Piltdown Superman

Over at Evolution News and Science Today , an Intelligent Design site operated by the Discovery Institute, Alfred Russel Wallace is receiving a great deal of attention in his bicentennial year. Professor Michael A. Flannery has written a book and several articles about Wallace. A spell back, I wrote about whether or not we would have evolutionary theory if Charles Darwin had never been born . Since evolution is ancient, it would have been assembled and popularized in a "scientific" format. Alfie almost did that, but Charlie got to the publisher first. Alfred Russel Wallace, ca. 1865 A.F. Wallace did quite a bit of science, but he was eclipsed by Darwin . A problem for him both then and now is that he dabbled in many areas, some of which seemed frivolous. Wallace seemed like an interesting individual. But the Bearded Buddha focused on his own specific areas, which was apparently applauded instead of the multi-faceted aspects of Alfred. Also, Wallace was a kind of forerunner of

Although darker-skinned people do it as well, blushing is very noticeable in people of European descent. Some blush easily and others may not ever. It is considered attractive, and women's makeup includes a blush tint. Fish, animals, and flowers may have reddish tinges that are called blush. Charles Darwin did not appreciate the notion of his time: Blushing was designed by God to display human shame. (Mayhaps that is true, but this child is not convinced.) What is interesting is that apes and other animals do not do it. Blushing bromeliad, Flickr / Tanaka Juuyoh ( CC BY 2.0 ), an article on the flower is here Darwin's disciples try to evosplain blushing, but they cannot get around the fact that it does not contribute an "evolutionary advantage." And why is it confined to the face and neck? Interestingly, blushing seems to be caused by an adrenaline release because of an emotional trigger. (It just occurred to me that it would be interesting to see if there's a si

A word that is commonly used in discussions of genetics is alleles . Simply put , they are pairs of genes, one from each parent, that match. Alleles are on the chromosomes. They often have slight differences, and those as well as similarities affect organisms. People have tried to figure out where new traits that were not in a lineage came from. The Bearded Buddha had some ideas that he put into his version of natural selection. Gregor Mendel pioneered genetics (peas be upon him), and his research showed that Darwin was on the wrong trail. Wallkill Rail Trail at Kingston, NY, Unsplash / Cowboy Bob Sorensen (modified at PhotoFunia ) For a long time, it was believed that random mutations married up with natural selection to drive evolution. It was learned that DNA is heavily influenced by epigenetics . Evidence also shows that the Master Engineer designed living things to adapt, change how genes are expressed, and environment does not cause the changes. Sorry, Charlie. No, not really so

Something that many of totalitarian dictators and even mass murderers of the last 150 years or so is holding to belief in Darwinism. Evolution is not just a theory for academics to discuss and for ordinary people to accept because they said so. Instead, it is a worldview used to interpret science and morality. Unfortunately, white supremacy will never go away. Those sidewinders are known for despising people with darker skin, but they have particular venom for Jews. Leftists label many people as "far right" including white nationalists, but leftists as well as alleged Conservatives were joining in with hatred for Jews. People worshiping statue of Darwin, made by AI at Bing Although the Intelligent Design people wrongly want to keep God out of the discussions, an article makes a point — which is often made by presuppositional apologists. That is, if Darwinism is right, nobody  can condemn Hamas for attacking the Jews. When atheists say that something is morally wrong, they are

Everyone has presuppositions and worldviews, and these things drive science. Secular science assumes that the universe is billions of years old and that cosmic, chemical, biological, and other evolutions happened. Biblical creation science affirms recent creation, and modifications are not evolution. Evolution extends beyond academic and scientific discussions and influences the lives of people. While people disliked other ethnic groups different from their own, Darwinian evolution (and modifications) gave rise to "scientific racism" and greatly increased the problem. Smithsonian Building, Wikimedia Commons / Noclip (modified at Fotosketcher ).jpg Evolutionists often become incensed when it is pointed out that Charles Darwin was a blatant racist. Some try to improve history , but the facts cannot be changed. In the Victorian era and later, scientists attempted to justify racism and eugenics. They insisted that darker people were physically and mentally inferior to white folk

It may seem that when creationists mention natural selection, we are giving Darwinists a foothold. Wrong-o! Natural selection was first discussed by creationists, then the Bearded Buddha hijacked and twisted it for his own agenda. The true concept is very real. Darwin was on what must have been an exciting five-year mission aboard the Beagle , and there was a long stop at the Galápagos islands. We looked at the tortoises , now we will consider the even more iconic birds. Flightless cormorant, WikiComm / Lip Kee ( CC BY-SA 2.0 ), modified at PhotoFunia Environments change, so living things must adapt to survive. Interestingly, evolutionists maintain that the loss of features  (such as when certain insects and birds — cormorants — become flightless) is evidence for their conjectures, but the truth is quite the opposite. Also, the islands have boobys, which are closely related to gannets. There are three main varieties that have differences in their actions. Natural selection at work. T

The voyage of the Beagle  where Charles Darwin gathered inspiration to add to his evolutionary conjectures would have been a dream cruise for many folks (his father paid for it). If someone took a notion to meet Charlie on the Galápagos, he would have had to saddle up and ride west from Ecuador. Except that horses cannot swim that far. Some of the giant tortoises have shells that kinda sorta resemble saddles, however, so there you go. Those are found in the uninhabited smaller islands of this group of volcanic islands. For being a great scientist, Charlie dropped the ball on making detailed observations of these critters. Giant Galapagos tortoise, Flickr / Sara Yeomans ( CC BY 2.0 ), modified at PhotoFunia On a side note, all tortoises are classified as turtles, but not all turtles are tortoises. Tortoises don't spend all that much time in water . These critters were once plentiful, but are now endangered. One reason is that whalers and others discovered that they were good eats.

There was a critter on the Falkland Islands that puzzled Charles Darwin and others, since it seemingly should not be there. It had several names such as the warrah, Falkland Islands wolf/fox. It became extinct partly because people wanted to kill it to own its fur. Some pinheads thought it was a threat to sheep. Stuffed specimens exist in museums, and some interesting research involved taking samples of their mitochondrial DNA and comparing it (and mutations) with South American canids. The Warrah may have been a descendant of the maned wolf. Falkland Islands warrah/fox/wolf, WikiComm / John Gerrard Keulemans (public domain), modified at Pixlr So how and when did it get to the Falklands? The DNA testing is problematic for adherents of deep time because it conflicts with when secularists say canids entered South America. There is speculation that the warrah crossed land bridges, or possibly rafted on floating vegetation. New evidence suggests that Fuegian Indians were in the Falklands

Sometimes when creationists bring up Charles Darwin's racism, it puts  burrs under the saddles of his followers. They claim it is an ad homiem  and a distraction, but the fact remains despite their protestations. It has also been extensively documented. His racism is extremely relevant, as it is entrenched in his evolutionary conjectures. We saw how a couple of his biographers falsely tried to say that his theory had a noble motive , the abolition of slavery. Professor Joseph L. Graves, Jr. is up to something similar. Celebration of Abolition of Slavery...in 1866 via NYPL , colorized at Palette , then modified at PhotoFunia The professor is celebrated as the first black man to get a doctorate in evolutionary biology, and my response is, "Big deal." Evolutionary biology is self-serving and has little value to real science. Also, how many black people are attracted to studying something this area? (Asking for a friend.) Seems strange to prop up a field where your "rac

Disciples of Charles Darwin try to brush aside or ignore his view of women as inferior , and especially his blatant racism . Some build a straw man by claiming that we said evolution is racist when we talk about scientific racism and other extensions of his conjectures. There have been owlhoots who claim that saying Darwin was a racist is an ad hominem , but that conveniently ignores the fact that his beliefs were fundamental in his development of evolution — ideas have consequences . People also point out that he was opposed to slavery, and a couple of authors try to make Charlie appear to be a passionate abolitionist. Public domain image, run through removebg , colorized at Palette , flames added at LunaPic A couple of biographers wrote a book that portrayed Darwin as someone who was concerned with the abolition of slavery. His work on species was with abolition in mind. When Dr. Robert F. Shedinger gave the tome close scrutiny, he realized it was stuff and nonsense. Sure, it was

A spell back, we discussed how the Huxley family was promoting Charles Darwin's myth of origins by developing conspiracies , but they wanted to keep up appearances in Victorian England. Looking proper was important in that era, perhaps more so than it is today. One reason is that they wanted to promote evolution, but did not want their activities to besmirch Papa Darwin. What was under the surface did not remain hidden much longer. For many atheists, Darwin is a sacred character. Satire, irreverence, and the truth about him are not to be tolerated. Some folks in the secular science industry are iconoclasts, willing to pull his statue off the pedestal and be straightforward about him. In addition, the extreme immorality of the Huxleys (who were some of Darwin's biggest supporters, remember) are shown as bearing bitter fruit. It is worth considering that evolution is the necessary creation myth for those who deny God. It is not just an intellectual choice (since the evidence for

Although the phrase, "Ideas have consequences," originated in a 1948 book by Richard M. Weaver and is now almost a cliché, it still holds some validity. Misotheists get furious — furious , I tell you — when the truth about Charles Darwin's concepts are discussed by creationists. Although he did not directly  originate eugenics and social Darwinism , those developed from his teachings. Evolution had a direct influence on Hitler . Another gang of sidewinders that adored Darwin was the communists . There are others as well. Darwin's ideas also had consequences that were manifested in the Vietnam War. UH-1D helicopters in Vietnam 1966, US National Archives , US Department of Defense, public comain (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents by anyone) Some jasper commented on a recent post, "As far as I know, Karl Marx never killed anyone." Maybe not personally, but his ideas hitched up to Darwinian concepts have led to the deaths of millions . American

The Bearded Buddha admitted that the gradual evolution of the eye seemed absurd. Presupposing his conjectures and refusing to consider any other explanation for the origin of the eye, he believed by blind faith that evidence supporting his ideas would be found. Disciples of Darwin have been trying to meet his challenge for years. There are sidewinders who simply avoid the challenge by saying that the human eye was poorly designed, but such a religious claim is based on opinion, not science. Cat eyes, Pixabay / Christel Sagniez It is not just the human eye, though. There have to be gradual stages of development and organisms had to benefit each step of the way.  National Geographic  attempted to support Charlie in 2016, but that effort was shot down by Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell. A more recent contender arose in something called Visual Capitalist , but this deceptive Just-So Story also fails. Indeed, there is dissent in the ranks about not only the evolution of the eye, but how particles-to

That title got your attention. While it is provocative and possibly emotive to use the word conspiracy , it is not done casually in this case. People who are attracted to the history of science (and a bit about the culture of Victorian England) should be interested in what follows. The Huxley name was held by several noteworthy individuals, especially Thomas Henry and his son Julian. T.H. was considered Darwin's Bulldog  because of his aggressive promotion of evolution, and Julian carried on the activities in many ways. There were many factors that made Darwin's story successful, including Victorian society and how people supported each other. The Huxleys were instrumental in bringing Darwin to the fore and keeping evolution going. Something very interesting is how that sidewinder T.H. didn't really believe in Darwinism, but something more akin to Gould's punctuated equilibrium . He used Darwin and evolution as a means to distance science from God. Both Thomas and Julia

Charlie Darwin believed evolution by blind faith. His followers past and present accept it despite lack of strong evidence, hoping that their beliefs would be justified later. That is the opposite of science, old son. They have problems with living fossils that, in and of themselves, falsify evolution. Living fossils are creatures that were thought to be extinct but later found doing well, or that have gone mostly unchanged over alleged millions of years, such as sea lilies and feather stars. Darwin knew about them . Now someone is stepping up to evosplain the problem away. Sea lily (crinoid), Wikimedia Commons / Alexander Vasenin ( CC BY-SA 3.0 ) People who know evolutionary concepts can see through attempts at rescuing Papa Darwin. F'rinstance, evolution is presented as almost an irrevocable force in nature; things must  evolve over millions of years. There are "evolutionary pressures" that force them to change — except when they do not  change, and that is called stas

People who study origins and evolution have heard of Darwin's Abominable Mystery. Like the irreducibly complex eye was a serious problem for Darwin  (yet he still believed in gradual evolution anyway), the fact that flowering plants appear in the fossil record too soon was another problem for him. Neither was resolved. Evolutionists are prone to lying to con people to accept evolution, and they did so a spell back about DAM . This time, however, they are honest about the inescapable conclusion (based on their systems) that flowering plants existed millions of years sooner than they previously thought. Phylica pubescens , WikiComm  Marco Schmidt ( CC BY-SA 3.0 ) Something that adds to their problem is that a flower found in amber is a Phylicia, which is basically identical to its living counterparts. It did not see fit to evolve after being subjected to "evolutionary pressures" through all those alleged millions of years. In addition, there should be a chain reaction in e

Lisa Myworries, the supervisor of the Winkie Guards at the Darwin Ranch, was rather subdued when I bumped into her (almost literally) at the store in town. She noticed the mood at the ranch and how they go from thrilled to somber. This time is the latter. Charlie's cheerleaders are happy to be told Just-So Stories and unleash the flying monkeys on those of us who are unwilling to be satisfied with the unscientific statement " it evolved ." It has been documented that there are secular scientists who have the audacity — the unmitigated gall  — to doubt Darwin. Pond, Unsplash / Cowboy Bob Sorensen  (cropped) That number is growing. A couple of people published a paper on problems with gradual evolution. "Survival of the fittest" oversimplifies things, and still fails to explain how complicated structures came into being in the first place. Something I have noticed, and Calvin Smith discussed quite well in " Science or Philosophy? ", is that people believ

A few days back, I was talking with Trevor "Red" Schnapper about how the hands at the Darwin Ranch are flighty about birds. Red told me about some new Just-So Stories. Evolutionists are usually unable to break out of their framework so they can conduct real science. Charles Darwin had his idea about a Tree of Life with everything developing from simpler life forms and branching out. That concept is just plain wrong , and some evolutionists are rejecting it. Several examples of the useless Tree of Life come from studying birds. Hoatzin, Flickr / Carine06 ( CC BY-SA 2.0 ) That punk-rock chicken called the hoatzin, down South America way, wreaks havoc with Darwin's Tree. Like the platypus, it cannot be successfully classified and has long been a problem for evolutionists . Place it on one branch of the Tree and it clumsily (they're not good flyers) moves to another one. Evolutionists also cannot determine how it reached its current living quarters. Another weird tale is

Since evolutionists have a tendency to move the goalposts by changing dates and other trickery, it is a rare thing for them to admit that they have wrong ideas. Some failed icons linger quite a while (such as Haeckel's fraudulent embryo drawings ), others that have been are quietly ignored. Charles Darwin's Tree of Life has been used for over 160 years, but it appears to have been rapidly losing favor over the years. There are numerous variations that are presented. In fact, some evolutionists reject them completely. Kill it with fire! The unmodified Tree of Life image is here . Those who read the previous post (" The Mostly-Complete Fossil Record ") and followed the link to the article featured therein (do people still use that word?) will have noticed a reference to the Tree of Life. It also mentioned that the creation orchard of life is a better explanation for what is observed in the real world. Of course, fundamentalist evolutionists reject the creation orchard,

Dreadful reasoning under the pretense of science is not a new phenomenon, having been a problem for many years. A glaring example that is often overlooked is how when the Bearded Buddha wrote Origin of Species , he presented his theory and admitted that fossil evidence did not support it. He did not admit that his conjectures were wrong. He blamed  the fossil record . In addition, his disciples continued to have faith that evidence would be found. That is the opposite of science, old son. The Fossil Record, made at PhotoFunia using a photo by  Alejandro Quintanar at Pexels The owlhoots who believe in the General Theory of Evolution are working from their worldview to interpret data. Fine, everyone does that. But they have a tendency to try and force the data into their paradigm and blame the fossil record for being "incomplete" when their speculations fall flat. It's not working, Wilberforce. Some evolutionists are willing to play the cards they've been dealt to so