"Evolution" proves Theory of Evolution Wrong - Again

Heh. Scientists are crowing over "new proof" of evolution -- which once again proves that evolution isn't what Darwin's theory claims.

In the article, scientists point out that a butterfly developed a gene to resist a parasite in less than one year -- 10 generations. They're claiming that evolution occurred in a "flash" instead of over billions of years. But what they're not noticing is that the evolution occurred so that the butterflies could remain the same. In other words, these new, evolved butterflies are not bigger, better, strong, or indeed even different -- they're the same butterfly. They didn't evolve to change. They didn't evolve into another species. They didn't evolve into humans -- they evolved to stay the same.

That's evolution -- species adapting to survive. It's not evolution into something different. It's not a dog changing into a monkey. This is NOT what Darwin's theory teaches -- Darwin claimed that species evolved into other species -- and there's simply no evidence of that happening.

Darwin & Hitler

Cao has an excellent post about the connection between Darwin and Hitler. While some people are just going bananas trying to defend Hitler and claim that Hitler didn't believe in Darwin, just pause and think for a minute.

If you fully accept everything regarding the theory of macro-evolution, then there is no absolute truth. There can be no such thing as right or wrong. In fact, if you accept everything this theory proposes, then not only should I be able to kill anyone I want to at any time, I am required to!

If "survival of the fittest" is how all life came to be, welfare should be abolished because that's in opposition to macro evolution. I should take as many women as I can, by force, for reproduction of my genes -- and I should destroy anyone else who I can, who I deem weaker than myself.

Now "civilization" may be the reason why I can't do that, but then that's in opposition to evolution, too -- and if there is no absolute truth, then who are you to claim that your so-called "civilization" is better than might makes right?

Too Much Time, Too Many Causes

Here's a new one for you. Indian Cowboy has started up a new group because apparently there were too many causes and political groups in existence. He's started a group called Conservatives Against Intelligent Design. Okaaay.

The group exists to

to give a voice to Republicans, Independent Conservatives, and Libertarians across the country who stand opposed to the teaching of ‘intelligent design’ and other forms of creationism in the classroom.

I have to admit, I'm not quite sure why a group needs to exist to oppose teaching a certain type of teaching. And if they want to join an already existing group that's well-funded (with endless taxpayer dollars) that's vehemently opposed to intelligent design, there's the ACLU.

I'm with Dangerous Liberty where he responds with A little Depth Would Be Nice:

Indian Cowboy reveals the astounding ignorance of what ID proposes which is sadly so common among those who oppose it, especially those who do so because they consider it a "perversion of science".

The real reason that appears to be behind those who oppose teaching ID is a vehement opposition to anything resembling religion. Of course, there's a real simple solution that would completely and totally end all this discussion and all these groups -- which is why it won't happen: get government completely out of the education business.

Why does the government have a monopoly on education? If everyone were free to make their own decisions regarding their own education without any government interference, each family could decide for themselves if they wanted ID, creationism, or evolution taught in whatever manner they wanted. But there's few people interested in freedom these days.

A Creation Story

For those who simply cannot stand Christmas and Christians (hello, ACLU), Joe Carter has posted a nice little creation story for the materialist. It starts out like this:

In the beginning was Nothing and Nothing created Everything. When Nothing decided to create Everything, she filled a tiny dot with Time, Chance, and Everything and had it explode. The explosion spread Everything into Everywhere carrying Time and Chance with it to keep it company. The three stretched out together leaving bits of themselves wherever they went. One of those places was the planet Earth.

ID in Schools

A self-proclaimed "expert" from Duke University, with all the usual "holier than thou" attitudes and ivory tower proclamations has declared, with an expected immediate deference to his much-more-knowledgeable-than-you ruling, that mentioning that evolution might not actually be 100% correct is unconstitutional.

This is just another liberal who has decided that he knows better than you and should be obeyed at all times. He claims that mentioning anything other than his one, true religion, materialism, in government-run schools is a violation of his right to free speech because his religion (naturalism) is correct and all other religions should not be allowed in any government institution.

In a related, but underreported lawsuit, an unnamed individual has sued the state of North Carolina, demanding that the laws against murder be repealed because they are very clearly an unconstitutional infringement on religion and an establishment of religion.

"The Bible clearly states that 'Thou shall not murder,'" says the lawsuit, filed today in Loon County, "so the state simply cannot have that law. It is an obvious attempt by Christians to enforce their own moral and religious rules on the rest of society."

The lawsuit continues, "In addition, this prohibition on to what many deem to be a sacred religious right, murdering infidels, clearly prohibits law abiding citizens from exercising their own religion. If one person's religion deems that murder is required by their god, who is the state to tell them their religion is wrong?"

The Supreme Court is expected to rule on both lawsuits simultaneously, as the ruling in one lawsuit will most certainly be expected to be applied to both.

Naturalistic Faith

If you believe in naturalism and evolution as presented by today's scientists, there are a number of things in which you must have faith. I don't have enough faith in random chance to believe that our entire existence is a cosmic accident.

In this posting, which will be rather long, I'll point out a few of the absolute requirements for just matter to exist -- not even mentioning how much more complex the requirements are for life. Then I'll illustrate the mathematical probabilities that these few conditions can exist via random chance. I'm not presupposing any conclusion -- just read and view the facts of physics and draw your own conclusion.

Neutrons and Protons

The relative mass of a proton and a neutron have to be exactly what they are, and they are nearly identical. Inside our sun, there are ongoing nuclear reactions that convert hydrogen to helium (which releases the tremendous amount of energy given off by the sun). Two protons collide and one changes into a neutron. The two particles join together, creating something called a deuteron.

This is only possible because the mass of the proton and the neutron are nearly identical. Without this process, and the creation of deuterons, there would be no nuclear reactions and no energy released by the sun. A free neutron decays into a proton and an electron. If a neutron were just .002% of it's actual size, protons would decay into neutrons -- and atoms would not exist. The most basic atom, hydrogen, is a free proton -- if protons decayed, even hydrogen could not exist.

In other words, if the relative mass of protons vs. neutrons was off by even just 0.0001%, not only could life not exist, but matter itself couldn't exist. What are the odds that this situation happened by pure random chance?

Atomic Partical Charges

When comparing the electrical charge of a proton and an electron in an atom, scientists have shown that the charges can only differ by less than one part in 1,000,000,000,000,000. Because they do not, atoms tend to have a neutral charge.

However, if one of these charged particles differed by one 1 part per 1,000,000,000, then the atom would not be electrically neutral -- they would be either positively or negatively charged. If that were the case, the parts of an atom would repel one another -- and there could be no existence of matter at all.

Strong Nuclear Force

This is the force that binds atoms together and keeps atoms from falling apart. If this force were only 3% stronger, all hydrogen in existence would become helium. If it were about 5% stronger, the thermonuclear reactions in the sun would be tremendously more efficient, ensuring all stars would burn up millions of times faster.

If this force were weaker, say 1/100th of it's actual strength, then protons would repel one another in the nucleus of atoms -- again making neither life nor even matter possible. Again, what is the probability that this force just "happened" to be exactly right?

Epsilon Constant

The Epsilon Constant is a factor that pertains to gravitational forces. If it deviated even a tiny bit in any direction, all stars in the universe would change -- becoming rapidly, exponentially cooler or hotter. The value of this constant is expressed as 2.0e-39, or 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000002.

This force is extremely important and delicate. If there were even the slightest deviation in this force, the universe would likely collapse. This force balances with and opposes the gravitational fine structure, measured at 5.9e-39 (0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000059). The slightest change in either of these forces would change our sun into a blue giant or a red dwarf -- ensuring no life on the planet earth.

Primordial Escape Velocity

The primordial expansion velocity is the speed at which the universe is expanding. The primordial escape velocity is the combined gravity of all the universe. These two velocities must be exactly the same to maintain the universe in it's current state.

If the expansion velocity were only one part in a million greater, the entire universe would expand into nothing but gas -- no planets or stars could form. If the velocity were one part in a million less, the whole universe would collapse into itself and a black hole.

If the universe were completely random with no design or plan, what are the odds that these two forces just happen to be balanced exactly and they maintain their exact, constant rate?

The Cosmological Constant

This constant is related to the primordial escape velocity. The expanding universe is limited in it's expansion rate by the combined pull of gravity. As distance increases, this pull of gravity force decreases. The opposite force to this is the cosmological constant. This constant is less than .0000000000000000000000000000000001 per square meter.

If this constant were increased by a mere 0.0001 per square meter -- a time-space distortion would occur that would make it impossible for a person to walk a few miles and then return to where they started! This makes the concept of repetitive orbiting planets impossible.

Weak Nuclear Force

This force is the force that allows protons to change into neutrons. This force controls that rate at which that happens. If this force were reduced even a tiny amount, all of the hydrogen in the universe would change into helium!

This force retrains the rate of thermonuclear reactions in the sun -- the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force combined ensure that the rate of burn of the sun is the way that it is. Any variation in this rate and stars would not produce the amount of light and energy that they do -- increasing this value even slightly would result in all stars in the universe burning up completely and quickly.

Once again, what are the odds that such perfectly balanced intricate forces can simply happen by chance?

Actual Probabilities

This post outlined just seven different very specific physical and cosmic forces that must be maintained and must be exactly the way they are for matter to exist, never mind life. Without these exact forces (and many others), there would simply be no universe at all. Since these numbers can all be known, a mathematical simulation can be created to determine the actual odds of these situations occurring together randomly.

A software simulation was created that randomly created forces in a universe. One demonstration created 2,129 separate universe models, which give a very realistic picture of what the odds are that all requirements would be met by simple random chance.

In the example, 404 models met 1 of these 7 requirements. Only 8 met 2 of the requirements. Zero randomly generated universes met more than 2. None met 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7 requirements. Sure, the user could change the program requirements to get a closer match, but that's the entire point of this post.

Given the odds and the nature of physics and forces, if there were millions of millions (1,000,000,000,000+) models created, there would be a ZERO percent chance of all 7 conditions being met. In other words, according to physics and mathematics, there is absolutely no possible way that this universe was created through random chance -- it's simply not possible.

Some sort of intelligent design is the only possible answer. You may not know or understand what that force of intelligent design may be, but it simply cannot be explained by random chance. If you fail to see that some sort of intelligence created this universe, you certainly have more faith than everyone who believes in God combined.

Macro- vs. Micro- Part II

A few days ago, I wrote a post about micro- versus macro-evolution. As you might imagine, it stirred up quite a debate regarding creation and intelligent design. That wasn't my purpose. I was simply trying to come to an agreement on what some specific terms mean.

However, Contagion said:

Who said anything about separating the two, personally I think there is no difference. It's all part of the same process.

This is one of the ideas that I'm trying to point out. They are not the same.

I'll put details in the extended entry for those who just aren't all that interested...

Micro-evolution is a process that can be observed today. It's primary purpose is to allow a species to STAY THE SAME. It is adaptation. A very simple example of micro-evolution is people putting on coats in the winter and taking them off in the summer -- adaptation to stay the same and not change.

The bird beaks that Darwin observed were an example of micro-evolution. He observed a generation of birds that grew longer beaks and determined that was macro evolution in action -- that the birds had changed, permanently, into a new bird because it was "survival of the fittest."

However, if he had observed the birds for a longer period of time -- a number of generations and seasons, he would have found that the birds grew longer beaks during dry seasons and shorter beaks during wet seasons. These particular birds ate bugs in trees. When the season was dry, it took longer beaks to reach the bugs in the trees.

This is an example of micro-evolution because the birds are adapting to their environment in an attempt to stay the same and survive. They're not turning into dogs or cats, they are staying birds, and they are adapting to survive and CONTINUE to be birds.

Macro-evolution, on the other hand, is the proposal that one species, through some not quite defined process of mutation, change into other species. This has never been actually observed today -- all scientific examples of it have been debunked as untrue.

Some will claim it has been observed in certain instances, but only if you define species in varied ways. Admittedly, even biologists cannot all agree on what the definition of a species is.

Some biologists, including many who support Darwin's theory, will define it rather narrowly. For example, people from Africa and people from America could be determined to be different species. If you define species that narrowly, then you can show evolution by mating members of different species.

If you define species more widely, to only include actually different creatures, such as plants and cats or dogs and horses, then macro evolution cannot be observed. Species who cannot mate do not change into other species. A dog and a cat cannot mate -- a cat will never mutate enough to change into a dog.

Now I'm not trying to completely come up with a discussion about the possibilities of evolution, intelligent design, creation, or anything like that (at least not in this post). I'm just trying to define the terms so a discussion can occur. If we cannot agree on the different terms, we cannot have a discussion.


According to Wikipedia:

Uniformitarianism is one of the most basic principles of modern geology, the observation that fundamentally the same geological processes that operate today also operated in the distant past

This is the basis of much of today's physical science. It is presented in most basic geology and physical science classes, often as one of the first laws of science. In my experience, there is little discussion about this word.

However, even the basic definition given above is flawed. It claims that uniformitarianism is "observation" -- but then it applies that observation to the distant past. That's not possible.

Uniformitarianism says that everything you see happening today has always happened. In other words, it say that the rate at which water flows downhill is constant and has never changed. It presumes all physical laws, such as the speed of light, are what they are and have never been different. It presumes that gravity has always been at the exact rate it is today.

Now this rule certainly seems simple. In your lifetime, I'm sure that you can observe the same physical rules happening over and over again. You can observe the sedimentation rate of sediment in a stream. You can easily make predictions of ocean currents, rates of erosion, and many other related observations.

This is what modern science has done -- made observations and tested them to see if they hold true. They have found many laws that apply to various physical characteristics that always hold true -- as long as they are tested. The same experiments always give the same results because the rules do not change.

To me, I see this as rather self-centered. Just because physical rules have not changed in your lifetime, or even in the last hundred or two hundred years of observation does not mean they have never been different. Consider for a moment, what if this rule isn't true?

What if all the currently discovered laws of physics haven't always been true? What if, at some time thousands of years ago, gravity was different? What if the laws of thermodynamics have only applied for two thousand years? What if gravity didn't exist 5,000 years ago?

ALL of today's science is based on a complete and total belief in uniformitarianism. If uniformitarianism isn't completely, 100% true, a large portion of "known" science might not be true, too. Just consider it -- what are the possibilities if man simply cannot know everything?

Now there's no direct evidence that refutes uniformitarianism -- just as there is no direct evidence that uniformitarianism is true. It's just presented and accepted as fact, without debate. But what if it's wrong?

There actually now are some scientists that claim that this may be the case. They describe that the speed of light -- the basis of much of physics -- might not actually be constant. What if all the physical processes we see today were actually different at some time in the past?

Micro- vs. Macro- Evolution

Evolution is a lot of things to a lot of people. Darwin's theory of evolution is what most often comes to mind. At the same time, few people understand what it is that was actually proposed. Darwin proposed that all living creatures, and by extension, matter itself, had come from previous, simpler substances. He failed to address where this endless cycle began.

However, today there are various facets of evolution. One area in which people may become confused is when comparing macro evolution and micro evolution. Micro evolution can be observed today, while macro evolution is a theory that simply cannot be observed.

Micro evolution is the idea that all species experience mutations and can have genetic adaptations. However, micro evolution, as observed, shows that the mutations and adaptations only occur within a species. Each mutation and adaptation is designed and works to keep the species the same as itself.

In other words, when a dog mutates, it will change and adapt, and it will remain a dog. No matter how many adaptations and mutations occur, it will always remain a dog, and will never sprout wings or gills. All current mutations and adaptations observed fit into that category of evolution.

Macro evolution, on the other hand, says that adaptations and mutations exist, occur, and allow new species to form. This sort of evolution proposes that the DNA in individual animals and plants change from one creature to another -- from a dog to a bird, for example.

Macro evolution has never been observed in any way, shape, or form. However, when speaking of science in schools and teaching evolution, this is the type of evolution that is addressed. Darwin's theory of evolution is this type, and it is still taught in schools -- despite zero observation or true scientific evidence.