Page: 1

nolidad

Profile Information

Member since: Sun May 25, 2014, 03:43 PM
Number of posts: 20,215

Journal Archives

'RNA World' Paper Retracted


BY JEFFREY P. TOMKINS, PH.D. * | MONDAY, JANUARY 15, 2018

The whole concept of how life originated is an insurmountable naturalistic hurdle. Life requires DNA, RNA, and protein in an interdependent triad in which each molecule is wholly dependent on the other two to exist. It’s worse than a chicken and egg scenario. Furthermore, since each type of molecule carries and conveys complex encoded information, an intelligent information provider is the only logical cause of this information source. Code implies a coder.

Life requires DNA, RNA, and protein in an interdependent triad in which each molecule is wholly dependent on the other two to exist. Tweet: Life requires DNA, RNA, and protein in an interdependent triad in which each molecule is wholly dependent on the other two to exist.



@icrscience

Shortly after the largely unfruitful origin of life research on amino acids by Miller and Urey in the 1950s,1 scientist Alex Rich speculated in 1962 that RNA may have been the first biomolecule to spontaneously evolve. That first RNA biomolecule would possibly have both informational and enzymatic properties, thus omitting the original necessity of DNA and proteins.2 This idea slowly gained traction and eventually became more popular in the 1980s with discoveries that some types of RNA were involved in enzymatic-like reactions in the complex processing of RNA transcribed from genes. One of the main researchers in these discoveries was Scott Gilbert who coined the term “RNA World.”3

Since the late 1980s, researchers explored many aspects of the evolutionary possibilities related to RNA being the first biomolecule, but have found nothing but obstacles including no method of spontaneously forming RNA or its nucleotide building blocks. In fact, a secular scientist published a 2012 paper expressing this great frustration titled, “The RNA world hypothesis: the worst theory of the early evolution of life (except for all the others).”4

If we grant the evolutionists a lot of slack and assume that RNA molecules with meaningful biological information could somehow magically burst onto the scene in a chemical milieu favorable to RNA stability and life, there are still many other problems. One of these additional obstacles is how the first RNA molecule could have possibly replicated itself without the aid of protein polymerases. In 2016, research was published that seemed to provide a solution to this dilemma by showing that RNA could be partially replicated without protein enzymes.5 Small chains of amino acids called peptides were used to help keep the products of the replicated short RNAs from binding to each other. Peptides are merely really short versions of proteins, so the scientists essentially cheated and the RNA replication process was not exclusively RNA-based. Nor was it very efficient or reliable. As fate would have it, the famous study also contained some major errors and could not be replicated. Thus, the famous—now infamous—paper had to be retracted. The authors—one of them a Nobel Laureate—later confessed, “In retrospect, we were totally blinded by our belief” and “we were not as careful or rigorous as we should have been.”6

Not only did this so-called RNA World study cheat by using peptides, meaning it really wasn’t just an RNA World, but the research was misinterpreted and unrepeatable. Tweet: Not only did this so-called RNA World study cheat by using peptides, meaning it really wasn’t just an RNA World, but the research was misinterpreted and unrepeatable.

So not only did this so-called RNA World study cheat by using peptides, meaning it really wasn’t just an RNA World, but the research was misinterpreted and unrepeatable. This led to its complete retraction. Even if the study had been a success, the conditions surrounding it were carefully engineered by humans in a state-of-the-art laboratory—a classic case of intelligent design, not an example of purposeless random evolutionary processes.

References

Thomas, B. 2011. Historic 'Primordial Soup' Study Yields New Data, But Not New Answers. Creation Science Update. Posted on ICR.org April 25, 2011, accessed January 5, 2017.
Lehman, N. 2015. The RNA World: 4,000,000,050 Years Old. Life. 5(4): 1583-1586.
Gilbert, W. 1986. The RNA World. Nature. 319:618.
Bernhardt, H. S. 2012 The RNA world hypothesis: the worst theory of the early evolution of life (except for all the others). Biology Direct. 7:23.
Jia, T. Z. et al. 2016. Oligoarginine peptides slow strand annealing and assist non-enzymatic RNA replication. Nature Chemistry. 8 (10): 915-21. DOI: 10.1038/NCHEM.2551.
Stern, V. 2017. “Definitely embarrassing:” Nobel Laureate retracts non-reproducible paper in Nature journal. Posted on RetractionWatch.com December 5, 2017, accessed January 10, 2018.
*Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins is Director of Life Sciences and earned his Ph.D. in genetics from Clemson University.

Article posted on January 15, 2018.

A glorious day awaits!!!!

Richard Dawkins Dumps the Fossil Record

Dawkins admits the fossil record is unsupportive of evolution and he is the most famous evolutionist alive!!!!!




May 18th, 2013
Dawkins Richard IIThe fossil record was no friend of Charles Darwin in 1859. Now, more than 150 years later, the fossil record is no longer a friend of Richard Dawkins, either. “Why does not,” Darwin pointed out, “every collection of fossil remains afford plain evidence of the gradation and mutation of the forms of life?”

The question was unavoidable, the elephant in the room, yet troubling since Darwin recognized that the fossil record could eventually either make or break his theory:


“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ exists which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

“The distinctiveness of specific forms ,” Darwin acknowledged, “and their not being blended together in innumerable transitional links is a very obvious difficulty.”

Evolutionary palaeontologist Stephen Gould in the book entitled The Panda’s Thumb reflecting on Darwin’s angst notes: “fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy.”

In the face poor evidence, even contradictory evidence, Darwin excused the problem reasoning that “only a small portion of the surface of the earth has been geologically explored.” His reasoning kept hopes alive that further explorations would uncover the ever elusive “in innumerable transitional links.”

Things have not changed much in 150 years. “We need more fossils” Dawkins pleaded in his 2009 book entitled The Greatest Show on Earth. In turning from the fossil record Dawkins advances the concept of “comparative evidence”

“Comparative evidence has always, as I suggested at the beginning of this chapter, told even more compelling than fossil evidence”

Regardless of what the “comparative evidence” actually is, Dawkins did not say what it is−dumping the fossil record as essential evidence for Darwin’s theory –

“We don’t need fossils in order to demonstrate that evolution is a fact.”

As far as Dawkins is concerned the fossil record should just be moved out of the picture, even one of the most notorious icons in the history of evolution−the Archaeopteryx. “To put up a single famous fossil like Archaeopteryx panders to a fallacy,” Dawkins declared The Greatest Show on Earth.

When Darwin was disparate for evidence to “innumerable transitional links,” he had quickly turned to the newly discovered Archaeopteryx discovered in Germany. For Darwin, the Archaeopteryx emerged as a kingpin transitional link between birds and reptiles –

“Even the wide interval between birds and reptiles has been shown by to be partially bridged over in the most unexpected manner, by the ostrich and extinct Archaeopteryx.”

The dumping of the Archaeopteryx as a missing link between birds and reptiles by palaeontologists during the late twentieth century, however, was gaining solid support. According to Larry Martin, an American vertebrate paleontologist and curator of the Natural History Museum and Biodiversity Research Center at the University of Kansas, the

“Archaeopteryx is not ancestral of any group of modern birds.”

Missing link status of the Archaeopteryx is only an illusion; a “once upon a time” story according to Henry Gee a British paleontologist and evolutionary biologist and senior editor of the prestigious journal Nature.

Abandoning the Archaeopteryx as a transitional link was actually only a tip-of-the-iceberg of the larger fossil record problem for evolution. Geneticist Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig of the Max-Planck Institute in Germany in the book entitled The Evolution of the Long-Necked Giraffe, like Dawkins, candidly points to the fact that a “gradual series of intermediates in Darwin’s sense has never existed and hence will never exist.”

Evolution was once a theory in crisis, now evolution is in crisis without a theory.

Without fossil record evidence of missing links, in Darwin’s own words, “my theory would absolutely break down.” The dumping of the fossil record by one of Darwin’s last remaining hard core advocates, signals the end of the Darwinism era.

Biological evolution only exists as a fact in philosophy, not in science.

Fossils Dont Lie: Why Darwinism Is False

John Corrigan "Jonathan" Wells is an American molecular biologist, author and advocate of the pseudoscientific argument of intelligent design. Wikipedia
Born: 1942 (age 76 years), New York City, NY
Education: University of California, Berkeley, Princeton University, Unification Theological Seminary, Yale University


Jonathan Wells
April 27, 2009, 3:18 PM

Note: This is Part 3 in a series reviewing Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution Is True. Read Part 1 here and Part 2 here.
Coyne goes on to discuss several “transitional” forms. “One of our best examples of an evolutionary transition,” he writes, is the fossil record of whales, “since we have a chronologically ordered series of fossils, perhaps a lineage of ancestors and descendants, showing their movement from land to water.”9
“The sequence begins,” Coyne writes, “with the recently discovered fossil of a close relative of whales, a raccoon-sized animal called Indohyus. Living 48 million years ago, Indohyus was… probably very close to what the whale ancestor looked like.” In the next paragraph, Coyne writes, “Indohyus was not the ancestor of whales, but was almost certainly its cousin. But if we go back 4 million more years, to 52 million years ago, we see what might well be that ancestor. It is a fossil skull from a wolf-sized creature called Pakicetus, which is bit more whalelike than Indohyus.” On the page separating these two paragraphs is a figure captioned “Transitional forms in the evolution of modern whales,” which shows Indohyus as the first in the series and Pakicetus as the second.10


But Pakicetus–as Coyne just told us–is 4 million years older than Indohyus. To a Darwinist, this doesn’t matter: Pakicetus is “more whalelike” than Indohyus, so it must fall between Indohyus and modern whales, regardless of the fossil evidence.
(Coyne performs the same trick with fossils that are supposedly ancestral to modern birds. The textbook icon Archaeopteryx, with feathered wings like a modern bird but teeth and a tail like a reptile, is dated at 145 million years. But what Coyne calls the “nonflying feathered dinosaur fossils”–which should have come before Archaeopteryx–are tens of millions of years younger. Like Darwinists Kevin Padian and Luis Chiappe eleven years earlier, Coyne simply rearranges the evidence to fit Darwinian theory.)11
So much for Coyne’s prediction that “later species should have traits that make them look like the descendants of earlier ones.” And so much for his argument that “if evolution were not true, fossils would not occur in an order that makes evolutionary sense.” Ignoring the facts he himself has just presented, Coyne brazenly concludes: “When we find transitional forms, they occur in the fossil record precisely where they should.” If Coyne’s book were turned into a movie, this scene might feature Chico Marx saying, “Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?”12
There is another problem with the whale series (and every other series of fossils) that Coyne fails to address: No species in the series could possibly be the ancestor of any other, because all of them possess characteristics they would first have to lose before evolving into a subsequent form. This is why the scientific literature typically shows each species branching off a supposed lineage.
In the figure below, all the lines are hypothetical. The diagram on the left is a representation of evolutionary theory: Species A is ancestral to B, which is ancestral to C, which is ancestral to D, which is ancestral to E. But the diagram on the right is a better representation of the evidence: Species A, B, C and D are not in the actual lineage leading to E, which remains unknown.
wells%20chart.jpg
It turns out that no series of fossils can provide evidence for Darwinian descent with modification. Even in the case of living species, buried remains cannot generally be used to establish ancestor-descendant relationships. Imagine finding two human skeletons in the same grave, one about thirty years older than the other. Was the older individual the parent of the younger? Without written genealogical records and identifying marks (or in some cases DNA), it is impossible to answer the question. And in this case we would be dealing with two skeletons from the same species that are only a generation apart and from the same location. With fossils from different species that are now extinct, and widely separated in time and space, there is no way to establish that one is the ancestor of another–no matter how many transitional fossils we find.
In 1978, Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History wrote: “The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”13 Nature science writer Henry Gee wrote in 1999 that “no fossil is buried with its birth certificate.” When we call new fossil discoveries “missing links,” it is “as if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is: a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices.” Gee concluded: “To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story–amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”14
Next time, I’ll address Coyne’s mistakes on embryos.
Notes
9 Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, p. 48.
10 Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, pp. 49-51.
11 Kevin Padian & Luis M. Chiappe, “The origin and early evolution of birds,” Biological Reviews 73 (1998): 1-42. Available online (2009) here.
Wells, Icons of Evolution, pp. 119-122.
12 Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, pp. 25, 53.
Chico Marx in Duck Soup (Paramount Pictures, 1933). This and other Marx Brothers quotations are available online (2009) here.
13 Gareth Nelson, “Presentation to the American Museum of Natural History (1969),” in David M. Williams & Malte C. Ebach, “The reform of palaeontology and the rise of biogeography–25 years after ‘ontogeny, phylogeny, palaeontology and the biogenetic law’ (Nelson, 1978),” Journal of Biogeography 31 (2004): 685-712.
14 Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time. New York: Free Press, 1999, pp. 5, 32, 113-117.
Jonathan Wells, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2006). More information available online (2009) here

Human-like Fossil Menagerie Stuns Scientists

After this article is another for those ready to write this off as coming from loons!
Share Email Facebook Twitter Google+
by Brian Thomas, M.S., & Frank Sherwin, M.A. *
An international team of scientists made a stunning and controversial discovery from an archaeological site in Dmanisi, a small town in the country of Georgia, that is forcing some scientists to unlearn everything they knew about the story of human evolution. The results from the find appeared in an October issue of the journal Science.1

Among other human skeleton bones, the researchers found five skulls or partial skulls. Some of them looked human, though they were smaller than today's average skull size. But the biggest surprise was that, though these human skulls all had very different shapes, they were buried together within a short time.

Yale University anthropologist Andrew Hill, who was not involved in the discovery, told the Wall Street Journal, "'It gives you a chance to look at variation for the first time.'"2 Instead of showing different transitional human forms living at different times and leading up to modern humans, the fossilized remains at this site showed variation occurring at the same time. Assuming the remains were all human, as the Science authors did, these results end up "drastically simplifying the story of human evolution," according to the WSJ.2

That means, among other things, Homo erectus can no longer be considered an ancestor who lived long before and gave rise to "early Homo" peoples, since the new evidence showed H. erectus, H. rudolfensis, and H. habilis clumped together. "Analysis of the skull and other remains at Dmanisi suggests that scientists have been too ready to name separate species of human ancestors in Africa. Many of those species may now have to be wiped from the textbooks," according to The Guardian.3

Among those species would be Neandertal and Cro-Magnon, which deserve no recognition as separate forms that supposedly evolved into Homo sapiens—modern humans.4 They were uniquely formed people living at the same time as modern-looking people. Australopithecus is also out of the evolutionary line up, now that evolutionists have finally followed its fossil evidence to where creation scientists did long ago when they concluded that it was just an extinct ape and had clearly never evolved into humans.5 Without these key players, the popular pageant of human evolution truly should all be wiped from the textbooks.

If the Dmanisi fossils represent ancient humans, then they show that generations of experts in human evolution have spent effort, time, and research dollars arranging fossil fragments of human skulls into an evolutionary line of descent that never really existed. Perhaps it is time to rethink the whole story.

References

Lordkipanidze, D. et al. 2013. A Complete Skull from Dmanisi, Georgia, and the Evolutionary Biology of Early Homo. Science. 342 (6156): 326-331.
Hotz, R. L. Skull Suggests Single Human Species Emerged From Africa, Not Several. The Wall Street Journal. Posted on wsj.com October 17, 2013, accessed October 29, 2013.
Sample, I. Skull of Homo erectus throws story of human evolution into disarray. The Guardian. Posted on theguardian.com October 17, 2013, accessed October 23, 2013.
Thomas, B. Neandertals Mixed with Humans in China. Creation Science Update. Posted on icr.org November 3, 2010, accessed November 4, 2013.
Gish, D. 1975. Man...Apes...Australopithecines...Each Uniquely Different. Acts & Facts. 4 (9).
Image credit: Copyright © 2013 AAAS. Adapted for use in accordance with federal copyright (fair use doctrine) law. Usage by ICR does not imply endorsement of copyright holders.

* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer and Mr. Sherwin is Research Associate, Senior Lecturer, and Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.


From Sci news!

MYSPACE EXPLORATIONARCHAEOLOGYPALEONTOLOGYBIOLOGYPHYSICSMEDICINEGENETICSGEOLOGYMORE
Dmanisi Human: Skull from Georgia Implies All Early Homo Species were One
Oct 18, 2013 by News Staff / Source
« Previous | Next »
An analysis of a complete 1.8-million-year-old hominid skull found at the archaeological site of Dmanisi in Georgia suggests the earliest Homo species – Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis and so forth – actually belonged to the same species.


The skull fossil, called Skull 5, is the world’s first completely preserved adult hominid skull from the early Pleistocene.

Unlike other Homo fossils, Skull 5 combines a small braincase with a long face and large teeth. It was discovered alongside the remains of four other early human ancestors, a variety of animal fossils and some stone tools – all of them associated with the same location and time period – which make the find truly unique.

The archaeological site of Dmanisi, located in the Kvemo Kartli region of Georgia about 93 km southwest of the capital Tbilisi, has only been partially excavated so far, but it’s already providing the first opportunity for anthropologists to compare and contrast the physical traits of multiple human ancestors that apparently coincided in the same time and geological space.

This is an artist's reconstruction of female Homo from Dmanisi, Georgia. Image credit: Elisabeth Daynes, via tabula.ge.
This is an artist’s reconstruction of female Homo from Dmanisi, Georgia. Image credit: Elisabeth Daynes, via tabula.ge.

“The differences between these Dmanisi fossils are no more pronounced than those between five modern humans or five chimpanzees,” said Dr David Lordkipanidze from the Georgian National Museum in Tbilisi, a lead author of a paper in the journal Science and co-author of a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Traditionally, researchers have used variation among Homo fossils to define different species. But in light of these new findings, Dr Lordkipanidze and his colleagues suggest that early, diverse Homo fossils, with their origins in Africa, actually represent variation among members of a single, evolving lineage – most appropriately, Homo erectus.

“Had the braincase and the face of Skull 5 been found as separate fossils at different sites in Africa, they might have been attributed to different species,” said Dr Christoph Zollikofer from the Anthropological Institute and Museum in Zurich, Switzerland, a co-author of the Science paper.

Computer reconstruction of Skull 5 and other four Dmanisi skulls; background - Dmanisi landscape. Image credit: Marcia Ponce de León / Christoph Zollikofer / University of Zurich.
Computer reconstruction of Skull 5 and other four Dmanisi skulls; background – Dmanisi landscape. Image credit: Marcia Ponce de León / Christoph Zollikofer / University of Zurich.

That’s because Skull 5 unites some key features, like the tiny braincase and large face, which had not been observed together in an early Homo fossil until now.

Given their diverse physical traits, the fossils associated with Skull 5 at Dmanisi can be compared to various Homo fossils, including those found in Africa, dating back to about 2.4 million years ago, as well as others unearthed in Asia and Europe, which are dated between 1.8 and 1.2 million years ago.

“The Dmanisi finds look quite different from one another, so it’s tempting to publish them as different species,” Dr Zollikofer said.

“Yet we know that these individuals came from the same location and the same geological time, so they could, in principle, represent a single population of a single species.”

The fossils from Dmanisi represent ancient human ancestors from the early Pleistocene epoch, soon after early Homo diverged from Australopithecus and dispersed from Africa.



The jaw associated with Skull 5 was found five years before the cranium was discovered but when the two pieces were put together, they formed the most massively built skull ever found at the Dmanisi site. For this reason, the team suggests that the individual to whom Skull 5 belonged was male.

The braincase of Skull 5 is only about 33.3 cubic inches (546 cubic cm), however, which suggests that this early Homo had a small brain despite his modern human-like limb proportions and body size.

“Thanks to the relatively large Dmanisi sample, we see a lot of variation. But the amount of variation does not exceed that found in modern populations of our own species, nor in chimps and bonobos,” Dr Zollikofer said.

“Furthermore, since we see a similar pattern and range of variation in the African fossil record… it is sensible to assume that there was a single Homo species at that time in Africa. And since the Dmanisi hominids are so similar to the African ones, we further assume that they both represent the same species.”

Skull 5 seemingly indicates that, rather than several ecologically specialized Homo species, a single Homo species – able to cope with a variety of ecosystems – emerged from the African continent.

And accordingly, our classification system for these early human ancestors may never be the same.

Humans Were Made for Walking

Various scientific studies have examined the mechanics of human locomotion. It looks as though mankind was made with an extremely efficient walking "gear." Can evolution be legitimately credited with the unique human leg ingenuity that this efficiency requires, or does the evidence better fit a more intelligent source?

A recent study found that human locomotion has two gears: walking and running. When walking, a large proportion of energy transfer between steps occurs at the hip joint. The study, published in the journal Interface, showed that when the speed reaches two meters per second, the body transitions to a running gear.1 When running, more of the energy transfer occurs at the ankle joint.

In short, "changing from walking to running resulted in a significant (p = 0.02) shift in power production from the hip to the ankle," the North Carolina State University researchers stated in the technical article.1 They measured the energy output of ten people walking or running at various speeds on a level treadmill.

A separate 2010 study found that walking with heels-first is more efficient than stepping onto the balls of the feet.2 And, generally speaking, walking is a very efficient process in man. David Carrier, senior author of that study, said in a University of Utah press release, "Our study shows that the heel-down posture increases the economy of walking but not the economy of running."3 Running is equally efficient whether heel-first or toe-first.

One 2000 Nature article stated, "At present, however, the fossil record offers little information about the origin of bipedalism , and despite nearly a century of research on existing fossils and comparative anatomy, there is still no consensus concerning the mode of locomotion that preceded bipedalism."4

Similarly, a 2003 study explained that the evolutionary transition from four-footed to two-legged locomotion should be simple, but the data don't fit this presumption. The authors wrote in The Journal of Experimental Biology, "However, experimental studies of locomotion in humans and nonhuman primates have shown that the evolution of bipedalism involved a much more complex series of transitions."5

And the fact that so many "transitions," each one very specified, were required before the efficiency of walking could even begin to pay metabolic dividends argues against their evolution by natural selection. In other words, the anatomical structures that supposedly resulted from all these "transitions" are actually intended design features.

Among those features are the "unusual structure of our foot," including its "big heel," and the length and straightforward orientation of the big toe, as well as human hip bones, which aim the knees forward in the direction toward which humans walk.3

Without all of the bones, ligaments, tendons, and muscles properly integrated with one another all at the same time, it would be impossible to walk like a man—let alone to switch to a whole separate running gear. Evolutionists must put their faith in imaginary physical "transitions" that could not work because they would require long time spans of creatures with not-yet-formed leg structures that would render any such animal immobile. Those who "walk humbly with God," however, can rely on the data showing that the mechanics of walking were well-created.6

References

Farris, D. J. and G. S. Sawicki. The mechanics and energetics of human walking and running: a joint level perspective. Interface (a journal of the Royal Society). Published online before print May 25, 2011.
Cunningham, C. B. et al. 2010. The influence of foot posture on the cost of transport in humans. The Journal of Experimental Biology. 213 (5): 790-797.
The Cost of Being on Your Toes. The University of Utah news release, February 11, 2010.
Richmond, B. G. and D. S. Strait. 2000. Evidence that humans evolved from a knuckle-walking ancestor. Nature. 404 (6776): 382-385. Quoted in Sherwin, F. 2006. Walking the Walk. Acts & Facts. 35 (11).
Schmitt, D. 2003. Insights into the evolution of human bipedalism from experimental studies of humans and other primates. The Journal of Experimental Biology. 206 (9): 1437-1448.
Micah 6:8.
* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.

Evidence for a Young World



BY D. RUSSELL HUMPHREYS, PH.D.



Here are fourteen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old. The numbers listed below in bold print (usually in the millions of years) are often maximum possible ages set by each process, not the actual ages. The numbers in italics are the ages required by evolutionary theory for each item. The point is that the maximum possible ages are always much less than the required evolutionary ages, while the biblical age (6,000 years) always fits comfortably within the maximum possible ages. Thus, the following items are evidence against the evolutionary time scale and for the biblical time scale. Much more young-world evidence exists, but I have chosen these items for brevity and simplicity. Some of the items on this list can be reconciled with the old-age view only by making a series of improbable and unproven assumptions; others can fit in only with a recent creation.

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.

The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.1 Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this "the winding-up dilemma," which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same "winding-up" dilemma also applies to other galaxies. For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the puzzle has been a complex theory called "density waves."1 The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope's discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the "Whirlpool" galaxy, M51.2

2. Too few supernova remnants.


Crab Nebula
Photo: Courtesy of NASA
According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.3

3. Comets disintegrate too quickly.

According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than 10,000 years.4 Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical "Oort cloud" well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed.5 So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations. Lately, there has been much talk of the "Kuiper Belt," a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Some asteroid-sized bodies of ice exist in that location, but they do not solve the evolutionists' problem, since according to evolutionary theory, the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it.

4. Not enough mud on the sea floor.


Rivers and dust storms dump mud into the sea much faster than plate tectonic sub-duction can remove it.
Each year, water and winds erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean.6 This material accumulates as loose sediment on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the sediment in the whole ocean is less than 400 meters.7 The main way known to remove the sediment from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year.7 As far as anyone knows, the other 19 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present mass of sediment in less than 12 million years. Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged three billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with sediment dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of sediment within a short time about 5,000 years ago.

5. Not enough sodium in the sea.

Every year, rivers8 and other sources9 dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year.9,10 As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today's input and output rates.10 This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, three billion years. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations that are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years.10 Calculations11 for many other seawater elements give much younger ages for the ocean.

6. The earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast.


Electrical resistance in the earth's core wears down the electrical current which produces the earth's magnetic field. That causes the field to lose energy rapidly.
The total energy stored in the earth's magnetic field ("dipole" and "non-dipole") is decreasing with a half-life of 1,465 (± 165) years.12 Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years are very complex and inadequate. A much better creationist theory exists. It is straightforward, based on sound physics, and explains many features of the field: its creation, rapid reversals during the Genesis flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then.13 This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data, most startlingly with evidence for rapid changes.14 The main result is that the field's total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than 20,000 years old.15

7. Many strata are too tightly bent.

In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition.16

8. Biological material decays too fast.

Natural radioactivity, mutations, and decay degrade DNA and other biological material rapidly. Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of "mitochondrial Eve" from a theorized 200,000 years down to possibly as low as 6,000 years.17 DNA experts insist that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than 10,000 years, yet intact strands of DNA appear to have been recovered from fossils allegedly much older: Neandertal bones, insects in amber, and even from dinosaur fossils.18 Bacteria allegedly 250 million years old apparently have been revived with no DNA damage.19 Soft tissue and blood cells from a dinosaur have astonished experts.20

9. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic "ages" to a few years.


Radio Halo, Photo: Courtesy of Mark Armitage
Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay.21 "Squashed" Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional time scale.22 "Orphan" Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply accelerated nuclear decay and very rapid formation of associated minerals.23,24

10. Too much helium in minerals.

Uranium and thorium generate helium atoms as they decay to lead. A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research showed that such helium produced in zircon crystals in deep, hot Precambrian granitic rock has not had time to escape.25 Though the rocks contain 1.5 billion years worth of nuclear decay products, newly-measured rates of helium loss from zircon show that the helium has been leaking for only 6,000 (± 2000) years.26 This is not only evidence for the youth of the earth, but also for episodes of greatly accelerated decay rates of long half-life nuclei within thousands of years ago, compressing radioisotope timescales enormously.

11. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.

With their short 5,700-year half-life, no carbon 14 atoms should exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions of years old. Conventional carbon 14 laboratories have been aware of this anomaly since the early 1980s, have striven to eliminate it, and are unable to account for it. Lately the world's best such laboratory which has learned during two decades of low-C14 measurements how not to contaminate specimens externally, under contract to creationists, confirmed such observations for coal samples and even for a dozen diamonds, which cannot be contaminated in situ with recent carbon.27 These constitute very strong evidence that the earth is only thousands, not billions, of years old.

12. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.

Evolutionary anthropologists now say that Homo sapiens existed for at least 185,000 years before agriculture began,28 during which time the world population of humans was roughly constant, between one and ten million. All that time they were burying their dead, often with artifacts. By that scenario, they would have buried at least eight billion bodies.29 If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 200,000 years, so many of the supposed eight billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, perhaps only a few hundred years in many areas.

13. Agriculture is too recent.

The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 185,000 years during the Stone Age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago.29 Yet the archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the eight billion people mentioned in item 12 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture for a very short time after the Flood, if at all.31





14. History is too short.

According to evolutionists, Stone Age Homo sapiens existed for 190,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4,000 to 5,000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases.30 Why would he wait two thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The biblical time scale is much more likely.31

References

Scheffler, H. and Elsasser, H., Physics of the Galaxy and Interstellar Matter, Springer-Verlag (1987) Berlin, pp. 352-353, 401-413.
D. Zaritsky, H-W. Rix, and M. Rieke, Inner spiral structure of the galaxy M51, Nature 364:313-315 (July 22, 1993).
Davies, K., Distribution of supernova remnants in the galaxy, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1994), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 175-184, order from www.creationicc.org/proceedings.php.
Steidl, P. F., Planets, comets, and asteroids, Design and Origins in Astronomy, pp. 73-106, G. Mulfinger, ed., Creation Research Society Books (1983), order from creationresearch.org.
Whipple, F. L., Background of modern comet theory, Nature 263:15-19 (2 September 1976). Levison, H. F. et al. See also: The mass disruption of Oort Cloud comets, Science 296:2212-2215 (21 June 2002).
Milliman, John D. and James P. M. Syvitski, Geomorphic/tectonic control of sediment discharge to the ocean: the importance of small mountainous rivers, The Journal of Geology, vol. 100, pp. 525-544 (1992).
Hay, W. W., et al., Mass/age distribution and composition of sediments on the ocean floor and the global rate of sediment subduction, Journal of Geophysical Research, 93(B12):14,933-14,940 (10 December 1988).
Meybeck, M., Concentrations des eaux fluviales en elements majeurs et apports en solution aux oceans, Revue de Géologie Dynamique et de Géographie Physique 21(3):215 (1979).
Sayles, F. L. and P. C. Mangelsdorf, Cation-exchange characteristics of Amazon River suspended sediment and its reaction with seawater, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 4367-779 (1979).
Austin, S. A. and D. R. Humphreys, The sea's missing salt: a dilemma for evolutionists, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1991), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 17-33, order from www.creationicc.org/proceedings.php.
Nevins, S., , Evolution: the oceans say no!, Impact No. 8 (Nov. 1973) Institute for Creation Research.
Humphreys, D. R., The earth's magnetic field is still losing energy, Creation Research Society Quarterly, 39(1):3-13, June 2002. http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/art
icles/39/39_1/GeoMag.htm.
Humphreys, D. R., Reversals of the earth's magnetic field during the Genesis flood, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1986), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 113-126, out of print but contact www.creationicc.org for help in locating copies.
Coe, R. S., M. Prévot, and P. Camps, New evidence for extraordinarily rapid change of the geomagnetic field during a reversal, Nature 374:687-92 (20 April 1995).
Humphreys, D. R., Physical mechanism for reversals of the earth's magnetic field during the flood, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1991), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 129-142, order from www.creationicc.org/proceedings.php.
Austin, S. A. and J. D. Morris, Tight folds and clastic dikes as evidence for rapid deposition and deformation of two very thick stratigraphic sequences, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1986), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 3-15, out of print, contact www.creationicc.org/proceedings.php for help in locating copies.
Gibbons A., Calibrating the mitochondrial clock, Science 279:28-29 (2 January 1998).
Cherfas, J., Ancient DNA: still busy after death, Science 253:1354-1356 (20 September 1991). Cano, R. J., H. N. Poinar, N. J. Pieniazek, A. Acra, and G. O. Poinar, Jr. Amplification and sequencing of DNA from a 120-135-million-year-old weevil, Nature 363:536-8 (10 June 1993). Krings, M., A. Stone, R. W. Schmitz, H. Krainitzki, M. Stoneking, and S. Pääbo, Neandertal DNA sequences and the origin of modern humans, Cell 90:19-30 (Jul 11, 1997). Lindahl, T, Unlocking nature's ancient secrets, Nature 413:358-359 (27 September 2001).
Vreeland, R. H.,W. D. Rosenzweig, and D. W. Powers, Isolation of a 250 million-year-old halotolerant bacterium from a primary salt crystal, Nature 407:897-900 (19 October 2000).
Schweitzer, M., J. L. Wittmeyer, J. R. Horner, and J. K. Toporski, Soft-Tissue vessels and cellular preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex, Science 207:1952-1955 (25 March 2005).
Gentry, R. V., Radioactive halos, Annual Review of Nuclear Science 23:347-362 (1973).
Gentry, R. V. , W. H. Christie, D. H. Smith, J. F. Emery, S. A. Reynolds, R. Walker, S. S. Christy, and P. A. Gentry, Radiohalos in coalified wood: new evidence relating to time of uranium introduction and coalification, Science 194:315-318 (15 October 1976).
Gentry, R. V., Radiohalos in a radiochronological and cosmological perspective, Science 184:62-66 (5 April 1974).
Snelling, A. A. and M. H. Armitage, Radiohalos—a tale of three granitic plutons, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (2003), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 243-267, order from www.creationicc.org/proceedings.php. Also archived on the ICR website at www.icr.org/article/radiohalos-granitic-
plutons/.
Gentry, R. V., G. L. Glish, and E. H. McBay, Differential helium retention in zircons: implications for nuclear waste containment, Geophysical Research Letters 9(10):1129-1130 (October 1982).
Humphreys, D. R, et al., Helium diffusion age of 6,000 years supports accelerated nuclear decay, Creation Research Society Quarterly 41(1):1-16 (June 2004). See archived article on following page of the CRS website: www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/4
1/41_1/Helium.htm.
Baumgardner, J. R., et al., Measurable 14C in fossilized organic materials: confirming the young earth creation-flood model, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (2003), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 127-142. Archived at www.icr.org/i/pdf/research/RATE_ICC_Baum
gardner.pdf. See poster presented to American Geophysical Union, Dec. 2003, AGUC-14_Poster_Baumgardner.pdf.
McDougall, I., F. H. Brown, and J. G. Fleagle, Stratigraphic placement and age of modern humans from Kibish, Ethiopia, Nature 433(7027)33-736 (17 February 2005).
Deevey, E. S., The human population, Scientific American 203:194-204 (September 1960).
Marshack, A., Exploring the mind of Ice Age man, National Geographic 147:64-89 (January 1975).
Dritt, J. O., Man's earliest beginnings: discrepancies in evolutionary timetables, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1991), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 73-78, order from www.creationicc.org/proceedings.php.

Human and Chimp DNA--Nearly Identical?

For the past several decades, the standard mantra has been that humans are 98 percent genetically identical to chimpanzees. However, this claim is based on cherry-picked data and does not take into account the vastly different regions of the two respective genomes.

Major research published over the past decade comparing human and chimpanzee DNA was recently reviewed and critiqued.1 In every single publication, researchers only reported on the highly similar DNA sequence data and discarded the rest—apparently because it was too dissimilar. In fact, when the DNA similarities from these studies were recalculated using the omitted data, markedly lower levels—between 81 and 86 percent similarity—were found. Even the well-known chimpanzee genome paper published by evolutionists in 2005 provides a genomic similarity of only about 80 percent when the discarded nonsimilar data are included and only 70 percent when the estimated size of the chimpanzee genome is incorporated.2,3

In 2011, I tested a wide variety of DNA alignment parameters for 40,000 segments of chimpanzee DNA that were already known to be similar to human. The parameters that gave the longest DNA alignment matches produced 86 percent similarity.3 Another interesting outcome from this study was that the 740-base-long chimp DNA sequences became too different to align after just a few hundred bases, on average.

Clearly, a more informative technique was needed to accurately compare the entire chimp genome to that of humans—specifically, something that counteracted the problem of the algorithm breaking off the match in regions of low similarity. By digitally slicing entire chimp chromosomes into small pieces, I found that the algorithm could effectively compare chimp and human DNA piece-by-piece.3 This involved doing multiple experiments to find the optimal DNA sequence lengths, or “slices,” to fully ascertain the average overall similarity for each chimp chromosome when compared to its alleged human counterpart.

Not counting the Y-chromosome, the results of my comparison showed variability between 66 and 76 percent similarity for the different chimp chromosomes, with an overall genome average of only 70 percent similarity to human chromosomes. In reality, many chromosomal regions are vastly different between chimps and humans, and several areas of the genome that are present in chimps are completely absent in humans—and vice versa.

