Posts Tagged ‘darwin’
EVOLUTION: A black and white issue?

Back during Barack Obama’s campaign, I noted in a cartoon the amazing similarity of Michelle Obama to the Geico cavemen. Having a rather caveman-shaped forehead myself, I felt this was fair game and a funny way to work in yet another dig on Chairman Maobama.

But I’ve been thinking–primarily about the cartoons I could have done, and I’ve had a stunning realization about Western society: The Theory of Evolution really is just another way to keep the black man down.

See, all of those nature-worshipping elitists that push Darwinism and Lamarckism believe that mankind evolved from monkeys. And, that the first human was a skeleton found in Africa that has been named "Lucy," who was a black woman. Ergo, mankind evolved from black women.

Now at first glance, a lot of black people (I use the color-descriptive term, because Africa isn’t full of just black people) might take pride in this scientific quackery, that their race was the first race. And, that they are the oldest, noblest progenitors of mankind. But that also implies they are the least evolved.

Remember, Lamarck and Darwin came up with their heathen blasphemies about man’s origin in the 1800’s, a time in world history when in the West, black men and women were deemed sub-human. In that age, white western men considered themselves the top of the food chain, their way of rationalizing centuries of slave trading.

For Europe, black men, and even native Americans, were not the same as "normal" men. The Spanish used the same rationale for justifying their invasion of the New World and forcing the natives to convert to Christianity.

Even "Evolution of Man" charts show the black man following apes, with white men following black men. Does all this mean that Barack Obama was the less-evolved candidate? That Americans have chosen a primitive paleo-liberal as their next president? Maybe, if you wear a pillow case over your head and like lighting crosses on fire.

Without getting all preachy, let me just close by expressing my sheer wonder that this hasn’t been noticed by the black caucuses and the NAACP before. Not really surprising since they have sought reparations from the United States, rather than the African nations that originally placed modern Black Americans' ancestors into slavery, and then sold them (if anyone could afford reparations, surely it would be the oil rich countries of Africa and the Middle East who are historically infamous for slave trading).

Now, it’s little wonder to me that so many black children going through our heathen school systems grow up feeling as though they don’t fit in with the rest of society. Or that all the rich, liberal snobs’ children grow up thinking they are better and that blacks need money thrown at them. Basically, we're subliminally telling young blacks that they're little more than animals.

This whole personal discovery has led me to revile Darwin and Lamarck even more than ever (something I never would have thought possible). Perhaps with a less-evolved president we could make some true progress and do away with the racist teachings of Evolution and begin telling our children that all men truly are created equal…not evolved differently.

 
The real legacy of Darwin should not be celebrated

In some circles today, Darwin is treated like a great celebrity. A recent article points out that there will be "scientific" meetings in Britain concerning the ideas of Darwin.

It seems, the man is framed by some science historians as an Einstein-like genius, though he wasn't. He did bring to the forefront of science some innovative ideas about adaptation. But his ideas failed to truly explain the origins of life and are claimed as science when they are really philosophy. Additionally, the philosophical implications of Darwinism applied to the real world have had horrific consequences.

The real reason Darwin is celebrated and championed in our age is because of the social consequences of his theory. The theory allows many to conveniently do away with various aspects of morality, while creating a new social order with dubious benefits.

This explains why many detractors of the Christian faith are themselves Darwinists. Naturally, they prefer to bring to the forefront abuses of the church (or of Christians themselves) in spite of the true nobility and grace of Christ’s original teachings. In sharp contrast, these same detractors do not bring to the fore the real and dark legacy of Darwin.

As secularists celebrate Darwin’s contributions to the world even while they denigrate Christ, ask yourself which of these men has had the greatest impact on planet earth?

Christ’s teachings still inspire noble acts of kindness and love, whereas Darwin’s teachings simply do not. That’s a fact.

Editor's note: visit Chris of themuseandthescribe.com; we do.

 
The Case for a Creator: Part II

Editor’s Note: Lance Ponder continues his series summarizing Lee Strobel’s book, The Case for a Creator.

Refuting homologous embryos from different species

First Problem: In the 1860’s Ernst Haeckel’s studied the embryos of various species in the animal kingdom. After observing these embryos, Haeckel rendered drawings, which depicted embryos of a fish, a salamander, a tortoise, a chicken, a hog, a calf, a rabbit, and a human as remarkably similar at three different stages of development. The similarities are promoted as supporting evidence of Darwin’s tree of life sketches and the idea of common ancestry. However, Haeckel’s drawings were proven false. The actual photographs of these embryos do not match Haeckel’s drawings. His drawings were deliberately doctored to misrepresent the appearance of the embryos, so they would fit Darwin’s evolutionary synthesis. Yet, evolutionists persist in using Haeckel’s sketches as proof of the validity of the Darwinian synthesis.

