Search This Blog

Saturday, August 01, 2009

Macroevolution is popular but not logical



Above are an artist's rendering of a Tiktaalik and a picture of a Snakehead fish. You would be surprised to find that the largest Asian version of the current fish is not terribly unlike the fossil remains of the good old Tik that tried to be a transitional fossil but just couldn't quite get out of that water. Some types of Giant Snakehead are pretty impressive...capable of climbing out of the water and living on land in search of food. Specimens observed and captured in Asia and Russia have been reported to exceed three feet long. Reports have claimed the fish can spend four days out of the water but I know of observations of behavior that only went up to a few hours. Nevertheless this is a fish that looks a lot like Tik and can live and hunt on land but it isn't anybody's ancestor. It just wants to eat everybody and their descendants!



Recently a commenter commended himself for pointing out yet another failed Darwinist assertion. But another commenter supplied the link I just inserted. Read it for yourself. As usual, naturalistic materialistic atheists come up with headlines and then when the claim is inspected it is another canard. Like Ida, for instance. Most of the public goes around thinking that scientists have all sorts of fossils and evidence that "prove" evolution and in fact there is nothing. Zip. Nada. Neo-Darwinists do not have one shred of proof for macroevolution. They have glued peppered moths to tree trunks, made mythical ancestors out of a pig's tooth, they have presented faked embryo charts and on and on and on. But no proof.

Here is a small excerpt from the above article:

The Rise and Fall of Tiktaalik? Darwinists Admit "Quality" of Evolutionary Icon is "Poor" in Retroactive Confession of Ignorance (Updated)

[Update 6/16/09: Quote in paragraph 4 clarified to make it clear that the quote did not come from Dr. Catherine A. Boisvert but was rather stated by the journal The Scientist. Any prior lack of clarity on the author of that quote was completely unintentional.]

Over the past couple years, Tiktaalik, a fish-fossil touted as documenting key aspects of the transition from fish to 4-legged tetrapods, has become a new celebrated icon of evolution:

  • PBS's "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial" featured Tiktaalik as their premier transitional fossil (an anachronism since the fossil wasn’t even reported until months AFTER the Dover trial concluded).
  • The National Academy of Science’s 2008 "Science, Evolution, and Creationism" booklet also prominently features Tiktaalik, pushing it as "a notable transitional form."
  • In early September, Carl Zimmer was so eager to mention Tiktaalik as a fossil that "illuminates our ancestors’ transition from sea to land," that he plugged it in a New York Times article about a video game that had absolutely nothing to do with Tiktaalik.
Clearly, Darwin’s public relations team has invested much rhetorical capital into this fossil. If past experience is to be our guide, the only event that might cause Darwinists to criticize Tiktaalik would be the publishing of a fossil that was claimed to better document evolution. In the past, I have called such events, evolutionist "retroactive confessions of ignorance." And with a recently published re-analysis of the fish Panderichthys, Darwinists are now praising Panderichthys for having features that are "much more tetrapod-like than in Tiktaalik," and are retroactively confessing weaknesses in their precious Tiktaalik, which is now admitted to be a fossil with a "quality" that was "poor."

The latest retroactive confessions of evolutionist ignorance comes on the heels of a published re-analysis of the bones of Panderichthys. The study used CT scans to show Panderichthys apparently had a few well-defined radial bones in its pectoral fins. (Radial bones are found only in fish fins, but evolutionary paleontologists contend that radial bones are homologous to digits in tetrapod limbs.) When commenting on this new find, the paper’s lead author, Catherine A. Boisvert, boasted in an interview with The Scientist that "it is now completely proven that fingers have evolved from distal radials already present in fish that gave rise to the tetrapod." Boisvert also praised her findings, stating: "The disposition of distal radials in Panderichthys are much more tetrapod-like than in Tiktaalik."

Confident that Panderichthys fossil showed evolution better than Tiktaalik, Darwinists then proceeded to admit striking criticisms of Tiktaalik: The Scientist article stated, "Previous data from another ancient fish called Tiktaalik showed distal radials as well -- although the quality of that specimen was poor. And the orientation of the radials did not seem to match the way modern fingers and toes radiate from a joint, parallel to each other." (emphasis added)

The "quality" of Tiktaalik as a fossil specimen was “poor”? When did we see evolutionists admit this previously? Never. They wouldn't dare make such admissions until they thought they had something better.

