How does "Instinct" Evolve: Asyncritus: November 2009

Sunday 29 November 2009

The Butterfly Effect

MIRACULOUS LIFE CYCLES
The Butterfly

The Life Cycle of all insects presents insuperable problems for the theory of evolution.

This is quite separate from the issue of how insect flight could possibly have evolved. The earliest flying insects were nearly identical to those of today, and they’ve found butterfly fossils in the Cretaceous.

Here is a vastly simplified account for you evolutionists to chew on.

The fertilised female lays her eggs on an appropriate leaf: for instance, the cabbage white butterfly lays her eggs on cabbage plants as the name suggests.

Let me draw out a few of the inexplicables.

First, the phenomenon of meiosis (which we discussed previously. If you didn't read it, go have a look, and marvel as I did when I first found out about it)took place in male and female butterflies, in the gonads.

As if they knew that the number of chromosomes in the little fertilised ovum had to be the same as in each of the pair, and that half plus half makes one.

Second, the sexual organs of male and female are complementary – meaning that there is a penis and a semen-receptacle in the female.How did that happen, one wonders.

Third, the antennae are also useful for smell. Female butterflies release pheromones (like a perfume) into the air. The male butterflies of many species can detect the pheromones from as far away as 2 kilometers (over a mile).

Depending on the concentration of the pheromones, the male will be able to find the female to mate with her. It's worth noting that some species of moths are sensitive to the presence of the females' pheromones up to five kilometers (about three miles) distant. http://centralamerica.com/cr/butterfly/

Fourth, the eggs are equipped with some kind of glue, which causes them to adhere to the leaf. How convenient!

Butterfly eggs consist of a hard-ridged outer layer of shell, called the chorion. This is lined with a thin coating of wax which prevents the egg from drying out before the larva has had time to fully develop. Even more convenient!

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ariadne_merione_egg_sec.jpg

The eggs hatch out into larvae or grubs or caterpillars, which as we all know, are about as un-butterfly-looking creatures as elephants.

Source:wiki

These eat enormous quantities of leafy material, using their specially designed jaws, and then their cellulose-digesting alimentary canals. (Leaf material is tough, but the grubs handle it, despite the fact that the adult can only feed on juices like nectar.)They grow at a prodigious rate.

Then, because they are growing so fast, they molt: i.e. shed their skin, like a snake. Some do this about 4 times.

Then, they wrap themselves in a cocoon, and enter the pupal stage, which in some ways is the most extraordinary of all.

Source: wiki

Inside the cocoon, the grub’s stomach produces quantities of digestive juices, which entirely dissolve the grub’s structure. Entirely. There is absolutely nothing left of the grub. Some authorities claim that even the cells themselves dissolve.

Then the wonderful reconstitution takes place, and inside the darkness of the pupa, eyes which have never seen the light, form to function in the light.

Wings, which have never flown, or even know of the existence of air, form to take to the air.

Reproductive organs, which have never mated, form in order to mate.

The wonderful design patterns of the wings, form to give us pleasure; but the butterfly knows not that we exist.

A coiled, long proboscis – able to enter into the heart of flowers the developing butterfly knows nothing about - forms, to suck the nectar the insect has never tasted.

Antennae form, which can detect pheromones miles (literally) away, not knowing of the existence of such things.

And a butterfly emerges into the world to live for a few days: fluttering brightly, beautifully and erratically in search of flowers for food, and a mate to reproduce.

Source: wiki
There is no conceivable way that this life cycle could have evolved. From what? And how?

No. This was designed by the Great Designer.

PS Have a look at this: I've just discovered some absolutely fascinating information about the mantis shrimp here:

NEW BOOK! HOT OFF THE PRESS!!

“HOW DOES INSTINCT EVOLVE”

OR

Evolution's Soft Underbelly
by Asyncritus

AT LAST!

The Argument Darwin Dreaded…
The Argument No-One Has Developed Before…
The Argument to Which There Is

NO ANSWER FROM THE EVOLUTIONISTS!

35,000 viewers of my articles can’t all be wrong. Check Google for this subject and see!
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?board=17.30

100 pages of amazing facts and carefully reasoned arguments. Equip yourself! Give your children the knowledge to defend belief in Creation in class!

Get your copy here. Only $19.97 as pdf.
$27 plus $5 p&p in CDR format.

Published by phillauren.org

The Eye of the Trilobite

THE EYE OF THE TRILOBITE
A Miracle of Creation

http://shkrobius.googlepages.com/wondersofnature

A beautiful drawing can be seen above. The link is here, where it can be viewed at a larger size: http://www.biology-resources.com/insects-02.html

Let’s first get acquainted with a compound eye. Instead of the single eye such as we have, each compound eye consists of a thousand or so individual ‘eyes’ called ommatidia.

Each ommatidium is made up of a lens (more about this later), a crystalline cone under it, and a nerve cell which conducts the electrical impulse to the creature’s brain where it is interpreted.

Around each cone (corresponding to the biscuit of an ice cream cone) is a layer of light absorbing material, which prevents the light in each cone being scattered and degrading the image created by other ommatidia.

All arthropods have this type of eye.

The trilobite’s eye, consisting of millions of honeycomb-shaped tiny particles and a double-lens system, this eye "has an optimal design which would require a well-trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today". David Raup

”Moreover, the honeycomb eye structure of the trilobite has survived to our own day without a single change. Some insects such as bees and dragon flies have the same eye structure as did the trilobite.”

So, to put it plainly, the design of the trilobite’s eye was so advanced that it exists today, virtually unchanged. That unchanging structure is direct testimony that evolution has not taken place: certainly not in this structure.

I used the word ‘design’ because it clearly meets the criteria for deciding whether or not something was designed: it is a complex structure, it has a specific function, and it employs advanced information in its construction. To reiterate:

1 It is a very complex structure, not a simple one that may have just happened.

2 It has a specific function, which it fulfils well – and we know that because the eye has persisted unchanged for millions of years.

3 It makes use of information – which blind mutations cannot do. The high quality of the information is shown below.

The lens system refracted light incident from any angle into the trilobite vision system. A small wall to keep refracted light from interfering also partitioned the separate lenses. This is a feature of modern cameras: there is a light absorbing layer (usually black) inside the camera’s film chamber – to absorb stray light and prevent it degrading the image.

This is clear evidence of specificity of the design. The Designer knew about light scattering, and specifically prevented it. He knew about lenses, their required curvature, and the aberrations that such lenses produced. And as a direct, required consequence, produced the next invention:

‘The thick lenses in the aggregate eyes of a group of trilobites were doublet structures designed to eliminate spherical aberration.’ http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v254/n5502/abs/254663a0.html
Nature 254, 663 - 667 (24 April 1975); doi:10.1038/254663a0

“The thick lenses in the aggregate eyes of a group of trilobites were doublet structures designed to eliminate spherical aberration. The shape of the optically correcting interface is in accord with constructions by Des Cartes and Huygens and is dictated by a fundamental law of physics. Trilobites may have evolved such sophisticated eye-lenses to maximise optic neurone response in a dimly lit environment.”

This is even clearer use of information, proving conclusively that design is present. The Designer knew about correcting spherical aberration by using doublets possessing different refractive indices. He was way ahead of DesCartes and Huygens, and knew about the fundamental law of physics governing such correction.

He also knew about amplifying dim light – presumably as Night Vision Goggles are intended to do today, as the authors above said: “…such sophisticated eye-lenses to maximise optic neurone response in a dimly lit environment.”

Here is another article describing the same phenomenon.

“This eye possessed an internal optical-doublet structure together with a refracting interface (comprised of two lenses with differing refraction so they would work together) that corrected focusing - a lens design that human scientists would repeat hundreds of millions of years later.” (In fact courses on optical DESIGN are offered which teach about optical doublets, inter alia). Here if you want to attend one: http://www.imperial.ac.uk/research/optics/msc/syllabus.htm

In case you don’t know, spherical aberration is the blurring of an image that occurs when light from the margin of a lens or mirror with a spherical surface comes to a shorter focus than light from the central portion. The changing focal length is caused by deviations in the lens or mirror surface from a true sphere.

‘The novel eyes of the trilobites were a particularly effective adaptation to underwater sight, and were ostensibly plagued by neither near-sightedness nor far-sightedness. Close and distant food and predators would be simultaneously in focus.’

This is a feature of modern wide-angle lenses: which are among the most advanced in the world. And here it is in the eye of a humble trilobite, millions of years ago.

Evolution is helpless to produce such a structure. A Designer, on the other hand, could do it with ease.

THE CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION UNDER EVOLUTION

THE CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION

Having read a great deal about this ‘explosion’ I want to put before the expanding readership some little facts that they may not know. These facts show that it is far beyond the bounds of credibility for so many, and such varied organisms to have evolved in any step by step fashion.

Simply because they appeared so suddenly and in one fell swoop.

This obviously bothered Darwin, and later on, Gould and many other palaeontologists. There is NO credible evolutionary explanation of the phenomenon, and I am amazed to know that so many informed people (on the subject of the Cambrian explosion, I mean) can look at those facts in the face, and still go along with the ToE.

What does ‘Cambrian’ mean?

Palaeontologists dig down into the earth’s crust, and they have found that there are many layers of rock. They’ve given the layers some very long and fancy names, and the names depend on the kind of fossils in the rock.

The oldest animals/ plants are in the deepest layers, which are the oldest ones, and the newest animals/plants are in the highest ones.

Right at the very bottom of the layers is granite, which cannot and does not contain fossils, and is the oldest of the rocks.

So imagine a pack of cards resting on a granite surface. The granite represents the basement layer of rocks and piled on top of it are the cards, each of which represents a layer of rock. The layer resting on the granite is called the ‘Pre-Cambrian’ layer, and contains a very limited number of fossils: limited both in number and kind.

The layer on top of that one is the ‘Cambrian’ layer, and it is this one we are going to discuss in brief.

What’s in the Cambrian Layer?

To everybody’s astonishment, especially the people who believed in the gradual evolution theory, there are thousands upon thousands of different kinds of animals and plants in that layer, and they weren’t simple ones either.

Here are some famous evolutionists:

Most families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors.
• Eldredge, N., 1989
Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks
McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, New York, p. 22

The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we see reflect real events in life's history -- not the artifact of a poor fossil record.
• Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I. (1982)
The Myths of Human Evolution
Columbia University Press, p. 59

Described recently as "the most important evolutionary event during the entire history of the Metazoa," the Cambrian explosion established virtually all the major animal body forms -- Bauplane or phyla -- that would exist thereafter, including many that were 'weeded out' and became extinct. Compared with the 30 or so extant phyla, some people estimate that the Cambrian explosion may have generated as many as 100. The evolutionary innovation of the Precambrian/Cambrian boundary had clearly been extremely broad: "unprecedented and unsurpassed," as James Valentine of the University of California, Santa Barbara, recently put it (Lewin, 1988).

"This is true of all thirty-two orders of mammals...The earliest and most primitive known members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed...

This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate...it is true of the classes, and of the major animal phyla, and it is apparently also true of analogous categories of plants.
• Simpson, G. G. (1944)
Tempo and Mode in Evolution
Columbia University Press, New York, p. 105, 107

The gaps in the fossil record are real, however. The absence of a record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement of one by another, and change is more or less abrupt.
• Wesson, R., 1991
Beyond Natural Selection
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, p. 45

We could go on collecting these quotes. But I want to underline 2 important things.

1 Darwin was wrong, is wrong, and will continue to remain wrong in THIS MOST IMPORTANT MATTER. The fossils say so. There’s nothing gradual about all this – it was BANNNGGGG!!!! Here we all are.

2 All these diverse forms performed ALL THE FUNCTIONS OF ALL LIVING THINGS.

Therefore they all had the instincts required to perform all these functions.

As we've seen, eating (as an example in the first post on this blog), is powered by instinct.

The animal has to know what is food, what to do with it; how to catch it; where its mouth was; what to do with whatever it used to catch its food. All these are basic instincts. The food had to be processed and absorbed - and it is a form of instinct that does all this.

All these HAD TO BE PRESENT IN THEIR ENTIRETY, or the first such animal would immediately have perished.

Therefore, the Cambrian layer represents not only a vast explosion of physical types, it also represents a vast explosion of instinct implantation.

An evolutionist can, and will argue till the cows come home, about intermediate fossils, the incompleteness of fossilization in the preCambrian etc etc. But if he has a single leg to stand on, it is yanked violently from under him by the fact that he HAS to account for the ORIGIN,and implanting of all of these instincts IN THEIR ENTIRETY in about a billion organisms, at more or less the same time.

I was interested read that Gould was of the opinion that the Cambrian period lasted no more than 5 – 30 million years, but the likelihood is that the figure of 5 million was most likely to be the truth.

So all this incredible diversity arose in a geological eye-blink – which is exactly what the creation model predicts.

No evolution here!

See also:
http://www.wasdarwinright.com/intermediates-f.htm

NEW! HOT OFF THE PRESS!!

“HOW DOES INSTINCT EVOLVE”

OR

Evolution's Soft Underbelly
by Asyncritus

AT LAST!

The Argument Darwin Dreaded…
The Argument No-One Has Developed Before…
The Argument to Which There Is

NO ANSWER FROM THE EVOLUTIONISTS!

35,000 viewers of my articles can’t all be wrong. Check Google for this subject and see!
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?board=17.30

100 pages of amazing facts and carefully reasoned arguments. Equip yourself! Give your children the knowledge to defend belief in Creation in class!

Get your copy here. Only $19.97 as pdf.
$27 plus $5 p&p in CDR format.

Published by phillauren.org

MEIOSIS:THE WONDERFUL DIVISION

NEWS FLASH!

NEW! HOT OFF THE PRESS!!

“HOW DOES INSTINCT EVOLVE”

OR

Evolution's Soft Underbelly
by Asyncritus

AT LAST!

The Argument Darwin Dreaded…
The Argument No-One Has Developed Before…
The Argument to Which There Is

NO ANSWER FROM THE EVOLUTIONISTS!

35,000 viewers of my articles can’t all be wrong. Check Google for this subject and see!
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?board=17.30

100 pages of amazing facts and carefully reasoned arguments. Equip yourself! Give your children the knowledge to defend belief in Creation in class!

Get your copy here. Only $19.97 as pdf.
$27 plus $5 p&p in CDR format.

Published by phillauren.org

MEIOSIS

If the process of mitosis was amazing, and shows that design is necessary to produce two new cells containing exactly the same number of chromosomes, then what must we say about meiosis?

Meiosis produces the sex cells.

The process of division in this case, however, doesn’t produce exactly the same number of chromosomes in the daughter cells, but EXACTLY HALF that number.

So if there are 10 chromosomes in the parent cell, the process of meiosis produces 5 in each sex cell.

Whereas mitosis takes A.A B.B C.C D.D E.E

And produces A.A B.B C.C D.D E.E and another set of A.A B.B C.C D.D E.E ,

meiosis takes A.A B.B C.C D.D E.E and produces A B C D E and A B C D E.

The pure astonishment that this creates in the mind of the onlooker is enormous.

As I said before, if in the same organism we have cells with 10 11 12 13 14 etc chromosomes, nothing short of chaos would result.

But here, in the sex cells, we have 5 chromosomes in each new cell, and no chaos results.

That, however isn’t the really astonishing part. The question arises, why does this happen? And the answer is extremely simple.

To produce a new organism with the original 10 chromosomes in each body cell, each parent must contribute exactly half the number ie 5. So the 10 is made up of 5 from one, and 5 from the other. And that is exactly what happens, because of this process of meiosis.

The mechanism of meiosis is in outline broadly similar to mitosis, but the details are quite different, and too technical to include here. There are some nice pictures here:

Source: http://publications.nigms.nih.gov/thenewgenetics/images/ch1_meiosis.jpg

I simply want to make the point that there is purpose, design, counting, and most remarkable of all, foreknowledge in the design of what happens.

Consider:

Somebody knew how to count.

Somebody knew that if 10 chromosomes from A combined with 10 chromosomes from B, there would be 20 in the offspring, which would create chaos.

Somebody therefore decided that the 10 had to be halved, and the halving had to be done properly, so A.A B.B C.C D.D E.E would produce A B C D E and A B C D E , not A A B C D or something else that wouldn’t work.

Somebody knew that in the reproductive process, 1 cell from A would join up with another cell from B.

Somebody, somehow, planted in the chromosomes of every body cell, the DNA programming which would eventually make sure, that even if every other kind of cell would reproduce by mitosis, the sex cells wouldn’t.

Somebody designed the second process (meiosis), not as an afterthought, but having made the decision that that was the way to go. And what an ingenious way it is, too.

Somebody made sure that all the necessary mechanisms needed to ensure that sperm from A would reach the ovum from B – and just how long and complex a story that is, many textbooks on sexual reproduction demonstrate very clearly.

All of which argues purpose, intelligence, design, very deep knowledge of the outcome, and of the biochemical processes that would be needed to produce the desired outcome.

Purpose requires intelligence and knowledge.

The mechanism’s design also demonstrates intelligence and fearsome knowledge.

Therefore, chance is eliminated. No accumulations of random mutations could possibly produce this mechanism, because all this had to exist before mutations could occur!

God did it.

MITOSIS, MEIOSIS and PURPOSE

MITOSIS, MEIOSIS AND PURPOSE

Mitosis

For those who may not know, a cell can divide in two ways. It can use a process called mitosis, or it can use the other method called meiosis.

The mechanics of the two processes are quite startling, and are very clearly designed to carry out their absolutely vital functions accurately.

Cells have to reproduce themselves in order for growth to take place, to repair damage, for simple maintenance and other needed functions.

When they divide, the number of chromosomes, and thus the genes on them must be replicated exactly in the new cells, otherwise damage and destruction will take place. A mutation damages the genetic make up of the cell, and such damage is destructive in 99.99% of the cases in which it occurs.

Which is only to be expected. If the plans for say, a car, become damaged in any way, and the construction continues despite the damage, we wouldn’t be too surprised to find the steering wheel up the exhaust pipe, or the engine in the passenger seat! Either way, the car will not function, or at best will be badly impaired.

Continued damage to the plans, does not, or is most unlikely to produce improvement in the car. No matter how many times we tear up and reconstitute the plans for a Honda Civic, we will never get the plans for a Boeing 747.

And there is another problem, the problem of size. A Rolls Royce is not simply a scaled up version of a Honda Civic. It is a completely different animal, whose physics, chemistry and metallurgy are entirely changed. The design of a mud hut cannot simply be enlarged to produce the Empire State Building. It would definitely look a bit odd, for starters.

In the cell, the damage can be of several well known kinds.

1 The chromosome may duplicate itself unnecessarily: so there is one or more than one extra chromosome in the make up.

2 The chromosome may have a section torn off or lost

3 The chromosome may break and rejoin the wrong way round, so instead of the genes being in the order AAABBBCCC, something else appears like CCCAAABBB. This also produces damage, much as if a page of the plans for the car was torn in 3, and the sections glued back in the wrong order.

In every case there is damage of one sort or another. Mutations occur frequently, but beneficial mutations are extremely rare, and never produce new species, far less new genera. Micro-evolution, like the emergence of bacteria resistant to antibiotics, is a very long way indeed from the macro-evolution of a whole new family, or phylum.

But back to mitosis.

In a normal body cell, let’s say there are 10 individual chromosomes. These are in pairs, so there are 5 pairs. In order to make sure that the daughter cells have exactly the same number of chromosomes, this remarkable process takes place.

A.A B.B C.C D.D E.E

Each pair of chromosomes copies itself exactly.

A.A B.B C.C D.D E.E ---> A.A A.A B.B B.B C.C C.C D.D D.D E.E E.E

So for a brief moment, the cell has 20 chromosomes, in 10 pairs. 5 pairs are exact replicas of the other five. The dot in the middle indicates that they are joined at a certain point.

Two structures called centrioles appear, and move to the opposite ends of the cell, and fibres begin to appear: they then join, believe it or not, to form what is called a ‘spindle’. The nuclear membrane disappears.

Amazingly, the chromosomes arrange themselves at the ‘equator’ of the spindle and are attached to the fibres of the spindle.

The spindle pulls them apart, and they separate, going to the opposite ends of the cell. So at each end of the cell there are now 5 pairs of chromosomes. The original number.

The nuclear membrane reforms round the chromosomes, and the cell pinches in the middle, and two new cells are now formed, each containing 5 pairs of chromosomes: A.A B.B C.C D.D E.E once more.

Here are still photographs of the process by Anne Bruce: http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/indexmag.html?http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/artaug99/mitosis2.html

And here is an animation: http://www.cellsalive.com/mitosis.htm >

There is very clear purpose in every move of this division process.

1 The chromosomes duplicate themselves, as if they knew that the new cell must have a copy.

2 The spindle is constructed, at the right time and in the right place SO THAT it can pull the chromosomes apart from their joint. It is a subject of much research, which is showing much protein involvement in the structure.

3 The nuclear membrane dissolves, with the purpose of getting out of the way so the division can take place.

4 The chromosomes arrange themselves at the ‘equator’ of the spindle, the maximum distance away from the centrioles SO THAT the maximum leverage can be exerted on them to separate them. They separate.

5 They move to opposite ends of the cell, SO THAT each new cell has exactly the same number of chromosomes as the original.

6 But number is not enough. Five DIFFERENT chromosome pairs must be in each daughter cell. This way of doing the division ENSURES that they ARE different.

7 The nuclear membrane reforms when the division is complete, and TO COMPLETE THE PROCESS, the cell wall itself pinches off to make 2 new cells.

At every step of the way, design, foreknowledge and purpose are displayed. The most surprising thing in my view, is that the exact numbers of chromosomes is preserved in each daughter cell. If they weren’t, then chaos would soon result.

Order, purpose, design, and intelligence are displayed in abundance in this process. There is nothing whatsoever left to chance. If it were, there would be, as I have said, chaos in the genetics of the organism, which would result in death, disease or sterility.

The probability of the biochemistry of this process having emerged by chance movement of molecules is ridiculous. The very possibility does not exist. Errors here, and even more so in meiosis, would result in the extinction of life itself.

But we here run up against the old, old evolutionary conundrum. Life could not exist without mitosis, and mitosis could not exist without life. Therefore, life and mitosis could not have come from inert molecules.

God designed them.

NEW BOOK! HOT OFF THE PRESS!!

“HOW DOES INSTINCT EVOLVE”

OR

Evolution's Soft Underbelly
by Asyncritus

AT LAST!

The Argument Darwin Dreaded…
The Argument No-One Has Developed Before…
The Argument to Which There Is

NO ANSWER FROM THE EVOLUTIONISTS!

35,000 viewers of my articles can’t all be wrong. Check Google for this subject and see!
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?board=17.30

100 pages of amazing facts and carefully reasoned arguments. Equip yourself! Give your children the knowledge to defend belief in Creation in class!

Get your copy here. Only $19.97 as pdf.
$27 plus $5 p&p in CDR format.

Published by phillauren.org

Saturday 28 November 2009

Instincts of the Parasol Ants

NEW BOOK! HOT OFF THE PRESS!!

“HOW DOES INSTINCT EVOLVE”

OR

Evolution's Soft Underbelly
by Asyncritus

AT LAST!

The Argument Darwin Dreaded…
The Argument No-One Has Developed Before…
The Argument to Which There Is

NO ANSWER FROM THE EVOLUTIONISTS!

35,000 viewers of my articles can’t all be wrong. Check Google for this subject and see!
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?board=17.30

100 pages of amazing facts and carefully reasoned arguments. Equip yourself! Give your children the knowledge to defend belief in Creation in class!

Get your copy here. Only $19.97 as pdf.
$27 plus $5 p&p in CDR format.

Published by phillauren.org

http://www.thewildones.org/Animals/atta.html

THE LEAF CUTTING ANT (PARASOL ANTS)

We have in this example, another phenomenal illustrative piece on the helplessness of the evolution theory to explain observable facts.

These are observable, have been observed, and there is no guesswork or speculation involved. The whole mechanism sprang full blown to birth, or it couldn’t have happened at all. Judge for yourselves.

The parasol ant is a real pest to farmers and causes a lot of damage to crops, because the foraging ants go out in numbers, cut large amounts of leaf material off crop plants, and this costs money.

They go forth, cut the leaves with their specially constructed jaws, and carry them back to their nests. They climb trees up to 100-feet tall and cut out small pieces of leaves. They then carry these fragments, weighing as much as 50 times their body weight, back to their homes. Sometimes they must travel 200 feet, equal to an average human walking about 6 miles with 5,000 lbs. on his/her back! The forest floor is converted to a maze of busy highways full of these moving leaf fragments.

They travel a distance equivalent to a 6 foot man walking 5 miles in a forest. So how do they get home? Incredibly, they leave a trail of pheromone-like substances on their trails.

Back at the nest, the marvels begin. The ants were once thought to use the ‘parasols’ as covering to shield them from the rain. That, however, is not the case.

The leaf cutters take the material back to their nests, and there, in specially designed underground chambers, cut them up into minute little pieces, spray them with excrement, saliva, and then plant a particular species of fungus on the decaying material.

But that is not the whole story.: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2627

"Incredibly, the ants do not eat the leaves. Rather, they cultivate miniature gardens of fungus on pieces of leaves. which they chew and then store in underground compost piles.

Several million ants usually inhabit their colonies, and the garden chambers can extend as deep as twelve feet underground.

In order to fulfill all the needs of the colony, the ants divide the work among classes. Each class of workers is designed to do a special job. The biggest ants have powerful jaws to cut leaves, flower petals, and blades of grass. They bring these big pieces back to the nest where slightly smaller workers cut and dice the plant material into tiny lumps. The smallest workers chew these up into balls, adding bits of fungus. The ants’ saliva contains ingredients that help the fungus break down the plant material, and also kills harmful bacteria and other fungi.

Small workers strip off wax and other parts of the plants that the fungus cannot use. Workers dump this refuse into special waste chambers. The relationship between the ants and the fungus is symbiotic, meaning that both benefit. The fungus benefits because the ants feed it, protect it, and spread it from place to place. In return, the fungus grows a clump of special hyphae. Each clump is like an instant three-course meal, which the smallest ant workers use to feed the larvae."

This is the only fungus the ants eat and feed the larvae on.

You may recall the difficulties faced when researchers attempted to cultivate the Penicillium fungus in order to produce penicillin in the World War. Fleming, Florey and Chain were awarded Nobel prizes for their discovery (Fleming), extraction and purification of the antibiotic (Chain and Florey). Here are ants who have 'discovered' the single species of fungus that suits them, and 'developed' effective cultivation methods of the fungus.

They have 'discovered' how to obtain and produce the the right composting medium for its growth. They maintain the correct temperature for it's cultivation and growth. Instinct, you see. Perhaps they too should be awarded the Nobel prizes for the animal world!

When the young queen leaves the nest, she takes a piece of the fungus with her to act as seeding material!

While Mueller and Schultz worked on the ants’ relationship to fungi, a team of biologists at the University of Toronto were noting—and wondering about—the presence of a persistent and ravaging mold, called Escovopsis, in attine gardens. How was it, they asked, that this potent parasite didn’t regularly overrun the attine nests? Taking note of a white powder on the undersides of the attine ants, they ultimately identified it as a type of bacteria, Streptomyces, that secretes antibiotics. The antibiotics were keeping the Escovopsis at bay. More important, they were doing so over long periods of time, without the Escovopsis becoming totally resistant.

Evolution cannot account for the origin of this complex organisation, biochemistry, specific knowledge of fungal cultivation, specific knowledge of fungal identification, pre-programmed behaviour patterns of the workers, reccognition of which parts are waste, knowledge that a piece of fungus will act as a cutting which could be used to propagate the only fungus they eat, the scissor like jaws which do the leaf-cutting, the selection of proper leaves which can be used as their composting material, the production of the pheromone-like ‘scent’ which marks their tracks – all this and more.

At every step of their discovery process, error would have caused the extinction of the species. Recall that this is the only species of fungus that they eat.So if they got that wrong, species extinction would have taken place.

Which raises another of these curious anomalies. If this is the only fungus they eat, and this is the only way that the fungus is propagated, then which came first? The ant, or the fungus? The ant depends on the fungus, and the fungus depends on the ant, like the old lock and key analogy. Without the lock, the key is useless, and without the key, the lock is equally so.

Consider the number of individual pieces of instinctive behaviour the ants exhibit, and ask yourself, how did these a. start and b.get into the genome?

1. They know they have to eat. Where did that come from?

2 They can walk. Where did that come from?

3 They have leaf-cutting jaws. Where did that come from? And where did the instincts powering the use of those jaws come from?

4 They 'know' that they must go cut the leaves. Where did that come from?

5 They know they must bring it back to their nest. Where did that come from?

6 They know they mustn't eat the leaves. Where did that come from?

7 They know they have to chew them up and make compost with them. Where did that come from?

8 They know they must excrete on the chewed up leaves to make the compost. Where did that come from?

9 They know they must place spores of the fungus on the compost. Where did that come from?

10 They know how to keep the nest clean, and how to tend the 'gardens' of fungus. Where did that come from?

11 They know how to make tunnels, and keep them at the correct temperature and wetness. Where did that come from?

12 They know that the fungal hyphae must not be eaten. Where did that come from?

13 They know the fungal fruiting bodies are edible, and they eat those. Where did that come from?

14 There is a whole social stratification of ants in the nest. Queen, workers which do one thing, and workers which do another. For example, the leaf-cutting ants cannot chew the leaves up and make the compost. There are smaller ants whose jaws are designed for that purpose.

This is a leaf-cutter. Observe the size of the jaws.

The above are workers creating the compost. Note the small size of the jaws.

15 There are a very large number of other behaviours we could ask the same question about. But the next most remarkable is the fact that when a young queen flies off to start a new colony, she invariably carries a piece of the fungus with her to act as the seed for the new gardens. There is clear purpose in her doing so - but she has a brain the size of a pinhead.

If she didn't do this, she and the species would perish, since new colonies could not form, and the old ones would eventually die out. Species extinction would be the result.

Also note that the eggs she lays, and which hatch out, produce workers (and some males). The workers do NOT need instructions in constructing the fungus gardens, cutting the leaves, and all the other required behaviours. So, the information is somehow programmed into their genes.

'Somehow' is the leading word here. How? And how did it all begin?

As we can clearly see, it's all or nothing. It either worked first time, or the species perished. Since the ant is with us here today, then it worked. First time.

That is a description of an act of creation, not evolution.

The instincts, ants and fungus arose together, and have continued ever since their creation. There are fossil Atta ants in the Miocene (c25 mya) - identifiable ones, 'One of the fossil species of Atta resembles in general form and in the venation of the wings the curious Atta cephalotes of Tropical America'.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v16/n398/abs/016122a0.html

All of those instincts, and many others we haven't mentioned, were implanted in the ants when they were created. No small, beneficial steps could have implanted them.

It is staggering that both sides of the evolution debate have failed to see the importance of this point. The pro-evolutionists DON'T WANT to see it, and the anti-evolutionists have missed it altogether, or at least haven't capitalised sufficiently on it.

I am happy to redress the balance.

Q. How did all that get into their genes?

A. God put it there..

The Migration of Birds

"There is good evidence that young birds are equipped with endogenous migratory programs, which tell them roughly how many days and/or nights that they must fly, and in what direction."

In his book La Puissance et la Fragilité, Prof. Pierre Jean Hamburger from René Descartes University describes the extraordinary 24,000-kilometer journey made by the shearwater that lives in the Pacific Ocean:

It sets out from the coast of Australia. From there it flies straight southward to the Pacific. Then it turns north and flies along the coast of Japan until reaching the Bering Sea where it can rest for a while.

Following that break it sets off again, and this time heads south. Crossing the western coast of America, it arrives in California.

It then crosses the Pacific to return to its starting point. The route and timing of this 15,000-mile (24,000-kilometer) figure ‘8’ journey it makes every year never change.

The journey in question lasts a whole six months, always coming to an end in the third week of September on the island it left six months before, at the nest it left six months before.

What comes next is even more astonishing; after their return, the birds clean their nests, mate, and lay a single egg over the last 10 days of October.

The chicks hatch out two months later, grow very fast and are cared for over three months until their parents set out on that stupendous journey. Two weeks later; around the middle of April, it is time for the young birds to take wing on their own journey. They follow exactly the same route as that described above, with no guide.

The explanation is so obvious: These birds must have all the directions for such a journey within the inherited characteristics passed on within the egg. Some people may claim that birds navigate by the Sun and stars or follow the winds prevailing along their route on this journey out and back. But it is clear that these factors cannot determine the journey’s geographical and chronological accuracy."
Pierre Jean Hamburger, La Puissance et la Fragilité, Flammarion Pub., Paris, 1972.

"migratory birds have comprehensive, detailed, innate spatio-temporal programs for successful migration.

Such programs evidently enable even young, inexperienced birds to migrate alone, with no adult guide, to the species- or population-specific winter quarters that they have never seen before.

As will be explained further below, they do this by "vector" navigation: referring to a vector composed of a genetically predetermined migratory direction and to a time-plan, also genetically predetermined, for the course of migration...

It follows that the departure time is programmed by genetic factors... "

Peter Berthold, "Bird Migration: Introductory Remarks and Overall Perspective", Torgos, 1998, Vol. 28, pp. 25-30

Not only is it preprogrammed, but it is preprogrammed to do impossible things!

"Some birds migrate at seemingly impossible altitudes. For instance, dunlin, knot and certain other small migrating birds fly at a level of 7,000 m (23,000 feet), the same altitude used by aircraft. Whooper swans have been seen flying at 8,200 m (27,000 feet). Some birds even reach the stratosphere, the layer of thin atmosphere, at an altitude of between 8 and 40 kilometers (5 and 25 miles).11 Bar-headed geese cross the Himalayas at an altitude of 9,000 meters (29,529 feet), close to where the stratosphere begins."

What more do we need before we reject this hopeless theory?

The evidence I have been presenting, and which has received no refutation worthy of the name, supports the exceedingly realistic hypothesis that these things were all super-intelligently designed.

Any aeroplane, flying a journey of 1000 miles or so, with fully functioning GPS, at an altitude of 25,000 feet or more at the very edge of the stratosphere, has got to be intelligently designed, or it either wouldn't get there, or would simply perish.

Consider the requirements of survival alone.

The temperature is killing.

The troposphere begins at the Earth's surface and extends up to 4-12 miles (6-20 km) high. This is where we live. As the density of the gases in this layer decrease with height, the air becomes thinner. Therefore, the temperature in the troposphere also decreases with height. As you climb higher, the temperature drops from about 62°F (17°C) to -60°F (-51°C).).

They must be, therefore, extraordinarily well insulated creatures. Which poses yet another problem for the evolutionists. Did they develop their absolutely superior insulation IN ORDER TO FLY THAT HIGH? Or do they fly that high BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE INSULATION? And how did they figure out how to produce it?

But that's just the beginning of the problem. Water freezes at 0 deg C. The liquid covering the eyes of the birds is mainly water. If it is like normal tears, then it should freeze at -0.52 C. But since the birds fly in considerably lower temperatures, the problem becomes very severe. If the liquid froze at -0.52 C, then they could not possibly fly at that height, because their eyes would freeze up. But they do manage it.

Therefore the tears of their eyes must be specially designed with antifreeze built in. So must their nostril linings, and their lungs.

But how is that possible? A bird has no way of knowing what the upper tropospheric temperature will be. Neither does it know what chemicals need to be in its tears to prevent freezing, and least of all does it know how to synthesise that material.

So where did it come from? Design seems the only possible answer.

And then there’s the pressure question. The cabin of an aircraft flying at 26-30,000 feet HAS TO BE PRESSURISED, or all air travellers would die. The atmospheric pressure outside, is far too low to sustain human life. Here is a summary of what happened to James Glaisher, a balloonist who went up to 26,000 feet in the days before we knew all that we know today about the effects of high altitude:

In 1862, James Glaisher and Henry Coxwell ascended to 29,000feet in an open hot-air balloon. During the ascent, Glaisherdescribed marked neurologic compromises: appendicular and latertruncal paralysis, blindness, initially preserved cognition,and subsequent loss of consciousness.

http://www.neurology.org/cgi/content/abstract/60/6/1016

The birds, therefore, MUST have a compensating mechanism built in. But they didn’t know about all this before starting their journeys! So Who knew?

We will discuss the instincts powering flight later on, but let's return to the navigation problem.

Whooper swans fly from Siberia to Britain and return each year - something over 2000 miles. Short-tailed shearwaters, Puffinus tenuirostris migrate from South Australia to the North Pacific and back - a total distance of some 32,000 km (20,000 miles).

"Each year the bulk of the colony (the breeding age birds) return to the nesting grounds on almost the same day. Individuals return to the same nest burrow they occupied the previous year and generally mate with the same partner throughout their breeding life...

In mid April the adult birds commence their Pacific migration leaving the young behind. Hunger begins to bring the chicks from the nest at night, until they eventually set off after the adults. Somehow they find the migratory route without the guidance of the older birds."

http://www.port-fairy.com/shearwaters.htm

This, I thought, was astonishing enough. Maybe the shearwater is unique in this.

But no. Although not over such a great distance, the Pacific golden plover is another phenomenal migrator.

It flies from its breeding grounds in Alaska to its wintering grounds in Hawaii.

That is a distance of about 2,500 miles across open ocean, without any stopping points either available or possible. The birds stock up on food, fattening themselves, and burn it up on the journey. In Alaska, they breed and rear their young.

But that's not the end of the matter.

When the young have reached a reasonably independent state of maturity, the adults fly off and leave them!

Some time later, the young set off on their own, and without parents or any other guides, fly the return 2,500 miles to Alaska. Again across open ocean: no waymarks, no food, no stopping places.

Can you see the nonsense all this makes of evolution?

There are 2 journeys before us, totalling 25,000 miles, which is approximately the circumference of the planet. The plovers strain credulity, but the shearwaters kill it altogether.

And then we find out about the arctic tern - which flies from the top of the world, down to the antarctic every year, and back again.

All this is unbelievable, but comes from the work of highly reputable observers and organisations.

We may as well toss in the fourth unbelievable migration for good measure.

Cliff swallow scouts fly in from the sea, to the village/town of Capistrano in southern California, on the 17th of March every year. The following day, on the 18th March EVERY YEAR, the main flock arrives. They return to the nests they built last year, squabble and fight and breed, and then on October 23rd, they fly up, circle the town as if saying goodbye, and disappear out to sea once again.

This happens EVERY YEAR, on the same date (apart from leap years) without fail.

For the longest time, they had no idea where the birds came from, or where they went, until modern tracking methods were employed, and the truth came out.

They start their journey in Goya, a town in southern Argentina, and fly 7,500 miles up to Capistrano, and return about 6 months later.

In every case, there is dating accuracy – but the Capistrano swallows take the breath away. Somehow, those little birds have a calendar built in and arrive on the same date EVERY YEAR.

Now consider what the theory of evolution has to account for.

1 The ability to fly, and how that ability came from wingless reptiles. More on this later.

2 The existence in the birds of an amazingly accurate GPS system which somehow navigates them to and from their incredibly distant destinations.

3 The existence of a calendar in their little brains, accurate to the very day.

Instinct, says the evolutionist. Yes, we say – but where did this stupendous instinct come from?

In order for a GPS system to work, there must be navigational satellites ready set up, and accurate to within a few hundred feet. There has to be a receptor device, which will not only read those satellite signals, but also unscramble them and translate the messages into comprehensible materials.

There has to a map of some kind, built in to the navigator device. And lastly there must be a mind with the ability to receive and obey the messages from the satellites.

If any one of these elements missing, the whole thing is useless. Therefore in the birds, all of this had to have arisen AT THE SAME TIME. But a map implies that someone has been there before, who knows the way, and can program the route into the system.

The sheer improbability of all this happening by chance is incalculable. And there’s no use bleating pathetically that evolution is not a random process. Random or not, it cannot reasonably explain the origin of these mighty instincts by any method at all.

It’s no wonder that they never attempt to explain the origin of instinct.

Darwin was right when he said:

C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species (London: Cassell and Co., Ltd., 1909), p. 189.

"This [instinct] is by far the most serious special difficulty which my theory has encountered. . . . The problem at first appeared to me insuperable, and actually fatal to my theory."

"No complex instinct can possibly be produced through natural selection except by the slow and gradual accumulation of numerous, slight, yet profitable variations. . . .We ought at least to be able to show that gradations of some kind are possible, and this we certainly can do."

He was wrong. No amount of ‘numerous, slight yet profitable variations’ can take a bird from Australia to Japan, to the Bering Strait, to California and back across the Pacific ocean to Australia, to arrive there at the same time every year, and nest in the same nest each time. Any errors, and the bird would be as good as dead.

No amount of ‘numerous, slight yet profitable variations’ can take a bird 7,500 miles from Goya in Argentina to Capistrano in California ON THE SAME DATE every year.

And how many of such variations do we need to carry the arctic tern from the top of the world down to the bottom, every year? Or how many do we need to carry the golden plover young 2,500 miles across a trackless ocean and back – without parents, guides and way marks ? At every step of the way an error means death and species extinction.

Yet they are still here doing the same wonderful things year after year.

How much more evidence do we need before we dump this silly theory which is so hopelessly useless at explaining such gigantic phenomena?

NEW! HOT OFF THE PRESS!!

“HOW DOES INSTINCT EVOLVE”

OR

Evolution's Soft Underbelly
by Asyncritus

AT LAST!

The Argument Darwin Dreaded…
The Argument No-One Has Developed Before…
The Argument to Which There Is

NO ANSWER FROM THE EVOLUTIONISTS!

35,000 viewers of my articles can’t all be wrong. Check Google for this subject and see!
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?board=17.30

100 pages of amazing facts and carefully reasoned arguments. Equip yourself! Give your children the knowledge to defend belief in Creation in class!

Get your copy here. Only $19.97 as pdf.
$27 plus $5 p&p in CDR format.

Published by phillauren.org

Transcription and translation of Genes: A Horrid Evolutionary Problem

NEWS FLASH!

NEW BOOK! HOT OFF THE PRESS!!

“HOW DOES INSTINCT EVOLVE”

OR

Evolution's Soft Underbelly
by Asyncritus

AT LAST!

The Argument Darwin Dreaded…
The Argument No-One Has Developed Before…
The Argument to Which There Is

NO ANSWER FROM THE EVOLUTIONISTS!

35,000 viewers of my articles can’t all be wrong. Check Google for this subject and see!
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?board=17.30

100 pages of amazing facts and carefully reasoned arguments. Equip yourself! Give your children the knowledge to defend belief in Creation in class!

Get your copy here. Only $19.97 as pdf.
$27 plus $5 p&p in CDR format.

Published by phillauren.org

TRANSCRIPTION AND TRANSLATION OF GENES

Jaques Monod, Nobel Prize Winner, had this to say about transcription mechanisms. He is an evolutionist, on your side, chaps. But what he says must surely make you take a respectful step back! I've broken it up into smaller paragraphs to make it a little more readable.

"The development of the metabolic system, which, as the primordial soup thinned, must have "learned" to mobilize chemical potential and to synthesize the cellular components, poses Herculean problems.

So also does the emergence of the selectively permeable membrane without which there can be no viable cell.

But the major problem is the origin of the genetic code and of its translation mechanism.

Indeed, instead of a problem it ought rather to be called a riddle. The code is meaningless unless translated. The modern cell's translating machinery consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in DNA:

the code cannot be translated otherwise than by products of translation.

It is the modern expression of omne vivum ex ovo. When and how did this circle become closed? It is exceedingly difficult to imagine."

(Monod, Jaques [Biochemist, Director of Pasteur Institute, Paris], "Chance and Necessity: An Essay on the Natural Philosophy of Modern Biology", [1971], Penguin: London, 1997, reprint, p.143. Emphasis mine).

In the same vein, Professor Karl Popper, the famous and very well respected policeman of science, experimentation and the interpretation of results, had this to say about the very same matter. I've again broken the text up into more manageable chunks.

"What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated; that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code.

But, as Monod points out the machinery by which the cell (at least the nonprimitive cell which is the only one we know) translates the code `consists of a least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in DNA' (Monod, 1970; 1971, 143).

Thus the code cannot be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a really baffling circle: a vicious circle, it seems for any attempt to form a model, or a theory, of the genesis of the genetic code."

(Popper, Karl R., [Emeritus Professor of Philosophy, University of London], "Scientific Reduction and the Essential Incompleteness of All Science," in "Studies in the Philosophy of Biology," Macmillan: London, 1974, pp.259-284, p.270. Emphasis mine).

So these despised ERVs, 'junk' as they were called, are not useless remnants of a 'common ancestor'. They are extraordinarily useful elements in the cell transcription process, and seem common to all cells.

So bye, bye, common ancestor.

ERV Functions Discovered

"Large Scale" Function for Endogenous Retroviruses: Intelligent Design Prediction Fulfilled While Another Darwinist Argument Bites the Dust

In his "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution" on TalkOrigins, Douglas Theobald claims that "Endogenous retroviruses provide yet another example of molecular sequence evidence for universal common descent." The presumption behind his argument is that endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are functionless stretches of "junk" DNA that persist because they are "selfish"—but they have no function for the organism. If we find the same ERVs in the same genetic loci in different species of primates, Theobald concludes they document common ancestry.

But what if ERVs do perform important genetic functions? Even theistic evolutionist Francis Collins acknowledges that genetic similarity "alone does not, of course, prove a common ancestor" because a designer could have "used successful design principles over and over again." (The Language of God, pg. 134.) The force of Theobald’s argument thus depends upon the premise that ERVs are selfish genetic "junk" that do not necessarily perform any useful function for their host.

In contrast, ID proponents would predict function for ERVs. This isn’t because ID has an inherent quarrel with common descent—it doesn’t. Rather, ID predicts function because the basis for ID’s predictions is observations of how intelligent agents design things, and intelligent agents tend to design objects that perform some kind of function. As William Dembski wrote in 1998, "If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we expect DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function." It seems that the expectations of ID are turning out to be right.

A recent 2008 paper, "Retroviral promoters in the human genome," in the journal Bioinformatics (Vol. 24(14):1563–1567 (2008)) discusses the fact that "Endogenous retrovirus (ERV) elements have been shown to contribute promoter sequences that can initiate transcription of adjacent human genes. However, the extent to which retroviral sequences initiate transcription within the human genome is currently unknown." The article thus "analyzed genome sequence and high-throughput expression data to systematically evaluate the presence of retroviral promoters in the human genome."

The results were striking:

We report the existence of 51,197 ERV-derived promoter sequences that initiate transcription within the human genome, including 1743 cases where transcription is initiated from ERV sequences that are located in gene proximal promoter or 5' untranslated regions (UTRs).

[…]

Our analysis revealed that retroviral sequences in the human genome encode tens-of-thousands of active promoters; transcribed ERV sequences correspond to 1.16% of the human genome sequence and PET tags that capture transcripts initiated from ERVs cover 22.4% of the genome. These data suggest that ERVs may regulate human transcription on a large scale.

(Andrew B. Conley, Jittima Piriyapongsa and I. King Jordan, "Retroviral promoters in the human genome," Bioinformatics, Vol. 24(14):1563–1567 (2008).)

Darwinists who labeled ERVs as a form of "selfish" and "junk" DNA have been chasing explanations down a blind alley. It should be stated that the authors [of the article quoted above- Asy] do not deviate from the neo-Darwinian paradigm, putting the obligatory evolutionary spin on the data. They claim that it’s a possibility that some of the transcribed ERVs are "not functionally significant," exposing that even in the face of this compelling contrary data, it is difficult for many Darwinists to let go of their seductive but science-stopping "junk-DNA" paradigm.

It seems that Richard Sternberg was correct when he predicted 5 years ago that "the selfish DNA narrative and allied frameworks must join the other ‘icons’ of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory that, despite their variance with empirical evidence, nevertheless persist in the literature." (Richard Sternberg, "On the Roles of Repetitive DNA Elements in the Context of a Unified Genomic–Epigenetic System," Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 981: 154–88 (2002).)

Posted by Casey Luskin on August 21, 2008

With Acknowledgements to Evolution News and Views published by the Discovery Institute.

NEW! HOT OFF THE PRESS!!

“HOW DOES INSTINCT EVOLVE”

OR

Evolution's Soft Underbelly
by Asyncritus

AT LAST!

The Argument Darwin Dreaded…
The Argument No-One Has Developed Before…
The Argument to Which There Is

NO ANSWER FROM THE EVOLUTIONISTS!

35,000 viewers of my articles can’t all be wrong. Check Google for this subject and see!
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?board=17.30

100 pages of amazing facts and carefully reasoned arguments. Equip yourself! Give your children the knowledge to defend belief in Creation in class!

Get your copy here. Only $19.97 as pdf.
$27 plus $5 p&p in CDR format.

Published by phillauren.org

How does "Instinct" Evolve: Asyncritus