Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: The Latest Dino-Bird Hype And The Facts

Expand Messages
  • integrase2002 <integrase2002@yahoo.com>
    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
    Message 1 of 43 , Feb 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      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 creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, ssp ssp
      <ssp07070@y...> wrote:
      > The Latest Dino-Bird Hype And The Facts
      > http://www.harunyahya.com/mediawatch_dino_bird.php
      > Last week the world media trumpeted the recent discovery of a group
      of fossils in China as evidence supporting the theory of evolution.
      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.
      > In fact, there is absolutely no evidence which would support their
      propaganda, for neither this "four-winged dino-bird" nor any other
      scientific data supports the theory of birds having evolved from
      > The new fossil is 20 million years younger than Archaeopteryx
      > Most everyone who knows even a bit about paleontology has heard of
      Archaeopteryx. This creature, one of the most celebrated fossil finds
      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
      Archaeopteryx. 1
      > Another striking aspect of Archaeopteryx is that it was a bona fide
      bird, with all the avian characteristics. Its asymmetrical feathers
      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
      > Two aspects of Archaeopteryx which, however, largely differed from
      those of modern birds were its clawed wings and the teeth in its
      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
      > So as we can see, the evolutionist thesis that characterizes
      Archaeopteryx as a "primitive bird" is incorrect, and scientists have
      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
      > In sum, then, Archaeopteryx is the oldest bird sharing similar
      characteristics to those of modern birds and having the power of
      flight like them. And it is 150 million years old.
      > The evolutionists' age problem
      > Microraptor
      > Archaeopteryx demonstrates one key fact: Birds existed 150 million
      years ago. They were already able to fly. If the evolutionists want
      to come up with some "ancestors of birds," these creatures must be
      older than 150 million years.
      > This fact alone is enough to show that the "four-winged dino-bird"
      claim being thrown about worldwide are both extremely superficial and
      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.
      > Actually this "age problem" exists in all the "dino-bird" fossils
      which are supposedly ancestors of birds. Evolutionists who believe
      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
      Microraptor gui?
      > It is too early to answer this question. Much research will be done
      on this fossil, and the results may fundamentally alter the current
      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
      localities." 8
      > Therefore, when searching for answers about what exactly
      Microraptor gui is, we should keep in mind the speculative and
      prejudiced attitude of the evolutionists. This creature might have an
      anatomical structure differing considerably from the "reconstruction"
      sketches appearing in the media.
      > This has been noted by Professor Alan Feduccia, too. In a recent
      corresponce, he writes:
      > "I am not yet convinced that the creature has four wings; we could
      be looking at misplaced wing feathers, and it is difficult to
      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
      > And even if the projections about Microraptor gui prove correct,
      the theory of evolution would not gain any credibility from this.
      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
      > In sum, the fossil record continues to bear out the conclusion that
      all creatures appeared on earth through creation, not by naturalistic
      evolution. This latest round of dino-bird claims does not and cannot
      change that fact.
      > ---------------------------------
      > (1) Although some have claimed that the 225-million-year-old
      Protoavis fossil is the "oldest bird," this thesis is not widely
      > (2)For further details see Harun Yahya, Darwinism Refuted: How The
      Theory of Evolution Breaks Down in the Light of Modern Science,
      Goodword Books, 2003.
      > (3)For example, the 130-million-year old Liaoningornis also has
      teeth in its beak. (See "Old Bird," Discover magazine, March 21, 1997)
      > (4)Alan Feduccia, The Origin and Evolution of Birds, Yale
      University Press, 1999, p. 81.
      > (5)Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, Regnery Publishing, 2000, p.
      > (6)Ann Gibbons, "Plucking the Feathered Dinosaur," Science, vol.
      278, Number 5341 (Nov. 14, 1997), pp. 1,229-30
      > (7)Feduccia (1999), p. 130.
      > (8)Feduccia (1999), p. 132.
      > (9)This quote is from a recent correspondence between of our site's
      editors and Prof. Feduccia. We appreciate his help.
      > (10)Michael Denton, A Theory in Crisis, Adler & Adler, 1986, pp.
      > http://www.harunyahya.com/mediawatch_dino_bird.php
      > ---------------------------------
      > Do you Yahoo!?
      > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Michael Tong
      ... Alan: You need to define how one would identify a degenerate allele. Michael: In the Biblical story of Adam and Eve, Adam and Eve are perfect. Any alleles
      Message 43 of 43 , Mar 1, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Michael Tong wrote:
        > Michael: No, you have to show that more than four alleles are not
        > degenerate. Otherwise, my explanation for more than four alleles
        > originating from just one pair of humans is valid.

        Alan: You need to define how one would identify a degenerate allele.

        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

        Yours truly,
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.