|
Mystery as partially-preserved corpse resembling a DINOSAUR is found with flesh still on its bones in India 1 |
|---|
|
| Evolution in the News - January 2018 |
| by Do-While Jones |
Maybe reason is extinct.
Tim tipped us off to a Daily Mail article about a possible dinosaur corpse found in India. The reaction to the article is more instructive than the article itself. The article began with this title and picture.
|
Mystery as partially-preserved corpse resembling a DINOSAUR is found with flesh still on its bones in India 1 |
|---|
|
|
Let us be quick to point out that this was published in the Daily Mail which, in the United Kingdom, is not much different from the Mean Spirited Nothing But Criticism, Counterfeit News Networks (MSNBC, CNN) we have here in America. And, they didn’t say it was a dinosaur—they only said it RESEMBLED a dinosaur, which is true. It really does look something like a dinosaur.
If it really is a dinosaur, it is news—but if it was printed just to increase circulation, it is fake news.
We could find nothing about it in the respectable, professional literature to confirm it.
The Daily Mail said,
|
Dr Parag Madhukar Dhakate, a Conservator with the Indian Forest Service, said that the creature would remain an enigma until scientific analysis had been completed. He said: 'It looks like a dinosaur, but we can't say anything until all the tests are done.' … Dr Dhakate said the specimen had now been sent to Dr Bahadur Kotlia, a paleontologist at Kumaun University, for historical analysis. 2 |
We will keep searching the professional literature for articles containing the names, Dr. Parag Madhukar Dhakate and Dr. Bahadur Kotlia, and let you know if we find anything. Don’t hold your breath waiting.
The Daily Mail article ended by saying,
|
One initial suggestion is that it could be a genetically distorted animal foetus from within the goat family, but for now the mystery remains unsolved. 3 |
The uninformed comments after the article are much more enlightening than the article itself. By the time you read this, the comments may have been replaced by more recent comments; but here is a sampling of comments that followed the article on December 17. Bear in mind that none of these people had any more evidence than the picture. None of them had actually examined the dead animal—but they were certain they knew what it was.
|
Spike58: It’s pretty clear that it’s a dead cat. No mystery here. Move along. abrennan006: It's [sic] facial features are too extended. It can't be a cat. Stop Scaremongering: It is an Indian grey mongoose a common species that lives throughout the country, and the only mongoose species found in this particular area. abrennan006: It is not an Indian grey mongoose. The eye is too far back, and the nasal passageway is on the side, not the front. Look up 'mongoose skull' and you'll see what I mean. Stop Scaremongering: Sorry abrennan006 but, yes it is, I had already looked at Indian mongoose skulls and skeletons, before I concluded that it is a grey mongoose, the desiccated skin that is still covering the head is obscuring some of the features of the skull. The nostrils which are right on the end of the muzzle are not really visible at all, the hole that I can only assume you think for some reason is the nose, is the eye socket exactly where it should be. What I presume you think is the eye socket isn't, it's just an illusion, the back of the skull behind the eye is very long exactly like a mongoose, I am reasonably familiar with the mammal fauna of India and have been to this particular State, there are other small carnivores that are a quite similar, but bearing in mind the corpse was found in a building and not in the jungle and it is the right size and shape for a mongoose, I am 100% certain that it's a grey mongoose. abrennan006: Absolutely right. The nasal passage on the side is also the big giveaway. This probably is a dinosaur. No doubt the evolutionists will just try to make some excuse for it because it doesn't fit with their naturalist paradigm. But this is exactly what Biblical creationists have predicted would be found for years. Stop Scaremongering: OK so now I understand abrennan006 you are another creationist lackwit, the nasal passages are not on the side, the nostrils are on the end of the muzzle as with all mammalian carnivores, they are not visible in the photo, what you're looking at on the side of the head you idiot is the eye socket. This is just a dead Indian grey mongoose, anyone who thinks it is a dinosaur is daft, someone will no doubt clean up the skeleton, it will then be very obvious it's only a mongoose, the people who said it could be a dinosaur will be left looking like the daft fools that they are. This is unlikely to be reported as it would also make the DiM look rather foolish for reporting rubbish like this. Dinosaurs didn't die out entirely, as there are loads of small feathered ones flying around in my garden right now, if this actually were some kind of dinosaur, it would demonstrate nothing other than that birds were not the only dinosaurs to have survived, that wouldn't upset anyone's paradigm. |
I don’t know if it is a “genetically distorted animal foetus from within the goat family,” a dead cat, dead mongoose, or dead dinosaur. I’ve never seen a mongoose, goat fetus, or dinosaur. I once found a dead cat in my back yard; but it hadn’t been dead very long, so not only could I tell that it was a cat, I recognized it was one of the cats I had chased out of my yard on multiple occasions. It wasn’t as decayed as the thing in the picture. I don’t know what they found in India.
The uninformed comments reveal the arrogance, prejudice, bigotry, and hatred so often exhibited by evolutionists. As soon as abrennan006 pointed out that if it is a dinosaur it would confirm the Young Earth Creationist position, Stop Scaremongering made a personal attack, calling abrennan006 a “lackwit” and a “daft fool.” (We don’t know if those accusations are true or not. The only pertinent information we have is that both of them read the Daily Mail. You can draw your own conclusions from that. 
)
Then Stop Scaremongering fell back on the evolutionists’ trick of reclassifying birds as dinosaurs as a way of negating the creationists’ claim that people and dinosaurs did live at the same time.
Stop Scaremongering also inadvertently admitted that whenever data contradicts their preconceived evolutionary notions, they find a way to reinterpret the data that does not upset their paradigm.
A real scientist would examine the carcass, not a picture of the carcass. A scientist would count the number of vertebrae and ribs, examine the teeth, and see if it has claws or not. A real scientist would carefully measure the bones and compare them to bones known to have come from a goat, cat, mongoose, or other animal. If they fall within the normal limits of the bones of known species, then they would declare the carcass to be a deceased example of that known species. That’s how forensic science works.
If the bones don’t match any known species, then the bones become a “type specimen” of a new species, which the discoverer gets to name. That would certainly be a legitimate thing to do in this case because there seems to be a complete (or nearly complete) skeleton.
Sometimes the type specimen is just a single tooth or part of a bone. Later a more complete skeleton of another species is found to have that kind of tooth or bone. Then the type specimen is reclassified. (For example, Brontosaurus was really an Apatosaurus that was misidentified.)
When the new species is named, the name is connected to a biological category. That is to say, if the bones are very similar to dog bones, but not exactly like any known dog, the name would be “Canis something-or-other” because all dog species names begin with Canis.
This is where scientific convention starts to get on shaky ground. The fact that the bones look like they came from an unknown dog (for example) doesn’t prove they actually came from a new species of dog. They could have come from something else that looks a lot like a dog.
Furthermore, the definitions of species, genus, family, et cetera, are completely arbitrary. Cats and dogs look pretty much alike. They both have fur, the same number of legs, the same internal organs, similar bodies, and a tail. Why are they different families? The most distinguishing feature is that cats have retractable claws. Is that sufficient grounds to put them in different families? Somebody must have thought so.
Modern biological classification assumes that the similarity to other species in the family is due to descent from a close common ancestor. In other words, the modern classification is made on the assumption of evolution. Therefore, classification cannot be used as proof of evolution.
It is a logical fallacy to lump things together because you think they are similar and then say the fact that they are lumped together proves they are similar. That fallacy is called, “circular reasoning.”
As previously noted, birds were reclassified with dinosaurs so as not to upset the evolutionary paradigm. The classification system is supposed to be organized in such a way as to group similar things together. Why are a hummingbird and an Apatosaurus both considered to be dinosaurs?
When scientists assume behavior based on fossil evidence they cease to become scientists. A classic example is the notion that Eosimias (known only from two bones that look like rice kernels) was nocturnal (active at night). 4
Some people fear that allowing the possibility of creation into the science classroom will somehow damage the credibility of science. In view of what we have seen in our feature article about how notions about human evolution have changed so much, and this month’s email about how evolutionists believe in the spontaneous origin of information, and how evolutionists speculate about just about everything else in this column, we ask, “What could damage the credibility of science more than the theory of evolution?”
| Quick links to | |
|---|---|
| Science Against Evolution Home Page |
Back issues of Disclosure (our newsletter) |
| Web Site of the Month |
Topical Index |
Footnotes:
1
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5182571/Corpse-resembling-DINOSAUR-flesh-bones.html
2
ibid.
3
ibid.
4
Disclosure, September, 2000, “Eosimias”