New York Times' Latest Darwinist Fairy Tale: The False Link between Dinosaurs and Birds

. 7/8/08

120-million-year-old bird fossil Liaoxiornis

The New York Times, carried a report titled “Tests Confirm T. Rex Kinship With Birds” on 25 April, 2008. This concerned research conducted into 68-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex bone tissue discovered in the Hell Creek region in the east of the US state of Montana in 2003 by Harvard University’s Chris Organ and his team. The researchers compared the proteins obtained with those from 21 different species of bird. They then interpreted the resulting molecular data in the light of the theory of evolution, suggesting that this species of dinosaur was directly related to the chicken and the ostrich.

The researchers interpreted the molecular data (the comparative structures of proteins) obtained by them in this study in the light of the assumptions of the theory of evolution and of the dogma that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Since they already believed in a supposed evolutionary link between birds and dinosaurs right from the outset, they interpreted similarities between proteins as the products of a fictitious process of evolution. The New York Times, which follows a Darwinist line, reported the study in misleading and strongly expressed terms, saying that it has now been firmly established that the carnivore Tyrannosaurus rex is the ancestor of modern birds. This is mere evolutionist propaganda.

The fact is, however, that the claims are based entirely on speculation and preconception, and the research itself constitutes no evidence for evolution whatsoever. First of all, it is a well known fact, admitted even by evolutionist scientists, that similarities between life forms constitute no evidence of evolution. Second, the researchers assume that similarities are the product of evolution and commit the logical error of interpreting them as proof of evolution. Third, and most important of all, the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs is a myth that has been demolished, with clear and unequivocal evidence, by leading ornithologists. The reasons why the Darwinist propaganda on The New York Times is invalid are set out item by item below.

Protein similarities in fact demolish the so-called "Evolutionary family tree”
The New York Times report describes how the supposed evolutionary link between birds and dinosaurs is based on molecular comparisons. However, there are no scientific grounds for establishing a family tree on the basis of molecular comparisons. Looking at the general picture emerging from all such comparisons carried out to date, it is clear that “molecular similarities” are no evidence of evolution, and they actually leave the theory floundering. The biochemist and researcher Dr. Christian Schwabe, from the South Carolina University Medical Faculty, is an evolutionary scientist who had devoted years to looking for evidence of evolution in the molecular field.

He particularly sought to establish evolutionary relationships between life forms by studying the proteins insulin and relaxin. However, he has been forced to admit, on several occasions, that no evidence of evolution has been obtained from these studies. In an article in Science magazine, Schwabe writes:

Molecular evolution is about to be accepted as a method superior to paleontology for the discovery of evolutionary relationships. As a molecular evolutionist I should be elated. Instead it seems disconcerting that many exceptions exist to the orderly progression of species as determined by molecular homologies; so many in fact that I think the exception, the quirks, may carry the more important message. (Christian Schwabe, "On the Validity of Molecular Evolution", Trends in Biochemical Sciences, vol. 11, July 1986)

The prominent microbiologist Prof. Michael Denton makes the following comment regarding the findings obtained in the field of molecular biology:

Each class at molecular level is unique, isolated and unlinked by intermediates. Thus, molecules, like fossils, have failed to provide the elusive intermediates so long sought by evolutionary biology… At a molecular level, no organism is ‘ancestral’ or ‘primitive’ or ‘advanced’ compared with its relatives… There is little doubt that if this molecular evidence had been available a century ago… the idea of organic evolution might never have been accepted. (Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, London: Burnett Books, 1985, pp. 290-91)

It is of course perfectly normal for there to be molecular resemblances between different life forms. Because they all consist of the same molecules, use the same water and atmosphere, and consume foods made up of the same molecules. It is perfectly normal, therefore, for their metabolisms and therefore their genetic structures to be similar to one another.

For example, different models of computer use common structures such as chips and hard disc drives. But this does not, of course, show that computers evolved from one another. The planning and complex design in the common structures in living things prove that they were created by a sublime Mind, rather than evolving by chance from a supposed common ancestor. There can be absolutely no doubt that this Creator is Allah (God), Lord of the Earth and sky and all that lies between.

Evolutionists who regard similarities as a product of evolution are in a logical vicious circle
A logical vicious circle is a basic error in philosophy and consists of using a hypothesis to prove a hypothesis. For example, someone using the proposition “A is true” in order to prove the truth of the proposition “A is true" is caught in a vicious circle.

Evolutionists’ interpreting similarities between different life forms as evidence of evolution, is rather like saying, “all red, open-top cars in the world must have come from the same factory,” and then, every time a red, open-top car is seen, going on to say, “They all resemble one another, so they must have emerged from the same factory.” In fact, there is no evidence here for any such thing. All there is, is an unproven hypothesis and a proposition that someone is seeking to prove on the basis of that hypothesis.

Why Is the Idea of Avian Evolution at a Dead-End?
Evolutionists maintain that birds are descended from reptiles. But there is no evidence to support that claim. On the contrary, there is much evidence showing that such evolution is completely impossible.

The Irreducible Complexity in the Avian Lung
Dinosaurs are members of the reptile class. Birds and reptiles possess very different physiological structures. First and foremost, birds are hot-blooded whereas reptiles are cold-blooded. Reptiles’ cold blooded metabolisms function very slowly. Birds, on the other hand, consume large amounts of energy for tiring activity such as flight, and their metabolisms are much faster than those of reptiles. Birds have to be able to transmit oxygen to their cells very quickly. For that reason, they have been equipped with a special respiratory system. The air in their lungs flows in one direction only, thus ensuring that no time is lost in transmitting oxygen to the cells. In reptiles, on the other hand, the air breathed in has to return by way of the same passages. The one-way flow of air in the bird lung is a unique structure. It is impossible for such a complex structure to have emerged by chance. Because in order for the animal to stay alive this one-way air flow and the lung itself must have come into being in perfect form and must have always been in existence. Michael Denton, a molecular biologist known for his criticism of the theory of evolution, says:

Just how such a different respiratory system could have evolved gradually from the standard vertebrate design without some sort of direction is, again, very difficult to envisage, especially bearing in mind that the maintenance of respiratory function is absolutely vital to the life of the organism. (Michael J. Denton, Nature's Destiny, Free Press, New York, 1998, p. 361)

The Irreducibly Complex Structure in the Bird Wing
In order to believe in the fictitious evolution of flight, one must also believe that in the early stages wings were “primitive” and not up to the task. However, an inadequate wing is useless for flight. In order for flight to be possible, a living thing’s wings need to be completely formed and developed. Turkish evolutionary biologist Engin Korur admits this in the words:

The common feature of eyes and wings is that if they are fully developed they must be able to perform their jobs. To put it another way, a deficient eye cannot see, and there can be no flight with a deficient wing. How these organs first came into being is one of nature’s mysteries that has still not been unraveled. ("The Secret of the Eyes and Wings", Bilim ve Teknik magazine, October 1984, No. 203, p. 25)

Stephen Jay Gould, late paleontologist who has shown how the fossil record clearly refutes the gradual Darwinian model of evolution, said that the avian wing could never have come into being in stages:

But how do you get from nothing to such an elaborate something if evolution must proceed through a long sequence of intermediate stages, each favored by natural selection? You can't fly with 2 percent of a wing or gain much protection from an iota's similarity with a potentially concealing piece of vegetation. How, in other words, can natural selection explain the incipient stages of structures that can only be used in much more elaborated form? (Stephen. J. Gould, "Not Necessarily a Wing", Natural History, October 1985, pp. 12-13)

There is another very important point that needs to be emphasized here. According to the theory of evolution, if a characteristic is to be selected, it has to be functional. Most important of all, it is essential for all chance-based changes taking place in such a gradual process to be functional ones.

In an article in the magazine American Zoology, Walter J. Bock, a professor of biology and also an ornithologist, wrote this on the subject:

“… organisms at every stage in the evolutionary sequence must be functional wholes interacting successfully with selective demands arising from the particular environment of the organisms at each stage in the evolutionary sequence" (Walter J. Bock, "Explanatory History of the Origin of Feathers", American Zoologist, 40: 2000, p. 482)

And here there emerges a very significant inconsistency in evolutionists’ claims. Because mutations taking place in the front legs cannot endow a life form with a functioning wing, but will actually damage those legs. This means that the living thing will have a disadvantaged (deformed) body in comparison with other members of the same species. Naturally, a living thing with neither functioning wings now functional front legs will be unable to perform such vital functions as protecting itself, hunting or mating, and will this be eliminated because of that physical disadvantage.

The Natural History of Birds and Archaeopteryx
The avian anatomy shows us Allah’s immaculate creation, while the fossil record demonstrates that these life forms appeared “in a single moment.”

The oldest known bird fossil is the 150-million-year-old Archaeopteryx. It was a flying bird, and had perfect flight muscles and bird-like feathers. No half-reptile, half-bird fossil living before it has ever been found. For that reason, we may confidently state that Archaeopteryx was the first bird and that with its body equipped for flight, just as functional as those of modern birds, it represents evidence against the theory of evolution.

Then again, evolutionists have been speculating about Archaeopteryx ever since the 19th century. The presence of teeth in its mouth, claw-like nails on its wings and its long tail led to it being compared to reptiles. Many evolutionists described Archaeopteryx as a “primitive bird.” They even claimed that it is closer to reptiles than to birds. However, it gradually emerged that this account was a very superficial one, that the creature was by no means a “primitive bird,” that, on the contrary, its skeleton and feather structures were ideally suited to flight, and that the features equated with reptiles were also to be found in birds that had once lived in the past and in some still living today. Most of the speculation regarding Archaeopteryx has today died down. In the words of Alan Feduccia, one of the world’s leading ornithologists and a professor in the North Carolina University Biology Department: "Most recent workers who have studied various anatomical features of Archaeopteryx have found the creature to be much more birdlike than previously imagined,"

And the error of Archaeopteryx’s “half-reptile creature” portrait has been revealed. Again according to Feduccia:

"the resemblance of Archaeopteryx to theropod dinosaurs has been grossly overestimated." (Alan Feduccia, The Origin and Evolution of Birds, Yale University Press, 1999, p. 81)

In short, the idea of bird evolution is incompatible with the biological and paleontological evidence. It is a completely fictitious and fantastical claim based solely on Darwinist preconceptions. Avian evolution, which some experts choose to depict as a scientific reality, is in fact a myth kept alive for ideological reasons.

As shown by the concrete evidence cited above, there is no objective basis for the link sought to be established by comparing the proteins of birds and dinosaurs. The researchers have ignored this evidence and seek to impose a dogma based solely on imagination and dogma. Because of its blind devotion to Darwinism, The New York Times espouses this view and is trying to impose it on the public at large as a propaganda tool.

However, all these endeavors are in vain. Modern science has demonstrated that a huge amount of genetic information lies behind the origin of life, in addition to its extraordinary complexity that cannot be explained from a materialist perspective. This report on The New York Times consists of a hopeless attempt on the part of certain circles to impose the materialist world view by means of sleight of hand tactics. The fact is, however, that living things did not evolve in a random process, but were brought into being by Allah commanding them to “Be!”

The New York Times / 25-April-2008

Bookmark and Share


Post a Comment

Creative Commons License Add to Technorati Favorites Visit blogadda.com to discover Indian blogs