Evolutionary Myths Regarding G. Wucaii
Harun YahyaA report titled “Oldest T. rex relative unveiled” was carried on the BBC website on 8 February, 2006. The report dealt with a fossil discovery linked to Tyrannosaurus rex, the largest known carnivorous dinosaur. The BBC reported evolutionist scenarios based on the revelation of various similarities between the fossil and T. rex as if they were scientific fact, blindly engaging in Darwinist propaganda claiming that the fossil in question was the earliest ancestor of T. rex. Following lines show why the evolutionist claim in question is no more than a fairy tale and that the BBC’s support for these myths consists of an error based on preconceptions.
The Guanlong wucaii discovery
The fossil in question, known as Guanlong wucaii to scientists, was discovered in Junggar in the north-west corner of China and belongs to a species estimated to be 160 million years old. This specimen belongs to a species much smaller in comparison to T. rex, which was 13 metres long and 5 metres tall. One interesting feature of the skull of this dinosaur, which was some 3 metres in height, is a crown-like structure on its head.
Scientists have invented a fictitious evolutionary link between G. wucaii and T. rex, which lived some 90 million years after it, and suggest that G. wucaii is T. rex’s oldest relative.
Claims of familial relationship: evolutionist dogma
Since they are made by scientists, one might imagine the claims regarding a family connection made in this report to be a powerful link based on scientific evidence. Yet anyone believing this would be mistaken, because that impression, which was the intention of the BBC report, actually stems from the dogmas of the theory of evolution rather than from the scientific facts.
Since they have adopted the theory of evolution as a dogma, scientists who defend the claim in question also favor the dogma that all dinosaurs are descended from a common ancestor, and thus accept the hypothesis that they are all related to one another. They interpret the paleontological findings they obtain from that perspective and see what they are looking for in anatomical similarities between different fossil species.
One can show the mindset that applies the dogmatic perspective in question to fossils through the words of an evolutionist. Gareth Nelson from the American Museum of Natural History describes this mindset that interprets fossils according to the requirements of the theory of evolution by citing scenarios concerning the origin of man:
“We"ve got to have some ancestors. We"ll pick those.” Why? “Because we know they have to be there, and these are the best candidates.” That"s [the interrelation of fossils with the missing link concept] by and large the way it has worked. I am not exaggerating. (Nelson, Gareth [Chairman and Curator of the Department of Herpetology and Ichthyology, American Museum of Natural History, New York], interview, Bethell T., The Wall Street Journal, December 9, 1986, in Johnson P.E., Darwin on Trial, InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove Ill., Second Edition, 1993, p76)
From the scientific point of view there is no reliable way of knowing whether one fossil species is connected to another. Henry Gee, an evolutionist palaeontologist and editor of Nature, is one of those who have effectively revealed the unscientific aspects of lineal descriptions. Such relationships are “inventions” existing in the minds of evolutionists. Gee writes the following on the subject in his book In Search of Deep Time: …no fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way, whether we are talking about the extinction of the dinosaurs, or chains of ancestry and descent. Everything we think we know about the causal relations of events in Deep Time has been invented by us, after the fact.”(Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time, Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, The Free Press, A division of Simon & Schuster Inc., 1999, p. 113)
As can be seen, the interpretation of similarities between T. rex and G. wucaii as common structures left over from an evolutionary process is a “choice” stemming from devotion to evolutionary dogma, but one of no objective scientific reliability. A truly scientific evaluation requires all the possibilities to be taken into account, with no element of preconception being admitted. In fact, the common structures between T. rex and G. wucaii show that they were created by a common Creator; in other words, the situation can be explained in terms of creation.
Anatomical similarities are not proof of evolution
In the BBC report G. wucaii is described, like T. rex, as having sharp teeth and similar muscle scars on its hips, and as probably ran on two legs, again like T. rex. However, these structures that evolutionists interpret as shared evolutionary features actually, of course, constitute no evidence for the common ancestor hypothesis. For example, the fact that different makes of car have spark plugs does not prove that spark plugs or cars came into being by way of evolution. In the same way, the fact that T. rex and G. wucaii share various anatomical features does not prove that these two species evolved by chance through aimless natural phenomena.
The BBC’s intermediate form error
In the BBC report G. wucaii is placed between Tyrannosaurus and coelurosaurs on the basis of certain anatomical characteristics in the skull and pelvic bone, thus attempting to give the impression that G. wucaii is an intermediate form between the two. However, this claim actually shows the weakness of the evolutionary link alleged, rather than supporting it. Because according to the assumptions of Darwinism, a great many intermediate forms must have existed in the 100 million year time frame between the two species. Evolutionists maintain that this long period applies to species representing only the ends of the chain, leaving a huge gap in the middle.
It is evident that setting out a small number of species on the basis of particular features – and particularly species separated by such a long space of time – does not prove that one evolved from the other. The motorcycle may be posited as an “intermediate form” between the bicycle and the motor car. But setting these out one after the other does not prove that vehicles evolved from one another through small and random changes.
Since the theory of evolution maintains that there was slow and gradual change, there should have been countless intermediate forms between species and the fossil record should be overflowing with the transitional forms hypothesized by evolutionists. Yet excavations over the last 120 years or so have dashed all evolutionist hopes. David B. Kitts from the University of Oklahoma, School of Geology and Geophysics admits this:
Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them. (David B. Kitts (School of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma), “Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory,” Evolution, Vol. 28, September 1974, p. 467).
Where should G. wucaii be placed in the fossil record?
Since some people are unaware of the information provided by palaeontology with regard to the emergence of species they may be taken in by the claims they see made in the BBC report, based on “expert” opinions. The fact is, however, that with this impression it gives based on this single fossil, the BBC is running counter to the information provided by hundreds of millions of fossils. The picture revealed by the fossil records is not any intermediate forms or evolutionary relationships, but, on the contrary, species appearing suddenly, with all their unique characteristics already fully formed.
Tom Kemp, curator of Zoological Collections, Oxford University Museum of Natural History summarizes this general picture in his 1999 book Fossils and Evolution:
In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present and practically no known stem-group forms.” (TS Kemp, (Curator of Zoological Collections), Fossils and Evolution, Oxford University, Oxford Univ. Press, p. 246, 1999)
G. wucaii, one of the latest fossils added to the record, is a species that appears suddenly, with no ancestral groups and with all its perfect structures. Those who ignore the general picture and seek to develop evolutionary relationships regarding this fossil must be regarded as the representatives of a blind belief, far removed from any objectivity.
Conclusion:
The theory of evolution is an outdated theory born out of a need to shape the origin of living things according to materialist philosophy. It was able to spread due to the insufficiency of means of scientific research up until the mid-20th century, and has survived down to the present day thanks to ideological backing. However, modern science has shown, with findings from many disciplines, that living things exhibit a complexity that cannot have come into being by chance, thus demolishing the theory. The science of palaeontology has also proven that living things emerged suddenly and fully formed, in other words that they were created by God.
Our advice to the BBC is that it abandon its blind devotion to this outdated theory and admit the fact that God created all living things by putting an end to its unscientific propaganda.
