"Ad Hoc" Explanations And Science

When a scientific theory requires a billion convoluted explanations and “just so stories” to explain or “prove” it is accurate, then the odds are good that the theory is seriously lacking, or possibly entirely false. This has been a fundamental truth within intelligent analysis of science and the natural world for a very long time, even in very ancient and early examples of scientific discovery and consideration. Ancient scientific theories that made little rational sense as data and evidence accumulated were dropped in favour of far better explanations and theories that more accurately fit and explained the known data. Often times, these new realizations and theories turned out to be much more simple (basic) than the theories that they had overthrown and replaced. You see, those “old” theories over time had evidence piling up against them, and in order to keep those favoured ideas from crumbling beneath the weight of such contradictory evidences, the theory itself had to morph, transform, and constantly modify itself in order to have any chance of survival. The theory had to somehow “explain away” the evidence that contradicted it, and so all kinds of additions and changes are made to the theory to try and keep it alive. Eventually, such a convoluted and top heavy theory invariably collapses because it becomes widely apparent that the theory itself must be severely flawed or completely wrong. The evidence against it is just too great, and the massive amount of replacement and complex changes and adjustments to the theory make it an absolute mess that ends up making very little logical and practical sense.

Why "Ad Hoc" Explanations Exist

Why does such a thing happen, even among professional scientists regarding scientific theories? It's important to briefly summarize why such things as “ad hoc” explanations are so often used to try and prop up a failed scientific expectation. The reason, is itself, very simple. Belief. We humans all hold beliefs, perspectives, ideologies, and ways of interpreting the world and universe we live within. Everything we believe and understand comes directly out of the knowledge we hold and the way in which we interpret that knowledge and the connected data. It all comes down to world-view, personal opinion and pre-conceived assumptions. There are many ways that scientific studies try to remove such potentially cloudy biases from interfering with the data collection process, but we are all human, and everything we do and understand is handled through interpretation. This is why “ad hoc” explanations happen. These extra explanations must be added on top of and in place of previously assumed systems to try and preserve that apparently failed system from crumbling.

For example, if I believed that the moon only appears at night after the sun has set, and live within a culture that never goes out or looks at the sky during the day, I am only left with two options if I step outside in the daytime and see, surprisingly, that the moon actually DOES appear in the sky during the day time. I must either throw away the theory that the moon only comes out at night, or I must explain away the reason for why this belief seems to have been so wrong. Essentially, option two requires a re-writing of history with a mental and intelligent warp. The prediction based on the theory was wrong, and so now unless you allow the theory to fall, you have to find some way (ANY way) to erase the apparent failure of the theory. Obviously a rational person not blinded by bias should probably go with the first option, dropping the wrong theory. But personal belief clouds this rationality and practically demands of the person's ego that the original theory CAN'T have been wrong. There must be another explanation! And that's where ad hoc explanations and reasoning comes from. Despite the probable reality, alternative and complex explanations end up added onto the original theory in an attempt to keep it from ultimately failing.

Now don't confuse this with actual scientific and rational attempts to better understand where a theory failed and why. Trying to better understand something and better explain it are good and noble causes. Just because a prediction has failed does not mean that the entire theory it was based upon is also wrong. There really are many possible reasons for a failed prediction (scientific or otherwise). So theories with many interconnected parts that better clarify a system of understanding are always greatly desired and needed. But eventually, if a theory is so heavily dependent upon questionable additions for explanation in order to prop up its regularly occurring failures, then in all likelihood something must be very wrong with the core theory itself.

To summarize, the more apparently contradictory and convoluted (messy and confounding) a theory is, especially with regards to the natural world, the more likely it is that the theory is flawed or wrong. The more things must be “explained away”, the more likely it is that the theory or belief is simply false.

Example:  Canyons And Uniformitareanism

A general scientific example of this issue in play can be taken from the adherence to the belief of Uniformitarianism (that the present average is the same as it has always been, the present is the key to the past). When a person who believes in Uniformitarianism sees a large canyon with a small river running through the bottom of it, he or she immediately surmises that the small river over many tens of thousands of years has slowly carved this canyon out of the ground. This is an automatic belief or assumption, just like a person who does not lean towards Uniformitarianism would be using his or her automatic assumptions if he/she believed that the Uniformitarianist explanation wasn't true or at work here. Both people are jumping to conclusions, though hopefully holding those beliefs and conclusions (explanations) very loosely, for now. Now if a wide range of evidence gathered in the area indicates that yes, the canyon was formed very slowly over a long period of time, then the Uniformitarean assumption will have been proven correct (or most probably correct), based on what we know. However, if there is widely contradictory evidence, some suggesting a long slow process and other evidence suggesting a very fast catastrophic process, then the truth of what happened is much harder to come by. If a great deal of evidence suggests a fast carving of the canyon, and the Uniformitareanist stubbornly refuses to accept what the evidence seems to be saying, and instead invents a pile of extra explanations and excuses for why Uniformitareanism should still be assumed and believed instead of a fast cataclysmic event, then the Uniformitareanist could very well be guilty of overriding the facts (evidences) with his/her faith (beliefs and assumptions). The same would be said for a person who stubbornly holds to a fast cataclysmic carving of the canyon when little or no evidence supports that belief, but the person continues to reject the evidence based on personal belief and bias. If there are multiple pieces of contradictory evidence supporting both possible explanations, then odds are good that one of the theories is wrong (or mostly wrong) in connection to this particular canyon, or more likely, BOTH explanations are true to some degree and BOTH scenarios have shaped the canyon in significant ways.

The Good And The Bad

Bias and assumptions can be ok, and even a good thing, because often times a person's convictions can be a strong motivator and end up producing excellent quantity and quality of work (scientific or otherwise). Beliefs and assumptions are not always a poison to scientific discovery or understanding. A person can't just toss out a scientific theory on a whim because not everything seems to line up with it as neatly as one would hope. If we did that, we'd never truly understand or learn much of anything. Trial and error are important factors in science and cannot be understated. But if a scientific theory becomes a behemoth (monstrous giant) of excuses in an attempt to keep it alive while it is clearly floundering, then that core theory or understanding needs to be seriously re-evaluated all across the board, because something somewhere has gone very wrong. It's like a liar who starts off by telling one or two lies and then must concoct an ever expanding fictional tale in order to try and keep those original lies from crumbling. Though with a liar the process is intentionally dishonest from the start, such a system of ever expanding excuses and replacements for a failing argument is still remarkably similar.

The point of this write up is to inform you, the reader, that science often relies on assumptions and beliefs. These beliefs and assumptions can be used at the beginning of a study as a stepping stone to better understanding, such as a hypothesis that you wish to test, or the assumptions and beliefs can be used on top of existing evidence and data to try and explain the gathered data. That second approach is more dangerous than the first, because it means interpreting the existing data based on personal belief, which might actually be wrong. This is where “ad hoc” explanations get thrown into the scientific mix to try and keep a belief system alive even when the evidence doesn't fit.

Even MORE risky is the creation of entirely speculative explanations. These theories and explanations exist with very little positive evidence to support them, but they must be created and believed in order to keep another larger theory alive and consistent. Evolutionism has been extremely guilty of this over the past century of its existence within mainstream science, the same as Uniformitareanism has. A quick example of this methodology in action can be seen in astronomy and the Oort Cloud that is believed to surround the outer edges of our solar system. Many scientists believe that our solar system is many billions of years old, but this means that short period comets (comets that regularly come into close orbit of our sun) cause a serious problem because they could only last thousands (tens of thousands) of years before melting away and vanishing entirely. In order to explain why we still have a number of short period comets traversing our solar system and orbiting our sun, scientists came up with the idea of a large sphere of ice and rock comets sitting way out at the farthest edges of our solar system that can constantly resupply us with fresh comets. There! Problem solved! We still have comets left over from the initial forming of our solar system because there are tons of them floating way out there just waiting to be knocked loose to make a run through our inner solar system for everyone to see. But besides this explanation itself, there is little solid evidence for the existence of the Oort Cloud. It exists mostly as an “ad hoc” explanation, a way for scientists to explain the existence of regular comets when their main theory about solar system formation would expect no such comets to still exist after billions of years.

Scientists DO often admit when such explanations are purely theoretical or hypothetical, but often times they treat these beliefs and speculations as being factual to “average joes” because to admit the creative imagination used on such explanations to regular people would make them doubt or question other important scientific beliefs, such as the age of our solar system. They can't have that, so to everyone else, the Oort Cloud is taught as basically proven fact by scientists, even though between each other (other scientists) they'll always consider it theoretical (speculative, unproven).

There are many science based beliefs out there like the Oort Cloud with little or no evidence to support them, yet these kinds of theories exist in order to keep other grander theories from crumbling or being struck with potentially serious problems. Evolutionism is one of the biggest areas in which such “ad hoc” explanations of every kind exist all over the board. This is because the theory of Neo-Darwinism is so critically important to so many scientists who desire to toss God out of the creation process of life and the universe completely. So their presumed beliefs are regularly contradicted by gathered evidence, which forces them to invent alternative and complex explanations for why their theory keeps coming up wrong. The modern day reality is so unbelievably stacked against Neo-Darwin Evolutionism that the theory is literally drowning in “ad hoc” explanations everywhere you look. Some of these “corrections” have potential (they might be real, but not enough is known to prove or disprove them), but many of them are extremely speculative, merely creative imagination at work rather than hard factual science. One of the most notable problems of Evolutionism is the many critically important beliefs and theories that have existed in direct connection to Evolutionism that have been completely overthrown and replaced over the years, and yet the core theory is still widely believed as fact. Normally when a theory ends up so dramatically wrong so many times, it needs to be completely re-analyzed from top to bottom and seriously doubted. But Evolutionism is special, because it is the fundamental ideology of people who desperately want God excluded from the origin of life and the universe. Some prominent atheists and scientists have even stated this quite plainly, admitting that Evolutionism is a total mess full of massive holes and failed speculations over the years, but they hold to it, admittedly, because to NOT believe it is true is to open the door for God, and that, they simply cannot and will not do.

Many "ad hoc" and replacement speculative theories exist across almost all scientific branches of study (biology, astronomy, cosmology, geology, physics, etc.). They exist to explain away apparent major problems with existing theories, and are often labelled "paradoxes" or "anomalies" in a scientific theory. These are some of the favourite areas of attack that Creation Scientists like to key on because they are so void of solid scientific proof to back them up, despite their widespread use and belief.

(In the future I'd like to point more of these areas of problem out for you guys, my readers, because it is important to see just how void of solid proof many of these areas and explanations in science are despite being used constantly to try and prop up God-less understandings of the universe, our solar system, our planet, and life within it.)

Study Reveals Terrifying Climate Change Future

Haha! This reminds me of a horoscope I read once. "If you quit your job, it'll go no where."... You think!?

"if global temperatures reach levels at which coral reefs are damaged, then coral reefs will be damaged."

American Thinker: Reefer Madness (Climate Change Edition)

This (and "man-caused climate change" in general) is an excellent case of science and scientists that build an elaborate theory and science-based scenario on top of gigantic unknowns and "maybes".  

Our findings show that under current assumptions regarding thermal sensitivity, coral reefs might no longer be prominent coastal ecosystems if global mean temperatures actually exceed two degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level.

This is one of the big reasons I was never convinced by Evolutionism and Material Naturalism as an explanation for life. You can't build a solid scientific theory on little more than conjecture! This is like the "just so" stories rampant throughout Evolutionism. "Such and such lifeform MAY have evolved such and such trait (since it exists, though we don't know how exactly that came about) because of changes in climate, food sources, competition, and any and all other possible environmental or evolutionary changes around it..." Wow! Really!? You think it maybe could have because of maybe this and that if these things happened? Astounding factual science there folks!

In the climate change study example of the article I've linked to, the study basically says that IF previous predictions about climate change pan out (come true), and IF it has the effects they think it might on corals, then all their predictions that they THINK might come true, WILL come true... So, "If we're right about this, that, and those other things, then this and that will probably (more than likely) be the result, just like we predicted and expected..."

And so the "science-based" monstrous fictional construct grows and grows, study upon study upon study connected, interconnected, attached and expanded upon until it's so huge that how could anyone possibly deny its reality!? And they completely forget that the entire theory at every single point along the extensive pathway was based on unproven speculation and guess work that has never actually been solidly and convincingly shown to be actually true. It ultimately becomes a grand fairy tale with scientific bits and pieces mixed in, though actually digging reveals the gaping holes and gigantic creative imaginative story telling that underlies the entire thing.

When you go digging for solid answers and are left with little more than these sorts of ephemeral "maybe if" explanations as the believed truth, then your "scientific theory" isn't actually science, it's just creative science fiction.

Some Tough Questions For Evolution Now

Creation.com:  The Slow Painful Death of Junk DNA

Junk DNA is a necessary mathematical extrapolation. It was invented to solve a theoretical evolutionary dilemma...

... Junk DNA is not just a label that was tacked on to some DNA that seemed to have no function; it is something that is required by evolution. Mathematically, there is too much variation, too much DNA to mutate, and too few generations in which to get it all done. This was the essence of Haldane’s work....Junk DNA is a necessary mathematical extrapolation...Without Junk DNA, evolution runs into insurmountable mathematical difficulties.

With the destruction of the "Junk DNA" and "Proteins are everything" theories that have dominated biology science for so long, a number of VERY important questions about what all this means for past studies based on the "2% of our DNA is the important stuff" must now be asked.

1) Only 2% of human and Chimpanzee DNA was very selectively compared to come up with the "proof" that we evolved from monkeys. The common quote is that about 98% of our DNA matches Chimpanzees, but that study ONLY bothered to check 2% of the DNA, the Protein Coding portions, NOT all the "Junk DNA". So then it turns out that our DNA is only a 1.98% match to Chimpanzees, NOT 98%. The same goes for all other studies that analyze this very miniscule amount of DNA with the assumption that this tiny bit of the puzzle was actually the whole thing. Comparing us to whales, or lizards to fish, and on and on it goes. ALL of those studies and the "look how similar we all are thanks to evolution" preaching becomes null and void. It's like comparing 2 pieces of two different puzzles and announcing that the puzzles are "the same" because they're both puzzle pieces. You're forgetting all the other pieces that make each puzzle so unique!

2) Mutation, Genome Clocks, and the rate of Evolution through extrapolation: What happens to all of the studies done that calculate out mutation rates and backtrack through time and history how all life evolved from common ancestors? A ton of this stuff is based on genetic data and mutation rate extrapolation (guesses and calculations), but these largely ignored the 98% of the human genome that doesn't code for Proteins. What happens now to all the constructed charts and connections based on genetic mutation? What about the tree of life, genetic mutation clocks, and all the other connected studies that based their entire premise on the analysis of a tiny fraction of the genetic data? Are now all the projections of timelines and mutations blown completely out of the water? Will they be dropped until completely new timelines, calculations and studies containing ALL available genetic data are put together? My guess is "absolutely not!" Why? Because this stuff is a FACT, no matter what the NEW and improved data and facts say.

When the serious study of genetic data took off in the 1990s, the huge amounts of genetic data were often used to prop up Neo-Darwinism despite lots of data not matching up neatly with what was already believed. This was a problem for evolutionists, but they still made sure it worked. They just said, "Evolution isn't as neat and tidy as we previously thought." NO change in the bulk of the pre-conceived assumptions and beliefs. They simply warped it all to incorporate the changes they could and ignored the rest that they couldn't force fit.

Basically, there's a gigantic stack of genetic studies and beliefs out there that are heavily based upon this idea that most of our genome is "not functional" or "not that important", and thus ignorable. ALL of this stuff needs to be completely labotomized and done over because it all was missing vast amounts of genetic data to begin with. However this stuff is so strongly believed as certain truth that there's NO WAY that evolutionists and scientists will STOP basing much of their beliefs and presentations on the "old paradigms". It's just way too ingrained into their way of thinking, into their worldview. It would be like ripping the Holy Bible out of the Christian church or the Koran out of Islam. The belief systems are fundamental to their core and everything else that depends upon it. It can not be, and will not be, allowed to falter, no matter what the scientific evidence actually says.

"We Never Said It Was Junk DNA..."

HEAVILY UPDATED with quotes and references! (as of 12:30 pm Sept 6 2012)

Evolution News (September 5, 2012): Junk No More!

Junk No More: ENCODE Project Nature Paper Finds "Biochemical Functions for 80% of the Genome"

An impressive 30 studies have been released and grouped together (mostly through the ENCODE genome sequencing project) in the peer reviewed science magazine "Nature" that has verified a longstanding Intelligent Design hypothesis, that the vast majority of the human genome is NOT "Junk DNA" or "evolutionary garbage" but is in fact functional.

While Intelligent Design scientists are obviously quite enjoying this hugely important vindication of their scientific predictions (a very important part in proving a scientific theory correct), the evolutionists are having to do some serious back pedaling.


A Summary Of "Junk DNA"

"Junk DNA" has been a long standing assumption by evolutionists that most of the genome (in humans as well as all other life) is mostly "left over evolutionary garbage", DNA that we no longer use or need because we've evolved out of needing it. It has been jokingly called "Junk DNA" for many years because of this. 2% of the human genome codes for Proteins, and until recently (and now especially), this tiny drop-in-the-bucket of our total DNA has been considered pretty much "the whole story". The reason this assumption has dominated so strongly and for so long is because evolutionists had convinced themselves (believed whole heartedly) that unless the DNA is being transcoded by RNA (like the 2% of Protein coding DNA), then it is useless or not functional. Because of this belief, 98% of our DNA has largely been ignored except by the occasional study here and there.

For more about "Junk DNA" and the debate over it, see my blog post from June 2012 about this exact issue (before this new comprehensive study came out proving it all true).

As Intelligent Design scientists have been studying and pointing out for well over 10 years now, it turns out that the vast majority of our DNA (ALL of our DNA, including the 98% that has mostly been ignored) is functional (actively used). The studies by the ENCODE project and connected studies released in the peer reviewed science magazine Nature state that at least 80% of our DNA is actually (and surprisingly, to them) functional, and that indications are good that the rest of our DNA is also functional (they just haven't figured out how it's being used yet, though signs indicate that it IS being used). That's a massive blow to a main tenet of Neo-Darwinism and a big boost to Intelligent Design.


Let The Excuses And Falsehoods Fly!

Excuses and falsehoods are already starting to pop up on atheist websites and pro-evolution websites to try and "cover their butts" on this issue. Not surprising considering the huge implications (and embarrassment) of it all, and how dedicated these people are to Neo-Darwinism on the whole.

Here is a list of the things that these folks are likely to say (and starting to say already) in an attempt to pretend that they didn't just get completely outdone by Intelligent Design theory and science.



1) We knew this all along. Nothing to see here folks. All you every day non-scientist types are just catching up to what we've known for a long time...

This is the claim that seems to be the most common so far among evolutionists, that they've actually known this for a long time already. Studies HAVE been coming out for the last 5 years, and even as far back as 10 years ago, that indicated functional properties of DNA that doesn't code directly for Proteins. But the point isn't that SOME studies have found SOME functionality and usage with all this "extra" DNA. The point is that the majority of scientists and especially atheists have been making the claim that "most of it is junk" despite this evidence! But because of their previous dedication to the idea of Junk DNA in the first place, they're STILL very hesitant to accept all this new scientific data.

For example:  At "The Mermaid's Tale" Pro-Evolution Science Blog...
More Advertising, Yet A Lesson To Learn

They confirm our idea that, at its base, DNA controls protein production and perpetuates itself, but through many subtle, complex functional roles.  Many are still to be discovered, but a much larger fraction of the genome is found to have some function, and the protein coding parts have been shown to comprise only a few percent of the whole of our DNA.  Whether ENCODE has actually determined the function of 80% of the genome, as they now claim, is debatable.

Basically, the claim is, "We knew this all along..." PLUS "I highly doubt this study is anything more than hype and promotion anyway and isn't actually saying what it seems to be saying..." That's a great double whamy! First, "We've known this all along." AND "It probably isn't true anyway." WOW! Talk about covering all your bases just in case!

And another pro-evolution blog post regarding the new set of studies...
A Slightly Different Response to Today's ENCODE Hype

The claim that “lots of the genome isn’t junk after all!” is not new — people have been using this straw man for nearly 20 years. What’s novel is that the ENCODE authors are claiming that there is now evidence that 80% of the genome shows signs function, or at least of “specific biological activity”. Many people are not convinced by this, me among them. I am especially unimpressed by this figure when I read the ENCODE project lead’s own words on the subject of “function” and the 80% figure.

Again, "Nothing to see here folks. We've known this all along." PLUS "It probably isn't true anyway. Just a load of hype and show."

Also, the previous linked to article states:

Even after 5 years, $185 million, and a massive study by hundreds of researchers, there still is only evidence of function for 80% of the human genome under the most extremely generous interpretation. That leaves 20% without any signs of function whatsoever.

Oh my! It cost LOTS of money and they didn't figure out what the other 20% of the genome does? That's just terrible!... Come on! You guys were arguing that MOST of the genome is non-functional garbage. Now you're arguing that the functioning of 20% is still unknown, so they're still proven right... Give me a break!

Then that same writer goes into a spout of obfuscation, re-defining terminology and pretending that what was meant by "functional" and "not functional" wasn't really what we think or thought it was.

To get that 80% figure, you have to have a very loose definition of “function” indeed.

Basically, "It's only functional so long as you count ANY function." This is getting very disappointing. Now you're arguing that when you were before saying that "NO function" (as in ANY function AT ALL) existed, you actually meant "no MAJOR function"... *rolls eyes*

Some are undoubtedly functional, but it is quite a stretch to suggest that millions of these elements are needed to regulate our 20,000 genes (but not the 30,000 genes of a pufferfish). As Carl Sagan said, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”, and so far we simply do not have it when it comes to claiming that the majority of the elements in the genome have a biological function.

"Because we're all just evolved animals and fish, so most of this "extra DNA" is obviously garbage or not that important anyway..." *heavy sigh* They're a dedicated bunch aren't they?


2) We never really MEANT that it was "Junk", just that we didn't yet know any function for it. That's good science, not assuming something until we have solid proof...

The proof has been piling up for many years now, and Intelligent Design scientists have been pointing this out constantly with articles online citing such scientific studies and even publishing entire books about the topic. The proof has been there for quite a while, and the evidence pointing to this reality has been piling up for even longer. "Good science" doesn't consider most of the human genome to be garbage or non-functional just because we don't know the function of it yet. THAT is the key problem here. They assumed that all this DNA was junk, evolutionary left overs, and they stated as much repeatedly over and over again, even using it for a long time as a major argument point against Intelligent Design. "98% of our DNA is non-functional and that's exactly what we'd expect if Evolution were true!"... If they had simply said, "We don't know the function of it yet" or something else similar to that, this whole thing wouldn't be nearly as big of a deal. But that's NOT what they've been saying all this time. They've been mostly argueing that this stuff truely had NO function BECAUSE it was evolutionary junk.


3) We've got scientists who suspected function for some of this "Junk DNA" too!...
Smithsonian.com: Junk DNA Isn't Junk, And That Isn't Really News

Remember in high school or college, when you learned about all that DNA inside of you that was junk? The strings and strings of nonsense code that had no function? A recent blitz of papers from the ENCODE project have the world abuzz with news that would rip that idea apart.
But, like many things that stick around in text books long after science has moved on, the “junk DNA” idea that ENCODE disproved, didn’t really need disproving in the first place.

Yes, there were a few out there who admitted even many years ago that the concept of "Junk DNA" was probably wrong and probably even harmful to the progress of science. But these people were very few and far between and only in very recent years have more scientists finally started to admit that all this DNA does actually have function and is actually being used.

However this is a classic case of "We're always right, even when we're wrong." Basically they point out evolutionists that DID get this right even from early on, and claim that this is proof that evolutionism didn't get it wrong. Sorry, but you can't constantly argue the complete opposite and then turn around and say you were right all along because of a few open-minded scientists that didn't follow the mainstream belief. Just because a very small minority of evolutionists didn't get hoodwinked by this bad Neo-Darwinist assumption doesn't mean that the rest of you guys didn't get completely blown apart. You guys are all about "consensus" until the "consensus" gets found out to be completely wrong, and then you shout, "not following the consensus is good science!" This is classic stance jumping, basically, "We're always right, even when we're wrong." As long as ONE scientist SOMEWHERE suggested that there MIGHT be function to SOME of this other DNA, then they claim that the scientific community as a whole didn't grossly screw this up. Sorry, but those smart few people who weren't blinded by Neo-Darwinism are the clear exception to the rest of you.


4) The STUDY is Junk! The scientists are lying!

Michael Eisen, a science writer, on his Twitter feed says about the study:

"measurable biochemical activity" is a meaningless measure of functional significance.

Just like from "The Mermaid's Tale", this science writer who has dedicated himself to the evolutionism debates says that the comprehensive study by the best genome sequencing and analysis project on the planet consisting of hundreds of top scientists is wrong and blowing things way out of proportion. They're basically lying to make the news... Denial at it's finest. These guys constantly argue that science is above hype, promotion, half-truths and lies, and then when it doesn't agree with them that's exactly what they claim the science is. Oi!


Closing

Those are just a few claims that the evolutionists are already starting to make, and likely to continue making for weeks and months (even years) to come. This has all been done before repeatedly as evolutionism has gotten things very wrong and had to completely change its stance and pretend like it never actually did so. All in all it always comes down to, "We might have gotten that one thing wrong, but we're right about everything else, so trust us. Even if something is currently wrong, we'll eventually get it right anyway. Good science goes in the direction that the evidence points, even when the evidence contradicts long held scientific beliefs."

That's very true, but sooner or later it just becomes ridiculous the amount of effort that goes into "covering the trail" of complete missteps that the scientific community have taken based entirely on the assumption that Neo-Darwinist evolution is true. It gets to the point where it's obvious that no matter HOW wrong they are on even MAJOR issues, they simply re-warp the evolutionary system to accommodate it.

This is NOT science, it's desperate blind religion and faith. Science is falsifiable. If a bunch of theories are being overturned then the basis for those bad theories is probably wrong too, otherwise they wouldn't keep getting these big issues wrong in the first place. Intelligent Design didn't get this wrong. So why did evolutionism? But that doesn't matter to evolutionists who are drinking the evolution kool aid. They KNOW in their heart of hearts that evolution must be true so no matter what the evidence says, they believe Neo-Darwinism, even if they have to re-write their core theories every 5 or 10 years in order to still make it work.

Evolution - The Assumptions Dominate

Assume Everything

As I've been debating some atheists online and reading up on a lot of the evolutionary studies and data supposedly promoting a number of Neo-Darwinisms core beliefs, I've come to a frustrating realization. The assumptions or beliefs dominate the interpretation of the data. This is something I've known for a long time, but now I'm really seeing it clearly. I'll show you what I mean.


Similarity And Common Ancestry

The idea of common ancestry is based upon the belief/assumption that similarity equals common ancestry except when it's extremely obvious that it doesn't. This means that whenever a characteristic of a living organism is similar to another organism, the immediate assumption is that this similarity exists because both organisms descended from the same ancestral "parent" somewhere in the distant past. But similarity does NOT automatically mean common descent!

Trying to point this out to an evolutionist is almost impossible, however, because they are so heavily bound by this belief that they can't even consider that it isn't absolutely true. The assumption or belief dominates their interpretation of the data so that all similarities immediately mean common ancestry, except in the cases where it's extremely obvious that it can't possibly be explained by that (this is called convergence, when two greatly separated organisms come up with the same characteristics independently).

Similarity, at it's core, just means that the characteristics are similar. That's it! They're SIMILAR! It's the extrapolation and the assumption that interprets and converts this hard data into the story of common ancestry. This belief often completely ignores what has been proven to be naturally possible by physics, chemistry, and genetic mutation, because they believe it so strongly that it overrides the evidences that say, "This can't actually be the best explanation for this."

The assumption dominates the interpretation of the data. Similarity almost always equals common ancestry, no matter what the natural processes of biology say about this being a valid hypothesis or belief.


Gene Duplication

Gene duplication is another prime example of the assumption dominating the interpretation.

Gene duplication is currently the "best" explanation for how new genetic data and functions arise in living organisms over time. You see, scientists for a long time have seriously struggled with the realization that there is far too much complex genetic instructions in living organisms to have simply arisen by small point mutations. Point mutations (single "letter" mutations in a gene) simply cannot create such large scale changes and sets of new novel data without being considered harmful garbage and culled by natural selection. So evolutionists have latched onto "Gene Duplication" as the explanation for the huge size of the genetic library in organisms, and use it as the explanation for how new functionality can arise over time. It basically saves Evolutionism from the obvious limitations of nature "coming up" with new genes and genetic data.

But since this idea has taken off, now EVERYTHING is considered a duplication event! That gene looks a lot like that gene. That means that one of them was accidentally duplicated, mutated, and became imbedded in the genome adding new unique functionality... This means that now similarity ALSO means (assumed) its a result of gene duplication. But this doesn't just stop at highly similar whole genes. This is also taken on the miniscule level of segments of genes. These two pieces of a gene are similar, and so they're a "partial gene duplication". So up and down the analysis of entire genomes, scientists are matching similar chunks of genetic code and declaring them to be examples of gene duplication. Why? Because they're similar, and they have to have an explanation for how all this additional genetic data came about.

However, just like with the argument of similarity equaling common ancestry, this is entirely an interpretation based upon an assumption, that similarity in the genetic code represents an instance of gene duplication. But it only works that way so long as you believe it to be the reality, because once again similarity is assumed to mean something that it doesn't have to mean. These people must build an evolutionary structure to all of life and so these two fundamental beliefs (one old and one new) dominate the entire interpretation of the existing data. The believed "story" explanation takes precedence over all else.


Final Thoughts

Similarity does not automatically mean common ancestry or gene duplication. There are many equally plausible explanations for similarity, none of which point to Evolutionism.

For example, the letter A is similar to the letter H in a number of ways. The shape of the letter, the fact that it uses straight lines, the fact that both are letters in the English alphabet, etc. However this does not automatically mean that we must assume that A beget (is the parent or grandparent of) H. The similarity between them does not mean common ancestry from A to H.  It's simply similarity and that's all.

The same can be pointed to with regards to computer programming code. Computer code uses the exact same core functions and systems to accomplish everything from your web browser to the latest high tech 3D computer/console game. It's all using the exact same kinds of computer code. But because the code is similar (using the same things like variables, IF...THEN statements, and LOOPS), it doesn't mean that your web browser automatically and naturally (without any intelligent involvement at all) gave birth to the game Call of Duty. Or that simple duplication of code from your web browser is the prime explanation for the fact that the code between both programs is essentially quite similar when all is said and done. Similarity does NOT mean common ancestry and does NOT mean a duplication event.

Now obviously these two examples cannot reproduce on their own like a living organism can, however the points still stand. The only time the assumptions listed above stand is when they are used upon living organisms because it's assumed (again, another assumption) that reproduction and time can solve anything. It can't. All of this is a dramatic example of very creative reaching for explanations that circumvent the plausible reality.

They are so bound and determined to explain all of this by way of materialistic reproduction that they completely reject and ignore the possibility of common design (common programming) by an intelligent designer. The more in depth you go into all of this, the more you see that nature has some extreme limitations and barriers that simply can't be ignored, yet they are, by way of these two dominant assumptions (common ancestry and gene duplication). Intelligent Design as an explanation, however, is NOT handicapped by the need for these assumptions and interpreted explanations because it isn't required that all life accidentally just happened. Intelligent Design says that this is all intelligently designed, at least from the start, that the programming is similar not because of common ancestry or gene duplication but because of a common programming language being used and a common "programmer" having written all the code.

Debate Fog Into Empty Victory (Intelligent Design vs Neo-Darwinism)

Here's a lesson in the political-style writing and speech that can often get in the way of good solid debate between Intelligent Design advocates and those who support Neo-Darwin Evolution.

The past couple of weeks I've been reading blog posts and write ups about a heated discussion/debate between supporters of Intelligent Design and Neo-Darwinist Evolution with regards to a newly published book "Science And Human Origins". The book is by Intelligent Design scientists and discusses all sorts of scientific studies, data and evidence that shows that the major questions about whether or not humans actually evolved from apes is still full of giant holes and doubts. However, when reading these blog posts, though the Intelligent Design supporters have made a number of good points, there's one particular point that they're making a big deal about that though valid, isn't nearly as big of a deal as they believe or say it is.

To see the latest post from ID supporters (and one of the authors of the book), and related articles, check out this link (at Evolution News).

Both sides of the debate are shouting their victory over the other, each claiming to have trounced their competition in the origins debate, but the reality is that neither side has done so as strongly as they believe (or want others to believe).


Chromosome 2: Apes and Humans

One of the key points of this particular piece of the debate is connected to chromosome 2 in humans. Chromosome 2 looks a lot like a pair of chromosomes found in apes that may have fused together in humans. Evolutionists surmise that if we really did evolve from apes, then a long time ago we too had two distinct chromosomes just like apes but that somewhere along the long timeline of very ancient pre-history these chromosomes joined together in humans but not apes.

There are many issues here, but one of the big points that both sides actually agree on is that in the grand scheme of things, this possible fusion event doesn't actually prove that humans came from apes, because humans could have originally had the two chromosomes separate just like apes, with the fusion happening relatively recently in the human genetic past. In other words, it's quite plausible that both humans (fully human) and apes (fully ape) had these highly similar chromosomes as two seperate chromosomes and that in recent human history, only in humans, they combined. That means there's no direct connection between the fusion event and supposed evolution from apes. The key point from the evolutionist is that the similarity in this particular chromosome to two chromosomes in apes indicates common ancestry. The Intelligent Design advocate says that this similarity simply means similar functional genetic code that works as intended, as designed by an Intelligent Creator, and that humans did not evolve from monkeys but that they were made as two unique kinds of living organism. So in the end, the fusion event doesn't really mean a whole lot, though it's interesting to study. Yet even while the evolutionist admits that the apparent fusion of chromosomes doesn't have to mean we came from apes, they still argue that it's good evidence for this belief.


"Victory" In Misdirection

Unfortunately both sides are arguing that they've defeated their opponents in the argument based on the idea of misdirection (clouding the real debate), while they themselves are actually throwing up misdirection themselves! It's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. They're BOTH misdirecting readers and BOTH accusing the other of doing it in order to try and win a point.

The Intelligent Design side of the argument has made a number of good points, some of which have tied directly to the fact that the evolutionists have focused on just the issue of chromosome 2. "Science And Human Origins" is a big book with multiple chapters, each addressing different areas of science and data that show just how weak the evidence for human-ape common ancestry is. Chromosome 2 is only a couple paragraphs in the big book, but it's where a couple evolutionists have focused. Remarkably, the evolutionists admitted that they had not read the book itself, had not even read the chapter in question, and would NOT be reading it because they knew (believe) it would be garbage anyway. Win for the Intelligent Design group here! The evolution scientist won't even READ the detailed debate points and all the scientific articles cited by the Intelligent Design writers!

But as great of a point as this revelation is in favor of the Intelligent Design group, they then take the ball and run with it well beyond the winning goal. They started crowing about how the evolutionists haven't read their points (which is valid), and that to make matters even worse, the evolutionist refuses to even enter the arena of the greater debate itself. The evolutionist has focused on a couple paragraphs in a book he hasn't even read, and that's all. Win for Intelligent Design!... Yes, true, but also no. Let me explain.

This is misdirection on the part of the Intelligent Design writers. It's a good point, but to make such a big deal out of it is to warp it into being more than it is. The evolutionist has decided to focus on the issue of Chromosome 2 and not bother with the rest. He's focusing on Chromosome 2 specifically. Not reading the book in question is a dumb move and it certainly hurts his case, but focusing only on Chromosome 2 instead of all the rest as well is NOT an explosive victory for Intelligent Design scientists like they claim it is. A person can adequately debate or dispute a particular point without having to address all connected or related points (which can be a huge enormous undertaking)


Not A Nail In The Coffin

So the Intelligent Design scientists are saying, "We win because you're not addressing all the other information in the book, only focusing on Chromosome 2." While the evolutionist basically sits there and says, "I never meant to address the whole book at large, only this specific point about Chromosome 2. But because you're trying to drag me into discussion of all the other stuff, you're clouding the issues I'm bringing up." These quotes are not actual quotes, they're just paraphrases of the general points being made.

The evolution scientists are ALSO guilty of misdirection in that they've argued that the points made against common ancestry from the direction of Chromosome 2 indicates that the whole rest of the book must be garbage (a book they haven't read). They disagree about some interpretations of the scientific data regarding Chromosome 2, and by connection, ALL the points made by the Intelligent Design group must be wrong as well. That's their cloud of fog hanging over the debate.

So BOTH sides are arguing largely from one standpoint (ID the greater whole and evolution the one specific point), and both claiming victory over the other because the opposing side is trying to drag the other side "over the line" they've drawn in the sand like an old fashioned tug of war. BOTH sides cloud the debate, and then both sides accuse the other of doing exactly that, and by connection claiming victory over the other. Oi!

It's like both teams are playing with different sets of rules and neither one will compromise or agree to work in the same realm and so neither side can ultimately hold any kind of solid victory over the other. It means that many of the GOOD points and jabs are lost in the air amidst the fog. Essentially it's a case of both sides claiming the exact same victory podium based on the concept of debate itself, rather than the points within that debate. That's an empty win.

Not Junk DNA

Roughly 2% of our human DNA codes for Proteins (think of Proteins like the microscopic parts that are bodies are made of) and the other 98% of our DNA has often casually been called “Junk DNA”, or “non-functional DNA”. Evolutionists for a long time have considered this 98% to be unimportant evolutionary left-overs, so called “Junk DNA”, that has accumulated across hundreds of millions of years of evolution, but is now, for the most part, garbage and unimportant. This belief, however, is being absolutely destroyed by modern genetics.

There’s a very common myth out there that the human genome (genetic code) is 98% similar to that of Chimpanzee monkeys, which according to evolutionists is a huge proof that humans evolved from monkeys. What usually gets left out of such statements is that the 98% similarity is only a miniscule section of the human and chimpanzee DNA. Basically, scientists have run the genetic sequences of about 2% of the human and chimpanzee genome, the part of the genome that codes for Proteins. That’s only 2%! Then scientists have taken the genetic sequences of that 2% and re-arranged the genes (chunks of DNA) because the chimp and human genomes are in a very different order. Without this purposeful re-arrangement by scientist, the genes simply would not match up side by side. Then the scientists chopped away the parts of this 2% that do not match, and compared only the parts that do closely match each other, and declared that human and chimpanzee DNA is 98% the same between us and them…

Darwinian Logic: The Latest on Chimp and Human DNA  (by Jonathan Wells, October 27 2011)

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/the_latest_on_chimp_and_human052291.html

www.EvolutionNews.org

But why only compare the 2% (or so) of the genome that specifically codes for Proteins? What about the other 98%? That’s what is off-handedly called “Junk DNA”. It’s DNA that does not code specifically for Proteins, and thus, has been considered “junk” or genetic garbage. Remember folks, this is 98% of our DNA! Over the last 20 years (and especially the last 10 years), scientists are discovering that this “junk DNA” is actually vital to exactly how our genes are expressed, how our cells do what they do. “Junk DNA”, by and large, seems to actually tell the Protein coding genes how to function (what to do), when to do it, how long to do it for, how and when to change things up, and how best to use what has been built off the blue print of our DNA. Basically, as it’s turning out, the “junk DNA” is the bulk of our genetic code. More and more signs and studies are showing us that most of it has important, even critically important, functions and purpose. It is NOT junk or left-over evolutionary garbage, as some of the most enthusiastic atheistic apologists have claimed over the years.

“If Junk DNA Is Useful, Why Is It Not Shared More Equally?”

ScienceDaily (Jan. 31, 2011)

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110131133137.htm

“DNA was originally thought to have a single function: to help cells make the proteins they need. Any DNA that is not immediately required to produce proteins was written off as "junk" and deemed unworthy of study. Recently, however, it has become clear that junk DNA performs a wide range of important tasks.”

Evgeniy S. Balakirev, and Francisco J. Ayala, Pseudogenes, "Are They "Junk" or Functional DNA?," Annual Review of Genetics, Vol. 37:123--51 (2003)

“pseudogenes that have been suitably investigated often exhibit functional roles.”

THEY MISSED THE MOST IMPORTANT PART!

One of my many hobbies is computer programming. DNA is very similar to a computer programming language, one that is highly complex and sophisticated unlike anything mankind has ever programmed before. It puts our most incredible complicated computer programs to shame. There is a very serious flaw in the assumption that the “Junk DNA” (98% of our DNA) is not really that important. To show exactly what I mean when I say that “They Missed The Most Important Part”, I want to describe this scenario by using a few metaphorical examples to help get the point across.

The Food Recipe

Imagine that the 2% of DNA that codes for Proteins in our bodies is a rather non-specific set of ingredients for making a particular meal for supper. You’ve got beef, a bunch of spices, a bunch of vegetables, and a few other ingredients. Now you’re told to cook a very specific kind of meal with these ingredients, but not given any instructions on how to do it. No specific portion sizes, no instructions on the order in which the ingredients should be added, the timing of adding each ingredient, how they are to be cooked, prepared or combined… Nothing! To make matters worse, the person who is cooking this meal has no cooking experience or knowledge at all. All of the instructions, experience and knowledge that goes into making the meal is equivalent to the 98% of our DNA that does not code for Proteins. That’s pretty important stuff, isn’t it?

The Math Equation

How about another example, this time one from math. Let’s say that X = 5 and Y = 4. Those are two set values and they won’t change no matter what we do with them. But here comes the important part. How are those variables (X and Y) arranged in a math equation? Does it make any different to the answer you get, the end result? Do the instructions (the equation) matter?

If we make the equation X + Y = Z, we know that it’ll turn out like this: 5 + 4 = 9. But if you change that “+” operator to a “-“, the equation becomes 5 – 4 = 1, a completely different answer. And what if you make it a big long equation but still only using the X and Y variables? How about, X(Y) + (X / Y) – (Y^X) = Z … Yikes, that’s getting kind of complicated isn’t it?

The point I’m trying to make is this. The instructions or operational actions (or controls) are what give you the answers. Different instructions (layouts and equations) will give you different results, different answers. So if X and Y, which represent 5 and 4, are the Protein coding part of our DNA, then the other 98% of the DNA is telling the cells of our body exactly how to use and handle X and Y. These instructions, these operators, are essential to everything working like it’s supposed to. The slightest change and the answer in the equation can be VERY different, despite using the exact same numbers (5 and 4).

The Computer Code

All computer programs are essentially made up of the exact same things, variables and computer code. Let’s imagine that the 2% of our DNA that codes for Proteins are variables. Now, knowing this, that all computer programs use variables and programming language instructions to make them work the way they’re supposed to, you brazenly announce to the world that, “All computer programs are 98% the same!”… Such an exclamation is of course ridiculous, right? Because you’re only comparing one very general aspects of what a program is and has within it. You’re completely ignoring exactly what those variables contain, how many variables there are, and ALL of the instructions or code that makes each program do what it does. You see, the instructions are the difference between a computer program used for reading your email or playing a fast paced 3D game where you blow away fictional bad guys with guns. Both use variables, probably even the same kinds of variables (numbers, strings of text) but HOW they are used makes ALL the difference.

CONCLUSION

The Protein Coding part of our DNA (2% of our DNA) is basically the tiny set of instructions for building the little bits and pieces that our body uses to do most of what it does. They are the “Lego blocks”, the “ingredients”, the materials, the tools. The other 98% is the instructions for how to use those parts and tools. That 98% controls how much of this stuff works, when it works, in what way it works, and has tons of important (even critical) information within it to make sure the whole complicated system works like it’s supposed to. That 98% of our DNA (the so called “Junk DNA”) runs and controls the whole show! These instructions are the key to what makes the vast majority of life forms on our planet so incredibly different and unique from each other, and yet so much of this DNA was until recently shrugged off as “not that important”.

To ignore this fact is like claiming that volleyball and ballet are essentially the exact same thing because both are a physical work out. No, they’re not anywhere close to being “the same thing”. You’re ignoring the huge amount of details that make them so different from each other!

The “human and chimp DNA almost identical comparison” is basically a massive case of extreme selective statistics filtering, especially when every day we’re discovering more and more about that other 98% of the genome that was ignored in that study. As more and more of the incredible importance of this “Junk DNA” is coming into the light of cutting edge modern science, scientists are finally discovering just how very different and unique we are. It’s blowing a lot of evolutionary thought and assumptions right out of the water. This, however, is no surprise at all to people who believe that God created, designed and wrote this genetic code into all living things, and that except for parts of it that have broken down over the many centuries since creation, it’s all functional and important.

The Changing Face of Pseudo Genes

http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/tis2/index.php/component/content/article/277.html

Quick Extra Points:  Why "Junk DNA"?

Part of the reason for the myth of “Junk DNA” is that some of this “Junk” looks almost identical to actual Protein coding genes, yet scientists found that this DNA (often called Pseudo Genes) was not being coded into Proteins. Since the belief was that Protein Coding genes are the important part, the fact that these other genes were not being used that way made the scientists think they were broken duplicates of the working genes, evolutionary screw ups. Though some of these Pseudo Genes could very well be no longer fully functional broken genes, scientists are now finding that many of these “Pseudo Genes” are actually being used in connection with the Protein coding genes that look so similar to them. So what’s going on here? It’s becoming clear that these “Pseudo Genes” are like identifiers, a bit like a website’s URL address. They basically contain the instructions for how to use the target gene. In other words, the part of these genes that look so similar to the functional protein coding genes are actually saying, “Do this with this target DNA.”

Why the quickly shifting perspective on Pseudo Genes and “Junk DNA”? One reason is the many studies that are discovering important functions for this DNA that were never tested or recognized before. Our modern technology allows us to study all this stuff in far more detail. The second big reason is that it makes absolutely no sense at all for biological life forms to hold onto (store and continue to pass along through successive generations) all of this genetic data if it’s “evolutionary garbage”. The amount of energy and resources it takes to keep this genetic library going is huge, and there would be no reason for life to hold onto it all if it were simply completely broken, non-functional, or junk. The fact that life does go through so much effort to preserve this vast amount of DNA (98% in humans compared to the 2% that codes for Proteins), even under pressure to get rid of it, strongly indicates that this DNA is very important and functional after all.

Evolution: King of Contradictory, Inconsistent Logic

I read an interesting little blog article today about the fact that the famous "evolutionary tree of life" so often found in biology text books doesn't really exist in nature and that even modern scientists are finally starting to admit this. The idea of the "biological tree of life" is that you can map similarities between living organisms and fossils into a branching "tree" of evolutionary progress and/or dead ends. It's the idea of common ancestry, everything is connected way back in the past and has branched off from the same ancient common ancestors. The responses to the blog post I read were quite fascinating and are a great example of an astounding flaw in evolutionist apologetics thinking.

Blog Post this article is related to: The Evolutionary Tree Failed But Evolutionists Still Insist Evolution is a Fact

When Creationists or people that believe in Intelligent Design (and not Darwinistic evolution or all-encompassing common ancestry) point this major failure of Darwinism out (the classic "tree of life"), a common response by pro-evolutionists is to argue that clearly evolution is much more complex and variable than was assumed. The "tree of life" is much more like a "very tangled bush" instead, but they still argue that there's enough of a "core tree-like structure" to life that the proof of common ancestry IS there.

The problems of so many instances of life supposedly being along the same branch (due to apparent similarity), and then the genetic studies on these organisms revealing vast differences between them far beyond what should exist when compared against the famous "tree of life", is a nasty punch to Neo-Darwinism. The same is true for organisms that are highly separated on the "biological tree of life" but turn out to have vast genetic similarities despite being physically very different. It boggles the mind and destroys the tidy concept of the biological tree of life (which was always an entirely assumption-based (instead of fact-based) belief anyway). The evolutionists, however, continue to argue that there's still enough "good and accurate structure" to the "tree of life" model that it's a mathematically valid and very probable reality.

But this is a classic case of contradictory logic. As I've debated with some atheists and evolutionists online over the last half year or so, I've found that this kind of "stance-jumping" is extremely common among them. They'll argue one point in defense of evolution and then completely disregard that exact same logical point at another. It's, "win in any way you can, even if we constantly disobey our own previously stated logical and factual stances." There's very little consistency in their position. They contradict themselves all over the place.

Case in point...

Mathematical statistics and probability are used to defend the crumbling "biological and historical tree of life". They say that there's enough mathematical probability and similarity in the structure of the tree to still be considered a valid belief/fact. However when the math does NOT support evolution at all, they say math, statistics and probability has nothing to do with it, or is not relevant. Why? Because they only like the math when it agrees with them.

The probability of life arising from non-living molecules is astronomically impossible. The probability is trillions of times beyond what's mathematically possible, let alone actually plausible. It is absolutely impossible for a simple protein to form in nature except by way of life building it on purpose. The odds for just ONE such simple Protein forming in nature is 1 in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion (etc.). It's simply not mathematically possible. In fact, there isn't even enough matter and energy (probabilistic resources) in the entire universe to get anywhere close to giving this equation a chance. And yet these scientists claim that this exact event (a protein forming with no help from life or intelligence) happened MANY times.

But the math just doesn't work! The entire universe has no way of producing a single protein without life intentionally building it from an already existing blue print. When such things are pointed out to evolutionists and scientists, they shrug it off and say that, "Clearly life happened, since life is here, so the odds and statistics don't really matter." This is a VERY common argument by evolutionists and atheists.

Note the completely contradictory statement and stance compared to their arguments regarding math, statistics and probability when it comes to the biological tree of life. It's completely illogical to consider "the math" to be a valid proof or evidence defending your stance (belief) in one related instance but to ignore it completely with regards to another aspect of your worldview (beliefs). There's no consistency of stance and position there, which throws your entire structure of supposed logical reasoning out the window.

Either probability, statistics and math ARE a valid proof of something's reality (in this case, Darwinistic Evolution) or they are not. You can't have it both ways, as the evolutionists clearly desire.
 

For more on the numerous problems with the "evolutionary tree of life" check out this 5 part entry at EvolutionNews.com. A Primer on the Tree of Life

Oh No! It's Intelligent Design, Educational, AND FUN!

(http://www.cellcraftgame.com/Home.html)

For the past half year or so I've had some ideas floating around in my head for a fun little educational strategy game based on creating a functional living cell. Well it turns out that someone with actual game design experience and education has beaten me to the punch. 

While reading an article about a small company that recently released a strategy tower defense RPG flash game, I noticed that the writer mentioned another game he had developed and released called CellCraft. I was immediately interested as it sounded EXACTLY like what I had been thinking about doing for a game. I looked it up and sure enough it did a lot of what I'd had in mind. It taught the Player about the parts and workings of a living cell. Good for the developer! I was a little disappointed that someone else had come up with a fun little game based on the same kind of idea, but I was also happy to see that such an idea had been put to good use already.

The underlying meaning of this game concept, however, is what initially poked my interest. The game was going to show the Player just how incredible the biology of a single cell was. How a single cell did all kinds of different things based on all kinds of different parts and chemicals in order to survive and accomplish what it needs to. What does all that marvellous structure and functional detail say about the incredible complexity of life? That it can't have happened by accident! It's SO detailed, SO interconnected and SO full of rich specific information and instructions to build and use all kinds of molecule-sized parts that the only way to describe it is to say that it is an astoundingly sophisticated self-sustaining miniscule biological machine. And where do machines come from? An intelligent designer and manufacturer, a creator.

This underlying theme was not at all lost on evolutionist educators who were at first impressed with the game and how it could teach the Player all about the different parts and functions of a single living cell... And then they realized the horrific truth. Neo-Darwinist evolution was mostly absent from the game and instead, the Player of the game was essentially an Intelligent Designer, an alien biologist (a platypus, in fact) constructing a living cell. Evolutionists and atheists immediately wrote articles attacking the game and stating that it was in no way educational or beneficial to any student who might play it because it promoted “Creationism”. 

Game reviews for CellCraft were very good and a lot of people were raving about the fact that the game was educational AND fun! People were saying how much the game taught them about cell biology and that they had a great time playing it too, a rarity in educational software.

“Where CellCraft excels is in the depth of the scientific material presented throughout the game.” “… a challenging and informative educational game with creative and satisfying gameplay mechanics.”

(http://www.brainsforgames.rachelnponce.com/2011/07/review-cellcraft.html)

“Played Cellcraft this morning, which turned out to be one of the best science education games I’ve seen in a while.”
(http://www.meme-hazard.org/blog/2011/06/12/game-review-cellcraft/)

“Now that I've played this highly educational, yet highly fun, game, I would ask they create more games like this.”

(http://omgn.com/review/2011/01/25/cellcraft-review)

So people without any sort of political bent in the debate between Neo-Darwinist evolution and creationism or Intelligent Design clearly thought the game was an outstanding and fun way to learn basic cell biology. Everyone was raving about its educational merits. Atheists, however, were NOT impressed.

PZ Myers, an atheist evolutionist who quite regularly takes on the issues of intelligent design vs evolution (from the pro-evolution and anti-creation perspective) wrote about the game under a blog post titled, "CellCraft, a subversive little game".

"... as a tool for teaching anyone about biology, it sucks. It is not an educational game, it is a miseducational game. I hope no one is planning on using it in their classroom."

(http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/cellcraft_a_subversive_little.php)

 The credits for the game include this damning few lines of text. 

"Also thanks to Dr. Jed Macosko at Wake Forest University and Dr. David Dewitt at Liberty University for providing lots of support and biological guidance."

Evolutionists discovered that two of the science contributors to the game were scientists that support the Intelligent Design belief that all life was Intelligent Designed and planted on earth by an Intelligent Designer (Creator). This belief basically states that life is far too sophisticated, complex and full of detailed specified instruction and information (like a massive computer program and intricate city all contained in a single cell) for it to have simply happened by the accidental chance combination of available chemicals of the universe. The atheists and evolutionists had their smoking gun.

As PZ Myers states, 

"Those two are notorious creationists and advocates for intelligent design creationism. Yep. It's a creationist game."

Yes, it's true, the game does not promote Neo-Darwinist evolution. It instead places the Player as the intelligent director and builder of a living cell and their parts. You, as the Player, simply collect the needed chemicals to build the parts and when you have enough of those chemicals, your part is build and added to the cell, giving it a new important feature. The game is structured and plays like a game should, while also providing a lot of information on cell biology that most people would have no clue about.

The atheists are mad because a couple of the scientists that the game’s science was double checked with believe in Intelligent Design, and the game itself does not contain much (if any) explicit references to evolution. They can’t complain about the actual science in the game, but that doesn’t matter. What irks them is the lack of evolution and the fact that the game does an admirable job of showing just how amazing and complex a single living cell is. That complexity can’t help beg the question, “How could this have ever ‘just happened’ by chance?” though such a question is never implied or asked in the game itself.

One furious atheist commenter online said about the game (slightly censored by myself)…

“motherf***ing insidious b*st*rds.

well, it's obvious not ALL of them are complete morons, though it's still the case that all of them are sleazy, underhanded, b*st*rds.”

Thankfully there are also many level headed and rational people out there (evolutionists and atheists included) that have posted comments in relation to the game in a much more positive light

“I don't care who makes the game, if I find it educationally useful.”

Some angry atheists freaked out because the game doesn’t directly preach evolution. In fact, it doesn’t directly preach ANYTHING! But it shows you just how desperate evolution must become in order to survive. Unless it is constantly pointed at, taught, included or spoken of as absolute truth, the incredible realities of life all around us testify to their magnificent and brilliant Creator, God.

GENETICS: All Creatures From Noah's Ark?

Evolutionist Argument:  You believe that all animal life on earth died out in a giant global flood except for a male and female of each “kind” that were saved on a big boat. Now, a few thousand years later, you believe that ALL living creatures came from those few that were saved on Noah’s Ark… Seriously? All dogs, all cats, all reptiles, all bugs, EVERYTHING, from one large floating zoo? Crazy!

Animals Entering the Ark – from the movie Evan Almighty.

Any Evolutionist or atheist that makes such an argument as the one written above has made a monumental mistake of judgement and logic. Noah’s ark has no problem explaining how life survived the flood and became as it is today, while Evolutionists have a massively worse problem trying to explain ALL forms of life (all plants, birds, bugs, reptiles, mammals, bacteria, etc.).

Those of us that believe in Noah’s Ark believe that Noah, with the help of God, managed to collect and care for a male and female of every KIND of creature on the ark. Though we might not know what exactly constitutes a “kind” in every situation, we do know that if you only had to take one male and one female dog onto the Ark, and if you took them on as cubs, they’d be able to generate all the varied dog species we have today, given a cycle of many generations and natural breeding. As dogs spread all over the world, natural selection easily explains how the dog population can change into all different kinds of dogs over time, especially if they all originated from a pair of dogs with an immensely more diverse set of genetics. Such a situation is completely plausible, realistic, and adheres perfectly to our scientific understanding of how genetics and breeding works. But note that all dogs are still dogs, all cats are still cats, all monkeys are still monkeys, and all people are still people. No where does any of these surviving creatures “evolve” into different kinds of creature.

So we, as Bible believing Christians, have no problem explaining all kinds of living creatures today because we simply state that they have ALWAYS existed (since God’s Creation of Earth). Sure, they’ve changed and become much more diverse over many years, but they truly have all descended from one male and one female of their kind.

 

The Biblical Story of Noah’s Ark Fits The Science of Genetics

Biology and genetics are an incredible complex and wondrous field of science, but Neo Darwinism (evolution from molecules to single celled organism to all life on earth) actually goes in the opposite direction that science tells us it should, and does. The story of Noah’s Ark, however, and all living creatures that exist today since that time (about 4000 years ago), fit perfectly into the scientific understanding of genetics.

The Bible says that God created everything in a perfect condition, like a book without a single misprint or flaw. That being said, from the time of Creation to the Flood, is estimated to have been around 2000 years. 

Since we’re playing in the realm of genetics and reproduction here, what would happen if you had two dogs (a male and female) that contained the entire “dog” genetic library within their genes? The genes of those dogs would contain ALL the genetic possibilities and variability that God had “programmed” into them. Over time with each successive generation, new species of dogs would arise as different variations of those genes became dominant and/or lost. Mankind, throughout its existence, has bred all kinds of species for all types of different creatures (horses, dogs, livestock, chickens, cats, sheep, etc.). That’s all done through selective breeding, which is something Evolutionists AND Creationists completely agree on. It’s a proven well documented and heavily verified science. Dogs over time breed different kinds of dogs. That same principle works across all other forms of life on our planet both in the past and today.

 

Neo Darwinism Is In WAY More Trouble Than Noah’s Ark

What if we compare the Creationist explanation of modern day life to the Darwinist explanation? Not surprisingly, you find that the Darwinist is in WAY more trouble trying to explain the existence of all life (not just air breathing life) than Creationists are.

The argument against Noah’s Ark that exists at the start of this blog post states that believing all present day dogs (or any other kind of creature) descended from a common biological ancestor, is preposterous… But that’s exactly what Darwinists believe!!! That ALL living things on earth of ALL kinds (not just air breathing creatures) descended from common ancestors. Not just all dogs from dogs, but ALL things (plants, bugs, bacteria, mammals, fish, etc.) from a specific limited set of ancestor life forms! Mammals all evolved from the same thing, according to Darwinists. Cats, dogs, monkeys, bears, deer, gophers, rabbits, horses, cows, elephants and even humans! We ALL supposedly descend from the SAME common ancestors…

Tell me now. WHO is the crazy one? If all dogs cannot have descended from a single pair of dogs, then all mammals could most definitely not have “evolved” from a couple “almost mammals”, and absolutely NOT from a single celled organism, which itself evolved from a pile of chemical goo, so the Evolutionist believes.

An example of the Evolutionary “Tree of Life”. All life from a single celled organism. But they still can’t explain where that “single celled organism” came from.

 The Evolution Of Life Runs Backwards

Neo Darwinism (the modern theory of evolution) actually claims that life runs in the OPPOSITE direction from what history and science tells us it does. 

Genetics shows us that a small group of creatures have to be very similar genetically in order to breed together. Even many different species of dogs, or horses, or cats, or whatever else of the same kind, cannot properly breed with their own kind because over time their genes have become too different to properly and successfully “pair up”. Why? Because the genetic library (DNA) is finite, limited, and it digresses (falls apart and shrinks) over time. It does NOT expand or grow and develop brand new sets of genetic information and advancement. This is why if you take twelve similar dogs and breed them over and over and over again (performing no intelligent natural selection of your own, simply letting them breed on their own) you’ll eventually end up with a pile of very genetically weak and sickly dogs.

A couple years ago I visited a zoo and one of the scientists there briefly mentioned that there are so few cheetahs left in the wild now that they will never again be a strong vibrant species. Why is this? Because the genetic library of the world’s living cheetahs has shrunk so much over time that they can no longer produce an adequate supply of genetically healthy offspring. Their genetics are handicapped, forever, because there’s not enough genetic variability between them all anymore. This very same principle works within the population of mankind. Lock a set of people onto an island and don’t allow anyone from outside to join their population, and within a short number of generations you’ll end up with a very genetically weak and damaged population group. The babies that survive birth will be overflowing with tons of genetic defects resulting in all manner of physical and mental handicaps because their DNA is so polluted with copied and duplicated errors. This is why we can’t marry and have babies with our siblings, and why we shouldn’t even make babies with cousins. Because the genetic flaws in our own DNA are going to be very similar to a lot of the same genetic flaws in our near relatives, resulting in children born with genetics that ONLY contain the errors and have no alternate set of genes without the errors to make up for the genetic damage.

This is scientific fact! Genetics and DNA is a library of variability, but over time that library becomes polluted with countless copying errors that degenerate that library, making it inferior and weak. To combat this major problem, mankind even has laws in place to prevent people from marrying and having children with near relatives. Look at all the diseases and handicaps both physical and mental that exist throughout our population today. A good number of these (most of them, actually) have a genetic origin. They are caused by weak error-riddled DNA. Mankind’s population and genetic library is massive, yet it’s still so heavily damaged that we’re producing tons and tons of genetically damaged children. Copy errors in the genetic code are HARMFUL, NOT beneficial, like evolutionists so badly want to believe. Science shows us that the exact opposite of Neo Darwinism happens to DNA over time. It degrades and loses information. It does NOT gain it.

Creationists have NO problem explaining why this happens. We believe that God created a perfect genome, a perfect set of DNA for all life on earth (a perfect set of dog DNA, a perfect set of Turtle DNA, a perfect set of Human DNA, etc.) and that when mankind sinned and brought corruption into the world, that perfect world began to break down. So instead of a perfectly preserved genome existing in all kinds of life all over the planet, life is now running on borrowed time with a genetic library that is gradually falling apart collecting more and more copy errors with each new generation. There still exists a vast quantity of genetic variability in life and that variability results in all the different appearances and structures of life all around us today, but change within the DNA of life over time is degrading that DNA, NOT improving it, like Evolutionists believe. The funny thing is that Evolutionists know this and admit this, because it’s hard and proven science, but they blindly and wishfully believe that these laws of entropy don’t apply when it comes to their theory of Evolution, because it CAN’T have applied for their beliefs to have worked, or happened.

Non-Life Into Life

Making matters even worse for Neo Darwinists is that they still can’t explain how life actually began. They’ve been trying ever since Darwin first put forth his theories about the origins of life on earth, but they’ve never been able to make non-life become alive, despite our massive and impressive amounts of technology and scientific understanding. The problem is that life doesn’t just happen. It doesn’t appear out of no where. The only way to make life is to make it with more life. You can’t build life from the ground up no matter how hard you try. The “basics” of life are way too complex and intricate for that to ever work randomly or naturally. But Evolutionists believe that this must have happened at least once eons ago in the past because we’re surrounded by life today, despite the fact that science shows us this is impossible.

You cannot take all the basic components of a computer broken down into their simplest molecules, toss them into a box, mix it up and have a fully functional computer appear by random out of the mess. It’s impossible. The EXACT same problem exists when trying to explain life today. Evolutionists try to get around this by calling the molecules that make up life “organic”, but that simply means that the set of molecules they’re looking at are what life is made of. I can say the same sort of thing about the molecules that make up a computer (these are “computer molecules”), but it still won’t change the fact that mixing them together at random won’t ever produce a functional computer.

Life is very special, very complex, and even our vast intelligence and modern technology combined with our scientific understanding can’t do half of what life does constantly all around us every day. Life is no accident of nature. Life is an intentional creation, intelligently designed and supernaturally strung together and jolted into existence by Almighty God.

Conclusion

Evolutionists say that ALL life came from a single celled organism and a pile of mixed up chemical goo… And to them, this is realistic and plausible, despite science significantly showing otherwise.

Don’t ever let an Evolutionist tell you that all animals coming from Noah’s Ark is ridiculous, when they themselves argue that all life, period, came from non-life, by accident. That makes it pretty obvious which of the two parties in this debate have to have monumental amounts of blind faith. The Bible believing Christian’s understanding of the world and life matches perfectly with what science tells us about it, however the Neo Darwinist believes in the exact opposite of what science shows us in order to believe that all life evolved from non-life. Christianity has no problem with the real and observable scientific facts of genetics. Evolution does.

All air breathing creatures today came from all the creatures saved on Noah’s ark.