Evolutionists often propose a scenario in which inanimate chemicals somehow come together in order to form the first precursor to modern life. However, this violates the law of biogenesis (which states that life can only come from life). Also, molecular oxygen (and the record indicates that the earth's atmosphere had molecular oxygen from near its formation, if not from the very beginning) would poison any reaction leading to biologically significant molecules. In addition, there is the problem of homochirality. All life contains "left-handed" amino acids, but any chance reaction would result in equal quantities of "left-handed" and "right-haned" molecules. Also, unlike the electric discharge used to simulate lightning in the famous Miller-Urey experiment, actual lightning would have destroyed any organic compounds.
There's also the probability factor. The probability of a single protein molecule being assembled by chance has been calculated at 1 in 10^161, granting such generous concessions as the radically inflated "age" of the earth and all of the atoms on the planet. For the minimum set of 239 protein molecules required for the smallest theoretical form of life, the odds have been calculated as being 1 in 10^119,879, which would take an average of 10^119,841 years (Source: Dr. James Coppedge, Evolution: Possible or Not?, pp. 110, 114). Harold Morowitz stated that the chances for the formation of the smallest, simplest form of life were 1 in 10^340,000,000! (Source: Energy Flow in Biology, Academic Press, 1968)
Chance formation cannot possibly result in a living cell, and there are no viable predecessors to the first living cell, which defies naturalistic explanation.
Dino-Birds?:
Evolutionists say that birds evolved from reptilians (they almost always point to the dinosaurs as the ancestors), and one of their most famed "transitional fossils" is supposedly transitional between these two groups. This is Archaeopteryx, "dated" (there are many valid reasons for rejecting the evolutionary dating systems; see Evolution_Notes.txt and Recommended_Sites.txt's links for some information on this) at having lived about 150 million years ago (Ma). They claim that Archaeopteryx, with what appear to be features from one of its two relative groups, is an outstanding example of a transitional form in the fossil record.
However, Archaeopteryx's feathers were fully developed, it had a moving mandible and maxilla, and it was fully bird. The death knell to the use of Archaeopteryx as a transition, though, is the discovery by Sankar Chatterjee of two modern birds, Protoavis texensis (looking even more modern than Archaeopteryx), "dated" to 225 Ma, 75 Ma before Archaeopteryx! (Source: T. Beardsley, Nature, vol. 322, 1986, p. 677)
Two quotes from Alan Feduccia, a world expert on ornithology and a very knowledgeable man concerning Archaeopteryx, clarify the situation of Archaeopteryx's status greatly:
"Paleontologists ahev tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It's a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that." (Source: Virginia Morell, "Archaeopteryx: Early bird catches a can of worms," Science, vol. 259, 5 February 1993, pp. 764-765)
"I conclude that Archaeopteryx was arboreal and volant, considerably advanced aerodynamically, and probably capable of powered, flapping flight to some degree. Archaeopteryx probably cannot tell us much about the early origins of feathers and flight in true protobirds because Archaeopteryx was, in the modern sense, a bird." (Source: Alan Feduccia, "Evidence from Claw Geometry Indicating Arboreal Habits of Archaeopteryx," Science, vol. 259, 5 February 1993, p. 792)
Another interesting figure in the saga of "dino-bird" discoveries is Archaeoraptor liaoningensis, hailing from the Liaoning Province of China. It was purchased at an Arizona mineral show for $80,000 in 1999. It turned out to be a complete fake--the tail of a dinosaur had wound up attached to the body of a bird. Liaoning Province is known for fraudulent dino-bird fossils.
Another interesting specimen is that of Bambiraptor, discovered by a Montana family in 1993. It was was about the size of a chicken with a tail that made it three feet long. Despite artists' depictions of it as a feathered dinosaur, nothing remotely resembling feathers was found with the fossil. As if that doesn't remove its significance already, Bambiraptor is "dated" to 75 Ma, 75 million years after the "date" for Archaeopteryx and 150 million years after the "date" for Protoavis texensis.
The specimen called "BPM 1 3-13" after the British Palaeontological Museum in Liaoning Province was "dated" to 20 million years after Archaeopteryx.
Sinosauropteryx prima, the holotype (first name specimen) for which was found in the Yixian Formation in the Liaoning Province by a farmer in 1996, supposedly had feathers, but these were later identified as fibers of collagen. Regardless, the fossil was still "dated" younger than Archaeopteryx.
Two species, Protarchaeopteryx robusta and Caudipteryx zoui, were found together in the Yixian Formation in 1997 and initially given the same designation. They are both about chicken-sized, likely flightless birds, and "dated" about 25 million years younger than Archaeopteryx.
Two other creatures, Mononykus and Deinonykus, are also claimed to be in the lineage of birds, though they are "dated" after Archaeopteryx and no evidence warrants a designation as transitional for them.
An interesting find designated as Microraptor gui came from the Liaoning Province in China (sound like a theme, anyone?) and was claimed to be a dinosaur with four wings. The creature is "dated" to 124-128 Ma, and five of the six specimens were purchased, making their authenticity suspect (especially in something from Liaoning, where even evolutionists have admitted there seems to be a "fake fossil factory").
Several problems in the whole scenario of reptile-to-bird would be that of turning feathers into scales despite the lack of any possible mechanism, the change between two completely different styles of lung in which any intermediates would be unable to survive, and the implausibility of any of the flight-development scenarios.
Double-click to keep reading Home