Everyone who examines birds realizes that like other living things, they possess perfect anatomical systems. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that they are the products of flawless creation. Yet proponents of the theory of evolution are reluctant to admit this. According to Darwin's theory of evolution, every living species evolved from a single common ancestor. This scenario means that the 100 million or so known species must all be descended from earlier versions of one another.1 To account for the origin and astounding variety of plants and animals, evolutionists propose two mechanisms: natural selection and mutations. (For detailed information, see Harun Yahya, The Evolution Deceit, United Kingdom: Ta-Ha Publishers Ltd. and Darwinism Refuted, New Delhi: Goodword Books Pvt. Ltd. November 2002.)
The more those with common sense examine life forms, the more they will realize the nonsensical nature of the theory of evolution, which bases the origins of life on chance. Perceiving design but calling it purposeless, seeing order but calling it accidental, is nothing more than a deliberate denial of the facts. At the root of this denial lie evolutionists' devotion to materialist philosophy and their bigoted reactions against the fact of creation. Rather than admit their Creator's existence, evolutionists prefer to believe that blind chance is a mighty creative force and that this concept-an expression of purposeless, unconscious happenstance-can perform miracles. But the distorted nature of this belief is easy to see: If you strew the components of an airplane on the ground, random forces such as wind, lightning, rain and earthquakes can never make them combine into a complete, functional aircraft. In addition, all the components in this example have already been created to be mutually compatible. Nonetheless, no matter how long one waits it is impossible for the parts to assemble themselves into a complete model. This finished product can come into being only if a conscious entity assembles all the components. Yet according to evolutionists, chance is able to produce systems incomparably more perfect than this example, as well as the most delicate balances. The logical contradiction here is obvious for anyone to see. Every living thing is a unique marvel of creation. The proposed evolutionary mechanisms, on the other hand, lend no support to evolutionist claims. The first of these mechanisms-natural selection-assumes that those living things will survive that are best adapted to the challenges of the environment in which they live; while those unable to adapt will die out and disappear. According to evolutionists, this unconscious, automatic mode of elimination endows surviving individuals with ever-more complex organs and systems, but this claim has no valid proof or scientific basis. Observation has shown that natural selection serves only to weed out unfit individuals, but that there is no question of it endowing survivors with new organs and systems. The well-known biologist D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson summarizes this point: ... We see in natural selection is not to create but to destroy—to weed, to prune, to cut down and to cast into the fire.2
Claims that evolution occurs by means of natural selection are invalid, because: 1) Natural selection cannot plan or envisage an organism's future needs, and 2) Mutations can never endow a beneficial gain that leads to progress. Professor John W. Oller of the University of New Mexico refers to the illogical nature of this claim of development through mutation: Accidental design adjustments, as necessary for general evolution, are logical disasters. Random mutations from radiation, replication errors, or other proposed sources, rarely result in viable design adjustments, never in perfect more advanced designs.4Suppose you have determined that your life would be much more efficient if you had heat receptors in your body, or have felt the need for some other organ or ability that you think will confer an important advantage. Can you bring this about in your own body, by yourself? Could you bring into being a new organ or system that functions in a coordinated manner with immaculate timing, with all the other organs in your body, never making an error, that protects you by taking all the precautions you need and constantly strives to be beneficial to you? Could you then encode the proper genetic codes in your DNA so as to transmit this change to later generations?
As a result, it is impossible for one living species to develop into a bird, with its own unique features including that of flight, by any so-called evolutionary mechanism, or for birds to evolve into still other living species. The infinite variety among living things is just one indication of the infinite knowledge and creative artistry of Allah. In order to deny this, evolutionists hide behind unrealistic explanations. Over the last 20 years, when the complexity of life has become ever more clearly understood, an increasing number of scientists have reacted against the "chance dogma" supported by the theory of evolution. When asked about the dilemmas facing the theory of evolution, for example, Michael Denton, a molecular biologist at the University of Otago in New Zealand, criticizes the claims made for random mutations: The most serious objection I have is with the nature of mutation. Darwinism is based on the idea that all the mutations which have been selected during the course of evolution were, when they initially occurred, entirely random. Mutations are random... This is the essential bedrock of Darwinism. The mutational input into living things is, as it were, at random. | ||||
Turkish Islamic Union.com
FOREWORD
INTRODUCTION
According to evolutionist claims, these imaginary creatures descended from their alleged reptilian ancestors some 150 to 200 million years ago, acquiring new characteristics gradually and in stages until they emerged as fully-fledged birds. As this scenario requires, their attempts at flying also emerged in stages before taking on its presently flawless ability. However, despite all the efforts expended over the last century and a half, not a single trace has ever been found of the half-bird, half-reptile creatures that evolutionists assume must once have lived. No transitional forms covered half in scales and half in feathers, or with half-developed wings, have ever been found in the Earth's geological strata. In fact, contrary to what's been conjectured, only fossils with perfect structures-the remains of flawless, fully formed living things-have ever been discovered.
But despite the absence of any evidence to support their unscientific tale, evolutionists doggedly persist in their claims, hoping that these fictitious fossils will one day be found. Their evidence for their impossible dreams go no further than outright distortions and biased interpretations of the facts, as you shall see in detail in the following chapters.
There are more than 10,000 species of birds on Earth, each of which possesses its own unique features. Hawks have very sharp eyes, broad wings and pointed talons. Their eyesight is so keen that they can make out a baby rabbit on the ground from hundreds of meters up in the air.
 There are more than ten thousand species of birds, each of which possesses markedly different features. Owls, parrots, woodpeckers, crows, hummingbirds... Each of these species, from ostrich to swallow, is an example of Allah's creative artistry and, its attributes display His infinite knowledge |
With their ability to imitate sounds including human speech, parrots are among the cleverest of living things. Although anatomy of their mouths is wholly different-they have no teeth or lips, for instance-they are able to produce sounds very similar to those they hear.
With their long beaks, the hummingbirds-the smallest known species of birds-can feed on flower nectar and the small insects they find inside flowers. In order to feed, they need to hover in the air in front of the flower, and with its specially created features, they are the only species of bird able to do so.
The owl, thanks to the special creation in its soft but rounded feathers, hunts its prey at night in complete silence. Thus the owl's wing, which prevents air turbulence-and thus, noise-has taken its place among the designs that scientists are seeking to replicate.
The albatross, whose wing span of 3.5 meters (11.48 feet) is the largest in the world, spends 92% of its life over the open sea, almost never alighting on solid ground. Albatrosses' almost constant state of flight is made possible by their use of air currents, as they open their wings out as far as possible, without flapping them.
Jays bury the bonito fish they collect for later use. With their powerful memories, they are able to find and extract these fish even after nine months have passed, in forests where every tree resembles every other.
The way that birds show devoted behavior towards their young is also most striking. Some birds construct highly intricate nests, taking account of a great many factors during their construction. Birds living by the seashore, for example, build nests that cannot be flooded, using the appropriate materials for this. They even calculate how their future young should come to no harm in the event that water levels rise. Some marsh-dwelling birds build nests with high walls so that their eggs cannot be blown out by the wind.
How are such different types of nests, intelligent behavior and altruism, whose variety would fill many volumes, possible for these creatures, which are totally without reason or training?
It is impossible for them to have gradually developed the features they possess, because they could not have survived during the intermediate stages of any such process. Indeed, no creature has ever grown to perfection in stages, as evolutionists would have us believe. On the contrary, all different living groups have existed in their current perfect states ever since they first appeared in the Earth's geological strata.
This is scientific evidence that birds too were created, and this evidence represents a truth taught to human beings in the Qur'an: it is Allah, the Creator of all things, Who created these creatures with all the features they possess and the systems appropriate to them.
In verses, Allah reveals His dominion over the living world:
". . . There is no creature He does not hold by the forelock." (Surah Hud, 56)
The flawless features possessed by birds are just a few examples of the knowledge and artistry of Allah, the Lord of the Earth and sky: ". . . The kingdom of the heavens and the Earth and everything between them belongs to Allah. He creates whatever He wills. Allah has power over all things." (Surat al-Ma'ida, 17)
EVOLUTIONIST SCENARIOS AND DILEMMAS REGARDING THE ORIGIN OF FLIGHT
According to the so-called cursorial theory, dinosaurs turned into birds by taking to the air from the ground. The word "cursorial" comes from the Latin word curcus, meaning "running" or "fast movement."
According to the so-called arboreal theory, the alleged ancestors of birds were dinosaurs, a group of tree-dwelling reptiles that gradually developed wings by leaping from branch to branch.
Both theories are based on imagination and assumptions. There is no evidence to support either one. In the face of this difficulty, evolutionists have no alternative but to produce similar scenarios of no scientific value.
The book Avian Visual Cognition, edited by Dr. Robert G. Cook of Tufts University, refers to the clear nature of this speculation:
The excellence of the avian design for flight, along with the paucity of fossil evidence for transitional forms, has made the evolution of flight in birds an area of tremendous speculation.6"Origin of Bird Flight Explained", an article in the 17 January, 2003 edition of Scientific American, referred to the insufficient nature of both the cursorial and the arboreal theories—although there is in fact no satisfactory explanation at all for the origin of birds:
…But both the arboreal and the cursorial scenarios have explanatory gaps. As far as tree dwellers go, of the hundreds of nonavian gliding vertebrates around today, not one flaps its appendages. And why would natural selection have favored the development of little protowings in a theropod equipped with heavily muscled legs for running across the ground? Neither theory, [Kenneth] Dial [an evolutionists biologist of The University of Montana] asserts, adequately addresses the step-by-step adaptations that led to fully developed flight mechanics.7
THE ORIGIN OF FLIGHT ACCORDING TO THE CURSORIAL THEORY, AND THE ERRORS THEREIN
The cursorial theory maintains that two-legged (or bipedal) reptiles began flying after a series of leaps they performed while running. It assumes that as the distance leaped increased, the reptiles used their forelegs used for balance and propulsive force, and that eventually, resulted in flight—without the need for any other supplementary means. Initiatives to explain this utopian hypothesis have taken two forms:
The "Insect Net" Model
This model proposes that the forearms of these two-legged reptiles were able to move freely and therefore let them catch their prey easier. As feathers gradually widened, these proto-wings became increasingly more effective for chasing and catching insects. As the front legs grew ever longer, their movement enabled flight through the beating or flapping of wings observed in the present day.  CONJECTURAL DRAWING |
It is impossible for unconscious structures and mechanisms to determine what is useful and what isn't and to behave with foresight in light of that. And it is extremely irrational to expect that they can bring about appropriate changes in the body. It is impossible for mutations, random and typically harmful changes, to cause structural improvements in living things. Even if we assume that mutations could have such benefits, this theory is still inconsistent: The movement that birds employ to catch insects is very different from the up-and-down movement they use for flight. To catch prey, birds need to move their wings backward and forward. Forearms developing into wings would therefore represent a disadvantage for any biped attempting to catch insects, and the animal would in any case have no need for such a change. This contradicts the claims of evolutionists, since they maintain that organs develop in response to needs.
Furthermore, wings and feathers that did develop in living things seeking to catch insects, would become damaged when animals used them for hunting. This is another inconsistency in terms of the insect-net model.
If the forearms of a creature had evolved to catch prey, then it would need gaps in its "hands," rather like those in a flyswatter, to let the air pass through.8 Yet bird arms possess no such gaps; they have been fully created for flight. There are no gaps even in the wings of Archaeopteryx, the oldest known bird and possessor of a perfect avian body. This is one of the proofs that it did not seek to hunt insects by using its wings, which totally refutes the model in question.
The "Wing-Beating" Model
This scenario maintains that the creatures seized their prey with their jaws, using their forearms as bilateral stabilizers when leaping into the air. It hypothesizes that growth in these forefeet led to a gradual increase in lifting power, thus enabling them to leap further and hunt better. Gradual improvements in the wingtips are alleged to have increased their lifting power and made possible more powerful flight.
 The highly complex anatomy in birds' wings cannot be explained in terms of random changes. Even the perfect structure of a single feather displays irreducible complexity. In order to function, the components of a wing must all exist fully formed and simultaneously. In the event of the slightest deficiency, the other components will be useless, and the wing will not function. |
The general lines of scientists' criticisms of the wing-beating model run as follows:
- Well-opened wings will slow down movement by increasing air resistance.
- Beating its developing wings is no advantage for a creature that lives and hunts on the ground,
- The theory ignores the effects of gravity and is inefficient in terms of energy consumption,
- Flight at slow speeds and low elevations is more advanced and more complex than high-speed, high-altitude flight,
- Looking for prey during flight requires high maneuverability with delicate coordination. Such a sensitive control mechanism is impossible in leaping creatures with a long, stabilizing tail.9
These general criticisms are the first inconsistencies that spring to mind, but these theories are also invalid in numerous other ways. For example, no intermediate fossils exist to show transitional wing changes between the periods of pre-flight and active flight. In other words, there is no trace of half-winged, half-fore legged reptiles that should have leaped from bough to bough while it developed wings. (For detailed information, see, Harun Yahya's The Transitional Form Dilemma, Istanbul: Global Publishing.)
Evolutionists still maintain that dinosaurs turned into birds, but must find evidence for that claim from the fossil record. If dinosaurs did indeed develop into birds, then half-dinosaur, half-bird transitional creatures should have left fossils behind. For many years, evolutionists maintained that Archaeopteryx represented just such a transition. Yet new fossil findings have shown that Archaeopteryx's reptilian features have been exaggerated and that there are no grounds for regarding the creature as a primitive bird. (For details, refer to the chapter, "Archaeopteryx is an Extinct Species of Bird, Not an Intermediate Form.")
Furthermore, theories provide no explanation of the origin of feathers, or how the complex structure of birds' brain or their essential three-dimensional perceptual-control mechanism came into being.
The Historical Development-and Invalidity-of the Cursorial Theory
The cursorial theory was first advanced by Samuel Williston in 1879. Without offering any details of how it might have happened, Williston suggested that flight could evolve through a number of stages: running, jumping, leaping from on high, and gliding. In 1907 and 1923, Franz Baron Nopcsa added some detail to Williston's claim and suggested that an animal could develop wings for speed as it ran along the ground. However, there is no such case of living things using wings for greater speed, and flexed wings actually increase air resistance.10 Furthermore, this theory does not seek to explain how wings first developed from forelegs.10 Professor Alan Feduccia, of the North Carolina University Biology Department, recognized as one of the world's most eminent authorities on ornithology, describes the theory as "aerodynamic absurdity."11
 CONJECTURAL DRAWING Evolutionist explanations of how dinosaurs turned into birds are tall stories, no different from fairy tales. These claims lacking any scientific basis, are merely the product of people's imaginations, and actually indicate evolutionists' despair. Any theory that cannot account for the different flight systems in insects cannot claim that dinosaurs evolved into birds. |
No fossil evidence exists of any pro-avis. It is a purely hypothetical pre-bird, but one that must have existed.14Those eager to continue with the theory after Ostrom suggested that feathered wings developed in order to control the body's direction during running and leaping. Like their predecessors, however, these men too came in for criticism.15 For instance, Professor Jeremy Rayner of University of Leeds calculated that when a living thing in this hypothesis jumped up into the air, there would be a 30 to 40% drop in its speed which would cause serious problems in flight. Rayner came to the conclusion that under such conditions, a considerable amount of energy would be required which would mean a very low flying speed.16 Rayner therefore suggested that the model was lacking in the morphological, physiological and behavioral features required for flight, and that it would therefore fail.17
Despite changes brought in, the Museum of Texas Technical University paleontologist Sankar Chatterjee was forced to accept that the cursorial theory was bio-mechanically untenable.18 David E. Fastovsky, a professor of earth sciences and a paleontologist, and the cellular biologist and anatomist David B. Weishampel of the John Hopkins University Medical School, stated that functional morphologists have been unable to satisfactorily model the running-to-flight transition in early birds.19
An important fact is that no present-day bipeds use their forelimbs for balance. Kangaroos, which stand on two legs—a cursorial posture—and have short forelimbs and a long tail, put the theory to the test. They do not extend their forearms when jumping; on the contrary, their arms play a passive role. Neither do they bat or flex their arms to increase jumping speed. In the words of the paleontologist Sankar Chatterjee, "To minimize drag force, they are kept in a folded position in a strictly sagittal plane during takeoff, midway through the leap, and during landing."20
The evolutionary biologist Walter Bock also refers to the invalidity of the claims regarding the cursorial theory:
I know of no small tetrapods about the size of Archaeopteryx that are primarily terrestrial (e.g., not flying-running forms, or secondarily flightless or degenerate flying forms) and use their forelimbs for balance during fast running or during a leap. And I know of none using the forelimbs as flapping structures to provide forward thrust to increase the length of its leap.21The cursorial theory poses insoluble difficulties for evolutionists. Their fundamental claim—that because certain reptiles beat their forelimbs for long periods in order to catch insects, these limbs developed into wings—contains a major inconsistency. They offer no explanation as to how a structure as complex as the wing developed to catch flies.
John Ostrom, the foremost proponent of the cursorial theory, confesses that supporters of both theories have no grounds on which to rest their case:
My cursorial predator theory is in fact speculative. But the arboreal theory is also similarly speculative.22
THE MYTH OF FLY-CHASING DINOSAURS
Flies' perfect structures have been researched by a great many scientists. Michael Dickinson, a California, Berkeley University professor of biology and winner of the McArthur Institute 2001 special talent award, was quoted in The Scientist magazine: Insects still represent the most sophisticated aerial machine on the planet... they can take off backwards, fly sideways, and land upside down! Dickinson says as follows: "Flies in particular have unique specializations that lead to extraordinary."1Scientists are still engaged on research developing robots that can imitate the details of flies' flight. First, they must determine the aerodynamic forces that act on the fly's wing . However, due to flies' speed, it is almost impossible to measure such rapid movements. According to Dickinson, "No computer in the world can tell us what these forces are." At a meeting held in November 2002, Dickinson told neurologists that: 2
For a long time, scientists sought an answer to the most fundamental question of how flies direct their flight. No one had established a direct connection between flies' visual system and the muscles controlling their wings. Using high-speed video cameras, Dickinson managed to capture fly movements and investigate the factors affecting their maneuverability. As a result of his research, he obtained evidence of how their visual system controls flies' movements and establishes timing in manoeuvrability.4 Michael Dickinson and his colleagues at Berkeley used a virtual reality chamber to discover how flies react to changing visual images. With images quivering at between 3000 and 4000 times a second, Dickinson discovered that flies transmit the information from their eyes to an organ known as the halter, which acts as the insect's gyroscope and sends impulses that alter the wings' muscles, movements and angles of approach. This system works exceedingly quickly. For example, flies can change direction by reacting to alterations in visual images in as short a time as 30 microseconds. Dickinson sets out his conclusions in the face of this discovery: Flies are the most accomplished fliers on the planet in terms of aerodynamics. They can do things no other animal can, like land on ceilings or inclined surfaces. And they are especially deft at takeoffs and landings—their skill far exceeds that of any other insect or bird. The halteres, beating out of sync with the forewings, are the key to the fly's aerodynamic prowess. Remove a fly's halteres, and it becomes unstable and quickly crashes to the ground.5Flies' flight systems have served as models for modern-day helicopters, but are actually far superior to those helicopters. How did this immaculate system emerge so perfectly in such a tiny creature? Evolutionists give no consistent reply. Even a single fly is clear evidence of creation. The superior creation that Allah manifests in this minute insect is just one example of His infinite knowledge. The British biologist J. Robin Wootton makes this admission regarding the dilemma that the fly's superior design poses for evolutionists: The better we understand the functioning of insect wings, the more subtle and beautiful their designs appear . . . Structures are traditionally designed to deform as little as possible; mechanisms are designed to move component parts in predictable ways. Insect wings combine both in one, using components with a wide range of elastic properties, elegantly assembled to allow appropriate deformations in response to appropriate forces and to make the best possible use of the air. They have few if any technological parallels—yet.6 1. Laura DeFrancesco, "Learning How Flies Fly", The Scientist, Vol. 16, No. 2, 21 January 2002, p. 27; 2. "Sinekler Nasıl Uçar?", (How do flies fly?), Hürriyet Bilim magazine, March 22, 2003. 3. http://www.the-scientist.com/yr2002/jan/research2_020121.html 4. Laura DeFrancesco, "Learning How Flies Fly", loc. cit., 5. http://www.berkeley.edu/news/magazine/fall_98/discoveries_fly.html 6. J. Robin Wootton, "The Mechanical Design of Insect Wings", Scientific American, Vol. 263, November 1990, p. 120. |
THE ORIGIN OF FLIGHT ACCORDING TO THE ARBOREAL THEORY, AND THE ERRORS THEREIN
After the cursorial theory had found itself in a dead-end, O. C. Marsh proposed the arboreal theory, which received the approval of the majority of evolutionists. However, as we saw in John Ostrom's admission in the preceding section, the arboreal theory, too, consists of a claim lacking any scientific foundation.The arboreal theory first hypothesizes that a two-legged animal running on the ground adapted to life in the trees, and suggests that it used its forelimbs like parachutes in jumping from one branch to another. Again according to the theory, wing-beating flight subsequently developed and scales—which acquired an aerodynamic importance during jumps—gradually turned into feathers under the effect of chance mechanisms.23
 CONJECTURAL DRAWING |
Without submitting any evidence, evolutionists claim that everything happened in some way in stages. Yet all this is entirely based on the imaginary claims and has no scientific foundation.
Proponents of the arboreal theory maintain that alleged primitive birds ascended to the trees to escape enemies or to build nests, that they climbed the trees with their front claws and subsequently learned to fly by gliding down to lower branches. Evolutionist critics of the theory, however, state that Archaeopteryx's claws were not suited to a fast-moving creature that ran along the ground, and resembled those of modern-day perching birds.24
David E. Fastovsky, the professor of geosciences and paleontologist, and the cellular biologist and anatomist David B. Weishampel express their criticisms of the arboreal theory:
Interestingly, critics of this theory propose an even more inconsistent one—the cursorial theory described above. They find themselves in such a predicament by obliging themselves to offer some explanation within the evolutionary template. Those who maintain that dinosaurs' forelegs gradually grew into wings are equally critical of the theory proposed, mainly by Alan Feduccia and Larry Martin, of the "from the trees down," or arboreal theory.25
 No living thing attains perfection in stages, as evolutionists maintain. On the contrary, species display the same perfect forms today as when they first appeared as fossils in the Earth's strata. This represents a major dilemma for evolutionists. There is not a single fossil to verify their claims, whereas there millions of transitional species should have been preserved…Birds came into being with their present perfect aerodynamic structures and flying abilities millions of years ago. |
Since they lack any evidence or scientific foundation, both theories are based on imaginary claims. Robert L. Carroll, the world-renowned expert on vertebrate paleontology, comments: "neither structural nor physiological arguments have yet settled this controversy conclusively."26 As Professor Phil Regal of Minnesota University has said, "Evolutionary theories relating to the origin of feathers and flight (and even heat conservation) are all inadequate."27
The Pennsylvania State University biologist James H. Marden states the following about the claims regarding the origin of flight: "Theorists have spent half a century fiercely debating whether avian flight evolved from ‘the trees down,' via gliding intermediates, or from ‘the ground up,' via running, leaping intermediates, with no resolution in sight." 28Another opponent of the theory of evolution, the anatomist David Menton, said this about the origin of birds during the course of an interview:
There are really two theories—you can't test either, of course. The arboreal theory and the cursorial theory. Each side is quite certain the other side is dead wrong, of course. Evolutionist John Ostrom speculates that feathers evolved from large scales on the forelimbs of dinosaurs and that these long feathers, as they developed, were used to catch insects. Also, they're an incredibly complex structure to use just for this purpose. And they would blow the insect out of the way. Birds couldn't clap their limbs together in front anyway—they just don't have that kind of a shoulder. There's no slightest evidence for either theory, and the people who take each view make that point. There are no examples of living or fossil scales that even remotely resemble a feather. Archaeopteryxhas complete feathers like modern birds.29
 1.Rare wing covering feathers 2. Main wing covering feathers 3. Tertiary flight feathers 4. Primary flight feathers 5. Secondary flight feathers The feathers that constitute wings are so complex as to amaze scientists. Yet feathers alone are not enough for a bird to be able to fly. These feathers have to be equally distributed, in a specific order, on both sides of the wing. If you set out a bird's feathers at random, it will be unable to fly. Therefore, flight is clearly not an ability that can be acquired through random effects. Birds, and their structures ideally suited to flight, are just one of the creations that display Allah's infinite artistry and knowledge. |
When it comes to the origin of birds, one most important point that evolutionists ignore is the irreducible complexity of the wing. Wings can function only when they possess all their perfect structures together: Structures such as a partial or deficient wing would have no function in terms of flight. In that case, the "gradual evolution" model, the major mechanism that evolution theory suggests, signifies nothing. (For details, see the section, "The Irreducible Complexity in Wings.")
EVOLUTIONIST EFFORTS TO PRODUCE AN ALTERNATE EXPLANATION
Another evolutionist biologist, Kenneth Dial of Montana University, added a further speculative scenario to the interpretations already made. Though his claim received wide coverage in the world press in October 2001, it totally lacked any scientific foundation. Dial's thesis was based on some observations of partridges of the species Alectoris chukar. When these birds ascend a steep slope or tree trunk, they prefer to run rather than climb and, as they run, flap their wings for greater speed. This short sprinting is known as "wing-assisted incline running."
During this process, the partridges use their wings as well as their feet, thus reducing the effect of gravity. This bird's feet are created in such a way as to grip the ground, and its wings act rather like the ailerons on a racing car. Based on this evidence, Dial maintains that the first birds, similarly, used their wings not for flight, but to assist in running. He hypothesizes that these animals moved their forelimbs not forward and backward like reptiles, but up and down, like modern-day birds.
With this proposed concept, Dial aimed to find a compromise path between the two sides of the debate over the origin of flight, which had been going on since the 1800s: of whether dinosaurs learned to fly by running on land or by leaping from tree to tree.30 However, this claim of his received little approbation. Luis Chappe of the Los Angeles Natural History Museum summed the matter up by saying that we could never know whether or not dinosaurs behaved like partridges:
I imagine people will continue to argue about the origin of bird flight for a long time.31
 While running up slopes or tree trunks, partridges choose to run rather than flylapping their wings as they go for greater speed. Their wings thus serve somewhat like the ailerons on a racing car. These movements prove that partridges are not poorly developed, nor that birds evolved from dinosaurs. |
Dial, an evolutionist who supports the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs, sought to place his observations of partridges running with wing assistance in the imaginary dino-bird evolution scenario. According to the scenario favored by Dial, when dinosaurs fleeing in panic from predators headed towards steep slopes, they beat their forearms to gain extra speed. Their forearms thus gradually developed into wings. But clearly, Dial's claim is nothing but a work of the imagination. Showing that shortening birds' feathers reduces aerodynamic effects provides no explanation for the flight allegedly displayed by dinosaurs.
This is a groundless claim made by a great many other evolutionists to inculcate people with the imaginary dino-bird model. Alan Feduccia says that:
Dial's work is surprisingly poor. First, the galliform birds are a very poor choice, as they are among the most highly derived flying birds, and have a huge pectoral muscle mass for burst flying from the ground. That's why hunters like them; they have a lot of good meat! They have about 35% or more of the body mass devoted to the flight apparatus, as compared to some 8% or less in Archæopteryx and even less in theropods. So, what do his findings mean? Answer. Nothing!33
Everything in the heavens and everything on Earth glorifies Allah. Sovereignty and praise belong to Him. He has power over all things. (Surat at-Taghabun, 1)  |
Furthermore, it's not only the origin of wings and flight that evolutionists need to explain. Accepting the idea that birds developed in stages also means accepting that all of birds' complex structures and systems-their one-directional lung design, their hollow bones, the microscopic hooks and barbs on their feathers and their light but flexible structure, their warm-blooded metabolism, and a great many other details revealing this magnificent creation-also came into existence in stages, which is hardly possible. In addition, it is unlikely for any demi-bird having these half-formed organs and systems to survive.
In addition, new advances in the field of technology show that flying birds and flight were specially created. Conrad Waddington, a professor in the field of animal genetics, states the illogicality of seeking to base the development of living things on chance and random natural mechanisms:
To suppose that the evolution of the wonderfully adapted biological mechanisms has depended only on a selection out of a haphazard set of variations, each produced by blind chance, is like suggesting that if we went on throwing bricks together into heaps, we should eventually be able to choose ourselves the most desirable house.34The logic on which such theories are based is so shallow that all the conditions to be met for a living thing to fly are totally ignored. For arms to gradually turn into perfect wings and achieve a structure that permits total maneuverability would require a far more delicate adjustment than random mutations could ever establish —99% of which are harmful, in any case. Indeed, no scientific evidence supports such an idea.
In fact, according to natural selection—the alleged fundamental mechanism that leads to evolution—any half-developed creature could not survive while waiting for a random mutation, the work of pure chance, to complete the process. Even if such an impossibility were in some way overcome, many complementary features would have to be acquired at the same time: Each bone in a dinosaur's skeleton turning hollow, the lung acquiring a wholly different structure, muscles suited to tireless flight developing, the body assuming an aerodynamic shape, necessary connections taking place in the brain to make flight possible, and a great many other changes. It is illogical to imagine that random mutations could come together all at once, and in a seamless arrangement. It is clear that birds emerged not incrementally, by chance, but as the result of a flawless creation.
 Claims of an evolutionary transition from reptile to bird are, first of all, physiologically and anatomically impossible. Therefore, evolutionists' claims regarding the origin of birds are wholly illusory. |
Everyone in the heavens and Earth belongs to Him. All are submissive to Him. It is He Who originated creation and then regenerates it. That is very easy for Him. His is the most exalted designation in the heavens and the earth. He is the Almighty, the All-Wise. (Surat ar-Rum, 26-27)
IMPORTANT STRUCTURAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DINOSAURS AND BIRDS
Any comparison of living birds and reptiles shows that these classes are very different from each other and that no evolution could have transformed the one into the other. In evolutionist publications, however, all these differences are completely ignored, or dismissed as questions that can be easily resolved. Below is an example of accounts, aired on a well-known TV documentary station, the Discovery Channel, yet far divorced from any scientific validity: The evolution of birds is still one of the most hotly debated scientific issues. It appears that the ancestors of birds were reptiles 200 million years ago. When they went into the trees, they developed a scaly layer that would become a primitive wing. These wings helped them to come down from the trees more easily. 50 million years later, Archaeopteryx came on the scene. It still had teeth and hard bones like a reptile, but unlike other creatures, it had feathers. Like scales, feathers are made of keratin, but they are lighter and more flexible. Archaeopteryx could fly. Within the next 25 million years, it developed a greater flying ability, and every surplus gram of weight was lost. It even lost its teeth to make it lighter. Its bones had a texture like a beehive which gave them strength. About 50 million years ago, the number of mammals increased, and birds appeared that could hunt them—birds of prey were born.36 By resorting to such a fairy tale-like style, the Discovery Channel seeks to imply that a transition from reptiles to birds is perfectly reasonable. It needs to do such a thing because evolutionist claims are devoid of any scientific evidence. There are actually insuperable differences between the two living species. As you already saw, claims of avian evolution, though depicted as scientific fact, are totally lacking in evidence. No intermediate form to back them up has ever been found.
For instance, the world-renowned ornithologist Alan Feduccia of North Carolina University and Larry Martin of The University of Kansas take the view that birds cannot have evolved from any known dinosaur group. Feduccia despite being a believer in evolution, points to the evidence fact that there are enormous differences between dinosaurs and birds and shows that the latter cannot have evolved from the former. When the anatomies of theropod dinosaurs and birds are examined, it can be seen that there is no evolutionary relationship between them. Alan Feduccia sets out the impossibility of theropods evolving into flying creatures: It's biophysically impossible to evolve flight from such large bipeds with foreshortened forelimbs and heavy, balancing tails.37There are deep physiological gulfs between birds and dinosaurs. First of all, wings—the attribute that makes a bird a bird—represent a major dilemma for evolutionists. How did the wing's flawless structure came into existence through consecutive random mutations, as evolutionists would have us believe? The question goes unanswered. Also, evolutionists cannot explain how a reptile's forearms could have turned into a flawless wing as a result of mutations—defects arising in its genes. In addition, wings alone are not sufficient to turn a land-dwelling animal into a bird. Land-dwellers lack many other structures and mechanisms that birds use to fly. As you've seen, birds' bones are much lighter, and their lungs and far more specialized coronary-circulation system have very different structures and functions. Their muscular and skeletal structures are different. It is impossible for these mechanisms to have accumulated gradually, as evolutionists would have us believe. In any case, fossils reveal that no such transition ever happened. This situation, which represents such a predicament for evolutionists, was described in a New Scientist article entitled, "Birds Do It . . . Did Dinosaurs?" Neither their hypothetical ancestor nor transitional forms linking it to known fossil birds have been found.38For a reptile to acquire so-called avian features, according to evolutionist claims, it would have to undergo countless mutations. Just the so-called development of a reptile's front legs into wings, for example, would demand an endless procession of gradual changes. Every mutation in the genetic information regarding the forelegs must cause certain small alterations, and each one must make them a little more wing-like, not less. For example, fur must gradually appear on the limbs, then feathers must gradually appear in future generations —first the stem and then the other components. The digits must shrink with every passing generation, and the limb must increasingly come to resemble a wing. These slow, gradual changes—in the animal's lungs, its scales turning into feathers, changes in its bone structures and other characteristics— should appear in the fossil record.
As you can clearly see, any evolution from reptiles to birds should have left millions of intermediate forms to demonstrate the fact. Yet to date, not a single half-reptile, half-bird fossil has ever been found. The existing fossils provide no evidence for evolution, but belong to extinct birds or extinct reptiles-proof of creation. The dino-bird stories we so often encounter in the media are mere fairy tales, as you shall soon see. None of these provide the so-called missing link in the evolution of birds. Gordon Rattray Taylor, himself an evolutionist, describes the theory's inability to account for the birds' origin: . . . the number of modifications in reptilian structure which the birds have managed to effect in order to adapt themselves for flight is so large as to constitute a real problem and deserves our further attention. To begin with, many modifications serve to reduce its weight. The bones are hollow, the skull very thin. It has abandoned the heavy tooth-studded jaw for the light but rigid beak. The body is condensed into a compact shape, the reptilian tail being abandoned, as also the reptilian snout. The centre of gravity has been lowered by placing the chief muscles beneath the main structure. Where organs are paired, like the kidney, and the ovary, one has been sacrificed. The pelvis has been strengthened to absorb (allow me the teleology) the shock of landing. The legs and feet have been reduced to a minimum; the muscles operating them have vanished, to be replaced by muscles within the body. The brain has been modified: a larger cerebellum to handle problems of balance and co-ordination, a larger visual cortex now that vision has become more important than smell. Less obvious but even more remarkable is the change in bodily metabolism.Gordon Taylor is stating why avian evolution is an impossibility; yet a great many evolutionists still persist in believing in it. The reason for this lies in their philosophical prejudices. In order to deny Allah's creation, evolutionists display a blind devotion to their claims. Despite the lack of any evidence to support their claims—and even though those claims have been demolished countless times—still they refuse to accept the fact of creation. For anyone pondering over the subject without prejudice, the conclusion to which science leads is creation. At the same time, this fact is revealed in the Qur'an. The Qur'an states that "Among His Signs is the creation of the heavens and Earth and all the creatures He has spread about in them …" (Surat ash-Shura, 29) and "And in your creation and all the creatures, He has spread about there are Signs for people with certainty." (Surat al-Jathiyya, 4). In other verses Allah refers to the variety of life:
AVIAN BONE STRUCTURE CREATED ESPECIALLY FOR FLIGHT
As stated earlier, the avian skeleton is lighter than that of all other vertebrates. A pigeon's skeleton, for instance, represents only 4.4% of the bird's total body weight. A frigate bird's bones weigh 118 grams (0.260 pounds less than the total weight of its feathers!) Henry Gee, editor of the scientific magazine Nature, reports this characteristic of birds: Their breastbones are large, serving as anchors for powerful muscles; their collarbones are united to form a flexible spring brace . . . Their backbones are tight, interlocked, and stiff, the interlocking ribs contributing to a rigid cage, and yet many of the bones are hollow: lightweight yet strong, like tubular steel. Their pelvis and sacrum are welded together into a solid structure. Overall, the body of birds combines lightness with strength.40This anatomy, unique to birds, is completely different from that of reptiles. Nonetheless, the evolutionary scenario of dinosaur to bird is still blindly defended, though based on no concrete evidence at all. (We shall look at detailed instances in due course.) Certain concepts, being misunderstood, are imagined to represent evidence for the theory. Based on the differences in dinosaur pelvic bones, for example, some evolutionist publications suggest that birds evolved from dinosaurs. These differences lie between dinosaurs belonging to the Saurischian(lizard-hipped) and Ornithischian (bird-hipped) groups. From time to time, the existence of dinosaurs with bird-like hip bones is perceived as evidence for the claim of dino-bird evolution. Yet the hip bone similarity provides no support for dinosaurs being the ancestors of birds. Dinosaurs belonging to the Ornithischiangroup bear no similarity to birds at all with regard to their other features. Ankylosaurus for example, had short legs, a giant torso and armor-like scaly skin, and is even compared to a battle tank. Yet it is a member of the Ornithischian family, with bird-like hip bones. On the other hand, some anatomical features of Strithiomimus can be compared to those of birds. It was long legged and had short front legs, but is actually a member of theSaurischian family of dinosaurs, with reptile-like hip bones.41
Many other problems are attendant upon the theory asserting that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Compared with Archaeopteryx, regarded as the oldest known bird, the forearms oftheropod dinosaurs are very short in relation to their bodies. Bearing in mind these creatures' large body weights, you can see that their arms cannot have developed into any kind of proto-wing. The great majority of theropod dinosaurs lack the semilunate carpal or wrist bone found in birds, but possess other wrist components the like of which are absent in Archaeopteryx. There is also very strong evidence in dinosaurs' forelegs that they cannot be the ancestors of birds. A team led by Alan Feduccia examined bird embryos under the microscope and published its results in Science magazine:42 New research shows that birds lack the embryonic thumb dinosaurs had, suggesting that it is "almost impossible" for the species to be closely related.43  As with their structure and shape, the arrangement of bones in a reptile's body is also completely different from that in birds. It is quite impossible that a dinosaur's skeleton gradually transformed into an avian one suited to independent flight. First of all, the bones in both groups, dinosaurs and birds, are located where they are for a specific purpose. Their shapes too have been created according to need. Skull size, number of vertebrae, leg length, foldable wing bones, the breastbone necessary for flight—have all been created in line with birds' lifestyles. If there had been stage-by-stage mutations, as evolutionists claim, then we should come across a great many deformed skeletons. For example, in birds, one wing might be more developed than the other, or one arm might have been long and the other short. Balance might have been impaired by a large head on a small body, or toes pointing in the wrong direction might have been impaired its balance. Vertebrae might not have developed in the neck region, or might have been shaped in such a way as to put pressure on the nerves. The possibilities are endless. If a living thing's bones had developed by chance, then a great many such deficient or deformed anatomy should result. Yet the layers of the Earth contain only flawless, regular fossils. This very absence of intermediate forms heads the list of subjects that evolutionists are reluctant to face. This clearly shows that living things did not evolve from one another, but were all created separately, each with their own unique structure. The theory of reptiles evolving into birds will go down in history as an example of the magnitude of the errors that Darwinism can lead to. Alan Feduccia, for instance, says: 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.44Larry Martin, an expert in the anatomy of archaic birds at the University of Kansas, says: 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.45
THE UNIQUE CREATION IN THE AVIAN LUNG Another instance that invalidates the claim that birds evolved from reptiles is the unique creation of birds' lungs. The respiratory systems of terrestrial vertebrates and of birds work in completely different ways. Birds have a greater oxygen requirement than terrestrial animals and must transmit oxygen to their cells much faster. A terrestrial lung cannot, therefore, provide the level of oxygen that birds need. In fact, avian lungs have been specially created to supply the oxygen required for flight.The lungs of vertebrate terrestrials have a two-directional structure. During inhalation, air proceeds down ever-branching passageways and ends up at tiny air sacs known as alveoli, where oxygen and carbon dioxide are exchanged. The CO2-laden air later returns by the same route, being expelled via the main bronchial tube. But in a bird's lung, air always follows a one-way route. The lung's entrance and exit channels are different from one another, and the air always flows in one direction. The bird thus has uninterrupted access to the oxygen in the air. Evolutionist author Henry Gee, editor of the international scientific journal Nature, says, "Birds have a remarkable breathing arrangement, in which the lungs form just one part of a one-way air handling system that incorporates large air spaces elsewhere in the body and even within the hollowed bones."46 When the bird breathes, air flows from the windpipe both to the lung and to the rear air sacs. The air already present in the lung moves to the front air sac. When the bird exhales, clean air in the rear air sac flows to the lung and leaves the body via the front air sac. Both cycles, in inhalation and exhalation, must occur for every breath the bird takes. Instead of the alveoli in mammals' lungs, millions of tiny tubes extend all the way along the bird lung. This complex system of air sacs ensures that the air in the bird lung constantly flows in one direction, from back to front. Thus the direction of air flow is different from that in lizards or mammals, where air retraces its route during exhalation. The fact that air always flows in a single direction in birds allows them to use the air's oxygen more efficiently. This efficient respiratory system unique to birds reduces the amount of energy they require to take off and remain aloft. Well-developed breast muscles, attached to the furcula bone-one of the structures essential to flight-add power to each wingbeat. The long wing feathers generate the necessary lift. Birds have no diaphragm, and therefore make use of pressure differences in the air sacs within their bones to move the air in their lungs. Most birds have eight air sacs, functioning just like bellows to move air along their respiratory canal. Many air sacs extend into bones known as pneumatic bones.47 Pneumatic means "working under pressure.") Thanks to this unique creation, birds' lungs remain always inflated, unlike those of mammals and reptiles, always providing them with fresh air.48 This system in the avian lung structure is perfect for meeting high-energy requirements. Michael Denton, molecular biologist in the University of Otago in New Zealand says of this unique system: In the case of birds, 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... The structure of the lung in birds and the overall functioning of the respiratory system is quite unique. No lung in any other vertebrate species is known which in any way approaches the avian system. Moreover, it is identical in all essential details in birds as diverse as humming birds, ostriches and hawks.49The single-directional air canal is a unique structure, found only in birds. It is impossible for such a complex structure to have arisen in stages. The single-direction air canal system and lungs must both exist in completed form if the bird is to survive. Any living thing whose lungs do not function perfectly cannot live very long. Michael Denton sets out the impossibility of an evolutionary explanation for the origin of the bird lung: 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.50In short, none of the alleged intermediate stages between the two types of lung are suited to a creature's survival. Since any lungs whose structural anatomy remained incomplete could not function at all, such a possibility is out of question. No living species has the time to wait for the changes necessary for such a transition to take place. Unless a bird possesses one type of lung or the other in full working order, it will die. This fact is sufficient to show that this plumonary anatomy, unique to birds, cannot have emerged through chance mechanisms such as natural selection. The avian lung is just one of the countless proofs that living things were created by Allah.
