Search This Blog

Loading...

Sunday, August 21, 2016

Deplorable Denisovans Further Fluster Evolutionists

While advocates of scum-to-stalker evolution are still mourning over the loss of the Neanderthal as a transitional form (that bad boy was fully human), there are more packages aboard the Evolutionary Bad News Express. This time, it's the Denisovans. The Denisova Cave in Siberia's Altai Mountains yielded a few fragments, including a tooth. Scientists like teeth, because dentin (the stuff under tooth enamel) is very durable. Bones are nice, too.


Not much remains of the Denisovan people, but their genome reveals factors that are problematic for evolutionists. Much of what is found supports what biblical creationists expect.
Denisovan phalanx image credit: Thilo Parg / Wikimedia Commons License: CC BY-SA 3.0
Even thought the fragments are 41,000 years old in Darwinspeak, scientists were able to sequence the genome. I reckon they were pretty close to tears after what they found. Methylation —

"What's methylation?"

It comes from mint oil, and is used in ointments, cough remedies, to add flavor —

"That's menthol, you facetious —"

All right, all right, just quirting you a bit. 

Methylation has to do with epigentics and gene expression, as well as DNA repair and moving methyl group atoms around. Modern humans, Neanderthals, and Denisovans are quite similar in the genome, yet evolutionists try to make the small variation in methylation into evidence that we all took different forks in the evolutionary trail. Like the Neanderthals, the Denisovans spread their DNA around. Traces of it are found in Tibetans, Pacific Islanders, and others. We have some of their DNA as well. Problems were found, which possibly contribute to our illnesses, and may have hastened the Denisovan demise.

There are several other important factors in the Denisovan genome that are what biblical creationists would expect to find, and cause evolutionists to go into rescuing device (excuses) mode.
A new chapter in the human origins debate opened in the year 2000 with the discovery of a new kind of archaic human called Denisova. Now not just the fossils are available to researchers but also DNA. Paleogenetics can now allegedly settle long-lasting questions due to the incompleteness of the fossil record, although DNA sequence veracity is a matter of concern among creationists.

Denisovans were discovered in the Upper Paleolithic layer 11.1 of Denisova Cave in southern Siberia, their remains consisting of, surprisingly, a distal manual phalanx and a molar tooth found at the same archaeological site from two individuals supposedly from the same population.

The Denisovan genome has been analyzed over the past few years, with sweeping claims of their cognitive capabilities, external appearance, and even detailed population dynamics. Based on such a small number of fossil remains, it is premature to draw too many robust scientific conclusions from the analysis of Denisova. Creation theory would predict that an archaic human would fit very well into the created human kind, as we shall see in the following.
To see what follows, click on "Denisovans menace evolution—a new chapter in the human origins debate".

Not much remains of the Denisovan people, but their genome reveals factors that are problematic for evolutionists. Much of what is found supports what biblical creationists expect.

Sunday, August 14, 2016

Immune System Surveillance and Communication

With increasing knowledge and improving technology, scientists are continually gaining big information about little things way down at the cellular level and beyond. Isn't it human nature to want to know how things work? In this case, how certain white blood cells are working in the immune system.

A recent discovery regarding special cells in the immune system, how they communicate in the brain and gastrointestinal tract, help illustrate the specified complexity of our Creator's work.
Image credit: Clker clipart
An unintentional discovery led to a hypothesis that was confirmed regarding how this cell works in both the brain and gastrointestinal tract. It's doing surveillance duty, and the two regions are communicating so they can send our internal cavalry charging to the rescue. This is yet another example of the specified complexity that our Creator used to benefit his creation.
After investing so much time and effort to understand how body parts interact, scientists keep turning up new and unforeseen connections—often when they ask the right questions. New and strange developments inspired a team to ask wacky questions about a unique white blood cell called Ly6Chi. And they found some profound answers.

Publishing in Cell Reports, German and U.S. scientists asked why the same cells showed up both in mouse brain and gut. They also asked why mouse brains stopped certain activities after antibiotics erased the helpful bacteria from mouse gut contents. The team knew Ly6Chi cells were present in a region of the brain’s hippocampus called the dentate gyrus (DG) that builds new cells as mice learn new things. This also happens in other mammals including man. What’s going on with these cells?
To read the rest, click on "Special Cells Help Brain and Gut Communicate".

A recent discovery regarding special cells in the immune system, how they communicate in the brain and gastrointestinal tract, help illustrate the specified complexity of our Creator's work.

Sunday, August 07, 2016

Fundamentally Flawed Scientific Research

Despite the protestations of Darwin's Cheerleaders, scientists are not free of bias. Everyone has a worldview, and we interpret information according to this and the underlying presuppositions. Have you ever seen a scientist going around accumulating data about various things, then going back and coming up with laws, theories, and so forth? It doesn't work that way. Scientists are human, with desires, agendas, greed, pride, altruism, faith, and everything else that "regular" people have. They are also prone to cheating and even fraud.


Scientists work from their worldviews, and many have an atheistic materialism worldview. This naturally leads to serious flaws in research, affecting healthcare, psychology, and origins research.
Generated at GlassGiant.com
Reports have been galloping in about bad peer review, tests that cannot be replicated, plagiarism, and more. This is prominent in common-ancestor origins research (after all, they're living according to their "survival of the fittest" worldview). When scientists operate from a realm of naturalism and deny the Creator, a whole heap of bad stuff comes out of them. This is alarming when they cheat on research in healthcare, psychology, and other areas.
We tend to think of science as a dispassionate (impartial, neutral) search for truth and certainty. But is it possible that we are facing a situation in which there is a massive production of wrong information or distortion of information? Is it possible that certain scientific disciplines are facing a crisis of credibility? Mounting evidence suggests this is indeed the case, which raises two questions: How serious is the problem? And what could explain this?

How Serious Is the Problem?
Recent articles in First Things, The Week, and New Scientist present evidence that warrants the conclusion that flawed scientific research results are widespread.

The title of an editorial in the prestigious medical journal The Lancet, dated April 6, 2002, asks the question, “Just How Tainted Has Medicine Become?” The article states, “Heavily, and damagingly so, is the answer.” Among other things, in 2001, researchers completed experiments with biotechnology products in which they had a direct financial interest and doctors did not tell their patients that others had died using these products when safer alternatives were available. In the same journal, dated April 11, 2015, Dr. Richard Horton stated the gravity of the problem as follows: “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue . . . science has taken a turn towards darkness.”
To read more about the darkness in science, click on "Is Scientific Research Flawed?"

Scientists work from their worldviews, and many have an atheistic materialism worldview. This naturally leads to serious flaws in research, affecting healthcare, psychology, and origins research.

Sunday, July 31, 2016

Are Evolutionary Scientists in Lockstep?

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

A while ago, I asked if creationary scientists need to be in lockstep, unified in all areas of science that they present. The answer is clearly no, since many fields of science, both historical and operational, change when new data is found and new hypotheses are presented. Biblical creationists are, however, generally unified on what the Bible teaches — that is not changing, but the models are fair game.

What about their secular counterparts? If you cognate on it a while, you'll see that such uniformity is not possible for the same reasons: science changes with data and new hypotheses. Unfortunately, Darwinistas will try to lasso biblical creationists with false assertions to the contrary, and say that we are opposing "science". (On a side note, science does not think, speak, or have opinions. Scientists who are doing science stuff are the ones who do those things.) When creationists are called "science deniers" because we disagree about secular views of historical science, it's interesting that the name-callers do not do the same thing to other secularists.

Various aspects of historical science, especially related to common-ancestor evolution, are presented by evolutionary proponents as if only idiots dare disagree on various subjects. The fact is, scientists have disagreements that Darwin's cheerleaders to not discuss, or may not even be willing to know.
Image credit: modified from Pixabay / Greyerbaby
One example is the Big Bang. It was resisted at first in favor of the "steady state" concept, which also had no scientific evidence, and was promoted by atheist astronomer Fred Hoyle. Although predominant, there are scientists who reject the Big Bang, and some propose the fact-free "string theory" for the universe.

Another area of dispute among scientists, but its champions present as settled science, is that dinosaurs evolved into birds. Scientists are not in agreement on that, and every once in a while, "evidence" for bird-to-dinosaur evolution is challenged by secular scientists.

There are also disputes about our alleged ancestors in the evolutionary tree. Homo floresiensis, the little "hobbit" people, have several disputes surrounding them. Likewise, Australopithecus afarensis, or "Lucy", has had a great deal of controversy, though it was most likely just another extinct ape.

The same kind of thing goes for global warming (or "climate change"). I'll let you do your own research on the disputes regarding that, but here is one piece for your consideration.

If you can get away from the sites from Darwin's cheerleaders, you can do some research and see that many of the things presented as if there were no sane or scientific dissenters really do have dissenters. Scientists, whether evolutionary or creationary, are not in lockstep. Which is a good thing for both science and critical thinking. 

Various aspects of historical science, especially related to common-ancestor evolution, are presented by evolutionary proponents as if only idiots dare disagree on various subjects. The fact is, scientists have disagreements that Darwin's cheerleaders to not discuss, or may not even be willing to know.

Monday, July 25, 2016

Bees Coming In for a Landing

It's nice to be invited to an event and have a map on the invitation, and when you arrive, you're guided to a parking space and shown to the entrance. It may not be quite that involved with bees, but flowers are practically showing the way.


Image made at Flaming Text
God made a mutually beneficial arrangement where flowers emit electrical impulses, and bees can find where they want to go. Further, scientists ran some tests and discovered that if electric attracting devices were switched off, the bees were at a loss. Everything in this system has to be in place in both bees and flowers at the same time, or nothing works, nothing makes sense. Evolutionists cannot offer a rational explanation.
How do bees know which flowers to visit, and where on the flowers to land?

Visual cues are part of the answer. It has already been known that bees and other insects see flowers differently than humans do. Bees can sense both visible and ultraviolet light, and many flowers have markings in both wavelength (color) bands, which help to both attract pollinating insects from a distance, then guide them in to the center areas where they can find the nectar (and at the same time pollinate the flower). Bees can also detect plumes of fragrance from flowers.

It was also previously known that flowers have a slight negative electrical charge, whereas bees pick up a slight positive charge by colliding with dust particles while flying through the air. It had previously been observed with high-speed video that just before a bee lands on a flower, the positively-charged pollen particles on the bees’ legs jump across the gap and stick to the negatively charged flower.
To read the rest, buzz on over to "Flowers Create ‘Electric Landing Lights’ for Bees".

A remarkable system is in place for flowers to practically give lighted signs to guide bees to where they want to go. Evolutionists cannot offer a satisfactory explanation for the arrangement, which was clearly designed by the Creator.

Sunday, July 17, 2016

Genesis Flood and Wilpena Pound

If you head north of Adelaide, South Australia, you can find Flinders Ranges National Park. There are several noteworthy geological landmarks, but our focus is on a huge basin called Wilpena Pound. The name wilpena is from an Aborignal word meaning "bent fingers", and pound is an English word for "livestock enclosure". Pretty big place to be enclosing livestock, though.


Image credit: NASA Earth Observatory
This is yet another area where uniformitarian geologists are unable to account for what is observed. Biblical creationist geologists, using the perspective of the global Genesis Flood, are able to make sense of empirical data. Lots of sediment-laden water, geological activity due to the cataclysm, receding flood waters — it all adds up, and is strong evidence for not only the Flood, but a young Earth.
Wilpena Pound is a spectacular saucer-shaped plateau perched above the surrounding countryside, some 430 km (270 miles) north of Adelaide, South Australia. Ringed by a mountain ridge in the Flinders Ranges, it’s like an enormous amphitheatre. St Mary Peak on the northern side is 1171 m (3840 ft) high, the highest in the Pound, and also in the Flinders Ranges. The features of Wilpena Pound can be convincingly explained by Noah’s Flood, the cataclysm recounted in the Bible that engulfed the planet about 4,500 years ago. In a nutshell, the sedimentary strata visible in the walls were deposited early during Noah’s Flood. Not long after, crustal movements warped and folded those sediments. Later, as the floodwaters receded from the continent, they eroded the Pound and the surrounding landscape.

In the steep escarpment that forms the edge of Wilpena Pound you can see sedimentary layers exposed, and that they are approximately horizontal. Closer up, at Rawnsley Bluff (figure 2), we can see something of the features of the sediments. The harder quartzite strata form steep cliffs, while the softer layers form sloped aprons. Geologists have given the different layers different names. The sediments forming the Pound have been called the Wilpena Group. From the surrounding countryside to the top of the rim, some 450 m (1,500 ft) of strata are exposed at Rawnsley Bluff.


Most biblical geologists would consider that these sedimentary rocks were deposited early during the global Flood. One important feature indicating these sediments were deposited in the Flood is their enormous physical size, which is a feature of the gigantic Flood catastrophe. One aspect of size is geographical extent.
To read the rest (and see the illustrations as well as related short videos), click on "The awesome wonder of Wilpena Pound, Australia — How the cataclysm of Noah’s Flood explains it".

A large basin in the Flinders Ranges, Adelaide, South Australia has remarkably strong evidence for the Genesis Flood. It is also evidence against uniformitarian geology, and in favor of a young Earth.

Sunday, July 10, 2016

Plant Evolution Under the Sea

Does an octopus have seagrass in his garden? Particle-to-plant evolutionists have been having a mighty hard time fixing to explain how plants evolved. Scientists give us terms like "information is very incomplete", then assert that, although debated, the fossil record "suggests" that flower plants first appeared 160 million evolutionary years ago. You sure got it nailed down there, Hoss! 


Purveyors of evolution cannot account for plants. A genome sequencing of seagrass gave the conclusive answers of "probably". In other words, assumptions and personal preference instead of actual science.

Adding to the debate was sequencing the genome of seagrass. Biologists didn't like what they saw in it, and made several amazing assertions based entirely on their worldview, not on evidence. It re-evolved? Has missing genes? Sounds more like personal preference than actual science. Here's a thought: plants didn't evolve on land or under water because they were created. That makes the best sense of the evidence.
It's fairly easy to explain the evolution of plants, animals, or people if one presupposes that Darwinian evolution is a scientific fact. For example, evolutionists assume that flowering plants (phylum Anthophyta) evolved from non-flowering plants perhaps 160 million years ago. Several problems secular scientists face are that they don't know where this massive and diverse group of plants came from, how they arrived, or when they supposedly evolved. Does new seagrass research help solve these problems?

Biologist Futuyma wrote, "The angiosperms, or flowering plants probably originated in the late Jurassic…." These words, penned by biologist Solomon, sound similar: "The origin and early evolution of flowering plants continue to challenge botanists."

One might think fossils would clear up this mystery, but one research team wrote, "Although the information is very incomplete, the fossil record suggests that the flowering plants first appeared about 160 million years ago…." And other plant experts admit, "In spite of extensive research the origin and temporal and spatial distribution of early flowering plants are still a matter of debate."
To read the rest, click on "Seagrass Re-evolution".

Purveyors of evolution cannot account for plants. A genome sequencing of seagrass gave the conclusive answers of "probably". In other words, assumptions and personal preference instead of actual science.