Unable to see evolutionary progress in the fossil record, some Darwinians try to claim they are watching it before our eyes.Since Darwin’s time, the fossil record has been a graveyard of evolutionary theories. Darwin knew it and mumbled out the record’s incompleteness. Stephen Jay Gould famously commented that sudden appearance followed by stasis was the “trade secret of paleontology.” Molecular clock studies often disagree with morphological studies, even granting millions of Darwin Years. Since they can’t find gradual evolution in the record, some Darwinians look for evidence of change in living organisms, including people. Their illustrations can appear quite ridiculous.Before reading the following examples, one must keep an eye on the ball. The ball is not just any change, but positive, innovative change by unguided natural selection that could take a bacterium to a human, given enough time. To claim that disease represents evolution, for instance, would be no more helpful to Darwinism than a company’s balance sheet that reported only losses.Evolutionary geneticists spot natural selection happening now in people (Hakhamanesh Mostafavi at The Conversation). How can you have evolution without speciation and reproductive isolation? If Mostafavi’s view of natural selection prevails, then every tiny variation within the human species becomes evidence for Darwinian evolution! It means that your own children have evolved from you. But even Mostafavi knows that evolution is supposed to be bigger than that:Cartoon by J. Beverly Greene for Creation-Evolution HeadlinesHuman evolution can seem like a phenomenon of the distant past which applies only to our ancestors living millions of years ago. But human evolution is ongoing. To evolve simply means that mutations – the accidental changes to genes that happen normally in the process of copying DNA – are becoming more or less common in the population over time.These changes can happen by chance, because the individuals who reproduced happened to carry a particular mutation somewhat more often than individuals who didn’t have children. They can also happen because of natural selection, when carriers of a specific mutation are better able to survive, reproduce or tend to their family members – and therefore leave more descendants. Every biological adaptation, from the ability of humans to walk upright on two feet to flight in birds, ultimately traces back to natural selection acting on these minute changes, generation after generation.So humans are definitely still evolving….Mostafavi is equivocating here about the definition of evolution. The examples he gives, like genes for lactose intolerance, do nothing to change Homo sapiens into another fitter species. He calls smoking evolution. He calls genes for Alzheimer’s Disease evolution. Can he point to any inherited trait that will help humans of the future grow a wing or a new sense organ? Of course not. None of this is evidence for Darwinian evolution by natural selection. Calling his minor variations “evolution” (especially when they are deleterious) amounts to blowing smoke.Great Tits May Be Evolving Bigger Beaks. Here’s Why. (National Geographic). Before proceeding, let us quickly calm our female readers by pointing out that the “great tit” (we didn’t name it) is a beautiful bird that lives in England (not in the Grand Tetons). Here’s a picture of one.National Geographic loses no time to credit Darwin for a slight change in beak size here, saying in the subtitle, “Since Darwin’s time, birds have served as models for the wonders of evolution—and this study was no exception.”They just keep coming back.Reporter Jason Bittel calls on evolutionist Lewis Spurgin (U of East Anglia) to celebrate another triumph of evolution by claiming that humans are modifying the birds’ evolution by setting up bird feeders. And yet Bittel is not even sure that the feeders caused a slight change in beak size between populations in the U.K. and the Netherlands. No matter; start the Darwin party!“We know that evolution by natural selection produces peacocks’ tails and giraffes’ necks and that sort of thing,” says Spurgin, whose findings were published today in Science….“But it also works in much more subtle ways that are much more difficult to observe.”This is just another case of making mountains out of molehills, like Darwinians did with “Darwin’s finches” on the Galapagos. Jonathan Wells roundly debunked that example of Icons of Evolution. How much easier could he dispense with this one? He would certainly call it a case of Zombie Science – dead arguments for Darwinism rising from the dead in the media.Spurgin was rebuked by other biologists for making too much of this, but he was too drunk on Darwine to stop partying:For Spurgin, this is all part of the fun. “I don’t imagine that Darwin in his wildest dreams could have thought that this stuff would have been happening,” he says.So do evolutionists really think these little birds with their tiny beaks reveal anything about Darwinism? In their dreams. Dreaming about natural selection is a cash cow in Britain. Science Daily indicates that Spurgin’s Darwine party was “funded by the European Research Council and the Natural Environment Research Council and supported by the Edward Grey Institute, University of Oxford.”Flu forecasting tool uses evolution to make earlier predictions (UChicago Medicine). Evolutionists keep trying to make a big deal out of influenza “evolution”, but the flu has never evolved into non-flu. This press release tries to make evolutionary theory sound useful. The team knows this is not evolution, but they credited Darwin anyway.Each year, four influenza strains circulate in the human population: H3N2, H1N1, and two B variants. These viruses spread seasonally each year because of a phenomenon known as antigenic drift. They evolve just enough to evade human immune systems, but not enough to develop into completely new versions of the virus.In other words, they are just variants of the same virus strains. The ones that “drift” enough from the antigen in the vaccine don’t get killed off. But they are still flu viruses, not even completely new versions of the flu virus. If the team can forecast what the new strain will look like earlier, that’s well and good, but this kind of ‘horizontal’ variation is not what Darwin had in mind. Viruses are not even independent organisms.Is biology behind your political views? (Phys.org). This question collapses with the self-refuting fallacy. “People can be biologically predisposed to certain feelings toward politics and society,” the proposition goes. But if biology predisposes one’s political views, then it also predisposes one’s scientific views. [Cue sound of short circuit.]The cartoon says it. Darwinism is kept aloft by the hot air of those whose careers depend on it.Our thanks to J. Beverly Greene for the illustration.(Visited 903 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
The classic musical Grease is on at Cape Town’s Artscape Theatre until 11 April. Catch a glimpse of the show, and hear from some of the actors who bring its timeless characters to life.Click arrow to play video.Published on SouthAfrica.info on 24 March 2010.
Dalit women of a village in Bulandshahr say they are not being allowed to enter a temple by people of “higher caste”, in an alleged case of caste discrimination. Police have promised to look into the case after members of the community protested and a video lending credence to the charge went viral on social media. Women in Rakehra village of Khurja belonging to the Valmiki community were stopped at the gates of Chamad Mandir and allegedly assaulted by “local hooligans” when they protested. In the video, the women are seen confronting a young man stopping them outside the temple. When he tells them the temple is a private property, the women remind him that they have been praying there every year. The man is heard saying they could very well go to the police or the local politicians and the women retort that they are not afraid of anybody and threaten to sit on a dharna.
Records from 1996 World CupGary Kirsten’s 188* against the UAE is the highest score in a World Cup match. He scored that during the 1996 World CupSri Lanka hold the record for the highest total in the World Cup – 398/5 against Kenya in 1996.Anil Kumble was the highest wicket-taker in the 1996 tournament with 15 scalps.Mark Waugh was the first batsman to score consecutive tons during a World Cup. He did that against Kenya and India 1996.The first semi-final between Sri Lanka and India saw the Lankans winning the match by Default – a first. Chasing 252 for victory, India were 120 for 8 at the Eden Gardens when the spectators went violent and started throwing fruits and bottles on the field. The match was stopped and Sri Lanka adjudged the winners.
Team India’s man of the moment Ishant Sharma, whose seven wickets in the match against England ensured a Test win at Lord’s after 28 years, is getting congratulatory messages from allover the world. His parents, who live in Delhi, are also marvelling at the stellar performance of their son. “Its a great feeling, hope the team keeps winning in the rest of the tour as well,” said his mother Grisha Sharma.His father Vijay Sharma, however, gave the credits to the entire team.”We are very happy, it was a total team effort,” he said.After drawing the first Test at Trent Bridge, India won the second match by 95 runs.Right-arm pacer Ishant rattled the England batsmen by bowling bouncers regularly which helped him earn career-best figures of 7/74 and the Man of the Match award.