Truth in science
Fossil fish .... from a fish graveyard
A complete fossil fish with three other incomplete fish in a small piece of rock.
See close up, no.1. www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/12683911855/in/photos...
And close-up no.2. www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/12684146323/in/photos...
Notable features:
The excellent detail, and the fact that numerous fish were buried simultaneously (4 in this small section alone), indicates very rapid burial of the fish.
The sedimentary deposit from which this is a tiny sample, can be considered a fish graveyard, where literally hundreds of fish were overwhelmed by a catastrophic event, which buried them instantly in a substantial depth of sediment.
Under normal conditions of slow deposition of sediment, such a mass burial and remarkable preservation, would not occur. The evidence is that a great number of fish were suddenly inundated by a mass of sediment in turbulent water, and buried alive.
The creation of intact fossils almost always requires rapid burial in a substantial depth of sediment. This has to take place before they can be damaged or destroyed by predation and/or decomposition. If you find a well preserved or intact fossil, it is most unlikely to have been buried gradually. Although that is the way it is often presented in descriptions of how fossils are formed.
Rapid formation of strata, recent evidence:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Evolutionists claim that: because soft parts of fossils are rare, the fossil record is incomplete, and that is why there are so few fossils with intermediate features, required for evolution. But, as can be seen in this example, soft parts of the fish, such as the fins and tail are very well preserved.
Although it would be claimed, by evolutionists, that such fossils are many millions of years old, these fossilised fish are identical to any regular fish alive today. Which means they have not evolved at all in tens of millions of years.
The life span of such small fish would be very short. There would be many billions of generations of such fish in even one million years. That no evolution at all has taken place throughout all the vast number of generations of fish that there would have been in tens of millions of years, is a serious problem for evolutionists.
However this is not exceptional, it is the general rule.
For example, Insects found in amber, which is claimed to be many millions of years old, are the same as insects alive today. An insect's life span is even shorter than most fish, and the number of generations in a million years even greater. But still no sign of any evolutionary change. So-called living fossils, such as the Horseshoe Crab also remain un-evolved, some of them after an alleged hundred or more million years, What many people don't know is ... that whenever a creature/plant alive today is found as a fossil, there is no major difference between the fossil version and the present one. In other words, no evidence of any evolutionary change.
See fossil of a crab, also unchanged after many millions of years:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/12702046604/in/set-72...
There is no credible mechanism for progressive evolution.
Progressive, macro evolution is based on the ludicrous idea that random mutations (accidental, genetic, copying mistakes) selected by natural selection, can provide constructive, genetic information capable of creating entirely new features, structures, organs, and biological systems. Macro evolution is based on a belief in a complete progression from microbes to man through millions of random, genetic copying MISTAKES. There is no evidence for it whatsoever, it is unscientific nonsense which defies logic.
Micro-evolution is simply the small changes which take place, through natural selection or selective breeding, but only within the strict limits of the built-in variability of the existing gene pool. Any changes outside the extent of the existing gene pool requires a credible mechanism for the creation of new, constructive, genetic information, that is what is essential for macro evolution. Micro evolution does not involve or require the creation of any new, genetic information. So micro evolution and macro evolution are entirely different. There is no connection between them at all.
Macro evolution is the ridiculous idea that everything in the genome of humans and every living thing past and present (apart from the original genetic information in the very first living cell) is the result of genetic copying mistakes. mutations ... of mutations .... of mutations.... of mutations .... etc. etc.
In other words, Neo-Darwinism proposes that the complete genome (every scrap of genetic information in the DNA) of every living thing that has ever lived was created by a series ... of mistakes ... of mistakes .... of mistakes .... of mistakes etc. etc.
If we look at the whole picture we soon realise that what is actually being proposed by evolutionists is that, apart from the original information in the first living cell: every additional scrap of genetic information for all - features, structures, systems and processes that exist, or have ever existed in living things, such as:
skin, bones, bone joints, shells, flowers, leaves, wings, scales, muscles, fur, hair, teeth, claws, toe and finger nails, horns, beaks, nervous systems, blood, blood vessels, brains, lungs, hearts, digestive systems, vascular systems, liver, kidneys, pancreas, bowels, immune systems, senses, eyes, ears, sex organs, sexual reproduction, sperm, eggs, pollen, the process of metamorphosis, marsupial pouches, marsupial embryo migration, mammary glands, hormone production, melanin etc. .... have been created from scratch, by an incredibly long series of small, accumulated mistakes ... mistake - upon mistake - upon mistake - upon mistake - etc. etc.
If you believe that ... you will believe anything.
Conclusion: progressive, microbes-to-man is impossible - there is no credible mechanism to produce all the new, genetic information which is essential for that to take place.
The evolution story is a fairy tale.
Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...
Fossil fish .... from a fish graveyard
A complete fossil fish with three other incomplete fish in a small piece of rock.
See close up, no.1. www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/12683911855/in/photos...
And close-up no.2. www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/12684146323/in/photos...
Notable features:
The excellent detail, and the fact that numerous fish were buried simultaneously (4 in this small section alone), indicates very rapid burial of the fish.
The sedimentary deposit from which this is a tiny sample, can be considered a fish graveyard, where literally hundreds of fish were overwhelmed by a catastrophic event, which buried them instantly in a substantial depth of sediment.
Under normal conditions of slow deposition of sediment, such a mass burial and remarkable preservation, would not occur. The evidence is that a great number of fish were suddenly inundated by a mass of sediment in turbulent water, and buried alive.
The creation of intact fossils almost always requires rapid burial in a substantial depth of sediment. This has to take place before they can be damaged or destroyed by predation and/or decomposition. If you find a well preserved or intact fossil, it is most unlikely to have been buried gradually. Although that is the way it is often presented in descriptions of how fossils are formed.
Rapid formation of strata, recent evidence:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Evolutionists claim that: because soft parts of fossils are rare, the fossil record is incomplete, and that is why there are so few fossils with intermediate features, required for evolution. But, as can be seen in this example, soft parts of the fish, such as the fins and tail are very well preserved.
Although it would be claimed, by evolutionists, that such fossils are many millions of years old, these fossilised fish are identical to any regular fish alive today. Which means they have not evolved at all in tens of millions of years.
The life span of such small fish would be very short. There would be many billions of generations of such fish in even one million years. That no evolution at all has taken place throughout all the vast number of generations of fish that there would have been in tens of millions of years, is a serious problem for evolutionists.
However this is not exceptional, it is the general rule.
For example, Insects found in amber, which is claimed to be many millions of years old, are the same as insects alive today. An insect's life span is even shorter than most fish, and the number of generations in a million years even greater. But still no sign of any evolutionary change. So-called living fossils, such as the Horseshoe Crab also remain un-evolved, some of them after an alleged hundred or more million years, What many people don't know is ... that whenever a creature/plant alive today is found as a fossil, there is no major difference between the fossil version and the present one. In other words, no evidence of any evolutionary change.
See fossil of a crab, also unchanged after many millions of years:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/12702046604/in/set-72...
There is no credible mechanism for progressive evolution.
Progressive, macro evolution is based on the ludicrous idea that random mutations (accidental, genetic, copying mistakes) selected by natural selection, can provide constructive, genetic information capable of creating entirely new features, structures, organs, and biological systems. Macro evolution is based on a belief in a complete progression from microbes to man through millions of random, genetic copying MISTAKES. There is no evidence for it whatsoever, it is unscientific nonsense which defies logic.
Micro-evolution is simply the small changes which take place, through natural selection or selective breeding, but only within the strict limits of the built-in variability of the existing gene pool. Any changes outside the extent of the existing gene pool requires a credible mechanism for the creation of new, constructive, genetic information, that is what is essential for macro evolution. Micro evolution does not involve or require the creation of any new, genetic information. So micro evolution and macro evolution are entirely different. There is no connection between them at all.
Macro evolution is the ridiculous idea that everything in the genome of humans and every living thing past and present (apart from the original genetic information in the very first living cell) is the result of genetic copying mistakes. mutations ... of mutations .... of mutations.... of mutations .... etc. etc.
In other words, Neo-Darwinism proposes that the complete genome (every scrap of genetic information in the DNA) of every living thing that has ever lived was created by a series ... of mistakes ... of mistakes .... of mistakes .... of mistakes etc. etc.
If we look at the whole picture we soon realise that what is actually being proposed by evolutionists is that, apart from the original information in the first living cell: every additional scrap of genetic information for all - features, structures, systems and processes that exist, or have ever existed in living things, such as:
skin, bones, bone joints, shells, flowers, leaves, wings, scales, muscles, fur, hair, teeth, claws, toe and finger nails, horns, beaks, nervous systems, blood, blood vessels, brains, lungs, hearts, digestive systems, vascular systems, liver, kidneys, pancreas, bowels, immune systems, senses, eyes, ears, sex organs, sexual reproduction, sperm, eggs, pollen, the process of metamorphosis, marsupial pouches, marsupial embryo migration, mammary glands, hormone production, melanin etc. .... have been created from scratch, by an incredibly long series of small, accumulated mistakes ... mistake - upon mistake - upon mistake - upon mistake - etc. etc.
If you believe that ... you will believe anything.
Conclusion: progressive, microbes-to-man is impossible - there is no credible mechanism to produce all the new, genetic information which is essential for that to take place.
The evolution story is a fairy tale.
Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...