New Dinosaur Forced Into The Evolutionary Framework

Dubbed as a “nasty” and fierce predator who’s size was only 4 foot tall was found in Argentina with an assumed time frame of 230 million years ago, a new study suggests. Eodromaeus, whose name means “dawn runner” is supposed to be revealing new light on the evolution of dinosaurs. When you examine this particular small dinosaur it certainly appears it was well designed animal for running and taking care of itself, but the BBC in it’s report, argued to the contrary, “Even though their descendents may have gone on to great things, neither of the creatures were dominant in their time, and the researchers believe their eventual rise may be down to blind chance, and perhaps some unknown environmental catastrophe.”

Stuff happens with blind chance (as it’s always claim to do), according the BBC which means the interpretation is outrunning the bones. Keep in the mind, the dating method used was a complete assumption. As it states in the journal of science, “A current geologic time scale, which assumes an average rate of sedimentation between radioisotopically dated horizons.”

What if that assumption is inaccurate as a result of human error? The impact of such an error would radically change the story of evolution. Another interesting observation when you look at their chart, there is decreasing diversity over a period of time.  So if we are to assume their long-age interpretation of the formation, the evidence contradicts evolutionary predictions – and their paper is very honest about this particular observation in their data as they admit to it!

“One explanation for the rise of dinosaurs has been that a few key features led gradually to the competitive dominance of dinosaurs.  This view has been overtaken by a hypothesis of noncompetitive replacement, in which their rise is split into two successive episodes of extinction and noncompetitive infilling of vacant ecospace.  In the replacement hypothesis, the earliest dinosaurs are regarded as particularly rare (1 to 3% of terrestrial vertebrates), their abundance and diversity increasing successively at the Carnian-Norian and Triassic-Jurassic boundaries coincident with mass extinction of rhynchosaurs, traversodontid cynodonts, and dicynodonts and later of (noncrocodyliform) crurotarsal archosaurs.”

“In contrast, the fossil record from Ischigualasto indicates that early dinosaurs in the latter half of the Carnian (231 to 228 Ma) were more common and diverse than previously thought, equaling the percentage of dinosaurian genera in the late Norian fauna from the overlying Los Colorados Formation (Fig. 4).  Thus, in terms of taxonomic diversity, dinosaurs did not increase their percentage among terrestrial vertebrates toward the end of the Triassic in southwestern Pangaea.”

They continued on with the disappearance of the other creatures (assuming their timeline) had nothing to do with the rise of dinosaurs: “The disappearance of rhynchosaurs at the Carnian-Norian boundary was not linked to an increase in dinosaur diversity but rather coincided with the local extinction of dinosaurs.” It’s not like the dinosaurs were taking advantage of space vacated by the unlucky ones that had gone extinct, in other words (vacated perhaps due to their lack of Darwinian fitness).

Also, they went on about speculation with increases in the size of the body that was supposed to become something like dominate T-Rex. But Eodromaeus was a well-designed, complex creature with fast legs and grasping claws, which in no way indicates that this animal like the study wants us to believe (because otherwise it would mess up the story of evolution), was inferior to later dinosaurs in terms of complexity and fitness!  Here is what they say about him…

“The discovery of Eodromaeus, the reinterpretation of Eoraptor as a sauropodomorph, and the faunal record of the Ischigualasto Formation provide additional evidence that, by mid Carnian time (~232 Ma), the earliest dinosaurs had already evolved the most functionally important trophic and locomotor features characterizing ornithischians, sauropodomorphs, and theropods.  These attributes are thus unlikely to have functioned as the competitive advantage to account for the dominance of dinosaurs in abundance and diversity in terrestrial habitats some 30 million years later in the earliest Jurassic (~202 Ma).  Eodromaeus increases the range of salient theropod features present in the earliest dinosaurs, and Eoraptor shows that the enlarged naris, basally constricted crowns, and a twisted pollex were present in the earliest sauropodomorphs.”

This suggests that so-called, evolutionary advances must have appeared all at once (hyper-evolution, which is growing in popularity for explanations) in the earliest dinosaurs,  according to their own timeline, with variations on the same theme appearing in future animals. Is this something evolutionists envisioned or Charles Darwin for that matter? Folks, the Bible says creation suddenly was produced by God (not out of nothing by blind chance), creating animals which are designed to vary within their own species. Basically if you take out the interpretation of evolution in the study, that is exactly what the evidence is suggesting!

About these ads

11 thoughts on “New Dinosaur Forced Into The Evolutionary Framework

  1. @Michael,

    You quote an article as saying, “Even though their descendents may have gone on to great things, neither of the creatures were dominant in their time, and the researchers believe their eventual rise may be down to blind chance, and perhaps some unknown environmental catastrophe.”

    I fail to see what your point is with this quote, especially noticing that you placed the last part of it in bold. Why don’t you elaborate?

    Then you say, “Stuff happens with blind chance (as it’s always claim to do), according the BBC which means the interpretation is outrunning the bones.”

    BBC has a lot of good documentaries about evolution, but it also has a nasty habbit of explaining the process really badly!! And the example you give about it saying it all happened by “blind chance” is another example of their poor way of explaining… Evolution is NOT blind chance.

    YOu then say, “As it states in the journal of science, “A current geologic time scale, which assumes an average rate of sedimentation between radioisotopically dated horizons.””

    Of course, Creationists make many assumtions all the time which have no basis at all… At least the assumption you quoted has a basis.

    You then claim: “What if that assumption is inaccurate as a result of human error? The impact of such an error would radically change the story of evolution.”

    Sorry Michael, but it is not based on an error. The paper itself says that the Argon-Argon method was used in order to arrive at the date… The Argon-Argon method is more an extremely reliable method, and a major improvement over K-Ar method in certain cases.

    Then you say, “This suggests that so-called, evolutionary advances must have appeared all at once (hyper-evolution, which is growing in popularity for explanations) in the earliest dinosaurs, according to their own timeline, with variations on the same theme appearing in future animals. “

    What?! The quote you gave said 30 million years!!! That is rapid ONLY in a geologic sense…. but most species evolve inrapidly in a geologic sense anyway.

    Michael, you are showing your ignorance of the fossil record of the first dinosaurs… It has been long suggested that the first appearance of dinosaurs in the fossil record is not necessarily when they first evolved. The “advanced” characteristics of the oldest known dinosaurs has lead many to conclude that the VERY FIRST dinosaurs actually appeared before these fossils…. In which case, the features you are citing wouldhave had plenty of time….

    And even if they evolved somewhat faster, so what? “Rapid” evolution is rapid ONLY IN A GEOLOGIC TIME PERIOD….and that can last several million years.

    You add “Is this something evolutionists envisioned or Charles Darwin for that matter? “

    Michael, it is what many scientists have expected. The fact you do not know that shows you know nothing about the subject you are criticizing.

    You then say, “Folks, the Bible says creation suddenly was produced by God (not out of nothing by blind chance), “

    What? Animals didn’t come from nothing? — Do you mean to say that God DID NOT create these animals from nothing? I thought God created ex nihlo. *Gasps* I guess not!!

    Again, Michael, Evolution says nothing about animals coming from nothing… For animals to evolve, they need to have predecessors…so by definition, they DID NOT come from nothing… And as I have already told you, evolution is NOT blind chance.

  2. @Michael:“Keep in the mind, the dating method used was a complete assumption. As it states in the journal of science, “A current geologic time scale, which assumes an average rate of sedimentation between radioisotopically dated horizons.’”

    Here again we have an egregious example of Michael’s utter lack of qualifications to discuss paleontology—or any branch of science. Just iin case Michael has already forgotten the lesson about yardsticks in connection with his post of January 13, here it is again:Finding one small part of a measure that is in error does not invalidate the entire measure.

    How do paleontologists date this fossil? The fossil is found in rock that lies between two volcanic layers that are dated by several independent radiometric methods. So the scientists know the fossil is between 235 and 210 million years old . Then they interpolate[1] between these two boundaries by measuring the fossil’s position as a fraction of the distance between these “horizons.” The sediment between the older layer and the fossil is 1/4 as thick as the sediment between the fossil and the younger layer. Assuming that the sedimentation rate is approximately constant, the fossil is 235-5=230 million years old.

    Suppose the assumption is totally wrong, and all of the sediment was deposited in a small amount of time—say, 40 days or so. The the fossil would still be at least 210 million years old. That is TWENTY THOUSAND TIMES as long as the theory of special creation allows.

    Feel better now?

    =========

    [1] in·ter·po·late (¹n-tûr“p…-l³t”) v.. 4. Mathematics. To estimate a value of (a function or series) between two known values.

  3. Frankly, I fail to see how this even re-writes even the smallest detail of the current theory of evolution. But from what I can see is that Young Earth Creationists are way too eager to read way too much into ANY new discovery and come up with “evolution has been falsified.”

    A recent example has to do with the newly discovered fossil teeth from the Skhul cave in Israel last December. — Some creationists on a couple of websites have attempted to use the newly discovered hominid teeth discovered by Avi Gopher as proof against the current theory of human evolution.

    Brian Thomas, who works at the Institute for Creation Research, has just published a commentary about this discovery [1] in which he points out that the teeth are similar/identical to those of modern humans, and then he also mentions that they are an estimated 400,000 years old, though modern humans are thought to have appeared under 200,000 years ago.

    Brian Thomas then quotes Avi Gopher as saying that if these teeth do in fact belong to homo sapiens, then it “changes the whole picture of evolution”.

    Not surprisingly, even though Thomas does have the original paper listed as one of his sources, he obviously didn’t think that the actual contents of the paper, and he mostly cites popular news articles. The original paper [2], however, is very non-committal, and it offers up several hypothesis…Though it may be true that Gopher may personally agree with the popular press releases, he is cautious.

    This is simply a case of journalist sensationalism, and Brian Thomas has simply fallen for it. I read that these teeth show similarities to those of Neanderthals…But even the very news article that Thomas cites even says that teeth are not a reliable identification mark

    — But with this Creationist fuss over a few teeth and their rush ti judgement over a sensational news article from the Associated Press, it seems that they have thrown all caution to the winds….This, despite how much they preach to “evolutionists” on about rushing to rash conclusions… I guess it is okay for Creationists to jump to conclusions over a tooth, but it is not okay for scientists to come to similar conclusions over Nebraska Man…

    But, even if these newly discovered teeth did indeed belong to a homo sapiens, does this really re-write the entire story of human evolution? –The most it would do revise the date. The overall picture, however, would still be true… We are believed to have evolved from Homo heidelbergensis which was around from 700,000 to 200,000 years ago [3], so even if we arrived on the scene 400,000 years ago,this scenario may still be correct.

    Also, in Thomas’ zeal and glee to show this as a potential falsification of the theory of human evolution, he hasn’t really stopped to think about the real implications of this discovery….if in fact the teeth belong to a modern human: All it would prove is that modern humanity is 400,000 years old….that would make us older, and certainly not 6,000 years old.

    ———
    [1] Thomas, Brian. “Ancient Teeth Overturn Human Evolution,” http://www.icr.org/article/5876/

    [2] Gopher, Avi. Middle pleistocene dental remains from Qesem Cave (Israel), American Journal of Physical Anthropology. http://www.tau.ac.il/humanities/archaeology/directory/barkay%20papers/QesemDentalRemainsAJPA2010.pdf

    [3] The date, as given by the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History.

  4. Sorry, the numbers from the Science paper were not corrected before my comment above was published. Here is the corrected dating:

    How do paleontologists date this fossil? The fossil is found in rock that lies between two volcanic layers that are dated by several independent radiometric methods. So the scientists know the fossil is between 225.9 and 231.4 million years old . Then they interpolate[1] between these two boundaries by measuring the fossil’s position as a fraction of the distance between these “horizons.” The sediment between the younger layer and the fossil is 2.6 times as thick as the sediment between the fossil and the older layer. Assuming that the sedimentation rate is approximately constant, the fossil is 226+4=230 million years old.

  5. “New Dinosaur Forced Into The Evolutionary Framework”

    A cursory glance at this paper in Science reveals that the importance of this fossil is that very little is known about the rise of the dinosaurs. That is, there is no “evolutionary framework” for dinosaurs at this period of time. It is ridiculous that a fossil has been “forced” into a non-existent framework.

    We do still wonder, after almost a year of stonewalling, what qualifications Michael might have to pontificate (you should excuse the term) upon the subject of paleontology—or any other scientific field.. Well, other than that he thinks copper and calcium are :”soft tissue” and that zinc is a “complex biological compound.” Does anyone still wonder why we laugh at creationists? It’s because “The dog ate my homework” still sounds like a creative excuse to them.

  6. Kris, Michael can’t defend them, because he didn’t make them. Someone else gave them to him. Do you really think Michael reads research papers in Science??

  7. Olorin, you’re right. Silly me!
    Well, he does seem to read only the parts that are convenient for him, but that’s about it.

  8. Here’s a clue as to how Michael’s source might have departed reality.

    Now that my print edition of Science has arrived, I notice that the News section contains a summary of this paper. The summary is headlined: “Pint-Sized Predator Rattles the Dinosaur family Tree.” So Michael’s source read only the headline, and not even the entire summary, which notes, ,

    “Tracing the origins of the earliest dinosaurs has been a major challenge for paleontologists, because there are no uncontested fossils from their earliest days on Earth.”

    No fossils. The “family tree”—the framework—from this period was blank. Tell us again, Michael, how one forces a fossil into an empty framework.

  9. In his haste to write up the new dinosaur, Michael missed another item in the latest issue of Science. “Quantitative Analysis of Culture Using Millions of Digitized Books”[1] reports a way to quantify people’s fame through references to them in 4% of all the books ever written, from the Google digitizing program.

    This has led to the establishment of a Science Hall of Fame, for scientists of the past 2 centuries. The unit of fame is the milliDarwin.[2] (mD) More than 4,000 scientists have been rated using this system.

    What would have interested Michael, however, is that an unrelated Creation Science Hall of Fame was announced at the same time. True to the different nature of creationism, however, the CSHofF uses a non-scientific method of selection. Instead of citation statistics, names are divinely revealed to a Board of Directors.[3] Thus far, only 2 have been beatified—Henry Morris and Duane Gish.

    Since Gish has been called “creationism’s T.H. Huxley,” it may be interesting to compare their ratings according to citation numbers: Aaaaand the score is—

    >>>> T.H. Huxley ———- 102 mD
    >>>> Duane Gish ——— 5 mD

  10. {{Sorry, the f00tnotes from the previous comment wandered off. Here they are:

    ==========

    [1] Michel, et al., Science 331:176-182 (16 Jan 2011)

    [2] One darwin is the average annual fequency that Charles Darwin appears in books, from 1839-2000.

    [3] Another difference is that the Creation Science version is solicting donations.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s