Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Evolution’ Category


Ask an anti-Chrisitan about where human life came from and most if not all will say it evolved.  Then play the “Seven Questions” game with them.   The tactic is actually used with “Why?” to get through root-cause analysis but works here too.  Let’s use a variety of interrogatives to get through this one though:

1.  Evolved from what?

2.  Where did apes come from?

3.  What did they evolve from?

4.  Where did these earlier life forms come from?

5.  Where did the first life on earth come from?

6.  If it was a lightning strike into a pond of some primordial ooze, how was that life sustained long enough to live, grow, divide or reproduce?

7.  If it was some cosmic “germ” sent here on an asteroid or comet, where did that life come from?

And with either question 6 or 7, one has to back-up and realize that SCIENCE has no answer to these questions.  Go back far enough, even at this high level, and the theory of evolution falls on its face.  Life originated somewhere  and it’s just not likely that the primordial single-cell organisms had the means, being only seconds, minutes, or even hours old, to feed much less reproduce:  

1.  What would they feed on?  (Food?)

2.  How would they feed or even know that they should feed?  (Mouth?  Digestive System?  Waste?)

3.  How would they be aware of other organisms? (Sensory organs?  Awareness?)

4.  How would they know how to or even be aware of the need or benefit of mating?  (Sexual or Asexual, either way)

5.  Absent “instincts” to feed or mate, how long did they live? (Definition of life? Death?)

6.  Why didn’t the next lightning strike not destroy them all?  (Fragility of “new” life?)

7.  How much of the fantasy is the world willing to take, absent any evidence, and purely on faith?

Fast forward to today and we have an article about Osedax, a so-called zombie worm that apparently destroys whale bones before they can fossilize—and naturally, become the “a ha!” answer as to why we seem to be missing fossil records that would tie the species together.  How convenient that these worms would destroy only the pieces we need in order to link together all of the abundant fossils we have today!

Another article talks about how humans mated with Neanderthals and Denisovan ancestors to Homo Sapiens.  The theory is built on a finger bone and a tooth.  From this, we create a whole race of people who are apparently responsible, to some degree, for giving us an Asian population.  Good thing I’m not Asian or I would be deeply offended!

Faith… faith in science built on speculation, refusal to accept religion as an answer, and built on body fragments of one or more individuals.

Faith… built on geography, history, and peoples who have been present on the planet as far back as anyone can recall.  The Bible includes the corroborated histories of Egypt, Israel, Iraq, Iran, Italy, Greece, and more.  The artifacts are there.  The cities are there.  The walls, the pottery, tombs, and more.

Show me more than a finger and a tooth and maybe… just maybe… I ‘ll buy into the Denisovan story.   Nah!

MORE:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/02/osedax-fossil-zombie-worms_n_1071560.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/02/humans-mated-with-denisovan_n_1070221.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmaing6%7Cdl1%7Csec3_lnk1%7C109499

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45107973/ns/technology_and_science-science/#.TrBNZHEzKdg

Advertisements

Read Full Post »


Science has been of interest to me as far back as I can remember, which is probably 1964.  Over the years, my understanding of the various sciences has expanded and changed, keeping a bit back from the pace of discovery, but not lagging too far behind.  It is this ongoing exposure to and interest in science that makes me the skeptic I am today.  I’ve learned that “science” is not always as scientific as we are led to believe and that, more importantly, it is limited by man’s ability to think, reason, and observe.  Man is more limited than we’d like to think as well.

The science news of the day, today, Friday, September 24, 2011, is that scientists at CERN may have discovered a particle that travels faster than the accepted speed limit of 186,000+ MPS, the speed of light.  While not confirmed yet, the finding, if validated, will turn the science of physics (in particular) on its ear!  Einstein and his Special Theory of Relativity from which we get E=mc2 would be invalidated.  I’m certain there would be a quantum physics exception developed to uphold the genius of Einstein.

I guess my point is this:  Scientists can be so dogmatic on the certainty of what is “known” until the next unknown is discovered and becomes the new dogma.  There are those already saying that it is impossible that anything travels faster than the speed of light.  Intrenched in their view, they could become the new “flat Earthers” of our generation.

Thought applied, who is to say that any science is based on all there is to know and that the conclusions of science are final?  Maybe in some areas such as chemistry, geology, etc., there are absolutes.  But in the harder to observe and quantify sciences, to include the sciences that look at evolution and origin of the world and its species, how can they know?  It’s clear from the ripples caused by new discoveries that the idea applies here as well:  They don’t know what they don’t know.  In the absence of that knowledge, they surmise and guess—sorry, hypothesize and theorize.  Given enough time though, the theories become fact and science ends up in a rut.

Case in point:  Special Theory of Relativity

Extended point would include Evolutionary theory—which continues to evolve.

MORE:

Excerpt from the article (emphasis added):  “It is ‘a revolutionary discovery if confirmed,’ said Indiana University theoretical physicist Alan Kostelecky, who has worked on this concept for a quarter of a century.

Stephen Parke, who is head theoretician at the Fermilab near Chicago and was not part of the research, said: “It’s a shock. It’s going to cause us problems, no doubt about that – if it’s true.”

Even if these results are confirmed, they won’t change at all the way we live or the way the world works. After all, these particles have presumably been speed demons for billions of years. But the finding will fundamentally alter our understanding of how the universe operates, physicists said.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/22/cern-light-speed_n_977014.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmaing6%7Cdl8%7Csec1_lnk3%7C98214

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20110594-264/physics-shocker-neutrinos-clocked-faster-than-light/

Read Full Post »


Every so-many years, a discovery is made that causes science to review, discuss, debate, and ultimately rewrite human history.  I remember the excitement of the National Geographic delivery of “Lucy” to a curious world.  Lucy was found in 1974.  This ancient human ancestor held so much promise of answers about the history of man.  Yet here we are, 37 years later with no better answer than before the fragments of this biped were discovered.

The latest discovery which prompted this post is a find from 2008 billed as “Australopithecus sediba“.  Two remains were found and have shaken up the family tree.  Scientists are at odds as to whether this is an ancestor of Homo Sapiens or not—and if so, how it fits into the tree.  If not, what does this find represent?  Another hominid species?

Here is what it represents:

  1. More clarity as to the vague nature of science.  It is clear that even in the presence of all of man’s ability to test, analyze, and consider in light of a wealth of knowledge, an answer is not as forthcoming as some may wish.
  2. There are contradictions in what man “knows” about our early history.  The main article below details the “if this, then that” nature of the argument.  There is no science here beyond the science of discovery.  The science of discovery is what I consider the use of scientific practices in finding, examining, and documenting something when little is factually known.  There is a methodical analysis of the find that is described here but bottom line is—they just don’t know!
  3. Man wants to understand where we came from and why we’re here.  Science will continue to look for those answers and continue the conjecture until the day man is no more.  But science will not provide definitive answers that last beyond the next find.
  4. IF these finds represent early human ancestors, the tree begins in Africa and would suggest that such a lineage is the mother of all human life.  Light pigmentation, light hair, straight hair, etc., are the marks of human mutations.  Africanized features in the human species would be the baseline.  White Supremacists could have some fun doing DNA testing for membership into their organizations.

Of course, I do not accept the speculations of scientists and prefer to hold their fickle answers up to the same ridicule to which they hold my creationist views.  My answers on where human life started and how it came to be haven’t changed despite finds related to archaeology, paleontology, or anthropology.  They haven’t changed based on DNA testing or carbon-14 testing.  However, scientists—the oh-so-well-educated elite—find themselves changing human history on a constant basis.  Their “facts” last only so long, eventually becoming the “folly” of previous conjecture and thought.

 

MORE:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)

http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/08/ancient-fossils-question-human-family-tree/?hpt=hp_bn1

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/science/04/08/hominid.discovery.skeleton/index.html

 http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/08/lucy-discoverer-why-i-study-human-evolution/

 

Read Full Post »


As someone named Matt once said, “Science never deals with certainties and always allows room for more evidence.”  It’s interesting that he would make such an absolute statement based on “never”.  For instance, NASA engineers would be shocked to realize that there are no certainties when it comes to escape velocities.  Imagine if there were such uncertainties when the next shuttle launch occurs.  Also nuclear physics—certainly a science—would be catastrophic if not for certainties. 

Well, no-one here ever said Matt was an expert.

And as for the other experts in the field of evolution, it seems they’re dealing with some uncertainties of their own.  The recent discovery of fossilized footprints in a quarry in Poland has the community rethinking it’s beliefs.  The article, poorly written as it is, can be found at the link below. 

The footprints are said to have been made by a tetrapod, a four-legged creature that is essentially a fish with limbs instead of fins.  The problem comes in when scientists compare what they found to what they knew, or at least what they thought they knew.  Here’s what they “knew”:

  • The fossilized bodies of tetrapods found so far date to 377 million years ago
  • The oldest known elpistostegids date to 385 million years ago (an animal that had retained fins)

And now here is what they have “learned”:

  • The fossilized footprints found in Poland date to 395 million years ago
  • This is 18 million years earlier than the fossil body record supported
  • This is 10 million years earlier than what was expected based on divergence water and land creatures

According to the report about the find, this will “force a radical reassessment of the timing, ecology and environmental setting of the fish-tetrapod transition, as well as the completeness of the body fossil record.”

Of course!

So aside from being able to so precisely determine the timeframe during which these footprints were made–which according to Matt’s assertion was done without “certainty”, science now has to go back and reassess when these species lived and when they diverged–if they did at all.

This is what is taught as scientific fact.  It appear though that all previous “knowledge” on the matter was speculative at best so no doubt that it is now called into question.  With this sort of science, there will be no certainties at all with evolution—only the facts as they appear when most recently interpreted.  This is the “truth” of the day until as Matt would suggest, there is “more evidence“.

MORE:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/01/07/tetrapods.poland.evolution.discovery/index.html

http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2010/01/fossil_tracks_push_back_the_invasion_of_land_by_18_million_y.php

http://www.euranet.eu/eng/Today/News/English-News/Poland-s-fossil-footprints-force-evolution-rethink

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jan/06/footprints-tetrapods-walked

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8443879.stm

Read Full Post »


Another piece of the evolutionary puzzle has been discovered, setting off new discussions on modular evolution.  According to the article,

“Darwinopterus came as quite a shock to us” said Dr David Unwin, from the University of Leicester, UK.

“We had always expected a gap-filler with typically intermediate features such as a moderately elongate tail – neither long nor short.

“But the strange thing about Darwinopterus is that it has a head and neck just like that of advanced pterosaurs, while the rest of the skeleton, including a very long tail, is identical to that of primitive forms.”

Why the shock?  Clearly, the ability to correctly hypothesize on the evolution of a species is a bit lacking.  To me, this suggests that once again, evolutionary theory—and this would warrant use of the word “theory”—is all about hypothesis, testing, evidence, hypothesis.  As stated in an earlier post, when the pieces don’t fit, change the picture to make them fit.

Dr Unwin, could this be an intra-breed creature?  If you were to look at the fossilized remains of a tiger, a lion, and a liger in say, 160 million years, would you conclude that the liger is an evolutionary bridge between the two species?

Of course, being the skeptic that I am, I find it all the more interesting that so many finds are coming out of China these days.

More:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8306060.stm

Read Full Post »


DarwinWhat many look at in nature to support evolution is actually adaptation and specialization.  What scientists have looked for over the decades has been proof of true evolution—that is, evidence of a mid-stage in a species or between species.  Specifically, we can find eggs, pupae, nymphs, and adults in insects, depending on the insect and how it develops.  We can watch the development over time so that we know the creature is actually the same thing—not something new.

In looking back over man’s history, despite all of the thousands of fossilized remains and actual skeletal remains that have been found, no-one has yet found that mid-stage creature between “monkey” and man.  No-one has found that mid-stage creature between dinosaur and bird.  And no-one has found any other mid-stage creature to support the theory of evolution.  Once such evidence is found and validated, the theory would cease to be a theory.

So man has filled in the blanks with conjecture and has brought along generations in the belief.  Many who believe evolution are dogmatic about it to the exclusion of Creationism, yet they do not have reliable, documented and unbiased evidence to support their positions.  What they will fall back on are websites that look and sound good but which fail to produce any “real” evidence.  And they qusetion the faith answer that Creationists give?

It takes as much faith, if not more faith, to accept evolution as true.

MORE:

http://www.kctv5.com/news/20655497/detail.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Why?  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1070671/Evolution-stops-Future-Man-look-says-scientist.html

A Light-Hearted View of Evolution:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYhCn0jf46U

Read Full Post »


Detectives Dani Reese (l) and Charlie Crews (r)A body is found in the back of a freezer compartment, a small puncture wound to the back of the head is the best evidence to the cause of death.  Investigators search for the murder weapon.  It is something that is about one inch in diameter and it produced a 2-inch puncture to the base of the skull.  Most likely, someone came up behind the victim, plunged the weapon into the brain stem, and left him there to die, unable to speak, breathe, or move in any voluntary manner that could save him from a cold death.  The search for the evidence to prove the crime and find the culprit is on.

Isn’t evolution pretty much the same in the way man has gone about trying to prove it?  Actually, I don’t believe it’s man’s attempt to PROVE EVOLUTION as much as it is his attempt to DISPROVE GOD.  As far back as I can remember, I recall stories and reports in the news about scientist looking for “the missing link”.  In my earlier school days, some of us were convinced we had actually found it only to have the teacher tell us to stop talking and to leave “Larry” alone.  Well, as it turns out, Larry was not the missing link and we never found one.  Man will not either since one does not exist—but that won’t stop him in his quest to prove what cannot be proven.  

Sort of like the paraphrasing of an episode of “Life” told above.  There was no murder.  The “victim” had dropped something on the floor behind a freezer shelf, bent down and through the shelving to retrieve it, and was impaled by an icicle upon rising back up and out from his bent position.  Only Detective Charlie Crews pieces this together as he “sees” things differently than most.

But something has been missing in the evolutionary claims made by science and those eager to drink up the nonsense that spews from that fountain.  What science has yet to provide (and I wonder why) are the transitional species that would have to exist if evolution were factual.

In simpler terms, if I surmise an egg I find on the ground belongs to a particular bird species, I would be able to prove it through the available evidence acquired over time.  For instance, I should be able to find birds sitting on a clutch of eggs that match the one I found.  That in itself would not be proof because some birds lay their eggs in the nests of other birds.  The cuckoo family is famous for it.

I would need to find hatchling evidence to show what newly hatched birds came from the egg.  As a young example, since the hatchling may not resemble the parent at that stage, I would want to track it to adulthood to prove the species.  And even at that point, I may want to isolate a female bird about to lay to gather that piece of evidence.  In other words, observation and evidence go hand-in-hand.

Evolution is one of those points of conjecture that has never been observed, nor can it be.  We have witnessed adaptation within a species but no-one has witnessed nor do they have evidence to support a claim that one species has or can evolve into another.

ida1That brings us to “Ida”, a fossilized primate found 26 years ago and now being touted as an early ancestral species leading to monkeys, men, and other primates such as the very similar lemur.  There is no record of anything before it—no record of anything after it.  There is just this cool fossil that has been carbon-dated at 47 million years and fits nicely into the puzzle of humanists belief.

If this is science, then I appreciate all the more that I am not a scientist.  The evidence to support this conjecture is flimsy.  It is based almost entirely on skeletal examination with comparison to other known primates from fossil records and existing primates of today.  Why anyone would not accept this as a new species that is now extinct is perhaps a better question.  Actually, it is recognized as a new genus and species.  More precisely, what I would suggest is that it is not necessarily related to anything alive today.  If it is ancestral, it could be ancestral to lemurs or other similar primates while having nothing to do with man.  And if science and evolution are correct about man—indicating he appeared on the planet around 195,000 years ago, what happened between Ida and man’s appearance?  That’s approximately 46.8 million years that go unaccounted for.

For now, the world is lapping up the news, happy at the concept that God is farther away and we are getting closer to our animal roots.  If man can prove our evolution from some primordial ooze, then we can disprove the existence of God and dismiss the Bible as nothing more than fables.  We can disallow morality and live a life devoid of the Christian concepts of love, mercy, forgiveness—well, if morality is relative, then there is no sin and nothing to forgive other than what we feel is a wrong commited against us.

I was surprised to see that Dennis Hwang got into the fray.  He’s the Google artist known for his timely and sometimes googlewhimsical spellings of “GOOGLE”.  Today’s offering is Ida lying among some rocks in a form that spells the name of the company.  Who would have thought that a primate born (according to them) 47 million years ago would get its 15 minutes of fame all this time later?  In reality, Ida will enjoy far more fame as she is held up by millions around the world as a sort of Earth mother to the human race.

God help us!

MORE:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/05/19/human.ancestor/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0005723

http://www.plosone.org/article/slideshow.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0005723&imageURI=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0005723.g001#

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemur

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »