Says Cosmos Magazine here:
National Geographic’s senior editor Christopher Sloan had seen a feathered dinosaur fossil or two. But the specimen he described in the magazine’s November 1999 issue, dubbed Archaeoraptor liaoningensis, took his breath away.
…
Archaeoraptor would later be dubbed “Piltdown chicken”.
Cut n’ paste job. But even smart folks have been taken in.
The problem of faked fossils in China is serious and growing. Rather than being excavated by palaeontologists on fossil digs, most of the region’s fossils are pulled from the ground by desperately poor farmers and then sold on to dealers and museums. More.
Gotta have one? Don’t pay more than you would for some other souvenir. How about a stuffed gotta-have-one toy dressed as a Mountie?
Cheaper and maybe just as valuable.
Follow UD News at Twitter!
And yet the evolutionary fairy tale of dinos to birds has received a huge boost of credibility because of these supposed feathered dino fossils.
+++
Why are not skeptics very skeptical of these fossils?
It’s funny how our biases = even in science = influence how we look at data that can be seen to support our particular position. No one is immune from this. It is easy to quickly want to accept findings that agree with our position, but all findings need to be vetted – else we might end up with egg on our face like evolutionists are still trying to wipe off due to the whole vestigial organ and junk DNA fiasco.
Piltdown Man is another good example of this in history. It is not only evolutionists who have experienced this type of embarrassment.
Creationists at one point, jumped on fossil evidence that, at that point, could be interpreted as supporting man living with dinosaurs in Texas. Paluxy footprints maybe?
But later examination showed that conclusion to be questionable. Probably they were too quick to accept those footprints as evidence for their origins beliefs.
This type of thing happens in science so we need to recognize that further discovery could undermine our current interpretations of the data.
But especially, don’t you think that these feathered dinosaur fossils that all come from the same area of China and are totally unverifiable because of how the fossils come into scientists’ hands – don’t even you Materialists think that these fossils are not really trustworthy?
Of the fossils being sold on the open market? What makes you think they aren’t? Of course they are. Any fossil not dug up by professionals is highly suspected.
That’s why they try to protect the important fossil sites from being dug up by amateurs and treasure hunters.
“Of the fossils being sold on the open market?”
These are faked fossils. Knockoffs. If I buy a Rolex on the open market, I want a real one. If I buy a fossil, I want a Blind Watchmaker one. Blind Watchmaker lol. Like that could ever happen.
a few related notes:
Fraudulent fossil specimens in museums revealed at the 11:42 minute mark of the following video
Bird Evolution vs. The Actual Evidence – video (11:42 minute mark) – video
https://youtu.be/OZhtj06kmXY?t=704
BA77, thanks for those links. I like it when you keep the excerpts or descriptions short and to the point. It makes for easier reading.
So this whole feathered dinosaur thing is nothing but a big Darwinist/atheist hoax? Why am I not surprised? The jackasses are known to be allergic to professional ethics and basic decency. But then again, if all you got is a crappy theory, only crap will come out of it.
[edit] Nat Geo will never get a penny from me, that’s for sure.
Remind us, which scientific journal was Archeorapter published in?
(It wasn’t published in a journal, but was rejected by Science… almost as if folks are plenty skeptical about these fossils)
Yep, and rejected by Nature prior to that.
Darwinian evolution does not permit the evolution of hoaxes, hoaxsters, or hucksters. Unless it does.
Otoh, the evolution of hoaxes, hoaxsters, or hucksters is a prediction of the theory.
Whether or not Science or Nature published the paper is irrelevant. The fact is that a bunch of Darwinist and atheist jackasses at Nat Geo felt it necessary to create and disseminate a hoax. Why? Is it because the theory is shaky and incredible? Is this how you people proselytise, through chicken shit propaganda?
Or, are you resident atheists claiming that some closet creationists at Nat Geo pulled the hoax in order to discredit atheists and Darwinists? LOL.
So now what will be the outcome of all this? IMO, regardless of the actual science, the whole dinosaur-birdee theory will always have “hoax” and “BS” written all over it. Why? Because of a bunch of dishonest atheists are trying to promote a weak theory based on a chicken shit ideology.
Inquiring minds and all that. 😀
BTW, I have yet to see a single dinosaur chicken fossil with feathers. The pictures that I have seen show some nondescript stuff that could be anything. Does anybody have actual images of dinosaur feather fossils that are half way convincing?
Mapou: I have yet to see a single dinosaur chicken fossil with feathers.
It’s not a chicken, but it is a dinosaur.
http://prometheus.med.utah.edu.....pteryx.jpg
Zachriel @13,
I have seen that picture before. I had not thought about it before but now that I’m looking at it with a different mindset, it sure looks like a fake to me. LOL. This dinochicken looks like it was chiseled out of the rock. Some people are extremely good with a chisel and we all know how motivated Darwinists and atheists are. They got something to prove. Theirs is a theory that can never have enough evidence because there are huge numbers of thinking people, including myself, who still think it’s crap in spite of all the so-called evidence. But, assuming it’s not a fake, I have several questions.
1. How is this evidence for Darwinian evolution and not evidence for design evolution?
2. Why are these dinochicken fossils so rare? The fossil record should be full of them.
3. Do we have a video of the entire chiseling process?
4. How did RM+NS invent something as complex as feathers? The combinatorial explosion of genetic possibilities would stop any search mechanism dead in its tracks regardless of how fast it is.
Remember this. As a programmer, I know about GAs (I have experimented with them) and I know that they are worthless unless the search space is limited to toy problems. Inquiring minds and all that.
wd400: “Remind us, which scientific journal was Archeorapter published in?”
I remember seeing it in National Geographic as part of an article about the “overwhelming” evidence for evolution.
Mapou: I had not thought about it before but now that I’m looking at it with a different mindset, it sure looks like a fake to me.
There are about a dozen different Archeopteryx fossils, by different researchers, at different times, and they have been examined in detail, including by microscopy and chemical analysis.
Mapou: 1. How is this evidence for Darwinian evolution and not evidence for design evolution?
No single bit of evidence can be considered conclusive. In any case, you asked for a feathered dinosaur, and that’s what we provided.
Mapou: 2. Why are these dinochicken fossils so rare? The fossil record should be full of them.
Most fossils are rare. Complete organisms with feathers rarer still.
Mapou: 3. Do we have a video of the entire chiseling process?
They usually aren’t chiseled, but are found when rocks are split along their natural seams.
Mapou: 4. How did RM+NS invent something as complex as feathers?
Feathers are modified scales.
Right on the first half Barb, it was published in Nat. Geo. and not a scientific journal. Indeed that article was written by the arts editor! Scientists were skeptical of Archeoraptor from woe to go.
That was his point. It was published in the magazine Nat Geo rather than a science journal. Nat Geo actually went to both Nature and Science for peer review, and both told them that it was likely a forgery, and yet Nat Geo decided to go ahead and publish the story anyway.
Zachriel:
None of those researchers can be trusted because, as Darwinists, they have a chicken shit religion to defend and their own careers to promote.
First off, stop using this “we” shit with me, alright? I’m not your dog, goddamnit. Second, why is the evidence always presented as if it supports only one hypothesis, the brain dead one? That’s both dishonest and chicken shit.
Whether or not most fossils are rare is irrelevant. Compared to the other fossils in the same geological strata, these dinochicken fossils are extremely rare. Given the Darwinist conjectures about RM+NS, this should not be the case.
The one you linked to was definitely chiseled.
So what? Everything is a modified protein or other. The combinatorial explosion still kills the search mechanism dead. Do the math sometime. It’s not that hard.
PS. Again, stop using this “we” shit. You sound like an idiot when you do.
goodusername:
I suspect this is all a lie. They probably got together and decided that it was much better that Nat Geo be the one take the heat if the hoax was discovered and the shit hit the fan. If so, they can always fall back to the obvious “Nat Geo is not a scientific journal” excuse.
One more thing. Why have you Darwinist jackasses been trying to hack into my UD account and change my password?
Mapau, my guess is that the hacker is a Chinese Fossils Dealer. You’re bad for business.
The sculpted wings on that fossil Zach posted is a work of art. Very pretty. Not easy to sculpt either.
Mapou: None of those researchers can be trusted because, as Darwinists, they have a chicken shit religion to defend and their own careers to promote.
In other words, you have no evidence.
Zachriel: They usually aren’t chiseled, but are found when rocks are split along their natural seams.
Mapou: The one you linked to was definitely chiseled.
It was discovered by a quarrier cleaving limestone for use in lithography.
Zachriel:
What do you mean? The Nat Geo hoax is powerful evidence that you people are dishonest and chicken shit.
I don’t care.
One more thing, Zachriel. I notice you steered clear of my ‘combinatorial explosion’ argument. I know you are all a bunch of chicken shit pseudoscientists. So I’m challenging the entire Darwinist camp to refute the CE argument.
It was a magic time when scales turned into feathers. That time is no more. Scales beget scales. I miss the magical time. It happened so quickly. Too quickly. Magic is like that I guess. Poof a bird flies out of a hat.
This is by far the most ridiculous claim of the whole dinosaur to bird shebang. Even a development from scratch would be more realistic than this.
How any scientist with a little more than a supraesophageal ganglion can give this fairy tale any credit is beyond me…
Sebestyen
Well, science by propaganda seems to have worked well for the Darwinist hoaxers. So they figured it should also work for AGW. With enough repeated lies, a lot of the people can be made to believe in any kind of BS.
Edit: Sorry, wrong thread.
ppolish
LOL! You have been on a roll lately. A drum roll .. ba dum dump ching!
“Feathers are modified scales.
This is by far the most ridiculous claim of the whole dinosaur to bird shebang. Even a development from scratch would be more realistic than this.”
I’m with you Sebestyen. Scales what? More promising is the “Dingleberry Hypothesis”. Tail feathers emerged first, right? Quickly followed by arm feathers.
“But feathers emerged very very quickly. Dingleberries were around since the Cambrian”
Good point. Maybe it was just exactly the right time for feathers. Right Time Theory? Not as offensive as Dingleberry Theory.
But whatever theory you believe – it was guided, purposeful, and heck, fine tuned. That much we should be able to agree on:)
And de undesigned neurological programming of de brains just a-magically happened in parallels wit de undesigned morphological changes.
And if yooz can swallow dat, my uncle Vinnie’s gotta bridge he’d like to sell yooz.
Mapou: The Nat Geo hoax is powerful evidence that you people are dishonest and chicken shit.
“You people”? Heh. You should learn not to overgeneralize. The fake fossil was never recognized by any scientific journal, and National Geographic admitted their error.
Mapou: I don’t care.
You don’t care about your own false statements, or evidence that contradicts your position.
Mapou: I notice you steered clear of my ‘combinatorial explosion’ argument.
Feel free to show your maths for the evolution of feathers.
ppolish: It happened so quickly.
If by that you mean million of years, then sure.
Sebestyen: This is by far the most ridiculous claim of the whole dinosaur to bird shebang.
Turns out that the type of beta-karatin that is found in avian feathers is also found in alligator scales, which, like birds, are archosaurs. See Alibardi et al., Beta-keratin localization in developing alligator scales and feathers in relation to the development and evolution of feathers, Journal of submicroscopic cytology and pathology 2006. If you look at the evolutionary history of feathers, feathers acquired their more subtle characteristics over time. For instance, the first feathers were unbranched cylinders that developed from the elongation of a placode.
“Turns out that the type of beta-karatin that is found in avian feathers is also found in alligator scales, which, like birds, are archosaur”
You’re talking modern birds and modern alligators. Alligators eat birds. Is the type of beta-keratin found in feathers also found in humans?
Beta-keratin is a ingredient of Design btw. Millions and millions and millions of years is not even close to being enough time for scales to become feathers unless the process is guided and purposeful. Obvious.
ppolish: You’re talking modern birds and modern alligators. Alligators eat birds. Is the type of beta-keratin found in feathers also found in humans?
Feathers and scales are made up of beta-keratins. Humans have alpha-keratins in their epidermis.
Feather beta-keratin evolved from reptile beta-keratin. See Greenwold & Sawyer, Genomic organization and molecular phylogenies of the beta-keratin multigene family in the chicken (Gallus gallus) and zebra finch (Taeniopygia guttata): implications for feather evolution, BMC Evolutionary Biology 2010: “As morphological diversification of epidermal appendages occurred and the beta-keratin multigene family expanded, novel beta-keratin genes were selected for novel functions within appendages such as feathers.”
Zach, see Andreas Wagner’s “Arrival of the Fittest”. Says 50 billion years is not enough time for a falcon to evolve its eyesight, wings, etc. And how about that lizard they found in amber same as today. 20 million years living in trees – it’s scales display zero case of feathering.
How does Andreas Wagner explain? He proposes a multidimensional mega big hyper-library for Nature to utilize. Kind of like the Multiverse of some astrophysicists lol. Mathematically impossible fine tuning calls for extreme measures lol:)
Zachriel:
Turns out that the same type of wood that is found in my house is also found in houses around the world, houses that are very different from mine.
ppolish: Says 50 billion years is not enough time for a falcon to evolve its eyesight, wings, etc.
Actually Wagner says exactly the opposite of that. He says organisms did evolve, but that current explanatory mechanisms for that evolution are incomplete, and proposes network evolution as a workable model. This doesn’t replace evolution by natural selection, but provides insights into how complex systems can evolve and remain robust.
ppolish: How does Andreas Wagner explain? He proposes a multidimensional mega big hyper-library for Nature to utilize.
It’s called network evolution, which is a mathematical structure that can grow in complexity from simple beginnings.
ppolish: Mathematically impossible fine tuning calls for extreme measures lol:)
Network evolution solves the problem of ‘fine tuning’ by providing a model for evolution that remains robust yet flexible.
So, Zachriel, you guys/gals admit “millions of years” in not nearly enough time for feathers to evolve through NS & RM. Multidimensional Hyper Libraries and Evo Networks are required to perform. That’s an improvement. Baby steps. Good on you guys:gals.
ppolish: you guys/gals admit “millions of years” in not nearly enough time for feathers to evolve through NS & RM.
That is incorrect. Network evolution is still natural selection and random variation.
Z:
Nat Geo is a famous publication that subscribes to Darwinist crap. They represent Darwinists just as much as the so-called “scientific” journals. As if science belonged to you or anybody else. Get a grip.
Care to point out those false statements, you lying jackass?
You mean you don’t understand the concept of combinatorial explosion? It figures. Google is your friend. Hint: It has nothing to do with feathers.
Is Zachriel a paid professional Darwinist propagandist? I’m asking because he seems to spend his entire time on UD and other anti-evolution sites. Where does he find the time? Or is he really a team of paid Darwinist propagandists, as he claims.
Another question: Why does UD give those jackasses a forum to spread their lies?
Inquiring minds and all that.
Zach, Wagner believes NS & RM affect survival of the fittest – but NOT arrival of the fittest. You know, the title of his book.
Feathers did NOT arrive by NS & RM per Wagner. Reread the book maybe? Chapter one is a doozy:)
“Arrival” is synonymous with “Creation” in Wagner’s book btw:)
Over at the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) writer Stephanie Keep writes:
“ … there are two large circles that list “Victims,” including dinosaurs, marine reptiles, and flying reptiles, and “Survivors,” including turtles, mammals, and birds.
Huh? Birds are dinosaurs. Yet there wasn’t even a hint of this fact, known to every ten-year-old, in the signage. … “
Me thinks Ms. Keep and other Darwinists spend far too much time in the museums and in the lecture halls and books of such as Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne … and far to little time actually looking at birds.
See more at:
https://ayearningforpublius.wordpress.com/2015/06/01/dinosaurs-sea-gulls-and-museums/
Mapou: Nat Geo is a famous publication that subscribes to Darwinist crap.
That’s exactly what is meant by an overgeneralization, taking a particular to represent the entire group. In any case, National Geographic admitted their mistake.
Mapou: Care to point out those false statements
Sure. You claimed the specimen of Archaeopteryx was “chiseled out of the rock”. In fact, the rock was simply cleaved, revealing the fossil. When this was pointed out, you said “I don’t care.”
Mapou: You mean you don’t understand the concept of combinatorial explosion?
In other words, you make claims you have no intention of supporting.
Mapou: It has nothing to do with feathers.
Actually, your statement about “combinatorial explosion” was in direct response to our comment about feathers.
ppolish: Wagner believes NS & RM affect survival of the fittest – but NOT arrival of the fittest.
Network evolution still occurs through random variation. It’s just that simple variations in one place can cause coordinated changes throughout the network. This is supported by mathematical models of how networks evolve. An external agent is not required.
How in the world can you get such fine detail of feathers if the deposition of strata to create fossilisations is not rapid but takes millions of years?
Network Evolution is hypothetical, and the Mathematical Models that guide are just that – models. Cool stuff though. It screams Design.
Zachriel, professional Darwinist liar:
Mistake? There you go again with your prevarications. It was a premeditated hoax by influential Darwinists who hoped to get away with fraud on a large scale. They should all be in jail.
Why lie so blatantly? I made no such claim. Here’s what I wrote above:
Who’s paying you to lie day in and day out on UD? Care to take back your lie?
LOL. Zachriel either does not understand the concept of combinatorial explosion or is feigning to. Lies upon lies.
For those of you who are interested, here’s a simple explanation. RM+NS is faced with an insurmountable combinatorial explosion in the search space for the simple reason that the search space increases exponentially with the number of variables. And we all know that the number of variables (base pairs) to consider when going from fish scales to feathers is probably in the millions or at least in the thousands! The search space is so huge, it cannot be imagined. The RM+NS crap never even gets out of the gate. And it does not matter if you have trillions upon trillions upon quintillions of universes to play with.
This is how stupid Darwinism is.
Zachriel:
So what? Why do you insist on acting like a moron? The concept of combinatorial explosion has nothing to do with feathers in particular. But everybody who has more than two neurons between their ears knows that the search space used in going from scales to feathers is impossibly huge.
DrJDD: How in the world can you get such fine detail of feathers if the deposition of strata to create fossilisations is not rapid but takes millions of years?
The shallow sea where the fossil was formed was an anoxic lagoon. Organisms were quickly buried in carbonate mud, then over time formed a flat-cleaving limestone called plattenkalk. Just so you know, cleaving limestone often reveals fossil organisms, and can actually be quite fun.
ppolish: Network Evolution is hypothetical, and the Mathematical Models that guide are just that – models.
All scientific theories are models. This particular model is consistent with what we know about protein networks, and is consistent with natural evolution.
Mapou: It was a premeditated hoax by influential Darwinists who hoped to get away with fraud on a large scale.
Actually, it was a farmer who knew that complete fossils were more valuable, so put two of them together, then smuggled it out of China. It was “Darwinists” who quickly exposed the hoax, refusing to publish the find in their “Darwnist” scientific journals.
Mapou: This dinochicken looks like it was chiseled out of the rock.
In this case, the fossil was found intact when the limestone was cleaved.
Mapou: And we all know that the number of variables (base pairs) to consider when going from fish scales to feathers is probably in the millions!
You forgot the maths.
Zachriel:
What maths? It’s just a simple exponent: n = number of base pairs involved in the relevant genes. It’s no more complicated than this. This number is at least in the thousands. Take any number greater than 1 and raise it to 1000 and you get an impossibly huge search space.
PS. I know you probably get paid to comment here but I’m getting tired of your crap. Unlike you, I got a life.
Feathered Dinos were done in by the meteor. What is the earliest post meteor Bird fossil?
What did birds look like 20 million years ago? 40 million? Are there any fossils from this time frame?
Does anybody know who Zachriel is? It bothers me that some anonymous jackass on the internet gets a free pass to spread lies on this forum with impunity. Are there any UD hackers among us? 😀
Mapou,
You mean you’re not getting paid to post here? I thought we all were …
So it seems that birds 35-40 million years ago look like those today:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/d.....irdfr.html
They changed from Dino Birds very quickly. Makes you think. Maybe Dino Birds were just Feathered Dinos that all went extinct. Birds have a separate “arrival” and survived the Dino Extinction event.
Triassic Shore Birds?!
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ore-birds/
Question. What is the size of the genetic search space in the human genome?
Answer. The human genome is a huge number with at least 3 billion base pairs. But this is not the size of the search space. 3 billion would be a breeze for a search mechanism even one as stupid as RM+NS. No Siree. The search space is 4 (the number of letters in DNA) raised to 3 billion or 4^10^9! This is more particles than can be contained in trillions upon trillions of universes. The only way to search through this space is to use intelligence to reduce the search space by 10^9 orders of magnitude!
Darwinists want us to believe in their little kiddie fairy tales. Just say NO.
Thanks SA. So birds pre-date & post-date Dinos. Good luck convincing the Nat Geo crowd;)
Heck, Eodromaeus, the “Eve of all Dinos”, was probably a featherless bird. Birds rock!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eodromaeus
ppolish: Feathered Dinos were done in by the meteor. What is the earliest post meteor Bird fossil?
Birds don’t fossilize well, but neornithes predate the K–Pg boundary.
As for after the K-Pg boundary, avian fossils are found in the Paleocene, including owls like Ogygoptynx and Berruornis, and the flightless Gastornis.
ppolish: So birds pre-date & post-date Dinos.
Aves is a subset of the clade dinosauria. If we take dinosaurs to mean non-avian dinosaurs, then birds do not predate dinosaurs, though they do post-date them. You can’t predate your ancestor, but you can coexist with them, and outlive them.
And because of that we don’t know if they predated dinos or not.
You don’t know that so please stop talking out of your arse.
Also if the alleged evolution of feathers required more than 2 specific mutations then natural selection and drift are out as there isn’t enough time to accomplish such a feat.
Yes, Zach, you can’t predate your ancestors. That was my point.
If Bird (Protoavis) is older than Dino (Eodromaeus), then Bird can’t be ancestor of Dino. Maybe other way around – that would explain all those feathered Dinos:)
Besides, “Bird is ancestor of extinct Dino” makes no sense. Dead men tell no tales. Extinct have no ancestors. That is why people are sad when species goes extinct waa. “Oh, don’t be sad because polar bear went extinct – it will still have ancestors”.
ppolish: If Bird (Protoavis) is older than Dino (Eodromaeus), then Bird can’t be ancestor of Dino. Maybe other way around – that would explain all those feathered Dinos:)
Eodromaeus is from about 230 million years ago, Protoavis 210 million years ago, so the dates are consistent. Furthermore, most paleontologists don’t consider Protoavis a bird. Archaeopteryx lived about 150 million years ago.
ppolish: Besides, “Bird is ancestor of extinct Dino” makes no sense.
When a species goes extinct, but leaves a daughter species, it’s sometimes called pseudoextinction.
ppolish: That is why people are sad when species goes extinct waa. “Oh, don’t be sad because polar bear went extinct – it will still have ancestors”.
Current rates of extinction exceed the rate of evolutionary adaptation, so many species leave no daughter species. Their lineage simply ends.
“Eodromaeus is from about 230 million years ago, Protoavis 210 million years ago”
Birds do not fossilize well. 210mya should not be considered the oldest. Evidence is out there. Anyway, Feathers/Birds at the very dawn (before?) the age of Dinos.
ppolish: 210mya should not be considered the oldest.
Perhaps not, but perhaps there are older fossils of Eodromaeus too. You made a claim of inconsistency in the dates, which you have not supported. Furthermore, Protoavis is not considered a bird by most paleontologists.
Given that most paleontologists think that birds are dinosaurs, why should anyone care what they think?
“Perhaps not, but perhaps there are older fossils of Eodromaeus too.”
If Eodromaeus is a featherless bird, your argument may make sense. Birds, like Protoavis (and Eodromaeus?) do not fossilize well. Hard to find.
Zach be reasonable – if quill knobs were found on a new Jurassic fossil, Nat Geo would be all “bird evolving from Dino”.
But quill knobs turning up in the Triassic upsets the narrative. Overturns the narrative. So yes, many have a problem with Protoavis.
ppolish,
You say that as if there’s some magical property of “not fossilizing well” that affects only birds and not close relatives.
I’m pretty sure that you’ve just been trolling this whole thread and it continues here. You do realize that it was Nat Geo that announced the discovery of protavis, said it had quill knobs, and declared it the first bird (as its name implies), right? Later researchers doubted that it had quill knobs.
ppolish: If Eodromaeus is a featherless bird, your argument may make sense. Birds, like Protoavis (and Eodromaeus?) do not fossilize well. Hard to find.
You’re not making much sense. You had claimed there was an inconsistency in dates, which isn’t supported by the known fossils. The fact that theropods had feathers isn’t inconsistent with evolution either.
Goodusername, 1986 Nat Geo not the same as current day Nat Geo. Gone downhill sigh.
http://www.nytimes.com/1986/08.....estor.html
Anywho, feathers in the Triassic sink NS & RM. Not that it takes much to sink:)
The combinatorial explosion of the search space kills Darwinian evolution and Darwinism/materialism dead in the water. One crackpot theory falsified. Next.
Any programmer who is familiar with genetic algorithms know that they are useless on non-toy problems. Why? It’s because of the combinatorial explosion. The CE is such an insurmountable problem that GA fanatics have taken to creating genomic “islands” in order to limit the number of variables. The reason is that the search space increases exponentially with the number of variables. RM+NS is less than impotent in such a huge space. It does not even get out of the gate.
Darwinism = abject ignorance and stupidity.