Let me start by quoting a few firm believers of Evolution.
Evolutionist William Elgin Swinton is an Emeritus Professor of Zoology at the University of Toronto and dinosaur expert of the Natural History Museum in London:
He states The [evolutionary] 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
Evolutionist Alan Feduccia, Professor of Avian Evolution, Paleobiology.
He states: How do you derive birds from a heavy, earthbound, bipedal reptile that has a deep body, a heavy balancing tail, and fore-shortened forelimbs? Biophysically, it’s impossible
Barbara J. Stahl is an evolutionist paleontology professor
She states: No fossil structure transitional between scale and feather is known, and recent investigators are unwilling to found a theory on pure speculation. . . . So far, the fossil record does not bear out that supposition. How [feathers] arose initially, presumably from reptiles scales, defies analysis. .
Regarding the Archaeopteryx Im really dumb founded how you continue to believe that this bird is still believed to be an Intermediate Form.
The latest researches into Archaeopteryx fossils HAVE shown that the creature was very definitely not IN WAY AN intermediate form, merely an extinct species of bird with some features slightly different from those of modern birds.
Because the Archaeopteryx was believed it didn't have a sternum, or breastbone, with the same structure as that in modern flying birds was depicted as the most important evidence that Archaeopteryx could not fly because the bird was still in the evolutionary stages. This was used as evidence that this fossil was an intermediate one. However,
The seventh Archaeopteryx was discovered in the mid 1990's and I quote, Nature, Vol. 382, August, 1, 1996 "The discovery of this fossil provoked enormous astonishment among evolutionist circles, because it did indeed possess a sternum of the kind evolutionists had for long failed to believe. “This attests to its strong flight muscles.
In 2004, scientists analyzed a detailed CT scan of Archaeopteryx' braincase and concluded that its brain was significantly larger than that of most dinosaurs, indicating that it possessed the brain size necessary for flying.
This discovery totally invalidated the basis for the claim that Archaeopteryx was a proto-bird lacking the full ability to fly
They were aslo able to conclude from further studies of this seventh fossil that Archaeopteryx was genuinely capable of flight beacuse the animal’s asymmetrical feather structure, identical to that in present-day birds, showed that it was able to fly perfectly.
Other features that evolutionists rely on when portraying Archaeopteryx as an intermediate form are mainly the claws on its wings and the teeth in its mouth. I fail to see how these features demonstrate that it was connected to reptiles in any way when two living species of birds, the Taouraco and Hoatzin, also have claws that allow them to cling to branches. Yet they are full birds, with no reptilian characteristics whatsoever.....
The fossil record shows that there was another group that may be described as full birds that lived in the same period as Archaeopteryx, and even before it.
In 1996 two paleontologists by the names of Lianhai Hou and Zhonghe Zhou discovered a new bird fossil they named Confuciusornis. This bird, the same age as Archaeopteryx, exhibited the same features as modern-day birds. The skeleton was also the same as that of modern birds.
Just after the discovery of Confuciusornis, Another fossil, discovered in China in November 1996 The existence of this 130-million-year-old bird, called Liaoningornis, was announced by Hou, Martin and Alan Feduccia in a paper published in Science magazine.
This creature was identical to modern birds in all respects, and yet was a contemporary of Archaeopteryx. The only difference was that the bird did not have teeth in its mouth. But this just shows that in contrast to evolutionist claims, toothed birds were in no way “primitive.”.
Theres more, Another fossil that totally discredited evolutionist claim regarding Archaeopteryx was Eoalulavis. This animal was said to be 30 million years younger than Archaeoptery, in other words, around 120 million years old. its wing structure can still be seen in slow-flying birds today.
Last but not least. A bird which is unquestionabiy a full bird was discovered that dates back at some 60 million years older before Archaeopteryx.
This was announced in ‘Science-News’ (Vol. 112, p.198)
Prof. John Ostrom of Yale:
‘…we must now look for the ancestors of flying birds in a period of time much older than that in which Archaeopteryx lived.’
This All proves that living things, no different in modern birds, were flying in the skies before, with and after the Archaeopteryx, hundreds of millions of years ago.
Science magazine Quotes J. Marx, “The Oldest Fossil Bird: A Rival for Archaeopteryx?” Science, 199 (1978), p. 284
"True birds have existed at least as long as archaeopteryx so that the latter could hardly have been their ancestor"
We cant see that it did happen from fossils, You can't be more mistaken. If there is anything the fossil record shows it's whole bunch full species that lived in many different time periods.
teeth in Archaeopteryx's mouth doesn't make it a transitional form. You can't suggest that these teeth are a reptilian characteristic. Some modern-day reptiles have teeth, but others do not. Species of toothed birds are not limited to Archaeopteryx. If we look at the fossil record at the same period as Archaeopteryx, afterward, or even at very recent history, we find a separate bird group that are refered to as toothed birds.
No i didnt, All im saying is the present 'evidence' that claim to support the theory is hardly classified as evidence hence why I said they still don't disprove creationism. They're nothing but a bunch of speculations, opinions open for argument, hoaxes and frauds. Built up speculations, fairy tailish stories that are imposed on the public, misleadingly, as "scientific". You and many others fall victim to these methods of brainwashing.
That may be true if we include the countless other theories of how life originated into the discussion. but if it's just the 2, evolution-creationism, the most discussed explanations, evidence for one side can be evidence against the other, not necessarily direct evidence. If one side loses credibility due to evidence against it the other will remain just as strong, so basically they do support the other side.
Evolutionist William Elgin Swinton is an Emeritus Professor of Zoology at the University of Toronto and dinosaur expert of the Natural History Museum in London:
He states The [evolutionary] 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
Evolutionist Alan Feduccia, Professor of Avian Evolution, Paleobiology.
He states: How do you derive birds from a heavy, earthbound, bipedal reptile that has a deep body, a heavy balancing tail, and fore-shortened forelimbs? Biophysically, it’s impossible
Barbara J. Stahl is an evolutionist paleontology professor
She states: No fossil structure transitional between scale and feather is known, and recent investigators are unwilling to found a theory on pure speculation. . . . So far, the fossil record does not bear out that supposition. How [feathers] arose initially, presumably from reptiles scales, defies analysis. .
Regarding the Archaeopteryx Im really dumb founded how you continue to believe that this bird is still believed to be an Intermediate Form.
The latest researches into Archaeopteryx fossils HAVE shown that the creature was very definitely not IN WAY AN intermediate form, merely an extinct species of bird with some features slightly different from those of modern birds.
Because the Archaeopteryx was believed it didn't have a sternum, or breastbone, with the same structure as that in modern flying birds was depicted as the most important evidence that Archaeopteryx could not fly because the bird was still in the evolutionary stages. This was used as evidence that this fossil was an intermediate one. However,
The seventh Archaeopteryx was discovered in the mid 1990's and I quote, Nature, Vol. 382, August, 1, 1996 "The discovery of this fossil provoked enormous astonishment among evolutionist circles, because it did indeed possess a sternum of the kind evolutionists had for long failed to believe. “This attests to its strong flight muscles.
In 2004, scientists analyzed a detailed CT scan of Archaeopteryx' braincase and concluded that its brain was significantly larger than that of most dinosaurs, indicating that it possessed the brain size necessary for flying.
This discovery totally invalidated the basis for the claim that Archaeopteryx was a proto-bird lacking the full ability to fly
They were aslo able to conclude from further studies of this seventh fossil that Archaeopteryx was genuinely capable of flight beacuse the animal’s asymmetrical feather structure, identical to that in present-day birds, showed that it was able to fly perfectly.
Other features that evolutionists rely on when portraying Archaeopteryx as an intermediate form are mainly the claws on its wings and the teeth in its mouth. I fail to see how these features demonstrate that it was connected to reptiles in any way when two living species of birds, the Taouraco and Hoatzin, also have claws that allow them to cling to branches. Yet they are full birds, with no reptilian characteristics whatsoever.....
The fossil record shows that there was another group that may be described as full birds that lived in the same period as Archaeopteryx, and even before it.
In 1996 two paleontologists by the names of Lianhai Hou and Zhonghe Zhou discovered a new bird fossil they named Confuciusornis. This bird, the same age as Archaeopteryx, exhibited the same features as modern-day birds. The skeleton was also the same as that of modern birds.
Just after the discovery of Confuciusornis, Another fossil, discovered in China in November 1996 The existence of this 130-million-year-old bird, called Liaoningornis, was announced by Hou, Martin and Alan Feduccia in a paper published in Science magazine.
This creature was identical to modern birds in all respects, and yet was a contemporary of Archaeopteryx. The only difference was that the bird did not have teeth in its mouth. But this just shows that in contrast to evolutionist claims, toothed birds were in no way “primitive.”.
Theres more, Another fossil that totally discredited evolutionist claim regarding Archaeopteryx was Eoalulavis. This animal was said to be 30 million years younger than Archaeoptery, in other words, around 120 million years old. its wing structure can still be seen in slow-flying birds today.
Last but not least. A bird which is unquestionabiy a full bird was discovered that dates back at some 60 million years older before Archaeopteryx.
This was announced in ‘Science-News’ (Vol. 112, p.198)
Prof. John Ostrom of Yale:
‘…we must now look for the ancestors of flying birds in a period of time much older than that in which Archaeopteryx lived.’
This All proves that living things, no different in modern birds, were flying in the skies before, with and after the Archaeopteryx, hundreds of millions of years ago.
Science magazine Quotes J. Marx, “The Oldest Fossil Bird: A Rival for Archaeopteryx?” Science, 199 (1978), p. 284
"True birds have existed at least as long as archaeopteryx so that the latter could hardly have been their ancestor"
We cant see that it did happen from fossils, You can't be more mistaken. If there is anything the fossil record shows it's whole bunch full species that lived in many different time periods.
teeth in Archaeopteryx's mouth doesn't make it a transitional form. You can't suggest that these teeth are a reptilian characteristic. Some modern-day reptiles have teeth, but others do not. Species of toothed birds are not limited to Archaeopteryx. If we look at the fossil record at the same period as Archaeopteryx, afterward, or even at very recent history, we find a separate bird group that are refered to as toothed birds.
No i didnt, All im saying is the present 'evidence' that claim to support the theory is hardly classified as evidence hence why I said they still don't disprove creationism. They're nothing but a bunch of speculations, opinions open for argument, hoaxes and frauds. Built up speculations, fairy tailish stories that are imposed on the public, misleadingly, as "scientific". You and many others fall victim to these methods of brainwashing.
That may be true if we include the countless other theories of how life originated into the discussion. but if it's just the 2, evolution-creationism, the most discussed explanations, evidence for one side can be evidence against the other, not necessarily direct evidence. If one side loses credibility due to evidence against it the other will remain just as strong, so basically they do support the other side.
