Monday, August 29, 2005

According to the Talk.Origins Archive, sharks haven't changed because they "are excellently adapted to their particular niche in their environment."
Does anyone know how this "excellent adaptation" was measured
(apart from observing that sharks haven't changed, that is)?

"[T]he geological record features episodes of high dying, during which extinction-prone groups are more likely to disappear, leaving extinction-resistant groups as life's legacy."
S.J. Gould & N. Eldredge, "Punctuated equilibrium comes of age", Nature (1993) 366:223-7, p. 225.
Anyone wants to tell me how this "extinction-proneness" was measured, except by noting that the groups went extinct?

Or what about this one by grand old man Mayr, trying to explain why things like the giant antlers of the "Irish Elk" and the canines of saber-toothed "tigers" aren't problematic for Darwinism:
"All these features would seem, at first sight, to be highly deleterious, and it was claimed
that natural selection could not possibly have favored or even tolerated their evolution. However, the studies of Rensch, Simpson, Gould, and various other paleontologists have demonstrated that the species that had these "excessive" characters always flourished for considerable periods of time when these characters clearly were of selective advantage and that their ultimate extinction coincided with a climatic or broad faunal change which simultaneously led to the extinction of nummerous other species without such `excessive' characters."
E. Mayr, Toward a New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist
, (Harvard University Press, 1988), p. 250.
These species "flourished", so their structures must have been favored by selection after all? Well, glad we got that cleared up.

Saturday, August 20, 2005

Image test

Saturday, July 09, 2005

Darwin redefined the meaning of language itself

Prof Phillip Johnson started what is known as the 'wedge' or intelligent design movement. The myth that if you wait 5billion years water will turn into people has been destroyed via the inability of the US government sponsored secular high priests to censor the Internet, exposing the Darwinian religious movement complete with their own plan of salvation and social agenda. It finally dawned on me that Charles Darwin managed to redefine the very meaning of language itself and this enabled him to define God out of existence. The phrase Natural Selection occurs over a million times in peer reviewed academic journals, functioning as some sort of universal mechanism explaining everything and thus nothing.

Scientists have become mentally ill as they routinely invoke the magic of NS in their vain attempts to describe something they don't understand. Much of the human language are simply not available to them given their philosophical presuppositions. 'blind, objective' words that per definition are associated with consciousness. Darwin managed to give flees and trees 'stealth' consciousness.
Is NS a cause or an effect? One professor emailed me that NS is an effect another that it is a 'cause'. But if it is a cause(or force) then what is the effect? And if it is an effect then what is the cause? This is the confusion that results from the arbitrary concatenation of two words and repetitive chanting of it over 300 times in The Origin of Species. And that grating word 'Natural' ? What naturaled ? A 'natural' elephant as opposed to what , a Martian elephant?

The fog of confusion are so severe that even Ken Ham says “I believe in Natural Selection”.Would it not be strange for a somebody to say “I believe in gravity”? Lou Dobbs on CNN when interviewing Morris, Wells and Ruse said that “evolution is not a testable hypothesis”. Of course not because nobody knows what on earth we are supposed to test.

Von Neumann advised one of his colleagues to use the term “entropy" because nobody knows what it really means. Sharks haven't changed because they "are excellently adapted to their particular niche in their environment." Does anyone know how this "excellent adaptation" was measured apart from observing that sharks haven't changed ? Gould said that the mind is an illusion created by the brain. So Gould believed his thoughts were illusions, why should we then believe anything he said.?

Fitness: If a pig had wheels mounted on ball bearings instead of trotters, would this place it lower or higher on a scale of porcine 'fitness'? Berlinski asked for just a single example of deriving 'fitness' from first principles. (He holds a PH.D in mathematics the most rigorous branch of science where invoking the 'selection force' NS are kept to the minimum)