Search This Blog

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

Meanwhile Darwin's Fairy Tales keeps cranking them out!

From Creation-Evolution Headlines...


Darwinian Explanations: Show or Snow?

Posted on January 10, 2012 in Awards, Biology, Darwin and Evolution, Dumb Ideas, Fossils, Genetics, Marine Biology, Microbiology, Origin of Life, Origins
 
We all know the proverbial “snow job.”  That’s putting on an entertaining song and dance without doing the assignment.  A college sophomore (wise fool) writes a 15-page term paper full of jargon that, on closer inspection, didn’t follow directions or didn’t answer the question – it reveals ignorance of the subject.  A job applicant makes an impression with humor or appearance without demonstrating ability to do the work. A junior makes up a fanciful story to cover up why he didn’t mow the lawn.  Scientists are supposed to explain things based on observation and testable hypotheses.  If Darwinians really believe that an unguided, impersonal, purposeless mechanism led to the diversity of life on Earth, they need to show the evidence.  Here are a few recent examples of evolutionary explanations.  Check whether they “show” evolution, or distract attention with a “snow” job.

Introducing: TNA! (ta-daah).  An article on New Scientist purports to show that you don’t need to start life with the familiar DNA or RNA.  A “simpler” molecule called TNA that uses threose instead of ribose might have gotten things started.  In fact, the early earth might have been a “hodge-podge world” of many different molecules that could store genetic information.  The imagination goes wild with the possibilities.

Only by getting into the nitty-gritty of the article do you come to realize that this is all guesswork.  (1) TNA is “not found in nature today.”  (2) TNA “would not have arisen on its own.”  (3) There is “no trace of TNA or its cousins in modern organisms.”  (4) “no one has actually made it in the conditions that existed on Earth before life began….”  (5) John Chaput and team at U. of Arizona intelligently designed TNA molecules and “evolved them” in their lab with purpose and intent.  (6) “Chaput points out that we still know very little about what TNA can do, because the technology to evolve the molecules in the lab is so new.”  Yet reporter Michael Marshall titled his exploration of TNA, “Before DNA, before RNA: Life in the hodge-podge world.”  Did he show any life?

Shed Light on EvolutionWitness evolution in an English quarry:  Reporter Carl Yapp of the BBC News is going to “shed light” on evolution through amazingly-preserved fossils found in an abandoned quarry.  They’re 450 million years old, he tells us.  Eagerly, the reader looks into the quarry for the evolution, with the powerful flashlight beam Yapp is holding, and sees amazing things: complex hydroids (related to sea anemones), chambered nautiloids, sponges – a whole “community that was entirely new and surprising.”  These animals, the reader learns, were buried alive so quickly that they fossilized intact – a unique, “spectacular,” “astonishing” collection of animals, some so delicate they rarely fossilize.

Yapp said, “Scientists believe they shed new light on how ocean communities have evolved.

Sufficiently dazzled by the fossils, the impatient reader asks about the promised evidence for evolution, only to hear paleontologist Dr. Lucy Muir say (watch for the operative word imagined):

“It’s not a discovery that you can point to and say: ‘This proves such-and-such,’” said Dr Muir.
“Rather, it’s a question of adding a large new chunk of knowledge, and in turn suggesting that there are many more chunks left to find.

“This type of ecological community type was simply unknown from rocks this old, and for it to suddenly appear makes palaeontologists wonder what else they’ve been missing.

“It shows us that Ordovician ecosystems were even more diverse and complicated than we imagined.

Your inner fish, v.2:  Alfred Romer’s old idea of fish evolving legs as they hopped between drying desert ponds is implausible. Tiktaalik is a has-been.  But now, thank Charles Darwin, “A new theory emerges for where some fish became four-limbed creatures.”  Let’s let PhysOrg set the stage from a University of Oregon press release:

A small fish crawling on stumpy limbs from a shrinking desert pond is an icon of can-do spirit, emblematic of a leading theory for the evolutionary transition between fish and amphibians. This theorized image of such a drastic adaptation to changing environmental conditions, however, may, itself, be evolving into a new picture.

Hero of the new “evolving…picture” is University of Oregon scientist Gregory J. Retallack.  He’s motivated to provide a new “scenario,” because “such a plucky hypothetical ancestor of ours probably could not have survived the overwhelming odds of perishing in a trek to another shrinking pond.”  So out with the old, in with the new: the ancestor wasn’t in a desert after all.  It was in a jungle.  “Judging from where their fossils were found, transitional forms between fish and amphibians lived in wooded floodplains,” Retallack explains.  “Our distant ancestors were not so much foolhardy, as opportunistic, taking advantage of floodplains and lakes choked with roots and logs for the first time in geological history.

Now, the evidence, please.  It sounds too good to be true: “eight-foot-long, 395-million-year-old tetrapods in ancient lagoonal mud in southeastern Poland.”  Wow!  That would be the evolutionary fossil find of the century.  PhysOrg informs us that the tetrapods were announced a year ago – Oh, that was the story about tetrapod tracks we reported on 1/06/2010 (to be making tetrapod tracks, they had to be tetrapods, not fish).  The reader looks for other corroborating evidence, such as Softpedia.com, only to find that Retallack studied “ancient soils,” not actual tetrapods.  The soils had “tracks” of fish and other animals that he assumes were evolving.  This is old news, anyway; the actual paper in the Journal of Geology came out last May.  The abstract didn’t announce any new tetrapod transitional forms; just fossilized soils where he thought showed the transition took place.  “A woodland hypothesis of evolution is presented here,” the paper says.  So why did this make news in late December on PhysOrg?  Elementary; it’s the theory, you recall, that is evolving, not necessarily the fish.  But that’s OK; finish with a rhetorical flourish, and no one will notice: “The Darwin fish of chrome adorning many car trunks represents a particular time and place in the long evolutionary history of life on earth.

Oh the creationists are so frightful,
But concocting tales delightful,
And since we’ve no data to show,
Let us snow! Let us snow! Let us snow!
Our show must go on without stopping,
And our eyes evolved by popping (05/31/2005),
Critical thinking is turned way down low,
Let us snow! Let us snow! Let us snow!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I just have to share a few tidbits from Cre-Evo's sidebar back in the day, still worth reading!



A Concise Guide
to Understanding
Evolutionary Theory
 
You can observe a lot by just watching.
– Yogi Berra


First Law of Scientific Progress
The advance of science can be measured by the rate at which exceptions to previously held laws accumulate.
Corollaries:
1. Exceptions always outnumber rules.
2. There are always exceptions to established exceptions.
3. By the time one masters the exceptions, no one recalls the rules to which they apply.


Darwin’s Law
Nature will tell you a direct lie if she can.


Bloch’s Extension
So will Darwinists.


Finagle’s Creed
Science is true.  Don’t be misled by facts.


Finagle’s 2nd Law
No matter what the anticipated result, there will always be someone eager to (a) misinterpret it, (b) fake it, or (c) believe it happened according to his own pet theory.


Finagle’s Rules
3. Draw your curves, then plot your data.
4. In case of doubt, make it sound convincing.
6. Do not believe in miracles – rely on them.


Murphy’s Law of Research
Enough research will tend to support your theory.


Maier’s Law
If the facts do not conform to the theory, they must be disposed of.
Corollaries:
1. The bigger the theory, the better.
2. The experiments may be considered a success if no more than 50% of the observed measurements must be discarded to obtain a correspondence with the theory.


Eddington’s Theory
The number of different hypotheses erected to explain a given biological phenomenon is inversely proportional to the available knowledge.


Young’s Law
All great discoveries are made by mistake.


Corollary
The greater the funding, the longer it takes to make the mistake.


Peer’s Law
The solution to a problem changes the nature of the problem.


Peter’s Law of Evolution
Competence always contains the seed of incompetence.


Weinberg’s Corollary
An expert is a person who avoids the small errors while sweeping on to the grand fallacy.


Souder’s Law
Repetition does not establish validity.


Cohen’s Law
What really matters is the name you succeed in imposing on the facts – not the facts themselves.


Harrison’s Postulate
For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism.


Thumb’s Second Postulate
An easily-understood, workable falsehood is more useful than a complex, incomprehensible truth.


Ruckert’s Law
There is nothing so small that it can’t be blown out of proportion


Hawkins’ Theory of Progress
Progress does not consist in replacing a theory that is wrong with one that is right.  It consists in replacing a theory that is wrong with one that is more subtly wrong.


Macbeth’s Law
The best theory is not ipso facto a good theory.


Disraeli’s Dictum
Error is often more earnest than truth.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Darwinists are adept at avoiding the evidence and devising important-sounding phrases that are neither supported by evidence or nearly as powerful as they sound.   I have learned this from years of reading the comments threads.   A recent doozy, which I will dissect carefully:

What we call "life" is an emergent property of a sufficiently-complex, self-sustaining chemical system. That's all, there ain't no more. How complex is "sufficiently?" No one knows. Quite possibly, no one ever will. "

  • Darwinists cannot define life.  They cannot identify it as a natural force, element or substance.
  • There is no evidence for the word, "emergent" which is meaningless in context.   This is because the Law of Biogenesis remains true, there is no life "emerging" from anything other than their parents.
  • Sufficiently-complex?   How does Darwinism get credit for this?   Darwinism would lead you to expect very simple organisms with very little variety.   As long as it had life and could reproduce it would likely remain what it is.   But then that is presuming that it can arise from natural causes, which we have proved over and over does not happen.
  • Self-sustaining CHEMICAL system?   There is far more than chemistry going on and, in fact, basic chemistry works to prohibit the raw materials of life from forming at the same time, even if there was a way to assemble them together and stuff them full of all that information that has no natural source.
  • As I wrote back in 2005 and as David L. Abel's work has affirmed, the simplest life form that exists independently and reproduces is Mycoplasma genitalium with a 580-kilo-base-pair genome containing 470 genes. 
  • Actually, plenty of people know that God created life, which is why it is not something that, " No one knows. Quite possibly, no one ever will."   Now what kind of science gives up before it starts? It all makes sense.   Naturalists have recognized that the cannot come from natural sources and so they prefer to pretend no one can know rather than admit that organisms are obviously designed.  
Specified Complexity and Irreducible Complexity and sourceless Information and Meta-Information already kill off old Darwinist hopes that cells were simple blobs of protoplasm that could easily arise by chance.  Nope.   Not even close  to close!   The brilliant four-digit code of DNA/RNA and it's interaction with the cell requires engineering beyond humanity to reproduce at that time.  The Intellect Who devised such organisms does inspire me to worship and view Him with awe and for good reasons...



5 comments:

Jon Woolf said...

"We all know the proverbial “snow job.” That’s putting on an entertaining song and dance without doing the assignment. "

How's that? Oh, you mean like how you deal with virtually every piece of geological or biological evidence any of your various critics has ever raised in comments.

radar said...

Evidence, Jon, is the key word here. I post evidence. I rarely see commenters give evidence back, other than the supposed order of fossils in the rock records. But when the fox is in charge of the hen house, I call for an outside audit. Darwinists date rocks by fossils and fossils by rocks after arbitrarily assigning ages to them.

Darwinist dating methods have been exposed as inaccurate as well, so that kind of "evidence" does not hold up.

Jon Woolf said...

No, you post nonsense from creationists. Your critics post evidence, as best we can within the limits of Blogger comments and the mysterious vanishing-comment bug that afflicts this blog. And most of the time you simply ignore that evidence.

Commenters don't post evidence? Sheesh. Remember that list of questions I've posted repeatedly? Each of those questions is based on the evidence. When I ask "why don't we find sauropods and elephants together?" it's because no one has ever found fossils of sauropods and elephants together. When I ask "what's the YEC explanation for the no-young-isotopes phenomenon," it's because the no-young-isotopes phenomenon is a very real, observable, demonstrable aspect of atomic physics. And so on. That's evidence. What's the YEC explanation for it?

Of course, you never have one. You'll run away and post another irrelevant article, full of proofs-by-assertion and other logical fallacies, liberally mixed with casual (and blatantly false) insults to the entire scientific field like "Darwinists date rocks by fossils and fossils by rocks after arbitrarily assigning ages to them."

AmericanVet said...

Jon, as usual you make baseless accusations such as "disappearing comments" which I have demonstrated does not happen. Either blogger posts the comment or it filters it out. If I erase them a record is left behind showing that the comment was deleted. So you are making a false charge there.

Secondly much of what I post is from secular sources or the creationist or ID articles have secular sources cited. The fact that I do post actual evidence must be the reason you keep coming back to naysay because if I was really posting nonsense you would not bother.

As to elephants and sauropods, why would we expect to find them together? Do we find elk and moose together in real life? Do wolves and lynx hang out together? No. With the exception of gathering at a waterhole during dry seasons, like animals band together and not with other animals. Therefore when the Flood took place like animals tended to stay together if they were able to comprehend the danger.

The poor bottom-dwelling community got buried by sediments pretty quickly, depending upon the area. In some cases we find trace evidence of bottom dwelling organisms moving along a layer of sediments but massive amounts of that kind of organism never knew what hit them. Like I said, I have walked on huge rock layers inhabited by shellfish or even trilobites all upright and buried alive.

So we do not expect a wide variety of differing organisms buried together unless they stayed together in real life and, when we do, it is cause for a news story. Thus, the unusual French find with an abundance of varied creatures and plant life all buried and preserved together. That must have been a flood washing a lot of different things together and depositing them, as I do not believe various herbivores hung out with crocodiles nor do I think land organisms and acquatic organisms all banded together to have a party.

http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2012/01/they-are-blind-but-they-claim-to-see.html

Jon Woolf said...

"Jon, as usual you make baseless accusations such as "disappearing comments" which I have demonstrated does not happen. Either blogger posts the comment or it filters it out."

Fine and dandy ... except that I know it does happen, because I've seen it happen with my own eyes. It gets posted, I see it on the site ... then I go back a little while later, and it's gone. No record, no trace left.

"As to elephants and sauropods, why would we expect to find them together?"

Because according to you, the Flood sorted animals as a regular flood would: by size, mass, and density -- and a large elephant is about the same size, mass, and density as a small sauropod. But they're never found together ... nor is either one found with the similarly-sized brontotheres.

"With the exception of gathering at a waterhole during dry seasons, like animals band together and not with other animals."

Never watched a NGS show about the Serengeti or Etosha, have you? Zebra, wildebeest, giraffe, many different species of antelope, sometimes elephant, all mixing together.

"The poor bottom-dwelling community got buried by sediments pretty quickly, depending upon the area."

Then why are there locales with dozens or even hundreds of vertical meters of rock with bottom-dwelling organisms all through them? Are you seriously claiming that brachiopods and bryozoans and horn corals could form and grow to maturity while sediment was accumulating around and on them at a rate of twenty to thirty meters per day? That they could latch onto the substrate and stay put in the face of flood-currents moving at speeds of meters per second?

[snork] Your claims don't hold water, Radar.