Piltdown Superman

morgueFile (very modified)  This is the continuation of an article discussing coal measures in the Carboniferous system ( Part 1 is here ). Here, we examine the root structures of plants found in the coal measures, comparing them to other roots. Do you like math? New fossil and field evidence relating to the structure of the root system of lycopods, the dominant vegetation of Upper Carboniferous strata, are presented and critically examined. Neither the elastic and partially hollow nature of the lycopod root structure, their inferred geometry throughout early ontological development, nor other evidence support the prevailing paradigm that the coal measures formed in a terrestrial swamp environment. Rather, they favour the floating forest or silvomarine hypothesis of Kuntze regarding the formation of Paleozoic coal layers. You can read the rest of "The origin of the Carboniferous coal measures—part 2: The logic of lycopod root structure", here . (Part 3 is not availabl

morgueFile/raheel The story told about the origin of coal is that it was formed by plants over eons of time. Scientific evidence refutes that story. One problem for this view is that there is a great number of fossils in the Carboniferous coal measures. Another problem is that marine fossils are found in what are supposed to be land deposits. Once again, the best explanation is the global Flood at the time of Noah. Early geological researchers into the coal measures of the Carboniferous System sought to explain its origin in terms of geological processes operating over eons of time. Yet the evidence that they were continually uncovering presented more and more difficulties within that framework of thinking. Particularly troublesome were the difficulties relating to the roots of the fern trees, the dominant Carboniferous vegetation. The confusion even extended across national borders with the ideas of the geologists on the Continent conflicting with those in England and Amer

Using the presuppositions of which creature evolved in whatever order from certain ancestors, proponents of evolutionism have decreed that humans are closely related to chimpanzees.But according to their own studies, the human genome is more closely related to the gorilla instead of the chimp. Image credit: morgueFile / Sgarton That does not fit their plan, since we supposedly have different ancestors and our DNA should have further dissimilarities. Evolutionists have long maintained that modern primate species (including, in their view, humans) are branches on an evolutionary tree that lead back to a common ancestor. But the recent news of the published genome sequence for the gorilla in the journal Nature adds more solid data to the growing problem facing the current model of primate evolution. This problem is related to a biological paradigm called independent lineage sorting. To illustrate this concept among humans and primates, some segments of human DNA seem more re

morgueFile/hotblack (modified) Adherents of evolutionism take great pride in announcing the alleged similarities between human and chimpanzee DNA. Such boasting is arrogant, as if scientists had full knowledge of DNA. But it is also misleading, because of selective citing from less than four percent of the genome. Also, once again, the conclusion that "Humans and chimps have similar DNA, so we must have evolved from a common ancestor" is simply an illustration of using bad scientific techniques to force-fit data into evolutionary presuppositions. Further examination reveals that such claims are the opposite of the truth. Evolutionary biologists argue that since human and chimp DNA are nearly identical, both species must have evolved from a common ancestor. However, creation scientists have pointed out that their DNA is, in fact, very dissimilar. The vast majority of each species' DNA sequence is not genes, but instead regulated gene expression. A new report unmista

The more scientists learn about genetics and DNA, the more evolutionists must spin metaphysical, non-scientific tales to explain their findings. But God forbid that the majority of them admit that their discoveries point to a Creator instead of supporting time, chance, mutations and other fantasies. Ever since Mendelian genetics was incorporated into Darwinism, evolutionists have believed that the gene is king. Genes, they thought, determine an organism’s design or, in technical jargon, the genotype specifies the phenotype. This fit their view that the species originated from the natural selection of biological change which did not arise initially as a consequence of need but rather as a consequence of random, spontaneous events. Those random, spontaneous, events were, for example, mutations in the genes. And later when the genetic code, which translates the information in those genes into proteins, was found to be essentially universal throughout biology, the story seeme

With the recent revelation that the evolutionists in the scientific community caught up to the non-evolutionists regarding "junk" DNA, scientific journals and scientists are writing and talking science stuff, scientifically. Dr. Georgia Purdom (Ph.D. in molecular genetics, specialty of cellular and molecular biology) has some comments regarding the findings. I’m so excited to be writing a blog on the new research published by ENCODE on “junk” DNA! In fact, as I looked over the material I decided I should devote two blogs to the topic. Part one will cover what ENCODE found and why it’s important. In part two, I’ll discuss opposition to the research findings by many evolutionists. ENCODE is an acronym for ENC yclopedia O f D NA E lements. The ENCODE project is devoted to essentially making sense of the human genome. The sequence of the human genome was completed in 2000, but all it gave us was the order of the individual components, called bases or nucleotides,

You would think that evolutionists would learn from their mistakes regarding "vestigial organs" (claiming that if they could not see a use for them, well, they must be leftovers from our evolutionary past), then finding out that things considered "useless" and "leftover" are not so useless after all. Similarly, Intelligent Design proponents and creationists have been saying for years that the claim that "junk DNA" exists is absurd. Can you imagine the scientific and medical advances that would have been possible if people had a proper view of DNA instead of assuming that evolutionism is true? Both the "vestigial organs" and the "junk DNA" beliefs are base based on arrogance and assumptions. First, that scientists know enough about the extreme complexity of life to be able to declare something "useless". Second, they are interpreting the data through their fundamentally flawed evolutionary worldviews. When