Search This Blog

Sunday, November 26, 2017

Evolution Study Spins Defeat into Victory

A basic tenet of universal common ancestor evolution is that the simpler things change vertically and become more complex. Looks good in pixels and on paper, but evolutionists are having a rough time giving plausible support for their conjectures. Some seem a mite confused, equating loss of features with upward evolution. This has been said about the cave fish that lost eyes, locomotion of the snake, and so on. Now we have a new example of propaganda where the spin is faster than those of my hard drive.

Genetic study shows evidence for creation and not human evolution
Credit: Pixabay / Patrick Neufelder
Using naturalistic presuppositions, a study on genetics failed to give any evidence of human evolution. That doesn't stop the lapdog secular science media from saying that evidence for evolution was discovered. Some modifications were shown, and devolution was evidence that Darwin was right. (Do those clowns work for the leftist news media, too?) Reality seems to elude them. Genetics actually shows that humans cannot be the age Darwinists require, and the logical conclusion is that we were created recently. The results of the study fit in mighty fine with what creationists expect.
The recent publication of a research paper evoked such headlines as “Massive genetic study shows how humans are evolving.” Despite the improvement of health-care technology, many other studies indicate that chronic disease among humans is increasing worldwide—and that mutations are commonly associated with disease, not upward evolutionary improvement. A closer analysis of this new study shows that its evolutionary conclusions are deeply flawed and humans are actually devolving. This is exactly what modern biomedical data shows and the Bible indicates is happening due to the effects of the Fall where the whole creation is subject to corruption.
To continue reading, click on "Massive Genetic Study Purporting Human Evolution Debunked".

Sunday, November 19, 2017

Further Confusion with Convergent Evolution

It is not secret that the only fossil evidence for particles-to-paleontologist evolution exists in the minds of the secular science industry and propagandists. There are biologists who disingenuously claim that practically every little change is "evolution". False fossils and equivocation aside, since there is no actual scientific evidence or plausible models for evolution, these owlhoots use another fact-free "explanation" for what cannot be explained scientifically: convergent evolution.


Convergent evolution is an unscientific pretense, not an explanation

Simply put, to invoke the miracle of convergent evolution is an act of foolishness. Take a passel of assertions about how critters evolved, find other critters that have similar traits, and give homage to Papa Darwin. Then pass it off as "science" and collect grant money. Pseudoscience for fun and profit. We have more examples of forcing fossils to fit the narrative. Pretty desperate to avoid the harsh reality that God created the world recently, and the Genesis Flood supports paleontological and geological evidence. Evolutionists, drop the pseudoscience and deal with the truth, savvy? 

Before I send you to the article, I have to let you know that when the author uses, "Who’s we, Paleface?" and similar quips, he's making reference to an old Lone Ranger joke.
When unrelated fossils have similar traits, evolutionary paleontologists twist, shove and stuff them into Darwin’s theory with an all-purpose tool called convergence.
It wasn’t supposed to work this way. Animals were supposed to diverge as they evolved. Branches on real trees do that. In neo-Darwinism, the branch tips in Darwin’s image of a branching tree should get farther apart the more they evolve, because neither branch knows what the other one is doing. But the real world is full of counter-examples, where unrelated animals end up becoming very similar. Even more often, fossils exhibit “mosaics” of traits from different branches, or from “stem” (early) or “crown” (mature) members of a single branch. It’s all very confusing to Mr. Darwin, so his disciples invented a trick to keep from getting their story falsified. It’s called convergence, and here’s how it works. (Note: Not being Darwinians, we will dispute inclusion in the occasional first-person plural pronouns.)
To keep reading and see the examples, click on "Convergence Crams Uncooperative Fossils into Darwinism".



Sunday, November 12, 2017

No Evidence for Dinosaur-to-Bird Evolution

Some folks insist on proclaiming that dinosaurs evolved into birds, and say it as if that's the fact, Jack. Although dinosaur-to-bird evolution is a popular dogma, it is not settled science. Some evolutionary scientists do not even accept that opinion. Also, there is considerable disagreement about which dinosaurs evolved into birds. Some say that there is insufficient evidence for a view, so they postulate another candidate for bird ancestry, which also has no evidence. Then there are the evolutionists who go the opposite way, and say that some birds evolved into dinosaurs!


The idea that dinosaurs evolved into birds is contrary to science and rational thought
Archaeopteryx lithographica credit: Wikimedia Commons / Ballista (GFDL 1.2)
If you reign in and spend a few moments pondering, you can see that there are many serious problems with the dino-to-bird concept. These include the fact that fossils of modern birds and dinosaurs have been found together, there is no evidence of bird evolution, evolutionists haven't a clue about alleged bird-to-dino changes, the incredible variety of birds, and so on. Then you have all the massive physiological changes that need to occur, such as flight and breathing. These need to have occurred at the same time, else the critter would ring down the curtain and join the choir invisible. No, dinosaurs and birds were created, and Darwin's disciples cannot change that fact.
A review of the extensive literature covering the more popular theories of the evolution of birds was completed. Of the numerous theories proposed, all were found to be problematic, and for this reason most are now rejected by evolutionists. The most popular current theory, the evolution of birds from dinosaurs, was briefly reviewed, and also found to suffer from major problems, some of which were discussed. The major problem is the differences between birds and both reptiles and mammals, and the fossil record has not been of much help in solving this evolutionary problem. Nor have genetic or biochemical comparisons.
To read the rest, click on "Dino-bird theory—a flight of fancy". Also, you may want to read about soft tissues that were discovered in bird fossils

In related and more recent news:
A new discovery forced a rewrite of bird evolution. Chinese fossil discoveries ballooned the number of birds found among dinosaur-containing rocks. Until now, the oldest Chinese fossil birds, found in Lower Cretaceous deposits, had unique anatomies that seemed better suited for climbing or occasional gliding than for powered flight like most modern birds. However, Upper Cretaceous deposits have long revealed modern-looking bird anatomies. The supposed time difference between Lower and Upper layers permitted around 40 million years for modern bird anatomy to evolve. But it only takes one good fact to shoot a bad story out of the sky.
For the rest of that article, click on "Bird Evolution Story Crash-Lands".

Finally, here is a combination screenshot from an atheopath that is so determined to contradict creationists, he makes a fool of himself, showing his ignorance of the subject and apparently making up his own "facts" through arbitrary assertions. This character demonstrates my contention that he does not even read the material he "debunks", and supports my contention that rabid anti-creationists are afraid to read creationary articles or watch videos because then, they may realize that God is the Creator and Judge, and they are facing a terrible eternity.



Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes

Sunday, November 05, 2017

Parasite Wasps and Venom Origins

We know about predators in the wild: a lion sees a gazelle, kills, eats. A cousin of the predator is the parasite, which does not kill the (usually unwilling) host outright, but depends on the host for its own survival. It may eventually kill the host. There are predators and parasites in the world of insects. A particularly nasty form is in the form of parasitoid wasps.


Credit: CSIRO science image
Some people wonder, "What good are wasps and their other stinging relatives? They don't make honey, and a hornet packs a mighty big punch in its stinger." Well, I certainly don't want their company, either. But they do have uses of which we are unaware, such as controlling other insect pests and doing pollination. Some of that control comes from predation — and parasitism. 

They parasitoid wasps (many of which are extremely small) immobilize and even control the host through venom. Then it places eggs in or on the hapless host, and when they hatch, they feed on it. When the host dies, they don't pay it no nevermind, its services are no longer required. Kind of makes me reluctant to use the word host in polite society, because human hosts for shindigs are willing and tend to survive the events.

Someone pointed out that the "face hugger" in the first Alien movie was parasitoid, as the unfortunate crew member discovered. Didn't it happen in Alien 3, too, with Sigourney Weaver's character as she was sacrificing herself? Then they brought her back in the next sequel as a clone; the same thing only different. Being parasitoidal (is that a real word?) is similar to what evolutionary conjectures do to real science, if you study on it.

Anyway, the parasitoid term is an evolutionary classification. Not because of science, but because of wishful thinking and ipse dixit. Whoopsie daisy! Y'all can tell I got a mite involved in doing research before posting to the main article about serious scientific research on venom. Where did venom originate? Evolutionists learn more and can explain less, as the genetics and varieties involved in venom are beyond their ken. Still they give homage to Darwin, blessed be! How did attack-defense mechanisms with venom occur when creation was very good in the beginning? Biblical creationists have some reasonable speculations to offer.
Providing food for one’s younglings is perhaps a mother’s most basic job, even for a mother wasp. Parasitoid wasps do this in a rather gruesome way. They lay their eggs in or on another arthropod, like a caterpillar, cockroach, or spider. When the eggs hatch, their parasitic larvae slowly consume the victim’s body, deriving nourishment and protection until they are ready to go forth into the world as adult wasps.
Parasitoid wasps are a diverse and abundant component of agricultural ecosystems. They are only parasitic while in their larval stage. While some parasitoid wasps target invertebrates that we humans “like,” the majority of the estimated 600,000 species prey upon pests that attack our food crops, making them our allies despite their ghoulish habits.
To read the rest, click on "Parasitoid Wasps Shed Light on the Origin of Venom". Also, a short, fascinating, and somewhat grisly video is below.