More Embarrassments for Anti-Creationists

Another anti-creationist on an earlier post has graciously provided more examples of things that should embarrass believers in ancient pagan Darwinian myths.

Even if there were no fossils at all, there is enough evidence of many other types to clearly indicate humans share common ancestry with monkeys and other living things. Nested hierarchies of many different types of data produce the same tree of life predicted and explained by evolution. Endogenous retroviruses and pseudogenes at the same locations in DNA of different species show the expected degree of relationship expected and predicted by other evidence.

There you have one just-so statement there followed by two actual references to biology.

The “nested hierarchies” are simply categories of living things by one or another criteria that conveniently group living things. These animals have backbones, these don’t. So what? You have the supposed extinct fish that lasted awhile out of water in the fossils, big deal, Australia had the lungfish in the encyclopedia when I was a kid before most of the readers of these words were born.

Linnaeus already gave us the major classifications. He was a creationist by the way, just like the great scientists of yester-year that were the pioneers of today’s major areas of study.

“Endogenous retroviruses”, for those who haven’t heard yet, are taken by Darwinians to be evidence of humans and apes inheriting the same DNA damage from a common ancestor.

That’s nothing new though. They said we shared 98 percent of our DNA with chimps, then they said, well, maybe it’s 95 percent, and now it turns out looking like less. The 98 percent figure stuck, because they discarded all the stuff that didn’t fit what they wanted to find.

So now get what they call a “pseudo-gene” stuck in the same place on a chromosome as on a monkey and they say see, common ancestor! I mean, it’s a good example of how Darwinian dogmas stunt science research!

Hey, ever hear of “bird flu”? That’s a virus that makes birds sick and die and it hits us too. Every hear of “swine flu”? Ever hear of “the bubonic plague”, carried by rats into Europe? Yep, viruses affect more than one species often, and I’d be surprised if there isn’t some effect from the plague of the middle ages embedded in the entire human genome.

One source http://www.retrovirology.com/content/3/1/67 makes the claim flat-out that “Some 8% of human DNA represents fossil retroviral genomes”.

The fact is, though, in spite of getting slowed down by Darwinoid thinking, biologists keep discovering things in spite of that contradict Darwinian “predictions”, and now they’re finding the power of epigenetics, and the fact that indeed the environment can affect the genome of future offspring in a species pool, and a long list of other surprises that caused one biologist to say they were getting depressed because they were going to have to start all over.

It just shows that despite all the outright emphatic declarations of spontaneous biogenesis and common descent, and claims of predictions, the only time they ever made a prediction supposedly based on common descent that proved true, it was the same thing predicted by common creation.

I mean, “pseudogenes”? Didn’t they learn anything from the “vestigial organs” folly? With at least 32 human organs declared “vestigial” in the 20th century, meaning useless leftovers from “evolutionary history”, every one of them has proven to have vital functions. You can live without your tailbone but they tell me it makes a mess in the bathroom. You can live without your appendix but then take much longer to bounce back from digestive illness. On and on, how many people died and how much was medical advances kept back because of this lunacy?

The instant my eyes fell on a headline where I first saw the words “vestigial DNA”, I laughed out loud and told everybody I knew. Little old me, country bumpkin they think creationists are, and I knew they would eat their words, poor victims of their ancient mythology.

It didn’t take them as long as it did with the “vestigial organs” though.

Got news for you, viruses carry genetic material around from one species to another too. Orchids that bear color patterns that simulate the colors of the bees they like for pollination, for example. Genetic transference it’s called, fascinating.

Just another adaptive mechanism in the toolbox of the automating lean mean computing machine in every cell in your body. Biologists are already beginning to admit that it is looking not like cells are hit willy-nilly by random mutation events that improve things, but that there are genetic algorithms in place to take advantage of limited genetic experimentation with borrowed genes, mutations, and of course a ready supply of “vestigial DNA” that it turns out is not vestigial but is a shelf full of spare parts to try out in times of need.

Certainly like the Psalmist said, we are wonderfully made.

As for fossils, Tiktaalik is a spectacular example of the predictive power of evolution, found in rocks of exactly the right age and type expected to contain fossils of the fish to land animals transition. Going the other way, we’ve found fossils of whales with legs! Also, the older hominid fossils show more ape-like features with a clear progression to more human-like features the more recent the fossils are, exactly as predicted and expected. So much so, that even some creationists can’t decide whether particular hominids are of the ape “kind” or the human “kind.”

Yeah hominids. After (1) the Piltdown fraud made fools of all Darwinists for a generation, after (2) three slivers of bone found hundreds of feet apart in some spring in Nebraska and somebody called it Nebraska man, and (3) some guy named Dawson didn’t want anybody else looking at his “find”, and (4) the pre-hominid “hobbits” in Indonesia turn out to be just a few small Homo sapiens folks, we are supposed to just play stupid and just swallow whatever other fairy tale you push?

Darwinists were just as sure about those, before. Well, now comes the director of a natural museum in Germany some years back and said they should stop fooling people and go ahead and dress their Neanderthal Man displays with suits and ties because they’re just like us.

–trutherator

Advertisements

9 Responses to “More Embarrassments for Anti-Creationists”

  1. The Bicycling Guitarist Says:

    Hello again. I am flattered you quote me. Those are good arguments I put up, and your refutation is less than adequate.

    Piltdown man was suspected early on because as more hominid fossils were discovered Piltdown didn’t fit the pattern shown by the others. Also, there were no primitive apes in England so that made it even more suspect. It is a shame it took forty years to discover the fraud, but it was scientists who discovered the fraud, not creationists. This shows the self-correcting nature of science, something that religious nuts don’t have.

    Nebraska Man was never accepted by the scientific community. Also, these examples you give are from the 1910s and 1920s. And whoever said that Neanderthal Man is the same as modern humans is misinformed. They are close relatives, perhaps close enough to be part ancestor to some modern humans, so close that they are now considered by most to be a subspecies of Homo Sapiens. That doesn’t mean they are “just like us.”

    Would ANY amount of evidence be sufficient for you to admit that humans share common biological ancestry with other animals? It seems you are very misinformed and that you have a closed mind to truth because you are looking at everything through filters of faith. I can’t believe in a God that would try to trick us by planting all these clues that evolution explains and predicts so neatly. Just a few would be one thing, but there is so much evidence of so many different types that all point to the same reality that it seems madness for anyone to deny it.

    Again, would ANY amount of evidence be sufficient for you to admit you are wrong. If so, why don’t you already accept the truth of God’s creation (i.e., that evolution is as much a fact of nature as gravity is)? If not, why not?

  2. The Bicycling Guitarist Says:

    Also, those “hobbit” fossils are not the same as regular Homo Sapiens. Their wrists are closer to an African ape or early hominid and not like those of modern man. They may have evolved separated from Homo Erectus or some other ancestral form and so they are cousins to us (as are Chimpanzees from an even earlier common ancestor). Wherever you are getting your information from, you are misinformed.

  3. The Bicycling Guitarist Says:

    By the way, I am not an “anti-creationist.” It is quite possible, maybe even likely, that there is a higher power or consciousness that created or manifests the physical universe. I love truth too much though to deny what evidence exists for evolution and the age of the earth. That doesn’t mean that the Christian Bible is wrong. It does mean that a literal interpretation of it is NOT supported by the evidence of the physical world and is in fact falsified by the evidence. That’s just the way it is. Either your interpretation is wrong or the Bible is wrong. Take your pick.

    Oh and it isn’t just the wrists of the “hobbits” that are different from modern humans. Their shoulders, feet and lack of chin also show that they are NOT just “small Homo Sapiens.” IF the information you present were accurate, it would be easier to discuss this topic with you. However, your sources are wrong, flat-out wrong. Do a reality check sometime, or not, your choice. More and more people are learning to check things out for themselves and not just accept anything blindly on faith anymore, especially if what they are told is easily shown to be false by literally tons of evidence.

  4. trutherator Says:

    If you love the truth, do like I did when I believed in evolution, and keep on following the real-world evidence where it leads, which is design and then Creation. Antony Flew only lived long enough to get to the design belief, but someone true to evidence does indeed follow where it leads.

    I’m not “interpreting” the Bible, it speaks for itself very clearly, and everyone who tries to pretend it says something other than six days for Creation is secretly a laughingstock for anti-creationists, for atheists.

    Get a bit more education, too, because my sources are Darwinian evolutionists and Big-Bang cosmologists and anti-creationists of any persuasion.

    The fossils testifying to the special creation of each “form” (in Gould/Eldridge language), or “kind”, is their confession, not mine or creationists. (Although creationists “told you so” before that).

    Soft tissue in dino bones, the stink of rotting flesh in the dino dig field where Schweitzer found the soft tissue, the Ica stones in Peru, Marco Polo’s matter-of-fact reference to dragons in the king’s court, dinosaurs drawn on ancient temples, these are finds of people who were not Christians, not creationists.

    So blind faith is what sees a Darwinian “tree of life” that is not there at all, Gould’s “punctuated equilibrium” is purely in his imagination based on the blind faith that there were great leaps across great biological divides, something that requires great quantities of blind faith.

    What’s there is obvious enough. The “tons of evidence” are the emperor’s new clothes.

    (Cue great numbers of people laughing here and chanting “The emperor has no clothes!”

  5. The Bicycling Guitarist Says:

    No, it isn’t blind faith that sees a tree of life. It is what the data from many different measurements all show. Each nested hierarchy is proof of common descent, and that the nested hierarchies match is yet another proof. As for the fossil record only showing separate kinds without macroevolution taking place, you are wrong. The fossil record shows transitions from fish to land animals, from dinosaurs to birds, from land animals to whales, and from apes to humans with clear transitional forms found in the fossil record where genetic and other evidence would predict they should be found.

    IF your arguments were based on facts, then I could respect them more. Your sources are wrong and so naturally your conclusions are wrong.

  6. trutherator Says:

    What a blind-faith answer. The topic is fossils, although all those other “measurements” are not “measurements” when they extrapolate to the past.

    Pay attention to the topic: fossils. There is no record of transition, just groupings of forms, more isolated from each other than galaxy clusters are.

    Nested hierarchies are “proof” of nothing except that living things can be classified in such groups. There is no fossil transition record. “It’s as if it never heppened!” (Gould + Eldridge).

    The fossils show absolutely none of the transitions you’re talking about with such major leaps of blind faith such as fish to land animals or dinosaurs to birds. That’s why one Chinese peasant farmer was able to make fools out of paleontologists everywhere, for they are desperate to find even one fossil in between.

    Your statements about the fossil record show only that you were robbed of a decent education and that you don’t even know enough about the very evolution you think you’re talking about.

    –trutheratro

  7. Mark Says:

    The ‘Hobbit were diseased humans’ argument is a long way from proven, yet you deploy it like its been settled.

    How do you account for nested hierarchies of organisms? If these hierarchies were structures imposed on an unheirarchical reality don’t you think it weird that so many traits coincide so consistently, and so few break the trend (in fact I can’t think of any that do). There are no mammals with feathers, no birds with mammary glands, yet the fossils show a continuum of features from the past to the present: archosaur skeletal features persist in birds, jaw structures first seen in Permian mammal-like reptiles persist in you and I. If each creation was unique, why do the resulting creatures look exactly the way you’d predict if they descended from common ancestors?
    Surely if the bible were objective fact as you say, you would agree that we can make predictions based on it which we can then test by go looking at nature? Those predictions fail time after time. For example, if all modern terrestrial animals are descendants of Noah’s zoological rescue mission we would expect to see a uniform distribution of animal types across the world, originating as they did from one release point somewhere in the middle east- nothing in the Bible says anything different happened, does it? But we don’t see anything resembling this, do we? There are no elephants or deer in Australia, no kangaroos or echidna in Europe. Instead we find what we’d expect if generations of discrete animal populations lived on a dynamic series of continents for a long long time and some of these populations were isolated at specific times carrying a suite of fauna from that era and not others which evolve later elsewhere. The geological data corroborates this explanation. The fossil data corroborates this, the genetic data too. How many lines of evidence form nature corroborate your bible’s account? Looks like none to me.
    Look, its your book and you think a lot of it and that your prerogative but please stop demanding that we accept it as if its somehow objective fact when its clearly not. Its embarrassing to watch.

  8. trutherator Says:

    See my answers to these common misunderstandings of science and logic here:

    https://truebook.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/more-darwinian-follies/

  9. trutherator Says:

    It’s unbelievable how much even smart people will twist their brains in knot on this subject just to avoid even considering what the facts imply.

    Geologists have a habit of dating strata by using what they call “index fossils”, a term that reflects the fact that they are using the fossils to date the strata. The Darwinian paleontologist uses the word of the geologist to date their fossils, including the ones they call “index fossils”.

    Occasionally somebody does send a sample of dirt to a lab for dating. When the results don’t match the inviolable Darwinian long-ages dogma, they just throw out the results are make up an “anomaly” to avoid using them to date the dirt, using the same methods they say are so reliable when the results match the blind-faith dogmas.

    Smarty, before the Europeans brought them, American Indians didn’t know what a horse was. But there are plenty of fossils of them ont the American continent.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: