Pesharim

Note: I originally wrote this essay for the Answers in Genesis Essay Contest (see references) so apparently some rights belong to them. Anyhow, it didn’t win, so better than letting it collect dust on my hard drive, I figured I’d just post it on my blog, with AiG’s express permission, of course. All illustrations, graphs and cladographic whatnots were created by myself, specifically for this paper.

As a further note, what follows is the same condensed form I submitted for the contest… from the original 5,000 words down to the contest’s 3,000 word minimum, excepting footnotes, captions, and appendixes (Do you realize how hard it is to simply knock off 2,000 words of critical text?). I personally hold that it didn’t win because of the word count issue; the paper I submitted was 19 pages long. That’s mostly comprised of images, cladograms and the two appendixes. Not to mention the fact that footnotes covered half the page in more than one place…

“Not long ago, paleontologists maintained that the whole class of birds came suddenly into existence during the Eocene period; but now we know… that a bird certainly lived during the deposition of the upper greensand; and still more recently, that strange bird, the Archaeopteryx… has been discovered in the oolitic slates of Solenhofen. Hardly any recent discoveries show more forcibly than this, how little as we yet know of the former inhabitants of the world.”
-Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species[1]

Inasmuch as it is now 140 years ere Darwin, it seems timely to present, and to try accordingly, a theory as relevant in Darwin’s era as it is in our own, namely: the nexus (or link) between dinosaurs and birds. This causal relationship of the two was initially surmised by the British biologist Thomas Henry Huxley only shortly after the 1859 publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species. What Huxley proposed, in his 1868 paper entitled On the Animals which are Most Nearly Intermediate between Birds and Reptiles[2], was the opinion that modern birds were descendants of dinosaurs, citing skeletal homologies amid certain sauriscians and the fossil bird Archaeopteryx lithographica (discovered only seven years earlier). At the time, Huxley’s theory was, however, rebutted by the eminent paleontologist of the time, Richard Owen, who considered Archaeopteryx to be too far outside of dinosaurian ancestry. From then until about forty years ago, the dinosaur-beget-bird claims subsided until John Ostrom, in 1964, exposed the fossils of a dinosaur he called Deinonychus antirrhopus, the anatomy of which again resurrected the debate.
Of course, our only true knowledge of dinosaurs and prehistoric birdlife today is limited to and analogous to our understanding of the fossil record. In and of itself, however, fossil remains paint only a sketchy mosaic of a few exemplary species, and present us with nothing like an all-inclusive summary of the past. Moreover, because birds’ skeletons are light and fragile, in the manner requisite for flight, we often find ornitholites of this sort strewn, broken and otherwise unfavorably fossilized. Finally, it should be observed that, in the words of Charles W. Leahy [3] “paleo-ornithologists are themselves rarae aves.” Resulting in, that fossiliferous mosaics have triggered considerably more speculation than elucidation.

Taking evolution for granted, theorists have compounded on this conjecture a considerable amount of synamorphic proof, in the idea, first, that a characteristic common of two or more groups must relate the given groups through a common ancestor. Indeed a merely cursory glance at the synamorphies in avian and reptilian form will evidence a structure outwardly indicative of evolution. Secondly is the idea, that birds are a direct and divergent link to the dinosaurs of the late (upper) Jurassic age. Hence monophyletically, extant birds can be considered as dinosaurs, and therefore dinosaurs are not extinct. Equally, and perhaps more unambiguously than strict monophyly, birds are a modern form of dinosaurs in the evolutionary tree of life.
This same theorized ‘tree of life’, or cladogram, shows the class of birds as a branch from the dinosaurian clade, themselves thought to have diverged, at some point in the late Devonian from basal amphibians. Moreover, whether birds evolved from the cursorial theropods, or the arboreal form of the same, remains a topic of variance among evolutionists. But more pertinent at present is whether they evolved at all. (See Cladogram, pages 14-16)

Birds achieve flight only by great economy of features. In that, a mere feather-bearing dinosaur, sans other bird-like features, would generate only enough lift, drag, and thrust, to tumble downwards like any other animal. In the same way, a bird devoid of feathers, pneumatic bones, air sacs, the sternum and pelvic girdle, even the uropygial oil gland, ceases to function as an archetypal bird ought. Evolutionists contend, however, that dinosaurs are not without certain birdlike features themselves, and that these must insinuate a nexus of the two. Of these, the most compelling and complete evidences are: (1.) that birds and dinosaurs share a tridactyl ‘hand‘, or a ‘hand’ having three digits; (2.) that the scales on birds legs are similar to those found on certain reptiles, and some dinosaurs as well. (3.) Birds and dinosaurs have a single occipital condyle, or ball and socket arrangement, articulating the skull and the first cervical vertebra. (4.) Dinosaurs and birds share eggs with a hard shell (that is, oviparity, only found in some dinosaurs). (5.) Birds and certain reptiles also have in common unicate processes, rear-facing projections of the ribs which, extend beyond the rib behind them. (6.) Theropods, sauropods, pterosaurs, and birds have a unique pneumatic bone structure. (7.) Birds, reptiles, and presumably dinosaurs shared a nictating membrane, a diagonally moving membranous eyelid. (8.) Dinosaurs (notably not reptiles) might have been endothermic as are birds and mammals. However, larger, more massive dinosaurs are technically called ‘gigantotherms‘ (9.) Finally, reptile scales have similar protein structures as birds’ feathers.
Feathers are often thought of as being distinct to birds, as is hair to mammals, and scales to reptiles. This is admittedly, conjectural though. For if a scale is frayed at right angles to a longitudinal shaft, it potentially becomes more flexible and provides more insulation, allowing lethargic reptiles to become more active. If it becomes thinner, then the animal loses weight and benefits from agility. Feathers also aid in maintaining balance, permit gliding and flying, and function as mating displays, a primary advantage in sexual selection. Naturally, something of this nature wouldn’t tax the imagination much to conceive, but that’s all it is: imagination.
Remember, of course, that reptilian scales are thought to be similar in many ways to the scales on birds’ feet. Moreover, dinosaurs, like reptiles, certainly had scales also, as occasional skin impressions of tyrannosaurs and hadrosaurs substantiate. Even living crocodilians have similar scales in form and chemical composition to those on and around birds’ feet, eyes, claws and beaks. Given this, paleontologists are faced with the questions, “Did feathers come from dinosaurian scales?” or, “Did bird’s scales come from feathers?”
In point of fact, however, studies by Drs. Hongyan Zou and Lee Niswander have propounded the latter. In their study, which was initially performed to determine the biological process behind ducks’ webbed feet, they found that the lack of certain proteins (which were artificially prevented through implementation of an inhibitor virus at days 15 to 18 of development) also caused the scutes on the foot to develop into feathers. Further, by the use of retinoic acid, the reticulae14 became long feather filaments as well.
Indirectly, the implications of their experiment seemed to show, that scutes could only have evolved from feathers, not feathers from scales. Moreover, because most dinosaurs also had scutes, birds could not have evolved from them, but were therefore primitive of both the Sauropsida and birds as a whole. In natural selection, when a new characteristic (i.e. scutes) develops from an old one (i.e. the feathers), genetic signals, proteins, and chemicals must suppress the old trait. Alternatively, removal of these new genes or proteins, allows the old characteristic to be expressed in its place. Given this, it actually seems likelier that birds evolved into dinosaurs since there is no inherent reason to think that birds had to evolve from dinosaurs. So therefore, because scutes ‘came’ first, and because dinosaurs had scutes, feathers could only have evolved from, not into, scutes. Ergo, there is no explanation for the origin of feathers, but this entirely bears out how God created animals individually, albeit with, but not through, natural selection.
Nonetheless, as the monkey wrench to all previous theories is the discovery of ostensible ‘feathered’ dinosaurs, supported, as it were, by a figurative aviary of fossils. The integumentary protofeathers of these genera are characterized as a filamentatious down, exhibiting hazy fibers and a second row of filaments (barbs) branching from the central shaft- allegedly, the rachis, or quill, of ‘modern’ birds. ‘Protofeathers’ themselves are relatively nondescript hair-like filaments which really resemble feathers to only a modest degree. What’s more, similar structures occur in fossils known to be unrelated to birds (i.e. Psittacosaurus). As Dr. Theagarten Lingham-Soliar demonstrated by burying a dolphin and exhuming it a year later, patterns of decay are almost identical to the ‘protofeather’ impressions in these fossils. In this experiment[5], led by eminent paleobiologist Dr. Alan Feduccia of the University of North Carolina, the patterns were caused by decaying collagen in the skin of the dolphin, and presumably also in the fossils. Collagen is a fibrous scleroprotein in the connective dermal tissue layers of the skin, which gives skin its elasticity and bone its strength. “Naturally” as Feduccia said, “because of its low solubility in water and its organization as tough, inelastic fiber networks, we would expect it to be preserved occasionally from flayed skin during the fossilization process.”
In that case, the so called ‘protofeathers’ of these genera are not really protofeathers at all, as Feduccia (an evolutionist himself) divulged. “The whole thing has become circular,” said Feduccia, “birds are dinosaurs, so whatever we find on dinosaurs that looks like a rudimentary feather has got to represent the origin of feathers.[6]” Feduccia noted as well that “It’s biophysically impossible to evolve flight from such large bipeds with foreshortened limbs and heavy, balancing tails.[7]” Dinosaurs, despite some similarities, have exactly the wrong anatomy for flight. (See also “Bird evolution Flies out the Window”[8])

