Home » Cambrian explosion, Culture, Darwinism, News » Ann Coulter on the dog that ate Darwin’s fossils

Ann Coulter on the dog that ate Darwin’s fossils

In the mess that preceded the Cambrian explosion. Which is why they’re not there. Okay?

In “Liberals’ View of Darwin Unable to Evolve” (Human Events, August 31, 2011), Coulter riffs,

Any evidence contradicting the primitive religion of Darwinism — including, for example, the entire fossil record — they explain away with non-scientific excuses like “the dog ate our fossils.”

Jan Bergstrom, a paleontologist who examined the Chinese fossils, said the Cambrian Period was not “evolution,” it was “a revolution.”

So the Darwiniacs pretended they missed the newspaper that day.

Intelligent design scientists look at the evidence and develop their theories; Darwinists start with a theory and then rearrange the evidence.

These aren’t scientists. They are religious fanatics for whom evolution must be true so that they can explain to themselves why they are here, without God. (It’s an accident!)

Any evidence contradicting the primitive religion of Darwinism — including, for example, the entire fossil record — they explain away with non-scientific excuses like “the dog ate our fossils.”

Put another way, if the Cambrian is not a problem for Darwinism, Darwinism is not science. All real theories have problems, but Darwinism, like any cult, never has any problems – because evidence always takes second place to cult beliefs.

Darwin’s Dilemma explains:

See also: California Science Center answerable for canning non-Darwin film.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

52 Responses to Ann Coulter on the dog that ate Darwin’s fossils

  1. Ann Coulter wields words and common sense like a sword to cut through the darwinists’ b.s. Rock on, Ann!!

  2. You’re going to post stuff like this and then claim that ID isn’t creationism? Good luck with that, this is lowbrow antievolutionism on the level of the bad old days of the Bible-Science Newsletter.

  3. Let’s get this right, shall we?

    The creationists were at one time the most vocal anti-Darwinists. Now, however, it’s not just the creationists who doubt Darwin. You seem to be echoing the mantra that if it’s anti-Darwin, it’s creationism. Please try to get it right.

  4. Nick,

    Don’t get your panties in a knot just because people are pointing out major flws in your position.

  5. The only person right in the OP is Bergstrom. The rest is Ann Coulter, a know-nothing about all things science, SAYING things.

    The Cambrian explosion WAS a revolution. That’s when oxygen levels in the ocean finally got high enough so calcium would precipitate out of sea water. Which means that for the first time in history, animals could have teeth, shells and eventually bones.

    Suddenly, any predator that managed to precipitate some calcium on its mouth could kill and eat ANYTHING! And any prey that coated itself with calcium was immune to everything else. You could have a lousy design and still survive and leave lots of descendents – until everybody had teeth / shells / bones and then the great shakeout started as the weird and inefficient designs got clobbered.

    And while all this was happening, those brand new teeth shells and bones would fossilize – something that the old soft plants and animals almost never did and suddenly we had a fossil record.

    Now what is so amazing about the Cambrian Explosion?

    F/N According to Peter Ward and David Brownless in “Rare Earth” (a book that is featured on at least one ID web site) the earth may have also frozen over completely for millions of years and the Cambrian also marks the point where massive volcanism suddenly melted the world wide frozen ocean. Yet another reason why the Cambrian was a revolution.

  6. That’s David Brownlee and the ID web site is Mike Gene’s.

  7. In order for it to be science you need some way to test for this alleged revolution.

  8. any predator that managed to precipitate some calcium on its mouth could kill and eat ANYTHING! And any prey that coated itself with calcium was immune to everything else.

    That sounds easy. But I’d really like to see something precipitate some calcium on its mouth or coat itself with calcium. The devil is in the details.

  9. If you have ever debated a modern day Darwinist, you should know by now that they are not interested in fossils anymore. The fossil record does not support the gradualistic Darwinian theory of evolution. Darwinists these days are not interested in fossils, becuase it gives them alot of problems. Instead the Darwinists these day talk about “genes” only.

    If you want an honest evolutionist then look at the work of the French Zoologist Pierre-Paul Grassé he admitted that if evolution had occured in the past, we should be able to see it in the fossil record only.

  10. dmullenix, His name is DONALD Brownlee. As well, in a shining example of Darwinian imagination parading as hard science, dmullenix states:

    The Cambrian explosion WAS a revolution. That’s when oxygen levels in the ocean finally got high enough so calcium would precipitate out of sea water. Which means that for the first time in history, animals could have teeth, shells and eventually bones.

    Suddenly, any predator that managed to precipitate some calcium on its mouth could kill and eat ANYTHING! And any prey that coated itself with calcium was immune to everything else.

    The gaps in credible explanation, in this oft repeated Darwinian fairy tale are truly astonishing. Yet when looked at more soberly, instead of with just a eye for making up any evolutionary ‘just so story’ that we can imagine, we find that the most parsimonious explanation, by far, is that the primeval ‘toxic’ earth was slowly ‘terraformed’, over hundreds of millions of years, to finally allow the introduction of higher life forms at the Cambrian explosion:

    First and foremost, we now have evidence for photosynthetic life suddenly appearing on earth, as soon as water appeared on the earth, in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth.

    The Sudden Appearance Of Photosynthetic Life On Earth – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4262918

    Team Claims It Has Found Oldest Fossils By NICHOLAS WADE – August 2011
    Excerpt: Rocks older than 3.5 billion years have been so thoroughly cooked as to destroy all cellular structures, but chemical traces of life can still be detected. Chemicals indicative of life have been reported in rocks 3.5 billion years old in the Dresser Formation of Western Australia and, with less certainty, in rocks 3.8 billion years old in Greenland.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08......html?_r=1

    Earliest (Bacteria) fossils found in Australia, 3.4 bya
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....a-3-4-bya/

    Dr. Hugh Ross – Origin Of Life Paradox – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4012696

    Archaean Microfossils and the Implications for Intelligent Design – August 2011
    Excerpt: This dramatically limits the amount of time, and thus the probablistic resources, available to those who wish to invoke purely unguided and purposeless material processes to explain the origin of life.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....49921.html

    Could Impacts Jump-Start the Origin of Life? – Hugh Ross – article
    http://www.reasons.org/could-i.....rigin-life

    Late Heavy Bombardment – graph
    http://www.reasons.org/files/c.....8_0000.jpg

    Life – Its Sudden Origin and Extreme Complexity – Dr. Fazale Rana – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4287513

    The evidence scientists have discovered in the geologic record is stunning in its support of the anthropic hypothesis. The oldest sedimentary rocks on earth, known to science, originated underwater (and thus in relatively cool environs) 3.86 billion years ago. Those sediments, which are exposed at Isua in southwestern Greenland, also contain the earliest chemical evidence (fingerprint) of ‘photosynthetic’ life [Nov. 7, 1996, Nature]. This evidence had been fought by materialists since it is totally contrary to their evolutionary theory. Yet, Danish scientists were able to bring forth another line of geological evidence to substantiate the primary line of geological evidence for photo-synthetic life in the earth’s earliest sedimentary rocks.

    U-rich Archaean sea-floor sediments from Greenland – indications of +3700 Ma oxygenic photosynthesis (2003)
    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004E&PSL.217..237R

  11. ‘terraforming’ continued:

    Moreover, evidence for ‘sulfate reducing’ bacteria has been discovered alongside the evidence for photosynthetic bacteria:

    When Did Life First Appear on Earth? – Fazale Rana – December 2010
    Excerpt: The primary evidence for 3.8 billion-year-old life consists of carbonaceous deposits, such as graphite, found in rock formations in western Greenland. These deposits display an enrichment of the carbon-12 isotope. Other chemical signatures from these formations that have been interpreted as biological remnants include uranium/thorium fractionation and banded iron formations. Recently, a team from Australia argued that the dolomite in these formations also reflects biological activity, specifically that of sulfate-reducing bacteria.
    http://www.reasons.org/when-di.....pear-earth

    Thus we now have fairly conclusive evidence for bacterial life in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found by scientists on earth. The simplest photosynthetic life on earth is exceedingly complex, too complex to happen by accident even if the primeval oceans had been full of pre-biotic soup.

    The Miracle Of Photosynthesis – electron transport – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hj_WKgnL6MI

    Electron transport and ATP synthesis during photosynthesis – Illustration
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bo.....iggrp.1672

    There is actually a molecular motor, that surpasses man made motors in engineering parameters, that is integral to the photosynthetic process:

    Evolution vs ATP Synthase – Molecular Machine – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4012706

    The ATP Synthase Enzyme – an exquisite motor necessary for first life – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3KxU63gcF4

    The photosynthetic process is clearly a irreducible complex condition:

    “There is no question about photosynthesis being Irreducibly Complex. But it’s worse than that from an evolutionary perspective. There are 17 enzymes alone involved in the synthesis of chlorophyll. Are we to believe that all intermediates had selective value? Not when some of them form triplet states that have the same effect as free radicals like O2. In addition if chlorophyll evolved before antenna proteins, whose function is to bind chlorophyll, then chlorophyll would be toxic to cells. Yet the binding function explains the selective value of antenna proteins. Why would such proteins evolve prior to chlorophyll? and if they did not, how would cells survive chlorophyll until they did?” Uncommon Descent Blogger

    Evolutionary biology: Out of thin air John F. Allen & William Martin:
    The measure of the problem is here: “Oxygenetic photosynthesis involves about 100 proteins that are highly ordered within the photosynthetic membranes of the cell.”
    http://www.nature.com/nature/j.....5610a.html

    Of note: anoxygenic (without oxygen) photosynthesis is even more of a complex chemical pathway than oxygenic photosynthesis is:

    “Remarkably, the biosynthetic routes needed to make the key molecular component of anoxygenic photosynthesis are more complex than the pathways that produce the corresponding component required for the oxygenic form.”; – Fazale Rana
    http://wwwold.reasons.org/reso.....plex.shtml

    From 3.8 to .6 billion years ago photosynthetic bacteria, and to a lesser degree sulfate-reducing reducing bacteria, dominated the geologic and fossil record (that’s over 80% of the entire time life has existed on earth). The geologic and fossil record also reveals, during this time, a large portion of these very first bacterial life-forms lived in complex symbiotic, mutually beneficial, colonies called Stromatolites. Stromatolites are rock like structures the photo-synthetic bacteria built up over many years, much like coral reefs are slowly built up over many years by the tiny creatures called corals. Although Stromatolites are not nearly as widespread as they once were, they are still around today in a few sparse places like Shark’s Bay Australia.

    Michael Denton – Stromatolites Are Extremely Ancient – Privileged Planet – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4023098

    Ancient Microorganisms Helped Build 3.4-billion-year-old Stromatolite Rock Structures
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....141221.htm

  12. ‘terraforming’ continued;

    Both the oldest Stromatolite fossils, and the oldest bacterium fossils, found on earth demonstrate an extreme conservation of morphology which, very contrary to evolutionary thought, simply means they have not changed and look very similar to Stromatolites and bacteria of today.

