Darwin Given Credit for Non-Darwinian Observations

first_imgThe kangaroo is among the most recognizable animals in the world. It is also unique to Australia and New Guinea, having evolved its unique characteristics in relative isolation.Some of those ancestors grew to become giants weighing over 250 kilograms. Others hung around and eventually evolved to become the creatures we see today.But they evolved to have teeth with higher crowns, suggesting they had switched to eating tough grasses.This suggests that higher crowns evolved approximately 3 to 4 million years ago, not 5 to 12 million years ago as has been believed. (Visited 473 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0 So how exactly did these “most recognizable animals” begin the dramatic physiological changes from quadrupedalism to explosive bipedal locomotion? “It is still not known why they started hopping.” ‘Oh!’ the precocious student raises his hand. ‘I know! It evolved!’Chimps like to copy human visitors to the zoo – Ig Nobel Prize (The Conversation). Let’s end (and we’re not out of material) with a funny research project that won the annual award for studies that “first make you laugh, and then make you think.” Readers can decide if anyone was really thinking when they hear this: researchers “found that the chimpanzees at Furuvik Zoo in Sweden were just as likely to imitate human visitors as the other way round.” No kidding. This even got published in the journal Primates, with the highfalutin title, “Spontaneous cross-species imitation in interactions between chimpanzees and zoo visitors.” (You, dear Homo sapiens, are the other species.) OK, so what does this have to do with Darwinian evolution?Our study shows that chimpanzees and humans were equally likely to use imitation as a way to interact with each other. Given that we know chimps aren’t as good as humans at learning through imitation, this challenges traditional theories and suggests imitation may have evolved primarily for social reasons rather than as a means of learning. The images evoked by our study of chimps and humans imitating each other at the zoo might make people smile. But the scientific implications reach all the way back to the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, and the role imitation may have played for that mysterious species.And this, dear reader, is why Darwinism maintains its stranglehold on the scientific world. It can’t lose. No matter what happens, “it evolved.” Darwin be praised! Strange; we don’t see chimpanzees putting humans in zoos and writing research papers about them.Bergman’s book about Darwin is an eye-opener.We do see evolutionists putting other members of their own species in Human Zoos, though, to demonstrate their adoration of Charles Darwin. Watch the film Human Zoos, and get serious about the damage his vacuous theory has done to the world.center_img Darwinian evolution is one of the most curious scientific theories ever. Even un-Darwinian data can be twisted to support it.Darwinism is modern secular biology’s all-encompassing worldview to explain every observation in biology. But Darwin (using his name as a synecdoche for his modern disciples) is a kleptomanic. He steals observations that have nothing to do with his theory, or even oppose it. Then he twists them into support for his theory. He can’t lose.Darwinian evolution is supposed to refer to the origin of new species by means of natural selection. That was in the title of Darwin’s book. There are two ways Darwinians can claim that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” One is to make evolution refer to every change of every kind – no matter what caused it (the Stuff Happens Law). The other way is to redefine “sense” to encompass nonsense. Here we will see examples of both.Crashing waves may have spurred the evolution of backbones (New Scientist). Crashing waves have no power to create backbones. Besides, most evolutionists believe that the chordate ancestors of vertebrates originated deep in the sea during the Cambrian explosion. For support of his incongruous headline, reporter Lucas Joel leans on Lauren Sallan of the University of Pennsylvania, who examined 3,000 “early” fish fossils. Fish diversity and habitats, however, have nothing to do with Darwinian evolution, unless one is willing to perform divination on bones with the power of suggestion.This is a bit of a surprise – big evolutionary steps are usually associated with biodiversity hotspots, such as coral reefs. But the data suggests that the evolutionary events that helped fill the seas with fishes occurred in shallow, salt-water environments like tidal areas and lagoons.Those environments may have encouraged the evolution of vertebrates because their bones helped them withstand swirling or crashing waves in shallow water environments, suggests Sallan.If crashing waves spurred the evolution of backbones, why are most tide pool animals invertebrates? Oh, because they evolved hard shells. But kelp have no hard shells. Oh, they evolved holdfasts. But sea squirts, sea stars and sea urchins have no holdfasts. Well, they must have evolved other ways to withstand crashing waves, because Darwin enlightened the scientific world with his great idea: stuff happens!Bacteria’s password for sporulation hasn’t changed in 2.7 billion years (Astrobiology Magazine). If this story is about non-evolution, then it is not about evolution. Here is a phenomenon that has escaped the implacable force of Darwinian change for nearly 3 billion years. But it’s worse than that. It’s about change going in the wrong direction:“It was surprising, because traditionally we think about evolution going from simple to complex,” said Durand. “But there are more and more examples of evolution going in the other direction, from complex to simple.”Such ‘evolution’ looks more like de-evolution, admits Dannie Durand of Carnegie Mellon, but he gets to call it “evolution” anyway. The e-word evolution appears seven times in this short article. Evolution can go forward, backward, and sideways, or just sit there (19 Dec 2007). Such a “scientific explanation” could explain anything, even opposite outcomes. How handy is that kind of belief?Neglected baby beetles evolve greater self-reliance (Cambridge University). This is a story about the behavior of some beetles observed after 35 generations of neglect. Did anyone think to inform the Darwinist geniuses at creationist James Clerk Maxwell‘s alma mater that all the descendants are all members of the same species? What evolved? Sure, animals have enough plasticity to alter their behaviors to fit circumstances. Even feral humans can learn to get along. But where have they demonstrated the “origin of species”? Please ask what actual data support Darwin’s theory in this quote, after you ask if they predicted the outcome using Darwin’s theory:“Our ongoing research investigates the importance of the social environment in evolution. We are watching the way that evolution unfolds in these experimental populations and they constantly teach and surprise us,” said Professor Rebecca Kilner, senior author of the paper.“The better our understanding of how evolution works, the better able we are to predict how animals will evolve in a changing world”.A curious branch of plankton evolution (Science Daily). Darwinism can be flat wrong and nobody minds, as long as the Bearded Buddha still gets his daily sacrifices. The worship service in this press release quickly runs into trouble. Nobody moans, though. They get excited, knowing that the Darwin web of belief is strong enough to absorb any falsifying evidence.Planktonic foraminifera (forams) — tiny, shelled organisms that float in the sea — left behind one of the most complete fossil records of evolutionary history in deep sea deposits. Consequently, evolutionists have a relatively sturdy grasp on when and how new lineages arose and developed their own unique features. However, a study publishing October 17 in the journal iScience reveals that one foram lineage evolved much more rapidly than everyone predicted, and researchers are looking beyond Darwin’s original theories of gradual evolution to understand why.“It was an exciting moment. What our study and many others are starting to agree on is that evolution of forams is not necessarily gradual, as Darwin and more recent scientists thought,” says first author Russell Bicknell, a palaeontologist at the University of New England’s Palaeoscience Research Centre in Australia. “Life can exist for long periods of time exhibiting only minor changes followed by rapid, punctuated shifts.”Readers of the opening bluff need to understand that the job of Darwin’s disciples is to distinguish their explanation from what creationists already believe, that forams are all part of the same created kind. The paper in iScience mentions no innovation, and no novel organ or system (just variations in shell shape). The evidence is not about Darwinian evolution; it’s about variation. The authors say nothing about beneficial mutations or positive selection, which must be minimal requirements to even begin to call this support for Darwinism. But then, it’s not anyway. It’s evidence for saltationism – rapid, punctuated change and stasis. That’s the notion that got Goldschmidt and Gould in trouble years ago, when they suggested that traditional Darwinian gradualism was not supported by the data.Coevolution of public goods game and networks based on survival of the fittest (PLoS One). This paper illustrates how smart academics who know some math can be absolutely clueless about the real world. In this paper, “survival of the fittest” (with no mention of all its eugenics baggage) comes back from the dead to haunt science once again. But the “research” is just handwaving, done with models that have nothing to do with biology. Is there any mention of novelty, of innovation, of creativity? No. The winners in this “public goods game” played by imaginary entities are the ones that don’t go extinct, that’s all. The authors invented an imaginary game in a model, set the rules, and decided who lives or dies. That’s intelligent design in the form of computer programming, not evolution. And they recommit the old tautology of equating fitness with survival (“Fitness for Dummies,” 19 June 2014). We hope they had fun getting this nonsense published (to the shame of PLoS One for letting it through), but now let them try to invent a wing or an eye in the real world using nothing but Darwin’s Stuff Happens Law.Machine learning spots natural selection at work in human genome (Nature). This article, too, keeps Darwin’s zombie phrase “natural selection” alive with promises you will find it in “deep learning” methods of artificial intelligence. OK, so they find variation in certain genes. Even young-earth creationists accept that. Notice, however, that all the variations are fully within the human gene pool, and all humans are interfertile. You will find nothing about the following ideas that must be present to provide support Darwinian evolution: positive selection, novelty, innovation, beneficial, species, speciation, or improvement. In fact, the authors even admit that they don’t know what to look for! This is fake science masquerading as research on Darwinian evolution:Because geneticists don’t yet know which parts of the genome are being shaped by natural selection, they must train their deep-learning algorithms on simulated data.Generating that simulated data requires researchers to posit what the signature of natural selection looks like, says Sohini Ramachandran, a population geneticist at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island. “We don’t have ground truth data, so the worry is that we may not be simulating properly.”And because deep-learning algorithms operate as black boxes, it’s hard to know what criteria they use to identify patterns in data, says Philipp Messer, a population geneticist at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. “If the simulation is wrong, it’s not clear what the response means,” he adds.Further, they don’t know the effects of the mutations they identified as due to “natural selection.” The closest they could come to is lactose tolerance. Again, though, that is not an innovation or benefit (except in certain circumstances of life); it’s only a matter of gene regulation. If this is the best they can point to, it doesn’t even come close to speciation – changing one group of people into a different species. Where is the evidence? It’s in futureware again, as writer Amy Maxmen hopes the algorithms for detecting this mystical blind watchmaker’s creative genius will get better some day over the rainbow.A new take on kangaroo evolution (Phys.org). This headline is like the joke about old soap being packaged as “New! Improved!” It’s the same old Darwin Flubber, illustrating perfectly the cartoon above: no matter what happens, “it evolved.”last_img read more

Heat Resistant Women Anime 75cm Mixed Yellow Lolita Cosplay Hair Wig, Cosplay Salon Super!!

first_imgJust what i was wanting for love it.Fantastic colour and curl on it – whilst the roots seem pretty faux and had been a tiny matted or frizzed up in destinations. A little bit annoying as it is not that inexpensive. Also the fringe does not seem just about anything like that – it’s not as smooth and is nearly difficult to hold out of your facial area if you attempt and design it like that. It required to be brushed to glimpse presentable, but which is okay. All in all, a minor dissatisfied, but will do for halloween.Attractive and thick, cannot see the wig cap at all. Fringe is super lengthy so will need to have reducing.Comments from buyers“I love it! Super thick and love the colour so , A bit disappointed., Very late but just what I needed., is a grate wig not shinny at all very comfortable to wear done shed when, Lovely and thick, The wig itself is nice, but it’s not actually blonde – more on “Felt heavy and superior excellent curls ended up excellent, looked how it ought to on photo.Lots of persons imagine this is my real hair and i have experienced numerous complements.It’s really kind and beautifully coloured.In standard this products is okay it’s just that the entrance fringe is all above the shop and tricky to fashion.Incredibly late but just what i wanted. . It took a excellent several weeks to switch up but it appears to be like fantastic. I have styled it and trimmed it for my ladybug cosplay and it truly is heading with me to mcm in london. It’s just what i require (lightweight and feels incredibly natural) but postage can take a really long time. I might recommend ordering in progress if you will need it for halloween or you have time limits.Worn this pretty a good deal and it is so stunning, not super shiny at all, appears to be like like real hair, colour is pretty.Fantastic assistance from vendor. Genuinely effectively packaged, rapid delivery and the wig is best and as explained. You also get a free of charge wig cap which is a a great deal appreciated reward.Is a grate wig not shinny at all really cozy to use carried out lose when. This is a grate wig not shinny at all quite snug to have on done shed when. First opened and place on but apart from that it truly is astounding cannot consider the good quality for these a reduced cost appreciate it will be buying various colors.This wig was excellent for the search i was wanting to develop, it arrived incredibly very well packaged, it is particularly comfortable and simple to place on.The wig itself is good, but it is really not truly blonde – extra on. The wig by itself is nice, but it’s not truly blonde – additional on the white side. Haven’t experienced the possibility to use it but due to the fact it arrived after the occasion, but i’m hoping to use it some day.Such a wonderful wig and seems precisely how it does in the pics.Super thick and appreciate the color so. Tremendous thick and love the color so a lot.The roots were being not tangeled as other experienced said right before hand which i was anxious about. It arrives witha wig cap aswell which was terrific. Are not able to wait to cosplay with it.last_img read more

Bengal Congress vice-president resigns from post

first_imgBengal Congress vice-president Omprakash Mishra on Friday resigned from the post, advocating a tie-up with “like-minded parties” including the Trinamool Congress. Mr. Mishra blamed the State unit’s leadership for its failure to forge an alliance with the Left Front which led to the party’s debacle in the polls. As the political climate had changed after May 23, he said there was a growing need to talk to all like-minded parties, especially the TMC.‘Need for debate’“The Congress may initiate talks with like-minded parties but there has to be a debate on whether only the Left parties are like-minded [and]…why the TMC may not be considered as like-minded in the prevailing political situation,” he asked in a letter addressed to PCC chief Somendra Nath Mitra and AICC Bengal in-charge Gaurav Gogoi.last_img read more

Harbhajan promises to strike back

first_imgIndia are reeling at 136 for nine after the first day of the opening Test, but spinner Harbhajan Singh said the match is still not over and they had enough ammunition to strike back.The senior off-spinner said toss played a crucial role in the opening Test, which was delayed by more than four hours because of overnight and early rain at the Super-Sport Park.”It was a bad day for us. Losing the toss was the most crucial blow as the wicket was clearly damp. The ball was doing quite a bit. It was swinging and cutting too,” Harbhajan said after the match.”But I would like to say that the match is not over. We need to collect as many runs as possible and then try and bowl well to restrict them in the first innings. We have very good and experienced batting line up.They will score good amount of runs in the second innings. I only hope that this wicket will keep on assisting the bowlers,” he added.The 30-year-old tweaker also heaped praise on South African bowlers for exploiting the seaming conditions well.Meanwhile, South African pacer Morne Morkel said his and Dale Steyn’s exploits with the new bowl on the first day of the opening Test would have repercussions on the rest of the three match series and also send a message to the Indian camp.”We caused huge damage for the rest of the series. We dealt the first blow, the first punch after winning the toss. It sends a good message that we are here and we’re not going to step back,” said Morkel.advertisement”We have been bowling together for some time and so there was a bit of pressure on us to deliver. The main thing was not to get caught in there and get carried away as the game can change very quickly,” he said.last_img read more

Jayson Castro lifts TNT over SMB, sends series to do-or-die Game 3

first_imgMOST READ “We just tied the series. Nothing to celebrate. Our goal tonight was to stay in the series,” said TNT coach Bong Ravena. “I’m just glad we’re making our outside shots which we were missing in the last game.”“We just played harder this time. Hopefully next game, the intensity and our energy stays the same. Or even improves,” he added.FEATURED STORIESSPORTSPrivate companies step in to help SEA Games hostingSPORTSPalace wants Cayetano’s PHISGOC Foundation probed over corruption chargesSPORTSSingapore latest to raise issue on SEA Games food, logisticsRR Pogoy led all of TNT in scoring with 20, while Troy Rosario and Don Trollano registered 15 and 12, respectively.The Beermen’s frontcourt of June Mar Fajardo and Christian Standhardinger shouldered the most of the burden of keeping their opponents within striking range. The former had  26 markers and 19 boards while the latter 18 and 8.    Terrence Romeo, who dealt the most damage for SMB in Game 1, scored 12.The victory by TNT forged a double do-or-die showcase on Wednesday night still at the Big Dome with Magnolia also extending its series with a blowout victory over Barangay Ginebra earlier.The scores:TNT 93 – Pogoy 20, Castro 19, Rosario 15, Trollano 12, Reyes 9, Washington 5, Semerad, A. 4, Williams 4, Taha 4, Heruela 1, Carey 0.San Miguel 88 – Fajardo 26, Standhardinger 18, Cabagnot 16, Romeo 12, Ross 6, Lassiter 5, Santos 5, Tubid 0, Ganuelas-Rosser 0, Nabong 0, Pessumal 0.ADVERTISEMENT Private companies step in to help SEA Games hosting Quarters: 20-19, 54-43, 73-68, 93-88.Sports Related Videospowered by AdSparcRead Next Cayetano: Senate, Drilon to be blamed for SEA Games mess Panelo: Duterte ‘angry’ with SEA Games hosting hassles View comments Duterte wants probe of SEA Games mess DA eyes importing ‘galunggong’ anewcenter_img Don’t miss out on the latest news and information. Photo by Tristan Tamayo/INQUIRER.netDragged into a back-and-forth battle, TNT kept its composure behind its chief playmaker Jayson Castro and held off four-time defending champion San Miguel Beer, 93-88, in Game 2 of their 2019 PBA Philippine Cup quarterfinals series Monday night at Araneta Coliseum.Castro was brilliant all game long, accounting for 19 markers and nine assists in KaTropa’s campaign that faced its biggest threat in the final five minutes of the game.ADVERTISEMENT Hontiveros presses for security audit of national power grid Trending Articles PLAY LIST 00:50Trending Articles00:50Trending Articles00:50Trending Articles02:42PH underwater hockey team aims to make waves in SEA Games01:44Philippines marks anniversary of massacre with calls for justice01:19Fire erupts in Barangay Tatalon in Quezon City01:07Trump talks impeachment while meeting NCAA athletes02:49World-class track facilities installed at NCC for SEA Games02:11Trump awards medals to Jon Voight, Alison Krauss Rookie Jennifer Nierva shows leadership for NU SEA Games hosting troubles anger Duterte LATEST STORIES Philippine Arena Interchange inauguratedlast_img read more