|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
Why I Don’t Believe the Theory of Evolution 2
« Back to club forum
| ||||||||||||||||
| From | Message | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
stalhandske 05-Dec-23, 20:01 |
 This is an interesting point. With current knowledge I think we should accept that mutations are generally random, but that this is not always the case. There is now evidence (as you recall) of 'selection' of where in the genome of an organism mutations are 'focussed'. One such article is cited below. This is a very interesting topic from a medical viewpoint because it may have a huge impact on what we call 'immunology'. Now, that was just an idea and I am not knowledgeable enough in that field to say whether it has perhaps already been observed, but I would predict that certain domains in the human genome associated with immune reactions would be particularly 'open' for mutations (that are themselves random). Other regions (I expect) would be more protected with active DNA repair mechanisms. www.nature.com |
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 06-Dec-23, 21:44 |
Andrew, I responded to your question, which was (and this is copied and pasted, so accurately what you wrote and asked): <Show the evidence that evolution (within a species) takes place by random mutations and natural selection. I’ve asked for that repeatedly and evolutionists never provide it. > Need I say more? As requested, I did show an example of how random mutations and natural selection causes 'evolution' within a species. |
|||||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 06-Dec-23, 21:49 |
I showed an example of how that can occur. The randomness is a somewhat tricky concept here because the mutations themselves (their occurence) must be random, but their eventual effect is not necessarily always random. That is because certain areas of the genome are very strictly protected by correction mechanisms, so mutations there will be immediately found out and repaired. Other areas are (clearly on purpose) left without much repair, and those are important in immunology. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Why do you say “must be?” To avoid giving intelligence to the catalyst for the mutations? <<but their eventual effect is not necessarily always random. That is because certain areas of the genome are very strictly protected by correction mechanisms,>> The correction mechanisms are not random but the mutations must be? <<so mutations there will be immediately found out and repaired.>> This sounds like you’re giving intelligence to corrective mechanisms but not to the mutations. What’s the difference between the two automatic biological functions that causes one to be random and the other not to be random? The corrective mechanism clearly does not operate on “orders” from a human’s mind. |
|||||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 08-Dec-23, 21:08 |
To find out why mutations themselves (and I specified 'their occurrence') must be random, please acquaint yourself with how mutations occur, how they are caused by random radiation or chemical damage. The corrective mechanisms, on the other hand, are based on stored evolutionary information. They have themselves evolved over very long times. They are not random but based on specific enzymatic reactions by specific enzymes developed for the purpose. Your 'orders from a human mind' is ridiculous and before discussing these matters further I suggest that you'd educate yourself in what is known (i.e. the facts). |
|||||||||||||||
|
And your “stored evolutionary information” sounds a great deal like convergent evolution - just a made-up term to paper over holes in Neo-Darwinism. As far as your rude concluding remark, I have no problem with you not discussing this. It took you 15+ years to finally realize what I told you when I first joined this site - Neo-Darwinism was not a valid theory. Biologists who are far more knowledgeable about evolution than you say the DNA record does not support the idea that mutations are how evolution takes place and they also say “natural selection” has improperly been elevated to a “unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems without a real empirical basis” (despite Darwin claiming natural selection was “My Deity.”) But yeah, congratulations on figuring out 15+ years after me that Neo-Darwinism is not a valid theory. |
|||||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 08-Dec-23, 21:50 |
Congratulations to you finding out 15 years later that I never thought Neo-Darwinism was a valid theory, i.e. one without problems and therefore not requiring amendments. A so-called "scientist" of today |
|||||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 09-Dec-23, 13:37 |
A problem? What is the alternative? Mutations themselves are obviously purely stochastic because they are caused by random irradiation or chemical/toxic interference. But finally, whether a mutation will remain or not depends very much on where it happened to occur in the genome. Some domains in the genome are very well secured/protected -not against the occurence of the mutation, but by effective repair mechanisms that remove it! We know quite a deal about such mechanisms - you clearly do not. Of course the vast majority of mutations are neutral or damaging (before repair), that's precisely the result of them being basically random. |
|||||||||||||||
|
That the theory of evolution is false? Is that not an alternative? <<Mutations themselves are obviously purely stochastic because they are caused by random irradiation or chemical/toxic interference. But finally, whether a mutation will remain or not depends very much on where it happened to occur in the genome. Some domains in the genome are very well secured/protected -not against the occurence of the mutation, but by effective repair mechanisms that remove it! We know quite a deal about such mechanisms - you clearly do not.>> You’re not lecturing to meathead students, professor. Are most mutations neutral or harmful to an organism? <<Of course the vast majority of mutations are neutral or damaging (before repair), that's precisely the result of them being basically random.>> So you agree with me yet again. Here’s the problem, professor. The mechanism by which Darwin said evolution occurs had enough trouble building complex organs and transitioning to new species one small incremental step at a time. The fact most random mutations are neutral or negative to an organism only compounds the problem. And we’re expected to believe that a partially-built, non-functioning complex organ is supposed to remain in stasis just waiting for those next very infrequent beneficial mutations to occur? We’re supposed to believe that distinct parts of a complex organ that all need to be present for the organ to function somehow get beneficial mutations at the same time? Puh-leeze! Do you consider natural selection to be your “Deity” the way Darwin did? |
|||||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 09-Dec-23, 21:17 |
<<A problem? What is the alternative?>> <That the theory of evolution is false? Is that not an alternative?> Of course! All scientific theories can be false. That is their perhaps unfortunate nature and this is a fundamental part of REAL science that real scientists agree upon and accept. A huge distinction from believers in religion(s) which is why you don't understand the difference. <<Mutations themselves are obviously purely stochastic because they are caused by random irradiation or chemical/toxic interference. But finally, whether a mutation will remain or not depends very much on where it happened to occur in the genome. Some domains in the genome are very well secured/protected -not against the occurence of the mutation, but by effective repair mechanisms that remove it! We know quite a deal about such mechanisms - you clearly do not.>> <You’re not lecturing to meathead students, professor. Are most mutations neutral or harmful to an organism?> I thought that was implicit to what I said.I just wanted to be accurate about it, not dogmatic. <<Of course the vast majority of mutations are neutral or damaging (before repair), that's precisely the result of them being basically random.>> <So you agree with me yet again.> Ohhhh, what naivety! . Sure, if you get pleasure from that - help yourself <Here’s the problem, professor. The mechanism by which Darwin said evolution occurs had enough trouble building complex organs and transitioning to new species one small incremental step at a time. The fact most random mutations are neutral or negative to an organism only compounds the problem. And we’re expected to believe that a partially-built, non-functioning complex organ is supposed to remain in stasis just waiting for those next very infrequent beneficial mutations to occur? We’re supposed to believe that distinct parts of a complex organ that all need to be present for the organ to function somehow get beneficial mutations at the same time?> This is of course addressing some of the key questions of evolution theory. It is also a subject I have written about in these clubs in the past (with detailed practical examples). I just don't have enough energy to do it once again, especially since I know that it will again be neglected anyway. |
|||||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 09-Dec-23, 21:20 |
Ohhh, I missed the last part... This question is so stupid that I won't even attempt to answer. My opinion of evolution theory has absolutely nothing to do with either religion or my decision to avoid it. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Stalh Please be reassured that the moderators DO give a damn and DO review most posts in order to see that GK rules one and two are not seriously violated. No one has been harmed or threatened. We will all survive. I agree that it might be better to only reply with dispassionate, factual data... but that would leave most posts dull and uninteresting. Actually we need the passion in order to make dull subjects become interesting enough to be read. We try to allow everyone their freedom of speech (within certain guidelines, rules, and regulations). We cannot guarantee that the reader will not be offended by another's free speech. If you feel some speech toward you exceeds the rules and limits, please let us know and we can look into it. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Is evolution your field of study? I thought you said on here a while back that it wasn’t. And let’s not pretend all of your posts toward me have been above board. If I had a nickel for every time you called me an extremist and a fanatic (and those are your gentler insults,) I’d be a wealthy man. |
|||||||||||||||
|
How is L.I.F.E. the Best Evidence AGAINST Evolution? youtu.be Video is 3:38 If it wasn’t clear from the heading, L.I.F.E is an acronym for the four reasons. |
|||||||||||||||
|
“Dr James Tour on the Complexity of the Cell” youtube.com Video is 48 seconds |
|||||||||||||||
|
“How does the Fossil Record Suggest Intelligent Design?” youtube.com Video is 51 seconds |
|||||||||||||||
|
youtube.com Video is 45 seconds |
|||||||||||||||
|
“PBS Series Can God and Evolution Coexist part 2” youtube.com No idea how I missed part one lol |
|||||||||||||||
|
“PBS Series Can God and Evolution Coexist part 1” youtube.com I disagree with two main things said in this video. • The interviewer said Dr. Michael Ruse was “born a Christian.” I don’t think anyone is born a Christian. Someone can be born to Christian parents, but that doesn’t make him or her a Christian. I think a Christian according to the Bible is defined by believing in Jesus Christ, that He is the Messiah (Saviour of the world) and was Resurrected from the dead. How can a baby do that? • Ruse questions why God wouldn’t have fixed genetic mutations and errors that result in diseases. Whether we like it or not, the world is under a curse and the (temporary) god of this world is Satan. To believe the world is not under a curse would require believing that God created a world with earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, tsunamis and other natural disasters. I don’t believe natural disasters, let alone genetic diseases, were part of God’s original universe and world. But the ultimate end is not the end of this world or even the millennial reign of Jesus Christ. “And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.” (Revelation 21:1-5) |
|||||||||||||||
|
“Probability of a Single Cell Forming by Chance” youtu.be From the video description… <<After listening to several qualified person’s objections to this video, I find their objections driven by their worldview rather than science. <<My background was in computer science and engineering in my corporate career. I was responsible for information processing in a mix of R&D, manufacturing, and heavy contract engineering. I don’t know of anyone who thinks the information systems we developed could have happened by accident. It is absurd to think even an operating system like Windows would occur by chance. How is it an infinitely more complex information system in us is touted as more likely to have happened by chance than design? Doing science doesn’t change whether we are an accident or we were designed. Why do evolutionists in particular fight so hard against the obvious? The irony is we invest 1000s of man-years and billions of dollars in reverse engineering and manipulation trying to substantiate we’re an accident.>> |
|||||||||||||||
|
<<Excerpt — The Infinite Complexity of Cells In terms of compressed complexity, cells are without peer in the material world, actualized or imagined. And there is likely far more complexity still to uncover. Even as recently as 1913, when Lawrence Henderson composed his classic The Fitness of the Environment, the cell was a black box, its actual molecular complexity a mysterious unknown. Only as the veil began to lift with the mid-century molecular biological revolution did science begin to glimpse the sophistication of these extraordinary pieces of matter. Subsequently, every decade of research has revealed further depths of complexity. The discovery of ever more intricate structures and systems with each increase in knowledge — including vastly complex DNA topologies and a vast and growing inventory of mini-RNA regulator molecules — tells us there is probably much more to uncover. What we glimpse now may be only a tiny fraction of what remains to be discovered. As Erica Hayden confessed in the journal Nature, “As sequencing and other new technologies spew forth data,” the complexity unearthed by cell biology “has seemed to grow by orders of magnitude. Delving into it has been like zooming into a Mandelbrot set… that reveals ever more intricate patterns as one peers closer at its boundary.” A Third Infinity There is much more to discover about the cell, but even from our current limited knowledge of its depths it is clear that this tiny unit of compact, adaptive sophistication constitutes something like a third infinity. Where the cosmos feels infinitely large and the atomic realm infinitely small, the cell feels infinitely complex. But cells are not just complex beyond any sensible measure and beyond any other conceivable material form. They appear in so many ways supremely fit to fulfill their role as the basic unit of biological life. One element of this fitness is manifest in their incomparable diversity of form. Contrast a neuron with a red blood cell, a skin cell with a liver cell, an amoeboid leucocyte with a muscle cell. Each of these different forms is found in the human body, and many more. Or consider the diversity of ciliate protozoans. From the trumpet-like Stentor to the dashing Paramecium, the universe of ciliate form is absurdly diverse. Or take the radiolarians. Even within this small related group of organisms, the diversity of cell forms is stunning. And yet every member of this fantastic zoo of radiolarian forms is built on exactly the same canonical design. Unique Fitness The unique fitness of the cell to serve as the fundamental unit of life is also manifest in its amazing abilities and the diversity of functions it performs. Even the tiny E. coli, a cylinder-shaped bacterium in the human gut, has spectacular capabilities. Howard Berg has marveled at the versatility and capacities of this minuscule organism, calling its talents “legion.” He notes that this tiny organism, less than one-millionth of a meter in diameter and two-millionths of a meter long, so small that “20 would fit end-to-end in a single rod cell of the human retina,” is nevertheless “adept at counting molecules of specific sugars, amino acids, or dipeptides; at integration of similar or dissimilar sensory inputs over space and time; at comparing counts taken over the recent and not so recent past; at triggering an all-or-nothing response; at swimming in a viscous medium… even pattern formation.”