Search This Blog

Monday, August 05, 2013

Why Evolution is an EPIC FAIL? Just a quick post to get you thinking...

The “short timescale” is all that any individual organism has to look at, and it is all that really matters in terms of natural selection. After all, the “orthogenesis” hypothesis was rejected years and years ago as a vestige of essentialism. Evolution is blind. Evolution is not creating the optimum organism. It is not progressing things from simple to complex, from worse to better, from mean to nice. Evolution doesn’t make progress. If stupidity becomes a survival advantage (which it surely has in the current scientific community), then stupidity will propagate. Evolution is not upward or onward. Evolution doesn’t make short-term sacrifices in order to achieve long-term goals. Evolution is not for the better. “Better” is a moral and ideological assessment. And only people make those. Evolution is not a person. I really wish that evolutionary scientists would stop projecting their longings for a personal god onto the blind mechanism of evolution. Micheal Minkoff



This blog will begin presenting a series, "Noahic Flood for Dummies" in which the fossil rocks and the historical records of mankind will be accessed to explain to puzzled Darwinists why their failed hypothesis is not supported by the sedimentary layers nor the surface of the Earth.  The title is a link to the famous "for dummies" books that began as a reference book on one subject, the DOS operating system and then spawned so many books on other subjects that is now an institution in publishing.

Go to Amazon to look inside

The Darwinist Hall of Shame was fun and we may do more on that series later on.   However, before the Flood for Dummies series it seems fun to throw out a couple of challenges to the brain?

Evolutionists Still Search In Vain for Roots of Cooperation 



In the past, cooperation was a difficult thing to account for from an evolutionary standpoint. How could cooperation between organisms evolve if the primary operative machinery of evolution is individual survival? John Nash’s studies on the prisoner’s dilemma had already made it clear that, from a standpoint of math and probability, the best individual outcome in most cases was non-cooperation.
But a recent study is calling that into question … at least as it relates to evolution. According to the study:
. . . It is not sufficient for a strategy to out compete another strategy in direct competition, that is, winning is not everything. Rather, a strategy must also play well against itself. The reason for this is that if a strategy plays well against an opponent but reaps less of a benefit competing against itself, then it will be able to invade a population but will quickly have to compete against its own offspring and its rate of expansion slows down. This is even more pronounced in populations with a spatial structure, where offspring are placed predominantly close to the progenitor. If the competing strategy in comparison plays very well against itself, then a strategy that only plays well against an opponent may not even be able to invade.
Natural selection is all about the ability of an organism to involuntarily and generationally adapt to a changing environment. That environment includes other organisms too. Which traits will be successful is not a matter of choice as much as it is circumstance. Being able to breathe underwater but not in the open air is not an “optimum” trait in itself. That all depends on the circumstance. In a desert? You and your genes are going to die. In a world covered in water? You and your genes will survive.

This study, looking backwards, sees a clear long-term survival advantage in cooperation (e.g., it is obvious that ants could not survive as individuals). But the real question is not whether cooperation is advantageous overall. The question for an undirected process (like evolution) is whether cooperation is advantageous right now—whether or not cooperation would provide an initial survival advantage to an individual organism. And the answer is no.

Part of the problem with this study, and with all evolutionary research actually, is that a materialist really can’t talk about a “best” outcome or an “evolutionary strategy.” Whose strategy are they talking about? Do the genes have a strategy? I saw an article titled, “Is DNA the smartest molecule in existence?” Evolutionists are not against intelligent design, in other words. They need some intelligent director of evolution. Otherwise, as the study proves, short-term advantages leading to long-term detriment would end in extinction for a population of selfish individualists.

The lead author of the new “anti-selfish” study, Christoph Adami, wrote, “Being mean can give you an advantage on a short timescale but certainly not in the long run—you would go extinct.” But we haven’t gone extinct, and the only evolution we have ever witnessed has been absolutely individualistic (after all, this study is based on logic games and speculation, not hard and present evidence). We have not watched the evolution of cooperation out of non-cooperation. Cooperation is already there and has been there ever since we started looking. And it works only because it is already there. Any explanation for its existence requires the inclusion of some intelligence—some ability to forego short-term advantages for long-term ones. And natural selection offers no mechanism for this.

The “short timescale” is all that any individual organism has to look at, and it is all that really matters in terms of natural selection. After all, the “orthogenesis” hypothesis was rejected years and years ago as a vestige of essentialism. Evolution is blind. Evolution is not creating the optimum organism. It is not progressing things from simple to complex, from worse to better, from mean to nice. Evolution doesn’t make progress. If stupidity becomes a survival advantage (which it surely has in the current scientific community), then stupidity will propagate. Evolution is not upward or onward. Evolution doesn’t make short-term sacrifices in order to achieve long-term goals. Evolution is not for the better. “Better” is a moral and ideological assessment. And only people make those. Evolution is not a person. I really wish that evolutionary scientists would stop projecting their longings for a personal god onto the blind mechanism of evolution.

Ultimately, this study is flawed. Evolutionists are in the habit of searching for material causes for moral qualities (e.g., Dawkins with his famous “selfish gene”). They can’t and won’t believe that perhaps cooperation is good because it is right. Loyalty, trust, honesty, dignity, honor, and compassion are not the ideological shadows of some material evolutionary advantage. Instances of these traits occur in creation because creation reflects the character of the person who designed it. Cooperation in nature, no matter how much scientists try to explain it macro-evolutionarily, is just another evidence for divine design.


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

AND even Darwinists are seeing that their models are fatally flawed!!!  Not that they retain such problems in their heads for long...as the previous article suggests, in the science world the ability to be stupid is apparently a selection advantage?  

Scientific study turns understanding about evolution on its head




Scientific study turns understanding about evolution on its head
(Phys.org) —Our understanding of how animals on the planet evolved may be wrong, according to scientists at the University.

In a new paper, recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences from the Department of Biology & Biochemistry looked at nearly one hundred fossil groups to test the notion that it takes groups of  many millions of years to reach their maximum diversity of form.
Contrary to popular belief, not all animal groups continued to evolve fundamentally new morphologies through time. The majority actually achieved their greatest diversity of form (disparity) relatively early in their histories.
Lead researcher from the Department of Biology & Biochemistry, Dr Matthew Wills said: "This pattern, known as 'early high disparity', turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head. What is equally surprising in our findings is that groups of animals are likely to show early-high disparity regardless of when they originated over the last half a billion years. This isn't a phenomenon particularly associated with the first radiation of animals, or periods in the immediate wake of mass extinctions."
The team used published descriptions of extinct groups in order to construct 'morphospaces'; empirical spaces in which anatomically similar species plotted close together, and more dissimilar species plotted further apart. By looking at the manner in which the occupied 'volume' of space changed through time, they were able to track changes in morphological disparity.
Author Martin Hughes, continued: "Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on. The only exceptions to the rule are groups that were wiped out at times of mass extinction. These groups tend to have 'flat topped' and 'top-heavy' evolutionary trajectories overall."
Co-author Dr Sylvain Gerber, added: "A key question now is what prevents groups from generating fundamentally new forms later on in their evolution. Equally intriguing is the manner in which some groups are able to break free from these constraints.
"Our results hint that this may hinge upon the evolution of new 'key innovations' that enable groups to exploit new resources or habitats, for example dinosaurs growing feathers and evolving wings or fish evolving legs and moving onto land to claim new territory."

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

If only logic and reason were applied at this juncture, the conclusion is obvious.   Organisms do not evolve, they DEVOLVE as they speciate.   Speciation allows organisms to adjust to new environmental pressures through the designed process of natural selection, which only works because there is a large set of choices built into the gene pool of the organism and also the cell can shortcut some minor changes such as the beak size of finches.   Natural selection is simply the survival of the fittest variety of the kind and we have never observed any kind or "Baramin" to change.   Kinds of organisms survive or die out.  They speciate because of ecological pressures or by selection caused by mankind.   But they stay within kind because they are designed to do so - the mother lays the framework for the child and therefore a dog will always be a dog and a fish will always be a fish.   A dog may be bred to be huge like a Great Dane or tiny like a Chihuahua.  But it will remain a dog.


Dane and Chihuahua credit

Man has used selection to breed out undesired qualities of animals and plants as well as breed in desired qualities.  Mendel revealed the idea of genetics to a world which already knew and used breeding techniques on both plants and animals without necessarily understanding why and how such breeding techniques worked.

To listen to a Darwinist try to explain how a Bombardier Beetle or a Monarch Butterfly or a Giraffe could have evolved is much like going to a comic club and listening to standup comedy routines.  You will either find it amusing or offensive if you are not wearing your official Darwinist Tinfoil Hat?  Oh, and I love the one where they tell you how and why water-dwelling organisms would decide to leave the water, become land-dwelling air breathers and THEN decide to go back to the ocean and become whales?  Gets me every time!!!

Caution: Believing in Darwinism may cause massive logic fails within the brain and also lead to everlasting death in the event of the cessation of breath and heartbeat.  

tinfoil hat credit

15 comments:

Hawkeye® said...

You got me with the opening paragraph! You didn't need anything after that.

(:D) Best regards,
Jim (aka Hawkeye)

Anonymous said...

Much as Radar could do with a bit of concision at times, the opening paragraph of the post doesn't really say all that much. No, evolution has no conscious intelligence, it doesn't make plans etc. And we ourselves are not the final goal of evolution. We are an organism that has evolved, and other organisms will evolve after us.

In evolution, "better" simply means more effective at surviving and reproducing in its environment. Nothing terribly remarkable about that.

Mr. Minkoff probably ran across some biologist using figurative language to describe evolution and needed to vent a little.

Anonymous said...

About the first pasted article:

"In the past, cooperation was a difficult thing to account for from an evolutionary standpoint. How could cooperation between organisms evolve if the primary operative machinery of evolution is individual survival?"

Since the opening paragraph is already based on a false premise, there's no need to read the rest, really. The "primary operative machinery of evolution" is not individual survival, but survival of the species. The species that is more effective at surviving and reproducing will propagate in greater numbers. Depending on the organism's characteristics, different survival strategies will be more effective. Some organisms (including man) will survive better in a group. By cooperating, they survive and reproduce in larger numbers, hence improving the long-term survival chances of the species.

Anonymous said...

"Any explanation for its existence requires the inclusion of some intelligence—some ability to forego short-term advantages for long-term ones."

This seems to be based on the rather strange premise that there are never any short-term advantages to co-operation, only long-term advantages, and that is not really borne out by observation.

If two hunters working together are more effective at bringing home the bacon than they would if they worked on their own, then that is an immediate advantage, not a long-term one.

If protecting the young as a group (instead of letting them run off by themselves to fend for themselves) leads to more of the young surviving, then that is an immediate advantage (young dead vs. young alive), not a long-term one.

Anonymous said...

"If only logic and reason were applied at this juncture, the conclusion is obvious. Organisms do not evolve, they DEVOLVE as they speciate."

Perhaps it escaped your attention that scientists shouldn't even have been able to gather this information. The fact that they were able to gather it is a falsification of YEC itself.

"Speciation allows organisms to adjust to new environmental pressures through the designed process of natural selection, which only works because there is a large set of choices built into the gene pool of the organism and also the cell can shortcut some minor changes such as the beak size of finches."

You left out the part that there is no scientific evidence at all for devolution and for DNA of an ancestor "kind" containing all the information for all its offspring that is then selectively pruned away.

No scientific evidence at all.

Anonymous said...

Incidentally, linking to a website that peddles tinfoilhattery like "Obama directs IRS to target conservative groups" doesn't exactly enhance the credibility of that blog or yours.

Then again, when you look at the comment section on that blog, it probably won't make a whole lot of difference... :)

radar said...

Gee, wonder why Congress is having hearings about the fact that the IRS DID target conservative groups? I wonder why the IRS spokesman keeps dodging the questions and claiming the need to go back and look at records and why the IRS is interviewing and threatening their own employees looking for whistle-blowers to silence or fire? The IRS did target conservative groups and they are now facing charges for it.

Back to the pseudo-science of Darwinism...I would first send you to the work of Kirschner and Gerhart in which, while trying to find a way that evolution could have worked, actually found barriers to any change of kind and also that the cell directs reproduction rather than DNA. They put in some Darwinist boilerplate language to protect their careers, but what they found precludes one kind of organism from becoming another while revealing rapid speciation is a feature of organisms that is built in.

Rapid speciation is important for survival of the created kinds. We see it happening today. We never see any evolution, however, and we never will. Devolution does happen and you may call it ring speciation or extinction or whatever you like. The fact is that mutations are building up in complex organisms and eventually all organisms would die out other than bacteria.

Bacteria are one-celled organisms that are either functional or non-functional and cannot withstand much mutation. But they replicate in great numbers, so when mutations begin to build up then the organism doesn't survive to pass them along. In this way bacteria remain pretty much the same as they were originally created.

But "higher" organisms cannot do this. They do accumulate and pass on mutations and such mutations begin to be deleterious. Thus the human race has syndromes and diseases now that were unknown 200 years ago.

As to those who could not understand the first paragraph, you have my sympathy.

Anonymous said...

"Gee, wonder why Congress is having hearings about the fact that the IRS DID target conservative groups?"

1. Spot the difference between "IRS targeted conservative groups" and "Obama directs IRS to target conservative groups".

2. The hearings on IRS targeting conservative groups were concluded, and no connection to the White House found, despite Darrell Issa's best efforts. Nor were any of the conservative groups that were examined subsequently denied tax-exempt status.

3. If there are any IRS-related hearings still going on, they are about allegations of IRS wasting taxpayer money.

Anonymous said...

According to devolution, DNA must once upon a time have contained more information than it does today. If mutations can't add information, then the original dog "baramin" must have contained the information for all dogs that we see today.

And for this claim, there is absolutely zero evidence.

radar said...

As to the one issue at a time guy?

You already have been shown that the fossil rocks do NOT have sequential fossils as claimed by Darwinists and DO have places where all sorts of organisms from various environments are all mixed in together.

You greatly err when you seek "modern" animals in the lower layers. The lower layers were bottom-dwelling sea creatures and many of them are still living today as bottom-dwelling sea creatures. Giving the same organism a different scientific name and pretending it evolved is a typical Darwinist trick but does not impress people who know better.

The Flood took place over 4,000 years ago. Organisms have been speciating and devolving and going extinct ever since.

The organisms we find in the rock records have a few interesting features that support the Biblical account. The two-thousand years (approximated) of life on Earth before the Flood took place in a different environment. The largest specimens of organisms found in fossil rocks could not live today. I will present some reasons for this. But with an entirely new ecosystem and over 4,000 years of speciation, the world of organisms now is drastically different from the world of organisms at the time of the Flood. With the exception of bacteria, naturally, we find that organisms have become smaller, have shorter life spans and many of them have gone extinct. But God in His wisdom created many different kinds of organisms that could fill the same ecological niche so that multiple extinctions could take place and mankind would still have useful organisms and the world of wildlife would continue to operate as long as mankind remains on Earth.

radar said...

Anonymous said...
According to devolution, DNA must once upon a time have contained more information than it does today. If mutations can't add information, then the original dog "baramin" must have contained the information for all dogs that we see today.

And for this claim, there is absolutely zero evidence.


Thanks for exposing your ignorance, anonymous! We actually know that breeders have taken a few wild dogs and over centuries have bred them into hundreds of established breeds. If you knew anything at all about dogs and the history of breeding animals you would not make such an easily refuted statement.

The fact is that a wolf or an African Wild Dog or a Dingo can mate with most domesticated dogs and in fact some breeds have wolf deliberately bred into them. If virtually any kind of dog can mate with any other dog, it follows that they are all one kind = Baramin.

The dog kind has speciated in the wild to the point that there are multiple species of wild dogs and they go by many names. Meanwhile mankind has deliberately bred, according to the World Canine Organization, 339 different breeds. Since there are competing agencies identifying dog breeds, there are certainly more than 339. I have an Alaskan Husky, for instance, which is not recognized as a breed by the AKC but is widely used as a sled dog or racing sled dog in Alaska and Canada.

Canis lupus familiaris is the official latin name for the dog. We cannot depend on the Linnaen Classification system as it has been used by Darwinists, but YEC science has established Baraminology and, in the spirit of Linnaeus, is actually in process of classifying organisms beginning by establishing the Baramin or kind and then identifying the speciated variations thereof.

Anonymous said...

"You already have been shown that the fossil rocks do NOT have sequential fossils as claimed by Darwinists and DO have places where all sorts of organisms from various environments are all mixed in together."

Absolutely not true.

IIRC, you have shown a few cases in which certain organisms appeared marginally earlier or later than expected in the fossil record, but nothing that would falsify the theory of evolution, such as, say, a modern guinea pig mixed in with dinosaurs.

"You greatly err when you seek "modern" animals in the lower layers. The lower layers were bottom-dwelling sea creatures and many of them are still living today as bottom-dwelling sea creatures."

Name one.

"Giving the same organism a different scientific name and pretending it evolved is a typical Darwinist trick but does not impress people who know better."

Since you apparently "know better"... name one.

If, for the sake of argument, YEC and the global flood were true, then there must be a part of the fossil record that pre-dates the flood and a part of the fossil record caused by the flood. Somewhere there has to be a "floor", and if YEC were true, from that floor upwards we would expect to see a mixture of ALL living beings, dinosaurs, modern animals etc.

If you want to quibble that the Cambrian layer is from before the global flood and would therefore NOT be that floor, then fine. But that floor has to be somewhere.

And everything above it happens to falsify YEC.

Which is why YEC can't make any scientific progress and can't get too specific about anything. And incidentally, that's also why you have to run in circles and accuse others of propaganda etc. while being unable to present specifics.

"The two-thousand years (approximated) of life on Earth before the Flood took place in a different environment. The largest specimens of organisms found in fossil rocks could not live today."

So which fossil layers correspond to the time before the alleged global flood?

radar said...

That last comment is another lazy one. I made assertions in the blog post that this commenter does not address and instead he changes the subject and goes back to posts from the past.

I made assertions with factual statements about the fossil record in this post and you have not answered them, so I am not wasting my time with you until you do. You see, the idea is that you try to refute the facts I present rather than just say "Nyuh-uh." Kindergarten arguments do not fly here. First you address the arguments of the blogpost before I drift off course for you.

When I do the "for dummies" series I am going to present the evidence again and I wonder, will you have an answer by that time? You sure do not now...

Anonymous said...

"I made assertions in the blog post that this commenter does not address and instead he changes the subject and goes back to posts from the past."

It goes back to posts from the past, but doesn't change the subject - because it was a direct reply to your false claim that "You already have been shown that the fossil rocks do NOT have sequential fossils as claimed by Darwinists and DO have places where all sorts of organisms from various environments are all mixed in together", which I made more than clear by quoting the section before responding to it. Your own comment refers to posts from the past, and so my response needs to do that as well.

So your accusation here that I supposedly changed the subject is demonstrably not true.

As for the remaining comments, they were direct replies not to your blog post, but to your own comments in the subsequent comment thread. It appears you're unable to defend them and now try to hide behind another ad hoc requirement ("don't reply to my blog comments, only to my blog posts").

So, along with all the other arguments you can't defend the moment one probes a little beyond the initial claim, now it appears you're unable to back up this claim:

"The lower layers were bottom-dwelling sea creatures and many of them are still living today as bottom-dwelling sea creatures."

Asking you to name an example of this is far from saying "nyuh-uh", and I don't know what kind of kindergarten you went to, but even in kindergarten we were expected not to lie.

Of course there are no examples of such creatures. It's not a truthful statement. You made it up. Or you regurgitated it from somewhere else.

Name an example if you can, or do the right thing and retract/correct your claim.

radar said...

Hey, dummy, the Cambrian layers include lots of bivalves and crinoids and corals, all of which are still around. In fact, we have found all basic organism structures in the Cambrian layers. Bivalves are still here, crinoids still here, corals still here. So asking me to name one organism is ridiculous. Darwinists live in a fairy tale world. But I will give you a challenge...Give me one example of upward evolution that has been observed by modern man. Just one. You do that, and I will name one Cambrian organism that is still around.