Page 49 - The Origin of Birds and Flight

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) 47

This is a groundless claim made by a great many other evolutionists
to inculcate people with the imaginary dino-bird model. Alan Feduccia
says that:
Dial’s work is surprisingly poor. First, the galliform birds are a very poor
choice, as they are among the most highly derived flying birds, and have
a huge pectoral muscle mass for burst flying from the ground. That’s
why hunters like them; they have a lot of good meat! They have about
35% or more of the body mass devoted to the flight apparatus, as com-
pared to some 8% or less in Archæopteryx and even less in theropods. So,
what do his findings mean? Answer. Nothing! 33
The fact that a scientist made such a claim and that it was published
in a scientific journal might lead some to imagine that tales of this sort
have some scientific basis. But in fact, scientific findings clearly show
Dial’s claim to be no more than a fairy tale.
Furthermore, it’s not only the origin of wings and flight that evolu-
tionists need to explain. Accepting the idea that birds developed in sta-
ges also means accepting that all of birds’ complex structures and sys-
tems—their one-directional lung design, their hollow bones, the micro-
scopic hooks and barbs on their feathers and their light but flexible struc-
ture, their warm-blooded metabolism, and a great many other details
revealing this magnificent creation—also came into existence in stages,
which is hardly possible. In addition, it is unlikely for any demi-bird
having these half-formed organs and systems to survive.
In addition, new advances in the field of technology show that flying
birds and flight were specially created. Conrad Waddington, a professor
in the field of animal genetics, states the illogicality of seeking to base the
development of living things on chance and random natural mecha-
nisms:
To suppose that the evolution of the wonderfully adapted biological
mechanisms has depended only on a selection out of a haphazard set of
variations, each produced by blind chance, is like suggesting that if we
went on throwing bricks together into heaps, we should eventually be
able to choose ourselves the most desirable house. 34