Tags

, , , , ,

Nov. 8, 2011: High-tech scans of two baby mammoths pulled from the Siberian permafrost reveal that one, originally identified as male, was in fact a female. In addition, the scans showed major skeletal differences between the two mammoths, perhaps representing evolutionary change in the mammoth lineage. A lot of what we’ve done with mammoths in the past has been done based on dental anatomy, based on what we can see from teeth,” study researcher Ethan Shirley of the University of Michigan Museum of Paleontology told LiveScience here in Las Vegas at the annual meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. Source: International Mammoth Committee; CT scans by Ford Motor Company, USA, and Centre hospitalier Emile Roux, Le Puy-en-Velay, France.

Mammoths have been used quite frequently to promote the idea of evolution theory and old habits die hard among theorists. Here once again, we see the remains of mammoths being paraded as evidence for evolution, when quite the opposite is true. To remind our readers, we are once again revisiting and debunking a science slide deck (the above image and caption) from Fox News entitled “Eyepoppers: Best Science Photos of the Week.” All related articles can be found by searching “Science vs. Evolution” in the above search field. This is the fourth in the series.

Nov. 8, 2011: High-tech scans of two baby mammoths pulled from the Siberian permafrost reveal that one, originally identified as male, was in fact a female. In addition, the scans showed major skeletal differences between the two mammoths, perhaps representing evolutionary change in the mammoth lineage. A lot of what we’ve done with mammoths in the past has been done based on dental anatomy, based on what we can see from teeth,” study researcher Ethan Shirley of the University of Michigan Museum of Paleontology told LiveScience here in Las Vegas at the annual meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology.

Let’s dig in!

1.) High-tech scans of two baby mammoths pulled from the Siberian permafrost reveal that one, originally identified as male, was in fact a female.”

i. High-tech scans — Does it take high-tech scans to tell a boy from a girl? “High-tech scans” is intended to make us believe that these folks have the equipment (and credentials) necessary to not be wrong concerning evolution.

Let’s look at a few examples of how accurate “high-tech scans” have previously been:

  • “One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years old and another part at 44,000.” Troy L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862

  • “One part of Dima [a baby frozen mammoth] was 40,000, another part was 26,000 and the ‘wood immediately around the carcass’ was 9-10,000.” Troy L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Gov. printing ofice, 1975) p. 30

  • “The lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 RCY (radio carbon years), while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY.” Harold E. Anthony, “Natures Deep Freeze,” Natural History, Sept. 1949, p. 300
  • “The two Colorado Creek, AK mammoths had radiocarbon ages of 22,850 plus or minus 670 and 16,150 plus or minus 230 years respectively.” Robert M. thorson and R. Dale Guthrie, “Stratigraphy of the Colorado Creek Mammoth Locality, Alaska.” Quaternary Research, Vol. 37, No. 2, March 1992, pp. 214-228

ii. Siberian permafrost — How come theorists never mention that the majority of mammoths that we find are frozen solid, standing upright, with tropical vegetation still in their teeth and digestive tracks?

Because to do so would prove that:

A. The poles were once tropical (also evidenced by huge coal deposits)

B. A cataclysmic event on the order of the Noahic worldwide flood would have had to have been responsible for these giants frozen instantly, intact and well preserved. They did not freeze to death slowly like animals awaiting a gradual Ice Age or else they would not have been so perfectly preserved encased in ice. It is also the reason that most fossils of every variety are complete and in tact, not half chewed on by something that came along after it’s demise.

2.) “In addition, the scans showed major skeletal differences between the two mammoths, perhaps representing evolutionary change in the mammoth lineage.

i. major skeletal differences — You discovered two frozen mammoths, supposedly found major skeletal differences between them, but didn’t consider the differences worthy of mention?! And what, may I ask, are “major skeletal differences?” One had a spinal column and one doesn’t? One has an exoskeleton?! Tell us! You mean, you finally have real evidence and you’re choosing not to reveal it?

ii. representing evolutionary change in the mammoth — if they were pulled out of the same permafrost, then they existed at the same time. How on earth could two living mammoths represent two different evolutionary ages?

If they were that dissimilar, they were not the same creature.

About these ads