Wednesday, January 8, 2014

Spot the Multiplied Entity

And the Brand New Euphemism

One thing scientists never, ever do is multiply entities, but not so for evolutionists:

There’s nothing about lineage-specific—a term so at odds with evolutionary expectations that it is now euphemistically referred to as “phylogenetically widespread”—biofluorescence in both cartilaginous and bony fishes, contradicting every possible common descent and evolutionary tree model evolutionists can conjure up, that “highlights” an evolutionary history. To force-fit these findings into evolutionary dogma is yet another example of multiplied entities within evolutionary theory. When all the fancy language is removed what we have is a similar design distributed across a spectrum of species.

No evolutionary lines to trace. No homologies. As one evolutionist admitted, “We were surprised to find it [biofluorescence] in so many [species].” Ya think?

With evolution we must believe in another case of massively repeated independent evolution.

It is not that evolution informs the science, but rather that the science informs evolution. Over and over evolutionists are surprised by the findings and must make yet more awkward adjustments to their theory. The same design just happened to arise by chance, over, and over, and over, and …

Evolution adds nothing to the science. Religion drives science, and it matters.


  1. What is the design? Is a single complex molecule being found in countless species?

  2. What this discovery suggests is what ID people have been saying for a long time: viz., 'genes' are nothing more than a 'tool box' for the organism, with something other than the genes (the 'bauplan') determining how the various genes should interact. It is like the relationship that exists between a 'materials list' and an architects 'blueprint.' That the bio-florescent proteins are 'available' across so many lineages, simply tells us that this 'tool' (material) is available on request for a whole host of major lineages. IOW, this bespeaks a Lamarkian type of inheritance, with organisms adapting to their environment as needed, the bio-florescent protein being there at the ready.

    It is truly amazing how many 'surprises' turn up everyday for the Darwinists.

    Yes, they tell us, "Evolution is a fact." Just like 'gravity.'

    When was the last time you read an article where "scientists were surprised to find that the object didn't fall, but actually went upwards, contrary to what gravity predicts." Never happens.

    So, let's say that they report that "a banana rose quickly upwards from a desk, in a room that was completely sheltered from wind, and that was devoid of any electronic apparatus." What would the evolutionists tell us?

    Precisely this: "Well, according to quantum mechanics, although the probability of the banana rising on its own is very, very small, it's 'possible' that the energy density increased dramatically, and suddenly, directly above the banana---just for a short period of time--causing the banana to be attracted upwards toward the high energy distribution."

    Everyone knows that what they're talking about is essentially impossible and is a lame explanation for what was seen; but for the Darwinists, this would be good enough. (BTW, if a banana rose up suddenly from a desktop, I'd look for a very thin nylon fishing line attached to the banana--like they do in Hollywood special effects.)

    Evolution is a "fact," yet everyday, based on this "fact" we're treated to surprises. Gravity, OTOH, never surprises us. Do you think something is wrong here?

    1. Lino: Evolution is a "fact," yet everyday, based on this "fact" we're treated to surprises. Gravity, OTOH, never surprises us. Do you think something is wrong here?

      You have not been following astronomy, I presume, Lino? Let me tell you a few things.

      In the early 20th century there was a small but persistent anomaly in the precession of Mercury's perihelion. Most of the precession (530 arcsec per century) was explained by the gravitational tug of other planets. However, about one-twelfth (43 arcsec per century) could not be accounted for. A surprise. Its resolution had to wait for the development of general relativity by Einstein.

      At the end of the century, people noticed that the universe's expansion is slowly accelerating. This is at odds with the notion that gravitational pull should be slowing down the expansion. "Dark energy" is a mysterious effect that pushes things apart. Cosmologists still have no idea how it comes about.

      There is still no theory of quantum gravity. Quantum mechanics at this point is incompatible with general relativity. We'll have yet to figure out how to unify them. There has been a recent flare up in that area. Look up "black hole firewall."

      Gravity is part settled science, part cutting-edge research. Same as evolution.

    2. Oleg:

      You haven't told me anything I wasn't plenty aware of already. I spend an awful lot of time looking for ways in which gravity and QM might be united. I'm currently reading a paper that was just posted to arXiv on the very subject. So, you're wrong; I have been paying attention.

      But I didn't say that Darwinian evolution is a fact; I said that we're told "evolution" itself is a fact. There are ramifications to this contention, one involving a materialist view, and one presuming that common descent MUST have happened. The study Dr. Hunter is commenting on shoots the latter corollary to "Evolution is a fact!" out of the water.

      I didn't say "the Newtonian theory of gravity is a fact," I said that "gravity is a fact", as in, objects fall to the earth, not the sky.

      You're "you must know nothing" attitude towards what I wrote represents the typical Darwinist response to critics: they know nothing (with, of course, the corollary to that being: 'we know everything,' 'they're dumb, we're smart.')

      Is that how science is meant to operate: the people who think they know everything get to call the shots, or, should it operate by letting known facts inform it, and then responding properly and logically.

      What this study demonstrates is that the ID view of how biological phenomena operates is more correct than the Darwinian one. .............................Oh, but wait a sec ............. I know, "Evolution is a fact."

      Ah, yes, the 'trump card' has been played. Darwinists 'win' again.

    3. Unfortunately that answer is desperate nonsense.

      A) Observations that defy theories are not analogous to "small anomalies" plus general relativity was a sea change that changed everything. So as an analogy these new observations Cornelius is highlighting would be overturns of Darwinism on several fronts.

      B) Dark energy is not bandied about as a proven fact that no one should question

      C) Quantum gravity has no theory that has been presented as an established fact beyond question.

      Its quite fine for people to say that some conclusions are still out awaiting new discoveries. The folly and unscientific thinking of atheistic Darwinists is that they presume to know that the new discoveries will not overturn or better yet cannot overturn their present religious beliefs (and eternal materialism is most definitely a religious belief).

      You entirely missed Cornelius point. Its not that things are not still to be discovered its that you lock yourself off from going wherever the new observations logically leads because of your blind allegiance to your present paradigm.

      Astronomy rebuts you. When we get data in astronomy that rebuts old theories they give way to doubts about the old theory. They don't in the darwinist mindset. As Cornelius points out new mental gymnastics are employed to keep the theory as an established fact rather than - as logic would dictate - accept that doubt in the old theories are deserving of being entertained.

    4. If you have been paying attention, Lino, why do you say that "gravity never surprises us?" It does, doesn't it?

    5. O: Gravity is part settled science, part cutting-edge research. Same as evolution.

      J: Sure, if by "science" all you mean as that which sane people can't deny and still function. IOW, there is nothing about what is "settled science" that even remotely indicates UCA or the posited profound transformations for the posited time-frames. There is no debate about what is known to sane people. Those who are confused on the matter can't even demarcate science to even communicate intelligibly.

    6. Jeff,

      You have a peculiar definition of science. Sane people can deny quantum electrodynamics or general relativity and still be able to function.

      Try again?

    7. O, you've changed the subject and indicated thereby something irrelevant to my point. Of course sane people deny that the law of non-contradiction is dispensable to science. But induction is not dispensable either. With induction goes plausibility.

  3. Evolution is a done deal, folks. All (-epsilon) scientists assume it's true because it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

    I know you know that's not going to change, but every saved soul counts, doesn't it?

  4. Dr Hunter, as to:

    "Evolution adds nothing to the science."

    You are too kind. The reality of the situation is that:

    "Evolution hinders and thus subtracts from science".

  5. Troy:

    Evolution is a done deal, folks. All (-epsilon) scientists assume it's true because it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Then why am I completely skeptical of it? One of us is wrong.

    1. Because you're a brainwashed creationist.

    2. troy:

      Because you're a brainwashed creationist.

      Maybe you're a "brainwashed" Darwinist?

      Please notice that you provided NO scientific evidence at all of what "proves" evolution "beyond a reasonable doubt." Instead you resorted immediately to an ad hominem.

      You claim I'm a "creationist," with lower case "c," not with a capitol "C." Likewise, we make a distinction between macroevolution and microevolution. Now, it appears that a form of 'microevolution' is seen at work in nature--although personally I think this will ultimately be shown to be but simple adaptation and no more, thus falling outside of anything that can be seriously called 'evolution'--but the entire argument is whether or not this can be extended to include what we consider to be 'macroevolution.' It would be wise for you to keep this distinction in mind as you claim that 'evolution' has been "proven beyond a reasonable doubt."

  6. Why does everyone equate EVOLUTION with Darwinian evolution? Natural Selection (ultimately inspired by a Victorian Malthusian Victorian doctrine - Mother Nature's culling mechanism) was thrown out as a mechanism for evolution a long time ago and only deliberately reinstated via the architects of the modern synthesis (i.e proponents of the Brave New World philosophy - eugenicists, namely Julian Huxley & Major Darwin & family) & by Mathematizing Darwin by Fisher according to AWF Edwards. In other words, how come if we question the very particular & widely childish theory of evolution according to the Darwinists, we are accused of being insane, or worse, as it has become synonymous with questioning the fact of evolution itself? For more info visit http//

  7. Troy:

    I know you know that's not going to change, but every saved soul counts, doesn't it?

    I didn't notice this the first time round: you not only launched an ad hominem, but you got around to mocking as well.

    Is this supposed to be 'science'?