Controversial fossils debunk the theory of evolution

The Top Ten Most Controversial Fossil Discoveries

It is time to highlight fossil discoveries that challenge the conventional evolutionary timeline and raise questions about the accuracy of millions of years. Here are ten of the most controversial fossil findings, often referred to as "out-of-place" fossils, or OOPARTs (out-of-place artifacts). Something that shouldn't be there...

1. The London Hammer

In 1936, a hammer was discovered encased in a rock in London, Texas. The hammerhead was made of iron, and the surrounding rock was estimated to be over 100 million years old, dating back to the Cretaceous period. This find suggests the presence of advanced human artifacts far earlier than conventional timelines allow.

2. The Paluxy River Footprints

Near Glen Rose, Texas, fossilized human footprints were found alongside dinosaur tracks in the Cretaceous limestone of the Paluxy River bed. This discovery suggests that humans and dinosaurs coexisted, contradicting the mainstream view that dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years before humans appeared.

3. The Antikythera Mechanism

Recovered from a shipwreck off the coast of Greece in 1901, this ancient Greek analog computer, dating to around 100 BC, was capable of predicting astronomical positions and eclipses. Its complexity suggests a level of technological advancement not typically attributed to ancient civilizations.

4. The Meister Print

In 1968, an imprint resembling a human sandal step was found in Utah's Wheeler Shale, accompanied by the crushed remains of a trilobite, an organism believed to have lived over 500 million years ago. 

5. The Castenedolo Skeletons

Human skeletons were found in Pliocene strata in Castenedolo, Italy, dating back 3-4 million years. These findings contradict the established evolutionary timeline, which suggests modern humans emerged around 200,000 years ago.

6. The Kingoodie Hammer

Discovered in Scotland in 1844, this iron hammerhead was embedded in a block of Devonian sandstone, supposedly over 400 million years old. This finding raises questions about the presence of advanced tool-making humans during the Devonian period.

7. The Baghdad Battery

These clay jars, discovered in Iraq and dating back to the Parthian period (approximately 250 BC to AD 250), contain copper cylinders and iron rods, suggesting they were used as galvanic cells. This challenges the notion that ancient civilizations lacked sophisticated technological knowledge.

8. The Map of the Creator

A stone map found in Russia, allegedly dating back 120 million years, shows detailed geographical features of the Ural region, including dams and irrigation channels. This finding implies advanced mapping technology in an era long before humans are believed to have existed.

9. The Ica Stones

Thousands of carved stones, found in Ica, Peru, depict humans coexisting with dinosaurs and advanced medical procedures. While their authenticity is debated, if genuine, they challenge the conventional timeline of human history and evolution.

10. The Klerksdorp Spheres

Found in South Africa, these small metallic spheres, dating back to the Precambrian era (over 2.8 billion years ago), have grooves around their circumference, suggesting they were manufactured. This raises questions about the presence of intelligent life forms long before the advent of humans.

Conclusion

These controversial fossil findings challenge the conventional evolutionary timeline and suggest the possibility of advanced civilizations and human presence far earlier than traditionally believed. While mainstream science often disputes these discoveries, they provide intriguing evidence that supports the Biblical view of history. The theory of evolution has serious problems.

References

1. Burdick, C. L. (1966). Dinosaur Tracks and Giant Men. Creation Research Society Quarterly, 3(1), 26-28.
2. Huse, S. M. (1983). The Collapse of Evolution. Baker Book House.
3. Sanderson, I. T. (1960). Riddle of the Antikythera Mechanism: An Ancient Greek Computer. Scientific American.
4. Snelling, A. A. (1992). The Castenedolo Skeletons: An Enigma for Evolutionary Time-Frames. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 6(1), 28-31.
5. White, P. (1997). The Kingoodie Hammer. Creation, 19(2), 45.

Gene duplication, Neofunctionalization or Subfunctionalization events don't result in Evolution

Gene Duplications don't lead to Evolution

Gene duplication is often heralded by proponents of evolution as a significant mechanism driving the increase in genetic diversity and complexity within organisms. However, when examined through the lens of intelligent design and recent scientific discoveries, several key points challenge this traditional evolutionary narrative.

Gene Duplications Are RNA-Guided, Controlled Events Based on Epigenetic Regulation

Gene duplication is not a random process. Emerging research indicates that gene duplications are orchestrated events heavily influenced by RNA-guided mechanisms and epigenetic regulation. Epigenetics, the study of heritable changes in gene expression that do not involve changes to the underlying DNA sequence, plays a crucial role in controlling gene activity. RNA molecules, including small interfering RNAs and microRNAs, are instrumental in guiding these epigenetic changes, ensuring that gene duplication events occur in a regulated manner. This controlled duplication process suggests a level of precision and purpose inconsistent with the randomness proposed by evolutionary theory.

Gene Duplications Do Not Increase the Amount of Biological Information in the Cell

A common misconception is that gene duplications increase the amount of biological information within a cell. However, duplication merely creates an additional copy of existing genetic material without introducing new information. This can be compared to copying a book; while the number of books increases, the content remains unchanged. The duplicated genes, therefore, do not introduce novel functionalities or information but rather replicate the existing genetic code.

Gene Duplication Often Leads to Gene Loss or Other Forms of Information Loss

In post-duplication, genes are subject to various environmental pressures and constraints. It is often observed that one of the duplicated genes accumulates harmful mutations at a faster rate due to missing epigenetic markers to maintain both copies. This can lead to the eventual loss of the duplicated gene or its transformation into a non-functional pseudogene. Additionally, after DNA rearrangement duplicated genes may undergo subfunctionalization, where the original function is divided between the two copies, or neofunctionalization, where one copy acquires a new function. However, these processes frequently result in a net loss of genetic information, as the original gene's integrity and functionality can be compromised.

Epigenetic Regulation and Neofunctionalization

The process of neofunctionalization, where one copy of a duplicated gene acquires a new function, is often cited as a pathway for evolutionary innovation. However, detailed studies reveal that epigenetic regulation plays a significant role in this process, often acting as a constraint rather than a facilitator of novel function. According to recent research published in Science Advances, epigenetic mechanisms, such as DNA methylation and histone modification, tightly regulate gene expression in duplicated genes. These modifications can lead to the silencing of one gene copy, preventing it from acquiring new functions independently. Moreover, the RNA-directed DNA methylation pathway ensures that epigenetic marks are faithfully passed on during cell division, maintaining the original gene's expression pattern and limiting the potential for neofunctionalization. This regulation underscores the complexity and precision of genetic control mechanisms, which appear designed to preserve genetic integrity rather than promote random evolutionary changes.

Gene Duplications Do Not Lead to Evolution

The evolutionary paradigm posits that gene duplications provide raw material for the evolution of new functions and increased complexity. Yet, the reality observed in genetic studies does not support this. Gene duplications, while contributing to genetic variation, do not inherently drive the creation of new, beneficial functions that lead to increased organismal complexity. Instead, they often result in redundancy, loss of function, or neutral changes that do not contribute to evolutionary advancement. The lack of evidence for novel, beneficial traits arising solely from gene duplications challenges the notion that this mechanism is a significant driver of evolution.

In conclusion, gene duplications, when understood through the framework of intelligent design, reveal a process that is controlled, non-random, and largely conservative in terms of biological information. These duplications, guided by RNA and regulated epigenetically, do not support the evolutionary claims of increased complexity and novel function. Instead, they point towards an inherent design and regulation mechanism within organisms, reinforcing the idea of an intelligent designer behind life's complexity.

Summary and conclusions:

• Gene duplications are not random processes. They are epigenetically controlled cellular events designed for adaptational purposes.
• After a gene duplication event there's a significant loss of DNA in the cell. This is because cellular mechanisms rearrange DNA to serve as organized information for producing RNA molecules.
• These procedures emphasize the passive role of DNA as information storage.
• Gene duplications point to Design and Creation.

---

References

1. Brosius, J. (2003). "Gene Duplication and Other Evolutionary Strategies: Role of RNA."
2. Qiu, J. (2006). "Epigenetics: Unfinished Symphony." Nature.
3. Hughes, A. L. (1994). "The Evolution of Functionally Novel Proteins after Gene Duplication." Proceedings of the Royal Society B.
4. Zhang, J. (2003). "Evolution by Gene Duplication: An Update." Trends in Ecology & Evolution.
5. Lynch, M., & Conery, J. S. (2000). "The Evolutionary Fate and Consequences of Duplicate Genes." Science.
6. Long, M., & Thornton, K. (2001). "Gene Duplication and Evolution." Science.
7. Force, A., Lynch, M., Pickett, F. B., Amores, A., Yan, Y. L., & Postlethwait, J. (1999). "Preservation of Duplicate Genes by Complementary, Degenerative Mutations." Genetics.
8. Hahn, M. W. (2009). "Distinguishing Among Evolutionary Models for the Maintenance of Gene Duplicates." Journal of Heredity.
9. https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/7/eaaw7006

DNA completely decays within about 1-1.5 million years

DNA has been found in samples that are claimed to be tens of millions of years old - Seven confirmed examples

This is how rapidly DNA degrades in different conditions:

Complete degradation: Generally, studies suggest that even under optimal conditions, DNA completely degrades within approximately 1-1.5 million years. This is an estimate and depends greatly on how favorable the conditions have been for DNA preservation.

Summary:

• Under optimal conditions, DNA can survive for up to hundreds of thousands of years, but complete degradation occurs within approximately 1-1.5 million years.
• In normal environments, DNA typically survives for thousands of years.
• In unfavorable conditions, DNA can become unusable within just a few hundred years.
  

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2012.11555

Excerpt: "By comparing the specimens' ages and degrees of DNA degradation, the researchers calculated that DNA has a half-life of 521 years. That means that after 521 years, half of the bonds between nucleotides in the backbone of a sample would have broken; after another 521 years half of the remaining bonds would have gone; and so on.

The team predicts that even in a bone at an ideal preservation temperature of −5 ºC, effectively every bond would be destroyed after a maximum of 6.8 million years. The DNA would cease to be readable much earlier — perhaps after roughly 1.5 million years, when the remaining strands would be too short to give meaningful information."

This rapid rate of DNA degradation casts doubt on studies claiming that DNA has been recovered from samples as old as tens of millions of years:

https://www.nature.com/articles/344656a0
"We report here the extraction of DNA from fossil leaf samples from the Miocene Clarkia deposit (17-20 My r old)"

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1411508/
"DNA was extracted from the fossil termite Mastotermes electrodominicus preserved in Oligo-Miocene amber (25 million to 30 million years old)."

https://www.nature.com/articles/363677a0
"The Dominican amber deposits have yielded a wealth of information about organisms living ~ 25-40 million years ago in Hispaniola . We now report the extraction, amplification and sequencing of the chloroplast gene rbcL from a leaf of the extinct tree, Hymenaea protera Poinar (Fabaceae: Caesalpinioideae)"

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23085295/
"These data are the first to support preservation of multiple proteins and to present multiple lines of evidence for material consistent with DNA in dinosaurs, supporting the hypothesis that these structures were part of the once living animals."

https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article/7/4/815/5762999
"Furthermore, isolated Hypacrosaurus chondrocytes react positively with two DNA intercalating stains. Specific DNA staining is only observed inside the isolated cells, suggesting endogenous nuclear material survived fossilization. Our data support the hypothesis that calcified cartilage is preserved at the molecular level in this Mesozoic material, and suggest that remnants of once-living chondrocytes, including their DNA, may preserve for millions of years."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7973705/
"DNA was extracted from 80-million-year-old bone fragments found in strata of the Upper Cretaceous Blackhawk Formation in the roof of an underground coal mine in eastern Utah. This DNA was used as the template in a polymerase chain reaction that amplified and sequenced a portion of the gene encoding mitochondrial cytochrome b."

https://www.nature.com/articles/363536a0
We report here the extraction of DNA from a 120–135-million-year-old weevil (Nemonychidae, Coleoptera) found in Lebanese amber, PCR amplification of segments of the 18S rRNA gene and the internal transcribed spacer, and the corresponding nucleotide sequences of their 315- and 226-base-pair fragments, respectively.

This is why I have no reason to believe in the theory of evolution.

Gene duplications are based on Epigenetic regulation

Gene Duplication and Epigenetic Regulation

1. Role of RNA Molecules: RNA molecules, including non-coding RNAs (ncRNAs), play crucial roles in the regulation of gene expression and genome stability, which are key factors in gene duplication events. Research has shown that small interfering RNAs (siRNAs) and microRNAs (miRNAs) can influence chromatin structure and function, potentially facilitating or inhibiting gene duplications.

