Alligator ancestor antics

by

©iStockPhoto.com/clark42 Crocodile

Dr Carl Werner found this alligator fossil (bottom right) on display at Dinosaur Provincial Park, Alberta, Canada. Evolutionists regard this as a ‘dinosaur era’ (Cretaceous) fossil. Dr Werner noted the similarity to living alligators that he had seen in Louisiana. A comparison with a modern alligator skull (bottom left) shows the high level of similarity. And yet the fossil and the modern alligator were given different names, even a different genus. Giving them different names gives the false impression that alligators have changed in the supposed 75 million years; but they haven’t! Alligators reproduce true to their kind, like all the other creatures that God created. We could say, ‘Evolution is a croc’!

Redpath Museum, Montreal, Canada Modern alligator skull
Modern alligator skull
Alligator mississipiensis
Dinosaur Provincial Park, Alberta, Canada Dinosaur era
‘Dinosaur era’ alligator skull
(The nasal septum not preserved) Albertochampsa langstoni

Helpful Resources

Readers’ comments

Chandrasekaran M.
Do we have to wait such a long time as 75 million years to see this very little difference in these two skulls especially when Homo sapiens' life span is in the order of few hundred years at the maximum? If this kind of little difference is found between modern alligator skulls what will be the conclusion in evolution paradigm – evolution caught in action producing the same kind?
Justin C.
If the fossil that was found was an actual (non-fossilized) skull, would there be any grounds to classify it differently?

If not, this is a classic example of "eisegesis" done to the fossil record.

Violence to the "text," indeed.
Don Batten
Whether it is 'fossilized' or not is not that relevant. Permineralization of organisms can occur quite quickly (there are plenty of examples on creation.com: Fossils Q&A). The assumed age is the issue for the evolutionists, regardless of the degree of permineralization (note that many fossils are found, such as dinosaurs, that are not largely original bone, even blood vessels, etc.). The thinking is, 'in that amount of time it would have evolved significantly, therefore it cannot be the same species' (or genus, even, in this case).
The point is that there is very little difference between the two (think about Chihuahua and Great Dane dogs, by comparison, which are the same species).

Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.