January 11, 2024 | David F. Coppedge

How to Strip Useless Darwinese from Science Articles

It’s a bad habit that adds nothing. Time to
acid-wash the Darwinese from science
and get back to empirical rigor.

 

It gets so tedious to keep hearing how this or that exceptional trait “evolved” by natural selection. “Selection pressure” is not a force; it’s no more a force than the bumper hubs in a pinball game that temporarily interrupt a ball’s descent into higher entropy. Only purpose-directed forces are able to score points.

To strip out the useless Darwinese in science articles and journal papers, first identify the instances of “evolution” or “selection” and see if they add any useful information. If not, get out the red pen and cross them out. Do the same with fact-free mentions of common ancestor, missing link, phylogeny and all the other Darwin-drunk lingo. Then read the article with a focus on the empirical facts.

Nature’s inspiration spurs breakthrough on advanced materials for a sustainable living (Hong Kong Polytechnic University, 15 Dec 2023). We mentioned this article briefly yesterday. Here is the offending line: “Nature offers us an abundance of intricate designs, efficient systems and sustainable solutions that have evolved over millions of years.” Baloney, Dr Wang. Did you witness these “intricate designs” evolving by the Stuff Happens Law? Did you witness millions of years? If not, you are imposing your non-theistic religion on the observations of intelligent design. This fly-in-the-ointment sentence gets you the gong.

Animal evolution at the ocean’s water-air interface (Anthony, Bentiage and Helm, Current Biology, 8 Jan 2024). This paper is about evolution—specifically, about how organisms supposedly “evolved” to live on the ocean surface as their habitat. (Organisms in the floating community are collectively called neuston.) The authors mention evolution 30 times, with 22 more mentions in the references. It claims that “Innovation is a key to evolutionary success and entrance into novel ecosystems.”

But nowhere is there evidence of any macroevolutionary innovation occurring by natural selection. That is merely assumed along with a high perhapsimaybecouldness index. They assume that whatever lives a neustonic lifestyle now must have evolved to live that way, but they never tie specific random mutations to natural selection. For all they know, the creatures’ genes never innovated anything! Look at their speculative language, all premised on evolution as an indisputable fact:

  • Colonization of the ocean’s surface seems to have occurred through successive evolutionary steps from the seafloor. Our results suggest that these steps often included transitions through epibiotic (where species attach to other living organisms) or rafting (where species attach to floating debris) habits.
  • Our results suggest ancestral specialization for cnidarian prey by benthic mollusks, a rare trait, may have facilitated the evolution of a neustonic life history.
  • From an evolutionary perspective, the ocean’s surface may serve as a unique substrate type. The evolution of neustonic lineages may have been accompanied by convergent changes in underlying physiological, morphological, and developmental processes. Comparative development and genomics of these lineages, and structures related to attachment, may shed light on processes that facilitate evolution into novel habitats.

Why do they not even consider the possibility that all these remarkable animals were pre-adapted to a variety of habitats? They were created to fill the earth, the Bible says. You have to put on the “evolutionary perspective” glasses to see evidence their way. Since the authors merely assume evolution, and believe by leaps of faith that natural selection can innovate things, their Darwinese is useless. Red-line all of it out.

How Fruit Bats Got a Sweet Tooth Without Sour Health (University of California San Francisco, 9 Jan 2024). Fruit bats live on sugar but don’t get diabetes. The UCSF Darwinists believe they have discovered “how fruit bats may have evolved to consume so much sugar.”

Ahituv’s team focused on evolution in the bat pancreas, which controls blood sugar, and the kidneys. They found that the fruit bat pancreas, compared to the pancreas of an insect-eating bat, had extra insulin-producing cells as well as genetic changes to help it process an immense amount of sugar. And fruit bat kidneys had adapted to ensure that vital electrolytes would be retained from their watery meals.

Again, evolutionists never consider the possibility that bat genomes were pre-programmed for a variety of diets and habitats. These bats already had insulin-producing cells. They already had kidneys. The only changes were in number and regulation of existing genetic information. Epigenetic changes, such as preferences for a certain diet in a particular habitat, are heritable. Nothing evolved by Darwinian processes.

There could have been some scientific value in this study. Comparing bats’ diets could help scientists understand why humans can’t handle too much sugar. They could say these bats’ genes adjusted or adapted to a fruit diet, but they are still bats, with all the organs and intelligently-designed body systems required for flying mammals to survive. Stop the “focus on evolution” and speculations about how bats “may have evolved” to enjoy sugar. Get out the red pen again.

23 million-year-old petrified mangrove forest discovered hiding in plain sight in Panama (Live Science, 9 Jan 2024). It’s indeed interesting that petrified mangrove fossils were found in Panama, but what does evolution have to do with it? “The ancient trees likely evolved the same survival strategies mangroves use today,” reporter trainee Sascha Pare says without thinking. She just denied that any evolution occurred! How is that “likely” the trees “evolved”? Did they form a committee and hold a strategy session on how to survive? That’s ridiculous.

Not only that, the fossil mangroves were bigger and apparently more fit! In the prior sentence, she had just said, “the canopies of most living mangrove trees reach around 43 feet (13 meters) high, S. barrocoloradoensis grew to around 82 feet (25 m) and could tower up to 130 feet (40 m).” This means that today’s trees have devolved from the grander mangroves of the past!

She also claims the fossils were all buried by a volcanic mudflow “23 million years ago,” but playing moyboy does not help her tale; it makes it sillier. Is she really trying to say that for 23 million years (a long time!) there was no evolution in mangroves except shrinkage in size? Incredible. For saying the trees “likely evolved” she deserves a pay cut. Science is supposed to be about observation and confirmation based on evidence.

Commentary: Readers, we are trying to teach you how to see through fogma. Get your Baloney Detectors on, and put on your Critical Thinking glasses. When so equipped, it is easy to see how useless evolution-talk is. It adds nothing to insight or understanding. Darwinese succeeds through sweeping generalities, question-begging assumptions and censorship of opposing views, creating a fog of dogma that blinds people to the tricks of propaganda. To see the fogma, you have to get outside of it.

Let’s look now at more examples of this chicanery in the news.

Rapid diversification of a free-living protist is driven by adaptation to climate and habitat (Current Biology, 8 Jan 2024). A team eight Czech evolutionists tries to make a case that protists (eukaryotic microbes) undergo Darwinian evolution just like the big animals do. But these protists, called Synura, which are “photosynthetic, colonial, and flagellated,” did not evolve! The diversification is all related to small differences in habitat. This is like claiming that ponderosa pines in a valley evolved into ponderosa pines on a mountain. The protists are all one species! They can share genetic material. They have the same scientific name. The evidence of “differentiation” is absent except that certain populations were found to live in slightly different habitats.

We evaluated the factors that could act as drivers of S. petersenii differentiation and investigated whether the recently diverged populations, putatively evolving into incipient species, exhibit any local adaptation in quantitative traits. We found that geography, climate, and habitat play an important role in the differentiation of populations. Although geographical isolation has a significant impact on genetic differentiation of distant populations, habitat and climatic factors were the major drivers of population differentiation on a local geographical scale. These findings imply that ecological differentiation allows speciation in microorganisms despite high dispersal capacity and large populations. Although geographical isolation has a significant impact on genetic differentiation of distant populations, habitat and climatic factors were the major drivers of population differentiation on a local geographical scale.

The only driver here is Darwin, driving them to his bar to get drunk on Darwine (8 Jan 2024). Look at their hope that all their work will somehow praise King Charley and his Stuff Happens theory about the origin of species. They say, “Our data suggest the existence of three groups of populations in S. petersenii that are in the process of divergence, likely leading to the emergence of new incipient species.” Oh good grief. That is an unwarranted speculation. Are Japanese people an “incipient species” of humans, being isolated on islands with a different climate from Europeans? Perish the racist thought.

Even young-earth creationists allow for rapid variations within species. Henry M. Morris, Jr., the pioneer of modern creationism, allowed for horizontal variation within species, sometimes genera, and even up to families in some cases. The “diversification” these researchers observed they believe was very rapid and recent. Are they claiming that protists lived in water for hundreds of millions of years, only now (within a tiny sliver of that time) deciding to start evolving? It’s ridiculous.

In fact, we conclude that the diversification process can be rapid, as we observed several recent divergence events in the past 150,000 years.

Baloney alert! They did not observe 150,000 years. Human lifetimes severely curtail that possibility!

Accordingly, the vast biodiversity of protists and other microorganisms can be explained by rapid ecological speciation despite their widespread dispersal.

These Czechs cannot cash out their speculations in observational science. They wasted all this time trying to find some Darwinian evolution in little bitty microbes, only to hope that they might be “putatively” (supposedly) engaging in speciation. They need to stop this infatuation with Darwinism and do something worthwhile with their lives, like get involved in biomimetics (see yesterday’s article).

How does one species become many? (McGill University, 8 Jan 2024). Here we go, Darwin’s finches again. Nothing here proves evolution and disproves creation. They’re all finches, all members of the same genus. Whatever differences shown are within the created kind. The genetic differences are slight, primarily involving regulation of genes for beak size and shape. This story is irrelevant to Darwinism, but numerous scientists have devoted their lives to the Darwin Finch Myth. Get a real job.

Study gathers new insight about the evolutionary origin of vertebrate jaws (Phys.org, 8 Jan 2024). You can’t look at a living lamprey and a living shark and claim that one evolved into the other without assuming the claim. Circular reasoning. Foul.

Evolution is not as random as previously thought, finds a new study (University of Nottingham, 4 Jan 2024). So there is direction to the Stuff Happens Law, they say? Which way is it going? Not to higher fitness (circular reasoning); the “fitness landscape” is full of holes! (see my article on that).

The study, which is published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), challenges the long-standing belief about the unpredictability of evolution, and has found that the evolutionary trajectory of a genome may be influenced by its evolutionary history, rather than determined by numerous factors and historical accidents.

Let’s think this through, shall we? Stuff happens, so it keeps happening in the initial direction. That could be right off a cliff, or into a pool of quicksand (metaphorically speaking). Oh, how they boast of their insight:

The implications of this research are nothing short of revolutionary. By demonstrating that evolution is not as random as we once thought, we’ve opened the door to an array of possibilities in synthetic biology, medicine, and environmental science.”

We recognize the sales pitch: ‘evolution can solve climate change and cure cancer.’ Don’t buy Darwin brand snake oil. Did it ever occur to these fogma producers that life comes equipped with engineered algorithms for flourishing? Darwinism by definition is all chance; mutations are random, and Stuff Happens is random. There is no directionality to it. The authors’ promises about beneficial futureware from their ‘revolutionary’ form of evolution is all smoke and mirrors. Intelligent, logical and honest scientists have no need of Darwin’s tale.

Now that you have seen how de-Darwinizing is done, try your hand at these articles that glibly toss around the e-word “evolution” here and there. Do they really add “insight” or “understanding” at all, or are they just blowing more fogma? Get good at this skill. The world needs a rising army of critical thinkers to shame the Darwinists back into their caves. Don’t be intimidated by the throngs of evolutionists around the globe. It only took one little boy, remember, to call out the obvious when the Emperor marched by with his new clothes. Red pens ready? Get to work. Let’s all help science clean up its act. It’s long past due to get science back to observability, repeatability, and testability for human flourishing. The mind virus of evolution has had a long history of sin and death. Darwin-free science will help us all.

  • Study on lamprey embryos sheds light on the evolutionary origin of vertebrate head (Phys.org, 9 Jan 2024).
  • From embryo to evolution: insights from the head of lizards and snakes (University of Helsinki, 10 Jan 2024).
  • Eelgrass proves to be much younger than we thought (Joint Genome Institute, 12 Dec 2023). “Now, scientists have shed light on both when and how eelgrass adapted and evolved throughout its history.”
  • Animal behaviour: Darwin’s mischievous hat stealers are innovative problem solvers (Current Biology, 8 Jan 2024). “Behavioural innovation therefore captures a key aspect of animal behaviour, the ability to innovate, while also being a meaningful measure at both a neural and evolutionary level.”
  • 72-million-year-old sturgeon discovered in Edmonton is a fossil first (University of Alberta, 11 Jan 2024). Watch the video clip. Is this evidence of evolution?

We’re off to shame the wizard, the Blunderful Wizard of Flaws.
If ever, if ever a wiz there was, the Blunderful Wizard is one because
Because because because because
Because of the blunderful things he does;
We’re off to shame the Wizard, the Blunderful Wizard of Flaws.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Visited 398 times, 1 visits today)

Leave a Reply