On the evolution of the first walking sea-to-land animal apparently from the Paleozoic era.

01-09-2010 See the source article.

Scientists led by University of Warsaw paleobiologist Grzegorz Niedwiedzki uncovered the fossilized footprints of a four-legged animal in southeastern Poland. Important features of the well-preserved prints are the impressions of digits (meaning the creature had feet) and a "diagonal, coordinated gait impossible for finned creatures."

Why a finned creature would be thought to have a gait is, of course, a by-faith element of evolutionary thinking, which postulates that fish-like creatures were the first land-walkers. For that reason, evolutionists previously hailed fossils such as `Tiktaalik' - a fish-like creature - as representative of the water-to-land transition and a key "missing link." (Read an example of the evolutionary enthusiasm in Meet your ancestor the fish that crawled.)

But the discovery presents a major problem for the evolutionary status of `Tiktaalik' and similar fossils, which supposedly date back to around 370 to, at most, 380 million years ago. If `Tiktaalik' represents the earliest adaptation of sea life for land walking, then how was Niedwiedzki's finding - which he calls "an animal with four limbs, unique for true tetrapods" - walking across Poland almost ten million years earlier?

Facing up to the find, other paleontologists have been forced to retract previous praise for `Tiktaalik' as "the" missing link, instead considering it an evolutionary dead end. "We thought we'd pinned down the origin of limbed tetrapods, [but now w]e have to rethink the whole thing," explained Cambridge's Jennifer Clack. Young-earth creationists rejected the assumptions that underlie the millions-of-years-dates given to the fossils mentioned; in our view, both `Tiktaalik' and the fossil footprints are from the past 4,500 years or so. Nonetheless, this is one such case where even accepting evolutionary assumptions dethrones an iconic "missing link." It confirms that such ideas can never get any better just because they want them to.

What can we learn from such talk? It is Mike Matthews who said it so well, `how God intentionally raises difficult questions, even unanswerable questions, Job 5:9; Rom. 11:33-36. Why? He does not ask such questions to frustrate us but to learn to place our trust in Him "who does great things, and unsearchable, marvelous things without numbers." Prov. 25:2. God wants us to find wisdom and understanding, but sometimes we must dig and investigate to find it.

The Creator stands ready to unlock a treasure house of insights into His glorious person and work. But the key is God's Word. If we trust His Word and build our worldview on it, any new discovery can be a stepping stone to greater understanding. But if we distrust His Word, those same discoveries become stumbling stones.' [500]

A brief survey of Dr. Werner Gitt's April 2, 2009 article and `Answers in Genesis'.

In an article heavy on genetic information and how it could or could not explain evolution or creation highlights the problem students, teachers and researchers face when occupying themselves with this subject. It is vast and no one has all the dots arranged in such a way that no mistakes could be involved. All living organisms, from a smallest cell to a complex one, contain no unnecessary structures in their biological makeup. What were once thought to be unnecessary appendages, are now seen as having a purpose. What distinguishes inanimate from living systems? Matter and energy, though necessary, cannot distinguish between them. It always comes down to the genetic information each cell contains, which contains the required coded information necessary for life and replication. When ants suck up juices, when bees suck up honey, those are information carrying processes or they are not. But it takes more than genetic information to account for life and all its forms.

The building block of life, as far as we know, is made up of only some 20 amino acids. [10]

These amino acid chains are only two millionths of one millimeter thick and just barely visible under an electron microscope, but since they can be seen they exist. Human DNA contains a tremendous amount of `information.' When the DNA in a cell divides, each daughter cell contains the same genetic information. This replication has been compared to 280 typists copying the whole Bible sequentially, each of them from the previous one, with, at most, one single letter transposed wrongly in the entire copying process. That is complex.

The question, `Where did life come from,' is intricately linked to `Where did this genetic information come from.' Soon enough it was found, that, in order to explain the existence of life, the origin of genetic information had to be understood and explained. What critical scientists say, shows that evolution is fundamentally unable to answer these questions of origin.

Here are some quotes:

Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck (1744-1829), a French zoologist and philosopher: "Life is nothing but a physical phenomenon. All life features originate in mechanical, physical, and chemical processes which are based on the properties of organic matter itself." [30]

Reinhold W. Kaplan (active in the 1970's), a German microbiologist: "Life is effected by the different parts of a system which work together in a certain way. . . . Life can be completely explained in terms of the properties of these parts and their inevitable interactions. . . . The origin of life can be explained in terms of hypotheses describing fully the sequence of events since the origin of protobionts, and the fact that all these events could be deduced from physical, chemical, and other laws which are valid for material systems."

Manfred Eigen (died 1927), a Nobel laureate from the University at Göttingen. Looking at the subject from the molecular biology of his day standpoint, he came up with an unwarranted postulate that natural laws controlled the origin of life. In his publication on the self-organization of matter [E1], he uses an elaborate array of formulas, but does not rise above the level of statistical information, thus making his work useless today since it does not answer any question on origins but only shows his materialistic ideas.

Franz M. Wuketits (1955-??). He assumes evolution is true and thus wants to explain origin backwards. He wrote: "The fundamental truth of biological evolution is accepted beforehand, yes, we assume in advance that the principle of evolution is universally valid, that it is just as valid in the preorganic domain as in the organic, and that it can be extended to the spheres of psychology, sociology, and culture. If we accept that the evolutionary view also holds for the human and cognition, then evolutionary ideas can also be applied to the analyses of those phenomena which are usually regarded as belonging to theoretical science. As a result this view then becomes relatively more important in the evaluation of the progress of scientific research. We thus arrive at an evolutionary theory of science, a theory of human knowledge which relates to an evolutionary establishment of itself." [80]

Obviously, his views expressed here are not based on facts. Since he follows a reverse arrangement, he has not contributed to answer or even touch on the question, `How did life originate?' This is an example which helps us to recognize how scientists, who put themselves under such mental restraints and support it without critical analysis, degrade themselves to mere slaves of a materialistic philosophy. Scientists like anyone else must know that truth is first, not pre-existing folly. The religious nature of evolutionary thinking is revealed by their continual attempts to imprison sciences into their confines of what they call the `self-organization of matter.' Wuketits projects evolutionary thinking with such a religious fervor, in the process accusing everybody of fable mongering who claims to be scientific and speaks of creation or of design in nature. He is trying to ban any thoughts of `finality' and `final and purposeful causes' from science and from the domain of all serious schools of thought.

A considerable number of scientists, speaking out on cosmological questions and on questions of origin, support evolutionary views. So much so, that Hubert P. Jockey laments about that fact in the literature he surveyed, writing: "Since science does not have the faintest idea how life on earth originated. . . . it would only be honest to confess this to other scientists, and to the public at large. Prominent scientists speaking ex cathedra, should refrain from polarizing minds of students and young productive scientists with statements that are based solely on beliefs." [100]

The doctrine of evolution is definitely not a useful scientific `guiding light' (Leitmotiv). Karl Popper described it once as a metaphysical research program, even though he himself supported evolution.

Sadly, today we have so many `Jesus' books which misrepresent Biblical accounts and intends to such a degree that they hurt the Christian faith and make it look like Christians are gullible. But Richard Dawkins does the same with his easily detectable errors about the way genetic information originates. This is described and explained in an article you find here. In this article Dawkin's representations are fully discusses so you, the reader, can see what feeblmindedness is ascribed to you. We leave it up to you to read the entire, linked article for yourself.

