Skip to content

ExpatSingapore

Home Message Board Contact Us Search

ExpatSingapore Message Board 12 December 2017, 3:02:20 AM *
Username: Password: (or Register)
 
Pages: 1 ... 147 148 [149] 150
  Print  
Author Topic: Science Disproves Evolution  (Read 409246 times)
Pahu
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1220



View Profile
« Reply #2220 on: 23 November 2017, 22:39:17 PM »

Out-of-Sequence Fossils 5


Petrified trees in Arizona’s Petrified Forest National Park contain fossilized nests of bees and cocoons of wasps. The petrified forests are reputedly 220 million years old, while bees (and flowering plants, which bees require) supposedly evolved almost 100 million years later (l). Pollinating insects and fossil flies, with long, well-developed tubes for sucking nectar from flowers, are dated 25 million years before flowers are assumed to have evolved (m). Most evolutionists and textbooks systematically ignore discoveries which conflict with the evolutionary time scale.

l.   Stephen T. Hasiotis (paleobiologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver), personal communication, 27 May 1995.

Carl Zimmer, “A Secret History of Life on Land,” Discover, February 1998, pp. 76–83.
 
m.   Dong Ren, “Flower-Associated Brachycera Flies as Fossil Evidence for Jurassic Angiosperm Origins,” Science, Vol. 280, 3 April 1998, pp. 85–88.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
Logged

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.


oldmike
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1119


View Profile
« Reply #2221 on: 23 November 2017, 23:09:40 PM »

The Fossil Fallacy
Creationists' demand for fossils that represent "missing links" reveals a deep misunderstanding of science
By Michael Shermer on March 1, 20055
Nineteenth-century English social scientist Herbert Spencer made this prescient observation: "Those who cavalierly reject the Theory of Evolution, as not adequately supported by facts, seem quite to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at all." Well over a century later nothing has changed. When I debate creationists, they present not one fact in favor of creation and instead demand "just one transitional fossil" that proves evolution. When I do offer evidence (for example, Ambulocetus natans, a transitional fossil between ancient land mammals and modern whales), they respond that there are now two gaps in the fossil record.
This is a clever debate retort, but it reveals a profound error that I call the Fossil Fallacy: the belief that a "single fossil"--one bit of data--constitutes proof of a multifarious process or historical sequence. In fact, proof is derived through a convergence of evidence from numerous lines of inquiry--multiple, independent inductions, all of which point to an unmistakable conclusion.
We know evolution happened not because of transitional fossils such as A. natans but because of the convergence of evidence from such diverse fields as geology, paleontology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, molecular biology, genetics, and many more. No single discovery from any of these fields denotes proof of evolution, but together they reveal that life evolved in a certain sequence by a particular process.
One of the finest compilations of evolutionary data and theory since Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species is Richard Dawkins's magnum opus, The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution (Houghton Mifflin, 2004)--688 pages of convergent science recounted with literary elegance. Dawkins traces numerous transitional fossils (what he calls "concestors," the last common ancestor shared by a set of species) from Homo sapiens back four billion years to the origin of heredity and the emergence of evolution. No single concestor proves that evolution happened, but together they reveal a majestic story of process over time.
We know evolution happened because of a convergence of evidence.
Consider the tale of the dog. With so many breeds of dogs popular for so many thousands of years, one would think there would be an abundance of transitional fossils providing paleontologists with copious data from which to reconstruct their evolutionary ancestry. In fact, according to Jennifer A. Leonard, an evolutionary biologist then at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History, "the fossil record from wolves to dogs is pretty sparse." Then how do we know whence dogs evolved? In the November 22, 2002, Science, Leonard and her colleagues report that mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) data from early dog remains "strongly support the hypothesis that ancient American and Eurasian domestic dogs share a common origin from Old World gray wolves."
Logged
Pahu
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1220



View Profile
« Reply #2222 on: 24 November 2017, 3:59:09 AM »

The Fossil Fallacy
Creationists' demand for fossils that represent "missing links" reveals a deep misunderstanding of science
By Michael Shermer on March 1, 20055
Nineteenth-century English social scientist Herbert Spencer made this prescient observation: "Those who cavalierly reject the Theory of Evolution, as not adequately supported by facts, seem quite to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at all." Well over a century later nothing has changed. When I debate creationists, they present not one fact in favor of creation and instead demand "just one transitional fossil" that proves evolution. When I do offer evidence (for example, Ambulocetus natans, a transitional fossil between ancient land mammals and modern whales), they respond that there are now two gaps in the fossil record.
This is a clever debate retort, but it reveals a profound error that I call the Fossil Fallacy: the belief that a "single fossil"--one bit of data--constitutes proof of a multifarious process or historical sequence. In fact, proof is derived through a convergence of evidence from numerous lines of inquiry--multiple, independent inductions, all of which point to an unmistakable conclusion.

The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

Major Evolutionary Blunders: Are Whales and Evolution Joined at the Hip?

National Geographic has a Little Kids First Big Book of… series on different topics. In its Little Kids First Big Book of Animals, pictures show giraffes, camels, bears, and whales.1 Young readers can see they all look different. Animals that live on land, like bears, have legs. But no one has seen a whale with legs. However, upon closer look, bears and whales do have some of the same traits. They both give birth to live young and nurse their offspring. Some whales also have hair in particular places on their body. These similar traits mean that both bears and whales are mammals. Some land mammals swim in the water a lot. What would happen if one type started to live more in the water than on land? Would its front legs slowly change to flippers like a whale has? Would its back legs gradually disappear? Is it possible that over a long time one kind of land animal could even become a whale?

The Evolutionary Origin of Whales

Some evolutionists used to imagine that whales could evolve from an animal like a bear. Charles Darwin considered how black bears can swim for a long time. Once he wrote about such bears

…swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.2

This scenario flows from a very fertile imagination. But, as documented in an earlier article, imaginary extrapolation is a key element of evolutionary theory.3

Darwin’s thought about a bear-like animal evolving into whales is now seen more as an illustration than a reality. For many years, evolutionists held that whales evolved from an extinct carnivorous mammal group called mesonychids. Their interpretation of fossils supported their conclusion. Ernst Mayr said in 2001, “A beautiful series of intermediate stages also exists between the mesonychid ungulates and their descendants, the whales.”4

But now most evolutionists reject the mesonychids as ancestors for whales. Instead, important new fossils discovered in Pakistan are interpreted as filling that role. DNA sequences have also been compared between whales and living animals that have features similar to those of the new fossils. Evolutionists now have “a firm understanding” that whales evolved from an animal more related to giraffes and camels.5 Unfortunately, “substantial discrepancies remain” between interpretations of fossil data and results from DNA studies, according to Johns Hopkins University professor Kenneth Rose.6 Rose and others explain that similarities between whales and mesonychids happened independently in both groups due to “convergent evolution.” Convergence is not an observation flowing from objectively discernable causes. It is actually a declaration based on mental pictures of diverse organisms evolving similar traits as they are shaped over time by similar environmental pressures—which themselves are not real, quantifiable pressures but exist only as figures of speech.

There are still substantial discrepancies between DNA and fossil evidence for whale evolution. But evolutionists remain convinced “the transition from a primitively quadrupedal terrestrial ancestor to a convergently ‘fish-like’ modern mammal species” actually happened in a process that “involved changes in numerous character systems.” Definitely not understating the point, they add that “almost all anatomical systems of living cetaceans are highly modified for an aquatic lifestyle, with dramatic changes seen in…limbs.”7

Whale Hip Bones as Evidence for Whale Evolution

Speaking of limbs, evolutionists believe they see greatly reduced pelvis or hip bones in some whales. They teach this observation as hard evidence for whale evolution. Just like the human appendix,8 these “hip” bones are interpreted as a vestigial structure. Jerry Coyne from the University of Chicago sums up the evolutionary position nicely:

Whales are treasure troves of vestigial organs. Many living species have a vestigial pelvis and leg bones, testifying…to their descent from four-legged ancestors. If you look at a complete whale skeleton in a museum, you’ll often see the tiny hindlimb and pelvic bones hanging from the rest of the skeleton, suspended by wires. That’s because in living whales they’re not connected to the rest of the bones, but are simply imbedded in tissue. They once were part of the skeleton, but became disconnected and tiny when they were no longer needed.9

For decades, evolutionists did not search for any other uses for these bones. Why? Because a vestigial pelvis was what they expected to find.

Declarations About Whale Hip Bones Were Wrong

Fortunately, two researchers were not fully content with the customary explanation. In light of their research, the standard evolutionary story about whale hip bones, as relayed by Coyne, appears to be another major evolutionary blunder.

Matthew Dean of the University of Southern California and Jim Dines of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County examined “hip” bones in whale and dolphin skeletons. Their painstaking research of more than 10,000 unsorted bones turned “a long-accepted evolutionary assumption on its head.” According to the report, “common wisdom has long held that those bones are simply vestigial, slowly withering away like tailbones on humans.” But their results “[fly] directly in the face of that assumption, finding that not only do those pelvic bones serve a purpose—but their size and possibly shape are influenced by the forces of sexual selection.”10 This new analysis of whale hips was published in the scientific journal Evolution.11

Dines and Dean are evolutionists. They still believe that whales evolved from a four-legged land mammal. Thus, they believe that they really are studying vestigial hip bones. But, as reported, “‘everyone’s always assumed that if you gave whales and dolphins a few more million years of evolution, the pelvic bones would disappear. But it appears that’s not the case,’ said Matthew Dean.”10

These bones serve an important purpose. In fact, “the muscles that control a cetacean’s penis—which has a high degree of mobility—attach directly to its pelvic bones. As such, it made sense to Dean and Dines that the pelvic bones could affect the level of control over the penis that an individual cetacean has, perhaps offering an evolutionary advantage.”10

Dean and Dines are not likely to say that their research highlighted another evolutionary blunder over beliefs about vestigial organs. But Dean did admit that “our research really changes the way we think about the evolution of whale pelvic bones in particular, but more generally about structures we call ‘vestigial.’ As a parallel, we are now learning that our appendix is actually quite important in several immune processes, not a functionally useless structure.”10

Salvaging the Darwinian Whale Hip Story

Scientists may struggle to admit a blunder. They seem prone to try to save it. These “hip” bones are not attached to the backbone of living whales, dolphins, or any of the fossils. Claims beyond the realm of human detection are mystical. The assertion that these bones are hip bones or a pelvis is a mystical claim. Thus, Coyne’s defense that whale “hip” bones are truly vestigial remnants invokes mysticism.



Salvage efforts may force even more mystical appeals. Coyne acknowledges that whales use the bones during reproduction. But as to the conclusion that the bones are not vestigial, he adds, “This argument is wrong: no evolutionist denies that the remnants of ancestral traits can retain some functionality or be co-opted for other uses.”12 For evolutionists, reproductive functions are simply “co-opted” from a locomotive function. Co-option is not an observation, it is a declaration. When does a researcher observe co-option happening? If one takes a moment to think about it, what part on a human doesn’t have more than one function? Co-option is summoned to fit ill-fitting findings into evolutionary theory.

Evolutionists also try to work some fossil evidence into their land mammal-to-water mammal evolutionary scenario. Included are fossils discovered in Southwest Asia of four-legged creatures with a true pelvis. They have essentially no resemblance to whales. However, the evolutionary community embraced research that asserted they were a primitive type of whale. Whales and dolphins are categorized as cetaceans. These fossil creatures were given names like Ambulocetus and Pakicetus, which place them in the same category. But how does one know that these are truly fossils of the evolutionary ancestor of whales? Obtaining convincing proof of that is difficult. Changing the definition of what constitutes a whale is easier.

An article titled “What Is a Whale?” in Science dealt with the issue of deciding whether Ambulocetus was in the whale’s lineage. It reasonably noted, “Another problem arises considering that discoveries of ostensible whales occur fairly regularly…with new combinations of characters making it difficult to decide whether they are whales following a strictly character-based definition.” In other words, shouldn’t a creature have most of the distinctive characteristics of whales in order to be called a whale? The problem facing evolutionists was how to include Ambulocetus into the whale category in spite of its clear lack of whale-like features. Thus, they determined that “a more reasonable solution is to use a phylogenetic definition [for whales], that is, one based on common ancestry.…Ambulocetus is a whale by virtue of its inclusion in that lineage.”13

But the point of the research was to see if Ambulocetus was enough like whales to rationally be included in whales’ lineage. Changing to a new “phylogenetic” definition is shrewd. It enables evolutionists to simply declare Ambulocetus to be a whale by virtue of their prior declaration that it is an ancestor to whales.

Abdominal Bones Well-Designed for a Key Function


ICR’s Brian Thomas provided an excellent synopsis on the whale bone research.14 He described the problems with seeing these bones as evolutionary adaptations. He offered a better explanation of bones designed for a specific purpose. The bones in the lower abdomen in some whales do not connect to other bones but are embedded in several muscles. Bone provides a firm anchor for other structures that are manipulated by these muscles. It seems that these bones may be vital for extraordinarily large bodies to mate in a fluid environment. Similarly, many animals and also humans have a bone called the hyoid in their neck region. It also is affixed only by muscles above and below it. The hyoid provides a firm anchor for these muscles to help manipulate the tongue, larynx, and pharynx. Both the hyoid and whale abdominal bones are a good design solution for the movement of accessory structures.

In light of recent research, why shouldn’t these bones be renamed in the scientific literature? Could simply using the given names “whale hip bones” or “whale pelvis” mislead people? Evolutionary literature makes subtle changes to the normal usage of words like whale, gene, selection, and evolution. Readers should be alert for this ploy. In this case, changing the definition of a whale allowed fossils with a true pelvis to fit into evolutionists’ story of whale evolution. There are other consequences. National Geographic may need to change animal names in their Little Kids First Big Book of Animals. With continual word manipulation by evolutionists, little kids themselves may soon struggle to do something they normally excel at—identifying giraffes, camels, bears, and whales.

http://www.icr.org/article/major-evolutionary-blunders-are-whales/
« Last Edit: 24 November 2017, 4:03:18 AM by Pahu » Logged

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
oldmike
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1119


View Profile
« Reply #2223 on: 24 November 2017, 19:32:32 PM »

http://www.eartharchives.org/articles/the-evolution-of-whales/
Logged
Pahu
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1220



View Profile
« Reply #2224 on: 26 November 2017, 3:22:41 AM »


Scientific Roadblocks to Whale Evolution



Introduction

The American public—including young people in our tax-supported public schools—is constantly indoctrinated with the curious idea that people (and whales) have come from bacteria.

One legitimate answer to the question "What is life?" is "bacteria." Any organism, if not itself a live bacterium, is then a descendant—one way or another—of a bacterium or, more likely, mergers of several kinds of bacteria.1
Naturalists shroud such whimsical statements with the mantle of science. Indeed, one encounters many bizarre explanations for the origin of the species when such strange fiction grips biology. A popular contemporary "just so" story tells how land mammals ventured back into the ancient seas and became whales. The idea was first presented by Darwin in the first edition of his book, Origin of Species. The naturalist stated: "I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale." Interestingly, Darwin retracted this example in all later editions of his book.

This has not stopped later evolutionists. For example, the ancient ancestors of whales, writes the late Sir Gavin de Beer, ". . . had dentitions enabling them to feed on large animals, but some took to preying on fish and rapidly evolved teeth like sharks. . . . Next, some whales preyed on small cuttlefish and evolved a reduced dentition. Finally the whalebone whales, having taken to feeding on enormous numbers of small shrimps, also evolved rapidly.2

This imaginary tale explains nothing. No one was there to observe, measure, or take notes regarding the above process. Thus, it is idle speculation and should not be considered science.

When we investigate whale evolution from a non-whale ancestor, the problems seem as enormous as the creatures themselves. In 1982, a British science writer and evolutionist said:

The problem for Darwinians is in trying to find an explanation for the immense number of adaptations and mutations needed to change a small and primitive earthbound mammal, living alongside and dominated by dinosaurs, into a huge animal with a body uniquely shaped so as to be able to swim deep in the oceans, a vast environment previously unknown to mammals . . . all this had to evolve in at most five to ten million years—about the same time as the relatively trivial evolution of the first upright walking apes into ourselves.3
Evolutionist Michael Denton described the problem of such a fantastic transition by saying: ". . . we must suppose the existence of innumerable collateral branches leading to many unknown types . . . one is inclined to think in terms of possibly hundreds, even thousands of transitional species on the most direct path between a hypothetical land ancestor and the common ancestor of modern whales . . . we are forced to admit with Darwin that in terms of gradual evolution, considering all the collateral branches that must have existed in the crossing of such gaps, the number of transitional species must have been inconceivably great.4

It is no wonder that ". . . the evolutionary origin of whales remains controversial among zoologists."5

The Physiology Problem

A number of land animals have been proposed as the whale's ancestor, including Darwin's bear, grazing ungulates, wolf-like carnivores (Mesonyx), and the hippopotamus. In each case the morphological differences are significant. If whales (cetaceans) did evolve from land mammals, they did so at an unbelievable rate, accruing an amazing number of "beneficial" mutations and adaptations.

The skeletal features would need to change radically, as well as the physiology (the collective functions of an organism). For example, the supposed early "whale," Ambulocetus, drank fresh water probably throughout its life "50 million years ago," and Indocetus was a saltwater drinker "48 million years ago." This means that in perhaps three million years there had to be an extreme change in the physiology of these creatures.6

These "proto-whales" would have had to mutate in a beneficial manner to produce the above physiological adaptations. However, science shows that organisms don't survive a rapid rate of mutation. Additionally, a popular encyclopedia recently stated: "Presumably, various physiological mechanisms for handling oxygen debt and lactic acid buildup, as well as the development of blubber for fat storage and for temperature regulation, evolved early, though evidence of the evolutionary history is unavailable."7

Less obvious essential design features would ensure the cetaceans against hypothermia. Mammals are warmblooded creatures designed by the Creator to function at a constant body temperature higher than fish, reptiles, or amphibians.

Maintaining a core body temperature while being bathed in an ocean of cold water would be a definite problem for the cetaceans. However, whale fins have fascinating biological structures called countercurrent heat exchangers to conserve heat. Also, zoologists have recently discovered exchangers located at the base of the massive tongue of grey whales.8 These exchangers are a series of blood vessels arranged so that they too function as heat exchangers to minimize heat loss. The grey whale would otherwise lose much body heat through the tongue's extensive vascularization.

Macroevolutionists cannot appeal to natural selection to produce amazing structures like the countercurrent system, although comparative physiologists present countercurrent exchange found in gills and kidneys as structures that repeatedly evolved. Indeed, no known process can turn a four-legged land creature into a blue whale: "Natural selection can act only on those biologic properties that already exist; it cannot create properties in order to meet adaptational needs."9 Specifically, natural selection cannot produce new structures as is often stated in evolutionary just-so stories; it can only preserve the best-adapted varieties which occur by other means.

Problems from Head to Tail

Gould10 proclaims the long and slim Basilosaurus as ". . . the 'standard' and best-known early whale." However, evolutionist Barbara J. Stahl states: "The serpentine form of the body and the peculiar serrated cheek teeth make it plain that these archaeocetes [i.e., Basilosaurus and related creatures] could not possibly have been ancestral to any of the modern whales."11 Today there are two major groups of cetaceans: the baleen whales, called the mysticeti with double blowholes; and the toothed whales, odontoceti with a single blowhole. Stahl presents irritating morphological facts such as: ". . . the structure of the skull in the odontocete and mysticete forms shows a strange modification not present, even in a rudimentary way, in Basilosaurus and its smaller relatives. . . ." She also describes sperm whales (odontocete) which have an asymmetric arrangement of bones that roof the skull, while mysticeans have a symmetrical arrangement.

None of the suggested whale's terrestrial ancestors (ungulates or carnivores) have a vertical tail movement. However, whales (and an alleged link, Ambulocetus) do have a spinal up-and-down undulation. When did this happen? Where are all the fossils documenting how the side-to-side movement of the land mammal's tail changed to the down and up movement of Ambulocetus (and the whales)? This is quite significant! The land ancestor of the whale would have to gradually eliminate its pelvis, replacing it with a very different skeletal structure and associated musculature that would support a massive, flat tail (with flukes). Pure undirected chance would have to simultaneously produce these horizontal tail flukes independently, diminish the pelvis, and allow the deformed land creature to continue to live and even flourish in the sea.

The Problem of Molecular Biology

At the 1997 keynote lecture of Darwin Day at the University of Tennessee, Douglas Futuyma stated that ". . . the molecular revolution in biology has furnished us with mountains of information that not only attests to the history of evolution, but also sheds even more light on evolutionary processes." A far different evaluation was given the same year by three evolutionary biologists who stated: ". . . even with the appropriate genes, the molecular tree of life is difficult to interpret."12 Few systematists (biologists who study taxonomy and are involved in reconstructing phylogenetic, or evolutionary, history) would say that morphological patterns of form line up with the molecular evidence.

Regarding the supposed relationship between terrestrial and aquatic mammals, one publication reported: "These results reveal a large discordance between morphological and molecular measures of similarity. Rats and mice are classified in the same family, while cows and whales are classified in different orders. Perhaps molecular sequences are not necessarily giving us an accurate picture of ancestry."13

Zoologist John Gatesy reports competing interpretations of whale origins using phylogenetic analyses of a blood-clotting protein gene from cetaceans, artiodactyls (pigs, hippopotamuses, ruminants, and camels), perissodactyls (rhinos and horses), and carnivores. He says that in combination with published DNA sequences, the data of this clotting protein " . . . unambiguously support a hippo/whale clade and are inconsistent with the paleontological perspective."14

Ever since Darwin we have seen that neither natural selection nor random mutations could possibly serve as remotely sufficient mechanisms of change that would turn terrestrial tetrapods into whales. Molecular biology, physiology, and morphology present impenetrable roadblocks for tracing a common ancestry from tetrapods to archaeocetes to modern whales.

http://www.icr.org/article/scientific-roadblocks-whale-evolution/
Logged

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
oldmike
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1119


View Profile
« Reply #2225 on: 26 November 2017, 17:29:05 PM »

Quote
  The American public—including young people in our tax-supported public schools—is constantly indoctrinated with the curious idea that people (and whales) have come from bacteria.   

Not so. The original life form appeared before bacteria, because bacteria need something to eat.
Typical creationist alternative fact.

According to the Qur'an, the skies and the earth were joined together as one "unit of creation", after which they were "cloven asunder". After the parting of both, they simultaneously came into their present shape after going through a phase when they were smoke-like. Some parts of the Qur'an state that the process of creation took 6 days, Other parts provide detail about creation. 2 days to create the Earth, 2 days to create the mountains, to bless the Earth and to measure its sustenance, total 4 days, and then 2 more days to create the heavens and the stars.
In the Quran, the word "day" is used loosely to mean era, for example Surah 70 verse 4: "The angels and spirit will ascend to Him during a day the extent of which is fifty thousand years".

In Hindu philosophy, the existence of the universe is governed by the Trimurti of Brahma (the Creator), Vishnu (the Sustainer) and Shiva (the Destroyer).
The sequence of Avatars of Vishnu- the Dasavatara (Sanskrit: Dasa-ten, Avatara-incarnation) is generally accepted by most Hindus today as correlating well with Darwin's theory of evolution, the first Avatar generating from the environment of water.
Hindus thus do not see much conflict between creation and evolution. An additional reason for this could also be the Hindu concept of cyclic time, such as yugas, or days of Brahma in approximately 4.3 billion year cycles (unlike the concept of linear time in many other religions). In fact, time is represented as Kaala Chakra - the Wheel of Time.

The ancient Egyptians’  most important myths were those describing the creation of the world. The Egyptian developed many accounts of the creation, which differ greatly in the events they describe. In particular, the deities credited with creating the world vary in each account. This difference partly reflects the desire of Egypt's cities and priesthoods to exalt their own patron gods by attributing creation to them. Yet the differing accounts were not regarded as contradictory; instead, the Egyptians saw the creation process as having many aspects and involving many divine forces.
The sun rises over the circular mound of creation as goddesses pour out the primeval waters around it One common feature of the myths is the emergence of the world from the waters of chaos that surround it. This event represents the establishment of maat and the origin of life. One fragmentary tradition centers on the eight gods of the Ogdoad, who represent the characteristics of the primeval water itself. Their actions give rise to the sun (represented in creation myths by various gods, especially Ra), whose birth forms a space of light and dryness within the dark water. The sun rises from the first mound of dry land, another common motif in the creation myths, which was likely inspired by the sight of mounds of earth emerging as the Nile flood receded. With the emergence of the sun god, the establisher of maat, the world has its first ruler
So the Israelite creation myth is not much different from others.
None, of course, are true.



Logged
Pahu
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1220



View Profile
« Reply #2226 on: 29 November 2017, 21:57:16 PM »

Ape-Men? 1


For over a century, studies of skulls and teeth have produced unreliable conclusions about man’s origin (a). Also, fossil evidence allegedly supporting human evolution is fragmentary and open to other interpretations. Fossil evidence showing the evolution of chimpanzees, supposedly the closest living relative to humans, is nonexistent (b).

Stories claiming that fossils of primitive, apelike men have been found are overstated (c).

It is now universally acknowledged that Piltdown “man” was a hoax, yet Piltdown “man” was in textbooks for more than 40 years (d).

a.   “... existing phylogenetic hypotheses about human evolution [based on skulls and teeth] are unlikely to be reliable.” Mark Collard and Bernard Wood, “How Reliable Are Human Phylogenetic Hypotheses?” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 97, No. 9, 25 April 2000, p. 5003.

In 1995, nine anthropologists announced their discovery of early representatives of Homo habilis and Homo ergaster in China. [See Huang Wanpo et al., “Early Homo and Associated Artifacts from Asia,” Nature, Vol. 378, 16 November 1995, pp. 275–278.] Fourteen years later the same journal published a retraction. The discovery was of a “mystery ape.” [See Russell L. Ciochon, “The Mystery Ape of Pleistocene Asia,” Nature, Vol. 459, 18 June 2009, pp. 910–911.]

How many more mystery apes are there, and do they explain other so-called “ape-men”?

“We have all see [sic] the canonical parade of apes, each one becoming more human. We know that as a depiction of evolution, this line-up is tosh [tidy, but sheer nonsense]. Yet we cling to it. Ideas of what human evolution ought to have been like still colour our debates. ... almost every time someone claims to have found a new species of hominin, someone else refutes it. The species is said to be either a member of Homo sapiens, but pathological, or an ape.” Henry Gee, “Craniums with Clout,” Nature, Vol. 478, 6 October 2011, p. 34.

b.    “Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether.” Henry Gee, “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131.

c.   Lord Zuckerman candidly stated that if special creation did not occur, then no scientist could deny that man evolved from some apelike creature “without leaving any fossil traces of the steps of the transformation.” Solly Zuckerman (former Chief Scientific Advisor to the British Government and Honorary Secretary of the Zoological Society of London), Beyond the Ivory Tower (New York: Taplinger Publishing Co., 1970), p. 64.

Bowden, pp. 56–246.

Duane T. Gish, Battle for Creation, Vol. 2, editor Henry M. Morris (San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1976), pp. 193–200, 298–305.

d.   Speaking of Piltdown man, Lewin admits a common human problem even scientists have:

“How is it that trained men, the greatest experts of their day, could look at a set of modern human bones—the cranial fragments—and “see” a clear simian signature in them; and “see” in an ape’s jaw the unmistakable signs of humanity? The answers, inevitably, have to do with the scientists’ expectations and their effects on the interpretation of data.” Lewin, Bones of Contention, p. 61.”

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
Logged

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
oldmike
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1119


View Profile
« Reply #2227 on: 02 December 2017, 0:07:41 AM »

As I have said before, if, as creationists claim, the universe is 6000 odd years old, then evidence that it is older must have been planted by the creator. The evidence is sometimes contradictory . It follows logically that either the creator that planted the evidence was confused, or the evidence is incomplete because we have not yet discovered all the fossils.
To answer some of the claims in your latest post “Fossil evidence showing the evolution of chimpanzees, supposedly the closest living relative to humans, is non-existent “
From Nature August 2005.
 “Palaeontologists digging in the dusty wastelands of East Africa have discovered the first known chimpanzee fossil. The modest haul of just three teeth is the first hard evidence of the evolutionary path that led to today's chimpanzees.
As well as shedding light on chimps, the find throws up new questions about human evolution; it seems that chimpanzees may not have been physically separated from humans as was once thought.
That no one had previously found a chimpanzee fossil had long been a frustrating puzzle, comments Sally McBrearty, an anthropologist at the University of Connecticut, who made the find near Lake Baringo, Kenya, with her colleague Nina Jablonski. Set against the many human fossils found in East Africa, the lack of specimens documenting the chimp's evolutionary story was exasperating.
Part of the problem, McBrearty explains, is that chimps tend to live in hot, wet jungle conditions that are not good for the preservation of remains. Humans, on the other hand, are thought to have lived for millennia on the savannah, where bones are less likely to rot.”
Creationists do not bother to keep up to date because they blindly accept what they read in the Bible.

“.   Lord Zuckerman candidly stated that if special creation did not occur, then no scientist could deny that man evolved from some apelike creature “without leaving any fossil traces of the steps of the transformation.””
This is simply not true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils

“How many more mystery apes are there, and do they explain other so-called “ape-men”?”
For all I know there may be hundreds or thousands of different “ mystery apes”
The question arises from a flawed concept of what evolution is.
Non Scientists visualise a tree, with protozoans at the bottom, and homo Sapiens at the top.
This assumes that evolution has a purpose and that man is the only creature that could be made in the image of God. Total hubris. In fact the “tree: is more like a wandering vine, with tendrils all over the place.
“It is now universally acknowledged that Piltdown “man” was a hoax, yet Piltdown “man” was in textbooks for more than 40 years”
“ Speaking of Piltdown man, Lewin admits a common human problem even scientists have:
How is it that trained men, the greatest experts of their day, could look at a set of modern human bones—the cranial fragments—and “see” a clear simian signature in them; and “see” in an ape’s jaw”

That is how science works.
The Piltdown Man was a paleoanthropological hoax in which bone fragments were presented as the fossilised remains of a previously unknown early human. In 1912, the amateur archaeologist Charles Dawson claimed that he had discovered the "missing link" between ape and man. After finding a section of a human-like skull in Pleistocene gravel beds near Piltdown, East Sussex, Dawson contacted Arthur Smith Woodward, Keeper of Geology at the Natural History Museum. Dawson and Smith Woodward discovered more bones and artefacts at the site, which they connected to the same individual. These included a jawbone, more skull fragments, a set of teeth, and primitive tools.
Smith Woodward reconstructed the skull fragments and hypothesised that they belonged to a human ancestor from 500,000 years ago. The discovery was announced at a Geological Society meeting and was given the Latin name Eoanthropus dawsoni ("Dawson's dawn-man"). The questionable significance of the assemblage remained the subject of considerable controversy until it was conclusively exposed in 1953 as a forgery. It was found to have consisted of the altered mandible and some teeth of an orangutan deliberately combined with the cranium of a fully developed, though small-brained, modern human.
The Piltdown hoax is prominent for two reasons: the attention it generated around the subject of human evolution, and the length of time, 41 years that elapsed from its alleged initial discovery to its definitive exposure as a composite forgery.
As our knowledge progresses, we are able to correct earlier findings {and hoaxes}.
When scientists are proved wrong, they accept the facts.
When creationists are proved wrong they try to twist the facts to fit their fantasies.


Logged
Pahu
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1220



View Profile
« Reply #2228 on: 02 December 2017, 0:45:37 AM »

As I have said before, if, as creationists claim, the universe is 6000 odd years old, then evidence that it is older must have been planted by the creator. The evidence is sometimes contradictory . It follows logically that either the creator that planted the evidence was confused, or the evidence is incomplete because we have not yet discovered all the fossils.
To answer some of the claims in your latest post “Fossil evidence showing the evolution of chimpanzees, supposedly the closest living relative to humans, is non-existent “
From Nature August 2005.

The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

Fossils Show Stasis and No Transitional Forms

The fossil record reflects the original diversity of life, not an evolving tree of increasing complexity. There are many examples of "living fossils," where the species is alive today and found deep in the fossil record as well.

According to evolution models for the fossil record, there are three predictions:

1. wholesale change of organisms through time
2. primitive organisms gave rise to complex organisms
3. gradual derivation of new organisms produced transitional forms.

However, these predictions are not borne out by the data from the fossil record.

Trilobites, for instance, appear suddenly in the fossil record without any transitions. There are no fossils between simple single-cell organisms, such as bacteria, and complex invertebrates, such as trilobites.

Extinct trilobites had as much organized complexity as any of today’s invertebrates. In addition to trilobites, billions of other fossils have been found that suddenly appear, fully formed, such as clams, snails, sponges, and jellyfish. Over 300 different body plans are found without any fossil transitions between them and single-cell organisms.

Fish have no ancestors or transitional forms to show how invertebrates, with their skeletons on the outside, became vertebrates with their skeletons inside.

Fossils of a wide variety of flying and crawling insects appear without any transitions. Dragonflies, for example, appear suddenly in the fossil record. The highly complex systems that enable the dragonfly's aerodynamic abilities have no ancestors in the fossil record.

In the entire fossil record, there is not a single unequivocal transition form proving a causal relationship between any two species. From the billions of fossils we have discovered, there should be thousands of clear examples if they existed.

The lack of transitions between species in the fossil record is what would be expected if life was created.

http://www.icr.org/fossils-stasis
Logged

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
oldmike
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1119


View Profile
« Reply #2229 on: 02 December 2017, 15:33:29 PM »

Quote
Fossils Show Stasis and No Transitional Forms 

   Gradualism and Punctuated Equilibrium
 

Gradualism and punctuated equilibrium are two ways in which the evolution of a species can occur. A species can evolve by only one of these, or by both. Scientists think that species with a shorter evolution evolved mostly by punctuated equilibrium, and those with a longer evolution evolved mostly by gradualism.

Gradualism is selection and variation that happens more gradually. Over a short period of time it is hard to notice. Small variations that fit an organism slightly better to its environment are selected for: a few more individuals with more of the helpful trait survive, and a few more with less of the helpful trait die. Very gradually, over a long time, the population changes. Change is slow, constant, and consistent.

In punctuated equilibrium, change comes in spurts. There is a period of very little change, and then one or a few huge changes occur, often through mutations in the genes of a few individuals. Mutations are random changes in the DNA that are not inherited from the previous generation, but are passed on to generations that follow. Though mutations are often harmful, the mutations that result in punctuated equilibrium are very helpful to the individuals in their environments. Because these mutations are so different and so helpful to the survival of those that have them, the proportion of individuals in the population who have the mutation/trait and those who don't changes a lot over a very short period of time. The species changes very rapidly over a few generations, then settles down again to a period of little change.

This explanation talks about punctuated equilibrium as the result of one or a few mutations that cause large change. However, punctuated equilibrium is any sudden, rapid change in a species and can also be the result of other causes, such as huge and sudden changes in the environment that result in more rapid changes in the organisms through harsher selection.

How did the tiger get its stripes: gradualism or punctuated equilibrium? We don't know whether the tiger got its stripes through gradualism or punctuated equilibrium, but in order to explain both concepts, here is how it could have happened through each. Let's assume that stripes are helpful because they help the tiger to camouflage, blend in with the tall grasses where it lives, so that it can sneak up on its prey (what it eats) and not be noticed.

Gradualism: A long time ago, there were a lot of tiger-like animals, but without stripes. Most of them were unmarked, but a few had light markings and color variation in their fur. These few blended in with the tall grasses a little bit better, so they were generally able to catch more food, and fewer of the marked than unmarked ones died of hunger, so more of them were able to reproduce. In the next generation, more animals were marked than in the previous generation. Of those that were marked, some had more, some less, and some the same amount of marks than in the previous generation. Also, the marks were more, less, or the same amount clearly defined. Again, the ones with marks did better than the ones without, and the ones with more, clearly defined marks did better than the ones with fewer or fainter marks. Very gradually, over many, many generations, stripes over the tigers' whole bodies formed and appeared in the whole population, because the tigers that survived in each generation were those whose marks were most clear and contrasted most with the rest of the fur, and those that covered the most area on the bodies of the tigers.

Punctuated equilibrium: A long time ago, there were a lot of tiger-like animals, but without stripes. One time, a mutation occurred in a few of the animals, causing a huge change: they were born with stripes! This was so helpful to survival that out of the whole population, none or almost none of those with stripes died of hunger. They lived to reproduce, and their striped offspring also did very well. Over only a few generations, the whole population was born striped.

A combination: Here is one idea of how tigers could have gotten their stripes by both gradualism and punctuated equilibrium: A mutation had a huge affect, causing distinct, stripe-like markings. These were then gradually "polished up" into stripes.

The idea of punctuated equilibrium originated long after the idea of gradualism. Darwin saw evolution as being "steady, slow, and continuous". Later, scientists were studying fossils and they found that some species have their evolution almost "mapped out" in fossils. For others they found a few, very different species along the evolutionary course, but very few or no fossils of "in between" organisms. Also, when dating the fossils, scientists saw that in some species change was very slow, but in others, it must have occurred rapidly to be able to produce such change over such a short amount of time. The scientists reasoned that there had to be another way that evolution could have happened that was quicker and had fewer intermediate species, so the idea of punctuated equilibrium was formed.
Logged
Pahu
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1220



View Profile
« Reply #2230 on: 02 December 2017, 23:08:13 PM »

Quote
Fossils Show Stasis and No Transitional Forms 

   Gradualism and Punctuated Equilibrium
 

Gradualism and punctuated equilibrium are two ways in which the evolution of a species can occur. A species can evolve by only one of these, or by both. Scientists think that species with a shorter evolution evolved mostly by punctuated equilibrium, and those with a longer evolution evolved mostly by gradualism.

Which evolved fist, the heart or the blood?
Logged

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
oldmike
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1119


View Profile
« Reply #2231 on: 03 December 2017, 0:16:27 AM »

Quote

Which evolved fist, the heart or the blood?   

Clearly the blood, or whatever fluid preceded it. Without blood the heart would have nothing to pump.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Logged
Pahu
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1220



View Profile
« Reply #2232 on: 03 December 2017, 1:26:42 AM »

Quote

Which evolved fist, the heart or the blood?   

Clearly the blood, or whatever fluid preceded it. Without blood the heart would have nothing to pump.

So how long did the blood sit around waiting for the heart to evolve? And what did it do while it waited?

Quote
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

The chicken was created first, which laid the egg.
Logged

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
oldmike
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1119


View Profile
« Reply #2233 on: 03 December 2017, 2:57:27 AM »

Quote
  Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

The chicken was created first, which laid the egg.   

Not so. Chickens are the descendants of dinosaurs, which laid eggs long before there were chickens.
Logged
Pahu
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1220



View Profile
« Reply #2234 on: 03 December 2017, 4:03:02 AM »

Quote
 Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

The chicken was created first, which laid the egg.  

Not so. Chickens are the descendants of dinosaurs, which laid eggs long before there were chickens.


Why did you ignore my question? So how long did the blood sit around waiting for the heart to evolve? And what did it do while it waited?

As to your evidence free assertion that chickens are the descendants of dinosaurs, the fact is:


Dinosaurs to Birds?

Some extinct birds, such as Archaeopteryx, shared quite a few features with some theropods.  That raises the question of how one can determine whether a creature is a bird that resembles a dinosaur or a dinosaur that resembles a bird.  Feathers had long been accepted as a distinctively avian characteristic because they had never been found on any creature, living or extinct, that was not a bird.[22]  The presence of feathers marked a creature as a bird, but one is now told that this is an invalid criterion and that Protarchaeopteryx and Caudipteryx were dinosaurs despite the fact they possessed feathers.

It is difficult to accept that the long hand-feathers of Caudipteryxevolved within (nonavian) Maniraptora.  The strong, grasping hands of maniraptorans were an essential part of their weaponry,[37] but the well-formed feathers attached to Caudipteryx’s middle finger would prevent the hand from being used as a grasping organ.  What possible selective advantage could be bestowed on a cursorial predator by the development of hand-feathers that disable the function of one of its primary weapons?

Since the discovery of  Protarchaeopteryx and Caudipteryx, two filament-bearing dinosaurs from the Yixian Formation in China (middle Early Cretaceous) have been reported in the formal scientific literature: a quite fragmentary seven-foot-long therizinosaur dubbed Beipiaosaurus inexpectus [50] and an eagle-size dromaeosaurid (mentioned above) dubbed Sinornithosaurus millenii. [51]  Theropod advocates suggest that these filaments represent an early stage in the development of feathers and thus link theropods to avian ancestry, but this is pure speculation.  As Dr. Olson put it in his recent open letter, “[t]he statement [in Sloan 1999] that ‘hollow, hairlike structures characterize protofeathers’ is nonsense considering that protofeathers exist only as a theoretical construct, so that the internal structure of one is even more hypothetical.”

The theropod faithful, undaunted by these issues, claim (in the recent exhibit at National Geographic Society) “there is strong evidence that a wide variety of carnivorous dinosaurs had feathers” and depict Deinonychus and baby tyrannosaurs as having feathers.  Dr. Olson labels the claim “spurious” and says the depictions are “simply imaginary and [have] no place outside of science fiction.”

Too specialized.  In all the talk about shared anatomical traits and “sister groups,” it is easy to lose sight of the fact that, even if they were old enough, all known coelurosaurs are too specialized to have been actual ancestors of birds.  In other words, they have features believed to have arisen in their lineage after it split from the lineage leading to birds, which features disqualify them as actual ancestors.  Thus, after explaining that Compsognathus could not be ancestral to Archaeopteryx because of its date and its specialization, Carroll says, “No other adequately known theropod appears to be an appropriate ancestor.”

Similarities overstated.  It is not widely known at the popular level, but many of the key characters seen as uniting birds and theropods are disputed.  According to Feduccia, these include:

the nature of the pelvis (Martin 1991; Tarsitano 1991), the homology of the digits (Hinchliffe and Hecht 1984; Hinchliffe 1985; Martin 1991; Tarsitano 1991), the nature of the teeth (Martin, Stewart, and Whetstone 1980); Martin 1991), the hallux (Tarsitano and Hecht, 1980; Martin 1991; Feduccia 1993a), the ascending process of the astragalus (Martin, Stewart, and Whetstone 1980; Martin 1991; also see McGowan 1984, 1985 and reply by Martin and Stewart 1985), the pubis (Martin 1983a, 1983b, 1991; Tarsitano 1991; also see Wellnhofer 1985), and even the supposed unique semilunate carpal thought to be shared by Deinonychus and Archaeopteryx (and modern birds) (Martin 1991; Tarsitano 1991).[95]

Since the hypothesized relationship of theropods to birds is based on the similarity of certain features, uncertainty about that similarity casts doubt on the hypothesis.  There is obviously more art in the interpretation of these fossils than popular presentations would lead one to believe.

Lung questions.  John Ruben, an expert in respiratory physiology, concluded from an examination of Sinosauropteryx “that theropods had the same kind of compartmentalization of lungs, liver, and intestines that you would find in a crocodile”—and not a bird.[96]  The thoracic cavity and the abdominal cavity of theropods appear to have been completely separated from each other by the diaphragm, whereas birds have no such separation.  In living crocodilians, the function of this separation is to provide an airtight seal between the cavities.  Air is drawn into the bellows-type lungs by contraction of the diaphragmatic muscles which creates negative pressure in the thoracic cavity.

One reason this is significant is that, as Ruben argues, “a transition from a crocodilian to a bird lung would be impossible, because the transitional animal would have a life-threatening hernia or hole in its diaphragm.” According to Ruben, this means that if there is a relationship between dinosaurs and birds, “it’s not the linear relationship you see in the museum displays.”

Flight question.  A corollary of the theropod theory of bird origins is that flight evolved from the ground up (cursorial theory) rather than from the trees down (arboreal theory).  There is, however, no plausible explanation for how this could have occurred.  The difficulty is so great that Chatterjee, who supports theropod ancestry, suggested recently that some theropods may have been tree climbers.[104]  If they were, they apparently left no evidence of that ability.  According to Fastovsky and Weishampel:

It has been argued that perhaps the earliest birds scaled trees, and from that position learned to fly.  There is, however, no evidence for an arboreal proto-bird, no evidence for climbing adaptations, and no evidence in the skeleton of any nonavian theropod for arboreal habits.

The idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs remains at best a highly speculative hypothesis.  One suspects its popularity has less to do with the evidence for theropod ancestry than with the Darwinian aversion to ancestral vacuums.  When paleontologist Hans-Dieter Sues says, “Only dinosaurs are anatomically suited to be the precursors of birds,”[118] he is saying that, when it comes to bird origins, it is dinosaurs or nothing.  Since evolutionists are convinced that every taxon arose from some other, “nothing” is not an option.  This philosophical predisposition induces them to read lineages into ambiguous data.  They compound that error by confusing these interpretive constructs with fact.

One can state the matter no more forcefully than did Storrs Olson in his November 1, 1999 letter to the most prominent scientist at the National Geographic Society.  He concluded with the following:

“The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith.  Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties of their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age – the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion.  If Sloan’s article is not the crescendo of this fantasia, it is difficult to imagine to what heights it can next be taken.  But it is certain that when the folly has run its course and has been fully exposed, National Geographic will unfortunately play a prominent but unenviable role in the book that summarizes the whole sorry episode.”

http://www.trueorigin.org/birdevo.asp
« Last Edit: 03 December 2017, 4:05:38 AM by Pahu » Logged

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Pages: 1 ... 147 148 [149] 150
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines