Search This Blog

Sunday, November 19, 2017

Further Confusion with Convergent Evolution

It is not secret that the only fossil evidence for particles-to-paleontologist evolution exists in the minds of the secular science industry and propagandists. There are biologists who disingenuously claim that practically every little change is "evolution". False fossils and equivocation aside, since there is no actual scientific evidence or plausible models for evolution, these owlhoots use another fact-free "explanation" for what cannot be explained scientifically: convergent evolution.

Convergent evolution is an unscientific pretense, not an explanation

Simply put, to invoke the miracle of convergent evolution is an act of foolishness. Take a passel of assertions about how critters evolved, find other critters that have similar traits, and give homage to Papa Darwin. Then pass it off as "science" and collect grant money. Pseudoscience for fun and profit. We have more examples of forcing fossils to fit the narrative. Pretty desperate to avoid the harsh reality that God created the world recently, and the Genesis Flood supports paleontological and geological evidence. Evolutionists, drop the pseudoscience and deal with the truth, savvy? 

Before I send you to the article, I have to let you know that when the author uses, "Who’s we, Paleface?" and similar quips, he's making reference to an old Lone Ranger joke.
When unrelated fossils have similar traits, evolutionary paleontologists twist, shove and stuff them into Darwin’s theory with an all-purpose tool called convergence.
It wasn’t supposed to work this way. Animals were supposed to diverge as they evolved. Branches on real trees do that. In neo-Darwinism, the branch tips in Darwin’s image of a branching tree should get farther apart the more they evolve, because neither branch knows what the other one is doing. But the real world is full of counter-examples, where unrelated animals end up becoming very similar. Even more often, fossils exhibit “mosaics” of traits from different branches, or from “stem” (early) or “crown” (mature) members of a single branch. It’s all very confusing to Mr. Darwin, so his disciples invented a trick to keep from getting their story falsified. It’s called convergence, and here’s how it works. (Note: Not being Darwinians, we will dispute inclusion in the occasional first-person plural pronouns.)
To keep reading and see the examples, click on "Convergence Crams Uncooperative Fossils into Darwinism".

Sunday, November 12, 2017

No Evidence for Dinosaur-to-Bird Evolution

Some folks insist on proclaiming that dinosaurs evolved into birds, and say it as if that's the fact, Jack. Although dinosaur-to-bird evolution is a popular dogma, it is not settled science. Some evolutionary scientists do not even accept that opinion. Also, there is considerable disagreement about which dinosaurs evolved into birds. Some say that there is insufficient evidence for a view, so they postulate another candidate for bird ancestry, which also has no evidence. Then there are the evolutionists who go the opposite way, and say that some birds evolved into dinosaurs!

The idea that dinosaurs evolved into birds is contrary to science and rational thought
Archaeopteryx lithographica credit: Wikimedia Commons / Ballista (GFDL 1.2)
If you reign in and spend a few moments pondering, you can see that there are many serious problems with the dino-to-bird concept. These include the fact that fossils of modern birds and dinosaurs have been found together, there is no evidence of bird evolution, evolutionists haven't a clue about alleged bird-to-dino changes, the incredible variety of birds, and so on. Then you have all the massive physiological changes that need to occur, such as flight and breathing. These need to have occurred at the same time, else the critter would ring down the curtain and join the choir invisible. No, dinosaurs and birds were created, and Darwin's disciples cannot change that fact.
A review of the extensive literature covering the more popular theories of the evolution of birds was completed. Of the numerous theories proposed, all were found to be problematic, and for this reason most are now rejected by evolutionists. The most popular current theory, the evolution of birds from dinosaurs, was briefly reviewed, and also found to suffer from major problems, some of which were discussed. The major problem is the differences between birds and both reptiles and mammals, and the fossil record has not been of much help in solving this evolutionary problem. Nor have genetic or biochemical comparisons.
To read the rest, click on "Dino-bird theory—a flight of fancy". Also, you may want to read about soft tissues that were discovered in bird fossils

In related and more recent news:
A new discovery forced a rewrite of bird evolution. Chinese fossil discoveries ballooned the number of birds found among dinosaur-containing rocks. Until now, the oldest Chinese fossil birds, found in Lower Cretaceous deposits, had unique anatomies that seemed better suited for climbing or occasional gliding than for powered flight like most modern birds. However, Upper Cretaceous deposits have long revealed modern-looking bird anatomies. The supposed time difference between Lower and Upper layers permitted around 40 million years for modern bird anatomy to evolve. But it only takes one good fact to shoot a bad story out of the sky.
For the rest of that article, click on "Bird Evolution Story Crash-Lands".

Finally, here is a combination screenshot from an atheopath that is so determined to contradict creationists, he makes a fool of himself, showing his ignorance of the subject and apparently making up his own "facts" through arbitrary assertions. This character demonstrates my contention that he does not even read the material he "debunks", and supports my contention that rabid anti-creationists are afraid to read creationary articles or watch videos because then, they may realize that God is the Creator and Judge, and they are facing a terrible eternity.

Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes

Sunday, November 05, 2017

Parasite Wasps and Venom Origins

We know about predators in the wild: a lion sees a gazelle, kills, eats. A cousin of the predator is the parasite, which does not kill the (usually unwilling) host outright, but depends on the host for its own survival. It may eventually kill the host. There are predators and parasites in the world of insects. A particularly nasty form is in the form of parasitoid wasps.

Credit: CSIRO science image
Some people wonder, "What good are wasps and their other stinging relatives? They don't make honey, and a hornet packs a mighty big punch in its stinger." Well, I certainly don't want their company, either. But they do have uses of which we are unaware, such as controlling other insect pests and doing pollination. Some of that control comes from predation — and parasitism. 

They parasitoid wasps (many of which are extremely small) immobilize and even control the host through venom. Then it places eggs in or on the hapless host, and when they hatch, they feed on it. When the host dies, they don't pay it no nevermind, its services are no longer required. Kind of makes me reluctant to use the word host in polite society, because human hosts for shindigs are willing and tend to survive the events.

Someone pointed out that the "face hugger" in the first Alien movie was parasitoid, as the unfortunate crew member discovered. Didn't it happen in Alien 3, too, with Sigourney Weaver's character as she was sacrificing herself? Then they brought her back in the next sequel as a clone; the same thing only different. Being parasitoidal (is that a real word?) is similar to what evolutionary conjectures do to real science, if you study on it.

Anyway, the parasitoid term is an evolutionary classification. Not because of science, but because of wishful thinking and ipse dixit. Whoopsie daisy! Y'all can tell I got a mite involved in doing research before posting to the main article about serious scientific research on venom. Where did venom originate? Evolutionists learn more and can explain less, as the genetics and varieties involved in venom are beyond their ken. Still they give homage to Darwin, blessed be! How did attack-defense mechanisms with venom occur when creation was very good in the beginning? Biblical creationists have some reasonable speculations to offer.
Providing food for one’s younglings is perhaps a mother’s most basic job, even for a mother wasp. Parasitoid wasps do this in a rather gruesome way. They lay their eggs in or on another arthropod, like a caterpillar, cockroach, or spider. When the eggs hatch, their parasitic larvae slowly consume the victim’s body, deriving nourishment and protection until they are ready to go forth into the world as adult wasps.
Parasitoid wasps are a diverse and abundant component of agricultural ecosystems. They are only parasitic while in their larval stage. While some parasitoid wasps target invertebrates that we humans “like,” the majority of the estimated 600,000 species prey upon pests that attack our food crops, making them our allies despite their ghoulish habits.
To read the rest, click on "Parasitoid Wasps Shed Light on the Origin of Venom". Also, a short, fascinating, and somewhat grisly video is below.

Sunday, October 29, 2017

Manufactured History for Evolution

If you want to know something for certain, check with a reliable eyewitness. Better yet, go and look for yourself. When it comes to universal common ancestor evolution, by definition, there can be no eyewitnesses. To go and look requires time travel, and there is no sign of that happening.

Credit: Pixabay / HypnoArt
Of course, you can also employ the complex evolutionary principle of Making Things Up™ and build your own alternate history. Imagine an ancient protein that existed 500 million Darwin years ago, and use some biochemical work in your imagination. Lots of inference, but no real science. Hard to believe that people take these scientists seriously, and even pay them. Evolutionists are desperate to keep their death cult going because there is no evidence for their beliefs, so they go haywire trying to make up their own realities. Otherwise, they have to admit the truth of the Creator, the eyewitness, and learn what he has to say.
As the old saying goes, “ABC” or Anything But Creation. In the case of a recent report, evolutionists look to chance and “molecular time travel” (as the article calls it) rather than the Creator as the explanation for their theory.
Recently, secular scientists revealed their speculation of alternate evolutionary histories by studying a protein they supposed existed half a billion years ago. Using a large “set of genetic variants” from “a resurrected version of an ancient protein” they theoretically discovered “a myriad of other ways that evolution could have” occurred. Are they on to something valid or is this another unsupported speculation?
It won't take too much of your time to read the rest of the article. Just click on "Evolutionists Embrace Time Travel and Alternate Histories".

Sunday, October 22, 2017

Deception in Evolutionary Transgender Research

If you care to examine the evidence and pay even a little bit of attention to the secular science news, you will see that image of the impartial, unbiased scientist has ridden off into the sunset.

The unbiased scientist will never come back, because that was entirely a myth. Scientists are human, and have worldviews into which they try to see if the evidence fits. In the case of evolution, the evidence most definitely does not fit reality, so they tamper with definitions and even the facts so they can say, "Aha! Evolution!"

A study in transgenderism as an evolutionary benefit was conducted with disingenuous redefintions and basic denial of biological science.
Credit: Freeimages / Richard Dunstan (modified)
It is a demonstrated fact that the secular science industry is becoming increasingly leftist in its research and conclusions — especially when logic and facts are twisted to achieve the illogical conclusions that sidewinders desire. One of the popular items is transgenderism. In the United States, the estimate is less than one half of one percent of the population identifies as transgender, but the way leftists, social justice warriors of the left, anti-Christian bigots, and politicians distort that number, it seems much larger than is supported by reality.

Some folks try to use evolution to justify "gender fluidity", where someone's gender "identity" can change, even by the hour. (This must cause extra washing on laundry day.) They also try to use science to defend transgenderism. This is impossible, as there is no scientific research to support the idea that someone can change their sex. People who claim that a sex can be changed through surgery are science deniers.

Also, there seems to be a distinction between sex (the biological aspect) and gender (the way society perceives people). I remember being involved in a forum that was all about men's concerns. Many people wondered what it means to be a man. Some people felt that a "real" man is interested in sports, motor vehicle mechanic work, and so on. This definition of "man" involved protecting the family, loyalty, hunting, and similar things that belong to the manly stereotype. They did not know how to deal with the fact that many women do the same things! Also, since I am not into sports, automobiles, hunting, and so on, I must not be a real man. However, I am confident in my masculinity. I wonder how they felt about manly men who would participate in needlepoint, knitting, and other activities that typically belong to women. 

In some cultures, whether isolated from those who are technologically advanced, or in developed urban areas, men will be the ones involved in typically female activities around the home. That does not make them transgender or less manly! They remain men. This also applies to when women take on duties or employment that are often associated with men; they do not change sexes. It is also true when men and women simply do not feel like being typical, and being involved in activities that are not typically associated with their sex, and then going back to their usual roles later.

Some animals can change their sex when necessary (clownfish are all born male), but this is an aspect of our Creator's design and genetic engineering. Some owlhoot evolutionists are changing the definitions of male and female, and of transgenderism, to suit their leftist proclivities. That's not being scientific, that's just sneaky. Also, slapping "evolution" like a bumper sticker onto the research is disingenuous, since this has nothing to do with evolution.

In reality, human transgenderism has nothing to do with biology (except in rare cases involving birth defects, but the exception does not establish a rule). We are not birds, reptiles, fish, amphibians, and so on. No, being "a man trapped in a woman's body" is psychological, not physiological. In the following article, note that those who elected to have gender reassignment surgery (bodily mutilation and a denial of God's design) have an increased suicide rate.
Some argue that transgenderism was caused, or at least influenced, by evolution. Some of them support the notion of transgender transgender by claiming that Transgenderism “Showed Evolutionary Benefits in Ancestral Societies,” namely they helped others with child care and other tasks. In a 2013 paper in Nature, VanderLaan and his colleagues studied 146 non-transgendered societies and 46 transgender societies in both current and older hunter-gatherer societies. 
To read this fascinating article in its entirety, click on "Does Transgenderism Have an Evolutionary Benefit?"

Sunday, October 15, 2017

The Age of Mysterious Newgrange

When traveling the countryside of Britain, you may come cross burial mounds (passage graves, cairns, barrows, tumuli, and other names). They are indeed mounds, and locals pay them no nevermind for the most part because they have a passel of them. Megalithic monuments in England such as Stonehenge and Rollright are famous, and it helps that they're out in the open and all. Head north of Stonehenge, then east, and cross the Irish Sea, and you'll eventually reach a somewhat newer entry into the category. In County Meath, Ireland, is a structure known as Newgrange. It was just another lump until the entrance was found in 1699. 

New Agers are fond of these structures, which are found on the evidence-free "ley lines". The group Celtic Woman remade the song "Newgrange", originally recorded by Clannad. The song mentions Druids and a forgotten race, but there is really no way of knowing who built Newgrange, and why. The purpose is disputed as well. Burial chamber? Solstice observatory? Both? Something else? The discovery is rather fascinating.

Credit: Pixabay / hbieser
Something worthy of creationary research is the abundance of similar burial mounds all over the world, including stone chambers and mounds in New England. People are puzzled that there may have been communication between ancient Americas and Europe way back yonder. Mayhaps a creationary explanation is that this could be another example of people bringing their memories and legends after the dispersal at Babel? It may be worth a look.

Some archaeologists cogitate that Newgrange is a few hundred years older than Stonehenge. How do they know this? Radiocarbon dating. However, the selected age fits with secular opinions, and creationists want to know if radiocarbon dating is reliable, and how it was calibrated. (The unreliable orbital tuning to calibrate for ice cores method comes to mind.) When assumptions are made before testing, the results are predetermined, so the secular bias rules the day. That's how it works. In reality, a great deal of work needs to be done, without secular assumptions, to determine a more accurate date for Newgrange.
Clearly something is wrong with radiocarbon dates, but what? As an astronomer who analyzes how humans mark time by the regular movement of celestial bodies, I have long wondered whether different branches of science could work together to solve these questions. If we could somehow find a reliable, independent astronomical way to date stone structures, perhaps we could show how older radiocarbon “dates” must be revised to match these more accurate astronomical dates, which are certain to line up with the Bible’s timeline.
To read the entire article, click on "Uncovering Assumptions at Newgrange".

The barrow at Newgrange is a fascinating discovery, and it puzzles archaeologists. Another area of interest is whether the date assigned to it can be reconciled to biblical chronology.

Sunday, October 08, 2017

Languages Did Not Evolve

Proponents of microbes-to-man evolution have their naturalistic starting point for their presuppositions and the way they interpret evidence, and biblical creationists stand on the revelation of God's inerrant Word. Evolutionists have a simplistic view of the origin of language, which is essentially grunts and such to form words to communicate danger or various needs. Creationists believe that God created Adam and Eve as fully operational intelligent beings, which includes the ability to use languages. A serious examination of the languages after the confusion and dispersal at Babel strongly supports the creationary view.

Credit: Pixabay / Roger Casco Herrera
A simple way to see that, contrary to evolutionary viewpoints, languages have become less complicated over time. Ever read a book from the 19th century or earlier? Literature from back then is often more elegant, with a richer vocabulary.

Let's take a look at how language and spelling has changed in a few English language Bibles.

Most Bible readers are comfortable with modern translations, and have to slow down to read their King James Version (most commonly, it is the 1769 version). The actual 1677 KJV is considerably different. Let's look at Genesis 11:8-9 in that version: "So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence, vpon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the Citie. Therefore is the name of it called Babel, because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad vpon the face of all the earth".

The Geneva Bible of 1587 gives us: "So ye Lord scattered them from thence vpon all the earth, & they left off to build the citie. Therefore the name of it was called Babel, because the Lorde did there confounde the language of all the earth: from thence then did the Lord scatter them vpon all the earth".

Moving back 1526 Tyndale version: "Thus ye LORde skatered them from thence vppon all the erth. And they left of to buylde the cyte. Wherfore the name of it is called Babell because that the LORDE there confounded the tonge of all the world. And because that the LORde from thence skatered them abrode vppon all the erth."

You can see some differences, but let's add one more, the Wycliffe Bible from the late 1300s: " And so the Lord departide hem fro that place in to alle londis; and thei cessiden to bielde a cytee. And therfor the name therof was clepid Babel, for the langage of al erthe was confoundide there; and fro thennus the Lord scaterede hem on the face of alle cuntrees".

Just for fun, you can see and hear the Old English Beowulf (from about 975-1025) at this link. I have no problem admitting that I need the translation. Was the Grendel dragon a dinosaur? Just wondering.

Enough with the English history, and let's dig a bit deeper into languages themselves. There are language groups. Some of the ancient texts are exceptionally complex and difficult to categorize, let alone, translate. Ancient languages have deteriorated over the years (there are marked difference between New Testament koine Greek and modern Greek, including subtleties and tenses). Some languages have ceased to exist, which increases the difficulties of translation.

There is no evidence that languages evolved, conjectures presented as science notwithstanding. Actually, languages have devolved.
Evolutionary theory, when applied to origins of language, fails utterly to explain the phenomena of original complexity, subsequent loss and degeneration, and the array of unrelated languages in antiquity that even now are only partially understood due to that complexity. It is here contended that only a biblical approach can explain the complicated grammar, morphology, phonetics and syntax found in ancient texts. From what we in fact find from these texts, and because these phenomena could not arise spontaneously or gradually, a supernatural interruption near the beginning of post-diluvian history is the only explanation. The supernatural interruption which created these many complex languages is precisely what is related in Genesis 11:1–9.
To read the entire article (which I think may take the average reader about 45 minutes, so make yourself comfortable), click on "Languages of the post-Diluvian World". Also, for an article on using language as evidence for God's existence, click on "Language Itself Testifies of the Creator".

That's a Fact - Language Families from Institute for Creation Research on Vimeo.
Genesis 10 documents about 70 different language families in its Table of Nations. About how many language families are there today? How does science confirm the number?

Darwinists say language evolved from grunts for communication. Creationists say man was created intelligent and had the capacity for language from the beginning. Here is a very interesting examination of languages from the dispersal and confusion at Babel.