Search This Blog

Sunday, July 25, 2010

About all that Darwinist evidence? Refutation number one.

Explantations for information, life, existence and fine-tuning?  None.
Presentation of proofs for macroevolution observed happening?  None.
Large amounts of Darwinist propanda presented?  Yup.

I want to first emphasize the giant hurdles a Darwinist must overcome to explain away all the reasons life could not have happened by chance.  A Darwinist cannot really define life itself as a substance or force but can only identify whether an organism is alive or dead.   Pasteur proved that life only comes from life and scientists of the early 18th Century agreed with this as a scientific law.  Darwinism must break this law but has no evidence for a natural genesis of life and no mechanism has been postulated that can be tested or that even passes the logical smell test.  If natural causes could not bring about life, Darwinism is dead before it is born, since Darwinism is all about naturalistic materialistic causes.

A Darwinist cannot explain his way around the chirality problem when trying to tell a fairy tale about the accidental poofing into existence of DNA.  

A Darwinist cannot even begin to give us a reasonable explanation of photogenesis, which is a remarkably complex process that must have been in place almost immediately within life forms for life forms to have obtained energy from the Sun.  

A Darwinist cannot account for information, which does not have form or substance itself and can only be quantified by enumerating the medium used to transmit it.  Unfortunately one cannot determine either the value or the amount of information by enumerating its containers. 

Furthermore, there is no relationship that can be drawn between the exact size or length or complexity of the gene and the resulting creature.  Here is where math majors have thrown up their hands when trying to convert Darwinism to an equation of some kind.   A mathematical relationship between the perceived complexity of the individual DNA string and the creature it produces does not exist.  If by some remarkable impossibility a primitive DNA string had *poofed* into existence then by Darwinist logic the DNA molecule would have become more complex as the organism became more advanced.  This is not the case.

A Darwinist cannot find an example of macroevolution happening anywhere in the world.  We do see speciation,  in which we see choices made from existing information within the genome rather than new information entering the genome.  We see mutation causing information loss or copying errors but this also does not account for new information.  Every time you hear of a Darwinist trumpeting evolution-in-action, it has always been a simple case of speciation.   

Phylogenic Cladogramic Morphological Darwinidiotic verbiage clogged the comments threads as Darwinists did a great job of re-presenting the same old arguments in which assumptions are applied to the evidence and yet no experiments are successful and no evolution is ever observed.  I did decide to respond to Woolf's arguments that embryology is an evidence of common descent, as he argues that the aortic arch develops in many embryos in the same general way or order.  Now one problem is that again Woolf is making an assumption, he has no proof that similarities in development are not an evidence of a common Designer rather than common ancestry. In point of fact there is no such thing as a consistent linear developmental line of the aorta or the eye or the backbone that is not built on presuppositions.   Richard Dawkins' declaration that the laryngeal nerve in human beings as a remnant of fish ancestry is one such supposition.  In fish the nerve branches off from the main route to supply gills.   In people it branches off to serve other purposes such as the esophagus and trachea. 

Haeckel's imaginary embryo chart was an attempt to fool people into thinking that we all have a common ancestry but it was faked.   The argument about aortic development is part of the larger discussion of embryology.  First off is the idea that Woolf presented that there is a lineage that can be traced from more simple to more complex forms of life by studying the similarities between fossil remains and organisms alive today.   But in real life, the supposed linear aspect of descent is completely imaginary, much like Haeckel's embryo chart.  I present two long and thorough articles that serve to falsify linear or Darwinist descent as well as embryological, vestigal and recapitulation hypotheses.  There is a lot to read but there is a lot of propaganda to debunk:

Mammal-like reptiles: major trait reversals and discontinuities


Evolutionists repeatedly claim that their assembled chain of mammal-like reptiles shows a step-by-step morphological progression to mammals. Despite this, a close and simultaneous examination of hundreds of anatomical character traits shows no such thing, even if one takes basic evolutionary suppositions as a given. Very many, if not most, of the pelycosaur and therapsid traits used in recent evolutionistic studies to construct cladograms actually show a contradictory pattern of progression towards, followed by reversion away from, the presumed eventual mammalian condition. Furthermore, gaps are systematic throughout the pelycosaur-therapsid-mammalian ‘sequence’, and these gaps are actually larger than the existing segments of the ‘chain’. These sobering facts demonstrate that, however the supposed evolutionary ‘lineage’ of mammal-like reptiles towards mammals is interpreted, it is divorced from reality.
The so-called mammal-like reptiles are believed by evolutionists to be the ancestors of the mammals and to have become more mammal-like with the passage of time. Evolutionists consider anatomical traits to be mammal-like if they occur in modern mammals but not in other modern vertebrates.
The highly-touted, alleged succession of mammal-like reptiles towards increasing ‘mammalness’ is not found at any one location on Earth. It can only be inferred through the correlation of fossiliferous beds from different continents. Judgments are made as to which stratum on one continent is older than another stratum on another continent. Moreover, intercontinental correlations are made even when the fossil genera do not correspond with each other. Instead, the correlations are based on the general similarity of specimens, as well as their assumed degree of evolutionary advancement.1 The circularity of such reasoning is obvious. Thus, despite the claims of some evolutionists, it is clear that such biostratigraphic correlations are not empirically self-evident:
‘Stratigraphic correlations, like phylogenetic relationships, must be inferred from data and are not actually observations themselves.’2
However, for purposes of an argument, it is acceptable to start with premises accepted by an opponent, even if I don’t accept them myself, and show that they imply a conclusion that undermines the opponent’s position—in logic, this is called reductio ad absurdum. Thus, in this work, I’ll presuppose that the evolutionist’s intercontinental correlations of therapsid fossils as true and valid. The same holds for evolutionary phylogenies and cladograms, as well as the anatomical deductions behind them. Despite granting all these concessions, it soon becomes obvious that many of the anatomically-based evolutionistic claims, when analyzed, turn out to be questionable.3,4
gorgonopsid therapsid
Reconstruction of gorgonopsid therapsid (after Stearn & Carroll).42
A more fundamental issue, however, is that evolutionistic claims about transitional character states (however these states are defined) typically centre on a relatively small number of features. These features are pieced together and cited as examples of evolutionary change towards reptiles that are increasingly mammal-like. This claim is made despite the fact that evolutionists are usually not concerned with ancestor-descendant relationships, but rather the degree of presumed evolutionary relatedness between mammal-like reptiles. Yet, using isolated bits of evidence, we could construct just about any progression we wanted. We could, for instance, arrange a sequence of spoons to show a progression in size, thickness, etc. And this would be all the more questionable if only parts of the spoons were considered (e.g. the spoons arranged to show a trend towards greater bowl size while the handles showed no trend at all).

Clearly, a comprehensive approach is needed. All the anatomical features must be considered, not just a few. Accordingly, this work evaluates the claim that mammal-like reptiles, as arranged in succession by evolutionists (from pelycosaurs to mammals), show an essentially unbroken chain of progressively more mammal-like fossils. We examine large numbers of inferred morphological changes, simultaneously considering literally hundreds of characters that have been used by evolutionists in the construction of cladograms (branching patterns showing alleged degrees of evolutionary relatedness of one form to another). Even though cladograms are not intended to identify ancestor-descendant relationships, each node (branching point) in the cladogram is taken by evolutionists to be, more or less, morphologically intermediate between the previous node and the successive one.

How to evaluate numerous presumed evolutionary changes

To keep track of hundreds of anatomical changes, and analyze these changes semi-quantitatively, requires a method of scoring the extent of each change, and tabulating the total number of changes. One way would be to sum the character polarities that evolutionists use to construct their own cladograms.5 To briefly demonstrate the methodology used in the present study, I have arranged seven hypothetical organisms in a series (Figure 1), to indicate evolution from (A) to (G). This series can be viewed either in the traditional ancestor-descendant sense or in a cladistic sense. Cladistically, evolutionists would consider ‘organism’ (A) to represent the least derived (earliest evolved) state and (G) the most derived (most recently evolved), but without any necessary connotation of immediate ancestor-descendant relationships.
hypothetical organisms
Figure 1. Seven hypothetical organisms arranged in a series to indicate evolution from (A) to (G). The general stratigraphic succession of (A) through (G) is accepted as a given. In the traditional evolutionary sense, this series can be viewed as an ancestor-descendent relationship with (A) the ancestor of all other 'organisms'. Cladistically, (A) would be the least derived (earliest evolved) and (G) the most derived (most recently evolved). Of the five morphological traits shown, three are progressive (cap-morph, X-morph). Two are gradational (circle-morph, X-morph) while the others have a polar nature, being either present or absent.
Consider how progressive traits would be scored. Progressive traits proceed unidirectionally through the sequence that the evolutionists have constructed. Note that ‘organisms’ (A) through (D) don’t have the ‘cap-morph’ trait, but ‘organisms’ (E) through (G) do. This trait is a ‘presence-absence’ (zero-one) polarity trait, and can be scored as (0000111) in the sequence of seven ‘organisms’. In like manner, the ‘triangle-morph’ can be scored as (0000001), since it only appears in the most derived ‘organism’. The progressive ‘circle-morphs’, by contrast, are also gradational, increasing from zero to three circles per ‘organism’. This ‘evolutionary trend’ can be scored as (0011233).
Look at what I call reversing traits: ones that change direction at least once in the accepted evolutionary sequence. For instance, note that the ‘bar-morph’ first appears in (C) and continues in (D), only to disappear in (E). It then makes an ‘evolutionary reappearance’ in (F) and persists in (G). This reversing trait can be scored as (0011011). As a final example, a reversing yet gradational trait is provided by the ‘X-morph’, which can be scored as (0102212).

We can quantify the overall changes from (A) through (G) by summing the character polarities of all the traits. The sum is (0124568). However, this sum distorts the picture of the changes, because the reversing traits make the overall change appear much smoother (transition-filled) than it really is. If we only sum the progressive character polarities, a much less gradational chain is obtained (0011345). Thus, to circumvent the bias created by mingling numerous reversing traits with progressive traits, I omit the reversing traits entirely in Table 1. Where reversing traits are relatively few in number (Tables 2 and 3), I sum all the traits in one list, and only the progressive traits in another.

To what extent could the hypothetical evolutionary progression from (A) through (G), as shown in Figure 1, support the evolutionary claim about ‘transitional forms’? Obviously, it depends not only on how the polarities are summed, as discussed previously, but also on which particular polarities are emphasized. The ‘circle-morph’ shows the most incrementally-filled progression of traits (0011233), and could be argued to support an evolutionary scenario. By contrast, the ‘cap-morph’ and ‘triangle-morph’ appear as sudden jumps without any gradual ‘evolutionary’ development. And the reversing characters, which go from ‘primitive’ to ‘derived’ and back to ‘primitive’ again, cannot be said to constitute an evolutionary trend by any stretch of the imagination. As we shall see, these same principles that apply to the hypothetical organisms in Figure 1 also apply to actual fossils of mammal-like reptiles, and the evolutionistic claims about their supposed series of ‘intermediate stages’ culminating in mammals.

However, when analyzing character polarities in actual fossils, a few cautions are in order. To begin with, as discussed elsewhere,6 genera of mammal-like reptiles are inflated by taxonomic oversplitting, a fact that is substantiated by more recent studies.7,8 Another concern lies in the way that changes in anatomical characters are scored. This can always be done, deliberately or subconsciously, in a way which favours the desired evolutionary outcome:
‘By oversplitting apomorphies9 in its favor, one hypothesis can dominate over its rival without gaining any biological insight. One way to guard against this fallacy is to show how the apomorphies in support of a given hypothesis are biologically associated.’10
Of course, the phrase ‘biologically associated’ smacks of evolutionistic just-so stories. However, in this study, I do not attempt to make any anatomical judgments, but rely on datasets provided by evolutionists. In this way, the negative conclusions regarding evolution become all the more compelling.

Sources and types of data

One way to limit the extent of potential biases in choice of apomorphies,9 etc., is to use information from different authors, because each author has analyzed a largely-different set of anatomical characters. Accordingly, I employed three recently-published datasets for this comprehensive analysis as summarized in Tables 1, 2 and 3. To clarify the relationships between the members in each dataset, I have, as shown in all of the tables, assigned an identification number to each taxon.11 I have also used descriptive phrases for each entry in each table.12 Although the use of these descriptors here is informal, they approximate those used by Kemp.13 Adjectives such as ‘primitive’, ‘medial’ and ‘advanced’ (or ‘derived’) are used solely to follow the evolutionists in orienting the particular taxon relative to the mammalian condition, and are not intended to have any other connotation.14 They are definitely not intended to endorse any notions of succession of mammal-like reptiles through time, relative evolutionary relatedness of mammal-like reptiles, lineages of mammal-like reptiles or ancestor-descendant relationships.

