Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

That bird really IS a dinosaur, says paleontologist

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Marcus Ross writes to comment on “Birds not descended from dinosaurs but from common ancestor with them?”, noting that Feduccia may not have as good evidence as he thinks this time:

I’ve read through the paper by Czerkas and Feduccia, and it really isn’t very good. To argue that Scansoriopteryx is a bird, they also argue that all dromaeosaurids, troodontids, and oviraptorids are bird, not dinosaurs. And this isn’t a question of whether they are birds or dinos on a dinos-evolved-into-birds scale, it’s the idea that these groups started off from a completely different, non-dinosaurian group of archosaurs, and independently/convergently evolved a wide variety of dinosaurian traits. These include a fully upright stance, ossified tendons on the tail, a similar skull bone architecture, vertebral counts, etc.

The specimen itself is quite problematic, because it appears to be a juvenile. Thus many of the features that Czerkas and Feduccia argue are absolutely, definitively un-dinosaurian in Scansoriopteryx (such as the incompletely perforated acetabulum, the lack of a strongly inturned femoral head, the extent of the deltopectoral crest on the humerus, etc.) are much more easily explained in terms of ontogeny, rather than their very forced phylogenetic hypothesis. The elongate 3rd digit is quite odd, but it doesn’t remove Scansoriopteryx from the dinosauria any more than it could place it in aviale; it’s a one-off trait (and may also be some kind of ontogenetic stage).

Ok, that sound confusing, so here’s an example: Dinosaurs are defined by a series of anatomical traits. One is the possession of a perforated acetabulum (a hole through the hip socket), which allows the head of the femur to be oriented 90-degrees from the femur’s shaft (another dino trait), and results in the upright stance seen in dinosaurs. All dinos have a perforated acetabulum, and Czerkas and Feduccia even call this “the sine qua non of dinosaurian status” (unnumbered pages, but 6th page, bottom right). Since Scansoriopteryx has an incompletely perforated acetabulum, they conclude that it must not be a dino, and is also an early member of a (simplified here) Scansoriopteryx à Dromaeosaur à Archaeopteryx lineage. But a fully perforated acetabulum is seen in Deinonychus (a dromaeosaur, and in all known dromaeosaurs). What to do with this “sine qua non” in Deinonychus? It must be a convergence with dinos!

So using this singlar example of an incompletely perforated acetabulum and other questionable anatomical “traits” in a baby raptor-ish dino, Czerkas and Feduccia argue that all these things that we’ve called dinosaurs for decades are actually bird convergences on the dinosaurian body via a completely different ancestral archosaur stock. The authors provide no cladistic argument for their case, as would be expected in a paper making this kind of argument. Instead, they focus on a few traits they deem important, and in my opinion, badly misinterpret them.

In short, Feduccia is wedded to a particular hypothesis of HOW birds evolved (trees down): dinosaurs CAN’T be bird ancestors if for no other reason than that dinosaurs lived on the ground. So there, it’s settled. He has now convinced Czerkas that Scansoriopteryx isn’t a dino, even though Czerkas described it as such in 2002. In reading through their paper, I don’t see any compelling reason to move Scansoriopteryx (and the dromaeosaurs, troodontids, and oviraptors along with it) out of the Dinosauria. This critter is a maniraptoran theropod, and by all rights belongs in the Dinosauria.

