old Liaoningornis also hasteeth in its beak. (See "Old Bird," Discover magazine, March 21, 1997)
> (4)Alan Feduccia, The Origin and Evolution of Birds, YaleUniversity Press, 1999, p. 81.
> (5)Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, Regnery Publishing, 2000, p.117.
> (6)Ann Gibbons, "Plucking the Feathered Dinosaur," Science, vol.278, Number 5341 (Nov. 14, 1997), pp. 1,229-30
> (7)Feduccia (1999), p. 130.editors and Prof. Feduccia. We appreciate his help.
> (8)Feduccia (1999), p. 132.
> (9)This quote is from a recent correspondence between of our site's
> (10)Michael Denton, A Theory in Crisis, Adler & Adler, 1986, pp.210-212
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- Michael Tong wrote:
> Michael: No, you have to show that more than four alleles are notAlan: You need to define how one would identify a degenerate allele.
> degenerate. Otherwise, my explanation for more than four alleles
> originating from just one pair of humans is valid.
Michael: In the Biblical story of Adam and Eve, Adam and Eve are perfect.
Any alleles which do not fit that scenario would be degenerate. The
alleles for Huntington disease and color blindness would not fit that