In this blog, I’ll be exploring subjects of general interest/concern to me and wider society:
In this blog, I’ll be exploring subjects of general interest/concern to me and wider society:
In a fallen world, where mankind’s rebellion against his Creator is now rapidly reaching pre-flood levels of wickedness, it is good to know that the planet Earth is still a pretty neat place to live. Protected by a just-right atmosphere of mainly nitrogen and oxygen, the Lord of Heaven’s armies has packed this planet full of living things and amazing geological features that bring joy to the human heart.
Our atmosphere is neither too dense or too rarefied, allowing us to peer deeply into the Cosmos, where we have caught a glimpse of eternity. And all around us, our Creator has left clear evidence of His handiwork so that we are without excuse on the day of judgement.
The human eye can only see so much though, but our Creator chose to give us a mind that enables us to improve our lot, to see things in new and different ways. That’s how I see my binoculars; simple tools that bring heaven and Earth closer, providing a perspective that transcends the limitations of my corporeal form. I am especially fortunate to live in a beautiful part of the world, away from the cities where atheism flourishes. Out in the sticks, I can enjoy the beauty of God’s creation more fully, in quietness, surrounded as I am by hills and valleys, green fields and lovely streams of cool, fresh rainwater that sustain the lives of all living things.
My wide-angle 8 x 42 binocular, in particular, is the perfect tool for combining the beauty of the night sky with that of the comeliness of the earthly creation. And in this blog, I would like to share with you some of the kinds of activities I get up to to bring these worlds together. This binocular provides a power of just 8 diameters but has an angular field of view wide enough to fit over 16 full Moons in the same wonderful portal. And with its decent light grasp, especially in fading or low light, it is powerful enough to allow me to simultaneously appreciate sights in the heavens and on earth.
Surrounded by mature trees, sometimes many times older than myself, I have grown terribly fond of framing famliar celestial sights, such as the Pleiades and the Hyades in the foreground of their impressive branches. Sometimes, I would wait for the stars in these clusters to fall in altitude after they culminate in the south, so that they are seen to ‘hover’ over the conifer trees beyond my back garden. And if, by chance, the presence of a gentle breeze in the binocular image is witnessed (and it can happen a lot!), then you’ve got a home run; an epiphany of sorts! At other times, I will plan a vigil where the soft light from the stars fills the background whilst the foreground is occupied with denuded winter branches of the deciduous trees near my home. A little light pollution can actually be advantageous in such circumstances as it can help illuminate the tree branches making them stand out more boldly against the stellar backdrop.
Living inside a long valley with verdant hills that soar to about 1000 feet on either side, my binocular is good at framing the rising Moon as its silvery light clears their summit in the east, or as it sinks behind the hills in the west. There are many times where I can plan to observe the Moon and the hilltops in the same field, creating visual scenes that leave a deep impression on me. I give thanks to my God for allowing me to witness such scenes, safe and secure at the bottom of a great sea of fresh, clean air.
Ever since childhood, I have been attracted to storms, often venturing out to feel the energy they generate in the atmosphere. Sometimes these storms occur on moonlit nights and I would think it nothing to grab my binocular and carry myself off to some favourite haunts, woody glades and the like, where moonbeams create wonderful atmospheric scenes, complemented by the sound of wind whistling through their branches.
My binocular has renewed my interest in observing the full Moon, not in and of itself, but when it is surrounded by low lying and fast-moving rain clouds, as often happens here in the British Isles. I watch as these clouds enter the outer field, inching their way toward the bright satellite, and all the while lighting up with beautiful colours caused by refraction of moonlight through raindrops. The colours often start off deep and moody, like dried-in blood, when far from the Moon, but as they move ever closer, the colours they generate; gorgeous shades of pink, yellows and even rose tints; saturate the cones on my retina and, upwelling feelings of great happiness.
The structure of clouds backlit by moonlight reveals wonderful, highly complex structures, as well as colours – knots, filaments and pleated sheets. Often the scene reminds me of the play of light on the matter which is expelled into the shells of planetary nebulae as imaged by a great telescope, with a white dwarf star being replaced by our very own Moon at its epicentre lol. Such natural shows of light and form rank as some of the most lovely and most surreal binocular images one is likely to capture. Sometimes, great gaping holes in the heavens open up around the clouds, allowing the light of the distant stars to be seen near the full Moon.
Dawn and dusk are good times to see some spectacular sights, such as the bright planet Venus sinking low into the sky, often silhouetted by interesting terrestrial structures, such as a distant hill, an old barnhouse or silo, church or windmill. By getting to know your horizons, sublime scenes can be captured with your binocular, bringing heaven and Earth together, just like it will be in the New Creation.
Cityscapes can also be used to enhance the binocular view. Framing bright star clusters like the Pleiades or a crescent Moon in the background to an old church spire, domed cathedral, or grand municipal building, can make for a very fetching sight. Photographers imagine likewise,of course, but the impromptu binocular experience is an even greater liberal art!
Another worthwhile project is to image the bright Moon over a large expanse of water, especially during calm conditions, when its reflection is quite mirror-like. Under the light of a town or city, smaller binoculars do just fine, like my little Pentax DCF 9 x 28 pocket instrument. You can even wander through your neighbourhood finding interesting foreground subjects to frame your celestial scenes in advance of an event.
It’s good to plan.
Well, I hope you get some ideas from this short article. In doing so, you can enjoy the best of the heavenly and terrestrial creations, and which can turn an otherwise mundane evening or morning into a very memorable one!
Neil English is the author of several books in amateur and professional astronomy.
Today you are on the verge of battle with your enemies. Do not let your heart faint, do not be afraid, and do not tremble or be terrified because of them; for the Lord your God is He who goes with you, to fight for you against your enemies, to save you.’
As you may well be aware of, I don’t spend a lot of time on internet forums. When looking for specific information, I generally consult known and trusted authorities from books rather than the ramblings of folk whose only apparent purpose in life is to post stuff online. You don’t have to search for long to see that some folk spend nearly their entire waking moments on these forums(clocking up tens of thousands of posts in the process), wasting their employers time (read stealing) and that makes for very one-dimensional personalities, who ostensibly crave power or attention, or both. That is their world pure and simple; take that world away and they’d probably fall to pieces. What’s more, some of these characters resent individuals who hold different opinions to their own and go to great lengths to de-rail them, especially if it threatens their world view.
If I go online, I generally do so for a very specific purpose; to raise awareness of some issue that is important or to alert people to new concepts. I see this as part of apologetics per se, as there is usually a moral dimension to my ‘campaigns’, such as folk getting ripped off by unscrupulous telescope salesmen and their fanboys and to alert or inform the general public about ideologies that are patently false. One subject that is close to my heart pertains to the staggering complexity of living things in general, and human beings in particular, and the unprecedented accumulation of new scientific evidences that we are not on this planet as a result of some quirk of nature.
Evolutionary ideology has robbed many people of their self-worth. Putting their faith in a ‘monkey religion’ first promulgated by a second-rate Victorian barnacle collector by the name of Charles Darwin, who turned his back on his Creator just because he couldn’t come to terms with the loss of his daughter, they believe that we are the progeny of pond scum and that we slowly evolved through innumerable transitional forms to become the ‘naked apes’ we are today. What is more, for decades they have been fed a staple diet of ‘junk science’ that anticipates that the Universe is teeming with life and that anyone who expresses scepticism is to be viewed with suspicion or even derision. Invariably, these individuals are unwilling to do their own research and continue to propagate extremely dubious ideas to an unsuspecting audience. I felt it was high time to challenge this claim head on, to show that the evidence in support of these ideas was in fact extremely tenuous.
Know thine Enemy
Before commencing upon any campaign of this nature it pays to know your enemy; the mindset of those who are likely to challenge the claims you bring to the table and their motivations for resisting such claims. Very often it is just good old fashioned hatred. They can’t stand being told that their evolutionary bubble is about to be burst. Others resent for entirely personal reasons; consumed with murderous thoughts and green with jealousy. They are easy to spot as they always return to the scene, or lurk like cowards in the background endorsing their men with ‘likes’. Expect ad hominem attacks from trolls; that comes with the territory and be prepared for insults being hurled at you. These are the God haters, the mob who believe and act as if humans were animals, so invariably, their responses reflect their bestial nature. Be aware also that many folk are naturally drawn to conflict; they are just there to be entertained.
Responding to insults and getting embroiled in heated arguments online is to be avoided. It drains you of energy and causes you to lose focus. Doubtless it can be very difficult, but it serves no good to lower yourself to the level of the heckler. One must always remember that despite their belligerent unbelief, they are also made in the image of God, though they have long fallen away. Just make your points and leave it at that. Understandably, some folk seek genuine dialogue; but this can be done behind the scenes, via email or some other private medium. If they are really interested in learning, they’ll stick with you. If not, they will soon vanish in the aether.
Before launching a campaign; prepare yourself. You need to do your research, bringing all relevant information to the fore. You need to check references, academic credentials etc. Where possible, one should aim to present the views of distinguished scientists, with solid track records. Holding a PhD in a relevant science would be an absolute minimum standard for me. Those who don’t have such credentials are very unlikely to be nuanced enough in the field to bring anything concrete to the table. Unfortunately, there are frauds in every avenue of human enquiry (I’ve uncovered a few with googly eyes) and some continue to fall for their trappings. Be selective, presenting information that firmly establishes the points you wish to make. Avoid hyperbole. If at all possible, collate more information than is generally needed (auxilia) to re-inforce a point and ideally from a number of different sources. You never know, such data might come in handy if the thread takes a tricky turn. No one individual has an absolute monopoly on a truth claim. The truth is best displayed when several sources arrive at the same conclusion.
Don’t be Afraid!
Don’t be initimated by your adversaries. Sometimes the hatred sensed becomes so overbearing that it induces nausea; so I do what I do quickly.
If you’re prepared, there is little they can do to retort.
Seek the Lord always; ask for His advice.
Commit your actions to the LORD, and your plans will succeed.
Case Study: How Many Earths in Our Galaxy?
Intended Audience to be Reached: Atheists, evolutionists with a religious bent or churches which have been indoctrinated with evolutionary ideology; Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians. Also, the editorial teams of astronomy and popular science periodicals.
Typical response: Trillions upon trillions.
Scientific basis for believing in the Plurality of Habitable worlds: Life exists on Earth, a typical planet, so life must be common in the Universe.
Actual Evidence for Extraterrestrial Life: None.
The Scientific Evidence Against the Case
Nota bene: This was not presented on the discussed thread but in a related thread on the same forum.
Christians have been at the forefront of the debate about whether life can arise naturalistically here on Earth and elsewhere. The organisation, Reasons to Believe, employs scientists trained to PhD level and beyond, who have thoroughly researched the issue. Many of the basic ideas were laid out in their book: Origins of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off (2014); which summarizes many of the problems in a clear and concise way.
The audience is asked to look at the reviews of the book and not to dismiss the book because of their Christian positioning.
The scoffers enter the scene and state their opinions.Some posters are gracious but others persist in scoffing(especially those who are singularly unqualified to offer a technical opinion on the matter) I asked the responders a simple question:
“Have you read the book yet?”
Furthermore, I suggest that abiogenesis(the notion that living systems can arise naturally) is scientifically impossible.
I re-entered the debate several years later in late 2018, as more science came to the fore:
Leading German biochemist(Dr. Clemens Richert) admits that cheating (human intervention) occurs in much prebiotic chemical research in a premier scientific journal.
World leading chemist, Dr. James Tour ( Rice University, USA) speaks out about the same issue as the German biochemist. Tour makes it clear that life cannot arise without an intelligent agency.
Dr. Tour also speaks out about the failure of Darwinian mechanisms to account for the complexity of life. Indeed, behind the scenes, Tour states that Darwinian evolution has now been debunked by the biologists.
I present a detailed talk on the fossil record (2018) by Dr. Gunter Bechly, a leading German paleontologist, who has studied the phenomenon for many years. Bechly presents clear and unambiguous evidence that the fossil record, with its serious discontinuities, does not support a Darwinian scenario. Furthermore, he concludes that life must have been designed.
I point out that Bechly was an avowed evolutionist until he was forced to reassess his scientific positioning as more fossil evidence emerged that could not be reconciled with a Darwinian evolutionary process. His change of mind was driven by the scientific evidence and not by any religious conviction (although he is now a Roman Catholic). The trolls re-emerge in the background supporting their man with “likes”. One of the trolls is a carpenter by trade (yep I did my research) from Upstate New York, another is a prominent ‘know it all,” a retired mechanical engineer from San Diego, who spends his entire waking life on these forums, following me around like a bad smell. Such individuals have expressed a singular hatred of this author in past encounters. However, both individuals are ultimately unqualified to offer any scientific criticism of the work presented; their dissent has no teeth.
Their man attacks the scientists at the Discovery Institute, who are sceptical of the evolutionary paradigm, calling them “frauds.”. I refrain from addressing this potentially serious accusation, as it’s an unnecessary diversion from the truth.
I then present more scientific evidence relevant to the question of whether life exists elsewhere in the Universe;
A team of Cornell University scientists(December 2018) identify potential fake biosignatures in simulations of exoplanetary atmospheres.
Astrobiologists, in their unbridled belief that biosignatures can be identified spectroscopically could pontentially identify fake life signatures and thus mislead the public.
A team of astronomers at Cardiff University, UK (April 2018) present a potentially serious problem of phosphorus synthesis in supernovae.
If phosphorus is only produced in localised pockets of the Universe then it raises a serious question about whether life can really be ubiquitous.
No responses are made by my adversaries on the two issues raised above.
One gracious individual asks for dialogue between myself and my adversaries but I suggest that he contact Dr. Tour directly and provide his contact details (and illustrious credentials). At this stage I deduced that no meaningful dialogue was really possible as the responses from my principal adversary strongly suggested that he did not look at the counter evidence ( a very common problem unfortunately) as presented in the thread.
