Well Preserved Giant “Water King” Fossil Amazes and Surprises

A  fossil found in Peru back in 2007 is considered to be something from a Hollywood movie rather than found in nature has a been a great discovery  concerning creationism. However, despite claims it had shed no light on evolution for one thing, it was found to be tens of million of years out of it’s time frame, secondly, it’s enormous size, thirdly, this remarkable bird was apparently fully penguin with flippers and more tuxedo decor than many modern species. But the most remarkable of all is for the first time there were feathers recovered which still had pigment bodies – melanocytes – with reddish brown coloration remaining in them. Amazing!

In the journal of science…

“Penguin feathers are highly modified in form and function, but there have been no fossils to inform their evolution.”

The discovery of feathers is what surprised evolutionary scientists the most because it is implausible in the real world considering the the assumed age is about 36 million years for them to last that long. A younger fossil (in thousands of years range) would make this plausible to recover feathers in a fossil and indeed that was what had been found. The authors in the journal of science had no viable explanation other than it was a rare find and Penguin feathers are highly modified in form and function, but there have been no fossils to inform their evolution.

“They don’t make penguins like they used to. Thirty-six million years ago, at least one species stood nearly as tall as a man and sported shades of red and gray, scientists announced Thursday.” -National Geographic

So really, how could this shed more light on understanding evolution? Why would a super-penguin which was fitter than modern ones with a “similar structure and organization as those of living birds that have reddish brown and/or grey feathers, including robins and zebra finches” would evolve into something less fit and smaller?

And when you add the recovery of feathers and melanosomes in the fossil considered to be 36 million years old one asks, how does this shed light on evolution? Looking at the artist’s reconstruction (and I’m not a big fan of these), even the drawing shows it was fully equipped with tuxedo wetsuit and outfitted for powerful swimming just as much as we see with today’s penguins. The melanocyte aspect, sighting the differences are very trivial.

There is nothing to show either by observation or understanding in regards to evolution! In creationism, the earth is young so it’s not altering any of it’s time frame nor restoring to a non-viable explanation like just calling the discovery “rare” when it’s possible to find more. Also, it’s a variant of the bird family which is is not contrary to creationism. This is a good example on how the ‘theory’ of evolution gets more complicated and how a viable explanation grows with more confirmation concerning the data. The “Water King” fossil is an enormous and very interesting discovery!

Secular Paleontologists Addresses Most Tyrannosaurs

Dubbed as the children’s favorite pet monster, secular paleontologists write about what they know about these creatures…

In Science

“Tyrannosaurs, the group of dinosaurian carnivores that includes Tyrannosaurus rex and its closest relatives, are icons of prehistory.  They are also the most intensively studied extinct dinosaurs, and thanks to large sample sizes and an influx of new discoveries, have become ancient exemplar organisms used to study many themes in vertebrate paleontology.”

“A phylogeny that includes recently described species shows that tyrannosaurs originated by the Middle Jurassic but remained mostly small and ecologically marginal until the latest Cretaceous.  Anatomical, biomechanical, and histological studies of T. rex and other derived tyrannosaurs show that large tyrannosaurs could not run rapidly, were capable of crushing bite forces, had accelerated growth rates and keen senses, and underwent pronounced changes during ontogeny.  The biology and evolutionary history of tyrannosaurs provide a foundation for comparison with other dinosaurs and living organisms.”

Indeed, what do that have to say about one of the biggest shockers in discovering dinosaur fossils for proponents in evolution?

Referring to the T-Rex discovery which went public back in 2005…

“Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bone—the first observation of its kind. The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive.”

Interesting enough, they didn’t do much bragging about this particular discovery other than the usual line of  increasing understanding in their particular framework. But back in 2008, they tried to undermine her research. Thomas Kaye from the Burke Museum of Natural History in Seattle with two colleagues concluded what they observed in the dinosaur bone was nothing more than a bacterial biofilm that grew in the hollow spaces inside the fossils!

New Scientist reported…

“We cracked open a lot of bones and spent hundreds of hours on an electron microscope examining them,” said Kaye. He concluded the soft material was not from dinosaurs, but from bacterial films which grew on cavities inside the bone long after the animal had died.”“More familiar biofilms are thin, sticky layers like dental plaque, but Kaye says the biofilms he found produced branching hollow filaments when they coated the inside of blood vessel cavities in the bone.”

Mary Schweitzer stood by her claims of the discovery and most likely was thrown back a bit by the opposition she was getting.  But this challenge to her study was highly questionable, why was biofilm inside fossilized bone discovered now after centuries of collecting fossils? How could these biofilms conform to original tissues and then persist after they decay away or fossilize and remain unaltered for 68 million years? Even Kaye’s team conclusion would suggest that these bones are not that old. In 2009, it was official, the soft tissue discovered was indeed, blood vessel proteins and structures resembling cells and it wasn’t the only animal!

“A controversial finding that protein fragments can be recovered from dinosaur  fossils has been replicated for the first time.  Two years ago, Mary Schweitzer, a paleontologist at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, and colleagues stunned the paleontology community when they reported discovering intact protein fragments in a fossil from a Tyrannosaurus rex that died 68 million years ago.

The claim has remained contentious, because proteins in tissue normally degrade quickly after an animal dies. On page 626, however, Schweitzer and colleagues report finding an even larger number of protein fragments from an 80-million-year-old fossil from a duck-billed dinosaur, or hadrosaur, known as Brachylophosaurus canadensis.”

“This will either be nothing or the biggest revolution in paleontology ever,” says Tom Kaye, a paleontologist at the Burke Museum in Seattle, Washington, and a critic of the original T. rex study.”

Does it really increase understanding concerning the story of evolution? Supposedly 68 million years old with soft tissue and finding more with a supposed age of 80 million years old. Soft tissue degrades quickly, it’s not logical to conclude otherwise for any theory. So there is no increase in understanding evolution but a lot of back peddling which is why secular paleontologists danced around this discovery. Christians however, rejoice in findings because these soft tissues found in the fossil of T-Rex and another animal are not reformulating what the Bible says but rather confirms it!