Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next »

nolidad

Profile Information

Member since: Sun May 25, 2014, 03:43 PM
Number of posts: 15,099

Journal Archives

Do you all remember when....

When Obama took office- the dems all cried that we should have greater respect for our president and that their children and wives should be untouched?

How quickly they forget what they consider to be proper manners and ways to behave!!!!!

Best of 2017: Sixth Extinction


BY BRIAN THOMAS, M.S. * | TUESDAY, JANUARY 02, 2018

Geologists reassessed the abundance of fossils in Earth’s uppermost rock layers this year, and they believe they found a remarkable sixth global extinction event.1 Their discovery has two significant implications.

When a variety of fossilized life forms found in one rock layer no longer occur in rock layers above, evolutionary scientists call that change in fossil type an extinction event. This assumes that eons separate the layers. And it assumes the creatures were evolving.

For decades, fossil experts recognized only five major extinctions. However, more extensive and accurate fossil counts from around the world, recorded in an online database, revealed creature cut-offs in upper, Cenozoic layers that researchers now interpret as a sixth worldwide mass die-off.

What should this mean to the scientific community at large? It implies that sometimes even the basics of a discipline, like the long-held five extinctions of paleontology, fall short.

The Flood’s liquid violence accounts for sudden animal and plant burial, and its worldwide extent as specified in Scripture explains the worldwide extent of the supposed extinctions. Tweet: The Flood’s liquid violence accounts for sudden animal and plant burial, and its worldwide extent as specified in Scripture explains the worldwide extent of the supposed extinctions.


This revelation also bears significance for Flood geology. Instead of representing extinction events separated by millions of years, Flood geologists interpret all the places where fossil types change rather abruptly as water-borne phases of Noah’s Flood year. The Flood’s liquid violence accounts for sudden animal and plant burial, and its worldwide extent as specified in Scripture explains the worldwide extent of the supposed extinctions. Also, the Flood’s relatively recent occurrence explains why so many of those buried bones still retain original organics inside the long-buried creatures.2

This new wide angle fossil analysis suggests that Cenozoic rocks may contain fossils from the Flood, too.

There weren’t five separate extinctions, or even this sixth one in Earth’s upper rock layers. Just one Flood accounts for all these mass die-offs, in huge, rapid, muddy sequences, as befits the Bible’s brief but precise description.3

Just one Flood accounts for all these mass die-offs, in huge, rapid, muddy sequences, as befits the Bible’s brief but precise description. Tweet: Just one Flood accounts for all these mass die-offs, in huge, rapid, muddy sequences, as befits the Bible’s brief but precise description.



Whether interpreting rocks from a secular or biblical perspective, new (and more accurate) data can and should reshape old ideas.

References

Pimiento, C. et al. 2017. The Pliocene marine megafauna extinction and its impact on functional diversity. Nature Ecology & Evolution. 1: 1100-1106.
Thomas, B. 2017. Best of 2017: Fleshy Fossils. Creation Science Update. Posted on ICR.org December 28, 2017.
Genesis 7:22: “All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died.”

Epigenetic Study Produces 'Backwards' Human-Ape Tree


BY JEFFREY P. TOMKINS, PH.D. * | FRIDAY, AUGUST 16, 2013

* Dr. Tomkins is Research Associate at the Institute for Creation Research and received his Ph.D. in Genetics from Clemson University

A recently published study in the epigenetic modification of DNA regions similar among humans and three different apes not only provided a completely mixed up picture of evolution, but one that was entirely backwards.1

Epigenetic modifications are chemical tags that are added along chromosomes in specific patterns that control how genes are expressed. At present, 12 different types of gene regulating modifications (i.e., chemical tagging) to histone proteins that package the DNA molecule are well-documented in the human genome.2 In addition to the modification of histones, the DNA molecule itself can be tagged by methyl groups on the cytosine nucleotide bases. Thus, the combinatorial epigenetic code is exceedingly complex, but key to understanding how the genome works.

While the DNA code is closely similar in all cells throughout the human body, the epigenetic code and its patterns vary depending on cell and tissue type.2 Because these epigenetic patterns control how genes are expressed in the cell, evolutionists have been interested in comparing the patterns between humans and apes to check for commonalities and dissimilarities. Interestingly, a comparative epigenetic study just published by evolutionary scientists completely contradicts the standard, inferred evolutionary tree for human-ape evolution.

In this study, researchers examined the DNA methylation patterns in the blood cells of humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans.1 They focused on the areas of chromosomes 21 and 22 that are highly similar among all four human and ape genomes. The regions between the chromosomes that were too dissimilar (>98.8 percent identical) were not compared. Another recent study has shown that overall, chimp chromosomes 21 and 22 are on average 76.2 and 77.9 percent similar, respectively, in their actual DNA sequence compared to human.3 Thus, there are areas on these chromosomes that are very similar and other regions that are not. Comparative epigenetics, like many other types of evolutionary DNA studies, can only be done on the areas between chromosomes that are highly similar.

