BreakPoint with Charles Colson
Dinosaur to Bird: Or, Theory Before Evidence
Commentary #010514 - 5/14/2001
This article on Colson's site

Once again, a fossil has made the headlines. The New York Times even put the story on Page One, above the fold. Why all the excitement? Well, the fossil, a so-called "feathered dinosaur" found in northeastern China, appeared to provide strong support for the theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

Well, how about a short exercise in critical thinking? Let's apply some skeptical analysis to the scientists' claims, to see what we can learn about separating fact from theory.

First, unlike the last feathered-dinosaur "discovery" -- which turned out to be a hoax, embarrassing the National Geographic Society -- this fossil appears genuine. About the size of a duck, the fossil belongs to a group of dinosaurs called dromaeosaurs. What's remarkable about this new fossil is its downy covering -- including some structures that appear to resemble feathers.

Well those are the facts, but there's one more rather important piece of data you may not have seen in the Times. It was found in geological formations in China dated to 125-130 million years ago. Now, why is that important?

Well, according to the standard dating of paleontologists, the earliest-known bird, Archaeopteryx, is actually much older than that: almost 20 million years older, in fact. But if dromaeosaurs were more primitive than the creature long thought to be the first bird, how can they show up 15 to 20 million years later in the fossil record? How could one bird live earlier than its grandmother?

Here's where theory trumps evidence. The evolutionary biologists who advocate the dinosaur-to-bird story say that the geological time sequence doesn't matter. Paleontologist Henry Gee, for instance, admits that "it seems odd, even outrageous, to claim that birds such as Archaeopteryx descended from dromeaosaurs." The fossil is wrong, in other words. But, so what? Gee shrugs off the problem.

He says that "stratigraphic order" -- namely, the geological sequence in which fossils appear -- "is no barrier to any possible hypothesis of relationship." Dino-to-bird advocates like Gee start with the assumption that birds evolved from non-birds. So the only question is, What group of non-birds looks most like birds?

Dromeaosaurs are the leading candidates, despite the fact that they occur too late in the fossil record. If evolutionary theory tells you to look for someone to play the role of grandma, it doesn't seem to matter if she turns up millions of generations later than her grandchildren. And you see, that's precisely the problem.

Skeptic ought to ask, What's really behind this dino-to-bird theory? If scientists can just step over an issue like stratigraphic order, we have to wonder what other difficulties are being shoved aside. And there are many such difficulties.

A vocal minority of evolutionary biologists completely reject the dino-to-bird theory, because they find it implausible that ground-dwelling creatures like dromaeosaurs could ever evolve the behaviors and structures needed for flight.

So what's the moral in all this? We need to dig into the details whenever we hear claims about "proof" of naturalistic evolution. Science can be an important tool, but science also needs skeptics to keep it honest. And so does the New York Times.

For further reference:

Gee, Henry. In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life. New York: The Free Press, 1999; pp. 182-183.

Padian, Kevin and Luis M. Chiappe. "The Origin and Early Evolution of Birds." Biological Reviews 73 (1998):1-42.

Sues, Hans-Dieter. "Ruffling Feathers." Nature 410 (2001):1036-1037.

Feathered Dinosaur Fossils Are Unearthed in China
By John Noble Wilford - April 26, 2001
This article on the NYT site

Paleontologists have discovered in China a fossil dinosaur with what are reported to be clear traces of feathers from head to tail, the most persuasive evidence so far, scientists say, that feathers predated the origin of birds and that modern birds are descendants of dinosaurs.

Entombed in fine-grained rock, the unusually well-preserved skeleton resembles that of a duck with a reptilian tail, altogether about three feet in length. Its head and tail are edged with the imprint of downy fibers. The rest of the body, except for bare lower legs, shows distinct traces of tufts and filaments that appear to have been primitive feathers. On the backs of its short forelimbs are patterns of what look like modern bird feathers.

Other dinosaur remains with what appear to be featherlike traces have been unearthed in recent years, but nothing as complete as this specimen, paleontologists said. Etched in the rock like a filigree decoration surrounding the skeleton are imprints of where the down and feathers appear to have been.

The 130-million-year-old fossils were found a year ago by farmers in Liaoning Province in northeastern China. After an analysis by Chinese and American researchers, the fossil animal was identified as a dromaeosaur, a small fast-running dinosaur related to velociraptor. The dinosaurs belonged to a group of two-legged predators known as advanced theropods.

The findings are described in the journal Nature today by the discovery team led by Dr. Ji Qiang, director of the Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences in Beijing, and Dr. Mark A. Norell, chairman of paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History in Manhattan. The specimen, on loan from China, went on display yesterday at the museum and is to undergo CAT scans here.

"This is the specimen we've been waiting for," Dr. Norell said in a statement. "It makes it indisputable that a body covering similar to feathers was present in nonavian dinosaurs."

These forelimbs were too short to have supported wings, Dr. Norell said in an interview, and so it was flightless. But some of bone structure — notably the furcula, or wishbone, and the three forward-pointing toes — bears similarities to that of birds. Other recent discoveries of birdlike dinosaurs and dinosaurlike birds have encouraged support for the theory of a dinosaur-bird ancestral link.

But a few dissenters, particularly ornithologists, continue to dispute that. They argue that birds evolved from some earlier, yet undiscovered, reptile. The critics said previously found fossils associating featherlike traces with dinosaur skeletons were too mixed up to determine whether the feathers belonged to the dinosaur and not to a primitive bird buried about the same time.

Those dissenters said the marks that were being interpreted as feathers in the new fossil could be impressions from the dinosaur's skin.

The Chinese and American researchers said the new find enabled them to see with microscopes how the feathers and downy fluff were attached to the body. A similar, though not as complete, fossil find reported last month by another Chinese-American team, including Dr. Richard Owen Prum, a paleontologist at the University of Kansas who specializes in bird fossils, appeared to reinforce the conclusion that some theropod dinosaurs indeed had feathers.

Accordingly, most paleontologists consider the case for such a dinosaur-bird link now virtually airtight. Dr. Hans-Dieter Sues, a dinosaur paleontologist at the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto, said the two discoveries from Liaoning Province "further strengthen the case for the theropod-bird connection, but also establish that feathers originated and eventually diversified in nonflying nonavian theropod dinosaurs."

Not that these particular dinosaurs were ancestors of birds. But they may be descendants of the ancestors. Some dromaeosaurs evolved earlier than birds. Feathered flightless birds are known to have existed as early as the 145-million-year-old archaeopteryx, found in Germany in the 19th century.

Dr. Norell said the feathered fossil showed that there was "a more general distribution of feathers than in birds alone." Studying theropods that lived later than the first birds, he explained, should provide insights into bird evolution, just as related "chimps and gorillas and lemurs help us understand human evolution."

In a commentary that accompanied the journal report, Dr. Sues wrote that because feathers have to have been present before the origin of birds and flight, they "clearly evolved for some purpose other than flight, perhaps thermal insulation or behavioral display (or both)."

The Chinese and American researchers favored the idea that the feathers served to keep the dinosaurs warm. In that case, the discovery seemed to support the theory that some predatory dinosaurs were warm blooded like modern birds rather than cold blooded like other reptiles.

They would have thus required something like feather covering to maintain their body temperature. "Insulation implies higher metabolic rates than for the average reptile," said Peter Makovicky, a paleontologist at the American Museum who is completing Ph.D. studies at Columbia and has made a detailed study of the specimen.

The region where the skeleton was found has some of the world's richest fossil beds, and they have been actively explored over the last decade. From 145 million to 120 million years ago, the land was covered by many lakes, and erupting volcanoes rained down fine ash. That probably buried animals as soon as they died, increasing the chance of their remains fossilizing and surviving the ages.

Two other dromaeosaurs have been recovered from those fossil beds. One, sinornithosaurus, a small dinosaur was first described in 1999, and microraptor, the smallest known theropod, was found last year.

But one specimen, reported in the early 1990's, turned out to be a hoax, a clever composite of bones and some featherlike imprints.

Researchers said they were sure that the latest find was genuine. The skeleton was embedded in two slabs sliced from the mudstone. Close examination, the scientists said, show that both sides "match up perfectly," a state that would be extremely difficult to fake.

The new find, Mr. Makovicky noted, appears to have been a juvenile. Its oversize head, relative to its body, suggests that the animal was not fully grown.

Although most of the skeleton's covering appears to be down or filaments, suggesting primitive feathers, the forelimbs had traces of feathers with a herringbone pattern, similar to those found in bird feathers.

If nothing else, Dr. Norell said, the discovery "shows us that advanced theropod dinosuars may have looked more like weird birds than giant lizards."

You can see how Colson is completely misrepresenting the NYT article when he implies that scientists are accepting new theories about the evolution of bird religiously and without question ("Science can be an important tool, but science also needs skeptics to keep it honest. And so does the New York Times.").

The NYT article clearly takes a very tentative tone, even mentioning alternative theories and nay-sayers (incidentally, none of the nay-sayers are evangelists). It even states, "Not that these particular dinosaurs were ancestors of birds. But they may be descendants of the ancestors." It states that some scientists dispute that the feathers are actually feathers at all. But from Colson's article it makes it appear that everyone is single-mindedly gung-ho about the discovery.

I was perplexed by the absence of Colson's most damming quote from his newsletter: Colson writes: "Paleontologist Henry Gee, for instance, admits that 'it seems odd, even outrageous, to claim that birds such as Archaeopteryx descended from dromeaosaurs.' The fossil is wrong, in other words. But, so what? Gee shrugs off the problem. He says that 'stratigraphic order' -- namely, the geological sequence in which fossils appear -- 'is no barrier to any possible hypothesis of relationship.'"

This is the part that makes scientists look like stupid religious zealots. But Henry Gee is not even mentioned in the NYT article! Colson sure makes it seem like the quote was from the article. This is especially irritating as Colson ends the piece with an admonition that scientists and the New York Times need to heed skeptics.

At the end of Colson's newsletter one finds the real source of the Gee quote: "Gee, Henry. In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life. New York: The Free Press, 1999; pp. 182-183." A quick web search shows that Henry Gee himself does not believe in evolution in the classical sense--he has invented something called cladism to explain life. So why does Colson hold him up as an example of a scientist blindly trumpeting evolution? Colson's either misinformed or lying.

It is likely Gee's quote was not commenting on the recent discovery at all (unless Colson called him up and interviewed him). It appears Colson must have extracted a quote from Gee's book and pasted it in the newsletter so it seems like Gee is commenting on the recent find. A reporter would be fired for that, but I guess it is ok as long as one is trying to save souls.

And why do you think Colson gives plenty of detailed bibliographic info on his sources, but does not mention anything specific (like title, date, etc.) about the NYT article the whole newsletter is written about? So people will not be able to easily look it up and prove him wrong!

He probably knows that after a short time NYT articles in full-text form no longer appear online (you have to pay to see them--the exception to this is if one bookmarked the original link--which luckily I did). It is therefore not surprising that the newsletter came out immediately after the NYT article was no longer accessible. Readers would have to take Colson's word about what was in the NYT article.

Colson is clearly not a dependable source for informed viewpoints. While occasionally making some interesting points, typically his columns are vague and purposely misleading. And no, I don't think you or I are similarly biased. We don't have ministries to support.