Page 111 - Darwinism Refuted

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar)

stated that the structures named as "feathers" by evolutionary
paleontologists definitely had nothing to do with feathers:
Exactly 1 year ago, paleontologists were abuzz about photos of a so-called
"feathered dinosaur," which were passed around the halls at the annual
meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. The Sinosauropteryx
specimen from the Yixian Formation in China made the front page of The
New York Times, and was viewed by some as confirming the dinosaurian
origins of birds. But at this year's vertebrate paleontology meeting in
Chicago late last month, the verdict was a bit different: The structures are not
modern feathers, say the roughly half-dozen Western paleontologists who
have seen the specimens. ...Paleontologist Larry Martin of Kansas
University, Lawrence, thinks the structures are frayed collagenous fibers
beneath the skin—and so have nothing to do with birds. 138
A yet more sensational case of dino-bird hype broke out in 1999. In
its November 1999 issue, National Geographic published an article about a
fossil specimen unearthed in China which was claimed to bear both bird
and dinosaur features. National Geographic writer Christopher P. Sloan, the
author of the article, went so far as to claim, "we can now say that birds are
theropods just as confidently as we say that humans are mammals." This
species, which was said to have lived 125 million years ago, was
immediately given the scientific name Archaeoraptor liaoningensis. 139
However, the fossil was a fake and was skillfully constructed from
five separate specimens. A group of researchers, among whom were also
three paleontologists, proved the forgery one year later with the help of X-
ray computed tomography. The dino-bird was actually the product of a
Chinese evolutionist. Chinese amateurs formed the dino-bird by using glue
and cement from 88 bones and stones. Research suggests that Archaeoraptor
was built from the front part of the skeleton of an ancient bird, and that its
body and tail included bones from four different specimens.
The interesting thing is that National Geographic published a high-
profile article about such a crude forgery—and, moreover, used it as the
basis for claiming that "bird evolution" scenarios had been verified—
without expressing any doubts or caution in the article at all. Dr. Storrs
Olson, of the famous Smithsonian Institute Natural History Museum in
the USA, later said that he warned National Geographic beforehand that this
fossil was a fake, but that the magazine management totally ignored him.

109