In an interview, Denton stated that such a passage cannot have taken place and criticizes the claims made by Darwinism in terms of the avian lung: Well, the basic pattern it fails to explain is the apparent uniqueness and isolation of major types of organisms. My fundamental problem with the theory is that there are so many highly complicated organs, systems and structures, from the nature of the lung of a bird, to the eye of the rock lobster, for which I cannot conceive of how these things have come about in terms of a gradual accumulation of random changes.As his statements show, there can be no question of an evolutionary link between the two-directional reptile lung and the one-directional bird lung. It's impossible to establish any transitional model between these two pulmonary structures. A terrestrial animal must constantly breathe to survive, and any radical change to its lungs will inevitably end in death in a matter of minutes. Yet according to evolution, this change must have occurred over millions of years Another point is that reptiles have a diaphragm-based respiratory system, whereas birds do not. These different structures again repudiate claims of the one type evolving into the other. John Ruben, an authority on respiratory physiology, comments: 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.52Another feature that challenges the evolution of the avian lung is its special structure which, when deprived of air, faces the danger of collapsing. Michael Denton explains: 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. Moreover, the unique function and form of the avian lung necessitates a number of additional unique adaptations during avian development. As H. R. Dunker, one of the world's authorities in this field, explains, 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.53  Avian lung canals are so narrow that the air sacs cannot be inflated and deflated like those in other vertebrates. If a bird's lung ever deflates, the bird will be unable to draw air into it again, or will experience enormous difficulty in doing so. The air sacs in the lung therefore ensure a constant flow of oxygen and protect the lung against deflation. Of course this system-totally different from the lungs of reptiles and other vertebrates, and based on the most sensitive balances-cannot have developed in stages through random mutations, as the theory of evolution claims. Denton states that this structure of the avian lung invalidates Darwinism:
John Ruben, an expert in evolutionary respiratory physiology at Oregon State University, has this to say: Recently, conventional wisdom has held that birds are direct descendants of theropod dinosaurs. However the apparently steadfast maintenance of hepatic-piston diaphragmatic lung ventilation in theropods throughout the Mesozoic poses fundamental problems for such a relationship. The earliest stages in the derivation of the avian abdominal air sac system from a diaphragmatic-ventilating ancestor would have necessitated selection for a diaphragmatic hernia [or hole] in taxa transitional between theropod 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.55In short, any direct transition from the reptile lung to the bird lung is impossible. This important scientific evidence demonstrates the groundlessness of the "avian evolution" thesis and shows that our Almighty Lord created birds together with their unique physical designs.
THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF REPTILES' SCALES TURNING INTO BIRD FEATHERS The origin of birds has always represented a major difficulty for Darwinism. Even today, there is still no unanimity on the subject among evolutionists. One of the dilemmas facing them in this regard is the origin of birds' feathers, which possess a complex structure essential for flight, and which is present only in birds.Many evolutionists maintain that over millions of years, dinosaur scales gradually developed into feathers by means of mutations and natural selection. However, no evidence indicates any such transition from scales to feathers, which is physiologically and anatomically impossible. Aware of this, evolutionists gloss over the matter with superficial explanations. In one of his books, the atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins makes do with a crude explanation consisting of single sentence: "Feathers are modified reptilian scales." 56 Let us now look at the impossibility of these claims in detail. Reptile scales and bird feathers are very different structures: It's perfectly logical that evolutionists cannot supply any reasonable explanation of the origin of feathers, because reptile scales and bird feathers are entirely different structures. A. H. Brush, a professor of physiology and neurobiology from the University of Connecticut, sets out the structural difference between the two: At the morphological level, feathers are traditionally considered homologous with reptilian scales. However, in development, morphogenesis, gene structure, protein shape and sequence, and filament formation and structure, feathers are different. 57
A crane's feather, for example, has some 650 tiny barbs extending along both sides of the main stem. In each one of these, there are 600 contraposed micro-hairs, attached to one another with 390 tiny hooks. The hooks bind them together, rather like the teeth of a zipper. If these are broken apart for any reason, the bird can simply shake itself or preen itself with its beak for them to resume their previous continuous plane. The ornithologist Alan Feduccia describes this special structure: They are lightweight, strong, aerodynamically shaped, and have an intricate structure of barbs and hooks. This structure makes them waterproof, and a quick preen with the beak with the bill will cause flattened feathers to snap into fully aerodynamic shape again.58The belief that feathers' complex structure evolved from reptiles' scales by means of random mutations is nothing more than dogma. Ernst Mayr, one of the founders of neo-Darwinism, made the following admission many 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'' feather) could be improved by random mutations.59 Bird feathers and reptile scales develop very differently: Feathers do not differ from scales only in structural terms, but in their developmental paths also. Feather development is an exceedingly complex process. In contrast to scales, feathers grow out of tiny sacs called follicles, just like hairs do. Yet a hair has a much simpler structure than that of a feather. The growing feather is protected by a sheath and forms around a cone-shaped nucleus. The cells that will constitute the feather also develop through highly complex physiological processes. Once the cells have formed, they migrate away from one another so as to form the complex sequences in the hooks and barbs at the feather's edge.60Moreover, scales and feathers each grow out of different epidermal (skin) layers. Feathers, with their basically protein structure, are made of keratin, a strong, hard substance that forms when old cells in the subdermal layers die and are replaced by younger cells. However, feather proteins (b-keratins) are biochemically different from skin and scale proteins (a-keratins). From these differences, A. H. Brush concludes that: At the morphological level, feathers are traditionally considered homologous with reptilian scales. However, in development, morphogenesis, gene structure, protein shape and sequence, and filament formation and structure, feathers are different.61An interview by Dr. Carl Wieland with Dr. David Menton of the Washington University Medical Faculty covered the impossibility of reptile scales evolving into bird feathers: Dr. Carl Wieland: . . . Of course, evolutionists have long argued that feathers evolved from reptile scales and are thus fundamentally the same structure—very similar.
There is not a single trace of the intermediate forms that evolutionists claim should frequently be encountered:
Feathers are complex structures. Their abrupt appearance in the bird fossil record has been difficult to explain, mainly because no intermediate structures are preserved in the related theropod taxa.63Some forty-five years ago, the evolutionist W. E. Swinton referred to the lack of evidence in the chapter titled "The Origin of Birds" in his book Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds: The [evolutionary] 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.64BThe situation remains exactly the same today. This is made clear by the statement by an evolutionary biologist from Columbia University: ". . . we lack completely fossils of all intermediate stages between reptilian scales and the most primitive feather."65 The evolutionist paleontologist Barbara J. Stahl makes this confession: 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.66
No fossil structure transitional between scale and feather is known. . . and recent investigators are unwilling to found a theory on pure speculation.67Some evolutionists seek to gloss over the matter by saying that since birds have hollow bones, they left no fossils behind. That, however, is very definitely untrue. Under certain conditions—for example, around lakes, in watery inland regions and those close to the sea—very good bird and feather fossils are frequently discovered. Thousands of fossil birds have been discovered to date, and all possess perfectly formed feather structures. Just as there are no half-scale, half-feather in the fossil record, no structure resembling a feather less developed than present-day specimens has ever been found. In an American Zoology article, Larry Martin and S. A. Czerkas write, "The oldest known feathers . . . are already modern in form and microscopic detail."68 The anatomist David Mention also touches on the subject: There are no examples of living or fossil scales that even remotely resemble a feather. Archaeopteryx has complete feathers like modern birds.69Specimens of Archaeopteryx, the oldest known bird, have been perfectly preserved. An analysis of its 150-million-year-old feathers has revealed that every detail is identical to present-day specimens.70 Back in 1910, the zoologist W. P. Pycraft stated that the Archaeopteryx feather was no different from fully developed modern feathers.71 Other Archaeopteryx fossils discovered since that time have in no way altered that fact. There are many well-preserved feathers in amber dating back to the late Mesozoic Period (251 to 65 million years ago). In addition, analysis of the many modern discoveries of dinosaur skin has revealed that "The skin of a wide variety of dinosaurs . . . is unlikely to represent a predecessor to a feather-bearing integument." 72 In their Scientific American article, "Which Came First, the Feather or the Bird?" Richard O. Prum and Alan H. Bush wrote: Progress in solving the particularly puzzling origin of feathers has also been hampered by what now appear to be false leads, such as the assumption that the primitive feather evolved by elongation and division of the reptilian scale, and speculations that feathers evolved for a specific function, such as flight. A lack of primitive fossil feathers hindered progress as well. For may years, the earliest bird fossil has been Archæopteryx lithografica, which lived in the Late Jurassic period (about 148 million years ago). But Archaeopteryx offers no new insights on how feathers evolved, because its own feathers are nearly indistinguishable from those of today's birds.73Evolutionists' biased attitudes towards the question of the origin of bird feathers led to conflicting theories.74 It was claimed that reptile scale gradually lengthened, developed fringes, and assumed a form capable of bearing a bird in such a way as to facilitate flight.75 It's of course impossible for an unconscious scale to decide to lengthen itself and then change form so as to achieve the structure of the avian feather. It's even more impossible for all the scales on a reptile's body to make such a decision and give rise to a marvel of creation that astounds scientists. Indeed, evolutionists have no evidence to support their scenarios, which are simply based on imagination.
The fossil record refutes feathered dinosaur claims: To date, there has been speculation regarding "feathered dinosaurs," although detailed analysis has refuted all of it. In an article titled, "Why Dinosaurs Lacked Feathers," the eminent ornithologist Alan Feduccia writes: 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 . . . as being featherlike structures, there is simply no demonstrable evidence that they in fact are.76
Speculation regarding the remains in question stems from evolutionist prejudice. As Alan Feduccia says, "Many dinosaurs have been portrayed with a coating of aerodynamic contour feathers with absolutely no documentation."79 However, it has emerged that the specimens sometimes depicted as feathered dinosaurs were not really such, and that such inference resulted from biased interpretation. (For detail, see the sections "The False Fossil Archaeoraptor: An Example of Evolutionist Fanaticism and Imaginary Dinosaur-Bird Links"). Alan Feduccia summarizes the matter in these words:
Finally, no feathered dinosaur has ever been found, although many dinosaur mummies with well-preserved skin are known from diverse localities.80Even if feathered dinosaurs had existed, they would provide no evidence for dino-bird evolution, because the feathers claimed for such dinosaurs bear no resemblance to the unique structure of bird feathers. Moreover, in addition to their complex designs, bird feathers also have very different biochemical structures. No structures resembling bird feathers are to be found in other creatures. According to the Connecticut University professor of physiology and neurobiology Alan H. Brush, "the protein structure of bird feathers is unique among vertebrates."81 The Claim That Feathers First Developed for Insulation Is Groundless: Some evolutionists maintain that dinosaurs developed feathers for insulation and later arranged them for the purpose of flight. Other claims include that dinosaurs developed feathers to repel water, to collect excess sulphur waste, to be used as a thermal shield, or to achieve higher running speeds. Yet none of these hypotheses has any validity in explaining birds' aerodynamic structures. Richard O. Prum of Kansas University writes a comprehensive criticism of these theories: Current functional theories are insufficient to explain the origin and diversification of feathers and are a hindrance to evaluating.82In suggesting that feathers developed for reasons other than flight, they cannot explain how scales on the skin developed into a wholly different structure such as feathers. As you have seen, no fossils have ever been found to show scales developing into feathers, nor forearms into wings.83 Alan Feduccia, the best known critic of the theory that birds are descended from dinosaurs, says that he has seen no evidence that dinosaurs had feathers, and very much doubts that he'll ever see any in the future. Feather, he states, "are the most complex appendages ever produced by the vertebrate integument" and that it is impossible for them to form on a non-flying living thing.84 Another problem for evolutionists is that the feather structure necessary for thermal insulation is completely different from that used for flying. The best thermal insulators is down—feathers without hooks, since hooks stiffen the flight feathers. Therefore, there is no need for soft insulation-feathers to acquire a hooked structure. Such evolutionist claims actually contradict the mechanism of natural selection! Alan Feduccia makes the following admission, although he is evolutionist: . . . every feature of them [feathers] 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.85The feathers of flightless birds—chickens, for example—are very different from those of flying birds. The feathers of flightless birds are tasseled, rather than displaying the aerodynamic structure of those of flying birds. Their tassels are similar to the hairs covering the bodies of mammals—which are arranged so as to provide excellent insulation.86 Therefore, feathers with a tasseled structure, that do not make flight possible, pose an advantage in terms of insulation. This deals a severe blow to the evolutionist scenario assuming a progression from thermal insulation to flight. According to that scenario, feathers that evolved for thermal insulation at the outset must have a tasseled structure. Therefore, natural selection will favor only feathers providing improved insulation—in other words, more tasseled feathers. This discourages progress from a tasseled structure to an aerodynamic one. No fossil records show that the insulating feathers' structure began specializing in the direction of flight. Hair-like feathers in flightless birds actually require this development process to work in the exact opposite direction. In conclusion, not only is the hypothesis that bird feathers evolved from reptile scales self-contradictory, but there is no evidence in the fossil record to support it.
THE IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY IN WINGS One obvious distinguishing feature between birds and reptiles is that birds have wings. As you saw in the preceding chapter, the feathers comprising the wing constitute a field of research all of their own, and their complex creation amazes scientists. However, for a bird to be able to fly, it is not enough for it to have feathers. Those feathers need to be distributed in a specific sequence equally on both wings. If you set out a bird's feathers at random—and the feathers are denser on one side, for example—then an imbalance will arise, and the bird will be unable to fly. In addition, the facts that wings can be opened and closed, that both are symmetrical, that their structure permits flight techniques, all show that they have been specially created for flight. Although scientists use birds as models to imitate, they can never manage to produce wings as successful as birds'. Considering that humans, possessed of reason and technology, cannot imitate the wing that birds possess from the moment they are hatched, you can better see how these animals' ability to fly is a miracle of Allah.How did such complex structures as the eye, lung, wings and the cell develop in stages? This question is one of the greatest dilemmas facing evolutionists. These structures consist of interrelated components, none of which serve any purpose in the absence of any other. They cannot have formed gradually, as evolutionists claim, because the absence of any one component will make the organ functionless. Scientific literature refer to this as irreducible complexity. Since a half-developed wing will be of no benefit to an organism, then according to evolution's own claims, that useless organ will become vestigial and gradually disappear. This presents an insoluble problem for the theory of evolution. The atheist evolutionist Richard Dawkins effectively admits as much: Evolution is very possibly not, in actual fact, always gradual. But it must be gradual when it is being used to explain the coming into existence of complicated, apparently designed objects, like eyes. For if it is not gradual in these cases, it ceases to have any explanatory power at all. Without gradualness in these cases, we are back to miracle, which is simply a synonym for the total absence of explanation.87  Evolutionists offer inconsistent explanations to the effect that wings developed from reptiles' forelegs. In essence this scenario runs: "Some reptiles grew a few hairs on their forearms and used these to catch insects. However, most insects escaped before they could carry them to their mouths (!) The system did not work well in this unbalanced state. They could not fly, nor climb trees, nor escape into any hole in the ground. Under these conditions they needed to undergo a change in order to flee their enemies. Just at that point coincidences performed the necessary alterations in these creatures and turned them into living things capable of flight."This and similar scenarios, no more logical than fairy tales, cannot explain how these changes combined in a specific sequence and in such a way as to respond to the creature's need to catch insects. In his book Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Daniel C. Dennet condemns Darwin's claims that unconscious mechanisms could give rise to the perfect living things in nature: Here, then, is Darwin's dangerous idea: the algorithmic level is the level that best accounts for the speed of the antelope, the wing of the eagle, the shape of the orchid, the diversity of species, and all the other occasions for wonder in the world of nature. It is hard to believe that something as mindless and mechanical as an algorithm could produce such wonderful things. No matter how impressive the products of an algorithm, the underlying process always consists of nothing but a set of individually mindless steps succeeding each other without the help of any intelligent supervision; they are automatic by definition: the workings of an automaton. They feed on each other, or on blind chance—coin-flips, if you like—and on nothing else... Can it really be the outcome of nothing but a cascade of algorithmic processes feeding on chance? And if so, who designed that cascade? Nobody. It is itself the product of a blind, algorithmic process.88
As Darwin himself put it, in a letter to the geologist Charles Lyell shortly after publication of Origin, "I would give absolutely nothing for the theory of Natural Selection, if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent . . . if I were convinced that I required such additions to the theory of natural selection, I would reject it as rubbish."89In the above words, Darwin admitted that to account for the origin of living things, the need for "miraculous additions" would invalidate his theory. At that time, science was not sufficiently advanced to disprove Darwin's claims. However, scientific understanding attained in the 20th century showed that living things could not be explained in terms of coincidence. It was concluded that the flawless structures in living things—a bird's wing, for instance—had to have arisen without any transitional stages. This is just one example showing that Darwin's worries were justified. For a bird to be able to fly, its wings must be strongly attached to the bird's breast protrusion. The wings must also have a structure able to lift the bird into the air, maintain balance and change direction. It is also essential that the feathers be light, flexible and in proportion to one another functioning in a perfect aerodynamic order that permits flight. But here evolutionists find themselves in a grave predicament: They cannot explain how a reptile's forearms could have turned into flawless wings through defects (mutations) arising in its DNA. To assume that flight evolved means that at certain stages, the wing was insufficient—and thus, impractical. Yet flying with insufficient wings is out of the question. In order for an animal to fly, its wings and the anatomy supporting those wings must be perfectly and fully formed. Engin Korur, a Turkish evolutionist biologist, admits as much: The common feature of eyes and wings is that they can fulfill their functions only if they are fully developed. To put it another way, one cannot see with a deficient eye, nor fly with half a wing. How these organs formed is one of the still unsolved mysteries of nature.90As the above extract makes clear, even if we assume that some mutation did bring about a change in a reptile's forearms, it is still irrational to expect that new mutations might be added to this and that a wing could emerge by chance. Any mutation in the forearms will not endow the creature with functioning wings, but will deprive it of functioning forearms. This will leave the deformed creature disadvantaged in comparison with other members of its species. According to the theory of evolution, natural selection will then eliminate that handicapped individual. The Harvard University paleontologist James Gould wonders whether such deficient structures could be of any use: Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record—if only one step in a thousand survives as a fossil, geology will not record continuous change. Although I reject this argument . . . let us grant the traditional escape and ask a different question. 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 descendants in major structural transitions? Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing? The concept of preadaptation provides the conventional answer by permitting us to argue that incipient stages performed different functions . . . But a plausible story is not necessarily true... but does it [gradualism] permit us to invent a tale of continuity in most or all cases? I submit, although it may only reflect my lack of imagination, that the answer is no. . . 91
One of the most frequent evolutionist claims is that needs endow living things with useful organs. We are told that some animals gradually developed oral cavities out of a need to feed, that others developed feet by seeking prey on land, that some acquired wings because flight would be advantageous, and many other such tales. In short, Darwinists use the mechanisms of natural selection and mutation to account for every feature we see in animals.. However, all these unscientific claims are totally unable to explain the origin of complex structures in living things.
