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.

Preservation: Upper Limit On DNA

A team of researchers from the Faculty of Life Sciences at The University of Manchester attempted to discover DNA in amber fossils which is great research by the way.  The fossils date back in the misguided evolutionary framework of 130 million years old.

What sparked such research? Back in the 1990’s a Hollywood movie called, Jurassic Park inspired people’s interest causing a study to be conducted and then skepticism with the study by the Natural History Museum, in London which tried to replicate the movie’s story theme of extracting DNA from insects in Amber that later supposedly produced Dinosaurs.

The research team used the most advanced and most improved sequencing techniques to date (second generation) using full forensic suits to avoid contamination.

In science daily

“According to Professor Brown: “In the original 1990s studies DNA amplification was achieved by a process called the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), which will preferentially amplify any modern, undamaged DNA molecules that contaminate an extract of partially degraded ancient ones to give false positive results that might be mistaken for genuine ancient DNA. Our approach, using ‘next generation’ sequencing methods is ideal for ancient DNA because it provides sequences for all the DNA molecules in an extract, regardless of their length, and is less likely to give preference to contaminating modern molecules.” 

What were the results? Here it is…

“We were therefore unable to obtain any convincing evidence for the preservation of ancient DNA in either of the two copal inclusions that we studied, and conclude that DNA is not preserved in this type of material. Our results raise further doubts about claims of DNA extraction from fossil insects in amber, many millions of years older than copal…”

Even though the resin is an ideal environment for preservation no ancient DNA was found even with a specimen that was determined to be 60 years old! So the movie was not confirmed with operational science and remains what of Hollywood’s biggest science fiction thrillers.

But what was the most interesting of all in this research, the team of evolutionists accidentally stumbled upon an upper limit on DNA preservation. How much of a limit? 100 million years, 50 million years? 10 million years? Nope! Not even 1 million years, rather  no DNA was discovered in Amber thought to be 10,600 years old so that is your upper limit!  What does this mean for evolution where we see claims of soft tissue in fossils like in T-Rex that is claimed to be 68 million years old?

The fossils are clearly not that old, it’s one of the benefits of the earth being only thousands of years old rather than billions of years old. Because evolution relies on long periods of time, evolutionary scientists are now questioning organic preservation? So in order to rescue evolution from this falsification, evolutionary scientists are most likely going to come up with a story line that will defy natural laws.

Instead of coming up with a science fiction scenario, why don’t they test organic preservation in the lab, subject the soft tissue to different elements or weather like conditions or none at all, and observe what the rate of decay is, then make some estimates on that without accounting for evolution’s requirement for long periods of time! Let the evidence speak for itself much like the research to obtain DNA in Amber did!

Attempts to Counter Stephen Meyer’s Book

Evolution is extremely flexible in its explanations because there is more imagination than hard scientific evidence. For this reason, it has opened the door for evolutionary scientists to create some of the most far-reaching scenarios ever imagined, and claiming it’s all in the name of ‘science’ which cannot be confirmed and yet claim its superiority (bluffing) to be factual or near factual.

Ever since Stephen Meyer’s “Darwin’s Doubt”  was published and has been a best seller on Amazon.com in science, various articles have been trying to counter it.

“Darwin’s Doubt” by Stephen Meyer has to do with an explosion of complex life forms such as the Cambrian arthropod having a large complex brain that all of a sudden appears in the fossil record were expected ancestors of these animals have not been discovered. This is similar to what is being discovered in space where scientists are discovering abrupt appearances of diverse group of galaxies already in mature states near what they consider to be the beginning of the universe which is contrary to what evolutionary astronomers believed! They thought one type of galaxy evolved into another, this called the “Hubble Sequence.”

Popular Science writer and evolutionist, Carl Zimmer decided to write an article that attempts to counter Meyer’s book and others like it. His article appears in the New York Times which is not surprising because this publication is very pro-evolution.

Zimmer’s style in his rebuttal is quite classic for a militant defender of evolution, because he purposely avoids mentioning Meyer’s book for fear of giving it credit and that more people would buy the book as a result. He does refer to Meyer and the rest who don’t believe in neo-Darwinism as “opponents of evolution”.

When a theory gets increasingly more complicated as new data is discovered which falsifies it even more and old arguments are looked at with the new data, it means the theory is not valid. A totally new direction is required! The increasingly complicated theory, in this case “evolution” is only resting on man’s imagination to rescue it rather than facts. That is not to say inferences cannot be drawn in science nor advancing growing knowledge with new data, but when conjecture is considered growing knowledge and is so dominate among its explanations, this is not science but rather a cult following.

Zimmer endorses and uses conjecture over science quite often in his article, “Explaining Evolution’s Big Bang”

“Long before the Cambrian explosion, Dr. Smith and Dr. Harper argue, one lineage of animals had already evolved the genetic capacity for spectacular diversity. Known as the bilaterians, they probably looked at first like little crawling worms. They shared the Precambrian oceans with other animals, like sponges and jellyfish. During the Cambrian explosion, relatively modest changes to their genes gave rise to a spectacular range of bodies.”

“But those genes evolved in bilaterians tens of millions of years before the Cambrian explosion put them to the test, notes Dr. Smith. “They had the capacity,” he said, “but it hadn’t been expressed yet.”

