The article to the left appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press, April 13, 2007. What is the obvious conclusion that the readers were to draw from the caption? That scientists have finally proved that birds and dinosaurs are related, of course. Is that really the case? Absolutely not! In fact, the hard physical data supports the biblical creation view much better.
The article states:
“While dinosaur bones have long been studied, ‘its always been assumed that preservation does not extend to the cellular or molecular level’, said Mary Higby Schweitzer of North Carolina State University. It had been thought that some proteins could last a million years or more, but not to the age of the dinosaurs, she said. So, when she was able to recover soft tissue from a T-Rex bone found in Montana in 2003 she was surprised, Schweitzer said.”
Scientists have been studying DNA and proteins in countless of specimens for many years. Take the mummies of Egypt for example. These guys were obviously buried in the not-so-distant-past (by the evolutionist’s reckoning) and yet a marked degree of DNA / protein degradation was observed. Such observations allow scientists to estimate how long DNA / protein can last in a lifeless specimen. Schweitzer claimed that DNA was thought to have a “lifespan” of about a million years. I think that is a huge over estimate, but let’s give her the benefit of the doubt. All of a sudden measurable amounts of protein are found in a T-Rex that died supposedly 68 million years ago. What is the reasonable conclusion? Maybe these bones aren’t all that old! But wait a minute. Wouldn’t that destroy the whole evolution story? After all, we “know” that it takes many millions of years for a reptile to become a mammal or bird. Having dinosaurs running around a mere 1 million years ago simply won’t do. So to save the evolution story a little longer from its certain demise, those committed to this sinking monolithic religion have opted to believe that proteins can actually last much longer than they supposed. Over 65 times as long! This is hardly an exact science.
The article continues:
” ‘Most people believe that birds evolved from dinosaurs, but that all based on the architecture of the bones’, said Asara.
Whoa! Is that true? Do “most people believe that birds evolved from dinosaurs?” In a recent poll published in “Newsweek” March 31st, 2007, it was revealed that 91 % of American adults surveyed believe in God, and nearly half reject Darwinian evolution.Where is this guy getting his data?
His admition that the claimed relationship between dinos and birds is based solely on similarities in skeletal structure is instructive. I’d like to point out that structures built by a common designer often also have similar characteristics. The similarities between birds and dinosaurs may be due to the fact that God designed and created both.
As for the protein analysis and comparisons and how this offers “concrete” evidence that dinos and birds are related:
“This [comparison of proteins] allows you to get the chance to say, ‘Wait, they really are related because their sequences are related. We didn’t get enough sequences to definitely say that, but what sequences we got support that idea.’ “
So much for the “concrete” evidence.
“The fact that we are getting proteins is very, very exciting, said John Horner of Montana State University and the Museum of the Rockies, And, he added, ‘It changes the idea that birds and dinosaurs are related from a hypothesis to a theory…’ “
Now this is an interesting remark. Since at least the late 90’s scientists have been absolutely enamoured with the “dino-to-bird” evolution fable. Countless books and articles targeting all age groups have been written promoting the idea not as hypothesis or theory, but as absolute fact (National Geographic Magazine, for example, as been a prominent flag waver). Now suddenly the scientific community admits that only very recently the idea may be promoted to the category of theory.
Ignoring the obvious dishonesty of past propagandists (like National Geographic), let us consider this new “theory”. Among other things, a scientific theory is a proposal that is falsifyable. What do you suppose would falsify the dino-to-bird story? How about finding measurable amounts of protein on a specimen said to be 68 million years old? This discovery was not in any way predicted by the evolution story, but fits the creation account of a recent flood and subsequent rapid burial of these animals.
Here’s a classic quote from the article:
“…Knowing how evolution occurred and how species evolved is a central question’, Cantley said.”
Did these guys ever ask if evolution occurred? Of course not. Notice that once again, evolution is the assumption made at the onset of the investigation. It is not a conclusion reached from scientific observation but a prior religious conviction made prior to it. The whole idea of dinos becoming birds is an insult to the intelligence. The genetic hurdles would have been enormous – certainly larger than random mutation could cross. Besides, evolution is said to be driven by natural selection or “survival of the fittest.” There is no way you can imagine an animal half way between dinosaur and bird, dragging around undeveloped wings and useless legs as being “more fit” than other competing animals.
The length that some people will go to in order to deny God and His word never ceases to amaze me.
By: John Feakes