theory of evolution is a fairy tale built on the hope of the
impossible coming true. Birds have a special place in this
story. Above all things, birds possess that magnificent organ,
the wing. Beyond the structural wonders of wings, their function
also inspires amazement. So much so that flight was man's
obsession for thousands of years, and thousands of scientists
and researchers put considerable effort into duplicating it.
Apart from a few very primitive attempts, man only managed
to build machines capable of flying in the twentieth century.
Birds have been doing something which man tried to do with
the accumulated technology of hundreds of years right through
the millions of years that they have existed. Moreover, a
young bird can acquire this skill after only a few attempts.
Many of their characteristics are so perfect that not even
the products of the latest modern technology can compare with
The theory of evolution relies on prejudiced
comments and twisting the truth to account for the emergence
of life and all its variety. When it comes to living things
such as birds, science is finally sidelined completely, to
be replaced by evolutionists' fantasy stories. The reason
for this is the creatures that evolutionists claim to be the
ancestors of birds. The theory of evolution maintains that
the ancestors of birds were dinosaurs, members of the reptile
family. Such a claim raises two questions that need to be
answered. The first is, "How did dinosaurs come to grow wings?"
The second is, "Why is there no sign of such a development
in the fossil record?"
On the subject of how dinosaurs turned into birds,
evolutionists debated the matter for a long time and came
up with two theories. The first of these is the "cursorial"
theory. This maintains that dinosaurs turned into birds by
taking to the air from the ground. Supporters of the second
theory object to the cursorial theory, and say that it is
not possible for dinosaurs to have turned into birds in this
way. They offer another solution to the question. They claim
that dinosaurs that lived in the branches of trees turned
into birds by trying to jump from one branch to another. This
is known as the "arboreal" theory. The answer to the question
of how dinosaurs could have taken to the air is also ready:
"While trying to catch flies."
The idea that "dinosaurs
grew wings while trying to catch flies" is not a joke,
but rather a theory which evolutionists claim is very
scientific. This example is sufficient by itself to
show how seriously we should take evolutionists.
However, we must first of all put the following
question to those people who claim that a flight system, together
with wings, emerged from the body of such an animal as a dinosaur:
How did flies' flight system, that is much more efficient
than that of a helicopter, which is in turn modelled on them,
come about? You will see that evolutionists have no answer.
It is certainly most unreasonable for a theory which cannot
explain the flight system of such a tiny creature as the fly
to claim that dinosaurs turned into birds.
As a result, all reasonable, logical scientists
are agreed that the only scientific things about these theories
is their Latin names. The essence of the matter is that flight
by reptiles is simply the product of fantasy.
Evolutionists who claim that dinosaurs turned
into birds need to be able to find evidence for it in the
fossil record. If dinosaurs did turn into birds, then half-dinosaur,
half-bird creatures must have lived in the past and left some
trace behind them in the fossil record. For long years evolutionists
claimed that a bird called "Archaeopteryx" represented
such a transition. However, those claims were nothing but
a great deception.
The Archaeopteryx deception
Archaeopteryx, the so-called ancestor of modern
birds according to evolutionists, lived approximately 150
million years ago. The theory holds that some small dinosaurs,
such as Velociraptors or Dromaeosaurs, evolved by acquiring
wings and then starting to fly. Thus, Archaeopteryx
is assumed to be a transitional form that branched off from
its dinosaur ancestors and started to fly for the first time.
However, the latest studies of Archaeopteryx
fossils indicate that this explanation lacks any scientific
foundation. This is absolutely not a transitional form, but
an extinct species of bird, having some insignificant differences
from modern birds.
The thesis that Archaeopteryx was a
"half-bird" that could not fly perfectly was popular among
evolutionist circles until not long ago. The absence of a
sternum (breastbone) in this creature was held up as the most
important evidence that this bird could not fly properly.
(The sternum is a bone found under the thorax to which the
muscles required for flight are attached. In our day, this
breastbone is observed in all flying and non-flying birds,
and even in bats, a flying mammal which belongs to a very
the seventh Archaeopteryx fossil, which was found
in 1992, disproved this argument. The reason was that in this
recently discovered fossil, the breastbone that was long assumed
by evolutionists to be missing was discovered to have existed
after all. This fossil was described in the journal Nature
The recently discovered
seventh specimen of the Archaeopteryx preserves a partial,
rectangular sternum, long suspected but never previously
documented. This attests to its strong flight muscles, but
its capacity for long flights is questionable. 30
This discovery invalidated the mainstay of the
claims that Archaeopteryx was a half-bird that could
not fly properly.
Morevoer, the structure of
the bird's feathers became one of the most important pieces
of evidence confirming that Archaeopteryx was a flying
bird in the true sense. The asymmetric feather structure of
Archaeopteryx is indistinguishable from that of modern birds,
and indicates that it could fly perfectly well. As the eminent
paleontologist Carl O. Dunbar states, "Because of its feathers,
[Archaeopteryx is] distinctly to be classed as a bird."31
Paleontologist Robert Carroll further explains the subject:
The geometry of the flight
feathers of Archaeopteryx is identical with that of modern
flying birds, whereas nonflying birds have symmetrical feathers.
The way in which the feathers are arranged on the wing also
falls within the range of modern birds… According to Van
Tyne and Berger, the relative size and shape of the wing
of Archaeopteryx are similar to that of birds that move
through restricted openings in vegetation, such as gallinaceous
birds, doves, woodcocks, woodpeckers, and most passerine
birds… The flight feathers have been in stasis for at least
150 million years… 32
Another fact that was revealed by the structure
of Archaeopteryx's feathers was its warm-blooded
metabolism. As was discussed above, reptiles and-although
there is some evolutionist wishful thinking on the opposite
direction-dinosaurs are cold-blooded animals whose body heat
fluctuates with the temperature of their environment, rather
than being homeostatically regulated. A very important function
of the feathers on birds is the maintenance of a constant
body temperature. The fact that Archaeopteryx had
feathers shows that it was a real, warm-blooded bird that
needed to retain its body heat, in contrast to dinosaurs.
The anatomy of Archaeopteryx
and the evolutionists' error
points evolutionary biologists rely on when claiming Archaeopteryx
was a transitional form, are the claws on its wings and its
It is true that Archaeopteryx had claws on its
wings and teeth in its mouth, but these traits do not imply
that the creature bore any kind of relationship to reptiles.
Besides, two bird species living today, the touraco and the
hoatzin, have claws which allow them to hold onto 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.
Studies of Archaeopteryx's
anatomy revealed that it possessed complete powers of
flight, just like a modern bird has. The efforts to
liken it to a reptile are totally unfounded.
Neither do the teeth in Archaeopteryx's beak
imply that it is a transitional form. Evolutionists are wrong
to say that these teeth are reptilian characteristics, since
teeth are not a typical feature of reptiles. Today, some reptiles
have teeth while others do not. Moreover, Archaeopteryx
is not the only bird species to possess teeth. It is true
that there are no toothed birds in existence today, but when
we look at the fossil record, we see that both during the
time of Archaeopteryx and afterwards, and even until
fairly recently, a distinct group of birds existed that could
be categorised as "birds with teeth."
important point is that the tooth structure of Archaeopteryx
and other birds with teeth is totally different from
that of their alleged ancestors, the dinosaurs. The well-known
ornithologists L. D. Martin, J. D. Stewart, and K. N. Whetstone
observed that Archaeopteryx and other similar birds
have unserrated teeth with constricted bases and expanded
roots. Yet the teeth of theropod dinosaurs, the alleged ancestors
of these birds, had serrated teeth with straight roots.33
These researchers also compared the ankle bones of Archaeopteryx
with those of their alleged ancestors, the dinosaurs, and
observed no similarity between them. 34
anatomists such as S. Tarsitano, M.K. Hecht, and A.D. Walker
have revealed that some of the similarities that John Ostrom,
a leading authority on the subject who claims that Archaeopteryx
evolved from dinosaurs, and others have seen between the limbs
of Archaeopteryx and dinosaurs were in reality misinterpretations.35
For example, A.D. Walker has analysed the ear region of Archaeopteryx
and found that it is very similar to that of modern birds.
In his book Icons of Evolution,
American biologist Jonathan Wells remarks that Archaeopteryx
has been turned into an "icon" of the theory of evolution,
whereas evidence clearly shows that this creature is not the
primitive ancestor of birds. According to Wells, one of the
indications of this is that theropod dinosaurs-the alleged
ancestors of Archaeopteryx-are actually younger than
Archaeopteryx: "Two-legged reptiles that ran along the ground,
and had other features one might expect in an ancestor of
Archaeopteryx, appear later." 37
these findings indicate that Archaeopteryx was not
a transitional link but only a bird that fell into a category
that can be called "toothed birds." Linking this creature
to theropod dinosaurs is completely invalid. In an article
headed "The Demise of the 'Birds Are Dinosaurs' Theory," the
American biologist Richard L. Deem writes the following about
Archaeopteryx and the bird-dinosaur evolution claim:
The results of the recent
studies show that the hands of the theropod dinosaurs are
derived from digits I, II, and III, whereas the wings of
birds, although they look alike in terms of structure, are
derived from digits II, III, and IV... There are other problems
with the "birds are dinosaurs" theory. The theropod forelimb
is much smaller (relative to body size) than that of Archaeopteryx.
The small "proto-wing" of the theropod is not very convincing,
especially considering the rather hefty weight of these
dinosaurs. The vast majority of the theropod lack the semilunate
wrist bone, and have a large number of other wrist elements
which have no homology to the bones of Archaeopteryx. In
addition, in almost all theropods, nerve V1 exits the braincase
out the side, along with several other nerves, whereas in
birds, it exits out the front of the braincase, though its
own hole. There is also the minor problem that the vast
majority of the theropods appeared after the appearance
of Archaeopteryx. 38
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, the fossil record proves that today's modern birds
and some archaic birds such as Archaeopteryx actually
lived together at the same time. It is true that some of these
bird species, such as Archaeopteryx and Confuciusornis,
have become extinct, but the fact that only some of the species
that once existed have been able to survive down to the present
day does not in itself support the theory of evolution.
Latest Evidence: Ostrich Study Refutes
The Dino-Bird Story
The latest blow to
the "birds evolved from dinosaurs" theory came from a study
made on the embryology of ostriches.
Dr. Alan Feduccia
Drs. Alan Feduccia and Julie Nowicki of the University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill studied a series of live
ostrich eggs and, once again, concluded that, there cannot
be an evolutionary link between birds and dinosaurs. EurekAlert,
a scientific portal held by the American Association for the
The Advancement of Science (AAAS), reports the following:
Drs. Alan Feduccia and Julie Nowicki of the University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill... opened a series of live
ostrich eggs at various stages of development and found what
they believe is proof that birds could not have descended
Whatever the ancestor
of birds was, it must have had five fingers, not the three-fingered
hand of theropod dinosaurs," Feduccia said... "Scientists
agree that dinosaurs developed 'hands' with digits one,
two and three... Our studies of ostrich embryos, however,
showed conclusively that in birds, only digits two, three
and four, which correspond to the human index, middle and
ring fingers, develop, and we have pictures to prove it,"
said Feduccia, professor and former chair of biology at
UNC. "This creates a new problem for those who insist that
dinosaurs were ancestors of modern birds. How can a bird
hand, for example, with digits two, three and four evolve
from a dinosaur hand that has only digits one, two and three?
That would be almost impossible."39
In the same report, Dr. Feduccia also made important
comments on the invalidity-and the shallowness-of the "birds
evolved from dinosaurs" theory:
"There are insurmountable problems with
that theory," he [Dr. Feduccia] said. "Beyond what we have
just reported, there is the time problem in that superficially
bird-like dinosaurs occurred some 25 million to 80 million
years after the earliest known bird, which is 150 million
"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."40
This evidence once again reveals that the "dino-bird"
hype is just another "icon" of Darwinism: a myth that is supported
only for the sake of a dogmatic faith in the theory.
