Advanced Ancestry, Comets, Complexity, and More…

Was ancient man more physically advanced than modern man today? Interesting enough, that’s exactly what an Anthropologist says. Manthropology: the Science of Inadequate Modern Man written by Peter McAllister bases the evidence on fossilized footprints found in a lake bed from Australia.

“By analysing sets of footprints preserved in a fossilised claypan lake bed, Mr McAllister concluded that Australian aboriginals 20,000 years ago reached speeds of 23mph on soft, muddy ground. Bolt, by comparison, reached a top speed of 26mph at last year’s Beijing Olympics during his then world 100 metres record of 9.69 seconds.

Mr McAllister claims that with modern training, spiked shoes and rubberised tracks, aboriginal hunters might have reached speeds of 28mph – faster than Bolt’s record-breaking 100m performance at the World Championships in Berlin this summer.”  -Telegraph UK

The fastest man alive today had obtain an incredible speed of 26 miles an hour using modern technology with a special track and shoes under ideal conditions. Another interesting claim, McAllister stated from his study of fossils, that Neandertal women would have rivaled the musculature of today’s weight-training men.

A question comes to mind, why are humans getting weaker rather than stronger which is contrary to what the evolutionary hypothesis suggests? McAllister claims it’s due to being less active compared to the ancients. The better explanation comes from a focus on the loss of strength and speed over succeeding generations.

This is where genetics comes into play and I believe explains things which verifies creationism! The human genome and other genomes from animals are decaying due to the buildup of mutations in every generation. They are undetectable by natural selection tiny genomes which could be eroding not only humans’ physical strength, but also their general health.

For example, increasing cancer rates maybe caused by genetic damage from these “near-neutral” mutations. Creationism states, after the fall of man, the created creatures have been breeding in a downward trend rather than an upward trend and this piece of research verifies it.

On another news front which was published recently, planetary scientists from Belgian have ruled out comets as the source for the Earth’s water supply. They are still very much confused on how water got on the Earth’s surface, the placement of the planet being close to the sun, should not have formed from ices.

The hypothesis was based on carbonaceous chondrites containing water sufficient enough to create a “veneer” of water after the Earth supposedly cooled, but ratios of osmium isotopes (evidence) don’t match. Their study suggests comets have have much more deuterium than what is in the ocean water.  Also, nitrogen isotope ratios significantly differ between comets and Earth’s atmosphere! It appears that scientists are beginning to run out of naturalistic options for their attempts in trying to explain how water was created on Earth.

Most of us have been taught in school variations that prove beneficial to an animal are naturally selected so it can adapt to its environment. According to Ariel Fernandez of Rice University disputes that as though that was a bit too simplistic, we humans he claims, are complex because natural selection is inefficient. Science daily reports…

“We have found a specific evolutionary mechanism to account for a portion of the intricate biological complexity of our species,” said Ariel Fernandez, professor of bioengineering at Rice University. “It is a coping mechanism, a process that enables us to deal with the fitness consequences of inefficient selection. It enables some of our proteins to become more specialized over time, and in turn makes us more complex.”

Ariel Fernandez has complexity confused. If you take cut grass, sticks, small stones, and have the wind blow them around for a bit, a complex image will emerge. However, this is not specified! He explains nothing about how genes and proteins can develop into a complex function being able to compose a symphony!

First they say, natural selection is the answer then the next thing they claim it’s really inefficient. It’s the same with adaptation where it’s considered to be  goal functioning for all evolutionary processes; next moment evolution happens by non-adaptive processes. Do they really know what they are trying to explain or is it the fact that what they are trying to explain is a story not factual?

In another area of science, Did the US government verify a creationist proposal concerning Junk DNA? New research indicates a mechanism in junk DNA that prevents two species from reproducing. Answers in Genesis reports…

“The team examined cross-breeds between the closely related fruit flies Drosophila melanogaster and D. simulans. The flies are closely related, and male D. melanogaster can breed with female D. simulans to produce viable male offspring. Female offspring of such a cross, however, die as embryos. The question is, why? Lead author Patrick Ferree calls it an “unsolved problem,” elaborating, “What are the elements that are killing these female hybrids and how are they doing that?”

“By looking more closely at the genetic composition of the D. melanogaster x D. simulans embryos, the scientists found a specific DNA segment that appears only in the father fly’s X chromosome and that leads to embryo death. Because only female offspring receive an X chromosome from their father (males receive a Y chromosome), only the female cross-breeds die.”

“The location of the fatal DNA segment was in the male X chromosome’s heterochromatin, a region full of what is sometimes called “junk” DNA. The segment halts the initial divisions of the embryo by preventing the male X chromosome from separating as it should.”

“The researchers believe the cellular machinery from the mother no longer “recognizes” the heterochromatin of the father’s. In fact, the part of the paternal X chromosome believed to be causing the trouble has some five million DNA base pairs, compared to only 100,000 in the equivalent portion from the mother.”

This research verifies biblical creationism, nothing anti-biblical about inter-breeding, variants within a kind, but nowhere is a species turning into another species this is why scientists are beginning to find processes which prevent it from happening!

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “Advanced Ancestry, Comets, Complexity, and More…

  1. Michael’s mentor” “A question comes to mind, why are humans getting weaker rather than stronger which is contrary to what the evolutionary hypothesis suggests?”

    Tell me why, exactly, evolution would suggest we should be getting stronger?

    Evolutionary studies on other animals confirm, as the Telegraph author states, that inactivity makes them weaker. This is a major problem with salmon raised in captivity; when released, they can’t swim fast enough to evade predators. Then, too, you may remember the flightless birds you were so enamored of recently. You thought they couldn’t fly because they had lost information. (Remember that?)

    But, as in the other cases of decreasing physical ability, evolution suggests the answer. Ready? Muscles are nice. But muscles require a lot of energy, even when they are resting. Therefore, if an animal’s environment does not require it to be strong, selective pressure operates to decrease caloric requirements by decreasing muscle mass. This makes the animal more fit, because it need not find as much food.

    Where do you get these strange ideas about evolution, anyway? You surely got this one exactly backwards.

  2. Michael’s puppeteer: “This is where genetics comes into play and I believe explains things which verifies creationism!…. Creationism states, after the fall the creation has been going in a downward trend rather than an upward trend and this piece of research verifies it.”

    Logical inference is good, Michael, but your initial assumption has to have some evidence.

    You assume a Fall, without any physical evidence. Then you assume, without evidence, that this unverified incident has the consequence of making everything worse than it was initially. Then you cite a single piece of evidence that might, with some force, be made to fit these assumptions. Then you squawk victory!

    On the other hand, modern humans have two genes that make them nmore intelligent than we were thousands of years ago. We have live-birth rates that a cave man could only wish for. We have fewer parasites. So one one isolted aspect is worse now than it was 20,000 years ago (note the dates here, please), while a number of others are better. What does that say about your conclusion that we have decayed sionce the Fall?

  3. Oh, yeah. Cancer rates.

    How do you know they’ve gone up? What is your source for the cancer rates of 20,000-year-old humans? Of 500-year-old Europeans, for that matter? Remember that cancer was identified by the ancient Greeks, and seems to have been common enough to engage their study.

    Lung cancer is more widespread than it was in the past. Among smokers, at least. So, is lung cancer caused by decay from the Fall, or by cigarettes? Or were cigarettes caused by the Fall? Or were cigarettes caused by lung cancer?

    You could have noted heart attacks, too. They may be more common modernly. Of course, people didn’t used to live long enough to have heart attacks. So I guess your conclusion would be that we are decaying because we’re living longer.

  4. Michael’s morph:”Ariel Fernandez has complexity confused. If you take cut grass, sticks, small stones, and have the wind blow them around for a bit, a complex image will emerge.”

    Yes. Thus we have images of the Virgin Mary on pieces of toast.

    Item: “However, this is not specified! He explains nothing about how genes and proteins can develop into a complex function being able to compose a symphony!”

    Please compose a symphony. If you can’t, then your logic demonstrates that you are not a complex function.

    (Mathematicians say that life is complex because it has a real part and an imaginary part. This goes right over your head, doesn’t it?)

  5. Michael’s mouthpiece: “This research verifies biblical creationism, nothing anti-biblical about inter-breeding, variants within a kind, but nowhere is a species turning into another species this is why scientists are beginning to find processes which prevent it from happening!”

    Let’s see now. Hybrids between two closely-related fruitflies die because of a DNA incompatibility. And this proves creation. On the other hand, hybrids between over half of the hundreds of different stickleback species produce live, fertile young.[1] So I suppose the death of cross-bred fly species proves creationism, and the viability of cross-bred fish species also proves creationism.

    What a wonderful theory, where any evidence demonstrates it, and no evidence can falsify it!

    ============
    [1] In fact, these are the subject of on-gaing research into identifying specific genes that produce particular traits.

  6. Michael’s mouthpiece: “This research verifies biblical creationism, nothing anti-biblical about inter-breeding, variants within a kind, but nowhere is a species turning into another species this is why scientists are beginning to find processes which prevent it from happening!”

    How does evolution say that different species form?

    On common method is that a population becomes geographically divided. Then the two sub-populations diverge to the point where cross-breeding becomes impossible. Another method invokes sexual selection. Females prefer males of one variant form in a population where males may have multiple variants.[1] Then the two populations diverge to where cross-breeding becomes difficult or impossible. A third method, common among flowering plants, involves changes in ploidy. Once some of the plants of a species have changed the number of chromosomes, they can only breed with each other.

    Now, each of those is an evolutionary explanation of how different species can form. Most of them involve genetic changes to the point where they can no longer interbreed. Yet your source says that, because two closely related species can’t interbreed, this is proof—proof, mind you—that they did not evolve. Where did you check your brain when you repeated that howler?

    ==========
    [1] A recent example involves red & blue males of a fish species in Lake Victoria.

  7. MP: “On another news front which was published recently, planetary scientists from Belgian have ruled out comets as the source for the Earth’s water supply.”

    How did that unrelated subject get in? What a mish-mash today. Did you hope to overwhelm with pure quantity?

    Let’s see if I got this one straight. The subject paper says that asteroids did not contribute a significant amount of the water on earth. This is evidence of creationism because … because …. because creationism says that primitive asteroids did not form the earth and all that therein is.

    Now, the same article states that asteroids did contribute enough nitrogen to make up almost all of the earth’s atmospheric nitrogen. But creationism holds that asteroids had nothing to do with formation of the earth.

    So, like most of the other papers that Michael’s ghost cites so blithely as evidence for creation, the same paper contains other evidence against creation.

    A danger of cherry-picking.

  8. Michael’s source: “Was ancient man more physically advanced than modern man today? Interesting enough, that’s exactly what an Anthropologist says.”

    Also relevant here is a recent report of the on-going evolution of human muscle composition: Lek, Quinlan, North, “The evolution of skeletal muscle performance: gene duplication and divergence of human sarcomeric alpha-actinins,” Bioessays 32(1):17-25. (2009) [Epub ahead of print]

    Related papers include MacArthur, et al., “Loss of ACTN3 gene function alters mouse muscle metabolism and shows evidence of positive selection in humans,” Nat Genet.39(10):1261-5 (2007); and Yang, et al., “ACTN3 genotype is associated with human elite athletic performance,” Am J Hum Genet 73(3):627-31 (2003).

    The point here is that evolutionary changes in human muscle composition are changing its functions. But all that creationists can see is a purported “weakening” in human musculature, which satisfies his idee fixe that evolution can only destroy, not enhance.

    The creationist blindness here is the evolutionary principle that every function in an organism incurs a cost. When the cost ceases to justify the function as to reproductive fitness, evolution scratches its head and sharpens its pencil, calculating whether the function should be changed or scrapped.[1]

    In this particular case, evolution has changed—and is now changing—the function of human muscle, so that a feature that used to be important in preserving us from predation is downgraded, but a feature that is now more significant is enhanced.

    Michael’s entrenched creationism, however, allows him to see only one side of this, and not the whole thing. Sort of like the people described by Oliver Sacks who have suffered brain damage that allows them to see only objects on one side of their visual field, but not on the other.

    ===========
    [1] Pace, Michael. I am anthropomorphizing here. Evolution doesn’t really have a head or a pencil. (Poe’s law seems to require this disclaimer.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s