In the study, 16 different regions were identified that exhibited strong DNA methylation pattern differences between humans and chimps. These regions were then chosen for further comparison with gorillas and orangutans. The regions were also highly different between humans and the other apes, but not in the levels and patterns one might anticipate based on evolutionary predictions.

When the researchers used the DNA methylation data from the 16 different regions to form an evolutionary tree, it was completely backwards compared to the commonly believed order of evolution for apes that supposedly led up to humans. (See Figure below.) Orangutans, who supposedly are the least evolved among apes compared to humans, actually had more DNA methylation patterns similar to humans than chimps or gorillas. And if that was not enough, gorillas were the next closest in similarity to humans with chimps falling out last! According to evolutionary predictions, chimps should have been most similar to humans, then gorillas, and lastly orangutans.





Major differences between human and chimp epigenetic profiles have been noted before.4 But these study results are particularly interesting because they utterly defy all predictions in the evolutionary paradigm—literally turning it on its head and showing that it is a fallible model of human origins.

These results continue to verify the biblical account of creation wherein all forms of life—including humans, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans—were each created after their kind, uniquely and independently.

References

Fukuda, et al. 2013. Regional DNA methylation differences between humans and chimpanzees are associated with genetic changes, transcriptional divergence and disease genes. Journal of Human Genetics. 58 (7): 446–454.
The ENCODE Project Consortium. 2012. An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome. Nature. 489 (7414): 57-74.
Tomkins, J. 2013. Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70%. Answers Research Journal. 6 (1): 63–69.
Tomkins, J. 2013. Epigenetics Proves Humans and Chimps Are Different. Acts & Facts. 42 (1): 11-12.

More Fluctuations Found in Isotopic Clocks


BY BRIAN THOMAS, M.S. * | FRIDAY, AUGUST 17, 2012

Age-dating a rock using its radioactive isotopes only works by assuming that the rate at which that "clock" ticks was constant in the past and essentially identical to that in the present. Not long ago, scientists discovered excess helium in crystals1 and "orphaned" polonium radiohalos,2 both of which imply that the decay rates of isotopes commonly used to date earth rocks were dramatically accelerated in the past. Even today, researchers are finding small but significant changes in isotope decay rates, and these add credibility to the idea that isotopic processes were once very different from today's processes.

One standard isotopic clock system uses decaying uranium isotopes. Uranium spontaneously and slowly decays to lead (Pb on the Periodic Table of Elements). Two different uranium isotopes, 235U and 238U, decay into lead at different rates. Geologists assume that the ratio between these is constant and known, giving a convenient shortcut to uranium dating, which only requires that the two uranium amounts be measured.

Of course, this shortcut age-dating method assumes that 238U and 235U have decayed at today's rates throughout the past. It also assumes that the relative amounts of the two have been constant. Physics Today editor Johanna Miller recently wrote, "Standard Pb-Pb dating protocol uses a 238U/235U ratio of 137.88 with zero uncertainty. But several recent studies have cast doubt on that number."3

Miller cited one experiment that found that the uranium ratio (the heavier 238U to lighter weight 235U) is not constant. The study authors wrote, "Our observations have a direct impact on the U-series and U-Th-Pb chronometers," meaning that dates "determined" by uranium decay will need revision.4

Yet another study reported natural variation in the uranium ratio. These authors suggested that natural processes separate the isotopes from one another and skew the ratio, thereby skewing the ages gained by the assumption that the ratio was constant. These authors wrote, "The discovery that 238U/235U varies in nature also has implications for the precision and accuracy of U-Pb dating. The total observed range in U isotope compositions would produce variations in 207Pb/206Pb ages of young U-bearing minerals of up to 3 Ma , and up to 2 Ma for minerals that are 3 billion years old."5

Two to three million years are not a huge part of three billion. So, adjusting already-published dates to reflect these new and larger error margins will not displace billion-year-old age assignments. However, if today's comparatively tame natural processes affect isotope ratios, then ancient and much more violent processes could have affected those ratios and rates much more, just as the helium in crystals and orphaned radiohalos imply.

Another isotope system used for dating, though more rarely than uranium, is that which occurs when a radioactive samarium isotope decays to the element neodymium. A 2012 Science report re-measured samarium's decay rate, finding that it occurs only about 66 percent as fast as "the currently used value" for age dating.6 This is a huge discrepancy! It means that all published samarium-dated rock ages need to be re-evaluated.

In addition, Purdue University just applied for a patent on a solar flare warning system that relies on ways in which the earth-sun relationship somehow alters nuclear decay rates. Purdue News reports that "Advance warning could allow satellite and power grid operators to take steps to minimize impact and astronauts to shield themselves from potentially lethal radiation emitted during solar storms."7 Their invention would rely on detecting changes in the rate of manganese 54 decaying to chromium 54. Researchers observed the decay rate changes occurring about a day prior to solar flares.

Even carbon dating is in hot water. Scientists typically use this method to age-date carbon-containing objects thought to be only tens of thousands of years old. The relevant radioactive carbon isotope (14C) decays so fast that it should no longer exist in earth materials that are a million or more years old.8 Recently, researchers measured elevated levels of 14C in correlated tree rings and attributed the spike to an unidentified "massive cosmic event."9 If natural processes did alter carbon isotope ratios, then why trust dates that assume the ratios were never altered?

Science shows that isotopic clocks are not all trustworthy.10 The isotope ratios and rates upon which they depend are variable, even on today's comparatively calm earth surface. During the tumultuous Flood, when immeasurable quantities of mantle material were ejected onto earth's surface and water potentially contaminated everything, isotopic clocks ticked much, much faster.11

References

Humphreys, D.R. 2005. Young Helium Diffusion Age of Zircons Supports Accelerated Nuclear Decay. In Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, Vol. 2. Vardiman, L. et al., eds. El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research and Chino Valley, AZ: Creation Research Society.
Gentry, R.V. 1974. Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and Cosmolocial Perspective. Science. 184 (4132): 62-66.
Miller, J. 2012. Time to reset isotopic clocks? Physics Today. 65 (6): 20-21.
Stirling, C.H. et al. 2007. Low-temperature isotopic fractionation of uranium. Earth and Planetary Science Letters. 264 (1): 208-225.
Weyer, S. et al. 2008. Natural fractionation of 238U/235U. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta. 72 (2): 345-359.
Kinoshita, N. et al. 2012. A Shorter 146Sm Half-Life Measured and Implications for 146Sm-142Nd Chronology in the Solar System. Science. 335 (6076): 1614-1617.
Venere, E. New system could predict solar flares, give advance warning. Purdue News. Posted on purdue.edu, August 13, 2012.
Despite this, 90 instances of C-14 in supposedly million-year-old earth materials were reviewed and 10 more were presented in Baumgardner, J.R. et al. 2003. Measurable 14C in Fossilized Organic Materials: Confirming the Young Earth Creation-Flood Model. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism. R.L. Ivey, ed. Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., 127-142.
Lovett, R. A. Mysterious radiation burst recorded in tree rings. Nature news. Posted on nature.com June 3, 2012, accessed August 10, 2012.
Austin, S.A. 2005. Do Radioisotope Clocks Need Repair? Testing the Assumptions of Isochron Dating Using K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, and Pb-Pb Isotopes. In Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, Vol. 2.Vardiman, L.et al., eds. El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research and Chino Valley, AZ: Creation Research Society.
When heated to plasma, bare nuclei of rhenium radioisotopes decay a billion times faster than normal. See Bosch, F. et al. 1996. Observation of Bound-State β- Decay of Fully Ionized 187Re: 187Re- 187Os Cosmochronometry. Physical Review Letters. 77 (26): 5190-5193.

Cherry-Picked Age for Key Evolutionary Fossil


BY BRIAN THOMAS, M.S. * | THURSDAY, JUNE 08, 2017

Homo naledi, the latest failed candidate for a missing link in human evolution, was deposited in the Rising Star cave system in South Africa. New fossil dating attempts reveal troubling difficulties with science’s attempt at answering historical questions.

The answer to naledi’s timing carries some big implications. If the naledi fossils receive a date of three or so million years, then they could remain in the running for a possible missing link between ancient apes and modern humans. But researchers gave the remains a much more recent age, unseating naledi from any evolutionary hopes. How did they determine an age for the remains or the flowstones discovered around them? After all, it’s not like time is a substance that science can directly probe.

Paul Dirks from Australia’s James Cook University led the study, published in the online technical journal eLife.1 Dirks told LSU’s Media Center, “The dating of naledi was extremely challenging. Eventually, six independent dating methods allowed us to constrain the age of this population of Homo naledi to a period known as the late Middle Pleistocene.”2

Why six methods? If scientists really trust any single method, shouldn’t that one suffice? The need to compare so many different methods on various samples is just the first of many difficulties with scientific attempts to assign ancient dates to objects.

Results from five of those six methods provide enough information to understand the challenge this team faced in assigning an evolutionary-friendly age to these potentially key fossils. They applied radiocarbon (C-14), Electron-Spin Resonance (ESR), uranium-thorium decay (U-Th), and Optically-Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) in a central age statistical model (CAM), and OSL in a minimal age model (MAM) to bones, teeth, and cave flowstones that surrounded the fossils.

Dating methods should reveal their reliability by independently giving very similar ages for the same sample and its surroundings. But these six results landed all over the place, leaving an 800,000 year gap between the youngest and oldest dates.

U-Th on the flowstone FS1b showed an age of about 290,000 uranium years, but OSL (CAM) results ranged from 546,000 to 560,000 years. OSL (MAM) on flowstone FS1a showed 353,000 years, but OSL (CAM) gave approximately 849,000!1 Will the real flowstone age please stand up?

ESR results from one tooth ranged from 87,000 to 104,000 years, but the U-Th method on the same sample showed only 43,500 to 46,100 years. Similarly, ESR from another tooth yielded 230,000 to 284,000, whereas U-Th results for the same sample ranged 66,200 to 146,800 years. Last, C-14 results for associated bones ranged from 33,000 to about 35,500 carbon years.

How did Dirks’ team determine that the H. naledi bones were deposited between 236,000 to 335,000 years from this wide-ranging age collection?

Actually, discordant age-dates like these typify attempts to use natural processes like decaying radioactive elements or erosion as clocks. Very often, researchers can select from a range of options.3 And when they do, they commonly explain away those results they choose to reject.4 That’s not science; it’s cherry picking. It’s more like blind guesswork with evolutionary time driving date selection—they look at all the data and essentially select the ones that fit what they are looking for. This Homo naledi paper was no exception.

The naledi dating team chose the older tooth results, from ESR, and the U-Th ages from certain flowstones. They did not even explain why they rejected the U-Th result from three different Homo naledi teeth, which ranged from 43,500 to 146,000 years.

The team also rejected all the data taken directly from the actual bones they were trying to date. At least they offered some reasoning when they cited contamination from calcite precipitation as affecting the C-14 results. But what direct observation of contamination led them to this speculation? They gave none.

Without a truly objective way to select from their options, a strong possibility emerges—perhaps none come anywhere close to the fossil’s actual age.

In the end, it looks like these researchers rejected all the younger ages in favor of the oldest results. But the new age determination still lands nowhere near the three million years that Homo naledi needs to satisfy the evolutionary model. But at least an age of 236,000 to 335,000 years doesn’t sound too embarrassing for evolution—they’re only off by a factor of ten.5

References

Dirks, P.H.G.M. et al. 2017. The age of Homo naledi and associated sediments in the Rising Star Cave, South Africa. eLife. 6:e24231.
New Research Shows Early Ancestor May Have Coincided with Modern Humans. LSU Media Center. Posted on lsu.edu May 9, 2017, accessed May 26, 2017.
Woodmorappe, J. 1979. Radiometric Geochronology Reappraised. Creation Research Society Quarterly. 16 (2): 102-129.
Woodmorappe, J. 1999. The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods. Santee, CA: Institute for Creation Research.
Anatomically modern human remains already occur in Middle Pleistocene sediments, which in a biblical timeline were deposited during the post-Flood Ice Age, showing that naledi did not predate, and thus did not evolve into, modern man.

Are Evolution and Adaptation the Same?


BY JEFFREY P. TOMKINS, PH.D. * | MONDAY, APRIL 30, 2018

Due to the bombardment of evolutionary propaganda, most people think the terms evolution and adaptation basically represent the same thing. But nothing could be further from the truth. When one has a proper understanding of how creatures adapt and the incredible complexity of the mechanisms that enable them to do so, logic points to an all-wise Creator as adaptability’s cause.1,2 The scientific reality of the engineered complexity of adaptation is actually contradictory to the man-made myth of step-by-step gradual evolution over time.

The scientific reality of the engineered complexity of adaptation is actually contradictory to the man-made myth of step-by-step gradual evolution over time.

Adaptability is a fundamental feature of all living things on Earth. The problem is that evolutionists find it difficult to explain how intricate adaptive mechanisms could have emerged. A plant or animal cannot adapt unless it is already adaptable. As the saying goes, in their quest to explain the survival of the fittest, evolutionists have no viable explanation for the arrival of the fittest. Living organisms appear to be innately adaptable, thus the complexity and importance of adaptability are actually a key argument in debunking evolution.

Evolutionists believe adaptable traits arose through the progressive accumulation of random genetic mutations that somehow provided an advantage to living things facing specific environmental challenges. But not only are nearly all mutations either harmful or at best neutral, it’s impossible to achieve a functioning system of many orchestrated components one step at a time. All-or-nothing systems cannot evolve bit by bit. For virtually any complex system to work, every component has to be in place all at once!

Mechanisms of adaptation are made up of complex integrated components, including environmental sensors, signaling pathways, feedback and feed-forward loops, and information control systems in the creature’s DNA. By applying basic engineering principles to these living systems, the conclusion is obvious that they were intelligently designed by God.3

Another feature of adaptability that often gets confused with evolution is the genetic variability built into different kinds of creatures.4 For example, because of human breeding efforts based on the created genetic variability built into the canine kind, various dog breeds have been produced that look radically different from each other. But the fact remains they are all dogs and haven’t been changed into a fundamentally different creature like a cat. Even the Galapagos finches that Charles Darwin and others have studied could interbreed with each other, and they produced nothing but finches. Evolutionists like to extrapolate the observed variability within kinds as evidence for single cells evolving into people, but built-in mechanisms of genetic variability are an important part of adaptable design, too.

The facts of science clearly point to the wonderful engineering of an all-powerful Creator. Tweet: The facts of science clearly point to the wonderful engineering of an all-powerful Creator.

Evolution and adaptation are not the same. The complex internal mechanisms of adaptation combined with built-in genetic variability allow creatures to fill niches, diversify, and make homes across many different environments. The facts of science clearly point to the wonderful engineering of an all-powerful Creator, not the failed myth that nature somehow created itself through chance random processes.

References

Guliuzza, R. J. 2017. Engineered Adaptability: Engineering Principles Point to God’s Workmanship. Acts & Facts. 46 (6): 16-19.
Guliuzza, R. J. 2017. Engineered Adaptability: Arriving at a Design-Based Framework for Adaptability. Acts & Facts. 46 (8): 17-19.
Guliuzza, R. J. 2017. Engineered Adaptability: Engineering Principles Should Guide Biological Research. Acts & Facts. 46 (7): 17-19.
Tomkins, J. P. 2012. Mechanisms of Adaptation in Biology: Genetic Diversity. Acts & Facts. 41 (5): 8.

Homo naledi Bones Not Ritually Buried

BY TIM CLAREY, PH.D. * | THURSDAY, MAY 17, 2018

Since Lee Berger and his team announced their discovery of Homo naledi,1 they have been claiming that the bones found in the Dinaledi Chamber, South Africa, were deliberately disposed by living Homo naledi.2 While some objected to this interpretation,3-5 Berger’s team stuck with it and continued to promulgate the human-like behavior associated with purposeful burial.6

Homo naledi was an ape—evidence from all sides points to this. Tweet: Homo naledi was an ape—evidence from all sides points to this.


A new study published in PNAS strikes another blow against the deliberate disposal interpretation.7 Charles Egeland at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro and his colleagues from across the globe used machine-learning technology to reassess the Homo naledi discovery site and another cave site in Spain called Sima de los Huesos.

The authors explained their methods:

Here we employ a machine-learning approach that compares hominin skeletal part representation in the SH and DC assemblages to 14 modern and prehistoric accumulations of modern human, archaic human, australopith, and nonhuman primate skeletal remains.7

In other words, the scientists “taught” their computer program to recognize patterns by studying known sites of hominin accumulations. Then, the scientists turned their computer program on the Dinaledi Chamber (DC) and the Sima de los Huesos (SH) site, two deep-cave locations containing multiple hominin remains.

The results were consistent and noteworthy. They reported,

In all of the models except for the neural network (NN) , the most likely classification of the SH and DC is in the group that includes the modern cave baboons and scavenged modern human corpses.7

Egeland and his colleagues added, “As to the DC assemblage, skeletal part data suggest that, similar to the situation at the SH, hominin corpses did not arrive in the chamber as complete skeletons and/or experienced some postdepositional disturbance.”7

Finally, the scientists acknowledged “that the results presented here do not refute outright a hominin origin for the SH and DC assemblages, but we do contend that the data also support partially or completely nonanthropogenic formational histories.”7

Nevertheless, the recurrent clustering of the DC assemblage with the disturbed and carnivore-consumed samples and, in particular, the naturally accumulated bone sample of cave baboons, is intriguing.7

These conclusions match the available bone studies done recently by O’Micks that suggest Homo naledi was nothing more than an ape, similar to the australopith Lucy.8-10 And these results fit the interpretation by Clarey that the bones of Homo naledi were most likely washed in during Ice Age flooding of the Rising Star Cave system, which includes the famous Dinaledi Chamber.5

Apes, like Homo naledi, were merely one of the animal kinds created along with humans on Day 6 of Creation Week. Tweet: Apes, like Homo naledi, were merely one of the animal kinds created along with humans on Day 6 of Creation Week.


Homo naledi was an ape—evidence from all sides points to this. And the bones in the Dinaledi Chamber and other chambers in the cave system represent assemblages of apes caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. Only humans were created in the image of God. Apes, like Homo naledi, were merely one of the animal kinds created along with humans on Day 6 of Creation Week.