>> evolutionnews.org The atheists’ belief that all this happened by accident is preposterous. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Darwin’s Unpublished “Big Book” <<Does the World Need Another Book About Darwin? Editor’s note: We are delighted to present an excerpt from the new book by Dr. Shedinger, Darwin’s Bluff: The Mystery of the Book Darwin Never Finished. This article is adapted from the Introduction. What can anyone say that has not already been said about this seminal figure, Charles Darwin, considering the wealth of literature written about him? To the question posed in the headline above, the simple answer is yes, we do need another book about Darwin, for there are aspects of his life and work that have surprisingly continued to evade the attention of his many biographers and interpreters. The very human Charles Darwin has grown into a mythological figure — the paradigmatic example of a true scientist — without whom nothing in biology would make sense, in the words of Theodosius Dobzhansky. Unfortunately, this mythological figure would be scarcely recognizable to Darwin’s own contemporaries. Happily for the present enterprise, the flesh-and-blood Charles Darwin is considerably more interesting than the two-dimensional Darwin of the hagiographies. The state of his scientific legacy is also more intriguing than those same hagiographies would allow — intriguing because it is embattled in ways confessed to in some of the peer-reviewed literature and at high-level scientific conferences but rarely acknowledged beyond these specialized contexts. Modern scientific advances in fields like molecular biology, genomics, epigenetics, paleontology, developmental biology, and more are raising significant questions about the power of the Darwinian mechanism of variation and natural selection to account for the evolutionary history of life on Earth. Some are calling for an extended evolutionary synthesis while others believe the entire Darwinian edifice needs to be overhauled. It is no longer clear that Darwin can be said to have answered the question of the origin of species. There is thus no reason to begin an investigation into his life and work with the assumption that he did. Abstract Art One effect of Darwinian mythology has been to downplay the 19th-century Englishman’s own characterization of The Origin of Species as a mere abstract of his species theory, a summary lacking much of the facts, evidence, and authorities he promised would follow in a later work. The Origin is usually treated as Darwin’s magnum opus, a characterization in keeping with Darwinian mythology but out of step with Darwin’s own view of his work. In truth, The Origin of Species was an abstract of a much larger book on species that Darwin was working on (and that was three-quarters complete) before events forced him to put the larger book aside and instead publish a mere abstract of it. Once the Origin was in circulation, Darwin’s many correspondents anticipated that he would quickly follow up with the publication of his big book on species so they could better evaluate the argument for natural selection made in the Origin. Indeed, Darwin himself created this expectation both in the Origin and in his correspondence. Even early reviewers of the Origin noted the lack of empirical evidence for natural selection but gave Darwin the benefit of the doubt since the Origin was a mere abstract and therefore could not be expected to provide all the evidence. Given the anticipation among Darwin’s readers for the big book on species, anticipation that Darwin himself repeatedly stoked, why did he never publish the big book? This question is rarely asked. A rough, handwritten manuscript of Darwin’s big book, titled Natural Selection, survived among his papers and was published by Cambridge University Press in 1975. Yet despite the easy access scholars now have to this work (I bought a copy on Amazon), there has been little detailed engagement with its contents or comparison of this work with its abstracted form in the Origin. Such a comparison proves enlightening, for it serves to highlight the secondary nature of the Origin as a hastily written abstract rather than a finely honed scientific treatise, thus challenging the iconic status of the Origin as the foundational text of the modern biological sciences. This, of course, may be precisely why the big book gets overlooked. Missing Goods Another reason the big book has been largely ignored, I hope to show, is that it does not deliver the promised goods. This, I will also argue, is the best explanation for why Darwin never brought the book to print. It wasn’t, as one might suppose, that he had made little headway on it and simply lacked the time or energy to produce it. Abstracts are usually distillations of longer works already in existence. So, if the Origin, as Darwin constantly repeats, is only an abstract, it would suggest the big book on species already existed in some substantial form prior to 1859. And in fact, this was the case. The manuscript contained nine chapters and was close to 300,000 words in length. It would likely have been around 400,000 words complete. Given that this book was nearly three-quarters complete, why did Darwin never publish it? And why did he instead turn to the study of orchids as a follow-up to the Origin? Because, as will become clear, he came to see that it did not answer some key criticisms that the Origin had elicited. So, he abandoned the project, even as he allowed anticipation of its publication to persist for many years. To be sure, Darwin’s orchid book, which he called “a flank movement on the enemy,” did attempt to provide some of the evidence for natural selection missing from the Origin (and, as it turns out, missing from the big book as well). He tried to outflank his opponents by putting before them an entirely new work on the numerous contrivances (Darwin’s word) found among orchid flowers to ensure their cross-fertilization by insects. Surely this would impress his readers with the power of natural selection to evolve all these exquisite contrivances. But Darwin’s strategy failed. Reviewers of his orchid book read it as providing evidence for natural theology, not natural selection. And surprisingly, even Darwin himself in one place likened his orchid book to the Bridgewater Treatises, a series of writings designed to extol the power of God manifest in nature! Could anything be more ironic than that Charles Darwin, the poster child for the triumph of scientific naturalism in biology, actually advanced the cause of natural theology in his day? This is an aspect of his life and work that has been entirely erased by the prevailing mythological Darwinian narrative. For all these reasons, a more nuanced assessment of Darwin’s evolutionary writings is warranted. An Enigmatic Victorian In my engagement with Darwin, I will give pride of place to his voluminous correspondence as the evidentiary basis of this more critical portrait of a truly enigmatic Victorian figure. The argument that lies ahead cites more than 250 letters written by and to Darwin up to the year 1863, some never cited in Darwinian biographies. These letters represent Darwin’s engagement with more than seventy friends, family members, and scientific correspondents. I have elected to adorn the book with many direct quotations from these letters, since I think it is crucial for readers to hear Darwin’s own voice on the page as much as possible to truly encounter the thought patterns and rhetorical style of this fascinating individual. Many of Darwin’s biographers take the reverse approach — providing their own paraphrases of Darwin’s words — which has the effect of subordinating Darwin to the mythological figure the biography exists to perpetuate. I have also elected, for authenticity’s sake, to retain Darwin’s spelling and punctuation rather than correct them to modern standards. We need to let Darwin speak for himself. It turns out that Darwin, given the opportunity, is quite capable of dismantling his own mythology.>> evolutionnews.org |
|||||||||||||||
|
First I’ve heard that Darwin considered “On the Origin of Species” to be an abstract and that a future book (which he never finished) was going to provide evidence for his crackpot theory of molecules-to-man evolution. Here’s a summary of the book followed by a link to Amazon… <<Tucked away in Charles Darwin’s surviving papers is a manuscript of almost 300,000 words that he never completed. It was his sequel to The Origin of Species. It was the book he had promised would finally supply solid empirical evidence for the creative power of natural selection, evidence he admitted was absent from the Origin, which he repeatedly described as a “mere abstract.” Darwin soon abandoned his sequel, though he never revealed that decision to those who awaited its appearance. The mystery of why Darwin didn’t finish his sequel has never been satisfactorily resolved. In this fascinating piece of historical detective work, Robert Shedinger draws on Darwin’s letters, private notebooks, and the unfinished manuscript itself to piece together the puzzle and reveal an embarrassing truth: Darwin never finished his sequel because in the end he could not deliver the promised goods. His book, begun in earnest, devolved into a bluff.>> www.amazon.com |
|||||||||||||||
|
BTW, I’m open to the idea that evolution occurred on earth within more than a classification of families on the taxonomic scale. I just don’t think it happened the way Darwin said - random variation and natural selection, which later became known as random mutations and natural selection, or Neo-Darwinism. Unfortunately, when many evolutionists encounter criticism of the theory of evolution or Darwin, they immediately think “Creationism,” “Bible,” “Genesis” and “God” and lash out in a rage. They appear incapable of understanding evolution could have occurred in ways other than Darwin proposed. Biologists at the Third Way of Evolution recognize this, which is why they’re not proposing to amend Darwin’s crackpot theory but bluntly stated: <<The DNA record does not support the assertion that small random mutations are the main source of new and useful variations. We now know that the many different processes of variation involve well regulated cell action on DNA molecules.>> <<Neo-Darwinism…is clearly naturalistic science but ignores much contemporary molecular evidence and invokes a set of unsupported assumptions about the accidental nature of hereditary variation. Neo-Darwinism ignores important rapid evolutionary processes such as symbiogenesis, horizontal DNA transfer, action of mobile DNA and epigenetic modifications. Moreover, some Neo-Darwinists have elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems without a real empirical basis.>> www.thethirdwayofevolution.com Of course, undoubtedly under pressure from Darwinian dogmatists and fanatics, the biologists said they weren’t trying to overturn Neo-Darwinism, but those statements on the Third Way of Evolution’s website speak for themselves. I’ve long thought the theory of evolution was not a scientific theory but was simply a creation story for atheists. But it was only today that I realized Darwin considered his “On the Origin of Species” to be an abstract and later intended to publish evidence in support of it. Not surprisingly, he never did. |
|||||||||||||||
|
I can (kind of) understand people who think species on earth evolved from rudimentary life forms, but to think it happened the way Darwin said, that complex organs, consciousness, irreducibly complex systems, male and female genitalia and incredibly complex cells developed purely by chance is the height of gullibility and group think. Maybe it happened another way, but the way proposed by Neo-Darwinism - random mutations and natural selection - is absurd, especially since most mutations are harmful or neutral to an organism. |
|||||||||||||||
|
youtube.com Video is 54 seconds Another way of saying most mutations are neutral or damaging to an organism - not beneficial, And they certainly lack the creative power and understanding to build a complex organ (let alone a much easier task.) |
|||||||||||||||
|
<<This Fossil Friday features Tridentinosaurus antiquus, which was discovered in 1931 and described by Leonardi (1959) from the Early Permian (ca. 280 million years old) sandstone of the Italian Alps. The 10-inch-long fossil animal looks like a dark imprint of an Anolis lizard. It was attributed by Dalla Veccia (1997) to the extinct Protorosauria (= Prolacertiformes) and considered to be “one of the oldest fossil reptiles and one of the very few skeletal specimens with evidence of soft tissue preservation” (Rossi et al. 2024), interpreted as carbonized skin showing the whole body outline like a photograph. Only the bones of the hind limbs were clearly visible. The 90-year-old fossil find remained unique, as nothing similar was ever discovered again in the Permian of the Italian Alps (Starr 2024). This should have raised some red flags. However, why question a fossil that was “thought to be an important specimen for understanding early reptile evolution” (University College Cork 2024)? As journalists would say, it was too good to check. Instead the find was “celebrated in articles and books but never studied in detail” (University College Cork 2024). Bombshell and Headlines Now a new study (Rossi et al. 2024) of the famous fossil has turned out to be a bombshell, making global media headlines (University College Cork 2024). The scientists used sophisticated methods including ultraviolet light photography, 3D surface modeling, scanning electronic microscopy, and Fourier transformed infrared spectroscopy to analyze the apparent soft tissue of the fossil reptile. To their great surprise they discovered that “the material forming the body outline is not fossilized soft tissues but a manufactured pigment indicating that the body outline is a forgery,” which of course also throws into doubt the “validity of this enigmatic taxon.” The study concludes that “The putative soft tissues of T. antiquus, one of the oldest known reptiles from the Alps, are fake and thus this specimen is not an exceptionally preserved fossil. Despite this, the poorly preserved long bones of the hindlimbs seem to be genuine.” But in the absence of novel information about the preserved skeleton, the authors “suggest caution in using T. antiquus in phylogenetic studies.” Who Did It, and Why? It is not known who perpetrated the forgery or why, but probably it was just a way to embellish the poor remains of the leg bones with some fancy painting (Starr 2024), coating it with varnish as a protective layer to hide the forgery from easy discovery (University College Cork 2024). Italian paleontologist Valentina Rossi, the lead scientist of the study that uncovered the forgery, said in an article at The Conversation (Rossi 2024a) that “fake fossils are among us, passing almost undetected under the eye of experts all over the world. This is a serious problem — counterfeited specimens can mislead palaeontologists into studying an ancient past that never existed.” The reprinted article in Scientific American (Rossi 2024b) even admits in the subtitle, “Paleontology is rife with fake fossils that are made to cash in on illegal trade but end up interfering with science.” Let that sink in, and remember it when Darwinists try to ridicule Darwin critics, who bring up forgeries such as Piltdown Man or Archaeoraptor. Don’t let them get away with (despite knowing better) claiming that such forgeries are not a real problem in evolutionary biology. Therefore, in loving memory of the Piltdown Man forgery, and the Piltdown Fly (Bechly 2022), we may in the future call this specimen the Piltdown Lizard.>> evolutionnews.org |
|||||||||||||||
|
youtube.com Video is 30 seconds Amen. I’ve been saying this for years. The theory of molecules-to-man evolution is nothing more than a creation story for atheists. |
|||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
