Search This Blog

Sunday, December 30, 2018

Rhino-Elephant Fossil Upsets Evolutionary Timeline

When tales are told around campfires, people tend to expect flaws. Sometimes they point them out.

"I seen him pull his 44-40 revolver and sneak after Clem —"

"You said this was a pitch dark night so ya didn't see nothin', ya galoot."

"Fergot to mention I was using my night vision..."

The timeline for the evolution of dinosaurs is driven by the narrative, even though there is no evolutionary past for dinosaurs and new discoveries require evolutionists to repeatedly rewrite that troubled timeline. We have another instance of a major timeline problem.


A large critter called a synapsid is causing disagreement and confusion among paleontologists.
Lisowicia bojani image credit: Tomasz Sulej (CC By-SA 4.0)
The tale is told that there were little mammals running around while dinosaurs were becoming the dominant force. These little mammals did their best to keep out of sight. Critters like synapsids existed, but when something that could be compared to a military tank was discovered, paleontologists got a mite worked up. They can't agree if it's mammal or reptile, and the description is caused (for some) to be dictated by where the fossil was located. Actually, there isn't a whole heap to build on in the first place. The fossil record is not about an orderly account of gradual evolution due to "forces", but it shows evidence for the global Genesis Flood and recent creation.
Evolutionists call them “mammal-like reptiles,” but a very large fossil synapsid upsets evolutionary ideas.
It was as big as a hippo, and apparently very successful as an animal. New Scientist writes, “Ancient hippo-like reptile was a giant to rival the dinosaurs.” Science Magazine writes, “Giant mammal cousin rivaled early dinosaurs.” What was this creature, exactly? And why are evolutionists so startled by it?
To find out more, click on "Synapsids Went Extinct, but Did They Evolve?" A shorter, related article is "Super-Sized Synapsid in the Wrong Rocks".
QED

Sunday, December 23, 2018

Altruism in Different Kinds of Animals?

Altruism is baffling to Darwinists, and they not only botch studies of it, but come up with bizarre ideas such as altruism being controlled by microbes. And that is just for humans. You have probably heard or read stories about a cat unable to nurse kittens, but the new momcat next door filled the gap. That's rather heartwarming and not entirely surprising. What about animals adopting other kinds of animals?


Altruism is baffling enough for evolutionists, but cooperation between species is very troublesome.
Credit: Freeimages / Lily Rosen
The expression, "Fighting like cats and dogs" may get a point across when describing folks wanting to slap leather with each other, but the animals themselves don't always fight. Sure, they probably get along when they're brought together when they're young, but even adults have been known to become pals. Darwinism requires "survival of the fittest" and a kind of "every critter for itself" approach.


Animals occasionally reject orthodox evolutionism. Interspecific (different species) cooperation and even adoption is baffling to evolutionists, especially when the animals involved are predator and prey. It is interesting that such happenings can remind Bible believers of the original creation when animals did not eat each other; that happened after the Genesis Flood.
Altruistic behavior is expected in humans to one extent or another. However, when animals behave altruistically, evolutionists are left without good answers. When, for example, an animal adopts an infant of another animal, it exhibits an evolution-defying altruistic behavior. Evolution predicts that animals will behave selfishly, seeking only to further their own reproductive success. Yet there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of examples of animals adopting babies of their own species, or even more incredibly, members of other species, sometimes across the kind or predatory boundaries. These altruistic adoptions are powerful evidence for the original “very good” design God put into his creation.
To read the rest (and some interesting examples as well), click on "Interspecific Adoption: Can Evolution Explain Altruism in Animals?"



QED

Sunday, December 16, 2018

Human Evolution Fails Scientific Analysis

Those of us who reject fish-to-farmer evolution tend to receive surprised remarks as if we were a tad bit unreasonable. After all "everyone knows" and "scientists say" that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor, so who are we do disagree? Some even want to bully us, because loudness makes for rightness or some-such. 

For one thing, we do not need the vacuity of R. Clinton Dawkins, Bill Nye, or other owlhoots dictating our thinking. In addition, evolution does not stand up to serious examination.


Closer examination reveals that evidence for evolution is pitifully lacking.

I'll allow that such evolution is mighty popular among scientists and us commoners, but consensus does not make for truth. Seems that we have to suspend reason and science to accept such notions in the first place. Getting down into the DNA, evolution is not even possible. Add to that the fact that the alleged evidence for evolution among bones and such is pitifully lacking. The evidence actually shows that the we were created, created recently, created separately. 
The public is frequently led to think that the evidence of humans evolving from an apelike common ancestor with chimps is simply overwhelming. The claim is often made in bombastic, even intimidating terms, such as in this example of ‘elephant hurling’ tactics by a prominent evolutionist:
“There are now tens of thousands of hominid fossils in museums around the world supporting our current knowledge of human evolution. The pattern that emerges from this vast body of hard evidence is consistent across thousands of investigations. All models, all myths involving singular, instantaneous creation of modern humans fail in the face of this evidence.”
For most categories of ‘hominid’ claimed, there are usually even evolutionist experts who themselves will point out something that seriously questions, if not disqualifies, the idea that the fossils concerned are ‘in-between’ apes and humans. However, when one starts to critically analyze these claims, things rapidly fall apart. For most categories of ‘hominid’ claimed, there are usually even evolutionist experts who themselves will point out something that seriously questions, if not disqualifies, the idea that the fossils concerned are ‘in-between’ apes and humans. For example:
To learn more about what is going on, read the rest by clicking on "The myth of ape-to-human evolution".


QED

Sunday, December 09, 2018

Newly-Discovered Human Brain Neuron

Darwin's devotees like to remind the world that humans are classified as animals. Of course, with the limitations built into the five kingdoms, I reckon we have to be someplace, and we do have many similarities to creatures in the animal kingdom. However, we are not "just animals". Not only because we are created in God's image, but there are marked biological differences between us and critters. A newly-discovered neuron in the coconut between our shoulders is another of those features unique to humans.


Scientists discovered a special neuron that is unique to humans. This is another difference between humans and animals.
Credit: Pixabay / Colin Behrens
We have a heap of processing to do. Biologists may object to my comparison, but it seems that the extra-long dendrites in some of our brain cells might have a loose similarity to RAM in a computer, which gives it more room to work, and helps the computer work faster. Our dendrites also act like tiny transmitters. Still another reason to admit the obvious: we were created, and our "parts" working in unison show this.
With a new addition to the category of “uniquely human features,” MIT neuroscientists discovered a feature of human—not animal—brain cells. Certain human brain cells have much longer extensions called dendrites, and this research team found a uniquely human reason for it.
To read the rest, click on "Unique Human Neuron Discovered".
QED

Sunday, December 02, 2018

NASA Admits Exoplanets Unlikely for Life

True believers in searching for extraterrestrial intelligence out there in the nothing much are becoming more desperate, even silly. They are basing their assumptions on atoms-to-alien evolution and the foolish notion that either God does not exist, or he does not mean what he told us in his written Word. However, these ETI seekers are building on foundations that should appear to be fundamentally flawed even to them — if they bothered to cognate on it for a spell.


Seekers of life in outer space are starting in the wrong place. Other stars are not hospitable for life, and only Earth was created to be inhabited.
Credit: NASA /ESA / G. Bacon (STScI) (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
There is an increasing amount of evidence that stars are nowhere near as well-behaved as our own sun, emitting powerful solar flares that would be killing of living things on their planets. The most plentiful stars, red dwarfs, are sneezy and grumpy. Blue ones can also be obstreperous. Earth was created to be inhabited, and that's a natural fact.
Superflares from the majority of stars would likely sterilize any planet in its “habitable zone.”
You don’t want to enter a HAZMAT zone. That’s where toxic materials pose a danger to life or the environment. NASA took on this word for a program called HAZMAT, standing for “Habitable Zones and M dwarf Activity across Time.” An article for NASA Exoplanet Exploration announces one of the first findings from HAZMAT: “Superflares from young red dwarf stars imperil planets.” That’s because their parent stars, the most numerous in the universe (M-dwarf stars), are nasty.
To read the rest, click on "NASA Verdict: Most Exoplanets Are Not Habitable".



QED