Evolutionary Paleontologists Handling Of New Discoveries

Finding new fossils has been added to an ever growing complexity in the evolutionary time frame. Some fossils are discovered in the wrong place, at the wrong time period and in the wrong order. Evolutionary paleontologists were forced to fit these fossils in various ways into a phylogenetic tree to accommodate the ‘theory’ of evolution.

For example, a story in Live Science wants us to believe that triceratops were island hopping. Why? Because these horned dinosaurs which are commonly found in the Gobi Desert were recently discovered in Europe. The question is, how did they get there? Live Science reports a pretty imagination solution…

“Judging by skeletal features, the closest relatives of these horned dinosaurs come from the Gobi Desert. Their ancestors might have swum westward from island to island, or they might have walked to these areas when the islands were landlocked, only to get separated later when sea levels rose, Osi said.”

Xing Xu known for his work on trying to prove dino to birds commented on this new fossil found in Europe in a science journal called; Nature.  He started out by saying there are large gaps in the fossil record: “Reconstructing  the historical distribution of Earth’s fauna and flora is a challenging task, not least because of the incomplete, often poorly dated, nature of the fossil record,” he said.  “Such problems are particularly severe with respect to European biogeography in the Late Cretaceous period (about 100 million to 65 million years ago), when Europe was an archipelago.”

Indeed, the abrupt appearance of all the animals without  evolutionary precursors as well as being in the wrong place at the wrong time has really been a problem trying to put together a consistent fossil record for evolutionists. Here is another interesting find…

National Geographic known for it’s hype on fossils writes a story about the oldest human fossil even though there wasn’t enough bone to make a valid reconstruction. It also claims the human was a tree swinger cannibal who used tools (and perhaps, fire) in our ancestry.

National Geographic went on to speculate that this human was able to communicate through language and was intelligent. What is really fascinating when one looks closer at this. How could these humans walk on earth for almost 800,000 years using tools and having a language but never thought of inventing the wheel, planting crops, building a city, riding a horse, or even writing his own thoughts down till it exploded into existence around 3500 B.C?

The philosophy of evolution is not science rather it’s just fitting the data into a particular framework whether it makes sense or not, perhaps even have faith that somehow all this complexity will come together as one. History has bared this out, the more things change, the more they remind the same. The pattern of adding more and more complexity to evolution will continue as more questions keep popping up as the data is not fitting the framework.

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “Evolutionary Paleontologists Handling Of New Discoveries

  1. Still waiting for those answers to our outstanding questions:

    (1) Blog readership numbers

    (2) Your qualifications to discuss any scientific subject, in response to the challenge to Olorin.

    (3) A substantive review of Signature in the Cell, promised for August 2009.

    (4) outstanding question from Upson Downes on mitochondrial Eve

  2. “There were many different species living at the same time, and alongside our own species and ancestors, until really very recently,” Curnoe explained. This seems to fit with the biblical view that humankind, despite its in-kind superficial variations, is fundamentally the same—not a progression from ape to higher man, but all descended from our original human ancestors, Adam and Eve.”

    “Of course, creationists must be cautious; some supposed “human ancestors” described in the past are quite clearly apes of some kind and not human at all. But by starting from Scripture rather than from incomplete bones, we can be confident we have the correct perspective for framing the human ancestors debate.”

    –Answers in Genesis

  3. Michael . . . . . . on May 29, 2010 at 6:12 pm

    But by starting from Scripture rather than from incomplete bones, we can be confident we have the correct perspective for framing the human ancestors debate.”

    Now if we just had any actual EVIDENCE for that perspective. Shoot!

  4. Xing Xu known for his work on trying to prove dino to birds commented on this new fossil found in Europe in a science journal called; Nature. He started out by saying there are large gaps in the fossil record:

    Yes, Michael. Everyone here but you has actually seen a copy of Nature.

    Sneering about the lack of fossils, however, does not sweep away the uncomfortable fact that that, as J.B.S. Haldane remarked, we never never ever find a rabbit in a precambrian fossil bed.

    Indeed, the abrupt appearance of all the animals without evolutionary precursors as well as being in the wrong place at the wrong time has really been a problem trying to put together a consistent fossil record for evolutionists.

    Micahael is making stuff up again. Neither the Live Science article[1] nor anything else dealing with this discovery says anything at all about precursors.

    Precursors of the triceratops have in fact been known for a long time. What evidence might you have that the Protoceratops or Monoclonius fossils are not precursors? They appear in exactly the proper sequence in the geologic column. They show expected developmental changes in body size, size of the bony frill, and number of horns.

    Just because Duane Gish said it for a decade doesn’t make it so.

    However, I don’t really think Michael has ever read Duane Gish closely enough to remember this particular dinosaur tale. I think Michael made up his own lie out of thin air. Just as Gish did in 1982..

    THIS IS WHY WE CALL CREATIONISTS ‘LIARS FOR JESUS’

    ============

    [1] The link Michael gives is to a non-existent page in his own blog. Here is the correct link:

    http://www.livescience.com/animals/island-hopping-dinosaurs-100526.html

  5. Speaking of Duane Gish, many scientists have favorite stories of encounters with Gish. Bob Schdewald, a technical writer who died in late 1999, was an aficionado of pseudoscience, primarily in flat-earth, hollow-earth, geocentric, and creationist theories. In 1986, he wrote an article in Creation/Evolution on how creationists perpetuate their errors. One example was the following encounter with Duane Gish.

    In July 1983, the Public Broadcasting System televised an hour-long program on creationism. One of the scientists interviewed, biochemist Russell Doolittle, discussed the similarities of human proteins to chimpanzee proteins. In many cases, corresponding human and chimpanzee proteins are identical, and in others they differ by only a few amino acids. This strongly suggests a common ancestry for humans and apes. Gish was asked to comment. He replied:

    If we look at certain proteins, yes, man then — it can be assumed that man is more closely related to a chimpanzee than other things. But on the other hand, if you look at other certain proteins, you’ll find that man is more closely related to a bullfrog than he is a chimpanzee. If you focus your attention on other proteins, you’ll find that man is more closely related to a chicken than he is to a chimpanzee.

    I had never heard of such proteins, so I asked a few biochemists. They hadn’t, either. I wrote to Gish for supporting documentation. He ignored my first letter. In reply to my second, he referred me to Berkeley geochronologist Garniss Curtis. I wrote to Curtis, who replied immediately.

    Some years ago, Curtis attended a conference in Austria where he heard that someone had found bullfrog blood proteins very similar to human blood proteins. Curtis offered an explanatory hypothesis: the “frog” which yielded the proteins was (he suggested) an enchanted prince. He then predicted that the research would never be confirmed. He was apparently correct, for nothing has been heard of the proteins since. But Duane Gish once heard Curtis tell his little story.

    This bullfrog “documentation” (as Gish now calls it) struck me as joke, even by creationist standards, and Gish simply ignored his alleged chicken proteins. In contrast, Doolittle backed his televised claims with published protein sequence data. I wrote to Gish again suggesting that he should be able to do the same. He didn’t reply. Indeed, he has never since replied to any of my letters.

    [Emphasis supplied]

    Schadewald recounts how Gish attempted over the next several years to push the lie about bullfrog proteins, despite being reminded of his error many times.

  6. What is really fascinating when one looks closer at this. How could these humans walk on earth for almost 800,000 years using tools and having a language but never thought of inventing the wheel, planting crops, building a city, riding a horse, or even writing his own thoughts down till it exploded into existence around 3500 B.C?

    You’ve just made another preposterous claim, Michael.
    But let’s see whether you can do any better. LET’S SEE WHETHER MICHAEL KNOWS AS MUCH AS PEOPLE KNEW 5,500 YEARS AGO.

