Using Non-Evolution to Preach Evolution
Darwinists are adept and commandeering evidence contrary to their theory to make it look like support for their theory.
Watch how Darwinians take observations that have nothing to do with evolution and twist them into support for evolution. To an unbiased observer, some of the evidence would actually support intelligent design.
Why women – including feminists – are still attracted to ‘benevolently sexist’ men (The Conversation). This pseudo-scientific website, ostensibly advocating science, has become a hotbed of hot air where evolutionists run rampant with speculative just-so stories. If you are a man, do you mind your manners and do nice things for women, like holding the door for them? If you are a woman, are you offended by such acts of kindness, calling them instances of ‘benevolent sexism’? Good grief, can’t we all grow up? Nobody need give offense or be offended; just learn the right responses, ladies, like “Thanks, but I can handle it.” What gets really intolerable is when the clueless authors of this stupid article, Pelin Gül and Tom R. Kupfer, conjure up the Bearded Buddha to explain why we act that way.
During much of human history, a woman’s ability to choose a mate who was able and willing to assist in this process – by providing food or protection from aggressors – would have increased her reproductive success.
Evolution, therefore, shaped female psychology to attend to – and prefer – mates whose characteristics and behaviors reveal the willingness to invest. A prospective mate’s muscular physique (and, today, his big wallet) certainly indicate that he possesses this ability. But opening a car door or offering his coat are signs that he may have the desired disposition.
Undoubtedly, if men acted with no ‘benevolent sexism’ or even with ‘malevolent sexism,’ these evolutionists would be able to explain that, too. But probing further, we can ask, who are the real sexists here? Is it not these Darwinians, who have just pigeonholed all men and all women into stereotypical categories? Feminists should be outraged, because these two (one male, one female) have just destroyed feminism! They turn willful feminists into blind subjects of evolutionary forces that evolved in some cave somewhere a hundred thousand years ago. We can even laugh louder. If Gül and Kupfer were correct, they themselves would have no control over the kinds of nonsense they write, because products of natural selection engage in behaviors molded by selfish genes – not out of convictions of logic or moral choices.
Oldest-known aquatic reptiles probably spent time on land (Science Daily). Fossil marine reptiles have been shown with the ability to lay eggs in the water or on land. How does that support Darwinian evolution? It doesn’t. These are assumed to be the oldest of the mesosaurs, and apparently they could reproduce either way. That sounds like a better design than being obligatory aquatic or terrestrial. Actually, Professor Graciela Piñeiro of Uruguay, a.k.a. Miss Information, cannot even prove that the juveniles spent time on land, because the bones are “almost always disarticulated, very weathered and badly preserved.” Who knows; maybe they were buried in some global watery catastrophe or something. Asserting that the fossils are important “for the understanding of reptile evolution” and “the evolution of the amniotic egg” doesn’t make it so.
Human influences on the strength of phenotypic selection (PNAS). The geniuses behind this theory, Vincent Fugère and Andrew P. Hendry, surmise that humans are making animals evolve faster. “This synthesis provides new insights into the evolutionary response of populations to global change, and suggests that only some human disturbances might have large immediate evolutionary impacts in nature,” they say in Darwinese Jargonwocky. So much for free will. Humans are just products of evolution affecting the environment. Well, guess what! So are Fugère and Hendry! Unless they can account for truth and morality, they don’t really mean anything they say, because as products of evolution themselves, they blindly follow the Stuff Happens Law. You can tell they are evolving when their lips are moving.
Artificial genes show life does not have to be based on DNA (New Scientist). You have to think about this one to see the error. Reporter Michael Marshall thinks that “artificial genes” provide support for evolution. He thinks that astrobiologists who have tinkered with possibilities beyond DNA (extra bases, for instance) have demonstrated that other molecules can store genetic information. Therefore, he speculates with his astrobiologist buddies, life could evolve on other planets without the familiar form of nucleic acids used by all life on Earth. Does this support evolution? Steve Benner thinks so; “It implies that extraterrestrial life might be based on alternative genetic molecules.”
Actually, no, for two reasons. One, what the researchers at Scripps and other labs demonstrated was intelligent design. They applied their minds to achieve goals with molecules that did not happen naturally on Earth. Two, they proved that nature does not ‘have’ to use DNA. This implies contingency; there was no natural law requiring DNA be the only carrier of genetic information. Evolutionists cannot say, therefore, that natural laws drove the use of DNA at the origin of life. If it was due to contingency and not necessity, it becomes a matter of probability – not natural law. Illustra Media showed in its documentary film Origin that the probability of getting a single protein by chance is equivalent to zero, even assuming an Earth running constant trials under ideal conditions for many, many times the assumed age of the universe (see “The Amoeba’s Journey” in the film clips).
This is kind of fun, isn’t it, when you get the hang of it. The only question is why so few students get the hang of it. Why are they such gullible dupes for Miss Information? We need more Baloney Detectors!