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.
“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.
“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!