An Example of Evolutionary Bias

Biases. Preconceptions. Presuppositions. We all have them. It's all a part of being human. The belief that scientists are completely dispassionate, assembling data and following where the evidence leads is very naive. Evolutionists have already decided that evolution is true, and that makes it much more difficult for them to accept the evidence that refutes evolutionism and affirms creation. Their belief system heavily influences their interpretations of the data — often with absurd results.

Are scientists always objective? Do they always interpret the evidence with an open mind? Some time ago I experienced first-hand how a scientist’s beliefs affect the way he looks at the evidence.

Whilst a geology student at university, I needed to identify a fossil. After consulting the Atlas of Invertebrate Macrofossils I had tentatively identified it as a belemnite of the genus Hibolites. However, paleontology was not my specialty so I sought advice from an expert.

The research paleontologist at one of the major universities in our state was the obvious choice.

You can finish reading "Fossil flip-flop", here.

Audio Saturday: Dobzhansky's Deception

In an earlier post, the claim that "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" was shown to be a false claim. Now we can examine how Dobzhansky's article was bad science and worse religion. Bob Enyart was published in the prestigious, peer-reviewed Creation Research Society Quarterly, and his radio show did a four-part discussion of the paper.

Here is a hint on where you look for the free audio on each page (click picture for more bigness):

Part 1 is here.
Part 2 is here.
Part 3 is here.
Part 4 is here.

Next week, I'll go back to a much shorter audio.

Do the Math - Cicadas Did

Magicicada: Wikipedia/Bruce Marlin

Although I am reluctant to bug you with this, but it is about time for the 17-year periodic "Magicicada" to appear. Would you like to hear them? Good.


After 17 years and when the temperature is 64 degrees Fahrenheit, they burrow up from the ground in huge numbers to wreak vengeance upon the living. All right, so the part about vengeance is exaggerated, but it does sound like a kind of science fiction or horror movie device, what with waiting for the right time, temperature and all. It is eminently logical to see that they are the product of a Master Designer, but people foolishly give undue credit to evolution.

Entomologists study insects and spiders. They regularly discover examples of mathematical genius hardwired into various tiny-brained arthropods. And as young students know all too well, math doesn't come easy.

Science writer Seth Borenstein recently wrote an AP article describing why residents of the United States' east coast anticipate an impending insect invasion—at least in rural areas. This spring marks 17 years since a particular brood of a unique kind of red-eyed cicada, called "magicicada," last emerged en masse. And yes, the name reflects the way these insects seem to "magically" appear at the same time after 17 years of living underground as larvae. When the ground temperature reaches precisely 64 degrees, magicicadas in "Brood II" will tunnel upward, crawl up the side of a nearby tree or structure, squeeze out of their molted exoskeletons and then fly around each in search of a mate.

When Brood II emerges together, some estimate they will number up to a trillion cicadas. Of course, their onboard precision-computing equipment makes this all possible. Some kind of internal miniscule chronometer precisely measures the passage of years, and a tiny thermometer monitors the soil temperature. These nifty devices would be useless unless they had the ability to communicate—according to appropriately engineered software—with a central processor. Only then can the organism attach meaning to the data input, and act accordingly.

To finish reading, you can fly over to "Cicadas Make Great Mathematicians".

The Word about the First Bird

fws.gov

A new candidate for the first bird that allegedly evolved is in the limelight. Not only is there doubt that the critter is actually a bird, but there is another problem: archaeopteryx. Although this failed "transitional form" has been classified as a true bird, some evolutionists tenaciously cling to the idea that it was something else. The timeline of bird evolution has to be rearranged yet again — unless the new guy is not real, then they can continue with their existing chaos of bird evolution guesswork.

Feathers are ruffled in the evolutionary community because the newest candidate for the world’s first bird upsets the currently popular claim that Archaeopteryx was not a bird at all. Pascal Godefroit and colleagues can only achieve bird-status for their non-feathered fossil if the slightly “younger” and clearly feathered Archaeopteryx can be called a bird. While evolutionists worldwide argue over just how the evolutionary history of birds should be adjusted this time, some seek to snatch victory from the jaws of inconsistencies by proclaiming that the fuzziness of dinosaur-bird definitions actually proves that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

The conundrum concerns the chicken-sized Aurornis xui. Aurornis is said to have originated in Liaoning province's Tiaojishan Formation. Aurornis was found by a farmer, acquired by a fossil dealer, and sold to Yizhou Fossil & Geology Park. Since the scandalous appearance of the Chinese “Archaeoraptor,” a forged feathered dinosaur that National Geographic in their November 1999 magazine hailed as the dinosaur-bird “missing link,” paleontologists analyzing fossils obtained from Chinese farmers and fossil dealers often include in their papers a statement declaring faith in their fossil’s authenticity. The article in Nature concerning Aurornis—whose Latin name means “dawn-bird”—contains just such a statement of authenticity in its supplementary materials. Nevertheless, the fossil is so perfect that some have suggested that Aurornis is a forgery.

To finish reading, you can migrate to "Is the Dawn of the Early Bird Too Good To Be True?"

How Do You Prove Evolution is True? Manipulate the Data, of Course!

Despite the attempts of the Evo Sith to "explain" evolution, when the data are examined by people who are not trying to influence people to believe the evolutionist worldview, the actual facts come to light. The "Tree of Life" is still tenaciously grasped, even though it should have been discarded years ago. DNA analysis? Well, be disingenuous and filter the data. Then, fiddle with it. When there isn't a creationist or ID proponent around to call you on it, then present it as "truth". (Of course, when the dishonesty and bad reasoning are pointed out, the whistle-blowers are told, "You're a liar!", or, "You don't understand evolution!" They keep using that word "liar"... We know more than those people want to believe, and we don't like being played for fools.) They'll persist in believing their failed evolutionary worldview, even though it is full of errors, conjecture, guesswork and fraud.

One of evolution’s trade secrets is its prefiltering of data to make it look good, but now evolutionists are resorting to postfiltering of the data as well. Evolutionists have always claimed that the different species fall into a common descent pattern forming an evolutionary tree. That is, the various traits—from the overall body plan down to the DNA molecular sequences—from the various species, consistently reveal the same evolutionary pattern. If one gene shows species A and B are closely related and species C is more distantly related, then the other genes will reveal the same pattern. Evolutionists call this consilience. In practice however, this consilience is superficial. There are profound contradictions between the different traits, and in a new attempt evolutionists just set a new record for failure: out of 1,070 genes, every single one contradicted the hoped for evolutionary tree, as well as each other. 1,070 different genes and 1,070 different evolutionary trees. Consequently evolutionists are now manipulating the data even more than before to obtain the desired results.

These days when evolutionists compare species they usually use molecular sequence data, such as genes. But what if a particular type of gene is found in species A but not in species B? Obviously this constitutes a big difference between these two species. It is not as though the gene merely is different to some extent. It is altogether missing from one of the species. Nonetheless, the typical strategy in such cases is simply to drop that particular gene from the data set. That big difference is, in a stroke, eliminated from the analysis. This is one type of prefiltering evolutionists use.

Prefiltering is often thought of merely as cleaning up the data. But prefiltering is more than that, for built-in to the prefiltering steps is the theory of evolution. Prefiltering massages the data to favor the theory. The data are, as philosophers explain, theory-laden.

You can finish reading "Contradictory Trees: Evolution Goes 0 For 1,070", here.

Blasting Cambrian Explosion Explanations

We are constantly being told that the fossils prove evolution. However, even though many ambiguous fossils are put forth as "transitional forms", knowledgeable paleontologists admit that they do not exist, despite the claims of Darwin's Cheerleaders. In addition, the "Cambrian Explosion" (where fossils of all major groups of animals alive today, and many that became extinct) has been a falsifier for Darwinism since Papa Darwin published his speculations; evolution should have been discarded for lack of evidence shortly after it was popularized.

stock.xchng/dyet

The facts do not stop people from believing, however. People believe in evolution despite the evidence, and, with an attitude that is contrary to science, will refer to Darwin deniers as "liars" (possibly because they are terrified that they will realize that there is a Creator and they are accountable after all) and give "Science of the Gaps" excuses.

The "problem" of the Cambrian Explosion is no problem at all for biblical creationists, because a sudden appearance without transitional forms in the fossil record is predicted by Noachian Flood models. Still, evolutionists try (and fail) to offer plausible explanations. God forbid (heh!) that you hear the truth.

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 Meyer’s new book, Darwin’s 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 Illustra’s film Darwin’s 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 Q&A, though, the university’s professors and museum curators could not produce any unambiguous fossil as a credible ancestor to any of the Cambrian animals.  Meyer’s book, updated with the latest findings since then, examines all the putative fossil ancestors and evolutionary exlanations for the Cambrian explosion, and assesses the issue’s relevance to the Darwin-ID debate.

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 Metazoa’s 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.”

Unless you're petrified, you can read the rest of "Cambrian Explosion: Evolutionists Have No Answers", here.

Lunar Magnetism Further Refutes Evolutionary Cosmology

stock.xchng/raven2663

Cosmologists have their presuppositions about the age of the universe. When the observed data persist in troubling their beliefs, they do not abandon their erroneous ideas. Instead, they are "challenged" and try to explain the facts with unworkable conjectures. Biblical creationists do not have anywhere near the same amount of difficulties with their models.

The story of the rise and fall of the moon's magnetic field constantly energizes planetary scientists. Simply put, under secular magnetism models, the moon is too small to have maintained its charge as long as evolutionists imagine and as strongly as its magnetic clues indicate. Secular scientists face a grave challenge in reconciling the moon's magnetic signatures with billion-year age assignments.

The latest foray into this collection of highly charged lunar dilemmas resulted in a team of scientists selecting a solution that, in the end, still failed to fit all the facts.

And here are a few of these relevant facts from the article, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS):

1. The moon has a feeble magnetic field today.
2. Moon rocks retrieved by the Apollo missions contain remanent magnetism that records an ancient lunar magnetic field that was once as strong as the earth's is today.
3. The most popular secular theory attempting to explain planetary magnetism involves a dynamo caused by differentially rotating molten fluids near the core. But the fact is such a dynamo would wear down millions of years before the age assignments evolutionists attach to the moon's days of high magnetic field strength.

To find out the difficulties with these ideas, you can finish reading "The Moon's Latest Magnetic Mysteries", here.