The Darwin Delusion
Yesterday was "Darwin Day", and they did it YET AGAIN. Another study was released that purported to tell us something about how this or that evolved into something else. Yet when one looks at the details of what they found out, the actual evidence tends to falsify the hypothesis that the purported evolution ever occurred. Put another way, the studies reveal how evolution happened- miraculously and always always always in the unmeasurable past.
The biggest threat to the advancement of modern science is not creationists but rather the dogmatic naturalism that controls modern science. Under the bondage of strict naturalism, dots must be connect by doctrine that are not connected by data. Under the bondage of strict naturalism, evidence can only be interpreted through one narrow lens. Under the bondage of naturalism, some hypotheses are not even allowed to be explored. All of this can actually retard the advancement of real scientific inquiry.
Aren't certain flavors of dogmatic creationism a bigger threat to scientific advancement? No, if only because they have no real power in the scientific community. They are just as dogmatic, but are not in a position to hinder progress as much. The radical naturalists ARE in such a position, and they are therefore a bigger threat to free inquiry than the religious fundamentalists they regularly attack.
Day after day, week after week, I read articles which claim they have discovered some new evidence for the macroevolution that they assume happened. The phony claims are so numerous that I can't even take note of them all. It is a mountain of lies trying to shout down the truth. Once in a while, I get fed up with it enough to take note. Darwin Day, yesterday, represents one of those times.
In this article they report the results of measurements of the genomes of macaques, orangutans, chimps, and humans. The scientists assumed they all evolved from a common ancestor 25 million years ago, with chimps and humans sharing the most recent common ancestor 6 million years ago. They wanted to see where along the evolutionary line the genetic changes occurred. Were they spread evenly over time or did they cluster at some point?
I will let them tell you what they found:
Eichler's research team found an especially high rate of duplications in the ancestral species leading to chimps and humans, even though other mutational processes, such as changes in single DNA letters, were slowing down during this period. "There's a big burst of activity that happens where genomes are suddenly rearranged and changed," he says. Surprisingly, the rate of duplications slowed down again after the lineages leading to humans and to chimpanzees diverged.
Please allow me to translate into plain English. The genes show the most "changes" in humans. The "changes" were not evenly spread out over time, they accelerate towards the human end. Yet once chimps and humans diverged, these reorganizations quit happening at the rate necessary to explain the vast differences in chimp and human genomes within the time they think it happened.
Now they don't dare consider what this evidence points to, but since I don't have grant money to lose I will spell it out. The evidence they discovered fits perfectly with creationist theories that humans are the result of Intelligent Design. There was not a "burst" of genomic reorganization that later "surprisingly" slowed, at least not by naturalistic evolutionary means. What they have done is find the fingerprints of the Designer in His handiwork, but they are locked into a dogma that will not let them consider it as such.
Instead they have to say EVOLUTION clustered all the changes on the human end of these genomic changes. They have to say that EVOLUTION somehow produced a "big burst" of activity that for some reason slowed. Notice we have never observed "evolution" producing changes of this magnitude, just as Creationists have never observed God creating a new type. The mind-set is that same, but only one side seems to get a pass. Creationists say "God did it" and they laugh that off as a non-answer. But they do the same thing by ascribing god-like powers to a process that has never been observed to have them.
They should admit that the actual results they found are not what they would EXPECT to find if the evolutionary hypothesis is true. They should EXPECT that the changes should be more or less evenly spread out over time, and the rate of change should be consistent with the rate of change we can observe now, somewhere anyway. They should not have to refer to some mysterious "burst" of genomic reorganization that they can neither observe in the field or make work in the lab. That is to say, make work in the lab apart from performing an act of intelligent design.
You see, there are some examples of genes being rapidly reorganized in higher animals, such as mice that glow green from genes normally found in jellyfish or goats that give milk rich in medicine. But these examples of a "burst" of genetic reorganization are invariably the result of intelligent designers performing genetic experiments and creating new types of organisms not found in nature. So whenever we see rapid genomic reorganizations in the present, it is due invariably to intelligent design. Why don't we at least consider the idea that rapid reorganizations of genomes in the past are on account of the same force?