Search This Blog


Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Evolutionary Altruism Studies Off-Target?

Research games to study the evolution of altruism are off target according to a researcher. He bases his research on his presuppositions of evolution, and does not consider that we are made in the image of God.

There are scientists who base their research on the presupposition that molecules to man evolution is a given, and that altruism itself evolved. They tested people over the years using economic games, and now a zoologist is saying that it all may be wasted effort. Maybe a new approach is in order: since we evolved from animals, stop treating people like people and treat them more like animals in these experimental games. He'd have more accurate results if he realized that we are not animals, and that we're created in the image of God.
Games that psychologists play with human lab rats don’t show what evolutionists think they do.

For many years, evolutionary psychologists have used games like the “public goods game” to probe the origin of human altruistic behavior in natural selection (e.g. 9/07/14, 1/31/14, 11/03/13, 8/15/12). The games may not reflect reality, an article on PhysOrg suggests.
To finish reading, click on "Game Theory Undermined: Evolution of Altruism Not Demonstrated."

Wednesday, January 21, 2015

Evolution and Peacock Feathers

Charles Darwin didn't like peacock tails. "The sight of a feather in a peacock’s tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!" Reason being because it didn't fit with that tinhorn's evolutionary ideas, and he tried to explain it away by doing the scientific thing of "making stuff up". Evolution is supposed to make things function better. So how can evolutionists explain beauty without function? They can't.

Evolution does not give rise to beauty or features without function. Evolution fails overall anyway. The peacock's tail has beauty without function, and doesn't drag the bird down, either. / "Peacock Feathers 4" / verzerk
The beauty-without-function aspect of the feathers is bad enough for Darwin's Cheerleaders, but it gets worse. Those long things should be detrimental to flight — especially escape — but when Percival Peacock decides it time to vamoose, they don't pose a problem for him. That's because the bird, the feathers, and everything else were designed, not the product of evolutionary wishful thinking.
A peacock’s large train looks like it would be a real drag! To get such a burden airborne must surely take a lot of extra energy and slow a bird down, perhaps delaying its escape from a predator. But does it really? New research— “The elaborate plumage in peacocks is not such a drag,” published in the Journal of Experimental Biology—says “No!”
You can see what the flap is about by reading the rest of the article at "Peacock Tail Feathers Don’t Drag Them Down".

Wednesday, January 14, 2015

Hot Times on Jupiter's Moon Io

The innermost moon of Jupiter is Io. Since it is a satellite of Jupiter, its distance from the sun varies, so we'll settle for 790,000,000 kilometers (about 490,883,242 miles). It is 3,636 km in diameter (1,942 miles). Compare that diameter to Earth's 12,742 km (7,918 miles) diameter. Io is a very cold place, what with being so far from the sun and all — except for the places with volcanoes, and it has lots of them.

"Prometheus Plume" on Io, NASA / JPL
The volcanic activity on pizza — I mean, Io — breaks all the cosmology rules. It should not be shooting hot plumes huge distances, the volcanic activity is hotter than a six gun in a speed-shooting competition (and hotter than anything on Earth), it keeps on erupting, and more. It should be cold, dead and quiet. Instead, it's another item that refutes "deep time" cosmology, and is evidence of a young solar system.
A moon of Jupiter slightly bigger than our moon shocked scientists in 1979 when Voyager cameras detected a volcanic plume in action. In the 34 years since, Io has never had a quiet day. It’s the most volcanically active body in the solar system—100 times more active than the earth. Io is a major mystery for believers in billions of years, but not for those who accept the biblical time frame.

This is a world that, if it were really old, should be freezing—not only on the outside, because of being far away from the sun, but on the inside, too. Smaller bodies cool down much more quickly than big ones, and Io is quite tiny on a solar system scale. So even taking radioactive decay into account, Io’s interior should have become cold a long time ago. Yet it is incredibly active, and keeps spewing out the hottest lava anywhere.
 You can finish reading by clicking on the hot link, "The violent volcanoes of Io".

Wednesday, January 07, 2015

The Schizophrenia Diagnosis Gamble

Some fields of study should not be called science because they fail to meet the standard definitions, but are included anyway. Others do meet the definitions, but are excluded on ideological grounds. Psychology and psychiatry are considered to be science, but they are inconsistent and nebulous, but are rooted in evolution and atheism, so they get to wear a science badge around town. Creation science is excluded, even though it fits the standard definitions of science as well as (and often far better) than evolutionary science.

Psychology and psychiatry give roll-of-the-dice diagnoses, and although many practitioners are well-intentioned, they really don't know what they're doing.
morgueFile / mconnors
As we see in evolutionary science, there is a great deal of speculation that is paraded as "science", and then Evolution's Acolytes will pass those things along as if they were established facts. Not hardly. Things like so-called "junk" DNA: Genomes are studied, not understood, then called useless junk from our alleged evolutionary past, then evolutionists are humiliated by real science. Similarly, we read about how cosmologists and cosmogonists are often surprised by scientific discoveries in the solar system that testify to a young universe, but still cling to their fundamentally flawed belief systems. Faulty worldviews hinder science, especially those based on evolutionism!

Like other evolution-based scientific fields, psychiatry and psychology have people giving their scientific speculations, but they really do not know how things work. The brain is not the mind, free will does not reside in the brain, nor does the soul. Secularists reject out of hand biblical values and explanations for someone's condition. Although some mental conditions are alleviated by medication, the doctors really do not know how or why things work; my own anti-depressant is actually an inexplicable side-effect of fish oil!

Psychotropic medication prescriptions are often a roll of the dice, and various "cocktails" of medications are dispensed and rearranged. Ever read the fine print or watch some television commercials for medications? They may make the condition worse, even causing suicidal thoughts. Don't get me started on Delaware, Virginia and Michigan being the top prescribers of Ritalin... This is science? It's bad enough when "humanists" speculate on the origins of life, but when they use their philosophies and literally mess with people's minds, that's contemptible. 

Schizophrenia is in dispute in scientific circles. Is it a real diagnosis, or something made up to make people look more scientific. For that matter, having a diagnosis of schizophrenia may cause someone to act in a manner that fulfills the diagnosis. There are psychologists who actually think that the diagnosis is meaningless, or even harmful.
Much as psychiatrists would like to help the afflicted, it doesn’t help to affix an empty label to an imprecise condition.

“Is schizophrenia a ‘real’ illness?” That’s the eye-catching title of Huw Green’s article in The Conversation. Green, a PhD student and “trainee” clinical psychiatrist at the University of New York, surveys competing groups of psychiatrists, from honest critics who want to update the definition, to radical revolutionaries who want to junk the term altogether. For instance, Thomas Szasz said that schizophrenia didn’t exist until psychiatrists invented the word.
You might think I'm crazy, but I recommend that you finish reading this article by clicking on "Schzophrenia: Diagnosis or Delusion?"

Wednesday, December 31, 2014

Evolutionary Ghost Stories?

Listen up, shrimp. No, wait. I mean, listen up, about shrimp. I reckon punctuation and right wording make a difference. Actually, it's not really a shrimp.

Let me back up.

Paleontologists discovered a fossil arthropod that strongly resembles a rare kind of critter that is shrimp-like. There are things called the "banded cleaner (or coral) shrimp", but really aren't shrimp. They're classified as closer relatives to lobsters and such than to shrimp. They sure look like shrimp, though.

Banded Cleaner Shrimp is not really a shrimp. Creation, evolution, creation science, paleontology
"Banded Cleaner Shrimp", Stenopus hispidus / US-NOAA
But evolution and paleontology are chock full of storytelling, and the facts don't always mesh with the stories. This new stenopodidean is in the "wrong" place according to the evolutionary worldview. Since it pops into the geologic column, disappears for a few "millions years", then is spotted again pretty much unchanged, they tell a story about it being in a "ghost lineage". Yeah, right. Using the biblical creation Genesis Flood model, it fits mighty fine, no problem.
Fossils seem to tell amazing stories about ancient animal life, but close inspection reveals that these stories differ from each other not because of different fossils, but because of different interpretations. Do the remarkable circumstances surrounding a newly discovered fossil arthropod tell two stories or just one?

A US team of paleontologists publishing in the Journal of Paleontology described a new fossil arthropod as belonging to a rare shrimp-like kind called stenopodideans. These marine animals have a huge set of third legs, whereas shrimp and lobsters have large first legs.

The fossil looks so much like a living stenopodidean that the study authors were easily able to identify it. But the really remarkable piece of this story is its geologic setting.
If you're not scared, you can read the rest by clicking on "Ghost Lineage Spawns Evolution Ghost Story".

Wednesday, December 24, 2014

The Star of Bethlehem?

A popular tradition of Christmas is putting the three wise me up with the rest of the manger scene. It's a very old idea, but has some misconceptions: the Bible does not specify three visitors, but names three gifts; they probably didn't arrive to see the Christ child until about two years after the events of Luke 2:1-20 had finished; "wise men", who are they in Matthew 2:1-11? I reckon there's no need to ruin traditions, they're harmless. You can read about those dudes in "We Three Kings".

Pixabay / OpenClips
There's a sorta tradition of speculating about the star of Bethlehem. Was it a special, miraculous little star that God made for the occasion? A conjunction? Something else?
The apostle Matthew records that the birth of Jesus was accompanied by an extraordinary celestial event: a star that led the magi (the “wise men”) to Jesus. This star “went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was” (Matthew 2:9). What was this star? And how did it lead the magi to the Lord? There have been many speculations.
To read the article, saddle up your camel and bring your seeking friends to "What Was the Christmas Star?"

Wednesday, December 17, 2014

Evolution, Environmentalism, Extermination

As discussed in "Radical Environmentalism and the War on Humans", adherents of the extremist ecology and animal rights movements have evolutionary thinking as the foundation for their worldviews. By their reckoning, life is pretty much the same, it's just that humans evolved more efficiently. But some think that humanity is a blight, and should be exterminated (or at least seriously culled). Don't expect respect if you tell them that humanity is special because we are created in God's image. No, we're accidents, just like everything else. No hope, no purpose. And yet they preach the evolutionary message of despair.

I reckon that any group will have the occasional participants that are plumb crazy, but it's a mite unsettling when someone gives a speech at a university wanting Ebola to kill most of us — and other nutcases cheer! This article from 2006 is just as relevant today:
A stunning claim circulating the internet is that a university lecturer was publicly applauded for advocating the elimination of 90% of the world’s population by airborne Ebola virus.

An eyewitness certainly gained that impression from the talk by Dr Eric Pianka, a highly respected evolutionary ecologist, given in early March 2006 to the Texas Academy of Science at Lamar University in Beaumont.1 Pianka may have been misunderstood in that he probably did not say that Ebola use should be some sort of deliberate policy. But the reality, based on an incomplete transcript of the actual talk, is still cause for grave concern.
You can read the rest by clicking on "Doomsday Glee".