ForumGarden

Darwin was completely ignorant of the biological role of DNA when he penned his theory a century and a half ago. Now the evolutionary case from genetics is unravelling at multiple levels because it was never based on any direct evidence for common ancestry in the first place. Do the evolutionists have any lines of genetic evidence left? Evolution fails to predict either the absolute number or the function of genetic differences among species. This is remarkable since the supposed “engine of evolutionary change is the genetic mistakes themselves. If evolutionists can’t even get their fundamental mechanisms to line up with their models, then why do they continue to present Darwin’s grand hypothesis as fact?


There are no "Evolutionists" out there. There are only ignorant "anti-evolutionists" who seem to have a religious attachment to the idea of Evolution.

You start with your own definition of the term, and then spend an enormous amount of time trying to prove that your definition of Evolution is impossible. Instead of a Golden Calf, you worship the Golden Straw Man.

LarsMac;1507377 wrote: Darwin was completely ignorant of the biological role of DNA when he penned his theory a century and a half ago. Now the evolutionary case from genetics is unravelling at multiple levels because it was never based on any direct evidence for common ancestry in the first place. Do the evolutionists have any lines of genetic evidence left? Evolution fails to predict either the absolute number or the function of genetic differences among species. This is remarkable since the supposed “engine of evolutionary change is the genetic mistakes themselves. If evolutionists can’t even get their fundamental mechanisms to line up with their models, then why do they continue to present Darwin’s grand hypothesis as fact?


There are no "Evolutionists" out there. There are only ignorant "anti-evolutionists" who seem to have a religious attachment to the idea of Evolution.

You start with your own definition of the term, and then spend an enormous amount of time trying to prove that your definition of Evolution is impossible. Instead of a Golden Calf, you worship the Golden Straw Man.


What is the correct definition of evolution according to you?

Pahu;1507392 wrote: What is the correct definition of evolution according to you?


I've already posted it in this forum several times.

Simply put, Evolution is the process of changing.

Biologically speaking it can be summed up by the notion that living organisms will adapt to changes in their environment.

It's pretty much that simple.

LarsMac;1507397 wrote: I've already posted it in this forum several times.

Simply put, Evolution is the process of changing.

Biologically speaking it can be summed up by the notion that living organisms will adapt to changes in their environment.

It's pretty much that simple.


Does that change have anything to do with changing from one kind of life form to another? For example, has there been a change from a one cell organism to man?

Compatible Senders and Receivers



Only intelligence creates codes, programs, and information (CP&I). Each involves senders and receivers. Senders and receivers can be people, animals, plants, organs, cells, or certain molecules. (The DNA molecule is a prolific sender.) The CP&I in a message must be understandable and beneficial to both sender and receiver beforehand; otherwise, the effort expended in transmitting and receiving messages (written, chemical, electrical, magnetic, visual, and auditory) will be wasted.

Consider the astronomical number of links (message channels) that exist between potential senders and receivers: from the cellular level to complete organisms, from bananas to bacteria to babies, and across all of time since life began. All must have compatible understandings (CP&I) and equipment (matter and energy). Designing compatibilities of this magnitude requires one or more superintelligences who completely understand how matter and energy behave over time. In other words, the superintelligence(s) must have made, or at least mastered, the laws of chemistry and physics wherever senders and receivers are found. The simplest, most parsimonious way to integrate all of life is for there to be only one superintelligence.

Also, the sending and receiving equipment, including its energy sources, must be in place and functional before communication begins. But the preexisting equipment provides no benefit until useful messages begin arriving. Therefore, intelligent foresight (planning) is mandatory—something nature cannot do.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Pahu;1507421 wrote: Does that change have anything to do with changing from one kind of life form to another? For example, has there been a change from a one cell organism to man?


One kind of life form to another? What does that even mean? We are just now beginning to really understand species, based upon our research on DNA. We used to think that there was on species of Giraffe. turns out there are something like seven. We used to think that Bonobos and Chimpanzees were the same species. We have found species that we thought were related that now prove to be unrelated.

We are learning all sorts of things, these days.



And, I dunno. Man has been around for many thousands of years, it would seem. I wasn't around to see how he came about.

Pahu;1507551 wrote:

Compatible Senders and Receivers



Only intelligence creates codes, programs, and information (CP&I). Each involves senders and receivers. Senders and receivers can be people, animals, plants, organs, cells, or certain molecules. (The DNA molecule is a prolific sender.) The CP&I in a message must be understandable and beneficial to both sender and receiver beforehand; otherwise, the effort expended in transmitting and receiving messages (written, chemical, electrical, magnetic, visual, and auditory) will be wasted.

Consider the astronomical number of links (message channels) that exist between potential senders and receivers: from the cellular level to complete organisms, from bananas to bacteria to babies, and across all of time since life began. All must have compatible understandings (CP&I) and equipment (matter and energy). Designing compatibilities of this magnitude requires one or more superintelligences who completely understand how matter and energy behave over time. In other words, the superintelligence(s) must have made, or at least mastered, the laws of chemistry and physics wherever senders and receivers are found. The simplest, most parsimonious way to integrate all of life is for there to be only one superintelligence.

Also, the sending and receiving equipment, including its energy sources, must be in place and functional before communication begins. But the preexisting equipment provides no benefit until useful messages begin arriving. Therefore, intelligent foresight (planning) is mandatory—something nature cannot do.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]


That is one amazing load of malarkey.

Convergent Evolution or Intelligent Design? 1



When the same complex capability is found in unrelated organisms but not in their alleged evolutionary ancestors, evolutionists say that a common need caused identical complexities to evolve. They call this convergent evolution.

For example, wings and flight occur in some birds, insects, and mammals (bats). Pterosaurs, an extinct reptile, also had wings and could fly. These capabilities have not been found in any of their alleged common ancestors. Other examples of convergent evolution are the three tiny bones in the ears of mammals: the stapes, incus, and malleus. Their complex arrangement and precise fit give mammals the unique ability to hear a wide range of sounds. Evolutionists say that those bones evolved from bones in a reptile’s jaw. If so, the process must have occurred at least twice (a)—but left no known transitional fossils. How did the transitional organisms between reptiles and mammals hear during those millions of years (b)? Without the ability to hear, survival—and reptile-to-mammal evolution—would cease.

Concluding that a miracle—or any extremely unlikely event—happened once requires strong evidence or faith; claiming that a similar “miracle happened repeatedly requires either incredible blind faith or a cause common to each event, such as a common designer.

a. “...the definitive mammalian middle ear evolved independently in living monotremes and therians (marsupials and placentals). Thomas H. Rich et al., “Independent Origins of Middle Ear Bones in Monotremes and Therians, Science, Vol. 307, 11 February 2005, p. 910.

“Because of the complexity of the bone arrangement, some scientists have argued that the innovation arose just once—in a common ancestor of the three mammalian groups. Now, analyses of a jawbone from a specimen of Teinolophos trusleri, a shrew-size creature that lived in Australia about 115 million years ago, have dealt a blow to that notion. Sid Perkins, “Groovy Bones, Science News, Vol. 167, 12 February 2005, p. 100.

b. Also, for mammals to hear also requires the organ of Corti and complex “wiring in the brain. No known reptile (the supposed ancestor of mammals), living or fossil, has anything resembling this amazing organ.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Pahu;1506901 wrote: A unique basic plant or animal, which cannot change into a different kind.
That is not a definition under any terms. Using that ddefinition you could determine a mammal, reptile, fish, bird or amphibian as being a 'kind' - except that each & every one of them have the ability to evolve. Such is the nature of evolution.

You have even accepted that plants & species can change to adapt to their environments (albeit within 'kinds'), which is, in itself what evolution is. Therefore, by accepting this you also accept that evolution exists, but you have failed to define at what stage do you declare that a 'kind' ceases to be of one particular 'kind' & part of another. Just how do you define the boundaries? How do you define that which is Black & that which is White without accepting the infinite shades of Grey in between? As I have mentioned before, for years the Sabre Tooth Tiger was thought to have been a species of cat. It had all the definitions of a cat. It had the skeletal structure of a cat. It had the teeth of a cat. But later DNA examination revewaled it to actually be a dog. At what point do you draw the borderline between cat & dog?

FourPart;1507803 wrote: That is not a definition under any terms. Using that ddefinition you could determine a mammal, reptile, fish, bird or amphibian as being a 'kind' - except that each & every one of them have the ability to evolve. Such is the nature of evolution.

You have even accepted that plants & species can change to adapt to their environments (albeit within 'kinds'), which is, in itself what evolution is. Therefore, by accepting this you also accept that evolution exists, but you have failed to define at what stage do you declare that a 'kind' ceases to be of one particular 'kind' & part of another. Just how do you define the boundaries? How do you define that which is Black & that which is White without accepting the infinite shades of Grey in between? As I have mentioned before, for years the Sabre Tooth Tiger was thought to have been a species of cat. It had all the definitions of a cat. It had the skeletal structure of a cat. It had the teeth of a cat. But later DNA examination revewaled it to actually be a dog. At what point do you draw the borderline between cat & dog?


The disciplines of science disprove evolution. For example:



Did Scientists Make Fish Grow Hands?


A recent news story featured a variety of science writers repeating the meme "Fish grow 'hands' in genetic experiment." These sensationalized stories attempted to describe a new genetics research study published in the journal Developmental Cell.1 The primary results of the study actually produced data that refuted the accompanying evolutionary hype.

For starters, the genetically modified zebrafish embryos under investigation had no hands at all. When New Scientist magazine questioned one of the researchers, Fernando Casares, about the popularized claim, he responded, "Of course, we haven't been able to grow hands."2

Nevertheless, Casares and his colleagues did claim that their data had profound implications for the hypothetical evolutionary change required for fish fins to magically morph into legs, arms, hands, and feet. This mythical process would have been necessary for fish to transition to land animals. And contrary to common evolutionary claims, this dogma is not supported by any actual transitional forms in the fossil record.3



The zebrafish has been an important model organism for the study of embryology, because it can be easily manipulated by modifying its DNA. Researchers can then observe the effects in developing embryos. These genetic manipulations can be easily observed in the transparent fish embryos, which provide a window into the developmental process.

In this study, scientists inserted a control element (genetic switch) from mouse DNA into some zebrafish. The switch drastically ramped up the expression of a key developmental zebrafish gene called hoxd13. This caused a manifold increase in the hoxd13 gene product in developing fish fin tissue.

So, what were the effects of over-expressing the hoxd13 gene? Not only did the fish not develop hands or any other novel evolutionary favorable appendage, but normal fish fin development was completely and grotesquely perturbed. The resulting embryos died within four days on average—hardly a hallmark of evolutionary progress.

The mutated results of the study was that the normal tissue area of expression for the hoxd13 gene was markedly expanded beyond its normal, well-defined boundaries. It produced grossly distorted and lengthened sections of perturbed tissue. In fact, the growth distortions were not symmetrical but exhibited uncontrolled development.

Evolutionary media were quick to propagate a story where fish supposedly grew hands in the lab. But the actual experimental results told just the opposite story. Altering only a single gene's expression level disrupted the finely tuned system of hundreds of interacting genes within the irreducibly complex developmental genetic network, resulting in death of the organism.

Rather than showing how limbs could be produced from fins, this research showed how wonderfully fine-tuned and built the genome is.

References

1. Freitas, R. et al. 2012. Hoxd13 Contribution to the Evolution of Vertebrate Appendages. Developmental Cell. 23 (6): 1219-1229.

2. Zebrafish made to grow pre-hands instead of fins. New Scientist. Posted on newscientist.com December 15, 2012, accessed December 26, 2012.

3. See Chapters 8 and 9 in Morris, J. D. and F. J. Sherwin. 2010. The Fossil Record: Unearthing Nature's History of Life. Dallas, TX: Institute for Creation Research.

Did Scientists Make Fish Grow Hands? | The Institute for Creation Research

As expected. When there is no answer to be found, Pahu resorts to another irrelevant pasting.

Convergent Evolution or Intelligent Design? 2



It is illogical to maintain that similarities between different forms of life always imply a common ancestor (c); such similarities may imply a common designer and show efficient design. In fact, where similar structures are known to be controlled by different genes (d) or are developed from different parts of embryos (e), a common designer is a much more likely explanation than evolution.

c. “By this we have also proved that a morphological similarity between organisms cannot be used as proof of a phylogenetic [evolutionary] relationship...it is unscientific to maintain that the morphology may be used to prove relationships and evolution of the higher categories of units... Nilsson, p. 1143.

“But biologists have known for a hundred years that homologous [similar] structures are often not produced by similar developmental pathways. And they have known for thirty years that they are often not produced by similar genes, either. So there is no empirically demonstrated mechanism to establish that homologies are due to common ancestry rather than common design. Jonathan Wells, “Survival of the Fakest, The American Spectator, December 2000/January 2001, p. 22.

d. Fix, pp. 189–191.

Denton, pp. 142–155.

“Therefore, homologous structures need not be controlled by identical genes, and homology of phenotypes does not imply similarity of genotypes. [emphasis in original] It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced; for such inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes. ... But if it is true that through the genetic code, genes code for enzymes that synthesize proteins which are responsible (in a manner still unknown in embryology) for the differentiation of the various parts in their normal manner, what mechanism can it be that results in the production of homologous organs, the same ‘patterns’, in spite of their not being controlled by the same genes? I asked this question in 1938, and it has not been answered. [Nor has it been answered today.] Gavin R. deBeer, formerly Professor of Embryology at the University of London and Director of the British Museum (Natural History), Homology, An Unsolved Problem (London: Oxford University Press, 1971), p. 16.

e. “Structures as obviously homologous as the alimentary canal in all vertebrates can be formed from the roof of the embryonic gut cavity (sharks), floor (lampreys, newts), roof and floor (frogs), or from the lower layer of the embryonic disc, the blastoderm, that floats on the top of heavily yolked eggs (reptiles, birds). It does not seem to matter where in the egg or the embryo the living substance out of which homologous organs are formed comes from. Therefore, correspondence between homologous structures cannot be pressed back to similarity of position of the cells of the embryo or the parts of the egg out of which these structures are ultimately differentiated. [emphasis in original] Ibid., p. 13.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

More irrelevant pasting.

Surely this is against FG rules? All he is doing is using it as his personal webhost. Not even that really, as a website at least does require some original input. All this is pasting from someone else.

FourPart;1507896 wrote: More irrelevant pasting.

Surely this is against FG rules? All he is doing is using it as his personal webhost. Not even that really, as a website at least does require some original input. All this is pasting from someone else.


I am sharing information from those who know more than I do. If you disagree you are free to enlighten us.

Pahu;1507912 wrote: I am sharing information from those who know more than I do. If you disagree you are free to enlighten us.


Well, I see no evidence that whoever wrote most of that really know any more than you do.

But again, most of the quotes are completely out of context, making the actual message, at best, unclear.

Besides, given what has been learned in the last two decades about genetics, much that was written 20 or 30 years ago, or more, may prove to be less than accurate.

LarsMac;1507913 wrote: Well, I see no evidence that whoever wrote most of that really know any more than you do.

But again, most of the quotes are completely out of context, making the actual message, at best, unclear.

Besides, given what has been learned in the last two decades about genetics, much that was written 20 or 30 years ago, or more, may prove to be less than accurate.


The disciplines of science disprove evolution. For example:

Epigenetics Proves Humans and Chimps Are Different


Epigenetics Proves Humans and Chimps Are Different | The Institute for Creation Research

Pahu;1507924 wrote: The disciplines of science disprove evolution. For example:

Epigenetics Proves Humans and Chimps Are Different


Epigenetics Proves Humans and Chimps Are Different | The Institute for Creation Research


Hornsw0ggle

So much for your claim of "sharing information from those who know more than I do."

This is not known as sharing - it's known as flooding. Sharing would be a matter of posting a link, so anyone who was dumb enough to be in the slightest bit interested could go & indulge themselves. All you are doing is repeatedly pasting exactly the same old drivel over & over again. It wouldn't be so bad if you varied your sources, or gave quantifying arguments. Discussed your reasons for believing this idiot in an adult manner. But no - all you can do is mindlessly paste & paste & paste from a single source with absolutely no indication of independent thought. Seriously, do you have any concept of how much of a moron you come across as? Dr Suess with The Cat In The Hat comes across as having more knowledge on such matters as you do. Walt Brown has been debunked time & time again by REAL scientists, giving demonstrable evidence. They give their reasons for disagreeing. They have proven that everything he says is rubbish. Typical of Creationist Snake Oil Salesment he uses a PhD in a totally unrelated subject, such as engineering (Metalwork) to put across the image that he is some sort of expert in Cosmology, Biology, Geology, Physics & even Theology - none of which does he have any qualifications in. His primary source of supportive 'evidence' comes from the very Creationist Institute that he set up & that he remains the Director of, trying to make out that it is an independent resource. The man is a Charlatan preying on the weak minded - as you so clearly prove.

Vestigial Organs



Some structures in humans were once thought to have no function but to have been derived from functioning organs in claimed evolutionary ancestors (a). They were called vestigial organs. As medical knowledge has increased, at least some function has been discovered for all alleged vestigial organs (b). For example, the human appendix was once considered a useless remnant from our evolutionary past. The appendix plays a role in antibody production, protects part of the intestine from infections and tumor growths (c), and safely stores “good bacteria that can replenish the intestines following bouts of diarrhea, for example (d). Indeed, the absence of true vestigial organs implies evolution never happened.

a. “The existence of functionless ‘vestigial organs’ was presented by Darwin, and is often cited by current biology textbooks, as part of the evidence for evolution....An analysis of the difficulties in unambiguously identifying functionless structures and an analysis of the nature of the argument, leads to the conclusion that ‘vestigial organs’ provide no evidence for evolutionary theory. S. R. Scadding, “Do ‘Vestigial Organs’ Provide Evidence for Evolution? Evolutionary Theory, Vol. 5, No. 3, May 1981, p. 173.

b. Jerry Bergman and George Howe, “Vestigial Organs Are Fully Functional (Terre Haute, Indiana: Creation Research Society Books, 1990).

c. “The appendix is not generally credited with substantial function. However, current evidence tends to involve it in the immunologic mechanism. Gordon McHardy, “The Appendix, Gastroenterology, Vol. 4, editor J. Edward Berk (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co., 1985), p. 2609.



“Thus, although scientists have long discounted the human appendix as a vestigial organ, a growing quantity of evidence indicates that the appendix does in fact have a significant function as a part of the body’s immune system.  N. Roberts, “Does the Appendix Serve a Purpose in Any Animal? Scientific American, Vol. 285, November 2001, p. 96.

d. “...the human appendix is well suited as a ‘safe house’ for commensal bacteria, providing support for bacterial growth and potentially facilitating re-inoculation of the colon in the event that the contents of the intestinal track are purged following exposure to a pathogen....the appendix...is not a vestige. R. Randal Bollinger et. al., “Biofilms in the Large Bowel Suggest an Apparent Function of the Human Vermiform Appendix, Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol.*249, 2007, p.*826.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Pahu;1508173 wrote:

Vestigial Organs



Some structures in humans were once thought to have no function but to have been derived from functioning organs in claimed evolutionary ancestors (a). They were called vestigial organs. As medical knowledge has increased, at least some function has been discovered for all alleged vestigial organs (b). For example, the human appendix was once considered a useless remnant from our evolutionary past. The appendix plays a role in antibody production, protects part of the intestine from infections and tumor growths (c), and safely stores “good bacteria that can replenish the intestines following bouts of diarrhea, for example (d). Indeed, the absence of true vestigial organs implies evolution never happened.

a. “The existence of functionless ‘vestigial organs’ was presented by Darwin, and is often cited by current biology textbooks, as part of the evidence for evolution....An analysis of the difficulties in unambiguously identifying functionless structures and an analysis of the nature of the argument, leads to the conclusion that ‘vestigial organs’ provide no evidence for evolutionary theory. S. R. Scadding, “Do ‘Vestigial Organs’ Provide Evidence for Evolution? Evolutionary Theory, Vol. 5, No. 3, May 1981, p. 173.

b. Jerry Bergman and George Howe, “Vestigial Organs Are Fully Functional (Terre Haute, Indiana: Creation Research Society Books, 1990).

c. “The appendix is not generally credited with substantial function. However, current evidence tends to involve it in the immunologic mechanism. Gordon McHardy, “The Appendix, Gastroenterology, Vol. 4, editor J. Edward Berk (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co., 1985), p. 2609.



“Thus, although scientists have long discounted the human appendix as a vestigial organ, a growing quantity of evidence indicates that the appendix does in fact have a significant function as a part of the body’s immune system.  N. Roberts, “Does the Appendix Serve a Purpose in Any Animal? Scientific American, Vol. 285, November 2001, p. 96.

d. “...the human appendix is well suited as a ‘safe house’ for commensal bacteria, providing support for bacterial growth and potentially facilitating re-inoculation of the colon in the event that the contents of the intestinal track are purged following exposure to a pathogen....the appendix...is not a vestige. R. Randal Bollinger et. al., “Biofilms in the Large Bowel Suggest an Apparent Function of the Human Vermiform Appendix, Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol.*249, 2007, p.*826.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]


Well, whataya know?

Evidence that humans are actually still learning.

Two-Celled Life?



Many single-celled forms of life exist, but no known forms of animal life have 2, 3, 4, or 5 cells (a). Known forms of life with 6–20 cells are parasites, so they must have a complex animal as a host to provide such functions as respiration and digestion. If macroevolution happened, one should find many transitional forms of life with 2–20 cells—filling the gap between one-celled and many-celled organisms.

a. E. Lendell Cockrum and William J. McCauley, Zoology (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co., 1965), p. 163.

Lynn Margulis and Karlene V. Schwartz, Five Kingdoms: An Illustrated Guide to the Phyla of Life on Earth (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1982), pp. 178–179.

Perhaps the simplest forms of multicellular life are the Myxozoans, which have 6–12 cells. While they are quite distinct from other multicellular life, they are even more distinct from single-celled life (kingdom Protista). [See James F. Smothers et al., “Molecular Evidence That the Myxozoan Protists are Metazoans, Science, Vol. 265, 16 September 1994, pp. 1719–1721.] So, if they evolved from anywhere, it would most likely have been from higher, not lower, forms of life. Such a feat should be called devolution, not evolution.



Colonial forms of life are an unlikely bridge between single-celled life and multicelled life. The degree of cellular differentiation between colonial forms of life and the simplest multicellular forms of life is vast. For a further discussion, see Libbie Henrietta Hyman, The Invertebrates: Protozoa through Ctenophora, Vol. 1 (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1940), pp. 248–255.

Nor do Diplomonads (which have two nuclei and four flagella) bridge the gap. Diplomonads are usually parasites.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Plants are lifeforms - as is pollen.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24663667

Amoebas also frequently do not complete their division before beginning to divide again. This means that on occasion you get multi (or even bi) cellular amoebas, which one might think are, by definition, single celled.

All multi cellular life begins as a single cell. How it then chooses to divide & develop is encoded in its DNA - which might also be considered as being bi-cellular.

Embryology 1



Evolutionists have taught for over a century that as an embryo develops, it passes through stages that mimic an evolutionary sequence. In other words, in a few weeks an unborn human repeats stages that supposedly took millions of years for mankind. A well-known example of this ridiculous teaching is that embryos of mammals have “gill slits, because mammals supposedly evolved from fish. (Yes, that’s faulty logic.) Embryonic tissues that resemble “gill slits have nothing to do with breathing; they are neither gills nor slits.* Instead, those embryonic tissues develop into parts of the face, bones of the middle ear, and endocrine glands.

Embryologists no longer consider the superficial similarities between a few embryos and the adult forms of simpler animals as evidence for evolution (a).

a. “This generalization was originally called the biogenetic law by Haeckel and is often stated as ‘ontogeny recapitulates [repeats] phylogeny [evolution].’ This crude interpretation of embryological sequences will not stand close examination, however. Its shortcomings have been almost universally pointed out by modern authors, but the idea still has a prominent place in biological mythology. Paul R. Ehrlich and Richard W. Holm, The Process of Evolution (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963), p. 66.

“It is now firmly established that ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny. George Gaylord Simpson and William S. Beck, Life: An Introduction to Biology (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1965), p. 241.

Hitching, pp. 202–205.

“The enthusiasm of the German zoologist, Ernst Haeckel, however, led to an erroneous and unfortunate exaggeration of the information which embryology could provide. This was known as the ‘biogenetic law’ and claimed that embryology was a recapitulation of evolution, or that during its embryonic development an animal recapitulated the evolutionary history of its species. Gavin R. deBeer, An Atlas of Evolution (New York: Nelson, 1964), p. 38.

“...the theory of recapitulation has had a great and, while it lasted, regrettable influence on the progress of embryology. Gavin R. deBeer, Embryos and Ancestors, revised edition (London: Oxford University Press, 1951), p. 10.

“Moreover, the biogenetic law has become so deeply rooted in biological thought that it cannot be weeded out in spite of its having been demonstrated to be wrong by numerous subsequent scholars. Walter J. Bock, “Evolution by Orderly Law, Science, Vol. 164, 9 May 1969, pp. 684–685.

“...we no longer believe we can simply read in the embryonic development of a species its exact evolutionary history. Hubert Frings and Marie Frings, Concepts of Zoology (Toronto: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1970), p. 267.

“The type of analogical thinking which leads to theories that development is based on the recapitulation of ancestral stages or the like no longer seems at all convincing or even interesting to biologists. Conrad Hal Waddington, Principles of Embryology (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1956), p. 10.

“Surely the biogenetic law is as dead as a doornail. Keith Stewart Thomson, “Ontogeny and Phylogeny Recapitulated, American Scientist, Vol. 76, May–June 1988, p. 273.

“The biogenetic law—embryologic recapitulation—I think, was debunked back in the 1920s by embryologists. David Raup, as taken from page 16 of an approved and verified transcript of a taped interview conducted by Luther D. Sunderland on 27 July 1979. [See also Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (San Diego: Master Book Publishers, 1984), p. 119.]

“The theory of recapitulation was destroyed in 1921 by Professor Walter Garstang in a famous paper. Since then no respectable biologist has ever used the theory of recapitulation, because it was utterly unsound, created by a Nazi-like preacher named Haeckel. Ashley Montagu, as quoted by Sunderland, p. 119.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Pahu;1508496 wrote:

Embryology 1



Evolutionists have taught for over a century that as an embryo develops, it passes through stages that mimic an evolutionary sequence. In other words, in a few weeks an unborn human repeats stages that supposedly took millions of years for mankind. A well-known example of this ridiculous teaching is that embryos of mammals have “gill slits, because mammals supposedly evolved from fish. (Yes, that’s faulty logic.) Embryonic tissues that resemble “gill slits have nothing to do with breathing; they are neither gills nor slits.�* Instead, those embryonic tissues develop into parts of the face, bones of the middle ear, and endocrine glands.

Embryologists no longer consider the superficial similarities between a few embryos and the adult forms of simpler animals as evidence for evolution (a).

a. “This generalization was originally called the biogenetic law by Haeckel and is often stated as ‘ontogeny recapitulates [repeats] phylogeny [evolution].’ This crude interpretation of embryological sequences will not stand close examination, however. Its shortcomings have been almost universally pointed out by modern authors, but the idea still has a prominent place in biological mythology. Paul R. Ehrlich and Richard W. Holm, The Process of Evolution (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963), p. 66.

“It is now firmly established that ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny. George Gaylord Simpson and William S. Beck, Life: An Introduction to Biology (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1965), p. 241.

Hitching, pp. 202–205.

“The enthusiasm of the German zoologist, Ernst Haeckel, however, led to an erroneous and unfortunate exaggeration of the information which embryology could provide. This was known as the ‘biogenetic law’ and claimed that embryology was a recapitulation of evolution, or that during its embryonic development an animal recapitulated the evolutionary history of its species. Gavin R. deBeer, An Atlas of Evolution (New York: Nelson, 1964), p. 38.

“...the theory of recapitulation has had a great and, while it lasted, regrettable influence on the progress of embryology. Gavin R. deBeer, Embryos and Ancestors, revised edition (London: Oxford University Press, 1951), p. 10.

“Moreover, the biogenetic law has become so deeply rooted in biological thought that it cannot be weeded out in spite of its having been demonstrated to be wrong by numerous subsequent scholars. Walter J. Bock, “Evolution by Orderly Law, Science, Vol. 164, 9 May 1969, pp. 684–685.

“...we no longer believe we can simply read in the embryonic development of a species its exact evolutionary history. Hubert Frings and Marie Frings, Concepts of Zoology (Toronto: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1970), p. 267.

“The type of analogical thinking which leads to theories that development is based on the recapitulation of ancestral stages or the like no longer seems at all convincing or even interesting to biologists. Conrad Hal Waddington, Principles of Embryology (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1956), p. 10.

“Surely the biogenetic law is as dead as a doornail. Keith Stewart Thomson, “Ontogeny and Phylogeny Recapitulated, American Scientist, Vol. 76, May–June 1988, p. 273.

“The biogenetic law—embryologic recapitulation—I think, was debunked back in the 1920s by embryologists. David Raup, as taken from page 16 of an approved and verified transcript of a taped interview conducted by Luther D. Sunderland on 27 July 1979. [See also Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (San Diego: Master Book Publishers, 1984), p. 119.]

“The theory of recapitulation was destroyed in 1921 by Professor Walter Garstang in a famous paper. Since then no respectable biologist has ever used the theory of recapitulation, because it was utterly unsound, created by a Nazi-like preacher named Haeckel. Ashley Montagu, as quoted by Sunderland, p. 119.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]


Actually, the observation is more about how embryos of most mammalian critters appear very similar in the early developmental stages. That some less-than-scientific minds developed rather inane conclusions from such observation just shows that non-religious folks can behave with just as much ignorance and the religious wackos.

Embryology 2



Ernst Haeckel, by deliberately falsifying his drawings (b), originated and popularized this incorrect but widespread belief [of the “biogenetic law]. Many modern textbooks continue to spread this false idea as evidence for evolution (c).

b. Haeckel, who in 1868 advanced this “biogenetic law that was quickly adopted in textbooks and encyclopedias worldwide, distorted his data. Thompson explains:

“A natural law can only be established as an induction from facts. Haeckel was of course unable to do this. What he did was to arrange existing forms of animal life in a series proceeding from the simple to the complex, intercalating [inserting] imaginary entities where discontinuity existed and then giving the embryonic phases names corresponding to the stages in his so-called evolutionary series. Cases in which this parallelism did not exist were dealt with by the simple expedient of saying that the embryological development had been falsified. When the ‘convergence’ of embryos was not entirely satisfactory, Haeckel altered the illustrations of them to fit his theory. The alterations were slight but significant. The ‘biogenetic law’ as a proof of evolution is valueless. W. R. Thompson, p. 12.

“To support his case he [Haeckel] began to fake evidence. Charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by a university court at Jena, he agreed that a small percentage of his embryonic drawings were forgeries; he was merely filling in and reconstructing the missing links when the evidence was thin, and he claimed unblushingly that ‘hundreds of the best observers and biologists lie under the same charge.’ Pitman, p. 120.

“A Professor Arnold Bass charged that Haeckel had made changes in pictures of embryos which he [Bass] had drawn. Haeckel’s reply to these charges was that if he is to be accused of falsifying drawings, many other prominent scientists should also be accused of the same thing ... Bolton Davidheiser, Evolution and Christian Faith (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1969), pp.�*76–77.

M. Bowden, Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy? 2nd edition (Bromley, England: Sovereign Publications, 1981), pp. 142–143.

Wilbert H. Rusch, Sr., “Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 6, June 1969, pp. 27–34.

“...ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, meaning that in the course of its development [ontogeny] an embryo recapitulates [repeats] the evolutionary history of its species [phylogeny]. This idea was fathered by Ernst Haeckel, a German biologist who was so convinced that he had solved the riddle of life’s unfolding that he doctored and faked his drawings of embryonic stages to prove his point. Fix, p. 285.

“ accused Haeckel of shocking dishonesty in repeating the same picture several times to show the similarity among vertebrates at early embryonic stages in several plates of [Haeckel’s book]. Stephen Jay Gould, Ontogeny and Phylogeny (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1977), p. 430.

“It looks like it’s turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology. Michael K. Richardson, as quoted by Elizabeth Pennisi, “Haeckel’s Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered, Science, Vol. 277, 5 September 1997, p. 1435.

“When we compare his [Haeckel’s] drawings of a young echidna embryo with the original, we find that he removed the limbs (see Fig. 1). This cut was selective, applying only to the young stage. It was also systematic because he did it to other species in the picture. Its intent is to make the young embryos look more alike than they do in real life. Michael K. Richardson and Gerhard Keuck, “A Question of Intent: When Is a ‘Schematic’ Illustration a Fraud? Nature, Vol. 410, 8 March 2001, p. 144.

[continue]

[continued]



Embryology 2



c. “Another point to emerge from this study is the considerable inaccuracy of Haeckel’s famous figures. These drawings are still widely reproduced in textbooks and review articles, and continue to exert a significant influence on the development of ideas in this field. Michael K. Richardson et al., “There Is No Highly Conserved Embryonic Stage in the Vertebrates, Anatomy and Embryology, Vol. 196, No. 2, August 1997, p. 104.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Well, since we now have cameras that can record the development quite accurately, we no longer care what Haeckel's drawings looked like. and in those early stages, it can be difficult to tell the differences between human and other critters.

More Brown pastings - To be ignored as matter as routine. All other forums have banned him for Flooding.

This seems like a good place to drop this:

Ken Ham: “Dinosaurs Perished In Flood After Noah Refused To Let Them Board His Ark For Homosexuality “

...

Commenting on the news pertaining to the museum, which have set the Internet ablaze, the president, CEO and founder of Answers in Genesis-US, Ken Ham, contributed his opinion during an interview with the same ludicrous newspaper from the Montana small town. “This is some of the most groundbreaking work I have seen in the field in years, Ham reportedly said. “I can’t believe it has taken us this long to come this far. I was hoping there would be more crusaders out there like me, people who wouldn’t be afraid to merge the Biblical with the scientific. And now I couldn’t be happier.

...


Devo was right

And about as plausible as Brown's fantasies.

FourPart;1508756 wrote: And about as plausible as Brown's fantasies.


I don't think even Brown would go THAT far.

LarsMac;1508760 wrote: I don't think even Brown would go THAT far.


Ya reckon?

Rapid Burial



Fossils all over the world show evidence of rapid burial. Many fossils, such as fossilized jellyfish (a), show by the details of their soft, fleshy portions (b) that they were buried rapidly, before they could decay. (Normally, dead animals and plants quickly decompose.) The presence of fossilized remains of many other animals, buried in mass graves and lying in twisted and contorted positions, suggests violent and rapid burials over large areas (c). These observations, together with the occurrence of compressed fossils and fossils that cut across two or more layers of sedimentary rock, are strong evidence that the sediments encasing these fossils were deposited rapidly—not over hundreds of millions of years. Furthermore, almost all sediments that formed today’s rocks were sorted by water. The worldwide fossil record is, therefore, evidence of rapid death and burial of animal and plant life by a worldwide, catastrophic flood. �*The fossil record is not evidence of slow change (d).



Figure�*7: Fossil of Fish Swallowing Fish. The fossilization process must have been quite rapid to have preserved a fish in the act of swallowing another fish. Thousands of such fossils have been found.



Figure�*8: Fish in Long Fish. In the belly of the above 14-foot-long fish is a smaller fish, presumably the big fish’s breakfast. Because digestion is rapid, fossilization must have been even more so.



Figure�*9: Fish in Curved Fish. The curved back shows that this fish died under stress.



Figure�*10: Dragonfly Wing. This delicate, 1�*1/2-foot-long wing must have been buried rapidly and evenly to preserve its details. Imagine the size of the entire dragonfly!

a. Thousands of jellyfish, many bigger than a dinner plate, are found in at least seven different horizons of coarse-grained, abrasive sandstone in Wisconsin. [See James W. Hagadorn et al., “Stranded on a Late Cambrian Shoreline: Medusae from Central Wisconsin, Geology, Vol. 30, No. 2, February 2002, pp. 147–150.]

Coarse grains slowly covering a jellyfish would allow atmospheric oxygen to migrate in and produce rapid decay. Burial in clay or mud would better shield an organism from decay. If coarse-grain sand buried these jellyfish in a storm, turbulence and abrasion by the sand grains would tear and destroy the jellyfish. To understand how thousands of jellyfish were gently collected and preserved in coarse-grained sand, see pages [195-212].



Charles Darwin recognized the problem of finding fossilized soft-bodied organisms such as jellyfish. He wrote:

“No organism wholly soft can be preserved. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 330.

Once again, a prediction of evolution is seen to be wrong.

Preston Cloud and Martin F. Glaessner, “The Ediacarian Period and System: Metazoa Inherit the Earth, Science, Vol. 217, 27 August 1982, pp. 783–792. [See also the cover of that issue.]

Martin F. Glaessner, “Pre-Cambrian Animals, Scientific American, Vol. 204, March 1961, pp. 72–78.

b. Donald G. Mikulic et al., “A Silurian Soft-Bodied Biota, Science, Vol. 228, 10 May 1985, pp. 715–717.

“...preconditions for the preservation of soft-bodied faunas: rapid burial of fossils in undisturbed sediment; deposition in an environment free from the usual agents of immediate destruction—primarily oxygen and other promoters of decay, and the full range of organisms, from bacteria to large scavengers, that quickly reduce most carcasses to oblivion in nearly all earthly environments; and minimal disruption by the later ravages of heat, pressure, fracturing, and erosion....But the very conditions that promote preservation also decree that few organisms, if any, make their natural homes in such places. Stephen Jay Gould, Wonderful Life (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1989), pp. 61–62.

c. Presse Grayloise, “Very Like a Whale, The Illustrated London News, 1856, p. 116.

Sunderland, pp. 111–114.

David Starr Jordan, “A Miocene Catastrophe, Natural History, Vol. 20, January–February 1920, pp. 18–22.

Hugh Miller, The Old Red Sandstone, or New Walks in an Old Field (Boston: Gould and Lincoln, 1858), pp. 221–225.

d. Harold G. Coffin, Origin By Design (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Assn., 1983), pp. 30–40.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

More repeating pasting (Flooding) unworthy of note.

Pahu is some sort of proponent of the Great Flood, while he IS the Great Flood.

Parallel Strata



The earth’s sedimentary layers are typically parallel to adjacent layers. Such uniform layers are seen, for example, in the Grand Canyon and in road cuts in mountainous terrain. Had these parallel layers been deposited slowly over thousands of years, erosion would have cut many channels in the topmost layers. Their later burial by other sediments would produce nonparallel patterns. Because parallel layers are the general rule, and the earth’s surface erodes rapidly, one can conclude that almost all sedimentary layers were deposited rapidly relative to the local erosion rate—not over long periods of time (The mechanism involved is explained on pages 178-189 ).



Figure*11: Polystrate Fossil. Fossils crossing two or more sedimentary layers (strata) are called poly- (many) strate (strata) fossils. Consider how quickly this tree trunk in Germany must have been buried. Had burial been slow, the tree top would have decayed. Obviously, the tree could not have grown up through the strata without sunlight and air. The only alternative is rapid burial. Some polystrate trees are upside down, which could occur in a large flood. Soon after Mount St. Helens erupted in 1980, scientists saw trees being buried in a similar way in the lake-bottom sediments of Spirit Lake. Polystrate tree trunks are found worldwide. (Notice the 1-meter scale bar, equal to 3.28 feet, in the center of the picture.)

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

LOL What else can I say. Nice story but a myth.

Fossil Gaps 1



If evolution happened, the fossil record should show continuous and gradual changes from the bottom to the top layers. Actually, many gaps or discontinuities appear throughout the fossil record (a).

a. “But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 163.

“...the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed [must] truly be enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution]. Ibid., p. 323.

Darwin then explained that he thought that these gaps existed because of the “imperfection of the geologic record. Early Darwinians expected the gaps would be filled as fossil exploration continued. Most paleontologists now agree that this expectation has not been fulfilled.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Pahu;1509214 wrote:

Fossil Gaps 1



If evolution happened, the fossil record should show continuous and gradual changes from the bottom to the top layers. Actually, many gaps or discontinuities appear throughout the fossil record (a).

a. “But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 163.

“...the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed [must] truly be enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution]. Ibid., p. 323.

Darwin then explained that he thought that these gaps existed because of the “imperfection of the geologic record. Early Darwinians expected the gaps would be filled as fossil exploration continued. Most paleontologists now agree that this expectation has not been fulfilled.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]


Fossilization is a very sloppy, and haphazard process. It actually is an accidental result of specific conditions taking place. So, no, the fossil record is not ever continuous

Lars how right you are. As time goes on we slowly fill in the gaps. With millions oif years to deal with it will take a long time if ever.

Fossil Gaps 2



The Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago has one of the largest collections of fossils in the world. Consequently, its former dean, Dr. David Raup, was highly qualified to discuss the absence of transitions in the fossil record:

“Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information—what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection. David M. Raup, “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology, Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50, No. 1, January 1979, p. 25.

[continue]

Fossil Gaps 2



[continued]

“Surely the lack of gradualism—the lack of intermediates—is a major problem. Dr. David Raup, as taken from page 16 of an approved and verified transcript of a taped interview conducted by Luther D. Sunderland on 27 July 1979.

“In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another. Stanley, p. 95.

“But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition. David S. Woodruff, “Evolution: The Paleobiological View, Science, Vol. 208, 16 May 1980, p. 716.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

What nonsense that sciewntis prove evolution did not happen. Must be SOME WANNABE SCIENTISTS.

Ted;1509681 wrote: What nonsense that sciewntis prove evolution did not happen. Must be SOME WANNABE SCIENTISTS.


You have to remember that those quotes are completely out of context. Pahu may not understand the significance of such a statement, but, well, ..., need I say more?

Pahu;1509513 wrote:

Fossil Gaps 2



[continued]

“Surely the lack of gradualism—the lack of intermediates—is a major problem. Dr. David Raup, as taken from page 16 of an approved and verified transcript of a taped interview conducted by Luther D. Sunderland on 27 July 1979.

“In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another. Stanley, p. 95.

“But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition. David S. Woodruff, “Evolution: The Paleobiological View, Science, Vol. 208, 16 May 1980, p. 716.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]


So, I had to go look up the D Woodruff reference there. You really should read stuff for yourself before posting regurgitated claptrap.

Woodruff goes on to write:

(May 28, 2017 Science SCIENCE, VOL. 208 )

An alternative model of evolution, that of punctuated equilibria, introduced by Niles Eldredge

and Stephen Jay Gould in the early 1970's, more fully accounts for these same observations. According to this major conceptual breakthrough, rapid evolution is typically associated with

speciation events that occur cryptically in small isolated populations, often at the edge of a species's geographic range.

(This model does not require macromutations of the type that characterized earlier punctuational schemes.)

It satisfactorily accounts for why the transitions for one species to another are not seen in the fossil record, why gaps are biologically meaningful, and why there are so few unbroken sequences of chronospecies known.

...

A fascinating article. You should read it.

Lars you are correct about taking things out of context. Thanks for that explanation. It made me think of the Galapagos islands in the Pacific.

Fossil Gaps 3



Dr. Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Museum (Natural History), was asked by Luther D. Sunderland why no evolutionary transitions were included in Dr. Patterson’s recent book, Evolution. In a personal letter, Patterson said:

“I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be asked to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say that there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type organism was derived. I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. Copy of letter, dated 10 April 1979, from Patterson to Sunderland.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Pahu;1509995 wrote:

Fossil Gaps 3



Dr. Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Museum (Natural History), was asked by Luther D. Sunderland why no evolutionary transitions were included in Dr. Patterson’s recent book, Evolution. In a personal letter, Patterson said:

“I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be asked to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say that there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type organism was derived. I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. Copy of letter, dated 10 April 1979, from Patterson to Sunderland.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]


The remains of a baby bird from the time of the dinosaurs have been discovered in a specimen of 99-million-year-old amber, according to scientists writing in the journal Gondwana Research.

The hatchling belonged to a major group of birds known as enantiornithes, which went extinct along with dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous period, about 65 million years ago. Funded in part by the National Geographic Society's Expeditions Council, this discovery is providing critical new information about these ancient, toothed birds and how they differed from modern birds.

This is also the most complete fossil yet to be discovered in Burmese amber. Mined in the Hukawng Valley in northern Myanmar, Burmese amber deposits contain possibly the largest variety of animal and plant life from the Cretaceous period, which lasted from 145.5 to 65.5 million years ago.

Baby Bird from Time of Dinosaurs Found Fossilized in Amber

LarsMac;1509999 wrote: The remains of a baby bird from the time of the dinosaurs have been discovered in a specimen of 99-million-year-old amber, according to scientists writing in the journal Gondwana Research.

The hatchling belonged to a major group of birds known as enantiornithes, which went extinct along with dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous period, about 65 million years ago. Funded in part by the National Geographic Society's Expeditions Council, this discovery is providing critical new information about these ancient, toothed birds and how they differed from modern birds.

This is also the most complete fossil yet to be discovered in Burmese amber. Mined in the Hukawng Valley in northern Myanmar, Burmese amber deposits contain possibly the largest variety of animal and plant life from the Cretaceous period, which lasted from 145.5 to 65.5 million years ago.

Baby Bird from Time of Dinosaurs Found Fossilized in Amber


Dating methods are not reliable. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:




Out of Place Marine Fossil Disrupts Evolutionary Index

A Cambrian rock layer is considered to be "Cambrian" because of the particular fossils it contains. But what does it mean when a rock layer designated as "Ordovician" contains distinctly Cambrian fossils? Paleontologists are facing that question after a recent find in North Africa.

Researchers in Morocco found fossils of Anomalocaris—a unique and until now characteristically "Cambrian" creature—in Ordovician rocks, which in some locations are positioned just above Cambrian strata. This evidently extinct animal belonged to a group of rather strange sea creatures classified as "anomalocaridids." One such marine animal was Hurdia, which had well-designed and fully-integrated body parts, including dual-function swimming flaps and gills.1 Despite their unusual appearance, no anomalocaridid looks like an evolutionary transition, and all of them look well-suited for aquatic life.

In fact, in 1994, the seaworthiness of the Anomalocaris' paired side flippers and overall body plan was tested and found to be so stable that it would have required very little brain power to manipulate. In the published study, paleontologist and Cambrian expert Derek Briggs described a remote-controlled model of a 70-centimeter-long Anomalocaris that was constructed with 11 underwater "wings," in imitation of its fossils. "The long basal attachment of the flexible lobes to the body of the model resulted in an automatic adjustment of the angle of attack in both the up and down stroke," he wrote.2 Though it has proved difficult to classify, Anomalocaris was hardly an evolutionary experiment, but was instead a well-designed swimming creature.

However, the presence of this unique fossil can no longer be used to reliably identify a rock as Cambrian. In addition to the Ordovician anomalocaridid discovered in Morocco, a lone fossil of an obvious anomalocaridid (although it was not identified as such) was described from Devonian strata in Germany.3 It had the same number of flaps, though much smaller, and the same unique circular mouth and curved graspers.

Briggs said in a Yale University press release, "The anomalocaridids are one of the most iconic groups of Cambrian animals," and while this may be true as written, the Moroccan and German discoveries have falsified the notion that anomalocaridids are exclusive to the Cambrian.4

Evolutionary thinking suggests that many creatures fossilized in lower rocks should not persist in rock layers above, since those creatures would have evolved into those forms found above them. Anomalocaris does not fit this mold.

But according to the creation/Flood model, the Cambrian, Ordovician, and Devonian rock layers were deposited early in the Flood year, as creatures that inhabited watery environments were caught up in super-size underwater mudflows. Indeed, the Yale press release stated, "The animals found in Morocco inhabited a muddy sea floor in fairly deep water, and were trapped by sediment clouds that buried them and preserved their soft bodies."4 And a recent Yale University geology department newsletter suggested that the reason why even soft-bodied Cambrian creatures were fossilized was because animals that were "overcome by current-transported sediment ended up out of reach of scavengers."5

It is obvious that a catastrophe was responsible for their fossilization, and this is consistent with the worldwide violent deaths and mud-buried carcasses that are predictions of the Flood model. In the context of the great Flood, similar creatures could have been deposited and fossilized in more than one layer, since the relevant layers do not correspond with vast ages but were all deposited during a single year. Perhaps creatures that had been living in similar ecological zones would have been caught up together in one muddy tsunami after another that formed the rock layers.

More examples of what have long been considered "index fossils" that supposedly mark certain rock strata and evolutionary "times" will continue to crop up in unexpected places, if Noah's Flood was truly responsible for these rock layer deposits.

Out of Place Marine Fossil Disrupts Evolutionary Index | The Institute for Creation Research

Pahu;1510002 wrote: Dating methods are not reliable....

yadda yadda,...


I suggest that you read up on the advances in dating methods.