Engineered Adaptability and Blockchain Technology

We have been observing the continuous environmental tracking (CET) model that is becoming a serious challenge to Darwinism. Instead of "pressures" on organisms causing them to change, CET is using an engineering approach. That is, how would the Master Engineer have designed living things to adapt to changes in the environment?

Credit: Freeimages / Katia Grimmer-Laversanne

The process of blockchain technology was developed for Bitcoin digital currency, but has grown into something that can be used in other areas of technology (and I reckon it will probably still be around even if Bitcoin falls out of fashion). Computers are linked and regularly update transactions. In a similar manner, DNA can be compared to computer programming that can account for both stasis and variation. Using blockchain technology, we can see how organisms and populations can rapidly adapt.

Evolutionary selectionism believes that outside forces called selective pressures produce DNA modifications that lead to trait variations in organisms. Thus, DNA is an accumulation of selected random variations. However, selectionism finds it difficult to simultaneously explain both variation and stasis. The dilemma is that DNA cannot be modified via random mutation without also quickly losing its ability to produce traits. In other words, this kind of variation tends to not simply alter traits but eliminate them.

In contrast, computer software specialist Mitchel Soltys uses engineering principles in a model that compares DNA to a computer program that combines both instructions and data in a single stream. Though the code is bounded by fixed, top-level instructions, input data called variables enable variation. Soltys describes how this model accounts for both variation and stasis:

To read the entire article, click on "Engineered Adaptability: Blockchain-Like Process May Produce Adaptive Traits". Seems to me that the CET model is being developed on many levels, and should be very interesting to keep watching.



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

The Riddle of Reproduction

Materialists like Bill "I'm Not A Scientist But I Play One On TV" Nye, Clinton Richard Dawkins, and other will tell you that organisms live to pass along their genes to subsequent generations. Rather bleak, really. Believers on universal common descent evolution are baffled about the origin of reproduction.

Credit: Pixabay / Erdenebayar Bayansan

There are several forms of asexual reproduction that include cloning in asexual organisms, fission, sending off spores as seeds, and parthenogenesis. Sexual reproduction is done in fewer methods including viviparity (that is what humans use). Evolutionists have suggested several possible origins of sexual reproduction, but cannot offer anything plausible. Our Creator designed living things to reproduce after their own kinds but to allow for variety and adaptation. Sex is a gift from God and is intended to be joyful when used according to his purpose.

Reproduction is broadly delineated into two major groupings: sexual and asexual. Sexual reproduction requires two organisms to exchange genetic material in cells contained in gametes. Asexual reproduction requires only one organism. Some organisms can reproduce both ways, while others are restricted to just one mechanism of reproduction.

To read the rest, click on "The Origin of Sexual and Asexual Reproduction".




Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Exploding the "Population Bomb"

Many years ago, I saw a poster version of the 1973 painting Overpopulation by John Pitre. It showed all the land filled with naked people, some even in the sea. This was quite possibly influenced by the 1973 book The Population Bomb by Paul Ehrlich, who was in turn presenting a Malthusian view.

Credit: Unsplash / San Fermin Pamplona - Navarra

Thomas Malthus was an economist who had some very pessimistic views of population and the struggle for existence, and was also an influence on Charles Darwin. Ehrlich is an anti-creationist who was influenced by Malthus and Darwin, and The Population Bomb upset quite a few people. However, his vision was seriously flawed. Interestingly, he is still highly respected by leftists. Is that why people still think drastic measures are in order? Hey, Granda! What's for supper? Maggot sausage and insect ice cream to save the planet and offset global warming, of course! These people are mentally ill.

The work was obviously based on numbers, did not deal with certain aspects of humanity, and did not have predictive ability. (He also denies the work of our Creator, who has given us minds to deal with many situations.) Not only has food production increased, but populations are declining, such as the 2018 US birth rate; some European countries are alarmed that they do not have enough people. Or how about the shortage of women in India and China due to abortion and infanticide?

I try to keep political things to a minimum in my posts. Unfortunately, secular science his running hell-bent for leather to support leftist causes nowadays. Once again, we see that Darwinian thinking has been detrimental to many people. This reminds me of the global climate change cult that uses bad data, false predictions (did you hear that a glacier in Greenland is growing again?), and emotional appeal to manipulate people for leftist agendas — which includes infringing on our God-given rights.

Population alarmism, like climate change hysteria, based on Darwinian thinking and the denial of God. Yes, God is there, and he does have his plans, old son. Population alarmism is unfounded and debunked.

In 1968, the “year’s most important book,” what Greg Garrard called a neo-Malthusian classic, The Population Bomb, by Stanford University Professor Paul Ehrlich, “made dire predictions and triggered a wave of repression around the world.”Authored by an evolutionary biologist known for his “groundbreaking studies of the co-evolution of flowering plants and butterflies,” it became a best seller, and turned the author into a celebrity. The book “would become one of the most influential books of the 20th century.”

Ehrlich’s conclusion was announced in the first sentence:

“The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.”

In the end, the book and the movement it birthed “fueled an anti-population-growth crusade that led to human rights abuses around the world.”

To read the rest, click on "The 'Population Bomb' Bombed".



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Chinese Fossils Give Double Cambrian Impact

We recently examined the disparity of fossils in the Cambrian explosion, where many creatures are found at the phylum level that are fully formed. Many people use the word diverse, but disparate is more accurate because it emphasizes the dramatic differences. Cambrian fossils found in China give mute testimony to not only creation, but the Genesis Flood as well.

Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Dwergenpaartje (CC by-SA 3.0)

Although paleontologists must be wary of "feathered dinosaur" frauds in China, there is a great deal of information in this area. Evolutionists use the euphemism "knowledge gap" to indicate that they have no idea why there are no transitional forms, only complex organisms. In addition, many living fossils have been found, contrary to the dogma of evolutionary "pressures" based on external influences.

Also, many critters with soft tissues have been discovered. The evolutionist story is that fossils form over huge amounts of time, but hard and soft creatures alike were obviously buried quickly. It is conditions, not time, contrary to what Darwin's disciples tell us. This is further evidence of the Genesis Flood.

News reports reverberated with details from a fantastic new fossil site in southern China. The Cambrian remains supposedly represent some of the earliest creatures to have evolved on Earth, but two telling details show why these fossils fit better with biblical creation.

Researchers described in the journal Science the unique set of animals buried in black Cambrian siltstone layers. Cambrian rock layers are some of the lowest layers on Earth, and thus the earliest to get buried with fossils in them. These sediments bear secular age assignments upwards of 500 million years. Seen through an evolutionary lens, these early layers captured the earliest animals to have supposedly evolved—the so-called basal life forms.

To read the rest of the hard truth, click on "Stunning Chinese Fossils Support Creation".




Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Another Evolution Propagandist Speaks Out

The spirit of Sanballat can be seen in many atheists and anti-creationists who implore us to be reasonable and put aside our foolish creation-believing ways. They utilize ridicule, intimidation, misuse of the law or rules (when possible), and other methods. Then the Sanballats offer to be pals, which should get your spider sense a-tingling.

Background image courtesy of Why?Outreach

"Who is Sanballat, Cowboy Bob?"

You can find him discussed in the Old Testament in the book of Nehemiah. The displaced Jews were given permission to rebuild the wall, but Sanballat and his cohorts got on the prod about it. He pulled his shenanigans with Nehemiah including a "Why can't we all just get along?" bit. Nehemiah was not having any of it. See "Ten Lies Satan Tells to Biblical Creationists" for more.

The National Review is ostensibly a Conservative publication in the United States, so it seems out of place for it to be publishing a Darwinism propaganda piece on May 13, 2019. Razib Khan, a Darwinian apparatchik, praised evolution up one side and down the other, glossing over its failures and praising its imagined successes. He Sanballated that we should embrace the Bearded Buddha and put aside our silly creationist ways. After all, other religious folks believe evolution.

Many creationist sites (including this one) have pointed out that evolutionary thinking has hindered science, was a strong influence for Hitler, Mao, Stalin, and other tyrants, ruthless laissez-faire capitalism, eugenics, abortion, and other evils. (Go ahead, so a search on those on this site.) Dr. Khan wants us to accept evolution for many bad reasons.


via GIPHY

What really takes the rag off the bush is how atheist Razib seems to be scientific. He also appears to be ignorant of what Darwin has given us. I'm not accepting it, and will risk the wrath of Khan by saying that he is being dishonest. 

Let's be pals, as long as you see things his way. (Notice that when sidewinders want others to be "reasonable", we are the ones who are supposed to compromise our values and beliefs?) The offer of getting along, maybe head over to the saloon and have a few drinks with the hands at the Darwin Ranch, this is like the fake friendship that Sanballat offered Nehemiah. Khan does not have our best interests at heart.

Something that is extremely problematic is that people fall for this kind of thing because too many "think" with their emotions, not with logic. (He's an author and a scientist, so they can fall for the faulty appeal to authority.) Christians need to go a step above critical thinking and think biblically.

Also note that the publication makes no pretense at Christianity. It is firmly rooted in the evolutionism that dominates our society. My speculation is that they would have no problem with Darwinist-based laissez-faire capitalism.

The National Review is a longstanding conservative news outlet in the United States—but what, exactly, are they trying to conserve? This week, an article was published on their website by Razib Khan, an atheist geneticist1 who refers to himself as ‘sympathetic to classical liberalism’, by the title of, “Conservatives Shouldn’t Fear Evolutionary Theory”.

In this piece, Khan attempts to put a conservative spin on Darwinism, claiming it is “a crowning achievement of Western civilization and a rejoinder to the modern myths of the Left.” Wow! The atheist Khan employs all the usual tactics here, bringing up the fact that, “many Christians well-versed in evolutionary science find it entirely compatible with their religious beliefs.” Yes, but is it actually compatible with the Bible? That’s the only important question!

To read the rest, click on "'Conservative' news site publishes pro-evolution misinformation piece". I also highly recommend the May 14, 2019 episode of The Briefing by Dr. Albert Mohler; you can listen or read the transcript. By the way, don't be getting your spiritual advice from secular publications. You savvy?



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Understanding the Opposition

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

In the May 2, 2019 episode of The Briefing, Dr. Mohler discussed Emperor Naruhito taking the throne in Japan after his father's abdication. Al presented some fascinating history about World War II, Douglas MacArthur and then-emperor Hirohito. I saw some things that can apply to Christians and creationists when dealing with atheists and evolutionists.

General Douglas MacArthur and Emperor Hirohito, September 27,1945
US Army photo by Lt. Gaetano Faillace
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents by the US Army)

The Japanese and American cultures were vastly different, and Americans seemed to have a superficial understanding of the Japanese people. If you know your World War II history, an invasion of Japan to end the war would have resulted in a horrendous loss of life on both sides, so the decisions were made to drop two atomic bombs to cause Japanese surrender. Some people wanted to have Hirohito stand trial as a war criminal and then execute him. However, MacArthur had different ideas. 

Shintoism was the dominant religion of Japan, and the people revered their emperors as either gods or conduits to the gods, which was probably one reason they would not surrender despite being defeated. MacArthur understood the importance of their religion to the Japanese people. The Allies had just wrecked Japan, but we operated from Christian foundations and could not leave them devastated. If Hirohito was executed, it would send Japan into a further decline or possibly cause a massive rebellion against the occupiers. Instead, a mutually acceptable arrangement was made that helped Japan recover.

Look just a few miles to the west. Those of us who know a bit about the invasion and ongoing occupation of Tibet can understand that the Chinese worldview was (and is) rooted in atheistic brutality. The Tibetans wanted to be left to their own devices. The Bon religion was prominent in Tibet until they became predominantly Mahayana Buddhist (some version of Bon are merged with Buddhism). The religion and culture were intertwined, but the ChiComs were heavy-handed and showed contempt for the Tibetans and their culture. This has backfired on the Chinese.

On a side note, the day I began writing this article, Dr. Mohler discussed another change of monarchy. King Maha Vajiralongkorn became both a deity and a king in Thailand.

While it can be fascinating to examine history and cultures that are foreign to those of us in the West, we can find some practical applications for Christians and creationists. The religion of atheism is not exactly unified. People identify themselves as weak, strong, Christian (yes, really) atheists, atheist-agnostic, and more. While there are several "leaders" of atheism, they do not necessarily get along or even trust each other. When engaging professing atheists (or agnostics), we need to find out what individuals believe and deal with them on that level, giving them a critique of their worldviews.

In a similar way, molecules-to-man evolutionism is very disjointed. Not all accept certain alleged transitional forms, there is disagreement whether or not dinosaurs evolved into birds, the evolutionary timeline is constantly being rewritten, and so on. Those of us who are serious about biblical creation science need to keep up on the material, which educates us on what is happening for both creationist and evolutionist ideas. (On social media, we often need to correct skeptics on their own mythology.) Then we can engage those who are honestly seeking answers.

Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes (click for larger)

Conversely, atheists and anti-creationists seldom seek to follow General MacArthur's example, seeking to at least understand where we are coming from so they can have rational discussions with us. They prefer to use misrepresentation and ridicule, and demonstrate a lack of familiarity with reason — which they ironically claim to uphold. Both atheists and evolutionists (and we have seen this many times on this site alone) argue from materialistic presuppositions and biases.

We also argue from our presuppositions and biases. However, science, logic, reason, and truth are on our side. While we seek to understand where others are coming from, we have no business setting aside the Bible. Wisdom and logic come from God, who makes science even possible in the first place. I maintain that atheism and evolutionism are not about facts and logic, else everyone would have a biblical creationist worldview. It is a spiritual problem. 

For the glory of God and properly presenting the gospel, we have to be better than those who hate us in our apologetics. That includes trying to understand where they are coming from, even if they have no desire to understand us.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Another Solar System Formation Model Fails

Purveyors of starstuff-to-security guard evolution are still saddling up that old swayback of the nebular hypothesis for the formation of our solar system. Other conjectures fail even more, so they keep going back to the best of bad. This time, a new computer model lets them down.

Credit: NASA / Jenny Mottar (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)

We saw that programming a robot to simulate flight evolution is ridiculous because programmers get the results they expect. In this computer solar system model, however, programmers are constrained with actual facts. The model indicated that secularists still have many problems; naturalism cannot explain the origin of the solar system. Want to know why? It did not happen by chance, but was created by the Master Engineer — and it was created much more recently than they want to admit.

The simulations do not even start with the gas/dust nebular cloud from which the solar system is supposed to have evolved, but start at a point where it is assumed that planet-sized bodies have already formed from accumulation of mass, thus skipping other potential problems. The ‘embryos’ present at the start of these simulations are 10 or 20 large planet-size bodies, and several thousand small planetesimals, at most a few hundred kilometres across.

Then computer simulations are run (or ‘allowed to evolve’ under standard gravitational physics) with various initial parameters in an effort to produce the solar system we observe.

To read the entire article, click on "How did the Solar System form?"

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!