Evolution of the Hoax

Glucose Systems in the Body — Another Instance of Irreducible Complexity

2020-01-14T07:40:00.001-08:00

https://www.discovery.org/multimedia/uncategorized/2019/12/glucose-systems-in-the-body-another-instance-of-irreducible-complexity-2/

Dr. Howard Glicksman, author of an extended series at Evolution News on “The Designed Body,” is interviewed on a classic episode of ID the Future by Ray Bohlin on glucose, glycogen, glucogon, insulin — all part of an extended multi-step series essential for life — an irreducibly complex series.

“If students only knew how life worked,” says Dr. Glicksman,” … they’d quickly come to realize that when it comes to figuring out where it all came from, common sense tells us it was intelligent design, and it’s the Darwinists who are suffering from an illusion.”

Darwin's God: Lawrence Krauss Says He is "Painfully Aware" of Yo...

2012-04-02T06:35:00.001-07:00

Darwin's God: Lawrence Krauss Says He is "Painfully Aware" of Yo...: Today’s evolution sermon comes from Lawrence Krauss, Director of the Origins Project at the tax-payer funded Arizona State University. In ...

Darwin's God: Here’s What That New UCSF Paper Says in Plain Engl...

2012-03-31T06:21:00.001-07:00

Darwin's God: Here’s What That New UCSF Paper Says in Plain Engl...: If you had a four-letter alphabet and all words were three letters, then how many words would there be? The answer is 4 times 4 times 4, or ...

If you had a four-letter alphabet and all words were three letters, then how many words would there be? The answer is 4 times 4 times 4, or 4-cubed, or 4^3, or 64. That’s how the DNA code works. Our DNA has four molecular “letters” and to create a protein the letters are taken three at a time in words called “codons.” Each codon specifies an amino acid and these 64 different codons are mapped to 20 different amino acids (and a “stop” signal). Since the 64 different codons far exceeds the 20 different amino acids and the stop signal, the code is degenerate. In other words, there are multiple codons that map the same amino acid (just as “absurd” and “ludicrous” have similar meanings).

Darwin's God: Here’s How Designs in Biology Are Being Used in Ad...

2012-03-30T05:41:00.001-07:00

Darwin's God: Here’s How Designs in Biology Are Being Used in Ad...: This week’s 243rd National Meeting & Exposition of the American Chemical Society in San Diego featured symposiums on biomimetics where scie...

Darwin's God: This Evolutionist Just Dissented From Their Offici...

2012-03-24T09:27:00.001-07:00

Darwin's God: This Evolutionist Just Dissented From Their Offici...: Massimo Pigliucci just said that Theodozius Dobzhansky’s famous statement (and paper title)—nothing makes sense in biology except in the li...

Evolution is a Natural Process Running Backward

2012-03-22T17:26:00.001-07:00

see http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/AML_3497.pdf

Lecture by Stephen Meyer on 'Signature in the Cell'

2012-03-22T17:21:00.002-07:00

Lecture by Stephen Meyer on 'Signature in the Cell'

The Centre for Intelligent Design (c4id) is pleased to release on YouTube the DVD of its Inaugural Lecture in London in November 2011. The lecture was delivered by Dr Stephen Meyer, Discovery Institute, Seattle and hosted by Lord McKay of Clashfern. The theme of the lecture is Dr Meyer's recent book, 'Signature in the Cell' (HarperOne, 2009). The lecture gives a clear exposition of the problem of the origin of life and how the existence of biological information provides compelling scientific evidence for intelligent design (ID). The content of the lecture also demonstrates, incidentally, that the dismissal of ID as religion is shallow and uninformed.

Darwin's God: Locusts Incredibly Change from Passive and Peacefu...

2012-03-21T07:13:00.001-07:00

Darwin's God: Locusts Incredibly Change from Passive and Peacefu...: Locusts are the Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde of the insect world. They are picky eaters and lead a solitary lifestyle until overcrowding occurs a...

Darwin's God: A Flower Adapted to Losing its Pollinator Almost I...

2012-03-19T22:27:00.001-07:00

Darwin's God: A Flower Adapted to Losing its Pollinator Almost I...: What happens when a plant loses its pollinator? Plants are known to make the transition and in a controlled experiment using the monkey plan...

Darwin's God: An Evolutionist Just Gave Up On a Fundamental Just...

2012-03-13T06:06:00.001-07:00

Darwin's God: An Evolutionist Just Gave Up On a Fundamental Just...: Which came first the chicken or the egg? In evolution’s case, the question is between DNA or proteins. The DNA stores the data to make the p...

Darwin's God: Don’t Miss Venus and Jupiter Tonight

2012-03-12T17:35:00.001-07:00

Darwin's God: Don’t Miss Venus and Jupiter Tonight: Tonight and tomorrow night Venus and Jupiter come within three degrees of each other from our perspective here on Earth. Look to the west an...

Darwin's God: Evolutionists Are Making This New Bad Argument For...

2012-03-12T09:23:00.001-07:00

Darwin's God: Evolutionists Are Making This New Bad Argument For...: The fact that evolution is unlikely doesn’t bother evolutionists. One way they justify this is with the fallacious argument that tossing a c...

Darwin's God: Top Microbiologist: Darwin was a priest

2012-03-06T23:06:00.000-08:00

Darwin's God: Top Microbiologist: Darwin was a priest: Didier Raoult, whom even the evolutionists admit is “the most productive and influential microbiologist in France,” explains that Charles Da...

Michael Egnor On Evolution

2012-03-06T06:23:00.003-08:00

Michael Egnor Professor of Neurosurgery at Stony Brook Web

I never use evolutionary biology in my work. Would I be a better surgeon if I assumed that the brain arose by random events? Of course not. Doctors are detectives. We look for patterns, and in the human body, patterns look very much like they were designed. Doctors know that, from the intricate structure of the human brain to the genetic code, our bodies show astonishing evidence of design. That’s why most doctors -- nearly two-thirds according to national polls -- don’t believe that human beings arose merely by chance and natural selection. Most doctors don’t accept evolutionary biology as an adequate explanation for life. Doctors see, first-hand, the design of life.

I do use many kinds of science related to changes in organisms over time. Genetics is very important, as are population biology and microbiology. But evolutionary biology itself, as distinct from these scientific fields, contributes nothing to modern medicine.

Without using evolutionary theory, doctors and scientists have discovered vaccines (Jenner, in the 18th century, before Darwin was born), discovered that germs cause infectious diseases (Pasteur, in the 19th century, who ignored Darwin), discovered genes (Mendel, in the 19th century, who was a priest and not a supporter of Darwin’s theory), discovered antibiotics, and unraveled the secrets of the genetic code (the key to these discoveries was the discovery of the apparent design in the DNA double helix). Heart, liver, and kidney transplants, new treatments for cancer and heart disease, and a host of life-saving advances in medicine have been developed without input from evolutionary biologists. No Nobel prize in medicine has ever been awarded for work in evolutionary biology. In fact, I think it’s safe to say that the only contribution evolution has made to modern medicine is to take it down the horrific road of eugenics, which brought forced sterilization and bodily harm to many thousands of Americans in the early 1900s. That’s a contribution which has brought shame -- not advance -- to the medical field.

So ‘Why would I want my doctor to have studied evolution?’ I wouldn’t. Evolutionary biology isn’t important to modern medicine. Evolution News & Views March 9 2007

How much new specified information can random variation and natural selection generate? Please note that my question starts with 'how much'- it's quantitative, and it's quantitative about information, not literature citations. I didn't ask 'how many papers can I generate when I go to PubMed and type 'gene duplication evolution'. I asked for a measurement of new specified information, empirically determined, the reference(s) in which this measurement was reported, and a thoughtful analysis as to whether this 'rate of acquisition' of new specified information by random heritable variation and natural selection can account for the net information measured in individuals of the species in which the measurement was made. Mike Lemonick was wrong that this isn't an important question in evolutionary biology. This is the central question. Post #84 on Pharyngula February 20 2007

Source

Darwin's God: Evolution Breakthrough: Enzymes Evolved “Very Earl...

2012-03-05T19:42:00.000-08:00

Darwin's God: Evolution Breakthrough: Enzymes Evolved “Very Earl...:

After a massive study of the evolution of enzymes —which as usual was really nothing more than a comparison of enzymes, with precisely zero ...

Darwin's God: Evolution’s Brute Spontaneity

2012-03-04T10:51:00.000-08:00

Darwin's God: Evolution’s Brute Spontaneity: As Michael Ruse and others have pointed out the language evolutionists use can be telling, but what is not discussed is that the language ev...

Darwin's God: Neil deGrasse Tyson: No engineer would design that...

2012-03-02T22:29:00.000-08:00

Darwin's God: Neil deGrasse Tyson: No engineer would design that...: Evolutionist Neil deGrasse Tyson has pointed out that notions of creationism and intelligent design ignore a fundamental and important pr...

Darwin's God: Mouse-to-Elephant: Evolution in Action

2012-03-02T22:27:00.000-08:00

Darwin's God: Mouse-to-Elephant: Evolution in Action: An international team of evolutionists reported this week that mice evolved into 33,000 pound elephants in 24 million generations. They a...

DNA and The Genetic Code

2011-12-19T08:28:00.000-08:00

Perry Marshall explains in clear terms that DNA is clearly designed. It is necessary to suspend your beliefs and approach this subject with open minded skeptism and allow the "information" to come into your mind. You will see that there really is no other explanation. All life was designed.

The question then changes to who designed it? It's a legitimate question that we simply can't answer. But what we can say is that life does have a purpose since we were designed. For more information please visit Perry Marshall's website at

Probability's nature and Nature's probability

2011-12-15T08:19:00.000-08:00

This is a book written by Donald E. Johnson, looking at evolution and its mechanisms. The below is a section I found and thought was important to share. This shows why the request for ID research or even research against evolution might not be a good one. People who do not accept the theory and would do research to show it impossible, get persecuted.

http://www.amazon.com/Probabilitys-Nature-Natures-Probability-Non-Scientists/dp/0982355440/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1

Lynn Margulis, Acclaimed Biologist and Critic of Neo-Darwinism

2011-11-24T06:44:00.001-08:00

It is always refreshing to come up on a materialist who is willing to ignore his/her worldview in favour of what the evidence actually suggests. One such person is Lynn Margulis who recently died. Religious persons are often accused of being brainwashed or letting their religion get in the way of objectivity. The accusers rarely will concede their own bias and, considering the evidence is actually in favour of certain religions, it can become a depressing sight indeed. The more and more I listen, the more ridiculous the arguments get. Anyway, below is what lead me to this post.

We agree that very few potential offspring ever survive to reproduce and that populations do change through time, and that therefore natural selection is of critical importance to the evolutionary process. But this Darwinian claim to explain all of evolution is a popular half-truth whose lack of explicative power is compensated for only by the religious ferocity of its rhetoric. Although random mutations influenced the course of evolution, their influence was mainly by loss, alteration, and refinement. One mutation confers resistance to malaria but also makes happy blood cells into the deficient oxygen carriers of sickle cell anemics. Another converts a gorgeous newborn into a cystic fibrosis patient or a victim of early onset diabetes. One mutation causes a flighty red-eyed fruit fly to fail to take wing. Never, however, did that one mutation make a wing, a fruit, a woody stem, or a claw appear. Mutations, in summary, tend to induce sickness, death, or deficiencies. No evidence in the vast literature of heredity changes shows unambigious evidence that random mutation itself, even with geographical isolation of populations, leads to speciation. Then how do new species come into being? How do cauliflowers descend from tiny, wild Mediterranean cabbagelike plants, or pigs from wild boars?"

(Lynn Margulis & Dorion Sagan, Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of the Species, p. 29 (Basic Books, 2003).)

But many biologists claim they know for sure that random mutation (purposeless chance) is the source of inherited variation that generates new species of life and that life evolved in a single-common-trunk, dichotomously branching-phylogenetic-tree pattern! "No!" I say. Then how did one species evolve into another? This profound research question is assiduously undermined by the hegemony who flaunt their "correct" solution. Especially dogmatic are those molecular modelers of the "tree of life" who, ignorant of alternative topologies (such as webs), don't study ancestors. Victims of a Whiteheadian "fallacy of misplaced concreteness," they correlate computer code with names given by "authorities" to organisms they never see! Our zealous research, ever faithful to the god who dwells in the details, openly challenges such dogmatic certainty. This is science.

(Lynn Margulis, "The Phylogenetic Tree Topples," American Scientist, Vol 94 (3) (May-June, 2006).)

This is the issue I have with neo-Darwinists: They teach that what is generating novelty is the accumulation of random mutations in DNA, in a direction set by natural selection. If you want bigger eggs, you keep selecting the hens that are laying the biggest eggs, and you get bigger and bigger eggs. But you also get hens with defective feathers and wobbly legs. Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn't create.... [N]eo-Darwinists say that new species emerge when mutations occur and modify and organism. I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change-led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence.

What you'd like to see is a good case for gradual change from one species to another in the field, in the laboratory, or in the fossil record -- and preferably in all three. Darwin's big mystery was why there was no record at all before a specific point [dated to 542 million years ago by modern researchers], and then all of the sudden in the fossil record you get nearly all the major types of animals. The paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould studied lakes in East Africa and on Caribbean islands looking for Darwin's gradual change from one species of trilobite or snail to another. What they found was lots of back-and-forth variation in the population and then -- whoop -- a whole new species. There is no gradualism in the fossil record.

Those are her quotes from the site. She does not get religious or advocate intelligent design, but the honesty with regard to evolution as it is, is welcome. Too many are unwilling to voice dissent from this faith based "science" because of what the alternative might be. An intelligent cause simply does not fit with their materialist/atheist views.

The Disasters Darwinism Brought to Humanity - Harun Yahya

2011-10-11T20:49:00.001-07:00

Documentary: The Young Age of The Earth

2011-09-07T16:31:00.001-07:00

Kyle Butt vs Dan Barker 'Debate' - The Existence of God

2011-09-06T22:42:00.000-07:00

New playlist "Kyle Butt vs Dan Barker 'Debate' - The Existence of God " This was interesting, a lot of the usual arguments but novel parts in each.

Origins - Evolution - The Grand Experiment - with Dr. Carl Werner

2011-08-28T14:19:00.001-07:00