Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

A Dinosaur Discovered in a Mammal’s Stomach?!

Expand Messages
  • Chris Ashcraft
    http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=13&itemid=2680 Apologetics Press :: In the News A Dinosaur Discovered in a Mammal’s Stomach?! By
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 24, 2005

      Apologetics Press :: In the News

      A Dinosaur Discovered in a Mammal�s Stomach?!
      By Brad Harrub, Ph.D.

      People are up in arms in Dover, Pennsylvania, because of the school board�s decision to teach
      Intelligent Design along with evolutionary theory. Battle lines have been drawn, and lawsuits have
      been filed. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed a lawsuit on behalf of eleven
      parents, stating that this is �creationism in disguise,� and thus it is not �real science.� They
      contend that the only scientific theory that should be permitted in the classroom is the godless
      theory of organic evolution. After all, it is the only one that is �scientific.� I wonder if the
      ACLU has stopped its legal intimidation tactics long enough to actually look at the latest
      scientific data? If members of the ACLU truly want to keep �real science� in the classroom, then
      they should be rolling out the red carpet for theories other than organic evolution. In fact, one
      discovery has evolutionary spin-doctors popping antacids as they scramble to provide the general
      public with another �just-so� story.

      Consider the following evidence. Most evolutionary timelines have the mammals evolving from
      reptiles. Indeed, the textbook I used in my freshman general biology class noted: �During the
      Mesozoic Era the reptiles, which had evolved earlier from the amphibians, became dominant and in
      turn gave rise to the mammals and the birds� (Raven and Johnson, 1989, p. 432). George Gaylord
      Simpson contended that, according to standard evolutionary theory, no advanced mammals were
      present in the �age of the dinosaurs.� The dinosaurs, he suggested, became extinct in the
      Cretaceous Period, and the only mammals that had evolved up to that point (even at the very end of
      the period) were �small, mostly about mouse-sized, and rare� (1957, p. 797, emp. added). This is a
      logical explanation if you are going to contend that mammals evolved from reptiles, because it
      would require that mammals appeared much later in the picture.

      Evolutionists consider the last 65 million years of Earth history (the Cenozoic Era) to be the
      �age of the mammals.� However, the discovery of several small mammalian fossils has challenged
      such notions. For instance, in 1924 Samuel Hubbard made a discovery that should have caught
      scientists� attention. But given the increasing momentum for evolutionary theory, his discovery
      represented hardly even a �blip on the scientific radar.� A.H. Verrill had this to say regarding
      Hubbard�s find:

      Another highly important feature of Dr. Hubbard�s report is the discovery of fossil footprints of
      both the three-toed carnivorous dinosaurs and the imperial elephants in the same locality. If, as
      it appears, both of these creatures left their footprints in the river�s sand or mud at
      approximately the same period, then we must assume that the dinosaurs continued to survive for
      millions of years later than scientists would have us believe, or else that the imperial elephants
      appeared on earth millions of years before their supposed arrival. But it seems highly
      preposterous, and entirely contrary to all known laws of evolution, to assume that these highly
      developed pachyderms were inhabiting the earth long ages before more primitive types of mammals
      (1954, pp. 154ff.).
      Elephants coexisting with dinosaurs? Surely not! This did not �fit� with �what was supposed to be
      there.� As such, this discovery was largely ignored.

      In 2001, a report that coincided with evolutionists� beliefs regarding the evolution of mammals
      received front-page status. A small mouse-like creature, designated as Hadrocodium, was discovered
      in the in Lufeng deposits of Yunnan Province, China (Luo, et al., 2001). The suggestion was that
      this small mouse-sized creature was one of the front-runners for man�s early mammalian ancestor.
      Thus, evolutionary theory had to receive a �few minor tweaks� in order to suggest that mammals
      evolved millions of years earlier than expected, and that some mammals actually coexisted with the
      dinosaurs. The scientific literature was quick to point out, however, that these creatures were
      probably �small and nocturnal.�

      A discovery reported in the January 13, 2005, issue of Nature challenged everything evolutionists
      have ever maintained regarding dinosaurs and mammals. The Associated Press reported: �Villagers
      digging in China�s rich fossil beds have uncovered the preserved remains of a tiny dinosaur in the
      belly of a mammal, a startling discovery for scientists who have long believed early mammals
      couldn�t possibly attack and eat a dinosaur� (�Fossil Shows�,� 2005). Not only do we now have
      additional proof of mammals coexisting with dinosaurs, but we also have scientific evidence of a
      large mammal eating a dinosaur! The authors discovered the fossil remains of two different
      mammals. One was 50% larger than previous mammal fossils that were considered to be living with
      the dinosaurs, and was named Repenomamus giganticus. The other, Repenomamus robustus was fully
      intact�and had a dinosaur in its stomach. Yaoming Hu and his colleagues noted:

      During preparation of the specimen a patch of small bones was revealed within the ribcage, on the
      ventral sides of the posterior left thoracic ribs and vertebrae, where the stomach is positioned
      in extant mammals. Unduplicated dentition [teeth�BH], limb bones and phalanges [bones of the toes
      or �fingers��BH] in the patch confirm that these bones belong to a juvenile individual of
      Psittacosaurus, an herbivorous dinosaur that is common in Jehol Biota. The serrated teeth in the
      patched skeleton are typical of juvenile Psittacosaurus. The skull and most of the skeleton of the
      juvenile Psittacosaurus are broken, disarticulated and displaced, in contrast to the preservation
      of the R. robustus skeleton, which is essentially in its original anatomical relation. Although
      fragmentary, the bones of the Psittacosaurus are packed in a restricted area. These conditions
      indicate that the juvenile skeleton of Psittacosaurus is the remaining stomach contents of the
      mammal (Hu, et al., 2005, 433:151).
      In discussing this amazing find, Nature writer Anne Weil observed: �Discoveries of large,
      carnivorous mammals from the Cretaceous challenge the long-held view that primitive mammals were
      small and uninteresting. Have paleontologists been asking the wrong question?� (2005, 433:116).
      Maybe a better question would be: Have paleontologists been analyzing the data through muddled
      evolutionary glasses? Yet, keep in mind that the ACLU and the National Center for Science
      Education are actively waging war on anyone who questions evolutionary theory being taught in a
      school classroom.

      Remember George Gaylord Simpson�s summation? He suggested that mammals were �small, mostly
      mouse-sized, and rare.� Yet as Weil noted in Nature, these creatures hardly could be described as
      either �small� or �mouse-sized.� In commenting on the two skeletons that were discovered, she
      noted: �Neither is of a small mammal. One is more than a meter long. The other appears to have a
      dismembered juvenile dinosaur in its stomach� (433:116). This discovery calls into question every
      speculation evolutionists have set forth regarding the dinosaurs.

      For example, most textbooks written today record that even the size that mammals reached was
      ultimately determined by the dinosaurs. Allegedly, as long as dinosaurs were in the picture,
      mammals were forced to remain small, and had to scavenge for food at night. The Web site for the
      Museum of Paleontology, sponsored by the University of California, Berkeley, lists what
      evolutionists consider to be invalid hypothesis for what killed the dinosaurs. One of those
      �invalid� hypotheses is:

      Mammals outcompeted the dinosaurs?�Better still, but not easily falsifiable and not upheld by any
      evidence. We cannot reconstruct the late Cretaceous ecosystem and see if the mammals were
      outcompeting the dinosaurs for food, space, or other resources; the fossil record is too poor and
      does not preserve behavior well. We know that dinosaurs and mammals evolved together for most of
      the Mesozoic era; mammals remained quite small and only slowly increased in diversity (Museum of
      Paleontology, n.d.).
      Consider for a moment how many times evolutionary theory has been completely contradicted by the
      evidence. We have scientific proof of elephant prints and dinosaur prints in the same location. We
      have scientific evidence of dinosaur petroglyphs etched into stone walls by men living just a few
      hundred of years ago. We have scientific evidence of large mammals eating dinosaurs. The
      scientific evidence continues to support creation by an intelligent Designer. Yet, this is the one
      theory that the ACLU contends must be kept far away from students! It will be only a matter of
      time before evolutionary spin-doctors place this latest find into a quiet, dark closet�where (if
      you�ll pardon the pun) it will remain alongside other questionable skeletons. But at some point we
      must ask ourselves, how many times are we going to throw out the data and keep evolutionary
      theory, rather than accepting the scientific data and throwing out evolutionary theory?


      Hu, Yaoming, Jin Meng, Yuanqing Wang, and Chuankui Li (2005), �Large Mesozoic Mammals Fed on Young
      Dinosaurs,� Nature, 433:149-152, January 13.

      Luo, Zhe-Xi, Alfred W. Crompton, and Ai-Lin Sun (2001), �A New Mammaliaform from the Early
      Jurassic and Evolution of Mammalian Characteristics,� Science, 292:1535-1540, May 25.

      Museum of Paleontology, (no date), �What Killed the Dinosaurs,� [On-line], URL:

      Raven, Peter H. and George B. Johnson (1989), Biology, (St. Louis, MO: Times Mirror/Mosby College
      Publishing), second edition.

      Simpson, George Gaylord, C.S. Pittendrigh and L.H. Tiffany (1957), Life: An Introduction to
      Biology (New York: Harcourt, Brace & Company).

      Verrill, A.H. (1954), Strange Prehistoric Animals and Their History (Boston, MA: L.C. Page).

      Christopher W. Ashcraft
      Northwest Creation Network
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.