To suggest that any complex structure appeared as the work of chance would be irrational and illogical. Yet rather than accept the truth of creation, evolutionists prefer to lend credence to such an irrational possibility, and even to refer to it as not worth debating. However, countless questions are raised by these coincidental evolutionary scenarios. For example, how is it possible for chance, unaware of the existence of an ability such as flight, to identify a need for it and to design the wing in a flawless manner? How can the cells consider all the relevant details such as structure, size and shape, enter into a division of labor with other cells and build such a complex organ as the wing? It is of course impossible for chance to do any such thing. Even a single bird is sufficient evidence to disprove the claims of evolution. The fact that evolutionists insist on denying that truth shows that they defend their theory in the face of all the facts.
THE PERFECT FLIGHT TECHNOLOGY IN LIVING THINGS In many ways, it is impossible to account for birds' ideal structure for flight in terms of evolution. The structure of the wing as described in the last chapter is just one of these impossibilities. Flight is based on a very complex system, and to control it, the bird must have a nervous system capable of controlling its muscles flawlessly. In this nerve-muscle control, after the muscles contract with commands they receive from the nerve cells, they transmit back signals that report their position. When a bird rises, glides in the air or descends to earth, this feedback system goes into action to create the required aerodynamics.When we examine how animals adapt to their environments, we realize that the mechanisms' in many creatures' bodies go far beyond the technological achievements that we humans are so proud of. Flight is one of the most striking examples. If a small airplane were as efficient as a plover, it could fly for 56 kilometers (34.796 miles) on a single liter of petrol. At present, however, such economical flight is no more than a designers' and engineers' dream. Birds' perfect aerodynamic structure, which amazes scientists, can be seen in every detail of their bodies: * Feathers which, in proportion to their weight have a very strong but also flexible and light structure,None of these properties, of which more could be listed, is sufficient for flight on its own. Yet birds are able to fly when all features are present together. It is impossible for each one to have developed gradually, independently of all the others, and then to adapt to one another. All these features make bird flight possible, but none can do so independently, on its own.
. . . I believe that this example represents a belief shared by many, Darwinist or not: There is inevitability in the design of human beings and other species. There is a delicacy and beauty in bird flight [that] other less efficient flight designs lack, and this enables birds not just to conquer the skies, but also to rule them. In addition, this perfect form can clearly be seen in artificial, human designs such as automobiles and jet planes: many experimental designs over tens of years have reached an optimum design by being passed through the filter of experience . . . the flight of the eagle and the fast running of the cheetah … these animals have not reached a random point in the genetic sphere; they enjoy an unrivalled position enabling them to make the best use of their surroundings.92For years, birds' matchless modes of flight and wing structure have been a source of inspiration for aeronautical engineers. Yet obviously birds could not produce all these components on their own. It's equally irrational to imagine that a so-called evolutionary process, working at random, could have produced all these perfections. Their structures were evidently created so that birds could fly. This creation is that of our Almighty Lord, and "There is no creature He does not hold by the forelock" (Surah Hud, 56). In another verse of the Qur'an, our Lord Allah reveals: Have they not looked at the birds above them, with wings outspread and folded back? Nothing holds them up but the All-Merciful. He sees all things. (Surat al-Mulk, 19)
Birds Carry out Their Aerodynamic Flight through the Inspiration of Allah The science of aerodynamics studies the movement of solid bodies through fluid ones such as air. For example, when a plane moves through the atmosphere, it produces various forces that affect its movement. In the face of these aerodynamic forces, engineers produce designs that will enable planes to move through the air more easily.In order for any object, planes included, to move through the air without encountering any unexpected force or resistance, it is first tested against air resistance in a so-called wind tunnel. This is done either by passing a current of air over a fixed, stationary model of the plane in a laboratory environment. The movement of the body and the surrounding air is then adjusted according to resulting calculations, measurements and further experiments.
Aerodynamics comprises a wide range of disciplines, from aviation and space research to the automobile industry and civil engineering. For example, in order for a new car to be economical and expend less fuel, a model of it is first tested in a wind tunnel, and engineers try to find the aerodynamic shape with the least resistance. Birds' unique and flawless properties, which exhibit the principles of aerodynamics, amaze scientists. They fly perfectly, with no trial and error and with no need for any subsequent adjustments. As birds glide, they remain aloft in the same way as planes. In addition, while birds flap their wings to descend or climb, planes must use powerful engines and control systems to achieve the same results. A plane's wing is tilted in the same way as a bird's. Unlike human engineers, however, birds carry out no tests, and are born possessing an aerodynamic structure and powerful wing muscles to provide them with the needed energy during flight. Modern analysis of bird flight is made possible by extraordinary technological advances and the discoveries in the fields of flight mechanics and aerodynamics.93 Birds possess none of this knowledge, however; they can neither analyze nor calculate, nor perform test flights. Yet they still maneuver to perfection, glide, accelerate, descend and stop suddenly because Allah has created them with a perfect flight system—the most superior technology—from His own knowledge. Do they not see the birds suspended in midair up in the sky? Nothing holds them there except Allah. There are certainly signs in that for people who believe. (Surat an-Nahl, 79) The Aerodynamic Technology in Birds Continues to Inspire Engineers The perfect flight systems in birds are an inspiration for engineers. Seeking to produce the most efficient designs with the most appropriate materials and at the lowest cost, engineers have long been imitating this superior creation in nature. For example, - Plane wings are hollow, like bird bones. Inside of bird bones, there are fine struts between the opposite surfaces to reinforce them. The same kind of struts are used in aviation engineering, serving as a skeleton that holds the wing together despite strong and variable air currents. Known as Warren's trusses, these have been copied from bird bones.94
- In the same way as birds' heads, airplanes have a nose intended to overcome air resistance. Modern-day planes' ability to make sudden maneuvers is much lower than birds'. In order to manufacture planes with higher maneuverability, we need a better understanding of the birds' aerodynamic systems. William Zamer of the American National Science Committee says this about one study performed on birds. The results may also one day help humans design better vehicles for both land and air travel.95The following statement appeared in a scientific article about birds in Reader's Digest magazine: Compared to birds, a marvel of aerodynamics, even the most advanced aircraft are nothing more than crude copies.96
OTHER DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BIRDS AND DINOSAURS The differences between dinosaurs and birds are not limited to those discussed earlier. There are many other differences such as the structures of their teeth and talons, their metabolisms, their skulls, and their eggs. Birds and reptiles possess entirely different anatomies, specially created in accord with the vertebrate's own lifestyle. If a reptile is claimed to have turned into a bird, then this must have taken place instantaneously, in a manner reminiscent of fairy-tale transformations. Stage-by-stage transformation cannot perfect a living thing, as evolutionists would have you believe. On the contrary, it will merely make the offspring less efficient. However, it is impossible to any perfect living thing to emerge in a subsequent generation by some chance re-arrangement of its genetic structure. Alan Feduccia emphasizes that there are a great many problems with the claims that dinosaurs evolved into birds: It's biophysically impossible to evolve flight from such large bipeds with foreshortened forelimbs and heavy, balancing tails. Exactly the wrong anatomy for flight.97 Toe Structure Alan Feduccia and Dr Julie Nowicki, both from University of North Carolina, recently studied the development of ostrich eggs. Examining the forelimbs of the ostrich embryos they examined, Feduccia and his team revealed that birds and theropod dinosaurs have different toe sequences, for which reason birds' wings could not have evolved from the forefeet of dinosaurs. Feduccia's statements and the problems this poses for evolutionists are described on the American Development of Science Society's website:
Feduccia and Nowicki investigated the developmental stages of ostrich eggs and published the results of their research in the August 2002 edition of the eminent German biology journal Naturwissenschaften. Feduccia stated that their research proved that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs, summarizing their conclusions in these words: Whatever the ancestor of birds was, it must have had five fingers, not the three-fingered hand of theropod dinosaurs.99As a result of their research, Alan Feduccia and A. C. Burke concluded in Science magazine that it was not possible to maintain that birds originated from dinosaurs: It is unlikely that a shift between the typical amniote mode of development that generates digit IV through the primary axis, to a limb that develops digit III through a convergent primary axis, would maintain the pattern of cartilage condensation that is identical in avian, crocodilian, chelonian, and mamalian limbs…100These conclusions later appeared in the well-known journal New Scientist, under the heading "Dinosaur theory put to flight: birds may not be descended from the ancient reptiles after all": Traditional thinking about the ancestry of birds has been challenged by biologists in the US. They say that a comparison of dinosaur claws with bird wings and feet contradicts the widespread theory that birds evolved from small, flesh-eating dinosaurs 150 million years ago. Birds, reptiles and mammals all have four limbs, each with up to five digits. . . But dinosaur fossils tell a different story. In theropods, the fourth and fifth digits are greatly diminished or have disappeared altogether. Feduccia maintains that animals which had lost these digits could not then evolve into birds that lack one and five.101
That has been the prevailing faith for the past twenty years. They are doing a first-class job of shaking things up and making us re-examine the evidence.102As you see, in order for a dinosaur to turn into a bird, every point in its body, right down to its toes, would have to change and assume a specific structure to permit the bird to fly. Any transition from a dinosaur to a flying bird is one that not even reasoning, conscious human beings can perform, let alone unconscious mechanisms such as natural selection and mutations. Even if there were no evidence to disprove evolution, the use of reason and logic alone has countless times shown the theory to be invalid. Anyone whose intellect is not shrouded with prejudice will realize that a bird's features could not have emerged of their own accord, but are the work of a Creator possessed of a superior mind and knowledge. The wisdom that brought them into being belongs to Allah, Lord of all in heaven and Earth. Teeth Birds have beaks rather than teeth, one of the distinguishing features between them and reptiles. However, some birds that lived in the past did have toothed beaks. This was long presented as evidence of evolution, but it was gradually realized that bird teeth have a most unique structure. Feduccia has this to say: Perhaps the most impressive difference between theropods and birds concerns the structure of teeth and the nature of their implantation. . . It is astounding that more attention has not been given to the dramatic differences between bird and theropod teeth, especially when one considers that the basis of mammal paleontology involves largely tooth morphology... To be brief, bird teeth (as seen in Archaeopteryx, Hesperornis, Parahesperornis, Ichthyornis, Cathayornis, and all toothed Mesozoic birds) are remarkably similar and are unlike those of theropods . . . There is essentially no shared, derived relationship of any aspect of tooth morphology between birds and theropods, including tooth form, implantation, or replacement.103David Williamson of North Carolina at Chapell Hill makes the following statements in an article titled "Scientist says ostrich study confirms bird hands unlike those of dinosaurs" published on 14 August, 2002: 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.104
Metabolic Differences Another difference between reptiles and birds is their metabolisms. Reptiles possess the slowest metabolisms among quadrupeds, while birds hold the record for the fastest. To put it another way, reptiles expend the least energy, and birds the most. For example, because of its fast metabolism, a sparrow's body temperature can sometimes rise to as much as 48° C. This high temperature could only spell death for a terrestrial vertebrate, but is of vital importance to birds in increasing their production of energy, and thus strength.Birds consume a great deal of energy in flying and for that reason, they possess the highest proportion of muscle tissue relative to their bodies. Their metabolisms have been arranged in direct proportion to the power expended by their muscles. On the other hand, reptiles are known as "cold-blooded" and cannot create their own body heat, instead warming themselves through the Sun's rays. For the most part, their body temperatures are equal to their surroundings. Birds and mammals, of course, are warm blooded. Their bodies are able to produce heat to protect them from the cold, and also to cool them down when it is very hot. Their metabolisms are exceedingly different, and it is impossible for a reptile's cold-blooded metabolism to turn into a warm-blooded one. Some evolutionists therefore began to maintain that dinosaurs were warm-blooded. Yet there is a great deal of evidence against this thesis, which is based upon no evidence at all.105 First off, there is no reason to think that dinosaurs were warm blooded, in contrast to all other reptiles. Asked whether there was any evidence in the fossil record (or anywhere else) to indicate that dinosaurs were warm blooded, Thomas E. Williamson of the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science replies: As yet, there is probably no evidence that would definitively prove whether or not some dinosaurs were warm-blooded. Scientists have explored numerous lines of evidence to try to answer this question. There is a clear difference in bone structure between modern cold-blooded and warm-blooded animals.106Despite his evolutionist views, Peter Dodson, an eminent present-day paleontologist, has demolished the warm blooded dinosaur thesis and the idea that birds originated from dinosaurs: . . . I am tepid on endothermic dinosaurs; I am skeptical about the theropod ancestry of birds.107There is no evidence that dinosaurs were warm blooded; on the contrary, they possess external mechanism used by cold-blooded animals to regulate their body temperatures.108 However, due to Darwinists' dogmatic belief in evolution, they persist as if there were some evidence for their claims and continue to ignore all the evidence to the contrary.
Differences in Bodily Systems Since birds expend a great deal of energy, they need to thoroughly digest the food they eat. Indeed, their digestive systems have a special structure that lets them use what they eat most efficiently. For example, a growing stork gains 1 kilogram (2.204 pounds) of weight with every kilos (6.613 pounds) of food. The equivalent rate in mammals eating the same foods is 1 kilo (2.204 pounds) of weight for 10 kilos (22.04 pounds).Birds' circulatory systems have also been created in line with their high-energy requirements. The human heart beats an average of 78 times a minute, in contrast to 460 times for a sparrow, and 615 for a hummingbird. Since active flight requires a high level of energy, their blood circulation takes place much more quickly than in terrestrial animals. The oxygen needed for the high metabolic rate and energy expenditure is absorbed into the body by means of special lungs. Birds also differ significantly from reptiles in having four-chamber hearts, compared to the three chambers in reptiles'. The Differences in Skulls and Jawbones
Compared to reptiles and other four-footed creatures, most of the bones in birds' skulls and rear legs are very different.110 On the other hand, the ophthalmic nerves in all theropods extend around the skull together with certain other nerves. In birds, however, those same nerves pass through special holes in the front of the skull. Therefore, every stage of evolutionists' search for similarities has ended in disappointment. Furthermore, a bird's facial structure bears absolutely no resemblance to any reptile's. Fish, reptiles, amphibians and all mammals open their mouths by lowering their jawbones. Their upper jaws are immobile, since they are a fixed part of their skulls. Instead of jaws, however, birds have beaks and, in contrast to other animals, they are able to raise the upper part of their beaks as well as lowering the bottom section. Eggs – Ignoring all the other insuperable differences, evolutionists have portrayed birds' and reptiles' eggs as evidence of a similarity between the two. Yet here, too, they present erroneous inferences based on biased interpretations. Insects, amphibians, many fish and a few mammals lay eggs in the same way. Yet the eggs of these different species are all different.Bird eggs have a brittle shell, whereas the shell of reptile eggs is leathery. All birds lay eggs, but not all reptiles do. Some reptiles give birth to their young (lizards and rattlesnakes) like mammals. It is therefore impossible to arrive at a sound conclusion through the false inference that dinosaurs and birds lay eggs, and are therefore descended from one another. In addition, because their backbone stretching back from their skulls consists of vertebrae, birds are called vertebrates. Counting their legs and wings, birds have four joints, for which reason they are known as four-footed (or tetrapods). After a bird's egg has been laid, the chick inside is nourished by a membrane system containing an amnion. For that reason, birds are also called amniotes (as are any other vertebrates with an amnion and corona during embryological development, such as reptiles and mammals).111 Birds are completely different from dinosaurs in terms of these characteristics. Equilibrium System  Like all other living things, Allah has created birds in a flawless manner, which reveals itself in every detail. Their bodies have been specially created to prevent any possible imbalance during flight. To prevent the bird from tipping over forward when flying, its skull is very light. The average weight of any bird skull represents only 1% of its body weight.The feathers in the wing and tail regions in particular endow the bird with a most effective system of balance. The symmetry in the distribution of the feathers helps establish this equilibrium. All these characteristics enable a peregrine falcon (falcon pereginus), for example, not to overbalance when swooping down onto its prey at a speed of 300 kilometers an hour (186.411 miles per hour). CONCLUSION None of these characteristics distinguishing birds from terrestrial vertebrates can have emerged through random mutations. Even if we hypothesize that one of these features did come into being through chance mutations—which is itself impossible—that feature will offer no advantage on its own. In the absence of an air-type lung, development of the metabolism that provides the high levels of energy necessary for flight will serve no purpose. On the contrary, the creature will suffocate, being unable to obtain sufficient oxygen. In the event that an air-type lung develops first, the creature will then absorb too much oxygen and will again suffer as a result. Another impossibility stems from skeletal structure: even if the bird is in some way in possession of an air type lung plus the appropriate metabolism—an impossibility—it will still offer no advantage. No matter how strong a creature may be, it will be unable to take off without a skeletal structure relatively lighter than any terrestrial animal's. As made clear earlier, formation of wings requires a totally different and flawless creation. In his book Janus: A Summing Up, a criticism of the Darwinist theory of evolution, the famous author Arthur Koestler makes the following commentt:Equally chilling is the idea that some ancestral reptiles became transformed into birds by the small, step-by-step changes caused by random mutations affecting different organs. In fact, one gets goose-pimples at the mere thought of the number of Monod's roulette wheels which must be kept spinning to produce the simultaneous transformation of scales into feathers, solid bones into hollow tubes, the outgrowth of air sacs into various parts of the body, the development of the shoulder muscles and bones to athletic proportions, and so forth. And this rewasting of bodily structure is accompanied by basic changes in the internal systems, including excretion. Birds . . . instead of diluting their nitrogenous waste in water, which is a heavy ballast, they excrete it from the kidneys in a semi-solid state through the cloaca. Then there is also the little matter of the transition, by ‘blind chance,' from the cold-blooded to the warm-blooded condition. There is no end to the specifications which have to be met to make our reptile airborne or to construct a camera eye out of living software.112All this leads us to the single conclusion that birds cannot have evolved from dinosaurs, because no mechanism could eliminate the enormous differences between the two groups. Even evolutionist scientists admit the truth of this evidence, which shows once again that the dino-bird hypothesis is simply a Darwinist myth.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pelvic Belt:
Breast (thorax):
Head and Neck:
Wing and Hand:
Legs and Feet:
Pectoral Belt: 
When a bird inhales, air travels towards the rear air sacs(1). These then propel the air inside the lung (2), and air then flows from inside the lung to the front sacs (3). When the bird exhales, the front sacs expel the air. The avian lung does not expand and contract in the same way that reptile or mammalian lungs do. (In the diagram, blue represents low levels of oxygen and red, high oxygen content.) The blood that collects oxygen from the lung travels in the opposite direction from the flow of air. Thus the blood is carrying the lowest level of oxygen when exposed to the fresh air. 
Scientists studying the internal organs of Sinosauropteryx, a 120-million-year-old small carnivorous dinosaur, revealed that theropods resembled crocodiles more closely than birds.
In addition to flight, feathers have various other functions such as in courtship display, insulation of body heat, and signaling.1 Feathers also provide significant protection against extreme weather conditions such as cold wind and rain. Fitted one on top another like tiles, and covered in a layer of oil, feathers protect the bird against water and heat loss, in the same way that roof tiles protect a house.
A bird's wing possesses the ideal structure, shape, and properties for flight. For example, birds use their feathers to keep themselves aloft and balanced. John H. Storer has stated in Scientific American magazine that every bird has a dual remote control, which can best be observed in slow-motion photography. 
Under present-day circumstances, however, such wing changes are impossible because wings are made from very hard materials. For that reason, NASA is working on an "intelligent wing" project, run with the participation of DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Project Agency) and the AFRL (Air Force Research Laboratory). The objective is plane wings that are connected to a central electronic system, as living things are by their nervous system. 
Hummingbirds possess the fastest metabolic rate of any vertebrate. Their hearts, which beat 700 to 850 times a minute when the birds are at rest, begin beating 1,200 times a minute when they hover in the air. In relation to their size, they expend more energy than a jet plane. If you consumed energy at that same level, your body temperature would rise to 400 degrees Celsius—and in order to meet that energy requirement, you would have to eat 45 kilograms of sugar every day. 
The news site that reported this project also commented about the perfection in nature: 
One of the many problems that birds overcome during flight is energy consumption: According to the laws of physics, a specific level of energy is required for any physical, technological or biological process to take place. Migratory birds must store sufficient fat in their bodies to be able to undertake their long journeys. But since birds must also be as light as possible, they need to be free of all unnecessary weight. Thus there is an exquisite equilibrium in their fuel consumption, and in their flight speeds. If a bird flies more slowly, it will consume more energy to propel itself. If it moves too quickly, it will again expend more energy in order to overcome air resistance. Therefore, the bird can fly economically only when it attains the most appropriate speed for the least fuel consumption. Depending on the aerodynamic structure of its own body and wings, every species has its own optimal flight speed. For example, this is 45 kilometers (27.961 miles) per hour in an Aztec dove, and 41.6 km/h (25.849 mph) for a parakeet. Birds constantly maintain these optimal flight speeds to permit energy savings,1 but how they do so is still a mystery to ornithologists.
Kaydol:
Kayıtlar (Atom)
