back

The truth about the Chinese fossils from Liaoning Province

These layers also contain a multitude of other small mammals, birds, fish, insects, invertebrates, trees and flowering plants, many of which are still with us today including cockroaches and dragon flies. Attempts at dating these layers have also proved controversial. Biostratigraphic analysis shows conflicting evidence, as does radiometric dating with a previously identified age as late Jurassic instead of early Cretaceous. Some of this evidence has previously been discussed in the latest CSM Pamphlet 358 and in a previous news item Feathered Dinosaurs and the Disneyfication of Palaeontology

Sinosauropteryx prima

One of the first dinosaurs to appear with apparent feathers was Sinosauropteryx prima a typical small theropod dinosaur, but with the appearance of a line of ‘proto-feathers’ along the spine of the animal. [1] The appearance of these fibres along the animal’s back allowed researchers to wrongly name it as the first Chinese winged reptile. However, in other respects this animal found in the Liaoning layers is almost identical to the late Jurassic Compsognathus found in the Solnhofen quarries of Germany. In fact studies have shown that the line of ‘proto-feathers’ is really no more than collagen fibres, often referred to as dino-fuzz, and possibly existing beneath the skin. Other evidence shows that Sinosauropteryx prima had a pelvis and lung physiology typical of other theropods and even the present day crocodile. [2] Crocodiles have diaphragm muscles that attach from the pubic bone to the liver with the diaphragm directly in contact with the liver. The piston like movement of the diaphragm muscles causes the lungs to inflate and deflate in typical bellows-like action. Birds are markedly different. In birds suprapubic muscles attach from the rearward extending pubic bone to the base of the tail. These muscles cause the pelvic bone to rotate and lift the spine in front of the pelvis causing air to enter the rear air sacs. Birds also have a unidirectional flow of air through their lungs instead of a bellows like lung system, and thousands of tiny highly vascular septae or faveoli, which again is markedly different from the far less efficient septate reptile lungs. Both reptile and bird lungs appear perfectly designed although they are markedly different, and the bird lung could not have evolved from the reptile lung. In fact Ruben notes correctly that any transitional form would have suffered a hernia. [3] Sinosauropteryx prima is a fully formed theropod dinosaur with features typical of crocodilian reptiles.

Confuciusornis sanctus

Confuciusornis sanctus was identified as a beaked bird without teeth and was initially dated to the late Jurassic period. [4] Numerous fossils of this bird have been found suggesting that it flew in flocks, and in everyway this small bird, with clearly identifiable wings and beak is identical to modern birds. [5] Many other types of birds have been recovered from these layers also. The dating of this bird initially gave it the same late Jurassic age of 145 Mya as the German Archaeopteryx fossil found in 1861. Of course this date presented problems for evolutionists as Archaeopteryx is widely considered to be the best evidence evolutionists have of a transitional dinosaur to bird form. Finding Confuciusornis sanctus as a complete bird in the late Jurassic would nullify Archaeopteryx as a transitional form. It is hard to escape the conclusion that partly for this reason these late Jurassic layers were reclassified as early Cretaceous.

Archaeoraptor fraud

In the following few years a rather strange animal appeared. Archaeoraptor came into view with an announcement in National Geographic magazine article in November 1999. [6] This fossil was claimed to have both bird and dinosaur features with the impression of feathers. However, the fossil later turned out to be a forgery consisting of at least two and perhaps five separate fossils. [7] Dr Xu Xing, a Chinese researcher, identified the front half as a fish eating bird named as Yanornis martini with close similarities to some modern birds. The rear part of the fossil fitted as a mirror image to another reptile fossil found in a private collection in China. The tail part of the fake fossil was subsequently stated as belonging to an extinct animal called Microraptor zhorianus. [8]

Microraptor gui

Microraptor gui was presented to the world in a Nature article, by the same Dr. Xu Xing who uncovered the Archaeoraptor fraud, and later identified Microraptor zhorianus. [9] Microraptor gui was depicted as a four-winged dinosaur that used flight feathers for gliding and found in the same layers as Confuciusornis sanctus and Sinosauropteryx prima. However, Microraptor gui has all the appearance of an invented Chinese Dragon and is surprisingly similar to a 1926 drawing of the hypothetical early bird Proavis drawn by the artist Gerhard Heilman.

But as it turns out, all is not what it seems and five of the six specimens presented in the Nature paper with apparent feathers, were bought from dealers from the same area of Liaoning province where the Archaeoraptor fake was made and purchased. This in itself raises serious doubts about such finds. The other fossil found by the researchers in Liaoning Province that was claimed to have impressions of feather-like features had nothing on it that could be positively identified as feathers. The more likely scenario is that the impressions are formed by collagen fibres, or dino-fuzz. The researchers also admitted that some of the pieces of rock from the purchased fossils had been glued together wrongly, again suggesting the possibility of malpractice.

