Getting Crushed: Evolutionists Are Now Saying That Some Species Have a Reputation For “Doing Things Their Own Way”

We have seen that the mitochondria DNA of the single-cell eukaryote Trypanosoma brucei is incredibly complex and unique, and make no sense on evolution, and more over that these incredible mitochondria designs reappear in distant species on the evolutionary tree. For instance, the Euglenids and the Dinoflagellates share these bizarre mitochondria similarities. Evolutionists are calling it “Corresponding evolutionary histories” or “Cascades of convergent evolution,” and it is far beyond the explanatory power of the usual just-so stories, such as gene transfer, gene duplication or gene loss. Furthermore, we saw that these incredible similarities go beyond the mitochondria. The Euglenids and Dinoflagellates, for example, also share very odd peculiarities at the molecular level in general, such as polycistronic transcription, trans-splicing and intron poverty. And there is more to the molecular similarities. For instance, both these groups have secondary plastids with unique characteristics. But for now, let’s step back even further, and look at the higher level cell morphology.

In addition to their mitochondria, plastids and protein synthesis details, these distant groups in the evolutionary tree of life share “stunningly similar” cell morphology “although completely different from what is the rule of the eukaryotic cell.” These similarities include:

Dorsoventral flattening
Ventral groove/sulcus
Recurrent flagellum
Subapical flagellar insertion
Paraxonemal rods
Gliding motility
Thickened cell surface
Extrusomes
Photoreceptive eyespots

You can hear about these beginning at the [10:05] mark here. It is well worth a listen. And in a related paper, here is how the authors summarize this situation:

Both euglenozoans and alveolates have a reputation for “doing things their own way,” which is to say that they have developed seemingly unique ways to build important cellular structures or carry out molecular tasks critical for their survival. Why such hotspots for the evolution of novel solutions to problems should exist in the tree of life is not entirely clear. However, the deeper we look into these groups, the more often it is found that they are also evolving strikingly similar mechanisms for achieving these essential biological functions. Significantly, however, there is a great weight of phylogenetic data that show these lineages are not closely related: of the 5 eukaryotic supergroups hypothesized to explain all eukaryotic diversity, alveolates and euglenozoans fall into 2 different supergroups, chromalveolates and excavates, respectively. The support for these supergroups as a whole remains contentious, but there is strong support from phylogenomics and many individual phylogenies and rare genomic characters for a specific relationship between alveolates and stramenopiles on one hand, and euglenozoans and heteroloboseans on the other hand. Moreover, no analysis of eukaryotic phylogeny has ever suggested they are closely related to one another. Still more significantly, the majority of the characteristics we discuss below are not universal to all members of either alveolates or euglenozoans, but rather appear to have evolved within a subgroup of each lineage. Altogether, the distribution of these characteristics can really only adequately be explained by convergent evolution. Below, we will examine some of these examples of convergence and what the cooccurrence of convergent traits may tell us about how they evolved.

Doing things their own way? Developed unique ways to build important structures and carry out tasks? Strikingly similar solutions in lineages not closely related?

So what does all this mean? For those not familiar with molecular and cellular biology, and not familiar with the details of evolutionary theory, all of this may seem confusing. Here then is the take-home message. Evolution is a lie.

Evolution may be true, false or somewhere in between. It is difficult to be certain of how the species arose. I’d love to tell you it’s obvious but the science just isn’t that clear. The science is certainly against evolution, but that does not necessarily mean evolution is completely false. We simply can’t know for certain.

So when someone tells you they do know for certain then run, for it’s a lie.

And that’s the rub. Evolutionists are certain and that’s a lie. Over and over evolutionists have made this abundantly clear. In their lectures and in their writings, evolutionists have consistently mandated that evolution is a fact beyond any reasonable doubt. It is the one common thread in evolutionary thought. They say it would be perverse to deny this fact. It is as obvious and true, they say, as is gravity, heliocentrism and the roundness of the Earth.

The problem here is that these are not minor mistakes. It is not merely a technical scientific detail that evolutionists have missed.

This fundamental tenet of evolutionary thought—that evolution is a fact—is utterly at odds with the evidence. It is in spite of the evidence, not because of the evidence. This is because evolution is not about the evidence. Evolution is not about an objective analysis of the biology. You see, evolution is not science, it is dogma.

Bloomberg Doubles Down on Evolutionary Metaphysics With This Non Sequitur Pontification from EO Wilson

Edward O. Wilson’s pontificating that “it’s a toss-up” whether St. John the divine was doing hallucinogenic drugs or was a paranoid schizophrenic, is not news. Nor is it news that the Baptist turned deist favors the latter, as he announces with the usual evolutionary hubris in this video. It is all just more evolutionary metaphysics parading as knowledge. But if the media is the message, then the news here is that the Bloomberg financial news service found Wilson’s anti intellectualism to be newsworthy. Bloomberg’s cheerleading of evolutionary big health care at least falls somewhere close to financial reporting. But here, sandwiched between stories about the US economic recovery and the outlook for stocks, we have evolution’s raw religion on display. It’s a “Now for something completely different” moment and Wilson’s Monty Python-esque deadpan arrogance does not disappoint. But for Bloomberg news it’s no joke, and that’s the news.

[2:28] In the case of the book of Revelation, however, it’s a toss-up I think, when you read the ramblings of St. John the divine, on whether he was in fact doing it with hallucinogenic drugs, which was a common practice, even people celebrating ceremonies, religious ceremonies, in more primitive societies, or whether he was a paranoid schizophrenic. I favor the latter. And I’ve talked with psychiatrists who discuss what kind of rambling he did—what kind of dreams he had—they were fantastic, they were jumbled, they were reflective of his likes and hatreds and so on. …

Now I know that recent historical, history-oriented, interpretations of St. John the divine, would like to put it that John was using an elaborate metaphor and symbolic way of attacking Rome, seven, you know, heads, crown heads of the serpent and so on, for the seven Ceasars, and that may be true, it may also be true that John was suffering from the residue of the catastrophe of the destruction of Jerusalem which had occurred only something like 38 years before he wrote the Revelations, that may be very true, but nonetheless it has all the appearance of a paranoid hallucination, and that is I believe the correct way to look at it, rather than to constantly mine it as have evangelical organizations, and others, mine it for deep meaning about the future, the history and future, of humanity.

Religion drives science, and it matters.

David Zucchino Just Confirmed the LA Times is Not Running a Correction to Their Glaring Misrepresentation of That New Academic Freedom Law

Remember that new Academic Freedom law that allows the scientific evidence to be examined for theories such as evolution, and the theory to be criticized? And remember how the Los Angeles Times falsely reported the story, literally contriving a false narrative and misinforming their readers? I explained the problem to the Times here, and they responded with an absurd, categorical denial which made no sense. I followed up a second time with this message below to journalist David Zucchino, but Mr. Zucchino has now responded, as before, that no correction will be printed.

April 13, 2012

David Zucchino
Los Angeles Times

Dear Mr. Zucchino:

You state that a close reading of the new Tennessee law shows that it requires competing viewpoints to evolution (such as creationism), be discussed in science class. I don’t know how you could possibly arrive at that conclusion from a close reading of the amendment. I am delighted that you read the amendment closely, but it makes no such requirement. If you could indicate the particular portion of the amendment that you think stipulates this requirement then I could clear this up.

Your conclusion has two major problems. First, the amendment does not require any types of classroom discussions, competing or otherwise. There simply is nothing in the amendment that makes any such requirement. What the amendment does state is that the Tennessee schools shall encourage scientific questions and critical thinking skills, assist teachers in presenting the science curriculum, and not prohibit teachers from helping students to understand the scientific strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories covered in the curriculum. There is no such requirement of a classroom discussion.

Second, the amendment says nothing about competing theories, such as creationism. In fact, the language explicitly rules this out. It repeatedly stipulates that it is strictly in reference to the state’s curriculum framework. I don’t know how you could have inferred otherwise.

You also stated that the sponsors of the new law specifically point to evolution as a subject of “debate and disputation” and that therefore competing viewpoints should be discussed in class, according to the law.

Again, you seem to be avoiding the clear, obvious statements of the amendment. There is no mention or support given to competing viewpoints in the law. I don’t know how the language could be any more clear on this. The critical thinking, analysis of evidence, review of strengths and weakness are all of the science involved, and all deal with the state’s curriculum. There is absolutely nothing in the amendment that goes outside of the approved curriculum. And on top of that, the amendment explicitly states that it “only protects the teaching of scientific information.”

You seem to be confused about this. For instance, you stated that creationism is allowed under the law because whether or not it has scientific validity is a subject of “debate and disputation.” That would be an incredible contortion of the amendment. Whether or not creationism, or any other scheme, is or is not scientific is completely irrelevant.

The amendment is not allowing for whatever theories or viewpoints anyone wants to inject, just because someone argues that it is scientific. I am astonished you could have concluded this upon a close reading of the law. The language is crystal clear that it is addressing only the state’s curriculum.

Even creationists understand this. For instance AIG, one of the world’s leading creationist organizations, writes that: “media reports asserting that Tennessee law has introduced ‘creationism theory into science curriculum,’ and similar claims are simply wrong. The law does not permit or promote the teaching of intelligent design or creation science.” [1]

You also asked the question, if allowing discussion of challenges such as creationism isn’t the purpose of the law, then what is? This is troublesome for me for two reasons. First, you are divining a hidden, underlying purpose of the law, which not only is not in the law but is explicitly not allowed by the law, and then presenting that hidden purpose to your readers as an objective reading of the law. The fact that you are unable to imagine why legislators two thousand miles away would pass such a law does not give you the right to misrepresent the law to your readers.

Second, your question reveals that you are unaware how difficult it can be for students to raise scientific questions about theories. There is a hostile environment in our educational system, at all levels, to skepticism. Believe me, as one who has been blackballed by evolutionists, and one who has interacted with school boards and teachers, everything from passing grades to career options are at stake. This has nothing to do with creationism.

You also hypothesized that the amendment sponsors appear to have calculated that including “creationism” or “intelligent design” in the bill’s language would make it difficult to pass, so they resorted to much more general language that allows broad interpretation under the term “scientific subjects.”

But again, you are assigning motives that you imagine and projecting that onto the law itself. Even if your conspiracy theory was correct, that wouldn’t change the law. But I can also tell you that there is no such conspiracy. People I know involved with this legislation have no such calculation. And furthermore I know many people, myself included, who support these types of academic freedom bills who do not want to see creationism or intelligent design taught in our schools.

Let me be frank. I know journalists have time constraints and that you probably spent a grand total of a couple hours, if that, on the story. And I know that journalists are not experts in specialized fields. You probably haven’t thought much about biology since your high school class, and you probably know even less about the complex debate over evolution that has been on-going for years. You probably view the debate from afar through a political lens that casts evolutionists as the scientists and skeptics as the fundamentalists. Believe me, the debate is far more nuanced and complex than this. And again, it has nothing to do with creationism.

The bottom line is that your piece does need a correction. Without it you harm the reputation of yourself and your employer. You pointed out that the Los Angeles Times is one of many news outlets reporting that the bill will allow classroom discussion of creationism or other alternatives to evolution. I trust you realize this doesn’t justify false reporting. In fact, that is part of the story.

What the Los Angeles Times missed here was an opportunity to report on an often misunderstood story, particularly in the broad news media (this is not left versus right), and dig down a level beyond the usual cultural memes that continue to confuse the story.

Sincerely yours,

Cornelius Hunter

1. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2012/04/12/teacher-protection-academic-freedom-act

Yet there will be no correction. No matter how grievous the yellow journalism, a correction would not be possible because this is evolution. Journalist David Zucchino and the Los Angeles Times have violated the fundamental ethic of journalism.

We all make mistakes but when a person willfully misrepresents the truth, then it is no longer merely a mistake. Unfortunately this is the story of evolution. Its endless trail of scientific misrepresentations goes uncorrected and denied, in spite of patient observers informing evolutionists of their “mistakes.” And since evolution is far more than a mere scientific theory, but a religious-cultural movement, this dynamic is seen in more than the mere scientific disputes. The LA Times has provided an unfortunate example of this.

Here is how one writer recently explained the increasing irrelevancy of news outlets such as the Times:

Couple of things to keep in mind about legacy media:

1. Their news gathering model is out of date, which is why they are bleeding circulation from every outlet. Essentially, on many subjects today, you can usually find out more accurate information more quickly by doing your own straightforward Internet search than you can by reading a “newspaper of record.”

2. One outcome of slow decline is that such media attract conformist journalists who spout a party line because they really haven’t any better ambitions or ideas.

3. They also attach themselves to establishment figures and causes, for protection, which leads to a loss of news gathering independence. They begin to act with a degree of irresponsibility that we used to associate with the tabloid press.

4. Remember the “air traffic controller” rule. The more vital the information is, the less biased the provider can afford to be. The ATC is allowed only one bias: Getting planes down safely. Now turn that around: In a world where people can learn about events quite easily without the legacy media, the legacy media slowly begin to write fiction that pleases themselves and their remaining readers.

Thus, it actually doesn’t matter to them what the Tennessee bill says, or what its outcome will be. They are constructing a work of fiction pleasing to themselves and their readers. The news story is simply an inspiration for an alternative reality. Read it if you like – but not for news.

What we are witnessing here is a tragedy. We’ve all heard about journalistic bias, the problems with legacy media and so forth. Here we have a clear example. This is not merely a case of media bias. This is not an example of an Op-Ed with an over-the-top political slant. This is an outright lie in a supposed news story. What I discovered is that there is no intent to cover the story accurately. There is no journalistic integrity here. The intent is to prop up an absurd and obviously false narrative. That’s a tragedy.

Religion drives science, and it matters.

Evolution Falsified Yet Again: They Are So Complicated “That it’s Stunning”

We have seen (here and here) that the mitochondria DNA of the single-cell eukaryote Trypanosoma brucei is incredibly complex and unique, and make no sense on evolution, and more over that these incredible mitochondria designs reappear in distant species on the evolutionary tree. For instance, the Euglenids and the Dinoflagellates share these bizarre mitochondria similarities. Evolutionists are calling it “Corresponding evolutionary histories” or “Cascades of convergent evolution,” and it is far beyond the explanatory power of the usual just-so stories, such as gene transfer, gene duplication or gene loss. It is just another example of how evolutionary theory fails but the story doesn’t end with the mitochondria.

The Euglenids and Dinoflagellates, for example, also share very odd peculiarities at the molecular level in general. You can hear about them beginning at the [14:05] mark here.

For starters both these eukaryotic groups have permanently condensed chromosomes in their nucleus, polycistronic transcription, trans-splicing and intron poverty. These characteristics are highly unusual in eukaryotes.

Canonical gene expression in eukaryotes involves the transcription of a gene, and the splicing out of the introns so that only the exons remain, before translation takes place to construct the protein.

But in the Euglenids and Dinoflagellates, for example, a string of consecutive genes—sometimes hundreds of genes—are transcribed together in what is known as polycistronic transcription. And when these transcripts are cut up to produce monocistronic transcripts, short genomic sequences known as spliced leaders, which come from RNA genes, are added at the beginning in a process that is called trans-splicing. This was first observed years ago in the kinetoplastids. Also, there are very few introns in these distant eukaryotic groups.

Evolution expects that when organisms are classified according to how they evolved, then the classification serves to predict and explain other aspects of the organisms which were not used in the classification. Simply put, if certain traits point to a certain evolutionary history, then other traits should as well.

These similarities between the Euglenids and Dinoflagellates, of very odd and peculiar traits, disproves evolution yet again. It’s just another example of how the evidence explains evolution rather than evolution explaining the evidence. Evolution is a tautology. It is contorted to fit whatever we find in nature, no matter how absurd the theory must become.

Nothing makes sense in biology in the light of evolution.

You Won’t Believe This One, Even Evolutionists Call it “Totally Crazy”

Evolution expects the species to fall into a very definite pattern, but they don’t. For example, we saw that the mitochondria DNA of the single-cell eukaryote Trypanosoma brucei is incredibly complex and unique, and make no sense on evolution. But the contradictions don’t stop there. Evolutionists were further shocked to find such similar features in completely different organisms, on completely different parts of the evolutionary tree. Consider, for example, the Euglenids and the Dinoflagellates shown in the figure (which shows the 5 supergroups that comprise the eukaryotes). These two groups are very different—Dinoflagellates are Chromalveolates while Euglenids are Excavates—but their mitochondria are not only similar, but similar in ways that are highly unique. Imagine finding an automobile with six wheels instead of four. It is the only one of its kind. But then you discover the same anomaly in a distant country, an automobile with six wheels while all the rest have four wheels.

You can hear about the incredible mitochondria similarities between the Euglenids and the Dinoflagellates here (or you can see the paper here), beginning at the [28:30] mark. It is well worth a listen for you will learn that these distant mitochondria have in common: polycistronic transcription, reduced ribosomal RNA, universal import of tRNAs, use of the enzyme tRNA-Met formyl-transferase, trans-splicing, extensive RNA editing and 3’ polyadenylation and polyuridylylation. Here is how the evolutionist describes it at the [32.50] mark:

What is here common is total mayhem of the organellar genome—breakdown. Either you have very complicated structure in the kinetoplastids, and I will talk a little bit later on that, or, you have even more complicated, this is totally crazy, this was published last year, or actually two years ago in Science. This appears that these diplonemida have everything! They manage their organellar genome in such a sophisticated way, that is still beyond my comprehension.

Then we have apicomplexans plasmodium that have some small, short, linear molecules, and all genes from the mitochondria of malaria have been exported into the nucleus. There are just three, actually two even fused together, but they are in different sequence contexts, they are in fragments. So apparently they have to be spliced together. Enormous effort have to be invested just to produce two or three genes. And in dinoflagellates it’s even worse. The genes are again split into fragments—pieces are just like you would take scissors and cut them and paste them together. Then, on top of that, the transcripts are edited. So you need a vast range of proteins that perform these editings. And these editings are complex. So you have guanines changed to adenines, uridines changed to cytosines, cytosines in other positions changed to uridines. So you have five or six different changes of the given base, then you look on the level of amino acids, because you would expect that all this effort is made in order to change the amino acid, and in some cases the amino acid is not changed. So it’s like they do it for fun. And that is extreme in both of these groups.

It doesn’t make any sense on evolution not only because these are highly unique designs, but they then appear repeatedly, in otherwise very distant species. This is not what evolution expected and this is far beyond any level of evolutionary noise. Nor will the oft-used gene transfer explanation work in this case. This is an instance of massive convergence that makes no sense on evolution.

We saw that evolutionists needed the term “Recurrent evolution” to explain repeated convergence. Now evolutionists are calling these “totally crazy” arrangements: “Corresponding evolutionary histories” or “Cascades of convergent evolution.”

Evolution is not merely a scientific theory. If that were the case it would have been discarded long ago. Evolution is a dogma. That is why evolutionists make extreme truth claims. Rather than tentative, scientific, explanations of the evidence, evolutionists insist that their idea is a fact. A fact every bit as much as gravity or the fact that the Earth is round. It is beyond all reasonable doubt, they insist.

To say this is a misrepresentation of the science is putting it lightly. Evolution has been mandated by religious thought for centuries and it is a corruption of science. With evolution, we have lost the ability to reason scientifically.

Religion drives science, and it matters.

Here’s a Very Complicated and Unique DNA Finding That Contradicts Evolution

You may remember from your high school biology class that DNA segments called genes are transcribed and that the copy, which is slightly different and called RNA, is then translated into a string of amino acids which folds up into a new protein. And in the more complicated eukaryote cells this process is more elaborate because the genes can be split up into multiple segments (called exons) in the DNA. This means the RNA transcript needs some editing to splice out the intervening regions. You may also remember your teacher explaining the cell division process and how the DNA is duplicated so that in the end there are two identical copies of the cell’s genome.

Finally you may remember your teacher explaining that these processes are found throughout all life, thus proving evolution yet again. For with evolution you cannot have one-offs. As your teacher assured you, evolution would be instantly falsified and discarded by all scientists if somewhere in the tree of life some organisms here or there revealed some other way of doing business.

Well guess what? One-off solutions are all over the evolutionary tree. The pattern that evolutionists expected didn’t turn out. Regarding the DNA mechanisms, consider the well-studied single-cell eukaryote named Trypanosoma brucei. Its mitochondria (the organelle that is the cell’s powerplant, turning food into fuel) employs very different, and incredible schemes.

First, the mitochondria DNA forms a huge, elegant network organized into so-called maxicircles and minicircles. There are a couple dozen maxicircles and thousands of minicircles. The minicircles are all different and laid out into an exact, three-dimensional network where each one is interconnected with just three neighbors.

This network is exactly recreated, with each minicircle copied and inserted in the right place, each time the cell divides into two daughter cells. It is a very complicated replication process.

Each minicircle is duplicated and a protein tag is attached to the copy indicating that it is a copy so that particular minicircle need not be copied. While this is occurring the entire network is slowly rotating between two opposing nodes where the copied minicircles are collected.

And regarding the DNA-RNA-protein sequence, a very different editing process is used. It is called “extensive RNA editing” but the label doesn’t do it justice. For many, but not all, of the mitochondria genes, hundreds of nucleotides are added to the RNA transcript and dozens are removed. All of this is done mistake-free, for if it isn’t done just right the result would likely be a useless protein. Not surprisingly all of this requires close to a thousand genes, in order to construct only a few dozen genes.

These are very unique solutions that do not form an evolutionary tree pattern. Nothing in biology makes sense in the light of evolution.

Professor Scot McKnight Just Cited Dennis Venema (Approvingly)

One would think that after almost four hundred years Christians would finally give up on their evolutionary mandate. Malebranche, Burnet, Leibniz and the other early naturalists at least did not have all the scientific details. But today there is no such excuse. Now we know in incredible detail that the theological mandate against special divine action really is as unjustified as it has always seemed.

But this week Scot McKnight, recognized authority on the New Testament and professor in Religious Studies at North Park University, reminds us why evolution remains alive and well. McKnight discusses the recent meeting in New York City of leading Christians and the need to promote evolutionary thought. McKnight cites Dennis Venema’s evolutionary apologetics as an example of what is needed.

In one example Venema repeats the scientifically bogus, theological argument for human-chimpanzee common ancestry based on the human chromosome #2. You can read more about the problems with this evidence here, here and here.

The bottom line is that the human chromosome #2 evidence allowed evolution to dodge a bullet. It is a gross misrepresentation of science to claim this as evidence for common ancestry any more than any other similarity. We share similar a body plan with the chimp also. So what? A similarity does not demonstrate an evolutionary relationship.

But as always the “So what” in evolutionary thought comes from theology, not science. As Venema concludes:

What makes shared synteny for humans and chimpanzees challenging from an anti-common descent viewpoint is that there is no good biological reason to find the same genes in the same order in unrelated organisms, and every good reason to expect very different gene orders. … In summary, should God have wished to avoid the appearance of common ancestry between humans and chimpanzees, there seem to have been many gene orders and chromosome structures available to Him to use for either species. … While this pattern makes perfect sense in light of common ancestry and acts as an important independent test of phylogenies, it continues to puzzle those who attempt to explain life apart from evolution.

When Venema explains that “there is no good biological reason to find the same genes in the same order in unrelated organisms” he is commenting on creation. It is a religious argument, not a scientific argument. An argument that McKnight has precisely the right expertise to dissect.

Amidst all of the scientific jargon lies religion at the steering wheel. It all sounds so technical, but like the rudder of a ship, religion is firmly in control. Which reminds us of those prescient words from the brother of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ:

My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment. For we all stumble in many things. If anyone does not stumble in word, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle the whole body. Indeed, we put bits in horses’ mouths that they may obey us, and we turn their whole body. Look also at ships: although they are so large and are driven by fierce winds, they are turned by a very small rudder wherever the pilot desires. Even so the tongue is a little member and boasts great things.

See how great a forest a little fire kindles! And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity. The tongue is so set among our members that it defiles the whole body, and sets on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire by hell. For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and creature of the sea, is tamed and has been tamed by mankind. But no man can tame the tongue. It is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison. With it we bless our God and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the similitude of God. Out of the same mouth proceed blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be so. Does a spring send forth fresh water and bitter from the same opening? Can a fig tree, my brethren, bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Thus no spring yields both salt water and fresh.

James’ words about the tongue reminds us of religion. It brings about many good things, but it also brings about lies.

I have no idea if the human and chimp genomes share a common naturalistic origin, but I do know religion when I see it. The evolutionary argument, as reiterated here by Venema, is about God, not science. Evolution is not a scientific finding, it is a religious lie. Perhaps we evolved, perhaps we didn’t, but the science indicates the latter.

Religion drives science, and it matters.

Neuroscientist: “The Most Seamless Illusions Ever Created”

Evolutionary thinking has so strangled our thinking, and has imposed such anti intellectualism, that a UCLA professor, as reported at UncommonDescent, actually had to explain that there is something different, apparently something non physical, about consciousness:

I don’t actually believe the radio metaphor of the brain, but I think something like it could account for all of our findings. Its unfalsifiable which is a big no-no in science. But so is the materialist view—it’s also unfalsifiable. We simply don’t know how to reverse engineer consciousness. Saying that the complexity of the brain explains why we are conscious is just an article of faith—it doesn’t explain anything. We don’t know why our brains are associated with conscious experience and nothing else in the universe besides brains seems to be.  Maybe rocks have consciousness but no way of showing this. I don’t believe this—but again, I can’t prove its false.

If we acknowledge just how much we don’t know about the conscious mind, perhaps we would be a bit more humble.  We have so much confidence in our materialist assumptions (which are assumptions, not facts) that something like free will is denied in principle. Maybe it doesn’t exist, but I don’t really know that. Either way, it doesn’t matter because if free will and consciousness are just an illusion, they are the most seamless illusions ever created. Film maker James Cameron wishes he had special effects that good. So we will go on acting like free willing creatures no matter what. It’s what we're built to do.

This was actually deemed newsworthy? Indeed it was because evolution has come to so dominate our thinking. Conundrums that were well acknowledged ages ago are now revealed as though they are new findings.

This reminds me of Isaac Asimov’s 1958 futuristic short story “The Feeling of Power,” in which a technician named Myron Aub rediscovers arithmetic. Aub’s future world is one dominated by computers which do all the number crunching and people who not only are mathematically-challenged but, more importantly, don’t see the point. What good is math anyway? Today evolution has had a similar effect on our thinking. Just as computers can dull our mathematical skills, evolutionary thought dulls our critical thinking skills.

Antibiotic Resistance: Scratch Another “Proof” of Evolution (Which Was Never a Proof in the First Place Anyway)

Remember how you learned in tenth grade that evolution is a fact because bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics, and how evolutionists continue to proclaim this proof? Of course this evidence never explained how the bacteria could turn into a fish, or how the fish could turn into a giraffe. Nor did it explain how the bacteria evolved in the first place. The evidence didn’t even explain how the bacteria were able to respond so quickly to the antibiotics. Well if the whole argument wasn’t silly enough, now new research finds that drug resistance is actually an ancient trait because it was discovered in bacteria from an isolated cave in New Mexico, hundreds of yards underground:

A growing body of evidence implicates environmental organisms as reservoirs of these resistance genes; however, the role of anthropogenic use of antibiotics in the emergence of these genes is controversial. We report a screen of a sample of the culturable microbiome of Lechuguilla Cave, New Mexico, in a region of the cave that has been isolated for over 4 million years. We report that, like surface microbes, these bacteria were highly resistant to antibiotics; some strains were resistant to 14 different commercially available antibiotics. … This supports a growing understanding that antibiotic resistance is natural, ancient, and hard wired in the microbial pangenome.

This natural antibiotic resistance predates our use of antibiotics and could simultaneously (i) explain how such resistance appears rapidly after the introduction of a new antibiotic and (ii) relieve evolutionists of one of their already ridiculous arguments:

Clinical microbiologists have been perplexed for the longest time. When you bring a new antibiotic into the hospital, resistance inevitably appears shortly thereafter, within months to years. It’s still a big question: Where is this coming from. Almost no one thought to look at other bacteria, the ones that don’t necessarily cause disease.

Nothing in biology makes sense in the light of evolution.

Here’s the Latest Just-So Story: Recurrent Evolution

Biology’s designs don’t fit the evolutionary tree very well. Evolutionists expected the species to form, more or less, a common-descent type pattern. Species that are supposed to share a recent common ancestor would be highly similar with only minor differences. And on the other hand, species whose last common ancestor is ancient would be more dramatically different. Sister species could not have any dramatic differences, and distant species could not share unlikely designs that would not have been present in the distant common ancestor. These evolutionary expectations have been falsified many times over. And these failures of evolutionary theory are far greater than any evolutionary “noise.” But such failures do not cast doubt on the theory of evolution itself. This is because evolution is held dogmatically to be a fact. It cannot be false, for it is mandated by metaphysical beliefs which are far more powerful than any scientific reasoning. And so evolutionists appeal to a wide range of just-so stories to explain away the many contradictions to their theory. The latest is called recurrent evolution.

When evolutionists find the same design in otherwise very different species, they say that, like lightning striking twice, the design evolved independently in the two different evolutionary lineages. They will appeal to common environmental “induction,” developmental “plasticity,” and other serendipitous cartoon explanations that don’t actually tell us anything about how such astronomically unlikely events could have occurred. Particularly when these distant species are in completely different environments to begin with.

For example, humans and squid share uncannily similar, incredibly detailed and complicated, vision systems. This in spite of the fact their environments are very different. [Side note: Evolutionists dismiss this profound contradiction because the squid photocells are not inverted as the human’s are. This would be like travelling to a distant planet and finding a Lexus automobile with the steering wheel on the passenger side, and therefore dismissing all the similarities as meaningless].

And these repeated designs, in otherwise different species, are rampant in biology. It is not merely a rare occurrence which perhaps evolution could explain as an outlier. That the species do not fall into an evolutionary tree pattern is well established by science.

But it’s worse than this. These repeated designs do not merely occur twice, in two distant species. They often occur repeatedly in a variety of otherwise distant species. So now the evolutionist must not only believe that there are many of these miraculous repeating design events, but that in most cases, they repeat multiple times.

The first step to explaining something away is to give it a name. And so evolutionists have labeled this awkward evidence as recurrent evolution. As a recent paper explains:

The recent explosion of genome sequences from all major phylogenetic groups has unveiled an unexpected wealth of cases of recurrent evolution of strikingly similar genomic features in different lineages.

In addition, many instances of a third more puzzling phylogenetic pattern have been observed: traits whose distribution is “scattered” across the evolutionary tree, indicating repeated independent evolution of similar genomic features in different lineages.

And how to explain these puzzling, unexpected patterns? Evolutionists have a dizzying array of speculative hypotheses:

Cases of genomic recurrence caused by ratchet mutations are fundamental to understanding the evolutionary constraints and canalizations that shape the way in which the “genomespace,” as the morphospace, is explored through evolution, underscoring predictability in the overall outcome of neutral mutation, whether or not this will be “constructive.” … Other quasineutral changes that have been repeatedly used as substrate for molecular innovations suggest that certain genomic traits confer evolutionary flexibility, opening new venues that can be explored during evolution. Thus, their mere presence would be indicative of evolutionary potential, allowing specific hypotheses about the occurrence of typically accompanying features.

That, for those unfamiliar with evolution, is what passes as science. Such speculation is acceptable, because everyone agrees evolution is a fact. One way or another, it must have occurred:

We believe that the wealth of recurrent genomic features indicate unappreciated similarity of fundamental forces across lineages.

In other words, there is no level of “recurrence” that could harm evolution. It simply reveals some unknown “fundamental forces” across lineages which must have done the heavy lifting because, after all, evolution is a fact.

It is easy to appeal to “fundamental forces” across lineages. But why would they produce the same designs over and over? It would be like finding a Boeing 747 jet airliner on a distant planet and concluding that “Well, they have gravity too.”

Not only is recurrent evolution an unlikely hypothesis due to the fundamental probabilities involved, but in many cases evolutionists won’t even have their usual strong selection explanation to fall back on. This because many genomic recurrences don’t seem to be all that necessary:

What forces may explain genomic recurrence? In contrast to recurrent anatomical or physiological characters, which are usually (and reasonably) assumed to reflect adaption, often due to shared peculiarities of the organisms' environmental niches, the potential causes of observed recurrent genomic features are more diverse and may be very different for different recurrent traits—indeed, in some cases, the adaptative value of repeated genomic outcomes is dubious.

And just as convergent evolution was found to be far more widespread than the evolutionist’s worst nightmare, so too will recurrent evolution be found to be widespread:

The diverse instances discussed here represent only a subset of the known cases of repeated evolution at the genome level that have been found largely serendipitously, suggesting that recurrent patterns of genome evolution are widespread.

And if we needed further proof that common descent’s failure is inconsequential for evolutionists, because common descent was never part of evolution’s theoretical core, here it is.

As ancestrally shared features are the result of a common evolutionary history, shared features evolved by recurrent evolution are often the result of common evolutionary forces acting on different lineages.

If the pattern fits the evolutionary tree, then it is explained as common evolutionary history. If not, then it is explained as common evolutionary forces. Heads I win, tails you lose.

Common descent has always been an auxiliary hypothesis for the simple reason that evolution’s theoretical core does not mandate common descent, or anything else for that matter, aside from its insistence that the species arose naturally. Beyond that, anything goes.

Evolutionists insist the species arose naturally, their religion requires it.

Here is My Letter to the Los Angeles Times About Their Misreporting on That New Tennessee Law

People need to earn money but not at the expense of one’s profession. Each profession has its own methods and practices that must be followed. In the newspaper business it is understood that reporting must be accurate. And when mistakes occur, then corrections are made. No serious newspaper allows inaccurate or biased reporting to go uncorrected. It just doesn’t happen. Therefore the Los Angeles Times needs to issue a correction to its erroneous reporting on Tennessee’s new Academic Freedom measure. Here is my letter to the Times apprising them of this situation:

April 12, 2012

David Zucchino
Los Angeles Times

Dear Mr. Zucchino:

In your article entitle "Creationism discussions are now OK in Tennessee schools" from April 11, 2012, you wrote:

"The measure will allow classroom debates over evolution, permitting discussions of creationism alongside evolutionary teachings about the origins of life. … The state’s teachers are not allowed to raise alternatives to evolution but, under the new law, would be required to permit discussion of creationism and other beliefs if they are raised in class."

This is unfortunately a severe mischaracterization of the new law. In fact, the law is careful to rule out just this sort of thing. The law says nothing about permitting discussions of creationism or any other religious theory, or for that matter anything not within the existing curriculum. You can see the actual Amendment here:

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/107/Amend/SA0901.pdf

The language is quite clear. It repeatedly states that the new law does not introduce new material into the existing curriculum, and is instead restricted to "scientific subjects required to be taught under the curriculum framework developed by the state board of education."

Furthermore, it goes even farther in avoiding any confusion with creationism as it states: "This section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine."

In addition to your erroneous description of the law, your article was also heavily slanted toward the opposition, even including Barry Lynn, a well known partisan on this issue. Unfortunately all of this simply feeds an on-going cultural myth that really needs clarification rather than reinforcement.

Will you be issuing a correction to the story?

Sincerely yours,

Cornelius Hunter

Here is How Those LIMEs Solved “Some of the Mysteries of Plant Evolution”

One of the signs of junk science is when the explanations become more and more and more complicated. When the epicycles are pasted on, one after the other, then you wonder if the theory really has anything to do with reality.

Another problem is when no matter what is discovered, even if contradictory to expectations, the theory is just reengineered once again to fit the data. Is the theory really anything more than a tautology?

Evolution has been down these paths over and over. And now we have yet another set of epicycles tacked onto evolutionary theory. Like the dormitory’s bulletin board at the end of the semester, the theory is looking pretty tattered, with old, long-forgotten epicycles barely hanging on and new ones tacked on wherever they fit. Our latest complexity is this “resolution” of the mysteries of plant evolution, all due to the rather unexpected, but now easily imbibed, finding of LIMEs throughout the plants and animals. As usual, the evidence was not only a complete contradiction from what evolution predicted, but accounting for these little surprises has evolutionists doing even more of their mental gymnastics. So we now present, without further ado, evolutionary epicycles 11,764-11,771:

That really clears it up.

Here’s an Incredible Electronic Version of the Biochemical Pathways Chart

Even evolutionists admit these biochemical pathway charts are “daunting in their majesty and beauty.” And as you can see, they just have random mutation written all over them.

There simply is no doubt evolution is a fact. Who could ever doubt it?

The LA Times’ David Zucchino Just Committed the Cardinal Sin of Journalism

It is what every journalism student learns not to do. From obtaining multiple sources to developing a writing style there are many do’s, but yellow journalism is the big don’t. The phrase conjurs up images of manipulation and sensationalism from days long gone. Today’s journalists would never engage in such a thing. Right?

Unfortunately David Zucchino’s piece in the LA Times today on Tennessee’s new Academic Freedom bill is proof that yellow journalism is alive and well. The bill states that the Tennessee education system:

shall endeavor to create an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about scientific subjects required to be taught under the curriculum framework developed by the state board of education. …

shall endeavor to assist teachers to find effective ways to present the science curriculum taught under the curriculum framework developed by the state board of education as it addresses scientific subjects that may cause debate and disputation.

And that the system will not:

prohibit any teacher in a public school system of this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught within the curriculum framework developed by the state board of education.

And finally that evolution’s religious dogma, thankfully, is not allowed:

This section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.

Plenty clear right?

Wrong, not for evolutionists who cannot stand the light of day. So how does Mr. Zucchino inform his readers of this new law? If there was any doubt it was gone with the headline:

Creationism discussions are now OK in Tennessee schools

The academic freedom bill is not about creationism. In fact it is difficult to imagine how the bill could have been any more clear. It is about objective evaluation of the “scientific subjects required to be taught” so students can understand “the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.”

In fact, the headline could have stated: “Evolution discussions are now OK in Tennessee schools.” Which is precisely why evolutionists have been so vociferously opposed to this new bill.

Could it be that the headline was written by an editor who forgot to read the article and knew nothing about the story?

Hardly.

Zucchino’s piece is just as yellow as the headline. He discusses the anti-science governor who opposed the bill. He discusses a group of religiously-motivated evolutionists who sent a letter against the bill. He mentions unnamed “critics” who disparaged the law and who predicted gloom and doom for the state of Tennessee. He quotes the anti-science director of government relations for the Tennessee Education Association, Jerry Winters. And he quotes Barry Lynn, a well known religiously-motivated, evolutionary mouthpiece who wants the religious theory of evolution to maintain its bogus legal protection while hypocritically labeling scientific criticism as “religious”:

This has always been a way for teachers to interject their religious viewpoints if they contradict evolution.

And finally, Zucchino literally fabricates his own bizarre and fictional version of bill:

The measure will allow classroom debates over evolution, permitting discussions of creationism alongside evolutionary teachings about the origins of life. … The state’s teachers are not allowed to raise alternatives to evolution but, under the new law, would be required to permit discussion of creationism and other beliefs if they are raised in class.

Incredible.

And strangely Zucchino forgot to talk to anyone who could speak in support of the bill. Funny how journalism works.

So what has happened to the LA Times? Of course journalism is not perfect, and it is no secret that political bias can seep into even the best publications. But this is nowhere close to a minor mistake or a lack of objectivity. This is jaw-dropping silliness. It might serve as an example of yellow journalism in a freshman undergraduate class. Except that the professor would never use such an obvious, ridiculous example. Even William Hearst never misrepresented a story and lied like this.

What has happened to the LA Times? What has happened is that this time it’s different because this time it is evolution that is threatened.

A 5.9 Magnitude Earthquake Just Occurred 168 Miles Off of Coos Bay

And 15 minutes later a 7.0 magnitude earthquake occurred along the southern Mexico coast.