Evolution Is Impossible to Falsify

Posted on October 18, 2011 in Uncategorized

Serious problems have been reported for Darwinian evolution in these pages, and by other reporters ever since Charles Darwin lived, that should have long ago swept his theory into the scientific dustbin of unworkable hypothesis.  Yet neo-Darwinism survives, stronger than ever – strong enough to exclude any other alternative from the scientific competition.  How can this be?  A recent article shows how.

National Geographic News just reported the discovery of a fossil tiger skull from China, the earliest ever known, claimed to be 2.5 million years old.  That’s a substantial leap back in evolutionary time from the previous record-holder at 1.8 million years old.  Yet it looks strikingly modern, about halfway in size between a jaguar skull and a tiger skull.  One might think this to be a problem for evolutionary theory, which would predict a sequence of transitional forms from pre-tigers to tigers.  But here’s the headline: “Oldest Tiger-like Skull Yet—Hints Evolution Got It Right From Start.”

The headline should start several scientific sirens.  In the first place, one cannot personify Evolution as an entity even capable of trying to get something right.  And Evolution has no standard of rightness.  But if NG meant that it was a pure gamble – that chance hit a lucky strike by an unguided process – the statement could mean nothing short of a miracle.  To see if that is what was implied, the article can interpret itself.

  • Representing a new species, the skull isn’t that different from those of modern tigers, suggesting evolution hit on a winning formula early on and stuck with it.
  • The National Evolutionary Synthesis Center’s Meachen said the skull’s similarity to those of living tigers and jaguars is more striking than the differences.
  • “[Big cats] were great at what they did right away in their evolution, so their [anatomy] hasn’t changed much … ‚” said Julie Meachen, a carnivore paleontologist at the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center in Durham, North Carolina. “They were—and still are—really good predators, in part because of their extremely successful body plan.”

No statement in the short article suggested any problem for evolutionary theory with this fossil.  In fact, they celebrated it as a trophy for evolution.

We really need to get these con artists out of science.  In the Darwin Party there are the con artists, who know exactly what they are doing, and the conned, who have been taught only this mode of magical thinking since their youth, who don’t realize what they are thinking.  Academia is the brainwashers leading the brainwashed, the con artists leading the conned. It’s contrived, contorted, and contemptuous.   Confound it, we need clarity in science and in science news.  Embarrasment is a good tool for exposing a con; learn how to show reporters like this one at National Geographic how utterly illogical, inconsistent, and illusory their prop for evolution is.  If they listen, they are honest; if not, they are acting as mendacious, prevaricating purveyors of deceit.

3 Comments

Rkyway October 18, 2011

Representing a new species, the skull isn’t that different from those of modern tigers, suggesting evolution hit on a winning formula early on and stuck with it.’

- I don’t know what version of evolutionary theory they’re talking about, as Darwinism requires an almost countless number of small steps. Gradualism of the kind envisaged by Charles Darwin can’t get something perfect from the very beginning.

A winning formula? That doesn’t sound like the random chance of materialism to me. Only intelligent agents come up with winning formulas.

Superabound October 18, 2011

So because scientists finally proved what everyone else already knew, that cats are the most perfect, animals to ever live, that somehow proves that evolution is a lie? Um, no, i dont think so.

Editor October 18, 2011

Superabound: You missed the point completely, either because you misunderstand evolutionary theory, or you did not read the article carefully.

Leave a Reply