    Odd Geometry of Bacteria May Provide New Way to Study Earth’s Oldest Fossils – May 2010
    Excerpt: Known as stromatolites, the layered rock formations are considered to be the oldest fossils on Earth.,,,That the spacing pattern corresponds to the mats’ metabolic period — and is also seen in ancient rocks — shows that the same basic physical processes of diffusion and competition seen today were happening billions of years ago,,,
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....152520.htm

    Everything new is old again: Photosynthesis from 3.3 billion years ago – July 2011
    Excerpt: The most direct evidence yet for ancient photosynthesis has been uncovered in a fossil of a matted carpet of microbes that lived on a beach 3.3 billion years ago.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....years-ago/

    AMBER: THE LOOKING GLASS INTO THE PAST:
    Excerpt: These (fossilized bacteria) cells are actually very similar to present day cyanobacteria. This is not only true for an isolated case but many living genera of cyanobacteria can be linked to fossil cyanobacteria. The detail noted in the fossils of this group gives indication of extreme conservation of morphology, more extreme than in other organisms.
    http://bcb705.blogspot.com/200.....st_23.html

    Static evolution: is pond scum the same now as billions of years ago?
    Excerpt: But what intrigues (paleo-biologist) J. William Schopf most is lack of change. Schopf was struck 30 years ago by the apparent similarities between some 1-billion-year-old fossils of blue-green bacteria and their modern microbial microbial. “They surprisingly looked exactly like modern species,” Schopf recalls. Now, after comparing data from throughout the world, Schopf and others have concluded that modern pond scum differs little from the ancient blue-greens. “This similarity in morphology is widespread among fossils of [varying] times,” says Schopf. As evidence, he cites the 3,000 such fossils found;
    http://www.thefreelibrary.com/.....a014909330

    The Paradox of the “Ancient” (250 Million Year Old) Bacterium Which Contains “Modern” Protein-Coding Genes:
    “Almost without exception, bacteria isolated from ancient material have proven to closely resemble modern bacteria at both morphological and molecular levels.” Heather Maughan*, C. William Birky Jr., Wayne L. Nicholson, William D. Rosenzweig§ and Russell H. Vreeland ;
    http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/...../19/9/1637

    Contrary to what materialism would expect, these very first photosynthetic bacteria found in the fossil record, and by chemical analysis of the geological record, are shown to have been preparing the earth for more advanced life to appear from the very start of their existence by producing the necessary oxygen for higher life-forms to exist, and by reducing the greenhouse gases of earth’s early atmosphere. Photosynthetic bacteria slowly removed the carbon dioxide, and built the oxygen up, in the earth’s atmosphere primarily by this following photosynthetic chemical reaction:

    6H2O + 6CO2 ———-> C6H12O6+ 6O2

    The above chemical equation translates as:

    Six molecules of water plus six molecules of carbon dioxide produce one molecule of sugar plus six molecules of oxygen.

    Interestingly, the gradual removal of greenhouse gases corresponded to the gradual 15% increase of light and heat coming from the sun during that time (Ross; Creation as Science). This ‘lucky’ correspondence of the slow increase of heat from the sun with the same perfectly timed slow removal of greenhouse gases from the earth’s atmosphere was necessary to keep the earth from cascading into either a ‘greenhouse earth’ or ‘snowball earth’.

    Why Didn’t Early Earth Freeze? The Mystery Deepens – April 2010
    Excerpt: The results were “very surprising,” Rosing says. As to the question of what kept the planet warm instead of CO2, he says his research points to two possibilities. First, Earth’s land masses were much smaller billions of years ago, meaning that the oceans, which generally are darker than continents, could absorb more of the sun’s heat. Second, because life was brand new, organisms were manufacturing little of the gases that help clouds form. So, more sunlight reached the surface.,, There are bound to be other factors, Rosing says. “I think that our paper is just one link in a long chain of further refinements of our understanding of the early Earth and of the dynamics of our planet.”
    http://news.sciencemag.org/sci.....e-the.html

    More interesting still, the byproducts of the complex biogeochemical processes involved in the oxygen production by these early bacteria are (red banded) iron formations, limestone, marble, gypsum, phosphates, sand, and to a lesser extent, coal, oil and natural gas (note; though some coal, oil and natural gas deposits are from this early era of bacterial life, most coal, oil and natural gas deposits originated on earth after the Cambrian explosion of higher life forms some 540 million years ago). The resources produced by these early photosynthetic bacteria are very useful, one could even say necessary, for the technologically advanced civilizations of today to exist.

    The following video is good for seeing just how far back the red banded iron formations really go (3.8 billion years ago). But be warned, Dr. Newman operates from a materialistic worldview and makes many unwarranted allusions of the ‘magical’ power of evolution to produce photosynthetic bacteria. Although to be fair, she does readily acknowledge the staggering level of complexity being dealt with in photosynthesis, as well as admitting that no one really knows how photosynthesis evolved.

    Exploring the deep connection between bacteria and rocks – Dianne Newman – MIT lecture video
    http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/496

    This following papers back up Dr. Newman’s assertion of extremely ancient oxygenic photosynthesis with other lines of evidence:

    Ancient Microbes Responsible for Breathing Life Into Ocean ‘Deserts’ – August 2010
    Excerpt: Brian Kendall and Ariel Anbar, together with colleagues at other institutions, show that “oxygen oases” in the surface ocean were sites of significant oxygen production long before the breathing gas began to accumulate in the atmosphere..,, What Kendall discovered was a unique relationship of high rhenium and low molybdenum enrichments in the samples from South Africa, pointing to the presence of dissolved oxygen on the seafloor itself.,,, “It was especially satisfying to see two different geochemical methods — rhenium and molybdenum abundances and Fe chemistry — independently tell the same story,” Kendall noted. Evidence that the atmosphere contained at most minute amounts of oxygen came from measurements of the relative abundances of sulfur (S) isotopes.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....113436.htm

    Breathing new life into Earth: New research shows evidence of early oxygen on our planet – August 2011
    Excerpt: Waldbauer and Summons surmise that oxygen production and consumption may have occurred in the oceans for hundreds of millions of years before the atmosphere saw even a trace of the gas. They say that in all likelihood, cyanobacteria, blue-green algae living at the ocean surface, evolved the ability to produce O2 via sunlight in a process known as oxygenic photosynthesis. But instead of building up in the oceans and then seeping into the atmosphere, O2 may have been rapidly consumed by early aerobic organisms. Large oceanic and atmospheric sinks, such as iron and sulfide spewing out of subsea volcanoes, likely consumed whatever O2 was left over.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....xygen.html

  13. ‘terraforming’ continued:

    These following articles explore some of the other complex geochemical processes that are also involved in the forming of the red banded iron, and other precious ore, formations on the ancient earth.

    Banded Rocks Reveal Early Earth Conditions, Changes
    Excerpt: Called banded iron formations or BIFs, these ancient rocks formed between 3.8 and 1.7 billion years ago at what was then the bottom of the ocean. The stripes represent alternating layers of silica-rich chert and iron-rich minerals like hematite and magnetite. First mined as a major iron source for modern industrialization, BIFs are also a rich source of information about the geochemical conditions that existed on Earth when the rocks were made.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....184428.htm

    Rich Ore Deposits Linked to Ancient Atmosphere – Nov. 2009
    Excerpt: Much of our planet’s mineral wealth was deposited billions of years ago when Earth’s chemical cycles were different from today’s.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....193640.htm

    Interestingly, while the photo-synthetic bacteria were reducing greenhouse gases and producing oxygen, and metal, and minerals, which would all be of benefit to modern man, ‘sulfate-reducing’ bacteria were also producing their own natural resources which would be very useful to modern man. Sulfate-reducing bacteria helped prepare the earth for advanced life by detoxifying the primeval earth and oceans of poisonous levels of heavy metals while depositing them as relatively inert metal ores. Metal ores which are very useful for modern man, as well as fairly easy for man to extract today (mercury, cadmium, zinc, cobalt, arsenic, chromate, tellurium and copper to name a few). To this day, sulfate-reducing bacteria maintain an essential minimal level of these heavy metals in the ecosystem which are high enough so as to be available to the biological systems of the higher life forms that need them yet low enough so as not to be poisonous to those very same higher life forms.

    Bacterial Heavy Metal Detoxification and Resistance Systems:
    Excerpt: Bacterial plasmids contain genetic determinants for resistance systems for Hg2+ (and organomercurials), Cd2+, AsO2, AsO43-, CrO4 2-, TeO3 2-, Cu2+, Ag+, Co2+, Pb2+, and other metals of environmental concern.,, Recombinant DNA analysis has been applied to mercury, cadmium, zinc, cobalt, arsenic, chromate, tellurium and copper resistance systems.
    http://www.springerlink.com/co.....04577v8t3/

    The role of bacteria in hydrogeochemistry, metal cycling and ore deposit formation:
    Textures of sulfide minerals formed by SRB (sulfate-reducing bacteria) during bioremediation (most notably pyrite and sphalerite) have textures reminiscent of those in certain sediment-hosted ores, supporting the concept that SRB may have been directly involved in forming ore minerals.
    http://www.goldschmidt2009.org...../A1161.pdf

    And on top of the fact that poisonous heavy metals on the primordial earth were brought into ‘life-enabling’ balance by complex biogeochemical processes, there was also an explosion of minerals on earth which were a result of that first life, as well as being a result of each subsequent ‘Big Bang of life’ there afterwards.

    The Creation of Minerals:
    Excerpt: Thanks to the way life was introduced on Earth, the early 250 mineral species have exploded to the present 4,300 known mineral species. And because of this abundance, humans possessed all the necessary mineral resources to easily launch and sustain global, high-technology civilization.
    http://www.reasons.org/The-Creation-of-Minerals

    “Today there are about 4,400 known minerals – more than two-thirds of which came into being only because of the way life changed the planet. Some of them were created exclusively by living organisms” – Bob Hazen – Smithsonian – Oct. 2010, pg. 54

    Dr. Ross points out that the extremely long amount of time it took to prepare a suitable place for humans to exist in this universe, for the relatively short period of time that we can exist on this planet, is actually a point of evidence that argues strongly for Theism:

    Anthropic Principle: A Precise Plan for Humanity By Hugh Ross
    Excerpt: Brandon Carter, the British mathematician who coined the term “anthropic principle” (1974), noted the strange inequity of a universe that spends about 15 billion years “preparing” for the existence of a creature that has the potential to survive no more than 10 million years (optimistically).,, Carter and (later) astrophysicists John Barrow and Frank Tipler demonstrated that the inequality exists for virtually any conceivable intelligent species under any conceivable life-support conditions. Roughly 15 billion years represents a minimum preparation time for advanced life: 11 billion toward formation of a stable planetary system, one with the right chemical and physical conditions for primitive life, and four billion more years toward preparation of a planet within that system, one richly layered with the biodeposits necessary for civilized intelligent life. Even this long time and convergence of “just right” conditions reflect miraculous efficiency.
    Moreover the physical and biological conditions necessary to support an intelligent civilized species do not last indefinitely. They are subject to continuous change: the Sun continues to brighten, Earth’s rotation period lengthens, Earth’s plate tectonic activity declines, and Earth’s atmospheric composition varies. In just 10 million years or less, Earth will lose its ability to sustain human life. In fact, this estimate of the human habitability time window may be grossly optimistic. In all likelihood, a nearby supernova eruption, a climatic perturbation, a social or environmental upheaval, or the genetic accumulation of negative mutations will doom the species to extinction sometime sooner than twenty thousand years from now.
    http://christiangodblog.blogsp.....chive.html

    Revelation 4:11
    “You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.”

  14. “lowbrow antievolutionism” not nearly as low as you go Nick – what nerve!

  15. 15

    File with:

    “The Dog Ate My Morals”,

    “The Dog Ate My Premises”

    and

    The Dog Ate My Principles”.

  16. Nick,

    You’re going to post stuff like this and then claim that Darwinism isn’t atheism?

    Good luck with that, this is lowbrow bigotry on the level of the bad old days of eugenics and the gulag.

  17. Are you saying that they didn’t precipitate calcium? The fossil record says they did – in spades.

  18. No, we’re very interested in fossils. It’s certainly not creationists or IDists who are digging them up and studying them. Darwin was puzzled by the lack of fossils before the Cambrian, but we know now that lack of oxygen kept teeth, shells and bones from forming and this prevented most pre-cambrian fossils. The only remaining puzzle was why individual species so often appear suddenly and Stephen J. Gould answered that with punctuated equilibrium. Changes get swamped out in large interbreeding groups, but if a small group gets isolated from the crowd then new genes quickly produce visible changes to the species. Once that new species grows to large enough numbers, they start leaving fossils and shazam, a new species is found.

    One way you can track the discovery of new transitional fossils is to watch web sites like this one. They tend to have major kerfuffles whenever a particularly good one is found, especially if it was exactly where and when evolutionary theory predicted it. Remember Tiktaalik? Right smack dab between plain old fish and the earliest tetrapods and right where it was supposed to be in age. Can anybody name a fossil that matches ID theory like that?

    You’re right that volutionists are fascinated by DNA. It mirrors evolution as revealed by the fossil record so well that it provides powerful additional evidence that evolution occurred.

  19. Thanks for the correction. I was relying on memory. And surprise! For once, I agree with you. “Terraforming” is exactly what happened. The earth wasn’t toxic at the time, though – there was abundant life and it was doing just fine until the terraforming bacteria started to release oxygen – which WAS a highly toxic substance to the living creatures at that time. Oxygen affected them about the same way fluorine or chlorine affects modern life. It just tore them right up. Eventually, of course, organisms evolved ways to protect themselves against oxygen and today most non-photosynthesizing organisms get the energy they need to be multi-cellular by oxidizing their food. Bless those little bacteria. Neither we nor the fossil record would exist without them.

  20. Yes, Dmullenix, we remember Tiktaalik. Why would we forget?

    Don’t you see that the “sudden appearance” of new body plans and species is completely contrary to the predictions of the theory of evolution? Punctuated equilibrium is merely an exercise in moving the goal posts. If you haven’t watched it yet, take the time to view “Darwin’s Dilemma” you can see it online, for free, and it will explain to you the scale of the problem that you think can be covered up by entirely unsupported appeals to “punctuated equilibrium”.

  21. dmullenix states:

    Thanks for the correction. I was relying on memory.

    Yet it appears dmullenix’s is as faulty checking his imagination as he is in checking his memory for He then goes on to state:

    Oxygen affected them about the same way fluorine or chlorine affects modern life. It just tore them right up.

    Yet the little fact dmullenix leaves out of his imaginative (without substance) ‘excuse’ for neo-Darwinism is that higher life-forms cannot exist without oxygen, for oxygen reactions, on the ‘molecular-machine’ scale, provides the necessary energy for vastly increased metabolism of higher lifeforms, even though on the molecular scale of ‘free floating’ organic molecules, Oxygen is a very ‘thermodynamic obeying’, one might even say ‘poisonous’, element since Oxygen quickly reacts with such free floating organic molecules to ‘rip them apart’ to their ‘simpler’ thermodynamically stable form;

    notes:

    Cellular respiration
    Excerpt: Aerobic respiration requires oxygen in order to generate energy (ATP).
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_respiration

    ‘human adults synthesize up to 75 kg (165 lbs.) of ATP each day under resting conditions and need a lot more to keep pace with energy needs during strenuous exercise or work.’

    Powering the Cell: Mitochondria – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrS2uROUjK4

    Your Rotary Engines Are Arranged in Factories – August 2011
    Excerpt: As if ATP synthase was not amazing enough, a team of scientists in Germany now tells us they are arranged in rows with other equipment to optimize performance. From electron micrographs of intact mitochondria, they were able to detect the rotary engines of ATP synthase and other parts of the respiratory chain. Their diagram in an open-source paper in PNAS looks for all the world like a factory.
    http://crev.info/content/11081....._factories

    World’s Smallest Rotary Engine Highlighted
    Excerpt: The match implies 100% efficiency for the conversion of the Gibbs free energy of ATP hydrolysis into mechanical work performed on the elastically strained filament. This is not surprising given the approximate thermodynamic equilibrium of the enzyme (long)-filament construct. It is more informative to say that there is no slip between ATP hydrolysis in F1 and rotation in FO under the given conditions.
    http://www.creationsafaris.com.....#20090525a

    Further notes that dmullenix will probably ignore:

    Evolution vs ATP Synthase – Molecular Machine – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4012706

    The ATP Synthase Enzyme – exquisite motor necessary for first life – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3KxU63gcF4

    ATP synthase: majestic molecular machine made by a mastermind – November 2010
    http://creation.com/atp-synthase

    Fine-Tuning Found in Life’s Rotary Engine – August 2010
    Excerpt: ATP synthases are among the most abundant and important proteins in living cells. These rotating nano-machines produce the central chemical form of cellular energy currency, ATP (adenosine triphosphate), which is used to meet the energy needs of cells. For example, human adults synthesize up to 75 kg (165 lbs.) of ATP each day under resting conditions and need a lot more to keep pace with energy needs during strenuous exercise or work. The turbine of the ATP synthase is the rotor element, called the c-ring. This ring is 63 A [Angstroms] in diameter (6.3 nm, or 6.3 millionths of a millimeter) and completes over 500 rotations per second during ATP production. 500 rotations per second amounts to, in the terminology of more familiar motors, some 30,000 RPM. Since three ATP molecules are synthesized for each rotation, one of these motors can generate just short of 100,000 ATP per minute – and your body has quadrillions of them working all your life, even in your sleep.
    http://www.creationsafaris.com.....#20100804a

    Cells Know Their Physics – October 2010
    Excerpt: the Complex I macromolecular complex. This machine employs a railroad-like piston and coupling-rod mechanism (07/07/2010, 09/22/2010) to create the proton gradient that drives ATP synthesis.“It is remarkable that the most fundamental energy-generating machinery in cells is based on the wave properties of electrons, which allow for an efficient transport of energy-carrying particles along the chain of redox cofactors toward molecular oxygen via quantum tunneling as demonstrated by this study.”
    http://www.creationsafaris.com.....#20101027a

    etc.. etc..

  22. BA, thanks for your patience and expertise in dealing with people who, when caught with their hand in the cookie jar, besmeared with chocolate, say “what cookie jar?” :-)

  23. No problem TG. I really wouldn’t call it expertise so much as I would call it holding Darwinists accountable to even a minimal amount of scientific plausibility, which or course, even a minimal level of scientific integrity, is unable to be maintained by them.

  24. Footnote”

    On The Non-Evidence For The Endosymbiotic Origin Of The Mitochondria – JonathanM – March 2011
    Conclusion: To conclude, while one can find examples of similarity between eukaryotic mitochondria and bacterial cells, other cases also reveal stark differences. In addition, the sheer lack of a mechanistic basis for mitochondrial endosymbiotic assimilation ought to — at the very least — cause us to raise an eyebrow and expect some fairly spectacular evidence for the claim being made. At present, however, such evidence does not exist — and justifiably gives one pause for scepticism.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ochondria/

  25. dmullenix,

    I’m pointing out how easy you make it sound.

    That’s when oxygen levels in the ocean finally got high enough so calcium would precipitate out of sea water. Which means that for the first time in history, animals could have teeth, shells and eventually bones.

    Calcium does not enable animals to have teeth, shells, or bones, even though those things require it. That’s a bit like saying, “We have lots of sand, which means that now we can have big-screen plasma TVs.” Sand does not explain TVs, amino acids do not explain life, and calcium does not explain teeth or shells.

  26. dmullenix,

    I’m pointing out how easy you make it sound.

    That’s when oxygen levels in the ocean finally got high enough so calcium would precipitate out of sea water. Which means that for the first time in history, animals could have teeth, shells and eventually bones.

    Calcium does not enable animals to have teeth, shells, or bones, even though those things require it. That’s a bit like saying, “We have lots of sand, which means that now we can have big-screen plasma TVs.” Sand does not explain TVs, amino acids do not explain life, and calcium does not explain teeth or shells.

  27. further note to ‘terraforming’; It is interesting to point out how extremely finely-tuned bacterial life is to the needs of higher life forms which are above them:

    The Life and Death of Oxygen – 2008
    Excerpt: “The balance between burial of organic matter and its oxidation appears to have been tightly controlled over the past 500 million years.” “The presence of O2 in the atmosphere requires an imbalance between oxygenic photosynthesis and aerobic respiration on time scales of millions of years hence, to generate an oxidized atmosphere, more organic matter must be buried (by tectonic activity) than respired.” – Paul Falkowski
    http://www.creationsafaris.com.....#20081024a

    Microbial life can easily live without us; we, however, cannot survive without the global catalysis and environmental transformations it provides. – Paul G. Falkowski – Professor Geological Sciences – Rutgers
    http://www.bioinf.uni-leipzig......g_2008.pdf

    Just how crucial, and finely tuned, the nitrogen cycle is is revealed by this following study:

    Engineering and Science Magazine – Caltech – March 2010
    Excerpt: “Without these microbes, the planet would run out of biologically available nitrogen in less than a month,” Realizations like this are stimulating a flourishing field of “geobiology” – the study of relationships between life and the earth. One member of the Caltech team commented, “If all bacteria and archaea just stopped functioning, life on Earth would come to an abrupt halt.” Microbes are key players in earth’s nutrient cycles. Dr. Orphan added, “…every fifth breath you take, thank a microbe.”
    http://www.creationsafaris.com.....#20100316a

    Planet’s Nitrogen Cycle Overturned – Oct. 2009
    Excerpt: “Ammonia is a waste product that can be toxic to animals.,,, archaea can scavenge nitrogen-containing ammonia in the most barren environments of the deep sea, solving a long-running mystery of how the microorganisms can survive in that environment. Archaea therefore not only play a role, but are central to the planetary nitrogen cycles on which all life depends.,,,the organism can survive on a mere whiff of ammonia – 10 nanomolar concentration, equivalent to a teaspoon of ammonia salt in 10 million gallons of water.”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....132656.htm

  28. So you don’t see gradualism in the single fossil we’ve found of Tiktaalik? Well, guess evolution is doomed. Ditto with finding footprints of another tetrapod a few million years earlier. So much for the so-called “bush” those crazy evolutionists talk about.

  29. Why I tend to skip over your posts:

    “Yet it appears dmullenix’s is as faulty checking his imagination as he is in checking his memory for He then goes on to state:

    “Oxygen affected them about the same way fluorine or chlorine affects modern life. It just tore them right up.”

    Yet the little fact dmullenix leaves out of his imaginative (without substance) ‘excuse’ for neo-Darwinism is that higher life-forms cannot exist without oxygen, for oxygen reactions, on the ‘molecular-machine’ scale – blah blah blah”

    What I wrote right after that: “Eventually, of course, organisms evolved ways to protect themselves against oxygen and today most non-photosynthesizing organisms get the energy they need to be multi-cellular by oxidizing their food. Bless those little bacteria. Neither we nor the fossil record would exist without them.”

  30. Dmullenix, clearly you don’t get it with Tiktaalik either so let me spell it out for you: it’s not a missing link.

    Did you watch “Darwin’s Dilemma” yet?

  31. dmullenix, why I tend to consider you to be disingenuous: you state:

    ‘Eventually, of course, organisms evolved ways to protect themselves against oxygen’

    Other than your blind faith in the atheistic materialism of Darwinism, do you have any hard ‘demonstrated’ scientific proof whatsoever??? Perhaps you would like to cite the peer-reviewed papers that refute Doug Axe’s work???

  32. Chris, have you read the actual papers on Tiktaalik?

    And why are you talking about the “sudden appearance of new body plans” in this context? And what do you mean by “Punctuated equilibrium is merely an exercise in moving the goalposts”?

    It’s true that “I don’t get it” :) Tiktaaliks were a spectacularly successful prediction of Darwinian theory, right down to the place in which they were found! It seems to me that those the authors of those articles you linked to are the ones who “don’t get it”!

    I’m no palaeontologist, but “I know a man who can” as the AA ad used to say, actually two (Per Ahlberg and Martin Brazeau)- let me know if you want me to ask them anything :)

  33. Darwinism isn’t atheism, Gil.

  34. In other words, religion is compatible with modern evolutionary biology (and indeed all of modern science) if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism.1

    The frequently made assertion that modern biology and the assumptions of the Judaeo-Christian tradition are fully compatible is false.2

    Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.

    Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.3

    As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.4

    click here for a hint:

    ‘Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.’ 5

    Thank you for your honesty Will Provine.

    1- Academe January 1987 pp.51-52 †

    2-Evolutionary Progress (1988) p. 65 †

    3- “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life” 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address 1 2 †

    4- No Free Will (1999) p.123

    5- Provine, W.B., Origins Research 16(1), p.9, 1994.

  35. Umm Tiktaalik was not a successful prediction of anything as it was found in the wrong place and wrong strata- that is according to Neil Shubin’s nook “Your Inner Fish”.

    Ya see Shubin said he was looking where he did because there wasn’t any evidence of tetrapods before 385 million years ago but there was evidence for tetrapods 365 mya- therefor it made scientific sense to look between 365-385 mya. Then along comes a new find that pushes tetrapods back to before 390 mya and that renders Tiktaalik as a mosaic rather than a transition.

  36. Cut to the chase Elizabeth: are you saying Tiktaalik is a missing link or not. Because if you are, you’re wrong. If you’re not, then you’re just wasting my time. Again.

  37. Joseph, that’s sort of funny :)

    How could it have been found “in the wrong place and wrong strata” when they, um, actually found it?

    In the place and strata they predicted they would?

    No, the Zachalmie find doesn’t render Tiktaalik as a mosaic. I can link you to an interesting discussion about that if you like.

  38. Cut to the chase Elizabeth: are you saying Tiktaalik is a missing link or not.

    First of all, Chris, I’m rejecting the term “missing link”. For a start, if you find it, it isn’t missing, and for a second, it depends what you mean by “link”. Tiktaaliks were almost certainly not ancestral to anything that survives today, and may even have gone extinct before evolving into anything much like Tiktaaliks. But they are “transitional” in the sense that they can be fitted very beautifully into the phylogeny of fish-tetrapods.

    Here is part of a discussion with Per Ahlberg on Talk Rational – Dean is quoting an earlier post of Per’s here:

    http://talkrational.org/showth.....post937654

    And Per replies here:

    http://talkrational.org/showth.....post938394

    An interesting relevant post from Per on another thread is here:

    http://talkrational.org/showth.....post691409

    Because if you are, you’re wrong. If you’re not, then you’re just wasting my time. Again.

    When have I wasted your time, Chris? Your time is your own – you are free to respond to me or ignore me as you wish.

    Cheers

    Lizzie

  39. Tiktaaliks were almost certainly not ancestral to anything that survives today, and may even have gone extinct before evolving into anything much like Tiktaaliks.

    Thank-you, I’ll take that as a “No, Tiktaalik is not a missing link”.

  40. Elizabeth Liddle:

    How could it have been found “in the wrong place and wrong strata” when they, um, actually found it?

    Again according to Neil Shubin himself:

    Let’s return to our problem of how to find relatives of the first fish to walk on land. In our grouping scheme, these creatures are somewhere between the “Everythungs” and the “Everythings with limbs”. Map this to what we know of the rocks, and there is strong geological evidence that the period from 380 million to 365 million years ago is the critical time. The younger rocks in that range, those about 360 million years old, include diverse kinds of fossilized animals that we would recognize as amphibians or reptiles. My colleague Jenny Clark at Cambridge University and others have uncovered amphibians from rocks in Greenland that are about 365 million years old. With their necks, their ears, and their four legs, they do not look like fish. But in rocks that are about 385 million years old, we find whole fish that look like, well, fish. They have fins. conical heads, and scales; and they have no necks. Given this, it is probably no great surprise that we should focus on rocks about 375 million years old to find evidence of the transition between fish and land-living animals.- Neil Subin in “Your Inner Fish” pages 9-10

    The new data has tetrapods appearing over 390 million years ago, meaning the 365 million year end of bracket now gets moved to that 390+ million year mark. IOW his brackets were wrong because the data he used to form them was wrong.

    Without any data that puts Tiktaalik before the arrival of tetrapods, and no one knows when that was, Tiktaalik was NOT what they were looking for- that is if you listen to what they say.

  41. 1- Saying Tiktaalik is a transitional is question-begging

    2- According to Shubin in “Your Inner Fish” Tiktaalik was not what he was looking for- see comment 7 below

    to Chris- they found it so it ain’t missing. But as far as anyone knows it was a stand-alone population, ie not diverged from anything.

  42. Hi Joseph,

    Missing links, in the widest sense of the term, are supposed to provide the clinching evolutionary connection between otherwise discontinuous species, families, classes, etc. They’re all the fossils that Darwin predicted would be found if his theory was true, but that no-one ever did find. Missing links are yet another failed evolutionist prediction.

    Whatever they found in Tiktaalik, it was certainly not a missing link.

  43. I think you aren’t listening to what they say, Joseph :)

    For a start, think about what you are saying with those “brackets”. Clearly the earliest tetrapods must predate any extant tetrapods. So if there are amphibians dating from 365 mya, then the earliest tetrapods must be older than that. Shubin and colleagues figured out that there should be tetrapods at least 15 million years older than that, and, from the places they would have lived, where they were likely to be fossilised, and where that strata would be near the surface. And they got it absolutely right – they found tetrapods with just the right transitional features in those exact rocks.

    Finding earlier tetropods doesn’t infirm that prediction at all – as it couldn’t really, seeing as the prediction came true and they found them! But finding that group of transitional tetrapods certainly doesn’t rule out earlier tetrapods. It’s how the features fit into the systematics that matters. As Martin Brazeau pointed out:

    Before a fossil can be declared “intermediate” between anything and anything else, its relationships must be known. A fossil can do one of two things: fit into an existing classification framework without alteration, or fit into a classification forcing all or partial alteration. Ironically, transitional fossils are often the least interesting fossils from a systematic standpoint because they rarely alter existing schemes of relationship. Rather, they tend to fit neatly into them and cause few or no problems. Tiktaalik is one of those fossils.

  44. Elizabeth Liddle:

    For a start, think about what you are saying with those “brackets”.

    I have.

    Clearly the earliest tetrapods must predate any extant tetrapods.

    They must post-date the transition.

    So if there are amphibians dating from 365 mya, then the earliest tetrapods must be older than that.

    Not if those are the earliest, which is what Shubin wrongly thought.

    Shubin and colleagues figured out that there should be tetrapods at least 15 million years older than that, and, from the places they would have lived, where they were likely to be fossilised, and where that strata would be near the surface.

    Geez Liz- they were looking for the TRANSITION not a tetrapod. And according to the quote I provided you are totally wrong.

    Also calls for intermediate characteristics is just a call on our classification scheme- meaning it ain’t as neat as we like to think.

    But anyway I will go with what Shubin wrote- why he was looking where he did- ya see there isn’t anything in the theory of evolution that states transitional forms will remain around millions of years after the transition took place. HOWEVER, as Shubin pointed out, the place to look for evidence of the transition is BETWEEN two points- one being where only one point is, ie fish and the other where tetrapods existed.

  45. Elizabeth,

    The fossil record should show-> fish-> transitions to tetrapods-> tetrapods

    Right now it shows fish-> tetrapods-> transition to tetrapods

    Is that the successful prediction you are talking about?

  46. No, it doesn’t show that. It shows that tetrapods are descended from fish, and that the earliest descendents included a population of tiktaaliks, in one region, which is now Northern Canada, and another population, somewhat earlier, in what is now Poland.

  47. or rather from fish-like ancestors of modern fish and tetrapods.

  48. The fossil record shows fish-> tetrapods-> fishapods. Tiktaalik has not been found in strata predating tetrapods.

    And again you are question-begging- the fossil record does not show tetrapods are descended from fish. Only genetics can do that and so far there isn’t any genetic evidence that demonstrates the changes required are even possible via Darwinian processes.

  49. Cladistics can be done with both fossil evidence and genetic evidence.

    Joseph, your argument seems to be based on the fallacy that there is a single line of “ascent” in which each population is some kind of “improvement” on the previous. That is not the way even Darwin conceived it, and certainly not the modern biological model. Take a look at the phylogenies in this post:

    http://talkrational.org/showth.....post937654

    Not all populations undergo the same adaptations.

  50. Cladistics is based on synamorphies, ie a common design. There still isn’t any genetic evidence that demonstrates the changes required are even possble.

    My argument is based on what Shubin wrote in his book. My argument does not depend on any single line of descent, just logic and reason- in order for something to be a transition it has to be between the two points- that is the very definition of the word.

    Also if Shubin had the data from Poland he would not have looked where he did.

  51. Well, it isn’t the definition of transition when it comes to evolution. In fact it’s not a word with a precise definition even – some people will say that all organisms that leave offspring are “transitional”.

    And if Shubin had hadn’t looked where he did, he wouldn’t have found Tiktaaliks. Now that we have the data from Poland, there’s reason to look for Tiktaaliks in rather earlier strata as well.

    Oh, and “synamorphy” doesn’t mean “common design”. It means a “shared trait”. You don’t need genetics to determine traits, and in fact not all genetic sequences have phenotypic effects, i.e. confer traits. Some of the most interesting ones don’t.

  52. Elizabeth Liddle:

    Well, it isn’t the definition of transition when it comes to evolution.

    So evolution needs to rewrite definitions to suit its needs? Beyond pathetic.

    Oh, and “synamorphy” doesn’t mean “common design”. It means a “shared trait”.

    Right and a shered trait is a common design.

    You don’t need genetics to determine traits,

    Traits are determined by genes.

    and in fact not all genetic sequences have phenotypic effects,

    Yes I know.

    And there STILL isn’t any genetic evidence that demonstrates the changes required are even possible.

Leave a Reply