|
Artist's imaginary reconstruction of "Archaeopteryx."
This elaborate drawing is based on the only evidence available, the fossil find below, left.
Courtesy American Museum of Natural History
The actual fossil find which science says provides substantial evidence birds "evolved" from reptiles.
Right, line drawing of the bones found. © Ambassador College
|
Millions of years ago, according to evolution, our fine feathered friends,
the birds, reared ugly, slimy heads from fetid seas, and slithered ashore.
Over uncountable eons of time, they climbed trees, leapt from branch to branch — and gradually grew feathers!
As time kept passing, they "learned," says evolution, to hover, glide, soar, flitter, and even fly backward!
BIRDS CAME FROM REPTILES — or so say the text‑books.
But is such a theory LOGICAL?
Can it be PROVED?
Read, in this eye-opening article, about a "fowl" hypothesis — one for the birds!
WHAT DOES it take to fly?
Flight has fascinated man, with his superior intellect, for thousands of years. Still, instead of sprouting wings, man has learned to make machines to carry him through the skies, and even into space.
But is there any person who did not, as a child, gaze at the fantastic array of beautiful birds everywhere in nature, and wish he could fly?
There are birds that soar, birds that flutter, birds that dive, sail, migrate thousands of miles, and even birds that fly backward.
The huge albatross, roaming the vastness of the Pacific Ocean, may attain an unbelievable wingspread of TWELVE FEET. That means he's as far from wing tip to wing tip as a 4' 11" man would be, standing on Lew Alcindor's head (Alcindor, the UCLA basketball sensation, stands 7' 1⅜" tall!).
Tiny hummingbirds, not much bigger than big bumblebees, fly straight ahead with remarkable speed, and even back up in midair!
And these birds, and all the other myriads of colorful, winged creatures, say evolutionists, came from slithering lizards!
A Fabulous "Link" to Lizards!
Universally heralded as the one great "link" between all birds and reptiles is "Archaeopteryx," a fossilized, bird-like creature, found in stratified rock near a lake in Bavaria. "Archaeopteryx" means, simply, "ancient wing."
But what is so unusual about "Archaeopteryx"?
The creature has characteristics that are strangely like those of LIZARDS, say the evolutionists — though also possessing the appearance of a bird.
Evolutionary thought consists of ample conjecture, imagination, guesswork, and fantasy to make a mother goose rhyme pale into insignificance. And changing an ugly beast into a raving beauty is precisely what evolution claims happened!
"Imagine," says a bird biologist, "a strange bird-like creature the size of a crow" gliding over an ancient Bavarian lake.
"Or was it more reptile-like? We cannot be sure," continues the story — for "it appeared to have some of the features of both reptiles and birds." "Suddenly," goes the dramatic tale, "our bird-like creature, with its feeble powers of flight, was unable to cope with a sharp gust of wind and fell into the shallow waters below and drowned."
This is the layman's introduction into bird biology — the imaginary story of how something MIGHT have happened to preserve a fossil find in Bavaria; one which claims to link birds with beasts.
What a tragic end to a short flight! If, of course, the bird EVER FLEW.
The Missing Evidence
Evolutionists readily admit the paucity of fossils to substantiate such a theory — but insist their theories are "clear" "IN SPITE OF THE PATCHINESS OF THE EVIDENCE"!
You are about to see, with your own eyes, another example of the classic "FAITH" of evolution!
Because evolution, after all, is A FAITH! It is a dogmatic assertion that certain changes DID occur, and an almost religious-like CLINGING to that notion, IN SPITE OF all logic, contradictory evidence, or rational thought!
Notice! "Archaeopteryx" was brought down by a mere "sharp gust." Then it DIDN'T SURVIVE!
Bear this in mind. The bird, or reptile, or whatever it was, didn't survive!
Think further, that only two known examples of such a creature have ever been found. Realize further, that there is no proof the creature EVER DID FLY.
Now notice the strange faith of ornithologists in their theories.
"IN SPITE OF the patchiness of the evidence it is clear that birds are closely related to the reptiles. The older forms have many characters in their skeletons that suggest their derivation from that group" (Fossil Birds, W. E. Swinton, 1965, p. 2). (Emphasis mine throughout article)
Evolutionists admit they must SPECULATE about the origin of birds. But they insist that the layman need not even question the validity of their theories!
Notice! "In attempting to reconstruct the early evolutionary history of many groups of animals a certain element of judicious speculation . . . may be a valuable weapon" (Evolution, ed. by De Beer, p. 321).
Granted, evolutionists say such conclusions must be "constantly checked and tested with reference to such fossil types as may be known and to such characters of modern forms as may have a bearing on the subject." But if a certain fossil type, COMPLETELY UNIQUE, and totally developed has NO known fossil or modern counterpart, then how, we might ask, can "constant checking" and "testing" ever occur?
In most books on the subject, authors first admit they are making "educated guesses," and then follow with a broad, all-inclusive, sweeping statement that such and such DID POSITIVELY OCCUR!
They have ALREADY DECIDED, on sheer FAITH, that birds evolved from reptiles!
Said the same author, "The reptilian ancestry of birds IS SO SELF-EVIDENT and so UNIVERSALLY RECOGNIZED BY ZOOLOGISTS that it can be taken as AXIOMATIC in any discussion"! (Evolution, ed. by De Beer, p. 322).
So they seem to imply: "Even though I must guess, imagine and speculate —
You must assume my theory is so CORRECT that you needn't bother even thinking about it"!
No Intermediate Stages Found
But if our myriads of birds evolved from slimy lizards, is there any REAL fossil EVIDENCE of a part-bird, part-lizard? Is there such a thing as a HALF-scale, HALF-feather found?
Think of it this way. In any motion picture sequence, in order for your eye to see a man walking from one side of a room to another, it necessitates many separate frames. Each is, actually, a "still" picture, snapped in a mere fraction of a second. Two of these frames would be all that is necessary for you to see the man, first at one side of the room, and then at the other. But in order to "see" him make the transition, you must view ALL the many frames IN BETWEEN!
The fossil "record" concerning the hazy hypothesis that supposes birds came from reptiles is much like dozens of feet of missing film! Where are all the many HUNDREDS of VERY DIFFERENT creatures which would have represented the INTERMEDIATE stages of development?
And remember, IF these notions of evolution could possibly be true — these "intermediate" stages would be NOWHERE NEAR so well equipped to survive as the "fully developed" ones. That means that if it took only a "sharp gust" to bring down "Archaeopteryx," his imaginary ancestors would have been falling out of the skies like bricks! And the fossil record, therefore, would contain FAR MORE "INTERMEDIATE" species than it does of the ones which were supposedly "better equipped" to survive!
But there ARE no "intermediate" species!
Notice what scientists admit. "The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There IS NO FOSSIL EVIDENCE of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved" (Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds, edited by A.J. Marshal, 1960, p. 1).