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