Search This Blog

Sunday, August 28, 2016

Darwinian Daydreaming

Scientists interpret data and make arguments according to their worldview, we all get that. But if you saddle up and ride over to the Darwin Ranch by Deception Pass, you'll notice the aroma of mental synapses short-circuiting. Why? Because the scientific evidence is downright hostile to evolution, but they have to keep their phony-baloney jobs. 


Evolutionary scientists are getting worse at offering "maybe" and circular reasoning as evidence of evolution. Perhaps they are getting desperate because the science is increasingly hostile to evolution?
Image generated at Atom-Smasher
This interpretation of the evidence goes well into begging the question and other logical fallacies. F'rinstance, evolutionary scientists assume evolution in the first place, asking how something evolved rather than if something evolved. Then they wonder why they don't have plausible models. Creationary scientists do not have to resort to extreme speculations that they have to present as "science".

In the reports at the link, look for the rock-solid scientific terms like maybe, could have, convergent evolution, accelerated evolution, possibly, and so on. Fact is, making assertions that sound scientific do not make something scientific. Unfortunately, the gullible faithful take these speculations and run with them. To read the reports, click on "Darwinism as All-Purpose Fiction Plot".

Evolutionary scientists are getting worse at offering "maybe" and circular reasoning as evidence of evolution. Perhaps they are getting desperate because the science is increasingly hostile to evolution?

Sunday, August 21, 2016

Deplorable Denisovans Further Fluster Evolutionists

While advocates of scum-to-stalker evolution are still mourning over the loss of the Neanderthal as a transitional form (that bad boy was fully human), there are more packages aboard the Evolutionary Bad News Express. This time, it's the Denisovans. The Denisova Cave in Siberia's Altai Mountains yielded a few fragments, including a tooth. Scientists like teeth, because dentin (the stuff under tooth enamel) is very durable. Bones are nice, too.


Not much remains of the Denisovan people, but their genome reveals factors that are problematic for evolutionists. Much of what is found supports what biblical creationists expect.
Denisovan phalanx image credit: Thilo Parg / Wikimedia Commons License: CC BY-SA 3.0
Even thought the fragments are 41,000 years old in Darwinspeak, scientists were able to sequence the genome. I reckon they were pretty close to tears after what they found. Methylation —

"What's methylation?"

It comes from mint oil, and is used in ointments, cough remedies, to add flavor —

"That's menthol, you facetious —"

All right, all right, just quirting you a bit. 

Methylation has to do with epigentics and gene expression, as well as DNA repair and moving methyl group atoms around. Modern humans, Neanderthals, and Denisovans are quite similar in the genome, yet evolutionists try to make the small variation in methylation into evidence that we all took different forks in the evolutionary trail. Like the Neanderthals, the Denisovans spread their DNA around. Traces of it are found in Tibetans, Pacific Islanders, and others. We have some of their DNA as well. Problems were found, which possibly contribute to our illnesses, and may have hastened the Denisovan demise.

There are several other important factors in the Denisovan genome that are what biblical creationists would expect to find, and cause evolutionists to go into rescuing device (excuses) mode.
A new chapter in the human origins debate opened in the year 2000 with the discovery of a new kind of archaic human called Denisova. Now not just the fossils are available to researchers but also DNA. Paleogenetics can now allegedly settle long-lasting questions due to the incompleteness of the fossil record, although DNA sequence veracity is a matter of concern among creationists.

Denisovans were discovered in the Upper Paleolithic layer 11.1 of Denisova Cave in southern Siberia, their remains consisting of, surprisingly, a distal manual phalanx and a molar tooth found at the same archaeological site from two individuals supposedly from the same population.

The Denisovan genome has been analyzed over the past few years, with sweeping claims of their cognitive capabilities, external appearance, and even detailed population dynamics. Based on such a small number of fossil remains, it is premature to draw too many robust scientific conclusions from the analysis of Denisova. Creation theory would predict that an archaic human would fit very well into the created human kind, as we shall see in the following.
To see what follows, click on "Denisovans menace evolution—a new chapter in the human origins debate".

Not much remains of the Denisovan people, but their genome reveals factors that are problematic for evolutionists. Much of what is found supports what biblical creationists expect.

Sunday, August 14, 2016

Immune System Surveillance and Communication

With increasing knowledge and improving technology, scientists are continually gaining big information about little things way down at the cellular level and beyond. Isn't it human nature to want to know how things work? In this case, how certain white blood cells are working in the immune system.

A recent discovery regarding special cells in the immune system, how they communicate in the brain and gastrointestinal tract, help illustrate the specified complexity of our Creator's work.
Image credit: Clker clipart
An unintentional discovery led to a hypothesis that was confirmed regarding how this cell works in both the brain and gastrointestinal tract. It's doing surveillance duty, and the two regions are communicating so they can send our internal cavalry charging to the rescue. This is yet another example of the specified complexity that our Creator used to benefit his creation.
After investing so much time and effort to understand how body parts interact, scientists keep turning up new and unforeseen connections—often when they ask the right questions. New and strange developments inspired a team to ask wacky questions about a unique white blood cell called Ly6Chi. And they found some profound answers.

Publishing in Cell Reports, German and U.S. scientists asked why the same cells showed up both in mouse brain and gut. They also asked why mouse brains stopped certain activities after antibiotics erased the helpful bacteria from mouse gut contents. The team knew Ly6Chi cells were present in a region of the brain’s hippocampus called the dentate gyrus (DG) that builds new cells as mice learn new things. This also happens in other mammals including man. What’s going on with these cells?
To read the rest, click on "Special Cells Help Brain and Gut Communicate".

A recent discovery regarding special cells in the immune system, how they communicate in the brain and gastrointestinal tract, help illustrate the specified complexity of our Creator's work.

Sunday, August 07, 2016

Fundamentally Flawed Scientific Research

Despite the protestations of Darwin's Cheerleaders, scientists are not free of bias. Everyone has a worldview, and we interpret information according to this and the underlying presuppositions. Have you ever seen a scientist going around accumulating data about various things, then going back and coming up with laws, theories, and so forth? It doesn't work that way. Scientists are human, with desires, agendas, greed, pride, altruism, faith, and everything else that "regular" people have. They are also prone to cheating and even fraud.


Scientists work from their worldviews, and many have an atheistic materialism worldview. This naturally leads to serious flaws in research, affecting healthcare, psychology, and origins research.
Generated at GlassGiant.com
Reports have been galloping in about bad peer review, tests that cannot be replicated, plagiarism, and more. This is prominent in common-ancestor origins research (after all, they're living according to their "survival of the fittest" worldview). When scientists operate from a realm of naturalism and deny the Creator, a whole heap of bad stuff comes out of them. This is alarming when they cheat on research in healthcare, psychology, and other areas.
We tend to think of science as a dispassionate (impartial, neutral) search for truth and certainty. But is it possible that we are facing a situation in which there is a massive production of wrong information or distortion of information? Is it possible that certain scientific disciplines are facing a crisis of credibility? Mounting evidence suggests this is indeed the case, which raises two questions: How serious is the problem? And what could explain this?

How Serious Is the Problem?
Recent articles in First Things, The Week, and New Scientist present evidence that warrants the conclusion that flawed scientific research results are widespread.

The title of an editorial in the prestigious medical journal The Lancet, dated April 6, 2002, asks the question, “Just How Tainted Has Medicine Become?” The article states, “Heavily, and damagingly so, is the answer.” Among other things, in 2001, researchers completed experiments with biotechnology products in which they had a direct financial interest and doctors did not tell their patients that others had died using these products when safer alternatives were available. In the same journal, dated April 11, 2015, Dr. Richard Horton stated the gravity of the problem as follows: “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue . . . science has taken a turn towards darkness.”
To read more about the darkness in science, click on "Is Scientific Research Flawed?"

Scientists work from their worldviews, and many have an atheistic materialism worldview. This naturally leads to serious flaws in research, affecting healthcare, psychology, and origins research.