The Archaeoraptor Hoax
by Dave Nutting

National Geographic went out on the limb (and fell off) by publishing articles in their November, 1999 issue stating they found the long-sought-after-missing link between dinosaurs and birds. Their great artwork, of feathered dinosaurs, including Archaeoraptor, looked extremely believable. Newspapers across the country carried the story. Suddenly the feathered dinosaurs, were the in thing. They would soon replace the familiar reptilian dinosaur look. Within days, kids began learning of the new discovery. Even Tyrannosaurus-Rex began to sprout feathers.

Everything was fine until National Geographic received an email written in December. The news reports broke in January: Archaeoraptor has now crashed on the runway! It was a big hoax that left National Geographic staff “tarred and feathered.” Evidently some faker from China, pinned a reptile’s tail onto a fossil bird and National Geographic didn’t look closely enough at it. They will be publishing a retraction soon. (We hope.) Although Archaeoraptor was only one of several “links” embellished with great artwork in their article, it really makes you wonder about the rest of them.

National Geographic was just too eager to promote the new find since it has been pushing the dinosaur to bird evolution for a long time. Chinese forgers were also quite happy to help them out. They really should have listened to experts who were adamant against the concept. There are just too many problems with the theory (see the other articles in this issue).
National Geographic isn’t the only one to get burned with a fake. USA Today reports that another fossil “link” found in the same area as Archaeoraptor was reported in Nature’s April, 1999 edition. It, too, had a reptile tail pinned to the body of another creature--in this case a pterosaur. It has fooled scientists and publishers alike.
Yes, there have been hoaxes. Anyone can make a mistake. Unfortunately, the damage will live on. Most of the adults and children who saw the original articles, as well as the 110,000 that viewed the displays at the National Geographic Explorer’s Hall, will still believe that dinosaurs had feathers because they saw the great artwork. This makes our job of de-evolutionizing the country even harder.



Paleontologist Birthday Parties

Other Scientists React
by Dave Nutting

Many scientists were absolutely dismayed over National Geographic’s promotion of feathered dinosaurs well before the unveiling of the Archaeoraptor hoax. Their expressed concerns were ignored.

Alan Feduccia, bird evolution specialist, was quoted as saying, “When they put that feathered dinosaur on the cover last year, I threw 30 years’ worth of magazines out of my house. National Geographic’s journalism is a joke.” [The Report Newsmagazine 12/6/1999] He went on to say, “...the hairlike filaments that accompany some fossils come from beneath the skin. I can duplicate the effect by skinning the tail of a modern lizard.”

In the same publication, Storrs Olson, fossil bird expert from the Smithsonian Institute (also an evolutionist), was reported to have written an open letter to National Geographic where he lambasted them for engaging in “‘sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid’ journalism. ‘Clearly,’ he wrote, ‘[the magazine] is not receiving competent consultation in certain scientific matters.’ He is especially ‘galled’ by the societies assertions that a wide variety of dinosaurs definitely wore feathers. ‘This is just a ___ lie,’ he says. ‘There is not one undisputed example of a dinosaur with feathers. None. The public deserves to know this.’ ”

Yes, we do. Otherwise children for more generations to come will grow up believing that evolution has “proven” its case. It hasn’t.

The Path to Birds?
by Mark Sonmor

One of the benefits of being the Graphic Artist at AOI is learning the truths of Creation as I work to visually communicate them. Last year, I ran across the July 1998 and November 1999 issues of National Geographic which promoted feathered dinosaurs. They showed several fossils and accompanying artwork that, to a layperson like me, indicated transitional forms between dinosaurs and birds.

After Archaeoraptor was exposed to be a fraud, I decided to study further to reconcile the other claims. As a result, I found revealing information that I had overlooked.

For example, next to the chart showing the evolution from dinosaur to birds, the text acknowledged this was “not a chronological progression” but rather an illustration of how the traits of the modern wing evolved in different creatures at different times. With this in mind, I decided to arrange the fossils according to the evolutionary dates assigned to them. I found major problems as illustrated at the far left.

This arrangement shows that the fossils from China were found in rocks older than the dinosaurs they supposedly evolved from and newer than Archaeopterix the bird that they were supposed to evolve to. Although this doesn’t automatically falsify the dinosaur-to-bird scenario, it does reveal what National Geographic failed to illustrate: The fossils don’t appear in the right order!

To complicate matters, a fossilized bird with very modern characteristics, named Proto-avis, was discovered in rocks “dated” at 225 million years old. If these findings hold true, it may force evolutionists to leave dinosaurs outside the lineage of birds altogether. However, this places a possible, but unknown ancestor even lower in the fossil record. The problem is summed up by Alan Feduccia, who says, “... you can’t be your own grandmother…To sustain their theory, theropod [to bird] supporters have to throw out the geologic record.”

Similiarities Do Not Equal Evolution
by Mark Sonmor

In 1964, a small, leaping predator was uncoverd named Deinonychus. After studying it’s anatomy, John Ostrom (Yale) concluded that it resembled a bird. However, like all meat-eating dinosaurs, Deinonychus had lizard-type (sauriscian) hips - exactly the opposite of what would be expected. The dinosaurs that did have bird hips (ornithiscian) are not seen as adequate evolutionary ancestors for birds. Furthermore, dinosaur “hand” bones and “corresponding” bird bones do not match. They are “derived” from different digits.

Also, similarities don’t necessarily equal an evolutionary relationship. Even Time magazine (July 6, 1998 pp.82-83) concedes that, “Sharks and dolphins...have comparable body shapes, though one is a fish and the other a mammal. Such disparate creations as bats, birds and butterflies all have wings in common.” However, it goes on to say that finding a dinosaur with feathers would seem to indicate an evolutionary relationship. After all, “They had [emphasis added] to evolve from somewhere.” Only faith in evolution would require this kind of reasoning.