The first of the three datasets used in this study, by Sidor and Hopson,15 is essentially a broad overview of the entire sequence, starting with pelycosaurs and culminating in mammals. Because, as noted earlier, large numbers of reversing characters tend to confound the overall scoring of trends in the acquisition of mammalian characters, I have excluded these 77 reversing characters. More on this later. The relevant part of the data is summarized in Table 1,16 and consists of 88 anatomical characters.17 Not all of the taxons, however, have data available for all of the 88 useable characters. For this reason, all of the entries in Table 1 are each normalised by taking the sum of character polarities divided by the number of available characters, and then multiplying the quotient by 100.18 This is what I call the Mammalness Index in Tables 1–3.
Table 1. Mammalness Index for mammal-like reptiles calculated from overall skeletal characters from Sidor and Hopson.15 The ID number approximates the relative position each taxon would have on one comprehensive cladogram (including all three Tables 1-3).11 Descriptions approximate Kemp13 and reflect evolutionary notions of the mammalian condition. The descriptions are not intended to endorse these evolutionary notions.
Overall skeletal characters
Mammalness Index
Progressive Characters
88 of 165 useable characters
from 181 total characters
primitive pelycosaurs Ophiacondontidae
advanced pelycosaurs Edaphosauridae
primitive sphenacodont Haptodu
overall sphenacodont Sphenacodontidae
primitive therapsids Biarmosuchia
primitive therapsids Anteosauridae
primitive therapsids Estemmenosuchidae
varied therapsids Anomodonti
primitive therapsids Gorgonopsidae
advanced therapsids Therocephalia
primitive cynodont Dvinia
primitive cynodont Procynosuchus
medial cynodont Galesauridae
varied cynodont Thrinaxodon
advanced cynodonts Cynognathia
advanced cynodont Probelesodon
advanced cynodont Probainognathus
sister-group candidates Trithelodontidae
mammals Morganucodontidae
The second database used (Table 2) is much more restricted in its anatomical scope, being confined to the presumed evolutionary changes in the quadrate bone. In fact, much of the discussion about mammal-like reptiles as presumed transitional forms centres on the alleged evolution of the mandibular-auditory system.

Luo and Crompton19 have evaluated 14 characters relative to the quadrate bone in the reptilian jaw evolving into the eventual mammalian incus (one of the tiny bones in the ear). This data is summarized in Table 2. Because there are only 14 traits, exclusion of the reversing traits, as in Table 1, would have left only a few traits to consider. On the other hand, simply amalgamating the progressive and reversing characters for the sake of a larger database would have created bias in the data.20 As a compromise, both potential biases were set at cross-purposes towards each other by creating two separate columns in Table 2. These reflect the distinction I have made between all 14 traits (first column), and the five consistently progressive traits21 (second column).

The small number of characters also necessitates a different approach, from that used in Table 1, in computing the Mammalness Index. Because there are only 14 traits, if one were to, as before, compute the relevant quotient and then multiply it by 100, it would cause serious distortion of the data.22 For this reason, the Mammalness Index in Table 2 is simply the sum of character polarities for each taxon.
Table 2. Mammalness index for mammal-like reptiles calculated from quadrate skeletal characters from Luo and Crompton.19 ID numbers and descriptions are explained in Table 1.
Quadrate skeletal characters
Index All
(5 of 14)
varied therapsids Anomodontia
primitive therapsids Gorgonopsid
advanced therapsids Therocephalia
primitive cynodont Procynosuchus
varied cynodont Thrinaxodon
advanced cynodont Probainognathu
advanced cynodont Massetognathus
sister-group candidates Tritylodontidae
sister-group candidates Trithelodontidae
mammals Morganucodontida
The third database (Table 3), like the first database, is relatively comprehensive, compared with the second database. Table 1 can be pictured as a broad overview of the entire chain of mammal-like reptiles, while Table 3 resembles a detailed close-up of the latter part of the chain.

The third database is intermediate in size between the first and second.23 In Table 3, therefore, the progressive and reversing characters are treated the same as in Table 2, whereas the Mammalness Index is computed the same as in Table 1. The data in Table 3 also overcomes the limitations of the data in Table 1, which neglected ‘early mammals’ other than Morganucodontidae from consideration (as this would have largely limited the characters in Table 1 to those of the dentition24). In fact, Luo10 deliberately focused his analysis on cranial and dental characteristics. Luo’s analysis is more of a detailed view of the latter part of the ‘evolutionary’ chain, and as such, complements Table 1.
Table 3. Mammalness index for mammal-like reptiles calculated from dental and cranial characters from Luo.10 ID numbers and descriptions are explained in
Table 1.
Dental and cranial characters
Index All
(81 of 82)
Index Progressive
(53 of 81 of 82)
varied cynodont Thrinaxodon
advanced cynodont Probainognathus
advanced cynodont Diademodontidae
advanced cynodont Traversodontidae
sister-group candidates Tritylodontidae
sister-group candidates Trithelodontidae
mammal Sinoconodon
mammal Haldanodon
mammal Triconodontidae
mammal Dinnetherium
mammal Morganucodon
mammal Megazostrodon

Reversing traits are the rule among mammal-like reptiles

As discussed earlier, I have made every concession to the evolutionist. I have not disputed the validity of intercontinental biostratigraphic correlation, the temporal succession of mammal-like reptiles, the objectivity of anatomical analyses, the fact that cladograms are not intended to identify ancestor-descendant relationships, etc. Despite all these concessions, the evidence, taken as a whole, fails to conform to all the evolutionary ‘ballyhoo’ surrounding the mammal-like reptiles.

One of the most striking findings uncovered by this analysis is that the majority of anatomical traits (the ones actually used by evolutionists in the construction of their cladograms) do not show a unidirectional progression towards the mammalian condition! Of the 181 anatomical characters considered by Sidor and Hopson, 165 were deemed to be sufficiently complete, in terms of data, for further consideration in the present study25 (Table 1). Of these 165, 88 were found to be progressive. In stark contrast, no fewer than 77 of the 165 showed reversals of character.26 This is not an isolated instance. As noted earlier, 9 of the 14 quadrate characters used by Luo and Crompton were likewise reversing (Table 2). Finally, in the analysis of 82 mostly dental and cranial characters, by Luo (Table 3), no fewer than 53 characters were found to be reversing.27
The abundance of reversing traits means that the mammal-like reptiles cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be portrayed as some sort of quasi-lineage (even a crude one) culminating in mammals. (Nor, for that matter, can individual mammal-like reptilian genera be placed in a lineage. According to Kemp,28 few extinct vertebrates are sufficiently unspecialized, in terms of morphology, to be the direct ancestors of other vertebrates).

Furthermore, the proliferation of reversing traits makes it difficult for evolutionists to decide which mammal-like reptiles, and inferred early mammals, are, evolutionarily speaking, closest to each other. This confusion is reflected in the construction of widely-contradictory cladograms.29 To illustrate this, I now use a system of brackets to illustrate two of the four mutually-contradictory sets of evolutionistic nested hierarchies relative to the taxons numbered in Table 2. They are:


The large number of reversing traits also takes to task the evolutionistic claim about stratomorphic intermediates. To begin with, stratomorphic intermediates have validity only if one can legitimately infer ancestor-descendant relationships. This is not true of mammal-like reptiles, as noted earlier. Can it be said, in the context of mammal-like reptiles, that a less mammal-like genus will inevitably be situated stratigraphically below a more mammal-like one? Apart from the fact that this argument takes the biostratigraphic correlation of mammal-like reptiles at face value (as I have done for purposes of this study), any such notion is soundly contradicted by the numerous reversing traits uncovered by this analysis. It is sobering to realize that a given mammalian trait can appear, disappear, and then freely reappear anywhere throughout the entire evolutionary-constructed sequence of mammal-like reptiles. As a result, if all of the mammalian traits are considered together, it becomes obvious that any ‘stratomorphic’ sequence of mammalian traits as a whole is crude at best. Mechanisms related to the Biblical Flood should have no difficulty generating a sequence of organisms that happens to show a crude stratomorphic progression of mammalian traits interspersed with numerous other traits showing no progression at all (that is, the reversing traits).

Of course, evolutionists have a series of stock rationalizations to cope with reversing traits. They can, for instance, allow for some traits to actually reverse themselves during the course of supposed evolution. But this makes their whole argument internally inconsistent: we are asked to believe that the ‘progressively-appearing’ mammalian traits constitute powerful evidence for evolution, while the more numerous reversing mammalian traits do not mean anything. Heads I win, tails you lose. And, owing to the fact that cladograms are not presumed to identify ancestor-descendant relationships, the evolutionists can always pigeonhole any reversing trait as a ‘specialization’ in that particular mammal-like genus.25 This allows them to ignore contrary evidence and to perpetuate their illusion of a generalized ‘chain’ of mammal-like reptiles that becomes progressively more-mammalian.

Analysis of discontinuities

From Tables 1–3 we see that the traits usually considered unique to mammals are distributed variously throughout the mammal-like reptiles. While this distribution is not haphazard or random, it does not form lineages. We will now see that the remaining gaps between these organisms are not gradualistic.
Remember that mammal-like reptiles are not just any group of extinct creatures. They are supposed to be the very showcase of step-by-step, transition-filled evolutionary change. On this basis alone, the mammal-like reptiles should be subject to the strictest standards for evaluating alleged gradational evolutionary changes. Thus, the significance of morphological discontinuities becomes magnified. Second, as noted earlier, whatever step-by-step changes to the mammalian condition do exist, these come only at the cost of having to discard large numbers of anatomical traits because they are reversing—i.e. appearing, disappearing and reappearing in the chain. If, despite such treatment, the discontinuities can be shown to be significant in those relatively few traits which are unmistakably progressive to the mammalian condition, the credibility of mammal-like reptiles as genuine evolutionary transitions becomes all the more doubtful.

Third, and most important of all, the magnitude of any discontinuities must be addressed. Are they large or small? To answer this question, we must compare the size of each discontinuity with the range of anatomical information available from known fossils.30 Using the same methodology employed to score inferred morphological changes throughout the presumed evolution of mammal-like reptiles, one can place the discontinuities into a semi-quantitative perspective. Consider the most comprehensive sequence of mammal-like reptiles (Table 1). We can see the precipitous gap between the pre-therapsids (0–5) and therapsids (29–52). From the vantage point of the Mammalness Index of 120 for the listed inferred first mammals (the Morganucudontidae), the mammal-like traits in pelycosaurs and sphenacodonts are trivial in magnitude. This gap is all the more extreme because pelycosaurs and therapsids are each large, internally-diverse groups.

This is only the beginning. It is eye opening to realize that the discontinuity between the therapsids (29-52) and cynodonts (80–109), at 28 points, is greater than the entire range of mammal-like traits within the evolution of the therapsids themselves, the latter of which amounts to 23 points! The gap within cynodonts (80–87 vs. 101–109), while not as extreme, is nevertheless appreciable, and, at 14 points, is greater than both the ranges of the antecedents (7 points) and successors (8 points). Those with a strong background in vertebrate anatomy may want to consult the original sources and examine how the anatomical technicalities (here just summarized as numbered traits) fail to resemble anything like a gradational appearance of mammalian traits in the evolutionistic-constructed ‘chain’ of mammal-like reptiles.

When the appropriate anatomical details of the middle part of the chain of mammal-like reptiles is analyzed, we find that the non-transitions grow in size. Consider all the characters relative to part of the inferred aural-mandibular evolution from mammal-like reptiles to mammals (Table 2). One is struck by the abrupt discontinuities between therapsids and early cynodonts (1–6), on one hand, and the advanced cynodonts (13, 15), on the other (we are, for a moment, excluding the trithelodonts and the tritylodonts). When we consider the latter two, both of which are the possible evolutionary sister groups of the earliest mammals, we observe yet another gap—between them (13, 15) and the inferred earliest mammals (20–25). In both instances, the gap is, once again, larger than the actual range of ‘mammalness’ that both precedes and follows the gap.
The foregoing analysis of Table 2 actually understates the magnitude of the gaps because, as noted earlier, it does not consider the ‘smoothing-out’ effects caused by the inclusion of the reversing characters. Consider just the progressive characters in Table 2. Under such conditions, the discontinuities are stark. With the exception of the last member of the chain (the Morganucodontidae), every change in the sequence involves a series of jumps in increments of 2 or (usually) 3, and each such jump is relative to only 13 character points.
Probably the most informative analysis of mammal-like reptiles as (alleged) transitional forms is the one which focuses, in detail, on the presumed changes from advanced cynodonts to the earliest mammals (Table 3). The sister-group cynodonts (Tritylodontidae and Trithelodontidae) rival each other for the status of the closest non-mammalian relatives to mammals. Yet, when all of the characters are considered, one is struck by the chasm between these sister-group advanced cynodonts (58 and 78) and the earliest presumed mammals (100–139). However, the ‘bottom falls out’ when only the progressive characters are considered in Table 3. Here, a giant evolutionary leap is required to make the presumed change from fairly advanced cynodonts (7) to the advanced sister-group cynodonts (34 and 54). From there, another great gulf must be spanned in order to link the sister-group cynodonts (at 34 and 54) with the earliest mammals (104–131).

Thus, the gaps are as large, or larger, than the range of so-called mammalian traits actually present. This makes it difficult to maintain that even a crudely, ever-more-mammalian, quasi-lineage exists among the mammal-like reptiles. Furthermore, the reversing traits are more common than the gap-filled progressive traits. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the evolutionistic-constructed pelycosaur-therapsid-mammal chain is little more than a motley group of extinct creatures crudely cobbled together into an artificial evolutionary ‘progression’. Just because some ‘mammalian’ traits are present in mammal-like reptiles, this does not entail evolution in the slightest. It simply means that some traits now considered mammalian (by virtue of the fact that they are found only in extinct mammals) once existed in some extinct non-mammals (Figure 2).31
molar of Mesozoic crocodilian
Figure 2. Labial view of complex multi-cusped molar of an extinct Mesozoic crocodilian from Malawi. These extinct crocodilians are related to neither mammal-like reptiles nor mammals, and no evolutionist would contemplate these reptiles as ancestral to mammals in any way. Yet their dentition shows clear resemblances to mammalian cheek teeth, and these crocodilians also contain another mammalian trait—a secondary palate (from Melhert).41
Regardless of which choice the evolutionist makes for the closest non-mammalian relatives to primitive mammals, he/she must be content with either a rock or a hard place:
‘It is not known which cynodont family was ancestral to mammals, or whether all the mammals originated from the same group (family) of cynodonts. In the vast literature concerning mammalian origins, it is easier to find suggestions that one or the other therapsid or cynodont family cannot be ancestral to the Mammalia, rather than to find a positive answer.’32
‘Both the tritheledontid-mammal hypothesis and the tritylodontid-mammal hypothesis are supported by large numbers of apomorphies in dentition, cranium and postcranial skeleton. Yet both are also contradicted by a substantial amount of anatomical evidence.’33
And, ironic to the fallacious argument about mammalian traits appearing in correct ‘stratomorphic’ sequence,34 we have a situation where one of the presumed sister groups (Tritylodontidae) is actually more mammalian than the first recognized mammals! Consider the following unenviable dilemma faced by evolutionists:
‘The main difficulty with the tritylodontid-mammal hypothesis is that too many apomorphic features of tritylodontids are more derived than the corresponding features in primitive mammals such as Sinoconodon and Adelobasileus ... . By contrast, the main weakness of the trithelodontid-mammal hypothesis is that far too many trithelodontid characters are primitive ... [emphasis added].’35
‘Primitive’ and ‘derived’, of course, are in comparison with the presumed earliest mammals, though neither the trithelodonts nor the tritylodonts are capable of being connected to the inferred earliest mammals in an ancestor-descendant lineage. Table 3 shows that a near doubling of characters (in fact, tripling if Tritheledontidae is chosen as the sister-group) is necessary to bridge the chasm between the sister-group cynodonts and the inferred primitive mammals. For evolutionists who portray the sister-group cynodonts as ‘almost mammals’, this is a sobering result.

Several creationist scholars have pointed out the lack of evidence for gradational change in the mandibular-auditory mechanism of the ‘advanced’ mammal-like reptiles towards that of the presumed early mammals. Interestingly, a few evolutionists have actually acknowledged this fact in print:
‘Intermediate stages in the transference of postdentary elements to the cranium are poorly documented. Indeed, the only fossil evidence on this critical interval is the presence of persistent attachment sites for the anterior end of the postdentary unit in the primitive therians Amphitherium and Peramus.’36
Finally, owing to the fact that the ‘mammalian traits’ do not, by any stretch of the imagination, occur in a nested hierarchy in the mammal-like reptiles, evolutionists must blame this state of affairs on convergence. In this regard, the mammal-like reptiles are hardly alone among fossil vertebrates:
‘The distribution of primitive and derived characters differs from lineage to lineage, showing that many features were evolved or lost convergently. As in the case of other major transitions in vertebrates, such as the origin of birds and mammals, the convergent origin of derived features makes it difficult to establish specific relationships, or to agree on objective criteria to differentiate tetrapods from their fish ancestors.’37


Mammal-like reptiles may indeed qualify as the very best examples of transitional evolutionary change that evolutionary theory has to offer from the fossil record. This only shows the barrenness and intellectual poverty of macroevolution. When all of the characters used for the conventional constructions of cladograms are considered, the majority of mammal-like reptile characters do not consistently progress towards the mammalian condition. Instead, within the ‘evolutionary’ chain of mammal-like reptiles, there are many ‘reversals’ away from mammalian characteristics.

The use of mammal-like reptiles as an argument for ‘transitional change’ (however one strictly defines it) rests upon special pleading (like everything else in evolutionary theory). So let us permit the evolutionist special pleading and pretend that the large numbers of reversing traits don’t exist, so that the argument can be based solely on the progressive characters. Even this does not let the evolutionist off the hook. To the contrary, the chain of mammal-like reptiles, when examined closely and with attention to many (instead of just a selected few) anatomical characters is full of major discontinuities. And very many of these discontinuities are as large, if not larger, than the ranges of characters which both precede and follow them. Therefore, the oft-repeated evolutionistic claim about mammal-like reptiles showing a series of intermediate stages to the mammalian condition is, at best, an exaggeration.

Could not the evolutionists argue that, as more fossils are discovered, the gaps will close? Perhaps. At least they have been trying to do so since the days of Darwin, but with little success, despite a vastly larger known fossil record. Remember that, as shown elsewhere,38 new fossil finds can just as easily accentuate the gaps as reduce or close them. Consider three new genera that have been described in the 1980s and 1990s: Sinoconodon, Adelobasileus and Haldanodon. As noted earlier, not enough is preserved of Adelobasileus to include it in Tables 1–3. When it comes to Sinoconodon, its existence does narrow the gap in Table 3 that would otherwise exist without it, but not by much in comparison with the gap that remains afterward. Haldanodon, on the other hand, cuts the other way. By virtue of the fact that its characters fall within the range for previously-known primitive mammals, its very discovery actually reinforces the gap between cynodonts and mammals.

What if mammal-like reptiles never existed? Would evolutionary theory be crippled? Certainly not. Evolutionary theory is so plastic that any series of observations in the natural world could be cited in its favour! If anyone thinks that this is an overstatement, consider the following:
‘Indeed, it was a fossil found in the Karoo in 1838—the skull of a mammal-like reptile with two large tusk-like teeth in its upper jaw—that first convinced the scientific establishment that mammals had evolved from reptiles, not directly from amphibians.’39
‘T. H. Huxley (1880), for instance, proposed that amphibians gave rise to mammals. This conclusion was based on aortic arch patterns, heart morphology and features of the pelvis. Subsequent workers rejected Huxley’s ideas when theriodont pelvises, which were not known to Huxley, were found to be intermediate in structure between the pelvises of amphibians and mammals.’40
Clearly, the ruling evolutionary paradigm existed before the discovery of mammal-like reptiles, and would have flourished had these reptiles never been discovered. In that event, today’s evolutionists would be extolling some extinct amphibian group as the transitions (or stratomorphic intermediates) leading up to mammals. Cladograms would be constructed to show the close branching pattern between that chosen group of amphibians and mammals.

All else would fall in place according to the dictates of evolutionary dogma. The evolutionist triumphalists would be telling everyone that evolution is fact because of the many obvious similarities between the ‘ancestral’ amphibians and the ‘descendant’ mammals. Compromising evangelical evolutionists would preach about the fact that God would never mislead us by separately creating mammals and amphibians with so many shared structures. Leading humanist scientists would inform us that anyone who questions the amphibian-mammalian transition cannot possibly be a scientist, no matter his degrees or publications. And, of course, the secularist fanatics would whip up considerable hysteria about the fact that the questioning of the amphibian–mammalian transition is a dangerous threat to the very survival of science and reason, and that, if not quickly reversed, it will soon return us to the Dark Ages.


  1. Rubidge, B.S., Did Mammals Originate in Africa? Sidney Haughton Memorial Lecture 4, pp. 4–5, 1995. There are no therapsid genera common to the Upper Permian deposits of Russia and South Africa. Return to text.
  2. Wagner, P.J. and Sidor, C.A., Age rank/clade rank metrics—sampling, taxonomy, and the meaning of ‘stratigraphic consistency’, Systematic Biology 49(3):473, 2000. Return to text.
  3. Mehlert, A.W., A critique of the alleged reptile to mammal transition, Creation Research Society Quarterly 25(1):7–15, 1988. Return to text.
  4. Mehlert, A.W., The origin of mammals, Journal of Creation 7(2):122–139, 1993. Return to text.
  5. As discussed in conjunction with the ‘characters’ in Figure 1, most nodes (branching points) in the cladogram, including those actually used for mammal-like reptiles and cited in this work, use only two numbers: ‘0’ to mark absence of a trait and ‘1’ for its presence. A few other traits, notably those which are gradational, use a series of numbers to indicate the degree of derivation of an anatomical trait (e.g. 0, 1, 2, 3). Return to text.
  6. Woodmorappe, J., Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, p. 5, 1996. Return to text.
  7. King, G.M. and Rubidge, BS, A taxonomic revision of small dicynodonts with postcanine teeth, Zoological J. Linnean Society 107:131–154, 1993. Return to text.
  8. Cox, C.B., The jaw function and adaptive radiation of the dicynodont mammal-like reptiles of the Karoo basin of South Africa, Zoological J. Linnean Society 122:349–384, 1998. Return to text.
  9. An apomorphy is a trait that appears for the first time at a given position in the cladogram, as reconstructed by evolutionists. Thus, for instance, in Figure 1, the ‘X-morph’ is apomorphic to ‘organism’ (B), and the ‘cap-morph’ is apomorphic to ‘organism’ (E). Return to text.
  10. Luo, Z., Sister-group relationships of mammals and transformations of diagnostic mammalian characters; in: Fraser, N.C. and Sues, H.-D., In the Shadow of the Dinosaurs, Paperback Edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 98–128, 1997. Return to text. Return to Table 3.
  11. This approximates the relative position each taxon would have on one comprehensive cladogram (that is, were all of the data in Tables 1, 2 and 3 to be melded together). However, it is not meant to imply that this is necessarily the exact cladistic sequence into which all of the taxons would be simultaneously placed relative to each other. Return to text.
  12. These descriptors are solely for purposes of communication and are not necessarily meant to imply agreement with the taxonomic description. Thus, for instance, referring to certain taxons as ‘early mammals’ follows the cited authors but does not imply endorsement of the belief that such taxons qualify as mammals. Return to text.
  13. Kemp, T.S., Mammal-like reptiles and the origin of mammals, Academic Press, London, 363 pp., 1980. Return to text.
  14. This, of course, is from the vantage point of so-called early mammals as the presumed outcome of the alleged evolutionary process acting upon mammal-like reptiles. It is not meant to imply that evolution was goal-directed to mammals in any way (a position which virtually all evolutionists reject). Return to text.
  15. Sidor, C.A. and Hopson, J.A., Ghost lineages and ‘mammalness’: assessing the temporal pattern of character acquisition in the Synapsida, Paleobiology 24(2), Appendix 1, pp. 269–270, 1998. The 181 character traits are identified and described in the Appendix 2, pp. 271–273. Return to text.
  16. I have omitted Estemmenosuchus and Sinoconodon from this part of the database because large numbers of their respective character traits are unknown. The 93 rejected characters are accounted for in Ref. 25. Return to text.
  17. Relative to the 181 numbered anatomical characters culled from Sidor and Hopson, Ref. 15, Appendix 1 and 2, the 88 suitable characters entered into Table 1 bear the following numbers: 5–7, 9, 11–15, 17–20, 22, 24–27, 29–30, 32, 35–37, 39, 46–47, 49–50, 51, 53, 56–57, 63–72, 74–75, 77, 80, 82, 84–92, 95, 101, 113, 117, 123, 126–127, 129, 131–138, 144–145, 155–156, 158–160, 163, 165–170, 174. Return to text.
  18. For example, suppose that there is information available for 80 of the 88 relevant character traits, and the sum of character polarities is 60. The Mammalness Index in this case is (60/80)(100), or 75. Return to text.
  19. Luo, Z. and Crompton, A.W., Transformation of the quadrate (incus) through the transition from non-mammalian cynodonts to mammals, J. Vertebrate Paleontology 14(3):360, 1994. The 14 characters are described in Appendix 1, pp. 373–374. Return to text.
  20. The nature of the bias was already discussed in connection with the progressive versus the reversing changes in ‘organisms’ (A) through (G) in Figure 1. Return to text.
  21. The progressive traits in the Luo and Crompton, Ref. 19, database bear the following numbers: 1, 3, 5, 8, 14. Return to text.
  22. This bias is essentially a small-numbers effect. For example, imagine a situation where one genus has a score of 8 relative to 10 characters, and the other has a score of 11 relative to the 10 characters. Now, in another situation, one genus has a score of 40 relative to 50 characters and the other has a score of 55 relative to 50 characters. In both cases, the Mammalness Index is technically the same: 80 and 110, respectively. But this has little practical meaning in the first case, as only 3 points separate the first and second genus. Return to text.
  23. Owing to the fact that many character polarities were missing for Adelobasileus as well as Kuehneotheriidae, both were omitted from Table 3. However, had they been included, the trends shown in Table 3 would not have been altered to an appreciable extent. Return to text.
  24. Sidor and Hopson, Ref. 15, p. 257. Return to text.
  25. Of the 93 characters omitted from this analysis, 16 were excluded for the sole reason of being of unknown character-polarity for a large number of taxons. The remainder (77) were rejected because they were not consistently progressive towards the mammalian condition, as discussed in the text. Return to text.
  26. Some characters used by Sidor and Hopson (Ref. 15), notably those which they numbered 3, 10, 28, 41, 44, 52, 102, etc., underwent more than two reversals of progress that each had previously made towards the eventual mammalian condition. Return to text.
  27. One additional character (No. 39 in Luo, Ref. 10) was rejected because its character-polarity was unknown for too many taxons. This left a total of 28 progressive characters and 53 reversing ones available for the present study. Return to text.
  28. Kemp, Ref. 13, pp. 13–14. Return to text.
  29. Luo and Crompton, Ref. 19, p. 340. Four different versions of cladograms are presented, with each one supported by one set of evolutionists. My descriptions involve two of these: (A) and (C). Return to text.
  30. This can be likened to a 1-cm gap between individuals. The significance of the gap obviously depends on context. Consider the following two extreme examples to make my point. If the 1-cm gap is between elephants on parade, the gap is trivial. But if it occurs between individual bacterial cells on parade, each 1-cm gap is enormous. The evolutionary ‘chain’ of mammal-like reptiles is much closer to bacterial cells on parade than to elephants on parade. Return to text.
  31. To appreciate this situation, imagine for a moment that all mammals except for bats were extinct and unknown, and all flying creatures except bats were also extinct and unknown. The ability of an animal to fly would then erroneously be accepted, by some extraterrestrial intelligent observer, as an essential feature of being a mammal. Once the fossils of birds, insects, pterosaurs, etc., were discovered, the extraterrestrial investigators would erroneously suppose that birds, insects, pterosaurs, etc. must have been quite mammal-like by virtue of their ability to fly! Return to text.
  32. Kielan-Jaworowska, Z., Interrelationships of Mesozoic mammals, Historical Biology 6(3):195, 1992. Return to text.
  33. Luo, Ref. 10, p. 98. Return to text.
  34. As noted earlier, the numerous reversing characters that are prominent throughout the chain of mammal-like reptiles soundly refute the claim that mammalian traits appear in a straightforward stratomorphic sense. The fact that the ancestral Tritylodontids are more mammalian than their presumed early-mammalian successors only drives the final nail into the coffin. Return to text.
  35. Luo, Ref. 10, p. 111. Return to text.
  36. Allin, E.F. And Hopson, JA, Evolution of the auditory system in Synapsida; in: The Evolutionary Biology of Hearing, Springer-Verlag, New York, Berlin, p. 608, 1992. Return to text.
  37. Carroll, R., Between fish and amphibian, Nature 373:390, 1995. Return to text.
  38. Woodmorappe, J., Does a ‘transitional form’ replace one gap with two gaps? Journal of Creation 14(2):5–6, 2000. Return to text.
  39. Armstrong, S., Fossil hunter of the Karoo, New Scientist 149(2015):38, 1996. Return to text.
  40. Cain, JA, Creationism and mammal origins, J. Geological Education 36:98, 1998. Return to text.
  41. Melhert, Ref. 4, p. 132. Return to text.
  42. Stearn, C.W. And Carroll, R.L., Paleontology: The Record of Life, John Wiley & Sons, New York, p. 268, 1989.

Clearly the idea of common descent (actually ascent to a Darwinist) is not reflected in the fossil record nor in the organisms now extant.  The storyline of step-by-step development is simply that, an unsubstantiated and almost entirely refuted story. Chapter 16 from the EVOLUTION CRUNCHER book lays waste to another aspect of the idea of linear descent:

Vestiges and Recapitulations

You have no useless or unnecessary structures inherited from earlier life-forms
This chapter is based on pp. 751-773 of Other Evidence (Volume Three of our three-volume Evolution Disproved Series). Not included in this paperback chapter are 46 statements in its appendix, along with specialized charts. You will find them, plus much more, in the encyclopedia on this website.
We will deal with two topics in this chapter.
First, there are supposedly "vestigial organs." These are useless structures found in human embryos and adults.

Are there remnants of evolution in your body? The Darwinists say there are. These are said to be unneeded organs, which your animal "ancestors" used and then passed on to you. Obviously, the "proof" is that you have useless, no longer needed organs which are "vestiges" (left-overs) from your evolutionary ancestors.

Second, there are supposedly "recapitulated organs." You are supposed to have had these when you were growing in the womb. These are said to be unnecessary structures found only in human embryos, which you inherited from creatures in your evolutionary past. 

In this chapter, we will carefully consider the claims of evolutionists in regard to both of these points. It is important that we do so; for, regardless of how foolish their claims may be, they are given prominent space in the textbooks that you and your friends read.


ORGANS FROM THE PAST—Evolutionists tell us that there are "vestiges" in people that prove the theory of evolution. These vestiges are supposed to be human body parts that are no longer needed, and are just castoffs from some earlier creature that we descended from. Because earlier creatures needed them—and we do not—is supposed to prove that we descended from those earlier life-forms. That is how the theory goes.
A vestigial organ, by evolutionary definition, is an organ that was once useful during a previous stage of your evolution; but, in the course of time, that organ was no longer needed and continued to remain in the body. To say it differently, changes in physical structure rendered certain organs redundant, but they still remain in the body.
The "theory of vestiges" has gained prominence as a major "proof" of evolution, only because there is no other evidence in either the present or the past of transition of one type of animal or plant to another. Yet in this chapter we will learn that there are no vestiges!

Frankly, the situation for evolutionists is a matter of desperation. When there is nothing else to turn to, Darwinists are willing to grasp at any possibility that might help their cause.
The vestiges argument was one of the few "scientific evidences" the evolutionists were able to present at the 1925 Scopes Trial. Zoologist *Newman, a zoologist, made this statement on the witness stand for the defense:
"There are, according to Wiedersheim, no less than 180 vestigial structures in the human body, sufficient to make of a man a veritable walking museum of antiquities."—*Horatio Hackett Newman, quoted in The World’s Most Famous Court Trial: The Tennessee Evolution Case (1990), p. 268.
In the first half of this chapter we will deal with vestiges, and will answer two questions: (1) Do we have any vestigial organs? (2) If we do, would they prove evolution?

SOME OF YOUR USELESS ORGANS—What are all these useless organs that we are supposed to have within us? *Charles Darwin said they included wisdom teeth. *Robert Wiedersheim, a German disciple of Darwin’s, wrote a book in 1895 in which he listed 86 vestigial organs: including valves in the veins, the pineal gland, the thymus, bones in third, fourth, and fifth toes; lachrymal (tear) glands, and certain female organs. Later he expanded it to 180. Earlier Darwinists assumed that if they were ignorant of an organ’s function, then it had to have no function.

School textbooks as recent as the 1960s listed over 200 vestigial (useless) structures in the human body, including the thyroid and pituitary glands!
To date, not one dedicated evolutionist has been willing to have all his "vestigial organs" removed. To do so, would require taking out most of his endocrine (hormonal) glands! 

In reality, the list of "useless organs" has steadily decreased as scientific knowledge has increased. As our knowledge and understanding of physical structures has multiplied, we have arrived at the point where there are no more vestigial ones! Today ALL organs formerly classed as vestigial are known to have a function during the life of the organism!

The truth is that the theory of useless organs as a proof of evolution was based on rank 19th-century ignorance of those organs! No capable biologist today claims that any vestigial organs exist in human beings. But, unfortunately, that fact is not mentioned in the school textbooks. You will still find them talking about your "vestigial organs" which prove evolution!

EIGHT USELESS ORGANS—Here are some of these supposedly useless organs in your body:
1 - The Tonsils. Here is one of those "worthless organs," which we now know to be needed. These two small glands in the back of your throat help protect you against infections.
2 - The Appendix. This is the classic "useless" organ of evolutionary theory. Science recently discovered that man needs this organ; it is not useless after all. It helps protect you from gastrointestinal problems in the lower ascending colon. The appendix is now known to be an important part of what is called the reticulo-endothelial system of the body. Like the tonsils, the appendix fights infection.
"There is no longer any justification for regarding the vermiform appendix as a vestigial structure."—*William Straus, Quarterly Review of Biology (1947), p. 149.
Because the appendix becomes swollen at times, it was said to be vestigial and useless. But people have far more problems with their lungs and stomachs than they have with their appendixes. We hope the evolutionists do not decide to call any more organs "vestigial," and begin cutting them out also!

The fact that tonsils can be cut out without apparent harm is a major reason for calling them "vestigial." But you will also survive if your eyes and arms are cut off, and no one considers them "vestigial," or useless organs.

It would be well to clarify the special role of the tonsils and appendix: The human alimentary canal is a long tube leading from mouth to anus. Near each opening, the Designer placed an organ to protect your entire gastrointestinal tract from pathogenic invasion while you were an infant. The appendix was crucial during your first months, and your tonsils during your first several years. In later years, you do not have as urgent a need for either your tonsils or your appendix as you did while you were a small child.

According to *Science News, March 20, 1971, both the tonsils and appendix are now believed to guard us against Hodgkin’s disease.

3 - The Coccyx. Another organ declared useless, by evolutionists, is the coccygeal vertebrea (the coccyx). This is the bottom of your spine.
Scientists have found that important muscles (the levator ani and coccygeus) attach to those bones.
Without those muscles, your pelvic organs would collapse; that is, fall down. Without them you could not have a bowel movement, nor could you walk or sit upright.

4 - The Thymus. Try cutting this one out, and you will be in big trouble! It was once considered a worthless vestigial structure, but scientists have discovered that the thymus is the primary central gland of the lymphatic system. Without it, T cells that protect your body from infection could not function properly, for they develop within it. We hear much these days about the body’s "immune system," but without the thymus you would have none.
"For at least 2,000 years, doctors have puzzled over the function of the thymus gland. Modern physicians came to regard it, like the appendix, as a useless, vestigial organ, which had lost its original purpose, if indeed it ever had one. In the last few years, however . . men have proved that, far from being useless, the thymus is really the master gland that regulates the intricate immunity system which protects us against infectious diseases . . Recent experiments have led researchers to believe that the appendix, tonsils and adenoids may also figure in the antibody responses."—*"The Useless Gland that Guards Our Health," in Reader’s Digest, November 1966.
5 - The Pineal Gland. This is a cone-shaped structure in the brain, which secretes critically needed hormones, including, for example, melatonin which inhibits secretion of luteinizing hormone.

6 - The Thyroid Gland. Many years ago, surgeons found that people could live after having their thyroid cut out, so it was decided that this was another useless organ. Ignorance breeds contempt. Yes, you may survive without your thyroid, but you will not do very well. The thyroid gland secretes the hormone, thyroxin, which goes directly into the blood. This hormone is essential to normal body growth in infancy and childhood. Without it, an adult becomes sluggish. Either an oversupply or an undersupply of thyroxin will result in over-activity or under-activity of many body organs. Deficiency of this organ at birth causes a hideous deformity known as cretinism. Thyroxin triggers cell batteries (the mitochondria) to provide energy to the cell for all its functions.

7 - The Pituitary. Once claimed to be vestigial, this organ is now known to ensure proper growth of the skeleton and proper functioning of the thyroid, adrenal, and reproductive glands. Improper functioning can lead to Cushing’s syndrome (gigantism).

8 - The Semilunar Fold of the Eye. *Charles Darwin, and others after him, claimed that the little fold in the inner corner of your eye is a vestige of your bird ancestors! But contemporary anatomy books describe it, not as a vestige, but as a very necessary part of your eye. It is that portion of your conjunctiva that cleanses and lubricates your eyeball.

9 - Other Organs. There are many more such organs in your body which, at one time or another, evolutionists declared to be worthless. Well, such organs are not useless as was thought. Gradually the list of "vestigial organs" lessened as their function was discovered. For example, it was said by one scientist (Wiedersheim) that ear muscles were totally unnecessary. Later research disclosed that without those tiny muscles within the inner ear, you would not be able to hear properly.
"Many of the so-called vestigial organs are now known to fulfill important functions."—*Encyclopedia Britannica Vo1. 8 (1946 ed.), p. 926.
The more we study into these "useless" vestiges, the more we find ourselves in awe before a majestic Creator who carefully made us all.
A better name for some of these supposedly vestigial organs, of which evolutionists make so much, would be "organs of unknown function." Fortunately, in our time knowledge is taking the place of ignorance in regard to the reasons for the various structures of the human body.

A SPECIAL PURPOSE—All this talk about useless organs calls our attention to the fact that everything within us has a special and important purpose. It also emphasizes that Someone very intelligent designed our bodies! We did not just "happen" into existence.
Evolution teaches that all organs developed by chance, and that some eventually happened to have a reason for existence. Later on, quantities of these useless organs tagged along when one species evolved into a new one. Thus, if evolutionary theory were true, there ought to be large numbers of useless organs in your body! But scientific research discloses that there is not one!

Instead, careful investigation reveals that every part of you is very special, very important, and carefully planned. All the other creatures and plants in the world were carefully planned also. There is a special purpose for each of their organs also.

It took an extremely intelligent Master Designer to accomplish all of these biological wonders we call "plants" and "animals." Chance formation of molecules into various shapes and sizes could never produce what was needed.

FOUNDED ON IGNORANCE—How did such a foolish idea become accepted in the first place? It happened in a time of great ignorance. The whole idea of "vestigial organs" was originally conceived back in the early 1800s, at a time when physicians were still blood-letting in order to cure people of infection. But, since that time, there has been an immense quantity of research in every imaginable field. There is now no doubt by competent biologists that every large and small part of the human body has a special function during the life of the individual.
It strongly appears that the true "vestigial organ," in earlier times, was an ignorant mind—a mind that did not know why organs were in the body and was too impatient and lazy to do the laborious work needed to identify functions.

HINDERS SCIENCE—Reputable scientists now recognize that the evolutionary teaching of "vestigial organs" actually retarded scientific knowledge for decades. the evolutionary teaching of "vestigial organs" actually retarded scientific knowledge for decades. the evolutionary teaching of "vestigial organs" actually retarded scientific knowledge for decades. the evolutionary teaching of "vestigial organs" actually retarded scientific knowledge for decades. Instead of finding out what the appendix was for, it was called "vestigial" and was cut out. Researchers were told it was a waste of time to study any possible use for it.

For the same reason, lots of children have had their tonsils removed, when they really needed them!
"The existence of functionless ‘vestigial organs’ was presented by Darwin, and is often cited by current biology textbooks, as part of the evidence for evolution . . An analysis of the difficulties in unambiguously identifying functionless structures . . leads to the conclusion that ‘vestigial organs’ provide no evidence for evolutionary theory."—*S.R. Scadding, "Do ‘Vestigial Organs’ Provide Evidence for Evolution?" Evolutionary Theory, Vol. 5 (May 1981), p. 394.
APPENDIX ANCESTRY—The appendix is the special body structure pointed to by evolutionists as a prime example of a vestigial organ—an organ used by our ancestors, which we do not now use. Well, if that is true, then we ought to be able to trace our ancestors through the appendix in a direct line! In addition to man, which animals have an appendix? Here they are: rabbits, apes, wombats, and opossums! Take your pick: all four are totally different from each other. Which one descended from which? Oh, the evolutionist will say, we descended from the ape. Well, did he descend from the wombat?

PROOF OF DEGENERATION—(*#1/6 Scientists Speak about Vestigial Organs*) (*#1/6 Scientists Speak about Vestigial Organs*) Would vestigial organs prove evolution? Actually, if we had useless organs in our bodies, they would prove degeneration, not evolution! The Darwinists have their theory backward. They claim we are moving upward, and then point to supposedly degenerate organs in our bodies to prove it. Here is an example of this backward thinking:
"If there were no imperfections, there would be no evidence to favor evolution by natural selection over creation."—*Jeremy Cherfas, "The Difficulties of Darwinism," New Scientist, Vol. 102 (May 17, 1984), p. 29. (Cherfas was reporting on a lecture series by Steven Jay Gould at Cambridge University.)
"No evidence." *Cherfas, an expert in his field, is essentially saying this: There is no evidence anywhere in the plant and animal kingdom pointing to evolution of one species to another, and there are no such findings among fossil discoveries indicating plant or animal evolution in the past. All we can rely on is vestigial organs! There is no other evidence!
We might mention here an interesting idea of some evolutionists. They think that all our "vestigial organs" once worked, but later became dysfunctional. They say that we then invented other organs to take their place. But if this is true, then we are devolving downward, for we used to have more complex bodies with many organs, and now we keep having less complex organs—and many of them are no longer functioning!

Darwinists claim that some of our organs are falling into disuse. Yet, in contrast, the evolutionists provide us with not one NEW, developing organ to take their place! Not one evidence of evolution is to be found by anyone. In contrast, the "vestigial organs" idea, if it could be true, would only prove the opposite: devolution!


Evolutionists tell us that there are two important proofs of evolution from one species to another. These are "vestigial organs" and "recapitulation." We have examined the foolish claim that "vestigial organs" exist in our bodies.

Let us now turn our attention to "recapitulation." For years, evolutionists declared that this was one of their most invaluable proofs of evolution. What is this "outstanding evidence" of evolutionary theory? 

EMBRYONIC SIMILARITIES—The concept of "recapitulation" is based on the fact that there are similarities among embryos of people, animals, reptiles, birds, and fish.
It is true that embryonic similarities do indeed exist. Babies, before they are born, look quite a bit alike during the first few weeks. This includes people babies, raccoon babies, robin babies, lizard babies, and goldfish babies. They all begin as very tiny round balls. Then, gradually arms, legs, eyes, and all the other parts begin appearing. At one stage, there is just a big eye with skin over it and little flippers.

(An embryo is an organism in any of the various stages of its development after fertilization and before hatching or birth. The human embryo is called a fetus after the first five or six weeks of development. Animal embryos in their later stages of development are also called fetuses.)

PURPOSE AND PLANNING—Each part of every embryo was designed and made according to a definite purpose. But when animals are just beginning to form—and while they are very, very small,—there is only one ideal way for them to develop.

The problem here is one of size and packaging. Literally hundreds of thousands of parts are developing inside something that is extremely small. There are simply too many extremely tiny organs clustered in one near-microscopic object. When creatures are that tiny, there are only a very few ideal ways for them to be shaped, in order to develop efficiently.

Ongoing "change" is a basic dictum of evolution. If that is so, then by now—after millions of years of evolving—all those embryos ought to look very different from each other!

But instead we see fixity of species throughout nature today, as well as in the fossil record. Advance planning was required on the part of Someone who carefully thought it through. And that Person designed ALL of those babies—whether they are pigs, frogs, bats, people, pigeons, or cows. The fact that embryos are alike in their earlier weeks reveals they were all designed and made by the same Creator.

But keep in mind that we are only talking about appearance, not structure and function. Even though a finch embryo and a tiger embryo look alike, everything else about them is different!

CHICKENS, LIZARDS, AND FISH—In place of such a glorious ancestry, the evolutionist says "No, it cannot be so! Humans surely must have evolved from peculiar creatures,—for why would their embryos have a yolk sac like a chicken, a tail like a lizard, and gill slits like a fish?"
The recapitulation theory is that human embryos have organs that are leftovers from ancestors. For example, gill slits like a fish! What good are fish gills in your body? Such organs are useless, totally useless to people, so they must be "vestiges" from our ancestors. Since those organs were needed by earlier creatures, but not by us, that proves that we are descended from those lower forms of life. So human embryos are said to repeat or "recapitulate" various stages of their ancestors (such as the fish stage), and this recapitulation is declared to be an outstanding evidence of evolution.

The two key points in the above argument of the Darwinists are these: (1) Human embryos have organs which scientific research has proven to be useless. We know they are useless because they have no relation to any human function. (2) These useless organs in human embryos are actually special organs used by lower animals. The conclusion is that these useless, recapitulative organs prove that we evolved from fish, lizards, and similar creatures.
EC728.jpg (213273 bytes)  CLICK TO ENLARGE
That is how the theory goes. We have here a variation on the "vestiges" (useless organs) theme, plus the strange notion that embryos repeat (recapitulate) their evolutionary past as they develop in eggs or inside their mother.

RECAPITULATION—Reading in scientific books, you will come across the word, "recapitulation," the theory that human embryos are really little better than the left-over parts of fish, chickens, lizards, and other animals.

Did you ever notice that big words are sometimes used as proof in themselves? Because it is a big word, therefore it must be true. The phrase the evolutionists use to describe their "recapitulation theory" is this: "Ontogeny (on-TAH-jen-ee) recapitulates (ree-cah-PIH-chu-lates) phylogeny (fil-AW-jen-ee)." A very learned phrase indeed. "Ontogeny" is the history of the development of an organism from fertilization to hatching or birth, and "phylogeny" is the imagined evolutionary development of life-forms. But these big words only cover over a very foolish theory.

CHICKEN SAC—This is the so-called "yolk sac" in your body. In a baby chick, the yolk sac is the source of nourishment that it will continue to live on until it hatches. This is because the chick embryo is in an eggshell and has no connection with its mother. But in a baby human being, this little piece of bulging flesh has no relation to a chick yolk sac, except for the shape. It is a small nodule attached to the bottom of the human embryo, even before it develops feet.

A very tiny human being is connected to its mother and receives nourishment from her; therefore it does not need a yolk sac, as a baby chick does. But a human embryo needs a means of making its own blood until its bones are developed. Although nourishment passes from the mother to the embryo,—blood does not. That tiny human being must make its own. You and I make our blood in the marrow of our bones, embryos are only beginning to form their bones and the marrow within them. Because they do not yet have bones to make their blood, embryos, for a time, need another organ elsewhere to fulfill that function.

The first blood in your body came from that very tiny sack-like organ, long before you were born. When it is removed from an embryo, death immediately follows.
The problem is that it takes blood to make the bones that will make the blood! So a wonderful Designer arranged that, for a short time in your life, a little nodule, for many years called a "useless organ" because scientists were ignorant of its purpose, would make the red blood your body needed until your bones were made!

LIZARD TAIL—Well, that eliminates the "yolk sac." What about the "lizard tail?" Even though it looks like a "tail" in a human embryo—it later becomes the lower part of the spinal column in the child and adult. But why then is it so much longer in the embryo?
The spinal column is full of very complicated bones, and the total length of the spine starts out longer in proportion to the body than it will be later. This is just a matter of good design. There are such complicated bones in your spine that it needs to start out larger and longer in relation to the body. Later, the trunk grows bigger as internal organs develop.

But there is a second reason—the complex nerves in your spine: Scientists have recently discovered that another reason the spine is longer at first than the body is because the muscles and limbs do not develop until they are stimulated by the spinal nerves! So the spine must grow and mature enough that it can send out the proper signals for muscles, limbs, and internal organs to begin their growth. For this reason, the spine at first is bigger than the limbs, but later the arms and legs become largest.

Would you rather have your well-functioning backbone, knowing that, when you were tiny, it was slightly longer than the rest of your trunk? Or would you rather it had been the same size back then? If so, it would be degenerate now, and you would have to lie in bed all day. And the rest of your organs would never have developed properly. Come now, what is all this talk about "useless organs?" What organ could be more necessary than your spine!
FISH GILLS—The third item in the embryo that the evolutionists claim to be useless vestiges are, what they call, "gill silts" in the throat of each tiny human being. They say that these "slits" prove that we are descended from fish. But the theory, that people in their embryonic stage have gill slits, is something that knowledgeable scientists no longer claim. Only the ignorant ones do.

In the embryo there are, for a time, three small folds to be seen in the front of its throat. These three bubble outward slightly from the neck. Examining these folds carefully, we find no gills to extract oxygen out of water, and no gill slits (no openings) of any kind. These are folds, not gill slits! There are no slits and no gills. More recent careful research has disclosed that the upper fold contains the apparatus that will later develop into the middle ear canals, the middle fold will later become the parathyroids, and the bottom fold will soon grow into the thymus gland.
"The pharyngeal arches and clefts [creases] are frequently referred to as bronchial arches and bronchial clefts in analogy with the lower vertebrates, but since the human embryo never has gills called ‘bronchia,’ the term pharyngeal arches and clefts has been adopted for this book."—*Jan Langman, Medical Embryology, 3rd ed. (1975).
So once again the evolutionists are shown to be incorrect. For years they claimed that those three small throat folds were "gill slits," proving that we descended from fish; the bulb at the bottom of the embryo was a "yolk sac," proving that we descended from chickens; and the lower part of the spine is a "tail," proving that we are descended from lizards or something else with a tail!

Remember again, it is a matter of packaging a lot into a very small space. Embryos do not need to look handsome, but they need to function and grow in an extremely small space. There simply is not enough room for such a tiny one to look different or beautiful—and still develop properly. The Designer solved this problem very nicely.

Frankly, as we consider all that we have learned about Similarities, Vestiges, and Recapitulation, it is remarkable that (1) men can be so ignorant, (2) that they can criticize so freely such marvelous workmanship as is found in the embryo and the human body, and (3) that such ignorant men are considered by so many others to be wise men of science.

A ROUND BEGINNING—Yes, it is true that we begin our lives as "small round things," but this does not prove that we are descended from bats because they start their lives as "small round things" also! If we only look on the outside appearance of the small round things, then perhaps we are related to marbles, BBs, and ball bearings! Indeed, that is what this idea of "gill slits," "yolk sacs," and "tails" is all about: the theory is just looking at outside appearances instead of trying to learn the real reason those structures are there.

TOTALLY UNIQUE—Each of us began as something as small as a dot on a word on this page. Yet if we examine that almost microscopic egg, we find that that human dot has totally different genes and chromosomes than the egg of any other type of animal or plant. Only the outside appearance may be somewhat similar to that of other embryos. As it grows, its structures will continue to become more and more diverse from those of any other kind of plant or animal. Every species of animal and plant in the world has blood cells different than all others, and a totally unique DNA code.
"The fertilized egg cell contains in its tiny nucleus not only all the genetic instructions for building a human body, but also a complete manual on how to construct the complex protective armamentarium—amnion, umbilical cord, placenta and all—that makes possible the embryo’s existence in the womb."—*Life, April 30, 1965, pp. 70, 72.
ERNST HAECKEL—(*#2/30 Scientists Speak about Recapitulation [includes Haeckel’s charts] / #3/9 Haeckel’s Fraudulent Charts*) (*#2/30 Scientists Speak about Recapitulation [includes Haeckel’s charts] / #3/9 Haeckel’s Fraudulent Charts*) *Ernst Haeckel was the man who, in 1866, first championed the strange idea of vestiges; that, during the first few embryonic months in the womb each of us passes through various stages in which we have gills like a fish and tail like a lizard. He called it the Law of Recapitulation, or Biogenetic Law.
"This theory is indispensable for the consistent completion of the non-miraculous history of creation."—*Ernst Haeckel, The History of Creation (1876), Vol. 1, p. 348.
By the mid-20th century, reputable scientists recognized that Haeckel’s theory was without a scientific basis and ridiculous. But we are still waiting for the textbooks and popular magazines to learn the news.
"Seldom has an assertion like that of Haeckel’s theory of recapitulation, facile, tidy, and plausible, widely accepted without critical examination, done so much harm to science."—*Gavin De Beer, A Century of Darwin (1958).
A carefully contrived fraud was involved in the promulgation of this theory. *Darwin hinted at recapitulation in his 1859 Origin of the Species, so his devoted disciple, *Thomas H. Huxley, included a pair of drawings of canine and human embryos in an 1863 book he wrote. *Darwin placed those same drawings in his 1871 book, Descent of Man. *Ernst Haeckel, in Germany, seized upon Darwin’s suggestion and announced his so-called "Biogenetic Law." In a two-volume 1868 set and its 1876 translation, History of Creation, and later in another book in 1874, *Haeckel published fraudulent charts to prove his "law." These charts have been faithfully reprinted by evolutionists since then (one of the latest was *Richard Leakey’s Illustrated Origin in 1971).

Haeckel had drafting ability, and he carefully redesigned actual embryo pictures so that they would look alike. For this purpose, he changed shapes and sizes of heads, eyes, trunks, etc. For his ape and man skeleton pictures, he changed heights and gave the ape skeletons upright postures.
EC734.jpg (243654 bytes)  CLICK TO ENLARGE

On a nearby page, you will see two examples of *Haeckel’s fraudulent pictures. Top left: Haeckel’s dog and human fake embryos; both made to look alike when they actually are quite different. Top right: What a dog and human embryo really look like. Center: Haeckel made one woodcut, then had it printed three times with the titles "dog," "chicken," and "tortoise." Bottom: Haeckel made one ovum woodcut and had it printed three times, labeled "dog," "monkey," "man."

Haeckel was later repeatedly charged with fraud. Wilhelm His, Sr. (1831-1904), a German embryologist, exposed the hoax in detail in an 1874 publication (Unsere Korperform) and concluded that Haeckel was dishonest and thereby discredited from the ranks of trustworthy research scientists. It is to be noted that Wilhelm His prepared the scholarly books on embryological development which are the foundation of all modern human embryology. Yet neither Haeckel’s fraud, nor His exposĂ©, has ever been widely discussed in English scientific publications, and never in any publication for the public eye.
"The biogenetic law has become so deeply rooted in biological thought that it cannot be weeded out in spite of its having been demonstrated to be wrong by numerous subsequent scholars."—*Walter J. Bock, Science, May 1969 [Department of Biological Sciences at Columbia University].
In 1915, *Haeckel’s fraudulent charts were even more thoroughly exposed as the cheats they actually were.
"At Jena, the university where he taught, Haeckel was charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by a university court. His deceit was thoroughly exposed in Haeckel’s Frauds and Forgeries (1915), a book by J. Assmuth and Ernest J. Hull. They quoted nineteen leading authorities of the day. F. Keibel, professor of anatomy at Freiburg Unviersity, said that ‘it clearly appears that Haeckel has in many cases freely invented embryos or reproduced the illustrations given by others in a substantially changed form. L. Rutimeyer, professor of zoology and comparative anatomy at Basle University, called his distorted drawings a sin against scientific truthfulness deeply compromising to the public credit of a scholar.’ "—James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard, p. 112.
It is of interest that, in 1997, *Dr. Michael Richardson, an embryologist at St. George’s Medical School in London, assembled a scientific team that photographed the growing embryos of 39 different species. In a 1997 interview in the London Times, *Richardson said this about Haeckel:
"This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud. It’s shocking to find that somebody one thought was a great scientist was deliberately misleading. It makes me angry . . What he [Haeckel] did was to take a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander and the pig and all the others looked the same at the same stage of development. They don’t . . These are fakes."—*Michael Richardson, quoted in "An Embryonic Liar," The London Times, August 11, 1997, p. 14.
*Thomas Huxley, in England, and *Ernst Haeckel, in Germany, were *Darwin’s leading late 19th-century defenders. Always a man of intense energy, Haeckel, at the age of 62, while his elderly wife lived at home with him, was in the midst of an almost-daily love affair which he had continued for years with an unmarried woman 34 years younger. At the same time he was conducting his enthusiastic public lectures on recapitulation, using fraudulent charts which he prepared for his lectures and books. When Haeckel rented a hall for a lecture, he would drape the front with charts of ape and human skeletons and comparative embryos. Nearly all of the pictures had been doctored up in some way, to show similarities.

IMPORTANT: You will find *Haeckel’s charts, along with much supporting data, on our website (*#3*).

Yet, in spite of such full disclosure, *Haeckel’s "biogenetic law" and fraudulent drawings have been printed in school textbooks down to the present day. Desperate for some kind of evidence for their pet theory, evolutionists cling to their dishonest champion. (Radar - About three years ago I published an article that resulted from a study of common school textbooks in High Schools and Universities in the 21st Century and found that some books STILL HAVE the Haeckel Embryo Chart!!!)

HAECKEL’S LAW—Even though Haeckel called it a "law," recent scientists have less complementary words for it:
"[It is] a theory that, in spite of its exposure, its effects continue to linger in the nooks and crannies of zoology."—*G.R. De Beer and *W.E. Swinton, in *T.S. Wastell (ed.), Studies in Fossil Vertebrates.
In recent years, an instrument, called the fetoscope, has been developed which, when inserted into the uterus, permits observation and photography of every stage of the human embryo during its development. As a result of research such as this, it is now known that at every stage fetal development is perfect, uniquely human, and entirely purposive. There are no unnecessary processes or structures.
"As a law, this principle has been questioned, it has been subjected to careful scrutiny and has been found wanting. There are too many exceptions to it."—*A.F. Huettner, Fundamentals of Comparative Embryology of the Vertebrates, p. 48.
DEVELOPMENTAL DIFFERENCES—Haeckel’s so-called "law" teaches that all embryos not only look alike, but that they must all develop in the same way, thus proving their ancestry.

But, actual embryological growth of various species reveals many differences in development; so many that they entirely disprove Haeckel’s "Recapitulation" theory. For example, what would Haeckel do with the crabs? One type hatches out of a larval form (the zoeas) which is totally different than the adult form. Yet other crabs hatch out directly as miniature crabs! Many other such oddities could be cited.

Skilled embryologists, such as *Huettner, tell us that the whole idea underlying recapitulation is utter foolishness. The processes, rates, and order of development in the various species vary widely. Huettner, for example, explains that there never is a true blastula or gastrula in the mammals. Also, organs do not develop in the same order as they do in the smaller creatures. In the earliest fishes, there are teeth but no tongue. But in the mammalian embryos, the tongue develops before the teeth. Huettner says there are numerous other such examples.

According to recapitulation theory, the appearance of an embryo reveals its ancestry. All frog embryos look identical, so how can it be that nearly all frogs lay eggs—while one of them, the Nectophrymoldes occidentalis of New Guinea, brings forth its young live! This requires a womb, a placenta, a yolk sac and other modifications not found in the other frogs. Did that one frog descend from humans or vice-versa—or what did it descend from? Its embryo is just like all the other frog embryos. (Another frog is a marsupial.)

Similarly, out of all the earwigs in the world, there is just one live-bearing earwig! Out of all the sharks in the world, there is just one that has a placenta! Examination of their embryos provides no solution to these puzzles. The earwig embryos all look alike, and so do the shark embryos.

Recapitulation theory is just too shallow to really explain anything. Only Creation can explain what we see about us in nature. The similarities found in embryos point to a single Creator, not to a common ancestor.

DIFFERENT TYPES OF ORGANS—According to the theory of recapitulation,  the embryo-like parts of the adult repeat each stage of what its adult ancestors were like. According to the theory of recapitulation,  the embryo-like parts of the adult repeat each stage of what its adult ancestors were like. Which is a strange idea, is it not?
Here are some interesting facts about things, found in embryos, which are not to be found in their supposed "ancestors," 
Embryos frequently have two types of organs while their supposed "ancestors" only had one!
First, some organs do not function until after the infant is born. Such organs do not change. Such an organ would be the lungs. For this reason people only develop one set of lungs in their lifetime. 

Second, some organs have a special function prior to birth, as well as afterward. Such organs frequently change form two or three times. Examples would include the heart and kidneys

If recapitulation were correct, such multi-changing hearts and kidneys should also be found in adult mice and minnows. But this never occurs in the adult form of animal life. 
"The theory of recapitulation . . should be defunct today."—*Stephen J. Gould, "Dr. Down’s Syndrome," Natural History, April 1980, p. 144.
The respiratory surface in the lungs develops late in an embryo, yet how could the earlier forms (which it is supposedly copying) have survived without having it immediately.

DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENTAL SEQUENCE—The sequence of embroyonic development in a human is radically different than its supposed "ancestors." The sequence of embroyonic development in a human is radically different than its supposed "ancestors." If the human embryo really did recapitulate its assumed evolutionary ancestry, the human embryonic heart should first have one chamber, then change it into two, then three, and finally four chambers. For that is the arrangement of hearts in the creatures we are supposed to be descended from.

But instead of this, your heart first began as a two-chambered organ, which later in fetal development fused into a single chamber. This single chamber later, before birth, changed into the four-chambered heart you now have. 

So the actual sequence of heart chambers in a human fetus is 2-1-4 instead of the one required by recapitulation: 1-2-3-4

Another example would be the human brain which, in the fetus, develops before the nerve cords. But, in man’s assumed ancestry, nerve cords developed before the brain.
Still another example is the fact that the fetal heart develops before the blood vessels while, in man’s presumed forbears, it was the other way around.
"The theory of recapitulation was destroyed in 1921 by Professor Walter Garstang in a famous paper. Since then no respectable biologist has ever used the theory of recapitulation, because it was utterly unsound, created by a Nazi-like preacher named Haeckel."—*Ashley Mantagu, debate held April 12, 1980, at Princeton University, quoted in L.D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma, p. 119.
When, during that debate, a comment was made just afterward that recapitulation was still being defended and taught in various colleges and universities, *Montague said this:
"Well, ladies and gentlemen, that only goes to show that many so-called educational institutions, so-called ‘universities,’ are not educational institutions at all or universities; they are institutes for miseducation."—*Op. cit., p. 120.
BASIC THEORY FAULTED—There is yet another inherent flaw in the recapitulation theory. According to the theory, each creature passes something on to the next species, which then tosses in something more to be passed on. But that has also been proven to be untrue.

The fish passes its gills on to its descendant, the bird, as a vestige ever after to be in bird embryos. The bird passes both the gills and yolk sac on to the monkey, who thereafter has gills, yolk sac, and its own monkey tail. The monkey passes all three on to mankind as a legacy of embryonic useless organs.  THAT is the theory.

Why then does the fish embryo have—not only its own fish gills,—but also the, fish, animal, bird, and reptile embryos uniformly have the so-called "fish gill slits, the "bird yolk sac," and the "monkey tail"! The theory does not even agree with itself.

QUESTIONS—Considering all that we have learned about embryos, we stand amazed:
How can their DNA codes, each of which are totally different, provide each of them with look-alike embryos? Mathematically, their separate codes should not be able to do this—yet the DNA regularly does it.

Why do look-alike embryos grow into different species—each species with different blood, etc., than all the others?
How can so much be packed into such small packages, and then grow into such totally different adult forms?, and then grow into such totally different adult forms?
How can all there is in you begin with a dot smaller than the dot at the end of this sentence?
How can any man, having viewed such marvelous perfection in design and function, afterward deny that a Master Craftsman planned and made it?

