On the front page of the Grants Pass Daily Courier for April 25, 2008, this article appeared, “Chickens call T. rex grandpa.” The article argued,
WASHINGTON — It looks like chickens deserve more respect.
Scientists are fleshing out the proof that today’s broilerfryer is descended from the mighty Tyrannosaurus rex.
Fossil studies have long suggested modern birds were descended from T. rex, based on similarities in their skeletons. Now, bits of protein obtained from connective tissues in a T. rex fossil show a relationship to birds including chickens and ostriches, according to a report in Friday’s edition of the journal Science.
“These results match predictions made from skeletal anatomy, providing the first molecular evidence for the evolutionary relationships of a non-avian dinosaur,” Chris Organ, a postdoctoral researcher in biology at Harvard University, said in a statement.
Co-author John M. Asara of Harvard reported last year that his team had been able to extract collagen from a T. rex and that it most closely resembled the collagen of chickens.
They weren’t able to recover dinosaur DNA, the genetic instructions for life, but they did study DNA codes for the proteins.
While the researchers were able to obtain just a few proteins from T. rex, they have now been able to show the relationships with birds.
With more data, Organ said, they would probably be able to place T. rex on the evolutionary tree between alligators and chickens and ostriches.
“We also show that it groups better with birds than modern reptiles, such as alligators and green anole lizards,” Asara added.
It used to be that if we called someone a “chicken,” we meant that he was easily frightened, but now that may mean someone is especially ferocious, or else the Tyrannosaurus rex was not all that intimidating! Yet, I never would have called T. rex a “chicken.”
This article shows the folly of evolutionary reasoning. If they can believe a sea-going creature could come up on the land and become a wolf and decide that it did not like life on the land and go back into the sea and become the whale, then I guess the 40 foot long, 7.5 ton T. rex can turn into a chicken of just a few pounds.
I have heard of shrinking with age, but that goes beyond anything I have ever heard.
The thrust of the article is that similarities in their skeletons and protein mean that they are related. Yet, do not the differences show they are not related? Do not the differences outnumber the similarities? Yes, and those differences are enough that they produced two very different animals. Dinosaurs do not produce chickens either in one generation or over millions of years, because kind always reproduces its kind, shown by both the Scriptures (Gen 1.20–25), and observations of how things work in the natural world.
Why is it always assumed that similarities mean one turned into the other?
Evolution paints a picture like this: A ➡ B ➡ C
A is one animal.
C is another animal with some similarities.
B has similarities with both.
Therefore, evolutionists assume B shows A becoming C.
Why can it not be the following?
A ➡ A ➡ A
B ➡ B ➡ B
C ➡ C ➡ C
Why do they assume one is connected to the other rather than three separate and unrelated animals?
The Foolishness of Evolutionary Thinking
The last paragraph of the article shows the folly of evolutionary thinking, “We also show that it groups better with birds than modern reptiles, such as alligators and green anole lizards.” Merely looking at skeletons and proteins leads them to believe the T. rex more closely resembles a bird than an alligator, yet, T. rex and alligators have many more similarities that even a child can tell they more closely resemble each other.
If Similarities Mean Relationship
Look at the Tyrannosaurus rex and the chicken, then look at the Tyrannosaurus rex and the rabbit. If we are going to say similarity means descent, then we can make a better argument for saying the rabbit should call T. rex grandpa rather than the chicken.
A letter to the editor of Time magazine wrote in mockery of that magazine’s coverage of dinosaurs evolving into birds. In reference to a science column article in the April 26, 1993 issue of Time, Roger Huebner of Glendale, Wisconsin wrote along with a picture he sent, “While some dinosaurs may have evolved into birds [Science, April 26], Tyrannosaurus rex obviously turned into today’s cute little bunny rabbit” (Time, May 24, 1993).
- How Could Dinosaur Tissue Survive 70 Million Years? (thebiblemeditator.wordpress.com)