Culture Darwinism News

Conference of fake evolution theories indistinguishable from conference of real ones?

Spread the love

No. But get this one at Wall Street Journal:

The question of why we yawn is one of “the enduring mysteries of human physiology,” says Emma Kowal of Harvard University. Her bogus theory attempted to provide the answer.

Flying insects are high in protein. They gather in dense swarms most frequently at dawn and dusk, not-so-coincidentally the times of day when we are most likely to yawn.

Therefore, she says, “these insects served as an alternative protein source for our hunter-gatherer ancestors, with yawning as the primary gathering mechanism.” In other words: We evolved to yawn to catch bugs to eat.

Ms. Kowal, a senior studying chemical and physical biology, cited as evidence everything from our chemical response (“after we yawn, there’s a spike in cortisol levels, which is a mark of hunger”) to the way our faces distort (“eyes shut so insects won’t get in, mouth open as wide as possible to maximize capture”).

The winner of the BAHFest trophy wasn’t a scientist at all. Michael Anderson, a Boston lawyer specializing in First Amendment cases, sought to explain the ubiquity of belly fat in middle-age men. More.

See: Human origins: The war of trivial explanations for the utterly serious version of this BAHFest.

Who knows, some such theses may pan out, for the same reasons as even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

And we will leave it to you to read how the middle-aged spare tire evolved, as proclaimed above.

BUT… here is a challenge from the UD News desk to all would-be participants in the BAHfest, which sponsors these theses: Explain, using these principles (natural selection acting on random mutation), why people in their mid-nineties sleep a lot and tend to wear their loafers in bed.

We need fun trivia for a Christmas party at a retirement home.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

6 Replies to “Conference of fake evolution theories indistinguishable from conference of real ones?

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    “The winner got a statue of Darwin looking dubious—shoulders shrugging, hands turned upward.”

    Picture of the dubious Darwin statue:

    “I guess so?”
    http://thingiverse-production......atured.jpg
    http://si.wsj.net/public/resou.....164522.jpg

    But they could have done much better in their examples by using real world examples from current Darwin theory, i.e. moth’s change colors, thus that proves microbes can turn into man, or finch beaks vary thus that proves that dinosaurs can turn into birds, or savannas became more prevalent thus monkeys decided to start walking, or etc.. etc.. etc..,,, but I guess that might have hit a nerve too close to home!
    Yet the fact of the matter is, (since Darwinists have no observational evidence that material processes can generate anything of any significance), that Ad Hoc, ‘just so’, story telling by Darwinists is central to Darwinism.

    EVOLUTIONARY JUST-SO STORIES
    Excerpt: ,,,The term “just-so story” was popularized by Rudyard Kipling’s 1902 book by that title which contained fictional stories for children. Kipling says the camel got his hump as a punishment for refusing to work, the leopard’s spots were painted on him by an Ethiopian, and the kangaroo got its powerful hind legs after being chased all day by a dingo.
    Kipling’s just-so stories are as scientific as the Darwinian accounts of how the amoeba became a man.
    Lacking real scientific evidence for their theory, evolutionists have used the just-so story to great effect. Backed by impressive scientific credentials, the Darwinian just-so story has the aura of respectability.
    Biologist Michael Behe observes:
    “Some evolutionary biologists–like Richard Dawkins–have fertile imaginations. Given a starting point, they almost always can spin a story to get to any biological structure you wish” (Darwin’s Black Box).,,,
    http://www.wayoflife.org/datab.....ories.html

    “Grand Darwinian claims rest on undisciplined imagination”
    Dr. Michael Behe – 29:24 mark of following video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....fM#t=1762s

  2. 2
    Roy says:

    Denyse O’Leary and Barry Arrington disembowel kittens with chainsaws, puree their intestines and interject the resulting slop into pet-store goldfish tanks and communion wine?














    No. But this is a good way of demonstrating how insidiously deceptive the thread headline is.

  3. 3
    keith s says:

    Ah, but notice the get-out-of-jail-free card at the end of Denyse’s headline: the question mark.

    You see, she’s not making a statement. She’s simply asking a question. Who could possibly object to that?

    Denyse is the poster child for Betteridge’s Law of Headlines (H/T Learned Hand):

    Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no.

  4. 4
    Robert Byers says:

    All evolutionist musings are bogus science because they are not employing the scientific method before proclaiming conclusions.

    by the way about yawning.
    We yawn for saleep and boredom. I think its just to give needed air to stimulate the triggering mechanism for the memory.
    Its all about keeping attention /focusing . That is giving memory application to what one is to focus on.
    it just might show how important the triggering mechanism is to memory.
    We need lots of air or else we fade out.

  5. 5
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Therefore, she says, “these insects served as an alternative protein source for our hunter-gatherer ancestors, with yawning as the primary gathering mechanism.” In other words: We evolved to yawn to catch bugs to eat.

    Ok, ok, if you insist. We’ll count that as a “real evolutionary theory”. Our ancestors opened mouth and bugs flew in. Now we open mouth and no bugs fly in, but evolution just does amazing things all the time.

    Alright, we shouldn’t joke about such things. Just imagine what would happen to our world if this was proven wrong (or right). Evolution is very serious business. Someone spent some considerable hours (or at least minutes) crafting this work of brilliance. It’s sort of like Einstein. We should all scold Denyse for having a sense of humor and for ridiculing the bug-eating-to-yawn theory. It has all the precision and scientific value anyone could want: ‘…the way our faces distort (“eyes shut so insects won’t get in, mouth open as wide as possible to maximize capture”’

    Hey, of course, we raise our hands in the air sometimes when we yawn also – obviously, to keep bugs out of our hair and perhaps guiding them better to go in our mouth.

    We also make a little sound when we yawn … because bugs like that. Especially the tasty ones. So, obviously, that sound was selected for its survival advantage.

    I yawn a lot more when on vacation in the summer in the Adirondacks. Oh yeah, of course!! There are always swarms of black flies around and my ancestral self is just wishing some would fly into my mouth.

    Evolutionary theory – it’s genius. Nothing to laugh at here at all.

    [Could you tell that was sarcastic?] 🙂

    [Thank you Denyse for a great headline and a very good laugh today. :-)]

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    as to bugs:

    Insect Family Tree Maps 400-Million-Year Evolution – November 06, 2014
    Excerpt: “about 150 million years ago,,, All of the key players were already around,,there were dragonflies around, and probably grasshoppers and crickets and butterflies,” , ,the insects that were buzzing and hopping alongside the dinosaurs weren’t prehistoric-looking creatures that modern bug lovers wouldn’t be able to recognize. The phylogenetic data suggest that these insects were actually very similar to the ones still roaming the planet today, according to Kjer.
    “If you had a time machine and you went back to the Jurassic, we entomologists would recognize all of the insects and we could [classify] them into their proper order,” Kjer said. “Many of them would look very similar to what we see today.”,,,
    http://www.livescience.com/486.....ution.html
    So Darwinian evolution created the bugs over a 250 million year period and then took 150 million years off???? ,,, I’m not buying it!

Leave a Reply