Science and Culture Today Discovering Design in Nature
Topic

fossils

Peer-Reviewed Paper in Medical Journal Challenges Evolutionary Science and Inaccurate Evolution-Education

The paper begins by recounting some of the arguments raised during the Texas State Board of Education debate that challenged chemical and biological evolution. Read More ›
scientist-pick-up-trilobite-fossil-find-from-ground-stockpac-212656075-stockpack-adobe_stock
Scientist pick up trilobite fossil find from ground
Image Credit: Couperfield - Adobe Stock

Alas, Precambrian Microfossils Are Not the Solution to Darwin’s Dilemma

"Ever since Darwin there has been a disturbing void, both paleontological and psychological, at the base of the Phanerozoic eon." Read More ›

Watch Oxford Mathematician John Lennox’s Response to Stephen Hawking’s Grand Design

Is philosophy dead, as Hawking claims? Are scientists the new (self-appointed) torch-bearers of truth? Is the so-called M-theory the "only viable candidate" for a complete 'theory of everything'? Watch Lennox's response in this exclusive full-length video. Read More ›

Australopithecus sediba: The Hype-Cycle Starts Again

It's only after a supposed "transitional fossil" is discovered that evolutionists feel comfortable admitting to such "gaps" in the fossil record. This makes you wonder: what gaps exist right now that we aren't being told about? Read More ›

Meet Pakicetus, the Terrestrial Mammal BioLogos Calls a “Whale”

In a previous post, we noted some fish-related problems with BioLogos’s page discussing the fossil record. But these aren’t the only marine mistakes on the page. BioLogos says regarding the evolution of whales: Recently, a 52-million-year-old whale fossil, Pakicetus, was found in Pakistan. It was clearly a small, wolf-sized whale, but it did not have the characteristic fat-pad, a structure that allows the whale’s jaw vibrations to be used for hearing. Also, its teeth were much like those of the terrestrial animals already thought to be related to whales. Aside from the fact that Pakicetus was discovered in 1983 (not exactly “recently”), there’s quite a bit more that should be said about this fossil. The claim that Pakicetus is a Read More ›

Something’s Fishy With BioLogos’s Description of Fish Fossil Record

In a prior post, I discussed how BioLogos’s website has a page titled “What does the fossil record show?” which is conspicuously missing any mention of the Cambrian explosion, or any other explosions in the history of life. The page also has other errors and omissions. In a section titled “Evidence of Gradual Change,” it states: “At 500 million years ago, ancient fish without jawbones surface.” Actually, the first known fossils of fish are from the lower Cambrian, meaning that their date is probably closer to 530 m.y.a., near the beginning of the Cambrian period. A Nature paper reporting this find was titled “Lower Cambrian vertebrates from south China.” It noted: “These finds imply that the first agnathans may have Read More ›

Inconsistent Reasoning Governs Evolutionary Interpretations of Feathered Dinosaurs

Nature news is reporting another feathered dinosaur. The title of the Nature news article says, “Crested dinosaur pushes back dawn of feather.” This dinosaur is from around 130 mya, but feathers are already known from the bird Archaeopteryx around 150 mya. So how does it push back the origin of feathers? Their reasoning is that the feathers on this new species, dubbed Concavenator corcovatus, appear in a different lineage than the one that supposedly led to birds. Since “such structures [feathers] are unlikely to have evolved separately in both groups” they use evolutionary reasoning to infer that “the common ancestor of the two predatory dinosaur branches, ‘could have been feathered’.” This pushes the origin of feathers back to “Middle Jurassic Read More ›

© Discovery Institute