Fudging Evolution to Avoid Falsification
Evolutionary theory follows Finagle’s Rule #4: “Draw your curves, then plot your data.”
Mutation rate fudge: In theory, the “molecular clock” should calibrate the fossil record if Darwinian evolution were true. Attempts to determine the rate at which DNA mutates, though, Nature admits, have given “nonsensical” results. Some estimates give slow rates, while others give rates twice as fast.
A slower molecular clock worked well to harmonize genetic and archaeological estimates for dates of key events in human evolution, such as migrations out of Africa and around the rest of the world. But calculations using the slow clock gave nonsensical results when extended further back in time — positing, for example, that the most recent common ancestor of apes and monkeys could have encountered dinosaurs. Reluctant to abandon the older numbers completely, many researchers have started hedging their bets in papers, presenting multiple dates for evolutionary events depending on whether mutation is assumed to be fast, slow or somewhere in between.
Evolutionists have a bad case of “physics envy” as they watch physicists using constants measured to six significant figures or more. “The fact that the clock is so uncertain is very problematic for us,” David Reich of Harvard said at a recent meeting where no consensus was reached. “It means that the dates we get out of genetics are really quite embarrassingly bad and uncertain.” The solution for some has been to invoke “rate heterogeneity”: mutations rates that speed up or slow down as needed to keep the theory intact.
Increasingly, Reich and others conclude that the human mutation rate has fluctuated over millions of years. Much of the discussion at the meeting revolved around when it accelerated and decelerated — and why….
Even though the human mutation rate is still uncertain and unstable, Reich proposed at the meeting that researchers use the slower value for their work, at least until better data come along. Just don’t think of it as a constant, he cautions: “This is not the speed of light. This is not physics.”
Better late than never: Two ferns from different genera that were separated by 60 million Darwin years were able to hybridize, according to evolutionists at the University of Chicago. How can Darwin explain that? Whales evolved from four-legged land animals in far less time, according to their belief. In the article “Sex after 60 million years apart,” the solution is to throw in a little pixie dust of rate heterogeneity:
That a species of oak fern (Gymnocarpium) could cross with a fragile fern (Cystopteris) to produce a viable hybrid after such a long time apart suggests that ferns may evolve reproductive incompatibilities much more slowly than most animals or flowering plants. If a slower “speciation clock” for ferns is true, it might explain why there are only around 10,000 fern species on Earth today, compared with around 300,000 species of flowering plants, without any need to invoke competitive advantages of flowering plants per se.
Diverge and converge: Mammals and birds share a similar “corticosensory microcircuit,” an article on Medical Xpress asserts. Historically, similar traits on the same lineage have been called “homologous” by Darwinians, and “analogous” if on different ancestral lines (the more popular term these days is “convergent evolution”—the two lines accidentally hit on similar solutions). So what happened in this case? Well, using perhaps some non-Euclidean bio-geometry, it could be one, or could be the other. Whatever happened, evolution explains it:
To explain their results, they cite the homology hypothesis of brain evolution. It suggests that the canonical cortical microcircuit evolved in a common ancestor of both mammals and avians, and its functions were preserved even as the architecture of the brain types diverged. “If so,” they write, “then the microcircuit evolved in stem amniotes and predates cortical lamination by at least 100 million years.“
Alternatively, they suggest that the pallium evolution of birds and mammals both converged on the same neuronal circuit organization as the simplest architecture for somatosensory processing. They write, “Regardless of these alternatives, this study provides a physiological explaination [sic] for the evolution of neural processes that give rise to complex behavior in the absence of lamination.”
Darwin survives opposite models: The old Darwinian/Malthusian “survival of the fittest” scenario expected the fitter to conquer the less fit. Why, then, are so many similar species co-existing just fine in complex ecosystems like rainforests and coral reefs? Science Daily tackles this conundrum in Darwin circles:
Up until the 1970s the consensus was that the bigger and the more complex an ecosystem was—because it included multiple interactions within a large variety of species—the less dramatic the impact of these fluctuations would be upon it. This would explain why the more stable ecosystems tend to be those which display a large biodiversity.
However, in 1972, an eminent physicist and environmental scientist, Sir Robert May, demonstrated mathematically—and employing very simple models—that it should be quite the opposite: size and complexity should tend to unsettle any dynamic system, such as an ecosystem or a financial network. This result, which has since then been known as the ‘May paradox’, set off a lively debate on the effects of diversity upon stability.
It’s OK in Darwinian circles to argue how Darwinian evolution works, but not whether it works. Consensus knows it’s a fact. A little tweaking of the models allows Darwinism to survive in spite of the troubling evidence: “the answer to this enigma must lie in the particular design or architecture of trophic networks.” There’s enough left to debate to keep all the Darwinists employed.
A croc on natural selection: Speaking of similar species in the same ecosystem, Science Daily also reported the discovery of “seven crocodile species found in single 13-million-year-old bone bed.” How could they all get along? This amounts to the “largest number of crocodile species co-existing in one place at any time in Earth’s history.” Malthus would be stunned; population is supposed to outstrip resources. That’s what motivated Darwin to conceive of survival of the fittest. How to rescue Darwin? A little tweak was invented: it was “likely due to an abundant food source that forms only a small part of modern crocodile diets: mollusks like clams and snails.” But why only in Peru? Throw in a little special pleading: “We uncovered this special moment in time when the ancient mega-wetland ecosystem reached its peak in size and complexity, just before its demise and the start of the modern Amazon River system.”
Living fossil crab: A fossil crab dated at 150 million Darwin years produced this exclamation in Science Daily:
Most ancient fossils display a suite of “primitive” features, consistent with their early evolution and allowing them to be distinguished from their modern descendants. But the fossil described in this paper, despite its age, possesses a very modern morphology, indistinguishable from many crab larvae living today. “It’s amazing, but if we did not know this was a 150-million-year-old fossil, we might think that it came from today’s ocean,” Dr. Martin said. “This came as quite a surprise to all of us.”
So is Darwinism falsified? Are the discoverers turning to creation? Is hell freezing over? “True crabs as a group are comparably young, starting to diversify only about 100 million years ago (mya), with a dramatic increase in species richness beginning approximately 50 mya — though the early evolution of crabs is still very incompletely known.”
Raft around the monkeyshines: “New World monkeys (Platyrrhini) appeared suddenly in South America in the middle Cenozoic,” Richard F. Kay writes in Science Magazine. “Little is certain about their origin, but theories include an African source.” One cannot expect such dramatic “convergent evolution” to take place on two continents, so the African origin is preferred. However, it requires getting a monkey founder across an ocean. A new Peruvian fossil puts the appearance of monkeys in Peru at 36 million Darwin years. “Although the new fossils reinforce the African rafting source, the details of the author’s origin scenario will be controversial,” Kay notes. That’s because there are disputes about the phylogeny, the molecular clock, and the scanty fossil record. Only one thing is certain: “platyrrhines almost certainly rafted from Africa in the mid-Cenozoic” and evolved in South America from there. Strange that nobody has ever observed a monkey rafting out in the Atlantic.
Unintelligent design by our ancestors: Two more findings have blown away previous conceptions of human evolution. Yet tales of human evolution live on. Remember the old ape-to-man single-file icon of evolution? It’s wrong. Here’s what the news bureau of the University of Missouri has to say about unexpected diversity in fossils of human ancestors:
Recently released research on human evolution has revealed that species of early human ancestors had significant differences in facial features. Now, a University of Missouri researcher and her international team of colleagues have found that these early human species also differed throughout other parts of their skeletons and had distinct body forms. The research team found 1.9 million-year-old pelvis and femur fossils of an early human ancestor in Kenya, revealing greater diversity in the human family tree than scientists previously thought.
Without their cherished icon, how can their ideas on human evolution be sustained? A little personification might help, mixed with channeling of the bones:
“What these new fossils are telling us is that the early species of our genus, Homo, were more distinctive than we thought. They differed not only in their faces and jaws, but in the rest of their bodies too,” said Carol Ward, a professor of pathology and anatomical sciences in the MU School of Medicine. “The old depiction of linear evolution from ape to human with single steps in between is proving to be inaccurate. We are finding that evolution seemed to be experimenting with different human physical traits in different species before ending up with Homo sapiens.”
We can only hope that “evolution” used the scientific method in his/her/its experiments.
Tell us your reaction: (1) laugh, (2) growl, (3) spit. What a crock this evolutionary “science” is! What a charade, a sham, a scam. It’s the ultimate whack-a-mole in science. It has been pummeled by falsification till the rubble bounces, but its believers carry on as if nothing happened.
These are just a few of the most recent shenanigans reported in the science media. We’ve shown examples like this for 14 years. Not a single reporter or journal editor ever has the guts to call foul. We continue to hold up all this baloney for the world to see. Teachers! School boards! Politicians! Don’t be duped. Don’t sanctify this charade with the honored name of science. Look! The Darwin Party has hypnotized you with Charlie’s aura. He’s a usurper. The evidence strips away their emperor Charlie’s imaginary clothes, but they keep parading him as King of Science.
This could end quickly if enough truth-loving people would shout in unison, “King Charles is naked!” All together now: one, two, three….