References

Berger, L. R. et al. 2015. Homo naledi, a new species of the genus Homo from the Dinaledi Chamber, South Africa. eLife. 4: e09560: 1-35. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.09560.
Dirks, P. H. G. M. et al. 2015. Geological and taphonomic context for the new hominin species Homo naledi from the Dinaledi Chamber, South Africa. eLife. 4: e09561:1-37. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.09561.
Val, A. 2016. Deliberate body disposal by hominins in the Dinaledi Chamber, Cradle of Humankind, South Africa? Journal of Human Evolution. 96: 145-148.
Thackeray, J. F. 2016. The possibility of lichen growth on bones of Homo naledi: were they exposed to light? South African Journal of Science. 112 (7/8): 1-5.
Clarey, T. L. 2017. Disposal of Homo naledi in a possible deathtrap or mass mortality scenario. Journal of Creation. 31(2): 61-70.
Dirks, P. H. G. M. et al. 2016. Comment on “Deliberate body disposal by hominins in the Dinaledi Chamber, Cradle of Humankind, South Africa?” Journal of Human Evolution. 96: 145-153.
Egeland, C. P. et al. 2018. Hominin skeletal part abundances and claims of deliberate disposal of corpses in the Middle Pleistocene. PNAS. 115 (18): 4601-4606. DOI.org/10.1073/pnas.1718678115.
O'Micks, J. 2016. Homo naledi Probably Not Part of the Human Holobaramin Based on Baraminic Re-Analysis Including Postcranial Evidence. Answers Research Journal. 9: 263-272.
O'Micks, J. 2017. Further Evidence That Homo naledi Is Not a Member of the Human Holobaramin Based on Measurements of Vertebrae and Ribs. Answers Research Journal. 10: 103-113.
O'Micks, J. 2017. Likely Discontinuity Between Humans and Non-Human Hominins Based on Endocranial Volume and Body Mass with a Special Focus on Homo naledi—A Short Analysis. Answers Research Journal. 10: 241-243.


So upon further research the evidence points to baboons scavenging human remains and dragging them into their cave- thus the reason we have simian and human bones!

a response to rampartb.

Sorry for the delay and making a different thread. If you are like me if I don't get a response in a few days I remove a thread.

As for homologous features in embryos: Remember this just because something appears similar or even near identical means little. Most of the time the homologous feature is widely genetically different. So similar appearance means nothing.

You said (I paraphrase) given enough time anything can happen.

Well let us look at the big picture of evolutionary hypotheses and the facts they declare. They are not in any specific order and I will keep them to just velociraptor to bird.

1. Evolution is declared to have occured due to random mutations adding greater complexity and new information to a genome and thus over eons of time various kingdom, phyla, order. family, genera and species formed.

2. Natural Selection acted upon the "good" mutations that supposedly gave the mutated creature an advantage over its predecessors in that ecological niche and thus allowed it to flourish until the next "positive" mutation, etc.etc.

So let us look at the real world of going from a velociraptor (reptile dinosaur) to an avian . All these things had to have happened via mutation and give the "intermediary" an advantage in its ecological niche.

1. The biggest is scale to feather! This in and of itself is no small feat! Scales are used by cold blooded animals in that they allow the reptile to absorb heat from teh surface.

Feathers are on warm blooded animals and are used to keep heat from escaping to quickly (insulation)

2. Scales are surface fixed plates while feathers grow sub dermal or under the skin!

A feather:
?1522293688

So evolution would need to shed an externally attached plate, form a follicle and evolve the varied parts of the feather.

While it is doing that- what happens to the metabolism? If it is still cold blooded- it would die, if it turns warm blooded before the feathers full form- it dies.

3. Next you have to evolve from a mouth to a beak! Lose the skin- lose the teeth (archy excepted) and develop keratin to cover the beak instead of flesh.

4. You have to atrophy the lower limbs to accommodate more hopping than speed running. and increase the forelimbs to be able to develop wings for flight!

5. The raptor also needs to evolve an "oil" gland at the base of the tail. all birds "preen" and this preening involves drawing oil from the gland to clean and lubricate the feathers. If this isn't evolved and functioning when the raptor to bird has its feathers- the feathers will rot!

6. You have to rewrite instincts so that it will preen. this also involves changing its neck muscles so it can reach all its body with its beak (mouth won't work) so it can clean and lube its feathers.

7. Its skeletal structure has to change to streamline it for flight.

8. Its lungs have to change for though birds have lungs like all animals- it breathes differently than land animals.
Bird lungs could not work on land animals and land animal lungs would not work for birds in flight.

9. You also have to dump the tail for tail feathers (archy excepted)

10. The flesh has to change as reptile flesh is genetically different from bird flesh.

11. Have to rewrite instincts to get the intermediaries to fly instead of run.

Finally. Of all the few remaining feathered dinos. not debunked by paleontologists and ornithologists, all of the remaining feathered dinos appear in the geologic record--AFTER true birds already appeared by millions of years. They therefore cannot be intermediaries!

Lastly- Mutations are known to be over 99.9% slightly to very harmful to the host. There has yet to be demonstrated a true "positive" mutation that added greater complexity or new information to a genome.

Very few mutations actually make it into the genome to where it rewrites the DNA so the mutation can reproduce in the species- it has to overwhelm several layers of defense within the cell to actually be able to stay !

If one wishes to argue in very fast evolution- then we get to punctuated equilibria which is almost completely discredited now- or a variant of Goldschmidts hopeful monster theory ( a reptile lays an egg and a bird hatches.)

We know empirically this cannot happen- that is too much mutation at once and that has been shown to be 100% fatal to every known species.

On paper to one taught to believe in evolution- it all seems so simple, but when you map it out and look at what really has to happen in the real world- it becomes an impossibility.


