New Discovery About Dino Vindicates Creationism

One of the more popular conceptions in evolution, is birds to dinosaurs. People like Darren Naish who has six years of PHD work, still believes there is overwhelming evidence for the hypothesis. While Scientific American declared back in 2003, to give up on the bird to dinosaur hypothesis by saying…

Creationists and other evolutionary skeptics have long pointed to feathers as a favorite example of the insufficiency of evolutionary theory. There were no transitional forms between scales and feathers, they argued.”

It is important for Christians to understand how the evolutionary framework is conceptualized when it comes to various discoveries and the hype from the liberal media that goes with it. As I previously stated, a mere fact in some similarities which is commonly used, doesn’t scientifically prove species evolving into one species and then turning another.

In Nature, it stated…

“Sinornithosaurus millenii, which indicate that they are compound structures composed of multiple filaments. Furthermore, these appendages exhibit two types of branching structure that are unique to avian feathers: filaments joined in a basal tuft, and filaments joined at their bases in series along a central filament. Combined with the independent phylogenetic evidence supporting the theropod ancestry of birds.”

Feathers have been difficult to explain by evolutionists on how something like that could evolve naturally instead of being designed. As science progresses and we study birds more closely, the evidence for bird to dinosaur evolution is not there.

There is a reason why there is nothing in the fossil record that shows scales to feathers in animals. A new discovery was found and reported in science daily

“Researchers at Oregon State University have made a fundamental new discovery about how birds breathe and have a lung capacity that allows for flight – and the finding means it’s unlikely that birds descended from any known theropod dinosaurs.”

Devon Quick mentions an interesting observation. Fundamental bird physiology had not been realized before. More like totally neglected, more like into the hype about trying to find feathers on Dino as an easier way to try and prove the link.

“Warm-blooded birds need about 20 times more oxygen than cold-blooded reptiles, and have evolved a unique lung structure that allows for a high rate of gas exchange and high activity level. Their unusual thigh complex is what helps support the lung and prevent its collapse.”

Those like Darren Naish and the media who like to hype the bird to dinosaur supposed link…

“For one thing, birds are found earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs they are supposed to have descended from,” Ruben said. “That’s a pretty serious problem, and there are other inconsistencies with the bird-from-dinosaur theories.”

The evidence is overwhelming, dinosaurs did not evolve from birds which is in agreement with the Bible as all animals breed within their own kind but show variants within a species.

Advertisements

18 thoughts on “New Discovery About Dino Vindicates Creationism

  1. No, indeed. Dinosaurs did not evolve from birds, as you correctly state in your last sentence. It is the other way around.

  2. Did you even read the JoM article? I thought not. Did you notice that the authors merely question the sequence in which birds evolved, and do not question that they did evolve? I thought not. Pop quiz: How exactly do birds’ lungs differ from our lungs? I thought not.

  3. Oh, yeah. Some scientists think that birds evoved from animals other than theropod dinosaurs. In what way exactly does this “vindicate creationism”? That’s quite a flight of fancy, don’t you think?

  4. Olorin,

    “Oh, yeah. Some scientists think that birds evoved from animals other than theropod dinosaurs. In what way exactly does this “vindicate creationism”? That’s quite a flight of fancy, don’t you think?”

    It is an oversimplification to say that showing that birds didn’t evolve from dinosaurs is a vindication of creationism per se. — But in the long term, the research itself is still relevant in order to argue against the donimant theory of the origin of birds.

    Any informed reader that reads the comments from the researchers that they believe that birds and dinosaurs shared a common ancestor, but that us immaterial to the long-term point that is actually being made: That birds didn’t evolve from dinosaurs.

  5. Eh, the science daily paper actually quotes the scientist (not all scientists) as saying:
    “This discovery probably means that birds evolved on a parallel path alongside dinosaurs, starting that process before most dinosaur species even existed.”

    It says ‘evolved’, not ‘created’.

    Here is a nice link about birds and dinosaurs:
    http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html

    And a nice link on theropods:
    http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/saurischia/theropoda.html
    where one can read, amongst others:
    “Our knowledge of the evolutionary history of the Theropoda is constantly under revision stimulated by new, exciting fossil finds every year or so such as Mononykus olecranus, a very bird-like theropod found recently in the Mongolian desert, or Giganotosaurus carolinii, a giant theropod probably rivaling the size of T.rex., found recently in Argentina. In fact, the 1960’s discovery and study of the remains of Deinonychus antirrhopus helped to revise paleontology’s old vision of all dinosaurs as slow, stupid reptiles, and was a key factor in the onset of the controversial hot-blooded/cold-blooded debate. Currently, there are two or three main groups of theropods, depending on whom you ask; we have yet to fully understand their origin. Why is this so? The main reason is the lack of good specimens; theropod remains are fairly rare and more often than not, fragmentary — theropods have a poor fossil record compared to most of the ornithischian dinosaurs. Fossils of small theropods are especially rare, since small bones are harder to find and are weathered away easily. Without well-preserved, complete specimens, it is hard to tell who is most closely related to whom using cladistics.”

    Science in action ! Great stuff !

  6. krissmith777: “Any informed reader that reads the comments from the researchers that they believe that birds and dinosaurs shared a common ancestor, but that us immaterial to the long-term point that is actually being made: That birds didn’t evolve from dinosaurs.”

    No, the long-term point is that birds evolved in parallel with theropods, rather than evolving from them. Creationists seem to depend upon second- and thrid-hand reports, rather than upon the primary sources. Remember that the goal of Science Daily is to sell copies, not to communicate research to peers.

    In other words, not evolving from theropod dinosaurs is not the same as being created ex nihilo. Got that yet?

  7. Olorin says “not evolving from theropod dinosaurs is not the same as being created ex nihilo.”

    Logicians call this fallacy a false dichotomy–trying to prove that something is A by showing that it is not B. An example is trying to prove that the Earth is a triangle by showing that it is not square.

    Michael said: “There is a reason why there is nothing in the fossil record that shows scales to feathers in animals.”

    This is just plain not true. More than a dozen genera of dinosaur fossils have been discovered that have various stages of feathers. A recent article in Nature (March 19, 2009) reports a very early (200Mya) dinosaur with primitive filamentous feathers. This discovery is relevant here because the fossil belongs to the other (non-theropod) division of dinosaurs, which could, according to the Journal of Morphology author, have been direct ancestors of birds.

    Hint to creationists: Unlike theologians, scientists can’t just cherry-pick the data they like. They have to consider ALL of it.

  8. Olorin

    “In other words, not evolving from theropod dinosaurs is not the same as being created ex nihilo. Got that yet?”

    Did you even read what I said? — I agreed with you that the researchers believe in Evolution and that they believe birds and theropods still evolved independently. I never suggested that they said otherwise.

  9. N1583Z,

    “Logicians call this fallacy a false dichotomy–trying to prove that something is A by showing that it is not B. An example is trying to prove that the Earth is a triangle by showing that it is not square.”

    Again, I wasn’t claiming that at all. As a matter of fact, I freely admitted that the researchers are believers in evolution.

  10. N1583Z,

    Creationists have been saying for awhile concerning bird physiology, they are the only vertebrates with a unique one-way, flow-through breathing system. Also birds have a unique respiratory system that allows flying with its need for rapid metabolism. The thigh bone a very critical piece of the bird is much different than land animals. It keeps the bird’s lung from collapsing when the bird inhales without a functional thigh bone, a bird dies. The evidence of this unique system of the bird could not evolved from dinosaurs.

    Cherry picking is when evolutionists find more hollow bones than normal, then conclude it means, “air sacs” in a remains of a 30-foot-long dinosaur discovered along the banks of Argentina’s Rio Colorado. Lungs do not fossilize so there is no direct evidence. It’s all inference, not evidence which is not logical nor conclusive.

  11. Michael: “Cherry picking is when evolutionists find more hollow bones than normal, then conclude it means, ‘air sacs’ in a remains of a 30-foot-long dinosaur discovered along the banks of Argentina’s Rio Colorado. Lungs do not fossilize so there is no direct evidence. It’s all inference, not evidence which is not logical nor conclusive.”

    The significance of the article to the present discussion is this. Scientists found hollow bones and inferred air sacs in 30-foot-long dinosaurs. BUT THEN a scientist said, let’s question that inference, and found thigh bones that seem to be incompatible with that inference. The next step is to spur further observations and experimentation to determine whether the incompatibility is real, and if so, where else birds may have originated.

    This is exactly the difference between science and creationism. Any inference that seems to favor creationism is never questioned. Creationists perform no investigations to seek out evidence that might disprove their inferences, whereas scientists do it all the time. One of the major purposes of peer reviewis to adduce evidence that might controvert the conclusions of a journal article. Creationists do not submit papers for peer review.

  12. Michael,

    I’ll just repeat: the science daily paper actually quotes the scientist (not all scientists) as saying:
    “This discovery probably means that birds evolved on a parallel path alongside dinosaurs, starting that process before most dinosaur species even existed.”

    This is just one scientist speculating (‘probably’), which is interesting, and he might be right in the end, who knows !

    But that does not at all vindicate creationism. How would that be ?

  13. N1583Z

    I disagree, you get confused when evolutionists and creationists who agree on a point but not a conclusion. Dr Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said…

    “It’s biophysically impossible to evolve flight from such large bipeds with foreshortened forelimbs and heavy, balancing tails,’ exactly the wrong anatomy for flight.”

    He goes on to state, “The alleged “ancestors” for birds are “dated” (by evolutionary methods) as millions of years younger than the birds. E.g., e.g. claimed “feathered dinosaur ancestors” Sinosauropteryx and Caudipteryx are “dated” at 125 Ma (million years old), which is 28 Ma younger than the first undoubted bird Archaeopteryx (153 Ma) and even about 10 Ma younger than the beaked bird Confuciusornis (135 Ma)! As Feduccia quips, you can’t be older than your grandfather! Dino-bird believers respond that sometimes a grandfather can outlive his grandson. But while correct, it’s hard to understand that an “advanced” beaked bird like Confuciusornis could appear 10 million years before there is a trace of its “feathered dino ancestors”.

    The fossil sequence is damaging to this hypothesis of dinosaurs supposedly evolving into birds. Dr Alan Feduccia by the way is not a creationist, therefore you tried to confuse the skepticism of Dino to birds, just because it happens to agree with the Bible. Dr Alan Feduccia doesn’t care, all he says is there is evidence against dinosaurs evolving into birds and that is the difference from what you call science than science itself.

  14. Michael,

    most paleontologists believe birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs, but Feduccia believes that birds and dinosaurs had a common thecodont ancestor (the thecodonts are the ancestors of dinosaurs). This actually introduces an even larger temporal gap since the youngest thecodont fossil we have is much older than the youngest theropod.

    Whether Feduccia is right we’ll find out in due time. It changes nothing to the theory of evolution itself, though, only in the actual order in which things evolved.

    Feduccia has a couple of valid points, but the theropod to bird theory is still by far the best supported one in paleontology.

  15. Eelco,

    It’s going to change as you know evolutionary science does in fact change, and then they will looking for other another way birds supposedly evolved. There will be holdouts because some has made it their life’s work researching the dino-bird hypothesis.

    One of the main reasons why, comes from a question, “how would the ‘bellows’-style lungs of reptiles evolve gradually into avian lungs?”An animal must be able to breath in order to survive, and science has shown the hypothetical intermediate stages could not conceivably function properly. So how this would be an advantage for the animals to supposedly change into a bird?

  16. Yes, of course science changes. That’s what science is all about ! I would be completely bored (and out of a job) if that would not be the case.

    Good to hear that at least that has gotten through to you.

    But none of the things you discuss change the fundamentals of the theory of evolution. For that something completely radical would have to be discovered. I’ve seen nothing like that passing through these parts of the blogosphere.

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