Dec 142005

The Darwinian mindset never ceases to amaze me. I will let you all take first crack at this guy. 😉 I don’t want to give the ending away but guess what is missing in the following “Evolution for Everyone” article?

There isn’t any consideration by Wilson to investigate the cause for the skepticism of evolution. Wilson’s Darwinian myopia prevents him from the practice of science. His solution to skepticism of evolution is more indoctrination.

PLoS : Evolution for Everyone: How to Increase Acceptance of, Interest in, and Knowledge about Evolution

Evolution is famously controversial, despite being as well established as any scientific theory. Most people are familiar with the dismal statistics, showing how a large fraction of Americans at all educational levels do not accept the theory of evolution [1], how efforts to teach evolution often fail to have an impact [2], and how constant vigilance is required to keep evolution in the public school curriculum [3]. Even worse, most people who do accept the theory of evolution don’t relate it to matters of importance in their own lives. There appear to be two walls of resistance, one denying the theory altogether and the other denying its relevance to human affairs.

Dec 132005

Mike Gene posted on similarities between fruitfly and human gut. The Nature article is here ” The adult Drosophila posterior midgut is maintained by pluripotent stem cells”

Eric Anderson Says:

    From the cited paper summary:
    The six-legged fruitfly appears to have little in common with humans, but a new finding shows that they are really just tiny, distant cousins. . . . “The fact that fruitflies have the same genetic programming in their intestines as humans, strongly suggests that we were both cut from the same evolutionary cloth more than 500 million years ago,” stated lead author of the December 7, on-line Nature paper, Benjamin Ohlstein.”

Except of course when it doesn’t mean any such thing, like in the case of convergent evolution . . .

Eric made an excellent point. Why not convergence? Answer. Darwinists do not practice the scientific method but rather “methodological naturalism” . The default answer to any new discovery is Darwinian common descent. Is there any evidence here that a detailed pathway that links the gradual evolution of fruitflies and humans to a common ancestor? No, but that is not important, evolution is a fact.

To demonstrate that the great divisions of nature were really bridged by transitional forms in the past, it is not sufficient to find in the fossil record one or two types of organisms of doubtful affinity which might be placed on skeletal grounds in relatively intermediate position between other groups. ” To begin with, ninety-nine per cent of the biology of any organism resides in its soft anatomy, which is inaccessible in a fossil. Supposing, for example, that all marsupials were extinct and the whole group was known only by skeletal remains would anyone guess that their reproductive biology was so utterly different from that of placental mammals and in some ways even more complex? (Michael Denton., “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis”, p177)

Darwinists are abhorrently close-minded and they don’t want to be confused by the facts. Everything is de facto UCA to a Darwinian. Continue reading »

Dec 122005

Author : Benjii
Darwinists constantly claim that ID is nothing more than religion in disguise. Why? Because they are all christians who allow their religious sensibilities get in the way of their science. The funny thing is, what about the religious or anti-religious sensibilities of the darwinists. For example, University of Minnesota biologist, PZ Myers, criticized one of his fellow evolutionists, Simon Conway Morris, for suggesting a purpose behind evolution. He states as follows: “So, anyway, Conway Morris irritates me greatly. He’s a lousy writer. He holds views I strongly disagree with. He lets his religion guide his opinions in unscientific directions. He can be nasty and petty. Unfortunately, he’s also a paleontologist with direct access to the primary material, is extremely well-read and able to provide a wide perspective on the subjects he describes”so darn it, I’m going to have to read his latest book. And it’s probably going to irritate me even more.” (Pharyngula)

He blames Morris for letting his religious sentiments get in front of his science. However when you read Morris’ book LS:IHIALU, never does he mention religion as to why evolution is purposeful. His main thesis is that the ubiquity of life has an uncanny way of repeating similar features over and over. This clearly can be inferred as something teleological. I think the argument can be turned around, PZ let’s his anti-religious sentiments get in front of his science, including against those in the evolutionary camp.

In the end, if Darwinists want to judge ID scientists based on their religious dispositions, then why can’t the same be said about the Darwinists themselves?

Dec 092005

Jerry Adler with Anne Underwood and W. L. Adams wrote an article for Newsweek (Nov. 28, 2005 for the U.S.A.; Dec. 12, 2005 for the international edited version. In the cover of that magazine they declared “Evolution vs. ‘Intelligent Design’: Round II” ).

In their most unfortunate comment, they wrote that

“…the Bible has nothing to impart about the genetic relationships among the finches he [Darwin] did find…”

You can see the full context at the end of that article.

In the print edition of that magazine, in pages 54 and 55, under the figure of the different Galapagos’ finches, we read an excerpt written by Josh Ulick:

Origins of an Idea. Darwin was amazed by the diversity of finches on the Galapagos: each species has a unique beak tailored to its specific diet. He theorized that the dozen or so variations arose from a single ancestor whose descendants spread out and adapted to different conditions, eventually evolving into separate species. This idea became cornerstone in his theory of evolution.”

However, the Bible, by declaring in Genesis Chapter One that living organisms reproduce after their own kind, is more accurate than the currently held idea that the Galapagos Finches are different species produced by ‘evolution’.

Why those writings attempting to be for the purpose of “popularizing scientific ideas” fall so short hiding the fact that the different finches interbreed producing fertile offspring?

Let’s put a common comparison with which all of us may relate, because the currently held and deliberate mistake of considering the finches as examples of evolution is as wrong as if each of the different breeds of dogs were considered as different species.

So, imagine that what currently is happening to the finches is like to consider a “Canis bernardensis” (St. Bernard Dog) a different “species” of dog evolved to endure cold weathers, while wrongly considering “Canis chihuahuensis” (Chihuahua Dog) as another different “species” that evolved to endure living on the mountains, then another dog “evolved” short legs to be able to walk under small spaces, etc., etc. What is wrong with that picture of dogs? It is wrong that in the same way that the different breeds of dogs are able to interbreed producing fertile offspring one with another, in the same way the different finches are able to reproduce among themselves, which means that both groups of animals are genetically compatible within themselves. Continue reading »

 Posted by at 11:51 am
Dec 092005

There is one thing that always bugs me about ID opponents: They often present pure speculation, based on absolutely no hard evidence, as established fact.

For example, you’ll hear, “The way evolution produces complex, functionally integrated biological machinery is through a process called co-option. Here’s how it works…” They should be honest and say, “Some biologists speculate that biological components that served other functions can be co-opted to assemble new machinery that performs a new function. However, there is no hard evidence that this process actually takes place, and no detailed, testable proposals for how random mutations could engineer such a process.”

Of course, they also always leave out an explanation for the hard stuff. Where did the assembly instructions come from? They too must be irreducibly complex, since a partially assembled motor is of no use even if all the parts are available.

I sometimes wonder if these people are actually aware of what they are doing. Perhaps — because they are convinced that such a process _must_ take place, because the underlying theory _has_ to be true — they have deluded themselves into thinking they are providing facts and explanations instead of unsubstantiated speculation.

 Posted by at 11:25 am
Dec 092005

In Newsweek (Dec. 12, 2005) we read:

” “Even people who aren’t comfortable with Darwin’s ideas,” says Niles Eldredge, the museum’s curator of paleontology, “are fascinated by the man.”

In part, the fascination with the man is being driven by his enemies, who say they’re fighting “Darwinism,” rather than evolution or natural selection. “It’s a rhetorical device to make evolution seem like a kind of faith, like ‘Maoism,” says Harvard biologist E. O. Wilson, editor of one of the two Darwin anthologies just published. “Scientists,” Wilson adds, “don’t call it ‘Darwinism‘.”

Here, E. O. Wilson argued that only non scientists use the term “Darwinism” as a “rhetorical device to make evolution seem like a kind of faith. Like “Maoism” . Wilson says that real scientists rather use the term “evolution” and “natural selection” . Well, first we already presented the bogus “evidences” (likewise the finches) that he and his “pals” own to “prove” their concept of evolution. Second, “Maoism” is “a political imposition of communism” , and third, PubMed presents indexed articles using the word “Darwinism” .

But, who is that fully erratic E. O. Wilson?

David C. Stove, in his Darwinian Fairytales wrote about him:

“There are physiological or behavioural signals of submission which in our species, in dogs, and in many other animals, terminate fights between conspecifics, or prevent them from starting, or at the least usually prevent them from ending in a death. The existence of these signals, according to professor E. O. Wilson, the leader of the sociobiological school, is profoundly puzzling. They constitute, he says, ‘a considerable theoretical difficulty: why not always try to kill or maim the enemy outright?‘ [Wilson, E.O. (1975), Sociobiology. Harvard University Press, Boston, p. I29.] This scholarly enquiry might will cause you, if you are a mere normal man, and can remember being in a school playground fight or two, a sharp intake of breath. But if, of course, you are a Darwinian, and believe that all organisms, including yourself, are engaged in a struggle for life, or if you take for granted that humans and all other animals are selfish – why not, indeed…? (Stove’s p. 82)”

“…. If Professor Wilson were right, it would be a ‘considerable theoretical difficulty’ why Darwin did not try to kill or maim Samuel Butler, for example, or why Wilson himself does not try to kill or maim his bitter enemy and Harvard colleague, Professor R. C. Lewontin. But this is not a considerable theoretical difficulty. It is just a joke, and a stupid one at that (p. 83; see also p. 221)… But it is perfectly obvious that once Darwinian armour plating has reached this degree of thickness, it is completely impenetrable by common sense, or even sanity. The fact is, there is no problem about human altruism. The only problem is Darwinism and neo-Darwinism. (p. 95)”

Continue reading »

 Posted by at 11:09 am
Dec 092005

According to Newsweek Darwin was “an ardent abolitionist” , deeply offended by Christians who owned slaves (p. 56 of the print magazine for Nov. 28, 2005)…

Well, let’s see what a relative declared of the biological and ‘spiritual’ Darwins in general:

“Gwen Raverat was a daughter of Charles Darwin’s son George. She wrote a wonderful book entitled Period Piece, (1952), about her childhood and her numerous Darwin relatives. Late in that book she remarks that the Darwins in general ‘were quite unable to understand the minds of the poor, the wicked, or the religious.’ [Raverat, G. (1952), Period Piece, Faber and Faber, London, p. 209.]

This is most profoundly true. And it is true not only of Darwins, or of Darwinians of the blood royal such as Galton, but of all Darwinians of what might be called ‘the pure strain’ of intellectual descent from Darwin: for example Fisher, Darlington, E. O. Wilson, and Richard Dawkins. And it means, of course, a rather large gap in their understanding of human life; since the poor, the wicked, and the religious, must make up, on any estimate, at least three-quarters of all human beings.

But true as Gwen Raverat’s remark is, and far as it goes, it does not go nearly far enough. For there are many and large classes of people who are neither poor nor wicked nor religious, but who are still a closed book to the characteristically Darwinian cast of mind. They are the heroes, the adoptive parents, the men who do not kill every enemy they successfully fight, the intelligent mothers who detest kidnappers… (Stove’s p. 224)” Continue reading »

 Posted by at 10:56 am
Dec 092005

From RTB:

    Human and Chimpanzee Genetic Differences

  • Many people consider the “99% genetic similarity” between humans and chimpanzees as evidence for evolution. However, when genetic expression is taken into account, major differences exist. This study shows that gene expression is significantly different in the human and chimpanzee brains. Moreover, as humans and chimps age, the changes in the gene expression patterns follow different trajectories. Gene expression patterns undoubtedly account for the profound biological and behavioral differences between humans and great apes. It appears that a Creator used the same raw materials (genes) to construct both humans and chimpanzees, but altered and employed these materials in such a way to generate radically different organisms.
  • Related Resource

Dec 032005

In the Teaching ID post I said that I would give a detail response to Lawrence Krauss’s address at AEI.

Krauss began his address by comparing the underperformance of U.S. students to other countries. He blames our current pursuit of ID due to our ignorance of science. In reference to President Bush’s comment that both sides of the ID and evolution controversy should be taught, he said:

What it does represent, of course, is a misunderstanding of the issue, and it reaches all the way to the White House, and, therefore, it is not surprising that we are here and that I have to go around the country often and talk about this when I would rather be talking about how interesting science is.

He continues…

A recent example is that U.S. 12th graders performed well below the international average for 21 countries in math and science. And there’s tons of statistics like that.

Krauss wants to paint a dire picture of how we will not be able to compete with other country if we continue with these ignorant ideas. The problem is that why didn’t Krauss consider what got us here in the first place. Why are our educational standard behind so many countries? Was ID being taught in schools and thus caused this ignorance? Or was Darwinism and the Darwinian scientific methods that is being taught and thus caused this ignorance? There are also many other factors social, political and cultural, none of which have to do with the teaching of science that have led us to this point. Even I would not blame the Darwinian establishment for our “misunderstanding” of evolution (good science) from ID (bad science). Continue reading »

Dec 022005

Guadalajara hosted Intelligent Design with Dr. Paul Nelson:

Guadalajara, Mexico: Dr. Paul Nelson, ARN Board member and Discovery Institute Fellow, lectured on Intelligent Design at the beautiful campus of the Autonomous University of Guadalajara (UAG), the oldest and most distinguished private university in Mexico. It was a tremendous event (packed auditorium) with all the intellectual freedom and institutional support that one could want. The next day, the university biologists escorted Dr. Nelson to a resort hotel owned by the UAG on Lake Chapala in the mountains of Jalisco, where they enjoyed a lively seminar on the problems with macroevolution, and where Dr. Nelson again enjoyed support and intellectual freedom currently unimaginable in the United States. [Taken from: ARN-Announce, Dennis Wagner, editor. Number Fifty, December 1, 2005]

Click here to read Dr. Paul Nelson at the Discovery Institute.

Other countries more open to detecting the precious designs in nature and to copy them are going to take over the next step for the freedom and progress in science!

The irony is that the U.S.A. was the initial cradle for Intelligent Design in Science!

 Posted by at 7:12 pm