Is it a Bird..a Fish...or a Mammal?
Loons have been documented diving 200 feet under the water and swimming with the agility of a fish. Indoctrination from our school, museum, and media system presents such abilities as having evolved over time by some natural mechanism. Believers in evolution provide only a superficial explanation for such specialized abilities, while totally ignoring the problems posed by such speculation. To see this dichotomy more clearly, let’s examine in detail just one remarkable characteristic of the common loon.
The loon is the only bird that has solid bones similar to a mammal. Bones form the framework of bodies upon which the muscles, ligaments, and other tissue have a place to anchor and function. In animals, other than birds, bones are the densest and the mechanically strongest parts of the body. However, in birds, the bones have been designed hollow in order to reduce the overall weight of the bird, allowing it to fly while expending the least possible energy. The bones of birds, while remarkably strong for their weight, are less dense than surrounding tissue and can actually float on water -- except for the bones of a loon. It turns out that the loon has solid bones like mammals, rather than hollow bones like all other birds. Why is this and how could it have happened?
Every part of the loon is designed for it to function perfectly as a deep water diver. Its relatively small wings allow quick movement and direction changes under water. Its large webbed feet allow it to not only propel itself underwater, but to run on top of the water for assisted take-offs. And most importantly, its solid bones give it low enough buoyancy so it can rapidly descend to great depths when searching for fish. Other water birds such as ducks and swans, ride high in the water due to their hollow bones, but they cannot dive deep in search of fish. If the loon had hollow bones; diving deep would be as difficult as SCUBA diving with an inflated life vest.
Believers in evolution would argue that the loon developed its solid bones over time as small changes in DNA gave some pre-loon type bird increasingly denser bones resulting in the advantage of being able to dive deeper. This sounds logical, BUT the problems with such a scenario have been ignored. First, the whole idea of a bone slowly changing from hollow to solid is just story telling. There is no fossil or factual evidence to suggest it ever happened. Similar storytelling is repeatedly presented as science by evolutionary believers as they talk about their faith. Second, the structure of the two types of bone is completely different and involves a totally unique DNA sequence. Expecting random changes in the DNA code to change one type of bone to another would be like a cardboard factory suddenly turning out solid lumber due to random changes over time in the fiber processing machinery. It could simply never ever happen. Finally, the bone structure supports the surrounding tissue. Not only would the bones have to change, all the DNA code for each of the surrounding tissues, ligaments, muscle types, and blood generation apparatus within the bones would have to change simultaneously and function perfectly while the bones themselves were transforming from hollow to solid. Upon close examination the whole concept of slow change over time is preposterous.
If students were given all of this information, when presented with the unique features of an individual organism, and were then asked to ponder the relevant question - how did this organism develop its unique features? – they would be far more likely to discover the truth.
Only two possibilities exist -- the DNA information was programmed by a designer (creation) or this information developed by random mutational changes (evolution). The reason this choice of possibilities is not presented to students is that they would invariably choose creation - leaving naturalistic scientists with no followers. Furthermore, these same students would be far more likely to place the reality of God’s existence at the center of every other choice they face in life.
Loons have been documented diving 200 feet under the water and swimming with the agility of a fish. Indoctrination from our school, museum, and media system presents such abilities as having evolved over time by some natural mechanism. Believers in evolution provide only a superficial explanation for such specialized abilities, while totally ignoring the problems posed by such speculation. To see this dichotomy more clearly, let’s examine in detail just one remarkable characteristic of the common loon.
The loon is the only bird that has solid bones similar to a mammal. Bones form the framework of bodies upon which the muscles, ligaments, and other tissue have a place to anchor and function. In animals, other than birds, bones are the densest and the mechanically strongest parts of the body. However, in birds, the bones have been designed hollow in order to reduce the overall weight of the bird, allowing it to fly while expending the least possible energy. The bones of birds, while remarkably strong for their weight, are less dense than surrounding tissue and can actually float on water -- except for the bones of a loon. It turns out that the loon has solid bones like mammals, rather than hollow bones like all other birds. Why is this and how could it have happened?
Every part of the loon is designed for it to function perfectly as a deep water diver. Its relatively small wings allow quick movement and direction changes under water. Its large webbed feet allow it to not only propel itself underwater, but to run on top of the water for assisted take-offs. And most importantly, its solid bones give it low enough buoyancy so it can rapidly descend to great depths when searching for fish. Other water birds such as ducks and swans, ride high in the water due to their hollow bones, but they cannot dive deep in search of fish. If the loon had hollow bones; diving deep would be as difficult as SCUBA diving with an inflated life vest.
Believers in evolution would argue that the loon developed its solid bones over time as small changes in DNA gave some pre-loon type bird increasingly denser bones resulting in the advantage of being able to dive deeper. This sounds logical, BUT the problems with such a scenario have been ignored. First, the whole idea of a bone slowly changing from hollow to solid is just story telling. There is no fossil or factual evidence to suggest it ever happened. Similar storytelling is repeatedly presented as science by evolutionary believers as they talk about their faith. Second, the structure of the two types of bone is completely different and involves a totally unique DNA sequence. Expecting random changes in the DNA code to change one type of bone to another would be like a cardboard factory suddenly turning out solid lumber due to random changes over time in the fiber processing machinery. It could simply never ever happen. Finally, the bone structure supports the surrounding tissue. Not only would the bones have to change, all the DNA code for each of the surrounding tissues, ligaments, muscle types, and blood generation apparatus within the bones would have to change simultaneously and function perfectly while the bones themselves were transforming from hollow to solid. Upon close examination the whole concept of slow change over time is preposterous.
If students were given all of this information, when presented with the unique features of an individual organism, and were then asked to ponder the relevant question - how did this organism develop its unique features? – they would be far more likely to discover the truth.
Only two possibilities exist -- the DNA information was programmed by a designer (creation) or this information developed by random mutational changes (evolution). The reason this choice of possibilities is not presented to students is that they would invariably choose creation - leaving naturalistic scientists with no followers. Furthermore, these same students would be far more likely to place the reality of God’s existence at the center of every other choice they face in life.