I came across an interesting article titled “Fossil redefines mammal history.” The title struck me as funny because, over the years, I've read about many fossil finds that overturn previously held beliefs about evolution. I wrote a post about it nearly 4 years ago called, “Rethinking Evolution.” It's curious how scientists will find something that proves they were completely wrong about some cherished theory but no evidence, no matter how damning, will ever shake their faith in THE theory (the theory of evolution). In this case, scientists “know” placental and marsupial mammals are descended from a common ancestor; they simply haven't found the supposed common ancestor and neither do they know when it supposedly happened. They thought it was about 125 million years ago, but this find is dated (by their dating methods) to be 160 million years ago. I guess a 28% margin of error isn't enough to raise any doubts about the theory.
Let me say in advance that I didn't miss the part of the story that says the new find “sits more comfortably with what genetic studies have been suggesting....” I know that if I didn't mention that, some critic would accuse me of missing an important point. However, I was more struck by something else mentioned in the article. It was that it said the fossil showed the split occurred “much earlier” than thought. Hmmm. I've heard that phrase before. In fact, I hear it all the time. Just for fun, I did a Google search on the phrase “evolved 'earlier than thought'”. Here are a few of the 1.5 million hits I got:
I wonder if any of these scientists ever stop to consider the bias their theory casts on the evidence. What if instead of saying, “evolved earlier than thought” we said, “existed much earlier than thought”? In the first headline above, try reading it as, “Complex vision already existed earlier than thought.” Does that cast a different light on the subject? I think it does. Let me show you:
From the first article, we read, “Scientists from the South Australian Museum and the University of Adelaide examined several 515 million-year-old fossils from Kangaroo Island and found they had highly evolved 'compound eyes' with more than 3000 lenses each.” As you read the rest of the article, it really doesn't say anything about how such complex eyes evolved; it just says they did. Neither does the article say anything about more primitive eyes found in direct ancestors. Assuming for a moment that I agreed with the “millions of years,” I would see this as evidence that even very ancient creatures already had very complex eyes. There's no “obvious progression from simple to complex” in the fossil record as evolutionists have suggested. Even the oldest creatures were already highly complex.
Every time I hear that something in the fossil record happened “earlier than expected” it further demolishes the idea that things ever evolved to be the way they are. When I hear, for example, that “birds and crocodiles split earlier than thought,” I'm not surprised because I believe that birds have always been birds and crocodiles have always been crocodiles. It's my hope that someday scientists will push the separate lineage of birds and crocodiles all the way to the beginning of creation and realize they were never related at all. Ants evolved earlier than thought? No, ants existed from the beginning! People used tools earlier than thought? Duh!, people used tools from the beginning! Land plants appeared earlier than thought? God made plants in the beginning!
Scientists are so blinded by their theory that they can't see the obvious conclusion that's staring them right in the face. These “dates” keep getting pushed back because these things have always existed together. Even humans lived much earlier than thought. Wouldn't it be a hoot if someday we read the headline, “New find shows humans lived with dinosaurs!”?