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

Tuesday, March 30, 2021

Taking Middle Ear Evolution for a Spin

In a recent post, we saw that when the facts dispute the universal common ancestor narrative, secularist owlhoots spin the data to their own advantage. The story of ear bone evolution defies reason and facts, so they are up to their old tricks again.

The origin of ear bones in mammals is evosplained without evidence. When new facts come to light, secularists put a spin on their deceptive story.
Credit: National Science Foundation / Zina Deretsky
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Even some evolutionists admit the idea that the ears in mammals having evolved from reptilian ancestors does not have evidentiary support, but they persist in evosplaining it anyway. Worse, they incorporate the fake science of recapitulation. That's not science, old son, but it's who they are and what they do. Can't allow the truth about the genius of the Master Engineer in their story.
One of the traits used to identify mammal species, besides mammary glands which produce milk, is the presence of bony ear ossicles — the incus, the malleus, and the stapes (commonly called the anvil, hammer, and stirrup). This auditory trait is a feature shared by all living mammals, including monotremes (egg-laying mammals such as the platypus and the echidna). All known reptiles and birds have only a single middle-ear ossicle, equivalent to the stapes, called the columella. Thus, given the evolutionary theory that reptiles evolved into mammals, the problem for evolutionists is how the single ear-ossicle design became the tri-ossicular design.

Listen up. You can read the rest over at "Mammalian Middle Ear Evolution: Story Gets More Wobbly". There is one complaint I have, however. While Dr. Bergman (the author) is a creationist, he keeps emphasizing intelligent design and seems reluctant more often than not to proclaim the truth of creation. Intelligent Design has its place, but it does not identify the Designer. It's not the Babylonian god Marduk, for example. Instead, the Designer is the Creator God and Redeemer as identified in the Bible.

Monday, March 29, 2021

Santana Fossils Support Genesis Flood

If you hitch up your buckboard and travel down Brazil way, head northeast until you reach the Araripe Basin. The Santana formation has bunches of fossils. The critters are very well preserved. Unfortunately, proponents of the deep-time narrative narrative deny the facts.

When confronted with evidence for the Genesis Flood in the Santana fossils, secularists refuse to change their evil ways.
Credit: Flickr / James St. John (CC BY 2.0)
Because the Bearded Buddha needs a passel of time in which to work his particles-to-paleontologist magic, secularists give it to him — even when it means denying sense and science. What is discovered here (and many other places) shows rapid burial of extremely large proportions — it is still more evidence of the Genesis Flood. Kind of makes you want to take one of these Santana fossils, wave it in the face of a secularist and say, "You've got to change your evil ways, baby!" Be smooth about it, though.
The preservation of fine details is what has made Santana so famous. Every time I took a field trip, I especially looked for my favorite fossil, fish. You can see their little bones and their fins as though they had been buried yesterday. More than that, Santana is famous for the sheer quantity of fish, which many scientists admit must have died and been preserved in mass graves by rare catastrophic conditions . . .

To read the full article (or listen to the audio by my favorite reader), it's smooth sailing over to "Santana Fossils — Delighting in the Details".



Saturday, March 27, 2021

Rescuing the Big Bang from Reality

When secular scientists attempt to do historical science involving deep time, their reality checks keep bouncing. This is primarily because they have a worldview based on atheistic materialism, but observed evidence do not fit the narrative. Nothing left to do but use the standard practice of Making Things Up™.

Three articles linked here expose secularists for making up ridiculous speculations in their efforts to rescue the frequently-Frankensteined Big Bang.
Image credits:
Credit: X-ray: NASA/CXC/Univ of Missouri/M.Brodwin et al;
Optical: NASA/STScI;
Infrared: JPL/Caltech
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
We have three articles on this theme to consider. The conflict between storyline and reality is seen in both universal common descent evolution and Big Bang cosmogony. In both kinds of evolution, these owlhoots constantly have to rescue their fundamentally flawed worldview with various excuses. They also say things like, "...earlier than previously thought". A lot. Not earlier than biblical creationists thought, though. We are not surprised by discoveries, so we don't have to saddle up and ride over to Spin City for supplies. They wouldn't have this problem if they accepted the reality of recent creation.

The excuse for this astronomical problem sounds like the excuses Darwinists give for sudden appearance.

To set the stage for this little problem that astronomers found, one must have a basic understanding of Big Bang theory. The Bang was the only ‘sudden’ thing about it. . . .

In this grand scheme, Big Bang believers would not wish to find complete galaxies in the earliest 10% of the universe’s assumed age. Similarly, in the Darwinian scheme, evolutionary biologists would rather avoid finding complex animal body plans showing up all at once (the Cambrian Explosion, sometimes called ‘biology’s big bang’). Yet both observations plague the two materialistic theories.

To learn what's happening, see "Big Bang Anomaly Prompts Excuses". Kindly come back for the next surprising installment.

While a minority of creation astronomers believe dark matter is something to seriously consider, most think it is a rescuing device for the frequently-Frankensteined Big Bang. It has never been seen and nothing can detect it, but it supposedly comprises most of the matter in the universe. They also have the problem with antimatter, which never has fit the Big Bang idea. However, new information has secularists scrambling for excuses because the facts are recalcitrant to the narrative. It must be difficult to constantly live with cognitive dissonance, seeing how the fact fit a young universe and all.

If you thought Darwinists were the storytellers while physicists do hard science, look at this.

Observers of modern cosmology already know that the “experts” believe we can only detect about 4% of reality by observation. The rest of the universe is made up of completely unknown entities called “dark matter” and “dark energy,” they tell the non-experts. But their imaginations don’t stop there.

See the rest of the article at "Big Bangers Are Making Things Up". Don't forget to return for the final short installment!

The Hubble constant is used to calculate the expansion of the universe, but since secularists don't get the results they desire, there are other calculations used as well. Since there are discrepancies, a professor used the old Making Things Up™ principle. Assumptions and guesswork, but no actual science.

. . . two different ways to measure H0 have produced conflicting results in the past. The first method assumes that the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation is an afterglow from a time about 400,000 years after the Big Bang. Given this assumption, cosmologists find the values of important cosmological parameters, including the Hubble constant, that give the best overall fit to the CMB data. Using the precise data supplied by the Planck space mission, and making the usual Big Bang assumptions, a value of 67.4 kilometers/second per megaparsec3 is obtained for H0 with this measurement method.

Wow! To read the whole thing, head on over to "Reconciling Two Different Calculations of the Hubble Constant".

Friday, March 26, 2021

Robots, Artificial Intelligence, and Life

We have discussed AI before, including how people get obsessed with it (see the links in "The Worship of Artificial Intelligence") Now we consider if electrical things can be considered alive. Philosophers have debated what constitutes life in the first place, now AI is added to the discussion.

People appreciate robots and artificial intelligence, but those things will never actually become alive. Two articles linked here explain why.
Credit: Pixabay / David Bruyland
Materialists only take a mechanistic view of life based on certain criteria, while biblical creationists know that biblically, life has the breath of life — nephesh chayyāh, (נפש חיה). There are different ways of considering if something is alive. When a houseplant dies, it is discarded because it does not have that breath of life. Animals have it, and so do people. Those with a materialistic bent will deny that we have a soul. Ironically, secularists search for a physical location of the soul in the body, but it is more than body and brain.

We like our robots, simple or intricate. They do dangerous things such as bomb removal, working in radioactive environments, lifting heavy objects, being sent to Mars in a vain search for extraterrestrial life, and more. They are also useful in mundane and repetitive tasks. Many of us say, "Domo arigato (どうもありがとう)". Except that these things are not actually alive, so no point in thanking them. Although they make decisions, that ability is based on programming. Robots and AI conduct activities seen in living things, but there are key differences that keep them from being alive. However, there are some things that computers, AI, or what have you are unable to handle.
Few people would consider disassembling an inoperable robotic ‘dog’ for spare parts to be problematic or shutting off the processor on one to be a form of roboticide akin to slaughtering a pig or euthanizing a pet dog. We know that an entity such as this robotic ‘dog’ is not a “living creature”. Even though the robotic ‘dog’ could meet most of the attributes of life in the dictionary definition, it is not alive.

The example of this robotic ‘dog’ may help us provide a better definition of what it means to be a “living creature”. It appears that there are at least three distinct levels (or types) of organic ‘life’. At the highest level are humans which meet every part of the dictionary definition referenced above—our bodies are composed of organic molecules and water, they grow from zygotes to adulthood, reproduce, are able to perform functional actions, and undergo continual change (e.g., decay and grow old) before they die. However, a missing component of this definition is the sentient capacity of the spirit (“breath of life”) with which humans were endowed by God at creation (Gen 2:7). Animals that are called “living creatures” are similar to humans since they also have a spirit component (Gen 1.30; Ps 104:27–30; Eccl 3:19–21). However, it is generally believed among Christian interpreters that their spirits are not of the same kind as that of humans, since they do not have the same rational capacities or moral accountability and probably are not immortal.

The entire article is located at "What does it mean to be a 'living creature'?" I'd be much obliged if y'all came back for the next section.

In their infinite wisdom to break things so designers can keep their phony-baloney jobs by "improving" them, the "Notes" feature on Fazebook was been eliminated, but this one was finally located. A computer-generated "paper" at The Question Evolution Project looks impressive, but is actually nonsense.

Peer-reviewed journals have allowed offal that was written by AI. Social(ist) media is infested with bots that are churning out propaganda, nonsense, and even trolling. They have no self-awareness and no idea what they're saying — which helps prove the point that they are soulless. We are created in the image of God. While robots and AI are intelligently designed, they are limited by the flaws of the fallen humans that built them.

A uniquely human capacity is to understand what one says. Artificial intelligence doesn’t get it.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is getting so good, machines can write scientific papers and send messages on social media. But there’s a problem: “no comprendo.” The machine doesn’t understand what it is saying. It has no common sense. A news feature in Nature about robo-writers (Nature 3 March 2021) quotes programmer Yejin Choi who laments,

Read the lament and the rest of this startling article by journeying to "Mindless Artificial Intelligence Doesn’t Understand What It Says".

Thursday, March 25, 2021

Social Amoebas and You

While naturalists have their systems and rate various living things are primitive or advanced, many other recognize that our Creator has designed organisms for ecological niches. Sure, why not? Human societies have seemingly less important people to make society function, God has placed social amoebas and the like in the biosphere.

People have unknowingly seen colonies of social amoebas. This kind of mold has its purpose. It is studied for use in transportation system mapping.
Physarum polycephalum image credit: Flickr / Bernard Spragg
It may seem funny or "alpha male" to eat moldy bread, but that is potentially dangerous; some molds can be scraped off and the food is still safe, others must be discarded. Mold has a function, even if people find it disgusting at times.

There is another kind of mold that many have seen but may not be able to identify. One of its names is "social amoeba" because it is actually a colony comprised of single-celled amoebas. Another name is rather unpleasant: slime mold. The Latin name Physarum polycephalum is cumbersome. It is often found in wooded areas chowing down and wood and such. In a surprising bit of biomimetics, its food-seeking ability has been studied and may be applied in the mapping of transportation systems!
The variety that eats decaying wood seeks food by sending out thin strands in various directions. When a nutrient is located, tendrils with the shortest and most efficient path thicken, while other unsuccessful branches pull back.

Scientists wanted to test just how efficient this single-celled, mindless mold is at hunting bits of decaying wood, and they were amazed by what they found. Researchers had found that wood mold can successfully navigate a maze from one food source to another. To test the limits of their foraging ability, Japanese and British researchers created another test.

To read all of this short article (or listen to the audio version by my favorite reader), click on "Slime Mold—Mindless Mapmakers".

Wednesday, March 24, 2021

Bizarre Darwinists Celebrate Defeat

Rusty Swingset and the hands at the Darwin Ranch are celebrating, but they should be lamenting the demise of scientific integrity. Instead, they spin the data like a top, followed by drinking firewater and clog dancing around a portrait of Papa Darwin. Then there's the Secret Satan gift exchange.

Evolutionists are so committed to their beliefs, they see failure as a reason to celebrate. Even when they contradict themselves, they claim victory.
Credit: Pexels / Yogendra Singh
I reckon the best jobs to have for security are weather forecasting and evolutionary science, because both can be wrong a large percentage of the time and people still remain employed. Actually, naturalism is better because if that narrative is protected and the non-explanation of "it evolved" is invoked often enough, they get more money. All the while, counting with pagan bead strings and chanting, "Evolution!"

Here we have paleontologists admitting they were wrong about forms of soft tissues, spinning the storyline, and salvaging Darwin's sorry hide through the complex (and effective) scientific principle of Making Things Up™. This still does not negate our Creator and his work.
Data that should falsify evolutionary timelines instead is used to launch new storytelling speculations.

When men in white suits are hauling you away . . . that is not a good time to ask how the red in the sirens evolved. Something like that happens among evolutionary paleontologists every time they find soft tissue in fossils they say are hundreds of millions of years old. Their trusted dates just went up in smoke, but all they can think about is how the soft tissue might give them more visions of the bearded Buddha.

You can read the rest by dancing on over to "Evolutionary Paleontologists Ask Wrong Questions". For another example of how dishonest evolutionists try to salvage their fundamentally flawed theory, see "A Failed Attempt to Refute Living Fossils: The Case of Coelacanth".

Tuesday, March 23, 2021

Lack of Fingerprints is not a "Beneficial Mutation"

The idea of having no fingerprints may seem a novelty, and obviously, criminals may like the idea. There is a mutation that causes this, and some people may consider it to be beneficial. Beneficial is in the eye of the beholder.

Lack of fingerprints may be a so-called beneficial mutation for criminals, but is a loss of characteristics. It is the opposite of evolution.
Credit: Pixabay / byrev
What some may call advantageous, others would say is detrimental. Sickle cell anemia is "beneficial" because those afflicted can resist malaria, but there are serious disadvantages as well. Some organisms have mutations in the lab that Darwin's votaries consider helpful, but those organisms would not survive in the wild. Having a mutation where people have no fingerprints is the opposite of fish-to-forensic scientist evolution, and there are many societal and physiological disadvantages to this rare condition.

In the modern theory of evolution, mutations in the genome are a key driving force in creating new information. In reality though most mutations are either harmful, or neutral at best. A recent BBC news story has highlighted a family in Bangladesh which have no fingerprints due to a mutation. Is this evolution in action or an example of a harmful mutation?

You can pick up the rest of this article at "The fingerprintless family — A beneficial evolutionary mutation?" Also of interest is this post that includes a link to a video featuring a forensic scientist discussing fingerprints. To see that one, visit "Humans, Marsupials, and Fingerprints". Now, let's sing with Snow White, "Someday, my prints will come..."

Labels