|MEGASHARK GETS MORE MEGA, according to Science Alert and SciTechDaily 9 June 2021, and Palaeontologia Electronica DOI: 10.26879/1140. The size of the extinct giant fossil shark now named Otodus megalodon (used to be Carcharodon) has been re-estimated using the size of its teeth compared with teeth from the living Great White shark, then using the Great White’s body proportions as a guideline. Over the years a formula has been developed using the height of a fossil tooth to calculate the size of the shark it came from. Estimates based on this formula have ranged from 15 to 18 metres, but when Victor Perez of the Florida Museum of Natural History got school students to measure Megalodon teeth and use the formula they came up with wildly differing estimates. Part of the problem is that shark teeth vary in height according to where in the jaw they are located. So, it is necessary to know where in the jaw the tooth comes from. After studying a near complete set of megalodon teeth in the Florida Museum of Natural History, along with teeth and jaws of living sharks, palaeontologists have come up with a new formula based on the width of the teeth. The researchers now consider this a more accurate indicator as the width of the teeth is related to the width of the jaw, which is related to the overall size of the shark. Using the new formula the scientists have increased megalodon’s size to an estimated body length of 20 metres (65ft). There are still some limits to how accurate this new formula can be as there is no way to know whether Megalodon’s teeth had gaps between them or overlapped, as seen in some living sharks. Victor Perez of Florida Museum of Natural History, one of the researchers, commented: “Even though this potentially advances our understanding, we haven’t really settled the question of how big megalodon was. There’s still more that could be done, but that would probably require finding a complete skeleton at this point”. He still uses the shark teeth and the formula as a school lesson. He explained: “Since then, we’ve used the lesson to talk about the nature of science – the fact that we don’t know everything. There are still unanswered questions”.|
Links: Science Alert, SciTechDaily
ED. COM. It is important for students to understand the nature of science, including its strengths and limitations. In this example the size of teeth can be accurately measured, but as the scientists admit they are not able to observe the precise arrangement of teeth in the megalodon jaw, so they must make assumptions based on living sharks. There is nothing wrong with this, but it is important to acknowledge what is actually observed vs what is assumed. Whatever the real size of Megalodon sharks, they were certainly a lot bigger than any shark observed in the present-day oceans. This should lead scientists to ask why the change? However, they will not find the answer just by studying present day sharks or fossil shark teeth. They need to know the real history of the world, i.e. that it started out very good, and therefore could support giant animals, but has since been degraded due to human sin and God’s judgement. Science will not reveal this. Only the written record of the Creator and Judge can reveal this, and scientists should be humble enough to admit it, and then use it to better understand the results of their study of the present-day world.
‘Imagine that you are the child of the famous painter, Michelangelo. You grew up watching your father paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Each stroke of the brush revealed his love, creative genius, and masterful perfection.
Years later as you’re walking beneath your father’s great work, a guide enters leading a group of tourists. As they stand in awe under the grandeur of the artistic work, you hear the tour guide boldly state that the ceiling occurred by naturalistic processes over countless years as water leaked through the roof and stained the plaster. The people are told by their expert guide that what appears as an intentionally designed work of beauty is strictly a chance occurrence.
Would you not, as Michelangelo’s child, rise up in righteous indignation at the telling of such a flagrant lie? If the guide said that your father had used the random procedure of dripping water through the plaster to create the masterpiece, would that lie have been any more palatable?
The modern “tour guides” of our world are evolutionists who would have us believe that all of the purpose, eloquent design, and astronomical complexity of life just happened as chance naturalistic processes (such as mutations) formed life over billions of years. Liberal theologians would have us believe that God used such a process to make things.
Should not Christians boldly proclaim the truth so that more people may come to know the true Master Artist and come to trust His written revelation to mankind (the Bible)?’http://www.searchforthetruth.net/
‘In order to have evolution, you must first have life. Both sides of the evolution-creation debate agree that the chance of all the correct biomolecules coming together by chance to form even the simplest cell is virtually impossible. Fred Hoyle1 (an atheist) estimated the probability as one chance in 1040,000. He compared the likelihood of life originating on Earth to that of a tornado going through a junkyard and assembling a 747 airplane. Even if this improbability actually happened, one would have an inert, non-operating 747 in a junkyard rut. To operate it (bring it to “life”), its engines would have to be jumpstarted, its electronics activated, and a pilot provided to operate it.
Some evolutionists argue that life must have originated spontaneously because life exists. So, what would happen if a “tornado” actually whipped through a biological junkyard and assembled a simple cell? The answer is simple: absolutely nothing. Another “highly improbable” event is required for life to exist—the inert assemblage molecule must be elevated into a higher state.
This was shown by Nobel Prize-winning chemist and evolutionist Ilya Prigogine.2 He is famous for pointing out two aspects of life: it is dissipative and far from equilibrium. All living organisms are dissipative (constantly decaying to a lower state per the Second Law of Thermodynamics) and need a constant supply of energy to repair the decay and operate, just like a 747 needs a constant flow of fuel to fly.3
If a system at equilibrium is disturbed, physics tells us it simply decays back to equilibrium.4 A small displacement from equilibrium is not sufficient to change its state. Give a small push to a vehicle in a rut (at equilibrium), and it simply rolls back into the rut. Life needs a really big push for it to exist far from equilibrium—another near impossibility if we wait for this to happen by chance.
How impossible? Before life existed, the probability of assembling molecules into a life configuration was virtually impossible. But now, life exists everywhere! All the correct molecules are assembled in the correct order. When the living thing dies, all the required molecules are still there in the correct order, just without operating—there’s no life. If life occurred spontaneously, shouldn’t dead creatures just spontaneously spring back to life? No, because life is far from equilibrium! Many trillions of creatures have died, remained dead, and decayed.
In conclusion, life is not just the correct assemblage of molecules; life requires being in an elevated state of existence. It requires the “spark” of life, or the “breath” of life, to make the lifeless molecules operate. Otherwise, nothing happens except decay.
The next logical question is, where does the breath of life come from? Interestingly enough, Genesis, written nearly 3,500 years ago, got this right! After God performed the impossible task of forming man from the dust of the ground, man did not spontaneously spring to life. God needed to perform another impossible task: breathing life into him to make him a living being.5 The short answer is that the breath of life came, and comes, from God.
1. Posted on http://www.azquotes.com/author/6972-Fred_Hoyle. Accessed April 30, 2021.
2. Quotes from Ilya Prigogine are found in Morris, Henry M. 1977. The Scientific Case for Creation. Creation-Life Publishers, 21-22.
3. A 2,000-calorie diet for humans is equivalent to 100 watts. Much of this is required just to maintain life—repairing organs, replacing cells that are constantly dying, maintaining body functions like breathing, etc.; e.g., WBCs live only 13 days and RBCs 120 days.
4. Perturbation from equilibrium causes a damped oscillation (Cf. a plucked violin string).
5. Genesis 2:7.’https://www.icr.org/article/life-is-more-than-biomolecules/
“For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.” (Romans 1:20)
This powerful verse introduces Paul’s burning description of the descent of ancient human societies that once “knew God” (Romans 1:21) into evolutionary paganism, idolatry, and wickedness. This deterioration was willful and inexcusable, for they had abundant evidence of God’s nature and power in the very creation that they had chosen to worship instead of the Creator (Romans 1:25).
Even though God Himself was invisible (being omnipresent), they could easily see the evidence of His existence and His grace in creating and sustaining all things, “for God hath shewed it unto them” (Romans 1:19). “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork” (Psalm 19:1).
Since these things were “clearly seen” and “understood” by men “from the creation of the world” (that is, from the time the world was created), it is obvious that there have been men and women there to see and understand these things ever since the world was created. This assures us that the creation did not take place billions of years before men appeared on Earth, as theistic evolutionists and progressive creationists would like to believe. Men and women have been on Earth ever since its very beginning (see also Mark 10:6; Acts 3:21), and all should have recognized and worshiped the true Creator God.
