Birds Resist Darwinian Scenarios

Bird evolution scenario attempts fail,  illustrating
how evolution-tinted glasses can blind experts to the facts

 

by Jerry Bergman, PhD

Normally when doing research, one begins with the goal of looking at the evidence, then going where the evidence leads. However, Professor Douglas Futuyma, judging by the reviews of his new book on bird evolution published this month, takes the opposite approach.[1] He “knows” what the answer is, then does research to support his preconceived view. He knows that birds evolved, then he looks for evidence to support this conclusion. This is not science but propaganda.

His book, How Birds Evolve: What Science Reveals About Their Origin, Lives, and Diversity, was published by Princeton University Press. Part of my judgment about this book of Futuyma’s is based on is based on another one of his books, Evolution and Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, which touts many disproven arguments for evolution, such as the claim that there were over 100 “useless” structures and organs in humans such as the “vestigial” human appendix. The existence of supposed vestigial organs, he writes, “was one of the major dilemmas [of biology] that was resolved by the hypothesis of evolution. Why should the Creator have bestowed useless rudimentary structures on his creatures?”[2] He does not make this claim in his 466-page encyclopedic The Origin and Evolution of Birds.[3] He does admit in his anti-creation book that

scientists are just as human as anyone else. They believe that one or another hypothesis is most likely to be true, and they engage in sometimes bitter battles to defend their ideas. Scientists’ beliefs are also shaped by their political, social, and religious environment. … the common image of scientists as abstracted, unbiased, detached intellects has no foundation in reality. Scientists are often highly opinionated, even in the face of contrary evidence; and they are not particularly intelligent, either. The spectrum of scientists, as of any other group of people, runs from the brilliant to the fairly stupid. Almost every scientist has made more than one asinine statement in the course of his or her career, and some make them habitually.[4]

I could not have said it better. This summary perfectly describes his new book which was widely reviewed this month. He clearly sees the natural world through Darwinian glasses. He seems unaware of the problems for orthodox Darwinism with the statements he makes, such as what he describes as a 68-million-year-old fossil (not of Archaeopteryx, but of some unnamed bird). The fossil does not show evidence for evolution, but rather for stasis. He writes regarding this 68-million-year-old fossil that: “modern birds had already evolved by that time [of this fossil].”[5] 68 million years is a long time for modern birds to exist without making some significant changes. In comparison, the dinosaurs are believed by evolutionists to have gone extinct three million years later, or about 65 million years ago.

Douglas Futuyma is well-known as a passionate fighter against creation and intelligent design for which he was awarded the Joseph Leidy Award. He was also honored for his work by the leading anti-creation organization, The National Center for Science Education.[6]

His book on the evolution of birds shows why birds are vital to evolutionary theory. Birds,

are both a curious and curiously productive field of study for evolutionary biologists. They are less useful in understanding the mechanisms of evolution than insects, plants and bacteria because they don’t reproduce as quickly, but, being various and everywhere, they are vital to the study of behavior, longevity, ecology, speciation, cultural evolution and a host of other things.[7]

Bird Fossil Record

The problem for evolution has always been birds’ almost nonexistent fossil record which would be required to document their evolution. The reason for this is that their bones, being hollow, preserve very poorly. Furthermore, as Futuyma himself admits, the bird fossils that are known do not help evolution. An example is the 68-million-year-old fossil shown at right, Archaeopteryx. It was remarkably well-preserved, well enough to determine that “modern birds had already evolved by that time.”[8] 68 million years is a long time for hollow bones to be buried and still reveal enough information about the bird’s structure to determine that it was a modern bird. Another example is Futuyma’s observation that

Feather and wing shapes, however, recur again and again in even distantly related species. …Darwin once predicted that our classifications “will come to be, as far as they can be so made, genealogies,” but even his credulity would have been stretched by news that flamingoes are very closely related to grebes.[9]

Convergent Miracles

He claims that certain wing-shape designs “recur again and again in even distantly related species.” The problem is that evolution cannot even explain the evolution of the first wing shape, which is an event so unlikely that it’s evolution even once has baffled evolutionists.[10] Yet Futuyma claims that it has evolved “again and again in even distantly related species.”[11] As Futuyma writes: “convergent evolution has been so common in birds that there aren’t many constraints on what can evolve into what—even some shifts that seem unlikely.”[12] If wings have repeatedly evolved, then feathers must have also likewise repeatedly evolved. One leading bird-evolution expert, after years of studying this problem, has concluded that “The feathered wings of birds are not just unique to birds but [are] so complex that they are unlikely to have evolved more than once.”[13]

In New Scientist this month, writer Simon Ings noted that Futuyma acknowledged this problem for evolution, writing that “Feathers may have evolved only once, and through a bizarre genetic accident.”[14] All known bird wings have feathers, so if feathers have close to a zero probability of evolving, bird wings must likewise logically have close to a zero probability of evolving.

Genetic Analysis

Genetic analysis has also not been very kind to evolution. This was indirectly admitted by his statement that, genetically, “flamingoes are very closely related to grebes.”[15] Evolutionists would not expect a close genetic similarity for such enormous physical/behavioral differences, as is obvious from the comparison of the two birds in the illustration above.

Futuyma’s new book contains an outdated claim that Archaeopteryx is a transitional form between dinosaurs and birds. Archaeopteryx‘s dinosaur traits include some reptile traits in its skeletal anatomy, it’s teeth on the premaxilla and premaxilla bones, and its long dinosaur like bony tail. It has many bird traits as well, including furcula, a breastbone, hollow thin-walled bones, air sacs in the backbones, and feathers. (The dinosaur feather claim requires another paper to properly deal with this topic.)

The fact is, after a century and a half of searching, not one widely accepted link has been found connecting Archaeopteryx back to dinosaurs. or forward from Archaeopteryx to birds. It is an isolated island between dinosaurs and birds  Over the years, twelve confirmed body fossil specimens of Archaeopteryx have been found plus one feather. Not one of these 12 shows any evidence of Archaeopteryx evolution.[16] All of the known fossils come from the limestone deposits, (which have been quarried for centuries), near Solnhofen, Germany.

The fact is, that of the four possibilities, a forgery, a bird, a theropod dinosaur, or a transition between dinosaurs and birds, the most plausible explanation is that Archaeopteryx was a mosaic with both theropod dinosaur and bird traits.[17] A comparable example is the duck-billed platypus, which has distinct traits like a duck, a bird, and a mammal. The duck-billed platypus is not claimed to be a transition between mammals and birds because no one is arguing that birds evolved into mammals, or mammals evolved into birds. Like the duck-billed platypus, Archaeopteryx is intermediate between two very different animal kinds.

It possesses numerous clear dinosaur traits, as well as many well-defined bird traits, including wings with feathers. But it is being claimed that reptiles evolved into birds therefore Archaeopteryx is pegged as a transitional form between reptiles and birds. If the reptile to bird transition was not claimed, Archaeopteryx  would be regarded as a mere mosaic. The fossil record provides no evidence for its evolution from a dinosaur or towards a bird. Even though it is recognized as a mosaic, as is also the duck-billed platypus, it is still seen as a transition form by many evolutionists. In view of the fact that it is critical evidence for bird evolution, it is difficult to give up on Archaeopteryx as a transitional form. Of note is the fact that Futuyma acknowledges in his new book that leading ornithologist “Alan Feduccia and a few other ornithologists disagree with the consensus” about Archaeopteryx as a transition between reptiles and birds.[18]

Conclusions

Ings concluded his review of Futuyma’s book, writing that he

unpacks the story of evolutionary science alongside the story of how birds evolved, acquiring bipedal locomotion and simple filamentous feathers as Dinosauria, then clavicles fused into a wishbone in Theropoda, on and on, until we arrive at what we might as well call the modern bird, with its large, keeled breastbone, rapid growth and unfeasibly lightweight construction.[17]

In fact, Futuyma does no such thing. He illustrates how Darwinian glasses can blind one to  reality in a book that, as I have explained, reveals much information that supports creation. I agree with Futuyma’s words quoted above, namely that scientists believe “one or another hypothesis is most likely to be true … [and]  they engage in sometimes bitter battles to defend their ideas. Scientists’ beliefs are also shaped by their …religious environment. … Scientists are often highly opinionated, even in the face of contrary evidence.”[18]

Ed. note: For previous articles on “feathered dinosaurs” from China, search this site for the word feathered, feathers, or Liaoning, and see Dr Bergman’s article about Chinese “feathered dinosaurs” from 6 March 2019.

References

[1] Futuyma, Douglas. How Birds Evolve: What science reveals about their origin, lives, and diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 2021.

[2] Futuyma, Douglas. Evolution and Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution. Pantheon Books, New York, NY, p. 48, 1983.

[3] Futuyma, Douglas. The Origin and Evolution of Birds, Second edition. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, 1999.

[4] Futuyma, 1983, p. 164.

[5] Futuyma, 2021. p. 38.

[6] “Congratulations to Douglas J. Futuyma.” https://ncse.ngo/congratulations-douglas-j-futuyma.

[7] Ings, Simon. How Birds Evolve review: In-depth and passionate. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg25634161-500-how-birds-evolve-review-in-depth-and-passionate/, 7 December 2022. Published in New Scientist Magazine, issue 3416, on 10 December 2022.

[8] Futuyma, 2021, p. 38.

[9] Futuyma, in Ings, 2022.

[10] Foth, Christian, and Oliver Rauhut. The Evolution of Feathers: From Their Origin to the Present. Springer, New York, NY, p. 121, 2020.

[11] Ings, 2022.

[12] Futuyma, 2021, p. 54.

[13] Foth, Christian, and Oliver Rauhut, 2020, p. 121.

[14] Ings, Simon. This idea is mentioned several times, such as on page 45 of Futuyma, 2021.

[15] Ings, 2022.

[16] Abbott, A. Archaeopteryx fossil disappears from private collection. Nature 357(6373):6, 1992.

[17] Gilmer, James. 2019. The Bible is Right about Dinosaurs and Evolution. Bloomington. IN: AuthorHouse p. 192. Dyke, Gareth and Gary Kaiser. 2011. Living Dinosaurs: The Evolutionary History of Modern Birds. New York: Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 11, 21, 129.

[18] Futuyma, 2021, p. 213.

[17] Ings, 2022

[18] Futuyma, 1983, p. 48.

---

Dr. Jerry Bergman has taught biology, genetics, chemistry, biochemistry, anthropology, geology, and microbiology for over 40 years at several colleges and universities including Bowling Green State University, Medical College of Ohio where he was a research associate in experimental pathology, and The University of Toledo. He is a graduate of the Medical College of Ohio, Wayne State University in Detroit, the University of Toledo, and Bowling Green State University. He has over 1,300 publications in 12 languages and 40 books and monographs. His books and textbooks that include chapters that he authored are in over 1,800 college libraries in 27 countries. So far over 80,000 copies of the 60 books and monographs that he has authored or co-authored are in print. For more articles by Dr Bergman, see his Author Profile.