New Discoveries About Neanderthals Continues to Falsify Old Assumptions

Neanderthals for many years have this story about them based on the hypothesis of evolution. Yes, hypothesis because I’m not longer calling evolution a “theory” because usually most theories have so much more scientific evidence than what evolution provides.

Neanderthals is a clear example of Paleoanthropologists making up behaviors, how Neanderthals lived, their level of intelligence and what they may have sounded like and often referred to as “brutes” was all based on evolution and you know what? They have been so way off the mark because of their belief in evolution!

In Spain, discoveries were found that Neanderthals had ancient tools like drills and scrapers which they used to process minerals in the caves. Neanderthals created artwork which gave us some insight on how they really lived. They also had their own language which didn’t entail grunting noises as suggested! In the Smithsonian Magazine published on May 19, 2019 said that for years (evolutionists and some non-evolutionists) people described Neanderthals as “stocky, stooped figures, preternaturally low-browed, who became extinct as sapiens inherited the earth.” Basically the fairytale suggested that Neanderthals were too primitive so they went extinct.

In the beginning, if researchers had used the scientific method like they were supposed to do rather than use the discovery for the evolutionary tree without evidence, Neanderthals would have been considered fully human and all this falsification that we have witnessed over the years in recent times would not exist.

As the Smithsonian Magazine correctly points out…

“Through advances in archaeology, dating, genetics, biological anthropology and many related disciplines we now know that Neanderthals not only had bigger brains than sapiens, but also walked upright and had a greater lung capacity. These ice age Eurasians were skilled toolmakers and big-game hunters who lived in large social groups, built shelters, traded jewelry, wore clothing, ate plants and cooked them, and made sticky pitch to secure their spear points by heating birch bark. Evidence is mounting that Neanderthals had a complex language and even, given the care with which they buried their dead, some form of spirituality. And as the cave art in Spain demonstrates, these early settlers had the chutzpah to enter an unwelcoming underground environment, using fire to light the way.”

Now that sounds like ancient humans related to the human race of today! And I suspect more discoveries on how fully human they always were will also surface. But these discoveries haven’t overturned the dating problem that is used by evolutionists. Neanderthal DNA is still around! DNA is organic, we know it decays rapidly. Well, evolutionists believe Neanderthals lived about 40,000 to 400,000 years ago and somehow the organic material (DNA) survived through all them years under extreme conditions. Plus DNA mutates about 100 new mutations every generation! The half life of DNA is estimated at 521 years along with DNA not being stable outside of a living cell!

Courts have ruled that DNA many decades old is too damaged to be used as evidence in a court of law! Just look up cases that involve reconstruction of old DNA for criminal cases. There are even debates in college campuses about the reliability of old DNA. So there are issues in the modern times about how quickly DNA can get damaged, 40,000 to 400,000 years ago would be so damaged thus rendering it unrecognizable rather than remaining intact and in fairly good shape as we see with the Neanderthal DNA today!

The New Trump Administration: What does it mean for science?

Pollsters often times proclaim their polls are accurate within a certain margin of error because of the science that they use but as we discovered in America’s latest presidential election, they were way off in their predictions!

Mainstream media including right-leaning Fox News were in shock! How could they possibly be so wrong with their data? Donald Trump wasn’t a politician, his personality contained a huge ego which involves a short temper. He used social media to attack those whom he disagreed with. He made lame comments about Republicans as well as his Democrat opponent who were running against him along with his lame comments about women and at times turned the presidential primary into a mudslinging circus rather than debating about things like the economy. This made people feel uncomfortable admitting to the pollsters that they were going to vote for Donald Trump rather than Hillary Clinton.


His kids defended him claiming this was how America felt too. In a way his kids were right, America is fed up with career politicians who don’t live up to their promises. They are concerned about the economy which has been limping along since the Great Recession. More Americans are on food stamps, 95 million Americans left the job force because they couldn’t find work, one in six who are 18-34, are either in jail or living at home without a job. President Obama passed a stimulus bill in his first term, but what has he done for the economy since? People ask! He passed Obamacare which taxed the rich more, it also taxed how many medical devices produced rather than the profit from those medical devices which favorited big established companies who can afford those taxes rather than a small or start-up company. 17,000 new rules for health care were added. Premiums for many who are on Obamacare are going up in 2017. Some insurance companies are leaving the government network. Millions lost their doctors even though it was promised to them they could keep their doctors once the Affordable Care Act was fully implemented!

Hillary Clinton had problems of her own that were major like a lot of scandals which included the handling of classified e-mails to her home and another which cost four American lives. Many in America didn’t trust her as a result. They also didn’t  think she would change things in Washington. So they gave an outsider a chance to change America! This leads to the main focus, what does that mean for science?

Science research has suffered in recent years because of a lagging economy. In a robust economy, more tax revenue is collected thereby making funding for programs like science more accessible. Also, fraud has affected science research, there have been calls for more accountability by pushing for tougher punishments for those found guilty of fraud in science which is a good thing.

Donald Trump is not a scientist but neither was President Obama nor Hillary Clinton. Donald Trump hardly knows anything about creationism vs evolution debate, what he knows is how to run a business successfully and he wants to bring that experience to the national level to turn America’s economy around for the better! If Trump is successful and the economy improves much better under his leadership, this will provide a lot more funding for science research in general!

Stacking Up “Scientific Consensus” For Policies

Back in the early to late 70’s scientific consensus was that of the earth was cooling down, so much in fact, they believed a return of some sort of ice-age. Until the 80’s came along where man-made climate change became the prevailing viewpoint among the so-called, “scientific consensus” and anyone who questioned it, were in denial in fact some have suggested it’s the same as being a holocaust denier or someone who just doesn’t believe in science.

There is a similarity between how evolution which used to be questioned within the framework until 1998, where it was declared a declaration of fact that was beyond question, and a new focus was put in place that involved rescuing explanations from falsifications which often times happens in the framework of evolution.

The belief in man-made climate change has a more profound effect on economies on various governments including the United States than does many research projects on evolution. Computer models without knowing an array of compensating factors became a form of popular evidence for man-made climate changes during the 80’s and it still is, today! Computer models are based on assumptions about the present or future reality, but is absolutely not reality itself.

Scientific Consensus and critics alike do agree that the earth’s temperature hit a peak in 1998, and has not shown any warming trend in the last 15 years or so. In temperate pattern in the last 50 years has been lower than what the computer models had predicted yet the UN climate chief continues to sound the alarm, claiming that the earth is running out of time! Just like in evolution when an assumption is falsified, they go into rescuing mode which sounds better in science fiction than reality.

Like the UN climate chief, Nature News continues to sound the alarm by calling this trend “a pause” and then tries to explain why the earth warming trend has pulled back. Science Daily is even alarmed by the impact the pause will have on public opinion which says is lacking because they believe the public is greedy…So they propose strategic conversations or in other words re-education camps. Other supporters have turned their focus elsewhere from the data to the skeptics themselves and are trying to demonize them in particular.

Like evolution, governments take sides by creating mandates that are agreement with man-made climate change or fund researchers that only agree with one side thus stacking  “scientific consensus” with a particular viewpoint.

“Would you rather have €40 (about $55 US) or save the climate? When the question is put in such stark terms, the common sense answer is obviously: “stop climate change!” After all, we are well-informed individuals who act for the common good and, more particularly, for the good of future generations. Or at least that’s how we like to think of ourselves.”

They like to think of their selves as rulers over the weather, but in reality there has been historical climate change long before the industrial era. It’s not denying science at all, this pause could last for years to come or not, but how do they know it’s man-made rather than historical? They have yet to define the difference. One thing is for sure man cannot control the weather, the earth does go through warming and cooling trends just like it did before the industrial era as well in the seventies and eighties till the present.

Should Scientists Become More Bipartisan?

Daniel Sarewitz who publishes various commentary that is often times critical of science in the world’s leading science journal. He wrote quite the bombshell that was directed at American scientists in particular where the vast majority of them are liberal democrats. He criticized them for neglecting the Republican party and conservatives while throwing their support for the Democratic party.

In Nature he says…

“Scientists in the United States are often perceived as a Democratic interest group. For science’s sake this has to change, argues Daniel Sarewitz.

To prevent science from continuing its worrying slide towards politicization, here’s a New Year’s resolution for scientists, especially in the United States: gain the confidence of people and politicians across the political spectrum by demonstrating that science is bipartisan.”

Sarewitz also researched American scientists donations to political parties and discovered that, “Of the 43 (out of 68) signatories on record as having made past political donations, only five had ever contributed to a Republican candidate, and none did so in the last election cycle.”  This is wrong! Because...”citizens with political preferences,” he said,  should not treat science like a political football.  “If the laureates are speaking on behalf of science, then science is revealing itself, like the unions, the civil service, environmentalists and tort lawyers, to be a Democratic interest, not a democratic one.” 

Sarewitz then argues from a historical prospective that science prospered under both parties! “The claim that Republicans are anti-science is a staple of Democratic political rhetoric, but bipartisan support among politicians for national investment in science, especially basic research, is still strong,” Sarewitz explains along with providing some statistics to back up his explanation.

Why do Republicans get a bad rap when it comes to science? Sarewitz says it is because of opposition towards “social science.” Sarewitz believes that social science is bent towards accomplishing liberal agendas. Adding to the problem is that social science is spreading into other areas, inserting itself into the scientific initiatives.

“As scientists seek to provide policy-relevant knowledge on complex, interdisciplinary problems ranging from fisheries depletion and carbon emissions to obesity and natural hazards, the boundary between the natural and the social sciences has blurred more than many scientists want to acknowledge.”

When scientists align themselves with the Democratic party, it’s no wonder that Republicans get the idea that all science is social science especially when it comes to controversial issues such as climate change or policies around reproduction.

One-party science is “dangerous for science and for the nation,” he warned. And then rebukes them…

“The US scientific community must decide if it wants to be a Democratic interest group or if it wants to reassert its value as an independent national asset. If scientists want to claim that their recommendations are independent of their political beliefs, they ought to be able to show that those recommendations have the support of scientists with conflicting beliefs.”  

Sarewitz is right in this way, unless parity is achieved, scientists and their institutions have lost credibility to claim science is an “independent national asset” providing value to all Americans. Sarewitz is also concerned about loss of funding, if scientists remain a special interest group for one party, the other party will not be so willing to give it funds.

Normally in a robust economy where more people are working in the private sector which means more tax dollars are generated, funding for science then becomes no huge problem at all…in fact, the funding science goes way up, only when the economy struggles or is a recession does it become a major issue with borrowing more money to fund programs along with some cuts being made.

The redistributionist path the United States is currently under by this administration, though, will damage science along with the rest of the private sector! Here is an example, a sales tax which comes from the health-care law which was passed back in 2010 (or known as Obamacare), on all medical devices.  Here is the thing, biotech companies did not make a profit for ten years before they became such an impact as they are now with the profits. By taxing the sales, rather than the profits, will compel a company to pay more taxes while hindering up and coming medical products (especially with smaller companies who don’t have a lot of capital) which are trying to break into the mainstream! The sales tax hurts creativity and innovation for science!

The Democrats own the American economy now.  As the debt skyrockets into unprecedented trillions (more than incurred by all previous presidents combined), scientists are getting hurt along with every other American. The Feds are increasing the money supply each month (until economic conditions get better) along with the nation’s rising debt threatens inflation. Things get more costly! Scientists have to be more bipartisan and make a case for efficiency, tighten up their budgets like that never did before along with some modest cuts rather than affordable increases in funding! Until the economy recovers, where more tax dollars are available for funding then you can talk about affordable increases! If not, an economic meltdown will eventually occur!

Biomimetics Shows Quite A Bit Of Promise

Scientists are in a biomimicry frenzy, not that it is a bad thing, although credit is given to evolution.  Aromatic compounds comes from plants, which does the signaling, defense and symbiosis. A research named, “Scripps” is trying to figure out why the terpenes are so hard to produce in a lab but yet routine for plants.

Using new chemistry, science daily reports…

“The new technique, described in an advance online edition of the journal Nature Chemistry on Sept. 23, 2012, mimics a crucial but obscure biochemical phenomenon that allows cells to make terpenes. The discovery may one day result in cheaper, fully synthetic versions of the cancer drug Taxol, the antimalarial compound artemisinin and hundreds of other useful terpene products.

“It’s exciting for us because we’re now making molecules that have never been made in the laboratory before, and we’ve done this by first observing what nature does,” said the senior investigator for the study Ryan A. Shenvi, a chemist at Scripps Research.”

In another article which is very excited about biomimetics being able to help improve human lives in the future!

“Biomimicry looks for how nature performs a function,” Marie Zanowick, a certified biomimicry professional for the Environmental Protection Agency, told Boulder Weekly. “It mimics natural strategy and the best design principles on this planet.” Biomimicry has been around for decades, but modern scientists are increasingly embracing the concept.

Velcro, for example, was inspired by the way burrs grab on to fur. By looking at systems that exist in nature, scientists hope to solve world hunger, create better technologies, and produce more sustainable devices that will improve people’s lives. Take Russell Rodriguez, for example. A researcher at the University of Washington, Rodriguez has developed a way to grow rice to five times its normal size while using half the amount of water. Meanwhile, the plants are more resistant to cold and salt. If it is commercialized, this rice could be a way to help solve world hunger.”

This is quite amazing, if it does go commercial and is able to benefit mankind, it will be interesting to see how well this is perceived by the “organic” or “natural” community. More than likely they would see this as a threat to their products. The article then gives credit to evolution…

“Much of this research is expected to result in eco-friendly discoveries. Zanowick says biomimicry is a great way to create more sustainable technology because it mimics things that already work efficiently in nature. “It’s based on 3.8 billion years of research and development, and the only organisms that survive are the ones that follow life’s principles.”

The description resembles an intelligent scientist rather than evolution. Since when does evolution (a mindless process) conduct a research and development program using design principles? Evolution is blind, it has no goals to accomplish, no foresight, therefore it cannot come up with design principles to conduct its research and development. Giving it billions of years is circular reasoning.  Nature is a product of intelligence which is why the credit for evolution sounds like a scientist rather than a mindless natural process!

Curiosity’s Amazing Exploration of Mars

Last month entailed one of the most interesting adventures in space exploration, where the landing became a hot topic. For the first time, a very heavy spacecraft (about 2 tons) was going to land on the planet Mars. It was quite the challenge considering that Mars contains a thin atmosphere.

After its 7 minute solo landing on August 6, 2012, Curiosity’s orbiting partner transmitted the first dusty thumbnail images the rover had taken with her rear hazmat cameras. Two hours later, during the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter’s second flyover, high-resolution images came down showing rocks and the rim of Gale Crater, where the rover landed at a site named after the late science fiction writer Ray Bradbury.

Curiousity’s mission is to detect conditions for habitability. A quest that man has been imaging about since my grandma’s young years. Of course it went from a full-scale invasion (world of the worlds on radio) to looking for microorganisms to just ingredients which astrobiology would consider natural creators for life from the past despite the fact that never observed non-living chemicals creating life in the present.

Was there water on Mars, some point in its history? Well as the data has come in, the clays on Mars are not from water, but rather they were formed by volcanoes. Astrobiology magazine writes…

“Alain Meunier of the University of Poitiers in France has found that some Mars minerals from the Noachian period are a good chemical match to clays at the Mururoa Atoll in French Polynesia, which formed from cooling of water-rich lava.” 

“What’s more, these ancient Martian clays can be up to hundreds of metres thick, which is more likely to be associated with lava flows than soil interacting with water.” 

“Such a result would imply that early Mars may not have been as habitable as previously thought at the time when Earth’s life was taking hold,” wrote Brian Hynek of the University of Colorado in Boulder, who was not involved in the new work, in an accompanying commentary.”

John Grotzinger (in live science), who is the project scientist for the Curiosity rover is still hoping to discover water in the Gale Crater.  He tries to rationalize history as a guide for optimism, so he concludes that scientists expect to find water-lain deposits in Gusev Crater where the earlier Spirit rover landed.  Which is strange, because Spirit only detected volcanic ash with some windblown dust back in August of 2004.

Even the rocks indicate otherwise because they would have degraded in the presence of standing water along with of showing no signs of having been transported by water through Ma’adim Vallis, the valley that appears from orbit like a flood channel leading into the crater.  But yet even with this emerging picture of a salt-laden, often corroded planet there was still hope that it had standing water early in its history.

Keep in mind, this is an amazing exploration of Mars even by spirit back in 2004, but the mission is not to study Mars per say which it should be, but rather trying to find data that might give them ideas for life like discovering water. Curiosity is the best spacecraft ever made with remarkable intelligent engineering by highly skilled people.

Alex Rosenberg’s Debate About Darwinian Evolution

There is a cult that resides in an establishment, where it attempts to dictate what scientists can research, also what scientists must conclude in their findings. The rest is up to the scientists. Alex Roesnberg is a member of that cult that resides in that establishment. He has been ever so working on trying to shape people’s values on the subject.

Often times we hear of science can only conclude natural causes, but this is not totally accurate. According to the cult, Darwinian evolution is the only naturalistic cause. Does anyone want to dispute on why Darwinian evolution would be the only naturalistic cause rather than have an alternative naturalistic cause? Rosenberg believes alternative natural causes lead to creationism or intelligent design.

Now one is not saying alternative natural causes is any better than believing in Darwinian naturalistic causes. But this type of behavior towards one view-point within natural causes demonstrates a cult roaming around pretending to call itself  “science” by inventing various stories that repeatedly get overturned by observable new data which brings them back to square one.

There are a few that went rogue who don’t believe in creationism nor intelligent design but things like self-organization. Jerry Fodor who is an American philosopher and cognitive scientist, is one of those who have went rogue and now believes in an alternative naturalistic explanation.

Back in May 2012, in the European Journal for Philosophy of Science, there is an article Roesenberg called, “How Jerry Fodor slid down the slippery slope to Anti-Darwinism, and how we can avoid the same fate.”

There is only one physically possible process that builds and operates purposive systems in nature: natural selection. What it does is build and operate systems that look to us purposive, goal directed, teleological. There really are not any purposes in nature and no purposive processes ether. It is just one vast network of linked causal chains.”

Darwinian natural selection is the only process that could produce the appearance of purpose. That is why natural selection must have built and must continually shape the intentional causes of purposive behavior.”     

Only intelligence (namely God) can produce specialized systems that contain purpose in nature.  It’s a logical and verifiable conclusion! But Rosenberg reveals something interesting about his argument that Darwinian evolution is the only explanation of natural causes and that is the implication that if this ‘theory’ is not correct then the origin is not naturalistic! And he would be right about that, he does in fact, destroys the notion of a so-called, “gap-theory” argument often times used by evolutionists against creationism or intelligent design.

There are questions that comes up with such a conclusion, is Rosenberg correct, is Dawinian evolution the only viable naturalistic cause or could there be an another? Do you believe Fodor is on his way becoming a creationist because he doubts the ‘theory’ of natural selection coming from Darwinian evolution? Is it important to you that every scientist must embrace Darwinian evolution even though the alternative is still a natural cause? The membership of the cult in which Rosenberg belongs to, sure does!