July 27, 2019 | David F. Coppedge

Evolutionists Manhandle Contrary Evidence to Support Darwinism

How can one mangle evidence for no change or abrupt appearance in order to make a case for evolution? Darwinians do it all the time.

There’s never a shortage of stories on evolution in the science news. It’s one of the most popular words you can find. Search on just “evol” in a week’s reports, and you will get dozens if not hundreds of hits. And among historical scientists, Charlie Darwin shows up incessantly, far more often than Newton or Galileo. Chuck is the god of the science subculture, worshiped because he made it possible to be an intellectually fool-filled atheist.

And yet when you read articles and papers on evolution critically, the evidence evaporates. What you find are cases of non-evolution or devolution. Some deal with minor variations in organisms, which are not controversial to anyone, even young-earth creationists. Other articles have nothing to do with evolution at all, but Darwin gets pulled into them anyway. Even evidence for abrupt appearance of complex structures gets manhandled into support for evolution. What’s going on, if not ideology masquerading as science? Look at these recent examples. Some of them are downright silly.

Gene Mutation Could Explain Humans’ High Risk of Heart Attack (The Scientist). Oh great; Darwin evolved heart attacks for us. “Between 2 million and 3 million years ago, humans lost the function of a gene called CMAH, one that remains active in other primates today….” It’s all downhill from there. Thanks, Chuck, for nothing. Call Michael Behe, author of Darwin Devolves; here’s more evidence for his database. Science Daily also promoted this tale that converts devolution into support for evolution.

Humans aren’t designed to be happy (Medical Xpress). Design? Is this an ID article? Far from it. Evolution is the designer substitute in today’s DODO culture (Darwin-Only 2x). Presumably, according to this view, Thomas Jefferson put Americans on a futile pursuit of happiness. We actually evolved to be miserable survivors. Would you like some materialism with your Darwinism? Have it anyway.

The fact that evolution has prioritised the development of a big frontal lobe in our brain (which gives us excellent executive and analytical abilities) over a natural ability to be happy, tells us a lot about nature’s priorities. Different geographical locations and circuits in the brain are each associated with certain neurological and intellectual functions, but happiness, being a mere construct with no neurological basis, cannot be found in the brain tissue.

Studies show the influence of environment on the evolution of weeds (Phys.org). Got weeds in your lawn? Blame Charlie, the god of weeds. Would you like some climate change with your micro-evolution salad? Have it anyway.

Adaptive evolution is likely common among weeds due to the combination of two factors: the strong selective pressures exerted by changes in climate and the unique characteristics of weed populations, including short lifecycles, strong dispersal abilities and ample genetic variation.

Weed evolution is influenced by both the direct effects of climate change on the environment, as well as its many indirect effects, such as changing fire patterns, new crop introductions and altered herbicide effectiveness.

Spawn of the triffid? Tiny organisms give us glimpse into complex evolutionary tale (Phys.org). Would you like some science fiction with your Darwinism? What’s the difference? “Two newly discovered organisms point to the existence of an ancient organism that resembled a tiny version of the lumbering, human-eating science fiction plants known as ‘triffids,’ according to research in Nature.” The evolutionary story is “complex” and “surprising,” but Darwin always wins.

Evolution could explain why staying slim is so tough (Medical Xpress). Now you have another thing to blame on the Bearded Buddha. It’s not your fault that you’re fat. But why would he cause obesity? “New research suggests the answer lies far back in human evolution, with an anti-starvation mechanism that primes the body to store fat.” Why would not an anti-starvation “mechanism” be evidence for design? Can you blame evolution if you eat too much? Maybe you need to evolve some self-control.

Why Haven’t All Primates Evolved into Humans? (Live Science). DODO reporter Grant Curry wants to pre-empt a common question among youth. His answer is that evolution changes things, except when it doesn’t. “The reason other primates aren’t evolving into humans is that they’re doing just fine,” his favorite Darwin apologist explains. Chimps are happy where they are. Why would they want to become like us? Remember, “Humans aren’t designed to be happy” (see above). The article also sings another common Darwin praise song, denying human exceptionalism. Maybe that’s why we’re so unhappy.

In the eyes of scientists who study evolution, humans aren’t “more evolved” than other primates, and we certainly haven’t won the so-called evolutionary game. While extreme adaptability lets humans manipulate very different environments to meet our needs, that ability isn’t enough to put humans at the top of the evolutionary ladder.

So there is a ladder? Who is on top? We know; it’s the fake evolved primates with the Yoda complex. Only they have the magic ingredient to unscramble all the contradictions and untangle all the logical fallacies: Darwin Flubber.

Environment, not evolution, might underlie some human-ape differences (Phys.org). Yes, it might. Anything “might” be true. But even then, Darwin is guaranteed to win, just like dictators always win by a landslide. This article criticizes bad experiments that deny chimp exceptionalism.

Hidden genetic variations power evolutionary leaps (Phys.org). Talk about faith! Knowing that macroevolutionary leaps are difficult to account for, this article argues that the potential for major changes might lie hidden in “cryptic variation” – mutations that hide in the genome without producing outwardly visible effects.

Like a fat savings account, cryptic variation is a store of variation that becomes available in an emergency to fuel rapid evolutionary change critical to the survival of a lineage and useful for molecular biologists.

Ignore those guys in the article tinkering with lab equipment. That’s just to distract from the magic act. With sleight of mind, they get you to think of the potential variation lying there, ready to explode into a grand Darwinian show! And now, introducing their first demonstration of evolution — the blind cave fish! The audience rises to its feet in the Darwin’s Got Talent theater.

Strange bacteria hint at ancient origin of photosynthesis (Science Daily). With Tontological invocation, Dr Mark S. Gold begins the Darwin worship service. “Structures inside rare bacteria are similar to those that power photosynthesis in plants today, suggesting the process is older than assumed.” Assumed by whom? Did you assume that?

The evolution of cyanobacteria is usually assumed to also be the first appearance of oxygenic photosynthesis, but the fact that H. modesticaldum contains a similar site means that the building blocks for oxygenic photosynthesis are likely much more ancient than thought, as old as photosynthesis itself, and therefore could have arisen much earlier in Earth’s history.

Dr Cardona also suggests that this might mean oxygenic photosynthesis was not the product of a billion years of evolution from anoxygenic photosynthesis, but could have been a trait that evolved much sooner, if not first.

Where’s the evolution? It was photosynthesis before (fully formed, earlier than thought), and it is photosynthesis now. You just witnessed evolutionists using intelligent design as evidence for Darwinism. This is confiscatory confibulation.

How the pufferfish got its wacky spines (Science Daily). Today’s just-so story, children, will make the Bearded Buddha happy. He doesn’t really need evidence for natural selection acting on random variations, you see. He just likes to hear, no matter the subject, “It evolved.” He loves a good mystery story, and he smiles bigger when we put it in the Kipling form, “How the [blank] got its [blank].”

Pufferfish are known for their strange and extreme skin ornaments, but how they came to possess the spiky skin structures known as spines has largely remained a mystery. Now, researchers have identified the genes responsible for the evolution and development of pufferfish spines in a study publishing July 25 in the journal iScience. Turns out, the process is pretty similar to how other vertebrates get their hair or feathers — and might have allowed the pufferfish to fill unique ecological niches.

In Darwinism, “might” makes right. All you have to say is that such-and-such a gene might have allowed the organism to evolve, and Darwin can’t lose.

There’s only so much of this your poor editor can take at a time. Support CEH so that he can afford headache pills. Maybe he needs heart attack pills to prevent what Darwin brought on us poor, unexceptional primates. He might feel better if you readers would laugh harder at Darwinists to shame them back into the philosophy of science classes they failed.

 

 

(Visited 384 times, 1 visits today)

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.