The second week in April saw evolutionist publications engaging in intense speculation about a false intermediate form. Fossil belonging to the creature known as Tyrannosaurus rex was portrayed by evolutionists as a supposed intermediate form in the myth of dinosaurs turning into birds. In these days, when proofs revealing that evolution is a fantasy have emerged and Darwinism has irrevocably collapsed, this claim is a reflection of the terrible despair Darwinists are experiencing.
Tyrannosaurus rex, which entered the spotlight in 2003, was a carnivorous dinosaur that lived between 65 and 85 million years ago. Researchers investigating two Tyrannosaurus rex fossils claimed that there had been a change between their pelvic bones, for which reason they represented an example of the transition from dinosaurs to birds. This scientifically valueless claim was brought up as the product of the despair facing Darwinists at the time, and although it was devoid of any evidence, it continued to be raised in evolutionist publications.
The same fruitless endeavours are still going on today. According to the new claim regarding Tyrannosaurus rex, the bone tissue of the fossil in question has been investigated and protein identified in the 68-million-year-old tissue. Those making the claim have suggested that the protein discovered bears a close similarity to that in chicken bones and, as a result of this unfounded evolutionist claim, attempts have been made to portray this as evidence for the fictitious evolution from dinosaurs to birds. However, we are looking at a major deception here.
Mary Schweitzer, one of the authors of the report concerning the claim in question, had previously identified soft tissue in the creature’s bones. She sent the tissues she found to John Asara for spectometric analysis. Arara used microchromatography and liquid chromatography in order to separate the protein compounds. The result of this research was sequences ranging from 10 to 20 amino acids in length. The purified specimens were subsequently placed in an ozone trap and the amino acid sequences isolated and measured.
However, only seven strings were obtained. This sequence was compared with similar sequences from chickens, frogs, salamanders and other life forms. Asara subsequently reported that three of these seven sequences obtained were comparable to chicken collagen peptide, one to that in frogs and another to that in salamanders. Two were equated with various organisms. (Since living things live under the same conditions on Earth, consume the same nutrients, share the same minerals and have similar cells, it is inevitable that their protein squences should also resemble one another.) However, during the test in question proteins belonging to crocidiles and alligators, members of the same reptile class, were also investigated.1
The data obtained here were obviously far too narrow in range to permit any definitive conclusions. A small percentage of the sequence in question was equated with the chicken, but the protein structures of other living things from the same reptile class were not even included in the comparison. Therefore, this small percentage was portrayed through biased evolutionist analysis as an example of a supposed transition from reptiles to birds. This was obviously an attempt to avoid drawing any definitive conclusions and once again to adapt scientific research to evoloution. Brooks Hanson, one of the editors of Science magazine, said that the long-term aim in the extraction of protein sequences from extinct life forms was to test evolutionary links and processes. This comment makes it clear that the studies in question were intended to establish an evolutionary link between fossils rather than establishing their true ages and characteristics.
Indeed, attempts were made in this study to adapt the analyses to the desired results, and any possibility that might have done away with the chances of such a fictitious evolutionary connection was excluded (such as the failure to test other reptile proteins.)
The basis of the claim in question lies in the Darwinist panic caused by their despair, dilemma and lack of evidence. Once again they are trying to make science the servant of their own ideology and to produce evidence for evolution by way of biased research.
However, the biased analyses and hollow propaganda in the press merely discredit these ideological endeavours and the Darwinists engaging in them. Indeed, willingly or unwillingly, they in one way admit the scientific lack of evidence facing the theory of evolution. Because their efforts to produce even a single piece of evidence for the theory of evolution actually shows that there is no evidence to support the theory. If they think that the theory of evolution is a scientific fact, Darwinists should be able to come with countless pieces of evidence to prove it. But all the claims made in the century and a half since Darwin’s day have been based on just such worthless, biased and deceptive evidence. At the heart of the loud Darwinist comments being made in recent times lies the fact that even evolutionists have realised that the theory of evolution has collapsed.
The long speculation regarding Tyrannosaurus rex displays the terrible position in which Darwinists find themselves, as does all the other hollow evidence of evolution. So long as Darwinists refuse to accept that God has created all living things and refuse to see the proofs of creation in the world, these fruitless endeavours will continue, and they will continue to be discredited. The fact they have to accept is this: all entities are incomparable works of God, and each was created in a single moment at His command. There is not a single piece of evidence of evolution in the world. Persisting on this subject and trying to portray non-existent evidence as actually existing will not change that fact. Our advice to the publications in question is that they should not carry reports of no scientific worth or publish evolutionary conjecture.