Did Birds Evolve From Dinosaurs?

Author: David Buckna
Subject: Bird Evolution
Date: 2/22/98

Essays by Author
Essays by Subject
Essays by Date
Shopping Cart

The fossils provide much more discouragement than support for Darwinism when they are examined objectively, but objective examination has rarely been the object of Darwinist paleontology. The Darwinist approach has consistently been to find some supporting fossil evidence, claim it as proof for 'evolution,' and then ignore all the difficulties.

--Phillip Johnson, "Darwin on Trial" (2nd edition 1993, p. 86.)

INTRODUCTION

While all Darwinists believe in avian evolution, not all Darwinists believe birds evolved from dinosaurs. The article "In quest of the origin of birds" in the September '97 issue of BioScience highlights the two competing schools of thought among Darwinists: 1) birds evolved from jumping dinosaurs, or 2) birds evolved from gliding reptiles.

Apparently, Archaeopteryx doesn't appear to be much help to either view:

"Although called the Rosetta Stones of avian evolution because they provide so many clues to bird origins, the seven Archaeopteryx fossils that have accumulated on museum shelves during the past 130 or so years represent a creature quite removed from the dawn of birds. Archaeopteryx is widely accepted as the earliest bird in the fossil record."

The theropod-to-bird school believe birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs which developed feathers for insulation, and later developed flight.

The thecodont-to-bird school find this ridiculuous. They say it's "biophysically impossible" to evolve flight from the "ground up" involving theropods, and propose instead some thecodonts glided through trees, and later developed flight.

However, if one were to look at the empirical evidence alone (eg. The fossil record) there doesn't seem to be good reason to accept either Darwinist explanation....

One of the hottest debates in paleontology is whether birds evolved from dinosaurs.

The recent article "The Origin of Birds and Their Flight" by Kevin Padian and Luis M. Chiappe (Scientific American, February 1998, pp. 38-47) features an illustration of the fossil bird Confuciusornis; the caption above the illustration declares as fact:"Both a bird and a dinosaur" < http://www.sciam.com/1998/0298issue/0298currentissue.html> On page 5 of the same issue, under the heading, "About the Cover", Confuciusornis is described as "a primitive bird".

Padian and Chiappe conclude: "In fact, living birds are nothing less than small, feathered, short-tailed theropod dinosaurs." (p. 47)

Really?

Padian and Chiappe base their claim for the dinosaurian origins of birds on 1) so-called fossil transitions and 2) cladistics. However, the entire basis for cladism is evolutionary assumption.

The following quotes are taken from "Vertebrate Life" (Third Edition) by F.H. Pough, J.B. Heiser, and W.N. MacFarland (1989) Macmillan, New York:

"The reason for the change [from traditional to cladistic classification] is an increased emphasis on the proposition that groups of animals can be identified only if they share a common evolutionary lineage." (p. 4)

"Acceptance of the fact of evolution in the nineteenth century made a classification system that provided an individual pigeonhole for each species inadequate -- now it was necessary to express evolutionary relationships among species by incorporating phylogenetic information in the system of classification." (p. 38)

"A cladistic classification to represent the phylogeny of vertebrates, therefore, arranges animals on the basis of their historical divergences from a common ancestral species. Because the transitional fossils that would normally identify a common ancestral species are usually missing, cladistic classification is based on comparisons of character states of the animals that are available for study." (p. 49)

"Phylogenetic systematics, usually called cladistics, classifies animals on the basis of shared derived character states." (p. 52)

"Each phylogenetic lineage is called a clade." (p. 243)

"One of the strengths of the cladistic approach to classification is the emphasis it places on shared derived characteristics of related organisms. Usually, these are morphological characters, and they are employed to draw inferences about phylogenetic relationships, but the process can be used in other ways. For example, if a phylogeny can be established by using morphological charcters, other characteristics -- ecology, behavior, or physiology -- can be superimposed on the phylogeny and their evolution can be interpreted in a phylogenetic context." (p. 482)

FROM THEROPOD LUNGS TO BIRD LUNGS?

In response to the criticism of their theropod-to-bird theory that "The complex lungs of birds could not have evolved from theropod lungs," Padian and Chiappe write:

"This assertion cannot be supported or falsified at the moment, because no fossil lungs are preserved in the paleontological record. Also, the proponents of this argument offer no animal whose lungs could have given rise to those in birds, which are extremely complex and are unlike the lungs of any living animal." (p. 43)

In his book "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" (1986) molecular biologist Michael Denton describes how in all vertebrates except birds, air is drawn inward through various tubes to air sacs (alveoli) in the lungs, and the "bad air" is expelled through the same tubes.

Birds, however, draw in the "good air" through parabronchi and force it through a complex tubular structure involving several portions of its anatomy. The air is expelled from the body through different tubes and orifices than those through which it entered. Denton reports this is true for all known birds, even those as diverse as hawks, ostriches, and hummingbirds.

FROM SCALES TO FEATHERS?

Well-known creationist Duane Gish, who spent 18 years in biochemical research (Cornell University Medical College; Virus Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley; The Upjohn Company, Kalamazoo, Michigan) says no evolutionist can come even close to providing an evolutionary explanation of how feathers could have evolved from scales:

"Scales are flat horny plates; feathers are very complex in structure, consisting of a central shaft from which radiate barbs and barbules. Barbules are equipped with tiny hooks which lock onto the barbs and bind the feather surface into a flat, strong, flexible vane. Feathers and scales arise from different layers of the skin. Futhermore, the development of the feather is extremely complex, and fundamentally different from that of a scale. Feathers, as do hairs but unlike scales, develop from follicles. A hair, however, is a much simpler structure than a feather. The developing feather is protected by a horny sheath and forms around a bloody, conical, inductive dermal core. Not only is the developing feather sandwiched between the sheath and dermal core, it is complex in structure. Development of the cells that will become the mature feather involves complex processes. Cells migrate and split apart in highly specific patterns to form the complex arrangement of barbs and barbules." ("Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!", pp. 135-136)

Thus it seems timely to give students discussing the question, "Did birds evolve from dinosaurs?" an assignment to develop their critical thinking skills: