Evolution Embraces Counter-Intuitive Observations

Professor Steven L. Goldman in his course, “Science Wars: What Scientists Know and How They Know It”, addresses intelligent design as a scientific hypothesis, on the face of it he says is more compelling than creationism. Notice he knows the difference between the two, but rejects the supernatural agent or agents which the modern intelligent design movement avoids giving any explanation. Observations of nature for thousands of years to the modern era appears designed because that’s in fact what it is, designed. The objective of evolutionary ‘theory’ is integrate it as the explanatory factor for everything.

So what do evolutionary scientists do to meet the objective? They call the observation of nature appearing designed as an “illusion.” And that is not all, there are many surprising or counter-intuitive observations which require integration into the theory! The most common answer used to explain such falsifications is circular reasoning which goes like this, they evolved because they evolved.

Removing tonsils came from the ‘theory’ of evolution because it was considered useless vestiges from the past. The appendix is another one. As a result, medicine recommended parents have their children tonsils removed and a lot of parents did just that but nowadays its mainly infection that prompts removal.  A recent study suggests this evolutionary assumption about tonsils being useless does more harm than good and like junk dna where important functions was discovered, there are also an important function for them being there because it has been discovered there is a connection with heart disease. Although the article did not mention the old vestigial organs argument.

Medical Xpress reports…

“Both the appendix and tonsils are lymphoid organs and thus components of the body’s immune system, albeit of modest importance. The recurrence of tonsillitis and appendicitis – caused by infection – are the usual reasons for removal. Behind the study lay evidence that removal was associated with moderate long-term effects on the immune system and alterations in risk for some autoimmune disorders. Studies suggest that between 10 and 20% of all young people have tonsils or appendix removed.” 

MacGregor Campbell writer in New Scientist in a cartoon video, claims a new theory reveals the reason why we are human and language ‘evolved’ was because humans like caring for animals…

“What is it exactly that makes us human? According to a new theory, it could be our unique ability to connect with and care for animals. Our connection to animals may have been so transformative that it led us to develop skills like language and domestication that ultimately enabled our planet-wide success.”

It has been discovered that some fossil human teeth of males contain more metal than those of females. New Scientist really comes up with a winner here as reporter Ferris Jabr eats up everything that Sandi Copeland of the Max Planck Institute without questioning one single thing, Conclusion: “Early hominin women had wanderlust.” 

When one hears about condition of autism, it is generally considered a serious problem for those afflicted and their families, however, not for some evolutionary psychologists which find blessings in the condition.

Science Daily reports…

“The autism spectrum may represent not disease, but an ancient way of life for a minority of ancestral humans, said Jared Reser, a brain science researcher and doctoral candidate in the USC Psychology Department. Some of the genes that contribute to autism may have been selected and maintained because they created beneficial behaviors in a solitary environment, amounting to an autism advantage, Reser said.”

“The “autism advantage,” a relatively new perspective, contends that sometimes autism has compensating benefits, including increased abilities for spatial intelligence, concentration and memory. Although individuals with autism have trouble with social cognition, their other cognitive abilities are sometimes largely intact.”

It was not stated whether Jared Reser surveyed modern hunters for their opinions, or even if so, whether a deduction would be possible about unobservable ancestors! In any case, there is a lot to learn from these imaginative so-so stories that package themselves with all this false dichotomy, glittering generalities and loaded words, which one can only conclude, it’s not scientific!

Judge’s Decision On ESC Overturned

On August 23, 2010, a judge ruled based on the Dickey-Wicker Amendment of 1996 which prohibits funding for research that destroys human embryos! Liberals in support of this research were reeling and took up arms, as well as publications like Nature whose editors wrote…

“Congress is unlikely to have a huge appetite for a bruising, highly polarizing debate in the weeks immediately preceding November’s midterm elections.  Yet time is of the essence, and a great deal is at stake.  The House may revert to Republican control in November, in which case action to affirm the funding would be highly unlikely….

Congress should take up the issue speedily when it reconvenes mid-month.  And if ever there was a time for scientists to let members of Congress and the public know what they think, it is now.”

This political statement from a science magazine goes to show, its not about the research but about the money because the science breakthrough of the year in 2009 continues to have momentum which is ethically-untainted adult stem cell research. Furthermore, embryonic stem cell (ESC) researchers are free to seek private or corporate funding which lacks interest. One of the reason why it lacks interest is because adult stem cells are progressing well for treatments such as induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC) might be able to treat immune diseases says Medical Xpress while the other not so much but contains a lot of hype and promises for possible future treatments.

“Many countries have tried to research embryonic stem. Embryonic stem cells bring with them transplant rejection issues…”

Last Friday, the high court overturned the decision“The ruling was hailed by both the White House and the National Institutes of Health, which allocated about $40 million to human embryonic stem cell research in 2010 and has set aside $125 million this year — a tiny fraction of its $31 billion budget.”

This is a classic case of taxation without representation, if there was evidence of ESCs being so promising for health, private investors would flood research labs with big bucks to make profits.  The only way the ESC-greedy research community can proceed is by taking money from taxpayers, many of whom are appalled by killing embryos!

Questions Rise About What Scientists Really Know

Several recent stories have appeared which casts doubt on the integrity of the scientific method and in some cases the ability for scientists to solve mysteries about the real world in which we live in.  A major scandal broke which exposed 90 peer-review papers from over a decade of being fraudulent, leaving some to ask, “how is this possible?”

The UK Telegraph reports…

“Joachim Boldt is at the centre of a criminal investigation amid allegations that he may have forged up to 90 crucial studies on the treatment. He has been stripped of his professorship and sacked from a German hospital following allegations about his research into drugs known as colloids.

Experts described Mr Boldt’s alleged forgeries as possibly the biggest medical research scandal since Andrew Wakefield was struck off last year for falsely claiming to have proved a link between the MMR vaccine and autism.”

What makes this very disturbing about this is the fact that the fake research put people’s lives at risk by treatments given under the authority of science!  Boldt forged names of co-authors in his papers, conducted drug trials without approval, and stolen money from people by getting paid for operations that he never performed. The fake operations may not have been solely for the income but rather a front for impressing manufacturers of the expensive colloid medicines.

A fellow medical researcher was shocked and dismayed, “For me, it shakes the world I work in and makes me feel less confident in it, and if I were a member of the public I would feel the same,” he said. On another front, remember how health professionals told us that free radicals in food are to be avoided which is why antioxidants became so popular.

Well, this article in Science Daily may raise a few eyeballs…

“Free radicals are molecules that react readily with other substances in the body, and this can have negative effects on health in certain circumstances, through the damage caused to cells. Free radicals can be counteracted by substances known as ‘antioxidants’, which are common ingredients in many dietary supplements. The idea that free radicals are generally dangerous and must be counteracted is, however, a myth, according to scientists who have conducted a new study of the role that free radicals play in heart physiology.

The researchers are not denying that free radicals can cause damage; they just support the old saying of  “everything in moderation.” What about evolution? There also been stories about this subject as well…

In New Scientist

“The standing dogma of eye evolution is challenged with the discovery of an invertebrate that sees light like vertebrates do, rather than like their more closely related cousins, according to a study published today (March 1) in EvoDevo.”

The story of evolution clings to its favorite behavior when expectations are falsified, it grows in complexity. While confined to the evolutionary framework, rescue tactics are invoked as this explanation implies…Now it’s unclear which photoreceptor originally gave animals sight, and which kind evolved to sense light later.  Or, perhaps an ancestor used both receptors to see, and over the millennia, one variety or the other lost its visual function.”

This explanation only enhances more problems for the story of evolution but one of the rescue tactics which gets invoked quite often is the attempt to call it a victory for evolution. Yes, you got that right, a victory…In another stunning development which challenges evolution, a team of scientists led by George Cody of the Carnegie Institution of Washington discovered organic material in a fossil that is assumed to be 417 million years old.

The organic material is not known to be able to survive that long because in the real world, hungry microbes and other processes are known to break down the material.  A rescue tactic was once again required in the evolutionary framework, so scientists changed their tune on what is common sense with observational data to imagination in order to save the theory, now they claim organic material could not only last that long but could also last up to 500 million years!  Until of course they discover an older fossil with organic material. Evolution certainly does better with the unknown than it does with the known because there are no falsifications with imagination.

Scandals point out the vulnerability of science to human moral failings as well as putting together a falsified evolutionary story. The Climategate scandal caused the likes of Nature, calling for transparency in published research on research.

“If genomics were as politicized as climate science, the authors of studies in which the information trail is missing would probably face catcalls, conspiracy charges and demands for greater transparency and openness.  Instead, many in the field merely shrug their shoulders and insist that is how things are done.”

This story puts those who have much faith in scientists into a bad dream. They follow them through vast mountains of ignorance along with the science reporters who defend Darwinian evolution with religious fervor, who don’t ask the tough questions but go out of their way to go along with whatever is written by evolutionary scientists. The reality of it is, they are sinners in need of God!

Forward, No Backward, No Sideways: Snake Evolution

Hind legs reported on snake fossils says, MSNBC. This seems to support the idea in the evolutionary story that snakes descended from lizards, and lost their legs through evolution.  Eupodophis descouensi is said to have .8 inch legs with ankle bones but no feet or toes. The evidence here requires imagination, because clearly they were not used for walking.

This new discovery raising some questions, or rather raises the level of complexity in the story of evolution. If the oldest known fossil snake which is assumed to be 94 to 112 million years and this discovery was dated with the assumption of 90 million years, it’s going in the opposite direction or is it just an illusion? “If something is not useful it can regress without any impact on the (animal’s) survival, or regression can even be positive, as for here if the leg was disturbing a kind of locomotion, like for burrowing snakes or swimming snakes.”

But why would useless structures remain 4 to 22 million years? However, researchers tells us that the puzzle of the evolutionary story will not be solved in 10 years rather it may be solved one day with various teams working on it.

It still remains a mystery on whether or not the leg loss was an increase of genetic information, or in fitness. For example, flightless birds are adapted for their land-based habitats, but it would be a notch higher for birds to evolve from ground to air than the other way around. Perhaps research teams are still working on this part of the story.

Evolutionists are clueless about not only their own theory of common ancestry, but the old-age framework as well. Many reports come out all the time with more puzzles which increases speculation than increasing real knowledge with a singing praise to the evolutionary story.  But it’s not reality. Rather than spending a ton of hard earned money on trying to figure out the myth of snake evolution which has no ending, what about putting that amount of money and energy into things like biomimetics?

There are all kinds of great research going on in this area! Research teams are needed because they haven’t come close to doing what a ATP synthase, or a flagellum, mother-of-pearl, or a ribosome or even a dragonfly wing has been doing now for millennia.

It incorporates engineering concepts that eventually will lead to something that will benefit mankind like human health, and technology which will be useful when they gain knowledge about the engineering of nature designed by God. As far as research in Darwinism: Go forward? No, backwards? No, sideways? Answer: No snake evolution or any Darwinian evolution for that matter!