Search This Blog

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Evolutionary Altruism Studies Off-Target?

Research games to study the evolution of altruism are off target according to a researcher. He bases his research on his presuppositions of evolution, and does not consider that we are made in the image of God.

There are scientists who base their research on the presupposition that molecules to man evolution is a given, and that altruism itself evolved. They tested people over the years using economic games, and now a zoologist is saying that it all may be wasted effort. Maybe a new approach is in order: since we evolved from animals, stop treating people like people and treat them more like animals in these experimental games. He'd have more accurate results if he realized that we are not animals, and that we're created in the image of God.
Games that psychologists play with human lab rats don’t show what evolutionists think they do.

For many years, evolutionary psychologists have used games like the “public goods game” to probe the origin of human altruistic behavior in natural selection (e.g. 9/07/14, 1/31/14, 11/03/13, 8/15/12). The games may not reflect reality, an article on PhysOrg suggests.
To finish reading, click on "Game Theory Undermined: Evolution of Altruism Not Demonstrated."

Wednesday, January 21, 2015

Evolution and Peacock Feathers

Charles Darwin didn't like peacock tails. "The sight of a feather in a peacock’s tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!" Reason being because it didn't fit with that tinhorn's evolutionary ideas, and he tried to explain it away by doing the scientific thing of "making stuff up". Evolution is supposed to make things function better. So how can evolutionists explain beauty without function? They can't.

Evolution does not give rise to beauty or features without function. Evolution fails overall anyway. The peacock's tail has beauty without function, and doesn't drag the bird down, either. / "Peacock Feathers 4" / verzerk
The beauty-without-function aspect of the feathers is bad enough for Darwin's Cheerleaders, but it gets worse. Those long things should be detrimental to flight — especially escape — but when Percival Peacock decides it time to vamoose, they don't pose a problem for him. That's because the bird, the feathers, and everything else were designed, not the product of evolutionary wishful thinking.
A peacock’s large train looks like it would be a real drag! To get such a burden airborne must surely take a lot of extra energy and slow a bird down, perhaps delaying its escape from a predator. But does it really? New research— “The elaborate plumage in peacocks is not such a drag,” published in the Journal of Experimental Biology—says “No!”
You can see what the flap is about by reading the rest of the article at "Peacock Tail Feathers Don’t Drag Them Down".

Wednesday, January 14, 2015

Hot Times on Jupiter's Moon Io

The innermost moon of Jupiter is Io. Since it is a satellite of Jupiter, its distance from the sun varies, so we'll settle for 790,000,000 kilometers (about 490,883,242 miles). It is 3,636 km in diameter (1,942 miles). Compare that diameter to Earth's 12,742 km (7,918 miles) diameter. Io is a very cold place, what with being so far from the sun and all — except for the places with volcanoes, and it has lots of them.

"Prometheus Plume" on Io, NASA / JPL
The volcanic activity on pizza — I mean, Io — breaks all the cosmology rules. It should not be shooting hot plumes huge distances, the volcanic activity is hotter than a six gun in a speed-shooting competition (and hotter than anything on Earth), it keeps on erupting, and more. It should be cold, dead and quiet. Instead, it's another item that refutes "deep time" cosmology, and is evidence of a young solar system.
A moon of Jupiter slightly bigger than our moon shocked scientists in 1979 when Voyager cameras detected a volcanic plume in action. In the 34 years since, Io has never had a quiet day. It’s the most volcanically active body in the solar system—100 times more active than the earth. Io is a major mystery for believers in billions of years, but not for those who accept the biblical time frame.

This is a world that, if it were really old, should be freezing—not only on the outside, because of being far away from the sun, but on the inside, too. Smaller bodies cool down much more quickly than big ones, and Io is quite tiny on a solar system scale. So even taking radioactive decay into account, Io’s interior should have become cold a long time ago. Yet it is incredibly active, and keeps spewing out the hottest lava anywhere.
 You can finish reading by clicking on the hot link, "The violent volcanoes of Io".

Wednesday, January 07, 2015

The Schizophrenia Diagnosis Gamble

Some fields of study should not be called science because they fail to meet the standard definitions, but are included anyway. Others do meet the definitions, but are excluded on ideological grounds. Psychology and psychiatry are considered to be science, but they are inconsistent and nebulous, but are rooted in evolution and atheism, so they get to wear a science badge around town. Creation science is excluded, even though it fits the standard definitions of science as well as (and often far better) than evolutionary science.

Psychology and psychiatry give roll-of-the-dice diagnoses, and although many practitioners are well-intentioned, they really don't know what they're doing.
morgueFile / mconnors
As we see in evolutionary science, there is a great deal of speculation that is paraded as "science", and then Evolution's Acolytes will pass those things along as if they were established facts. Not hardly. Things like so-called "junk" DNA: Genomes are studied, not understood, then called useless junk from our alleged evolutionary past, then evolutionists are humiliated by real science. Similarly, we read about how cosmologists and cosmogonists are often surprised by scientific discoveries in the solar system that testify to a young universe, but still cling to their fundamentally flawed belief systems. Faulty worldviews hinder science, especially those based on evolutionism!

Like other evolution-based scientific fields, psychiatry and psychology have people giving their scientific speculations, but they really do not know how things work. The brain is not the mind, free will does not reside in the brain, nor does the soul. Secularists reject out of hand biblical values and explanations for someone's condition. Although some mental conditions are alleviated by medication, the doctors really do not know how or why things work; my own anti-depressant is actually an inexplicable side-effect of fish oil!

Psychotropic medication prescriptions are often a roll of the dice, and various "cocktails" of medications are dispensed and rearranged. Ever read the fine print or watch some television commercials for medications? They may make the condition worse, even causing suicidal thoughts. Don't get me started on Delaware, Virginia and Michigan being the top prescribers of Ritalin... This is science? It's bad enough when "humanists" speculate on the origins of life, but when they use their philosophies and literally mess with people's minds, that's contemptible. 

Schizophrenia is in dispute in scientific circles. Is it a real diagnosis, or something made up to make people look more scientific. For that matter, having a diagnosis of schizophrenia may cause someone to act in a manner that fulfills the diagnosis. There are psychologists who actually think that the diagnosis is meaningless, or even harmful.
Much as psychiatrists would like to help the afflicted, it doesn’t help to affix an empty label to an imprecise condition.

“Is schizophrenia a ‘real’ illness?” That’s the eye-catching title of Huw Green’s article in The Conversation. Green, a PhD student and “trainee” clinical psychiatrist at the University of New York, surveys competing groups of psychiatrists, from honest critics who want to update the definition, to radical revolutionaries who want to junk the term altogether. For instance, Thomas Szasz said that schizophrenia didn’t exist until psychiatrists invented the word.
You might think I'm crazy, but I recommend that you finish reading this article by clicking on "Schzophrenia: Diagnosis or Delusion?"