Archive for the ‘In the News’ Category

TIME’s Top 10 Medical Breakthroughs - Evolution Not Included

On January 15, 2008 in In the News, Science Related

TIME Magazine released their list of the Top 10 Medical Breakthroughs of 2007, and as suspected Evolutionism had absolutely no guidance over any of them. So why would something so vital (sarcasm) as Evolutionism have absolutely no guidance what-so-ever over advancing our Medical knowledge, and helping mankind? Perhaps it’s becoming even more evident that funding the Monkey-Junkie’s Imagination and Story-telling is not the best way to spend tax-payer dollars.

Comments (24)

Answers Research Journal

On January 10, 2008 in In the News, Science Related

If you’re like me, in that you like Science, then you should check out the Answers Research Journal over at http://answersingenesis.org/arj/. It’s an online resource for Advanced-Level Science articles giving an alternative to naturalistic origins and history. Too many Evolutionists are far too afraid to follow the evidence where it leads (for fear of losing their jobs, or other personal reasons), but that really don’t matter anymore, because we have fully-qualified men and woman of the Sciences that are more-than-willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads.

As I write this, you can currently read the following papers:

1. Proceedings of the Microbe Forum, June 2007
2. Microbes and the Days of Creation
3. Catastrophic Granite Formation

Comments (3)

Fanatical Anti-Christian Evolutionist Idiots

On January 07, 2008 in In the News, Science Related

I’m amazed at how smart people can be so friggin’ stupid sometimes. I stumbled across an article today on www.turkishpress.com called “US ‘doomed’ if creationist president elected: scientists.”

The whole story follows the victory of Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee in the opening round to pick a Republican for the White House. Huckabee, who is an open Christian, caused sirens and alerts to go off for many Evolutionists when he recently found favor.

“The logic that convinces us that evolution is a fact is the same logic we use to say smoking is hazardous to your health…”, said Gilbert Omenn, a University of Michigan professor.

These types of statements are utterly stupid, to say the least. There are two types of science: Operational Science, such as investigating the effects of smoking on a diseased persons lungs, and Historical Science, such as pulling a fossil from the earth and deciding what it was, how it died, and what happened to its children.

These two forms of Science are fundamentally different. Operational science deals with direct observation and testing. Anybody can plop out a lung from a smoker and see the effects of smoke inhalation. But to claim that man evolved from pond-scum billions of years ago will require a much more different approach, and this is obvious to anybody with half an ounce of grey-matter.

Gilbert continues, “I would worry that a president who didn’t believe in the evolution arguments wouldn’t believe in those other arguments either. This is a way of leading our country to ruin.” I agree, if we had a president who didn’t accept observable, repeatable, and conclusive science, we would have a very large problem, but Evolution doesn’t count, since it isn’t repeatable, observable, or conclusive in any way.

It’s laughable when Evolutionists take an extremist position that we are all doomed if Evolution isn’t taught with every possible opportunity. What has Evolution given us? It hasn’t cured diseases, it hasn’t helped us peer deeper into the human anatomy or physiology in a way that can help cure paralysis. It hasn’t explained anything. I’m open to suggestions, really. If anybody knows of any achievement today that has made our world better on account of Evolution, please tell me.

Meanwhile, REAL Scientists are doing REAL science and curing illnesses. They are creating instruments to help repair human bodies on the nano-level. They are discovering relationships between diseases and genes by investigating the human genome. They are creating ways for the less-fortunate to be more independent.

Gilbert seems to think that a Scientist who believes the Earth was Created, cannot do REAL Science. Since that is the case, he stands against an entire history of Theists who started the major branches of Science, who started the most reputable colleges, and who gave us the basic understanding of the world around us. These accomplishments came largely by way of Christians and Theists, not by Evolutionists.

Newton’s belief in God didn’t deter him from gaining amazing insight into Gravity. Francis Bacon’s belief didn’t stop him from creating what we now know as the Scientific Method. Raymond Damadian’s faith didn’t stop him from pioneering the MRI which is now used in practically every major Hospital and saving life’s.

The greatest thing America needs to fear is not Scientists who believe in God, or a Christian President. We need to be worried about complete idiots running our Science education system. People who are too stupid to understand simple issues, and cannot be intellectually honest enough to admit that Evolution serves absolutely no guidance to science today.

I’ll close with a quote from Dr. Philip S. Skell, an Evolutionist:

“I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.”

Philip S. Skell
“Why do we invoke Darwin?“, The Scientist 2005, 19(16):10

Comments (12)

Vestigial Claims from LiveScience

On January 07, 2008 in In the News, Science Related

LiveScience has an interesting list of the top 10 “Useless Limbs (and Other Vestigial Organs)“. I can’t help chuckling at some of the things these people list when doing these types of lists. But for the sake of shedding some intelligence on the issue, I’ll read through yet another redundant repetition of their darwinistic-mantra.

Before we start, we’ll take a look at the identifying term, “Vestigial”. Vestigial simply means that something is no longer used in a way that it was at one time. In “higher” animals for instance, some of your toes would be considered Vestigial, because you do longer climb around on trees with them like you did when you were a monkeh’!

The first problem with this type of discussion is that to define anything as Vestigial, you have to assume that Evolution happened, and then people turn around and use “Vestigial” objects as evidence for Evolution…Livescience must be playing the science-game with prison-rules - anything goes.

Another thing to keep in mind is that Vestigial structures demonstrate a loss in functionality, which is the wrong direction to demonstrate goo-to-you-by-way-of-the-zoo evolution. Evolutionists have such a difficult time demonstrating new functionality and fundamentally new information, so instead of doing real work, they would rather sit back, and make up b.s. about what was, from what is.

I don’t need to address each “evidence”, simply because they follow a commonality that doesn’t require a defense. Birds could lose their original use of wings, sure, but that doesn’t prove evolution in any way, since these creatures would be LOSING their abilities, and not gaining them as needed. Not to mention the wings of practically all birds alive today serve a very important survival role in the birds today - penguins use theirs for balancing and swimming, which are both very crucial given their environment and life-style.

The second evidence is the classic legs bones of a whale, riiiiiiiight. They used to claim the “hip-bones” were vestigial in whales - I guess they finally gave that up? The “hip-bones” are actually a couple bones used for anchoring muscles that aid in reproduction. Their function is different in males and females, and don’t even touch the spinal column. But facts aren’t necessary when Evolution is in question.

I recall reading a popular article many years back called “29+ Evidences for Macroevolution” - online at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex1 - which mentioned a similar topic. There is a small section beneath the title of “Living whales and dolphins found with hindlimbs” that is supposed to send shock and wonder into people everywhere. He begins by quoting mainstream Creation Scientist Carl Wieland discussing a series of conversations he had with an Evolutionist in the past. You can read Carl’s article online at http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/whale_leg.asp.

Dr. Theobald, the author of “29+”, uses the term “Atavism” instead of “Vestigial”. The definition of “atavism” simply states that it’s a throw-back of sort to something that previously existed. It would be comparable to a human being born with fish-scales for skin, showing that humans descended from fish in the past.

One major problem with this idea is that it again assumes that evolution happened, and is in turn used as evidence for evolution. Occasionally humans are born with extra ribs, fingers, or nipples, yet no evolutionists claim that we evolved from Acanthostega, or pigs.

Theobald goes on in his article to describe a “shrunken cartilaginous femur, tibia, tarsus, and metatarsal” that was apparently found connected to a 45 foot long humpback whale. The “bones” are actually all fused together, and apparently were “completely inside the body cavity and attached to the pelvic rudiments.” Uh-oh, looks like Theobald still considered the muscle-anchors as “pelvic rudiments“. Oh well. Once interesting thing to note here is the claim that this “leg” was connected to the “pelvic rudiments.” This seems to suggest that it may actually be a growth based upon some genetic mistake in the instructional code to produce the anchor-bones.

Diseases exist today that can grossly deform bones; including Paget’s, which can have subtle to horrendous effects on people today. Additionally, genetic information can undergo copying-errors, resulting in redundant data which in turns causes redundant phenotypical developments - such as the case with baby Jie-jie, the baby born with three developed arms. Read more at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13046061/. Who’s to know if the anchor-bones of this humpback whale weren’t redundantly copied creating the illusion of atavistic appendages?

Unfortunately, the data-pool for this type of claim is very shallow. We don’t have a lot of information, we don’t have a lot of experiments leading to certainty, and as Theobald states in the closing words of this section, “This extraordinary finding is unlikely to be repeated, as the International Whaling Commission gave humpback whales worldwide protection status in 1966“, meaning we’re not able to go out and study a few more to test the claims of these imaginative evolutionists?

Erector Pili and Body Hair is the next “vestigial” item on LiveScience’s list. They claim that “…that hair…is essentially useless.” This section includes more of the arbitrary story-telling to explain what we have today. They say that when hairs stand up it may “give an animal a larger appearance that might scare off potential enemies, and a coat that is thicker and warmer. Humans, though, don’t have thick furs like their ancestors did, and our strategy for several thousand years has been to take the fur off of other warm looking animals to stay warm.” So, I’m wondering, why the heck did we lose the hair in the first place if it served as an environmental advantage? Certainly the offspring with natural thick coats would do better than those who have to go out and hunt down a coat in order to survive - I guess evolution took a break, and now we’re all slightly-hairy, and not covered in luscious flowing locks of hair today.

So they claim that the Erector Pili, the small muscle fibers connected to our body hairs, are vestigial because we don’t use them the same way animals today do. One major difference between our hair configurations and that of animals is their connection. In humans, Erectores pilorum are smooth muscle, meaning we have no voluntary control over them. Animals on the other hand enjoy skeletal muscle connections, giving them the ability to raise their hair at will. Humans on the other hand need an outside stimuli, like a cold breeze.

Goose bumps are the visible effect from the activation of our Erectores Pilorum switching “on”. Goose bumps typically happen when our body temperature drops, causing a shaking to begin. This shaking creates friction, which in turn heats the body in an attempt to “fix the problem.” Useless? No, not at all, necessary for survival? No, not at all. The human body has many “nice-but-not-necessary” additions, much like a Mercedes that has wipers on the head-lights. Among these are our eyebrows, which keep sweat from slipping into our eyes, arm-pit hair which protected our torso and arms from excessive rubbing, and hair on our head with serves in temperature regulation.

Next up, the Coccyx (Human Tail bone). Here it comes, ready for it? “These fused vertebrae are only vestiges that are left of the tail that other mammals still use for balance, communication, and in some primates, as a prehensile limb.” LiveScience goes on to claim that “As our ancestors were learning to walk upright, their tail became useless, and it slowly disappeared.” How do they know that? Well, because we don’t have tails today. If things had been different, and we did have tails, the story would have been “The tail has served a vital purpose throughout the development of modern man from his ancestors. It was probably preserved for its intimidation purposes, and added extra weight for balancing in difficult areas that were necessary for escaping predators.”

It’s comedic that some evolutionists still use this as evidence for their silly theory. Educated evolutionists have long dropped it. Dr. Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education said the following in a 1999 debate.

“Actually, that’s [humans tails] not an evolutionary issue at all. It’s a matter of developmental biology. It’s a matter of what happens when the sperm fertilized that egg, and that egg grew into a baby, and that baby was born. I couldn’t give you the exact precise biochemical explanation, but probably at some point where the genes instructing how many vertebrae to lay down in that vertebral column duplicated itself a couple extra times by mistake.”

Dr. Eugenie Scott, 10-11-1999
The Mike Rosen Show, KOA Radio
http://www.reasons.org/resources/multimedia/interview/19991011.ram

Regarding the function of the tail bone, Its functions are well-known and documented. I strongly suggest the book “‘Vestigial Organs’ are Fully Functional“, by Dr. Jerry Bergman and Dr. George Howe. Additionally, you can read a little more about the Human Coccyx online at http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/Articles/VestigialOrgans.html.

Blind fish is the next evidence offered. Some fish which live in caves, where there is no light, have become blind…big deal. People who do not use their legs will notice that they lose the ability to use their legs due to atrophy. This has happened to these fish over generations. Use it or lose it, buddy!

Wisdom Teeth. This is a common argument, yet completely wrong. I guess LiveScience didn’t feel that it is necessary to acknowledge that many people have absolutely no problem whatsoever with their wisdom teeth, they grow in just fine. African Americans usually have very little problem with theirs. I know people personally who have no problem. I unfortunately do have a problem, but what is to blame? Certainly my jaw size, but what is to blame for that? Evolution? Or a soft-diet? Humans have moved away from a hard-diet of nuts and seeds to softer diets of pizza and cheeseburgers. For this, our jaws are not exercised as much while eating, and are much smaller than their potential allows. Many people today, such as the Australian Aborigines use their jaws as tools, which make their jaws larger and stronger, eliminating any threat of wisdom-tooth pain.

The problem is largely our diets and habits, not our ancestry.

The last point I’m going to mention is their use of the “Human Appendix is Vestigial” argument. I was walking through Walmart in late December of 2007 when I came across Discover magazine, showing the January 2008 issue articles. I was interested in one of them, “Function of Appendix Explained.” The main list was called “Top 100 Science Stories of 2007″, and is available on the Discover Magazine website at http://discovermagazine.com/2008/jan/year-in-science-2007. The Appendix is number 96. Mark Schauss made a brief mention of it in his blog at www.markschauss.com/?p=328 where he posted the following:

“96 - Function of Appendix Explained - Turns out the appendix is where the body stores beneficial bacteria. If you had yours removed, I would suggest taking probiotics every day (probably a good idea if you didn’t either).”

The function of the appendix has been known for a long time now, but I guess the Evolutionists got stuck in that rut of “Evolution did it” which kept them from doing any real science and discovering the functions of “vestigial” organs much sooner.

So in the end, LiveScience disappointed me again. The list of “vestigial” organs has greatly diminished in the last century. It has gone from over 100, down to just a handful, and even those are looking awfully shaky.

Perhaps it is time for the evolutionists to give up, and start doing some real science?

Comments (0)

Is Evolution True? Let’s Vote?

On January 03, 2008 in In the News, Science Related

Sorry, but that’s now how we determine what is and is not true, and certainly what is and is not Science. A recent article from www.livescience.com suggests that 61% of people feel that Evolution is true. Is this how we determine what is true and what is not? I don’t think so, or else truth would be nothing more than a relative term reflecting the mere emotions and opinions of the greater majority. 51% of people disagree with 49% that water-boarding is torture, therefore it’s truth that water-boarding is not torture? I certainly hope we don’t start enforcing this as a device to decide other things.

Unfortunately, like practically every other article on the subject, we’re not given the definition of “Evolution”. 9 out of 10 times we’re talking about a scientific process, but unfortunately, there variants of the term that do not qualify as “scientific”, since they cannot be tested, reproduced, or verified by alternative sources. These are the form of Evolution that are not scientific, regardless what your voters think.

If I tell you that bacteria become resistant to antibiotics, how do you know if I’m telling the truth? Well, you could expose a culture of bacteria to some antibiotics and check up on them later. The culture will be smaller, and then begin to repopulate with the new strain that is now resistant. That is Science. Now, if I tell you that some 4 billion years ago lightning struck a mucky soup on the earth and life sprung forth, how would you test that? You can’t. It’s not observable, it’s not repeatable, and it certainly isn’t mathematically plausible, so why do we call it Science? And why do we teach it with Evolution?

Proponents of Evolutionary theory often times release their cry that the Scientific Method is of sacred nature, and should always be used in science. Shoot, even Livescience mentioned this.

“The introduction of ‘non-science,’ such as creationism and intelligent design, into science education will undermine the fundamentals of science education. Some of these fundamentals include using the scientific method, understanding how to reach scientific consensus, and distinguishing between scientific and nonscientific explanations of natural phenomena.”

Survey: 61% Agree with Evolution
http://www.livescience.com/history/080102-evolution-teaching.html

Oddly enough they refuse to use the Scientific Method when it comes to Evolutionary theory. Many bogus claims are made, such as life from non-life, deer-like creatures becoming whales, dinosaurs becoming birds, and fish scales becoming teeth. None of these claims are valid when investigated within the Scientific Method - it cannot even touch them, because they’re not observable!

Wikipedia states that the Scientific Method “consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.”

So how do we observe the metamorphosis of scales becoming teeth? Or deer becoming whales? The whole theoretical tree comes crashing down when the Scientific Method is involved. None of it is observable, it’s all guess-work based upon a tooth here, an ear-bone here, etc. So why do they have this double-standard?

They claim that Intelligent Design and Creation-Science are both bad for business. They feel that it will “undermine the fundamentals of science education.” But is that really true? Or is it the opposite? I cannot speak for Intelligent Design, but I can speak for Creationists (since I am one). When Christians view the world, we view it as a very complex created object. With innumerable lilliputian devices showing the magnificient work of our Creator.

When we view the World, we feel the overwhelming desire to know why our Creator did something a specific way, and how our Creator did it. We want to know when it happened. If we learn more about the creation, we in turn understand more about the Creator. It is the passion for the Creator that drives a Christian to study the creation.

“Speak to the Earth, and It shall teach thee.”
Job 8:12

The Bible encourages Science. This is why when Evolutionists came across the Human Eye they brushed it aside as a blunder of evolution, since the blood vessels are in front, and not behind as they are with an octopus, or some other creature. They stop studying it, they threw it aside because that’s just how Evolution did it. Turns out, they were wrong. Read “Is our ‘inverted’ retina really ‘bad design’?” at AnswersInGenesis.org.

Why is the teaching of Naturalistic Origins so sacred to Evolutionists? How many medical miracles have come by the understanding of Evolution? Zero, nada, zip - that’s even the view of Evolutionist Phillip S. SKell who had the following to say:

“I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.”

Philip S. Skell
“Why do we invoke Darwin?“, The Scientist 2005, 19(16):10

This is from an Evolutionist who feels “Darwin’s theory of evolution offers a sweeping explanation of the history of life.”

So while Evolutionists are busy playing in the dirt trying to find ancient broccoli, Scientists like Raymond Damadian are pioneering scientific advances such as the MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) that will save innumerable lives. Dr. Damadian is also a Creationist - be sure to thank him the next time you need the life-saving services of an MRI.

So what is Evolution good for? It doesn’t help us in any way at all, by the admission of Evolutionists themselves. It doesn’t explain anything with any degree of certainty. As Dr. Skell put it, it’s nothing more than a narrative gloss brought in after the fact.

LiveScience finished their article off with the following:

“The bottom line is that the world is round, humans evolved from an extinct species and Elvis is dead,” Weissmann said. “This survey is a wake-up call for anyone who supports teaching information based on evidence rather than speculation or hope; people want to hear the truth, and they want to hear it from scientists.”

All I can say is this, Screw the Scientists, listen to the Science. The Scientists are going to tell you whatever they need to bring in that check, even if it’s B.S. Meanwhile, Scientists out there like Raymond Damadian are saving lives, advancing our medical understanding, and doing REAL Science - so if you’re going to pick a scientist to listen to, pick one who offers testable science, and not some fairy-tale.

Comments (17)

Whales descended from Deer-like critters?

On December 20, 2007 in In the News, Science Related

This just in, CNN is smoking crack! Okay, so I did my daily surfing of the tubes and found that CNN has published a new article, “Whales may have descended from small deer-like critter.” Brilliant, I mean, absolutely friggin’ brilliant! To be honest, I was already convinced of the relationship. I mean, deer are heavy, and so are whales. Not to mention they both have faces.

So on to the article itself. The earth-shaking discovery came by way of our brilliant Dr. Thewissen, an anatomy professor at Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine. Now, you may be thinking that this is all a bunch of crap, but this was published in the journal Nature - it has to be true.

Now, I wasn’t convinced until I heard the irrefutable evidence put forth. Are you ready for this? “The key finding connecting Indohyus to the whale is its thickened ear bone, something only seen in cetaceans.” Yes, kids, you see, this deer-like critter had a fat hearing-bone, so that means she had whale babies.

I feel so bad that these people go through years of schooling, spend dozens of hours working on tests, and all they can give us is “This thingy has a big ear bone, so it must be connected to this other thingy.” I mean, that’s like me saying “A fat man robbed me!” and then somebody else saying, “Hey, I know a fat man…let’s go arrest him!”

Another thing, do these “scientists” feel that the ear bone refused to evolve while the body evolved as wildly as they suggest? I mean, the body tossed on several tons, the tongue became as heavy as an elephant, their nose moved up to the top of their head, their respiratory disconnected and then reconnected in a completely different configuration, their hooves feel off and they grew fins. I mean, come on, all of this happened and the friggin’ ear-bone didn’t change a single bit? You’ve got to be kidding me! Get a brain, people. Dag’um!

This crap reminds me of the Pakicetus findings many years ago. They found a couple fragments of the skull, a tooth or so, and drew this elaborate picture of a wolve-like creature swimming in water, hunting down fishies with its webbed-feet. (The darkened bones of the skull represent what was actually found)

For more on whale-evolution, you can check out the following articles:

1. The Overselling of Whale Evolution
2. A Whale Fantasy from National Geographic
3. Refuting Evolution, Chapter 5 “Whale Evolution?”

Comments (1)

Synthetic DNA and New Life Forms

On December 18, 2007 in In the News, Science Related

Rick Weiss of the Washington Post wrote an article on the 17th called “Synthetic DNA on the Bring of Yielding New Life Forms“. I heard about it this morning via an email from a long-time friend.

So the basic underlying story is that Scientists are fiddling with the core-components of DNA, and creating their own instruction-lists. They feel that this may soon lead to creating fuel-alternatives, medicines, etc.

The other possibilities (which they mention too) are that we could all just kill ourselves on accident too. I can see it now, some intern is working in the underground laboratory moving the green vile over next to the yellow vile, reaches for the blue vile and “shhhhh-plat!”. The blue vile dropped and shatters! As the nervous interns hand begins to tremble he calls out to his manager, “Mr. Dorlofenchronichalder! (because smart people have hard names), I dropped the blue vile!” “Vat!? You zropped ze blue vilez? Zvun! Zvun for your live!” 24 hours later, everybody’s dead!

Okay, so forgive me for going on a “we’re all going to die” rant - I just watched “I Am Legend” a couple nights ago. The story in that movie was basically that we have engineered malaria to carry a cancer-killer and make everybody immune to cancer. The end result, well, wasn’t pretty. A small quote in the WashingtonPost made it very clear, “The danger is not just bio-terror but bio-error.” Ding ding ding! Don’t drop the blue vile!

What makes this article so interesting to me is how they constantly refer to DNA in terms of software and operating systems. I’m a software-engineer by profession, so I’m naturally interested when I hear of these analogies and comparisons.

My experience in software-development makes me a bit worried about “noobs” fiddling with an operating system of which they know little-to-nothing about. I mean, our biosphere will end up being one big crappy myspace! People bio-engineering analogous animated-backgrounds which make the foreground text impossible to read. Sixteen automatically-playing songs with 92 animated images of tinker bell saying “thanks for the add!” I mean. MySpace is a developers nightmare because it gave idiots the ability to submit their own basic code. And it all blew up. The collateral damage was enough to make me get faint. And now we’re going to do this with DNA!? Run for the hills!

Among other question, people may also wonder if we’ve gotten smart enough to “Play God”. I don’t thiink we have. I mean, I can write a program in any number of languages. I can use C# (c-sharp), PHP, VB.NET, Java, Python, etc, but that doesn’t mean I’m equal-to-or-greater-than the creators of those languages. By far. Without them first creating the language, I can’t use it. Without them first making available tools to learn the language, I can’t use it. Without them providing example of how the language is used, I can’t use it. Without them providing a compiler to build the code into an application, I can’t use it.

So there’s no telling what is going to happen with this technology if we actually figure it out well enough to do anything. Then again, I suppose we don’t need to figure it out real well, seeing how dropping the metaphorical blue vile could kill everybody in 24 hours.

My prediction, we’re all going to die. Because these idiots who couldn’t cure dandruff want to create new life-forms. What ever happened with “learn to crawl before you can walk.”

Comments (0)

Human Evolution is Accelerating?

On December 17, 2007 in In the News, Science Related

So I opened my internets today to find some more silly articles. The subject of the day, “Accelerated Human Evolution.” This is being talked about all over the place. I read it first on CNN, then after consulting the Google, I read it on Reuters.

So what’s the skinny? Basically ze car iz going faztur! Not sure why I said that in a false German accent, but you get the idea. We humans are apparently “evolving” faster than ever before! Unfortunately, we’re not really given much insight as to what they mean by “evolving”.

Have you ever considered that word before? Seriously. I mean, let’s consult dictionary.com and see what we come up with. The first definition is “any process of formation or growth; development.” If that were the definition, would Human Evolution be Accelerating? Yes. I mean, after all we’re experiencing exponential population growth.

The second definition is “a product of such development,” which also is correct. The third is a “change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.” Is that true too? Certainly. I mean, you ARE different from your parents, who are also different from theirs. Still, no biggie.

Fourth definition states “a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development, as in social or economic structure or institutions.” That qualifies - I don’t know about the “peaceful” part, but it certainly qualifies.

So as I’m looking down these definitions, I don’t see any problems. If Reuters and CNN lived by the law of Dictionary.com, all would be well. But when they say “evolution”, they don’t always mean unequivocal things like “Getting smarter, and making pretty things.” Not at all, they mean goo-to-you-by-way-of-the-zoo. But they get that nonsense mixed in with the non-nonsense by saying things like “a product of development” or “change in gene pools of populations.”

It’s this equivocal language that makes people believe the nonsense that birds and banana’s are related via a common ancestor. Nobody disputes that things change with time…it’s the type of change that is in need of more scrutiny. But anyway, I’m getting slightly off-topic. Back to what CNN and Reuters had to say.

CNN was embarrassingly empty, probably because they didn’t want to post some of the silly things that Reuters did.

Reuters states that “Many of the recent genetic changes reflect differences in the human diet brought on by agriculture, as well as resistance to epidemic diseases that became mass killers following the growth of human civilizations.” I agree that we have some big differences as a result of out diets changing. One of which haunts me as I write this - Wisdom teeth. Our softer-diets causes to smaller jaws which now have less room for my wisdom teeth! Today, a large percentage of the population has to have their removed. That’s not a good mutation though.

What about that other thing they mentioned - that “resistance to epidemic diseases” thing? They continue in the next paragraph with “Africans has new genes providing resistance to malaria.” So wouldn’t that be a beneficial mutation that has set us on the path of super-humans?

Evolution-propaganda gets very redundant over the years. I’ve only really spent about 5 or 6 years reading the material religiously, and have noticed a trend. Evolutionists really only have a few key elements that they boast about. One of which is this “malaria” resistance. Reuters made this sound so wonderful, didn’t they? But they failed to tell you more about this gene that protects Africans from Malaria. The gene causes another condition called “Sickle-cell anemia”. You’ve probably heard about it if you’ve taken any biology class.

Carriers of this gene have about 50% normal hemoglobin, and 50% sickle-celled hemoglobin. Because of this, the malaria germ leaves them alone. But does this constitute as a beneficial mutation that will drive human evolution into perfection? When you consider that 25% of the carriers children can die from sickle-cell anemia, and 25% are indeed capable of getting malaria -”beneficial” hardly seems like the right word to use.

So if this isn’t convincing, what other evidence did Reuters give us? “In Europeans, there is a gene that makes them better able to digest milk as adults. In Asians, there is a gene that makes ear wax more dry.”

So, if you guys continue to evolve rapidly, someday you can be milk-guzzlin’ maniacs with the super-human ability to produce dry earwax! Oh the day this happens, oh how we humans will conquer the Universe!

Comments (0)

Politicians are Truly Stupid

On December 14, 2007 in In the News

So I hear that the UK is going to ban Samurai Swords because in the years between 2003 and 2007, there were a whopping total of 4 deaths caused by Samurai Swords. So, the solution is to ban the object! After all, how could people kill each other without Samurai Swords?

Responses on the video shared other suggestions for things that need to be banned, including (but not limited to) scissors, marbles, and bears. Afterall, they all have caused deaths too.

While you’re at it, UK, ban McDonald’s.

It’s ridiculous decisions like this that make me feel completely hopeless when it comes to government. I mean, if you take away all of the guns, 1 man with a gun can control 50 men without one. Imagine how long a bank robbery would last if everybody in the bank was carrying a fire arm? Imagine how many school-shootings would result in dozens of deaths if the teachers carried fire arms and were required to take training.

You may think I’m joking, but I am 100% in favor of giving every sane adult a fire arm, and teaching them how to aim.

Comments (1)

Mommy backs show ridiculous Evolutionary flexibility

On December 12, 2007 in In the News, Science Related

I read an article on CNN today talking about how phenomenal it was that a woman can go big-belly during gestation and not tip-over when she tries to walk. This extraordinary (sarcasm) demonstration is the product of millions of years of evolution. You see, women evolved the ability to balance their weight to offer more mobility from predators as they blah blah blah, you could finish these crap-stories yourself I’m sure.

So I decided to take just a moment tonight and see what other websites were saying about this same “discovery”. I ran over to livescience to see what they were saying only to get a slightly more wordy version. I won’t go into detail about what they say, since it doesn’t really differ from CNN, but I wanted to bring up one comment on the livescience website.

Before I repost the quote here, I want to share with you all something that Walter ReMine, the author of The Biotic Message, wrote some years ago. “Evolutionary theory is structureless, and predicts virtually nothing. It adapts to data like fog adapts to landscape.”

Basically, any observation made can fit into the Evolutionary framework in one way or another - making the base-theory itself rubbish. Monkey is big, beneficial adaptation to fight predators; Monkey is small, beneficial adaptation to avoid predators. Blah blah.

So onto the statement made on the livescience page: “Early human women lived very strenuous, active lives, and pregnant females were forced to cope with the discomfort of childbearing while foraging for food and escaping from predators,” Lieberman said. “This evolution of the lower back helped early woman to remain more mobile during pregnancy, which would have been essential to survival, and appears to have been favored by natural selection.”

They go on to say that our “cousins”, the chimpanzees don’t have this same “adaptation”. They still carry their young while prancing through the forest on all fours - well, that is until we see one occasionally walking on their two back feet, which immediately becomes even more evidence for Evolution!

Anyway, so this difference helped the Moms when they were “escaping from predators” and thus was “essential to survival”. But the chimps don’t do it, and they still have moms today…so, did I miss something here? Did the chimps and their ancestors not have predators for the last couple million years? Their moms got to sit aside and watch the bipedal-primates get chased by predators?

Seems kinda stupid if you ask me. You can spin this crap anyway you like. You could say the chimps were better equipped because they could still climb trees whereas the bipedal monkeys couldn’t, and thus had to figure out other ways of escaping predators. Yet the bipedal-monkeys were advanced because they had this useless advantage called “bipedalism”.

See what I mean? This is all a bunch of play-doh nonsense. You can fit it and mold it anyway you like.

Comments (1)