 This scenario is presented persistently as it were a proven fact. All objections, criticisms and counter-evidence are totally ignored, clearly indicating that this is deliberate propaganda intended to impose dino-bird myths on society. The biased fossil interpretations we shall examine in the following pages reveal their hollow, deceptive nature.The claim that birds evolved from dinosaurs is actually opposed by a great many paleontologists or anatomists who otherwise support the theory of evolution. As you have seen, two renowned ornithologists, Alan Feduccia and Larry Martin, think this scenario is completely erroneous. This is set out in the textbook Developmental Biology, taught in U.S. universities: Not all biologists believe that birds are dinosaurs. . . This group of scientists emphasize the differences between dinosaurs and birds, claiming that the differences are too great for the birds to have evolved from earlier dinosaurs. Alan Feduccia, and Larry Martin, for instance, contend that birds could not have evolved from any known group of dinosaurs. They argue against some of the most important cladistic data and support their claim from developmental biology and biomechanics.171Many evolutionist publications refer to the thesis that birds evolved from dinosaurs as if it were based on solid evidence and accepted by the entire scientific community. They try to give the impression that the only subject up for debate is which species of dinosaur birds evolved from. Although Martin earlier supported the dino-bird claim, he eventually realized in the light of his research that it was invalid, and abandoned his former ideas: Every time I look at the evidence formerly discovered and then make a claim about the origins of the theropod, I saw its inaccuracy. That is because everything shows its inadequacy. The truth of the matter is that…I seriously suspect that they have the same features with birds and don't think that there exist striking features supporting that birds are of theropod origin.172Feduccia admits that concerning the origin of birds, the theory of evolution finds itself in a state of uncertainty. He attaches no credence to the deliberately maintained dino-bird controversy, which is in fact groundless. Important information is contained in his article, "Birds Are Dinosaurs: Simple Answer to a Complex Problem," published in October 2002 in The Auk, the journal of the American Ornithologists' Union, in which the most technical aspects of ornithology are discussed. Feduccia describes in detail how the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs, raised by John Ostrom in the 1970s and fiercely defended ever since, lacks any scientific evidence, and how such an evolution is impossible. Feduccia is not alone among evolutionists in this regard. Peter Dodson, the evolutionist professor of anatomy from Pennsylvania University, also doubts that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs: I am on record as opposing cladistics and catastrophic extinction of dinosaurs; I am tepid on endothermic dinosaurs; I am skeptical about the theropod ancestry of birds.173Despite being an evolutionist, Dodson admits the unrealistic claims of the theory of evolution, and has come in for severe criticism from his evolutionist colleagues. In one article, he responds to these criticisms: Personally, I continue to find it problematic that the most birdlike maniraptoran theropods are found 25 to 75 million years after the origin of birds ... Ghost lineages are frankly a contrived solution, a deus ex machina required by the cladistic method. Of course, it is admitted that late Cretaceous maniraptorans are not the actual ancestors of birds, only "sister taxa." Are we being asked to believe that a group of highly derived, rapidly evolving maniraptorans in the Jurassic gave rise to birds, as manifested by Archaeopteryx, and then this highly progressive lineage then went into a state of evolutionary stasis and persisted unchanged in essential characters for millions of years? Or are actual ancestors far more basal in morphology and harder to classify? If the latter, then why insist that the problem is now solved?174Alan Feduccia sets out an important fact concerning the dino-birds said to have been found in China: the "feathers" on the fossils said to be those of feathered dinosaurs are definitely not bird feathers. A considerable body of evidence shows that these fossil traces have nothing at all to do with bird feathers. He says this in an article published in The Auk magazine: Having studied most of the specimens said to sport protofeathers, I, and many others, do not find any credible evidence that those structures represent protofeathers. Many Chinese fossils have that strange halo of what has become known as dino-fuzz, but although that material has been "homologized" with avian feathers, the arguments are far less than convincing.175
Prum's view is shared by many paleontologists: birds are dinosaurs; therefore, any filamentous material preserved in Dromaeosaurs must represent protofeathers.176According to Feduccia, one factor that invalidates this preconception is the presence of these same traces in fossils that have no relationship with birds: Most important, "dino-fuzz" is now being discovered in a number of taxa, some unpublished, but particularly in a Chinese pterosaur and a therizinosaur, which has teeth like those of prosauropods. Most surprisingly, skin fibers very closely resembling dino-fuzz have been discovered in a Jurassic ichthyosaur and described in detail. Some of those branched fibers are exceptionally close in morphology to the so-called branched protofeathers ("Prum Protofeathers") described by Xu. That these so-called protofeathers have a widespread distribution in archosaurs is evidence alone that they have nothing to do with feathers.177  Feduccia recalls that various structures found around these fossils and thought to belong to them, were later determined to consist of inorganic matter: One is reminded of the famous fernlike markings on the Solnhofen fossils known as dendrites. Despite their plantlike outlines, these features are now known to be inorganic structures caused by a solution of manganese from within the beds that reprecipitated as oxides along cracks or along bones of fossils.178The fossil beds preserve not only an indefinite structure such as dino-fuzz but also bird feathers. But all the fossils presented as feathered dinosaurs have been found in China. Why should these fossils have not emerged from anywhere else in the world—Feduccia draws attention to this intriguing state of affairs: AOne must explain also why all theropods and other dinosaurs discovered in other deposits where integument is preserved exhibit no dino-fuzz, but true reptilian skin, devoid of any featherlike material (Feduccia 1999), and why typically Chinese Dromaeosaurs preserving dino-fuzz do not normally preserve feathers, when a hardened rachis, if present, would be more easily preserved.179  Feduccia states that some of these creatures portrayed as feathered dinosaurs are simply extinct reptiles with dino-fuzz and that others are genuine birds: Peter Dodson, on the other hand, says, "I hasten to add that none of the known small theropods, including Deinonychus, Dromaeosaurus, Velociraptor, Unenlagia, nor Sinosauropteryx, Protarcheaeopteryx, nor Caudipteryx is itself relevant to the origin of birds."181 He means that these creatures cannot be the ancestors of birds because the earliest known bird, Archaeopteryx, lived long before the Cretaceous Period. In short, the fossils portrayed as feathered dinosaurs or dino-birds either belong to certain flightless birds like today's ostriches, or else to reptiles possessed of a structure known as dino-fuzz which has nothing to do with actual feathers. There exists not a single fossil that might represent an intermediate form between birds and reptiles. Therefore, the claim that fossils prove that birds descended from dinosaurs is completely unrealistic. 1. THE ALLEGED INTERMEDIATE FORM: Mononychus
The fact that this fossil had a bird-like breastbone and wrist bones led evolutionists to interpret Mononychus as an intermediate form. Biased interpretations and support from the media gave the impression that some proof existed to back this up. However, the anatomical features depicted as evidence are also found in other animals, such as moles. These inferences represent no evidence at all and they have only led to misinterpretations. Writing to Science News, Richard Monastersky reports, based on observations, why this fossil cannot be classified; Mongolian and U.S. researchers have found a 75-million-year-old bird-like creature with a hand so strange it has left paleontologists grasping for an explanation. . . Paul Sereno of the University of Chicago notes that Mononychus had arms built much like those of digging animals. Because moles and other diggers have keeled sternums and wrists reminiscent of birds, the classification of Mononychus becomes difficult.182In addition, this fossil is at least 80 million years younger than Archaeopteryx—which totally undermines any proposed 2. Bambiraptor feinbergi, DEPICTED WITH IMAGINARY FEATHERS
The most evident objection to this so-called missing link is again, an error in dating. This alleged intermediate form fossil is 75 million years younger than Archaeopteryx, itself a species of flying bird. This fossil is therefore a specimen that demolished the ancestral relationship claimed by evolutionists. In the same way that this fossil provides no evidence for evolution, it also demolished the ancestral relationship claimed by evolutionists. According to Ohio University professor of zoology John Ruben: A point that too many people always ignored, however, is that the most birdlike of the dinosaurs, such as Bambiraptor and Velociraptor, lived 70 million years after the earliest bird, Archaeopteryx. So you have birds flying before the evolution of the first birdlike dinosaurs. We now question very strongly whether there were any feathered dinosaurs at all. What have been called feathered dinosaurs were probably flightless birds.184Evolutionists use a few bird-like characteristics as grounds for their preconceived interpretations. Yet the effort of building a line of descent based on similarities is full of contradictions that evolutionists cannot explain. Whenever evolutionists construct an alleged evolutionary relationship between clearly different living things based on similar structures, they immediately close the subject by describing it as "parallel evolution." They claim that living things with similar complex organs but with no ancestors in common, evolved independently. However, since they cannot account for the origin of these complex organs in even one living thing, their statements that these organs supposedly evolved several times presents a serious predicament. Alan Feduccia states that certain similarities between birds and dinosaurs do not show any evolutionary relationship between the two groups: Bambiraptor is a small dinosaur, but it does have a number of birdlike features, as do many other forms. However there is nothing special about hollow bones, as some mammals and frogs have them. The problem, of course, is that Bambiraptor is some 80 million years beyond Archaeopteryx, and yet is claimed to be the dinosaur most close to bird ancestry. That alone should be a red flag, and a warning that the situation is far more complicated than suspected.185 3. Confuciusornis sanctus: Identical to Modern Birds
In short, evolutionists regarded this fossil as a semi-reptile, the earliest ancestor of all birds, of a similar age (about 142 million years) as Archaeopteryx and, bearing a close resemblance to present-day birds. This clearly conflicts with the evolutionist theses that Archaeopteryx is the earliest ancestor of all birds.186This is also definitive proof that Archaeopteryx and other archaic birds are not intermediate forms. These and similar fossils show no evidence that different bird species evolved from earlier ones. On the contrary, it proves that present-day birds and certain unique bird species similar to Archaeopteryx lived at the same time. Some of these species, such as Confuciusornis and Archaeopteryx, are extinct, but a few have survived to the present day. 4. PROTArchaeopteryx ROBUSTA AND CAUDIPTERYX ZOUI: VEHICLES FOR BIASED INTERPRETATIONS In the summer of 1996, farmers working in the Yixian Formation found three separate turkey-sized fossils, so well preserved as to give genuine evidence of bird feathers. At first, Ji Qiang and his colleague Ji Shu-An concluded that these fossils must belong to a single species. Noting their surprising similarity to Archaeopteryx, they gave the creature the name ProtArchaeopteryx robusta. During his research in the autumn of 1997, Philip Currie concluded that these fossils belonged to two different species, neither of which resembled Archaeopteryx. The second species was given the name Caudipteryx zoui.187The discoveries of the Protarchæopteryx robusta and Caudipteryx zoui fossils were depicted as evidence that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs.188 The popular press stated that these fossils were definitely the so-called ancestors of birds. One commentator even wrote that the dinosaur-bird link was "now pretty close to rock solid."189 However, this certainty was again, only a biased interpretation.
In severely criticizing the dino-bird dogma, Larry Martin and Alan Feduccia stated that these fossils were flightless bird species like the modern ostrich.191 But adherents of the dino-bird theory are reluctant to accept this because they want to classify the creatures as dinosaurs, even though this fossil provides no support for evolutionist claims. Indeed, this fossil represents a new contradiction to evolutionists' alleged ancestral relationships. According to the evolutionist scenario, these dinosaurs and modern birds both have a special bone that lets them bend their wrists. Again according to evolutionist claims, this feature enabled them to move their forefeet in a wide manner, to catch fleeing prey with their long arms and gripping talons. This allegedly powerful beating movement represented an important part of the wingbeats the today's birds use to fly. However, such interpretations are scientifically invalid, because flight consists of far more complex actions than just wing beating: Any forward beating movement gives rises to a counter impulse that propels the bird backward. For the purpose of flight, the main flight feathers are arranged at such an angle as to push the air back and propel the birds forwards. As in planes, the wings have a special aerofoil shape, which causes air to flow faster over the upper surface than the lower. This, according to the Bernoulli principle, reduces air pressure on the upper surface and creates lift. This is the main factor in take-off, but there is also the question of Newton's Third Law—the reaction to the air being propelled downward.).192
In addition to its feathers, Caudipteryx has a series of other features showing it to be a bird—such as that it was carnivorous. Caudopteryx was portrayed as a theropod since it was first unearthed, it was thought to be a carnivore.193 But there were no teeth in its lower skull and lower jaw, and the first two fossil specimens contained the remains of crops that birds use for digesting plant materials.194 Organs such as the crop are found only in birds and not in any species of the theropod family. 195 Protarchæopteryx and Caudipteryx are therefore extinct birds. The only reason they are referred to as dinosaurs is because that's what evolutionists want them to be. 5. Sinosauropteryx: ANOTHER FOSSIL SUBJECTED TO SPECULATIVE CLAIMS  With every new fossil discovery, evolutionists speculate about the dinosaur-bird link. Every time, however, their claims are refuted as a result of detailed analyses.One example of such dino-bird claims was Sinosauropteryx, announced with enormous media propaganda in 1996. Some evolutionist paleontologists maintained that this fossil reptile possessed bird feathers. The following year, however, examinations revealed that these structures so excitedly described as feathers were actually nothing of the sort. One article published in Science magazine, "Plucking the Feathered Dinosaur," stated that the structures had been misperceived as feathers by evolutionist paleontologists: Exactly 1 year ago, paleontologists were abuzz about photos of a so-called "feathered dinosaur" . . . The Sinosauropteryx specimen from the Yixian Formation in China made the front page of The New York Times, and was viewed by some as confirming the dinosaurian origins of birds. But at this year's vertebrate paleontology meeting in Chicago late last month, the verdict was a bit different: The structures are not modern feathers, say the roughly half-dozen Western paleontologists who have seen the specimens... Larry Martin of Kansas University, Lawrence, thinks the structures are frayed collagenous fibers beneath the skin—and so have nothing to do with birds. 196About the speculative claims regarding feathers and Sinosauropteryx, Alan Brush of Connecticut University had this to say: The stiff, bristlelike fibers that outline the fossils lack the detailed organization seen in modern feathers.197Another important point is that Sinosauropteryx had bellows-like lungs, like those in reptiles. According to many researchers, these show that the animal could not have evolved into modern-day birds with their high-performance lungs. Today's evolutionists have entirely abandoned their claim that the creature was feathered. But a dogmatic approach towards evolution and accepted preconceptions make such errors inevitable. 6. Eoalulavis hoyasi SHARES WITH WING STRUCTURE OF MODERN-DAY BIRDS Another fossil to demolish evolutionist claims was Eoalulavis hoyasi. This, estimated at some 120 million years old, is older than all the known theropod specimens. Nonetheless, wing structure in Eoalulavis hoyasi is identical to some modern-day flying birds. This proves that vertebrates identical in many respects to modern birds were flying 120 million years ago.198 Any suggestion that theropods, which appeared after this creature, were the ancestors of birds is clearly irrational.
The alula functions like the wing flap on an airplane. When the bird wants to reduce its speed or landing, it increases of its wing to the horizon. The drag produced by this wing position helps the bird to slow down. But when the angle between the direction of the air flow and the wing surface gets too steep, turbulence over the wing increases until the bird loses the lift necessary to maintain flight. Like an airplane under similar circumstances, the bird is in danger of stalling in midair. The alula now enters the equation. By raising this small appendage, the bird creates a slot between it and the main part of the wing, similar to what happens when a pilot deploys a craft's wing flaps. The slot allows air to stream over the main wing's upper surface, easing turbulence and allowing the bird (or plane) to brake without stalling.200 Birds 120 million years ago were using the same technology as that employed present. This realization added yet another insuperable difficulty facing the theory of evolution. 7. UNENLAGIA COMAHUENSIS: A DINO-BIRD BASED ON ARTISTS' IMAGINATIONS
However, Unenlagia comahuensis is manifestly a dinosaur, in many respects. In particular, certain features of its skull and the bone formations behind its eyes closely resemble those of theropods. There is also no evidence at all that it bore feathers. Evolutionist scientists, however, claimed that by raising its forearms, it could make similar movements to those used by birds for flying. But clearly, these prejudiced guesses and assumptions cannot be regarded as definitive proof. On account of its different features, Lawrence M. Witmer of Ohio University describes this creature as a genuine "mosaic".202 Alan Feduccia also states that Unenlagia comahuensis cannot be a missing link between dinosaurs and birds, emphasizing that it lived 55 million years after Archaeopteryx.203 As Feduccia stressed in a 1996 article written together with several other authors in Science magazine, almost every dinosaur said to resemble the bird dates back to long after the emergence of the first true birds.204 This creates the problem that scientists refer to as the time paradox. 8. DROMAEOSUAR: THE DINOSAUR THAT EVOLUTIONISTS WERE DETERMINED TO MAKE THE ANCESTOR OF BIRDS When the Archaeoraptor fossil, regarded as the ancestor of birds, was unmasked, evolutionists next placed their hopes in a discovered fossil newly discovered in China and named Dromaeosaur. Thought to have certain bird-like characteristics, it was proposed as the ancestor of birds.  In fact, however, this fossil was a typical reptile. It had no wings, and its forearms were clawed. It had long rear legs and a long tail. Evolutionists sought to link the creature to birds only because of the structures resembling feathers on the upper part of its body.Yet as Feduccia stated, these structures, present in all so-called feathered dinosaurs, are actually the dino-fuzz that results from the gradual breakdown and fragmentation of the skin. For evolutionists to claim that reptiles evolved into birds, there should be fossils from reptiles that lived before Archaeopteryx and which gradually developed bird-like characteristics. Yet there is not the slightest evidence of this. 9. Jeholornis prima  Zhonghe Zhou, a Beijing researcher into paleoanthropology from the Vertebrate Paleontology Institute, and Fucheng Zhang discovered a fossil they named Jeholornis prima. This fossil bird's long tail led some evolutionists to point to it as evidence that birds were evolved from dinosaurs. But as we already pointed out, mosaic creatures have features belonging to different living groups, which species evolutionists propose as evidence for their theory.205 Insects, birds, and bats all have wings, yet even evolutionists can not suggest any evolutionary link between them. Therefore, certain similarities between dinosaurs and reptiles do not imply that the former are the ancestors of the latter. As Alan Feduccia says: If one views a chicken skeleton and a dinosaur skeleton through binoculars, they appear similar, but close and detailed examination reveals many differences... 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.206From that point of view, Jeholornis is not an intermediate form, but a fully fledged and powerful bird, albeit displaying mosaic features.207 10. Protopteryx fengningensis
This small bird was clearly capable of flight. It was covered in long feathers and had a pelvic bone that could assist flight. (The pelvic bone is found in many birds—including the hawk, an excellent flier—and various perching birds.) Yet evolutionists subjected this fossil to biased interpretations and portrayed it as an intermediate form. Alan Feduccia states that the traces seen in Protopteryx are a sign that birds were living before dinosaurs, meaning that there is no link between dinosaurs and birds.208 11. THE IMAGINARY FEATHERS OF Sinovenator changii Despite no feathers being encountered on the 130-million-year-old dinosaur Sinovenator changii, again discovered in China, some evolutionists assume it to have been possibly feathered. The fact that other dinosaur fossils found in the same region were feathered was the basis for that assumption. Even though there are no feathers in the fossil, assuming that it had them and thus concluding that dinosaurs are definitely the ancestors of birds is not, of course, a scientific approach.The feathers on the other dinosaur fossils found in the Yixian region are also questionable. As you have already seen, many scientists agree that the structures on these dinosaurs are not actually feathers at all. No potential feathered dinosaur that has been proposed is beyond doubt. Even if certain feathery structures are encountered in dinosaur fossils, it's still not possible to establish with certainty whether these were real feathers or are just the extensions of ordinary reptile scales. As already set out, prominent evolutionists like Feduccia maintain that these structures are collagen fibers and that regarding them as feathers is a serious mistake.209 In 1997, as a result of observations, it was discovered that the Sinosauropteryx, announced with great media fanfare as a feathered dinosaur only the year before, had in fact no feather-like structures at all.210 Even if feathered dinosaurs did exist, that would still constitute no evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Birds' feathers are completely unique, and there is no evidence that they are evolved from any other structures. 12. Microraptor gui AND THE CLAIMS OF FOUR-WINGED DINOSAURS
To set out the invalidity of the Darwinist propaganda regarding the fossil Microraptor gui in articles and news reports: 1. The fossil in question was estimated to be 130 million years old—20 million years younger than Archaeopteryx. This shows that the title of "ancestor of birds" awarded to Microraptor gui by evolutionists is a fabrication. 2. Anatomically, Microraptor gui resembles dinosaurs. Its finger sequence agrees with that similarity. Yet the finger sequence in birds, suggested as having evolved from Microraptor gui, is significantly different. This difference is impossible to account for in terms of an ancestral relationship—another blow to the thesis that Microraptor gui was the ancestor of birds. Considerable evidence shows that Microraptor gui is in fact a dinosaur. Indeed, the paleontologist who discovered and named the fossil wrote, in his report published in Nature, that it belonged to a dinosaur.211 The finger sequence in Microraptor gui is 1, 2, 3 as in dinosaurs, and not 2, 3, 4 as in birds. Also, there are lethal claws on its hind feet—a characteristic feature of the Dromaeosaurs—a group of small and medium-sized carnivorous dinosaurs that lived 144 to 66.4 million years ago.212 Even from an evolutionist perspective, this very different finger sequence makes it impossible to construct a family relationship between Microraptor gui and birds.213 In general, the anatomy of birds is very different from that of dinosaurs, from which they are said to be descended— and thus, from that of Microraptor gui.214 3. Scientific developments regarding Microraptor gui have shown that the creature may not have been able to glide in the air, as had once been estimated. Soon after Microraptor gui was described in Nature, objections began to emerge from the scientific world. Although Microraptor gui had been presented as a flying creature, to the accompaniment of great media fanfare, comments arose that in fact, it could not fly at all. In the face of these latest interpretations, National Geographic summarized the position of Microraptor gui: But the Chinese team that studied M. gui, led by Xu Xing and Zhou Zhonghe of the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, doesn't think this animal ran or flapped well enough to take off. Its leg feathers would've tripped it up like a hurdler in a ball gown. Instead, the ample feathers could have formed an airfoil or parachute similar to those of flying squirrels and other tree-dwelling gliders, The Scientists say... Other scientists aren't sure what to make of the new fossil, arguing that gliding doesn't necessarily evolve into powered flight: Why waste energy beating your wings when you could take it easy?. . . Some researchers suggest that M. gui's leg feathers weren't useful for flight at all.215To sum up briefly the scientific facts regarding these objections:
Evolutionists link this creature to the alleged evolution of flight because of the apparent feathers on its front and back legs. Some evolutionists suggest that this was a creature that lived in the trees and that glided from branch to branch by spreading its front and rear legs. In reconstructions published in the media, Microraptor gui appears with its rear legs spread open parallel to the ground. But in fact, it is impossible for birds to open their legs out 180 degrees to the side, because of the structure of their pelvic bones, For example, if you buy a chicken from the supermarket and open its legs out to the side, the hip bones will break. b)Whether the feathers assumed to be on Microraptor gui's legs are actually attached to it or not is debatable. In addition, they are of a sort that would be an obstacle to flight and do not constitute evidence to support the alleged evolutionary origin of flight. On the other hand, even if we assume that Microraptor gui's legs could open out to the side, there is no relationship between this creature's feathers and the flight feathers of birds. In an article in the May 2003 edition of the journal Bioscience, Kevin Padian, director of the California University Museum of Paleontology, opposed the thesis that Microraptor gui was linked to the origin of flight, setting out the obstacles that its anatomy posed to this scenario.216 First, he is not convinced that the feathers claimed to be present in Microraptor gui were actually attached to its leg. Second, even if they were, there is no evidence that M. gui's supposed gliding movement could have evolved into the powerful wing flight in birds. Birds never use their rear legs in flight, but keep them trailing backwards, or tucked up against the body like the wheels of an airplane. After setting out these facts, Padian comments: "So the leg feathering in Microraptor has nothing demonstrably to do with the evolution of the kind of flight that more derived birds use."217 Henry Gee, a paleontologist and also editor of the evolutionist magazine Nature, states that Microraptor gui's gliding movement had nothing to do with bird flight: "Four wings is a perfect recipe for gliding, but not powered, flapping flight."218
CONCLUSION Scientific evidence shows a great many reasons why dinosaurs could not have evolved into birds. No fossil claimed to represent the primitive ancestor of birds actually possesses any such property. The oldest known bird, Archaeopteryx, appears suddenly in the fossil record together with its flawless flight system. No primitive bird existed before. The recent dino-bird claims lack any scientific foundation. Alan Feduccia comments on the despair of the adherents of the theory: "Nowhere has the trap been more successful than in luring paleontologists to the theropod dinosaurian origin of birds."219In his 1999 book, Feduccia summarizes the facts regarding all these claims: Finally, no feathered dinosaur has ever been found, although many dinosaur mummies with well-preserved skin are known from diverse localities.220Even if these inferences about feathered dinosaurs were true, they would still not benefit the theory of evolution. Throughout natural history, tens of millions of species have created a broad biological spectrum, and most of these have become extinct. Winged mammals such as the bat are still alive today, and winged reptiles (pterosaurs) lived in the past. A great many different marine reptiles (ichthyosaurs, for instance) became extinct. Yet the striking aspect of this rich spectrum is how species with vastly different characteristics or anatomical structures appear suddenly in the record, with no primitive forms behind them. All the complex and unique structures of bird feathers appear all at once in Archaeopteryx. There are no primitive feathers or primitive flight. The avian lung's irreducibly complex structure makes any primitive version impossible. Fossil findings continue to confirm the fact that living things appeared on Earth through creation, not through evolution, and no dino-bird fanfare can ever alter that truth. The true origin of birds and all other living things is creation. Living things were created by the will of Allah, flawlessly and in a single moment. In one verse of the Qur'an, it is revealed that He is:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Turkish Islamic Union.com
IMAGINARY DINOSAUR-BIRD LINKS
Professor Lingham-Soliar performed an experiment by burying a dolphin in river mud, semi-permeable to air for a year. The reason a dolphin was selected was that its flesh is easy to analyze. At the end of this period, the professor examined the dolphin's bunches of collagen—which constitutes connective tissue in the bodies of most living things— under a microscope. According to him, the decayed collagen in the dolphin's body bore "a striking resemblance to feathers."1
Kaydol:
Kayıt Yorumları (Atom)
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder