Sep 102016
 

Is it so hard to do science without the obligatory infusion of Darwinian fairy tales into everything? Apparently so. Take a look at this quote from the journal Chemical Senses, From the evolutionary standpoint, the ability to taste starch or its oligomeric hydrolysis products would be highly adaptive, given their nutritional value.

According to the author of this study Juyun Lim the ability to taste starch is an evolutionary adaptation. How? To a Darwinist, as long as there is a need then evolution will provide the answer. Are you kidding me? It would be advantageous to be invisible but why didn’t random mutation (RM) and natural selection (NS) or even evodevo created that solution for us? Or sprouts wings to fly but that didn’t happen. Maybe the superhero power like Reed in the Fantastic Four with stretchable body parts. My point is this, just because there is a need it doesn’t mean evolution is able to provide the solution, but this is exactly what Lim is claiming.

How, which came first the chicken or the egg? If there is a causal effect between eating starchy food’s nutritional value and adaptation of a new taste sense, which came first or is it simultaneous? If our putative ancestors ate starchy food without the taste sense, then why is the adaptation necessary. If there is no adaptation advantage, then there is no selective pressure to evolve a new taste sense. On the other hand, if the taste sense for starch was evolved first what was the driving factor if our putative ancestors did not eat starchy food for the nutritional value. Again there is no selective pressure and correlation between evolution and nutrition.

My point against this author is that Darwinian fairy tales is a mantra and the default solution for everything whether there is evidence for it or not.

Feb 132015
 

Everyone agrees evolution is a fact if we define it as change over time. Darwinism on the other hand extends that change to common descent through novel mutations. But what happens when there is no novel mutations over billions of years, well that’s okay because that is also proof for Darwinian evolution. Say what?

“It seems astounding that life has not evolved for more than 2 billion years—nearly half the history of the Earth,” said J. William Schopf, a UCLA professor of earth, planetary and space sciences in the UCLA College who was the study’s lead author. “Given that evolution is a fact, this lack of evolution needs to be explained.”

Charles Darwin’s writings on evolution focused much more on species that had changed over time than on those that hadn’t. So how do scientists explain a species living for so long without evolving?

“The rule of biology is not to evolve unless the physical or biological environment changes, which is consistent with Darwin,” said Schopf, who also is director of UCLA’s Center for the Study of Evolution and the Origin of Life. The environment in which these microorganisms live has remained essentially unchanged for 3 billion years, he said.

I am sure prof. Schopf is looking at this purely from a scientific perspective and not based on his presupposition that evolution is a fact, and therefore some excuse explanation is needed for this lack of evolution (yes, that was a bit of sarcasm). Continue reading »

Jul 292013
 

That said, it occurred to me that Charles Darwin voiced a deeper doubt, of relevance to all of Meyer’s critics. In a letter to William Graham on July 3, 1881, Darwin wrote:

Nevertheless you have expressed my inward conviction, though far more vividly and clearly than I could have done, that the Universe is not the result of chance. But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?

Or as Indiana Jones would say, “Umm…, chilled monkey brain.”

Sep 092012
 

An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome
This is just one of many scientific papers that have come out as a result of the ENCODE (Encyclopedia of DNA Elements) project discovering functions in the “non-coding” region of human DNA. ID theorist have long disputed the Darwinian propaganda of 98% similarity of chimps and humans. But that debate has really been on 2-3% of the entire human genome. The rest of the genome according to the Darwinian fairytale is junk, an artifact left over from millions of years of evolutionary changes. This study puts a nail in the coffin of Darwinian common ancestry story that chimps and humans must share a recent common ancestry because of our morphological and phylogenetic similarities. The ENCODE project shows that 78% (80% of 98%) of our genome is functionally different than the Darwinian chimp model. See my other related posts Research on Intelligent Design by Darwinians and How To Grow A Homo Sapien

From RTB : Dr. Fazale Rana’s take on this.
Junk No More: ENCODE Project Nature Paper Finds “Biochemical Functions for 80% of the Genome”
The Demise of Junk DNA and Why It Matters

Sep 112009
 

A few weeks ago PZ defended his religion of Darwinism in the post Darwin and the vermiform appendix. PZ Myers is a Darwinian Prior, who refuse to allow silly things like facts stand in the way of his worship of atheism. So when a lot of press starts to suggest evolution might be in error, PZ the Darwinian Prior, must spin the fairy tale once again.

Where they go awry, though, is in trying to pick a fight with a dead man, and making that the focus of their public relations. … Charles Darwin is dead. Your research can’t be very cogent if your approach to drum up interest is to dig up a 120-year-old corpse and kick it around; is there anyone alive who disagrees with you who can put up a more informative and entertaining struggle? What this does is pick this one fellow as a symbol of the whole edifice of evolutionary theory

I agree. Darwin is dead and no one should make him the symbol of the whole edifice of evolutionary fairy tale theory. I mean only a crazy person would make such a big deal about a dead guy right? A rational and smart scientist like PZ would never make such a big deal about a 120 year old corpse who does not have very cogent research to science, right? Hey, PZ do you know the Darwin corpse worshipper from Fairyngula who said this?

Get out and celebrate the 200th anniversary of the birth of one of the most important scientists of all time, Charles Darwin, and the 150th anniversary of the publication of one of the most important books in biology, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. It’s that day!

Continue reading »

Jan 012007
 

Bill pointed out some exciting upcoming new books on ID. Let me add to his list Science’s Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism by Cornelius G. Hunter

Bill’s list:

  • THE EDGE OF EVOLUTION by Michael Behe
  • THE DESIGN OF LIFE: DISCOVERING SIGNS OF INTELLIGENCE IN BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS by Jonathan Wells and William Dembski

I wonder what happened to Dean Kenyon.

Krause added:
The Design Matrix by Mike Gene

Nov 072006
 


TOKYO — Japanese researchers said Sunday that a bottlenose dolphin captured last month has an extra set of fins that could be the remains of back legs, a discovery that may provide further evidence that ocean-dwelling mammals once lived on land. — AP

: UD

I did a little googling on this story, and I find that none of the usual Darwinian propaganda outlets are reporting this discovery. The only reporting is done by the news media. So I wonder why? If this is another missing link the Darwinian Priors would be flocking to the journals to spin their just so stories. Why the relative silence? Does anyone else think this is unusual? Continue reading »

Oct 142006
 

Krauze at TT posted this comment from Michael Shermer of Skeptic Magazine.

You’re saying that somehow, the first, very simple cell, was actually incredibly complex. Yeah, well, where’s the evidence for that? I mean, where’s the fossil evidence for that? You can’t just make stuff up in science. You actually have to some empirical evidence, so where is that? They have nothing like that, of course. So that, to me, is a deeply flawed argument. [My emphasis]

Michael Shermer might be right in that we don’t have any fossil evidence of that very first instance of a cell. Krauze is mostly right when he said Continue reading »