Friday, January 26, 2007

Missing Links

If evolution is true, then all animals and people slowly evolved from simple to complex over millions of years' time. If this is correct, we would expect to find, for example, not only fossils of reptiles and birds, but also creatures in the in-between stage, half bird, half reptile type creatures. However, these links are missing!


Some evolutionists claim that the now-extinct bird called the Archaeopteryx is a missing link between reptiles and birds. Here are a few good reasons why God created Archaeopteryx as it was, not as a link between two very different types of animals:
  • Archaeopteryxes had fully formed wings just like the birds of today. With perfectly designed airfoil wings, they were fit to fly! You wouldn't expect this if it were half reptile.
  • Also, a fossil of a bird bone that dated back to the same time as the archaeopteryx was found. The fossil was even more similar to modern birds than the archaeopteryx. This was a startling discovery, since archaeopteryx was supposed to be the earliest bird, and if there was another bird living at the same time that was more "advanced" than the archaeopteryx, then the hypothesis is somehow incorrect!
  • One feature that evolutionists say makes the archaeopteryx reptilian is the claws on its wings. However, several types of birds that are still living, namely, the Hoatzin, Touraco, and Ostrich, also have claws on their wings, and yet are not considered missing links. The archaeopteryx is just another bird with claws.

Archaeopteryxes, with their claws, and teeth, were birds. God created them as birds, and created reptiles as reptiles. The archaeopteryx is not a missing link, and never will be. The fossil record holds absolutely no evidence of links between types.

We have all heard of the links between monkeys and modern man, but have we ever been told the true story about these "cave men"?

  • NEBRASKA MAN
The "Nebraska Man" was created from an artist's imagination from a single tooth that was discovered. Aside from the ridiculousness of making a whole man out of a tooth, the tooth was found to be that of an extinct wild pig.
  • PILTDOWN MAN
A mandible and a portion of a skull were found in an English gravel pit by Charles Dawson in 1912. After the remains were advertised as "missing links" all over the world, the bones were found to be a fraud in 1953. The skull was human, and the teeth on the ape's jaw were filed down and chemically treated to look old.
  • ORCE MAN
In 1982 an unusual bone fragment was discovered in Orce, Spain. A year later, the archaeologists declared that it was from a human child. If this was correct, then this would be the oldest human fossil in Europe. Some scientists created an entire man out of this fragment, called the "Orce Man." To the embarrassment of many, it was later found to be the skullcap of a 6-month old donkey!
  • RHODESIAN MAN
The bones of three or four individuals were found in a zinc mine in what was then Rhodesia. Unfortunately the bones were taken out by the miners, not archaeologists. When the bones came to the British Museum of Natural History, they were reconstructed and displayed for many years. However, the museum staff who reconstructed the skeleton were not familiar with human anatomy, and since the hipbones were smashed, they displayed them as stooped-down figures. Not until some anatomists examined the skeleton was it shown to be just a modern man.
  • JAVA MAN
Eugene Dubois, a Dutch anatomist, went to the Dutch Indies to look for fossils. On the banks of the Solo River, he found a human-like fossil of a tooth, the upper part of a skull, and a thigh bone. This "missing link" has been advertised for a long time. However, the tooth and thigh bone turned out to be human, and the skull was from a giant gibbon.

In encyclopedias, magazines, and other sources of information, these "ancient ancestors" are presented as if the bones found were actually the real thing. As a matter of fact, they still haven't found a single fossil of an ancient predecessor of man.

Labels: ,

5 Comments:

At January 27, 2007 , Blogger Nione said...

Hey, that's neat about all those bones they thought were links between man and monkeys. And what do you know, not a one was real! Hmm, I wonder when they'll get the message that they really aren't ever going to find a real one?
Just curious, where did you find out about all those supposed "missing links"? Some I haven't ever heard of.

 
At January 28, 2007 , Anonymous Anonymous said...

In fact, Archaeopteryx did not have perfectly formed wings, and lacked several refinements found in living birds, such as an alula. The claim that a more advanced bird has been found from the time of Archaeopteryx is false. Finally, the Hoatzin and Touraco only have claws on their wings while juvenile, while the claws on the wings of Ostriches are of no use, and are vestigial. All in all Archaeopteryx is an excellent example of a “missing link”.

 
At February 02, 2007 , Blogger Benjamin said...

Nione: I wrote this a few years ago for my LTC website. I probably did the research from Apologetics Press materials, although I should have cited my sources (I didn't know any better then).

Augray: I'll take your word that archaeopteryx didn't have an alula, although I still believe the bird was able to fly. Just compare it to modern flightless birds (e.g. ostrich and kiwi) which have small wings and large bodies, and it seems pretty clear that the archaeopteryx (about the size of a crow) was made to fly. Concerning the term "vestigial", I believe that there is no such thing, and that God made every part of a creature for a purpose. We humans may not have discovered this purpose, and indeed may not know it until we see Him who made everything, but I don't believe that anything about God's creation is "vestigial" or left-over.

Some further reading on archaeopteryx from Apologetics Press:

1. Archaeopteryx, Archaeoraptor, and the “Dinosaurs-To-Birds” Theory
2. Archaeopteryx—“The Greatest Embarrassment of Paleontology”
3. It's a Bird! It's a Dinosaur! It's...Archaeopteryx!

 
At February 15, 2007 , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Benjamin:

There are so many errors in the articles you link to that it's hard to know where to start, but here are a few examples:

It's implied that the London and Berlin specimens of Archaeopteryx are the only ones that have feather impressions, but this is completely false. Surprisingly, the article itself contradicts its own claim when it discusses the Haarlem AKA Teyler specimen, stating "A re-examination of the fossil in 1970 by Ostrom revealed feathers and its true identity".

It also states that "evolutionists now are faced with the possibility that birds may have evolved from moles instead of reptiles!", but no one has ever claimed this, or even implied it. It's pure misrepresentation.

Finally, some of the article has been copied from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html

Take a look at the description of the "The Haarlem or Teyler Specimen". Both state that "A re-examination of the fossil in 1970 by Ostrom revealed feathers and its true identity". There are similar correspondences in wording between the two pages throughout that section.

I'd be quite happy to point out other problems with these articles if you're interested.

 
At March 18, 2007 , Blogger Benjamin said...

Thank you for pointing out what appears to be a copyright violation in the article Archaeopteryx, Archaeoraptor, and the “Dinosaurs-To-Birds” Theory (I will pursue this further to determine if it is or not).

The statement "evolutionists now are faced with the possibility that birds may have evolved from moles instead of reptiles!" does not imply than any evolutionist has ever said this, it only states that they are faced with the possibility.

Anyway, although I appreciate your pointing out possible copyright issues, I will say that I highly respect the men who work at Apologetics Press, and I am grateful for all they do for the defence of New Testament Christianity. There is no need to point out further "problems" in the articles, as this blog is not meant to be a discussion forum or a debating place. My blog post was simply meant to give my fellow Christians evidence for the truth of creation.

Thanks for visiting my blog!

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home