FactFiles
Here is a short series of 'FactFiles' that illustrate why Neo-Darwinism is false
Living Fossils!
On my window sill at home, gathering dust, are a few fossils that I've either found in different locations, or purchased. Three such fossils I've photographed, and shown above in this gallery. One is of a 'sand dollar', the next a 'mussel' (which I found at Lolworth Cove in Devon) and finally a 'shrimp'.... I haven't bothered with scientific names, for reasons that will become apparent.
The subsequent series of images are samples of living 'in situ', or recently 'prepared' examples of the 'same' creatures. This is why I ignored the scientific names, because these are likely to be classified differently in terms of both genus and species.
But, here's the thing - these fossils - with their 'modern' equivalents - are said to be separated by millions of years, and yet there is practically no change in them! The technical term is called 'stasis' (meaning - no change).
Why is this? This is counter to what we would 'predict' on the basis of neo-Darwinian theory.
We are led to believe, that in no more than 7 million years, we branched off from our ape-like ancestors, to become true Homo sapiens. Yet, my fossil shrimp, classified as Carpopenaeus callirostris, is asserted to be 100 million years old (with essentially no change).
But, it gets far worse for evolutionary theory - and for anyone with a genuinely open mind - there are two overwhelming features of the fossil record, that should completely falsify the theory to the enquirer. These are 'sudden appearance' and 'stasis'.
I've mentioned stasis already - and in my example, there should be at least some appreciable change to a shrimp, over the span of 100 million years. But far worse, all of these creatures (and all others that I've investigated) appear fully formed in the fossil record, without any obvious ancestors, or incomplete parts! That's right - you can check this for yourself. That's why, collectively, on the basis of stasis, these are all called 'Living Fossils'...
Quite unlike the 'evolutionary tree' that we have been taught to accept (i.e. a very gradual change over an immense period of geological time) - the actually picture of the fossil record looks totally different - representing an 'orchard' or 'forest' of descent (albeit with very slight modification) - and definitely not a tree, or a bush! There are no unambiguous transitional forms, anywhere!
In my rather large library of books, there is one by Dr Carl Werner, simply called "Living Fossils". He spent several years collecting specimens and examining fossils in museums all over the world, and he carefully - and scientifically - documents 'stasis' to be extensive within the fossil record. There are so many living fossils, in fact, that for neo-Darwinian theory to survive, requires 'special pleading' on the part of die-hard evolutionists... and of course that's what they do.
Rather than acknowledge there is a problem with evolutionary theory (as taught in our schools and colleges), the 'excuse' for 'stasis' is that these creatures have simply evolved into an 'ecological niche' in which they've become so successful there has been no Darwinian 'pressure' to change! Of course, anyone should be able to see through this and say 'the Emperor has no clothes'...
Phylogenetic trees (the type of sketched trees that supposedly show changes in fossilised things over time) if shown correctly, only show 'dotted' lines between fossilised remains. Check this out - and don't be deceived. Transitional forms are genuinely absent! That's why the lines are 'dotted' and not 'solid' between 'phyla' (the widest classification used in our 'classification system').
Gradualism, the basis on which evolution is taught (i.e. very slow, almost imperceptible changes, over vast eons of time), was a matter that concerned Charles Darwin, in his classic work 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.' In this, he said:
…"Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties?"
The reason given for the absences, was due to the paucity of the fossil record, and at that time, such a statement could be reasonably accepted - because clearly, back in the early 19th Century, much of the fossil record hadn't been explored. But this is by no means the case now. In fact, our museums are full to overflowing with fossils - and the same two features dominate, namely, sudden appearance and stasis.
On this basis alone, the gradualistic neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution has failed in its prediction - and a new theory to explain the fossil record and all living things is required - and long overdue!
At this point, I ought to mention something called 'punctuated equilibrium' or "Punk Eek" (as it is sometimes affectionately known) which has been used as a proposal to explain the distinct lack of transitional forms (which persist "as the trade secret of paleontology").... However, I'll deal with this in a follow-up posting.
The subsequent series of images are samples of living 'in situ', or recently 'prepared' examples of the 'same' creatures. This is why I ignored the scientific names, because these are likely to be classified differently in terms of both genus and species.
But, here's the thing - these fossils - with their 'modern' equivalents - are said to be separated by millions of years, and yet there is practically no change in them! The technical term is called 'stasis' (meaning - no change).
Why is this? This is counter to what we would 'predict' on the basis of neo-Darwinian theory.
We are led to believe, that in no more than 7 million years, we branched off from our ape-like ancestors, to become true Homo sapiens. Yet, my fossil shrimp, classified as Carpopenaeus callirostris, is asserted to be 100 million years old (with essentially no change).
But, it gets far worse for evolutionary theory - and for anyone with a genuinely open mind - there are two overwhelming features of the fossil record, that should completely falsify the theory to the enquirer. These are 'sudden appearance' and 'stasis'.
I've mentioned stasis already - and in my example, there should be at least some appreciable change to a shrimp, over the span of 100 million years. But far worse, all of these creatures (and all others that I've investigated) appear fully formed in the fossil record, without any obvious ancestors, or incomplete parts! That's right - you can check this for yourself. That's why, collectively, on the basis of stasis, these are all called 'Living Fossils'...