Second Problem: The embryo selections were “cherry picked” to give the closest appearance of similarity. There are several classes of vertebrates, yet Haeckel only used examples from a few that came closer to providing the desired result. He then multiplied those similarities by “editing” the pictures.

Third Problem: Haeckel claimed the images were from the earliest stages of embryonic development. That was also untrue. His drawings were loosely based on mid-term development when the cells have begun to develop and grow, after the first several rounds of cell reproduction and before they begin to take on a truly unique appearance. During this period there is greater similarity than either early cell division or the later obvious development of body structure. For example, cell division at the first stages of development in mammals is radically different from other vertebrate classes.

Forth Problem: In 1996 Life published pictures of a human embryo at a stage which made it look as if the embryo had something resembling gills. Many modern biology books promote similar ideas about the appearance of the human embryo. Of course the folds of skin at a certain stage when the embryo is still doubled over itself may look a bit like gills, but it is a very normal stage of embryonic development. Most of us have folds in our adult skin, but no one suggests those folds could be used for breathing under water.

Fifth Problem: Our knowledge of genetics today was completely unknown in the mid-19th century. Darwin couldn’t peer inside a cell as we can today. Had he known about the thousands of amino acids used to construct genetic material inside a living cell he might very well have come to a different conclusion. Cells are too complex to be explained by random organization into hundreds of tiny organic machines, each with dozens to hundreds of molecular components.

Summary: In spite of all this, many modern text books still use Haeckel’s drawings as proof of evolution. Evolutionists who are aware of these problems still claim that while the details contain errors, the concept is still true. Most text books used in high schools and college biology classes still support Haeckel’s concept if not the artwork itself. Any similarities between kinds of creatures can be argued to come from similarity of design just as easily of similarity of evolutionary development. Where evolution fails, the common elements of design seem to be the only logical explanation left.

Refuting the so-called missing links?

Darwin said the most obvious objection to his theory was that the fossil record failed to support it. This was attributed to glaring systematic gaps in the fossil record. But two years after Darwin’s book was published a fossil dubbed “archaeopteryx” was unearthed from a German quarry. Because of some of its unusual features including a tail which resembles a lizard and unusual claws, it was at first thought this animal was half-bird and half-reptile. Birds have a number of very distinct characteristics from reptiles including wings, feathers, wishbone, weight distribution, and so forth. Archaeopteryx might have some interesting and beautiful features, but as a specimen, it is entirely avian. Using index fossil dating, this particular bird is supposed to have lived later than its alleged progeny, not before. Studies have since proven this animal is a member of a now extinct group of birds.

Archaeoraptor was presented in 1999 as part bird and part dinosaur. It was touted as clear evidence of a missing link. Later, it was proven to be a fake. A Chinese paleontologist showed a dinosaur tail had literally been glued onto the fossil of a now extinct bird. Unfortunately a lot of fake fossils are presented as new finds because they are very profitable. China is a particularly big source of fake fossils. In Florida a fossil was dubbed “bambiraptor.” It was a chicken sized dinosaur with what was purported to be turkey DNA. A reconstruction used certain bird elements, such as eagle eyes, to make it appear more birdlike. The DNA evidence, it turns out, was actually contamination from a technician’s lunch.

Another iconic “missing link” was Java Man. Discovered in Indonesia in 1891/92 by Dutch scientist Eugene Dubois, Java consisted of a skull fragment found among some bones by a river bank. Many people believe Java Man to have included a complete skull, smaller than modern man’s, thereby “proving” earlier man had lower intelligence. Java Man actually included only a skull cap along with a few teeth and a femur. Analysis of the skull cap shows that while the bones were from a relatively small human, the brain capacity was well within modern norms.

A better find for evolutionists was Peking Man who was discovered in China early in the 20th century. But we’ll probably never know for sure what Peking Man’s orientation was because his remains disappeared not long after they were discovered.

Based on these and other specimens in different regions, taxonomists have attempted to classify the skeletal remains into the following three groupings: Neanderthal, homo erectus, and homo sapien. Modern humans are classified homo sapien. The group homo erectus is supposedly an erect man-like group. Neanderthal has an even more pronounced brow and slightly different head shape. There are a few dozen samples of these various skulls and other bones.

The homo erectus and Neanderthal are supposed to have died out about 340 million years ago. Finds and dating methods employed in the last two decades have shown at least some of these samples to be much more recent.

Another problem for evolutionists is that these samples have all yielded brain sizes well within the normal range of modern humans. Other bones from these skeletal remains have shown little if any other differences from modern man. The “speciation” of homo erectus and especially Neanderthal compared to homo sapien have been wildly exaggerated in artistic renderings to promote the concept of Darwin’s tree. Examination of physical evidence shows the differences between these species are superficial. Were the scientific community to promote the photographs, the public would be far more skeptical of evolutionist claims. Today, more than a few scientists believe these are all variations within the family of homo sapiens and thus are not unique classes at all.