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.
The fossil is Sinosauropteryx, a “long-tailed meat-eating dino” that was originally claimed to have been covered in “primitive feathers.” The find helped support (in evolutionists’ minds) the evolution of birds from dinosaurs.
The find helped support (in evolutionists’ minds) the evolution of birds from dinosaurs.
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:
"The evidence in support of the primitive feathers lacked serious investigation, Lingham-Soliar says."
[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 damningly.
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?
Remember, if you see a news story that might merit some attention, let us know about it! (Note: if the story originates from the Associated Press, Fox News, MSNBC, the New York Times, or another major national media outlet, we will most likely have already heard about it.) And thanks to all of our readers who have submitted great news tips to us.