Search This Blog


Wednesday, February 25, 2015

Animal Rights — a "Non-Human Person"

Animal rights extremists have won a strange victory from a court that seems to be one saddle shy of a posse. An orangutan was ruled a "non-human person". Definitions are important, especially over concepts (such as evolution) that have multiple meanings. But person? (Ironically, the word "orangutan" comes from the Malay language, and roughly translates as "person of the forest"). How can an ape be rationally defined as a person at all? This nonsense is an extension of environmental extremism.

A court ruled that an orangutan is a "non-human person". Animal rights extremism is getting more off the rails every day, and it's rooted in evolutionary thinking.
morgueFile / bekkli
Extreme environmentalism and giving rights to animals (sometimes trying to give them more rights than humans have, especially unborn humans!) is based on a faulty view of origins from evolutionary thinking. Biblical creationists know that people are unique, created in God's image. Darwinistas need to believe we're all essentially the same because we all evolved from a common ancestor and humans got the luck of the draw. I reckon that anybody with a grain of sense can see that humans are unique.
An Argentine court made history when it granted an orangutan, ‘Sandra’, some legal rights that have traditionally been reserved for humans. The BBC reports:
Lawyers for Argentina’s Association of Professional Lawyers for Animal Rights (Afada) said Sandra was “a person” in the philosophical, not biological, sense. She was, they argued, in a situation of illegal deprivation of freedom as a “non-human person”.
The BBC did not include a comment from Sandra expressing her thoughts about her newfound rights.
To finish reading, swing on over to 'Should animals be given "human rights?"'

Wednesday, February 18, 2015

Mosquitoes, Malaria, and Evolution

Because mosquitoes are showing resistance to insecticide, scientists claim evolution in action. No. This is selection, speciation, and variation, not evidence of molecules-to-man evolution.

The goo-to-you Darwinists are once again misusing the word "evolution". They claim that because humans are changing the environment of mosquitoes with insecticides, the wretched critters are evolving resistance and becoming super suckers. This is selection, speciation, and variation, not evidence of molecules-to-man evolution.

Is there new genetic information? In a way, yes, since hybridization (interbreeding) leads to adaptive introgression, where genetic information is transferred. Nothing to see here, folks, except observational science misusing that word (I don't think it means what they think it means). For that matter, it is suspected that malaria itself is a devolved relative of algae.
The war on malaria has made great strides by draping insecticide-treated netting over beds in endemic areas. Deaths worldwide have decreased by 47% since the year 2000, largely due to this innovative approach to keeping mosquito vectors away from people at risk. But a new study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences shows this seemingly innocuous measure may have triggered the development of a new “super” insecticide-resistant mosquito that will not long be deterred by the nets.

“It’s ‘super’ with respect to its ability to survive exposure to the insecticides on treated bed nets, “ explains medical entomologist Gregory Lanzaro of UC Davis. He says his team’s work “provides convincing evidence indicating that a man-made change in the environment—the introduction of insecticides—has altered the evolutionary relationship between two species, in this case a breakdown in the reproductive isolation that separates them.”
I don't want to bug you, but to read the rest of the article, you need to click on "Malaria-Carrying 'Super Mosquitoes' Resist Insecticide".

Wednesday, February 11, 2015

Do Creation Scientists Need to be in Lockstep?

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

For Question Evolution Day 2015, I decided to address a fallacy that I've seen in anti-creationists. Some have observed that there is disagreement among creation scientists regarding the interpretation of observed data, and that viewpoints have been modified. Do they need to be in lockstep, marching together about everything all the time?

Some people seem to think that creation scientists need to be in full agreement on their models. Just like their secular counterparts, they hold to a starting point and can disagree on models and theories. Scientists are supposed to do that.
U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Josh Huebner/Released
Some atheist and evolutionist "logic" seems to go like this: "Creationists disagree. Therefore, creation science is false. Therefore, the Bible is not true. Therefore, there is no God!" Really, I've seen some sidewinders make amazing leaps in bad reasoning like that.

Let's take a gander at their evolutionary counterparts. Those scientists are constantly changing their views, rearranging evolutionary timelines, re-examining viewpoints, getting embarrassed when their "facts" are challenged, and more. True science changes to fit the facts, with faulty theories getting changed or even rejected. Fungi-to-farmer evolutionists will keep their worldviews despite the evidence, even trying to force-fit the data to fit their conjectures. Although Darwinoids will present their "science" as if the scientists were in agreement, there are secular scientists that doubt Darwin, reject the Big Bang, disagree that dinosaurs evolved into birds, and more.

Creation scientists also have their worldviews, and interpret the data accordingly, just like their secular counterparts. Biblical creationist scientists agree on the validity of Scripture, and will change their models when the need arises. (Unlike many secular scientists, they do not need to fudge the data, pass bad peer reviewed papers, and even resort to fraud to bolster their worldview.) Creationist scientists are not in lockstep, propping up bad theories and models despite the evidence. There are about four significant models dealing with distant starlight and creation, and differing models regarding plate tectonics and the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, and more. That's what makes science grow. Protecting failed models like those in evolution is an anti-science mindset.

#qed2015 For Question Evolution Day, some thoughts about how being in lockstep on theories and models is helpful to science, and being in lockstep is actually contrary to good science. Both creation and secular scientists are unchanging on their wordlviews, and modify other details as needed. Except that creationists don't need to resort to faking it.

Creation science ministries as well as individuals disagree with each other on some details. For that matter, I've disagreed with material presented from some major creationist organizations on some aspects of science and theology; thinking people do that.

So, no, creationists don't have to be in lockstep. Scientists as well as us regular folks freely disagree on some points, but uphold the important part: God's written Word is our foundation, and is true from the very first verse.

Wednesday, February 04, 2015

Another Amazing Example of No Evolution

Another living fossil shows flaws in the "predictive power" of evolution. It also appears in rock older than Cambrian, and is very difficult to classify.

Some people claim that a validation of evolution as a science is its predictive power. To back up this claim, they rustle up some vague generalities, other things that can be explained by other means, conflation of "evolution" with "natural selection", and a few actual predictions that worked a little.

Evolution is touted as an irresistible, inexorable law of nature — organisms will evolve. Not hardly. Things that don't get huge coverage in the sensationalist science press are the dead ends and things that refute evolution. Living fossils are a real nuisance for them, but they have their double speak handy, often claiming that something didn't evolve because it didn't need to. Yeah, that makes sense. Any excuse in a storm, right?

Here's something that is in strata that doesn't normally contain fossils, can't be fully classified, but has a very strong resemblance to something that is living today.
A strange, new, mushroom-shaped species discovered alive on the deep seafloor near Australia—more than 3,000 feet below sea level—may be a record-breaking living fossil. Researchers investigated the anatomy of this phenomenal animal and published their finds in the online journal PLoS ONE. The creature has a pharynx running down the center of a central stalk, leading to "gastrovascular branches" that look like leaf veins running through a soft disc-like body part. It's not a jellyfish, sea squirt, or sponge.

Because it doesn't fit current categories of biology, the search is now on to find out what this creature is, and if or how it might relate to other animals—such as its basic phylum. Every phylum includes a very broad group of creatures. For example, phylum Cnidaria includes all forms of jellyfish, but excludes all other creatures. But so far, this new mushroom-shaped species "cannot at present be placed in an existing phylum." It does, however, have a genus: Dendrogramma.
You can read the rest about the doggone gramma or whatever it is by clicking on, "550 Million Years of Non-Evolution?"

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".