Piltdown Superman

Admittedly, this is just a speculation, but if baryons-to-birds evolution were true, there should be a large amount of sameness. Laws of nature have to be followed. Anyway, the jacana is a strange bird that goes against many general patterns in nature. They are part of the shorebird created kind . For one thing, the female is much larger than the male. Another is that mating is polyandrous. That is, females mate with multiple males. (Interestingly, many birds are monogamous for a season or even for life.) Behavior toward their own young is...truly bizarre. Crested jacana bird, Flickr / David Minty ( CC BY 2.0 ) It would make sense to nurture the young so the species can keep going. Young jacanas do not live long enough to reach adulthood. Natural selection may have had a part in how a lone female can usurp the dominant female and then kill the chicks that are not hers! (Unlike human females that want to protect a baby, even if they do not know it, because it's a baby.) When an out

People know the story that young Charles Darwin was on the Beagle  from 1831 to 1836, appointed to be the ship's naturalist. He discovered evolution by means of natural selection  and thereby revolutionized science. Nice story, but he reworked the already existing concept of natural selection, and never provided evidence for his speculations . One of the most famous stops was at the Galápagos islands off the coast of Ecuador. He studied finches (not knowing what type of bird they were at the time), and they became icons of evolution. But that is false. Galapagos ground finch, Flickr /  Judy Gallagher  ( CC BY 2.0 ) Poster effect at  PhotoFunia  and cropped Charlie thought that all of the finch variations today came from an original pair. These birds have been the subject of many studies over the years. Creationists have pointed out for a long time that they do not show evolution. Studies that get into the genetics show that what is seen is natural — and planned by the Master Engine

Something I learned and have been passing on to readers is the importance of definitions . When dealing with atheists and other anti-creationists, get those definitions nailed down! Many people claim to know about evolution and natural selection, only to reveal that they want to dispute creationists at all costs. A furious atheopath barked, "Natural selection is  evolution!" Another insisted, "Changes in alleles is the  scientific definition of evolution!" As mentioned before, knowledgeable creationists often need to correct internet atheists on their evolutionary mythology. Endler's guppy, iNaturalist / David Barros Cardona ( CC BY-NC 4.0 ) Before proceeding, it is important to discuss how society today holds to the nihilistic philosophy of postmodernism . Adherents believe that there are no absolute truths; you have your truth, I have my truth, and that's groovy. Except for that Bible stuff and insistence that Jesus is the  way,  the  truth, and the life

Charles Darwin has been long portrayed as a great scientist, and his brilliant observations led to insightful theories that changed the world. It has been rightly observed that he is adored above scientists who have actually contributed something for the betterment of humanity. Atheists and evolutionists often become angry when people make parodies or satirize Darwin, and especially when people point out how evolution increased racism. Telling the truth about a man that secularists treat like a religious icon is a serious offense to them. Charles Darwin, street hobo with guitar, AI generated at Img2Go His version of natural selection as a creative force was not accepted by the scientific community at first. Papa Darwin promised to provide support for the material he published, but that did not happen. Could the fact that he never had formal scientific training have anything to do with it? He got by with a little help from his friends and did not end up being a hobo playing guitar for

It may seem that when creationists mention natural selection, we are giving Darwinists a foothold. Wrong-o! Natural selection was first discussed by creationists, then the Bearded Buddha hijacked and twisted it for his own agenda. The true concept is very real. Darwin was on what must have been an exciting five-year mission aboard the Beagle , and there was a long stop at the Galápagos islands. We looked at the tortoises , now we will consider the even more iconic birds. Flightless cormorant, WikiComm / Lip Kee ( CC BY-SA 2.0 ), modified at PhotoFunia Environments change, so living things must adapt to survive. Interestingly, evolutionists maintain that the loss of features  (such as when certain insects and birds — cormorants — become flightless) is evidence for their conjectures, but the truth is quite the opposite. Also, the islands have boobys, which are closely related to gannets. There are three main varieties that have differences in their actions. Natural selection at work. T

The voyage of the Beagle  where Charles Darwin gathered inspiration to add to his evolutionary conjectures would have been a dream cruise for many folks (his father paid for it). If someone took a notion to meet Charlie on the Galápagos, he would have had to saddle up and ride west from Ecuador. Except that horses cannot swim that far. Some of the giant tortoises have shells that kinda sorta resemble saddles, however, so there you go. Those are found in the uninhabited smaller islands of this group of volcanic islands. For being a great scientist, Charlie dropped the ball on making detailed observations of these critters. Giant Galapagos tortoise, Flickr / Sara Yeomans ( CC BY 2.0 ), modified at PhotoFunia On a side note, all tortoises are classified as turtles, but not all turtles are tortoises. Tortoises don't spend all that much time in water . These critters were once plentiful, but are now endangered. One reason is that whalers and others discovered that they were good eats.

Some critters are confusing, plain and simple. Especially for a believer in universal common descent evolution. There is the platypus (of course), wombat , hoatzin , aardvark , and more. An animal that is not so well known is called the okapi (oh-KOP-ee). This beastie caused serious confusion in the beginning. Harry Johnston was intrigued by reports of a creature in Africa, so he wanted to take a gander at it himself. His efforts took a setback when he was told that prints were found, but they did not match up with what he was expecting to see , so he did not lead the group on a search. (That kind of blinkered thinking hinders evolutionists even now.) The story surrounding the search for and discovery of the okapi would make a great movie. Okapi, Flickr / cuatrok77 ( CC BY-SA 2.0 ) The okapi wants to be left alone. Also, it is not widely distributed. Those are two reasons it was unknown outside of that part of Africa for so long. Based on skin samples and descriptions from the native

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  As stated many times before, Christians and creationists are called to a higher standard using evidence, logic, and apologetics than unbelievers. Further, we must show godly integrity in everything we do. One of the main principles in a debate, formal or informal is to honestly and accurately represent the opposing view . Otherwise, people make disingenuous straw man arguments. (Evolutionists frequently do this to creationist views.) Unfortunately, some influential creationists are making false statements about natural selection . Although I am not influential, I have been doing this to some extent as well. Lightbulb with world, Pixabay / PIRO4D Atheists try to slap leather with us, and are frustrated when a knowledgeable creationist returns fire with truth and reason. The abusive  ad hominem  "liar for Jesus" is falsely asserted when we know something of which they are ignorant, or simply do not like. However, we must not give them any basis to make

Edited 6 May 2022 The family Corvidae (more informally, corvids) includes rooks, magpies, jays, ravens, crows, and several other bird types. My wife and I became interested in (and fond of) blue jays. They sure do love peanuts! My own learning broadened, and I came to appreciate crows, their maligned cousins, as well.  Here in upstate New York, we have the black American crow. It ranges across the entire continental area of the formerly United States, and a good chuck of Canada. We also get ravens in our area, but because of the overlaps in size and a few similar calls, I don't know if I've seen a raven or not. Crow, Unsplash / Jaime Dantas Variations of crow types are known worldwide. They have a (mostly) undeserved bad reputation, and are associated with bad tidings and death. You won't see a flock of crows. That grouping is called a murder . (A picture that I find hilarious is of two crows with the caption, "Attempted murder." Someone pointed out that they may

Edited 6 May 2022.  Biblical creationists and believers in universal common ancestor evolution agree for the most part that modern dogs descended from an animal like a wolf. Those dog breeds we see are the result of artificial selection , designed for certain traits. They are still dogs and have the chemistry to interbreed. For that matter, coyotes are extremely wolf-like, and have no difficulty breeding with the dogs with which we are familiar. See " Coyotes Have Gone to the Dogs ." Unsplash / Andrew Ly (left) and Kanashi (right) Evolutionists disagree on definitions of species , and have an evoporn story that is presented as science. It's about humans and the domestication of dogs, but has no evidence to support it. Basically, as humans were still evolving, wolves began evolving social interactions with humans around campfires. Then they eventually lived together, and that's the origin of pet dogs. The story fits the evolution narrative and makes believers feel go

Disciples of the Lord Darwin have a problem because they are reaping what they have sown. After all, they believe in natural selection and survival of the fittest, so those things logically should occur in the secular science industry. The mysterious machines at work in their mind are not consistent with their fundamentally-flawed worldview. If morality comes from evolution , they cannot be consistent and lament unethical and immoral behavior. Secularists are inadvertently appealing to God when they want an ultimate standard. Hudson River...thing, Flickr / Cowboy Bob Sorensen ( CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 ) If using fake science, referencing retracted papers , submitting fraudulent papers and having them pass peer review makes them survive better — sure, why not? Some establishments have a "publish or perish" standard that puts tremendous pressure on some folks who simply want to go about their business conducting scientific research, so that probably contributes to the temptation to ch

One trick of minerals-to-man evolutionists is to claim that natural selection is evolution, and since most creationists believe in natural selection, we must also believe that Papa Darwin was right. Not hardly! Natural selection was actually the work of a creationist . Related to that is the charge that we believe in fixity of species . Yes, some folks did believe that God created everything as we see it, but such a concept was abandoned by most creationists long ago. We believe in the original genetically-rich created kinds . Sand cat, fennec fox, mulgara images from Wikimedia Commons* Not only do we accept the observed fact of natural selection (though not Darwin's creative force concept), we also believe in variation and speciation . The three animals here certainly couldn't survive in the Arctic, nor could their counterparts last in the desert. A combination of front-loaded genetic information, gene expression, plus natural selection made it possible for them to thrive. Int

As it is with minerals-to-meteorologist evolution, so it is with global cooling. I mean, global warming. I mean, climate change. Evolutionists and climate alarmists have several things in common: Appeal to consensus Only their  interpretations of evidence permitted Contrary data is ignored or suppressed Driven by atheistic naturalism paradigms Fact-free assertions used to "prove" their assumptions Climate change alarmists such as Extinction Rebellion are using the complex scientific method of being jerks to force political action, such as disrupting Amazon on "Black Friday"  and gluing body parts to objects . Others are irrational as well. Great way to earn respect and a seat at the table with the grown-ups — especially when leftists write incoherent biased "news" to support them. Evolutionists saw fit to saddle up and ride with that gang. As we have seen, the secular science industry is taking up leftist interests , including abortion , demonizing Christ

The noun  brook  is generally understood to mean a small stream or creek, but the verb is not in common usage nowadays. It is basically a synonym for tolerate . The fish known as the brook trout do not brook warm water very well. Supposedly, survival of the fittest is a law of science. Brown trout in that small Jabez Branch tributary  are doing fine, and don't care about the brook trout. Why should we? Besides, brook trout as a whole are not going extinct. Flicker / James St. John  ( CC BY 2.0 ) Before people start carping about my seemingly hard heart, it should be known that a view of let it die because of survival of the fittest and pleasing the puny evolution god Natural Selection is consistent with Darwinism. This happens on a large scale (such as eugenics) as well as a "law" of nature. If evolutionists want $1 million USD spent on that area for those fish, they are being inconsistent with their own worldview! Trying to help them is entirely consistent with a creat

Through indoctrination classes, Darwinian propaganda documentaries, and other places, many people have heard of how peppered moths were solid evidence for evolution. Light moths on dark backgrounds became bird chow while dark moths did well. Indeed, H.B. Kettlewell said that the Bearded Buddha would have been happy to see this. However, Kettlewell was a #liar4darwin. Despite the fraud in his videos and photos, this fake news is still in textbooks. (So are the fraudulent embryonic recapitulation drawings by Haeckel the Jackal.) I am once again asking why, if there is so much solid evidence for the "fact" of evolution, do they need dishonesty to promote it? 1931 peppered moth image source: Flickr / Ben Sale  ( CC BY 2.0 ) As will be demonstrated in the following two articles, natural selection is not evolution . Was Kettlewell potted when he made his claim? There was no added genetic information, no vertical evolution — peppered moths did not evolve into something else. (A vi

As people celebrate Lenin's birthday and Earth Day, many well-meaning people focus on doing things for the environment. That is obviously a good thing that Christians and creationists can endorse, but it also has leftist political overtones and a wagon train-load of naturalistic undercurrents. Red Squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris) image credit:  Flickr / Bart Hiddink  ( CC BY 2.0 ) Believers in particles-to-politician evolution have cognitive dissonance when it comes to conservation. Their naturalistic views exclude the Creator and have humanity as the result of natural selection, mutations, time, luck, and so on. Nature changes over time, whether anyone likes it or not. People are conflicted over imported (often invasive) and "native" species, and which ones are to be controlled by humans. After all, we evolved better and reached the top of the food chain, right? We're in power, so accept it. However, some think that humans are an invasive species on the planet itself an

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen You have probably heard the expression, "If you build a better mousetrap, the world will beat a path to your door", which is wrongly attributed to Ralph Waldo Emerson (even though sites like Brainy Quote spread the error ). Another saying is, "If you build a better mousetrap, nature will build a better mouse". Really? Credits: Original from RGBStock / Krzysztof (Kriss) Szkurlatowski , modified with cat, frame, etc. at PhotoFunia Purveyors of molecules-to-mouse evolution have been known to personify evolution, natural selection, and nature (or "mother nature') as intelligent beings ( which is reification ). Sometimes those beings make choices on evolution. Because they are invoking teleology , this is a direct contradiction of the random purposeless evolution that Darwin proposed. An article on irreducible complexity by Dr. Jason Lisle has images of a mousetrap at the beginning. Mousetraps have been used as illustrations for this pr

Folks are a mite confused about this GMO thing, and there are strong passions on both sides of the issue. Some see this genetic manipulation as evil, so some food merchandisers proudly proclaim, "No GMOs!" Others see it as a tremendous scientific boon. Both images found at Pexels Angry fox:  Vinicius Altava ; Statue facepalm:  karatara There are views all over the map, and a great deal of emotion. Some people who are against GMOs manipulate emotions and say that they're dangerous, and this child suspects that most people have no knowledge of the controversy. What's the hubbub, Bub, about Genetically Modified Organisms? I'll allow that genetic modification where people modify the gene itself has not been happening for all that long, but a form of genetic modification has been around for millennia. There are foods that we eat that are the product of artificial selection (Darwinists consider artificial selection a form of how natural selection causes evolution, but n