“Evolutionary tree showing the divergence of modern species from their common ancestor in the center. The three domains are colored, with bacteria blue, archaea green, and eukaryotes red.” (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Do you know the basic definition of biological evolution (The idea that life developed from non-living things)? This is actually something people who believe in Evolution don’t like to talk about and we’re going to find out why.
Here’s part of Websters’ Online Dictionary’s definition of the Evolution of living things:
(3) The development of each species from different, usually simpler ancestral forms. The more similar are two species, the closer in time are they likely to be to a common ancestor. (Arbib) . . .
For example, these DNA sequence comparisons have revealed the close genetic similarity between humans and chimpanzees and shed light on when the common ancestor of these species existed. (I made the important bits bold)
Whether the evolutionists like it or not, they have to believe everything alive today developed from organisms who had some children that turned into one thing while other children turned into a completely different kind. Let’s see if we can find some examples of such a many-talented animal.
For example: some Evolutionary scientists want to make Sharovipteryx the great grandpa of the pterasaurs, but others recognize how crazy that idea is. The more you look at Evolutionary stories for grownups, the more you find out how crazy all their ideas are.
Let’s see what the Tree of Life Web Project thinks about common ancestors. You can pick any creature you like (there’s a search box on the left, it’ll give you the Latin name to click on).
Here’s an example of what you’ll find:
Birds (Photo credit: Kenny Teo (zoompict))
I started with “gulls” which led me to the Larus group. Under the great pictures (it’s fun to hunt around on that site because of the photos), you’ll find a long list of different seagulls with gray lines connecting groups (any species names on those lines?). On the far left you find an arrow that turns into a link when you scroll over it. It should lead us to their “common ancestor”, right?
No, it just links to the larger class of birds which include the gulls, called Laridae. It has more gray lines bunching birds into groups with another arrow on the left. Click on that and… surely they’ll have an ancestor now!…. you come to and even wider grouping of birds.
BTW, do we have any problem with grouping animals as Creationists? Hardly! The guy who invented the modern classification system was a Creationist.
Next stop brings us to a grouping called Neoaves (which means “new flyers”) and those are part of the Neornithes (“new birds”) class. The following arrow leads us to Aves which has a bunch of names with a cross next to them (parents, don’t you love it; even on the evolutionary page, they still can’t escape Jesus!). I’ve written about archaeopteryx, plus there are 5 other birds which used to live and aren’t around any more. 🙁
OK, now we’re getting to the ancestors of birds, or are we? The “Aves” page doesn’t even have any arrows! But, there is a link to a “containing group” Coelurosauria.
For some reason they don’t even pretend to know how each group here is “related” to the others. But you will see they’re pushing the idea of dinosaurs evolving into birds with their page, though. You can see they really mean this when the next “containing group” is called Theropoda or “Bipedal predatory dinosaurs”.
Would a Creationist have put birds into this group, or skipped right to the “four-limbed” category?
Let’s stop here for now, but we aren’t even close to the end! I’ll post Part 2 next time.
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Romans 1:23
For an idea of what it would take to turn a dino into a bird, check out the Institute for Creation Research article: What Would Need to Change for a Dinosaur to Evolve into a Bird
3 Comments
Comments are closed.