Welcome to the home of The Question Evolution Project. Presenting information demonstrating that there is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution, and presenting evidence for special creation. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Wednesday, May 8, 2019

Folding Molecules and the Origin of Life

When someone says protein, the first thing I think of is how I can fold it. Just kidding, I think of protein-rich foods. There are millions of kinds of proteins which are classified according to their functions and other criteria. Folding is a very specific biological process.


Research into the folding of a molecule was applied to guesswork about proteins in the distant past and evolution. This part of the research is not science.
Credit: Pixabay / Colin Behrens
Protein folding is not fully understood, but it is vitally important because it is the way proteins take their shapes so they can be useful. If they don't fold properly, they are useless, and the particles can actually be harmful. Some researchers got a molecule to fold, and remarked that maybe complex molecules can be had before evolution began. This is based on materialistic presuppositions, not on actual scientific evidence. Abiogenesis has been refuted long ago, but that doesn't stop some materialists in blind faith denial of our Creator.


Click for larger
Reporting from the secular science industry focused on the historical assumptions about the origin of life, so these owlhoots were celebrating what they consider to be another nail in the Creator's coffin. But this is not only historical science speculations, it is also applying the folding of a molecule to that of proteins in the alleged distant past. This aspect is not science. The press ignored the majority of the paper about the chemistry research.
Recently published research discusses the synthesis and characterization of a large molecule which folds into a ring pattern with five-fold symmetry. The size and shape of any given molecule have many implications in its usefulness as a catalyst, a chemical sensor, a scaffold for further reactions, or in its medicinal applications. However, the use of terminology including spontaneous, chemical evolution and even a subheading “Origin of Life” through the article displays the mindset of the authors. Our responsibility as Christians is to discern the difference between the discussion of results and the statements made which are interpreted through an anti-biblical worldview.
To read the entire article, click on "Folding Molecules Give Insight to Origin of Life".





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

Tuesday, May 7, 2019

Termite Mounds and Creation

Once again, we need to leave our aversion to an annoying creature back at the stable so we can commence to pondering the work of the Master Engineer. In an earlier post, we looked at how small things can have an impact on their environment, such as termite skyscrapers. So, what is the story with termite nests?

While few of us like termites, we can appreciate the work of the Master Engineer who gave these evolution-defying insects the ability to build their amazing homes.
Credit: John P. Mosesso, USGS (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Some of those nests are mighty impressive mounds that house millions of termites. Others are less impressive, but either way, they have to be built to successfully accommodate their residents. Our Creator gave them the ability to act like they have one mind to build and maintain their nests, even to the point of windows to deal with the buildup of carbon dioxide. This alone is evidence for creation, but it gets worse for Darwin's disciples when the fossil record show that termites have always been termites. No evolution here, Hoss!
Termites (order Isoptera) are eusocial—animals with an advanced social organization—insects that can number in the millions, producing something biologists call a superorganism. This is defined as a colony of termites having features of organization analogous to the properties of a single creature. These insects have the ability to digest wood due to symbiotic gut-dwelling flagellates, single-celled eukaryotic creatures that have enzymes capable of breaking down cellulose.
To read the rest of this short article, click on "Termite Nest Architectural Design Is Clearly Seen".






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

Monday, May 6, 2019

A Wealth of Feathered Dinosaur Fossils in China?

There are times when it is possible to have too much of a good thing. Certain areas of China contain a wealth of fossils from all sorts of critters including dinosaurs and birds. All that good stuff for paleontologists, but they are unable to find transitional forms. Then they have the problem of fakes.


Many fossils are discovered in China, and quite a few are fake. Especially alleged feathered dinosaurs. There are still no transitional forms.
Photo of Sinosauropteryx prima holotype slab
at Wikimedia Commons by James St. John  (CC by 2.0)
China is a repressive communist country, so impoverished farmers are giving scientists what they want: feathered dinosaur fossils. There are so many fakes being produced that papers have been retracted by science journals and people are more cautious. Don't want another Archaeoraptor humiliation, do we?

Another part of the problem is that dinosaur-to-bird enthusiasts "see" what they want, and not necessarily what is actually discovered. The narrative drives the science, just like the Piltdown man fraud that fooled evolutionists for over forty years, or the deception of the "walking whale". Secularists (and a few creationists) imagine that there are feathers in them thar fossils, but the story is skewed and other more plausible explanations are ignored.

Some creationists have indicated that if a fossil was discovered that was indisputably a feathered dinosaur, so what? It would not prove that dinosaurs evolved into birds. It would be quite a find, because true feathers are complex. Even so, evolutionists would still need to find evidence of transitional forms, of which none exist. We are not seeing any evidence for evolution, but the evidence does point toward special creation and the global Genesis Flood.
Not only dinosaur fossils have been found in the Liaoning region, but an entire, well-preserved ancient world, a picture of the world as it existed in the distant past, which was dated in the Darwin timescale at 131 to 120 million years ago. This is an important window when evolutionists believe dinosaurs were evolving into birds; thus, we could expect to find some clear evidence of transitional creatures. The cache of the Liaoning region so far includes 24 winged flying reptiles called pterosaurs, and over 53 ancient bird species, plus flowering plants, spiders, and a variety of crustaceans, insects, snails, clams, and even algae and moss. The area must have at one time been a forest because ferns, pine, cypress, ginkgo and other trees were found there. The fossils found are mostly articulated skeletons located in slabs of stone that have to be split in half or broken open to locate the skeleton. They look like “something had swatted the bird out of the sky and instantly entombed it in rock,” something like a giant flood.
To read the rest, click on "Why Is China the Leader in Feathered Dinosaur Fossils?" You may also like "Chines Fossils, Facts, and Fraud".



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

Saturday, May 4, 2019

The Dancing Organelles

The title of this post sounds like an entertainment event. It is, in a way. There are so many rhythms to be found in life, and scientists discovered something going on within cells that reminded them of intricate dancing in cell compartments.

Scientists were surprised to see something resembling dances within cells. Organelles are sharing information and materials according to their design.
Made at Atom Smasher
Organelles are like compartments in cells because some activities are not to be shared. However, some of them do communicate information and share certain materials. This entire arrangement testifies of the Master Engineer's work because all the parts have to be in place and functioning at the same time. Darwin was not consulted.
Cell biologists have long focused on the tiniest of interactions: those between molecules. Recently, some researchers have zoomed out just a little to take a fresh look using new technologies at those cellular compartments, called organelles. Their discoveries give new insight into diseases, prompt a desire to redraw all the standard textbook cell pictures, and challenge anyone who still thinks of cells as simple blobs of protoplasm.

The journal Nature ran a feature article on these emerging research finds.The main new lesson? Organelles interconnect in elaborate ways. They don’t work as isolated compartments, but wrap around and pin against one another. And their closeness is no accident.
To read the rest, click on "Dances with Cells".



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

Friday, May 3, 2019

The Lunar Impact Hypothesis: A Lesson in Bad Science

Once upon a time, a celestial body was carelessly wandering through our solar system. It smacked into the earth, and eventually the moon was formed. This is what passes for science in some areas, but the lunar impact hypothesis is not striking at all. Neither is the new version.


The lunar impact hypothesis was never good but was kept anyway. A revised version is "a lesson in how science works". Actually, a lesson in how not to do science.

There are no good working models as to how the moon formed, so secularists did that secularist thing they do so often and chose the best of the worst concept. The winner was the big ol' smack hypothesis even though it was refuted long ago.

The logical conclusion from astronomical evidence (and a prairie schooner-full of evidence in our own solar system) is that the earth, moon, solar system, stars, the universe and everything was created recently. But no, someone wants to revisit the lunar impact business and say it's a "lesson in how science works". No, kitten, it's a lesson in materialistic desperation and how not to do science.
A new model for the Moon’s formation is claimed to advance our understanding of the past, and to be “a lesson in how science works.” But the actual lesson being taught is quite different.

First, some background. Among secular astronomers, the most widely-accepted model for the Moon’s origin is known as the giant impact hypothesis. Supposedly, about four billion years ago, a Mars-sized object crashed into the newly-formed Earth. The collision created a debris cloud around our planet; some of the debris fell back down, while the rest coalesced together in space and eventually formed into our Moon.

Despite its popularity, this has never been a good model. It requires a credibility-straining series of conditions that are just right. Also, it has always had problems fully explaining the Moon’s composition. There are other issues too.
To hit on the rest of the article, click on "'A lesson in how science works'?" For your additional education, click on "(Yet More) Evidence Against the Lunar Impact Theory".






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

Thursday, May 2, 2019

Evolutionary Circular Reasoning on Carnivorous Plants

One reason that Darwinian thinking has so many people hogtied is because the non-explanation of "it evolved" is used so freely. Add to this the phrase "scientists say", and too many people will accept such a remark without question.

Good science presentations are often spoiled by homage to Darwin. Here are two carnivorous plants that should be studied for what they are.
Venus flytrap image credit: CSIRO / Malcolm Paterson
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
For me, good documentaries on living things are spoiled with assertions of "it evolved", as if homage to the Bearded Buddha somehow provides scientific validation. I'm sure some of you have felt the same way. Why not simply describe what is observed without delving into what is assumed about the subject's history?



We have two examples in the article linked below. Folks riding for the Darwin brand commit circular reasoning and other bad logic by assuming evolution to prove evolution. In fact, two carnivorous plants defy evolution. Instead, they show specified complexity that could not have arisen by evolutionary processes, and display the Creator's handiwork!
Two plants that baffled Darwin are best admired for their design than for their evolution.

Most people have seen the hinged snap-shut cages of the Venus flytrap. Some know that the insides of the leaves have three trigger hairs each, which must be touched twice in succession at a minimum interval of time for the trap to work. There’s another carnivorous plant called the waterwheel plant that also fascinated Darwin. He asked how they could have evolved, but isn’t it more scientific to just observe and describe these wonders of nature, and understand the requirements for their success?
To finish reading, click on "Carnivorous Plants Show Attention to Detail". You may also find "Venus Flytrap — Still Baffling After All These Years" and "Waterwheel Plant Traps Evolutionists" to be of interest.





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

Wednesday, May 1, 2019

Fake Facts of Evolution

People who promote goo-to-goat herder evolution are intent on converting Darwin skeptics by insisting that there are mountains of evidence for evolution, which is false. The typical proselytizer uses outdated and even deceptive "facts", and even spreads fraudulent claims.


A reasonably well-informed biblical creationist can ask pertinent questions when evolutionists make their standard assertions. This can also plant seeds and prompt them to think.
Apes in the Orange Grove by Henri Rousseau, 1910
Some people have disingenuously taken the name of The Question Evolution Project to mean, "We have questions about evolution. Kindly straighten us out so we can mindlessly follow Darwin". Actually, we want to spark people to think for themselves and question evolution.

You do not need a doctorate in science to keep up with the global changes in the origins climate. A basic knowledge of science, obtaining information from biblical creation science sites, and a basic knowledge of logical fallacies can give you an advantage in spotting false claims. In addition, we can (and should) ask pertinent questions and also plant some seeds and prompt thinking in the minds of creation deniers.
ICR founder Dr. Henry Morris wrote in 2003, “Practically all the media strongly promote evolution and...the general public has been taught only evolution in public schools and secular colleges all their lives.” Yet, according to yearly polls, about half of Americans still distrust at least some evolutionary ideas. Dr. Morris suggested these people may recognize the evidence that counters big-picture evolution. I’ve found that by asking thought-provoking questions about evolutionary arguments, I can help friends recognize enough weaknesses for them to think more about creation options.

This article will review 10 false statements used to promote the belief that purely natural processes could accomplish what only a supernatural Creator can. Some suggested questions follow each section to help tactfully guide conversations about these origins issues.
To read the rest, click on "Toppling Ten Fake Facts That Prop Evolution".

For additional reading:




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

Labels