Quite unlike the 'evolutionary tree' that we have been taught to accept (i.e. a very gradual change over an immense period of geological time) - the actually picture of the fossil record looks totally different - representing an 'orchard' or 'forest' of descent (albeit with very slight modification) - and definitely not a tree, or a bush! There are no unambiguous transitional forms, anywhere!
In my rather large library of books, there is one by Dr Carl Werner, simply called "Living Fossils". He spent several years collecting specimens and examining fossils in museums all over the world, and he carefully - and scientifically - documents 'stasis' to be extensive within the fossil record. There are so many living fossils, in fact, that for neo-Darwinian theory to survive, requires 'special pleading' on the part of die-hard evolutionists... and of course that's what they do.
Rather than acknowledge there is a problem with evolutionary theory (as taught in our schools and colleges), the 'excuse' for 'stasis' is that these creatures have simply evolved into an 'ecological niche' in which they've become so successful there has been no Darwinian 'pressure' to change! Of course, anyone should be able to see through this and say 'the Emperor has no clothes'...
Phylogenetic trees (the type of sketched trees that supposedly show changes in fossilised things over time) if shown correctly, only show 'dotted' lines between fossilised remains. Check this out - and don't be deceived. Transitional forms are genuinely absent! That's why the lines are 'dotted' and not 'solid' between 'phyla' (the widest classification used in our 'classification system').
Gradualism, the basis on which evolution is taught (i.e. very slow, almost imperceptible changes, over vast eons of time), was a matter that concerned Charles Darwin, in his classic work 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.' In this, he said:
…"Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties?"
The reason given for the absences, was due to the paucity of the fossil record, and at that time, such a statement could be reasonably accepted - because clearly, back in the early 19th Century, much of the fossil record hadn't been explored. But this is by no means the case now. In fact, our museums are full to overflowing with fossils - and the same two features dominate, namely, sudden appearance and stasis.
On this basis alone, the gradualistic neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution has failed in its prediction - and a new theory to explain the fossil record and all living things is required - and long overdue!
At this point, I ought to mention something called 'punctuated equilibrium' or "Punk Eek" (as it is sometimes affectionately known) which has been used as a proposal to explain the distinct lack of transitional forms (which persist "as the trade secret of paleontology").... However, I'll deal with this in a follow-up posting.
Light as a feather...
My 'Home' page, shows a close-up photo of a peacock feather, but what is not well known, is that the colours that we see are not derived from pigmentation - but 'structural colouration'...
"Structural colouration is caused by interference effects rather than by pigments. Colours are produced when a material is scored with fine parallel lines, formed of one or more parallel thin layers, or otherwise composed of microstructures on the scale of the colour's wavelength.
Structural colouration is responsible for the blues and greens of the feathers of many birds (the bee-eater, kingfisher and roller, for example), as well as many butterfly wings and beetle wing-cases (elytra). These are often iridescent, as in peacock feathers and nacreous shells such as of pearl oysters (Pteriidae) and Nautilus. This is because the reflected colour depends on the viewing angle, which in turn governs the apparent spacing of the structures responsible. Structural colours can be combined with pigment colours: peacock feathers are pigmented brown with melanin." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_coloration)
Prof. Stuart Burgess, BSc, PhD(Brun), CEng, FIMechE, is Professor of Engineering Design, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Bristol (UK). He is a world expert on biomimetics (imitating design in nature), and leads the Design Engineering Research Group at his university. He said this about intelligent design in the peacock tail feather:
"My favourite evidence is the peacock tail feather. It has beautiful iridescent colours produced by thin film interference. The feather has layers of keratin with precision thicknesses comparable to the wavelengths of the individual colours of white light. The feather barbs are also incredibly well aligned to produce mathematical patterns like ellipsoids and cardioids. The design of peacock feathers is so precise that engineers cannot replicate it. Yet the feathers seem to exist purely for decoration! I think that the peacock feather shows not only that there is a Creator but that the Creator is supremely wise and very caring. I have no doubt that God wanted humans to enjoy the beauty of the peacock feather.” (http://creation.com/stuart-burgess-interview-biomimetics)
"The difficulties of explaining this by evolution evidently weighed heavily upon Charles Darwin’s mind. In 1860, the year after his Origin of Species was published, Darwin wrote: ‘The sight of a feather in a peacock’s tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!’
Darwin's idea about 'sexual selection' just doesn't 'cut it' and "in the absence of any evolutionary mechanism to explain the design of the peacock’s tail, there’s only one rational explanation—that it was, in fact, designed. By a Designer." (http://creation.com/peacock-poppycock)
My 'Home' page, shows a close-up photo of a peacock feather, but what is not well known, is that the colours that we see are not derived from pigmentation - but 'structural colouration'...
"Structural colouration is caused by interference effects rather than by pigments. Colours are produced when a material is scored with fine parallel lines, formed of one or more parallel thin layers, or otherwise composed of microstructures on the scale of the colour's wavelength.
