Tag Archives: Darwinian Evolution

Spiders, Poison Dart Frogs, and Desert Scorpions

Spiders, poison dart frogs, and desert scorpions are not my favorite creatures. But when you look closely at them, you find undeniable evidence of God.

Start with spiders. Spiders get around very well on eight legs. How did that happen? You might think, “well, there once was a two-legged spider, and then there was a mutation that doubled those to make four legs, and then a second mutation doubled that to make eight legs.” That Darwinian fantasy collapses when you realize that, in addition to more legs, you need a wholly new nervous and balance system to control and coordinate them. Ask any engineer whether a simple error or two in code will turn an operating system for two legs into one that will balance, control, and coordinate four or eight legs. They will laugh at you.

Then there’s spider silk. Spiders make their webs out of something called “dragline silk.” Black spider dragline silk is ten times tougher than Kevlar, the material bulletproof vests are made of (in other words, this type of spider silk can absorb ten times as much energy before breaking).

Spiders are born with the machinery to manufacture different kinds of silk (some spiders have up to seven different kinds for different purposes), the machinery to stretch it out and cut it up, and the knowledge to create fantastically intricate and beautiful webs. How did that happen? Spiders don’t go to the store to buy the equipment, and they don’t go to school. They are born with all this. That is undeniable evidence they were designed by God, undeniable evidence of intelligent design. No error-based system of natural selection, of keeping the best random mutations, could produce both the equipment and the knowledge of how to use it.

Spider silk is amazing. Human beings can’t manufacture it. Scientists are trying, because the materials have fantastic qualities. But spiders aren’t easy to domesticate, and we can’t make spider silk in the laboratory.

Each poison dart frog has enough poison to kill about ten people. The poison is very deadly; it docks “with a specific module of a sodium gate protein found on the outer surfaces of nerve and muscle cells” (yes, life is that complicated). In plain English, it freezes muscle cells and the heart. But poison dart frogs are immune to their own poison. That “module” of a sodium gate protein is made up of 1,836 amino acids, “each precisely in its place like so many miniature engine components.” It turns out that, in the 1,584th amino acid position, poison dart frogs have a different amino acid, and so the poison doesn’t “dock” with their module.

So which came first, the poison or this amazing ability to survive the poison? Poison dart frogs have both this engineered poison, which fits exactly right into a three-dimensional lock, and the ability to survive the poison. They were created.

North African desert scorpions survive in sandstorms that strip paint from steel. Their outer coating is covered by tiny dome-shaped granules. These bumps deflect the airflow, and reduce the erosion rate by up to 50%. Scientists are looking to use this technology to build better helicopter rotors and similar parts, but they can’t do it as well as the scorpion does. The North African desert scorpion was designed by God.

In all of these creatures we find technology far more advanced than similar human technology. We also find, most clearly in the spider, technology that has no Darwinian explanation. How could random mutations result in technology that can manufacture spider silk? It’s not a simple material; humans can’t make it. How could random mutations result in spiders instinctively knowing how to make webs?

The evidence is there, plain as can be. Darwin’s theory is nonsense. It doesn’t matter how many “educated” people claim it is true. Spider webs are proof that Darwin’s theory is nonsense.

Why did God create these creatures? I don’t know. But God is not our cosmic butler. Just as God’s technology is above human technology, God’s purposes are above human purposes. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.” Isaiah 55:9.

Thanks for reading. Please share the good news of true science. Together we can change the world.

Full Strength Christianity

Christianity is on the decline. A recent poll found the percentage of Americans professing to be Christians declined by 7. 8% between 2007 and 2014. I’m back from Europe, where I was able to visit churches and cathedrals. Some took a century or more to build; they represent the greatest architecture and art of the Middle Ages; they are increasingly empty.

To what do we attribute this loss of faith? Our “popular” media twists true science and often mocks belief. Our tax dollars are used to indoctrinate children in the Darwinian delusion that technology so advanced we cannot understand it (like the human brain) arose by accident. Our scientists invent nonsense theories, theories without a shred of evidence, to remove God from the creation of the universe and the creation of life.

Sadly, many churches share the blame. Many offer watered-down Christianity. Some acquiesce to the contradictions of “theistic evolution,” they embrace the Darwinian delusion of technology by accident, yet try to convince people God is in control. Some treat Adam and Eve, and Noah and the flood, as fable. Some even question the divinity of Jesus.

This retreat can lead to spiritual death. I quote now from an Atheist. His starting premise is wrong, but his logic from that false premise is compelling:

The most devastating thing though that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve there never was original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a savior. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into the ranks of the unemployed. I think that evolution is absolutely the death knell of Christianity.

Do you see my point? Without the metanarrative, the overarching theme, of Creation – Fall – Redemption, what is the purpose of the cross? How can Jesus be the “last Adam” (1 Corinthians 15:45) if there was no first Adam? The Christian faith is diluted to something like “please love your neighbor and do good things. ” Why get out of bed on Sunday for that?

Another way of looking at it, as a friend pointed out to me, is if you don’t believe that Adam and Eve were real people, at what point do you start believing the Bible? Until recently, I didn’t grasp this logical problem. I would not consider the evidence for Adam and Eve, and Noah and the flood, just as many will not consider the overwhelming scientific evidence for the existence of God. I was afraid others might think me crazy. Now that my eyes are open, I am astonished by the evidence.

If you haven’t seen it, I recommend “Is Genesis History?” which is available on Netflix. It will answer many of your questions and concerns.

I have learned to embrace the Bible as the literal word of God. When my eyes were opened to the true evidence, I felt a great peace. When I learned I could trust the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, from sin to salvation, I was overjoyed.

I invite you to take Christianity full strength. Full strength Christianity can satisfy your soul. Overall, Bible-based churches with full strength Christianity are growing. This is great news. Modern science increasingly, with new discoveries every year, backstops full strength Christianity. In recent posts I’ve touched on DNA evidence of Adam and Eve, and memories of Noah and the flood. There is so much more that supports the literal truth of the Bible.

Thanks for reading. I appreciate the work of many of you to share the good news of true science. Together we can change the world.

The Finch’s Beak

I’m working on a new, easier-to-read book about science and God. As one example of how natural selection has never created new kinds of creatures, I discuss the finch’s beak. One of my “test” readers was surprised: “Isn’t that one of the key examples given to support evolution?” She’s right, it is, which shows how distorted the evolutionary literature has become. Let’s look at the real facts about changes in the beaks of finches, and you can decide for yourself.
Finches are smallish birds found in most parts of the world. According to evolutionary myth, Charles Darwin noticed differences in the size of the beaks of species of finches when he visited the Galapagos Islands in 1835. He supposedly concluded that the birds had adapted, by natural selection, to different diets. Then, a mere 24 years later, in 1859, he was inspired by the beaks of finches to conceive and publish his theory of evolution.

Horse manure. As historian of science Frank Sulloway states, “Nothing could be further from the truth.” Darwin never mentioned finches in his 1859 book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (yes, Darwin was a blatant racist). Sulloway writes:

Thus the point of real historical interest is why Darwin, who surely wanted to bolster the text of the Origin with his most convincing scientific evidence, chose to omit any specific reference to a group of birds that he supposedly thought were so important for his evolutionary argument.

The finch myth, the myth that Darwin had an “eureka” moment while studying the beaks of finches, is nonsense. Darwin largely stole the theory of evolution from an 1858 letter written to him by Alfred Russell Wallace. For the story of how Darwin did that, and managed to take credit for the theory ahead of Wallace, I refer you to Tom Wolfe’s recent book The Kingdom of Speech.

Of course, facts don’t stop evolutionists. The National Academy of Science, a Darwin propaganda machine that tries to silence all discussion of design, claims finches are “a particularly compelling example” of the origin of species. The Washington Post (not my favorite newspaper) recently wrote an article on the “iconic Galapagos finches.”

Historical embellishments aside, what are the facts? In the 1970s biologists studied finches on one of the Galapagos Islands during a severe drought. The drought restricted the diet of finches to mostly large, hard-to-crack seeds. 85 percent of the finches perished. The average beak size of the survivors was 5% greater than the average beak size before the drought.

Don’t get too excited. When the rains returned, the average beak size returned to normal. To be clear, there were always finches with larger beaks and finches with smaller beaks. There were finches with larger beaks and finches with smaller beaks before the drought, there were finches with larger beaks and finches with smaller beaks during the drought, and there were finches with larger beaks and finches with smaller beaks after the drought. There was never a new kind of finch. There was no new technology created. There was only a temporary change in the relative sizes of those two populations.

What do you think? A “compelling example” of how new species are created? If you want to learn more about the myth of the finch’s beak, I would refer you to this article by Jonathan Wells. Wells concludes “never in the history of science was so much based by so many on so little.”

No one has ever found any new technology that was created by natural selection. Since 1988, scientists have watched a common type of bacteria “evolve” in the lab, grown in flasks with nutrients the bacteria eat. The bacteria reproduce more than six times a day and there have been over 60,000 generations of bacteria. The main change was that the bacteria turned into couch potatoes, fat bacteria that can’t swim. Because of mutations, errors in coding, some of the technology they used to have no longer works. Because the flasks are shaken, and the bacteria don’t need to swim to get food, the bacteria got fat and more couldn’t swim.

There is also the itsy bitsy scientific fact that, mathematically, the theory of evolution is a disaster. It is nowhere near powerful enough to build new technology. The odds of getting by mutation a new piece of technology, a new functional protein not related to another functional protein, are so hard to overcome that it may never have happened in the history of life on Earth. I give an overview of the science/math on this in pages 105 to 112 and 136 to 138 of Counting To God. Getting dozens of new pieces that work together just right to build new technology, like legs, eyes, ears, bones, or the human brain? Ridiculous almost beyond comprehension.

So the next time someone makes the absurd claim that “evolution is a fact,” you might ask that person to look at the real facts, and you might start with the finch’s beak.

Thanks for reading. Please spread the good news of true science.

The Human Brain

I commute long distance. On Monday’s flight, I read two interesting articles on the human brain.

The first was in Monday’s New York Times. Researchers developed technology you control using thought. You put on a headset with virtual reality goggles and sensors that read brain waves, and move virtual objects. The article said researchers “want to build ways of performing nearly any computing task with the mind.” That, I thought, would be totally cool! How advanced!

Then I thought, wait a minute. Much more advanced technology already exists. With your brain, you can control, to an astonishing degree, each of over 600 skeletal muscles in your body. You can perform coordinated feats, like standing upright. (It’s not so easy; it took you about a year to get it right.) With your brain, you can access memory banks of your life and what you have learned. The sophistication of the human brain is dazzling. I love watching and hearing concert pianists play impossibly difficult and breathtakingly beautiful pieces from memory. My college roommate, a chess grandmaster at 13, could and still can crush me in chess without ever looking at the chess board. He visualizes the entire board and all possible moves in his head.

Next I picked up the September issue of Acts and Facts. (It is one of my favorite magazines, and you can get a free subscription by going to this page: http://www.icr.org/icr-magazines ) Dr. Jeffrey Tompkins authored an article entitled: “The Human Brain is ‘Beyond Belief’.” The article reviews recent brain research, and cites 15 scientific papers. Highlights:

  • An average healthy human brain contains some 200 billion nerve cells connected to one another through hundreds of trillions of synapses. (About as many cells as stars in our galaxy, and synapses as stars in a thousand galaxies.)
  • A single human brain has more information processing units than all the computers, routers, and Internet connections on Earth.
  • The neural units in our brain are perfectly placed to minimize “connection costs” among components.
  • The brain’s memory capacity is “at least” a petabyte, in the same ballpark as the entire World Wide Web.
  • The brain is amazingly energy efficient; human circuits of similar complexity would require at least 1,000 times more energy.
  • The cells of the brain communicate with light as well as electrical impulses.
  • The brain is a quantum computer.
  • The brain creates complex structures to solve problems.

That last bullet is a reference to a June 2017 paper in the Journal of Computational Neuroscience. (Not a journal I’m recommending, but go knock yourself out.) Researchers found our brains build fantastic structures, with fantastic geometries, to solve problems. Here’s one of the researchers:

The neurons in the network react to stimuli in an extremely organized manner. …. We found a world we never imagined. There are tens of millions of these objects even in a small speck of the brain, up through seven dimensions. In some networks, we even found structures with up to eleven dimensions.

The mathematics of this article, with concepts from Algebraic Geometry (yes I took that course in college but don’t ask me any questions) are beyond belief. Not much I understood. I will just note that when the researcher refers to “dimensions,” he is really talking about degrees of connectivity. So when seven neurons create a structure where they are each connected to each other, he is calling that a seven dimensional structure.

When it comes to the architecture and technology of the human brain, we are like primitives with stone tools trying to understand a spaceship. As hard as we try, and thousands of very smart people are trying very hard, we are only a vague idea of how the brain works. We think we are smart to say the frontal cortex performs executive functions. That’s like the primitive saying the back of the spaceship has something to do with movement. Exactly how is it your brain processes signals from your eyes to recognize these letters and words, to make sense of them, and to ponder their meaning? Tell me, if you can, how that works.

So new research says the brain builds structures to solve problems? How could any rational person believe the human brain “evolved” from a Darwinian process of keeping the best errors? That is preposterously absurd, totally idiotic, and without a fig leaf shred of believability! No way ultra technology arose by chance. I would also point you to page 165 of Counting To God, where I note that the human brain has at least 54 “orphan” brain genes, 54 sections of DNA code that no other species has that build the fantastic nanotechnology we use to think and reason.

I can be sarcastic. Maybe next time someone tells me belief in God is not scientific, I’ll respond — “so you’re one of those ‘scientific’ people who believe the human brain arose by chance?”

Thanks for reading. Please tell others, and spread the good news of true science. Together we can change the world, and free it from this pathetically depressing Atheist paradigm of a meaningless universe. God is real. Govern yourself accordingly.

Origin of Life

How did life get started? Could life have arisen by purely “natural” means, without a designer? The universe is a big place, with trillions times trillions of stars. Newspapers report “earth-like” planets; some must have liquid water. Is life inevitable, given enough time and sunshine?

Well, maybe not. The origin of life is an unsolved riddle, and one of the greatest challenges to materialism.

The problem is that all life, even what we might think of as “simple” life, is enormously complex, and has technology far beyond anything built by human beings. All life makes copies of itself atom-by-atom. No machine built by man can do that. All life contains digital code (DNA), and 3-D printers that read the code and “print” out needed parts, by snapping together chains of basic atomic building blocks, called “amino acids.”

A 1953 experiment found that a few of these amino acids could be produced from electricity and inorganic chemical compounds. This experiment, called the Miller-Urey experiment, has led some people to believe that life did arise by chance. Many high school textbooks note the experiment. But the textbooks are outdated. Both Stanley Miller and Harold Urey admitted the mere existence of amino acids does not yield life. It’s not just that the experiment got the starting conditions wrong (which it did), or that it also produced reactive chemicals that would have destroyed life (like hydrogen cyanide and formaldehyde). It’s not just that it takes energy to “snap” together amino acids. The necessary components for life are not favored thermodynamically or kinetically.

It’s the information problem. Even if somehow you had all the right parts, all of these fantastically complex components, how on Earth (pun intended) could they ever get in the right order? How did all the pieces get put together right in three dimensional space?

All life has DNA code millions of units, millions of “letters,” long. (Those chemical units, those nucleotides, are impossibly unlikely to form by chance.) All life has copying machines and 3-D printers of astonishing accuracy and reliability. All life has machines to transfer energy. To have life, you not only have to start with all of this (and more), but the code has to be in exactly the right order so the machines can make copies of themselves. It’s a nightmare chicken-and-the-egg problem. To have life, you’ve got to start with all the machines and all the units of code, and the code has to be in the right order to specify the instructions for building the machines.

In 1964, a Yale professor calculated the odds of life arising by chance as one in a number with one hundred billion zeros. That’s at any time in any place in the history of the universe. The number of planets in the universe may be a number with 24 zeros. To go from a length so small it cannot be measured, to the distance across the known universe, you need about 60 zeros (multiply by ten about 60 times). Overcoming odds of one in a number with one hundred billion zeros is staggeringly impossible. You are more likely to win a Powerball lottery ten billion times in a row.

Life forming accidentally is like a tornado ripping through a massive junkyard and leaving behind a 747 jet, with all systems functional and ready to take off. Except it’s worse. The tornado would also have to leave behind a complete set of blueprints for building the jet and an operating manual.

Charles Darwin knew his theory couldn’t explain the origin of life. Before you can have natural selection, you must first have a means of preserving traits across generations. Inorganic matter has only chemical and physical properties; it has no way of preserving traits across generations.

You might think further effort will solve the riddle. Harvard University attempted that in 2006, when it launched an “Origins of Life Initiative,” and handed out research money. But at a conference they sponsored in 2009, the recurring theme was “we just don’t know.” Harvard has essentially abandoned the initiative.

How did life get started? Here’s a 2011 status report from Eugene Koonin, a senior investigator at the National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, and a recognized expert in the field of evolutionary and computational biology:

Despite many interesting results to its credit, when judged by the straightforward criterion of reaching (or even approaching) the ultimate goal, the origin of life field is a failure—we still do not have even a plausible coherent model, let alone a validated scenario, for the emergence of life on Earth. Certainly, this is due not to a lack of experimental and theoretical effort, but to the extraordinary intrinsic difficulty and complexity of the problem. A succession of exceedingly unlikely steps is essential for the origin of life, from the synthesis and accumulation of nucleotides to the origin of translation; through the multiplication of probabilities, these make the final outcome seem almost like a miracle.

The origin of life seems like a miracle.

There is no materialist explanation for the origin of life. Our most brilliant scientists can’t come up with a mildly plausible scenario. When decades of intense scientific effort leave us with the statement that the origin of life seems like a miracle, we are forced to consider the possibility that it really was a miracle, a supernatural event, and that life was designed.

Thanks for reading. Please share the good news of science.

Plant Sensors

Intelligent design predicts we will continue to find complex systems in living creatures. This prediction is affirmed almost daily in scientific papers around the world. I’ve highlighted a few of these, such as the systems that allow reef squid to communicate by writing on their own bodies. For this post, let’s look at plants.

Plants generally get their energy from light; through an amazingly engineered process we call photosynthesis. Sensors help them capture and process the light. Here’s Jeffrey Thompkins, Ph.D.:

One of the key factors in a plant’s life cycle is processing sunlight in the form of duration (day length), light quality (wavelength), and light intensity. All of these interconnected light-related factors are monitored within the plant’s leaf cells by a family of sensor proteins called phytochromes. When the red to far-red region of the visible light spectrum changes during the day, or because of shade from neighboring plants, the conformation (3-D shape) of the phytochrome proteins becomes altered and they act like genetic switches. They turn on and off a whole host of genes that modify plant metabolism, physiology, growth, and development. Phytochromes also help set the plant’s circadian rhythm (day/night clock) in addition to telling the plant what time of year it is, when it should flower and make seeds, or go dormant for the winter.

This has been known for some time. What’s new is that scientists have now found that these same sensors also measure temperature. The sensors are already fantastic machines in measuring and responding to light, so no one expected they would also be respond to temperature. But they do. Tompkins again:

This temperature-sensing capacity and seamless integration with the light sensory function is so finely tuned that it enables the plant to make a wide variety of adjustments in growth and development both during the night and during photosynthesis in daylight.

Wow! In other words plants, life that you might think is relatively simple, has complex, engineered systems far beyond human technology. We’re talking nanotechnology, engineering at the atomic level, that works perfectly for that dandelion in your yard. All life is more complex than we can possibly imagine.

So ask your Darwinist friends how they explain this. You might get, “well obviously it ‘evolved’ because it’s good for the plants.” Don’t let them get away with that nonsense. You can’t mathematically get any technology by chance, much less an integrated system that can sense and respond to both light and temperature.

And speaking of integrated systems, what about the human brain? How can anyone possibly believe the human brain – with its ability to process information from each of our senses and combine that with analytic reasoning, memory, spatial perception, image recognition, and so so much more – arose from a chance-based process? The truth is plainly obvious, and it always has been, notwithstanding the nonsense we hear from Atheists. Human beings were designed.

Thanks for reading. And please, please, spread the good news of science.

Is Darwinism a Scientific Theory?

Tom Wolfe is a powerful thinker and writer. His books include The Electric Cool-Aid Acid Test, The Right Stuff, and Bonfire of the Vanities (the last two were adapted into motion pictures). His most recent book, The Kingdom of Speech, annihilates claims that Darwin’s theory of evolution is science:

There are five standard tests for a scientific hypothesis. Has anyone observed the phenomenon – in this case, Evolution – as it occurred and recorded it? Could other scientists replicate it? Could any of them come up with a set of facts that, if true, would contradict the theory (Karl Popper’s “falsifiability” tests)? Could scientists make predictions based on it? Did it illuminate hitherto unknown or baffling areas of science? In the case of Evolution … well … no … no … no … no … and no.

[Tom Wolfe – The Kingdom of Speech, 2016, p. 27.]

Let’s look more closely at how evolution scores.

1. Has anyone observed the phenomenon?

There has never been a case where anyone has observed a new biological system or technology being created from random mutations and natural selection. Franklin Harold, a Darwinist, admits: “We must concede that there are presently no detailed accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.” Scientists see systems that they imagine “evolved,” but they have never observed evolution in action. In one decades-old experiment involving 65,000 generations of bacteria, no new systems were created. Instead, systems not needed to survive during the controlled conditions broke down.

If you look at the complexity of life, and in particular at the fantastic improbability of ever forming by chance a single new functional protein, much less a complete new biological system, it’s not hard to see why. See Counting To God, pages 105 to 112.

2. Could other scientists replicate it?

Obviously, no. Scientists can’t observe or replicate Darwinian evolution.

3. Are there facts which, if false, would contradict the theory?

To me this is the most important test for a scientific theory. If a theory is scientific, there must be a way to test it, to create an experiment that, if the results don’t turn out right, would show the theory is false. Quantum Physics and Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity have each been confirmed to about 13 decimal places. A tiny discrepancy could prove either theory false. Karl Popper wrote: “In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.”

Here’s Cornelius Hunter:

Being an evolutionist mean there is no bad news. If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, that just means evolution operates in spurts. … If clever mechanisms are discovered in biology, that just means evolution is smarter than we imagined. If strikingly similar designs are found in distant species, that just means evolution repeats itself. If significant differences are found in allied species, that just means evolution sometimes introduces new designs rapidly. If no likely mechanism can be found for the large-scale change evolution requires, that just means evolution is mysterious. If adaptation responds to environmental signals, that just means evolution has more foresight than was thought. If major predictions of evolution are found to be false, that just means evolution is more complex than we thought.

Evolution cannot be falsified because it makes no predictions (other than change happens). Evolution has no mathematical equations. Karl Popper wrote: “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program.”

4. Could scientists make predictions based on it?

Scientists have made predictions based on Darwinism, and those predictions have consistently been proved false. One major prediction was that, because according to Darwin we were created from random mutations, most of our DNA is “junk.” This was disproved by over 400 scientists in 2012 as part of the ENCODE project. See Counting To God, pages 153 to 158.

5. Did it illuminate hitherto unknown or baffling areas of science?

Darwinism has not led to a single scientific discovery. It has led millions to lose faith in God. It has led to a disregard for human beings, and two major world wars. It gave Hitler, Stalin, and Mao justification to kill 100 million people.

Darwinism is a delusion to deny God. Here’s a video that goes into more detail on this subject.

And let’s not forget about the multiverse, another major and unprovable fantasy of Atheists who seek to deny God. The multiverse by definition cannot be observed or replicated – because it is not in the observable universe. There are absolutely no facts or experiments that can contradict the multiverse delusion – all we can do is observe and experiment in our universe. The multiverse leads to no predictions and no new science.

The complexity and beauty of life prove the existence of God. The complexity and fantastic fine-tuning of our universe, fine-tuning in the constants of physics, the laws of physics, and even the structure of time and space, prove the existence of God. There is no scientific theory that can explain these proven facts without God. In each case, the scientific evidence of design is overwhelming. True science proves God.

Thanks for reading.

Courting Cephalopods

Researchers from Taiwan have uncovered a complex system of communication among oval squid in the East China Sea. This last month from Science Daily:

The animals make use of naturally occurring chromatic components, which are stored within their bodies. They use these to paint their skin with lines, spots and stripes, of varying shades and complexities, to signal their desirability to future lovers and warn off potential foes.

The researchers described this, in the title of their paper, as a “grammar of visual signals.”

How do you get a “grammar of visual signals”? First, you need something to make signals with. Here, the squid write on their own bodies, using chromatic components. In other words, they can create lines, spots, and stripes on their bodies with different colors and shades. How did they get that ability? Science Daily describes this technology as “naturally occurring,” which suggests it’s no big deal, just a “natural” thing. Now I don’t know about you, but I sure can’t write on my body without using my hands, and, to state the obvious, squid don’t have hands. Where did they get this technology? Using nothing more than their brains, these squid can draw on their bodies, and they can change the writing. That’s mind-boggling, fantastic technology. Where did that come from?

You need more to communicate. These signals, these writings, would be useless if other oval squid couldn’t read them. Now not only do squid not have hands, but (I don’t know any squid personally but I’m fairly certain of this) squid do not go to school. They are not taught by their parents or other squid how to make sense of the signals. They just know. They are born with this knowledge, with the complete ability to understand each of the signals, each of the variations of “line, spots and stripes, of varying shades and complexities,” the complete “grammar of visual signals.” How did that happen?

It’s even more complex. The researchers also uncovered “elegant and specific movements that varied depending on the gender and social status.” So the squid somehow can create, and can understand, an “intricate language of patterns, movements and associated behaviors.” Again, the squid are born knowing how to do this, how to create the patterns, how to perform the movements, and what each pattern and movement means.

This system is irreducibly complex. You need both the fantastic technology to write on their bodies, and the knowledge to know what the writings and movements mean. With just the technology, there is no language. Without the knowledge, there is no language. How could they both have “evolved,” in the Darwinian sense, simultaneously? Obviously, they couldn’t have. Darwinian evolution is a process of random mutations, of errors in the code if you will, and natural selection of the best “errors.” How could the “errors” to create the technology have been preserved, if they were totally worthless without the full knowledge of what they mean?

These courting cephalopods, these oval squid of the South China Sea, prove the existence of God. As Lord Kelvin said in 1903, “If you think strongly enough you will be forced by science to the belief in God.”

Thanks for reading.

The Death of Man

This week I return to J.C. Sanford, and his eye-opening book – Genetic Entropy. J.C. Sanford is a highly regarded geneticist. He is the author of over 100 technical papers in theoretical genetics, and he taught at Cornell. His first published Genetic Entropy in 2005, and the most recent Fourth Edition includes scientific developments through 2014.

Sanford uses the word “entropy” in its normal sense – the universal tendency for things to deteriorate, unless an intelligent agent intervenes. The following description is from his website, geneticentropy.org:

Genetic entropy is most easily understood on a personal level. In our bodies there are roughly 3 new mutations (word-processing errors), every cell division. Our cells become more mutant, and more divergent from each other every day. By the time we are old, each of our cells has accumulated tens of thousands of mutations. Mutation accumulation is the primary reason we grow old and die. This level of genetic entropy is easy to understand.

There is another level of genetic entropy that affects us as a population. Because mutations arise in all of our cells, including our reproductive cells, we pass many of our new mutations to our children. So mutations continuously accumulate in the population – with each generation being more mutant than the last. So not only do we undergo genetic degeneration personally, we also are undergoing genetic degeneration as a population. This is essentially evolution going the wrong way. Natural selection can slow down, but cannot stop, genetic entropy on the population level.

We humans have 3.2 billion letters of DNA – biological information coding. Sanford estimates our mutation rate is at least 100 letters per generation. We are all mutants. Genetic Entropy analyzes how fast our genes are degenerating, whether Darwinian evolution can fix the problem, and the fate of the human race.

Sanford shows that natural selection cannot overcome this deterioration. Lethal errors can be weeded out, but those are rare. It is the gradual accumulation of “mildly deleterious mutations” that dooms us. They are invisible to natural selection. Sanford cites one study that “the extinction time is just slightly longer than 100 generations.” Another study found “the decrease in viability from mutation accumulation is now 1% to 2% per generation.”

Sanford destroys the Darwinian delusion. It’s not just that the mutation/selection mechanism cannot produce new systems or new species. Mutations destroy information, and all life – especially human beings – need information to survive and reproduce. We are in the process of mutational meltdown.

Without God, we are doomed. One hundred generations is about 2,000 years, and that ignores increasing mutation rates due to environmental pollution.


The Little Red Wagon That Couldn’t

John Sanford is a brilliant geneticist who taught at Cornell and other institutions, and retired wealthy from his over 30 patents. His book “Genetic Entropy” – first published in 2005 and most recently updated in 2014 – is a devastating critique of Darwinian theory. Like me, John Sanford converted from Atheism to Belief because of the evidence of science.

Sanford’s book describes and documents amazing evidence of design. What I liked most, however, was his cute example of why Darwinian theory is nonsense.

Imagine you have a little red wagon, the type a child would pull. Imagine you also have an instruction manual that tells you how to build the wagon from scratch. The manual is complete. It tells you not only how to connect the parts, but how to manufacture each part. So there are instructions for how to manufacture steel and shape it exactly into the steel parts of the wagon. There are instructions for how to manufacture rubber and shape it into the tires of the wagon. There are instructions for how to manufacture red paint and how and where to paint the wagon. And so on, a complete instruction manual.

Now imagine three more things. First, imagine that you (or some other scribe) makes copies of the instructions, but sometimes makes mistakes. So each instruction manual is slightly different, and each is used to build a little red wagon. Second, imagine there is an assembly line in a factory that constantly builds new wagons based on its unique instruction manual for each one. Third, imagine there is a judge who reviews the wagons coming off the assembly line, rejects dysfunctional wagons, and preserves any “good” changes that occur.

We have now created an analogy to mutation and natural selection. The cute little red wagon represents what we might mistakenly call “simple” one-celled life. We now know each cell is like a city, with factories, libraries, transportation systems and so on, but let’s imagine life starting like a little red wagon. The process of random errors in the instruction manual is of course analogous to random mutations in the DNA code of that “simple” cell. The “judge” here represents natural selection. The judge has no control over the mutations, over which coping errors are made and where they occur in the instruction manual. The judge only gets to look at the final product off the assembly line and decide whether it should survive.

Darwin’s theory is that, if you keep doing this, you will eventually get a nice shiny blue tricycle. Yes, somehow, the paint color will switch to blue, the wheels will morph from four to three, the handle will reshape into a steering bar, and so on. I think we all know that is nonsense. What you may easily get is a wagon with a defective wheel. But you are not going to get the front two wheels to merge into a single front wheel, simultaneously with the steel shape being redesigned. Again, the “judge” of natural selection doesn’t get to separately fine tune a particular part of the instruction manual. It can’t say, for example, let’s only make errors in the section on paint color until we get the shade blue, and then we’ll mutate the instructions for the wheels. The mutations/errors are across the entire instruction manual, and all the judge can do is look at the final product and decide if it will survive.

Actually, Darwin’s theory is even more ridiculous. The theory predicts that, if you keep doing this long enough, keep mutating the instruction manual and letting only wagons/whatevers with the right features “survive,” you will eventually get an intergalactic spaceship with warp drive and a holodeck. Yes, I am serious. The gulf between “simple” one-celled life and human beings – with our perhaps 30 trillion interconnected cells, senses, muscles, organs, and the astonishing abilities of the human brain – is probably greater than that between the cute little red wagon and a spaceship.

I think this example helps grasp, at a basic, non-mathematical level, why Darwin’s theory is nonsense. Random mutations cannot invent new technology. It’s not mathematically possible; it has never happened.

“Entropy” is a fancy word for the general tendency of things to deteriorate. That perfect instruction manual for the first cute little red wagon is lost when that wagon dies. What really happens as the copying errors increase, and the manuals get more and more corrupted? What is the future of the human race? Sanford’s book focuses on that, and I intend to discuss that in my next blog.

Thanks for reading.