Last week the world media trumpeted the recent discovery of a group of fossils in China as evidence supporting the theory of evolution. Beijing”s Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology issued a statement saying that one of the six fossils in the group belonged to a “dino-bird with four wings” and that this extinct creature was able to fly, or at least, glide down the trees. Darwinist media once again dug out its tired “birds-evolved-from-dinosaurs” propaganda, even though this theory has already been disproved thoroughly and repeatedly.
In fact, there is absolutely no evidence which would support their propaganda, for neither this “four-winged dino-bird” nor any other scientific data supports the theory of birds having evolved from dinosaurs.
The new fossil is 20 million years younger than Archaeopteryx
Another striking aspect of Archaeopteryx is that it was a bona fide bird, with all the avian characteristics. Its asymmetrical feathers are the same as today”s birds, plus its perfect wing structure, light and hollow skeleton, sternum supporting flight muscles and many other characteristics have convinced scientists that Archaeopteryx was a bird fully capable of flight. 2
Two aspects of Archaeopteryx which, however, largely differed from those of modern birds were its clawed wings and the teeth in its beak. Owing to these two characteristics, evolutionists since the nineteenth century have tried to portray this bird as a “semi-reptile.” But these characteristics do not point to a link between Archaeopteryx and reptiles. Research shows that hoatzin, a bird species still living today, also has claws on its wings in its juvenile form. And Archaeopteryx was not the only “bird with teeth,” as other bird species from past ages represented in the fossil record also had teeth. 3
So as we can see, the evolutionist thesis that characterizes Archaeopteryx as a “primitive bird” is incorrect, and scientists have accepted that this creature looks very much like today”s birds. Kansas University Professor Alan Feduccia, one of the most prominent ornithologists in the world, stated, “Most recent workers who have studied various anatomical features of Archaeopteryx have found the creature to be much more birdlike than previously imagined,” The Darwinist propaganda on Archaeopteryx is wrong, and Feduccia also indicated that, until recently, “the resemblance of Archaeopteryx to theropod dinosaurs has been grossly overestimated.” 4
In sum, then, Archaeopteryx is the oldest bird sharing similar characteristics to those of modern birds and having the power of flight like them. And it is 150 million years old.
The evolutionists” age problem
Archaeopteryx demonstrates one key fact: Birds existed 150 million years ago. They were already able to fly. If the evolutionists want to come up with some “ancestors of birds,” these creatures must be older than 150 million years.
This fact alone is enough to show that the “four-winged dino-bird” claim being thrown about worldwide are both extremely superficial and wrong. Because this Chinese fossil, called Microraptor gui-which the evolutionists are trying to portray as the “ancestor of primitive birds” is only 130 million years old-in other words, fully 20 million years younger than the oldest known bird. Obviously, it is sheer nonsense to present a bird “as the ancestor of primitive birds” when there were birds flying in the sky 20 million years before this creature even existed.
Actually this “age problem” exists in all the “dino-bird” fossils which are supposedly ancestors of birds. Evolutionists who believe that birds descended from dinosaurs claim that the ancestors of birds were theropod dinosaurs which walked on two feet. However theropod dinosaurs appear after Archaeopteryx in the fossil record. 5 Evolutionists always try to cover up this glaring contradiction. The same cover-up efforts can already be seen in the news reports about the Microraptor gui fossil. All the evolutionist newspapers and magazines touting this fossil as a 130-million-year-old “primitive bird” never bother to mention that Archaeopteryx was able to glide flawlessly in the sky some 20 million years before that.
So, what is this so-called “four-winged dinosaur,” in other words Microraptor gui?
It is too early to answer this question. Much research will be done on this fossil, and the results may fundamentally alter the current views on it. Similarly, all the “dino-bird” fossils put forward since the beginning of the 1990s have all since been discredited. One of the “feathered dinosaurs,” Archaeoraptor, was a fossil fraud. Detailed studies on other dino-bird fossils showed that their “feathers” were actually collagenous fibers beneath the skin. 6 In the words of Professor Feduccia, “Many dinosaurs have been portrayed with a coating of aerodynamic contour feathers with absolutely no documentation.” 7 In his book published in 1999, he wrote, “Finally, no feathered dinosaur has ever been found, although many dinosaur mummies with well-preserved skin are known from diverse localities.” 8
Therefore, when searching for answers about what exactly Microraptor gui is, we should keep in mind the speculative and prejudiced attitude of the evolutionists. This creature might have an anatomical structure differing considerably from the “reconstruction” sketches appearing in the media.
This has been noted by Professor Alan Feduccia, too. In a recent corresponce, he writes:
“I am not yet convinced that the creature has four wings; we could be looking at misplaced wing feathers, and it is difficult to interpret. Too, the characters that link this animal to dromaeosaurs are very tenuous. Certainly the tail is quite different from known dromaeosaurs, and the claw is not a sickle claw, but only slightly enlarged. Also, the pubis is more birdlike. Perhaps we are not looking at flying dromaeosaurs, but a remnant of the early avian radiation… some 20-30 million years beyond Archaeopteryx.” 9
And even if the projections about Microraptor gui prove correct, the theory of evolution would not gain any credibility from this. Throughout history, tens of millions of species lived across a vast biological spectrum, and many of these species became extinct through time. Like today”s flying mammals such as bats, past ages saw the existence of winged reptiles (pterosaurs). Many different groups of sea reptiles (for example ichthyosaurs) lived and then went extinct. But the striking thing about this wide spectrum is that creatures with different characteristics and anatomical structures appeared abrubtly and fully formed, rather than on the heels of more primitive ancestral forms. For example, we see all the complex structures of birds appearing suddenly in Archaeopteryx. There are no feathered “primitive birds.” There is no “primitive flight.” The very notion of a primitive bird lung defies possibility, as the avian lung – structurally very different from the reptilian and mammal lung – has an irreducibly complex structure. 10
In sum, the fossil record continues to bear out the conclusion that all creatures appeared on earth through creation, not by naturalistic evolution. This latest round of dino-bird claims does not and cannot change that fact.
(1) Although some have claimed that the 225-million-year-old Protoavis fossil is the “oldest bird,” this thesis is not widely accepted.
(2)For further details see Harun Yahya, Darwinism Refuted: How The Theory of Evolution Breaks Down in the Light of Modern Science, Goodword Books, 2003.
(3)For example, the 130-million-year old Liaoningornis also has teeth in its beak. (See “Old Bird,” Discover magazine, March 21, 1997)
(4)Alan Feduccia, The Origin and Evolution of Birds, Yale University Press, 1999, p. 81.
(5)Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, Regnery Publishing, 2000, p. 117.
(6)Ann Gibbons, “Plucking the Feathered Dinosaur,” Science, vol. 278, Number 5341 (Nov. 14, 1997), pp. 1,229-30
(7)Feduccia (1999), p. 130.
(8)Feduccia (1999), p. 132.
(9)This quote is from a recent correspondence between of our site”s editors and Prof. Feduccia. We appreciate his help.
(10)Michael Denton, A Theory in Crisis, Adler & Adler, 1986, pp. 210-212