New Research Demolishes Evolution

ORIGIN OF BIRDS AND MAMMALS

According to the theory of evolution, life originated and evolved in the sea and then was transported onto land by amphibians. This evolutionary scenario also suggests that amphibians evolved into reptiles, creatures living only on land. This scenario is again implausible, due to the enormous structural differences between these two classes of animals. For instance, the amphibian egg is designed for developing in water whereas the amniotic egg is designed for developing on land. A "step by step" evolution of an amphibian is out of the question, because without a perfect and fully-designed egg, it is not possible for a species to survive. Moreover, as usual, there is no evidence of transitional forms that were supposed to link amphibians with reptiles. Evolutionist paleontologist and an authority on vertebrate paleontology, Robert L. Carroll has to accept that "the early reptiles were very different from amphibians and that their ancestors could not be found yet."30

Yet the hopelessly doomed scenarios of the evolutionists are not over yet. There still remains the problem of making these creatures fly! Since evolutionists believe that birds must somehow have been evolved, they assert that they were transformed from reptiles. However, none of the distinct mechanisms of birds, which have a completely different structure from land-dwelling animals, can be explained by gradual evolution. First of all, the wings, which are the exceptional traits of birds, are a great impasse for the evolutionists. One of the Turkish evolutionists, Engin Korur, confesses the impossibility of the evolution of wings:

SPECIAL LUNGS FOR BIRDS

The anatomy of birds is very different from that of reptiles, their supposed ancestors.Bird lungs function in a totally different way from those of land-dwelling animals.Land-dwelling animals breathe in and out from the same air vessel.In birds while the air enters into the lung from the front, it goes out from the back. This distinct "design" is specially made for birds, which need great amounts of oxygen during flight.It is impossible for such a structure to evolve from the reptile lung.

THE DESIGN OF THE BIRD FEATHERS

The theory of evolution, which claims that birds evolved from reptiles, is unable to explain the huge differences between these two different living classes. In terms of such features as their skeleton structure, lung systems, and wam blooded metabolism, birds are very different from reptiles.Another trait that poses as insurmountable between birds and reptiles is the feathers of birds which have a form entirely peculiar to them. The body of reptiles are covered with scales, whereas the bodies of birds are covered with feathers. Since evolutionists consider reptiles the ancestor of birds, they are obliged to claim that bird feathers have evolved from reptile scales. However there is no similarity between scales and feathers. A professor of physiology and neurobiology from the University of Connecticut , A.H. Brush, accepts this reality although he is an evolutionist:"Every feature from gene structure and organization, to development, morphogenesis and tissue organization is different (in feathers and scales)"1 Moreover,Prof. Brush examines the protein structure of birds feathers and argues that it is "unique among vertebrates".2 There is no fossil evidence to prove that bird feathers evolved from reptile scales. On the contrary, "feathers appear suddenly in the fossil record as an 'undeniably unique' character distinguishing birds" as Prof. Brush states.3 Besides, in reptiles, no epidermal structure has yet been detected that provides an origin for bird feathers.4 In 1996,paleantologists made a buzz about fossils of a so called feathered dinosaur, called Sinosauropteryx. However, in 1997, it was revealed that these fossils had nothing to do with birds and that they were not modern feathers.5 On the other hand, when we examine bird feathers closely, we come across a very complex design that cannot be explained by any evolutionary process. The famous ornithologist Alan Fedduccia states that "every feature of them has aerodynamic functions. They are extremely light, have the ability lift up which increasesin lower speeds, and may return to their previous position very easiliy". Then he continues, "I cannot really understand how an organ perfectly designed for flight may have emerged for another need at the beginning."6 The design of feathers also compelled Charles Darwin to ponder them. Moreover, the perfect aesthetics of the peafowl's feathers had made him "sick" (in his own words). In a letter he wrote to Asa Gray on April 3, 1860, he said "I remember well the time when the thought of the eye made me cold all over, but I have got over this stage of complaint..." And then he continued:" ... and now trifling particulars of structure often make me very uncomfortable. The sight of a feather in a peacock's tail, whenever I gaze at it makes me sick!"6

1 A.H.Brush,"On the Origin of Feathers" Journal of Evolutionary Biology, Vol.9,1996, p.132 2A.H. Brush," On the Origin of Feathers".p.131 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid. 5 "Plucking the Feathered Dinosaur", Science, Vol.128, 14 November 1997, p.1229 6 Douglas Palmer, "Learning to Fly" (Review of the Origin of and Evolution of Birds by Alan Feduccia, Yale University Press, 1996), New Scientist, Vol.153, march, 1 1997, p.44 7 Norman Macbeth, darwin Retired: An Appeal to Reason. boston, Gambit, 1971, p.101

The common trait of the eyes and the wings is that they can only function if they are fully developed. In other words, a halfway-developed eye cannot see; a bird with half-formed wings cannot fly. How these organs came into being has remained one of the mysteries of nature that needs to be enlightened.31

The question of how the perfect structure of wings came into being as a result of consecutive haphazard mutations remains completely unanswered. There is no way to explain how the front arms of a reptile could have changed into perfectly functioning wings as a result of a distortion in its genes (mutation).