Zimmer suggests that evolution created genetic capacity for a purpose of producing enormous diversity among animals but kept it dormant for millions of years till something triggered its use in a short period of time by evolutionary standards. Correct me if I’m wrong, but nature doesn’t go by future assumptions in order to survive, does it? Does anyone believe evolution relies on predictions of the future which affects what it does in the present? When I was taught about evolution in school, the theory said that evolution relies on what goes on in at the present moment in order to survive! A mindless process doesn’t go by selecting future goals for survival especially many million of years into the future. We humans with a brain can decide on goals that may enhance our lives in some way, this takes a thinking process to do this!

Also, many diverse life forms require massive amounts of specified information much like many forms of advanced technology requires massive amounts of specified information. So not only does this conjecture lack observable data, and lack the ability to be replicated, and lack the ability to consider and execute future goals, its explanation of “genetic capacity” lacks a realistic requirement of creating massive amounts of specified information in a short period of time in order to create a diverse group of animals.

Meyer puts it this way in his book, functional genes and proteins are not just rare but exceedingly rare within sequence space as science points out. As a result, a random mutational search for specified information would fail, than to succeed, in generating even a single new gene or new protein during the entire history of life on earth!

On the other hand, Zimmer fails to show how DNA can originate, and show how mutations are able to obtain new information to build another life form! All what Zimmer does is, assume that evolution just happen to build a “genetic capacity” to be used many millions of years later without explaining why that was required for survival of the fittest in the present.

Zimmer also makes a surprise case for evolution or should I say, shocking case for evolution by embracing a global flood! Evolutionists have always attacked the historical account from the Bible. Zimmer suggests that nature had to respond to the killing off of many species from a global flood by triggering the Cambrian explosion using the “genetic capacity” which was somehow prepared many millions of years in advance!

It took a global flood to tap that capacity, Dr. Smith and Dr. Harper propose.  They base their proposal on a study published last year by Shanan Peters of the University of Wisconsin and Robert Gaines of Pomona College. They offered evidence that the Cambrian Explosion was preceded by a rise in sea level that submerged vast swaths of land, eroding the drowned rocks.”   

What is so very interesting about Zimmer and the authors whom he sights, they use the “Great Unconformity” as evidence for a global flood!  Creation scientists have for a long time now, been using the Great Unconformity as evidence for a global flood. Evolutionists however, have rejected using that method for evidence for a global flood, calling it a myth rather than science so why are these guys using the same evidence as creationists treated so differently? We certainly don’t see rebuttals coming from evolutionists on Zimmer’s endorsement of a global flood. So how did Zimmer get acceptance from his peers who previously opposed flood geology? Is it because Zimmer embraced a particular story for his conclusion, that life came from poison which has never been observed in nature nor even replicated in a lab rather than coming from God and that minerals were able somehow to miraculously produce advanced and complex animal body parts in a short period of time. Talk about mythology in trying to explain a major falsification of evolution!

Listen, if these evolutionists like Zimmer who now embraced a global flood with the same evidence creationists use through the years demonstrates that not only are creation scientists using the scientific method, but it also shows the lie evolutionists have created on what is and is not science for the purpose of keeping other views out of the science realm. The scientific method is not based on who the person is nor what they may believe in, rather it’s based on a procedure!

For example, two mechanics from two different backgrounds, one is a Christian who fixes your car by replacing the spark plugs and the wires, and then an atheist replaces those same parts years later. Some supposed expert writes a review in your local newspaper of the car shop saying the christian’s method wasn’t mechanical because he believes those spark plugs and wires came from God and then say, the atheist used the mechanical method in changing your spark plugs and wires because he rejects the existence of God. This folks is loony logic that most Americans do not believe in!

So the likes of Zimmer and other evolutionists have been lying to the public on what science is and is not, all in the name of defending evolution because they are merely basing their bias on who the person is and what he or she believes in when drawing conclusions from the data!

But the good news is, nature is astounding, we learn from it each day. God is highly intelligent, way beyond our understanding which is why continuing to study nature on how it works is so fun and important to learn about!

Imagination Is Inferred Among The Fossils

The movement of the hand and fingers of a concert pianist is an amazing sight! The necessity of coordination as well as timing in order to play such classics as Beethoven’s “Fifth Symphony” is a feat that is not accomplished by chance nor survival of the fittest. Your hand has been described as the most sophisticated tool in the human body!

It has been designed for maximum dexterity and strength in movement. The had has the ability to perform 58 different movements. These movements allow dexterity and power for a diversity of actions such as playing a piano, threading a needle, picking up a cup, building a house and so on…Modern medicine has written many journals on repairing the hand when it gets injured, but there has never been a surgical technique that has succeeded in improving the movement in a healthy hand.

So instead of just learning about genetic mechanisms and how they work in human limbs, evolutionary scientists claim this in a recent press release

“Sandy Kawano said: “The transition from fins to limbs marks the most dramatic change in orientation of the locomotor forces from contact with the ground. Using these data we can now evaluate the locomotor capabilities of numerous important fossil taxa that spanned the water-to-land transition in tetrapod evolution.”

“We hypothesise that the medial orientation of the forces on pectoral fins would result in unreasonably high bone stresses in early amphibious fish with fins, which would explain why the evolutionary invasion of land by vertebrates was accomplished instead by tetrapods with limbs with digits.”

Have you ever heard of something so silly that is claimed to be science because the conclusion of the inference is evolution? You know what I’m alluding to, right? The claim of putting a force on fins eventually turns those fins into hands. Why don’t they try a lab experiment that places a force on the fins and see if any change happens?

The imagination that occurs in evolutionary research is exceedingly high and sounds more like the occult or from a star wars movie. Quite frankly, they don’t know what they are talking about! How do they know it’s a force rather than was intelligently designed?  How do you think they can confirm that through direct evidence?