Science Disproves Evolution

[Ted]

Still BS LOL

[Ahso!]

Ted;1514319 wrote: Still BS LOLTed, which books on Evolution have you read? Would you mind listing them?

[Ted]

I will see what I can do. Love the lack of trust in my word to say nothing about the false claims of some. Hardly seems worth making the effort.

[Ahso!]

Ted;1514362 wrote: I will see what I can do. Love the lack of trust in my word to say nothing about the false claims of some. Hardly seems worth making the effort.
Seriously? I can rattle off what I've read on Evolution. I can even post links to websites.

As far as your word goes? I've been quite open and honest about saying I don't believe a word that comes out of the mouth of any member of any religious cult, especially Christians.

Hardly seems worth making the effort when you can't.

[Ted]

Oh!!!

[Ted]

Ahso when you quit being so damned confrontational I'll consider what I do. Until then carry on with your silly game.

[Pahu]

Out-of-Sequence Fossils 4



Amber, found in Illinois coal beds, contain chemical signatures showing that the amber came from flowering plants, but flowering plants supposedly evolved 170 million years after the coal formed (i). In the Grand Canyon, in Venezuela, in Kashmir, and in Guyana, spores of ferns and pollen from flowering plants are found in Cambrian (j) rocks—rocks supposedly deposited before flowering plants evolved. Pollen has also been found in Precambrian (k) rocks deposited before life allegedly evolved.



Figure 12: Insect in Amber. The best-preserved fossils are encased in amber, protected from air and water and buried in the ground. Amber, a golden resin (similar to sap or pitch) usually from conifer trees such as pines, may also contain other preservatives. No transitional forms of life have been found in amber, despite evolutionary-based ages of 1.5–300 million years. Animal behaviors, unchanged from today, are seen in three-dimensional detail. For example, ants in amber show the same social and work patterns as ants today.

Experts bold enough to explain how these fossils formed say that hurricane-force winds must have snapped off trees at their trunks, causing huge amounts of resin to spill out and act like flypaper. Debris and small organisms were blown into the sticky resin, which was later covered by more resin and finally buried. (Part II of this book will show that such conditions arose during the flood.)

In a clean-room laboratory, 30–40 dormant, but living, bacteria species were removed from intestines of bees encased in amber from the Dominican Republic. When cultured, the bacteria grew! [See “Old DNA, Bacteria, and Proteins?] This amber is claimed to be 25–40 million years old, but I suspect it formed at the time of the flood, only thousands of years ago. Is it more likely that bacteria can be kept alive thousands of years or many millions of years? Metabolism rates, even in dormant bacteria, are not zero.

i. “A type of amber thought to have been invented by flowering plants may have been en vogue millions of years before those plants evolved...When the researchers analyzed the amber, though, they discovered a chemical signature know[n] only from the amber of flowering plants. Rachel Ehrenberg, “Flowerless Plants Also Made Form of Fancy Amber, Science News, Vol. 176, 24 October 2009, p. 5.

“ has a molecular composition that has been seen only from angiosperms, which appeared much later in the Early Cretaceous.... [Amber resins] are so diverse that those from each plant species have a distinctive Py-GC-MS fingerprint that can be used to identify the plants that produced various ambers around the world. David Grimaldi, “Pushing Back Amber Production, Science, Vol. 326, 2 October 2009, p. 51.

j. R. M. Stainforth, “Occurrence of Pollen and Spores in the Roraima Formation of Venezuela and British Guiana, Nature, Vol. 210, 16 April 1966, pp. 292–294.

A. K. Ghosh and A. Bose, pp. 796–797.

A. K. Ghosh and A. Bose, “Spores and Tracheids from the Cambrian of Kashmir, Nature, Vol. 169, 21 June 1952, pp. 1056–1057.

J. Coates et al., pp. 266–267.

k. George F. Howe et al., “A Pollen Analysis of Hakatai Shale and Other Grand Canyon Rocks, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 24, March 1988, pp. 173–182.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

[Ahso!]

Ted;1514367 wrote: Ahso when you quit being so damned confrontational I'll consider what I do. Until then carry on with your silly game.


how about just one book then? your favorite evolution book. that should be easy enough. it was you who opened this door.

[Ted]

Still the same silly game.

[Ahso!]

Ted;1514461 wrote: Still the same silly game.Thanks for proving my point that you're nothing but a charlatan. You've never read a sentence on evolution.

[FourPart]

Pahu pasting the same old claptrap doesn't make it any less bollocks. Nobody bothers to read it. We've seen it all before - time & time again. This thread currently has 372 pages. If all Pahu's duplicate postings were removed that would crunch it down to about 20 - if that. It's not that the content is a load of crap, it's that it's the same old crap. Nothing in the way of discussion. No attempt to debate the issue, citing sources. No sign of independant thought. Just paste, paste & paste again. Any other forum would (and most already have) ban him for flooding.

[Ted]

Some folks need their egos boosted up all the time.

[xfrodobagginsx]

Pahu;1514450 wrote:

Out-of-Sequence Fossils 4



Amber, found in Illinois coal beds, contain chemical signatures showing that the amber came from flowering plants, but flowering plants supposedly evolved 170 million years after the coal formed (i). In the Grand Canyon, in Venezuela, in Kashmir, and in Guyana, spores of ferns and pollen from flowering plants are found in Cambrian (j) rocks—rocks supposedly deposited before flowering plants evolved. Pollen has also been found in Precambrian (k) rocks deposited before life allegedly evolved.



Figure 12: Insect in Amber. The best-preserved fossils are encased in amber, protected from air and water and buried in the ground. Amber, a golden resin (similar to sap or pitch) usually from conifer trees such as pines, may also contain other preservatives. No transitional forms of life have been found in amber, despite evolutionary-based ages of 1.5–300 million years. Animal behaviors, unchanged from today, are seen in three-dimensional detail. For example, ants in amber show the same social and work patterns as ants today.

Experts bold enough to explain how these fossils formed say that hurricane-force winds must have snapped off trees at their trunks, causing huge amounts of resin to spill out and act like flypaper. Debris and small organisms were blown into the sticky resin, which was later covered by more resin and finally buried. (Part II of this book will show that such conditions arose during the flood.)

In a clean-room laboratory, 30–40 dormant, but living, bacteria species were removed from intestines of bees encased in amber from the Dominican Republic. When cultured, the bacteria grew! [See “Old DNA, Bacteria, and Proteins?] This amber is claimed to be 25–40 million years old, but I suspect it formed at the time of the flood, only thousands of years ago. Is it more likely that bacteria can be kept alive thousands of years or many millions of years? Metabolism rates, even in dormant bacteria, are not zero.

i. “A type of amber thought to have been invented by flowering plants may have been en vogue millions of years before those plants evolved...When the researchers analyzed the amber, though, they discovered a chemical signature know[n] only from the amber of flowering plants. Rachel Ehrenberg, “Flowerless Plants Also Made Form of Fancy Amber, Science News, Vol. 176, 24 October 2009, p. 5.

“ has a molecular composition that has been seen only from angiosperms, which appeared much later in the Early Cretaceous.... [Amber resins] are so diverse that those from each plant species have a distinctive Py-GC-MS fingerprint that can be used to identify the plants that produced various ambers around the world. David Grimaldi, “Pushing Back Amber Production, Science, Vol. 326, 2 October 2009, p. 51.

j. R. M. Stainforth, “Occurrence of Pollen and Spores in the Roraima Formation of Venezuela and British Guiana, Nature, Vol. 210, 16 April 1966, pp. 292–294.

A. K. Ghosh and A. Bose, pp. 796–797.

A. K. Ghosh and A. Bose, “Spores and Tracheids from the Cambrian of Kashmir, Nature, Vol. 169, 21 June 1952, pp. 1056–1057.

J. Coates et al., pp. 266–267.

k. George F. Howe et al., “A Pollen Analysis of Hakatai Shale and Other Grand Canyon Rocks, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 24, March 1988, pp. 173–182.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]


It's amazing the amount of evidence that Creationists have that disproves Darwinian Evolution. Thanks for sharing!

[LarsMac]

xfrodobagginsx;1514679 wrote: It's amazing the amount of evidence that Creationists have that disproves Darwinian Evolution. Thanks for sharing!


It's amazing how Creationists can cling to the slightest bit of useless information and claim it as evidence.

[Pahu]

LarsMac;1514683 wrote: It's amazing how Creationists can cling to the slightest bit of useless information and claim it as evidence.


In what way is it not evidence?

[LarsMac]

Pahu;1514696 wrote: In what way is it not evidence?


Well, let's just say that there is plenty of evidence, now, that indicates that Amber predates Angiosperms.

Therefore it is apparent that the assumption that Amber only appeared after Angiosperms developed is was incorrect.

Your examples seem to miss that fact.

Thing about science is that when someone says, "A-HAH! look what I found. This means thus and such!" they are speaking based upon current findings.

When someone finds something new, that new data can supersede previous assertions.

That, my dear fellow, is Science.

And the fact that some of a scientist's assertions made in the mid 19th century have been proved incorrect does not make everything he wrote invalid.

[Pahu]

LarsMac;1514711 wrote: Well, let's just say that there is plenty of evidence, now, that indicates that Amber predates Angiosperms.

Therefore it is apparent that the assumption that Amber only appeared after Angiosperms developed is was incorrect.

Your examples seem to miss that fact.

Thing about science is that when someone says, "A-HAH! look what I found. This means thus and such!" they are speaking based upon current findings.

When someone finds something new, that new data can supersede previous assertions.

That, my dear fellow, is Science.

And the fact that some of a scientist's assertions made in the mid 19th century have been proved incorrect does not make everything he wrote invalid.


The evidence is factual and up to date.

[LarsMac]

Pahu;1514719 wrote: The evidence is factual and up to date.


I am afraid that you have no idea what you are talking about.

You probably never read anything other than the quotes offered up on Mr Brown's web pages.

Two of the articles quoted in your post actually prove the opposite of the assertion in your post. You would easily realize that were you to bother to read those articles.

[Pahu]

LarsMac;1514724 wrote: I am afraid that you have no idea what you are talking about.

You probably never read anything other than the quotes offered up on Mr Brown's web pages.

Two of the articles quoted in your post actually prove the opposite of the assertion in your post. You would easily realize that were you to bother to read those articles.


I have read them and found they are factual and up to date.

[LarsMac]

Pahu;1514726 wrote: I have read them and found they are factual and up to date.


Then surely you read this:

"The observation of Class Ic ambers in Carboniferous sediments suggests that preconifer gymnosperms were using complex polyterpenoid resin in a manner similar to that seen in a wide variety of modern species. Modern resins that are structurally analogous to Class Ic ambers are primarily derived from angiosperms. Our data do not imply that angiosperms existed in the Carboniferous, because the fossil record does not record unequivocal angiosperm fossils until the Cretaceous. However, our data do suggest that the divergence of the biosynthetic mechanisms needed to produce resins based on regular and enantio-series labdanoid diterpenes predates both the emergence of true conifers and the differentiation of angiosperms and gymnosperms. Furthermore, these basic biosynthetic pathways have been retained in both gymnosperms and angiosperms through several major extinction events and over 300 million years of evolution. Based on genomic evidence, previous workers have postulated initial differentiation of terpene synthase genes associated with the production of resin-related diterpenes during the Carboniferous (14). Our data support this hypothesis."


Which essentially denies you claims that amber is only produced by angiosperms.

[Pahu]

LarsMac;1514727 wrote: Then surely you read this:

"The observation of Class Ic ambers in Carboniferous sediments suggests that preconifer gymnosperms were using complex polyterpenoid resin in a manner similar to that seen in a wide variety of modern species. Modern resins that are structurally analogous to Class Ic ambers are primarily derived from angiosperms. Our data do not imply that angiosperms existed in the Carboniferous, because the fossil record does not record unequivocal angiosperm fossils until the Cretaceous. However, our data do suggest that the divergence of the biosynthetic mechanisms needed to produce resins based on regular and enantio-series labdanoid diterpenes predates both the emergence of true conifers and the differentiation of angiosperms and gymnosperms. Furthermore, these basic biosynthetic pathways have been retained in both gymnosperms and angiosperms through several major extinction events and over 300 million years of evolution. Based on genomic evidence, previous workers have postulated initial differentiation of terpene synthase genes associated with the production of resin-related diterpenes during the Carboniferous (14). Our data support this hypothesis."

Which essentially denies you claims that amber is only produced by angiosperms.


That is not my claim, but is from a scientist:

“ has a molecular composition that has been seen only from angiosperms, which appeared much later in the Early Cretaceous.... [Amber resins] are so diverse that those from each plant species have a distinctive Py-GC-MS fingerprint that can be used to identify the plants that produced various ambers around the world. David Grimaldi, “Pushing Back Amber Production, Science, Vol. 326, 2 October 2009, p. 51.

So it seems there is a conflict. What is being pointed out here is evolutionists are claiming the appearance of resin before resin producing plants allegedly evolved. Your quote assumes evolution.

[Ted]

Pahu which scientist?

[LarsMac]

Pahu;1514730 wrote: That is not my claim, but is from a scientist:

“ has a molecular composition that has been seen only from angiosperms, which appeared much later in the Early Cretaceous.... [Amber resins] are so diverse that those from each plant species have a distinctive Py-GC-MS fingerprint that can be used to identify the plants that produced various ambers around the world. David Grimaldi, “Pushing Back Amber Production, Science, Vol. 326, 2 October 2009, p. 51.

So it seems there is a conflict. What is being pointed out here is evolutionists are claiming the appearance of resin before resin producing plants allegedly evolved. Your quote assumes evolution.


That was not a claim, but an observation, and if you read the entire article, you see that the statement by Dr Grimaldi is taken out of context to support an invalid claim.

Besides, Dr Grimaldi is a Zoologist, not a Botanists, so his perspective on Amber is focused on the zoological information that samples within the Amber can provide, rather than the specific botanical and genetic aspects of the plants that produced the Amber itself.

[Pahu]

Ted;1514739 wrote: Pahu which scientist?


David Grimaldi

[Ted]

A rather interesting scientist. Is he really a scientist or another charleton..?

[FourPart]

In a clean-room laboratory, 30–40 dormant, but living, bacteria species were removed from intestines of bees encased in amber from the Dominican Republic. When cultured, the bacteria grew! [See “Old DNA, Bacteria, and Proteins?] This amber is claimed to be 25–40 million years old, but I suspect it formed at the time of the flood, only thousands of years ago. Is it more likely that bacteria can be kept alive thousands of years or many millions of years? Metabolism rates, even in dormant bacteria, are not zero.
Another example typically taken out of context by the use of omission. The about example relates to the reanimation of bacterial spores. They are NOT dormant bacteria any more than a seed is a living plant. This is NOT the same thing as live bacteria. Living beings require continuous sustenance, which would not exist in the closed system of amber. Spores, on the other hand, can survive indefinitely in the same way as seeds can. Seeds may be stored in the dark in an arid vaccuum & be perfectly preserved. In the same conditions the plant would surely perish. Therefore, the claim that it 'proves' it to be only a matter of thousands of years is immediately discredited as it proves nothing of the sort.

[Ted]

I finally found him. He is a scientist looking into historic evolution. He obviously accepts evolution as a reality.

[FourPart]

Brown insists no transitional forms have been found in amber (fossilized tree resin). Ironically, however, one of the most impressive intermediate fossils was an insect found in 1966 in Cretaceous amber in New Jersey (Fig. 10). Assigned to a new genus, Sphecomyrma, it showed intermediate features between wasps and ants. Since then other specimens of Sphecomyrma have been found, two of which have been assigned to new species, and also show intermediate features (Simmons, 1997). Another intermedite insect in amber is the earliest known myrmecophile (ant-loving) rover beetle from the early Eocene of India. It shows a number of primative features, including distinct abdominal tergites, which are fused in modern Clavigertites (Parker and Grimaldi, 2014).


Walter Brown's Hydroplate Model Doesn't Hold Water

So, Grimaldi agrees with Brown, does he?

[Ted]

It seems to me that Grimaldi is a scientist to accepts the idea of evolution is a part of his belief system which is contrary to everything you have written for months.

[Pahu]

FourPart;1514774 wrote: Walter Brown's Hydroplate Model Doesn't Hold Water

So, Grimaldi agrees with Brown, does he?


Are they truly intermediate forms from one kind to another, or just similar?

[Pahu]

Ted;1514782 wrote: It seems to me that Grimaldi is a scientist to accepts the idea of evolution is a part of his belief system which is contrary to everything you have written for months.


Why do you believe that? Most scientists who confirm Brown's conclusions believe in the evolution myth.

[Ted]

I believe that because that is what Grimaldi said. As for Brown, a scientist!!!!!!! Maybe you are among the group that do not trust God so you need a contract. The Greek word "pistis" was erroneously translated into faith as the correct faith when in fact it meant and still means "trust"

[Pahu]

Out-of-Sequence Fossils 5



Petrified trees in Arizona’s Petrified Forest National Park contain fossilized nests of bees and co****s 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]

[LarsMac]

Pahu;1514880 wrote:

Out-of-Sequence Fossils 5



Petrified trees in Arizona’s Petrified Forest National Park contain fossilized nests of bees and co****s 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]


So bees, and flowers were perhaps around earlier than we previously estimated.

Simply put: "So, what?"

http://www.worldcat.org/wcpa/servlet/DC ... cerpt=true

The early date of the forest could be significant. If these were, indeed, bees’ nests—and the evidence certainly pointed to this, though some say you would need to find bee bodies to be certain—it would mean bees existed 207 to 220 million years ago, at least 120 million years or so before the oldest previously known bee fossil. Beyond this, the nests are older than the earliest known flower fossils. Could it be that bees existed, in some form, for ages before flowers?

It depends, partly, on how you define a bee. Evolution is, after all, a continuum, and these could be bee ancestors rather than bees themselves. It also depends upon when flowers first evolved, and fragile plants leave an elusive fossil trail. Charles Darwin called the origin of flowering plants “an abominable mystery, and it remains, for all the theories, ultimately mysterious.

What seems more certain is that bees probably evolved from a descendant of today’s carnivorous hunting wasp. The Russian entomologist Professor S. I. Malyshev posited a theory about how this happened, and this leads to part of what makes a bee a bee: its diet. Bees are unusual among insects because the developing young have the same diet as the adult; both survive exclusively on plants. The hunting wasps still feed their grubs on protein-rich aphids that they kill with their jaws. They also eat, as bees do, the honeydew exuded from plant-sucking aphids. Malyshev argued that these early carnivorous wasps, in the process of killing their prey to feed their young, would taste the sweetness in the aphid’s body that they also found in honeydew. It would have been a short evolutionary step for the insects to feed entirely on plants, in their larval as well as their adult diet.

We do not know for certain if and how the bee first evolved from a carnivorous hunting wasp. We do not know the earliest date of the bee or the bloom. What we have are theories looped onto fragments. It makes the evolutionary detective story no less intriguing.

To get back to a concrete fact—one you can eat—Malyshev’s speculations connect to another pot in my kitchen cupboard. Honeydew honey is a delectable curiosity. Strong, to the point of almost being savory, it is not made from the nectar of flowers at all. Rather, bees collect honeydew from the aphids in forests, just as the hunting wasp did all that time ago. This honey is therefore a sticky substance made from fluid ingested by two kinds of insect. But, as I spread the darkly delicious ooze on my toast, I prefer to think of honeydew as a possible clue to the evolution of the honeybee.

[Pahu]

[QUOTE=LarsMac;1514882]So bees, and flowers were perhaps around earlier than we previously estimated.

Simply put: "So, what?"

So evolution is a myth. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

Amazing Ant Beetle Same Today as Yesterday


If ancient history according to Scripture is true, then what should we expect to find in animal fossils? Surely excellent body designs would top the list, closely followed by a lack of "transitional forms." A newly discovered specialized beetle inside Indian amber provides another peek into the past and an opportunity to test these Bible-based expectations.

Joseph Parker, a research associate at the American Museum of Natural History, specializes in this type of ant beetle, called Protoclaviger. He told the AMNH, "Protoclaviger is a truly transitional fossil."1 He and AMNH curator David Grimaldi coauthored a paper describing the find in Current Biology, where they wrote, "Protoclaviger captures a transitional stage in the evolutionary development of this novel body plan, most evident in its still-distinct abdominal tergites."2

Tergites are the segments of an insect's body, and the several hundred modern species of Protoclaviger do not have them. Instead, modern varieties have smooth, solid bodies. Is that all it takes to make a bona fide evolutionary transition? After all, the genetic basis for this kind of difference may be quite small, and the basic body form of this beetle looks the same as a modern variety.3 The fossil form is so similar to today's ant-loving beetles, classified in the family Clavigeritae, that it was easy to identify.

Entomologists are still unravelling the elaborate tactics these beetles use to live inside ant colonies, where they somehow convince worker ants to feed them directly, but the AMNH press release described a few of the known tactics. Ant-loving beetles actually have specialized mouth parts designed to receive liquid food from worker ants. They have special glands that secrete "oily secretions" all over their bodies.1 Tufts of hair-like projections called trichomes wick secretions outward, and ants in the colony constantly sample these secretion-soaked trichomes. Two of these trichomes stand out, like backward-pointing horns, with just the right size to fit ant mouths.

The fossil beetle has these same trichomes, too. The AMNH admitted that "its body is very similar to modern Clavigeritae beetles," but then noted that Protoclaviger still has tergites on its abdomen and so it must be a transitional form.4

But transitional forms are supposed to have clear transitional features, like an otherwise ant-beetle body but without its trichomes, which had not yet evolved. What's transitional about sectioned beetle abdomens versus smooth ones? Instead, both the modern and fossilized versions of this beetle share the shapes, size, and unique features befitting its life in an ant colony.

This fossil, easily recognized as an ant-loving beetle, has everything it needed to live among ancient ants. Protoclaviger is a great example of a well-designed body one would expect from animals that God created, and it also exemplifies fossils that look too similar to known living kinds to illustrate evolutionary transitions.

Amazing Ant Beetle Same Today as Yesterday | The Institute for Creation Research

[LarsMac]

Pahu;1514893 wrote: [QUOTE=LarsMac;1514882]So bees, and flowers were perhaps around earlier than we previously estimated.

Simply put: "So, what?"

So evolution is a myth. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

Amazing Ant Beetle Same Today as Yesterday


If ancient history according to Scripture is true, then what should we expect to find in animal fossils? Surely excellent body designs would top the list, closely followed by a lack of "transitional forms." A newly discovered specialized beetle inside Indian amber provides another peek into the past and an opportunity to test these Bible-based expectations.

Joseph Parker, a research associate at the American Museum of Natural History, specializes in this type of ant beetle, called Protoclaviger. He told the AMNH, "Protoclaviger is a truly transitional fossil."1 He and AMNH curator David Grimaldi coauthored a paper describing the find in Current Biology, where they wrote, "Protoclaviger captures a transitional stage in the evolutionary development of this novel body plan, most evident in its still-distinct abdominal tergites."2

Tergites are the segments of an insect's body, and the several hundred modern species of Protoclaviger do not have them. Instead, modern varieties have smooth, solid bodies. Is that all it takes to make a bona fide evolutionary transition? After all, the genetic basis for this kind of difference may be quite small, and the basic body form of this beetle looks the same as a modern variety.3 The fossil form is so similar to today's ant-loving beetles, classified in the family Clavigeritae, that it was easy to identify.

Entomologists are still unravelling the elaborate tactics these beetles use to live inside ant colonies, where they somehow convince worker ants to feed them directly, but the AMNH press release described a few of the known tactics. Ant-loving beetles actually have specialized mouth parts designed to receive liquid food from worker ants. They have special glands that secrete "oily secretions" all over their bodies.1 Tufts of hair-like projections called trichomes wick secretions outward, and ants in the colony constantly sample these secretion-soaked trichomes. Two of these trichomes stand out, like backward-pointing horns, with just the right size to fit ant mouths.

The fossil beetle has these same trichomes, too. The AMNH admitted that "its body is very similar to modern Clavigeritae beetles," but then noted that Protoclaviger still has tergites on its abdomen and so it must be a transitional form.4

But transitional forms are supposed to have clear transitional features, like an otherwise ant-beetle body but without its trichomes, which had not yet evolved. What's transitional about sectioned beetle abdomens versus smooth ones? Instead, both the modern and fossilized versions of this beetle share the shapes, size, and unique features befitting its life in an ant colony.

This fossil, easily recognized as an ant-loving beetle, has everything it needed to live among ancient ants. Protoclaviger is a great example of a well-designed body one would expect from animals that God created, and it also exemplifies fossils that look too similar to known living kinds to illustrate evolutionary transitions.

Amazing Ant Beetle Same Today as Yesterday | The Institute for Creation Research


The facts that show some creatures may have survived relatively unchanged for millions of years do nothing to invalidate your Evolution. There is nothing about Evolution that says that species MUST "evolve" to some other form. If a particular species has characteristics that have allowed it to remain relatively unchanged that long, in fact, it actually proves the basic premise of Evolutionary thought.

[Pahu]

LarsMac;1514899 wrote: [QUOTE=Pahu;1514893]



The facts that show some creatures may have survived relatively unchanged for millions of years do nothing to invalidate your Evolution. There is nothing about Evolution that says that species MUST "evolve" to some other form. If a particular species has characteristics that have allowed it to remain relatively unchanged that long, in fact, it actually proves the basic premise of Evolutionary thought.


Realistically, evolution is a myth. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:



Live Birth Fossil Exposes Evolutionary Enigma

Fossils sometimes capture brief, fleeting moments. Pterosaur footprints, raindrop craters, ripple marks, and half-swallowed fish adorn Earth's layers. And now researchers have discovered a baby ichthyosaur, an extinct fish-like reptile, halfway in and out of its mother's body. Though fossilization tragically ended the baby's transition from the womb, could this specimen support the story that a land reptile evolved into the first ichthyosaur?

The rare find was one of 80 fossils of Chaohusaurus, a small variety of ichthyosaur, described in PLOS ONE.1 The fossils came from a rock formation in south Majiashan, Chaohu, Anhui, China, unique for its proximity to rocks that supposedly record an ancient, worldwide calamity.

Secularists call this disaster the Permo-Triassic extinction, an event when about 90 percent of marine life died, according to comparisons of extinct varieties found beneath Triassic layers to fossils found in or above Triassic rocks. Among the 10 percent of surviving creatures paleontologists hope to find fossil examples of evolutionary adaptations—creatures that morphed their bodies into forms that thrived in the supposedly ancient, post-apocalyptic environment.

When first explored, expectations for the Chaohu site were high. University of California, Davis, paleontologist Ryosuke Motani told Science, "We expect to find new species here," that he felt would consist of "forms marking the land-sea transition."2 The journal reported Peking University's Jiang Da-yong saying, "We hope to find the oldest marine reptiles. Then we'll look for signs of their ancestors."2

What should those supposed ancestors look like? The standard story describes ancient land reptiles that evolved into the three main extinct marine reptile groups: mosasaurs, plesiosaurs, and ichthyosaurs. Because the fossils do not show any of these transitions, "scientists can only imagine what sort of animals ventured into the sea and evolved."2

Hence, the intense interest in Chaohu. Paleontologist Nick Fraser, of National Museums Scotland in Edinburgh, told Science, "This is where the fossils have to be."2

That was in 2010. Now, it's time for the fossils to begin telling their stories. What do the PLOS ONE study authors finally reveal?

In a nutshell, they noticed that the little ichthyosaurs were exiting the mother headfirst. That's a breach position for most marine creatures, which would drown if they became stuck in the birth canal and could not quickly surface for their first breath. However, headfirst births are normal for land animals (except giraffes). The study authors argued that a headfirst birth in Chaohusaurus is probably an evolutionary leftover from when their ancestors supposedly lived on land.

After all of those high expectations, is that all they could conjure?

Two observations undermine their argument and introduce the possibility that Chaohu fossils, like every other Triassic fossil found to date, fail to present any undisputed evidence supporting a land-to-sea reptile transition.

First, the authors' argument depends on these babies being preserved in a live-birth position and not having squeezed out after the mother died. They wrote, "Considering these factors, we conclude that the mother likely died in labor."1 What factors? One baby was already completely outside the mother's body, and the other two were "near the pelvic girdle."1 Frankly, these factors just as easily fit a different scenario where the same weight of overlying sediment that squished the mother's body and forced her sacral ribs over her spine also squeezed the baby ichthyosaurs out—not necessarily a normal birth.

One baby's head is actually among the mother's vertebrae. Does that normally happen during labor?

Second, the study authors ironically listed creatures with successful, though uncommon, underwater breach births, including the yellow-bellied sea snake and white whale.1 If there are numerous examples of both marine and land creatures that give birth headfirst and others that give birth tailfirst, then how can it be argued that one evolved into the other?

While the rarity of an ichthyosaur fossil baby frozen halfway inside its mother is remarkable, it seems to fall short of the expected demonstration of evolutionary transitions in the lower Triassic. The ichthyosaur varieties the research team studied were already fully adapted to marine life before being catastrophically buried. In 2010 Science wrote, "The origins of marine reptiles are an enigma"2—still an accurate description for those who refuse to consider origins by divine creation.

Live Birth Fossil Exposes Evolutionary Enigma | The Institute for Creation Research

[LarsMac]

Pahu;1514944 wrote:



Realistically, evolution is a myth. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution...




You keep repeating that phrase, like it is some sort of mantra.

However most of the anecdotal offerings you post are not examples of "disciplines of Science"

They are merely pseudo-scientific speculations, based upon the writings of other people who actually did the work, copied and pasted to make it seem as though someone actually agrees with your bizarre Young-Earth Creationists Baloney.

[Pahu]

LarsMac;1514945 wrote: You keep repeating that phrase, like it is some sort of mantra.

However most of the anecdotal offerings you post are not examples of "disciplines of Science"

They are merely pseudo-scientific speculations, based upon the writings of other people who actually did the work, copied and pasted to make it seem as though someone actually agrees with your bizarre Young-Earth Creationists Baloney.


What I am sharing is valid science. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:



Flower Fossils 100,000,000 Years Out of Place?

European scientists have now discovered flowering plant fossils in rock layers supposedly 100,000,000 years older than expected.1 This new finding challenges conventional evolutionary assumptions as scientists struggle to account for what they interpret as an enormous time gap.

Publishing in the journal Frontiers in Plant Science, Peter Hochuli and Susanne Feist-Burkhardt described fossil-pollen grains recovered from a drill core in the north of Switzerland.1

They wrote, "In this paper we focus on fossil evidence, presenting the so far oldest angiosperm-like pollen from the Middle Triassic (ca. 243Ma), a record that predates the generally accepted first occurrence of angiosperm pollen by more than 100Ma [million years]."1

The researchers' distinct color photographs show pollen-grain features diagnostic of flowering plants, not gymnosperms like palms or cycads. "The described pollen grains show all the essential features of angiosperm pollen," according to the Frontiers report.2



And instead of the few primitive-looking pollens that evolutionary scientists were expecting to find in lower rock layers, the researchers discovered many fully-formed pollens of different but well-developed types. The study authors wrote of the "sudden appearance" of angiosperm fossils "on most continents as well as the rapid radiation of numerous clades [which] implies a considerable diversification within approximately 3.5Ma or else it represents a wave of immigration from other areas."1 In other words, they had difficulty explaining how such a wide variety of flowering plants suddenly occur in this Triassic layer.

They encountered an equal challenge in trying to decipher why, after this sudden burst of supposed evolutionary creativity, angiosperms disappeared for 100 million years. The study authors wrote, "If we accepted the monosulcate [e.g., angiosperm] pollen from the Middle and Late Triassic as evidence for a pre-Cretaceous origin of crown group [ancestral] angiosperms the lack of fossil records throughout the Jurassic would remain difficult to explain."1

To account for this difficulty, they invoked speculative "stem relatives," writing, "Considering the hundred million year gap in the record as well as morphological differences to the earliest Cretaceous we suggest that these pollen grains most likely represent stem relatives of the angiosperms."1

Yet, are these conclusions based on scientific observation? It's one thing to assert that these fossils must represent evolutionary ancestors of modern plants because they are millions of years older than the accepted age, but it's entirely circular to then assert that the angiosperm fossils must have formed millions of years before the accepted age simply because conventional evolution tells us plants evolved over long ages.

The Bible's record of all the major phases of world history shows no trace of a Triassic deep-time epoch and offers a better explanation for these fossils.

First, the Bible doesn't rely on circular reasoning or speculations but on "eyewitnesses" who wrote "words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and¦the apostles of the Lord and Savior."3,4

Second, Scripture asserts that angiosperms existed alongside all other plants (including gymnosperms) and animals from the very start of creation—reporting instant creation of each plant kind. This exactly fits these fossils' sudden appearance. Third, it describes in detail a worldwide Flood capable of preserving life's traces in fossil forms. And in that context, Triassic flora and fauna do not represent a separate time but distinct ecosystems buried by sediment-laden Flood waters.

Finally, the Bible's timeline shows a creation that is thousands, not billions, of years old, erasing any need to explain why pollen grains buried deep in fossil layers look so similar to living herbs and flowers today.

Flower Fossils 100,000,000 Years Out of Place? | The Institute for Creation Research

[Ted]

Oh? Archaeology has shown the Bible to be in error in many places. That is because the Bible is a human construct.

[Pahu]

Ted;1514959 wrote: Oh? Archaeology has shown the Bible to be in error in many places. That is because the Bible is a human construct.


Wrong! That proves the Bible was inspired by God. All those writers who knew nothing were able to reveal scientific facts that have just recently been discovered. Also they accurately predicted the future.

Bible Accuracy


1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:

The Rocks Cry Out

http://christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a008.html

http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html

http://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/the-bi ... cal-record

2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:

Scientific Facts in The Bible

Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge

Science and the Bible

3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:

100prophecies.org

About Bible Prophecy

http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/bible ... filled.htm

404 Error

http://www.allabouttruth.org/Bible-Prophecy.htm

No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.

[LarsMac]

Pahu;1514949 wrote: What I am sharing is valid science.




You keep saying that, but all I ever see in your posts is anecdotal information that never rises to a hint of actual evidence to support your claims.

[Pahu]

Quote Originally Posted by Pahu

What I am sharing is valid science.

LarsMac;1514978 wrote: You keep saying that, but all I ever see in your posts is anecdotal information that never rises to a hint of actual evidence to support your claims.


You need to look again. What I am sharing is valid science. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:



Newly Named Fish an Evolutionary Enigma

A new species of chimaera found in Californian waters has been given a name. Chimaeras are bizarre cartilaginous fish with features that stand out among other fish. What also stands out is their lack of evolutionary change over supposed eons of evolutionary time.

Described in a recent paper in Zootaxa, the newly-named Hydrolagus melanophasma is only rarely found off the coast of southern California and down into the Sea of Cortez.1 Chimaeras typically inhabit very deep waters and are sometimes called “rabbitfish because their grinding tooth plates are similar to rabbit teeth. Also known as ghostsharks, they are similar to sharks in that they have a cartilage skeleton and a generally streamlined shape.

But they differ in significant ways. For instance, their upper jaws are fused to their skulls, they have retractable sexual organs on their foreheads, and they have separate openings that eliminate solid and liquid wastes, whereas sharks have just one opening that eliminates all waste. Like many other chimaeras, a Hydrolagus also has a specialized sense organ on its nose, and it produces its eggs in a spindle-shaped leathery case. Unlike sharks, which constantly manufacture individual replacement teeth, the tooth plates that characterize Hydrolagus chimaeras are made of tubate and pleromic dentine, which are specialized to “increase resistance to abrasion.2

Chimaeras with armor plating, now presumed extinct, are found in Silurian strata and are said to be over 416 million years old.3 And fossilized chimaeras that correspond in form to living ones can be identified in supposedly 200-million-year-old sediments. What mechanism could possibly have held the neo-Darwinian selection of mutations in check throughout these vast ages?

“Chimaeras¦are perhaps the oldest and most enigmatic groups of fishes alive today, according to a California Academy of Sciences press release.1 What makes them so enigmatic is their marked stasis. If millions of years of evolution really occurred, then these fish, as well as many other unchanged organisms, should have evolved into different forms by now.

But if these fossil-bearing rock layers, including the entire series of Paleozoic and Mesozoic periods, were deposited during the year-long Noahic Flood, then the enigma vanishes. If long ages have not elapsed since their deposition, then the fossils they contain would be expected to resemble their modern counterparts. No puzzle remains.

The assumption of deep time only deepens the mysteries of these deep sea chimaeras.

Newly Named Fish an Evolutionary Enigma | The Institute for Creation Research

[Ted]

Pahu the Bible is a human construct. Beginning to think you are a wannabee. You are trying to rewrite history and along with it the Bible.

[Pahu]

Ted;1514986 wrote: Pahu the Bible is a human construct. Beginning to think you are a wannabee. You are trying to rewrite history and along with it the Bible.


If that is what you want to believe, despite the evidence I provided, reveals your inability or unwillingness to evaluate the facts.

[Ted]

Pahu I've been there and done that. I do not need to play games. I know what archaeologists have said and what they have looked at. Archaeology has shown that the Bible is not historically accurate and this comes for several archaeologists. The problem is Christian archaeologists start out with having made up their minds and then make the evidence seem to support what they believe. Others start out simply looking for the truth with no preconceived answers. Some of the Christian archaeologists just play games. I will trust those who are simply out for the truth rather than with preconceived answers.

[Pahu]

Ted;1515003 wrote: Pahu I've been there and done that. I do not need to play games. I know what archaeologists have said and what they have looked at. Archaeology has shown that the Bible is not historically accurate and this comes for several archaeologists. The problem is Christian archaeologists start out with having made up their minds and then make the evidence seem to support what they believe. Others start out simply looking for the truth with no preconceived answers. Some of the Christian archaeologists just play games. I will trust those who are simply out for the truth rather than with preconceived answers.


Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:

The Rocks Cry Out

http://christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a008.html

http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html

http://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/the...iblical-record

[Ted]

Pahu I too can give you a list of archaeologists who disagree with that point of view.

[FourPart]

Pahu;1514979 wrote: Quote Originally Posted by Pahu

What I am sharing is valid science.

You need to look again. What I am sharing is valid science. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution.


Nothing you are sharing is valid Science. Science does not prove or disprove anything. It merely supports theories or it does not. If it does not then the theories are modified accordingly. Science is unbiased & does not presuppose anything.

Scientific Method:

1. Observe evidence.

2. Hypothesise.

3. Continue to observe & gather evidence.

4. Question the evidence against the hypothesis.

5. Amend theories accordingly, if appropriate.

6. Experiment & predict.

Once evidence sufficiently supports the hypothesis it becomes a theory but it doesn't stop there. Science doesn't stop continuingly going back to stage 3.

Creation Science:

1. Believe Bible is everything.

2. Interpret any cherry picked evidence in whatever way they want to.

3. Ignore everything else that suggests any alternative possibilities.

[LarsMac]

Pahu;1514979 wrote: Quote Originally Posted by Pahu

What I am sharing is valid science.



You need to look again. What I am sharing is valid science. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:



Newly Named Fish an Evolutionary Enigma

A new species of chimaera found in Californian waters has been given a name. Chimaeras are bizarre cartilaginous fish with features that stand out among other fish. What also stands out is their lack of evolutionary change over supposed eons of evolutionary time.

Described in a recent paper in Zootaxa, the newly-named Hydrolagus melanophasma is only rarely found off the coast of southern California and down into the Sea of Cortez.1 Chimaeras typically inhabit very deep waters and are sometimes called “rabbitfish because their grinding tooth plates are similar to rabbit teeth. Also known as ghostsharks, they are similar to sharks in that they have a cartilage skeleton and a generally streamlined shape.

But they differ in significant ways. For instance, their upper jaws are fused to their skulls, they have retractable sexual organs on their foreheads, and they have separate openings that eliminate solid and liquid wastes, whereas sharks have just one opening that eliminates all waste. Like many other chimaeras, a Hydrolagus also has a specialized sense organ on its nose, and it produces its eggs in a spindle-shaped leathery case. Unlike sharks, which constantly manufacture individual replacement teeth, the tooth plates that characterize Hydrolagus chimaeras are made of tubate and pleromic dentine, which are specialized to “increase resistance to abrasion.2

Chimaeras with armor plating, now presumed extinct, are found in Silurian strata and are said to be over 416 million years old.3 And fossilized chimaeras that correspond in form to living ones can be identified in supposedly 200-million-year-old sediments. What mechanism could possibly have held the neo-Darwinian selection of mutations in check throughout these vast ages?

“Chimaeras¦are perhaps the oldest and most enigmatic groups of fishes alive today, according to a California Academy of Sciences press release.1 What makes them so enigmatic is their marked stasis. If millions of years of evolution really occurred, then these fish, as well as many other unchanged organisms, should have evolved into different forms by now.

But if these fossil-bearing rock layers, including the entire series of Paleozoic and Mesozoic periods, were deposited during the year-long Noahic Flood, then the enigma vanishes. If long ages have not elapsed since their deposition, then the fossils they contain would be expected to resemble their modern counterparts. No puzzle remains.

The assumption of deep time only deepens the mysteries of these deep sea chimaeras.

Newly Named Fish an Evolutionary Enigma | The Institute for Creation Research


That is one of the silliest posts you have made in a while.

And definitely lacking in any real science.