#3 Soft Tissue in Fossils10 Best Evidences From Science That Confirm a Young Earth

www.answersingenesis.org ^ | September 11, 2012 | David Menton

[BroJoeK]

central_va: "Funny how mythical crossover species never seem to form fossils.
The appearance of new species seems to be a step function not an analog process.... "

First of all, the fossil record is very spotty, with typically millions of years and/or hundreds of miles separating one dig from the next.

Second, the average life-span of a "species" is only about one million years before it either goes extinct, or necessarily changes into something different enough to call a new "species".

Third, once a species has become well adapted to its environment, it will not undergo major changes until its environment changes -- i.e., becomes warmer, colder, wetter, dryer, new predators, etc.
At that point change, or extinction, can be very rapid indeed.

Fourth, because of all this, we don't often find detailed records of evolutionary changes, from one species to the next, with lots of transitional intermediate fossils.
But we do have some, and here's one which might be of particular interest to you:

• (A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
• (B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
• (C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
• (D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
• (E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
• (F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
• (G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
• (H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
• (I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
• (J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
• (K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
• (L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
• (M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
• (N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

[central_va]

The fact that we classify different distinct species at all means it is a step function, not analog.

[MrB]

Actually, my history is the opposite.

I doubted the Bible because of the secular humanist indoctrination of public school “science” teaching old earth and evolution as a fact. It was a huge stumbling block to faith. It’s also been shown that the more someone is “educated”, ie, immersed in the secular humanist worldview, the more likely they are to be “driven away from Christianity”. So the facts show the opposite of your assertion.

It was when I was introduced to evidence, and ways of viewing that evidence, that were left out as “inconvenient to commonly held beliefs” that I realized the Bible was reliable in all things.

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, because you’re probably where I was 8 yrs ago - ignorant of the problems with the “commonly held belief” of the earth’s history.

[MrB]

Your post is a classic example of “assuming the consequent” - you interpret the evidence through an assumption, then say that the evidence proves that assumption.

You probably don’t even see that you’re doing that.

[BroJoeK]

MrB: "You might want to check out the strata laid down in a few weeks after the mt St. Helens eruption and also the airplanes found under ice in the arctic.

"Once again, I’m not proving, I’m disproving your evidence as not indicating what you say it does."

I've looked at both of your examples before, and they are both examples of "young earthers'" mis-interpretation and/or fraud.

In the Mount St. Helens case, Dr. Stephen Austin deliberately chose the wrong test for the material he selected, and so naturally got back inaccurate results: G.I.G.O.

Those WWII airplanes found in Greenland under 250 feet of ice (or was it 3000 meters?) are comically mis-interpreted by "young earthers".
First of all, no ice-core samples were extracted to actually count how deep those planes were buried.
But as important: glacial ice in Greenland moves, often quite rapidly, and in the process objects buried within the ice can also move -- up or down.
So those planes' found location says less about the number of years than about the ice's rate of movement, which of course nobody bothered to measure.

That's why I say: even in those "worst-case examples", it still takes willful acts of fraud and/or DeNile to make science appear to support a "young earth" hypothesis.

"Young Earth" has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with religious convictions.

DeNile River:

[Okieshooter]

“I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, because you’re probably where I was 8 yrs ago - ignorant of the problems with the “commonly held belief” of the earth’s history.”

There you go making assumptions. You really have no idea where I am, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt because, and now I will make an assumption, you are simply following God’s command in Gensis 2:17.

[BroJoeK]

central_va: "The fact that we classify different distinct species at all means it is a step function, not analog."

No, there are many creatures where differences are small enough that scientists debate whether a certain branch is just another breed (i.e., dogs), or separate sub-species, species, genus, etc.

The criteria they establish for these various sub-groupings are more-or-less arbitrary and may not, historically, have been consistently applied.
That's why we can see the example of Polar Bears, once classified as a separate genus, now reduced to just another species within the Ursus genus.
That change was caused, among other reasons, by the discovery that Polar and Brown Bears can and occasionally do interbreed in nature.

Another example is Neanderthals, once classified as a separate species, now considered just a sub-species, along with some others (i.e., "Hobbits") of Homo Sapiens.
One reason is the discovery that, ahem, some of us do carry a few Neanderthal genes -- who would have thunk it, Neanderthals in our wood piles? ;-)

Point is: these classifications are more-or-less arbitrary and subject to change as new data becomes available.
So speciation is strictly, in your term, "analog" -- there's nothing "step" about it.

[BroJoeK]

MrB: "Your post is a classic example of “assuming the consequent” - you interpret the evidence through an assumption, then say that the evidence proves that assumption."

Your post is a classic example of psychological projection -- you assert in others what you fear most in yourself.

The fact of both your examples is: there's no -- zero, zip, nada -- valid scientific data to justify "young earthers' " claims, period.

MrB: "You probably don’t even see that you’re doing that."

You probably don’t even see that you’re doing that, FRiend.

;-)

[MrB]

“there’s no — zero, zip, nada — valid scientific data to justify “young earthers’ “ claims, period.”

That statement is pure ignorance and shows a lack of curiosity and a fear to be exposed to another viewpoint.

[BroJoeK]

MrB: "That statement is pure ignorance and shows a lack of curiosity and a fear to be exposed to another viewpoint."

That statement is pure ignorance and shows an utter lack of valid scientific data to support a purely religious conviction.

The fact is that I've not only been "exposed to another viewpoint", I've taken all comers here, and refuted every single point they've made.

I'm not afraid of anything, and I'm outraged that you claim your religious faith has something to do with science.
It doesn't.

[MrB]

There’s plenty of evidence refuting old creation.
Your denial of that shows willful ignorance on your part.

I’m just going to leave it with it’s not my job to rub your nose in it. You know it’s there. Refusing to look at it is not my problem.

[BroJoeK]

MrB: "There’s plenty of evidence refuting old creation.
Your denial of that shows willful ignorance on your part."

There's no scientifically valid evidence refuting old creation.
Your DeNile of that shows willful self-deception on your part.

MrB: "I’m just going to leave it with it’s not my job to rub your nose in it.
You know it’s there.
Refusing to look at it is not my problem."

You well know it's not there, and that's why you can't present it here.
Indeed, you and your fellow "young earthers" have already put out your best arguments, and they are ludicrously false.

You got nothing left, because your religion is not a science, and you should never be pretending it is.

Listen up, and I'll tell you the real truth of this matter:
God could well have created the Universe and Earth in exactly the time-frame you claim, but for reasons known only to God, He made everything appear to all scientific inquiries, as if it were Created over billions of years.
Why would He do that?
Of course, nobody knows, but we might speculate that perhaps He wishes us to understand a small something of the vast gap between our little selves and His Infinity.

I'm just saying, FRiend...

[MrB]

You’re outright LYING when you say there’s no evidence against old creation.

ICR and AIG exist. Go there. If you dare.

[BroJoeK]

MrB: "You’re outright LYING when you say there’s no evidence against old creation."

Sorry, FRiend, but you are the only one "LYING" here.
And the rest of us are doing our level best to be patient with you, understanding that you may well be, in some sense, brain-damaged.
We don't make fun of the handicapped on Free Republic.

What I said, precisely is: "There's no scientifically valid evidence refuting old creation."

If you think that's wrong, FRiend, then present your data, and I'll explain again why it doesn't refute "old creation".

[MrB]

Not my job. I’ve pointed you at the researching entities. If you refuse to go there, that’s on you.

[central_va]

This is what you are tying say, (I am not agreeing just putting what you said differently).

So IYO speciation or naming different species is a "sampling" technique of the greater analog evolution process. So Neanderthal is a sample of a greater being with traits similar to modern humans. I will consider that but I still see it as step function with species suddenly "appearing", paleo biologists use this phrase all the time.

[BroJoeK]

central_va: "So IYO speciation or naming different species is a "sampling" technique of the greater analog evolution process.
So Neanderthal is a sample of a greater being with traits similar to modern humans."

Sure, naming different species of fossils is absolutely a "sampling technique", since we only have a very small percent of all the pre-historic fossil types.

But let me also mention that we have 100% of all living breeds, sub-species, species, genera, families, etc.
And scientists have made considerable efforts to define criteria for putting each known critter into its appropriate category.

If you just consider mammals, for example, today there are over 5,000 species.
Now consider that the average mammal species survives around one million years before going extinct (or evolving into something else).
So, if we go back in time, let's say 10 million years and ask: how many fossil species of mammals do we have from 10 million years ago?
The answer is probably a few dozen, meaning circa 1% of all the species then living were fossilized and now recovered by science.

As for how many closely related pre-humans there were, besides Neanderthals, in recent years four more have been discovered -- the so-called "Hobbit" from Indonesia, Denisovans from Siberia, Deer Cave People from China and Idaltu's from Ethiopia.

Those are the ones we know about, but presumably are just a small percentage of the total number of near-human who may have lived until fairly recent times.

central_va: "I will consider that but I still see it as step function with species suddenly "appearing", paleo biologists use this phrase all the time."

Of course they "suddenly appear" in the fossil record, but that does not suggest they "suddenly appeared" in nature.
As we can see among living groups today, a totally new species does not happen overnight, but rather in small steps, each step making the new group slightly more distinct from its parent population.

Eventually they no longer routinely interbreed, and so scientists re-classify them as a new species.