What the heck are you talking about?
The current paper builds on work by a team headed by John Asara and Lewis Cantley of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School.
“We determined that T. rex, in fact, grouped with birds — ostrich and chicken — better than any other organism that we studied,” Asara said. “We also showed that it groups better with birds than modern reptiles, such as alligators and green anole lizards.”
Well, I was referring to percent matches of DNA among Crocodillia, Anura, Aves, and a Dinosaur DNA sample found in the 1980s. Anura and Aves were found to be the closest. This was when I was studying biology, but I am no longer in that field, and don’t have access. Incidentally, it was not a study which asserted Birds and Frogs were closely related, but merely charted the percentage of amino acids that various groups had in common with each other. I just happened to notice the very high correlation. This makes looking for it under a subject search very difficult. At the time, I had found other papers which questioned whether modern lissamphibians were even directly descended from stem amphibians at all, so it had grabbed my interest.
I don’t know whether the paper you cite was in part spurred by what I referred to. (Did someone say, “Hey, let’s see if they really ARE so closely related?”) I do notice that their research doesn’t seem to indicate that they measured relations to frogs, or any other amphibians at all. SO what you wrote may either be a later proof that the earlier indications were wrong, or it may be a complete non-sequitur.
In any event, if you read my original posting, my clear intent was to prompt further research into using genetics to establish phylogenies, not to champion young-earth creationism.
(My take on young-earth creationism: If the earth isn’t old, God sure wanted to make it look like it was!)