Sunday, May 27, 2007

No Feathers For You Sinosauropteryx

AiG's News To Note this week has this item

That birds evolved from dinosaurs has been nearly universally accepted in most evolutionist circles since the discovery of Archaeopteryx. But this week, a key fossil said to uphold that dino-to-bird link is under attack.

Now, however, a team led by South African researcher Theagarten
Lingham-Soliar is disputing the “primitive feathers” of Sinosauropteryx:

“The fibres show a striking similarity to the structure and
levels of organisation of dermal collagen,” the kind of tough
elastic strands found on the skin of sharks and reptiles today,
the investigators say.

In other words, the “feathers” are not feathers at all. And while
the team “do[es] not take issue with the [dinos-to-birds] theory
itself,” this is a powerful reminder that the evidence evolutionists
offer today can easily be retracted tomorrow.

Two other passages in the article reveal other interesting facts. First, the article makes a note about Archaeopteryx:

What is missing are the links between Archaeopteryx and other
species that would show how it evolved. But [the] fossil record is
frustratingly small and incomplete and this is why debate has
been so fierce. [Emphases added]

We’d say this quotation speaks for itself! The second passage of
interest describes how scientists originally concluded that
Sinosauropteryx had proto-feathers:

[Lingham-Soliar’s team is] dismayed by what they see as a
reckless leap to the conclusion that Sinosauropteryx had the
all-important “protofeathers,” even though this dinosaur
was phylogenetically far removed from Archaeopteryx.

The evidence in support of the primitive feathers lacked serious
investigation, Lingham-Soliar says.

“There is not a single close-up representation of the integumental
structure alleged to be a protofeather,” Lingham-Soliar says

It seems that in their irrational exuberance over the find and their
zeal for evolutionary theory, the original scientists leapt without
basis to the proto-feather conclusion. How many other similar
discoveries that “prove” evolution are the result of eager
evolutionists who have thrown true science out the window?

Powered by ScribeFire.

No comments: