How Gaps Are Filled In Evolution

What is science according to the framework in evolution? Check out this hypothesis,  bow ton particles is perhaps the elusive dark matter scientists have been searching for, which is now responsible for killing dinosaurs!

In Nature,

“Despite its speculative basis, Randall says that the exercise is valuable. “This is trying to turn this somewhat crazy idea into science, by saying we will make predictions based on it,” she says. “We’re not saying we think it’s 100% going to be true.”

Historical science is nothing more than coming up with a crazy idea, and make predictions with it! It’s true, one cannot claim it’s 100 percent accurate, because there is no way to replicate such predictions that can no longer be observed today.

But what if something can be observed today? Does coming up with “somewhat crazy” ideas apply? A grad student in London has proposed “chemical ghosts” for his explanation on how organic material can survive for 65 million or more years. He doesn’t mean “chemical ghosts” in a literal way, rather it just jargon to supposedly rescue evolution which is based on old age of the slow and gradual variety.

But the earth is not that old which is why scientists are discovering soft tissues from dinosaurs. Before 2005, there wasn’t any scientist searching for soft tissues, since the discovery of T-Rex having blood vessels and protein in the fossil, it has become a major problem for evolutionists to explain. So out pops the crazy ideas, making predictions on assumptions based on evolution rather than where the evidence leads.

The grad student writes

For me, this is one of the greatest steps in recent palaeontology – no longer do we just have bones, but we have other soft tissues like feathers, skin, and internal structures, adding a whole new bio-chemical dimension to how we perceive fossils. Of course, this opens up a whole new wealth of knowledge to be uncovered about extinct animals, their physiologies, and their evolutionary roles.

The previous lines of evidence supporting the cellular-level preservation of soft tissues (see bullet points below) all require a mechanism whereby preservation and mineralisation outpaces the decay of soft tissues…These organic molecules containing mostly carbon and hydrogen are delicate to the ravages of time, relatively speaking. They aren’t usually preserved in fossils that paleontologists unearth to tell the story of our planet’s past. For them, it is vital information lost forever”

It is really more common than he thinks, if scientists were searching for soft tissue rather than discovering it by accident. But he is right, organic material is delicate to the ravages of time, that is a fact when it comes into science fiction that is when you hear jargon like “tissue fixation”…Does that term prove it’s observable? It’s very strange to invoke special conditions but when the evidence is falsifying your theory, one doesn’t have a chose. The grad student even knows this explanation would not have been accepted in the scientific community before the discovery of soft tissue…

“Only a decade ago, this hypothesis would have been laughed at by fellow scientists. While many still remain unconvinced, there is growing evidence that molecular tissues may actually have been preserved. Now the question is: how much have palaeontologists missed by not considering these potentially high levels of preservation in dinosaurs? And how much is there that is still left to be found at such levels of detail?”

May actually? No! Molecular tissues have been preserved, there is a lot out there to be discovered because it’s not million of years old which is a good thing because there is a great deal of information to be discovered with advancing technologies about soft tissue, to learn from a creationist prospective which doesn’t have to resort to crazy ideas that will eventually be considered supposed science because you make wild predictions with them! Such ideas created for the purpose to defy the evidence only means the theory such as evolution is not true.

New Study Challenges Evolution’s Basic Concept

How can natural selection choose if the necessary component to create life’s most specialized complex system? In the earlier years of evolution, scientists did not have the technology to observe a cell. Since evolution was based on slight modifications by mutations chosen by natural selection in order to produce complex systems, evolutionists believed the cell was simple, but as it turns out science has shown it to be designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery!

Think of it this way, evolution of a rocket. You already have the machinery and information on how to build its shell where you got that information is unknown, now take that existing information and use slight errors in the instructions to come with a design for the engine, and after that using more errors to come up the fuel it must run on to work. Even though you were provided with information and have the ability to build, more than likely, you can’t choose from the errors created from the previous information which by now with all its errors no longer make sense for even building a rocket shell let alone obtaining information on how to build its engine and the fuel that runs it!

This is why mutations in the genetic code does not create new information from existing information that can produce a different complex component that never was in existence before!

Evolution goes beyond what natural selection can actually do! Now comes a term which is very familiar to you and that is…”survival of the fittest.” This basic concept is being challenged by researchers from Oxford University (see here) who say “fittest” doesn’t arrive so it’s not around to survive!

“By modelling populations over long timescales, the study showed that the ‘fitness’ of their traits was not the most important determinant of success. Instead, the most genetically available mutations dominated the changes in traits. The researchers found that the ‘fittest’ simply did not have time to be found, or to fix in the population over evolutionary timescales.”

Like many explanations in evolution, it raises more questions than answers which leads to dead ends! This model conducted by evolutionists say mutational possibilities that have benefits which are just too rare. This means, the fittest don’t arrive in the evolutionary timescale, there is nothing to fix.

This comes back to Hugo de Vries who was a  Professor of Botany who began his experimentation on plants in 1800. De Vries believed in enormous changes in animals which were based on his “mutation theory”. He also said, “Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest”.  Simply because natural selection can only choose what already exists.

It would have been interesting today, how he would have viewed the mutation experiment with fruitflies which began to de-evolve over a period of time in more than ideal conditions rather than showing signs of change that would eventually lead to another species as explained in the theory of evolution.

The explanations are like a game of poker with its bluffing, evolutionary theory does bluff on what it explains being pretentious, and self-contradictory about it. But that is what happens when you try to explain things in order to disagree with reality which doesn’t go along with evolution. Reality suggests that the universe was created with a mind, and that mind was God!

Creationist: Ken Ham vs Evolutionist: Bill Nye

“Is creationism a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?”  And the answer is, yes…More on this in a moment. Neither side was not overly happy about the debate. But the debtors themselves were happy about their performance.

In recent years atheists have avoided debating creationists because they want to keep people in the dark about other viewpoints besides evolution. Most people have some form of spirituality to them, which is another reason, despite the fact that evolution dominates the science realm in public schools.

Public debates are never that easy, you have a limited time to present your view and a limited time to respond. So in preparation, each debtor has a goal to get out certain amount of information that want to share to the public and avoid going on the defensive.

The real debate normally happens afterwards when both sides post responses to content during the debate which is going to happen here as well. Bill Nye what I term as old school evolutionist who believes in uniformity of both past and present conditions so one of his arguments against creationism is using ice cores claiming each layer represents one year.

Samples taken in around the same area, do not always agree with each other. Snowfall varies, just recently parts of the east coast in the United States got a lot of snow, while parts of the midwest didn’t get nearly that much. Here is an interesting story, during World War II, six P-38 lightening fighters encountered bad weather and their only hope was to land on the east coast of Greenland, one crash landed, and the rest were able to land with their wheels. The pilots escaped with minor injuries.

They became known as the legendary Lost Squadron because it wasn’t until 1988, when scientists were able to locate the planes under the ice! Evolutionists were very surprised on how deep those planes were in the ice which were 250 feet below! Why? Because 250 feet of ice core would represent thousands of years in evolutionary time. And those planes were of course not thousands of years old, but rather the planes were in that location in Greenland for only 46 years! So they were amazed at the ice build-up in such a short period of time! The Bible has no problem with reality, but rather such things as this confirm it.

Organic material degrades in a short period of time, this is a known fact based on reality! When soft tissue was discovered in dinosaur fossils, this made another scientific case that the earth is thousands of years old rather than 3.5 billion years old. Since numerous discoveries of soft tissue has been discovered, it is evolutionists who are tying to come up with ideas on how to defy the natural rate of organic degradation.

Like many evolutionists, Bill Nye makes the assumption that if fossils of animals are found together, that means they lived together. Fossils of coelacanth and whale fossils have never been found together, but we know they live together in our present time. Lions were known to dwell in Israel in ancient times, but no known fossils of Lions have ever been discovered in Israel!  There are many other fossils out of place which confirms a global flood!

Speaking of the flood, Bill Nyle in his criticism of Noah’s ark, claimed he had fish on the ark along with insects and one-cell animals. There was no indication from the Bible that Noah was commanded to include fish and one-cell animals (obviously Bill didn’t read it). I suspect Nyle was trying to use something creation scientists use when debating evolution and that is the more specialized complexity, the more unlikely it never happened such as DNA where another language (code) was discovered, making something already complex even more which is a great thing to learn! There is some amazing things happening with the study of DNA.

Now Bill Nyle uses an outdated argument concerning the supposed transition of species by using Tiktaalik as an example. Richard Dawkins a well known atheist for attacking Christianity also uses Tiktaalik in his book called…“The Greatest Show On Earth”  as the perfect fossil but is it? Scientists have discovered other fossils with similar tracks of four legged creatures (see here in science magazine) all over the world and these fossils were dated in the evolutionary time frame as 18 million older which makes Tiktaalik a non-transition form as stated in science magazine!  

“We thought we’d pinned down the origin of limbed tetrapods,” says Jennifer Clack of the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom. “We have to rethink the whole thing.”

In a way, I cannot blame Bill too much for using outdated material, because when one types in Tiktaalik in google, you read on he right hand side a brief summary which claims it is a transitional form despite the fact that it’s been falsified for almost four years.

While the debate wasn’t perfect as Ken Ham could have used information theory, soft tissue, and other scientific data, he did a decent job under the circumstances.

Does Cosmology Require Knowledge Of Reality?

Since the universe has been designed with a mind that has purpose much like how a house it built, reprogramming adult stem cells, building an engine, or a machine. Today’s secular Cosmologists have entered the non-reality zone!

Cosmologist Sean Carroll would like to get rid of the idea of reality, to him it’s not important if reality can verify it or not, rather what is believed to be real or not. Carroll writes

“Modern physics stretches into realms far removed from everyday experience, and sometimes the connection to experiment becomes tenuous at best. String theory and other approaches to quantum gravity involve phenomena that are likely to manifest themselves only at energies enormously higher than anything we have access to here on Earth. The cosmological multiverse and the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics posit other realms that are impossible for us to access directly. Some scientists, leaning on Popper, have suggested that these theories are non-scientific because they are not falsifiable.”

A question comes to mind from one of my expert readers who he himself is a Cosmologist. If God is impossible for us to use man-made tools to detect Him directly to explain what we see in the universe, then how can the likes of Caroll and perhaps yourself, believe in other realms that are impossible to access directly?

Is reality important in your research? Stephen Hawking, who is considered one of the smartest men to ever exist, embraces non-reality because he says, “I don’t demand that a theory correspond to reality because I don’t know what it is.”  If you don’t know what reality is, how do you know if it’s true or not? Because now your entering the occultic realm where reality is just an illusion and as a result of reality not conforming to its premise, an inference is carefully crafted and shaped for reality which is then fitted for the occultic realm as truth.

Do non-reality realms (something one would find in science fiction movies) such as a belief in multi-universes make predictions, advance math or even technology? It certainly advances the imagination of man but for what purpose? Promote atheism? Is string theory for example, just a faith-based theory in order to defend atheism?

Cosmology does require a knowledge of reality, though it may not have the whole picture as man continues to learn about the universe but embracing anti-real based theories is not scientific.

Albert Einstein, once said, “The man of science is a poor philosopher.”