Home » Biology, Europe, Religion » No Real Evidence for Dinosaur to Bird Evolution

No Real Evidence for Dinosaur to Bird Evolution

submit to reddit

The Microraptor

The sensational news media has made a big deal over some evolutionist claims of fossils showing dinosaurs having evolved into birds. As usual, not even all evolutionists agree with the conclusions being drawn from these fossil finds, but the mainstream media love to use what a few evolutionists say to speak for all evolutionists and for science in general.

Fossils of dinosaurs have been discovered with an appearance of having feathers, but a closer examination reveals that these were not feathers but scales (after all dinosaurs were reptiles) that took on a feather-like appearance during the fossilization process.

As biologist and creationist Brian Thomas notes in his Internet article, FEATHERS MISSING FROM ‘FEATHERED DINOSAUR’ DISPLAY, that, perhaps, these features that seem to resemble feathers “were artifacts of the fossilization process, or partly decayed skin fibers.”

Some evolutionists have promoted another recent fossil discovery as evidence of dinosaurs evolving into birds. The name of the fossilized creature is Microraptor. Micropraptor had four wings and a long tail. Was it a dinosaur evolving into a bird or was it a unique bird?

Biologist and creationist Brian Thomas points out many interesting details concerning this species in his Internet article, IS NEW FOSSIL A BIRD-EATING DINOSAUR?

Fist of all, scientists discovered a bird already in Microraptor’s rib cage. Microraptor ate birds. This means that birds had already existed at the time of Microraptor. Therefore, Microraptor was not a transitional link between dinosaur and bird, and most evolutionists don’t consider it to be such.

The feathers and wings of Microraptor were fully formed and developed, not partially evolved (i.e. part scales … part feathers). In fact, how could a true transitional creature be fit for survival? Imagine a dinosaur going through the process of evolving into a bird and all the various changes that would involve. What possible survival benefit would there have been for a dinosaur species while its scales and limbs were evolving into feathers and wings over millions of years? It couldn’t use its limbs, scales, or feathers. How could such a species have been fit for survival for one day, let alone millions of years?

In fact, how could species have ever been fit for survival if their vital tissues, organs, structures, biochemical, biological , and reproductive systems were all still evolving over millions and millions of years? A partially evolved species, by definition, would be unfit for survival! All life forms, from the beginning, must be complete, fully formed, and fully functioning to be viable or fit for survival.

The long tail of Microraptor was for stabilizing purposes since Microraptor had four wings.

Some evolutionists use similarities of traits between species as an argument for transitional forms. This is not a good argument because the traits they cite are complete, fully formed, fully functional, not in any process of transition from one type of structure into another.

What about the duck-billed platypus, a living creature? It has traits belonging to both birds and mammals, but even evolutionists wouldn’t go so far as to argue that it’s a transitional link between birds and mammals.

Genetic information, like other forms of information, cannot happen by chance, so it is more logical to believe that genetic and biological similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn’t mean all forms of life are biologically related!

Furthermore, “Junk DNA” isn’t junk. The “non-coding” segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (how, when, and where genes are expressed). Just because these segments don’t code for proteins doesn’t mean they don’t code for anything else. It was due to ignorance that these vital segments of DNA were mistakenly classified over the years as being “junk.”

The fossil record shows only fully formed and complete species, which is powerful evidence that all species came into existence as complete and fully formed, which is possible only by creation.

There are no true transitional forms in the fossil record. The few that are called “transitional” are hotly disputed even among evolutionists. If evolution across “kinds” actually occurred there should be millions of undisputed transitional forms, rather than a few highly disputed ones.

All the fossils that have been used to support human evolution have been found to be either hoaxes, non-human, or human, but not non-human and human (i.e. Neanderthals were fully human). Textbooks and even museums still continue to display examples and illustrations supporting human evolution which most evolutionists today consider obsolete. Many diagrams of ape-man creatures over the years were reconstructed according to evolutionary interpretations from disputable bones that are now discredited by most evolutionists.

The scientific fact is there are limits to biological change in nature. The genes already exist in all species for micro-evolution (or limited evolution such as varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc. which is possible in nature) but not for macro-evolution (i.e. from sea sponge to human).

All real evolution in nature (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.) is just the expression over time of already existing genes or variations of already existing genes. In order for macro-evolution to be possible entirely new genes (not just variations of already existing genes) would have to come into existence.

There is no scientific evidence to support the belief of evolutionists that random changes in the sequence of the genetic code (i.e. genetic mutations) caused by the unthinking environment can or will produce entirely new genes for entirely new traits, even over, supposedly, millions of years. Such thinking is irrational. It’s like saying that by the environment randomly changing the sequence of letters in a romance novel will change it into a book on astronomy! In the meantime, if the book were living it would be destroyed in the process.

What about nylon-eating bacteria, you say? Nylon-eating bacteria is not evidence of mutations producing new genetic information. The genes were degraded by mutations and that’s how the capability came about. “It is like damaging the interior of a lock so that more and different keys can now unlock it.” Read the Internet article, NYLON-EATING BACTERIA AND EVOLUTIONARY PROGRESS by scientist and creationist Brian Thomas.

Mutations are accidents in the genetic code caused by random environmental forces and they’re almost always harmful. They damage the genetic code similar to how the random energy from an earthquake damages a building. Even if a good mutation occurred for every good one there would be hundreds of harmful ones with the net effect, over time, being deleterious to the species, even causing extinction. Even “neutral” mutations will become harmful when enough of them accumulate and are passed on. Mutations may also trigger the duplication of already existing traits (i.e. extra fingers, extra toes, etc.) but this is not the same as the creation of new traits. Most biological variations are not from mutations (which are harmful) but from new combinations of already existing genes.

At best, mutations only produce more variations of already existing genes. For example, mutations in the gene(s) for human hair may change the gene(s) so that another type of human hair develops, but it’ll still be human hair!

The environment is not a genetic engineer! Only variations of already existing genes for already existing traits are possible. The genetic potential exists for only limited evolution and adaptations in species.

The reader will find many answers to questions and arguments posed by evolutionists by reading excellent articles written by scientists who are creationists at The Institute for Creation Research site (www.icr.org). Just type your question or topic of interest in the “search” box on the site to read to access the relevant articles.

The Internet site, THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (www.creationismnow.blogspot.com) presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refuting arguments by evolutionists (i.e. “flaws” in design of human eye, “Junk DNA,” dinosaur to bird evolution, arguments from so-called vestigial or useless structures, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, origin of life, etc.).

The author, Babu G. Ranganathan, has his bachelor’s degree with concentrations in theology and biology and has been recognized for his writings on religion and science in the 24th edition of Marquis “Who’s Who In The East.” The author’s articles may be accessed at www.religionscience.com.

No votes yet.
Please wait...


Did you like this information? Then please consider making a donation or subscribing to our Newsletter.

One Response to " No Real Evidence for Dinosaur to Bird Evolution "

  1. Jack Longchamp says:

    Well I am glad no-one is interested in the subject that something
    cannot be proven. Because if the Archeo Pteryx can´t be proven
    to be the missing link between dinos and boids,
    what difference does that make ?

    Nobody said this was a proven thing anyway,
    the problem is that some people claim there is an almighty monkey
    ruling the universe (which he created, probably after creating himself
    through an act of mass-turbation) and (though almighty) is now
    playing stupid games with us stupid fucks down here on Earth.
    Jee-zus !

    No votes yet.
    Please wait...

Leave a Reply

Copyright © 2009 The European Union Times – Breaking News, Latest News. All rights reserved.