This site is here for you to present all works of Harun Yahya for free. There are 19177 work in total, 1628 of them in English. All downloads are free. You can copy, distribute and print these works freely by referring to our web site.
A New Dino-Bird Lie and Darwinists’ Pointless Wriggling - ENGLISH
October 2008
An article in the 19 October, 2008, issue of Nature announced to the scientific world that a new “dino-bird” had been discovered. It maintained that this creature, described under the headline “A bizarre Jurassic maniraptoran from China with elongate ribbon-like feathers” had “primitive feathers” and represented an example of the imaginary transition from dinosaurs to birds. The fact is, however, that the organism in question, which occupied considerable space in the Turkish and foreign press and was heralded as an intermediate form fossil, actually represents an insoluble dilemma for the theory of evolution.
Known as Epidexipteryx and estimated to have lived in the Middle and Late Jurassic (168-152 million years ago), the fossil weighs 164 grams and is the size of a pigeon. Darwinists interpreted a long, double-paired structure on the back of the creature’s body as bunches of feathers in the course of evolution. For that reason, the creature was referred to as a “feathered dinosaur” in the Darwinist press. The fact is, however, that there is no truth to these claims. This creature that the Darwinist media is trying to depict as an intermediate form has various characteristics that conflict with evolutionist speculation:
The structures on the back of this interesting, pigeon-size creature have nothing to do with feathers. These areas exhibit a membrane-like structure and have been described, as in a BBC report on the subject, as a fluffy, down-like covering. It is distorting the evidence and incompatible with the scientific facts to describe the structures in question as developing feathers.
This animal, portrayed as significant in the imaginary transition from dinosaurs to birds, reveals a major inconsistency with evolutionist claims. The paleontologists who declare that the creature dates back to the Late Jurassic Period have totally forgotten about Archaeopteryx in describing the former’s "developing primitive feathers." As we know, Archaeopteryx lived 150 million years ago and was a bird with perfect flight characteristics. No matter what speculation, devoid of any scientific evidence, Darwinists come up with about Archaeopteryx, they still admit that it had perfect feathers. Therefore, to claim that a life form that emerged at a time following a period in which perfect bird feathers were in existence itself totally undermines the theory of evolution.
It can be seen from Epidexipteryx’s general anatomy that it is an extinct mosaic life form with different features to "primitive feathers." The way the creature is linked to birds and even dinosaurs again stems from Darwinist speculation. National Geographic magazine described Epidexipteryx as follows, "Epidexipteryx's anatomy seems to be a hodgepodge of features taken from a variety of animals."(NationalGeographic.com)
With these characteristics, the animal may be described as a Jurassic Platypus. The Darwinist evolutionary propaganda around this life form is only to be expected. Because since Darwinists have no real intermediate form fossils, they generally concentrate their speculation around extinct, mosaic life forms. Since Epidexipteryx has various features that might conceivably prepare the way for evolutionary claims, Darwinists have used this mosaic life form to come up with another deception. Epidexipteryx is the latest instance of this after Tiktaalik roseae.
By depicting the structures in Epidexipteryx that have nothing to do with feathers as “primitive feathers,” Darwinists are aiming to continue the dino-bird deception that has persisted for so many years. However, this anatomical structure that has emerged as a result of the investigation of living fossils has invalidated evolutionists’ own claims with regard to the supposed evolution of feathers. In fact, Epidexipteryx represents the latest desperate move on the part of Darwinists who possess not one single real intermediate form. As we know, Darwinist forgeries have in the past been made by adding feathers to dinosaur fossils of else by combining different fossil parts together, and we have examples of dino-bird hoaxes (especially Archaeoraptor) that represent a terrible source of shame for Darwinists.
Darwinists have become so used to engaging in demagoguery around extinct life forms and even, if necessary, producing fossil forgeries with their own hands and displaying them in museums as if they were genuine, that they have imagined they can neutralize the total absence of intermediate forms by these methods. But the whole world now knows that the theory of evolution is not supported by any scientific evidence, that Darwinists have for years deceived everyone with false intermediate forms, and that the theory of evolution is a lie. Therefore, even if false reports of dino-birds are accompanied by attractive-looking but equally false illustrations, they will no longer have any impact.
The evidence that invalidates Darwinists’ false dino-bird claims regarding Epidexipteryx is there for all to see. In addition to that evidence, the illogicality of the claim that dinosaurs grew wings and turned into birds is also totally obvious. The impossibility of such a transition from the land to the air has already been set out and proved many times in articles by us. You can find more detailed information about the impossibility of any passage from land to air and about the fraudulent nature of dino-bird scenarios here.
We advise Nature magazine and the pro-evolution press that follow the same line to present such reports in the light of the scientific facts, rather than trying to fit them to the theory of evolution. We would also remind that section of the press that people have finally seen that the theory of evolution is a deception, that they believe only in the scientific facts, and that reports such as these should be measured against these criteria when they are published.