Then "something better" always winds up failing. Furthermore, appearance does not mean much when studying inheritance and anatomy. I can probably find a mushroom that is shaped like your knee but that doesn't mean knees evolved from mushrooms.

Another recent hoax was the "first whale" fossil that became an ordinary land animal after careful study. Remember Pakicetus?



Pakicetus is an extinct land mammal discovered in Pakistan's early Eocene layer (dated approximately 55-33 Ma). It was discovered in 1983 by 3 paleontologists including Philip Gingerich, who recently analyzed the Darwinius masillae fossil "Ida."

The original finds from 1983 included only skull fragments. Gingerich classified Pakicetus as a cetacean based on its inner ear, and he originally thought that it was aquatic or amphibious. However, full skeletons were discovered in 2001, and these revealed that Pakicetus was a wolf-like land mammal, with legs capable of running.


Naturalist materialistic atheism is a religion and my blog is in fact an attack on that religious belief. When one does not have evidence on his side, trying to draw attention elsewhere is a valid strategy until it is perceived. Darwinists lie about the application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics because many people cannot understand the argument, just as a for instance. The public is indoctrinated deliberately from grade school on up with lies and fairy tales. Haeckel's embryo chart is just now finally being eliminated from school textbooks. The horse evolution chart is still being presented. Many textbooks still try to suggest that birds evolved from dinosaurs, which is preposterous in the extreme even for the just-so stories of Darwinism.

Macroevolution is the a process that requires mutation to provide new information that can be sorted and selected out by natural selection and passed on to succeeding generations. Unfortunately, it does not happen. Dr. Carl Wieland mentioned in a recent article that evolutionists have uncovered this problem for themselves:
“Evolution also results from the accumulation of new information. In the case of a biological mutation, new information is provided an error [sic] of genetic transmission (i.e. a change in the DNA during its transmission from parent to child).”

Luigi L. Cavalli-Sforza, Genes, peoples and languages, North Press, New York, 2000, p. 176.

The trouble for the NeoDarwinist is that this doesn’t happen—ever.Again, let me quote a well-known evolutionist—this lady is the person who invented the idea of endosymbiosis to account for the origin of mitochondria and chloroplasts in eukaryotic cells so she is not someone that her fellow evolutionists can easily dismiss:

“Mutation accumulation does not lead to new species or even to new organs or tissues.” (p. 11)

“Mutations, in summary, tend to induce sickness, death, or deficiencies.” (p. 29)

Margulis, L. & Sagan, D., Acquiring genomes. A theory of the origins of species, Basic Books, New York, 2002.

Dr. Jean Lightner wrote a post entitled Special Tools of Life. It describes one attempt to demonstrate evolution using bacteria (Then known as Aerobacter aerogenes, this organism has been reclassified as one of several Klebsiella species). The attempt fails because information loss rather than information gain is the result.

"Most mutations that make a noticeable difference are harmful. A few might be considered beneficial—at least sometimes.3 But do these mutations add information to the DNA? A number of scientists thought so when they saw mutations in a bacterium that normally grows in the soil.4 This bacterium can grow well when it has one of several unusual sugars as an energy source: ribitol or D-arabitol.5 The scientists growing it in the lab tried giving it a very similar sugar, xylitol, as its only energy source. Xylitol is not normally found in the bacteria’s environment. The bacteria have no enzymes specifically designed for the first step in breaking it down.

The wild-type of the bacteria couldn’t grow. However, a mutant strain (X1) arose that could grow on xylitol, although very slowly. Later, a second mutant strain (X2) arose from X1 that grew faster on xylitol. From this, a third mutant strain (X3) developed that grew faster still. Evidence for evolution? A new enzyme evolving? Hardly."

In fact, the loss of information made the mutated bacterium unable to survive for long in the outside world. I am still waiting for news that a fruit fly or a bacterium has actually "grown" a new piece of information. So far these kinds of "breakthroughs" are demonstrating that information loss can lead to speciation, which creationists have always known.

I recommend reading Bears Across The World as an example of how natural selection actually works and what it actually does. My assertion is that:

God designed life with redundancies. All life has the genetic code with massive amounts of information authored by God.

Mutations, usually harmful, can cause the appearance of evolution but it is microevolution rather than macroevolution, simple variation within kind.

Man has manipulated animal life for centuries to take advantage of the design features of animal life that allow for variation.

Scientists have devoted decades in a vain attempt to deomonstrate actual microevolution and have continually failed.

Hope you did not miss the preceding post! Creationism is logical but not popular!


12 comments:

Anonymous said...

I was waiting for you to pick up on that link - in part to see if you would give its poster a slap on the wrist for posting anonymously.

Tiktaalik a hoax, a canard? Nonsense. Where is the hoax, what is the canard?

Tiktaalik is what it says on the tin, an intermediate form between fish and amphibians and an excellently preserved fossil. Casey Luskin's article tries to spin a "retroactive confession of ignorance" out of some quote mining. If you look at the context of the quote, they are talking about the poor quality of Tiktaalik's distal radials. As a whole, Tiktaalik is an excellently preserved fossil, that is not being questioned.

But (again) you are evading the actual reason I brought up Tiktaalik. That it's yet another transitional species is not that remarkable - the fossil record is full of those.

When you evade an argument so consistently, I'm not sure if you just don't get the argument (as I suspect in the case of the fallacy of division re. prison population) or if you only understand it too well and know that it is in conflict with your claims and you have no comeback.

The actual reason I've brought up Tiktaalik several times is what it tells us about the placing of fossils, and what that in turn tells us about the flood model as opposed to an old Earth.

You see, what really makes Tiktaalik so remarkable in this discussion is the way in which it was found. There is a simple explanation of it here.

They didn't just happen to run across it - they were actually looking for a transitional species, and they used modern science (including, of course, the assumption of an old Earth) to predict where they would find it:

1. Looking at the fossil record, they knew that the earliest known tetrapods appeared approx. 363 million years ago.

2. Looking at the fossil record, lobe-finned fish first appeared in the fossil record approx. 390-380 million years ago.

They hypothesized that lobe-finned fish evolved into tetrapods in the period in between those events.

Since they had a time window in mind, they could now select a site. Thanks to geoological records, they could locate sediments from 380-363 mya. They were also looking for freshwater stream sediments and, for the sake of practicality, exposed rock.

Now, according to modern science (using the fossil record, the theory of evolution, various dating methods used routinely in geological work), they were able to make such a prediction... and find it confirmed.

According to YEC, it should have been impossible, since not only are all dating methods indicating an old Earth completely useless, but all creatures existed at the same time and drowned in the big flood in a big jumble. No coherent hypothesis explaining the consistent location of fossils in sediments has ever been scientifically tested by creationists.

According to YEC, the predictions leading to Tiktaalik being found should have been impossible.

And yet they were confirmed by facts.

Draw your own conclusions.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

Re. Pakicetus: em, so what if they first hypothesized one thing, then cast aside that hypothesis when more facts emerged? Keep in mind that it was scientists who adjusted the hypothesis to fit the facts. That's just what scientists do, your outlandish conspiracy theories aside.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"I am still waiting for news that a fruit fly or a bacterium has actually "grown" a new piece of information."

Did you somehow miss the previous umpteen mentions of the nylon-eating bacteria?

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"The trouble for the NeoDarwinist is that [addition of information through errors in gene transmission] doesn’t happen—ever."

This is already disproven by the existence of nylon-eating bacteria, a nice example of a feature being added through a gene transmission error. So the trouble you perceive for the "NeoDarwinist" here doesn't exist.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

You might want to read more about Lynn Margulis instead of just cherry-picking her quotes. She does interesting work, but entirely in an evolutionary framework.

"Most mutations that make a noticeable difference are harmful. A few might be considered beneficial—at least sometimes.3 But do these mutations add information to the DNA?"

Any harmful mutations are presumably not passed on to the next generation, so they do not become part of the gene pool.

Any beneficial mutations, however, are passed on to the next generation, and if they are indeed beneficial as regards survival and reproduction, then organisms with those mutations will reproduce at a greater rate than organisms without those mutations.

And of course they add information to the DNA. Otherwise they wouldn't be passed on to the next generation, would they?

"God designed life with redundancies. All life has the genetic code with massive amounts of information authored by God."

Now you see, Radar, that is an interesting hypothesis. How could creationists go about testing this hypothesis? The genome is there for all of us to see.

"Mutations, usually harmful, can cause the appearance of evolution but it is microevolution rather than macroevolution, simple variation within kind."

How can mutations cause the appearance of evolution? Are you admitting that they can cause change in an organism?

"Scientists have devoted decades in a vain attempt to deomonstrate actual microevolution and have continually failed."