Porpoises (bottle-nosed dolphins) never hurt humans, but crush vicious barracudas and kill deadly sharks. It is sonar (underwater sound radar) that enables them to successfully plan their attacks. With their high-pitched squeaks, they can identify the type of fish, and measure its distance and size. Porpoises have a special region in their head which contains a specialized type of fat. Scientists call it their "melon," for that is its shape. Because the speed of sound in the fatty melon is different than that of the rest of the body, this melon is used as a "sound lens" to collect sonar signals and interpret them to the brain. It focuses sound, just as a glass lens focuses light. The focused sound produces a small "sound picture" in the porpoise’s mind—showing it the unseen things ahead in the dark, murky water. 
It has been discovered that the composition of this fatty lens can be altered by the porpoise in order to change the sound speed through the melon—and thus change the focus of the lens to accord with variational factors in the surrounding water! There is also evidence that the composition of fat varies in different parts of the melon. This technique of doublet lens (two glass lenses glued together) is used in optical lenses in order to overcome chromatic aberrations and produce high-quality light lenses. The porpoise appears to be using a similar principle for its sound lens system!

1 - Is this sentence true? "If we had useless organs in our bodies, they would prove degeneration, not evolution."
2 - Select one of the following, and write one or two paragraphs on the importance of it in the human body, why you need it, and how it helps you: (1) tonsils; (2) appendix; (3) coccyx; (4) thymus; (5) Pineal gland; (6) thyroid gland; (7) pituitary; (8) semilunar fold of the eye.
3 - Explain the size problem: why all embryos—human or otherwise—tend to look alike at an early age.
4 - Write a one-paragraph report explaining the importance of one of the following in the developing embryo: (1) "yoke sac," (2) embryonic "tail," (3) "gill slits." Show why they are not what the evolutionists claim them to be.
5 - Prepare a brief biography on Ernst Haeckel, his frauds, and how they were exposed. Go to our website and look at his fraudulent charts.
6 - Select one of the following and explain how it disagrees with the recapitulation theory: (1) development of the human heart, (2) development of the human brain, (3) timing of fetal heart vs. fetal blood vessels.
7 - Explain this sentence: "Why then does the fish embryo have, not only its own fish gills but also the bird yolk sac and the monkey tail?"


If it was not for the sunbird, the African mistletoe would very quickly die. Yet both have been doing just fine since they were first created. When the sunbird comes to the mistletoe flower, it has to tell the flower to open up! Otherwise it would remain forever closed. Carefully, the bird puts its long bill inside a slit in the flower. This triggers the flower,—and it opens instantly and shoots out its anthers, which hits the bird with pollen all over its feathers. Then the bird goes to the next flower, repeating the process, and pollinating it in the process.

The author of the above piece mentions just two examples of organisms that cannot be explained in evolutionary terms.  The Dolphin is an example of irreducible complexity.  The Sunbird-Mistletoe combination is an example of a symbiotic relationship.   The question is not, which came first, the chicken or the egg?  The question is also the Sunbird or the Mistletoe, the tubeworm or the bacteria and on and on for thousands of different examples.   There are entire ecosystems that depend upon a kind of bacterial- tubeworm symbiosis such as:

Endosymbioses between bacteria and deep-sea siboglinid tubeworms from an Arctic Cold Seep (Haakon Mosby Mud Volcano, Barents Sea).

Max Planck Institute for Marine Microbiology, Celsiusstrasse 1, Bremen 28359, Germany.


Siboglinid tubeworms do not have a mouth or gut and live in obligate associations with bacterial endosymbionts. Little is currently known about the phylogeny of frenulate and moniliferan siboglinids and their symbionts. In this study, we investigated the symbioses of two co-occurring siboglinid species from a methane emitting mud volcano in the Arctic Ocean (Haakon Mosby Mud Volcano, HMMV): Oligobrachia haakonmosbiensis (Frenulata) and Sclerolinum contortum (Monilifera). Comparative sequence analysis of the host-specific 18S and the symbiont-specific 16S rRNA genes of S. contortum showed that the close phylogenetic relationship of this host to vestimentiferan siboglinids was mirrored in the close relationship of its symbionts to the sulfur-oxidizing gammaproteobacterial symbionts of vestimentiferans. A similar congruence between host and symbiont phylogeny was observed in O. haakonmosbiensis: both this host and its symbionts were most closely related to the frenulate siboglinid O. mashikoi and its gammaproteobacterial symbiont. The symbiont sequences from O. haakonmosbiensis and O. mashikoi formed a clade unaffiliated with known methane- or sulfur-oxidizing bacteria. Fluorescence in situ hybridization indicated that the dominant bacterial phylotypes originated from endosymbionts residing inside the host trophosome. In both S. contortum and O. haakonmosbiensis, characteristic genes for autotrophy (cbbLM) and sulfur oxidation (aprA) were present, while genes diagnostic for methanotrophy were not detected. The molecular data suggest that both HMMV tubeworm species harbour chemoautotrophic sulfur-oxidizing symbionts. In S. contortum, average stable carbon isotope values of fatty acids and cholesterol of -43 per thousand were highly negative for a sulfur oxidizing symbiosis, but can be explained by a (13)C-depleted CO(2) source at HMMV. In O. haakonmosbiensis, stable carbon isotope values of fatty acids and cholesterol of -70 per thousand are difficult to reconcile with our current knowledge of isotope signatures for chemoautotrophic processes"

But it is not just cold seeps but also hot seeps and sometimes sulphur, sometimes methane.  Both ecosystems exist without the power of the Sun and there is no explanation for how they might have evolved.  Most life on Earth depends upon the ability of plants to photosynthesize and yet photosynthesis is so involved it is preposterous to think that it simply *poofed* into existence and yet plant life is necessary for virtually every other life form on the planet with the exception of the entirely unrelated seep ecosystems found under the sea. 

Again, no Darwinists can answer the first, hard questions but so far have shown nothing but an inclination to regurgitate the same old cladograms and phylogenic junk that is all suppositional, based on circular reasoning and cannot be presented as objective, testable, repeatable evidence.

Creationists say that kinds reproduce according to kind, that speciation is an expected result of pre-existing information within the genome and redundancies that are built in to the cell and DNA.  And as it happens that is testable AND repeatable.  

Darwinism began when we knew almost nothing about the makeup of the cell and the process of reproduction.  Now that we can analyze the DNA string and observe the cell at the molecular level the design and complexity are quite obvious.   Thus, the complete lack of observable evidence presented within the comments threads by Darwinist commenters.  They have nothing to present!


Jon Woolf said...

So much verbiage, so little significance. I'm really disappointed, Radar. Not surprised, but disappointed. I hoped for better, even if I didn't really expect it.

This post consists of three segments:

1) a bunch of unsupported assertions

2) an irrelevant article from a biased and untrustworthy source

3) another irrelevant article from another biased and untrustworthy source

Notice what's missing? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

What's missing is any response from Radar himself that shows he even understands the example I offered, much less can counter it. Consider:

Radar wrote: "Now one problem is that again Woolf is making an assumption, he has no proof that similarities in development are not an evidence of a common Designer rather than common ancestry."

I never claimed that the aortic arches in chordates was evidence of common ancestry instead of common design. Radar asked for objective evidence for evolution, which is not the same thing as evidence against design. In fact, the aortic arches can be used either way, and I knew that when I selected it as my example. One can argue that an intelligent Designer would have to be a rather stupid Designer to design a development process in which the aortic arches form and then are absorbed or modified, wasting energy and raw materials ... but that's a rather thin argument. Good evidence against design is found in other places, other structures.

Jon Woolf said...

I see no reason to bother countering Radar's ranting about Haeckel and his embryo charts, since none of that is relevant to my point about aortic arches. Nor is there any reason to waste time on Messrs. Peczkis or Ferrell. I did, however, want to direct the Gentle Reader's attention to this passage written by Radar:

"A Darwinist cannot even begin to give us a reasonable explanation of photogenesis, which is a remarkably complex process that must have been in place almost immediately within life forms for life forms to have obtained energy from the Sun."

There is no biological process called "photogenesis." As near as I can tell, what Radar meant to type is a word that should be known to every middle school biology student: photosynthesis, the process used by certain eubacteria to turn sunlight into usable energy.

Something else that Radar seems unaware of: not all autotrophic organisms get their energy from photosynthesis. Some use chemical sources, such as the exotic bacteria that power deepwater vent faunas. These chemoautotrophs appear to be older than photoautotrophs are. In other words, chemosynthesis came first, and photosynthesis came later.

Radar, you really should learn the basics of biology before you try taking on a subject as complex as evolutionary theory.

Anonymous said...

"Presentation of proofs for macroevolution observed happening? None."

As anyone can see by looking at the first four comments in this post, Radar is lying through his teeth. Piles of evidence (not "proofs") were presented, Radar got all sweaty and ran for the hills.

And now, surprise surprise, we're treated to another Gish gallop and a cut-and-paste post so long that it pushes all the others off the front page.

If Radar's position were right, he would be able to address the evidence calmly and rationally instead of hitting the panic button.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"Pasteur proved that life only comes from life and scientists of the early 18th Century agreed with this as a scientific law."

Pasteur was addressing the spontaneous generation of organisms like mice, maggots, fungi, which at the time were thought by some to arise spontaneously. This has nothing to do with abiogenesis, the spontaneous creation of much simpler forms of life, in which interesting progress is being made today.

-- creeper

radar said...

Jon, I did mean photosynthesis. A bit of terminology dyslexia there.

I would certainly consider Woodmorappe a suitable source, he has the credentials that would blow someone like Eugenie Scott off the starting line.

Remember what I posted about the horse evolution chart? It is an example of the nonsensical chaotic nature of lines of descent presented by Darwinists.

"Concerning the Horse Evolution Chart:

" - the number of ribs varies within the series, from 15, to 19, and then down to 18; and the number of lumbar vertebrae changes from 6, to 8, and back to 6." Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1992 p:50

The animals in the Horse chart are pictured as having grown from 17" to 80" in height during the course of their evolution. But in fact horses of all sizes are found today.

"The largest horse today is the Clydesdale; the smallest is the Fallabella, which stands at 17 inches (43 centimeters) tall. Both are members of the same species, and neither has evolved from the other." Peter Hastie. (Creation Magazine, Sep.-Nov. 1995, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 14-16.)"

This is the problem with all these so-called line of evolution examples given by Darwinists. Features appear and reappear, or develop and then leave and never come back. This is because Darwinists are trying to produce a chart of evolution amongst creatures that all lived and died at about the same time.

Also, I have posted often about both hot and cold seep ecosystems, which do not get their base energy from the Sun. There is no developmental relationship between these systems and the Sun-driven ecosystems which require photosynthesis. The fact that there is more than one basic energy source for ecosystems means yet another "poof" required for Darwinism.

Your opinion that the arch development is wasteful is your opinion. That you admit that the subject does not really help your cause makes me wonder why you mentioned it? I pointed out that there is no proof of descent here and that common design fits quite well, so what was the point of bringing up the aortic arch in the first place? By what right do you put your opinion at the top of the heap and declare the aortic arch to be a bad design? Do you also think that, because the spine develops first that we have and then lose a tail? The idea that aortic arches appear and are absorbed is unsupported by evidence. What you mean to say is that some developing portions of vertebrates appear to be developing a similar structure but do in fact develop differing structures, e.g. the "yolk sac" of the human embroyo that is no such thing at all.

Ad nauseum, the assertions of Darwinists go on and on but when they are asked to give even one example of something observable they utterly fail. So to cover up their inability they post a massive amount of BS. That has been the modus operandi so far and I bet they will keep doing it as they have no other move.

Jon Woolf said...

Still lots of verbiage, and little substance.

I would certainly consider Woodmorappe a suitable source,

Jan Peczkis hides behind a pseudonym, and he tells lies about science. By your own rules, he's no more trustworthy than talkorigins is.

On horses: no one has ever used the rib count as evidence for equid evolution, so that bit is a strawman. On size, all the examples you cite of superlarge and supersmall horses are the result of artificial selective breeding, not natural evolution. Wild equines -- that is, the various zebras, mustangs, and Przewalskii's Horse -- do not vary much in size.

By what right do you put your opinion at the top of the heap and declare the aortic arch to be a bad design?

Again, you misread and distort my comment in order to twist it in your favor. Not very honest of you, Radar. Why must you give the 9th Commandment such a horsewhipping?

The arches are not a bad design. The process by which they develop is. There's a difference.

The idea that aortic arches appear and are absorbed is unsupported by evidence.

Nope. The arches appear and are then reabsorbed, and we can watch it happen. It's a well-known experiment, Radar: you fertilize a bunch of eggs of some critter at the same time, then methodically kill them at regular intervals and examine the embryos at different stages of development. At a certain early stage of development, all vertebrate embryos have six sets of aortic arches. As development proceeds, the arches disappear or are modified as I described. Biologists can watch this happen. In fact, given modern technology they can probably do it in realtime without killing the embryos being studied.

As for the "yolk sac," did you know that marsupial embryos develop a rudimentary eggshell shortly before birth, but it dissolves again almost right away? Another relic of their evolutionary history.

Jon Woolf said...

Oh yeah, and here's a comparative chart of Eugenie Scott's C.V as compared to Jan Peczkis':

Eugenie Scott:
* Bachelor of Science degree from University of Wisconsin-Madison
* Master of Science degree from University of Wisconsin-Madison
* Doctor of Philosophy degree in Physical Anthropology from the University of Missouri
* Distinguished Alumna, University of Missouri
* Member of the California Academy of Sciences
* President, American Association of Physical Anthropologists
* Fellow and Chairman of the American Association for the Advancement of Science
* Six honorary degrees from various colleges and universities
* Awards and honors too numerous to list here
* Currently president of the National Center for Science Education, and a much-sought-after speaker in that role

Now, Jan Pezckis:

* Bachelor's degree in geology(?), from an unknown university
* Bachelor's degree in biology(?), from an unknown university
* Master's degree in geology(?), from an unknown university
* No significant science publications, although one source I found claimed he had managed the curious feat of arguing for an old-Earth scenario under his real name while pushing YEC under the pen name "John Woodmorappe"
* At last word, was employed as a high school chemistry teacher

Yup. Reckon you're right. Peczkis is far more qualified to speak on science topics than Dr. Scott is.

highboy said...

"The arches are not a bad design. The process by which they develop is. There's a difference. "

That is exactly why radar says its an assumption. You are doing nothing more in this case than assuming that something could have been designed better. You've done this is past examples as well, such as the placement of the birth canal. You haven't done one single test yet you assert with absolution that these are examples of bad design. Prove it.

Jon Woolf said...

Get it straight, highboy. Creationists assume. I reach conclusions based on known evidence. In this case, the evidence provided by the concepts of "energy budget" and "available raw materials."

highboy said...

"Get it straight, highboy. Creationists assume. I reach conclusions based on known evidence. In this case, the evidence provided by the concepts of "energy budget" and "available raw materials."

I got it straight. You assume, and assume at a gross proportion. Kind of hard to take your snide jabs at creationist intellectuality when you keep harping on a scientific method you seem unwilling or unable to grasp.

Jon Woolf said...

And they say humans are capable of learning from experience...

I've never yet made an argument in a comment on this blog that I couldn't back up, highboy. Do you really think I'd start now?

I got it straight.

Well, no, actually, you don't. Follow me carefully here, highboy:

Point 1: before an organism can expend energy on constructing tissues, it must first take in energy. It can't use more energy than it takes in. This is known as its "energy budget."

Point 2: in order to build new tissues, an organism requires raw materials. The amount of raw materials available is also limited. This becomes its "raw materials budget." Put these two together and you get a single "resources budget."

Point 3: if an organism's resources budget goes into the red, the organism dies. Thus, it is a Bad Thing to use any more resources than is absolutely necessary. Less is better. Much less is much better.

Point 4: developing embryos are on an even tighter resources budget than adult organisms, or even growing juvenile organisms. Adults and juveniles can eat; embryos can't.

Point 5: any resources used to create tissues that will not be used are not available to build tissues that will be used.

Point 6: this pattern of generating tissues (using up resources in the process) and then reabsorbing them during embryonic development occurs over and over again, countless times throughout the entire domain of terrestrial life.

Conclusion 1: when resources are used to build tissues that won't be used, those resources are wasted. They are the worst kind of debit in the resources budget: resources expended for absolutely no return. The organism is much better off without them.

Conclusion 2: a smart designer would seek to minimize such debits.

Conclusion 3: if indeed a Designer intentionally Designed things so that embryos develop this way, with lots of wasted energy and raw materials, then It did a very bad job, and created a very bad process.

Now, is that clear enough for you, or is your comprehension overwhelmed by the excess of polysyllabic verbiage?

Anonymous said...

"We see mutation causing information loss or copying errors but this also does not account for new information."

How do you figure that? If the copying error happens to have a beneficial effect and is preserved in following generations through natural selection, how would that not constitute an information gain?

-- creeper

Jon Woolf said...

Creeper: f the copying error happens to have a beneficial effect and is preserved in following generations through natural selection, how would that not constitute an information gain?

Well, because he says it doesn't. Since he has the Authority Of God behind him, he can't possibly be wrong.

highboy said...

well as impressive as I'm sure you think all that irrelevant grandstanding was Jon, you haven't addressed my accusation. You can conclude that its a bad design based on the facts you posted, but the FACT is that without any testing whatsoever you are ASSUMING that the organism is better off without it. In your whole little rendition you still have done nothing more than make an assumption, just as you did previously with your stupid argument that the birth canal shouldn't be through the pelvis. Its nothing more than absurd speculation. But please do keep butchering the scientific method you defend so viciously. Maybe someday you'll practice it.

Jon Woolf said...

[shrug] Well, if you want to believe that your god is too stupid to understand basic budgeting concepts, I suppose there's little I can do to stop you.

Anonymous said...

"This is the problem with all these so-called line of evolution examples given by Darwinists. Features appear and reappear, or develop and then leave and never come back."

Evolution is not teleological, as that famous scientist/comedian Larry King pointed out with his ironic bon mot: "If evolution is true, why are there still monkeys?" He knew better, of course: an ancestral species doesn't have to die out, as can be seen in allopatric speciation - it can remain the same and/or evolve in different directions.

The presentation of the horse evolution chart is to illustrate the lineage of that which we presently commonly know as a "normal" horse, so it is a simplified presentation that doesn't show every last branch.

BTW, here's a handy and simple resource to illustrate the evolution of the horse.

"This is because Darwinists are trying to produce a chart of evolution amongst creatures that all lived and died at about the same time."

That statement is clearly falsified by the observations we can make of the fossil record. If the creatures all lived and died at about the same time, they would not be sorted in the rock strata as they are. Scientists can make testable predictions based on the theory of evolution, dating methods and geology...

... and...

... wait for it...

... find their predictions confirmed.

Which indicates their theory is correct.

YEC on the other hand has no way of countering this. On the subject of the sorting of fossils in the rock strata, YEC consistently comes up blank.

Seriously, isn't there any creationist who has an answer to this? Radar has already clearly demonstrated he doesn't have any answer.

-- creeper

highboy said...

"[shrug] Well, if you want to believe that your god is too stupid to understand basic budgeting concepts, I suppose there's little I can do to stop you."

and if you want to keep drawing assumptions and making conclusions from those assumptions about matters of science without testing or observing in any way shape or form I can't stop you either. Mouthing off about my God doesn't distract from the fact that you haven't substantiated your conclusion with anything other than the argument "this could be better" without using the scientific method you supposedly adhere to at every chance.

radar said...

As earlier in life, John Woodmorappe was intensely curious. He wanted to go deeper. He decided to major in both geology and biology because of the pivotal role of these two disciplines in the study of origins. Then again, he had geology in his blood, as his grandfather had been a geologist who had owned an oil well (at Boryslaw, now in the western Ukraine). He ended up with a BA in Biology, a BA in Geology, and an MA in Geology.

radar said...

BS ALERT - "That statement is clearly falsified by the observations we can make of the fossil record. If the creatures all lived and died at about the same time, they would not be sorted in the rock strata as they are. Scientists can make testable predictions based on the theory of evolution, dating methods and geology...

... and...

... wait for it...

... find their predictions confirmed.

Which indicates their theory is correct."

This is a lie. Darwinists use circular reasoning, tagging rocks by the fossils and fossils by the rocks. Their characterization of the rock layers and fossils within them are a combinations of hopeful myths and flat lies. Darwinists do not know any of this, they are once again making subjective statements about evidence that they cannot prove.

radar said...

Here is the most ridiculous statement made by a Darwinist yet:

"Jon Woolf said...

And they say humans are capable of learning from experience...

I've never yet made an argument in a comment on this blog that I couldn't back up, highboy. Do you really think I'd start now?"

Oh My God! I do not think Jon Woolf has a grasp on reality. Failing to understand dictionary definitions, dodging chances to make points by pretending not to understand simple statements of fact. He actually thinks he backs up his statements? Somebody get him a job in Chicago politics!!!

radar said...

Just for those who have a brain, if you have actually been on the ground at various parts of the sedimentary rock layers you will realize that Darwinists have build this mythology about the fossils and the rocks that is completely and utterly bogus. In fact we have found trilobites, for instance, in more than one kind of stratigraphic formation. Darwinists date rocks by fossils and fossils by rocks with their own made-up dates with no factual basis for said dates. Pay no attention to them when they makes these things up.

Anonymous said...

creeper: " Scientists can make testable predictions based on the theory of evolution, dating methods and geology...

... and...

... wait for it...

... find their predictions confirmed.

Which indicates their theory is correct."

Radar: "This is a lie."

You wish. This is exactly what scientists did here: make testable predictions based on the theory of evolution, dating methods and geology - and find them confirmed.

Your knee-jerk claim that my statement is a lie is in fact incorrect.

"Darwinists use circular reasoning, tagging rocks by the fossils and fossils by the rocks. Their characterization of the rock layers and fossils within them are a combinations of hopeful myths and flat lies."

No, it is in fact true that fossils will predictably only occur in certain strata and are in fact neatly "sorted". You will never find, say, elephants with stegosauruses, even though according to a Noah's Ark/young Earth/global flood scenario such finds should be as commonplace as finding dinosaurs with other dinosaurs.

Darwinists do not know any of this, they are once again making subjective statements about evidence that they cannot prove."

Wrong. As demonstrated in the link above, there was nothing subjective about the work, and the fact that their prediction was confirmed meant that they could actually prove it.

" In fact we have found trilobites, for instance, in more than one kind of stratigraphic formation."

A non sequitur and a strawman argument. The assertion was not that fossils would only show up in only one rock layer, but that they would only show up in certain predictable rock layers. This does not mean that some organisms could not live for more than one geological age.

"Darwinists date rocks by fossils and fossils by rocks with their own made-up dates with no factual basis for said dates."

If your claim is that geologists use only fossils to date rocks and "make up" dates, then this is a clear and obvious lie. In addition to radiometric dating (here explained from a Christian perspective), geology uses a number of different well-established principles to date rocks, something you must surely be aware of if you've done any reading on this subject at all.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"He actually thinks he backs up his statements? Somebody get him a job in Chicago politics!!!"

Looks like you didn't read his comment very carefully (surprise surprise). He said he had "never yet made an argument in a comment on this blog that [he] couldn't back up".

He didn't say he did back up every statement, but that he could, and from everything I've seen of Jon, I am confident that that is true. Feel free to test him on his claim, as he has often invited you to do.

This is in sharp contrast to your own sad track record, Radar, where we've had to hound you for weeks and months on occasion to back up certain claims, some of which you haven't been able to back up to this day but instead chose to bury under an avalanche of cut-and-paste posts. Your apparent psychological inability to admit fault makes it impossible to simply correct yourself and move on.

-- creeper

Jon Woolf said...

Creeper: "In addition to radiometric dating (here explained from a Christian perspective), geology uses a number of different well-established principles to date rocks, something you must surely be aware of if you've done any reading on this subject at all."

He probably did know this once upon a time, but it's been buried under the avalanche of creationist pseudoscience that he's since swallowed.

A lot of creationist arguments are annoying for their ignorance, but the "geologic column is circular" claim I find annoying for a whole 'nother reason. As a field of study, historical geology is around 250 years old. In those 250 years, thousands of geologists have invested millions of man-hours in studying and classifying rock strata, and in working out the geologic column. For most, it was their life's work. Many of them died doing it. The data they collected fills libraries all over the world. And in all those collections, there isn't one single datum that suggests the geologic column isn't real.

Creationists deny all that. At one enormous leap, they tag all those thousands of people as grotesque liars, all those years of effort worthless and wasted. All so they can defend their belief that their bible is literally true. It's cold, callous, cruel, and corrupt.

Anonymous said...

Wow Radar, did you ever make a fool of yourself in this thread.
Do you have no sense of pride whatsoever???

Anonymous said...

Au contraire, pride is all he has - more pride than sense.

radar said...

Really, it is sad to think of all the hours spent by Darwinists trying to justify the now-ridiculous thoughts of a long-dead semi-scientist. It is also a shame that commenters are reduced to grade school style name calling. Radar is dumb, mean, cowardly, stupid, uneducated, etc. Really awesome debating skills, guys.

All of this would go away if you had actual objective evidence and, since you do not, your backs against the wall, you make lots of noise while looking for a back door to get away.

Why won't someone from the NCSE take the lifescience challenge? Because they know they would probably lose and the resultant publicity might cause people to examine Darwinism more carefully.

Why won't PZ Myers debate Jonathan Sarfati? It is easy for a guy like that to hide behind the illusion of superiority in order to protect himself. I suspect I could arrange a debate between Sarfati and Myers (I will take charge of contacting Jonathan) if there was anyone who could hook a tractor to Myers and drag him kicking and screaming to his figurative doom.

Why won't commenters provide me with the answer to my simple question? How can someone give something they do not possess?

Anonymous said...

"Why won't commenters provide me with the answer to my simple question?"

Radar, you are lying. Everyone can clearly see that you were given a large number of answers.

"All of this would go away if you had actual objective evidence and, since you do not, your backs against the wall, you make lots of noise while looking for a back door to get away."

This is exactly what you are doing. You cannot address the evidence, and now you are making lots of noise while looking for a back door to get away - in the form of multiple copypasta posts to push your failed challenge into the past as quickly as possible.

The least you can do after your loud-mouthed challenge is to man up and address the evidence.

"How can someone give something they do not possess?"

Indeed. Multiple pieces of evidence and all you got is name-calling.

You got nothing.