Birds and dinosaurs
Today's Answers in Genesis article is an attempt to dismiss the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs.
They are taking offense to a recent paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that describes an interesting wing formation in a flying, feathered dinosaur, Microraptor gui.
The problem for AiG is that, as a dinosaur with wings and feathers, Microraptor gui is a putative example of one Biblical "kind" in the process of becoming another. Their tack is to claim that Microraptor gui is simply a "true bird" and thus, "birds give rise to birds" and "they reproduce after their kind." The reality is that Microraptor gui has traits of both birds and dinosaurs and is about as good of a textbook example of evolution as one can get.
While Microraptor gui has birdlike feathers and wings, it also has many dinosaurlike traits. Compare these three skeletal diagrams:
Microraptor gui:
Modern bird:
Tyrannosaurus rex:
Dinosaur traits in Microraptor gui not present in birds:
- Toothed jaws instead of a beak
- Clawed hands at the ends of the wings
- A long, bony tail
Modern bird traits lacking in Microraptor gui:
- Keeled sternum
- Fused ilium and ischium (pelvis bones) over their entire length and a greatly reduced pubis
- Fused carpals and metacarpals in the wings
The point is that Microraptor gui does NOT fit neatly into either the dinosaur or bird group. Paleontologists have simply defined Archaeopteryx as the first bird on the phylogenetic tree. Everything between Archaeopteryx and modern birds on the tree is, by definition, a bird. Anything farther back, as Microraptor gui is, is a dinosaur.
Answers in Genesis is pretty much resorting to word games. If they can define Microraptor gui as a "bird", then they can pretend that no "kinds" are being violated. They make a few other points in the same vein: Perhaps the biggest problem is that Archaeopteryx, a true bird with true feathers, is believed by evolutionists to occur in the fossil record 60-80 million years earlier than the Chinese theropod dinosaurs that are presumed to be the ancestors of birds.
The Chinese theropods (including Microraptor gui) are technically along a phylogenetic branch that is ancestral, but these specimens themselves are not ancestral. The statement by AiG is equivalent to claiming that humans can't have evolved from other primates because monkeys aren't extinct. In fact, AiG refutes this argument themselves, so they should know better.
Finally, the author misrepresents the scientific work of an "evolutionist" author to try to make his case: Feduccia and coworkers have presented a substantial body of evidence to support their view that there are, in fact, no known dinosaurs with feathers.
Alan Feduccia is an ornithologist that believes that birds did not derive directly from theropod dinosaurs, but that theropods and birds share an earlier ancestor. Reading the abstract of Feduccia's paper should be enough to convince you that he really offers nothing to AiG in support of their "kinds" argument.
The last sentence of the abstract puts things into perspective: We suggest that a possible solution to the disparate data is that Aves plus bird-like maniraptoran theropods (e.g., microraptors and others) may be a separate clade, distinctive from the main lineage of Theropoda, a remnant of the early avian radiation, exhibiting all stages of flight and flightlessness.
He is essentially claiming that birds radiated from an ancestor that was itself ancestral to theropods, thus explaining the similarities as well as what he sees as the differences. Dr. Feduccia is of a minority view, but even if correct, Microraptor gui is transitional between pre-theropod dinosaurs and birds rather than theropod dinosaurs and birds. The distinction hardly helps the case for separate "kinds".
Finally, I want to point out that this fossil is not the only example of dinosaur-like birds or bird-like dinosaurs. A number of dinosaurs have been recently found with feathers and the early birds are still all very dinosaur-like. Even Archaeopteryx, admitted by AiG to be a "true bird", has bony jaws, teeth and claws. Answers in Genesis can really only hope to distract people away from the evidence by playing with definitions.