New Study Challenges Evolution’s Basic Concept

How can natural selection choose if the necessary component to create life’s most specialized complex system? In the earlier years of evolution, scientists did not have the technology to observe a cell. Since evolution was based on slight modifications by mutations chosen by natural selection in order to produce complex systems, evolutionists believed the cell was simple, but as it turns out science has shown it to be designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery!

Think of it this way, evolution of a rocket. You already have the machinery and information on how to build its shell where you got that information is unknown, now take that existing information and use slight errors in the instructions to come with a design for the engine, and after that using more errors to come up the fuel it must run on to work. Even though you were provided with information and have the ability to build, more than likely, you can’t choose from the errors created from the previous information which by now with all its errors no longer make sense for even building a rocket shell let alone obtaining information on how to build its engine and the fuel that runs it!

This is why mutations in the genetic code does not create new information from existing information that can produce a different complex component that never was in existence before!

Evolution goes beyond what natural selection can actually do! Now comes a term which is very familiar to you and that is…”survival of the fittest.” This basic concept is being challenged by researchers from Oxford University (see here) who say “fittest” doesn’t arrive so it’s not around to survive!

“By modelling populations over long timescales, the study showed that the ‘fitness’ of their traits was not the most important determinant of success. Instead, the most genetically available mutations dominated the changes in traits. The researchers found that the ‘fittest’ simply did not have time to be found, or to fix in the population over evolutionary timescales.”

Like many explanations in evolution, it raises more questions than answers which leads to dead ends! This model conducted by evolutionists say mutational possibilities that have benefits which are just too rare. This means, the fittest don’t arrive in the evolutionary timescale, there is nothing to fix.

This comes back to Hugo de Vries who was a  Professor of Botany who began his experimentation on plants in 1800. De Vries believed in enormous changes in animals which were based on his “mutation theory”. He also said, “Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest”.  Simply because natural selection can only choose what already exists.

It would have been interesting today, how he would have viewed the mutation experiment with fruitflies which began to de-evolve over a period of time in more than ideal conditions rather than showing signs of change that would eventually lead to another species as explained in the theory of evolution.

The explanations are like a game of poker with its bluffing, evolutionary theory does bluff on what it explains being pretentious, and self-contradictory about it. But that is what happens when you try to explain things in order to disagree with reality which doesn’t go along with evolution. Reality suggests that the universe was created with a mind, and that mind was God!

Special Interest Goes Nuts Over Course

In the world of special interests, you may attack anything which is not politically correct, but show any weaknesses in Darwinian theory then it becomes an abomination!

In a University at Amarillo Texas, Professor Stanley Wilson was teaching a course called, “Evolution vs. Intelligent Design” using a textbook written by “two microbiologists, two philosophers of science and a technical writer present for students a concise introduction to the cases, both pro and con, regarding major aspects of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory.”  The name of the textbook, “Explore Evolution.”

This course was authorized by the administration for Dr. Stanley to teach through the adult continuing program which means it wasn’t a regular course for students. One of the fears of special interests is that it may be offered that way. An atheist who wasn’t even taking the class nor could he, began a protest which got so intense that it lead to police action. He is a leader of a group called, “Freethought Oasis” where people are free to learn about all kinds of information, well except for intelligent design.

It was funny how one of the school’s administrators, viewed the name of the organization in light of the protest.

“He gave me a card about the organization, the link to their website is below. I don’t know where the free thought comes in though, seems more like the lack of…

Like any of these special interests, they use disruptive protests in order to intimidate people. This also follows along the line with certain political protests as well. Although, some of those were not as successful.

Due to my accident until my hand heals, I cannot type much more, it’s not easy doing this with mostly one hand…but I want to say this…Farren the leader of this protest used falsehoods to scare the university…His emails and a facebook comment went public even though he claimed he never went public with the case, showing how low he went and his ally…

“Thanks for the heads up. I don’t think the article was referring to you and your group; rather, anonymous phone calls promising disruption.

To Students: Evolutionists Bluff In Their Explanation

Eugenie Scott is finally retiring from her long 26 year mission of trying to destroy how science is being taught in the public schools. She was praised by Science Magazine as a crusader focused against “anti-evolution forces.” Which means creationism, intelligent design, or anything else even it’s naturally based (like self-organization which she believes resembles too much to intelligent design) that criticizes or questions Darwinian evolution.

She endorsed her own version of ecumenism between the Bible and evolution, in order to persuade others into her line of thinking including policymakers.  She also endorsed making an example out of those who went against her policy by punishing teachers who taught both sides of evolution (its supposed strengths and factual weaknesses). In other words, treat evolution differently from other scientific theories for the purpose of trying to sway people’s beliefs.

On celebrating the 60th anniversary of Watson and Crick’s elucidation of the DNA molecule, the world’s leading science journal when it comes to evolution, “Nature” rebukes certain scientists and there are a lot of them who are bluffing in their explanations like they have it all figured out within the evolutionary framework!  He writes…

We do not know what most of our DNA does, nor how, or to what extent it governs traits. In other words, we do not fully understand how evolution works at the molecular level…Yet, while specialists debate what the latest findings mean, the rhetoric of popular discussions of DNA, genomics and evolution remains largely unchanged, and the public continues to be fed assurances that DNA is as solipsistic a blueprint as ever.”

One has to applaud Philip Ball who wrote the article on this count, he is telling scientists to be more honest about their findings rather than hype it up with bluffs of knowing it all when in fact they don’t. Another reason for the bluffing going on, is funding. By stating pretensions which makes their work appear more important, they are attempting to sway public opinion and policymakers that their work is worth more funding!

Students should learn how to recognize what they are being fed, and if you are in a public school realize that you will be on unequal footing when it comes to evolution especially if you are a creationist or intelligent design proponent. That teacher could make or break your great or perhaps even your career! You don’t have to go along with his or her views on evolution or science but be respectful! Complete the requirements of the class, and get a good grade!

In Darwinism, it’s self-refuting, what appears to be truth now is most likely false with new discoveries. After 60 years of research of DNA, they still don’t know much about what it does! Let alone try and explain how it supposedly evolved! Learning about DNA for example, is real science which has nothing to do with evolution. Operational science is something you should embrace and feel comfortable about. It’s historical science which is troublesome because of evolution!

It’s faith vs faith. Ask tough questions, be respectful in your challenge to your professor! Learn what you can about the debate between creationism and evolution. Do not accept the idea that natural selection, which is a mindless, random, and purposeless process fulfilling God’s work in creating nature. When you learn more about its weaknesses of evolution, you realize it is not a strong as you were being taught and that is because evolutionists tend to bluff in their explanation!

P.Z. Myers vs Intelligent Design

The spokesperson for the modern intelligent design movement wrote a review on a NY Times article concerning some genes in fish which might give evolutionists ideas on how fins turned to feet. This prompted P.Z. Myers who uses evolution often to try and discredit the existence of God and creationism in general to respond to the review. Myers writes

“Stop, Casey, and think. Here’s this fascinating observation, that we keep finding conserved genes and conserved regulatory regions between mice and fish, which ought to tell you something, and your argument against a specific example is that it isn’t rare? It really tells you something when your critics’ rebuttal to a piece of evidence is that you’ve got so much evidence for your position that they’re tuning out whenever you talk about the detais.”

Here is what Casey Luskin who is the spokesperson for the modern intelligent design movement wrote in his review

“The real story isn’t quite that interesting. According to the Nature paper, a particular region of DNA associated with a Hox gene cluster in the coelocanth genome showed sequence homology with a stretch of Hox gene-related DNA in tetrapods. Hox genes are known to be widely conserved among vertebrates, so the fact that homology was found between Hox-gene-associated DNA across these organisms isn’t very surprising.”

“The authors aren’t sure exactly what this particular segment of DNA does, though it’s probably a promoter region. In mice the corresponding homologous region is associated with Hox genes that are important for forming the placenta. Ergo, we’ve solved the mystery of how the placenta evolved. Right?”

“Not really. Again, all that was found was a little homologous promoter region in Hox-gene related DNA in these two types of organisms. Given that we don’t even understand exactly what these genes do or how they work, obviously the study offered no discussion of what mutations might have provided an evolutionary advantage.”

No evolutionary pathway was proposed, or even discussed. So there’s not much meat to this story, other than a nice little region of homology between two shared, functional pieces of Hox-gene-related DNA. But of course, such shared functional DNA could be the result of common design and need not indicate common descent or Darwinian evolution.”

Casey Luskin is correct in this regard, there isn’t much to the discovery. No knowledge on how these genes work or why they work. All this paper claims is “homology” which isn’t hard evidence for evolution. Why? For one, similarities between organisms that evolutionists don’t believe are closely related!

Next Myers attacks intelligent design referring to it as “creationism”

“The Intelligent Design creationist explanation requires that every extant species was specifically and intentionally stocked with a set of genes hand-chosen by a designer. God magically inserted IgM into each vertebrate species, except that he missed the coelacanths, and he magically inserted IgW into each and every shark, ray, coelacanth, and lungfish, but he intentionally left them out of every tetrapod and teleost.” 

Of course the modern intelligent design movement denies any reference to God, because to them that wouldn’t be scientific. But they don’t define what an intelligent agent or agents is, thus anyone guessing what they mean by that would be considered an ad hominem argument. But when you use intelligent agent or agents within your framework in which you call science, it is reasonable to challenge or question who or what that is! Of course Myers assumes its God and labels it creationism because the courts outlawed it being taught in the public schools. Myers then also assumes how a mind (in this case, God) would create nature which is interesting.

Myers uses uniqueness as proof for a creator, because evolution uses “homology” for its framework or another words God wouldn’t have created that way so it was evolution. However, he is wrong! For example, a car company often times uses the same parts in different cars. Does that mean cars are not intelligently designed rather they naturally evolved? No! You can tell that Ford models are similar. The Ford company doesn’t make each model drastically different from other models that it produces in that same year. Conversely, most of the genetic code for all living things is universal, because for one, it indicates a lone designer not many different designers. Also, it has a purpose, this makes the code optimal for protecting against errors!

Here is a challenge for Myers! What scientific research has produced hard evidence that an intelligent designer would only produce each species using totally different parts? Didn’t you believe that creationism couldn’t be tested therefore not a science then how could you come up with such a conclusion on how God would create? Didn’t you believe only evolution could be tested therefore a science? Myers uses evolution exactly like a spiritual cult does in order to try and disprove in what he doesn’t want to believe in, and that is God! This is why his argument is a bluff of complexity rather than logical. Science has not disproved God neither has P.Z Myers version of evolution disproved God!        

Learning From The Design In Nature

A crystalline substance which creates a unique visual effect (changing colors at various viewing angles) attributed to pearls. Nacre known as the “mother-of-pearl” is an organic substance produced by mollusks. Not only does it catch the eye with its beauty, but it is also strong and durable! Biomimetics engineers want to create from this same material.

In order to accomplish such a feat, one has to understand how a mollusk does it! According to pnas, biomimetics engineers have a ways to go before they can actually attempt a fairly accurate imitation but they are getting closer. Researchers described how they“identified 80 shell matrix proteins, among which 66 are entirely unique.”

“This is the only description of the whole “biomineralization toolkit” of the matrices that, at least in part, is thought to regulate the formation of the prismatic and nacreous shell layers in the pearl oysters. We unambiguously demonstrate that prisms and nacre are assembled from very different protein repertoires. This suggests that these layers do not derive from each other

In a new paper, published in Advanced Functional Materials”  David Kisailus, an assistant professor of chemical and environmental engineering who is inspired by various designs in nature in order to come up with the next generation of engineering products and materials. He came up with an idea is to use snail’s teeth to improve batteries and solar cells.

“His work revealed this occurs in three steps. Initially, hydrated iron oxide (ferrihydrite) crystals nucleate on a fiber-like chitinous (complex sugar) organic template. These nanocrystalline ferrihydrite particles convert to a magnetic iron oxide (magnetite) through a solid-state transformation. Finally, the magnetite particles grow along these organic fibers, yielding parallel rods within the mature teeth that make them so hard and tough.”

“Incredibly, all of this occurs at room temperature and under environmentally benign conditions,” Kisailus said. “This makes it appealing to utilize similar strategies to make nanomaterials in a cost-effective manner.”

“Kisailus is using the lessons learned from this biomineralization pathway as inspiration in his lab to guide the growth of minerals used in solar cells and lithium-ion batteries. By controlling the crystal size, shape and orientation of engineering nanomaterials, he believes he can build materials that will allow the solar cells and lithium-ion batteries to operate more efficiently. In other words, the solar cells will be able to capture a greater percentage of sunlight and convert it to electricity more efficiently and the lithium-ion batteries could need significantly less time to recharge.”

“Using the chiton teeth model has another advantage: engineering nanocrystals can be grown at significantly lower temperatures, which means significantly lower production costs.”

In another story, scientists who embraced evolution used to wonder why “nature” made such a “counter-intuitive choice” to use dynein, which is a rather sluggish motor, instead of the more powerful kinesin. Very confusing to them indeed, but what they found out was pretty amazing. The molecular motors in your muscle cells are like motors you find in high-performance cars!

In an article in

“Scientists at TIFR, led by Dr. Roop Mallik, have discovered that a team of dyneins is able to share a load much larger than any one of them can handle, due to the unique ability of each dynein to change gears. Because of this, dynein’s do much better at teamwork than other stronger motors that cannot change gears.”

“To live is to move. You strike to swat that irritable mosquito, which skilfully evades the hand of death. How did that happen? Who moved your hand, and what saved the mosquito? Enter the Molecular Motors, nanoscale protein-machines in the muscles of your hand and wings of the mosquito. You need these motors to swat mosquitoes, blink your eyes, walk, eat, drink… just name it. Millions of motors tug as a team within your muscles, and you swat the mosquito. This is teamwork at its exquisite best.” 

While the dynein gears are orders of magnitude smaller than those on a performance car, the principle is the same!

Taken together, these new studies show that Nature may have learnt how to use the gear in a motor much before we made our Ferrari’s and Lamborghini’s. But, what boggles the mind is that dynein’s gear works on a size scale that is ten-million times smaller than the Ferrari’s gear.” 

Since the research has revealed things comparable with intelligently designed machines such as high performance, it has sparked a debate between creationism and the modern intelligent design movement verses  Darwinism. Evolutionists attempt to use natural selection as the basis of these well thought of designs found in nature even suggesting that natural selection would select a bad design to be used.

The research paper doesn’t even mention evolution, normally they give it credit. Evolutionists use natural selection rather than something had been designed intelligently. But it is interesting how the reporter compared the discovery to high performance cars rather than a comparison to something using a blind process. How can then evolutionists invoke Darwinism? They use circular reasoning.

Animals as diverse as flies and mammals and yet they share the same motors in their respective muscles. This falsifies evolution, so common ancestor is invoked and the so-called decision nature had made! So these amazing motors stayed the same for millions of years because nature decided for some reason it was ‘good enough’ If you get the vibe that evolutionists describe natural selection the same way you would describe an intelligent designer, you would be correct!   .

Since nature was designed by vastly intelligent mind, God. We can expect to learn things in nature that relate to how we improve lives, how we understand machines and how we make our materials!

Cambrian Exploding With More Discoveries

One of the most fundamental things we learn regarding Darwinism is this...”Evolution is not free to make anything, it makes things that work by gradual steps…That is a finite set of options.” says a blogger in response to a previous post.  Nature doesn’t agree!

For example, a Cambrian arthropod that was recently discovered in China, had a complex brain! The imprint was so well-preserved that scientists were able to trace the neural pathways from the brain all the way to the eye stalks! This discovery defies evolutionary thinking  of “making things work by gradual steps (from simple to complex).

Evolutionists begin to ask, “why would nature create an advanced brain anatomy with a primitive body plan?” So you have this animal with a very simple body structure with a modern brain! Even though Stausfeld, a neurobiologist at the University of Arizona believes this fossil ‘evolved’ his explanation goes against evolutionary expectations…

“The fossil supports the idea that once a basic brain design had evolved, it changed little over time, he explained. Instead, peripheral components such as the eyes, the antennae and other appendages, sensory organs, etc., underwent great diversification and specialized in different tasks but all plugged into the same basic circuitry.”

“It is remarkable how constant the ground pattern of the nervous system has remained for probably more than 550 million years,” Strausfeld added. “The basic organization of the computational circuitry that deals, say, with smelling, appears to be the same as the one that deals with vision, or mechanical sensation.”

Not only is this fossil falsifying “gradual steps” but has evolutionists suggesting that evolution goes backwards! In the story of evolution, insects evolved from simpler-brained branchiopods.

Science daily

“Because the brain anatomy of branchiopods is much simpler than that of malacostracans, they have been regarded as the more likely ancestors of the arthropod lineage that would give rise to insects.

However, the discovery of a complex brain anatomy in an otherwise primitive organism such as Fuxianhuia makes this scenario unlikely. “The shape [of the fossilized brain] matches that of a comparable sized modern malacostracan,” the authors write in Nature. They argue the fossil supports the hypothesis that branchiopod brains evolved from a previously complex to a more simple architecture instead of the other way around.”

Stausfeld, a Londoner and two Chinese colleagues their paper in nature admitted to branchiopods under going “evolutionary reduction” in brain structure rather than a step by step increase that is normally expected! Why would such a reduction have to occur, wouldn’t have been better (or more fit) to have the brain remain complex and evolve it more from there?

Does this shed more understanding on how evolutionary expectations don’t work when observing nature, oops I mean work? One hears this a lot when evolution is falsified.

Graham E. Budd says this in nature

“Even to palaeontologists, the fossil record can resemble the chaotic attic of an eccentric relative, stacked with ancient bric-a-brac of dubious usefulness. But the record has recently been throwing up some surprises that are bringing new order to this jumble. Our concept of dinosaurs, for example, has evolved from what were essentially bolted-together lumps of bone into living creatures covered in graceful feathers — and in colour too. Other fossil finds have brought changes to the scale of our understanding of evolution.”

“For example, the discovery of exceptionally well-preserved fossil muscle fibres throughout the record and fossilized embryos from at least the Cambrian period, some 500 million years ago, have provided remarkable insight into the fine-scale evolution of these tissues and life stages. Now, on page 258 of this issue, Ma and colleagues describe preserved nervous tissue from the Cambrian — a find that grants palaeontologists access to the exclusive zoological club of those who study the brain and nervous system.”

When a “theory” increases in complexity as a result of falsifications which happens a lot in evolution, it doesn’t hold up in explaining the realities of nature! How these complex muscle fibers and embryos from the earliest parts of the record could provide such “insight” into evolution was left unexplained.

The Cambrian shows an abrupt appearance of all the animal body plans  along with complex brains but no transitional forms.  Transitional forms should out number the species themselves in the fossil record! From there, diversification and simplification occurs according to built-in variability and adaptation mechanisms, but the original complex designs endure! This is my friend what you call, evidence that confirms creationism!

Centralizing Science In Public Education

Back in March 2012,  Tennessee State Senate voted 25-8,  which passed an academic freedom bill, SB 893.  This trend was not isolated, other states like Texas in 2009, which 15 member panel omitted the language of students being able to critiquestrengths and weaknesses” of scientific theories, such as evolution, inserted into the science standards a requisite for students to critically analyze and evaluate “all sides of scientific evidence” which was even better language to have the students follow than before!

Texas Science Standards since 2009, go by this philosophy…

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

Opponents for academic freedom were shocked and dismayed because they are very concerned about how creationists and intelligent design proponents expose Darwinian evolution’s weaknesses. But isn’t analyzing and evaluating what science is all about? Yes, in most other theories this is a common practice, but not Darwinian evolution nor climate change as we will get into further detail in just a moment.

Other states like Mississippi and Louisiana, have passed their versions of the academic freedom bill for teachers and students to discuss scientific evidence critical to Darwinism.  Seven states in total, so with these major loses (but not for science) the opposition has embraced centralizing science into their fold of standards rather than leaving up to the states to decide.

In world magazine, James Devine writes…

“As kindergartners and high-school students return to public schools this fall, a team of 41 writers will be busy editing national curriculum standards that, as early as next year, could change how science teachers instruct their classes. The so-called “Next Generation Science Standards,” which all 50 states will have the option of adopting or not, are intended to provide a universal framework for science education. They explicitly emphasize Darwinism and climate change.”

So not only do opponents of academic freedom want teachers to indoctrinate evolution to the students but also have teachers indoctrinate students with the view that man is solely responsible for any warming trend that is currently happened or happening on the planet in modern times.

However, there has been interesting publications about climate change in the last couple of years, even last week. For example, in the Journal of Science, Luke Skinner in his article, “A Long View on Climate Change” writes about political ramifications using short-term graphs, he draws his reader’s attention using evolution’s time frame that several major climate swings over long periods before humans appeared in the standard geological timeline.  He then questions scientists’ ability for understanding all what goes on like the mechanisms and the uncertainties in proxy estimates; for instance, what factors are nonlinear?

He writes…

“If the goal of climate science is not just to predict the next 50 to 100 years of climate change, but also ‘to tackle the more general question of climate maintenance and sensitivity’, then arguably we must do so within a conceptual framework that augments the notion of climate sensitivity as a straightforward linear calibration of climate gain, with the possibility of nonlinear feedbacks and irreversible transitions in the climate system,” he explained.”  

“An exclusive consideration of the highest (e.g., decadal) register of climate variability might be adequate for most political time frames and may suit the urgency of immediate mitigation and adaptation challenges,” he ended. “However, it falls short of the wider scientific challenge that faces humanity, as well as a moral horizon that extends much farther into the future.”

A few days ago in Nature,  five scientists were critical of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which is where the opponents of academic freedom rely on to make a case for centralizing a certain viewpoint about climate change to the students.

“This IPCC-like focus might be attractive to ‘elite actors’, from natural scientists to national governments, but it omits many other important stakeholders and knowledge-holders, including indigenous people, businesses, farmers, community partnerships and fishers,” they said.  “What counts as legitimate knowledge, and how it is generated, influences its practical effectiveness.”

Switching gears now to Darwinian evolution, where not even other natural causes cannot be considered under this “Next Generation Science Standards” because they fear it might lead them to creationism or intelligent design. Which is interesting considering, in a 2008 poll where it discovered only a quarter of public high-school biology teachers claim to be strong advocates of Darwinism. This is another reason opponents of academic freedom want centralization of science standards. If these centralized science standards get passed by the states it will then supercede existing state laws on science standards.

Totalitarianism in the form of centralization of public school science standards would be disastrous! Rather these things belong on the local level where has been for so many years. The proposed national standards reflect another push by leftist elitists to squelch independent thinking and force the unwashed masses into uncritical acceptance or in another words, blind faith.

The states who refuse to pass such standards may be pressured into it by federal money being withheld, perhaps some Universities will not accept students from those states.  A requisite for students to critically analyze and evaluate “all sides of scientific evidence” is what science is all about!