descendants of dinosaurs.
The two important points evolutionists rely on when alleging
Archaeopteryx to be a transitional form, are the claws on the bird's
wings and its teeth.
It is true that Archaeopteryx had claws on its wings and teeth in its
mouth, but these traits do not imply that this living creature bears
any kind of relationship with reptiles. Besides, two bird species
living today, Taouraco and Hoatzin both have claws to hold on to
branches. These creatures are fully birds with no reptilian
characteristics. That is why it is completely groundless to assert
that Archaeopteryx is a transitional form just because of the claws on
its wings.
Neither do the teeth in Archaeopteryx's beak imply that it is a
transitional form. Evolutionists make a purposeful trickery by saying
that these teeth are characteristic of reptiles. However, teeth are
not a typical characteristic of reptiles only. Today, some reptiles
have teeth while others do not. Moreover, Archaeopteryx is not the
only bird species that has teeth. It is true that birds with teeth do
not exist today, but when we look at fossil records, we see that both
in the same age as Archaeopteryx and afterwards, and even until fairly
recently, a distinct bird genus existed that could be categorized as
"birds with teeth".
The most important point is that the teeth structure of Archaeopteryx
and other birds with teeth are totally different from that of their
alleged ancestors, the dinosaurs. The famous ornithologists Martin,
Steward and Whetstone observed that Archaeopteryx and other birds with
teeth have teeth with flat top surfaces and large roots. Yet, the
teeth of theropod dinosaurs, the alleged ancestors of these birds, are
protuberant like a saw and have narrow roots.
The researchers also compared the wrist bones of Archaeopteryx and
their alleged ancestors, the dinosaurs and observed no similarity
between them.
The studies of anatomists like Tarsitano, Hecht and A.D. Walker
revealed that some "similarities" asserted to have existed between
this creature and dinosaurs as put forward by John Ostrom, a prominent
authority who claims that Archaeopteryx evolved from dinosaurs, were
in reality misinterpretations.
All these findings indicate that Archaeopteryx was not a transitional
link but only a bird that fell into a category that can be called
"birds with teeth."
Archaeopteryx and other ancient bird fossils
While evolutionists have for decades been proclaiming Archaeopteryx to
be the greatest evidence for their scenario concerning the evolution
of birds, some recently-found fossils invalidate this claim in other
respects.
Lianhai Hou and Zhonghe Zhou, two paleontologists at the Chinese
Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology, discovered a new bird fossil in
1995 that they named Confuciusornis. This bird was almost the same age
as Archaeopteryx )around 140 million years old(, but it did not have
any teeth in its mouth. In addition, its beak and feathers shared the
same features as today's birds. Having the same skeletal structure of
modern birds, this bird also had claws on its wings just like
Archaeopteryx. The special structure called the "pygostyle" was
present in this bird species that supported the tail feathers. In
short, this bird which was the same age as Archaeopteryx )considered
to be the oldest ancestor of all birds and accepted as a semi-reptile(
looked very much like a modern bird. This fact invalidated all the
evolutionist theses holding Archaeopteryx to be the primitive ancestor
of all birds.
Another fossil unearthed in China in November 1996, caused even
greater confusion. The existence of this 130 million year old bird
named Liaoningornis was announced in Science by Hou, Martin and Alan
Feduccia. Liaoningornis had a chest bone on which the muscles for
flight were attached, just like modern birds. This bird was
indistinguishable from modern birds in other respects also. The only
difference was the teeth in its mouth. This showed that birds with
teeth did not have a primitive structure at all, as alleged by
evolutionists. This was stated in an article in Discover: "Whence came
birds? This fossil says that not from dinosaurs."
Another fossil to refute the evolutionist claims regarding
Archaeopteryx was Eoalulavis. The wing structure of Eoalulavis, which
was said to be 30 million years younger than Archaeopteryx, was also
observed in modern birds that flew slowly. This proved that 120
million years ago there were birds indistinguishable from modern birds
in many respects flying in the skies.
These facts once more indicate for certain that neither Archaeopteryx
nor other ancient birds similar to it were transitional forms. The
fossils do not indicate that different bird species evolved from each
other. On the contrary, fossil records prove that today's modern birds
and some archaic birds like Archaeopteryx actually lived together at
the same time. Yet some of these bird species like Archaeopteryx and
Confuciusornis have become extinct and only a part of the pre-existing
species have been able to make it to the present day.
In brief, some peculiar features of Archaeopteryx do not indicate that
this living thing is a transitional form! Stephan Jay Gould and Nailes
Eldredge, two Harvard paleontologists and world famous evolutionists,
accept that Archaeopteryx is a "mosaic" living thing housing various
features in its form, yet that it can never be regarded as a
transitional form!
The imaginary bird-dinosaur link
The claim of evolutionists trying to present Archaeopteryx as a
transitional form is that birds have evolved from dinosaurs. However,
one of the most famous ornithologists in the world, Alan Feduccia from
the University of North Carolina, opposes the theory that birds have a
kinship with dinosaurs, despite the fact that he is an evolutionist
himself. Feduccia says on the subject:
"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 20thcentury."
Larry Martin, a specialist on ancient birds from the University of
Kansas, opposes the theory that birds come from the same lineage as
dinosaurs. While discussing the contradiction evolution falls into on
the subject, Martin states:
"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."
To sum up, the scenario of the "evolution of birds from dinosaurs"
erected solely on the basis of Archaeopteryx, is nothing more than a
product of the prejudices and wishful thinking of evolutionists.
No comments:
Post a Comment