At first glance, "feathered dinosaurs" can seem like a major piece of evidence supporting evolution. They are claimed as fact and if they are fact, they have major implications in the origins debate. What are the facts surrounding this topic?
One of the vital leaps in the evolutionary theory is that from dinosaur to bird. Birds are very different from other creatures we see today, and currently the leading scenario being considered in evolution is that they descended from theropod dinosaurs. The reason for this belief is that birds and dinosaurs have somewhat similar body structures and some theropods are believed to have "protofeathers". These supposed feathers are organic artifacts found in fossil specimens that have been interpreted by scientists as the precursor to feathers. The vast majority, if not all of the supposed feathered dinosaur fossils come from the Lioaning region in China where volcanic sediment has helped preserve the fossils very well. However, the evidence shows that these are not feathers or even pre-feathers, but rather, exceptionally well preserved partially decomposed skin (or skin ridges in some cases). Plenty of feathers have been found fossilized on birds, but only "protofeathers", or "dino fuzz", are found on dinosaurs. In fact, these "protofeathers" are found on many different types of dinosaurs that are not even considered to be ancestral to birds. Not only this, but they are found on dinosaurs long after the evolutionary "arrival" of birds. Suppose these dinosaurs did have feathers, it would not prove that birds evolved from dinosaurs, since birds were already on the scene. Amusingly, even the T. rex is now thought by many to have been lightly feathered, thanks to these artifacts. So what do we make of these "feathers"? Even if dinosaurs suddenly evolved feathers would that signal their arrival to the avian ranks? What are the other differences? How does the creation/flood model interpret the bird and dinosaur fossil record?Feathers in Amber
Scientists have also found exceptionally well-preserved feathers in amber found in rock they date to the time of the dinosaurs. These feathers are not in any way attached to dinosaur remains, and they "bear striking resemblance to modern bird feathers"! Feathers stuck in tree sap from the time of the dinosaurs: logical evidence of birds and dinosaurs coexisting as the Bible suggests, not dinosaurs evolving into birds. When evolution is assumed to be true, it gets in the way of good science. The amber containing the feathers is still transparent. If it actually were as old as they say it is, it should have oxidized long ago and turned much darker. Also, consider Archeopteryx, a true bird, is dated (using evolutionary dating methods) to be roughly twice as old as these amber-trapped feathers. One can't claim this as evidence of dinosaur-to-bird evolution if you have already had birds for 70 million years. More on Acheopteryx later in this post.Problems for Dino-to-Bird Evolution:
There are many major leaps needed to go from dinosaur to bird, including:-The breast-bone-- The breast-bone is needed to attach the massive muscles required to power flight. This is nothing like our sternum, but more like the massive keel of a ship-- very deep and strong. Birds have this, dinosaurs did not.
The wishbone--without this bone, the muscles would crush and close off the birds respiratory system. Many birds, including Archeopteryx had one, while dinosaurs did not.
-The respiratory system itself-- We and other land dwelling creatures, including the dinosaurs, breath(ed) completely differently than birds do. While we fill and empty a sack with each breath, birds have vented lungs where the air flow is unidirectional and the gas exchange takes place within the lung wall in tubes. This and multiple breathing sacks enable them to sustain prolonged aerobic activity very efficiently. The change from one type of respiratory system to the other must be done all at once or else the creature will die, let alone survive because they are the most fit. More details on bird respiratory systems
- Bone structure-- Birds have hallow bones that are needed for flight, and while some dinosaurs seem to have had some hollow bones, they appear to be present for different reasons. For example, many of the long-necked dinos had hollow neck bones to lessen the weight of their necks. This is good design and the only possible way to allow for such a long, tall structure. Some smaller dinosaurs may have had hollow bones to allow them to move faster, but they also had heavy tails that would have made flight impossible. One key trait of bird bones is that these hollow bones are actually connected to the respiratory system which enables the bird to use air to regulate body temperature through the bones.
- Bird flight feathers-- These are extremely strong for their weight, making them ideal for flight. As anyone knows who has examined a feather, the barbs interlock, like velcro, enabling them to propel and maintain flight. This is a far cry from a scale, which is basically a tough fold of skin that serves to protect the creature. The two don't even originate from the same dermal layer.
