The Dinosaurs and the Ice Age

HOW DID DINOSURS LIVE  The so-called ‘Age of Dinosaurs’ ……………………………………………………………………………………….…4  The bigger they are … ………………………………………………………………………………………………….…..5  Galloping Giants ………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………...5  ‘Carnivorous’ dinosaurs had plant diet…………………………………………………………………………………..…6  Dino ‘puberty blues’ for paleontologists ………………………………………………………………………………….7 DID DINOSAURS REALLY DIE OUT MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO  Dinosaur bones—just how old are they really? …………………………………………………………………………..7  Did a meteor wipe out the dinosaurs? ………………………………………………………………………………...…. 8  The extinction of the dinosaurs ……………………………………………………………………………………………9  Book review: The Great Dinosaur Extinction Controversy …………………………………………………………….17  Liaoceratops: a ‘missing link’ of the horned dinos? ……………………………………………………………………20  New evidence of Global Flood from Mexico ……………………………………………………………………………. 21  ‘Gastroliths’ deposited by mass flow ……………………………………………………………………………………22  Dinosaur herd buried in Global Flood in Inner Mongolia, China ……………………………………………………...23  Dinosaur demise did not jump start mammal evolution ……………………………………………………………….25 WHAT ABOUT DINOSAURS FOOTPRINTS  In the footsteps of giants …………………………………………………………………………………………………..26  Dancing Dinosaurs? ……………………………………………………………………………………….………………27  Thousands of Dinosaur footprints found in China ……………………………………………………………………..28  Dinosaur stumble preserved in trackways, Utah, USA …………………………………………………………………29 DINOSAURS BLOOD CELLS, BLOOD VESSELS AND PROTEINS  Sensational dinosaur blood report! ……………………………………………………………………………………..…30  Still soft and stretchy ………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..…30  ‘Schweitzer’s Dangerous Discovery’ ………………………………………………………………..………………….…32  Doubting doubts about the Squishosaur ………………………………………………………………………….……….32  Dinosaur soft tissue and protein—even more confirmation! ……………………………………………………………34  DNA and bone cells found in dinosaur bone ………………………………………………………………………….….36  Squirming at the Squishosaur 37 DID BIRDS REALLY EVOLVED FROM DINOSAURS  ‘Feathered’ dinos: no feathers after all! …………………………………………………………………………………..38  Archaeopteryx (unlike Archaeoraptor) is NOT a hoax—it is a true bird, not a “missing link” ……………………….40  Archaeoraptor—Phony ‘feathered’ fossil …………………………………………………………………………………..40  Flying dinosaurs, flightless dinosaurs and other evolutionary fantasies ………………………………………………..41  New four-winged feathered dinosaur? …………………………………………………………………………………….44  Be sceptical about the skeptics—Part 1 ………………………………………………………………………………….. 47  Ostrich eggs break dino-to-bird theory …………………………………………………………………………………....49  Scientific American admits creationists hit a sore spot …………………………………………………………………..50  ‘Sue’ the T. Rex ………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………..51  Living Dinosaurs or Just Birds? ……………………………………………………………...……………………………52  Feathery flight of fancy ………………………………………………………………………………..…………………….54  Chinese fossil layers and the uniformitarian re-dating of the Jehol Group …………………………………………....54  Bird breathing anatomy breaks dino-to-bird dogma ……………………………………………………………………..57 THE ICE AGE AND MAMMOTH  What about the Ice Age? …………………………………………………………………………..……………………… 59 WAS THERE REALLY AN ICE AGE  Tackling the big freeze ………………………………………………………………………………………………………62  A classic tillite reclassified as a submarine debris flow ………………………………………………………………… 63  Loess problems ………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………….64 ANOTHER THREAT TO THE MILANKOVITCH THEORY QUALLED  How did 90% of large Australian Ice Age animals go extinct? ………………………………………………………….66  Another threat to the Milankovitch theory quelled? …………………………………………………………………….. 68  On interpreting deep sea data as evidence of Milankovitch cycles …………………………………………..70 MAMMOTHS – WHAT EXACTLEY ARE THEY  ‘Lost world’ animals—found! ………………………………………………………………………..………………..……70  The extinction of the woolly mammoth: was it a quick freeze? …………………………………………………..……..71  Mammoth among the pharaohs? …………………………………………………………………………………….……78  Woolly mammoths were cold adapted …………………………………………………………………………………….78 RELETED DALY ARTICLES  Did birds evolve from dinosaurs? ……………………………………………………………………………………..……79  Amazing preservation: Three birds in a dinosaur! ……………………………………………………………………..….84

                

Which came first: the Archaeopteryx or the dinosaur egg? …………………………………………………………… 85 Is Archaeopteryx a feathered dinosaur? …………………………………………………………………………………87 Unscrambling the mysteries ……………………………………………………………………………………………….87 North American ‘feathered’ dinosaurs a flight of fancy ………………………………………………………………….89 Dinosaurs ate birds ………………………………………………………………………………..……………………….90 Supposed ‘icon of evolution’, Archaeopteryx, was “dressed for flight” ……………………………………………….. 92 Anchiornis huxleyi: new four-winged feathered dino? …………………………………………………………………….93 Feather fossil fantasy ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..…94 Grass-eating dinos ……………………………………………………………………………………………..…………….95 ‘Jurassic Park’ feathers? …………………………………………………………………………………………...…….…95 Plucking the dinobird ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 96 Eggceptionally different ………………………………………………………………………………………………………97 Big birdosaur blues …………………………………………………………………………………………………..………99 Pterosaurs flew like modern aeroplanes ……………………………………………………………………….………..100 Chickens with teeth …………………………………………………………………………………………..….………100 Dinos breathed like birds? ………………………………………………………………………..……………….……… 101 Chinese feathered dinosaurs, where are the skeptics? ………………………………………………………….…….102

SOFT TISSUE  Original Animal Protein in Fossils? ………………………………………………………………………………………105  Double-decade dinosaur disquiet ………………………………………………………………………………….……106 ORIGIN OF DINOSAURS  Evolutionary troubles with the origin and demise of dinosaurs …………………………………………………….….107  Thunder lizards …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 108  Dinosaur demise did not jump start mammal evolution ………………………………………………………………..109  Polar dinosaur conundrum ……………………………………………………………………………………….……….110  Did dinosaurs really rule the earth? ……………………………………………………………………………….……..111

HOW DID DINOSURS LIVE The so-called ‘Age of Dinosaurs’ Why there never was a ‘land before time’ millions of years ago! by Calvin Smith No matter where Creation Ministries International speakers go, they are practically guaranteed to be asked about dinosaurs in question time. Both creationists and non-believers want to know how we can answer the evolutionary interpretation for the supposed ‘Age of Dinosaurs’, both from the science.A classic evolutionary portrait of dinosaurs, such as above, typically depicts a group of them in a forest of exotic tropical-looking plants, with various reptilian creatures sprinkled about and a volcano erupting in the background. It gives the impression of a ‘land before time’ when dinosaurs ruled the earth.Typically, a chart showing the geologic column will be offered nearby (below), showing the so-called ages of Earth’s geologic history with the order and timing of when Earth’s life forms supposedly appeared. Usually ‘simple’ organisms will be shown at the bottom, marine animals next, reptiles after that, dinosaurs appearing, then mammals and finally humans at the top.Many people get the impression that the remains of such creatures always appear in that order in the fossil record (with the understanding that there were millions of years of time separating the groups shown on the chart).Many still think that mammals and dinosaurs, for example, never coexisted, or if they did it was only for a short period when only small shrew-like mammals were present.To the surprise of many, ducks,1 squirrels,2 platypus,3beaver-like4 and badgerlike5 creatures have all been found in ‘dinosaur-era’ rock layers along with bees, cockroaches, frogs and pine trees. Most people don’t picture a T. rex walking along with a duck flying overhead, but that’s what the socalled ‘dino-era’ fossils would prove!A creature called Gansus was found, supposedly 120-millionyears-old. Apart from a few features (like wing claws, still found on some modern birds) it looked very much like a modern duck or loon. But the standard dinosaur-age scenario is so entrenched, that one National Geographic News article declared: “It may have looked like a duck and acted like a duck, but Gansus was no duck.”6Being partial to ‘farmer logic’ myself, I feel that if it looks like a duck and acts (quacks, even?) like a duck, it most likely is some sort of duck!7Many people are surprised when they hear of these creatures being buried together and wonder why they never heard of it before. Below is one evolutionary paleontologist’s explanation.“We find mammals in almost all of our [dinosaur dig] sites. These were not noticed years ago … . We have about 20,000 pounds of bentonite clay that has mammal fossils that we are trying to give away to some researcher. It’s not that they are not important, it’s just that you only live once and I specialized in something other than mammals. I specialize in reptiles and dinosaurs.” 8Consider how many more tens of thousands of fossil mammals in ‘dinosaur rock’ are likely being similarly ignored in other parts of the world, with the likelihood of finding even more representatives of the same kinds as modern-day mammals.9Interviewed in Creation magazine,10 Dr Carl Werner pointed out that already over 432 mammal species have been identified in ‘dinosaur rock’, including nearly 100 complete mammal skeletons. Yet in his extensive travels to 60 museums across the world researching his documentary series, only a few dozen of these species were featured in displays, with not one complete skeleton. As for the ‘Age of Dinosaurs’, another evolutionary paleontologist explains; “In a sense, ‘The Age of Dinosaurs’ … is a misnomer … Mammals are just one such important group that lived with the dinosaurs, coexisted with the dinosaurs, and survived the dinosaurs.”11 So, what happened to the dinosaurs? Evolutionary scientists have offered a variety of explanations for what they think happened to the dinosaurs. Here’s a partial list: A large asteroid collided with our planet long ago. As a high-roughage plant group became extinct, the plant-eating ones died of chronic constipation, leading to the death of the carnivores dependent on them. They became addicted to plants with narcotic properties. The world’s climate became either too hot, too cold, too dry or too wet. A supernova exploded nearby, showering the earth with radiation. Mammals ate their eggs.

There are serious problems with the evidence proposed for any of these events. Take the large asteroid impact theory, for example. Why would that event only wipe out the dinosaurs and not the ducks, squirrels, beavers, etc. that co-existed with them as mentioned above? Not to mention lizards and crocodiles, supposedly their close cousins? Some evolutionists dispute the evidence of this impact as causing dino extinction 12 (cf. p.8). No one event that has been proposed by evolutionists can completely explain the evidence (which is why there are so many different ideas about what happened to dinosaurs).Creationists suggest that most dinosaurs died and were buried in a Global Flood (for which there is a huge amount of evidence). With their numbers greatly reduced, all animals would have been subject to many pressures, such as varying climates (including the Ice Age14) following the Flood. They may have had a unique physiology that made them less able to adapt as rapidly to the many different environments after the Flood. For example, evolutionists have suggested that dinosaurs may not have been warm-blooded or cold-blooded, but something completely different from either. They may have had a unique type of metabolism, unlike any living animals today.15This may have contributed to them becoming extinct, along with the very same reasons animals become extinct today (being hunted, disease, climatic changes, habitat changes etc.).Some dinos, at least, must have survived until relatively recent times—for example, evidence of UK dinosaur depictions from the 1400s,16 and a Cambodian stegosaur carving centuries (but likely not millennia) old.17 This is completely unacceptable to ‘old-Earth’ believers, of course, who insist that the last dinosaur died out 65 million years ago, way before people arrived.But there is other evidence, too, that literally shouts that the dinosaur fossils cannot be millions of years old— the discovery of soft tissue, including not just stretchy ligaments with identifiable proteins, but flexible transparent branching blood vessels, containing an ooze that could be squeezed out like toothpaste. And inside these vessels were the easily identifiable remains of red blood cells, even showing the nuclei,18typical of reptiles (cf. pp.13–14). The bigger they are … by Carl Wieland People and dinosaurs living at the same time? Surely the creationists can’t be right about that, some people think when confronted with the evidence. After all, they reason, any such people would be helpless prey for huge meat-eaters like Tyrannosaurus rex, wouldn’t they?In fact, dinosaurs probably had to steer clear of people, not the other way around. Humans may have even helped in killing off the last remaining ones of some kinds of dinosaur. A number of factors need to be taken into account.First, man’s intelligence and ingenuity—present from the beginning—have always been far more formidable than any animal’s size or strength. People have consistently shown that, especially when they band together, they can outwit, trap, and/or kill even the biggest elephants, whales, or rhinos—or the largest meat-eating cats or bears, even with so-called ‘stone age’ technology. There is no reason to think that the dinosaurs would have been the exception. In any case, some scientists now believe that T. rex could not have been the ferocious hunter-killer depicted in, for example, the film Jurassic Park. For one thing, its teeth seem to have been too shallow-rooted to chomp into a liveTriceratops without risking leaving many of them behind. 1As if that were not demotion enough from its status as everyone’s favourite fierce monster, dinosaur expert James Farlow, of Indiana-Purdue university, now says that if you were attacked by a chargingT.rex, simply tripping it up or getting its feet somehow tangled would have been enough to smash it into a lifeless heap.2Farlow and a physicist colleague have calculated that the huge beast was so heavy and high that if it tripped and fell while running, a tumbling tyrannosaur’s torso would have slammed into the ground at a deceleration of 6g (six times the acceleration due to gravity). Its tiny front legs would have been inadequate to substantially break its fall.This means that in dry soil, its body would have made an impact crater 20 centimetres (eight inches) deep! Its head would have hit with a brainshattering impact of more than twice as much force.Farlow states that it is unlikely that a big dinosaur of this type could have run anywhere near as fast as some have assumed, because the danger of a stumble would have been too great. He says a fall at any speed could have been lethal.3Thus, hunters would only have had to have caused T. rex to trip, stumble, and fall in order to obtain an easy prey. Galloping Giants Was T. rex a speedster after all? by Carl Wieland In the blockbuster movie Jurassic Park, a huge Tyrannosaurus rex was shown not only gobbling up humans, but chasing after them in a speeding jeep at perhaps 70 km/h (45 mph). Such fearsome predatory capacity raised the question in many minds as to how humans would have survived in a world that once included such seemingly swift and mighty carnivores. However, not long after that, we featured in our magazine Creation (and later, on our website) the results of scientific analysis (by evolution-believers) that debunked this image.1Dinosaur expert James Farlow, of Indiana-Purdue University in the USA, and a colleague, concluded that the sheer size and weight of a large T. rex meant that it could never have achieved such speeds. As an animal’s size varies, everything else does not scale up or down in proportion. Thus, if a horse fell down a mineshaft deep enough for it to break limb bones, the same fall by a mouse would leave it unharmed. An elephant, on the other hand, would likely splatter and die instantly from the same misadventure.For the same reason, while elephants can reach appreciable speeds at full gallop, they can’t hurdle over fences that a horse would take in its stride. And their speeds relative to their body size are pathetic compared to many of the most humble insects.Besides stating that strength of a tyrannosaur’s thighbone was not sufficient to support fast running, Farlow’s chief conclusion was that the limiting factor on T. rex’s speed was not simply one of relative bulk, but a real danger of death in the event of a fall. As we reported in our magazine article on the subject: ‘… simply tripping [a charging T. rex] up or getting its feet somehow tangled would have been enough to smash it into a lifeless heap. ‘Farlow and a physicist colleague have calculated that the huge beast was so heavy and high that if it tripped and fell while running, a tumbling tyrannosaur's torso would have slammed into the ground at a deceleration of 6g (six times the acceleration due to gravity). Its tiny front legs would have been inadequate to substantially break its fall.‘This means that in dry soil, its body would have made an impact crater 20 centimetres (eight inches) deep! Its head would have hit with a brainshattering impact of more than twice as much force.’The relevance of all this to creation/evolution is, of course, that humans would have little to fear from this dinosaur that could be killed by merely tripping it up, and which would likely have moved very slowly to avoid any risk of an accidental stumble.This was reinforced a bit later by a report on the discovery of fossil

allosaurs (a smaller version of tyrannosaurs) which showed evidence of ribcage fractures from just such falling-type injuries. Their smaller size meant that the injuries were not severe enough to kill them. 2We also reported in 2001 on the comment by ‘Dinosaur Jack’ Horner, the famous fossil expert after whom the hero in Jurassic Park was modeled, that T. rex ‘couldn’t run’, because its thighbone was longer than its shinbone, contrary to the pattern in fast bipedal predators of today.In late August 2007, however, research results were published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B, which were supposed to show thatT. rex was a lot faster than thought.3This was claimed to be the most accurate assessment of dinosaur speeds to date; it suggests that T. rex could reach speeds of nearly 30 km/h (18 mph). While not exactly in speeding-jeep territory, this is slightly faster than a fit sportsman can run. It’s reasonable to ask whether this should cause one to discard the previous ‘ultra-low-speed’ assessments. Maybe—but first it’s worth briefly discussing this 2007 research, which was based on computer models of the biomechanics. While this approach accurately predicted human top speeds, and included many more variables at a higher degree of sophistication than previous such attempts, there is no indication that the above issues, particularly the crucial one of tripping and falling to death, were taken into account.So even if tyrannosaurs were biomechanically capable of these sorts of speeds (by no means a settled question) natural selection (a fact of life) would actually tend to eliminate tyrannosaurs which were programmed to habitually charge after their prey at top speeds. And their short arms would have been nearly useless in breaking their fall.Incidentally, many have suggested that T. rex was most likely a scavenger, anyway, not a hunter, given for example the apparently poor eyesight suggested by fossil remains.4Finally, even in the unlikely event that tyrannosaurs were capable of outrunning and killing humans, it would not mean that humans would be wiped out by these beasts, and thus be an argument against the biblical coexistence of humans and dinosaurs. Elephants can outrun and even kill humans. Yet human ingenuity, even when only spears, rocks and traps were available, has always seen elephants at greater risk from humans than vice versa. There is no reason to think that the same would not have been true of even the largest carnivorous dinosaurs. ‘Carnivorous’ dinosaurs had plant diet And: More challenges to dino-to-bird dogma by Jonathan Sarfati and Lita Cosner T. Rex and Velociraptor were ‘hypercarnivorous’ predators; part of the sub-order Theropoda.1Dinosaur documentaries and movies like Jurassic Parkroutinely feature realistic-looking depictions of them ripping other dinosaurs limb from limb, even swallowing newly-hatched dinosaurs whole. There is some good evidence for this: the turkey-sizedCompsognathus was found with a lizard in its belly;2there is a famous fossil of Velociraptor locked in mortal combat with a Protoceratops, and a T. rexcoprolite (fossil dung) was found with a “high proportion (30–50%) of bone fragments”3 (see also T. rex drops clue). Vegetarian theropods However, the discovery of Nothronychus graffami, one of the therizinosaur branch, suggested that at least this branch of theropods ate plants.4 And a new study,5 by the same lead author, Dr Lindsay Zanno of the Chicago Field Museum, suggests that even in the theropod suborder, usually considered the carnivorous dinosaurs, they were more the exception than the rule. 6 Out of 90 ‘species’ of theropods she and her colleague Peter Makovicky analyzed (a likely-inflated number), 44 of them showed clear signs of vegetarianism: “the ornithomimosaurs, therizinosaurs, oviraptorosaurs, alvarezauroids, several early birds [sic], and the single troodontidJinfengopteryx.”7When trying to deduce the diet of an animal that has been fossilized, normally the bones and teeth are all that remains. So a scientist might think that a certain animal was a carnivore based on its sharp teeth and claws that would be good at ripping flesh. But those same teeth and claws would also be good at processing rough vegetation. In the case of the theropods, there was a small amount of fossilized dung and stomach contents that allowed scientists to analyze the actual diet of the dinosaurs. Imagine their surprise when members of this ‘hypercarnivorous’ family turned out to have salad5 as a regular part of their diet! This made more sense of the peg-like—or even absent—teeth in some of these theropods.This bat eats fruit, although it’s classified as a carnivore because of its fangs and carnassials.Creationists, who believe that all animals were once vegetarian should not be surprised when traditionally carnivorous animals turn out to be able to survive on, or actually prefer, a vegetarian diet. We’ve often featured living examples of animals such as lions, cats, and dogs who prefer a meatless diet. We also point out the fallacy of relying solely on tooth structure to identify the diet of an animal. Our speakers often show a slide with this very carnivorous looking skull (pictured left), and people are surprised to find that it is actually a fruit bat.And from a purely ecological point of view, it takes far less biomass to support a vegetarian diet than a carnivorous diet. Therefore we should not be surprised to find that many animals are not obligate carnivores, as being vegetarian or able to survive on vegetation would be a great advantage in times when prey was scarce. By contrast, evolutionists resort to convoluted reasoning about meat-eating and plant-eating evolving and re-evolving. A report on ref. 3 states: “Before this we thought that plant-eating theropods like therizinosaurs were a rare occurrence,” Zanno told LiveScience. “We knew they must have evolved from meat-eaters somewhere in their ancestry, but before our study it seemed like planteating was the exception not the norm for maniraptoran theropods. … “Many lineages of maniraptoran dinosaurs likely ate some amount of plants as part of their diet, and they probably inherited this ability from the common ancestor of the whole group,” Zanno said. “Thus, predatory maniraptoran dinosaurs like Velociraptor must have re-evolved exclusive meat-eating.”8 Dinosaurs to birds? Or vice versa?

The reporting4 on the find in Ref. 7 inevitably links the vegetarian diet of the theropods to the general change in the shape of their teeth on their alleged evolutionary transition to becoming birds, citing Zanno: Most theropods are clearly adapted to a predatory lifestyle, but somewhere on the line to birds, predatory dinosaurs went soft.To read these accounts, one would think that this was undisputed in the scientific community. But even evolutionists can’t agree on whether the theropods are the ancestors of birds, or even possibly their descendants, as one headline9 reporting on a 2010 discovery10 suggests. The article states: The research is well done and consistent with a string of studies in recent years that pose increasing challenge to the birdsfrom-dinosaurs theory, said John Ruben, a professor of zoology at Oregon State University who authored a commentary[11] in PNAS on the new research. Ruben also said: “When interpreting the paleobiology of long extinct taxa, new fossils, and reinterpretations of well-known fossils, sharply at odds with conventional wisdom never seem to cease popping up.” 2 Ruben is the author of other studies that seriously harm the dinosaur-to-bird link, including the problems with dinosaur lungs evolving into bird lungs 12,13 and the fact that dinos didn’t have a fixed thigh bone to support the avian air sac system. 14,15 See our previous article Bird breathing anatomy breaks dino-to-bird dogma. We’ve written before about committed evolutionists who think the evidence for dinosaur-to-bird evolution is lacking. For example, Dr Storrs Olson, Curator of Birds at the National Museum of Natural History of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. wrote a scathing open letter about National Geographic’s Archaeoraptor claim, subsequently shown to be a hoax: “The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by acadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographicwho themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith.” Discussion and conclusion As we’ve covered extensively, there’s no conclusive evidence that there are any dinosaurs that have feathers as opposed to frayed collagen fibres (see Feathery flight of fancy). Furthermore, we have argued that even if a feathered dinosaur were discovered, that would not be evidence for evolution, since there is nothing in the creationist model that states that dinosaurs could not have feathers (or fur, for that matter)—see for example Anchiornis huxleyi: new four-winged feathered dino?All this is important when trying to decipher the mainstream media reports, which give the impression that the evidence for bird evolution is cumulative and extensive. But in reality the reports are incongruous, because they have been interpreted according to two mutually incompatible ideas of bird origins: the dinosaur one which is a cursorial (running) “ground-up” model, and the less popular one supported by Ruben, the arboreal (tree) model that they evolved from gliding from branches. See the discussion in New four-winged feathered dinosaur? Dino ‘puberty blues’ for paleontologists Dinosaur juveniles and adults wrongly labelled as separate species by David Catchpoole So what did a young T. rex look like? Something that paleontologists had given a different species name altogether! Nanotyrannus was a bit like a Tyrannosaurus rex, except it had 17 teeth in its lower jaw, while a T. rex had 12 lower jaw teeth and a less elongated skull.However, now it seems that Nanotyrannus should never have been identified as a separate species at all. Leading dinosaur paleontologist Dr Jack Horner of Montana State University says that Nanotyrannus was in fact a juvenile T. rex, whose skull changed dramatically as it matured. The transition to adulthood also saw it trade its small, blade-like teeth to make room for a larger set of adult teeth.The Nanotyrannus mix-up came to light after a dinosaur mid-way between a ‘Nanotyrannus’ and T. rex was discovered, which had 14 lower jaw teeth.Horner, with his paleontologist colleague Dr Mark Goodwin of the University of California, cited this as just one of many examples of juvenile and adult dinosaurs having been wrongly labelled as separate species. They suggest that as many as a third of all known dinosaur species will need to be reclassified.1,2Some paleontologists, e.g. Dr Hans-Dieter Sues of the National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C., think that the estimate of one-third of dinos needing reclassification might be an exaggeration. However, he does acknowledge that there are indeed well-known instances of different species names being given to dinosaurs that were in fact juveniles and adults of the same species. He explained that in the 1970s paleontologists discovered that some duck-billed dinosaur species were in fact merely at different stages of maturity—representing a smaller number of species. “Many dinosaurs—just like many present-day vertebrates—changed a lot in their appearance as they grew up,” he said. 1Of course, we can observe dramatic juvenile-to-adult transitions occurring today in many land animals, e.g. those which have antlers and horns as adults, but not as juveniles. And the physical changes are even more dramatic in amphibious vertebrates, e.g. frogs, as they make the transition from tadpoles to adults. The tadpoles and adult frogs are, of course, the samespecies. In birds, too, the physical changes associated with the juvenile-to-adult transition can be dramatic. Hornbills, for example, grow a distinctive helmet-like head casque. (Perhaps the head crests served a similar function in the crested theropod dinosaurs?)Horner and Goodwin noted very marked changes in the form of Triceratops fossils that had died at various stages of life. They found that the youngest animals’ tiny straight horns changed as they got older—juvenile horns curving backward, adult horns pointing forward. Also, the juveniles’ triangular spiked bones surrounding the frill became flattened as the animal matured, lengthening into a bony fan-like shield. Thus, despite the radically different appearance of juveniles and adults, they are the same species.The list goes on. E.g., we have featured Dracorex hogwartsia, ‘the dinosaur that looks like a dragon’, 3pointing out that some paleontologists have suggested that it and Stygimoloch spinifer are actually immature forms of Pachycephalosaurus wyomingensis.4 In other words, different names were unwittingly given to juveniles and adults of the same creature.This announcement that one-third of dinosaur species ‘never existed’ follows an earlier analysis of the 1,401 scientific names given to dinosaurs from 1824 to 2004 which showed that about 16% of names were duplicates, and 32% embodied other errors.4–8 “It’s a bit scary”, University of Bristol (UK) paleontologist Michael Benton said at that time. He explained that paleontologists “were keen to name new species” and would often “rush into print with new names for every odd leg bone, tooth, or skull cap” they happened to find. “Later work, on more complete specimens, reduced more than 1,000 named dinosaurs to 500 or so,” he said.9 And now the dinosaur ‘puberty blues’ have further forced paleontologists to rethink dinosaur species classification—there have been way too many dinosaur names. DID DINOSAURS REALLY DIE OUT MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO Dinosaur bones—just how old are they really? An evolutionary dinosaur expert reveals some fascinating facts!

by Carl Wieland Most people think that fossil bones (of which the most well-known examples are those of dinosaurs) must be very, very old —because, after all, they have turned to stone, haven’t they?Even millions of years might, to some, not even seem long enough to allow for natural processes to gradually, molecule by molecule, replace the original substance of the bone with rock minerals. But this common picture is misleading. A recent book, co-authored by a world expert on dinosaurs, points out some things about dinosaur bones that are of great interest to creationists.1 For one thing, it says: ‘Bones do not have to be “turned into stone” to be fossils, and usually most of the original bone is still present in a dinosaur fossil.’2 Ok, but even if the actual bone is not replaced by rock minerals, some fossil dinosaur bones are rock-hard, and show under the microscope when cut that they have been thoroughly ‘permineralized.’ This means that rock minerals have been deposited into all the spaces within the original bone. Doesn’t this show that the formation of these fossils, at least, must represent a long time? Think again. The same authoritative work also tells us: ‘The amount of time that it takes for a bone to become completely permineralized is highly variable. If the groundwater is heavily laden with minerals in solution, the process can happen rapidly. Modern bones that fall into mineral springs can become permineralized within a matter of weeks.’ So even a rock-solid, hard shiny fossil dinosaur bone, showing under the microscope that all available spaces have been totally filled with rock minerals, does not indicate that it necessarily took millions of years to form at all.Now of course if a dinosaur bone is indeed permineralized, it would give it great protection from the normal processes which cause things such as bone to just naturally ‘fall apart.’ So a permineralized bone might indeed be anything from a few weeks to millions of years old.However, in a situation where the dinosaur bone has been prevented from being invaded by mineral-rich water, one would expect that over millions of years, even locked away from all bacterial agents, dinosaur bone would, in obeying the laws of thermodynamics,3 just disintegrate from the random motions of the molecules therein.There are actually instances, mentioned in the same book, in which dinosaur bones in Alberta, Canada, were encased in ironstone nodules shortly after being buried. We are told: ‘The nodules prevented water from invading the bones, which for all intents and purposes cannot be distinguished from modern bone.’4This is a stunning revelation. Evolutionists are convinced that all dinosaur bones must be at least 65 million years old. We have previously told you about the unfossilized dinosaur bone which still contained red blood cells and hemoglobin.5 Also, we wrote about ‘fresh dinosaur bones’ in Alaska. 6 Let the evolutionist experts writing this book confirm this: ‘An even more spectacular example was found on the North Shore of Alaska, where many thousands of bones lack any significant degree of permineralization. The bones look and feel like old cow bones, and the discoverers of the site did not report it for twenty years because they assumed they were bison, not dinosaur, bones.’ In summary, therefore: Most fossil dinosaur bones still contain the original bone. Even when heavily permineralized (‘fossilized’), this does not need to require more than a few weeks. The Creation/Flood scenario for fossilization would allow many centuries for such permineralization to occur, even under less than ideal conditions.Where bones have not been protected by permineralization, they are sometimes found in a condition which to all intents and purpose looks as if they are at most centuries, not millions of years old. Did a meteor wipe out the dinosaurs? What about the iridium layer? by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. (2001) Secular theories Mammals eating dinosaur eggs. New narcotic plants evolved. Global cooling/global warming. Loss of plants causing herbivores to starve, which in turn caused the carnivores to starve. Lowering of oxygen partial pressure in the atmosphere. Great impact theory The current ‘glamour’ theory was proposed by the geologist Walter Alvarez in about 1980, that a meteor strike 66.4 million years ago caused dramatic climatic changes much like ‘nuclear winter’. This caused the extinction of the dinosaurs and many other species. His evidence was his discovery of an allegedly world-wide layer of clay with a high iridium content. His father Luis, who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1968 for work on subatomic particles, helped him publicize the theory. It is now accepted as ‘proven fact’ in many circles, and popularized in ‘documentaries’ such as Walking with Dinosaurs. Problems with the ‘great impact’ theory The secular book The Great Dinosaur Extinction Controversy exposes the way that the meteor explanation for the dinosaur extinction has become a new dogma that has way outstripped the evidence (see review by Carl Wieland in Journal of Creation 12(2):154–158, 1998). Some of the reasons are:The extinction was not that sudden (using evolutionary/long age interpretations of the geological record). But the spread in the geological record makes sense if much of the sedimentary deposits were formed in Flood. Light-sensitive species survived. Extinctions don’t correlate with crater dates. Modern volcanic eruptions don’t cause global extinction patterns, even if they cause a temporary temperature drop. The iridium enrichment, supposedly a key proof of meteor impact, is not nearly as clearly defined as claimed. Drill cores of the apparent ‘smoking gun’ Chicxulub Crater on the Yucatán peninsula in south-east Mexico do not support the idea that it is an impact crater.It seems that some scientists didn’t speak out against the idea for fear of undermining the ‘nuclear winter’ idea, and being grouped with ‘nuclear warmongers’. The overview article by meteorologist Mike Oard, ‘The extinction of the Dinosaurs’ (Journal of Creation 11(2):137–154, 1997) explains many features of dinosaur fossils that are consistent with a flood, and dinosaur tracks consistent with fleeing from encroaching flood waters. Oard points out that iridium enrichment can be caused by massive volcanism, as many

evolutionists agree. However, Oard agrees that the largest iridium anomalies were caused by meteorites striking during the Flood: ‘Iridium-rich clay falling from the atmosphere would accumulate only during temporary lulls in the Flood.’ This explains the fact that so-called spikes are really composed of multiple spikes or are spread over a wider layer of sediment. John Woodmorappe has pointed out: ‘there are now over 30 iridium “horizons” in the Phanerozoic record. These can be explained by a slowdown in sedimentation rate as iridium rained from the sky (whether from a terrestrial, or an extraterrestrial source). They pose no problem for the Flood at all.’That is, the iridium layers mark lulls in the sedimentation rate during the Flood, the iridium ‘rain’ itself being more-or-less continuous during the Flood. K/T (Cretaceous/Tertiary) boundary Oard also pointed out that the K/T boundary supposedly marking the end of the dinosaur age is most likely not synchronous around the world, and is not defined coherently. Very few dinosaur fossils are actually found near this boundary. Sometimes the argument becomes very circular. For example, the end of the dinosaur era is supposed to be clearly marked in the geological column by the K/T boundary, but in many localities the K/T boundary is defined by the highest dinosaur fossil. Or else the Alvarez theory is supported by the iridium spike in the K/T boundary, but in some localities the K/T boundary is defined by the iridium spike. The extinction of the dinosaurs by Michael J. Oard Dinosaur extinction is still a major enigma of earth history. In this review article, extinctions in the geological record will be briefly mentioned. Many of the imaginative theories for the extinction of the dinosaurs will also be presented. Within the uniformitarian paradigm, the meteorite impact theory, once considered ‘outrageous’, now is the dominant theory. However, the volcanic theory is still believed by a majority of palaeontologists. Both theories have their strengths and weaknesses. The unscientific behaviour of those involved in the meteorite paradigm change will be briefly explored. Evidence that the dinosaurs died in a cataclysm of global proportions will be presented, such as the huge water-laid dinosaur graveyards found over the earth. Occasional monospecific bone-beds and the rarity of fossils of very young dinosaurs suggest a catastrophic death and burial. The billions of dinosaur tracks recently discovered provide testimony to unusual, stressful conditions. Nests, eggs, and babies are a challenge to a Flood model, but there are enough unknowns associated with the data that solid conclusions are difficult to draw. The part that impacts and volcanism play in a Flood paradigm will be briefly discussed. The question of whether the K/T boundary and the extinction of the dinosaurs should be considered a synchronous event within the Flood will be considered. Introduction Dinosaurs bring wonder to children and adults alike. That such great beasts once roamed the earth is hard to imagine. Even harder to imagine is that some dinosaurs such as Tyrannosaurus rex were probably giant killing machines (after the Fall, anyway). Of all the many questions related to dinosaurs, their disappearance from the earth is the most mysterious of all. (Their demise, of course, assumes that no dinosaurs are alive today, as some people believe, but which is beyond the scope of this review article.)The mystery is heightened when one realises that the dinosaurs were well adapted to their environments and apparently had a worldwide distribution. Dinosaurs have been unearthed on every continent, including Antarctica.1,2Their traces are even found on a few isolated oceanic islands, such as Spitsbergen 3 and North Island, New Zealand.4Besides Antarctica and Spitsbergen, dinosaurs have been dug up from other high latitude or inferred high palaeolatitude locations.5 For instance, they have been unearthed from the North Slope of Alaska near the Arctic Ocean. 68 These high latitude discoveries have initiated many questions on whether dinosaurs were endotherms, ectotherms, or some combination in between; whether they migrated towards lower latitudes to avoid winter cold and darkness; or if they actually lived at these polar locations all year round.9 Polar dinosaurs have greatly perplexed uniformitarian scientists, as exemplified in the following comment by Michael Benton: ‘Should we now imagine dinosaurs as thermally insulated warm-blooded animals that ploughed through snowdrifts and scraped the ice off the ground to find food?’10 Figure 1. Worldwide distribution of dinosaur footprint discoveries. About 1,500 locations have been known to yield dinosaur tracks.During the past 20 years, dinosaur tracks have been discovered at over 1,500 locations from around the world (Figure 1).11 Tracks are even known from polar latitudes, such as in Alaska near the coast of the Arctic Ocean12 and from the isolated North Atlantic island of Spitsbergen.13 The number of tracks is in the billions. Some areas display tracks on multiple layers of sedimentary rock.14–16Dinosaur eggs, as well as nests, embryos and hatchlings, are now recognised from at least 199 locations around the world (Figure 2).17 A new discovery from Spain suggests a whopping 300,000 eggs packed into a rock volume of about 12,000 cubic metres.18,19 These rocks are probably within marine sandstone, so according to the uniformitarian paradigm the nests are automatically said to have been laid at the seashore. Despite all these eggs, embryos within the eggs are very rare.20 Characteristics of nests, eggs, and hatchlings in north central Montana, USA, have given rise to interesting interpretations of dinosaur maternal care.21,22 Why did the dinosaurs, as well as the marine reptiles and the flying reptiles, vanish from off the face of the earth? This is the burning question. Although many dinosaurs became extinct well before the End Cretaceous, nevertheless Zhao Zi-Kui indicates that dinosaur extinction still remains a major enigma of earth history, despite two promising theories:

‘Thus, the dinosaurs could quickly make use of the available ecological and evolutionary opportunities. However, they all vanished from the earth in the global events at the end of the Cretaceous. The cause poses a difficult question for which no ready answer is apparent.’23 Figure 2. Worldwide distribution of the 199 sites where dinosaur eggs have been found. Major deposits are few. The fragile eggs were easily broken and then dissolved in groundwater. Most of those that were fossilised go unrecognised by the untrained eye. Extinctions in general Dinosaurs, although creating the most interest, are but one group of animals that became extinct at the end of the Cretaceous (the geological timescale is used for communication purposes only and is not meant to endorse the geological column or time-scale). Extinctions have also occurred in all other periods of geological time. The subject of extinctions is rather controversial due to taxonomic difficulties, the unknown time-stratigraphic range of most species,the multiplication of names for the same organism, and the unknown palaeobiogeographic distribution of many taxa.24A few evolutionists actually believe there was no such thing as ‘mass extinction’.25 Many others see a background level of extinction punctuated by nine periods of high extinction rates. Table 1 lists the geological time of these nine mass extinction events and their probable causes.26The most singular extinction event in the supposed history of life was not the End Cretaceous disappearance of the dinosaurs, but the End Permian demise of most groups of marine and terrestrial animals.27 The gravity of this End Permian event varies, depending upon the scientist doing the analysis and upon whether the datum is at the species, genus, or family level. One estimate is that 57 percent of marine families and 96 percent of marine species were decimated.28 Referring to Table 1, this extinction is attributed to cooling from an ‘ice age’ in combination with a marine regression. However, according to the uniformitarian paradigm the late Carboniferous and early Permian ‘ice age’ had ended millions of years before29 and should have caused a marine transgression due to melting ice, at least up until mid Permian time. Recent research is now trying to tie in the massive End Permian time extinctions with a giant meteorite impact, based on the finding of shocked quartz in Australia and Antarctica. 30Since geologists love cycles, five of the extinction events in Table 1 motivated David Raup and John Sepkoski to postulate a 26 million year extinction periodicity over the past 250 million years of geological time. 31 One hypothesis for the cycle was that Nemesis, a twin star of the Sun, periodically disturbed the hypothetical Oort cloud of comets, some being ejected into the Solar System. 32 Some of these comets then collided with the earth, resulting in the periodic mass extinctions. Nemesis has of course never been observed, neither has the Oort cloud. It is interesting that the 26 million year periodicity motivated other scientists to statistically scrutinise terrestrial impact structures, which supposedly ‘verified’ the 26 million year cycle. 33 Many scientists now dispute the 26 million year periodicity, revealing in the process questionable assumptions in taxonomic analysis: ‘Patterson and Smith’s analysis produced the unexpected result that only a quarter of the families and family distributions recognised by Raup and Sepkoski are valid. The other three-quarters fell into six inappropriate groupings …’34 The 26 million year cycle of impact craters is very likely an example of the reinforcement syndrome, in which an hypothesis tends to be supported by further research, when the support really is not there.35 Theories of dinosaur extinction Extinction event Suggested uniformitarian causes Naturally, such a mystery as dinosaur extinction has spawned a wide range of theories, ranging 1. Late Pleistocene Climate warming and predation by man from the plausible to the entertaining.36–41 In 1963, a 2. Eocene/Oligocene Severe cooling, Antarctic glaciation, and ocean current geologist counted 46 theories, Transition changes and many more have been added since then.42 Probably only the cause of the Pleistocene ice age 3. End Cretaceous Bolide impact has generated as many bewildering theories. (As of 1968, 4. Late Triassic Increased rainfall and marine regression there were 60 theories for the cause of the ice age. 43 In 1957, a 5. End Permian Severe cooling, glaciation, and marine regression prominent ice age specialist, J. K. Charlesworth, summarised ice age theories: 6. End Devonian Cooling related to widespread anoxia of epeiric seas ‘Pleistocene phenomena have produced an absolute riot of 7. Late Ordovician A Gondwana glaciation theories ranging “from the remotely possible to the mutually contradictory and the palpably 8. Late Cambrian Habitat reduction probably caused by marine transgression inadequate.”’44) Some dinosaur extinction 9. Late Precambrian Marine regression, anoxia, sluggish ocean, biological stress, theories postulate that dinosaurs etc. died from the cold, while others suggest the beasts died from the heat, or else it was too hot in the Table 1. Nine major mass extinctions and their suggested cause or causes. summer and too cold in the winter. One theory hypothesises that the climate became too wet, while another that the climate dried out to kill off the

dinosaurs.The dinosaurs could have starved to death or died from overeating. Or their extinction may have been caused by a nutritional problem, such as newly ‘evolved’ flowering plants not providing the proper nutritional balance. Or the flowering plants could have evolved poisons that killed the dinosaurs, as some theorise. A variant on the poisoning theme is that poisonous insects evolved and stung the dinosaurs into extinction. Others thought the water became poisonous with chemicals. Another ingenious twist is that butterflies and moths evolved and the larvae stripped the plants of leaves causing the herbivores to pass away, bringing on the extinction of the carnivores. Another theory suggests the herbivorous dinosaurs simply changed their eating habits to a less favourable diet, causing the demise of all the dinosaurs. Some postulate that too many carnivores decimated the herbivorous dinosaurs.Astronomical or geophysical causes have often been invoked, for instance a change in the earth’s gravity, the axial tilt, or a reversal in the magnetic field. Some postulate a sudden bath in cosmic radiation. One theory, reinforced at one time by the iridium anomalies in sedimentary rocks, is that a supernova exploded near the earth.45 In this case the supernova would have increased the solar proton flux, which would have broken down the protective ozone layer, allowing ultraviolet radiation to zap the dinosaurs. Or the supernova explosion could have sharply increased cosmic rays.46 Another imaginative hypothesis claimed that intense volcanism spewed up large quantities of radioactive elements, so that the dinosaurs died of radiation poisoning.In 1978, it was proposed that a spillover of cold brackish water from an isolated Arctic Ocean caused an ecological chain reaction, first killing off the pelagic plankton and ending with the terrestrial animals.47 Another terrestrial theory postulated that the land became too hilly. Many palaeontologists favour a regression of shallow seas, which suppressed dinosaur speciation rates and increased extinction rates. The mechanism for this vague hypothesis supposedly was due to competitive interchange between faunas and increased disease vectors.A variety of theories suggest that either the pressure or some other component of the atmosphere changed to kill off the dinosaurs. One example is a decrease in carbon dioxide; another example is an increase in oxygen given off by too many plants. However, others have suggested oxygen decreased due to a decrease in plankton.48A past popular favourite was that little mammals, waiting for ‘the great die-off ’ in order to evolve, advanced dinosaur extinction by eating dinosaur eggs. However, vertebrate palaeontologists generally believe the mammals were too small to have accomplished this feat.49There is a large list of far-fetched to entertaining theories (some possibly suggested tongue-in-cheek), including extinction by parasites, slipped vertebral discs, hormonal disorders, shrinking brains, chronic constipation, over specialisation, inability to change, becoming too large, senility, hyperpituitarism, cataracts, racial senescence (they simply lived long enough), and social problems causing malformations of their bones during growth. Charig lists the following as the most outrageous: poison gases, volcanic gases, meteorites, comets, sunspots,mass suicide and wars.50 Interestingly, volcanism, meteorite impacts and cometary collisions are now the major contenders. ‘Outrageous’ geological theories, for example, J. Harlen Bretz’s Spokane Flood as the origin of the channelled scabland in eastern Washington, USA, should not be so freely dismissed.In spite of the recent dominance of the meteorite hypothesis, scientists continue to add new causes or subsidiary causes for the extinction of the dinosaurs. Some of these recent mechanisms are:cancer triggered by huge bursts of neutrinos released by dying stars in the Milky Way Galaxy;51,52AIDS;53 andhypercanes, super hurricanes that could be triggered by meteorite impacts, causing environmental catastrophe.54,55 Revival of the meteorite extinction theory Ever since 1980, the meteorite hypothesis has swept to centre stage, and a large literature now surrounds it. Back in 1979, the meteorite hypothesis was considered outrageous by many geologists. The turnaround came with the discovery of an iridium (Ir) anomaly at the Cretaceous/ Tertiary (K/T) boundary.56 In thin clay layers (1 cm to several tens of centimetres thick) found at Gubbio, Italy, and at Stevns Klint, Denmark, the contained Ir concentrations were increased 30 and 160 times respectively above background levels. The earth’s crust is depleted in iridium and other platinum group elements, while meteorites are enriched in them. A 10 km diameter meteorite was said to have injected 60 times its mass in pulverised rock into the stratosphere, causing a cooling trend that wiped out about 50 percent of the biota, including all the dinosaurs. Conversely, others envision the impact caused a sudden, short-term temperature rise, instead of cooling from a ‘nuclear winter’-like mechanism.57 The sudden heating supposedly was caused by an oceanic impact which injected water into the stratosphere producing a ‘vapour canopy’ effect.It did not take long to discover Ir anomalies at other K/T sites. 58–60 Currently, there are 103 known K/T iridium anomalies from around the world, mostly in marine sediments either on the bottom of the ocean or on land.61 As for the frequency of meteorite bombardment, Eugene Shoemaker estimated that the earth probably was struck 5 to 10 times by meteorites that formed craters greater than 140 km in diameter. 62So an impact at the K/T boundary is not as outlandish within the uniformitarian paradigm as many first thought. Other scientists using computer climate models reinforced the scenario of disastrous climatological and ecological effects. 63The discovery of shocked quartz in eastern Montana, USA, in 1984,64 and at many other sites around the world 65 since then, is considered further proof of the meteorite hypothesis. Shocked quartz differs from ordinary quartz, in that the crystal lattice has become compressed and deformed by pressure. Under a scanning electron microscope, the quartz exhibits planar striations in one or more directions on a crystal face.Various other, more minor and equivocal evidence has been adduced in favour of the meteorite/asteroid extinction hypothesis, such as: a palynological change from ferns to angiosperms in ‘continental’ deposits;66 the existence of microtektites,67 which are small, droplet-shaped blobs of silica-rich glass; soot-rich horizons supposedly from global wildfires caused by the heat of impact;68 various isotopic ratios;69 various other platinum group elements;70 and the discovery of the ‘smoking gun’—the Chicxulub structure on Mexico’s Yucatán Peninsula.71Thus, the meteorite extinction theory has seemingly been verified by an overwhelming amount of observational data. The volcanic theory The triumph of the meteorite theory has come with much dissent, especially from palaeontologists who opted for a volcanic mechanism, often combined with marine regression, to explain the data. 72–75 Even in spite of what seems like impressive confirmation of the meteorite theory and reinforced by the scientific press and news media, the dispute continues. 76 If you read only the evidence for the impact theory, you would be impressed. However, if you read further the evidence for the volcanic theory, you would discover that the meteorite theory is not as well supported as it may seem.Volcanic adherents point to the evidence of massive volcanism around the K/T boundary, for instance, the 1 million km 3 of Deccan basalts in India and the extensive volcanism in western North America related to the Laramide Orogeny. To them, it is more logical that the dinosaurs died out gradually from all this volcanic activity.As it turns out, iridium is also associated with volcanism, especially with dust injected into the atmosphere from basaltic extrusions. 77 For instance, the fine airborne particles above an Hawaiian basaltic eruption were found to be highly enriched in iridium, much higher than in the K/T boundary clays at Gubbio and Stevns Klint.78,79 High iridium has also been associated with other volcanic eruptions and found within volcanic dust bands in the Antarctic ice cores. This fine material is of similar particle size as the K/T boundary clay.Even shocked quartz has been associated with volcanism.80–82 Impact supporters counter that this shocked quartz is only weakly deformed

compared with the K/T boundary shocked quartz, and that shocked quartz is associated with known impact craters as well as nuclear bomb test sites.83,84 However, Officer and Page argue that shocked grains are not found at some K/T boundary clays, and some shocked quartz grains are too large to have been transported far by the atmospheric winds. 85 Officer adds that evidence of high-pressure shock is now found within rocks formed by explosions within volcanoes. 86Many other arguments are brought forth that favour the volcanic theory and/or are inimical to the meteorite theory, such as: various elemental ratios, especially arsenic and antimony to iridium;87 iridium spread over too thick a vertical interval at the K/T boundary, which supposedly would represent hundreds of thousands of years;88–91 clays above and below the K/T boundary not much different from the K/T boundary clay; 92 survival of some environmentally sensitive plants and animals that should have gone extinct, 93 such as frogs, tropical plants94,95 and marine plants that require uninterrupted sunlight;96,97 iridium spikes and shocked quartz at many other geological times;98–105 many extinctions well before the K/T boundary;106–108 many missing K/T intervals;109 the new discovery of polar dinosaurs that supposedly could withstand periods of cold and darkness;110,111 much Cretaceous clay or shale of volcanic origin in North America;112 no statistical support for a sudden extinction of dinosaurs;113 and the possibility that the Chicxulub structure is not of impact origin.114 Because the extinctions near the K/T boundary are believed to be either gradual or stepwise, 115 some impact enthusiasts have backed off and instead have suggested extinctions by multiple comet impacts over a 3 million year period. 116 The main problem with the cometary hypothesis is that comets have a low abundance of iridium. 117 Since relatively small iridium spikes have been found associated with 10 other extinction horizons, some investigators have suggested post-depositional mobility of iridium and other platinum group elements.118 This mobility also would render ambiguous any elemental or isotopic ratios.Adherents to the volcanic hypothesis offer good counter arguments to all the arguments used in support of an impact. However, impact enthusiasts counter all the volcanic arguments. There is evidence both in favour of and against each hypothesis. The process of paradigm change in science The dinosaur extinction controversy has revealed how a particular subfield reacted to a paradigm change. Before 1980, practically all scientists were strongly biased against the meteorite hypothesis. This strong bent was mostly due to the uniformitarian assumption of historical geology: ‘Geological sciences have undergone a major shift in paradigms. For two centuries, the tenet of uniformitarianism, encapsulated in the phrase “the present is the key to the past”, was the skeleton upon which the history of the Earth was constructed.’119The meteorite hypothesis severely challenged the uniformitarian assumption.120 But, the impact enthusiasts had chemical data, instead of speculation. The iridium anomalies could not only be observed, but could be further tested at other K/T sites. The finding of iridium spikes at other K/T boundaries convinced most scientists, although at the time the geochemistry of iridium was poorly known, and still is poorly known in a marine environment. 121 Eventually, meteorite impacts came to be viewed as part of the uniformitarianism paradigm after all.Thus the meteorite theory was quickly supported and built up by the scientific press, especially by the journals Science and Nature. Then the popular press accepted it as fact, followed by most intellectuals. 122 The only group of scientists that were not persuaded were the palaeontologists, except for those who advocated punctuated equilibrium, since the idea of impacts fits nicely into their theory. The palaeontologists had already worked out the order and timing of dinosaur palaeonecrology, and it was a slow evolutionary birth and death. They also did not like ‘outsiders’ such as ‘alien’ physicists (Luis Alvarez was a famous physicist who had received the Nobel prize) messing around in their speciality.123,124 Palaeontologists mostly favour the volcanic theory with marine regression.So, before 1980 scientific bias was against the meteorite theory, but afterwards it was against all other theories. Scientists, nowadays, barely consider the palaeontologists’ arguments, many of them quite good from the uniformitarian standpoint. They simply believe the iridium anomalies and the shocked quartz grains prove the meteorite theory.An overview of the controversy shows that whether a person accepted or rejected the meteorite theory was greatly preconditioned by his institution of higher learning and his scientific discipline.125 The peer pressure to conform to the preconceived ideas of one’s institution is strong, as Stephen Jay Gould admits: ‘I think orthodoxy is enormously supported. In fact, I would make an argument—and I think that anyone who argues against this is not being quite honest—that institutions, universities in particular, are very conservative places. Their function is not— despite lip service—to generate radically new ideas. There’s just too much operating in tenure systems and granting systems, in judgmental systems—usually older upon younger people [with] the pretenure needs to conform.’ 126Such strong peer pressure results in what is called by many others a ‘bandwagon effect’,127 another name for the reinforcement syndrome. William Glen explains: ‘The “bandwagon effect”, exacerbated by the rapid pace of the mass-extinction debates, was strongly in evidence in this study; it was also documented in vivo in studies of the accretionary-terrain research program …’128Biases were so strong that scientists resorted to many unscientific ploys to get their personal way, such as verbally attacking one another; using polemics to push their preferences, sometimes using outdated data; refusing to publish key data; and refusing grants for research they did not agree with. 129,130 An after-the-fact study by William Glen indicated that few, laymen and scientists alike, really knew much about the issue.131 This is a sad state of affairs within science—it is no different when it comes to the creation/evolution controversy. Evidence the dinosaurs died in a global flood Despite the popularity of the meteorite theory, many scientists believe the extinction of the dinosaurs has not been solved, or else that the meteorite theory needs a secondary, boosting mechanism. The extinction of the dinosaurs is still a major mystery. Gregory Paul exclaims: ‘The history of the dinosaurs is marked by remarkable success and stability during the Mesozoic. Far from being inherently vulnerable, the dinosaurs survived in spite of repeated changes in sea level and climate, enormous volcanic eruptions, and great impacts. Indeed, the dinosaurs’ fecundity makes it hard to see how such resilient animals could ever have been killed off. The extinction of the dinosaurs was probably not part of the normal course of evolutionary fluctuations, nor was it just another result of random extraterrestrial disruptions. Instead, it remains one of the most extraordinary and inexplicable events in Earth history.’ 132Could the reason the extinction of the dinosaurs remains such a major mystery be because of the uniformitarian bias within historical geology?

A watery cataclysm and dinosaur graveyards For most creationists, the extinction of the dinosaurs, as well as other extinctions, is not a mystery. In fact, the extinction of the dinosaurs and many other creatures has an easy answer—they simply died in a Flood .Although there are still many unknowns associated with the observed fossil data on dinosaurs, and the information that is available is often incomplete and interpreted within the evolutionary/uniformitarian paradigm, much of what is known so far fits quite well within the Flood paradigm.The most obvious aspect of dinosaur fossils is that most dinosaurs must have been buried rapidly in water. Alternately, the dinosaurs could also have been entombed in giant mass flows. Based on the random mixing of charcoalised wood with sand found in Colorado and northeastern Wyoming, Edmond Holroyd provides evidence for at least region-wide catastrophic debris flows associated with dinosaur remains. 133–135Furthermore, after burial fossilisation must have proceeded rapidly under special conditions in which minerals moving through the saturated sediments replaced the organic matter. Therefore, it is no surprise that water is closely associated with the burial and fossilisation of the dinosaurs. Clemens states that organisms must be buried rapidly by rare (in his mind 100-year or 500-year events) floods in order to be preserved as fossils.136 The largest dinosaurs must have been buried by even ‘rarer’ floods.A sizeable number of dinosaurs were entombed in obvious marine sediments.137–139 In assumed terrestrial sediments (the equivocal environmental designation of a terrestrial environment will be briefly discussed later), mainstream scientists commonly interpret the action of water as ‘fluvial’. For diluvialists, the dinosaurs could have been buried either by sheet flow or channelised flow; either one is possible in a global Flood depending upon many variables.Dinosaurs are often found in large bone-beds or dinosaur graveyards, where many dinosaur bones are packed together. This provides evidence for at least catastrophic local floods.140–142 A few of these bone-beds contain thousands of dinosaurs and indicate catastrophic action. Probably the largest bone-bed in the world is located in north-central Montana, USA. Based on outcrops, an extrapolated estimate was made for 10,000 duckbill dinosaurs entombed in a thin layer measuring 2 km east-west and 0.5 km north-south. 143,144 The bones are disarticulated and disassociated, and are orientated east-west. However, a few bones were standing upright, indicating some type of debris flow.145Moreover, there are no young juveniles or babies in this bone-bed, and the bones are all from one species of dinosaur. Horner and Gorman describe the bone-bed as follows: ‘How could any mud slide, no matter how catastrophic, have the force to take a two- or three-ton animal that had just died and smash it around so much that its femur—still embedded in the flesh of its thigh—split lengthwise?’146A cataclysmic event obviously is implied.Another bone-bed containing thousands of duckbill dinosaurs, mostly in a single layer, is found in northeastern Wyoming.147 Over 90 smaller bone-beds make up the huge deposit in Dinosaur Provincial Park, Alberta, Canada. 148– 150 Dinosaur National Monument in Vernal, Utah, USA, is world famous for its display of a water-laid jumble of disarticulated dinosaur bones.151 Another well-known bone-bed, mostly of large carnivores, is Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry in central Utah.152 Colbert described the stacked dinosaur bones in Howe Quarry, Wyoming, USA as being ‘… piled in like logs in a jam.’153 Robert Bakker can’t help but think of a cataclysm when viewing the dinosaur graveyard at Como Bluff, Wyoming: ‘Anyone who cherishes notions that evolution is always slow and continuous will be shaken out of his beliefs by Breakfast Bench [Como Bluff] and the other geological markers of cataclysm.’ 154There are many other dinosaur graveyards in western North America, practically all, if not all, indicating catastrophic burial by water or aqueous slurries.Dinosaur graveyards are not found just in the western United States, but worldwide. One of the first graveyards discovered was anIguanodon graveyard in Belgium.155 A new sauropod graveyard has been discovered in Niger, Africa. This graveyard is dated as ‘Cretaceous’, even though the dinosaurs closely resemble ‘Jurassic’ dinosaurs of western North America and are dissimilar to dinosaurs from South America, which was expected according to the theory of plate tectonics. 156 A dinosaur graveyard of well preserved, articulated dinosaurs is now being excavated at Dashanpu, China.157Another dinosaur graveyard that has recently made the scientific news is in Mongolia, also known for its many dinosaur eggs. This is one of the few graveyards that some scientists believe was buried, not by water, but by ‘catastrophic’ sandstorms.158,159 Just recently a ‘brooding’ oviraptorid was found on top of fossilised eggs in Mongolia. 160 David Weishampel says that what these dinosaurs ate in the desert is a problem. Moreover, the unique preservation of a brooding dinosaur ‘… owes a great deal to rapid death and burial in what must have been a powerful sandstorm, so sudden that we are left with the impression of an animal freeze framed in the act of nest brooding.’ 161It is doubtful a sandstorm could freeze-frame a brooding dinosaur. Usually any little disturbance will cause an animal to leave its eggs. There is the added question of how the dinosaurs are to be fossilised in a desert. It is more likely this powerful sandstorm was a ‘giant watery sandwave’ in a catastrophic flood.Similar to the huge bone-bed in Montana,162,163 many of these dinosaur graveyards contain only one or mostly one type of dinosaur.164Practically all the bones in these monospecific bone-beds are disarticulated and broken.165 Furthermore, babies and young juveniles are not only missing from monospecific bone-beds, but are extremely rare as fossils anywhere: ‘Except for nesting horizons, baby dinosaur remains are extremely rare in the fossil record, suggesting that most, if not all, baby dinosaur mortality occurred in the nesting area.’166Since dinosaurs lay many eggs, based on the number of eggs found in nests and clutches, and because infant mortality is normally high in animals, there should be many more fossils of babies and young juveniles than older juveniles and adults. In referring to dinosaur fossils worldwide, Horner and Gorman state: ‘As succeeding years yielded no other major finds of baby dinosaurs, the question grew in importance. If you think about it, … more dinosaurs should have died young than died old; that’s what happens with most animals. And the high infant mortality should have produced a lot of fossils over the course of 140 million years—a lot of fossils that had never been found.’167The pervasive lack of very young dinosaurs and the occasional monospecific bone-beds of broken and disarticulate bones is most unusual. Some type of herding behaviour is normally invoked to explain monospecific bone-beds, although the stratigraphic character of some bone-beds does not favour this hypothesis. The lack of young juveniles in the monospecific bone-beds is perplexing, because young dinosaurs should have accompanied older dinosaurs in a herd, as observed in herds of animals today. The character of these bone-beds has given rise to a number of speculative theories, including local catastrophes. One would expect that local catastrophes, such as a flash flood or a volcanic eruption, would entomb more than just one type of animal.Could these monospecific bone-beds containing older juveniles and adults provide further evidence of a unique watery catastrophe? One would surmise that during the initial onslaught of the Flood, adult and older juveniles would have been better able to flee the encroaching Flood waters. Dinosaurs of the same species may then have herded up, when normally they do not, only to be later buried together. Herding behaviour during times of stress is observed today among elk during cold, stormy weather; cattle before earthquakes; and many other species. The herding in this case would have nothing to do with ‘gregarious behaviour’ as some evolutionists surmise. Is it possible the reason for the rarity of baby dinosaurs outside nesting areas is because they could not keep up with the fleeing herd and perished quickly. Their bones were not fossilised probably because they were too fragile.The existence and characteristics of dinosaur graveyards not only provide strong support for a Flood, but also tell us a few details of what occurred during that great cataclysm. For instance, some bone-beds, especially those in Montana and southern Alberta, show signs of exposure on land for a while following death. This is indicated by the remains of carnivorous dinosaur teeth, and only teeth, found

among the bones, as well as tooth marks incised onto the bones. 168–171 In other words, these bone-beds were scavenged, which has given rise to the idea that T. rex was just a scavenger. Since the bone-beds are lying on thousands of metres of Flood sediments, it seems reasonable that the Flood sediments became temporarily exposed during the Flood. 172 Flood sediments could be exposed by either tectonic uplift or the falling of sea level due to the dynamics of ocean currents on a relatively shallow, flooded continent.173 Dinosaurs fleeing the encroaching flood waters Dinosaur tracks also provide more details on unusual conditions during their formation. The importance of dinosaur tracks is that they represent live animals, so that in a Flood model, the tracks were made within the first 150 days of the Flood. 174,175 In the western United States, billions of dinosaur tracks have recently been discovered. 176–178 Of special note are the megatracksites. One megatracksite in south-east Utah is on the upper boundary of the Entrada Sandstone, a supposedly desert sandstone. All the tracks are from a fairly large, carnivorous theropod. It is indeed strange that one type of dinosaur lived in a large area of an alleged desert. What were they supposed to eat in a desert? The evidence could be better interpreted as a group of theropods embarking on a temporarily exposed sandy surface during the Flood. Since tracks must be buried rapidly within a matter of days or weeks to be reserved, 179 the sandy exposure was brief, followed by another depositional event.A ‘dinosaur freeway’ has been discovered that stretches from north-east New Mexico to north-west Colorado. The tracks are generally of two types and are found on multiple stratigraphic levels that supposedly span several million years. Since the strata containing the tracks are probably conformable, it does not seem reasonable that only two types of dinosaurs used this ‘freeway’ over several millions of years. It is more reasonable that dinosaurs found a linear strip of land (or a series of shoals separated by shallow water) during the Flood while the sea level was oscillating and sediments were being deposited.There are also a number of features of the tracks that not only are better understood within a diluvial model, but also tell us some of the unique events that occurred during the Flood. First, the tracks are practically always found on bedding planes,180 generally capping sedimentary units, which suggests a cycle of sedimentation during the Flood followed by a brief exposure above the water. Why wouldn’t the tracks be found throughout the beds if the sediments were deposited slowly over long periods of time?Second, the lack of relief on the track-bearing strata 181 indicates a rapid sedimentation event forming flat strata over a huge area. Otherwise, erosion over millions of years would have produced at least hilly topography and, therefore, tracks would traverse up and down hills.The dinosaur-bearing Morrison Formation in the western United States (assuming all the many outcrops are time equivalent, which is questionable) represents what must have been a thin, flat plain a little above sea level. This plain covered 1,800,000 km 2 from central Utah east to central Kansas, and from central New Mexico north to the Canadian border. The description of this Morrison ‘peneplain’ seems unreasonable: ‘The enormous area covered by Morrison sediments and the general thinness of the sedimentary sheet (being in most areas less than 100m in thickness) indicate that the sediments were distributed by widespread, flowing water.’ 182I can believe the widespread flowing water part, but did this flowing water excavate channels and valleys or create unconformities over a long period of time? The evidence for fluvial action is almost nonexistent: ‘Given the flat surface over which the Morrison was deposited … the absence of evidence for major single channel systems. Lack of initial valley incision into the surface left by the retreating seas, and the absence of unconformities within the Morrison …’183How can sediments be deposited thinly and evenly by rivers over a huge, flat surface with little slope without leaving significant channels? Such a flat plain containing both dinosaur tracks and remains is most unusual: ‘Nothing on earth today closely resembles the environment of the Morrison Formation.’ 184 Indeed, the observations of the ‘Morrison Formation’ bear striking evidence for catastrophic sheet flow, and not slow processes over millions of years.Third, unusual, stressful conditions are also indicated by the fact that practically all trackways are straight. 185 Lockley and Hunt state: ‘First, the sauropod was changing direction, turning to the right, a phenomenon rarely recorded in trackways.’ 186 Any deer or elk hunter knows that land animals frequently meander, especially while looking for food. Straight tracks are usually made when the animal is in a hurry, escaping a predator or a hunter, or rapidly migrating. Even in these situations, the trackways will sometimes curve or meander a little. The fact that practically all dinosaur trackways are straight strongly favours animals desperately trying to escape some catastrophe. The worldwide extent of these straight dinosaur trackways provides evidence for a cataclysm of global proportions.Fourth, there are very few tracks of babies or juveniles.187,188 Coombs states: ‘As with bones, footprints of juvenile dinosaurs are quite rare … but this apparent scarcity may be in part an artifact of taxonomic bias.’189Regarding this claim of taxonomic bias, it is interesting that 50 percent of the elephant tracks from Amboseli National Park, Africa, were made by juveniles.190 Although elephants probably grow much slower than dinosaurs grew, and it can be difficult recognising a small track, dinosaurs are expected to have produced many more babies than elephants. So the reasons for the rarity of tracks of both babies and juveniles is not in accord with observations from the modern world, and hence it is against the uniformitarian principle that guides geological thought. The lack of tracks of young dinosaurs fits better into the Flood model, in which babies and juveniles were less able to flee the encroaching Flood waters and hence were unable to make too many tracks.Fifth, another uniformitarian puzzle that is better explained within a Flood paradigm is the nearly complete absence of tracks of stegosaurs, ankylosaurs and ceratopsians, although they are certainly heavy enough to make tracks and their skeletal remains are common.191 Their thick armour and large bony plates suggest they were poor swimmers (in the track record, there is evidence of swimming dinosaurs and dinosaurs making tracks in shallow water192–194) and so they probably succumbed to the first inundation of their habitat.In summary, all these unusual characteristics of dinosaur tracks do not fit into the uniformitarian paradigm of slow, gradual processes over millions of years. The evidence fits better a time of worldwide stress on dinosaurs trying to escape rising Flood waters. Since the tracks were made on hundreds to thousands of metres of Flood sediments, the evidence, as with bone-beds, indicates briefly exposed sediments or shallow water during the period of rising Flood waters. 195 Track layers on more than one bedding plane represent brief exposures during a generally, continuous sedimentation event. The oscillations in local sea level would have been caused by local or distant tectonic events, tides, the dynamics of the Flood currents,196 tsunamis, etc. Can dinosaur nests, eggs, and babies be explained within the Flood? The hypothesis of exposed Flood sediments during the early stages of the Flood is further supported by dinosaur bone-beds and tracks. It is expected from this hypothesis that pregnant female dinosaurs would have laid eggs on these temporary refuges. So, the finding of fossilised dinosaur eggs, sometimes in nests, which have recently been discovered in many parts of the world,197 is not unexpected. However, of the thousands of fossilised dinosaur eggs discovered, only several contain embryos,198 and most of these have been discovered in north-central Montana and southern Alberta. 199–201Several features of the nests, eggs, and babies appear to contradict the above Flood model; it seems as if too much time was required for all the indicated dinosaur activity.202–204 For example, at a few locations, eggs have been found at two or three stratigraphic horizons, for instance, at three levels within a 3 m vertical section on Egg Mountain. 205 It also has been reported that 15 baby Maiasaurs, found in and around a nest 1 km north of Egg Mountain, north-central Montana, had grown for a while.Before

discussing this subject, the reader must be aware of the many unknowns associated with dinosaur eggs, which are subject to variable interpretation by mainstream scientists. Much of the detailed information has not been published. What at first may seem contradictory to a Flood model, may be shown not to be discrepant with further data. For instance, the 15 Maiasaur babies believed to have partially grown had worn teeth, some teeth three-quarters worn. 206 At first glance, these worn teeth suggest the babies had fed for a relatively long period with the help of attendant mother dinosaurs. Garner states in referring to these worn teeth: ‘It is difficult to see how this sequence of events can be accommodated within the year of the Flood.’207 An alternative explanation is that the babies wore down their teeth while in the eggs and need not represent a long time of feeding. Based on the analysis of embryos near the Montana/Alberta border, Horner and Currie have concluded that embryos ground their teeth while still in the egg.208,209 (For the baby dinosaurs, worn teeth would have been no problem, since the teeth would have been simply replaced by new teeth.) Therefore, data on dinosaur eggs that at first seem inimical, may still be explained within a Flood model after further information is published. 210,211With the above example in mind, let us take a cursory view of Egg Mountain and vicinity. In north-central Montana and southern Alberta, there are several claims for nests, eggs and babies at multiple stratigraphic levels. However, in one instance the ‘different levels’ are many tens of kilometres apart.212,213 Since outcrops are isolated, the stratigraphy could easily be a little confused, due to facies changes or erosion that could have stripped more strata from one area than the other. In these cases, the eggs could be at the same time horizon.On Egg Mountain, it was earlier published that eggs of hypsilophodont dinosaurs, Orodromeus makelai, were laid on three separate horizons within a 3 m thick vertical section. The eggs were half embedded in limestone layers between mudstone.214 Just having eggs at different stratigraphic levels is really not a problem in a Flood paradigm, in which portions of exposed land were periodically inundated.215 (It would be the same mechanism for the formation of multiple dinosaur track layers.) For example, turtles lay their eggs within hours in beach sand and then leave them. Conceivably, a fluctuating sea level could bury their eggs with more sand, and then re-expose the beach for more turtles to lay their eggs soon after the first group. 216However, palaeontologists believe that many of the eggs hatched. Support for this argument comes from the observation that many eggs have broken tops, and that 20 to 25 juveniles of various sizes were found within the nesting area on the horizons. 217 Garner accepts this evidence at face value, concluding that a long period of time was required: ‘Thus nest construction, egg-laying and nurture of juveniles occurred at this locality three times. If one cycle of this sort is difficult to fit into the Flood year, the establishment of three successive nesting colonies one after the other surely strains the imagination, notwithstanding that the growth of baby dinosaurs was rapid.’ 218Actually, nests on Egg Mountain are rare; the eggs were mostly laid in a spiral on limestone with the pointed end down. 219,220There is new information and several observations that suggest that there is more to the story of what happened on Egg Mountain. First, there is some question on the number of horizons with anywhere from two to four suggested.Second, the dinosaur eggs are no longer considered hypsilophodonts, but the theropod Troödon.221,222 This mistake was easy to make at the time since there was little skeletal material of Troödon and the bones of each are similar in many ways. There are eggs from a second type of dinosaur called? Troödon, which is not Troödon but from an unknown species. The 20 to 25 partial dinosaur skeletons at Egg Mountain are still considered Orodromeus, but they had not been hatched from the egg clutches, which are now Troödon eggs.Third, the eggs may or may not have hatched. Just because the tops of many eggs were broken, does not necessarily mean the dinosaurs hatched. There are other possible explanations for this observation. Broken egg tops could have been caused by erosion from the next sediment layer or by compaction of the sediments. The tops of the eggs could have been broken by scavengers, for which there is abundant evidence in the area. There are fossils of small mammals, varanid lizards, pterosaurs and other types of dinosaurs at Egg Mountain. 223–226 Troödon teeth are abundant at Egg Mountain.227 Troödon teeth are commonly associated with eggs at other sites of north-central Montana and southern Alberta.228,229 Could Troödon have cannibalised its own eggs on Egg Mountain, as is suggested for Coelophysis from the dinosaur graveyard at Ghost Ranch, New Mexico? 230 Teeth of Albertosaurus, very similar to T. rex, also are found at Egg Mountain.231Skeletons of 20 to 25 young dinosaurs are scattered among the eggs.232 Could they have scavenged the eggs? All this evidence suggests the eggs may have been scavenged after being laid, which need not take a long period of time on exposed land during the Flood.Although the stratigraphy of the Maiasaur nesting area, 1 km north of Egg Mountain, is confused due to a high degree of lateral variability, 233three stratigraphic levels are claimed.234 Eggs are believed to have been laid at the top and bottom horizons, but not vertically above each other. Local erosion or soft sediments while the sediments were briefly exposed during the Flood could account for eggs on two of three stratigraphic horizons. In other words, it is possible that the dinosaurs laid eggs on a surface that cuts through the stratigraphy. 235One horizon contains eight closely-spaced ‘nests’, two that contained hatched baby dinosaurs. This is the horizon where 15 babies were found associated with a nest-like structure, 11 babies inside and four around the perimeter. The skeletons are 1m long. The ones in the ‘nest’ were disarticulated and jumbled together, a rather unusual condition for babies that supposedly died in a ‘nest’. One of the other eight ‘nests’ contained babies only 0.5 m long. Babies 0.5 m long were also found outside the ‘nests’.236 So, it appears that the 1 m long babies in the ‘nest’ grew for a while, suggesting mothering dinosaurs. Horner believes they grew rapidly and reached 1 m in length in about one month. It is possible that during the first 150 days of the Flood the Maiasaurs laid eggs and that the babies hatched and grew to 1 m long.However, the idea of mothering dinosaurs for altricial babies has recently been challenged.237 If this claim is true, the mothers did not need to care for their young. Then what were the 15 babies each 1 m long doing in and around one of the ‘nests’? If eight duckbill dinosaurs made nests at the same time, which the evidence suggests, why are some babies only 0.5 m long and some 1 m long? Is it possible that multiple-sized babies were hatched at the same time? Are the claimed nests really nests made by mothering duckbill dinosaurs? They appear to be so, but other explanations are possible, especially in view of the possibility that baby Maiasaurs were precocial. At this point, whether the baby Maiasaurs were precocial or altricial is controversial. There are still too many unknowns to answer these questions.There are several other indications of unusual, stressful conditions associated with fossilised dinosaur eggs. However, not enough study has been devoted to these conditions to know whether these were general or isolated occurrences. I will only briefly mention them. There are a number of reports of extremely thin egg shells. 238–240 Pathological eggs, especially with multiple shell layers, have also been reported.241–245Pathological eggs are rather rare in western North America compared to other areas of the world. 246 It is rather strange that of the thousands of eggs recently discovered, embryos within the eggs are extremely rare.247,248 Palaeontologists believe the reason for this rarity is because the egg contents are not preserved: ‘Fossil experts think that normally egg contents leak, or decompose until the bones dissolve, or are eaten by predator dinosaurs before fossils are formed.’249Further data may indicate whether the above observations of fossilised dinosaur eggs are general or rare. If general, they would indicate unusual conditions; if rare, they probably would be the result of chance. Volcanoes and meteorites during the Flood The adherents of the meteorite theory and the volcanic theory for the demise of the dinosaurs possess both supportive and contrary data. The contrary data indicate that neither mechanism is the full story.Creationists expect the Flood to have been

a volcanic, tectonic, and hydrological cataclysm. Both submarine and subaerial volcanism is expected, and indeed there is abundant evidence for volcanism in both Precambrian 250and Phanerozoic251 sedimentary rocks. In Montana, Wyoming and southern Alberta, the dinosaur-bearing beds contain copious amounts of volcanic material. So volcanism could easily be associated with the demise of the dinosaurs during the Flood, but not the main cause.However, it is very likely that meteorite impacts also occurred during the Flood. Jeremy Auldaney suggests that impacts triggered the Flood. 252,253 Carl Froede and Don deYoung propose that a planet broke up between Mars and Jupiter, based on the Titius-Bode relationship. The debris from this breakup was responsible for the cratering observed in the Solar System, with most impacts on earth occurring during the Flood.254 These authors are probably correct, since both the pre-Flood and post-Flood time-frames are expected to have been times of relative geological quiet.255 Furthermore, there are around 150 probable impact craters now known on earth.256 Most of the impact craters are dated between 1 million and 1 billion years. 257 One would expect that most of these 150 impacts occurred during the Flood, especially if the Flood/post-Flood boundary is generally in the late Cainozoic of the uniformitarian timescale.258–260 The reason for this deduction is that erosion since the Flood has been slight, especially in areas not glaciated.261 An impact within the Flood is expected to have been greatly eroded and filled with sediment, showing just the bare circular outline, with little or no detectable ejecta. On the other hand, a post-Flood impact is generally expected to exhibit relatively sharp features plus ejecta, especially in a non-glacial and dry environment. A classic example is the Arizona Meteor Crater.262 Therefore, since most impact craters are barely detectable in the Flood sediments, it is likely that most impacts occurred during the Flood.The largest iridium anomalies are probably due to impacts. This is because volcanically-produced iridium is mainly from basaltic eruptions, which probably were underwater eruptions during the Flood.263,264 Either way, multiple impacts and volcanic eruptions would explain the evidence of the many iridium anomalies, shocked quartz grains, tektites, etc. found in the geological record. The rapid sedimentation during the Flood would explain the observation that an iridium ‘spike’ can be composed of multiple spikes or else spread over more than a thin layer of sediment. Uniformitarian geologists date such relatively thick layers as lasting hundreds of thousands of years, but within the Flood an iridium-rich layer would be only an instant of time. Iridium-rich clay falling from the atmosphere would probably accumulate during temporary lulls in the Flood. The clay could fall rapidly due to coagulation of particles. Accumulations of iridium-rich clay would be unlikely at the beginning of the Flood, but more likely during the middle or end of the Flood. This is because of the rapid erosion and sedimentation likely at the beginning of the Flood.The fact that few extinctions occur right at the exact K/T boundary bodes ill for the meteorite theory. There are only 20 locations where dinosaurs are even close to the K/T boundary, as defined by an iridium anomaly or some other fossil criterion: ‘In the case of the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, many people—even professionals—are very surprised to discover that there are only about 20 localities, most of which are in North America, that preserve the last days of the dinosaurs.’ 265If most dinosaur extinctions are not associated with an Ir anomaly, then how could impacts have been the main cause for the death of the dinosaurs?In a Flood model, the problem of the survival of certain sensitive organisms across the K/T boundary is not a problem, mainly because that ‘boundary’ is nothing special within the Flood paradigm and probably is not synchronous. The new discovery of polar dinosaurs is a problem for the meteorite theory, but can be explained within the Flood paradigm.266 Is the K/T boundary synchronous? All the hypotheses of dinosaur extinction assume that many dinosaurs, ammonites and other groups of organisms died out near the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary. But is the K/T boundary, especially in relation to the extinction of the dinosaurs, a synchronous event worldwide within the Flood? It probably is not even a synchronous event within the uniformitarian paradigm.The definition of the K/T boundary varies in different parts of the world, depending on whether the strata are presumed marine or terrestrial and depending upon which fossils are found in the strata. Defining a terrestrial or marine environment can be challenging and is normally based on the fossils. Many terrestrial fossils could have been buried in marine environments, especially within a Flood paradigm and even within a uniformitarian paradigm. For instance, a classical late Cretaceous dinosaur site in eastern Montana is considered a terrestrial environment. However, shark remains are also found. Since dinosaurs and coal are abundant, the shark remains are relegated to having lived in a ‘freshwater’ habitat,267 even though sharks are marine today and it seems impossible physiologically to assign extinct sharks to a freshwater environment. In the Flood model, the observation of shark remains among dinosaurs would not be considered unusual, since one would expect that sharks would scavenge floating dinosaurs and occasionally end up entombed with dinosaurs.The K/T boundary was first defined as changes in fossil marine biota in rocks of northern Europe. 268 Nowadays, the fossil dating method is so refined that each microorganism, whether a diatom, foraminifer, coccolith or radiolarian, has its own boundary-defining criterion. Some have claimed the definition of the K/T boundary based on these microfossils is rather subjective,269,270 and when the particular fossil is absent, a hiatus is presumed. 271Even the classical marine K/T section with a large Ir spike at Gubbio, Italy, is not without controversy. One geologist, after careful research, concluded that the section was a reworked Miocene turbidite.272 This idea was published after the section had been touted as a K/T impact horizon. Nevertheless, Alvarez and Lowrie 273 jumped all over this result and prevailed. It seems that reworking is mainly invoked to support the prevailing paradigm. The K/T boundary at Gubbio is of reversed palaeomagnetism, so the K/T boundary in other areas also has to be reversely magnetised. However, at least one ocean core at the supposed K/T boundary was found to be normally magnetised.274 These two K/T boundaries are thus probably not synchronous.For presumed terrestrial sediments, the boundary had been universally defined as the last appearance of the dinosaurs: ‘Critics charged that Rigby and his colleagues didn’t know exactly where the end of the Cretaceous was in the sediments that they were studying; after all—it was pointed out—the end of the Cretaceous was commonly recognised as the place where the last (youngest) dinosaur was preserved.’ 275However, defining the K/T boundary on the basis of the ‘youngest’ dinosaur fossil in a vertical section is a poor criterion, when only about 20 dinosaur localities from around the world are close to this boundary.276 Defining the K/T boundary based on the last dinosaur is also a circular definition, since scientists claim that the dinosaurs only lived in the Mesozoic when the presence of a dinosaur automatically defines the strata as Mesozoic. For instance, dinosaur remains from France and India were discovered in what were considered ‘Tertiary’ strata. The strata were subsequently redefined as ‘Cretaceous’!277,278In eastern Montana, there is a controversy over whether dinosaurs lived into the Tertiary. The K/T boundary in this area is defined by a floral change, but it is also associated with a weak iridium anomaly (an original report of a significant Ir anomaly turned out to be contamination from a platinum ring worn by a technician preparing the samples for analysis 279). Dinosaurs have been found above the defined K/T boundary from at least six sites, while ungulates, normally considered ‘Tertiary’, have been found below the boundary.280–282 Dinosaurs are also said to have survived well into the Palaeocene in other areas, such as the tropics of India, the Pyrenees, Peru and New Mexico. 283 Of course, the data from Montana have been strongly contested with the suggestion that reworking had mixed the fossils.284 Reworking is a common mechanism for accounting for fossils in the wrong strata, 285,286 preserving a semblance of order in the slow evolution of organisms with time. In spite of claims of reworking, Keith Rigby and his colleagues are

sticking to their claim of Tertiary dinosaurs. 287 Despite the merits of the various arguments, the circular reasoning is evident.Another K/T defining criterion for a presumed terrestrial environment is a change in certain pollen or spores. In eastern Montana, the K/T boundary is also defined as the base of the Z coal layer. But some geologists believe this coal bed is diachronous, which would mean this definition of the K/T boundary is subjective. 288 The problem for defining the K/T boundary in eastern Montana is compounded due to the many coal beds and the scattered nature of the outcrops.All the many definitions of the K/T boundary are difficult to reconcile with each other into a worldwide synchronous time horizon within the uniformitarian paradigm: ‘Even given the entire fund of techniques, methods, and principles of correlation extant, there was still, in the past decade, widespread uncertainty about correlating marine rocks of K/T boundary age with their continental contemporaries, even where both sections were richly fossiliferous, because the two sections were almost always mutually exclusive in timediagnostic fossils.’289That the K/T boundary from various areas is asynchronous is also admitted by Olsson and Liu: ‘Examination of recently reported K/P [K/T] boundary sections indicates that the placement of the K/P boundary is based on equivocal criteria and that the boundary as placed is not synchronous. The conclusion that the K/P boundary in several U.S. Gulf Coast sections is complete and within a condensed section is simply the artifact of delineating the K/P boundary on disparate paleontologic datum planes and preservational bias of the microfossil assemblages.’ 290And in correlation of widely scattered outcrops, there is the common problem of lateral facies and fossil changes that can cause uncertainty even in local and regional correlations.Defining the K/T boundary as the last appearance of a particular fossil, a common procedure, is a dangerous exercise. This is because fossils have a habit of disappearing vertically at one location and reappearing at a ‘higher level’ at another location. This has been labelled the ‘Lazarus Effect’.291,292Even though the various fossil definitions of the K/T boundary are asynchronous, could an Ir anomaly be used to define a synchronous K/T boundary, whether in a uniformitarian or a diluvial paradigm? The problem here is that there are many Ir anomalies in the strata, and many of the spikes at the ‘K/T boundary’ are weak or non-existent. In regard to dinosaur extinction, few dinosaur localities are even close to the defined K/T boundary, and even fewer are close to a significant Ir anomaly. There is also the problem that the K/T boundary is sometimes ‘defined’ by the Ir spike, 293–295 introducing an element of circular reasoning.Although palaeontologists believe most of the age differences between various defining fossils are minor, it underscores the subjective nature of the process and some of the problems in choosing the ‘K/T boundary’. The various K/T boundary defining criteria, as viewed by uniformitarian scientists, are probably asynchronous. Therefore, creationists should not assume the ‘K/T boundary’ and the extinction of the dinosaurs is a synchronous event within the Flood. Summary and conclusions Despite the many theories on dinosaur extinction, including the currently popular meteorite impact theory, the demise of the dinosaurs is still unexplained. Wherever dinosaur bones are unearthed, the evidence predominantly suggests catastrophic entombment by water, sometimes by clearly marine water. Just the burial and fossilisation of such massive hulks as the large dinosaurs indicates catastrophic action. There is also evidence that some dinosaurs were rapidly buried in at least regional debris flows. The large dinosaur bone-beds especially indicate a major catastrophe. Some of these bone-beds represent the remains of one dinosaur species, an unusual taphonomic condition. Babies and young juveniles are almost entirely missing as fossils, another enigmatic occurrence for those who assume uniformitarianism.Billions of dinosaur tracks have recently been discovered, and these provide further evidence for unusual, stressful conditions. For instance, the tracks do not traverse hills, they are practically always orientated in a straight line, there are very few tracks of baby dinosaurs, and some dinosaurs that may have been poor swimmers are nearly absent. It is suggested that dinosaur tracks and remains could have occurred during temporary exposure of sediments during the first half of the Flood.Dinosaur eggs, nests, and babies at first glance appear to contradict the hypothesis of briefly exposed sediments during the Flood. However, many unknowns still surround this fascinating evidence of in situ dinosaur activity.The volcanic and meteorite theories for dinosaur extinction have both supportive and contrary data. The data from these theories can be fitted into a Flood model, a model in which the dinosaurs perished at different times within the first 150 days. Book review: The Great Dinosaur Extinction Controversy Book by Charles Officer and Jake Page by Carl Wieland The idea that a massive impact from outer space was responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs is now very firmly entrenched in the public imagination. This book, written entirely from an evolutionary/long-age viewpoint, makes a fairly overwhelming case that, even within that evolutionary framework, the impact-extinction hypothesis is a complete ‘nonstarter’. Officer is a geologist; Page is a science writer who was once the editor of The Skeptical Inquirer. Good, for a change, to see Skeptics being sceptical of something within their own camp, I thought.I must admit, however, that even as a creationist I wondered how they would deal with all the apparent evidence for impact-extinction with which I had become familiar through the mainstream ‘general’ science journals.It has been presented so convincingly within their framework; the ‘impact which wiped out the dinosaurs’ is nowadays referred to in passing, as fact rather than hypothesis.In that which follows, terms like ‘Cretaceous’ and ‘Tertiary’ need clarification. The reviewer shares with the book’s authors the usage of these terms as valid categorisations of correlated rock layers containing characteristic fossil assemblages in a particular sequence. Thus, ‘Tertiary’ rock was deposited on top of ‘Cretaceous’. Obviously, I do not share the belief that these layers represent vast ages of deposition. We can agree with evolutionists that there is a time sequence involved here as one traces the layers in the geologic column from bottom to top. However, organisms entering or leaving the record are regarded somewhat differently. Thus, when the authors of this book refer to periods of ‘extinction’, it needs to be understood that in the short-age framework, this is merely acknowledging the fact that, above a certain point, no further such creatures are found buried. 1 The discussion here also requires no assumption about where in the sequence of layers one locates the Flood/post-Flood boundary, something still the subject of healthy creationist controversy. The background to the idea In the late 1970s, geologist Walter Alvarez found a thin layer of clay in Italy at the boundary between Cretaceous and Tertiary. This is known as the K-T boundary (K for Cretaceous, also known as the Chalk, which in German =Kreide).This clay turned out to have 9.4 parts per billion of a rare element called iridium. Although this is a tiny amount, it is about 300 times more than what is normally found in earth strata. Iridium (along with other elements such as osmium) is rare on Earth but common in extra-terrestrial objects.Walter Alvarez made his father Luis a co-author of the original paper. The fact that the elder Alvarez was a Nobel prize winning physicist certainly did the hypothesis no harm, adding some of the prestige associated with the ‘hard’ or exact’ sciences.Discoveries of similar iridium enrichment at the K-T boundary in other parts of

the world soon followed. Then grains of ‘shocked quartz’, said to be associated with large impacts, were found in the appropriate places to further cement the idea. Similar finds were made at other levels in the fossil record where there appeared to have been a major extinction, and a huge bandwagon had begun to roll.The popular press relies on major, frequently published, technical (but non-specialist) journals such as Science and Nature for most of its ‘science’ information. These seemed full of enthusiasm for impact-extinction, and the authors maintain that they failed to properly inform their readership of the many refutations in specialist publications. A run through the relevant headlines in Science would make it hard to believe that any more than a small minority of scientists had any doubts about the impact-extinction hypothesis, yet two separate surveys among various relevant specialities show that only a small minority ever accepted it! However, the momentum became irresistible. Some scientists claimed that anyone who didn’t support it was likely to experience negative effects on their careers or funding. More apparent evidence In 1984, palaeontologists David Raup and Jack Sepkoski caused a stir with their paper analysing extinctions in the fossil record and showing recurring peaks every 26 million years. By now, the impact hypothesis had more or less convinced people that there was an impact-extinction event in end-Cretaceous times, and again in the Eocene. These two extinction peaks matched their 26 million year ‘period’. In other words, Raup and Sepkoski appeared to have shown that every 26 million years or so on the evolutionists’ time-scale, huge numbers of species were wiped out, presumably from extraterrestrial catastrophic causes. Again, Science and Nature went ‘to town’ in publishing speculation as to what sort of extraterrestrial ‘clock’ might be causing such periodicity.A companion star to the Sun was hypothesised, quickly dubbed the ‘Death Star’. The theory proposed that this star circulated in an orbit which brought it, every 26 million years or so, into the Oort cloud of comets. (This is a [thus far imaginary] shell of comets which evolutionists and long-agers insist must be there in order to explain how come we still have comets when they break up so quickly. See More problems for the ‘Oort comet cloud’) Some of these comets are then knocked into another orbit, causing them to collide with Earth. This completely imaginary star, also called ‘Nemesis’ after the Greek goddess of vengeance, made it to the front cover of Time, and even into Reader’s Digest.Finally, in the 1990s, it seemed as if the ‘smoking gun’ had been discovered—the Chicxulub crater, a circular structure of some 200 km diameter on Mexico’s Yucatan peninsula. Reasons for its immense popularity In addition to the apparent evidence, there are powerful psycho-social reasons why the theory was adopted so quickly and vigorously. And why, according to the authors, the substantial contrary evidence was given short shrift.First, there is the ever-present fascination with dinosaurs and the ‘mystery’ of their disappearance. Those thinking in an evolutionary framework believe in an ‘age of dinosaurs’ followed by an ‘age of no dinosaurs’, in effect, so the obvious question is ‘what happened’?2 People like mysteries, but they like to see them eventually solved. Impact provided what seemed like such a neat, clean, simple solution.Next, the enhanced environmental awareness of our age, coupled with prophecies of impending doom for mankind. Here was something with an appropriately apocalyptic, doomsday flavour. If this could happen to the dinosaurs, was this not a foretaste of our own demise? 3Also, it fitted nicely with the now-popular ‘punctuated equilibrium’ model of evolution in staccato mode. Here was a stark example of the sort of ‘creative crisis’ which could fuel major bursts of evolutionary change.Further, by capturing the public imagination, the impact-extinction hypothesis generated a new source of funding for a host of related projects, not the least being ‘sentinel watches’ in astronomy, on the lookout for a re-run of the alleged ‘K-T catastrophe’.The authors show that even at the time of the heyday of the impact hypothesis, only a tiny minority of palaeontologists actually believed it. So why didn’t we hear more from the doubters? We’ve already mentioned the pressure from mass opinion, and it was interesting to read of one prominent scientist who published opinions contrary to the impact hypothesis, resulting in his career actually being threatened. 4Another powerful social effect which may have been at least as significant in making dissenters reluctant to publish was the popularity (and political significance) of Carl Sagan’s ‘nuclear winter’ hypothesis. This was the notion that global nuclear war would throw up so much dust into the atmosphere, along with smoke and ash from uncontrolled wildfires, that much of the Sun’s heat would be blocked from reaching the Earth. The resultant ‘big freeze’ could wipe out everyone who had not been killed in the initial impacts, if only from hunger due to crop failures.The same sorts of consequences were being postulated as the reasons why asteroid impact at the K-T boundary led to major extinction. Thus, people who had serious scientific reservations about at least this part of the Alvarez hypothesis were reluctant to voice these, in case it put them at odds with the anti-nuclear war movement. The book documents how at least one scientist deliberately suppressed his personal uneasiness with the scientific validity of the impact hypothesis in order not to undermine a clearly worthwhile cause, namely scientists’ opposition to nuclear war.The Sagan scenario was also the likely inspiration for some wild extrapolation concerning the finding of minute amounts of carbon black at some of the K-T sites. Impactors enthusiastically claimed this as evidence of global wildfires. These were linked to impact by postulating that the world’s forests had been ‘freeze-dried’ by the ‘nuclear winter’ effect, then set alight by lightning as the skies cleared. Evidence against the impact-extinction hypothesis Fossils decline gradually Some of the strongest contrary evidence presented by Officer and Page comes from careful analyses of the types of fossils found as the end of the Cretaceous is approached. In several sites, there is a gradual decline in the number and variety of dinosaur fossils—hardly consistent with the impact hypothesis. However, it is interesting to note in passing that a creation/Flood framework would have much more difficulty dealing with a global pattern of uniform sharp ‘cut-off’ at the K-T boundary, rather than a blurry picture, which appears to be the reality. Survival of light-sensitive species Within their framework, 50% of all species went extinct at the end of the Cretaceous. This included shallow-water organisms. Yet some of the shallow-water organisms which survived were of a type which require uninterrupted light, thus discounting the ‘Sun blacked out by a dust cloud’ scenario.‘Extinctions’ not correlated with crater ‘dates’Using evolutionary assumptions, it was not possible to find correlations between the times of major extinctions and the geological ‘dates’ assigned to the Earth’s known impact craters. Some of these known craters are huge, yet show no sign of being associated with major ‘extinctions’ in the fossil record. Note in passing how a creationist would have no apparent reason to suspect correlations between impact craters and the layers at which certain fossils cease to be buried in abundance. Analogous events fail to support The huge 1883 eruption of Krakatoa, which nearly obliterated an island, was heard over 3,000 miles away. The resultant effects of the ejecta on sunlight dropped the average mid-summer temperature in the US the following year by 7°F, causing

widespread crop failure. There was even worse havoc and famine in Europe. Not only was it not followed by any global extinctions, there is evidence of an eruption in the past some 400 times greater than Krakatoa. There are no associated extinctions in the fossil record. Granted, the Alvarez hypothesis postulated something about a thousand times greater than the Krakatoa eruption, but why would there be absolutely no effect at all for something which was 40% as powerful as something which is supposed to have wiped out half the species on Earth? Iridium enrichment spread out too much One study by another researcher examined the original clay at the site in Gubbio, Italy, which started all the excitement. Enhanced iridium levels are found above the layer in question, spanning a depth which, according to the whole method of long-age reasoning, covers around half a million years! This makes sense if the enrichment came from a long-drawn-out period of volcanism.5 The shocked quartz Grains of quartz may, under the microscope, appear to have planar deformation features. These are sometimes called ‘shock lamellae’, but since they are not always caused by shock deformation, it is a term which can mislead. They may be caused by impact, by volcanism, or by prolonged pressure from tectonic activity, such as when one rock grinds against another. Certain types are more commonly associated with impact, others more commonly with volcanic activity. There was a brief flurry of finds of a thin layer of these ‘impact’ grain types in North America, but not associated with any widescale extinction (other than at most a local one). There was an alleged impact crater associated with these for a while, but it went out of favour with further studies. Moreover, in other parts of the world, the deformed quartz associated with iridium anomalies at the K-T boundary is found in much more diffuse layers, and is of the type more commonly associated with volcanism. The Death Star theory dies I recall at the time of publication of the Raup-Sepkoski hypothesis being challenged in public about their findings. The reason is clear; since creationists regard most of the fossil record as being the record of the Flood, ‘extinctions’ simply mean points above which there are no more such fossils found buried. There would therefore be no reason to expect any periodicity to such ‘extinctions’. However, when one takes a closer look at the Raup-Sepkoski analysis, one sees that the 26 million years was simply an average of the distance between peaks! Also, the authors point to a devastating critique in Nature which showed that the data could merely be a statistical aberration. The item pointed out that any such data using their starting assumptions would have built into it a pseudo-periodicity very close to that claimed. Iridium not correlated either Overall, there is simply no correlation of iridium anomalies with most of these ‘periods of great extinction’. Furthermore, of the known impact craters that have been studied, only one, in Australia, is associated with increased concentrations of iridium in the soil.Volcanic eruptions are now known unquestionably to raise iridium levels. The 1983 eruption of Kilauea in Hawaii registered iridium levels within airborne particles of 630 ppb, which is some 11,500 times the concentration in Hawaiian volcanic rocks.Interestingly, the further away one went from the eruption, the higher the iridium levels in the soils. Apparently, iridium preferentially binds to the finer particles, which are airborne for greater distances. Signs of desperation By the time all the above had come to light, the faltering hypothesis needed shoring up, so multiple impacts were proposed, say Officer and Page. However, this involved a switch to comets, not asteroids. The problem is that comets are not very rich in iridium at all.It was instructive (especially to one involved in the creation/evolution controversy) to note the way in which, after this mini-paradigm had gained sufficient momentum, the trendy theory was driving the interpretation of evidence, even in the face of accumulating counter-evidence.For example, at a certain stage, the still-popular idea was being slowly overwhelmed by the accumulating evidence that most of the iridium was caused by the volcanism of the Deccan traps (almost unimaginably huge outpourings of lava at a site in India). Lo and behold, say the authors, it was then postulated that an impact caused the Deccan traps volcanism! However, not only is this geophysically ridiculous, if one remains consistent within their framework, the Deccan traps would have started erupting hundreds of thousands of years before the postulated K-T event!The authors highlight a number of instances in which ‘new geology’ was invented to shore up the impactextinction idea. For example, a 1990Nature article suggested that a layer of rocks in Cuba was an ‘ejecta blanket’ from a massive impact, despite the fact that no-one had ever seen such a consequence from impact. Subsequent studies refuted the notion, but the ball kept on rolling. That still leaves us with the matter of the Chicxulub crater, a circular structure of some 200 km diameter on Mexico’s Yucatan peninsula. Was this not supposed to be the irrefutable ‘smoking gun’ for the impact hypothesis? That was certainly the impression I had gained from the mainstream science journals, with even quite recent references to it as if it were everyday common knowledge. The chapter in Officer and Page’s book is, however, headed ‘The Missing Crater’. By now I was not totally surprised to find that here again the mainstream science journals had been blindly following a bandwagon. Chicxulub, which has been studied by gravity and magnetic surveys, has also had a number of oil wells drilled into it. The geology revealed by these borehole data totally rules out the idea that Chicxulub is an impact crater. This quote from the book’s p. 156, taken secondarily from Geology Today, tells the story: ‘The non-excavating impact: … It’s probably true to say that … most Earth scientists have come to accept that an asteroid impact directly or indirectly did for the dinosaurs and other species 65 million years ago, if only because they’ve been beaten into submission by the endless barrage of propaganda in its favour. And the word that’s been in their ears constantly for the past few years is “Chicxulub” … But wait—hear the other side first …’ The excerpt then refers to a 1994 paper by Meyerhoff et al. in Geology 22:3, which points out that: There is obvious volcanism interspersed in the layers There is no sign of any sort of impact melt sheet. An asteroid large enough to make such a crater would have blasted out all the Upper Cretaceous sediments within the structure. ‘They are still there; ergo, no impact.’ The authors’ own ideas Officer and Page, as evolutionists, would feel under compulsion to put forward some sort of alternative hypothesis for dinosaur extinction. However, they point out that in a complex world, there may be no one, simple cause. Many causes are already available to them within their framework, if allowed to work in combination. For example, increased competition from

mammals, changing sea-levels, and gradual climate change. The latter may have been due to the effects of the huge amounts of lava released while forming the aforementioned flood basalts known as the Deccan traps. Here more than one million cubic kilometres of lava was released, and there were other sites around the world erupting at about the same point within the geological column.Note in passing that this has been a significant point raised within the Flood/post-Flood boundary controversy.6 The huge amount of volcanism would have released massive amounts of CO 2 into the air, causing global warming. The sulphur dioxide released would have contributed to acid rain, and the chlorine would have depleted the ozone layer, thus increasing UV radiation would have severely affected the global ecology.7 Other issues The book offers a few forays into the history of such ideas as continental drift, the geological column, radiometric dating and the age of the Earth; and some useful background ‘brush-up’ on comets and meteors. While not surprised to see the usual ridicule of Archbishop Ussher’s 4004 BC age for the Earth, it was disappointing to see the authors’ historical sloppiness in saying that Ussher assigned creation to ‘exactly 9 a.m. on Sunday October 26’. Ussher was a much maligned man; a formidable scholar of repute, he used sound Biblical reasoning, coupled with deductive logic, to come up with his suggested date of October 23 (not 26).8 The ‘9 a.m.’ comes from Bishop Lightfoot, not Ussher, as this book claims.There is even a little passing dig at Fred Hoyle’s now passé theory about the Archaeopteryx fossils being clever fakes [see Archaeopteryx (unlike Archaeoraptor) is NOT a hoax—it is a true bird, not a ‘missing link’]. Conclusion The authors make a compelling case, without emotive overkill, for their thesis that the dinosaur-extinction-by-impact hypothesis is wrong. And furthermore, that it is a classic case of what some philosophers have called ‘pathological science’, not unlike the cold fusion fiasco. Leaning on the philosopher Imre Lakatos, they refer to the Alvarez hypothesis as, among other things, a ‘degenerating research program’. Such are characterised by an absence of stunning new discoveries on the basis of the theory, ad hoc explanations in the face of criticism, and ignoring facts to fit with preconceptions. One wishes that these authors could see how closely evolution fits their Lakatian prescription. Liaoceratops: a ‘missing link’ of the horned dinos? by Dr Jonathan Sarfati 28 March 2002 A team of American and Chinese paleontologists have discovered two small dinosaur skulls in China. This prompted headlines such as ‘Dino discovery fills in missing link’ because they were perceived as ‘Triceratops’ Tiny Ancestors’. The researchers published their findings in Nature 416(6878):314–317, 21 March 2002 (A ceratopsian dinosaur from China and the early evolution of Ceratopsia).The researchers found two skulls which they named Liaoceratops yanzigouensis, after the Laioning province and Yanzigou village, while ‘–ceratops’ is the usual ending for horned dinosaur names, from Greek keras, kerat– horn andopsis face. They dated the finds at 128–139 Ma (millions of years) or possibly 145 Ma. The spokesman was Peter Makovicky, assistant curator of dinosaurs at Chicago’s Field Museum. Other team members include Mark Norell, an ardent advocate of the dino-to-bird theory who has discovered many alleged feathered dinosaurs such asProtarchaeopteryx and Caudipteryx and BPM 1 3-13; and Xu Xing, who helped expose the Archaeoraptor hoax.The holotype, the single specimen selected by a discoverer to be the definitive example of a new species, was a skull 4.4 inches (11.1 centimetres) long. The animal was estimated to be about 3 feet (1 metre) long—about the size of a large hare. The other skull was only about half the size, and was considered a juvenile skull. The skull had a frill, which may have been for display but also functioned as an attachment for its powerful jaw muscles. Liaoceratopshad a small horn facing sideways under each of its eyes, which the researchers claim wouldn’t have been much use in defence, so it supposedly had evolved for display.Many evolutionists believe that the bipedal 2-metre-long Psittacosaurus (‘parrot lizard’, ‘dated’ 119–97.5 Ma) was an ancestor to the ceratopsians, or ‘horned dinosaurs’ (e.g. see psittacosaurids). But according to this paper, basal ceratopsians, of which Liaoceratops is claimed to be the most primitive, branched into the psittacosaurids and neoceratopsians, and much earlier than previously thought. The latter branch includes the elephant-sized Triceratops, the largest, commonest and most famous ceratopsian, and supposedly one of the last dinosaurs to become extinct. Was it really a missing link? As usual, although the mass media used such terms, the original paper, while pro-evolution, was not so forward. For example: Even the holotype skull was sub-adult, as shown by the incompletely closed sutures between skull pieces. One must wonder whether it’s really a young specimen of an already-known type of dinosaur. It wouldn’t be the first time this has happened. One creature was named Mussaurus (‘mouse lizard’) because it was only 9–16 inches long (18–37 cm) long. But the large eyes indicate that it was a baby, possibly of the 10 to 13 feet long (3–4 m) Coloradisaurus, a pro-sauropod like Plateosaurus (see Mussaurus).The horns may have just been underdeveloped because of the juvenile state of the specimen. For many vertebrates with horns, the horns only develop with sexual maturation. So these small horns may be more relevant to the study of dinosaur ontogeny (development) than phylogeny (evolution).Liaosaurus has features that spoil the idea of a smooth evolutionary progression. Rather, some structural similarities between different ceratopsians are now regarded as homoplasies, i.e. independently arisen and not the result of evolution from a common ancestor. This is consistent with separate creation. The homoplasies have also caused the researchers to reverse the previous order of evolution (phylogeny) in one case, showing how uncertain evolutionary theories are.Dinosaur taxonomy (classification) seems rife with ‘splitting’, i.e. different specimens of the same type of creature are given different names. E.g. with sauropods, the largest dinosaurs including Brachiosaurus, Diplodocus and Apatosaurus, 87 genera are commonly cited, but only 12 are ‘firmly established’ and another 12 are considered ‘fairly well established’ [McIntosh, J.S., Sauropoda; in Wieshampel, D.B. et al., The Dinosauria, University of California Press, Berkeley, p. 345, 1992]. In the theropods, the carnivorous dinosaurs includingAllosaurus and T. rex, a genus Antrodemus was named, but this was based on a single damaged and incomplete vertebra, and was probably just an Allosaurus—see Antrodemus valens. So how many so-called ‘evolutionary progressions’ in the fossil record are reallyvariations within a kind? Anyway, as shown in Dinosaurs: Phylogenetic Chart, gaps, not progressions, dominate.For more information about dinosaurs, see Q&A: Dinosaurs, and also see Q&A: Radiometric Dating. (Article available in Spanish) New evidence of Global Flood from Mexico Dinosaur dig reveals dramatic insights into the degree of devastation, not so long ago

by Tas Walker Artist rendering of Velafrons coahuilensis A new dinosaur find from Mexico gives a vivid insight into the enormous extent of Flood catastrophe as well as the magnitude of the processes involved. An international research team led by scientists from the Utah Museum of Natural History unveiled the fossilized remains of one of the casualties of that event, a previously unknown species of dinosaur, which they called Velafrons coahuilensis.1,2The team, of course, did not report the evidence within a Flood framework. So, although the team hopes the find will give fresh insights into the ancient environments of western North America, they have not considered the most important factor—Gobal Flood. It’s a bit like trying to explain the history of Europe without reference to the Second World War. Rapid sedimentation The dinosaur skeleton was excavated in the 1990s in north-central Mexico about 27 miles west of Saltillo, near a small town called Rincon Colorado in the state of Coahuila. The creature was a hadrosaur, or duck-billed dinosaur, with a large crest on its head that looked like a small sail. Diagram after Eberth, D.A., et al., ref. 3 Part of the sedimentary section of Cerro del Pueblo Formation in which Velafrons coahuilensis and other dinosaur fossils were found. (Cl=claystone;Si=siltstone; Fss=fine grained sandstone; Mss= medium grained sandstone; Css=coarse grained sandstone; Cg=conglomerate). The vertical trace fossils interpreted as burrows could rather bedewatering tubes. Even though the animal was judged to have been young when it died it would still have been some 25 feet long. Its remains would have needed to be buried promptly to be preserved, and this would require a considerable quantity of sediment.The sedimentary layers in which the remains of the animal were buried were thick. They are part of the sedimentary rock unit called the Cerro del Pueblo Formation, and its characteristics indicate something of the enormous magnitude of the watery catastrophe involved.Paleocurrent analysis reveals that the floodwaters were flowing to the east while the enormous quantities of sediment comprising the formation were deposited in huge sheets over a wide geographical area.3The thickness of the formation varies from about 500 m in the west to 150 m in the east near Saltillo, a distance of 70 km. The Cerro del Pueblo Formation is part of a much larger sedimentary package many kilometres thick deposited in the extensive Parras Basin.4 Such a huge depth of sediment would not accumulate unless the relative sea level in the area was rising continually to provide the necessary accommodation. The flow of water was highly variable during deposition, as indicated by characteristics of the different strata. There was ample evidence of cross-stratification within the strata, including planar cross-stratification, trough crossstratification and ripple cross-lamination, all of which indicate strong water flow.5Some sandstone strata contained pebbles and granules, which also give insight into the water currents involved.Another indication of the power of the water was the thicknesses of the individual strata. The beds of sandstone were frequently massive and many metres thick. There were numerous multi-metre beds of massive mudstone that coarsened upwards, suggesting repeated, enormous and extensive mudflows. Beds often displayed what is called ‘soft sediment deformation’, indicating a deposition so rapid that the beds slumped and moved before they had time to settle and consolidate. Widespread devastation Reconstructed skull of Velafrons coahuilensis.

It’s clear that the events that deposited the sediments had a devastating effect on the living environment, unlike anything that we see happening in storms and floods today. Not only was the hadrosaur, Velafrons, buried, but excavations unearthed a second kind of duck-bill dinosaur, a horned dinosaur similar to Triceratops with two massive horns and a long bony frill. They also uncovered several large tyrannosaurs (related to T. rex), and smaller animals with hooked claws on their feet like Velociraptor. The dinosaur remains were not just buried as isolated skeletons, but excavations uncovered large beds containing the bones of duck-bill and horned dinosaur skeletons all jumbled together. Team leader, Terry Gates said that the region was outstandingly prolific, yielding large numbers of high quality, well-preserved dinosaur fossils.The catastrophe affected both the land and the sea. Other vertebrate fossils recovered from the formation included turtles, fish, and lizards—that is, both terrestrial and marine animals buried together.The Cerro del Pueblo Formation also includes fossils of snails, marine clams, ammonites, marine snails, oysters, non-marine snails, fossil wood, leaves and fruit. 6 Again, terrestrial and marine life within the same formation. What happened? Field crew at site where Velafrons coahuilensis was found The researchers tried to reconstruct the sort of environment that could explain the remarkable evidence they were finding in the area, but by ignoring Flood they were hard pressed to make a plausible story. It was clear that the sediments pointed to a large watery catastrophe involving mass deaths but they were straining to find a modern analogy.The team speculated that the events were associated with high sea levels that caused the flooding of the low-lying areas (the Cretaceous is recognized as a period of high sea level around the world). They suggested that powerful storms devastated miles of fertile coastline, killing off entire herds of dinosaurs. Perhaps, they said, the storms were like the storms that occur around the southern tips of Africa and South America today. But storms in these areas do not kill and bury entire herds of animals, such as crocs, along with fish, and lizards, shells, wood and leaves. Such storms do not preserve the remains of such creatures in animal graveyards buried in metre-thick layers of mud and sand.Rapid and catastrophic deposition of sediments, of course, means that they would not take much time to accumulate. In other words, there is a problem with the age of 72 million years quoted for the sediments, which was established from the standard geological column (based on the kinds of fossils found). There is also a problem with the average deposition rate for the formation of 0.55 mm per year, which was based on magnetostratigraphic data.7 The long-age paradigm has a time problem. Where is the time represented in the geological section? How could animals be buried and preserved at such a slow sediment accumulation rate? Towards the end of the inundation stage We can conclude that the sediments were deposited as the floodwaters were rising on the earth, because the land animals were still alive, as indicated by the assemblages of dinosaur trackways found in the area. 8 It’s likely that these sediments were deposited just before the time when the floodwaters covered the entire earth. 9The new dinosaur find from Mexico and the associated investigations of the geology provide a new and exciting window onto past events. They reveal vivid insights into the conditions and devastation associated with the largest watery catastrophe —and into the sorts of animals that were caught up in that event. ‘Gastroliths’ deposited by mass flow by Michael Oard Gastroliths are defined as ‘Highly polished, rounded stones or pebbles from the stomach of some fossil vertebrates, esp. reptiles.’1 They are thought to have been used for grinding food. Stones usually believed to be gastroliths are commonly found in the Morrison Formation, which is believed to outcrop over one million km 2 from southern Alberta and Saskatchewan, Canada, south to New Mexico, USA. 2,3 The Morrison Formation is famous for its dinosaur fossils, especially the large sauropod dinosaurs. Challenge to the Flood Figure 1. Outcrop of quartzite gravel about 20 km east of Moran Junction. Note that the quartzites have pressure solution marks and percussion marks, and are polished and fractured.While on a field trip in Wyoming, I found several of these stones in the Morrison Formation after looking for only an hour. If I can find several after a quick search, there must be billions of these socalled ‘gastroliths’ in the ‘late Jurassic’ Morrison Formation. Since few gastroliths are associated with dinosaur bones, the Flood would have had to pulverize tens of millions of dinosaurs just in the Morrison Formation to account for so many gastroliths, if that is what they are. How could such a feat be accomplished in a short period of time within the Flood?Several years before this field trip, my exposed Flood sediment hypothesis for dinosaur tracks and eggs was challenged on the basis of the presence of gastroliths in the Morrison Formation.4,5 Garner et al.6 wrote: ‘The problems are not limited to nest sites. Stokes (1987) has investigated gastroliths (stomach stones) from some Lower Cretaceous dinosaurs. He found that many of these gastroliths were composed of lithified, fossil-bearing sedimentary rock which appeared to be derived from Palaeozoic and pre-Cretaceous Mesozoic sedimentary rocks. This is further evidence that these dinosaurs were living after the Flood, unless we want to suppose that—as well as fleeing from the rising Flood waters, making tracks, building nests, and feeding their young—they were swallowing pebbles of earlier Flood sediments for use as gastroliths!’ At the time, I did not have an answer to this ‘gastroliths’ problem. Problems with dinosaurian origin

This ‘Lower Cretaceous’ formation actually was part of the ‘late Jurassic’ Morrison Formation but was reassigned to the above formation.7 Stokes did point out that there is much negative evidence against the dinosaurian origin of all these stones and that there were a number of skeptics. Two reasons for skepticism are the huge number of stones and the rare association of gastroliths with dinosaur skeletons. Moreover, stream and wind polished stones, which can be common in sedimentary deposits, look similar to gastroliths. 8 A study of gastroliths in modern birds has shown that sandstone rocks quickly crumble in the birds’ gizzards, and that limestone lumps dissolve after just a couple of days. 9 Rose quartz and granite stones disintegrated more slowly. None of the stones retrieved from ostrich gizzards were highly polished, such as the stones found in the Morrison Formation and others. So, the data on real gastroliths does not line up with the abundance of stones found in the Morrison Formation.A recent article about gastroliths from the ‘Lower Cretaceous’ Cloverly Formation of Wyoming suggests that the stones likely are not gastroliths at all.10 The polished and rounded stones are believed to have been transported long distance by mass flow from sources to the west, probably in Idaho. This belief is based on the lithologies of the ‘gastroliths’ and the fact that some of the stones contain fossils similar to those that outcrop in southeast Idaho. Mass flow is suggested as the cause because the stones are floating in a finer grained matrix. Since the source is 200 to 400 km distant over a surface with a low slope, the authors suggest the mass flow is a hyperconcentrated flow, which is a flow between a turbidity current and a debris flow. Hyperconcentrated flows are defined generally as flows with a sediment volume percent in water of 20–47 % (40 to 70 weight percent). 11 Debris flows cannot transport sediments this far on such low slopes; they transport sediments less than 25 times their descent height. 11But the deduction of a hyperconcentrated flow is really a guess. Furthermore, it must be demonstrated that hyperconcentrated flows can travel such distances on low slopes. Unfortunately, hyperconcentrated flows are poorly understood:‘The physical processes by which sediment is transported by, and deposited from, hyperconcentrated flows are unclear.’12 The authors suggest that their results for the Cloverly Formation also may have implications for other formations with presumed gastroliths, including the Morrison Formation just below the Cloverly Formation. If the billions of rounded rocks in the Morrison Formation, as well as the Cloverly Formation, are not gastroliths, the time problem for the Flood evaporates. Flood options In the Flood, several options are available that would allow the transport of the rounded rocks for 200 to 400 km. It could have been any type of underwater bottom-hugging mass flow aided by strong currents flowing to the east. It is likely that the rounding and polishing occurred in watery transport and not mass flow, since water is a very efficient mechanism for rounding and polishing rocks. Rounded and polished quartzites are observed in many locations in northwest Wyoming, eastern Idaho, and southwest Montana. They have accumulated thousands of meters thick in paleovalleys in northwest Wyoming and adjacent Idaho13 (figure 1). Quartzites make up 38% of the ‘gastroliths’ in the Cloverly Formation. After rounding, the quartzites could have been entrained with much fine sediment as a matrix-supported mass flow by the time the quartzites and other lithologies were deposited much farther east. I am disappointed, however, that the ‘gastroliths’ I collected likely are not real gizzard stones from dinosaurs. Dinosaur herd buried in Global Flood in Inner Mongolia, China by Tas Walker Published: 14 April 2009(GMT+10) Figure 1. Location of the fossil site in Inner Mongolia, China An international team of scientists have uncovered graphic evidence of the deadly terror unleashed on a herd of dinosaurs as they were buried under sediment by the rising waters of Global Flood in western Inner Mongolia (figure 1).1 Dinosaur bones were first discovered at the site, located at the base of a small hill in the Gobi Desert, in 1978 by a Chinese geologist. After about 20 years, a team of Chinese and Japanese scientists recovered the first skeletons, which they named Sinornithomimus, meaning “Chinese bird mimic”.A few years later in 2001, the international team excavated the remains of more than 25 dinosaurs, creating a large quarry in the process as they as they followed the skeletons into the base of the hill. Remarkable excavation As the team carefully mapped the location of the bones and strata that contained them (figure 2), it became clear that the dinosaurs were all within the same layer of mudstone (i.e. the same bedding plane), generally facing the same direction and remarkably well preserved.2 Figure 2. Map of some dinosaur remains at the site in Inner Mongolia. Note the skeletal parts have generally remained together indicating that the animals were buried before their remains disintegrated.Most of the dinosaurs were buried in a lifelike crouching posture and, even more surprisingly, the limbs of the dinosaurs were plunging down into the underlying mud as deep as 40 cm (figure 3). 3 Their hind legs were often still bent indicating that they were struggling to escape. Two of the skeletons were found one right over the other where they apparently fell. This fossil find captures in stone how the dinosaurs perished when they became mired in the mud.The thick layer of mud in which the animals were trapped displayed bedding that was twisted and convoluted 4 indicating that the sediment was only recently deposited from flowing water and still soft when it was disturbed. There was an absence of bioturbation (such as burrowing by worms or crustaceans) in the underlying mud, 5which also indicated that the mud was only recently deposited.Not only was the thick under layer of sediment recently deposited, but the overlying sediments were deposited soon after the animals were trapped, burying the animals before their soft parts had a chance to rot away. Nearly all the fossil bones were surrounded by a drab, blue-gray halo indicating how far the soft tissue extended (figure 3), and that the carcasses had decomposed after being buried, not before. In addition, gastroliths (stomach stones) were found in the

fossilized ribcages of some animals, as well as carbonized stomach contents (figure 3). 6 So promptly were the animals buried that the delicate bones in the eye (sclerotic rings) of some animals were preserved. The team interpreted the site as a “catastrophic miring of an immature herd”. Figure 3. Fossil skeletons 3 and 4 (see figure 2) recovered from site. Note the bluish-gray halo surrounding all the bones indicating the skeletons were buried with the soft parts in tact. A: Plan view of the two skeletons. Note how they overlap. B: Snout and unusual neck curvature likely indicating death throes. C: Pelvis almost all preserved. D: Gastrolith (stomach stone) mass and carbonized stomach contents within rib cage indicating rapid burial. E:Cross-section of rear leg mired deep in mud and in bent position and F: cross section of foreleg deep in the mud, both indicating catastrophic entrapment. White scale bars are 10 cm. Global Flood? When I read of such a large herd of animals being frantically trapped in thick mud that was only recently deposited and then rapidly buried by more sediment I immediately think of Noah’s Flood. The fossil evidence is exactly the sort of thing that you would expect as a result of the global catastrophe However, Noah’s Flood is not an explanation that came to the minds of the paleontologists who excavated the dinosaurs in Inner Mongolia. Consequently, they struggled to explain what they found. Their main problem was that they were looking for a modern environment that corresponds with the evidence but Noah’s Flood was a unique event.7 There has been no geological disaster in the last 4,500 years that has come anywhere close to what happened during the Flood.A herd of juveniles Lead author, David Varricchio, assistant professor of paleontology at Montana State University, USA, indicated his surprise at what the team uncovered and alluded to their inability to explain it with a modern environment. “Finding a mired herd is exceedingly rare among living animals”, he said. Nearly all the fossil bones were surrounded by a drab, blue-gray halo indicating how far the soft tissue extended, and that the carcasses had decomposed after being buried, not before. One problem that the paleontologists encountered is that according to uniformitarianism the fossils layers preserve a living environment that existed at that time. Therefore, the team was surprised that the dinosaurs consisted only of juveniles without any adults or hatchlings present. However, that is perfectly understandable in the Flood catastrophe when animals were fleeing. You would expect the hatchlings to have already perished and the adults to have fled and abandoned the youngsters. In scientific circles these sorts of anomalies are never reported as a problem. Rather, the paleontologists reported this unexpected result as a “new discovery”. They said it was evidence of “distinctive dinosaur sociality” where the immature dinosaurs were left to fend for themselves in juvenile herds while the mature adults were occupied elsewhere with parental care of eggs and hatchlings. What an amazing story. All that mud Another problem for the team was the thickness of the mud in which the dinosaurs were trapped. They suggested the area was a low energy lake environment, which is the standard interpretation that uniformitarians invoke to explain muddy sediments. “The lamination and very thin beds of the intervening unit represent slow deposition under quiet, low-energy conditions and an absence of significant invertebrate or vertebrate bioturbation.” However, recent laboratory experiments have shown that such an automatic interpretation is almost certainly incorrect because mud readily deposits from flowing water.8In order to account for the depth of mud in an area where the animals could be trapped the team claimed the water level of the lake was lowering as a result of drought. That could account for the mud depth in a limited region close to the shore. But it is hard to imagine how, under normal conditions, so many animals could have become trapped together so suddenly in a small area of mud at the edge of a lake. ‘Finding a mired herd is exceedingly rare among living animals’—David Varricchio, assistant professor of paleontology at Montana State University, USA It is also hard to account for the absence of bioturbation in the mud. If you say that worms and crustaceans had not colonized the sediment because the mud had only been recently deposited then you would have to explain what sort of process would deposit half a metre of mud so quickly. And, how could such a thick deposit have been laid down at the edge of a lake? The authors opted to say that the unbioturbated laminae suggested the mud was situated in deeper water. But deeper water would help the animals escape because water would help to support their body weight.Another problem is that the team found mudcracks on the mud, which they also interpreted as indicators of drought. Mudcracks form when mud emerges from the water and has dried for a day or so. How could the mudcracks form on the mud surface if it was in deeper water?This array of evidence that conflicted with their expectations puzzled the team and they once again presented the results as an “exceptional” discovery. However, the thick mud deposit, rapid sedimentation and catastrophic entrapment of the animals are easily explained by the Flood catastrophe. And mud does not need to be exposed above water for mud cracks to form. Shrinkage cracks will form in situ once the overlying sediments have been deposited and the water within the mud is expelled and the mud contracts.9A desert?These dinosaur fossils were found in the Cretaceous sediments of Inner Mongolia that were interpreted as being deposited on the continent. More specifically they were found in the Ulansuhai Formation of the Upper Cretaceous, which is interpreted as being a desert environment. “Through this period the region experienced an increase in overall aridity and a shift from lacustrine [lake] and fluvial [river] Lower Cretaceous facies [rocks] to predominantly aeolian [desert] dune and associated interdune facies in the Upper

Cretaceous.”10What were these herds of dinosaurs doing in a desert? Where did they get the food then needed? How was such a large herd trapped in mud so quickly in a desert? And how were they buried so quickly in a desert, before the soft flesh had time to rot away and before the skeletons had disintegrated? The fact that sediment was able to accumulate to such a depth over the animals (now at the base of a small hill) indicates that the depth of the water was rising on the continent to provide the necessary accommodation, not falling.So, it was not a desert. Uniformitarian geologists invoke a desert interpretation in an attempt to explain the large thickness of the sandstone strata and the huge sand dunes within the beds. They say it was a desert to hold onto their uniformitarian philosophy that it was like a modern environment and thus try to avoid acknowledging the huge volume of water that must have been necessary, as indicated by the obvious signs of catastrophe within the sand. So they are prepared to propose an explanation where lakes and rivers turn into deserts full of dinosaur herds that become trapped in thick mud and are buried quickly. One wrong interpretation leads to another. Take off the blinkersBlinkers change the way a horse sees the world and the uniformitarian paradigm has a similar effect on scientists. Even though they carefully excavate and document the fossil dinosaurs buried around the world the philosophy of uniformitarianism biases the way they look at the evidence, stops them exploring all the options and controls the sort of explanations they promote.Here in Inner Mongolia in the middle of Asia the historical reality of Global Flood explains the new dinosaur finds elegantly. The herd of dinosaurs was a casualty of the enormous watery catastrophe that engulfed the region during the Flood. They were overwhelmed during the first half of the catastrophe as the waters were rising on the earth, while air-breathing, land-dwelling animals were still alive. Sediment continued to accumulate on the continent during this Inundatory stage as the waters continued to rise. Then, when the waters receded from the continents they eroded some of the overlying material, shaping the landscape, and leaving occasional erosional remnants, such as the small hill where the geologists were able to excavate this dinosaur graveyard. Dinosaur demise did not jump start mammal evolution by Michael J. Oard You have heard it said that the mammals were small and undiversified during the time of the dinosaurs, but then after the dinosaurs became extinct the mammals blossomed tremendously in an ‘adaptive radiation’. Robert Carroll writes: ‘The extinction of the dinosaurs left vacant a broad range of adaptive zones that were subsequently occupied by therian mammals.’1Net mammal diversification rate according to the latest uniformitarian sources. Note little change through the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary but diversity rates peak in Mid-Cretaceous and Miocene. (After Bininda-Emonds et al.,7 p. 510, figure 2b).The notion of an adaptive radiation is considered to be based on the fossil record. However, the age distribution of fossils is partly based on circular reasoning.2-5 In other words, the finding of a dinosaur automatically places the rock containing the fossil into the Mesozoic, and mammalian fossils are always assumed to be Cenozoic. Similarly, the end of the Cretaceous is often defined as the last preserved dinosaur in a vertical sequence. 6A new article in Nature now claims that this evolutionary belief is a myth.7 Bininda-Emonds and others have constructed an evolutionary lineage of nearly all living mammals using DNA comparisons tied to fossil dates for the beginning of major lineages. They have called their results ‘supertrees’. The authors admit that using molecular data alone or fossil data alone sometimes gives conflicting results: ‘Molecular data and the fossil record can give conflicting views of the evolutionary past.’ 8In the case of mammals, the fossil record favoured (or at least had favoured) an explosive increase in mammal diversification just after the Cretaceous/Tertiary (K/T) boundary, but the molecular data pushed most origins of the same orders back into the Late Cretaceous. 8 The authors compiled a huge data set, and from the phylogenies they developed they were able to estimate diversification rates with time, all within the evolutionary paradigm of course.Because their analysis is tied to the recent findings of many complex mammals in the Jurassic and Cretaceous,9,10 their diversity analysis showed an increase in diversity in the mid Cretaceous, 85 to 100 Ma, and in the early Eocene. In fact, nearly all the living orders of mammals had originated by 85 Ma. 10However, there was little or no change in diversity through the K/T boundary, as had been assumed for over 100 years. In fact, the few mammal groups that did diversify after the K/T boundary subsequently declined or died out. 11 The graph leaves the evolutionists with a major question of mammal evolution:‘What, then, was delaying the diversification of present-day mammals? Clearly, the priority is to identify why net rates of diversification remained low for so long after the major lineages became established.’11It is interesting that their diversification graphs show the mammal diversification rate increasing to a maximum in the Miocene and then rapidly dropping to zero today. 11 This implies that there is no evolution occurring in living mammals today, nor has there been in the recent geological past. Such a change is what we would expect in the post-Flood world—any changes that do occur are just the shuffling of genes within kinds. Because there is diversification of mammals up until the very late Cenozoic, the graph implies that the Flood/post-Flood boundary is in the very late Cenozoic based on this parameter, since any significant diversification rate in the rock record would likely represent burial characteristics in the Flood. The Flood interpretation of the diversification graph reinforces other evidence that the Flood/post-Flood boundary is in the very latest Cenozoic.12-14

WHAT ABOUT DINOSAURS FOOTPRINTS In the footsteps of giants by Michael Oard

Three out of a series of five dinosaur tracks (two badly eroded) forming a straight trackway on a bedding place in north-east Wyoming, USA.Millions of dinosaur tracks have been discovered in sedimentary rocks all over the world. Evolutionists have naturally interpreted these tracks within their belief system, assuming they represent normal animal behaviour some one hundred million years ago. A closer inspection of the details, however, demonstrates that the Flood is a more reasonable explanation. Straight trackways First, individual trackways (defined as more than one track from the same dinosaur) are, all over the world, almost always straight.1 Normal animal behaviour should often involve meandering tracks, as readily observed by animals making tracks in the snow. Straight trackways indicate that the animals were fearful, as if fleeing from a catastrophe. Researchers recently found forty straight, parallel trackways of two types of large planteating dinosaurs in southern England.2 The trackway of a large meateating dinosaur was also discovered nearby, going in the same direction. 3 These trackways provoked a predator-prey interpretation by the evolutionists. But the tracks could just as easily, if not better, be interpreted as different types of dinosaurs, all fleeing the same event in the same direction. Few young dinos There are few, if any, baby or young juvenile tracks associated with older juvenile and adult dinosaur tracks. A normal assemblage of tracks should include abundant baby or young juvenile tracks. For instance, 50% of the elephant tracks in Amboseli National Park, Africa, were made by babies or young juveniles. 4 Since immature dinosaur tracks are rare, the trackways were probably formed during unusual conditions, rather than by normal animal activity. In the Flood, babies and young juveniles would likely have been left behind, as those more able to flee the approaching Flood waters hastened away. Trackways on Flood rocks Tracks are found only on flat bedding planes. 5 The discovery of the recent track in England just mentioned provides a good example. This favours rapid sedimentation forming flat strata. Erosion over even hundreds of years in the evolutionary scheme would have produced at least a hilly topography, exposing several bedding planes. We should observe trackways on different bedding planes, traversing up hills and down into valleys.These unusual characteristics of dinosaur tracks do not fit well with normal animal behaviour. The evidence agrees better with a time of worldwide stress on dinosaurs.How can the tracks be explained within the Flood? Since the tracks were made by live dinosaurs, they had to have been made during the first 150 days of the Flood, because all air-breathing animals that lived on land perished by that time. 6 In the Rocky Mountains and high plains of North America, dinosaur tracks are often found on top of hundreds to thousands of metres of sedimentary rock that had already been laid down in the Flood. It is known from erosional remnants that the tracks were buried by many hundreds of metres of sedimentary rocks laid down on top of them. 7 These later sediments were subsequently eroded down to the level where we find the tracks. This great erosion fits with the later stages of the Flood, as the water retreated off the rising continents into sinking ocean basins.8 Flood went up and down The Flood was a complex event; the waters did not smoothly cover all the pre-Flood land and then gently retreat. There were forces at work that would have caused rapid sea-level oscillations during the general rise of the early floodwater. Besides tides, the sea level would have rapidly risen and fallen, due to vertical shifting of the Earth’s crust and strong currents sweeping across the shallow landmasses. Geophysicists John Baumgardner and Daniel Barnette modelled currents on a totally flooded Earth. 9 They began with all the water at rest. Within a very short time, the Earth’s rotation would cause strong currents of 40 to 80 m/sec (90 to 180 mph) over the shallowly submerged continents. But most interestingly, they found that in some areas sea level fell by hundreds of metres and intersected the bottom. This pattern moved so slowly that the exposed land would have persisted for many days, but with rapidly fluctuating sea level at the edges. When were dino tracks formed? The large region in western North America where the tracks are found would have started as a deep basin early in the Flood. The basin would have rapidly filled with sediments, ‘shallowing’ the area. The sediments would have become exposed for a while as the sea level fell due to one of the mechanisms mentioned above. 10 Desperate dinosaurs would likely have found only a series of shoals and banks. Either swimming, floating on debris mats, or trapped on higher land nearby, the adult dinosaurs would have climbed onto the freshly deposited sediments, made tracks, and quickly laid eggs. When the water rose once again, they would have desperately tried to escape, forming straight trackways on single bedding planes. The rising floodwaters would also have rapidly buried the tracks—a necessary condition for preservation. In fact, the very existence of dino tracks is evidence for rapid burial.11

What about tracks on multiple bedding planes in a local area? Geologists have discovered that dinosaur tracks are occasionally found on bedding planes at more than one vertical level in a local or regional area. The same situation occurs with dinosaur eggs. The most ‘difficult’ (for Flood geology) occurrence of multiple planes of tracks is in the Jindong Formation, South Korea.1In this formation, over 100 dinosaur trackways have been discovered on numerous different thin bedding planes in a strata sequence 100 to 200 m thick. Dinosaur track expert Martin Lockley explains the occurrence of dinosaur tracks as representing ‘ … groups or herds of subadults and adults passing through the region on purposeful local or long-distance migrations (that is, not milling around or browsing locally).’ 2 Can the Flood explain such a vertical sequence of tracks?Actually, it is not too difficult. As the main text explains, the Flood involved oscillating sea levels. In some places, this would have forced dinosaurs to move back and forth on the exposed land. A thin layer of sediment would have been laid during each rise, and the dinosaurs would have walked back over the same area during each fall of sea level. In the case of the Jindong Formation, one could expect that the exposed land would have been quite small, so that the dinosaurs would have walked over the same area, i.e. containing previously-made tracks. A similar sequence is suggested for multiple egg horizons, which occur on far fewer horizons than tracks in a local area.There is substantial evidence favouring the Flood interpretation over Lockley’s. Within the evolutionary worldview, a sequence of dinosaur tracks made in strata 100 to 200 m thick would be expected to have been laid down over a long period of time, perhaps several million years. This being the case, one would expect many types of dinosaur tracks. Actually, the tracks on all these many bedding planes are similar on each horizon, and Lockley deduces they are from one species of dinosaur. This would be a nigh-impossible occurrence within the evolutionary scenario, but expected within the Flood model.

Dancing Dinosaurs? Stony footprints point to something more serious Figure 1. University of Utah geologist Winston Seiler walks among hundreds of dinosaur footprints in a ‘trample surface’ by Michael J. Oard Published: 28 October 2008(GMT+10) Geologists from the University of Utah recently announced finding a remarkable array of dinosaur footprints on the Arizona-Utah border in the USA (figure 1).1 They described their find as ‘a dinosaur dance floor’ and said it was located alongside an oasis in a sandy desert 190 million years ago.Dinosaur tracks in sedimentary rocks are no longer unusual. They are found all over the world,2 especially in the Rocky Mountains and High Plains of the western United States. Millions of tracks are now known, some of them forming large areas with a huge amount of tracks. In some cases, there are so many tracks, that the strata are greatly mixed up or ‘dinoturbated’. Circular impressions interpreted as dinosaur tracks Once in a while a new find will have some unusual features. This new dinosaur track site, actually a new interpretation of an old site, displays a few unusual features. Pothole-like impressions in the Navajo Sandstone had previous been interpreted as weathering pits. Now, it is believed the circular depressions were made by dinosaurs. 3 The impressions are located within the Navajo Sandstone of the Paria Plateau of the USA at the Utah/Arizona border.The impressions, which range in size from 3 cm to 50 cm, do look like simple holes in the ground, but they have features that lend themselves to having been formed by walking vertebrates, assumed to be dinosaurs. For instance, there are claw and toe impressions with rare tail drag marks (there are fewer than a dozen tail drag marks in the world). One of the most conclusive evidences is that the tracks line up to form straight trackways—practically all moving in a west-southwest direction. The holes are of the correct size and are concentrated on one bedding plane at about 12 impressions per square metre. There are probably a few thousand impressions all together. Because of the number of tracks, the authors referred to the surface as a ‘dinosaur dance floor’. The dinosaurs would thus be ‘dancing dinosaurs’, an obvious flight of imagination given the straight trackways. But, the case is strong that the impressions are modified dinosaur tracks, although one anonymous review of the Palaios paper still believed that the holes are erosional features.1 Interesting dinosaur features Besides the strongly preferred orientation and the rare tail drag marks, a few other features are worthy of note. It is claimed that there were four types of dinosaurs including carnivores and herbivores. It is interesting that such enemies traveled the same path at probably near the same time. Also, the small tracks are interpreted to be the tracks of babies, a most unusual discovery, if the small impressions are really tracks, since tracks of babies are very rare.Also of interest is the author’s contradictory interpretation. The tracks are in the Navajo Sandstone, interpreted to be desert sand that lithified (hardened) into rock. So, they postulate a ‘desert oasis’ or watering hole. If this were the case, why are practically all the tracks going in the same direction? Animals usually mill around a watering hole, making tracks in multiple directions.

What are dinosaurs doing in a monstrous desert?

Figure 2. Navajo Sandstone up to 600 m high above Kayenta Formation in Zion National Park, Utah, as seen from the top of Angels Landing.The most contradictory feature is that the tracks are found in what is believed to have been a monstrous desert. The Navajo Sandstone and its equivalent deposits occupy an area greater than 265,000 km2 and may have once been two and a half times as large before erosion. The Navajo Sandstone is up to about 600 m thick in south central Utah (figure 2). That makes this desert larger than the Sahara Desert! What are dinosaurs doing in a huge desert, even at an oasis? Desert oases are normally small and could hardly sustain dinosaurs in such large numbers.Moreover, there are 60 other track sites in the Navajo Sandstone, mostly of carnivorous dinosaurs. Just as mysterious from a uniformitarian point of view4 is that hardly any bones are found in the Navajo Sandstone. One would think that with shifting sands, a huge number of dinosaurs would easily be covered up, which is the first step in fossilization. The Navajo Sandstone is not a desert deposit The thousands if not millions of dinosaur tracks just in the Navajo Sandstone should be a big hint to uniformitarian scientists that this Sandstone is not from a desert environment. As we see with the Coconino Sandstone from Grand Canyon, 5 there are several obvious features that strongly suggest a water-laid deposit. First, the sandstone is flat or nearly flat at both its lower and upper contacts. How many desert sands have such a property? 6 To make matters worse, the overlying Carmel Formation is a marine formation7 that should have torn up the top of the Jurassic Sandstone (as well as the thin desert Temple Cap Formation), but the contact is very flat. Photo Michael J. Oard Figure 3. Navajo Sandstone with cross beds and multiple truncating planation surfaces near Checkerboard Mesa, Zion National park, United States.Second, within the thick Navajo Sandstone, the cross beds are truncated by flat planation surfaces that can sometimes be traced for kilometers. Dozens of these planation surfaces can be seen in tall vertical exposures of the Navajo Sandstone (figure 3). What sort of desert process shears off sand dunes? Although uniformitarian scientists have attempted to explain such anomalous features, the lack of any close modern analog shows that they are grasping at straws.Third, the sand grains that are wellrounded and frosted, providing evidence for the desert interpretation, show that the frosting was not by wind abrasion. Scanning electron micrographs show that the frosted surface is actually etched.8 In other words, the grains have been chemically frosted, probably after deposition by water moving under pressure through the spaces between grains.Fourth, the direction of transport of the sand is the same as the general transport of practically all the supposed eolian sandstones on the Colorado Plateau.9 The direction is from the north to the northwest. A further problem is that the transport direction must be maintained for hundreds if not thousands of kilometers, since there is no source for the sand immediately to the north of the Colorado Plateau. Such consistent directions over a supposedly 100-million-year period make little sense. In all that time, why wouldn’t a significant change in wind direction, from the south for instance, deposit some dunes with a different orientation? What really happened? These unusual dinosaur tracks and their strongly preferred orientation provide more evidence for the ‘briefly exposed Flood sediment hypothesis’.10–12 Tracks, as well as dinosaur eggs, were made by dinosaurs during the Flood while they were still alive, as the waters were rising. They would have perished later on, at least by Day 150, when the entire earth was covered by water. Based on many unusual features of dinosaur tracks, eggs, and bonebeds, freshly-laid Flood sediments must have become briefly exposed during the first half of the Flood as the waters were rising. Such an exposure can easily be accomplished after heavy sedimentation and a brief drop in ‘sea level’ (and there are at least four mechanisms that could cause this). Dinosaurs coming ashore onto this ‘land’ would of course make tracks and lay eggs. Their death en masse would produce large bonebeds as found in other parts of the fossil record, graveyards that sometimes contain thousands of dinosaur remains. Thousands of Dinosaur footprints found in China by Tas Walker Published: 23 February 2010(GMT+10) Ruth Walkley and the dinosaur trackway she found in Canada in 2003. Four footprints and 2 handprints are visible (the prints have been wetted for better contrast).According to a recent BBC report, scientists from China have found 3,000 dinosaur footprints in the Zhucheng area of eastern Shandong province.I always enjoy these reports because they are describing evidence of Global Flood but don’t realize it.One puzzling feature is that the dinosaurs were running the same way. Why were they doing that?The scientists from China suggest the footprints “could represent a migration or a panicked attempt to escape predators.” A migration? I wonder why they ran through all that soft mud. I wonder if their papers were in order.Fleeing predators? Panicked? Just note this: the scientists have identified sixtypes of dinosaurs, including tyrannosaurs, coelurosaurs and hadrosaurs. And they are suggesting that all these animals are so frightened of predators that they are all fleeing in panic? Some of the footprints were nearly a metre long. I wonder how big the predators were. Are they telling us that, for all its size, Tyrannosaurus was a wimp? That would make a good angle for a science paper.Footprints are a key classification criteria that help us work out when rocks formed in history.The sediments are thick so a lot of material was brought in quickly

and spread over a large area. The mud was still soft so it was deposited not long before but quickly hardened preserving the prints, which were soon covered by more sediment.So it’s easy to understand why the dinosaurs panicked. They were fleeing the rising waters of the Flood. Footprints mean the animals were alive, so the waters were still rising and had not yet covered the whole earth and destroyed all air-breathing animal life.Lots of dinosaurs perished in the area, as evidenced by dinosaur fossils being found at some 30 sites around Zhucheng—so many that it has been called “dinosaur city”. But it really should be called “dinosaur graveyard”.The animals fossilized because they were buried quickly, another sign of the magnitude of the Flood disaster. And evidence that the 100 million years mentioned in the article are imaginary. The sediments were deposited rapidly so the eons of time did not exist.Scientists and journalists present this sort of evidence within their personal philosophy of evolution over millions of years. It’s a belief system about the past that they simply assume without question because that is what they have been told. Dinosaur stumble preserved in trackways, Utah, USA by Tas Walker Scientists have described a trackway of a theropod dinosaur beautifully preserved in soft mud, now turned to stone, within Lower Jurassic strata at St George in south-western Utah, USA (figure 1). 1 As well as leaving a trail of footprints, they report the dinosaur left intermittent tail drags, and in one place sat in the mud and left impressions of both of its hands, its feet, its tail, and its buttocks.2 The tracks were found in the Whitmore Point Member of the Moenave Formation at the Dinosaur Discovery Site at Johnson Farm, St George. Illustration after Milner et al., ref. 2 Figure 1: Location of the St George Dinosaur Discovery Site at Johnson Farm The report focused on connecting the dinosaur traces with the anatomy, posture and behaviour of birds, citing as evidence the rotation of the dinosaur’s forearm and the way it sat in the mud. However, in their preoccupation with the unsubstantiated speculation of birds evolving from dinosaurs the authors overlooked the obvious evidence of huge watery catastrophe recorded by the fossils and the rocks.The Whitmore Point Member is a 20-m-thick deposit of mudstone, shale and sandstone strata, and has abundant horizons containing dinosaur trackways (figure 2), including tracks of theropods that were larger and smaller than the ones described in the report. 3 The strata also contain clawmark tracks, indicating times when the animals were swimming in deep water and just managing to scratch their claws along the sand on the bottom.4 The sediment beds are also packed with body fossils including megaplants, sharks, lungfish, coelacanths, ray-finned fish, crustaceans, clams and dinosaur remains. To preserve such an abundance of body fossils and footprints requires rapid sedimentation in order to prevent the degradation processes that would normally destroy them.The paper documents other features within the strata that point to rapid sedimentation in association with moving water, including ripples, tool marks, flute marks, rill marks and load casts.5 Many different kinds of ripples were present including current ripples, symmetrical ripples, wind-driven ripples, interference ripples, wave-formed ripples and mega ripples. Tool marks are formed on the surface of sedimentary beds by objects being dragged along by the water. They are often prominent as casts protruding on the underside of the overlying bed. Tool marks can be continuous as a result of the object being continually dragged by the current, or they can be intermittent because the object is repeatedly picked up by the current and bounced along the bottom. Flute casts are bulges that look like a spoon or flute on the bottom of sandstone beds. They form when sediment fills a scoop-shaped depression on the underlying surface; a depression caused by fast-flowing turbulent flow. Rill marks are dendritic channels that form on the downstream side of objects sitting on the surface in the presence of flowing water. Load casts are rounded blobs of sand that have oozed into the finer sediment in the underlying bed, showing that both beds were soft and unconsolidated, and indicating rapid sedimentation.Figure 2: Stratigraphic section of the Moenave Formation at the St George Dinosaur Site. The resting trace and trackway is in the top surface of the Main Track-Bearing Sandstone Bed indicated by an arrow toward the base of the Whitmore Point Member.As well as rapid deposition in flowing water, the sedimentary formation points to waters rising in the area at the time. The Whitmore Point Member is part of the 100-m-thick Moenave Formation, and for such a thickness of strata to have been preserved requires the water level to have been continually rising with respect to the land surface by the same amount. The increasing depth was needed to accommodate the sediment and prevent it being eroded and transported out of the area.Within a creationists geological context, trackways provide a significant classification criteria to help decide when the sediments were deposited. 6 To make trackways the animals needed to have been alive. This means the tracks were either made before the waters of’ Global Flood covered the earth, or after the animals had come off the ark and repopulated the earth. The tracks could not have been made during the Recessive stage of the Flood because by that time every air-breathing, land-dwelling animal had perished.The sedimentary deposits at St George are of such an immense size, both vertically and geographically, that they could not have been deposited after the Flood—that would have required too large a catastrophe. In other words, the trackways point to their being formed during the Flood as the waters were rising on the earth—the Inundatory stage. They preserve the frantic efforts of the animals trying to flee from the rising waters, running, stumbling and falling in the mud as they fled; even occasionally swimming in a situation of rapid sedimentation and highly variable water levels. DINOSAURS BLOOD CELLS, BLOOD VESSELS AND PROTEINS

Sensational dinosaur blood report! by Carl Wieland Actual red blood cells in fossil bones from a Tyrannosaurus rex? With traces of the blood protein hemoglobin (which makes blood red and carries oxygen)? It sounds preposterous—to those who believe that these dinosaur remains are at least 65 million years old.It is of course much less of a surprise to those who believe Genesis, in which case dinosaur remains are at most only a few thousand years old.In a recent article, 1 scientists from Montana State University, seemingly struggling to allow professional caution to restrain their obvious excitement at the findings, report on the evidence which seems to strongly suggest that traces of real blood from a T. rex have actually been found. These photos are of a later (2005) find by Schweitzer which produced soft tissue, in addition to strengthening the red blood cell identification—see Still Soft and Stretchy Left: The flexible branching structures in the T. rex bone were justifiably identified as “blood vessels”. Soft tissues like blood vessels should not be there if the bones were 65 million years old. Right: These microscopic structures were able to be squeezed out of some of the blood vessels, and can be seen to “look like cells” as the researchers said. So once again there is scope for Dr Schweitzer to ask the same question, “How could these cells last for 65 million years?”The story starts with a beautifully preserved T. rex skeleton unearthed in the United States in 1990. When the bones were brought to the Montana State University’s lab, it was noticed that ‘some parts deep inside the long bone of the leg had not completely fossilized.’ To find unfossilized dinosaur bone is already an indication more consistent with a young age for the fossils (see More on fresh dino bone, below). Let Mary Schweitzer, the scientist most involved with this find, take up the story of when her co-workers took turns looking through a microscope at a thin section of this T. rex bone, complete with blood vessel channels. ‘The lab filled with murmurs of amazement, for I had focused on something inside the vessels that none of us had ever noticed before: tiny round objects, translucent red with a dark center. Then a colleague took one look at them and shouted, “You’ve got red blood cells. You’ve got red blood cells!”’2 Schweitzer confronted her boss, famous paleontologist ‘Dinosaur’ Jack Horner, with her doubts about how these could really be blood cells. Horner suggested she try to prove they were not red blood cells, and she says, ‘So far, we haven’t been able to.’ Looking for dinosaur DNA in such a specimen was obviously tempting. However, fragments of DNA can be found almost everywhere—from fungi, bacteria, human More on fresh dino bone … fingerprints—and so it is hard to be sure that one has To claim that bone could remain intact for millions of years DNA from the specimen. The Montana team did find, without being fossilized (mineralized) stretches credibility. along with DNA from fungi, insects and bacteria, The report here of red blood cells in an unfossilized section unidentifiable DNA sequences, but could not say that of dinosaur bone is not the first time such bone has been these could not have been jumbled sequences from found. present-day organisms. However, the same problem Biologist Dr Margaret Helder alerted readers would not be there for hemoglobin, the protein which ofCreation magazine to documented finds of ‘fresh’, makes blood red and carries oxygen, so they looked for unfossilized dinosaur bone as far back as 1992.3 this substance in the fossil bone. The evidence that hemoglobin has indeed survived in this dinosaur bone (which casts immense doubt upon the ‘millions of years’ idea) is, to date, as follows: The tissue was coloured reddish brown, the colour of hemoglobin, as was liquid extracted from the dinosaur tissue. Hemoglobin contains heme units. Chemical signatures unique to heme were found in the specimens when certain wavelengths of laser light were applied. Because it contains iron, heme reacts to magnetic fields differently from other proteins—extracts from this specimen reacted in the same way as modem heme compounds. To ensure that the samples had not been contaminated with certain bacteria which have heme (but never the protein hemoglobin), extracts of the dinosaur fossil were injected over several weeks into rats. If there was even a minute amount of hemoglobin present in the T. Rex sample, the rats’ immune system should build up detectable antibodies against this compound. This is exactly what happened in carefully controlled experiments. Evidence of hemoglobin, and the still-recognizable shapes of red blood cells, in unfossilized dinosaur bone is powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. Still soft and stretchy Dinosaur soft tissue find—a stunning rebuttal of ‘millions of years’ by Dr Carl Wieland, CMI–Australia 25 March 2005 We previously announced the discovery of what seemed to be microscopic red blood cells (and immunological evidence of hemoglobin) in dinosaur bone (see Sensational dinosaur blood report! and response to critic).1 Now a further announcement, involving the same scientist (Montana State University’s Dr Mary Schweitzer 2) stretches (pun intentional) the long-age paradigm beyond belief. Not only have more blood cells been found, but also soft, fibrous tissue, and complete blood vessels. The fact that this really is unfossilized soft tissue from a dinosaur is in this instance so obvious to the naked eye that any scepticism directed at the previous discovery is completely ‘history’.

A: The arrow points to a tissue fragment that is still elastic. It beggars belief that elastic tissue like this could have lasted for 65 million years. B: Another instance of ‘fresh appearance’ which similarly makes it hard to believe in the ‘millions of years’. C: Regions of bone showing where the fibrous structure is still present, compared to most fossil bones which lack this structure. But these bones are claimed to be 65 million years old, yet they manage to retain this structure. One description of a portion of the tissue was that it is ‘flexible and resilient and when stretched returns to its original shape’.3 The exciting discovery was apparently made when researchers were forced to break open the leg bone of a Tyrannosaurus rex fossil to lift it by helicopter. The bone was still largely hollow and not filled up with minerals as is usual. Dr Schweitzer used chemicals to dissolve the bony matrix, revealing the soft tissue still present.4 She has been cited as saying that the blood vessels were flexible, and that in some instances, one could squeeze out their contents. Furthermore, she said, ‘The microstructures that look like cells are preserved Left: The flexible branching structures in the T. rex bone were justifiably identified as in every way.’ She also is ‘blood vessels’. Soft tissues like blood vessels should not be there if the bones were reported as commenting that 65 million years old. ‘preservation of this extent, Right: These microscopic structures were able to be squeezed out of some of the where you still have this flexibility blood vessels, and can be seen to ‘look like cells’ as the researchers said. So once and transparency, has never again there is scope for Dr Schweitzer to ask the same question, ‘How could these been seen in a dinosaur before.’ cells last for 65 million years?’ It appears that this sort of thing has not been found before mainly because it was never looked for. Schweitzer was probably alert to the possibility because of her previous serendipitous discovery of T. rex blood cells. (It appears that the fossils were sent to her to look for soft tissues, prior to preservative being applied, because of her known interest.) In fact, Schweitzer has since found similar soft tissue in several other dinosaur specimens! The reason that this possibility has long been overlooked seems obvious: the overriding belief in ‘millions of years’. The long-age paradigm (dominant belief system) blinded researchers to the possibility, as it were. It is inconceivable that such things should be preserved for (in this case) ‘70 million years’. Will they now be convinced? Unfortunately, the long-age paradigm is so dominant that facts alone will not readily overturn it. As philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn pointed out,5 what generally happens when a discovery contradicts a paradigm is that the paradigm is not discarded but modified, usually by making secondary assumptions, to accommodate the new evidence. That’s just what appears to have happened in this case. When Schweitzer first found what appeared to be blood cells in a T. Rex specimen, she said, ‘It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone’. But, of course, I couldn’t believe it. I said to the lab technician: ‘The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?’ 6 Notice that her first reaction was to question the evidence, not the paradigm. So will this new evidence cause anyone to stand up and say there’s something funny about the emperor’s clothes? Not likely. Instead, it will almost certainly become an ‘accepted’ phenomenon that even ‘stretchy’ soft tissues must be somehow capable of surviving for millions of years. (Because, after all, we ‘know’ that this specimen is ‘70 million years old’.) See how it works? Schweitzer’s mentor, the famous ‘Dinosaur Jack’ Horner (upon whom Sam Neill’s lead character in the Jurassic Park movies was modeled) is already urging museums to consider cracking open some of the bones in their existing dinosaur fossils in the hope of finding more such ‘Squishosaurus’ remains. He is excited about the potential to learn more about dinosaurs, of course. But—nothing about questioning the millions of years—sigh! I invite the reader to step back and contemplate the obvious. This discovery gives immensely powerful support to the proposition that dinosaur fossils are not millions of years old at all, but were mostly fossilized under catastrophic conditions a few thousand years ago at most.7

‘Schweitzer’s Dangerous Discovery’

by David Catchpoole and Jonathan Sarfati Published: 19 July 2006 (updated 21 July 2014) That’s the title of an article in Discover magazine1 about Dr Mary Schweitzer’s discoveries of fresh dinosaur tissue (which we’ve earlier reported on—Dinosaur bone blood cells found, Creation 16(1):9, 1993; Sensational dinosaur blood report! 19(4):42; 1997; Dino soft tissue find, 27(4):7, 2005). There was a very similar article in Smithsonianmagazine a month later, which even mentioned our Creation magazine citations.2 Why ‘dangerous’? A sub-heading (our emphasis in bold font) explains: ‘When this shy paleontologist found soft, freshlooking tissue inside a T. rex femur, she erased a line between past and present. Then all hell broke loose.’

The arrow points to a tissue fragment that is still elastic. It beggars belief that elastic tissue like this could have lasted for 65 million years. Another instance of “fresh appearance” which similarly makes it hard to believe in the “millions of years”. Regions of bone showing where the fibrous structure is still present, compared to most fossil bones which lack this structure. But these bones are claimed to be 65 million years old, yet they manage to retain this structure. The ‘line’ referred to is the supposed 65 million years that dinosaurs are reputed to have been extinct. The Discoverarticle described how the fresh dino tissue had ‘electrified’ creationists, ‘who interpret Schweitzer’s findings as evidence that Earth is not nearly as old as scientists claim. “I invite the reader to step back and contemplate the obvious,” wrote Carl Wieland [CMI—Australia’s Managing Director; his article ‘Still soft and stretchy’ promptedatheist-inspired criticism from longage compromisers] last year. “This discovery gives immensely powerful support to the proposition that dinosaur fossils are not millions of years old at all, but were mostly fossilized under catastrophic conditions a few thousand years ago at most.”’ The Discover article went on to document the unwillingness of many in the scientific community to believe the findings. Even to the point that Dr Schweitzer ‘was having a hard time’ trying to get her work published in scientific journals. ‘I had one reviewer tell me that he didn’t care what the data said, he knew that what I was finding wasn’t possible,’ says Schweitzer. ‘I wrote back and said, “Well, what data would convince you?” And he said, “None.”’ Schweitzer can understand why so many are skeptical. ‘If you take a blood sample, and you stick it on a shelf, you have nothing recognizable in about a week,’ she says, adding, ‘So why would there be anything left in dinosaurs?’ Why indeed? Unless of course they haven’t been extinct for millions of years, and their remains were preserved quickly by an unusual event. Schweitzer says of the moment she found dinosaur red blood cells in the 1990s: ‘I just got goose bumps, because everyone knows these things don’t last for 65 million years.’ Smelly bones Schweitzer recounts how, after that first discovery, she noticed that a T. rexskeleton (from Hell Creek, Montana) had a distinctly cadaverous odour. When she mentioned this to long-time paleontologist Jack Horner, he said ‘Oh yeah, all Hell Creek bones smell.’ Astonishing, isn’t it? So ingrained is the notion among paleontologists that dinosaur bones must be millions of years old that the ‘smell of death’ didn’t even register with them—despite the evidence being right under their noses. Doubting doubts about the Squishosaur Carl Wieland 2 August 2008 The structures recovered from dino bone by Thomas Kaye and colleagues, which they claim are not blood vessels but modern biofilms. In late July 2008, the internet was abuzz with the news that some scientists had published research doubting the claim that blood vessels and other soft tissues were found in T. rexfossils. This was a claim that creationists have made much about. According to these researchers, the vessels were actually the result of ‘biofilms’. We have had many questions already, so this weekend’s ‘feedback’ by Dr Carl Wieland will respond to the announcement in at least a preliminary way. Background In March 2005, in an article entitled Still Soft and Stretchy, we wrote in some detail about the sensational discovery of soft tissue in a fossilized T. rex bone after the mineral matrix had been dissolved away by a weak alkaline solution (though a weak acid would have worked too, and many of the subsequent reports call it that). The images from that article are so important to this one that they are repeated here, along with the captions. Dr Mary Schweitzer, the (theistic evolutionist) scientist responsible, had a few years previously discovered structures looking just like red blood cells inside blood vessels, in another piece of T. rex bone. Immunological tests even seemed to confirm the presence of hemoglobin, a complex and fragile molecule that should in no way be able to last for ‘millions of years’. The relevant portion of the bone in that case actually appeared to be unfossilized (see Sensational dinosaur blood report!)

In both instances, long-agers were keen to demolish the strong implications of such finds against long-age views, with very limited success. See for example, this response to a critic concerning the original red cells claim. And our article Squirming at the Squishosaur responds to various long-ager counterclaims about the soft tissue find. This latest claim for biofilms needs to be considered carefully and unemotively. If a great argument for creation has to fall by the wayside, so be it. In my own public presentations that touch upon dinosaur issues, I have repeatedly indicated that it is surprising enough to have soft tissue like this after thousands of years even. And I have written: ‘Certainly it “taxes one’s imagination” less [but it still taxes it-CW] to believe that such structures have survived a few thousand years, as opposed to >65 million. Even the most rabid long-ager would surely have to agree with that simple proposition.’1 The point being that if these structures were to turn out not to be soft tissues after all, then this would not prove the millions of years by any means, as it would be quite within the bounds of likelihood to have no soft tissue remaining after the thousands of years since the Genesis Flood. However, as will hopefully become clear, to conclude that no dino soft tissues have been found would be very premature and unwarranted, to put it mildly. The bombshell report The paper by Thomas Kaye and colleagues questioning the soft tissue finds was published 30 July 2008 inPloS ONE, the journal of the Public Library of Science. Being open-access on the web, all readers can check the original article for themselves, saving the need to go into too much detail.2 The introduction acknowledges that apparent soft tissue in ancient fossils is not just a ‘one off’ but has been confirmed now numerous times, ‘across a range of time and taxa’. The researchers were thorough—they used 200 hours of scanning electron microscope (SEM) time to look at the inside of dinosaur fossil bone, before the mineral was dissolved, in ‘seven geologic formations and more than fifteen taxa’. They also used infrared spectroscopy. After this, they said that their findings caused them to reinterpret the original Schweitzer findings as being the result of bacterial biofilms. These are well-known types of structures that are often labelled as ‘slime’. (An example would be what appears on the walls of your fish tank, the stuff on which the watersnails feed.) From the appearances they discovered under the SEM, they make a good case for evidence of past bacterial activity. They claim that their findings indicate that the Schweitzer ‘soft tissues’ were produced by modern bacteria infiltrating the specimen and forming ‘endocasts’ of bacterial film that would preserve the shape of the blood vessels, for example. (An endocast is a cast made of the inside of a hollow cavity, preserving the shape of the cavity, for example.) Another claim, also with supporting evidence, is that the apparent red blood cells are actually iron-rich spheres called framboids. These claims are probably bolstered in the eyes of the average reader by Kaye’s statement (untestable though it is) that he would have liked to have confirmed that soft tissue really had been found. Comment The suggestion would be more convincing if all that had been found were transparent blood vessels and some round lumps vaguely resembling red blood cells. However, it seems to require a fair amount of credulity to think that the biofilm/framboids explanation could cover the range of findings in the original report. This is why it was important to reproduce the illustrations here.

Left: The flexible branching structures in the T. rex bone were justifiably identified as ‘blood vessels’. Soft tissues like blood vessels should not be there if the bones were 65 million years old. Right: These microscopic structures were able to be squeezed out of some of the blood vessels, and can be seen to ‘look like cells’ as the researchers said. So once again there is scope for Dr Schweitzer to ask the same question, ‘How could these cells last for 65 million years?’ Consider that not only were there flexible transparent blood vessels found, but that these had inside them red blood cell structures with every appearance of still having nuclei, all in a substrate that could be squeezed out of the vessels like toothpaste. (Note that unlike mammalian red blood cells, reptilian ones keep their nuclei when fully developed.) Also found were clearly discernible bone cells (not shown here), called osteocytes, with a very characteristic appearance. (The Kaye team believes these were similarly formed by bacteria.) But one would think that of all the original Schweitzer finds, the most difficult to explain via the ‘bacterial films’ theory would have to be the flexible ligament-like structures shown in the diagrams below. I could not find these discussed anywhere at the date of writing. Actually, there is no reason why both could not be present—bacterial biofilms (and/or their partially mineralized remnants) as well as elements of the original structure, something that fits all the evidence to date. That concept also fits with the observation that in one well known dinosaur location, the Hell Creek formation in Montana, palaeontologists have long known that most of the fossils when cracked open have the ‘smell of death’ (decomposing, cadaverous flesh) in them. 3 This suggests not only that bacteria have indeed invaded the fossils, but still have organic material available to decompose. And since most bacteria require organic material to live on, the presence of soft tissue may be a good reason why they have migrated into the fossil-bearing rock in the first place.

What does Mary Schweitzer think? To conclude that no dino soft tissues have been found would very premature and unwarranted, to put it mildly. Schweitzer is apparently standing by her claims. Being an evolutionist, albeit a theist at last reckoning, she can hardly be accused of sympathy for creationists. Schweitzer has in fact expressed dismay at discovering her work being utilized to defend Genesis history. It seems that so far she is unconvinced by the biofilm hypothesis, though acknowledging that some bacterial action could be involved. TheDiscover magazine’s site says that she claims that she and her team considered this biofilm hypothesis as a possibility early on, and rejected it. 4 For one thing, she is reported elsewhere as saying, over time gravity should have made such films thicker at the bottom, contrary to observations. Carbon dating Creationists have all along been keen to see the soft objects in Schweitzer’s discovery subjected to carbon dating. 5 If they were millions of years old, there should not be any radiocarbon in them. So we would have anticipated, and welcomed, results giving any sort of radiocarbon date, as this would automatically weaken the claim of ‘millions of years’. But the first CMI has heard about such dating being carried out is in the Kaye et al. paper. It states that radiocarbon results on the structures they found ‘were “greater than modern”, indicating a modern origin for the material.’ In fact, such a result would also be expected by creationists as it certainly would inspire even more doubt about the idea that these dino tissues are ‘millions of years old’. Of course, the Kaye et al paper sees this radiocarbon result as confirmation of its claim that these were modern bacteria invading the fossil. Interestingly, a report on PhysOrg.com says that carbon dating ‘placed the origin at around 1960’. 6 Assuming that to be the case, then ignoring the huge limitations and error possibilities in such dating, are they saying that in this entire range of dino fossils—from many different geologic sites and levels, and all sitting there for millions of years—this slime has only been manufactured in the last few decades? Presumably further reports will shed more light on this. T. rex fossils?" style="border: 0px; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px 0px 4px; padding: 0px; outline: none; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(34, 139, 246);">Evolutionist questions CMI report— Have Dinosaur soft tissue and protein—even more confirmation! Mary Schweitzer announces even stronger evidence, this time from a duckbilled dino fossil, of even more proteins—and the same amazingly preserved vessel and cell structures as before. by Carl Wieland Published: 6 May 2009(GMT+10) Cells and connective tissue can be clearly seen. Background Creationists were fascinated, and evolutionists mostly skeptical, when evolutionist Dr Mary Schweitzer claimed in the 1990s that an unfossilized piece of T. rex bone contained red blood cells. Further, that there was immunological and spectroscopic evidence of the presence of hemoglobin, the oxygen-carrying protein that gives red blood cells their colour.1 Then in 2005, Schweitzer announced a further sensational discovery in a different T.rex bone. After the mineral matrix was dissolved,2what remained were structures with all the appearance of soft tissue, still soft and stretchy. Some of these appeared to be transparent branching blood vessels, with a substance inside them containing further structures looking just like nucleated red blood cells, and able to be squeezed out of the vessels like toothpaste. How could such fragile structures survive for millions of years? Long-agers went into intense, but not very effective damage control, such as seen in the item (containing CMI’s response) Squirming at the Squishosaur. Gradually, further evidence strengthened the case that Schweitzer had indeed discovered evidence of astonishing preservation of organic material in fossils. In 2007, in Squashing Squishosaur Scepticism, we reported that she and her team had performed careful tests to establish the presence of the protein collagen in the dino fossil—an important protein in bone. They were even able to sequence stretches of it, which showed that it was 58% similar to collagen from a chicken, and 51% similar to that from a frog.3 It has been pointed out many times that fragile, complex molecules like proteins, even if hermetically sealed, should fall apart all by themselves from thermodynamic considerations alone in well under the 65 million years that evolutionists insist have passed since Schweitzer’s T. rex specimen was entombed.4,5 Furthermore, bones of an Iguanodon allegedly twice as old (“dated” to 120 Ma) contained enough of the protein osteocalcin to produce an immune reaction.6 Many anti-creationists therefore breathed a sigh of relief when in mid-2008 a paper claimed to have found evidence that the transparent blood vessels, for instance, were the result of recent bacterial formation of biofilms, forming “endocasts” that followed the shape of where the original vessels lay, and that the red blood cells are actually iron-rich spheres called framboids. There were substantial reasons why not just creationists, but Schweitzer and other non-creationists were not at all convinced by these claims—see Doubting doubts about the Squishosaur. The new findings An illustration of a real type of ‘duck-billed’ dinosaur known as a Hadrosaur. Now comes a further announcement by Schweitzer and others, in the prestigious journal Science, of substantial additional evidence to bolster her previous findings.7 The specimen on this occasion was a piece of fossil hadrosaur (duckbilled dinosaur) bone (Brachylophosaurus canadensis) regarded by evolutionary assumptions as being 80 million years old.

In short, the researchers found evidence of “the same fibrous matrix, transparent, flexible vessels, and preserved microstructures she had seen in the T. rex sample”.8 Only this time they went to exceptional lengths to silence critics. Critics said that her claims, which given the millions of years perspective are indeed “extraordinary”, required extraordinary evidence. But this is a cliché; in reality, they just require evidence, and that has been amply provided. Yet the critics demanded additional protein sequencing, super-careful handling to avoid claims of contamination, and confirmation from other laboratories. So Schweitzer and her team set about doing just that when they looked at the leg bone of this hadrosaur encased in sandstone. Extraordinary measures were taken to keep the sample away from contamination until it reached the lab. They used an even more sophisticated and newer mass spectrometer, and sent the samples to two other labs for confirmation. They reported finding not just collagen, but evidence of two additional proteins—elastin and laminin. They also found structures uncannily resembling the cells found in both blood and bone, as well as cellular basement membrane matrix. And there were, once again, hints of hemoglobin, gleaned from applying hemoglobin-specific antibodies to the structures and seeing if the antibodies would bind to them. Some scientists are still skeptical about the hemoglobin, which is “difficult to identify with current technology”. Dr Pavel Pevzner of the University of California, was quoted as saying that if it is not a contaminant, it would be “much bigger news [than the confirmed discoveries of blood vessels and other connective tissues in] this paper.”9 Even leaving aside the hemoglobin, the Schweitzer et al paper is huge news. Pevzner had been critical of the technique used in Schweitzer’s analysis of the T. rex protein, but now he says that her new study “was ‘done the right way,’ with more stringent controls to guard against contamination”, for one thing. There were eight collagen proteins alone discovered from the hadrosaur fossil, which revealed twice as many amino acids as the previous tyrannosaur specimen. These were compared with sequences from animals living today as well as from mastodon fossils and her T. rexsequences. The hadrosaur and tyrannosaur collagens were closer to each other than the others, and each were closer to chickens and ostriches than to crocodilians, for instance—results which would also confirm her previous identification of T. rex collagen. The samples were identified as collagen by both sophisticated mass spectroscopy and antibody-binding techniques. They were also examined via both light and electron microscopy, which confirmed that they had the appearance of collagen as well. As Schweitzer says, “These data not only build upon what we got from the T. rex, they take the research even further.” Power of the paradigm These data [from a hadrosaur] not only build upon what we got from theT. rex, they take the research even further. —Dr Mary Schweitzer. Philosophers of science have written much about the power of a paradigm, especially when it has worldview implications, such as long-age belief. Such a paradigm is seldom, if ever, overthrown simply because of observations that contradict its expectations. Even Schweitzer herself, despite professing to be an evangelical Christian, is extremely defensive about the old-age paradigm—see Schweitzer’s Dangerous Discovery. What happens is that “auxiliary” hypotheses and assumptions are constructed to preserve the intactness of the “core” hypothesis, in this case what is known as “deep time” (see further explanation). In simple terms, proteins should simply not have been able to last for these tens of millions of years. So when they are found in specimens dated this old, the paradigm is under serious threat. The most straightforward fit to the evidence is that the time of burial of these dinosaurs was not millions of years ago at all, but only thousands of years ago at most. As the evidence continues to mount that dinosaur fossils do indeed contain wellpreserved soft tissue structures and identifiable proteins, the assumption that will increasingly be made is that “we now know that such tissue components can last that long, after all.” Not many will see this as the paradigm-rescuing assumption that it is. Consider the line of reasoning: 1). We know that this dinosaur fossil is 80 million years old. 2). Calculations based on operational (observational) science indicate that no collagen should survive anywhere near that long. 3). Collagen has been identified in these dinosaur fossils. Therefore: 4). There must be a mistaken assumption in the calculations mentioned in Point 2)—though we don’t know for sure how, collagen must be able to survive for 80 million years. How do we know that? Because 5). We know that this dinosaur fossil is 80 million years old. Notice how points 1) and 5) are identical, revealing the circularity. The following chain of reasoning is far more sciencebased: 1). This dinosaur fossil is claimed to be 80 million years old. 2). Calculations based on operational (observational) science indicate that no collagen should survive anywhere near that long. 3). Collagen has been identified in these dinosaur fossils. Therefore: 4). The claim in point 1) is wrong. The fossil cannot be anywhere near that old. This matches the expectations of a worldview based on the history given to us in the book of Genesis. We hope that many readers will be able to use this sort of evidence to gently pry open many closed minds. Update 9 May 2009: see answer to a critic who disputes that these findings are a big deal. Further update 10 August 2009: Schweitzer’s original find of soft tissue remains in a T. rex was strongly disputed, with some suggesting that the proteins found were the result of contamination. However, a reanalysis due to be published September 4 in the Journal of Proteome Research “has confirmed traces of protein from blood and bone, tendons, or cartilage.” (Reexamination Of T. Rex Verifies Disputed Biochemical Remains, www.ScienceDaily.com, July 31, 2009) Postscript: Phil Currie on Mary Schweitzer’s May 2009 finds The ‘extras’ on CMI’s 2009 documentary DVD The Voyage that Shook the World include extended interviews with several scientists. One of these is evolutionist and world-renowned dinosaur expert Dr Phil Currie, who talks about Mary Schweitzer’s astonishing finds, prior to her latest research above, and how the “paradigm is shifting”. There are many ways in which this DVD can be used to break down barriers of resistance to the Gospel. Don’t miss it! See the free trailer.

DNA and bone cells found in dinosaur bone by Dr Jonathan D Sarfati For the last 15 years, Dr Mary Schweitzer has been rocking the evolutionary/uniformitarian world with discoveries of soft tissue in dinosaur bones.1 These discoveries have included blood cells, blood vessels, and proteins like collagen. But under measured rates of decomposition, they could not have lasted for the presumed 65 million years (Ma) since dino extinction, even if they had been kept at freezing point (never mind the much warmer climate proposed for the dinosaurs).2 As she said in a popular TV show:When you think about it, the laws of chemistry and biology and everything else that we know say that it should be gone, it should be degraded completely.3 … as well as the following in a scientific paper: The presence of original molecular components is not predicted for fossils older than a million years, and the discovery of collagen in this well-preserved dinosaur supports the use of actualistic conditions to formulate molecular degradation rates and models, rather than relying on theoretical or experimental extrapolations derived from conditions that do not occur in nature.4As a careful scientist, after Dr Schweitzer found elastic blood vessels and other soft tissue, she rechecked her data thoroughly. A report quoted her as follows: “It was totally shocking,” Schweitzer says. “I didn’t believe it until we’d done it 17 times.”5 Other evolutionists saw the baneful implications to their long-age dogma, and claimed that the blood vessels were really bacterial biofilms, and the blood cells were iron-rich spheres called framboids. 6 Yet this ignores the wide range of evidence Schweitzer adduced, and she has answered this claim in detail. 7,8 However, Schweitzer herself maintains her faith in the long-age paradigm.9 Dino bone cells and proteins Schweitzer’s more recent research makes long ages even harder to believe. Here, she analyzed bone from two dinosaurs, the famousTyrannosaurus rex (MOR 112510) and a large duck-billed dinosaur called Brachylophosaurus canadensis (MOR 2598).11 Bone is an amazing structure with the ability to re-work in response to stress, 12 and uses the finely designed protein osteocalcin,13 which has been found in the best known duck-billed dinosaur, Iguanadon, ‘dated’ to 120 Ma.14 The most plentiful cells in bones are osteocytes. These have a distinctive branching structure that connects to other osteocytes, and have a “vital role” in “immediate responses to changing stresses.”10 James D. San Antonio, Mary H. Schweitzer, Shane T. Jensen, Raghu Kalluri, Michael Buckley, Joseph P. R. O. Orgel. (2011). Dinosaur Peptides Suggest Mechanisms of Protein Survival. PLoS ONE 6(6): e20381. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0020381 Schweitzer’s team again removed the hard bony mineral with the chelating agent EDTA. They found “transparent cell-like microstructures with dentritic [branching, just the shape expected for osteocytes] processes, some containing internal contents,” from both dinos.They also used antibodies to detect the globular proteins actin and tubulin, used to make filaments and tubes in vertebrates. The proteins from both dinos had similar binding patterns to the same proteins from ostrich and alligator. They are not found in bacteria, so this rules out contamination. In particular, these antibodies did not bind to the type of bacteria that forms biofilms, “thus a biofilm origin for these structures is not supported.”10 Furthermore, they tested for collagen, a fibrousanimal protein, and it was found in these bones—but not in surrounding sediments. Cells are usually completely degraded soon after the death of the organism, so how could ‘bone cells’ and the molecules that comprise them persist in Mesozoic [evolutionary dino-age] bone?—Mary Schweitzer et al. Furthermore, because actin, tubulin, and collagen are not unique to bone, they tested for a very distinctive osteocyte protein called PHEX. This stands forPhosphate-regulating endopeptidase, X-linked, which is vital in depositing the hard bone mineral. And indeed, antibodies specific to PHEX detected this unique bone protein. 15 Detecting a distinctive bone protein is very strong support for osteocyte identification. The problem for long ages is as they ask:Cells are usually completely degraded soon after the death of the organism, so how could ‘bone cells’ and the molecules that comprise them persist in Mesozoic [evolutionary dino-age] bone? 10They try to solve this problem by proposing that bone protects the cells from bacteria that cause degradation. Bone would hinder the cells from swelling that comes before cells self-destruct (autolysis) as well. They also propose that the surfaces of the mineral crystals attract and destroy enzymes that would otherwise speed up degradation. They propose that iron may play a vital role too, both by helping to cross-link and stabilize the proteins, as well as by acting as an anti-oxidant. Actually, this is all reasonable from a reationist perspective, up to a point. Measured decay rates of some proteins are compatible with an age of about 4,500 years (since the Flood), but not with many millions of years. However, seeing not only proteins but even cell microstructures after 4,500 years is still surprising, considering how easily bacteria can normally attack them. These ideas could help explain survival over thousands of years. But they seem totally implausible for millions of years, since the above preservation proposals could not stop ordinary breakdown by water (hydrolysis) over vast eons.16 Dino DNA However, even under the best preservation conditions at –5°C, our model predicts that no intact bonds (average length = 1 bp [base pair]) will remain in the DNA ‘strand’ after 6.8 Myr.—M.E. Allentoft et al. The problem for long-agers is even more acute with their discovery of DNA. Estimates of DNA stability put its upper limit of survival at 125,000 years at 0°C, 17,500 years at 10°C and 2,500 years at 20°C.2 One recent report said:

“There is a general belief that DNA is ‘rock solid’—extremely stable,” says Brandt Eichman, associate professor of biological sciences at Vanderbilt, who directed the project. “Actually DNA is highly reactive.” On a good day about one million bases in the DNA in a human cell are damaged. These lesions are caused by a combination of normal chemical activity within the cell and exposure to radiation and toxins coming from environmental sources including cigarette smoke, grilled foods and industrial wastes. 17 A recent paper on DNA shows that it might be able to last as much as 400 times longer in bone.18 But even there, there is no way that DNA could last the evolutionary time since dino extinction. Their figures of the time till complete disintegration of DNA (“no intact bonds”) is 22,000 years at 25°C, 131,000 years at 15°C, 882,000 years at 5°C; and even if it could somehow be kept continually below freezing point at –5°C, it could survive only 6.83 Ma—only about a tenth of the assumed evolutionary age. The researchers state:However, even under the best preservation conditions at –5°C, our model predicts that no intact bonds (average length = 1 bp [base pair]) will remain in the DNA ‘strand’ after 6.8 Myr. This displays the extreme improbability of being able to amplify a 174 bp DNA fragment from an 80–85 Myr old Cretaceous bone. 18Yet Schweitzer’s team detected DNA in three independent ways. Indeed, one of these chemical tests and specific antibodies specifically detect DNA in its double–stranded form. This shows that it was quite well preserved, since short strands of DNA less than about 10 bp don’t form stable duplexes. The stain DAPI 19 lodges in the minor groove of a stable double helix, which requires even more bp. (see diagram below) Again, the first possible response by long-agers is “contamination”. But the DNA was not found everywhere, but only in certain internal regions of the ‘cells’. This pattern was just like in ostrich cells, but nothing like biofilm taken from other sources and exposed to the same DNAdetecting pattern. This is enough to rule out bacteria, because in more complex cells (such as ours and dinos), the DNA is stored in a small part of the cell—the nucleus.Futhermore, Schweitzer’s team detected a special protein called histone H4. Not only is yet another protein a big problem for millions of years, but this is a specific protein for DNA. (DNA is Deoxy-riboNucleic Acid, so is negatively charged, while histones are alkaline so positively charged, so they attract DNA). In more complex organisms, the histones are tiny spools around which the DNA is wrapped.20 But histones are not found in bacteria. So, as Schweitzer et al. say, “These data support the presence of non-microbial DNA in these dinosaur cells.”11 Conclusion It’s hard to improve on one of Mary Schweitzer’s early quotes: It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But of course, I couldn’t believe it. I said to the lab technician: “The bones are, after all, 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?”21 But this just shows the grip of the long-age paradigm. A more reasonable and indeed scientific question would be: This looks like modern bone; I have seen blood cells [and blood vessels] and detected hemoglobin [and now actin, tubulin, collagen, histones, and DNA], and real chemistry shows they can’t survive for 65 million years. What I don’t see is the claimed millions of years. So we should abandon this doctrine. Squirming at the Squishosaur A refutation of a progressive creationist response to our articles on the finding of soft dinosaur tissue by Carl Wieland 16 May 2005 It had to happen, I suppose. The lashback from ‘progressive creationists’ about our excited announcements on the soft tissue found in a dinosaur fossil (Still soft and stretchy: Dinosaur soft tissue find—a stunning rebuttal of “millions of years” and “Ostrich-osaurus” discovery?: Shedding more light on the new startling find of soft tissue in a T. rexbone). The ministry Reasons To Believe (RTB), propagating the views of ‘progressive creationist’ astronomer Hugh Ross, is totally committed to the millions of years philosophy. This despite the fact that, sadly, this has to involve abandonment of any consistent, time-honoured, and intellectually honest approach to hermeneutics (as is overwhelmingly clear from my colleague Dr Sarfati’s classic book Refuting Compromise). In fact, it turns the words of the Lord Jesus on humanity’s time of appearance upside down, and puts millions of years of bloodshed, suffering ofnephesh (soulish) creatures, extinction, thorns and cancer before Adam (the Curse before the Fall), and much, much more that is equally tragic (So, they could scarcely ‘let it slide’ when our web articles, picked up by tens of thousands and circulated widely, said things like: ‘This discovery gives immensely powerful support to the proposition that dinosaur fossils are not millions of years old at all, but were mostly fossilized under catastrophic conditions a few thousand years ago at most’ The first ‘counter’ was a radio broadcast featuring Hugh Ross and associate Dr Fazale (Fuz) Rana. That referred to some ‘detective work’ done by one of their apologists, a Greg Moore, who has now published two articles on this sort of topic on the RTB website, the latest being the one rebutted here. (The previous one was attacking our announcements on the 1997 discovery, by the same researcher, of red blood cells.) This article cites the RTB broadcast five times. Even more importantly, the original article, ‘Dinosaur Blood?’, by this same author acknowledges that its ‘background’ is an article by one Gary Hurd, an antitheistic social scientist, posted on an unsavoury atheist site; Moore’s follow-up here largely follows Hurd as well.In view of the importance of the issue, the entire article 1 has been reproduced here under the ‘fair use’ provisions (so no-one could think that we had misrepresented or selectively quoted it). I respond to it in interspersed ‘email style’. As will I trust be clear, apart from some hairsplitting about definitions, and despite clever use of prejudicial language and similar rhetorical maneuvers, no evidence has been presented that would generate any discomfort in our standing behind the conclusions of the articles. In fact, if anything, our conclusions are reinforced by the transparent desperation in some of the tactics employed.

DID BIRDS REALLY EVOLVED FROM DINOSAURS ‘Feathered’ dinos: no feathers after all! by Dr Jonathan D Sarfati Published: 24 July 2012 (GMT+10) Sinosauropteryx specimen GMV 2124, from Liaoning Province, China; in the Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde (State Museum of Natural History), Karlsruhe, Germany. Note the classic ‘dead dino posture’—head thrown back, tail extended, with hind limbs bent—called opisthotonus, the result of muscle spasms caused by suffocation. Ever since Darwin, evolutionists have had a huge difficulty: the fossil record lacks the innumerable ‘missing links’ predicted by them and required by their theory. Instead, all evolutionists can produce are a handful of debatable examples (see The Links are Missing); whereas it’s not just links that are missing but whole lengths in the evolutionary chain! From time to time, evolutionists produce a transitional-series-du-jour. One of the most prominent recent claims is that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs, a supposedly carnivorous group that included T. Rex andVelociraptor. However, even a number of evolutionary paleo-ornithologists (fossil bird experts), such as Alan Feduccia, Professor Emeritus at the University of North Carolina, have been harshly critical of the dogmatic way in which the theory has been promoted. They partly blame this dogma for the notorious Archaeoraptor hoax of 1999–2000. Another big problem is the hugely different avian lung design. The alleged first bird Archaeopteryx had the classic avian through-flow lungs, while the alleged feathered dino Sinosauropteryx had a clearly reptilian bellows lung. And it wasyounger than Archaeopteryx, according to the evolutionists’ own dating methods and contrary to evolutionary expectations. As Feduccia likes to quip, “You can’t be older than your grandfather.” While evolutionists claim that a trait might persist in a lineage well after a descendant lineage has evolved, the evidence they are claiming dates the version with a fully-formed avian lung prior to the other. When did the avian lung, then, evolve? And the main point was that evolution was alleged to be supported by the order of fossil succession, but clearly this is not so. Feathered dinosaurs? One major point evolutionists use to support their ‘missing link’ between birds and dinos is dinosaurs having feathers. One of the most famous isSinosauropteryx (meaning Chinese reptilian wing), a tiny creature discovered in 1996. The largest known specimen weighed only about 0.55 kg (1.2 lb), and was only 1.07 m (3.5 ft) long. This included its tail, the longest in relation to its total body length of any theropod.CMI has long pointed out that there is nothing in the biblical creationist model that states that dinosaurs must lack feathers. Having said that, however, we also point out that the examples to date have been far from convincing. There is good reason to believe that the feathers were just frayed structural collagen fibres.1,2 Nonetheless, the feather claim has its defenders as well, such as Prof. Zhang Fucheng of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and his colleagues, who claim to be “refuting recent claims that the filaments are partially decayed dermal collagen fibres.”3 This Struthiomimus dinosaur is also in the ‘dead dinosaur pose’. To support their claimed refutation, Zhang et al. claimed to have discovered colourproducing cell organelles called eumelanosomes and pheomelanosomes in a Sinosauropteryx specimen. These produce the very dark eumelanin and reddish-brown pheomelanin pigments in feathers (see also Colourful creature coats). From this, they argued that they even had proof for stripes on its tail. But Prof. Theagarten Lingham-Soliar at the University of KwaZulu Natal, South Africa (and co-author of Ref’s 1 and 2) has criticized their claims as an: “optical illusion created when the SEM [scanning electron micrograph] is reproduced at low image size.”4 And in a recent paper, he has provided further evidence against this claim.5 Animal decay As noted above, Sinosauropteryx had a reptilian lung. How could we know? Because unlike most dinosaur fossils, which are nothing but mineralized bones, this creature was well enough preserved that one could analyze the shape of some of its internal organs. The fact that these details were preserved points to very rapid burial, before these organs could rot or be scavenged away. (Since the discovery ofSinosauropteryx, dinosaur blood cells, blood vessels and collagen, and osteocalcin have been found, which could not have lasted millions of years.) Also, the preservation of the internal organs would seem to rule out vertebrate predators or scavengers, since they “usually target the gut first.” Linnaeus (1767) stated that three flies may decompose the cadaver of a horse as quickly as a lion.—Theagarten LinghamSoliar. Therefore, Lingham-Soliar wanted to find out why Sinosauropteryx should be so well preserved. He noted the typical ‘dead dinosaur posture’ with the neck and tail thrown backwards (all the fossils illustrated in this article illustrate that posture). In the last few years, scientists have realized that this posture was actually opisthotonus, the result of severe muscle spasms caused by malfunctioning of the central nervous system, especially with oxygen deprivation. 6 Thus they are the final death throes, which we have argued is consistent with most of them being drowned or buried alive by the Flood. Since no-one saw the creature die and fossilize, the next best thing is to see what happens to dead animals. (The study of decay and fossilization is called taphonomy). Lingham-Soliar analyzed two dead animals over time in a ‘natural’ setting: a

genet (Genetta genetta), a cat-like animal but probably in the mongoose kind; and the Mozambique spitting cobra (Naja mossambica), the second deadliest snake in Africa, after the black mamba. Sparing some of the gory details, with the genet, within a day, internal decomposition and bloating had already forced liquids out the body openings. Then maggots had their fill, but notably, not in the gut region until day 4. After that, the decay increased exponentially, so only one day later, almost all the soft tissue was gone, and the maggots left the carcass to pupate. The authors note about the creationist founder of taxonomy (classification): Wikimedia/H. Raab Archaeopteryx lithographica, Museum für Naturkunde(Museum of Natural History) in Berlin. This is a picture of the actual fossil, not a cast. It also shows clear signs of opisthotonus. Linnaeus (1767) stated that three flies may decompose the cadaver of a horse as quickly as a lion. With the cobra, the process took longer, but once again, it was mainly maggots, but this time also ants, and again the gut was targeted quite late. Also, the insects liked the protein-rich connective tissue under the scales, which quickly separated the scales from the body. The authors note: it is possible to hypothesize from this phenomenon why scales are so rarely (or sparsely) preserved in small non-avian dinosaurs such as Sinosauropteryx, Compsognathus andJuravenoter—the absence of scales have frequently been used to suggest the presence of feathers in the animals’ primary condition. But neither the genet nor the cobra carcasses exhibited opisthotonus, which ruled out the earlier idea that the dead dinosaur posture was caused by post-mortem changes. Applications to Sinosauropteryx death As noted, the dead dinosaur posture indicates death by suffocation. The specimen seemed to exhibit the signs of the same purged decomposition liquids as the dead genet. The preserved gut (including a pair of eggs), indicate that any scavenging was likely by insects, then the carcass was quickly buried “at most a few days after death.” The authors attribute the death to toxic volcanic gases, then burial by volcanic ash or mud flows. Actually the evidence, considering how widespread the dead dino posture is (also seen inArchaeopteryx), is consistent with the Global Flood. This would produce greatly increased volcanic activity. The rapid burial is also consistent with the Flood. But what about insect decomposition? Actually, computer simulations have shown that the flood waters would not rise steadily but would fluctuate so that land would be exposed for days at a time. 7 This is why we find dinosaur footprints and eggs (see In the footsteps of giants). This exposure would allow insects time to colonize the carcass, but not time to eat the gut, before it was buried completely. Crest not feathers Back to the heading of the article, the dead dino posture provided insights into what the claimed feather filaments actually were. The death throes caused buckling of the thick integument (skin) on the animal’s back, which would be possible only if the filaments were part of a single structure not separate feathers. compressive and tensile forces acting on a clearly unified structure, i.e. an upright frill or crest overlying the neck, back and tail ofSinosauropteryx … as opposed to individual proto-feathers, is considered more reasonable … the results include the most controversial issue associated with Sinosauropteryx and strongly demonstrate, based on soft tissue analysis and forensic animation, that the dorsal, externally preserved integumental tissue represents a dorsal crest rather than protofeathers … This supports their earlier statement: The description presented here shows that the filamentous structures were internal support fibres that together with the overlying dermal tissue … comprised a composite structure, i.e. an external frill or crest (compare Jesus lizard, Basiliscus plumifrons, and frilled lizard, Chlamydosaurus kingii), comprehensively refuting the notion of free filaments, i.e. protofeathers in Sinosauropteryx. In further support, “the tail terminates in a unique, smoothly edged, spatula-shaped structure”, which near the end provided “little surface area for the attachment of protofeathers.” Also, because this creature seemed to live near a lake, according to evolutionary reconstructions anyway, “a crest-like structure on the tail or body or both [would be] useful in swimming”, so they express amazement that such a structure had not been considered. Conclusion While feathered dinosaurs are not ruled out by the biblical creationist model, the claims of feathers are looking more and more dubious. In one of the most famous claimed feathered dinosaurs, Sinosauropteryx, the evidence indicates that the filaments were not separate feathers, but support fibres for a unified structure like a crest. Also, the death posture indicates suffocation, and careful analysis of the normal decay process of animal carcasses in nature shows that it must have been buried completely within a few days at most. Update: Another theory for the ‘dead dino posture’ is also consistent with the Flood: it turns out that recently killed chickens spontaneously go into the same arched-back pose after immersion under water (see also Water and death throes). They have a strong ligament along the spine, the Ligamentum elasticum, which is already taut. The buoyancy under water enabled the ligament to overcome the weight and pull the neck and tail back. As the muscles decayed, this ligament encountered even less resistance, so the bending increased even more. This effect would have been even stronger in dinosaurs with long, slender necks and tails. They would have needed very strong, elastic ligaments for energy saving. The length would have also increased the leverage of the elastic forces. Swiss sedimentologist Achim Reisdorf and German paleontologist Michael Wuttke, authors of a detailed study8, explained: A strong Ligamentum elasticum was essential for all long necked dinosaurs with a long tail. The preloaded ligament helped them saving energy in their terrestrial mode of life. Following their death, at which they were immersed in water, the stored energy along the vertebra was strong enough to arch back the spine, increasingly so as more and more muscles and other soft parts were decaying. It is a special highlight that, in the Compsognathus specimen, these gradual steps of recurvature can be substantiated, too. Therefore, biomechanics is ruling the postmortem weird posture of a carcass in a watery grave, not death throes.9,10Of course, a Globl Flood would provide excellent conditions for full immersion of animals!

Archaeopteryx (unlike Archaeoraptor) is NOT a hoax—it is a true bird, not a “missing link” by Jonathan Sarfati, CMI–Australia 24 March 2000 by Steve Cardno With all the publicity about the Archaeoraptor fiasco (see Archaeoraptor Hoax Update—National Geographic Recants!), some have recalled the 1986 claim by Sir Fred Hoyle and Dr Chandra Wickramasinghe that Archaeopteryx is a forgery.1Archaeopteryx is one of the most famous of the alleged transitional forms promoted by evolutionists. This is probably why some anti-Darwinians are keen to dismiss it as a forgery. However, in the article, Bird evolution flies out the window, the creationist anatomist Dr David Menton shows that Archaeopteryx is a true bird with flight feathers, not a transitional form—and certainly not a feathered dinosaur. And Dr Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself (see Feduccia v Creationists), says: “Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.”2 Both these expert scientists totally reject the charge of forgery. Dr Menton points out that the Archaeopteryxbones have tiny bumps where the feathers were attached to the bones by ligaments. This was unexpected, so impossible to attribute to a forgery. So it is simply wrong to say that the feathers are just imprints added to a dino skeleton. Also, Alan Fedducia, in his encyclopedic The Origin and Evolution of Birds,3 cites a number of reasons why Fred Hoyle is completely wrong. For example, limestone often contains dendritic (tree-like) patterns formed by precipitating manganese dioxide, and they are unique as are snowflakes. Some of them are on both the slab and counterslab containing the Solnhofen Archaeopteryx fossil, including some on top of the feather imprints. Alan Charig et al. found that when he backwardly printed a negative photograph of the counterslab dendrite patterns, they match perfectly with the corresponding dendrites of the main slab. Therefore the dendrites must have formed on the bedding plane before the slab was split. Since that book, more recent evidence has even further devastated the hoax theory: The skeletons had pneumatized vertebrae and pelvis. This indicates the presence of both a cervical and abdominal air sac, i.e. at least two of the five sacs present in modern birds. This in turn indicates that the unique avian lung design was already present in what most evolutionists claim is the earliest bird.4 An evolutionist trying to forge a dinosaur with feathers would not have thought to pneumatize allegedly reptilian bones. Rather, the evidence supports the creationist view that birds have always been birds. Analysis of the skull with computer tomography (CT) scanning shows that Archaeopteryx had a brain like a modern bird’s, three times the size of that of a dinosaur of equivalent size (although smaller than that of living birds). Archaeopteryx even had large optic lobes to process the visual input needed for flying. Furthermore, even the inner ear had a cochlea length and semicircular canal propoprtions were in the range of a modern flying bird’s. This implies that Archaeopteryx could hear in a similar way, and also had the sense of balance required for coordinating flight. 5 Pterosaurs likewise had similar brain structures for flight—the large optic lobes, semicircular canals for balance, and huge floccular lobes, probably for coordination of the head, eye and neck allowing gaze-stabilization while flying. 6 Once more, a forger adding feathers to a dino would not have thought to make an avian braincase, while it is yet another problem for evolutionists. Creation Ministries International will not stock any books that promote the Archaeopteryx hoax idea, at least not without a disclaimer, because it is the truth which shall set you free (cf. John 8:32), not error. Archaeoraptor—Phony ‘feathered’ fossil The latest ‘feathered dinosaur’ claim provokes even some evolutionists to use words like ‘total hoax’ by Jonathan Sarfati 3 February 2000 A National Geographic (NG) article ‘Feathers for T. Rex?’ by the Senior Assistant Editor, Christopher Sloan, 1 has attracted fierce criticism from some prominent evolutionists for its promotion of the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs. The article even illustrated a baby T. rex with feathers, as well as putting feathers on another theropod dinosaur, Deinonychus. In a prominent heading, the article proclaimed: ‘We can now say that birds are theropods just as confidently as we say that humans are mammals.’2 It was based on a fossil illegally exported3 from Liaoning Province, China, tentatively named Archaeoraptor liaoningensis, allegedly a ‘feathered dinosaur’. Dinosaur-to-bird theory: Problems! Readers of Creation magazine should be familiar with the extensive scientific critiques of the dino-to-bird evolutionary theory, despite the sensationalist claims in the media—see some of articles hyperlinked in note 4. Even among evolutionists, some have refused to be swept along by the hype. For example, Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, wrote an encyclopedic book on living and fossil birds. 5 He pointed out much evidence against the dinosaur-to-bird theory, including the huge differences in lung and embryonic thumb structure. Also, dinosaurs have exactly the wrong anatomy for developing flight, with their large tails and hindlimbs and short forelimbs. And the socalled ‘feathered dinosaurs’ are ‘dated’ by evolutionists at millions of years later than undoubted birds. His colleague, University of Kansas paleontologist Larry Martin, commented on the wishful thinking and bias of another ‘feathered dinosaur’ claim: ‘You have to put this into perspective. To the people who wrote the paper, the chicken would be a feathered dinosaur.’ 6 Evolutionist slams National Geographic for bias and ‘tabloid journalism’ But the NG article was the last straw in shameless sensationalism for Storrs Olson, Curator of Birds at the National Museum of Natural History of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC. He wrote: ‘National Geographic has reached an all-time low for engaging in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism. … ‘it eventually became clear to me that National Geographic was not interested in anything other than the prevailing dogma that birds evolved from dinosaurs. …

‘Sloan’s article takes the prejudice to an entirely new level and consists in large part of unverifiable or undocumented information that ”makes” the news rather than reporting it. … ‘[The feathered dinosaur pictures are] simply imaginary and ha[ve] no place outside of science fiction. ‘The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties in their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age—the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion.’7 Among other things, Dr Olsen, an evolutionist, pointed out: ‘None of the structures illustrated in Sloan’s article that are claimed to be feathers have actually been proven to be feathers. Saying that they are is little more than wishful thinking that has been presented as fact.’ ‘hollow, hairlike structures characterize protofeathers’8 —as: ‘nonsense considering that protofeathers exist only as a theoretical construct, so that the internal structure of one is even more hypothetical.’7 Piltdown bird?9 Since Dr Olsen wrote that scathing critique of NG, even more disturbing news has surfaced. An eminent paleontologist in Beijing, Xu Xing, now claims that the fossil is not even genuine. Rather, ‘Archaeoraptor liaoningensis’ was really combined from the body and head of a birdlike creature and the tail of a different dinosaur. Dr Xu said that a fossil in a private collection in China contains the mirror image of the tail of the alleged Archaeoraptor. But it mightn’t be a deliberate fake like ‘Piltdown Man’, a human skull and an ape’s jaw. Dr Xu said: ‘For science, this is a disaster. When pieces are stolen and smuggled out, sometimes blocks of fossils are matched together mistakenly. That can be a big mistake, and it misleads the public.’10 At the time of writing, research is still ongoing, but Czerkas said that Xu may be right, and National Geographic plans to publish a correction in the March issue.10 After that, scientists in China claimed to have discovered yet another faked tail—this one added by a Chinese farmer to a flying pterosaur. Apparently this one has fooled the editors of Nature, another journal singled out by Dr Olsen (above) as overzealous to proselytize the dinosaur-to-bird theory.11 History of hoaxes This wouldn’t be the first time that National Geographic, in its eagerness to proselytise for the evolutionary faith, has rushed into print with ‘evidence’ that has turned out to be a hoax or an overblown claim that was later discredited. Many years ago, the magazine had a glossy picture displaying amazing artistic licence of our supposed ancestor, the ‘missing link’ Zinjanthropus boisei or ‘Nutcracker man’, discovered by Louis Leakey.12 Now no evolutionist would claim that this robust australopithecine was a human ancestor—see Marvin Lubenow’s book Bones of Contention. Some atheistic/evolutionary/sceptical/anti-Christian websites are, amazingly, trying to downplay the Archaeoraptor fiasco, by pointing out that it was ‘science’ that put it right. Of course, they deceitfully equate ‘science’ and ‘evolution’, although evolutionary wishful thinking was responsible for the hoax in the first place! And now they tell us that NG is a popular general interest magazine and not a peer-reviewed scientific journal—not a peep from them while NG’s shameless evolutionary sensationalizing remained unexposed! See also Be sceptical of the Skeptics! What should we think about ‘feathered dino’ claims? The dino-to-bird scenario has become a dogma into which the evidence must be twisted. Don’t believe everything you read in the media. Mostly, the media are biased towards evolution and. We should not be surprised that they splash supposedly pro-evolution ‘evidence’ on the front pages, but when this ‘evidence’ is refuted, even by other evolutionists, this is either buried in an obscure place, or not reported at all. This has happened repeatedly— remember the alleged life from Mars in an Antarctic meteorite, now almost universally discounted? See the articles hyperlinked in Ref. 13. And it has happened with many other ‘missing link’ claims, including alleged ‘feathered dinosaurs’. Another example is Pakicetus, based on a few skull fragments, which was heavily touched up as a ‘missing link’ between land mammals and whales, to indoctrinate schoolteachers. As shown, the NG article simply takes media sensationalism to a new low. But for a change, the news media have publicised theArchaeoraptor problems—of course, accusations of fraud usually sell newspapers far better than quiet discrediting of ‘evidences’ for evolution that informed evolutionists no longer believe.There is nothing in creationist theory forbidding dinosaurs from having feathers—it would not make them any more a transitional form than the egg-laying mammals, the platypus and echidna. But so far the evidence is lacking. And even if they existed, it would not prove they evolved from scales—feathers are completely different from scales in just about every respect.4,14The dino-to-bird claim has huge scientific problems as outlined above.4,5,7 In fact, Feduccia wrote: ‘All in all, I find the whole dino-bird business a total hoax.’15 Flying dinosaurs, flightless dinosaurs and other evolutionary fantasies by Dr Emil Silvestru–Canada 18 March 2005 (pre-publication version) ‘We can even choose to apply the concept of birdness yet further back, although this would include animals that are even further removed from our common understanding of what birds are.’This is what the new exhibition opened at the Royal Ontario Museum (ROM) in Toronto from 12 March to 5 September 2005 says on a poster. Although the official title of the exhibition is ‘Feathered Dinosaurs and the Origin of Flight’ it turns out one of the main topics is in a sense language, not fossils. This is because it ventures into altering the definition of birds in order to accommodate fossil discoveries into the ever-changing evolutionary scenarios. The organizers are the Dinosaur Museum of Blanding, Utah, and the Fossil Administration Office of Liaoning, China, in collaboration with the Geological Institute of the Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences. The history The fossils come mainly from the famous Liaoning area in China, but the real star—Scansoriopteryx heilmanni(‘Heilmann’s climbing wing’)—comes from the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region (in China). Allegedly, 40 to 60 million years older than the Liaoning fossils and 25 to 45 million years older than the ancient bird Archaeopteryx, this is hailed as the earliest feathered flying dinosaur or as the earliest bird! Yes, confusing as it may sound, they haven’t made up their minds yet, because there are so many unusual fossils preserved in Liaoning that both approaches seem to fit.

Some of these Chinese fossils have been presented in previous exhibitions around the world (see Chinese feathered dinosaurs, where are the skeptics?), but this exhibit’s layout and some of its diagrams and posters are a clear departure from the well-known evolutionary story of the dinosaur–bird connection. Even more so since the same fossils in an exhibition with the same title in San Diego, California, presented a significantly different story (see www.sdnhm.org/exhibits /feathered/). To start with, one of the very first posters clearly states, ‘The few dinosaurs that were known in the 1800s were initially thought of as giant reptiles or lizards. However, scientists soon realized that there was some kind of relationship between dinosaurs and birds. What the actual relationship is still remains a question to this day [emphasis added].’ Figure 1: Click image to enlarge. Partial cladogram showing the supposed evolutionary relationship between Deinonychus and modern birds Cladistics Since a clear-cut answer to that question cannot be offered, the approach this exhibit takes is cladistics—which means it determines the evolutionary relationships of living things based on derived similarities, unlike phenetics, which groups organisms based on their overall similarity and more traditional approaches, which tend to rely on key characters. A cladogram—the family tree of cladistics—is made up of a series of connected nodes (figure 1). Ideally, each node splits the chain into two upward evolutionary branches, one leading to the next node, the other one to an existing or extinct group of animals. One of the main consequences of cladistics is that it allows so-called primitive and evolved creatures (that seem to suggest ‘grandparents’ and ‘grandchildren’ of each other in evolutionary ways of thinking) to coexist, claiming they share a common ancestor—not that the ‘grandchild/evolved’ form actually came from the ‘grandparent/primitive’ one. Cladistics replaces this unknown common ancestor with a node that bears the name of a group (clade), but it doesn’t give a face since the actual (completely hypothetical) ancestral animal has not been discovered! The cladogram called ‘The dinosaurian heritage of birds’ at the very end of the exhibition’s long winding path tells a very long story. But it is worth a complete read in order to understand the extent of wishful thinking with which cladistics abounds. Translated into plain English, it says: from a foggy unknown ancestor came reptiles (a clade). An unknown reptile diverged at some stage into turtles and into another clade called Diapsida (with two openings). Later, an unknown diapsid diverged into the group oflizards, snakes, etc. and into a clade named Archosaurs (ruling lizards). An unknown archosaur then diverged into crocodiles and another clade called Ornithodira (bird necks). An unknown ornithodiran then diverged (by way of evolution, obviously) into Pterosaurs (winged reptiles) and into Dinosaurs (terrible lizards). As evolution stubbornly continued, dinosaurs later allegedly branched out into Ornithischians(bird-hipped dinosaurs) and Saurischians (lizard-hipped dinosaurs). An unknown saurischian went on to diverge into Sauropodomorphs (with legs like sauropods) and so on up until Neognathae (modern birds).It is easy to notice that not a single actual common ancestor has ever been discovered; the hypothetical creature in each case is assigned to a group consisting of many different types. Very convenient, yet lacking the basic evidence most people would reasonably want to have. Ironically, the ROM has one little item related to that. As you enter the lobby, lift your eyes and have a look at the beautiful gilded mosaic on the vaulted ceiling (figure 2). Right in the centre there is a square bearing the inscription, ‘THAT ALL MEN MAY KNOW HIS WORK’ (Job 37:7). Figure 2: Mosaic on the ceiling of the Unfortunately, this small detail is completely ignored by the vast majority of Royal Ontario Museum’s foyer the visitors. For them this is a temple of unquestioned pagan, secular, humanistic religion and teachings. It is sad to see how much our culture has changed. The exhibition The introduction to the exhibit shows the clever imagination of the bird-dinosaur believer. Models of feathered Deinonychus (terrible claw) are exhibited in the shadow of Therizinosaurus, a gigantic combination of Sesame Street’s Big Bird and a giant sloth (figures 3 and 4). Therizinosaurus is believed to be the ancestor of dromaeosaurs. This creature, with 1 foot-long claws on its forelimbs, gazes down on its alleged relatives and visitors alike as they exit the exhibition. To the left there is a nice set of three non-feathered Deinonychus reconstructions (figure 5) with the following text: These sculptures were originally made between 1986 and 1989 with scaly hides, based on fossil skin impressions from other dinosaurs. When Deinonychus was first described in 1969, it was thought to be a bird-like dinosaur and a possible ancestor to birds. Now it is known that Deinonychus itself had ancestors that flew—flying dromaeosaurs—which makes it a form of flightless bird instead of a dinosaur. Had Deinonychus been found after the discovery of fossil flying dromaeosaurs in China, scientists could not have thought of itas a scaly dinosaur, but as a bird that had lost its ability to fly [emphasis added].

The implications of this text are massive and reveal the flakiness of the concept of evolutionary trees. First notice that this text clearly states what the exhibit is all about: a fundamental change in the interpretation of long-known dinosaur fossils. It also shows that many of the all-too-familiar features of many dinosaurs are in fact inferred, not demonstrated—though that is not the impression one is left with on visiting any exhibit on the topic. It is almost pathetic to claim that science once believed (mind you, at that time the wording was

Figure 3: Feathered models of deinonychus, with a therizinosaurus in the background more like ‘we know that …’) Deinonychus was a ‘possible ancestor to birds’ but now we know the same animal was a degenerate bird descended from the flying dromaeosaurs! This text claims that flying dromaeosaurs were in fact birds, whose descendants lost their ability to fly. However, later into the exhibit dromaeosaurs are considered flying reptiles not birds! The famous Discovery Channel documentary Walking with Dinosaurs (see‘Walking with … untruths!’) depicted the velociraptors as ferocious and shrewd predatory dinosaurs. Yet now we find they were in fact de-evolved birds (because the Velociraptor like the Deinonychus are considered dromaeosaurs). Figure 4: Close-up of a therizinosaurus

The fossils The exquisite details that have been preserved are spectacular. Even veins within leaves and insect wings are clearly seen on the surfaces of the lake and volcanic sediments of the Yixian Formation (Early Cretaceous—allegedly 125 million years old).1 After spending many hours closely looking at the exhibits, I came to the conclusion that feathers are present on the fossils of birds, but the presence of feathers on dromaeosaurs and pterosaurs (flying reptiles like Pterorhynchus) is very much a matter of speculation, with no clear evidence on display that they are true feathers and/or that they belong to the fossil dinosaurs. There is no doubt that thin dark or even black filaments are associated with many of the small dromaeosaur fossils. Yet they could just as easily be the remains of a water plant that grew in those ancient lakes. There are at least two hints in this exhibition of such a possibility: The fossil Ginko species named Ckanowskia rigida is shown and described as having ‘thread-like’ leaves! In the ultraviolet image of the Pterorhynchus there is a marked contrast in colour between the bones and the alleged feathers, which suggests quite different origins of the two. Another possibility is that the filaments are from bird feathers which are preserved with the dinosaur fossils. There is a significant density of preserved bird fauna at this location, one may safely assume there were a great many Figure 5: Non-feathered models of deinonychus nests, too. Since birds are known to use feathers to insulate/decorate their nests, it is possible that the violent volcanic eruptions that seem to have contributed to the rapid and excellent fossilization blew many of these nests and their contents into the lakes where they became closely associated with some of the dying dinosaurs and pterosaurs. It is also possible that this area was a traditional shedding area for birds (like in the case of penguins on certain shores) so that large amounts of feathers were incorporated in the rapidly depositing sediments. The one thing that amazed me as I was looking at these fossils—most of them compressed to almost 2-D—is how the paleontologists reconstruct such minute details of morphology and anatomy from flattened (in many cases displaced) skeletons. But then I remembered; these fellows would be doing their work with a clear image in their minds; like ‘apeman artists’, they would have pretty well known what they wanted to come up with. I was reminded of what Donald Johansen (the discoverer of the alleged human ancestor ‘Lucy’) admitted about bias, ‘I was trying to jam evidence of dates into a pattern that would support conclusions about fossils which, on closer inspection, the fossils themselves would not sustain.’ 2 Feather evolution In order to convince the visitor about the authenticity of the feathers on these dinosaurs, a large panel with the hypothetical development of feathers presents the evolution from a single filament (stage 1) to the full, asymmetrical flight feather (stage 5). However, no clear evidence is provided in this exhibition. The microphotographs that claim to show v-shaped structures (features considered to be feathers, in the skin ofPterorhynchus are unconvincing. These structures could be collagen fibres or fossilization artifacts, and to my eyes they look more like hairs. Finally, the photo enlargement of what is claimed to be a feather in the third stage (though it looks like one in the fourth stage in the adjacent diagram) is not as compelling a piece of evidence as they claim. I could again see many similarities with some water plants.One even more intriguing claim is that

a Psittacosaurus (considered the earliest ancestor of horned dinosaurs like the Triceratops) had ‘strand-like bristles’ (primitive feathers) on its tail. This ornithischian (bird-hipped dinosaur) is not considered an ancestor of birds, although it shares with them a ‘derived’ characteristic: the pelvic girdle (cladistics again). This is the only exhibited fossil that is clearly 3-D, so one can see more details. Yet those details do not really prove there are also feathers associated with the fossil. New ideas, new teachings wrapped in the same old story I found three of the texts posted in the exhibition especially riveting, as they seem to take logic one step closer to extinction:We now know that birds are not the only animals which had feathers. Pterosaurs, the flying reptiles, and some dinosaurs had feathers of one kind or another. This raises interesting questions: how were these three kinds of animals related to each other? Did feathers evolve once, twice or three separate times? Did one of these groups descend directly from one of the others or do the three groups share a distant common ancestor? How far back in time does each group go? A plain reading tells us that this means that birds are not dinosaurs since they are contrasted in the first sentence to pterosaurs and ‘some dinosaurs’. Yet another text states: You have seen that birds share many special—unique or nearly unique—features with dinosaurs [but there are many more differences]. The best way to explain these special shared features is to conclude that birds share common ancestors [or maybe a common Designer?] With other dinosaurs. Some of these shared characteristics are shown here on the cladogram. As you can see, modern birds (Aves, at top right) are the only surviving members of the vast dinosaur family. And the third text makes things even more confusing: However, the discovery that some dromaeosaurs could fly identifies them as birds and now places them within the class Aves. Furthermore, the discovery of Scansoriopteryx supports the alternative that birds could have evolved from ‘the trees down’. This discovery also suggests that a separate tree-dwelling ancestry for birds existed, one so old that it predated the appearance of theropod dinosaurs. So are birds dinosaurs or not? I must confess to faint bemusement at the use of the word ‘kind’ rather than ‘species’, ‘genus’, ‘family’, ‘clade’, etc. And there are more problems with the first text: feathers may have evolved three times! Once from scales (though that, by itself, represents a serious problem, see what CMI’s Dr Sarfati has to say about that in Skeptics/Australian Museum "Feathered Dinosaur" display: Knockdown argument against creation?). The second time from skin (in the case of pterosaurs) and finally from … well it’s not clear, since we don’t know what the ‘separate tree dwelling’ ancestors were and if they had scales or skin.In plain English, what this exhibition appears to say is: there are so many fossils which we believe are connected to the ancestry of birds that we cannot make up our minds about their evolution. It may well be that they followed a different evolutive path before the appearance of theropod dinosaurs because by the time theropod dinosaurs had feathers and some even flew, true birds were already present. But the unknown bird ancestor had to be a dinosaur because there are too many derived characteristics they share. Just as some birds lost their ability to fly, some of the flying dinosaurs also did, so that species like Velociraptor and Deinonychus have not evolved feathers for insulation but for flight, but in time they lost their ability to fly. Flightless birds and dinosaurs coexisted and competed, yet the dinosaurs died off all at the same time while some of the birds survived to this day. There are many questions left unanswered: Why is it that a very successful group of flying animals—pterosaurs—despite having ‘evolved’ feathers, never evolved into birds? Why is it that the animals that had the most important (and difficult-to-evolve) feature for flight, (i.e. massive forelimbs), did not evolve into birds, whereas others allegedly did? How could dromaeosaurs shift the vast majority of the physical strength from their lower limbs (all other theropods had 75% of their strength in their hips) to the upper limbs, in order to be capable of flight? Where did the genetic information for such a massive change come from? Mutations cannot possibly act in such a way. It is the Flood and the associated volcanic activity that killed, and so wonderfully fossilized, all these animals in the Liaoning area. They represent a clear archive of sudden death and burial in pooled, quiet water (the so-called ‘lake’ environment), where the sediments were fine and interbedded with volcanic ash, suitable for the fantastic preservation of the fossils. Immediately after burial, more energetic water flows brought in huge volumes of sediments which covered this exquisite archive, preserving it for the puzzlement of evolutionary paleontologists. The environment and circumstances, however, obviously favoured the birds and mammals, while the dinosaurs and pterosaurs became extinct some time later. New four-winged feathered dinosaur? by Jonathan Sarfati 28 January 2003 Papers have been flapping with new headlines about the latest in a long line of alleged dinosaur ancestors of birds. This one is claimed to be a sensational dinosaur with feathers on its hind legs, thus four ‘wings’. 1 This was namedMicroraptor gui— the name is derived from words meaning ‘little plunderer of Gu’ after the paleontologist Gu Zhiwei. Like so many of the alleged feathered dinosaurs, it comes from Liaoning province of northeastern China. It was about 3 feet (1 metre) long from its head to the tip of its long tail, but its body was only about the size of a pigeon. Microraptor gui has led to renewed interest in an almost forgotten idea that bird evolution went through a tetrapteryx phase (from Greek τέσσαρεςtessares four / τέταρτος tetartos fourth; πτέρυξ pteryx wing).2 However, once more there are serious problems with this ‘evidence’. Readers wishing to skip the detail can jump to to summary. Are the feathers genuine? We have often pointed out that there is nothing in the creationist model that states that dinosaurs could not have feathers (or fur, for that matter). However, nothing so far has been remotely convincing. The main candidates are simply collagen fibres, or are on animals that are not dinosaurs but flightless birds like Caudipteryx. [Update: see Dr Feduccia’s recent research supporting the identification as collagen, ‘Do Featured Dinosaurs Exist?: Testing the Hypothesis on Neontological and Paleontological Evidence’, by Alan Feduccia, Theagarten Lingham-Soliar, and J. Richard Hinchliffe, Journal of Morphology 266:125–166, 2005; Published Online: 10 October 2005 (DOI: 10.1002/jmor.10382).] The leading paleo-ornithologist and evolutionary critic of the dino-to-bird dogma, Dr Alan Feduccia, who is an evolutionist himself, sounded a note of caution about the ‘feathered dinosaurs’ in general in an interview with the evolutionary Discover magazine (below, emphasis added).3It certainly seems strange that all these ‘feathered dinosaurs’ come from a single province of China—the same place as the Archaeoraptorhoax came from. Indeed, the holotype (first named specimen) of Microraptor was in fact part of this hoax! 4 However, neither our case nor Feduccia’s against previous

‘feathered dinosaurs’ has ever depended on this particular problem, and the same is true of Microraptor gui, as will be shown. Discover: What about all the other evidence for feathered dinosaurs? Feduccia: When we see actual feathers preserved on specimens, we need to carefully determine if we are looking at secondarily flightless birds that have retained feathers and only superficially resemble dinosaurs, or if the specimens are in fact related to dinosaurs. That’s a difficult issue to deal with right now, given the existence of fake fossils. Discover: So far, only one feathered dinosaur, Archaeoraptor, has been publicly acknowledged as a forgery. You think there are others? Feduccia: Archaeoraptor is just the tip of the iceberg. There are scores of fake fossils out there, and they have cast a dark shadow over the whole field. When you go to these fossil shows, it’s difficult to tell which ones are faked and which ones are not. I have heard that there is a fake-fossil factory in northeastern China, in Liaoning Province, near the deposits where many of these recent alleged feathered dinosaurs were found. Journals like Nature don’t require specimens to be authenticated , and the specimens immediately end up back in China, so nobody can examine them. They may be miraculous discoveries, they may be missing links as they are claimed, but there is no way to authenticate any of this stuff. Discover: Why would anyone fake a fossil? Feduccia: Money. The Chinese fossil trade has become a big business. These fossil forgeries have been sold on the black market for years now, for huge sums of money. Anyone who can produce a good fake stands to profit. It is not unreasonable to apply Feduccia’s scepticism to the current find. Even the original paper should make us cautious. Commenting on the paper point-by-point: Notes on the specimens. Of the six specimens in the present study, IVPP V13476 was collected by the Liaoxi expedition team of the IVPP in 2001, IVPP V13352, V13320, V13477 and V13351 were purchased by the IVPP during the field seasons of 2001 and 2002, and TNP00996 was purchased by Tianjin Museum of Natural History in 2002. It is highly suspicious to rely on purchased fossils, since one has no proof of the geological context or whether they have been doctored. As Dr Feduccia says, no-one from Nature would have checked the authenticity of the specimen. Dr Storrs Olson, Curator of Birds at the National Museum of Natural History of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. has also noted that Nature’s reliability on this issue is highly suspect: ‘The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith.’ It’s vital to note that only one of the supposed feathers was found on the specimen actually collected by the authors (IVPP V13476). And this ‘feather’ was sufficiently indistinct that the authors could not discern its asymmetry (question mark in Table 1). Furthermore, this fossil that the authors actually collected was so unexciting that it did not even warrant having its photograph displayed for the reader to verify the feather claim. There are 18 illustrations of fossils in this paper, but all are of the purchased fossils. All the illustrated feathers (16 photos) are on the bought fossils, but especially IVPP V13352 (see Table 1). We have to rely solely on the authors’ claim that the fossil they collected had a feather on it and that it was clearly part of the Microraptor gui fossil. …We observed that there are some pieces of blocks mistakenly glued to the specimens; … So they admit that there were some dubious aspects to these specimens! …however, we excluded all the dubious parts from the study ( Fig. 1b). We carefully examined the specimens under the microscope and with high-resolution X-ray computerized tomography (CT) to test the authenticity of one of the studied specimens [ref.] (IVPP V13352) … But this is involves X-rays, so can test only for the authenticity of the bones, not the feathers. …and can guarantee the accuracy of the information that we provide in this study. Wow, that guarantee should reassure us all, despite the history of frauds from that region, and the fact that China has had major industries of faking ‘ancient’ artefacts for many years, e.g. ‘Ming’ vases, etc.! However, to be fair, it’s extremely unlikely that the lead researcher Dr Xu Xing himself would ever be part of any deliberate fraud, since he was one of those who exposed Archaeoraptor. Dating dilemma Once more, the ‘dating’ is problematic—the researchers ‘date’ their finds at 124–128 Ma (million years) ago. But this is yet another supposed ‘ancestor’ for birds that lived ~25 Ma after the first undoubted bird Archaeopteryx (153 Ma) and even about 10 Ma after the beaked birdConfuciusornis (135 Ma)! As Feduccia puts it, you can’t be older than your grandfather! Some of his critics argue that sometimes a grandfather can outlive his grandson. This is correct, but it boggles the mind that such an ‘advanced’ beaked bird like Confuciusornis could appear 10 million years before there is a trace of its ‘feathered dino ancestors’. More importantly, one of the major ‘evidence’ of evolution is how the evolutionary order supposedly matches the fossil sequence. Therefore the gross mismatch with the dino-birds is a severe challenge to the evolutionary explanation. Of course, the above simply grants their evolutionary assumptions for the purpose of the argument, and lays aside their problems (see Q&A pages on Young Earth Evidence and Radiometric Dating?—creationists don’t regard the fossil sequence as a sequence of age but a sequence of burial by the Flood and its after-effects). Another problem in this case was revealed inadvertently by Dr Angela Milner, Associate Keeper of Palaeontology at London’s Natural History Museum, who was quoted as follows: ‘With the dino-birds of Liaoning, the actual material, the keratin from the feathers, is still there. The discovery is stunning.’ 5 However, keratin is a protein, which is a type of condensation polymer, and is subject to degradation into its monomers. Well known observational evidence from chemistry shows that proteins could not possibly last for millions of years. It’s true that keratin is quite stable for a protein, but it is less stable than many man-made polymers. Feathers compost quite readily, and hair and skin soon disappear even in buried animals. Later, Dr Milner said that she was more tentative than the above statement the press attributed to her (and there is no reason to doubt her). However, it would not be the first time that keratin has been found in bird fossils ‘dated’ millions of years ago.6 So while we can’t be too dogmatic about M. gui specificially, the principle still stands. Gliding to flying? The dominant theory about bird evolution is the cursorial one, where flying birds evolved from running creatures (usually dinosaurs) which flapped their forelimbs for various proposed reasons. The latest theory, published a few days before this tetrapteryx paper, was to aid traction as they ran up slopes (see Yet another flap about dino-to-bird evolution).

Dr Feduccia has always championed the older arboreal theory, where birds evolved from gliding creatures. But this theory has long been under a cloud, because of strong arguments against it from cursorialists, and the weight of the current dinoto-bird paradigm. However, although M. gui is supposed to be a dinosaur, and Feduccia thinks dinosaurs could not have been ancestral to birds, he described M. gui as ‘a new kind of animal that we’ve never seen before’, and said that its characteristics ‘argue against a ground-up origin of flight.’7 It’s not surprising that Feduccia would be favourably disposed towards this creature, but it doesn’t seem right that other evolutionary propagandists have jumped on this bandwagon even though they are known ardent cursorialists. For example, the theory that birds evolved from a glider such as M. gui is incompatible with any cursorial theory, including the recent one about inclined running. The researchers say: ‘The metatarsus feathers [i.e. between the toes and ankle] are inconsistent with the suggestions that basal dromaeosaurs [i.e. ‘raptors’] are cursorial animals [refs.] because such long feathers on the feet would be a hindrance for a small cursorial animal.’1 Yet the popular press fosters the impression among the public that all this evidence is cumulative when in reality it is incongruous. It’s important to note that even evolutionists acknowledge the difficulties in making the jump from a gliding stage to musclepowered flight. Pondering Microraptor, Henry Gee noted in the Nature perspective cited: ‘Four wings is a perfect recipe for gliding, but not for powered, flapping flight.’8 But then he continued with a typical ‘just-so’ story, which hasn’t the slightest evidence either in direct observation or the fossil record: ‘When flight evolved in later dromaeosaurs and birds, the hindwing might have been lost and the hindlimbs reverted to walking and perching.’ Gee also pointed out that researchers have yet to study the hip and shoulder joints of Microraptor gui to see if this creature could have splayed its limbs to glide. A major distinguishing feature of dinosaurs is that they have column-like legs underneath the body, unlike other reptiles where they are sprawled out to the side. Also, while the imagined transition from parachuting (where the ‘wings’ merely offer resistance to downwards movement through the air) to true gliding represents a major evolutionary hurdle in itself, the supposed development of the required musculature and skeletal frame for powered flight is an even greater obstacle. The main point of the wings in flapping flight is not to act as a moving parachute by directing air downwards and forcing the bird upwards by reaction. Rather, most researchers into bird flight agree that the flapping wings mainly direct airbackwards to force the bird forward by reaction, so the airflow over the airfoil-shaped wings generates lift (see From grasping arms to flying wings). Therefore flapping flight also requires highly controlled muscle movements to achieve flight, which in turn requires that the brain has the program for these movements. Ultimately, this requires new genetic information that a non-flying creature lacks. Summary While this four-winged creature has probably sold many newspapers, there are many questions about its status as the ancestor of birds. They include: The dubious nature of the evidence itself, since it all comes from the same area as the Archaeoraptor hoax, and the first named ‘Microraptor’ was actually part of this. The ‘dates’ are the opposite of what evolution would predict, because M. gui is a lot ‘younger’ than undoubted birds, even ones with beaks. This latest discovery would refute the dominant paradigm of the cursorial theory. The imagined transitions from land animal to parachutist to glider to powered flier would each have required substantial new genetic information to have arisen. And a dinosaur’s column-like legs underneath the body could not have splayed out to adopt a gliding posture without substantial modification to hip and joints. Postscript: Feduccia v Creationists Evidently some evolutionists have ‘got to’ Feduccia for the fact that creationists have cited his damaging arguments against dino-bird evolution. Discover therefore tried to close the ranks by asking a leading question. 3 So we had better head this off at the pass in case skeptics spout all this as ‘evidence’ for their paranoia about creationists ‘misquoting’. This and Feduccia’s response is indented, and my point-by-point response is interspersed. Discover: Creationists have used the bird-dinosaur dispute to cast doubt on evolution entirely. A misrepresentation when it comes to Feduccia’s work. Rather, blame the evolutionists, e.g. the Skeptics at the Australian Museum, for using the dino-to-bird ‘evidence’ as ‘proof’ of evolution and against creation. It is perfectly in order to cite Feduccia’s severe criticisms as evidence against this specific evolutionary argument; after all, there can be no doubt that he is a world-class expert on fossil birds. Also, Feduccia used dissimilarities in the development of bird and dino digits to argue strongly against the dino-to-bird theory. So it was totally legitimate to apply the same logic to the development of amphibian and amniote digits to argue against a far-bigger–picture aspect of evolution, i.e. that amniotes descended from amphibians—see Ostrich eggs break dino-to-bird theory. Discover: How do you feel about that? A tug at the heartstrings. Feduccia: Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up, … He should grace us all with a specific example, rather than an assertion. …and they’ve put me in company with luminaries like Stephen Jay Gould, so it doesn’t bother me a bit. Once again, see what we actually say about the late Dr Gould (Did Creationists ‘hijack’ Gould’s ideas?). E.g. supporters of ‘jerky’ evolution (saltationism and its relative, punctuated equilibria) point out that the fossil record does not show gradualism, and that the hypothetical transitional forms would be disadvantageous. But supporters of gradual evolution point out that large, information-increasing changes are so improbable that one would need to invoke a secular miracle. Creationists agree with both: punctuational evolution can’t happen, and gradual evolution can’t happen—in fact, particles-topeople evolution can’t happen at all! The same logic applies to the dinosaur-bird debate. It is perfectly in order for creationists to cite Feduccia’s devastating criticism against the idea that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory). But the dino-to-bird advocates counter with equally powerful arguments against Feduccia’s ‘trees-down’ (arboreal) theory. The evidence indicates that the critics are both right—birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-crocodiles. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all! This is consistent with the Biblical account that distinct kinds of birds were created on Day 5, while land animals were created on Day 6 (Gen. 1:20–25)

Note, we always make it very clear that Gould and Feduccia are evolutionists, and explain what they believe. E.g. my book Refuting Evolutionhas a chapter on birds which includes Feduccia’s support of the arboreal theory of bird evolution. It is also perfectly appropriate to use these quotes as classic ‘admissions against interest’ from those who can’t be accused of believing what they do because of any creationist bias. However, to many evolutionists, a creationist quoting an evolutionist presenting evidence against a specific evolutionary ‘proof’ is ‘out of context’ by definition, because the person quoted still believes in evolution! Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs or not. Once again, when dino-to-bird dogmatists claim that Archaeopteryx is a feathered dinosaur, it is perfectly legitimate to cite Feduccia’s comment that this is ‘paleobabble’ because ‘Archie’ was clearly a ‘perching bird’. 9 See also An anatomist talks about Archaeopteryx. These creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution:… This is double talk, and merely closing ranks against creationists. This is the old trick of claiming ‘there is no doubt that evolution occurred; the only disagreement is about the mechanism.’ But modern evolutionary theory is all about providing a plausible mechanism for explaining life’s complexity without designer. If the disputes undermine favoured mechanisms, then the materialist apologetic crumbles. The supporters of various evolutionary camps score mortal blows against the mechanisms proposed by rival camps, as shown above, so it’s perfectly reasonable for creationists to point this out. …Animals and plants have been changing. This is a classic equivocation or ‘bait-n-switch’. Of course, we have long pointed out that we don’t deny that things change ; rather, we point out that evolution ‘from goo to you via the zoo’ requires changes which increase genetic information in the biosphere. See Definitions as slippery as eels. But in Feduccia’s case, it’s not likely to be conscious deception, but merely ignorance of what creationists actually say, because he’s never been an aggressive anti-creationist to my knowledge. The corn in Mexico, originally the size of the head of a wheat plant, has no resemblance to modern-day corn. If that’s not evolution in action, I do not know what is. Wow, so the best proof of goo-to-you evolution he can come up with is corn turning into corn?! But he has yet to prove that this is anincrease in information, which would be required to turn scales into feathers or a reptile lung into a bird lung (something Feduccia never explains in his encyclopaedic book The Origin and Evolution of Birds10). Rather, this is yet another example of sorting or loss of previously-existing genetic information—this sort of change is in the opposite direction from evolution (see The evolution train’s a-comin’). Note also a common phenomenon. An evolutionist who is an expert in one field thinks that the best evidence for evolution is in a totally different field, in which he does not speak as an authority. For example, a palaeontologist says, ‘The fossil record shows that most creatures appear fully formed, and an extreme rarity of transitional forms. But the embryologists have shown that early embryos look alike, which proves evolution.’ But an embryologist says, ‘Richardson showed that Haeckel faked the drawings purporting to show embryonic similarity. But the molecular biologists have shown that the similarity of DNA points to evolution from a common ancestor’. However, the molecular biologist says, ‘There are huge differences in DNA sequences; contradictory phylogenies; and intricate biological machinery, e.g. the rotary motors of thebacterial flagellum and F1-ATPase. But the paleontologists have shown that the fossils show an evolutionary sequence.’ Earlier in the dialogue, Feduccia stated: The difference between feathers and scales is very, very small. You can transform bird scutes [the scales on bird feet] into feathers with the application of bone morphogenic protein. This totally misses the point that the cells from which scutes are formed have the genetic information for feathers already present, but turned off. Somehow the chemical induced the genes coding for feathers to switch back on. Feduccia’s ‘evidence’ offers not the slightest support for the idea that the genetic information for feathers arose where none previously existed. It would be a totally different matter if bone morphogenic protein could transform scales into feathers on a reptile, which has no genetic information for feathers! Feduccia’s claim parallels an earlier misinformed claim that retinoic acid (vitamin A) could turn scales into feathers. See Putting Feathers on Reptiles and The strange recurring case of the feathered reptile for further explanation, and for electron micrographs showing the immense differences between feathers and scales. Also, feather proteins (φ-keratins) are biochemically different from skin and scale proteins (α-keratins).11 These simple mistakes by Feduccia once more illustrate the fact that even world-class experts are usually laymen outside their own field. So creationists have nothing to fear from them. Conversely, the major propagandists for evolution tend to be atheistic story-tellers like theeugenicist Richard Dawkins or ‘political animals’ like fellow atheistic anthropologist Eugenie Scott. Be sceptical about the skeptics—Part 1 By Carl Wieland This is a four-part series examining some of the arguments in the book Creationism: An Australian Perspective(edited by M. Bridgstock and K. Smith)—a publication of the Australian Skeptics. This is an organization affiliated with similar groups overseas, which tests ‘claims of paranormal phenomena’. Many of its members are heavily committed to atheism/evolutionary materialism—see How Religiously Neutral are the Anti-Creationist Organisations?Rather than just keeping to their usual mandate of exposing bogus claims by repeatable scientific testing (with which we could heartily agree), they have chosen to attack biblical Christianity by attacks on creation science. This series deals with a few of the most obvious and easily demonstrated fallacies in the book. Summary Comments The four articles in this series should have been sufficient to cause readers to be very cautious before accepting at face value any argument put forward by the Skeptics. Most leaders of evolutionary thought were strongly atheistic—see A ‘Who’s Who’ of evolutionists. Part 1: Putting Feathers on Reptiles Although many prominent evolutionary fossil experts insist that there are no satisfactory fossils of transitional forms between different kinds of creatures, on page 35 of the Skeptics’ book, the author tries to show that there are. In his article about ‘Gaps in the fossil record’, he neither mentions nor shows a single diagram of any fossil. In fact, much of the article is taken up explaining away the very gaps which he elsewhere seems to deny by saying that ‘the fossil record contains literally thousands of transitional forms’.

In spite of many words, the author neither mentions nor shows a single diagram of a fossil showing a true transitional structure—part-limb, part-wing; part-scale, part-feather, for example. This, of course, is for the simple reason that there are none. However, all of this has been so adequately documented—not only by creationist writers such as Dr Duane Gish (Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No) by also by leading evolutionists—that this is not the issue I wish to discuss here. Archaeopteryx is a fossil creature with some reptilian and some bird features. Most leading evolutionary paleontologists today would not regard it as a transitional form because it has no transitional structures, and because fossils of true birds have been found in a supposedly earlier geological layer. Under the subheading Archaeopteryx and feathers the author says ‘Is it really impossible for scales to have evolved into feathers? Many birds, from chickens to ostriches, show a continuous gradation from scales on some parts of their bodies to feather elsewhere (Lucas and Stettenheim 1972; Dyck 1985). Moreover scales and feathers are identical in chemistry, molecular structure and mode of development (Spearman 1966). [However, see Editor’s Note 2] ‘Most significant of all is the fact that scales and feathers are interchangeable. Recent laboratory studies demonstrate that chicken embryos can be induced to transform their developing scales into feather, and their feathers into scales (e.g. Dhouailly, Hardy and Sengel 1980). In their structure and appearance such artificially induced feathers are indistinguishable from natural ones. Indeed, it now seems possible for scientists to transform scales to feathers, and vice versa, almost at will! Similar interchanges between scales and feathers are known to occur spontaneously in wild populations of birds. Does the transformation of scales into feathers require massive genetic engineering? The answer is no. The transformation is triggered by a single chemical—retinoic acid, which is probably better known as vitamin A. ‘Archaeopteryx is a splendid example of a transitional fossil, showing an undeniable mixture of reptile and bird characteristics. In every feature except its feathers Archaeopteryx is similar to theropod dinosaurs. That one distinguishing feature—feathers—represents the crucial dividing-line between reptiles and birds. And today, in the laboratory, it is possible to breach that dividing-line by using simple chemical treatment to transform scales into feathers.’ Simple Transformation? One gets the impression that it is a fairly simple matter to transform scales into feathers with the addition of a single chemical. If so it would not be at all difficult to imagine how scales could have evolved into feathers by only a small genetic change. However, common sense shows the huge flaw in this argument. First, let us look below at the detailed structures of a feather (left) and scales (right), both magnified 80 times (Photos courtesy of David Menton)

Superbly engineered for lightweight aerodynamic efficiency, the system of interlocking hooks and barbules means that a quick preen with the bill will cause flattened feathers to snap into fully aerodynamic shape again. But note that every structure or organ must be represented byinformation (written in a chemical alphabet on the long molecule DNA) at the genetic level. Clearly, the information required to code for the construction of a feather is of a substantially different order from that required for a scale. For scales to have evolved into feathers means that a significant amount of genetic information, or specific chemical complexity, has to exist in the bird’s DNA which is not present in that of the reptile. Examine the amazing close-up (below) of the barbules of a feather showing the tiny hooklets and grooves (Magnified 200 times, courtesy of David Menton). At this stage we should be feeling uneasy about the idea that a simple chemical, containing a small amount of ‘information’, could cause such an ordered structure to arise. And here’s the catch, of course. The author himself has already told us that the experiment was done on chicken embryos, which already have the information coding for feather construction. The simple chemical is used as a ‘switch’ or ‘trigger’ during embryonic development. That is, what we are witnessing is the fact that physicochemical manipulation of the developing embryo can cause a developmental pathway, which would normally result in scales, to result in feathers instead. But the information required to construct/assemble the structure of the feather isalready there, and is simply being expressed at a different site. Genetically, there has been no evolutionary change—no information has been added to the organism’s ‘blueprint’ which was not already there. So what has been achieved is that feathers have been induced to form in birds—although in locations at which they would not usually form. Equally, interference with the developmental machinery in fruit flies can cause a leg to grow where there would normally be an antenna. Such homoeotic mutations, as they are called, are not strictly analogous to the chicken example, but the point is the same, in that the genetic information for forming a leg was already in the embryo. Growing ectopic, or out of place, fur on mammals, or extra legs on flies or cows, demonstrates nothing about the origin of the information coding for fur or legs.Thus, growing feathers on chickens cannot possibly have any value for the idea of evolution.What if a researcher reported that vitamin A in a reptile embryo caused feathers to form? Now that indeed would be spectacular evidence for evolution. But no serious scientist would expect that such a thing were possible, for the simple reason that it would be a violation of the fundamental principles of entropy/information theory. The reptile does not contain the information for feather construction in its code. Vitamin A contains less ‘information’ in its chemistry than that

required to code for a complex feather. The addition of a small amount of unrelated information cannot spontaneously cause a quantum leap towards information which was not there already. Put simply, you cannot get something from nothing—this is why there is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine. Exactly the same principle of science forbids reptile feathers as forbids perpetual motion machines.If a clever genetic engineer were to splice out the information coding for feather construction from a chicken embryo, and splice it into a reptile embryo to cause it to grow feathers, this would confirm the point we are trying to make here—that is, such complex information cannot spontaneously arise—it has to be created or transferred from a preexisting source. And furthermore that an intelligent mind is required to conduct the experiment. Ed. notes: See the sequel, The Strange Recurring Case of the Feathered Reptile—a refutation of an evolutionist who tried to answer this article. After both the Skeptic book and this Creation magazine articles were written, we came across evidence that refutes this claim. For example, feather proteins (φ-keratins) are biochemically different from skin and scale proteins (α-keratins). A feather expert, Alan Brush, concludes: ‘At the morphological level feathers are traditionally considered homologous with reptilian scales. However, in development, morphogenesis, gene structure, protein shape and sequence, and filament formation and structure, feathers are different.’ A.H. Brush, ‘On the origin of feathers’, Journal of Evolutionary Biology 9:131–142, 1996. [Back to the Article] Ostrich eggs break dino-to-bird theory by Jonathan Sarfati 22 August 2002 Subsequently published in Creation 25(1):34–35, December 2002 – February 2003. Diagram showing the difference in developmental patterns of frog and human digits. Left: In humans, programmed cell death (apoptosis) divides the ridge into five regions that then develop into digits (fingers and toes) [after Sadler, T.W., ed., Langman’s Medical Embryology, 7th Ed., Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, pp. 154–157, 1995]. Right: In frogs, the digits grow outwards from buds as cells divide [after Tyler, M.J., Australian Frogs: a natural history, Reed New Holland, Sydney, Australia, p. 80, 1999]. The leader of the evolutionary objections for many years has been Dr Alan Feduccia, professor and former head of biology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and the author of the encyclopedic The Origin and Evolution of Birds (1999). He has pointed out many anomalies, e.g. the allegedly birdlike dinosaurs are ‘dated’ 25– 80 million years after the oldest true bird they are supposed to have evolved into. And the theropods had curved, serrated teeth while the ‘oldest’ birds such as Archaeopteryx had straight, unserrated peg-like teeth. He explains the superficial similarities between birds and dinosaurs as convergent evolution, i.e. where different groups evolve similar structures because of a similar lifestyle, in this case walking upright on two hind legs. Creationists would explain this as evidence of a common designer who designed similar structures for similar purposes. Feduccia published a significant paper in Science1 showing that ‘birds lack the embryonic thumb that dinosaurs had, suggesting that it is “almost impossible” for the species to be closely related.’ 2 We reported on this and other current discoveries in Dino-Bird Evolution Falls Flat! (1998).3 Now Feduccia and a new Ph.D. graduate, Julie Nowicki, have refined the embryological study and published their findings in the leading German biological journal Naturwissenschaften.4 They opened a number of ostrich eggs to examine the embryos at various stages of development. Most studies had concentrated on embryos in the second half of development, when most of the structures are fully formed and merely need to grow. But Feduccia and Nowicki found that the main skeletal features in ostriches, supposedly ‘primitive’ birds, develop between days 8 and 15 of the 42 days in the egg. The research conclusively showed that only digits two, three and four (corresponding to our index, middle and ring fingers) develop in birds. This contrasts with dinosaur hands that developed from digits one, two and three. Feduccia pointed out: ‘This creates a new problem for those who insist that dinosaurs were ancestors of modern birds. How can a bird hand, for example, with digits two, three and four evolve from a dinosaur hand that has only digits one, two and three? That would be almost impossible.’4If the birds evolved from dinosaurs, then one would expect common genes. These in turn would code for a common development in the embryo. But this is not so here, hence Feduccia is right to argue against the dinosaur-to-bird theory. However, a common designer is a coherent explanation for the fact that similar structures (in this case, threefingered hands) are programmed to develop in totally different ways.This is not the only example where superficially homologous structures actually develop in totally different ways. One of the most commonly argued proofs of evolution is the pentadactyl limb pattern, i.e. the five-digit limbs found in amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. However, they develop in a completely different manner in amphibians and the other groups. To illustrate, the human embryo develops a thickening on the limb tip called the AER (apical ectodermal ridge), then programmed cell death (apoptosis) divides the AER into five regions that then develop into digits (fingers and toes). By contrast, in frogs, the digits grow outwards from buds as cells divide (see diagram, right).This difference is even more striking than that discovered by Feduccia which he published in prestigious journals and which he (correctly) used as evidence against the dino-to-bird theory. So, logically, this huge difference in limb formation should likewise be regarded as evidence against a common ancestor for humans and amphibians. In other words, as evidence against the entire evolutionary ‘big picture’. Wider application: We have often noted that discoveries that supposedly support evolution are trumpeted throughout the world’s media; but when they are refuted, even by evolutionists, they are rarely given the same prominence. A notorious example was the alleged life in the Martian meteorite, now almost universally discredited as being of non-biological origin. Similarly, there was almost no publicity of this research by a leading paleo-ornithologist undermining the dino-to-bird dogma, in contrast to claims in National Geographic that dino-to-bird evolution was conclusively proven by the new fossil ‘Archaeoraptor’. But this turned out to be a fraudulent ‘Piltdown Bird’. We hope readers of Creation magazine and this web site will fill this gap by spreading the true information as widely as possible.

Vestigial digits? Feduccia’s Naturwissenschaften paper also presented ‘the first concrete evidence for a thumb in birds.’ In ostriches, the thumb appears around day 14 and disappears around day 17. But in dinosaurs, there are supposed vestiges of digits four and five in bumps on early dinosaur skeletons.However, these are not proofs of evolution, and one should be especially wary about jumping to any conclusion on such a recently discovered phenomenon. Rather, it’s likely that these ‘vestiges’ are aspects of the program designed to develop the embryo. At least two possibilities which apply in other creatures could apply here:Sometimes one structure in the embryo is necessary to trigger other structures, and once the other structures have formed, the first one has done its job and disappears. For example, the embryos of baleen whales have tooth buds that are later reabsorbed so the adults have no teeth. However, the teeth have a completely different disposition in both form and number from those in toothed whales, and have a crucial role in guiding the developing massive jaw, acting as points on which the developing bone moulds itself. So it’s possible that the ostrich thumb and extra dinosaur digits have a role in guiding the hand’s development.Another explanation for a ‘vestigial’ organ applies to male nipples. They are caused by the common embryological plan followed during early embryo development. Embryos start out producing features common to male and female—again an example of ‘design economy’. Nipples are a part of this design economy. Similarly, the vestigial digits could be part of a design economy that modifies one of the many embryonic development programs that produce the pentadactyl limb pattern. Humans use this with automobiles, for example. All models might have mounting points for air conditioning, power steering, etc. although not all have them. Likewise, all models tend to use the same wiring harness, although not all features are necessarily implemented in any one model. Scientific American admits creationists hit a sore spot Need for a ‘new paradigm’ in bird evolution by Michael Matthews 13 March 2003 Under a barrage of attacks from creationists, Scientific American has published a 10-page cover story admitting the need to abandon old dogmas about dinosaur-to-bird evolution. They just don’t work.Instead, in a surprising article entitled ‘Which came first, the feather or the bird?’ (by Richard Prum and Alan Brush, March 2003, pp. 84–93), the authors propose a ‘new paradigm’ to help answer the vexing questions about bird evolution.But before we look more closely at this ‘new paradigm,’ it’s interesting to look at how the article dismisses the old arguments, while skimming over other inherent flaws in their theory that still plague them. Out with the old Since the start, the dino-to-bird theory has had one insurmountable problemThe authors are surprisingly honest about the challenges they face. In the opening two paragraphs, they state,‘How did these incredibly strong, wonderfully lightweight, amazingly intricate appendages evolve? … Although evolutionary theory provides a robust explanation for the appearance of minor variations in the size and shape of creatures and their component parts, it does not yet give as much guidance for understanding the emergence of entirely new structures, including digits, limbs, eyes and feathers.’Bravo. [C]reationist organizations have been saying all along that it’s deceptive to lump ‘minor variations’ in the same category as the emergence of entirely new structures. And we have made it clear that it’s not just a question of accumulating minor variations, but that they are the wrong type of variation. I.e. goo-to-you evolution requires genetic information to increase, while the observed variation involves sorting and loss of information—see The evolution train’s a-comin’. At least the Scientific American authors recognize these as two categories, though they still call them both ‘evolution’. This is the deceptive tactic of bait ‘n’ switch, or equivocation—see Definitions as slippery as eels.So what old, ‘long-cherished’ views did the authors toss out, after examining them under the glare of new findings (the treasure trove of ‘feathered dinosaurs’ recovered over the past five years in northeast China)? 1. Archaeopteryx No news here. Although this is widely claimed to be the oldest bird, the authors admit: ‘Archaeopteryx offers no new insights on how feathers evolved, because its own feathers are nearly indistinguishable from those of today’s birds.’ 2. Feathers from scales Apparently the authors have been keeping tabs on what creationists have been saying about the flaws in the argument that complex feathers arose from reptilian scales. The Scientific American authors end their article grudgingly acknowledging the work of creationists, 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.’ The first two or three pages of the article show why they believe that evolutionists made a false ‘assumption that the primitive feather evolved by elongation and division of the reptilian scale.’ They say they have a ‘new appreciation’ of what a modern feather is and how it develops.The feather is a skin appendage, like hair, that grows as a unique hollow tube from a follicle by the controlled proliferation of cells in a ring. Pennaceous (rigid, non-downy) feathers have an even more complex development, where barb ridges grow helically (spirally) inside the follicle, and meet to form the rachis (shaft) ridge. Then the feather emerges from the sheath and unfurls to its planar shape. And to make the barbs lock together, each barb has a branching pattern very similar to the rachis and barbs. That is, the main shaft of the barb, the ramus, has a branching pattern of barbules (‘little barbs’). In turn, the tips of the barbules have a tiny hooklets that fit into grooves on adjacent barbules. This enables the feather to form a stiff vane, and if it is ruffled, the bird merely has to preen it and it will lock back into shape.Obviously this has no similarity to scales, and so early evolutionary theorists were hampered by the ‘lack of primitive fossil feathers,’ at least until some of the more recent finds since Archaeopteryx. Indeed, we have cited an earlier paper by co-author Brush to refute the scale-to-feather transition (On the origin of feathers, Journal of Evolutionary Biology 9:131–142, 1996). So we hope that this more widely publicized article will finally lay to rest the common evolutionary claim that feathers are just evolved scales. 3. Feathers for flight The article also admits that creationists correctly ‘asked why natural selection for flight would first divide an elongate scale and then evolve an elaborate new mechanism to weave it back together.’ So the authors’ solution is to propose that feathers were not initially designed for flight. They say the new evidence ‘puts to rest the popular and enduring theory that feathers evolved primarily or originally for flight.’

Their ‘revolutionary’ answer to the feather question is: ‘Feathers originated and diversified in carnivorous, bipedal theropod dinosaurs before the origin of birds or the origin of flight.’ Yet in all 10 pages of discussion and illustration, the authors offer no new evidence and suggest no new mechanism to explain how or why feathers would have formed for something other than flight. They simply allude to unresolved guesswork: ‘Numerous other proposed early functions of feathers remain plausible, including insulation, water repellency, courtship, camouflage and defense. Even with the wealth of new paleontological data, though, it seems unlikely that we will ever gain sufficient insight into the biology and natural history of the specific lineage in which feathers evolved to distinguish among these hypotheses.’ In with the new—the so-called ‘evo-devo’ paradigm This debunking of old views is some heady stuff, which you might think would be an embarrassment to evolutionary theory. But in fact, challenging ‘evolution as fact’ was never in view. The authors simply believe evolutionists need to look at the evidence in a fresh way. They call their model evolutionary developmental biology, or ‘evo-devo.’ According to ‘evo-devo,’ ‘the complex mechanisms by which an individual organism grows to its full size and form can provide a window into the evolution of a species’ anatomy.’ In other words, by looking at the stages of feather development in a bird today, we can look for ‘ancient’ dinosaurs that had feathers similar to that stage of development. The authors have a pretty, two-page illustration showing five stages in the development of a feather, and along the bottom they show a proposed timeline of current ‘feathered dinosaurs’ that fit the respective stages in the development of a modern feather.This proposed model for understanding the evolution of feathers is rife with ungrounded assumptions and unsupported conclusions. Archaeopteryx, which is shown as a fully formed bird, has been dated as evolving before many of the dinosaurs with allegedly primitive feathers (see Which came first—the dino or the bird?).Since the Archaeoraptor hoax of 1999, the cloud of ‘faked fossil’ hangs over everything coming out of China (see New four-winged feathered dinosaur?).Similarity of design is not an indicator of similar history. We would expect creatures with a similar lifestyle to have been designed by the Creator with similar structures, but that does not mean one of these creatures descended from the other (or was even related to the other). In fact, it’s likely that the similarities are a ‘biotic message‘ from the Creator that points to a single designer rather than many, while the differences thwart evolutionary alternatives. ‘Developmental evolutionary novelty’ is more consistent with created new information. The authors say: ‘Our developmental theory proposes that feathers evolved through a series of transitional stages, each marked by a developmental novelty, a new mechanism of growth.’ However, they also point out that the developmental sequence is precisely controlled by a sequence of expression of two other genes, one which encourages cell proliferation and the other which regulates this proliferation and promotes cell differentiation (i.e. into specialized types). So this is yet another layer of genetic information required to form feathers, and which is lacking in reptiles.The claim that the sequence of feather development parallels the evolutionary sequence is reminiscent of Haeckel’s embryonic recapitulation fraud. This argued that embryonic development (ontogeny) recapitulates evolutionary history (phylogeny)—see Ernst Haeckel: Evangelist for Evolution and Apostle of Deceit).Our knowledge about the real nature of these feathers is too sketchy to draw such confident conclusions about a continuous scale of dinosaurs from so-called ‘primitive’ symmetrical downy feathers to the asymmetrical ‘flying feathers.’ Even co-author Brush previously said about Sinosauropteryx, ‘The stiff, bristlelike fibers that outline the fossils lack the detailed organization seen in modern feathers’ (cited in: Gibbons, A., ‘Plucking the Feathered Dinosaur’, Science 278(5341):1230, 14 November 1997). The attempt to differentiate types of feathers is highly artificial and incomplete. The authors admit that they have not found any clues—even with ‘evo-devo,’ to help them explain the transition from a loose downy feather to symmetrical feathers with vanes. Their own illustration of the five stages of feather development has a question mark beside stage 3 (the critical divide between the two major classes of feathers.)The authors admit that their approach raises basic questions about the definition of birds and feathers, to begin with. Yet many of the creatures touted as ‘feathered dinosaurs’ appear to be nothing of the kind. Creatures likeArchaeopteryx were just another type of bird, not a dinosaur (see Bird Evolution flies out the window: An anatomist talks aboutArchaeopteryx). And fossil expert Dr Alan Feduccia (an evolutionist) has claimed that the ‘feathers’ of Sinosauropteryx were frayed collagen fibers. He also argued that Caudipteryx and Protarchaeopteryx were really flightless birds, which the Scientific American authors lamely disagree with.Moreover, the debate over feathers barely scratches the surface of the problems with bird evolution. For example: bird embryos lack a thumb that dinosaurs had, the lungs of the ‘feathered dinosaurs’ could not have evolved into the complex lungs that birds require, and the pelvis does not have any similarity to that required in modern birds (see Dino-Bird Evolution Falls Flat, Which came first—the dino or the bird?,Ostrich eggs break dino-to-bird theory and Blown away by design: Michael Denton and birds’ lungs). ‘Sue’ the T. rex Does it show that dinosaurs evolved into birds? by Jonathan Sarfati On 17 May 2000, an amazingly complete 12.5-metre (41 foot) long skeleton of a Tyrannosaurus rex was unveiled at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago. This huge creature, named ‘Sue’ after Sue Hendrickson who discovered it in 1990, was four metres (13 feet) tall at the hip, weighed seven tonnes, and had teeth as long as a human forearm.1 It also showed amazing design—CAT scans of its skull show that its senses were acute. The Jurassic Park scene in which a T. rex failed to detect a child literally under its nose is mythical. The T. rex could see and hear well, but its sense of smell was amazing. Their olfactory bulbs2 were the size of a grapefruit, and the bundle of olfactory nerves leading to the brain was wider than the spinal cord, judging by the size of the skull openings. 1 National Geographicreported that is was also ‘built to move’, with ‘12–14 feet per stride’.3 When did Sue live and die? The report stated that Sue had a broken rib, a left fibula (lower leg bone) deformed by an infection, 3 and teeth marks from other T. rexes.1 Evidence of blood cells and hemoglobin found in another T. rex bone supports the biblical teaching that they could not be millions of years old, because they would break down after only tens of thousands of years at most.4 The report also stated that Sue was probably ‘washed into this position by a flood’.1

Could dinosaurs have evolved into birds Readers of Creation magazine should be familiar with many reason why dinosaurs could not have evolved into birds, and even many evolutionists agree.5 They include: The bird’s lung has a system of tubes connected to valves and air-sacs, while reptiles have a a bellows-type arrangement. The embryonic thumb structure is different in dinosaurs and birds, so one could not have developed into the other. Dinosaurs have entirely the wrong anatomy for developing flight, with their large tails and hindlimbs, and short forelimbs. Even some evolutionists believe that the claimed ’feathered dinosaurs’ were really flightless birds.6 These alleged ‘feathered dinosaurs’are ‘dated’ by evolutionists at millions of years later than undoubted birds. Does Sue rescue evolution? However, not for the first time, headlines have proclaimed that new discoveries have proven evolution beyond doubt. On Sue, they found two bones that had never before been found with T. rexes:7 A bone that ‘resembles a furcula, or wishbone’,3 supposedly unique to birds. A small ear bone called the stirrup (stapes) that helps transmit sound to the inner ear. This is usually too delicate to be preserved.However, such similarities (allegedly ‘homologies’) are hardly proof that meat-eating dinosaurs evolved into birds. There are several points to consider: None of the above arguments against the dino-to-bird dogma is affected in the slightest. We should beware of evolutionists’ wishful thinking, where small scraps of bone are given an evolutionary slant. In Sue, the two shoulder blades seem to be joined by a very small, slightly curved piece of bone, and this was supposed to suggest that this was a wishbone like a bird’s. But a bird’s wishbone is a highly specialised v-shaped bone, and very springy so it can support wing motion. Sue’s wishbone’ could not function at all like a bird’s real wishbone.Dinosaurs are very different form living reptiles—in particular, dinosaur legs were directly under their bodies, instead of being spread sideways. So it’s not surprising that they had some different bones. The similarities are more likely the result of a Creator who designed dinosaurs with organs they needed, including those that resembled other creatures’, and who wanted to leave the message that there is one designer not many.8There are many similarities that no evolutionist uses to prove an evolutionary relationship; they claim that they evolved independently (‘convergent evolution’). But this shows that creationists can regard similarities as the result of a common designer. Two examples are:Many dinosaurs have a hip bone arrangement that is so similar to that of birds that they are classified in the major group called the ‘bird-hipped dinosaurs’ (ornithischians— Greek ornis/ornitha = bird, ischion = hip). This includes the horned dinosaurs, duckbills, stegosaurs and armoured dinosaurs. ‘But despite this striking similarity there is no obvious close relationship between birds and ornithischians.’9 Rather, those evolutionists who promote the dino-to-bird theory believe that birds evolved from the other major subgroup, the ‘reptile-hipped dinosaurs’ (saurischians—Greek σαῦρος sauros = lizard/reptile), in particular, the small carnivorous ones similar to Velociraptor. Thus the evolutionists believe the bird hip arrangement evolved independently in two different creatures, but creationists can point to a common designer.Although evolutionists believe that feathers evolved from scales, the two have very little in common. Rather, feathers are strikingly similar to hairs in many ways, including coming from follicles in the skin, while scales are just skin folds. 5(b) In fact, feathers on flightless birds, which merely need to be heat insulators rather than being amazingly designed aerodynamically, resemble hairs in shape as well. But since evolutionists don’t (at present) believe birds evolved from mammals, they believe instead that these hairs and feathers evolved independently. Living Dinosaurs or Just Birds? Evolutionary enthusiasts today claim that you can see live dinosaurs hovering around the hummingbird feeder. What are the facts? By Daniel Anderson Published: 5 December 2006 (GMT+10) So which is it? Kentucky Fried Chicken or Kentucky Fried Dinosaur? Should we actually refer to songdinos instead of songbirds? In short, did some dinosaurs really evolve into birds?Theropod dinosaurs share many skeletal similarities with birds. In addition, fairly recent fossil discoveries in China have caused evolutionists to claim that several theropods may have possessed feathers. So what makes a bird a bird and what makes a dinosaur a dinosaur?There is a biological chasm separating these wonderful creatures, one that can never be crossed by the bridge of evolution. Let’s take a closer look! Pelvis There are two groups of dinosaurs: ‘bird-hipped’ or ornithischian (including Stegosaurus, Camptosaurus, and Triceratops), and ‘reptile-hipped’ or saurischian (including T. rex and Brachiosaurus). However, birds are alleged to have evolved from the reptile-hipped dinosaurs, not the bird-hipped ones!1 So the similarity of hips of birds to bird-hipped dinosaurs is called a homoplasy, and attributed to convergent evolution. But it’s more likely that the ornithischian dinosaurs shared a similar pelvis design with birds because they all were made by the same Designer. This would be consistent with the biotic message theory, as proposed by Walter ReMine in The Biotic Message. That is, the evidence from nature points to a single designer, but with a pattern which thwarts evolutionary explanations, such as widespread homoplasies. Keeled Sternum Flying birds often possess a keeled sternum, which serves as an attachment point for the flight muscles. However, two non-flying terrestrial creatures have been discovered with keeled sternums. Mononykus, a theropod dinosaur, shares this bird-like feature, and some evolutionists got excited about this apparent support for their theories. However, so does the mole, a digging mammal, and many now believe that Mononykus was a digging dinosaur (see Flighty flap). Moles also have wrist bones that are very bird-like as well. It appears that a common Designer utilized a similar design in different creatures.

Wing Claws Ancient birds such as Archaeopteryx, Sinornis, and Confuciusornis had wing claws. Living birds such as ostriches, emus, hoatzin, turacos, moorhens, and coots also possess wing claws, at least at some stage of their life, though they are different in shape and size.2 Theropods did not have wings, but they had long, sharp claws on their forelimbs. Claws do not define reptiles or birds. Teeth Theropods had sharp, serrated teeth, while many ancient birds had small, peg-like teeth. It is strange to think of birds having teeth, because no living bird exists with teeth. However, extinct birds such as Archaeopteryx, Sinornis, Confusiusornis, Hesperornis, and Ichthyornis all had teeth. Mutations can cause some living birds to develop teeth—see Chickens with Teeth.Not all reptiles have teeth. Turtles are toothless. The Pteranodon, an extinct flying reptile, did not have teeth. Teeth are not defining characteristics of either birds or reptiles. Beaks It is a common notion that dinosaur jaws evolved into bird beaks in order to lighten the load for flying. However, we’ve already seen that some ancient birds possessed teeth. Bats are extremely capable flyers and they too have teeth. Obviously, the presence of teeth does not inhibit flight.Beaks are lightweight, but some birds have huge, cumbersome beaks. The Indian hornbill, toucan, and pelican all have enormous beak sizes and they are still capable flyers. 3Beaks are unique structures and require a distinct genetic code to create. They are not modifications of scales around a reptile’s mouth. Shoulder Joints Theropod dinosaurs did not have the anatomical machinery in the shoulder joints to lift their forelimbs upward. Birds can take off effectively because of a sophisticated pulley system in their shoulder joints. Theropods did not have this machinery, because they were not designed to fly.One dinosaur, named Unenlagia, did have a highly mobile shoulder joint that was quite bird-like. However, at over 2.5 m (8 ft) tall it was way too big to lift off the ground.4 Without observational evidence, it is not known how Unenlagia may have used its unique shoulder joint. Feathers Feathers are not modified scales, nor do they grow out of scales. They are truly unique biological structures that require their own special design template. (See the section on feathers in chapter 4 of Refuting Evolution.)Today, we only see feathers on birds. Of course, this does not mean that in the past, only birds bore feathers. Some theropods may have possessed feathers as well, for all we know. However, despite enthusiastic evolutionary claims for ‘feathered dinosaurs’, to date no such claim has stood up; some so-called feathers are likely collagen fibres—see Dino feather folly). Note that if feathered dinosaurs were indeed to be discovered in the fossil record, this would not be proof for dinosaur-bird evolution (see for example ‘BPM 1 3–13’—have theyfinally found a true feathered dinosaur?). There are many creatures with unorthodox skin coverings. For example, the pangolin is a scaly mammal. The hairy frog is an amphibian that sports hair-like fibers on parts of its body during mating season. Some fish and crustaceans also possess hair-like filaments. It has often been claimed that extinct reptiles such as pterosaurs were covered in a thin layer of fur, though this view has been challenged. Why couldn’t a dinosaur with, say, a layer of insulating feathers still be a true dinosaur Bipedalism Like birds, theropod dinosaurs were bipedal. Based on skeletal design, theropods were likely fast and agile on their two legs. But as Alan Feduccia, an evolutionary paleo-ornithologist who scathingly rejects the dino-to-bird dogma, says: ‘It’s biophysically impossible to evolve flight from such large bipeds with foreshortened forelimbs and heavy, balancing tails’, exactly the wrong anatomy for flight.5 Many creatures are bipedal. Apes possess some degree of bipedality (although not even the alleged ape-woman Lucy walked in any human way). Bears, raccoons, kangaroos, and other animals can move bipedally in their own unique ways. Lungs The flow-through lung of a bird has no parallel in the animal kingdom. Its unique lung is vastly distinct from the bellows (inout) lung of a reptile. The reptilian lung is similar to the amphibian and mammalian lungs, but the avian lung stands alone in the animal world. See also Blown away by design: Michael Denton and birds’ lungs.The soft tissue remnants of a colon, liver, intestines, and abdominal muscle in the extinct theropod,Scipionyx, strongly suggest that theropods possessed a similar respiratory system to that of crocodiles and not birds. It is inconceivable how a reptilian lung could change into a bird lung—how would it breathe while the airflow direction changed? See also Dinos breathed like birds? Reproduction Dinosaurs laid eggs, as do birds. Fossil evidence also suggests that some dinosaurs may have brooded their eggs in a similar manner to birds.There is another animal, not thought by evolutionists to be in any way related to birds, that shares several reproductive features and habits with birds. The platypus, a bizarre mammal, builds a nest, lays a small clutch of eggs, and broods its young like birds. In addition, the platypus possesses a system of ovaries that is very similar to that found in birds.6 Hand Digits After analyzing ostrich embryos, some scientists discovered that only digits 2, 3 and 4 develop in the wings of birds. Theropod hands seem to have developed from digits 1, 2 and 3. This speaks strongly against one group being the ancestor of another. Temporal Paradox

Using evolutionary methods and assumptions, the string of allegedly ‘feathered dinosaurs’ is dated as younger than birds such asArchaeopteryx, Sinornis, and even older than the ‘first bird’ (with a beak of the modern variety, minus teeth), Confuciusornis. Evolutionists have to do very fancy footwork to explain why we find the alleged transitional forms millions of years after their supposed descendants. The Final Answer We can safely conclude that people eat KFC, not KFD. We can still refer to songbirds, not songdinos. Birds are not ‘living dinosaurs’, nor did they descend from dinosaurs. Birds and dinosaurs are similar in some ways, but vastly different in other ways. The overall picture confirms that birds and dinosaurs have always been distinct creatures. Feathery flight of fancy Alleged ‘protofeathers’ fail under close scrutiny by Shaun Doyle Photo: Don Batten Figure 1. Sinosauropteryx prima was a find hailed by evolutionists as evidence for feather evolution in dinosaurs.Sinosauropteryx (figure 1) has been one of the stars of the evolutionary dino-to-bird story. First reported in Science in 1996,1 it was excitedly paraded (along with certain other fossils) with much fanfare by evolutionists, who declared that 1996 was ‘a good year for finding fossils that tell us about the origin of birds.’2 The cause of the controversy and media attention was hard, bristly fibres found in the skin on the back of the neck and on the tail of the Sinosauropteryxfossil. Even then, there was much debate among evolutionists about whether these fossils, especially Sinosauropteryx, provided evidence for the dino-to-bird theory (see Dinobird evolution falls flat!). However, just a year later, Larry Martin suggested that the fibres found on the back of the neck and tail of Sinosauropteryx were likely ‘frayed collagenous fibers under the skin’.3 Since then, further research has suggested that the ‘protofeathers’ of Sinosauropteryxwere not protofeathers at all (see Dino feather folly).4Now, a team of researchers led by Prof. Theagarten Lingham-Soliar from the University of KwaZulu-Natal in Durban, South Africa has added to the mounting body of evidence that shows thatSinosauropteryx is not a dino-to-bird intermediate fossil. They reported in Proceedings of the Royal Society B that the filamentous structures in the skin of a recently discovered Sinosauropteryx—often touted as ‘protofeathers’— are nothing more than structural collagen.5,6 These findings have sent orthodox dino-to-bird believers into damage control. David Unwin, dinosaur expert at the University of Leicester, UK, is convinced that the work of Lingham-Soliar et al. is solid. However, he also said ‘There’s no need to panic. This doesn’t in any way challenge the idea that dinosaurs had feathers and that dinosaurs gave rise to birds.’ 7 However, this completely flies in the face of the report by Lingham-Soliar et al.: ‘The pervasiveness of the beguiling, yet poorly supported, proposal of protofeathers in Sinosauropteryx has been counterproductive to the important question of the origin of birds.’ Lingham-Soliar et al. are more right than they would probably care to admit. Because, despite the fatal blows their latest paper inflicts on a widely-held evolutionary idea, they’re not about to question the evolutionary paradigm itself. 8 This shows once more that evolutionists continue to deal fatal blows to one another’s pet theories, yet fail to come to terms with the underlying problem of their fossil investigations—the evolutionary worldview. Once again, these well preserved fossils prove to be wonderfully consistent with rapid burial in the global Flood. Chinese fossil layers and the uniformitarian re-dating of the Jehol Group by Andrew Sibley In recent years the Jehol Group of China has provided evidence of catastrophic burial that contradicts current evolutionary hypotheses. Instead of adjusting the hypotheses to fit the new discoveries, evidence has been forced to fit the prevailing paradigm, sometimes through misleading interpretations and occasionally through apparent fraud. The subjective evidence of feathered dinosaurs is widely promoted by the science media. The Jehol Group was originally dated to the Jurassic. However, it has recently been assigned to the Early Cretaceous despite the known equivocal nature of the biostratigraphic evidence that contains dinosauria from the Triassic to the late Cretaceous. Character of the Jehol Group The Early Cretaceous sedimentary layers of the Jehol Group of northeastern China, which includes outcrops in the Liaoning Province, have proved a rich source of fossils with numerous varieties of flora and fauna often found with soft tissue preservation. The Jehol Group consists of the Jiufotang and Yixian formations, which outcrop in southeastern Inner Mongolia, western Liaoning and northern Hebei provinces of China. The Jehol Group strata are extensive with the lower Yixian Formation being 4,700 m at maximum thickness and the higher Jiufotang Formation being a maximum of 1,650 m. Similar layers with comparable biota are found in other parts of eastern and central Asia, including Korea, Japan, Siberia, and as far west as Kazakhstan. A map of the area is shown in figure 1 with table 1 showing a selection of fauna from the different strata together with revised dating. Figure 1. Map showing the area of coverage of the Jehol Group. (1) The higher Jiufotang Formation is marked with a dashed line. (2)The lower Yixian Formation is marked with a dotted line. The circle marks that area of major vertebrate fossil finds in Liaoning Province. (After Zhou et al.4).The conformable layers show an assemblage of terrestrial and freshwater fossils that are more consistent with a terrestrial lake environment as opposed to fluvial, deltaic or

open marine environments. The lithology shows finely laminated siliciclastic sediments consisting of sandstones and shales, and layers of extrusive basalt and tuffs. 1 Researchers believe that during deposition there was increased tectonic activity with extensive volcanism along the distant Pacific Rim as evidenced by conformable deposition of tuffaceous sediment within the layers.2 It is also believed that volcanic activity was more prevalent during the deposition of the lower Yixian strata with decreasing activity exhibited in the overlying Jiofotang strata. 1Within the Jehol Group, terrestrial and freshwater organisms are found buried together in the same layers. A large diversity of organic material is well preserved such as insect wings, exoskeletons and plant material, and feathers and fur from birds and mammals, including keratinous beaks and cartilage. The perfect preservation is said to be due to burial in a relatively low energy aqueous setting together with falls of ash that sealed the flora and fauna in quickly. It is envisaged that this provided an anoxic environment that prevented bacterial decay and scavenging by burrowing organisms. However, these conditions, known as KonservatLagerstatten conditions,3 provide evidence of catastrophic mass mortality events, especially in the Lujiatun area of western Liaoning Province where three-dimensional preservation of mammals, dinosaurs, lizards and frogs is evident with no obvious bedding plane in the ash tuffs.4While the Jehol Group strata have only become well known within the last decade, popular science writers and the media have given the impression that these layers demonstrate the evolution from theropod dinosaurs to modern birds. A closer examination of the fossils from these layers reveals this reasoning to be deeply flawed. These layers do in fact contain an abundance of modern looking, fully formed bird fossils such as Confuciusornis sanctus and Yanornis martini, together with perfectly formed theropod dinosaurs such as Sinosauropteryx prima. The Liaoning fossil beds and the nature of the sediments do not provide evidence for evolution, but in fact present some powerful challenges to the claims of Darwinists. These amazing fossils are more consistent with the global Flood, involving the rapid burial of a complex ecosystem due to tectonic and volcanic activity. Confuciusornis sanctus One of the first bird fossils to be described from the Jehol Group was that of Confuciusornis sanctus, which was identified as a beaked bird without teeth. It was initially dated to the Late Jurassic period. 5 Numerous fossils of this bird have subsequently been found suggesting that it flew in flocks, and in many ways this small bird, with clearly identifiable wings, long tail feathers and a toothless beak is similar to modern birds. This particular species of bird has wing claws, which are not unknown in modern birds. For example, the Hoatzin bird of the Orinoco river delta in South America uses claws for climbing. The dating of this bird initially gave it a Late Jurassic age of 135 to 145 Ma, possibly as old as the Archaeopteryx bird fossil found in the Solnhofen quarry in 1861. However, such early dating of Confuciusornis sanctus presented problems for evolutionists as Archaeopteryx is widely considered to be the best evidence of a transitional dinosaur to bird form.Finding Confuciusornis sanctus and other birds as fully-formed, modern-looking varieties in the Late Jurassic layers presented a serious challenge to the view that Archaeopteryx should be identified as a transitional form. Strata within the Jehol Group also contain placental mammals and angiosperm plants, which suggested that the prevailing evolutionary theory would have to be radically changed to fit a Late Jurassic age for these layers. For this reason it was considered necessary to adjust the age of these Late Jurassic layers forward to the Early Cretaceous instead of revising the evolutionary concept in light of new evidence from China. Other evidence of suspect origin and quality was also accepted to support the prevailing ‘dinosaur to bird’ evolutionary hypothesis against the fresh evidence that was accumulating from the Jehol Group strata. Sinosauropteryx prima The first dinosaur used to claim evidence for bird evolution was Sinosauropteryx prima. It is a small theropod dinosaur, but with the appearance of a line of ‘proto-feathers’ along the spine of the animal. 6 These purported fibres along the animal’s back encouraged the researchers to wrongly name it as the ‘first-Chinese-winged-reptile’. However, in just about all other respects this animal found in the Liaoning strata is almost identical to the Late Jurassic Compsognathus found in the Solnhofen quarries of Germany. Later studies have shown that the line of ‘proto-feathers’ is in fact collagen fibre, often aptly named dino-fuzz. It is possible that these fibres existed beneath the skin.Further evidence shows that Sinosauropteryx prima had a pelvis and lung physiology typical of other theropod dinosaurs, and with close similarities to the present day crocodile.7 Crocodiles and alligators have diaphragm muscles that attach from the pubic bone, these extending forward to the rear part of the liver with the diaphragm directly in contact with the liver. The piston like movement of the diaphragm muscles causes the septate reptile lungs to inflate and deflate in typical bellows-like action. Birds are markedly different, with suprapubic muscles attached from the rearward extending pubic bone to the base of the tail. These muscles pull down the tail, causing the pelvic bone to rotate and lift the spine in front of the pelvis. This draws air into the rear air sacs with subsequent unidirectional flow of air through the lung system. This unidirectional flow is instead of the bellows like lung system of reptiles, and whereas reptile septate lungs consist of large chambers and are relatively inefficient, birds have thousands of tiny highly vascular septae or faveoli. Both reptile and bird lungs appear perfectly designed although markedly different, being designed for different environments.Bearing in mind the critical nature of the lung system together with functionality being systemically integrated with the bone and muscle structure, it is quite clear that one could not evolve from the other. Ruben for instance notes that any transitional form would have suffered a hernia,7 and both seem irreducibly complex. Sinosauropteryx prima can be shown to be typical of other theropod dinosaurs known throughout the world from the fossil record, as well as sharing physiology with still living crocodilian reptiles. Archaeoraptor fraud and Microraptor gui A few years later a rather strange fossil creature appeared in the world of palaeontology. Archaeoraptor was announced in National Geographic as a four-winged reptile with the appearance of feathers.8 This fossil was claimed to have both bird and dinosaur features with visible impressions of feathers. The fossil later turned out to be fraudulent, consisting of at least two and possibly five separate fossils. 9 The Chinese researcher Dr Xu Xing identified the front half of the fossil as a fish eating bird named Yanornis martini, again having close similarities to some modern birds. The rear part was found to fit perfectly as a mirror image to the fossil of a reptile found in a private collection in China. This tail was subsequently stated as belonging to Microraptor zhorianus.10 The artistic imagery that was provided alongside the fossils had all the appearance of Chinese Dragon, and interestingly, is surprisingly similar to a drawing of the hypothetical early bird Proavis drawn by the artist Gerhard Heilman in 1926.

Figure 2. Photograph of small fish Lycopterafound in Liaoxi area of Liaoning Province China showing a Jurassic date of 150 Ma. These layers were subsequently reassigned to the Early Cretaceous. The evidence remains equivocal, with fauna from both the Triassic and upper Cretaceous present in the Jehol Group.Some time after the Archaeoraptor debacle, Microraptor gui was presented to the world in a Naturearticle. The lead author of the Nature paper was Dr Xu Xing who uncovered the Archaeoraptor fraud, and later identified the tail part of Archaeoraptor as Microraptor zhorianus.11 Microraptor gui was again depicted as a four-winged dinosaur that used flight feathers for gliding. Jonathan Sarfati, in his critique of the paper, pointed out that five of six specimens presented in the Nature paper with apparent feathers, were bought from dealers in the same area of Liaoning province where theArchaeoraptor fake was made and purchased.12 This raised serious doubts about the bird fossil finds. Sarfati notes that the one fossil found by the researchers in the field (IVPP V13476) from Liaoning Province had nothing on it that could be positively identified as feathers. 12 The more likely scenario is that the impressions are no more than collagen fibres. The researchers also admitted that some of the pieces of rock from the purchased fossils had been glued together improperly.It should be noted that not all palaeontologists have accepted the evidence for dinosaurto-bird evolution found in Liaoning Province. Such sceptics are committed to the Birds Are Not Dinosaurs (BAND) evolutionary hypothesis. One dissenting evolutionist from the BAND group is Alan Feduccia, who commented that the Archaeoraptor fraud was the tip of the iceberg. Feduccia noted that there are scores of fake fossils in existence, which has cast a shadow over the field of palaeontology, making it very hard even for the experts to tell the real specimens from the fake. He also commented on rumours that there exists a ‘fake-fossil factory’ in Liaoning Province, northeast China, near to where the fake fossils were allegedly uncovered. 13 Feduccia also points out that Caudipteryx zouiand Protarchaeopteryx robusta, which show feathers, should really be classified as flightless birds and not as Coelurosaur dinosaurs.14Another leading scientist, Storrs Olsen, who is a Curator of Birds at the Smithsonian Institute, National Museum of Natural History, commented that the fabrication of evidence in support of the dinosaur-to-bird hypothesis is in effect one of the ‘grander scientific hoaxes of our age’.15 He noted that there exist a group of zealous scientists who are acting together with some editors at Nature and National Geographic. According to Olsen, some members of this group have become highly biased promoters of the dinosaur-to-bird evolutionary hypothesis and are not shy in speaking out. This has led to the careful scientific weighing of evidence and truth to become casualties as a result of this programme. 15 The age of the Microraptor gui fossils is at odds with, and therefore inconsistent with, current evolutionary theory as the claimed fossil evidence is stated as being from the higher Jiufotang Formation, whereas both Sinosauropteryx prima and Confuciusornis sanctus are found in the lower Yixian Formation. This contradiction has not been resolved despite the re-dating of the Jehol Group as discussed below. Equivocal radiometric dating of the Yixian and Jiufotang formations

Disagreement exists over the dating of the Jehol Group in Liaoning Province. Different techniques have given varying dates, but the earlier consensus for the Yixian and Jiufotang formations was for a Late Jurassic period with the JurassicCretaceous boundary initially placed about 135 Ma. However, the date of this boundary is not universally accepted with many geologists favouring an age of around 144 Ma. Not only has the Jurassic-Cretaceous boundary been revised to an earlier date, but the Jehol strata have subsequently been revised to a later period as well. The earlier radiometric dating methods for this region gave a Late Jurassic age, which was in agreement with the prevailing biostratigraphic evidence that was broadly accepted at the time. Typical dates determined from the lower Yixian Formation were given as: 4 40K–40Ar: 137 ± 7 Ma, and 87 Rb–87 Sr: 143 ± 4 Ma. Biotite crystals from a tuff in the Yixian Formation gave dates of: 40Ar–39Ar: 145.3 ± 4.4 Ma and the combined isochron: 147.1 ± 0.18 Ma.However, this dating was subject to revision in 1999 (table 1). 4 The first two

dates still fit within the revised Early Cretaceous boundary and are acceptable to evolutionary scientists. However, the last two methods are now considered suspect because they say the samples used may have contained trapped argon or were altered diagenetically. Argon is an inert gas and can migrate through rock layers, therefore escaping faster from some rock types than others. There is in fact no way of assessing, after the event, which rock samples contained the correct amount of argon for radiometric dating purposes. There are of course other problems with radiometric dating, and the ICR/CRS RATE team have also provided further evidence that radiometric dating methods are unreliable with regard to the way in which inert helium migrates through zircons.16 Table 1. The Jehol Group showing a selection of fauna from the different layers, together with previous and later accepted dates.4 The later revised dating assessments for Liaoning Province provided dates that are consistent with an Early Cretaceous time frame:4 40Ar–39Ar: 124.6 ± 0.1 Ma, 40Ar–39Ar: 125.0 ± 0.18 Ma (total heating and incremental heating analysis of sanidine and biotite crystals in the Jianshangou beds); 40Ar–39Ar: 128.4 ± 0.2 Ma basalt capping the Lujiatun beds; 235 U–207 Pb: 125.2 ± 0.9 Ma from zircons in Jianshangou beds; and 235 U–207 Pb: 121.1 ± 0.2 Ma from zircons overlying lava in Jianshangou beds. A date for the Tuchengzi Formation at the base of the Jehol Group was reported as: 40Ar–39Ar: 139.4 ± 0.19 Ma. The intrusive Basalt in the Jiufotang Formation from Inner Mongolia gave an age approximation of: 40Ar–39 Ar: 110.59 ± 0.52 Ma. Equivocal biostratigraphical dating The other method used in dating these layers is biostratigraphic correlation. It involves comparison of animal and plant fossils found in different sedimentary formations. This work is highly subjective, with some objections and disagreements raised by uniformitarian palaeontologists over the equivocal nature of the process. For instance, some taxa are considered to have poor stratigraphic resolution, other taxa are difficult to diagnose or differentiate, while other objections are that some vertebrates have limited biostratigraphic utility.17,18Close examination shows that the Jehol Group strata contain taxa from the Late Triassic layers, through the Mid-Jurassic, to the Late Cretaceous. Some of the taxa, which extend across much of the Mesozoic, include the Jurassic pterosaur Dendrorhynchoides and a Tritylodontid synapsid normally known from the Triassic to Mid-Jurassic period, which is found in Early Cretaceous strata of Japan. 4 Another animal that appears in the Jehol Group is Sinosauropteryx prima, an almost identical theropod to the Late JurassicCompsognathus found in the Solnhofen quarries of Germany. Other animals that have been found in the Jehol Group are more typically associated with the Late Cretaceous, such as tyrannosaurs and oviraptor theropods, titanosauriform, dromaeosaurid and iguanodontian dinosaurs.4 Biostratigraphic analysis of the Jehol Group has therefore provided equivocal evidence with the layers of East Asia now stated as being Early Cretaceous instead of the previous identification as Jurassic. Figure 2 for instance shows the fossil of a small fish Lycoptera found in Liaoxi area of Liaoning Province, China, prior to 1998 with assignment then to the Jurassic period.Palaeontologists struggle to account for such diversity of animals and plants that are found in one region, and such conflicting evidence is contrary to existing theories of evolutionary progression. The reason given for such diversity is that isolation allowed relic species to survive, and then once isolation was breached, the region became a centre for diversification and colonisation by cosmopolitan species. More likely it demonstrates that such strict classification of layers into separate ages is incorrect and that all the strata were deposited in rapid succession. More recently a beaver like mammal Castorocauda lutrasimilis19 has been identified from the Jurassic Jiulongshan Formation of Inner Mongolia, with stated age of around 164 Ma, again presenting a serious challenge to the established evolutionary biostratigraphical evidence. Conclusions Radiometric dating is inconsistent with equivocal biostratigraphic evidence used in establishing a defensible age for the materials found in the Jehol Group. There is circularity in this reasoning with the acceptable evolutionary hypothesis determining how the observational evidence is interpreted. Such evidence is then used to support the desired hypothesis. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the reassignment of the Jehol Group to the Early Cretaceous was considered necessary because modern birds and placental mammals cannot occur in the Jurassic. Modern birds occurring with similar ages to Archaeopteryx would cause serious problems for evolutionists where dinosaur-to-bird evolution has become a major pillar of evolution. If the Jurassic age for the Jehol Group was acceptable to uniformitarian palaeontologists then modern birds would occur at the same time as the dinosaurs from which they are thought to have evolved, thus completely negating the evolutionary idea that dinosaurs evolved to modern birds. Morphological comparisons between the Early Cretaceous Sinosauropteryx prima indicate that it is an almost identical reptilian animal to the Late Jurassic Compsognathus.Not only have dates been revised to overcome problems with recent discoveries, but forced and fraudulent evidence has been widely publicised by leading science journals to give the impression that the Jehol Group strata are full of transitional dinosaur-to-bird fossils. As a result, this has now entered the popular imagination in spite of the fact that the real evidence tells a different story. Even some evolutionists, those committed to the BAND hypothesis, have recognised that this is no more than a grand scientific hoax. The truth is that theropods and birds appear fully formed in these layers, and are buried together with fauna that extend from the Triassic to the Late Cretaceous. Claimed transitional forms have also been shown to be fraudulent.Layers in the Jiufotang and Yixian formations consist of sandstone and conglomerates, together with interspersed volcanic ash tuff deposits and basalt, with animals and plants buried rapidly. All of this is consistent with the global Flood involving tectonic and volcanic activity wiping out a single ecosystem. All of this evidence in the Jehol Group is consistent with the Global Flood, and it runs counter to the prevailing evolutionary hypotheses. Bird breathing anatomy breaks dino-to-bird dogma by Jonathan Sarfati Bird feet (red-footed booby) Published: 16 June 2009(GMT+10) Do we eat Kentucky Fried Dinosaur? According to the dogma of many evolutionary propagandists for the last decade or so, indeed we do—they believe that birds evolved from the carnivorous dinosaur group known as theropods. Yet there are many problems with this idea. And now, new research into the birds’ lung and leg anatomy provides more strong evidence against it.

Dinosaurs living today—in trees? The BBC program Walking with Dinosaurs proclaimed that we can see and hear dinosaurs outside our windows. Many museums have proclaimed the dinosaur origin of birds as fact, such as the Australian Museum in Sydney and Queensland Museum in Australia. National Geographic was so gung-ho for this idea that they promoted Archaeoraptor, which turned out to be a“Piltdown Bird” forcing an embarrassing retraction. Evolutionary dissent However, there have been some lonely dissenters even among evolutionists. For example, Dr Storrs Olson, Curator of Birds at the National Museum of Natural History of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. wrote a scathing open letter about National Geographic’s Archaeoraptor: “The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith.” Another skeptic is Dr Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who criticized the dogma onanatomical grounds: “It’s biophysically impossible to evolve flight from such large bipeds with foreshortened forelimbs and heavy, balancing tails,’ exactly the wrong anatomy for flight.”1 And he criticized it on chronological grounds too. The alleged “ancestors” for birds are “dated” (by evolutionary methods) as millions of years younger than the birds. E.g., claimed “feathered dinosaur ancestors” Sinosauropteryx and Caudipteryx are “dated” at 125 Ma (million years old), which is 28 Mayounger 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”. Also, one of the major ‘evidences’ of evolution is how the evolutionary order supposedly matches the fossil sequence. Therefore the gross mismatch with the dino-birds is a severe challenge to the evolutionary explanation. Avian lung design Yet another problem for the dino-bird theory is that birds and reptiles have very different lung systems. Reptilian lungs operate like bellows (like our own lungs, although the reptile lung structure is different). The stale air is then breathed out the same way it came in. But birds have a complicated system of air sacs, even involving their hollow bones. This system keeps air flowing in one direction through special tubes (parabronchi, singular parabronchus) in the lung, and blood moves through the lung’s blood vessels in the opposite direction for efficient oxygen uptake,2 an excellent engineering design.3 (See also Blown away by design, and the Avian Lung from Refuting Evolution ch. 4). Recent research has shown that Archaeopteryx skeletons had pneumatized vertebrae and pelvis. This indicates the presence of both a cervical and abdominal air sac, i.e. at least two of the five sacs present in modern birds. This in turn indicates that the unique avian lung design was already present in what most evolutionists claim is the earliest bird.4 Conversely, alleged feathered dinosaur Sinosauropteryx was found so well fossilized that the outlines of some internal organs could be analysed. The lead researcher Dr John Ruben, a respiratory physiology expert at Oregon State University in Corvallis, concluded5 that its “bellowslike lungs could not have evolved into the high-performance lungs of modern birds.”6 So the “earliest” bird had the through-flow avian lung system, while one of its closest “ancestors” had a reptilian bellows lung. The transitional forms are lacking.Ruben noted the problem for the dino-bird theory in general: how would the ‘bellows’-style lungs of reptiles evolve gradually into avian lungs? The hypothetical intermediate stages could not conceivably function properly, meaning the poor animal would be unable to breathe. One of the first stages would be a poor creature with a diaphragmatic hernia (hole in the diaphragm), and natural selection would work against this. Ruben writes: “The earliest stages in the derivation of the avian abdominal airsac system from a diaphragmatic-ventilating ancestor would have necessitated selection for a diaphragmatic hernia [i.e. hole] in taxa transitional between theropods and birds. “Such a debilitating condition would have immediately compromised the entire pulmonary ventilatory apparatus and seems unlikely to have been of any selective advantage.” New discovery: fixed thigh bone is vital for breathing Theropod dinosaurs had a moving femur and therefore could not have had a lung that worked like that in birds. Their abdominal air sac, if they had one, would have collapsed. That undercuts a critical piece of supporting evidence for the dinosaur-bird link.—John Ruben Dr Ruben has continued his research into bird breathing. Recently, he and his OSU colleague Dr Devon Quick “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.”7It has long been known that birds have a fixed femur (thigh bone), so they are “knee runners”. Mammals and reptiles—including dinosaurs—have movable femurs that are highly involved in their walking and running. But why do birds have this unusual arrangement?Quick and Ruben found that this fixed femur and the accompanying muscles and hip bones were essential for the bird to keep its air-sac lung from collapsing inwards when the bird inhales.8 Quick said:“This is fundamental to bird physiology. It’s really strange that no one realized this before. The position of the thigh bone and muscles in birds is critical to their lung function, which in turn is what gives them enough lung capacity for flight.”7

But since the theropods had moving femurs, they could not have supported the air sacs needed for the avian lung system. According to a report: “‘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. ‘But one of the primary reasons many scientists kept pointing to birds as having descended from dinosaurs was similarities in their lungs,’ Ruben said. ‘However, theropod dinosaurs had a moving femur and therefore could not have had a lung that worked like that in birds. Their abdominal air sac, if they had one, would have collapsed. That undercuts a critical piece of supporting evidence for the dinosaur-bird link. “A velociraptor did not just sprout feathers at some point and fly off into the sunset.”7 Frankly, there’s a lot of museum politics involved in this, a lot of careers committed to a particular point of view even if new scientific evidence raises questions.—John Ruben Ruben has long been sceptical of the dino-to-bird dogma, even from the 1990s. Yet he notes: “Frankly, there’s a lot of museum politics involved in this, a lot of careers committed to a particular point of view even if new scientific evidence raises questions.”7 He pointed out that many museum displays treat the dino-to-bird theory as fact, just as we noted above. The only nod to dissent might be an asterisk with some fine print saying, “some scientists disagree.” But now Ruben says, “But now there are more asterisks all the time. That’s part of the process of science.”7 Evolutionary dogma Sinosauropteryx prima Despite their rejection of dino-to-bird dogma, both Ruben and Quick, like Feduccia, believe that birds evolved from some sort of reptile. But here they become tentative, e.g. Quick says: “We aren’t suggesting that dinosaurs and birds may not have had a common ancestor somewhere in the distant past. That’s quite possible and is routinely found in evolution. It just seems pretty clear now that birds were evolving all along on their own and did not descend directly from the theropod dinosaurs, which lived many millions of years later.” But an evolutionary criticism of Feduccia and his supporters applies equally well to Ruben and Quick: “Neither their hypothetical ancestor nor transitional forms linking it to known fossil birds have been found. And although they rightly argue that cladistic analyses [comparisons of shared characteristics] are only as good as the data upon which they are based, no cladistic study has yet suggested a non-theropod ancestor.”9 But goo-to-you evolution in general, not just the dino-to-bird theory, has become a dogma. Most scientists believe in evolution not because of the evidence, but because most scientists believe it. I.e. the oft-touted consensus on evolution was reached by counting heads that themselves came to this consensus by counting heads. And when asked to provide evidence, many cannot make a good case—e.g. Feduccia’s best “proof” of evolution was not in his field of ornithology, but corn turning into corn! There is another alternative: Ruben, Quick and Feduccia are right that birds didn’t evolve from theropods; their evolutionary detractors are right that birds didn’t evolve from non-theropod reptiles. Rather, they did not evolve at all! THE ICE AGE AND MAMMOTH

What about the Ice Age? • How many ice ages were there? • Where does an ice age fit with creationism? • How much of the Earth was covered by ice? • How long did it last? • What about the frozen mammoths? • How were people affected? THE only clear evidence we have is for one Ice Age. We still see its remnants in such things as glaciers and the U-shaped valleys they carved. This Ice Age is said by evolutionists to have started about two million years ago and ended about 11,000 years ago. It was punctuated by relatively warm ‘interglacial periods, which lasted about 10% of the time. Most creationists, on the other hand, believe the Ice Age began soon after the Flood and continued for less than a thousand years. Indeed, as we shall see later, the Global Flood provides a good basis for understanding how the one Ice Age developed. However,evolutionists have great difficulty accounting for any ice age.1 In their understanding there would have been multiple ice ages, every 20–30 million years or so. Earlier ice ages?Using their principle that ‘the present is the key to the past’2 evolutionistsclaim that there is evidence for

earlier ice ages. However, supposed similarities between the rocks in those geological systems and the special features produced in the Ice Age are not consistent.3–5 Today, glaciers grind up the rock they travel over, creating deposits of fine and coarse material mixed together. This unsorted material is known as till, or tillite when it becomes bound together to form a rock unit. The grinding action of rocks embedded in the glacier also scores parallel grooves in the bedrock the glacier slides over—these grooves are called striations. When some melting occurs in summer, the glacier releases rock ‘flour’ which is washed into glacial lakes and settles to form fine and coarse alternating layers known as varves. Sometimes a piece of ice will break off the glacier or ice sheet and float into such aglacial lake, dropping embedded boulders as it melts. These ‘dropstones’ fall into the fine sediments (varves) on the lake floor, so that stones are sometimes found in the varves. Geologists have claimed that these features have been found in ancient rock layers, proving that there had been previous ice ages over geologic time. Many lines of evidence now indicate that the observations have been misinterpreted:3 The ‘tillites’ of lower rock layers are small in area, commonly thick, and probably all of marine origin, whereas those of modern glaciers are relatively large in area, thin and continental. There are limestones and dolomites frequently associated with these ‘tillites’—carbonates which form today in warm water, not cold. The largest boulders in the ancient ‘tillites’ are much smaller than the larger boulders being deposited by glacial action today. Underwater mass flows can produce tillite-like deposits, as well as striated bedrock and striated stones in the ‘tillite’. Such mass flows would be expected during the Global Flood. Turbidity currents can deposit varve-like laminated sediments very quickly.6 These sediments are more accurately called rhythmites. A varve is defined as a rhythmite deposited in one year. Lambert and Hsu have presented evidence from a Swiss lake that such varve-like rhythmites form rapidly by catastrophic, turbid water underflows.7 At one location, five couplets of these varve-like rhythmites formed during a single year. At Mount St Helens in the USA, an 8 m (25 ft) thick stratified deposit consisting of many thin varve-like laminae was formed in less than one day (June 12, 1980).8 Flow tank experiments have shown how laminations can form rapidly when two different grain sizes are carried together in flowing water.9 The so-called ‘dropstones’ could not have been dropped into the ancient ‘varvites’10 because such a method of placement would result in tell-tale disturbance of the laminations, which is rarely observed. The evidence suggests they were placed with the enclosing sediments by turbidity currents or other mass flows—again consistent with what would be expected during a global Flood. In other words the ‘varvites’ did not come from cyclical, annual, glacial lake deposition. The extent of the ice The effects of the Ice Age are still with us, particularly the giant ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland, the alpine glaciers, and the glacial landforms and sediments. Because these effects are seen on the current land surface, it is clear that the Ice Age occurred after the Flood. During the Ice Age, great ice sheets developed over Greenland and North America (as far south as the northern United States) and in northern Europe from Scandinavia to Germany and England (see diagram). In the North American Rockies, the European Alps, the South American Andes and other mountain chains, permanent ice caps rested on the summits, and extensive valley glaciers descended down almost to the plains below. Another ice sheet covered most of Antarctica. Ice caps developed on the mountains of New Zealand, Tasmania, and the highest parts of southeastern mainland Australia. Some glaciers still remain in the high Southern Alps of New Zealand, and in the Andes Mountains, but glacial landforms are all that are left in New South Wales’ Snowy Mountains, and in Tasmania, as areminder of the action of the ice. Nearly all textbooks used to claim that the Ice Age involved at least four advances and retreats of the ice, with relatively warm periods (called inter-glacials) in between. Based on the quest to find a cyclical pattern of ice ages, the number of ice ages during the past two million years of geological time has jumped to more than 20. However, the dense clay soils, old river terraces, and other phenomena, interpreted as evidence for multiple ice ages, can be more readily understood as resulting from advance and retreat phases of a single ice age after the Flood.11 The Ice Age and human habitation It is important to realize that the ice never covered more than a third of the Earth’s land surface, even at its greatest extent. At the same time as there was glaciation in the upper latitudes, there was probably a period of higher rainfall in the lower latitudes. Such higher rainfall towards the equator would have assured an abundant water supply even in present-day desert areas such as the Sahara, the Gobi, and Arabia. Indeed, archaeological excavations have yielded abundant evidences of lush vegetation, human occupation and complex irrigation economies in these now desolate regions. There is also evidence that human societies lived near the edge of the ice sheet in Western Europe throughout the Ice Age—the Neandertal peoples, for instance. Many anthropologists now rcognize that their somewhat brutish appearance was at least partly due to disease (rickets, arthritis) caused by the dark, cold and damp climate of the region at that time. Their resulting lack of exposure to sunlight, which stimulates vitamin D synthesis necessary for normal bone development, and poor diet, would have caused rickets.12 Apart from highly questionable dating methods (see Chapter 4), there is no reason why Neandertals could not have lived at the same time as the advanced civilizations of Egypt, Babylonia, and others that were developing unhindered in the lower latitudes. The Ice Age can be better understood as lasting 700 years or so rather than two million years. The Global Flood: the trigger for the Ice Age To develop an ice age, where ice accumulates on the land, the oceans need to be warm at midand high latitude, and the land masses need tobe cold, especially in the summer.5,13–15 Warm oceans evaporate lots of water, which then moves over the land. Cold continents result in the water precipitating as snow rather than rain, and also

prevent the snow from thawing during summer. The ice thus accumulates quickly. Slow-and-gradual evolutionary scenarios16 to explain the Ice Age do not work. Long-age theories involve a slow cooling down of the Earth, but this will not generate an ice age. If the oceans gradually cooled, along with the land, by the time everything was cold enough so that the snow didn’t melt during summer, evaporation from the oceans would be insufficient to produce enough snow to generate the massive ice sheets.17 A frozen desert would result, not an ice age. However, the global Flood provides a simple mechanism for an ice age. We would expect warm oceans at the end of the global Flood, due to the addition of hot subterranean water to the pre-Flood ocean and heat energy released through volcanic activity.The Flood and its aftermath would provide the warm oceans and cold continents to produce an ‘Ice Age’. Oard and Vardiman point to evidence that the ocean waters were in fact warmer just before the Ice Age, as recorded by the oxygen isotopes in the shells of tiny marine animals called foraminifera.18–20 Large amounts of volcanic dust and aerosols from residual volcanic eruptions at the end of and after the Flood would have reflected solar radiation back into space, causing low temperatures over land, and especially causing the summers to be cold.21 Dust and aerosols slowly settle out of the atmosphere, but continued post-Flood volcanism would have replenished these for hundreds of years following the Flood. In support of this, there is evidence of continued widespread volcanism in the large quantities of volcanic rocks among so-called ‘Pleistocene’ sediments, which probably formed soon after the Flood. Vardiman19,20 has shown, using standard knowledge of atmospheric circulation, that the warm oceans after the Flood, and the large rates of cooling at the poles, would have driven extreme atmospheric convection. This would have created an enormous polar hurricane-like storm system covering a large portion of the Arctic. This, he suggests, could have functioned for much of the 500-year period up to the glacial maximum (see next section). Such circulation patterns would have delivered to the higher latitudes the vast amounts of snow that would have quickly become ice sheets, spreading firstly over the continents, and then later over the oceans as the water cooled down towards the end of the glacial period. How long an ice age? Meteorologist Michael Oard22 has estimated that it would have taken only about 700 years to cool the polar oceans from a uniform temperature of 30°C at the end of the Flood to the temperatures observed today (average 4°C). This 700-year period represents the duration of the Ice Age. The ice would have started accumulating soon after the Flood. By about 500 years after the Flood, the average global ocean temperature would have cooled to about 10 °C, and the resulting reduced evaporation would have caused much less cloud cover. This, combined with the clearing of the volcanic dust from the atmosphere, would have allowed more radiation to penetrate to the Earth’s surface, progressively melting the ice sheets. Thus the glacial maximum would have been about 500 years after the FloodIn recent years the conventional age estimate for the Ice Age has been seemingly reinforced by claims that ice cores drilled from the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets contain many thousands of annual layers. Layering is certainly visible in the uppermost section of such ice cores, but it only correlates with an annual pattern in the past fewthousand years, as it should if it represents annual snow deposits since the end of the Ice Age. Lower down in the ice cores, the so-called annual layers become less distinct and can be understood as being caused by other mechanisms, such as individual storms. Vardiman18–20 has demonstrated that the ice core data support a longage model only if they are interpreted that way. The ice core data readily fit a young-Earth model, with the bulk of the ice sheet thickness having been deposited by the hurricane-like circulation in the relatively brief 500-year period following the Flood. In this understanding, the oxygen isotope variations, for example, do not represent annual seasons but individual storms from different directions depositing water evaporated from oceans differing in temperature. The riddle of the frozen mammoths

The remains of hundreds of thousands of woolly mammoths are found across northern Europe, Siberia and Alaska. There was a lucrative trade in mammoth ivory for many years. At least a million mammoths must have lived in Siberia and Alaska.24 But how could the frozen wastes of Siberia have ever produced enough food for the mammoths?Woolly rhinoceros, bison, horses and antelopes also lived there in abundance. Even if the animals migrated there in summer, there would not have been enough food for them. Furthermore, what did animals such as woolly mammoths, rhinoceros, bison and horses drink during the frozen winters? Such animals need large quantities of liquid water. Evolutionists, with their eons of time and multiple ice ages, believe that Siberia and Alaska are relatively warm at present,25 compared with the time when mammoths lived there. So, how could these large populations of animals have lived in these areas? Many carcasses or partial carcasses may still exist. The vast majority show signs of substantial decay before they were buried and frozen, though about a half-dozen intact frozen carcasses have been found. Some of the intact carcasses have been found with their stomach contents largely undigested. Some have claimed that an extraordinary snap-freeze would be needed to preserve such stomach contents. However, undigested stomach contents have been found in non-frozen mastodon remains in Ohio, USA. Studies of elephant digestion show that the stomach acts as a storage vat for food, with fermentation and digestion occurring in the hindgut (as with horses). Consequently, an elephant’s stomach contents remain largely undigested. Mammoths would almost certainly be similar. So a snap freeze is not necessary to explain this observation. Most of the mammoth remains show that they were in various states of decay, some with pupae of carcass-consuming flies, others showing signs of scavenging, indicating that this was no instantaneous regional freeze. Some of the plant species identified in the stomach of the famous Beresovka mammoth now grow only in warmer climates. The evidence thus suggests a change in climate in northern Siberia / Alaska. The mammoths lived there because the climate was much warmer, with more precipitation, than today. Mammoth remains have been found as far south as Mexico, showing that they were probably adapted to a wide range of climates. Cave paintings of mammoths were obviously done by people living after the Flood.26 Furthermore, since the mammoth remains are frozen in silt on top of sediments laid down in the Flood, they must have been frozen there at some time during the Ice Age, after the Flood. The burial and freezing of these mammoths cannot be accounted for with uniformitarian / evolutionary explanations of a slow-and-gradual onset of the Ice Age over many thousands of years, and its slow waning over a similarly long period. However, while the mammoths are a big mystery to evolutionists, the Flood / Ice Age model provides a framework for understanding the mammoths. Michael Oard proposes that the mammoths were buried and frozen towards the end of the post-Flood Ice Age.27,28 Note that because of the warm Arctic Ocean after the Flood, the ice sheets did not cover the sea, nor the lowlands near the sea, resulting in a relatively temperate climate near the sea. Significantly, mammoth remains are most abundant close to the Arctic Ocean and in the islands off the coast. Mammoth remains are also found south of the maximum southern limits of the ice sheets, indicating that the distribution of the ice sheets determined where the mammoths lived and died. It was at the end of the Ice Age that the sea froze over and the lowlands became permafrost. This coincided with the demise of the mammoths. As the oceans cooled in the hundreds of years following the Flood, the humidity of the air over the oceans reduced and the climate of the Arctic coast dried out. Droughts developed. The ice sheets melted back exposing the land, allowing massive dust storms of sand and silt to bury the mammoths, suffocating some of them. This explains why the carcasses are found in what’s known as yedoma or ‘muck’, whichcomprises loess, or wind-blown silt. Some were entombed in a standing developed on the land, resulting in the carcasses buried in the sand and silt being frozen, where they are found today. WAS THERE REALLY AN ICE AGE Tackling the big freeze Interview with weather scientist Michael Oard by Carl Wieland Michael J. Oard has a Masters Science degree in Atmospheric Science from the University of Washington. He works as a meteorologist/weather forecaster for the (US) National Weather Service, and has published several papers in his field in widely recognised journals. When I first spoke with Michael (Mike) Oard, he jokingly ‘put down’ the State where he lives as ‘home to the (maybe) Unabomber and a bunch of other interesting people.’ Mike Oard examining evidence of the Ice Age in the Rocky Mountains. Montana is in fact a beautiful part of the United States, one associated with rugged backwoodsmen and scenic wilderness. It is also a place where one can see a lot of evidence that large chunks of the world were once covered by huge glacial sheets. For example, Mike points out there are huge boulders which show signs of having been transported a long way from their original location. He says this was either from their being carried by an ice sheet, or dropped from an iceberg floating in one of the many lakes which were abundant near the ice sheet. Although he does a lot of thinking and part–time research into other aspects of creationism, particularly in regard to the Flood, Mike (who has written quite a number of items for our associated Journal of Creation ) is best known for his work on the Ice Age. He has written a technical monograph on the subject, as well as Life in the Great Ice Age, a family book co– authored with his wife Beverly. This book really makes the subject ‘come alive’ with its clever use of illustrated fiction, as Neanderthals and other post–Flood groups of humans interact with the harsh climate conditions. As time went on, he increasingly realised that ‘if you start messing with something that’s reasonable, clear-cut and straightforward. Mike says that he first began to think seriously about the mechanism for an ice age about twenty years ago, when he noticed that the evidence for the boundary of the North American ice sheet was right at the edge of where the present–day ‘permanent’ winter snow accumulates. He says that ‘putting that together with ideas that other creationists have had over the years’ was the key.

The important thing for any ice age theory, he says, is to find a way ‘to cool the summers, to stop ice from melting—in most areas that were once glaciated, the winters are already cold enough.’ One such cooling mechanism was readily available after the Flood, with much volcanic ash and gases still in the air from the breaking up of the crust, which also liberated the ‘fountains of the great deep’ described in Genesis. Such volcanic matter in the air would reflect much of the sun’s heat back out to space.

Glacier at Prince William Sound, Alaska. Glacial ice. ‘Erratic’ boulder at Yellowstone National Park (moved from its original location by ice) However, just having cooler air is not enough. Mike points out that in Siberia today, there are very low temperatures, but it is so cold that there is not enough moisture in the air to maintain an ice sheet. To have an ‘ice’ age, he says, you need a way to get lots of water out of the ocean up on to the land. ‘After the Flood you would have both’, says Mike. ‘The came from under the ground during the Flood would have been very warm or hot. This water mixing with the pre–Flood ocean would result in a significantly warmer ocean, right after the Flood, than today. Warmer water means more evaporation. So you have more moisture in the air available for storms, generating snow and ice at middle and upper latitudes, close to the developing ice sheets. And the ash and gases in the air is what gives the cooling of the summers.’ All this, he points out, would have been like a ‘loaded gun’ at the end of the Flood. ‘There would have been no way to delay it, an ice age just had to start.’ Evolutionists, says Mike, have a favoured astronomical theory for the Ice Age which gives them a little cooling, but no way to get more moisture into the air (a colder world means less evaporation from the oceans). Mike Oard’s calculations show that a likely estimate for when the Ice Age reached its maximum would have been around 500 years after the Flood, with about another 200 years to melt. He warns that this is only a ‘ballpark’ figure, which could vary by hundreds of years—‘but that’s still a short time for evolutionists.’ What about the riddle of the frozen mammoths? Mike says he is sure that they were the result of post–Flood events, since most of them are found in the frozen so–called ‘muck’, on top of Flood sediments, in cliffs which are actually river deltas, or on marine shorelines. ‘They’re actually rather surficial, and although scientists estimate there are hundreds of thousands, or millions of mammoth skeletons in Siberia, there are only several dozen which have flesh on them, and this is mostly scraps. There are only a few fairly intact carcasses, like the Beresovka mammoth in the Leningrad museum. Some of these were found with stomach contents only partially digested.’ Does this prove they were frozen extremely rapidly, as one frozen food company suggested? Mike replies, ‘The Beresovka mammoth was preserved largely by freezing, but it didn’t have to be a super cold “snap freezeâ€?. A mastodon with some stomach contents was found in the Midwest of the United States, where the ground isn’t frozen at all. So there may be other mechanisms at work.’ Does this mean no evidence for catastrophe? ‘Oh, no,’ says Mike, ‘There is no doubt that there has been a permanent, rapid climate change in northern Siberia/Alaska. Today, the ground there, in which these mammoths are buried, is permanently frozen, so you couldn’t push a mammoth into it today. The vegetation today is too sparse to support large herds of mammoths anyway. After the mammoths were buried in it, the ground had to become frozen fast enough to preserve the flesh which is found, and has stayed that way since.’ Though he doesn’t claim to have all the answers, Mike speculates that these creatures died at the very end of the post– Flood Ice Age, when the vast sheets were melting, bringing in permanent climate change and also catastrophic flooding events when huge lakes burst through ice dams. ‘Believe it or not,’ he says, ‘summers would get warmer, but winters would get a lot colder, developing a permafrost.’ He says there is published evidence of a massive catastrophic burst of an ice dam in Siberia, on the scale of the Spokane Flood which carved the channelled scablands of the northwest US. As huge amounts of fresh water surged into the Arctic Ocean, it would cause a drop of up to thirty degrees Centigrade in around a week. ‘It’s hard to freeze saltwater, but when a mass of fresh water (which floats on top of the saltwater) pours into a region with sub–zero temperatures, you could freeze much of the Arctic ocean surface within days. The air above this sea ice is deprived of heat and moisture from the ocean. The snow that soon falls will reflect much of the sunlight back to space, cooling the air further.1 As a result, there would be a tremendous cold front over the land which, with the added wind chill, could possibly explain the frozen mammoth carcasses.’ [Ed. note: a few years after he gave this interview, Mike Oard proposed that the mammoths were killed and buried by gigantic dust storms, because the yedomas and muck are loess, or wind–blown silt. See ‘Mr Ice Age’ solves woolly mammoth mystery, and his overview The extinction of the woolly mammoth: was it a quick freeze? Journal of Creation 14(3):24–34, 2000.]Mike says that secular scientists have been deafeningly silent about his published work. The only exception was a vigorously anti-creationist geophysicist who, Mike says, ‘could only point to a few real small points he thought were mistakes, and I don’t think they were—and he said there isn’t all this volcanic dust in the sediments, but I went back and found out that there is, so he wasn’t correct on that. A classic tillite reclassified as a submarine debris flow by Michael J. Oard Tillites, assumed to be the lithified equivalents of glacial till (rubble), are often found in the strata of the Earth. Hence, uniformitarian scientists postulate a number of long-lasting pre-Pleistocene ice ages, the Late Palaeozoic ‘ice age’ in southern Africa being the most notable. Many glacial-like diagnostic features also are associated with these tillites. However, Schermerhorn questioned the conclusion that many of these tillites, mainly from the Late Precambrian, were caused by ancient glaciation, pointing out that practically all the claimed diagnostic properties can be duplicated by mass flow and other processes.1One of the classical Late Pre-cambrian tillites is the Bigganjargga tillite of northern Norway. It is even called Reusch’s moraine. The tillite overlies a striated pavement in which two striae directions, a sharp NW–SE set overprinting a faint E–W set, were embossed on the sandstone below. Two subparallel sets of striae are supposedly diagnostic of glaciation. One author claimed to have observed striated and faceted clasts within the tillite. The top layer of the tillite is

composed of thin beds containing clasts larger than the thickness of the bedding, reminiscent of dropstone varvites. The above three characteristics of the Bigganjargga tillite are the main diagnostic features for an ancient ice age. 2 Thus, most geologists accepted without question that the tillite was a remnant of the Late Precambrian ‘ice age’. 3,4,5 However, a few geologists did question whether the tillite was really glaciogenic or else a mudflow deposit. 6Recently, a more in-depth analysis has indicated that this classical tillite is very likely a submarine debris flow. 7 The striated pavement was found to have been made by rocks sliding along soft sandstone, because a few clasts are embedded in the sandstone. Moreover, clast imprints on the sandstone have the same random spacing as in the ‘tillite’ above. There are other soft-sediment deformation features. The sandstone had been assumed lithified and dated 150 million years older than the tillite. The authors now suggest this time gap is not real.The matrix and clasts in the ‘tillite’ are rounded with the fine fraction missing. This is very unlike a glacial till. The rocks in the ‘tillite’ show flow layers around clasts indicating an underwater mass flow origin. Marine deposits are also closely associated with the ‘tillite’. Jensen and Wulff-Pedersen conclude: ‘The evidence for a debris flow origin for the Bigganjargga diamictite [a non-genitive term for till-like rock] seems compelling; the diamictite is massive and has random fabric, mound formed top, marginal snout(s), projecting boulders and a striated pavement.’8The implication of this result is that the main diagnostic features for an ancient ‘ice age’ are really not diagnostic at all. It has been known for a long time that the fabric of a ‘tillite’ cannot be distinguished from a debris flow. Early workers did not concern themselves with distinguishing between the two processes and just assumed ancient glaciation. It is, therefore, no surprise that the strata of the Earth have so many remnants of ancient ‘ice ages’. Just as with Reusch’s ‘moraine’, these claimed ancient ice ages are very likely submarine debris flows — a process that is consistent with a global Flood.9,10,11,12 Loess problems by Michael J. Oard Loess, generally considered to be wind-blown silt, has caused a number of problems for uniformitarism. The major problems are the missing periglacial loess from past ice ages, a lack of a source for the immense volume of loess (covering about 10% of Earth’s land surface) and the lack of eroded loess from past ice ages. How loess is produced has also caused a quandary for uniformitarians, with only fluvial tumbling in mixed-sized sediment producing a large volume of silt. However, the Flood and post-Flood Ice Age provide a more plausible framework in which to explain the volume and distribution of loess. Extreme turbulence in the Flood would have provided the right context for producing the necessary silt, which may have been reworked during the dry, deglacial phase of the Ice Age. Figure 1. Burlingame Canyon rhythmites from one large Lake Missoula flood at the peak of the Ice Age. Notice that only about one metre of windblown silt was deposited on top of the sequence. Loess is difficult to define, but it is generally considered to be wind-blown (eolian) silt.1 It is composed mostly of quartz grains, with minor portions of clay and sand often mixed with the silt. Loess is commonly intermixed vertically with ‘paleosols’, which are supposedly fossil soils that have been preserved in the geologic record or buried deeply enough that it is no longer subject to soil forming processes.2Scientists previously believed the silt particles in loess were derived from ice abrasion, but they now believe that loess has both a glacial and non-glacial origin.3–6 Loess covers much of the mid and high latitude continents, forming a thickening belt in Europe from the Atlantic coast east into Russia and the Ukraine in areas generally south of the Scandinavian Ice Sheet. It also covers a large portion of the Midwest of the United States, the lowlands of Alaska, southeast Washington and eastern Idaho 7 and some 440,000 km2 of central China, where it is up to 300m thick.8 Millions of woolly mammoths and other Ice Age animals are mostly entombed in loess in non-glaciated areas of Siberia, Alaska and the Yukon Territory of Canada.9 Wind blown material is common within the Ice Age portion of the Greenland ice cores.10 Despite the large number of studies, there are many problems associated with loess from a uniformitarian view: ‘Few problems in Quaternary geology have raised so much controversy as loess’.11 Missing loess The most difficult uniformitarian problem is the ‘missing loess’. Practically all periglacial loess is derived from the ‘last’ glaciation within the uniformitarian multiple glaciation system, and specialists have tended to avoid discussing the implications: ‘The periglacial loesses from China and elsewhere predominantly date from the last Pleistocene glaciation: relatively few comparable occurrences are known from earlier Quaternary glaciations … . A loess problem that is rarely touched upon is the almost complete lack of loesses from ice ages before the last one’. 12The periglacial loess in China is different from the thick, extensive loess in central China, which is considered non-glacial.13 Quaternary geologists once believed there were only four ice ages, but now they claim there have been over thirty during the past 2.5 million years of geological time, based on deep-sea cores.14 Where is the loess from all these previous supposed ice ages? The most straightforward deduction is that there were no previous ice ages; there was only one Ice Age, which was one of eleven reasons I listed in support of just one.15Uniformitarian scientists have attempted to explain this missing loess in various ways. The simplest explanation is that the loess was eroded by water and wind during interglacial periods. The problem with this explanation is that the earth is currently in an interglacial (the Holocene) and supposedly about ready to plunge into the next ice age, according to the Milankovitch mechanism for multiple ice ages. If it was eroded, the loess from the ‘last’ ice age has hardly been eroded during the current interglacial, despite accelerated erosion caused by deforestation and agriculture.16As a result of this contradiction to the uniformitarian idea of multiple ice ages, some scientists have simply suggested that the current interglacial is ‘different’ from all the previous interglacials. But such a special condition for the current interglacial is difficult to

imagine for some geologists,17 probably because such a suggestion defies the very uniformitarian principle upon which current geological interpretation is based. A recent hypothesis suggests that the loess from each ice age is simply ‘recycled’. 18 According to this idea, each ice age produces a little more loess than is lost during interglacials. So, the amount of loess builds with time from the first glaciation to the thick loesses of today.It seems inconceivable that the entire amount of loess is reworked during each glaciation so as to destroy evidence of loess from previous glaciations. Besides, the idea is untestable and ad hoc. Since some of this loess is trapped in river valleys, such as the Mississippi Valley, how would loess be scoured out of these valleys and redeposited? There is also the problem that each time the loess is recycled, why is it always recycled at the same location and not spread all over the continents? Do strong ice age winds that would rework loess only blow in the loess belt? Lack of a source for loess A second conundrum is the missing sources for loess. The amount of loess on the continents is immense, greater than the volume of glacial till. It covers 10% of the earth’s land surface. 19 Where and how did all this silt originate? The source and erosion of loess is difficult to explain: ‘This leaves one well known question (where do the loesses come from?) and one rarely (if ever) asked question: where did the eroded loesses go to?’17One of the main problems for the origin of loess is that quartz in igneous and metamorphic rocks has a mean grain size of approximately 700 μm, while the main size of detrital quartz in 60 μm. 20 The cutoff between sand and silt is 63 μm and most loess is in the range of 20 to 50 μm. So, the size of the quartz has to be reduced 90% from its source to account for the formation of loess. How does this happen?Four sources of loess have been proposed: (1) hot deserts, (2) cold deserts, (3) drowned sources covered by late-glacial sea level rise and (4) glacial grinding. 21 All these sources raise questions. Hot and cold deserts do not produce significant quantities of loess. There are problems associated with the origin of loess from continental shelves, now underwater, since many loess belts are far inland from the sea. 22It had been assumed that the formation of loess was only by subglacial grinding. 3 However, loess has been discovered in areas far from present or past glaciers or ice sheets, such as in northern Tunisia, northern Nigeria, Israel and Saudi Arabia. 23 Minor amounts of loess have even been found in the Sahara Desert. Furthermore, experiments have shown that glacial grinding does not produce much silt.3,5 This deduction is reinforced by the observation that hardly any loess is produced by or deposited in front of present-day glaciers.21 So, there does not appear to be a viable source for the immense volume of loess. Where is the eroded loess? A third problem is the lack of eroded loess. In the last quote above, an ignored problem is the location of all the eroded loess over the several millions of years allotted to multiple ice ages by uniformitarian scientists. Loess does not erode easily, but when it starts, vertical erosion proceeds relatively fast.16 So, there should be a huge volume of eroded loess deposited somewhere if all these glaciations were real. However, there is little of this reworked loess found on the continents. Just like the missing loess, the supposedly eroded loess is also missing. Furthermore, little of the loess, such as the Chinese loess, has been eroded.The lack of erosion of current loess deposits and the failure to find several millions of years of eroded loess strongly suggest that those millions of years are imaginary. Loess is very young and fits in well with the young-earth timeframe and one Ice Age. How is loess produced? Fourth, how is loess produced? There are now several other mechanisms besides glacial grinding suggested for the formation of loess. These mechanisms include wind abrasion, weathering, frost weathering, salt weathering and fluvial abrasion. However, experiments in the formation of silt particles have demonstrated that these other mechanisms are either ineffective or too slow, except for fluvial abrasion of mixed-size sediment: ‘The tumbling of sand alone in water resulted in very little comminution or silt production … However, the addition of gravelsized ceramic spheres to simulate a mixed-size sediment load in a turbulent, high-energy fluvial environment, produced rapid comminution and particle size reduction.’24Based on a table of the amount of silt and the time needed to produce it, fluvial tumbling with mixed-sized sediment rapidly produced a large volume of silt, while wind abrasion was a distant second.25 Flood-Ice Age solution How would the Flood, followed by a post-Flood Ice Age, explain the observations of loess? There does not seem to be enough time in the Ice Age to generate so much loess by glacial grinding or any other post-Flood mechanism. For instance, the monstrous volume of non-glacial silt in the Chinese ‘loess’ cannot be accounted for even within 2.6 million years of uniformitarian time: ‘The supply of immense quantities of quartz-dominated silt over the past 2.6 Ma for the Chinese loess plateau is indeed a very intriguing problem.’26 It is inconceivable that the sediments for the Chinese ‘loess’ can be formed after the Flood. A much better possibility for explaining the thick sources of ‘loess’ is extreme turbulence in the Flood, which would provide an ideal environment during rock erosion for producing large volumes of silt. The Flood would act like a global water abrasion mechanism, similar to the tumbler experiment of mixed-grain sizes described above.The Flood might also explain the origin of the particles that make up thick siltstone and shale, which contains ~75% silt, observed in the rock record. The formation of all this silt and its concentration in the rock record is a difficult uniformitarian problem. 27 One siltstone formation in Africa averages 300 m thick. 28As the Floodwater drained, mud with much silt would have been deposited in ‘slackwater’ areas, which are areas with low current velocity late in the Flood. This mud could be left on the surface after the Flood in various areas. For the Palouse silt, such a slackwater area could have been created by the uplift of the Cascade Mountains of western Washington and Oregon. Strong Ice Age winds would then rework the top of the mud layers into true wind-blown deposits and spread real loess downstream from sources.The origin of most of the ‘loess’ from Flood abrasion is a rather radical idea but seems to be the only possibility within the young-earth timeframe. There is further evidence suggesting the original Flood generation of surficial silt deposits. One of the reasons is that water seems to be involved in the transport process of the silt at some stage: ‘Indeed, many loess-like deposits seem to have undergone some transport by water and many such deposits accumulated in previous depressions even seem to have formed by settling from suspension in shallow pools or lakes.’16 The action of water at some stage is reinforced by Wright: ‘Finally, a recent geochemical and isotopic study of loess deposits by Gallet et al. (1998) revealed that all loess particles must have experienced at least one cycle of aquatic transport.’27

The above quotes seem to suggest more than transport by glacial meltwater within the uniformitarian paradigm. Gallet et al. further state that the geochemical characteristics of loess are indistinguishable from shales, which favours a Flood generation of ‘loess’.29 Figure 2. The rolling Palouse ‘loess’ of southeast Washington. The rolling character is caused by the bulbous surface of the Columbia River Basalts below the ‘loess’. In studying the Lake Missoula flood,30 I noticed that since the peak of the Ice Age, only about a metre of wind-blown silt was deposited on top of flood rhythmites in Burlingame Canyon of southeast Washington (figure 1). This canyon is within the area of the deposition of the thick Palouse ‘loess’ that ranges in thickness from 2 to 75 m and covers an area greater than 50,000 km2.31 Figure 2 shows a picture of the rolling Palouse silt. The rolling character is actually derived from the underlying Columbia River Basalts.32 The early Ice Age should have been wet with the formation of little loess, while deglaciation should have been much drier with great amounts of wind blown silt. If all the Palouse ‘loess’ was formed by dry winds during deglaciation, much more than a meter of silt should have been deposited on these rhythmites. Furthermore, sponge spicules have been found in the ‘loess’.33 Harold Coffin collected sponge spicules, likely marine, at all nineteen locations sampled within the Palouse ‘loess’ of southeast Washington.34 The lower layers of the Palouse silt are layered, and rounded gravel is also found at some locations within the silt.33 This evidence suggests that the lower portions of many silt and sand deposits on the surface of the earth likely were laid down in the very last moments of the Flood. This material was subsequently reworked during the dry, deglacial phase of the Ice Age. This reworking can explain the fact that loess contains some Ice Age mammals. A further implication is that the Flood/post-Flood boundary is in the late Cenozoic in the loess source areas, in particular in the early to mid Pleistocene, such as in the Palouse ‘loess’ and probably in the Chinese loess. Such a boundary was advocated by the late Roy Holt.35

ANOTHER THREAT TO THE MILANKOVITCH THEORY QUALLED How did 90% of large Australian Ice Age animals go extinct? Michael J. Oard Most large mammals and birds went extinct at the end of the Ice Age, but Australia was the hardest hit of all the continents, with 90% going extinct. Uniformitarians try to explain this via two different hypotheses: either they went extinct because of climate change —the overchill hypothesis, or humans hunted them to extinction—the overkill hypothesis. However, there are numerous problems with these explanations in general and in their specific applicability to the Australian extinctions. From a biblical perspective, severe drought at the end of the Ice Age is likely the primary factor that caused the severe extinction event of the large animals in Australia. The percentage of large mammals, usually defined as greater than 40 kg, that becameextinct on the continents at or near the end of the Ice Age. Extinction on a continent does not necessarily mean extinction across the earth. The extinction record Throughout much of the world, most of the large mammals and many large birds became extinct at the end of the Ice Age. Some animals disappeared from whole continents, but never became extinct. In North America 70% of mammals weighing over 40 kg disappeared.1,2 About 75% disappeared from Eurasia.3 But Australia was the hardest hit, loosing about 90% of its large Ice Age animals, including all marsupials exceeding 100 kg, 22 out

of 38 species between 10 and 100 kg, three large reptiles, and three large flightless birds.4,5 Strangely, Africa is the only continent where mass extinction did not occur at the end of the Ice Age.6 The mystery of the end-Ice Age mass extinctions In evolutionary thinking, these extinctions occurred at a time when the ice was melting and the climate was supposedly becoming warmer. This melting resulted in more land becoming available for the animals. Furthermore, few extinctions took place during other glacial or interglacial periods, though there supposedly were several dozen glacial/interglacial cycles during the Quaternary of the uniformitarian ice age paradigm. Why did this mass extinction occur only at the end of the last Ice Age? To make the mystery more profound, the extinctions in Australia supposedly occurred 45,000 years ago, well before the end of the last Ice Age, while extinctions on other continents occurred at the end of the last Ice Age purportedly around 10 to 15,000 years ago. Overchill or overkill? There are two main categories of uniformitarian extinction hypotheses: either they died of a climate change— the overchill hypothesis; or they died at the hands of man—the overkill hypothesis. A third possibility of disease is believed by very few scientists. The cause of the mass extinction has been debated for over 150 years and not always on scientific grounds: ‘Debate about the possible cause of the extinction has continued for over 150 yr … , stimulated by new fossil finds, dating techniques, and modes of analysis. The debate is not strictly scientific, however, because it impacts on the broader understanding of the evolutionary theater of early human cultures, the fact of contemporary global biodiversity, and the rights of indigenous hunters …’7 Other authors have suggested that the overkill hypothesis is being reinforced by the environmental movement: ‘For these discussions, and others like them, overkill provides powerful political capital.’8 Furthermore, scientists are entrenched in their positions, and both sides have lately claimed that they are right. The debate is often acrimonious: ‘Few topics in Quaternary science match the late Pleistocene megafauna extinction debate for the intensity of polemic it has generated, with most authorities championing either a human or a climatic cause.’9 Regardless of polemics, both the overchill and the overkill hypotheses have serious, seemingly insurmountable problems trying to fit within the uniformitarian paradigm.10 Some scientists advocate both hypotheses, but the problem is really within the uniformitarian paradigm of slow processes over millions of years, along with dozens of regularly repeating ice ages according to the astronomical theory of the ice ages. Problems specific to Australia The demise of the animals in Australia comes with several unique problems of its own. One is that the extinctions occurred some 20,000 years or more before the end of the Ice Age.11 This date supposedly eliminates climate change, since most Quaternary scientists believe massive drought did not occur until the end of the Ice Age at about 20,000 years ago. Yet, some scientists still argue that Australia had been drying up for the past 500,000 years, and that increasing drought caused by climate change killed off the megafauna.12,13 The overkill advocates, of course, dispute this claim by saying the animals had survived countless oscillations between wet periods and droughts with hardly any extinctions before 45,000 years ago, and that the climate was not that dry about 45,000 years ago.7,14–16 Overkill advocates point to New Zealand and other islands where hunting destroyed many species of animals, including large flightless birds.17 However, overchill advocates make a good case that islands cannot be extrapolated to continents because many other variables must be included for continents, such as a greater space for the animals to hide.12,18 Overkill enthusiasts, of course, point to humans entering Australia around 55,000 years ago. They say that this date is too much of a coincidence with the megafauna disappearing 10,000 years later. This seems to be their most significant argument.12,16 Such a belief does eliminate the more radical overkill hypothesis of ‘blitzkrieg’ in which, according to the hypothesis, the animals died off within a hundred years or so of humans first entering the land. Some overchill advocates further claim that the megafauna had mostly died out well before the magical date of 45,000 years ago.12 They also claim that some of the fauna survived beyond 45,000 years ago.13,19 Overchill advocates also claim that there are very few or no kill sites, and that archaeological sites during the period 45 to 55,000 years ago show no evidence of the type of technology required to have killed big game.13,20 They doubt that ‘primitive’ humans could have possibly killed the immense hippo-sized marsupial, Diprotodon, as well as the other large beasts of the Ice Age. There seems to be plenty of archaeological sites that do contain megafaunal remains,21 but the number of the remains within those sites is sparse.22 Problems with Australian uniformitarian scenarios Accurate dating is required to correlate human settlement with megafaunal extinction and it is freely admitted that this is a big problem.23–25 Furthermore, to arrive at an extinction date of about 45,000 years ago, some researchers have dismissed fauna with younger dates.20,26,27 So, there is an element of circular reasoning regarding the dates of settlement in Australia and the time of extinction, similar to the situation in North America with the ‘magical’ date of 11,000 years ago. There is even a paucity of data upon which to determine the accuracy of either hypothesis:28 ‘This is partly because few well-stratified faunal successions have been discovered, but more so because of the rarity of field-based studies and the historical difficulties involved with dating deposits beyond the limit of radiocarbon dating (ca. 45 ka).’9 It is obvious the assumptions of the researchers have often driven their conclusions.25 A creationist’s interpretation How would I as a creationist interpret the data? First, I would throw out all the dates, which are admittedly problematic and likely subject to bias. The significant dates are beyond the range of radiocarbon dating and hence are not reliable. Besides, with different creationist assumptions, the calculated radiocarbon dates become much younger.29 I would go with the general trend that many large and diverse animals thrived for a while in Australia after the Flood during the early

and middle stages of the Ice Age. This was a time when the climate was cooler and wetter and a small ice cap formed on the mountains of southeast Australia. Most of Tasmania was glaciated. Uniformitarians believe that Diprotodon australis, one of the Australian Ice Age megafauna that died out towards the end of the Ice Age in Australia, went extinct about 40,000 years ago. The largest Diprotodon fossils found have been up to 3 m long and 2 m tall at the shoulder. Humans enter the picture about midway through the Ice Age, having been held up building the Tower of Babel in the Middle East and then later spreading away from there. It would take some time to reach Australia. In other words, the animals came first, followed by humans. Then conditions changed, in tandem with other areas of the world, at the end of the Ice Age. Second, the Ice Age was much different from what uniformitarians believe.30,31 Instead of the Ice Age being a time of cold, the winters were actually mild. This is because the ocean temperatures at mid and high altitude were warm and much more latent heat was released to the atmosphere due to more precipitation. Summers were cool, especially over large continental areas, due to large amounts of volcanic ash and aerosols in the stratosphere. Winters then become cold at the end of the Ice Age, much colder than today, especially at mid and high latitudes due to drier air, more sea ice, cooler oceans and more reflection of sunlight from ice sheets. The animals were not adapted to cold winters and did not have time to adapt. Such very cold winters can account for many of the extinctions on other continents, but likely not Australia. Due to cold winters, less oceanic evaporation, more sea ice and stronger upper winds, dust storms would be severe on some continents. Severe dust storms likely account for the extinctions in Siberia.32 One variable most applicable to Australia was extreme drought. This probably played a minor role on other continents but was likely the number one cause of extinctions in Australia. The severe drought dried up pluvial lakes and caused the large animals that required more food and water to die out. Humans played a little part in the extinctions. Climate change was the real culprit. The post-Flood rapid Ice Age can account for both the thriving of the megafauna at the beginning, and their extinction at the end.On interpreting deep sea data as evidence of Milankovitch cycles Some of the impl i c a t ions following from the article entitled “On interpreting deep sea data as evidence of Milankovitch cycles”1 should be noted. If the 1/20th subharmonic of the Duffing equation is the cause of the anomalous, supposedly 400,000-year cycle in the original paper by Hayes et al.,2 then its appearance elsewhere in the stratigraphic record should herald either a quick catastrophic event or a global event of short duration on the spinning earth. Its appearance anywhere would speak against a Milankovitch cycle interpretation of the stratigraphic layers under examination; its appearance should help pinpoint catastrophic events in a creationist model. Interestingly, Late Triassic to Middle Cretaceous cycles interpreted as being approximately 400,000 years long do seem to exist in data from eastern North America3, central Italy4 and Hungary5. Even though such cycles are asserted to also exist at the Permian/Triassic6 and Cretaceous/ Tertiary7 mass extinction boundaries, the “bundling of ~ 100 k.y. eccentricity cycles into ~ 400 k.y. eccentricity cycles”7 seems at present to be wishful thinking lacking the rigor of a real signal processing analysis. Certainly the hypothesized enhanced “sensitivity of the oceans to orbital forcing for almost 1 m.y. [million years]”7 due to a single hypothesized extraterrestrial impact must strain the incredulity of even evolutionists (and lend support to the alternative Deccan Trap volcanism explanation). If the article’s conjecture about modal coupling of physical systems being the cause of the dominance of the 100,000-year cycle over the 40,000- year cycle is correct, then the socalled transition problem of having no explanation for the 100,000-year cycle being dominant over the last one million years when the 40,000-year cycle was dominant for the previous two million years does not exist. Instead such a transition marks the onset of modal coupling, the evidence for the physical progression of a catastrophic event into a new region. It is probable that further data on such transition problems for stratigraphically older layers will help elucidate and refine a creationist model. Indeed, just an examination of the relative amplitudes of the 1/20th subharmonic at various localities to other orders of harmonics at the same places may reveal the progression of the physical phenomenon responsible for the stratigraphic layers. Different rates of attenuation for these different frequency components are expected. Many other tests revealing details of the physical process could be applied if the data were available. From our research8 it appears that recovering the catastrophic tell-tale 400,000-unit anomalous Milankovitch cycle from Pennsylvanian strata has the potential to be fraught with a great deal of difficulty due to diagenetic separation of floating forest layers (unless, of course, the application of a low pass filter to the raw data proves effective). Anyway, further finds of supposedly 400,000-year stratigraphic cycles can only help hasten the demise of the Milankovitch cycle paradigm. Another threat to the Milankovitch theory quelled? Michael J. Oard Two major paradigm changes have transformed geology during the past 75 years: 1) plate tectonics and 2) the Milankovitch theory of the ice age.1 Geoffrey Boulton, writing of progress in glacial geology during a 50-year period ending in 1987, remarked: 'The demonstration of an insistent pulse of environmental change with frequencies of 40,000 and 100,000 years has been one of the two most important geological discoveries of the last 50 years, the other being the plate-tectonic synthesis of Earth's structural evolution.' 2 Neither theory was new, and both were once believed impossible. Both were quickly 'verified' by several key pieces of research and are now widely accepted. Since then, in a band-wagon effect, new research must be explained within the context of the paradigm. For the Milankovitch paradigm, the watershed paper was published in 1976, purporting to correlate mainly oxygen isotopes in deep sea cores with changes in the earth's orbital geometry.3 Many geological variables have since been correlated to the Milankovitch cycles, in seemingly consistent agreement. William Ruddiman expounds: Everything fits together so well that it would have to be a preposterously cruel joke if we were wrong. '4 Therefore, it is understandable that a challenge to the Milankovitch theory would be met with great resistance. One such challenge came in 1988 when Isaac Winograd and co-workers reported a supposed global climate chronology for the latest Quaternary Period.5 Their results were based on uranium-series dating and oxygen isotope analysis of a thick calcite coating on the walls of a water-filled fault crack. The crack, called Devil's Hole, is located in the desert 115 km westnorthwest of Las Vegas, Nevada, U.S.A. (Figure 1). The researchers later extended their chronology for 500,000 years of supposed geologic time.67 They claim their U-series dates of the calcite are ten times more accurate than any other Useries dates, including the U-series dates of raised coral reefs that indirectly provided the dates for oxygen isotope fluctuations in deepsea cores. Winograd and colleague's chronology conflicts with the Milankovitch theory.8 Winograd and co-worker's oxygen isotope curve superficially appears similar to the Milankovitch radiational time series for high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere (Figure 2). However, a closer look reveals a number of serious discrepancies. Mainly that the

termination of the 'next to the last ice age' was about 140,000 years ago (supposed geological time), while the Milankovitch theory predicts it should be 123,000 years ago. But the timing difference is even greater because of the lag in ground water that flows to Devil's Hole. The time it takes precipitation to filter through the ground to Devil's Hole is supposedly anywhere from a few thousand to 20,000 years. This lag would push the Devil's Hole 'ice age' termination back from 140,000 to 150,000 years or so. Therefore, the oxygen isotope curve from Devil's Hole is out of phase with the Milankovitch radiational curve at 60 °N — ice ages would melt during cool temperatures and develop during warm temperatures. A further challenge from the Devil's Hole chronology is that the oxygen isotope fluctuations ranged from 80,000 to 130,000 years and did not display the neat 100,000 year periodicity predicted. Since 1988, there have been many attempts to discredit the Devil's Hole chronology. One of the latest attempted to show that the Devil's Hole chronology was related to Milankovitch radiational changes at latitudes other than 60 °N and seasons other than summer.9 If such a correlation were possible with the outofphase Devil's Hole chronology, the Milankovitch theory would be plastic indeed! All these attacks on the Devil's Hole chronology seem to have been adequately addressed by Winograd and co-workers. Recently, it was claimed that the challenge from the Devil's Hole oxygen isotope chronology on the Milankovitch theory had been quelled. Edwards and associates 'redated' Barbados coral terraces that were presumably formed during interglacial high sea level stands. The terraces were one of the main original methods which were used to indirectly date oxygen isotope curves in deep sea cores. The Milankovitch theory was not totally based on the dated terraces, but partially so. Using the 231Pa/235U method (one of the U-series methods), but with ten times the previous accuracy, they supposedly vindicated the Milankovitch theory, because they obtained similar dates to the original work.10 Breathing a sight of relief, Richard Kerr expounds: 'For a while, it looked as if a waterfilled crack in the Nevada desert might doom the accepted explanation of the ice ages ...If the Devil's Hole chronology was a true record of the world's ice ages, researchers would have to dump the astronomical mechanism and look for something new.' 11 Unfortunately, Edwards and colleagues by the same dating method also verified the Devil's Hole chronology! They could find nothing wrong with it. So both contradictory chronologies are deemed correct! Since Milankovitch is confirmed to be correct and Winograd is too, there must be some other explanation for the Devil's Hole chronology. At least researchers can now concentrate their attention on the challenge to climatic change, instead of errors in U-series dating. However, climatic hypotheses to explain the discrepancy at Devil's Hole have nearly been exhausted. Winograd is not impressed with the new results of Edwards and colleagues, stating that they have simply reanalyzed coral samples that have already been used to support the Milankovitch theory. Interestingly, Edwards and colleagues discovered in the process a few large errors in previous dating.12 Winograd also suggests Edwards and co-workers have neglected coral reefs from other locations that may not support the Milankovitch theory due to older dates.13 Winograd does not believe the discrepancy between Devil's Hole and the Milankovitch theory has been solved,14 but believes the Devil's Hole Figure 1. Location of the Devil's Hole in Nevada. Major mountains with contours of 2400and 3600 m are shaded. Major roads are shown. chronology is recording true global climatic changes, just like the Milankovitch chronology, and not just local climate fluctuations as some researchers have claimed.15 Most scientists, however, still favour the Milankovitch paradigm. Throughout this decade-long controversy, one learns that Useries dating on corals has not really been that accurate, in spite of claims to the contrary. There are processes that disturb the chronology, such as the diagenesis of calcite. Despite all the claimed successes throughout the years, we now find that, 'Getting accurate dates for the ancient reefs has always been a challenge...'.16 Another interesting fact is that, beyond the range of carbon-14 dating, deep-sea sediments are indirectly dated.17 These indirect dates are mainly from U-series dates of coral terraces, such as at Barbados; paleomagnetic reversals in the sediments, the first marker being about 780,000 years ago (the Brunhes-Matuyama reversal); and by simply assuming the Milankovitch theory is true and tuning the chronology to the theory, a form of circular reasoning. When you think about it, such methods are a rather shaky foundation for such a

major paradigm change. The Devil's Hole chronology has one mysterious feature that currently has no solution, which may hint that there are some unrecognized problems with the U-series dating method. The 500,000 year chronology begins 60,000 years ago and ends about 556,000 years ago (supposed geologic time). There has been no calcite precipitation on the outside of the deposit for 60,000 years! Researchers can find no environmental reason for such a change; the water is still supersaturated with respect to carbon dioxide. One also wonders why so much research on so many aspects of Quaternary earth sciences over the years fits so well the Milankovitch range of frequencies, despite the theories many lapses. Figure 2. An ice age 'out of synch'? Whether the end of the penultimate ice age (Termination II) fell at a sunshine minimum or maximum depends on which record is preferred — SPECMAP or Devil's Hole. (The vertical scale shows standard deviation units.)

On interpreting deep sea data as evidence of Milankovitch cycles Some of the impl i c a t ions following from the article entitled “On interpreting deep sea data as evidence of Milankovitch cycles”1 should be noted. If the 1/20th subharmonic of the Duffing equation is the cause of the anomalous, supposedly 400,000-year cycle in the original paper by Hayes et al.,2 then its appearance elsewhere in the stratigraphic record should herald either a quick catastrophic event or a global event of short duration on the spinning earth. Its appearance anywhere would speak against a Milankovitch cycle interpretation of the stratigraphic layers under examination; its appearance should help pinpoint catastrophic events in a creationist model. Interestingly, Late Triassic to Middle Cretaceous cycles interpreted as being approximately 400,000 years long do seem to exist in data from eastern North America3, central Italy4 and Hungary5. Even though such cycles are asserted to also exist at the Permian/Triassic6 and Cretaceous/ Tertiary7 mass extinction boundaries, the “bundling of ~ 100 k.y. eccentricity cycles into ~ 400 k.y. eccentricity cycles”7 seems at present to be wishful thinking lacking the rigor of a real signal processing analysis. Certainly the hypothesized enhanced “sensitivity of the oceans to orbital forcing for almost 1 m.y. [million years]”7 due to a single hypothesized extraterrestrial impact must strain the incredulity of even evolutionists (and lend support to the alternative Deccan Trap volcanism explanation). If the article’s conjecture about modal coupling of physical systems being the cause of the dominance of the 100,000-year cycle over the 40,000- year cycle is correct, then the socalled transition problem of having no explanation for the 100,000-year cycle being dominant over the last one million years when the 40,000-year cycle was dominant for the previous two million years does not exist. Instead such a transition marks the onset of modal coupling, the evidence for the physical progression of a catastrophic event into a new region. It is probable that further data on such transition problems for stratigraphically older layers will help elucidate and refine a creationist model. Indeed, just an examination of the relative amplitudes of the 1/20th subharmonic at various localities to other orders of harmonics at the same places may reveal the progression of the physical phenomenon responsible for the stratigraphic layers. Different rates of attenuation for these different frequency components are expected. Many other tests revealing details of the physical process could be applied if the data were available. From our research8 it appears that recovering the catastrophic tell-tale 400,000-unit anomalous Milankovitch cycle from Pennsylvanian strata has the potential to be fraught with a great deal of difficulty due to diagenetic separation of floating forest layers (unless, of course, the application of a low pass filter to the raw data proves effective). Anyway, further finds of supposedly 400,000-year stratigraphic cycles can only help hasten the demise of the Milankovitch cycle paradigm. MAMMOTHS – WHAT EXACTLEY ARE THEY ‘Lost world’ animals—found! Cave drawings brought to life by exciting new discoveries The spread from our 1996 Creation magazine article showing these living mammoth-like elephants. by Carl Wieland Tantalising rumours of huge, unusual elephants, with features similar to extinct elephant types like the mammoth, have circulated for years in remote areas of western Nepal. In a time when it seems as if there is not much left to be discovered, Colonel John BlashfordSnell is an explorer whose very name evokes some of the romance of past colonial–era expeditions.His discovery of two of these elephants has confirmed the rumours and sent a buzz through the scientific community. The two bulls, named Raja Gaj and Kanji, are huge—Raja Gaj stands 3.7 metres (12 feet) tall, taller than the biggest Asian elephant on record, and weighs around seven tonnes. Mammoth Discovery Their features happen to be remarkably like those shown in cave drawings of the mammoths, for example in southwest France, which are dated by evolutionists to as much as 30,000 years (and never less than 10,000 years) ago. 1 These distinctive characteristics include unusually sloping backs, ‘reptilian’ appearance of the tail, a swept-up forehead interrupted by a deep depression and a large dome-shaped hump on the top of their heads. Media speculation about the Nepalese giants has canvassed not only mammoths, but also species believed to be extinct for millions of years, such as the Stegodon, and Elephas hysudricus. Fossil bones of the latter, as well as of mammoths, have been found in Nepal.2,3 Obtaining DNA samples to compare with the DNA of mammoths (of which there are some samples) involves some difficulty. Also, neither mammoth nor modern elephants’ DNA has been properly sequenced yet. Nevertheless, using dung believed to

be from these creatures, preliminary DNA testing is said to show that they are more similar to the Asian elephant than to the mammoth. Some speculate that these unique giants might represent some sort of ‘throwback’ due to unusual inbreeding. Those who blithely accept evolutionary dating have a problem: what are features found in mammoths which supposedly vanished more than 10,000 years ago doing in animals today? 4 These features are presumably caused by the same genes which produced them in the ‘extinct’ mammoths. It is most unlikely that even the most ardent evolutionist would think that the same distinctive features evolved twice in creatures that happened to be similar in many other ways as well. A horse, of course Not long after the elephant discovery, another team of explorers found a previously unknown breed of horse, grazing in a remote valley in Tibet, which looks exactly like those in ‘Stone Age’ cave paintings. Known as the Riwoche (pronounced Ree–woe–chay) horse, it has the same wedge-shaped head (zebras have this too), the same black stripe on its back, and black lines on its lower legs. Discoveries like this, of animals (or features) which are supposed to be ‘extinct’ long ago, in spite of the discomfort they may cause to evolutionary thinking, seem to always generate headlines laced with evolutionary assumptions. Statements such as ‘prehistoric survivors’ or ‘creatures from millions of years ago that time forgot’ are routine, and serve to further indoctrinate the public into an evolutionary, when the evidence contradicts this view. A Creationists understanding The cave paintings which show features just like the living Nepalese elephants and the Riwoche horse would have been made in the early centuries after the Flood, following the dispersion at Babel, when many rapidly migrating groups would have needed to shelter in caves and use stone tools. This is so, not only because of the fact that small groups leaving a culture do not necessarily carry all its technological ‘know-how’, but also because of the harsh climatic conditions of that inevitable consequence of the Global Flood, the Ice Age.6 Since the time when these paintings were made is obviously much, much more recent than evolutionists claim, the fact that the same animals are still alive is nowhere near as surprising for creationists as it is for the evolutionist, who has to believe that they survived unchanged for tens of thousands of years, with no other record of their existence in the intervening period. It is not surprising to find that the Riwoche horse has a zebra-like head, being descended from the same gene pool. For the same reason, it is not surprising to find that genes giving rise to characteristics similar to those in vanished types are still in some elephant populations today. The Riwoche horse was described in news reports as ‘primitive’ or as looking ‘archaic’. 7 It is obvious that there is nothing ‘primitive’ about this real, modern horse living normally in the same world as the rest of us. Such terms merely demonstrate a belief system being forced onto the facts. It is easier for believers in evolution to label these present–day elephants and horses as ‘archaic’, than to face the uncomfortable alternative proposition; namely, that finding them in the modern world means that the culture which drew the same creatures was far less ‘archaic’, and far closer to modern times, than evolutionary belief requires. The Riwoche horse–all the same features as the horses common in ‘stone age’ cave drawings

Creationists agree with evolutionists that forests once covered Tibet, only creationists believe it was much more recent than evolutionists do. Not surprisingly, the discoverers of this horse also found what look like living remnants of these forests of conifer, willow, birch and other vegetation. The frequent discoveries of such ‘prehistoric’ survivors and so-called ‘living fossils’ make it ever more difficult to believe the alleged long timespans between ‘prehistory’ and the present. The extinction of the woolly mammoth: was it a quick freeze? by Michael Oard Summary Apart from formerly glaciated areas, woolly mammoth remains are abundant in the surficial sediments of the mid and high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, including western Europe, northern and eastern Asia, Alaska and the Yukon. There are probably millions of mammoths buried in the permafrost of Siberia alone. The mammoths are found with a wide variety of other mammals, large and small, many of which were grazers. They lived in a grassland environment with a long growing season, mild winters, very little permafrost, and a wide diversity of plants—quite different from the climate in the region today. The mammoths and other animals colonised the region after the Flood during the ice age. The region’s climate during the ice age was ideal for rapid population growth and, in the 600 or so years before their demise, the population had grown to many millions of animals. They were buried in the dust storms that deposited the loess blankets found in those regions today. Some were entombed in a standing position. The good state of preservation of the stomach contents does not call for

super-rapid freezing of the carcasses. Rather than food digestion, the mammoth stomach acts as a food storage pouch. The mammoths became extinct when, at the end of the ice age, the climate in the region became more continental, with colder winters, warmer summers, and drier conditions. Frozen carcasses and many thousands of tons of bones and tusks of woolly mammoths are buried in Siberia and Alaska. In March 2000, the Discovery Channel produced a special on the excavation of a carcass in north central Siberia, called the Jarkov mammoth. This mammoth was cut out of the permafrost and transported by helicopter into cold storage for future analysis and possible cloning.1 Mammoth remains have puzzled scientists and laymen for hundreds of years. Many explanations have been offered. One of the most popular hypotheses is that one eventful day, the hairy elephants were peacefully grazing on grass and buttercups when suddenly, tragedy struck, and millions of them froze instantly. This article examines the life and death of the woolly mammoth in Siberia, Alaska, and the Yukon Territory of Canada. These areas, together with the surrounding shallow ocean (Bering Strait), are called Beringia. There are still unknowns associated with the woolly mammoth and its environment in Beringia. Some information is conflicting. However, the data is pointing to a unique environment and extinction of the woolly mammoths in Beringia. What is a woolly mammoth? A woolly mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius) is one of several types of mammoths in the genus Mammuthus within the order Proboscidea. The woolly mammoth is essentially a hairy elephant with a large shoulder hump, a sloping back, small ears, tiny tail, unique teeth, a small trunk with a distinctive tip and two finger-like projections, huge spirally curved tusks up to 3.5 meters long, and spiral locks of dark hair covering a silky underfur.2 Mammoths are classified mainly on variables such as molar hypsodonty (height of the crown), number of lamellae (ridges on crown), and enamel thickness. History shows there has been much taxonomic splitting of mammoths, as well as other members of Proboscidea. It is likely that they are all descended from a single created kind.2 In general, there seem to be two main varieties of mammoths on both Eurasia and North America. The woolly mammoth is the smaller variety that generally inhabited the north. The second, more southern variety, from both Eurasia and North America can be lumped together for simplification and referred to as the Columbian mammoth (Mammuthus columbi). Figure 2. Distribution of woolly mammoth remains, and the mammoth steppe. Glaciated areas are shown speckled. Mammoth steppe is shown hatched. The area referred to as Beringia is shown separately (after Guthrie 143). Note that the extent of the northern and eastern boundaries of the Scandinavian ice sheet is controversial. Mammoth distribution Mammoths are commonly found in surficial sediments from western Europe eastward through northern and eastern Asia, Alaska and the Yukon (Figure 2).3,4 Mammoth remains are also found on some of the islands in the Bering Sea 5,6 and are dredged from the shallow continental shelves surrounding Beringia. 7,8 Enormous numbers of ice age mammals, most commonly mammoths, are dredged up from the unconsolidated sediments of the North Sea by trawlers. 9 Woolly mammoths are found in abundance south of the North American ice sheet. They are rare in formerly glaciated areas. Mammoth and mastodon teeth have been dredged from 40 sites along the continental shelf off the eastern US in water up to 120 m deep.10 In Siberia, the woolly mammoth inhabited the whole area from the Ural Mountains to the Pacific Ocean. Their east-west distribution is generally uniform, except that they are especially abundant in northeast Siberia.11 Their numbers increase farther north.12,13 Mammoth remains are amazingly abundant on the Lyakhov Islands 14 and the other islands of the New Siberian Islands, 230 km north of the Arctic coast. 12,15Frozen mammoth carcasses are usually found eroding out of river banks and along the shore of the Arctic Ocean. Mammoth fauna Woolly mammoths are not the only fossil mammals found in the permafrost of Beringia. There are a wide range of other mammals, large and small, that accompany the mammoths. These include the woolly rhinoceros, wolf, fox, lion, brown bear, camel, deer, ground sloth, pika, wolverine, ferret, ground squirrel, moose, reindeer, yak, musk ox, giant beaver, lemming, porcupine, coyote, skunk, mastodon, antelope, sheep, voles, hare and rabbit, plus many species of birds, rodents, horses, and bisons.4,16–19 Frozen carcasses of these animals, especially the woolly rhinoceros, are also found. Generally, the same animals are found together throughout much of the mid and high latitudes of the Northern HemiÂsphere.3,20 How many mammoths are buried in Siberia? There has been much controversy over how many woolly mammoths are frozen in the permafrost of Siberia. A few scientists attempt to downplay the number,21 but practically all observers describe the number in superlatives. The top expert on woolly mammoths in Siberia, Nikolai Vereshchagin, has spent nearly a half century of research on the mammoth fauna. He states that there are many hundreds of thousands of large mammals buried in Siberia22 and also many millions of bones.23 One estimate he made for one region of Siberia would suggest five million mammoths buried. 24 Is he exaggerating? It would be conservative, therefore, to conclude that several million mammoths are buried in Beringia. Perplexing mammoth data There are many perplexing aspects to the Siberian mammoth finds, including the existence of frozen carcasses and the good preservation of their stomach contents. In addition, a number of the carcasses and skeletons have been unearthed in a general standing position, as if the animal sank in a bog.25–27 The Selerikhan horse was entombed in a general standing position.28 The new Jarkov mammoth was dug up in a standing position.

It is also relevant that an analysis of several features of the carcasses shows that three woolly mammoths and two woolly rhinocerosessuffocated, including the Beresovka (or Beryosovka) mammoth. 29–32 The Beresovka mammoth also had a broken pelvis, ribs, and right foreleg.13,27For carcasses to be frozen and the bones and tusks well preserved, quick burial is necessary. But how could all these woolly mammoths have been forced into the rock hard permafrost, which starts about half a meter deep, below the summer melt zone? Beringian paleoenvironmental deductions The animals themselves tell us much about the paleoenvironment —a controversial subject.33 The diversity of animals was so great that there must have been a highly diverse vegetation.34 The only similar diversity of mammals is on the Serengeti of East Africa.34,35 Practically all the large mammals were grazers that ate a wide variety of herbaceous vegetation, mainly grasses. Based on the large numbers of healthy individuals, Beringia, as well as Europe and western Russia, must have been mostly one huge grassland during the ice age, called the mammoth steppe or steppe tundra (Figure 2).3,34,36,37 Figure 3. Ability of animals to walk through deep snow or to stay on top of crusted snow depends on foot loading and chest height (after Guthrie).144 The sheep and wolf could not have tolerated deep snow or boggy substrate.To maintain a large variety of herbaceous vegetation on the mammoth steppe would have required a long growing season with warm soil and rapid spring growth.38 This contrasts strongly to the current environment where green vegetation does not appear in northern Siberia until mid June to early July.39 Ninety percent of the biomass of grass is in the roots below the surface, and the grass cannot grow until the snow melts and the soil warms up. Therefore, winters must have been milder with light snowfall. The growth pattern of the mammals reinforces the deduction of a longer growing season. 34 The shaggy ruffs, heavy horns, long tusks, and enormous antlers are what wildlife managers would recognise as indicators of highquality habitat with light competition and a long growing season. 40 Open range with light snowfall during winter is also supported by the existence of several animals that are intolerant of deep snow, such as the saiga antelope, bighorn sheep, Dall sheep, and wolf (Figure 3).41With milder winters and a longer growing season over an extensive grassland, it is likely that there were no significant areas of permafrost. This is because permafrost would have caused a boggy substrate in summer, making it difficult for much grass to grow. Further paleoecological evidence for a lack of permafrost comes from the existence of some animals with small hooves, such as the saiga antelope. This animal cannot manage on boggy substrate. Furthermore, there is plenty of other evidence that the climate of Siberia was once much warmer, but again this evidence is somewhat obscured by uniformitarian dating and pigeonholing the evidence into supposed ‘interglacial’ and ‘interstadial’ periods.42 Mammoth uniformitarian problems How millions of mammoths became entombed in Siberian permafrost really taxes the uniformitarian principle. Why would multitudes of mammoths, plus the many other animals, even want to live in Siberia with its fierce winters and summer bogs? What would these large beasts eat? Siberia today supports only a very few large animals, and these are especially adapted to boggy vegetation and often migrate to escape the full force of winter. Most perplexing of all, how did the woolly mammoths die in Siberia? Was it a quick freeze? Was man the hunter responsible for the demise of the mammoths? Today, Siberia is well known for its bitterly cold winters. The lowest temperature in the Northern Hemisphere is -68°C at Verkhoyansk.43 Large mammals can usually tolerate a fair amount of cold. But could the mammoths, horses, bison, and other animals tolerate 6 to 9 months of bitter cold with even colder wind-chill temperatures in blizzards? Vereshchagin and Baryshnikov44 state: ‘There would be no place for mammoths in the present arctic tundra of Eurasia with its dense snow driven by the winds.’Could the animals have lived in Siberia today during the relatively warm summer, perhaps migrating there from the south? The temperature likely would have been pleasant for them, but the environment deadly. Siberia today is in the permafrost zone where up to a metre of the surface melts in the summer. Water pools on the surface forming massive bogs and muskegs, making summer travel difficult, if not impossible, for man and beast.44,45 Tolmachoff 46 states that a few inches of this sticky mud makes the substrate practically impassable for a man, and that a foot or more would probably trap a mammoth.Siberia may be lush with vegetation in the summer, but it is the wrong type. Although there are patches of grass, bog and muskeg vegetation predominates, and these are low in nutrition for grazers. 47 The taiga forest vegetation south of the current tundra is also poorly digestible for grazers. 48 Comparing living elephants to mammoths, the daily requirement for a woolly mammoth would have been about 200 to 300 kg of succulent vegetation 49 and 130–190 litres of water! Vereshchagin50 flatly declares: ‘Neither mammoth nor bison could exist in the sort of tundra that exists there [in Siberia] today.’The problem is even more paradoxical in a uniformitarian ice age climate. Ice age climate simulations are of variable quality, depending upon the initial conditions, the approximations employed for complex variables, the particular physics, the number of variables, whether the simulation is a general circulation model, etc. Nevertheless, the better general circulation models demonstrate that the glacial climate of Siberia (assuming uniformitarianism) would have been colder (about 10–20°C) than today: ‘During glacial and stadial stages, the climate of Siberia was much colder than at present.’ 51 This deepens the mystery of why the lowlands of Siberia and Alaska were never glaciated!Except possibly on Wrangel Island in the Arctic Ocean,52–54 the woolly mammoth died out in Siberia at the end of the ice age. Furthermore, the woolly mammoth and many of the other large mammals, including 33 genera from North America, disappeared on whole continents or went extinct. There are two main hypotheses to account for all this extinction at the end of the ice age: either they were killed by man in a great blitzkrieg slaughter, or they died because of climate change. 55 Uniformitarian scientists do

not know the answer to this, but it has been extraordinarily controversial for more than 200 years. At a recent mammoth conference, Alroy expressed his frustration: ‘After many decades of debate, the North American end-Pleistocene megafaunal mass extinction remains a lightning rod of controversy. The extraordinarily divergent opinions expressed in this volume show that no resolution is in sight.’ 56 Non-creationist hypotheses Such confounding enigmas, not only about the mammoth and the mammoth steppe fauna, but also about the ice age itself, have naturally produced many hypotheses. Early scientists produced a lot of confused writing. For example, Sir Henry Howorth,7,12 who gathered copious observations from Siberian explorers that are considered fairly accurate, believed the mammoths met their demise in a continental-scale flood, but that this flood was not a Global Flood.Immanuel Velikovsky wrote two influential popular books on astral and earth catastrophes, called Worlds in Collision57 and Earth in Upheaval.58In these books the demise of the woolly mammoths in Siberia played a lead role. He weaved the mysteries of the mammoth, the ice age, and many other puzzles from the earth sciences into a catastrophic adventure featuring Venus and Mars, occurring about 3,500 years ago. Velikovsky is sharp at pointing out the many earth science puzzles of the past, which a large number of scientists seem to either ignore or minimise. However, he cannot help but add an element of hyperbole, such as the following in referring to the ‘muck’ of Alaska: ‘Under what conditions did this great slaughter take place, in which millions upon millions of animals were torn limb from limb and mingled with uprooted trees?’ 59His mechanism for explaining the extinction of the woolly mammoth, supposedly living in a warm climate and then suddenly being quick frozen, is a catastrophic poleshift to a more vertical Earth axis (to warm the region up) and then back again to near the present23½ degrees (to cool it down). The idea of a quick freeze is based mainly on the presence of food in the mammoths’ mouths and not enough time for their last meals to decay in their stomachs. Other popular writers have accepted and embellished Velikovsky’s ideas. 60–62Charles Ginenthal63 provides an updated, more elaborate defense of Velikovsky’s pole shift hypothesis. There is one major problem, among many, with Ginenthal’s and Velikovsky’s hypothesis, and that is a pole shift to a more vertical axis will cool the region, not warm it up. Creationist hypotheses The information on the woolly mammoths in Siberia is confusing, and most of it is published in Russian. All this data, and the many hypotheses, were bound to influence creationists, who also have been attempting to interpret the evidence in a catastrophic framework related to the Flood. Harold Clark 64 recognised that the extinction of the mammoths in Siberia was a major puzzle that needed a creationist explanation:‘One of the most perplexing phenomena of geology is that of the socalled “frozen mammoths” of Siberia.’Many creationists have leaned towards a Flood demise. 65–68 Joseph Dillow,69 who wrote an in-depth book on the vapour canopy, focussed considerable attention on how the woolly mammoth became extinct.70 He proposed that the hairy beasts were quick-frozen just before the Flood. Walter Brown32 included a chapter in his hydroplate model on what happened to the woolly mammoths. He proposed that the woolly mammoths died during the Flood by a quick freeze. Dillow and Brown made several mistaken deductions on the data related to the woolly mammoth and its environment in Beringia, such as that there is over 1,200 m of ‘muck’ containing animal and vegetative remains.71,72 Clark,64 Harold Coffin,73 and myself 74 believe that the woolly mammoth lived and died during the ice age after the Flood. Did Siberian mammoths die in the Flood? There is abundant evidence that the woolly mammoths in Siberia, Alaska and the Yukon died after the Flood. They were truly denizens of the post-Flood ice age.The woolly mammoth is part of an ice age mammoth steppe community that ranged across the non-glaciated portions of the Northern Hemisphere (Figure 2). 3 Strong arguments favour a post-Flood origin for the mammoth steppe animals outside of Beringia. The animals are found in: 1) glacial till near the edge of the ice sheets, 2) river flood plain debris, 3) river terraces, 4) tarpits, 5) caves or rockshelters, 6) loess, 7) sinkholes, and 8) peat bogs. There are an estimated 51 predominantly male mammoths that are found in a sink hole at Hot Springs, South Dakota. 75 In northwest Siberia, mammoths are found in sediments above glacial till.76 Spear points are associated with or embedded in the remains of mammoths at a dozen or more localities in North America. 77 Woolly mammoths are commonly depicted in cave art from Europe eastward to the Russian plain and Ural Mountains. 78,79 Ivory carvings are rather common in early-man sites in southern Siberia.80 More than 70 mammoth bone huts have been discovered on the Central Russian Plain. 81,82 Such surficial features and deposits would be virtually impossible to form during the Flood and must be post-Flood. To isolate the woolly mammoths in Beringia for a special catastrophic extinction during the Flood, while ignoring the fate of the remainder of the post-Flood mammoth steppe fauna does not make sense.Another strong argument against the mammoth death-inthe-Flood hypothesis is that the Beringian animals are buried in unconsolidated surficial sediments overlying lithified sedimentary rocks. If the animals were killed by an ice or hail dump from space during the early Flood, as envisioned by Dillow and Brown, the animals should be found in the lower portion of the sedimentary strata, a little above crystalline rocks. This surficial sediment with indications of post-Flood processes lies upon hundreds of meters of consolidated sedimentary rock that a large majority of creationists would attribute to the Flood. For instance, the Selerikhan horse carcass was found in frozen loam between peat layers and above a gold placer that lay over Mesozoic rocks. 83 The baby mammoth, Dima, was found within slope wash on the 10 m terrace of the Kirgilyakh River. The terrace was carved out of Jurassic shales and sandstones.84,85 Below the surficial sediments that contain the mammoths, most of Siberia is composed of sedimentary rocks from all ages of the geological column. 86 The bedrock below the Cape Deceit fauna of Kotzebue Sound, Alaska, consists of Paleozoic metaÂlimestone, Paleozoic schists, and Pliocene basalts.87 The post-Flood rapid ice age Mammoth remains in the northern hemisphere are associated with events during the ice age. However, uniformitarian ice age models cannot explain the mammoths, or even the ice age itself. The August 18–25, 1997, issue of US News & World Report had a long series of articles on eighteen great mysteries of science. One of those mysteries is: ‘What causes ice ages?’ 88 The June 1996 issue of the popular earth science magazine Earth, reported on a new theory of the ice age. Daniel Pendick89 starts his article titled ‘The dust ages’ by saying: ‘If they hadn’t actually happened, the ice ages would sound like science fiction’. However, the unique creationist post-Flood ice age offers a reasonable solution for the mammoth mysteries.

Figure 4. Effect of volcanic dust on cooling of continental interiors. Straight lines are solar radiation, partly reflected back to space by dust and aerosols. Wavy lines are infrared radiation. The result is the inverse of the greenhouse effect. The ice age was caused by the climatic aftermath of the Genesis Flood. 55 As a result of this great tectonic and volcanic upheaval, the stratosphere would have held great quantities of dust and aerosols immediately after the Flood. Copious postFlood volcanism would have reinforced the polluted stratosphere. Thus sunlight would have been partially reflected back to space from the volcanic products trapped in the stratosphere (Figure 4). Less sunlight would have meant cooler land surfaces, as was observed at various locations after the great volcanic eruption in ad 535. 90 During the Flood, warm water from the ‘fountains of the great deep’ would have produced a warm post-Flood ocean. Evaporation would be much greater at mid and high latitude than today due to the much warmer water. Copious evaporation close to the ice sheets would have been most favourable for their rapid growth. After many centuries, once the oceans cooled, the ice sheets would have melted rapidly. Many other aspects of the ice age have been estimated, including the average thickness of the ice sheets, the length of the ice age, the number of ice ages, etc.55 Mammoth population explosion Was there enough time for the mammoth population to increase to millions by the end of the post-Flood ice age? We can estimate the mammoth growth after the Flood by examining the reproductive habits of African elephants, a good analogue.91 The elephant reproductive rate can vary significantly.92 Elephants do not reach sexual maturity until age 10 to 23.93 They live 50 to 60 years. Eltringham94 states that generally, elephants produce a calf at intervals of four to five years with twins 1.35 % of the time. However, some have suggested that elephants can give birth every two to three years, and there is a case of a zoo elephant giving birth two years and five months after its first birth. 95 The reproductive rate is especially enhanced in a favourable environment as when the population is low or the animals are being hunted regularly.92,96–99 There are no natural enemies for a mature elephant, except man, 100 but calves are subject to predation.So, mammoths have the potential to increase rapidly following the Flood. Based on doubling rates of 10 years 101 and 25 years91 observed in Africa, there would be (assuming ideal circumstances with no predation or calf mortality) 2.1 million mammoths in 300 years or 8 million mammoths in 550 years, 102 respectively. In other words, there should be no problem for the population of woolly mammoths to reach many millions toward the end of the ice age some 600 years after the Flood. The post-Flood rapid ice age would have had milder winters and cooler summers with little if any permafrost, mainly because the Arctic and North Pacific Oceans were warm, and ice-free. 55 It would not have been the formidable landscape observed today or deduced from uniformitarian ice age expectations. Since the lowlands of Beringia were not glaciated, another uniformitarian conundrum, Beringia would have been a favourable environment for many mammals. Extinction of the mammoths at end of ice age Of all the questions related to the mammoths, their extinction has been the most perplexing. It was not only mammoths that became extinct at the end of the ice age, but also many other large animals. Why? We will first discuss their extinction in Siberia and then the extinction of the mammoths and other ice age mammals on whole continents or worldwide. Were woolly mammoths quick-frozen in Siberia? The existence of carcasses with identifiable stomach remains and well-preserved bones and tusks has suggested a ‘quickfreeze’ to many. This has been reinforced by the research of the Birds Eye Frozen Foods Company, which calculated a sudden fall to below -100°C based on heat conduction.103 Creationist quick-freeze advocates32,69 postulate that the quick-freeze was directly related to the Flood. However, as previously discussed in the section ‘Did Siberian mammoths die in the Flood?’ the evidence is strong that the Siberian mammoths are buried in post-Flood sediments associated with the ice age. All the arguments presented in that section, such as the mammoths of Beringia being part of one Northern Hemisphere ice age fauna, would apply against the quick-freeze hypothesis. Figure 5. Headless horse in mine shaft indicates that some time elapsed between when the animal was trapped and final burial. Guthrie’s cartoon145speculates how the horse was trapped in a bog with its head and neck exposed, which was subsequently eaten by a carnivore. The sixth picture illustrates how the legs of the horse protruded into the mine shaft. One of its hind legs was used to attach cables and hang lanterns. The horse could have just as easily been mired in wind-blown dust as in a bog. Indeed, the horse was found in loam, sandy loam and sand with a steppe-like sporo-pollen complex,146 typical of wind-blown deposits and vegetation.

There are other arguments against the quick-freeze hypothesis. 1. The number of frozen carcasses, in spite of under-reporting, is very small compared to the number of mammoth bones that underwent normal decay and are entombed in the permafrost.104,105 2. The carcasses are often partially decayed with fly pupae and display signs of scavenging, 3,79,106,107 not expected during a quick-freeze. 3. The unique condition of several of the carcasses, such as the famished condition of Dima and the headless Selerikhan horse (Figure 5),3,83 indicate some time elapsed before final burial. 4. For some of the carcasses, death appears to have occurred at different times of the year. 83,108 A quick-freeze during the Flood, especially as advocated by some creationists, would have occurred in a single instant. 5. The characteristics of the permafrost that entombs the carcasses and bones, show that it was not dumped quickly from above. It is doubtful that ice wedges would form during a quick drop of ice or hail from above.

How are the stomach contents explained? The fact that the stomach contents were only partially decayed can be explained satisfactorily by understanding the digestive physiology of the elephant, which was little known until the 1970s. 109 From studying 50 freshly killed elephants, it was discovered that the main digestive process of elephants does not occur in the stomach, but after the food passes the stomach, especially in the caecum and colon.109,110 Digestion is achieved mainly by bacteria and protozoa. Yet the researchers found noprotozoa, no fermentation and very little hydrolysis of cellulose taking place in the stomachs, although the stomach had a very acidic pH of about 2. This high acidity is expected to partially degrade the stomach vegetation. It is clear, therefore, that the stomach is mainly a storage area before digestion.111,112 Further evidence that the stomach contents should not necessarily decay completely upon death is provided by the preserved stomach contents of mastodons found in North America. Preserved vegetation from the gastrointestinal tracts of mastodons, which are generally found in former peat bogs, have occasionally been reported from the northeast United States.113–115 Recently, the skeleton of a mastodon was discovered within peat on top of an ice age end-moraine in Ohio.115 The remains yielded a discrete, cylindrical mass of plant material found in association with the articulated vertebrae and ribs. Thus a quick chill is not needed to explain the partially preserved stomach contents of the mammoth carcasses. The big chill and desiccation at the end of the ice age Near the end of the ice age, as the ocean surface temperature cooled at mid and high latitude, and evaporation slowed, the equable ice age climate would have changed to a drier, more continental climate with more seasonal extremes.116 Permafrost would begin developing in Beringia, and the substrate would become boggier in summer. As the climate became more continental during deglaciation, many animals in Siberia would tend to migrate closer to the Arctic Ocean, where the waters were still unfrozen and the climate would have been less continental. However, the changing climate finally caught up with them and they ended up buried in the permafrost that has continued to this day. Extinction of woolly mammoths in Siberia With this climatic change, there are a number of ways the mammoths and other animals could have died and become interred into the permafrost. One is by becoming trapped in bogs. 73 I once thought the cold and wind, itself, could have simply killed them off,117 but it is probable that the mammoths could have endured much cold. I am sure some of the animals were trapped by the flooded rivers draining ice sheets and were buried in fluvial or lacustrine deposits. 83,118 Upon further investigation, I now believe the vast majority of the mammoths and other mammals died and were interred into the permafrost by none of the above mechanisms. I believe the secret to their demise and burial can be found in the type of sediment surrounding the woolly mammoths.According to those who have studied these deposits, the vast majority of the animals are found in the ‘yedomas’ of Siberia 22 and the ‘muck’ of Alaska. The yedomas, a Yukut term, are hills 10–20 m, sometimes up to 60 m, high, containing a large percentage of ground ice.119,120 The hills formed after a period of post-ice-age surficial permafrost melting. Muck is the name given by gold miners to the organic-rich material deposited above goldbearing gravels in Alaska and the Yukon Territory. 121 Vereshchagin122 states that the yedomas contain a great abundance of mammal bones: ‘The great abundance of bones of large herbivores in the Yedoma is convincing evidence of the rich pasturage offered by this region during the Pleistocene ….’ What type of sediment makes up the yedomas and muck? There has been much controversy and a number of hypotheses on the origin of this sediment. There is now general agreement that the yedomas and muck are loess—a wind-blown silt! 121,123–127 Much data support the wind-blown origin of this sediment. The loess is also rich in ground ice and ice wedges. The ground ice formed by a segregation process in which layers and lenses of ice, sometimes clear and sometimes inter-mixed with sediment, developed within the silt. 128–130 The loess is notthousands of feet deep in Siberia and Alaska, as some have thought, but is a relatively thin veneer that is widespread in Beringia. 123,125,131,132 Some of the loess, especially in Alaska, has been reworked by downslope mass flow. Redeposition of the loess has broken and twisted the vegetation and disarticulated mammal bones, and this has inspired Velikovsky and others to suggest exotic catastrophes. In the post-Flood ice age model, strong wind would have characterised the big chill and dessication during deglaciation. 133 In a dry environment, this wind would have picked up and transported large quantities of silt and sand. Abundant wind-blown material is observed as relic features of the ice age in the Northern Hemisphere. Copious wind-blown dust even occurs in the ice age portion of the Greenland and Antarctica ice cores. It is known that mammoths and other mammals are entombed in loess in other areas.122,134–136 Thus, it seems likely that the mammoths in Beringia were mostly killed and buried by dust storms. Dust storms of variable intensity likely blew from time to time for a few hundred years near the end of the ice age. The animals could have died from the direct effect of the dust or some other cause. Regardless, the dust would have buried their remains fairly quickly. The characteristics of the small number of carcasses that must have been buried very rapidly can likely be explained by gigantic dust storms. From the Dust Bowl era in the midwest of the United States, it is known that a dust storm can produce dust drifts several meters high, burying tractors and partially covering buildings. It is possible that dust storms at the end of the ice age would be so intense that they could cover and suffocate a woolly mammoth trying to survive the storm. It may even be possible to suffocate a mammoth by the strong wind and blowing dust. The animal would have been buried quickly, since the animal would act like a snow fence. It is not inconceivable that a few of these animals would have been left in a standing position, braced by the dust around them. The permafrost would then move upward after the loess was deposited and rapidly freeze the remains, thus accounting for the rapid burial, which seems impossible any

other way. The broken bones of the Beresovka mammoth could easily be explained by the shifting of ground ice and frozen sediment137— in other words a diagenetic, post-mortem effect of shifting permafrost. 138,139 Although some researchers lean toward such a diagenetic explanation, there was considerable blood near the wound of the foreleg of the Beresovka mammoth. Bleeding had occurred between the muscles and the fatty and connective tissues.140 Mammoth fauna extinction elsewhere The mammoths and many of the other animals went extinct either over the whole world or on continents they once inhabited. This occurred at the end of the ice age and probably into early post-glacial time. The mystery has a reasonable solution within the post-Flood ice age model.141 The animals thrived during the ice age because the temperatures were more equable with cool summers and milder winters. (Note that much of the continental land mass was never covered by ice sheets, even during the ice age.) The disharmonious associations of plants and animals all over the Northern Hemisphere during the ice age are evidence of this equable climate. But, this equable climate ended during deglaciation, and the climate became more continental with colder winters and warmer summers. The existence of ice sheets, the development of sea ice and eventually a cooler ocean than today, would have resulted in less evaporation and a drier climate. The cold winters and dry climate would stress the animals all across the Northern Hemisphere. The larger mammals would have been especially susceptible to drought. Thus climate change likely was the main cause of the end-of-the-ice‑age extinctions. The reason the large animals did not die out at the end of previous glaciations is because there were no previous glaciations. 142 Man likely aided the extinction process by harvesting weakened animals. Conclusion Carcasses and bones of woolly mammoths in Siberia, Alaska, and the Yukon have been difficult to explain. The mammoth remains are abundant over the mid and high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, except in formerly glaciated areas. There are probably millions of them buried in the permafrost of Siberia alone. A wide variety of other mammals, large and small, accompanied the mammoth. Many of these animals are grazers, implying that the paleoenvironment of Beringia was a grassland with a wide diversity of plants. This diversity of plants and animals points to a longer growing season with milder winters and very little permafrost. This paleoenvironment is contrary to what is observed in Beringia today, with its very cold winters and boggy substrate in summer. Scientists constrained by uniformitarian thinking seem to face conundrum after conundrum in regard to the life and death of the woolly mammoth in Beringia, as well as by the ice age itself. A uniformitarian ice age climate would have been even colder still. It is difficult to conceive that the woolly mammoth and all the other animals could have lived in Siberia under these conditions. It is obvious the uniformitarian assumption does not apply. Thus, many hypotheses, both creationist and non-creationist, have been proposed. Creationists have been divided on whether the woolly mammoth perished in the Flood or afterwards. A number of creationist hypotheses involve a quick freeze, because it was thought that the state of preservation of the carcasses with only half-decayed vegetation in their stomachs demanded it.Reasonable explanations for all these mysteries are available within the context of a unique post-Flood ice age. Astral catastrophies, pole shifts and other such exotic hypotheses are not needed. A quick freeze is also not necessary, and besides, there is much data against the hypothesis. There is strong evidence that the woolly mammoth died after the Flood during the ice age. There was enough time for the population of the mammoths to have grown to millions by the end of the ice age. Furthermore, this unique ice age was characterised by colder summers and warmer winters, resulting in a more favourable habitat for the animals in the non-glaciated lowlands of Beringia. The animals became extinct at the end of the ice age because the climate changed to a more continental climate, with colder winters and warmer summers, and drier conditions. There is copious data against the hypothesis of a quick freeze. The state of preservation of the stomach contents are better explained by the post-gastric digestive system of elephants in which the stomach is mainly a holding pouch for vegetation.The question of how the mammoths died in Beringia can be answered by analysing the sediments surrounding the mammoths and other animals. They are mostly entombed in yedomas in Siberia and muck in Alaska. These are mostly loess and reworked loess. It is postulated that the animals were buried by dust storms, whether they met their demise directly by wind-blown silt or not. The carcasses and other perplexing data associated with the carcasses, such as death by suffocation, entombment while in a standing position, and broken bones, can be explained by death during gigantic dust storms and post-mortem shifting of the permafrost. “Mr. Ice Age” solves woolly mammoth mystery November 11, 2000 The woolly mammoths have puzzled scientists for hundreds of years, but Ice Age researcher, Mike Oard, has proposed a radical solution in the latest issue, 14(3), of Journal of Creation. According to Oard, there is nothing particularly unusual about the mammoths themselves. “They are essentially a hairy elephant,” Mike explains. “The woolly mammoth has two distinctive spirally curved tusks up to 3.5 metres long. It has a large shoulder hump, small ears, a tiny tail and a small trunk. Its coiled locks of dark hair cover a silky under-fur.” “But”, says Oard, “there are many perplexing questions relating to the Siberian mammoth finds. Why would they want to live in Siberia anyway?” The point is that they need a grassland environment with a long growing season, mild winters and very little permafrost—quite different from the climate in the region today. “There is another bewildering feature,” Mike Oard explained. “They are not found in isolation, but with a wide variety of other mammals, large and small, many of which were grazers. Indeed, there have been many hundreds of thousands of large mammoths found in Siberia, and many millions of bones.” What did they eat? Siberia today supports only a few large animals, and, unlike the woolly mammoth, these are well suited to the boggy conditions and the sparse vegetation. Perhaps they migrated for the winter. But that raises more questions than it answers, and already there are enough questions to deal with. Most perplexing of all, how did they die and how were the carcasses frozen? “To freeze like that, and for the tusks and bones to be well preserved, quick burial is necessary,” Mike said. “There needs to be a plausible explanation for how all those mammoths ended up in the rock-hard permafrost.” What about the amazing preservation of their stomach contents? Was an asteroid involved? Where does s Global Flood fit in? Many theories have been advanced but according to Mike, the solution is staring us in the face. It is in the loess blankets found in those regions today, those fine silt deposits that were blown into place by the wind. It forms “yedomas” in Siberia and “muck” in Alaska.

The full article about the woolly mammoth extinction is found in the latest issue, 14(3) of Journal of Creation (see online version, PDF file). For a briefer and less technical explanation, see Mammoth—riddle of the Ice Age. How did millions of mammoth fossils form? Q: ‘It has been guesstimated that there are the remains of some six million woolly mammoths in the Arctic Circle alone. My neighbour states that it would be impossible for such a number to have multiplied in the approx. 1700 years from Creation to the Flood.’ — J.E. A: First, six million mammoths is hugely exaggerated. There are fewer than 50 known woolly mammoth carcasses, only about a half-dozen of which were complete. An estimated 50,000 tusks have been found, although there may have been a million mammoths living at one time. Second, modern creationists think that the mammoths were not fossilized by the Flood. Rather, they were fossilized about 700 years later by catastrophes towards the end of the Ice Age, which was an aftermath of the Flood. This is shown by the fossil locations — always in deposits near the surface throughout the mid and high latitudes, mostly in river valleys, occasionally in ice wedges.1 Third, the large numbers are a problem for the sceptic only because he has not performed the simple calculations required. Consider that the African elephant reaches breeding age at about 14, and its gestation period averages 670 days, while the Indian elephant matures even earlier and has a shorter gestation time.2 Thus it would not be unrealistic to assume that a single mammoth pair could have four offspring by the age of 25. So it is actually generous to the sceptic to assume that the population could double four times per century (even if the parents in each generation died soon after their offspring were weaned).. It takes only 22 population doublings to exceed eight million, and this number could be reached in only 550 years. Mammoth among the pharaohs? by Dennis Swift A mammoth in an Egyptian painting? Surely not—haven’t we been told in textbooks that mammoths definitely died out some 9,500 years ago? The fact is, however, that at least a dwarf type of mammoth must have been around some 1500 years before Christ, even by conventional dating. The photo here (available in Creation magazine) is of a painting in the tomb of Rakh-Mara in the Valley of the Nobles. 1 A photo of the same figure also appeared in the prestigious science journal Nature in 1994.2 The tomb relief is about the ivory trade. The Nature item says that the creature is ‘not an immature elephant because of its large tusks’ but its features (including the domed skull) are ‘more like a reconstruction of a living mammoth than an immature elephant.’ The author points out that Egyptian artists were skilled at life-like depictions of animals from which one could scientifically identify them. He thus identifies the bear in the picture as a sub-species of Ursus arctos. Although it is possible that the representation is of a pygmy version of the mammoth, since the man is carrying tusks on his shoulder, he says it is possible that the animal could be ‘symbolic of the ivory’s source rather than intended to be an accurate representation of its size’. This would indicate that the artist likely knew what living full-size mammoths looked like. Keith Eltringham, a Cambridge University biologist, in his book Elephants, carefully studied the amount of trade in mammoth ivory and concluded ‘remains are so plentiful that it is tempting to wonder if its demise was not more recent … Altogether, it is estimated that the tusks of at least 45,000 mammoths from Siberia have been sold in the past 300 years.’ 3 When I brought the photographic evidence to the Cairo museum in Egypt, the authorities had never thought of the implications of a mammoth painted on the walls of an Egyptian tomb. This sort of find adds weight to the many other items of evidence (such as rock drawings of dinosaurs 4) which indicate that the dates attributed to the extinction of many well known creatures have been substantially skewed by evolutionary/long-age thinking. Dennis L. Swift, B.A., M.A., M.Div., Ph.D., has been actively engaged in ancient Indian archaeological research and biblical archaeology. His articles on dinosaurs and man have been published in Russia and he has lectured in Russia as well as appearing on Russian television. He is currently pastor of Beaverton Nazarene Church in Beaverton, Oregon, USA. Woolly mammoths were cold adapted by Michael Oard Figure 1. A typical illustration of a woolly mammoth, which had three types of hair. The outside hair was up to one metre long. Besides woolly mammoth skin having had oil glands, it was also discovered that the hair had adaptations for the cold.The common perception is that woolly mammoths were denizens of the cold who lived during the northern hemisphere glaciation. 1 However, some scholars have questioned whether they were truly cold adapted. 2 Even though they had thick hair and small ears, adaptations to cold, their hair would have needed oil to repel rain and snow. Soaked hair would be disastrous in a cold climate. As late as 1982, an analysis of woolly mammoth skin failed to find oil glands, known as sebaceous glands: modern elephants do not have these glands either.3 New information has discovered that the skin of woolly mammoths indeed had sebaceous glands, and therefore woolly mammoths would not have had a problem living in a cold climate. Warm climate mammoth hypotheses The apparent lack of sebaceous glands is likely to have been responsible for the many hypotheses that place woolly mammoths in a warm climate that suddenly became very cold. Velikovsky advocated a pole shift from a passing planet, where a lower-latitude climate suddenly shifted to a higher latitude, thus freezing the mammoths to death.4,5 Hapgood postulated a crustal shift from low to high latitudes to explain the demise of the woolly mammoths. 6 Walter Brown believes mammoths lived in a pre-Flood warm climate, but that those at high latitudes froze instantly and were buried in muddy hail at the beginning of the Flood.7 A lack of sebaceous glands for cold adaptation probably helped spawn his hypothesis: “Mammoth and elephant skin are similar in thickness and structure. Both lack oil glands, making them vulnerable to cold, damp climates. Arctic mammals have both oil glands and erector muscles—equipment absent in mammoths [emphasis in original, references deleted].”8 Recent research indicates woolly mammoths adapted to cold

Recent research has shown that woolly mammoths did have sebaceous glands. 3,9 One of the reasons presented to explain why these glands were not observed before is that the sample skin was too dry. 3 Apparently, early researchers either had poor samples or poor methods of analysis. Repin et al.stated: “Here, we present a documentary proof of the presence of sebaceous glands in the woolly mammoth, Mammuthus primigenius Blum. … Thus, our study is a documentary confirmation of the presence of sebaceous glands in the hairy mammoth. Sebaceous glands are a sign of cold adaptation. The presence of sebaceous glands in mammoths is a convincing argument in the discussion of the question if mammoths really lived in cold climate zones.” 10 Further evidence pointing toward the woolly mammoth’s adaptation to cold is in a microscopic analysis of their three types of hair. Extra rod-like medullae were found within the length of the outside hairs (about 1 metre long) of the woolly mammoth, as well as the woolly rhino. These medullae are likely to have strengthened the outer hair and helped it maintain its shape, trapping air, and resisting distortion.9 Tridico et al. conclude: “These attributes probably prevented the long overhairs and coarsest guard hairs [middle layer of hair] becoming intertwined and/or matted. Matted hair is likely to be less efficient at channeling moisture/water and snow away from the body, which would have proved fatal in the depths of an arctic winter.”11 Early decay of woolly mammoth carcasses Tridico et al. also found some microscopic indications that the carcasses they analyzed had already started to decay before being frozen, providing evidence against the quick-freeze theory that was suggested in the early 1800s by George Cuvier.1 The Birds Eye Frozen Foods Company had earlier concluded that the woolly mammoths must have been quick frozen at temperatures possibly as low as –100°C. 12 However, post-mortem banding near the roots of the hair, also called putrid root, had already occurred, revealing that the specimens of woolly mammoths that were analyzed underwent some degree of decay before being frozen. Evidence of insect activity in the form of bite marks and hair lice sacs on woolly rhino hairs reinforce the evidence of some post-mortem decay. Variable fungal damage was also observed in the hair. Skin slippage, which occurs in the early stages of decomposition, also occurred. We should not be too ready to accept the ‘data’ The evidence favours the notion that the woolly mammoth was cold adapted and lived in the mid and high latitudes of the northern hemisphere during the rapid onset of the post-Flood Ice Age. 1 The rare woolly mammoth carcasses and other animals with flesh still preserved are more likely to have been frozen at modest rates, not instantly. A possible scenario could be the freezing of the animals during a dry, severe Arctic cold front with blowing dust that would bury or mostly bury them. Such conditions may have been characteristic of the end of the Ice Age.13 As creation scientists, we need to be aware of the pitfalls of evolutionary and deep time interpretations of data. Numerous paleoenvironmental deductions seem almost obligatory in technical articles about the past. 14 Occasionally, scientific data is erroneous, or the reported data is of too small a sample size, or may even have been selectively reported, which was part of the problem for the claim of no sebaceous glands in woolly mammoths. Sometimes, an inappropriate conclusion is difficult to discern, as evidenced by the earlier reported lack of sebaceous glands in woolly mammoths. In such cases, and if there are contrary data, it may be necessary to defer judgment pending further studies. Nevertheless, creation scientists need to be able to adjust their ideas as further research becomes available.15 RELETED DALY ARTICLES DID BIRDS EVOLVE FROM DINOSAURS Did birds evolve from dinosaurs? by Michael J. Oard A review of the popular dinosaur–bird link shows that the case for feathered dinosaurs is mixed, with some claimed ‘protofeathers’ possibly being fossilized features of the skin. Some claimed theropods did have true feathers, some even with flight feathers on their feet, but there are questions as to whether these creatures are really dinosaurs or are unique, extinct birds similar to Archaeopteryx. Furthermore, careful reassessment shows that the popular belief in the dino-to-bird transition is based on a flawed cladistics analysis. Figure 1. A display of a feathered Deinonychus attacking a duckbilled dinosaur, Museum of the Rockies, Bozeman, Montana.The idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs has excited the evolutionary imagination for many years. Thomas Huxley, called Darwin’s Bulldog because of his aggressive promotion of evolution, was the first to suggest an evolutionary connection between dinosaurs and birds, an idea that remained popular in the 1800s.1However, this idea waned in the early 1900s because paleontologists believed dinosaurs were too specialized for birds to have arisen from that line. By ‘specialized’ they meant that dinosaurs had evolved too many specific complex features for birds to have evolved from them. The avian origin from reptiles was still accepted, but the parent creature was thought by some to be a crocodile-like animal, and by others to be from the flying reptiles, the pterosaurs.In about 1980, the dinosaur–bird connection once again became popular. It started with the idea that dinosaurs may have been warm blooded. 2 The theory has been fuelled by numerous discoveries of dinosaurs, birds, mammals, and other creatures in Liaoning Province, northeast China. Among these fossils were at least nine that paleontologists claimed were feathered theropod dinosaurs. This has been widely reported and promoted by the media and popular science journals. Even the journal Nature cited these discoveries as proof that birds evolved from dinosaurs. 3 It is even suggested that some tyrannosaurids (similar to, but not quite like, T. rex) had protofeathers4,5 Museum displays are now adding feathers to dinosaurs where there is no evidence for feathers, such as the display in the Museum of the Rockies, Bozeman, Montana, showing a feathered Deinonychus attacking a duck-billed dinosaur (figure 1).However, these claims have met with controversy within evolutionary circles. Creationists have analyzed these arguments in detail and found them problematic.6–9 This issue of feathered dinosaurs is confusing, partly because we do not have all the information, and future discoveries will undoubtedly change the picture. At present, however, enough is known to question the reality of ‘feathered’ dinosaurs and the avian descent from these reptiles.The origin of feathers from scales or some other part of the skin is an extremely difficult evolutionary problem.10Feathers seem simple but are very complex. 7,11 Furthermore, the whole anatomy and physiology of

the evolving creature must be radically changed. The evolution of powered flight also presents a major obstacle. Even those who have implicit faith in the reality of evolution have noted these difficulties: “In either case, the anatomical changes needed for flying must have evolved in a sequence of very small steps, because nothing we know about evolution allows us to believe that feathered wings could have appeared abruptly as an innovation in avian anatomy. Wings must have evolved over a very long time span. And each new modification of body plan or limbs during that period must have made some contribution to fitness long before the day when a jumping or gliding creature gave the first strong beat of its forelimbs and ceased simply falling back to earth.”12 Prior to 1980, it was argued that birds had not evolved from dinosaurs because dinosaurs lack a furcula, or a wishbone.13 Since then, it has been discovered that some dinosaurs do have furculas of various types. 14–19 This discovery helped tilt opinion towards the dino-bird link. 20Another discovery supporting the avian descent from dinosaurs was that some dinosaurs had hollow bones, generally considered a bird trait.21,22 But the most convincing argument for evolutionists has come from the new classification system known as cladistics. Therefore, I will summarize each of these recent discoveries and ideas, demonstrating that the evidence is not as strong as many think. Figure 2. Drawings of two Sinosauropteryx prima fossils from China. Note the bent necks, tails, and limbs at the joints, which is the ‘death throes position’. (From Currie and Chen, ref. 23.) Claimed feathered dinosaurs from China All the discoveries of ‘feathered’ dinosaurs have been made in northeast China.22–25 There seems to be two groups of feathered dinosaurs: those with ‘protofeathers’ and those with true feathers. Sinosauropteryx prima is claimed to have ‘protofeathers’, dubbed ‘dino fuzz’ by some, as shown by fibres that emanate from the skeletons (figure 2). 22,23 Such fibres are also found on Sinornithosaurus millenii from China.26 They have been called integumentary (skin) structures. Recently, colour pigments have been found in the integumentary structures of Sinosauropteryx that lend support to the belief that these structures are decayed feathers.27,28Caudipteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Microraptor and a few others are claimed to have true feathers of modern aspect and are classified as small theropod dinosaurs. Microraptoractually has four wings, with the second pair coming off the hind legs.29Such data has been hailed as infallible proof that dinosaurs evolved into birds. 22 Paul Sereno stated in 1997 that the origin of birds from dinosaurs has been resolved in its favour. 30 Phil Currie has no doubts and believes that theropod dinosaurs are alive today: “In fact, because birds are the direct descendants of theropods, they are technically classified as theropod dinosaurs. Therefore, there are more than 10,000 species of theropods alive today.”31 Currie believes that many dinosaurs had feathers. 32 Others are even more dogmatic: Richard Prum is adamant that birds are modern dinosaurs, claiming that those who disagree with him are non-scientists. 33 In doing so, he dismisses all the critical evidence against his position. Prum believes the new information has ‘redefined’ the science of ornithology: “The recognition that birds are theropod dinosaurs has redefined the science of ornithology as extant dinosaur biology.”34 As a result of this new theory, scientists have ‘discovered’ many behaviours in birds that they believe can be traced back to their dinosaur ancestors, such as parental care and brooding. These links are supported by findings of adult dinosaurs fossilized in close association with egg clutches. 35 However, brooding is not unique to birds, and claims that this fossil evidence demonstrates brooding go beyond the evidence, since they were not in a brooding pose above the eggs. 36,37 There are other possibilities; e.g. the fossil dinosaurs could have died while laying their eggs. Problems with ‘feathered dinosaurs’ In spite of recent discoveries and the enthusiasm for the dinosaur ancestry of birds, significant evidence suggests that the question remains open to doubt among many evolutionists. Ornithologist Alan Feduccia and others have challenged all the claims of feathered dinosaurs. However, part of their opposition is based on their bias that birds evolved from different reptiles that lived before the dinosaurs, although Feduccia admits that there is little or no evidence for this hypothesis, either.38 Another possibility, of course, is that neither hypothesis is valid because evolution has not happened. We need to examine some of the other problems with the new discoveries.Another reason for skepticism should be the discovery that some of the fossils promoted as proof turned out to be fraudulent, cobbled together to look like a missing link between dinosaurs and birds. Archaeoraptor—which made the front cover of National Geographic in November 1999—was hailed as ‘proof’ of feathered dinosaurs and the dinosaur–bird link. However, like so many transitional fossil ‘proofs’, it was subsequently shown to be a forgery.39 It turned out to be a fossil bird with a dinosaur tail glued on. Most telling was that this simple deception succeeded in fooling many scientists. Bird evolution from a lizard-hipped dinosaur? Dinosaurs have long been classified by the structure of their hip; the two branches are the lizard-hipped dinosaurs and the bird-hipped dinosaurs.40 Interestingly, it appears that bird evolution was from the wrong type—the lizard-hipped theropods. Barrett noted: “Confusingly, bird-hipped dinosaurs are only distantly related to birds, whereas the direct ancestors of birds are to be found among the lizard-hipped dinosaurs.”41 DeCourten corroborated this observation: “Confusingly, though, these bird ancestors were members of the order Saurischia [lizard-hipped dinosaurs], not the Ornithischia [bird-hipped dinosaurs], as we might expect from the names alone.”42 So, evolutionists are forced to believe that hips diagnostic of birds evolved at least twice, despite the complete lack of fossil evidence for such an evolutionary swerve. Integumentary structures likely not protofeathers Although it is possible that the integumentary structures are decayed true feathers, there are some problems with that deduction. Feduccia and others have analyzed the claims of the feathered dinosaurs from China in some detail.43 They found experimental and fossil evidence that the fibres found along the outside of the skeleton of Sinosauropteryx and others are better explained as collagen fibres that were simply a part of the skin of the dinosaur.44–46We also know that there are

several dinosaurs with no claimed evolutionary link to birds that also have these fibres. One of these is Psittacosaurus, a horned dinosaur similar to ceratopsians.43,45,47,48 A second is a new birdhipped dinosaur found in China that incidentally extended the stratigraphic range of this particular kind of dinosaur up towards the present by at least 60 million years,49,50 illustrating, if nothing else, that theoretical changes may be demanded by new evidence waiting to be discovered. Birds did not supposedly evolve from bird-hipped dinosaurs, but from lizard-hipped dinosaurs (see above), which is why the discovery of integumentary structures on a bird-hipped dinosaur is so significant.Other types of fossil animals also show these bristlelike collagen fibres, such as a pterosaur, an ichthyosaur, and other reptiles and dinosaurs.51 Even collagen fibres from a dead dolphin were similar to the claimed protofeathers from China.52 Thus, these fibrous structures cannot be considered unique to dinosaurs in the evolutionary chain leading to birds, which also supports the conclusion of Feduccia et al. that they are simply collagen fibres.43 For those who believe in dinosaur-bird evolution, the picture has become fuzzier: “Perhaps the only clear conclusion that can be drawn from the foregoing is that little Tianyulong has made an already confusing picture of feather origins even fuzzier. Such an outcome is common in palaeontology.”53 It may be that the colour pigments found in the integumentary structures of Sinosauropteryx are not unique to feathers, but this is disputed by Lingham-Soliar.48,54 Lingham-Soliar summarizes by concluding, after much research, that the evidence for protofeathers is non-existent: “It is important to understand that this paper neither supports nor refutes the hypothesis of protofeathers but rather rejects the alleged evidence from fossils to date.”55 The temporal paradox Another more minor problem with the ‘feathered dinosaurs’ from China is the reported age of the new fossils. They are mostly 25 Ma youngerthan the first true bird fossil, Archaeopteryx, which was found in the Late Jurassic, which is supposedly 150 Ma ago.56 Scientists tend to come up with complex terms for simple issues, and this is no exception; geologists call it the ‘temporal paradox’. However, supporters of the dinosaur-bird link have a point when they claim that the paradox is not significant because the ‘feathered dinosaurs’ from China and the first true bird could have diverged from a common ancestor over 150 Ma ago.22,57 But Feduccia noted that Archaeopteryx has such well-developed feathers and other avian anatomical features that the evolutionary origin of birds must be much earlier than 150 Ma.51And as expected, the temporal paradox is believed to have been solved just recently, but not without a cost. A crow-sized feathered ‘theropod’, Anchiornishuxleyi, was found in strata dated 151 to 161 Ma old—before the age of Archaeopteryx at 150 Ma old.58,59 The problem with this new feathered dinosaur is that it had feathers on its legs, like Microraptor.Another bird-like creature with feathers on its feet, which is a little older than Archaeopteryx and is called Pedopenna, has also been found.60Although some birds have feathers on their legs today, such as some pigeon breeds, they are not flight feathers as those on Anchiornis,Microraptor, and Pedopenna. These three creatures are now classified into a basal group of theropods called Paraves.Microraptor has always been dated significantly younger than Archaeopteryx. However, the early dates, before Archaeopteryx, on Anchiornisand Pedopenna are actually poorly resolved.61 But a new find of an alverezsauroid, dated at 63 Ma older than previous fossils, supposedly rescues the ‘solution’ to the temporal paradox. In Science, the creature is depicted with feathers.27 However, the accompanying article says nothing about feathers, so this creature cannot be called a feathered dinosaur. It seems the temporal paradox may have been ‘solved’ by dating manipulations.So, in ‘solving’ the temporal paradox, evolutionists have opened up more conundrums within their paradigm. The new discovery shows that feathers and other bird-like features could be older than Archaeopteryx. Secondly, it appears that the evolutionists have a more convoluted origin of flight.59 Feathers, they say, first evolved on all four limbs and then disappeared on the hind limbs over time. Then some of these feathered dinosaurs even lost the ability to fly and became secondarily flightless birds. Anchiornis also had slender limbs causing the original researchers to conclude that this animal was adapted to running.62 How would these creatures run with flight feathers on their feet? And if the evolutionists go further back in their time scale, evolution becomes very complicated. The earliest dinosaurs are far from bird-like; they are too specialized.63 Then some of these specialized first dinosaurs had to evolve feathers and other bird-like features, only to lose them again as small theropods evolved from these feathered dinosaurs. Same type of dinosaur, but no feathers Many of the dinosaurs thought to be feathered have been found outside China lacking the expected feathers. For example, a new dinosaur found in the Solnhofen limestone in Bavaria—the formation that produced the best Archaeopteryx fossils— comes from the same group that was reported to possess ‘protofeathers’ in China.64 There were no integumentary structures and: “The discovery will encourage a re-evaluation of feather evolution.” 65 Not only that, but many of the ‘feathered dinos’ coming out of the Jehol group in China have no feathers (or ‘integumentary structures’) either: e.g. Mahakala,66 Gigantoraptor,6 and Velociraptor.67 Feathers are often assumed a priori without evidence. Since ‘feathered dinos’ are so controversial they should have clear evidence of feathers before being admitted into the discussion. Cladistic similarity is not enough. Dinosaur lungs more like those of reptiles It takes more than feathers to make a bird. Dinosaurs would have had to evolve a variety of unique structures along the path to true birds. A major hurdle is the development of an avian respiratory system. Dinosaur lungs, including those of the theropods, which some paleontologists believe evolved into birds, were unique. Based on hollow air spaces in some theropod dinosaur bones, some evolutionists have tried to claim that these dinosaurs had lungs like birds. 68,69 Such air spaces are equivocal as far as whether these dinosaurs had bird-like lungs. 70 However, others believe the theropod lungs resembled those of modern-day crocodiles, not birds. 71,72 This also implies that theropod dinosaurs were ectothermic (coldblooded), providing another hurdle on the evolutionary trail to birds. It is difficult to even imagine how an ectothermic animal with lungs like a crocodile could have evolved into a bird with their clearly divergent respiratory and metabolic systems: “The evolutionary implications are even more far-reaching. Ruben argues that a transition from a crocodilian to a bird lung would be impossible, because the transitional animal would have a life-threatening hernia or hole in its diaphragm.”73 After twelve years of further research, Quick and Ruben recently conclude that the theropod breathing apparatus was like a crocodile and unlike birds: “We conclude that there are few data supportive of there having been an avian style lung airsac system in theropods or that these dinosaurs necessarily possessed cardiovascular structure significantly different from that of crocodilians. These conclusions are reinforced by previously cited evidence for crocodilian-like lung ventilation in theropod dinosaurs (Ruben et al., 2003).”74 Advocates of the dinosaur-to-bird evolutionary path have argued that the barriers are not impossible to climb, but their argument appears quite convoluted.75Dinosaurs not only possessed lungs like crocodiles, but possessed the narrow noses of these reptiles, which is consistent with low lung ventilation. 76 Nasal passages of dinosaurs are small, only a quarter as large as those of warm-blooded animals. This supports the conclusion that dinosaur metabolism was significantly lower than that of birds or mammals. Bird and dinosaur limb digits differ in their development

Evolutionists argue for a link between dinosaurs and birds based on comparative morphology, even during embryonic development. Birds and dinosaurs have similar features, called ‘shared derived characteristics’ (see cladistics analysis below). However, a major morphological feature supports an opposite conclusion. During embryonic growth, bird limb digits developed from a five-finger arrangement into one that has only the second, third and fourth digits (II, III, IV). On the other hand, dinosaur growth exhibits a different embryonic pattern—I, II, III. 77–79 The bird trend in the past had been a little uncertain but has been verified.80,81 This is powerful evidence as adduced by paleontologists.One obvious interpretation of these data is that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs. However, those who refuse to accept that conclusion have developed the ‘frame-shift hypothesis’—part of avian evolution included a frame shift in the expression of the digits.82 During the transitions from dinosaurs to birds, the embryonic expression somehow shifted from I, II, and III to II, III, and IV. Unfortunately, bias and circular reasoning permeate this hypothesis: “One solution to the problem of avian digit homology [similarity] in favor of the II, III, IV hypothesis is to assume that birds are not theropod dinosaurs … Removing birds from theropods implies that the similarities between the hands of Archaeopteryx and that of theropods are convergent and not homologous. This is, however, not a very satisfactory explanation for the available data [emphasis mine].”83 ‘Frame shift’ advocates point to a theropod fossil discovered in China that hints at such a shift.84 But the dinosaur in question not only reduced digit I, but also IV and V, so that it only had two long digits. Proponents cannot find an ‘adaptive’ reason for the proposed shift either.81 I.e. there is no evolutionary advantage that would accrue from this shift. Nor is there any advantage to the intermediate steps required by this shift.Feduccia asserts that there is no evidence for the frameshift hypothesis.51 James and Pourtless IV conclude that it was simply made up to explain away the digit contradiction by those that were adamant that birds evolved from dinosaurs: “ … these data do not alter the logical status of the frame-shift hypothesis as an ad-hoc auxiliary hypothesis … It was introduced for the explicit purpose of restoring agreement between predictions of the BMT [birds are maniraptoran theropod dinosaurs] hypothesis and repeatedly obtained falsifying observations.”85 Despite all this, Chiappe steadfastly maintains his faith in a dinosaur origin for birds, but his analysis is not convincing. 86 This type of reasoning is why many critics say evolution cannot be falsified. ‘Dinosaurs’ with true feathers are birds Some researchers now embrace the idea that the small ‘theropod dinosaurs’ with true feathers, especiallyMicroraptor, are really birds,43,87,88 probably flightless.43,89 In fact, when first discovered, some were classified as birds. Scientists first thought Caudipteryx was a bird.90 Scientists once believed that alvarezsauroids were flightless birds but now believe they are theropods.27 Wellnhofer states that the classification is “basically a problem of definition that possibly may never be resolved.”91 If this is true, then the avian-dinosaur link and even the existence of ‘feathered’ dinosaurs are called into question.In a more sophisticated cladistic analysis (see below), James and Pourtless IV reach the same conclusion: that the ‘feathered’ dinosaurs are in fact birds.92 Feduccia et al. related how one Chinese dinosaur-to-bird advocate admitted that Caudipteryx and Protarchaeopteryx could be birds: “Xu et al. (2001, p. 200) concede that two taxa with true feathers, Caudipteryx andProtarchaeopteryx, are controversial insofar as they have been proposed to be flightless birds rather than dinosaurs and that confirmation of the theropod origin of feathers requires documentation of unambiguously feather-like structures in a clearly non-avian theropod.”93 It is more than possible that the early excitement of finding ‘feathered’ dinosaurs caused the case to be overstated, and that the strange fossils found in China are quite likely to be extinct, unique birds, similar to Archaeopteryx in a number of features.There are also bird fossils found with the ‘feathered dinosaurs’,94 making it more likely that the creatures that possessed true feathers were indeed birds. Microraptor also had bird teeth and not dinosaur teeth, reinforcing this view.95 And the new Anchiornis also had bird-like teeth in their being unserrated. 59 Xu et al. also originally classed Anchiornis as a bird.96 Archaeopteryx is a unique bird—so no missing link Archaeopteryx was first reported in 1861 within fine-grained limestone in Bavaria (figure 3). The name means ‘ancient wing’ and the creature is said to be 150 Ma old.97 Archaeopteryx is considered the perfect missing link: “The Archaeopteryx fossil is, in fact, the most superb example of a specimen perfectly intermediate between two higher groups of living organisms—what has come to be called a ‘missing link’, a Rosetta stone of evolution.”98 Figure 3. Replica of Archaeopteryx displayed at the Museum of the Rockies, Bozeman, Montana.Since then, a total of ten specimens have been found, if the isolated feather (which is considered too small to be from Archaeopteryx by Wellnhofer99) is counted as one. The tenth fossil was reported in 2005. 100,101There is no doubt that Archaeopteryx is unique. It had a generally reptilian skeleton with a tail made up of extended vertebrae, teeth, and claws on its wings. But it also had 100% modern feathers showing the asymmetry of flight feathers. It is considered the first bird, but those advocating the dinosaur–bird link want to make Archaeopteryx a feathered dinosaur. In fact many of the so-called feathered dinosaurs resemble Archaeopteryx.Many evolutionists emphasize its reptilian features, but these are overstated.102 For instance, no modern birds have teeth, but some fossil birds do. Even some dinosaurs did not have teeth, such as Oviraptor and the mansized ornithomimids.103,104 Also, its teeth are bird-like and not those of reptiles.95 Thus, the teeth are not conclusive, and being an extinct bird, this is not surprising. Feduccia stated that “Archaeopteryx was much more birdlike in many features than has been previously thought.”105Its wing claws are not indicative of reptilian status either. Some young birds, especially flightless birds, have claws on their wings when young, including the hoatzin and the young of the touraco. 87,106Its tail was reptilian, but a number of extinct birds, including some of the ‘feathered dinosaurs’, have long tails that are extensions of their vertebrae, like Archaeopteryx. Claws like modern perching birds

Other features place this fossil squarely within the family of birds. Archaeopteryx had bird-like claws. Feduccia analyzed the curvature of the hind claws and concluded that their curvature was similar to claws in modern perching birds. 107–109 Birds can have less curvature, but these are invariably ground dwellers. Archaeopteryx would have been ill-suited for running, but well suited to gripping tree limbs. Its wing claws may have been used to climb tree trunks, like a woodpecker.Several dinosaur– bird enthusiasts dispute this analysis, saying that the Archaeopteryx hallux (the first toe which is opposed to the other three) is less than an optimal 180° in the tenth specimen, making it a poor percher. 100,101 However, modern perching birds exhibit hallux angles from 65°–180°.56 Also, Mayr et al. ignored the curvature of the claws.100,101 Brain and inner ear like a bird An analysis of the brain and inner ear of Archaeopteryx showed that they were similar to birds: “Here we show the reconstruction of the braincase from which we derived endocasts of the brain and inner ear. These suggest thatArchaeopteryx closely resembled modern birds in the dominance of the sense of vision and in the possession of expanded auditory and spatial sensory perception in the ear.”110 It could fly well Advocates of avian evolution from dinosaurs claim that Archaeopteryx could not fly well because it lacked powerful flight muscles and that its primary four feathers were not asymmetrical. 111,112 Some even believe that Archaeopteryx was adapted to running and taking off from the ground. But its wing and tail feathers were strongly asymmetric—well within the range of modern birds that flap their wings. 113–115 Their argument is also contradictory because more powerful flight muscles are needed to take off from the ground than from trees: “Both anatomy and phylogeny strongly suggest that Archaeopteryx was an arboreal bird.”116 Given its many ‘adaptations’ for flight, one would expect that it flew well.117 Archaeopteryx not only looks like a modern bird in many ways, but evidence “suggests that Archaeopteryx had an advanced aerodynamic morphology.”118 Its feathers are indistinguishable from those of modern birds: “Regardless of the degree to which Archaeopteryx’s skeleton was reptilian, there can be no doubt that its feathers were indistinguishable in any important ways from those of living birds. Its wings had the basic pattern and proportions of the modern bird’s wing; indeed, there has been no essential change in this aerodynamic structure for about 150 million years.”119 Even Chiappe admits: “… its feathers are already differentiated into structurally modern types.”120 Why believe in the dino–bird link? Given this evidence, why then do many paleontologists remain dogmatic about dinosaurs evolving into birds? The main reason, even before the discovery of ‘feathered dinosaurs’, is their analysis of comparative anatomy using a relatively new classification scheme called cladistics that puts birds together with theropod dinosaurs.121 Witmer wrote: “Birds are dinosaurs. That’s hardly the stuff of headlines any more, as data have streamed in revealing anatomical similarities [from cladistics] between birds and the theropod dinosaurs from the tips of their noses to the tips of their feathered tails.”122 Figure 4. Cladogram relating birds with major non-avian coelurosaurian theropods. The numbers at each branching node indicate the first appearance of key morphological characters in the analysis. (From Zhou et al., ref. 25.)Cladistics is a method that classifies organisms in a nested hierarchy of similarity based on a comparison of individual characteristics. It also depends on objective, quantitative analysis, employing computers. When comparing fossils, the program uses a binary system of either yes (1) or no (0) for a particular feature or characteristic that either exists or does not exist. Many traits are compared in the analysis. The more that score (1), the more closely related the subjects are assumed to be. Scientists then build cladograms (figure 4) and infer evolutionary relationships from them. Practitioners of cladistics dismiss their critics, such as Alan Feduccia, Larry Martin, and Storrs Olsen. 123 They claim that the many shared-derived characteristics in birds and theropod dinosaurs could not happen by chance.81 This is ironic, given that chance is fundamental to evolution (random mutations are its engine), and, of course, common design explains the shared traits quite readily.Evolutionary cladistics presents itself as objective science, yet is very subjective. A major problem is that one must ‘know’ ahead of time which traits have real evolutionary significance, rather than having been caused by ‘convergent evolution’. Traits believed to be the result of evolution are called ‘shared-derived characters’. Convergent evolution is the evolution of similar structures in similar environments by organisms that are not directly related by evolution, such as flight in birds, bats, reptiles, and insects. It is assumed that similar environments resulted in all the anatomical modifications required for flight. Ironically, evolutionists admit that there are more traits developed by convergence than by true evolutionary descent. In fact, ‘convergent’ evolution seems little more than an ad hoc explanation for many evolutionary puzzles: “It is difficult for me to theoretically understand how convergent evolution could work, due to all the many subtle differences between present similar environments, the rarity and randomness of mutations, the lack of direction and the conservative nature of natural selection, and the multitudinous pathways that organisms could have taken.”124 Ronald Jenner has subdivided cladistic analysis into three steps: (1) the analysis of the morphological data, (2) the computer program, and (3) the results in the form of a cladogram that supposedly shows evolutionary relationships (figure 4).125 Jenner states that cladistics, as currently practiced, is seriously flawed: “Uncritical and nonexplicit character selection, character coding, and character scoring seriously compromise Step 1 … . Failure to identify problems and errors generated in Step 1 of the research cycle is testament to the general failure of Step 3.”126 However, the problem goes deeper. The cladograms and mathematical analyses involved in cladistic analysis gives paleontology an air of objectivity it has no right to claim. Paleontology always works with vastly incomplete morphological data, which means Jenner’s step 1, the analysis of morphological data, will always be uncertain and subjective. Burke and Feduccia stated: “The conflict pivots on the significance awarded to different types of data in the identification of

homology.”127 Homology is any similarity between characteristics of organisms that is due to their shared ancestry through evolution. Feduccia added: “Another way of stating the problem is that cladistic methodology in paleontology has forced into algorithmic form what is arguably the most subjective and qualitative field in biology.”128 Because of the incomplete nature of paleontological data, there is never any certainty of whether traits are due to descent or convergence. It often becomes nothing more than an expression of the bias of evolutionists. 75 This means evolutionary cladistics is essentially circular reasoning. Ornithologist Larry Martin was blunt in his assessment: “As for the many cladograms that demonstrate a dinosaurian origin of birds, Martin charges that they are riddled with characters based on mistaken anatomy—in other words, ‘garbage in, garbage out’ on a massive scale.”129 Jenner infers that the major problem is that not all anatomical information goes into the computer analysis. 125 He strongly recommends thatall anatomical information should go into cladistics analysis and that a conscious effort to minimize bias should be developed.James and Pourtless IV did just this in a cladistic analysis of the dino–bird link, concluding that a dinosaur to bird path was not strong. 92 Birds could just as easily have evolved from crocodiles or other extinct reptiles.Of course, creationists have no trouble explaining similarities, using the concept of common features resulting from common design, thus avoiding the messy uncertainty of ‘real’ vs convergent evolution. The regularity of ‘convergence’ in evolutionary explanations testifies to this: there is similarity in many biological traits, with enough divergence in specifics to thwart common origin as an explanation. Just as man-made artifacts have similarities due to design parameters, so too do creatures. Different models of cars share many ‘traits’ because they are intended to do the same thing. Each one possesses tires, an engine, steering, windshields, lights, etc. Differences show variations in purpose: an off-road truck is not the same as a family sedan. Summary Secular paleontologists argue whether or not birds could have evolved from dinosaurs. But these paleontologists all have one thing in common; they refuse to debate their assumption that evolution occurred. Consistent with the view that it has not, we agree with the arguments that there is no compelling evidence for the dinosaur-to-bird evolutionary path: “However, answers to the question of the immediate ancestor of birds remain elusive, as does the overall early radiation from the Dinosauromorpha.”130 Birds did not evolve from dinosaurs; they did not evolve from anything. Feduccia et al. admit: “The major problems related to the origin of birds are still unresolved.” 95 Feduccia further admits that there are no other ancestor candidates for the evolution of birds: “Paleontological cladists claim that opponents of the theropod origin must produce a more suitable ancestor, but alas, we simply don’t have sufficient evidence. We can only say, as dictated by science and logic, that the ancestor was surely a small, quadrupedal, arboreal archosaur [extinct reptile], a pre-dinosaur in the overall scheme of the genealogy.”38 Thus, even the experts acknowledge that the origin of birds is still unknown. This is surprising, given the amount of time, man-hours, and money that has been poured into research over many decades. Feduccia is puzzled: “What’s the problem? We have some of the best-preserved fossils in the entire vertebrate series in the seven skeletons ofArchaeopteryx, we have a wonderfully preserved array of fossil reptiles from the Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous periods, and we have scores of well-educated scientists working on the problems of avian relations. So why isn’t the problem resolved after much more than a century?”131 There is an easy answer to that question, though one not accepted by secular scientists because it questions their presuppositions, which are generally held by faith rather than evidence. The answer is to reject the constraints of the worldview of naturalism and to jettison faith in evolution, to look at the actual evidence that shows discontinuity between major groups, and to admit the likelihood of creation.Feduccia and other ornithologists who say that there is no evidence for the dinosaur–bird link are correct. Their opponents, who argue that there is no evidence for the evolution of birds from extinct reptiles, are also correct. Both are correct because evolution down any path never happened. Observation and reason both support an original creation of different kinds of organisms . Amazing preservation: Three birds in a dinosaur! Did dinos give rise to birds? No—they ate them by David Catchpoole

A fossil of the small theropod dinosaur Sinocalliopteryx gigas found in Liaoning, China, was so well preserved that researchers were able to make out its intact stomach contents. 1 They were able to see the last thing it had eaten—a bird dinner. As the bird had only been partially digested (indicating death of the Sinocalliopteryx had occurred

not long after its last meal) the researchers were even able to identify the species of the bird: Confuciusornis sanctus. What’s more, that bird specimen was not the only one found in the dinosaur’s stomach. There was another Confuciusornis sanctus carcass as well, and “both were in a similar state of partial digestion”.1 Given that “remains as delicate as small bird bones have presumably short digestion periods”, the researchers conclude, logically enough, that the two Confuciusornis birds must have been consumed in fairly rapid succession, “in order for the first individual not to have had time to be digested noticeably beyond that of the second.”1 Evidently the dinosaur liked eating birds, because there were the remains of a third bird in its stomach too, in a somewhat more advanced state of digestion, which the researchers say might also have been a Confuciusornis. Paleontologist Scott Persons mused, “The fact that this Sinocalliopteryx had not one but three undigested birds in its stomach indicates it was a voracious eater and a very active hunter.” 2 The secular uniformitarian models, based on the idea that ‘the present is the key to the past’, really don’t even begin to make sense of the fossils even just at Liaoning, let alone globally How did this fossil, and many other fossils at Liaoning similarly “exquisitely preserved”,3 with even “abdominal contents in exquisite detail” being preserved,4 come to be this way? The secular uniformitarian models, based on the idea that ‘the present is the key to the past’, really don’t even begin to make sense of the fossils even just at Liaoning, let alone globally. Rather, knowing what really happened in the past is the key to understanding the present world—including fossils. This correct understanding utterly washes away the millions of years so needed by the evolutionary paradigm. Textbooks, museums, and television documentaries promoting that paradigm have said that over millions of years dinosaurs gave rise to birds, which in turn evolved the ability to fly. But the Confuciusornis birds in the dinosaur’s stomach were birds “capable of powered flight”, 1 and also had a beak rather than teeth. And as this is not the first dinosaur discovered with bird remains in its belly,5 where does that leave the millions-ofyears dino-to-bird scenario? No wonder that evolutionists are “in a flap”.6 Which came first: the Archaeopteryx or the dinosaur egg? by Russell Grigg Published: 27 May 2014 (GMT+10) This children’s book pictures a large egg, suggests it might be a dinosaur egg, and spends the rest of the book asking which reptile might have laid it.Look what they’re telling your kids—the first bird was an Archaeopteryx, which hatched from an egg that was laid when the only other animals on the earth were reptiles! This is the storyline of a children’s picture-story book titled The Wonderful Egg, by Dahlov Ipcar (née Zorach, 1917– ), that has just been republished. It first saw the light of day in 1958. 1 She is best known for colourful and geometrically-patterned paintings of animals.Although the original edition was loaded with scientific errors (including some which even evolutionists repudiate), incredibly it “achieved specific recommendation from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAC) as well as from the American Council on Education and the Association for Childhood Education International”.2 We are waiting to see if these recommendations reoccur, as almost all of the book’s claims are factually erroneous, and none has been corrected in the 2014 reprint. Error upon error in The Wonderful Egg There never was a time when the whole earth was “covered with big green jungles”, as The Wonderful Egg claims. Now, even evolutionists have conceded that there was grass for dinosaurs to eat. Nor is it a fact that “the only animals that lived in the green jungles of the world were the dinosaurs”. For instance, we now know that dinosaurs ate birds and the mammal Repenomamus ate dinosaurs. Nor yet that “most of them were big”. Some were indeed big, but there were also small chicken-sized ones. Those reptiles that “swam in the warm seas” are not called dinosaurs, and neither are those that “flew through the air”.3 See Evidence for a young world, and Dinosaur Questions and Answers.

A double-page spread from The Wonderful Egg. The book claims that 100 million years ago the earth was covered with big green jungles, and the only animals were the dinosaurs. Also, many of the illustrations show the dinosaurs with tails dragging on the ground and the bipedal ones with a kangaroo-like ‘tripod’ posture. This is an outdated view; from the structures of the hip and shoulder bones, paleontologists now think that dinosaurs held their spinal column almost horizontally with their tail held straight out as a counterbalance.

Brontosaurus is given pride of place in The Wonderful Egg. Unfortunately ‘Bronty’ never existed.

The first of the 12 reptiles individually pictured and described in The Wonderful Egg is Brontosaurus. However, there never was a Brontosaurus dinosaur. ‘Bronty’ simply never existed! In the 1870s, Othniel Charles Marsh (1831–1899) discovered some very large dinosaur fossils in Lake Como, Wyoming, USA, and thought that he had discovered a new genus. He gave them the name Brontosaurus, meaning ‘thunder lizard’, because he thought that the ground must have thundered when such a huge animal walked by. Unfortunately the head was missing. To remedy this obvious defect, he added a skull that he found several kilometres away in a different quarry and in a different layer of stratum, but told no one about this. With its correct head, it was found to be a type of dinosaur that had previously been named—by the same paleontologist—and called Apatosaurus. By the rules of naming, the first validly published name of a creature has precedence, so Apatosaurus stands and Brontosaurus is relegated to a ‘junior synonym’ not for formal use. See Thunder lizards. Another candidate for laying the egg, pictured and described in the book, is an Elasmosaurus. This is one of a group of marine reptiles called plesiosaurs. However, there is now evidence that several of the plesiosaurs gave birth to live young rather than by laying eggs. 4 Hence it is incorrect for The Wonderful Egg book to say that Elasmosaurus definitively laid eggs. As this classic sketch (above) so beautifully illustrates (p. 63 in Duane Gish’s book, Dinosaurs by Design), it’s hard to imagine what a supposed ‘transitional form’, making its way from water to land, might have looked like. It was neither well-suited to where it’s [supposedly] going, nor to whence it [supposedly] came! And, as the evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould himself acknowledged, what are the chances of producing a ‘hopeful monster’ rather than a monstrosity, and with what would the hopeful monster mate? (The scan below is taken from p. 107 from Gary Parker’s 1980 book Creation: the Facts of Life.) The bird that hatched out of the egg, Archaeopteryx, is no longer regarded even by evolutionists as being the first bird species, as claimed in The Wonderful Egg. As to any specimen being the first bird ever, with what would it mate? If it couldn’t produce offspring, it would not be an ancestor of anything. The book describes it as “the first beautiful bird that ever sang a song high in the treetops of the green world of long, long ago.” Birds ‘sing’ for two main reasons: to say “Go away” to other male birds and thereby establish their territory, or to say “Come hither” to female birds to attract a mate. Neither of these two types of bird-calls would have had any meaning if there was ever a time when there was only one bird! See also Birds: fliers from the beginning. So where did the concept of a bird hatching from a reptile egg come from? Schindewolf, Darwin, and that reptilian egg This ‘miraculous egg’ concept goes back to the 1930s, when a German evolutionist paleontologist, Otto Schindewolf (1896– 1971),5 had a problem. His problem was that the zillions of intermediary links in the progression of non-birds turning into birds, as required by the fiction of evolution, were all missing from the fossil record. There was nothing new about this, of course. In 1859, in his Origin of Species, Charles Darwin devoted the whole of Chapter 9 to this pervasive problem (which was not just limited to birds) under the heading “On the Imperfection of the Geological record”.6 He wrote: “But just in proportion as this process of extermination [i.e. natural selection—Ed.] has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.”7 Darwin’s solution, in typical evasive Darwinian fashion, was to re-state the problem; he wrote: “The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.” However, the ‘evidence’ for the imperfection is the lack of intermediates; when it comes to kinds of living creatures we actually have today, the record is very complete. See The links are missing. Schindewolf’s solution to the same problem was much more innovative, albeit wildly preposterous. He too wrote a book, published in 1936, in which he said (translated from the German text): “The first bird hatched from a reptilian egg.”8 Goldschmidt and ‘hopeful monsters’ We know this because Richard Goldschmidt (1878–1958), a German evolutionary geneticist, who in 1936 became Professor of Zoology at the University of California, Berkeley,9 (unsurprisingly) had the very same problem concerning the fossil record. As he put it: “… practically all known orders and families appear suddenly and without any apparent transitions”.10 He conceded that the gradual accumulation of small mutations advocated by neo-Darwinians was sufficient for microevolution,11 but for him, this could not bridge the unlimited gap between species. So he too wrote a book, published in 1940, and titled The Material Basis of Evolution.12 He gave his purpose for this on pp. 6 & 183: “It will be one of the major contentions of this book to show that the facts of microevolution do not suffice for an understanding of macroevolution.” “The decisive step in evolution, the first step towards macroevolution, the step from one species to another, requires another evolutionary method than that of sheer accumulation of micromutations.” (All italics in the original.) As Goldschmidt approved of, translated, and introduced this bizarre ‘bird-from-reptilian-egg’ concept to American academia, it is usually attributed to him in English textbooks and journal articles.Goldschmidt’s solution to the problem was to introduce his readers to Otto Schindewolf, and he wrote (p. 395): “He [Schindewolf] shows that the many missing links in the paleontological record are sought for in vain because they never existed: ‘The first bird hatched from a reptilian egg.’” As Goldschmidt approved of, translated, and introduced this bizarre ‘bird-from-reptilian-egg’ concept to American academia,13 it is usually attributed to him in English textbooks and journal articles. And in fact he sought to provide a basis for it in his book. Under the heading “The hopeful monster”,14 he said (p. 393): “… the hopeful monster is one of the means of macroevolution by single large steps”. He explained (p. 390):

“A monstrosity appearing in a single genetic step might permit the occupation of a new environmental niche and thus produce a new type in one step. A Manx cat with a hereditary concrescence of the tail vertebrae, or a comparable mouse or rat mutant, is just a monster. But a mutant of Archaeopteryx producing the same monstrosity was a hopeful monster because the resultant fanlike arrangement of the tail-feathers was a great improvement in the mechanics of flying.” And he gave his mechanism for this thus (p. 396): “Species and the higher categories originate in single macroevolutionary steps as completely new genetic systems. The genetical process which is involved consists of a repatterning of the chromosomes, which results in a new genetic system.” Chromosomes are long structures of double-helical DNA. Goldschmidt imagined that re-arranging existing chromosomes could create a fundamentally new creature. However, it is now known that the way in which chromosomes/genes are inherited does not create new creatures, but only variations of what already existed. We suggest that the only ‘hopeful’ aspect of this scenario was that in the mind of Prof. Goldschmidt. Orthodox Darwinians characteristically rejected this denial of their cherished gradualism over immense ages. Gould and ‘punctuated equilibrium’ In the 1970s, Stephen Jay Gould (1941–2002), was Professor of Geology, Biology, and the History of Science at Harvard University and Curator of Invertebrate Paleontology at its Museum of Comparative Zoology, and he had a problem. It was the same problem that Charles Darwin, Prof. Schindewolf, and Prof. Goldschmidt had all faced. And now (in 1977), 118 years after Darwin had written Origin of Species, Gould still had not found any evidence of intermediate species in the fossil record. He wrote: “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.”15 “All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.”16 The evolutionist dogma that reptiles turned into birds, ubiquitously taught in universities and schools, is totally false.Gould’s solution was basically a rephrasing of Goldschmidt’s concept of sudden appearances, without the latter’s erroneous views about chromosomes and genetics. In 1977, in an article entitled Return of the Hopeful Monster, Gould, after noting that ‘hopeful monster’ was the terminology used by Goldschmidt, wrote: “As a Darwinian I wish to defend Goldschmidt’s postulate that macroevolution is not simply microevolution extrapolated, and that major structural transitions can occur rapidly without a smooth series of intermediate stages.” Gould called his version ‘punctuated equilibrium’. 17,18 He was not unaware of the problems, such as what would the first such monster mate with, if all its relatives were members of a different species? And: “Major disruptions of entire genetic systems do not produce favored—or even viable—creatures.” Despite these total confutations, Gould went so far as to say: “I … predict that during this decade [i.e. the 1980s—Ed.] Goldschmidt will be largely vindicated in the world of evolutionary biology.” Not surprisingly, this did not happen! Bully for Brontosaurus According to an article Prof. Gould wrote entitled Bully for Brontosaurus (published in a 1991 book of the same title), he regarded the names Brontosaurus and Apatosaurus as synonyms, but preferred Brontosaurus (meaning ‘thunder lizard’) as being more descriptively appropriate than Apatosaurus (meaning ‘deceptive lizard’). Surprisingly, the non-existent Brontosaurus is depicted on the postage stamps of some 29 countries, including a 1989 United States 25c and, most recently, a 2013 Bequa $2.75. Shown is a 1991 North Korea 20 won. We hasten to add that Gould did not go so far as to support the concept of the first bird hatching from a reptile’s egg. But if animals don’t go from reptile to bird in one jump, how far do they go? From leg to wing? Or from mostly leg to just a little bit of wing? If so, how would such encumbered ‘monsters’ survive? As Henry Morris and Gary Parker have pointed out, “If the jump isn’t big and dramatic, what’s the difference between the hopeful monster mechanism and the discredited concept of the gradual accumulation of minor mutations?”19 See: Hopeful monsters revisited and Punctuated equilibrium: come of age? In short, the evolutionist dogma that reptiles turned into birds, ubiquitously taught in universities and schools, is totally false. Nevertheless, children are being indoctrinated with this nonsense via the recently republished children’s book The Wonderful Egg.No animals of any kind have ever changed into different animals of another kind—neither overnight, nor yet over millions of years. So the answer to the question that forms the title of this article is: Archaeopteryx. Is Archaeopteryx a feathered dinosaur? by Michael J. Oard Figure 1. Photograph and line drawing of Xiaotingia Zhengi,15 a newArchaeopteryx-like creature from China claimed to be a theropod dinosaur. Practically all paleontologists think ofArchaeopteryx as the first bird or the missing link between dinosaurs and birds. The fossil is used as a showcase for evolution.However, Chinese paleontologists now challenge this classification, and instead make a case thatArchaeopteryx is a feathered theropod dinosaur.1This belief is based on the finding of anArchaeopteryx-like fossil in China called Xiaotingia zhengi (figure 1), the affinity of which is supposedly with the early theropod dinosaurs and feathered dinosaurs. The new fossil is said to resemble theropod dinosaurs and, just likeArchaeopteryx, it has teeth, claws on its wings, and a vertebrate tail. But the new fossil still has many features of birds, such as: feathers; small size; boomerang-shaped wishbone; and features of enantiornithines, unique fossil birds.

Based on questionable phylogenetic analysis To back up their claim, the Chinese paleontologists have used numerical phylogenetic analysis, cladistics, that compares anatomical features of many individuals. The idea is that the more similar the fossils, the closer they are related by evolution. But the researchers also admit: “It should be noted that our phylogenetic hypothesis is only weakly supported by the available data.”2They go on to add that other phylogenetic analyses have demonstrated just the opposite, that Archaeopteryx is a basal bird: “Although Archaeopteryx is placed within the Avialae [basal birds] by nearly all numerical phylogenetic studies…”3 In order to attempt to weaken the cladistics data that says Archaeopteryx is a bird, the Chinese paleontologists claim that some of the traits used in the cladistics analysis are questionable. So, it seems that the classification ofArchaeopteryx and Xiaotingia zhengi depends upon the traits selected for the cladistics analysis.Perhaps this is one of the reasons that cladistics analysis has been claimed to be subjective by some researchers. 4,5This new designation for Archaeopteryx supports this belief. Cladistics is a poor tool by which to classify unique fossils as feathered dinosaurs,6,7 or any fossil for that matter.8 Michael Balter, in Science, acknowledges that the Chinese paleontologists admitted to the weak statistical connection for claiming Archaeopteryx is a feathered dinosaur, but adds: “And other researchers say such ambiguities in classification are not surprising.” 9 This shows the widespread ambiguity of cladistics analysis. The claim is controversial This new designation of Archaeopteryx is of course based on the opinion of four Chinese paleontologists, who are challenging a major icon of evolution. Lawrence Witmer states: “For the past 150 years, the famous feathered fossil species from Bavaria in Germany has been a symbol of evolution, a textbook example of a transitional fossil and, above all, the oldest and most primitive bird. … The finding is likely to be met with considerable controversy (if not outright horror), in part because of the historical and sociological significance that Archaeopteryx has held, but also because it may mean that much of what we thought we knew about the origin and early evolution of birds will need to be re-evaluated.”10 Could ‘feathered dinosaurs’ be unique fossil birds? Because of all the subjectivity, I lean toward the idea of several ornithologists that ‘feathered dinosaurs’, those with true feathers and not probable collagen fibers,11 are really unique, fossil birds.12–14 Some of the feathered dinosaurs were first classified as birds, showing the equivocal nature of the classification. 15 Many of the true extinct birds found in China have unique features that are shared by some dinosaurs, but they are still birds. True birds are also found with so-called feathered theropods, suggesting that maybe all the animals in the location are types of birds. And even one cladistics analysis on the subject, if it can be trusted, concluded that ‘feathered dinosaurs’ are in fact birds.4 What’s in an Egg? Unscrambling the mysteries by David Catchpoole Imagine a container filled with amorphous-looking bits of metal, plastic and some software chips. Could you imagine it breaking out as a fully-assembled scale model motor car? Then growing larger as it absorbs raw materials, as well as energy, from its surroundings? What sort of advanced software engineering would be required? As for any ideas of it being able to ‘marry’ another like itself, thus repeating the whole cycle by producing another container of metal, plastic and software … such notions could rightly be dismissed as ludicrously far-fetched, even in our technologically advanced age. Yet in the world around us, similar things are happening all the time in those shell-wrapped marvels-in-miniature called eggs. From egg to chicken Chicken eggs are laid only about 25 hours after ovulation (i.e. release of the egg from the hen’s ovary). Breaking open the shell of a freshly-laid fertilized egg would reveal a tiny (2 mm, or 1/12 inch, in diameter) white mass of cells—the blastodisc—on top of the yolk.1 If an intact egg is kept warm under a broody hen or in an incubator, the chick will develop from these blastodisc cells, with body folds of the embryo beginning to separate from the underlying yolk. Birds not hatching from over-fragile egg shells first alerted the world to certain industrial pollutants. Man-made chemicals were also responsible for the mutation-caused deformity in this cormorant.Crucial to embryo development is the formation of various membranes (partitions) including the yolk sac, amnion and allantois. The amnion encloses the embryo inside a fluid-filled cavity which not only buffers the embryo against short-term external temperature extremes but also cushions it if the egg is bumped. With the embryo closed off from the outside world by the shell, 2 there is the problem of how to dispose of excretory wastes. Here is where the allantois is so crucial, as it serves as the embryo’s garbage bag. (When the chick hatches, the accumulated wastes can be found sticking to the inside of the abandoned shell.)While these membranes are forming, the embryo itself continues to develop, differentiating the various organ systems. Four days after an egg is laid, the heart is visible and large blood vessels can be seen to have grown out from the embryo into the yolk sac. By eight days the eyes, darkly pigmented, are prominent. On the 11th day the brain is visible through the transparent skull, the limbs are obviously developing, and feathers appear by the 14th day. By 21 days (i.e. just before hatching), the ‘egg tooth’ is visible—the knob on the end of the beak which the chick uses to break out of the shell. Eggsacting traditions Eggs have long been hand-coloured and exchanged, apparently as part of the pre-Christian ‘rites of spring’. 1 It is easy to see how the egg would be regarded as symbolic of the renewal of life after a long cold winter. In many cultures, the egg represented fertility and was a sacred symbol to the Babylonians.As Christianity spread, the egg was adopted by many as a symbol of Christ’s Resurrection. People in central European countries have a long tradition of making elaborately decorated Easter eggs. The Russian royal family carried this tradition to great lengths, as can be seen from the ornate jewelled eggs made by goldsmith Carl Fabergé from the 1880s until 1917.

What is an ‘egg’? In biology, the term ‘egg’ most often refers to the female sex cell, or gamete, across a multitude of species, from rabbits to redwood trees, camels to corn plants. However, ‘egg’ can also be used to describe the entire specialized structure or capsule that consists of the ovum, its various protective membranes, and any accompanying nutritive materials. Thus, for most people, an egg is a hard-shelled reproductive body (normally regarded as food) that is produced by a bird or reptile. But it’s not just bird or turtle eggs that are considered as food. Fish eggs (‘roe’) are eagerly consumed by many around the world. In Russia, caviar—the salted eggs of sturgeonfish—is a prized delicacy.1 All birds, and some reptiles and fish, are oviparous—their eggs continue to develop after being laid, and hatch later. Some reptiles (e.g. Garter Snakes) and fish (e.g. guppies) are ovoviviparous—i.e. they have shelled eggs that hatch as they are laid, making it look like ‘live birth’. However (unlike the situation in viviparous organisms giving birth to live young—e.g. sheep), after ovulation, the mother’s body supplies no nutrients—only oxygen—to the developing embryo, which thus develops on the energy in the yolk.If you hard-boil freshly-laid (still warm) eggs, the shell will stick to the white, making it hard to peel. But as the egg mass shrinks from water loss after a few days in the dry air of a refrigerator, the membrane separates from the hard shell, allowing easy peeling. Eggs harden when boiled due to the heat first breaking (unfolding) the proteins, which then allows these to form new, stronger bonds with other proteins. As these stronger cross-links form, the protein chains are prevented from sliding past each other, leaving the egg hard. Mechanical whisking of egg whites also breaks protein bonds, and again, new, stronger bonds subsequently form, so the material will never return to its original consistency.Blood spots in the egg are the result of rupture of one or more small blood vessels in the yolk at the time of ovulation.Double/triple yolks result when two/three ova are released from the ovary at the same time or when progress of the previous day’s ovum through the oviduct is slowed and the newer ovum catches up.Variation in internal colour is due to many factors. If very fresh, the egg white (albumen) will be cloudy, while a clear egg white is an indication the egg is aging. Pink or iridescent egg white indicates bacterial spoilage. The yellow shading of the yolk varies according to the hen’s diet— lighter on a colourless diet (e.g. white cornmeal) and dark yellow if she eats plenty of yellow-orange plant pigments called carotenoids (e.g. marigold petals and yellow corn). A green surface on the yolk is the result of overcooking, caused by sulfur compounds in the white reacting with iron compounds in the yolk.The colour of the eggshell depends largely on the breed of chicken. Chickens with white feathers, such as the Leghorn, White Rock and Cornish, lay white eggs. Dark-feathered (red-black) chickens such as the Rhode Island Red, New Hampshire and Plymouth Rock lay brown eggs. Araucuna chickens in South America lay eggs with shells ranging from medium blue to medium green.1 The egg is laid blunt end first. Quail eggs have been successfully hatched in space (on the Russian Mir spacecraft in 1990 and 1992). 2The extinct giant elephant bird (Aepyornis maximus) of Madagascar laid eggs 39 cm (15.4 in) long with a volume of 12 litres (2.26 gal). Of living birds, the ostrich egg is the largest, being up to 20 cm (8 in) long and weighing up to 1.76 kg (3.87 lb)—equivalent in volume to 24 chicken eggs. The smallest known bird’s egg was a Vervain Hummingbird (Mellisuga minima) egg less than 9.9 mm (39/100 in) long, and weighing just 0.365 g (0.0128 oz).3,4 5,6 The largest dinosaur egg ever recovered (in China) was 46 cm (18 in) long. North American ‘feathered’ dinosaurs a flight of fancy by Tas Walker Published: 8 November 2012 (GMT+10) Julius Csotonyi Figure 1. This ‘artist’s reconstruction’ greatly misrepresents the fossil evidence for ‘feathers’ The science news has been abuzz with astounding claims that the first ‘feathered dinosaur’ has been found in North America (See Dinosaurs looking for love grew alluring feathers).ScienceDaily announced, “Fossils of first feathered dinosaurs from North America discovered: Clues on early wing uses.”However, the small print of the news release reveals that researchers have merely discovered “lengthy wisps” on an adult. They did not find any wisps on any juvenile specimens.Note it was just “lengthy wisps”. I would not be surprised if the wisps turn out to be something other than feathers, such as partly decayed collagen fibres.In order to make the announcement convincing and grab the media’s imagination the news releases were accompanied by a spectacular drawing of a dinosaur running through long bushes arrayed with massive plumage of brilliantly coloured feathers on its forelimbs (figure 1). These were drawn as proper feathers, not just a few wisps.The news release was accompanied by an image of the actual fossil (figure 2). There is not a single feather visible on the fossil, or even an impression of a feather. Obviously the feathers on the drawing were found in the artist’s head. And to call the drawing an “artist’s reconstruction” seems like spin.Apart

from the misinformation in the claim that the dinosaur Ornithomimus had feathered wings, it raised many puzzles and questions. It was not difficult to list some of them.Ornithomimus was too big and its alleged wings were too small for it to be able to fly. The researchers said this indicates the initial use of its wings was not for flight. Royal Tyrrell Museum Figure 2. Dinosaur fossil is well preserved and in classic “dead dinosaur pose” pose. This has been attributed to opisthotonus due to suffocation by being rapidly buried, or to buoyancy upon submersion enabling a spinal ligament to pull back the neck and tail.The large clusters of feathers on its forelimbs (as drawn by the artist) would have been of no use for flying. But they would have been a major hindrance for walking and feeding. The researchers said the dinosaurs may have used their “flashy feathers” to woo potential mates, peacock style.The announcement said the find will "shed light on origin of wings". However, according to evolutionary assumptions wings already existed. Archaeopteryx is ‘dated’ as 80 million years older than this CanadianOrnithomimus, which was assigned to the late Cretaceous, supposedly 71 million years ago. This has long been claimed to be the ancestor of birds and already had wings—impressive ones at that. Indeed, it looks like it could fly.The reports said the Ornithomimus specimens were apparently covered in “stringy down up to 2 inches (5 cm) long”. Note that these are not feathers but just “stringy down”. Yet the report described the strings as “filament-like feathers” (more spin). Note that the artist’s embellishment, showed not lengths of stringy down on the limbs but, an impressive array of fully formed feathers. Most of the fossils of Archaeopteryx, which is dated at 80 million years older than this Ornithomimus fossil, include impressions of feathers—impressions that were of an ‘advanced’ form, in that they are of flight feathers. So Ornithomimus throws no light on the origin of feathers, even within their own evolutionary framework, because feathers already existed.Note that the fossil is well preserved, indicating that the creature was buried rapidly before it had been scavenged and before the remains had rotted and disintegrated. The evidence points to a short time for the death and burial of the fossil.Note, too, the posture of the animal. Its back is arched, legs thrown forward and bent, neck curved tightly and head forward. This is the classic ‘dead dinosaur posture’ which indicates rapid burial. It has been suggested this opisthotonic posture is due to the animal being suffocated as it was buried (see Death throes), or submersion increasing buoyancy so that a strong spinal ligament can pull back the tail and neck (see ‘Feathered’ dinos: no feathers after all!).The puzzles, bloopers, problems and need for exaggerated artist’s reconstructions disappear when we look at this evidence from the point of view of creation history. These dinosaurs were buried during the Flood as the waters were rising. They were overwhelmed and their remains were interred without much passage of time (See Watery catastrophe deduced from huge Ceratopsian dinosaur graveyard). To be more precise, the dinosaurs were likely buried as the waters neared their peak. Did these dinosaurs have stringy filaments on their front legs when they were alive? That is an open question. But these animals were not on the way to evolving into birds. They and the birds existed together, and, apart from those on the Ark, they were all overwhelmed and perished during the Flood. Dinosaurs ate birds by David Catchpoole Published: 13 November 2012 (GMT+10) For years we’ve been hearing, from various authorities on evolution, that dinosaurs gave rise to birds. E.g.,1973, John Ostrom, writing in Nature journal, revives the dino-to-bird idea attributed to Charles Darwin’s friend Thomas H. Huxley: “Inasmuch as the Thecodontia include the most primitive as well as the most ancient archosaurs known, it is highly probable that all subsequent archosaurs (including birds) were derived from members of this order.”1 1998, Paul Willis, writing on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation website: “In a nutshell, the majority of palaeontologists working on the ancestry of birds agree that dinosaurs, particularly small theropods, are the grandparents of present-day parrots, partridges and pigeons. There are some detractors to this emerging orthodoxy but the dino-bird theory is supported by both the most widely used methodology ( cladistics) and a rapidly growing collection of primitive birds and advanced meat-eating dinosaurs. A reasonable assessment of the debate would have to conclude that it’s all over, including the shouting, in favour of dino-birds.”2 2005, John R. Horner: “If there are any people left who do not believe birds came from dinosaurs, I would put them in the same group as the Flat Earth Society.”3 2009, Xu Xing under the headline Feathered fossils prove birds evolved from dinosaurs, say Chinese scientists: “This fossil provides confirmation that the bird-dinosaur hypothesis is correct and supports the idea that birds descended from theropod dinosaurs, the group of predatory dinosaurs that include allosaurus and velociraptor.”4 2011, Laurence Pringle in the book Billions of Years, Amazing Changes: “Some of the most exciting news about evolution today is that more and more of these ‘missing links’ are no longer missing. One example comes from the evolution of birds from dinosaurs—an idea suggested by Thomas Huxley, a friend of Charles Darwin . (A close look at the skeletons of a small dinosaur and a bird reveals that they have many features in common.)”5 To be fair to the supporters of the evolutionary paradigm, not all proponents of evolution agreed with the above (and many other) proclamations that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Most notable of these was avian paleobiologist Alan Feduccia. He and others spoke out publicly against the idea, pointing out the many difficulties with dino-to-bird evolution—which we were very happy to include in our many articles rebutting bird evolution claims. See Did birds really evolve from dinosaurs?In fact, the notion that flight-capable birds could have evolved from any non-bird stretches credulity to the extreme. Given how long

it took human engineers, with all their technical prowess, to intentionally design craft capable of acceptably safe, powered flight (and they’re still trying to emulate the landing and in-flight control finesse that birds have, in order to improve safety), evolutionists would be looking to invoke long time periods for their claimed time-and-chance processes to work their ‘magic’. However, recent discoveries of the contents of dinosaur stomachs pose a gut-wrenching challenge to the idea that dinosaurs gave rise to birds. Because it now turns out that dinosaurs ate them. “Capable of powered flight” A fossil of the theropod dinosaur Sinocalliopteryx gigas found in Liaoning, China, was sufficiently well preserved that researchers were able to make out its intact belly contents. 6 They were able to see the last thing it had eaten—a bird dinner. As the bird had only been partially digested (indicating death of the Sinocalliopteryx had occurred not long after its last meal) the researchers were even able to identify the species of the bird: Confuciusornis sanctus. This was a bird “capable of powered flight”—and it had a beak as well. 7A beaked bird capable of powered flight, living alongside dinosaurs. Living so close to dinos in fact, as to be able to be swallowed by them.Did the Sinocalliopteryx happen across a Confuciusornis carcass, and opportunistically scavenge it? No, say the researchers, for two reasons.First, the dino’s Confuciusornis dinner showed “a high degree of articulation”, i.e. bones still joined to each other, indicating that when eaten, it was “at least fresh enough not to have disarticulated.”Second, that bird specimen was not the only one found in the dinosaur’s stomach. There was anotherConfuciusornis sanctus carcass as well, and “both were in a similar state of partial digestion”. Given that “remains as delicate as small bird bones have presumably short digestion periods”, the researchers conclude, logically enough, that the two Confuciusornis birds must have been consumed in fairly rapid succession, “in order for the first individual not to have had time to be digested noticeably beyond that of the second.”What’s more, the dino’s abdominal contents included a third bird, in a somewhat more advanced state of digestion, which the researchers say might also have been a Confuciusornis. (Hence why the researchers refer to “at least two [Confuciusornis] individuals” [emphasis added].)So, arguing against scavenging as the source of the three bird dinners, the researchers speculate that the “association of two or more birds is perhaps more easily explained by selective hunting than by the chance discovery of multiple C. sanctus carcasses” and “it is improbable that every individual organism represented within the gut contents was consumed exclusively as a result of scavenging, as true obligate tetrapod scavengers are rare.”Speaking to the media, one of the researchers, paleontologist Scott Persons, put it more bluntly: “The fact that this Sinocalliopteryx had not one but three undigested birds in its stomach indicates it was a voracious eater and a very active hunter.” A hunter. Of birds that could fly. Birds that didn’t just glide, but flew with powered flight. Beware of ‘spin’! The difficulties this raises for the millions-of-years dino-to-bird idea are obvious. No wonder the researchers (and others) were careful to ‘spin’ the findings in various ways, to minimize the damage to the evolutionary paradigm.For example the researchers referred to Confuciusornis as being ‘primitive’—“the primitive avialan”, to be exact. They also said “Confuciusornisand other Jehol birds were not as well adapted for flight as modern aves”. (The term ‘Jehol’ is used by evolutionists to refer to all creatures represented in the fossils of northeastern China ‘dated’ to around 120–133 million years ago.) As the news media relayed it: “The primitive birds were probably limited to slow take-offs and short flights”, “had not yet mastered the art of fast take-offs”, being “slow-flying birds”. But what evidence is there for that? None. Anatomically, Confuciusornis can in no way be considered ‘primitive’ compared to ‘modern’ birds. There’s no basis for saying it was a ‘slow’ flyer, with ‘slow’ takeoffs.In fact, the authors themselves address the likely objection to their findings from their own evolutionary colleagues that “active hunting of flight-capable prey by a land-bound predator may seem intrinsically implausible” by pointing out some of the many examples evident today.Foxes, for example, are expert bird hunters. As are many of the cats. “The black-footed cat (Felis nigripes) of southern Africa routinely ambushes and chases down cursorial birds before they are able to become airborne.” Servals (Leptailurus serval) are adept at “snagging fleeing birds midair.”And lest anyone seek to deflect this argument by saying that dinosaurs are reptiles, the researchers point out that “monitor lizards and various snakes consume birds in both arboreal and terrestrial contexts.”So there’s no reason why dinosaurs couldn’t have captured flight-capable birds, either. And in fact Sinocalliopteryx is not the first dino to have been discovered with bird remains in its gut. In November last year this headline in the UK’s Daily Mail aptly broke the news: “First proof of bird-eating dinosaur has scientists in a flap”.8That news was based on a scientific paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in which the researchers report on “a unique specimen of the small nonavian theropod Microraptor gui from the Early Cretaceous Jehol biota, China, which has the remains of an adult enantiornithine bird preserved in its abdomen, most likely not scavenged, but captured and consumed by the dinosaur.”9 Well, it’s hardly ‘unique’ any more, now thatSinocalliopteryx is known to be another bird-eating dinosaur.And if the discovery of Microraptor’s propensity for eating birds was sufficient to put evolutionary scientists ‘in a flap’, then how much more so now with Sinocalliopteryx. Dinosaurs ate adult, flight-capable birds—one can imagine the angst this generates amongst the evolutionary fraternity behind the dinos-gave-rise-to-birds idea. And this is not the first time that fossil discoveries have upset the supposed bird evolution timeline. Bird fossils that pre-date their supposed ancestors have repeatedly put the evolutionary cart-before-horse, and in fact the Jehol fossil group has already been ‘re-dated’ in the past to try and salvage the bird origins claims and other aspects of the evolutionary storyline.Try as they might, however, salvage isn’t going to be easy. That’s because it’s not the evolutionary paradigm that explains bird origins, but rather the creation account of history. A history that says that birds preceded land animals (rather than the reverse, as evolution claims). A history that also describes a global catastrophic event (the Flood) that beautifully explains not only the exquisitely preserved gut contents of the Liaoning fossilised creatures of the Jehol group, but fossils worldwide, too.

Supposed ‘icon of evolution’, Archaeopteryx, was “dressed for flight” in modern, probably black, feathers by David Catchpoole Published: 31 July 2012 (GMT+10) School and university students could be forgiven for thinking thatArchaeopteryx is pivotal evidence for dino-tobird evolution, given the obligatory photos of fossils like this one adorning the pages of their science textbooks. The stark reality, however, is that even some leading evolutionists do not regard it as such.According to a paper published in Nature Communications earlier this year, “Archaeopteryx has been regarded as an icon of evolution ever since its discovery from the Late Jurassic limestone deposits of Solnhofen, Germany in 1861.”1Certainly Archaeopteryx has been continually paradedas an ‘icon of evolution’ in biology textbooks and the like. And the Brown University press release drawing attention to the Nature Communications paper was no exception, calling Archaeopteryx a “winged dinosaur”.2However, as we have written many times (e.g. see Bird evolution flies out the window), there are even leading evolutionists who most certainly do not regardArchaeopteryx as an ‘icon of evolution’. That’s because the facts about Archaeopteryx really offer no joy to anyone hungry for evidence supporting the evolutionary paradigm. For example, as paleo-ornithologist Alan Feduccia, Professor Emeritus at the University of North Carolina and a world authority on fossil birds, sums it up: “Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.”3 Note that Feduccia is an evolutionist himself, not a creationist (see Feduccia vs Creationists). And the ‘dating’ of Archaeopteryx by evolutionists’ own reckoning puts it millions of years after the creatures it supposedly gave rise to! (E.g. seeNew four-winged feathered dinosaur?) As Feduccia likes to quip, “You can’t be older than your grandfather.”However, it seems that Ryan Carney and his co-authors of the recent Nature Communications paper are oblivious of all that. Their findings are couched in the usual evolutionary ‘spin’ aboutArchaeopteryx that one has come to expect in the Nature stable of publications.4 But that’s despite their own research findings pointing to Archaeopteryx having modern feathers in line with the creation account of birds having been designed for flight from the very first. Or, as the Brown University press release put it, “Archaeopteryx’sfeather structure is identical to that of living birds” and it was “dressed for flight”.Carney and his coworkers examined a well-preserved Archaeopteryx feather, ‘dated’ as being 150 million years old. Contrary to previous interpretations, they determined that it was an upper major primary covert (i.e. one of the feathers that cover the primary and secondary wing feathers that birds use in flight). But the really landmark breakthrough made by the researchers was the discovery of fossilized colour-imparting melanosomes; the pigment-producing parts of a cell.The impetus to search for melanosomes in Archaeopteryx fossils came following co-author Jakob Vinther’s discovery in 2006 of melanin preserved in the ink sac of a fossilized squid. (See Fossil squid ink that still writes!) “This made me think that melanin could be fossilized in many other fossils such as feathers,” explained Vinther. “I realized I had opened a whole new chapter of what we can do to understand the nature of extinct feathered dinosaurs and birds.”(Well, extinct dinosaurs and birds, maybe. But as for feathered dinosaurs, the claimed ‘evidence’ to date is far from convincing. See‘Feathered’ dinos: no feathers after all!) Sure enough, Vinther’s hunch proved right in Archaeopteryx’s case. Although the tiny melanosomes (about 1 micron long and 250 nanometres wide) had long been seen in other fossil feathers, they had not been recognized as such, having been misidentified as bacteria. Carney and Vinther and their colleagues used a very powerful type of scanning electron microscope to locate patches of hundreds of melanosomes encased in the Archaeopteryx feather fossil. They then sought to better define the melanosomes’ structure by examining the fossilized barbules of the feather. (Barbules are the tiny appendages on feathers that form a microscopic network of hooks and grooves which overlap and interlock to give a feather rigidity and strength. During preening, the network of barbules separated as the bird runs its beak along the feather reinterlock behind the preening bill like a zipper.) Their unequivocal finding: “The barbules and the alignment of melanosomes within them are identical to those found in modern birds.”Once again, note what the researchers have themselves observed and reported: Archaeopteryx’s feather structure is identical to that of living birds. And when they compared the melanosomes to those of 87 species of living birds, they concluded that the colour imparted by Archaeopteryx’s melanosomes was highly likely (“with 95% certainty”) to have been black. That’s why their press release said Archaeopteryxwas “dressed for flight”:“The color and parts of cells that would have supplied pigment are evidence that wing feathers were rigid and durable, traits that would have helped Archaeopteryx to fly.”However, the researchers were at pains to say that the pigment doesn’t prove that Archaeopteryx could fly, as it could equally have served to regulate body temperature, act as camouflage or for sexual display. And they were very eager to put an evolutionary ‘spin’ on the origin of the pigmentation. As Ryan Carney said: “We can’t say it’s proof that Archaeopteryx was a flier. But what we can say is that in modern bird feathers, these melanosomes provide additional strength and resistance to abrasion from flight, which is why wing feathers and their tips are the most likely areas to be pigmented. With Archaeopteryx, as with birds today, the melanosomes we found would have provided similar structural advantages, regardless of whether the pigmentation initially evolved for another purpose.” Doesn’t it make more sense to conclude that the reason that melanosomes in Archaeopteryx look like they had a purpose was because they were put there by a purposeful Designer? Archaeopteryx had ‘modern’ feathers and melanosomes not because it “would have been advantageous during this early evolutionary stage of dinosaur flight” as the evolutionary researchers tried to ‘spin’ in their ‘paleobabble’, but rather was “dressed for flight” because Someone, the Master Designer, dressed it.

Anchiornis huxleyi: new four-winged feathered dino? by Jonathan Sarfati Published: 6 October 2009(GMT+10) Anchiornis huxleyi, artist’s impression, including the claimed feathers. Headlines are again buzzing with new “proof” of the dino-to-bird story, again from China, and again an alleged four-winged phase. The new creature is Anchiornis huxleyi, named after “Darwin’s Bulldog” T.H. Huxley, and seems to be a type of carnivorous dinosaur called a troodontid. These dinosaurs, including Troodon (pronounced TRO-odon, from Greek for “wounding tooth”), were usually smaller than adult humans, and had very long legs, large brain, large eyes and binocular vision.Anchiornis is tiny even by those standards, estimated at 34 cm (13 in) long and weighing only 110 g (3.9 oz). It also had very long forelimbs, 80% as long as the hind limbs.One of the most exciting features, for its discoverers, is its evolutionary “age”—it hails from the Tiaojishan formation of Jianchang county, recently “dated” to between 161 and 151 Ma (million years old). Because this could be “older” than the extinct undoubted bird Archaeopteryx (153 Ma), this is supposed to solve the “temporal paradox” of all the claimed “feathered dinos” being younger than the birds they supposedly evolved into. 1 In fact, this “paradox” was even worse, because the usual “feathered dino” candidates were about 10 Ma after the beaked bird Confuciusornis (135 Ma). What should creationists think? This is not the first alleged four-winged dinosaur that made headlines—in early 2003, Microraptor gui was the star. Most of the objections made in New four-winged feathered dinosaur? apply to the new star. Is the fossil genuine? Leading evolutionary paleo-ornithologist, and critic of the dino-bird theory, Alan Feduccia, is cautious about the current find. He “says the new fossil species adds a ‘dazzling new piece to the complicated puzzle of early bird evolution’, showing just how blurred the distinctions are between groups in this area of the dinosaur evolutionary tree.” 2 But about Microraptor, found in the same general area, and by one of the same discoverers, he didn’t mince words, given that its tail was part of the notorious Archaeoraptor hoax:Archaeoraptor is just the tip of the iceberg. There are scores of fake fossils out there, and they have cast a dark shadow over the whole field. When you go to these fossil shows, it’s difficult to tell which ones are faked and which ones are not. I have heard that there is a fake-fossil factory in northeastern China, in Liaoning Province, near the deposits where many of these recent alleged feathered dinosaurs were found.Journals like Nature don’t require specimens to be authenticated, and the specimens immediately end up back in China, so nobody can examine them. They may be miraculous discoveries, they may be missing links as they are claimed, but there is no way to authenticate any of this stuff.3 Are the feathers genuine? As we have long explained, there is nothing in creation theory to forbid feathers on dinosaurs. However, there have been so many dubious claims that caution is warranted. Feduccia himself and colleagues have shown that feathers on Sinosauropteryx are most likely frayed collagen fibres.4,5Anchiornis is an interesting case, because different types of feather were reported, and they seemingly covered almost the entire body. This even includes the feet, unlike modern birds. Two types of plumulaceous (downy) feather covered almost the entire head and neck, torso, upper legs, and the first half of the tail. There were also pennaceous (contour) feathers covering both limbs, and even the feet and toes. But these were symmetric, as opposed to the asymmetric flight feathers of flying birds, including Archaeopteryx. What has this to do with flight? The dino-to-bird theory is usually connected to the cursorial theory about bird evolution, where flying birds evolved from running creatures. Supposedly flight evolved from flapping their forelimbs for various proposed reasons. Four wings is a perfect recipe for gliding, but not for powered, flapping flight—Henry Gee Evolutionary critics of the dino-to-bird idea, including Feduccia, tend to promote the rival (and older)arboreal theory, where birds evolved from gliding creatures.Anchiornis is a strange beast, and doesn’t really fit either theory. Its long hindlegs would be good for a fast runner, but feathers on its feet and toes would get in the way. So this would be strong evidence against the cursorial theory. So evolutionary propagandists who support this theory ought not to invokeAnchiornis as support for the dino-to-bird idea.Yet its symmetric, rounded small feathers would not be very effective for gliding either. And in any case, there is a huge gap between flying and gliding. Concerning Microraptor, supposedly a better flyer thanAnchiornis, Henry Gee noted in Nature : “Four wings is a perfect recipe for gliding, but not for powered, flapping flight.”6 So he resorted to a typical just-so story: “When flight evolved in later dromaeosaurs and birds, the hindwing might have been lost and the hindlimbs reverted to walking and perching.” The problem for evolution is much greater than such handwaving would indicate. The imagined transition from parachuting (where the “wings” merely offer resistance to downwards movement through the air) to true gliding represents a major evolutionary hurdle in itself. But an even greater obstacle is the supposed development of the musculature and skeletal frame required for powered flight. The main point of the wings in flapping flight is not to act as a moving parachute by directing air downwards and forcing the bird upwards by reaction. Rather, as shown, the flapping wings mainly direct air backwards to force the bird forward by reaction, so the airflow over the airfoil-shaped wings generateslift.Therefore flapping flight also requires highly controlled muscle movements to achieve flight, which in turn requires that the brain has the program for these movements. Ultimately, this requires new genetic information that a non-flying creature lacks.This new discovery also fails to solve the problem of the different breathing system of reptiles and birds. In particular, a highly movable hindlimb could not have supported the air sacs that are an essential support for the one-way flow of air through the lungs.7 See Bird breathing anatomy breaks dino-to-bird dogma. Temporal paradox solved? Certainly, it’s not surprising that evolutionists would finally be delighted with an alleged feathered dinosaur older than Archaeopteryx. But they have merely replaced one temporal paradox with another: “Anchiornis huxleyi is probably Oxfordian in age, and unquestionably represents the oldest troodontid reported so far. The presence of a troodontid in the earliest Late Jurassic indicates that all groups of derived theropods had originated by this

time. A calibrated theropod phylogeny based only on well-corroborated fossil occurrences suggests that all major tetanuran groups, including Aves, might have originated and diversified rapidly in the Middle to earliest Late Jurassic. This rapid divergence event would have coincided with documented palaeogeographical changes that took place around the same time. Alternatively, a calibrated theropod phylogeny incorporating fragmentary material suggests that tetanurans have a much longer evolutionary history, and that great potential exists for discovering derived theropod fossils, even in the Triassic.” That is, according to their own calibrated phylogeny,8 Anchiornis is about 30 Ma older than the next youngest, and more “dino-like”, troodontid. This means they must postulate a much earlier evolutionary history than actually demonstrated in the fossil record. Feather fossil fantasy Amber-encased feathers no help to feather evolution by Shaun Doyle Is this the ancestor of modern birds? Evolutionary paleontologists have recently claimed to have found evidence of early feather evolution in amber. 1They ‘dated’ these finds to about 100 million years ago (Ma), and claim that they represent an intermediate stage in the evolutionary development of feathers. Out of time The title of the article reads: ‘The early evolution of feathers: fossil evidence from Cretaceous amber of France [emphasis added]’. This title is misleading for two reasons: (1) The article dates these fossil feathers to 100 Ma, but Archaeopteryx, a recognizable feathered bird, is dated by evolutionists to 150 Ma, and even the beaked bird Confuciusornis is dated to 135 Ma; (2) Archaeopteryx, by the authors’ own admission, has ‘modern-type feathers that are similar to those of extant birds’.2 This begs the question: why are these fossil feathers evidence for the earlyevolution of feathers if they’re clearly (according to the evolutionists’ own dating scheme) anything but early?The conclusion is painfully obvious, even just from these two points: these fossil feathers mean absolutely nothing for feather evolution. However, this brings to light an often overlooked point about orthodox dino-to-bird theory.3 When the fossil evidence contradicts the evolutionists’ own timeline the standard way to save their story is to have ‘ghost lineages’4 haunting the phylogeny: ‘Personally, I continue to find it problematic that the most birdlike maniraptoran theropods are found 25 to 75 million years after the origin of birds … Ghost lineages are frankly a contrived solution, a deus ex machina required by the cladistic method.’5 Interestingly, researchers recently used a number of different molecular dating techniques to arrive at a date for the origin of modern birds of 103 Ma at the earliest.6 This is 3 Ma earlier than this fossil evidence for the early evolution of feathers. If this is the case, what did the ancestor of modern birds look like? I couldn’t help wondering whether the TNR (totally naked rooster) mutant7 isn’t a mutant at all, and is very close to the ancestral form of modern birds! Feather morphology, development and evolution However, the claim for evolutionary significance rests on the morphology of the feathers. Perrichot et al. believe that these feathers represent an intermediate stage between two stages of the of Prum’s developmental theory of feather evolution. 8 But how can we be sure that these feathers don’t fall within the full range of morphology in fully functional feathers? These feathers are very small (1–2 mm) and are described as morphologically similar to down, ornamental or afterfeathers. 9 And other explanations for their origin are not considered. For example, the size could suggest that they are from a chick, or the lack of barbules may indicate degenerate feathers that have lost functionality. 10When it comes to giving these feathers a certain place in the evolutionary chain of feathers, the authors demur in favour of keeping their ‘missing link’ brand: ‘We prefer not to create a new stage for this morphology, as it merely illustrates a transition between two well-established stages rather than a distinct, stable stage.’ Not a stable stage? This stage has either reappeared or, more likely, had to persist for over 50 Ma in the evolutionary scheme if it is important for evolution! Once again, it seems that all that matters in dino-to-bird evolution is morphology. The timeline can be conveniently ignored when it doesn’t neatly fit the story. Dino feathers? Perrichot et al. also claim that these feathers are far more likely to come from dinosaurs than birds: ‘The morphology of the new fossils described herein, with a rachis 11 forming ‘primitive’ vanes without barbules, is entirely consistent with the shafted feathers displayed by these two theropods. … But the poor early feather record still prevents a complete reconstruction of the distribution pattern of morphologies among non-avian coelurosaurs and basal birds, and the possibility that they are derived from an early bird cannot be excluded.’2 Fossil feathers purported to show evidence of the early evolution of feathers. There is however little consideration of other possible explanations of the feather morphology.This is mind boggling! They are seriously arguing that seven 1-mm long broken feathers that have likely been twisted and crushed when trapped in the amber are prima facie evidence fordinosaur feathers. Of course, they couch their claim in tentative terms by saying that ‘the possibility that they are derived from an early bird cannot be excluded.’ All the same, this statement shows they think the feathers are more likely to come from dinosaurs than birds.12Surely feathers are prima facie evidence for birds, especially given the interpretive controversies that surround ‘feathered dinosaurs’.13However, this is probably where the evolutionary age (100 Ma) would be invoked to explain the likelihood of them coming from dinosaurs. There are also a number of dromaeosaurid and troödontid fossils14 found in strata closely related to where the feathers were found.2The problem is that the age can’t be important here and also be significant for the early evolution of feathers except by appealing to ‘evolutionary stasis’, which is an evolutionary interpretation of ghost lineages.The best case scenario for the evolutionist is that this is a dinosaur feather ‘dated’ 50 Ma after unequivocal evidence of fully developed feathers in an ‘early’ bird. If anything, these feathers would represent feather degeneration in dinosaurs, not evolution. Conclusion

It makes no sense to place these fossils into a dino-to-bird evolutionary context because they produce too many conundrums and unexplained questions. The timeline doesn’t fit and other options for the origin of the feathers are not considered. Assuming that the feathers come from a dinosaur is a complete reversal of any reasonable prima facie consideration of the source of the feathers. Such an assumption can only be made from a deep commitment to evolution in general and dino-to-bird evolution in particular. From a creation view, these feathers are likely to have come from a chick and were encased in amber during the Flood. Grass-eating dinos A ‘time-travel’ problem for evolution by David Catchpoole Evolution textbooks have long taught that fossil evidence shows grasses evolved around 55 million years ago, afterthe extinction of the dinosaurs (around 65 million years ago). Woe betide any illustrator who drew dinosaurs and grass in the same picture!But new evidence leaves the evolution textbooks with a dramatic grassy ‘time-travel’ conundrum. Researchers have discovered fossilized dinosaur droppings that contain the remains of at least five types of grasses. 1 This means that not only did grass already existat the same time as dinosaurs, but (at least some) dinosaurs also ateit.2 But how could they have eaten something that supposedly hadn’t even evolved yet?As one of the researchers commented, the discovery of grass phytoliths (silica bodies found in plants) in dinosaur coprolites (fossil dung) ‘was a complete shock’. 3,4 So the new evidence will force a dramatic revision of evolutionary theory about the origin of grasses.Reporting on the new find, New Scientist highlighted the dramatic turnaround by explaining that illustrators who had previously made the ‘mistake’ of drawing dinosaurs alongside grass actually had it right, after all:‘Artists’ impressions of dinosaurs grazing on grassy plains were considered as bad as depictions of them cavorting with cavemen, but an examination of fossilised dung has shown that the prehistoric beasts did indeed eat grass.’ 3As we have commented many times, wrongly interpreting the ‘fossil record’ as an evolutionary progression over millions (and billions) of years will always raise conundrums for evolutionists. But from a creation perspective, sedimentary rock layers and the embedded fossils are a logical legacy of the global Flood (around 4,500 years ago) and its aftermath. (See box: The dino dung ‘dilemma’.)So it’s quite okay for illustrators to depict grass, man, 5 dinosaurs and other animals and plants as co-existing on this planet at the same time. And dinosaurs are not ‘prehistoric’ since they lived after the beginning of written history, which starts, by the way, at the very beginning of time itself . Photo by Linda Lou Haywood, .

The dino dung ‘dilemma’ The fact that we find fossilized dinosaur dung at all speaks of rapid burial in an oxygen-free environment—for how else could dung have been so preserved? And such coprolites have been found right around the world —this is consistent with a global Flood of cataclysmic proportions . ‘Jurassic Park’ feathers? Does Velociraptor fossil suggest dinos had feathers? by Shaun Doyle From Turner et al., ref. 1. Figure 1. The grand evidence presented for quill knobs on a Velociraptor ulna. A The whole Velociraptorbone; B The portion of the bone with the proported quill knobs magnified; and C A modern turkey vulture ulna for comparison. From Turner et al.1 Click here for larger view Once more, another ‘feathered dinosaur’ claim has been paraded around as evidence for dino-to-bird evolution. Evolutionists have re-examined a fossil ulna (forelimb bone), reported to be from the dromaeosaur Velociraptor mongoliensis (meaning ‘fast thief from Mongolia’) ‘dated’ at 80 million years old, and have found what they dubbed ‘direct evidence for feathers’ in a dinosaur.1They found six small bumps in the central third of the bone which they interpreted as quill knobs, which provides their ‘direct evidence’

for feathers. However, no actual feathers were found, so this is an inference based on apparent similarity of the bone structure to some birds. What of the quill knobs? The images in the article do not do justice to the significance the researchers put on their find (figure 1). This may just be a problem with the images. However, in contrast to clear quill knobs on the turkey vulture ulna shown for comparison, the ‘quill knobs’ on the Velociraptor bone are rather inconspicuous even in the magnified image. 2 One must wonder if these quill knobs are really quill knobs at all.The specimen these claims are based on, IGM (Geological Institute of Mongolia) 100/981, appears to be nothing more than a single ulna bone. Turner et al. say that it ‘possesses several characteristics’ normally found inVelociraptor mongoliensis and that it was found in rocks that have produced other Velociraptor specimens. However, their whole case rests on this one bone. Taxonomic misidentification is always a possibility when all that was found was one bone.Another important point is that quill knobs are usually evidence of secondary feathers used for flight. However, nobody believes that velociraptors could fly. This suggests the bumps may have a different function than anchoring feathers.The evidence presented is hardly enough to make a definitive claim for the existence of ‘feathered dinosaurs’. Bird evolution on the rocks The assumption behind all these ‘feathered dinosaur’ claims are that they actually have something important to say about bird evolution. But here’s one problem for a start: the claim doesn’t even fit into their own contrived geological dating context! This Velociraptor fossil is ‘dated’ to 80 million years old. However, recognizable birds likeArchaeopteryx and Confuciusornis are ‘dated’ by evolutionists to 153 and 135 million years old respectively. ThusVelociraptor was alive, by evolutionary reckoning, over 70 million years after the earliest birds. This mismatch of dates is a regular feature of fossils touted as the closest relatives of modern birds. 3Evolutionists thus have to postulate at least 70 million years of ‘evolutionary stasis’ for this fossil to have any significance for bird evolution. And what’s more, there isn’t a shred of fossil evidence to place velociraptors (or anyother ‘feathered dinosaur’ found to date) before Archaeopteryx. (See Plucking the dinobird).Thus, this Velociraptor fossil (like the others) is too late according to the evolutionists’ own dating scheme to have any bearing on their own bird evolution stories. How to look at one bone 300 different ways National Geographic reported an interesting comment from Alan Turner, the principal author of the Sciencepaper; ‘If people saw this animal now, they would think it’s a really strange-looking bird.’ 4 If we assume this bone did have quill knobs and feathers, and it was a Velociraptor, what’s stopping it being a flightless bird? Even if it were a true feathered dinosaur, what’s the problem of having creating feathered dinosaurs as separate creatures?You may notice I’ve suggested several completely different interpretations of the evidence in this article. This raises perhaps the biggest problem in paleontology— the scarcity of the evidence. In the light of such a small amount of evidence one can hardly be expected to hold to any interpretation with any sort of certainty. This has not stopped evolutionists from announcing the evidence with all boldness and claiming it as another grand triumph for orthodox dino-to-bird evolution. And all this on the ‘rock solid’ basis of one arm bone with a few bumps? Plucking the dinobird Little fossil means little for dino-bird evolution by Shaun Doyle Published: 28 September 2007(GMT+10) Once again, a dinosaur purported to shed more light on dino-bird evolution has been unveiled from Mongolia—dubbedMahakala omnogovae.1,2 The supposed importance of this latest find is in its small size: it apparently transfers the small size requirement for flight from the early birds to their dinosaurian ancestors. In reality, however, its small stature also reflects its small significance for dino-to-bird evolution. Frank Ippolito, American Museum of Natural History. Figure 1. Artist’s conception of Mahakala. These sorts of conceptions misrepresent the fossil evidence because there was no fossil evidence of feathers on Mahakala. Feathered fossil folly The first thing that needs to be stated before anything else is that no feathers were found with this fossil. This of course doesn’t stop them postulating that they had them and rendering them as such (figure 1) because they require Mahakala to have them for dino-to-bird evolution to even get off the ground. This is the same problem that researchers ran into with Gigantoraptor. They assume it was feathered,3 then claim it as evidence that dinosaurs were feathered, without providing any independent evidence! This doesn’t mean it didn’t have feathers, it simply means they currently have no fossil evidence to show that it did.Secondly, they speculate that Mahakala is an evolutionarily significant find that sheds light on the origins of dromaeosaurs (which advocates of dino-bird evolution believe are close dinosaurian cousins of birds), and, by extension, birds. However, the morphological and chronological sequences they construct to place Mahakala do not bode very well for its claimed significance. Mahakala is claimed to be a basal dromaeosaur largely because of its small size, but this requires evolutionists to postulate 60 million years of ‘evolutionary stasis’ (itself a contradiction in terms). However, other ‘relatives’ of Mahakala diversified to a far greater extent at a much earlier period (figure 2). They seek to justify this by claiming that small theropods like Mahakala are more unlikely to be preserved than their larger ‘relatives’. 4 However, their evidence is equivocal, and they admit that at times it plainly contradicts their argument because in some of their ‘branches’, the smaller creatures predate the larger ones, showing that indeed the smaller can preserve earlier. Moreover, earlier birds such as Archaeopteryx were of a similar size to Mahakala, so their size can hardly be significant for the origin of avian flight because the small size already existed before dromaeosaurs apparently branched off from everything else. From Turner et al., ref. 1, p. 1380.

Figure 2. Cladogram, assumed to be an evolutionary ‘lineage’ of birds and their supposed closest dinosaurian ancestors. The silhouettes are to scale, and the left-facing silhouettes near open circles show reconstructed ancestral body sizes. Mahakala is needed to make the ‘ancestral’ size of dromaeosaurs match supposedly related lineages, but it came on the scene a little late. Click here for a larger view.This is perhaps more an example of the researchers trying to bolster support for the importance of their particular fossil rather than actual significance, especially when their own contrived geological dating context speaks against its significance. Therefore, in evolutionary terms, the grand importance of this find is readily disputed. Unfortunately, however, the widespread publicity given to the find, with its repeated references to ‘evolution’, gives an impression that this is yet more evidence of evolution, no doubt misleading many. Archaeopteryx strikes again! Archaeopteryx, dated to around 150 million years, and a recognizable bird, should squash claims these supposed ‘feathered dinosaurs’ mean anything for bird evolution. This is no different for Mahakala, since it is about 70 million years younger than Archaeopteryx according to the evolutionary dating scheme.5However, to preserve the significance of their supposed ‘feathered dinosaur’ (though Mahakala had no feathers) they do what may seem like a nice bit of sleight-of-hand. They turn all these supposed ‘feathered dinosaurs into ‘ghost lineages’, which then makes Archaeopteryx younger than the ‘feathered dinosaurs’.However, evolutionary critics of dino-bird orthodoxy have pointed out the inconsistency here. That is, the older fossils (Archaeopteryx) bear more morphological similarities to today’s birds than their supposed dinosaurian ancestors. ‘Ghost lineages’ is also just another way of saying ‘evolutionary stasis’, and evolutionist Peter Dodson points out the absurdity of placing as much weight on it as the dino-to-bird theorists do: ‘Personally, I continue to find it problematic that the most birdlike maniraptoran theropods are found 25 to 75 million years after the origin of birds … . Ghost lineages are frankly a contrived solution, a deus ex machina required by the cladistic method. Of course, it is admitted that late Cretaceous maniraptorans are not the actual ancestors of birds, only “sister taxa”. Are we being asked to believe that a group of highly derived, rapidly evolving maniraptorans in the Jurassic gave rise to birds, as manifested by Archaeopteryx, and then this highly progressive lineage then went into a state of evolutionary stasis and persisted unchanged in essential characters for millions of years? Or are actual ancestors far more basal in morphology and harder to classify? If the latter, then why insist that the problem is now solved?’6 Evolutionists also shuffle Archaeopteryx off to the sidelines of bird evolution by citing differences from modern birds, such as the presence of teeth. They have also claimed that chickens found with mutations that produce teeth-like structures in their beaks prove their reptilian ancestry.7 However, one cannot have one’s cake and eat it too. The embryo shows that at least some modern birds have the genetic information for teeth, but do not develop them through a mutational loss of information in perhaps a tooth development gene. Therefore, the difference between modern birds and Archaeopteryx is not as great as evolutionists would like.Not only that, there is no guarantee that modern bird morphological diversity represents the original condition between different bird kinds, which may have been wider since some are likely to have gone extinct post-Flood. Therefore, from a creation point of view there is no need to bow to evolutionary limits on significant bird morphology.Archaeopteryx however does possess unique structures that set it apart from other birds, of which some may bear some similarity to dinosaurs. However, all the traits appear fully formed in all Archaeopteryx specimens. Therefore, it does not demonstrate evolutionary change, but only presents a unique combination of fully formed traits (a mosaic or chimaera). Despite evolutionists’ protestations, Archaeopteryx presents evolutionists with the problem of having to deal with a recognisable bird (with feathers and powered flight to boot) that (by their reckoning) is 70 million years older than this latest find. Tempest in a teacup The more fossils that get unearthed, the more complicated the evolutionary storytelling gets to fit all the data in. Mahakala adds to the confusion. However, ‘feathered dinos’ and other such fossils that are regularly paraded in the media reinforce the myth that evolution is a fact. They are unusual and capture people’s imaginations, and because they’re always presented in an evolutionary framework, people assume there is no plausible explanation for these creatures .However, feathered dinosaurs per se do not contradict the creation model , as they could be original creations that went extinct after the Flood. Moreover, several evolutionists dispute that feathered so-called dinosaurs (that is, the ones that actually have feathers) are actuallydinosaurs. Rather, they say they are flightless birds, meaning they would be extinct birds instead of dinosaurs from a creation view. And once again, Mahakala had no feathers! Mahakala is a little fossil of little significance that evolutionists have blown up into a storm—but in reality the storm is so little that it fits into a teacup. Eggceptionally different by Mark H. Armitage Scanning electron microscope comparisons between dinosaur fossil egg shells and recent, unfossilized eggshells from modern reptiles and birds show that dinosaur eggs are unique. Dinosaur eggs are dramatically thicker, more crystalline in their construction, and remarkably patterned across their outer surfaces. Reptile and bird eggs are much thinner and smoother and, in the case of the avian eggs studied, constructed by a meshwork of collagen or fibrin. If dinosaurs were related to lizards, as evolutionists claim, their eggs should be similar in such details as large bumps on the exterior surface and a thick, crystalline egg wall, yet such is not the case. If birds were descended from dinosaurs then bird eggs should preserve some hint of the unique aspect of dinosaur egg morphology, yet none is seen. Egg morphology supports the concept that reptiles, dinosaurs and birds are not related by common descent.

Figure 1. Iguanodon egg, France, scaleFigure 2. Saltasaurus robustus egg,Figure 3. Unidentified dinosaur egg, bar = 400 µm.Salta Argentina, scale bar = 400 µm. Patagonia, Argentina, scale bar = 400 µm. Click here for larger view Click here for larger view Click here for larger view A comparative scanning electron microscope study was performed between several dinosaur fossil eggshells 1 and recent, unfossilized eggshells from modern reptiles and birds. Dinosaur fossil eggs were acquired from collectors who stated that they came from well-known digs in France and Argentina (Jurassic sedimentary layers) and were completely mineralized due to the fossilization process. According to Mr Joe Taylor, who provided samples for this study, none of these dinosaur eggs ‘… have ever appeared to be thin or even squashed flat. They appear to have been thick and hard prior to any breaking or fracturing, like chicken eggs.’1 For scanning electron microscopy, samples were gently cleaned with compressed air, affixed to microscope stubs and sputter coated with gold. They were observed and photographed on a JEOL scanning electron microscope.It is well known that dinosaur egg preservation is remarkable, even down to molecular details.2– 4 Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the fossilization of these dinosaur eggs preserved macroscopic details, if not microscopic ones as well (see reference 5 for remarkable preservation of ultrastructural details in dinosaur bone). It could be argued that fossilization has erased, or otherwise altered, unique features in dinosaur eggs, but the literature supports the commonly held theory that fossilization often preserves even the most minute of morphological structures.5

Figure 4. Modern lizard egg, scale bar=Figure 5. Modern ostrich egg, scale bar =Figure 6. Modern chicken egg, scale bar = µm.20 200 µm.40 µm. Click here for larger view Click here for larger view Click here for larger view This study in no way reflects a comprehensive comparative review of avian, reptile and dinosaur eggshells. Additionally, this study does not concern itself with cross-sectional comparisons between these types of eggs, as has been done before,2,4 although such a comparative study is warranted and is forthcoming. A pattern definitely emerges, however, from this small sample set. Since dinosaurs, birds and reptiles all seem to share certain morphological similarities, it would be reasonable to assume that their eggs would likewise be similar in construction. The purpose of this ongoing study will be to determine if the eggs of dinosaurs, reptiles and birds examined show any visual hint at high magnification of an evolutionary progression, or even similarities, as would be expected on the basis of evolution from reptile to bird. Outer surface It is clear that the dinosaur egg shells (Figures 1, 2, 3) have significantly rougher surfaces than the reptile egg (Figure 4) on their respective exterior faces, and even more so than those of the chicken (Figure 5) and the ostrich (Figure 6). The distinct pattern evidenced by the three dinosaur samples is that of regularly spaced bumps emanating from a flat surface. The avian eggs appear as fairly flat surfaces otherwise crisscrossed with a meshwork of a collagen matrix and some cracks and crevasses.

Figure 7. Iguanodon egg, France, scaleFigure 8. Saltasaurus robustus egg,Figure 9. Unidentified dinosaur egg, bar = 400 µm.Salta Argentina, scale bar = 800 µm. Patagonia, Argentina, scale bar = 400 µm. Click here for larger view Click here for larger view Click here for larger view No such cracks (even very small, isolated ones) are evident at all on any of the dinosaur exterior egg surfaces.It could be argued that the fossilization process may have occluded such cracks and crevices in mud and debris, if they existed at all between the bumps on these dinosaur eggs (and some debris does seem to exist between the bumps on Figure 3), but in general, these eggs seem to be free of such material.

Table 1. Shell thicknesses of eggs studied. Additionally, one might expect such cracks or collagen networks, if they existed, to extend to the upper ‘knoll’ portion of the bumps. Yet clearly Specimen Thickness (mm) none are there. There does not appear to be any loose, unfossilized debris whether on the bumps or the valleys between them, which could Iguanodon 2.5 cover these features. Therefore we conclude that we are actually looking at the outer surfaces of dinosaur eggs. From this comparison, therefore, it appears that the bird eggs differ from the dinosaur eggs in Saltasaurus 5.5 that their outer surface is flatter, and is covered by cracks, crevasses, collagen fibres laid down in a mesh, and delaminations of the surface Patagonia 5.0 material. Further, the dinosaur eggs are thicker by 2–5 mm on average (see Table 1) than are lizard and chicken eggs, which is well known from the Lizard 0.1 literature.2,6,7 The only resemblance between the dinosaur eggs and the modern specimens is found in the ostrich egg which has a thickness Ostrich 2.2 approaching that of the Iguanodon. Finally the bird eggs do not exhibit the regularly spaced pattern of bumps that are characteristically shown by all three dinosaur eggs.The lizard specimen also has a rough Chicken 0.6 exterior. However, its woven almost linen-like appearance under magnification is much smoother than the dinosaur eggs and it looks as pliable as it actually is in reality. As discussed previously, the dinosaur eggs all have a similar bumpy pattern in common which extends across the surface. No such pattern of bumps is evident on either of the bird specimens or the lizard sample. Interior surface The dinosaur eggs diverge somewhat in their similarity when examined from the inside. The Iguanodon (Figure 7) and the Saltasaurus (Figure 8) samples show rough surfaces on their inner aspect, with somewhat of a regular, crystalline texture to the Saltasaurus specimen not exhibited in the other dinosaur eggs. The Patagonia sample (Figure 9) is dramatic in that a clear pattern of large bumps again appears. Otherwise, the dinosaur eggs are fairly smooth inside with absolutely no hint of the dense matrix of collagen fibres exhibited on the avian eggs (Figures 11, 12). The reptile egg (Figure 10) is also again unique from all other samples in that a fine carpet of shallow bumps is displayed.

Figure 10. Modern lizard egg, scale bar = Figure 11. Modern ostrich egg, scale barFigure 12. Modern chicken egg, scale bar 200 µm.= 10 µm. 10 µm.= Click here for larger view Click here for larger view Click here for larger view Conclusions It seems that if dinosaurs were related to lizards, as our evolutionary colleagues would remind us, their eggs would have similarities in such details as large bumps on the exterior surface, and a thick, crystalline egg wall. Yet here we clearly see that such is not the case. If birds were descended from dinosaurs, then some hint of the unique aspect of dinosaur egg morphology might be preserved in bird eggs. Yet none of that is seen as well. It will be argued that there was sufficient geologic time for such anomalous morphological differences to have been smoothed out in transition, but this is obviously an argument from lack of evidence. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that what we are looking at in this preserved material is the real morphology that existed in the past. It is equally reasonable to assume that since no transition eggs have been found at any dinosaur egg site to date, none therefore exist. As scientists, we are compelled to report on and surmise about what is found in nature and what is observed under our microscopes. The hand waving and conjecture we leave to the nonscientists.It is evident from this limited study, that dinosaur eggs appear to be unique and quite different from avian and reptile eggs. Dinosaur eggs are dramatically thicker, more crystalline in their construction, and remarkably patterned across their outer surfaces than either reptile or bird eggs, which are both much thinner, smoother and, in the case of the avian eggs studied, constructed by a meshwork of collagen or fibrin. Further study is warranted to determine if this pattern is consistent with a larger sample population. Big birdosaur blues New fossil creates problems for dino-to-bird evolution by Shaun Doyle Published: 11 July 2007 (GMT+10) Estimated size of Gigantoraptor in comparison with a man, from Xu et al.3. All that was found of Gigantoraptor by Xu et al.3 is indicated in white in this diagram. Note that no feathers were found, only a subset of the bones. Click here for larger view.The media has recently been buzzing with the latest claims of a dino-to-bird missing link, a 1,400-kg so-called ‘bird-like dinosaur’ from China dubbed Gigantoraptor erlianensis (meaning ‘giant thief from Erlian’ [a city in Inner Mongolia in China]).1,2 However, when you look at the report in Nature,3 you find that Gigantoraptor has done more to confuse evolutionists than confirm dino-to-bird evolution.First, the sheer size of Gigantoraptor presents a problem for the orthodox dino-to-bird story, which the researchers themselves admit:3

‘Interestingly, the comparatively less “bird-like” species of most coelurosaurian sub-groups … are in general larger in size than the more “bird-like” species of each clade, unlike the situation … where the gigantic Gigantoraptor independently evolved many “birdlike” features absent in its smaller relatives.’4 In most dinosaur lineages that are supposed to be closely related to birds, it’s the smaller dinosaurs that are more birdlike.5 However, Gigantoraptor reverses this trend. It exhibits more birdlike characteristics than any of its supposed closest relatives, yet it is 300 times larger than any of them.6 This is explained by invoking homoplasy,7which is nothing but a last ditch effort by evolutionists to keep this fossil under the evolutionary umbrella when it just doesn’t fit.8Gigantoraptor has been portrayed as a dinosaur with feathers, both by the researchers3 and the media.1,2 Xu et al.even go so far as to say that their feathers were used for protecting eggs during brooding.3,7 However, their reasons for believing that Gigantoraptor had feathers are nothing more than speculation because no feathers were found with the fossil. Note, no feathers were found! Note, no feathers were found [on this ‘feathered’ dino]! They assume Gigantoraptor had feathers because its apparent closest relatives, Caudipteryx and Protarchaeopteryx, appear to have feathers.5However, the status of these two fossils as dinosaurs is disputed. Some believe them to be flightless birds based on the feathers and other anatomical evidence. 9 Since Gigantoraptor3 appears to have more birdlike features than even Caudipteryx and Protarchaeopteryx, it may in fact be a bird, in which case one would expect it to have feathers without having to postulate feathered dinosaurs. Therefore, to assume that they are feathered dinosaurs in order to prove they had feathers is not only begging the question, it also ignores other possible paths to the same conclusion.However, no amount of speculative reasoning will prove that Gigantoraptor had feathers. Even though Gigantoraptoris said to be a close relative of Caudipteryx and Protarchaeopteryx, it would still have been about 300 times their size, and it possesses many unique features that set it apart from them both. Therefore, unless we actually find a Gigantoraptor fossil with feathers attached we cannot know if it had feathers and all claims that it did are speculation.Moreover, Gigantoraptor doesn’t fit the evolutionary timeline for dino-to-bird evolution. That means—even on their own terms—it’s nothing more than a dead-end branch of the evolutionary tree. Gigantoraptor was found in strata ‘dated’ as Upper Cretaceous (85–65 million years ago), 3 but Archaeopteryx, which is a recognizable bird, is dated at about 150 million years; and Confuciusornis, a beaked bird, supposedly existed 135 million years ago. Therefore, Gigantoraptor can’t be classed as an intermediate between dinosaurs and birds because the dates are all wrong. This is a common problem in dino-to-bird theory; the dinosaurs that have the most birdlike features are younger than the first birds in the evolutionists’ own scheme.5One thing we can agree on with the evolutionists is that they’ve found a unique creature that’s hard to fit into the traditional evolutionary picture. Gigantoraptor seems to be a new creature, which provides no problems for creationists but creates headaches for evolutionists trying to fit it into their conjectures on how dinosaurs evolved into birds. While the media have paraded Gigantoraptor as yet another feather in the cap of dino-to-bird evolution, by the evolutionists’ own admission the feathers are missing and Gigantoraptor is eating the cap. Pterosaurs flew like modern aeroplanes by Jonathan Sarfati Scientists have long wondered how the extinct flying reptiles, the pterosaurs, could fly. They seemed too ungainly to lift into the air from the ground, or to land safely without breaking their delicate wings. Quite reasonably, some scientists proposed that there must have been greater air pressure in the past. However, we have reported on recent discoveries that pterosaurs had a complex wing anatomy, with muscles and nerves, and a large brain region to process the signals. 1 This enabled them to fly more smoothly and efficiently than fixed-wing aircraft. And fossil trackways showed they could also land elegantly.2 This unique design speaks of a Master Flight Engineer. But what about the initial take-off? Earlier calculations had overlooked a tiny bone called the pteroid. This is unique to pterosaurs, and was previously thought to bend inwards. But Matthew Wilkinson and his team in the animal flight group at Cambridge University, UK, studied pterosaur fossils and showed that the pteroid pointed forward.3 This evidently supported a front flap of skin that acted as a movable leading edge on the wing. Darren Naish, a paleontologist at the University of Portsmouth, UK, says that fossilized pterosaur soft tissue found in China is strong evidence for this.4The pteroid and flap enabled the pterosaur to use ‘aerodynamic tricks like those found in modern aircraft’.5 Angling this flap would increase lift by a huge 30%, so even the largest pterosaurs could take off by simply spreading their wings into a moderate breeze. And this extra lift would mean their minimum flying speed (i.e. below which they would stall) was reduced by 15%, allowing a smooth landing. Also, by flexing the pteroid on one wing and extending it on the other, they would have different lifts on both wings, enabling them to bank during turns.This unique design speaks of a Master Flight Engineer, who designed flying creatures that could work efficiently in ordinary air pressure. Chickens with teeth Carl Wieland 25 July 2006 We have been repeatedly asked to comment on newspaper reports concerning an alleged ‘proof of evolution’, namely mutant chickens with a set of teeth.

Today, of course, neither chickens nor any other birds have teeth. So this is supposed to be proof that chickens and other birds descended from reptiles which did. The reports in the popular press refer to an article that appeared in early 2006 in a reputable journal.1 The authors reported that a mutant chicken turns out to have had tooth-like structures in its beak. It also had serious limb defects and died shortly after it was hatched. This particular mutant was born some 50 years ago; it seems that no-one noticed its teeth. In addition to that, the scientists concerned have been able to ‘tweak’ the genes of chickens today in such a way as to cause the developing chick This photo of the mutant chicken to form similar ‘tooth’ structures. 2 It is important to note that even the most embryo shows it with its set of toothlike fanatical evolutionist is not suggesting that this single mutation somehow structures very similar to that in both created all the information needed for teeth. The obvious conclusion (which reptiles and some (now-extinct) birds. we would support) is that the information for forming teeth is there in all So were its ancestors reptiles—or birds? chickens, but not normally expressed. Actually, this is neither new nor This evidence fits both viewpoints. Click surprising. More than five years previously, in the Focus section of to view larger. (Photo by John F. Fallon and Matthew P. our Creationmagazine (21(2):7–9, March 1999) we reported on a similar Harris). announcement. Scientists at the University of Connecticut had been able to grow a tooth, using tissue from the egg of a chicken. Of course, this was touted as proof that birds had evolved from reptiles. What does it show? Stripped of evolutionary assumptions, it shows that the gene pool of the chicken’s created kind included the capacity to generate teeth. In other words, the genetic flexibility (variety) existed in the original gene pool to generate daughter populations in which some had teeth, some didn’t. From that, one would expect that even though no birds today have teeth, there would have once been such birds. And in fact, extinct birds are known from the fossil record which did have teeth (while others did not). The same sort of variety exists in both living and extinct reptiles—some with teeth, some without. We also wrote in that same Focus item: ‘… the loss or “switching off” of genes expressing the development of a tooth, like the “loss” of wings in some birds, or of eyes on fish in caves, is not an indication of how the information for such structures arose by natural means. “Devolution” would be a better term. ‘Creationists have written and spoken about this phenomenon of information-losing mutations, some of them even beneficial, for years (e.g. Beetle Bloopers, Creation 19(3):30). … ‘In the same way, today’s toothless platypus is the more specialized (thus genetically depleted) descendant of a much more robust ancestor, whose gene pool included teeth.’ (Platypus teeth are known from the fossil record, but no platypus populations alive today have them.) Of course, evolutionists will try to say that these chickens inherited this ‘switched-on-again’ tooth information from their reptile ancestors. The cone-like embryonic teeth of these mutant chickens (which, the researchers say, would likely be reabsorbed anyway if the chickens survived to maturity) certainly resemble those of the archosaurs, a group of reptiles which includes crocodiles. But in reality, toothed birds in the fossil record also have the same type of teeth, which fits creationist expectations just as well. Summary and conclusion All are agreed that these mutant chickens developed their teeth because they carry the genetic information for ‘toothmaking’ originally present in their ancestors, but which later became ‘switched off’. Evolutionists interpret these observations as consistent with their belief that reptiles evolved into birds. Creationists interpret it as consistent with their belief that the ancestral created kind from which the chicken is descended contained the information to generate teeth. To support this, we point to similar types of teeth in extinct birds. This discovery has enabled a fascinating glimpse of the greater genetic potential of the original kinds. Dinos breathed like birds? by Carl Wieland

From Nature 436:7048, 253-256 (14 July 2005) Comparisons between a bird (a, b) and theropod dinosaur (c, d) in caudal (a, c) and right lateral (b, d) views, illustrating the topological similarity of pneumatic features. a, b, Cranial thoracic vertebra of a sarus crane (Grus antigone, SBU AV104063).c, d, Mid-cervical (c) and cervicothoracic (d) vertebra of an abelisauroid theropod (Majungatholus atopus, UA 8678). Scale bar, 1 cm (a, b) and 3 cm in (c, d). CeP, central pneumatic foramen; NaP, neural arch pneumatic foramen; Nc, neural canal; Ns, neural spine; Pp, parapophysis.

The internet in mid-July 2005 was abuzz with headlines which implied to the layperson that it has now been proven beyond doubt that dinosaurs ‘breathed like birds’. All this has come from a new study dealing with the fossil remains of a very beautifully preserved theropod dinosaur,Majungatholus atopusi, just published in the prestigious British science journal Nature.1 The fact that theropod dinosaurs (that group believed by many evolutionists to have given rise to birds) have pneumatization (special hollow air spaces) in some of their bones is not new, nor that birds do, too. In particular, the lungs of birds interact with a system of air sacs which ‘invade’ sections of the skeleton, particularly the vertebral bodies. Those vertebral bodies which are present in this dinosaur show in remarkable detail (see diagram, from the Naturearticle, reproduced under the ‘fair use’ provisions of copyright) air cavities within the bone (pneumatizations). These are so strongly analogous with ones in a modern bird that I think one can reasonably inferthat the dinosaur possessed the following:A cervical air sac similar to modern birds; A lung which itself invaded some of the thoracic vertebrae, pneumatizing them in the same way as modern bird lungs do;An abdominal air sac similar to modern birds. This is the aspect of the study that appears to be most encouraging to

evolutionists, as being ‘caudal’2 to the lung, it allows for the possibility of a ‘flow-through’ lung as in birds (see later).Note that the sacs themselves are not preserved, nor available to study, so the above cannot be known for certain, just that, as stated, it is very reasonable to infer it. Stretching the point In another diagram associated with the article, the dinosaur skeleton is drawn with not just the above three features but, in addition, (4) a clavicular air sac and (5) a thoracic air sac as modern birds have. However, there appears to beno fossil evidence of (4) and (5). The caption states that these are ‘tertiary-level inferences emphasizing the uncertainty surrounding the reconstruction of soft tissues not constrained by osteological evidence.’ In other words, there is no evidence from fossil bones from which one can even infer the existence of these soft tissue air sacs. Rather, they are believed to be present by way of ‘tertiary inference’—presumably as follows: if (1) – (3), all known to be features of bird respiration, are (secondarily) inferred to be present, then it’s an educated guess that probably (4) – (5) are present as well. However, this guess is heavily influenced by the presumption that theropods are the evolutionary ancestors of birds. But this is hotly disputed by some evolutionist experts themselves, and it is just as reasonable to presume that theropods did not have those last two sacs.Further, even if it were to turn out that theropods did have all five ‘pneumatic features’, it is again very much a ‘tertiary inference’ (an indirect assumption, more than one step from the evidence) that this theropod therefore had the same flowthrough ventilation system as birds. It is this flow-through aspect, where the air keeps moving in the same direction, that makes the avian lung so special (and as far as is known for certain, unique), compared to the ‘bellows’ (in and out) lung of mammals or reptiles. At present, all one can say is that the presence of a flow-through lung in this theropod may have been the case (mildly supported by certain aspects of spine and ribcage anatomy), but for all anyone knows, theropods may in fact have had a unique combination of a bellows lung (unlike birds) and a system of (some) air sacs and pneumatized vertebrae (like birds). The air sacs may have served to enhance oxygen efficiency during running. Lightening the load In fact, pneumatizations of bone are already known to have existed in non-theropod dinosaurs, such as the large sauropods, and in the flying reptiles (pterosaurs). Neither of these are believed to be the ancestors of birds, so evolutionary speculations about these pneumatizations have been much more circumspect, and related more straightforwardly to their obvious design function of lightening the bones. Such lightening is important, not just for flight, but obviously also to make locomotion easier for the big lumbering sauropod earth-shakers. Theropods (at least the smaller ones) are believed to have been speedy runners, so lighter bones would seem to be an important design feature for them, too. There is no reason, though, why they may not also have shared with birds all or some of the same design features for efficient use of oxygen, as already stated. What if they really did breathe like birds? Finally, let’s assume for the sake of argument that theropod dinosaurs indeed had the same flow-through lung type as birds. It would bring evolutionists not a single step closer to being able to conceive of the inconceivable—how such a lung could have evolved step by step from the bellows lung of its assumed evolutionary forebears. It would only shift the name of the problem from the origin of the avian lung to the origin of the theropod-avian lung.How could any creature breathe while the in-between stages were evolving, while air was not yet flowing through but no longer going in and out? What conceivable selection pressure could act on an already efficient system of breathing, especially one that would have had to get worse before it got better in efficiency terms? (The Nature article, generally conservatively written, speculates cautiously but lamely about how somehow the development of an air sac behind the lung might facilitate the evolution of flow-through ventilation, without touching upon the logistic ‘in principle’ barriers. For this and still more problems, see Bird evolution?) Actually, the above has really been excessively kind to evolutionists. We need to remember the discovery of the theropod Scipionyx samniticus, with traces of internal organs suggesting to several researchers that it did not breathe like birds, but rather more like the ‘liver-pump’ system in crocodiles. Then there is the evidence from ostrich embryos that the thumb development in theropods is all wrong for them to have been the ancestors of birds. (See also Which came first, the dino or the bird?) Summary points Several lines of evidence are already known to suggest a number of aspects in which theropod dinosaurs are more similar to birds than to reptiles.This is not in any way inconsistent with the creation of separate kinds. All creatures share similarities to greater and lesser degrees; in the evolution model these are either derived from a common ancestor, or by chance ‘parallel evolution’. In the creation model, they are either derived from a common ancestral kind (not applicable in the case of birds and theropods, definitely not the same kind) or from shared design features applied by a common Designer.The bony pneumatizations in a theropod dinosaur described in the recent Nature article are remarkably similar to those in birds. It cannot be known for certain that theropod dinosaurs had any air sacs at all as modern birds do, although it is not an unreasonable inference that they had at least some, including an abdominal air sac.If they did not have air sacs, then the pneumatizations discovered in the vertebrae presumably only served the function of lightening the bones for running. (The bones of large, heavy dinos, and of the flying reptiles, also had pneumatizations which are believed to be for lightening.)If they did have air sacs as birds do, there is no way of knowing whether they also had a flow-through lung like birds. An abdominal (caudal) air sac is necessary for a flow-through lung, but it does not therefore follow that having such a sac means one has a flow-through lung. (That would be like saying ‘a circulatory system is necessary to support the human brain. Therefore any creature with a circulatory system has a human brain.’) The Nature authors believe theropods likely did have a flow-through lung, and cite certain features of the skeleton in support. But there have been other detailed studies suggesting theropods had a crocodile-like liver-pumping mechanism for ventilation. 3Those evolutionists in the faction that believes dinosaurs (specifically theropods) gave rise to birds would be understandably encouraged by this paper, but it has not even begun to address the huge difficulties (including embryonic development paradoxes) pointed out by the opposing evolutionary faction.If it turned out (say from some remarkable soft-tissue preservation as in the recent T. rex ‘squishosaur’) that theropods did indeed have the same type of flow-through lung as birds, that would be an even bigger encouragement for the dino-bird faction, but it also fits perfectly comfortably within a creation framework; it would be a very reasonable design feature for fast-running small dinosaurs. However:Evolutionists would still be stuck with exactly the same massive problem of explaining the seemingly impossible transition from bellows to flow-through ventilation. Chinese feathered dinosaurs, where are the skeptics? by Mark Robertson 13 July 2004

After hearing paleontologist Paul Willis debate Carl Wieland in August 2003,1 it was with great interest that I visited the travelling display of dinosaur fossils from China. In the debate, we were told that Dr Willis had said, ‘God created Liaoning [the area of China, where the so-called feathered dinosaur fossils were found] because He hated creationists.’ Of course such statements are meant to mock, because Paul Willis does not believe God created anything. Yet, he was keen to tell the audience that they could believe in God and in millions of years. We would expect, however, that, as Australian Skeptic of the Year, belief in the God of the Bible would receive the same amount of scorn in a different venue. Figure 1. The colourful model of Caudipteryx zouidwarfed by the tailbones of its supposed ancestorYangchuanosaurus huopingensis. View more information and resources on Chinese Dinosaurs So finding out what Paul has put his faith in was a question in the back of my mind as we entered the display at the Queensland Museum. The exhibit After being overwhelmed by the size of the large sauropod and theropod dinosaurs, my attention was captured by the incredibly colourful models of the ‘feathered’ dinosaurs.These were at the feet of their supposed ancestor, a large theropod namedYangchuanosaurus huopingensis, said to be 160 Ma (million years) old.2The creativity of the models’ sculptors was evident. The faces and colours they produced showed a strong Chinese influence, similar to the stylized dragons often seen in Chinese art. However, I was struck by the likeness of several of the models to modern ground-dwelling birds, such as the roadrunner and cassowary, though much more colourful (figure 1). Given the authoritative presentation and visually understandable ‘evidence’, it was clear that the exhibit would convince most people that dinosaurs evolved into birds hundreds of millions of years ago. The fossils The real ‘bones’ of the exhibition, the fossils, were displayed opposite the models. They were under further interpretative drawings presumably showing, via a line of arrows, the lineage of evolution from dinosaurs to birds (figures 2 and 3). Unfortunately not all the specimens were on display at the Queensland Museum but one would expect that the fossils presented some of the best examples of the available fossil data. Figures 2. Figures3. The interpretive sequence of drawings above the fossil slabs. Note the line of arrows implying an evolutionary relationship. The fossil slabs showed a progression: Sinosauropteryx prima (date not given in the display but others have placed it at 125 to 135 Ma), Caudipteryx zoui (125 Ma), Protarchaeopteryx robusta (125 Ma), Velociraptor mongoliensus (80 Ma), Sinornithosaurus milleni (125 Ma) and Archaeopteryx lithographica (150 Ma). The only bird in this sequence is Archaeopteryx from Germany, while the ‘feathered’ dinosaurs are all from China. Three smaller Chinese bird fossils Sinornis santensis, Changchengornis hengdaoziensis and Confuciusornis sanctus (all ‘125 Ma’) were shown after Archaeopteryx, and were described as ‘lacking the long bony tail of their [supposed] ancestors’ and having ‘larger keeled breastbones’. The feathers? The first obvious inconsistency came to mind while looking at the evidence for feathers.Sinosauropterxy prima had what appears to be a dark fuzzy outline surrounding the bones, apparently interpreted as the trace of hair-like filaments. I must confess that it looked much like the shading artists will often do around pencil drawings to emphasize the outline of an important object. The guidebook describes these ‘proto-feathers’ as feather-like structures. 3It explains that they appear as impressions in the fine-grained matrix or as a halo of darker, fibrous-like areas, usually at right angles to the bones, although not always contacting them. Certainly this evidence is vague. Did some dinosaur have a furry coating, or is this ‘fuzz’ just an artefact of the preservation or recovery process?Caudipteryx (‘Caudi’, as Dr Willis affectionately nicknamed it) showed some long fibrous-looking traces in the area of the tail, similar to fossils of thin reed-like plants. To claim that they are feathers is clearly a statement of faith in a worldview, not a scientific observation.

Figure 4. The fossil slab Click here for larger view Figure 5. The interpretative key for Protarchaeopteryx robusta. Note indication for feathers in top left of slab. The information displayed below Protarchaeopteryx robusta indicated that detached feathers could be seen in the top left of the slab, but no matter how closely I looked, I could see no markings in that area consistent with the claim (compare figures 4 and 5).The only evidence presented for the ‘feathered’ dinosaur, Velociraptor mongoliensus was a skull. The evolutionary just-so story beneath was amazing. ‘Velociraptor has not yet been found in the Liaoning deposits and its feathers are not preserved in the Mongolian and Chinese deposits where it occurs. However, because all its close relatives had feathers, it is most likely that Velociraptor did too.’Finally, the reproduction of Sinornithosaurus milleni again left me wondering how anyone could conclude that the linear scratched traces surrounding the bones were feathers. Family trees The exhibition displayed a family tree alongside each of the models and alongside the larger dinosaur fossils. These trees showed that the closest relative to the supposed ancestor of both birds and theropods was the 5-metretall Yangchuanosaurus huopingensis. All the so-called feathered dinosaurs were further along the same branch of the tree (later) away from this supposed family split. So, in this scenario, feathers must evolve twice, once for the birds and once for the feathered dinosaurs, not once as implied by the sequence from Sinosauropterxy to Archaeopteryx. This sequence also completely ignores the dating of the fossils. Not only is Archaeopteryx 25 million years older than the oldest of its supposed ancestors, but evidence for birds from footprints dates back to 225 Ma, according to their own evolutionary dating.In the debate,1 Dr Willis quickly passed off the obvious discrepancy of dating as an issue of relation, but not direct lineage. Dr Willis argued that man and modern apes both evolved from ape-like creatures, and there are still apes today. However, there are no living examples of these supposed ape-like ancestors, and evolutionists can’t decide if it looked more like an orangutan or a chimpanzee. But even further, the explanation of relation and lack of fossils does not wash with all evolutionists: ‘Cladograms which depict birds diverging from theropod stock just in the nick of time to show Archaeopteryx on a separate lineage (I am thinking of a recent Scientific American article) are mischevious [sic]. Archaeopteryx is a highly specialised, and therefore highly derived, creature possessing, apparently, a fully developed flight plumage. Any explicit or implied suggestion that it arose overnight is simply ridiculous. Archaeopteryx had avian history and I, for one, cannot imagine it being any shorter than 20 million years or more. … the real problem here is not that dromaeosaurid fossils appear so late; it is the temporal coincidence of a stem group [bottom of the family tree] organism, Compsognathus, [found in the same geological formation as Archaeopteryx and very similar to Sinosauropterxy prima]with a highly derived crown member [top of the family tree] of the same lineage, Archaeopteryx. This problem requires more than a glib appeal to sampling inadequacies.’4 Regarding the claims of birds evolving from dinosaurs, this anti-creationist goes on to say: ‘Presumably this kind of over-zealous interpretation is being advanced by lay people [it’s not lay people, but professional palaeontologists]; one sincerely hopes that the professional researchers graduating from our universities today would not make such elementary errors of logic. … the evidence is complex and appears, in light of the present state of our knowledge, contradictory. The point to draw is not that the “popular” hypothesis is wrong, but that the jury is still out. Claims that birds arose from the Maniraptora [dinosaur classification including theropods, defined by the closeness of the fossil to modern birds5] are just Bad Science: we simply do not know.’4 So who are the real skeptics? Obviously not the Australian Skeptics who sponsored the guidebook published by the Australian Museum.3 One suspects that their anti-creationist agenda is clouding their objectivity.

SOFT TISSUE Original Animal Protein in Fossils? Yes! Dinosaurs, marine reptiles pterodactyls, birds, insects lizards, frogs, salamanders ,mammals, squid, fish… by Brian Thomas Skin structures, including mineralized skin, twoand three-dimensional impressions of skin scales, and original dark colored skin scale biomaterial, all from a fossil mosasaur from Kansas. Scale bars defined in Lindgren et al., 2010I first learned about original soft tissue fossils fromCreation magazine in 1997.1 What looked like red blood cells and blood vessels from insideTyrannosaurus bone did not fit what I had been told about how fossils are millions of years old. I immediately understood that the fossil, and therefore the rock layer that held it, could be no older than thousands of years.At that time, wise scientists warned that further investigations could either invalidate or validate the outrageous find. Now, many discoveries in special pockets around the world have validated many such original animal tissue fossils.Sometimes ‘soft tissue’ fossils refer to impressions in rock that preserve an animal body outline, like squid, algae, or worm bodies, or of dinosaur skin or footprints. Scientists may also refer to tissue replacement by minerals like phosphate, pyrite, or carbon as ‘soft tissue preservation.’ Stable substances like rocks and minerals can last a very long time, but not so the animal’s original biochemicals.Reliable techniques have detected chitin, chitin-associated protein, elastin, fibrin, osteocalcin, keratin, hemoglobin, DNA, and collagen, and many other such proteins in various fossils. Comparing the degree of wholeness of the fossil biochemicals to the same biochemicals from modern animal tissue reveals that the fossil material has only partly decayed. Those biochemicals should have completely decayed over any claimed period of millions of years into tiny molecules like carbon dioxide, water, or ammonia. But paleontologists keep finding original biochemistry—like finding mummified remains—encased in rock.Take collagen, for example. It is a resilient, strand-like protein molecule that strengthens hard mineral in bones and sea (mollusc) shells, and strengthens skin and connective tissue. Collagen’s toughness explains why skin, and thus parchment, is long-lasting. But parchment does not last for even half of a million years. We know this from examining the Dead Sea Scroll parchments. After two millennia, they are quickly turning to dust.In fact, we know from calculations based on straightforward scientific principles that collagen could last hundreds of thousands of years, and we know that itcould not last multiple millions of years. In 2011, UK archaeologists and experts on bone collagen decay wrote that “it will take between 0.2 and 0.7 Ma [million years] at 10°C for levels of collagen to fall to 1% in an optimal burial environment.” 2 So, collagen could last 450,000 or so years on average. If kept below freezing, it might be imagined to last one or two million years at the very most. But evolutionists agree that dinosaurs lived in a very warm climate, so in their scenario, this would vastly shrink the times—at 20°C, collagen would have decomposed below the detection limit in about 15,000 years. 3,4However, I have found many reports of collagencontaining fossils designated astens of millions of years old. Some fossils even have skin or cartilage collagen, which is not encased in protective bone or shell mineral. A number of these reports are listed on a chart published online at the Institute for Creation Research website.5 But I am always finding more.In the chart, I listed a T. rex collagen protein sequence described in 2005. Collagen fibres from a Psittacosaurusdinosaur were published in 2008. The most thoroughly analyzed original soft tissue fossil so far is the 2009 hadrosaur femur. It was from Hell Creek Formation in Montana, the same formation as the T. rex found in 2005. The hadrosaur’s blood vessels had plenty of original collagen. I even found a report of original dinosaur bone collagen that was found in the Gobi desert in 1966.6 We have a fine fossil fish with original collagen fibres featured on an office wall at ICR (see photo above). It is from the Green River Formation in Wyoming. How do we know it is

actually original fish collagen? First, it is a different colour, hardness, and texture from the surrounding rock. One visitor said that it looks like beef jerky. Second, the paleontologists who prepared it wrote that it was collagen. To dispel any doubt, scientists used four independent techniques to directly test fossil lizard skin from the same formation as our fish. 7 They wrote, “Taken together, all the analyses performed in this study strongly suggest that the fossilized reptile skin in BHI-102B [the lizard fossil] is not a simple impression, mineralized replacement or an amorphous organic carbon film, but contains a partial remnant of the living organism’s original chemistry, in this case derived from proteinaceous skin.”8 Although collagen cannot last longer than hundreds of thousands of years at realistic temperatures, it is right there in a supposedly 50 million-year-old lizard leg, and a supposedly 50 million-year-old fossil fish. And the dinosaur collagen fossils are supposed to be even older! Clearly, their age assignments are not correct (see box below). Original soft tissue fossils appear to be thousands of years old because that is their actual age range. Does other evidence confirm thousands of years? Those who insist that dinosaur and other fossils are millions of years old often cite radioisotope dates. Although radioisotopes appear to have undergone millions of years’ worth of decay at today’s slow rates, other data shows that those rates were dramatically accelerated in the past. First, rocks of known historical age always yield vastly inflated radioisotope ages.1 Also, the helium leakage age of granites is only six thousand years. 2,3 Third, all carbon-containing Earth materials so far tested, including diamond, contain abundant radiocarbon, a tell-tale signature of material that is no more than about 50 thousand years old.4 So their radioisotope ages are all wrong. Using natural processes such as these for age-dating always requires assumptions. Scientists plan to obtain radiocarbon ages of dinosaur bone. In the meantime, a 2011 study reported a radiocarbon age for a fossil mosasaur [marine reptile] bone of 24,600 years. 5 Of course, the fossil could be even younger. Age estimates based on radiocarbon decay and based on tissue decay agree on a maximum age range of thousands of years.Using natural processes such as these for age-dating always requires assumptions. Most of the fossils with original soft tissues were deposited by the waters of that same Flood retreating off of continents about 4300 years ago, consistent with the observation that the tissues have not yet completely decayed. Double-decade dinosaur disquiet For twenty years now, dino bones have progressively divulged their contents to researchers who did not expect to find the likes of DNA and radiocarbon ‘millions of years’ after dinosaur extinction. by David Catchpoole Many dinosaur fossils include real bone— they are not completely mineralized, i.e. are not yet ‘rock’. And what is found inside those dinosaur bones is a huge surprise to many people. A series of discoveries since the early 1990s has revealed dino bones with blood cells, hemoglobin, fragile proteins, and soft tissue such as flexible ligaments and blood vessels. And of special note: DNA and radiocarbon.This is enormously confronting for evolutionists, because how could such bones possibly be 65 million years old? As one of the researchers involved in the discovery of dinosaur blood cells, Dr Mary Schweitzer, said: “If you take a blood sample, and you stick it on a shelf, you have nothing recognizable in about a week. So why would there be anything left in dinosaurs?”1 Why indeed? Unless of course they haven’t been extinct for millions of years, and their remains were preserved quickly under catastrophic conditions a few thousand years ago, or even more recently. But so entrenched is the evolutionary paradigm in the scientific community, that it soon became known that Dr Schweitzer was having trouble getting her results published. “I had one reviewer tell me that he didn’t care what the data said, he knew that what I was finding wasn’t possible,” says Schweitzer. “I wrote back and said, ‘Well, what data would convince you?’ And he said, ‘None.’” Schweitzer recounts how she noticed that a T. rex skeleton (from Hell Creek, Montana) had a distinctly cadaverous odour. When she mentioned this to long-time paleontologist Jack Horner,2 he said, “Oh yeah, all Hell Creek bones smell.” But so ingrained is the notion among paleontologists that dinosaur bones must be millions of years old that the ‘smell of death’ didn’t even register with them—despite the evidence being right under their noses. 3 Schweitzer herself does not seem able or willing to escape the long-age paradigm, despite her direct involvement in many of the discoveries. Note the timeline of these findings across two decades—pointed and regular reminders that something is very wrong with dinosaur-millions-ofyears ideas: In 1993, dinosaur bone blood cells give Mary Schweitzer ‘goosebumps’.4,5 In 1997, hemoglobin, as well as recognizable red blood cells, in T. rex bone.6,7,8 In 2003, evidence of the protein osteocalcin.9 In 2005, flexible ligaments and blood vessels.10,11,12 In 2007, collagen (an important structural protein in bone) in T. rex bone.13,14 In 2009, the fragile proteins elastin and laminin, and further confirmation of collagen—in a duck-billed dinosaur. 15,16(If the dinosaur fossils really were as old as claimed, none of these proteins should have been present.) In 2012, bone cells (osteocytes), the proteins actin and tubulin, and DNA(!) were reported. 17,18 (Measured rates of decomposition of these proteins, and especially DNA, show that they could not have lasted for the presumed 65 million years since dinosaur extinction. This is more in keeping with the creation timeframe of thousands of years.) In 2012, radiocarbon was reported.19,20 (But carbon-14 decays so quickly that if the remains were even 100,000 years old, none should be detectable!) Note that the attempts by evolutionists to explain away many of these findings as contamination, and also their unconcealed moves to stifle reporting of the radiocarbon result in particular, 19,20 testify to an unwillingness to face up to evidence that challenges the long-age paradigm. A truly open-minded observer must surely ask, “Why?”

ORIGIN OF DINOSAURS Evolutionary troubles with the origin and demise of dinosaurs by Michael J. Oard Figure 1. Skeletal silhouette of the new one-meter long theropod Eodromaeus murphi found in northwest Argentina (from Martinez et al., ref. 21). With so much emphasis on dinosaurs among scientists and laymen alike, one would think that they would have a good story about their origin and demise by now. However, if some of the latest literature is any indication, evolutionists remain unable to formulate consistent theories about either topic. The origin of dinosaurs unknown Recent articles in Science indicate that the origin of dinosaurs is unknown, and that there are many questions about ‘early’ dinosaurs from the late Triassic. 1,2 Michael Balter admits: “But paleontologists are equally concerned with puzzling out how these mighty beasts got their start. Who were their ancestors? … Tracing the origins of the earliest dinosaurs has been a major challenge for paleontologists because there are no uncontested fossils from their earliest days on Earth.”1 A new discovery in northwest Argentina, where other late Triassic dinosaurs have been found, suggests weaknesses in existing theories.2 The new discovery is of a 1-m-long T. rex-like dinosaur named Eodromaeus murphi, which has added more confusion to the origin of dinosaurs. Another dinosaur previously found in the area, Eoraptor, was considered one of the earliest theropods, but has now been named as the ancestor of the sauropods! This conclusion is not sitting well with a lot of evolutionists.This field area is significant. It contains the supposed representatives of all three major lines of dinosaurs: theropods, sauropods and ornithischians. This new round of reclassification pushes the origin of dinosaurs back as far as the mid Triassic. Though no fossils of the ancestral dinosaur have been found, paleontologists believe it to have been bipedal. This would require the evolutionary sequence to move from quadruped reptiles to a biped dinosaur ancestor, and then back to the later quadruped dinosaurs. There is no explanation for such changes. Paleontologists simply do not know the origin and early evolution of dinosaurs. Paleontologists have also found other vertebrates, mainly reptiles, in the rocks of northwest Argentina. Dinosaurs represent only about 10% of the vertebrate fossils. Furthermore, the dinosaur fossils appear, disappear, and then reappear in successive stratigraphic layers. Paleontologists explain this by claiming that the dinosaurs did not outcompete the reptiles but only filled empty niches. This follows the recent idea of cooperative adaptation rather than the old ‘survival of the fittest’ imagery of evolution.Fossils in the late Triassic rocks of northwest Argentina are the ‘oldest’ remains yet found on Pangea. The dinosaurs became dominant at the Triassic/Jurassic boundary, and reptiles largely disappeared. This suggests that early dinosaur evolution was geographically restricted for about 15 million years, another problem for paleontologists. Why did they not migrate sooner to other parts of Pangea? What environmental factor allowed the sudden spread and radiation of the dinosaurs from Eodromaeus to its more common cousins? If nothing else, this demonstrates that parts of the fossil record remain undiscovered. Future discoveries could and probably will change the story once again. For these reasons, our confidence in the evolutionary origin of dinosaurs should be restrained. Paleontologists simply do not know the origin and early evolution of dinosaurs. Controversy over dinosaur demise Evolutionary scientists have basically set the extinction of dinosaurs at the Cretaceous/Tertiary (K/T) boundary. If dinosaur remains, including tracks or eggs, are ever found in early Tertiary sedimentary rocks, geologists typically redate the rocks to Cretaceous.3–5 This is circular reasoning.6-8 Jepsen admitted: “Geologists themselves must take much of the responsibility for the dissemination of this concept [that the dinosaurs went extinct quickly] because they have often defined the end of the Age of Reptiles or Mesozoic Era [about 65 million years ago] as the exact time that dinosaurs became extinct. Ergo, reasoning in a tight circle, dinosaurs became extinct at the end of Mesozoic time.”9 In recent decades, this boundary has become more important. Neocatastrophist views of extinction have typically required catastrophic events, particularly impacts. The best known is that at Chicxulub in the Yucatán Peninsula of Mexico. However, there are a number of major problems with this theory, one of which is that the buried impact crater indicates that the supposed asteroid was not large enough to ensure a worldwide extinction of the dinosaurs.Regardless, a group of 41 scientists, many of them planetary scientists, insisted once more in a review article that the Yucatán impact killed off the dinosaurs.10 This rather dogmatic pronouncement generated three letters to the editor. One by 29 scientists, mostly paleontologists, claimed that there is no consensus, that the impact played only a small role in the demise of the dinosaurs, that the proposed extinction scenario was simplistic, and that there have been many other large impacts on Earth with no associated extinctions.11Another letter stated that the review article neglected the volcanic extinction hypothesis and that the Yucatán impact was too small to kill off all the dinosaurs. 12The third letter stated that the review article used selective evidence, there is no evidence the impact and iridium anomalies are the same age, and that the Yucatán impact happened before the end of the Cretaceous.13 That assertion was supported by an article in the Journal of the Geological Society, London and in an article in a recent special paper of the Geological Society of America, which added that there never will be a consensus on these matters, the impact did not cause any species extinctions, and tying the impact to the K/T boundary is an ideological argument resulting in circular reasoning.14,15The other side has problems too. The authors of the review noted that the volcanic hypothesis cannot explain the extinctions because the Deccan lava flows were also too early and extinction events could not be specifically correlated with other continental flood basalts. 16 They also asserted that new data offered substantial evidence that the Chicxulub impact was at the K/T boundary, implying that it also caused the dinosaurs to go extinct. This heated exchange reveals the lack of consensus for an extinction theory. Creationist implications This heated exchange reveals the lack of consensus for an extinction theory. It also questioned the significance of the endCretaceous dinosaur extinction based on the questionable dating of the Chicxulub impact. The Flood demise of those dinosaurs not on the Ark is looking better all the time.This dispute also illustrates how biases drive conclusions within historical geology and paleontology, and the role of circular reasoning in analysis. It is certainly evident in the agreement of

dates of rocks and fossils within their paradigm.17 Although this makes evolutionary paleontology appear strong on the surface, digging deeper reveals problems like the impasse about the dating and speed of the rise of dinosaurs, dinosaur extinction, the K/T boundary, and the Chicxulub impact. I think this is only the tip of the iceberg. We need to be aware of the way in which circular reasoning is used in geology and paleontology. Thunder lizards by Russell Grigg Dinosaurs have hit the headlines recently with the finding of the partial remains of what may have been the largest dinosaur ever to tread the earth. The ‘Rio Negro Giant’ Over the last year, researchers have unearthed, from an area in southern Rio Negro, Argentina, 20 gigantic fossilized bones that include two neck vertebrae measuring 117cm (3.84ft), plus femurs, ribs and tail bones. These have yet to be scientifically classified, so in the meantime the source creature has been named the ‘Rio Negro Giant’. 1Assuming that 10–12 vertebrae made up the neck, the researchers believe that the animal was a sauropod (see aside on sauropods below) that could have measured about 50m (165ft) from head to tail, towered about 14m (45ft), and weighed in excess of 10 tonnes.2 While this may have been the longest dinosaur ever found, it is not the heaviest; this record is held by the (estimated) 100-tonne Argentinosaurus, thought to have been some 8m (27ft) shorter than the Rio Negro Giant, but much bulkier.2Claims of finding larger and yet larger dinosaur specimens are not unexpected—they are the ones most likely to make the news and attract research funding.3However, the existence of such large dinosaurs is not contrary to the expectations of creationists. Sauropod eggs and embryos Strange as it may seem, the gigantic sauropods did not lay gigantic eggs. Recently researchers found a site, also in Argentina, containing thousands of fossilized dinosaur egg fragments. 5 The team recovered over a dozen eggs and 40 egg fragments that contained tiny teeth, fingernail-sized patches of delicate fossilized baby-dinosaur skin, and tiny collapsed bones, which have been identified as being from the embryos of sauropods. 6 The eggs are round, 13–15cm (5–6 inches) in diameter, with an average shell thickness of 1.4mm (1/20th inch).6So why did the gigantic sauropods not lay gigantic eggs? Dinosaur expert Alan Charig explains: “If they had done so, the shell would have been so thick that neither could enough air have passed through it to supply the baby dinosaur inside, nor could the baby dinosaur, when ready to hatch, have succeeded in breaking out.”7 The best explanation that scientists can give to account for the above sauropod egg and embryo collection involves catastrophe. Team co-leader Luis Chiappe said, “Scientists found so many embryonic remains that it appears catastrophe struck the nesting ground, keeping many eggs from hatching … . Floods may have penetrated the porous shells and drowned the embryos.”8 “Early evidence shows that the embryos may have perished in a flood that quickly buried the eggs in a layer of silt and mud. This made it possible for the soft tissues to fossilize before decaying, an extremely rare occurrence.”9A matter of particular interest to creationists, apart from the fact that the Flood could have provided the material necessary to bury the eggs and the conditions to do this rapidly, is the size of the eggs. Even though the eggs housed embryos of the largest land animals ever, the coiled hatchlings would have been only about 38cm (15 inches) long. Like many modern reptiles, dinosaurs may have kept growing until they died, so the very large ones may also have been very old. Note also, many dinosaurs were not large even when fully grown, e.g. the hen-sized Compsognathus and mousesized Mussaurus. In fact, all the dinosaur skeletons so far discovered indicate that the average size was that of a sheep. Dinosaur facts and fiction Dinosaurs are currently claiming the public’s attention for another reason. A new Disney blockbuster film calledDinosaur was released in May, 2000. It uses even more remarkable special effects than did its predecessors, such as the BBC series Walking with Dinosaurs and Hollywood’s Jurassic Park. However, it, too, is not fact but fiction.The plot concerns a young iguanodon named Aladar, who survives the asteroid impact which, according to a common belief among evolutionists, led to the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. The film shows no humans, as they had ‘not yet evolved’. Aladar is adopted and raised by a group of kind-hearted lemurs (slender primates 10 with monkey-like bodies), even though, according to evolutionists, primates did not appear on Earth until after the dinosaurs had become extinct. “We cheated by about 50 million years,” says film co-director Eric Leighton, because the filmmakers wanted to convey the idea that these lemurs (and hence humans as well) have an evolutionary ancestry that goes back to the dinosaurs. 11 To this end, Aladar is mammalian in appearance. From the side, his head resembles the ‘Przewalski’s Horse’ from Mongolia.A recurring theme in Dinosaur is that survival depends on being compassionate and cooperative. Aladar’s compassion for the other dinosaurs brings him into conflict with Kron, the harsh leader of a herd of dinosaurs that survived the asteroid impact. This idea seems to fit with the belief of a growing number of ‘New Age’ evolutionists whose credo is that we are all part of ‘Nature’ and should all get along well. The film thus presents a sanitized New Age version of evolutionary dogma.In a press release, Disney publicists acknowledge that the film “intentionally veers from scientific fact in certain aspects”.Creationists welcome the authentic dinosaur facts uncovered by researchers, although not their usual evolutionary interpretation of these facts. And we are not fazed by the dinosaur fiction that emanates from Hollywood, the BBC, and the media. The creation model presents a time-line of history which explains the advent and extinction of the dinosaurs, consistent with the evidence, but totally contrary to evolutionary dogma. The dinosaurs were made ,along with Man. The dinosaurs gradually became extinct after the Flood. There is much evidence for the recent existence of some specimens of dinosaurs. For example, carvings and paintings of dinosaur-like creatures have been found in several parts of the world—evidence that man and dinosaur lived at the same time. Unfossilized dinosaur bones in Alaska 12 and a T. rex leg bone containing red blood cells13 have been discovered. Many nations have stories of dragons, which fit very closely the descriptions of dinosaurs. Sauropods Sauropods were the largest creatures known to have trodden the earth. They were the giant four-legged herbivorous (planteating) dinosaurs, with very long necks, small heads and brains, very long tails for counter-balancing their necks, and large guts for digesting the huge amounts of plant materials they ate. The term ‘sauropod’ means ‘lizard-footed’, and was chosen because they stood firmly on all four feet.

Brontosaurus The best known of all sauropods is Brontosaurus, even though ‘Bronty’ never existed! In the 1870s, Othniel Charles Marsh discovered some very large dinosaur fossils in Lake Como, Wyoming, USA, and thought that he had discovered a new genus. He gave them the nameBrontosaurus or ‘thunder lizard’, because he thought that the ground must have thundered when such a huge animal walked by. Unfortunately the head was missing. To remedy this obvious deficiency, he added a skull found several kilometres away in a different quarry and in a different layer of strata, but told no one about this. In 1974, two scientists convinced the scientific community that the ‘Brontosaurus’ skeleton was really that of a previously named dinosaur,Apatosaurus, and that Marsh had used the wrong head, that of a different type of sauropod, like a Camarasaurus. Rather, the correct head was longer and less round, and almost identical to that of a Diplodocus. As the rules used for giving scientific names to animals state that the first name given is the one to be kept, the name Apatosaurus stayed and Brontosaurus was dropped. The creature is now classified in the family Diplodocidae together with Diplodocus. It is likely that all Diplodocidae are descended from a single created kind, where the created genetic information has been separated into different populations aided by natural selection, producing both Apatosaurus, a relatively short and massive variety, and the very long and slender Diplodocus.Surprisingly, the non-existent ‘Brontosaurus’ is depicted and named on several stamps, including a 1991 North Korean 20 won that shows a single creature, a 1989 United States 25c that shows a pair, and a Central African Republic 50F that shows a herd.Sauropods are favourites with movie producers. They are the first dinosaurs to come into full view in Jurassic Park, they appear in various roles in The Flintstones cartoon and movie, including as ‘Bronto burgers’, and they feature prominently in the BBC’s Walking with Dinosaurs and Disney’s Dinosaur.

Dinosaur demise did not jump start mammal evolution by Michael J. Oard You have heard it said that the mammals were small and undiversified during the time of the dinosaurs, but then after the dinosaurs became extinct the mammals blossomed tremendously in an ‘adaptive radiation’. Robert Carroll writes: ‘The extinction of the dinosaurs left vacant a broad range of adaptive zones that were subsequently occupied by therian mammals.’1 Net mammal diversification rate according to the latest uniformitarian sources. Note little change through the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary but diversity rates peak in Mid-Cretaceous and Miocene. (After Bininda-Emonds et al.,7 p. 510, figure 2b).The notion of an adaptive radiation is considered to be based on the fossil record. However, the age distribution of fossils is partly based on circular reasoning.2-5 In other words, the finding of a dinosaur automatically places the rock containing the fossil into the Mesozoic, and mammalian fossils are always assumed to be Cenozoic. Similarly, the end of the Cretaceous is often defined as the last preserved dinosaur in a vertical sequence.6A new article in Nature now claims that this evolutionary belief is a myth.7 Bininda-Emonds and others have constructed an evolutionary lineage of nearly all living mammals using DNA comparisons tied to fossil dates for the beginning of major lineages. They have called their results ‘supertrees’. The authors admit that using molecular data alone or fossil data alone sometimes gives conflicting results: ‘Molecular data and the fossil record can give conflicting views of the evolutionary past.’8 In the case of mammals, the fossil record favoured (or at least had favoured) an explosive increase in mammal diversification just after the Cretaceous/Tertiary (K/T) boundary, but the molecular data pushed most origins of the same orders back into the Late Cretaceous. 8 The authors compiled a huge data set, and from the phylogenies they developed

they were able to estimate diversification rates with time, all within the evolutionary paradigm of course.Because their analysis is tied to the recent findings of many complex mammals in the Jurassic and Cretaceous, 9,10 their diversity analysis showed an increase in diversity in the mid Cretaceous, 85 to 100 Ma, and in the early Eocene. In fact, nearly all the living orders of mammals had originated by 85 Ma. 10However, there was little or no change in diversity through the K/T boundary, as had been assumed for over 100 years. In fact, the few mammal groups that did diversify after the K/T boundary subsequently declined or died out.11 The graph leaves the evolutionists with a major question of mammal evolution: ‘What, then, was delaying the diversification of present-day mammals? Clearly, the priority is to identify why net rates of diversification remained low for so long after the major lineages became established.’11 This implies that there is no evolution occurring in living mammals today, nor has there been in the recent geological past. It is interesting that their diversification graphs show the mammal diversification rate increasing to a maximum in the Miocene and then rapidly dropping to zero today. 11 This implies that there is no evolution occurring in living mammals today, nor has there been in the recent geological past. Such a change is what we would expect in the post-Flood world—any changes that do occur are just the shuffling of genes within kinds. Because there is diversification of mammals up until the very late Cenozoic, the graph implies that the Flood/post-Flood boundary is in the very late Cenozoic based on this parameter, since any significant diversification rate in the rock record would likely represent burial characteristics in the Flood. The Flood interpretation of the diversification graph reinforces other evidence that the Flood/post-Flood boundary is in the very latest Cenozoic.12-14 Polar dinosaur conundrum by Michael J. Oard Dinosaurs are commonly thought to be ‘tropical’ animals—but recently their remains have been discovered close to the inferred ‘Mesozoic’ poles.1 Such discoveries include dinosaurs unearthed in southeast Australia and New Zealand in areas assumed to be close to a former South Pole. Many dinosaur remains are not only found near the inferred ‘Mesozoic’ poles, but also at polar latitudes today. Dinosaur bones and tracks have been found on Svalbard (north of Norway), the North Slope of Alaska, northern Canada from the Yukon Territory to the Queen Elizabeth Islands, central Siberia and Antarctica. 2 Pachycephalosaurs, along with other dinosaurs, have been found at polar latitudes. All those found have also been found at lower latitudes, so they don’t seem to have been adapted just to polar conditions. This presents a quandary for uniformitarian explanations of dinosaur life and death.Many types of dinosaurs have recently been discovered at high latitudes. Pachycephalosaurs were discovered on the North Slope of Alaska in 1999.3 A duck-billed dinosaur tooth was recently discovered on James Ross Island, Antarctica. 4 Eight types of dinosaurs—four herbivores and four carnivores—are now known from northern Alaska.3,5 Abundant but widely spaced tracks and trackways have also been found in northern Alaska. 6,7 All dinosaur fossils found at high latitudes are also found at lower latitudes; it appears there were no dinosaurs adapted just to polar locations.8 The North Slope dinosaurs resemble those found in Alberta, Canada and Montana and Wyoming, USA.9 But because of these polar discoveries, the idea that dinosaurs were tropical beasts has been changed, ushering in ideas about ‘warm-blooded dinosaurs’ in order to survive the cold. However, the physiology of dinosaurs has been the subject of much controversy. It is still not known whether or not dinosaurs were warm-blooded (endothermic) 10 as there are many physiological differences between species. Many paleontologists believe the dinosaurs possessed a unique physiology between warm-blooded and cold-blooded. How could dinosaurs live at polar latitudes? Polar dinosaurs raise the obvious question as to how they could survive the cold and the long period of darkness: ‘It is difficult to imagine how this community functioned if the temperatures were as low as the physical indicators suggest. No convincing explanation exists as yet for this apparent anomaly.’9 Although the ‘Mesozoic’ was a relatively warm period in uniformitarian Earth history, there still must have been cold, snowy winters at high latitudes.11Fiorillo summarizes the postulated environment for northern Alaska: ‘During the Cretaceous, northern Alaska was even farther north than it is today, and so the dinosaurs that lived there would have needed mechanisms to cope with both the cold and the dark.’12 Others see special adaptations for wintering at high latitudes, such as the large eyes possessed by the small theropod Troödon.13 Large eyes supposedly help the dinosaur to see in the dark, but could such a small dinosaur really survive the cold temperatures? One dinosaur is even thought to have hibernated. In order to support living at polar locations, some scientists have suggested that the dinosaurs were able to feed on low-quality forage in the winter. However, the diet of herbivores during winter is problematic.14Some paleontologists believe the dinosaurs migrated to lower latitudes in order to cope with the long winter darkness and cold. However, migration is not likely because very young dinosaurs, about one year old, have also been found in polar latitudes, and they supposedly could not migrate long distances.14,15,16Large body size has also been invoked to explain survival in the cold. 17 However, many of the discovered dinosaur species are relatively small. Popular extinction hypotheses questioned The idea of polar dinosaurs has put a damper on those dinosaur extinction hypotheses that rely on a ‘sudden’ climatic cooling regime, such as the meteorite and volcanic hypotheses. 18 Buffetaut plainly states the problem for extinction hypotheses that rely on cold temperatures: ‘To put it simply, the fact that ectothermic [cold-blooded] reptiles generally survived the [Cretaceous/Tertiary] boundary, whereas dinosaurs did not, shows that climate deterioration was not a significant extinction factor … What can be said, however, is that cooler climates at the end of the Cretaceous are extremely unlikely to have led to dinosaur extinction … More importantly in view of the above-mentioned discoveries in the polar regions, the predictable results of a cooling trend are that ectothermic reptiles would have been more affected than dinosaurs. The fossil record shows exactly the reverse.’19 The belief that dinosaurs lived in prolonged winter darkness in a relatively cold ‘Mesozoic’ climate dispels the idea that they died out from a slow cooling. It also discredits the idea the dinosaurs died from abrupt cooling caused by ‘meteor impact or a volcanic winter’, resulting from dust and very small particles being injected into the stratosphere and blocking out some of the sunlight. Other polar warmth indicators

Although uniformitarian scientists are searching for ways to explain polar dinosaurs, there are indications that polar latitudes were once much warmer than today. Cold-blooded tetrapods, such as crocodiles, turtles, and some amphibians, have been found in southeast Australia with the dinosaurs. 10 Southeast Australia was assumed to lie within the Arctic Circle at the time. Based on modern counterparts, these tetrapods cannot live during prolonged cold spells.An extinct type of crocodile found on Axel Heiberg Island at 80°N implies that annual mean temperatures greater than 14°C occurred during at least part of the ‘Cretaceous’, but the current mean annual temperature is–20°C.20 Warm climate trees, such as Swamp Cypress, along with crocodiles, alligators, flying lemurs, giant land tortoises, varanid or monitor lizards, also indicative of a warm climate, have been discovered on the same island in rocks of ‘Eocene’ age. 21Just recently, scientists drilled into the Alpha Ridge in the Arctic Ocean and made the astonishing discovery that the Arctic Ocean was as warm as 15°C during the ‘Late Cretaceous’.22,23 Jenkyns et al. extrapolate this result and suggest that the waters of the warmer ‘middle Cretaceous’ Arctic Ocean were greater than 20°C. 24 This deduction was based on carbon-rich sediments with abundant diatoms, woody fragments, leaf cuticles, spores and pollen found in the drill cores. Poulsen exclaims: ‘For a region blanketed in darkness for half the year, the Arctic Ocean was astoundingly warm.’25 Poulsen summarizes: ‘Analyses of [ocean bottom] sediments retrieved from a drifting ice island suggest that the Arctic Ocean may have been ice free and as warm as 15°C about 70 million years ago. Therein is a challenge for climate models.’26 Such a climate would be exceedingly difficult to resolve in a uniformitarian construct given the conditions stated above by Poulsen.It was also reported that leaves and fruit of a tropical breadfruit were discovered in 1883 in ‘Cretaceous’ sediments in western Greenland.27Breadfruit requires a tropical climate with a temperature range from ~15–38°C! Breadfruit fossils have also been unearthed in northern Canada.25 Dinosaurs transported to high latitudes during the Flood Because of the abundant evidence for warm polar latitudes and the lack of support for warmth from paleoclimate simulations,17,21 it is unlikely that any of these animals or the vegetation actually lived and thrived at polar latitudes. This again shows the difficulty of seeking to interpret evidence within a uniformitarian paradigm. All these warmth-loving organisms, including the polar dinosaurs, were more likely transported to polar latitudes during the Flood.28,29 Did dinosaurs really rule the earth? by Daniel Anderson Published: 15 May 2007 (GMT+10) It is often said that dinosaurs ruled the earth. Movies such asJurassic Park, the media, and educational books constantly promote the evolutionary claim that dinosaurs dominated planet earth for well over 100 million years. In the evolutionary paradigm, mankind had not yet evolved, and before the 65-million-year-old extinction mark, mammals were small rodents who steered clear of the ruling dinosaurs.The prevailing evolutionary model argues that the coexistence of dinosaurs, large mammals, and humans is not supported for four reasons. First, dinosaur and human fossils have never been discovered together in the fossil record. Second, large mammals have never been discovered in ‘dinosaur’ rock. Third, dinosaurs could not have existed with larger mammals due to intense competition in similar environments. Fourth, dinosaurs would have overrun human civilization due to their monolithic size and belligerence. However, these arguments do not stand up to closer scrutiny and the weight of the evidence provides far greater support to creation. Dinosaurs, mammals, and humans in the fossil record It is true that dinosaur and human fossils have never been discovered together in the same sedimentary strata. However, this absence of evidence is easily explained—see Dinosaurs, humans and the fossil record. Many creatures have coexisted without leaving fossil evidence of this coexistence. Man has also coexisted with numerous different animals without being fossilized with them.Up until recently, evolutionary scientists proclaimed that only tiny mammals lived with dinosaurs before the extinction event. Supposedly, these mammals were chipmunk-sized, shy, and largely nocturnal in order to avoid being consumed by the predatory reptiles. However, two mammal fossils completely overturned this deeply entrenched perspective. In 2005, paleontologists discovered the remains of Repenomamus robustus, the size of a large cat, and Repenomamus giganticus, the size of a modern dog, both dated at about 130 million years old on the evolutionary timeline.1 Repenomamus robustus had the skeletal remains of a juvenile dinosaur preserved in its stomach area. This stunning discovery revealed that mammals were much larger and more advanced about ‘65 million years’ earlier than commonly believed. Apparently, dinosaurs did in fact share the landscape with ‘advanced’, predatory mammals. Dinosaurs in literature, art, and oral tradition Historical accounts, rock art, and oral tradition also indicate that dinosaurs shared the earth with humans in ancient times. Herodotus, the highly esteemed 5th century BC Greek historian, and Josephus, the famous 1st century AD Jewish historian, both wrote of flying reptiles as historical creatures. 2 Multiple petroglyphs and pictographs depict realistic representations of dinosaurs and flying reptiles on rocks and cave walls in the southwestern United States.2

On the tomb of Bishop Richard Bell (1410–1496) at Carlisle Cathedral (UK), brass engravings depict creatures that any 21st century child would innocently identify as well-known sauropod dinosaurs—those with long necks and tails. They appear to be engaged in a fight with their necks (as is also typical of giraffe behaviour) or perhaps courting displays, also familiar within the animal kingdom. See Bishop Bell's brass behemoths! These were found well before dinosaur fossils had even been formally discovered, and they are often drawn next to other historically verified animals. Various Indian groups in North and South America possess oral traditions of massive, flying reptiles that are eerily similar to modern depictions of pteranodons, pterodactyls, and other pterosaurs—see Thunderbirds. Cultures around the world are littered with dragon ‘legends’. Though many of these legends contain mythical hyperbole, there is often a common core to the global accounts indicative of mankind witnessing or interacting with large, reptilian beasts in history—Dinosaurs and dragons: stamping on the legends. Ironically, the Hebrew word—tannin or tannim—is translated 21 times as ‘dragon(s)’ in the Old Testament to describe different kinds of creatures living in ancient times— see Dinosaurs—were they masters of the world? The prophet Isaiah appears to describe flying reptiles (Isaiah 30:6), and Job (chapters 40 and 41) describes a gargantuan land animal and sea creature.Perhaps most telling is the attempt by the late Carl Sagan, one of evolution’s most influential apologists in modern times, to provide a rebuttal to these worldwide ‘dragon’ legends. In his book The Dragons of Eden, he proposed that mankind had not actually witnessed dinosaurs of any kind. Instead, because our brains evolved from a reptilian ancestor, we still carried latent memories of living in the ‘age of reptiles’—seeDinosaurs—were they masters of the world? There is absolutely no evidence that memories are encoded in our DNA and subsequently passed on to our offspring. The far more logical explanation is that man has actually seen and coexisted with dinosaurs. African plains and the deep blue sea Many argue that dinosaurs ruled the earth because they were massive and ferocious beasts that dominated all other forms of life. However, the average size of a dinosaur was that of a sheep—see How did dinosaurs grow so big? Based on fossil evidence, only a small percentage were gargantuan beasts such as T. rex and Apatosaurus. To put things into perspective, the largest creature to ever exist on the earth is the blue whale, and it exists today. Also, the estimated weight of T. rex is 6– 8 tons. The average African elephant weighs 6–8 tons. In addition, the most exhaustive biomechanical analysis estimates T. rex likely ran at around 17 km/hr (11 mph). Elephants have been timed as fast as 24 km/hr (15 mph)—seeTitanic terror bird. Velociraptors are estimated to have been almost 1 metre (3 ft) tall and may have run up to 65 km/hr (40 mph). 3 Ostriches can be up to 2.7 metres (9 ft) tall, can run at almost 80 km/hr (50 mph), and deliver a kick capable of killing a lion. 4 Although distinct reptiles, dinosaurs were likely no more spectacular than many of the animals we observe in the wild today. Massive animals don’t rule the earth today. For example, elephants don’t rule the African plains. Giraffes, though as tall as any T-Rex and likely much faster, don’t rule the African plains. In the oceans, the blue whale is not ‘king of the sea’. In addition, massive great white sharks and killer whales do not dominate the waters. All of these monolithic creatures coexist with countless other organisms of various sizes and predatory abilities. We also witness a number of powerful predators coexisting on the African plains. Lions, cheetahs, leopards, hyenas, and wild dogs all feed on similar prey. Likewise, in the oceans, we see sharks, killer whales, and dolphins often coexisting in the same waters, hunting similar prey. Therefore, based on observational evidence, we can logically conclude that ancient dinosaurs would not likely have ‘ruled’ the earth (in the sense of the popular misunderstanding). They would have coexisted with many other kinds of animals (and people) and competed for some of the same resources in various regions throughout the earth. Conclusion The creation account of dinosaur and human coexistence is strongly supported by historical, textual, observational, and logical evidence. Although the ruling evolutionary paradigm continues to perpetuate the myth of dinosaur supremacy during the so-called ‘age of dinosaurs’, it simply does not fit the available data—in stark contrast to the creation account of history.