Bookmark and Share

Sunday, November 15, 2020

Darwin's Cult. They state the conclusion 'it magically evolved' to explain anything.

No science needed, just philosophy.

by StFerdIII

 

 

The Darwin Religion is full of gibberish and buzzwords that signify not much.  ‘Evolving’ means nothing, since observational evidence indicates that complexity devolves, systems decompose and eventually collapse.  There is no proof whatsoever, that simplicity rearranges becomes more complicated and takes on new functionality (at the operating system-DNA level this is a ludicrous proposition, relying on magic).  Likewise, ‘Selection’ does not mean anything, be it natural or unnatural.  Who is selecting, why, how against which criteria and for what purpose?  There is no proof anywhere, that a process randomly ‘selects’ for improvement.  Functionality like complexity is decomposed over time.  It does not self-generate more complexity and functional code.

 

Darwinian Theologians cannot answer: ‘So who is the selector?’ The answer is no-one, or they refer to ‘nature’, as if ‘nature’ or natural processes care about functionality and ‘evolving’.  Nature does not care.  The only ‘natural’ process is death.  Nature does not code for improvements.  It is impersonal, indifferent, harsh and not present. 

 

So one may ask the Darwin Religion - what, then is the goal of selection? Nothing they must answer.  Darwin insisted that there is no goal to evolution.  Hence he dreamed up yet another buzzword – ‘fitness’.  This word is just as opaque as selection.  If something survives, it’s fit, isn’t it?  Therefore, logically the word fitness means nothing. Then what is the target of selection? Darwinians debate about that endlessly (see Doolittle’s bizarre ITSNTS idea, 2 April 2018 and 3 April 2018). What is the result of selection? Anything from a virus to a platypus to an upside-down ankylosaur. There is no science to this. 

 

Darwin’s religion does not know who or what the ‘Natural Selector’ is, what the goal might be, what is the end state target, nor what the result might be (‘fitness’).  This is not science.

 

Big words, long philosophical tracts, hand-waving with odes to ‘it must have happened like this, or, it could, would, might have been like that’, is not scientific.  Science is about proof, cause and effect, a rationalisation based on repeatable experiments which are in accord with what the world of the 5 senses tells us.  Darwinism fails on all accounts.

 

To prove the emptiness of selectionism, here are recent examples of the word in recent usage by evolutionists.  They keep adding to the lexicon of course, how we have ‘resource-driven selection’.  Sure we do. Source

 

‘Resource-driven’ selection identified as a purifying selective force connected to environmental nutrient availability (Phys.org). As if there weren’t enough variations on the “selection” theme already, these Rockefeller geniuses add another: “resource-driven selection.”

 

Prior work has shown a shift in guanine-cytosine (GC) levels in the marine creatures that live in the ocean. Those that live in areas of low nitrogen tend to have lower levels of GC than do those living in areas where nitrogen levels are higher. The genetic work by the researchers involved taking a closer look at this connection and finding associations between environmental conditions and the shift in GC levels. They were able to see that “resource-driven” selection was a selective force that could be associated with an environmental condition—namely nutritional availability.

 

This may sound astute until one thinks about it. First of all, selection is not a force (16 April 2020), just like chance is not a force. And remember the adage, “association is not causation”? They forgot about that. Did they show that having lower CG in their genes makes either group more “fit”, whatever that means? No! Both groups are fit, because both exist! Finally, they insert the “could” word to cover their bases: selection “could” be associated with the environment. Well, then again, it could as well not be associated. Adding the word “selection” to this explanation, therefore, conveys no knowledge or meaning. It only perpetuates Darwin’s favorite word, like a mantra that gives comfort while the brain is put into a trance.

 

Regulators of Gene Activity in Animals Are Deeply Conserved (The Scientist). Here’s another case where an appeal is made to “selection” when it doesn’t select. “Because the target gene is often critical to proper development, the researchers reasoned that selection would keep the genes more stable over time.

 

Had the observations been the opposite (genes that differed significantly), the evolutionists would have appealed to the same cause—selection—to explain it. They would call it a case of “convergence” as in, ‘Because the target gene is often critical to proper development, the researchers reasoned that selection would cause the genes to converge on similar functions.”

 

Two centuries of Monarch butterflies show evolution of wing length (Phys.org). This article freely admits that opposite outcomes can be explained by the same “cause” — selection. Under the subheading, “Selection at work in opposing directions,” it reads (watch for the high perhapsimaybecouldness index):

 

The shift between longer and shorter wings shows two opposite selection forces at work, Freedman and colleagues wrote in a paper published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Migration selects for longer, larger forewings while non-migration seems to relax this and lead to smaller wings.

Alternatively, wing size could be influenced by other environmental factors depending on where butterflies are hatched and grow up.

 

It could be this; it may be that. But it doesn’t matter anyway. They are all members of the same species – Monarch butterflies. Darwinism was about the “origin” of species, remember? This story is like attributing “selection” in humans to account for differences in height or muscle mass. We are all the same species! To think otherwise would be racist. Darwinists are notorious for that (see 9 June 2020).

 

Model of multicellular evolution overturns classic theory (Phys.org). It’s nice when Darwinists overturn their own ideas. It saves us work. In this case, evolutionists assume selection theory to modify selection theory (see Circular Reasoning). But when your theory is “stuff happens,” all variations of the Stuff Happens Law mash together into a cloud of indeterminacy. Watch for the hedging word “can” and the Tontological sentence structure:

 

Cells can evolve specialized functions under a much broader range of conditions than previously thought [by whom?], according to a study [prepare to be hoodwinked] published today in eLife.

 

The findings, originally posted on bioRxiv, provide new insight about natural selection, and help us understand how and why common multicellular life has evolved so many times on Earth.

 

So here, in effect, Darwinists are supporting abiogenesis and the miraculous virgin births of new molecules (where, why, how?) and the resurrection of dead processes and chemicals which suddenly (after 3 days?) spring to life.  Sad.

 

Evolutionary assimilation of foreign DNA in a new host (Phys.org). To demonstrate their insistence that the assimilation of foreign DNA must be “evolutionary” rather than plain old ordinary assimilation (or designed assimilation), they bring King Charles in with teleprompter to deliver the obligatory talking points:

 

All life is subject to evolution in the form of mutations that change the DNA sequence of an organism’s offspring, after which natural selection allows the ‘fittest’ mutants to survive and pass on their genes to future generations.

 

But then they go off script! They talk about Horizontal Gene Transfer (HGT), which involves sharing of existing information from one creature to another. Not only that, they gave the microbes the genes they wanted to see evolve. This had nothing to do with Darwinian evolution; they were tweaking one species under lab conditions (E. coli), not watching the origin of species. The passing reference to “natural selection” added nothing to the story.

 

====

 

How many billions of dollars has been wasted on Darwin’s religion?  How many hospitals, markets, jobs could have been created?  Besides the big words, long sentences, and philosophical rationalisations for abiogenesis and material miracles, where is the proof?  Where are the experiments that anyone can replicate?  Where is the fossil evidence?  Where is the bio-chemical evidence that DNA, RNA, cell complexity can ‘naturally’ form and develop?  No-where.  Darwinism is not science. It is just a cult.