Search This Blog

Sunday, July 30, 2017

Another Evolution Revolution?


There's a whole heap of consternation going on in muck-to-man evolutionary circles. Yet again, they make much ado about practically nothing. Paleontologists have a piece of bone and a tooth, and it means that they have to rewrite evolutionary history. Again. Watch the textbooks not get changed. Again. 

Trouble arises because because of evolutionary presuppositions and the narrative that humans and chimpanzees split off the Darwinian timeline and commenced to evolving their separate ways in Europe instead of Africa. Katie, bar the door! It would help matters a great deal if they avoided bad science and had a realistic worldview — such as the eyewitness account of creation, that wasn't threatened to be overturned when supposedly significant items are discovered. But they don't cotton to hearing the truth.
The CBC News headline “7.2-million-year-old pre-human fossils challenge evolutionary theory” tells it all. Another headline at The Telegraph was more confident, exclaiming that “the history of human evolution has been rewritten after scientists discovered that Europe was the birthplace of mankind, not Africa” as previously thought. The source of these and many other reports was an article published in PLoS One that was far more modest than the frequent headlines that were very confident of the conclusions.
To read the rest of the article, click on "Yet Another Revolution in Human Evolution". For additional information, I recommend "'Prehuman' Fossil Age Questioned".
   
Evolutionary paleontologists made fragmentary discoveries that should supposedly cause a revolution in evolution. The big deal is made of very little information, and caused by bad science coupled with evolutionary presuppositions. They actually have nothing of significance.

Sunday, July 23, 2017

A Monstrous Muddle for Evolutionists

Way back when, scientists thought that the platypus was a prank, what with looking like it was built from spare parts and all, and being unfriendly to evolutionary classifications. Jump forward about 150 years from the "you gotta be kidding me" time, and we get another one: a fossil called Tullimonstrum, or the Tully Monster. Not the kind of monster that will jump out and eat your car, since it was 10 cm (4 inches) long.


Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Nobu TamuraCC BY-SA 4.0
This, too, looks like it came from spare parts. Seems like scientists would be suspicious, since it was first discovered in the 1950s in Illinois, and no other fossils appear to have been found. Darwinists have dust-ups over how to classify the thing, and you'll find articles about the mystery being solved, no it is not, and so on. I suspicion that this was made by our Creator to remind us that there's still very much that we don't know.
From a biologist’s perspective, a few identifying clues stand out—but only a few. One is that it had a notochord. A notochord is a stiff rod made of cartilage that runs down an animal’s back like a backbone, providing support while it is an embryo. All vertebrates and some invertebrates have notochords. In vertebrates, the notochord can later become part of the vertebral column. This makes it an important clue to one of the most basic distinctions in biology: was the Tully monster a vertebrate or an invertebrate?
To read the entire article in context (or download the MP3), click on "How to Solve a Monster Mystery".

The "Tully Monster" is a strange creature known from fossils, and those are found in only one area. It defies evolution, but is not a problem for biblical creationists.

Sunday, July 16, 2017

Reproducibility Crisis in the Science Industry

One of the axioms we were taught about science is that someone floats a hypothesis, gives it some testing or adjustments, discards if necessary, then the hypothesis graduates into a theory and possibly becomes a fact. Looks good on paper, but there is a serious problem in the science industry called the reproducibility crisis. Essentially, there's not much happening in the area of retesting and verification. It's bad enough in origins science, but when it affects people's lives through biomedical research, that's mighty low.

Credit: Freeimages / doctor-a (modified)
There are several reasons for this. One of the main reasons is that fame and fortune in the secular science industry goes to the ones who have the sensational news, especially if it claims to give evidence for minerals-to-mycologist evolution. Scientists and other people also need to know what does not work, but that information is often neglected.

In origins research, sometimes it actually is difficult to reproduce someone's research. Try obtaining the original material that was tested. Also, evolutionists are biased, and want to prove their point (often to give them self-justification in their rebellion against the Creator). Kind of hard to tell if their papers gave all the facts. Actually, we've seen that pertinent facts are omitted (here is one example), so it can make someone a mite wary when asked to take someone's word for something.

Another reason that test results are not reproduced often enough is human nature. We like incentives (I get an occasional gift card for working enough overtime, but I doubt that a gift card to the lab's commissary would be sufficient for them). Many people want the glory, and will cut corners and even cheat to get it. Because of the pressure to perform that some scientists face, well, they may do what it takes to get recognized. No glory in replication of someone else's work. But there may be some accolades in discovering that a "great discovery" was actually more fake science news. Some folks are stepping up and sounding the alarm.
Concerns about unreliable findings in biomedical research, such as cancer research, have been well documented. The problem is known as the ‘reproducibility crisis.’ If this is a problem in a field open to observation and visible in the here and now—biomedical research—what about evolution, which is based on events and extinct life forms that are claimed to have existed eons ago?
University of Bristol Professor Marcus Munafò writes in Nature in a book review about the crisis,
Nuh uh. You have to read the professor's remarks and the rest of the article by clicking on "Unreliability in Science Reaches Epic Proportions". You can also listen to an audio version with surprisingly good text-to-speech voices.

The inability and unwillingness to reproduce research in biomedical and evolutionary science is becoming outrageous. It also illustrates the fact that secular scientists are human and prone to the same vices as the rest of us.

Sunday, July 09, 2017

Heretics in Secular Cosmology

The dominant secular concept for the origin of the universe is called the Big Bang, but y'all probably knew that. It's been around less than a hundred years, preceded by the Steady State. Astronomer Fred Hoyle disliked the Big Bang and gave it that moniker out of derision, but it stuck. Neither speculation about the universe has any significant observational evidence.

Credit: kraifreedom / FreeDigitalPhotos.net
The Big Bang of today is not the same as in Ol' Grandad's day. Flaws are found, and it keeps getting modified with rescuing devices that look good on paper, but still have no observational evidence. Now you're more likely to hear about "inflationary theory", and some ornery cuss may want to slap leather with your for calling the Big Bang an explosion — but that's how it was established. Fundamentalist atheists and other secularists are like biblical Christians in one respect: low tolerance for heretics. In this case, the heresy is that a few cosmologists are disputing the scientific validity of inflation, and others are circling the wagons against those who are disputing the consensus. All that hassle to cling to cosmic evolution, and they're all wrong: the universe was created, and created recently. No explosion, inflation, or anything else. As for Christians, there's no valid reason for you to hang your hat on materialistic ideas when you have God's Word, you savvy?
The February 2017 issue of Scientific American contains an article by three prominent theoretical physicists from Princeton and Harvard who strongly question the validity of cosmic inflation, an important part of the modern Big Bang theory. They argued that inflation can never be shown to be wrong—it cannot be falsified—and therefore inflation isn’t even a scientific hypothesis.
Inflation theory was proposed by physicist Alan Guth to solve a number of serious problems in early versions of the Big Bang model. Supposedly, the universe underwent an extremely short period of accelerated expansion right after the Big Bang.
To finish reading, click on "Big Bang Blowup at Scientific American".

Atheists do not tolerate cosmological heretics. In this case, some are daring to say that "inflationary theory" has no evidence, and cannot save the Big Bang.

Sunday, July 02, 2017

Bizarre Burrowing Rodent Befuddles Darwinists

Much as I wanted to skip this article because the creature under consideration is ghastly to behold, once again, the ugly things that trigger the "eww factor" are actually quite interesting. I'd rather use the name sand puppy, the naked mole-rat

"Isn't Naked Mole-Rat the CIA code name for Hillary Clinton?"

Now, be nice, this isn't a political piece. Besides, the White House Communications Agency selected Evergreen for her, but code words change over time. Donald Trump's name is Mogul. Code words — hey, nice job of getting me on a rabbit trail.

So anyway, the naked mole-rat is native to Africa, and in a separate family from other mole-rats. It has several unique properties that thwart ribosome-to-rodent evolution and illustrate some of the Designer's abilities.

Fun fact: the naked mole-rat is modest at the beach and uses a changing room
Image credit: Pixabay / cocoparisienne
Although a mammal and having many needs of other mammals, this puppy acts almost cold-blooded because it has some control in regulating its body temperature (thermoregulation). The nekkid mole-rat also has the ability to live for much longer periods of time in an oxygen-deprived environment, and can live on (of all things) fructose. This critter is relegated to evolution's mysterium tremendum, since they cannot offer a reasonable explanation and simply say that it exists and has these features, therefore, evolution. That's not science, old son, that's faith. It does not take blind faith to reach the logical conclusion that the complexities (and possible medical benefits from studying) of the naked mole rat are the product of our Creator.
Naked mole-rats are highly social, cold-blooded, subterranean mammals. They live much longer than most rodents and are pain resistant, cancer resistant, and suffocation resistant. These characteristics naturally intrigue scientists wanting to help people live longer, healthier lives. The naked mole-rat’s decreased sensitivity to pain, for instance, results from a mutation affecting nerve function, and study of this mutation may reveal ways to decrease chronic pain in people. The latest naked-mole-rat discovery has awakened hopes for innovative medical interventions for heart attacks and strokes. These are events that damage the heart and brain through oxygen deprivation.
To finish reading, click on "Naked Mole-Rats: Evolutionary Marvel or God’s Grand Design?"

An amazingly ugly creature has some amazing survival abilities. It also thwarts evolution. In addition, it is being studied by medical scientists for imitating its abilities for humans!