Search This Blog

Saturday, May 12, 2012

Darwinism for sale!!!   Hubris included!

 

Darwinism and hubris?   I thought Darwinism came with hubris included?   But evidence is optional, right?  No?  Evidence is not available?   Oh, well.   So standard options are what?  Hubris and mythology are included...okay.   Anything else?  Censorship in the trunk, okay.   There is a Theistic trim package?   Really?   Oh, it's just on the surface, gotcha! 

 

Earth Myths with a Sprinkling of Data

Posted on May 3, 2012 in Darwin and Evolution, Dating Methods, Dumb Ideas, Genetics, Geology
Some recent articles show that tiny bits of data can be used to generate whoppers.
According to Live Science, Bill Hammond has been measuring uplift of the Sierra Nevada range since 2000.  Currently they have measured about a millimeter or two of uplift a year for less than 12 years.  Launching from that, the article stated:
The amount might seem small, but the data indicate that long-term trends in crustal uplift suggest the modern Sierra could be formed inless than 3 million years, which is relatively quick when compared toestimates using some geological techniques.
This represents an extrapolation of five orders of magnitude (stretching 12 years of data to “suggest” what happened in 3 million years).  Nevertheless, they are convinced they have determined a “young” uplift for the California mountain range (see also PhysOrg).  Despite the bold announcements, Hammond said, “he Sierra Nevada uplift process is fairly unique on Earth and not well understood.” Whether “unique” phenomena can be used to inform laws of nature was not explained.
Even more hubris was displayed in another article, “Earth history and evolution,” onPhysOrg.  The opening paragraph is the operative statement about mythology referred to in our title:
In classical mythology, the cypress tree is associated with death, the underworld and eternity. Indeed, the family to which cypresses belong, is an ancient lineage of conifers, and a new study of their evolutionaffords a unique insight into a turbulent era in the Earth’s history.
This article claimed that genetic data between several genera of cypress thought to have evolved independently after a mythical supercontinent, Pangea, split apart, has “revolutionized the field of biogeography” and given us “understanding” of earth history.
The new study confirms that cypresses represent a very old plant family. Their origins can be traced back to Pangea, and theevolutionary divergence of the northern and southern subfamilies of cypresses actually reflects the break-up of Pangea about 153 million years ago. As fragmentation progressed and ancestral lineages were separated from each other, new lineages were established andfollowed separate evolutionary trajectories. The Cupressaceae isthe first plant family whose evolutionary history gives us such a detailed picture of the break-up of a supercontinent.
This adds another couple of orders of magnitude to the extrapolations from data evaluated in the present (see PNAS paper for the data used).  The “insight” generated comes with some caveats, however.  “Some groups have turned out to be surprisingly young in evolutionary terms, others much older than people had assumed.”  It appears that using assumptions about a law of nature concerning evolutionary rates requires sacrificing laws of nature in other aspects of the story.
Myths usually require sacrifices, so we should not be surprised.
Let’s take stock of what we know (or think we know) based on the data presented.  (1) The Sierras have risen 1 or 2 millimeters per year since 2000, give or take the uncertainties that always need to be factored into any measurement.  (2) Certain selected genes in certain selected species of cypress have a measurable percent difference, give or take the uncertainties that always need to be factored into any measurement.
That’s it.  The rest is interpretation.
Are you better off with modern mythology than the Greeks and Romans were?  The fighting gods of classical lore have been lumped into a new god named Evolution that performs whatever miracles are necessary to keep the myth going.  We are told “new lineages were established”.  By whom?  Evolution, the god of death, the underworld and eternity.  Evolution weaves tales of “turbulent eras in earth history” when he fought the Earth Giants, splitting continents and sending the spirits of Life Force on separate evolutionary trajectories.  We don’t see Evolution, but through his oracles, we gain “understanding”.  We envision “detailed pictures”.  We achieve “unique insight”.
Any mythmaker needs a sprinkling of data to keep the outsiders in awe.   The priest of Delphi used gas from a cave to send the priestesses into ecstatic babblings.  Now, GPS(gas of the priestesses of science) does the trick, while another group of divination prophets looks into the genes, like ancient Babble-onians looked into entrails.
We know what they tell us is mythology because each new understanding overturns the previous understanding (implying it was never understanding in the first place).  We also keep seeing that the new data contradicts the findings from the gas the previous oracle used.  We also know it’s bunk because the interpreters (the university press departments), translate the incomprehensible babblings into ambiguous pronouncements that can be interpreted various ways. Does evolution run fast or slow?  It depends.  Are the Sierras rising fast or slow?  It depends.  [Scientific principle:  Mathematical physics does not permit the extrapolation of a linear function over five orders of magnitude.  That’s like drawing a mile-long curve from an inch of data.]
Old King Croesus would have had equal luck listening to modern scientists tell him whether to go to war with Darius as we have trusting in the “understanding” we get from the priests of Darwinius.  Don’t myth-take this for science.  The rubric of their hubris is rootless.

 

Some folks are blind to the truth, ya know what I mean?

The thing is, the evidence doesn't say "moo", it says "God."   Take off your glasses, throw away that cane and see the light!!!

 

New Chirality Solution Proposed

Posted on May 9, 2012 in Cell Biology, Dumb Ideas, Genetics, Intelligent Design, Origin of Life,Physics
It’s long been a mystery why cells use one hand of two-handed molecules, like left-handed amino acids and right-handed sugars. A new proposal solves the mystery, explaining how this phenomenon called homochirality arises naturally.  Wait a minute…
Life scientists unlock mystery of how ‘handedness’ arises,” announced a headline onPhysOrg.  Dr. Thomas G. Mason, a professor of chemistry and physics at UCLA, was fascinated by the long-standing mystery of how life chooses one hand over the other when either “isoform” is equally probable.  “Why many of the important functional molecules in our bodies almost always occur in just one chiral form when they could potentially exist in either is a mystery that has confounded researchers for years,” the article said.
So what is his solution?  Surprisingly, it’s entropy – something we usually associate with disorder and randomness.
It’s quite bizarre,” Mason said. “You’re starting with achiral components — triangles — which undergo Brownian motion and you end up with thespontaneous formation of super-structures that have a handedness or chirality. I would never have anticipated that in a million years.”
.…“We discovered that just two physical ingredients — entropy andparticle shape — are enough to cause chirality to appear spontaneously in dense systems,” Mason said. “In my 25 years of doing research, I never thought that I would see chirality occur in a system of achiral objects driven by entropic forces.
The body of the article explains, though, that he didn’t try his experiment with actual amino acids or biological molecules.  He experimented with colored equilateral triangles, imprinting them on a static surface using lithography.  He perceived “superstructures” made up of parallelograms in the densely-packed arrangement.
Does this have anything to do with life?  Not yet.  “We’re learning some new physical rules, butthe story in biology is far from complete. We have added another chapter to the story, and I’m amazed by these findings,” he said.
Good grief.  Drop the self-serving hype about how amazed he was.  This is stupid.  Entropy is not a force.   OK, so triangles form parallelograms when you artificially etch them onto an artificial surface.  Big deal.  This has about as much to do with living cells as a backgammon board has to do with a backgammon champion.
Amino acids are not triangles.  They are 3-dimensional molecules with complex side chains.  Living cells employ homochiral amino acids and sugars because they provide the optimum arrangement for structure and function of proteins and nucleic acids.  They are 100% one-handed (see online book).  Any deviation from 100% pure chirality destroys the protein or DNA molecule.
Even more important, the sequence of the amino acid building blocks is critical to function.  Amino acids do not link together at random.  They are forced together by molecular machines (ribosomes) that order them according to a genetic template, complete with proofreading.
That this silly attempt would get published in the journal Nature Communications is a sign of desperation at not having solved the mystery for over a century since Pasteur first noticed it.  You know what solves it perfectly?  Intelligent design.  If Mason thinks he has written “another chapter” to the story, it’s a chapter in the wrong book – the storytelling book, not the science textbook.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Every day Darwinists are stre-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-etching the truth so far that it is nothing but a lie with wrapping paper and a bow.   The two articles above are great examples.   Cre-Evo headlines does an outstanding job identifying and publishing the claptrap being pawned off as "science" by naturalists.

hubris = excessive pride or self-confidence; arrogance.
Why do Darwinists insert long ages and evolution mythology into every scientific discovery?   Why can't they just present evidence and only come to conclusions when they fit the facts?  Can they be so sold out to naturalism that they cast aside their integrity knowingly in order to promote lies?   Or are they self-deluded enough to think they are actually right?   
I wonder about some of the commenters I get, they seem so sure of what they assert when their evidence is completely missing.   What it is about them, I wonder?
 

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

"I wonder about some of the commenters I get, they seem so sure of what they assert when their evidence is completely missing. What it is about them, I wonder?"

Whoa, projection much?

Do you even know what "evidence for" means? Have you ever run across a single verifiable, falsifiable claim for creation? One that is completely undeniably confirmed?

If so, what is it?