Welcome to all of the new subscribers!
This is the “When I get a round tooit” Creation/Evolution newsletter
from Ian Juby and the
traveling Creation Science Museum of Canada.
If you do not see a
header image above this text, you may have to turn on images in
email program, or you can click
here to view it in your browser.
Sorry to be so slow getting this newsletter out – I’ve been on the road!
In thisspecial edition, “missing link” newsletter:
1) Still yet more random rants…
2) Ancestor to the seal: Proof of evolution? (missing link #1)
3) Dinosaur collagen fibers again?
4) IDA thought they’d found more intermediates by now (missing link #2)
5) Spike Psarris makes a big bang
6) “Brain Drain”
7) The Mailbag
1) Still yet more random rants…
In the last issue, I gave y’all a sneak peak at my new “rants” which have received rave (and grave) reviews already, as well as a flood of comments on youtube and
emails – far too many to keep up with. However, in the slow, early stages of the posts, I gathered a couple of comments from youtube and responded to them in a rant that I have to admit, I had fun making.
Now, before I provide the links below, please bear in mind these links go to either youtube or tangle. Youtube will have comments with offensive
insults, obsenities, etc… Tangle (Godtube) is heavily
moderated, so chances are there won’t be offensive posts, and if there
is, you can report it.
So here’s the two new rants:
CrEvo Rant #121 IDiots? (Intelligent Design)
on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akyoJQG5kLw
on tangle.com: http://www.tangle.com/view_video.php?viewkey=8ae8c29dd3a580f35c90
CrEvo Rant #19 Mailbag, part 2
on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HQdyZoMabs
on tangle.com: http://www.tangle.com/view_video.php?viewkey=4e9376e9a1aba45d1d69
Please rate and join in on the rantings. I’ll have a special
video devoted to those warriors who have hopped into the battle posted
soon – kudos to y’all.
Also, you can head on over to my website, and on the entry page you can
view a random rant.
Many more rants to come!
While you can view the videos without an account on youtube, I’d
appreciate it if
you subscribed to my youtube channel (you’ll need a free youtube account) to rate and
Photo: Alex Tirabasso
2) Ancestor of the seal: Proof of evolution?
(missing link #1)
I was swamped with emails from alert readers about the
supposed “seal ancestor” found in the Canadian high arctic, as reported
in Nature magazine.
Thanks everyone, don’t worry about swamping me, I’d rather be swamped
then miss a good news item.
While this is a spectacular find to be sure (estimates are that they
managed to recover some 65% of the skeleton), it is merely excellent
evidence of a dead creature. It is lousy evidence for evolution.
The Canadian Museum of Nature has a page devoted to this fossil:
Most people, when reading an article or report, start reading at the
top. After reading this analysis, you’ll probably find yourself
reading articles starting at the bottom
from now on.
Let’s glean some comments from some of the major news reports on this
item first, and you’ll quickly get a grasp of why so many people were
asking me to comment. I’ve highlighted the contradictions in red.
The Windsor Star touted Puijila with the headline “Arctic Fossil ‘Missing Link,'”
Canadian-led team of scientists working on a remote Arctic island has
discovered the fossilized remains of an extinct forerunner of the
modern seal — a stunning new species hailed as the “missing
land-to-sea evolution predicted by Charles Darwin.” (emphasis
website ran the headline as “Fossil evidence of missing link in
the origin of seals, sea lions, walruses found in Canadian
Arctic” (emphasis mine).
With such bold headlines and claims, one can quickly see why so many
people were writing to me for an opinion. I will merely quote
straight from the mainstream media in response. If you scootch
down to the bottom of the CTV news and CBC news articles, you’ll notice
some contradictions between their headlines and the information in the
news had the bold headline “Canadian
fossil find sheds new light on seal evolution” (emphasis mine) claiming
Puijila darwini is the oldest and most primitive pinniped
skeleton found to date, though the scientists
say it is not a direct
relative of today’s seals.
Instead, they believe modern seals, as well as the Puijila darwini
likely evolved separately from a common ancestor.” (emphasis
CBC news claimed “Arctic fossil
points to missing link between seals and land mammals“ (emphasis mine), and ended their
report with a major statement that would be easy to miss:
Puijila lived at around the same
time as some flippered
pinnipeds, the researchers believe it was not the ancestor of
seals, but that Puijila and seals shared a common pinniped ancestor.” (emphasis mine)
Whoa – did you catch that? Did you notice the contradiction
between the headlines, the bold claims made in the various articles,
and this one single, stunning fact? The pinnipeds were
already around, therefore Puijila could not be the ancestor of the seal!
