Darwinists perform many studies on haplodiploid insects which they claim support common descent, but do they really? For those unfamiliar with haplodiploidy, male offspring are haploid, meaning they are born with only one half of the genome that is normally carried by chromosome pairs (humans, for instance, have 23 paired chromosomes for 46 total). These haploid offspring arise from unfertilized eggs; they have no fathers. Many species show this feature, especially social insects like Hymenopterans (wasps, bees, and ants) and Coleopterans (beetles, weevils, and fireflies).
Darwinists tell us that this trait evolved multiple times. This, however, argues against homology as evidence for common descent, and if we look deeper into this phenomenon it seems even harder to believe that Darwinist mechanisms are behind it. For random mutation to account for this, a standard diploid ancestor must, in the next generation, be able to lay unfertilized eggs that would become fertile males! This is simply too good to be true. As a comparison, imagine a man (Jesus for instance ;)) being haploid (having 23 chromosomes instead of 46) while remaining fertile, and all the result of a random mutation! If it isn’t a simple mutation, how could it have arisen through intermediate steps what could those steps possibly be?
It is quite apparent that common descent and Darwinism are unequal to the task. This is readily explained by common design, however, in that it would be quite easy for a designer to allow for these types of errors and correct them, much like the self-correction mechanisms of DNA.
Apparently, there’s a new paper out about the formation of the Ethiopian plauteau about 6 million years ago and how it helped bring about human evolution. No, I’m not making this up.
It was Darwin who first suggested that a change of climate, giving rise to vast, arid, savannahs, may have spurred on human evolution all those millions of years ago….
The timing of plateau formation coincides with and is therefore probably related to the change in climate that gave rise to the African savannahs and ultimately to human evolution.
Of course correlation does not equal causation, and it’s rather flimsy to suggest that because this geological upheaval happened in some time frame close to the emergence of humans that it somehow “gave rise” to human evolution. Were there not savannahs before this upheaval and in other locations around the Earth? This is the type of flimsy argumentation that is typically used by materialists to buttress up Darwinism. It’s a house of cards built on a series of flimsy hypotheses such as this one. If not for the stranglehold that the materialists enjoy on academia, Darwinism would have been thrust atop the trash heap of failed hypotheses long ago.
Here is an amazingly far-fetched article.
OK, so it’s a spoof, and a pretty humorous one at that. But, without the disclaimer at the bottom it’s not that far-fetched to see some materialists clinging to some sort of explanation like this for the sheer amount of variability needed to account for speciation.
The endocrine system creates and processes hormonal signals. There are three different categories of messages.
- Individual to individual
- body part to body part
- cell to cell
Body part to body part signals are what is usually meant when we say ‘hormones’. The thalamus and hypothalamus are primarily involved, but so are other organs, like your adrenal glands on top of your kidneys. The nervous and endocrine systems are highly entertwined, much as the brain and mind are intertwined.
Cell to cell signals are pretty easy to understand. Those animations on the drug commercials for the latest happy pill do a good job showing uptake, inhibition, etc in synapses.
Now we come to the most interesting category. Individual to Individual signals are also called phermones. You know how ants find something, run back to home base, and the later ants retrace his steps and soon set up a highway to the food? That’s all done with phermones. You can simulate these things on computer, and people have. In fact, if you have the ants random-walk around, and upon encountering food, retrace their steps while laying down an attractive chemical, and other random ants honing in on the scent, this process will generate efficient trails to the food. Evolutionists might say, Aha! look at that random walk! But what they miss is that the random walk was merely a subcomponent in an elaborate, designed system.
Mammals also have phermones, not just bugs. When your dog lifts his leg on every tire on your car, he’s not just rusting your wheels, he’s signalling to other dogs. As for human phermones, there’s some evidence of them, for instance the McClintock Effect, which causes women’s menstrual cycles to synchronize. There have also been studies done where women smell mens’ t-shirts then rate their attractiveness. There’s some correlation between these things but it’s not sorted out. Don’t be fooled by those advertisements where you spend $100 to get some potent phermones that knock all the girls dead. If they knew how to make that kind of thing, do you think they’d sell it to you?
I wouldn’t. I’d be…too busy.
OK, WordPress ate my post on the wiring of human senses and I haven’t been able to recreate that post yet (although I have learned to make back-up copies). But, along those lines comes a new paper in PLoS about odor receptors. The authors report on the numbers of odor receptors in different animals, then talk about evolution.
In this study, we showed that the numbers of OR genes have changed extensively in mammalian evolution. Why did the number change so frequently in mammalian evolution? One obvious factor would be the requirement for a species to adapt to a particular environmental condition. For most mammalian species, detection of millions of different odorants is crucial for their survival. Yet, animals living in different environments require different numbers of ORs. For example, olfaction seems to be less important for the primate species that are endowed with trichromatic vision than for other dichromatic mammalian species, because trichromatic color vision is very powerful for perceiving environment signals. This could be the reason why humans or macaques have a smaller number of OR genes than rodents .
Apart from sounding like a just-so story, let’s delve into this a little. Humans and Macaques have trichromatic vision meaning that they don’t need as many ORs. My question is, why do humans have more than macaques? They report that macaques have 606 while humans have 802. Yet, isn’t our vision more evolved than that of macaques? So, what explains the discrepancy? Why did humans further evolve more ORs after supposedly splitting off from macaques?
Another question: why do the authors assume that these traits evolved to perfectly fit the environment? This is tautological thinking, which is typical for Darwinian “science.”
I don’t know what happened below. I had several pages of text under that image, and WordPress threw it away.
I’m too pissed right now. I’ll rewrite it later.