It’s a good question whether Woese would have recognized the Archaea for what they were, had he not been in the habit of thinking for himself. Maybe he would have just been satisfied to shoehorn them into the conventional scheme somewhere.
(Wallace, Darwin-s co-theorist, was a working-class stiff whom Darwin’s set elbowed out. He was not a materialist (naturalist) and he thought evolution could be consistent with meaning and spirituality. Darwin abhorred such ideas. This review was originally published at New Oxford Review.)
Gunter Bechly: “Such hyperbole might be excused coming from ignorant popular science journalists, but that it was used in the official press release by the University of California is a shame.”
Independent journalist Suzan Mazur followed up with the College Board testing on evolution knowledge among U.S. students, which seems to test mainly for familiarity with the Darwin sect’s interpretation.
Well, we can spare you the suspense, dear readers, by revealing that they weren’t thrilled to hear a critical question.
Wells: The ScienceDaily report, like so much other reporting on evolution, is hype.
For a long while, Darwinians have been able to get away with claiming that human consciousness evolved to increase our chances of survival. The trouble is, that’s unlikely. The relationship between intelligence and survival is unclear. Or that it is some kind of a “spandrel,” an accidental byproduct of useful qualities. But that’s merely a statement of faith in Darwinism as the total explainer. It’s evening and the chickens are coming home.
It started when diehard Darwinian Jerry Coyne made fun of U.S. Veep Mike Pence and colleagues praying about the coronavirus epidemic…
The researchers chose the flatworm, whch can grow a new head after amputation. They didn’t expect a pattern but they found “This unique arrangement means that no single neuron sits flush against its twin, while still allowing different types of complementary neurons to be close enough to work together to complete tasks.” “We surprised ourselves when we discovered there was, in fact, such a rule.” You ain’t seen nuthin’ yet, folks.
It must be difficult to derive lectern-splintering theories when life forms simply adapt to whatever works, with nothing defined.
But get this: Benson goes on to explain that one of the “bizarre” features of Oculudentavis is qualities present in lizards but neither in birds nor in dinosaurs. It is smaller than most hummingbirds but had over a hundred teeth… The more research we do, one suspects, the more of this type of thing we’ll find and the harder it would all be to explain to our old Darwinian schoolteacher.
Behe: … most viruses do not affect humans and may well have a positive, necessary role to play in nature of which we are currently unaware. (I would bet on it.) From time to time a storm arises in the virosphere and affects humans. But that’s no reason to think either that viruses weren’t designed or that the designer of viruses isn’t good.
Recent evolution? Maybe. Doesn’t sound as though much evolution is needed, actually. Later in the article, it is suggested that the required enzymes may have existed for some time (that is, the plastic is what’s new).
The trouble with Darwin Devolves is that it is likely to be both quite right and a big problem for schoolbook Darwinism. Just as it is much easier to—without thinking much—throw something out than fix or adapt it, life forms will far more likely randomly mutate by dumping complex equipment than by reengineering it. It’s not that life forms can’t develop complex new equipment. But such changes probably aren’t an instance of natural selection acting on random mutation. And in these times, that’s the controversial part: design in nature.
In Darwin Devolves, he explains how much evolution depends on breaking genes. He picks up the theme in this video series. In the case of wolves, we call the broken ones dogs.
So yunnanicus started out more complex and evolved to be LESS complex. Maybe Darwinism can explain that more easily than it can explain most evolution because we are looking at a loss of information.