Nothing In Biology Makes Sense In Light Of Evolution

Countless experiments have turned up nothing for evolution. In fact, it has created more confusion within its explanations that causes more complexity rather than more clarity. The story of evolution always sounds better than the actual observations.

In phys.org

“Evolution by definition is cold and merciless: it selects for success and weeds out failure. It seems only natural to expect that such a process would simply favour genes that help themselves and not others.”

We have all heard this many times, survival of the fittest, subjecting humans to mere animals (because they claim, that is where they came from), this is the supposed undeniable fact taught in public schools and argued abroad because the majority of secular science researchers proclaims it.

However, nature says otherwise…

“Yet cooperative behaviour can be observed in many areas, and humans helping each other are a common phenomenon. Thus, one of the major questions in science today is how cooperative behaviour could evolve.”

A new “theoretical model” sounds like this is common in research, however allowing two opposing outcomes in a computer program that depends on various factors that are tweaked, is setting themselves up for more failure (adding more questions than answers due to falsifications). The real world always has had ways of countering computer software programs. Without field work, this is just inventing a story that is inserted into the evolutionary explanation because it was something that Darwin and the rest of the evolutionists didn’t have any predictions for!

Looks like dinosaurs were not that huge after all, which was an argument used by evolutionists against Noah’s flood. To them it was impossible to fit these large creatures into the Ark. New research has shown this is not the case, that dinosaurs are not that huge!

In another article in science daily

“University of Manchester biologists used lasers to measure the minimum amount of skin required to wrap around the skeletons of modern-day mammals, including reindeer, polar bears, giraffes and elephants. They discovered that the animals had almost exactly 21% more body mass than the minimum skeletal ‘skin and bone’ wrap volume, and applied this to a giant Brachiosaur skeleton in Berlin’s Museum für Naturkunde.”

“Previous estimates of this Brachiosaur’s weight have varied, with estimates as high as 80 tonnes, but the Manchester team’s calculations – published in the journal Biology Letters – reduced that figure to just 23 tonnes. The team says the new technique will apply to all dinosaur weight measurements.”

This is ongoing research that has room for improvement, so future calculations could change, but the new research is more accurate than the old research, which was off by 350 percent!

“Volumetric methods are becoming more common as techniques for estimating the body masses of fossil vertebrates but they are often accused of excessive subjective input when estimating the thickness of missing soft tissue.”

Sexual selection is what evolutionists believe that led to color bands in zebra finches. So they made it the replicated experiment in behavioral ecology. Four Experiments and a Meta-Analysis failed to turn up anything for evolution.

In PLoS

“Combining this new experimental data with all the published evidence in a meta-analysis shows that color bands seem to affect neither male courtship rate (average effect size d = 0.02) nor male body mass (d = −0.07),” they said.  “…The present case is a reminder that replication of experiments lies at the heart of distinguishing between real effects and false positive findings.”

No effect means that sexual selection in evolutionary terms had nothing to do with color bands in zebra finches!

Wow, here is a theory considered to be so flexible it can accommodate any unexpected data even if that data opposes one another like cooperation vs survival of the fittest, so its accommodating, workable, long-lasting, agreeable, useful, convincing, practical, stable, functional, pleasing, agreeable, and most importantly, unscientific with all the data!

About these ads

19 thoughts on “Nothing In Biology Makes Sense In Light Of Evolution

  1. Huh… weird. It’s just that going into Google Scholar and searching for “evidence for evolution” or even just “biological evolution” or “evolution by natural selection” provides reams and reams of evidence to the contrary.
    In fact, a few years ago National Geographic ran this magazine.
    It’s just strange how blogs that actually testify to their own bias (“Promoting Curiosity and Knowledge of True Science which Verifies God’s Word”) are pretty much the only place one can find arguments like this.

    Just a little comment to promote a little curiosity.

  2. Allallt,

    “What Evolution is” back in 2001 by Atheist Ernst Mayr of Harvard which says this…

    “Evolution is a historical process that cannot be proven by the same arguments and methods by which purely physical or functional phenomena can be documented. Evolution as a whole, and the explanation of particular evolutionary events, must be inferred from observations.”

    Mayr realized the reality of what evolution really is despite what your trying to argue, even though he rejected creationism. Other experiments on mutations like on the fruit fly produced no clarity for evolution, in fact the fruit flies became more resistant to change as more mutations were produced in the lab. The tiny changes that were made early on in the experiment, didn’t change the species into another one, not even close. If evolution was true, the fruit flies would have been more open to change as the mutations continued. So what is considered an evolution event must be inferred in an unscientific manner rather than what the data has actually produced.

  3. “What Evolution is” back in 2001 by Atheist Ernst Mayr of Harvard which says this…

    “Evolution is a historical process that cannot be proven by the same arguments and methods by which purely physical or functional phenomena can be documented. Evolution as a whole, and the explanation of particular evolutionary events, must be inferred from observations.”

    Yet another masterpiece of creationist selective quoting, which twists Mayr’s words. The very next sentence in Mayr’s What Evolution Is (p.13) states—

    “[Evolutionary inferences] have by now been tested successfully so often that they are accepted as certainties.”

    It’s hard to believe that Michael read only the first sentence, and completely blanked out the one that followed it. Therefore, this seems not to be an oversight, but a deliberate deception on Michael’s part.

    But we’re used to that, aren’t we? One of the (many) reasons for creationism’s failure to gain any headway against evolution is the lack of honesty and integrity of the creationists. Back in the 1920s, when “creation science” was a-borning, there were a few who protested against this tendency toward misinterpretation and fabrication. But those voices have been stilled in the desperate attempt to convince the ignorant of a crumbling position.

    It’s got so bad that creationists don’t even cite each others’ work in their pseudo-scientific papers. They can’t build upon it, because they can’t trust its accuracy.

    Now that’s sad.

  4. Countless experiments have turned up nothing for evolution

    One word: “Richard Lenski”

    Wikipedfia has an entire entry devoted to “Experimental evolution”

    In evolutionary and experimental biology, the field of experimental evolution is concerned with testing hypotheses and theories of evolution by use of controlled experiments. Evolution may be observed in the laboratory as populations adapt to new environmental conditions and/or change by such stochastic processes as random genetic drift. With modern molecular tools, it is possible to pinpoint the mutations that selection acts upon, what brought about the adaptations, and to find out how exactly these mutations work. Because of the large number of generations required for adaptation to occur, evolution experiments are typically carried out with microorganisms such as bacteria, yeast or viruses. However, laboratory studies with foxes and with rodents (see below) have shown that notable adaptations can occur within as few as 10-20 generations and experiments with wild guppies have observed adaptations within comparable numbers of generations. (Footnote refs omitted)

    There is indisputable observational evidence in the present for the mechanisms of evolution: heritable mutations, competition for resources, and natural selections. Michael cannot gainsay that; the best he can do is to argue that these mechanisms may not have been powerful enough to produce all of the evolution we see from thew historical record.

    Meanwhile, creationism has presented the world with no mechanism whatever for special creation. Not a clue as to how God—or anything else—designed or created different species. In other words, creationism tells us nothing at all that is of any use.

    Creationism fails on this ground alone. Even if it were true, it would be vacuous and useless.

    ——————-

    The 18th Century saw the mechanical age. It’s paradigm was the clock. Explanations for how the world worked centered around mechanical contrivances. The 19thC saw the industrialist age, whose paradigm was the steam engine. The concept of energy was expanded into explaining many diverse phenomena—even Freud’s “mental energies.” The 20thC was the Information Age. The brain was no longer an engine bur a computer. The 21stC is already shaping up to be thew century of life. Great advances will be made from studying living organisms, how they function and how they evolve. Creationists try to drag us back by preventing our children from learning about it.

    But they can;t kill evolution. All they can do is move it to China and India, where it will create more jobs for them, guaranteeing that the US will fall further behind in this new age.[1]

    =================

    [1] Notice how many successful technology start-ups come from immigrants or their children. The US still has the best university and graduate-education system in the world. Other countries have much better primary and secondary systems. So immigrants come here for college with their better preparation. Is it any wonder that so many tech businesses, and so many science-prize winners have “foreign” sounding names? Of course, with the present US immigration policies driving them away after graduation, many foreign students return to their home countries and ply their innovations there, further aggravating US decline.

  5. There is so much false and misleading material in this post, it is difficult to know where to start. How about another out-of-context quote?

    “Evolution by definition is cold and merciless: it selects for success and weeds out failure. It seems only natural to expect that such a process would simply favour genes that help themselves and not others.”

    We have all heard this many times, survival of the fittest, subjecting humans to mere animals (because they claim, that is where they came from), this is the supposed undeniable fact taught in public schools and argued abroad because the majority of secular science researchers proclaims it.

    This, of course, is the exact opposite of what this phys.org article says. The article describes how cooperation evolves despite the simple-minded (i..e., creationist) view that cooperation is prohibited by evolution.

    Evolution seeks increased “fitness”. But fitness often increases with altruistic behavior, even at the expense of the individual who incurs the cost. Kinship altruism is obvious, because genes are shared; but any conspecific altruism can benefit the giver. Even interspecific altruism can benefit—such as cleaner birds and hippopotamus. Evolution does not “predict” or “require” otherwise.

    There is no magic in this. Game theory predicts it. Where two players interact over a period of time, for example, the optimum strategy is tit-for-tat with initial cooperation. Both players come out ahead, even the one who is occasionally dumped on by an opponent.[1]

    So here we have another example of Michael’s deliberate twisting of what someone said. Second one in the same blog. Michael apparently has no shame. Did he really think no one would notice?

    ——————

    That dinosaurs may have weighed only 21 tonnes instead ofr 80 is evidence for creationism? Desperate.

    ——————

    That zebra-finch stripes are a single exception proves that body features have no role in sexual selection in general? Michael should contemplate why he finds some women more physically attractive than others. Hundreds, if not thousands, of other experiments have demonstrated sexual selection in hundreds if not thousands of species. Can you say “cichlid.”

    —————–

    Wow, here is a theory considered to be so flexible it can accommodate any unexpected data even if that data opposes one another like cooperation vs survival of the fittest, [2] so its accommodating, workable, long-lasting, agreeable, useful, convincing, practical, stable, functional, pleasing, agreeable, and most importantly, unscientific with all the data!

    No, Michael. The problem is your ignorance of evolution, and of the scientific process in general. Until you actually learn something about it, you will not have a clue how to argue against it. This is partly why scientists laugh at creationists

    But only partly.

    ================

    [1] Surprisingly enough, the existence of “cheaters” actually enhances this effect.

    [2] Would anyone care to unravel any possible coherent meaning from this word salad?

  6. Sorry, I’m using WordPress’ notification page, and I seem to be getting confused. The last comment I sent to this post doesn’t mean anything. Let me try again (oddly, I seem to have the worst luck with you posts. I look like a clumsy fool on this page).

    How about: all of science is inferred from observations. Or how about the fact that the observations are from archaeology, palaeontology, genetics, fossils, experiment (look up experimental evolution, you may be angered by what we actually know but creationist apologists aren’t telling you).

    How about ring species?

    Observed speciation?

  7. Quote mining … it never seems to bother creationists. Which never ceases to surprise me, at it is so obviously wrong.

  8. Allallt,

    Ring species fits nicely into the creationist model. For example, the herring gull is a different species than say, a lesser black-backed gull. We are told they cannot interbreed, therefore they are different species. Studies in North America concerning the herring gull population reveal something interesting. The gulls become more like black-backed gulls, and less like herring gulls, even though they can still interbreed with herring gulls from Britain. From Alaska and then into Siberia, each successive population looks more like a the black-backed than a herring and take note, each gull population is able to interbreed with those you studied just before you moved further west!

    The creationist model doesn’t promote unfixed populations rather variants within a kind. The herring gull and the lesser black-backed gull could not have been originally created as two separate species reproducing only after their kind, or else they would not be joined by a chain of interbreeding intermediates! Do you see what I mean? Also, without requiring any ‘novelties by new mutations which is the case with ring species, ancestral species can split into other species within the limits of the information already present in that kind! Created after their kind as the Bible puts it!

    Speaking of species, the most fit and adaptable species on earth that can withstand extremes is bacteria. If nature is going by survival of the fittest, why would bacteria which is already extremely fit, require more complexity that turns into a species that is less fit? Also, why would bacteria labeled in the evolutionary time frame of 250 Million years contain modern protein-coding genes? (Here is the link)

    “Almost without exception, bacteria isolated from ancient material have proven to closely resemble modern bacteria at both morphological and molecular levels.” Heather Maughan*, C. William Birky Jr., Wayne L. Nicholson, William D. Rosenzweig§ and Russell H. Vreeland

  9. No, Michael. Ring species may be consistent with special creation in some respects. But evolution explains ring species—this is something that creationism cannot do.
    That is: Why are there such things as ring specie4s?
    >Cretionism: I dunno; there just are.
    > Evolution: Because population separation causes adjacent populations to accumulate different variations according to their locations. At some point, the variations are great enough to prevent interbreeding.

    .

    Here’s another one: Why were there no mammals in Australia? Why no turkeys in Europe?
    > Creationism: Because no mammals happened to have floated to Australia, and all the turkeys decided to float to North America from where the Ark landed..
    > Evolution:Because Australia separated from its neighbors before the rise of mammals; because turkeys evolved in North America, with an ocean separating them from the rest of the world.

    OK, so variation within kinds is permitted by creationism.[1] Would we expect to find the minimum genetic variation or the maximum variation where the Flood happened to deposit a “kind”?
    > Creationism: Minimum.
    > Maximum.[2]

    =====================================

    [1] I would, however, like to see your biblical basis for that. Because I think you made it up to fit the facts of evolution.

    [2] For the experimental answer to that one, look up “Vavilov’s Law.”

  10. Define a kind. This is important, because if “species” and “kind” are not interchangeable terms then you have invented a term, and it needs to be tied down before it’s a massive moving goal post.

    Bacteria is not a species.

    Some species of bacteria are extremely versatile. Versatile bacterium only become less versatile if their environment no longer demands certain resistances from them.

    However, if you read the link it talks about methodological errors that result in the conclusion that the bacteria is indeed a long-isolated species, instead of just being a contaminant species.

    Not to mention that a “modern” protein coding gene (although highly improbable) might just appear twice.
    However, the linked paper basically says it’s a contaminant species.

  11. The Genesis 1 creation story has this to say about kinds

    (Genesis 1:12): “And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.”

    (Genesis 1:21): “And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.”

    (Genesis 1:24): “And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.”

    (Genesis 1:25): “And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.”

    Biblical scholars see this phraseology as a purely symbolic poetic conceit. Even if one were to attempt a factual interpretation, however, a reasonable person would take it to mean that you don’t get cows when you breed horses, or kumquats when you breed plums. This is the Captain Obvious approach.

    Creationists have wrestled with this term—“baramin” in Hebrew–but it remains a nose of wax that can be bent to any desired shape.

    Allallt is justified in demanding a definition; but it will not be forthcoming.

    To really crank a creationist, ask him how many “kinds” of bacteria there are, and on which of the six days bacteria were created. And whether archea were created on the same day or not. Oh, and fungi. Ask about fungi.

  12. Olorin & Allallt: thank you for having the patience to point out some of the numerous flaws in this post. Your patience is admirable, and your perseverance laudable.

  13. Olorin,

    Listen,

    “Phylogenetic reconstruction using the complete genome sequence not only failed to recover the correct evolutionary history because of these convergent changes, but the true history (meaning evolutionary assumptions) was rejected as being a significantly inferior fit to the data.”

    Evolutionary researchers using hundreds of animal genomes for the purpose of trying to see how visible the “phylogentic tree” is. If anything could show a progression of lower and simpler life forms that supposedly evolved into more complex or higher life forms, the animals genomes would be the perfect experiment! Books would be re-written, science Journals and media outlets would be going crazy, praising the discovery as a possible break through in science of the year! Headlines all over the world, revealing how these scientists increased knowledge in evolution with their experiment.

    However, this is when the funeral starts, the outcome was quite a disappointed for them with their findings. As it turns out, the evolutionary signal is very weak to say the least. Only a tiny fraction of genomes show even minimal support for a phylogenetic (evolutionary) tree. Not even in the ballpark! At the lower levels, only a mere 12 percent hit the bar while a strong 88 percent did not. Which means most of data in the experiment rejects the evolutionary assumptions. At higher levels or orders the scores were even lower. The maximum score was 10 in primates, and 0.0 in 75 other orders. There is only one way the data is going to match up with the “evolutionary tree” and that is to have massive increases in sequence data to bring that score up to a level comparable to that of the best-supported higher taxa.

    Inventions of more stories about evolution, anyone?

    Olorin, where is the hard evidence? If you can’t use animal genomes what can you use?

    Like I said, nothing in biology makes sense in light of evolution! :)

    This typifies evolutionary research as we know it today because of all the falsifications that have occurred.

    “Evolution is a lot of fun,” said Bejerano, who plans to continue the investigation into what the ultraconserved segments might be doing. “You answer one question, and five others pop up.”

    That’s assuming the answer for that one question is actually correct…lol

  14. Michael, if you’ will vouchsafe to me the source for your comment just above, I’ll answer it.. Perhaps not right away, as I am till recovering from surgery.

    Given the reputation of creations for rampant dishonesty, it is prudent to reject any unverified material out of hand. It’s hard to tell even what you are talking about.

  15. “Phylogenetic reconstruction using the complete genome sequence not only failed to recover the correct evolutionary history because of these convergent changes, but the true history (meaning evolutionary assumptions) was rejected as being a significantly inferior fit to the data.”

    Never mind. I found the quote. And, once again, Michael has cited a paper that not only does not support his position, but actually shows strong evidence FOR evolution.

    For example, Michael claims “experimental evolution” does not exist. Yet this paper describes a massive lab-controlled experiment in bacterial evolution. Michael denies natural selection, yet this experiment produced wholesale increases in fitness—more than 4,000 times over the original population.Michael claims that “convergent evolution” is actually common design. Yet the documentation kept throughout all generations of this experiment show exactly how these convergences were produced in small steps of evolution over many generations.[2]

    Michael cites this relatively old paper[1] for the proposition that all genetic reconstructions of phylogenetic trees are inaccurate, and differ from morphological reconstructions of the same phylogeny.

    However, the significance of this paper is that this experiment is an EXCEPTION to the general accuracy of genetic reconstructions—as noted in the title. The purpose of the paper is to explain why the usual tools did not work, in this case, and to describe the reason they produced false results. In fact, the paper itself enumerates a number of example where the standard techniques produced results that did accord well with the morphological trees,[3]

    So the importance of this paper is to describe the conditions under which the conventional tools may be expected to lead to inaccuracies.[4] The authors note that these factors “are atypical of what is though to apply to most organisms.” However, as is the goal of all research, this paper invites further inquiry a to when inaccuracies could be expected, and how to compensate for them—such as in evaluation of viral ans bacterial drug resistance (p.1506, col. 1).

    .

    However, this is when the funeral starts, the outcome was quite a disappointed for them with their findings. As it turns out, the evolutionary signal is very weak to say the least. Only a tiny fraction of genomes show even minimal support for a phylogenetic (evolutionary) tree.

    Once again,Michael has no idea what he’s talking about, and is merely depositing keywords, regardless of their import. One of these days he may even learn a little about evolution. At least his augments might not be quite so ridiculous.

    ========================

    [1] Bull, et al., “Exceptional Convergent Evolution of a Virus,” Genetics 147:1497-1507 (Dec. 1997)

    [2] The observed genetic substitutions did in fact contribute to fitness increases. See p.1503. col. 2.

    [3] See examples in the references to Bull et al. 1993; Hillis et al. 1992; Hillis et al. 1994; Yin 1993.;

    [4] Large populations of replicate lineages with virtually identical small initial genomes exposed to identical selective environments,with high selection pressure. (p.1505, col. 1)

  16. Carmel Atheists, it’s not all work with no play. Certainly the same old arguments over and over again get tiresome. Michael’s abounding ignorance is often humorous, altho his deliberate lies about science are not.

    But occasionally Michael trots out an interesting paper on cosmology or evolution that I had missed. Then I learn a lot—not just about the subject matter f the paper, but also about how to tease apart an invalid argument. (In a former life, I was a patent attorney, and had to analyze and counter arguments from the Patent Office all the time.. And, heaven help me, I miss that.)

    I hope these comments also help passersby to the blog. One can say that Michael is wrong, wrong, wrong. But it won’t convince anyone without explaining exactly what is wrong, and why.: Mistaken facts, out-of-context quotes, logical fallacies, or whatever. (Usually a combination.).

    At least Michael allows comments, and does not ban dissenters. This is highly unusual in creationist websites and blogs.

    There is enough material here to chew on. The problem is, I’m afraid it’s getting too easy…..

  17. Olorin: “At least Michael allows comments, and does not ban dissenters. This is highly unusual in creationist websites and blogs.”

    That is very true, and therefore it remains a useful exercise to point out here the countless errors, misconceptions, etc.
    But Olorin is also right that it is too easy, as most material that “Michael” presents comes from elsewhere, and often already has been shot to pieces. So the repeats are getting tiresome, and one keeps hoping for something ‘new’.

    But ‘something new’ is clearly not part of what makes creationists tick …

  18. . . . . . . . . . .Nothing In Biology Makes Sense In Light Of Evolution

    How about: “Nothing makes light of the sense in evolution”

    ((When I write serious music, I leave no tone unsterned. When I throw rocks at seabirds, I leave no tern unstoned. When I paint boats, I leave no stern untoned.))

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s