http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ mirrored file
For complete access to all the files of this collection
see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php
==========================================================
Institute for Creation Research (home) >
Dinosaur DNA Research: Is the tale wagging the evidence?
by James J. S. Johnson, J.D., Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D., and Brian
Thomas, M.S.*
Dinosaurs are a popular topic of study, whether in the public
imagination or in scientific research. The scientific community,
however, has a dirty little secret regarding the manner in which that
research is handled. If dinosaur DNA doesn't "look like chicken" (or a
crocodile), it will most likely be discarded as "unreliable data" prior
to publication--and thus be effectively censored from public access.
Why? Because evolutionary scientists are committed to only publish
dinosaur DNA data that match their naturalistic tale of origins. Despite
the amazing discoveries of soft tissue from dinosaur bones,^1 dinosaur
DNA research results (and other dinosaur "connective tissue" research)
continue to be steered by evolutionary dogmatism.
*Dino DNA*
An article published in /Science/ in 1993 illustrates how and why
dinosaur bone research has been chillingly censored. "Dino DNA: The Hunt
and the Hype" by Virginia Morell stated that "several groups are racing
to get the first DNA out of dinosaur bones, but other researchers say
their efforts are taking attention away from the real scientific value
of ancient DNA."
This article referenced then-recent findings of fresh dinosaur tissue:
Mary Schweitzer, a biology graduate student at Montana State
University's Museum of the Rockies, was examining a thin section of
/Tyrranosaurus rex/ bone…when she noticed a series of peculiar
structures. Round and tiny and nucleated, they were threaded through
the bone like red blood cells in blood vessels. But blood cells in a
dinosaur bone should have disappeared eons ago. "I got goose bumps,"
recalls Schweitzer. "It was exactly like looking at a slice of
modern bone. But, of course, I couldn't believe it. I said to the
lab technician: 'The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How
could blood cells survive that long?'"^2
Why was Schweitzer, an eyewitness who microscopically observed the
insides of a /T. rex /bone, afraid to believe her own eyes? Isn't
empirical science all about /observation/? Furthermore, Morell reported,
"Schweitzer has already extracted a molecule that might be dinosaur DNA."
However, connective tissue ruins and degrades over time, such that DNA
should not survive at all, even if the creature only lived 50,000 years
ago.^3 The existence of 65 million-year-old DNA is biochemically
unthinkable. In other words, the old-earth evolutionary tale is clearly
at odds with the fresh dinosaur bone evidence. How embarrassing to the
academic establishment! This may be why ongoing dinosaur soft tissue
discoveries are generally not broadcast through popular media channels.
*Research Censorship*
Evolutionary "damage control" is observed in the form of "chilling"
(i.e., coerced) censorship of research, with severe consequences to
those who "buck the system." Consider the research flow chart pictured
below describing the process of extracting dinosaur DNA. Note steps 7
and especially 8. Why must the research results be dismissed if the DNA
extract doesn't look like birds or crocodiles? The answer is
evolutionary gatekeeping:
To make sure she's liberated the right molecule, Schweitzer compares
the extracted DNA sequences with those of hundreds of living
organisms. If the sequence turns out to be similar to that of a
known fungal gene, for example, she knows the sample has been
contaminated.
That's how DNA hunters know they've gone wrong. But how do they know
when they're on the right track, given that there are no living
dinosaurs to provide a handy sample of DNA for comparison? The
answer is that they rely on paleontological theory, which (according
to most researchers) holds that dinosaurs and crocodiles came from
the same stock, and that the dinosaurs' only living descendants are
birds. Therefore researchers look for DNA that is similar, but not
identical, to DNA from these groups of organisms.^4
In other words, only DNA research that provides dinosaur DNA sequences
similar to those of birds and crocodiles is allowed. As the flowchart
indicates, all other results are deemed anomalies that should be
rejected as though they were known contaminants, like fungal genes. This
approach is not observation-directed empirical research; this is
assumption-driven, theory-dictated censorship--"science" falsely
so-called.^5
*
*
*Coerced Spoliation of Evidence*
This purposeful pattern of coerced concealment of the nonconforming DNA
data from unfossilized dinosaur bones (labeled "an anomaly" on the
chart) involves what courtroom lawyers and judges call "chilling"
coercion and "spoliation of evidence"--inducing the concealment (and
eventual destruction) of embarrassing information in order to prevent
one's opponent from using it at trial.
Whenever any kind of evidence is concealed, one immediately questions
the spoliators' motives for doing so. The intuitive answer is that they
dislike what the information would reveal. Therefore, to spoliate
evidence suggests that the spoliators' argument or theory would be
weakened, or embarrassed, by that evidence. This suggestion is so
strong, forensically speaking, that it is treated as a rule of
/presumptive inference/ in law courts. In other words, if someone hides
evidence in this way, the law presumes that the hidden evidence was
damaging to the argument of the spoliator. The spoliator then bears the
burden of proof to show otherwise.^6
A kindred rule to the foregoing…is that the intentional spoliation
or destruction of evidence relevant to a case raises a presumption
that the evidence would have been unfavorable to the cause of the
spoliator.…The deliberate destruction of evidence gives rise to the
presumption that the matter destroyed is not favorable to the
spoliator.^7
This shows that the civil law courts understand the importance of
evidence spoliation--it points to a willingness to conceal or otherwise
suppress truth in order to advance a specific cause. The name Arthur
Andersen comes to mind, as this accounting firm's shredding of Enron
documents hindered SEC investigators.^8
*Follow the Procedure, or Else*
In suppressed dinosaur DNA research--which is a subset of the
irrefutable, but hushed, dinosaur soft tissue discoveries--the same
issue of evidence spoliation is relevant. Why? Because today's dinosaur
DNA controversy in particular, and today's dinosaur "connective tissue"
controversy in general, directly puts at issue the real age of the
dinosaurs: Did they live millions of years ago, or in much more recent
history on an earth inhabited by humans--descendants of Adam and Eve?^9
How will anyone really know what dinosaur DNA sequences look like until
uncensored data from dinosaur bones are published for public scrutiny?
And how will such data be published at all if "embarrassing" research
results are routinely discarded as anomalous, simply because they didn't
"look like chicken"? One way to acquire more reliable data in this case
would be to repeat the DNA research across multiple labs, until
consistent results emerge.
In fact, a similar approach was taken in 1994. The winners of the race
to sequence dinosaur DNA were Scott Woodward and his colleagues, who
published their results in /Science/.^10 They extracted DNA from a
purportedly well-preserved dinosaur bone. However, they were not
rewarded for their victory. The sequence they discovered was not like
birds or reptiles, but seemed unique.
These researchers decided not to follow the procedure outlined in the
1993 flowchart, which would have "told" them that what they found was an
unacceptable "anomaly." Since this 1994 DNA did not fit the evolutionary
interpretive filter, the authors were raked over the academic coals.
Moreover, the objections to their results were not based on conflicting
research results, but appeared in editorials and reviews. As a result of
the uproar from the scientific community, their dinosaur DNA sequence
never became a permanent entry in any public database. In fact, since
this very public academic flogging, no scientist has attempted to
publish any dinosaur DNA research (resulting in "chilled" academic speech).
Interestingly, Schweitzer has never published any of her purported DNA
research on dinosaur tissue, although she has published on tissue
analyses and, recently, data on protein sequence. While the tissue
analyses reported over the past decade are nearly impossible to dispute,
this recently published dinosaur protein sequence from a /T. rex/ came
under extreme criticism and the data were highly questioned by peers as
having been manipulated to produce close similarities with chicken and
ostrich protein.^11 Was this done as per the "paleontological theory and
protocol" described in 1993?
*Conclusion*
The gatekeeping approach to ancient DNA research established as a
protocol in 1993 is a product of dogmatic evolutionary theory. The 1994
results put the dogma to the test, with the result that:
1. Ancient DNA, known to be unstable, was extracted from "80
million-year-old" bone.
2. The sequence, though it showed evidence of decay, was no more
bird-like than it was mammal-like.
The coerced suppression of the results by the evolutionary scientific
community has dissuaded anyone else from publishing dinosaur DNA
research that is not in line with evolutionary dictates. Such
self-censorship "chills" empirical research, which prevents the public
reporting of observable DNA sequences in order to insulate the larger
story of particles-to-people evolution from cross-examination.
Where are the real scientists in dinosaur DNA research who refuse to
kowtow to evolution's gatekeepers?
/*References*/
1. Thomas, B. 2009. Dinosaur Soft Tissue Issue Is Here to Stay
./
Acts & Facts./ 38 (9): 18.
2. Morell, V. 1993. Dino DNA: The Hunt and the Hype. /Science/. 261
(5118): 160.
3. Ibid, 161. (This illustrates the thermodynamic maxim "as time
increases, chemistry wins over biology.”)
4. Difficulties With Dinosaur DNA, ibid, 161.
5. 1 Timothy 6:20 .
6. See /Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Johnson/, 106 S.W.3d 718, 46 Tex.
Supr. Ct. J. 685 (Tex. 2003) (summarizing Texas jurisprudence
regarding spoliation of evidence), citing /Armory v. Delamirie/, 1
Strange 505, 93 Engl. Rep. 664 (K.B. 1722) (illustrating how
spoliation of evidence, as a legal problem, predates the USA's
existence).
7. Quoting /H.E. Butt Grocery Co. v. Bruner,/ 530 S.W.2d 340, 344
(Tex. Civ. App. – Waco, 1975, /writ dismissed by agr't/), citing
McCormick & Ray, TEXAS EVIDENCE (2nd ed.), Volume I, § 103, pages
141-142.
8. See, e.g.,/ In re Enron Corporation Securities, Derivative &
"ERISA" Litigation/, 2003 WL 25508889 (S.D. Tex. 2003) (discussing
how Arthur Andersen accountants committed spoliation of evidence
by shredding Enron documents to hinder the SEC's investigation of
Enron, etc.).
9. There are indications that dinosaurs have lived within the last
few thousands, and maybe even hundreds, of years. See Cooper, B.
1995. /After the Flood./ Chichester, UK: New Wine Press, 130-161,
which documents and discusses historical records of human
encounters with strange creatures during various centuries after
Christ, involving detailed descriptions of wild animals that today
would be called dinosaurs.
10. Woodward, S. R., N. J. Weyand and M. Bunnell. 1994. DNA Sequence
from Cretaceous Period Bone Fragments. /Science/. 266 (5188):
1229-1232.
11. For more details, see Tomkins, J. 2009. Dinosaur Protein Sequences
and the Dino-to-Bird Model .
/Acts & Facts/. 38 (10): 12-14.
/* Dr. Johnson is Special Counsel at ICR. Dr. Tomkins, ICR Research
Associate, worked in academic research in genetics and genomics for 18+
years, 12 involving research in cloning and sequencing DNA from a wide
variety of plants, animals and microbes. Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at
the Institute for Creation Research./
Cite this article: Johnson, J. J. S., J. Tomkins and B. Thomas. 2009.
Dinosaur DNA Research: Is the tale wagging the evidence? /Acts & Facts./
38 (10): 4-6.
Next Article
<#> About Us
<#> Evidence for Creation
<#> Resources
<#> Search
<#> Daily Science Updates
<#> Days of Praise
<#> Store
<#> Give
<#> ICR Home >
Recent Articles
* An Inconvenient Truth
* Survival of the Fitted: God's Providential Programming
* Similar Features Show Design, Not Universal Common Descent
* Presuppositional Research and the Definition of Kind
* Pioneering a Global Movement
* Creation Is the Foundation
* All-or-Nothing Unity
See more articles...
* Top of Page <#>
* Evidence
* Resources
* Departments
* Bible
* Store
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* ICR Home >
* Subscriptions
* Donate to ICR
* Contact ICR
* Use Policy
* Privacy Policy
© 2010 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved.
*The Bible Is Scientifically Accurate. Get the Evidence @ ICR.org*
Biblical · Accurate · Certain | www.icr.org