This is certainly a hot debate.  There are highly credentialed scientists on both sides of this fence.  Is there really any evidence against the theory of evolution?  Is there any physical evidence that shows it to be wrong?  I hope I can help answer this question.

The first thing I want to address is many will claim that a valid scientific theory requires that no evidence is able to be given to the contrary of it.  In which case, many will call scientific theories facts until proven otherwise.  This is a valid approach to science as without such a clause there would be no such things as facts.

We all know that there is evidence for the validity of the evolutionary theory.  There is evidence of the flying spaghetti monster as well, the problem is that there is an insurmountable amount of evidence against it.  Is there such evidence against evolution?

I may catch some grief from conservative creationists for saying that there is evidence for evolution, but that fact is that there is evidence for it.  However, the problem lies in the evidence against it.  Though I could do a series of thesis on the multiple evidences against it, I believe there are two major physical evidences that evolution has yet to overcome in order to regain its ability to be called an accepted scientific theory.

The first physical evidence I wish to present is the fact that a T-Rex bone was found.  Note that I did not say fossil.  A T-Rex bone was found with actual red blood cells, collagen, and vessels.  It was spotted by evolutionists and tested by evolutionists. [1]  Their surprise is interesting to note.  Even Richard Dawkins’ friend and associate PZ Myers had to put his article out on it twice. [2]

The reason this is getting so much attention is because it calls into question the dates of fossils on a large scale.  This is because collagen has shown to be unable to last longer than 1 million years.  And if it is in a 68 million year old fossil, then there is a severe miscalculation some where.  If the dates of this fossil is wrong, then the dates of all fossils could be called into question.  So how then did these evolutionists explain this?

PZ Myers was wise and did not put in his two cents but allowed the original researcher to state the case.  The problem was that Mary Schweitzer’s statement was as vague as it comes:

This T. rex also contains flexible and fibrillar bone matrices that retain elasticity. The unusual preservation of the originally organic matrix may be due in part to the dense mineralization of dinosaur bone, because a certain portion of the organic matrix within extant bone is intracrystalline and therefore extremely resistant to degradation. These factors, combined with as yet undetermined geochemical and environmental factors, presumably also contribute to the preservation of soft-tissue vessels. Because they have not been embedded or subjected to other chemical treatments, the cells and vessels are capable of being analyzed further for the persistence of molecular or other chemical information.[2]

In other words, she is saying “I don’t know.  Possibly some geochemical and environmental factors we don’t know about or have ever seen are involved.  I’ll get back to you.”  Well Ms. Schweitzer, it has been three years since your discovery, why do you still not have a better explanation?

It is by mathematical calculations and lab experimentation that we know collagen cannot physically last any longer than 1 million years. [3-7]  So in order to believe that this fossil is 68 million years old, one has to deny experimental science.  Schweitzer suggests that these experiments should be called into question because we “know” these fossils are 68 million years old.  However, the experiments are done in the most ideal condition and the 1 million year number is the max, not the norm.  Even at zero degrees Celsius, it is only able to last 2.7 million years and you really cannot get more idealistic than that.  Can these calculations truly be at a bare minimum 65 million years off the mark?

So now in order to be an evolutionists who rests assured that their dating methods are absolute, one has to deny actual experimental and calculable data.  This in turn denies evolution its right to be a scientific fact.

The next physical evidence against the dating method of the fossils is that as of a press release on July 28, 2008, there is now a limestone rock with the impression of an Acrocanthosaurus dinosaur’s foot discovered by Alvis Delk.  While this is not amazing in itself, what is amazing is that it is partially over the top of a human foot print.[8]

While there have been other supposed instances of such occurrences, no one could be completely convinced.  Some were even proven to be mistaken prints.  While those of the past may be questionable, this rock is undeniable.  The prints are not side by side, they are overlapping.  X-rays were performed and showed conclusively that there is higher density beneath the prints in the rock, which means they could not have been carved.  It is a limestone rock, which means it could not have been made by man made techniques.

What are the evolutionists response to this?  What I have come to expect.  Outlandish claims of forgeries and fakes and those meddling creationists.  Again, PZ Myers understands the implications of what this could mean were it true.  It calls into question all of their dating methods.  So he posted his blog full of conspiracy theories and biases against creationists with no actual acknowledgment of the facts or research presented.[9]

He actually posts a picture of another print of the same species and says “See, it doesn’t look anything like it”.  Rest assured, Mr. Myers, the print you showed was probably not the same Acrocanthosaurus that made the print in Texas. It probably looks different because it was a different dinosaur stepping on completely different mud.

No physical evidence of a forgery has been found.  It is a genuine find that the evolutionary theory cannot handle.

These two are sufficient to show that evolution is not a fact and it is not quantifiable even as a scientific theory because there is physical evidence and lab results that conclude facts that contradict it.

Update 8/13/08

The skepticism on Alvis Delk’s finding is all over the place.  However, Mineral Wells Index is still sticking by the story and ready to answer all the questions that come at them[10].  They even specifically respond to some of the individual bloggers.  Most of what they said is what I said early on.  They have done not research or any kind of studies, yet have blatantly denied its authenticity based on one photo, while all of the people doing the actual research seem highly convinced that either someone went to an obscene amount of trouble to make this or it is the real deal.  They are currently sending samples to a Canadian testing facitlity to have it dated.  I’ll try to keep up with it and see what turns out from that.  The main points are still valid.  If it is limestone and the x-rays show compression, then it really has to be old and the compression lines show the authenticity of the prints and could not have been carved.

1. Yeoman, B., Schweitzer’s dangerous discovery, Discover 27(4):37-41,77, April 2006
2. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/tyrannosaur_morsels.php, visited August 2, 2008
3. Schweitzer, M.H., Suo, Z., Avci, R., Asara, J.M., Allen, M.A., Arce, F.T. and Horner, J.R., Analyses of soft tissue from Tyrannosaurus rex suggest the presence of protein, Science 316(5822):277-280, 2007.
4. Wieland, C., ‘Oldest’ DNA-an exciting find! Creation 13(2):22-23, 1991
5. Greenblatt, C.L., et al., Diversity of microorganisms isolated from amber, Microbial Ecology 38:58-68, 1999.
6. Vreeland, R.H., Rosenzweig, W.D. and Powers, D.W., Isolation of a 250 million-year-old halotolerant bacterium from a primary salt crystal, Nature 407(6806):897-900, 2000.
7. Nielsen-Marsh, C., Biomolecules in fossil remains: Multidisciplinary approach to endurance, The Biochemist, pp. 12-14, June 2002.
8. http://www.mineralwellsindex.com/homepage/local_story_210093256.html, visited August 2, 2008.
9. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/transparent_fakery.php, visited August 2, 2008.
10. http://www.mineralwellsindex.com/homepage/local_story_224120721.html, visited August 13, 2008.

Tags: Collagen, creationists, Evidence For Evolution, evolutionists, Flying Spaghetti Monster, fossils, Greif, Grief, Large Scale, Million Years, Old Fossil, Physical Evidence, Physical Evidences, Pz Myers, Red Blood Cells, richard dawkins, Scientific Theory, T Rex, Theory Of Evolution, Valid Approach, validity