Do living dinosaurs disprove evolution?

[Areopagite]

Currently, I’m on the fence with creationism and evolutionism. I’ve heard very convincing scientific evidence and arguments for each one. As a Catholic, I think it’s okay to believe either one.

More and more, though, it seems that dinosaurs, if they aren’t still alive today, died out only a few hundred years ago. I’m pretty convinced of this. My question to evolutionists is this:

If it turns out that dinosaurs and humans have existed at the same time, does this disprove evolution? I’m not quite sure if the answer is obvious. Some of the reasons that leads me to believe the likelihood of dinosaurs existing at the time of man is because of the numerous depictions in ancient art of dinosaur-like creatures:

Incan Burial stones clearly depicting Stegasauri, Sauropods, and Triceratops:
youtube.com/watch?v=NPO6h8M6DI4&feature=player_embedded

This video talks about the authenticity of the Inca stones:
youtube.com/watch?v=AFckfh9RoPo&feature=related

Webpage of random ancient art that seem to depict dinosaurs:
breakthematrix.com/node/41148

But once again, if indeed dinosaurs existed in recent or even current history, I don’t see why this would necessarily conflict with evolution. Why can’t dinosaurs have lived millions of years ago and still exist today? Why would that fly in the face of evolution? If it does, then evolution has already been disproved at the discovery of the Frilled Shark:

animal.discovery.com/videos/weird-true-freaky-frilled-shark-prehistoric-animal-f.html

Or, even more so, the famous discovery of the Coelacanth, which pre-existed the dinosaurs in fossil records, was eventually discovered to still exist today.

If evolution is true (which it might be), and the analyses of fossils and their dating is completely accurate, I’m still not quite sure why an evolutionist needs to hold the extinction of dinosaurs as one of its dogmas. If an evolutionist does not need to hold that, then the creationist has one less argument against evolution. If it does have to hold it, then evolution has already been disproved by the Frilled Shark and the Coelacanth. Personally, I think evolution could still be true even if dinosaurs still exist (hiding in the Congo, as witnesses over the centuries have attested), but maybe I’m wrong. What do you guys think?

 

[Sair]

It’s interesting - and revealing - that you speak of ‘evolutionism’ as though evolution were a religious or political denomination, rather than a scientific theory.

One important distinction to keep in mind is that scientific concepts are plastic - they change to accommodate new evidence or more thorough interpretations of existing evidence. They are not dogmatic, but open to falsification. This is in stark contrast to much religious doctrine.

Having said that, the discovery of dinosaur fossils - or other evidence of their existence - at a much later time period than the KT boundary (the point at which the fossil record indicates mass extinction of dinosaurs and other creatures of the Mesozoic) would not ‘disprove’ evolution. There is a wealth of evidence to indicate that evolution happened, and does happen; it does not depend solely upon the fossil record. The presence of dinosaurs in a later time period would simply indicate that some species had survived the mass extinction, in a particular part of the world. I can imagine no evolutionary biologist who would not find such a discovery incredibly exciting.

 

[Areopagite]

It’s interesting - and revealing - that you speak of ‘evolutionism’ as though evolution were a religious or political denomination, rather than a scientific theory.

I’m sorry, I wrote “evolutionism” just because it rhymed with “creationism.” I meant to say “evolution.” Sorry about that. I didn’t mean anything by it.

One important distinction to keep in mind is that scientific concepts are plastic - they change to accommodate new evidence or more thorough interpretations of existing evidence. They are not dogmatic, but open to falsification.

Good. I’m glad to hear this.

This is in stark contrast to much religious doctrine.

Very true.

Having said that, the discovery of dinosaur fossils - or other evidence of their existence - at a much later time period than the KT boundary (the point at which the fossil record indicates mass extinction of dinosaurs and other creatures of the Mesozoic) would not ‘disprove’ evolution. There is a wealth of evidence to indicate that evolution happened, and does happen, that does not depend upon the fossil record. The presence of dinosaurs in a later time period would simply indicate that some species had survived the mass extinction, in a particular part of the world. I can imagine no evolutionary biologist who would not find such a discovery incredibly exciting.

Good. I’m also glad to hear this too.

Hence, an evolutionist would have no problem with the idea that dinosaurs may still be alive today, right?

 

[Sair]

I’m sorry, I wrote “evolutionism” just because it rhymed with “creationism.” I meant to say “evolution.” Sorry about that. I didn’t mean anything by it.

Sorry to have jumped on you for that one, then!

Hence, an evolutionist would have no problem with the idea that dinosaurs may still be alive today, right?

In fact, there seems to be a consensus amongst evolutionary biologists now (although there wasn’t when I was a child!) that birds are direct descendants of a species of dinosaurs. So, essentially, it could be said that dinosaurs are still around today. If you look carefully at a crow, or a magpie, or a bird of prey, it’s not hard to see a certain family resemblance

 

[Areopagite]

Sorry to have jumped on you for that one, then!

It’s all good. I don’t blame you. It was my type-o.

In fact, there seems to be a consensus amongst evolutionary biologists now (although there wasn’t when I was a child!) that birds are direct descendants of a species of dinosaurs. So, essentially, it could be said that dinosaurs are still around today. If you look carefully at a crow, or a magpie, or a bird of prey, it’s not hard to see a certain family resemblance

Sure, but that’s not what I’m talking about.

I’m referring to things like Stegasauri, Sauropods, Triceratops, and Tyrannosaurus Rexes. Are evolutionists bound to deny these could exist anymore? Would it pose a problem for current evolutionary theory if we discovered some of them were still alive?

 

[Sair]

I’m referring to things like Stegasauri, Sauropods, Triceratops, and Tyrannosaurus Rexes. Are evolutionists bound to deny these could exist anymore? Would it pose a problem for current evolutionary theory if we discovered some of them were still alive?

I think the only thing that would happen would be a thorough investigation of the evidence and the conditions in which the animals were able to survive. Such a discovery would be an absolute goldmine for palaeontologists! It certainly wouldn’t pose a problem or require any significant revising of evolutionary theory as it currently stands, any more than did the discovery of living coelacanths. It would simply mean that those particular animals were extraordinarily successful in their ecological niche.

The fact that there is insufficient evidence to establish the existence of surviving dinosaurs means just that - there is insufficient evidence. Evolutionary scientists are only bound to assess the evidence and draw their conclusions from that.

 

[Areopagite]

I think the only thing that would happen would be a thorough investigation of the evidence and the conditions in which the animals were able to survive. Such a discovery would be an absolute goldmine for palaeontologists! It certainly wouldn’t pose a problem or require any significant revising of evolutionary theory as it currently stands, any more than did the discovery of living coelacanths. It would simply mean that those particular animals were extraordinarily successful in their ecological niche.

This is very reasonable.

Does anyone disagree that recent living dinosaurs isn’t necessarily a disproof of evolution? It seems that in the mind of a lot of creationists and evolutionists (at least from what I gather on YouTube) that you can’t have both. But I don’t see why (and neither does Sair, apparently). Any objections?

The fact that there is insufficient evidence to establish the existence of surviving dinosaurs means just that - there is insufficient evidence. Evolutionary scientists are only bound to assess the evidence and draw their conclusions from that.

I grant that perhaps there is insufficient evidence to show there are any living dinosaurs today. However, those burial stones strongly suggest that dinosaurs were alive at the time of the Incans. Which is awesome. And neither creationist nor evolutionists should shrink from enjoying how cool that is.

 

[Sair]

Does anyone disagree that recent living dinosaurs isn’t necessarily a disproof of evolution? It seems that in the mind of a lot of creationists and evolutionists (at least from what I gather on YouTube) that you can’t have both.

I suspect (rather uncharitably, perhaps) that many of those posting on YouTube are just engaging in games of one-upmanship rather than seriously engaging with evidence and its interpretations…

 

[NowAgnostic]

Currently, I’m on the fence with creationism and evolutionism. I’ve heard very convincing scientific evidence and arguments for each one. As a Catholic, I think it’s okay to believe either one.

More and more, though, it seems that dinosaurs, if they aren’t still alive today, died out only a few hundred years ago. I’m pretty convinced of this. My question to evolutionists is this:

If it turns out that dinosaurs and humans have existed at the same time, does this disprove evolution?

Of course not. Why would it? It would simply mean dinosaurs survived for a very long time.

I’m not quite sure if the answer is obvious. Some of the reasons that leads me to believe the likelihood of dinosaurs existing at the time of man is because of the numerous depictions in ancient art of dinosaur-like creatures:

But how strong evidence is that really? Imagine an archaeological investigation many years in the future of our society today. They dig up pictures of fairies in laminated children’s books. This is evidence of the existence of fairies?

And really, how are humans going to survive if T-Rexes are roaming the earth, without the benefits of our modern technology.

But once again, if indeed dinosaurs existed in recent or even current history, I don’t see why this would necessarily conflict with evolution. Why can’t dinosaurs have lived millions of years ago and still exist today?

Exactly.

If evolution is true (which it might be), and the analyses of fossils and their dating is completely accurate, I’m still not quite sure why an evolutionist needs to hold the extinction of dinosaurs as one of its dogmas.

Nope, it isn’t necessary.

 

[Fran65]

Have to say that I agree with Sair and NowAgnostic here. I don’t think that it would be a problem.

 

[Fox]

You can both believe in creationism and evolution. God created what was to become dinosaurs which some of their species evolving to birds.

 

[Ghosty]

We already live alongside animals that are older than the dinosaurs, like some crocodilians and sharks. There’s nothing inherently “anti-evolution” about this fact.

The reason dinosaurs get brought up is because some “Young Earth” supporters say that dinosaurs and humans living together would prove that the world isn’t billions of years old, but rather only several thousand. It’s not hard to see the flaw in that argument, but it is about the age of the Earth, and not about evolution per se.

Peace and God bless!

 

[donsnow]

Hi, all -

I was going to mention crocodiles, but arrived late

Frankly, similar to Fox, I not only believe in Creation, but also recognize evolution as part of it.

I think the media and others should quit labeling people as either Creationists or Evolutionists and just mention 'em by their names

 

[Hosh]

If the species you speak of were alive today or even 100,000 years ago it would pretty much prove the existence of God. It would simply defy logic and nothing but a miracle could explain it.

 

[Areopagite]

Thank you everyone for your comments. I’m glad to see that most of you (both theist and agnostic alike) are on the same page with me. And I’m quite surprised by this too since it seems like most creationists and evolutionists who make noise about this subject think that the two (evolution/old-earth and surviving dinosaurs) are incompatible. But I hope that this false dichotomy can be done away with from people’s minds. It just doesn’t make any sense if you think about it for a few seconds.

But how strong evidence is that really? Imagine an archaeological investigation many years in the future of our society today. They dig up pictures of fairies in laminated children’s books. This is evidence of the existence of fairies?

I don’t think this argument is very compelling if you look at the evidence I cited. The Ica stones, for example, clearly depict triceratopses for example. It matches the fossils very well. We don’t have fossils of fairies, but we do with dinosaurs. It’s not a fair comparison.

I would be more inclined to believe all the ancient artistic depictions of dinosaurs were faked … and they might be. Some might be at least. But it would seem very unlikely if they ALL were, in my opinion.

And really, how are humans going to survive if T-Rexes are roaming the earth, without the benefits of our modern technology.

Maybe T-Rexes aren’t THAT dangerous. If Spielberg is right, all you have to do is stand still and you’re good.

If the species you speak of were alive today or even 100,000 years ago it would pretty much prove the existence of God. It would simply defy logic and nothing but a miracle could explain it.

Um … why? Everyone here disagrees (or rather, it doesn’t change the debate at all). Could you explain this?

Keep in mind that the fossil records of the Coelacanth and the Frilled Shark are as old or even older than the dinosaur fossils, and yet both species are still alive today. If you’re right, then God’s existence is already proven. Is this what you’re saying?

 

[Hosh]

It’s all good. I don’t blame you. It was my type-o.

Sure, but that’s not what I’m talking about.

I’m referring to things like Stegasauri, Sauropods, Triceratops, and Tyrannosaurus Rexes. Are evolutionists bound to deny these could exist anymore? Would it pose a problem for current evolutionary theory if we discovered some of them were still alive?

Those are not fish. How and where did they survive, and why haven’t we found any fossils? It seems so implausible that I couldn’t dream up answers to those questions. The entire post K-T fossil record wouldn’t make sense if those animals had been alive.

 

[Areopagite]

Those are not fish. How and where did they survive, and why haven’t we found any fossils? It seems so implausible that I couldn’t dream up answers to those questions. The entire post K-T fossil record wouldn’t make sense if those animals had been alive.

You might be right. I’m not knowledgeable about this stuff.

But isn’t it possible that some Triassic dinosaurs, for example, simply became endangered through the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods, rather than extinct? It’s not like every dead animal in those periods became fossilized. Some of them simply died and rotted away like most dead things nowadays.

Where would they have survived? I don’t know … why does that matter? Forgive my ignorance if it’s obvious. Please educate me.

 

[Hosh]

You might be right. I’m not knowledgeable about this stuff.

But isn’t it possible that some Triassic dinosaurs, for example, simply became endangered through the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods, rather than extinct? It’s not like every dead animal in those periods became fossilized. Some of them simply died and rotted away like most dead things nowadays.

Where would they have survived? I don’t know … why does that matter? Forgive my ignorance if it’s obvious. Please educate me.

They were already becoming endangered before the K-T event because of a period intense volcanism, many species had already gone extinct. There were probably multiple impacts as well. If I recall correctly the Shiva crater is roughly twice the size of Chicxalube, and there are also a few smaller ones that have been found recently.

Some non-avian dinosaurs could have survived a few hundred thousand years afterwards, but even that I would doubt.

Asking where they would have survived matters if you want to hypothesize that they survived for even 2 million years. Yes, they could have died and rotted away like you said, but that would suggest a very small breeding population for 65my which seems very unlikely.

 

[buffalo]

B.A.R.B: Birds Are Really……Birds!

The summer of 2000 promised to be very exciting for ornithologists and paleontologists alike as they flew into Beijing for the fifth quadrennial meeting of the Society of Avian Paleontology and Evolution (Ref 1). The setting was most appropriate given the richness of fossils that have been unearthed in Chinese soil. The central theme of the meeting lay in trying to resolve the question of whether birds had really evolved from dinosaurs (Ref 1). However, rather than a harmonious discussion with the constructive disagreement that one might expect from any scientific ‘get-together’ aimed at resolving discrepancies in data, the meeting did nothing but expose an underlying discord (Ref 1).
While some scientists such as Berkeley’s John Hutchinson and Yale ornithologist Richard Prum were frustrated over issues that they considered long resolved, others were much more skeptical about the certainty of the facts. Storrs Olson, head of ornithology at the National Museum of Natural History, weighed in by accusing Prum of engaging in “ideological mumbo-jumbo” when Prum claimed that feathers had the same evolutionary origin as “hair like integuments found on dinosaur fossils” (Ref 1). So strong was Olson’s feeling against the evolutionary link drawn between birds and dinosaurs that throughout the meeting he and others wore badges stating their case: “BIRDS ARE NOT DINOSAURS” (or B.A.N.D for short; Ref 1). University Of North Carolina paleontologist Alan Feduccia, well known for his discussions on temporal discrepancies between bird and dinosaur fossils, was similarly uncertain about the dinosaur-bird link. Feduccia made his uncertainty public to the sound of accusations claiming a creationist undertone (Ref 1).

more…

 

[Hosh]

I really don’t see how claiming birds are the descendants of dinosaurs is flamboyantly creationist… Birds descended from dinosaurs.