So I would strenuously caution creationists and IDers not to jump on this as further proof of problems in the paleo realm of dinos and bird. This paper will be treated harshly not because its conclusions are unpalatable to the birds-are-dinos camp, but because its arguments and interpretation of the evidence are selective and strained.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
DavidD, of related interest is that 'tone' of language is scientifically shown to be important. Just the day before yesterday, Doctors were warned to watch their negative tone around people:
Say No to Nocebo: How Doctors Can Keep Patients’ Minds from Making Them Sicker By Elizabeth Preston | July 9, 2014 Excerpt: ,,, how doctors interact with their patients is critically important. In a study of epidurals for mothers in labor, slight changes in how doctors described the procedure affected how much pain the women felt. Once doctors realize their power, Bingel says, they can start doing things differently. “Use an authentic and emphatic communication style to interact with your patients,” she says. “Explain why you prescribe a drug and how it works.” Doctors should describe the benefits of a drug before pointing out the side effects it might have, she adds. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/inkfish/2014/07/09/say-no-to-nocebo-how-doctors-can-keep-patients-minds-from-making-them-sicker/#.U72XcPl3KM4
Also of interest are these studies:
The Healing Power of Positive Words By Linda Wasmer Andrews - Jun 08, 2012 Excerpt: When researchers analyzed the autobiographies of famous deceased psychologists, they found that those who used lots of active positive words (such as lively, enthusiastic, happy) tended to outlive their other colleagues. Within this category of words, the biggest boost came from humor-related terms (such as laugh, funny, giggle), which were associated with living six years longer, on average. In contrast, passive positive words (such as peaceful, calm, relaxed) and negative words (such as worried, angry, lonely) didn’t affect longevity. http://health.yahoo.net/experts/allinyourmind/health-power-positive-words How those marital rows can be bad for your health by JENNY HOPE – December 2005 Excerpt: Married couples who constantly argue risk damaging their health, according to a study. It found that marital rows can prolong the time it takes the body to heal itself after an injury. One argument alone can slow this process by a day. And the study claims that when married couples feel consistently hostile towards one another, the delay in the healing process can be doubled. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-370708/How-marital-rows-bad-health.html Negative Thoughts Linked to Physical Health Issues - Dr. Caroline Leaf - (Part 1 of 3) - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYgr1rTEf_w etc.. etc..
Of course, as you mentioned DavidD, having 'mere words' have such a dramatic impact on health is unexpected on a atheistic/materialistic framework where morality is merely illusory, but having 'mere words' have such a dramatic impact on health is expected on a Theistic framework where, number 1, it is believed God spoke reality into existence, i.e. 'Let there be light',
Phonon Excerpt: In physics, a phonon,, represents an excited state in the quantum mechanical quantization of the modes of vibrations,, The name phonon,, translates as sound or voice because long-wavelength phonons give rise to sound. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonon The Deep Connection Between Sound & Reality - Evan Grant - Allosphere - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4672092 Photons and Phonons Excerpt: You see, the primary Planck-Law (E=hf) is metaphysical and independent on the inertia distribution of the solid states.,,, Both, photon and phonon carry massequivalent energy m=E/c2=hf/c2. The matter-light interaction so is rendered electromagnetically noninertial for the photon and becomes acoustically inertial for the phonons; both however subject to Bose-Einstein stochastic wave mechanics incorporative the Planck-Law.,, Where, how and why does E=hf correctly and experimentally verifiably describe the quantum mechanics of energy propagation?,,, http://www.tonyb.freeyellow.com/id135.html
and number 2, it is also believed that we will ALL have to give account for every careless word uttered in this temporal life. At the 17:45 minute mark of the following Near Death Experience documentary, the Life Review portion of the Near Death Experience is highlighted, with several testimonies relating how every word, deed, and action, of a person's life (all the 'information' of a person's life) is gone over in the presence of God:
Near Death Experience Documentary - commonalities of the experience - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTuMYaEB35U
Verse and Music
Matthew 12:36-37 “But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment. For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.” Phillips, Craig & Dean - Let My Words Be Few https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUAQdd2ELuE
