Search This Blog

Monday, May 06, 2013

Oxymoron and Preposterous Posturing, Thy Name Is Darwinism!!!

My friend and fellow blogger, Piltdown Superman, pointed me to the article below and made the visual.   Check out what he says here.

Did you know that Jimmy Page played a session guitarist for Donovan in 1965?  True that!  

Perhaps Darwinists think organisms evolve because people more or less evolve during their lives?  I mean, we do progress and learn and change during our lifetimes.   Organizations evolve.  The game of baseball has evolved tremendously from the days of rounders.   But while people and organizations and games and all sorts of things can be improved and changed dramatically over time, it is because people choose to change things.   Evolution is not a mind, it does not have a will, it does not have is not a person...and it does not exist.   It is a figment of Charles Darwin's imagination, made up of plagiarized work from others, previous studies, the ancient idea of Pantheism and some entirely errant conclusions drawn from studying the beaks of finches.  What if we found automobiles scattered amongst the sedimentary layers?  I'll bet they'd label Model T rocks as Cambrian, right?  Hmmn, no, probably Devonian.   Duryea would be Cambrian.  

Evolutionists Don’t Understand Their Own Theory

Posted on April 27, 2013 in Darwin and EvolutionDumb IdeasPhilosophy of Science

If evolutionists and reporters stuck to the essence of neo-Darwinism, many of their claims would never reach the press.
Darwin attempted to describe a natural mechanism (natural selection) that would generate the entire tree of life, with all its diversity.  Neo-Darwinism identifies the source of variation as mutations.  The essence of Darwinian theory is that the process is unguided, with no goals or purposes.  Many evolutionists and their press agents seem to forget this.
Artificial selection is not evolution.  A common fallacy is to assume artificial selection is the same as natural selection.  Artificial selection, though, comes from goals, purposes and plans of people; it’s a form of intelligent design.  One form of this fallacy is “computer evolution” – programming a computer to simulate the evolutionary process.  Science Daily reported on attempts to do this at Cornell’s “Creative Machines Lab” (a tip-off that this is not about Darwinism).  The reader is told, “A research team led by Cornell University’s Creative Machines Lab has created a computer algorithm that can be used to witness virtual creatures evolving their squishy, muscle-like features in order to teach themselves to walk.”  All the bold words in that sentence violate Darwinian principles, yet the article claims that the experiment demonstrates “the power of evolution to create counterintuitive designs.”
Change within species is not evolution.  Medical Xpress tells readers this profound observation:Evolving genes lead to evolving genes.”  Other than being a tautology, the headline leads into a story with no evidence for the origin of species.  The Wellcome Trust and Sanger Institute went looking for evidence of positive selection in a single gene named FOXP2, implicated in human speech:Have these evolutionary changes in FOXP2 function or expression exposed its target genes to novel selective pressures?”  The variations they found, however, only exist in human populations that are all members of Homo sapiens, one interfertile species.  Even the strictest creationists allow for that kind of change.
Microevolutionary change is not evolution.  John Thompson of UC Santa Cruz has a new book out, Relentless Evolution, that allegesspecies evolve relentlessly and that evolutionary changes occur at a surprisingly rapid pace.”  Yet apparently, the changes he speaks of are occurring within species, not from one species to another.  According to PhysOrg, he describes the Darwinian mechanism correctly as aimless.  He states thatMuch of adaptive evolution does not lead anywhere,” yet the article speaks only of continual microevolutionary changes within species that would make a creationist yawn.  “These continual microevolutionary changes keep populations in the evolutionary game as they interact with other species that are themselves constantly evolving,” Thompson says. “These seemingly aimless meanderings are the essential dynamics of evolution, with directional change and speciation as occasional outcomes.”  Yet nowhere does he describe the origin of species or any kind of directional change leading to a new organ or function.
Behavior within species is not evolution.  New Scientist turns classical Darwinism on its head with this headline: “Survival of the shyest: Timidity’s surprising benefits.”  Reporter Leslie Evans Ogden does her best to show that some humans, salamanders and birds appear more successful without being assertive, but nowhere does she describe a species becoming another species.  Ogden claims that evolution favors both boldness and shyness, but nowhere escapes the tautology of defining fitness in terms of survival.  Even if she makes a case that shyness has its advantages, nothing in the proposition supports neo-Darwinism.
Evolvability is not evolution.  The ability to evolve does not, ipso facto, mean that bacteria evolved into humans.  But that’s not the only puzzle in Science Daily’s headline: “Computer Scientists Suggest New Spin On Origins of Evolvability: Competition to Survive Not Necessary?”  Here’s two more: the reference to computer science, and the denial of classical Darwinian competition as a necessary condition for the origin of species.  Anything dependent on a computer “algorithm” is suspect from the starting line as a model for how an aimless, purposeless process could originate new organs and functions.  A researcher from the University of Central Florida stated, “An important implication of this result is that traditional selective and adaptive explanations for phenomena such as increasing evolvability deserve more scrutiny and may turn out unnecessary in some cases.”  Maybe he should come back when he knows something.  In the meantime, nothing in the article demonstrated the origin of species by unguided processes.
Purpose is not evolution.  The oxymoronic phrase “Evolutionary Purpose” appears in a headline on Live Science that gets even more bizarre.  Reporter Charles Choi writes,Birds can hold their wings high because of the strange way they crouch, and now scientists say the origins of this folded posture may provide insight into the evolution of their flight.”  A cartoon of a perching T. rex in a tree adds to the fantasy.  It doesn’t matter that some dinosaur’s crouching posture is similar to that of birds; the burden of proof Choi set for himself is to show that an aimless process led to avian flight.  Humans and kangaroos can crouch in a similar way but are not evolving hollow bones, avian lungs or wings.  Choi commits the fallacy that evolution has an aim when he says “birds evolved to crouch.”  Those two words should never go together.  An aimless, purposeless process cannot “evolve to” do anything.  Besides, Choi is not sure if it happened gradually or suddenly, indicative of an absence of scientific explanation.
Let’s hold evolutionists’ feet to the fire.  Insist on these rules: No teleology.  No aim.  No intelligence.  No purpose.  No assuming evolution is a fact.  No microevolution.  No computers.  No intelligent design, such as with artificial selection.  Show new species or kinds, not just variation within a species: it needs to surpass the kinds of changes creationists already accept.  Show innovation toward new function, not just horizontal change.  With those rules, the Darwin industry would dry up, because few (if any) are the papers that try to deal honestly with the facts of nature, relying only on the principles of Darwinian evolutionary theory.  But, of course, if they are principles, they undermine evolutionary assumptions in the first place, because principles rely for their existence on the immaterial realm of concepts–ideas–propositions.  Maybe if evolutionists grunted like chimps they would make more sense.

Detecting Panic in Evolution Articles

Posted on May 5, 2013 in Darwin and EvolutionDumb IdeasOrigin of LifePhilosophy of Science

Some claims by evolutionists sound cool, calm and collected until you see them in context.
An example appeared in Science Daily and Astrobiology Magazine – a claim that life may have originated in salty, icy stalactites under the sea ice.  Needclues to the origin of life”?  The article says,Life on Earth may have originated not in warm tropical seas, but with weird tubes of ice — sometimes called ‘sea stalactites’ — that grow downward into cold seawater near Earth’s poles, scientists are reporting.”
That’s a major shift toward further implausibility.  From Darwin’s own speculations about a “warm little pond,” origin-of-life researchers have long claimed that heat is necessary to drive the reactions for life.  That’s why some have imagined life’s origin at a hydrothermal vent, or lakes near a volcano, or at least in the open ocean exposed to sunlight.  But “sea stalactites” of ice in the coldest oceans on earth?
Even more desperate is the analogy the researchers of the American Chemical Society posed: these “brinicles,” as they have been dubbed, look like “chemical gardens” kids play with.  They look like children’s chemistry sets, in which tubes grow upward from metal salts dropped into silicate solution.”  Being made of the wrong stuff, those structures have absolutely nothing to do with the origin of life.
From there, the article descended into rank speculation:
The analysis concluded that brinicles provide an environment that could well have fostered the emergence of life on Earth billions of years ago, and could have done so on other planets. “Beyond Earth, the brinicle formation mechanism may be important in the context of planets and moons with ice-covered oceans,” the report states, citing in particular two moons of Jupiter named Ganymede and Callisto.
It’s safe to assume that if origin-of-life researchers had something better than this to propose, they would have proposed it long ago.
NASA’s Astrobiology Institute is a worthless boondoggle that accomplishes nothing.  Where is their evidence?  They study planets, rocks, and possibly oceans, but there is still no evidence for life beyond Earth’s biosphere.  It’s an enterprise built entirely on faith in a Darwinian ideology.  Astrobiology Magazine publishes almost nothing original.  Day after day they re-post press releases from other sources that say, “maybe this” and “maybe that.”  Did you see the government seal of approval on the webpage?
When “astrobiology” was born as a “new science” back around 1990 because of a rush to celebrate possible fossils in a Martian meteorite (since debunked), then-NASA-chief Dan Goldin convinced Congress to fund research into life on other worlds.   Since then, nothing has been accomplished to find life elsewhere, and now they are so desperate they propose cold icicles “could” be environments for the “emergence” of life on other planets.  Good grief.  One of our readers should research how many millions of tax dollars the government has spent on this Darwinian fantasy trip.
This is not to imply that many astrobiologists are not intelligent, highly-educated scientists.  It’s just that their astronomy has nothing to do with biology.  Detecting extrasolar planets, studying planetary atmospheres, and characterizing the nature of living creatures at deep-sea vents is all fine and good, but to imply that life “emerged” from non-living environments is supported by no evidence whatsoever.  The legitimate studies of planets could have been funded without inventing a new word.    Astro-biology is a fabrication, spliced out of two legitimate sciences, astronomy and biology.  It is no more legit than geo-psychology or planetary sociology.  Without evidence to justify its existence, it should be called astro-bio-mythology.

1 comment:

Angel said...

so great to read your brilliance again!!!!