Why Does Soft Tissue Exist In Fossils?

Prior to 2005, no evolutionary scientist was looking for soft tissue in fossils, it was widely believed it was impossible for it to exist after millions of years due to the fact that soft tissue decays quite rapidly. When soft tissue was accidentally discovered in a fossil of T-Rex, it created controversy among evolutionary scientists but since then the soft tissue discovered in T-Rex was confirmed thus ending controversy and beginning the search for more soft tissue in fossils. And as a result, many more fossils have been discovered with its original soft tissue along with developing improved methods which was unheard of nor was it even remotely considered prior to 2005.

Not only are evolutionists improving the methods for their search for soft tissue in fossils which is great, but also have been focused on explaining how the impossible happened. There have been some very weak explanations, but this latest one is a classic. Remember in the previous post when it was stated that when a fundamental in evolution is falsified, that falsification is added to the theory (becomes a prediction) even though it’s the opposite of what the theory had predicted in the first place, thus preserving the fundamental. This of course doesn’t usually happen in other areas in science, mainly in evolution or other related topics that has to do with some sort of evolution.

Bacteria along with the soft contents as you may or may not know is the main reason why soft tissue breaks down easier as it decays rapidly. Now we have some scientists claiming bacteria is responsible for preserving soft tissue! I kid you not, they are actually claiming this.

Here is what science magazine says…

“The overwhelming majority of organisms will never fossilize. Preservation of an animal’s anatomy in rocks is a rare event requiring a strict set of geologic and chemical conditions. Fossilized soft tissues like skin or muscle are even rarer, as they decay very quickly beyond recognition before mineralization occurs. It would be tempting to assume that microbes—the great mediators of rot and recycling—would be a natural enemy to high-quality fossils, but [Philip] Donoghue’s time spent watching shrimp waste away seems to hint at exactly the opposite.”

The team of researchers were using brine shrimp in their experiment. As expected, the bacteria rendered the soft tissue unrecognizable but in a low oxygen environment the team rationalized, the gut would be the most ideal place where the best preservation would occur.

“The researchers also point out that animals with true “through-guts”—ones that contain both a mouth and an anus—are much more likely to leave behind high-quality fossils than animals like corals and jellyfish, which eat and excrete through the same hole and are home to far fewer bacteria. The evolution of the anus appears to have given rise to a more complex microbiome and, thus, that “definitely increases your chances” of leaving behind an exceptional fossil, Donoghue says.”  

It is assumed that these particular researchers who are considered experts know their fossils such as jellyfish fossils (their bodies are soft) which have been discovered in huge amounts, something that this team says has less chance to be preserved. Remember T-Rex back in 2005? Soft tissues were not discovered in T-Rex’s gut, rather it was red blood cells and osteocytes, discovered in T-Rex’s bone! Again, it is assumed that these researchers are aware of that too. Here is a kicker, Ediacaran fauna (older than the Cambrian explosion) don’t even have guts yet its soft tissue have been discovered all over the world! There are other examples of soft tissue that were not from the gut or mouth of the animal. It is certain that these researchers in particular are aware of these facts as well but is in sell mode with their research.

As a result, it renders the explanation useless!  So why are researchers discovering soft tissue in fossils? The answer is quite simple, the fossils are not millions of years old, only thousands which makes perfect sense with rapid decay. This is also direct proof that the earth is not four billion years old nor are these fossils many millions of years old. Fossils once considered the best piece of evidence for evolution is now actually one of the worst while their explanations are getting weaker.

Is Evolution Right, When It Is Not?

Usually in other scientific theories when fundamentals are falsified, it eventually withers away and a new theory takes its place. This is something that happens in science but doesn’t happen in evolution. One of the most fundamentals you will find in evolutionary theory is, “common ancestry.”  But within this framework it is claimed that there is gradual accumulation of variations which happens over time through genetic mutations. Thus, making it less common over time.

Scientists who believe in evolution are testing this in order to learn more about the variations over time but to their surprise, this is not the case! In a recent study, that compared yeast and humans which should have nothing in common according to evolution, have found lots in common.

Yeast and humans have been evolving along separate paths for 1 billion years, but there’s still a strong family resemblance, a new study demonstrates. After inserting more than 400 human genes into yeast cells one at a time, researchers found that almost 50% of the genes functioned and enabled the fungi to survive.”
“It’s quite amazing,” says evolutionary biologist Matthew Hahn of Indiana University, Bloomington, who wasn’t connected to the study. “It means that the same genes can carry out the same functions after 1 billion years of divergence.
In another article which says it’s not only yeast but other organisms as well…

“We’re a step closer to understanding the microbial community that inhabits the ocean — and it has some striking similarities to the community that lives inside our guts. The microbiome of the world’s biggest ecosystem and one of the smallest appear to function in surprisingly similar ways. In both, there was an almost identical abundance of genes involved in replication, ion transport and cell motility.”

This certainly was rather a big surprise to us because we expected different ecosystems would have microbial communities with functions that would be completely different,” Sunagawa said at a press conference this week.”

One of the things that may have been proof for evolution turns out to be a falsification! Keep in mind, evolution always sounds better within speculation rather than real life. So now what…? Does this mean a fundamental in evolution will wither away and be replaced by another? No! This isn’t normal science. Even though it is believed that genes and proteins should not be conserved but rather a constant state of flux, just adds the opposite (conservation and convergence function) on what it is suppose to predict and observe in real life while maintaining that same fundamental. Sounds confusing, doesn’t it? Not at all logical in any sense of the word.

In creationism, we believe in “common design.” Just like we see with intelligently man-made designed machines. Those machines utilize similar mechanisms in order to achieve that same outcome. There is no need to add the opposite in order to save “common design” from newer observations especially from this latest study and others like it :)

 

Is Antibiotic Resistance Proof of Evolution?

Remember when you were in high school or perhaps you are currently in high school as we speak where you have learned about antibiotic resistance? The teacher would allude to this being evolution in action. Certainly in debates this is often time alluded to as evidence for evolution.

In the medical field, antibiotic resistance in some areas have baffled some doctors because the bacteria would respond so quickly, sometimes within the first year or so. Was this evolution and is evolution moving more quickly than previously thought?

Creationists have debated for years that bacteria already have resistance built-in their systems, something has been also admitted by evolutionists…

 “One of the most common evidences used in textbooks to support evolution is antibiotic resistance in bacteria. However, the marvelous ability of bacteria to survive against antibiotics does not support the idea of progressiveevolution at all. Public school textbooks claim that bacteria’s sophisticated capacity to change—which appears to be built into their systems—supports the claim that molecules can change into completely different kinds of creatures, like mosquitoes, mushrooms, and men—despite the fact that these changes require the addition of completely different kinds of genetic information.”

The textbook authors recognize that the resistance is already present in the bacterial population (Fig. 15.5) and then claim that selection for resistant bacteria in a population is direct evidence for evolution. Selecting for something that is already present does not provide support for the information-gaining change required for evolution. Students are left with a confused understanding of evolution and are expected to equate observed changes in bacteria with the conversion of one kind into another.” –Answers in Genesis, May 2007 and January 2009. 

In 2012, antibiotic resistance was confirmed again as a ancient trait because it was discovered in bacteria from an isolated cave in New Mexico, many feet underground.

“A growing body of evidence implicates environmental organisms as reservoirs of these resistance genes; however, the role of anthropogenic use of antibiotics in the emergence of these genes is controversial. (*because it goes against what has been taught as evidence for evolution – *emphasis mine) We report a screen of a sample of the culturable microbiome of Lechuguilla Cave, New Mexico, in a region of the cave that has been isolated for over 4 million years. We report that, like surface microbes, these bacteria were highly resistant to antibiotics; some strains were resistant to 14 different commercially available antibiotics. … This supports a growing understanding that antibiotic resistance is natural, ancient, and hard-wired in the microbial pangenome.”

Moreover there was research conducted recently which uncovered a tribe of humans known as Yanomami people who live in a remote region of Venezuela. These people haven’t been in contact with the outside world, yet…it was discovered that these people have bacteria that already had antibiotic resistance genes—including the ability to fight synthetic antibiotics!

In Science Magazine

“The medical team’s interviews with these Yanomami villagers found they were never given drugs or exposed to food or water with antibiotics. Instead, Dantas suggests that the Yanomami gut bacteria have evolved an armory of methods to fight a wide range of toxins that threaten them—just as our ancestors and other primates have done to fight dangerous microbes. For example, the Yanomami bacteria may already have encountered toxins that occur naturally in their environment that are similar in molecular structure to modern antibiotics, but have yet to be discovered by scientists. Or, gut bacteria in humans have evolved a generalized mechanism for detecting certain features shared by all antibiotics—including the synthetic ones designed by scientists—and so can mount a defense against new threats.”

The discovery is troubling because it suggests that “antibiotic resistance is ancient, diverse, and astonishingly widespread in nature—including within our own bodies,” says anthropologist Christina Warinner of the University of Oklahoma in Norman, who is not a co-author. “Such findings and their implications explain why antibiotic resistance was so quick to develop after the introduction of therapeutic antibiotics, and why we today should be very concerned about the proper use and management of antibiotics in both clinical and agricultural contexts.”

This may explain why bacteria reacts so quickly and undermines a basic premise about evolution. One thing to note however, bacteria is not all bad, in fact we couldn’t exist without most bacteria. While it benefits us, it benefits them as well. This was no discovery for evolution but increased knowledge on how bacteria works…:)

Climate Change and Evolution

science banner 2Did you know, science is not based on consensus, rather it is always in a state of flux due to the fact that man’s knowledge is limited. We are students for life, we never come to the point where we can say, “we know it all…” We are not God.

Climate Change and Evolution are based on research that has a pre-ordained conclusion, and has procedures that are considered as hard evidence. Furthermore, both Climate Change and Evolution are funded by various governments around the world while any research outside of those two are not funded, thus artificially building a consensus in order to try to sway public opinion. They do this for various reasons one being that is where the money comes from.

So what happened? During the 70’s and early 80’s, consensus was telling the public that another ice age was coming. In the mid-80’s consensus switched to “global warming then it became known as “climate change” later on. Extreme environmentalism which has a main goal of restoring most of the earth back to the animals, and as a result has become anti-science. There is no environmental group that supports any oil drilling, or mining or anything industrial even though they have benefited from these things.

environmentalismIn California, there is a major water shortage, this is not uncommon but this year it has been worse than normal. California does have a water source that would meet their needs but have embraced special interests who advocate extreme environmentalism. California has the nation’s strictest environmental policies. This includes their water. Last summer it was proposed that California build dams to harvest the water from the melting snow in the mountains.

Environmental groups opposed it saying that the habitat and wildlife need that water, and call for more sweeping conservation measures and water recycling instead. Advocates of more water countered as well…“It is not dams vs. water recycling,” said John Laird, California’s Secretary of Natural Resources. “The water bond, yes, it has the storage, but it also has recycling, conservation and regional water programs. You do all of the above.”

goodwin dam

The proposal to build more dams last summer was interesting because prior to that time, California hasn’t built a new dam in 35 years! The ten biggest water reservoirs in California were built between 1927 and 1979.  One of the reasons the state hasn’t built any new dams is because of its strict environmental laws. But the voters made their voices known in November of 2014, when the majority voted in favor of the proposal to increase water storage.

“Climate Change” advocates have borrowed a lot from those who advocate “evolution”. Their main goal is to get people to believe first rather than just to learn all aspects about it. In 1997, the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) told the media, there is no controversy among scientists about evolution. Also, NCSE president Eugenie Scott said; “It’s not doing the students any service to confuse them about some of the esoteric elements of a scientific discipline.”  

This was followed up in 1998, when National Academy of Sciences stated that evolution is a fact without controversy. They narrowed it down to one particular brand of evolution, which is…random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Even though scientists for over 60 years have never produce life in a lab from dead chemicals, but have invented hypotheses of how self-replicating organisms could form and begin to evolve and normally vote one to be the most popular thus become the most accepted among evolutionary scientists.

In 2007, science reporter Gregg Easterbrook  stated this…“What creates life out of the inanimate compounds that make up living things? No one knows. How were the first organisms assembled? Nature hasn’t given us the slightest hint. If anything, the mystery has deepened over time.” One of the signs that a theory isn’t valid is when it gets more mysterious as time goes on.

Has the controversy ended with evolution? This is not referring to creation vs evolution nor intelligent design vs evolution debates, this refers to something else.  Answering that question is very simple and the answer is…No! They just said that because they don’t want students to learn every aspect about evolution like cutting edge research because it shows many weaknesses in evolution. They want students to be indoctrinated first so their beliefs are firmly entrenched in evolution before they learn those things. What they fear the most are students getting skeptical of evolution when learning the truth about its weakness.

In 2009, Texas science standards were at the center of the debate because every ten years the science standards can either be revised, or can remain unchanged for the next ten years. The main battle was whether or not to keep the “strengths and weaknesses” language for evolution. Those in the National Academy of Science and NCSE camp were fighting to remove “weaknesses” from the language which would set evolution apart from other theories. It was a concern for creationists as well because we wanted that language to stay intact. When word got out that the language was going to be changed, thoughts of indoctrination came to mind. But as it turns out, it was a victory for empirical science  and the language change meant more detail that made the old language even stronger, here is what the new science standard in Texas says…

“In all fields of science, analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations so as to encourage critical thinking by the student.

“Analyze and evaluate the evidence regarding formation of simple organic molecules and their organization into long complex molecules having information such as the DNA molecule for self-replicating life…analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning the complexity of the cell.”

McLeroy

Opponents were very upset, it was a tied vote at 7-7 which means the Chairman who was Don McLeroy had the final say on which direction these standards would go, and he voted for the revised science standards. Opponents accused Don McLeroy of being unfit for Chairman, and then used circular reasoning for more accusations such as he didn’t understand evolution because he was a creationist and should never have been Chairman, and these new standards would allow creation in the public schools in Texas but as we know, no such thing happened. The bitterness and absurd accusations have waned for now until those standards are up again for a revision, or be voted to remain the same in 2019.

The accusations were a mere smoke screen, we know that the real intent was to indoctrinate first at the High School level then allow some weaknesses to be taught at the college level. Just like “Climate Change” where it is believed man is responsible for changing the earth’s weather, why do you think “Climategate” happened? It was about swaying public opinion which is why they tried to hide the temperature decline over the past decade. Climate Change and Evolution has hurt scientific research in more ways than one, and has hurt how science should be taught in general.

Next, we are going to tackle a passionate question, how does science detect purpose or intelligence within the creation?  Creationism has a distinct advantage over evolution that doesn’t make it more mysterious than ever rather finds clarity because…:) Stay tuned for the explanation!

A Tribute To The MESSENGER Spacecraft

After thousands of orbits over a course of ten years, the Messenger Spacecraft is coming to an end, it’s scheduled to crash on April 30, 2015. It was an amazing leap of data (10 terabytes) of the planet, among its data was finding new discoveries and solving a mystery. The last mission being Mariner 10, was conducted in 1974 and it raised many questions while making some nice discoveries.

One of the biggest surprises was the discovery of hollows that ranged in various sizes…

Mercury

“Early in its primary orbital mission, MESSENGER discovered thousands of peculiar depressions at a variety of longitudes and latitudes, ranging in size from tens of meters to several kilometers across and tens of meters deep.”

“These features, given the name ‘hollows,’ were a major surprise, because while we had been thinking of Mercury as a relic—a planet that wasn’t really changing anymorehollows appear to be younger than the planet’s freshest impact craters. This finding suggests that Mercury is a planet whose surface is still evolving,” says MESSENGER Participating Scientist David Blewett, a geologist at The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (APL).”

How does Mercury get its dark color? Messenger has discovered that since the planet is so close to the sun, that it gets hit quite often from objects in space like comets. The high-speed impacts create amorphous carbon with the darkness of pencil lead (graphite) and soot. Now this interesting if scientists can calculate how much soot is present on Mercury after supposedly 4.5 billion years. Brown University estimated that between 3 and 6 percent carbon after billions of years. Perhaps send another spacecraft to measure it and study the young craters and more. Most likely it wouldn’t match up with the planet being assumed at 4.5 billion years old.

Also, Mercury was considered non-active because of that assumed age, but Messenger has discovered quite the contrary.

MESSENGER Ten years have gone by very quickly, and Messenger will be missed, it was a great effort to build this spacecraft and have it complete its mission over a course of ten years. We look forward to July 14, when the probe “New Horizons” flies by Pluto while gathering data about this dwarf planet and its moons. Based on previous missions, there are going to be surprises that doesn’t fit into its assumed old age. Rather, Pluto is going to have some young features. New Horizons just recently took its first image of Pluto!  This will be exciting…:)

Every New Solution Breeds New Problems

When it comes to theorizing origins in an evolution framework, it’s on going project which never gets resolved. And every time a new solution is added to fix old ones, it is always treated like a major break through in the mainstream media. But it reality, their new solutions breed new problems. Take the moon for example, last time we heard the mystery of the moon had been solved and gave us a whole bunch of speculation which was layered with a whole bunch of jargon to prove it, this year we hear the new view has fixed the one. Confusing isn’t it?

In Astrobiology Magazine, the new theory goes like this…

“For almost 30 years, planetary scientists have been quite happy with this explanation–with one major exception. Although this scenario makes sense when you look at the size of the moon and the physics of its orbit around Earth, things start to break down a little when you compare their isotopic compositions–the geological equivalent of a DNA “fingerprint.” Specifically, Earth and the moon are too much alike.”

“The expectation has long been that the moon should carry the isotopic “fingerprint” of the foreign body, which scientists have named Theia. Because Theia came from elsewhere in the solar system, it probably had a much different isotopic fingerprint than early Earth.

“Now, a team of scientists at the University of Maryland has generated a new isotopic fingerprint of the moon that could provide the missing piece of the puzzle. By zeroing in on an isotope of Tungsten present in both the moon and Earth, the UMD team is the first to reconcile the accepted model of the moon’s formation with the unexpectedly similar isotopic fingerprints of both bodies. The results suggest that the impact of Theia into early Earth was so violent, the resulting debris cloud mixed thoroughly before settling down and forming the moon.”

Questions: What are the ramifications of the Earth being so violent? How long will this model last before another is invented? All this is based on speculation because nobody saw the moon supposedly evolve. The Bible is the only witness for that. So do you call the ever-changing speculation science? Space exploration is science, we can and have learned a great deal from it. This is when you can build unmanned spaceship to explore planets and moons in our solar system and it’s not uncommon for direct evidence to falsify popular theories of evolutionary scientists. It will be fun once an unmanned spacecraft reaches Pluto! Because that will reveal a lot of direct science. So why are countries like the United States spending millions on speculation rather than focusing on direct science? Why are we not focusing more on space exploration rather than materialistic origins that goes around in circles?

Let’s bring more science into our theories rather than using massive amounts of speculation that does science no good.

Evolutionists Lose Human Eye Debate

How many times have creationists heard this from sources like the USS Clueless...”Occasionally I see creationists point to the human eye as a miracle of design, as if this somehow is evidence of divine origin for the human form. Unfortunately, from an engineering perspective, the human eye is seriously suboptimal. It simply isn’t that good a design.” I would say, quite a number of times, especially from those like Kenneth Miller who is a Professor at Brown University who argues for signs of bad design which they say disproves creationism so they use the human eye as an example. Why? Because our eyes’ have photoreceptor cells which face away from incoming light and the optic nerve extends over them thus supposedly making it “suboptimal” (without showing how it could be improved) because it blocks some light.

What generally always happens with these arguments from evolutionists, they get shot down by advancements in science either by creationist scientists or by their own data or both. Sometimes it takes many years. The human eye debate has been written about and debated about for many years. Creationists as well as the modern intelligent design movement have been arguing for years that the human eye is well designed here are two examples the first one being from the modern intelligent design movement

“The photoreceptors in the human eye are oriented away from incoming light and placed behind nerves through which light must pass before reaching the photoreceptors. Why? A visual system needs three things: speed, sensitivity, and resolution. The inverse wiring does not affect speed. Nor does it affect resolution, except for a tiny blind spot in each eye. You don’t usually notice it because your brain’s visual harmonization system easily compensates for the blind spot. You need to do special exercises to discover it. What about sensitivity? Sensitivity requires an inverted retina. Retinal cells require the most oxygen of any cells in the human body, so they need lots of blood. But blood cells absorb light. In fact, if blood cells invade the retinal cells, irreversible blindness may result. By facing away from the light, retinal cells can be nourished by blood vessels that do not block the light. They can still be so sensitive that they respond to a single photon, the smallest unit of light.” -2008

The second one being strictly from ICR, one of the main websites that advocate creationism…

“Research by ophthalmologists has clearly shown why the human retina must employ what is called the “inverted” design. An inverted retina is where the photoreceptors face away from the light, forcing the incoming light to travel through the front of the retina to reach the photoreceptors. The opposite placement (where the photoreceptors face the front of the eye) is called a “verted” design. One of the many reasons for the inverted design is, behind the photoreceptors lies a multifunctional and indispensable structure, theretinal pigment epithelium (Martínez-Morales 2004, p. 766). This monolayered tissue contains the black pigment melanin that absorbs most of the light not captured by the retina. This design has the very beneficial effect of preventing light from being reflected off the back of the eye onto the retina, which would degrade the visual image.”

“The photoreceptors (rods and cones) must also face away from the front of the eye in order to be in close contact with the pigment epithelium on the choroid, which supplies the photoreceptors with blood. This arrangement allows a “steady stream of the vital molecule retinal” to flow to the rods and cones without which vision would be impossible (Kolb 2003, p. 28). The verted design, claimed by Miller to be superior, would place the photoreceptors away from their source of nutrition, oxygen, and retinal (the choroid). This design would cause major problems because rods and cones require an enormous amount of energy for their very high metabolism required in functioning, maintenance, and repair. In addition, because of phototoxicity damage, the rods and cones must completely replace themselves approximately every seven days or so.”

As you know, evolutionists have been arguing that the human eye was designed poorly until now…Israel Institute of Technology, a think tank for evolution  says they have discovered why the human eye is wired backwards and it’s not because of a poor design…

“Previous experiments with mice had suggested that Müller glia cells, a type of metabolic cell that crosses the retina, play an essential role in guiding and focusing light scattered throughout the retina. To test this, Ribak and his colleagues ran computer simulations and in-vitro experiments in a mouse model to determine whether colors would be concentrated in these metabolic cells. They then used confocal microscopy to produce three-dimensional views of the retinal tissue, and found that the cells were indeed concentrating light into the photoreceptors…”

“The retina is not just the simple detector and neural image processor, as believed until today,” Ribak added. “Its optical structure is optimized for our vision purposes.”

Even before this research came out, their has been attempts to build image sensors that are base on its design of biological retinas. If retinas are really that poor in design, then why would engineers be trying to make image sensors that are based on the retinas design?    Since the research turned out to confirm creationism rather than evolution, researchers at Israel Institute of Technology has to bluff about its significance by claiming that “from a practical standpoint, the wiring of the human eye — a product of our evolutionary baggage — doesn’t make a lot of sense” is really confirmation of evolution…lol

Can you imagine if science came out with evidence of a bad design of the human eye and turned around and said, “Even though a bad design doesn’t make much sense, but this is a great product of creationism.” It wouldn’t be considered science right? Neither is the researchers view on evolution of the eye. These stories about evolution holds no scientific ground! We are blessed with amazingly designed eyes!