    (A) The wheel. Michael, what advantage does a wheel give in transportation? What are the components of a wheel, and how do they work together? What other non-wheel invention is necessary for a wheel to be useful? Were there any wheels before, say 20,000 years ago? What were they used for?

    (B) Planting crops. If you can find enough to eat without planting crops, why would you want to plant them at all? That is, what would be some motivations for planting crops? How would you select crops to plant? (Remember that wild wheat is hard. Teosinte, the ancestor of maize, is almost inedible, and so on.) What characteristics would you desire in a cultivated plant, and how would you look for them? How would you harvest the grains you planted? That is, what do you have to do before you can eat them? After you harvest a grain, how do you convert it into food? Take bread, for example? How do you convert grain into bread? What is required besides the grain?

    (C) Cities. Why live in cities? Name four advantages of a city. Name three disadvantages. Which ones wouyld have predominated, say, 50,000 years ago? What other technologies has to be invented before people can live in cities? What would have been the limits on the size of a city, say, 5,000 years ago? Pick an environment, then describe how you would construct dwelling in a city. That is, how do you live differently in a city than in dispersed groups? Name half a dozen social changes that must be in place to live in a city.

    (D) Riding a horse. What anatomical feature of a horse allows a rider to control the horse? Why did people first domesticate horses? Why would a horse let you get close enough to find out? (I don’t think Michael has ever been kicked or bitten by a horse. Certainly not thrown from one.)

    (E) Writing. (This one is the most laughable one yet) What do you mean by writing? What IS writing? Name at least four systems of writing that do not use letters. Name three more that do not involve markings on a flat surface. What do you LEAVE OUT when you write? That is, name of couple of aspects of communication that are NOT present in any form of writing.

    .

    There are just a few things that someone had to know 5,500 yeras ago in order to invent any of the things that Michael thinks are so gobsmacking obvious. Let’s see whether Michael knows ANY of them. MY BET IS THAT MICHAEL IS NOT AS SMART AS THE AVERAGE CAVE MAN. But still he wonders why nobody else thought of them.

    In fact, let’s go back even further. Humans have been using manufactured stone tools for 500,000 years,. So, tell us, Michael–

    (F) How do you select a stone to make into a tool? What characteristics do you look for? Where can you find such a stone—where do you look? How do you make a sharp edge on a stone tool? Describe how you would strike an animal with a sharpened stone weapon–how would you hold it? What arm motion would you use? How could you increase the effective range of the stone as a weapon, without losing it?

    .

    One of the most laughable aspects of creationists is their unknowing attraction to a fallacy known to historians as whiggism. Creationists find it absolutely impossible to place themselves in the moccasins of anyone else. Especially anyone from a different culture or—heaven forfend—from a different age.

    This may be, in fact, a defining symptom of creationism. If they could understand how the people who received the Bible interpreted it, there would not be such a thing as biblical literalism. The people of that age were much more sophisticated than the creationists of today. They could see the deeper meanings, the theological concepts, the symbolic truths of Genesis which modern creationists breeze through without a clue—because all they see is the words. (This was the real reason Augustine cautioned against it 1600 years ago. Not merely because it would make Christians look stupid.)

    So, let’s see whether Michael knows whereof he squeaks by answering a few questions. I’m thinking it will take him AT LEAST the full 800,000 years to come up with any of the technology he thinks is so easy.

    OK, Michael—Ready, Fire, Aim!

  7. Upson Downes (aka. Olorin),

    You say, “If we look at certain proteins, yes, man then — it can be assumed that man is more closely related to a chimpanzee than other things. But on the other hand, if you look at other certain proteins, you’ll find that man is more closely related to a bullfrog than he is a chimpanzee. If you focus your attention on other proteins, you’ll find that man is more closely related to a chicken than he is to a chimpanzee.”