Scientists Supporting Creation Have Said:

While evolutionary scientists are many, creation supporting scientists are on the increase. Sir Fred Hoyle (1915-2001), British astrophysicist, wrote: "But the interesting quark transformations are almost immediately over and done with, to be followed by a little rather simple nuclear physics, to be followed by what? By a dull-as-ditchwater expansion which degrades itself adiabatically until it is incapable of doing anything at all. The notion that galaxies form, to be followed by an active astronomical history, is an illusion. Nothing forms, the thing is as dead as a door-nail. . . . The punch line is that, even though outward speeds are maintained in a free explosion, internal motions are not. Internal motions die away adiabatically, and the expanding system becomes inert, which is exactly why the big-bang cosmologies lead to a universe that is dead-and-done-with almost from its beginning." [120]

These views correspond with the findings of Hermann Schneider, a nuclear physicist of Heidelberg, who has critically evaluated the big bang theory from a physical viewpoint. He concludes [S5]: "In the evolution model the natural laws have to describe the origin of all things in the macro and the micro cosmos, as well as their operation. But this overtaxes the laws of nature."

Fred Hoyle makes the following remarks about the much-quoted primeval soup in which life supposedly developed according to evolutionary expectations [H4, p 526]:

"I don't know how long it is going to be before astronomers generally recognize that the combinatorial arrangement of not even one among the many thousands of biopolymers on which life depends could have been arrived at by natural processes here on the earth. Astronomers will have a little difficulty at understanding this because they will be assured by biologists that it is not so, the biologists having been assured in their turn by others that it is not so. The "others" are a group of persons who believe, quite openly, in mathematical miracles. They advocate the belief that tucked away in nature, outside of normal physics, there is a law which performs miracles."

In his book `Synthetische Artbildung,' (The Synthetic Formation of Kinds), Professor Dr. Heribert Nilsson, a botanist at Lund University in Sweden, describes evolutionary doctrine as an obstacle which prevents the development of an exact biology:

"The final result of all my researches and discussions is that the theory of evolution should be discarded in its entirety, because it always leads to extreme contradictions and confusing consequences when tested against the empirical results of research on the formation of different kinds of living forms and related fields. This assertion would agitate many people. Moreover: my next conclusion is that, far from being a benign natural-philosophical school of thought, the theory of evolution is a severe obstacle for biological research. As many examples show, it actually prevents the drawing of logical conclusions from even one set of experimental material. Because everything must be bent to fit this speculative theory, an exact biology cannot develop."

Professor Dr. Bruno Vollmert of Karlsruhe, an expert in the field of macro-molecular chemistry, has shown that all experiments purporting to support evolution miss the crux of the matter [V1]:

"All hitherto published experiments about the poly-condensation of nucleotides or amino acids are irrelevant to the problem of evolution at the molecular level, because they were based on simple monomers, and not on "primeval soups" derived from Miller experiments. But poly-condensation experiments with primeval soups or the dissolved mix of substances of them are just as superfluous as attempts to construct perpetual motion machines."

A French Nobel laureate, A. Lwoff [L2], pointed out that every organism can only function in terms of the complex net of available information:

"An organism is a system of interdependent structures and functions. It consists of cells, and the cells are made of molecules which have to cooperate smoothly. Every molecule must know what the others are doing. It must be able to receive messages and act on them."

When considering the source of this information, we can now formulate the following theorem which is based on research of many thousands of man-years:

Theorem 28: There is no known law of nature, no known process, and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.

This was also the conclusion of the seventh "International Conference on the Origins of Life" held together with the fourth congress of the "International Society for the Study of the Origin of Life (ISSOL)" in Mainz, Germany. At such occasions, scientists from all over the world exchange their latest results. In his review of the congress, Klaus Dose [D3] writes: "A further puzzle remains, namely the question of the origin of biological information, i.e., the information residing in our genes today." Not even the physical building blocks required for the storage of the information can construct themselves: "The spontaneous formation of simple nucleotides or even of polynucleotides which were able to be replicated on the pre-biotic earth should now be regarded as improbable in the light of the very many unsuccessful experiments in this regard."

As early as 1864, when Louis Pasteur addressed the Sorbonne University in Paris, he predicted that the theory of the spontaneous generation of living cells would never recover from the fatal blow delivered by his experiments. In this regard, Klaus Dose makes an equally important statement: "The Mainz report may have an equally important historical impact, because for the first time it has now been determined unequivocally by a large number of scientists that all evolutionary theses that living systems developed from poly-nucleotides which originated spontaneously, are devoid of any empirical base."

Bibliography and Notes

[10] Alanine (Ala: GCA GCC GCG GCU), Arginine (Arg: AGA AGG CGA CGC CGG CGU), Asparagine (Asn: AAC AAU), Aspartic acid (Asp: GAC GAU), Cysteine (Cys: UGC UGU), Glutamine (Gln: CAA CAG), Glutamic acid (Glu: GAA GAG), Glycine (Gly: GGA GGC GGG GGU), Histidine (His: CAC CAU), Isoleucine (Ile: AUA AUC AUU), Leucine (Leu: CUA CUC CUG CUU UUA UUG), Lysine (Lys: AAA AAG), Methionine (Met: AUG), Phenylalinine (Phe: UUC UUU), Proline (Pro: CCA CCC CCG CCG), Serine (Ser: AGC AGU UCA UCC UCG UCU), Threonine (Thr: ACA ACC ACG ACU), Tryptophan (Try: UGG), Tyrosine (Tyr: UAC UAU), Valine (Val: GUA GUC GUG GUU); Where the international abbrevition is given first followed by the genetic triplet codes which are contained in the respective acid. For the entire article click here.]

[30] Philosophie Zoologique, Paris, 1809, Vol. 1.

[80] F.M Wuketits, W8, p. 11-12.

100] Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 91, 1981, p. 13.

[120] `New Scientist,' The Big Bang in Astronomy, H4, p. 523-524.

He writes in his BIO 112 course notes, "There is nothing `theoretical' about the evidence supporting evolution. The research about evolution is ongoing and continues to support and refine Darwin's original ideas. No data have been found to refute the idea. It is the single unifying explanation of the living world, and nothing makes much, if any, sense outside of this unifying theory." [Larry McCloskey, LSU]

One stands aghast at such false and misleading assertions. They are typical of those who rehash someone's poor concepts of what real science is and what constitutes evidence. And such ideas come from the school where I was partly educated before such teachers taught their nefarious ideas in its halls.
But what is he saying? There is nothing theoretical about evolution with `theoretical' in quotation marks? Doesn't he know that evolution has no evidence whatsoever in even a single instance which would explain how evolution took place in nature? Doesn't he know that their text books, change evidence and long held views every year, because things don't pan out? There has never been an instance where different life forms evolved into another. They all occur fully developed in the fossil record - after their kind. Those types of life still living today, look the same in their fossilized form. Evolutionists hardly do research worthy of its name. They have never yet proven anything. They only make claims, which upon scrutiny, evaporate into nothingness. No data have yet been found which proof evolution, whereas many data researched support creation. Evolution cannot make sense of anything. That is why these teachers sound so much like they are drunk with the wine of their false Darwinian religion. You can study biology, physics and medicine without knowing anything about evolution for it contributes nothing concrete to any science.

Another teacher wrote this in his BIOL 111: "As a species humans have only been around about 200,000 years and have low within-species genetic variation. . . The genes encoding various globin proteins evolved from one common ancestral globin gene, which duplicated and diverged about 450-500 million years ago." [Lee Greer, LSU]

Nonsense. If life, any life, was around for such a long time, wherever you would dig, you would dig up bones. Such views are a mathematical impossibility. Evolution is hype piled on top of hype. It is a very false doctrine. It shows instructors mostly just rehash what they read in teachers edition of text books (if available) before you do.

Teaching Behind Closed Doors

Students, listen up. I read once that there was a student at Texas Tech starting a new class. The instructor outlined the criteria he would use in his evaluations. He said something like, he would only recommend students for medical or graduate school who earned an A in his class, whom he knew fairly well, and those who would affirm evolution to be true. There was one student in the class, who, upon hearing this, got up and left the classroom. - Most would think, well, that was the end for him. But no. The student went on and enrolled at Lubbock Christian University where he received a recommendation for medical school and returned to Texas Tech with lawyers from Liberty Legal Institute of Texas. - The next thing that happened was, that the professor who had announced his criteria did not fare to well now since he had attempted to practice an egregious (flagrant) form of intolerance within a cloistered classroom. After that he did no longer require that his students believe in evolution, only that they understand its theories. The Assistant Attorney for civil rights said then, "A state run university has no business telling students what they should or should not believe in." ["Texas two-step," WORLD, May 10, 2003.] - So LSU students know your rights.

There is a vast difference between a Creation Museum and those subscribing to evolution. Some of the latter still present exhibits on the defunct `Neanderthal Man' stories as if they had any relevance today. The prime example is the Neanderthal Museum itself. Humanity and creature life degrading advertisements of scheduled shows or displays of monsters are not rare. So they even have a show of `Galgen, Rad und Scheiterhaufen'. Why? Because they know that the current popularity of Vatican power is tending to revive these despicable reminders of the Middle Ages are being revived again, even as we speak. They know that Rome wants to treat `nay sayers' to their dogmas that way.

Spiritually challenged thinkers and tinkerers are hitting sometimes on parcels of truth without realizing that the Word of God in Romans chapter one has described the curse of sin that way. We read:

"First, there is no moral law: the universe is a nasty, heartless place where most things wouldn't mind killing you if you let them. No one is compelled to be nice; you or anyone could go on a murder spree, and all that is stopping you is your self-interest (it is very destructive to your personal bliss to knock down your social support system) and the self-interest of others, who would try to stop you. There is nothing `out there' that imposes morality on you, other than local, temporary conditions, a lot of social enculturation, and probably some hardwiring that you've inherited from ancestors who lived under similar conditions." [P.Z. Myers, "Morality Doesn't Equal God," Pharyngula, August 24, 2009.]

That must mean that there is nothing wrong with presenting reasons and evidence that evolution is wrong and teaching creationism instead. There can also be nothing wrong then to teach that humanism, atheism and certain religions are wrong.

October 10, 2009: A Catholic professor from the Netherlands, says Genesis 1:1 was translated wrong, we read there, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." She wants it to say `God separated' on the basis of pagan extra-bibilical studies. Of course she seems to overlook that heaven, the firmament, and the waters (clouds), were not separated or divided until verse 7. She also overlooked what Jesus said, "For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be." Mark 13:19. We learn from this that Christians cannot trust theologians. These teachers follow another master, the god of this world, and it is safe to ignore their Babylonian doctrines.

Abstract: Uniformitarian scientists define their stratigraphic column using fossils linked to type sections, with the expectation that the rock record should exhibit evolutionary trends in its strata. However, such is often not the case. A significant portion of the "Tertiary" section exposed along road cuts and in open-pit mines near Americus, Georgia is barren of both fossils and trace fossils. Hence, there is sparse evidence to support the assertion that the strata reflect millions of years of evolution. Instead, these sediments exhibit features suggesting high-energy deposition. The field data are more amenable to an interpretation within the young Earth Flood Framework.

Introduction

Modern stratigraphy has codified rules for mapping and age-dating strata in the `North American Stratigraphic Code' (1983) and the `International Stratigraphic Guide' (Salvador, 1994). Field geologists apply these rules to determine the proper sequence of strata and their corresponding age-dates. The paleontologic contents (e.g. trace and body fossils) of the various rock layers are crucial for defining the stratigraphic position and ages of the rocks, because uniformitarian scientists believe that history can be measured by evolution, documented by fossils contained in the sediments.

Most strata appear to have been deposited in subaqueous marine settings. Uniformitarians insist that life has been evolving for hundreds of millions of years. That much life over that much time should have left plentiful body and trace fossils throughout the rock record. However, this is not always true. In fact, the vertical rock record for any given location typically contains few fossils, and those are usually concentrated in specific zones or along bedding contacts, and not evenly distributed throughout the column.

Charles Darwin had apparently some Christian background. But at some point in his life he struggled with the character of a loving God. He wrote, "I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designed created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice." [600] Coming out of his teens he had already made up his mind to reject God and accept evolution. Hardly anyone has been able at that age to figure out the meaning of life. It does take time to learn the Word of God and understand it. The answers are contained in it, but one must dig for it. Once having convinced himself that the Bible was not true, he removed the only fixed point man has to discover himself and interpret correctly the world around him.

Rejecting God and how He revealed himself in His word, has always negative consequences for it removes recognition of sin and causes one thus to participate in it. That can only lead to a downward slide in one's personal life and ultimately the whole world. That path this world is sliding around on in our days. Those who deny God because of suffering and death in the world, reject the only source that explains its origin and existence.

The sad truth is that young people are denied studying for themselves the aspects of a well rounded world view. Humanists seem to insist that education is supposed to be neutral not admitting that there is no such thing as neutrality on issues of origins. We are either on the right side of it or on the wrong side. Eliminating the Bible from education meant that humanists could now present their `Bible' in its place. The legacy of Darwin is that he was instrumental in replacing God with partial human wisdom. They have to revise and change around their theories for ever. The impact on young minds is that there are no absolutes, no ground rules, just the struggle of the fittest. Multiply this thinking by the number of those espousing it, and you know why there is so much violence in the human race.

But sin is temporary, there will be an end to it - when Christ comes in might and power to claim His creation back from the wicked one who started the cycle of decay and death.

The consequences of the supposed "death of God" in modern life and thought have been excruciating and shattering all over the world indeed. People started to think that science is far and away the principle agent of social change, and will determine the future of man. Today we should know better. Just take the current financial crisis and the tones of bogus money being printed as well as the bogus causes it is attributed to. The truth lies more in the greed and self servicing policies of highly placed officials themselves. They have converted their believe in "no God exists" into "therefore everything goes as long as I don't get caught." So little figures on the `dishonest ladder' get caught and fined and put into plush jails to satisfy the gullible public. Since what news is presented to the public is decided before it is presented, the people in the land hear only their view points. Truth has fallen in the streets of the cities. Prescreened news only makes the news. People turned away from newspapers which printed only trash. People will more and more turn away from televised tales as well and forfeit the tube - if they are smart.

But is science the answer to everything? Of course not. Most of popular science is run by those who have an agenda of publishing only what furthers their cause of `no God.' Those who are still calling themselves theologians are from Mars. The God of modern theology has been reduced to a remote shut-away deity who is denied any direct activity in human affairs. As a consequence of a general culture of unbelief God does not even enter into the consideration and concern of man's day-to-day existence. Science thinks it has faith in God made irrelevant. But today we are beginning to reap the consequences which are often attributed to wrong causes.

The truth is, wherever man goes, corruption follows closely. Even among astronauts we had obvious shenanigans of wicked people occurring. Man is not getting progressively better, he is getting worse - physically and spiritually. Some believe that the ethic of knowledge which they like to think created the modern world - and what a chasm of despair it made - is the only ethic compatible with it, the only capable, once understood and accepted, of guiding its evolution. Of course the productions of this `knowledge' is mostly unethical to the highest degree as shown by its products in war, machinery, pharamaceutical poisons of all descriptions, abhorrent entertainment, etc. Only those with a worldly wise conscience can see these as harmless.

[500] Answers Magazin, Vol. 5, No. 1, Jan-Mar 2010, p. 35-37.

[600] The fiction of Charles Darwin, `Origin of Species'.