Search This Blog

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Come one come all see the Darwinism fall! Ian Juby is on tour!

Long comment threads on a couple of recent posts tell an interesting tale.  Many Darwinists do not even comprehend how far away from reality they are.   Darwinism begins by being completely anti-science and shrugs off actual scientific laws as immaterial as they promote their religious beliefs.   We will address this, but first it is time to deal with a canard - that Darwinists have proven their point in court!

We turn to Ian Juby to discuss this issue:

Nov 12, 2010 CrEvo newsletter
Embarassing court cases
Over and over, whenever I get a rowdy, accusing, anti-creationist on my hands, I always ask them what the evidence shows.  The responses never cease to amaze me.  Such was the case earlier on this year when the "concerned parents" of Pasadena, Newfoundland  wrote to me after I spoke at the public school there.  These parents (all three of them! Apparently not three of the some 250 people who showed up for my talk the following thursday night) were very concerned over the 'nonsense' that I shared at the school, to which I calmly replied that if I made a scientific or historical error in anything I said, I'd be more than willing to own up to it, correct the mistake, even make a public apology. I mean, hey - I'm only human, maybe they know something I don't?  So I asked this parent what exactly it was I said that was wrong.
His response? He cited a 1981 United States court case (Huh??!!??!!???) in which the judge concluded that creationism was not science!

Hmmm....seems to me that's not what I asked, nor was it at all relevent to the discussion, and tells me right off the bat that these parents knew full well I had said nothing in scientific or historical error.

Again, only a few weeks ago while speaking in Newfoundland, I had some skeptics come out to one of my talks.  After spending an hour going over the evidence of humans and dinosaurs living together, one of the skeptics put up his hand during Q&A. What was he going to ask?  Would he question the validity of the evidence I presented? Would it be some technical point to be made, showing how I must be in error somewhere in one of my claims?

Nope. Instead, he asked me about the Kitzmiller-Dover trial on Intelligent Design, which was held in Pennsylvania!

And Let us not forget the Scopes "monkey trial" - popularized in the flagrant propaganda book, broadway production and movie "Inherit the wind" that depicted the trial and surrounding events with the accuracy of a blind man giving the play-by-play of a European football game (soccer here in North America), complete with play-by-play descriptions of the drunken crowd, and the brawl and riots that broke out after France beat England.  AiG has a good article documenting the distortions in "Inherit the wind" here.

Thing of it is, the skeptics seem to just love these court cases, thinking that they are some kind of victory for the evolutionary camp.  As the skeptics quickly find out when they bring these trials up with me, they should be highly embarrassed to even mention said court cases! In both of the above situations with the skeptics, I simply took the closing arguments of the judges presiding over these cases and showed how the judges were so far out to lunch that it was downright embarrassing.  The skeptics then promptly either changed the subject, or simply refused to carry on conversation anymore.

Evolution only survives because it hides behind judges, lawyers, and policies. (you can quote me on that)

Think about it: When was the last time you heard a biologist ask the courts for protection for his theory?  Have you ever encountered a physicist who demanded legal protection from others scrutinizing his theories in a public school classroom?

Evolution is anti-science, as true science welcomes - even demands - scrutiny.

Let the embarrassment begin:

The two court cases that are cited the most are the 1981 Arkansas state schoolboard case, and the Kitzmiller-Dover trial of Pennsylvania.  In both cases (pun intended), you don't have to be a legal aid to see through the ridiculousness of the judge's closing remarks.  The simplest thing to do for the 1981 Arkansas case would be simply to repeat my discussion with the "concerned parent" of Pasadena (who shall remain nameless).  He simply quoted the conclusions of the judge presiding over the case, so I went down the list and responded (in italics):

"The Arkansas judgment defined the following as essential characteristics of science:
1. It is guided by natural law;"
-Evolution has life arising from non-life (just look at any evolutionary textbook, and you'll see Miller's experiment for example). This is in direct violation of well-established, scientific and natural laws such as biogenesis and thermodynamics.

"2. It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law;"
-Evolutionists have admitted that they have no explanation for the origin of life. Much observational evidence from genetics (i.e., genetic entropy) and biology (codependency of living systems) also must be violated in order for evolution to occur. I can provide a very long list if you'd like.

"3. It is testable against the empirical world;"
-Evolution is not testable - it is claimed to have occurred in the unobservable, untestable, past.

"4. Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and"
-Everything in the scientific world is interpreted in the light of evolution, whether it fits or not.

"5. It is falsifiable."
-Evolution has failed its own predictions. It is not testable, repeatable, nor falsifiable. I say this because every time it has been falsified by evidence such as that which I bring up, evolution simply attempts to "conform" to the evidence, or disregards it and mocks it.

"The court ruled that creation science failed to meet these essential characteristics and identified specific reasons. After examining the key concepts from creation science, the court found:
1. Sudden creation "from nothing" calls upon a supernatural intervention, not natural law, and is neither testable nor falsifiable"
-Evolution must violate well-established natural laws, therefore by definition, evolution is a supernatural process (look up the word yourself). Evolution has life arising from non-life via an unknown, supernatural process. Creation from nothing, in effect.

"2. Objections in creation science that mutation and natural selection are insufficient to explain common origins was an incomplete negative generalization"
-As I have already mentioned, there's a lot more to it then these two objections. Evolution must violate scientific observations.

"3. 'Kinds' are not scientific classifications, and creation science's claims of an outer limit to the evolutionary change possible of species are not explained scientifically or by natural law"
-"Species" (which was a Biblically-based definition by the way) does not have a scientific classification either. Evolutionary change is impossible, based on the scientific laws of biogenesis. So now why would the judge assert that a frog turning into a prince is "scientific?"

"4. Separate ancestry of man and apes is an assertion rather than scientific explanation, and did not derive from any scientific fact or theory"
-And common ancestry of man and apes is assertion, rather than scientific explanation, nor is it derived from any scientific fact or theory. This is actually quite easy to demonstrate on multiple lines of evidence. The first and foremost being nobody was there to witness said ancestry, therefore it is assertion, not scientific explanation, which requires observation, repeatability and predictability.

"5. Catastrophism, including its identification of the worldwide flood, failed as a science"
-Uniformitarianism/actualism has failed science. I spent the first several hours of my lecture series showing why this is the case. The present cannot be the key to the past, because present day processes simply cannot explain the catastrophic deposits we see around the world. Isn't it interesting that even the evolutionists have acknowledged this now since the Arkansas court case? The Arkansas judge would need to revise his conclusions now.

"6. "Relatively recent inception" was the product of religious readings and had no scientific meaning, and was neither the product of, nor explainable by, natural law; nor is it tentative"
-The idea of an old earth and millions of years of evolution is religious in nature - developed to explain away the need for a Creator God, and to provide an alternative to the Biblical account of creation. It has no scientific meaning as can be easily demonstrated over and over again. It is not the product of, nor explainable by, natural law. It is obviously not tentative - just publically question evolution and you are immediately mocked and ridiculed. Evolution is anti-science and will not permit anyone to scrutinize it.

Well I'm here to scrutinize it Mr. *****. And your concluding remark here is worthy of note:

"No group, no matter how large or small, may use the organs of government, of which the public schools are the most conspicuous and influential, to foist its religious beliefs on others."

I heartily agree! So how about we start by removing the religious tenet of evolution from the school system? It is actually evolution which is controversial Mr. ***** - not creation. If evolution was not controversial, it would not need legal protection. If it was scientific, it would not need legal protection to keep it in the science classroom. We creationary thinkers invite people to scrutinize what we are saying. After all, this is in keeping with good scientific practice.

The very reasons you say that creation should not be permitted in the science classroom are the very reasons evolution should not be permitted in the science classroom. The very reasons that you say creation is "religious" are the very reasons that evolution also falls into the "religious" category. Only an anti-science religion would hide from scientific scrutiny behind judges, lawyers and school policies.

As you can see, it's not difficult to spot the huge errors in the judge's claims.  Everything that is said about Creation applies also to Evolution.

Is my face red....

Judge John Jones,
Photo courtesy of United States Government,
in public domain
But the concluding remarks of Judge John Jones (shown right), presiding over the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial in Pennsylvania, are especially revealing.  After weeks of testimony at the three-ring-circus known at the Kitzmiller/Dover trial, Jones' closing remarks reveal that he still didn't know what Intelligent Design was, he still didn't know what Creation was, he still didn't know even what Evolution was, and he still did not even know what science was!

Intelligent Design is a scientific tool - one that even children use every day.  It is completely separate from Creation, but it can be used to determine which faith (Creation or Evolution) is the correct one. ID clearly points to Creation being the correct model, but it most certainly is not some form of creationism.

Insanity defined:
In his concluding remarks, Jones stated:

"For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child.....
The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism...
The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the
Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question
of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself
from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."

Really? Let's examine these conclusions, shall we? Let make use of the scientific tool of Intelligent Design:
Tell me readers, do you think that this mystery tool had a creator?

Now careful how you answer! Because according to the conclusions of Judge Jones, if you claim that this mystery tool had a creator, then you are making an unscientific and religious statement which should not be allowed in any American science classroom.  If you make such a statement in a public school classroom as a teacher, then you are also in violation of the separation of church and state!
(and don't get me started on the bogus "separation of church and state" nonsense)

Judge Jones knew he was going to get criticized for his closing remarks, and in an obvious pre-emptive defense, also stated in his closing remarks:
"Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge."

Actually, with respect Judge Jones, no, I disagree with your conclusions because they are insane and illogical.

Intelligent Design is a scientific tool everyone uses every day.  It is logical deduction. To deny the obvious deductions one comes to when using the tool of intelligent design is insanity defined. If someone came up to you and said that the mystery tool shown above formed by natural, unguided processes, and had no creator, what would you think? Personally, I could only derive two possible conclusions:
  1. This person is insane and/or self deluded (usually the two go hand in hand)
  2. This person has ulterior motives for saying such ridiculousness
So I don't mind if Judge Jones wishes to deny ulterior motives, but that only leaves me with one other possible conclusion.  :)

Why an anti-creationist should be embarrassed
The conclusions of these court cases are so horribly easy to shoot down in a glorious ball of flame, that any anti-creationist should be embarrassed to bring them up.  The conclusions of the courts are not only obviously biased against creation, revealing a clear double-standard for creation and evolution, the conclusions are illogical to downright insane.  The conclusions, if applied equally to evolution, should have removed evolution from the classrooms a long time ago.  So the question then arises: Why then, do the courts stick up for evolution?  The same might be asked for all of the other court cases that continually defend a liberal, anti-Christ lifestyle and society, often with insane closing remarks and conclusions made by the judges.  Folks, the persecution against Christians has only begun.  Better count the cost, because your day, as a follower of Christ, is coming where you will be persecuted, and even thrown in jail for your Christian beliefs.

I'm ready, how about you?


Thanks, Ian, you have several great points to make in your latest posting, which I heartily recommend.  Readers, I would like you to keep in mind the following facts:   Here in this blog in the last couple of years I have pinned Darwinists down on a few issues that are fundamental scientifically.   Darwinists have replaced a Creator God with...wait for it...nothing.   Where does information come from?  Where does time come from?  Where does matter come from?  Where does life come from?  Has anyone ever heard a Darwinist give a coherent response to any of these questions that does not boil down to "lucky break" or "blind chance" or something similar?  I've had the blog going for six-seven years and not one Darwinist has ever answered any of these questions.   Instead they argue against dictionary definitions or simply try to use derision to drown out the questions or come back with all sorts of unrelated questions.   Guess what?  If a Darwinist cannot explain existence or life or information nobody gives a rip about what they THINK about morphology or the fossil layers because they are not even in the game yet.   You have to have a coherent worldview that is based on something beyond the hope that there is no God.

So we will repeat the Life Science Prize challenge as an advertisement: 

Earn $1000 by finding an evolutionist that will defend their position. For details go here.

All you anonymous posters out there, can you put your money where your mouth is?   Those who actually identify themselves?   Can you go into court and depend on scientific evidence only and defend the concept of Macroevolution?  If so you can make some nice money in these hard times.  

Meanwhile, let's highlight one more Ian Juby offering and hopefully it will whet your whistle to learn more from an actual scientist who depends on evidence!  Yes, warning, you are entering the evidence-without-Darwinist-propaganda-added zone!

Nov 12, 2010 CrEvo newsletter***********************************************************
Dinos to birds?
You'll notice during my children's presentations that I always start off with a pop-quiz for the kids.  One of the questions I ask is "Where did birds come from?"

It never ceases to amaze me how many five year old children will tell me that birds evolved from dinosaurs, showing just how effective the evolutionary propaganda machine is.

While not all evolutionists think that birds evolved from dinosaurs, it is certainly the majority view within evolutionary circles.

Feathered dinosaurs?
Much ado has been made about the supposed "feathered dinosaurs" that have been discovered over the years, the majority coming out of China.  For the record, I'm not opposed to there being dinosaurs with feathers - I mean, hey - why not?  If the duck-billed platypus can have a beak like a bird, why not dinosaurs having feathers?

However, such evidence is certainly not defacto "proof" of the evolutionary ascent of birds from dinosaurs.  Technically, this is an argument from homology; which I already dealt with in a previous newsletter, some of which is directly relevent to the present discussion and I will repeat it here.

Homology fall down go boom
Leaving aside the contention over whether dinosaurs are actually "feathered" or not, let's assume they are for a second.  Homology is simply the assertion that similarity between two organisms must mean they are related evolutionarily speaking.  Homology was played up heavily in the new Darwin wing at the Royal Tyrell Museum in Drumheller, Alberta:

So the evolutionary claim is that because your arm is so similar to the manatee flipper, the dog leg, and the bat arm, you all must have had a common ancestor!  You'll notice however, that homology is only used when it favours an evolutionary interpretation - for example, you'll notice that the Tyrell exhibit doesn't mention that your legs don't look anything like a manatee tail.  Furthermore, homology can also be interpreted as evidence of a common designer. In other words, because the manatee, the bat and the dog all had the same designer, that designer will incorporate similar designs into each organism.

As many of your know, I am a robotics engineer.  I got my start in robotics as a hobbyist - I built robotic arms when I was a teenager.  Just simple things, but even with the few that I built, others would spontaneously say that they could tell I had designed a certain robotic arm because it had the hallmarks of the common designer with the other robotic arms they had seen me build.  In this way, similarity between organisms is also a good argument for design & creation.

There are a lot of similarities between some dinosaurs and the birds: some have a bill like a duck, it's believed that most, if not all dinosaurs laid eggs in a ground nest, some have feet similar to birds, and its possible that some even had a cardiovascular system similar to birds.  But let's put homology to the test:

The dinosaurs can be put into two major categories, based on their hip type: The Ornithischians and the Saurischians. 
The Ornithischians are named after their ‘bird-like hips,’  (‘Orni’ is from the Greek word ornitheos, for ‘of a bird,’ and ‘ischion’ for ‘hip joint) and includes dinosaurs like the duck-billed dinosaurs, the Hadrosaurs. Some Ornithischians have feet like birds, and so far as we know, they all laid eggs like birds.

The Saurischians include bipedal dinosaurs like T. rex and the Sauropods.  T. rex has feet like a bird, the Sauropods have four feet like an elephant, and they all have hips like lizards. (‘Saurus’ is the Greek word for ‘lizard.’)  It is believed they all laid eggs like birds.

So now if you were an evolutionist, which group would you think the birds most likely evolved from?
If homology were actually an argument for evolution, the answer would be obvious – it would have to be the Ornithischians.  However, the dino-to-bird theorists actually believe it was the Saurischians that evolved into birds!

Dinosaurs of a feather flock together
So let's take a look at the big ruckus about feathered dinosaurs. Here I laid out a nice pretty drawing showing the alleged evolution of dinosaurs to birds, complete with the alleged millions-of-years timeline of the most important fossils in this sequence. (click on the image for the full-resolution version)

(Credits: tweety bird:; Barney the dinosaur, copyright PBS:; Big Bird, copyright PBS sesame street:; Flintstones: Hanna-Barbera, now owned by Time-Warner; Rahonavis, Juravenator & Compsognathus licensed under creative commons from wikipedia user AurthurWeasley; Confusciusornis & Pedopenna in public domain by Frederik Spindler; Microraptor, Anchiornis, Sinosauropteryx, Caudipteryx, Beipiaosaurus licensed creative commons on wikipedia from user dinoguy2 (Matt Martyniuk); Protoarchaeopteryx licensed under creative commons from wikipedia, user Conty)
It should be noted immediately that most of the dinosaurs listed above were not found with feathers. Many of the fossils were found with organic artifacts which were interpreted as feathers, or more commonly "protofeathers." Protofeathers would be something evolving into feathers - the precursor of the genuine feather.

Only problem is (as some of the more observant and knowledgeable readers will already notice) Archaeopteryx definitely had fully-formed feather impressions, yet Beipiaosaurus, Sinosauropteryx and Shuvuuia all have protofeathers.  Waidaminit: the evolutionary sequence is all backwards!  The creatures are supposed to be evolving and developing feathers, not de-evolving from full-fledged feathers into protofeathers!  Furthermore, several bird experts have pointed out that the dinosaurs that do appear to have feathers, were simply flightless birds (based on the feather types, or skeletal structure for example).
So the dino-to-bird theorists have then pulled an about-face and referred to these proto-feathered dinosaurs as evolutionary sisters to the modern day birds. In other words, if you listen carefully, it is claimed that they are related to the birds, but are not the ancestors of the birds. 
But I'm guessing that the majority (all?) of my readers will say that they were led to believe that these famous feathered dinosaurs were ancestors of our modern day birds. Ya, well, that's because of what you have been told, or read, or seen on TV - here's some classic examples so you can see for yerself:

(Oxford Press, 2008)

"Of particular note have been the fossils of the Yixian Formation, where a variety of theropods and early birds have been found, often with feathers of some type."  - from the Wikipedia page "Feathers and the origin of birds" (Red text emphasis mine, pointing out the obvious claim that the feathered dinosaurs evolved into birds)

"The evolution of birds is thought to have begun in the Jurassic Period, with the earliest birds derived from theropod dinosaurs."  - from Wikipedia

It's not until one starts to point out the reversals in the evolutionary sequence that the dino-to-bird theorists start getting antsy and making comments like "Well, feathers must have evolved in more than one evolutionary line."

The other problem is that whenever the dino-to-bird theorists talk about the feathered dinosaurs, they discuss this as proof that birds evolved from dinosaurs. This leaves the clear picture that the feathered dinosaurs are the intermediate form between dinosaurs and birds.
A May 25th, 1999 Seattle Post-Intelligencer article carried the brazen title "Dinosaurs alive - as birds - scientist says." Phillip Curie (former curator of the Royal Tyrell Museum in Drumheller, Alberta) was quoted saying "Birds are today's dinosaurs." 
In the National Geographic article, "Feathers for T. rex?," assistant editor Christopher Sloan authoritatively stated "We can now say that birds are theropods just as confidently as we say that humans are mammals." "With arms of a primitive bird and the tail of a dinosaur, this creature found in Liaoning Province, China, is a true missing link in the complex chain that connects dinosaurs to birds."(red text emphasis mine)

It should be noted that Curie and Sloan made these comments because of Archaeoraptor, a fossil now known to be a fraud, but the point I'm making here is the language used in reference to feathered dinosaurs.

Scott Sampson, screen capture from Discovery Channel's "Dinosaur Planet, Episode 1: White Tip's journey"

We even hear such language on TV too: Scott Sampson (shown right), Utah Museum of Natural History, made a most bizarre comment on Dinosaur planet: (and I quote!)
 "We still don't know exactly why feathers evolved, but we do know if it looks like a bird and acts like a bird, it must be a dinosaur."
(Discovery Channel program Dinosaur Planet, episode 1: White Tip's journey, roughly 13 3/4 minutes in)

Ya, that's logical there Scott - like saying saying if it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, then it must be a unicorn.