Of course paleontologists have managed to procure some ‘missing links’- of which it is fair to say that Archaeopteryx lithographica bears the most significance, both in science and in popular culture. Archaeopteryx has been called the first bird, the ‘urvogel‘, and the allometric line where the clades of birds and dinosaurs meet. From what we know and can speculate about the fossil, it drowned in the water of a tropical lagoon, in what is now Barvaria, Germany. There, after floating some time on its back, Archaeopteryx descended into the fine oolitic sediment at the bottom of the lake and eventually became fossilized. Eons thereafter, in the process of quarrying rocks for a lithographic press, the masons found what appeared to be a small reptile fossilized in the rock. In fact, Archaeopteryx was not a reptile, but indeed embodied many such characteristics
unaccounted for in extant birds. Joel C. Welty said in his textbook The Life of Birds[9], “If paleontologists had tried to draw up specifications for a missing link, they could hardly have improved on this fossil… Archaeopteryx lithographica…”
The skeleton of Archaeopteryx was mostly congruous to that of modern birds. Nevertheless it had clawed wings, a bony reptilian tail, and a snout with small teeth, synamorphous to theropods. Moreover, Archaeopteryx’s rather reptilian-looking tail had 20-23 free caudal vertebrae (cd), whereas other birds have only twelve, these ending posteriorly in the fused pygostyle. While the sum of the caudal vertebrae in Archaeopteryx is much greater than the number found in modern birds, it is still significantly reduced from that found in most theropods.
Where reptiles’ skeletons are long and comparatively flexible, those of birds are noted for their characterizing rigidity and are likewise much more compact. As a rule for both extant and extinct birds, a great amount of weight and length is reduced through fusion of certain bones. In the vertebral column, or spine, three to five of the thoriac vertebrae are usually fused into a ‘dorsal bone’ in all birds except penguins. Normally, two or three free vertebrae are just anterior to the dorsal bone, providing more ability for movement between it and the following synsacrum. Composed of between 10 and 23 fused vertebrae, the synsacrum also fuses with the iscium and ilium of the pelvic girdle. Furthermore, what were in reptiles two or three sacral vertebrae are fused together with the lumbar vertebrae anteriorly, and posteriorly with some caudal vertebrae into the synsacrum.

