Friday 17 March 2023

Yet another question mark in the fossil chronicles.

Fossil Friday: The Abrupt Origin of Ichthyosaurs

This Fossil Friday features Stenopterygius quadricissus from the Lower Jurassic Posidonia shale of Holzmaden in southern Germany, which is about 190 million years old. As a child I went collecting fossils from this fossil locality, which was close to my childhood home, and with a bit of luck you could not only find ammonites but even vertebrae of such ichthyosaurs. Apart from dinosaurs and pterosaurs, the ichthyosaurs are one of the iconic groups of Mesozoic reptiles. Even though they look like a hybrid between a dolphin and a shark, they were marine reptiles that are believed to have descended from monitor-lizard-like terrestrial ancestors.

Darwinism would predict a long and gradual transition between these very different body plans, but actually ichthyosaurs appeared very abruptly about 4 million years after the great end-Permian mass extinction event about 252 million years ago, which annihilated about 81 percent of marine and 70 percent of terrestrial biodiversity. There is general consensus that ichthyosaurs did not yet exist before this cataclysm, and the oldest fossils indeed only appeared in the Lower Triassic of China about 248 million years ago. Jiang et al. (2016) concluded that “ichthyosauriforms evolved rapidly within the first one million years of their evolution.” Well, that was the state of knowledge until a few days ago, when a brand new study (Kear et al. 2023) changed the picture and made the origin of ichthyosaurs even much more abrupt. A team of scientists from Norway and Sweden described ichthyosaur remains from the Arctic island of Spitsbergen, which are about 250 million years old but already show clear evidence for a fully marine way of life.

Revealing Admissions

The press release by Uppsala University (2023) makes some very revealing admissions about this unexpected discovery:

As the story goes, land-based reptiles with walking legs invaded shallow coastal environments to take advantage [of] marine predator niches that were left vacant by this cataclysmic event. Over time, these early amphibious reptiles became more efficient at swimming and eventually modified their limbs into flippers, developed a fish-like body shape, and started giving birth to live young; thus, severing their final tie with the land by not needing to come ashore to lay eggs.

The new fossils discovered on Spitsbergen are now revising this long accepted theory. …

Unexpectedly, these vertebrae occurred within rocks that were supposedly too old for ichthyosaurs. Also, rather than representing the textbook example of an amphibious ichthyosaur ancestor, the vertebrae are identical to those of geologically much younger larger-bodied ichthyosaurs, and even preserve internal bone microstructure showing adaptive hallmarks of fast growth, elevated metabolism and a fully oceanic lifestyle.

This means nothing less than that the transition from a land-living reptile to a fish-like marine reptile was completed in less than 2 million years, which corresponds to about half the average longevity of a larger vertebrate animal species. This is incredibly short in geological and biological terms and does not allow for the required genetic changes to have originated by an unguided process. This waiting time problem of neo-Darwinism is proven by population genetic calculations, which is the subject on an ongoing research project by Discovery Institute scientists.

Even the time span of 4 million years that was implied by the previously known fossil record of Early Triassic ichthyosaurs is shockingly short, so much so that a friend and colleague of mine, who is a renowned expert on ichthyosaurs and neither a theist nor an advocate of intelligent design, confidentially told me that he came to doubt the neo-Darwinian explanation for this very reason. He said: “That this transition happened by a Darwinian mechanism in such a short time is simply IMPOSSIBLE!” With this window of time now cut in half, the transition becomes even more incredible.

A Temporal Paradox

But there is another problem: The new discovery makes fully marine ichthyosaurs older than their alleged amphibious relatives such as Cartorhynchus (Motani et al. 2015, Jiang et al. 2016) and likely older than their unknown terrestrial relatives. This creates a temporal paradox of assumed descendants appearing before their assumed stem group. Thus, ichthyosaurs joined the numerous other examples of such paradoxes, such as early tetrapods or early birds. Not exactly a success story for Darwinism.

With increasing knowledge of the fossil record, the mainstream narrative is rendered more and more untenable and inconsistent with the empirical evidence. It’s time to move on and consider more adequate explanations like intelligent design theory.

Now the ICC pokes the bear?

Zombie apocalypse now?

Gulf war II revisited.

It's causal circularity all the way down?

Here’s That Paper on MicroRNAs in Brown Algae

Cornelius G Hunter

MicroRNAs are small RNA gene products, typically consisting of 20-24 nucleotides, which help to regulate protein synthesis, for example by pausing or halting the ribosome translation process. Like the small drill bit which is inserted into the much larger drill tool, the small microRNAs are attached to a much larger molecular machine that performs the regulation. The microRNA role is to help the molecular machine recognize the correct RNA target. In other words, instead of the cell having to construct a large quantity of different molecular machines to perform the regulatory role on a large quantity of RNA targets, the cell can construct a more generic type of molecular machine, and then simply attach the instructions—the microRNA—as needed. This design approach requires the existence of these two entities: the big molecular machine and its little instruction set. Remove either entity, and this particular regulatory process isn’t going to happen. That does not fit the evolutionary narrative. According to evolution you need a slow, gradual buildup of designs, not all-or-none scenarios. But not surprisingly biology is chocked full of the latter, and so with evolution we must say that the different parts just happened to arise, perhaps serving some other roles, and then just luckily they worked fantastically together to achieve a new function. MicroRNAs are yet another finding that must be force-fit into evolutionary theory. But this irreducible complexity is only the beginning of the problem. With microRNAs, it only gets worse.

A completely different problem that microRNAs pose for evolutionary “theory” is that microRNAs do not fit the common descent pattern. As a recent Paper admitted:

There is no evidence of conservation of miRNAs between the phylogenetic groups, indicating that miRNA systems evolved independently in each lineage

Evolved independently?

In other words, microRNAs do not fit the evolution model. The evidence contradicts the theory. Of course one can always make up an explanation. In this case, we say that the microRNAs “evolved independently.”

There you go, problem solved.

But let’s be honest—this is not indicated by the evidence. When the paper states that there is no evidence of conservation of miRNAs between the phylogenetic groups, thus “indicating” that miRNA systems evolved independently, it is simply misrepresenting the science.

There is precisely zero scientific evidence that microRNAs “evolved independently.”

Zero.

That is not my opinion. That is not conjecture. That is scientific fact.

Evolutionists talk a lot about scientific “fact.” They insist evolution is a scientific “fact.” But let’s just be honest. What is a scientific fact here is not evolution, but rather the exact opposite. The “fact” is the microRNAs show “no evidence of conservation.”

That fact does not “indicate” evolution, it contradicts evolution.

Let’s just be honest. For once.

The paper finds yet another example of this failure in the microRNAs in brown algae. The study investigated the microRNAs in the species, Saccharina japonica, and compared them to previously investigated microRNAs, including those in a different brown algae species. Their findings were, as usual, “surprising.” The microRNAs in the two brown algae species were different.

Completely different.

There was not a single pair of microRNAs, between the two species, that showed any sign of statistically significant sequence similarity.

Interestingly, the microRNAs in the two species did generally share some structural and genomic features. So the evolutionists had to conclude that the microRNAs in the two species evolved from a common ancestor, but then their respective sequences evolved like crazy, leaving zero trace of sequence similarity.

This. Makes. No. Sense.

Here how the paper spun the results:

Surprisingly, none of the S. japonica miRNAs share significant sequence similarity with the Ectocarpus sp. miRNAs. However, the miRNA repertoires of the two species share a number of structural and genomic features indicating that they were generated by similar evolutionary processes and therefore probably evolved within the context of a common, ancestral miRNA system. This lack of sequence similarity suggests that miRNAs evolve rapidly in the brown algae (the two species are separated by ∼95 Myr of evolution). The sets of predicted targets of miRNAs in the two species were also very different suggesting that the divergence of the miRNAs may have had significant consequences for miRNA function.

“Probably evolved within the context of a common, ancestral miRNA system”? So what does “within the context” mean?

The answer is this is a meaningless cover phrase that masks the fact that the evidence contradicts the theory. It is evo-speak for “We don’t know what we’re talking about.” A more polite description is “hand-waving.”

A less polite, and more accurate description won’t be repeated here.

I will now consider the elephant in the room: Why is evolution being used to interpret the results in the first place? The theory is superfluous. It is redundant. It is vacuous. It is non-parsimonious. It is meaningless.

The theory does nothing to help us understand, interpret, elucidate, guide, or formulate meaningful predictions. Its only justification is itself.

We use the theory of evolution to interpret the results because the theory is true. And how do we know it is true? Because it is true?

The theory is self-referential. It is circular. It is famous for being famous.

It is a hold-over from the Epicureans of antiquity, the schoolmen of the Middle Ages, the rationalists of the seventeenth century, and the Darwinists today, and it has made a mockery of science.