Structural colouration is responsible for the blues and greens of the feathers of many birds (the bee-eater, kingfisher and roller, for example), as well as many butterfly wings and beetle wing-cases (elytra). These are often iridescent, as in peacock feathers and nacreous shells such as of pearl oysters (Pteriidae) and Nautilus. This is because the reflected colour depends on the viewing angle, which in turn governs the apparent spacing of the structures responsible. Structural colours can be combined with pigment colours: peacock feathers are pigmented brown with melanin." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_coloration)
Prof. Stuart Burgess, BSc, PhD(Brun), CEng, FIMechE, is Professor of Engineering Design, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Bristol (UK). He is a world expert on biomimetics (imitating design in nature), and leads the Design Engineering Research Group at his university. He said this about intelligent design in the peacock tail feather:
"My favourite evidence is the peacock tail feather. It has beautiful iridescent colours produced by thin film interference. The feather has layers of keratin with precision thicknesses comparable to the wavelengths of the individual colours of white light. The feather barbs are also incredibly well aligned to produce mathematical patterns like ellipsoids and cardioids. The design of peacock feathers is so precise that engineers cannot replicate it. Yet the feathers seem to exist purely for decoration! I think that the peacock feather shows not only that there is a Creator but that the Creator is supremely wise and very caring. I have no doubt that God wanted humans to enjoy the beauty of the peacock feather.” (http://creation.com/stuart-burgess-interview-biomimetics)
"The difficulties of explaining this by evolution evidently weighed heavily upon Charles Darwin’s mind. In 1860, the year after his Origin of Species was published, Darwin wrote: ‘The sight of a feather in a peacock’s tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!’
Darwin's idea about 'sexual selection' just doesn't 'cut it' and "in the absence of any evolutionary mechanism to explain the design of the peacock’s tail, there’s only one rational explanation—that it was, in fact, designed. By a Designer." (http://creation.com/peacock-poppycock)
Metamorphosis
Metamorphosis (from Greek words meaning ‘change of form’), describes how most insects change from juveniles to adults, often developing adult body structures and ways of life completely different from those of their youth. While the juvenile of a particular species may look like a glorified worm, the adult might have five-centimetre (2-inch) wings and no functioning jaws. (http://creation.com/inexplicable-insect-metamorphosis)
It's an incredible process; the dissolution of the organism, to then be reconstructed in a manner so totally different from its initial state, is nothing short of mind boggling! In my view, it defies a Darwinian explanation!
It is far more likely to have a creative intelligence behind it.
Can evolution explain complete metamorphosis?
In a 1999 issue of Nature, two scientists (James Truman & Lynn Riddiford) presented their hypothesis of how complete insect metamorphosis evolved. In the article the authors tried to explain the evolution of four-stage metamorphosis from three-stage metamorphosis by proposing that the latter actually contains four stages. They called this arbitrarily-defined fourth stage the ‘pronymph’, and described it to be a period which always precedes the first moult, and which varies in duration among different species, sometimes ending as soon as the insect hatches out of its egg. This ‘pronymph’, they argued, evolved into our modern larva.
In plainer terms, some ancient insect hatched out of its egg too soon and began groping around for food. It continued evolving until it could spend many weeks in this premature, caterpillar-like form, before finally metamorphosing into the long-belated nymph stage—which according to the authors had shortened and evolved into our modern pupa.
One fatal problem with this idea is that the underdeveloped ‘pronymph’, as described in Nature, doesn’t eat! It would need a fully formed digestive tract and the capability to bite, chew and swallow if it were to survive and grow into an adult. Truman and Riddiford argued that the ‘pronymph’ overcame these difficulties and gradually evolved until it could eat, move, and presumably defend itself. Defence is very important in a world of ‘survival of the fittest’, and it boggles the mind how the first premature ‘pronymph’ was safer and better favoured by evolution than a normal, fully developed nymph!
A better explanation is that four-stage metamorphosis was created independently and completely functional from the beginning!
Metamorphosis (from Greek words meaning ‘change of form’), describes how most insects change from juveniles to adults, often developing adult body structures and ways of life completely different from those of their youth. While the juvenile of a particular species may look like a glorified worm, the adult might have five-centimetre (2-inch) wings and no functioning jaws. (http://creation.com/inexplicable-insect-metamorphosis)
It's an incredible process; the dissolution of the organism, to then be reconstructed in a manner so totally different from its initial state, is nothing short of mind boggling! In my view, it defies a Darwinian explanation!
It is far more likely to have a creative intelligence behind it.
Can evolution explain complete metamorphosis?
In a 1999 issue of Nature, two scientists (James Truman & Lynn Riddiford) presented their hypothesis of how complete insect metamorphosis evolved. In the article the authors tried to explain the evolution of four-stage metamorphosis from three-stage metamorphosis by proposing that the latter actually contains four stages. They called this arbitrarily-defined fourth stage the ‘pronymph’, and described it to be a period which always precedes the first moult, and which varies in duration among different species, sometimes ending as soon as the insect hatches out of its egg. This ‘pronymph’, they argued, evolved into our modern larva.
In plainer terms, some ancient insect hatched out of its egg too soon and began groping around for food. It continued evolving until it could spend many weeks in this premature, caterpillar-like form, before finally metamorphosing into the long-belated nymph stage—which according to the authors had shortened and evolved into our modern pupa.
One fatal problem with this idea is that the underdeveloped ‘pronymph’, as described in Nature, doesn’t eat! It would need a fully formed digestive tract and the capability to bite, chew and swallow if it were to survive and grow into an adult. Truman and Riddiford argued that the ‘pronymph’ overcame these difficulties and gradually evolved until it could eat, move, and presumably defend itself. Defence is very important in a world of ‘survival of the fittest’, and it boggles the mind how the first premature ‘pronymph’ was safer and better favoured by evolution than a normal, fully developed nymph!
A better explanation is that four-stage metamorphosis was created independently and completely functional from the beginning!
Müller glial cells
One of the most staunch adversaries toward the idea of real intelligent design in the living world, is renowned atheist, Richard Dawkins. I own - and have read - nearly all of his books, and I must acknowledge that he is one of the best science writers there is. He prides in his own writing ability - and is an aggressive defender of Neo-Darwinian Theory and opponent of all shades of 'creationism'. However, due to advances in modern science, some of his evolutionary 'proofs' have proven to be wrong (even though he seems reluctant to admit it)!
This particular 'Factfile' deals with one of Dawkin's 'favourite' examples that he uses to mock creationists and belittle 'design' as it applies to the human eye. The exquisite (and very obvious) 'design' in the mammalian eye, used to make Darwin 'shudder', but modern Darwinists insist that they can demonstrate the evolution of a 'primitive' eye (equivalent to a single light-sensitive cell, able to distinguish transient 'light and dark' images) to the complex mammalian eye.
In respect of the human eye, the 'evidence' that Dawkin's uses to 'prove' that it has not been designed (further that it has been badly designed - i.e. a good engineer wouldn't make it that way), is based on one particular feature, namely that the retina (linked to the optic nerve) has been 'wired backwards' creating a 'blind spot' in the centre of our vision.
The reason he likes this example so much, is that he likes to raise up William Paley for ridicule... He wrote a book called 'Natural Theology' which (in part) discussed the complexity of the human eye and held it up as evidence for a Creator!
However, the 'charge' made by Dawkins is total nonsense:
"The light is collected and funnelled through the nerve net to the receptors by the Müller glial cells, which act as optical fibres. Each cone cell has one Müller cell guiding the light to it, while several rods can share the same Müller cell.
The Müller cells work almost exactly like a fibre optic plate that optical engineers can use to transmit an image with low distortion without using a lens. The cells even have the right variation in refractive index for “image transfer through the vertebrate retina with minimal distortion and low loss.”
Indeed, Müller cells are even better than optical fibres, because they are funnel-shaped, which collects more light for the receptors. The wide entrances to Müller cells cover the entire surface of the retina, so collect the maximum amount of light." (http://creation.com/mueller-cells-backwardly-wired-retina-v-dawkins)
One of the most staunch adversaries toward the idea of real intelligent design in the living world, is renowned atheist, Richard Dawkins. I own - and have read - nearly all of his books, and I must acknowledge that he is one of the best science writers there is. He prides in his own writing ability - and is an aggressive defender of Neo-Darwinian Theory and opponent of all shades of 'creationism'. However, due to advances in modern science, some of his evolutionary 'proofs' have proven to be wrong (even though he seems reluctant to admit it)!
This particular 'Factfile' deals with one of Dawkin's 'favourite' examples that he uses to mock creationists and belittle 'design' as it applies to the human eye. The exquisite (and very obvious) 'design' in the mammalian eye, used to make Darwin 'shudder', but modern Darwinists insist that they can demonstrate the evolution of a 'primitive' eye (equivalent to a single light-sensitive cell, able to distinguish transient 'light and dark' images) to the complex mammalian eye.
In respect of the human eye, the 'evidence' that Dawkin's uses to 'prove' that it has not been designed (further that it has been badly designed - i.e. a good engineer wouldn't make it that way), is based on one particular feature, namely that the retina (linked to the optic nerve) has been 'wired backwards' creating a 'blind spot' in the centre of our vision.
The reason he likes this example so much, is that he likes to raise up William Paley for ridicule... He wrote a book called 'Natural Theology' which (in part) discussed the complexity of the human eye and held it up as evidence for a Creator!
However, the 'charge' made by Dawkins is total nonsense:
"The light is collected and funnelled through the nerve net to the receptors by the Müller glial cells, which act as optical fibres. Each cone cell has one Müller cell guiding the light to it, while several rods can share the same Müller cell.
The Müller cells work almost exactly like a fibre optic plate that optical engineers can use to transmit an image with low distortion without using a lens. The cells even have the right variation in refractive index for “image transfer through the vertebrate retina with minimal distortion and low loss.”
Indeed, Müller cells are even better than optical fibres, because they are funnel-shaped, which collects more light for the receptors. The wide entrances to Müller cells cover the entire surface of the retina, so collect the maximum amount of light." (http://creation.com/mueller-cells-backwardly-wired-retina-v-dawkins)
Dinosaur Shocker
Probing a 68-million-year-old T. rex, Mary Schweitzer stumbled upon astonishing signs of life that may radically change our view of the beasts that once ruled the earth...
For the last 15 years, Dr Mary Schweitzer has been rocking the evolutionary/uniformitarian world with discoveries of soft tissue in dinosaur bone. These discoveries have included blood cells, blood vessels, and proteins like collagen. But under measured rates of decomposition, they could not have lasted for the presumed 65 million years (Ma) since dino extinction, even if they had been kept at freezing point (never mind the much warmer climate proposed for the dinosaurs). As she said in a popular TV show:
"When you think about it, the laws of chemistry and biology and everything else that we know say that it should be gone, it should be degraded completely".…
as well as the following in a scientific paper:
"The presence of original molecular components is not predicted for fossils older than a million years, and the discovery of collagen in this well-preserved dinosaur supports the use of actualistic conditions to formulate molecular degradation rates and models, rather than relying on theoretical or experimental extrapolations derived from conditions that do not occur in nature."
As a careful scientist, after Dr Schweitzer found elastic blood vessels and other soft tissue, she rechecked her data thoroughly. A report quoted her as follows:
“It was totally shocking,” Schweitzer says. “I didn’t believe it until we’d done it 17 times.”
Other evolutionists saw the baneful implications to their long-age dogma, and claimed that the blood vessels were really bacterial biofilms, and the blood cells were iron-rich spheres called framboids. Yet this ignores the wide range of evidence Schweitzer adduced, and she has answered this claim in detail. However, Schweitzer herself maintains her faith in the long-age paradigm.
Dino bone cells and proteins
Schweitzer’s more recent research makes long ages even harder to believe. Here, she analyzed bone from two dinosaurs, the famous Tyrannosaurus rex (MOR 1125) and a large duck-billed dinosaur called Brachylophosaurus canadensis (MOR 2598). Bone is an amazing structure with the ability to re-work in response to stress, and uses the finely designed protein osteocalcin, which has been found in the best known duck-billed dinosaur, Iguanadon, ‘dated’ to 120 Ma. The most plentiful cells in bones are osteocytes. These have a distinctive branching structure that connects to other osteocytes, and have a “vital role” in “immediate responses to changing stresses.”
Schweitzer’s team again removed the hard bony mineral with the chelating agent EDTA. They found “transparent cell-like microstructures with dentritic [branching, just the shape expected for osteocytes] processes, some containing internal contents,” from both dinos.
They also used antibodies to detect the globular proteins actin and tubulin, used to make filaments and tubes in vertebrates. The proteins from both dinos had similar binding patterns to the same proteins from ostrich and alligator. They are not found in bacteria, so this rules out contamination. In particular, these antibodies did not bind to the type of bacteria that forms biofilms, “thus a biofilm origin for these structures is not supported.” Furthermore, they tested for collagen, a fibrous animal protein, and it was found in these bones—but not in surrounding sediments.
Furthermore, because actin, tubulin, and collagen are not unique to bone, they tested for a very distinctive osteocyte protein called PHEX. This stands for Phosphate-regulating endopeptidase, X-linked, which is vital in depositing the hard bone mineral. And indeed, antibodies specific to PHEX detected this unique bone protein. Detecting a distinctive bone protein is very strong support for osteocyte identification.
The problem for long ages is as they ask:
Cells are usually completely degraded soon after the death of the organism, so how could ‘bone cells’ and the molecules that comprise them persist in Mesozoic [evolutionary dino-age] bone? They try to solve this problem by proposing that bone protects the cells from bacteria that cause degradation. Bone would hinder the cells from swelling that comes before cells self-destruct (autolysis) as well. They also propose that the surfaces of the mineral crystals attract and destroy enzymes that would otherwise speed up degradation. They propose that iron may play a vital role too, both by helping to cross-link and stabilize the proteins, as well as by acting as an anti-oxidant.
Actually, this is all reasonable from a biblical creationist perspective, up to a point. Measured decay rates of some proteins are compatible with an age of about 4,500 years (since the Flood), but not with many millions of years. However, seeing not only proteins but even cell microstructures after 4,500 years is still surprising, considering how easily bacteria can normally attack them. These ideas could help explain survival over thousands of years. But they seem totally implausible for millions of years, since the above preservation proposals could not stop ordinary breakdown by water (hydrolysis) over vast eons.
Dino DNA
The problem for long-agers is even more acute with their discovery of DNA. Estimates of DNA stability put its upper limit of survival at 125,000 years at 0°C, 17,500 years at 10°C and 2,500 years at 20°C. One recent report said:
“There is a general belief that DNA is ‘rock solid’—extremely stable,” says Brandt Eichman, associate professor of biological sciences at Vanderbilt, who directed the project. “Actually DNA is highly reactive.” On a good day about one million bases in the DNA in a human cell are damaged. These lesions are caused by a combination of normal chemical activity within the cell and exposure to radiation and toxins coming from environmental sources including cigarette smoke, grilled foods and industrial wastes. A recent paper on DNA shows that it might be able to last as much as 400 times longer in bone. But even there, there is no way that DNA could last the evolutionary time since dino extinction. Their figures of the time till complete disintegration of DNA (“no intact bonds”) is 22,000 years at 25°C, 131,000 years at 15°C, 882,000 years at 5°C; and even if it could somehow be kept continually below freezing point at –5°C, it could survive only 6.83 Ma—only about a tenth of the assumed evolutionary age. The researchers state:
However, even under the best preservation conditions at –5°C, our model predicts that no intact bonds (average length = 1 bp [base pair]) will remain in the DNA ‘strand’ after 6.8 Myr. This displays the extreme improbability of being able to amplify a 174 bp DNA fragment from an 80–85 Myr old Cretaceous bone. Yet Schweitzer’s team detected DNA in three independent ways. Indeed, one of these chemical tests and specific antibodies specifically detect DNA in its double–stranded form. This shows that it was quite well preserved, since short strands of DNA less than about 10 bp don’t form stable duplexes. The stain DAPI lodges in a groove of a stable double helix, which requires even more bp.
Again, the first possible response by long-agers is “contamination”. But the DNA was not found everywhere, but only in certain internal regions of the ‘cells’. This pattern was just like in ostrich cells, but nothing like biofilm taken from other sources and exposed to the same DNA-detecting pattern. This is enough to rule out bacteria, because in more complex cells (such as ours and dinos), the DNA is stored in a small part of the cell—the nucleus.
Futhermore, Schweitzer’s team detected a special protein called histone H4. Not only is yet another protein a big problem for millions of years, but this is a specific protein for DNA. (DNA is Deoxy-riboNucleic Acid, so is negatively charged, while histones are alkaline so positively charged, so they attract DNA). In more complex organisms, the histones are tiny spools around which the DNA is wrapped. But histones are not found in bacteria. So, as Schweitzer et al. say, “These data support the presence of non-microbial DNA in these dinosaur cells.”
Conclusion It’s hard to improve on one of Mary Schweitzer’s early quotes:
"It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But of course, I couldn’t believe it. I said to the lab technician: “The bones are, after all, 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?” But this just shows the grip of the long-age paradigm. A more reasonable and indeed scientific [statement] would be:
This looks like modern bone; I have seen blood cells [and blood vessels] and detected hemoglobin [and now actin, tubulin, collagen, histones, and DNA], and real chemistry shows they can’t survive for 65 million years. What I don’t see is the claimed millions of years. So we should abandon this doctrine.
http://creation.com/dino-dna-bone-cells (whole article)
Probing a 68-million-year-old T. rex, Mary Schweitzer stumbled upon astonishing signs of life that may radically change our view of the beasts that once ruled the earth...
For the last 15 years, Dr Mary Schweitzer has been rocking the evolutionary/uniformitarian world with discoveries of soft tissue in dinosaur bone. These discoveries have included blood cells, blood vessels, and proteins like collagen. But under measured rates of decomposition, they could not have lasted for the presumed 65 million years (Ma) since dino extinction, even if they had been kept at freezing point (never mind the much warmer climate proposed for the dinosaurs). As she said in a popular TV show:
"When you think about it, the laws of chemistry and biology and everything else that we know say that it should be gone, it should be degraded completely".…
as well as the following in a scientific paper:
"The presence of original molecular components is not predicted for fossils older than a million years, and the discovery of collagen in this well-preserved dinosaur supports the use of actualistic conditions to formulate molecular degradation rates and models, rather than relying on theoretical or experimental extrapolations derived from conditions that do not occur in nature."
As a careful scientist, after Dr Schweitzer found elastic blood vessels and other soft tissue, she rechecked her data thoroughly. A report quoted her as follows:
“It was totally shocking,” Schweitzer says. “I didn’t believe it until we’d done it 17 times.”
Other evolutionists saw the baneful implications to their long-age dogma, and claimed that the blood vessels were really bacterial biofilms, and the blood cells were iron-rich spheres called framboids. Yet this ignores the wide range of evidence Schweitzer adduced, and she has answered this claim in detail. However, Schweitzer herself maintains her faith in the long-age paradigm.
Dino bone cells and proteins
Schweitzer’s more recent research makes long ages even harder to believe. Here, she analyzed bone from two dinosaurs, the famous Tyrannosaurus rex (MOR 1125) and a large duck-billed dinosaur called Brachylophosaurus canadensis (MOR 2598). Bone is an amazing structure with the ability to re-work in response to stress, and uses the finely designed protein osteocalcin, which has been found in the best known duck-billed dinosaur, Iguanadon, ‘dated’ to 120 Ma. The most plentiful cells in bones are osteocytes. These have a distinctive branching structure that connects to other osteocytes, and have a “vital role” in “immediate responses to changing stresses.”
Schweitzer’s team again removed the hard bony mineral with the chelating agent EDTA. They found “transparent cell-like microstructures with dentritic [branching, just the shape expected for osteocytes] processes, some containing internal contents,” from both dinos.
They also used antibodies to detect the globular proteins actin and tubulin, used to make filaments and tubes in vertebrates. The proteins from both dinos had similar binding patterns to the same proteins from ostrich and alligator. They are not found in bacteria, so this rules out contamination. In particular, these antibodies did not bind to the type of bacteria that forms biofilms, “thus a biofilm origin for these structures is not supported.” Furthermore, they tested for collagen, a fibrous animal protein, and it was found in these bones—but not in surrounding sediments.
Furthermore, because actin, tubulin, and collagen are not unique to bone, they tested for a very distinctive osteocyte protein called PHEX. This stands for Phosphate-regulating endopeptidase, X-linked, which is vital in depositing the hard bone mineral. And indeed, antibodies specific to PHEX detected this unique bone protein. Detecting a distinctive bone protein is very strong support for osteocyte identification.
