Darwin Blinders Cause Blunders
Darwinism blinds the eyes of scientists, making them think contrary evidence supports evolution.
Science could improve its credibility enormously by eliminating all references to Darwinian evolution. To atheists who equate evolution with science, or call Darwinism the “greatest theory in the history of science,” such a statement comes as a shock and an outrage. But as the following news stories show, Charlie puts blinders on the eyes of scientists looking at the data. Some findings go completely opposite what any clear-thinking Darwinist (if there is such a person) should expect, and yet they will still say “It evolved.” Look and think!
Sleeping on the Job
Neural sleep patterns emerged at least 450 million years ago (Science Daily). Evolutionists will often notice a first appearance of some complex trait in a fossil, use their moyboy assumptions to stuff it into a fake timeline, and then say it “emerged.” This is an emergency.
Researchers have found that neural signatures in sleeping zebrafish are analogous to those of humans, suggesting that the brain activity evolved at least 450 million years ago, before any creatures crawled out of the ocean….
“This moves the evolution of neural signatures of sleep back quite a few years,” said postdoctoral scholar Louis Leung, PhD.
The young postdoc must have become addicted to Darwine early. A clear head would see this as evidence contrary to evolution, because neural signatures for sleep are complex. In Darwin’s theory, the neural circuits would have to arise by mistake (mutation and selection). Before, evolutionists would have wondered how they “emerged.” Now, they have to make them “emerge” in a shorter time period. Why does Darwin score on this foul?
Drunk During the Concert
Symphony of Genes (University of Wien). The headline looks poised to speak about intelligent design. After all, symphonies are produced by intelligent minds. But no! This article praises Darwin for inventing complex gene networks by chance. And to add stupidity to fallacy, the article states openly that the evidence indicates that the complex gene networks were there from the beginning, contrary to Darwinian expectations. Readers should gasp at such credulity. One sign of mental illness is feeling joy in folly:
One of the most exciting discoveries in genome research was that the last common ancestor of all multicellular animals – which lived about 600 million years ago – already possessed an extremely complex genome.
Pause to gasp that these evolutionists have not repented and come to intelligent design yet. They were actually excited to be wrong! Prepare for another gasp:
Many of the ancestral genes can still be found in modern day species (e.g., human). However, it has long been unclear whether the arrangement of these genes in the genome also had a certain function. In a recent study in Nature Ecology and Evolution, the biologists led by Oleg Simakov and Ulrich Technau show that not only individual genes but also these gene arrangements in the genome have played a key role in the course of animal evolution.
The paper referred to—published in Nature Ecology & Evolution—begins with an emotional expression: “The level of conservation of ancient metazoan gene order (synteny) is remarkable.” So, shouldn’t they ditch evolution and become creationists? They can’t. They are too drunk on Darwine to realize their addiction. When they are not showing that gene networks are conserved (unevolved) in the paper, they are speculating about how things might have evolved.
Harmful Diet of Burnt Assumptions
Our ancestors may have begun barbecuing 1.5 million years ago (New Scientist). Typical of Darwinists, writer Colin Barras gets excited when his assumptions are shown to be wrong. Now he and his fellow DODOs have another “emerge”-ncy on their hands: evidence for human ability to control fire earlier than they previously thought. Isn’t that wonderful? All Darwinians should get excited about how wrong they were.
Did cooking make us human? New evidence from Kenya suggests early hominins were roasting meat over fires 1.5 million years ago. The discovery pushes back evidence of fire use by hundreds of thousands of years, and lends weight to the idea that cooked food helped trigger the evolution of big-brained humans.
“It’s very exciting,” says Sarah Hlubik at Rutgers University in New Jersey. “This is the oldest site to date with evidence of human ancestors using fire.”
Backyard barbecue dads can get really excited about this, too. They can tell their doctors not to worry about all that singed red meat they’re stuffing down their gullets. ‘I’m just trying to evolve a bigger brain,’ they can allege. ‘New Scientist says that’s what happened to our ape-like ancestors! Cooking made us human!’
Evolutionary Rules Evolve
Jurassic shift: Changing the rules of evolution (University of Erlangen-Nuremberg). Darwinism is so flexible, you can change the rules on the fly. Wasn’t the environment supposed to be the main driver for evolution? It’s OK to change the rules, as long as Darwin’s totalitarian reign over biology is not threatened.
For more than 150 years, scientists have debated whether the success of organisms is mainly down to environmental factors such as climate change or whether — as advocated by Charles Darwin — interaction between species has a significantly more important role to play. A British-German study involving palaeobiologist Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Kießling from Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU) has now shown that the influence of environmental factors was considerably greater at the early stages of the evolution of animal life before becoming significantly less important 170 million years ago.
If they can change the rules like that, Darwinism can’t lose. It’s like Calvinball.
Darwinball is, indeed, very much like Calvinball. Bill Watterson’s newer incarnation of Dennis the Menace, young Calvin, holding his stuffed tiger Hobbes, explains how you play Calvinball. Darwin uses a similar ditty: “Other science games are all such a bore! / They’ve gotta have rules, and they gotta keep score! / Darwinball is better by far! / It’s never the same! It’s always bizarre! / You don’t need a team or a referee! / You know that it’s great, ’cause it’s named after me!”
One major difference is that Darwinball players never have to sing the Very Sorry Song, because they are all scurvy scalawags to begin with.