Puijila is a fascinating
find, and while it is excellent evidence for a dead thing, and it can
be interpreted within an evolutionary construct, to say that it somehow
“proves” evolution is just plain false. It is just as easily
interpreted within the creation context as a unique organism…
assuming it is indeed unique. The variations within dogs is a
classic example of how wide and varied creatures can be, and the
similiarities between Puijila and the many examples of Otters makes me
suspicious it’s simply a variation of the Otter, but I’ll leave that
discussion for another day.
3) Dinosaur collagen fibers again?
You may recall the story from a previous
post about soft tissues found in a T. rex bone from Montana.
Soft tissue just simply should not exist in a 70 million year old
dinosaur bone – end of discussion. The tissue should’ve decayed a
loooong time ago. I’ve now lost count of how many cases Dr. Mary
Schweitzer has found over the past 15 years or so of soft dinosaur
tissue, blood vessels, and even red blood cells.
Photo: Mary Schweitzer
For your entertainment, there’s a number of videos on youtube which are
all well worth seeing:
The original MSNBC news report with Dr. Schweitzer (love the anchor’s
comment at 5:17 “70 million years old huh?”) from a couple of years ago:
You might want to sit down before you
watch the next video clip.
Jump ahead in the timeline to 7:40 and see for yourself that some of
the “T.rex meat” Schweitzer
and her team discovered was even soft and
Yes, that’s T. rex meat that’s being stretched before
Still yet another bombshell:
Well Schweitzer has done it again.
This past month, another article came out in Science magazine, authored by
Schweitzer and friends, documenting soft tissue from a hadrosaur (photo
including red blood cells.
Contrary to what some skeptics may
claim, it is absolutely impossible for material like collagen
fibers to remain intact to 70 million years. Our best minds on
planet earth, using the best available technologies and deliberately
trying to preserve such soft tissues cannot do it – so how on earth can
we expect nature to just preserve it on its own?
Photos courtesy Mt.
Of course, this is all old news to creationists, as it was creation
paleontologist Joe Taylor (Mt.
Blanco Fossil Museum) and Mark Armitage, a creationary electron
microscope specialist, who discovered collagen fibers in T-rex bones back in 1995 (photos right).
I’m glad to see
the evolutionary scientists catching up and spending some money on
research like this. Kudos to Schweitzer for blazing a trail which
most would not venture to take, because these discoveries really do
call into question the long ages assigned to the rock layers and
circularity is dizzying:
So, is this research causing anyone to question the fictitious 70
million year old age assigned to these dinosaurs? Nope.
Just reading the title of the Physorg article on this
find speaks volumes: (the claim of the title
was never even addressed, nor justified in the article itself)
from 80 Million-Year-Old Hadrosaur Add Weight to Theory that Molecules
Preserve Over Time”
In other words, the assumption
that the dinosaur is 70 million years old never gets questioned.
Instead, all of the research that we can demonstrate, repeat, observe
and predict is questioned.
Do you see what’s happening
here? The unobservable,
untestable, unrepeatable past is not questioned, but
the research carried out, by some of our most brilliant minds, on the
observable deterioration of biomatter, is questioned.
Because if those
dinosaurs and rock layers are not millions of years old,
evolution disintegrates faster then the biomolecules.
requires deep time, and no one had dare
question those millions of years.
Well, I am questioning those millions of years… and so is the
you can do at home!
I mean c’mon – leave a chicken in your fridge for a year and observe what happens! A
fridge provides some of the best preservation around, and that can’t
keep the biomatter from breaking down. It’ll break down even
faster if you bury it in the ground.
Nope, it’s becoming increasingly obvious that these dinosaurs are not
millions of years old – but you guys knew that already anyway.
IDA thought they’d found more
by now (missing link #2)
I was on
the road when “Ida” (shown
right) was unveiled with much pomp and circumstance. But that
wasn’t a problem, seeing as how I got about ten emails, a youtube
message and three phone calls in one evening regarding this
fossil! Thanks to all of those who wrote in – I would rather be
inundated by the same story than to miss it.
The find was made public, in time with the
publication of the find in the PLoS
One (Public Library of Science; an on-line, peer-reviewed
journal), a book (entitled “The Link”), a live broadcast television
press conference, and a History Channel two-hour special –
with limited commercials, just on this fossil. The title of the
History Channel documentary? “The Link.” (Gee, I didn’t see
that one coming)
Even Google remade their logo in celebration of this “incredible find”
Bold and Brazen Claims:
masillae, (undoubtedly a nod to the year of Darwin) bold claims were made of course, so
it’s no wonder that so many people wrote in, asking me about this
Let’s take a look at some of the
initial claims made in the media:
News article ran the headliner “Ancient Primate Could
Be Distant Ancestor of Humans,” and
be a landmark discovery, a leading paleontologist said scientists have
dug up the 47 million-year-old fossil of an ancient primate whose
features suggest it could be the common ancestor of all later monkeys,
apes and humans.”
really? But wait – it gets better! The first line in the Sky News
fossilised skeleton of a monkey hailed as the missing link in human
They went on to
id=”intelliTXT”>”The search for a direct connection between humans and
the rest of the animal kingdom has taken 200 years – but it was
presented to the world today at a special news conference in New
York….Researchers say proof of
this transitional species finally confirms Charles Darwin’s
theory of evolution, and the then radical, outlandish ideas he came up
with during his time aboard the Beagle.” (Red text emphasis mine)
fact, you really gotta read the entire Sky News
article yourself. Here’s some more quotes:
“This little creature
is going to show us our connection with the rest of the mammals,” he
“This is the one
that connects us directly with them.
“Now people can
say ‘okay we are primates, show us the link’.
“The link they
would have said up to now is missing – well it’s no longer missing.”
no getting around the claims that were being made here: They were
claiming that this is proof of evolution, it is a transitional (or
intermediate) fossil, the missing link.
Actually – last I checked, we weren’t looking for ‘the missing link’ – the
entire chain was gone!
They even admitted as such in the last quote!
complete, but frankly, Ida thought the evidence would have been
better, considering the
claims that were made. As you will see, if anything, this is good
evidence for Creation and Noah’s
Ten times in the first chapter of Genesis, it is written that God
created life to reproduce after its
kind. Now before the skeptics get their underwear in a
bunch, let me address what a “kind” is. I’ll go with the blue
letter bible’s definition:
of living organisms belong in the same created “kind” if they
have descended from the same ancestral gene pool. This does not
preclude new species because this represents a partitioning of the
original gene pool. Information is lost or conserved—not gained. A new
species could arise when a population is isolated and inbreeding
occurs. By this definition a new species is not a new “kind” but a
further partitioning of an existing “kind”.
being, within the Creationary paradigm, change is limited; dogs will
always give rise to another kind
of dog. Evolution requires
major changes – changes in genetics, skeletal structure and
internal organs, reproductive systems, cardiovascular systems,
etc… These are major
changes. And yet, what we see in the fossil record is not change,
or the lack of change.
For example, look at the fossil fish on the right. This is called
Knightia, and is a common
fossil in the Green River formation of Wyoming. This fossil fish
is supposed to be 48 million years old, yet it is exactly like the
modern day Herring. The only evolution that has taken place here
is in the name!
Don’t believe me? Compare for yourself – look at the photo on the
right, then head on over to Wikipedia and look at the photos of
Now of course, some evolutionists will get hot under the collar and say
that environmental changes are what drive evolution. This is a
red herring (pun intended) as first of all, this is only one of many dozens of examples I
could provide of stasis in the fossil record. Secondly, look at
the major changes believed to have taken place in human evolution
during the course of this supposed 48 million years.
Nonsense – there is no mechanism for
evolution, I deal with this extensively in other newsletters and
in my “Complete
Creation” video series.
thought there’d be more change!
So what of Ida? Is she really good evidence for change over time?
First, let us remind ourselves of just how good this fossil is.
Dr. Jorn Hurum, the project
leader, in a preview interview for the
History Channel’s “The Link,” said
date her, not only for how long ago she lived, but how old she is too;
she’s about nine months old when she died. That’s comparable to a
six-year old human.”
Once the media hype had taken its course, some scientists and even the
originally hyperactive media, took a more reserved stance. For
example, in a later Fox news report, they wrote
“The small body represents a roughly 9-month-old
female that probably looked a lot like modern lemurs.”
does look a lot like a modern lemur. So is this evidence of
evolution, or evidence of stasis, and “kinds” reproducing after their
As is typical when evolutionists describe a “missing link,” they focus
on the similarities and/or the differences of a skeleton with other
skeletons in order to bolster their case.
For example, with Ida, a couple of media reports pointed to Ida’s opposable thumbs and the fact that
it had nails instead of claws. Well, take a look at
this photo of a ring-tailed lemur (from wikipedia, click
here to see a larger image) and see for yourself that lemurs have
opposable thumbs (like we do on our hands) and fingernails instead of
Some of these articles focused on differences in the teeth, which again
does not in any way rule it out as a lemur – this could be anything
from a variation of a lemur, to a mutant. We have people all
around us who were born “missing parts,” and yet they are completely
Much to do was made about Ida’s “talus bone” in her ankle; supposedly
much like a human talus bone. And yet, the rest of the ankle
looks a lot like a lemur’s!
By the way – did you know that horses can have variations in vetebrae
(spine bone) and rib count? Yup. These are the kind of
variations we can see within organisms – and yet these horses are still
very much horses. So the presence or absence of a supposed “talus
bone” may or may not mean something. Certainly it is nothing over
which to make the bold claims that have been made!
In a following Live
Science article, other evolutionary
scientists also express their opinions that the evidence is
less-then-impressive in supporting the claims hurled around by the
the whole I think the evidence is less than convincing,” said Chris
Gilbert, a paleoanthropologist at Yale University. “They make an
intriguing argument but I would definitely say that the consensus is
favor of the hypothesis they’re proposing.”
“They claim in the paper that by examining the anatomy
of adapids, these animals have something to do with the direct line of
ancestry and living monkeys and apes. This claim is buttressed with
evidence,” said paleontologist Richard Kay of Duke University. “And
they failed to cite a body of literature that’s been going on since at
1984 that presents evidence against their hypothesis.”
“This fossil has been hailed as the eighth wonder of the world. Frankly
I’ve got 10 more in my basement,” said Chris Beard, a curator of
vertebrate paleontology at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in
“It’s not a missing link, it’s not even a terribly
close relative to monkeys, apes and humans, which is the point they’re
to make,” Beard said.
This “unveiling” has been a well choreographed publicity stunt,
sacrificing good science for the sake of promoting the fossil, and
selling books and television programs! Even one of the authors of
the article, Dr. Gingerich, said so, as noted by the Wall Street
involved and time pressure. We’ve been pushed to finish the study. It’s
not how I like to do science”.
In fact, take a close look at the photograph of Ida’s “hand” provided
to the media, shown right:
Notice the subtle propaganda here:
They have spread the bones in such a way, and then placed the shadow of
a human arm and
hand in the background. There are many major structural
differences between the human arm and hand compared to Ida’s. So
why did they do this? The same reason that evolutionists hire
artists to create reconstructions of the supposed “intermediate”
fossils – it’s to convince the public of the supposed overwhelming
evidence for evolution.
And once again, the evidence is underwhelming, even to the
This is indeed a fantastic fossil in that the preservation is
remarkable – even the contents of its stomach as well as some fur was
preserved. Gee – that seems like good evidence for rapid
burial! Could it have been Noah’s flood?
I will simply close off this article with some further reading from
skeptical evolutionists. The claims made over this fossil have
been exagerated to say the least. It is an excellent example of
how so many “intermediate” fossils grab the spotlight, and are
emblazened in the minds of the public, only to be very quietly removed
from glory later on…. and yet everyone who saw it in the spotlight
believe in evolution, in spite of the fact that it doesn’t support the
AIG has an excellent compilation of quotes
from skeptical evolutionists here.
Psarris makes a big bang
of you may recall the recent video published by Spike Psarris, which I
mentioned here in my newsletter and Spike very kindly provided us all
with a free preview on line (screen shot on the right).
This past week, apparently PZ Meyers (the anti-creationist
blogger of “Pharyngula”) got a hold of a copy of Spike’s video, and
made some random comments on his blog.
The readers will be forgiven for asking “What’s a biologist doing
criticizing a video on astronomy?”
But then Phil Plait, the “Bad Astronomer” blogger for Discover magazine
also commented on the video on his blog,
In typical anti-creationist fashion, neither
of them lifted a finger to
refute anything Spike said in his video. Of course, this is
because Spike was quite correct in everything he said and that the
solar system could not have “evolved.” So what are they going to
As Spike so aptly pointed out on CreationAstronomy.com,
they resorted to ad hominem attacks.
It is very gratifying to see that the best the anti-creationists can do
in response to good science is to hurl insults and false
accusations. I think that
I’d encourage you to read Spike’s
well written response here.
Congratulations to Spike, apparently your videos have passed hostile
review! I don’t see any scientific rebuttals to Spike’s claims,
did anybody else?
Oh – and several people have asked me when “Volume II” of Spike’s
videos are coming out. He’s begun production on volume II, and
production will undoubtedly go faster this go-around, but I’ll keep yas
posted on his progress, as it will still take months. Unlike PZ
and Phil, Spike takes his time, gets his work peer-reviewed and double
checked for facts and stuff.
6) “Brain Drain”
article from John Mackay and the folks at Creation Research,
Australia. Many of you will have caught my response to Scientific American’s “The human pedigree” a few months back, where I deal
with the supposed half-ape/half-human fossils touted as proof of
Of course, one of the assumptions used in the interpretation of such
skulls is that a larger brain means higher intellect. Well John
and the gang have put together an excellent,
easy to understand, multimedia presentation on this very
subject, available for free on their website:
7) The Mail Bag
I get loads of email. Some of it nice,
some of it hateful, and sometimes, I even get one that causes me to
think. It all makes me smile <grin>. Most of the
comments I receive from youtube I can’t reprint here because I would be
replacing most of the email with &#%&$*#!’s due to the prolific
profanity (which is usually misspelled), so if you don’t mind that, you
can head on over to my youtube channel and
check out the comments for yourself. <grin>
I didn’t think it was fair of me to keep all the hate mail to myself,
plus, I really want my readers to see the
quality of arguments coming from the anti-creationists, so
here’s some random samplings from the mail bag, names and email
addresses have been removed. Remember, it’s not me that they’re hating, and
thanks to those who wrote in with such kind words. We all need
encouragement, I’m no different.
Subject: Your Creation Website + Carl Baugh
Mr. Juby —
I recently saw you on TV with Carl Baugh. One would think that two top
Scientists such as yourselves would know what “arboreal” is.
By the way, fire whoever does your website.
From: Darwin I just read a piece in the newspaper where you said Darwin was ”a man with severe mental problems”. You, believe the earth was created 6000 years ago by a magical diety who created human beings in its own image. How is a theory backed up by scientific proof such as carbon dating, any less credible to you, than a theory backed up by simple belief, and a need to believe in a magical diety? Who has severe mental problems? -------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Thank you!
I just want to say thank you for the great work you are doing! I have
just viewed *all* the ‘Complete Creation’ videos on youtube. My eyes
are red and sore from hours spent by the computer screen, but it is
definitely worth it! I’m like a sponge saturated with water. 🙂
I’ve also taken a peek at some of the posts left behind by your
opponents. It’s not difficult to understand why so many are provoked by
your lectures. It would be surprising if they weren’t, considering that
the very basics of their beliefs is being torn to pieces…repeatedly
and thoroughly. And their attempt to refute you by focusing on some or
another limited area of evolutionary science, totally misses the mark.
What use is it clinging to the branch, when the tree’s already been cut
off at the root, right? I have this funny image of little terriers
gnarling and biting at your trouser legs. After taking such a bashing
from you, I think the only benefit they possibly can have from it, is a
therapeutic one….you know, venting their anger. Quite frankly, for
those who by God’s grace, and with the help of good servants like
yourself, has been freed from the mindset of the present world in this
area, the frantic attempts of evolutionists to explain away the truth,
takes on a comic side.
KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!! 🙂
You are a strong and mighty warrior.
Subject: Yer rants
You know how folks tend to wonder why the heck GOD would let them get
dragged through such INCREDIBLE DEPTHS OF MUCK in their lives? Your
rants are bringing out people with mental and personal issue that I
would NEVER have recognized 15 years ago, and wouldn’t have a CLUE how
to address, except for my “Job” years.. I would SO totally have worn
myself out, trying to be helpful. I’m starting to feel like Zorro —
just step aside and let the raging nutball rush by — hey, what
happened?? If I didn’t feel so darn BAD for these unfortunate guys, it
would be hilarious.
Also, your non-sequential numbering is killing me!! Severely! Yup,
severe killing. Fantastic.
If you received this email from a
friend, and would like to subscribe
and enter your email address into the “CSMC” subscribe box. May I
also suggest you sign up for the free “In 7 Days” crash course in
If you are forwarding this email to
friends, I’d suggest you strip off
the unsubscribe link at the bottom here – otherwise someone else will
unsubscribe YOU. And thank you for sharing this newsletter!
It always pleases me to hear that a reader finds my humble writings
worthy to be passed on to a friend of theirs.