[Originally published as part 2 of Evolution, Not What They Once Said]
Continuing the story of the dinosaur fossil now call Borealopelta markmitchelli.
The official scientific report describing the fossil was finally published this year in the journal of Current Biology; entitled,
An Exceptionally Preserved Three-Dimensional Armored Dinosaur Reveals Insights into Coloration and Cretaceous Predator-Prey Dynamics.
Not only was the dinosaur fossil covered with skin, but the preserved soft tissues were also found to have fragile biomolecular proteins exquisitely preserved—stunning for those who believe this dinosaur is millions of years old.
Until this Red Deer River dinosaur finding, coloration had been “one of the mysteries surrounding the dinosaur.” Caleb Brown, leading author of the report published in August 2017, focused on the coloration of the dinosaur. He explains:
Here we describe a new, exquisitely three-dimensionally preserved… Borealopelta markmitchelli…. We identify melanin [a biomolecular protein] in the organic residues through mass spectroscopic analyses.
Jakob Vinther, an expert paleobiologist on coloration from the University of Bristol, has studied the world’s best fossils for signs of skin biomolecules such as pigments. After four days of delicately scraping, even he was astounded. The dinosaur is so well preserved that it “might have been walking around a couple of weeks ago,” Vinther explained in an interview with Gresko.
I’ve never seen anything like this.
The focus on coloration, however, side-steps the bigger questions posed by the fossil, including the issues of location and age. Vertebrate paleontologist Victoria Arbour at the Royal Ontario Museum in an interview with Greshko, noted:
There’s still a lot of healthy scientific skepticism around the interpretation of ancient biomolecules like pigments.
Victoria’s skepticism stems from one big reason—the level of preservation of such fragile proteins draws into question the validity of standard fossil dating techniques. There is no known scientific evidence to support the preservation of proteins for millions of years.
Natural Selection Problem
Borealopelta markmitchelli is a new species, not a transitional link, nor does it have any known transitional links. That’s a big problem for the theory of evolution. Writing for the National Geographic, Greshko summarized the species status in the title of the article
It’s Official: Stunning Fossil Is a New Dinosaur Species.
Canada’s new fossil only compounds the industry’s persistent dilemma of the lack of transitional links. Amazingly, the problem is not new to the evolution industry. Even Charles Darwin recognized the problem:
Their [species] not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty.
Transitional links were nowhere to be found in the Red Deer River Valley, just unlinked species. Darwin had envisioned natural selection acting to develop new species through “innumerable transitional links” with each link representing “slight, successive changes.”
Natural selection theory hinges on eventually finding “innumerable” transitional links. Importantly, Darwin included a method to falsify this theory of natural selection:
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ exists which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modiﬁcations, my theory would absolutely break down.
The glaring absence of transitional links is a blatant problem for Darwin’s theory of natural selection. Critics of Darwin’s theory are not hard to find. Suncor’s armored dinosaur discovery illustrates what Curator Emeritus Niles Eldridge of the American Museum of Natural History confided in 1995:
No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seemed to happen.
No transitional links—no evolution. Niles’ colleague at Columbia University, Stephen Jay Gould, who was awarded the Darwin-Wallace Medal in 2009, also emerged as one of the earliest evolution-insider critic:
The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our ability even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates, in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for the gradualistic account of evolution.
What the evolution industry desperately longs for is evidence for transitions between species—certainly not more unlinked new species. New species with no known transitional links only compound the agony of a dying theory.
Using Darwin’s own criteria, the theory of natural selection has been falsified once again, this time by Canada’s newest armored dinosaur fossil.
Evolution, not what they once said it should be.
This lone Red Deer Valley dinosaur points to the global flood Moses recorded in the Genesis account. It not only falsifies evolution’s uniformitarian deep-time theory, it decimates Darwin’s theory of natural selection.
Canada’s armored dinosaur should be studied in detail in schools and colleges. Evolution is not what they once said it was. Any guarantee of developing a cohesive theory of evolution has been decimated in a chaos of contradictions.
During the early twenty-first century, scientific advances have been progressively more brutal on the theory of evolution. A.N. Wilson, in his new book just released entitled Charles Darwin, Victorian Mythmaker, sides with the evolution critic movement:
I soon came to realize, when I started my reading, that in fact there is no consensus among scientists about the theory of evolution.
Albert Einstein, in an October 26, 1929 interview with the Saturday Evening Post said:
As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud, I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene. No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.
Despite unprecedented challenges since the publication of The Origin of Species to prove otherwise, collective twenty-first-century scientific evidence is best explained by the Genesis record written by Moses, undermining the theory of evolution.
Biological evolution exists only as a philosophy, not as a science.