I present a paper which discusses the concept of Specified Complexity, which offers a much better fit of the proposed relationships between organisms, and which is not predicated upon the assumption of common descent.
My adversaries fail to see the relevance of the work and accuse me of ” not knowing what I’m talking about.”
I ignore these ad hominem attacks on me and proceed to the conclusions of my “campaign.”
I present evidence(October 2018) that M Dwarfs, which comprise some 80 per cent of all stellar real estate in the Universe are very unlikely to support planets capable of harbouring life owing to their frequent flaring events, not to mention tidal locking of planets within their putative habitable zones:
At this stage I inform readers that the scientist who first brought the “Hand of God phenomenon” (the very phrase used by Dr. Richert in his December 12 2018 Nature Communications paper) in prebiotic chemical synthesis to the attention of the wider scientific community was Dr. Fazale Rana, staff biochemist with Reasons to Believe (www.reasons.org). Dr. Rana actually anticipated the admissions of both Dr. Tour and Dr. Richert in his 2011 book; Creating Life In the Lab.
More on this here: https://www.youtube….ZgO-sEw&t=1098s
I respond to one post (# 103) of this thread, where the poster presented work by Dr. Jack Szostak(Harvard University).
“It must be noted that some of Szostak’s claims of RNA self replication were retracted owing to the inability of his colleagues to reproduce the work.
In an interview Szostak said, “we were totally blinded by our belief [in our findings]…we were not as careful or rigorous as we should have been…”
Another 2009 paper by Szostak et al was similarly retracted.
I point out that in light of the gross negligence in accountability of origin of life research protocols and the “Hand of God phenomenon(read cheating)” that occurs in prebiotic research that Dr. Tour calls for a moratorium on such research.
One responder asks what the relevance of all my posts is.
I did not respond, as I deemed the string of posts as being logically consistent with the matter in hand. It was just another attempt at provocation but I did say this:
“I would suggest you speak with Dr. Tour on these matters. He is better qualified than I to elaborate on this and I’m not here to discuss details. But what I will say is the popular science/astronomy magazine articles and their editorial teams should stop flogging lies to the general public, who have swallowed this claptrap hook line and sinker, based on their pagan ideologies.”
Finally I presented a summary of what science actually tells us about life on Earth and elsewhere in the Universe by Dr Tour himself:
“Life should not exist. This much we know from chemistry. In contrast to the ubiquity of life on earth, the lifelessness of other planets makes far better chemical sense……….We synthetic chemists should state the obvious. The appearance of life on earth is a mystery. We are nowhere near solving this problem. The proposals offered thus far to explain life’s origin make no scientific sense.
Beyond our planet, all the others that have been probed are lifeless, a result in accord with our chemical expectations. The laws of physics and chemistry’s Periodic Table are universal, suggesting that life based upon amino acids, nucleotides, saccharides and lipids is an anomaly. Life should not exist anywhere in our universe. Life should not even exist on the surface of the earth.”
At this point, the forum moderator, clearly incensed by these comments, blocks my further participation in the thread. The author acknowledges this as a flagrant violation of free speech but does not protest.
I would submit to the reader that what is presented above is actually the most accurate and up-to-date scientific assessment of the phenomon of life and whether it can emerge on other planets. It is at direct odds with the prevailing notion among science journalists and the general public, who, by and large, lack any scientific training on this matter. Doubtless the pagan media will continue to peddle lies to a naive readership. So be on your guard!
This is the position I hold to as of late January 2019
I mentioned that this campaign was a source of “great non-personal success.” This is evidenced by the large increases (up to ten fold) of the number of “likes” received from the viewing public to the youtube clips presented in the short time since they were posted. Hitting the “like” button helps to increase the profile of these presentations, allowing more people to find and share them with their friends.
Lies need to be exposed; as St. Paul declares:
Take no part in the worthless deeds of evil and darkness; instead, expose them.
Dr. Neil English maintains a keen interest in origin of life research and is deeply sceptical of the evolutionary paradigm.
If you like this work and wish to support the author, please consider buying a copy of his latest book, Chronicling the Golden Age of Astronomy, which touches on such issues here and there, newly published by Springer Nature.
Anno Domini MMXVIII
We’ve reached the end of yet another year; and boy do they come round fast and furious! It seems like yesterday when the freezing Beast from the East was upon us, and that gave way to a unusually warm summer. Our family ventured across the waters to visit my brethern remaining in the south of Ireland and to catch up with old friends and acquaintances. But it was also a year where I made considerable progress establishing how good the British Isles are for doing all kinds of astronomy, having completed a survey of a dozen or so different sites across the British Isles. Despite the prognostications of casual observers, Britain and Ireland possess many prime locations to conduct visual astronomy, and in particular, high-resolution double star astronomy using small and medium-sized Newtonian reflectors.
In August, I conducted a month-long observational program to establish to what extent the Jet Stream affected my ability to resolve a variety of double stars ranging from between 1 and 2″ angular separation, finding no real evidence in support of its alleged effects and that it need not deter a determined observer to enjoy visual astronomy. It was, to my knowledge, the first such survey to be conducted on the subject.
My scepticism concerning the virtues of small, expensive refractors grew ever stronger throughout 2018, when I finally rid myself of the last remaining apochromatic refractor in my stable. As I have exhaustively shown, a much simpler and less expensive 130mm f/5 Newtonian proved superior to a 90mm ED glass on all sky targets. The former instrument has become my grab ‘n’ go telescope of choice, based solely on optical performance.
I will not be updating my book on refractors, as my conscience will not countenance the continued cultivation of untruths about their supposed virtues in the field.
I’m a Newtonian convert!
In another project, I tested a variety of optical devices that enable observers to use Newtonian reflectors during daylight hours, finding that the 130mm f/5 Newtonian coupled to a Vixen erect image adapter to be a fine, cost-effective alternative to large, expensive ED spotting ‘scopes.
My continuing blog entitled: the War on Truth: the Triumph of Newtoniasm, I have collated the opinions of a large volume of observers and authorities in the field from around the world, both historical and contemporary, which clearly show that Newtonian reflectors in the 8- to 12-inch aperture class will outperform smaller refractors at a fraction of the price, in sharp contradistinction to two decades of nefarious promotion by so-called ‘experienced’ amateurs. One of the key reasons for this blurring of the truth pertains to my suspicion that many refractor enthusiasts either don’t know, or are unwilling, to accurately collimate these instruments and/or are too lazy to allow adequate thermal acclimation of the same.
That being said, I have been very encouraged by the response of the amateur community to this legitimate protest. It seems many more former refractor onlyists are willing to consider the Newtonian once more and that’s a good thing!
2018 has also been a year where I have re-discovered the considerable virtues of binoculars. As a series of recent blogs showed, I have found a range of optically excellent roof prism binoculars that suit the budgets of many more amateurs, enabling the hobby to grow and not stagnate. Although I have certainly not spent a small fortune buying every other model, as others have done, I quickly gravitated towards two instruments, both made by Barr & Stroud, a 10 x 50 unit for dedicated binocular astronomy using a monopod, and a most excellent 8 x 42 Savannah wide-angle instrument for casual stargazing and nature observation. The latter has become a constant companion on my long country walks. I sincerely wish that others will test these binoculars themselves and spread the love.
I intend to drastically cull my current crop of astronomy equipment in 2019 as it has weighed heavy on my mind of late. I have retired mighty Octavius, my 8 inch f/6 Newtonian reflector, as it has achieved everything I intended for it and much more besides. My intention is to eventually gift it to some keen amateur who will use it productively. My 5 inch f/12 refractor is similarly retired. The little Orion SpaceProbe 3 alt-azimuth reflector and my old 7 x 50s were bequeathed to Gavin, a very enthusiastic young man of 8, who showed unusual interest in astronomy, and uses them regularly to stargaze from his home just outside our village.
I plan to use just three instruments in the coming year:
A 12″ f/5 Newtonian(Duodecim)
A 130mm F/5 Newtonian(Plotina)
These three instruments will enable me to enagage with the full gamut of amateur astronomy. They are all I could possibly want!
I would like to produce more blogs on binocular astronomy in the coming year, Lord willing, as well as produce new reports with both the 130mm f/5 and 12″ f/5 instruments.
2018 marked the end of a long slog to get my new book into shape; Chronicling the Golden Age of Astronomy. It’s been five years in the making, but it was an enjoyable and worthwhile project, bringing together the selected works of many amateur and professional astronomers across four centuries of time, who used their telescopes, both great and small, to create the wonderful hobby we enjoy today. What I learned from their diligent adventures under the stars is incalulable and I have tried hard to capture the essence of their life and researches in this large, historical work. It is my fondest hope that it will be well received by my peers. Please check out the reviews as they appear.
Finally, I am in the process of writing a new book dedicated to the ShortTube 80 achromatic telescope which ought to be available at the end of 2019. I have amassed a large body of notes from several years of using this quirky little telescope in the field, which I hope will be of interest to the many amateurs, young and old alike, who use or have used the instrument in the past.
So, there it is!
God bless you all!
It is undoubtedly true that by far the most prevalent reason why so many amateurs have dissed Newtonian reflectors in the past boils down to poorly collimated ‘scopes which lead to less than inspiring images. The amateur who pays close attention to accurate collimation will however discover the solid virtues of these marvellous telescopes and will soon forget the bad experiences of the past.
I’ve noticed a trend over the last few decades, where more and more amateurs have become lazy and impatient. They want instant gratification. This is one of the main reasons why many have turned to hassle-free instruments such as small refractors and Maksutov Cassegrains. It’s an entirely understandable trend, but in other ways it is lamentable. One of the downsides of this trend is that amateurs have become less concerned with learning practical optics, deferring instead to higher tech ways of obtaining optimal results in the field. One such technology is the laser collimator; a very useful device that has made accurate collimation far less of a chore than it was just a few decades ago. But while many have defaulted to using such tools as labour-saving devices, they have, at best, become less familiar, or at worst, all but forgotten the traditional tools used in the alignment of telescope optics; tools such as the collimation cap and the Cheshire eyepiece, and in so doing have less and less understanding of how their telescopes actually work.
The desire for super-accurate collimation has undoutedly been fuelled by the advent of faster optical systems; often supporting sub-f/5 primaries. Once, the traditional Newtonian was almost invariably made with higher f ratios:- F/7 to f/10 and beyond, and requiring very little in the way of maintenance. This is abundantly evidenced by the scant attention astronomy authors of the past gave to such pursuits. In contrast, modern Newtonians are usually f/6 or faster, necessitating much greater attention to accurate optical collimation if excellent results are to be consistently attained during field use.
In my chosen passtime of double star observing, I have acknowledged the need for accurate collimation. Such work often requires very high magnifications; up to and in excess of 50x per inch of aperture, to prize apart close double stars, some of which are below 1 arc second in angular separation. At such high powers, sub-standard collimation results in distorted images of stellar Airy disks, and that’s something that I’m not willing to put up with. In this capacity, I have tested a number of collimaton techniques using a few different laser collimating devices but have also spent quite a lot of time comparing such methods to more traditional techniques involviing the tried and trusted collimation cap and Cheshire eyepiece.
To begin with, it is important to stress that the methods covered in this blog can be achieved easily with a little practice, and I will gladly defer to recognised authorities in the art of Newtonian collimation, such as the late Nils Olif Carlin and Gary Seronik, who have done much to dispel the potentially stressful aspects of telescope collimation. Nothing I will reveal here goes beyond or challenges anything they have already said. My goal is to reassure amateurs that one can happily live without lasers, especially if your Netwonians are of the f/5 or f/6 variety.
Many of the entry-level laser collimators often manifest some issues; partcularly if they are not collimated prior to use. Thankfully, the inexpensive SkyWatcher Next Generation that I have used for a few years did come reasonably well collimated, but others have not been so fortunate. One easy way to see if your laser collimator needs collimating is to place it in the focuser of the telescope and rotate it, examining the behaviour of the beam on the primary. If the beam does not stay in place, but traces out a large annulus, you will have issues and will need to properly collimate the laser. This is not particularly difficult to do and many resources are available on line to help you grapple with this problem. See here and here, for examples.
Of course, you can pay extra for better made laser collimators that are precisely collimated at the factory. Units that have received very good feedback from customers include systems manufactured by Hotech, AstroSystems and Howie Glatter. Some of these are quite expensive in relative terms but many amateurs are willing to shell out for them because they deliver consistently good results. My own journey took me in a different direction though. Instead of investing in a top-class laser collimator, I re-discovered the virtues of traditional techniques involving the collimation cap and Cheshire eyepiece.
My personal motivation to return to traditional, low-tech tools was stoked more from a desire to understand Newtonian telescopes more than anything else. Any ole eejit can use a laser collimator but it deprives you of attaining a deep understanding of how Newtonians operate. In addition, I have frequently found myself dismantling whole ‘scopes in order to get at the mirrors to give them a good clean and this meant I had to learn how to put them back together from scratch. The simpe collimation cap has been found to be an indispensable tool in this regard, allowing one to rapidly centre the secondary mirror in the shadow of the primary.
Using just this tool, I’ve been able to set up all my Newtonians rapidly to achieve good results from the get go, at both low amd medium powers more or less routinely.
For the highest power applications more accuracy is required and I have personally found that a quality Cheshire eyepiece to be more than sufficient to accurately align the optics in just a few minutes. Not all Cheshires are created equal though; some are less accurate than others. For my own use, I have settled on a beautifully machined product marketed by First Light Optics here in the UK ( be sure to check out the reviews while you’re at it). For the modest cost of £37, I have acquired a precision tool to take the hassle out of fine adjustment. The unit features a long sight tube with precisely fitted cross hairs that are accurately aligned with the peep hole. It needs no batteries and comes with no instructions but with a little practice, it works brilliantly!
