whew!

Good Morning Ark

it is !

"Science now knows that many of the pillars of Darwinian theory are either false or misleading. Yet biology texts continue to present them as factual evidence of evolution. What does this imply about their scientific standards?" — Jonathan Wells (Recipient of two Ph.D.s, one in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California at Berkeley, and one in Religious Studies from Yale University. Has worked as a postdoctoral research biologist at the University of California at Berkeley and the supervisor of a medical laboratory in Fairfield, California. Has taught biology at California State University in Hayward

from an article found at:

http://www.straight-talk/evolution/fossil.htm
Evolution or Creation?

The Fossil Record

A transitional fossil is the fossil remains of a creature that exhibits primitive traits in comparison with the more derived life-forms it is related to. According to evolutionary theory, a transitional form represents an evolutionary stage.[74]

But the fossil record has been against the Darwinian theory from the very beginning. It's true that different kinds of organisms lived on the earth at different times. But what is not seen in the fossil record is the steady progressive change of one kind of thing into something completely different. Instead, if something new shows up in the rocks, it shows up all at once and fully formed, and then it stays the same.[4]

If evolution means the steady progressive change of one kind of thing into something completely different, then the fossil record contradicts evolution.[4]

Given the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record, evolutionists quietly acknowledge this is still a "research issue".[34]

There is virtually nothing in the fossil record that can be used as evidence of a transitional life form When apparent examples of useful mutations are examined thoroughly, it becomes clear that no transitional creatures exist anywhere in the fossil record.[34]

John Bonner, a biologist at Princeton, writes that traditional textbook discussions of ancestral descent are "a festering mass of unsupported assertions." In recent years, paleontologists have retreated from simple connect-the-dot scenarios linking earlier and later species. Instead of ladders, they now talk of bushes. What we see in the fossils, according to this view, are only the twigs, the final end-products of evolution, while the key transitional forms which would give a clue about the origin of major animal groups remain completely hidden.[2]

The blank spots on evolutionary "tree" charts occur at just the points where, according to Darwin's theory, the crucial changes had to take place. The direct ancestors of all the major orders: primates, carnivores, and so forth are completely missing. There is no fossil evidence for a "grandparent" of the monkey, for example. "Modern gorillas, orangutans, and chimpanzees spring out of nowhere," writes paleontologist Donald Johansen. "They are here today; they have no yesterday." The same is true of giraffes, elephants, wolves, and all species; they all simply burst upon the scene de novo [anew], as it were.[2]

So many questions arise in the study of fossils (paleontology) that even many evolutionary paleontologists put little stock in the fossil record. Basing one's belief in evolution on the shaky ground of paleontology can scarcely be considered scientific.[40]

"We are about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have fewer examples of evolutionary transition 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 .... " - D. Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, vol. 50 (1), p. 24, 25[57]

The fossil record is often so sparse that . . . there are numerous cases where groups survived for tens of millions of years [ET*] without leaving a single fossil.[64]

A criticism of the evolutionary idea was, and is, the lack of the hypothesized intermediates between one species and another. If land animals truly came from sea creatures, one would expect to find plenty of evidence of this, such as fossils of fish with their fins turning into legs. Darwin wrote in his Origin of Species that "innumerable transitional forms must have existed." The predicted large numbers of fossil intermediate forms were never found.[11]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Evolutionary time scale.

from - http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/misslinks.htm




Evolution or Creation?

MISSING LINKS:

All of the "missing links" on this page are examples of poor anthropology being used in an attempt to convince the public that God does not exist. Unfortunately, this rush to judgment is a consistent and erroneous theme of the evolutionary science community. The only thing missing from their studies was thorough research.[34]

• NEANDERTHAL MAN: When this prehistoric man was first discovered, only part of an arm was recovered. Yet, the scientific community fabricated an entire ancient society around an arm bone. Scientists have since found quite a few Neanderthals and after careful study have concluded that these ancestors were regular humans with bone disease, probably rickets.[34]

• PILTDOWN MAN: For more than 50 years we were led to believe that this ancient creature was another supposed ancestor of modern man. Two scientists eventually took a closer look and found out that Piltdown man was a fraud. This invented creature was a composite of the jawbone of an orangutan and the skull of a small child. The original "discoverers " had stained these bone fragments to gain recognition and promote the falsehood of evolution.[34]

• NEBRASKA MAN: One ancient tooth was discovered in Nebraska. Eager evolutionists built a whole
imaginary society and lifestyle around this single tooth! When they found the rest of the skull some two years later, it was clear that the tooth belonged to a pig. For many years, evolutionists described Nebraska Man as a missing link.[34]

• JAVA MAN: This prehistoric man was found on the island of Java and was reported to be the missing link between man and ape. After serious study it was found that the two pieces of Java Man were from two different skulls from two different areas of the island. Both were from the same species, probably an Orangutan, but they were not the parts of a man. Recent human skulls have now been discovered in the same layer of rock.[34]

• PEKING MAN: This manlike creature was found in China during the early part of this century. No other scientists have directly observed this site and it has not actually been seen in more than 50 years. All of the examples of Peking Man were reported to have the back of their skulls smashed in, exactly matching the result when people of that region hunt for monkey brains. Also, modern human remains were found at the same site.[34]

• LUCY: Lucy is the latest find that has been almost universally accepted as mankind's ancestor.
Lucy is an Australopithecus, that is actually more like a monkey than man. When the bones were studied by spectrograph, they were found to match a chimpanzee, rather than a man. Lucy too, is a mosaic, with bones assembled from different locations.[34]

• LAETOLI FOOTPRINTS: These footprints were found in the same strata as the Lucy bones. Evolutionary scientists have said that Lucy-like animals made these, but a podiatrist concluded they are modern human footprints. It appears that Lucy is not an ancestor of modern man, but simply a monkey.[34]

• KENYA SKULL: Recently it was reported that scientists had discovered a fossil of a skull in Kenya that evolutionists claim has more human-like features than "Lucy." This means that evolutionary scientists must once again revise their theory of man's origin. Ken Ham, Executive Director of Answers in Genesis says that the skulll - which he says appears to be the skull of a chimpanzee - [will cause] the evolutionary fossil record of human ancestors to bereplaced with question marks.[90]

• ARCHAEOPTERXY: Originally thought of as a transitional fossil between the reptiles and birds, it is now considered by most evolutionists to be a true bird. Also true birds have been found lower in the fossil record, making them older than Archaeopteryx.[34]

Chinese paleontologist Xu Xing contends that Archaeopteryx is a combination of two fossils: one of the body and head of a birdlike creature and the other of the tail of a dinosaur. Xing says he has found another fossil, in a private collection in China, that contains the mirror image of the supposed tail of the Archaeoraptor. National Geographic published a note in its March 2000 issue saying that CT scans of the fossil appear to confirm Xing's observations and "revealed anomalies in the fossil's reconstruction."[35]

To sum it up, here is what Dr. Austin Clark, a leading biologist of the Smithsonian Institute in Washington has to day about the subject: "No matter how far back we go in the fossil record of previous animal life on earth, we find no trace of any animal forms which are intermediate between the major groups of phyla. Since we have not the slightest evidence, either among the living or the fossil animals, of any intergrading types following the major groups, it is a fair supposition that there never have been any such intergrading types. There are no such things as missing links. ... Missing links are misinterpretations."[85, 88]

Return to "Scientific Arguments Against Evolution" Page
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/misslinks.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation-evolution_controversy


"Mornin"

Morning to all

THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST EVOLUTION
by Dr. Phil Fernandes
A chapter from his doctoral dissertation
© 1997, Institute of Biblical Defense, All Rights Reserved

The last chapter examined and defended the scientific case for creation. In this chapter, the scientific case against evolution will be discussed. There are major problems with the evolution model that render it obsolete as an explanation of the available scientific data. This chapter will comment briefly on these problem areas.

THERMODYNAMICS

Thermodynamics deals with the relationship between heat, energy, and work.1 The first and second laws of thermodynamics pose serious problems for evolution. The first law of thermodynamics is called energy conservation. It states that the amount of energy in the universe remains constant; no energy is now being created or destroyed.2 This means that if the universe had a beginning, whatever process or act that brought the universe into existence is no longer in operation today. In other words, the "creation process" is no longer operating today. Therefore, either the universe is eternal or the universe was created in the past; no continuing creative process is occurring.

The second law of thermodynamics is called entropy. Though the amount of energy in the universe remains constant, it changes form. The second law states that when energy changes form it becomes less usable.3 Therefore, the amount of usable energy in the universe is running out. This means that the day will come when all the energy in the universe will have been used up. This will be the death of the universe. There must have been a time when all the energy of the universe was usable; this would be the beginning of the universe. In other words, since the universe is going to have an end, it is not eternal. If it is not eternal, then it must have had a beginning. The big bang model and the expansion of the universe also confirm the beginning of the universe.4

The evolutionist faces a dilemma. The first and second laws of thermodynamics together declare that the universe had a beginning. The evolutionists cannot deny these laws, for they are considered to be the most firmly established laws of modern science.5 But, evolution runs counter to these two laws. When a scientific model contradicts a scientific law, the model should be abandoned. Since the first and second laws of thermodynamics teach that the universe had a beginning, then something outside the universe must have caused the universe to come into existence. For, from nothing nothing comes. Therefore, the universe could not have evolved into existence out of nothing.

EVOLUTIONARY DATING METHODS

The evolutionary dating methods are inconsistent and unreliable. All evolutionary dating methods are based upon uniformitarianism.6 Uniformitarianism assumes that there were no world-wide catastrophes; therefore, the rate of decay has remained constant. Uniformitarianism assumes that today's processes have continued at the same rate throughout all time. However, if there were a world-wide flood and a special creation by God, then this uniformitarian assumption would be unwarrented.7

Evolutionary dating methods have been shown to be unreliable. Rocks known to have been only a few hundred years old have been dated to be hundreds of millions of years old.8 Henry Morris has stated that there are many different ways to date the earth's age, but evolutionists only use those methods which give astronomically old dates since evolution needs millions of years to seem even slightly possible.9 Two methods which point to a young earth are population statistics and the earth's magnetic field.10 If one assumes the principle of uniformitarianism, then due to the present rate at which the population of mankind increases, the start of the present population would take one back 4,300 years to the traditional date for the flood.11 Concerning the strength of the earth's magnetic field, if one assumes that the present rate of decay remains the same going back indefinitely into the past, then about 7,000 years ago it would have been too strong to sustain life.12

The most convincing argument for an old earth is probably that of the speed of light.13 The speed of light is assumed by scientists to be constant. The light of distant stars and galaxies can be seen on earth. Since it would have taken billions of years for the light of some of these celestial bodies to reach earth (assuming the speed of light has remained the same throughout all time), the universe must be billions of years old.14 However, Barry Setterfield of Australia studied every measurement of the speed of light and found that the speed of light has not been constant throughout all time; it had been faster in the past.15 Setterfield's research, if reliable, reveals the age of the universe to be only 6,000 years old.16

Even if the universe is old, this would not refute the creation model. Many creationists believe in an old universe.17 However, if the universe is young, the evolution model is destroyed. One thing is clear: the principle of uniformitarianism is an assumption that appears to go against the evidence. If uniformitarianism is true, then all the dating methods would reveal the same approximate dates. These dates would be old or young; they would not be old and young. Since some dating methods point to an old earth and others point to a young earth, the evolutionary dating methods are unreliable. Since uniformitarianism is not a given, the date of the universe is an open question.

THE FOSSIL RECORD

The fossil record is assumed to prove evolution, but, this is not the case. The fossil record shows no evidence of transitional forms (missing links). New life forms appear suddenly and fully developed.18 There are no animals with half-fins or half-wings in the fossil record. If there were transitional forms, why have none been found? This is a serious problem for evolutionists. Harvard paleontologists Stephen Jay Gould and Louis Agassiz have admitted this lack of evidence for evolution in the fossil record.19 Aggassiz, a nineteenth-century creationist, stated:


Species appear suddenly and disappear suddenly in the progressive strata. . . . the supposed intermediate forms between the species of different geological periods are imaginary beings, called up merely in support of a fanciful theory.20
Gould, a twentieth century evolutionist, stated:

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."21
It is interesting to note that the first geologists believed that the fossil record was evidence for the world-wide flood recorded in the Bible.22 This view is strengthened by the fact that fossilization is extremely rare today. Even if the earth existed for millions of years, that would not be enough time for the present fossil record to have been produced without any world-wide catastrophes.23 Fossilization is world-wide and caused by the rapid burial of animals, which is something a world-wide flood would do.24

Another problem for evolution concerning the fossil record is polystrate fossils. These are fossils that extend through two or more layers of sedimentary rock.25 These fossils are usually trees. In order for a standing tree to be fossilized, it would have to be quickly buried before it decayed. However, in these polystrate fossils, the several layers of earth through which the tree extends supposedly took millions of years to form.26 This reveals that evolutionists are mistaken when they assume that layers of sedimentary rock must take millions of years to form and therefore indicate large quantities of time. No tree can live for millions of years. Therefore, these layers of sedimentary rock are not evidence for an old earth. They could have been formed rapidly.27

Another problem for evolution is the fact that the fossil record often appears out of sequence.28 Sometimes "old" fossils appear resting on rock layers containing "younger" fossils.29 The geologic column is "an imagined chronological arrangement of rock units in columnar form with the presumed oldest units at the bottom and presumed youngest at the top."30 However, the world is full of strata appearing in the wrong order.31 If these layers took millions of years to be formed as evolutionists say, then this would not be the case.

If one assumes the possibility that the fossil record was formed rapidly, the world-wide flood offers the a better explanation. The flood would tend to bury fossils in this order. First, deep oceans creatures would be fossilized. Then, creatures in shallower water, followed by amphibians and land-bordering creatures. Next would be swamp, marsh, and low river-flat creatures (especially reptiles). After that, higher mammals who retreated to higher ground in their attempt to escape the flood would be fossilized. Finally, humans would be overtaken.32 This would be the "standard" order; still, there would be many exceptions due to upheavals in the earth's crust during and after the world-wide flood.33 A world-wide catastrophe such as the flood offers a much more plausible explanation for these exceptions than evolution does.34

Other interesting aspects of flood geology are the canopy theory and the global ice age. The canopy theory refers to Genesis 1:6-8.35 In that passage, the Bible teaches that God surrounded the earth's atmosphere with a huge canopy of water. This would have worked liked the ozone layer does today. It would have filtered out poisonous rays from the sun, thus increasing longevity. This may explain why the Bible records pre-flood men living more than nine-hundred years (Genesis 5). After the flood, man's life-span would drastically decrease. The water contained in the canopy descended in the great flood (Genesis 6:11-12) and covered the entire earth (Genesis 7:19). This would explain why three-fourths of the earth's surface is covered with water. In fact, if the earth were a completely smooth sphere, it would be covered by water 1.5 miles in depth.36 After the flood, tremendous upheavals in the earth's crust due to the catastrophe would cause valleys to sink and mountains to rise (Psalm 104:5-9). The mountains that rose would become the dry land man now inhabits. The upheavals in the earth's crust could also explain much of the continental shifts that scientists have shown to have occurred.

A global flood would cause a global ice age.37 Today, evolutionists accept the global ice age, but they reject a universal flood which could have caused it. Because of this, glacial geologists have failed to determine what caused the ice age. Also the lack of vegetation due to the ice age would have killed off most of the dinosaurs, though some recent dinosaur sightings are well-documented.38

LACK OF TRANSITIONAL FORMS

A devastating problem for the evolution model is the lack of transitional forms. No one possesses an undisputed missing link. All the supposed missing links between apes and men have been dismissed. Neanderthal Man and Cro-Magnon Man both have the features of modern man.39 Colorado Man turned out to be a member of the horse family.40 Java Man (also known as Pithecanthropus) was shown to be the remains of a large gibbon.41 Heidelberg Man consisted of only a lower jaw.42 Obviously, a lower jaw is insufficient evidence for a missing link. One can only speculate as to the makeup of the rest of the skull and skeleton. The Piltdown Man was revealed to be a clever hoax.43 The Peking Man is now thought to be a large monkey or baboon.44 The Southern Ape (also called Australopithecus), Dryopithecus, and Ramapithecus were extinct apes.45 The East African Man (Zinjanthropus) was shown to be an ape.46 Finally, the Nebraska Man, which consisted of only one tooth, was proven to be the tooth of an extinct pig.47 This is rather interesting since this tooth had been presented as evidence in the 1925 "monkey trial" as "evidence" for the evolutionary model.48 When the tooth of an extinct pig is mistaken for the tooth of the missing link between apes and men, it shows how subjective modern science has become. Though high school and college textbooks show drawings of the missing links from apes to men, the fact is that this art merely depicts the vivid imagination of scientists. No undisputed missing link between apes and men has been discovered.

Archaeopteryx was once thought to be a transitional form between reptiles and birds.49 It had features resembling that of a reptile (teeth, lizard-like tail, and claws). But, archaeopteryx also had wings and feathers similar to a bird. Still, the archaeopteryx was fully developed. It did not have half-wings or the like. Archaeopteryx has now been classified as a bird. This is due to the fact that every characteristic of archaeopteryx can be found in some genuine bird, though some of its features are not found in reptiles.50 It should also be noted that the supposed evolution of reptiles into birds is highly improbable. The lungs of a reptile have millions of tiny air sacs, while the lungs of birds have tubes. In order for a transitional form to exist between a reptile and a bird it would have to breathe without having fully-developed lungs.51

An extinct, small three-toed animal called Eohippus was once thought to be the ancestor of the modern, large, one-toed horse.52 It is now doubtful that Eohippus should have ever been classified in the horse family. Eohippus is probably an extinct type of hyrax.53

Evolutions believe that invertebrates (animals without backbones) have evolved into vertebrates (animals with backbones). However, no transitional form between the two has ever been found.54

This lack of transitional forms is very problematic for the evolution model. It has been over 130 years since Darwin wrote The Origin of Species. Still, no missing links have been found. Due to this absence of evidence for evolution, modern evolutionists like Stephen Jay Gould have proposed a new model called "Punctuated Equilibrium."55 Whereas evolution means "gradual change," Punctuated Equilibrium teaches that the changes occurred so suddenly that transitional forms did not survive long enough to be fossilized. It appears that Punctuated Equilibrium is an attempt to explain away the absence of evidence for evolution—but it fails as well.

Since there is no evidence of missing links in the fossil record, evolution should be rejected. The lack of transitional forms in the fossil record is evidence against evolution and in favor of the creation model, which teaches that there are no missing links.56

MUTATIONS

Evolutionists need a mechanism that explains how evolution has supposedly occurred. Many evolutionists believe that mutation is this mechanism.57 However, as was mentioned in the last chapter, mutations merely scramble the already existing genetic code. No new genetic information is added.58 Yet, for evolution to have occurred, a mechanism is needed through which new genes are produced. Therefore, mutations fail to explain evolution. Evolutionists claim that they believe the present interprets the past. However, there is no mechanism in the present that spontaneously produces new genetic information. Until such a mechanism is found, evolution can only be accepted by "blind faith."

HEISENBERG'S PRINCIPLE OF INDETERMINACY

Heisenberg's principle of indeterminacy is a theory in quantum physics. Quantum physics deals with the atom and the motion of subatomic particles.59 The principle of indeterminacy states that it is impossible to determine both the position in space of a subatomic particle and that particle's motion at the same time.60 Therefore, subatomic particle movement is currently unpredictable for man. This simply means that scientists aren't yet able to accurately predict where a specific particle will be at a given moment. Some scientists have wrongly concluded from this that things can occur on the subatomic level without a cause. If this were true, then it would be possible that the universe just popped into existence without a cause. If this were the case, it would not favor either evolution or creation. If things can come into existence without a cause, then the basis for modern science crumbles. All experiments would be a waste of time, for any given phenomena could have come into existence without a cause. Therefore, there would be no need to study the elements of the universe any longer. Modern science would die.

Albert Einstein believed that Heisenberg's principle did not prove that things can occur without a cause. Einstein held that the causes actually do exist, though man may not be able to find them.61 Man is limited in knowledge, and there may be some causes he is unable to find.62 Heisenberg's principle, therefore, cannot come to the aid of evolution; the universe (since it had a beginning) needs a cause.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, evolution is not a proven fact. It is assumed to be true by many scientists, but they have offered no convincing proofs. There is no evidence for the evolution model. This can be seen in the many unproven assumptions held by evolutionists.

First, there is no evidence for spontaneous generation. The belief that life evolved from non-life contradicts both the cell theory and the law of biogenesis. The Miller-Urey experiments have failed to produce life in the lab (if they were successful, it would be evidence for the creation model not the evolution model).

Second, there is no evidence for the evolutionary assumption that the universe is eternal. Evolutionists must accept this by faith. Evolutionists may assume that the universe evolved into existence from nothing, but this assumption goes against all available scientific evidence.

Third, there is no evidence that intelligence could come from non-intelligence. Intelligence shows evidence of design; it could not have been produced by chance.

Fourth, no evidence has been found proving that multi-celled animals came from single-celled animals. (Even the human embryo does not evolve into a human; it has its full human genetic code at conception.63)

Fifth, there is no evidence for the evolution of animals with backbones from animals without backbones.64 Though there should be multitudes of transitional forms between the two groups, none have been found.

Sixth, there is no evidence for the common ancestry of fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals.65 Common anatomy could point to a common Designer; it does not necessarily point to common ancestry.

All the major gaps that evolution must cross are assumed to have occurred; they have not been proven to have occurred. Therefore, evolution itself is an unproven assumption. Those who dogmatically proclaim it as truth spend more time explaining away the scientific evidence against their view than they do providing evidence for their view. Any scientific model which lacks plausibility should be abandoned. Such is the case with evolution.

Evolution needs God, but God does not need evolution. If evolution is true, then God is needed to bring the universe into existence from nothing, to bring life from non-life, and complex life forms from simple life forms. In each case, a miraculous superseding of natural laws is needed. However, if God exists, He doesn't need evolution. He could have either started the long evolutionary process or He could have created the universe in six literal days. God could have used evolution, but if He did, He covered His tracks. He left no evidence. Since God is not the author of deception, it is reasonable to conclude that evolution is a myth, devoid of any scientific evidence.

ENDNOTES
1 Tom M. Graham, Biology, the Essential Principles (Philadelphia: Saunders College Publishing, 1982), 75.

2 Ibid.

3 Ibid.

4 Hugh Ross, The Fingerprint of God (Orange: Promise Publishing Company, 1991), 53-105.

5 Henry M. Morris, Science and the Bible (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), 17.

6 Ibid., 66.

7 Ibid.

8 Morris, Many Infallible Proofs, 292-293.

9 Ibid., 294.

10 Ibid., 295-296.

11 Ibid., 296.

12 Ibid., 295.

13 Paul D. Ackerman, It's A Young World After All (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), 72.

14 Ibid., 73.

15 Ibid., 74.

16 Ibid., 75.

17 see Hugh Ross, Creation and Time (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1994), entire book.

18 Geisler and Anderson, Origin Science, 150-153.

19 Ibid., 150-152.

20 Louis Agassiz, "Contribution to the Natural History of the United States," American Journal of Science, (1860): 144-145.

21 Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, (May 1977): 14.

22 Morris, Science and the Bible, 67.

23 Huse, 46.

24 Ackerman, 83.

25 Ibid., 84.

26 Ibid.

27 Ibid.

28 Morris, Science and the Bible, 68-69.

29 Ibid.

30 Huse, 147.

31 Morris, Science and the Bible, 70.

32 Ibid., 73.

33 Ibid., 74.

34 Ibid., 75.

35 Ibid., 82-85.

36 Ibid., 83.

37 Ibid., 81.

38 Henry M. Morris, The Biblical Basis for Modern Science (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984), 350-359. Some of the recent dinosaur sightings noted by Morris include: smaller brontosaurus in the rain forests of the Congo, living plesiosaurs in the Loch Ness and numerous other waterways, and what appears to be a freshly decayed plesiosaur captured and photographed by Japanese fishermen off the coast of New Zealand.

39 Morris, Science and the Bible, 58.

40 Huse, 98.

41 Morris, Science and the Bible, 56.

42 Marvin Lubenow, Bones of Contention (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992), 79.

43 Morris, Science and the Bible, 56.

44 Ibid.

45 Ibid., 57-58.

46 Lubenow, 167.

47 Morris, Science and the Bible, 58.

48 Ibid.

49 Huse, 110.

50 Morris, Science and the Bible, 267-268. see also Huse, 110-112.

51 Huse, 112.

52 Morris, Science and the Bible, 54-55.

53 Ibid.

54 Huse, 44.

55 Geisler and Anderson, 150-153.

56 Ibid.

57 Morris, Science and the Bible, 46-47.

58 Ibid.

59 The World Book Encyclopedia (Chicago: World Book, Inc., 1985), vol. 16, 4.

60 Roy E. Peacock, A Brief History of Eternity (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1990), 56-59.

61 Ibid., 59.

62 Moreland, Scaling the Secular City, 38-39.

63 Huse, 120.

64 Ibid., 44.

65 Ibid.

Sharp, I just randomly took one erroneous statement. If you are reading this nonsense and under the impression it is "accurate", you are sorely mistaken. The only explanation I can give is it is taken from "Christian" websites or VERY old. Case in point.

• NEANDERTHAL MAN: When this prehistoric man was first discovered, only part of an arm was recovered. Yet, the scientific community fabricated an entire ancient society around an arm bone. Scientists have since found quite a few Neanderthals and after careful study have concluded that these ancestors were regular humans with bone disease, probably rickets.[34]

This is fallacy. They are attempting to assert that an ENTIRE hominid subgroup simply had "rickets." How would that explain the skeletal remains of Neanderthal children and even infants? Were they born with rickets?

The Reality.

For the first time, DNA of a premodern human has been recovered. Svante Pääbo of the University of Munich and colleagues in Germany and the United States successfully extracted the DNA from a right humerus (upper arm bone) of a Neandertal. Their findings, presented in the July issue of the journal Cell, provide important information about when Neandertals and modern humans diverged from a common ancestor, the nature of interaction between Neandertals and modern humans, and the ultimate fate of the Neandertals.

The humerus was found by quarry workers in the Feldhofer Cave, near Dusseldorf, Germany, in 1856, along with the top of a cranium, two femurs (upper leg bones), right radius and ulna (lower arm bones), part of the left ilium (pelvis), and fragments of a shoulder blade and ribs. The Neander Valley, in which the cave was located, later gave its name to the early human represented by these and other remains. The Feldhofer fossils are believed to date from between 40,000 and 50,000 years ago. They are now in the Rheinisches Landesmuseum in Bonn, which permitted removal of a 3.5 gram sample from the humerus for analysis.

As an initial test, amino acids from the bone were examined to determine whether or not DNA might be preserved in the sample. Degradation of amino acids and DNA is caused by the same factors, including water and temperature. Thus the condition of amino acids in bone, which is easily determined, can be used as a guide to the condition of any DNA preserved in the sample. The results were encouraging, and the scientists decided to attempt recovering and replicating DNA from the bone. To be certain of the results, each step in the analysis was repeated in Pääbo's lab and the findings were then duplicated independently by Mark Stoneking and Anne Stone at Pennsylvania State University.

The researchers focused on DNA from the mitochondria, organelles within cells, rather than from the nucleus. Mitochondrial DNA is more abundant than nuclear DNA, and is thus more likely to be recovered in sufficient amounts to allow replication. In addition, mitochondrial DNA is transmitted only from the mother so that changes from generation to generation result from mutation alone rather than recombination of the mother and father's DNA. The scientists obtained a sequence of 379 amino acid base pairs by replicating shorter, overlapping segments. They identified 27 differences between the Neandertal DNA and a modern reference DNA sample over the replicated sequence. By contrast, DNA from a random sample of a modern population might vary from the reference DNA in five to eight places.

DNA dating is based on the assumption (debated by geneticists) that mutations occur at a constant rate. The accumulated mutations in DNA can be measured, and the time necessary for them to occur calculated. The amount of difference between Neandertal and human DNA suggests that our common ancestor existed about 550,000 to 690,000 years ago. Although this date must be qualified (it is based on one specimen only, and the DNA clock may or may not be as accurate as we assume), it is in accord with the fossil record. Osteological characteristics of the 300,000-year-old remains from the Sima de los Huesos in northern Spain (see "Faces from the Past," ARCHAEOLOGY, May/June 1997) and the 400,000- to 500,000-year-old jaw from Mauer, Germany, indicate that these humans, generally classified as Homo heidelbergensis, are ancestral to Neandertals. This suggests the split between the ancestors of modern humans and Neandertals had occurred somewhat earlier, about the time indicated by the new DNA date.

The relationship between Neandertals and modern humans, who are thought to have arisen in Africa some 120,000 to 150,000 years ago, and the demise of the Neandertals are intertwined. The two coexisted in Southwest Asia for a long period (see "The Peopling of Eurasia," ARCHAEOLOGY, January/February 1996). Excavations at sites in Israel have yielded remains of modern humans at Skhul and Qafzeh caves dated from as early as 120,000 to 90,000 years ago, and Neandertal remains at Kebara Cave dated from 60,000 years ago and Amud Cave dated from 40,000 to 50,000 years ago. In western Europe, Neandertals persisted until 30,000 years ago and possibly somewhat later. The question arises: To what extent did the two interact in terms of cultural exchange or trade and interbreeding? Were the Neandertals out-competed by modern humans or killed off by them, or were they absorbed into the population and genetically swamped? At Arcy-sur-Cure, in France, stone tools and personal ornaments similar to those associated elsewhere with modern humans have been found with 34,000-year-old Neandertal remains, suggesting trade between the two groups. Despite this evidence for cultural exchange, a study of temporal bones from Arcy-sur-Cure and other sites indicates significant differences between Neandertals and modern humans, suggesting interbreeding did not occur (see "Neandertal News," ARCHAEOLOGY, September/October 1996).

If Neandertals made a significant genetic contribution to modern humans, similarities should exist between DNA of Neandertals and that of people from Europe, where the Neandertals persisted the longest. Pääbo and his colleagues compared the Neandertal DNA to that from five modern populations, but it proved no closer to DNA from modern Europeans than to that from four other groups. While this does not rule out the possibility of Neandertal and modern human mixing, it suggests that the Neandertal genetic contribution to modern gene pools, if any, was small.

Setting aside the particulars of this new study, the fact that it was possible to recover Neandertal DNA is a breakthrough itself and opens many possibilities for similar investigations. Mammoth remains preserved in the Siberian permafrost have yielded DNA from 50,000 to 100,000 years ago, but preservation of DNA more than 100,000 years old is thought to be unlikely. While DNA from a pre-Neandertal form, like the Homo heidelbergensis from Atapuerca, will probably never be recovered, it would be interesting to compare DNA from early Homo sapiens and Neandertals from Southwest Asia where the two coexisted for such a long period. Another intriguing possibility would be to compare later Homo sapiens and the last of the Neandertals, those from 30,000 years ago, found at western European sites like Zafarraya Cave in southern Spain. The fossils from Feldhofer belong somewhere in the middle period of Neandertals. Would DNA from different regions and periods confirm the results obtained from this study, or would they suggest other degrees of interaction? The recent claim that Homo erectus was alive in Southeast Asia as recently as 53,000 to 27,000 years ago (see "Homo erectus Survival," ARCHAEOLOGY, March/April 1997), makes it conceivable that DNA from this species could also be recovered.

hmmmm, most of which is not real science!

Yeah fairy tales are always more reliable than mitochondrial DNA. What was I thinking. This one I picked out in particular because this is essentially the nail in the coffin for Creationism. They are up to 1 million base pairs right now as we speak. It will be completed at 3 million so probably another couple years. The initial mtDNA results showed Neanderthal to be DIVERGENT of Home Sapien.

Lucy, you got some splainin to do!

So what you are saying is that God could not have use evolution? Or are you saying you hate God? What are you trying to accomplish here? Are you just trying to make people miserable? Do you care what people think of you?