In accordance with its reptilian tail, Archaeopteryx had eleven pairs of abdominal ribs, and six of cervical ribs, features limited to fossil birds and reptiles only. The abdominal ribs would have given the tail strength and rigidity for flight as would the ossified tendons along it. The fifty vertebra of its spinal column were biconcave, in the likeness of dinosaurs, whereas modern birds’ vertebrae articulate with a convex, or ‘heterocoelous‘ surface. Also, Archaeopteryx lacked unicate processes, – backwards facing projections of the ribs which generally overlap the posterior rib, and in diving waterfowl (i.e. the Common Loon, Gavia immer) overlapping two. These, Archaeopteryx did not have; nevertheless they are a contended synamorphy because certain reptiles had them also. While, in fact, three species of reptiles, collectively called the Tuataras have similar unicate processes, they are in no way related to birds. Given that, for the whole of their known history (allegedly 200 million years) they have remained unchanged and unevolved. Moreover, while birds are considered the most anatomically specialized amniotes the tuataras are, perhaps, the least.

Albeit a mosaic of dinosaur and avian anatomy, Archaeopteryx was unequivocally a bird, by reason mostly of its feathers. These were in every way alike to the modern form of the same, with interlocking networks of barbs, barbules, and barbicels. Likewise, Archaeopteryx’s wing feathers had the same asymmetry as extant birds, with the leading vane wider than the other. The fossil’s 40 or so tail feathers were less symmetric, but congruent with the rectrices of extant birds, lining the caudal vertebrae with a pair to each. In the same way, Archaeopteryx had ten primary flight feathers, well within the range of most birds (9 to 11) but with perhaps more secondaries than can be accounted for on average.

Of course, the presence of feathers on Archaeopteryx begs the question of its capacity in flight. Yet theorists vie that Archaeopteryx’s flight musculature was homologous, and necessarily synamorphic, to reptiles. Putatively, the absence of the sternum or keel (the ‘breastbone’) to which the flight-powering pectoralis muscles attach, makes Archaeopteryx at best only a marginal flier. On the other hand, the hypertrophied pectoral muscles could well have affixed to its thickened furcula, the coracoids, or hypothetically, to a cartilaginous sternum. In addition, the lateral arrangement of the gleniod (shoulder bone) rather than the dorsal orientation of extant birds suggest that it was capable of only a partial upstroke, which implies a sort of gliding flight pattern.

Even so, one would almost expect Archaeopteryx’s wings to differ in relation to modern birds, because Archaeopteryx and another ‘ur-bird’ called Microraptor zhaioanus used feathers on their hindlimbs as flight surfaces as well. These were long pennaceous feathers extending from the feet as secondary airfoils much like a biplane (but not overlayed like a dragonfly). They were asymmetric like the remiges and mirrored them in placement. In that, where the primaries were attached to the hand bones and the secondaries and tertiaries to the arm bones, the flight feathers of the hindwings were attached to the upper foot bones as well as the upper and lower leg bones respectively. Because these would have provided up to 12% of the total airfoil and would have reduced stall speed by 6% and turning radius by 12%, Archaeopteryx’s forewings would naturally not have needed to be as powerful, as extant birds. As expected, they would have been something of an impediment to Archaeopteryx’s and Microraptor’s cursorial ability, and therefore place them as arboreal trunk climbing birds. This only feeds suspicion of the ‘ground-up’ idea, because if early birds couldn’t run, then they certainly couldn’t have evolved from ground dwelling dromaeosaurids.

The appendicular skeleton of Archaeopteryx is mostly congruent to modern birds, the only exception being its clawed wings. These were freely mobile, and were tridactyl like theropods. Other vertebrates, however, mammals, amphibians, and reptiles, generally have five digits if they have any. Scientists number these digits as 1,2,3,4, and 5, with 1 being the thumb (polex); 2, the index finger; 3, the middle finger (medius); 4, the ring finger (annex); and 5, the little finger. Further, scientists number the digits as D1 – D5, and precartiliginous condensations (finger formations in the embryo) as C1-C5. Although birds are truly tridactyl, theropods are themselves, pentadactyl, but with D4 and D5 greatly reduced. Here Dr. Alan Feduccia noted that whereas dinosaurs’ digits are 1,2, and 3, birds digits are, 2,3, and 4. This is shown during the stages of embryonic development where precartiliginous condensations C1 and C5 appear but are later reabsorbed and do not become fingers. Moreover, the middle finger (D3) in theropods is the longest, where in birds and Archaeopteryx the longest is the second digit. Even if the dinosaurian and avian digits outwardly appear the same, – the embryonic structure shows otherwise; and shifting from 1,2,3 (in dinosaurs) to 2,3,4 (in birds) is a harder problem than evolution can handle. (For more on this see Feduccia, “1,2,3 = 2,3,4: Accommodating the Cladogram”[11])

“This is not the only example where superficially homologous structures actually develop in totally different ways. One of the most commonly argued proofs of evolution is the pentadactyl limb pattern, i.e. the five-digit limbs found in amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. However, they develop in a completely different manner in amphibians and the other groups. To illustrate, the human embryo develops a thickening on the limb tip called the AER (apical ectodermal ridge), then programmed cell death (apoptosis) divides the AER into five regions that then develop into digits (fingers and toes). By contrast, in frogs, the digits grow outwards from buds as cells divide.” (as quoted in The TalkOrigins Archive “Digit Numbering and Limb Development”[12])

Again let the reader consider the nexus of dinosaurs and birds, now with the evidence so far accounted before him. I think that one must acknowledge the justice of the argument, which I need not expound: how birds’ digits could not have evolved from the reptilian hand, and that feathers could not have evolved from scales. Moreover, birds are birds, and dinosaurs are dinosaurs; and that as it were, evolutionists strive only to augment their cladograms with the ‘facts’ of misrepresented synamorphies and fragmentary theory. Birds can not be regarded in the clade of maniraptorian theropods, and thus is evolution but a tangent from the truth. In all this, let the reader grasp, that scripture stands as the word of God, and all the science and nescience of mankind cannot contend it.

Appendix
-a more complete list of the apomorphies distinct to birds.

In point of fact, many of the putative synamorphies in avian and reptilian structure are, more technically, homoplasties (Superficially similar but independently ‘derived’ character states (or apomorphies) of two or more terminal groups (taxa). Moreover, the differences between birds and reptiles are also distinct, in their own. (1.) Birds possess a double circulation, coerced by a four chambered heart, while reptiles, and conceivably dinosaurs also, have single circulation and three chambered heart in accordance with their ectothermy. Moreover, where the primitive heart of reptiles pumps both oxygen deficient (venous) and oxygen saturated (arterial) blood through their vessels, birds, like mammals, possess separate circulatory paths for arterial and venous blood. (2.) Because birds are warm blooded, their heart rate is much higher than reptiles, from 93bpm (beats per minute) in a turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) at rest, to 1260bpm in the Blue-throated Hummingbird (Lampornis clemensiae). Also, blood pressure is higher, in birds than in mammals, and up to several times higher than in reptiles. The systolic (peak arterial) pressure in birds is about 180mm of mercury in the Robin (Turdus migratirius), and about 50mm in crocodiles. (3.) Birds have air sacs used in respiration (which in some ways are similar to those in certain turtles). These are the intraclavicular sac in the shoulder region; the cervical sac, in the neck; the anterior thoriac sac, in the chest area prior to the lungs; the posterior thoriac sac after the lung and the abdominal sacs following these. In addition each sac is bilaterally symmetric like the lungs, having one on each side of the body. (4.) Likewise, the trachea and syrinx of birds defy natural selection, in that, they compromise efficiency of breathing to produce complex vocalizations. A trachea of comparable extent in humans would be nearly the length of the entire body. Equipped with only human means of respiration, the bearer would be asphyxiated by the stale air circulating throughout it. (5.) Moreover, the entire seat of intelligence differs between birds, mammals, and reptiles. In birds the neocortex is diminished size and the medio-rostral neostratium becomes the dominant area. Mammals think through an entirely atypical structure, the neo cortex, which is not present in other animals. Likewise, the dominant structures in lower vertebrates are the medulla, pons, cerebellum, mesencephalon, globus pallidus, and the olfactory bulbs. In reptiles the cerebellum and brain stem dominate. In addition, it seems worthy of note, that although brain size itself does not determine intelligence, sauropods (brachiosaurus, diplodocus, and the like) had a brain mass correspondent to a kitten. Other dinosaurs, though smarter necessarily, still were some ten times less intelligent than the average birds and mammals. Interestingly enough, scientists, in 2004, utilized CT (Computed Tomography) imaging to reveal that Archaeopteryx’s brain/basicranium was significantly larger than the similar structure in theropods. The CT scans reconstructed a digital image of Archaeopteryx’s brain and indicated that it was acutely specialized in the areas of muscle coordination, hearing, and vision, with the latter composing one third of the brain mass. Similarly, the structure of the inner ear was much more like modern birds than dinosaurs.

