“It Evolved” Is Not Science
Secular scientists have a bad habit of carelessly appealing to evolution as a default explanation for everything.
Sophisticated Skin (University of California at Santa Barbara). This article describes with rapture the capabilities of squid, which can change the color and texture of their skin almost instantaneously. Human fascination with squid is “no wonder” according to the researchers at UCSB. The introduction reads: “their odd appearances and strange intelligence, their mastery of the open ocean can inspire awe in those who see them.” Professor Daniel Morse then interprets the Darwin code to tell how these awe-inspiring animals got that way:
Having evolved for hundreds of millions of years to hunt, communicate, evade predators and mate in the vast, often featureless expanses of open water, squids have developed some of the most sophisticated skin in the animal kingdom.
This is plainly fallacious. Even if one accepts the neo-Darwinian “mechanism” (not really a mechanism, but the outcome of the Stuff Happens Law), no animal or plant “evolves to” do anything. That would imply a plan or purpose to reach a distant target. Darwin explicitly denied any aim or direction inherent in his theory. This claim, therefore, is not only unscientific, but unhistorical as well. Notice how “developed” is used synonymously with “evolved” – “squids have developed some of the most sophisticated skin” – how? by evolution. It evolved.
Morse and his accomplices go on to repeat the fallacy three more times:
- “Evolution has so exquisitely optimized not only the color tuning, but the tuning of the brightness using the same material, the same protein and the same mechanism,” Morse said.
- “…it reveals the intricacy of the evolutionary process, the millennia of mutation and natural selections that have honed and optimized these processes together.”
- “According to the researchers, ‘This evolutionarily honed, efficient coupling of reflectin of its osmotic amplifier is closely analogous to the impedance matched coupling of activator-transducer-amplifier networks in well-engineered electronic, magnetic, mechanical and acoustic systems.’ In this case the activator would be the neuronal signal, while the reflectins acts as transducers and the osmotically controlled membranes serve as the amplifiers.”
If one can believe that “impedance matched coupling of activator-transducer-amplifier networks in well-engineered electronic, magnetic, mechanical and acoustic systems” emerged mindlessly by chance, one can sense the absurdity of attributing squid engineering to the Stuff Happens Law.
‘Pompeii of prehistoric plants’ unlocks evolutionary secret – study (University of Birmingham). This article about fossil tree ferns is guilty of five e-word fallacies, including one in the headline:
- “…unlocks evolutionary secret…” – why not just a biological or botanical secret?
- “the plants, called Noeggerathiales, were highly-evolved members of the lineage from which came seed plants.”
- “No longer considered an evolutionary dead-end, they are now recognized as advanced tree-ferns that evolved complex cone-like structures from modified leaves.” Considered and recognized by whom? Using Tontological sentence structure is a form of propaganda. It nudges readers into thinking they are included in the fallacious reasoning of these evolutionists, who implied that these tree ferns modified their leaves into cones on purpose.
- “[W]e were able to reconstruct a new species of Noeggerathiales that finally settles the group’s affinity and evolutionary importance.” Why not just biological or botanical importance? Did they reconstruct the new species by intelligent design, using their minds? Of course they did. Did they watch it evolve into a seed plant? Of course not.
- “The researchers also deduced that that the ancestral lineage from which seed plants evolved diversified alongside the earliest seed plant radiation during the Devonian, Carboniferous and Permian periods, and did not rapidly die out as previously thought.” Thought by whom? (another Tontological sentence). The researchers saw a fossil tree fern. They did not see evolution into seed plants.
Origins of human music linked to our ancestors’ daredevil behaviour (New Scientist). Nothing is more uniquely human than music. As evidence, try to imagine a monkey playing Bach’s Sinfonia to Cantata #29 on a pipe organ the way Diane Bish does it (YouTube). Everything about this performance is astonishingly creative, from the design of the pipe organ, to the laws of harmony worked out mathematically, to the composer’s skill at writing such a complex work, to the performer’s mastery of operating the organ with both hands and both feet. It’s a five-minute celebration of human exceptionalism at its finest.
Yet this article has the gall to link human music to daredevil behavior by chimpanzees! “Why humans make and appreciate music is an evolutionary mystery,” admit researchers at Washington State University. Then, turning up the perhapsimaybecouldness dial, they make up a story, inventing a new word “protomusic” the same way the origin-of-life circus clowns use the word “protocells” to conjure up images of objects they have never seen, that never existed:
Protomusic could have evolved in primates both to attract mates and for territorial signalling. Later, as early humans began cooperating in larger numbers, protomusic might have been repurposed so it could attract rather than frighten outsiders, while also strengthening social bonds within groups. This would help explain how our music can stir such a range of emotions and why it is so much more sophisticated and complex than the songs of other species.
It “might have” and “would help explain” only in Darwin’s Fantasyland of the Imagination. Science is supposed to be about observation, demonstration and proof.
Send the clowns out of the lab. They have destroyed science.