Not Such Primitive Mammals After All

Posted by -

When critiquing a theory, hypothesis, worldview, or whatever, it is necessary to see if it is logical and consistent within itself. Ideas of universal common ancestry evolution require that living things began as simple organisms and became more complex over time. This is consistent within itself.

People with a worldview based on atheistic materialism must believe in evolution. However, observed evidence does not support evolution, and scientists frequently remark about being surprised at how findings do not fit the belief system.

Using presuppositions that living things began simple and became more complex, secularists are surprised at how extinct mammals are not so primitive.
Pantolambda by Heinrich Harder, 1920, via Wikimedia Commons
This is because they are locked into erroneous views, and we have seen many times that they try to evosplain away their predicaments. A recent post about cave women, DNA, and Neanderthals shows how unyielding evolutionists are troubled by discoveries.

Similarly, they presuppose that mammals of yesteryear were "primitive". Because evolution. Because dating methods. But examining what is known about these creatures without such assumptions shows they were anything but primitive. They were created by the Master Engineer, and secularists need to cowboy up and realize the truth.
A major prediction of evolution is that life that lived long ago is far less advanced than life living today. It is a logical conclusion of the belief that life evolved from the simple to the complex. The title of a book on the evolution of the brain declared, “From the Sea Sponge to CRISPR: How Our Brain Evolved.” As the book asserted, according to evolution everything living likewise evolved along the path humans took – from a simple sponge to every kind of complex creature.

I have often noticed a trend. Careful research on “primitive” mammals often finds they are more advanced than previously assumed by evolutionists. . . .

This pattern (i.e., finding that ancient animals that were assumed to have primitive traits were in-fact not-so-primitive) was repeated in a recent article in Science Daily about ankle and foot bones of a putative prehistoric mammal.

To read the article in its entirety, see "Mammals Were Never Primitive".