Evolution? The headline seemed to be saying there was more data showing how ancient apes split into two groups, one heading toward modern gorillas and the other leading to other modern apes — and humans. I’m blogging about “Fossils Shed New Light on Human-Gorilla Split,” LiveScience.com, By Charles Q. Choi, 2/11/2016.
As usual, the title of the original research report was a bit clearer: “New geological and palaeontological age constraint for the gorilla–human lineage split.” (Nature 530, 215–218 (11 February 2016) doi:10.1038/nature16510) In other words, the data merely shows a limit on when the split might have happened — assuming that it did happen, and that the dating method is accurate.
What is this all about? Fossil teeth again. One thing we know for sure, the fossil teeth that appear to be the oldest gorilla teeth ever found “resembled those of modern gorillas.” Not much to go on, but it sounds like there has not been much change (evolution) between Chororapithecus and living gorillas. Continue reading Evolution data shows no sign of evolution – again.
The evolutionary story of how whales came to be is a classic example of how this sort of thing shouldn’t be considered the same as science that studies things we can repeatedly observe and test, even when it seems to be having success. From Darwin’s speculating that “something like a bear” might have taken up eating stuff in the water for generations until the practice molded them into aquatic creatures, to a scrap piece of skull producing a picture of a paddle-legged swimmer when later discoveries of more extensive fossils showed it really had long, skinny legs and probably never stuck more than its head in the water.
The latest addition to the story is the report on “Fucaia buelli,” a very small whale classified as an “aetiocetid,” one of the extinct kinds of “toothed mysticetes.” Today, mysticetes are all toothless as adults, using the filtering structures known as baleen instead. They are commonly known as baleen whales: right whales, humpback whales, blue whales, and others. Evolutionists were thrilled to find fossils of adult whales with both teeth and baleen, assuming they showed how baleen whales came to be — they evolved from toothed whales that mutated to grow baleen, then they mutated so they lost their teeth. That second stage seems reasonable enough, it’s easy for a mutation to knock out the production of something. But what about that first step? Continue reading Another Great Story about Whales
When scientists step beyond the proper limits of science, such as the limit of time in which things have been scientifically observed and recorded, something other than the method of repeatedly observing and testing things will dictate how data is explained. Supernatural events and explanations are by their nature not limited by the limits of nature, so naturally natural philosophers (now called scientists) tend to avoid them. So, whatever we find in nature, most scientists today have to explain without considering what the Bible (or other religious source) says that God (or other supernatural entity) did in the past that might throw off such explanations. Obviously, creating the heavens and the Earth in one swell foop of six days is going to produce things that would take billions of years to form, assuming that natural processes alone could somehow do it.
So there are some things that “Young Earth” scientists have struggled to explain, such as how we can see stars that are billions of light years away. I believe there’s a simple supernatural explanation, but there are a number of (more or less) natural explanations that have been proposed. There are other things that mainstream scientists are struggling to show nature can produce, such as the origin of life. Continue reading Soft Tissues: Hard to stretch over millions of years
It is the website of a creationist, but that’s not the same thing. My goal here is not so much to promote creationism as it is to point out that evolutionism should not be part of science, although (unofficially) it is. Don’t be surprised if I get around to pointing out that creation science theories are also outside of the natural realm of science as well. I will be lampooning (or mildly questioning, depending on the case) evolutionism mostly, mostly because it’s the biggest (in many ways) transgressor of the proper limits of science.
It’s true that I see this as just a first step, the recognition of the difference between the kind of science that can be demonstrated and truly can’t be denied without direct consequences in cases where it is applicable, and the newer sciences that include claims (hypotheses, theories, and sometimes pontification) which can’t be demonstrated to be true and can be denied without any problem — unless it gets you censored, blacklisted, or fired. And believing in creation rather than evolution is just a step toward eventually acknowledging Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah/Christ, God manifest in the flesh, repenting of your sin and receiving eternal salvation by calling on the Lord in faith, being redeemed by His sacrifice and justified by His resurrection. Continue reading Seriously, this is NOT a creation science website.
While I was researching the story on the oldest fossil shrimp, I noticed another story about one of my favorite subjects, birds that lived with dinosaurs. The title is “Tiny ancient fossil from Spain shows birds flew over the heads of dinosaurs.” Now, a lot of creationists would read this and imagine robins and bluejays and such, but fossils of modern birds like those aren’t found in the same rock formations as dinosaurs.
It should also be noted that it isn’t news that there were extinct kinds of flying birds that were fossilized in Cretaceous and even Jurassic rocks alongside dinosaurs.
What’s exciting about this find is it provides very strong evidence that the extinct birds in the “early” or deeper Cretaceous layers had wings that were just as complex and well-designed for flying as modern birds’. Continue reading Dinosaur birds were flying like modern birds
Here’s a beautiful example of “Science” over-reaching. To be specific, a team of researchers jumped from the fossil remains of a really large snake to pronouncing the average temperature when the snake lived must have been a few degrees higher than it is today. Of course, this was based on the longest officially recorded snake, never mind reports suggesting there are or may have more recently been much larger ones. And of course, they also use the usual dating scheme and place it at about 59 million years in the past.
Continue reading Giant snake made into magic thermometer
One of the tantalizing corners of science (or fringe science, or pseudo-science, depending on the case and whom you ask) is OOPArts: Out Of Place Artifacts. These are apparently man-made objects found in geologic layers supposedly much too old for their level of technology, or even for humans to have evolved. I was studying a case today that came up in 2011 of a sort of reverse nature. It is a human skull (or part of one) found in Nigeria, where ancestral human remains are not often found. According to radioactive dating, this one is relatively recent, only 13,000 years old. While this is more than double the Biblically-derived age of the Earth, it’s not that far off compared to the many tens of thousands, or even millions of years, assigned to human ancestors. It is well into the period when even our cousins the Neanderthals are said to have died out, and only fully modern humans were in existence. In fact, an impressive archaeological site, Gobekli Tepe, is thought to be possibly that old, and it has huge stone pillars, not rough as at Stonehenge, but smooth and with carvings of animals. Continue reading OOPS = Out Of Place Skull
Today I checked out the report on Bunostegos. The news article that directed me to it is “Knobby-Faced Beast May Be Earliest Known To Stand Tall On All Fours.” This is a fossil that is grouped with other “parareptiles.” The Huffington post article said they were “pre-reptiles,” but actually they are believed by evolutionists to have evolved separately from true reptiles. Most of their “earliest” fossils appear after those of the “first” true reptile fossils. One exceptionally early parareptile fossil is Erpetonyx arsenaultorum. That was found in Carboniferous deposits. The parareptiles included a group that once was thought to be the closest to the ancestors of turtles, but the most recently proposed turtle ancestor, Pappochelys, belongs to a different group. Of course, the next new fossil could change that view again.
Continue reading Bunostegos: Something weird just got more weird