Evolutionary Truth by Piltdown Superman

Welcome to the home of "The Question Evolution Project". There is no truth in goo-to-you evolution. We are bombarded with dubious evidence for the "fact" of evolution. Contrary evidence is suppressed. That is against the true spirit of scientific inquiry. Using an unregistered assault keyboard, articles and links to creation science resources are presented here so people can learn something besides materialistic propaganda. בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ.

Monday, November 24, 2014

Evolutionists Clinging to the "Junk DNA" Faith

In discussions about subjects that have more than one definition, it is important to define your terms so you're not explaining one thing and the other party has a different understanding. Changing definitions is a form of special pleading, often called "moving the goalposts".

DNA was somewhat investigated, but since evolutionists didn't understand it, they called large portions of it "junk" —  leftovers from our alleged evolutionary past, and then plopped it on the well-worn trail of scientific incompetence. When DNA was given more thorough investigation, more and more of it was found to be very important.

On a side note, this is similar to so-called "vestigial organs" — they didn't know the purpose of some organs, so they declared them useless leftovers from evolution. Many were removed, and did harm to people because yes, they do have functions after all. After that scientific self-humiliation, the word "vestigial" was redefined. Disingenuous, isn't it?

Relying on their presuppositions of evolution hindered science mightily (and some people say it's the creationists who hold back science!), and some still want to continue to do just that. They reached into their possibles bag and pulled out some fancy redefinitions so that DNA can still have "junk"; God forbid that the biblical creationists (and other scientists) are right after all, gotta keep the faith even when it's wrong.
Having decided there’s nothing there, some defenders of the “junk DNA” concept won’t focus on it.

A press release from the University of Melbourne praises another test that concludes most of the human genome is “useless” material. A University of Oxford study led by Gerton Lunter decided that only 8.2% is functional. Writer Ella Kelly acknowledges that the ENCODE consortium came to a “bit extreme” and “drastically different” conclusions when they concluded 80% is functional, but it’s a matter of definitions, she says:
To alleviate that suspense, you can find out what she says and read the rest of the article by clicking on "Junk-DNA Defenders Refuse to Look at 'Useless' Code". 

Saturday, November 22, 2014

Big Kitty, Little Kitty — Why's the Difference?

We see the big cats and know that they're related to the little balls of fur that humans have domesticated for thousands of years. ("Domesticated", sure.) It's interesting to see the big wild ones occasionally playing and acting like house cats. Likewise, it's fun to see the house cats act big and bad, as if they were huge tigers or something. And yet, they've become companions of humans. Especially when food is involved.

Cowboy Bob Sorensen, Basement Cat

So, how did the cat kind get smaller and domesticated as a Sylvester, Felis sylvestris lybica?

Some interesting studies in genetics were conducted, as well as studying history, archaeology, animal behavior and so forth. Unfortunately, good research was hijacked again by evolutionary agendas. Since cats are primarily carnivorous these days, the speculation (bad even from an evolutionary viewpoint) is that all carnivores, no matter how different they are, evolved from a common ancestor. These people insist on seeing "evolution", even when there is no reason to expect it.
Feral felines and domestic cats are all capable carnivores. Scientists have now identified some of the genes that equip them to be great predators as well as genes that make domestic varieties content to share your affection and your home with your dog. (Perhaps I need to share this study with my dog, who is less than pleased with the arrangement.)

Geneticist Michael Montague and colleagues compared the genomes of domestic cats to wildcats. They examined the genomes of 22 different domestic cats from around the world and 4 wildcats (2 European wildcats and 2 Eastern wildcats). They also compared these cat genomes to the genomes of tigers, dogs, cows, and humans.

Since all of these are mammals designed to live in the same world, it is not surprising that they have many genes in common. The authors focused their attention on 467 genes that the carnivores in their sample shared and examined how much they varied. Though this study did not assess the functional significance of specific genetic differences, the assumption was that greater genetic similarity was evidence that those genes likely provided some sort of advantage that had been positively selected to persist in that population. They found that 331 of the 467 carnivore-associated genes were very similar among all of the cat genomes surveyed. And 281 of these genes were particularly similar among all the domestic cats, highlighting the genetic variations likely responsible for many of the unique qualities—physiologic, anatomic, behavioral—of the domestic cat. In other words, they think they found the genetic underpinning that makes the sweet kitty you’d give your child as a more suitable pet than a wildcat.
Don't have a hissy fit, you can finish reading the article by clicking on "How Domestic Cats Differ from Wildcats and Other Carnivores".

Friday, November 21, 2014

Washing Your Brain — While You Sleep!

Years ago, an American advert showed a woman saying, "I'm cleaning my oven — while I sleep!" The product was for a spray can of oven cleaner. While I was cognating on the article linked below, I vaguely remembered that advert.

Those of us with a bent for psychology know that the mind is awake when the body is sleeping. Dreams seem to be a way for the subconscious to work things out, maybe even clean and sort. In the Bible, God revealed things in dreams. (Does he do that now? Maybe, but not for adding onto Scripture.) Some scientists studied what happens while we sleep. You see, even cells have waste matter, and that gets cleaned up. But the structure of the brain is markedly different. It turns out that the brain gets physically cleaned out during the sleep process.

Scientists studying this were using the language of design, but fell short of actually giving credit to the Designer. Although they have no models, mechanisms or explanations, they still cling to the faith of "EvolutionDidIt".
What makes sleep so mentally refreshing? University of Rochester neuroscientist Jeff Iliff addressed the crowd gathered at a September 2014 TEDMED event and explained his amazing new discoveries. The words he used perfectly match what one would expect while describing the works of an ingenious designer.

Other organs rely on the lymphatic system to remove metabolic waste that builds up in the spaces outside cells, but no lymph vessels exist behind the skull. Since the brain uses a fourth of all the body’s energy, there must be some other mechanism at work to clear away brain waste. Iliff and his colleagues discovered this mechanism and published their findings in the journal Science Translational Medicine in 2012.3 In his TED talk, Iliff described his team’s findings using the appropriate language of design.
To finish reading the rest of this short article, you can head over to "Brain Bath: A Clever Design Solution".

Thursday, November 20, 2014

Small Stuff, Big Complexity

Many materialists like to parrot their icons by citing, "Things have the appearance of design, but that doesn't mean they're designed". Ridiculous. A basic argument for the Creator appeals to common sense: A painting has a painter, a building has a builder, a saddle has a saddle maker, and so on. With the amazing complexity in the world around us, in the heavens above, the microscopic level, it takes effort to think that there is no Designer. We all know God is there, but some people choose to suppress the truth (Romans 1.19-22). Study on this: Atheism and evolutionism make science impossible because only biblical creation gives us reason to believe in a structured, orderly, reliable universe. When atheists and evolutionists do science, they are abandoning their own presuppositions and borrowing from the only rational worldview — ours.

"Simple" cells turned out to be anything but simple, and are comparable with advanced computers — including their own specialized communications. Think even smaller. Molecules? No, smaller than that. Atoms! Even those building blocks have order, and are obviously the product of design, not chance.
The beauty and organization of God’s creation can be seen all around us in the macroscopic world. Everything we observe from plant life, stars, animals, rocks, air, and water—virtually everything—is composed of 90 naturally occurring building blocks known as atoms. Order starts with atoms and the subatomic particles that comprise them. This orderliness is not a random or haphazard assemblage of particles happening by accident or spontaneously organizing without an intelligent cause. Looking into the nature of atoms, creation is clearly seen. When God created, He brought order to the universe even in the smallest things, for God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33).
You can compound your learning by reading the rest of "Atoms and God’s order in the fundamental building blocks of all substance".

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

Did Caffeine Evolve?

Some people are told by their doctors that they need to cut down on the caffeine. Then they find out that the stuff is in many things that they never expected. Coffee is probably the first thing people think of, but caffeine is also in tea, soft drinks (including some non-colas), chocolate, pain relievers use it to "deliver" the remedy as well as ease the pain, foods and snacks that try to give you a boost, ice cream, and more. Cowboys won't give up their coffee, nor will many people. But we may cut down a bit.

freeimages / humusak2
Scientists studied the genome of coffee. Since caffeine naturally occurs in so many plants, they resorted to the cop-out of "convergent evolution"; it evolved separately in several things. Even more far-fetched is the claim that "natural selection" had a hand in it. Not hardly. Why don't people laugh at these "scientific" pronouncements? If they had the sense that God gave a pack animal, they'd realize that evolution and natural selection are not explanations. Instead, it was the plan of the Designer.
Coffee—love it or hate it—it affects your life, and even your language. Whether you start your day with “Coffee, black” or take your “coffee break” at the water cooler, whether you occasionally chat “over coffee” or get frequent-flyer-miles from your coffee shop app, whether you contribute to the economic welfare of millions who depend on coffee as their cash crop, argue Brits get a better buzz from tea, or believe “Things go better with Coke™”—the key chemical in “the most traded commodity after oil”2\ has some impact on your life. Now an international team of researchers has sequenced coffee’s genome and concluded that convergent evolution produced caffeine more than once.

Caffeine is found in a dizzying variety of plants including coffee trees, tea bushes, yerba maté, cacao, kola, guarana, and even citrus trees. (The nectar of orange and grapefruit blossoms is caffeinated, as is the nectar of more familiar caffeine-producers, pleasing bees who come back for more.) The researchers sequenced Coffea canephora, the diploid “robusta” species that supplies nearly a third of the world’s coffee crop. Coffea canephorais one of the two parents of the hybrid tetraploid species Coffea arabica, which makes up most of the rest.
You can read the rest of this wake-up call by clicking on "Caffeine: Convergently Evolved or Creatively Provided".

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

Astronomy, Physics, and Science Fizzles

It seems that whenever we read about studies and discoveries in historical science, secularists are running at full gallop like a cavalry charge to find out how something evolved. When the dust settles, we see that scientists need a mite more humility and a lot fewer arrogant presumptions. If they admitted that the evidence points to the Creator, I reckon they would not be surprised by discoveries quite so much.

Image credit: NASA / CXC / JPL-Caltech / STScI / NSF / NRAO / VLA
You'd think that physics is a safe trail to ride, but astronomy is full of assumptions, rescuing devices, guesses and "Oh, surprise! We're wrong again!" discoveries. Even physics itself is uncertain, especially in astronomical machinations. "Dark matter" and "dark energy" are disputed ideas put forward to rescue the Big Bang and inflation. Newly-discovered stars make dark matter not matter, and other discoveries further refute cosmic evolution.
Dark matter still has “no explanation whatsoever,” and meanwhile, half of the real stars in the universe have been hiding in plain sight.

Like government accountants saying “Whoops” at finding twice as much debt in their books as thought, astronomers have stumbled upon a whole population of stars that may outnumber all the known stars in the universe. Stars flung out from galaxies constitute a “mystery sea of stars,” Science Daily says. A Caltech rocket instrument surprised astronomers with a glow they think comes from these wanderers:
To finish reading, you can click on "Astronomers Missed Half the Visible Universe".

Monday, November 17, 2014

DNA Entropy Studies Show Recent Creation

The basic concept of microbes-to-microbiologist evolution in humans is that we improved over time, and that we're still improving. Problem is, that's simply not true. I keep saying that DNA studies are no friend of evolutionary theory, and scientists are finding evidence of genetic degradation. It's interesting that secular scientists, using deep time assumptions, get diversification in humanity that charts to about the time of the dispersal after the Genesis Flood. Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson studied mutation rates in mitochondrial DNA and the results show a recent creation. All results show that humanity cannot last forever, and will become extinct from mutations.
Many creationists believe that the bulk of scientific evidence for a recent creation comes from the fields of geology, physics, and astronomy and that biology and genetics have little to contribute. However, data that confirm a young creation are rapidly emerging from genetic studies performed by both creationist and secular scientists.

One of the most important finds in recent years came from modeling the accumulation of mutations (genetic code errors) in the human genome over time using computer simulations. Researchers found that this buildup of mutations can only reach a certain level before the genome completely deteriorates and humans go extinct. This process of degradation, called genetic entropy, fits perfectly with a recent creation of six to ten thousand years ago.
You can read the rest by clicking on "Genetic Entropy Points to a Young Creation". And if you have a mind to, I have something I was speculating on that I want to share below, just for what it's worth.

Some people take Genesis 2.17 as a lie from God because he said to Adam, "In the day you eat from it, you shall surely die". The Hebrew construction is tricky and has the word "die" twice. "You shall surely die" is one way to translate it, but it also renders, "Dying you shall die". That is, the dying process began, and we clearly see that Adam did not live forever, but did live for a long time.

That's established, here's me speculating some theology with a dash of science: "Adam" was not only the name of the first man, created "very good", but he was the father of humanity. He was also the federal head of mankind, and sin entered the world through him (Romans 5:17). Maybe we can extend this federal headship into physical science. Isn't it possible that God had an extra meaning in there? Not only did Adam himself begin the dying process, but humanity itself began the dying process. Just an idea, but I'll let better minds cognate on that.