Definition of Terms (Originally listed among the footnotes)

1. Ornitholite – a fossilized bird
2. Synamorphy – A derived character state (or apomorphy) of two or more terminal groups which relates the groups by means of a common ancestor.
   
3. Monophyly – The idea that a clade should include all the descendants of a single ancestor.
   
4. Extant – living, as opposed to extinct.
   
5. Cladogram – an evolutionary tree of branching clades shown in relation to a single ancestor.
   
6. Basal - Primitive, in an evolutionary sense.
   
7. Cursorial - Ground dwelling.
   
8. Theropoda (literally beast foot) – the suborder of the Sauriscia opposite to the Sauropodamorpha (i.e. sauropods).
   
9. Arboreal - Tree dwelling.
   
10. Pneumatic bones – Bones with partially hollowed and air-filled cavities within them. This also involves the idea that dinosaurs may have used these
    
11. cavities, not only to reduce weight, but for respiration, as do birds.
12. Endothermic – Warm blooded, or having an internal mechanisms\ to regulate body temperature.
    
13. Gigantotherms – Neither truly endothermic or ectothermic, but, by virtue of their weight, having a higher body temperature than ectotherms.
    
14. Scales – As a point of terminology, the thick scales on top of a bird’s foot are called scutes; the smaller scales on the back of the foot, scutellae, and those on the underside of the digits, reticulae.
    
15. Feathered Dinosaurs -the likeliest and most pronounced of these are the following genera: Sinornithosaurus, Bambiraptor, Sinosauropteryx, Deinonychus, Protoarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Shuvuuia, Beipaiosaurus, Microraptor, Epidendrosaurus, Cryptovolans, Scansoriopteryx, Yixianosaurus, Dilong, Pedopenna, and Jinfengopteryx.
    
16. Urvogel – A German word literally meaning ‘protobird’.
    
17. Caudal – pertaining to the tail region.
    
18. Pygostyle – a caudal bone which supports the rectrices.
    
19. Thoriac – pertaining to the chest region.
    
20. Sacral - pertaining to the hip region.
    
21. Lumbar - pertaining to the lower back region.
    
22. Cervical – pertaining to the neck region.
    
23. Tuataras – The tuataras are the only surviving members of the Order Sphenodontia, of which they are in family Sphenodontidae. The three species of tuataras were/are: Sphenodon punctatus (extant), S. guntheri (extant), and S. diversum (extinct).
    
24. Amniota - The clade including animals characterized by an amniote, or a sac encasing both the embryo and amniotic fluid. This contains the classes Mammilia, Aves, and Sauropsida.
    
25. Rectrices – Tail feathers, as opposed to remiges, or wing feathers.
    
26. Pectoralis Muscles – the chest muscles, those which power the downstroke of the wing.
    
27. Hypertrophy - The condition of extremely powerful muscles, contrasted with atrophy.
    
28. Furcula - the wishbone, formed of the fused clavicles.
    
29. Microraptor zhaioanus – probably includes the species M. gui and Cryptovolans pauli.
    
30. Pennaceous Feathers – contour feathers, those lining most of the body.
    
31. Remiges (singular remix) – the primary and secondary flight feathers.
    
32. Ground Up Hypothesis – the idea that birds evolved from cursorial or terrestrial bipedal predators, which evolved feathers either as an insulating structure first, or as a net to catch insects and aid in balance. As contrasted to, quite obviously, the ‘trees down’ theory.
    
