This is the first blog in "The Lazarus Effect" series.According to "scientists", the Lazarus Effect happens when a species only known from the fossil record from eons gone by suddenly re-appears walking, breathing, floating, or just standing there, as is the case in this first blog. The name, of course, comes from the Biblical story of Lazarus (John 11) who was raised by Jesus after he was dead four days, buried and "stinketh" (11:39) until Christ resurrected him.
The phenomena is so astounding because, according to the learned scientists, the fossil record (read: atheists' bible) "goes silent" on some species some millions of years ago (usually round numbers of 5 or 10), and no such species is found in "newer" layers of strata. To see a 120 million year extinct fish or a 65 million year extinct dinosaur walking around does present some problem for these learned men (and women,...er...persons). For these species to have flourished many years ago and for many of such species to have been fossilized in the past, say the Jurassic period, yet for none to have been fossilized from then till now (65m years) is, well, against the odds, shall we say.
When presented with (oh, no!) another Lazarus species, instead of revisiting their shabby theories to something more palpable (I can think of one or so), they instead pretend to celebrate the discovery. If it's a problem anomaly, let it be THEIR problem anomaly!
Now just to be clear, the term "Lazarus Effect" isn't quite the right term. See, they named it that to pretend like they believe it really came back to life after tens of millions of years. But they don't really believe that and wouldn't say they did. What they really believe, and what really astounds them, is that this species ("kind" is a better word), has been around all along, but we didn't know it. With all the people walking around (billions at last count...or was that cheeseburgers?), the chances of no one seeing one of these in, say the last 45,000 years (when they say we started tooling ewes, or was it using tools? Can't remember!) are again, against the odds.
So I think it only appropriate to propose a new term; let Lazarus rest in peace. Maybe the "We were wrong effect!" Doesn't ring. Hm. Maybe the "Egged Face" effect. Better. Well, feel free to write in with your proposals. But try to keep it catchy.
If you've hung on this long, you're pretty determined, so here's the link to the first article that shows one of these Lazarus species ... to scientists' astoundment...something or other. It depicts a rare, but obviously not extinct, species of pine tree, the Wollemi Pine, that some tree guy came across in Australia. It was supposedly extinct for 200 million years.
Posts
4 comments:
Me again.
Just writing in response to your articles regarding the Lazarus effect.
Now, let me first state that when a scientist stumbles upon a species previously thought to be extinct and proves to as accurate a degree as possible that they are the same, or very similar species, they make no attempt whatsoever to suggest that the species has come back from the dead. That is just downright ridiculous, and only someone with barely an iota of understanding of the field would be foolish enough to suggest it. They realise that a species that they thought to have been extinct has continued to proliferate undetected somewhere on Earth (which is not flat, I'm afraid).
The Wollemi Pine was discovered in Australia: correct. It was, however, discovered localised in a rarely-frequented canyon in Tasmania, within one of the National Parks which make up a third of that state. Now if you had any understanding of the continent of Australia and its geology, you'd know that it's been isolated from the rest of the world by oceans for more than 100 million years, and in that time, has been a sanctuary for many ancient species of fauna and flora, most of which are unique to Australia. Is it so impossible to believe that a successful species of plant, unhindered by potential predators could go unnoticed in a hidden-away corner of the globe? You believe a guy can bring people who have been dead for 3 days (was it 3 days? I forget. I remember Jesus didn’t hurry to see Mary and Martha, and Martha was not happy with him as a result, but then, she didn’t have Mary’s perfect faith, did she? It’s been a while since I studied the Gospel of John), in the heat of the Israeli sun, back to life, and that seems far less likely than a mere plant surviving undetected in a hidden gorge. After all, Tasmania isn't known for its long-necked herbivores which could harm a tree as massive as the Wollemia, and, judging by the fact that they exist only on the steep slopes of gorges, what species would you suggest would go to the effort of including the tough, woody leaves of a tree that's fairly inaccessible to most larger Tasmanian herbivores (of which there are not many).
Now another thing you've neglected to learn about before you refuted is the fact that scientists already know (and have long known) that the fossil record is *inherently* inaccurate, due to the fact that for a fossil to form, it must be intact when it is covered with sediment, which is a big ask. The more a species decomposes before it is covered, the less likely it is to fossilise. Scientists recognise this! They know that species can slip through the cracks, and they’re always pleased when they do, as it gives us an opportunity to study ancient life.
Lastly, it seems your whole concept of the Theory of Evolution is incorrect. Species evolve by means of simple mutations to their DNA, which allows the carrier to be more successful than other members of the species not displaying the mutation. Some of these mutations are as simple as the deletion of one codon within an intron. The codon might code for the frequency of translation required of that gene, for instance, in a bacterium, the gene in question might be required to produce a capsule of slime around the bacterium, allowing it to exist in an environment with a pH of 5 (mildly acidic). If the codon were deleted (by either ionising radiation, introduction of a strong oxidising agent, or exposure to a free-radical, all of which will suffice), the capsule may be overproduced. Now in its normal environment, this would be disadvantageous, requiring more energy for the bacterium to survive, and it would most likely die out. If, however, the environment suddenly became more acidic, say pH of 3.5 (shall we blame climate change? It can do that), it would be more successful; its thicker capsule protecting it from the increased acidity of its environment. This would mean that it would proliferate, and the bacteria not displaying the mutation would die out. This sort of thing is why species get taller, or more tolerant to atmospheric temperature, or (now here’s the big one) TOLERANT TO ANTIBIOTICS!!!
If evolution was just an inaccurate theory, which you’re suggesting is the case, then why would the medical sciences be so terrified of new antibiotic-resistant “superbugs”? If you really don’t believe in evolution, go to your local microbiology lab (make sure you go to a real university, not one that believes in intelligent design) and ask them to show you newly-evolved bacteria which are immune to penicillin. They’re not difficult to come by, as they’ve evolved in their millions (or rather billions; bacteria are really tiny and numerous).
This theory has been exposed to rigorous testing, and it keeps on coming up accurate. Sure, along the road, certain adjustments have to be made to the theory, but that’s the beauty of how science works, it’s dynamic. Even understanding of the Bible was once dynamic, it’s just become stale in recent decades due to fundamentalism arising in the evangelical churches of the United States.
Now, feel free not to post this, but it will elegantly demonstrate your deliberate ignorance of any point of view but your own, and that’s called “closed mindedness”.
Josh,
First of all, thanks for reading. I hope you read the entire blog. It won't convince you, but it's not meant to. This blog was a way to get some things off my chest. It is the product of two decades of frustration while reading scientific journals and articles. I wanted to write down what I saw as the slight of hand that permeates the evolutionary world.
Secondly, I notice you get progressively more angry in your reply. I wonder what the source of your anger is. If I'm simply wrong, then why not correct me without all the name calling and negative assertions?
Thirdly, Australia is an island?!? Man, I thought it was a suburb of Chicago. My bad. Thanks for the correction. I really need to study the geology of Australia.
Fourthly, you absolutely don't know that Australia has been isolated for 100 million years. You believe it has been. But I'll wager you haven't pieced that together yourself. You've read it somewhere and believed what you read, just like the professor that taught you this non-sense. But you don't know anything of the sort. Even if you did "know", it would be by using the Scientific Method. You haven't observed anything of the kind. I'm not trying to shake your faith or anything, I just want you to see it for what it is: faith.
Fifthly, it was three days. I'm glad to hear you are studying the book of John. I pray you'll find the Christ of the Bible before it's too late.
Sixthly, what I said in my post about the "Trip Through the Woods" was that scientists are always "finding what they expected". This is the very definition of pre-judging the evidence. Who's closed-minded again?
Seventh...ly, if you think that my "whole concept of evolution is wrong", then please read my posts: "Altered Beast: Looks-like Doesn't Mean Is-like" and "Like Watching Water Boil". You'll find that my "concept" is derived from the evolutionists themselves, not all of whom agree upon what the "concept" really is either.
Eighth, you say: "Species evolve by means of simple mutations to their DNA, which allows the carrier to be more successful than other members of the species not displaying the mutation." Again, do you realize that this is a complete claim by faith? Can you not see this? In fact, mankind, even by your standards, hasn't been around long enough to observe what you are claiming. I believe in variation because it's observable. You believe in variation and natural selection being the origin of the species. This is completely NOT provable, and certainly not proven!
You call yourself a scientist: observation and repeatable results. Well you're a bit off track. Your most fundamental beliefs are in things not proven and, by nature, not provable (unless you clever Australians have invented a time machine?). What is it powered by? Nuclear, Diesel, Coal? Oh, faith. Nice, a renewable resource!
Next, I am aware of how fossils are formed. I'll also bet that you refuse to acknowledge that fossils have been demonstrated to form much more quickly than the many thousands of years evolution calls for.
There are so many conflicting, yet proven truths in the scientific world, you ought to be at least apologetic about teaching it to anyone else. But scientists refuse to acknowledge so many evidences against evolution! Here in Utah, we have human and dinosaur footprints in the same layers of strata. I can visit them in an hour and a half drive! Scientists won't even touch that! They immediately sidestep even the possibility, yet obvious fact, that they co-existed and move right on to figuring out how rock can again become mushy enough for only a few hours, for some guy to put his footprints in the stone! Whatever doesn't advance the evolutionary faith is dismissed! Again, who's closed-minded???
Next, you bring up anti-biotic resistant bacteria as an example of evolution. Problem is, drug-resistance is known to be attributed only to variation and natural selection. As I've stated elsewhere on my blog, I believe in variation and a little bit of natural selection. What I don't believe and you can't prove, is that these two mechanisms are the origin of the species. Natural selection shows NO forward progress in the DNA. For that matter, it's not certain that Variation does either, though I would have no problem if it did. Dominance and recession are also observable variations, but don't result in new "kinds" in Biblical nomenclature, or uni-directional changes in DNA in scientific terms. They are generally thought to be bi-directional in nature, thus not a variation in evolutionary terms.
One article I read put it like this:
The increased prevalence of antibiotic resistance is an outcome of evolution. Any population of organisms, bacteria included, naturally includes variants with unusual traits--in this case, the ability to withstand an antibiotic's attack on a microbe. When a person takes an antibiotic, the drug kills the defenseless bacteria, leaving behind--or "selecting," in biological terms--those that can resist it. These renegade bacteria then multiply, increasing their numbers a millionfold in a day, becoming the predominant microorganism.
The antibiotic does not technically cause the resistance, but allows it to happen by creating a situation where an already existing variant can flourish. "Whenever antibiotics are used, there is selective pressure for resistance to occur. It builds upon itself. More and more organisms develop resistance to more and more drugs," says Joe Cranston, Ph.D., director of the department of drug policy and standards at the American Medical Association in Chicago.
So to answer your question: "why would the medical sciences be so terrified of new antibiotic-resistant “superbugs”? If you really don’t believe in evolution", then the answer is that they know that these "super-bugs" are already out there and can become dominant. Not that we are creating them (evolving them) by using too many antibiotics. In your haste, you're making too many logical assumptions, but you're just wrong about this one. Drug-resistant bacteria are not at all an example of evolution. There's where the slight-of-hand comes in. You're trying to assert that proving variation and natural selection is the same as proving evolution (that these are the origin of the species).
By the way, I used to work at a genetics lab in computer-aided research and have read extensively on the field of bioinformatics and genomics. I'm not an expert, but the words intron, codon and free radical are not new to me. :)
Ah, excellent, someone with a grasp of the lingo. Once again, sorry for the tone, I'm sure you would sympathise that reading literature that flat out refuses to believe tenets you hold dear can stir some of the more primal emotions. I will do my darndest to refrain from name-calling in future.
I would like very much to see this stratum displaying the footprints of man and dinosaur side-by-side, but unfortunately Utah is a bit far off for me, especially with my present time commitments.
I fear I was a bit too heated when I wrote about bacterial natural selection. I am, and have long been, aware that antibiotics do not create "superbugs", but as you yourself stated, it cannot be denied that they certainly assist in their proliferation. This fostering of mutant strains of bacteria to the detriment of the wild-type is, as you say, a demonstration of natural selection. Do you suggest, though, that the mutant strain would then, through successive generations of mitosis, completely return to its previous genotype, deleting the gene that led to its selection?
I will grant that yes, many species exist that appear to have evolved from other currently extant organisms, but to survive natural selection only to revert to the phenotype that was eliminated by the "selector" seems more than a bit unlikely, wouldn't you say?
Oh, just one other thing, I noticed in one of your other blogs reference to the recession of many glaciers around the world being the last of Noah's flood leaving the world. I ask you, where is this water going? If it is water from the Flood, and it is melting, should it not, like all melting ice, raise the sea level? It's not all going to evaporate; the air would become saturated and the water would precipitate. It's not going to leave the atmosphere; it's boiling point is too high for it to stay in a gaseous phase as it enters the upper atmosphere. Would this worldwide melting not thus cause a second flood (something I'm sure God promised he wouldn't do again)?
Josh,
As far as the human and dinosaur footprints go, there are many sites that argue them one way or another. But there are many instances where they can be seen around the world, probably some in Australia if we were to do some research.
Here are a few links where you can read about them:
here
here
here
and...here
I kind of chuckle at the critics (who chuckle at me for my beliefs) because several independent teams of scientists have swept in and "debunked" the Utah footprints. Problem is, they all came up with different explanations for how they got there. The one constant is that they cannot allow human and dinosaur footprints to exist side-by-side. One "debunking" purports that the footprints were carved as a hoax. Another "debunking" says they were made by a dinosaur that would leave footprints similar to humans. Yet another says they were the heels o a theropod that leaves a secondary footprint like elk do. Yet another claims they've found claw marks at the bottom of some of the footprints, so they must be a carnivore like a Utah Raptor. But there's no consistency. In a sense, they debunk each other. If you simply let your eyes lead you, you can see for yourself what they are: human footprints. Where some people call into question their veracity because of the size of the footprints, the Bible does speak of a giant race, the sons of Anak, which are proven to have existed in the land of Palestine.
But there are too many such finds around the world. Most of them are buried by the scientific community because they don't want the pro-creationist flak they'll get for announcing it. Their habit has been to publish such findings only after they've come up with a way to repudiate the clear implications of such a find. The problem is, not all such discoveries are found by scientists. Many times hikers and arm-chair paleontologists find them.
Post a Comment