Wednesday, May 10, 2006

Evolution of Evolution: Who...er...What Killed the Mammoths?

Perhaps one of the clearest evidences against evolution is the way they keep changing their story.

Have you ever worked with kids that, when caught, deliver up the most meritorious explanation as to why they were playing baseball in the living room (not my kids, of course), but when examined further, fall back to a more palpable explanation, but completely incompatible with their first story? Well, those kids grow up into Evolutionary Scientists!

You can always tell a person who has no firm opinion or at least no conviction in his opinion. He changes his tune over and over again based upon who his audience is at the time. A confident man holds and defends a position with boldness and conviction. Scientists can be sniffed out based upon their constantly changing story. Remember how Neanderthal used to drag his knuckles on the ground when we were kids? Now, of course, he walks upright because scientists feel that they've filled in more gaps between Neanderthal and chimpanzee. Thus, Neanderthal doesn't have to span so much space between chimpanzee and modern man. If you watch carefully, you'll notice that the newest interpretations always play into the political correctness of the day.

We're all too young to remember the days when evolutionary theories were used to justify slavery, or even the slaughter of the aboriginal peoples of Australia for museum props to further the cause of evolution the world over.

Then there was the decades-old theory about how Jacob Roggeveen wiped out the population of Easter Island by cutting down all their trees, introducing European diseases, and enslaving the native population. This interpretation played into the anti-imperialism mindset of the '60's and '70's, but as of late, has been supplanted by newer evidence. Now, it seems, the native peoples, themselves, cut down their trees shortly after their arrival, which was hundreds of years later than previously thought. Food supply, it seems, was the most likely cause of societal collapse into cannibalism and barbarism...not that the Europeans are forgiven or anything.

Or, do you remember all those paintings in school books showing a bunch of sparsely-clad, apeish men dancing around a well-skewered Woolly Mammoth as he stepped on some poor mother's son? Well, those pages are about to be ripped up, whited out, pasted over, in light of "new evidence". Who knows, that mother might even get her son back.

It seems the latest evolution of evolution is that of how the Mammoths died out. For the past 40 years or so, man has been slandered for having hunted this noble creature into extinction. Corporations and profit motive most likely. Well, that sermon has out-lived its usefulness and now we're on to better things.

According to Dale Guthrie of the University of Alaska, climate change wiped out the Woolly Mammoth, not rabid hunters! So mankind is absolved at last...oh wait.

Whatever club evolutionary scientists are using to pound creationists over the head on a particular day seems also to be an irresistible tool to explain all of natural history.

Evolution evolves, but some things never change.

Evolutionists: Out of Sync with Probabilities

The purpose of this too-lengthy discussion is to help the reader interpret scientific papers, articles, and periodicals and understand how much of what they are reading is actually proven fact versus speculation by the author.

Another field of study with which evolutionary scientists are out of step is called Probabilities. It is a sub-study of both Logic and Statistics.

If you've been keeping up with scientific periodicals or just the headlines, you've probably noticed the number of times that the concept of probability comes up. It's usually hidden in phrases like:
"...is likely a result of..."
"...may have influenced..."
"...is the most probable explanation for..."
"...which best explains..."
"...clear evidence of..."
Ok, that last one was mostly a shameless plug. Most of these are short hand for "the only thing I could think of is..." But you're not likely (see there's another probability) to read any lengthy article or publication without also seeing these kinds of phrases to shield the author from peer scrutiny and future discovery. Why is that?

Well, rules for proof have existed for a very long time. Some of these rules have been formalized in the last 500 years to give researchers and philosophers an idea of what will be expected of them if they come forward claiming to have proven some new thing. Some of these rules look like this: In order for a thing to be considered "proven", a thing must be...
  • reproducible
  • observable
  • invariable
  • the only remaining possibility
  • universally applicable
  • atomic (no external dependencies)
  • independently verifiable
Many mathematicians and philosophers (far smarter than me) have analyzed the concept of probability and proof and systematized their observations into useable formulas. One such fellow is named Andrey Kolmogorov. He formalized 3 rules of probability:
  1. a probability is a number between 0 and 1;
  2. the probability of an event or proposition and its complement must add up to 1; and
  3. the joint probability of two events or propositions is the product of the probability of one of them and the probability of the second, conditional on the first.
To make it simpler,
  • Rule #1: if you are 90% sure of something, then that percentage is equal to 90 over 100 or .9 which is between 0 an 1 as he suggests.
  • Rule #2: if the probability is .9, then it's 'complement' (i.e. how unlikely it is) is equal to .1, since the sum of the probability and improbability must add up to 1.
  • Rule #3: if the probability of one event is 90%, and the probability of another event is 50%, then the probability of both of these events being true (or coming to pass) is the product of the two, or .9 times .5, or .45 (i.e. 45 percent).
Now, I'm sorry to have dragged you through all of this, but there is a point to it. When scientists say that they are 99% sure of something that depends upon the truthfulness of something else of which they are 95% sure. Then the combined probability of them being right on a whole is only 94%. If those two rely on something that is 98% sure, the total probability drops to 92%.

An example of scientific assertions depending upon one another might be something like: 1) Neanderthals were likely forced north and east out of Europe by more modern hominids. 2) Some of these exiles probably would have crossed the Bering Land Bridge into North America before it's 3) [assumed] collapse 10-11,000 years ago.

There are at least 3 statements of probability here. Two are overt, the third, in square brackets, is implied. That Neanderthals crossed into North America over the Bering Land Bridge depends upon 1) their actually being forced out of Europe, 2) the Bering Land Bridge actually existing. To take it one step further, their crossing also depends upon the land bridge existing at the time that these atheistic scientists say Neanderthal existed. So there is a chain of dependencies, each with its own probability attached.

Evolutionary archaeology, paleontology, biology and zoology offer so many unproven theories, all of which are interdependent. Each tiny thing they claim to have proven is dependent upon hundreds of past unproven statements, and immediately becomes the basis for many future unproven assertions. When the likelihood of each new discovery is added to the formula the total probability, as a percentage, drops.

When evolutionary scientists claim a bunch of things that are "fairly likely", they want us to average all the relevant probabilities, and tack on a few merit points for good measure. 90% of 85% of 99% of 87% of 98% of 94% of 50% of 89% of 99% of 80% of 55% of 95% of 90% of 83% of 99% of 97% of 88% of 92% of 88% of 60% of 80% of 98% of 95% of 92% of 97% of 85% of 99% of 98% of 97% of 94% of 90% of 79 % of 99% = 100%, which is how certain THEY are that evolution is true.

When in reality, the likelihood that all they're asserting is true is the PRODUCT (multiplied, not averaged) of all relevant probabilities, (i.e. 1%); and that's probably too generous!

Tuesday, May 09, 2006

Evolutionists: Out of Sync with Astronomy

Scientists are a disorganized bunch. From lab to lab, from country to country, from field to field, there is little consistency in what scientists ask us to believe.

Consider the differences in two particular fields of study: Evolutionary Biology, and Astronomy. Evolutionary Biologists ask us to believe that mankind evolved in an unbroken progression from primordial goo over the past 4.1 billion years (plus or minus 15 minutes). Ok, fine. Astronomists ask us to believe that the chances of all life on earth being wiped out by a giant, city-sized (10 kilometers or greater) meteorite are about every 100 million or so years (plus or minus the time it will take you to read this blog). How do these two ideas sync up?

Answer: they don't. In the 4.1 billion years that evolution is supposed to have taken place from goo into macro-creatures such as man, the earth is supposed to have been destroyed, um...lemme see...41 times. So we've just gotten lucky, right? Well, how lucky have we been?

If you want to approach it mathematically, then the odds are 1 in 2^40, or one in two to the fortieth power. To break it down for you, if we go 100 million years without being struck by a very big rock, then we've defied the odds by 1 out of 2. If we go another 100 million years and still haven't been impacted, then we've again beaten the odds 1 out of 2, but now twice. Therefore, we've beaten the odds at a 1 in 4, still not that impressive. For every 100 million years we go without being struck by Synthia McKinn...er... a large meteor (or NEO for Near Earth Object), we have defied the odds by twice the previous 100 million years. So, the 1st 100 million years: 1 in 2 (or 2^1). The 2nd 100 million years: 1 in 4 (or 2^2). The 3rd 100 million years: 1 in 8 (or 2^3), etc... By the time we go 4.1 billion years, the odds are 2^40!!! That's 1 in 1,099,511,627,776! If these were 2.25 inch wide playing cards, then they would span from here to Mars (in it’s closest approach to earth in August 2003), 35 million miles! So pick a card.

In the mind of Evolutionary Biologists, the likelihood of life springing from dead materials by means of unlikely events is benefited by more time. But the Astrologists (using far more empirical methods) show that the more time you throw at the problem (past 100 million years), the more problematic evolution becomes. Each time a massive meteor hits, it pushes the reset button of life, and evolution is forced to restart!

The numbers against the Evolutionary Biologists are so massive that they make the belief in evolution highly mathematically improbable and, well...simply unscientific! They must either accept Divine protection of earth during those 4.1 billion years, or they must accept that the earth is a good deal younger than their illustrious theories assert.

P.S. - Check out this map of NEO's in and around the orbit of earth. These are detected using a radio telescope.

Tuesday, May 02, 2006

Differences? What Differences?


A global warming article published 23 minutes ago, according to Yahoo! news, claims that differences in data collected from two different sources has been resolved. While surface measurements have supposedly long shown rising temperatures, satellites and weather balloons have shown just the opposite. Really? Since when? Why didn't we hear about these differences before? Oooh, that would have made you look bad! Oh, well, by all means, please, keep us in the dark! After all, we unejukatid folk merely exist to fawn over you brainy scientists whilst you figure out how you're going to make yourself look good again tomorrow!

No, honestly, had you EVER heard the global warming crowd suggest that there was ANY discrepancy in their data? So now, they've once again, gone from absolutely positive to absolutely positive, without discrepancies! Well, how do we know there aren't any discrepancies. I guarantee you, if I live another month, I'll have the opportunity to again rant about another (previously unmentioned) weakness in their theories that has been resolved!

As long as I've been watching the science headlines (about a decade), I've seen this pattern of hide-till-resolved a hundred times. This closely parallels the missing link I've written about before. They won't tell you there's a missing link until they think they've found something to fill it.

They have a word for this in politics too. It's called a "cover up"!

Monday, May 01, 2006

The Fruit of Darwinism


Evolution kills God. That's it's intent.

I know, I know, how can true science have "intent"? But it does. Maybe intent isn't the right word. Perhaps "destiny" is better. Somewhere in the middle I think. When Edison invented the light bulb, it had wide-spread application to humanity and has revolutionized modern life, decoupling industry and even the private citizen from the timing of our solar orbit. When Lenoir built the first practical internal combustion engine, industrialists, inventors, and entrepreneurs laid up nights dreaming up the many applications to which it has today been employed. But since Darwin forwarded his theories on evolution, not one useful splinter of application to daily life has come of it. Has Darwinism had a lesser impact on modern life than the light bulb?

Perhaps, but not less important. While each invention has had it's wide-spread impact on civilization, they've all been useful. Darwinism's most profound impact has been to assault the relevance, or even existence of God! No medicines have been attributed to Darwinism. No machines, no conveniences, no advances in food production, no elongation of anyone's life expectancy can be attributed to Darwinism. Now this isn't true of Biology, Genetics, Chemistry, Geology, or any of the other "raw sciences". But Darwinism isn't among them. How could it be that so much effort, attribution, funding, and lip service be paid to a scientific fixture yet mankind receives nothing in return?

Answer? Because mankind wasn't meant to receive anything from Darwinism. Darwinism has no goals or aspirations except to preach the denunciation of God! Therefore, the more adamantly a particular scientist preaches the doctrines of Darwin, the more you can assert that he hates God.

But scientists don't say evolution is a fact anyway, right? They simply hold it up as a working model, a theory, until something better comes along. No. For something that can kill God in the minds of the masses, scientists are willing to give evolution a bye, an honorary doctorate. Something that can kill God shouldn't be required to pass muster. It should be given axiom-status, sovereign among the sciences. Darwinism isn't required to be observable. It isn't required to be reproducible. No, Darwinism became scientific fact the same way that the king with no clothes became gorgeously appareled: consensus.

Consider these quotes out of a recently published article on Yahoo! News:
"We have proved that one (species) is transforming into the other, so this evidence is important to show that there is human evolution... that human evolution is a fact and not a hypothesis," Asfaw said.
...
"It is the only place in the world where the three phases of evolution could be documented and proved," Asfaw said.

"All (three species) were able to be found in one place, proving that evolution is a fact," Asfaw said. "Successive records that we see here prove that the Afar region is the origin of human kind."

So simply lining up three pins in a row passes for proof of Darwinism according to this learned scientist. Darwinism is grandfathered into the larger family of scientific facts that hold exemption status: 1) Flat Earth; 2) 4 basic elements: earth, air, fire, water; and 3) life on mars.

As I've been sitting here writing this blog, I've noticed several similarities between my paper-clip dispenser and my stapler. Both use metal to fasten pieces of paper. Both are made of black plastic. Both were made in China and are patent-pending!! I think we're on to something!! If I could find a missing link, I might be able to establish the progeny of my less-primitive paper-clip dispenser with my more modern stapler. Hm. Searching... There!! My tape dispenser! I've found the missing link! The missing link was all that was necessary to establish progeny, right? And all located within inches of each other! I've shown proof. Three pegs is all it takes these days. Now to choose a name...Hodgenism? No...

Variation and Natural Selection <> Origin of the Species

I believe in variation and natural selection. There, I've said it.

If you were to listen to modern scientists talk about variations of modern species, you'd think they'd invented the notion of variation. Darwin is credited with discovering variation and natural selection, as though no one had ever noticed it before! The ignorant Biblical creationist dragged his knuckles around for thousands of years, never noticing that Billy didn't look much like Tommy. But that's absurd. While Darwin formalized it into a term, he wasn't anywhere near the first to observe it.

Up until the time that Darwin was attempting to rationalize a scientific system whereby he might obviate the need for Divine input, no one needed to come up for a term that observed that Tommy was measly 4' 5" and Billy was a 7' bruiser.

I would liken it to the way that clinical psychologists have "diagnosed" every kind of bad behavior. Hyper-tension, ADD (pronounced ADD), ADHD, bi-polar disorder, schizophrenia, chemical imbalance, separation anxiety disorder, oppositional disorder, clinical depression and (my personal favorite) conduct disorder. That's the short list, and it grows annually! Why all the terminology, and why now? I'm not one to dump on the pharmaceutical companies. If they hadn't invented Maxalt, I'd have a migraine a couple times a week. But, I do believe that they have a big hand in the tokenizing of many bad behaviors. When they invented drugs to "treat" certain "conditions", they created a market reason to formalize these "conditions". Once formalized, markets grow around these ideas: Experts, doctors, professors, schools, clinics, and the public school (Oops! Freudian slip there). But these "conditions" were described and formalized in answer to a world view that "needed" to remove personal responsibility and destroy guilt, not because formalizing these notions was any "next logical step" in a continuing march toward human scientific enlightenment.

To be sure, Darwin noticed no more than anyone else had ever noticed: That some dogs are brown and some are black; that some people have blue eyes and others, green; that some breeds of cat are more than twice the weight of other breeds. But where the genius of Darwin differed from you and I was in his ability to fabricate the remaining assertions from thin air! A trick not all can master.

Darwin noticed that 1) specimens vary in size, color, proportional distribution of various extremities such as bills, wings, feet, head, etc... 2) that in any particular environment, physical attributes of a specimen make it more suited or less suited toward survival: By differing metabolisms requiring less water or food; by coloration that seconds as camouflage; by having bigger ears for better or worse hearing.

None of these things were new (or even middle aged) to mankind. And, with these observations, I agree. But immediately after that, Darwin and I take a fork in the road because Variation and Natural Selection do not equal the Origin of the Species.

Through a series of "must haves", Darwin asserted that these slight differences from one generation to the next (not corrected for same-generational variations) must account for their gradual formation into today's manifestations of that species from a simpler form of life (full of baseless assertions). He and his intellectual progeny asserted that these variations, given countless generations and infinite time, must have accounted for all variations of life from a single and simplistic life form.

Once the need for God was removed from this perverted worldview, they needed to formulate a theory by which non-life could become life without a need for God; and they're still stuck right there! They had to explain how, without God, and despite entropy, all the matter in the universe got there and how it organized into the complex systems that make up today's cosmos; and they're still stuck right there. They had to explain how fundamental changes could be passed on to the next generation and still produce a viable and virile offspring; and they're still stuck right there. They needed to prove that the descendency of all species can be traced to a single source using their genetics; and they're still stuck right there.

Nothing beyond the antique observations of variation and natural selection has ever been proven. So don't be fooled by the slight of hand employed by Darwinists when they observe no more than anyone else ever observed, and then assert what no one had previously been foolish enough to assert.