Not all evolutionists have accepted the evidence for dinosaur to bird evolution found in Liaoning Province being aware of the numerous real birds that have been found there. One noted dissenting evolutionist to this evidence is Alan Feduccia, who commented on the Archaeoraptor find, that;

‘Archaeoraptor is just the tip of the iceberg. There are scores of fake fossils out there, and they have cast a dark shadow over the whole field. When you go to these fossil shows, it's difficult to tell which ones are fake and which ones are not. I have heard there is a fake-fossil factory in northeast China, in Liaoning Province, near the deposits where many of these recent alleged feather dinosaurs were found.’ [10]

Also Storrs Olsen, a Curator of Birds at the Smithsonian Institute, National Museum of Natural History comments that this fabrication of evidence is becoming ‘one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age.’ He commented that there exists

‘…a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties in their program...’ [11]

Dating Yixian and Jiufotang Formations of Liaoning Province

Biostratigraphical dating

Disagreement exists over the dating of the layers in Liaoning Province. A number of separate techniques have given differing dates, but the earlier consensus for these layers in Liaoning Province was for a late Jurassic period with the Jurassic-Cretaceous boundary placed about 135 Myr, although this boundary has subsequently been revised to 144 Myr. Not only has the boundary been revised to an earlier period, but the Liaoning layers have also subsequently been revised to a later period as well.

One method used in dating these layers involves biostratigraphical correlations, which is a comparison of the types of animals found in different sedimentary formations. However, this is a highly subjective measurement with some objections and disagreements raised by palaeontologists. Some taxa for instance are considered to have a stratigraphical resolution that is too low, other taxa are difficult to diagnose or differentiate from other forms, other objections are that the dating methods may depend on vertebrates that are of limited biostratigraphical utility. [12] However, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that such objections as these to previous biostratigraphical correlations in these layers are raised on the basis of convenience alone. It certainly looks as if types of animals are used or disregarded on the basis of their usefulness to support a particular theory, instead of usefulness to support the correct dating. As noted one animal that does appear in the Liaoning layers is Sinosauropteryx prima an almost identical theropod to the late Jurassic Compsognathus found in the Solnhofen quarries of Germany.

The strata of East Asia now claimed as being early Cretaceous, infact contains flora and fauna from both the late Triassic and early to mid Jurassic period including a Tritylodon found in Japan. At the other end some animals have been found that are more typically associated with the later Cretaceous periods, such as tyrannosaurs and oviraptor theropods. Palaeontologists struggle to account for such diversity of animals and plants that are found in one region, and such conflicting evidence is contrary to existing theories of evolutionary progression. The reason given for such diversity is that isolation allowed relic species to survive, and then once isolation was breached, the region became a centre for later diversification. More likely it demonstrates that such strict classification of layers into separate ages is wrong and that all the layers were laid down together wiping out a previous well-established and diverse ecosystem.

Radiometric dating

The earlier radiometric dating methods for this region confirmed a late Jurassic age, which was in agreement with the prevailing biostratigraphic evidence that was broadly accepted at the time. Typical dates arrived at are given below. [13]

⁴⁰K - ⁴⁰Ar; 137 ± 7 Myr

⁸⁷Rb – ⁸⁷Sr; 143 ± 4 Myr

⁴⁰Ar - ³⁹Ar; 145.3 ± 4.4 Myr

Combined isochron 147.1; ± 0.18 Myr

However, this dating evidence was subject to revision in 1999. [14] The first two dates given above are still considered broadly acceptable because they lie within the new early Cretaceous boundary. But the last two methods are now rejected because it is believed that samples used may have altered diagenetically or may have contained trapped argon. Argon is an inert gas and may migrate through rock layers, and may escape faster from some rocks than others. It is though extremely difficult or even impossible to assess after the event which rock samples contain the correct amount of argon for radiometric dating. The ICR/CRS RATE team have also provided strong evidence that radiometric dating methods are wholly unreliable to determine age. [15] For instance studies have shown that not enough helium, another inert gas, has escaped from zircons in the timeframe given, suggesting that the rock layers are much younger than claimed. The later revised dating for Liaoning Province gives ages that are consistent with an early Cretaceous time frame. [16]

⁴⁰Ar - ³⁹Ar; 124.6 ± 0.1 Myr

⁴⁰Ar - ³⁹Ar; 125.0 ± 0.18 Myr

⁴⁰Ar - ³⁹Ar 128.4 ± 0.2 Mya

²³⁵U – ²⁰⁷Pb 125.2 ± 0.9 Mya from zircons

²³⁵U – ²⁰⁷Pb 121.1 ± 0.2 Mya from zircons

Earlier dates supported the biostratigraphical correlation of late Jurassic fossils; the later recorded dates support the biostratigraphy correlation of the early Cretaceous. In both cases it seems as if dates are found to fit the accepted prevailing biostratigraphical findings, and are not found on the basis of all findings. If we take all these dates into account we have a range of between 121.1 Mya and 147.1 Mya suggesting early Cretaceous to late Jurassic. By averaging the dates we arrive at a date of about 133 Mya, very close to the earlier claimed Jurassic – Cretaceous boundary.

Conclusions

Proposed dates can be categorised into earlier and later results, and not surprisingly the dates given by the radiometric dating support the prevailing biostratigraphical assumptions, firstly for a late Jurassic period, then for an early Cretaceous era. However, biostratigraphical evidence is also equivocal with taxa from both earlier and later periods present, in fact possibly ranging from the Triassic and mid Jurassic to the late Cretaceous. Taking all biostratigraphical evidence from Southeast Asia into account shows how unreliable it is to subdivide the geological column into different ages. Radiometric dating has also proved inconsistent with equivocal biostratigraphical evidence determining the acceptable age. There is a degree of circularity in this reasoning here with the acceptable evolutionary theory determining how the observational evidence is interpreted. Such evidence is then used to support the acceptable theory. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the re-dating was considered necessary because modern birds were found with identical ages to Archaeopteryx. Fully formed modern birds are also found along side fully formed theropods nullifying claimed dinosaur to bird evolution. Comparisons also show that Sinosauropteryx prima is an almost identical reptilian animal to the late Jurassic Compsognathus.

Not only have dates been revised to overcome problems with evolutionary theory, but false evidence has been gathered together and publicised widely by leading evolutionists to give the impression that Liaoning Province is full of transitional dinosaur to bird fossils. Even some leading evolutionists have recognised that this is no more than a grand scientific hoax. The truth is that theropods and birds appear fully formed in these layers and that claimed transitional forms have been shown to be fraudulent.

Layers in Liaoning Province consist of sandstone, conglomerates together with interspersed volcanic ash deposits and basalt. All of this is consistent with a global flood involving tectonic and volcanic activity wiping out a single ecosystem. This ecosystem included animals previously identified as existing in both earlier and later times. All of this evidence in Liaoning Province is consistent with the Flood of Noah as recorded in the Bible.

References

[1] Ji Qiang & Ji Shuan, (1996) On discovery of the earliest bird fossil in China and the origin of birds. Chinese Geology 10 (233): 30-33.

[2] Ruben J.A., Jones, T.D., Geist, N.R., Hillenius, W. J., (1997) Lung Structure and Ventilation in Theropod Dinosaurs and Early Birds, Science, Vol 278, Nov 14th, pp1267-1270

[3] Ibid.

[4] Hou. L.H., Zhou Z., Martin L.D., Fedducia A. (1995) A beaked bird from the Jurassic of China, Nature 377 616-618.

[5] Carl. C., Swisher, III et al., (1999) Cretaceous age for the feather dinosaurs of Liaoning, China, Nature 400 pp.58-61 (based on Ar40-Ar39 dating)

[6] Sloan, C.P., Feathers for T. Rex?, National Geographic 196(5):98–107, November 1999.

[7] Hillary Mayall, Dino hoax was mainly made of ancient bird, National Geographic, 20th November 2002. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1120_021120_raptor.html

[8] Helen Briggs, ‘Piltdown’ bird fossil explained, BBC News Online, 29th March 2001. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1248079.stm

[9] Xu, X, et al., Four-winged dinosaurs from China, Nature 421 (6921): 335-340 23rd January 2003.

[10] Comments by Alan Feduccia; reported in Kathy, A. Svitil, ‘Plucking Apart the Dino-Birds,' Discover Magazine, Feb 2003.

[11] Olsen, S.L., Open letter to: Dr Peter Raven, Secretary, Committee for Research and Exploration, National Geographic Society, 1st November 1999.

[12] Zhou, A., Barrett, P.M., and Hilton, J., (2003) An exceptionally preserved Lower Cretaceous ecosystem, Nature 421, 807-814, 20th feb 2003

[13] Ibid.

[14] Carl. C., Swisher, III et al., (1999) Cretaceous age for the feather dinosaurs of Liaoning, China, Nature 400 pp.58-61 (based on Ar40-Ar39 dating)

[15] See for instance; Vardiman, L., Snelling., A.A., Chaffin, E.F., Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Vol.II, ICR, 2005

[16] Op. cit. Zhou Barrett and Hilton 2003

This message was added on Thursday 26th January 2006