The problem for long ages is as they ask:
Cells are usually completely degraded soon after the death of the organism, so how could ‘bone cells’ and the molecules that comprise them persist in Mesozoic [evolutionary dino-age] bone? They try to solve this problem by proposing that bone protects the cells from bacteria that cause degradation. Bone would hinder the cells from swelling that comes before cells self-destruct (autolysis) as well. They also propose that the surfaces of the mineral crystals attract and destroy enzymes that would otherwise speed up degradation. They propose that iron may play a vital role too, both by helping to cross-link and stabilize the proteins, as well as by acting as an anti-oxidant.
Actually, this is all reasonable from a biblical creationist perspective, up to a point. Measured decay rates of some proteins are compatible with an age of about 4,500 years (since the Flood), but not with many millions of years. However, seeing not only proteins but even cell microstructures after 4,500 years is still surprising, considering how easily bacteria can normally attack them. These ideas could help explain survival over thousands of years. But they seem totally implausible for millions of years, since the above preservation proposals could not stop ordinary breakdown by water (hydrolysis) over vast eons.
Dino DNA
The problem for long-agers is even more acute with their discovery of DNA. Estimates of DNA stability put its upper limit of survival at 125,000 years at 0°C, 17,500 years at 10°C and 2,500 years at 20°C. One recent report said:
“There is a general belief that DNA is ‘rock solid’—extremely stable,” says Brandt Eichman, associate professor of biological sciences at Vanderbilt, who directed the project. “Actually DNA is highly reactive.” On a good day about one million bases in the DNA in a human cell are damaged. These lesions are caused by a combination of normal chemical activity within the cell and exposure to radiation and toxins coming from environmental sources including cigarette smoke, grilled foods and industrial wastes. A recent paper on DNA shows that it might be able to last as much as 400 times longer in bone. But even there, there is no way that DNA could last the evolutionary time since dino extinction. Their figures of the time till complete disintegration of DNA (“no intact bonds”) is 22,000 years at 25°C, 131,000 years at 15°C, 882,000 years at 5°C; and even if it could somehow be kept continually below freezing point at –5°C, it could survive only 6.83 Ma—only about a tenth of the assumed evolutionary age. The researchers state:
However, even under the best preservation conditions at –5°C, our model predicts that no intact bonds (average length = 1 bp [base pair]) will remain in the DNA ‘strand’ after 6.8 Myr. This displays the extreme improbability of being able to amplify a 174 bp DNA fragment from an 80–85 Myr old Cretaceous bone. Yet Schweitzer’s team detected DNA in three independent ways. Indeed, one of these chemical tests and specific antibodies specifically detect DNA in its double–stranded form. This shows that it was quite well preserved, since short strands of DNA less than about 10 bp don’t form stable duplexes. The stain DAPI lodges in a groove of a stable double helix, which requires even more bp.
Again, the first possible response by long-agers is “contamination”. But the DNA was not found everywhere, but only in certain internal regions of the ‘cells’. This pattern was just like in ostrich cells, but nothing like biofilm taken from other sources and exposed to the same DNA-detecting pattern. This is enough to rule out bacteria, because in more complex cells (such as ours and dinos), the DNA is stored in a small part of the cell—the nucleus.
Futhermore, Schweitzer’s team detected a special protein called histone H4. Not only is yet another protein a big problem for millions of years, but this is a specific protein for DNA. (DNA is Deoxy-riboNucleic Acid, so is negatively charged, while histones are alkaline so positively charged, so they attract DNA). In more complex organisms, the histones are tiny spools around which the DNA is wrapped. But histones are not found in bacteria. So, as Schweitzer et al. say, “These data support the presence of non-microbial DNA in these dinosaur cells.”
Conclusion It’s hard to improve on one of Mary Schweitzer’s early quotes:
"It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But of course, I couldn’t believe it. I said to the lab technician: “The bones are, after all, 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?” But this just shows the grip of the long-age paradigm. A more reasonable and indeed scientific [statement] would be:
This looks like modern bone; I have seen blood cells [and blood vessels] and detected hemoglobin [and now actin, tubulin, collagen, histones, and DNA], and real chemistry shows they can’t survive for 65 million years. What I don’t see is the claimed millions of years. So we should abandon this doctrine.
http://creation.com/dino-dna-bone-cells (whole article)
"Junk DNA"
Ever since the completion of the 'Human Genome Project' in 2003, there has been a popular mantra that our genome is substantially 'junk' - in fact about 98% junk!!
This 'fact' was seized upon by atheistic evolutionists, as proof positive that there was no 'design' in the human genome... and this was popularised in many popular science books, by renowned authors such as Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne and even Francis Collins (then head of the UK Human Genome Project)...
Not only was this 'finding' popularised, it was claimed to be a 'prediction' of Neo-Darwinian Theory (NDT). It fitted well with the claim, made in 1970 by Jacques Monod, that "Man has to understand that he is a mere accident."
As recently as 2009, Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne, made pronouncements about the state of the genome and their expectation that the human genome and the genomes of many species would predictably contain 'junk'... "It is a remarkable fact" wrote Dawkins "that the greater part (95 per cent in the case of humans) of the genome might as well not be there, for all the difference it makes." He even concluded that "What pseudogenes are useful for is embarrassing creationists. It stretches even their creative ingenuity to make up a convincing reason why an intelligent designer should have created a pseudogene... unless he was deliberately setting out to fool us."
Bring on the Encyclopaedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) project... "it has systematically mapped regions of transcription, transcription factor association, chromatin structure and histone modification. These data enabled us to assign biochemical functions for 80% of the genome, in particular outside of the well-studied protein-coding regions. Many discovered candidate regulatory elements are physically associated with one another and with expressed genes, providing new insights into the mechanisms of gene regulation." (The ENCODE Project Consortium, "An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome," Nature, Vol. 489:57-74 (September 6, 2012) (emphasis added))
"Far from consisting mainly of junk that provides evidence against intelligent design, our genome is increasingly revealing itself to be a multidimensional, integrated system in which non-protein-coding DNA performs a wide variety of functions. If anything, it provides evidence for intelligent design. Even apart from possible implications for intelligent design, however, the demise of the myth of junk DNA promises to stimulate more research into the mysteries of the genome. These are exciting times for scientists willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads." (Jonathan Wells, The Myth of Junk DNA, pp. 9-10 (Discovery Institute Press, 2011).)
If we take seriously the claim that 'junk DNA' is a prediction of the Neo-Darwinian Theory, then the ENCODE project amounts to a formal disproof of the same!
But, it's now far worse for a naturalistic origin of the 'genetic code', because it has been found to have been written in two languages (essentially superimposed on each other). One string of genetic sequencing directs protein synthesis, whilst the other specifies regulatory functions e.g. in how those particular proteins are to be used!
"Since the genetic code was deciphered in the 1960s, scientists have assumed that it was used exclusively to write information about proteins. UW scientists were stunned to discover that genomes use the genetic code to write two separate languages. One describes how proteins are made, and the other instructs the cell on how genes are controlled. One language is written on top of the other, which is why the second language remained hidden for so long."
“For over 40 years we have assumed that DNA changes affecting the genetic code solely impact how proteins are made,” said Stamatoyannopoulos. “Now we know that this basic assumption about reading the human genome missed half of the picture. These new findings highlight that DNA is an incredibly powerful information storage device, which nature has fully exploited in unexpected ways.” December 12, 2013 - Scientists discover double meaning in genetic code - Stephanie Seiler - Health Sciences & UW Medicine.
Ever since the completion of the 'Human Genome Project' in 2003, there has been a popular mantra that our genome is substantially 'junk' - in fact about 98% junk!!
This 'fact' was seized upon by atheistic evolutionists, as proof positive that there was no 'design' in the human genome... and this was popularised in many popular science books, by renowned authors such as Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne and even Francis Collins (then head of the UK Human Genome Project)...
Not only was this 'finding' popularised, it was claimed to be a 'prediction' of Neo-Darwinian Theory (NDT). It fitted well with the claim, made in 1970 by Jacques Monod, that "Man has to understand that he is a mere accident."
As recently as 2009, Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne, made pronouncements about the state of the genome and their expectation that the human genome and the genomes of many species would predictably contain 'junk'... "It is a remarkable fact" wrote Dawkins "that the greater part (95 per cent in the case of humans) of the genome might as well not be there, for all the difference it makes." He even concluded that "What pseudogenes are useful for is embarrassing creationists. It stretches even their creative ingenuity to make up a convincing reason why an intelligent designer should have created a pseudogene... unless he was deliberately setting out to fool us."
Bring on the Encyclopaedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) project... "it has systematically mapped regions of transcription, transcription factor association, chromatin structure and histone modification. These data enabled us to assign biochemical functions for 80% of the genome, in particular outside of the well-studied protein-coding regions. Many discovered candidate regulatory elements are physically associated with one another and with expressed genes, providing new insights into the mechanisms of gene regulation." (The ENCODE Project Consortium, "An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome," Nature, Vol. 489:57-74 (September 6, 2012) (emphasis added))
"Far from consisting mainly of junk that provides evidence against intelligent design, our genome is increasingly revealing itself to be a multidimensional, integrated system in which non-protein-coding DNA performs a wide variety of functions. If anything, it provides evidence for intelligent design. Even apart from possible implications for intelligent design, however, the demise of the myth of junk DNA promises to stimulate more research into the mysteries of the genome. These are exciting times for scientists willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads." (Jonathan Wells, The Myth of Junk DNA, pp. 9-10 (Discovery Institute Press, 2011).)
If we take seriously the claim that 'junk DNA' is a prediction of the Neo-Darwinian Theory, then the ENCODE project amounts to a formal disproof of the same!
But, it's now far worse for a naturalistic origin of the 'genetic code', because it has been found to have been written in two languages (essentially superimposed on each other). One string of genetic sequencing directs protein synthesis, whilst the other specifies regulatory functions e.g. in how those particular proteins are to be used!
"Since the genetic code was deciphered in the 1960s, scientists have assumed that it was used exclusively to write information about proteins. UW scientists were stunned to discover that genomes use the genetic code to write two separate languages. One describes how proteins are made, and the other instructs the cell on how genes are controlled. One language is written on top of the other, which is why the second language remained hidden for so long."
“For over 40 years we have assumed that DNA changes affecting the genetic code solely impact how proteins are made,” said Stamatoyannopoulos. “Now we know that this basic assumption about reading the human genome missed half of the picture. These new findings highlight that DNA is an incredibly powerful information storage device, which nature has fully exploited in unexpected ways.” December 12, 2013 - Scientists discover double meaning in genetic code - Stephanie Seiler - Health Sciences & UW Medicine.