Evolutionists' bogus dino-bird fossils
With the collapse of evolutionists' claims
regarding fossils like Archaeopteryx, they are now
at a complete dead-end as regards the origin of birds. That
is why some evolutionists have had to resort to classical
methods-forgery. In the 1990s, the public were several times
given the message that "a half-dinosaur, half-bird fossil
has been found." The evolutionist media carried pictures of
these so-called "dino-birds" and an international campaign
was thus set in motion. However, it soon began to emerge that
the campaign was based on contradiction and forgery.
A Sinosauropteryx fossil.
The first hero of the campaign was a dinosaur
called Sinosauropteryx, discovered in China in 1996. The fossil
was presented to the whole world as a "feathered dinosaur,"
and made a number of headlines. However, detailed analyses
in the months that followed revealed that the structures which
evolutionists had excitedly portrayed as "bird feathers" were
actually nothing of the kind.
This was how the matter was
presented in an article called "Plucking the Feathered Dinosaur"
in the journal Science:
Exactly 1 year ago, paleontologists were
abuzz about photos of a so-called "feathered dinosaur,"
which were passed around the halls at the annual meeting
of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. 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…paleontologist
Larry Martin of Kansas University, Lawrence, thinks the
structures are frayed collagenous fibers beneath the skin--and
so have nothing to do with birds.41
Another "dino-bird" storm blew up in 1999. Another
fossil discovered in China was presented to the world as "major
evidence for evolution." National Geographic magazine,
the source of the campaign, drew and published imaginary "feathered
dinosaur" pictures inspired by the fossil, and these hit the
headlines in a number of countries. This species, which was
said to have lived 125 million years ago, was immediately
given the scientific name Archaeoraptor liaoningensis.
DINOSAUR DECEPTION IN THE EVOLUTIONIST MEDIA…
magazine portrayed "dino-birds" in this way in 1999, and
presented them to the whole world as evidence of evolution.
Two years later, however, the source of inspiration for
these drawings, Archaeoraptor, was shown to be a scientific
However, the fossil was a fake and was
skilfully constructed from five separate specimens. A group
of researchers, among whom were also three paleontologists,
proved the forgery one year later with the help of X-ray computed
tomography. The dino-bird was actually the product of a Chinese
evolutionist. Chinese amateurs formed the dino-bird by using
glue and cement from 88 bones and stones. Research suggests
that Archaeoraptor was built from the front part of the skeleton
of an ancient bird, and that its body and tail included bones
from four different specimens. An article in the scientific
journal Nature describes the forgery like this:
The Archaeoraptor fossil
was announced as a 'missing link' and purported to be possibly
the best evidence since Archaeopteryx that birds did, in
fact, evolve from certain types of carnivorous dinosaur.
But Archaeoraptor was revealed to be a forgery in which
bones of a primitive bird and a non-flying dromaeosaurid
dinosaur had been combined… The Archaeoraptor specimen,
which was reportedly collected from the Early Cretaceous
Jiufotang Formation of Liaoning, was smuggled out of China
and later sold in the United States on the commercial market…
We conclude that Archaeoraptor represents two or more species
and that it was assembled from at least two, and possibly
five, separate specimens.... 42
So how was it that National Geographic
could have presented such a huge scientific forgery to the
whole world as "major evidence for evolution"? The answer
to this question lay concealed in the magazine's evolutionary
fantasies. Since National Geographic was blindly
supportive of Darwinism and had no hesitation about using
any propaganda tool it saw as being in favour of the theory,
it ended up signing up to a second "Piltdown man scandal."
