Creationists Say Birds Didn't Evolve from Dinosaurs

Share This Story

Birds did not evolve from dinosaurs: what creationists have been pointing out for years is now buttressed by new research.

The notion that theropod dinosaurs evolved into birds has almost certainly become one of the most widely accepted “facts” of evolution. The question for many evolutionary researchers had transitioned from “if” to “how.”1 Even artists’ depictions of some dinosaurs (such as velociraptors) began to include feathers.2 Except for a few notable critics, such as University of North Carolina paleobiologist Alan Feduccia, evolutionists seem to have all but agreed on birds’ dinosaurian origins.

Now, a new paper in the Journal of Morphology presents the research of two Oregon State University scientists who don’t agree with the evolutionary dogma on bird origins.3 Doctoral student Devon Quick conducted the investigation into bird breathing and its connection with dinosaur-to-bird evolution as part of her dissertation.

Background

The research hinges—almost literally—on the femur (upper leg bone) of birds. Unlike other walking creatures, a bird’s femur does not move significantly, and birds instead articulate the lower portion of their leg to walk or run. Quick’s surprising discovery is that this “knee running” anatomy, with nearly fixed femur bones and musculature, is crucial in preventing a bird’s air-sac lung from collapsing whenever the bird takes a breath.

Quick explained, “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.”

Dinosaurs lack this fixed femur, however, and that includes the theropod dinosaurs from which birds supposedly evolved. Oregon State zoologist John Ruben, a coauthor on the paper, commented, “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.”

He continued, “It’s really kind of amazing that after centuries of studying birds and flight we still didn’t understand a basic aspect of bird biology.” Ruben added that the appearance of birds before dinosaurs in the fossil record is a “serious problem” that is ignored by those who advocate dinosaur-to-bird evolution (see also The Early Bird Catches the Dinosaur).

What Does it Mean?

The conclusion is so revealing—especially considering that it comes straight from evolutionist researchers—that we borrow it directly from the Oregon State press release4:

OSU research on avian biology and physiology was among the first in the nation to begin calling into question the dinosaur-bird link since the 1990s. Other findings have been made since then, at OSU and other institutions, which also raise doubts. But old theories die hard, Ruben said, especially when it comes to some of the most distinctive and romanticized animal species in world history.

“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,” Ruben said. In some museum displays, he said, the birds-descended-from-dinosaurs evolutionary theory has been portrayed as a largely accepted fact, with an asterisk pointing out in small type that “some scientists disagree.”

Our work at OSU used to be pretty much the only asterisk they were talking about,” Ruben said. “But now there are more asterisks all the time. That’s part of the process of science.”

In the research, the scientists also noted other “specialized features” of bird anatomy which allow the substantial oxygen intake required for flight, as well as features present in both birds and mammals but not dinosaurs (the researchers believed these features evolved independently, as evolutionists do not consider birds and mammals closely related).

Conclusion

What do the researchers conclude about bird evolution, then? “This discovery probably means that birds evolved on a parallel path alongside dinosaurs, starting that process before most dinosaur species even existed,” Ruben noted.

“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,” said Quick.

The scientists believe the similarities between birds and dinosaurs show that they possibly shared a common ancestor that eventually gave rise to not only birds and dinosaurs, but also crocodilians. However, their research reported that the lung structure and physiology of dinosaurs was likely much more similar to crocodilians than to birds.

Creationists should keep in mind several important points regarding this research:

-- Once again, the evolutionary “facts” have been challenged. What scientists believe about the evidence frequently changes, even while their presupposed belief in evolution is held constant. Don’t be fooled by the “facts” that evolutionists themselves may doubt tomorrow!

-- We may well hear a sharp response from other evolutionists attacking this research or, at least, emphasizing that birds still evolved, even if only from an unknown ancestor. Alternatively, we may hear virtually nothing if evolutionists hope the story goes unnoticed.

-- Whenever evolutionists demonstrate that specialized features originated separately (i.e., the evolutionary branches are farther apart), it multiplies the number of miraculous mutations that would have had to occur to produce the specialized anatomy in organisms on both branches.

-- The “overlap” between bird anatomy and mammal anatomy, and between bird anatomy and reptile anatomy—along with the plentiful uniqueness of bird anatomy—all shouts “design.” Evolution can only explain such recurring anatomical elements with the fanciful justification of “convergent evolution” (i.e., concluding that two similar features evolved separately because the organisms are on different evolutionary branches). Creationists instead have the common-sense understanding that the Creator chose for each organism whatever designs best suited its purpose, and sometimes He reused the best designs.

-- Perhaps most importantly, this research identifies an incredible, previously unknown element of bird biology—a sophisticated design that enables bird flight and reflects on the ingenuity of the Creator.

Taking aim at the traditional evolutionary view, Ruben quipped, “A velociraptor did not just sprout feathers at some point and fly off into the sunset.” Sadly, that romanticized view seems to prevail among evolutionists, who have abundant faith—even without scientific justification—that all the biodiversity and incredible “design” we see in nature today is merely a product of natural processes acting on accidents. So, even adding one more “miracle” to evolution—as this new research does—is unlikely to shake their faith.

Footnotes

1) See, for example, the first paragraph of K. H. Platt, “New Feathered Dinosaur Found; Adds to Bird-Dino Theory,” National Geographic News, January 16, 2009. Back

2) For instance, the first image, by Michael Skrepnick, on J. R. Hutchinson, “The Dromaeosauridae,” University of California Museum of Paleontology, November 24, 1995 (image added later). Back

3) D. E. Quick and J. A. Ruben, “Cardio-pulmonary anatomy in theropod dinosaurs: Implications from extant archosaurs,” Journal of Morphology, 2009. Back

4) “Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-Bird Links,” EurekAlert, June 9, 2009. Back

Share This Story

`
mike1948's picture

AIG fumbles again. Recent fossil evidence shows the ancestor of the birds is older then the ancestor of the reptiles.This seems to agree more with Genesis putting birds before land animals rather then after the reptiles as science had done. But AIG fumbles this like all other arguments by insisting on a six day creation.

bhall's picture

What constructive can possibly gained from this whole issue. And could we not use all the time and money wasted on this be used for causes that matter.

MrBook's picture

This is not a joke... Look at AiG and it's allies, they are very active and rather powerful in far to much of the US (well that they have any influence at all is to much influence in my opinion).

gma's picture

Genesis is how people thought about the origin of life and the universe thousands of years ago. We can't blame them for that but it is shameless that some people still hold on to these primitive views in the face of mountains of scientific evidence to the contrary.

It is dishonest when people call their organization Answers In Genesis when there are NO answers to anything in this primitive text.

In the same way it is dishonest when people call their organization Discovery Institute when they have displayed absolutely no interest in discovering anything.

It's all lying or jesus . We're used to that.

Here is where you can find the Answers in Evolutionary Biology on the subject of this article:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/06/digit_numbering_and_limb_devel.php #comments

gma's picture

Alchemy, astrology, all religions, pink unicorns, tooth fairies, ... are all superstition because there is no shred of verifiable and falsifiable evidence that supports any of this nonsense.

So using any so called holy book written by humans and claimed to be the inspired words of gods mankind has invented in its image is absolutely ridiculous and flatly dishonest.

Challenging a grain of sand of the mountain of evidence for evolution proves what? That genesis is therefore true? There is NO truth in genesis. There are NO answers in genesis.

You should rename your organization: NON-Answers in Genesis.

MrBook's picture

It is interesting that avians may not be the decedents of dinosaurs, but rather a parallel evolutionary path following dinosaurs.

AiG is following it's expected pattern, denouncing evolution as a whole where it is not warranted.

"-- Once again, the evolutionary “facts” have been challenged. What scientists believe about the evidence frequently changes, even while their presupposed belief in evolution is held constant. Don’t be fooled by the “facts” that evolutionists themselves may doubt tomorrow!"

This shows the expected lack of understanding about the Scientific method. Scientists will take this research, review it and compare it to their own observations, and a new consensus will emerge... which is how new theories come about.

"-- We may well hear a sharp response from other evolutionists attacking this research or, at least, emphasizing that birds still evolved, even if only from an unknown ancestor. Alternatively, we may hear virtually nothing if evolutionists hope the story goes unnoticed."

This is a projection... AiG and it's cohorts are the ones who either assault or ignore new research.

"-- Whenever evolutionists demonstrate that specialized features originated separately (i.e., the evolutionary branches are farther apart), it multiplies the number of miraculous mutations that would have had to occur to produce the specialized anatomy in organisms on both branches."

This shows a lack of understanding with regards to genetics and evolution. Each species did not 'start from scratch' but built on their ancestors.

"Creationists instead have the common-sense understanding that the Creator chose for each organism whatever designs best suited its purpose, and sometimes He reused the best designs."

Or that there were common ancestors with similar traits.

"-- Perhaps most importantly, this research identifies an incredible, previously unknown element of bird biology—a sophisticated design that enables bird flight and reflects on the ingenuity of the Creator."

and a parting shot from the far left field...

Scientific theories are mailable, they adjust as new information is uncovered. ID is rigid, it does not adjust to new discoveries.

Rice klowN's picture

Hey guess what, this still shows a millions year old Earth with life that evolved.

Your title is misleading, it should say "Scientists say birds didn't evolve from dinosaurs, suprise: creationists agree that no evolution happened"

quantummechanik's picture

IS EXACTLY LIKE RELIGION!
In that, if one thing is disproven, the whole thing is a wash.
That's why we refer to science as being inerrant, and also why it has never changed, ever.

Dammit, Rice, I hate these people. So much.

Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter

OV Social