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!