Selection after something exists is not the same as selection before something exists, except in confused, illogical thinking of Darwinists. This is the heart of the problem that Behe’s Irreducible Complexity poses for Darwinism. I once offered a Darwinist $100 if he could figure out the 40 letter password I’d written on a piece of paper and filed away. Even though it would have increased his survival advantage to figure out the password, did he figure it out? No. Did he write and evolutionary algorithm to figure it out? No. There was no free lunch for him. 🙂 The point of this exercise was to show that even though finding a solution to a problem gives one advantage, it does Read More ›

It’s gone viral–the one man a cappella production of “Bohemian Gravity”. It’s a good thing he included the lyrics, because otherwise you might not notice it is a parody of Queen.  For most people who know of string theory, it’s a hoot. For the select few who actually understand string theory, it’s a riot. And for those of us who resent string theory, its somewhere between Sharknado and Oklahoma City. Yeah, I’m the guy you never want to take to a movie theater. But let me explain why I might be the only one who had high blood pressure after watching this video. Although I know a few of the terms from string theory, there’s a large contingent of physicists Read More ›

Evolutionists believe that mind can rise from matter. From atoms configured into molecules, configured into cells, configured into tissues, configured into a brain, mind can rise. Their molecules-to-man evolution story is in fact the narrative of the emergency of mind from matter. Here, in a sense, evolutionism and artificial intelligence (AI) meet in developing a fallacious more-from-less scenario. For example, an evolutionist says: I think that “larger objects” have properties not possessed by their parts. These properties include the capacity to have purposes, designs, moral principles, beauty, love, anger, and fear. According to this evolutionist naturalistic conception, a “larger object” is simply a specific configuration of atoms, enough large to develop the emergent properties. The belief that properties as those Read More ›

This just in from Phys.Org.

Pugh added that he and Venters were stunned to find 160,000 of these “initiation machines,” because humans only have about 30,000 genes. “This finding is even more remarkable, given that fewer than 10,000 of these machines actually were found right at the site of genes. Since most genes are turned off in cells, it is understandable why they are typically devoid of the initiation machinery.” . . .

The remaining 150,000 initiation machines—those Pugh and Venters did not find right at genes—remained somewhat mysterious.
These initiation machines that were not associated with genes were clearly active since they were making RNA and aligned with fragments of RNA discovered by other scientists,” Pugh said. “In the early days, these fragments of RNA were generally dismissed as irrelevant since they did not code for proteins.” [Yeah, that’s right—you called it “junk DNA” and said it was proof contradicting design.] . . . . .

Pugh and Venters further validated their surprising findings by determining that these non-coding initiation machines recognized the same DNA sequences as the ones at coding genes, indicating that they have a specific origin and that their production is regulated, just like it is at coding genes. . . . . . .

“These non-coding RNAs have been called the ‘dark matter’ of the genome because, just like the dark matter of the universe, they are massive in terms of coverage—making up over 95 percent of the human genome. However, they are difficult to detect and no one knows exactly what they all are doing or why they are there,” Pugh said. “Now at least we know that they are real, and not just ‘noise’ or ‘junk.’ Of course, the next step is to answer the question, ‘what, in fact, do they do?'”[Really?!! “Dark Matter?” You called it “junk-DNA”; it’s only now, now that you’ve been proven wrong on a grand scale that you’ve decided to call it “dark matter.”][P.S. This is what liberals do: when wrong, change the words; e.g., “global warming” = “climate change”, or, “pro-abortion” = “pro-choice”. You see, it all depends on what the meaning of “is” is.]

Read More ›

Images of Neanderthal Man have changed over the years, but there has been a reluctance to portray them as our near-cousins. Neanderthals have been treated as a separate species within the Homo family, and usually described as slow and clumsy, with a limited capacity for creative thinking. The evolutionary context is typically presented in terms of Modern Man’s superiority, so that when Homo sapiens migrated from Africa into Europe, it was the Neanderthal population that died out. However, does the evolutionary approach provide the appropriate framework for understanding these events? Recent discoveries suggest that Neanderthals do not fit the descriptions found in the textbooks and the media, and that the evolutionary agenda is actually a negative influence. The presuppositions and Read More ›