The latest research, involving ultraviolet light studies of soft tissues of the theropod raptor shown at the right, has revealed that its lungs are not like those of a bird, as some had thought. Rather, the results support the idea that dinosaur lungs were structurally simple, more like those of modern-day crocodiles. [See J.A. Ruben, et. al., "Pulmonary Function and Metabolic Physiology of Theropod Dinosaurs," Science 283:514, 22 January 1999. The picture is from this issue.] These results cap a long line of research showing that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs. (Evolution is defined as descent from a common ancestor.)
The idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs began in the late 1860's with "Darwin's Bulldog," Thomas Henry Huxley. His claim seemed to be supported by the fossils of a Jurassic toothed bird, Archaeopteryx, which was thought to be an evolutionary link between the birds and the dinosaurs. Strong support in the 20th century for this idea came from John H. Ostrom of Yale University, starting with a 1973 letter in Nature, and from a Yale graduate, Robert T. Bakker, who wrote a popular 1986 book, The Dinosaur Heresies.
Ostrom thought that birds had their origins with the small theropod (meat-eating) dinosaurs. His influence is shown in the diagram at the left, which shows birds evolving from theropods [adapted from W.B. Gallagher, When Dinosaurs Roamed New Jersey (1997)]. Bakker marred his well-illustrated book with dubious claims about dinosaurs such as "there can be little doubt an avian-style system of air sacs was at work" (p. 364). As we have seen above, there is plenty to doubt about Bakker's assertion that dinosaur lungs are like birds'.
One argument that Ostrom used for birds evolving from dinosaurs was that Archaeopteryx had nearly the same skeleton as a small theropod, Deinonychus. He also suggested that Archaeopteryx's claws were not like those of highflying birds, but rather resembled ground dwellers like quail and roadrunners. According to Ostrom, avian flight began when Archaeopteryx started leaping up off the ground for insects and the like [Bakker, pp. 311-319]. Somehow, Deinonychus, a creature perfectly adapted for living on the ground, changed into an animal perfectly adapted for living in the air. Does that make sense?
In a series of articles in Science [9 March 1979, p. 1021, and 5 February 1993, pp. 790], Alan Feduccia of the University of North Carolina convincingly showed that Archaeopteryx was no evolutionary link, but a true bird. (The picture is from the cover of the 1993 issue.) Feduccia pointed out that Archaeopteryx's feathers and wings are identical to those of modern birds, and that its claws have the morphology of a perching bird, not a ground-runner. This work and others, such as the discovery of the fossils of true birds in China that predate Archaeopteryx, demonstrate that there is no way the birds evolved from the dinosaurs. At the same time dinosaurs lived on the ground, the birds were singing in the trees. [See L. Hou, et. al., "Early Adaptive Radiation of Birds: Evidence from Fossils from Northeastern China," Science 274:1164, 15 November 1996.]
A conclusion that one can draw from the current research is that, while birds did not evolve from dinosaurs, they both evolved from a common ancestor. The best evidence that undercuts this claim is from woodpeckers.
The tongue of some woodpeckers is up to four inches long. The whole tongue of the Wryneck woodpecker is nearly two-thirds of the length of its body (excluding its tail feathers). In order to stretch their tongues so far beyond their bills, woodpeckers have a long supporting hyoid apparatus, to which the tongue is attached. This extremely long tongue system cannot be accommodated in the woodpecker's skull, so instead branches of the hyoid apparatus loop under the head and split to go on either side of the neck bones. Then they wrap around the back of the skull and go over the crown. They either coil around and anchor behind the right eyeball (as shown in the above left picture) or else they extend into the right nostril (as shown in the lower right picture). [The pictures are from A.F. Skutch and D. Gardner, Life of the Woodpecker (1985)].
How did this "wraparound" tongue system evolve? It could not have been an ordinary tongue and hyoid apparatus that slowly got longer and longer. It could not have been anything that slowly changed from something else. The woodpecker's hyoid apparatus is an example of what Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University, calls an irreducibly complex system. This is a biological system complex enough that it could not have evolved from one of its components. Instead, it had to have been designed and created right from the start. Behe's examples of irreducibly complex systems are presented in his book, Darwin's Black Box (1996). Also, the problems with a reductionist approach to biological systems are discussed in "Biologists cut Reductionist Approach Down to Size," Science 277:476, 25 July 1997.
There is no good evolutionary explanation for the long-range migration of anything - from butterflies to birds. That is because the migration information is genetically encoded, be it the monarch butterfly [see J.H. Poirier, From Darkness to Light to Flight (1995), pp. 43-44] or sharp-shinned hawks [see S. Weiderisaul, Raptors (1996) p. 186]. The young sharp-shinned hawk on its first migration flies alone - it does not benefit from adult guidance. It already knows what to do because the information has already been programmed into it. In general, it leaves Eastern Canada in mid-September, which is earlier than the adults, and makes it way across New England. When it reaches long Island, it turns southwest to follow the coast, and so on. An adult sharp-shinned hawk often avoids the coastal route and may veer southwest when it reaches the Appalachians. How does one account for this? Where did the information come from to tell the young sharp-shinned hawk how to migrate? It had to have come from a programmer; there is no way it could have evolved.
There is much more that could be said about birds: their hearts, lungs, and other features are unique and super efficient. We will only discuss their flight feathers - another unique feature. To start with, the oldest fossil feather looks just like a modern feather - so there is no evidence that it evolved. [See N.S. Proctor & P.J. Lynch, Manual of Ornithology (1993) p. 81; the picture of the feather is from this book.]
Besides the fact that there is no evidence that the feather evolved, there is also no possible explanation of how flight feathers evolved from scales. The adaptive value of an intermediate structure between a scale and a flight feather is not very obvious. We are faced with the problem of explaining how and why one perfectly-adapted biological component changed into another completely different perfectly-adapted biological component. Flight feathers are extraordinarily detailed in construction and strong for their weight. They are necessarily asymmetrical - this gives the feather an airfoil cross-section for lift. The upstroke of the wing forces the feather's vanes to open like Venetian blinds. This effect lets the air pass through and offers little resistance. The downstroke is the power stroke - the feathers twist back into a flat wing surface, and move the bird through the air. Not only do the individual parts of birds appear to be designed, but the bird itself is a synergistic whole, created for the purpose of flight.
There are arguments that birds evolved from dinosaurs, but there is no evidence. What was thought to be an intermediate, Archaeopteryx, was really a true bird that lived at the same time as the dinosaurs and other true birds. The evidence that does exist demonstrates birds did not evolve from dinosaurs. Did birds evolve from dinosaurs? No way!
There are arguments that birds evolved, but no evidence. The evidence that does exist demonstrates that birds did not evolve. The oldest known fossil birds are those of true birds. There are no fossils of intermediates. The oldest known fossil feathers are like modern feathers. There are no fossils of intermediates. Evolution cannot explain where the genetically-encoded migration information came from. Nor can evolution explain irreducibly complex systems such as the woodpecker's hyoid apparatus. These systems had to be designed and then created as wholes. Similarly, birds had to be designed and created as wholes, with migration information programmed in. Did birds evolve? No way!
THE IMPLICATION OF THE CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION FOR EVOLUTION
NO EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION - Scientists' Research and Darwinism