Our Websites

Fractured Fairy Tales

You’ve heard comedians’ versions of well-known fairy tales, twisted for their purpose—to get laughs. The facts of Neanderthals have been distorted to bolster evolution. It’s typical of Satan to use things that should glorify God to try to turn people away from God. He does this with creation, with God’s amazing designs found throughout the universe, with fossils that should serve as a warning of God’s hatred of sin, with the gift of marriage, sex, children, etc. There are scores of other examples, but every time I see articles about Neanderthals being sub-human, primitive, or stupid, I get a little upset. Even using the name “Neanderthal” upsets me.

The facts behind the story

Joachim Neander (1650—1680) was a godly young man who often walked in a valley in Germany and meditated on the things of God. He wrote the song still used in nearly every Church hymnal today: “Praise to The Lord, The Almighty, the King of Creation.” After he died, the valley was named after him—Neander Valley. Then in the 1850’s, during some quarry work, a petrified skeleton was uncovered (not his) and named the Neanderthal man. The back was stooped over and the eyebrow ridge larger than normal. It was quickly determined that these were the bones of an old man who suffered from diseases and drowned in Noah’s flood.

Neanderthals reinvented for Darwin’s theory

Several years later, Darwin’s book came out, in which he predicted that people would find fossil evidence that man and animals slowly changed into other kinds of animals. After years of digging, none of these fossils were found (and still have not been discovered), so someone suggested dragging the poor old Neanderthal man out of his resting place and using him as evidence for Darwin’s theory.

To date, about 300 “Neanderthal” skeletons have been found in many parts of Europe. Dr. Jack Cuozzo has written an excellent book explaining the truth about the Neanderthals, Buried Alive. In it he clearly shows that the “Neanderthals” are fully human and were living to great ages—maybe more than 300 years! Read Genesis 5 and 11 carefully and you will see that after the flood, people still lived to be  400 years old for several generations. (See the entire lineage from Adam to Joseph on our Longevity Chart.)

Non-biased study needed

All of these Neanderthal skeletons that are being discovered ought to be used by scientists to bring people to believe the Bible not to doubt it! The bones are great visual aids to show how man has degraded not advanced. They could be used to teach God’s Word, demonstrate that people used to live to be 400, but were diseased after the flood maybe from climate-induced problems such as lack of sun, ice ages, etc.

Christians everywhere should write letters to the editor, teach classes in schools, churches, libraries and on the street to bring glory to God for His creation, using the Neanderthal bones as evidence of the Bible’s truth. That’s the way Joachim would want it. Why not sing his song today and focus on the amazing words? Then do what it says—praise God!

,

Leave29 Responses to testFractured Fairy Tales

  1. Jay Liemowitz October 12, 2010 at 7:56 am #

    Kent,

    I’ll skip most of what you post here as it’s not terribly relevant to the actual species of hominid you’re attempting to debunk (why would the namesake of the valley in which neanderthal was discovered matter in the least?), and I’ll just focus on this one statement by you:

    “Several years later, Darwin’s book came out, in which he predicted that people would find fossil evidence that man and animals slowly changed into other kinds of animals. After years of digging, none of these fossils were found (and still have not been discovered), so someone suggested dragging the poor old Neanderthal man out of his resting place and using him as evidence for Darwin’s theory.”

    Are you seriously claiming that Neanderthal is the only fossil species that would constitute what most would call a “transitional” fossil? There are dozens more species (hundreds of individual specimens) of transitional hominid fossils alone, and there are thousands of transitional fossils in other genera.

    Does “great age” also explain the numerous Ardipithecus species? Or where they simply “non-human” apes? How about the Australopithecens, homo habilus, homo erectus, homo ergaster? How would you classify each of these species? These specimens, and many more, beautifully show a clear transition from tree dwelling apes to modern humans, even to the point that creationists cannot decide among themselves how to classify many of them, whether mere apes, or modern humans.

    As for transitions in other genera:

    Archeopteryx – the skeletal structure matching that of small theropod dinosaurs, with a bony tale, non-fused hip bone, and a mouth full of teeth. Yet it also has a body covered in feathers, both down and fully developed flight feathers, a wishbone much like modern birds, and a toe that is partially reversed as in modern perching birds.

    Amoung the other dinosaur-bird transitions: microraptor, velocoraptor, deinonychus, anchiornis, all of which display to some extent or the other, bird features and dinosaur features together in the same animal. They fit, by any definition I’ve ever read, a textbook example of transitional fossils, as predicted by evolutionary theory.

    There are hundreds more perfect examples that could be named, but my post is already running long. I’ll list a few below, and challenge any creationist here, including the Hovind’s, to respond with a detailed example of why any of these fossils I’ve named do not fit the definition of transitional.

    Transitions between fish and modern reptiles:

    Panderichthys
    Tiktaalik
    Acanthostega
    Ichthyostega
    Hynerpeton

    Transitions between hoofed mammals and modern whales:

    Pakicetus
    Indohyus
    Ambulocetus
    Kutchicetus
    Protocetus

    Challenge!

  2. Joseph Conkle October 12, 2010 at 7:35 am #

    Romans 1:18-20
    For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, (19) because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (20) For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

  3. Doktor Benway October 12, 2010 at 8:00 am #

    Who writes your material for you, Kent? And why did you leave a floater in Ali G’s loo?

  4. Jeff Brace October 12, 2010 at 2:43 pm #

    There are only a handful of fossils claimed to be transitional and all are suspect as to showing any transition.

    1.No one has been able to make life from non-life (matter giving rise to life, which is foundational to molecules-to-man evolution).
    2.No one has been able to change a single-celled life-form like an ameba into a cow or goat.
    3.No one has been able to repeat the big bang (which is foundational to molecules-to-man evolution).
    4.We haven’t observed billions of new information-gaining mutations required to build the DNA strand and give rise to new kinds of life-forms.
    5.Matter has never been observed to give rise to new information.
    6.No one has observed millions of years of time progressing.
    7.No one has found the billions of transitional fossils needed to help show the changes of one kind into another.

  5. Nigel McNaughton October 12, 2010 at 3:14 pm #

    I love how no matter what the evidence, for Kent and Eric Neanderthal was just a very old Frenchman,….

    Even the children.

  6. Carl M October 12, 2010 at 9:03 pm #

    It was quickly determined that these were the bones of an old man who suffered from diseases …

    Rudolf Virchow claimed the specimen had rickets in childhood, head injuries in middle age, and chronic arthritis in old age. While an interesting interpretation of a single specimen, the existance of multiple specimens from multiple locations disproves this claim. Even Jack Cuozzo (which Hovind cites as a valid source) disproves this idea.

    So if the idea of Neanderthals being deformed skeleton is fundamentally invalid why is Hovind using it?

    …. and drowned in Noah’s flood.

    No evidence of any drowning is available, to the best of my knowledge.

  7. David McCrea October 13, 2010 at 12:00 am #

    Jay,

    Who defined the term “transitional fossil?” If your answer is “evolutionists,” then your textbook examples of transitional fossils are meaningless because the observations are made by biased individuals who used their observations to fit the preconceived story of evolution. It’s circular reasoning at its worse.

    And if you want to believe a cow or other hoofed mammal fell into the water and evolved into a whale, be my guest. As Dr. Berlinski stated, he performed a little bit of envelope math and roughly calculated it would take more than 50,000 morphological changes to change a cow into a whale. And drown every cow in the process.

    I will issue you four specific challenges.

    The first is to explain the “Cambrian Explosion.”

    The second is to PRECISELY list the ACTUAL evolutionary process starting from your one-celled whatever and leading all the way to homo sapiens. Leave no omissions. It’s your theory, not mine, so this should be a simple exercise for you especially since you’re willing to bet your eternity on it.

    Third, do you rank the various human races in terms of their perceived evolutionary development? If so, how would you rank them from top to bottom?

    Last challenge. I am a great evolutionary biologist. I write books and lecture on college campuses. I even speak with an english accent. My research clearly shows that African apes actually evolved from homo sapiens. Please debunk my theory.

  8. Pamela Denayer October 13, 2010 at 12:28 am #

    Keep up the good work! God bless your ministry! I feel very sorry for your other bloggers because one day they will have to stand before the Lord and then what…a very sad end all because of pride.

  9. Mike Ayala October 13, 2010 at 5:04 am #

    Hi Jay,

    Are you seriously suggesting that one species can morph into another species? Really?

    Can you suggest any mechanism by which such a thing can take place outside of a cartoon or CGI animation?

    Let’s go back to Darwin’s speculation:

    Darwin observed a little change over a little time, so he extrapolated it out to a lot of change over a lot of time.

    Darwin came to this conclusion based on an 1850’s ignorance of information theory, microbiology, metabolism, and genetics. Darwin did not recognize the boundaries of life. By 1859, Darwin did not know what we know today as the basics of genetics – that change in a species only occurs within the confines of the genetic code resident within that individual.

    Darwin drew a line in the sand:

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

    Darwin should have studied the woodpecker before he wrote that in his book. Darwin had no chance to study the flagellum motor. His speculation has absolutely broken down, but there are folks who emotionally and religiously hold to it because the only alternative is special creation – the non-random creation of life, and that sounds too much for their liking like what was observed and reported by God in His word.

    Jay, you must know something that Darwin did not know because Darwin did not know of any transitional forms.

    Surely by now you are familiar with one of Darwin’s most famous statements:

    “The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.”

    Jay, you probably have more knowledge and experience than David Raup, former curator of geology at Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History:

    “Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded … ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time.”

    It was 120 years later, and it was not as though:

    “…only a small portion of the surface of the earth has been geologically explored and no part with sufficient care…”

    as Darwin suggested. No transitional forms were found in Darwin’s day because there were no transitional forms to be found. Darwin had no transitional forms to offer in his day, and we have even fewer today!

    You would probably consider Stephen Gould a Creationist based on his statement:

    “The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:

    1) Stasis – most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless;

    2) Sudden appearance – in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed’

    Jay, evolutionists in the field do not even believe in what you offer as proof. Remember, Stephen Jay Gould was professor of geology and paleontology at Harvard University. Dr. Niles Eldredge, a curator at the American Museum in New York had this to say this about supposed proofs of transitional forms:

    “There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff.”

    Jay, please remember, data plus assumptions do not equal evidence for evolution.

    Jay, the proofs you offer do not stand up to scrutiny. The scrutiny is Genetics. To summarize I’ll repeat what I wrote to Nigel about the subject:

    Darwin was wrong about natural selection. Darwin promoted natural selection as a designing force, when in reality all natural selection does is help an organism to adapt to its environment within the confines of the genetic code found in the organism. Natural selection helps to preserve a species, but it certainly does not create the species. Adaptation is not evolution. Adaptation is a designed feature of the code of life that helps the organism to disperse into a variety of environments.

    Concerning Darwin and genetics, even Darwin was afraid acknowledging of Mendel’s works. When Darwin died, a copy of Mendel’s writing were found on his desk, so at least by the end of his life, Darwin knew of Mendel and his findings. It tells all that Darwin did not incorporate Mendel’s works into his theory of evolution, for he could not Mendel’s works totally contradicted Darwin’s speculations on inheritance. Do you remember gemmules and pangenesis?

    Darwin proposed purpose driven inheritance that would respond to need, whereas today we know inheritance is passed on genetically. Darwin proposed inheritance that could morph one species into another when what we know today is the code of life is passed on to progeny from parent, and that code does not change except through mutations. Darwin’s natural selection was based upon mutations adding information, whereas we know today that mutations are a loss of information broken genes. Mutations are equivalent to ripping pages out of the book of life not adding information.

    Jay, if you want a challenge, present a credible challenge: present a plausible and verifiable mechanism for one species morphing into another that will stand up to the slightest scrutiny. If you could do so, you’d be rich and famous beyond your wildest dreams; You’d slam-dunk a Nobel prize (that’s not too hard these days); you have your picture on the cover of Scientific American (you could buy five copies for your mother); and you’d be on the speaking circuit till the day you die.

    God bless you, Jay.

    Mike Ayala

  10. Alfred Russell Wallace October 13, 2010 at 10:24 am #

    >>>>Mutations are equivalent to ripping pages out of the book of life not adding information.

    Mike, what book are you getting this out of? Mutations mean “change”. The genetic code can be “changed” and produce different forms.

    You seem to think every mutation is deleterious….

    Sorry but that’s wrong.

  11. Alfred Russell Wallace October 13, 2010 at 10:15 am #

    >>>>>Are you seriously suggesting that one species can morph into another species? Really?

    You obviously don’t understand evolution.

    An organism cannot morph, but YES a species can over long stretches of time caused by environmental and sexual factors.

    ENVIRONMENTAL EXAMPLE: The Giraffe

    The Giraffe evolved a long neck to eat vegetation because the trees of africa began to grow taller as the climate shifted. Giraffe’s with shorter necks would not be able to get the necessary food and would subsequently die, unable to pass on their genetic information to the population.

    SEXUAL EXAMPLE: the Peacock

    A long tail on a peacock could surely be a giant hindrance as an environmental advantage. However, peahens sexually select which peacocks they wish to mate with based on the size and colour of their plumage. Experiments have been done to cut the plumage of peacocks, which causes them to be selected as mates less often. The plumage may also be an indicator of good health and vitality, making it a good trait to select. Attractiveness selections occur in most advanced organisms, take ourselves for example. We find certain body types and faces to be attractive or unattractive.

    Do you deny the horse-zebra relation? There is a greater discrepancy of genetic information between them than the human-chimpanzee relationship.

    Mike,

    I invite you to come and see the transitional forms at a museum with me. Maybe you can try and convert me to Christianity while I educate you about evolution.

  12. Jay Liemowitz October 13, 2010 at 11:51 am #

    David McCrea said “Who defined the term “transitional fossil?” If your answer is “evolutionists,” then your textbook examples of transitional fossils are meaningless because the observations are made by biased individuals who used their observations to fit the preconceived story of evolution. It’s circular reasoning at its worse. ”

    It’s not circular in the least. This is how science is done. You form a hypothesis, then ask a question based on that hypothesis, then test if the answer to that question matches the real world.

    In this case, the question was “If evolution is true, what sort of fossils should we find, and where should we find them”. One answer is, we should find fossils that date to roughly 375 million years ago that have some characteristics of fish, and some of land dwelling reptiles. We then found precisely this, in Tiktaalik. There are many more examples. We should find fossils of animals from 100 million years ago that have some characteristics of dinosaurs, and some of birds. We find these as well. I’ll note that it’s not impossible to explain this from a creationist standpoint; God simply made some bizarre critters. But if we were to put creationism to the same sort of tests, we don’t get favorable results.

    Example: If creationism is true, we shouldn’t find evidence that the earth is more than 6,000 years old yet there is much. We shouldn’t find evidence of civilizations that are older than 6,000 years old, yet we find many. We should find evidence that supports biblical stories like the exodus from Egypt, yet there is none. We should also find evidence that links all humanity, genetically, back to one man and one woman, both dating to 6000 years ago. DNA evidence doesn’t lead us to this conclusion at all (don’t bring up Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam until you understand them either please. They lived some 50,000 years apart, according to the DNA evidence; older than you believe the universe to be).

    I don’t have time right now to address each of your challenges, but I’ll try to do so later in the day on the next thread topic, since its related.

    Jay

  13. Mike Ayala October 13, 2010 at 12:53 pm #

    Hi Alfred,

    Thank you for the reply.

    You are making an assumption that there has been what is known as deep time which is time that goes back millions and billions of years. There is overwhelming evidence revealing a very young age of the earth in the range of a several thousand years. Evolutionists like to point to a few equivocal and disputed evidences which are observations and data seasoned with wild assumptions but ignore the massive volume of evidence contrary to their theology. Because of its extensive nature and the sheer volume of material I will cover that another time in the next day or two if time permits.

    The environmental example you gave was discredited long ago, and I know of no advocate of evolution who would ever use that example today. What you described is what is known as Lamarckian Transformation which was a casualty of Mendel’s research. Darwin’s ideas of Pangenesis and Gemmules were based on Jean-Baptiste Lamarck’s (1744-1829) hypothesis of a mechanism of heredity which was purpose driven and an inheritance of acquired traits. For example, if one acquire a tattoo on one’s hand, according to Lamarck, one’s offspring would be born with a tattoo, and also the giraffe example you cited. In the light of today’s understanding of genetics, Lamarckian Transformation is considered ridiculous by evolutionists as well as creationists.

    The idea that “peahens sexually select which peacocks they wish to mate with based on the size and colour of their plumage” has been discredited. Today it is known that as with other birds, the sexual attractiveness between peacocks and peahens is based on the mating call and not the plumage.

    I’m not sure what point you are making about horses and zebras. They will mate together, and the offspring is call a Zorse. Zebras and donkeys also mate and the offspring is called a Zonkey. I would question your understanding of the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees in comparison to the genetic differences between horses and zebras. Are you suggesting that humans and chimpanzees can successfully mate?

    Maybe you did not understand the significance of what I wrote: Neither Darwin nor leading evolutionary evangelists, evolutionary palaeontologists, and museum curators today (even some of them who are rather rabid evolutionists) believe there are any transitional forms, so it is a vain hope for the evolutionary laity to believe there are transitional forms. These ideas have been discredited, and they know it. That is why they had to come up with the “Hopeful Monster” idea – what had been taught in support of evolution for many years could no longer be supported.

    Those which are called beneficial mutations are so rare that they are categorized as “vanishingly rare” and are equivocal at best. The benefit derived from the mutation is extremely limited and is not beneficial in any wide sense across the species. The “change” in your definition of mutations is always a loss of information. Mutations are always broken genes. There are no known mutations which are beneficial to the species as an whole. If you doubt this, do some research and find any respected microbiologist or geneticist who has submitted anything that has survived peer review and scrutiny that demonstrates an increase in information as a result of a mutation. The changes caused by mutations are things like, aging, birth defects, and Mendelian diseases.

    Thank you for your invite. Are you in England? I noticed your “colour”.

    God bless you.

    Mike Ayala

  14. Nigel McNaughton October 13, 2010 at 4:12 pm #

    David, what do you think the Cambrian Explosion even is?

    “Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists — whether through design or stupidity, I do not know – as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups” – Stephen Jay Gould

    Mike, are you ever able to respond concisely on topic without adding pages and pages of half truths and quote-mines?
    I particularly enjoyed the completely unsourced apocryphal story about Darwin being scared of Mendel’s work. Nicely done.

  15. David McCrea October 13, 2010 at 4:28 pm #

    Giraffes evolved long necks due to environmental changes. Their necks needed to keep pace with the size of the trees and available vegetation. Okay.

    Are there fossilized short-neck, short-legged giraffes to prove the above point, and I’m not referring to “baby” giraffes.

    Surely other African herbivores would have benefitted from evolving long legs and long necks to better adapt to and survive environmental changes. Are there any examples living or dead of those?

    To evolve a long neck and long legs the giraffe would have had to undergo numberless morphological changes to its skeletal, muscular, nervous, circulatory, aw heck, it would have had to become a whole new critter. The original giraffes would have all been dead before they had the chance to evolve so many new and complicated features.

    It’s almost as though evolutionists are ascribing some sort of inherent intelligence behind the evolutionary process. So which is it? Is it a totally random process that’s as dumb as a post or is it some sort of super creative force capable of “learning” given enough time?

    Quite a feat for a process no smarter than a post.

    Praying the scales will fall.

  16. David McCrea October 13, 2010 at 5:05 pm #

    Peacocks.

    What a stunningly beautiful creation. Just like the ring-necked pheasants I hunt here in my home state of South Dakota.

    Lots of wild animals pick the prettiest or the most handsome for a mate. Even people do it.

    But the peacock is still a BIRD. And people are still PEOPLE.

    Alfred, your evidence for Darwinian evolution isn’t just thin. It doesn’t even exist.

    All things created had a Creator.

    Your computer had a creator, yet you believe the creator of the computer itself had no creator (add to that the mathematical improbability that the creator of the computer is ALIVE).

    To believe something was created yet had no creator is both unscientific and illogical. This is where you will always lose the argument.

    You keep “kicking against the pricks,” and to what avail?

    God bless you and may He have mercy on us all.

  17. Carl M October 13, 2010 at 7:09 pm #

    @ Jay

    Who defined the term “transitional fossil?” If your answer is “evolutionists,” then your textbook examples of transitional fossils are meaningless ….. It’s circular reasoning at its worse.

