Home » Darwinism » Coffee!! But the fake past was so much more FUN!!

Coffee!! But the fake past was so much more FUN!!

In Science , we read:

Altering the Past: China’s Faked Fossils Problem

Richard Stone

Specialists and collectors around the world have long decried the flood of sham fossils pouring out of China. But Science has learned that many composites and fakes are now finding their way into Chinese museums, especially local museums. One paleontologist estimates that more than 80% of marine reptile specimens now on display in Chinese museums have been “altered or artificially combined to varying degrees.” One consequence of the fakery is an erosion of trust in museums, which are supposed to enlighten—not con—the public. Scholars, too, pay a price: They waste time sifting authentic specimens from counterfeit chaff. And a genuine blockbuster fossil can be destroyed by attempts to enhance its appeal. (Caution: Subscriber wall)

Besides which, the past can be faked to support whatever thesis an establishment likes …

And an erosion of trust in museums may be long overdue. As Michael Ruse has noted*,

Evolution after Darwin had set itself up to be something more than science. It was a popular science, the science of the marketplace and the museum, and it was a religion—whether this be purely secular or blended in with a form of liberal Christianity.

*For an informative account of the role of museums in the spread of evolution as
a religion, see Michael Ruse, The Evolution Wars: A Guide to the Debates (Santa Barbara,
CA: ABC-CLIO, 2000), pp. 103–05. For his own ambivalent view, see pp. 113–14.

Specific examples of fraudulent artifacts of Darwin piety enshrined in museums are welcome in the Combox below.

Photo: Piltdown Man, Creative Commons license.

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

11 Responses to Coffee!! But the fake past was so much more FUN!!

  1. I remember about 10 to 12 years ago National Geographic was burned big time by a faked ‘dino-bird’ fossil from China that they had paid a handsome price for. The fossil had been made from two different fossils. Yet National Geographic bought it hook, line, and sinker, that it was a genuine transitional fossil. They had a full lay out spread 10 or 20 pages in length. When the fossil was allowed to be examined by more discretionary minds and it was found to be a fake, the best National Geographic could muster for a retraction was a tiny few sentences of fine print, that you had to scour the magazine for, in the next issue. Yet for posterity the deception lives on every time a child reads that fallacious article without knowing the story behind it.

  2. As I’ve asked before: to what extent does this problem affect the Chengjiang Cambrian finds?

  3. Hello bornagain77,

    The article in National Geographic (November 1999) was ten pages long, but it was on feathered dinosaurs, and discussed four new species. The fake, Archaeoraptor, was just one of the species. The article had a double page photo and about a page of information on the Archaeoraptor fossil. Scientists were unhappy about the article and they were the ones who proved the tail was taken from another fossil.

    A few months later, in March 2000, National Geographic published a letter from a Chinese paleontologist stating that the fossil was a mix of both bird and dinosaur bones, and National Geographic noted that CT scans by other researchers confirmed it was a composite. In October 2000 National Geographic published a five-page article discussing the results of investigations into the Archaeoraptor fake.

    However, all’s well that ends well. The fossil that the tail came from turned out to be the smallest dinosaur yet discovered, and was named Microraptor. Since then several dozen specimens of Microraptor have been found – a number show feathers on both the wings and the back legs, and at the end of the tail.

  4. leenibus, Oh what a tangled web we weave,,,,

    There is no evidence for another favorite evolutionary myth that birds evolved from dinosaurs, as this following video and these articles clearly point out:

    Birds: Designed or Evolved? – Prof. Andy McIntosh – video
    http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/birds.xml

    “Feathers give no indication that they ever needed improvement. In fact, the “earliest known fossil feather is so modern-looking as to be indistinguishable from the feathers of birds flying today.”
    Yale University’s Manual of Ornithology—Avian Structure and Function

    “The first and most complete fossil of archaeopteryx, found in 1855, was misidentified as a flying pterodacylus for 115 years. The newest finding, though, demonstrates that our understanding of even well-studied fossils like archaeopteryx — scrutinized, measured, modeled for 150 years — can still be upended.”
    Bye Bye Birdie: Famed Fossil Loses Avian Perch – Oct. 2009

    “The whole notion of feathered dinosaurs is a myth that has been created by ideologues bent on perpetuating the birds-are-dinosaurs theory in the face of all contrary evidence”
    Storrs Olson, the curator of birds at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History

    The Archaeoraptor Fraud of National Geographic Magazine (In 1999)
    Excerpt: “The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties in their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age—the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion.”
    Storrs Olson
    http://www.bible.ca/tracks/arc.....n-bird.htm

    Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-Bird Links – June 2009
    Excerpt: “one of the primary reasons many scientists kept pointing to birds as having descended from dinosaurs was similarities in their lungs,“ Ruben said. “However, theropod dinosaurs had a moving femur and therefore could not have had a lung that worked like that in birds. Their abdominal air sac, if they had one, would have collapsed. That undercuts a critical piece of supporting evidence for the dinosaur-bird link,,, “The findings add to a growing body of evidence in the past two decades that challenge some of the most widely-held beliefs about animal evolution.” —-”For one thing, birds are found (many millions of years) earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs they are supposed to have descended from,” Ruben said. “That’s a pretty serious problem,”…
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....092055.htm

    Anchiornis: Foot Feathers Confuse Bird Evolution Story:
    Excerpt: It would seem that going from four wings to two wings represents devolution, not evolution.
    http://www.creationsafaris.com.....#20091001a

    Dinosaurs (D)Evolved from Birds – Feb. 2010
    “The weight of the evidence is now suggesting that not only did birds not descend from dinosaurs,” John Ruben of OSU said, “but that some species now believed to be dinosaurs may have descended from birds.”
    http://www.creationsafaris.com.....#20100209b

    Dino-Feather Story Gets Fluffier – May 2010
    http://www.creationsafaris.com.....#20100501a

    Feathered Dinosaurs or Flightless Birds? – Casey Luskin – May 2010 – audio
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....9_28-07_00

    The earliest known pelican reveals 30 million years of evolutionary stasis in beak morphology – June 2010
    Abstract: The feeding apparatus of Paleogene birds is rarely well-preserved. Here, we describe the earliest known pelican (early Oligocene, Luberon, southeastern France), with its almost complete beak. Morphologically identical to modern pelicans, the new fossil already shows several advanced features unique to extant species of the genus Pelecanus. It probably belongs to the lineage ancestral to all or some of these pelican species. This fossil reveals a remarkable evolutionary stasis in the morphology of such an advanced avian feeding apparatus through ca. 30 million years.
    http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.....liest_know

    The following article is interesting for it points out a truly amazing design feature in the beaks of birds that allows some birds to precisely navigate as they migrate extremely long distances:

    Natural ‘Magnetometer’ in Upper Beak of Birds – Feb. 2010
    Excerpt: “Most probably each of these more than 500 dendrites encodes only one direction of the magnetic field,”,,, “These manifold data are processed to the brain of the bird and here – recomposed – serve as a basis for a magnetic map, which facilitates the spatial orientation.”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....101419.htm

  5. Hello bornagain77,

    Interesting see that you sit poised and alert in front of your computer, ready to instantly dump an avalanche of cut-and-paste items from your extensive quote mine files and creationist sources (and I thought ID wasn’t supposed to be a stealth version of creationism). You do need to be careful though.

    The first of your quotes I checked was:
    “The first and most complete fossil of archaeopteryx, found in 1855, was misidentified as a flying pterodacylus for 115 years. The newest finding, though, demonstrates that our understanding of even well-studied fossils like archaeopteryx — scrutinized, measured, modeled for 150 years — can still be upended.”
    Bye Bye Birdie: Famed Fossil Loses Avian Perch, October 2009

    This quote is from a journalist writing for the Wall Street Journal – anyone who reads the entire article will find it is a discussion of the difficulties of working out the relationships of dinosaurs, feathered dinosaurs and birds. But the bit you quote is just plain wrong. Until the classic specimen of Archaeopteryx with feathers was found, earlier Archaeopteryx bones were labelled as part of a skeleton of a small bipedal dinosaur, Compsognathus. By the way, pterodactyls (NOT pterodacylus) aren’t even dinosaurs.

    If they aren’t related, why are there are so many creatures with varying mixtures of avian and reptilian features that it is hard to neatly categorize them as dinosaurs, feathered dinosaurs or birds?

  6. leenibus, you state:

    ‘anyone who reads the entire article will find it is a discussion of the difficulties of working out the relationships of dinosaurs, feathered dinosaurs and birds.’

    I imagine it would be extremely difficult to do if it never actually happened and the only way you can do it by having ideologues bent on perpetuating the bird-dino myth shoe horn the evidence for you:

    ““The whole notion of feathered dinosaurs is a myth that has been created by ideologues bent on perpetuating the birds-are-dinosaurs theory in the face of all contrary evidence”

    further note:

    Evidence Of Design In Bird Feathers And Avian Respiration – Andy McIntosh
    Abstract: This paper explores the evidence for design in living systems. In particular, it considers two of the mechanisms used in bird flight. These include feathers and the remarkable counterflow mass exchanger breathing system used in the avian lung system. Both systems are examples of the principle of specified functional complexity, which occurs throughout nature. There is no known recorded example of this developing experimentally where the precursor information or machinery is not already present in embryonic form. Such design features indicate non-evolutionary features being involved.
    http://journals.witpress.com/paperinfo.asp?pid=399

    leenibus, I have a better idea,,, instead of shoe-horning evidence to fit a preconceived atheistic/evolutionary bias, why don’t we let the evidence speak for itself?!?

    Punctuated Equilibrium and Patterns from the Fossil Record – Casey Luskin
    Excerpt: “The Cambrian Explosion is by no means the only “explosion” in the fossil record. One evolutionist concedes that for the origin of fishes, “this is one count in the creationists’ charge that can only evoke in unison from paleontologists a plea of nolo contendere [no contest].” Plant biologists have called the origin of plants an “explosion,” saying, “the … radiation of land (plant) biotas is the terrestrial equivalent of the much-debated Cambrian ‘explosion’ of marine faunas.” Vertebrate paleontologists believe there was a mammal explosion because of the few transitional forms between major mammal groups: “There are all sorts of gaps: absence of gradationally intermediate ‘transitional’ forms between species, but also between larger groups — between, say, families of carnivores, or the orders of mammals.” Another study, “Evolutionary Explosions and the Phylogenetic Fuse,” found a bird (as well as a mammal) “Early Tertiary ‘explosion’” because many bird and mammal groups appear in a short time period lacking immediately recognizable ancestral forms. Finally, others have called the origin of our own genus Homo, “a genetic revolution” where “no australopithecine (ape) species is obviously transitional” leading one commentator to call it, like others called the Cambrian Explosion, a “big bang theory” of human evolution.”
    http://www.ideacenter.org/cont.....hp/id/1232

    The Fossil Record and Falsifiable Predictions For ID – Casey Luskin – Audio
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....6_42-07_00

    The lack of any uncontested gradual transitional forms in the fossil record, between any major groups, is overwhelmingly pervasive despite what many dogmatic evolutionists may tell you. This following site gives a very good outline of the ‘discontinuous’ pattern noted in the fossil record for vertebrates:

    The Truth About Evolution – Transitional Fossils
    Excerpt: Major adaptive radiations provide a formidable challenge to biological evolution.,,, Major adaptive radiations of groups of vertebrates are:

    a) Placoderms in the early Devonian. Because they were heavily armored, jawed fish, intermediates and ancestral forms should have fossilized but none are found. No placoderms exist today.
    b) Chondrichtyes during the Devonian. They are the cartilaginous fish such as sharks and rays. Intermediates and ancestors are unknown.
    c) Agnatha Fish in the Silurian. These were jawless fish with bony skeletons. Intermediates and ancestors should have fossilized but none are found. Most types became extinct but hagfish and lampreys are living jawless fish.
    d)Tetrapods in the early Carboniferous. These were many, diverse forms of four-legged amphibians that are believed to have evolved from fish. But no fossilized links to fish have been found and specific interrelationships of the numerous lineages is unknown.
    e) Amniotes in the late Carboniferous. Amniotes are characterized by their complex reproductive system and include reptiles, birds and mammals. They are believed to have evolved from amphibians but their ancestry has not been determined from the fossil record.
    f) Archosaurs in the late Permian. They were reptiles with diverse sizes and shapes that became extinct in the Triassic. Some as long as six meters have been found.
    g ) Dinosaurs in the late Triassic. Dinosaurs include the largest terrestrial animals that have ever lived. Their diversity in size and shape was spectacular. Their ancestry is unknown and specific interrelationships of the numerous types is unknown.
    h) Teleosts in the late Cretaceous. These are bony fish approximately 20,000 living species in 35 orders and 409 families. Interrelationships of the higher groups are unknown.
    i) Therian mammals in the late Cretaceous and early Tertiary. These are placental and marsupial mammals. When they first appear in the fossil record, they are very diverse and interrelationships are unknown.
    j) Birds in the late Cretaceous and early Tertiary. There are estimates of 8900 living species in 166 families and about 27 orders. Fossil evidence is lacking for establishing the interrelationships of the orders of birds.
    http://tellall.org/fossils.htm

    The following evolution friendly article was quite honest about the inadequacy of Darwinian evolution to account for novel forms appearing in the fossil record:

    Saltational Evolution: Hopeful Monsters are Here to Stay – Günter Theißen – 2009
    “While we already have a quite good understanding of how organisms adapt to the environment, much less is known about the mechanisms behind the origin of evolutionary novelties, a process that is arguably different from adaptation. Despite Darwin’s undeniable merits, explaining how the enormous complexity and diversity of living beings on our planet originated remains one of the greatest challenges of biology.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....38581.html

    Ancient Fossils That Have Not Changed For Millions Of Years – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4113820

    “LIVING” FOSSILS OF MARINE CREATURES – unchanged for millions of years – (Pictures – Including a 500 million year old starfish specimen)
    http://www.hyahya.org/books/da.....III_03.php

    THE FOSSILS IN THE CREATION MUSEUM – 1000′s of pictures of ancient ‘living’ fossils that have not changed for millions of years:
    http://www.fossil-museum.com/f.....8;limit=30

    Fossils Without Evolution – June 2010
    Excerpt: New fossils continue to turn up around the world. Many of them have an amazing characteristic in common: they look almost exactly like their living counterparts, despite being millions of years old,,,
    http://www.creationsafaris.com.....#20100618a

    Oldest fossil shrimp preserved with muscles – November 9 2010
    Excerpt: Rodney Feldmann and Carrie Schweitzer (both Kent State University) report on the oldest fossil shrimp known to date. The creature in stone is as much as 360 million years old and was found in Oklahoma. Even the muscles of the fossil are preserved.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....scles.html

    Picture of the ancient 360 million year old fossil shrimp compared to a modern shrimp:
    http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/.....fossil.jpg

    Living Fossils Refute Evolution – pictures
    https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1p-ZI-ipQCoS-IHkZNEVN6EMFTgS0yuseO2r_ANzp51k

  7. leenibus, you state:

    ‘anyone who reads the entire article will find it is a discussion of the difficulties of working out the relationships of dinosaurs, feathered dinosaurs and birds.’

    I imagine it would be extremely difficult to do if it never actually happened and the only way you can do it by having ideologues bent on perpetuating the bird-dino myth shoe horn the evidence for you:

    ““The whole notion of feathered dinosaurs is a myth that has been created by ideologues bent on perpetuating the birds-are-dinosaurs theory in the face of all contrary evidence”

    further note:

    Evidence Of Design In Bird Feathers And Avian Respiration – Andy McIntosh
    Abstract: This paper explores the evidence for design in living systems. In particular, it considers two of the mechanisms used in bird flight. These include feathers and the remarkable counterflow mass exchanger breathing system used in the avian lung system. Both systems are examples of the principle of specified functional complexity, which occurs throughout nature. There is no known recorded example of this developing experimentally where the precursor information or machinery is not already present in embryonic form. Such design features indicate non-evolutionary features being involved.
    http://journals.witpress.com/paperinfo.asp?pid=399

    leenibus, I have a better idea,,, instead of shoe-horning evidence to fit a preconceived atheistic/evolutionary bias, why don’t we let the evidence speak for itself?!?