Evolutionist scientists also
accepted National Geographic's fanaticism. Dr. Storrs
L. Olson, head of the famous U.S. Smithsonian Institute's
Ornithology Department, announced that he had previously warned
that the fossil was a forgery, but that the magazine's executives
had ignored him. In a letter he wrote to Peter Raven of National
Geographic, Olson wrote:
Prior to the publication of the article
"Dinosaurs Take Wing" in the July 1998 National Geographic,
Lou Mazzatenta, the photographer for Sloan's article, invited
me to the National Geographic Society to review his photographs
of Chinese fossils and to comment on the slant being given
to the story. At that time, I tried to interject the fact
that strongly supported alternative viewpoints existed to
what National Geographic intended to present, but it eventually
became clear to me that National Geographic was not interested
in anything other than the prevailing dogma that birds evolved
In a statement in USA Today,
Olson said, "The problem is, at some point the fossil
was known by Geographic to be a fake, and that information
was not revealed."44 In other words,
he said that National Geographic maintained the deception,
even though it knew that the fossil it was portraying as proof
of evolution was a forgery.
We must make it clear that this attitude of National
Geographic was not the first forgery that had been carried
out in the name of the theory of evolution. Many such incidents
have taken place since it was first proposed. The German biologist
Ernst Haeckel drew false pictures of embryos in order to support
Darwin. British evolutionists mounted an orangutan jaw on
a human skull and exhibited it for some 40 years in the British
Museum as "Piltdown man, the greatest evidence for evolution."
American evolutionists put forward "Nebraska man" from a single
pig's tooth. All over the world, false pictures called "reconstructions,"
which have never actually lived, have been portrayed as "primitive
creatures" or "ape-men."
|Even if evolutionists are unsuccessful
in finding scientific evidence to support their theories,
they are very successful at one thing: propaganda. The
most important element of this propaganda is the practice
of creating false designs known as "reconstructions."
With brushes in their hands, evolutionists produce imaginary
creatures; nevertheless, the fact that these drawings
correspond to no matching fossils constitutes a serious
problem for them.
In short, evolutionists once again employed the
method they first tried in the Piltdown man forgery. They
themselves created the intermediate form they were unable
to find. This event went down in history as showing how deceptive
the international propaganda on behalf of the theory of evolution
is, and that evolutionists will resort to all kinds of falsehood
for its sake.
vol. 382, August, 1, 1996, p. 401.
31. Carl O. Dunbar, Historical Geology,
John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1961, p. 310.
32. Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes
of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press,
1997, p. 280-81.
33. L. D. Martin, J. D. Stewart, K. N. Whetstone,
The Auk, vol. 97, 1980, p. 86.
34. L. D. Martin, J. D. Stewart, K. N. Whetstone,
The Auk, vol. 97, 1980, p. 86; L. D. Martin, "Origins
of the Higher Groups of Tetrapods," Ithaca, Comstock
Publishing Association, New York, 1991, pp. 485-540.
35. S. Tarsitano, M. K. Hecht, Zoological
Journal of the Linnaean Society, vol. 69, 1980, p. 149; A.
D. Walker, Geological Magazine, vol. 117, 1980, p.
36. A.D. Walker, as described in Peter Dodson,
"International Archaeopteryx Conference," Journal of Vertebrate
Paleontology 5(2):177, June 1985.
37. Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution,
Regnery Publishing, 2000, p. 117
38. Richard L. Deem, "Demise of the 'Birds
are Dinosaurs' Theory," http://www.yfiles.com/dinobird2.html.
39. "Scientist say ostrich study confirms
bird 'hands' unlike these of dinosaurs," http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-08/uonc-sso081402.php
40. "Scientist say ostrich study confirms
bird 'hands' unlike these of dinosaurs," http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-08/uonc-sso081402.php
41. Ann Gibbons, "Plucking the Feathered
Dinosaur," Science, vol. 278, no. 5341, 14 November
1997, pp. 1229 - 1230
42. "Forensic Palaeontology: The Archaeoraptor
Forgery," Nature, March29, 2001
43. Storrs L. Olson "OPEN LETTER TO: Dr.
Peter Raven, Secretary, Committee for Research and Exploration,
National Geographic Society Washington, DC 20036," Smithsonian
Institution, November 1, 1999
44. Tim Friend, "Dinosaur-bird link smashed
in fossil flap," USA Today, 25 January 2000,