Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 04:34:34 -0800
To: Andrew Arensburger <arensb@cfar.umd.edu>
From: David McDougall
Subject: Archaeopteryx

Andrew,

        I haven't heard back from you yet.  I hope all is well with you.  I
realize that you might just be busy.  Here is the Archaeopteryx (Arch)
evidence I promised:

FEATHERS - Arch had feathers like a modern bird.  They were not "primitive"
feathers of non-flyers, (although that is an assumption which is not
necessary, non-flyers are just not designed the same), but air foil type of
the most modern design.

CLAWS - Apparently, none of Arch's fossil evidence includes an adult.... or
at least one that has been identified as such.  The Hoatzen (sp?) in South
America also has claws ~exactly~ like those of Arch in his juvenile state.

Teeth - Arch's teeth were very similar in design to the modern Humming Bird.
Furthermore, Arch's teeth were not like that of the dinos.  Dino teeth are
sereated and have a narrow "tap" style root like a reptile.  Bird teeth are
not sereated and have a more shallow widespread root system.  This is the
kind of teeth both Arch and the Humming Bird have, as well as the ancient
Tern.  The Terns today have no teeth, probably because of environmental
changes... they are still Terns though.

OLDER MODERN FLYERS - Texas Tech has obtained and dated a pair of fossilized
crow-sized birds having all of the features of a modern bird which they have
"dated" several million years older than Arch.  If Arch lead to the modern
bird, how come a perfectly "modern flyer," was present before him?  These
birds have no teeth, no wing claws, nothing to suggest that they are
anything other than birds.

Of course, human footprints have been found and dated several million years
older than Lucy, the "predecessor" to man as well.  These are common
problems for evolutionists and not atypical ones.

Transitional forms, or the lack thereof, are also a plague to the
evolutionist.  If Arch is the best evidence for this, then the case is not
very strong.  Of course, "punctuated equalibrium" explains all of this....?
When we don't see the transitional forms in the living world, we're told it
happens "too slow."  When we don't see it in the fossil record, we're told
(in Gould's punctuated equalibrium theory), that it happens "too fast."  Why
can't we just recognize the fact that there is no evidence that it happens
at all.... "it" being the change from one "kind" to another.

On your genetic similarities arguments;  are you aware that the study of
embriology shows us that the similar gene codes among diverse kinds are not
found in the same DNA segments which develop into the various parts of the
body?  In other words, even though there are pattern matches, they don't
even make the same parts in the various creatures that they exist in.  How
was that overlooked by the geniuses?

Just one correction though.  The blood antegen A is an identical chemical
found in the butter bean, not genetic code (duh...sorry).  We also share a
common brain hormone with the cockroach.  Neither of these are in our
"phyla."  There has been no attempt to link the two and yet the exact same
chemicals are used in these diverse designs.  Which do you like here?
Common designer or man evolving from butter bean eating cockroaches?

I hope I don't sound consescending, but the answers just seem so obvious and
the alternatives so.... not even there.  I'd like to think that these are
new thoughts for you.  If you still can't swallow the creation account, I
hope you can at least see the huge problems with the evolutionary
assumptions... and the fact that none of these things are a challenge to the
creation model.

The invitation to get together is still open.  Bring your friends!!!

David McDougall

Chapter 6 | Chapter 8