    Punctuated Equilibrium and Patterns from the Fossil Record – Casey Luskin
    Excerpt: “The Cambrian Explosion is by no means the only “explosion” in the fossil record. One evolutionist concedes that for the origin of fishes, “this is one count in the creationists’ charge that can only evoke in unison from paleontologists a plea of nolo contendere [no contest].” Plant biologists have called the origin of plants an “explosion,” saying, “the … radiation of land (plant) biotas is the terrestrial equivalent of the much-debated Cambrian ‘explosion’ of marine faunas.” Vertebrate paleontologists believe there was a mammal explosion because of the few transitional forms between major mammal groups: “There are all sorts of gaps: absence of gradationally intermediate ‘transitional’ forms between species, but also between larger groups — between, say, families of carnivores, or the orders of mammals.” Another study, “Evolutionary Explosions and the Phylogenetic Fuse,” found a bird (as well as a mammal) “Early Tertiary ‘explosion’” because many bird and mammal groups appear in a short time period lacking immediately recognizable ancestral forms. Finally, others have called the origin of our own genus Homo, “a genetic revolution” where “no australopithecine (ape) species is obviously transitional” leading one commentator to call it, like others called the Cambrian Explosion, a “big bang theory” of human evolution.”
    http://www.ideacenter.org/cont.....hp/id/1232

    The Fossil Record and Falsifiable Predictions For ID – Casey Luskin – Audio
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....6_42-07_00

    The lack of any uncontested gradual transitional forms in the fossil record, between any major groups, is overwhelmingly pervasive despite what many dogmatic evolutionists may tell you. This following site gives a very good outline of the ‘discontinuous’ pattern noted in the fossil record for vertebrates:

    The Truth About Evolution – Transitional Fossils
    Excerpt: Major adaptive radiations provide a formidable challenge to biological evolution.,,, Major adaptive radiations of groups of vertebrates are:

    a) Placoderms in the early Devonian. Because they were heavily armored, jawed fish, intermediates and ancestral forms should have fossilized but none are found. No placoderms exist today.
    b) Chondrichtyes during the Devonian. They are the cartilaginous fish such as sharks and rays. Intermediates and ancestors are unknown.
    c) Agnatha Fish in the Silurian. These were jawless fish with bony skeletons. Intermediates and ancestors should have fossilized but none are found. Most types became extinct but hagfish and lampreys are living jawless fish.
    d)Tetrapods in the early Carboniferous. These were many, diverse forms of four-legged amphibians that are believed to have evolved from fish. But no fossilized links to fish have been found and specific interrelationships of the numerous lineages is unknown.
    e) Amniotes in the late Carboniferous. Amniotes are characterized by their complex reproductive system and include reptiles, birds and mammals. They are believed to have evolved from amphibians but their ancestry has not been determined from the fossil record.
    f) Archosaurs in the late Permian. They were reptiles with diverse sizes and shapes that became extinct in the Triassic. Some as long as six meters have been found.
    g ) Dinosaurs in the late Triassic. Dinosaurs include the largest terrestrial animals that have ever lived. Their diversity in size and shape was spectacular. Their ancestry is unknown and specific interrelationships of the numerous types is unknown.
    h) Teleosts in the late Cretaceous. These are bony fish approximately 20,000 living species in 35 orders and 409 families. Interrelationships of the higher groups are unknown.
    i) Therian mammals in the late Cretaceous and early Tertiary. These are placental and marsupial mammals. When they first appear in the fossil record, they are very diverse and interrelationships are unknown.
    j) Birds in the late Cretaceous and early Tertiary. There are estimates of 8900 living species in 166 families and about 27 orders. Fossil evidence is lacking for establishing the interrelationships of the orders of birds.
    http://tellall.org/fossils.htm

    The following evolution friendly article was quite honest about the inadequacy of Darwinian evolution to account for novel forms appearing in the fossil record:

    Saltational Evolution: Hopeful Monsters are Here to Stay – Günter Theißen – 2009
    “While we already have a quite good understanding of how organisms adapt to the environment, much less is known about the mechanisms behind the origin of evolutionary novelties, a process that is arguably different from adaptation. Despite Darwin’s undeniable merits, explaining how the enormous complexity and diversity of living beings on our planet originated remains one of the greatest challenges of biology.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....38581.html

    Ancient Fossils That Have Not Changed For Millions Of Years – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4113820

  8. Here’s a link to an article that shows a fake fossil auctioned on eBay (!!) for over $3,000.

    http://www.paleodirect.com/fakechinesefossils1.htm

    eBay? Seriously? Scientists buy fossils from eBay??

  9. Hello bornagain77,

    Oh dear … smothered under yet another quote dump from your bottomless collections.

    Life is too short to dissect every item, however, let’s try another sample.

    In comment (7) you start by repeating the quote:
    “The whole notion of feathered dinosaurs is a myth that has been created by ideologues bent on perpetuating the birds-are-dinosaurs theory in the face of all contrary evidence”

    As you mentioned in your original reply to me (5) this quote is from Storrs Olson, the curator of birds at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History

    You neglect to mention that in addition to being curator of birds at the Smithsonian, Storrs Olson is an expert in avian paleontology. He has written dozens on papers on extinct birds. He (and Alan Feduccia, another fossil bird expert) dispute that birds evolved from dinosaurs, instead they think that both birds and dinosaurs are descended from earlier Archosaurs (early reptiles). In other words, they don’t dispute that birds evolved from reptilian ancestors, they think it happened earlier, before the dinosaurs evolved. However, you obviously don’t want to let your audience know Olson’s actual views on bird evolution, so a nice short quote on his view of dinosaur-to-bird evolution is enough to imply that he doesn’t believe in evolution at all.

  10. leenibus, at least Olson is honest enough to admit the evidence does not presently exist and to call a spade a spade on the type of shoehorning you are trying to impose on the evidence. The key thing leenibus is that the fossil record is replete with suddenness and stability with all the key transitional fossils, that would make the case for Darwinism somewhat more tenable but not slam dunk, missing. Yet when the overall pattern is pointed out in the fossil record the Darwinists insist it is no problem. No leenibus, only in your imagination does Darwin have anything to go on in the fossil record. So what if paleontologists admit the truth of the of the fossil record conforming to variation within kinds while they still say they believe in evolution??? It should matter no one iota to you what they ‘believe’ it should only matter to you that the fossil record looks nothing like Darwin predicted it would!!! I hope you will be fair with the evidence:

    notes:

    This following study is very interesting for the researcher surveyed 130 DNA-based evolutionary trees to see if the results matched what ‘natural selection’ predicted for speciation and found:

    Accidental origins: Where species come from – March 2010
    Excerpt: If speciation results from natural selection via many small changes, you would expect the branch lengths to fit a bell-shaped curve.,,, Instead, Pagel’s team found that in 78 per cent of the trees, the best fit for the branch length distribution was another familiar curve, known as the exponential distribution. Like the bell curve, the exponential has a straightforward explanation – but it is a disquieting one for evolutionary biologists. The exponential is the pattern you get when you are waiting for some single, infrequent event to happen.,,,To Pagel, the implications for speciation are clear: “It isn’t the accumulation of events that causes a speciation, it’s single, rare events falling out of the sky, so to speak.”
    http://www.newscientist.com/ar.....tml?page=2

    Here is a graph showing a partial list of fossil groups showing their sudden appearance in the fossil record- (without the artificially imposed dotted lines) – Timeline Illustration:
    http://www.earthhistory.org.uk.....groups.jpg

    The Fossil Record – Don Patton – in their own words – video
    http://video.google.com/videop.....6900194790

    Here is a page of quotes by leading paleontologists on the true state of the fossil record:
    https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=15dxL40Ff6kI2o6hs8SAbfNiGj1hEOE1QHhf1hQmT2Yg

    Here are four more pages of quotes, by leading experts, on the fossil record here:

    Creation/Evolution Quotes: Fossil Record #1 – Stephen E. Jones
    http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/fsslrc01.html

    I like this following paper for though it is materialistic in its outlook at least Dr. Eugene Koonin, unlike many materialists, is brutally honest with the genetic evidence we now have.

    The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution – Eugene V Koonin – Background:
    “Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin’s original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution. The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life’s history, the principal “types” seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate “grades” or intermediate forms between different types are detectable;
    http://www.biology-direct.com/content/2/1/21

    Biological Big Bangs – Origin Of Life and Cambrian – Dr. Fazale Rana – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4284466

    Deepening Darwin’s Dilemma – Jonathan Wells – Sept. 2009
    Excerpt: “The truth is that (finding) “exceptionally preserved microbes” from the late Precambrian actually deepen Darwin’s dilemma, because they suggest that if there had been ancestors to the Cambrian phyla they would have been preserved.”
    http://www.discovery.org/a/12471

    Deepening Darwin’s Dilemma – Jonathan Wells – The Cambrian Explosion – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4154263

    etc.. etc.. etc..

Leave a Reply