Posts Tagged ‘darwinism’

Crypto-Zoo-Archaeological Mysteries Challenge Conventional Histories. The Ceratopsian Dinosaur and the Elephant in Ancient South America?

Church of Darwin, Crypto, Dinosaurs in Literature, s8int.com, Science, Sophistication of Ancestors, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Aug 06 2012


by Chris Parker, Copyright 2012

Look at Behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox. What strength it has in its loins, what power in the muscles of its belly! Its tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of its thighs are close-knit. Its bones are tubes of bronze, its limbs like rods of iron. It ranks first among the works of God…Job 40

 

 

Ceratopsian Dinosaurs in Ancient South America?

Evidence indicating the historical presence of ceratopsian dinosaurs in South America within the last 1,000 years would be controversial for at least two reasons; one, ceratopsian dinosaurs are thought by modern science to have been extinct for 65 million years and two, science at most only recognizes the presence of one type of ceratopsian dinosaur on that entire continent.

Ceratopsian dinosaurs were, vegetarian, quadruped, frilled and horned dinosaurs whose fossils have been found primarily in North America, Asia and Europe. Incidentally, they also had tails like a cedar; Certainly much thicker than that of the hippo which some believe is described in the book of Job.

Unusual identifying features for this dinosaur include the rostral bone which gives its face a beak like appearance and the jugal bones which scientists most often depict as bones protruding from the side of the animals face. Ceratopsia is derived from the Greek for “horned face”.

Only one species has been identified from fossils in South America, Notoceratops and the scant fossils upon which that tentative identification was based have since been lost.

There is however a narrow strip of land between North and South America called the Isthmus of Panama, known in the past as the Isthmus of Darien, containing the country of Panama and the Panama Canal. According to current scientific belief, that land bridge was formed three million years ago, after the extinction of the dinosaurs.

Artifacts indicating that ceratopsian dinosaurs were living as the same time as man on the continent of South America would: call into question the entire evolutionary/materialistic time frame for evolution and the extinction of dinosaurs; prove that ceratopsians also lived on the Southern continent and calling into question the supposed timing of the formation of the Isthumus of Panama; provide an answer to the question that paleontologists have been debating as to whether or not ceratopsians had “cheeks” which covered their jugal bone formations or whether they were “cheekless” having the bones protrude as horns and/or some type of defense mechanism.

If ceratopsians indeed had cheeks which covered the jutting jugal bone they certainly would have a wide, almost smiling mien which would differ signifcantly from the way modern science now depicts them. If there are multiple South American artifacts indicating the presence of ceratopsians in South America, then why haven’t more fossils of the dinosaurs been found?

A Startling Artifact Depicting a South American, Short Frilled, Vegetable Eating Ceratopsian?


“The ceratopsians are largely subdivided into two groups: the long-frilled and the short-frilled dinosaurs. Largely identical to each other – short but powerful legs, robust bodies, tortoise beak-like jaws and a varied number of horns – they had either a shorter, more plain frill with smaller openings that didn’t extend beyond the dinosaur’s neck and shoulders (the short-frilled dinosaurs) or a longer frill with larger internal openings that extended further beyond the shoulders, occasionally possessing spikes of various length on its end.”…Walking with Dinosaurs Wikia.com

Ecuador is engaged in the process of “repatriating” 5,000 pre Columbian artifacts from Ecuador’s historic past which have been obtained either legally or illegally and which have been scattered around the world to museums and private collections. Recently elements of the Ecuadorian government sued to stop an international auction featuring a number of pre Columbian artifacts that they allege are from Ecuador. In turn, several auction have sued Ecuador claiming that the artifacts were obtained legally.

The artifact shown above right was among the objects for which Ecuador seeks a return. This pre Columbian artifact from ancient Ecuador appears to depict one of the short frilled, ceratopsian dinosaurs. It has a short frill and is depicted eating vegetation.


From the angle of the photo, the rostral bone depiction is not strong but still evident as the middle of the mouth is closer to the observer. In terms of cheeks vs no cheeks the artist came down firmly on the cheek school, depicting the cheeks totally subsuming the jugal bones on the side of the face giving the animal a wide, “grinning” mouth.

There is another visible feature in this depiction which although not dispositive of all other theories would tend to support the identification of the creature as a ceretopsian—or else cast some doubt.

That’s right! I’m talking about the creatures toes. See the photo above, right. The artist clearly depicts this animal as having five toes on the front feet (manus). But, what have paleontologists found with respect to the manus and pes (forefeet and hindfeet) of the short frilled, ceratopsian dinosaurs?

Among the short frilled ceratopsians were; protoceratops, monoceratops, leptoceratops and centrosaurus. The diagram represents one of centrosaurus’s forefeet.


“McCrea also conceded that some ceratopsians had five toes on the forefoot and four toes on the hindfoot and therefore would also be capable of leaving similar footprints.] The best known ceratopsians were known from strata more recent than that which preserved Tetrapodosaurus, however more recent discoveries have pushed the age range of ceratopsians back into ages comparable to that of Tetrapodosaurus. Nevertheless, McCrea supported the ankylosaur interpretation”…… Wikipedia on the question of who left the Abyssal/Gates tracks


“Protoceratops held its head low for grazing, using its parrotlike beak to snip off low leaves, which were swallowed whole, since the teeth were of no use for chewing. Its front feet had five toes” Quote Source

In short, we have a pre Columbian depiction of a possible short frilled, ceratopsian dinosaur some 65 million years after their extinction according to the current scientific paradigm, eating vegetation (what mythical dragons eat vegetation), with the requisite number of toes/fingers potentially answering a question regarding cheeks that has been argued for some time.

But is this a one off?

Corroborating South American Ceratopsia Depictions?

According to wikipedia, the name Ceratopsia was coined by Othniel Charles Marsh in 1890 to include dinosaurs possessing certain characteristic features, including horns, a rostral bone, teeth with two roots, fused neck vertebrae, and a forward-oriented pubis.

Two years prior to that, in 1888, Popular Science Monthly had an interesting article on whistles entitled, “Whistles, Ancient and Modern” by M. L. Gutode.

In the passage describing the artifact we want to examine he writes: “Seeing that so much can be done with such rude means, it is not strange that the whistle was a well-known instrument in antiquity. The old Peruvians were past masters in the fabrication of whistles.

They made them in great numbers, of earth, and ornamented with various designs and figures of animals. The porcelain-factory at Sèvres (Fig. 1) possesses two specimens of their workmanship, one of which resembles a nightingale; and, when filled with water, it produces a kind of warbling. There is an instrumental museum at the Paris Conservatory of Music, which is open to the public on Thursday afternoons.

It was founded by Clapisson, and in the beginning consisted only of a single collection — of whistles. This was, moreover, a most curious collection, comprising whistles of all ages and all countries, of terra-cotta, copper, ivory, hard stone, etc., some of which were.”


FIG. 1.?—?ANCIENT PERUVIAN EARTHEN WHISTLES. Nos. 1 and 2, figure of an animal, in face and in profile. No. 3. another form (From specimens in the Sèvres Museum.)

remarkable as specimens of invention and workmanship. Unfortunately, this collection was scattered to the winds at an auction-sale twenty years ago, and the conservatory has not preserved any part of it ; but there are still a great many curiosities in the instrumental museum — serpents in the most distressing shapes, horns and trumpets of crystal, flutes of porcelain, fiddles of faience, Alpine horns, a bassoon of such extraordinary adjustment that it is a day’s work to dismount it; and many other most curious contrivances for producing melodies and accompaniments.”… Popular Science Monthly at Wikipedia

Wouldn’t you be curious to see some of those “serpents in the most distressing shapes”?
Mr. Gutode suggests that the depiction on the far left is of a nightingale but keeping in mind that the ceratopsian order had not yet been named its no wonder that he didn’t consider a short frilled ceratopsian dinosaur. However, I think that’s a better identification than the nightingale.


From this view of the whistle we can see the beak caused by the placement of the rostral bone and as well we see the wide mouth caused by the interior jugal bones on each side of the head. We offer some head shots of modern short frilled ceratopsians for comparison sake.

Photo: Leptoceratops top left and bottom left, protceratops, bottom right.It’s worth noting that Ecuador, the source of our first artifact is only about 750 miles from Panama and the land Bridge between North and South America and that Peru, the source of this artifact, shares a border with Ecuador.
 

 

Bird-Headed Figure Whistle, 8th or 9th century Mexico, Veracruz

Finally, on our brief survey of pre Columbian artfacts depicting ceratopsian dinosaurs is this interesting artifact. The Metropolitan Museum of New York has a ceramic piece in its collection which it describes as bird-headed. It’s a ceramic 20.25 inches high, a part of the Michael C. Rockeller Memorial Collection donated to the museum in 1963.

The artifact is pre Columbian dated to the 8th 0r 9th century A.D. from Veracruz, Mexico.



The head features a bird-like beak and indications of the rostral bone characteristic of ceratopsians. It has a short frill, and has cheeks wide enough to accommodate the jugal hornlike facial projections also a characteristic of ceratopsian dinosaurs.

 

 

 

 

Crypto-Zoo-Archaelological Indications of Elephants in Pre Columbian South America

In viewing this artifact and while reading these pieces on elephants in South America it is important to realize that many female elephants do not have tusks and that tusklessness occurs in male elephants as well.

Science seems to be fragmented on the idea of elephants in the Americas in recent times but will allow elephants down to 10,000 years ago in South America. The problem is, there is evidence of their existence here in North America and in South America as well within the last 1,000 years or even later.

A species of ungulate believed to be ancestral to elephants and which supposedly became extinct more than 23 million year s ago is a possible answer to a question raised by a pre Columbian artifact presumably depicting some type of local fauna.

Recent Survival Of The Elephant In The Americas William Corliss, Science Frontiers OnLine
No. 68: Mar-Apr 1990


Photo:Mayan “elephant motif”.

“Elephants were supposed to have disappeared from the America about 10,000 years ago as the Ice Ages waned. This date is another of those “consensus” scientific facts that no one dares challenge if he or she wishes to get published or win research grants. Although this subject remains “closed off” in normal scientific intercourse, there remain tantalizing hints that elephants roamed the Americas until very recently – perhaps even a few hundred years ago!

