Replies

The case against Darwin by James Perloff

The ridiculous reptile to bird theory

And then there is common sense. In a popular evolutionary explanation, here's how reptiles evolved into birds: They wanted to eat flying insects that were out of reach. So the reptiles began leaping, and flapping their arms to get higher. Over millions of years, their limbs transformed into wings by increments, their tough reptilian scales gradually sprouting soft feathers.

But the theory suffers when scrutinized. According to natural selection, a physical trait is acquired because it enhances survival.

The problem is, wings would have no genuine survival value until they reached the point of flight. Birds' wings and feathers are perfectly designed instruments. Those with crippled or clipped wings cannot fly, and are bad candidates for survival. Likewise, the intermediate creature whose limb was half leg, half wing, would fare poorly -- it couldn't fly, nor walk well. Natural selection would eliminate it without a second thought.

Let's raise an even more fundamental question: Why aren't reptiles today developing feathers? Why aren't fish today growing little legs, trying to adapt to land? Shouldn't evolution be ongoing?

The complete lack of a fossil record

Supposedly invertebrates evolved into the first fish. But despite millions of fossils from both groups, transitional fossils linking them are missing.

Insects, rodents, bats, pterodactyls and numerous other life forms appear in the fossil record with no trace of fossils showing how they developed.

The main point: If evolutionary theory is true, we should find the innumerable transitional forms Darwin predicted would be in the geologic record. We shouldn't find just a handful, but billions of them. Instead, the fossil record shows animals complete -- not in developmental stages -- the very first time they are seen. And this is just what we would expect if the Bible is right and God created animals whole.

James Perloff is the author of Tornado in a Junkyard: The Relentless Myth of Darwinism

If evolutionary theory is true, we should find the innumerable transitional forms Darwin predicted would be in the geologic record. We shouldn't find just a handful, but billions of them.

Technically, we do. Every fossil found, unless it belongs to a dead-end species, is a transitional fossil. What you want for proof is an example from every generation of every organism around. Vade gave you a link to a smooth transition website; if one organism shows a smooth transition through the fossil record, and other species show close to smooth transitions (but there are gaps in that particular organism's fossil record), could we not infer that what held true for the first organism could also hold true for other organisms? Or, should we conclude the first organism evolved and the rest were simply zapped into existence at various points along the fossil record? Or finally, can we conclude that you completely ignore any links anyone gives you? Please note that my seminal work, The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource, contains numerous creationist sites. I do not ignore creationist writings simply because understanding your opponent's (most up-to-date) position makes refutation of his position a bit easier.

Likewise, the intermediate creature whose limb was half leg, half wing, would fare poorly -- it couldn't fly, nor walk well. Natural selection would eliminate it without a second thought.

It's called Confuciusornis sanctus, and if you can imagine anything closer to halfway between claw and wing . . .

Please read down the 201-220 section of this thread. Your 221 has been rebutted before it was posted. Perloff is an ignoramus columnist for WND.

Once again, with feeling . . .

And then there is common sense. In a popular evolutionary explanation, here's how reptiles evolved into birds: They wanted to eat flying insects that were out of reach. So the reptiles began leaping, and flapping their arms to get higher. Over millions of years, their limbs transformed into wings by increments, their tough reptilian scales gradually sprouting soft feathers.

Beep. Circle takes the square. You must really do more reading. Taking Wing: A New View of the Origin of Bird Flight Emerges was posted less than a month ago (Jan. 10). As for the feather thingy, paleontologists have known for decades that feathers preceded flight and probably developed for insulation purposes (for which they are superbly adapted). Evidence for Dinosaur-Bird Transition, The (A Sidebar Thread) was posted on July 9 of last year and has some lovely pictures of feathered dinosaurs. Ah, but you ask, how do we know dinosaurs had feathers? Well, not all dinosaurs had feathers, but some did, and Microscopic Bone Evidence Supports Dinosaur-Bird Evolution.

If you are really interested in actually learning something about bird evolution and not just in spouting off the last thing you heard someone exclaim on the Christian Broadcast Network, you might take a gander at the following sites. I've even included the creationist view on the subject: