Monday, December 31, 2007

Simple Explanation of a Darwinist's Fallacy

This is what the evolutionist ozy had to say:

"Random mutations come from the environment. So does natural selection. In the end the only input to the proposed evolution function is random. "

Natural selection comes from the environment, but is not random. This is a flaw in that statement.
OK, maybe its not entirely random, but consider what information is there in the environment, there's a night, there's a day, there's an up and there is a down. A few more simple things like this. The proposal that it is possible to extract more information from the environment is absurd. Do you propose an additional source of information? If so, then you are not an evolutionist anymore, as evolutionist dogma dictates nothing but random sources of information.

"Extracting information from a truly random stream is not possible."

You can absolutely consider the environment a non-random input to this system if you so choose to model it this way. The idea that evolution is impossible because it implies an unachievable creation of information from randomness is invalid.

Can a harmonic oscillator not produce a periodic sinusoidal signal given a white input? Does this periodicity (of the "fittest" frequency, if you will) not contain information about the environment and the machine itself?
The information that a harmonic oscillator is outputing, is already part of the information of the oscillator. If we have already labeled something an oscillator, then it is possible through the laws of physics to deduce more or less, at which frequencies it would vibrate. Therefore no new information is brought about into existance when it actually does vibrate.

If you admit that information can be destroyed through mutations (say, one codon gets replaced with all A's, producing a dysfunctional but maybe surviving organism--I hope you will not argue that mutations are impossible!), then how can it not be created by a symmetric mutation? A one-time, random event, that survives and replicates due to the mechanics of the machine (DNA, cells) itself as well as the surrounding environment.

There are a number of problems here. First, consider a random event that changes the properties of some protein that results in an animal of a different color, for example. This would be an example of micro-evolution. In this case no new information has been added to the system, as both colors were implicit in the original protein.

Now consider, the case of macro-evolution. For example, an entirely new organ system. Here an accumulation of small changes would be required. Problem, is the changes are not independently beneficial, only together, so natural selection would tend to get rid of these changes, preventing the new organ system from coming into existance.

But the fundamental problem, that evolution cannot answer, and the reason that I consider it to be a major conspiracy to obscure the nature of the universe, is that evolution cannot point to the original source of information. Darwinist dogma demands randomicity.

There is not even any kind of a mathematical process proposed that could somehow generate new information just using random information as the input. I mean, think about this, if there was such a mathematical formula, it would be taught as part of Biology classes. Darwinism also denies any other sources of information. Instead of what you get is misdirection and implying that information is created by combining two differen random streams of information. Again two, is not really different than just one, mathematically speaking.

Sunday, December 30, 2007

Analysis of the "Theory of Evolution Made Easy"

I'm referring to this video, which is currently on the queue at reddit. This piece of evolutionist propagandais full of flawed logic. Some notes:

  1. At 39sec into the video it starts talking about "organisms changing." This is an absurdly vague term, that means nothing because organisms do change, but that's different from "evolving".
  2. At about 50sec, it continues with the vague language, claiming that opponents of evolution say that evolution can't create a new species. That's correct, but that doesn't mean that we're claiming that speciation can't occur. It has been proven that a new species can appear that has a shorter genome than its ancestor. But that evolution would go from complex to simple, the opposite of what the fossil record shows.
  3. At 2min in it starts putting skeletons of unrelated animals as if they had evolved from one creature to another. But as we know, these species did not slowly change into one another as predicted by evolution, but are suddenly replaced in the fossil record.
  4. At 3min you get more evolutionist "could have happened" BS. This "could have happened" stuff is not scientific nothing more than the fantasy of the author of the video. Then it comes with you can't watch it because it takes too long. If it can't be observed or measured why even talk about it?
  5. At 4 minutes, comes the attack of the nylon bacteria. For those that don't know about chemistry, nylon is a synthetic compound designed to mimic the fibers of the spider web, so its not surprising that the same bacterial proteins that break one down, also break the other one. Furthermore, attributing this to one mutation is absurd, and wouldn't prove the author's point. Because if a new protein was created to break nylon down, it would take thousands of mutations, each one having to overcome the problem of irreducible complexity. If breaking down nylon does not require a new protein with new information to be created, then no new information has been created.
  6. At 6 minutes it starts with crude insults. And then there are no species between a crocodile and a duck. According to evolution there would be, isn't everything supposed to have come from a unicellular organism?
  7. At about 7 to 9 minutes into the video, he begins to talk about gaps in the fossil record. He does not attend to the fact that species remain more or less the same for millions of years until today or until they disappear. The fossil record simply contradicts the existence of intermediary species.

Saturday, December 29, 2007


Technorati Profile

4 Reasons Evolution is False

  1. It does not match up the fossil record. The fossil record shows species appearing suddenly, not with small changes. An example is the Cambrian explosion. Life goes from being microscopic to complex multi cellular organisms suddenly. Evolutionists counter that evolution occurs with small isolated populations, under conditions that take too long to observe in a normal human lifespan (yes I'm talking about macro-evolution, the generation of new genes, and not speciation containing only a subset of the original genes) but too short to show up in the fossil record. Paradoxically they also proclaim that evolution requires "diversity" which is not likely to occur within small isolated populations.
  2. Evolution predicts common ancestors for the species. Phylogenetic trees will be different depending on each gene, which in turn will be different from those based on morphological characteristics. Even the wikipedia article explains this. Evolutionists try to explain the differences using terms like "horizontal gene transfer", but these are not part of the original evolution theory, as it is normally explained. Large amounts of horizontal gene transfer taking place violates the principles of genetics.
  3. Philosophically speaking, all that evolution claims to do is provide a kind of search algorithm. To say that life is caused by evolution, is like saying that the internet was created by google. So even if the proposed evolutionary processes took place, it can't really explain away the mysteries of life or deny intelligent design.
  4. The algorithm that evolution claims to work by, is flawed because the only source of information for it is the environment. Random mutations come from the environment. So does natural selection. In the end the only input to the proposed evolution function is random. Extracting information from a truly random stream is not possible.

Monday, October 29, 2007

Tim's Question Answered

When you have a chemical reaction, let's say  2H2 + O2 + spark ->2 H2O, has new information been generated?   It hasn't.

There is simply a rule in the universe that says when you mix oxygen, hydrogen and a spark to start the reaction, water is formed.    This rule already existed in the universe.

Let's say a chemist forms a brand new compound.  He finds that some elements mixed under certain conditions form a compound that was unknown to science before.  No new information has been added to the universe.  A rule of the universe that was already present has been discovered

Different from discovering something is inventing something.  When something has been invented, you have the creation of something that is not inherently implicit in the rules of the physical universe.  This means that some information has been channeled from a realm that is different from the physical realm.

Darwinists, in order to provide ideological support for atheism and communism, will claim that an evolution process exists that is neither a process of discovery nor the extraction of information from a different realm.  In reality, natural selection describes a process of discovery.  In other words, the shape and functioning of all the animals would be "compressed" into the basic physical laws of the universe.

I believe that life on earth is more than a process of discovery.  It is the expression ideas created in a spiritual realm.  The exact process of creating and expressing these ideas has not been studied in detail, at least by the scientific community, because reasoning runs counter their ideological beliefs.

Tuesday, March 14, 2006

Fred's Theorem

Fred's Theorem: It is impossible for a mathematical function to generate new symbolic information.

  1. Assume it is possible to create a function f(x) that creates new information.
  2. This function would take as input data from the set s1 and give resulting values within set s2
  3. Because the function generates new information, the amount of information of s2 would be greater than that in s1
  4. Therefore there must be some information in s2 that is not a function of the data in s1
  5. #4 contradicts #1.
  6. QED
Several corollaries follow out of these theorem proving:
  • The existance of God
  • The existance of the Human soul
  • The impossibility of evolution
  • The failure of Artificial Intelligence

Tuesday, March 07, 2006

The Missing Link - Don't think so

I just checked out this recent story on Evolutionists making a circus out of having found some retarded individuals who walk on all fours. The comments attached to the story are non-sensical, they claim that evolution is not a "theory", its a "fact." In fact there is 0 evidence for evolution.

This shows that there is a lot of ignorance out there, a lot of people who fail to question anything they are told by what they perceive to be the scientific establishment.

Saturday, March 04, 2006

Leading Evolutionists KNOW the Truth

Darwin himself was aware that the fossil record did not support his theory. The theory of evolution predicted that there would be a large number of transitionary species, and only a few examples had been found. Darwin made the prediction that in the future many of the missing links would be found. Since, many of the old transitionary species examples examples, such as those of the horse species have been proven wrong.

Darwin's original theory had traces of science in it, because it made predictions that could be disproven. Philosophers have concluded that a key test of whether a theory is truly scientific is whether said theory can make a prediction that could potentially prove it wrong. So, when the transitionary species were not found, the theory of evolution was falsified. That should have been the end of story.

But evolutionists were unwilling to admit that their theory is simply wrong. To try to explain away the fossil record, evolutionists came up with the concept of punctuated equilibrium. The whole idea is that evolution occurs when a few animals become isolated, and separated from the rest of the population. They then evolve so fast that there is no opportunity to observe these transitionary species in the fossil record.

Here is what SJ Gould, the originator of the "punctuated equilibrium" theory says:
"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -whether through design or stupidity, I do not know - as admitting that the fossil record contains no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but are abundant between larger groups. The evolution from reptiles to well documented."

One of the fundamental problems with this, is that evolution claims to explain how information in the genome (such as new proteins) arises through random mutations ocurring in large numbers of animals through millions of years. If as dictated by the theory of punctuated equilibrium evolution is ocurring so quickly with so few animals, how come it has not been observed in the laboratory?

Now of course, some evolutionist is going to come and say, that evolution has been observed in the lab. The answer of course is that, yes speciation has been observed in the higher animals. In all cases, the observed speciation has shown a loss in the total information of the genome of the species. Evolutionists may point out bacteria's resistance to anti-biotics as "proof" of evolution. The problem with that is the bacteria are not "evolving" new enzymes. Either they develop resistance, by loosing the functionality of a protein, or they absorb genetic information from their environment. Natural selection is inadequate to account for the existance of a single protein.

Furthermore, consider Gould's statement that there are examples of transitionary species between larger groups. The natural question is how would anyone know whether the species are "transitionary". Evolutionists will claim that morphological and genetic characteristics can be used to determine whether a species is transitionary. The problem is that studying morphological characteristics will lead to a different 'common ancestor' than genetic characteristics. And if the genetic characteristics of different enzymes in different species are studied, then each protein predicts a different common ancestor. This is why evolutionists will now speak of 'evolution bushes' rather than evolutionary trees, the way that they used to.

Needless to say, the fact that there is no common ancestor is yet another falsification of the theory of evolution. Why does evolution continue to have adherents in spite that it is proven wrong by all available evidence?