http://www.elnaggarzr.com/en/main.php?id=65

According to the theory of evolution, life originated and evolved in
the sea and then was transported onto land by amphibians. This
evolutionary scenario also suggests that amphibians evolved into
reptiles, creatures living only on land. This scenario is again
implausible, due to the enormous structural differences between these
two classes of animals. For instance, the amphibian egg is designed
for developing in water whereas the amniotic egg is designed for
developing on land. A "step by step" evolution of an amphibian is out
of the question, because without a perfect and fully-designed egg, it
is not possible for a species to survive. Moreover, as usual, there is
no evidence of transitional forms that were supposed to link
amphibians with reptiles. Evolutionist paleontologist and an authority
on vertebrate paleontology, Robert L. Carroll has to accept that "the
early reptiles were very different from amphibians and that their
ancestors could not be found yet."44

Yet the hopelessly doomed scenarios of the evolutionists are not over
yet. There still remains the problem of making these creatures fly!
Since evolutionists believe that birds must somehow have been evolved,
they assert that they were transformed from reptiles. However, none of
the distinct mechanisms of birds, which have a completely different
structure from land-dwelling animals, can be explained by gradual
evolution. First of all, the wings, which are the exceptional traits
of birds, are a great impasse for the evolutionists. One of the
Turkish evolutionists, Engin Korur, confesses the impossibility of the
evolution of wings:

The common trait of the eyes and the wings is that they can only
function if they are fully developed. In other words, a halfway-
developed eye cannot see; a bird with half-formed wings cannot fly.
How these organs came into being has remained one of the mysteries of
nature that needs to be enlightened.45

The question of how the perfect structure of wings came into being as
a result of consecutive haphazard mutations remains completely
unanswered. There is no way to explain how the front arms of a reptile
could have changed into perfectly functioning wings as a result of a
distortion in its genes (mutation).

Moreover, just having wings is not sufficient for a land organism to
fly. Land-dwelling organisms are devoid of many other structural
mechanisms that birds use for flying. For example, the bones of birds
are much lighter than those of land-dwelling organisms. Their lungs
function in a very different way. They have a different muscular and
skeletal system and a very specialised heart-circulatory system. These
features are pre-requisites of flying needed at least as much as
wings. All these mechanisms had to exist at the same time and
altogether; they could not have formed gradually by being
"accumulated". This is why the theory asserting that land organisms
evolved into aerial organisms is completely fallacious.

All of these bring another question to the mind: even if we suppose
this impossible story to be true, then why are the evolutionists
unable to find any "half-winged" or "single-winged" fossils to back up
their story?

Another Alleged Transitional Form: Archæopteryx Evolutionists
pronounce the name of one single creature in response. This is the
fossil of a bird called Archæopteryx, one of the most widely-known so-
called transitional forms among the very few that evolutionists still
defend. Archæopteryx, the so-called ancestor of modern birds according
to evolutionists, lived approximately 150 million years ago. The
theory holds that some small dinosaurs, such as Velociraptors or
Dromeosaurs, evolved by acquiring wings and then starting to fly.
Thus, Archæopteryx is assumed to be a transitional form that branched
off from its dinosaur ancestors and started to fly for the first
time.
However, the latest studies of Archæopteryx fossils indicate that this
creature is absolutely not a transitional form, but an extinct species
of bird, having some insignificant differences from modern birds.

The thesis that Archæopteryx was a "half-bird" that could not fly
perfectly was popular among evolutionist circles until not long ago.
The absence of a sternum (breastbone) in this creature was held up as
the most important evidence that this bird could not fly properly.
(The sternum is a bone found under the thorax to which the muscles
required for flight are attached. In our day, this breastbone is
observed in all flying and non-flying birds, and even in bats, a
flying mammal which belongs to a very different family.)