Yet fantasy comments like Scott's are not hard to come by when reading up on dinosaur to bird evolution.

I say all of that to make this point: Obviously whether or not a dinosaur has feathers is quite irrelevent to whether it is an ancestor to birds or not, even according to the evolutionists who believe dinosaurs evolved into birds. 

But bear in mind, most of these "feathered dinosaurs" only have alleged "protofeathers."

Feathered dolphins

The "protofeathers" found on some of these theropod dinosaurs is simply assumed to be a precursor to feathers (even though feathers were already around, according to the evolutionary time sequence).  What the scientists actually found is hair-like structures that were preserved in dinosaur fossils. 

Dino-to-bird skeptic, Dr. Alan Feduccia, has pointed out numerous problems with the dino-to-bird story. I should be clear: Feduccia is definitely an evolutionist - he just believes birds evolved from archosaurs (a group which includes alligators and some large, flightless birds), not dinosaurs.

Feduccia had long claimed that the "protofeathers" found on the Chinese fossils were simply degraded collagen fibers (parts of the skin and flesh structures).  He made several scathing remarks about the dino-to-bird theorists (and justifiably so I think) in a article, including:

"The theory that birds are the equivalent of living dinosaurs and that dinosaurs were feathered is so full of holes that the creationists have jumped all over it,
using the evolutionary nonsense of 'dinosaurian science' as evidence against the theory of evolution," he said.
"To paraphrase one such individual, 'This isn't science . . . This is comic relief.'"

I must emphasize again though, I have no problem with a "feathered dinosaur," as skeptical as I am of such claims.  I do question the evolutionary interpretation, that's all.

Reconstruction of an Icthyosaur, licensed under Creative Commons, from ArthurWeasley on Wikipedia
In fact, if you read the above-linked collagen fibers article, you'll notice that what sure appeared to be identical "protofeathers" were found on an Ichthyosaur - a dolphin-like marine reptile!;jsessionid=3D12953B2A0CC4D9D096699C80140802.jvm4

Obviously, nobody is claiming that the Ichthyosaurs had feathers.  So it then becomes pretty obvious that maybe the "feathered dinosaur" interpretation isn't quite as cut-and-dry as we've been led to believe.

Homology fall down go boom again

I mentioned previously how homology is only cited when it appears to favour the preferred evolutionary chain of events.  I previously mentioned the Saurischian/Ornithischian problem, so now would be a good time to point out that there have been Ornithischian dinosaurs found with alleged "protofeathers" as well - another plus for the Ornithischian-to-bird evolution model. Yet once again, this evidence from homology is ignored in favour of the Saurischian-bird-ancestor interpretation.

But Feduccia also points out a failure in the homological line-up of the dino-to-bird myth.  The dino-to-bird theorists would cite the similarities between the fingers on an alleged bird ancestor dinosaur, compare it to the "fingers" of a bird's wing, and claim that because they are so similar, the birds must have evolved from the dinosaurs!

As Feduccia noted, the finger designations are all wrong.  On the dinosaur (see image below), the prominent fingers are 1, 2, and 3, with fingers 4 & 5 reduced.  In chickens, it was noticed that the first "finger" became reduced during development - to the point where you couldn't even see it.  Thus, the main fingers on a chicken are 2, 3 and 4 - not 1, 2 and 3 like we see in the dinosaurs.

So once again, the argument from homology breaks down and does not support the dino-to-bird myth.  Homology is only cited when someone thinks it supports their model of evolution.
The recent discovery of soft tissue in a T. rex bone from Montana also added fuel to the homology fire.  Even the wikipedia article sez:

"The ground-breaking discovery of fossilized Tyrannosaurus rex soft tissue allowed a molecular comparison of cellular anatomy and
protein sequencing of collagen tissue, both of which demonstrated that
T. rex and birds are more closely related than either is to Alligator."

Of course, rumour has it that when the same comparisons were made with the protein sequencing and collagen tissue samples, it was discovered that T. rex was more similar to Al Gore than it was to the birds...
Just in case you missed it, my satirical remark above was to make the point that protein sequencing and collagen sample similiarities are really quite irrelevant. It very quickly begins to sound like the DNA comparisons I dealt with in the last newsletter

Protein sequencing has been carried out over the years in a variety of ways, with the results only being reported for the sequencing that favoured evolution. For example, similar protein sequencing carried out on cytochrome C shows the rattlesnake is most identical to the human!  (

Evolution gone backwards
Take a quick look again at the chart I provided earlier (again, you can click on the image to see the full-sized version)

I previously pointed out one obvious evolutionary reversal, that as you "progress" from dinosaur-like creature to bird-like creature, left to right, the appearance of the creatures is the opposite of what you'd expect, from a dino-to-bird standpoint.  Actually, there are numerous reversals of evolutionary traits within the sequence, and in fact several of those traits reverse more then once! John Woodmorappe goes into detail on this in his highly technical article (not for the faint of heart!) over here.

