lease report broken hyperlinks using the Reply option at the bottom of each page.

Generations of schoolchildren have been taught that the inheritance of acquired characteristics is impossible…  The traditional, and still dominant, view is that adaptations – from the human brain to the peacock’s tail – are fully and satisfactorily explained by natural selection (and subsequent inheritance).  Yet as novel ideas flood in from genomics, epigenetics and developmental biology, most evolutionists agree that their field is in flux.  Much of the data implies that evolution is more complex than we [evolutionists] once assumed…  Some [evolutionists] are even starting to wonder if a revolution is on the cards…



The  Scientific Dissent from Darwinism  list currently tops a thousand names of PhD scientists who publicly declare their skepticism towards the evolutionary paradigm.



[Researchers] published findings [in 2018] sure to jostle, if not overturn, more than one settled idea about… evolution…  It is textbook [evolutionary] biology, for example, that species with large, far-flung populations… will become more genetically diverse over time.  But is that true?  The answer is no…  [In fact, flying directly in the face of evolutionary dogma is this study’s revelation that 90% of] species on Earth today, including humans, came into being [only] 100,000 to 200,000 years ago….  [A]nother unexpected finding from the study [revealed that all] species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there’s nothing much in between…  The absence of ‘in-between’ species [a.k.a. ‘missing links’] is something that also perplexed Darwin.


[Yet evolutionists persist in their insistence that, despite the actual evidence, evolutionism must be true.]


Matti Leisola, a gifted Finnish bioengineer, started out as a good Darwinist…  But like many other observers across the planet, Leisola was witnessing… [that the cracks in evolutionary theory] were leading to ever-widening gaps, and finally to massive breaches in a purely naturalistic view of life….  But how could science progress, Leisola ask[ed], if we could never question… the majority scientific opinion?…  The atmosphere in our universities is now completely different from that of the open discussions that were common in the 70s and 80s…  Leisola concludes, ‘I came to understand through my many international connections that neo-Darwinism, while little valued among mainstream biologists who spent any time thinking about the theory, was treated by them as a third rail—too dangerous to touch.



Assuming that strictly natural processes are responsible for the changes occurring throughout the history of life, the phylogenetic trees should match the morphological changes and the timing of those changes observed in the fossil record… [yet] The fossil record [i.e. morphologies] and molecular phylogenies of living species… often produce strikingly divergent results.



A Few Reminders about Evolution from an Atheist



1) If evolution is true then God does not exist.

2) Evolution is true.

3) Therefore, God does not exist.



Apple iPhone Evolved Naturally Over Billions Of Years, Experts Now Believe


[As we have pointed on numerous pages here @ ASND, what makes good satire good is its basis in reality, which connection reveals the stupidity (or sadness, or whatever) of the reality with wry humor.]


Revolutionary: Michael Behe’s Mystery of Molecular Motors



What Is a Scientific Model?



Natural Selection: Driver of Evolution or Stasis?



Wanna see what purely random, unguided chance can do all by itself?



Atheist Philosopher: What is certain is that the Darwinian explanatory framework is logically confused and scientifically superficial with respect to the phenomena of normativity, teleology, and agency.



Does the Evolutionary Paradigm Stymie Scientific Advance?



Does evolution point to naturalism or to intelligent design?



Even Evolutionists Treat Living Things *As If* Designed



Even Professional Scientists Are Compelled to See Purpose in Nature, Psychologists Find



SETI is an Intelligent Design Research Program



How Evolution[ism] Gave Us Postmodernism, Deconstructionism, and                         Political Correctness



9 Things You Should Know About the Scopes Monkey Trial



God, Darwin or… Both?






[The title of the panel debate suggests that one of the debaters was a theistic evolutionist (or, as some of them prefer to be called, “evolutionary Christians”).  Despite one of the debater’s (Duane Gish) repeated attempts to characterize another of the debaters (Hugh Ross) as a theistic evolutionist, that was (and still is) not the case.  Hugh Ross is a Contructive Integrationist (a.k.a. Progressive Creationist, though Ross does not like that term since it is often misunderstood and therefore misused by people like Duane Gish) who accepts the Genesis (and many other biblical) creation account(s) as literal, but he cites many Hebrew scholars who have pointed out that the “days” of Genesis 1 & 2 should be correctly (literally) interpreted as meaning long periods of time.]


Three logical prerequisites for biological evolution to work



Are There Transitional Intermediates in the Fossil Record?



Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of intermediate fossil links between species?



Demystifying Evolution and the Species Problem



The Cambrian Explosion:

The chairman of the biology department at the University of San Francisco reveals details of the Cambrian explosion, a biological puzzle that confounds the Darwinists



How “Sudden” Was the Cambrian Explosion?



More on Small Shelly Fossils and the Length of the Cambrian Explosion: A Concluding Response to Charles Marshall



Does Lightning-Fast Evolution Solve the Cambrian Enigma?



Do New Ediacaran Fossils Muffle the Cambrian Explosion?



Half-Billion-Year-Old Heart Found More Complex than Today’s



More Evidence of Mass Extinction Event Challenging Evolutionary Models



Now Evolution Must Have Evolved Different Functions Simultaneously in the                 Same Protein


[Actually, this is not the first, or even the 100th, time this seemingly impossible process of “evolutionary convergence” (i.e. separate but identical “evolution”) has been documented. For two brief primers on this evolutionarily-assumed process, these articles…



… provide some useful background information. For several more articles on specific examples of supposed convergence, the following articles – chronologically arranged – are similarly enlightening.]











It’s interesting that attempts to catch evolution in the act of doing the amazing things that the textbooks attribute to it seem to fail at both ends of the spectrum.



Nonrandom Mutations Scramble the Case for Common Descent



… will [B]igfoot be next?”


[Well, you  never    know.]


“… despite limited research, the [researchers] consider dogs’ capacity for emotional contagion and perhaps for some mental processing of humans’ emotional states is supported by both anecdotal and experimental data.


[ Yeah , that  makes   sense .   I meanall   animals   evolved  from  common   ancestry ,   right ?  So we shouldn’t be surprised that we all share common emotions too.                  That was easy . ]


Atheistic Critics:

Are there nonreligious skeptics of Darwinian evolution and proponents of             Intelligent Design?



Not all biologists are evolutionists



… the[re is an] increasing number of atheists and agnostics who are coming out and critiquing Darwinism and/or supporting ID.


[That article quotes Thomas Nagel, Ph.D. (Philosophy), from his new book, Mind and Cosmos:Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False.  Nagel has admitted several things which his fellow atheists have not, including the following in his previous book,  The Last Word  .  “I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers.  It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally hope that I’m right in my belief.  It’s that I hope that there is no God!  I don’t want there to be a God;        I don’t want the universe to be like that.]


More from Thomas Nagel on Neo-Darwinian Evolution and the Chemical Origin of Life



From a fruitful method, materialism becomes an axiom: If science can’t quantify something, it doesn’t exist, and so the subjective, unquantifiable, immaterial ‘manifest image’ of our mental life is proved to be an illusion.  Here materialism bumps up against itself.  Nagel insists that we know some things to exist even if materialism omits or ignores or is oblivious to them.  Reductive materialism doesn’t account for the ‘brute facts’ of existence — it doesn’t explain, for example, why the world exists at all, or how life arose from nonlife.  Closer to home, it doesn’t plausibly explain the fundamental beliefs we rely on as we go about our everyday business: the truth of our subjective experience, our ability to reason, our capacity to recognize that some acts are virtuous and others aren’t.  These failures, Nagel says, aren’t just temporary gaps in our knowledge, waiting to be filled in by new discoveries in science.  On its own terms, materialism cannot account for brute facts. Brute facts are irreducible, and materialism, which operates by breaking things down to their physical components, stands useless before them.  ‘There is little or no possibility,’ he writes, ‘that these facts depend on nothing but the laws of physics.’  … If materialism is true as an explanation of everything — and they insist it is — then psychological facts, for example, must be reducible to biology, and then down to chemistry, and finally down to physics.  If they weren’t reducible in this way, they would (ta-da!) be irreducible.  And any fact that’s irreducible would, by definition, be uncaused and undetermined; meaning it wouldn’t be material…  Materialism can only be taken seriously as a philosophy through a heroic feat of cognitive dissonance; pretending, in our abstract, intellectual life, that values like truth and goodness have no objective content even as, in our private life, we try to learn what’s really true and behave in a way we know to be good.” 



National Academy of Sciences member biologist Lynn Margulis… a materialist who is seeking materialist explanations of evolution. However… she’s a skeptic of neo-Darwinian evolution, and she expressly admits that many of her criticisms of neo-Darwinism are the same as those made by proponents of intelligent design (ID).



Despite the growing success of [Intelligent Design], the same objections repeatedly appear in both scholarly and popular literature.”



Addressing the Concerns of a Critic and the Case for Intelligent Design



[The California Science Center] must now not only pay the [American Family Association] $110,000 but also publicly invite the group to return to show ‘Darwin’s Dilemma,’ the film that first caused the controversy two years ago.”


[Interesting, isn’t it, how many atheists are also  academic censors  ?]


Intelligent Design Think Tank Rallies Support for Fired NASA Employee



If Neo-Darwinian evolution is, by definition, unguided, unplanned, and purposeless, then theistic evolution is logically incoherent.



Four Flaws With The Argument From Suboptimal Design



Alfred Russel Wallace [the co-discoverer of natural selection and the father of the scientific discipline of biogeography] is a very inconvenient historical figure for those who would want to caricature the Intelligent Design movement as a bunch of right wing creationist Christians.



Questions for evolving candidates



Intelligent Design Think Tank Rallies Support for Fired NASA Employee



Creationists Convince South Korean Officials to Remove Evolutionary References From High School Textbooks


[ASND wonders why they couldn’t just teach all the evidence, pro and con, and let the students think for themselves.]


Pelagic lifestyles could not have evolved from benthic lifestyles.


[ASND reminds readers that they were evolutionary scientists, not creationists, who first made that point.]


7 Biology Myths No Electrical Engineer Would Ever Tolerate



Darwin Lobbyists Defend Using Fraudulent Embryo Drawings in the Classroom



The Implications Of Neo Darwinism



If you thought the standard bacterial flagellum made the case for intelligent design, wait till you hear the specs on MO-1...”



How Primitive is Evolutionary Thought?



To Understand What’s Really at Stake in the Evolution Debate, Watch                                   The War on Humans



Is “vestigial organ” a term that should be retired?



Our research really changes the way we think about the evolution… [and] about structures we call ‘vestigial.’



From the Steadily Shrinking Catalogue of “Functionless,” “Vestigial” Organs:                Now, the Tailbone



Do Self-Replicating Protocells Undermine the Evolutionary Theory?



Birdlike fossil challenges notion that birds evolved from ground-dwelling dinosaurs



Want to Leave a Reply?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s