Macroevolution Is Popular But Not Logical

Above are an artist’s rendering of a Tiktaalik and a picture of a Snakehead fish. You would be surprised to find that the largest Asian version of the current fish is not terribly unlike the fossil remains of the good old Tik that tried to be a transitional fossil but just couldn’t quite get out of that water. Some types of Giant Snakehead are pretty impressive…capable of climbing out of the water and living on land in search of food. Specimens observed and captured in Asia and Russia have been reported to exceed three feet long. Reports have claimed the fish can spend four days out of the water but I know of observations of behavior that only went up to a few hours. Nevertheless this is a fish that looks a lot like Tik and can live and hunt on land but it isn’t anybody’s ancestor. It just wants to eat everybody and their descendants!

Recently a commenter commended himself for pointing out yet another failed Darwinist assertion. But another commenter supplied the link I just inserted. Read it for yourself. As usual, naturalistic materialistic atheists come up with headlines and then when the claim is inspected it is another canard. Like Ida, for instance. Most of the public goes around thinking that scientists have all sorts of fossils and evidence that “prove” evolution and in fact there is nothing. Zip. Nada. Neo-Darwinists do not have one shred of proof for macroevolution. They have glued peppered moths to tree trunks, made mythical ancestors out of a pig’s tooth, they have presented faked embryo charts and on and on and on. But no proof.

Here is a small excerpt from the above article:

The Rise and Fall of Tiktaalik? Darwinists Admit “Quality” of Evolutionary Icon is “Poor” in Retroactive Confession of Ignorance (Updated)

[Update 6/16/09: Quote in paragraph 4 clarified to make it clear that the quote did not come from Dr. Catherine A. Boisvert but was rather stated by the journal The Scientist. Any prior lack of clarity on the author of that quote was completely unintentional.]

Over the past couple years, Tiktaalik, a fish-fossil touted as documenting key aspects of the transition from fish to 4-legged tetrapods, has become a new celebrated icon of evolution:

  • PBS’s “Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial” featured Tiktaalik as their premier transitional fossil (an anachronism since the fossil wasn’t even reported until months AFTER the Dover trial concluded).
  • The National Academy of Science’s 2008 “Science, Evolution, and Creationism” booklet also prominently features Tiktaalik, pushing it as “a notable transitional form.”
  • In early September, Carl Zimmer was so eager to mention Tiktaalik as a fossil that “illuminates our ancestors’ transition from sea to land,” that he plugged it in a New York Times article about a video game that had absolutely nothing to do with Tiktaalik.

Clearly, Darwin’s public relations team has invested much rhetorical capital into this fossil. If past experience is to be our guide, the only event that might cause Darwinists to criticize Tiktaalik would be the publishing of a fossil that was claimed to better document evolution. In the past, I have called such events, evolutionist “retroactive confessions of ignorance.” And with a recently published re-analysis of the fish Panderichthys, Darwinists are now praising Panderichthys for having features that are “much more tetrapod-like than in Tiktaalik,” and are retroactively confessing weaknesses in their precious Tiktaalik, which is now admitted to be a fossil with a “quality” that was “poor.”

The latest retroactive confessions of evolutionist ignorance comes on the heels of a published re-analysis of the bones of Panderichthys. The study used CT scans to show Panderichthys apparently had a few well-defined radial bones in its pectoral fins. (Radial bones are found only in fish fins, but evolutionary paleontologists contend that radial bones are homologous to digits in tetrapod limbs.) When commenting on this new find, the paper’s lead author, Catherine A. Boisvert, boasted in an interview with The Scientist that “it is now completely proven that fingers have evolved from distal radials already present in fish that gave rise to the tetrapod.” Boisvert also praised her findings, stating: “The disposition of distal radials in Panderichthys are much more tetrapod-like than in Tiktaalik.”

Confident that Panderichthys fossil showed evolution better than Tiktaalik, Darwinists then proceeded to admit striking criticisms of Tiktaalik: The Scientist article stated, “Previous data from another ancient fish called Tiktaalik showed distal radials as well — although the quality of that specimen was poor. And the orientation of the radials did not seem to match the way modern fingers and toes radiate from a joint, parallel to each other.” (emphasis added)

The “quality” of Tiktaalik as a fossil specimen was “poor”? When did we see evolutionists admit this previously? Never. They wouldn’t dare make such admissions until they thought they had something better. Then “something better” always winds up failing. Furthermore, appearance does not mean much when studying inheritance and anatomy. I can probably find a mushroom that is shaped like your knee but that doesn’t mean knees evolved from mushrooms.

Another recent hoax was the “first whale” fossil that became an ordinary land animal after careful study. Remember Pakicetus?

Pakicetus is an extinct land mammal discovered in Pakistan‘s early Eocene layer (dated approximately 55-33 Ma). It was discovered in 1983 by 3 paleontologists including Philip Gingerich, who recently analyzed the Darwinius masillae fossil “Ida.”

The original finds from 1983 included only skull fragments. Gingerich classified Pakicetus as a cetacean based on its inner ear, and he originally thought that it was aquatic or amphibious. However, full skeletons were discovered in 2001, and these revealed that Pakicetus was a wolf-like land mammal, with legs capable of running.
Naturalist materialistic atheism is a religion and my blog is in fact an attack on that religious belief. When one does not have evidence on his side, trying to draw attention elsewhere is a valid strategy until it is perceived. Darwinists lie about the application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics because many people cannot understand the argument, just as a for instance. The public is indoctrinated deliberately from grade school on up with lies and fairy tales. Haeckel’s embryo chart is just now finally being eliminated from school textbooks. The horse evolution chart is still being presented. Many textbooks still try to suggest that birds evolved from dinosaurs, which is preposterous in the extreme even for the just-so stories of Darwinism.

Macroevolution is the a process that requires mutation to provide new information that can be sorted and selected out by natural selection and passed on to succeeding generations. Unfortunately, it does not happen. Dr. Carl Wieland mentioned in a recent article that evolutionists have uncovered this problem for themselves:

“Evolution also results from the accumulation of new information. In the case of a biological mutation, new information is provided an error [sic] of genetic transmission (i.e. a change in the DNA during its transmission from parent to child).”

Luigi L. Cavalli-Sforza, Genes, peoples and languages, North Press, New York, 2000, p. 176.

The trouble for the NeoDarwinist is that this doesn’t happen—ever.Again, let me quote a well-known evolutionist—this lady is the person who invented the idea of endosymbiosis to account for the origin of mitochondria and chloroplasts in eukaryotic cells so she is not someone that her fellow evolutionists can easily dismiss:

“Mutation accumulation does not lead to new species or even to new organs or tissues.” (p. 11)

“Mutations, in summary, tend to induce sickness, death, or deficiencies.” (p. 29)

Margulis, L. & Sagan, D., Acquiring genomes. A theory of the origins of species, Basic Books, New York, 2002.Dr. Jean Lightner wrote a post entitled Special Tools of Life. It describes one attempt to demonstrate evolution using bacteria (Then known as Aerobacter aerogenes, this organism has been reclassified as one of several Klebsiella species). The attempt fails because information loss rather than information gain is the result.

“Most mutations that make a noticeable difference are harmful. A few might be considered beneficial—at least sometimes.3 But do these mutations add information to the DNA? A number of scientists thought so when they saw mutations in a bacterium that normally grows in the soil.4 This bacterium can grow well when it has one of several unusual sugars as an energy source: ribitol or D-arabitol.5 The scientists growing it in the lab tried giving it a very similar sugar, xylitol, as its only energy source. Xylitol is not normally found in the bacteria’s environment. The bacteria have no enzymes specifically designed for the first step in breaking it down.

The wild-type of the bacteria couldn’t grow. However, a mutant strain (X1) arose that could grow on xylitol, although very slowly. Later, a second mutant strain (X2) arose from X1 that grew faster on xylitol. From this, a third mutant strain (X3) developed that grew faster still. Evidence for evolution? A new enzyme evolving? Hardly.”

In fact, the loss of information made the mutated bacterium unable to survive for long in the outside world. I am still waiting for news that a fruit fly or a bacterium has actually “grown” a new piece of information. So far these kinds of “breakthroughs” are demonstrating that information loss can lead to speciation, which creationists have always known.

I recommend reading Bears Across The World as an example of how natural selection actually works and what it actually does. My assertion is that:

God designed life with redundancies. All life has the genetic code with massive amounts of information authored by God.

Mutations, usually harmful, can cause the appearance of evolution but it is microevolution rather than macroevolution, simple variation within kind.

Man has manipulated animal life for centuries to take advantage of the design features of animal life that allow for variation.

Scientists have devoted decades in a vain attempt to deomonstrate actual microevolution and have continually failed.

(original link)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s