January 30, 2025 | David F. Coppedge

Hallucinating Darwinians Are a Disgrace to Science

Evolutionists keep making up silly
stories. Time to say, “You’re fired!”

 

Today’s list of stupid evolutionary stories in the media fall into two categories: (1) completely made-up tales incapable of observation or proof, or (2) legitimate scientific findings wrongly attributed to evolution. Either way, all is said in praise to Emperor Darwin.

Charles Darwin and Angus Bateman thought women and female animals weren’t promiscuous. They were wrong. (Particle, 20 Jan 2025). Oh, so Darwin was wrong? Not really. Freelance reporter Cat Williams is just teasing. “Charles Darwin’s work in natural selection was pivotal to our understanding of evolution.” Phew. All is well. Don’t mistake Cat for a despised creationist or something. She is loyal to the emperor. The peasants are revolting. ‘They certainly are,’ thinks Darwin. “But there were a few holes in his theory of sexual selection,” she teases. Darwin couldn’t help himself. He lived in a time when Victorians considered males as promiscuous by nature, and females as passive. Wouldn’t the Emperor have been pleasantly surprised to learn that women can be promiscuous too? Now everyone can evolve their own morality! Let’s celebrate Darwin Day with a big Darwin party!

Twins were the norm for our ancient primate ancestors − one baby at a time had evolutionary advantages (The Conversation, 16 December, 2024). Did these two evolutionary anthropologists witness twins being born among ancient primate ancestors? Of course not. But the story’s the thing that pleases Emperor Charley. But wait a minute; if singletons have evolutionary advantages—if that is a law of nature—why is it more rare in other primates? Are they missing out on evolutionary advantages? That doesn’t sound fair.

Since hallucinating is legal in evolutionary science, there’s always a way to dream up a solution to a puzzle. Just light the Deep Time brand incense and imagine:

For primates, and especially humans, childhood learning is crucial. We propose that the switch from twins to singletons was critical for the evolution of large human babies with large brains that were capable of complex learning as infants and young children.

Based on mathematical modeling, the switch to singletons occurred early on, at least 50 million years ago. From there, many primate lineages, including ours, evolved to have increasingly larger bodies and brains.

Twinning is dangerous, they conclude. Our primate ancestors never learned that. Somehow they have thrived anyway for many more millions of yearzzzzzz….. Go back to sleep.

A more accurate march of human evolution. Note: first figure at left is mythical.

If humans could fly, how big would our wings be? (Live Science, 26 Jan 2025). To be fair, this might be an interesting “scientific” trivia question to discuss at a coffee table. How big would wings would have to be for a man, or a pig, or a man who looks like a pig, to fly? That’s an engineering question, and reporter Elana Spivack does consult some scientists about that point. Her experts rightly consider the degree of anatomical changes required for a human to fly with wings, such as huge flight muscles and re-engineered shoulder blades. Where she goes off the rails is to claim that “evolution” figured out these things for pterosaurs, bats, and birds:

  • Pterosaurs … were some of the first vertebrates to evolve the ability to fly more than 200 million [Darwin Years] ago….
  • Of course, humans are at an evolutionary disadvantage. Flying animals have been perfecting their anatomy for flight for millennia.

Hallucinating Darwinists

Why do bats hang upside down to sleep? (Live Science, 25 Jan 2025). Here again is a trivia question that might interest nature lovers. But again, habitual Darwine-drunk reporter Charles Q. Choi invokes the e-word evolution in his stupor like a magic wand to make impossible things happen. To dodge accountability, he lets his “evolutionary biologist” shamans say the magic words as they crank up the perhapsimaybecouldness settings, like igniting incense, to facilitate the hallucinations about powered flight in bats:

  • This topsy-turvy behavior may result from the evolutionary journey bats took toward flight….
  • As bats evolved from land-bound mammals to taking flight, they started with gliding like flying squirrels….
  • The ancestors of modern bats might have climbed tall trees and dropped to glide between the trunks, likely evolving strong limbs for these ascents….
  • The powerful arms of these gliding creatures evolved into wings over time….
  • ….bats can hang upside down much more easily than humans can because of the way bats’ muscles, tendons and talons have evolved.
  • …this new lifestyle supported the evolution of several other traits….
  • …the skeletons of bats evolved to be lightweight for flight….
  • Additional research into the evolution of bat flight and the way most bats hang upside down “would be really interesting….”

New glowing molecule, invented by AI, would have taken 500 million years to evolve in nature, scientists say (Live Science, 28 Jan 2025). Have evolutionists come up with a scientific equation for Deep Time? A day is as 500 million Darwin Years, and 500 million Darwin Years as one day? Reporter Patrick Pester one-ups Charles Q. Choi with a whopping 15 mentions of the e-word, including:

  • An artificial intelligence model has created a new protein that researchers say would have taken 500 million years to evolve in nature — if nature were capable of producing such a thing.
  • The rest of the sequence is unique, and would require a total of 96 different genetic mutations to evolve. These changes would have taken more than 500 million years to evolve naturally, according to the study.
  • Taylor wrote that AI models like ESM3 will enable innovations in protein engineering that evolution can’t….
  • However, she also noted that the researchers’ claim of simulating 500 million years of evolution is focussed [sic] only on individual proteins and does not account for the many stages of natural selection that ultimately create life.
  • “AI-driven protein engineering is intriguing, but I can’t help feeling we might be overly confident in assuming we can outsmart the intricate processes honed by millions of years of natural selection,” Taylor said.

The paper on which this claim is based is even more reckless with the e-word, using it 32 times not counting references:

Simulating 500 million years of evolution with a language model (Hayes et al., Science, 16 Jan 2025). This paper illustrates our contention that evolutionists do not understand evolution (21 Nov 2024). Yet this distorted view of evolution is what is fed to the public in schools.

Deep time, a useful drug for evolutionary hallucinations. Use before beginning observations.

The proteins that exist today have developed into their present forms over the course of billions of years of natural evolution, passing through a vast evolutionary sieve. In parallel experiments conducted over geological time, nature creates random mutations and applies selection, filtering proteins by their myriad sequences, structures, and functions.

As a result, the patterns in the proteins we observe reflect the action of the deep hidden variables of the biology that have shaped their evolution across time.

They completely ignore the large literature about irreducible complexity as they hallucinate about the abilities of selection to navigate a design network:

Proteins can be seen as existing within an organized space where each protein is neighbored by every other that is one mutational event away. The structure of evolution appears as a network within this space, connecting all proteins by the paths that evolution can take between them. The paths that evolution can follow are the ones by which each protein transforms into the next without the collective loss of function of the system it is a part of.

This is a big fat lie. It ignores mountains of evidence for Irreducible Complexity. But no refutations of the lie by Michael Behe or Douglas Axe are allowed, because intelligent design is censored by fiat. Consequently, evolutionary biologists and even bioengineers are free to hallucinate on their favorite drug, Natural Selection. Magic happens under the influence of the drug as they listen to their theme song, Imagine:

Evolution without sex: How mites have survived for millions of years (University of Cologne, 25 Jan 2025). The title in Just-So Story form indicates what comes next. Like good storytellers, the Darwinians toss in a little conflict to spice things up a bit:

Sex is the driving force of evolution: It promotes genetic diversity and helps organisms to adapt more quickly to changing environmental conditions. Without sex, however, organisms risk genetic stagnation and extinction – at least according to prevailing evolutionary theory. Yet, the oribatid mite Platynothrus peltifer challenges this paradigm

So will the evolutionists at this university ditch Darwin and consider alternatives? Never. King Charles is Emperor for life. He always wins in the end, like supreme dictators playing chess with their subordinates. Subordinates prefer keeping their heads to winning.

The study provides new insights into the survival strategies of asexual organisms. Asexual evolution is supported by various sources of genetic diversity, to which the research team draws attention in the study. “In future research projects, we would like to find out whether there are additional mechanisms that might be important for evolution without sex,” said Dr Jens Bast, Emmy Noether group leader at the University of Cologne.

The losers can always dream that they might win next time, some day in the land of Futureware. The emperor knows and just plays along. His position is secure— for the time being.

Long live the Emperor, chant his obsequious subordinates. But a low rumble is heard outside the castle. No worries; the Emperor’s recently-hired tailors have designed new clothes for him to wear in the parade.

 

 

 

(Visited 305 times, 1 visits today)

Comments

  • DaBump says:

    Wow, I wonder if twins find that one article offensive. And then, what about triplets and quintuplets?

    The bat theory is truly bizarre, and of course there’s no fossil evidence or behavior in living gliding mammals that support it (colugos do sometimes hang “upside down,” but with all four limbs). Also, bats fly with extremely elongated yet webbed fingers. They are able to climb with exposed “thumb” claws, but an intermediate condition would leave them in a state of mere gliding ability with reduced running and climbing ability. No surprise we don’t see any living or fossil examples.

    And if “96 different genetic mutations” would take “500 million years” of evolution, how do they figure all the differences between humans and chimps took place from a common ancestor less than 10 million years ago? Even given parallel evolution of each gene, that’s a lot of work to be accomplished by random changes and elimination of any combinations that didn’t occur in and produce the surviving lineages!

Leave a Reply