No of course not. Scroll back a ways. It was I who brought up 2-3 times that many modern day Catholics today accept the Theory of Evolution as "god's big plan" and how he went about generating life on earth. Not just human, all forms. If people are happy and comfortable taking that position, more power to them. Im saying, I personally feel that the Theory of Evolution is credible. If you scroll back a little, you will see where I copied and pasted the information from a website showing all of the religious support (yes you heard me) for evolution.

So tell me, what you are trying to accomplish! You have the floor!

The same thing as anyone else who has contributed to this interesting thread (excluding yourself). Make my points, argue and debate the issues set forth by Sharp.

So why do you keep side tracking the threads that deal with things of faith in God, are you really into helping satan?

What am I "sidetracking" exactly? It seems you are the one who skillfully manages that feat every morning about this time.

It seems as though you end up saying things about how mean the "christians" are no matter what the OP was, lots of references to stonings and such. I can appreciate the fact that you may have some anger issues with religious zealots, but there are healthier ways to deal with them!

Well for one, this thread is not addressing "religious zealots" at all. I posted this morning on the factual Neanderthal sequencing information because Sharp began this topic as a debate over the validity of the two theories. It was YOU who has taken it upon himself to instigate this "witchhunt" and are making baseless and ungrounded accusations. Obviously I am not a Christian. I dont think you have unraveled any great mystery there. My own spirituality is irrelevant as it applies to my ability to debate or discuss the matter of religion.

So before you totally destroy this thread now, why not get back on topic?

This is the actual bone I was thinking of. V-80 but both articles are relevant.

In a remarkable double publication today in both Science and Nature, researchers report on recent collaborative successes with developing the beginnings of a catalog of the nuclear DNA for Neanderthals. Svante Pããbo of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, and Edward Rubin of the US Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, have been working on the same Neanderthal sample, using different technological strategies, in their attempts to define the genome. The test sample, found after an exhaustive search of 70 sets of archived materials for suitably preserved samples, is from a Neanderthal man who died some 38,000 years ago and whose bones were recovered from Vindija Cave in Croatia. Out of a likely 3.2 billion base pairs thought to make up the Neanderthal DNA chain, Pããbo's team has described 1 million base pairs; while Rubin's team, working at a slower pace and producing an online catalog for the results, has identified 60,000.
Neanderthals and DNA Sequencing

Neanderthals are our closest non-human ancestor, and they were residents of the earth both before and for about 100,000 years alongside of modern Homo sapiens (and 300,000 alongside our other ancestors). Neanderthals disappeared from the planet about 30,000 years ago. While mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) studies of Neanderthals have been sequenced for a number of years, these are the first such studies completed on nuclear DNA, a task once thought impossible given the scale of the project. mtDNA is found within the mitochondria of human cells, it doesn't change when inherited from your mother, and it is made up of about 16,000 base pairs. Nuclear DNA is stored in the nucleus of cells, is created in each individual by combining DNA from both parents and it is made up of over 3 billion base pairs. The Human Genome Project finished describing the 3 billion base pair sequence of modern human DNA in 2003 after thirteen years of investigations.

In contrast, Pããbo and Rubin fully expect to have the sequencing of the Neanderthal genome completed by 2008, after only four years of study. They attribute this to newer and faster technologies, both developed for this project and in progress as this news is breaking.
Vindija Cave

The sequencing is being completed on a single fragment (2-4 grams) of leg bone recovered from Level G3 in Vindija Cave. Vindija Cave is a stratified cave in Croatia, with 14 levels dated between 25,000 and 45,000 years ago; four or five of those levels had hominin remains in them (both Neanderthals and Anatomically Modern Humans) when the cave was excavated in the 1970s. Level G3, from which the bone was taken, is thought to be dated between 38,000 and 45,000 years ago; the identifiable bone recovered from the level represent Neanderthals, and the artifacts have been classified as Mousterian. Level G3 is considered a Neanderthal-only level in Vindija cave. The bone used in this study is a fragment of a leg bone, itself AMS dated to 38,310 ± 2,130 BP years ago.

Problems with the Attribution of Neanderthal?

Paleontologist Fred H. Smith (Loyola University), who in the 1980s and 90s participated in the morphological analysis of the materials from Vindija Cave, believes that this bone is likely Neanderthal, although the morphological characteristics were not necessarily clear-cut, and given the error margin in the dates, it could represent Anatomically Modern Human remains. When asked for a comment about this question, Dr. Pããbo spoke of his confidence that the bone is Neanderthal or at most mixed modern human and Neanderthal. "As Fred says, the morphology of the bone itself does not identify this as a Neandertal. But as Fred also says, the G3 layer in Vindija is commonly accepted to be Neandertal and 38,000 is old to be modern human in the Balkans. Also, the mtDNA sequences we find in the bone are typical Neandertal. So at the most, it could be a mixture, it could not be purely modern human. As we go on with the project, we will find out if there is evidence for interbreeding with modern humans in this individual."