Dino-to-bird, bird-to-dino, whatever

In the immortal words of Willie Wonka, “Strike that, reverse it.” For many years now, evolutionists have been insistent that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Shoddy research championed by such publications as National Geographic (“Feathers for T. rex” 1999) and questionable fossil finds in China (see Archaeoraptor) have perpetuated these fanciful claims. Now, we have hard scientific evidence indicating a 180-degree turn. John Ruben, a professor of zoology at Oregon State University, states, “We’re finally breaking out of the conventional wisdom of the last 20 years, which insisted that birds evolved from dinosaurs and that the debate is all over and done with,” Ruben said. “This issue isn’t resolved at all…We think the evidence is finally showing that these animals which are usually considered dinosaurs were actually descended from birds, not the other way around.” ScienceNews reported on Ruben’s research, “In the newest PNAS study, scientists examined a remarkable fossil specimen that had feathers on all four limbs, somewhat resembling a bi-plane. Glide tests based on its structure concluded it would not have been practical for it to have flown from the ground up, but it could have glided from the trees down, somewhat like a modern-day flying squirrel. Many researchers have long believed that gliders such as this were the ancestors of modern birds. This model was not consistent with successful flight from the ground up, and that makes it pretty difficult to make a case for a ground-dwelling theropod dinosaur to have developed wings and flown away,” Ruben said. “On the other hand, it would have been quite possible for birds to have evolved and then, at some point, have various species lose their flight capabilities (emph. added—RL) and become ground-dwelling, flightless animals — the raptors”. Other research has shown that raptors share similar thigh-bone structure with birds that other theropod dinosaurs do not. “This may be hugely upsetting to a lot of people, but it makes perfect sense.” Ruben went on to admit, “The old theories were popular, had public appeal and many people saw what they wanted to see instead of carefully interpreting the data.” Even this scientist, who is not a creationist, acknowledges the bias that is inherent in evolutionism. Ruben even goes so far as to caution his colleagues against making such bold assertions which can be disproven by further study. “Pesky new fossils…sharply at odds with conventional wisdom never seem to cease popping up,” Ruben wrote in his PNAS commentary. “Given the vagaries of the fossil record, current notions of near resolution of many of the most basic questions about long-extinct forms should probably be regarded with caution.” Amen to that! Sacred cows of evolution keep getting slaughtered by those “pesky fossils” and other discoveries. Real, measurable, observable science will overturn flawed, biased theory every time. Incidentally, this new research fits much better with the creation model where the only evolutionary changes which occur in nature result from a loss of genetic information, not from new features being added.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100209183335.htm