"A toothless, two-legged crocodile ancestor that walked upright and had a beak instead of teeth was discovered in the basement of New York's American Museum of Natural History, according to a report published on Wednesday" (CNN.com 2006).
On January 26th, CNN.com reported the above rediscovery of a fascinating and bizarre creature dubbed Effigia. But from the outset, evolutionists report how the public should view this animal. They state, "Effigia is closely related to an ancient group of reptiles called crocodilians" (CNN.com 2006). This is simply evolutionary speculation. How do the authors know that the fossil was related to crocodilians? When we picture a crocodile, chances are we would envision the traditional, swamp-infesting, partially-submerged reptile. So, when the description of this animal is given, one wonders why evolutionists insist on calling it a "crocodile"! The article even says "[Effigia's] skull and skeleton were very similar to those of ostrich dinosaurs" (CNN.com 2006). Whether one is a Darwinist or a creationist, there's no reason to label this wholly unique creature with similarities to an ostrich dino as a "crocodile."
Evolutionist Mark Norell states that "this is a case of convergence" (CNN.com 2006). The word convergence is commonly used when secular scientists don't know anything about the alleged evolution of an animal ("it closely resembles a completely unrelated dinosaur"). Dare we suggest the Darwinist find a common ancestor with traits that would explain this animal and all the other creatures mentioned in the article that supposedly evolved from this common ancestor? In other words, it seems the evolutionists are looking at this "crocodile" and considering it "another example of similarity in structure that cannot be explained as evolutionary descent from a common ancestor" [Parker 1994, 42].
Norell goes on to state that this creature "evolved more than once" (CNN.com 2006). This is certainly not a scientific explanation. Again, the question must be asked how the secular scientists know what they purport to be true.
From our very limited exposure, creationists would view this bizarre creature as having similar structures designed by the Creator to meet similar needs as other animals like it. Many see this as just one more paleontological flash in the pan. Some artist will use his imagination to flesh out what he thinks Effigia looked like. People will be enthralled and then Effigia will pass into the annals of evolutionary history without a satisfactory evolutionary explanation.
- Parker, Gary. 1994. Creation: Facts of Life. Green Forest, AR: Master Books.
