Here’s the three (technically four) DpSU’s that I didn’t cover prior to the last one I did. Surprisingly, there has only been the one since the Peruvian Mummy, but I’ll get to that later.
The very first of these was called Surgeon Says Human Body Did Not Evolve – considering that there’s nothing there that’s different from the one we saw the other day in ATP Synthase and Joseph Kuhn it doesn’t even deserve a place in the title. Moving right along…
The next one is Evolution Made Cavefish Go Blind? Mr Thomas’ argument (if it can be called such) is summed up in his introductory paragraph:
Evolution maintains that as more time passes, living things evolve to acquire better and more useful traits. As such, shouldn’t the loss of a useful trait, such as eyesight, be regarded as the opposite of evolution? Not so, say recent news reports on blind fish.
This is more-or-less equivalent to saying:
- Cars are supposed to be able to turn right
- This is an example of a car turning left
- Therefore, cars do not exist
Additionally, the following is pulled out of thin air:
But obtaining the fish sight system required an input of a massive quantity and quality of information. And making the fish blind merely required the loss of some of that information. How could attributing these opposite processes to “evolution” be scientifically accurate?
Does Mr Thomas know that the blindness was caused by a loss of information? The eyes have skin over them – while it is not unlikely that they are decayed in some way, this would have happened after the skin moved over them. Did that require more or less ‘information’? If B.T. actually knows the answer, he isn’t giving his sources.
While we’re here, these eyes are ‘vestigial organs’, things that we have already learned that the ICR denies the existence of. Admittedly, that video only deals with humans, but there is no reason for only other animals to have such organs.
Next up was New Study Explains Fast-Moving Magma, about a paper in Nature called Kimberlite ascent by assimilation-fuelled buoyancy. You can listen to a reasonably lengthy explanation of this paper here, but for our purposes here are three paragraphs from a ScienceNews article:
Diamond mines tap volcanic rocks called kimberlites, which contain many kinds of crystals that must have formed at high pressures 150 kilometers or more deep, in the planetary layer known as the mantle. How those mantle crystals make it to the surface has been a puzzle, since magma gets denser the more crystals it picks up. Most geologists have assumed that the magma must bubble gases to keep it moving up, but no one has been able to explain exactly how.
Russell and his colleagues realized that gas could do the trick if the magma starts out relatively poor in silicon dioxide, a major component of the Earth’s crust also known as silica. As magma rises through cracks it begins to dissolve the surrounding rock — especially that containing lots of orthopyroxene, a mineral rich in magnesium, iron and silica. The orthopyroxene releases its silica into the magma, and as the silica content rises the magma’s ability to hold dissolved carbon dioxide drops. The gas bubbles out and by the time the kimberlite gets to the surface, it erupts at supersonic speeds.
The research could explain why the gem-laden kimberlites appear only in ancient parts of continents, known as cratons, like those in northwestern Canada and southern Africa. Cratons contain lots of orthopyroxene, allowing the magma to gobble it and ascend. “We’ve always wondered, how do the kimberlites find the craton?” Russell says. “They don’t. Their passage through the craton converts them.”
Now, what did Mr Thomas do with this?
The Deccan Traps in India, and especially the Siberian Traps, have vast quantities of lava rock near the earth’s surface. Many geologists have assumed that this formed over millions of years. However, recent studies testing that assumption have shown just the opposite—the magma moved rapidly from great depths.
Err…no. This study is about kimberlites, which the both Deccan and Siberian Traps are not. Having established that, as usual, Mr Thomas has no idea what he’s talking about I think we can just leave him to his blathering.
The final one of the three was by Frank Sherwin, and not Thomas, and was called Animal Laughter Study Doesn’t Help Evolution. It’s a strange, and unjustified title. It’s not supposed to ‘help’ evolution, any more than medical research is supposed to ‘help’ germ theory.
Scientists recently studied laughter in different animals, such as rats and primates, by tickling them. One study compared the sounds made by humans and great apes:
[The researchers] found many acoustic similarities, which has led them to believe that laughter in great apes shared the same evolutionary origin as laughter in humans, suggesting a common ancestor that giggled when tickled.
They concluded that “laughter is at least 30 million to 60 million years old.” With a range of 30 million years, though, it’s safe to assume that evolutionists have no idea when laughter evolved.
Er, no – they have narrowed it down to a specific 30 million year range. Or, in other words, they have probably just found a clade, which had a common ancestor around that time.
Also, does anyone remember Humphreys – the creationist physicist who ‘predicted’ the magnetic fields of Neptune and Uranus. His prediction, which creationists tend to hail as a triumph, had error bars of an order of magnitude either side of the predicted value. Here, the upper limit is merely twice that of the lower one. So what?
The BBC reported that tickling a gorilla “sounds a lot like human laughter.” However, evolutionists maintain that people evolved from chimpanzees—not gorillas.
He doesn’t get it, does he? To the right is a family tree of Humans and related geni. For one, nobody’s saying that we evolved from chimps, any more than we’re saying chimps evolved from us. Second, if you can establish, say, that a given trait is found in both Gorillas and Humans that pushes it further back than if you only found it in chimps (Pan).
Also, macaws, parrots, and other birds can mimic human laughter even more closely than any primate can, but evolutionists don’t suggest that people evolved from parrots.
That’s mimicry, Frank, which doesn’t count.
And recent reports found that pigeons have numerical abilities like those of primates. Researchers observed pigeons employing “abstract numerical rules” that are “indistinguishable from that displayed by monkeys.” Does this mean that primates share the same evolutionary origin as pigeons?
No, it means that “abstract numerical rules” aren’t all that hard to develop.
The case for laughter could be compared to shivering. When mammals, as well as some large insects and birds, get cold by an external stimulus, they react by shivering. This is the rapid contraction of large muscle groups generating heat, otherwise known as involuntary thermogenesis. An ability to shiver doesn’t suggest that the creatures that do it come from a common ancestor. The same goes for laughing (the reaction) when tickled (the external stimulus).
Shivering is apparently a ‘warm blooded’ thing, which is a trait shared by only a few large groups of organisms. It suggests that the creature is part of one of these groups, though not that the groups themselves are related.
So, it would make sense that rats would react, albeit subjectively, to the tickling. A variety of animals do, but does this reveal anything about how human laughter evolved? The answer is “no.”
Really? Nothing? That has has to qualify the rat’s reaction already tells us something.
But that’s all for today.