Antipodean59's Blog

Restored New Testament Christianity

Archive for the category “Evolution”

Soft Tissue From Dinosaur – Really?

Dinosaurs_intertitleDinosaur soft tissue and protein—even more confirmation!

by Carl Wieland,
Mary Schweitzer announces even stronger evidence, this time from a duckbilled dino fossil, of even more proteins—and the same amazingly preserved vessel and cell structures as before.

Background

Creationists were fascinated, and evolutionists mostly skeptical, when evolutionist Dr Mary Schweitzer claimed in the 1990s that an unfossilized piece of T. rex bone contained red blood cells. Further, that there was immunological and spectroscopic evidence of the presence of hemoglobin, the oxygen-carrying protein that gives red blood cells their colour.1

Then in 2005, Schweitzer announced a further sensational discovery in a different T.rex bone. After the mineral matrix was dissolved,2 what remained were structures with all the appearance of soft tissue, still soft and stretchy. Some of these appeared to be transparent branching blood vessels, with a substance inside them containing further structures looking just like nucleated red blood cells, and able to be squeezed out of the vessels like toothpaste.

How could such fragile structures survive for millions of years? Long-agers went into intense, but not very effective damage control, such as seen in the item (containing CMI’s response) Squirming at the Squishosaur.

Gradually, further evidence strengthened the case that Schweitzer had indeed discovered evidence of astonishing preservation of organic material in fossils. In 2007, in Squashing Squishosaur Scepticism, we reported that she and her team had performed careful tests to establish the presence of the protein collagen in the dino fossil—an important protein in bone. They were even able to sequence stretches of it, which showed that it was 58% similar to collagen from a chicken, and 51% similar to that from a frog.3

It has been pointed out many times that fragile, complex molecules like proteins, even if hermetically sealed, should fall apart all by themselves from thermodynamic considerations alone in well under the 65 million years that evolutionists insist have passed since Schweitzer’s T. rex specimen was entombed.4,5 Furthermore, bones of an Iguanodon allegedly twice as old (“dated” to 120 Ma) contained enough of the protein osteocalcin to produce an immune reaction.6

Many anti-creationists therefore breathed a sigh of relief when in mid-2008 a paper claimed to have found evidence that the transparent blood vessels, for instance, were the result of recent bacterial formation of biofilms, forming “endocasts” that followed the shape of where the original vessels lay, and that the red blood cells are actually iron-rich spheres called framboids. There were substantial reasons why not just creationists, but Schweitzer and other non-creationists were not at all convinced by these claims—see Doubting doubts about the Squishosaur.

The new findings

Now comes a further announcement by Schweitzer and others, in the prestigious journal Science, of substantial additional evidence to bolster her previous findings.7 The specimen on this occasion was a piece of fossil hadrosaur (duckbilled dinosaur) bone (Brachylophosaurus canadensis) regarded by evolutionary assumptions as being 80 million years old.

In short, the researchers found evidence of “the same fibrous matrix, transparent, flexible vessels, and preserved microstructures she had seen in the T. rex sample”.8 Only this time they went to exceptional lengths to silence critics.

Critics said that her claims, which given the millions of years perspective are indeed “extraordinary”, required extraordinary evidence. But this is a cliché; in reality, they just require evidence, and that has been amply provided. Yet the critics demanded additional protein sequencing, super-careful handling to avoid claims of contamination, and confirmation from other laboratories. So Schweitzer and her team set about doing just that when they looked at the leg bone of this hadrosaur encased in sandstone.

Extraordinary measures were taken to keep the sample away from contamination until it reached the lab. They used an even more sophisticated and newer mass spectrometer, and sent the samples to two other labs for confirmation. They reported finding not just collagen, but evidence of two additional proteins—elastin and laminin. They also found structures uncannily resembling the cells found in both blood and bone, as well as cellular basement membrane matrix. And there were, once again, hints of hemoglobin, gleaned from applying hemoglobin-specific antibodies to the structures and seeing if the antibodies would bind to them.

Some scientists are still skeptical about the hemoglobin, which is “difficult to identify with current technology”. Dr Pavel Pevzner of the University of California, was quoted as saying that if it is not a contaminant, it would be “much bigger news [than the confirmed discoveries of blood vessels and other connective tissues in] this paper.”9

Even leaving aside the hemoglobin, the Schweitzer et al paper is huge news. Pevzner had been critical of the technique used in Schweitzer’s analysis of the T. rex protein, but now he says that her new study “was ‘done the right way,’ with more stringent controls to guard against contamination”, for one thing.

There were eight collagen proteins alone discovered from the hadrosaur fossil, which revealed twice as many amino acids as the previous tyrannosaur specimen. These were compared with sequences from animals living today as well as from mastodon fossils and her T. rex sequences. The hadrosaur and tyrannosaur collagens were closer to each other than the others, and each were closer to chickens and ostriches than to crocodilians, for instance—results which would also confirm her previous identification of T. rex collagen.

The samples were identified as collagen by both sophisticated mass spectroscopy and antibody-binding techniques. They were also examined via both light and electron microscopy, which confirmed that they had the appearance of collagen as well.

As Schweitzer says, “These data not only build upon what we got from the T. rex, they take the research even further.”

Power of the paradigm

Philosophers of science have written much about the power of a paradigm, especially when it has worldview implications, such as long-age belief. Such a paradigm is seldom, if ever, overthrown simply because of observations that contradict its expectations. Even Schweitzer herself, despite professing to be an evangelical Christian, is extremely defensive about the old-age paradigm—see Schweitzer’s Dangerous Discovery.

What happens is that “auxiliary” hypotheses and assumptions are constructed to preserve the intactness of the “core” hypothesis, in this case what is known as “deep time” (see further explanation). In simple terms, proteins should simply not have been able to last for these tens of millions of years. So when they are found in specimens dated this old, the paradigm is under serious threat.

The most straightforward fit to the evidence is that the time of burial of these dinosaurs was not millions of years ago at all, but only thousands of years ago at most. As the evidence continues to mount that dinosaur fossils do indeed contain well-preserved soft tissue structures and identifiable proteins, the assumption that will increasingly be made is that “we now know that such tissue components can last that long, after all.”

Not many will see this as the paradigm-rescuing assumption that it is. Consider the line of reasoning:

1). We know that this dinosaur fossil is 80 million years old.

2). Calculations based on operational (observational) science indicate that no collagen should survive anywhere near that long.

3). Collagen has been identified in these dinosaur fossils. Therefore:

4). There must be a mistaken assumption in the calculations mentioned in Point 2)—though we don’t know for sure how, collagen must be able to survive for 80 million years. How do we know that? Because

5). We know that this dinosaur fossil is 80 million years old.

Notice how points 1) and 5) are identical, revealing the circularity. The following chain of reasoning is far more science-based:

1). This dinosaur fossil is claimed to be 80 million years old.

2). Calculations based on operational (observational) science indicate that no collagen should survive anywhere near that long.

3). Collagen has been identified in these dinosaur fossils. Therefore:

4). The claim in point 1) is wrong. The fossil cannot be anywhere near that old. This matches the expectations of a worldview based on the history given to us in the book of Genesis.

We hope that many readers will be able to use this sort of evidence to gently pry open many closed minds.

Update 9 May 2009: see answer to a critic who disputes that these findings are a big deal.

Further update 10 August 2009: Schweitzer’s original find of soft tissue remains in a T. rex was strongly disputed, with some suggesting that the proteins found were the result of contamination. However, a reanalysis due to be published September 4 in the Journal of Proteome Research “has confirmed traces of protein from blood and bone, tendons, or cartilage.” (Reexamination Of T. Rex Verifies Disputed Biochemical Remains, http://www.ScienceDaily.com, July 31, 2009)

Advertisements

Natural or Design?

Science has discovered a nano machine motor that is required for every living thing to operate on earth. Called APT synthase, this master piece of design is a simple three piece motor that is the apparent power house for cell function.

Evolutionists (or as I call them, God deniers) say if you can show and thus prove such a thing can be as a result of naturalistic processes then it is game over – there is no designer and intelligent force required for life.

The following short videos contain material that will either enlighten you and thus charge your course of thinking or it will harden your heart just like that of the ancient Pharaoh found in Exodus 7-11.

Graham

Consensus science sometimes proves nothing

We’ve heard the clarion call of the global warming alarmists, “the science is settled”. Or perhaps the aggressive shrill of the atheist’s faith in evolution, “all those scientists can’t be wrong”. Yeah, yeah, they rattle off the consensus science mantra ie, that peer review proves it must be so.  But is that really the case or could it be that if you don’t fall into line with the magority then you are considered odd, wrong and not worthy of the scantiest consideration? Usually, as Dr Crichton says below, “Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough.”

I happen to believe that consensus science ie, peer review sometimes actually impedes science. Why?Simply put, if you don’t agree then you are an outcast. It therefore falls into the realm of philosophy; not evidence and is open to subjective fantasy. The now slowly dying global warming scam is a case in point.

Dr Michael Crichton (author of film, Jurassic Park and TV medical drama series, ER) in his 2003 speech Aliens cause Global Warming said the following:

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

“… Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc². Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.” [ Link to article]

Sir David Attenborough’s Contradiction

In Time magazine (18th December 2011) Belinda Luscombe asks the naturalist filmmaker Sir David Attenborough a series of 10 questions relating to the future of television and his pessimism regarding the future of the natural world. The question and the resultant answer that piqued my interest was “Why are you campaigning against creationism being taught in British schools?” His reply is typical from a man who is happily deluded into believing that evolution is the answer to the origins of life. He said, “I feel that children should be taught science and science doesn’t accept a literal interpretation of the Bible, as far as Genesis is concerned. If you wish to teach that as part of a religious story, that’s fine but don’t teach it as though it’s science, because it’s not.”

Fascinating that a man with such a wonderful grasp of the English language and a fine inquiring mind that seeks out through television documentaries and books the intricacies of nature right down to the most intimate detail would by implication attribute life as having originating from dead matter, for evolution has no ultimate genesis but to go back to, at the very least, matter that contains no life.

This man with such a powerful influencing machine at his disposal i.e. world-wide television and publishing houses choses to believe what was supposedly scientifically accurate, until the 19th century Pasteur discredited it, that life arose from “spontaneous generation”. I would say to Mr Attenborough, that this belief is not science and in your heart you downright know it. On the other hand, the book of the Bible you chose to discredit follows the laws of science such as the Law of Bio-genesis i.e. life begets life, just as Pasteur unequivocally proved. Genesis 1:11, 24 the “fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind…the living creature according to its kind…creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind.” Now that is true science, Mr Attenborough; not the ideology you adhere to that ultimately preaches that life, somehow, arises from dead matter. To quote you (as if you would even dare have the gumption or temerity to come in contact with these thoughts of mine) “don’t teach it as though it’s science, because it’s not.”

I believe Sir David Attenborough like many other people who cling to evolution as being the key to life fit the description that Peter Hitchens gives: “[Darwinism] is so comically daft that only one thing explains its survival—that lonely, frightened people wanted to expel God from the Universe because they found the idea that He exists profoundly uncomfortable.”

Graham Walker

A logical look at what killed the dinosaurs

The atheist/evolutionist clambers around devising theory after theory to explain the extinction of the dinosaur rather than look at the obvious answer God supplies in Genesis.
The recent discovery in Mongolia of parrot beaked dinosaurs heaped together in a mass grave should stir the mind to look at the atheist/evolutionist argument and logically compare it with the creationists’ alternative.
Be honest with yourself for it doesn’t affect my standing with the Maker upon Judgement Day, just you according to Romans 2:6.

Graham

How to answer the hackneyed objections to a young Earth

The following link gives ammunition to those who want answers to the hackneyed objections raised by the evolution fanatics.
Geology and the young Earth article will be of assistance to genuinely wanting well constructed answers.

Graham

Is information the key to life as we know it?

Information is defined as facts, enlightenment, telling, knowledge, news etc and is obviously only discernible by that which is intelligent. Yet information is something evolutionists expect man to believe came about by chance and furthermore assembled itself into the DNA code that is the building blocks of life.
However, DNA is far too complex to have simply been assembled randomly and yet that is not the only complexity of the subject. You see DNA is merely the coded information but not the information itself. For DNA is material ie sugar, phosphate and bases that is the carrier of the information.

This information is, on the other hand, metaphysical and can only be observed intelligently.
To illustrate: Take the chalkboard above which says 1+1=2. The chalk is the material that lets you (intellect) observe the information imparted. But the chalk itself is not the provider of the actual information for that requires intelligence.
To read an excellent article regarding this exciting subject go to Calvin Smith’s article.

Graham

The Dangers of the ‘Gaia’ Movement

In my research regarding the origin of life it was inevitable that I should tackle organic evolution. The problem with the organic evolution hypothesis is the beginning of all things. The proponents claim there was once nothing then came something but the crux of the problem then becomes how you get something from nothing. Mathematically it is not possible despite the intellectual gymnastics of quantum fluctuations – Whatever! David Darling said it well, “You cannot fudge this by appealing to quantum mechanics. Either there is nothing to begin with, in which case there is no quantum vacuum, no pre-geometric dust, no time in which anything can happen, no physical laws that can effect change from nothingness into somethingness; or there is something, in which case that needs explaining” [On Creating Something From Nothing, New Scientist, vol.151 (Sept 14 1996)].

The graveyard of scientific theories regarding origins is littered with peer reviewed failures that includes the Big Bang and as Sir Fred Hoyle once said “When a pattern of facts becomes set against a theory, experience shows that the theory rarely recovers” [The Big Bang Under Attack, Science Digest, vol 92 (May 1984), p.84].

Of course the proponents of evolution do not limit themselves to origins but also like to meddle in life on Earth. This is readily apparent in today’s world with the topic of discussion being Climate Change, the buzz term for human induced global warming aka Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). Most scientists that believe in this hogwash are agnostic at best or simply atheistic. Some have even invented a new religion closely resembling a New Age concept that arose from the dope-smoking, LSD days of the 1960s. Many of them are now in the halls of power around the world and are involved in complex social systems such as environmentalism, multi-culturalism, world federalism, etc. They can be linked to psychological cults such as mental health, self-awareness groups or pseudo-science such as anthropic principles, Gaia hypothesis etc. Many prominent personalities are involved in quasi-religious sects such as Christian Science, etc. They all postulate evolutionism as their scientific rationale that is pantheistic much like the Greeks, Romans and Babylonians espoused mixed with a dose of Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Baha’i, etc. It is important to note that all deny special creation such as the Bible speaks of and all oppose, some vehemently, Biblical Christianity.

With that in mind I was curious of this term ‘Gaia’ and wondered how this fitted into the AGW argument. After all, the term Gaia is supposedly Earth personified as some sort of goddess, you know, ‘Mother Earth’ where she regulates all including humanity within her bounds. It turns out this term was used by Sir James Lovelock, a 1960s throwback whose chemistry career lead him to invent Gaia in 1970. He is one of the original ‘tree-huggers’ that has inspired a political movement that has gone viral ever since. Tim Beardsley writes, “Indeed, Gaia has almost become the official ideology of ‘Green’ parties in Europe: it appeals naturally to scientifically innocent individuals who worry about the environment” [Gaia, Scientific American, vol 261 (Dec 1989), pp.35-36]. I would go so far as to say this type of thinking has infested otherwise sane intellectual people who are ramming their new religion down the throats of objectors without a single thought to the democratic process [cf Aunty BBC article].

Let me present a case in point from a personal perspective. Last year (2010) the Local Body Elections took place in New Zealand during which the group called Transitions Timaru played host to a meet the prospective counsellors’ night. I attended this meeting out of curiosity as it was advertised in the Timaru Herald. The meeting held at Timaru’s Aoraki Polytechnic Campus was attended by Bob Calkin (local man of science that defends climate change as being human induced). I couldn’t help but notice the group consisted mainly of 1960s type people and even made a note that they seemed to spout off a lot of tree-hugging nonsense in their little huddles. Even one of the prospective counsellors had been convinced by this rot (or was he just trying to get their vote, hmm, I wonder?). I could note by the tone of the rhetoric that this Transitions Timaru had organised themselves into a voting bloc in order to influence the local body elections. Well, wouldn’t you know it that is exactly what Gaia inventor James Lovelock proposed in this blurb.

To call environmentalism a cult is an understatement. Many scientists, politicians, and hangers on, as you will see, actively and vocally espouse the tenets of ‘Gaia’. The dangers of such a cult following become apparent when you read of the leading, well recognised advocates’ inner thoughts. ‘Gaia’ is anti-God, anti-Bible and ultimately anti humanity, for its extremes’ advocate a human culling in order to bring equilibrium into the world’s environment. Gaia’s are deeply committed to ‘protecting the earth from humanity’ also known as ‘Deep Ecology’.

Now to some of those well recognised and incredibly influential names that believe in this form of holocaust.

• Dr. Robert Muller. Founder of United Nations University of Peace. He worships Mother Earth and calls her ‘divine Earth’.
• Maurice Strong (Baha’i faith). Once a senior adviser to Kofi Annan (ex UN President whose son was involved in food for oil scam in the 1990s). He developed UN Environment Programme and makes the bold claim that humanity will be extinct in thirty years.
• Sir James Lovelock, the inventor of Gaia. His quote of note is, “By the end of this century the human population will be reduced to a few breeding pairs subsisting near the North Pole.”
• Al Gore (if they have a clergy in Gaia religion then Al would be High Priest). Gore’s claim to fame is his spoilt brat spat at losing the 2002 Presidency of USA to George W. Bush and his now widely acknowledged error riddled film indoctrinating the school children of the world regarding human induced climate change called An Inconvenient Truth. He has also setup Alliance for Climate Protection announcing the need for an ‘army of ten million climate activists.’ He claims the ancients worshipped ‘organised goddess worship’ which was eliminated by Christians in the late 15th century. He wants humanity to get back to this ancient form of worship because ‘armed with such faith, we might find it possible to resanctify the Earth’ (Earth in Balance). Al is not one to let a chance go by for he set up the Chicago Climate Exchange as a hedge-fund for carbon trading (now you see why governments in Europe and tin pot New Zealand adamantly want ETS laws – clever, uhh?).
• Mikhail Gorbachev. Former President of Soviet Union who was instrumental for the abandonment of communist Russia or at least that is what they want it to appear as (have you noticed ex KGB chief Putin is still controlling the strings over there, wink, wink, nod, nod). Gorbachev rubs shoulders with New Age nuts like Shirley Maclaine (Out On A Limb), Dennis Weaver (1960s TV series Gun Smoke), Ted Turner (CNN founder), Jane Fonda (‘Hanoi Jane’ i.e. Vietcong communist sympathiser) and many more. He also has strong ties with Maurice Strong, hence the UN implications.
• Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. A ‘Deep Ecology’ fan, for he said ‘in the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve over population’ (from his book If I Were an Animal). He is now 90 as I write this so if he gets his wish the ‘deadly virus’ may come sooner than you think for this nut to have his way.
• Steven Schneider is the lead author of many IPCC reports and editor of Scientists on Gaia. He says ‘the Gaia Hypothesis has now become established in mainstream science’. (This is your clue as to why the world’s lame stream media are reporting constantly that the ‘science is settled’ regarding AGW).
• Sir Richard Branson opportunist entrepreneur who launched the Virgin brand. Fabulously wealthy and intellectually brilliant until he met Al Gore, then he came out with this little gem, ‘my views on global warming were changed 180 degrees’. He then launched his Climate Challenge with the prize of $25 million to anyone who can remove CO2 from the atmosphere. The judges for this auspicious completion are Gore, Lovelock and James Hanson (NASA) among others. (Now I said intellectually brilliant to describe Branson but I guess I have to take this back because as any Gaia follower must know CO2 is vital for plants to grow and for humans to expel and I guess that doesn’t inspire much confidence in the judges’ intellect, either).
• Dr Tim Flannery ardent Australian environmentalist/activist/alarmist who has blown a lot of hot CO2 recently regarding the Aussies lack of ETS commitment (maybe we don’t give the Aussie mind-set enough credit regarding this issue – good on ya, mate!)
• Ted Turner, CNN founder who conceived ‘Captain Planet’ the USA children’s enviro propaganda machine and one-time husband to ‘Hanoi Jane’.

If you are still doubtful or now you are even more curious about the political macerations of the Gaia cult, then click on www.green-agenda.com and be further enlightened.

Graham

Darwin’s arrogance

The following is taken from Creation Ministries International which, if you are interested in the truth regarding your origin, you might find interesting.

Darwin’s contemporaries could see the utter flimsy falsity of his argument present in Origen of the Species

One such man Prof. Johann H. Blasius of Germany wrote:

“I have also seldom read a scientific book which makes such wide-ranging conclusions with so few facts supporting them. … Darwin wants to show that Arten[types, kinds, species] come from other Arten. I regard this as somewhat of a highhanded hypothesis, because he argues using unproven possibilities, without even naming a single example of the origin of a particular species.” [An interview/discussion with Professor Johann Blasius, 1859; reprinted in the German newspaper Braunschweiger Zeitung, on the 250th anniversary of the museum’s opening, 2004.]

Often those who declare the evidence to be ‘overwhelming’ or that ‘the debate is over’ say this to avoid debate.

Graham

Wood to rock in no time

Many evolutionists would have you believe that organic matter is petrified only after long periods of time have elapsed.  Assuming you have an open mind then perhaps you might consider the article found here.

Post Navigation