    Since I am more into what is going on with current science, you bring something up from 1983. It appears you were trying the wedge tactic back then before Philips wrote about it in the 90s…lol…There has been discoveries since then that has widen the differences between chimps and humans. For example, in 2005, which was four years after a human genome was decoded, a chimp’s genome was finally decoded as well. A pretty good piece of science if I might add. There are over 40 million bases present in humans which are missing from chimps and that goes the other way around too. That makes it a total an estimate of 125 million differences in the DNA which wasn’t available in 1983.

    Also, there is 29% of the protein-coding genes that contain similarities while leaving 70% that is different! As science grows, we learn more about the genetic make up, the differences continue to widen not get any closer and similarities that are meaningless in terms on how we close we are to it. For example, up to 60% of our DNA is similar to a banana which also wasn’t known back in 1983.

  8. Michael

    Since I am more into what is going on with current science, you bring something up from 1983. It appears you were trying the wedge tactic back then before Philips wrote about it in the 90s…

    The point was not to show that creationists were using old science. The point was to show how creationists acquire false info, and what they do with it when the laughter becomes so intense that even they feel it best to abandon the deception. This happened to be a well-documented example, written by a participant. If you’d like a more recent one, I’m sure I can oblige.

  9. There has [sic] been discoveries since then that has[sic] widen [sic] the differences between chimps and humans. For example, in 2005, which was four years after a human genome was decoded, a chimp’s genome was finally decoded as well. A pretty good piece of science if I might add.

    We all need to know, Michael, upon what basis you opine that decoding the chimp genome was “a pretty good piece of science. That is, WHAT ARE YOUR QUALIFICATIONS FOR HAVING ANY OPINION WHATEVER IN ANY FIELD OF SCIENCE?

    Actually, that effort was more of a routine technical exercise than “science.” The human genome involved a lot of science—figuring out how to break DNA into right sized snippets, and developing mathematical algorithms to stitch millions of the snippets together correctly. (Francis Collins, you probably do not remember, thought it couldn’t be done, until Craig Venter accomplished it.) These days, the only problem with sequencing a new genome is that it still require huge amounts of time and effort. But new science? No. Your ignorance is showing again, Michael.

    .

    As to the numbers you cite as differences, we immediately notice two matters..

    First, you provide no citations to a source for the data. Since we know that creationists serve their faith, and that, in the words of Answers in Genesis “evidence is secondary,” it is always prudent to look out the window for oneself when a creationist says it’s raining. Sources, please.

    Second, the form in which you present the data indicates that it is being biased toward your viewpoint.[1] This is called “framing.,” and is considered unethically misleading among scientists.

    For example: Michael informs us that there are about 80Mbp of DNA that are in either the chimp or the human genome, but not in both. Do the math, Michael. This is about 2% of the genome, which is what biologists have been saying for years.[2] But 80Mbp suuuure sounds like a lot more than 2%, doesn’t it?

    Michael adds the 40Mbp chimp-not-human and “a similar amount” of human-not-chimp, and comes up with a total of 125Mbp. Now isn’t that interesting? Which hat do you suppose Michael pulled the extra 45Mbp from? I don’t know, but I can guess that it is non-coding SINES, LINES, and ERVs. These junk-DNA sequences have nothing to do with any functional differences between the two species. If you had some other source in mind, Michael, please divulge it. Otherwise, we’ll know you’ve thimble-rigged the data again.

    Michael trumpets “29% of the protein-coding genes that contain similarities while leaving 70% that is different!” Again we see the shell game. These numbers are wrong, but I’m not sure how Michael manipulated them. My opinion is that he’s lying about “similarities,” that 29% of the PC genes are identical, while most of the 70% that are “different” are different in ways that do not affect their functions.[3]—i.e., they are “similar.”

    As science grows, we learn more about the genetic make up, the differences continue to widen not get any closer and similarities that are meaningless in terms on how we [sic] close we are to it.

