Raptorex Fossil Shows Up Early In the Strata

A small dinosaur fossil which has similarities of  T-Rex which was found in evolutionary dating assumption of a 125 million years ago. What surprised evolutionists was the fact that the body of this particular dinosaur wasn’t supposed to evolve unto 60 million years later.

Here is the introduction to the report

“Tyrannosaurid dinosaurs comprised nearly all large-bodied predators (>2.5 tons) on northern continents during the Late Cretaceous. We show that their most conspicuous functional specializations—a proportionately large skull, incisiform premaxillary teeth, expanded jaw-closing musculature, diminutive forelimb, and a hindlimb with cursorial proportions—were present in a new small-bodied, basal tyrannosauroid from Lower Cretaceous rocks in northeastern China. These specializations, scaled up in Late Cretaceous tyrannosaurids with body masses approaching 100 times greater, drove the most dominant radiation of macropredators of the Mesozoic.”

Paleontologist Stephen Brusatte who contributed to the report, stated that fossils like this “totally throw us for a curve” and are “completely unexpected.” Surprises in the fossil record with odd dates based on their assumptions are common. Another discovery made fairly recently in Japan where this particular find was teeth from a mid-sized T. rex discovered in rock dated at 140 million years.

This would seem odd to evolutionists because it came on to the scene 140 million years ago, then go without any mutation change for 65 million years as other fossils of T-Rex were found. If one believes in such mutation change, how could the animal go so long without any of these changes?

However, the creationist model explains these tyrannosauroid fossils being preserved in the vertical strata through the worldwide flood that lasted one year, which is commonly known as Noah’s flood. How the flood would accomplish such a distribution of fossils in the vertical strata?  The waters during that time encroached higher and higher until the land was totally overtaken.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Raptorex Fossil Shows Up Early In the Strata

  1. ur-Michael: “However, the creationist model explains these tyrannosauroid fossils being preserved in the vertical strata through the worldwide flood that lasted one year, which is commonly known as Noah’s flood.”

    So, OK. How does a one-year flood explain that one fossil is 140 million years old, while the T.Rex is 65 million years old. That must have been quite a year.

    “How the flood would accomplish such a distribution of fossils in the vertical strata? The waters during that time encroached higher and higher until the land was totally overtaken.”

    As an explanation that ranks right up there with why one leg of a vee formation of geese is longer than the other one. Answer: because there are more geese in one leg than in the other.

  2. Michael: This would seem odd to evolutionists because it came on to the scene 140 million years ago, then go without any mutation change for 65 million years as other fossils of T-Rex were found. If one believes in such mutation change, how could the animal go so long without any of these changes?”

    Well, you hhave accumulated about 150 mutations per generation. Let’s see, since Adam that wouls be about 45,000 mutations. How different are you from Adam? He must have looked more like a three-toed sloth with all those mutations. (Or perhaps you look more like one; I really don’t know for sure.)

    You really don’t understand evolution. It would be funny if it weren’t so sad.

    Let’s see. So far you have proved ignorant in biology, paleontology, geology, anthropology, philosophy of science, history—even church history, the one thing we’d think you would know a little bit about.

    But let me clue you in about this one small matter. (Uh uh—I saw you put your fingers in your ears.) Mutation is a change in a genome. A mutation might have no effect at all, because it occurs in junk DNA. It might occur in a gene regulator, in which case it might (or might not) have a small effect. It might occur in a protein-producing gene. In the latter case, it might be synonymous, and produce exactly the same gene. Or it might produce a different but synonymous protein In all those case, the organism’s offspring will change not at all.

    If the mutation has some ontological effect, it will most likely be deleterious. Such organisms do not reproduce, and leave no offspring. (Did you know that about 1 in 5 human pregnancies abort, usually fo that reason? I thought not.) So these mutations do not change the population at all. The rare favorable genes tend to propagate. But one gene by itself will most often produce little noticeable effect. A number of functional genes are usually required. THEN no change will cause speciation unless (a) it leads to an increase in fitness, AND (b) a small population gets split off geographically or reproductively so that the gene(s) can differentiate that population from the ancestral population.

    If the environment is stable for long periods of time, theere is no selective pressure to change at all. Sharks have been their ugly rapacious selves for hundreds of millions of yearas. This is called “negative selection.” If the entire population remains in a single habitat, changes will tend to die out.

    Mutation does not equal change, ol’ buddy. Dump that creo canard out of your head.

    ====================

    To return to the subject at hand, why exactly is it that the new find surprised paleontologists. Because it disproves evolution? No. Because it forces yet another realignment of the evolutionary tree? Again, no. Because a descendant appeared before its supposed ancestor. Sadly for you, no.

    The surprise was that paleontologists had hypothesized that the selective pressure for T.Rex’s body proportions were driven by its large body size. That is, that the body size increased first, and led to the skull size, tooth patterns, etc., that would better serve a large predator. The new fossil demonstrates that some other factor drove the skull, teeth, forelimbs, etc., because they appeared in a smaller body. So now we must think again what that pressure might have been. And then test it with more fossils and further investigations.

    In science, the exciting words are not, “I found exactly what I was looking for!” That’s actually boring. The really exciting words are “Hm. That’s strange….” I realize of course that trying to find something unexpected while testing a theory, or flat-out being proved wrong, is anathema to theology. But then that’s a difference between science and religion. Another difference that you seem unable to understand.

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