Friday, August 6, 2004

Bye-Bye, Birdie

This new article suggests that archaeopteryx--long thought a transitional form linking dinosaurs and birds--could fly:

The magpie-sized animal had a skeleton that bore a strong resemblance to dinosaurs such as the velociraptors in the movie "Jurassic Park." But it also had stubby wings and feathers like those of living birds.

The new findings "really fill in a very important piece that was missing in regards to the transition from dinosaurs to birds," said Dr. Lawrence M. Witmer, an anatomy professor at Ohio University in Athens.

The scientists in the aforementioned article believe flight capability strengthens their notion of dinosaurs evolving into birds. But it seems to me that this makes sense only if one already believes in the macroevolutionary process. They never even address the obvious: If the creature could fly, then doesn't that seem evidentiary of its true-bird nature, and that's all? I find it amazing that the most likely answer is the one they ignore.

I have some questions for these researchers; doubtless they have no intention of answering them. For example:

1. Why is this the only known fossil supposedly linking dinosaurs and birds? If one assumes the truth of this evolutionary process, why aren't there hundreds--if not thousands--of intermediate forms, readily available for study in the fossil record?

2. Why do many paleontologists believe that archaeopteryx was a true bird? (In other words, if
the evidence points to evolution, why the dissent?)

3. Why are archaeopteryx' feather types found in genuine birds, yet not in reptiles?

4. Concerning breathing methods: Birds and reptiles have very different lung structures. Reptiles have lungs consisting of tiny air sacs in the millions. Birds' lungs have tubes. The idea of an intermediate form between the two, exhibiting characteristics of both, is absurd. No evidence of such a form exists in the fossil record, or in extant creatures. How do they explain such a descrepancy?

5. How do scientists explain finding the fossils of modern birds in the same rock layers as archaeopteryx?

I'm not trying to draw an air-tight case, here. The point is, there are serious questions revolving the issue; questions that deserve an honest answer. In the more than 140 years since archaeopteryx' discovery, these questions have elicited stony silence--or worse, ridicule--from evolutionists.

As I've asked before, if the case for evolution is so undebatable, why does this trend weave its way throughout the scientific community? As with the other questions, don't hold your breath waiting for the answer.

No comments: