Creationism’s Predictions vs Evolution’s Predictions

Creationism predicts genetic entropy in nature, which means the DNA for humans was much better with the ancients than it is today while evolution predicts gains in function with the purpose of enhancing fitness. There was a study recently with Vitamin C which is interesting, because humans have lost the ability to manufacture it, so it must be obtained through a diet. And we are not the only ones, certain bats, and certain birds, some fish, guinea pigs and anthropoid have also lost the ability to manufacture Vitamin C.

The study was focused on why this has happened, in PLoS they say, “The ability to synthesize Vc has been reported in many ancestral vertebrate lineages, suggesting the ability for de novo synthesis is ancient.” Nowhere in the paper do the authors explain for the most part on how Vc emerged in the first place such as gains in function within various transitional forms. Rather, the paper mentions quite a bit on loss of function.

“Interestingly, ancestral sequence reconstruction exhibits a stepwise mutation pattern (figure 4) that starts around the time when the tested bat species first evolved from a common ancestor around 58 mya.”

“The ancestor of all bats maintains most of the original Laurasiatheria gene form (with only two mutations) after divergence with non-bat Laurasiatheria species; the ancestor of Hipposideridae, Rhinolophidae, and Megadermatidae (origin around 52 mya) has 3 mutations; the ancestor of Hipposideridae and Rhinolophidae (origin around 39 mya) has 4 mutations; the ancestor of Pteropodidae (origin around 23 mya) has 7 mutations; and the ancestor of the recently emerged Pteropus bats (around 3 mya) have 13 mutations, hence showing a stepwise accumulation of mutations during bat GULO evolution.”

They assume the evolutionary dating, but all this is showing is how many mutations a species had rather than gains that transforms the animal into a bat, what they are showing is the number of mutations with loss in function. Is this really evolution? Wouldn’t it be better for the body to already have the supplement instead of having to obtain it through diet? If any thing, the prediction of evolution would be the other way around. All this study consists of mutations taking away function. Their answer, well the humans and animals can eat, so it wasn’t necessary to manufacture the supplement.  It is interesting to note, the paper mentions, “the ancestor of all bats” but there is no common ancestor of bats! They just assume it because where is it? The oldest bat fossil is one hundred percent bat!

In another study from last year, Peter A. Lind, Otto G. Berg, and Dan I. Andersson from Uppsala University conducted an experiment on Salmonella bacterium which was published in the journal of science in November 2010. Their focus here was to come up with new insights on how evolution increases fitness. What surprised evolutionists about this experiment, the mutations caused a loss in fitness rather than an increase in fitness which also confirms the creationist prediction of genetic entropy in nature!

In another paper in Nature, “Experimental evolution reveals resistance to change” where it says…

“Experimental evolution systems allow the genomic study of adaptation, and so far this has been done primarily in asexual systems with small genomes, such as bacteria and yeast.  Here we present whole-genome resequencing data from Drosophila melanogaster populations that have experienced over 600 generations of laboratory selection for accelerated development.”  We conclude that, at least for life history characters such as development time, unconditionally advantageous alleles rarely arise, are associated with small net fitness gains or cannot fix because selection coefficients change over time.”

Science continues to confirm genetic entropy in nature and scientists are now taking a look at on how they they could restore the body being able to make  Vitamin C again. “The gene encoding GULO in guinea pigs and humans has become a pseudogene.” Wouldn’t that be great? No more having to ingest Vitamin C anymore!

Comets Delivering Water To Earth?

There are many problems with Astrobiology, in fact one could question its science vitality with the expansion of knowledge. Like in any false religion, they take a particular part of Scripture out of context and then build a whole doctrine around it.  As a result, they invent rescue explanations in order to preserve the doctrine. In Astrobiology, we see that also with the invented notion of  comets at one point in time delivering water to earth.

After many comets falsifying their story, one comet was discovered to have a D/H ratio that closely resembled the oceans on earth. It was hailed as a confirmation on their hypothesis. Astrobiology Magazine writes…

“However, the new results also raise new questions. Until now, scientists assumed that the distance of a body’s origin from the Sun correlated to the deuterium-to-hydrogen ratio in its water. The farther away this origin lies from the Sun, the larger this ratio should be. With a “birth place” within the Kuiper belt and thus well beyond the orbit of Neptune, Hartley 2, however, seems to violate this rule.”

“Either the comet originated in greater proximity to the Sun than we thought”, says Hartogh, “or the current assumptions on the distribution of deuterium have to be reconsidered.” And maybe Hartley 2 is a so-called Trojan that originated close to Jupiter and could never overcome its gravitational pull.”

While the discovery raises more questions than answers, does one comet among many others confirm their hypothesis? No! Only if you assume it to be true in the first place  then any tiny indication would be a confirmation. And yes, they are also trying to justify using taxpayers money for this particular research in tough economic times. So why are secular scientists searching for water on comets? After all, they reject the Bible that the earth was formed out of water and by water, creating a story that suggests dust baked from the sun clumped together over a massive amount of time that eventually formed the planet.

Then hot lava dominated the surface making it impossible for liquid water to exist. Tests also have been done on the dust story in the lab but those tests have failed to produce evidence for their formation of planets. So what credible evidence is there? None, it’s the only popular story secular scientists have came come up with that avoids special creation.

This is why there is a huge interest among planetary scientists to find water on comets. It needs to show how the earth became habitable for life that doesn’t conflict with its other story. But this discovery of one comet and the belief that comets delivered water to earth does in fact open a can of worms. Planetary scientists have to invent some sort of explanation on how comets were careful enough in not destroying the earth’s atmosphere,  or how oceans remained intact when huge comets hit the earth.

All this speculation doesn’t really expand any knowledge in science. Its not observable (we can go back in time to watch the event happen nor are they any eyewitness reports), its not testable nor repeatable but rather it contains nothing more than mere speculation. One comet certainly out of many doesn’t verify it either.

Why Are Lobbists Against Being Critical About Evolution?

Back in 2008, Louisiana passed a law that was very controversial in the minds of some, which states the following…

C.  A teacher shall teach the material presented in the standard textbook supplied by the school system and thereafter may use supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner, as permitted by the city, parish, or other local public school board unless otherwise prohibited by the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.

D.  This Section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.

The battle then turned to Texas science standards. The focus was on the strengths-and-weaknesses requirement for evolution and other theories. Lobbist Eugenie Scott and others lead the charge to remove the clause. They were successful! The language was removed but with something way better than anyone expected and to the horror of Scott! The new clause states as follows…

“in all fields of science, analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations so as to encourage critical thinking by the student.”

“Analyze and evaluate the evidence regarding formation of simple organic molecules and their organization into long complex molecules having information such as the DNA molecule for self-replicating life…analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning the complexity of the cell.”

This was one of the most important victories on how science should be taught in the public schools and a major blow to the opposition. Why would the likes of lobbist Eugenie Scott and the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology who voted to not hold their convention in Louisiana as a result of the bill being passed, would be so against it? Why would there be opposition for the likes of Don McLeroy who was chairmen on the state board of education in Texas? Why were there attempts to kill his nomination?

“Shapleigh said there is a perception that McLeroy is using the chairmanship of the State Board of Education as a bully pulpit for promoting his religious point-of-view and pushing it into the public arena.

The nomination was eventually voted upon, and Don McLeroy was not confirmed as chairmen. So why the fuss? Obviously part had to do with critical thinking and the other part had to do with a creationist pushing for its teaching to students rather than an evolutionist. But doesn’t critically analyze mean to criticize and if one criticizes evolution in light of this three-year law, does this mean public schools like in Louisiana and Texas now teaches the overturning of evolution’s status as a ‘theory’ by consensus? No! So why then was there and still continues to be so much opposition that even lead to the removal of a well qualified chairmen?

Eugenie Scott tries to give her own rational on why students at the public schools cannot be taught critical thinking when it comes to evolution…This was posted in youtube on July 7, 2011…

In the video at 46:29, she says…“Okay, what else can you not do? I have a little asterisk here. You cannot teach evidence against evolution. There have been some court decisions that have talked about this including Kitzmiller, but there has not been a really clean test of this idea of teaching evidence against evolution…”

Later on in the video she clarifies why you can’t teach evidence against evolution, “There is no evidence against evolution…Nothing out there is running a big neon light saying, ‘Whoa! Evolution fails here! We have to toss it out!’ But “critical thinking” which has been passed has nothing to do with that statement. And it can’t be replaced by creationism because it’s outlawed in the public schools!

So the only thing she can get paid for in this battle is being afraid on what students believe in evolution if they are taught to be more critical about it and find out it’s not as solid as they try to make you believe. But like one scientist told me in here, scientists are always critical of “theories” and finds no logical reason why students can’t be either. The fact of the matter is, Christians are way more tolerate of other people’s beliefs than what is demonstrated with the creationism vs evolution debate.

The fact of the matter is, it took a creationist to get the best science standards which allows students to critically analyze every theory including evolution!

Paleoanthropologist Frustrated Over Assumptions

In a field dedicated to the advancement of the evolutionary story, it has come up road block after road block. Considered a science in crisis! When they come up with a solution, it just creates more problems to solve and eventually gets overturned with direct evidence  which is an indication, the framework namely, evolution is faulty.

Paleoanthropologist Barnard Woods wrote an interesting, honest and frank reality of his work as well as others in his commentary in PNAS. His comments revolve around this premise; “The origin of our own genus remains frustratingly unclear.” In a previous paper, Wood points out there is confusion in his field about being certain which is which, “it’s not so easy to determine whether relatively new fossil finds are early members of the human evolutionary family or prehistoric apes.”

In physorg…

“The anthropologists question the claims that several prominent fossil discoveries made in the last decade are our human ancestors.  Instead, the authors offer a more nuanced explanation of the fossils’ place in the Tree of Life.  They conclude that instead of being our ancestors the fossils more likely belong to extinct distant cousins.”  Bernard Wood and Terry Harrison chided fellow paleoanthropologists for their jumping to conclusions: “to simply assume that anything found in that time range has to be a human ancestor is na ve.”

This reminds one of the hype with this assumption in a headline, “Prehuman Lucy on a Walking Path” to humanity.”  Barnard Woods is right in this regard, jumping to conclusions is not good but he also stated in 2006 when a research team claimed to have discovered bones in Ethiopia from three hominid species lined up in a vertical row, showing a clear progression toward humans “When you find 30 new hominid fossils, you are allowed a certain amount of conjecture.”

Now back to Woods recent comments…

“Although many of my colleagues are agreed regarding the “what” with respect to Homo, there is no consensus as to the “how” and “when” questions.  Until relatively recently, most  paleoanthropologists (including the writer) assumed Africa was the answer to the “where” question, but in a little more than a decade discoveries at two sites beyond Africa, one at Dmanisi in Georgia and the other at Liang Bua on the island of Flores, have called this assumption into question.”

“The results of recent excavations at Dmanisi reported in PNAS , which suggest that hominins visited that site on several occasions between ca. 1.85 and ca. 1.77 Ma, together with recent reassessments of the affinities of Homo habilis, are further reasons for questioning the assumption that Homo originated in Africa.”

Dmanisi specimens are hard to classify in the evolutionary framework, no doubt because you have things like Liang Bua specimens dubbed Homo floresiensis, that seem primitive but yet they overlap substantially with modern humans! The miniature humans remain very confusing to paleoanthropologists. Wood points out there is evidence that could support an opposite viewpoint too concerning our ancestors which to them migrated either out of Africa or into Africa. Not sure which, confused? They are!

It’s not surprising that Paleoanthropologists like Woods are frustrated with what’s going on over evolutionary assumptions. What progress have they done since Darwin’s time? It’s the wrong path, nothing more than a invented fictional story being passed along as factual! His field is full of rivalry, contradiction, deception, exaggeration and outright fraud and requires more faith than any known religion! Real science has some setbacks but does contain a progression in knowledge whether it be technology or medicine, yet it also is able to confirm the Bible!