Evolution Is Not an Engineer; It’s a Dumb Idol
Darwinists routinely idolize natural selection
granting it godlike powers
If you lack evidence that Darwinists are superstitious, watch how they treat natural selection like a genie in a bottle. Read some of their Darwinese lingo in press releases. Their mindless god is omnipotent, omniscient and all-wise. There is nothing it cannot do.
New research provides better understanding of skin’s durability (Binghamton University, State University of New York, 25 April 2022).
You think you’re a good engineer, but evolution is a better one.
What should be an interesting scientific article about the wonders of our skin’s strength and durability begins with a Darwin worship service:
As someone who has extensively studied what nature has produced, Associate Professor Guy German likes to tell his students: You think you’re a good engineer, but evolution is a better one.
Dr German knows good engineering when he sees it. His team tried to make artificial skin; they soon realized how difficult it is to make a material that is both pliable and durable. Our skin can take quite a beating and still remain strong, he knows, but it doesn’t come about from simple layering of substances like rubber or plastic, as with his model. “Scientists and engineers are attracted to studying skin because it’s difficult to understand,” said Dr German. “Skin is heterogeneous and structurally very complex.” So why does he attribute its high quality performance to the Stuff Happens Law?
“We believe that mammalian skin has evolved or adapted itself to offer the toughest option to mechanical threats while also remaining as deformable as possible.”
The Binghamton engineering team used “computational know-how” and detailed observational tests to make their artificial skin after studying mammalian skin. They tested the abilities of natural and artificial skin to resist punctures. It is not stated whether they cut themselves and cried out to their idol to send fire from heaven (I Kings 18:20-29).
Human skin is “optimized” between competing trade-offs, Dr German notes; it offers “maximum locomotion and maximum mechanical toughness.” The engineering principle of a durable outer layer over a pliable inner layer is found throughout creation. “In addition to animals, think about nuts, fruits, insects and even microorganisms.” In each case, the layering is optimized for the role of the organism in its environment. Optimization is a scientific field for intelligent designers (Evolution News), requiring the pursuit of the best compromise between competing design requirements.
These engineers are not ashamed to grant optimization expertise to their god, chance. But is it fair to call natural selection the Stuff Happens Law? Dr Neil Thomas, a literary scholar, recently equated natural selection to chance at Evolution News on 7 April 2022. He referred to Darwin’s theory as an “empirically unattested sub-variant of chance he chose to term natural selection.”
For a treatment of this subject free of Darwinolatry, see Dr Jerry Bergman’s article from 10 May 2021, “Complex design seen in human skin.”
The All-Powerful Mantra, “It Evolved”
Another example of evolutionary superstition appeared on April 14 in Science Daily, claiming that evolution engineered the optimal fit between pelvic size and baby shoulder width. This came from a press release at Kyoto University, Japan.
Mommy says easy does it: Human fetuses evolved to slow shoulder growth for easier delivery (Kyoto University, 14 April 2022).
For evolutionists to be consistent with their theory’s beliefs, this claim would have to posit that a mutation made baby’s shoulders grow slower before birth, and that every baby and mother without this rare beneficial mutation died. That’s the costs of selection. This is another optimization challenge in engineering, because adult hominids had to simultaneously narrow their pelvises and widen their shoulders as they evolved to walk upright, requiring a tight correspondence in the rate of shoulder growth before and after birth. How many lucky mutations did that take? And how many unlucky members of the hominid population without those lucky mutations (and thousands of others) died as natural selection culled out the losers?
Darwinians rarely go into such detail. They simply surmise that whatever the adaptation, chanting “it evolved” makes their worship satisfactory.
“We surmise that the wide shoulders, relative to the pelvis of our ancestors, emerged simultaneously with the narrower pelvis as we became fully bipedal,” says Morimoto, “but before the brain evolved to today’s size.”
Morimoto concludes, “This study motivates us to further examine the extent to which obstetric and metabolic constraints in our ancestors have influenced human ontogeny in relation to evolutionary adaptations.“
A cartoon in the article after this quote shows the voice of evolution telling baby to “slow down” its shoulder growth in the birth canal, but to “speed up” after birth as it begins feeding on milk. But do random mutations obey the requirements for adaptation? Can the environment speak to a need and get mutations to appear on cue? How so? To believe this sounds superstitious.
The cult of Darwin has become the global religion among academics. They speak Darwinese and wear their D-Merit Badges to conferences and happy hours together, assured that their superstitious chants of “It evolved!” will be well received by fellow cult members, and that they will not be laughed at by realists expelled outside.
To end on a positive note, here is how a press release used the world “evolving” in a good engineering and artistic sense.
The art of smell: Research suggests the brain processes smell both like a painting and a symphony (University of Rochester Medical Center, 4 April 2022).
What happens when we smell a rose? How does our brain process the essence of its fragrance? Is it like a painting – a snapshot of the flickering activity of cells – captured in a moment in time? Or like a symphony, an evolving ensemble of different cells working together to capture the scent? New research suggests that our brain does both.
In the sense used here, “evolving” has nothing to do with Darwin, but rather like the dynamic movements of sound in a symphony. The music “evolves” from opening to climax and then to cadence, all by intelligent design of the composer: “the brain keeps track of the evolving patterns,” the press release continues, speaking of how a composer modulates and orchestrates a melody through the different instrumental sections. “It is attuned to which cells turn on and off and when – like a symphony.” This language accentuates the creative and information-rich capabilities of the human mind.
“They tested the abilities of natural and artificial skin to resist punctures. It is not stated whether they cut themselves and cried out to their idol to send fire from heaven (I Kings 18:20-29).” This made me guffaw, as did the “ID Blockers” on the Blind Darwin Fish!
“The music “evolves” from opening to climax and then to cadence, all by intelligent design of the composer: “the brain keeps track of the evolving patterns,” the press release continues, speaking of how a composer modulates and orchestrates a melody through the different instrumental sections. “It is attuned to which cells turn on and off and when – like a symphony.” This language accentuates the creative and information-rich capabilities of the human mind.”
How appropriate that the components of fragrances are referred to as ‘notes’ (groups of scents which can be sensed with respect to the time after the application of a perfume), e.g. top, middle, and base notes. The ‘notes’ concept was invented by the English Chemist and Perfumer George William Septimus Piesse (1820-1882) who created an ‘odaphone’ for ranking the notes on a scale by octave. In his magnum opus The Art of Perfumery he says “Scents, like sounds, appear to influence the olfactory nerve in certain definite degrees.”
I wonder how this new research relates to that of Luca Turin’s vibrational theory of olfaction?
Great article, as usual!