The Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism (2018)

Falcarius commonly clustered with these taxa. They were united by their many “0s” in the datasets. We refrain from assigning any kind of baraminic status to these animals as of now. They appear to be discontinuous from the other groups that have been discussed with the possible exception of some of the “basal” members of those groups (e.g., Falcarius and Haplocheirus ). Most likely, the “basal” coelurosaur group is artificial and probably contains more than one holobaramin J. S ummary of the Baraminology of the Feathered Dinosaurs Through our baraminological work on coelurosaurs, we arrived at the following holobaramins: 1) Deinonychosauria (may be more than one), 2) Scansoriopterygidae, 3) Oviraptorosauria (probably more than one), 4) Therizinosauria (minus Falcarius ), 5) Alvarezsauridae, 6) Ornithomimosauria (minus Nqwebasaurus ), and 7) Tyrannosauridae + Appalachiosaurus + Xiongguanlong + Eotyrannus . Additionally, there must be at least one more holobaramin of “basal” coelurosaur. This means that, at minimum, there are probably eight different created kinds of feathered dinosaurs. None of these groups show conclusive evidence for continuity with Avialae, except for the taxon Archaeopteryx , which seems to be difficult to place. We suspect that Archaeopteryx will eventually be found to be a part of the deinonychosaur holobaramin, but we will wait on future analyses for resolution. As predicted by creationists (e.g., Clark 2007), there appear to be multiple baramins of feathered dinosaurs. As a caution, Senter did demonstrate that morphological gaps in the fossil record tend to be filled in over time, so we recognize that creationist arguments from discontinuity are not yet conclusive. Nevertheless, based on the results of this study and Garner et al. (2013), we conclude that discontinuity exists not only between, but also within modern birds, Mesozoic fossil birds, and dinosaurs. 2. Taxonomy Discussion Our results dovetail with the three previous creationist analyses of theropod dinosaurs and birds, giving us confidence that the creationist model of created kinds is compatible with fossil data. However, they raise a different issue for creationists. While we found that feathered dinosaurs could be broken into multiple created kinds, and others have found that birds can be broken into multiple created kinds, we could not find a way to separate theropod dinosaurs and birds overall into two groups based on their anatomy (cf. Garner et al. 2013). Traditionally, creationists have considered dinosaurs and birds to be two discrete groups, easy to separate and identify (e.g., Silvestru 2007). To most people, dinosaurs and birds appear to be vastly different animals. However, such a distinction can only be maintained by “cherry picking” non-birdlike dinosaurs for comparison. For instance, if sparrows, eagles, and flamingoes are compared with Triceratops, Diplodocus, and Stegosaurus, it is obvious that the birds belong to a different group from the dinosaurs. A much different picture appears if we compare birds to the theropod dinosaurs, and especially to the smaller coelurosaurs. The similarities are progressive from coelurosaurs to living birds, creating an anatomical spectrum of features. Dilong is not very similar to Corvus (living crows). But Dilong is similar to Compsognathus, Compsognathus to Deinonychus, Deinonychus to Archaeopteryx, Archaeopteryx to Cathayornis (a clawed, toothed enantiornithine bird with a pygostyle), Cathayornis to Ichthyornis (a toothed ornithurine bird without claws), and Ichthyornis to Corvus . These similarities are not merely subjective; when the skeletal features are mathematically quantified, and patterns of similarity analyzed as in our study, no enormous gulf can be found between coelurosaurs and birds. None of these analyses included feathers, which means these patterns are present even aside from the discovery of feathers on small dinosaurs, which only heightens the degree of similarity. Adding to the complexity of the situation is the difficulty of categorizing specific fossil species within existing, traditional, creationist, taxonomic categories. As discussed above, Archaeopteryx is so similar to both dromaeosaurids and some avialans that multiple creationist studies cannot determine whether it is continuous with traditional dinosaurs or birds. Indeed, creationists have disagreed over what Archaeopteryx is since its discovery. Within two years of its discovery, two paleontologists opposed to Darwinism had published papers on Archaeopteryx, one claiming that it was a reptile with skin structures that merely looked like feathers (Wagner 1862), and the other that it was unequivocally a bird, albeit an unusual one (Owen 1863). In the 1980s, multiple non-Darwinian scientists claimed that Archaeopteryx was a forgery, a combination of a real dinosaur fossil and fake feather imprints (e.g., Hoyle and Wickramasinghe 1986). Although the idea was discredited a couple years after it emerged, some creationists continue to repeat this claim (Brown 2008; Taylor 1990). Other creationists have followed Owen by claiming that Archaeopteryx is just an unusual bird (Gish 1973; Gish 1986), with some justifying this claim by quoting Feduccia as reported by Morell (1993) (Comfort 2008, p. 129; Sarfati 1999, p. 58). However, the quote is taken out of context because Feduccia has clarified his opinion by stating that Archaeopteryx is, “...the most superb example of a specimen perfectly intermediate between two higher groups of living organisms…” (Feduccia 1999, pp. 1, 29). Historically, creationists have been unable to reach agreement over what Archaeopteryx is, so its taxonomic identity cannot be obvious. Research by creationist paleontologists, whether using baraminological analyses, or simply looking at key morphological features, reveal patterns that are similar to those found by evolutionary methods. Although we disagree radically about its cause, both evolutionist and creationist paleontologists see a similar pattern: between what were traditionally called dinosaurs and living birds is a zone of fossil species with many traditional characteristics of both groups, so blurred and varied that it is impossible to be dogmatic about whether to call some of them birds or not. To an evolutionist, the growing lack of a significant anatomical gulf between theropod dinosaurs and birds is not surprising, since it was predicted by the hypothesis that birds evolved from theropods. To a creationist, the lack of a significant anatomical gulf may not have been predicted, but it need not be troubling. Our baraminological analyses reveal the presence of discontinuities between groups of feathered animals assumed to belong to separate created kinds, so it does not concede or imply evolution. It does imply that these groups cannot be clearly divided into either dinosaurs or birds, however. In fact, one of these groups may contain both a species McLain et al. ◀ Feathered dinosaurs reconsidered ▶ 2018 ICC 504