The following snippets are culled from two articles written by G. Carter, Texas A&M, now emeritus, but always heretical:

1. Numerous folk memories of the elephamt were retained by American Indians.
2. A mastadon was killed, cooked, and eaten by humans in Ecuador circa 1500 BC.
3. Indians told Thomas Jefferson that elephants could still be seen in the region of the Great Lakes.
4. In Florida, a cache of extinct animals, including elephants, was carbon-dated at 2000 BP.
5. Elephant heads are prominent in art and sculpture from Mexico, Central American, and northern South America.

(Carter, George F.; “A Note on the Elephant in America,” and “The Mammoth in American Epigraphy,” Epigraphic Society, Occasional Publications, 18:90 and 18:213, 1989.) ‘

Sitchin’s Elephant


An Elephant Among the Wheels“Jalapa, a gem of a town, is about two hours’ drive from Veracruz (where the Spanish Conquistador Hernan Cortes landed in 1519).

Its museum is undoubtedly second only to the famed one in Mexico City; but unlike Mexico City’s which displays artifacts from all over the country, the Jalapa one exhibits only locally discovered artifacts — predominantly Olmec ones.

Dramatically and effectively displayed in an innovative setting, the Museum boasts several colossal stone heads as well as other stone sculptures. It also displays smaller objects found at Olmec sites; among them, in special display showcases, are what are considered to be Olmec “toys.” They include animals mounted on wheels — a visual and evidentiary negation of the common claim that the people of Mesoamerica (and America in general) were unfamiliar with the wheel.

And included in the same display case were elephants — “toys” made of clay.

Gone – Where and Why? I, and some of my fans who accompanied me, saw them on previous visits to the Museum.
BUT when I (and again some of my fans with me) was there recently — in December 1999 — the elephants were nowhere in sight!

I could find no one in authority to obtain an explanation from. But that the elephants were once there was a fact indeed, here is a photograph of one, shot on a previous visit:

Now, here is the significance of this small artifact: There are no, and never have been, elephants in the Americas. There are and have been elephants in Africa. And a depiction of an elephant could have been made only by someone who has seen an elephant, i.e. someone who has been to Africa!”

 
Aspire Auction Pre Columbian Coati Muni—Or Elephant?


Recently an auction house specializing in ancient artifacts had this pre Columbian artifact for sale at one of its auctions.
Just for information purposes it eventually sold for $161 dollars which is the kind of price you’re going to realize if your ancient artifact looks like a dinosaur or even, God forbid an elephant which is out of time and place.

 


I would tend to believe that an actual depiction of a pre Columbian coati mundi would have fetched more.

The artifact is small; approximately 4 x 5 x 3.5 inches and is described as a “ Pre-Columbian Coati Mundi Head Fragment “., The piece is terracotta and hollow and is further described by the auction house as having “slit eyes” and an “extended nose”..

 



The South American Coati Mundi is a relative of the raccoon and is common in South America. It is also known as the Quati. Their coloration is variable. Unfortunately, coatis don’t have the nose or the ears for this artifact. One is pictured here along with a front view of the artifact.

 

 

 

Pyrotherium, another possibility over coati mundi?
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pyrotherium (‘fire beast’) is an extinct genus of South American ungulate, of the order Pyrotheria, that lived in what is now Argentina, during the Early Oligocene.(between 43 annd 23 million years ago) It was named “Fire Beast” because the first specimens were excavated from an ancient volcanic ashfall.

The vaguely elephant-like Pyrotherium was 3 m (10 ft) long and 1.50 m (5 ft) tall at the shoulders, with a weight up to 3500 kg (3.85 tons). Its heavy body was carried by robust legs. Pyrotherium also had a short trunk on its snout, and two pairs of flat, forward-facing tusks in the upper jaw, with a single pair in the lower jaw.


Photo: Left, Restoration of the head by Robert Bruce HorsfallPossible South American descendants of the xenungulates, the complete study of the tarsus of Pyrotherium fails to support this relationship. In one study, derived characters were not seen in any mammal examined except the embrithopod Arsinoitherium from the Tertiary of Africa.[3] Whether this is due to common ancestry, or to the unusual mode of locomotion used by these animals (graviportal and plantigrade) remains to be seen.”

Were there elephants and/or elephants related to elephants in South America within the last 1,000 years? The artifacts say yes but science says no. Will science carry by labeling trunked animal depictions as coati mundi with extended ears and noses or as macaws as some label the Mayan “elephant”.

Perhaps they can maintain their illusions and their evolutionary allusions if they have enough Darwinsitic faith.

See Also:Crouching Dragon, Hdden Dinosaurs: How Evolutionary Science Hides Historical Man and Dinosaur Interaction Part I

Crouching Dragon, Hdden Dinosaurs: How Evolutionary Science Hides Historical Man and Dinosaur Interaction Part II

How Darwinism Deals with Human Giants: Go Lieth?

Church of Darwin, Giants in Those Days, Science, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Feb 10 2011

Numbers 13:33
And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.

The Quote Box following contains an Email sent to s8int.com by Jim S. which itself contains quotes and references to an article on the website; The Naked Scientists, which is an interview with a South African anthropologist.

Photo: Sellards: giant of early 20th century Florida anthropology and geology.
“As just one example of the “deception” that Jim S. references, Elias Howard Sellards, who became the first state geologist of the State of Florida, found human bones near Vero Beach Florida of what he admitted were “fully modern” individuals he estimated to be between 10 and 12 feet tall. Today, Vero Beach man remains controversial because of his “modernity” but no refererence is ever found concerning his alleged giant stature. A link to that article is at the end of this one.

Following Jim’s email is a news article we’re presenting that appears to be somewhat related….s8int.com

Hello,

Photo: Femur of Ancient Giant compared to normal human

“This is Jim, the guy who found the Castelnau giant report. I recently stumbled across this interesting new bit of information concerning a race of giants in Africa:

Although you will never hear about it in the National Geographic or Nature Magazine, Evolutionist scientists have known all along that races of giants have existed. We all know about Meganthropus and Gigantopithecus, but many skeletons of other giants have been found by anthropologists for decades, and in this rare 2007 interview by “The Naked Scientist” we can get a quick glimpse of some of what has been found.

A 2007 interview with Professor Lee Burger, University of Witwatersrand South Africa reveals some startling clues:”
Prof. Lee Burger -
“One of the most interesting things that the fossil record reveals is that we went through a period of extreme giantism. These were people routinely over 7ft tall, they were huge. This was before we turned into the modern humans of today. ”

” What we’re looking at is the most enormous femur: the bit that forms your hip joint. That’s huge. As a doctor I know how big they normally are, that’s huge.

They are huge. That’s so big we can’t even calculate how big this individual was.”

“….we found a lot of them. Everywhere we find them we find them enormous. These are what we call archaic Homo sapiens. Some people refer to them as Homo heidelbergensis. These individuals are extraordinary, they are giants”

thenakedscientists

Jim’s Remarks Continued:
“This is just another example of the establishment finding races of giants, and trying to reconcile them into their pet ape ancestry agenda. It’s also very remarkable that this race of giants has never made the headlines in Nature Magazine or Nat Geo, whereas the discovery of the 3 1/2 foot tall pygmies on the Island of Flores in 2004 created an Academic sensation with headlines all over the press announcing the discovery of tiny ape men, who were probably just smaller versions of us.

Perhaps they are concerned that if they were to report the discovery of a race of 8 foot tall ancient giants, they would somehow be vindicating scripture and they simply cannot allow this.

Dwarfs and small ape sized men are OK to report, but giants twice our size cannot be reported for fear that Bibles might start thumping and accountability and God might actually exist. Well maybe I am going a bit too far, but you get my point.

God bless,”
Jim S.

United Press Feb. 9, 1929
Drawing by Dan Smith, 1929

Ancient Battle:
Capetown, South Africa. Feb. 9. An important anthropological discovery consisting of the fossil of a gigantic prenegroid man and a huge extinct type of buffalo fossil was announced last night by the Transvaal Museum authorities.

The positions of the fossils indicated the buffalo had trampled the man in a battle.
The skull of the man had been crushed.

The fossil of the buffalo showed that the animal measured 12 feet between the horn tips. The fossils were found near Springbok Flats, Transvaal.

See Also: Giant Men? Evidence; Amen! Giant Tracks? Science Attacks! 12 Feet Tall? Darwinists; Not at All! Historical Evidence That There Were Giants in Those Days-As Alleged by Scientists of the Recent Past

Video: Dinosaurs and Man; The Lands That Darwin Forgot..Episodes 1-8

Church of Darwin, Crypto, Dinosaurs in Literature, Religious, s8int.com, Science, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Oct 28 2010

embedded by Embedded Video

YouTube Direkt

Darwin and time forgot the co-existence of man and dinosaurs but it is reflected in the art of ancient peoples. The variety and repetitive discoveries of known dinosaur and pterosaur species offer proof that Darwinism is a lie; all species of animals on this planet have lived concurrently with man.

The proof of this assertion is explored in eight episodes. The Series; The Lands That time Forgot”.
(Note this is not a real series….Its a s8int.com conceit)

And God created the great dragons…

And man memorialized these creatures; great and small; in exquisite detail. That is why these examinations will never be popular. everything that we’ve been told is true by materialistic sources–is untrue–and that is impossible in that world view.

Link to Video; Dinosaurs and Man; The Lands That Darwin Forgot..Episodes 1-8

Note: No actual, horses, dogs or dinosaurs were hurt or harmed in the making of this movie….

“Oh What A Tangled Web We Weave, When At First We Practice to Deceive”–Alleged 165 Million Year Old Spider Looks Just Like 165 Day Old Spider

Church of Darwin, s8int.com, Science, Uncategorized, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Feb 12 2010


Genesis 1:24
Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so.

If evolutionists had a long list of transitional fossils (or even a short list) that they could point to that proved that the living creatures on this planet were “evolving”, then frequently discovering fossils that obviously were unchanged –though supposedly millions of years old would not be so problematic for them.

We’ve written here about the unchanged “95 million year old octopi”, and the fossil lamprey, allegedly 360 million years old which was identical in every respect to “modern” lampreys, and the alleged 150 million year old squid that was also identical to “modern” squids. So, if we have no transitional fossils and we have a surfeit of ancient bees that were bees and ants that were ants and spiders that were; spiders etc. etc. why would anyone believe that Darwinism is true?


Photo: Gould; saying more stuff “out of context”?

It was famous Darwinist Stephen Jay Gould who said “the lack of transitional fossils is the trade secret of paleontology”.

