Stop the Silly Darwin Stories
What happens when consensus enforces conformity, and doubters are excluded? In the case of Darwinism, you get utter nonsense. This must end.
Here are examples of utterly ridiculous speculations that cannot possibly be tested. Isn’t testability what sets ‘science’ apart from other forms of inquiry? Not with Darwinism. An evolutionist can speculate wildly and will get favorable coverage in the DODO [Darwin-Only, Darwin-Only] media.
Sitting in the sun is linked to days when people lived in caves, scientists believe (Medical Xpress). This story follows the Darwin model for theory production: (1) Believe in evolution with all your heart. (2) Observe a fact. (3) Make up a story to fit the fact into your Darwinian belief.
The scientific community theorizes that sitting in the sun is an addictive, pleasure-producing behavior driven by a biological mechanism that developed when people lived in caves, according to Jiali Han, the Rachel Cecile Efroymson Professor in Cancer Research at the Indiana University Melvin and Bren Simon Cancer Center and professor and chair of the Department of Epidemiology at the Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Health.
According to Han, the theory is that people turned to caves thousands of years ago for safety and warmth. But staying in those caves reduced their exposure to sunlight, which produces the Vitamin D needed for bone and reproductive health.
“So we think that this sun-seeking behavior was an evolutionary development,” Han said.
Ah, but the cavemen were smarter. They knew that sitting in the sun causes cancer, so they were more fit by staying in the cave. Else why would the storyteller end by warning readers about skin cancer?
Biology explains why men kill big game like Cecil the lion—and how that behavior might be stopped (PhysOrg). Amina Khan from the Los Angeles Times fulfills her latent desire to give males a put-down. “Why do some humans engage in expensive ventures to hunt lions, elephants and other big-game species that often are endangered or otherwise threatened?” she asks. “The cost, according to a trio of scientists, is exactly the point: These pricey big-game hunts are meant to show off men’s high social status to competitors and potential mates.” Let’s pursue this mode of reasoning. Biology explains why men compose delicate works like Claire de Lune. Biology explains why female reporters put down males in the press with evolutionary stories. Biology explains why evolutionists in academia go stupid. Goodness gracious, Ms Khan, if biology does this to us, why stop it? Are you reaching outside of your worldview for some religious moral foundation?
We Evolved to Run—But We’re Doing It All Wrong (National Geographic). “But for our remote ancestors, the ability to run over long distances in pursuit of prey, such as ostrich or antelope, gave us an evolutionary edge—as well as an Achilles tendon ideal for going the distance.” Does U of Kent evolutionist Vybarr Cregan-Reid, author of Footnotes: How Running Makes Us Human, understand what he is saying? First, he is personifying evolution as the benevolent giver of gifts like Achilles tendons. Second, he personifies “the ability to run” as the benevolent giver of an evolutionary edge. Third, he plays favorites. Evolution could also give the evolutionary edge to the prey so that they could outlast their human chasers. After all, natural selection is the Stuff Happens Law. It makes cheetahs fast and sloths slow. Lastly, how can he say we’re doing it all wrong? Did evolution flub up on us? Maybe this guy could learn a little gratitude for the designed structures that allow him to run and give him pleasure.
‘Alesi,’ the 13-million-year-old baby monkey, could be mankind’s earliest ancestor (Fox News Science). Inside this speculative article is one sentence that briefly introduces a moment of logic: “Assuming a gibbon-like appearance for our ancestor would be similar to scientists from the future unearthing a gorilla skull and concluding that all hominins — the group that also includes chimps and humans — looked like a gorilla.” So this fossil looked like a gibbon; “This does not mean the direct ancestor of living apes necessarily looked like a gibbon, just that a member of its family did at the time.” OK, so on what basis are they saying it “could be mankind’s earliest ancestor”?
How our diet changed our evolution (Current Biology). Michael Gross is a frequent winner of SEQOTW (Stupid Evolution Quote of the Week). The whole premise of the question is absurd. Animals have choices about what they will eat, and they instinctively eat what they like. But the illogic is worse than Gross. If diet has that much power over the human mind, what did Michael have for breakfast when he wrote that? Are vegans evolving into a different species than burger lovers? Did Chinese food make Chinese talk or look different than the French?
Human Ancestor Mated with ‘Ghost Lineage’ And the Proof Is in Your Spit (Live Science). Another frequent winner of SEQOTW is Charles Q. Choi. In this article, decorated with artwork of an upright ape in silhouette, he reports that Neanderthals, Denisovans, Africans, and modern humans have variations in a mucin gene MUC7. That part is observation. In order to weave this into a sacrifice for Darwin, he calls on ghosts:
The researchers suggested the most plausible explanation for this mysterious version of the MUC7 gene is that it came from what they called a “ghost” lineage — that is, one that scientists have not found the fossils of yet.
Life in the Saturn system? Cassini has shown it’s possible (Fox News Science). Anything is possible. If pigs had wings, they could fly. Titan is actually one of the most inhospitable places for life imaginable: with an atmosphere full of toxic gases, and -290° F on the surface. Enceladus is even worse. And forget Dione and Tethys. This writer needs to take off the hydrobioscopy glasses and get real. Science is supposed to deal in evidence, not imagination. Got evidence? Actually, we have some: Illustra’s film Origin. See the excerpt about “The Amoeba’s Journey” here. And that’s for a planet with the most favorable conditions we know of in the universe: Earth.
This Enzyme Enabled Life To Conquer A Hostile Earth (NASA Astrobiology Magazine). Rubisco is a neat enzyme with an important job. It is necessary, but not sufficient, for life to succeed. Eyewitness accounts state that the Earth was not hostile at the beginning, but was literally a garden of Eden. It only became less convenient when the first parents became hostile to their Maker. Those matters aside, NASA’s exercise in logical fallacies (generalities, non-sequitur, reductionism) doesn’t deserve the respect of rebuttal. It’s like saying water enabled NASA scientists to write scientific papers.
You get the idea. Turn up the laughter, folks! Demand better. Darwinism is the greatest myth-making idea the world has ever seen. Got science?
Thanks for your diligent presentation of the emptiness of evolution and its’ followers. When one’s eyes are opened it is easy to see their fallacies. But when “the god of this world” has blinded their eyes, even the light of knowledge and truth cannot enlighten them.
God bless you as you continue to shine the light of God’s Word on “so called knowledge” of deluded men and women who call themselves “scientist”.
I have a question. Are these scientists actually being paid by the taxpayer to dream up these imaginary evolutionary explanations?
No daydreaming during class lectures, but they are grads, now they are actually paid to daydream! Wow, what a job, to dream up science-fiction! Keep the hallucinations coming.
From the National Geographic article:
“But because we’re able to lose heat much more efficiently than a quadruped, we became more effective hunters over longer distances.”
Anyone else see a problem with this? How often we need long distance endurance to hunt? I’d much rather have the ability for short bursts of speed if I were going to try and catch prey.
Do we really use our long distance abilities to hunt? Please! Just a bunch of Darwinian fairy tales!
““So we think that this sun-seeking behavior was an evolutionary development,” Han said.”
Utter silliness and hubris! As if these cave dwelling people didn’t realize the sun was good for you. As if they spent all their time indoor and would have condemned themselves to extinction if it weren’t for this evolutionary life saving mutation that gave them a desire for sunlight.
Just because they lived in a cave does not mean they spent all their time in there and never got any light. It doesn’t even mean that they didn’t know that sunlight was important for them. People today often spend all day indoors on hot sunny days. They try and stay out of the sun.
This is just some silly evolutionist looking at cave dwelling humans in a condescending way and trying to think up some evolutionary story that they could apply to the situation. No such story is needed to explain anything!
I agree with the author! Ridiculous story and certainly untestable!