Evo-Devo, evolutionary developmental biology, this is the third revolution that biologist Sean Carroll says will explain how new forms most beautiful can be created by the god of materialism. The first revolution came when Charles Darwin published his seminal book on evolution, “The Origin of Species.” Darwin explained how, over eons, living organisms became diverse through a process called natural selection, meaning that nature decided which species had best adapted to their environment, and thus would thrive. The second revolution came with the merging of Darwin’s theories and the science of genetics. But neither of those approaches revealed how individual animal forms were made or how they evolved. That’s where Evo Devo comes in, attempting to explain a process through which a single- celled egg develops into a multibillion-celled animal, and why there are such deep connections among animals. And while this third revolution may seem complex, it’s based on
Month: January 2024
The second revolution came with the merging of Darwin’s theories and the science of genetics. In the first revolution, Darwin tells us that the origin of species, the diversity of all life on earth came from some warm little pond. This was possible because of natural selection. It was quickly discovered that natural selection (the fittest survive) could not have created all the new forms of life. At best it only acted on existing forms of life. No one knew what natural selection was acting on. Is this a problem for natural selection? No, not in Darwinian Fizzbin. Darwinists are committed to this game and the rules can be change and distorted in every which way to make Darwinism win. The Darwinists’ response would be “This is how science work. Knowledge is built incrementally and as science advances the gaps in our knowledge are filled. ” The problem with that
+ ≡ + ≡ The latest Darwinian rage is the newly sequenced Sea Urchin genome, which shows a surprising relationship to humans. I don’t know how much similarity we are suppose to have with the sea urchins, but I thought we would review what does past sequenced similarity mean. The two examples above show what it means to be human. If we combine rice genome (approximately 30% human) with a C. elegans (approximately 70% human), would we get Einstein? Or if we combine a mouse (approximately 80% human), with a daffodil (approximately 20% human), we would get another Einstein, right? I think even some of the Brights are smart enough to realize this is not going to work. So what does it mean to be X% human? Apparently to be X% human means nothing, in a qualitative sense. It is possible to be
I like to summarize the points that I’ve made in a debate over at telicthoughts. ID theory is certainly different than Darwinism. Darwinism claims that it has a successful explanatory process for biodiversity. It does not. No matter how many times Darwinists repeat the mantra that small changes will accumulate to major biodiversity. It doesn’t make it real. There are no observable macroevolutionary changes through natural processes. Why is it unreasonable to demand a videotape of the historical macroevolution, when Darwinists can demand ID to produce a designer? Besides Darwinism not only fails at producing such a videotape of the creation event, it can’t even reproduce any of the macroevolutionary changes in the lab. Show us Darwin’s God. The very nature of the ID theoretical does not require it to identify the process of how an artifact was design. Recognizing, detecting and identifying an artifact as design, does NOT require
Darwinian evolutionist have been very successful in deceiving the world that Darwinian evolution is science. When in fact the majority of Darwinists are Atheists with an atheistic agenda. It has become a religion with high priests and priestesses. No one is allowed to challenge their material naturalistic beliefs. In a statement on evolution from their book Miller and Levine writes, What does Evolution Teach About a Creator? Nothing. Evolution is a scientific theory and, like other scientific theories, has nothing to say about spiritual matters. Oh if only that is true. Atheistic evolutionists are hiding under the guise of science to supplant all other forms of religion with their materialistic god. The worst kind of deceivers are the ones that deceive themselves. Some of these religious Darwinists honestly do not know that they are worshipping their brand of god. Like a victim of a cult they are blind to the
Bluffing, confusion, obfuscation and equivocation applies both to Fizzbin the card game in Star Trek and to Darwinism. In the original Star Trek series episode “A Piece of the Action”, Kirk asked the thugs of an alien planet organized as different groups of mobs if they are smart enough to learn a new card game called Fizzbin. The rules of the game are extremely confusing because Kirk was making up the rules as he goes along. Darwinism operates in like manner. Darwinists would like you to think that unless you have a PhD in biology (in reality it doesn’t matter even if you have a PhD) your criticisms are invalid. As David Berlinski metaphorically describes Darwinism is “Like Hell itself, Darwin’s theory of evolution is often said to be protected by walls that are at least seven miles thick, in that it is not only true, but unassailable.” I pointed
For it is with your heart that you believe, and it is with your mouth that you confess you are atheist. As Darwin says, “Anyone who trusts in methodological naturalism will never be put to shame.”, because there is no morality. For there is big difference between Jew and Gentile the same Lord of Evolution has made some over the others. “Everyone who calls on the name of Atheism will be nihilist.” How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe unless they be brainwash by other Atheist. And how can they be brainwash unless it is force down their throats. And how can it be force down their throats unless it is disguise under the name of science. As it is written, “How beautiful are the blind leading the blind ” — Atheist Manifesto 1:1-7
According to Darwinian evolution, which is a unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection. Evolution should not repeat itself, in other words you can’t replay the tape of life. Yet the observable evidence from nature contradicts this Darwinian thesis. Similar and unrelated forms are replete in nature. Is an “unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection” a better explanation for this observation or is this the product of reuse by intelligent design? Some Darwinians have tried to explain this common design as analogous forms in morphology; there are no real common design at the molecular level. In this essay are examples of molecular common design. For this post I would like to expound on one of the examples in the essay, “Convergent evolution in primates and an insectivore”. Before I begin let me include a couple of more related articles here and here. The essay quotes
Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start writing!