I have to tell you that evolutionists will do a spit take if you say that there are no transitional fossils–but they become downright upset and angry if you go to the Stephen Jay Gould quote. “You’re quoting him out of context they shout”, (or type), ironically, looking just like angry men have always looked from the time of Adam. (They’re unchanged just like spiders and bees.)

Can you imagine a scenario wherein Gould was not really trying to say that there were not a lot of transitional fossils around and that this information was not something generally known? Maybe he was just quoting the lines from some unknown B Movie?

Colin Patterson, another prominent evolutionist, formerly a senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History and author of the book “Evolution” said the following re: transitional fossils and his understanding of what Gould and some of his associate paleontologists meant by the “lack of transitional fossils”

Photo:Evolution 2nd Edition; Now without transitional fossils! (Previously without transitional fossils).

In a letter to an evolutionist who had complained about the lack of drawings of these whimsical creatures (transitional ones) in Patterson’s book; Evolution, Patterson responded;

“I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it…

Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils..”

Indeed they are Colin! (he’s passed on)

Re: the subject at hand; scientists have discovered the very well preserved fossil of a spider which they claim is 165 million years old. Was it some kind of “pre-spider”? Something very primitive in the spider line with you know; stooped shoulders, a prominent forehead and copius hair? We know from years of indoctrination that these are the qualities that make a creature primitive.

Nope! According to the article:

E. gertschi shows all the features of the modern members of the family, found in North America, suggesting it has evolved very little since the Jurassic period, Selden said.

“The scimitar-shaped structure you notice out of the male is so distinctive,” he said. “Looking at modern ones, you think, well, it’s just a dead ringer.”

Read More
Read More Here

Thanks to Chris Z……

s8int=saint

IDA DOA: The Explosive Pace of Evolution-ary Debunking

Church of Darwin, Fin De Siecle, Science | Posted by Chris Parker
Oct 22 2009

Thanks to: Geoff G. & Chris W.

Photo:P.T. Barnum, is there indeed one born every minute?

Ernst Haeckel’s Biogenic Law; often stated as “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” (an embryo goes through all the stages of its “evolutionary ancestors”) had been formulated with the help of faked drawings and outright lies had been debunked by his own scientific peers. Jonathan Wells notes in his book “Icons of Evolution” that even though the theory had been discredited over 100 years ago, Haeckel’s drawings were still being used in the latest edition of Molecular Biology of the Cell, written by National Academy of Sciences president and distinguished cell biologist Bruce Alberts and his colleagues.

It tends to support evolution dogma you see.

The “Link”

Fossil “Ida” was introduced with as much fanfare, braggadocio, Darwinian smarm and chutzpa as can be imagined. Ida it was claimed was the “eighth wonder of the world” and could cure cancer or bad breath just by being gazed upon. There were tie-ins to movies, television programs, videos, books and Ida plush toys. Darwinists apparently thought that the little rodent proved that there was no God!

Early on, much of the criticism of the Ida publicity machine came from other evolutionists–some who admittedly were promoting their own favorite little furry animals–but many were concerned about the overheated claims. Now, a new analysis of the fossil will make most of the Ida claims go extinct. (This changes everything!) The value of Ida memorabilia is already plummeting…..s8int.com

‘Eighth wonder’ Ida is not related to humans, claim scientists
US palaeontologists dismiss initial claims about the 47million-year-old fossil found in Germany’s Messel Pit

Ian Sample, science correspondent guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 21 October 2009

Her arrival was announced with unrestrained razzmatazz. She was the “eighth wonder of the world”, “our Mona Lisa” and an evolutionary “Rosetta Stone”, according to the researchers who unveiled her.

The female in question was Ida, a 47million-year-old primate, whose exquisitely preserved fossil was touted as the remains of our earliest human ancestor. She was, they said, the “link” between us and the rest of the animal kingdom.

Or maybe not. Writing in the journal, Nature, a team of palaeontologists from New York claim that Ida is not related to humans at all. Instead, they conclude, the $1m fossil looks more like a small lemur or maybe a loris.

The challenge is being seen as the opening salvo in what is shaping up to be a hearty academic slugging match. At stake is not only the significance of one of the most extraordinary fossils unearthed, but the reputations of some of the world’s leading researchers. So far, relations between the two sides are strained but courteous.

“Our analysis and results have convinced us that Ida was not an ancestor of monkeys, apes, or humans, and if anything has more relevance for our understanding of lemur and loris origins,” said Erik Seiffert, a fossil hunter at Stony Brook University in New York who led the Nature study.

Read The Remainder of the Article Here

A.P. Primate fossil called only a distant relative

By MALCOLM RITTER, AP Science Writer Malcolm Ritter, Ap Science Writer – Wed Oct 21, 5:09 pm ET
NEW YORK – Remember Ida, the fossil discovery announced last May with its own book and TV documentary? A publicity blitz called it “the link” that would reveal the earliest evolutionary roots of monkeys, apes and humans. Experts protested that Ida wasn’t even a close relative. And now a new analysis supports their reaction.

In fact, Ida is as far removed from the monkey-ape-human ancestry as a primate could be, says Erik Seiffert of Stony Brook University in New York.

He and his colleagues compared 360 specific anatomical features of 117 living and extinct primate species to draw up a family tree. They report the results in Thursday’s issue of the journal Nature.

Ida is a skeleton of a 47 million-year-old cat-sized creature found in Germany. It starred in a book, “The Link: Uncovering Our Earliest Ancestor.”