However, the seventh Archæopteryx fossil, which was found in 1992,
caused great astonishment among evolutionists. The reason was that in
this recently discovered fossil, the breastbone that was long assumed
by evolutionists to be missing was discovered to have existed after
all. This fossil was described in Nature magazine as follows:

The recently discovered seventh specimen of the Archæopteryx
preserves a partial, rectangular sternum, long suspected but never
previously documented. This attests to its strong flight muscles.46

This discovery invalidated the mainstay of the claims that
Archæopteryx was a half-bird that could not fly properly.

Moreover, the structure of the bird's feathers became one of the
most important pieces of evidence confirming that Archæopteryx was a
flying bird in the real sense. The asymmetric feather structure of
Archæopteryx is indistinguishable from that of modern birds, and
indicates that it could fly perfectly well. As the eminent
paleontologist Carl O. Dunbar states, "because of its feathers
[Archæopteryx is] distinctly to be classed as a bird."47

Another fact that was revealed by the structure of Archæopteryx's
feathers was its warm-blooded metabolism. As was discussed above,
reptiles and dinosaurs are cold-blooded animals whose body heat
fluctuates with the temperature of their environment, rather than
being homeostatically regulated. A very important function of the
feathers on birds is the maintenance of a constant body temperature.
The fact that Archæopteryx had feathers showed that it was a real,
warm-blooded bird that needed to regulate its body heat, in contrast
to dinosaurs.

Speculations of Evolutionists: The Teeth and Claws of Archæopteryx Two
important points evolutionist biologists rely on when claiming
Archæopteryx was a transitional form, are the claws on its wings and
its teeth.

It is true that Archæopteryx had claws on its wings and teeth in its
mouth, but these traits do not imply that the creature bore any kind
of relationship to reptiles. Besides, two bird species living today,
Taouraco and Hoatzin, have claws which allow them to hold onto
branches. These creatures are fully birds, with no reptilian
characteristics. That is why it is completely groundless to assert
that Archæopteryx is a transitional form just because of the claws on
its wings.

Neither do the teeth in Archæopteryx's beak imply that it is a
transitional form. Evolutionists make a purposeful trickery by saying
that these teeth are reptile characteristics, since teeth are not a
typical feature of reptiles. Today, some reptiles have teeth while
others do not. Moreover, Archæopteryx is not the only bird species to
possess teeth. It is true that there are no toothed birds in existence
today, but when we look at the fossil record, we see that both during
the time of Archæopteryx and afterwards, and even until fairly
recently, a distinct bird genus existed that could be categorised as
"birds with teeth".

The most important point is that the tooth structure of Archæopteryx
and other birds with teeth is totally different from that of their
alleged ancestors, the dinosaurs. The well-known ornithologists L. D.
Martin, J. D. Steward, and K. N. Whetstone observed that Archæopteryx
and other similar birds have teeth with flat-topped surfaces and large
roots. Yet the teeth of theropod dinosaurs, the alleged ancestors of
these birds, are protuberant like saws and have narrow roots.48

These researchers also compared the wrist bones of Archæopteryx and
their alleged ancestors, the dinosaurs, and observed no similarity
between them.49

Studies by anatomists like S. Tarsitano, M. K. Hecht, and A.D. Walker
have revealed that some of the similarities that John Ostrom and other
have seen between Archæopteryx and dinosaurs were in reality
misinterpretations.50

All these findings indicate that Archæopteryx was not a transitional
link but only a bird that fell into a category that can be called
"toothed birds".

Archæopteryx and Other Ancient Bird Fossils

While evolutionists have for decades been proclaiming Archæopteryx to
be the greatest evidence for their scenario concerning the evolution
of birds, some recently-found fossils invalidate that scenario in
other respects.

Lianhai Hou and Zhonghe Zhou, two paleontologists at the Chinese
Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology, discovered a new bird fossil in
1995, and named it Confuciusornis. This fossil is almost the same age
as Archæopteryx (around 140 million years), but has no teeth in its
mouth. In addition, its beak and feathers shared the same features as
today's birds. Confuciusornis has the same skeletal structure as
modern birds, but also has claws on its wings, just like Archæopteryx.
Another structure peculiar to birds called the "pygostyle", which
supports the tail feathers, was also found in Confuciusornis. In
short, this fossil-which is the same age as Archæopteryx, which was
previously thought to be the earliest bird and was accepted as a semi-
reptile-looks very much like a modern bird. This fact has invalidated
all the evolutionist theses claiming Archæopteryx to be the primitive
ancestor of all birds.51
THE DESIGN OF THE BIRD FEATHERS

When bird feathers are examined in detail, it is seen that they are
made up of thousands of tiny tendrils attached to one another with
hooks. This unique design work of creation results in superior
aerodynamic performance.
The theory of evolution, which claims that birds evolved from
reptiles, is unable to explain the huge differences between these two
different living classes. In terms of such features as their skeleton
structure, lung systems, and warm-blooded metabolism, birds are very
different from reptiles. Another trait that poses an insurmountable
gap between birds and reptiles is the feathers of birds which have a
form entirely peculiar to them.

The bodies of reptiles are covered with scales, whereas the bodies of
birds are covered with feathers. Since evolutionists consider reptiles
the ancestor of birds, they are obliged to claim that bird feathers
have evolved from reptile scales. However, there is no similarity
between scales and feathers.

A professor of physiology and neurobiology from the University of
Connecticut, A.H. Brush, accepts this reality although he is an
evolutionist: "Every feature from gene structure and organization, to
development, morphogenesis and tissue organization is different (in
feathers and scales)."1 Moreover, Prof. Brush examines the protein
structure of bird feathers and argues that it is "unique among
vertebrates".2

There is no fossil evidence to prove that bird feathers evolved from
reptile scales. On the contrary, "feathers appear suddenly in the
fossil record, as an'undeniably unique' character distinguishing
birds" as Prof. Brush states.3 Besides, in reptiles, no epidermal
structure has yet been detected that provides an origin for bird
feathers.4

In 1996, paleontologists made abuzz about fossils of a so-called
feathered dinosaur, called Sinosauropteryx. However, in 1997, it was
revealed that these fossils had nothing to do with birds and that they
were not modern feathers.5

On the other hand, when we examine bird feathers closely, we come
across a very complex design that cannot be explained by any
evolutionary process. The famous ornithologist Alan Feduccia states
that "every feature of them has aerodynamic functions. They are
extremely light, have the ability to lift up which increases in lower
speeds, and may return to their previous position very easily". Then
he continues, "I cannot really understand how an organ perfectly
designed for flight may have emerged for another need at the
beginning".6

The design of feathers also compelled Charles Darwin ponder them.
Moreover, the perfect aesthetics of the peafowl's feathers had made
him "sick" (his own words). In a letter he wrote to Asa Gray on April
3, 1860, he said "I remember well the time when the thought of the eye
made me cold all over, but I have got over this stage of
complaint..."And then continued: "...and now trifling particulars of
structure often make me very uncomfortable. The sight of a feather in
a peacock's tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!" 7
1 A. H. Brush, "On the Origin of Feathers", Journal of Evolutionary
Biology, Vol. 9, 1996, s. 132.
2 A. H. Brush, "On the Origin of Feathers", s. 131.
3 A. H. Brush, "On the Origin of Feathers", s. 133.
4 A. H. Brush, "On the Origin of Feathers", s. 131.
5"Plucking the Feathered Dinosaur", Science, Cilt 278, 14 Kasým 1997,
s. 1229.
6 Douglas Palmer, "Learning to Fly", (Review of The Origin of and
Evolution of Birds by Alan Feduccia, Yale University Press, 1996), New
Scientist, Cilt 153, 1 Mart 1997, s. 44.
7 Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason. Boston: Gambit,
1971, s. 101.

