Newly Discovered Fossil Puts Another Hole In Tree

So DNA is not confirming horse evolution but rather showing variants within it’s own kind, but are dinosaurs any better? In PhysOrg it doesn’t appear the case…

“The description of the new species, named Tawa after the Hopi word for the Puebloan sun god, appears in the Dec. 10 issue of the journal Science in a paper lead-authored by Sterling Nesbitt, a postdoctoral researcher at The University of Texas at Austin’s Jackson School of Geosciences.”

Latest depiction of the animal.

“The fossil bones of several individuals were recovered, but the type specimen is a nearly complete skeleton of a juvenile that stood about 28 inches (70 cm) tall at the hips and was about 6 feet (2 meters) long from snout to tail. Its body was about the size of a large dog, but with a much longer tail.”

“The firm placement of Herrerasaurus within the theropod lineage points up an interesting fact about dinosaur evolution: once they appeared, they very rapidly diversified into the three main dinosaur lineages that persisted for more than 170 million years. Herrerasaurus was found in a South American rock layer alongside the oldest members of two major lineages—the sauropods and the ornithischians.”

The fossil was discovered in New Mexico when hikers accidently stumbled upon the bones back in 2004, key words to consider, “appeared” and “very rapidly diversified” which is something they also said about their DNA research on horses.  In 2006, imaginary feathers were created on Tawa in the artwork even though there were no feathers found on the bones, rather they said, “it was likely” the creature had features. But newer artwork found in PhysOrg of the animal shows no feathers unlike Nature

The newly discovered fossil also presents a problem about its source location of the missing ancestor. Tawa was found next to two other theropod dinosaurs which were around the same period of time. The article goes on to say that these three dinosaurs were related to those in South America. How could have these dinosaurs migrate so far away?

More articles are being published recently that are anti-gradualistic in theme but support abrupt appearance. Creationists have been advocating this for years, the evidence doesn’t show slow and gradual evolution. Proponents of this hypothesis (a non-thinking process) generally want to replace God with it, evolution according to them can do all the things the Lord can do.

They focus primarily about gene loss and alterations in the regulation of existing genes – not the increases in genetic information that molecules-to-man evolution would require.

4 thoughts on “Newly Discovered Fossil Puts Another Hole In Tree

  1. Michael, you should really try not to put all your faith into secondary and tertiary sources for science. The very name of your religious sect enforces the primacy of the Bible. You don’t even allow authorities such as Athanasius or Thomas Aquinas or Karl Barth tell you what the Bible says. So why do you let Science Daily and PhysOrg and National Enquirer tell you what science is?

    Well, of course, I know why. Because you are not qualified to understand the primary material[1] and so must pick apart the leavings of others.

    As always, you evince several errors of reading comprehension. For example, “once they appeared.” There is nothing in this to suggest that they “appeared” from nowhere. That is strictly your gloss. “The article goes on to say that these three dinosaurs were related to those in South America. How could have these dinosaurs migrate so far away?”—Because you are assuming that the Earth is only 6,000 years old; but when you have 100,000,000 years to play with, you can get in a lot of migration. Also, your blinders do not let you understand that continents have moved thousands of miles, carrying their fauna on their backs. How do you suppose that dinosaur fossils are found in Antarctica? Also, the feathers issue is a real non-starter; anyone can see that.

    Leslie Orgel, the famous evolutionary biologist who worked with Watson & Crick when they discovered the structure of DNA, once propounded Orgel’s Second Law, viz: “Evolution is smarter than you are.”[2] It certainly is.

    [1] Come on, Michael. Just one of the four questions: If a study shows the lowest cancer rates in small counties, where would you expect the highest rates to be? Anybody who can claim to read a research report in Science or Nature can noodle out that one in a few seconds.

    [2] This was recently quoted by Prof. Scott Page in my course on mathematical complexity theory. He frequently uses biological evolution as an example in describing the properties of complex systems, because evolution is a property of all complex systems. Get over it.

  2. Michael’s smug source:’More articles are being published recently that are anti-gradualistic in theme but support abrupt appearance.”

    There is a lesson here about sudden aoppearances. Although Michael will remain blind to it, it may perhaps offer a glimmer of light to some of his less stultified readers.

    Imagine a huge old oak tree, with a dozen widely separated massive branches, many intermediate branches issuing from them, and thousands of twigs. Now imagine the son of that tree, a newly hatched sapling only a couple of years old. The sapling has only a few tiny branches that are themselves no larger nor widely spaced than the twigs of its proud parent. And yet. And yet someday that sapling will grow into a huge tree. The present twigs will become a few widely separated massive brances, and will each sprout dozens of their own branches and theousands of future twigs.

    Compare the oak trees to the present biological tree of life. Compare life in the “Cambrian explosion” to the sapling. The dozen phyla that originated there[1] are now, 500 million years later, represented by thousands of genera and millions of species. Yet, at the time, they differed from each other by less than two different kinds of birds differ today. What we see today as large differences between organisms of different phyla were than less than the differences between, say, different kinds of birds today.

    In fact, scientists still argue over which phylum to assign certain fossils from the Cambrian period, because their representatives are very similar to members of several different phyla. How could this be, if the phyla are so distinct, so … abrupt? The answer, of course, is that the phyla appear separated only after theit tiny initial twigs have grown to massive proportions over hundreds of muillions of years. At the time, the phyla were only tiny twigs closely clustered together. Their representaives differed from each other less than two species of the same genus differ today.

    When Michael uses words such as “appeared” and “very rapidly diversified” in connection with dinosaurs and horses, the same principle applies. Differences that appear large today were only tiny variations at the time. By the time dinosaurs went extinct, 150 million years after they appeared, theropods, sauropods and the ornithischians were easily recognizable as major divisions. However, when their first ancestors first diversified it would have been difficult or impossible to tell them apart. They were only twigs then.

    Creationists are so self-blinkered that they can’t see the saplings for the trees. So to speak.

    [1] Not nearly all the phyla, as creationists would have you believe, but only some of them..

  3. It never ceases to amaze me how adept Evolutionists are at presenting speculative theorising as being scientific fact.

    Thus they cite their theory in support of their theory.

    Olorin and Upson Downes again provide perfect examples here.

    Logical fallacy is verily the meat and potatoes of Evolutionist argumentation.

  4. Dom: “Olorin and Upson Downes again provide perfect examples here.”

    Please identify a specific example in this thread. With supporting facts and arguments.


    I thought not.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s