as land-dwelling creatures, ever came to fly, is an issue
which has stirred up considerable speculation among evolutionists.
There are two main theories. The first argues that the ancestors
of birds descended to the ground from the trees. As a result,
these ancestors are alleged to be reptiles that lived in the
treetops and came to possess wings gradually as they jumped
from one branch to another. This is known as the arboreal
theory. The other, the cursorial (or "running")
theory, suggests that birds progressed to the air
from the land.
Yet both of these theories rest upon speculative
interpretations, and there is no evidence to support either
of them. Evolutionists have devised a simple solution to the
problem: they simply imagine that the evidence exists. Professor
John Ostrom, head of the Geology Department at Yale University,
who proposed the cursorial theory, explains this approach:
No fossil evidence exists
of any pro-avis. It is a purely hypothetical pre-bird, but
one that must have existed.106
However, this transitional form, which the arboreal
theory assumes "must have lived," has never been found. The
cursorial theory is even more problematic. The basic assumption
of the theory is that the front legs of some reptiles gradually
developed into wings as they waved their arms around in order
to catch insects. However, no explanation is provided of how
the wing, a highly complex organ, came into existence as a
result of this flapping.
One huge problem for the theory
of evolution is the irreducible complexity of wings. Only
a perfect design allows wings to function, a "half-way developed"
wing cannot function. In this context, the "gradual development"
model-the unique mechanism postulated by evolution-makes no
sense. Thus Robert Carroll is forced to admit that, "It is
difficult to account for the initial evolution of feathers
as elements in the flight apparatus, since it is hard to see
how they could function until they reached the large size
seen in Archaeopteryx."107 Then he argues
that feathers could have evolved for insulation, but this
does not explain their complex design which is specifically
shaped for flying.
It is essential that wings should be tightly
attached to the chest, and possess a structure able to lift
the bird up and enable it to move in all directions, as well
as allowing it to remain in the air. It is essential that
wings and feathers possess a light, flexible and well proportioned
structure. At this point, evolution is again in a quandary.
It fails to answer the question of how this flawless design
in wings came about as the result of accumulative random mutations.
Similarly, it offers no explanation of how the foreleg of
a reptile came to change into a perfect wing as a result of
a defect (mutation) in the genes.
A half-formed wing cannot fly. Consequently,
even if we assume that mutation did lead to a slight change
in the foreleg, it is still entirely unreasonable to assume
that further mutations contributed coincidentally to the development
of a full wing. That is because a mutation in the forelegs
will not produce a new wing; on the contrary, it will just
cause the animal to lose its forelegs. This would put it at
a disadvantage compared to other members of its own species.
According to the rules of the theory of evolution, natural
selection would soon eliminate this flawed creature.
According to biophysical research, mutations
are changes that occur very rarely. Consequently, it is impossible
that a disabled animal could wait millions of years for its
wings to fully develop by means of slight mutations, especially
when these mutations have damaging effects over timeÖ
THEORIES, IMAGINARY CREATURES
The first theory put forward
by evolutionists to account for the origin of flight
claimed that reptiles developed wings as they hunted
flies (above); the second theory was that they turned
into birds as they jumped from branch to branch (above).
However, there are no fossils of animals which gradually
developed wings, nor any discovery to show that such
a thing could even be possible.
Ostrom, "Bird Flight: How Did It Begin?," American Scientist,
January-February 1979, vol. 67, p. 47.
107 Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and
Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University
Press, 1997, p. 314.