Moreover, just having wings is not sufficient for a land organism to fly. Land-dwelling organisms are devoid of many other structural mechanisms that birds use for flying. For example, the bones of birds are much lighter than those of land-dwelling organisms. Their lungs function in a very different way. They have a different muscular and skeletal system and a very specialised heart-circulatory system. These features are pre-requisites of flying needed at least as much as wings. All these mechanisms had to exist at the same time and altogether; they could not have formed gradually by being "accumulated". This is why the theory asserting that land organisms evolved into aerial organisms is completely fallacious.

All of these bring another question to the mind: even if we suppose this impossible story to be true, then why are the evolutionists unable to find any "half-winged" or "single-winged" fossils to back up their story?

Another Alleged Transitional Form: Archopteryx

Evolutionists pronounce the name of a single creature in response. This is the fossil of a bird called Archopteryx which is one of the most widely-known so-called transitional forms among the very few that evolutionists still defend. Archopteryx, the ancestor of modern birds according to the evolutionists, lived 150 million years ago. The theory holds that some of the small-scaled dinosaurs named Velociraptor or Dromeosaur evolved by acquiring wings and then starting to fly. Thus, Archopteryx is assumed to be a transitional form that diverted from its dinosaur ancestors and started to fly for the first time.

However, the latest studies of Archopteryx fossils indicate that this creature is absolutely not a transitional form, but a bird species bearing some characteristics distinct from today's birds.

The thesis that Archæopteryx was a "half-bird" that could not fly perfectly was popular among evolutionist circles until not long ago. The absence of a sternum, that is the chest bone, in this creature, or at least its not being the way it is in flying birds, was held up as the most important evidence that this bird could not fly properly. (The chest bone is a bone found under the thorax on which the muscles required for flight are fastened. In our day, this chest bone is observed in all flying and non-flying birds, and even in bats-a flying mammal which belongs to a very different family.)

However, the seventh Archæopteryx fossil found in 1992 caused great astonishment among evolutionists. The reason was that in this recently found Archæopteryx fossil, the chest bone that was assumed to be long missing by the evolutionists actually existed. This recently-found fossil was described in Nature magazine as follows:

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.32

This discovery invalidated the mainstay of the claims that Archopteryx was a half-bird that could not fly properly.

On the other hand, the structure of the bird's feathers became one of the most important pieces of evidence verifying that Archopteryx was a flying bird in the real sense. The asymmetric feather structure of Archopteryx is indistinguishable from modern birds indicated that the animal could fly perfectly. As the famous paleontologist Carl O. Dunbar states, "because of its feathers Archopteryx is distinctly to be classed as a bird"33

Another fact that was revealed by the structure of Archopteryx's feathers was the bird's warm-blooded metabolism. As it is known, reptiles and dinosaurs are cold-blooded animals that are affected by environmental temperatures rather than regulating their body heat independently. A very important function of the feathers in a bird is the maintenance of the animal's body heat. The fact that Archopteryx had feathers showed that it was a real, warm-blooded bird that needed to maintain its body heat in contrast to the dinosaurs.

Speculations of Evolutionists: The Teeth and Claws of Archopteryx

The two important points evolutionists rely on when alleging Archopteryx to be a transitional form, are the claws on the bird's wings and its teeth.

Bird named Confuciusornis is the same age as Achaeopteryx

It is true that Archæopteryx 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 onto branches. These creatures are fully birds with no reptilian characteristics. That is why it is completely groundless to assert that Archæopteryx is a transitional form just because of the claws on its wings.

Neither do the teeth in Archopteryx'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. Today, some reptiles have teeth while others do not. Moreover, Archopteryx 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 the fossil record, we see that both in the same age as Archopteryx and afterwards, and even until fairly recently, a distinct bird genus existed that could be categorised as "birds with teeth".

The most important point is that the teeth structure of Archopteryx 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 Archopteryx 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.34

The researchers also compared the wrist bones of Archopteryx and their alleged ancestors, the dinosaurs, and observed no similarity between them.35

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 Archopteryx evolved from dinosaurs, were in reality misinterpretations.36

All these findings indicate that Archopteryx was not a transitional link but only a bird that fell into a category that can be called "birds with teeth".In brief, some particular features of Archopteryx do not indicate that this living thing is a transitional form! Stephan Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge, two Harvard paleontologists and world-wide 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!37

The Imaginary Bird-Dinosaur Link

The claim of evolutionists trying to present Archopteryx as a transitional form is that birds have evolved from dinosaurs. However, one of the most famous ornithologists in the world, Alan Feducccia 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 20th century.38

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.39

To sum up, the scenario of the "evolution of birds" erected solely on the basis of Archopteryx, is nothing more than a product of the prejudices and wishful thinking of evolutionists.

The Origin of Mammals

As we have stated before, the theory of evolution proposes that some imaginary creatures that came out of the sea transformed into reptiles and that birds formed by the evolution of reptiles. According to the same scenario, reptiles are the ancestors not only of birds but also of mammals. However, there are big structural gaps between reptiles, which have scales on their bodies, which are cold-blooded, and which reproduce by laying eggs on the one hand and on the other, mammals, which have fur on their bodies, which are warm-blooded, and which reproduce by giving birth to their offspring alive.

An example of the structural barriers between reptiles and mammals is their jaw structure. Mammals' mandibles consist of only one mandibular bone and the teeth are placed on this bone. In reptiles, there are three little bones on both sides of the mandible. Another basic difference is that all mammals have three bones in their middle ear (hammer, anvil, and stirrup). In all reptiles, there is a single bone in the middle ear. Evolutionists claim that the reptile jaw and reptile middle ear evolved gradually into the mammal jaw and ear. Yet the question of how this change occurred remains unanswered. In particular, the question of how an ear with a single bone evolved into an ear with three bones and how the process of hearing kept on functioning in the meanwhile can never be explained. Not surprisingly, not a single fossil to link reptiles and mammals is to be found. This is why evolutionist paleontologist Roger Lewin was forced to say that "the transition to the first mammal, which probably happened in just one or, at most, two lineages, is still an enigma".40

George Gaylord Simpson, one of the biggest evolutionary authorities and founders of the neo-Darwinist theory makes the following comment on this fact that is quite perplexing for evolutionists:

The most puzzling event in the history of life on earth is the change from the Mesozoic, the Age of Reptile, to the Age of Mammals. It is as if the curtain were rung down suddenly on the stage where all the leading roles were taken by reptiles, especially dinosaurs, in great numbers and bewildering variety, and rose again immediately to reveal the same setting but an entirely new cast, a cast in which the dinosaurs do not appear at all, other reptiles are supernumeraries, and all the leading parts are played by mammals of sorts barely hinted at in the preceding acts.41

Furthermore, when mammals suddenly made their appearance, they were already very different from each other. Such dissimilar animals as bats, horses, mice, and whales are all mammals and they all emerged during the same geological period. Establishing an evolutionary relationship among them is impossible even within the broadest boundaries of the imagination. Evolutionist zoologist R. Eric Lombard makes this point in an article that appeared in Evolution magazine:

Those searching for specific information useful in constructing phylogenies (evolutionary links) of mammalian taxa will be disappointed.42

All of these demonstrate that all living beings appeared on earth suddenly and fully formed, without any evolutionary process. This is concrete evidence of the fact that they were created. Evolutionists, however, try to interpret the fact that living species came into existence in a particular order as an indication of evolution. Yet the sequence by which living things emerged is the "order of creation", since it is not possible to speak of an evolutionary process. With a superior and flawless creation, oceans and then lands were filled with living things and finally man was created.

A bat fossil aged 50 million years: no different from its modern counterpart. (Science,vol.154)

Evolutionists propose that all mammal species evolved from a common ancestor. However there are great differences between various mammal species such as bears,whales, mice,and bats.Each of these living beings possesses specifically-designed systems.For example bats are created witha very sensitive sonar system that helps them find their way in darkness.These complex systems which modern technology can only imitate, could not possibly have emerged as a result of chance coinsidence. The fossil record also demonstrates that bats came into being in their present perfect state all of a sudden and that they have not undergone any "evolutionary process".

Contrary to the "ape man" story that is imposed on the masses with intense media propaganda, man also emerged on earth suddenly and fully formed.