Evolutionary Truth by Piltdown Superman

Welcome to the home of The Question Evolution Project. Presenting information demonstrating that there is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution, and presenting evidence for special creation. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Wednesday, March 21, 2018

False Evidence for Horse Evolution

Horses have been popular with people for a mighty long time as pack animals, to do the work, scouting, in battle, pleasure riding, cowboy work, and much more. (A bit of trivia: the American Plains Indians had no word for horses at first, since they were unknown on this side of the Atlantic until the Spanish brought them over.) Darwin's disciples have insisted that the evolution of the horse has a strong evidence.

Evidence supports the creation of the horse and not its evolution
Prospecting for Cattle Range, Frederic Remington, 1889
If you study on the displays a spell, you'll realize that this evidence is flimsy and inconsistent; it only exists in textbooks and museum displays, not in reality. The critter presented as the earliest horse, Hyracotherium, was discovered by Richard Owen. He called it that because of its strong resemblance to the rock badger. It was later called the "dawn horse" because: evolution.


The number of toes and ribs changes with each specimen, and loss of features is falsely called evolution. In reality, horses have genetic variability, as is seen today and evidenced in the past. Even the teeth have been used as evidence for evolution, and that is also weak. No, the Creator designed them with variation and adaptability. The "family tree" of horse evolution is incoherent. The "well-attested" icon of horse evolution is another failure, old son.
For the last century or so, this fine animal has been put to a more unfortunate use. Its alleged ancestry has been used as one of the key ‘proofs’ of evolution. It started in 1879 with the American paleontologist O.C. Marsh and the famous evolutionist T.H. Huxley, known as ‘Darwin’s bulldog.’ Since then, many museums and popular books have presented a neat series starting from the dog-sized, four-toed ‘dawn horse’ or ‘Eohippus,’ which supposedly lived 50 million years ago. The next creature is usually a larger creature like Mesohippus, which had three toes. The next one was larger still, for example Merychippus, which had two of the toes smaller than the third. Finally, there is the large modern horse, Equus, with only one toe, while all that is left of the other two are ‘vestigial’ splint bones. Some of the diagrams also show trends in tooth changes, with increasing hypsodonty (high-crowned teeth). This is supposed to demonstrate a change from browsing on bushes to grazing on grass.
To read the entire article, ride on over to "The non-evolution of the horse". Also, if you've a mind to read something more recent and more detailed there's a link provided at "Horsing Around with Evolution".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Tuesday, March 20, 2018

Planarian Puzzles Evolutionists

A planarian is a flatworm, and there are quite a few variations. They tend to be on the small side and can be found in all sorts of watery environments, including moving water such as streams. A few of these are parasitic. Yes, the tapeworm that gets into some people's digestive tracts is a flatworm, but you are not going to get it by wading. Planaria are hermaphrodites (both male and female sex organs). They are not likely to be kept as pets, being rather unattractive among other things.

Evolutionists are puzzled by a planerian because the genome does not fit with their views.
Schmidtea mediterranea image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Alejandro Sánchez Alvarado
The version for our purpose is the Schmidtea mediterranea, a freshwater palanerian that is not a parasite. What has caused fascination among zoologists is the way planerians can be sliced and diced, and then the parts can grow into full-fledged planeria. Their ability to regenerate is not to be confused with that of Time Lords, which are one at a time and tend to have quirky personalities. But I digress. Regeneration is being studied for possible applications with humans and animals.

Recent sequencing of its unique genome is what caused trouble for the Darwinist timeline. Things are supposed to progress from simple to more advanced, but according to evolutionary views, 452 genes common among living things were missing, which puzzles evolutionists. Many of these were existing in "earlier" life forms, as well as those considered more recent. Such things are not supposed to happen according to Darwin's disciples, but biblical creationists are right at home with the truth: recent creation by the Master Engineer.
The planaria, a type of flatworm, has an amazing capacity to regenerate a new body from just fragments of tissue. Its genome has just been sequenced. The surprising result is a completely unexpected evolutionary conundrum.

Planarians (S. mediterranea) are a type of freshwater flatworm commonly found between about 3 to 15 mm in length. Their size can actually self-adjust within a 50-fold range depending on the amount of available resources.
To read the rest, click on "Planaria Genome Loaded with Design Evidence".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, March 19, 2018

Feathered Headbangers Do Not Hurt Themselves

The word headbanger is associated with heavy metal music, supposedly because fans became so excited at concerts, they would literally bang their heads on the stage. These jaspers were known to hurt themselves, too. (Some with a grain of sense would go through the motions and make their long hair fly around, so they had to settle for hearing loss from loud music.) You aren't built to do that, old son. However, there's a critter that is built to bang its head.

The woodpecker is another evidence against evolution and supporting special creation.
The Great Black Woodpecker, Akseli Gallen-Kallela, 1893
Ever heard a woodpecker pecking wood? They may be drumming to communicate, but they use their engineered bird parts to get food. The beak is extra strong, so is the skull, and it has a special sticky tongue to snag the snack that is trying to escape. Before the term irreducible complexity was termed, I was presenting the concept years ago when I discussed the woodpecker in creation science lectures. Just thought I'd throw that in there.

So, why don't they get brain damage like some rock music fans? New research attempts to pay homage to Papa Darwin, but it shows even more evidence that woodpeckers were specially created to do their thing. Another thing they do is refute evolution.
Any one of these adaptations would challenge Darwinian evolution, but all of them together in head-banging bird?
How do you protect your head against 1,400 G’s when your life’s work requires you to bang your head repeatedly to find food in wood? Woodpeckers don’t die of concussions. Surely they must suffer some brain injury, don’t they?
At Live Science, Mindy Waisberger reports on examination of brain tissue in woodpeckers. Three scientists, publishing their results in PLoS One, found the presence of tau protein in the tissue. Since that is often associated with brain injury in humans, they initially thought this shows that woodpeckers do suffer from the repeated pounding to the head. Another possibility, though, is that the tau protein cushions the birds’ brains.
To read the rest, click on "Woodpeckers Have Multiple Protections Against Brain Injury".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Saturday, March 17, 2018

Butterfly and Flower Evolution Problems

If you have a mind to, check some of the last few posts. There is an unintended theme of sorts regarding how evidence in astronomy, geology, and biology work against the timelines and belief systems of secular scientists. They try to tame those wild stallions and bring them into the corral by coming up with all sorts of rescuing devices.

Butterfiles existed before flowering plants supposedly evolved, evolutionists are busy making rescuing devices
Credit: Freeimages / luis rock
Here is another series of reports regarding butterflies, moths, and flowers. The fluttering insects were found to have existed many millions of Darwin years before flowering plants were supposed to have evolved. But butterflies live off the nectar of flowers. Also, they have that very long strawlike mouth thing (proboscis) that is specialized, but would be pretty much superfluous until flowering plants got around to evolving. I reckon believing in universal common ancestor evolution is akin to believing in leprechauns, since both require believing despite logic and evidence, not because of them.

Rescuing devices were proposed, but as we saw before, they only raised other questions and did not help the situation much. What really happened is that plants and insects were created within a short time of each other just a few thousand years ago. No excuse-making needed when you deal with the truth.
New fossil evidence puts the squeeze on Darwinians, making butterflies appear suddenly, with complex mouth parts, before there were any flowers to pollinate. Time to rescue the theory again.

Keeping the evolutionary story consistent is like having to modify a play with the characters constantly making their entry earlier than they were supposed to. We’ve seen that numerous times. The latest is about butterflies (Lepidopterans), the darlings of the insect world. Reporters are scrambling to keep the crown on King Charles (Darwin) in the aftermath of fossil butterfly scales found in Jurassic rock they claim is 70 million Darwin Years older than the evolution script says they were supposed to appear on stage. This means they appeared already as modern-looking butterflies 200 million Darwin Years ago.
To read the rest, click on "Butterfly Evolution Pushed 70 Million Years Before Flowers".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, March 16, 2018

The Genesis Flood Boundary Discussions

When reading creation science publications, you are likely to see the expression "Flood model" in geology. (Regular readers have seen it here.) The way I figure it, this is a sort of general expression because there are actually several models of the Genesis Flood processes, but most are in agreement over the main points.

Genesis Flood geology has models, hypotheses, disagreements and discussion
Credit: RGBstock / Aureliy Movila
Geologists of the biblical creation persuasion agree that the Genesis Flood actually happened, and it happened a few thousand years ago. Their models are far more effective at describing what is observed in geomorphology and other areas than secular uniformitarian dogma. Flood geologists have their hypotheses and models. However, when scientists do science stuff, they disagree on details. Was there a post-Flood boundary? If so, where? How does it compare to other boundaries? Why do secular scientists shy away from the unique continental shelf and slope?

Models are run up the flag pole to see if anyone salutes them. There is disagreement, and serious dialog is requested from several geological disciplines. Some hope to reach a consensus so they don't have all those models floating around.
An integral part of any comprehensive Flood model is discerning the distinction between Flood processes and post-Flood catastrophism in the rock record. The characteristics of the continental shelf, slope, and rise suggest that the location of the boundary was reasonably synchronous on a global scale. However, there is no consensus among Flood geologists on where the post-Flood boundary should be placed. The geological column concept provides a useful framework of discourse for examining different approaches to the post-Flood boundary among creationists. There are three main schools of thought: (1) the Precambrian/Paleozoic Boundary Model, (2) the K/T Boundary Model, and (3) the Late Cenozoic Boundary Model. Each one makes different assumptions and has specific issues that need addressing. Multiple criteria spanning several fields of study need to be used to examine this issue since just one can be equivocal.
To read the rest of this rather specialized article, click on "The Cenozoic, Flood processes, and post-Flood catastrophism—problems and parameters".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Thursday, March 15, 2018

More Lithium-Rich Stars Confound Secular Cosmologists

Big Bang cosmology has an expected sequence of events, but the cosmos is not cooperating with the stories. We have already seen that lithium, the lightest metal, is only expected to appear in certain stars. Instead, it gets secular cosmologists on the prod because it keeps showing up where it is not supposed to be.

The wrong stars contain lithium, according to Big Bang cosmologists
Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/STScI
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
The existence of lithium is detected through spectroscopic analysis. (Kids, if you're looking for a career in science, consider spectroscopy, since it is used in many areas.) More stars have been detected to be rich in lithium, and as usual, the cosmic evolution excuse mill has been working overtime.


Unfortunately for secularists, the speculations used to possibly solve the problem raise more questions. The biggest problem is their insistence on cosmic evolution instead of admitting that the universe was created recently. Then they wouldn't have these conundrums.
In a recent paper published in the Astrophysical Journal Letters, a team of Chinese and Japanese astronomers reported on high-lithium concentrations in 12 newly discovered low-mass, metal-poor, main-sequence, and red giant stars in the Milky Way halo. All of the stars have larger than expected excesses of lithium (Li), and one star has more than 100 times higher Li abundance than the normally expected values, which is the largest excess in such metal-poor stars known to date. The Li content was determined using spectroscopic analysis, and standard abundance analysis was carried out using local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) and checked against nonlocal thermodynamic equilibrium (NLTE) model stellar photospheres.
To keep reading, click on "Lithium-Rich Stars Confound Astronomers".
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, March 14, 2018

Human-Chimp Hybrids?

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Barash wants human-chimpanzee hybrids, which rejects the value of human life and pushes ethical standards
Secular psychologist David P. Barash decided that it is time to make human-chimpanzee hybrids, which would cross a significant number of ethical and moral guidelines. Psychology is not exactly a biological science, but the secular science industry as a whole, including psychology, is firmly entrenched in materialistic worldviews with evolution as the cornerstone. To push the boundaries and tamper with embryos and genetics is consistent with their fundamentally flawed paradigms.

Not too long ago, scientists were lamenting that they were constrained against extending the lives of human embryos in a dish (evolutionary thinking supports abortion), wanting to keep them alive a bit longer. The chimera experimentation through CRISPR is increasing (see "Ethics, Scientism, and an Evolutionary Worldview" for more about this). Believing the false science that the chimpanzee genome is 98 percent similar to that of humans, that molecules-to-monkey evolution is a fact, a materialistic worldview — these add up to contempt for human life.

Biblical creationists know that, although there are similarities in biology between humans and animals, we were created separately by the Master Engineer in his image — we are not just another type of animal. Secularists want to be in complete control of science and ethics. They have their own criteria for morality and value, and we are already seeing that the boundaries are being moved.

The inspiration for this article came from Dr. James R. White's March 13, 2018 episode of The Dividing Line. He did a good part of my work for me in the first few minutes. I would like to suggest that you keep going for a bit more, as he discusses:
. . . a video from Jordan Peterson and interacting with the concepts of suffering and human purpose in his lectures.  Dr. Peterson has been great in exposing the fundamental flaws and simple irrationality of many of the left’s pet projects today, and we can be very thankful for that, but we cannot use that as an excuse to not point out that the best a Jungian evolutionary worldview can produce (consistently) is a form of Pelagianism, a “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” moralism that lacks the key ingredients provided by full gospel proclamation.
Normally, I am reluctant to embed longer videos (I'm not asking you to watch the whole thing unless you have a mind to), but it shouldn't slow the site down too much. Hope you can spare some time. Also, the audio can be downloaded here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!