Standard evolutionary theory (usually known as Darwinism) makes it easier for an incurious teacher to stumble from one school year to the next. No wonder educrats hate people like Paul Nelson for messing with it, right or wrong.
Researchers: Our calculations reveal an enigmatic in-built self-preserving organization of the genetic code that averts disruptive changes at the physicochemical properties level.
BBC: Its discovery challenges previous assumptions that mammals were generally very small – the size of mice – at this point in their evolutionary history.
Timothy Standish: The authors seem to have found that if you already have alleles that adapt you to a certain set of conditions, then you will be able to rapidly adapt to those conditions. The speed is impressive, but you could argue that the speed with which natural selection can work is not the real question. The real question is, “How fast can those alleles that make organisms more fit arise de novo in a population that doesn’t already have them?”
It’s not something we are supposed to ask questions about but some people have, in an animated short.
Something worth considering: In animals, generally speaking, sexual bonding resulting in co-operative parenting is most evident among the larger, more complex, and more intelligent species. If so, a microbe doesn’t do what a wolf pack or elephant herd does because the demands of pack or herd life may be beyond the microbe’s information resources.
A new study is out trying to find the LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor). Needless to say, things got even worse for those who place their belief in Darwinian thinking. Because the Concluding Remarks section is so devastating, I’m blockquoting the whole thing: Our work furnishes a new variable for the assessment of protein family Read More…
So we are looking for a bat that isn’t really a bat? Just wondering.
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…