Everyone has encountered a T. rex in books, movies or museums. Besides its size and menacing jaws one of the most striking features of a T. rex is its diminutive arms. So why were the arms of T. rex so short? There have been many hypotheses including: 1) they had no use and were like a vestigial organ, 2) they were used to hold on to potential mates, 3) they were used to hold onto small prey while they ate, 4) they were used to help them get up when they fell down or 5) some combination of these explanations. Can these hypotheses be tested? Well, yes and no. Behavior traits are notoriously difficult, by not impossible, to assess with the fossil record. For example, see my post on extinct elephant behaviors deduced from fossil footprints (Preservation of Behavior: Fossilized Elephant Tracks from the Arabian Peninsula) or what we can learn from piles of fossil poo (Piles of Fossil Poo: Providing a Peak into the Past). What about the first hypothesis that the arms were useless? The assumption here is that over time the arms became useless and so atrophied to the point of being these tiny little nubs in comparison with the entire animal. In effect maybe there are just useless vestigial organs. This hypothesis can be tested and shown to be unlikely to be true. The bones of the arms show evidence of large muscle/tendon attachment points. Analyses of these arms then suggest that they were very strong even if they were very small. There is also the presence of two sharp claws at the end. These observations can be used to strongly support the hypotheses that the arms had some use even if we may not understand what that use may have been.
Rather than go on debating these speculative hypotheses, I want to look at a more fundamental question that I often ask my students: How do we know that T. rex had short arms?
Sounds like a simple question. After all, doesn’t every know that they had laughably small arms!? But ask yourself, how do you know this to be true? Have you ever seen a Tyrannosaurus rex in person? If you were not there to witness T. rex’s arms can how can you be sure they had short arms? Has anyone seen a T. rex in person? I don’t think so. If they lived 65 million years ago how can we be sure today that they had short arms?
So what is this evidence that we all find so convincing. It is nothing more than bones turned to rock. As philosopher Carol Cleland would say, there is your “smoking gun” evidence (see Origins Science and Misconceptions of Historical Science for a further discussion and references). The bones have left evidence or a “trace” of history that we can use to test our hypotheses about the lengths of the arms of T. rex and carnosaurs in general. How much total evidence is there to support this conclusion? Surprisingly little with respect to actual data points! I haven’t been able to find firm numbers but it seems that there are fewer than 15 near complete skeletons of T. rex that have ever been found. Of those I am not sure how many of these even had the arms actually attached to the shoulder blades but I would be surprised if it were more than a couple (the first was not found until 1989!). Of course there have been man more pieces of skeletons found and I am sure many arm bones have been found in the vicinity of other T. rex bones. The smoking gun evidence is found in those few that are actually attached but the observance of other small arm bones near other T. rex bones also adds to our conviction (or you could call it theory) that T. rex had short arms. So just a few bones that are found next to a shoulder bone of a T. rex are the foundation of every image you have ever seen of a T. rex with short arms. The lesson here is not that we should doubt that T. rex actually had short arms but rather that some forms of historical evidence are very very good and we can have great confidence that we can “know” that diminutive arms were found on these massive animals. I can’t test this theory by going back in time but the evidence that we can gather in the present can yield a high degree of confidence in our conclusions about the past.
But, let us continue to follow the path of what we think we know from historical science and see if our study of dinosaurs yields another more provocative conclusions than just the length of this beasts arms.
How do we know that many dinosaurs ate only plants and what plants did they eat? Teeth are one clue because we can compare their teeth to teeth from various animals alive today but while strong evidence it is not the smoking gun. Dinosaur coprolites (yeah, that’s dino-poop) in and around skeletons of tooth-implied plant eaters provide further evidence of the herb-loving nature of these dinosaurs. The teeth along with the lack of any evidence of bones in their coprolites and an abundance of plant tissues and spores and pollen combine to form the smoking gun evidence that has convinced everyone that these dinosaurs where plant eaters. Another way of putting this is that there evidence brings us to have no reasonable doubt that this is what these dinosaurs actually ate.
But let us look just a bit closer here. What specific kinds of plants did they eat? Cross sections of plant-eating dino-poops reveal very clear evidence of the types of plants that were eaten. Pieces of stems and leaves often pass right through the gut and pollen and spores of plants are especially well-preserved. The anatomy of these plant parts and structures of these spores can be examined in detail and the types of plants determined very reliably In this case what is found that a large number of plant-eating dinosaurs ate ferns, tree-ferns, lycopods, and primitive forms of conifers. What is missing in this list? Yes, flowering plants. Today’s the most dominant plant form on earth are flowering plants which include most trees and the grasses. No large herbivore today could possibly eat plants and not get at least some flowering plant pollen in them much less any other parts. Yet, there are at least hundreds of dinosaur coprolites that have been examined from all over the world and they lack pollen and flowering plant parts. There are anatomical cell types that are unique to flowering plants which could easily be seen in these specimens if they were present. Microscope examination would be predicted to reveal flowering plant parts and pollen in any coprolite were it present.
How do scientists interpret this coprolite evidence?
These fossilized coprolites tell us that some dinosaurs only eat plants and that globally what the vast majority of all plant-eating dinosaurs had to eat were non-flowering plants including many plants that are extinct today. How confident are scientists that most dinosaurs had nothing to eat by a fern and conifer diet? I would say that their confidence level approaches that of their confidence level that T. rex had short arms and that some dinosaurs at plants and some ate meat. The preponderance of evidence is great and includes many other independent lines of evidence that I don’t have time to explore here today.
Young Earth Creationists, Dinosaurs and Historical Data
If you were to visit Ken Ham’s Creation Museum in Kentucky you would find dinosaurs of various kinds on display there including plant and meat eaters and a model of T. rex with his short arms. Ken Ham is fond of asking people who think the world is old: “Were you there?” He frequently suggests that we can’t be confident about things from the distant past because we were not witnesses and only the Bible is a witness to these events. So I ask you, why does he have such confidence that T. rex had short arms? Was he or anyone else alive and reported that they saw a T. rex with short arms? Does the Bible provide us with a physical description of T. rex? No! So the evidence that T. rex has short arms comes from observations of fossils and the assumptions about those fossils (eg. they actually represent parts of formerly living things and that bones next to other bones represent their order of attachment in the real organism). Ken Ham and AIG have published numerous books with recreations of dinosaurs and even discuss their behaviors all based solely on bones of stone found in the ground. He clearly accepts the evidence and interpretations of this evidence derived via the historical sciences without qualification. But what happened to that origins science vs operational science distinction that Ham and others of so fond of espousing? (see HERE for more about this distinction). Origins science is the label YECs like to slap on any conclusion of historical science that they deem contradictory to their interpretation of scripture. But how do they know when something is or isn’t under the purview of what they call origins science? To me re-creating the shape and size of an animal now extinct and never spoken of in the Bible sounds a whole like what they want to call origins science but since the don’t have a problem with these particular interpretations of historical science they don’t call them into question.
I’m really can’t blame Ham and company for accepting that T. rex had short arm as the evidence, though not abundant, is very strong. It is not unreasonable at all that they accept this but then what are we to make of the diets of the plant eaters? I am sure young earth creationists would readily accept the observation of coprolites full of bones as evidence that T. rex was a carnivore but then what do they do with the coprolites of dinosaurs from the Triassic and Jurassic ages that contain 100% ferns, lycopods and conifers and 0% flowering plants. Maybe they could dismiss a single coprolite as a dinosaur browsing in a bog full of ferns and confers. But when all coprolites from a single geological period all lack flowering plant pollen and plant parts and those coprolites are found associated with multiple species of dinosaurs in multiple locations on earth, it become very difficult to deny that the food that dinosaurs had available to eat did not include flowering plants. Someone might claim that dinosaurs found in these geological periods just didn’t like flowering plants and avoided them. This is very unlikely and would clearly be an ad-hoc hypothesis. Today all large herbivores very much prefer flowering plant leaves like grass over pine needles and ferns, but even if they tried to avoid all leaves and stems of flowering plants they should have still eaten pollen grains inadvertently since they are everywhere in the environment. When you combine the lack of flowering plants in dino poop along with the lack of flowering plant pollen and plant parts in the rocks that the same dinosaurs skeletons are found preserved in this becomes the smoking gun evidence for the theory that flowering plants did not even exist at the time that the dinosaurs lived in the Triassic and most of the Jurassic Periods.
****A side note here: For YECs, the dinosaurs preserved in the fossil record were preserved during a Global flood and they generally view those dinosaurs as running to escape the flood which is their explanation for why dinosaur fossils are not found in the lower portions of the geological column. There are millions and probably many billions of preserved dino-poops in the same rock layers that the dinosaur bones are found. Since these dinosaurs were presumably running around trying to avoid this chaotic flood the food they ate would have been whatever they could find which should have been a random mixture of the plants alive at the time of the flood. This makes it even more unlikely that they could have avoided eating flowering plants and that we would observe such a distinct pattern in their coprolites.****
What do YECs do with this data. They generally ignore it but when forced to confront it they deny that flowering plants were not present and prefer to say “How do you know, where you there?” In addition it is likely they would suggest that historical scientists don’t have the right worldview and so can’t interpret the data properly. They put models of dinosaurs in their museum surrounded by fruit trees and print books with dinosaurs helping people pluck fruit from trees. At the end of the day, they are sure that T. rex has short arms based on a couple of bones but they are more than willing to ignore hundreds of pieces of data that all point to the lack of flowering plants in most dinosaur diets. There seems to a picking and choosing what historical science data they want to accept.
I should add a short addendum here before I get questions. Flowering plant pollen and plants are not absent from every single dino doo doo. In the geological column, the later dinosaurs did eat some flowering plants including very rarely some primitive forms of grass. The fossil record of plants show some forms of flowering plants begin to appear some time before the last dinosaurs are recorded. But the early dinosaurs are found in rocks devoid of flowering plants and their diet reflects the lack of flowering plants in the rocks. So, the point is that there is a strong correlation between the fossil record of plants and their appearance in dino coprolites. If the dinosaurs were all present at one time on earth rather than over an extended time period then this pattern of “older” coprolites lacking flowering plants with “recent” coprolites would be very difficult to explain.
“The first claim seems to be perfectly acceptable knowledge based on historical science while the latter also based on the same logical principles and types of data is completely ignored.” In other words, young Earth creationism is parasitical upon science rather than a ‘branch’ of science. (A sort of cherry picking of some bits whilst a war on other bits.)
One could also look at the arm lengths of close relatives in an effort to identify a likely arm length for T. rex.
I find your analysis with regard to YEC’s faulty in several ways. First, I don’t think Ken Ham and his team would assert their depictions of dinosaurs as factual anymore than Jack Horner would claim his theories about Tyrannosaurus or hadrosaurs are anything more than educated theories. Second, the Bible does mention dinosaur-like creatures (see references to Leviathan and Behemoth). Thirdly, the evidence presented in the dinosaur spoor and surrounding sediments speaks to the environments in which they lived: not necessarily the epochs in which they lived. Certainly an animal roaming among ferns and conifers would dine on ferns and conifers… Fourth, I have yet to hear any YEC claim that the animals were not found among angiosperms because they were fleeing cataclysmic events. If one made such an assertion as anything more than a theory, I think we could both agree that he overstepping. Likewise, I hope you can agree that any assertion of fact which you casually make when you speak of the geologic column is overstepping…
Hi, thanks for your response. You are right, I am sure that Ham would not claim that the depictions of dinosaurs in their museum are 100% factual but I am sure that Horner and Ham would likely accept that T.rex has short arms as a theory that is beyond reasonable doubt (it could still be wrong like any theory like organisms are composed of cells). What I was attempting to highlight is that Ham and other YECs readily accept some historical facts while denying others that have as much evidence. Regarding the dino doo, dinosaurs found in the same position in the geological column all around the world are lacking in flowring plant pollen. And even if they were eating in an areas where there is only fern and conifers angiosperm pollen is ubiquitous in all environments today even those lacking in flowering plants because the pollen is distributed everywhere. Thus the lack of flowering plant pollen around the world suggests not just a local environment but a complete ecosystem devoid of flowering plants. The rocks themselves in which the dino coprolites are found also lack flowering plant pollen. It is the combination of multiple observations that make the YEC position untenable. Even in a flood the rock layers below the coprolites and dino nests must have been laid down before the flood. Whey would they lack pollen if there were any flowering plants before the flood all rocks should contain pollen, no laws of sorting are known that could sort out flowering plant pollen from conifer pollen on a local or worldwide level. Why would there be a correlation of the rocks lackign pollen with dino coprolites lacking pollen in the same area if the dinos are not related historically to the sediments the rocks are made of? You probably would disagree because you think the geological column can’t be correlated across the globe and that is what you must believe for the pollen record not to be a serious problem. I can make assertions about the geological column because there is plenty of evidence supporting it that I am deeply aware of. Just like I asserted above that all organisms are composed of cells, I can asset that without providing all the evidence to support that assertion.
I agree YEC should not necessarily accept tiny arms on a T rex without evidence. YEC believe man lived with dinasaurs so I would find it more interesting to consider that these tiny arms might actually be the wings that dragons were reported as having.
I think the picture is cute but silly. Anything with teeth that sharp is probably going to be eating those creatures, not the trees. I don’t buy the pollen argument. If dinos ate the pollen before it could release, the plants would be prevented from reproduction. Plants want animals to eat their fruit, and distribute their seeds, but pollen is designed to annoy higher order animals (sneezing, coughing, etc), and only bees (that I know of) are attracted to it as a food source. I have heard of pollen found in layers thought to be before flowering plants appeared, how do old earthers explain this? For young earthers a global flood is one explanation why the tiny, boyant pollen would have mostly risen to the top before everything settled. Dinos outrunning a flood wouldn’t be expected to have time to stop and eat the upper level vegetation, and even if near a tall mountain, they would be dead fairly quickly. Maybe they did eat pollen but were able to process it for energy, or had parasites which ate the pollen out of their poop! Are you sure people can see ferns in that rock? How do you know they are not seeing things? Looks like a Rorschach Test to me. Nevertheless, its completly incredible if dinos pooped those psychedelic rocks full of valuable gems and minerals!
Hi, you have some interesting ideas but I think you will find with some research into the literature you would find plenty of evidence that those ideas of more than implausible. I have written a whole paper about pollen and the flood and it addressed your concerns: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2008/PSCF9-08Duff.pdf. Basically spores are the same size as pollen and they are found throughout the geological column so how come they didn’t also float to the top. Also, not all pollen floats anyway. Yes, pollen has found in the geolgoical record before other parts of flowering plants are. This is not surprising to anyone who works with fossils. For example, grass pollen is found only in the upper parts of the geological column but fossils of grass aren’t found as deep in the record as grass. Pollen is produced in such volumes and moves across the landscaped falling into lakes and being preserved very easily there whereas the grass is growing in places where it will decay and not be preserved as easily. It will take a rare and lucky find to discover a grass fossil whereas pollen of plants can be expected to be found everywhere. This is why it is so surprising not to find ANY flowering plant pollen in most of the geological record when spores of ferns are fond in abundance throughout.
I strongly suggest you read some original scientific papers to find out what we can know. Pollen is easily observed in the fossil record and spores are found in abundance in fossil poop. Parasite would not eat all the flowering plant pollen and leave all the spores. Not all dinosaur poops are mineralized in the same way. Its mostly the meat eaters poop that end up as cool looking stuff. The plant eaters basically look like cowpies and are full of fossilized plant material (usually all ferns or plants like ferns).
As an adult, I’m now convinced the tiny arms of a T-Rex were deliberately taken from some other skeleton as a joke that has endured for decades.
i thought what you had to say about the fossilized dino dung was very interesting and in my opinion it supports the biblical description of the earth before the flood because there is a certain likelihood that the garden of eden may have been the only place on earth with flowering plants because when adam and eve sinned against god he cursed the earth (genesis 3:17, 18)saying the earth would bring forth thorns and thistles and told adam that he would eat the herb of the field it was not until after the flood that god removed the curse (genesis 8:21) and so there may not have been flowering plants until after the flood your report about fossilized dinosaur dung is actually good evidence that god cursed the earth before the time of the flood