Discoveroids Deny Dinosaur to Bird Evolution

This is a good example of creation science in action. First, start with some genuine science done by some real scientists — like what’s described in this article at PhysOrg: Tweaking the beak: Retracing the bird’s beak to its dinosaur origins, in the laboratory. A few excerpts will be sufficient, with some bold font added by us:

Scientists have successfully replicated the molecular processes that led from dinosaur snouts to the first bird beaks.

Using the fossil record as a guide, a research team led by Yale paleontologist and developmental biologist Bhart-Anjan S. Bhullar and Harvard developmental biologist Arhat Abzhanov conducted the first successful reversion of a bird’s skull features. The scientists replicated ancestral molecular development to transform chicken embryos in a laboratory into specimens with a snout and palate configuration similar to that of small dinosaurs such as Velociraptor and Archaeopteryx.

Neat, huh? Here’s more:

In the new study, Bhullar and his colleagues detail a novel approach to finding the molecular mechanism involved in creating the skeleton of the beak. First, they did a quantitative analysis of the anatomy of related fossils and extant animals to generate a hypothesis about the transition; next, they searched for possible shifts in gene expression that correlated with the transition.

No Discoveroid would have gone through all of that — or any of that. They would just declare it to be another miracle of the intelligent designer. One more excerpt:

Using small-molecule inhibitors to eliminate the activity of the proteins produced by the bird-specific, median signaling zone in chicken embryos, the researchers were able to induce the ancestral molecular activity and the ancestral anatomy. Not only did the beak structure revert, but the process also caused the palatine bone on the roof of the mouth to go back to its ancestral state. “This was unexpected and demonstrates the way in which a single, simple developmental mechanism can have wide-ranging and unexpected effects,” Bhullar said.

Okay — good work! But what can they do with this at the Discovery Institute? They can’t ignore it. Every time scientists explain something that had been previously unexplained, it’s one less miracle for their designer. This is an outrage! The result is this new article at the Discoveroids’ creationist blog: Scientists Dispute Claims of Converting Bird Beaks Into Dinosaur Snouts. It’s by Casey Luskin, our favorite creationist.

If you check out the links in his article, you’ll see that the “disputes” are minor nitpicks about marginal issues. We’ll ignore that stuff, but you can check it out if you like. Instead, we’ll give you a few excerpts from what Casey says. Bear in mind that he’s doing his best to preserve a gap between dinosaurs and birds, which only their designer could bridge. Here it comes, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

The experiments in question may reveal nothing more than evolution by intelligently designed subtraction.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Isn’t this great? The Discoveroids have absolutely no idea how amusing they are. Here’s more:

The researchers know what bird beaks look like and what dinosaur snouts look like. They know that in bird beaks the premaxillae are enlarged and fused into a single bone, while in dinosaur snouts they’re not, so there’s a spatial gap between the two. With this in mind, the researchers put a microscopic bead in the middle of the developing chick embryo’s face, specifically designed to release chemicals to inhibit the activity of two proteins — Fgf8 and Lef1 — that are involved in facial growth.

Yeah — all they did was identify and then undo the very thing that fills the gap. No big deal! Let’s read on:

These chemicals prevented the genes from doing their normal jobs, and probably wreaked all kinds of havoc on the surrounding tissue. … But the genetic scenario they’re trying to mimic may be completely removed from the supposed dinosaurian condition. The lesson? If you put harmful chemicals where birds have bones and dinosaurs did not, don’t be too surprised if in some birds the developing bone tissue dies and the result looks a little more like a dinosaur.

See what Casey’s saying? Yes, those wretched Darwinists have demonstrated how to go back to a feature of an ancestral species — but maybe that’s not the way it happened! How do those scientists know? Were they there?

The rebuttal to that nonsensical objection is to acknowledge that yes, this may not be the exact way the transition happened, but having shown a way that it can be done, it’s clear to everyone that no miracle was necessary. Well, it’s not clear to everyone, but nothing is ever clear to creationists — except the necessity for Oogity Boogity.

Casey continues with his relentless attack:

Any similarities between the embryos and dinosaurs could then merely reflect how investigators interfered with normal beak development and killed off tissues with chemicals.

That’s an extremely crude description of the experiment, but yes, it shows the similarity of birds and dinosaurs. Here’s more:

[T]he fact that some of the chickens resemble dinosaurs might just reflect the fact that they placed tissue-killing chemicals in the bird embryos right where dinosaurs had a gap between bones. … If so, then these results would be of little significance, certainly of none in the cause of demonstrating that modern birds may trace their descent from dinosaurs.

Okay, that’s it. You gotta admit, dear reader, that’s great creation science!

Copyright © 2015. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

12 responses to “Discoveroids Deny Dinosaur to Bird Evolution

  1. Penned by the hand of the mighty Casey Luskin, one of many grand insightful writers of the Dishonesty Institute, citadel of unintelligent design, where the great lab experimenters crossed the abalone and crocodile to get the legendary creature, the abadile.

  2. “The experiments in question may reveal nothing more than evolution by intelligently designed subtraction.”

    Dinosaur minus X = Chicken

    Solve for X.

  3. I’m just surprised creationists didn’t storm the lab and try to burn it down to stop its impious experiments which usurped the prerogatives of the Creator. “There are some things Man was not meant to know.”

  4. SC said:

    How to those scientists know?

    Did you mean “How do those scientists know?”

  5. Charles Deetz ;)

    The dorkiest of theories … the scientists just were playing plastic surgeon.

  6. cnocspeireag

    Wonderful comment Mark!
    Did any one read the abstract as involving ’tissue killing chemicals’? I thought it involved inhibiting development.

  7. Gary says: “Did you mean …”

    Yup. You’ve saved me again. Thank you.

  8. “Neat, huh?”
    No, awesome. I never would have thought of something like this.

    “evolution by intelligently designed subtraction.”
    Equally awesome! But in an entirely other way. Casey now only needs to introduce the concept of evolution by intelligently designed addition and he’s a Darwinist.

  9. docbill1351

    Casey is scared [edited out]-less by this research. He knows EXACTLY what it implies.

    The ID mantra is that evolution is insufficient to make changes in “body plans” because of all the “new information” required to make all the “new proteins” needed for those changes.

    What this research shows is that s SINGLE PROTEIN transforms snout to beak. One protein, big morphological change. This single paper obliterates ID’s biggest claim. It totally undermines Meyer’s Cambrian “thesis.”

    The Gerb had to go Full Metal Behe trying to minimize the research as “a mere piffle” to distract from the implications.

  10. So now we know the answer to “Which came first: the chicken or the egg.” It must have been the egg — the dinosaur egg.

    But that’s assuming we trust the validity of Yale scientists over the distinguished scowlers –err, scholars — at the Discovery Institute.

    I dunno — Yale or D.I. ? Tough choice.

  11. Rikki_Tikki_Taalik

    Shorter Gerb : “Nuh-uh

    Same as it ever was.

  12. Ceteris Paribus

    I would be happy to volunteer a few of my Neanderthalic in-laws for scientific research to discover whether a couple of inhibitory proteins are all that really separates me from them.