back

Was Tyrannosaurus rex just a chicken?

Upon closer inspection it is apparent that the truth is far less conclusive than the bold headlines that went around the world, while the significance of the news that amino acid sequences have been found in dinosaur bone has been played down.[1] [2]

It is widely reported by the media that collagen proteins found in the thighbone of Tyrannosaurus rex remains are so similar to that of a chicken that it proves that birds have evolved from dinosaurs. One of the authors of the report is Mary Schweitzer who has previously found soft tissue in the dinosaur’s bone. Subsequently, she sent tissue to John Asara for spectrometric analysis. Asara used a combination of microchromatography and liquid chromatography to separate out the protein components. These were found to be about 10 to 20 amino acids long. The purified samples were then fed into an ion-trap mass spectrometer to measure and isolate the component amino acid sequences.[2]

However, it would seem that he was only able to obtain seven sequences (to put this into perspective, samples from a mastodon obtained 70 sequences). The Tyrannosaurus rex sequences were compared against similar sequences from chickens, frogs and salamanders and other animals. Asara comments that out of the seven sequences, three matched collagen peptide sequences from chickens, one matched a frog, while another matched a salamander. Two had matches with multiple organisms, including chickens and salamanders. Asara has also pointed out that the similarities between the dinosaur and chicken protein in this test may be due to the fact that protein from other animals, such as the reptilian crocodiles and alligators have not been sequenced yet, and were not tested in this experiment.[2]

It is clear from the evidence then that the data set is really too small to draw wider conclusions. The sequences only matched chicken protein in about 50 percent of the samples, and animals that you would expect to be closer to the Tyrannosaurus rex fossils were not tested. This research is clearly incomplete, yet bold headlines are used to promote evolution around the world, neglecting the expected standards of scientific caution. One editor at the Science journal, Brooks Hanson, commented that the long-standing goal of obtaining protein sequences in this way from extinct animals is for the purpose of testing evolutionary links and processes. [1] Not apparently for allowing the evidence to speak for itself or for establishing the true age of fossils.

How old is the fossil T-rex?

The fact that soft tissue and proteins have been recovered calls into question the age of the fossils and long-age dating. But Asara comments that ‘as far as the hypothesis that protein would not survive more than a million years…we have obviously proven that to be false.’[2] But this assumes that the prevailing age of the rock layers is true by default, which clearly has not been established. Schweitzer comments that the ‘pathways of cellular decay are well known for modern organisms. And extrapolations predict that all organics are going to be gone completely in 100,000 years, maximum.’[1] She comments that the latest finds contradict previous assumptions that preservation of dinosaur bones does not happen at the cellular and molecular level. [1]

Evidence from the Jehol Group in Liaoning Province of China show that modern birds and theropod dinosaurs are found side-by-side in the early Cretaceous or late Jurassic layers. [3] This nullifies the idea that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs in the late cretaceous. Birds and dinosaurs also have markedly different lung systems and the flight feather is unique and perfectly designed for flight, both of which show that birds could not have evolved from the dinosaur. [4]

Conclusions

The fact that amino acids have been found in dinosaur fossils is an amazing discovery. But clearly the direction of the research is driven by the theory of evolution where an evidential problem for evolution is turned into an advantage. Sadly such discoveries have to be put into the scientific straitjacket of evolution to get published and then it is used to indoctrinate the public. Instead the evidence is less conclusive than the headlines and points to a different conclusion. The real evidence shows that the fossils are much younger than claimed by uniformitarian assumptions.

Also see:

Astonishing T. Rex soft tissue find seriously challenges evolution

The truth about the Chinese fossils from Liaoning Province

Feathered dinosaurs and the Disneyfication of palaeontology

References

[1] Paul Rincon, Protein links T. rex to chickens, BBC news online, 12th April 2007 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6548719.stm

[2] Nikhil Swaminathan, Was T. Rex Really King of the Lizards—or Just a Big, Carnivorous Chicken? Scientific American, online, 12th April 2007 http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleId=E6F3568A-E7F2-99DF-36675A19705E275A&chanId=sa013&modsrc=most_popular

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

[4] 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

This message was added on Friday 13th April 2007