Friday, January 6, 2017

“When Facts Fail”: Oh The Irony

Fossils and DNA

Because when an evolutionist, such as Michael Shermer in this case, warns readers that people don’t change their minds even when presented with the facts, the irony should be savored:

Have you ever noticed that when you present people with facts that are contrary to their deepest held beliefs they always change their minds? Me neither. In fact, people seem to double down on their beliefs in the teeth of overwhelming evidence against them. The reason is related to the worldview perceived to be under threat by the conflicting data.

Yes, there certainly are conflicting data.

It gets worse:

Creationists, for example, dispute the evidence for evolution in fossils and DNA because they are concerned about secular forces encroaching on religious faith.

Evidence for evolution in DNA? What exactly would that be? Ultra conserved elements, orphans, replication, duplication, the universal DNA code, protein synthesis, protein coding genes, genetic regulation, recurrent evolution, convergence, cascades of convergence, and … well you get the idea. The evolutionist is demonstrating some of those “facts that fail” and the attendant doubling down, right before our eyes.

And what about those fossils? More “evidence for evolution”? How about those fossils that appear “as though they were planted there” as Richard Dawkins once admitted. One of those “planted” classes, the humble trilobites, had eyes that were perhaps the most complex ever produced by nature. [1] One expert called them “an all-time feat of function optimization.”

And even Shermer’s go-to source, Wikipedia, admits ancestral forms, err, “do not seem to exist”:

Early trilobites show all the features of the trilobite group as a whole; transitional or ancestral forms showing or combining the features of trilobites with other groups (e.g. early arthropods) do not seem to exist.

Likewise, even the evolutionist Niles Eldredge admitted [2] they didn’t make sense on standard evolutionary theory:

If this theory were correct, then I should have found evidence of this smooth progression in the vast numbers of Bolivian fossil trilobites I studied. I should have found species gradually changing through time, with smoothly intermediate forms connecting descendant species to their ancestors.

Instead I found most of the various kinds, including some unique and advanced ones, present in the earliest known fossil beds. Species persisted for long periods of time without change. When they were replaced by similar, related (presumably descendant) species, I saw no gradual change in the older species that would have allowed me to predict the anatomical features of its younger relative.

And it just gets worse:

The story of anatomical change through time that I read in the Devonian trilobites of Gondwana is similar to the picture emerging elsewhere in the fossil record: long periods of little or no change, followed by the appearance of anatomically modified descendants, usually with no smoothly intergradational forms in evidence.

Any more facts Mike?

1. Lisa J. Shawver, “Trilobite Eyes: An Impressive Feat of Early Evolution,” Science News, p. 72, Vol. 105, February 2, 1974.

2. Niles Eldridge, “An Extravagance of Species,” Natural History, p. 50, Vol. 89, No. 7, The American Museum of Natural History, 1980.


  1. LOL! Quote mining papers from 40 years ago. It's nice to see ID-Creationists are so up on the current scientific literature.

    1. Don't evolutionists use a 150+ year old theory with many epicycles added?

    2. Pepe: "Don't evolutionists use a 150+ year old theory with many epicycles added?"

      And Nasa put men on the moon using a 282 year old theory. What's your point. Hopefully it is not that the validity of a theory is inversely proportional to its origin. If that is the case, then creationism (and its illegitimate spawn,ID), is even less valid.

    3. The scientific validity of a theory depends on whether or not it makes testable claims. Clearly the alleged ToE does not, unless of course it doesn't pertain to the evolution of vision systems, eukaryotes from non-eukaryotes, protein machines and universal common descent.

      And BTW Creation is a subset of ID. Telic reasoning, ID, has been around in one form or another since before Aristotle. Look if you can't even get your history right and your science is nothing more than bluffing and equivocating, why even bother?

    4. Troll1: LOL! Quote mining papers from 40 years ago.

      Response: Don't evolutionists use a 150+ year old theory with many epicycles added?

      Troll2: And Nasa put men on the moon using a 282 year old theory. What's your point. Hopefully it is not that the validity of a theory is inversely proportional to its origin.

      Priceless. People don't believe the sheer idiocy until they actually see it.

    5. CH: "Priceless. People don't believe the sheer idiocy until they actually see it."

      And what idiocy are you referring to? The idiocy of Pepe equating the age of a theory with its validity? If so, I agree with you. If you are claiming that NASA didn't rely on a 282 year old theory to put men on the moon, then you are simply wrong.

    6. Wee Willie- Pepe was responding to GR. GR started the whole equating the age of something to its validity.

      Are you really that desperate? Or are you really that blind?

    7. Joke: "Are you really that desperate? Or are you really that blind?"

      Well, I am legally blind. But desperate is a better description of ID proponents.

    8. Why are we desperate? We have a testable methodology whereas you do not. All you can do is bluff, lie and insult.

  2. Pépé

    Don't evolutionists use a 150+ year old theory with many epicycles added?

    No. Science uses the most up to date information it has on the theory first introduced 150+ years ago. I'm not surprised Creationists don't understand the difference.

    1. That theory, introduced 150+ years ago, was not a scientific theory. Even Alan Fox admits that. And all of the scientific information gathered since then flies in the face of what Darwin posited. Natural selection's designer mimic capabilities have yet to unveiled.

      But then again Timmy refuses to define his terms and make a case that the evidence actually supports it.

  3. Evolution is not even a "theory" let alone science
    It is not really a "theory" because it can't be tested. It is an Eastern Mystery Religion Hindu, Babylonian, Pagan, Gnosticism, Neo-Platonicism, Kabballah, New age Gaia Worship etc. etc. It is linked to pantheism and reincarnation.

    1. Md: "It is not really a "theory" because it can't be tested."

      You should really open the door of a university library. The shelves are full of publishe research papers on the way that the theory has been tested.

      Don't just parrot Jokes claims that there is no theory and that it can't be tested. Nobody else takes him seriously.

    2. Alan Fox admitted that Darwin's concept couldn't be tested. And seeing tat no one knows how to test the claim that vision systems evolved let alone evolved by means of natural selection and drift, there isn't a scientific ToE that covers vision.

      But then again wee willie has never defined "evolution" so we can reject his claims out-of-hand. And wee willie will never link to the ToE so we can see that he is a reject

    3. Joke: "Alan Fox admitted that Darwin's concept couldn't be tested."

      So what. Myself and thousands of others would disagree with Alan, if in fact he ever said this. Can you link to his comment? I would like to read it in context.

    4. LOL! Whenever Joke gets flustered he starts typing "tat". It's a sure tell his usual fact free IDiot catchphrases aren't impressing anyone.

    5. Wee Willie, neither yourself nor your alleged thousands of others can reference a scientific theory of evolution. Neither you nor those thousands can tell us how to scientifically test the claim that vision systems evolved by means of natural selection and drift.

      And that means what you and those alleged thousands of others have to say is meaningless. All you can do is lie, bluff and equivocate. Why is that?

      Read Alan's comment- I am sure you won't understand what he said:

    6. Timmy- only losers pick on typos- thank you

    7. Joke says: "Alan Fox admitted that Darwin's concept couldn't be tested."

      I asked for a link to the comment where Alan said this. Joke responded with a link to a comment where Alan didn't say any such thing. Not even close. Only a moronic toaster repairman could think that Alan's comment was an admission that Darwin's concepts couldn't be tested.

    8. Darwin didn't test them. And no one since has. What does that tell you?

      No one knows how to test the claim tat vision systems evolved by means of natural selection and drift. That applies to protein machines and all biological systems and subsystems.

      Alan admitted Darwin's wasn't a scientific theory as he never said how to test his claims.

    9. And what do you call a claim that doesn't have any proposed tests? Untestable, duh

      How much of a moron do you have to be to not be able to grasp that simple fact?

    10. Joe, still waiting for your correction that "Alan Fox admitted that Darwin's concept couldn't be tested." Something that he clearly never said. Or is this going to be another one of your frequency = wavelength moments in which you refuse to admit a simple error?

    11. Wee Willie, I see that you still cannot understand simple explanations.

      If Darwin didn't posit a way to test his claims, and no one since Darwin has posited such tests, that is the same as admitting Darwin's concept couldn't be tested.

      Meanwhile you have failed to reference a scientific theory of evolution. You refuse to define what you mean when you use the word "evolution".

    12. So, this ISanother one of those frequency = wavelength moments where you are incapable of admitting an error. Thank you for confirming what I already suspected.

    13. Nope- no scientific theory of evolution there- talk about being incapable of admitting a mistake.

    14. So, you are not willing to admit that you lied. Something that everyone here can see. You really are a sad individual. All I can say is that I am glad that you are on the ID side of the debate. You really are an embarrassment for them.

    15. And yes, I misquoted Alan- he was only talking about Darwin not saying how to test his claims. However no one since has said how to do so either. Not you nor any of your thousands of others can say.

      And we are OK with that.

    16. Joke: "And yes, I misquoted Alan- "

      You didn't quote anyone. You made a claim that Alan admitted something that he never did. But I guess we should be happy that you have finally admitted to an error. Even if it was made intentionally.

    17. Whatever, wee willie. I am comfortable with the fact that there isn't a scientific theory of evolution and that is because no one can say how to test the claims that Darwin and all subsequent versions have made.

      For example Darwin thought it would be no problem to produce vision systems seeing there existed a variety of vision systems in varying degrees of complexity. Yet here we are in the 21st century and we are still coming to understand how vision systems develop, let alone how they evolved and nevermind how natural selection and drift could have dunit.

      Your entire position is a lie and a bluff. I am OK with that.

  4. Joke G

    Read Alan's comment- I am sure you won't understand what he said

    No surprises, Joke was lying. Alan Fox didn't say Darwin's concept couldn't be tested. He only said Darwin never published any tests. Then Alan pointed out many others since then have tested it and it's passed every test.

    That Joke needs to lie to support his Creationist claims is very telling.

    1. Alan never pointed out anything evolutionism claims that can be tested.

  5. Evolution = Magic.
    No plausible mechanism and no empirical evidence.
    Defies the ubiquitous fact of biological entropy which can be observed by everyone, everywhere, everyday.
    You have all been brainwashed to believe a delusion.

  6. The evolution of vision systems remains untestable so forget about the evolution of vision systems by means of natural selection and drift

    Andrea Bottaro said the following over at the panda’s thumb:

    Eyes are formed via long and complex developmental genetic networks/cascades, which we are only beginning to understand, and of which Pax6/eyeless (the gene in question, in mammals and Drosophila, respectively) merely constitutes one of the initial elements.

  7. Excellent 2017 thread. Really good.
    First I say marsupials are just placentals with pouches. No big deal. The marsupialism is the adaption upon migration.
    probably the two gliders are the same creature. probably.
    However gliding is a post flood thing.
    Convergent evolution is more impossible then regular evolutionism.
    They have to invoke it because they have no other answers for such an unlikely thing.
    however the answer ios that same shaped animals are the same animals regardless of trivial details. whether man or beast.

    The stuff about fossil sequence not being what it should be is part of the PE movement.
    Indeed if creatures didsn't evolve , and deposition of them over the ages is accurate, then it would be that no evolution by small steps be found.
    BANG. Sure enough. So PE must be invented.
    However pE is actually a serious blow to evolutionary biology though they fail to see why.

    In all these things the deposition geology concepts also distort actual biology research.
    Its like watching the demise of evolutionism and feeling sorry for their shame.