Creationism%20News%20 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

About This Presentation



PowerPoint Presentation – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:408
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 201
Provided by: Christ665


Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Creationism%20News%20

Creationism News June 2013 ????? 2013?6?
  • Dedicated to David Coppedge who sacrificed his
    career as the Head Systems Administrator for the
    Cassini Spacecraft in JPL to honor the Creator
    of the Universe. He also spent literally
    thousands of hours to make his excellent
  • The contents of this presentation were taken from
    David Coppedges website http// Pray
    for his fast recovery from cancer surgery.
  • Pastor Chui
  • http//

Genetic Dating Can Fool Scientists???????????
  • The dates of some human migrations could have
    been much more recent than genetic data
    indicates.  What of even older dates?
  • In Archaeological Genetics Its Not All as Old
    as It at First Seems, Science Daily reported on
    work published in Investigative Genetics that
    indicated data on migrations in the Netherlands
    fits recent population movements just as well as
    ancient ones
  • These results could be explained by invoking
    movement of ancient, Paleolithic-Neolithic
    humans, similar to that proposed to explain the
    genetic diversity across central entire
    Europe. However the data also fits a model
    involving movement of people within the last 70
    generations of modern Dutch, for which there is a
    wealth of archaeological evidence.

Genetic Dating Can Fool Scientists ???????????
  • Consequently, patterns of genetic
    diversity which indicate population movement may
    not be as ancient as previously believed, but may
    be attributable to recent events.  The authors
    of the open-access paper cautioned colleagues
    future human population genetic studies pay more
    attention to recent demographic
    history in interpreting genetic clines.  See
    press release from BioMed Central.

Genetic Dating Can Fool Scientists ???????????
  • Interpretation Run Amok
  • It would seem, therefore, that if data from the
    most recent millennia can be misinterpreted, that
    the uncertainties would mount when interpreting
    older data.  Yet paleoanthropologists routinely
    speak confidently about supposed events tens of
    thousands, if not millions, of years ago.  If
    genetic data can be misinterpreted, the same
    pitfalls can occur with other data, such as
  • For example, in When Did Humans Begin Hurling
    Spears?  Science Now pointed out that the answer
    varies from 90,000 to 500,000 evolutionary years
    ago, depending on how one interprets markings on

Genetic Dating Can Fool Scientists ???????????
  • Nature News claims that hominid footprints 1.52
    million years old, probably from Homo
    erectus or Paranthropus, show that the walkers
    were the same size as modern humans, based on
    inferences of stature, body mass and walking
    speed compared with those of modern Kenyan
    barefoot walkers.
  • Science News presented a new hypothesis about why
    apes descended from the trees that challenges
    evolutionary theories behind the development of
    our earliest ancestors from tree dwelling
    quadrupeds to upright bipeds capable of walking
    and scrambling.  A paleoanthopologist published
    a novel theory that challenges traditional
    hypotheses which suggest our early forebears
    were forced out of the trees and onto two
    feet when climate change reduced tree cover. 
    Instead, Dr. Isabelle Winder (U of York) thinks
    it was a response to geological changes

Genetic Dating Can Fool Scientists ???????????
  • The broken, disrupted terrain offered benefits
    for hominins in terms of security and food, but
    it also proved a motivation to improve their
    locomotor skills by climbing, balancing,
    scrambling and moving swiftly over broken ground
    types of movement encouraging a more upright
  • The research suggests that the hands and arms of
    upright hominins were then left free to develop
    increased manual dexterity and tool use,
    supporting a further key stage in
    the evolutionary story.
  • Aside from sounding Lamarckian, this theory begs
    the question of why all the other animals in the
    terrain did not develop upright posture and tool

Genetic Dating Can Fool Scientists ???????????
  • Another example borders on the ridiculous.  Rob
    Brooks, in an article posted by Medical Xpress,
    used Arnold Schwarzeneggers biceps as support
    for the notion of a link between male upper-body
    strength and assertion of economic
    self-interest.  (See 5/18/03 story and
    comments).  Brooks unwittingly committed his own
    show of brute force by referring
    to Creation-Evolution Headlines as nutbaggery
    while trying to simultaneously backpeddle from
    the idea that evolutionary forces dictate our
    politics.  The value of this paper is in showing
    how our evolved biology and our contemporary
    politics can interlink in interesting ways,
    creating nuanced individual differences, he
    explained.  Very interesting, indeed.  Any
    predictions from this notion?  Any way to falsify

Genetic Dating Can Fool Scientists ???????????
  • Always Room for Doubt
  • A few paleoanthropologists are aware of the
    problems of interpreting data.  For
    instance, Nature recently questioned
    whether Australopithecus sediba has anything to
    do with the emergence of the genus Homo.  In
    Hesitation on Human History, William H. Kimbel
    wrote, I do not think that they provide
    compelling evidence that this species is anything
    other than an unusual australopith ape from a
    PliocenePleistocene time period that is already
    populated by a fair number of them.
  • Evolutionists Simon E. Fisher and Matt Ridley
    in Science Magazine (Culture, Genes and the
    Human Revolution) first praised the techniques
    available for genetic research before cautioning
    about interpretation

Genetic Dating Can Fool Scientists ???????????
  • State-of-the-art DNA sequencing is providing ever
    more detailed insights into the genomes of
    humans, extant apes, and even extinct hominins,
    offering unprecedented opportunities to uncover
    the molecular variants that make us human. A
    common assumption is that the emergence of
    behaviorally modern humans after 200,000 years
    ago requiredand followeda specific biological
    change triggered by one or more genetic
    mutations. For example, Klein has argued that the
    dawn of human culture stemmed from a single
    genetic change that fostered the uniquely modern
    ability to adapt to a remarkable range of natural
    and social circumstance. But are evolutionary
    changes in our genome a cause or a consequence of
    cultural innovation?
  • Many nuanced accounts of human evolution
    implicitly assume that biological changes must
    precede cultural changes.

Genetic Dating Can Fool Scientists ???????????
  • This prevailing logic in the field may put the
    cart before the horse. The discovery of any
    genetic mutation that coincided with the human
    revolution must take care to distinguish cause
    from effect. Supposedly momentous changes in our
    genome may sometimes be a consequence of cultural
    innovation. They may be products
    of culture-driven gene evolution.

Genetic Dating Can Fool Scientists ???????????
  • Fisher and Ridley give the example of lactose
    intolerance as a likely genetic consequence of
    lifestyle choices by early farmers.  They also
    dispute the relevance of the FOXP2 genetic change
    that some paleoanthropologists have suggested
    drove the development of human language.  If,
    for instance, humanized FOXP2 confers more
    sophisticated control of vocal sequences, this
    would most benefit an animal already capable of
    speech, they said.  Alternatively, the spread
    of the relevant changes may have had nothing to
    do with emergence of spoken language, but may
    have conferred selective advantages in another
    domain.  Either way, the interpretation does not
    jump out of the data.  To think science
    (prevailing logic) can be conducted free of
    human subjectivity would, indeed, put Descartes
    before the Horace.

Genetic Dating Can Fool Scientists ???????????
  • Anyone thinking the evolutionary story just leaps
    out of the data from its own accord needs to
    study philosophy of science.  Data to
    evolutionists are like colorful pebbles and bits
    of glass they use to create a mosaic whose image
    was predetermined by their materialistic world
    view.  Curious, is it not, that to complete their
    project they have to use intelligent design.  Why
    dont they just shake the bits on a table and see
    what emerges since emergence (the Stuff Happens
    Law, 9/15/08) is the theme of their whole story?

Genetic Dating Can Fool Scientists ???????????
  • Rob Brooks is having a good time at our expense
    flexing his muscle on his blog against
    nutbaggers instead of answering legitimate
    questions.  Come now, Rob, tell us does truth
    evolve?  We left that checkmate challenge hanging
    but he just wants to overturn the table and call
    it a stupid game.  Its more than a game.  Its a
    challenge to his credibility.  Maybe he should
    recognize that tens of thousands of people read
    this website.  Our well-educated and
    sophisticated audience would love to watch if he
    can wield the sword of logic better than the
    mudballs of ridicule.

Genetic Dating Can Fool Scientists ???????????
  • As for bicep politics, maybe Mr. Brooks would
    like to explain the anti-redistributionism of
    Sarah Palin, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, and
    all the other conservatives not particularly
    known for their upper-body strength.  Or how
    about Nick Vujicic, who has no biceps?  Maybe
    Brooks could entertain the idea that its fat,
    not muscle, that allows men to throw their weight
    around.  Does that explain Rush Limbaughs
    politics?  Oh, but we see Brooks has an escape. 
    Evolution just adds nuance to these
    tendencies.  Any exception to his law of nature
    can just be nuanced away.  Well, then, if theres
    no law of nature, why call the storytelling
    science?  Notions belong in  fabric stores, not
    the lab (10/14/08).

Genetic Dating Can Fool Scientists ???????????
  • Brooks laughs at his Yoda Complex.  Well, fine. 
    We can all laugh with him.  We all know, at the
    end of the day, its just for show.  Hes an
    entertainer, not a philosopher.  After his daily
    storytelling work on the Darwin Light Magic
    soundstage, he takes off his latex Yoda costume
    and behaves like a normal human being, living as
    if his mental choices matterignoring the
    mutations that the Start Warts script says make
    him what he is.  The fantasy is all CGI, where
    even truth can evolve.  If he insists on
    manipulating the dork side of the farce
    (the self-refuting side of illogic), may the
    farce bewitch him.

  • Gloria Deo ??????

Wonders of the Spliceosome Coming to
  • The more we learn about a vital molecular machine
    in the nucleus, the spliceosome, the more complex
    and important it seems.
  • The spliceosome is a large slicer and dicer
    that takes DNA transcripts (messenger RNA) and
    prepares them for export out of the nucleus,
    where they will be translated into
    proteins.  Science Daily described what molecular
    biologists have learned about this amazing
    multi-function machine

Wonders of the Spliceosome Coming to
  • The process of splicing is carried out by a
    highly complex molecular machine termed the
    spliceosome. Human spliceosomes are built up from
    protein and RNA molecules. They contain some 170
    different proteins and five RNA molecules termed
    small nuclear RNAs (snRNAs). It is currently
    believed that certain snRNAs represent the tools
    with which the spliceosome carries out the
    cutting and joining of RNA sections, turning the
    messenger RNAs precursor (pre-mRNA) into
    mature messenger RNA. The proteins of the
    spliceosome are needed to bring these tools to
    the right place at the right time, and to set
    them into operation. 

Wonders of the Spliceosome Coming to
  • Splicing processes in higher organisms are very
    highly regulated. In fact, differing patterns of
    excision and joining of a given pre-mRNA
    molecule can lead to any one of a selection of
    different mature mRNA molecules all from the
    same gene. This ability to select the mRNA
    product according to need is termed alternative
    splicing, and it is thought to be the most
    important means by which human cells manage to
    produce a vast spectrum of different proteins
    from a relatively restricted number of
    protein-encoding genes.

Wonders of the Spliceosome Coming to
  • So far, weve seen precision tools that arrive at
    precision times to do precision jobs.  Weve seen
    that this multi-part, complex machine, aided by
    multiple other proteins and small RNA molecules,
    is capable of turning a transcribed gene into a
    vast array of protein templates by means of
    alternative splicing.  Years ago, it seemed a
    mystery why genes contained many apparently
    useless regions of code, dubbed introns, that had
    to be cut out of the messenger RNA (see 9/03/2003)
    .  The spliceosomes magic of alternative
    splicing is providing clues.

Wonders of the Spliceosome Coming to
  • The article, based on a press release from
    the Free University of Berlin, used some pithy
    analogies to help readers understand the
    process.  One of the tools was likened to a knife
    in a sheath, that safely moves to the cutting
    site, waits for a start signal, then unsheathes
    itself and goes to work.  The start signal is
    given by another machine with a remarkable
    molecular architecture that enables the knife. 
    But that start-signal machine is held on a short
    leash by another machine, preventing it from
    giving the start signal.  That machine acts like
    a plug in a stopper, the researchers said,
    making sure the start signal is only given at the
    right time.

Wonders of the Spliceosome Coming to
  • But then, the researchers found another machine
    that works in tandem with the plug, regulating
    the start signal independently.  The existence
    of two or more different mechanisms to regulate
    the same cellular process underlines
    the importance of the exact timing of this
    process for the overall process of RNA splicing,
    one of the researchers said.
  • This information is not just academic.  In
    humans, errors in this control mechanism can lead
    to blindness.  Could this machine have evolved
    by chance?  The article does not mention
    evolution.  It did say, though, that the
    spliceosome has some 170 different proteins. 
    Could chance build just one protein? 

Wonders of the Spliceosome Coming to
  • We in this century are so privileged to get
    glimpses into the inner workings of life at its
    most basic level.  What would Aristotle or Galen,
    Leeuwenhoek or Darwin, thought if they knew that
    machinerycutting tools, stoppers, regulators and
    other moving partsso tiny as to be invisible
    without highly sophisticated human machinerywere
    keeping us alive?  Every second, every minute we
    are being upheld by trillions of machines like
    this that nobody even suspected were possible
    till the age of molecular biology.

Wonders of the Spliceosome Coming to
  • Had Darwin known this, he might never have dared
    to write a story that blind, unguided processes
    could explain life.  Theres an interesting
    novella on that theme that was recently presented
    on ID the Future in audio format, 5 episodes. 
    I, Charles Darwin transports the bearded buddha
    into the 21st century, where he learns about
    these wonders and responds to them.  To encourage
    you to listen, we wont spoil the end of the

  • Gloria Deo ??????

 Two More Fossils Challenge Evolution????????
  • One living fossil and one dead fossil strain the
    credibility of evolutionary dates and mechanisms.
  • Cuttlefish melanin  PhysOrg reported on intact
    melanin from the ink sac of a Jurassic-era
    cuttlefish (see also 8/20/02, 5/21/12) .  The
    spectrum of the melanin matches that from a
    living specimen.  The article did not question
    why an organic substance would be expected to
    survive for 160 million years.  It just assumed
    that it did, and launched into a speculation
    Because melanin survives so long, an analysis of
    the melanin from old cancerous tissue
    samples could give researchers a useful tool for
    predicting the spread of melanoma skin cancer in

 Two More Fossils Challenge Evolution????????
  • Israeli frog  The Hula painted frog (no, it does
    not use a Hula-Hoop), feared extinct 60 years
    ago, has been rediscovered in Israel, reported
    the BBC News and National Geographic.  Thought to
    be a casualty of the draining of wetlands in the
    Hula Valley in northern Israel, this
    strange-looking brown amphibian with white spots
    on its belly caused a stir of excitement when a
    frog, a kind of idol of Israel was found alive
    two years ago.  Thirteen more have since been
    seen, leading to estimates of a couple of hundred
    remaining alive.

 Two More Fossils Challenge Evolution????????
  • Thats good news, but not the only point of
    interest its also a living fossil.  According
    to the evolutionary timeline, members of the
    Latonia group of frogs didnt learn to keep
    evolving.  National Geographic commented, the
    Hula painted frog is considered a rare example of
    a so-called living fossil, an organism that
    has retained the same form over millions of years
    and that has few or no living relatives. 
    The BBC article said, These frogs were once
    widespread throughout Europe for millions of
    years, but all apart from the Hula painted frog
    died out about 15,000 years ago.  That would
    appear to make this frog a member of Lazarus
    taxa, groups thought extinct long ago only to be
    found alive and well today.

 Two More Fossils Challenge Evolution????????
  • National Geographic erred by claiming that Only
    about a dozen other living fossils are known,
    the most famous of which may be the coelacanth,
    an ancient fish that can trace its ancestry back
    to the days of the dinosaurs.  As explained
    on CMI, Dr. Carl Werner has documented hundreds
    of them.  Not only that, Dr. Werner has
    documented 432 mammal fossils (100 of them
    complete skeletons) in Cretaceous strataalmost
    as many species as dinosaurs.  He has also found
    representatives of modern plants, crustaceans and
    insects in dinosaur rocks, as his
    video explains.  Yet in 60 museums he visited,
    not a single one displayed a complete Cretaceous
    mammal fossil, or any modern animal or plant
    displayed with the dinosaurs.

 Two More Fossils Challenge Evolution????????
  • We agree with what Dr. Werner said in
    the CMI article
  • For example, if a scientist believes in evolution
    and sees fossils that look like modern organisms
    at the dinosaur digs, he/she might invent an
    hypothesis to explain living fossils this way
    Yes I believe that animals have changed greatly
    over time (evolution), but some animals and
    plants were so well adapted to the environment
    that they did not need to change. So I am not
    bothered at all by living fossils. This added
    hypothesis says that some animals did not
    evolve. But if a theory can be so flexible,
    adding hypotheses that predict the opposite of
    your main theory, one could never disprove the
    theory. The theory then becomes unsinkable, and
    an unsinkable theory is not science.

  • Gloria Deo ??????

Do Confusing Branches Add up to a Darwin
  • Evolutionists routinely try to construct parts of
    Darwins grand tree of life from fossils and
    genes.  Do the parts come together as expected?
  • Camels mammals  The genome of a Bactrian
    (two-humped) camel named Mozart was deciphered. 
    According to Science Daily, The DNA code also
    represents a rich resource for addressing
    questions on phylogenetic relationships between
    animals.  So far, though, all the geneticists
    found was 85 similarity to the one-humped
    dromedary camel.  They hope it will clarify
    relationships with llamas and alpacas, too, but
    that work remains to be done.

Do Confusing Branches Add up to a Darwin
  • Zebrafish mermaids  Alongside a photo of a
    lovely lady swimming underwater, Michael Gross
    wrote in Current Biology,  While we humans tend
    to have grandiose ideas about our special
    position in the tree of life, more than 70 of
    our genes have an obvious orthologue in
    zebrafish.  Other than telling sweeping stories
    of evolutionary transitions, Gross only mentioned
    the coelacanth genome and the zebrafish genome as
    data, noting that zebrafish has the largest
    number of unique genes (3,634) not shared with
    any of the others (chicken, mouse, and human). 
    And despite the major changes involved in moving
    from sea to land, he wrote, Arthropods must have
    made the transition at least five times, as
    researchers have concluded from phylogenetic

Do Confusing Branches Add up to a Darwin
  • Tree of life is fishy  In Somethingss fishy in
    the tree of life, Science Daily reported on the
    largest comparison of fish genes to date,
    providing data that dramatically increase
    understanding of fish evolution and their
    relationships.  Some assembly required, after
    disassembling previous assumptions and
    proposing relationships nobody would have
  • While some of the findings provide
    new support for previously understood fish
    relationships, others significantly change
    existing ideas. Many different groupings are propo
    sed in this new tree. For example, tunas and
    marlins are both fast-swimming marine fishes with
    large, streamlined bodies, yet they appear on
    very different branches of the tree. Tunas appear
    to be more closely related to the small,
    sedentary seahorses, whereas marlins are close
    relatives of flatfishes, which are
    bottom-dwelling and have distinctive asymmetric

Do Confusing Branches Add up to a Darwin
  • Fish Hips  A short article on Science
    Daily tries to explain the fishy origin of our
    hips.  Were related to salamanders, by
    implication it only took a few evolutionary
    steps to convert fins to hips.  Even though
    humans are thought to be very distant on Darwins
    tree, the differences between us and
    them are not as great as they appear  most of
    the key elements necessary for the transformation
    to human hips were actually already present in
    our fish ancestors, the article alleges.  And
    thats because Many of the muscles thought to be
    new in tetrapods evolved from muscles already
    present in lungfish, a Monash University
    evolutionist said.  We also found evidence of a
    new, more simple path by which skeletal
    structures would have evolved.  A picture of an
    axolotl adorns the articlebut thats a
    salamander, not a fish.

Do Confusing Branches Add up to a Darwin
  • Speaking of salamanders, an article
    on PhysOrg alleges that the repeated
    evolution of high foraging rates in spotted
    salamanders shows the invisible finger of
    evolution at work.  Quote from the evolutionary
    spokesman from U of Connecticut Finding
    that adaptive evolution may disguise strong
    ecological effects means that a range of
    ecological predictions are likely to be
    unreliable if we ignore how evolution affects
    biological communities i.e., evolution and
    ecology are so inexorably intertwined, one can
    mask the other.

Do Confusing Branches Add up to a Darwin
  • Snakes alive, and hopeful lizards  A researcher
    with his team at George Washington U has built a
    new evolutionary tree of all lizards and snakes
    around the globe, 4,161 species in all.  While
    there are gaps on some branches of the tree, the
    lead acknowledged, the structure of the tree
    goes a long way toward fully mapping every genus
    and species group.  He thinks he knows what will
    fill the gaps, even though the project is
    preliminary this estimate of the squamate tree
    of life shows us what we do know, and more
    importantly, what we dont know, and will
    hopefully spur even more research on the amazing
    diversity of lizards and snakes.

Do Confusing Branches Add up to a Darwin
  • Speaking of lizards, heres a big one.  While
    listening to music from The Doors, Jason Head (U
    of Nebraska) found a six-footer he named after
    Jim Morrison (leader of the rock band, who
    apparently committed suicide).  Thought to have
    lived 40 million years ago, Barbaturex
    morrisoni was larger than many of the mammals it
    munched on.  Head attributed todays paucity of
    large lizards to climate change.  Apparently
    global temperatures and carbon dioxide levels
    were much higher back then, even with human
    smokestacks and automobiles around.  We
    think the warm climate during that period of
    time allowed the evolution of a large body
    size and the ability of plant-eating lizards to
    successfully compete in mammal faunas, he said
    (PhysOrg).  Is he proposing reptile size as a
    function of temperature?  Why, then, were there
    large dinosaurs in the arctic circle?  Why are
    lizards smaller today, to first approximation, in
    hot as well as cold climates?

Do Confusing Branches Add up to a Darwin
  • Ant what they used to be  Hows the ant branch
    coming along?  Science Daily reported on a new
    ant family tree that supposedly Confirms Date of
    Evolutionary Origin and Underscores Importance
    of Neotropics in their emergence.  Data from
    genes and fossils were used to build the largest
    ancestry diagram for ants.  According to the
    phylogenists, the rainforests of the Neotropics
    are both a museum, protecting many of the oldest
    ant groups, and also a cradle that continues to
    generate new species.  In other words, some
    evolve and some dont.  This ant
    tree-of-life confirmed an earlier surprising
    finding that two groups of pale, eyeless,
    subterranean ants, which are unlike most typical
    ants, are the earliest living ancestors of the
    modern ants.  It would seem easier to lose eyes
    than to gain them.

Do Confusing Branches Add up to a Darwin
  • Planting trees in the fast lane  Biologists
    have known for a long time that some creatures
    evolve more quickly than others, begins an
    article on PhysOrg. Exactly why isnt well
    understood, particularly for plants.  A new
    notion is that short plants grow in the
    evolutionary fast lane compared to tall
    plants.  At the U.S. National Evolutionary
    Synthesis Center, researchers estimated the
    average height of 140 families of plants, then
    plotted them against their assumed date of
    emergence in the fossil record to conclude (to
    their surprise) that shorter plants evolved as
    much as five times faster than taller ones.  Why
    would that be?  They surmised that the tips of
    small plants generate more mistakes

Do Confusing Branches Add up to a Darwin
  • What puts short plants in the evolutionary fast
    lane? The researchers suspect the difference may
    be driven by genetic changes that accumulate in
    the actively-dividing cells in the tip of the
    plant shoot as it grows. Cells dont copy
    their DNA perfectly each time they divide. In
    animals, most DNA copy mistakes that occur in the
    cells of the animals body cant be
    inheritedtheyre evolutionary dead ends. But
    this isnt the case for plants, where genetic
    changes in any part of the plant could
    potentially get passed on if those cells
    eventually form flowers or other reproductive
  • For the notion to work, the rate of cell
    division and genome copying in taller plants
    eventually slows down, and changes in DNAthe raw
    material for evolutionaccumulates less
    quickly.  Sounds like a hypothesis in need of

Do Confusing Branches Add up to a Darwin
  • Does Darwin need his tree?  As reported here May
    15, the tree of life is a tangled bramble bush,
    according to an article on Science
    Daily.  Astrobiology Magazine went further to
    debunk the notion of a tree of life with a last
    universal common ancestor (LUCA).  But their idea
    of digging down below the tree of life
    threatens to uproot it
  • A family tree unites a diverse group of
    individuals that all carry genetic vestiges from
    a single common ancestor at the base of the tree.
    But this organizational structure falls apart if
    genetic information is a communal resource as
    opposed to a family possession.

Do Confusing Branches Add up to a Darwin
  • The article stressed the significance of
    horizontal gene transfer,  Nigel Goldenfield (U
    of Chicago) stated it this way Our perspective
    is that life emerged from a collective state, and
    so it is not at all obvious that there is one
    single organism which was ancestral.  Although
    this refers to the trunk of the tree, the impact
    of the new idea flows upward.  In his
    work,Peter  Gogarten U of Connecticut has
    shown that horizontal gene transfer turns the
    tree of life into a thick bush of branches that
    interweave with each other.  (see also 2/01/07).
    The new ideas of Carl Woese (1/28/10),
    Goldenfield and Gogarten are examples of the
    evolution of evolution, the article suggests
    (see 12/19/07).
  • The group is particularly interested in the
    question of how the ability to evolve originally
    developed. The evolution of evolution sounds
    like a chicken-and-egg problem  especially if
    you think, as Goldenfeld does, that life is by
    definition something capable of evolving.

Do Confusing Branches Add up to a Darwin
  • However, evolution can utilize different
    mechanisms to achieve the same goal. Goldenfelds
    team will try to recover some of lifes former
    evolutionary phases by stressing cells and then
    seeing how their genomes rearrange in response.
  • It appears, then, that to salvage evolutionary
    theory, astrobiologists must personify evolution
    (evolution can utilize different mechanisms)
    and dispense with Darwins core concept of
    unguided natural selection (to achieve the
    same goal).

Do Confusing Branches Add up to a Darwin
  • Goldenfield, a physicist, tries to see evolution
    in thermodynamics terms in order to come up with
    rules of universal biology.  However it is
    viewed, its clear that evolutionists have a long
    way to go.  He said, We would like to have a
    better understanding of why life exists at all.
  • Why does life exist at all?  Because it was
    created.  It didnt just happen.  We can say that
    confidently after showcasing once again the utter
    bankruptcy of evolutionary theory (10/19/10). Did
    you catch that the zebrafish has 3,634 unique
    genes?  Whats the probability of those
    arising without design?

Do Confusing Branches Add up to a Darwin
  • After 154 years of Darwin, evolutionists are not
    even sure there is a tree of life.  Creationists
    have the certainty of a life-giving, created tree
    of life in the beginning and at the end.  Dont
    be fooled by the mystical divination of
    modern-day shamans who use mumbo-jumbo like the
    evolution of evolution or the invisible finger
    of evolution to keep their fake tree fable going
    (2/01/07 commentary), who refuse to acknowledge
    the clear evidence for design, and who keep
    promising understanding that never comes.

  • Gloria Deo ??????

Evolutionists Strategize to Fight
  • If evolution were a matter of obvious biological
    facts, why would it be necessary to list
    strategies to teach it without exposing it to
    critical thinking?
  • Natures editorial for May 15, Science in
    schools, took aim at creationists, and
    the Discovery Institute (not a creationist
    organization, an intelligent design organization)
    in particular, on the occasion of Eugenie Scotts
    retirement (5/09/13) from the National Center for
    Science Education or NCSE (not an education
    organization, but an anti-creationist
    organization).  Beyond the usual talking points
    (e.g., evolution is science, creation is
    religion Kitzmiller the bandwagon argument all
    scientists accept evolution), the editors
    suggested three things scientists could do to
    keep up Eugenies fight against Darwin skeptics.

Evolutionists Strategize to Fight
  • 1. Make evolution appear non-atheist.  The
    editors applauded Eugenie Scotts tactical coup
    in removing the words impersonal and
    unsupervised when the US National Association
    of Biology Teachers described natural selection
    that way in a statement.  Its not that Scott
    believed the converse (that natural selection is
    supervised or personal) she just didnt want to
    make evolution a lightning rod for those who
    would use such a statement as evidence that
    Darwinists are atheists.  So she argued that
    theres a false dichotomy between religious
    people, some of whom believe evolution, and
    scientists, some of whom might actually believe
    in some higher power.  Scott (an atheist
    herself) argued that science could not address
    such questions.

Evolutionists Strategize to Fight
  • 2. Build coalitions.  This strategy is vague
    enough to allow Darwinists to appear conciliatory
    while insisting their view is uncontested.  They
    can have their say, as long as they all say the
    right things
  • Another strategy is to put together coalitions of
    people from diverse backgrounds to
    provide multiple perspectives. Faith-based
    communities can express concerns about one
    religious view being favoured over
    another. Parents can argue for their childrens
    clear thinking and academic futures. Scientists ca
    n talk about the scientific process and
    why accuracy in schools matters, but should
    also participate, where applicable, as parents,
    community members or people of faith.

Evolutionists Strategize to Fight
  • 3. Perform outreach.  The third strategy is for
    scientists to get out and interact with the
    public more often.  The articulate ones who can
    explain the evolutionary view should be
    recognized and supported by their institutions
    they should bring the same passion to
    describing the work that is most likely to engage
    the public, perhaps dinosaur evolution. 
    Surprisingly, the editors pointed to Stephen Jay
    Gould as a good example of outreach.  Gould, a
    staunch evolutionist, rankled other evolutionists
    with his frank admissions that the fossils did
    not support Darwinian gradualism.  His theory of
    punctuated equilibria showed that there are
    strong disagreements within the scientific
    community over neo-Darwinism, as the Discovery
    Institute likes to point out.

Evolutionists Strategize to Fight
  • The editors made it clear that they are not for
    dialogue or debate.  They ended, With support
    from the NCSE and similar efforts, scientists can
    further not only science education, but science
  • Oh, they can sound so noble.  They just want to
    further science.  They just want to help the
    children.  Who could possibly be against that? 
    Readers need well-tuned baloney detectors to see
    why this is DODO talk (Darwin-only,
    Darwin-only).  In strategy 2, for instance, we
    have various types of people in their coalition
    giving multiple perspectives on the only
    acceptable viewpoint, the DODO viewpoint.

Evolutionists Strategize to Fight
  • The Faith-based communities they have in mind
    are the liberal churches who take
    the DODO position, like the Clergy Letter Project
    people who want to have Darwin Day celebrations
    in their churches.
  • The parents they have in mind are
    leftist ACLU supporters who will scream on cue
    that they dont want their kids getting religion
    in science class at the slightest suggestion of
    teaching evolution honestly.  Notice that they
    want parents NOT who support academic freedom,
    but rather clear thinking (that is,
    pure DODO without confusing counter-arguments)
    and academic futures (the red-herring big
    lie that allowing debate about Darwinism might
    compromise their ability to get into college). 

Evolutionists Strategize to Fight
  • The scientists they have in mind are
    the DODO evolutionists who still hold to logical
    positivism, that dead philosophy of science that
    claims the scientific process has some kind of
    objective meaning.  The accuracy they want is
    Darwin Party approved DODO talking points.  And
    as long as they stay DODO, its strategic for
    them to play the part of parents, community
    members or people of faith in the manner of Ken
    Miller, the DODO Catholic.

Evolutionists Strategize to Fight
  • People of faith.  That phrase should be banned
    from the English language.  Everybody is a person
    of faith.  Some have logical faith, and some have
    absurd faith.  Anyone believing life arose by
    chance and became Man the Wise by unguided
    processes belongs in the latter group.  No
    reasonable person should have the kind of faith
    to believe the impossible.  Those are People of
    Fluff.  The worst are the ones that throw
    tantrums when you question their DODO hood the
    People of Froth.

Evolutionists Strategize to Fight
  • Hopefully, here at CEH you are learning how to
    read Darwinian rhetoric with your critical
    thinking skills honed.  Their talking points can
    sound grandiose when they just want to help
    people understand why anything less than 100
    pure DODO is unacceptable.  They know that
    letting in honest scientific debate over the
    evidence for Darwinism would be their undoing.

  • Gloria Deo ??????

Mind Your Matters, Evolutionist????,??????
  • Several recent articles illustrate the mental
    struggle materialists have with human uniqueness,
    particularly the mind and consciousness.
  • The animal continuum  Described as a highly
    influential researcher studying animality (our
    animal nature), Dominique Lestel thinks the
    human-animal divide is a false dichotomy,
    reported Science Daily.  He takes issue with
    Western philosophy that elevates humanness above
    the beasts.  He thinks man needs to reactivate
    his animality and animalize himself anew.  One
    might wonder what college students would do with
    that advice.  Another might ask what other
    animals do research and publish it in Social
    Science Information, a journal of SAGE.

Mind Your Matters, Evolutionist????,??????
  • The consciousness debate goes on  Live
    Science described a panel discussion at the World
    Science Festival in New York between philosophers
    and scientists about consciousness.  Tanya Lewis
    opened with the material angle As you read this
    sentence, the millions of neurons in your brain
    are frantically whispering to each
    other, resulting in the experience of conscious
    awareness.  Her article gave the edge to the
    materialists who believe the brain gives rise to
    conscious phenomena.  Her opening question,
    though, But can modern neuroscience ever hope to
    crack this mysterious phenomenon? led to
    admissions that theyre not there yet.  The
    article led to a lively discussion in the
    comments between monists and dualists (i.e.,
    those who see mind as separate from matter).

Mind Your Matters, Evolutionist????,??????
  • Is morality mental or natural?  Bob Holmes on New
    Scientist reviewed two books about the origin of
    human morality The Bonobo and the Atheist In
    Search of Humanism Among the Primates by Frans de
    Waal, and How Animals Grieve by Barbara J. King. 
    Both books show that we must be careful when
    studying animals to learn about the origins of
    human traits and behaviours, he said.  He
    thought de Waal was more thoughtful than King,
    but Holmes was inclined to agree (and believes
    most of New Scientists readers will concur) that
    morality is relative, not absolute
  • If hes right, then there may be no absolute code
    of right and wrong out there to be discovered.
    Instead, each individuals evolved sense of
    empathy and concern for the group may help shape
    the groups consensus on what kind of behaviour
    is appropriate. In short, says de Waal, morality
    may be something we all have to work out
    together. Its a persuasive argument, and de
    Waals cautious and evidence-based approach is
    one that many New Scientist readers are sure to
    find congenial.

Mind Your Matters, Evolutionist????,??????
  • Is neuroscience the answer?  Another article
    on New Scientist cast a shadow on materialist
    hopes in neuroscience.  David Robson reviewed two
    more books that challenge the notion that
    neuroscience will ever understand consciousness. 
    The books are, Brainwashed The seductive appeal
    of mindless neuroscience by Sally Satel and Scott
    O. Lilienfeld, and A Skeptics Guide to the Mind
    What neuroscience can and cannot tell us about
    ourselves by Robert A. Burton.  The titles alone
    indicate that the authors arent ready to give
    neuroscience a free pass, and neither does
  • NO CREVICE of the human experience is safe. Our
    deepest fears and desires, our pasts and our
    futures  all have been revealed, and all in the
    form of colourful images that look like lava
    bubbling under the skull.

Mind Your Matters, Evolutionist????,??????
  • That, at least, is the popular conception of
    neuroscience  and its worth big money.
    The US and the European Union are throwing
    billions of dollars at two new projects to map
    the human brain. Yet there is also a growing
    anxiety that many of neurosciences findings
    dont stand up to scrutiny. Its not just
    sensational headlines reporting a dark patch in
    a psychopaths brain, there are now serious
    concerns that some of the methods themselves are

Mind Your Matters, Evolutionist????,??????
  • And that takes the discussion right back to
    philosophy, so long criticized as asking good
    questions but not providing good answers. 
    Neurology is not destiny, Robson says, after
    pointing out some false positives using fMRI
    (functional MRI) and other tools of
    neuroscience.  But Robson is not ready to throw
    out the neuroscience baby with the bathwater.  He
    puts his hope in what neuroscience will learn
    some day.
  • Game Theory  Meanwhile, evolutionists continue
    to speak of human mental traits in materialist,
    evolutionary terms.  Michael Taborsky in Current
    Biology continued sounding the ongoing paradigm
    that human cooperation and altruism are a result
    of social evolution Milot and Pelletier
    in Current Biology advanced the idea that human
    beings are still a playground for natural
    selection (but cf. Science Magazines review
    of Paleofantasy and our 3/13/13 entry).  The
    scientific institutions pay little respect to, or
    even notice of, the views of theologians or
    philosophical dualists.

Mind Your Matters, Evolutionist????,??????
  • If the brain is a window, who is looking through
    it?  If the brain is a computer, who is typing on
    the keyboard and watching the screen?  If
    morality is a dark spot in an fMRI image, who is
    interpreting it?
  • God help the disciples of Frans de Waal who think
    they can agree on a consensus for what is
    appropriate as a substitute for morality.  Most
    likely, their consensus will be crushed by
    another culture with better weapons and more
    motivation for power.  What will they say as they
    are dying?  You cant do that.  Thats not

Mind Your Matters, Evolutionist????,??????
  • Each of the authors above defeats materialism by
    arguing for it.  Who is doing the arguing?  Their
    brains?  Who is deciding who is telling the
    truth?  Someone who doesnt accept that truth is
    real?  Who is deciding who has the best
    arguments, someone who disbelieves in absolute
    morality?  Those who think humans are mere
    animals (though even theologians acknowledge our
    animal natures) would make sense if they left off
    writing books, and concentrated on stuffing
    bananas into their mouths and scratching their
    bottoms.  The moment they try to access the
    realms of the mind and consciousness, they become
    dualists in spite of themselves.  The moment they
    assume truth exists and morality can be judged by
    each of us with sufficient accuracy, they become
    supernaturalists in spite of themselves.  And the
    moment they say humans should do anything (like
    pay attention to their arguments rationally),
    they become theists in spite of themselves.  You
    cant argue for materialism without assuming the
    very thing you want to disprove we are more than
    mere animals we have a soul that is consciously
    aware of absolute truth and morality.

  • Gloria Deo ??????

Cambrian Explosion Evolutionists Have No
  • An intelligent design advocate is publishing a
    book this month that uses the Cambrian Explosion
    as evidence against Darwinism and for I.D.  Two
    major evolutionary paleontologists have also
    published a book about the issue.
  • Stephen Meyers new book, Darwins Doubt, is
    officially released next week.  Chapter 4 will
    tell about the uproar caused at the  University
    of Oklahoma in 2009 when Meyer and Wells
    scheduled a panel discussion after a showing of
    Illustras film Darwins Dilemma about the
    Cambrian fossil record.  Darwinists at the
    university attempted a pre-emptive strike by
    issuing announcements that the event was
    religiously motivated.  In the QA, though, the
    universitys professors and museum curators could
    not produce any unambiguous fossil as a credible
    ancestor to any of the Cambrian animals.  Meyers
    book, updated with the latest findings since
    then, examines all the putative fossil ancestors
    and evolutionary exlanations for the Cambrian
    explosion, and assesses the issues relevance to
    the Darwin-ID debate.

Cambrian Explosion Evolutionists Have No
  • Meanwhile, two leading evolutionary
    paleontologists have just come out with a
    pro-evolution book about the sudden appearance of
    virtually all animal phyla at the base of the
    Cambrian.  Written by Douglas Erwin and James
    Valentine, experts on the Cambrian fossil record,
    the new work, The Cambrian Explosion The
    Construction of Animal Biodiversity, was reviewed
    by Christpher J. Lowe (Stanford)
    in Science Magazine this week What Led to
    Metazoas Big Bang? was his suggestive
    headline.  His first paragraph states the problem
    in such a way as to furrow the brows of
    Darwinists and make creationists or ID advocates
    grin, We told you so.

Cambrian Explosion Evolutionists Have No
  • The Ediacaran and Cambrian periods witnessed a
    phase of morphological innovation in animal
    evolution unrivaled in metazoan history, yet the
    proximate causes of this body plan revolution
    remain decidedly murky. The grand puzzle of the
    Cambrian explosion surely must rank as one of the
    most important outstanding mysteries in
    evolutionary biology. Evidence of early
    representatives of all the major animal phyla
    first appear abruptly in the Cambrian(starting
    542 million years ago). This spectacular
    morphological diversity contrasts strongly with
    Precambrian deposits, which have yielded a sparse
    fossil record with small, morphologically
    ambiguous trace fossils or the enigmatic but
    elegant creatures of the Ediacaran
    fauna. Following the Cambrian, despite a rich
    fossil record that documents impressive
    morphological diversification among animals, no
    new body plans have been revealed, leaving
    the Cambrian as the apparent crucible of metazoan
    body plan innovation.

Cambrian Explosion Evolutionists Have No
  • Lowe agrees, then, that it was an explosion, that
    all the animaly phyla appear abruptly, and that
    the few Precambrian fossils (including the
    enigmatic Ediacarans) are not ancestral to the
    Cambrian animals.  So what, then, is the
    evolutionists response to this outstanding
    mystery that Darwin wrote about 154 years ago? 
    Lowe is not helpful to the Darwin side
    The range of hypotheses proposed to explain the
    Cambrian explosion is as diverse and broad as the
    fossils they seek to explain.
  • He gives some sample explanations from Erwin and
    Valentines book.  The authors gave a heroic
    attempt to synthesize hypotheses from the
    disparate fields of geology, ecology,
    developmental biology, and genomics, each of
    which has made substantial contributions toward
    unraveling the causes of this key puzzle of
    animal evolution.  But a contribution toward unra
    veling is not the same thing as actually unravelin

Cambrian Explosion Evolutionists Have No
  • It shouldnt matter that Erwin and Valentine
    decorated their book with nice illustrations.  It
    shouldnt matter how good they are at making
    their prose accessible to non-specialists.  It
    also shouldnt matter that they could state how
    recent modifications to animal phylogeny have
    strongly revised our understanding of early
    animal diversification.  What is the explanation
    for the virtually instantaneous arrival (in
    evolutionary geological terms) of some 40 animal
    body plans, in a period of time Jonathan Wells
    has described in Illustras films as one minute
    on a 24-hour clock, or one step on a football

Cambrian Explosion Evolutionists Have No
  • After filtering out Lowes words of hope, not
    much remains of factual evidence in his tentative
  • The authors also review molecular biologys
    substantial contributions to solving the grand
    puzzle of the Cambrian explosion, which have at
    times been at odds with interpretations derived
    from fossil data. Comparative developmental geneti
    c studies and genome sequencing projects from
    diverse metazoan phyla have revealed some of the
    genetic innovations that were likely responsible,
    in part, for the increase in animal complexity.
    These new data may help us reconstruct ancestral
    morphological features of the mysterious stem
    lineages of the Ediacaran, by reconstructing
    ancestral gene complements and by inferring gene
    regulatory networks that have key
    roles in setting up the body plans of extant
    animals. However, our understanding of how to
    relate genomic and developmental regulatory
    complexity to organizational and morphological
    complexity remains in its infancy.

Cambrian Explosion Evolutionists Have No
  • This paragraph consists of little more than
    promissory notes that the infant will grow up,
    despite 154 years of trying.  Identifying
    genetic innovations that were likely
    responsible, in part says nothing about specific
    mutations that could have been selected.  And
    examining gene regulatory networks from extant
    animals can only be of minimal help interpreting
    extinct animals that left no DNA to study.  Its
    just too complex, Lowe seems to be saying.

Cambrian Explosion Evolutionists Have No
  • It seems that Erwin and Valentines solution is
    all futureware.  Multidisciplinary approaches
    will be needed, they say.  Proposing multiple
    causes will be needed, they say.  More
    understanding of the environment, genetics and
    ecology will be important, they say, to explain
    this great evolutionary puzzle.   Somehow,
    these factors provided Ecological opportunities
    for novel morphological innovations that (as
    evolutionists) they believe drove the
    diversification.  In other words, if the
    environment builds it, the body plans will come.
  • Lowes last sentences appear to reveal that Erwin
    and Valentine have not explained the Cambrian
    Explosion at all

Cambrian Explosion Evolutionists Have No
  • Erwin and Valentine illuminate clear links
    between seemingly disparate disciplines, and they
    make a compelling case that substantial progress
    toward understanding the origins of animal
    diversity will not be achieved through adding
    isolated gains in individual fields. It is futile
    to hope to explain such a major evolutionary
    event without embracing an interdisciplinary
  • This implies that there has not been substantial
    progress toward understanding the Cambrian
    Explosion.  The book appears to be a call for all
    good evolutionists to come to the aid of their
  • Nothing has changed in the 7 years since Charles
    Marshall, the Master of Disaster, took on the
    challenge (4/23/06, see also 9/04/09, 8/05/10). 
    His answer was circular the animals evolved
    because they evolved.  Something gave these
    animals the opportunity to evolve, so they took
    advantage of it.  What kind of answer is that? 
    Why do we pay any attention to these charlatans?

Cambrian Explosion Evolutionists Have No
  • If there was ever a key evidential falsification
    of evolution, this is it.  Too bad for
    evolutionists its not the only one.  Theres
    also the origin of intelligence and morality, the
    origin of consciousness, the origin of species,
    the origin of life, the origin of earth, the
    origin of cosmic structure, the origin of the
    universe, and the origin of anything from
    nothing.  Every one of these is a show-stopper
    for Darwinism, and as we like to repeat, it only
    takes one show-stopper to stop a show.  But who
    wants to watch a show with a master of ceremonies
    who comes out, shrugs his shoulders, and says,
    Stuff Happens?  Put your money on the show with
    the necessary and sufficient cause for the
    amazing biosphere we observe intelligent design.

Cambrian Explosion Evolutionists Have No
  • There are old-earth ID advocates and old-earth
    creationists who can agree on that muchthat the
    Cambrian Explosion falsifies Darwinism.  Thinking
    long and hard enough about the consequences of
    that falsification, though, may lead to other
    questions, like, Why are we trusting in the
    dating methods of these charlatans?  What else
    did they get wrong  Its at least a start of
    more and more honest debate.
  • Exercise To illustrate the folly of Marshalls
    explanation for the Cambrian Explosion, take
    something observable in everyday life and come up
    with a silly, obviously-illogical explanation for
    it.  Then, dress it up in the most erudite,
    learned language you can, and see if you can fool
    somebody.  Example hypothesis An opportunity for
    knives, forks and spoons to appear in your
    kitchen drawer arose, so they emerged out of the
    surrounding material.

  • Gloria Deo ??????

 Is This Primate a Prime Mate????????????????
  • The news media jumped onto claims that a tiny
    primate fossil is an ancestor of human beings,
    when it is really an amazing example of
    biological miniaturization.
  • A tiny fossil primate from China, classified
    as Archicebus achilles, was announced with
    fanfare by most of the scie
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)