While it is true that there are sections of the chimp genome that are very similar to humans, this is not the complete picture. DNA sequence comparisons that include all the relevant data plainly show that the human and chimp genomes are not nearly identical at all. Instead, they are as distinct as one might expect based on the obvious differences in the resulting anatomies and behavioral capacities.

Hypothetical evolutionary processes cannot explain the extremely broad differences between chimp and human DNA when the whole genomes are considered. The similar regions between genomes are easily interpreted as the basic reuse of effective code—a concept very familiar to software engineers. Such evidence points to a Master Designer who has orchestrated all the wondrous diversity of life on Earth after its own kind.

References

Tomkins, J. and J. Bergman. 2012. Genomic monkey business—estimates of nearly identical human-chimp DNA similarity re-evaluated using omitted data. Journal of Creation. 26 (1): 94-100.
Tomkins, J. 2013. Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70%. Answers Research Journal. 6: 63-69.
Tomkins, J. 2011. Genome-Wide DNA Alignment Similarity (Identity) for 40,000 Chimpanzee DNA Sequences Queried against the Human Genome is 86–89%. Answers Research Journal. 4: 233- 241.
* Dr. Tomkins is Research Associate at the Institute for Creation Research and received his Ph.D. in genetics from Clemson University.

Cite this article: Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. 2014. Human and Chimp DNA--Nearly Identical?. Acts & Facts. 43 (2).

Evolutionary Mysticism and the End of Science


BY JAKE HEBERT, PH.D. * | FRIDAY, MARCH 30, 2018
Share Email Facebook Twitter Google+
Evolutionary secularists often fancy themselves as hard-nosed empiricists who are immune to the allures of “magical” thinking. However, as the inadequacies of materialistic naturalism become more and more obvious, we shouldn’t be surprised to see them embracing mystical ideas—a trend noted by ICR founder Dr. Henry M. Morris more than 30 years ago.1

The origin of life and the origin of consciousness are arguably the two most difficult things for evolutionists to explain. They must insist that life somehow came from non-living chemicals even though there is zero experimental evidence for this.2

The origin of life and the origin of consciousness are arguably the two most difficult things for evolutionists to explain. Tweet: The origin of life and the origin of consciousness are arguably the two most difficult things for evolutionists to explain.

Evolutionary Mysticism and the End of Science: http://www.icr.org/article/evolutionary-mysticism-end-of-science/

@icrscience

Another naturalistic puzzle is that if humans are nothing more than material, biological machines, why are they self-aware? And if humans are just biological machines, why don’t other machines such as personal computers possess consciousness? Some evolutionists think they have an answer—a personal computer is conscious. And not just personal computers, but everything else in the universe! This belief, called panpsychism, holds that consciousness is a fundamental feature of matter itself, not just something humans possess. According to panpsychism, everything has some rudimentary level of consciousness, even individual particles.

If this were true, then a self-aware object could perhaps move by its own volition apart from any outside influences. Incredibly, this is what some scientists are actually suggesting. Astronomer and physicist Gregory Matloff theorized that some stars can consciously alter their motions. Two of the mechanisms he proposed for this are jets of material a star purposefully emits in just one direction and, I kid you not, a psychokinetic force!3

It’s hard to believe that evolutionary scholars, who pride themselves on their supposed adherence to hard science, would actually suggest such things. It’s also hard to see how modern science could have ever come about if such an intellectual environment had existed centuries ago.

It’s hard to believe that evolutionary scholars, who pride themselves on their supposed adherence to hard science, would actually suggest such things. Tweet: It’s hard to believe that evolutionary scholars, who pride themselves on their supposed adherence to hard science, would actually suggest such things.

Evolutionary Mysticism and the End of Science: http://www.icr.org/article/evolutionary-mysticism-end-of-science/

@icrscience

The Bible provides a reasonable explanation for the existence of life and consciousness, both of humans and animals (Genesis 1:20-31, 2). God created mankind, and we have both an immaterial, spiritual component and a physical one. Likewise, the “higher” animals possess a possibly lesser form of nephesh consciousness, according to Genesis 1:21. But because evolutionists reject the Bible’s explanation, they are forced to propose ideas that have the potential to undermine not just future scientific advancements but also the vast scientific knowledge that has already been attained!

For instance, why use Newton’s Laws of Motion to infer an object’s path through space if the object can change its own motion at will? If an object starts to move, did it move because an unbalanced external force acted on it or because the object chose to move? Do secular physicists really want to go down this path? And if they do, what is this going to do to science—especially physics?

Evolutionists claim that acceptance of creation thinking will stifle scientific progress, but the exact opposite is true. We have modern science today largely because the founders of science had a Christian worldview.4 Yet, many of today’s scientists are determined to reject that worldview, regardless of the consequences for science. Such irrational behavior cannot be motivated by a love of knowledge or science but rather seems to indicate a disdain for the Creator and a desire to banish Him from their thoughts.

The Bible provides a reasonable explanation for the existence of life and consciousness, both of humans and animals. Tweet: The Bible provides a reasonable explanation for the existence of life and consciousness, both of humans and animals.

Evolutionary Mysticism and the End of Science: http://www.icr.org/article/evolutionary-mysticism-end-of-science/

@icrscience

This is one more reason why the creation vs. evolution controversy is not just a side issue. What one believes about origins is of immense practical importance. All scientists need to humble themselves before their Creator and get back to Genesis.

As the early followers used to say to commemorate today:

He is risen!!!!!!!!

Go to Page: 1