Dino to Birds

Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-Bird Links (June 9, 2009)

The implication, the researchers said, is that birds almost certainly did not descend from theropod dinosaurs, such as tyrannosaurus or allosaurus. The findings add to a growing body of evidence in the past two decades that challenge some of the most widely-held beliefs about animal evolution."For one thing, birds are found earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs they are supposed to have descended from," Ruben said. "That's a pretty serious problem, and there are other inconsistencies with the bird-from-dinosaur theories."But one of the primary reasons many scientists kept pointing to birds as having descended from dinosaurs was similarities in their lungs," Ruben said. "However, theropod dinosaurs had a moving femur and therefore could not have had a lung that worked like that in birds. Their abdominal air sac, if they had one, would have collapsed. That undercuts a critical piece of supporting evidence for the dinosaur-bird link. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090609092055.htm


"Evolutionists can produce only a single creature—one single fossil creature—for which it is possible to produce even a semblance of an argument. That creature is, of course, Archaeopteryx, of which about five fossil specimens have been found in Upper Jurassic rocks (assumed by evolutionary geologists to be about 150 million years in age). All have been found in the Solnhofen Plattenkalk of Franconia (West Germany)."—Duane Gish, Evolution: the Challenge of the Fossil Record (1985), p. 110.

"But in Archaeopteryx, it is to be noted, the feathers differ in no way from the most perfectly developed feathers known to us."—*A. Feduccia and *H.B. Tordoff, in Science 203 (1979), p. 1020.

"The significance of asymmetrical features is that they indicate the capability of flying; non-flying birds such as the ostrich and emu have symmetrical [feathered] wings."—*E. Olson and *A. Feduccia, "Flight Capability and the Pectoral Girdle of Archaeopteryx," Nature (1979), p. 248.

"It is obvious that Archaeopteryx was very much a bird, equipped with a bird-like skull, perching feet, wings, feathers, and a furcula wish-bone. No other animal except birds possess feathers and a furcula."—Duane Gish, Evolution: the Challenge of the Fossil Record (1985), p. 112.

"It has been claimed that the skull of Archaeopteryx was reptile-like, rather than bird-like. Recently, however, the cranium of the ‘London’ specimen has been removed from its limestone slab by Whetstone. Studies have shown that the skull is much broader and more bird-like than previously thought. This has led Benton to state that ‘Details of the braincase and associated bones at the back of the skull seem to suggest that Archaeopteryx is not the ancestral bird."—*Duane Gish, Evolution: the Challenge of the Fossil Record (1985), pp. 112-113.

"Most authorities have admitted that Archaeopteryx was a bird because of the clear imprint of feathers in the fossil remains. The zoological definition of a bird is: ‘A vertebrate with feathers.’ Recently, Dr. James Jenson, paleontologist at Brigham Young University, discovered in western Colorado the fossil remains of a bird thought to be as old as Archaeopteryx but much more modern in form. This would seem to give the death knell to any possible use of Archaeopteryx by evolutionists as a transitional form."—Marvin Lubenow, "Report on the Racine Debate," in Decade of Creation (1981), p. 65.

"So emphatically were all these creature birds that the actual origin of Aves is barely hinted at in the structure of these remarkable remains."—*F.E. Beddard, The Structure and Classification of Birds (1898), p. 160.

"However, other extinct ancient birds had teeth, and every other category of vertebrates contains some organisms with teeth, and some without (amphibians, reptiles, extinct birds, mammals, etc.)."—*P. Moody, Introduction to Evolution (1970), pp. 196-197.

"This Jurassic bird [Archaeopteryx] stands in splendid isolation; we know no more of its presumed thecodont ancestry nor of its relation to later ‘proper’ birds than before."—*A.S. Romer, Notes and Comments on Vertebrate Paleontology (19M), p. 144.

"The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved."—*W.E. Swinton, Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds, Vol. 1 (1980), p. 1.

"It is obvious that we must now look for the ancestors of flying birds in a period of time much older than that in which Archaeopteryx lived."—*J. Ostrom, Science News 112 (1977), p. 198.

"Unfortunately, the greater part of the fundamental types in the animal realm are disconnected [from each other] from a paleontological point of view. In spite of the fact that it is undeniably related to the two classes of reptiles and birds (a relation which the anatomy and physiology of actually living specimens demonstrates), we are not even authorized to consider the exceptional case of the Archaeopteryx as a true link. By link, we mean a necessary stage of transition between classes such as reptiles and birds, or between smaller groups. An animal displaying characters belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a true link as long as the intermediate stages have not been found, and as long as the mechanisms of transition remain unknown."—*L. du Nouy, Human Destiny (1947), p. 58.

"Perhaps the final argument against Archaeopteryx as a transitional form has come from a rock quarry in Texas. Here scientists from Texas Tech University found bird bones encased in rock layers farther down the geologic column than Archaeopteryx fossils."—Richard Bliss, Origins: Creation or Evolution? (1988), p. 46 [also see Nature 322, August 21, 1986; Science 253, July 5, 1991].

"Like the later Piltdown man, Archaeopteryx seemed a perfect intermediate form . . There are, however, disturbing analogies between Piltdown man and Archaeopteryx that have come to light with careful study. Both are hodgepodges of traits found in the forms they are supposed to link,—with each trait present in essentially fully developed form rather than in an intermediate state! Allowing for alterations, Piltdown’s jaw was that of an orangutan; Archaeopteryx’s skull was a dinosaur skull. Moreover, Piltdown man’s cranium was a Homo sapiens skull; Archaeopteryx’s feathers were ordinary feathers, differing in no significant way from those of a strong flying bird such as a falcon . . The lack of proper and sufficient bony attachments for powerful flight muscles is enough to rule out the possibility that Archaeopteryx could even fly, feathers notwithstanding."—W. Frair and P. Davis, Case for Creation (1983), pp. 58-60.

"The feathers of Archaeopteryx suggest that the creature was a skillful flyer or glider, at the same time that its skeleton suggests otherwise. Archaeopteryx is a mosaic of characteristics almost impossible to interpret, let alone to base evolutionary theories on!"—W. Frair and P. Davis, Case for Creation (1983), p. 81.

("Is Archaeopteryx a Fake?" page 761 [2] the Evolution Handbook

"They suggested the following procedure for creating the feather impressions: 1) the forgers removed rock from around the tail and ‘wing’ (forelimb) regions, 2) they then applied a thin layer of cement, probably made from limestone of the Solnhofen quarries, to the excavated areas, and 3) they impressed feathers on the cement and held them in place by adhesive material (referred to as ‘chewing gum’ blobs). Attempts to remove the blobs from the rock were obvious—the slabs were scraped, brushed, and chipped. However, an oversight remained in the cleaning process: one ‘chewing gum’ blob and fragments of others were left behind."—*Venus E. Clausen, "Recent Debate over Archaeopteryx."

You can find all of the above material in four issues of the *British Journal of Photography (March-June 1985). Also see *W.J. Broad, "Authenticity of Bird Fossil Is Challenged" in New York Times, May 7, 1985, pp. C1, C14; *T. Nield, "Feathers Fly Over Fossil ‘Fraud,’ " in New Scientist 1467:49-50; and *G. Vines, "Strange Case of Archaeopteryx ‘Fraud’ " in New Scientist 1447:3.

The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved.* W.E. Swinton, Biology and Comparaitive Physiology, ed. A.J. Marshall, Academic Press, NY, Vol. 1, p.11.
Unfortunately, the intermediate stages hardly ever seemed to exist in the fossil record (Huxley's later trumpeting about Archaeopteryx notwithstanding). *M.Ridley, Nature, 286:444 (1980)
Smooth intermediates between Bauplane [distinct design types] are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count). *S. J. Gould and *Niles Eldredge, Paleobiology 3:147 (1977)
Evolutionist Colin Patterson, a former senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, perhaps summed it up the best when he admitted that Archaeopteryx "has simply become a patsy for wishful thinking." *C. Patterson, in Darwin’s Enigma by Luther D. Sunderland, p. 70, 1984 
Archaeopteryx probably cannot tell us much about the early origins of feathers and flight in true protobirds because rchaeopteryx was, in the modern sense, a bird. . ..Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur, but it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of "paleobabble" is going to change that. *Alan Feduccia, Evidence from claw geometry indicating arboreal habits of Archaeopteryx. Science 259 , February 3, 1993
At the morphological level feathers are traditionally considered homologous with reptilian scales. However, in development, morphogenesis [shape/form generation], gene structure, protein shape and sequence, and filament formation and structure, feathers are different. *A. H. Brush, "On the Origin of Feathers," Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 9:131-142, 1996 

Even though we have no direct evidence for smooth transitions, can we invent a reasonable sequence of intermediate forms, that is, viable, functioning organisms, between ancestors and descendents? Of what possible use are the incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing? *Stephen J. Gould, Natural History, Vol. 86, pp. 2-30.

Much more from The Evolution Handbook page 753 2.

 Cows to Whales - www.warneveryone.com/whale.htm
 Dino to Birds - www.warneveryone.com/dino_to_birds.htm   Is Archaeopteryx a Fake? -  www.warneveryone.com/Archaeopteryx_fake.htm  
 Soup - www.warneveryone.com/soup.htm  
 Spontaneous Generation - www.warneveryone.com/spontaneous_generation.htm  
 Whales - www.warneveryone.com/whale.htm


HOME and Live Broadcasting


Free Counter