I also included in the chart a couple of fossils which the dino-to-bird advocates mysteriously ignore or poo-poo.  Namely, Protoavis, which is a bird - more 'modern' then Archaeopteryx, yet is was found in the Texas triassics (which I've excavated in), dating some 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx, according to evolutionary standards!  So now you have a completely modern bird appearing waaaaay before any of the supposed bird ancestors....ancestors which look less and less like birds and more and more like dinosaurs as they 'evolve towards' birds.

You also have Liaoningornis, which looks an awful lot like a stinkin' robin, buried among the dinosaurs with "protofeathers."  Strangely this fossil is never mentioned by the dinosaur to bird theorists.  So seeing as how there is a completely modern bird among these "feathered dinosaurs," then obviously the feathered dinosaurs have nothing to do with the evolution of birds, because birds were already around.

But also note Juravenator and Compsognathus - both of which are considered close relatives to Sinosauropteryx (an allegedly proto-feathered dinosaur), yet both Juravenator and Compsognathus have scaly skin, like dinosaurs - not feathers or protofeathers.  Yet Compsognathus is so identical to Archaeopteryx, many have said that if Archaeopteryx had not been found with feathers, it would have been classified as Compsognathus!  So technically then, Compsognathus is more bird-like than the much later Sinosauropteryx.

In another, obvious case of attempted propaganda, on our good 'ol wikipedia page, you'll notice that the drawing of Compsognathus (used in the graph above) depicts Compy with "feather-like structures!"  Why was it depicted this way? Well because "Evidence from related species (-italics mine: they mean other "feathered dinosaurs" - IJ) suggest that the body might have been covered with feather-like structures"

Hogwash!  The evidence from Compsognathus shows no such thing!
This is nothing more than brazen propaganda.

Sum it all up for us Ian

Many of the claims of "feathered dinosaurs" are weak at best. If they're not proto-feathers then you're left with a dinosaur, and no link from dinos to birds (even though there is no link even when the dinosaurs do have protofeathers!). Homology does not support the dino-to-bird mythology, and much of the alleged dino-to-bird transition sequence shows evolutionary reversal (evolution gone backwards), sometimes several reversals. When push comes to shove, the dino-to-bird advocates have to admit that the "feathered dinosaurs" are backwards to the dino-to-bird sequence, and thus these feathered dinosaurs must have branched off from birds, therefore they have no place in the ancestry of birds.

In short, feathered dinosaurs do not support evolution.  The dino-to-bird theory is a bankrupt mythology that has so many contradictions and holes in it, one wonders why the boat still stays floating. It only stays floating for the countless numbers of people desperately bailing the incoming flood of water as they try to keep the dead theory alive.....because they want it to be true.

Lastly - and this cannot be overemphasized - There is NO biological mechanism for evolution, so finding fossils of dead things only means you've found proof of a dead thing, not evolution.  This article has already been too long, so I won't go into this at this time, but will simply mention it.

One final comment on Archaeopteryx

In this article, I have assumed that Archaeopteryx is not a fraud. Numerous evolutionists and creationists have leveled accusations of "fraud" at the feathered Archeaopteryx fossils - and with some very convincing arguments.  One video I had the pleasure of reviewing was from J.D. Mitchell, of Creation Engineering Concepts.  J.D. put together a fantastic (although technical) DVD on this subject, and built a compelling case for Archaeopteryx being a fraud.  This included his own, first-hand research, and was very nicely spelled out.  You can order that DVD from his website at
As you can see however, the authenticity of Archaeopteryx plays no real bearing on the dino-to-bird theories.

Special thanks to Brock Lee over at for the screen captures from Dinosaur Quest, and thanks to Vance Nelson of Creation Truth Ministries for some enlightening discussion and links relating to the subject.


The secret of the sciences is that Darwinism is of no use to operational science and has no evidence to actually support it beyond various suppositions and hypotheses that are made up by true believers.   That Darwin and Lyell's claims about organisms and the rock layers have been blown up like, well, this:

Karl Priest, aka the Insectman sums up the Life Science challenge nicely below:

Readers, think for yourself for a few minutes.   Why wouldn't a Christopher Hitchens or a Richard Dawkins or a P.Z. Myers go ahead and face off against Dr. M evidence versus evidence?  Darwinists appeal to propaganda and yet when asked to fight fair on the field of scientific evidence they will not even show up to the game.   They forfeit the game every time.  So forget what silly answers they come up with, think about it for yourselves.   If you could kill off Creationism or Intelligent Design based on the evidence and you were a Darwinist, wouldn't you be chomping at the bit to do it?   You'd be like Muhammed Ali yearning for a rematch against Joe Frazier after that first fight - float like a butterfly, sting like a bee!

Ironically, real scientists are studying bees to learn more sophisticated algorithms concerning directional flight and real scientists are studying butterfly wings to learn more about light reflection and display among other things.   Real scientists are studying the DESIGNS found in creation to apply them to human endeavors.  The High Priests of Darwinism demand that some sop be thrown to evolution in every scientific paper but you can throw them all out, save lots of paper and get right to the science.   Oh, and you can also find the alphabet and the numbers 1-9 on such wings, did you know that?   Check out Kvell Sandved's site to obtain posters and photos like the foretaste below:


Anonymous said...

Now why do creationists insist on saying nonsensical stuff like "Evolutionary change is impossible, based on the scientific laws of biogenesis".

It's misguided enough to claim that abiogenesis is impossible according to the "law of biogenesis", but at least they'd be in the same general ballpark.

I'm sure there's plenty more like it, but when casual browsing already unearths such a whopper, there's really no need to waste time on the rest of it.

Any creationists feel like defending this bizarre quote?

Anonymous said...

And that's not all. Keep in mind that the "law of biogenesis" isn't even a scientific law, as the huckster that's spreading this nonsense so cheerfully implies.

I wonder if anyone along the chain of bringing this nonsense to this blog feels any shame to spread this BS.

Anonymous said...

"Darwinism begins by being completely anti-science and shrugs off actual scientific laws as immaterial as they promote their religious beliefs"

You've got that backwards. YEC is clearly in violation of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.

The theory of evolution is not in violation of any known scientific law.

Basic facts, people.

Really not that hard to grasp.

Jon Woolf said...

"Come one come all see..."

... a creationist display his ignorance and stupidity to all the world!

Not you, Radar. Your source, Ian Juby. The charitable explanation for this steaming heap is that he doesn't know what he's talking about. (The uncharitable one is that he's a blatant liar.) I demonstrate:

Juby speweth: "You'll notice however, that homology is only used when it favours an evolutionary interpretation - for example, you'll notice that the Tyrell exhibit doesn't mention that your legs don't look anything like a manatee tail."

Of course not, because it would be completely irrelevant. The tails of sirenians (manatees belong to the Order Sirenia, commonly called 'sirenians') are derived from ... well, from their ancestors' tails. Not from hind legs. Sirenians have completely lost all traces of the hind limbs, and their pelvis is radically reduced in size. Even Answers in Genesis knows this. But apparently Juby doesn't.

Juby also speweth: "So now if you were an evolutionist, which group would you think the birds most likely evolved from?
If homology were actually an argument for evolution, the answer would be obvious – it would have to be the Ornithischians."

Actually, no it wouldn't. Unlike creationists, scientists don't make blind assumptions and then defend them mindlessly against all new evidence. It's been known for over a century that the name 'ornithischian' was a misnomer, than the resemblance between the ornithischian pelvis and the bird pelvis is superficial. It's also been known for decades that (brace yourself!) some 'saurischian' dinosaurs actually had a bird-like pelvis. In these dinosaurs the pubis is rotated backwards -- in some cases a little, in other cases a lot. The large dromaeosaur Deinonychus demonstrates partial rotation of the pubis; its relative Velociraptor has the pubis rotated back until it's parallel to the ischium, similar to the arrangement in early birds.

Jon Woolf said...

Moving on...

Juby again: "Namely, Protoavis, which is a bird - more 'modern' then Archaeopteryx, yet is was found in the Texas triassics ..."

"Protoavis" is a problematic fossil from the Norian epoch of the Triassic period. It consists of a skull and a jumble of bones from at least two individuals. It has no pelvis, no jaw, and no actual evidence of feathers. Few palaeontologists support the identification of it as a bird; most think it's a chimera, a fictional animal constructed out of pieces form two or more actual animals. Even Alan Feduccia doesn't defend "Protoavis," and feduccia is well known for his habit of leaping on any piece of evidence that contradicts the "birds are dinosaur descendants" theory, and defending it as a mother bear with her cubs.

Finally, Juby blathers: "You also have Liaoningornis, which looks an awful lot like a stinkin' robin, buried among the dinosaurs with 'protofeathers.'Strangely this fossil is never mentioned by the dinosaur to bird theorists. So seeing as how there is a completely modern bird among these 'feathered dinosaurs,'... "

Liaoningornis is not a 'completely modern bird.' It lacks a number of features found in all modern birds, and it has several features found in dinosaurs and more basal birds.

(Note that these are just examples; I could fisk Juby's entire article, I just don't see any reason to bother.)

You need some new sources, Radar.

Hawkeye® said...

Another interesting article (or compilation of articles). Thanks for sharing.

(:D) Best regards...

Anonymous said...

Easy Radar. I suggest you layoff "Dr. Scott the Paleontologist".
First off, the guy is well above your pay-grade, intellectually speaking,
Second, he's Canadian (that said, apparently so is Juby - an embarrassment to all Canucks and Mensans across the globe, I'm sure),
And third, my kids totally love him.

Thank jebus he reaches more kids every week than you or Juby will talk to in your lifetimes.

- Canucklehead.

radar said...

Canucklehead, I do not consider evolutionary biology or morphology to be anything more than the practice of paying so-called scientists to produce science fiction. Anyone who teaches morphology and has studied the relationships between actual structures, the development of the structures and the location on gene knows that design features are common but direct lineage of inheritance from one kind of creature to another cannot be consistently supported.

In fact, because the mother cell lays the foundation for the child and that each creature comes with metainformation specific to that creature, there is a hard-wired barrier that limits each kind of organism to the reproduction of only that kind. Scientific law tells us life only comes from life. Therefore life must have a First Cause and each kind of organism would have had to have been designed by said Cause. Only an Intelligent Designer could input the massive amounts of information found within the cell.
Furthermore the Universe requires a Cause Agent, as it could not have spontaneously created itself. Forces associated with matter such as gravity could not create the Universe as they are also material in form and substance and cannot be self-existent.

So Darwinists cannot account for the Universe, for information or for life and their own findings have shown that there are barriers to prevent one kind from becoming another. Have you noticed that Darwinists have given up on fruit flies as a means of demonstrating evolution? You could say that long-term experimentation on fruit flies has falsified Darwinism.

radar said...

"Now why do creationists insist on saying nonsensical stuff like "Evolutionary change is impossible, based on the scientific laws of biogenesis"."

The law of biogenesis says that life only comes from life, so it precludes the idea of abiogenesis. Biogenesis has been tested and retested and established as scientific fact since the early 1800's while abiogenesis is an unscientific pursuit by religous fanatics who are not willing to accept the findings of operational science when it defies their Darwinist fairy tale. Operational, testable and repeatable science has established that life does not come from non-life.

Darwinists also despise the laws of therodynamics. In the natural material world nothing is being created or destroyed and everything is going from energy to entropy - running downhill. Therefore there is no naturalistic materialistic explanation for the existence of the Universe.

Information is not material in form or substance and yet it is the transmission of intelligence. It cannot have a material cause since it is not material. So operational science tells us that the primary tenets of Darwinism are unscientific.

Anonymous said...

"Darwinists also despise the laws of therodynamics."

Is this like your "atheists are selfish" nonsense?

I take it you mean thermodynamics, and whoever these "Darwinists" might be, I doubt they have a problem with the LOT, only with ridiculous misrepresentations of them, such as those flogged by the likes of you.

"In the natural material world nothing is being created or destroyed and everything is going from energy to entropy - running downhill. Therefore there is no naturalistic materialistic explanation for the existence of the Universe."

Your logic doesn't follow, and er, no - this would mean that there is no creationist explanation for the existence of the Universe. since It couldn't all have come from nothing. Going by all the assumptions you've posited, it must have always been here.

"Information is not material in form or substance"

So are love, democracy, mathematics and any other abstract concept you care to name. That doesn't make them supernatural.

"and yet it is the transmission of intelligence."

Information is organized data. The source doesn't need to be intelligent. And in some cases, neither does the recipient. So I'm not convinced that your definition is the most apt one.

"It cannot have a material cause since it is not material."

Why do you say non-material things can not have a material cause? Can you name a non-material thing that is not in some way based on something material?

For example, democracy is a non-material abstract concept, but it is based on material things when you get down to it.

And an information medium can be destroyed, resulting in the information itself being destroyed.

"So operational science tells us that the primary tenets of Darwinism are unscientific."

If by Darwinism you mean the theory of evolution, then no, sorry, you're wrong. Evolution consists of (1) reproduction with variation and (2) natural selection. Neither is in violation of any scientific law (thermodynamics or otherwise).

Where exactly do you think these primary tenets are unscientific?

Be specific.

Anonymous said...

"while abiogenesis is an unscientific pursuit by religous fanatics who are not willing to accept the findings of operational science when it defies their Darwinist fairy tale."

Some powerful projection there, Radar.

1. There are no "findings of operational science" that supposedly defy this "Darwinist fairy tale" you're so eager to demolish.

I've seen you post examples of complexity in life and then claimed that this falsifies evolution. Is that really all you've got? Because complexity doesn't falsify evolution in the slightest.

It seems you misunderstand even the more educated arguments on your own side, which is no mean feat.

2. Do you accept the findings of science when it defies your Christian fundamentalist fairy tale? Not from what I've seen so far.

"Operational, testable and repeatable science has established that life does not come from non-life."

Where do you think it did that?

Anonymous said...

"The law of biogenesis says that life only comes from life, so it precludes the idea of abiogenesis."

No, the law of biogenesis says that complex life only comes from life. Remember what kind of organisms they researched.

Current abiogenesis research does not deal with the kind of biogenesis that the scientists who researched biogenesis over 200 years ago were talking about.

It's really not that hard to grasp.

Incidentally, the law of biogenesis is not a law of science in the sense of, say, Newton's laws, not least because its basic principle can not be tested. You're somewhat disingenuously cloaking this "law" in the mantle of authority belonging to actual laws of science.

Anonymous said...

"Biogenesis has been tested and retested and established as scientific fact since the early 1800's"

Earlier than that, probably. But always only in relation to complex life. It's impossible to make the same assertion about far more simple forms of life. Also, since both the methods of research and scientific findings have moved on quite a bit since then, it's not all that relevant if earlier findings contradict later ones.