2. Histone Modifications: Histone modifications are a well-documented epigenetic mechanism that can influence gene expression and genome architecture. Histone markers, such as methylation and acetylation, can alter the chromatin state, making regions of the genome more or less accessible for processes like transcription and replication. There is evidence that certain histone modifications are associated with regions of the genome that are prone to duplication. For instance, the presence of specific histone marks can create a more open chromatin structure, which might facilitate the replication machinery's access and lead to gene duplication events.

Controlled Gene Duplication Events

1. Epigenetic Control: Epigenetic mechanisms, including DNA methylation and histone modification, can regulate the timing and occurrence of gene duplication events. These modifications can act as signals that mark certain regions of the genome for duplication under specific conditions. For example, during stress or developmental changes, epigenetic markers can guide the cell's machinery to duplicate certain genes that are advantageous for the organism's survival or adaptation.

2. Targeted Duplication: There is evidence to suggest that gene duplications can be targeted and controlled, rather than being purely random events. Controlled duplications are thought to be facilitated by the interplay between chromatin structure and regulatory RNAs. This indicates a sophisticated level of cellular machinery that can respond to environmental cues and internal signals to orchestrate gene duplications as needed.

3. Gene Loss: In most cases, after duplication, one copy of the gene becomes unnecessary and can freely accumulate deleterious mutations that lead to its loss of function (pseudogenization) or complete removal from the genome. This is an important mechanism because it prevents excessive growth of the genome size and maintains its functional efficiency.

Examples from Research

1. Histone Modifications in Gene Duplication: Studies have shown that histone H3 lysine 4 trimethylation (H3K4me3), a marker of active chromatin, is enriched at sites of gene duplication in certain plant species. This suggests that active chromatin states, marked by specific histone modifications, can predispose regions of the genome to duplication.

2. RNA-Guided Chromatin Changes: Research on yeast has demonstrated that ncRNAs can guide the modification of histones at specific genomic loci, leading to changes in chromatin structure that promote gene duplication. This highlights the role of RNA molecules in directing epigenetic changes that can result in gene duplication.

Conclusion

The evidence suggests that gene duplications are not merely random occurrences but are regulated by a complex interplay of RNA molecules and epigenetic mechanisms, particularly histone modifications. This intricate control system points towards an intelligent design, where cellular processes are finely tuned to respond to various internal and external stimuli, ensuring the organism's adaptability and survival.

Gene duplication events never lead to any evolution but they make it possible for organisms to efficiently adapt to changing environments.

References

1. Rinn, J. L., & Chang, H. Y. (2012). Genome regulation by long noncoding RNAs. Annual review of biochemistry, 81, 145-166.
2. Guttman, M., & Rinn, J. L. (2012). Modular regulatory principles of large non-coding RNAs. Nature, 482(7385), 339-346.
3. Kouzarides, T. (2007). Chromatin modifications and their function. Cell, 128(4), 693-705.
4. Li, B., Carey, M., & Workman, J. L. (2007). The role of chromatin during transcription. Cell, 128(4), 707-719.
5. Lisch, D. (2013). How important are transposons for plant evolution?. Nature Reviews Genetics, 14(1), 49-61.
6. Bird, A. (2002). DNA methylation patterns and epigenetic memory. Genes & development, 16(1), 6-21.
7. Chen, J. M., Chuzhanova, N., Stenson, P. D., Férec, C., & Cooper, D. N. (2005). Meta-analysis of gross insertions causing human genetic disease: novel mutational mechanisms and the role of replication slippage. Human mutation, 25(3), 207-221.
8. Zhang, Y., & Reinberg, D. (2001). Transcription regulation by histone methylation: interplay between different covalent modifications of the core histone tails. Genes & development, 15(18), 2343-2360.
9. Cam, H. P., Sugiyama, T., Chen, E. S., Chen, X., FitzGerald, P. C., & Grewal, S. I. (2005). Comprehensive analysis of heterochromatin-and RNAi-mediated epigenetic control of the fission yeast genome. Nature genetics, 37(8), 809-819.

False claim: "All fossils are transitionals."

A Scientific Perspective on Fossils and Transitional Forms

Evolutionists often claim that "all fossils are transitional forms." From a scientific perspective, this claim is inaccurate for several reasons. Let's examine this issue in more detail, considering fossil discoveries, their numbers, and their taxonomic classification.

The Number of Fossils Found Worldwide

Hundreds of Millions of fossils have been discovered worldwide, collected over more than a century from various locations. These fossils are housed in museum collections, universities, and research institutions, providing a broad view of past life forms.

Fossils Belonging to Known Organism Groups

From a scientific perspective, it's important to consider how many of the discovered fossils belong to known organism groups, such as fish, birds, reptiles, mammals, invertebrates, and amphibians.

Fish Fossils:

• 
  A significant portion of fossils, about 95%, belong to invertebrates. Among vertebrates, fish represent a substantial portion. Fish fossils are very common and cover many different genera and families. These fossils clearly show the existence of fish at different times without transitional forms connecting them to other organism groups.

Bird Fossils:

• Bird fossils make up about 5% of the discovered fossils. Bird fossils show clear avian features, such as feathers, and can be easily classified into modern bird species or their relatives. For example, Archaeopteryx, often considered a transitional form, has more avian than reptilian features. It resembles a modern Hoatzin.

Reptile Fossils:

• Reptile fossils are widely found and cover many different families and genera. These fossils show clear reptilian features and cannot be placed into the category of transitional forms.

Mammal Fossils:

• Mammal fossils are also common and show clear mammalian characteristics. These fossils are well-preserved and can be easily classified into modern mammals or their relatives.

Invertebrate Fossils:

• The majority of fossils belong to invertebrates, especially marine animals like trilobites and ammonites. These fossils show clear features characteristic of modern invertebrates.

Amphibian Fossils:

• Amphibian fossils are rarer but show clear amphibian characteristics. These fossils can be classified into modern amphibian genera and families.

Lack of Complete Transitional Chains in Fossil Records

There are no complete transitional chains in the fossil record that fully prove the gradual evolution from one species group to another. The very few transitional-like fossils provide only an imaginary view of the stages between species. 

From a scientific perspective, the vast majority of fossils can be clearly classified into known organism groups without showing transitional features. The lack of transitional forms in the fossil record is a significant problem for the theory of evolution. If evolution were true, we would expect to find countless fossils showing gradual change from one organism group to another. However, fossils show distinct and separate organism groups that appear suddenly and remain relatively unchanged.

Stephen Jay Gould’s Perspective: Stephen Jay Gould, a renowned paleontologist, noted that transitional fossils are rare in the fossil record. He stated: “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.”

Darwin’s Concern: Charles Darwin himself recognized this issue and expressed his concern about the lack of transitional fossils in his book "On the Origin of Species": “Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?”

Stoeckle and Thaler’s Research: Recent genetic studies, such as the mtDNA research by Stoeckle and Thaler, show that species groups have minimal mtDNA variation and lack intermediates: “It is hard to find ‘intermediates’ – the evolutionary stepping stones between species. The intermediates disappear.”

Conclusion

From a Scientific perspective, the claim that "all fossils are transitional forms" requires scrutiny. The fossil record is vast, with millions of fossils discovered and cataloged worldwide. A significant portion of fossils, about 95%, belong to invertebrates. Among vertebrates, fish represent a substantial portion. The vast majority of these fossils can be clearly classified into known groups or "kinds." For example, within the vertebrate category, there are numerous fossils of distinct fish species, birds, reptiles, mammals, and amphibians, each fitting well within established taxonomic groups. Specifically, fish fossils are abundant and diverse, representing various families and genera, while bird, reptile, mammal, and amphibian fossils are also well-represented and identifiable within their respective categories. There are no significant transitional forms between these groups, which challenges the core assumptions of the theory of evolution and supports the concept of Creation and Intelligent design in the origin of life.

---

References:

1. Benton, M. J. (2005). Vertebrate Paleontology. Blackwell Publishing.
2. Carroll, R. L. (1997). Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution. Cambridge University Press.
3. Bechly, G. (2016). "Controversial Fossils and the Argument for Intelligent Design." Evolution News & Science Today.
4. Morris, J. D., & Sherwin, F. (2010). The Fossil Record: Unearthing Nature's History of Life. Institute for Creation Research.
5. Meyer, S. C. (2009). Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design. HarperOne.