Another fossil unearthed in China, caused even greater confusion. In
November 1996, the existence of a 130-million-year-old bird named
Liaoningornis was announced in Science by L. Hou, L. D. Martin, and
Alan Feduccia. Liaoningornis had a breastbone to which the muscles for
flight were attached, just as in modern birds. This bird was
indistinguishable from modern birds also in other respects, too. The
only difference was the teeth in its mouth. This showed that birds
with teeth did not possess the primitive structure alleged by
evolutionists.52 This was stated in an article in Discover "Whence
came the birds? This fossil suggests that it was not from dinasour
stock".53

Another fossil that refuted the evolutionist claims regarding
Archæopteryx was Eoalulavis. The wing structure of Eoalulavis, which
was said to be some 25 to 30 million years younger than Archæopteryx,
was also observed in modern slow-flying birds. This proved that 120
million years ago, there were birds indistinguishable from modern
birds in many respects flying in the skies.54

These facts once more indicate for certain that neither Archæopteryx
nor other ancient birds similar to it were transitional forms. The
fossils do not indicate that different bird species evolved from each
other. On the contrary, the fossil record proves that today's modern
birds and some archaic birds such as Archæopteryx actually lived
together at the same time. Some of these bird species, such as
Archæopteryx and Confuciusornis, have become extinct, and only some of
the species that once existed have been able to survive down to the
present day.

In brief, several features of Archæopteryx indicate that this creature
was not a transitional form. The overall anatomy of Archæopteryx imply
stasis, not evolution. Paleontologist Robert Carroll has to admit
that:

The geometry of the flight feathers of Archæopteryx is identical
with that of modern flying birds, whereas nonflying birds have
symmetrical feathers. The way in which the feathers are arranged on
the wing also falls within the range of modern birds… According to Van
Tyne and Berger, the relative size and shape of the wing of
Archæopteryx are similar to that of birds that move through restricted
openings in vegetation, such as gallinaceous birds, doves, woodcocks,
woodpeckers, and most passerine birds… The flight feathers have been
in stasis for at least 150 million years…55

On the other hand, the "temporal paradox" is one of the facts that
deal the fatal blow to the evolutionist allegations about
Archæopteryx. In his book Icons of Evolution, Jonathan Wells remarks
that Archæopteryx has been turned into an "icon" of the theory of
evolution, whereas evidence clearly shows that this creature is not
the primitive ancestor of birds. According to Wells, one of the
indications of this is that theropod dinosaurs—the alleged ancestors
of Archæopteryx—are actually younger than Archæopteryx:

Two-legged reptiles that ran along the ground, and had other
features one might expect in an ancestor of Archæopteryx, appear later.
56

44 Robert L. Carroll, Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, New York:
W. H. Freeman and Co., 1988, p. 198.
45 Engin Korur, "Gözlerin ve Kanatlarýn Sýrrý" (The Mystery of the
Eyes and the Wings), Bilim ve Teknik, No. 203, October 1984, p. 25.
46 Nature, Vol 382, August, 1, 1996, p. 401.
47 Carl O. Dunbar, Historical Geology, New York: John Wiley and Sons,
1961, p. 310.
48 L. D. Martin, J. D. Stewart, K. N. Whetstone, The Auk, Vol 98,
1980, p. 86.
49 Ibid, p. 86; L. D. Martin "Origins of Higher Groups of Tetrapods",
Ithaca, New York: Comstock Publising Association, 1991, pp. 485, 540.
50 S. Tarsitano, M. K. Hecht, Zoological Journal of the Linnaean
Society, Vol 69, 1985, p. 178; A. D. Walker, Geological Magazine, Vol
177, 1980, p. 595.
51 Pat Shipman, "Birds do it... Did Dinosaurs?", New Scientist,
February 1, 1997, p. 31.
52"Old Bird", Discover, March 21, 1997.
53 Ibid.
54 Pat Shipman, "Birds Do It... Did Dinosaurs?", p. 28.
55 Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution,
Cambridge University Press, 1997, p. 280-81.
http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter7.php