- Different digits-- Bird wings and feet have digits 2-3-4, while theropods had digits 1-2-3.
- Ability to fly-- Darwinists do not believe that birds evolved from pterosaurs (such as Pterodactyl) , so they also need to account for the bird's ability to fly. Developing wings would begin as arms and eventually get longer, stronger and more feathered. The in order for natural selection to be effective, the evolving creature must have an advantage over other animals at every point in evolution. This includes the millions of years before the wings could actually support flying or even gliding. It is hard to image a scenario where having feathers would give a dinosaur an advantage over others.
- Wulst-- A key component for flight is the extra brain function needed to control flight. In proportion to their body, birds have a large cranial cavity to provide room for the large frontal lobe (called the wulst) needed for flight control. An interesting article in Live Science claims that the wulst evolved in dinosaurs before the first bird came to be. The example they use is Archeopteryx, a supposed half dinosaur, half bird with a fully developed wulst. Again, more on Archy later in the post.
- Hips-- Theropods are a part of the Order Saurischian which are considered to be "lizard-hipped", while Order Ornithischian dinosaurs are "bird-hipped". Since evolutionists believe that birds descended from the lizard-hipped dinos, they also need to account for birds developing a completely different hip structure. I've heard it said that the "bird hip" gene came from a mutual ancestor of Saurischian and Ornithischian and was merely "switched off" in the Saurischians and was turned back on almost literally overnight when the bird arose. First of all, there is no evidence for such an occurrence. Secondly, if things like this were plausible, why wouldn't scientists excitedly check every newly hatched chicken for scales? You never know what old dino gene might suddenly switch back on! All jest aside, this is an assumption that is not based upon the fossil record, but one that is necessitated by the theory. This is backward science.
- Muscle proportions-- If you were told that you had T. rex arms, you would likely be offended since it was obviously meant that you have a scrawny upper body. I enjoy bird hunting, and when I actually succeed, commonly the only significant portion of meat is the breast (which are massive muscles providing power to the wings for flight). This is true with birds with limited flight capability such as chickens and pheasants as well as very capable flyers such as doves and pigeons. The leap from having all power in the lower body (as these dinosaurs had) to all power in the upper body is very hard to explain during the millions of years prior to achieving flight. Without the required power for flight, even if the dino suddenly sprouted feathers, it would be of no use. Everything must come together at once in order for there to be an advantage over other species.
Interestingly, there have been many controversial and fraudulent "feathered dinosaur" fossils "found" in China. Check out this link for more details.
Archeopteryx
Archeopteryx fossils, supposedly 150 million years old, are found in southern Germany, with a total of 8 being found plus a fully developed feather. If the Archeopteryx were seen alive today, it would undoubtedly be classified as a bird. It was completely feathered, fully capable of flight, had claws on it's wings like the ostrich today, had hollow bones, a breast bone and a wishbone. Unlike birds we see alive today it also had teeth, which isn't a problem for classifying it as a bird. We classify the platypus as a mammal even though it doesn't have mammary glands, it lays eggs and has a bill. The only reason Archeopteryx is classified as a dinosaur is that it was found in the Jurassic rock layer and birds were not supposed to have evolved yet. However, there are clear fossil tracks of wading birds in Carboniferous rocks (supposedly twice as old as Archeopteryx) that suggest, using evolutionary time scale, birds actually predated all dinosaurs. These tracks are of course controversial, not because of the actual specimens, but because it contradicts the evolutionary assumptions. There is other evidence of birds "predating" dinosaurs, such as Protoavis (first bird) which supposedly predates Archeopteryx by 75 million years.Sidebar:
For over a decade it was believed that a bird-like dinosaur had left tracks all over a Triassic (pre-Jurassic) sand bed. After catching flak for a decade, the authors of the original paper published in "Nature", retracted their paper explaining that further radiometric testing showed that the sand bed was actually Eocene. The "bird-like" dinosaur tracks immediately became bird tracks.
These "bird-like dinosaur tracks in Triassic
rock" became "bird tracks in Eocene" overnight (1)
This shows that the tracks themselves were not used to identify the track maker, but rather, evolutionary assumptions were used. This is not good science. I do applaud the scientists for publishing their original paper, since it certainly took courage to challenge the status quo.
Design
The act of flight is a very remarkable feat. It took man (a very intelligent designer) thousands of years to figure it out. We expend a lot of time and energy to develop, design, build, maintain and learn to fly an aircraft. We see an aircraft and we know it was designed. Why don't we see a bird (of whose design we copy for our own use) and know that it too was designed? |
Beautifully designed B-2 Spirit, aka the Stealth Bomber shown
with a hawk (which had no designer, of course) (2)
|
Not only can a bird do all this, but it can also reproduce and make more birds! You say "well aircraft are mechanical creations while birds are biological. That's how we can explain birds arriving without a designer." Living creatures are composed of very complex mechanical parts working in unison, from an individual cell up to the wings themselves. The complexity of a living bird is staggering when all mechanical components are considered. Man cannot even fully comprehend these components, much less make creations out of them. Why should we think a bird has no designer when our own creations scream to us that there was a designer?
Flood Model
If birds and dinosaurs lived together, why don't we see tons of bird fossils intermixed with the dinosaurs? If they all lived together, we should see all fossils in all layers, right? Rather than piecing the evidence together using the evolutionary model of deep time, let's examine the evidence and see how it fits with the biblical creation and flood model. Genesis says that birds and land animals (including dinosaurs) were created within one day of each other. They coexisted. They likely have lived in the same habitats alongside one another until the flood began. This is a better explanation of why bird feathers are found trapped in amber in a dinosaur-filled habitat. We also see bird tracks in these layers (and supposedly much older layers). We see dinosaurs that have just eaten birds (3). We see a bird, in Archeopteryx, that is not expected to be a strong flyer (much like a pheasant). But we don't see many actual bird fossils mixed with dinosaur fossils. It is thought that much of the initial flooding would have been from massive tidal waves as the moon caused the swelling seas to race across land (forming many layers). Creatures would be sorted by body weight, mobility and intelligence. With the ability to fly (or even swim in some cases), even in heavy rain, birds would be able to escape in-coming waters much better than dinosaurs or mammals. Even if they couldn't all fly longer distances to higher ground in the rain, they could get onto floating debris and survive the initial days or weeks of the flood. And suppose some birds were caught up in the same waters as the dinosaurs, their low body density would keep them afloat longer. This might result in reduced numbers of fossilized birds and the ones that did fossilize would be buried higher than the heavier dinosaurs. Heavier birds like Archeopteryx that weren't as mobile or light would be buried with the other land animals. Based off of this model, I predict that other birds such as pheasants will some day be discovered with dinosaurs.This topic along with many others, is a very good example of how, depending on your model, very different conclusions can be drawn from the same evidence. However, when you begin to look at this issue as a whole: the major differences between birds and dinos, the birds that predate supposed protofeathers, and bird feathers in tree sap in dinosaur habitats, the evolutionary model crumbles while the biblical model still stands strong.
Thanks for reading!
(1) http://www.geotimes.org/june02/WebExtra0627.html
(2) http://wordlesstech.com/2013/03/25/stealth-bomber-inspired-by-hawk/
(3) August, 2012 in the open-access on-line biology journal, PLOS: Biology, Lida Xing and colleagues wrote an article titled “Abdominal Contents from Two Large Cretaceous Compsognathids (Dinosauria: Theropoda) Demonstrate Feeding on Confuciusornithids and Dromaeosaurids” (2012)
Read more at http://creationrevolution.com/2012/10/science-can-no-longer-stomach-dinosaurs-to-birds-theory/#HwDlvUpoDllr2edX.99
August, 2012 in the open-access on-line biology journal, PLOS: Biology,
Lida Xing and colleagues wrote an article titled “Abdominal Contents
from Two Large Cretaceous Compsognathids (Dinosauria: Theropoda)
Demonstrate Feeding on Confuciusornithids and Dromaeosaurids” (2012)
Read more at http://creationrevolution.com/2012/10/science-can-no-longer-stomach-dinosaurs-to-birds-theory/#HwDlvUpoDllr2edX.99
Interesting article on feathered dinosaurs: http://www.icr.org/article/6782/
Read more at http://creationrevolution.com/2012/10/science-can-no-longer-stomach-dinosaurs-to-birds-theory/#HwDlvUpoDllr2edX.99
No comments:
Post a Comment