Here is Evolution’s Version of the Multiverse

Physicists have come up with the idea that there could be an astronomical number of universes in addition to our own. They call it the multiverse it can explain very improbable events, such as the origin of life, because no matter how improbable an event, it becomes a virtual certainty when you have so many universes in which it might happen. This idea of separated worlds is now emerging in genetics as well, as some evolutionists are contemplating the idea of different DNA worlds. The evolutionary tree model doesn’t work very well, and so evolutionists are experimenting with other models. One is a network model and using it evolutionists have found that DNA sequences in nature tend to separate into different worlds. But unlike the different universes in the multiverse, these DNA worlds can have some limited interaction. This means that, as usual, evolutionary theory has gained a great many new degrees of freedom. Here is how the evolutionists summarize their findings:

although this DNA is preferentially transferred (be it vertically or laterally) within a given genetic world, there is some inter-world transfer of DNA molecules occurring, leading to exchanges among different DNA vehicles (2.5% of the DNA families). This observation indicates that the changes accumulated relatively independently in the molecules of any of these worlds (i.e., the results of molecular evolution for different regimes of selective pressures and for different historical constraints) do regularly cross into another world. In principle, selected (or drifting) DNA molecules with their special adaptations can then invade and impact a new genetic world. Deciphering the rules of transitions of transfer between genetic worlds could then become a central question, prompting an integrated study of genetic evolution. In any case, the picture of the evolution of the natural genetic biodiversity should not be considered complete without the DNA molecules of any of these worlds. It implies that no general model of genetic evolution can be universally valid. Rather, many evolutionary models of the genetic biodiversity should legitimately coexist: DNA molecules change in some phages differently than they do in plasmids, or in populations of prokaryotic chromosomes. Sequencing and making trees out of the molecular data cannot hope to adequately deal with this disconnected network of genetic diversity. In the future, a plurality of evolutionary research fields will be required to understand the evolution of the various genetic worlds.

Don’t worry if you don’t follow all those details, for this is not science but rather story-telling. These conclusions are not motivated by the scientific data but rather by the conviction that evolution must be true, in spite of the data.

The point is this: The evolutionary tree that was predicted has failed, and this new model is tremendously more complex and flexible. It introduces many new variables which are impossible to nail down. DNA tends to stay within its own “world,” but not always. DNA changes tend to accumulate independently in each world according to different, unknown, rules. But these DNA changes can also cross over into other DNA worlds sometimes. And there are certain rules of how such transitions occur, but they also are unknown. Any number of rules can be hypothesized to fit the data, and they may vary depending on which worlds are involved, what DNA is involved, what species are involved, at what point in evolutionary history the event occurred, and so forth and so on. Everything is vague and flexible, available for other evolutionists to use as necessary in their own story-telling.

And so the conclusion is that there needs to be “many evolutionary models of the genetic biodiversity. The tree model “cannot hope to adequately deal with this disconnected network of genetic diversity” and “a plurality of evolutionary research fields will be required to understand the evolution of the various genetic worlds.”

This is yet another so-called do over for evolution. Evolution is constantly upended by the scientific data, and there seems to be a never ending stream of do-overs. Evolution does not explain the data, the data explains evolution. It is a tautology.

This Paper Discusses Problems With the Evolutionary Tree That You Didn’t Learn in Biology Class

If only evolutionists would tell the world what they tell each other. In the popular media, in detailed books about evolution and in textbooks a unified front is presented: Evolution is a fact as much as is gravity or the roundness of the Earth. It would be perverse and irrational to conclude otherwise. The scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming. There are no scientific problems of substance with evolution, just scientific questions about details. Simply put, we know evolution occurred, just not how it occurred.

But deep in the bowels of academic libraries, the highly technical research journals tell a different story. The scientific evidences which evolutionists often refer to as so strongly confirming evolution, in fact, do not. Yes there are evidences that are consistent with evolution, but there are also many that are not. In fact there are many evidences which argue against evolution. This is evident in the many fundamental predictions made by evolution which have failed. There is a gaping mismatch between the high claims of evolutionists and the actual science.

For example, here is what the introduction of a 2009 journal paper said about the evolutionary tree:

The genome sequence is an icon of early twenty-first century biology. Genomes of nearly 2000 cellular organisms, and from many thousands of organelles and viruses, are now in the public domain. … At the same time, one cannot but be struck by the diversity of genomes, both across the living world and, in many cases, within genera or species. … Perhaps most unexpected of all is the substantial decoupling, now known in most, although not all, branches of organismal life, between the phylogenetic histories of individual gene families and what has generally been accepted to be the history of genomes and/or their cellular or organismal host lineages. The tree of life paradigm consolidated by Darwin's Origin of Species (1859), but itself arising from a much older tradition of natural history, seems likely to emerge, if at all, from the multi-genome era much more restricted in scope, and subject to many more qualifications, than could have been anticipated a dozen years ago.

The decoupling discussed above refers to the many inconsistencies between the traditional evolutionary tree of life, as determined from the visible features of the species, and evolutionary trees determined from the newer genetic data. In fact, not only is there a decoupling between the visible and genetic data, there are substantial inconsistencies within each group.

In fact, it is impossible to construct a realistic evolutionary tree using all the data. Evolutionists routinely construct evolutionary trees using a select, more cooperative, subset of the data. And even then the resulting trees are unrealistic. That is, they require evolutionary change for which there is no known mechanism. This is true even according to evolutionists who are quite liberal in allowing for speculation.

The problem is the species may be similar in some aspects, but not others. So neighboring species on the evolutionary tree may have a great many similarities, but in many cases they have some big differences, which evolutionary theory cannot explain beyond vague speculation.

The paper concludes:

The rapid growth of genome-sequence data since the mid-1990s is now providing unprecedented detail on the genetic basis of life, and not surprisingly is catalysing the most fundamental re-evaluation of origins and evolution since Darwin’s day. Several papers in this theme issue argue that Darwin’s tree of life is now best seen as an approximation—one quite adequate as a description of some parts of the living world (e.g. morphologically complex eukaryotes), but less helpful elsewhere (e.g. viruses and many prokaryotes); indeed, one of our authors goes farther, proclaiming the “demise” of Darwin’s tree as a hypothesis on the diversity and seeming naturalness of hierarchical arrangements of groups of living organisms.

The authors of the paper are evolutionists, and so are sympathetic witnesses. They believe evolution is true, and yet even they must admit that the evolutionary tree has problems. Even they admit that the evolutionary tree may be passé, or at least will be subject to many qualifications, restricted in scope and at best an approximation.

Between the introduction and conclusion there are plenty of interesting details. For example the paper discusses a particular example species where the evolutionary tree “does not appear to be helpful, or even especially meaningful.” And the paper mentions alternate models such as a ring, network or other topology.

To be sure the authors still see much value to the traditional evolutionary tree model. But the paper highlights the fact that this traditional evolutionary tree model is, well, just that—a model. In fact the paper, which is a brief survey, does not discuss several problems with the tree model. For instance, the paper implies that the more complex eukaryotic species fit the evolutionary tree model well. That is not true. There are plenty of contradictions to go around, including in the eukaryotes.

And so if the evolutionary tree model is just a model, with warts and blemishes that are not uncommon with scientific models, then where does this leave the evolutionist’s high claims in the popular media, in detailed books about evolution and in textbooks, that evolution is a fact—overwhelmingly supported by the science?

There is a wide gap between the truth claims evolutionists make, and the science. Here we looked at the evolutionary tree, but the story is the same in the other evidences for evolution. Over and over, there are the high claims of evolutionists, and then there is the science.

Whenever a theory is presented in an inaccurate light, then science loses. Scientists lose the public trust, and students lose the opportunity to learn the real science.

Evolutionists Now Formulating Teaching Standards That States Should Adopt “In Whole, Without Alteration”

Evolutionists are now formulating scientifically archaic teaching standards they want the states to follow “in whole, without alteration.” Our evolution-drenched science education in the U.S. is pathetic, with science literacy scraping the bottom the barrel. And now evolutionists are prescribing more scientific lies mandating evolutionary dogma. For a century evolution has corrupted science and science education alike, teaching a bizarre, upside-down version of the facts and suppressing the true science. Evolutionists have literally filled textbooks with unabashed lies that have left students without a clue about the real biology involved. And now they have just raised the ante, mandating the same old lies for the states to adopt “in whole, without alteration.”

In these new standards, middle schoolers, for example, are supposed to “Construct explanations for the anatomical similarities and differences between fossils of once living organisms and organisms living today.” And how is a twelve year old supposed to expound upon such a profound topic? The fine print explains: “Students should use the record of evolutionary descent between ancient and modern-day organisms.”

This is pure indoctrination. There is no other way to put it. Presenting young students with a problem way over their head, and feeding them a religiously-motivated, anti scientific answer, is pure indoctrination. That is to say nothing about the fact that this is terrible pedagogy. No wonder our students can’t stand science.

Unfortunately that example is typical. Middle schoolers are also to learn that:

Anatomical similarities and differences between various organisms living today, and between them and organisms in the fossil record, enable the reconstruction of evolutionary history and the inference of lines of evolutionary descent.

Again, the young student is confronted with a false dogma that is imposed on the science. Of course the real science enables no such thing. The so-called “lines of evolutionary descent” are contradicted, not supported, by the empirical evidence. Even evolutionists are quietly finally admitting to themselves that the evolution tree doesn’t work. But of course they won’t tell the students.

At the high school level this evolutionary lie is elaborated:

Genetic information, like the fossil record, also provides evidence of evolution. DNA sequences vary among species, but there are many overlaps; in fact, the ongoing branching that produces multiple lines of descent can be inferred by comparing the DNA sequences of different organisms. Such information is also derivable from the similarities and differences in amino acid sequences and from anatomical and embryological evidence.

The embryological evidence reveals profound non homologous development pathways even in sister species which contradicts the expected evolutionary pattern. Such contradictions are literally ubiquitous in the anatomical and genetic data. Just a few examples we have recently looked at are here, here and here.

High schoolers are also to “explain the process by which natural selection leads to adaptations.” This evolutionary myth that adaptations arise by the slow process natural selection acting on random change appears several times in the standards, in spite of the fact that science shows that adaptations arise rapidly and non randomly in direct response to environmental shifts. Again, even some brave evolutionists are admitting these findings to each other.

All of this mythology is brought to us by evolutionists. At one point they write:

The section begins with a discussion of the converging evidence for common ancestry that has emerged from a variety of sources (e.g., comparative anatomy and embryology, molecular biology and genetics).

But the comparative anatomy, embryonic and molecular data do not converge on common ancestry, they contradict the common ancestry pattern. This is an uncontroversial, scientific fact. The dogma could not be more obvious.

Similarly, the evolutionists write:

Finally, the core ideas in the life sciences culminate with the principle that evolution can explain how the diversity that is observed within species has led to the diversity of life across species through a process of descent with adaptive modification. Evolution also accounts for the remarkable similarity of the fundamental characteristics of all species.

Again, this is evolutionary mythology. And again, even brave evolutionists are admitting that they cannot explain how the massive changes evolution requires came about. And those “fundamental characteristics” are not so fundamental. It is pathetic to see evolutionists continue to proclaim evidence that has long since been contradicted by the science.

These standards are yet another example of how evolution is not only corrupting science but doing so at the expense of the taxpayer. If this is the “Next-Generation Science Standards” then we are all in trouble.

[Ed: Edited as per RC's comment]

Evolutionary Blackballing No Longer in the Closet

Evolutionists don’t usually advertise their McCarthyist blackballing, for even they realize that manipulating the message, controlling information, ruining careers and the like doesn’t look good. But in the wake of the uproar over this year’s commencement speaker—neurosurgeon Ben Carson who doubts all of biology arose spontaneously as evolutionists insist—Emory University President Jim Wagner had no choice not only to implement an evolutionary “background checking step” to filter out all future commencement speakers who might say something interesting, but to make it clear to all that such a blackballing procedure would be formally implemented.

This information was triumphantly conveyed in an email from biology professor Jacobus (Jaap) de Roode who issued several misrepresentations of science in a letter to the editor.

Of course McCarthyites always believe they are right, for after all they hold the truth. And so there is always the hypocritical twist that while engaging in their blackballing activities evolutionists tell each other they are upholding truth.

So it is not surprising that, according to Jaap, President Wagner “expressed his hopes that this discussion can be followed up in the fall, with a College-wide discussion on truth and systems of belief.”

Yes, it will be another teachable moment with the evolutionists. In that fact-free ambiance all will be assured that the good doctor is a fine man with good intention, but that the objective, unquestionable scientific truth that everything came from nothing can be a bit too raw and hard-hitting for the sentimental.

How can we better communicate the hard truth of evolution while not offending those not equipped to handle it? That will be the question of the day in that polite, collegiate gathering where evolutionists, having controlled the message, continue to drink their own bathwater.

You can be sure that there will be no more evolution doubters at Emory University, blackballing is now coming out.

Worshipping the Creature Rather Than the Creator

Alan Lightman’s recent piece in Harpers on the multiverse has all the usual goodies: The problem that the universe is finely tuned, science devolving into speculation, scientific explanation devolving from law-driven necessity to contingency-driven chance, and more. As Alan Guth, explains, “the multiple-universe idea severely limits our hopes to understand the world from fundamental principles.” But no story about the multiverse would be complete without the all-important, so-called, anthropic principle and Lightman does not disappoint. The multiverse is the cosomologist’s role in the evolutionary creation story, and just as evolutionists center their myth in the thing that was created, so too the cosmologist’s point of reference is, yes, us.

When you ask an evolutionist how profoundly complex biological designs, that even today confound our best scientists and engineers, evolved, they will explain that the organic wonder increased the fitness of the organism in which it evolved. In other words, the new design fulfilled a need. They will explain this in great detail, as though that suffices as an explanation to the question. The brain evolved because it was needed.

Likewise, when you ask a cosomologist how the universe was finely tuned, they will explain that it must be finely tuned because, as British physicist Brandon Carter explained, we are here to observe it. If it weren’t finely tuned, it wouldn’t be observed because life would be impossible. Simply put, our universe is what it is because we are here.

It would be like hitting a thousand jackpots in a row in Las Vegas and explaining it by referring to the money you collected. True, if you hadn’t hit those jackpots you couldn’t have collected the money, but that doesn’t explain the astronomically unlikely event.

It’s all about worshipping the creature rather than the creator.

Bats and Whales Share the Same Bio-Sonar Technology

Once again science contradicts evolution. This time it is the now common-place finding that incredible similarities show up in otherwise distant species. Specifically, whales and bats share some uncanny similarities in how they track prey using, believe it or not, super-sophisticated sonar technology. But if evolution is true, we would have to believe that their common ancestor had none of these capabilities. So in completely different parts of the world, in completely different environments, random mutations in these different species must have independently constructed the same ultra complex designs. As a report this week explains:

Though they evolved separately over millions of years in different worlds of darkness, bats and toothed whales use surprisingly similar acoustic behavior to locate, track, and capture prey using echolocation, the biological equivalent of sonar. Now a team of Danish researchers has shown that the acoustic behavior of these two types of animals while hunting is eerily similar.

If evolution is true then bats and whales would have been evolving independently for millions of years. And yet they both constructed a sonar capability which involves transmitting loud signals while receiving incredibly weak signals, adjusting the signal parameters in real time, processing the received signals, and so forth. They even share the same range of ultrasonic frequencies:

Bats and toothed whales (which include dolphins and porpoises) had many opportunities to evolve echolocation techniques that differ from each other, since their nearest common ancestor was incapable of echolocation. Nevertheless – as scientists have known for years – bats and toothed whales rely on the same range of ultrasonic frequencies, between 15 to 200 kilohertz, to hunt their prey.

And that similarity is in spite of the different environments:

This overlap in frequencies is surprising because sound travels about five times faster in water than in air, giving toothed whales an order of magnitude more time than bats to make a choice about whether to intercept a potential meal.

But that is not all. The bat and whale also use similar strategies for adjusting their signals while homing in on prey:

Bats increase the number of calls per second (what researchers call a “buzz rate”) while in pursuit of prey. Whales were thought to maintain a steady rate of calls or clicks no matter how far they were from a target. But the new research shows that wild whales also increase their rate of calls or clicks during a kill – and that whales’ buzz rates are nearly identical to that of bats, at about 500 calls or clicks per second.

It is another example of a complex design evolution can only speculate about, and once again the evolutionary tree fails to predict its pattern.

Four Biology Professors at Emory University Wrote This Letter Full of Misrepresentations (And More Than a Hundred Other Faculty Signed On)

In an astonishing example of anti intellectualism four biology professors at Emory University, joined by hundreds of faculty, researcher and student signatories, wrote an incredible letter to the editor full of blatant scientific misrepresentations. Here are the more blatant misrepresentations.

If there was any doubt about the professor’s intent it is quickly dispelled in the first paragraph where the reader encounters the bizarre claim that “science rests squarely on the shoulders of evolution.” It would be difficult even to know where to begin with such a claim. To say it is false would be a compliment.

Later the letter makes the false claim that “The evidence for evolution is overwhelming.” If that wasn’t enough, the professors attempt to justify this claim, but they just make matters worse.

First, they make the circular claim that “ape-human transitional fossils are discovered at an ever increasing rate.” That, of course, simply begs the question. Every freshman knows you cannot argue for the truth of a proposition by presupposing the proposition in the first place. Yes fossils are discovered. But if you are arguing that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, then you cannot begin with the evolutionary assumption that the fossils are “transitional.” Philosophers call this a “theory-laden” observation.

Next, the professors dig another hole by making the erroneous claim that “the processes by which organisms evolve new and more complex body plans are now known to be caused by relatively simple alterations of the expression of small numbers of developmental genes.” No clever fallacy here, that is simply false. There is no such knowledge and, as life scientists, it would be incredible if the professors did not know this.

Next the professors make the false conclusion that evolution is as well supported as gravity. They write: “The theory of evolution is as strongly supported as the theory of gravity and the theory that infectious diseases are caused by micro-organisms.” Again this is false. But it is so blatantly untrue that one hardly knows how to respond. It would be like a physics professor saying perpetual motion is as well supported as breathing. What could they possibly be thinking?

Finally, the professors hypocritically equate evolution with all of science and critical thinking. They write: “Dismissing evolution disregards the importance of science and critical thinking to society.” This sentiment reveals the underlying dogma. For these professors, and the hundreds of signatories, are displaying a lack of critical thinking and an anti intellectualism that is disturbing. If we’re not allowed to dismiss the non scientific dogma that all of biology arose spontaneously, then we’re all in trouble.

Here is How Evolutionists Are Trying To Account For Adaptive Mutations

It has long been known, and even longer been suspected, that organisms not only can adapt rapidly to environmental challenges, but that such adaptations can be passed on to subsequent generations. Evolutionists have resisted such findings, but they now are beyond dispute. Whereas the evolutionary dogma had been that populations undergo change via selection acting on random variation, the science revealed that populations can change quite rapidly and in response to the environmental shift. Indeed there are is a variety of mechanisms that are now at least partially understood that play a role in this environmentally-directed process. Some influence which genes are expressed and others modify the DNA using the so-called adaptive mutations. So now at least some evolutionists are trying to incorporate this once eschewed view into evolutionary theory. Here is a paper that gives a brief overview of the idea that evolution has created a complex set of mechanisms which, in turn, produce these directed adaptations that we observe in biology. It begins by noting that a few leading evolutionists had a sense that random mutations plus natural selection were insufficient to explain the biological world, and how they were correct:

even [August] Weismann, the father of neo-Darwinism, decided late in his career that directed variation must be invoked to understand some phenomena, as random variation and selection alone are not a sufficient explanation. This minireview will describe mechanisms of mutation that are not random and can accelerate the process of evolution in specific directions. The existence of such mechanisms has been predicted by mathematicians who argue that, if every mutation were really random and had to be tested against the environment for selection or rejection, there would not have been enough time to evolve the extremely complex biochemical networks and regulatory mechanisms found in organisms today. Dobzhansky expressed similar views by stating “The most serious objection to the modern theory of evolution is that since mutations occur by ‘chance’ and are undirected, it is difficult to see how mutation and selection can add up to the formation of such beautifully balanced organs as, for example, the human eye.”

The paper next introduces the idea that environmental stress causes directed feedback mechanisms to accelerate adaptation. The idea is that these mechanisms work together to expose DNA segments to mutations.

Many scientists may share Dobzhansky's intuitive conviction that the marvelous intricacies of living organisms could not have arisen by the selection of truly random mutations. This minireview suggests that sensitive, directed feedback mechanisms initiated by different kinds of stress might facilitate and accelerate the adaptation of organisms to new environments. The specificity in the series of events summarized by Fig. 3 resides entirely in the first step, which is meant to suggest a pattern of derepression elicited by a corresponding pattern of adverse conditions. Microorganisms in nature must be confronted simultaneously by a complex set of problems, for example, the threat of oxidative or osmotic damage together with suboptimum concentrations of many essential nutrients. Transcriptional activation of genes derepressed to various degrees would expose the nontranscribed strands to mutations and stimulate localized supercoiling. Vulnerable bases in the complex DNA structures resulting from supercoiled DNA will also contribute to localized hypermutation in the genes activated to cope with the stresses that initiate the above series of events.

So the idea is that that the environment not only creates life, but it continues to direct evolution by fine-tuning the DNA copying process. After all, organisms that can respond more effectively to environmental challenges would have an obvious advantage:

The environment gave rise to life and continues to direct evolution. Environmental conditions are constantly controlling and fine-tuning the transcriptional machinery of the cell. Feedback mechanisms represent the natural interactive link between an organism and its environment. An obvious selective advantage exists for a relationship in which particular environmental changes are metabolically linked through transcription to genetic changes that help an organism cope with new demands of the environment. 

In other words, evolution does not merely occur by random events. It occurs via complex mechanisms which evolution first created. This work demonstrates how robust evolutionary theory is to falsified predictions. It also demonstrates the immense level of serendipity in evolutionary theory.

Here’s Why Homoplasy (And Other Contradictions) Isn’t a Problem For Evolution

Evolution and common descent expect the species to fall into a tree-like pattern. Species on the same branch should be similar, whether one is looking at their visible features or the microscopic cellular and molecular features. On the other hand, species on very distant branches should be different, again whether one is looking at their visible features or the microscopic cellular and molecular features. And while this expected pattern has some flexibility that is allowed, the observed pattern reveals far more significant contradictions. Allied species that look like they belong to the same branch reveal profound differences upon closer inspection. And different species that look like they belong to distant branches reveal profound similarities. One might think evolutionists would go easy on their truth claims about evolution being overwhelmingly supported by the evidence and a compelling fact. But they don’t, not in the light of these contradictions or in the light of the many other contradictions. Here is a recent paper that shows exactly how evolutionists respond to these evolutionary tree contradictions. First for some background:

Understanding the diversification of phenotypes through time—“descent with modification”—has been the focus of evolutionary biology for 150 years.

And next for the statement that reveals how evolutionists handle contradictions. They don’t consider the possibility that evolution may not be a fact. Rather, they search for evolutionary explanations:

If, contrary to expectations, similarity evolves in unrelated taxa, researchers are guided to uncover the genetic and developmental mechanisms responsible. 

And while that might seem reasonable, one problem is that while the search is on there is no acknowledgment that evolutionary theory has problems. Evolution racks up problem after problem, and still no such acknowledgment. For those problems are interpreted as research problems which deal with the theory of evolution and have no influence on the fact of evolution. Such research is taken as a sign of good science at work.

So while there is nothing wrong with doing research, the years pass by with no acknowledgment of the actual state of the science. This brings us to the second problem, which is that evolution is sufficiently malleable that it always seems to have at least some sort of explanation, albeit unlikely, to service the contradictions. To wit, the paper continues:

Similar phenotypes may be retained from common ancestry (homology), but a phylogenetic context may instead reveal that they are independently derived, due to convergence or parallel evolution, or less likely, that they experienced reversal. 

In this case, the contradictions can be explained by various combinations of common ancestry, convergence, parallel evolution and reversal, to name a few. They could have included unique selection scenarios, accelerated evolution, and other mechanisms to account for those profound differences found amongst otherwise allied species.

In any case, one way or the other the contradictions will be explained by some mechanisms, no matter how speculative or unlikely. And the whole exercise will be cast as an investigation of how evolution really works.

Such examples of homoplasy present opportunities to discover the foundations of morphological traits. A common underlying mechanism may exist, and components may have been redeployed in a way that produces the “same” phenotype. New, robust phylogenetic hypotheses and molecular, genomic, and developmental techniques enable integrated exploration of the mechanisms by which similarity arises.

Components may have been redeployed? Evolutionists will try hard to explain the findings, but don’t expect an objective, theory-neutral, scientific evaluation of their idea.

This Video Shows Hummingbirds in Super-Slow Motion

You have to click on the image to see this beautiful video.

Evolutionists Caught Again—But They Still Believe

Remember how evolutionists said random mutations created all the species? Then when their genes were compared that random mutation model didn’t always work so well. Those random mutations must have varied considerably both over time and over the genomes. Evolutionists even had to say that evolution had actually created machines and mechanisms to control the mutations themselves. Evolution was causing and directing evolution. If that wasn’t incredible enough, now the story has become even worse. As a new paper now explains, under evolution we must believe that mutations rates have been “evolutionarily optimized.” That is, evolution is now so brilliant that it created the means to not only control, but to optimize the actual mutation rates. First for an introduction:

A central tenet in evolutionary theory is that mutations occur randomly with respect to their value to an organism; selection then governs whether they are fixed in a population. This principle has been challenged by long-standing theoretical models predicting that selection could modulate the rate of mutation itself. However, our understanding of how the mutation rate varies between different sites within a genome has been hindered by technical difficulties in measuring it.

Next the paper introduces the new study, in which a new technical approach is used:

Here we present a study that overcomes previous limitations by combining phylogenetic and population genetic techniques.

And finally, the results are summarized. The first result is that if evolution is true, we must believe that the basic mutation varies by more than an order of magnitude in different bacteria:

Upon comparing 34 Escherichia coli genomes, we observe that the neutral mutation rate varies by more than an order of magnitude across 2,659 genes, with mutational hot and cold spots spanning several kilobases. 

The next result is that, under evolution, the variation between different mutation rates must not be random, but rather must follow a rational pattern:

Importantly, the variation is not random: we detect a lower rate in highly expressed genes and in those undergoing stronger purifying selection.

And so, given evolution, we must conclude that evolution has optimized the mutation rate:

Our observations suggest that the mutation rate has been evolutionarily optimized to reduce the risk of deleterious mutations.

Of course there is no known mechanism that could do this:

Current knowledge of factors influencing the mutation rate—including transcription-coupled repair and context-dependent mutagenesis—do not explain these observations, indicating that additional mechanisms must be involved. 

But evolutionists will think of something, no matter how speculative.

The findings have important implications for our understanding of evolution and the control of mutations.

These findings have important implications for our understanding of evolution? Well sure, if by that they mean how absurd are evolution truth claims. Evolutionists have been caught again. Round up the usual suspects.

Evolution For Dummies (in 750 words)

As we saw in the previous post, the consensus position among evolutionists is that evolution is a fact, every bit as much as gravity, the round Earth and heliocentrism are facts. But the scientific evidence does not show evolution to be a fact, so what’s going on? For example, evolutionists refer to the fossil record, but the fossils reveal what species existed in the past, not how they got there. Minor adaptations in lineages are suggested in the fossils, but large-scale evolutionary change must be inferred to occur between different fossil species. In fact, the fossil record shows bursts of diversity and new forms appearing abruptly.

Evolutionists also refer to comparative anatomy. But again, these do not tell us how the species arose. Similarity between species does not imply an evolutionary relationship. In fact, comparative anatomy commonly reveals contradictory patterns. Distant species share the same designs, and sister species show very different designs.

Evolutionists also refer to small-scale adaptation we can observe. But we don’t know that these adaptations generally accumulate to create large scale change evolution requires. In fact even evolutionists have agreed this is doubtful, and that some other, unknown, mechanism is required. In fact, these adaptations are produced as a consequence of profoundly complicated molecular structures and mechanisms, whose origin evolution does not explain.

Is there evidence for evolution? Sure, there is plenty of evidence for evolution. But there are significant problems with evolution. There is plenty of evidence for evolution just as there is plenty of evidence for geocentrism. But the science does not bode well for either theory.

So the evidence for evolution follows this general pattern: Even at its best, it does not prove evolution to be a fact. And furthermore, the evidence reveals substantial problems with evolution.

So how can evolutionists proclaim evolution to be a fact with such fervor? There seems to be a glaring mismatch between the evidence and the truth claims of evolutionists. The answer is that evolutionists use contrastive reasoning. Evolution is not claimed to be a fact based on how well it fits the evidence, but rather on how poorly the alternative fits the evidence. Evolution is proved by the process of elimination.

For example, evolutionists explain that nature’s apparently useless or harmful designs make no sense except on evolution. Such harmful designs are actually not predicted by evolution. They are low probability on evolution, but such harmful designs are at least understandable given evolution’s lack of planning. The designs may be low probability, but not altogether impossible.

But if the species were intelligently designed, then these useless or harmful designs make no sense. So we might say that evolution is proved not by positive evidences, but by negative evidences. And in fact the worse the evidence, the better for evolution, because such negative evidences are even worse for the alternative.

Indeed, there are no demonstrations of the fact of evolution that do not appeal to such contrastive reasoning. Evolutionists have a great many proofs for the fact of evolution, but they always entail some form of this contrastive reasoning. Here is how philosopher Eliott Sober explains contrastive reasoning:

This last result provides a reminder of how important the contrastive framework is for evaluating evidence. It seems to offend against common sense to say that E is stronger evidence for the common-ancestry hypothesis the lower the value is of [the probability of E given the common-ancestry hypothesis]. This seems tantamount to saying that the evidence better supports a hypothesis the more miraculous the evidence would be if the hypothesis were true. Have we entered a Lewis Carroll world in which down is up? No, the point is that, in the models we have examined, the ratio [the probability of E given the common-ancestry hypothesis divided by the probability of E given the separate-ancestry hypothesis] goes up as [the probability of E given the common-ancestry hypothesis] goes down. … When the likelihoods of the two hypotheses are linked in this way, it is a point in favor of the common-ancestry hypothesis that it says that the evidence is very improbable. [Evidence and Evolution, p. 314]

These evolutionary arguments and conclusions are very powerful. It seems that the evolutionist’s argument is compelling. The species must have arisen spontaneously via evolutionary mechanisms. But in all of this there is a catch.

Science cannot know all the alternative explanations for the origin of the species. When evolutionists conclude evolution is a fact via the process of elimination, they are making a subtle but crucial non scientific assumption—that they know all the alternative explanations.

So all of these powerful evolutionary arguments for the fact of evolution are non scientific. In other words, evolution has extremely powerful and compelling arguments, but the cost of building such a powerful case is that the idea is not scientific.

Without these powerful proofs, evolution would lie exposed to the many scientific problems and contradictions. The idea that the world, and all of biology, spontaneously arose is, from a strictly scientific perspective, extremely unlikely. But evolution is shielded from such problems by its powerful non scientific proofs.

This non scientific aspect of evolution is immense and would be difficult to underestimate. It has dramatically altered the very perception of science and its evidence. For given the fact of evolution, all of biology is interpreted according to the idea. The many scientific problems with evolution become more friendly “research problems.” And the theory becomes immune to scientific skepticism.

You Won’t Believe What Evolutionists Believe

Evolutionists argue about many things but one thing they agree on is that their idea is a scientific fact. It is the one, definite, consensus position within evolutionary thought. Evolutionists say their idea is as much a fact as is gravity, the roundness of the Earth and heliocentricity. These claims began shortly after Charles Darwin’s book on evolution was published, and they have only grown stronger since. These claims are like a flashing red light indicating a problem. For, of course, evolution is not a scientific fact. Indeed there are tremendous scientific problems with the notion that something comes from nothing, or in the case of biological evolution, that nature’s millions and millions of species, with their profound designs, arose spontaneously strictly according to natural law. Evolution, in one form or another, may somehow be true. It is a difficult question, for who really knows how the world and all of biology actually arose? What isn’t a difficult question, however, is whether the idea is a scientific fact. For the claim that evolution is a fact is not a claim about the distant past, it is a claim about our knowledge of the distant past. We may not know with certainty what happened in the distant past, but we do know for certain what we know about it. And we do not know evolution to be a fact. Not even close. If anything, we know that the idea is greatly challenged by science. It certainly is not a scientific fact. And so the evolutionist’s certainty that evolution is a fact is a sign of the underlying metaphysics. When people believe in things that they don’t understand and, furthermore, insist they are right and everyone else is wrong, and anyone who dares to question must be blackballed, then there is a problem. Unfortunately, that precisely describes evolution. Here then is a small sampling of the evolutionist’s “fact” claims which you won’t believe.

About 30 years after Darwin’s book was published evolution professor Joseph Le Conte wrote this:

Evolution is certainly a legitimate induction from the facts of biology. But we are prepared to go much further. We are confident that evolution is absolutely certain. Not, indeed, evolution as a special theory—Larmarckian, Darwinian, Spencerian—for these are all more or less successful modes of explaining evolution … but evolution as a law of derivation of forms from previous forms; evolution as a law of continuity, as a universal law of becoming. In this sense it is not only certain, it is axiomatic. …

So also, the origins of new organic forms may be obscure or even inexplicable, but we ought not on that account to doubt that they had a natural cause, and came by a natural process; for so to doubt is also to doubt the validity of reason, and the rational constitution of organic Nature. The law of evolution is naught else than the scientific or, indeed, the rational mode of thinking about the origin of things in every department of Nature. … the law of evolution is as certain as the law of gravitation. Nay, it is far more certain …

More recently, evolutionist R. C. Lewontin wrote this in a scientific journal:

It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.

Evolutionist Neil Campbell wrote this in his biology textbook:

The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves … it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.

Here’s another example textbook example from Douglas Futuyma:

A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.

Even the National Academy of Sciences states that evolution is a fact. They explain that in science the word “fact” can be used “to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong.”

In his book What Evolution Is evolutionist Ernst Mayr wrote:

However, throughout the nineteenth century whenever people talked about evolution, they referred to it as a theory. To be sure, at first, the thought that life on Earth could have evolved was merely a speculation. Yet, beginning with Darwin in 1859, more and more facts were discovered that were compatible only with the concept of evolution. Eventually it was widely appreciated that the occurrence of evolution was supported by such an overwhelming amount of evidence that it could no longer be called a theory. Indeed, since it was as well supported by facts as was heliocentricity, evolution also had to be considered a fact, like heliocentricity. …

Evolution is a historical process that cannot be proven by the same arguments and methods by which purely physical or functional phenomena can be documented. Evolution as a whole, and the explanation of particularly evolutionary events, must be inferred from observations. Such inferences subsequently must be tested again and again against new observations, and the original inference is either falsified or considered strengthened when confirmed by all of those tests. However, most inferences made by evolutionists have by now been tested successfully so often that they are accepted as certainties.

Mayr also concludes:

It is very questionable whether the term “evolutionary theory” should be used any longer. That evolution has occurred and takes place all the time is a fact so overwhelmingly established that is has become irrational to call it a theory. …

Evolution is not merely an idea, a theory, or a concept, but is the name of a process in nature, the occurrence of which can be documented by mountains of evidence that nobody has been able to refute. Some of this evidence was summarized in Chapters 1-3. It is now actually misleading to refer to evolution as a theory, considering the massive evidence that has been discovered over the last 140 years documenting its existence. Evolution is no longer a theory, it is simply a fact.

And in his book Why Evolution is True, evolutionist Jerry Coyne writes:

Now, when we say that “evolution is true,” what we mean is that the major tenets of Darwinism have been verified. Organisms evolved, they did so gradually, lineages split into different species from common ancestors, and natural selection is the major engine of adaptation. No serious biologist doubts these propositions.

These are representative quotes of the evolutionist’s consensus position. It would be difficult to find more obvious examples of misrepresentations of science.

Another Key Evidence For Evolution is Getting Squashed

A new paper out of Germany on the evolution of animal embryos reveals yet again the typical trajectory of evolution’s treatment of the science. Evidence that is barely understood is declared to confirm powerfully evolution. Then, years later, when science looks under the hood and uncovers the incredible details, the mismatch between the data and the theory becomes more clear. At that point the evidence, rather than confirming the theory, is interpreted according to the theory. Rather than the evidence explaining the theory, it is the theory that is explaining the evidence, no matter how awkward. In the end the evidence is contorted every which way in order to serve the theory of evolution. All of this must be presented with great care to avoid any sign of trouble:

There is a remarkable similarity in the appearance of groups of animal species during periods of their embryonic development. This classic observation has long been viewed as an emphatic realization of the principle of common descent.

In other words, before discussing evolution in the light of new scientific evidence, which inevitably makes evolution look bad, one first must give the secret handshake—a proclamation indicating that evolution is unquestionably true and good, and that all the evidential contradictions you are about to discuss will be force-fit into the evolutionary doctrine.

Despite the importance of embryonic conservation as a unifying concept, models seeking to predict and explain different patterns of conservation have remained in contention. 

Now you are free to openly discuss the evidence which, in fact, never did support evolution as much as evolutionists claimed. In fact,

Here, we focus on early embryonic development and discuss several lines of evidence, from recent molecular data, through developmental networks to life-history strategies, that indicate that early animal embryos are not highly conserved. 

with the inexorable march of scientific progress, the contradictions always monotonically increase with time.

Bringing this evidence together, we argue that the nature of early development often reflects adaptation to diverse ecological niches. Finally, we synthesize old and new ideas to propose a model that accounts for the evolutionary process by which embryos have come to be conserved.

And so new evolutionary just-so stories are badly needed to replace the old ones that fared so poorly.

von Baer’s observations, and in particular his third law, provided foundational evidence supporting Darwin’s theory of common descent.

See, it wasn’t just an English idea. The Germans also want some credit for the idea that took over the world, even if that idea requires an endless supply of just-so stories to fend off the evidential onslaught.

In fact evolutionists now must believe that those random mutations regularly produce embryological do-overs, without altering the adult form. This, to explain the evidence which is that sister species are often found to have very different development patterns.

As the figure shows, evolutionists have had to construct ever more elaborate just-so stories to explain the supposed evolution of embryonic development.

Confusion abounds and the evolutionists conclude, contra the traditional evolution view, that given the early embryo of an animal species, it would be possible to infer “comparatively little about its evolutionary trajectory.” That once powerful evidence that Darwin and the evolutionists proclaimed is now in the crowded dustbin of evolutionary proofs.

Evolution Just Took Another Hit—Right Where it Counts

Evolution is all about reproduction—those that reproduce the most are the winners. And if you were paying attention in biology class you will remember that nature has many different types of reproduction designs. These reproduction subsystems, according to evolution, should align with the other biological subsystems to form a consistent evolutionary tree. This consistency is, evolutionists say, a powerful confirmation of their idea. Except when it isn’t. Now a tiny lizard from Africa has been found to have a reproduction subsystem that is unique and remarkably similar to that of humans.

In the viviparous lizard Trachylepis ivensi (Scincidae) of central Africa, reproducing females ovulate tiny ∼1 mm eggs and supply the nutrients for development by placental means. Histological study shows that this species has evolved an extraordinary placental pattern long thought to be confined to mammals, in which fetal tissues invade the uterine lining to contact maternal blood vessels. The vestigial shell membrane disappears very early in development, allowing the egg to absorb uterine secretions. The yolk is enveloped precocially by the trilaminar yolk sac and no isolated yolk mass or yolk cleft develops. Early placentas are formed from the chorion and choriovitelline membranes during the neurula through pharyngula stages. During implantation, cells of the chorionic ectoderm penetrate between uterine epithelial cells. The penetrating tissue undergoes hypertrophy and hyperplasia, giving rise to sheets of epithelial tissue that invade beneath the uterine epithelium, stripping it away. As a result, fetal epithelium entirely replaces the uterine epithelium, and lies in direct contact with maternal capillaries and connective tissue. Placentation is endotheliochorial and fundamentally different from that of all other viviparous reptiles known. Further, the pattern of fetal membrane development (with successive loss and re-establishment of an extensive choriovitelline membrane) is unique among vertebrates. T. ivensi represents a new extreme in placental specializations of reptiles, and is the most striking case of convergence on the developmental features of viviparous mammals known.

Or in plain English:

In central Africa, an unassuming little lizard has evolved a spectacular and oddly human feature of gestation: a complex placenta. It is the first time that scientists have observed such an advanced version of this organ connecting the fetus to the womb in nonmammals.

Biologist Alexander Flemming made the anatomical find, announced late last year, while sorting through specimens at the Port Elizabeth natural history museum in South Africa. Flemming and his collaborator, Daniel Blackburn, knew that about 20 percent of lizards give birth to live young, but finding the placenta came as a shock.

Whereas virtually all cold-blooded reptiles supply embryos with nutrients from a large egg yolk, five-inch-long Trachylepis ivensi females ovulate small, yolk-poor eggs that implant in the uterus. As the fetus develops, its tissues become intimately entangled with the blood vessels of its mother, providing ready access to nutrients and oxygen in the mother’s blood. Sound familiar? “The fetal tissues actually invade the uterine ones, much like in humans,” Blackburn says. “It’s totally unexpected.”

A lizard with a human-like reproduction system? It is yet another example in the long list of evolutionary expectations gone wrong. We must believe that random mutations just happened to replicate a complex, mammalian-like placental pattern in a lizard, though it had a perfectly good reproductive system to begin with.

Nothing in biology makes sense in the light of evolution.