EVOLUTION THEORY'S BIGGEST BLOW: Wilson's Law of Evolution. Where Are All The Fossils of Failed Mutations?

By David Wilson


First, let's get our terms straight: Evolution is not and never has been a "theory". This is a theory:  A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation  and experimentation. Evolution is less than a hypothesis, it is a supposition: a tentative insight into   the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory". This already renders evolution, then, as a mere supposition, not a "theory".

This blog always tries to give you a line or two you can use when debating in favor of Creation. Here is this post's line, and encapsulates the content of this post:

For evolution to be a viable hypothesis, it must have the element of mutation playing a vast and critical role. Mutation is a chaotic - random - process. Therefore every evolutionary jump should be flanked in the fossil record by countless random mutations which did not succeed.  That means billions of failed mutation fossils for 1.5 million species of life on earth, demanded statistically because we have many fossils of many particular animals which did "succeed". Such a fossil record of countless failed mutations does not exist. That is the end of the theory of evolution.  It's over.

Since I have never seen this subject brought up anywhere before or after our production of the video "Behold Now Behemoth" in 2007, and since it is my own thought, I am going to play secular scientist today and name this Law after myself to the presumed delight of the anti-creationists (why not?):

Wilson's Law of Evolution: The total lack of fossil evidence of the primary component of evolution, "mutation", proves the theory of evolution to be false. The fact of many fossils of the same creatures exist but no record of the billions of mutations which did not succeed defeats evolution at the stage of primary supposition. No fossil record of the statistically-demanded billions of mutations which did not succeed proves mutation from one species into another never occurred. Period.

Here is the extremely secular and liberal Berkeley university confirming that mutation is the primary component for evolution. "Mutations are essential to evolution; they are the raw material of genetic variation. Without mutation, evolution could not occur."

Here is extremely secular Berkeley University confirming that mutation is a random and unguided process.

"Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." Factors in the environment may influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation. For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be."


As far back as 1920, writing in that year's annual report for the Smithsonian Institution (an original copy of which the author has in his hard copy collection),  Charles W. Gilmore, Associate Paleontologist at the U.S. national museum, wrote, "The late J.B. Hatcher brought to light by far the greater number of the known Triceratops specimens, compromising some 40 or more skulls and partial skeletons, all from the now famous Lance Creek locality in eastern Wyoming." So many samples of a single animal were not unusual even back then. The point, of course, is for there to be many samples of a single animal but no fossil record of the countless random mutations which did not succeed preceding it, prove statistically that evolution from one species to another never occurred, and this fossil record pattern is true for every living creature on earth.

And that, dear friends, that pretty much screws "The Theory of Evolution". It is not that the empirical evidence does not support Creationism. In this instance the empirical evidence totally and completely defeats the supposition of evolution.

Triceratops as imagined by Knight at about the time Hatcher was finding fossils of many Triceratops, but not the countless fossils of random mutations which did not succeed as demanded statistically for the "Theory of Evolution" to be viable even as a supposition.


It bears noting that, apart from the absence of a record of failed mutations, the idea of  natural selection as an element of the evolution process is a statistical absurdity, as well. Since this blog's specialty is dinosaurs, let's look at the example of the supposed transition from small bipedal dinosaurs to birds. There is mainstream science's sort of movie-transition scenario: a "proto-bird" creature with rudimentary feathers (of ONE individual) appears and - whoosh - a camera swish pan and we see the first birds soaring through the branches of Jurassic forests and escaping predictors. It's a fanciful and optimistic scene which makes us feel good because the little bird is the sympathetic protagonist. But as logic it fails miserably in a real-world scenario.

For example, If the first rudimentary feathered creature survived, how did little scales help if the scales were nowhere near developed enough to be feathers for flight at that point in development? How did the scales help that creature fare better than his contemporaries, and why was the effect not diluted by mating with a member of the same species that did not have the rudimentary feathers? Dominant genes? Just like that? And even if a bipedal dinosaur suddenly emerged with feathers fully formed, how did his land-based bipedal brain become re-wired essentially instantly for the special complex intricacies of flight? Over generations?  Perhaps falling off branches and breaking their necks just a little less than they barely flew but didn't really fly at all at that point and escaped predators better than normal-scaled dinosaurs of the same species because.... well, just because? Laughable and, frankly, grossly stupid as a real-life scenario.

 With no fossil record to confirm the countless mutations of the little first proto-bird bird before he became a true bird, there was no proven mutation at all, only different species. It's true for every single living creature on earth. Evolution of one species to another simply never happened. End of discussion.

The supposition of evolution just collapses, completely, because its primary mechanism, mutation, is not recorded in the fossil record in a way that even fractionally meets the statistical demands imposed on the theory. Yet like the old paleontologists of the past who for generations demanded that dinosaurs be ectothermic (cold-blooded) instead of endothermic (warm blooded) when everything pointed to endothermic from the very first dinosaur reconstructions, scientists today demand that these statistical fairy tales of evolution by mutation be believed or they will condescendingly wave their worthless diplomas in your face and hope that the flapping of paper will distract you enough so that you do not notice that there is no fossil record of the mutations which did not succeed, as demanded by the statistics.

The presumed hoped-for fossil record of the billions of mutations that did not succeed can no longer, if they were even considered, be thought of as simply as-yet-undiscovered-evidence. It is now long past the point that secular science must finally admit that the lack of a fossil record of the failed mutations is, in itself, the actual evidence..... that evolution on earth from one species into a new species never occurred.

Wilson's Law of Evolution: The total lack of fossil evidence of the primary component of evolution, "mutation", proves the theory of evolution to be false. The fact of many fossils of the same creatures exist but no record of the billions of mutations which did not succeed defeats evolution at the stage of primary supposition. No fossil record of the statistically-demanded billions of mutations which did not succeed proves mutation from one species into another never occurred. Period.

Here, C.R. Knight's Ornitholestes, apparently raised on Darwinian evolution, seems to be trying to help his supposed cousin Archaeopteryx learn to use his new feathers to fly. Both are plainly unaware that not only did one not evolve from the other, but that the total fossil record of life on earth, devoid of the statistically-demanded billions of fossils of failed mutations needed to prove evolution, shows that neither actually ever evolved at all.  And that's just the  immutable statistical hard facts of it. Evolution from one species to another never occurred. Period.

*****************

Related article:  Why The Culture Of The Mainstream Scientific Community Nullifies Its Authority

What's wrong with this picture? One of the first paintings of Dilplodocus, commissioned by the paleontology community in the later 1800's, and woe to anyone who dared to mock it, even though every leg bone was out of place.




ADDENDUM (and this process is likely to continue for awhile Updated 10/02/2015)

1.  Several people have asked, "What is a failed mutation?" and more specifically, "How do you identify a fossil of a failed mutation?" apparently proceeding on the flawed assumption that if you cannot identify a failed mutation fossil, it follows that you cannot say that a failed mutation fossil does not exist. That is my presumption of the motivation behind the question, anyway, and despite the fact that the question is a textbook example of failed logic to say the least, I am assuming the question is being innocently asked, so it deserves an clarifying answer.

Wilson's Law of Evolution is based as much on statistical probability as it is on fossil identification, which is usually hypothetical anyway (the entire history of paleontology is hip-deep in absolute proclamations which are instantly forgotten when it is arbitrarily decided by the mainstream to celebrate another so-called mainstream science advancement in knowledge". Read the above-linked related article, also by me. Remember how gross the mainstream scientific community has been in these kinds of mistakes. It had to be dragged kicking and screaming like an infant to the obvious conclusion of endothermic dinosaurs in the 1970's when that fact was already more or less recognized as being, essentially, a prerequisite for accurate dinosaur reconstruction from as early as 1900.

Statistically, we should see an almost endless variation in the fossil record, to the point if we had more fossils of specific (supposedly evolution-successful) species (as we do), the other billions of fossils would need to be examined to see if a good guess could be made as to whether each and every single one was part of the (supposed) larger successful process, an evolutionary dead end or a failed mutation which died in its solitary statistical state, the last of which, statistically, should comprise the vast percentage of fossils found because when dealing with a truly chaotic - random - process on this staggering scale and of this complexity, there can be no question of the undeniably vast numbers involved.

Since the fossil record has not even the remotest fraction demanded by the statistical percentages required for evolution by mutation to be viable, we see immediately that the theory is flawed at the very basic supposition stage. There is zero statistical evidence that macro evolution (one species branching into another species) by mutation ever occurred, and that is the end of the viability of the "theory" of evolution, obviously and that's just how it is. The theory of evolution is done.

2. A Facebook thread for the fan page of (of all the people)  Bill Nye The Science Guy (whose background, before becoming an entertainer, was in mechanical engineering and admits to never being a scientist) a few people posted refutations to Wilson's Law of Evolution at length about qualities of genetic mutation substantiating macro (one species to another) . Regarding the issue of genetics, There appears to be extreme confusion at the base level regarding this, so here is what I posted to them, quoted in full, so we don;t have to go through this one again.

As far a mutations appearing on a genetic level, of course. But You also appear to be making the case that evolution on a genetic level creates new species - a new physically manifest creature -  and mutation demands that that process be random, which still leaves us back at the same point: where are all the fossils - billions - of mutations which did not succeed? Mutation does not "give" an animal what it "needs". It's a random process. OK. So where is the statistically-demanded fossil record, because we have many fossils of many individual animals, but no fossil record of the chaotic process which led to any new species. With so many samples of certain animals an no fractional record of the chaotic process which supposedly caused them to spring into being, it follows very plainly that the process never occurred.

To say that genes mutate and create a new creature but then to infer at the same time that the mutated genes do not create the billions of failed mutations required by the statistical demands of a chaotic process defeats your own point if you are arguing in defense of the idea of evolution. 

It appears (some) people are simply clinging to the past for the sake of itself.and more specifically, making (their) arguments based on the words of the mainstream scientific community. I suggest (they) read this, by me:

http://www.creationdino.blogspot.com/.../why-culture-of...

and read this, also, by me (I won't rely on linking articles written by others. (they should) Write (their) own if (they) want to debate me):

http://www.creationdino.blogspot.com/.../the-fantasy...

Anything (they) write or quote which does not first take into account and explain the missing fossil record of the billions of mutations which did not succeed is proceeding on false assumptions that there is evidence of the billions of mutations caused by the chaotic process of mutation. Therefore, everything in defense of evolution is being described through the prism of a false assumption. You need empirical evidence that it happened before you can explain why, and the *most important* evidence - a fossil record of the billions of failed mutations statistically demanded by the chaotic process of mutation does not exist. That mystery needs to be solved before you can proceed. So unless (their) articles include that, and I am sure they do not, then like most similar topics stated as fact with no evidence to support them, the articles are useless.

Show me the fossils of the billions of failed mutations statistically demanded by the chaotic process, and then we can debate the fine points. The need for that evidence does not vanish because someone does a great deal of detailed talking based on unsubstantiated suppositions of what happened in the past. We need the evidence first, and it is plain that the evidence for mutation and therefore evolution will never be found because it is now obvious that it does not exist, and that is the end of the "theory" of evolution.

10/03/2015

This main post, "Wilson's law of Evolution",  has left evolutionists, usually often quite loudly militant in defaming Creationists, nearly silent to an astounding degree. That's good. But two people brought up the "Eohippus", the so-called "Dawn Horse", as a "proven example" of evolution in the fossil record, so let me take a moment to disprove that example before we're hip-deep in Hyracotheriums.

This is the kind image that so many of us grew up with on this subject:



It's a pretty picture, but it's wrong. It is another evolution supposition.

Read this from a typical mainstream science site: "Today, most paleontologists classify Hyracotherium as a "palaeothere," that is, a perissodactyl (odd-toed ungulate) ancestral to both horses and the giant plant-eating mammals known as brontotheres (typified by Brontotherium, the "thunder beast"). Its close cousin Eohippus, on the other hand, seems to deserve a place more firmly in the equid than the palaeothere family tree, though of course this is still up for debate!"

In other words, they don't know. Then, having admitted that there is still significant uncertainty as to whether Eohippus belongs to the horse family at all, the article wraps up with this positively jaw-dropping proclamation: "Whatever you choose to call it, Eohippus was clearly at least partly ancestral to all modern-day horses, as well as to the numerous species of prehistoric horse (like Epihippus and Merychippus) that roamed the North American and Eurasian plains of the Tertiary and Quaternary periods"

Astounding. You read it right, First they they admit they don't know if Eohippus belongs in the horse family, but then, they proclaim that they do know Eohippus belongs in the horse family, and claim to know "very clearly", even though their own statement is "still up for debate".  Positively astounding. No wonder so many people are obviously confused and post things like Eohippus as "proof" of evolution. Worse yet, this is not an isolated instance. Most everything you read in detail on Eohippus contains similar logistical and semantic smoldering train wrecks.

Required empirical evidence that the Eohippus evolved into the modern horse? None. Scratch poor little Eohippus, as cute as he is, off the list of so-called evolutionary examples (and in terms of progressions, Eohippus has always been the big illustrative example!). He is as cute as a button, I know - I love him, too -  but he is not remotely proof of evolution, according to secular mainstream science itself. Period. Done. No more silliness about Eohippus being proof of evolution. If anyone brings it up, send them to this post.

For extreme relevance to this addendum about Eohippus, please read the following two articles from this blog:

The Fantasy Semantics of the Mainstream Scientific Community

Why The Culture Of The Mainstream Scientific Community Nullifies Its Authority

These three Eohippi appear plainly bewildered and unimpressed as they ponder what a pathetic, self-serving mess mainstream science has made of their admirable, evolution-free heritage.

If you like what you see and read on CreationDino, please help us continue our work as well as additional installments of the video Behold Now Behemoth by giving a "Christian Payment Offering" for the dollar amount of your choice with the dropdown menu on the Paypal button on the upper right hand side of the screen for what you read and watch on CreationDino. We could really use the help right about now.

CREATION-DINO'S EASY, TOP TEN LIST OF SURE-FIRE RESPONSES TO ANTAGONISTIC ATHEISTS WHO MOCK CREATIONISTS

All images and quotes used via the Fair Use Act.

It's time people with God on their side put on God's suit of armor a bit more. Go out and tell the world the truth, because if anyone mocks you, you now have this list of responses to shut them down cold, and inspire and influence others to both know the Truth and then tell the Truth. If they mock the fact that you are using template responses, say "You do it all the time when you quote a so-called scientific expert." This Top 10 List  of proven responses is your 16-inch debating gun ammo to to sink the internet cardboard battleships of those who strike first at you and your faith. Use this list all the time.

                                                                     ****************

1. WHEN INSULTING YOU, Generally, using links to mainstreamscience articles (This is your  "checkmate response 1" so always keep it handy)


RESPONSE: Another "scientific authority"? Like the paleontologists who said dinosaurs were slow and cold-blooded for 80 years when the slow-moving descriptions they used to describe dinosaurs showed they understood metabolism, endothermy and ectothermy well enough to know that the dinosaurs must have been warm blooded? They either lied or were stupid, all of them, for over 80 years, and what you are posting shows the same pattern today. The scientific community cannot be trusted to tell the truth. It's been proven by the last 100 years of historical record 

1893  Chicago World's fair,- Slow, ectothermic (cold-blooded) reconstruction of "Brontosaurus"(from author's collection),  

1964 - Same ectothermic-style reconstruction in 1964. 72 years later, based on "latest scientific evidence". NO CHANGE (from author's collection)



2. INSULT: You believe in an invisible man.

RESPONSE: There are over 7 billion people on the earth. Do you believe that all those people are invisible just because you can't see them?

3. INSULT:  You are just a crazy/stupid/ignorant/whatever.

RESPONSE: (This is  "checkmate response 2" so always keep it handy)
 I wonder what kind of loser sits at his or her computer all day and evening antagonizing people they do not know? Must be because of this-->  https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-online-secrets/201409/internet-trolls-are-narcissists-psychopaths-and-sadists    Are your friends and family proud of you? 

Image from Psychology Today about internet psychopaths, used via the Fair Use Act.




4. INSULT: You believe in a giant man in the sky.

RESPONSE: That is not how the Bible describes God. Get past your 1950's first-grade reader and images in art, no matter how well-respected. Besides, I wonder what kind of loser sits at his or her computer all day and evening antagonizing people they do not know? Must be because of this--> https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-online-secrets/201409/internet-trolls-are-narcissists-psychopaths-and-sadists   Are your friends and family proud of you?

5. INSULT: You are not being very gracious and Jesus-like when you say that. My, my, you are not a good Christian to talk that way.

RESPONSE: Jesus turned over the tables of the money changers and drove them out with a whip of cords. You should be lucky I am not more Jesus-like when it comes to you.  I wonder what kind of loser sits at his or her computer all day and evening antagonizing people they do not know? Must be because of this-->  https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-online-secrets/201409/internet-trolls-are-narcissists-psychopaths-and-sadists   Are your friends and family proud of you?

Jesus drives out the money changers with a whip of cords, as described in the Bible



6. INSULT: Science says you are wrong, you crazy loon

RESPONSE: Like the paleontologists who said dinosaurs were slow and cold-blooded for 80 years when the slow-moving descriptions they used to describe dinosaurs showed they understood metabolism, endothermy and ectothermy well enough to know that the dinosaurs must have been warm blooded? They either lied or were stupid, all of them, for over 80 years, and what you are posting shows the same pattern today. The scientific community cannot be trusted to tell the truth. It's been proven by the last 100 years of historical record 







7. INSULT: Hey idiot, the fossil record proves evolution.

RESPONSE: No, it does not. Evolution needs mutation to be a viable theory, which is a chaotic process, so there should be a ton of fossils of the mutations which did not succeed, demanded by statistics because we have many fossils of single animals, but no fossil record of the billions of mutations which did not succeed. 

In most ways, evolutionists still present this pathetic and insulting basic idea of evolution, made 'substantial" by innumerable theories, hypothesis and, ultimately, non sequitur. 



8. INSULT: Hey moron, radiometric dating proves fossils are millions of years old.

RESPONSE: Radiometric dating as been proven so fallible that samples 50 years old have been dated at millions of years. It's so bad most labs won't even accept a sample to date anymore unless you tell them so much about it that you practically run the dating test yourself.

9. INSULT: Hey fairy tale believer, the human race is proven to be hundreds of thousands of years old.

RESPONSE: Then why are there only 5,500 years of recorded human history? Recording human history was a human invention, not a human discovery. What took everyone so long to start, and once they began, why did they instantly being writing of politics and philosophy but had not even begun basic written language? Plainly humankind was created fully formed, intelligent and aware starting with the first man, which science just very recently, due to the genetic evidence, admitted began the human race less than a very recent 100,000 years ago, many times closer to the date of Biblical creation than secular science has admitted in the last 80 years. 

10: INSULT,: Hey YEC idiot, Distant Starlight proves that the universe is billions of years old because light cannot travel faster than 186,000 miles per second.

RESPONSE: The problem witgh distant starlight is that part of relativity called Gravitational Time Dilation. Only in a vacuum with no gravitation because light is comprised of photons which are matter, and gravity distorts the time of all matter.  Time has been measured by atomic clocks to run at different speeds from the gravitational difference between the surface of the earth and an atomic clock in an airplane. Imagine the time distortions among all the billions of island galaxies in the universe! To see light from earth and place a timeframe on it is like trying to navigate with a GPS using only one satellite. The advantage that mainstream science has in that analogy is that science does not need to prove the viability of the system by actually getting anywhere - they can pronounce themselves the experts and their opinions as facts and expect everyone to simply nod their heads, but the methodology of calculating the age of the universe from distant starlight is ridiculous.  Even the secular science "Big Bang Theory" falls apart because of its assumptions that would otherwise substantiate their argument against creationists using distant starlight. That problem is is called the "Horizon Problem".

A lovely little secular science diagram of one way gravity effects time - even when it relates to the speed of light. There are billions of gravity-causing island galaxies and countless phenomena that renders the idea of distant starlight as a completely implausible as reason to assume that the universe is old.

A typical mainstream science description of the very problem, involving, specifically, the Big Bang theory, that destroys their assumptions of Distant Starlight as an answer for an Old Universe. 


If they tell you to prove any of the science you cite, tell them to disprove it. They will need to cite a scientific source and you can shut them with this response, again.

Like the paleontologists who said dinosaurs were slow and cold-blooded for 80 years when the slow-moving descriptions they used to describe dinosaurs showed they understood metabolism, endothermy and ectothermy well enough to know that the dinosaurs must have been warm blooded? They either lied or were stupid, all of them, for over 80 years, and what you are posting shows the same pattern today. The scientific community cannot be trusted to tell the truth. It's been proven by the last 100 years of historical record 


ADDITIONAL Follow up INSULT to any response, above): You are an idiot, bla bla bla. They cannot win at insulting you as long as you do this. Eventually, the people who support their view will quietly tell them to leave you alone, because when you expose one of them enough with this, you expose them all..

RESPONSE:  I wonder what kind of loser sits at his or her computer all day and evening antagonizing people they do not know? Must be because of this-->    https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-online-secrets/201409/internet-trolls-are-narcissists-psychopaths-and-sadists   Are your friends and family proud of you? 

THIS IS TOTALLY EASY. That's all there is to it. That's all you need. It's that simple. I have tried them all. If they continue to attack, just keep posting the trolling article from Psychology Today until their friends and families start to abandon them. It's that simple. You, the Creationist, wins every time and you should.

If you have already have a proven retort that work for you, post it in comments section, below, and if they work for us or seem like they should, then we'll add them here, so join in!

God Bless and keep up the good fight in God's name.