Because all of my Newtonians are of the closed-tube variety, they are robust enough to only require very slight tweaks to the collimation. I would estimate that 80 per cent of the time, it is only the primary mirror that requires adjusting in field use. I have found this overview by AstroBaby to be very useful in regard to using the Cheshire and would recommend it to others.
The Cheshire eyepiece is a joy to use when collimating my 130mm f/5. Because the tube is short, I can access both the primary and secondary Bob’s Knobs screws to whip the whole system into alignment faster than with my laser. With my longer instruments; partcularly my 8″ f/6 and 12″ f/5, collimation using the Cheshire is decidely more challenging as they both have longer tubes. That said, by familiarising one’s self with the directions of motion executed with the three knobs on the primary, one can very quickly achieve precise collimation. One useful tip is to number the knobs individually so that you can dispense with the guesswork of which knob to reach for to get the requisite adjustment. At dusk, with the telescopes sitting pretty in their lazy suzan cradles, and with the Chesire eyepiece in place in the focuser, I swing the instrument back and forth to alternately view the position of the primary in the eyepiece and the knob(s) I need to turn. Doing this, I get perfect results in just a few minutes; a little longer than can be achieved with a laser, admittedly, but not long enough to render the process exhausting or boring. It’s time well spent.
The proof the pudding, of course, is in the eating, and in this capacity, I have found the Cheshire to achieve very accurate results each time, every time. Indeed, it has made my laser collimator blush on more than a few occasions, where high power star tests and images of close double stars reveal that the laser was out a little, requiring a collimation tweak under the stars. Indeed, the Chesire is so accurate that it has become my reference method to assess the efficacy of all the laser collimators I’ve had the pleasure of testing.
While I fully acknowledge the utility of good laser collimators, I get much more of a kick out of seeing, with my own eyes, how all the optical components of the Newtonian fall into place using the Cheshire. Furthermore, the fact that it requires no batteries (and so no issues with the unit failing in the field for lack of power, as has happened to me on more than a few occasions), deeply appeals to my longing for low-tech simplicity in all things astronomical. The fact that the aforementioned amateurs also recommend the Cheshire as an accurate tool for collimating a Newtonian makes it all the more appealing.
Having said all this, the utility of a Cheshire eyepiece lessens as the f ratio of your telescope gets smaller, so much so that for f/4 ‘scopes ar faster, the laser technique will, almost certainly, yield more accurate results. But that’s OK. We are blessed in this day and age with many good tools that can make Newtonian optics shine!
Note added in proof: August 14 2018
If you do decide that you don’t like using a good Chesire eyepiece for precise collimation of your Newtonian reflectors, then I would highly recommend the Hotech SCA laser collimator. It’s an ingenious device (but costs significantly more than a regular laser collimator), but in this case you really do get what you pay for. I have tested the device on all three of my Newtonians and it gives accurate and reproducible results that agree perfectly with the Chesire. It yields perfect star tests at appropriately high powers (I’d recommend a magnification roughly equal to the diameter of your mirror in millimetres for such field tests) both in focus and defocused. I’d go for it if you can afford it. You will still need the collimation cap to centre the secondary before use however. See here and here for more details.
Neil English is author of Choosing and Using a Dobsonian Telescope.
Date: Wednesday March 28 2018
Seeing: III, bright gibbous Moon, small amounts of cloud cover in an otherwise clear sky.
It is often claimed that refractors give more aesthetically pleasing images of celestial objects than reflectors. But how true is this statement? Last night, I learned yet another instructive lesson that shatters this myth once and for all.
Earlier in the evening, I fielded my 8″ f/6 Newtonian against a very good 90mm f/5.5 ED apochromat. The target was Theta Aurigae, then sinking into the western sky and so past its best position for observing. Seeing was only average. Both telescopes had been fielded about 90 minutes earlier with the optics capped, so both were completely acclimated. I charged the apochromat with a 2.4mm Vixen HR eyepiece yielding 208x. The 8 inch Newtonian was charged with a 6mm Baader orthoscopic ocular delivering 200x.
Examining the system in the 8 inch reflector showed the primary star as a slightly swollen Airy disk but the faint companion was clearly visible. In contrast, the view through the 90mm refractor showed a less disturbed primary but the secondary(for the most part) couldn’t be seen!
Question: How can an image be deemed more aesthetically pleasing when a prime target (the secondary) in that said image can plainly be seen in one instrument and not in the other?
Date: Thursday March 29 2018
Time: 00:05 UT
Seeing; II/III, slight improvement from earlier, otherwise very similar.
Later the same night, I fielded my 130mm F/5 Newtonian along side the 90mm refractor and turned my attention to a spring favourite; Epsilon Bootis, now rising higher in the eastern sky.
This time, I charged the refractor with a 2.0mm Vixen HR eyepiece yielding 250x. The Newtonian was fitted with a Parks Gold 7.5mm eyepiece coupled to a Meade 3x Barlow lens giving a power of 260x. Examining the system, I was quite shocked by the difference between the images; the refractor did show a dull, greenish companion but it was entangled in the diffraction gunk from the orange primary. What’s more, the entire system was surrounded by chromatic fog owing to the imperfect colour correction of the refractor (an FPL 51 doublet). In contrast, the 130mm f/5 Newtonian image was far superior in every way; the Airy disks were smaller, tighter and more cleanly separated, and with zero chromatic fog to be seen. The Newtonian image remained just as stable as in the refractor image throughout the observation! The components also displayed their pure colours (as only a reflector can yield); the primary orange and the secondary, blue. In a phrase, the differences between the images was like night and day!
Conclusions: The 130mm Newtonian provided a much more aesthetically pleasing image than the refractor, which was compromised by its smaller aperture and less than perfect colour correction. As a small portable telescope, the Newtonian is far more powerful and is capable of delivering images that are simply in a different league to the refractor.
ED 90 Refractor: Proxime accessit.
130mm f/5 Newtonian(Plotina): Victrix/Pulcherrima!
Postscriptum: As always, I would encourage others to test these claims. Truth matters.
Neil English is author of Grab ‘n’ Go Astronomy.
Dedicated to Billy Graham (1918–2018).
Have you not known?
Have you not heard?
The everlasting God, the Lord,
The Creator of the ends of the earth,
Neither faints nor is weary.
His understanding is unsearchable.
In many ways, bibles are a lot like telescopes; both have the potential to transform your perspective. Some folk struggle to find even one. Others collect many different kinds. Some bibles are small and ultraportable, while others are large and unwieldy. Some copies of Holy Scripture are beautiful and ornate, lavished with fine art, and painstakingly assembled from the choicest natural materials. Still others are plain Jane, simple, with no frills; just the text, and maybe a concordance. Some folk parade their bible as if it were a measure of how well one walks with Christ. But many, not seeking to be ostentatious, quietly and modestly read their bibles in complete privacy. Some like to look at their bibles and never really look through them. Some learn a great deal from their bibles, others, little or nothing.
There has never been a better time to read the bible, for it is the only collection of books that makes sense of our earthly predicament and provides a coherent and just solution. The world is changing too fast and too much, and I fear that many have no real idea of where our kind is destined to end up. But by studying the biblical narrative, we can get a clear picture of where the world is headed for and what its fate will be. The bible shapes your worldview like no other body of literature, and keeps you moored in a view of morality that is absolute, and which cannot be changed by the fickle and ephemeral nature of human culture.
Today, many excellent translations in hundreds of languages are now available online or in traditional form. But are some translations better than others? Let’s look at the kinds of English bible translations that are now available.
‘Word for Word’ or ‘Thought for Thought’?
As any linguist will tell you, the process of translation is a task that cannot, by definition, satisfy all of the people all of the time. This is particularly true of the bible, where the original manuscripts were written in Hebrew, Aramaic and so called Koine (read common man’s) Greek. Thus, any translation involves a fair degree of discernment in choosing the right words to express, as precisely as possible, the original meaning conveyed in these texts. That has led modern biblical translation scholarship to adopt two basic philosophies; ‘word for word’ and ‘thought for thought.’ The former variety strive to exchange the words written in these ancient texts with modern words that, as far as possible, adhere to the original wording found in the most ancient texts. The latter adopt an entirely different, but no less important approach, taking the ancient texts and imparting a modern rendering that captures the essential thoughts conveyed by the original authors. Examples of good ‘word for word’ translations in the English language include the English Standard Version(ESV), the Modern English Version (MEV), the King James Version (KJV), the New King James Version (NKJV) and the New American Standard Bible(NASB). Examples of popular ‘thought for thought’ translations include the New International Version (NIV), the Christian Standard Bible (CSB), the New Living Translation (NLT) and the Good News Bible(GNB).
Still other translations seek to reach a particular subset of society. For example, so−called Messianic Bibles, such as the fairly new Tree of Life Version (TLV), was compiled by Messianic Jewish scholars with the express intention to impart a distinctive Jewish voice to the Scriptures, removing words like ‘Lord’ and ‘Jesus’ and replacing them with their Hebrew equivalents, ‘Adonai’ and ‘Yeshua,’ respectively. Not a bad idea! Finally, there are very loose paraphrases of the bible, where the author’s intent is to summarise whole paragraphs of biblical text with a wording that departs quite a bit from the originals, and for the purposes of conveying the key ideas therein. Examples of these include the Message Bible (by Eugene Peterson) and the older but still highly popular Living Bible (by the late Kenneth Taylor). I use the latter to read extended passages of the biblcal narrative to my sons; a duty I take very seriously.
An aside: Did you have your children Christened? If so, you made an oath that you would bring them up in the Christian faith. Do they know the Lord’s Prayer? How about John 3:16? Do they know anything of the Gospels? Can they recite something from the Psalms?
Finally, there are corruptions of the biblical text that should be avoided at all cost. Examples include the New World Translation (NWT), used by the Jehovah’s Witnesses, which has monkeyed with the divinity of Christ, portraying Him not as God but merely a powerful angel, and the Book of Mormon, used by the Church of Latter Day Saints, which concocts an entirely fabricated narrative that mimics the bible (they’re bible wanabees). Another is the tongue−in−cheek Queen James Bible, which has removed all references to the abominable practice of homosexuality.
Choosing a bible can be a daunting task for a beginner, especially when one is confronted with the proliferation of translations. Having read and enjoyed many bible versions, I have found all of them to be useful and enriching. The ‘thought for thought’ versions are very easy to assimilate but at the cost of veering away from the technical precision of the ‘word for word’ varieties. In the end, I have found it helpful to enjoy a good example of both; the NKJV (for accuracy) and the NLT (for readability). We’re all different though, and get different things from different translations.. And that’s OK too.
Features to Look for in a Good Bible
All that having been said, there is another aspect of bible culture that is of some importance and this pertains to how well made the copies are. In short, a bible that is to be used regularly must ideally be well made and last many years if it is to be of maximal value. So, here I wish to offer some thoughts on my own experiences with a variety of bibles, and what features I tend to look for when shopping for a good, durable bible.
I have found hardback versions of the Holy Bible to be the least durable. They are generally quite poorly bound and tend to fall apart quickly with continued use. If you use a hardback version, chances are you’ll be taping it up before long. Much better are the soft covered bibles, which come as simple paperbacks, imitation leather (usually polyurethane or ‘trutone’) and bona fide leather bound incarnations. I avoid bibles that are heavily glued and not Smyth−sewn.
Soft covers also open out flat on a table or in your hand, largely avoiding the tendency for the pages to flip over accidentally or haphazardly. The font size can also be an issue. If the font is too small, it will be difficult to read, even with eyeglasses. If it is too large, the bible will have to be bigger and heavier than is desired. That said, there are many thinline versions now available in 8 point or larger font, and which can be carried around easily in a rucksack or handbag. The font should be clear and distinct, ideally with good line matching, so as to minimise the effects of text ghosting. Ideally, the bible will have a decent number of cross references, so that you can quickly find quotations taken from other parts of the bible that have a bearing on the part of Scripture being studied. A comprehensive concordance (normally placed at the back of the bible) and a few relevant maps of the biblical world is also a godsend. Some folk like to have wide margins, so as to make notes. Others simply want the text, pure and simple.
In this digital age in which we live there are many excellent online resources to help you study the bible. Bible Gateway and Bible Hub.com provide the entire text of the bible in many different versions, only a few of which I have mentioned in this blog. Perhaps the most comprehensive online resource is the NEW English Translation (NET) bible, which is a novel translation compiled by a team of biblical scholars accessing the best currently available Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew, together with over 58,000 translators’ notes. The NET bible is also available in conventional form. I should also mention Biblia.com which seems to offer a similar service to the NET bible. One can also buy Kindle versions of most any bible translation for use on your electronic devices.
My Personal Favourite Bible
While I certainly enjoy and cherish many English translations of the bible, I wanted to share with you some of the qualities I looked for in my own personal quest for a bible for study and use in my daily devotionals. I narrowed the translations down to two; the ESV or the NKJV. And while I can recommend both wholeheartedly, I gravitated toward the latter, owing to its literary ‘cadence’ and its devotion to the tradition of the original King James Version (though the author does not endorse so−called King James ‘onlyism’). I felt the ESV had developed too much of a ‘cult’ following and I’ve always been one to go my own way, championing the ‘underdog,’ as it were.
Having read the NKJV through a few times, I have never come across a typographical error in this version, unlike others I’ve encountered. For example, while reading the book of Jeremiah in the otherwise excellent Tree of Life Version(TLV) of the Bible, I encountered a clear error in this translation (see the TLV Jeremiah 34:14), which (for me) was slightly annoying. The same bible also has printing errors in the short book of Obadiah. Errors are more likely to occur when small teams of biblical scholars are involved and the TLV had a smaller scholarship base than many of the more established English translations. I hope the committee responsible for the TLV can sort out these errors in due course. The NKJV has been around since 1982 (Thomas Nelson publishers) and so any bugs in this version have long been sorted out. Indeed, I was just a boy when the NKJV first hit the shelves; and yet, in the rapidly changing world in which we live, the NKJV is now considered somewhat of a classic lol.
