What is the Origin of Flies?

An example from evolutionist scenarios: Dinosaurus that suddenly took wing while trying to catch flies!

Claiming that dinosaurs transformed into birds, evolutionists support their assertion by saying that some dinosaurs who flapped their front legs to hunt flies "took wing and flew" as seen in the picture. Having no scientific basis whatsoever and being nothing but a figment of the imagination, this theory also entails a very simple logical contradiction: the example given by evolutionists to explain the origin of flying, that is, the fly, already has a perfect ability to fly. Whereas a human cannot open and close his eyes 10 times a second, an average fly flutters its wings 500 times a second. Moreover, it moves both its wings simultaneously. The slightest dissonance in the vibration of wings would cause the fly lose its balance but this never happens.

Evolutionists should first come up with an explanation as to how the fly acquired this perfect ability to fly. Instead, they fabricate imaginary scenarios about how much more clumsy creatures like reptiles came to fly.

Even the perfect creation of the housefly invalidates the claim of evolution. English biologist Robin Wootton wrote in an article titled "The Mechanical Design of Fly Wings":

The better we understand the functioning of insect wings, the more subtle and beautiful their designs appear. Structures are traditionally designed to deform as little as possible; mechanisms are designed to move component parts in predictable ways. Insect wings combine both in one, using components with a wide range of elastic properties, elegantly assembled to allow appropriate deformations in response to appropriate forces and to make the best possible use of the air. They have few if any technological parallels-yet.1

On the other hand, there is not a single fossil that can be evidence for the imaginary evolution of flies. This is what the distinguished French zoologist Pierre Grassé meant when he said "We are in the dark concerning the origin of insects." 2

The Myth of Horse Evolution

Until recently, an imaginary sequence supposedly showing the evolution of the horse was advanced as the principal fossil evidence for the theory of evolution. Today, however, many evolutionists themselves frankly admit that the scenario of horse evolution is bankrupt. In 1980, a four-day symposium was held at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, with 150 evolutionists in attendance, to discuss the problems with gradualistic evolutionary theory. In addressing the meeting, evolutionist Boyce Rensberger noted that the scenario of the evolution of the horse has no foundation in the fossil record, and that no evolutionary proccess has been observed that would account for the gradual evolution of horses:

The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed fox-sized creatures living nearly 50 million years ago to today's much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown.1

Dr. Niles Eldredge said the following about the “evolution of the horse” diagrams:

There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff.2

Then what is the basis for the scenario of the evolution of the horse? This scenario was formulated by means of the deceitful charts devised by the sequential arrangement of fossils of distinct species that lived at vastly different periods in India, South Africa, North America, and Europe solely in accordance with the rich power of evolutionists' imaginations. More than 20 charts of the evolution of the horse, which by the way are totally different from each other, have been proposed by various researchers. Thus, it is obvious that evolutionists have reached no common agreement on these family trees. The only common feature in these arrangements is the belief that a dog-sized creature called "Eohippus", which lived in the Eocene Period 55 million years ago, was the ancestor of the horse (Equus). But, the supposed evolutionary lines from Eohippus to Equus are totally inconsistent.

The evolutionist science writer Gordon R. Taylor explains this little-acknowledged truth in his book The Great Evolution Mystery:

But perhaps the most serious weakness of Darwinism is the failure of paleontologists to find convincing phylogenies or sequences of organisms demonstrating major evolutionary change... The horse is often cited as the only fully worked-out example. But the fact is that the line from Eohippus to Equus is very erratic. It is alleged to show a continual increase in size, but the truth is that some variants were smaller than Eohippus, not larger. Specimens from different sources can be brought together in a convincing-looking sequence, but there is no evidence that they were actually ranged in this order in time.3

All these facts are strong evidence that the charts of horse evolution, which are presented as one of the most solid pieces of evidence for Darwinism, are nothing but fantastic and implausible tales.