That being true, how much more inexcusable are our modern evolutionists—whether atheistic, pantheistic, or polytheistic—who not only reject the testimony of God in creation but also His far more complete testimony in Scripture and in the person and work of Jesus Christ.’https://www.icr.org/article/12755/?utm_source=phplist9385&utm_medium=email&utm_content=HTML&utm_campaign=May+23+-+How+Can+Things+Invisible+Be+Seen%3F
This is a Biblical look at real climate change. God, the Creator is in charge and from Scripture climate change has always come about due to man’s sinfulness. Real climate change takes place for non-believers in Jesus Christ in Revelation 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. These climate change people today don’t really realize what real climate change is but unless they receive the Lord Jesus they will!
YouTube in their Leftist leaning way added to the video this description from Wikipedia “Climate change includes both global warming driven by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases and the resulting large-scale shifts in weather patterns.” Of course that’s not true but what do those at YouTube know? Perhaps they will watch the video and be saved!
‘Darwin gave us a world where miracles happen constantly. How did he know? Things exist; therefore they evolved.
One of the funniest, most ironic quotes about evolution was made in 1929 by D. M. S. Watson. “Evolution,” declared Professor Watson, “…is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or… can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” (sources: John West, Evolution News; also CMI). Well, well, Dr. Watson. Let’s see what kinds of incredible beliefs are coming from your evolutionist colleagues.
Powered Flight: How Many Miracles?
Researcher questions whether powered flight appeared on non-avialan dinosaurs (University of Malaga, via EurekAlert). Professor Malaga Francisco Serrano Alarcón knows that the emergence of powered flight is extremely unlikely. [How unlikely? Watch these video clips on bird bones, feathers and muscles from Illustra Media and consider how many lucky mutations it would have taken to evolve them.]
Powered flight in animals—that uses flapping wings to generate thrus [sic]—is a very energetically demanding mode of locomotion that requires many anatomical and physiological adaptations. In fact, the capability to develop it has only appeared four times in the evolutionary history of animals: On insects, pterosaurs, birds and bats.
Four times: that’s tolerable. But seven? He simply cannot believe his colleagues that think powered flight arose three more times in dinosaurs. That is simply too improbable to accept!
“Birds are a group of dinosaurs of which we have discovered 150-million-year-old fossils with fully developed wings. Among their closest non-avialan relatives, we have also found fossils with sufficiently developed wings that could provide them with some aerodynamic benefit, whether to glide between trees or get thrust to climb and jump over obstacles. But this does not mean that they could take off by flapping their wings or maintain a powered flight“, explains Francisco Serrano.
Whew. Thank you prof. You saved the credibility of Darwin. Powered flight only emerged four times – not seven! And thank you, Luis Chiappe, for helping him publish this saving grace in Current Biology.
How Beethoven Evolved
These ‘creativity genes’ allowed humans to take over the world (Live Science). Genes that gave human beings immense powers of creativity in ideas, art and music just popped into existence one day. That’s what Yasemin Saplakoglu, staff writer for Live Science, believes. How does he know? Dr. Claude Robert Cloninger, a professor emeritus in the psychiatry and genetics departments at Washington University in St. Louis., told him.
Creativity could be one of the main reasons Homo sapiens survived and dominated over related species such as Neanderthals and chimpanzees, according to a new study [prepare to be hoodwinked].
Cloninger and his Darwin bigot buddies ran divination on genes and visualized a wonderful story of emerging creativity in our species. With wide mouth, reporter Saplakoglu slurped it up. ‘It exists, therefore it evolved.’ Ooh. Aah.
The emotional reactivity network evolved in monkeys and apes about 40 million [Darwin] years ago, the self-control network evolved a little less than 2 million years ago, and the self-awareness and creativity network emerged just 100,000 years ago, when humans were under pressure from a changing climate that reduced the supply of food and other resources necessary for survival, Cloninger said.
Then, some 40,000 years ago, Homo sapiens with “unprecedented cultural and technological sophistication” began rapidly replacing Neanderthals around the world, according to the study. This sophistication was likely driven by our Homo sapiens ancestors’ creativity and self-awareness, which enabled them to live longer, healthier lives, the authors said.
Readers can forget all this, because at the end of the article, Cloninger gives some caveats about interpreting the genes that basically undermine everything he said. He must have realized this after coming down out of his Darwin science seance. (On Darwinist use of the word “likely,” see 21 April 2021, Evolutionists Are ‘Likely’ Clueless.)
Miracles Earlier Than Thought
58-million-year-old footprints show when mammals began paddling in sea (Krista Charles for New Scientist). Krista begins Tontologically, “An extensive set of fossilised footprints shows that prehistoric large mammals were gathering by the sea millions of years earlier than we thought” (who’s “we,” Paleface?). A little artwork helps the unsuspecting reader visualize the miracle: four-footed hippo-like mammals thinking about becoming whales some day. They were gathering by the imagined seashore in large numbers. Maybe they were having a betting contest to see who could evolve a blowhole first.
Ankle and foot evolution gave mammals a leg up (University of Edinburgh). Evolving mammals needed happy feet for dancing to celebrate their new freedom after the dinosaurs died out, so the Stuff Happens Law gave it to them. What was the process called? Why, “ankle and foot evolution,” dummy. Stop asking silly questions! You underestimate the power of evolution!
The evolution of ankle and foot bones into different shapes and sizes helped mammals adapt and thrive after the extinction of the dinosaurs, a study [prepare to be hoodwinked] suggests.
A surge of evolution following the mass extinction 66 million years ago enabled mammals to diversify and prosper during a period of major global change, researchers say.
Analysis of bones that form part of the ankle and the heel of the foot reveal that mammals during this time – the Paleocene Period – were less primitive than previously thought.
Whatever Exists, It Evolved
Evolutionary biologists discover mechanism that enables lizards to breathe underwater (University of Toronto). Lizards can “re-breathe” air that has been absorbed through the skin. It’s pretty amazing what evolution can do. If an animal needs something, evolution gives it to them free of charge. Watch how the authors use the word “developed” as a synonym for “evolved” – same meaning. Believe it, people, because it is “likely.”
Rebreathing likely evolved because the ability to stay submerged longer increases the lizard’s chances of eluding predators….
As the authors point out, the rebreathing trait may have developed because anoles’ skin is hydrophobic — it repels water — a characteristic that likely evolved in anoles because it protects them from rain and parasites. Underwater, air bubbles cling to hydrophobic skin and the ability to exploit these bubbles for breathing developed as a result.
Ancestors may have created ‘iconic’ sounds as bridge to first languages (University of Birmingham). Herein is the origin of eloquence in speech and thinking: it evolved. That’s all you need to know. Now, a story to make it sound plausible.
The ‘missing link’ that helped our ancestors to begin communicating with each other through language may have been iconic sounds, rather than charades-like gestures – giving rise to the unique human power to coin new words describing the world around us, a new study [prepare to be hoodwinked] reveals.
In this article, “gave rise to” is like “developed” – it is a synonym for “evolved.” Same meaning.
To test this notion (idea is too charitable a word), they tested modern students with silly tests like pointing to a tiger and saying “Tiger… bad.” People from all language groups got it. That must mean that language evolved. How? By “language evolution,” silly. The students got it even quicker when the testers waved their arms. Chaucer and Milton could not be far behind.
Co-author Dr Marcus Perlman, Lecturer in English Language and Linguistics at the University of Birmingham, commented: “Our study fills in a crucial piece of the puzzle of language evolution, suggesting the possibility that all languages – spoken as well as signed – may have iconic origins.
Now you know why you must believe in evolution. The alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.
Vestigial organs are thought by evolutionists to be useless organs. Here is what one evolutionist says.
‘A “vestigial structure” or “vestigial organ” is an anatomical feature or behavior that no longer seems to have a purpose in the current form of an organism of the given species. Often, these vestigial structures were organs that performed some important functions in the organism at one point in the past.
However, as the population changed due to natural selection, those structures became less and less necessary until they were rendered pretty much useless. They are believed to be leftovers, only vestiges of the past.
Slow Evolutionary Process
Evolution is a slow process, with changes in species happening over hundreds or thousands if not millions of years, depending on how significant the change is. Although many of these types of structures would disappear over many generations, some keep being passed down to offspring because they do no harm—they aren’t a disadvantage for the species—or they have changed function over time. Some are present or functioning only during the embryonic stage of fetal development, or maybe they just have no function as we get older.
That said, some structures that were once thought of as vestigial are now thought as useful, such as the whale pelvis or the human appendix. As with many things in science, the case isn’t closed. As more knowledge is discovered, the information we know is revised and refined.’https://www.thoughtco.com/about-vestigial-structures-1224771
However, were these organs ever useless? Here’s what two creationists say.
‘First, it is in principle not possible to prove that an organ is useless, because there is always the possiblity that a use may be discovered in the future. This has happened with over a hundred alleged useless vestigial organs which are now known to be essential.
Second, even if the alleged vestigial organ were no longer needed, it would prove devolution not evolution. The creation model allows for deterioration of a perfect creation. However the particles-to-people evolution model needs to find examples of nascent organs, i.e. those which are increasing in complexity.
Wings on birds that do not fly?
There are at least three possibilities as to why ostriches, emus, etc have wings:
a) They derived from smaller birds that once could fly. This is possible in the creationist model. Loss of features is relatively easy by natural processes; acquisition of new characters, requiring new DNA information, is impossible.
b) The wings have a function. Some possible functions, depending on the species of flightless bird, are: balance while running, cooling in hot weather, warmth in cold weather, protection of the rib-cage in falls, mating rituals, scaring predators (I’ve seen emus run at perceived enemies of their chicks, mouth open and wings flapping), sheltering of chicks, etc. If the wings are useless, why are the muscles functional that allow these birds to move their wings?
c) It is a result of ‘design economy’ by the Creator. Humans use this with automobiles, for example. All models might have mounting points for air conditioning, power steering, etc. although not all have them. Likewise, all models tend to use the same wiring harness, although not all features are necessarily implemented in any one model. In using the same embryological blueprint for all birds, all birds will have wings.
Pigs with two toes that do not reach the ground?
Does this mean that the shorter toes have no function? No one has demonstrated this. Pigs spend a lot of time in water / muddy conditions for cooling purposes. Perhaps the extra toes make it easier to walk in mud (a bit like the rider wheels sometimes seen on long trucks which only touch the road when the truck is heavily loaded). Or perhaps the muscles attached to the extra toes give strength to the ‘ankle’ of the pig.
Why do male humans have nipples?
See also Male Nipples Prove Evolution?
This is answered in Bergman and Howe’s book “Vestigial Organs” are Fully Functional (below right). Males have nipples because of the common embryological plan followed during early embryo development. Embryos start out producing features common to male and female — again an example of ‘design economy’. Nipples are a part of this design economy. However, as Bergman and Howe point out, the claim that they are useless is debatable.
What is the evolutionist’s explanation for male nipples? Did males evolve (devolve) from females? Or did ancestral males suckle the young? No evolutionist would propose this, so males nipples are not evidence for evolution or evidence against creation.
Why do rabbits have digestive systems that function ‘so poorly that they must eat their own feces’?
This is an incredible proposition. One of the most successful species on earth would have to be the rabbit! The rabbit’s mode of existence is obviously very efficient (what about the saying ‘they breed like rabbits’?). Just because eating feces may be abhorrent to humans, does not mean it is inefficient for the rabbit! Indeed rabbits have a special pouch called the cecum, containing bacteria, at the beginning of the large intestine. These bacteria aid digestion, just as bacteria in the rumen of cattle and sheep aid digestion. The rabbit produces two types of fecal pellet, a hard one and a special soft one coming from the cecum. It is only the latter which is eaten to enrich the diet with the nutrients produced by the bacteria in the cecum. In other words, this ability of rabbits is part of their design; it is not something they have learnt to do because they have ‘digestive systems which function so poorly’. It is part of the variety of design which speaks of creation, not evolution.
It is quite likely that the legless lizards, etc. could have derived from the original created kind, and so the structures would be consistent with this. ‘Loss’ of a structure is of no comfort to evolutionists as they have to find a mechanism for creating new structures, not losing them, and there is no such mechanism to explain how evolution from ‘amoeba to man’ could occur. Genesis 3:14 suggests that snakes maybe once had legs. Brown (CRSQ 26:54) suggests that monitor lizards may have been the precursors of snakes.
Adaptation and natural selection are a biological fact; evolution is not. Natural selection can only work on the genetic information present in a population of organisms—it cannot create new information. For example, if reptiles have no genes for feathers, no amount of selection will produce a feathered reptile. Mutations in genes can only modify or eliminate existing structures, but not create new ones. If in a certain environment a lizard survives better with smaller legs, or no legs, then varieties with this trait will be selected for. This might be more accurately called devolution, not evolution.
It is known that the appendix contains lymphatic tissue and has a role in controlling bacteria entering the intestines. It functions in a similar way to the tonsils at the other end of the alimentary canal, which are known to increase resistance to throat infections, although once also thought to be useless organs.
Hip bones in whales
These bones are alleged to show that whales evolved from land animals. However, Bergman and Howe point out that they are different in the male and female whales. They are not useless at all, but help penis erection in the males and vaginal contraction in the females.
Teeth in embryonic baleen whales
Evolutionists claim that they show that baleen whales evolved from toothed whales. However they have not provided an adequate mechanism for scrapping one perfectly good system (teeth) and replacing it with a very different system (baleen or whalebone). Also, the teeth in the embryo function as guides to the correct formation of the massive jaws.’https://creation.com/vestigial-organs-what-do-they-prove?utm_campaign=infobytes_au&utm_content=Why+%27vestigial+organs%27+are+an+embarrassment+for+evolution&utm_medium=email&utm_source=mailing.creation.com&utm_term=Fortnightly+Digest+-+2021.05.14
‘Charles Darwin himself shuddered at the thought that evolutionary processes had to explain human vision. He said, ‘To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”‘https://www.creationstudies.org/articles/theory-of-evolution/114-darwin-versus-the-human-eye
Job 9:9-10 “Which maketh Arcturus, Orion, and Pleiades, and the chambers of the south. Which doeth great things past finding out; yea, and wonders without number.”
‘The entire universe and all its forces were planned and created out of the mind of God. Since He is God, He was not forced to make anything in a certain way.
The study of the universe and its forces is called cosmology. The night sky is a breathtaking vision to anyone who views it far away from city lights. As cosmologists look into space, they see mysteries that cannot be explained. These mysteries can literally cause supercomputers to have nervous breakdowns from pondering imponderables. One would think that the cosmologist would be more likely than most to recognize the genius of God.
Researchers recently gave a supercomputer the task of calculating the results of gravitational collapse of a huge collection of matter in space. The result was what scientists call an “infinity.” This means that the answer to the mathematical problem is so complex that no scientist can calculate it. Even the most powerful computer in the world is not up to the task! The team that arrived at the incomprehensible answer admits that modern science really knows very little about the nature of the cosmos.
Cosmologists know that the universe is not an accident. They expect the universe to have laws and make sense. As they learn more about the universe, they are gaining an even greater appreciation for the Mind from which the universe has come. The study of cosmology has led even some of the most-hardened atheists to admit that sometimes the idea of a Creator God does not seem so far-fetched.’https://creationmoments.com/sermons/gods-mind-is-bigger-than-ours-2/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=gods-mind-is-bigger-than-ours-2&mc_cid=5c0b11324a&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c