It is also noteworthy to mention that the older Thomas Nelson rendition of the NKJV also featured asterisks alongside passges from the Old and New Testaments, indicating where prophecies were either fulfilled or had yet to be fulfilled. But these are eisegenic interpretations (reading into the text) and I liked the way the new Holman publication removed them so that the reader could interpret them in his or her own way.
I wanted a Smyth−sewn binding for my bible as these are very strong and durable, but also because they open flat without much effort. I also considered buying a copy bound in high quality leather (like with my NIV 2011), but yet again I have found the modern polyurethane (trutone) covers to be just as good. What’s more, unlike leather, they don’t need to be nourished from time to time with conditioning agents in order to keep them in tip top condition. In addition, leather, being organic, is biodegradable, so will decay with time; something the synthetic polymers won’t do to the same degree(so long as you don’t sit it out in the hot sun, day in day out lol).
I wanted a bible with only the text, neither with introductions or other distractions from the text itself. And while I used to take copious notes during my earlier bible studies, these days I just enjoy the bare text without margins.
I wanted a fairly large font, so I could read it without using my glasses, even in fairly dim light.The quality of the paper had to be good too, but not so good that I would be afraid to soil it. The Holman has a single ribbon page marker, and while I would have preferred two, I can live with having only one. The text is printed in American English but that was never an issue for me. It had to be reasonably well line matched and I wanted the words of the Messiah in red lettering. All these requirements led me to a very useful version, published by Holman Bible Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee, USA. Unlike the cheap, bonded leather of the older Nelson version (the newer Nelson NKJV are better made though) of the NKJV, the Holman iteration has a beautiful but not overly showy trutone cover. Finally, I didn’t want to spend too much on yet another bible. The Holman was priced very economically and was well worth the modest price I paid for it. I hope to be able to use it well into my old age.
So, in summary, there are many beautiful bibles available today; something to suit everyone’s taste, and for all occasions. My hope is that this short article will inspire others to begin a new study of the bible and to keep the words of our Creator alive and well in our hearts.
Postscript: Thomas Nelson have now brought out a brand-new Deluxe Reader’s Bible which is beautifully made and very reasonably priced. You can see a review of it here.
I’ve noticed that one issue that seems to give folk concern about investing in a good Newtonian pertains to having to clean the optics every now and again. I’ve never really understood this mindset though. Having had my closed-tube 8-inch Newtonian for about 18 months now, and having clocked up a few hundred hours of observations with it, I felt it was time to give the mirrors a cleaning. Here’s how I do it:
The mirrors are removed from the tube.
First I make sure that all the loose dust and debris has been blown off using an air brush. Next, I run some cold tap water into a sink and add a drop or two of washing up liquid. The water we use here is very soft; indeed we are graced with some of the softest water in the British Isles, which also makes drinking tea especially pleasant! If your local water source is hard, I’d definitely recommend using de-ionised/distilled water.
Starting with the secondary mirror, I dip my fingers into the water and apply some of it onto the mirror surface with my finger tips, gently cleaning it using vertical strokes. Did you know that your finger tips are softer than any man-made cloth and are thus ideal for cleaning delicate surfaces like telescope mirrors?
Next, the mirror reflective surface is rinsed under some cold, running tap water.
The procedure is repeated for the primary mirror;
The mirrors are then supported on their sides to allow them to drain excess water, and then left to dry in a warm, kitchen environment. Stubborn water droplets nucleating on the mirrors are removed using some absorbent tissue.
Finally, the mirrors are placed back in the telescope tube, making sure not to over-tighten the screws which hold the primary in place inside its cell. All that remains then is to accurately align the optical train, as described previously.
There we are! Not so difficult after all; and all done in about 40 minutes! The soft water doesn’t show up any significant spots after cleaning unlike hard water sources and now the optics are as clean as the day they were produced.
With a busy season of optical testing and planetary observing ahead, I know that my 8-inch will be operating as well as it possibly can. And that’s surely good to know!
I feel a nice, hot cuppa is in order!
Do you accept the theory of biological evolution? If so, why? Do you have the necessary cognitive tools to assess the theory? Are you equipped with the latest knowledge that enables you to critically appraise the theory in light of new research findings?
Here, I present a variety of evidentiary points, testimonies, discussions and philosophic discourses that raise legitimate arguments against the theory of evolution, as promulgated by biologists.
But you have chosen to measure, count, and weigh everything you do.
As we saw in part II, mitochondria are a type of organelle found in complex cells that play a pivotal role in generating the lion’s share of the chemical energy needed for its sustenance. And as we also learned, mitochondria contain their very own DNA, which maintain 13 actively expressed genes that play the most important roles in deriving this energy from chemical substrates. Superficially, mitochondria resemble a type of bacterium called the α-proteobacteria, which has led evolutionary biologists to propose that they arose through a mechanism involving one cell ‘eating’ another cell, but instead of digesting it down to its molecular building blocks, it somehow survived inside the cell and learned to co-exist with the host cell. Over time, evolutionary biologists suggest, many of the genes that encode proteins that perform their tasks in the mitochondrion were transferred to the nucleus.
But this has raised all sorts of questions including why mitochondria reproduce in step with the rest of the cell and how lateral gene transfer occurred through the nuclear pore when it was designed for the passage of RNA and small proteins into the cytoplasm but not DNA?
Now the puzzle grows ever deeper and this time it pertains to the unique protein complexes that direct proteins synthesised in the cytoplasm into the various parts of the mitochondrion. The vast majority of proteins destined for the mitochondria are encoded in the nucleus and synthesized in the cytoplasm. These proteins are tagged by an N-terminal signal sequence, which we can think of as a kind of ‘zip code’. Following transport through the cytoplasm from the nucleus, the signal sequence is recognized by a receptor protein in the Translocase of the Outer Membrane (TOM) complex. The signal sequence and adjacent portions of the protein chain are inserted in the TOM complex, after which time they begin to interact with a Translocase of the Inner Membrane (TIM) complex, which are transiently linked at sites of close contact between the two membranes. The signal sequence is then translocated into the matrix in a process that requires an electrochemical proton gradient across the inner membrane. Mitochondrial Hsp70 protein then binds to regions of the protein chain and maintains it in an unfolded state as it moves into the matrix. Further enzymes are required to process the imported proteins so that they can carry out their duties either in the lumen of the mitochondrion, or inside/on its membrane.
Understanding how this highly coordinated biochemical system evolved has raised headaches for evolutionists. In his 2014 book, In Search of Cell History: The Evolution of Life’s Building Blocks, Franklin Harold, Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at Colorado State University, states that, “The origin of the machinery for protein import is more complicated and is subject to much debate………..Most of the transferred genes continue to support mitochondrial functions, having somehow acquired the targeting sequences that allow their protein products to be recognized by TOM and TIM and imported into the organelle.”
The molecular machines needed to carry out this extraordinarily complicated process appears to be yet another example of a so-called irreducibly complex system, that would simply fall to pieces if any of the component protein molecules failed to be present in the right place and at the right time. How did the proteins encoded by the nuclear genes acquire the correct zip codes to get ‘posted’ to the mitochondria, unless it was designed? This should give any reasonable person doubt that such a system could come into being piecemeal, via an evolutionary process. More details here.
Let them praise the name of the Lord: for he commanded, and they were created.
The longer the explanation the bigger the lie, so reads one ancient Chinese proverb. I find myself agreeing with this old adage, especially in relation to a new theory of evolution proposed by the late Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldredge and reproduced ad nauseam in our school and college textbooks. Acknowledging the lack of fossil evidence for Darwinian gradualism, they noted that new forms of life appear suddenly after long periods of stasis. And that stasis itself was data, they noted. They proposed that the individual is not the unit of evolutionary change but the species as a whole. Gould and Eldredge proposed a mechanism called ‘allopatric speciation’ to attempt to explain away the abrupt appearance of the fossil record. In this scheme of events, a sub-population becomes geographically isolated by some kind of environmental change, such as the building of a mountain range or the shifting of a river’s course. The isolated population then evolves new traits from the ‘father’ species. When pressed about how such changes occur so rapidly, they could only offer the standard Darwinian narrative; descent with modification. Acknowledging the long periods of stasis followed by rapid speciation, they called their theory ‘Punctuated Equilibrium’ or ‘Punk Eek’ for short.
As a keen student of evolutionary biology, I have always found this theory to be mere ‘hand waving’, as it seemed to ‘explain away’ the missing fossils without providing a clear mechanism for those changes. Words, words and more words!
And that’s not good enough!
But it gets worst still for Punk Eek, for it has been discredited by a number of studies in the real world. Back in 2001, scientists from the University of Oregon showed that environmental fragmentation – a necessary prerequisite for punk eek to work – was overwhelmingly more likely to drive a species to extinction than anything else.
In yet another study of collared lizards in the Missouri Ozarks carried out in 2001 by a team of scientists from Washington University, they showed the same thing: perturbation of the environment leads to extinction rather than speciation.
Gould and Eldredge’s theory is, by their own admission, a descriptive theory of large-scale patterns over geological time, not a theory of genetic process. But if genetic process could not accomplish large-scale patterns, their theory becomes mute. A raft of more recent studies discussed in Part II of this blog show that if such rapid speciation were to occur it would necessarily involve mutations to the genes that play a role in the development of body plans and all such studies show that tampering with them leads to disastrous results.
The simplest and best explanation is that God both creates and destroys species in waves that improve their efficiency, and in order to cultivate an optimum environment for the emergence of the human species, the crown of His creation.
Further Reading: Meyer, S.C, Darwin’s Doubt, Chapter 7 (2013).
What Evolutionists Predicted and Got Wrong
He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? he that formed the eye, shall he not see?
The distinguished philosopher of science, Karl Popper (1902-94), in his great work, The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge, famously said of scientific inquiry:
“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.”
Over the years, many of the predictions made by evolutionists have turned out to be false;
Scientists Create Irreducibly Complex Bacterial Cells
Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
Continuing a story reported in Part I of this blog, the American molecular biologist, J. Craig Venter, heading a team of scientists managed to chemically synthesise the entire (1079 kilobases) genome of the bacteria Mycoplasma mycoides, containing over 900 genes. In a very significant development, published in the March 25 2016 of Science, Venter’s group managed to reduce this genome size by almost half, creating a new, viable organism containing just 473 genes! Many of the genes in this ‘minimalist’ genome encode known proteins which pay pivotal roles in maintaining the cell cycle (it reproduces every 180 minutes under ideal laboratory conditions), but a further 149 of these genes have unknown function, probably related to maintaining an adequate fitness level in the organism.
But this raises a series of interesting questions: if a minimum of 473 genes are required to maintain life functions, it is quite clearly irreducibly complex, rather like stripping a car down to its minimalist form. Anything less and it just doesn’t work properly. And extending the car analogy, do you really think even a minimalist design could come about all by itself? Why don’t we see them popping spontaneously into existence in the junk yards of the earth? What is more, where did the cell come from in the first place? Where did the information contained in its genome derive from? Certainly not a blind, stochastic process envisaged by evolutionists!
What is clear is that the science underlying the inference to design in nature stands on solid ground. The truth will always win out, of course, though it may tarry in doing so. But what we can say with certainty is that the tide has well and truly turned on Darwin’s 19th century creation myth. Whether you’re talking about a car or a ‘minimalist cell’, it just won’t happen without a designer.
Time to jump ship perhaps?
For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.
One of the main obstacles to the growing number of scientists who don’t accept the evolutionary paradigm as true science, is the traditional Marxist-like rhetoric of Neo-Darwinian adherents, who are unwilling to listen to those who have found serious scientific objections to their theories.
Thankfully, things are definitely looking up. In a new US national survey, Americans overwhelmingly supported the right of students, teachers, and scientists to discuss dissenting scientific views on evolutionary biology.
That’s such good news don’t you think?
We can only expect an avalanche of more dissent in the coming years!
The Nazi-Evolution Connection
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Darwinian evolution theory not only presents erroneous science, but in the wrong hands, it has been used to justify human depravity on a grand scale. Dr. Richard Weikart, Professor of History at California State University, has dedicated a considerable amount of his professional career studying the ideologies that helped shape the rise of the Third Reich. His influential book, From Darwin to Hitler (2004) takes a comprehensive look at how Nazi ethics gradually changed the social, economic and political landscape from the traditional Judeo-Christian worldview into a system based on evolutionary dogma. Weikart provides solid evidence that Darwinism altered conceptions of human nature to such an extent that it completely devalued human life, and which ultimately contributed to eugenics and the justification of ‘scientific’ racism that became widespread in Germany, the United States, and Europe during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Intriguingly, one of the key individuals who shaped the new Nazi worldview was Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919), the same biologist who faked drawings of animal embryos in order to demonstrate the ‘truth of evolution.’ As a result of the acceptance of these ideologies, abortions became widespread, the mentally ill, the deformed, the blind from birth, people with learning difficulties, as well as those with genetic diseases, were mercilessly taken from their families and sterilised/exterminated under special orders from Der Führer.
Make no mistake about it; the pseudoscience of evolution and its associated ideologies are the antithesis of the Judeo-Christian worldview, which it actively seeks to destroy. And that is why, ultimately, evolutionary theories are doomed to fail.
For more information on this important topic, please take the time to consider this insightful talk by Dr. Weikart.
Defending the Biblical Account of Human Origins
Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
Over the last few decades many paleoanthropologists have been promulgating the view that humans evolved from other less advanced hominin species and in a way that contradicts the traditional Biblical account of human origins. And yet, all the while, the emerging scientific evidence actually comports with the accounts in the First Book of Moses – Genesis. In this talk, Dr. Fazale Rana shows how molecular anthropological evidence points to a single human pair – Adam and Eve arising at the same time (within the margins of error of the available data). This data is at odds with the evolutionary scenario which predicts multi-regional origins. See here for more details.
For still more information about this interesting topic look here.
Can the Fossil Record Establish Anything for Certain?
But where can wisdom be found?
Where does understanding dwell?
As we have seen in previous blogs, the fossil record is woefully incomplete and looks nothing like the tree of life predicted by Darwinian theory. But of the fossils we do possess, is there really anything concrete that can be established from them? In this article by William Dembski and Jonathan Wells, we discover the ad hoc way in which evolutionists cherry pick fossils to suit their own agenda and asks whether common descent can really be deduced from the data they do include.
OLD SETI-NEW SETI
I am the Lord your God…You shall have no other gods before me.
The folks at the SETI Institute seem to be getting rather desperate these days. After more than half a century of searching the galaxy for signs of ET, no one has phoned home. But because evolution is true, they just have to be there…..of course.
That’s why they’ve come up with a brand new stratagem……drum roll…….Project Hephaistos, named after the ancient Greek god of blacksmiths, who forged the magnificent weapons of legendary Olympian gods.
These aliens will be so advanced that they can cause stars and even whole galaxies to disappear……just like that! By looking through old sky surveys and comparing them with new ones, the researchers hope to uncover the mind-boggling magic of mega-advanced alien civilizations!
And all the while they ignore the awesome engineering that goes into the simplest life forms on Earth!
I wouldn’t hold your breath if I were you!
More on Project Asbestos, er, em, Hephaistos here.
Quis est meus proximus?
Resources for the Curious/ Undecided
As you may be aware, this blog has been going on for a few years now. During this time, I believe I have provided a wealth of scientific reasons to doubt the Darwinian evolutionary paradigm. I hope you will agree that it has no real explanatory power and fails to account for the record of nature, as revealed by ongoing scientific investigation.
This is where I would like to wind this blog up, but I would warmly encourage those who are undecided or the curious to regularly visit two websites which are far better resourced than I to keep track of the debate.
Links to these sites can be found on my home page.
There is also this rather devastating survey of origin of life research/ prebiotic chemistry by Professor James Tour, arguably the top ranking chemist in the world today.
Thank you for following me on my journey.
Here I wish to continue the work presented in Part I of this topic.
Do you accept the theory of biological evolution? If so, why? Do you have the necessary cognitive tools to assess the theory? Are you equipped with the latest knowledge that enables you to critically appraise the theory in light of new research findings?
Here, I present a variety of evidentiary points, testimonies, discussions and philosophic discourses that raise legitimate arguments against the theory of evolution, as promulgated by biologists.
Are Endogenous Retroviruses Really Evidence of the Evolutionary Paradigm?
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made…
Retroviruses are entities that inject their genetic material into the cells of their hosts, where it is translated into messenger RNA, and then transcribed into new viral proteins that assemble into new viral particles before breaking out of the cells they find themselves in. In other words, they hijack the biochemical machinery of the host cell in order to replicate themselves. Many retroviral species (such as HIV), after arranging for the synthesis of a complementary copy of DNA, have this genetic material integrated into the DNA of their hosts, where, presumably, it remains dormant for an indefinite period before being triggered by some environmental cue to initiate a pathogenic sequence of events. Over time, some of these so-called endogenous retroviral sequences (ERVs) were thought to lose biological function and would, unwittingly, be passed down to new generations enabling molecular biologists to construct phylogenetic trees based on common descent.
By studying the genomes of non-human primates and fossilised hominin DNA, some scientists have claimed that because similar, allegedly non-functional ERVs were found at identical loci within the genomes of humans and some extant primates, it offered ‘incontrovertible evidence’ for common descent. But as we have gained new knowledge about these sequences we find that this neo-Darwinian standpoint doesn’t quite stack up. For one thing, many retroviruses do not generally infect gametes and so can’t be passed through the germ line. Secondly, the sites of ERV incorporation are now known to be non-random and so might be expected to be inserted at similar locations within the genomes of similarly designed creatures. What is more, the ERVs were widely assumed to be ‘junk DNA’ by evolutionists, but, yet again, that assertion has proven to be false. ERVs have crucial roles to play in the immune system (with their insertion loci being strongly linked to how they function) and there is yet much we do not understand about them.
Where once ERVs were smugly offered up as solid evidence of the evolutionary paradigm in action, advancing knowledge has cast a long shadow of doubt on this. Indeed, as the writer of this article argues, they better fit a common design scheme of events than anything else.
You can get more up-to-date information about ERVs here.
World-leading Chemist Doubts Macroevolution.
Professor James M. Tour is an internationally respected chemist, based at Rice University, Texas. He is widely acknowledged as a pioneer in brave new fields including nanotechnology and molecular electronics. Dr. Tour clearly understands what Darwinian evolution entails, but in this essay he explains why macroevolution – the notion that one animal or plant ‘kind’ can gradually change into another ‘kind’ – has not been demonstrated.
Evolutionary Ideologies Stunting Real Scientific Progress.
The pseudoscience of evolution remains unsupported by hard facts that would convince any level-headed sceptic but, worst still, its ideologies actually stunt any meaningful scientific progress. It’s a bit like saying, “aperture doesn’t rule in telescopic astronomy.” Can you imagine just how destructive that would be if astronomers really believed that? We’d still be in the dark ages looking through pea shooters! In the link provided here, the distinguished plant geneticist, Dr. John C. Sanford (who has published more than 70 peer-reviewed papers) explains why scientists who express scepticism about the evolutionary paradigm run the risk of being ostracised by their peers. But, as you will discover from listening to his talk, there are more serious reasons why evolutionary ideology prevents true scientific progress to be made: without constructive dialogue and intellectual freedom, we have nothing.
The False Narrative of Evolutionary Adaptation.
Were you or I to design a self replicating machine, it would be beneficial to program it in such a way that it can adapt to changing environments, and, in so doing, maximise its chances of long-term survival. Such biological qualities would be the hallmark of exquisite design by an intelligent agent. And yet the simplest viruses carried along on the air, or the multitudinous ‘animalcules’ that teem in a drop of pond water display such an ability, as do all higher forms of life. And yet evolutionists expect us to believe these traits to be ’emergent properties’ of blind, stochastic processes. These thorny issues are discussed further in this short essay by Yale University virologist, Dr. Anjeanette Roberts, who argues that the simplest and best explanation for adaptation is masterful design.
Origins of Life: a Closer Look.
Of all the unanswered questions in science, it is arguably the origin of life and the search for life elsewhere in the Universe that are drawing the largest pools of private funding. Both endeavours have used up a great deal of tax payers’ dollars, so much so that they are now almost exclusively paid for by wealthy benefactors who are rather desperate to find answers (Matthew 19:24), if only to try to justify their own world views. In a recent analysis, this author explored the question of whether even the simplest steps toward the formation of life could occur naturalistically, finding instead that any such scheme of events requires an intelligent agency and therefore could not have arisen by purely Darwinian means. By extension, this must also be true anywhere else in the Universe. See here for more details.
On Evolution & Having a Moral Compass.
If all life on Earth came into being by an evolutionary process, there ought to be no compelling reason to have a strong moral compass. Our efforts to express compassion, through acts of kindness and empathy could as well be seen as interfering with the natural order, where only the fittest should and can survive. Indeed, one could rationally argue that such behaviour would be more of a hindrance than a help to surviving and passing on one’s genes.The Bible uniquely explains where these virtues come from because only the Bible emphatically claims that we are made in the image of God – the upwelling of all goodness. This short essay explores these ideas more fully.
Is Theistic Evolution a Cop Out?
He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him.
Some Christians believe that God could have employed an evolutionary process to bring about life on Earth, and humans in particular. In this scheme of events, God is seen as ‘interfering’ here and there with the Darwinian scheme of events, in order to overcome what otherwise would be impossible odds from a purely naturalistic perspective. On the face of it, it appears as though such Christians are attempting to maintain some kind of ‘scientific credibility’ simply because it’s ‘fashionable’ or ‘respectable’ to do so. But is this theologically acceptable?
I believe the Bible can inform us on such matters.
Thus saith the Lord; If my covenant be not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth;
Then will I cast away the seed of Jacob and David my servant, so that I will not take any of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: for I will cause their captivity to return, and have mercy on them.
Clearly, the Lord would no sooner change the laws of nature than abandon the ‘seed of Jacob and David.”
Thus, God’s laws (ordinances) are fixed, anchored if you like, to his personality.
So to tweak is to cheat, so to speak.
World Leading Neuroscientist and US Presidential Candidate Refutes the Evolutionary Paradigm.
Dr. Ben Carson, a world-renowned pediatric neurosurgeon and Republican candidate for the up-and-coming 2016 US Presidential Elections, speaks candidly about Creation Vs Evolution, highlighting some of the insuperable problems the evolutionary paradigm presents to a man of reason and faith.
Basic Math and Probability Continue to Confound Evolutionists.
At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.
When it boils down to it, basic probability arguments continue to confound evolutionists who stubbornly wallow in their ignorance. In this link, physicist, Stephen Myer, and molecular biologist, Doug Axe, address the staggering complexity at the heart of every cell. In particular, they consider a typical protein comprised of 150 amino acid sub-units. The order of these amino acids (known to biochemists as its primary sequence) dictates how it will fold into the complex, three-dimensional conformation that allows it to carry out its particular catalytic duty (structure dictates function). Their published (peer reviewed) laboratory-based experiments show that one would have to search though 10^77 sequences to get just one functional protein! These data show that unless the precise genetic information is provided first, such a protein wouldn’t have a ghost of chance of achieving it randomly i.e. in a (necessarily) stochastic Darwinian scenario.
For more on biological information, take a look at this interesting link.
LIfe at the Molecular Level Displays the Unmistakable Attributes of Design
I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
In the October 2015 Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) Conference, biochemist, Dr. Fazale Rana, himself an expert on origin of life research, explains how the evolutionary paradigm fails miserably to account for the origin and wondrous complexity of living systems but instead reflects the unmistakable hallmarks of masterful design. You can view his talk here.
Eminent Mathematician Denies Darwin.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Many learned men outside of the biological sciences are sceptical of the evolutionary paradigm.
Why Evolution Cannot Produce New Species
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Unless their size be minute and their numbers legion, Darwinian mechanisms have no creative power over living things, and even then there is never a change in kind, just as our Lord declared to men long ago. To see why, see this short clip.
How Advances in Synthetic Biology Unwittingly Undermine the Evolutionary Paradigm.
Then I beheld all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun: because though a man labour to seek it out, yet he shall not find it; yea further; though a wise man think to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it.
Molecular biologists have made significant advances in designing self replicating proto-cells which, they claim, reinforces the evolutionary paradigm. A closer look at how they create these proto-cells shows that they could never come into existence in nature, but depend on the presence of intelligent agency at every step in their development. Full details here.
Debunking the Religion of Carl Sagan.
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
It’s been over three decades since the inception of Carl Sagan’s highly acclaimed television series, based on his best-selling book, Cosmos. In one of those episodes, Dr. Sagan presents an animated version of how he thought evolution could proceed from simple chemicals into advanced lifeforms. You can view this clip here.
Some points to note:
In short, this presentation is fallacious in almost every way, a fairy tale creation myth conjured up by men who refused to recognise their Lord.
A Bible Teacher Speaks Openly about Evolution and its Problems.
Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein.
A Physician Debunks the Evolutionary Paradigm Relating to the so-called ‘Bad Design’ of the Human Eye.
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Their hearts darkened, die hard evolutionists have attempted to show that the human eye is ‘badly designed’ and therefore is better explained by a blind, stochastic Darwinian scheme of events. But is that really the case? In matters such as these, it is always best to lean on the expertise of physicians, who have dedicated their careers to understanding the eye from an anatomical, physiological and histological perspective. In this link, physician, Dr. Eddy M. del Rio, casts his highly trained eye over this subject, concluding that by far the best explanation for their coming into being is exquisite design by a masterful engineer.
Leading Biochemist Speaks Frankly about the Intellectual Dishonesty of Darwinian Evolution.
For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
The distinguished biochemist, Dr. Michael Denton, speaks honestly and openly about the problems associated with the evolutionary paradigm. And while Dr. Denton holds out for a more complete theory that can supersede our current and wholly inadequate scientific ideas about our biosphere, no such theory has emerged. At the end of the interview, Denton (an avowed agnostic) claims that a creationist account leaves too much of an intellectual vacuum, while at the same time alluding that nature reveals purpose and design at every conceivable level. Furthermore, while Denton holds out for a naturalistic explanation, he’s own non-Darwinian evolutionary theories cannot occur within a naturalistic framework.
You can’t have it both ways Dr. Denton!
The laws that govern nature cannot and did not bring life into being!
Human beings create complex objects every passing day without violating natural law; how much more so can the living God?
This interesting interview can be viewed here.
A Modern Day Persecution: What Happens to Scientists who Don’t Accept the Evolutionary Paradigm?
Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Despite the growing dissent to evolutionary atheism, it is still the case that many scientists who express doubts about the evolutionary paradigm have lost their jobs and/or have never received tenure. In this video link Dr. Gerry Bergman, a former Professor of Human Biology, talks about how he personally experienced persecution for his disbelief in evolutionary theories by being fired from his professorial chair at Bowling Green State University in 1978. I hope you’ll agree that this is a tragic and unacceptable form of intellectual bullying.
Bless you Dr. Bergman, you have God on your side!
A Science of Fakes & Fads
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
2 Thessalonians 2:11
The allegory of Darwinian evolution is one of hoaxes, smoke & mirrors and endless back-tracking. In the following two essays, you’ll learn about some of the subtil twists and turns cultivated by evolutionists over the years, as well as learning more about the junk DNA debacle.
Whence Cometh Brain Power?
For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else.
As we have seen previously, the origin of complex animal life remains an intractable problem for evolutionists. From out of nowhere, the first multi-cellular creatures emerged 575 million years ago in the Avalon explosion and by 545 million years ago, the Cambrian produced about 80 per cent of the complex animal phyla – replete with perfectly formed eyes and skeletons – that grace the Earth ’til this day. Back in 2008 neuroscientist, Nicholas Strausfeld, based at the University of Arizona, described the fossilised nervous system of a shrimp-like creature in Cambrian shale with a brain made from three parts, like that of extant animals. This presented a new problem for evolutionary biologists seeking to explain how it originated when there were no antecedents to call upon. Sceptics dismissed this as an anomaly, claiming that brain structures could not be preserved for half a billion years, but two new studies have not only shown how such tissue can be fossilised, but seven new fossils have revealed this same, three-part brain structure; a basic pattern displayed in all complex animals and humans too. As this article explains, evolutionists can provide no naturalistic explanation for the sudden appearance of animals with perfectly formed anatomies, which now includes brains as well.
Doubtless, there is a rational explanation for all of this though, it just ain’t naturalistic, that’s all.
Time and time again, the Holy Bible informs us that the Lord created all living things as they are, for His pleasure, and for our subjugation. It really is that simple, yet nothing but hubris continues to blind evolutionists, determined to keep running away from the only God, the living God.
And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.
And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.
And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.
And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.
And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.
So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.
Language is one of the defining features of humanity. Whether deaf, blind, mute, or graced with the full panoply of apparatus, all humans have the capacity for symbolic thought that appears to be unique to our kind. Yet, after centuries of vigorous scholarly study, no consensus on the origin of these languages has been forthcoming. One reasonable approach adopted by researchers is to assume that language has evolved over the millennia, as it does now, and by studying simple words like “I”, “ye”, “fire”, “hand”, “man” etc, and how fast they change in the various languages of the nations, it is possible, at least in principle, to determine when they first emerged and whether they originated from a single source.
This very approach was employed by British evolutionary biologist Mark Pagels, based at the University of Reading. Astonishingly, in a paper published in the May 6 2013 edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) Pagels was able to show that all European and Asian peoples may have had a common language as recently as 15,000 years ago. In the same paper, Dr. Pagels openly concedes that other insights garnered from archaeology, paleoanthropology, genetics etc, would need to be brought to bear to trace the origin of language further back in time. In a more recent paper, dated August 26, 2014, and written by leading linguistic experts including, Noam Chowsky, Johan J. Bolhuis and Ian Tattersall, the authors admit that explaining the origin of language from a Darwinian standpoint is fraught with difficulty.
Calling upon a half dozen scientific disciplines, the authors argue that language is not one and the same as having the ability to communicate. For instance, the animals we share this world with can and do communicate, but that is not to say that they possess language. Nor is language to be confused with speech. Language, they assert, is a cognitive process that has its origin in neural activity, which in turn dictates vocalisation. Furthermore, language is still possible even when humans lack the capacity for vocalisation. For instance, the mute communicate by signing, but not through vocal speech. And yet, they have the same language capacity as people who have normal powers of speech because the neural apparatus required for language is already in place, buried deep inside their brains.
Because language is inextricably linked to symbolic thought, the authors reasonably suggest that it can be traced back to between 150,000 to 80,000 years ago – the time window during which anatomically ‘modern’ humans emerged on the scene. This is also strongly correlated with technological advances that are not evident in other hominins such as the Neanderthals, which failed to show any significant technological advance from the time of their origination some 250,000 years ago, until their extinction some 40,000 years ago, and thus, by implication, did not possess complex language. Using various evolutionary models, the authors conclude that: “the language faculty is an extremely recent acquisition in our lineage, and it was acquired not in the context of slow gradual modification of pre-existing systems under natural selection but in a single, rapid, emergent event that built upon those prior systems but was not predicted by them…”
The long and the short of these studies is that human language cannot be explained in a Darwinian context. And yet, the account in Genesis 11 is wholly consistent with humanity originating in one place and at one time in history, as well the sudden appearance of the languages, and that they were instigated by God to stem the rise of a one world government system, where evil and corruption would suppress spiritual growth.
Mass Extinction Events Leave no Room for Evolutionary Advancement
Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust.
Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth.
The Cretaceous-Paloegene Event which removed 75 per cent of all plants and animal species on Earth beginning 66 million years ago, was followed by rapid speciation and the ushering in of the Cenzoic era, that still continues today. The event was characterised by a marked increase in global volcanic activity which included the Deccan super-volcanoes of India, as well as the Chicxulub asteroid impact event. Evolutionists had long hoped that these events would have drastically reduced rather than completely extirpated many of these species and that there was a sufficiently long time between them to explain this rapid speciation in a Darwinian context. Unfortunately, new research has dashed their hopes. As this article explains, these devastating events were not only more severe than previously entertained but they peaked at the same time (within 50,000 years of each other). Collectively, these data show that the Cretaceous-Paloegene mass extinction event was not only sudden but also thorough in its devastation. As a result, the subsequent mass speciation that occurred after these events could not have come about by an evolutionary process but it is wholly compatible with an act of creative will. The Lord wiped away these ecosystems because they were no longer efficient enough at removing carbon dioxide from the air (1700 ppm before the event and just 500ppm thereafter) and so, with an ever brightening Sun, might have resulted in a run-away greenhouse event that would make future life, and especially human life, impossible.
How caring and thoughtful is our heavenly Father, who sustains your every breath!
Give ear to Him this day!
Alien & Crystal Worshippers:- A Sermon Against Evolution
My son, fear the LORD and the king: and associate not with them that are given to change:
In the same way that atheism can be shown to be an intellectually vacuous position, so too is belief in the theory of evolution. In this link, which records the words delivered in an actual sermon by a Roman Catholic priest, you can learn of more theological reasons to reject the evolutionary paradigm outright.
More on crystal worship here.
On Making Predictions
For ask now of the days that are past, which were before thee, since the day that God created man upon the earth, and ask from the one side of heaven unto the other, whether there hath been any such thing as this great thing is, or hath been heard like it?
Human beings, uniquely created in the image and likeness of God, when provided with a critical mass of evidence, instinctively know when a world view is conceptually wrong. One of the fundamental problems with the evolutionary paradigm is that it fails time and time again to make predictions, either accurate or even approximate. This is not a ‘weakness’ that can be refined in the goodness of time. On the contrary, the more the theory is examined critically, the more inadequate it becomes as an explanation for the origin and diversification of life on Earth. In this article, you can explore the latest proclamations of evolutionists assessing their own theories! I hope you will agree it doesn’t paint the evolutionary paradigm in an exalted light.
SETI’s Double Standards
They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new gods that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not.
In the 1997 film, Contact, based on a novel by the late Carl Sagan, the central character, Dr. Ellie Arroway, discovers a radio signal despatched from the bright star, Vega. The message is simple; a series of pulses counting out all of the prime numbers between 1 and 100:- 2, 3, 5, 7,11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31 etc. Since there was no known natural source that could generate primes, Arroway correctly deduced that it was generated by an intelligent agent, even though she had no idea what kind of being it could possibly be. Instinctively, Dr. Arroway inferred ‘upwards’ towards the ultimate causation of the signal rather than ‘downwards’ to chance and necessity. The meaning (semiotics) of the signal would provide irrefutable evidence for extraterrestrial intelligence.
And yet, all the while, the grand synthesis of molecular biology has revealed the following:
1. Life requires a complex DNA data base of digital information.
2. The only source we know of such semiotic complexity is intelligence.
3.Theoretical computer science continues to indicate that unguided chance and necessity are incapable of producing semiotic complexity.
We receive a sequence of prime numbers and infer its intelligent origin.
We see unmistakable signs of master design in the cell and continue to believe that it arose by chance.
We have a contradiction here; a profoundly unscientific attitude, an unwillingness to follow the evidence where it clearly leads simply because the implications of doing so are not ‘palatable’.
Well, I’ve got news for you.
If you believe this, you are not being scientific.
There is no wisdom here, only folly!
Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
One of the towering intellectual giants of the 20th century, the Irish-born Clive Staples Lewis (1898-1963), started his adult life as an avowed atheist, “angry”, as he put it, “with God not existing.” But during his time at Oxford, he was taken under the wing of J.R. Tolkien and Hugo Dyson, who instilled in him a renewed vigour to actively seek the truth, and which led him to becoming a Christian in 1931.
Although universally admired for his classic novels, including the Chronicles of Narnia, what is not widely appreciated is that he remained a keen student of Darwinian evolution and its philosophical implications throughout his life. And while he did accept the basic precepts of natural selection, acting to produce small variations within an organism, which he rightly acknowledged as ‘self-evident’, C.S. Lewis never accepted its broader implications, such as its claim to evince a change in kind. As explained in this video clip, Lewis became a staunch sceptic of the evolutionary paradigm, rejecting outright the notion that God could have used an evolutionary process to bring about the staggering complexity of the biological realm.
Were he alive today, I doubt Lewis would have changed his mind.
Head Teacher Bullied on Social Media for Declaring Evolution a Theory
If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.
Christina Wilkinson, a primary school Headteacher at St Andrew’s Church of England school in Oswaldtwistle, Lancashire, has been attacked on twitter for denying that evolution is a fact and just a theory. Cyber thug, Richard Dawkins, weighed in, calling her ‘ignorant’ and ‘stupid’ and that claiming so was ‘child abuse’. See here for more details.
Mrs. Wilson is of course, quite correct. Evolution is an exceeding poor theory that has no place at the table of serious ideas in biology. The fact that Dawkins had to weigh in speaks volumes about their agenda of hatred, as well as the growing threat from educated creationists who are now using the best science to debunk what is, at its heart, an evil ideology.
Like I said before, why put your faith in a bunch of Marxist mutton heads who couldn’t solve a quadratic equation between them?
Having two intelligent boys going through primary school here in Scotland, I can assure you that when the time comes to debate the issue, they will be equipped with the best science to argue objectively with the most ardent evolutionist in the classroom.
God bless you Mrs. Wilson. As a Christian, it comes with the territory and is ‘sign of the times’. I pray that you will not lose your job.
The Trouble with Phosphorus
Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord:
Phosphorus plays a pivotal role in life chemistry. Coupled to oxygen, phosphate is necessary for the production of the universal energy currency of living systems – ATP – and forms a crucial back bone in information-rich polymers, such as DNA and RNA. Phosphorylation events also play crucial roles in signal transduction within the cell. Prebiotic chemists have been searching for ways in which such phosphate could be coupled to biologically relevant precursors but have been plagued by fundamental problems. For one thing, alkaline earth metal ions, such as magnesium and calcium, are efficient chelators of phosphate and remove the vast majority of it in precipitation reactions. Undaunted, a team of researchers at the University of South Florida and the Georgia Institute of Technology began to investigate a special mineral found in meteorites called schreibersite, which is comprised of iron and nickel phosphides, to determine whether it could generate phosphorylated nucleosides – the building blocks of the nucleic acids. The team reported that when the mineral was incubated under alkaline conditions and heated to between 150-175 degrees Fahrenheit, they achieved the phosphorylation of the three carbon sugar, glycerol, as well as some nucleosides. And while the researchers hailed this as an important step in chemical evolution, their results need to be seen in the cold light of day.
For one thing, the yields were extremely poor, typically less than a few per cent. Moreover, the reactions required exacting conditions, such as an alkaline pH and scrupulously clean apparatus; conditions which would not be anticipated on the primordial Earth. The mineral incubations were kept free from chemical contaminants, which would compete with the said reactions and likely reduce the already paltry yields further. What’s more, there is widespread scientific agreement that the early Earth oceans (before the continental land masses arose) were acidic, and not alkaline, as required for the aforementioned reactions. Finally, the phosphorylation events were not site specific as they are in bona fide biomolecules, but actually occurred at various sites, some of which are not relevant to biochemistry.
Understanding how the molecules of life came into being remains an intractable problem for research chemists and scuppers any realistic chances that a plausible chemical evolutionary scheme will ever be forthcoming. But they do say a lot about intelligent design, however. More details here.
On Making Distinctions
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Many naturalists presume that Bible believing Christians align themselves with Young Earth Creationists (YECs); who embrace the idea that God made the heavens and the Earth in six literal days. YECs reject the evolutionary paradigm because they claim that the Universe is only about 6,000 years old, and so there was not enough time for evolution to take place. On the other hand, Old Earth Creationists (OECs) attest that the Universe and the Earth are old – 14 billion and 4.5 billions years, respectively – but do not necessarily accept the evolutionary paradigm. Those that do accept evolution entertain the idea that the Lord set in motion an evolutionary sequence of events that led to all the species of plant, animal and microbe we see on Earth today.
Where does the evidence lead? There now exists a wealth of data that show the Universe is ancient beyond ordinary human understanding. The cosmos had a definite beginning in space and time, just as Genesis 1:1 states. Only one holy book, the Bible, authentically makes such explicit claims. But while theistic evolutionists have tried to twist the Biblical narrative to make their position more appealing to a wider cross section of society, it is neither scientifically credible or consistent with the inspired words of Scripture.
In this link, Dr. Rick Philips argues persuasively and passionately that theistic evolution is unbiblical.
Personally, while I am very sympathetic to the YEC cause, it really doesn’t matter whether the Earth is 5 billion or 6,000 years old; evolution fails miserably in both camps.
Evolutionary Pantheism in the Church?
For I am the Lord, I change not:
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955) was a Jesuit priest, mystical philosopher and ET believer, who trained as a paleontologist and geologist. He was involved in the excavations that unearthed the famous Piltdown Man hoax as well as Peking Man, the fossils of which mysteriously disappeared.
Teilhard became obsessed with the evolutionary paradigm, believing that it was the be all and end all of existence. He even approved of eugenics as a way of ‘assisting evolution’. He coined the idea of the Omega Point, a kind of perfect state of being that we (and Christ himself!) kept evolving towards. Many of his ideas were completely contrary to the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church and, as a result, Teilhard was twice branded a heretic by the Roman See.
In his influential book, The Jesuits, Fr. Malachi Martin, described how the Jesuit Order embraced Teilhard’s ideas and had become “impregnated by his outlook.” The reader will note that the Jesuits have been described as the “cerebral cortex” of the Catholic Church.
Martin wrote that prior to the time of Teilhard:
Roman Catholics had always held that the emergence of Homo Sapiens was the direct act of separated creation by God, as outlined in the Garden of Eden account in the book of Genesis. For man, in Catholic doctrine, has a spiritual and immortal soul which could not “evolve” in any acceptable sense from material forms, even from “higher animals.” This is still the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. When Roman Catholic scholars who had accepted evolution as a fact tried to reconcile official doctrine with evolution, they assumed that God the Creator intervened at a certain moment in the evolutionary process and infused a spiritual and immortal soul into an already highly developed “higher animal.”
Pope Pius IX, the very same pontiff who declared ‘papal infallibility’ referred to Darwinian evolution as a “system which is repugnant at once to history, to the tradition of all peoples, to exact science, to observed facts, and even to Reason herself.”
Intriguingly though, Teilhard’s outrageous ideologies were actually praised by Pope Benedict XVI, and he was also noted for his contributions to theology in Pope Francis’ 2015 encyclical Laudato Si’.
See here for more details:
So, a man originally twice condemned as a heretic became the champion of the modern popes.
Why such revisionism? How can a theory that was once considered “repugnant” and an enemy of “reason” now be deemed acceptable?
I don’t understand!
Thankfully, some of the faithful are now becoming aware of Teilhard’s attempt to introduce his occultist brand of pantheism into the Roman Catholic Church by the back door. For more on Teilhard, evolution and Roman Catholicism see the following links:
How Embryology Shows that Macroevolution is a Hoax.
Thus saith the Lord that made thee, and formed thee from the womb;
Evolutionary biologists have long sought to show that they can evince macro-evolutionary changes to organisms early in their embryological development, but as Dr Paul Nelson (PhD. Philosophy of Biology, University of Chicago), who has studied the academic literature very carefully shows, they have failed to demonstrate that this is the case. This is even acknowledged by experts in the field. Indeed, as you will see in this link, the earlier mutations occur, the more likely a creature fails to develop altogether. If you accept macro-evolution then you are privy to a lie. Are you prepared to live with that? Details here.
More on the Whale Evolution Deception.
And God created great whales.
The allegory of the whale has been widely cited as the best ‘evidence’ of the ‘reality’ of evolution in action. But is it really? In this video link, we see that the ‘transitional forms’ used by proponents of evolution are in fact logical constructs fabricated by them. In this link, you’ll see that much of the so-called transitional forms are figments of the imagination of paleontologists, who have read too much into what the fossil evidence actually shows. See here for the full details.
What To Do with a Failed Theory in our Schools & Universities?
The pride of your heart has deceived you, you that dwell in the clefts of the rock, whose habitation is high; that says in his heart, Who shall bring me down to the ground?
Let us tread fertile ground once again. Suppose you found a cellphone and after examining it in close detail, claimed that it came into being through blind, undirected processes. You would be laughed at, of course, as the idea is patently absurd. And yet this is precisely the same predicament we find ourselves in with evolutionary biology. If the central tenets of Darwinian evolution have all but collapsed around us, then why persist in teaching the theory in our schools and universities? In this debate, Stephen Myer, a scientist and philosopher, engages with Michael Shermer, a journalist and Editor in Chief of Sceptic Magazine. In this exchange, you will note that Shermer ducks all the major points raised by Myer and the folks who called into the show.
UV Light Stops Chemical Evolution in its Tracks
And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
For many years, origin of life researchers have assumed ultraviolet light was one of the main energy sources used to drive prebiotic chemical reactions on the primordial Earth. Some 3.9 billion years ago, our world was devoid of a molecular oxygen-rich atmosphere and hence could not have formed an ozone layer. Because ultraviolet light has higher energy than visible light rays, prebiotic chemists have been using mercury lamps or either Fluorine or Argon-Fluorine lasers to simulate the UV flux incident upon the primordial Earth but new research casts fresh doubt on the efficacy of these UV sources to create any plausible prebiotic synthetic scheme.
In particular, a team of researchers based at the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, pointed out that these UV sources emit at particular wavelengths and not over a broader range covering a continuum from 10nm to 400nm, which typifies the real UV output from the Sun. What is more, the researchers showed that some well-established synthetic schemes leading to the pyrimidines, cytosine and uracil (important components of RNA), which were found to be favoured at specific UV wavelengths, had much reduced yields when a broader range of UV wavelengths were adopted. Indeed, under these conditions, it was substantially the biologically irrelevant by- products that were produced.
This new research carried out by secular scientists in the field has thrown yet another proverbial spanner in the works for prebiotic chemists. Chemical evolution just isn’t tennis now is it? See here for full details.
A Failed World View
But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee; and the fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee:
Or speak to the earth, and it shall teach thee: and the fishes of the sea shall declare unto thee.
Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the Lord hath wrought this?
Distinguished cell biologist, Dr. Stuart Newman, explains why Darwinian evolution is not up to task of explaining the splendour of the biological realm.
Distinguished immunologist, Dr. Donald L. Ewer, talks candidly about the inadequacy of Darwinian evolution in explaining the complexity of the vertebrate immune system.
An interesting talk concerning of the tree of life as promulgated by evolutionists.
Evo-Devo & the Creation of Monsters
For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills.
I know all the fowls of the mountains: and the wild beasts of the field are mine.
Molecular biologists have uncovered genes that control the formation of body parts during embryonic development. Some of the most important of these are known as Hox genes.
Humans and all other mammals have 39 Hox genes. Individual Hox genes control the function of other types of genes, and the same Hox gene can control different sets of genes in different parts of the body. Once thought to act like molecular switches, Hox genes play an important role in the development of many different anatomical features, including limbs and fins, the spine, the digestive system, and the reproductive tract in diverse species of both invertebrate and vertebrate animals.
One of the most remarkable findings in this field was the discovery that in organisms as distinct as Drosophila – the common fruit fly – and in humans, the same defective Hox gene results in abnormal development of the eye. This is despite the fact that the eyes of the various animal phyla are completely different on a structural level! What is even more remarkable is that in animals displaying bilateral symmetry – including insects and vertebrates – their Hox genes are expressed in the same order as they are linearly arranged on the chromosome. Thus, Hox genes located at one end of the chromosome are expressed at the head of the embryo, whilst those located at the anterior part of the chromosome are expressed toward the tail end (illustrated above). No one knows how this remarkable symmetry came to be, but from an evolutionary standpoint it defies credibility and yet it is absolutely true!
Evolutionary developmental (whence ‘evo-devo’) biologists thought they were on to something big when they discovered Hox genes; if they could generate mutations in these genes they could bring about macro-evolutionary change, by inducing large scale changes in morphology. This idea was brought to the fore by University of Indiana biologist, Jeffrey Schwartz.
Alas, the experimental evidence does not support this bold conjecture. Two biologists, William McGinnis and Michael Kuziora, based at the Department of Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry at Yale University, have observed that most Hox gene mutations in fruit flies cause fatal birth defects. In other cases, the resultant Hox mutant phenotype, while remaining viable in the short term, are invariably too unfit to reproduce. And when they tamper with the Hox genes to produce an extra set of wings, Drosophila is rendered incapable of flight.
What is more, it has been discovered that Hox genes in all animal phyla are only expressed when the embryo reaches the 6,000 cell stage, i.e. after the basic geometric form of the organism has been established. The Hox genes are necessary for proper regional and localised development within the organism.
Tampering with Hox genes produces no new kinds, only monsters.
Has the case for macro-evolution been demonstrated? No.
The Miracle of Mitochondria
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
All complex animals, plants and fungi show remarkable cellular complexity. In particular, there exist a number of discrete structures called organelles, which perform specialised biochemical tasks inside their cells. These include mitochondria, which function to generate 95 per cent of the chemical energy for the cell, and chloroplasts, which in plant cells, function to harness the energy of sunlight to fix carbon from atmospheric carbon dioxide and synthesise sugars. Cells showing this division of labour are called eukaryotes. Simpler cells, such as those of bacteria, do not exhibit this degree of internal structuring and are called prokaryotes.
Mitochondria have sizes typical of small, free living bacteria. What is more, these organelles were found to have their own DNA. Evolutionary biologist, Lynn Margulis (1938-2011), proposed that eukaryotic cells came into being after a prokaryotic cell ‘ate’ (via a process known as endocytosis) other prokaryotic cells, which evolved over long periods of time events, and reproduced in step with the host cell in some sort of symbiosis (mutual advantage), by chance, before coming under the control of the primitive eukaryotic cell, which developed chromosome structures, a nuclear membrane and so on and so forth. Over time, portions of the mitochondrial and chloroplast genome happened to be translocated to the nucleus, leaving behind a small vestige of their original genetic inventory ie. the mitochondrial DNA we see today. It is also noteworthy that other organelles, such as mitosomes and hydrogenosomes, do not harbour genetic material.
But a closer look at this scenario raises a number of questions. For one thing, how could the enveloped cells reproduce in a synchronised way? How did lateral gene transfer occur through the nuclear pore when it was designed for the passage of mRNA and small proteins into the cytoplasm but not DNA?
What’s more, even if DNA were passed between the engulfed cell and the host cell, the host would respond by degrading the foreign DNA, because it would interpret it as a virus.These problems have been ignored or glossed over by proponents of the evolutionary paradigm.
The question of why mitochondria harbour DNA may be better explained by design rather than an evolutionary process. Intriguingly, new research lends support to the former hypothesis. In particular, a collaborative effort between a team of US and British scientists used a novel computer algorithm to analyse a great number of mitochondrial genomes across many phyla. Their results reveal the following:
Many mitochondrial genes code for hydrophobic proteins that embed in mitochondrial membranes. If these were expressed in the cytoplasm of the cell, they would wind up in the membranes of other organelles, wreaking havoc with the cell’s biochemical machinery.
Quite a number of mitochondrial genes code for proteins involved in the electron transport chain. Their translocation to the nucleus would greatly reduce the efficiency with which these polypeptides can be replaced once they become faulty or denatured.
The content of Guanine and Cytosine (G and C, respectively) is especially high in mitochondrial genes. A high GC content confers greater stability to these bases, allowing them to better survive against the degradative effects of reactive oxygen species, such as superoxide anion and hydrogen peroxide (by products of the aerobic respiration).
So, it seems like there are very good reasons why mitochondria have maintained their genomes. It is very unlikely that such a scheme of events could come about by a blind evolutionary process, but it comports perfectly well with exquisite design by a mind far more advanced than human beings. See here for more details.
The Problem of Orphan Genes.
Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
Orphan (literally ORfans, “open reading frames of unknown origin” )genes were first discovered when the yeast genome-sequencing project began in 1996. Orphan genes are defined as genes that lack detectable similarity to genes in other species and thus show no clear signs of common descent (i.e. homology). Orphan genes are distinguished from others in that they are lineage-specific, and have no known history of shared duplication or rearrangement outside of their particular species, or clade. Recent studies suggest that between 10 and 30 per cent of all the genes sequenced in the genomes of a large number of multicellular organisms are orphan. Couple this to the fact that most complex animals have ~10^4 genes and upwards.
Indeed, according to one recent paper “only a small set of genes seems to be universal across kingdoms, whereas the phylogenetic distribution of all other genes is restricted at different levels.”
When they were first discovered, many evolutionary biologists assumed that as more genomes were sequenced and added to the data base, homologues of these orphans would gradually show up. But quite the opposite is true. Like many other problems in molecular biology, orphan genes were completely unexpected by evolutionists whose mantra is “ descent with modification.” And while some evolutionists have attempted to “explain away” their origin, there is no credible scientific evidence to explain why these unique genes exist. To me, the explanation for orphan genes is simpler; the Lord put them there to express the uniqueness of each species, a distinctive act of special creation, as if to say, “Wherever you look, here I Am!”
More on orphan genes here.
Origin of Life; Truly a No Go!
I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
It Came from Outer Space-Not!
For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the Lord.
For many years, astrobiologists have surmised that the inventory of organic molecules needed to kick start chemical evolution on the primordial Earth could have been delivered by comets and asteroids. Comets in particular have been shown to be rich in volatile substances such as methanol (a poisonous substance more commonly known as wood alcohol) and ammonia ice, which might fragment and combine in a variety of ways to create biologically relevant molecules, such as amino acids and simple sugars. Recently a team of French scientists created artificial comet ice by introducing water vapour, methanol and ammonia into a specially prepared vacuum chamber and freezing it to -200C. Next, they used an ultraviolet lamp to irradiate the ice and then analysed the chemicals it generated. The team reported the synthesis of some biologically relevant chemicals such as ribose, an important 5-carbon sugar required for the synthesis of information rich molecules such as RNA. The researchers claimed that this was an important milestone in unravelling a plausible prebiotic source for this sugar but a closer look at their experimental procedure reveals a raft of problems.
For one thing, the researchers employed pristine materials under highly controlled laboratory conditions, carefully excluding chemicals that would throw a proverbial spanner in the works. The UV lamp delivered specific wavelengths of ultraviolet radiation which seemed to allow a small amount of ribose to be synthesised, but if conducted in the vacuum of space, a broad continuum of UV wavelengths would have been incident on the comet ices and many of these wavelengths destroy rather than create anything of biological relevance. This is supported by extensive spectroscopic observations of cometary vapours, which have not identified ribose (or any other biologically relevant sugar), making it very unlikely to have been derived in this way.
Furthermore, while the researchers invoked a chemical mechanism known as the formose reaction, the reality is that the yields of ribose were only about 1 per cent among a plethora of other reaction side products with no biological relevance. Ribose is chemically unstable too, and would most likely react with other chemicals to make the pathway unviable. And even if such molecules could survive the severe heat shock that would attend entry into the Earth’s primordial atmosphere, they would be hopelessly diluted in the planet’s early oceans.
In summary, this research is yet another demonstration of intelligent design more than anything else. It is exceedingly unlikely to generate any plausible prebiotic chemical inventory under true environmental conditions – either in space or on Earth. And without chemical evolution there can be no Darwinian evolution.
See here for more details.
An Interview with Dr. Anthony Latham
I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.
My compatriot, Dr. Anthony Latham, who now lives and works as a G.P. on the beautiful Outer Hebrides of Scotland, dedicated years of his life researching the evidence for and against the evolutionary paradigm. His very well received book, The Naked Emperor: Darwinism Exposed, focuses on the central tenets of the neo-Darwinian synthesis, revealing its complete inadequacy in explaining the origin and development of life on Earth. In this interesting interview, Dr. Latham speaks candidly about his researches and scepticism concerning evolutionary ideologies.
Playing the Waiting Game
The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.
The engine of evolutionary change requires the creation of new protein functions, but this invariably entails making a series of coordinated mutational alterations to the gene which encodes it. On the face of it, the intuitive response is that it would prove exceedingly improbable, increasing exponentially with the number of coordinated mutations required to manifest such an outcome, and in much the same way as the odds of acquiring one, two, three, four, five or six of the right numbers needed to win the lottery.
Professor of bochemistry, Michael Behe, based at Lehigh Univesity in Pennsylvania, and University of Pittsburgh physicist David Snook, addressed this very question in a ground breaking 2004 paper entitled “Simulating Evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues.” Using the principles of population genetics, they found that if generating a new gene required multiple coordinated mutations, then the waiting time would grow exponentially with each additional necessary mutational change. In particular, they studied how population sizes influenced the outcome, finding, not surprisingly that while larger populations reduced waiting times, smaller populations dramatically increased them. Specifically, their results showed that to evince just two coordinated mutations required a million generations but only if that population exceeded 1 trillion; a population size much greater than practically all individual animal species that have lived at any given time. Conversely, they showed that if the population size were only 1 million, it would take 10 billion generations to produce that change.
Curiously, in more recent research (2008) that attempted to refute their work, two Cornell University evolutionary biologists, Rick Durrett and Deena Schmidt, using a similar approach, calculated how long it would take to generate two coordinated mutations in the hominin line, separating the great apes from humans. Though their calculations reduced the time required to bring about such a change compared to that arrived at by Behe and Snook, it was still of the order of hundreds of millions of years! Indeed, the authors concluded that two or more coordinated mutations were “very unlikely to occur on a reasonable timescale.”
That said, the reader will note that humans and chimps are thought to have diverged from a common ancestor just six million years ago!
Collectively, these results raise serious doubts about any evolutionary changes in animals with long lifespans (of the order of years) and small population sizes, particularly mammals, humans and their presumed ancestors. Clearly, neo-Darwinian mechanisms do not have the capacity to generate even two coordinated mutations in the time available for human evolution and so, cannot explain how humans arose.
Cooption: a non-Option
The foolishness of man perverteth his way: and his heart fretteth against the LORD.
Faced with the problems highlighted by Behe and Snook, some neo-Darwinists have proposed another way for proteins to evolve. Known as ‘cooption,’ this is the process by which a structure or system with an original function adds or changes to a new function. A gene encoding protein A might have duplicated and mutated to encode a slightly different protein which performed some advantageous function, enough to confer some advantage to the organism. Eventually, as mutations continued to generate new proteins that were close enough in sequence and structure that just one or two additional changes would be enough to convert it into protein B.
To ascertain whether this could conceivably happen over a time scale postulated by evolutionary theories, a team of scientists led by Doug Axe and Ann Gauger, based at the Biologic Institute in Seattle, devised an ingenious experiment to test the cooption hypothesis. Examining a raft of protein sequences from a data base, they identified two proteins that had a very similar amino acid sequence and three dimensional structure. The first of these enzymes is known as KbL2 which catalyses the degradation of the amino acid, threonine, and the other, known as BioF2, needed in the biosynthesis of the vitamin biotin.
If they could demonstrate that just a few coordinated mutations could bring about the transformation of KbL2 to BioF2, then this would indeed lend support to the cooption evolutionary hypothesis. But if this required multiple coordinated mutations, then it would indicate that any Darwinian mechanism could not bring about such a change in a reasonable amount of time. In a seminal paper published in 2010 entitled, “The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzyme Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway,” their results were clear and unambiguous; Axe and Gauger showed that they could not induce a cooptional effect with two, three, four, five or even six coordinated mutations. The implication, as the earlier work of Behe and Snook showed, is that this mechanism could not operate on timescales that would make the evolutionary scenario viable. Indeed, in their own words, Axe and Gauger concluded that “evolutionary innovations requiring that many changes….would be extraordinarily rare, becoming probable only on timescales much longer than the age of life on earth.”
An Enduring Mystery: Homology
For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.
It has been noted for many centuries now that there are many anatomical similarities among the animals within a well-defined taxonomic group. A good example of homology is the pentadactyl (five-fingered) pattern of bones from the wing of a bat say, or the flipper of a dolphin, the leg of a horse or a human. Darwin believed that these homologies provided strong evidence for common descent, while his great contemporary, Sir Richard Owen, took it as evidence of common design, derived from a basic or archetypal plan set in place by the Creator.
If the Darwinian paradigm were correct, one should see strong evidence that the same genes give rise to these homologous organs across the various animals in a taxonomic group. Yet, as genetic evidence built up, it was clear that this is far from the truth. Indeed, it has been shown that regulatory genes which are homologous are often dedicated to organs that are not homologous. For example, the notch gene in the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster plays important role in the formation of bristles and wings – structures that are clearly not homologous.
Indeed, as more and research was carried out on homology, the majority of cases showed the very opposite of what the Darwinian model predicted; that non-homologous genes encode factors that regulate supposedly ‘homologous’ structures. This puzzling situation was addressed by the American palaeontologist, Neil Shubin:
“It is clear from the fossil record that chordates and arthropods diverged at least by the Cambrian. The appendages of these two groups are not homologous because phylogenetically intermediate taxa (particularly basal chordates), do not possess comparable structures. The most surprising discovery of recent molecular studies, however is that much of the genetic machinery that pattern the appendages of arthropods, vertebrates and other phyla is similar.”
Thus, we can see that there is considerable confusion as to what the precise genetic basis is for homologies. If all life evolved from a common ancestor one should expect complete (or almost so) coherence. And yet it is simply not there.
One should also expect to see homology in the embryological development of animals such as reptiles, fish, amphibians and mammals. But this is not revealed by closer scrutiny. For example, the alimentary canal of the shark is formed from the roof of its gut cavity, and yet is derived from the floor of the same structure in lampreys. And in frogs, it originates from both the roof and the floor, while in mammals, the alimentary canal forms from a layer considerably lower down in the blastoderm.
In addition, the homologous fore-limbs develop from different trunk segments across different groups of animals. The same is true when one examines the amniotic membranes of birds and reptiles, which form in a completely different way to that of mammals.
Geneticist and evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900–1975) once wrote that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” But what we see in the case of genetics and embryology applied to the phenomenon of homology makes no sense at all.
The Mystery of Convergence
The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
One of the enduring mysteries of life is the case of convergence. The eye, for example, has appeared many times across many animal phyla. Broadly speaking, the eye takes two main forms, the compound eye, seen in arthropods, and the camera-like eye (like those of humans and cats say), which has emerged at least seven times in the animal world and, as we have seen, often without any structural antecedents in the fossil record (the Cambrian animals serving as an excellent example). Even evolutionists will concede that this striking recurrence of optical form could not conceivably have emerged from a common ancestor, before the putative divergence of these taxa. But why should there be convergence? The standard response is that it demonstrates how natural selection will arrive at the same or similar solution for organisms experiencing similar environmental cues. But certain types of annelid worms, jellyfish and several species of snail also have camera-like eyes, and so it is difficult to accept how their habitats have anything to do with the matter. To my mind, it’s simply a play on words and that simply isn’t good enough from a scientific perspective. How pray tell, would a jellyfish experience the same selection pressure as an air-breathing mammal or a soil dwelling worm? If the evolutionary paradigm were even half credible, one ought to expect examples of convergence to be terribly rare (if ever); yet they’re everywhere in nature lol!
Convergences are inexplicable in a Darwinian context, but they make perfect sense within a creation framework, with each convergence displaying purpose and design.
More on the thorny issue of convergence here.
For the Birds
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
We have seen how the Cambrian explosion was a creation event that led to the emergence of the majority of animal body plans in a geological instant, and which is totally inexplicable from a Darwinian standpoint. But it would be wrong to think that this was the only such ‘Big Bang’ in biology, especially when one considers the origin of birds. The hoopla began in 1871, when some quarry workmen at Pappenheim, Bavaria, uncovered a well preserved fossil of a creature with outstretched wings. This specimen was later named Archaeopteryx, one of six similar fossils uncovered from the now famous Upper Sonhofen Lithographic Limestone.
Archaeopteryx, which dates to around 147 million years ago, has features that are common to both reptiles and dinosaurs but not modern birds. For example, it displays a long, bony tail, teeth on both jaws and three distinct clawed fingers. In addition, and unlike modern birds, the sternum of Archaeopteryx is not keeled. Paleontologists have long cited this creature as evidence for the evolutionary paradigm, but it’s worth taking a closer look.
How did such a bird evolve feathers and wings; highly complex organs in a gradual process? Birds, unlike reptiles, are warm blooded. Their bones have been hollowed out to reduce weight, and their skulls must be rendered light and thin. Their hearts must be made more efficient to deliver adequate levels of oxygen to their flight muscles, necessitating a four chambered design. They would have to sprout specialised muscles to power their wings.The lungs of birds had to be enlarged and structurally altered, so as to optimise the exchange of gases. These alterations also required coordinated changes in brain structure so as to navigate while in the air.
And all of these changes have to happen together.
The fossil record doesn’t help, as there are no credible intermediates between dinosaurs and birds. Yes, palaeontologists have found some feathered creatures such as Sinosauropteryx, which had a skeletal system similar to a meat-eating dinosaur and feather-like down to insulate its body, but invariably these feathers were clearly not designed for flight! Other fossils such as Protarchaeopteryx robusta and Caudipteryx zoui, have been claimed to be ‘the immediate ancestors of the first birds.’ Yet these were subsequently dated at 120 to 136 million years. That places them younger than Archaeopteryx, a true bird!
Understanding how birds evolve essentially involves two schools of thought; arboreal and ground up. In the arboreal scenario, evolutionists envisage that tree-dwelling creatures evolved anatomical changes to help them jump from tree to tree, followed by ‘gliding’ and then fully-fledged flight. Ground up scenarios imagine a dinosaur developing shaggy scales that helped it flap along the surface better in search of flying insects or some such. Flapping flight also requires highly controlled muscle movements to get airborne, which in turn requires that the brain has to be re-programmed for these movements. Ultimately, this requires new genetic information that a non-flying creature lacks. It’s not hard to see the holes in all of this.
To take the guesswork out of paleontology, scientists turned to molecular genetics. The morphological changes that produce flying creatures ought to be reflected in the DNA of birds and, furthermore, one ought to able to reconstruct a phylogenetic tree that clearly shows the ‘descent with modification’ so necessary for the evolutionary paradigm to be credible. Alas, a massive and fairly recent study has unearthed quite the opposite; all birds emerged on the scene in an explosive event – dubbed the neoavian explosion – covering less than 10 million years. Moreover, the study found that the major inter-order groups diverged in an even more rapid explosion merely 1 to 3 million years in duration!
In an accompanying commentary to this study, the researchers stated the following:
“When the researchers tried to build the new avian family tree, “we were shocked to find we couldn’t get a solid answer,” Jarvis recalls. As the consortium developed more sophisticated bioinformatics tools to analyze the genome data, they discovered that protein-coding genes by themselves were not the most reliable for building good trees. The non-coding regions within or between genes, called introns, gave better answers. And although the group had access to supercomputers, they still had to come up with a way to allocate the analysis to the machines’ many microprocessors. “It took 3 years to iron out the kinks,” Gilbert says.”
Let’s take a moment to consider their tactics. The data didn’t fit a treelike pattern. They then looked for ‘better answers’ that would square more easily with their world view. They weren’t going to reject common ancestry! Rather, they appealed to ad hoc explanations whenever necessary to explain why the data doesn’t fit a tree. Convergent (discussed above) evolution is just one of the mechanisms they invoked.
The power of words eh!
The expectation of these scientists was that molecular genetics would undergird morphological features but this is not what they found. It’s all just speculation and nothing that would convince a steely headed rationalist.
Here’s yet another commentary on an earlier (2008) study and why evolutionary theory really is for the birds.
Waking up to the Evolution Lie
Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;
That frustrateth the tokens of the liars, and maketh diviners mad; that turneth wise men backward, and maketh their knowledge foolish;
Dr. Kevin Anderson, formerly Professor of Microbiology at Mississippi State University, explains why classic evolutionary ideology is now in terminal decline.
Mathematician, philosopher and theologian, William Dembski, explains why new advances in information theory are exposing Darwinian evolution as a pseudoscience.
A Jewish Rabbi, Elyahu Kin, speaks candidly about the fallacies of evolutionary ideology, as well as the aberrant psychology of evolutionists.
Evolution and its Consequences
Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
Evolution is a secular religion, derived from pagan origins.
Evolution attracts and encourages atheists.
Evolution erodes belief in God’s sovereignty and omniscience.
Evolution could not have foreseen the emergence of humanity.
Evolution erodes the belief that God created Man to be good.
Evolution denies timeless standards of truth.
Evolution makes a mockery of Man’s need for redemption.
Evolution erodes the biblical idea that God gave us evidence of his handiwork.
Evolution teaches that humans are just smart animals.
Evolution has corrupted the minds of countless millions of Christians and Jews over the last two centuries.
Theistic evolutionists think evolution is ‘beautiful’.
Continued in Part III.