Vegetarian Dinosaurs, Young Earth Creationism

[Harpyja]

While browsing the JREF forum, I found a young Earth creationist website with information concerning dinosaurs. I was amazed at the arguments being presented. I searched for a topic about this on the JREF forum and found no information supporting or discrediting it, so I decided to make my own and present a few arguments countering their claims.

I apologize if I'm doing something wrong, this is my first forum topic.

¹ Big, sharp teeth do not mean an animal is a meat eater. Bears have teeth that are big and sharp, similar to a lion's. Yet many bears are mostly vegetation. [sic] Chinese Pandas have very sharp teeth. They need those sharp teeth because bamboo, their only food, is very hard to chew. There are numerous examples of animals that only eat plants, and that have very sharp teeth. An animal with big, sharp teeth just means that it is an animal with big, sharp teeth--nothing more.

For the sake of convenience and accuracy, I will only use the African lion's skull as the phrase "lion" can apply to a large number of feline species but is primarily used to reference the African lion. When one compares the skulls of the two animals directly, we notice a major difference in form and function of the dental structure.

But first, for a bit of background for those unfamiliar with the particular diets of either lions or pandas. Athough the panda bear is considered an omnivore, its diet consists mainly of bamboo. Lions are strict carnivores, cooperatively bringing down prey.

Similar does not equal the same. There is a clear difference in the dental structures of both animals when compared side-by-side. The eyeteeth of the panda bear are far smaller than the eyeteeth of the African lion. There is a reason for this - African lions are adapted for hunting potentially dangerous prey, and they need to be able to inflict serious damage to their victims. The panda bear is not built to pursue and chase down prey like a lion would. The molars of the lion are also fewer in number and slightly more pointed than that of a panda bear. A panda bear requires flat grinding molars to help break down its food.

² However, there were not very many different kinds of dinosaurs. There are certainly hundreds of dinosaur names, but many of these were given to just a bit of bone or skeletons of the same dinosaur found in other countries. It is also reasonable to assume that different sizes, varieties, and sexes of the same kind of dinosaur have ended up with different names. For example, look at the many different varieties and sizes of dogs, but they are all the same kind-the dog kind! In reality, there may have been fewer than 50 kinds of dinosaurs.

This statement appears to be the result of a confusion between the definition of "species" and "breed." Dinosaur species differ from dog breeds. Species are estalished using the following criteria;

³ 1. Members of the group are reliably distinguishable from members of other groups. The distinction can be made in any of a wide number of ways, such as: differently shaped leaves, a different number of primary wing feathers, a particular ritual breeding behaviour, relative size of certain bones, different DNA sequences, and so on. There is no set minimum 'amount of difference': the only criterion is that the difference be reliably discernible. In practice, however, very small differences tend to be ignored.

2. The flow of genetic material between the group and other groups is small and sometimes can be expected to remain so because even if the two groups were to be placed together they would not interbreed to any great extent.

The crucial rule here is the second one. Dogs will freely interbreed with other dogs - however, it is highly unlikely that a dog would even attempt to breed with a cat, for example. Because dogs are subspecies of wolves (Canis lupus lupus), wolf-dog hybrids cannot be used as an example of this rule being broken because it is a case of a species breeding with a subspecies, not two unrelated species interbreeding. There has been no evidence of dinosaur species interbreeding.

¹ Mission To America - Dinosaurs and People
² Answers in Genesis - How Do Dinosaurs Fit With the Bible?
³ Wikipedia - Species

 

[Mojo]

I apologize if I'm doing something wrong, this is my first forum topic.

Welcome to the forum!

Similar does not equal the same. There is a clear difference in the dental structures of both animals when compared side-by-side. The eyeteeth of the panda bear are far smaller than the eyeteeth of the African lion. There is a reason for this - African lions are adapted for hunting potentially dangerous prey, and they need to be able to inflict serious damage to their victims. The panda bear is not built to pursue and chase down prey like a lion would. The molars of the lion are also fewer in number and slightly more pointed than that of a panda bear. A panda bear requires flat grinding molars to help break down its food.

Yes, you need to consider the shape of all the teeth, not just the visibly "sharp" ones, and also factors like the length of digestive tract, for example. Vegetation tends to take much more digestion even after it's been chewed.

This statement appears to be the result of a confusion between the definition of "species" and "breed." Dinosaur species differ from dog breeds.

Note also the use of the word "kind" in the passage you quoted. "Kind" is a creationist term that is considerably broader than "species", and can be as wide as, for example, all cats. They are quite possibly considering all dinosaurs of similar shape to be of the same "kind". When they say "dog kind" they quite possibly mean not just domestic dogs, but also any other species of dog-like animal.

 

[Harpyja]

Welcome to the forum!

Thanks.

Note also the use of the word "kind" in the passage you quoted. "Kind" is a creationist term that is considerably broader than "species", and can be as wide as, for example, all cats. They are quite possibly considering all dinosaurs of similar shape to be of the same "kind". When they say "dog kind" they quite possibly mean not just domestic dogs, but also any other species of dog-like animal.

Ah. I figured that by dog-kind, they were referencing all members of the existing species, similar to the way in which "humankind" is used. It still doesn't support their argument, though, then! If "dog-kind" encompasses all kinds of dog-like creatures, then the term "kind" doesn't seem to matter, considering that it would still include the same number of animals... right?

 

[Wolfman]

While I agree that the Creationist arguments are ridiculous, I would like to play the Devil's Advocate in one regard...your argument about breeds and species.

Let us assume that all life on our planet was destroyed, including dogs. Thousands/millions of years later, aliens arrived, and studied the fossilized remains of the various animal species.

Now, let's say that these alien paleontologists found relatively complete skeletons of a chihuahua, a doberman, a pug, and a St. Bernard. There are huge differences in their bone structures...not just size, but the shape of their skulls, and numerous other factors. Since they are all dead, there would be no way to determine that they were, in fact, able to interbreed with each other.

Would such an alien paleontologist, given that situation, nevertheless classify all these different skeletons as just being different breeds of the same species? I highly, highly doubt it. In fact, there are animals that are entirely different species that have much greater physical similarity to each other than dogs do.

So, technically, one could argue that the creationists have a point in this regard. Unless we are able to do an actual genetic study to determine their relationship to each other (and their ability to interbreed), it is not entirely accurate to argue that simply because they look different, they must be different species.

However, there's a flip side to that argument, if we're going to be consistent. There are quite a few species in existence today that physically appear almost identical to each other; yet they have subtle differences (that may not be preserved in a fossil, such as reproductive organs or fur/feather patterns), and are entirely incapable of interbreeding with each other.

So one could also argue that, potentially, there were far more species of dinosaur, and that some of those we have classified as being part of the same species are actually entirely different.

In short, the creationists have an argument that is half right...but, typically, they fail to take it to its logical conclusion. The fact is, it is fundamentally impossible -- without genetic testing, or the ability to actually observe interbreeding -- to determine absolutely whether particular fossil remains represent different species, or the same species. In the end, we are making educated guesses. However, in this regard, the evolutionist's interpretation seems to have by far the preponderance of reasonable evidence on its side.

 

[Harpyja]

Ah, you're right there. I suppose that there would be no way to tell unless there was an extreme dramatic difference between fossil specimens. The argument was actually taken a bit out of context. Supposedly it concerned an argument about dinosaurs and Noah's Ark - it was said that Noah's Ark would not be big enough to hold all the dinosaurs as well as modern animals. They stated that there were not as many species as people think.

 

[Brendy]

\The crucial rule here is the second one. Dogs will freely interbreed with other dogs - however, it is highly unlikely that a dog would even attempt to breed with a cat, for example.¹ Mission

I'd have to disagree with you there. Dogs always try to breed with my lower leg even though it doesn't even have any reproductive organs.

Don't underestimate what a dog will hump.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I'd have to disagree with you there. Dogs always try to breed with my lower leg even though it doesn't even have any reproductive organs.

Don't underestimate what a dog will hump.

The last dog that tried to hump a dinosaur was eaten, wasn't it?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Ah. I figured that by dog-kind, they were referencing all members of the existing species, similar to the way in which "humankind" is used. It still doesn't support their argument, though, then! If "dog-kind" encompasses all kinds of dog-like creatures, then the term "kind" doesn't seem to matter, considering that it would still include the same number of animals... right?

[swiki]Created Kinds[/swiki].

Once you've read that, you still won't know the definition.

 

[biomorph]

The last dog that tried to hump a dinosaur was eaten, wasn't it?

<pedant>
actually that couldn't be the last dog, as dogs are still here........
</pedant>

Anyway here's the evidence;

 

[biomorph]

[swiki]Created Kinds[/swiki].

Once you've read that, you still won't know the definition.

I did read it, andyou know what, you're right. i still don't

 

[MattusMaximus]

Harpyja, welcome to the Forums!

Here's a funny little bit on the whole veggie-eating dinosaur thing...

Back in Black - Evolution, Schmevolution

ETA: The whole segment is hilarious, but the relevant part starts at about 0:55

 

[leonAzul]

¹ Mission To America - Dinosaurs and People
² Answers in Genesis - How Do Dinosaurs Fit With the Bible?
³ Wikipedia - Species

Just for the record I am adding links to your citations.

If these are incorrect, then correct me!

1) [NFURL]www.missiontoamerica.com/genesis/dinosaurs-people.html[/NFURL]

2) [NFURL]www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/2.asp[/NFURL]

3) Species^WP

 

[Soapy Sam]

I sometimes wonder- if dinosaurs had not died out when they did, whether they would have interstellar colonies by now.
I bet they wouldn't have young earth creationists.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

1 Big, sharp teeth do not mean an animal is a meat eater. Bears have teeth that are big and sharp, similar to a lion's. Yet many bears are mostly vegetation. [sic] Chinese Pandas have very sharp teeth. They need those sharp teeth because bamboo, their only food, is very hard to chew. There are numerous examples of animals that only eat plants, and that have very sharp teeth. An animal with big, sharp teeth just means that it is an animal with big, sharp teeth--nothing more.

http://library.thinkquest.org/27396/head.htm

Panda Jaw:
http://library.thinkquest.org/27396/phy01.jpg

Pandas have more teeth for chewing. Compare the picture at the above link with a T-Rex Jaw:

T-rex Jaw:
http://www.oceansofkansas.com/images2/sue-path.jpg


Creationuts must think their subjects are stupid or ignorant, or just are themselves. It's like saying cow's teeth are the same as a dog's. Ridiculous. The structures are totally different. Pandas and cows mainly have teeth suited for chewing. Meat eating dinos and dogs mostly have teeth suited for grasping and ripping. Humans have teeth for both purposes, with the teeth for chewing set further back on the jaw.

Since they are all dead, there would be no way to determine that they were, in fact, able to interbreed with each other.

Actually, and sorry to say, yes they would. Canine jaws are very different than feline jaws, for instance. Scientists trained in that area would be able to determine if those species, and others, are the same or different by the jaws. My limited education in phylogeny, anatomy, and zoology clearly shows it is easy to tell by the jaws what species an animal belongs to. Jaws of different human-like species are different enough to tell one species apart from another. Jaws of primate species are different enough from one species to another to determine if they are able to be close enough related to interbreed. If aliens were well-trained in any kind of anatomy and paleontology, even on another planet with totally different species from ours, they would know how close jaw structures would have to be for the animals to be from the same species. Size is not a factor, btw. Structures, among other things, are the factors. Heck, they can tell bird species from each other by just looking at beaks too. There are 35 different species of dogs (multiply that by the different breeds as well, and you have hundreds of different breeds) and about that many species of cats.

Did you know that a domesticated cat cannot be crossed with a lion, since they are different feline species? They have different numbers of chromosomes, and very different jaws (particularly the parts closest to the skull).

I got to study the jaws of small placental rodents vs rodent marsupials. You wouldn't expect such similar looking animals would be so different on that level, but they are.

Here is an article on pterosaur species. I bet you didn't even know there were different pterosaur species: http://www.projectexploration.org/news_121803.htm

This is a complex area of science that creationuts are clueless on, and too easily dismiss with ignorant "arguments".

Also, do not confuse the word "species" with the word "breed".

 

[dasmiller]

Now, if the theory is that sharp, carnivore-looking teeth were practical for eating plants, then were poison glands (scorpions, gila monsters, platypi, wasps, spiders, blue-ring octopi) also practical for immobilizing and eating plants? And were the purely defensive poison glands (stingrays, lionfish, poison arrow frogs) used for protecting themselves against aggressive plants?

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Dogs will freely interbreed with other dogs

Different dog species cannot breed. For instance you cannot mix a fox with a wolf. Dogs of different breeds within the same species can most certainly reproduce. Some more similar species may be crossed if you really really try, but their offspring are usually infertile. You certainly cannot cross feline and canine species, mostly because of the chromosome counts.

Foxes and wolves not only have different jaws, but also a different number of chromosomes. Size wouldn't matter if the wolf was the one preggers, but that is no matter considering the fact that they cannot breed in the first place. I've seen cats humping dogs, but they still have completely different amounts of chromosomes, and therefore cannot breed even if they try. Heck, I've seen bulls try to mount humans.

 

[sphenisc]

...I got to study the jaws of small... a "primate rodent" or a "rodent marsupial" ?

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Oooops! I meant a placental rodent and marsupial rodent. There is no such thing as a primate rodent. He he.
And by rodent, I meant small placental mouse compared to a small marsupial like the "Julia Creek Dunnart".

 

[Madalch]

There is no such thing as a primate rodent.

You haven't visited the legislature building lately, have you? The only rats in Alberta, and they're amazingly like primates.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

shhhh. This kind of dictatorship means that one can be in many kinds of troubles if speaking unkindly of the government.