bornagain77
July 11, 2014
July
07
Jul
11
11
2014
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT
Bornagain77: "Funny, I stopped ‘listening’ to him as soon as I saw the headline and vulgar tone. Less did I take him seriously." -- Nothing these people do or say is shocking anymore. There seems to be a trend for many of these Science dweebs to be a card carrying member of the "I F***ing Love Science" club. Filth and vulgar tones and expressions appear to be the new holy language to these people. In their mind there is nothing wrong in such vocabulary if evolution is true. There is no ruling nor final authority to judge otherwise. If you complain, they cry you are intolerant. The problem is, like unrestricted freedom, there are limits and boundaries. Decency is the boundary for tolerance.DavidD
July 11, 2014
July
07
Jul
11
11
2014
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT
I disagree and think he is, like many Darwinists, 'seeing faces in the clouds'. Moreover, as I have previously noted, where the fossil record is most complete, we find long term stasis despite supposed strong 'pressure' to evolve,,, “In four of the biggest climatic-vegetational events of the last 50 million years, the mammals and birds show no noticeable change in response to changing climates. No matter how many presentations I give where I show these data, no one (including myself) has a good explanation yet for such widespread stasis despite the obvious selective pressures of changing climate. ,,, “Such stasis, along with the examples documented from nearly all other Pleistocene mammals and birds, argues that organisms are not as responsive to environmental change as classical neo-Darwinian theory predicts.” http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2012/10/26/stasis_in_pleistocene_mammals_and_birds Thus, despite the Darwinian desire to make the evidence fit their theory no matter what, they simply have no evidence that it is plausible. Birds are not the only creatures to display this pattern of rapid appearance and long term stasis. This pattern of sudden appearance and long term stasis, as Eldridge and Gould (and now Meyer) made famous, is the overriding theme of the entire fossil record, from the Cambrian forward. Yet evolutionists insist that all life arose by trial and error process. So, since stasis is the norm for the fossil record, where is the evidence for these millions of species continuously trying out new forms as the Darwinists hold? Scientific study turns understanding about evolution on its head - July 30, 2013 Excerpt: evolutionary biologists,,, looked at nearly one hundred fossil groups to test the notion that it takes groups of animals many millions of years to reach their maximum diversity of form. Contrary to popular belief, not all animal groups continued to evolve fundamentally new morphologies through time. The majority actually achieved their greatest diversity of form (disparity) relatively early in their histories. ,,,Dr Matthew Wills said: "This pattern, known as 'early high disparity', turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head. What is equally surprising in our findings is that groups of animals are likely to show early-high disparity regardless of when they originated over the last half a billion years. This isn't a phenomenon particularly associated with the first radiation of animals (in the Cambrian Explosion), or periods in the immediate wake of mass extinctions.",,, Author Martin Hughes, continued: "Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on. Co-author Dr Sylvain Gerber, added: "A key question now is what prevents groups from generating fundamentally new forms later on in their evolution.,,, http://phys.org/news/2013-07-scientific-evolution.htmlbornagain77
July 11, 2014
July
07
Jul
11
11
2014
03:57 AM
3
03
57
AM
PDT
So here's an earlier blog by him, sans expletive: http://qilong.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/youve-got-to-be-kidding-me/Piotr
July 11, 2014
July
07
Jul
11
11
2014
03:32 AM
3
03
32
AM
PDT
So here's an earlier blog by him, sans expletive: http://qilong.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/youve-got-to-be-kidding-me/Piotr
July 11, 2014
July
07
Jul
11
11
2014
03:32 AM
3
03
32
AM
PDT
"I suppose sometimes there’s no other way to make yourself heard." Funny, I stopped 'listening' to him as soon as I saw the headline and vulgar tone. Less did I take him seriously.bornagain77
July 11, 2014
July
07
Jul
11
11
2014
02:43 AM
2
02
43
AM
PDT
DavidD Tone is tone, and content is content. That particular author has been debunking Feduccia's quackery for years. I can sympathise with his frustration at seeing the same stuff getting published again, with all the usual flaws, as if earlier criticism had meant nothing. I don't think he's used such strong language before. I suppose sometimes there's no other way to make yourself heard.Piotr
July 11, 2014
July
07
Jul
11
11
2014
02:28 AM
2
02
28
AM
PDT
Piotr "Here’s one more for you, BA" -- So you link to a webpage that immediately starts out with filth and vulgarities and expect this to be taken seriously ? Since when did such language become the new scientific educational communication route ?DavidD
July 11, 2014
July
07
Jul
11
11
2014
01:33 AM
1
01
33
AM
PDT
Here's one more for you, BA http://qilong.wordpress.com/2014/07/10/really-again-youve-got-to-be-fucking-kidding-me/Piotr
July 10, 2014
July
07
Jul
10
10
2014
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT
The claim that Sinosauropteryx had proto-feathers - July 2012 Excerpt: However, allegations of phaeomelanosomes (proto-feathers) in Sinosauropteryx are shown to be without scientific merit. http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2012/07/18/the_claim_that_sinosauropteryx_had_proto Another Flap Over Dinosaur Feathers - October 31, 2012 Excerpt: The photo of 1995.110.1 shows only dark criss-cross markings on the bone that they “inferred to be traces left by shafted feathers.” They don’t bear any resemblance to actual feathers. This means that only one fossil had the carbonized impressions extending from parts of its forelimbs at some distance from the bones, leaving plenty of leeway to speculate about what they were, or whether they had any connection to the animal. Yet their artwork shows the adult with fully-fledged wing feathers, barbs, barbules and all, and even multiple colors!,,, There’s no way this specimen can have anything to do with the origin of avian flight. The authors did not even try to connect it to flight. http://crev.info/2012/10/another-flap-over-dinosaur-feathers/ In Touchstone, Luskin Dismantles Giberson and Collins - October 10, 2012 Excerpt: The cover story in the March 2003 issue of Scientific American states outright that difficulties with the scale hypothesis show that the "long-cherished view of how and why feathers evolved has now been overturned." Its authors, two leading evolutionary biologists named Richard Prum and Alan Brush, further admit: "Although evolutionary theory provides a robust explanation for the appearance of minor variations in the size and shape of creatures and their component parts, it does not yet give as much guidance for understanding the emergence of entirely new structures, including digits, limbs, eyes and feathers. ("Which came first, the feather or the bird?", p. 86)" http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/in_touchstone_l_1065051.html Giberson and Collins Make Outdated Argument That Feathers Evolved From Scales Casey Luskin May 9, 2011 Excerpt: The new evidence from developmental biology is particularly damaging to the classical theory that feathers evolved from elongate scales. According to this scenario, scales became feathers by first elongating, then growing fringed edges, and finally producing hooked and grooved barbules. As we have seen, however, feathers are tubes; the two planar sides of the vane--in other words, the front and the back--are created by the inside and outside of the tube only after the feather unfolds from its cylindrical sheath. In contrast, the two planar sides of a scale develop from the top and bottom of the initial epidermal outgrowth that forms the scale. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/giberson_and_collins_make_outd046451.html Dinosaur Feather Story Gets Hairy - July 2, 2012 Excerpt: One will look in vain, though, for veined feathers with barbs and barbules as found in birds. The authors label the structures “type 1 feathers,” meaning single filaments protruding from the skin. They are actually little more than fuzz, barely noticeable in the photos. Co-author Helmut Tischlinger said, “Under ultraviolet light, remains of the skin and feathers show up as luminous patches around the skeleton.” Some, like Brian Switek at Nature News, dub them “protofeathers.” He wrote,,, Barrett says, the fossilized wisps are very similar to the fuzz seen on other dinosaurs. But he notes that the presence of these filaments among all dinosaurs is “speculation”,,, http://crev.info/2012/07/dinosaur-feather-story-gets-hairy/ “Feathers give no indication that they ever needed improvement. In fact, the “earliest known fossil feather is so modern-looking as to be indistinguishable from the feathers of birds flying today.” Yale University’s Manual of Ornithology—Avian Structure and Function “The whole notion of feathered dinosaurs is a myth that has been created by ideologues bent on perpetuating the birds-are-dinosaurs theory in the face of all contrary evidence” Storrs Olson - curator of birds at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History The hype about feathered dinosaurs in the exhibit currently on display at the National Geographic Society is even worse, and makes the spurious claim that there is strong evidence that a wide variety of carnivorous dinosaurs had feathers. A model of the undisputed dinosaur Deinonychus and illustrations of baby tyrannosaurs are shown clad in feathers, all of which is simply imaginary and has no place outside of science fiction. - Storrs Olson
bornagain77
July 10, 2014
July
07
Jul
10
10
2014
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT
Imaginary Dino-birds have far more going against them than the paper in the OP,,,
More Fossil-Molecule Contradictions: Now Even the Errors Have Errors - Cornelius Hunter - June 2014 Excerpt: a new massive (phylogenetic) study shows that not only is the problem (for Darwinist) worse than previously thought, but the errors increase with those species that are supposed to have evolved more recently.,,, "Our results suggest that, for Aves (Birds), discord between molecular divergence estimates and the fossil record is pervasive across clades and of consistently higher magnitude for younger clades." http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2014/06/more-fossil-molecule-contradictions-now.html Bird Evolution vs. The Actual Fossil Evidence - video and notes http://vimeo.com/30926629 When Dinosaurs Flew - February 4, 2014 Excerpt: A study published online by PeerJ on Jan. 2 detailed the examination of a startlingly complete and pristine specimen of an ancient, dinosaur-era bird: Hongshanornis longicresta, which flapped throughout what is now China roughly 125 million years ago during the early Cretaceous Period. This particular specimen, discovered a few years ago in rocks from northeastern China, is the latest example of the unexpected diversity of primitive birds that have been unearthed from that part of the world.,,, Roughly 90 percent of the skeleton is complete, with wings and tail so finely preserved that the outlines of feathers and what may be dark color bands on the tail can still be seen. That high level of preservation — particularly around the wings and tail — has allowed the team to perform an aerodynamic analysis of the bird, revealing how it likely flew. Michael Habib, assistant professor of research at the Keck School of Medicine of USC, analyzed the shape of the wings and tail and determined that the bird “flitted about,” bouncing through the air with bursts of flapping. The flying style is far closer to that found in modern birds than what was supposed of ancient flyers — which have been thought to rely more on gliding due to a lack of enough muscle mass in flying appendages to achieve flapping bursts. “This isn’t a mode of flight we expected from Cretaceous birds,” Habib said, adding that its small size and overall shape are comparable to that of modern birds. “It was pretty much a Cretaceous starling with a larger tail like a mockingbird.” Transported to the modern world, it wouldn’t look like anything special to the casual observer, until a closer examination revealed claws at the end of the bird’s wings and tiny teeth in its beak.,,, http://dornsife.usc.edu/news/stories/1622/when-dinosaurs-flew/ Jerry Coyne's Chapter on the Fossil Record Fails to Show "Why Evolution is True" - Jonathan M. - December 4, 2012 Excerpt: "For one thing, birds are found earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs they are supposed to have descended from," Ruben said. "That's a pretty serious problem, and there are other inconsistencies with the bird-from-dinosaur theories." But one of the primary reasons many scientists kept pointing to birds as having descended from dinosaurs was similarities in their lungs," Ruben said. "However, 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. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/jerry_coynes_c067021.html News for the Birds - May 7, 2014 Excerpt: Yanornis is called an ancestor of birds, but PhysOrg reported on April 18 that a fossil found in China shows that “the digestive system of the ancestors to modern birds was essentially modern in all aspects.",,, But if it was already “essentially modern” in the ancestors, and already integrated with the flight systems, where is the time for natural selection to have supposedly produced it? http://crev.info/2014/05/news-for-the-birds-2/ Stasis in Pleistocene mammals and birds - Oct. 26, 2012 - David Tyler Excerpt: "In four of the biggest climatic-vegetational events of the last 50 million years, the mammals and birds show no noticeable change in response to changing climates. No matter how many presentations I give where I show these data, no one (including myself) has a good explanation yet for such widespread stasis despite the obvious selective pressures of changing climate. ,,, "Such stasis, along with the examples documented from nearly all other Pleistocene mammals and birds, argues that organisms are not as responsive to environmental change as classical neo-Darwinian theory predicts." http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2012/10/26/stasis_in_pleistocene_mammals_and_birds Darwin 'Wrong': Species Living Together Does Not Encourage Evolution - December 20, 2013 Excerpt: Charles Darwin's theory of evolution set out in the Origin of Species has been proven wrong by scientists studying ovenbirds. Researchers at Oxford University found that species living together do not evolve differently to avoid competing with one another for food and habitats – a theory put forward by Darwin 150 years ago. The ovenbird is one of the most diverse bird families in the world and researchers were looking to establish the processes causing them to evolve. Published in Nature, the research compared the beaks, legs and songs of 90% of ovenbird species. Findings showed that while the birds living together were consistently more different than those living apart, this was the result of age differences. Once the variation of age was accounted for, birds that live together were more similar than those living separately – directly contradicting Darwin's view. The species that lived together had beaks and legs no more different than those living apart,,, ,,,there is no shortage of evidence for competition driving divergent evolution in some very young lineages. But we found no evidence that this process explains differences across a much larger sample of species.,,, He said that the reasons why birds living together appear to evolve less are "difficult to explain",, http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/darwin-wrong-species-living-together-does-not-encourage-evolution-1429927
bornagain77
July 10, 2014
July
07
Jul
10
10
2014
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT
I very much doubt Marcus Ross believes birds evolved from dinosaurs. To critique a theory you have to argue within the context it's presented. It seems that's all he's doing here, and noting that one criticism isn't as nearly strong as we'd hoped it was.JoeCoder
July 10, 2014
July
07
Jul
10
10
2014
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT
The juvenility seen in Scansoriopteryx is clearly post-skeletal development. the ostrich attains its adult skeleton while still in the egg. This animal is on the verge of adulthood but retaining some signs of juvenility. Of the half dozen or so phylogenetic analyses of scansoriopterids this question has never bothered anyone, and almost all reached the same conclusion, that scansoriopterids are very close to the base of Aves. Certainly the incomplete perforation of the acetabulum, the femoral head and deltopectoral crest are those of the adult. Interestingly, the pre-dinosaurian condition of the acetabulum is also seen in basal forms like Anchiornis, and even Microraptor, thought by most to be theropods! Probably early branches of the avian radiation. The elongate outer digit is anomalous, but animals can’t make a living as generalized ancestors, so one must expect some specializations. However, it looks like even the digital phalanges aren’t dinosaurian. All in all, Scansoriopteryx is a good “standup” and close approximation for avian ancestry.Starbuck
July 10, 2014
July
07
Jul
10
10
2014
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT
The juvenility seen in Scansoriopteryx is clearly post-skeletal development, so that what you see is essentially like that of the adult. The ostrich attains its adult skeleton while still in the egg. This animal is on the verge of adulthood but retaining some signs of juvenility. Of the half dozen or so phylogenetic analyses of scansoriopterids this question has never bothered anyone, and almost all reached the same conclusion, that scansoriopterids are very close to the base of Aves. Certainly the incomplete perforation of the acetabulum, the femoral head and deltopectoral crest are those of the adult. Interestingly, the pre-dinosaurian condition of the acetabulum is also seen in basal forms like Anchiornis, and even Microraptor, thought by most to be theropods! Probably early branches of the avian radiation. The elongate outer digit is anomalous, but animals can’t make a living as generalized ancestors, so one must expect some specializations. However, it looks like even the digital phalanges aren't dinosaurian. All in all, Scansoriopteryx is a good “standup” and close approximation for avian ancestry.Starbuck
July 10, 2014
July
07
Jul
10
10
2014
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT
I think there are two different personalities sharing Marcus Ross's mind: one is a well-qualified paleontologist, and the other a young-earth creationsist. The one or the other (or maybe some superposition of the two) pops up depending on the audience he addresses. It's evidently Ross the Vertebrate Paleontologist who's talking above. I almost completely agree with him. He might have emphasised the fact that the "non-cursorial, therefore non-dino" argument is a straw man. No paleontologist I have read claims that no theropods were tree-climbers and so the evolution of birds can't have been "trees down".Piotr
July 10, 2014
July
07
Jul
10
10
2014
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT
Wait a minute. His credentials say: Assistant Director, Center for Creation Studies I assuming he is a creationist and he actually believes that birds evolved from dinosaurs? Isn't this grounds to get him kicked out of Liberty University, the Center for Creation Studies and whatever evangelical church he goes to?JLAfan2001
July 10, 2014
July
07
Jul
10
10
2014
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT

Leave a Reply