[Does this article mis-state the evolutionary assertion that birds decended from dynasouars?
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/471 ]
Yes, and badly.
The author's characterization of this assertion is grossly wrong. He shows a lack of understanding of how a reptile's lungs operate as compared to a bird's lungs (and this comparison is a central thesis of his article).
But more importantly, his article overall is to use the same fallacious reasoning that I've been trying to correct in my last few posts; that is the straw man argument that evolutionists theorize that new species develop all at once or in a single event, which is NOT what evolutionary theory predicts.
He takes random examples of fossils which show animals with widely different characteristics and argues that since they are so different one could not have directly resulted in the other. Such a misuse of logic is what I would expect to see in those humorous books the Jehovah's Witnesses put out where someone pokes a stick into a radio and whacks it around for awhile (thus simulating mutations) and asking the question "Does this make the radio work better? Of course not. Therefore, evolution doesn't work."
The mechanism for evolutionary change which results in new species really is not that hard to understand (it's not like the theory of universal gravitation which requires at least some algebra and also some calculus is helpful) and its repeated gross mischaracterization is surprising to me.