Ida represents a previously unknown primate species called Darwinius. The scientists who formally announced the finding said they weren’t claiming Darwinius was a direct ancestor of monkeys, apes and humans. But they did argue that it belongs in the same major evolutionary grouping, and that it showed what an actual ancestor of that era might have looked like.

The new analysis says Darwinius does not belong in the same primate category as monkeys, apes and humans. Instead, the analysis concluded, it falls into the other major grouping, which includes lemurs.

Experts agreed.

The Remainder of this Article can Be Found Here

The Last Vestige of the Mythical Vestigial Organ Claim?

Church of Darwin, Religious, Science, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Aug 24 2009

Psalm 139:14
I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well

These authors are careful to say that they are not disparaging Darwin as they disassemble several Darwinist cornerstones. Remember how Darwinists used to try to hammer believers with that whole vestigial organ take? The same thing was done with “junk DNA”. If there was a Creator, they asked, why would He make imperfect DNA? (This was before science bagan to understand how important “junk” DNA really is).

What these two topics have in common is that they are examples of how Darwinists have attempted to use their own ignorance as a hammer to pound believers and as a crutch to support Darwinism. In the end, will every important Darwinist theory or supposition be proved incorrect while the theory itself remains viable for evolutionary believers? Or will belief in Darwinism by evolutionists become vestigial; “Occurring or persisting as a rudimentary or degenerate structure”….dictionary.com?……s8int.com

Thanks to:Geoff G.
The Appendix: Useful and in Fact Promising
Charles Q. Choi
Special to LiveScience

The body’s appendix has long been thought of as nothing more than a worthless evolutionary artifact, good for nothing save a potentially lethal case of inflammation.

Now researchers suggest the appendix is a lot more than a useless remnant. Not only was it recently proposed to actually possess a critical function, but scientists now find it appears in nature a lot more often than before thought. And it’s possible some of this organ’s ancient uses could be recruited by physicians to help the human body fight disease more effectively.

In a way, the idea that the appendix is an organ whose time has passed has itself become a concept whose time is over.

“Maybe it’s time to correct the textbooks,” said researcher William Parker, an immunologist at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, N.C. “Many biology texts today still refer to the appendix as a ‘vestigial organ.’”

Slimy sac

The vermiform appendix is a slimy dead-end sac that hangs between the small and large intestines. No less than Charles Darwin first suggested that the appendix was a vestigial organ from an ancestor that ate leaves, theorizing that it was the evolutionary remains of a larger structure, called a cecum, which once was used by now-extinct predecessors for digesting food.

“Everybody likely knows at least one person who had to get their appendix taken out – slightly more than 1 in 20 people do – and they see there are no ill effects, and this suggests that you don’t need it,” Parker said.

However, Parker and his colleagues recently suggested that the appendix still served as a vital safehouse where good bacteria could lie in wait until they were needed to repopulate the gut after a nasty case of diarrhea. Past studies had also found the appendix can help make, direct and train white blood cells.

Now, in the first investigation of the appendix over the ages, Parker explained they discovered that it has been around much longer than anyone had suspected, hinting that it plays a critical function.

“The appendix has been around for at least 80 million years, much longer than we would estimate if Darwin’s ideas about the appendix were correct,” Parker said.

Moreover, the appendix appears in nature much more often than previously acknowledged. It has evolved at least twice, once among Australian marsupials such as the wombat and another time among rats, lemmings, meadow voles, Cape dune mole-rats and other rodents, as well as humans and certain primates.

“When species are divided into groups called ‘families,’ we find that more than 70 percent of all primate and rodent groups contain species with an appendix,” Parker said.

Several living species, including several lemurs, certain rodents and the scaly-tailed flying squirrel, still have an appendix attached to a large cecum, which is used in digestion. Darwin had thought appendices appeared in only a small handful of animals.

“We’re not saying that Darwin’s idea of evolution is wrong – that would be absurd, as we’re using his ideas on evolution to do this work,” Parker told LiveScience. “It’s just that Darwin simply didn’t have the information we have now.”

He added, “If Darwin had been aware of the species that have an appendix attached to a large cecum, and if he had known about the widespread nature of the appendix, he probably would not have thought of the appendix as a vestige of evolution.”

What causes appendicitis?

Darwin was also not aware that appendicitis, or a potentially deadly inflammation of the appendix, is not due to a faulty appendix, but rather to cultural changes associated with industrialized society and improved sanitation, Parker said.

“Those changes left our immune systems with too little work and too much time their hands – a recipe for trouble,” he said. “Darwin had no way of knowing that the function of the appendix could be rendered obsolete by cultural changes that included widespread use of sewer systems and clean drinking water.”

Now that scientists are uncovering the normal function of the appendix, Parker notes a critical question to ask is whether anything can be done to prevent appendicitis. He suggests it might be possible to devise ways to incite our immune systems today in much the same manner that they were challenged back in the Stone Age.

“If modern medicine could figure out a way to do that, we would see far fewer cases of allergies, autoimmune disease, and appendicitis,” Parker said.

The scientists detailed their findings online August 12 in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology.

Humans May be Primed to Believe in Creation

Amusing?, Church of Darwin, s8int.com, Science, Uncategorized | Posted by Chris Parker
Mar 04 2009

ISA 45:18 For this is what the LORD says—
he who created the heavens,
he is God;
he who fashioned and made the earth,
he founded it;
he did not create it to be empty,
but formed it to be inhabited—
he says:
“I am the LORD,
and there is no other.

Photo: Next up; Kelemen and colleagues study why dogs bark. ;0)

Humans May be Primed to Believe in Creation
02 March 2009 by Ewen Callaway

A Boston University psychologist has recently published one of the silliest, lamest and most ironic materialist’s studies in quite some time. Perhaps she was feeling some publish or perish pressure from the University. In a story in New Scientist by Ewen Callaway, Kelemen set out to find out why most people continue to hold on to creationism and other “childlike” beliefs.

In an article entitled “Humans May be Primed to Believe in Creation”, Kelemen joins other materialist believers in wondering why they can’t get the regular folks out there to convert to their religion; Darwinism. There must be something wrong with their brains, which causes them to reject Darwinism and to accept weird things like creationism and intelligent design.

It never occurs to Kelemen or to New Scientist or to any of the scientists lauding her conclusions that people believe in creationism because it’s true.

And how ironic is it that if there is something wrong with our brains that forces us into this “erroneous thinking” and “promiscuous teleology” as she calls it—and she completely misses this— how ironic is it that for Darwinists it had to be evolution that put it there!

“Religion might not be the only reason people buy into creationism and intelligent design, psychological experiments suggest.

……”The very fact of belief in purpose itself might lead you to favour intelligent design,” says Kelemen”,

According to the article in New Scientist, “test subjects tended to endorse false statements implying that the Earth is designed and maintained for life.” In Kelemen’s mind then, that age old question has been settled by science and anyone who continues to believe that the earth is “designed and maintained for life is suffering from some kind of mental syndrome, illness or deficiency.

Is it “promiscuous teleology” to believe that a larger brain size means greater intelligence, or that one can tell which creatures are more ” primitive” by looking at them?

As a psychologist she may be surprised to hear that the scientific evidence that the universe was specially created for life is so overwhelming (anthropic universe) that science has had to resort to “string theory”, a “scientific” theory so speculative there can never be any evidence to support it (postulates an infinite number of alternative universes occupying the same space as our universe).

“What her work suggests is that the creationist side has a huge leg up early on because it fits our natural tendencies,” says Paul Bloom, a psychologist at Yale University. “It has implications for why most people on earth are creationists, I think.”

No, what her work suggests is that just as Cosmologists have had to scramble to deal with the glaring weaknesses of the big bang theory and our anthropic universe; and biologists with the language in DNA and with complex biological machines, some psychologists have had to try to explain why for example the majority of Americans believe in God and creationism.

Dear Ms. Kelemen, if the human brain is “designed” to believe in a Creator, pray tell who would have done that? Thus saith the LORD, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches: but let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me…..Jeremiah 9:23,24.

The New Scientist Article

Comments to: s8intcom@comcast.net

Vatican Hosts Darwin Conference

Church of Darwin, Religious, Uncategorized | Posted by Chris Parker
Mar 03 2009

Genesis:19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.

Psalm 14:1 The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”

By David Willey
BBC News, Rome

The Vatican is sponsoring a five day conference to mark the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species.

The subject is the compatibility of evolution and creation.

It is one of two separate international academic conferences being sponsored by the Vatican this year.

They aim to re-examine the work of scientific thinkers whose revolutionary ideas challenged religious belief: Galileo and Charles Darwin.

Scientists, philosophers and theologians from around the world are gathering at the prestigious Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome to discuss the compatibility of Darwin’s theory of evolution and Catholic teaching.

Christian churches were long hostile to Darwin because his theory conflicted with the literal biblical account of creation.

But the Catholic Church never condemned Darwin, as it condemned and silenced Galileo.

Pope John Paul II said that evolution was “more than a hypothesis”.

Yet as recently as 2006 a leading Catholic Cardinal, Christoff Schoenborn, of Vienna, a former student and friend of Pope Benedict XVI caused controversy by saying that Darwin’s theory of natural selection was incompatible with Christian belief.

A leading American scholar of biology, Prof Francisco Ayala, plans to tell the conference that the so-called theory of intelligent design, proposed by Creationists, is flawed.

“The design of organisms is not what would be expected from an intelligent engineer, but imperfect and worse,” he said.

“Defects, dysfunctions, oddities, waste and cruelty pervade the living world”.

How Life Has Preserved Its Mystery

Church of Darwin, Science, Uncategorized, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Feb 14 2009

Despite a century and a half of research since Darwin, our existence is still a thing of wonder, argues our medical columnist.

By Dr. James Le Fanu
Telegraph.co.uk 09 Feb 2009

“Wonders are there many,” observed the Greek dramatist Sophocles, “but none more wonderful than man.” And rightly so, for we, as far as we can tell, are the sole witnesses of the splendours of the universe – though consistently less impressed by this privileged position than would seem warranted.

The chief reason for that lack of astonishment has always been that the practicalities of our everyday lives are so simple and effortless as to seem unremarkable. We open our eyes on waking to be surrounded by the shapes and colours, sounds and smells of the world in the most exquisite detail. We feel hungry, and by some magical alchemy of which we know nothing, our bodies transform the food and drink before us into our flesh and blood. We open our mouth to speak and the words flow in a ceaseless bubbling brook of thoughts and ideas.

We reproduce, and play no part in the transformation of the fertilised egg into a fully formed embryo with its 4,000 functioning parts. We tend to our children’s needs, but effortlessly they grow to adulthood, replacing along the way virtually every cell in their bodies.

These practicalities are not in the least bit simple, but in reality are the simplest things we know – because they have to be so. If our senses did not accurately capture the world around us, were the growth from childhood not virtually automatic, then “we” would never have happened.

There is, from common experience, nothing more difficult than to make the complex appear simple, just as a concert pianist’s effortless playing is grounded in years of toil and practice – so that semblance of simplicity must reflect the complexities of the processes that underpin them. This should, by rights, be part of general knowledge, a central theme of the school curriculum, promoting that appropriate sense of wonder in young minds at the fact of their very existence.

But one could search a shelf’s worth of biology textbooks in vain for a hint of the extraordinary in their detailed exposition of those complexities of life. Rather, for the past 150 years, scientists have interpreted the world through the prism of supposing there is nothing in principle that cannot be accounted for – where the unknown is merely waiting to be known. At least till very recently, when the findings of two of the most ambitious scientific projects ever conceived have revealed quite unexpectedly – and without anyone really noticing – that we are after all “a wonder” to ourselves.

It started in the early 1980s with a series of technical innovations in genetics and neuroscience that promised to resolve the final obstacles to comprehensive understanding of ourselves. They were, first, the immensely impressive achievement of spelling out the entire sequence of genes strung out along the double helix – the genome – of worms, flies, mice, monkeys and humans, which should have identified those “instructions” that so readily distinguish one form of life from another.

And second, the development of those equally impressive scanning techniques that would permit neuroscientists for the first time to observe the brain “in action”: thinking, imagining, perceiving – all the seemingly effortless features of the human mind.

This was serious science of the best kind, filling learned journals and earning Nobel Prizes while holding out the exhilarating prospect that these most fundamental questions of genetic inheritance and the workings of the human brain might finally be resolved.

The completion of the human genome project, on the cusp of the new millennium, marked “one of the most significant days in history”, as one of its architects described it. “Just as Copernicus changed our understanding of the solar system… so knowledge of the human genome would change how we see ourselves.”

At the same time Professor Steven Pinker, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, after reviewing how neuroscientists with their new techniques had investigated everything “from mental imagery to moral sense”, confidently anticipated “cracking the mystery of the brain”.

Nearly a decade has passed since those heady days, and looking back, it is possible to see how the findings of both endeavours have enormously deepened our knowledge of life and the mind – but in a way quite contrary to that anticipated.

The genome projects were predicated on the reasonable assumption that spelling out the full complement of genes would clarify, to a greater or lesser extent, the source of that diversity of form that marks out the major categories of life. It was thus disconcerting to learn that virtually the reverse is the case, with a near equivalence of a (modest) 20,000 genes across the vast spectrum from a millimetre-long worm to ourselves.

It was similarly disconcerting to learn that the human genome is virtually interchangeable with that of our fellow vertebrates, such as the mouse and our primate cousins.

“We cannot see in this why we are so different from chimpanzees,” remarked the director of the chimp genome project. “The obvious differences cannot be explained by genetics alone.” This would seem fair comment but leaves unanswered the question of what does account for those distinctive features of standing upright and our prodigiously large brain.

More unexpected still, the same regulatory genes that cause a fly to be a fly, it emerged, cause humans to be humans with not a hint of why the fly should have six legs, a pair of wings and a brain the size of a full stop, and we should have two arms, two legs and a turbo-sized brain. These “instructions” must be there, of course, but we have moved in the wake of these projects from supposing we knew the principles of the genetic basis of the infinite variety of life, to recognising we have no conception of what they might be.

At the same time, neuroscientists observing the brain in action were increasingly perplexed at how it fragments the sights and sounds of every transient moment into a myriad of separate components, with no compensatory mechanism that would reintegrate them together into that personal experience of being at the centre of a coherent, ever-changing world.

Meanwhile, the greatest conundrum remains – how the monotonous electrical activity of those billions of neurons in the brain “translates” into the limitless range and quality of subjective experiences of our lives, where every moment has its own unique, intangible feel.

The implications are clear enough: while theoretically it might be possible for neuroscientists to know everything about the physical structure of the brain, its “product”, the mind, with its thoughts and ideas, impressions and emotions, would still remain unaccounted for.

“We seem as far from understanding the brain as we were a century ago,” says the editor of Nature, John Maddox. “Nobody understands how decisions are made or how imagination is set free.”

There is in all this the impression that triumphant science has stumbled on something of immense importance – a powerful parallel reality that might conjure the richness of the living world from the bare bones of the genes strung out along the double helix and the parallel richness of the mind from the electrochemistry of the brain.

Certainly, for the foreseeable future there will be no need to defer to those who would appropriate our sense of wonder at the glorious panoply of nature and ourselves, by their claims to understand it. Rather, the very aspect of the living world now seems once again infused with that deep sense of mystery of “How can these things be?”

James Le Fanu’s new book, ‘Why Us?: How Science Rediscovered the Mystery of Ourselves’ (HarperCollins), is available from Telegraph Books for £16.99 + £1.25 p&p