The Origin of Birds: A Greater Challenge to Evolutionary Perceptions

The problem with evolutionary explanations for the origin of this distinctive world of birds is that the challenge is far greater than the perceptions of the authors of these explanations, just as Reza Zidane says of evolutionary attempts to explain morality. In contrast to the spectacular development program that transforms a single cell in 21 days into billions of cells that perform hundreds of different tasks, and the coordinated design of feathers with the skeleton with the muscular system that gives the bird the power to free its body from gravity and light enough to remain suspended in the air, in contrast to all that evolutionary explanations offer us? Do millions of transitional functional forms of the previous ancestors explain them in all the way? Do thousands of forms and names actually exist? The ability to beat wings more than 100 times per second in a hummingbird, makes it necessary for him to beat his heart at a rate of up to 1250 beats per minute, and to have a diet that allows him to feed on substances weighing twice as much per day...What do evolutionary explanations have in return? The starling parades that make more than 200,000 birds dance in the sky so smoothly and harmoniously that you won't see them in human artifacts, not even in the living world... what do evolutionary explanations have in return? The Arctic tern that migrates every year from the extreme to the extreme, from the North Pole to the South Pole... what do evolutionary explanations have in return? It is enough to put the two competing evolutionary theories in our eyes as we review these amazing examples from the bird world, the theory of the party of the supporters of dinosaur birds, and the theory of the party of the decline of birds from reptiles, one assumes that the ancestor of birds was jumping from the trees and then with the length of time and many successful modifications (due to random mutations and blind selection) has formed wings and became able to fly, and the other assumes that the ancestor of the supposed birds continued to jump to the top of the ability to fly. Tell me how many consistent mutations you have to gain to get to this, tell me the average age of the generation and the time available, and the calculations will find you shocked by their full proof of the total failure of these hypotheses... On the other hand, when we ask ourselves, wouldn’t it be wiser to use the same rule that we use in our daily lives when we see airplanes or any complex engineering systems? Or is it wiser to walk behind fantasies against which all evidence stands? * See Richard Dawkins's critique of evolutionary ethics as a model, by Reza Zidane, p. — Source: Published on Facebook's "Braheen Center" page https://www.facebook.com/braheen.org/posts/pfbid02x4FfRjjEHuj7EAPdZJ2jx49uBWPFMhLSnirfNZVNEBQ4voRL9UkJxUzvrVP5gmBal