    Circular reasoning is a defined logical fallacy. The above example is a claim of observor bias.

    If the “evolutionist” observor can’t be trusted to observe transitional fossils then it must follow that a “non-evolutionist” can not be allowed to judge the accuracy of that conclusion.

    And if you want to believe a cow or other hoofed mammal fell into the water and evolved into a whale, be my guest. As Dr. Berlinski stated, he performed a little bit of envelope math and roughly calculated it would take more than 50,000 morphological changes to change a cow into a whale. And drown every cow in the process.

    As nobody is claiming cows are ancestral to whales nor that whale ancestors became aquatic by accident the entire assertion is a strawman argument.

    I will issue you four specific challenges.

    The first is to explain the “Cambrian Explosion.”

    “The Cambrian explosion or Cambrian radiation was the relatively rapid appearance, over a period of many million years, of most major Phyla around 530 million years ago, as found in the fossil record. This was accompanied by a major diversification of other organisms, including animals, phytoplankton, and calcimicrobes.” – Wikipedia

    The second is to PRECISELY list the ACTUAL evolutionary process starting from your one-celled whatever and leading all the way to homo sapiens. Leave no omissions. It’s your theory, not mine, so this should be a simple exercise for you especially since you’re willing to bet your eternity on it.

    Let me get this straight – you want the entire genetic history of life on Earth to be (a) known, (b) presented to you on a blog, (c) use (a) and (b) as basis for a conclusion about the existance of the afterlife?

    Third, do you rank the various human races in terms of their perceived evolutionary development? If so, how would you rank them from top to bottom?

    No. Ranking in evolutionary terms is as pointless as judging leaves on a tree.

    Last challenge. I am a great evolutionary biologist. I write books and lecture on college campuses. I even speak with an english accent. My research clearly shows that African apes actually evolved from homo sapiens. Please debunk my theory.

    You can’t be serious?

  18. David McCrea October 13, 2010 at 9:59 pm #

    Fish Had Sex First, Fossils Suggest
    Fish fossils dating to 380 million years ago provide the first physical evidence for intimate sex by copulation.
    By Jennifer Viegas
    Mon Oct 11, 2010 03:15 PM ET

    THE GIST
    *Armored shark-like extinct fishes were probably the first animals to have had intimate sex by copulation.
    *The world’s first jaws likely evolved to facilitate mating, and not feeding, as had been previously thought.
    *Genes responsible for making our limbs, and the pelvic fins of fishes, probably also played a role in developing the first sexual organs.
    ____________________________________________________________
    This is evolutionary biology at its finest. This story is all too real and both the researchers as well as the author are all too serious.

    Once again evolutionary biologists have fabricated a story to fit their theory, and far too many people will fail to question its veracity as they are too in love with their sin.

    How long before this junk science makes it into the textbooks, right alongside “Ida,” the fossil (hoax) that changed everything?

    And note the use of the qualifiers that accompany EVERY evolutionary fairy tale:
    1. Probably
    2. Likely
    3. As had been previously thought (aka we’re changing the facts again)
    4. Probably (again)

    This is science? Really? The kind of science we’re supposed to take seriously and stake our eternity on?

    Evolutionary biologists are real miracle workers, are they not? Just look at all the supposed assumptions and conclusions they’ve proffered just from “studying” a set of old fish bones.

    I’m sticking with “In the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth.”

    Please pray for the researchers, the author, and for all those who choose to be willingly ignorant of God’s power, grace and mercy.

  19. Duane October 14, 2010 at 2:20 am #

    @ David McCrea October 13th at 12:00 am

    “Who defined the term “transitional fossil?” If your answer is “evolutionists,” then your textbook examples of transitional fossils are meaningless because the observations are made by biased individuals who used their observations to fit the preconceived story of evolution. It’s circular reasoning at its worse.”

    “””By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.””””

    THIS is bias and circular reasoning.

    “And if you want to believe a cow or other hoofed mammal fell into the water and evolved into a whale, be my guest. As Dr. Berlinski stated, he performed a little bit of envelope math and roughly calculated it would take more than 50,000 morphological changes to change a cow into a whale. And drown every cow in the process.”

    I guess if you are going to pull numbers out of your hind end, might as well make them impressive. (btw, whales didn’t evolve from cows).

    “I will issue you four specific challenges.

    The first is to explain the “Cambrian Explosion”.”

    What is there to explain? It’s not the magical sudden appearance you guys think it is. The “explosion” was over at least a 10 million year period. You still aren’t going to find bunny rabbits in it. It’s like anything else. Once a few key events occur, then they expand exponentially. Look at human civilization. It was pretty static for hundreds of years, but after a few key inventions (use of electricity, telecommunications, internal combustion engine, controlled flight., etc.) we went from horse and buggy to sending men to the moon and probes to the outer reaches of the solar system. Did you know they only confirmed the atom existed at the beginning of the 20th Century? We only learned that germs caused sickness not much earlier than that. Now we have unlocked DNA! It’s amazing what we learn once we uncouple ourselves from the dogma of 2500 year old middle Eastern goat herders.

    “The second is to PRECISELY list the ACTUAL evolutionary process starting from your one-celled whatever and leading all the way to homo sapiens. Leave no omissions. It’s your theory, not mine, so this should be a simple exercise for you especially since you’re willing to bet your eternity on it.”

    Pick up a book not written by an apologist. Try reading something you don’t agree with rather than the mistaken summaries of those whom you do believe. This is a common creationist fallacy. “Unless we know everything, we know nothing.”

    “Third, do you rank the various human races in terms of their perceived evolutionary development? If so, how would you rank them from top to bottom?”

    I see what you did there. You made a strawman that doesn’t resemble any view of any legitimate scientist since Nazi Germany. Want to read the bumps on my head to see if I’m a criminal, too?

    “Last challenge. I am a great evolutionary biologist. I write books and lecture on college campuses. I even speak with an english accent. My research clearly shows that African apes actually evolved from homo sapiens. Please debunk my theory.”

    Yes, that’s exactly the way science works. Some English guy makes an unsupported assertion and demands the world disprove him.

  20. Duane October 14, 2010 at 3:44 am #

    @ mike.

    Hi. I have some comments for your earlier question in the other blog I’ll post soon. As to the comments in this blog entry, there is a bit of an issue. You deal with Darwin quite a bit there. You do realize that the science has progressed a tad in the past 150 years? Darwin is not the Bible, to be pored over and dissected for every last morsel of knowledge. It’s little more than an intuitive suggestion on how things might be and it has been left up to the past 150 years to be expanded and explored. It doesn’t matter what specifics he knew or didn’t know. It’s actually that much more impressive he was as right as he was considering the state of knowledge at the time. We have much, much more data. Apologetic sites merely ignore or gainsay the evidence.

    You complimented me earlier for an unbiased observation concerning a Biblical matter. I request the same from you. I don’t like dishonest arguments and have often argued “devil’s advocate”, as it were, for the other side if I see an unfair argument. I looked up David Raup. Here is something I found concerning that David Raup quote.

    “”Yes, Raup did say this (in “Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology”, Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin Jan. 1979, Vol. 50 No. 1 p. 22-29). Here is the quote in the immediate context, quote mine in curly brackets):

    “{Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded}. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, {ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin’s time}. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information — what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.”(p. 25)

    Note that while Raup says that some of the examples have been “discarded” he also says that others have only been “modified”. For example the classic horse series Raup mentions is one of those that has been modified, but it is far from discarded. Also note that Raup clearly states that the pattern of the fossil record is one of change in living things over geologic time, something that young earth creationists deny.

    And yes it has been taken out of context. The paper is about Darwin’s mechanism of natural selection and whether this mechanism is reflected in pattern of the fossil record, not whether there is a lack of evidence for common descent. From the beginning of the article:

    “Part of our conventional wisdom about evolution is that the fossil record of past life is an important cornerstone of evolutionary theory. In some ways, this is true — but the situation is much more complicated. I will explore here a few of the complex interrelationships between fossils and darwinian theory. . . Darwin’s theory of natural selection has always been closely linked to evidence form fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. We must distinguish between the fact of evolution — defined as change in organisms over time — and the explanation of this change. Darwin’s contribution, through his theory of natural selection, was to suggest how the evolutionary change took place. The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be.” (p. 22)

    The transitions Raup seems to be talking about in the quote creationists use are mostly at the level of species or genera (like between a horse and a zebra or between a fox and a wolf), not intermediates between higher classifications like between classes, orders, or families (between reptiles and mammals etc.), which are the ones creationists most object to. However it is these “missing” species level transitions that creationists (in ignorance?) often quote paleontologists talking about. This seems to be the case here as well:

    “There were several problems, but the principle one was that the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution. In other words, there are not enough intermediates. There are very few cases where one can find a gradual transition from one species to another. . .” (p. 23)

    Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge are favorite targets for this creationist tactic because their hypothesis of punctuated equilibria is intended to explain why from a biological point of view we should expect species level transitions to be rare in the fossil record. Thus in their writings they frequently state the problem(s) they are attempting to solve. Creationists quote them stating the problems but not the solutions they propose. This seems to be the nature of the quote they have taken from Raup. The beginning of the very next paragraph after the one they quote tends to confirm this:

    “Now let me take a step back from the problem and very generally discuss natural selection and what we know about it. I think it is safe to say that we know for sure that natural selection, as a process, does work. There is a mountain of experimental and observational evidence, much of it predating genetics, which shows that natural selection as a biological process works.”(p. 25)

    He then moves on to the fossil record:

    “Now with regard to the fossil record, we certainly see change. If any of us were to be put down in the Cretaceous landscape we would immediately recognize the difference. Some of the plants and animals would be familiar but most would have changed and some of the types would be totally different from those living today. . . This record of change pretty clearly demonstrates that evolution has occurred if we define evolution simply as change; but it does not tell us how this change took place, and that is really the question. If we allow that natural selection works, as we almost have to do, the fossil record doesn’t tell us whether it was responsible for 90 percent of the change we see or 9 percent, or .9 percent.” (p. 26)

    He then goes on to discuss natural selection versus other possible explanatory mechanisms and how they might relate to the fossil record. He also discusses the effects of historical contingency as it relates to extinction pointing out that sometimes species may become extinct due more to “bad luck” than bad genes — this by the way is the basis for Raup’s 1991 book Extinction – Bad Genes or Bad Luck?). Raup concludes this article stating:

    “The ideas I have discussed here are rather new and have not been completely tested. No matter how they come out, however, they are having a ventilating effect on thinking in evolution and the conventional dogma is being challenged. If the ideas turn out to be valid, it will mean that Darwin was correct in what he said but that he was explaining only a part of the total evolutionary picture. The part he missed was the simple element of chance!”(p. 29)

    Not particularly damning. Perhaps the more interesting question is where do creationists get the idea that lists of such (out of context) quotations are a valid form of scientific argument?

    For Raup’s views on creationist arguments I suggest you look up one or both of the following:

    “Geology and Creationism”, Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin Mar. 1983, Vol. 54 No. 3 pp. 16-25)

    “The Geological and Paleontological Arguments of Creationism” in Scientists Confront Creationism (1983), Laurie R. Godfrey (Editor), pp. 147-162″””

  21. Charles Haley October 14, 2010 at 5:21 am #

    [Last challenge. I am a great evolutionary biologist. I write books and lecture on college campuses. I even speak with an english accent. My research clearly shows that African apes actually evolved from homo sapiens. Please debunk my theory.]

    Apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes and humans only have 23. We know the exact place in human chromosome where the chromosomes were fused together, as it has an extra telomeric sequence. If the extra chromosome in apes was caused by a chromosome splitting, this would not be the case, in fact one would not have a telomeric sequence.

    Ergo, the evidence does not support your hypothesis.

  22. Mike Ayala October 14, 2010 at 9:14 am #

    Nigel McNaughton
    October 13th at 4:12 pm

    Hi Nigel,

    You make my point well for me. The point is that the Hopeful Monster idea is as ridiculous as trying to prove evolution without any transitional forms. Neither have any supporting evidence. They recognized the lack of fossil evidence, and they had to come with something that folks might believe. It’s nothing about which to be embarrassed. Stephen Gould’s statement just happens to describe what one would expect to find after reading the Biblical account of creation and the flood.

    God bless you, Nigel.

    Mike Ayala

  23. ant bourdon October 14, 2010 at 3:54 pm #

    Hey Charles Haley, your last post is so ridiculous. You say that a human chromosome could have formed from two chromosome of an Ape by a sort of fusion. You’ve got to be kidding. Do you understand how complex is a chromosome?

    What you said is exactly the same as if I would say that the work of Darwin “The origin…” is the result of the fusion of the Gospel with the work of Shakespeare. Didn’t you know that there are specifics order that the DNA parts must have to make it mean something? If you mix two chromosomes (which are at least as complicated as a book), what mechanism existing in the cell that you know of can tell how to replace the parts during the fusion process? There are none because in your evolution theory, it says that it is random. Well, tell me how you can rearrange a book into another by random chance. How can you morph a chromosome by chance without scrapping the whole cell? Even more complicated is the fact that the core of every cell works against mutations by trying to preserve the purity of the DNA. Anyway, if what you said was the case, the mutation of the Ape into a becoming man would result in the fact that this new animal would not be able to reproduce. The evolution would stop right there. The impossibility of your hypothesis is mind boggling.

    Have you ever thought also that the DNA of the Apes must have evolved also like the human DNA from the same distant ancestor so that today Ape’s DNA has nothing to do with the DNA it had even 500 thousands years ago. Giving only that thought and without the rest of my argumentation, you should see that your hypothesis stands on air and is impossible.

  24. Nigel McNaughton October 14, 2010 at 4:07 pm #

    David asks “Are there fossilized short-neck, short-legged giraffes to prove the above point, and I’m not referring to “baby” giraffes.”

    Yes, except that longer legs are part of the basal family, it would have taken you 5 seconds to google it.

    Here is one description courtesy of talk origins.

    “Lophiomeryx, Gelocus (late Eocene, early Oligocene) — The most advanced ruminants yet, called “gelocids”, with a more compact and efficient ankle, still smaller side toes, more complex premolars and an almost completely covered mastoid bone. A slightly different lineage split off from this gelocid family in the late Eocene or early Oligocene, eventually giving rise to these four families:

    Giraffes: Branched off from the deer just after Eumeryx. The first giraffids were Climacoceras (very earliest Miocene) and then Canthumeryx (also very early Miocene), then Paleomeryx (early Miocene), then Palaeotragus (early Miocene) a short-necked giraffid complete with short skin-covered horns. From here the giraffe lineage goes through Samotherium (late Miocene), another short-necked giraffe, and then split into Okapia (one species is still alive, the okapi, essentially a living Miocene short-necked giraffe), and Giraffa (Pliocene), the modern long-necked giraffe.”

    You can look up the examples given and you will find exacly the sort of examples you want. particularly examples like Samotherium and Sivatherium. Mid neck length Giraffids.

  25. Duane October 15, 2010 at 8:12 am #

    Please define “information”. Using the term “information” is not much better than saying “Stuff” or “Things”.

  26. Catherine Cook October 15, 2010 at 12:18 pm #

    I don’t get it. Evolutionists keep claiming evidence. What evidence? When you look at their “evidence” ; all we observe scientifically is biblical “kinds” Nothing new! This is what science has always observed. Thats how we’ve always understand biology and medical research; by that fact. Our “fathers” of scientific research didn’t use evolution in their research. It never had anything to do with real scientific investigation. It is an invisible thought from someone’s imagination! Something science cannot even grasp! There are only followers of this “religion” nothing else. But instead of keeping science empirical, and true to facts, they distort it to give credit to our whole existence to some lucky mutational accident that happened “Once upon a time, far, far, away!” They say the same thing of bacteria eating nylon. Why do they use this for evidence? It adapted to it’s own environment, in the modern world! Pasteur and others could have told you that 150 years ago! This is exactly what biblical “kinds” are all about! But they only use this fact to start the uninformed to believe that biblical “kinds” is darwinistic evolution! Pretty low. Anything to discredit God, and the truth! If they were scientific, they would go where science led them, not switch it the other way around as they’ve done.
    Poor darwin worshipers! Giving Darwin credit, not God! Darwin himself only saw biblical “kinds”, in the finches, if that is the example they want to use. Why do they add fairy tales to the variation of a biblical “kind”? Finches are finches, just because they have different beaks for different survival areas. That’s God sustaining His creation! Finches are finches, Fruitflys are fruitflys-even the mutilated mutant ones! There’s no proof to the contrary.
    Thats like saying; “it’s a horse of a different color” to prove darwinistic evolution in a horse. Yes, it is a different color, but it’s still a horse! And thats a biblical “kind”
    How is the fossil record proof of transitional fossils? 95% of it consists of coral and shellfish! How is that scientific proof that everything evolved from one common ancestor? That’s not scientific! Where’s the evidence? There is none, because science is always revealing biblical “kinds”, even in the fossil record!

  27. David McCrea October 15, 2010 at 7:36 pm #

    Nigel,

    Here’s a follow up to your giraffe fairy tale. I can Google with the best of them. BTW, I don’t care if there was a giraffe with a longer or shorter neck. That’s never been my point. Creationists agree there are genetic changes but with LIMITS. You will never be able to explain or describe how a giraffe evolved from nothing to bacteria to a giraffe. No matter how hard you stare at your computer screen, you will never, ever be able to turn a giraffe into anything other than a different kind of giraffe.

    You and Alfred need to get together and get your giraffe evolution stories straight before you post further contradictory information.

    Introduction: the story which is commonly taught in high schools about the evolution of the long-necked giraffe by natural selection (feeding-competition-hypothesis) fails to explain, among other things, the size differences between males and females. Giraffe cows are up to 1.5 meters shorter than the giraffe bulls, not to mention the offspring. The wide migration range of the giraffe and the low heights of the most common plants in their diet likewise argue against the dominant selection hypothesis. Now to the main points: 1) The fossil „links“, which according to the theory should appear successively and replace each other, usually exist simultaneously for long periods of time. 2) Evolutionary derivations based on similarities rely on circular reasoning (to refer once more to Kuhn’s statement) 3) The giraffe has eight cervical vertebrae. Although the 8th vertebra displays almost all the characteristics of a neck vertebra, as an exception to the rule the first rib pair is attached there. 4) The origin of the long-necked giraffe by a macromutation is, due to the many synorganized structures, extremely improbable. 5) Sexual selection also lacks a mutational basis and, what is more, is frequently in conflict with natural selection („head clubbing“ is probably „a consequence of a long neck and not a cause“; see also Michell et al. 2009). 6) In contrast to the thus-far proposed naturalistic hypotheses, the intelligent design theory is basically testable. 7) The long-necked giraffes possibly all belong to the same basic type inasmuch as 8) a gradual evolution from the short-necked to the long-necked giraffe is ruled out by the duplication of a neck vertebra and the loss of a thoracic vertebra. 9) Chance mutations are principally not sufficient to explain the origin of the long-necked giraffe. 10) The intelligent design theory offers an adequate and satisfying solution to the problems and points to numerous „old“ and new research projects. 11) Mitchell and Skinner present a good analysis of the selectionist problem; however, their phylogenetic hypotheses presuppose the correctness of the synthetic evolutionary theory, and their claims of „intermediate forms“ are unproven.

  28. Carl M October 15, 2010 at 8:48 pm #

    @ Catherine Cook

    When you look at their “evidence” ; all we observe scientifically is biblical “kinds”

    There are two reasons for this:

    (1) “Kind” is an undefined concept because it is an attempt to apply an emperical meaning to a Bronze Age abstract concept. This is why bats and birds are both the same “kind” but nobody seriously considers them related biologically. Because the concept of “kind” is abstract, any evolutionary change can be included in its defintion.

    (2) All evolutionary developments are a variation on the “kind” which came before it.

  29. ant bourdon October 16, 2010 at 11:55 pm #

    Carl,
    The word Kind is defined in the bible. It is written that animals go after their Kind. I’ve never seen a bat trying to reproduce with a bird. I don’t see where you took your argument.

    Yes evolutionary changes can be included in the kind definition but only microevolution not macroevolution.
    Species in Darwinian terminology is equal to races. In the Bible, we would say that wolf, coyote and dog are races of canine, but evolutionists will say that they are species. They made up that word to make you become an atheist. Before atheists discovered that science existed in the 19e century, everyone used to say that there were different kinds of animals and races among them. races are only variations among one kind, but all kinds are irreducible one to another. This is real science for you.