Netanyahu: Iran rocket fire crossed a red line and we reacted accordinglyThe Times of Israel home


'WE ARE IN THE MIDST OF A CONTINUOUS BATTLE,' PM SAYS
Netanyahu: Iran rocket fire ‘crossed a red line and we reacted accordingly’
PM urges international community to unite and cut Tehran's 'tentacles of evil' spreading in Syria, says IAF hit Syrian forces after they ignored his warning not to get involved
By MICHAEL BACHNER
Today, 8:23 pm 6


Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday said Iran had “crossed a red line” with its missile barrage directed at Israel a day earlier, adding that the IDF “reacted accordingly” by striking over 50 Iranian targets in Syria in response.

In his first remarks since the widespread overnight strikes, Netanyahu also said he had sent a clear message to Syrian leader Bashar Assad, warning him to keep Syrian forces out of the fight.

Netanyahu also called on the international community to unite and cut the Revolutionary Guard’s “tentacles of evil” spreading in Syria and elsewhere.

“Iran crossed a red line and we reacted accordingly,” the premier said in a Hebrew-language video released as the security cabinet were meeting at the IDF’s Tel Aviv headquarters.

Iranian forces fired some 20 rockets at northern Israeli military bases from southern Syria just after midnight on early Thursday. The IDF said it suffered no casualties, either on the ground or in the air, and that no rockets fired from Syria made impact in Israeli territory.

“The IDF conducted a very extensive attack on Iranian targets in Syria. Thanks to sufficient preparations by our forces, both in defense and in offense, the Iranian operation failed. No missile landed in Israeli territory,” Netanyahu said.

“The Israeli nation is proud of the IDF and trusts it,” he added. “We are in the midst of a continuous battle and our policy is clear: We will not allow Iran to entrench itself militarily in Syria.”

The IDF hit over 50 targets in Syria in overnight strikes in response, including Iranian intelligence sites, logistic centers, weapons depots, and military bases operated by the Revolutionary Guard’s Quds Force.

The exchange was the largest-ever direct clash between the Iranian forces and the IDF, and appeared to be the largest exchange involving Israel in Syria since the 1973 Yom Kippur War.

Among the site hit were Syrian air defense and Netanyahu said that was only because Assad had ignored his warning.

“Yesterday I conveyed a clear message to the Assad regime: Our activity is directed against Iranian targets in Syria. But if the Syrian army takes action against us, we will act against it,” Netanyahu warned. “That is exactly what happened yesterday, Syrian army batteries launched ground-to-air missiles against us, and therefore we hit them.”


This photo provided early Thursday, May 10, 2018, by the government-controlled Syrian Central Military Media, shows missiles rise into the sky as Israeli missiles hit air defense position and other military bases, in Damascus, Syria. (Syrian Central Military Media, via AP)
The military earlier said it targeted a number of Syrian air defense systems — SA-5, SA-2, SA-22, and SA-17 batteries — that had fired at Israeli planes, despite the military’s Arabic-language spokesperson explicitly warning earlier that “any Syrian involvement will be met with the utmost severity.”

Addressing world leaders, Netanyahu said that “the international community needs to prevent Iran’s Quds Force from entrenching itself in Syria. We need to unite to cut its tentacles of evil spreading there and everywhere.”

“I repeat: If anyone hurts us — we will hurt them sevenfold,” he concluded. “And if anyone prepares to harm us — we will take preemptive action to harm them first. That’s what we did and what we will continue to do.”

President Reuven Rivlin meanwhile called Iran “the greatest threat to world peace” and said its leadership had a “monstrous plan to wreak havoc, death and destruction.”

President Rivlin spoke Thursday evening at the annual Herzliya Conference, saying that Tehran’s nuclear program and its regional ambitions in the Middle East cannot be separated since they are both “part of a monstrous plan by the Iranian leadership designed to wreak havoc, death, and destruction in the region and around the world. We expect our friends to stand with us in the fight against this danger.”


President Reuven Rivlin speaking at the Herzliya Conference on May 10, 2018. (Gilad Kavalerchik/Herzliya Conference)
“We are faced with an ongoing conflict with the Iranian regime,” Rivlin added. “The Islamic Republic of Iran… is the greatest threat to world peace in general, and particularly in the Middle East and Israel.”

Russia’s defense ministry said Israel’s strikes on Syria saw 28 planes take part in raids with a total of around 70 missiles fired. It said half of the missiles were shot down.

“28 Israeli F-15 and F-16 aircraft were used in the attack, which released around 60 air-to-ground missiles over various parts of Syria. Israel also fired more than 10 tactical ground-to-ground missiles,” the ministry said in a statement quoted by the Interfax news agency.


An illustrative map showing the general locations of Israeli strikes in Syria in response to a presumed Iranian attack on the Golan Heights on May 10, 2018. (Israel Defense Forces)
At least 23 fighters were killed, according to the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, including five Syrian regime troops and 18 other allied forces.

The monitor said the regime troops killed in the strikes included an officer, adding that the other casualties included Syrians and foreigners, without specifying their nationality.

Syria’s military denied the Observatory’s report, saying the Israeli airstrikes killed three people and wounded two others, destroyed a radar station and an ammunition warehouse, and damaged a number of air defense units.

An unnamed member of Iran’s national security council earlier told Al-Jazeera that “Israel is making strategic blunders and it will pay a high price. Threats will not help. The Iranian revenge will come.”

Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman said the IDF had destroyed “nearly all” of Iran’s military infrastructure sites in Syria.

In the days and weeks before the Iranian barrage, defense officials repeatedly warned that Israel would respond aggressively to any attack from Syrian territory.

Tehran has repeatedly vowed revenge after the T-4 army base in Syria was struck in an air raid — widely attributed to Israel — on April 9, killing at least seven members of the IRGC, including a senior officer responsible for the group’s drone program.

Judah Ari Gross and agencies contributed to this report.

Top 2016 News: Fossil Discoveries


BY BRIAN THOMAS, M.S. * | MONDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2016

2016 revealed Cretaceous bird-feather proteins, original dinosaur-skin tissue, Triassic mosasaur blood vessels, and organic remnants from ancient fossil microbes. These four finds challenge scientists to question the popular model.

The first find: Researchers studied a dark-winged Cretaceous bird fossil from China that revealed not just the feather-protein keratin, but also keratin associated with melanosomes—the tiny structures that darken feathers. Finding both of these feather elements together refutes the speculative explanation that the melansomes might be modern bacteria, since modern bird-feather melanosomes also come embedded in keratin, and bacteria do not.1

Both keratin and melanosomes have expected shelf lives far shorter than this fossil's evolutionary age assignment of about 130 million years. How could these materials have lasted even one percent (1.3 million years) of that supposed time span? Plus the second find, the 2016 description of dinosaur skin melanosomes with signs of actual collagen increases this question's tension.2

The third find: Collagen protein remnants were found in mosasaur blood vessels in Poland.3 The scientists who described the find suggested that a blood-bath chemistry preservation story somehow explains these supposedly long-lasting proteins. The story relates how iron may have leaked out of a dead animal's blood, coated the inside and outside of nearby blood vessels, and then the iron encouraged cross-linking reactions. Finally, cross-linked proteins might have solidified enough to last tens of millions of years.4 Scientists noticed an extremely thin coating of iron-containing mineral over the mosasaur blood vessels. That seemed to fit the blood preservation story, but only by ignoring other important details.

To begin, nobody knows what could have extracted the iron from the mosasaur blood, where to find enough iron, or how to spread it around without using water. And water accelerates tissue decay—the very feature this blood story is supposed to explain away. Even granting solutions to these problems, iron actually helps destroy proteins much more often than it might help cross-link them. But the Polish team's description of short-lived amino acids within mosasaur collagen showed that the cross-linking never really happened anyway.5 While it's possible the mineral coating kept microbes at bay for thousands of years, it certainly didn't slow the inevitable chemistry of decay. And that leaves no trustworthy tale to rescue these fossils from their over-the-top age assignments.

The fourth find: The 2016 grand prize for challenging evolutionary time with organic material in fossils may well belong to protein remnants discovered in "1.88 billion-year-old" rocks. Ontario's Gunflint chert contains microfossils—fresh-looking "fossil" remains of single-celled algae caught in ancient mud. Using a sophisticated microprobe, researchers verified algal remains similar to the amino acid signatures from the Polish marine reptile fossils in our third find. No scientific study even hints that amino acids could resist chemical reactions for a measly million years, let alone almost two billion.

Long before these discoveries, Bible-believing scientists described Earth's rock systems as Noah's Flood deposits from thousands of years ago, not millions.6 According to Scripture, this Flood happened thousands of years ago, not billions. Short-lived proteins and tissues from the bottom to the top rock layers fit the framework of Noah's Flood and make 2016 a great year to compare fossil discoveries to Genesis history.

References

Clarey, T. Fossil Feather Proteins Confirm Recent Flood. Creation Science Update. Posted on ICR.org December 12, 2016, accessed December 6, 2016.
Thomas, B. Scales, Colors, Proteins in Dinosaur Skin. Creation Science Update. Posted on ICR.org September 29, 2016, accessed November 29, 2016.
Thomas, B. Organic Residue Is 247 Million Years Old? Creation Science Update. Posted on ICR.org May 9, 2016, accessed November 29, 2016.
Thomas, B. Dinosaur Soft Tissue Preserved by Blood? Creation Science Update. Posted on ICR.org December 11, 2013, accessed December 1, 2016.
The same chemistry that produces protein cross-linking would have first degraded the still-reactive amino acids found in the blood vessel tissues.
Morris, H., and J. Whitcomb. 1961. The Genesis Flood. New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co.
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next »