Twisting Evidence Against Evolution Into Evidence For Evolution

Freed from serious critique by non-Darwinists,
evolutionists can twist any data into support
for their Darwinist ideology

 

Historians have noted how the Soviets could spin any event into Marxist ideology, a support for class struggle and economic determinism. Watch how evolutionists, like the Soviets, never question their underlying evolutionary worldview, even when contrary evidence stares them in the face.

Pulmonary arteries in coelacanths shed light on the vasculature evolution of air-breathing organs in vertebrates (Cupello et al., Nature Scientific Reports, 9 May 2024). This paper is absolutely astonishing in its Darwinist spin. Of all fossils to use as props for evolution, the coelacanth is the worst! The authors look right past two facts that should shame and horrify any Darwinian.

(1) Coelacanths show no evolution for tens of millions of years. They are a classic “living fossil” or “Lazarus taxon” that were discovered in the 1930s alive and well after having been thought extinct, looking basically the same as other sarcopterygian fishes known from fossils.

(2) The specimen they examined has soft tissues preserved! This cries out against its being millions of years old.

How blind can Darwinists be? If Nature had allowed creationists to critique or peer review this paper, they would blow it out of the water with scientific facts. But because Big Science is a Darwin-Only club, these authors focus only on how some small preserved vessels might be evidence for the evolution of lungs.

Here we describe, for the first time, the presence of pulmonary vessels in both fossil and extant coelacanths. These new observations confirm the air-breathing function of the so-called calcified organ in fossil coelacanths and the regressed state of the so-called vestigial lung in extant coelacanths. Presence of pulmonary vessels within this group resolves a piece of the puzzle regarding the evolution of air-breathing in vertebrates.

Adding fallacy to absurdity, the authors just inserted the “vestigial organs” myth into their narrative (see 8 May 2024). Read all about it in this open-access paper. Because of censorship, no creationists behind the sound-proof firewall can be heard or seen laughing behind the one-way glass in the Darwin echo chamber.

Coelacanths are key taxa for the understanding of the evolutionary steps of the air-breathing history in osteichthyans. These occurrences of pulmonary vasculatures in both fossil and extant coelacanths reinforce the homology hypothesis between the fossil calcified organ and the vestigial lung. They then shed light on the evolution of the pulmonary complex within the actinistian clade and particularly on the loss of air-breathing during deep-marine water adaptation of the Latimeria relatives. Presence of lung vascular systems in both fossil and extant coelacanths also provides new anatomical elements concerning the evolutionary history of the vascular supply of air-filled organs in osteichthyans and the homology between lungs and gas bladders (also called swimbladders or air bladders).

“Homology hypothesis” too? (See 6 May 2024.) The creationists are laughing so hard now their lungs hurt. One of them moves his lips like a fish in a skit about “Our inner fish” and they keel over, doubled up with howls and cheers.

See 12 June 2019 for more confusion about coelacanths by evolutionists. File this paper in the DIGO category: Darwin in, garbage out.

Why evolution often favours small animals and other organisms  (The Conversation, 9 May 2023). Two Darwinians, Matthew Wills and Tim Rock, give a rock concert for Charley D. Their theme song is, ‘Evolution makes animals smaller, except when it doesn’t.’ Since there are ample props to choose from, given animals of all sizes around the world, it’s easy to cherry pick the ones that make their tune catchy.

There’s room in the Stuff Happens Law for any size to happen by chance, from microbe to sauropod. Feeling unobliged to be logically consistent, they have ample room to twist any evidence into a drinking song for the Darwin Party. Like Belshazzar using the Jews’ temple cups to drink and praise the gods of silver, gold, bronze, iron, wood and stone (Daniel 5), these two misquote Jesus’ words from the Sermon on the Mount, using his statement “The meek shall inherit the earth” as scientific blasphemy to praise the goddess of chance, Lady Luck.

Everyday life and its variability influenced human evolution at least as much as rare activities like big-game hunting  (The Conversation, 8 May 2024). A lifetime of evolutionary indoctrination in school can so numb the mind that evolutionists often fail to see the mistakes in their “understanding” of evolutionary theory. Case in point: Darwinism is supposed to be very different from Lamarckism, the inheritance of characteristics acquired through use and disuse. But here in this lay article, Cara Wall-Scheffler from University of Washington creates fogma to blur the distinctions.

How people keep their children alive is a key issue in my research because it has a direct impact on whether a population survives. It turns out that kids stay alive if they’re with adults. To this end, it is a human universal that women carry heavy loads every day, including kids and their food. This needs-based behavior seems to have been an important part of our evolutionary history and explains quite a few aspects of human physiology and female morphology, such as women’s lower center of mass.

Evolutionists should be shocked. This sounds like Lamarck’s explanation of the giraffe stretching its neck to reach tall trees. That went out in the early 19th century. In the popular account, Darwin came along to remove that narrative with his new-and-improved narrative of natural selection. Cara just said that carrying heavy loads accounts for female morphology and lower center of mass! For shame.

The perhapsimaybecouldness index skyrockets in this prof’s wobbly description of how this behavior or that behavior may have contributed to human evolution.

Maybe persistence hunting is actually a fallback strategy, providing a solution only at key moments when survivorship is on the edge. Or maybe these capabilities are just side effects of the loaded walking done every day. I think a better argument is that the ability to predict how to move between common and uncommon strategies has been the driver of human endurance capacity.

These have nothing to do with neo-Darwinian theory if she cannot name a random genetic mutation getting selected. But then she ventures into “gender roles” for hunting and other DEI/Woke/Feminist lingo to continue her convoluted imaginary narrative about how we “evolved.” (What? From apes who evolved from fish who evolved from bacteria? Say it, sister.)

In many places, females go from youth when they might carry their siblings and firewood, to early parenthood where they might go hunting with a baby on their back, to older parenthood where they might carry water on their head, a baby on their back and tools in their hands, to postmenopausal periods when they might carry giant loads of mangoes and firewood to and from camp.

Even though always load carrying, our capacity to plan and change our behavior for diverse environments is part of what drives Homo sapiens’ success, which means that the behavior of females across their different life stages has been a major driver of this capability.

Good grief. “Might” does not make right in science (16 Aug 2017). This essay (by someone teaching biology to “Christian” students at Seattle Pacific University, a once-solid Biblical institution now bowing to DEI and theistic evolution) was supposed to be about “human evolution.” But she doesn’t even understand how evolution is supposed to work! Behavior has nothing to do with it. You can’t flap your wings and evolve into a flyer. Mutations and selection may permit behaviors (according to the Stuff Happens Law), but they do not drive evolution.

No wonder students and lay people get so confused about human origins. Evolutionists and their lackeys in the media don’t understand their own theory! Because critiques by Darwin skeptics (not all of whom are theists*) are disallowed, the confusion gets a pass and evolutionary nonsense gets perpetuated.

*For instance, atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel wrote a 2012 book, Mind and Cosmos, with the subtitle, “Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False.” Michael Denton, an Australian biologist, has written several profound books about problems with Darwinian evolution which also contain astonishing evidence for design in life.

---

Since the Scopes Trial 99 years ago, Big Science has gone totalitarian regarding origins. All challenges to Darwinism, scientism and materialism have been kicked out of the Darwin Castle. Big Science threatens anyone who doesn’t bow to the Bearded Buddha. And since reporters in Big Science Media have lost all ability to challenge whatever an evolutionary scientist says, they are enablers and accomplices of the types of absurdities exemplified in the above stories. Science reporters act like temple prostitutes at the Bearded Buddha’s shrine.

Sometimes, though, laughter can be heard over the castle walls. Accustomed to unearned prestige, evolutionary biologists hate being laughed at. Those of us with common sense, who want to return science to its love of truth and logic, just need to turn up the volume.

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.

Homework: Try your hand at shaming these science writers for twisting evidence and misrepresenting evolution. Look for the escape words like “might” and “may” and “perhaps” and others. Look for attempts to make environmental factors cause evolution, especially macroevolution (new organs, new body plans, new functions). Do the evolutionists connect random mutations to selection? Who does the selecting? Do the writers imply that animals “evolve” traits for a purpose? (technical foul!). Do the writers improperly seize on an observation of what currently exists and twist it into evidence for Darwinian selection in the past?

Collapse of Earth’s magnetic field may have fueled evolution of life 600 million years ago (Live Science, 9 May 2024). “The planet’s magnetic field may have collapsed around 600 million years ago, enabling a major oxygenation event and perhaps supercharging evolution.”

Chimps learn and improve tool-using skills even as adults, study finds (Science Daily, 9 May 2024). “Prolonged learning capacity might be key to evolution of tool use in chimps and humans.”

Puppy-dog eyes in wild canines sparks rethink on dog evolution (Nature News, 5 May 2024). “The team proposes that the gregarious African wild dogs evolved these muscles to communicate with each other.”