I'm assuming this is a typo and you meant to type macroevolution. But since you're utterly confused about the classification system and what constitutes a species and what speciation means, discussing this with you would be quite futile. Suffice it to say that evolution at the species level has been observed in lab experiments, as has been pointed out to you multiple times. On top of that, the answer is only a quick google search away.

-- creeper

WomanHonorThyself said...

always fascinating!
p.s. ignore trolls entirely!

radar said...

Angel, I do now. But funny how the nylon-eating question was already answered and yet is brought up again, isn't it?

When classes start again I might have a student or two study the claims of creeper versus the evidence to see whether a high school student can easily find the links and posts he so easily has mislaid.

Two years ago I had a student show me a textbook being used in her school system with the Haeckel chart in place AND Miller-Urey referenced as part of an explanation of the advent of life by chance. Last year a student brought in a book to me that had lists of high school and grade school textbooks still containing falsified "evidence" like Haeckel.

Four years ago I presented the evidence that Neanderthal skulls were fabricated and changed to make them look more ape-like and that the caves in France that contained remarkable art were off-limits.

Three years ago I presented evidence that the University of Lehigh fabricated new carbon dates for the acambaro statues after they discovered the statues were figures of actual dinosaurs.

Lies shouted and repeated are the Darwinist way.

Anonymous said...

"funny how the nylon-eating question was already answered and yet is brought up again, isn't it? "

That's a big fat no. It's becoming clear that you don't even check before claiming to have answered something. You've lied about having answered something before so many times that the statement is practically worthless unless there's an accompanying link. Which, conveniently, there never is.

There are a number of pertinent questions and points above and in comments on previous posts. It's clear that you can't answer them and are hiding behind a childish game of pretending I'm a troll.

The fact that paleontologists were able to predict a location for Tiktaalik using modern dating methods (which incidentally also indicate an old Earth) as well as the fossil record and the theory of evolution is a massive strike against proponents of a young Earth and a global flood. Go on, pretend to misunderstand it. No doubt you'll turn a deaf ear to this as you have done before when you had no comeback.

And in a few months or so, you'll claim to have answered this already, fully expecting people like "Angel" to take your word for it. Which of course they do.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

Radar,

Is it just creeper you will no longer respond to because you think (for some reason) he is a trol, or is it anyone who tries to bring logic and reason to your blog?

lava

radar said...

Lava,

Creeper calls me a liar concerning things we have already discussed, therefore it makes no sense to talk with him. He either has a memory that stretches out about a week or is intentionally deceptive. You pick. I do not hate him, just see no point in trying to talk with him until he apologizes for his actions.

Logic and reason? You think everything came from nothing by blind chance and you talk of logic and reason?

Quoting Nobel Prize winner George Wald - "When it comes to the origin of life, we have only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility...Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved one hundred years ago by Louis Pasteur, Spellanzani, Reddy and others. That leads us scientifically to only one possible conclusion -- that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God...I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution." - Scientific American, August, 1954.

Anonymous said...

Radar,

I've been reading your blog for some time now- not even sure how long. I believe I've read the vast majority of the posts and comments since I've been reading.

Trying to take a completely objective view of this, I think the problem is the number of and scope of the topics you pick up. I'm trying to be completely earnest here, but things get brought up by you and then they are discussed/challenged in the comments. Sometimes you respond in comments or entire posts dedicated to a response. Sometimes you don't respond. But the problem I see is: too many topics, too many conversations/discussions/challenges/tangents.

Can I suggest something? If you truly want to have an actual discussion on your blog, focus on one topic for a period of time. Maybe a month or so. Can I suggest a topic? Ice cores. They have been brought up in recent comments. You claim you responded to creeper's challenges with a post. He posited that your post didn't deal at all with what he was talking about. Try continuing that discussion.

Also, I'd love a post on why evolution would predict bacteria would evolve into something other than bacteria in a lab experiment.


Thanks,
lava

Anonymous said...

And what is Radar's response to Lava's earnest communication and request?

***sound of crickets chirping***

Thanks Radar.

I'm a troll too by the way, Lava (although, Radar often responds to my posts, probably because creeper's are generally tougher to deal with). So with that said Lava, you better watch yourself or you too might find yourself on the "troll" list.

I want an Ice Cores discussion too by the way Radar. So that's at least two of us.

- Canucklehead

P.S. - Interesting that it was only us "trolls" that offered words of condolence when Mr. Binder lost his dog. Those sure are some nice trolls you've got there, Radar. Seriously nice trolls.