Our intrepid commenter, noone, left a comment that got stuck in the moderation queue. Since it’s moving way down the page, I’m moving it up here to continue the debunking. Not because I’m going to convince noone, of course; frankly, anyone who credulously cuts and pastes the nonsense he is using probably isn’t capable of thinking logically in the first place. But it’s still useful to debunk that nonsense for the benefit of others who might be reading. All he’s doing is linking to videos, which are pointless. Let’s actually discuss the evidence. Here’s his first claim:
DARWIN´S EVOLUTION THEORY DISPROVED WITH SCIENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!
ORIGIN OF BIRDS – 1
The theory of evolution, which claims that birds evolved from reptiles, is unable to explain the huge differences between these two different living classes. This is a great video but it comes from the creationist viewpoint
This video is actually quite amusing to watch. The utter bullshit begins right up front, where some ignorant git claims that no species has ever evolved through mutation and selection. This is a claim that even the staunchest young earth creationist no longer makes (indeed, their model requires speciation at staggering, mind-boggling rates in order to get, in some cases, hundreds of thousands of distinct species from two of the original “kind” on the ark 4500 years ago).
The problem with this claim about “huge differences” between reptiles and birds is that it compares the modern forms of those animals instead of the ancestral forms. The first examples of a new phyla (in this case, a class) are always virtually identical to the phyla from which it splits off. Over time, as the daughter species spreads and diversifies, the ancestral and daughter phyla become increasingly distinct due to the emergence of new traits.
Thus, looking at modern birds and comparing them to modern reptiles is absolutely meaningless. Of course there are huge differences between them, they’ve evolved independent of one another for more than 100 million years. All of those distinct traits didn’t pop into being all at once; tens of millions of years and the splitting off of hundreds of new species. So let’s compare the first birds to the theropod dinosaurs they evolved from; that is a meaningful comparison.
Not only were the first birds virtually indistinguishable from theropod dinosaurs, they were theropod dinosaurs. We now have so many species of feathered theropods identified in the fossil record that it’s virtually impossible to draw a line between them and say “this is when they became birds.” One need only look at the oldest example we have, Archaeopteryx, which was classified as a reptile until a specimen with preserved feathers was identified. Archy had almost all reptilian traits, such as:
1. No bill (modern birds have them, Archy did not)
2. Teeth (modern birds don’t have them, Archy did; interestingly, in their embryonic stage, modern birds to have tooth buds like their ancestors, but they are reabsorbed)
3. A cerebellum in back of the mid-brain rather than on top of it (reptiles have this; in modern birds it is enlarged and moved forward)
4. The foramen magnum (the hole at the base of the skull) is more horizontal than vertical, common to reptiles but not birds
5. A bony tail with unfused vertebrae
6. A reptilian pelvic girdle
7. Free foot bones
There are many more, but the point is that the earliest birds were so indistinguishable from theropod dinosaurs that it is entirely an academic question where you draw the lines between them. Over time, as new species evolve, they become increasingly diversified, more like modern birds and less like reptiles. All of this is exactly what evolution predicts; indeed, if that was not the case evolution would be falsified. And this pattern repeats itself in every single higher level taxa.
THE FOSSIL RECORD REFUTES EVOLUTION
MD Oktar Babuna talks abour fossils. Life emerged on earth suddenly and in complex forms. A fossil is the remains or traces of a plant or animal that have been preserved in the Earth’s crust down to the present day. Fossils collected from all over the world are our most important source of information about the species that have existed on Earth since life began. All these specimens manifest one single truth: Living things did not come into being through the fictitious processes of the theory of evolution, but were created in a single moment.
Pure boilerplate without a single substantive argument. In fact, the fossil record is powerful evidence of evolution. Should our intrepid commenter decide to return, I will give him the same challenge I have given to dozens of creationists without ever getting a response. The only possible way to explain the fossil record is evolution. Here’s the challenge:
If evolution is true, and each of these major animal groups split off from the previous one, then what would we expect? Well, we would expect that since each of these new groups split off from an already existing one, the order of appearance within those groups should be as conspicuous as the order of appearance in general. If the first amphibians split off from fish, then the first amphibians could only be slightly different than fish; if birds evolved from reptiles, then the first birds must have been very similar to reptiles; and so forth. And what does the fossil record show? Precisely that. The first amphibians to appear are the most fish-like, so much so that they retained internal gills and were still primarily aquatic. Over time, amphibians become more and more diversified and less fish-like, with later forms being successively more terrestrial and less aquatic. The first birds to appear are so reptile-like that they would be classified as theropod dinosaurs if not for the feathers. We now have multiple feathered theropod species to bridge the gap, and they all appear very early and share most of their traits with reptiles, not with modern birds. Over time, they diversified and became less reptile-like. The same can be said of the first mammals, which are so identical to the therapsid reptiles that they evolved from that where exactly you draw the line between the two groups is largely academic. And just like the other lineages, they start out with only one or two species that looks just like their presumed ancestor, then over time new branches appear that are successively less like those ancestors and more like modern mammals. This is exactly what evolution would predict. Indeed, if it wasn’t that way, evolution would be falsified. If modern birds appeared all at once in the fossil record, with entirely avian skeletal structure and feathers and fully adapted for powered flight, there would be no way to link them to reptiles, and the same is true of every other major animal group. But they don’t appear that way, and the order in which they do appear is precisely what evolution predicts.
This is called “biostratigraphy”. As you go up the geologic column, from older strata to more recent strata, the types of plants and animals that you find fossilized within them change rather dramatically, but they change in a very specific pattern. In the oldest rocks you find nothing but bacteria and the chemical traces thereof, and that continues for over 2 billion years of the earth’s history. Then you find simple multi-celled organisms in the form of algal stromatolites. Then in the late Precambrian, more complex life forms begin to appear, all marine invertebrates. The pattern continues in this basic order: hemichordates –> chordates –>jawless fishes –> jawed fishes –> amphibians –> reptiles –> birds and mammals. That’s a very rough overview, of course, and there is a lot of detail to be filled in. But the important fact here is that the order of appearance is exactly what one would predict if evolution is true, and within each of those major animal groups we find the same predicted order. How does anything other than evolution explain this order?
noone seems to think that cutting and pasting boilerplate rhetoric from creationist sites actually means something.