If you like what you see and read on CreationDino, please help us continue our work as well as additional installments of the video Behold Now Behemoth by giving a "Christian Payment Offering" for the dollar amount of your choice with the dropdown menu on the Paypal button on the upper right hand side of the screen for what you read and watch on CreationDino. We could really use the help right about now.

Why The Culture Of The Mainstream Scientific Community Nullifies Its Authority

... A Continuing 100-Year Poster-Child Example of Why The Mainstream Scientific Community Can Never Be Trusted To Tell The Truth.
All images on this site if not created by the author are used vie the Fair Use Act.

CUTTING TO THE CHASE, HERE IS THE LINE YOU SHOULD USE WHEN ANTI-CREATIONISTS POST A SCIENTIFIC "AUTHORITY" TO BACK UP THEIR ANTAGONISTIC ATTACKS:

Another "scientific authority"? Like the paleontologists who said dinosaurs were slow and cold-blooded for 80 years when the slow-moving descriptions they used to describe dinosaurs showed they understood metabolism, endothermy and ectothermy well enough to know that the dinosaurs must have been warm blooded? They either lied or were stupid, all of them, for over 80 years, and what you are posting shows the same pattern today. The scientific community cannot be trusted to tell the truth. It's been proven by the last 100 years of historical record  

(Please check back to this article regularly as it is now an ongoing project as the author researches his own hard copy periodicals dating through the last 122 years.)
Often you will find yourself reading the bashing of Creationism. Usually, those doing the bashing are quoting highly-placed scientific 'experts' with doctorates from esteemed universities to substantiate their unilateral antagonism against Creationists. If you dare to question the "experts" conclusions with evidence and/or logic, their defenders will descend on you like Biblical Locusts, or perhaps SS Brownshirts. Despite the fact that such behavior on the part of the anti-Creationism advocates is immature and perhaps indicative of severe psychological problems (what kind of loser spends his or her evening at the computer antagonizing people they do not know? Maybe this is the answer), the fact is that the esteemed experts they are defending are often not much better. 


Since this site has Dino in the title, let's talk about Dinosaurs and their scientific 'experts" as an illustration.

The fact is that every declaration by science that refutes Creationism is hip-deep in speculation and theory.  But worse, mainstream scientists almost always deny obvious truth for generations and instead demand agreement to the outdated notions in which their careers have found a measure of safety and comfort. But we have seen this pattern loud and clear in the paleontology community to a poster-child degree, and that's what this post is about, and why you cannot ever trust the mainstream scientific community to tell you the truth .

For generations paleontologists said that dinosaurs were cold-blooded even though they knew the obvious workings of metabolism were totally against it from the first dinosaur skeleton found and assembled. We must assume, then, that those men either lied to protect their stations in life - for generations - or they were so ignorant about their own field of study that they never should have been practicing in it. 


An absolutely illustrative example of this mindset of resisting the obvious conclusion of warm-blooded (endothermic) dinosaurs can be found in a statement published back in a 1917 copy of The Mentor (in the author's hard copy collection). The article, "Prehistoric Animal Life", was authored by W. D. Matthew, Ph. D., the then-Curator of the Department of Vertebrate Paleontology at the American Museum of Natural history in New York. In it Dr Matthew skirts the obvious contradiction of figure structure to cold-blooded limitation by saying, 

"The large dinosaurs, for aught we know to the contrary, have evolved a more perfected and active circulatory system of blood than modern reptiles, which would enable them to be as active and powerful as their bones would suggest." 

Reptiles are universally cold-blooded. There you have it. The Curator of the appropriate department of the Museum of Natural History struggling to resist the obvious as far back as 1917, instead of saying, perhaps, "Maybe dinosaurs were warm-blooded, after all".     

A photo of famed dinosaur reconstruction painter Charles R Knight, sculpting an ectothermic, cold-blooded Stegosaurus, circa 1899, the front illustration of Dr Matthew's Mentor article from 1917. 

This refusal to accept an obvious reality and instead choosing to cling to hopelessly incorrect worldview notions of cold-blooded dinosaurs went on for decades, and of course, these "experts" mocked any opinions to the contrary (and that is the point, because modern scientists do exactly the same thing today without fail). "Hacks" is a pretty good descriptive word for the way they behaved.....

1893 Ectothermic (cold-blooded) Reconstruction of "Brontosaurus" (Image from the author's hard-copy original collection)....

1964 - the exact same type of ectothermic (cold-blooded) reconstruction of Brontosaurus, based on the "latest science" at the 1964 World's fair. 72 years later, the "latest science" proposes the exact same, intellectually dishonest ectothermic reconstruction as it did in 1893. (from the author's original, hard-copy collection)

Another fine example of paleontology stupidity/hypocrisy is when the the very popular movie One Million Years BC came out in 1966, about 100 years after the beginning of true paleontology and just before the so-called "Dinosaur Renaissance". If you check the scientific journals in the past in 1966, scientists mocked the dinosaur depictions in that film because the depictions appeared to show creatures supporting their own weight in the manner of warm-blooded animals and did not behave like scientifically-approved slow-moving cold-blooded animals. This is a particularly strong example of the scientific community intellectual blindness, because One Million years BC used stop motion figures for the dinosaurs, meaning articulated rubber models brilliantly done artistically, with physical restrictions that forced the legendary animator Ray Harryhausen to employ basic, credible poses learned from a lifetime of animal study, poses which much more resemble today's reconstructions than the hopelessly outdated ones then still being used by the scientific community in 1966. 

Ray Harryhausen's accurate prediction of warm-blooded dinosaur movement, as demanded by the  physiognomy, on the screen, decades before the outdated paleontologist community got its act together - and stopped stupidly laughing at it. Images used per The Fair Use Act.

Indeed, Harryhausen's animation should have been seen as a breakthrough in dinosaur reconstruction, because here the artist couldn't fudge the drawings, data or mock with grandiosity the way the scientific community does - he had a physical model to deal with in the T-Rex types, for example, and they had to make sense in motion and balance, something which proved impossible to put on the screen with the hopelessly outdated theories demanded by science up until the 1980's. 

This part is critical: What Harryhausen really did was make an inadvertent practical extension of  the Eadweard Muybridge animal movement studies, only in reverse. True: instead of photographing live animals and breaking down the motions into sequential pictures like Muybridge did, Harryhausen, drawing upon decades of animal motion study, photographed the dinosaur figures one frame at a time to create the illusion of movement.  By moving the creatures in ways which the physical restrictions and obvious center of gravity of an actual physical figure demanded, he created what should have been a startling template for the  paleontology community, because the figures were generally proportionately entirely accurate, and supported their own weight and moved as warm-blooded creatures, as their proportions and shapes demanded. It wasn't just Hollywood action on the screen, it should have been a startling revelation for paleontologists because the movements make sense in a way that undercut all previous illustrations (Now Harryhausen's work is regarded as prophetic by the occasion honest paleontologist).

Muybridge's seminal early animal motion studies circa 1879, in many ways, stop motion in reverse, a valuable fact lost on the "learned" scientific community when given a physical photographic demonstration of Allosaurus movement.

When faced with Harryhausen's practical example of figure weight-bearing and movement in One Million years BC, in 1966, what did these esteemed doctors already either lying about or too stupid to understand metabolism (for 80 years when metabolism function was otherwise understood) do? They did what they do today when faced with anything that threatens to undermine their comfort zone and careers: they insulted the work, calling the highly advanced reconstruction of movement "unscientific", "inaccurate", 'wrong".

If you think that taking a cue scientifically from Harryhausen's work is improper, consider how  Einstein arrived at the theory of relativity. Einstein did not imagine the experience of riding a beam of light after doing his calculations, but rather, imagining the experience of riding a beam of light inspired the direction and success of his calculations (thanks to an old and great friend with a masters in astronomical science for the tip). So, too, should the scientific community have taken a practical academic cue from Harryhausen's uniquely accurate work just as, decades before, as Harryhausen's work graphically suggested, someone within the learned halls of paleontology should have asked an insanely obvious question: "How can T-Rex possibly hunt for food if suffering from such a pathetic, cold-blooded condition as demanded by the mainstream scientific community?"


Please keep uppermost in your mind that it was the understanding of metabolism, as far back as the 1800's, which was the reason scientists in the field of paleontology initially called dinosaurs too weak to support their own weight and slow-moving in the first place, because they understood metabolism well enough to know that cold-blooded creatures of that size could not move quickly. That is simple historic fact. Period. But instead of admitting dinosaurs were warm-blooded by 1900, the scientific culture did what they still do today with evolution and Old-Earth sciences - they invented preposterously awkward scenarios for the "cold blooded dinosaurs" and mocked the idea of warm-blooded dinosaurs. It's the same pattern we see across the board in most scientific fields today. Doctorate-holding experts mocking the truth while knowing the truth or truly too dim to grasp it. That's terrible!


To make matters even worse, as incredible as it seems that it could be worse, the scientific community held a different standard according to whatever pleased them personally, as they do today. There is absolutely no question about this. For example, they mocked dinosaur movies with quick-footed, heavy-weight-bearing large meat-eaters, but had no trouble with this commission, below, by artist Charles Knight for the Museum of Natural History of extremely energetic dinosaurs circa 1900 which breaks their own haughtily delivered rules about cold-blooded dinosaurs (maybe they were in Dr Matthew's camp, and assumed they just had "better circulation" than modern reptiles).

Here, Charles Knight's bipedal carnivores, on display at the Museum of Natural History in 1900,  flip the bird at the very experts who before that time and for generations thereafter said that dinosaurs could not be fleet-footed heavy-weight-bearers because they were cold-blooded; an example of the paleontology science culture hypocritical mindset  that simply staggers the imagination. The lesson here to scientists: "Be honest and follow your own rules".


The scientific community culture is so awful and self-involved that when they had to rename Brontosaurus to Apatosaurus because they had the wrong skull on the sample reconstruction for over 70 years, they did not even to show the ethical integrity to say "oops, we haven't been paying attention". Instead, they heralded the correction as some supposed triumph for advancing scientific intellect. Pathetic 10-1. 

You see, it boils down to this: Apparently "A Fact" had been written into the social and professional structure of the paleontology field and no one dared to tell the truth, and the rest who were not lying were apparently so inept that they plainly did not understand a basic aspect of their own profession. Be they liars or stupid, neither type could be called 'experts" by any normal definition, so the entire paleontology field apparently never had any experts who were heard from for over 100 years.

People have not changed since then, and neither have secular scientists. Some day they will make similar admissions about evolution and the fact of a young earth, as long as they can cover their asses by blaming their predecessors and cover their fields of interest, also,  by saying that those past, poor generations of scientists did not have the proper evidence and it will be the same mind-numbing BS in the future as it is now and as it was with the paleontologists for over 100 unbroken years. It will happen all over, again and again, because it is not so much the science that is wrong, it is the obvious superior-minded yet apparently grossly unethical culture which has been the foundation of the scientific community for over 100 years. It will happen over and over. Guaranteed.

The fact is that almost everything read in the mainstream about evolution and old-earth science is conjecture, based on theory, with a smattering of observed reality shoved sideways into the mix and the whole mess dished up as immutable fact because there is no one above these experts to demand they prove anything in actual empirical terms. There is no one to correct their science papers and give them a failing grade anymore, because they are now the teachers. Just like they were when they said the dinosaurs were cold-blooded and laughed at the people who showed them the clear and unambiguous way to a truth, truth that only the truly stupid among them, in my opinion, could not have understood.

The simple lesson here is that the mainstream scientific community cannot be trusted to tell the truth. There is no way the example of the 100-year-scam of cold-blooded dinosaurs can otherwise be understood. Thousands of scientists over 100 years all demanding the same totally basic but bogus "truth" be accepted and knowing - or should have known if they had any brains - the absolute basic fact that the dinosaurs must have been warm-blooded from the get-go, but arrogantly and unfairly mocked anyone who said it. There's your "trusted science expert" in a nutshell. 

Whenever someone on social media cites a science journal quoting experts who refute creationism, be sure to link this page or copy and paste it as you please (just don't take credit for writing it, please).  The secular science community needs to be called out on whatever they say and asked to prove their assertions with empirical evidence. If nothing else, that might close down some science journals for awhile until they regroup and stop telling fantasies that keep secure their careers and start telling truth.... for a change.

ONCE AGAIN, HERE IS THE LINE YOU CAN AND SHOULD USE:

Another "scientific authority"? Like the paleontologists who said dinosaurs were slow and cold-blooded for 80 years when the slow-moving descriptions they used to describe dinosaurs showed they understood metabolism, endothermy and ectothermy well enough to know that the dinosaurs must have been warm blooded? They either lied or were stupid, all of them, for over 80 years, and what you are posting shows the same pattern today. The scientific community cannot be trusted to tell the truth. It's been proven by the last 100 years of historical record  

If you like what you see and read on CreationDino, please help us continue our work as well as additional installments of the video Behold Now Behemoth by giving a "Christian Payment Offering" for the dollar amount of your choice with the dropdown menu on the Paypal button on the upper right hand side of the screen for what you read and watch on CreationDino. We could really use the help right about now.