33. Dromaeosauridae – A family of small theropods within the maniraptora, including Velociraptor and Deinonychus.
    
34. Tridactyl – Having three digits on each hand (or manus).
    
35. Pentadactyl - having five digits on each hand.
    

Quoted References

[1] Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species; 8th Printing Ó 1958 The New American Library of World Literature, Inc.

[2] Thomas H. Huxley, On the Animals which are Most Nearly Intermediate between Birds and Reptiles, 1896.

[3] Charles W. Leahy, The Birdwatchers Companion To North American Birdlife, Ó 2004 Princeton University Press.

[4] Othniel C. Marsh (1980)

[5] Feduccia, Alan, Theagarted Lingham-Soliar, and J. Richard Hinchliffe (2005), “Do Feathered Dinosaurs Exist? Testing the Hypothesis on Neontological and Paleontologial Evidence,” Journal of Morphology, 266:125-166, October.

[6] CBS News, “Dinosaur Flap Ruffles Feathers”, New York, Oct. 10, 2005; Ó MMV, The Associated Press.

[7] Williamson, David (2005), “Latest Study: Scientists Say No Evidence Exists that Theropod Dinosaurs Evolved into Birds,” University of North Carolina News Service, [Online], http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/oct05/feducci100705.htm/

[8] Carl Wieland, “Bird Evolution flies out the Window”, Answers In Genesis Creation Archive, Volume 16, Issue 4.

[9] Joel C. Welty, The Life of Birds, 2nd Edition, Ó 1975 W. B. Saunders Company.

[10] Alan Feduccia, as quoted in V. Morell, “Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms,” Science, 259(5096):764-65, February 5, 1993

[11] Alan Feduccia, 1,2,3 = 2,3,4: Accommodating the Cladogram, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS), Vol. 96, Issue 9, 4740-4742, April 27, 1999.

[12] As quoted in http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/bird_and_frog_development.html#sarfati

Bibliography

1. Burnie, David and Wilson, Don E., Animal, The Definitive Visual Guide to the World’s Wildlife, Ó 2001, 2005 by Dorling Kindersley Limited.

2. Darwin, Charles, The Origin of Species; 8th Printing Ó 1958 The New American Library of World Literature, Inc.

3. Feduccia, Alan Ph.D., The Origin and Evolution of Birds, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, Ó 1996.

4. Harrub, Brad, Ph.D., “Archaeopteryx – ‘The Greatest Embarrassment of Paleontology” Ó 2006 Apologetics Press, Inc. http://www.apologeticspress.org/

5. Holtz, Thomas Jr., “Archaeopteryx’s Relationship with Modern Birds“, . Ó 1995, http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/archie/archie.htm

6. Poling, Jeff “Feathers, Scutes, and the Origin of Birds,” Ó 1996, http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/archie/scutes.htm

7. Roger Patterson, Evolution Exposed: Your Evolution Answer Book for the Classroom, Ó 2006 Answers In Genesis.

8. Sarfati, Jonathan D., Ph.D., F.M., “New four-winged Feathered Dinosaur,“ from Answers in Genesis, http://www.answersingenesis.org/.

9. Sarfati, Jonathan D., Ph.D., F.M. Refuting Evolution, Ó Answers In Genesis, Master Books, Inc.

10. Sherwin, Frank “A ‘100 Million Year Old’ Bird Is Still a Bird“, http://www.ICR.org/

11. Sibley, David Allen, The Sibley Guide to Birdlife and Behavior, Ó 2001 by Chanticleer Press, Inc.

12. Stott, John Ph.D., The Birds Our Teachers, Ó 1999, Baker House Books.

13. The Talk Origins Archive, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/bird_and_frog_development.html#sarfati

14. Welty, Joel C., The Life of Birds, 2nd Edition, Ó 1975 W. B. Saunders Company.

15. Wikipedia, http://www.wikipedia.org/

16. Wikispecies, http://www.wikispecies.org/