    Of course, if Michael believes all the differences and denies all the similarities, as he does above, then he will have a false idea as to which way posterior is pointing. That is, Michael believes that every difference an evolutionary biologist finds is significant, while every similarity found by that very same scientist is wrong. Could we have any greater evidence that creationism is a one-way ratchet away from science?

    For example, up to 60% of our DNA is similar to a banana which also wasn’t known back in 1983.

    Zounds if Michael didn’t almost nail that one.[4][5] Since creationists have no concept of personal integrity, I looked it up for myself. The most interesting estimate was in Yahoo Answers—

    What percentage of DNA does a human share with a banana?

    Best Answer – Chosen by Asker

    I’m looking down me pants and it’s about 5%

    =============

    [1] For a current example, note how the oil companies report the Deepwater Horizon oil leakage in “barrels per day,” while the people affected by the spill report it in “gallons per day.” Same amount—just divide by 42—but the bigger number hits you harder.

    [2] So much for “There has [sic] been discoveries since then that has [sic] widen [sic] the differences between chimps and humans. For example, in 2005, which was four years after a human genome was decoded, a chimp’s genome was finally decoded as well.”

    [3] Remember that the DNA sequence of a protein is significant almost entirely as to how the protein folds. There are about 1,000 possible folds, and almost all proteins with the same fold will perform the same functions. Even creationist Douglas Axe found that in many cases 20% of the sequence of a protein could be changed without affecting its fold (some more, some less).

    [4] My Mammy used to say that even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

    [5] He did lie about that fact not being known previously. It’s been known for a long time. Nothing new here, Michael. It is typical of creationists, however, not to know anything that happened before they were born. It’s part of the syndrome of, “Evolution never happened because no one saw it.”

  10. For example, a story in Live Science wants us to believe that triceratops were island hopping. Why? Because these horned dinosaurs which are commonly found in the Gobi Desert were recently discovered in Europe. The question is, how did they get there?

    No, Michael. The question is, How did all the surviving animals in the world get off the Ark and end up where they are now?

    While creationists sneer at a pig-sized dinosaur swimming between closely spaced islands, they would have us believe that kangaroos swam or floated on log rafts across a thousand miles of open ocean to Australia. BWAHAHAHAAAAHAAAA.

    Creationist would have us believe that all the mammals decided—every last one of them—not to float or swim to Australia, since not a single one of them made it, even though hundreds of marsupial species had no problems at all. BWAHAHAHAAAAHAAAA.

    Creationists would have us believe that all the turkeys in the world got on a raft and flapped their way to North America. Any turkey who stayed behind was a … well … a turkey. BWAHAHAHAAAAHAAAA.

    Creationists tell us with straight faces that, even though multi-ton dinosaurs made it across several oceans, that not a single mouse could find a raft suitable for a trip to Hawaii, or Easter Island, or any other small oceanic island. BWAHAHAHAAAAHAAAA.

    Creationists assert that, after the Flood, the camels picked themselves up, sorted themselves out into one-humpers and two-humpers and headed off in different directions. All of them. BWAHAHAHAAAAHAAAA.

    Creationists would apparently have us believe, since there are fossil horses in North America but no indigenous ones before the Europeans came, that the horses floated across two thousand miles of the Atlantic ocean, decided they didn’t like it there after all, anf caught the next raft back. BWAHAHAHAAAAHAAAA.

    Are we done yet? No, we’re not done yet. Creationists would have us believe that some really hefty dinosaurs swam across the ocean to Antarctica, even though it was waaaay to cold for them to live there, and then managed to get themselves buried under 3,000 FEET OF ICE. (Remember this would have been after the Flood, so no cataclysmic events allowed.)

    .

    Michael, you really should heed the biblical injunction to remove the log from your own eye before you complain about the mote in evolution’s eye.

    Reason # 34 why people laugh at creationists. “The dog ate my homework” must sound like a really credible excuse to them.

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