Long-time blog follower “Old Git Tom” poked the beast with this comment:

“It is preposterous to call Darwin’s Natural Selection (NS) theory of bio-evolution ‘successful’. It remains a failed hypothesis.

It was never even a valid scientific one. It is a tautology; it it is self-reinforcing, circular.

The NS merry-go-round goes this way:

1. Fitness determines survival.

2. Survival is proved by all the organisms that exist, or ever did.

3. Therefore, existence proves fitness, & all life-forms prove natural selection’s correctness.

This kind of circular proposition is as unshakably true (and unscientific) as the statement, “I am my mother’s son”.

As such, it is not scientific, since it’s unfalsifiable under ANY experimental test.”

Tom is not disputing the adaptive process evolution itself. Nor is he disputing the activity of Natural Selection. There’s always a few winners and many losers.

What he is saying is that “Evolution Through Natural Selection” is a non-explanation of how evolution actually produces winners.

Saying “Mammals evolved by natural selection” is like saying “The Seahawks made it to the Super Bowl by winning the playoffs.”

That might be a perfectly satisfactory answer to a person who has no interest whatsoever in the minutiae of football games… but no true football enthusiast would be content with it.

An interesting article blurb:

“A minimal cell is usually defined as a cell in which all genes are essential. This definition is incomplete, because the genetic requirements for survival, and therefore the minimal genome size, depend on the environment in which the cell is grown. The work described here has been conducted in medium that supplies virtually all the small molecules required for life. A minimal genome determined under such permissive conditions should reveal a core set of environment-independent functions that are necessary and sufficient for life. Under less permissive conditions, we expect that additional genes will be required.”

Click here to read the entire article.

Last week I skewered Richard Dawkins for saying life was a “happy chemical accident” on National Public Radio.

A reader of my blog (a smart, well educated guy) rushed to Dawkins’ defense.

I demanded he explain how Read more »

Ken Ham is an excellent marketer and salesperson for Young Earth Creationism.

I should know — much of my professional background is in marketing, working with some of the most talented marketers and sales people on the planet.

I got the chance to hear Ken Ham. He was speaking at a home schooling conference my wife and I attended.

What I experienced from Ken Hams was masterful rhetorical skill; skillfully crafted, Read more »

The Atheist agenda is destroying our understanding of evolution.

The truth is far more exciting.

Modern Atheism (with a capital “A”) wants you to believe evolution is random, chaotic, accidental.

According to Atheists, we’re all Read more »

I have plenty of atheists friends whom I get along with just fine.

If you look at all the scientific data out there…

• What we know about genetics…
• What we know about the origin of life…
• All we know about the birth of the universe…
• How life changes and evolves…
• Where humans came from, and why we think and feel like we do…

If you take a look at all of that — and all the big questions it raises — it infers a tremendous amount of majesty and precision in the universe. But if you decide there’s no God behind it all, I won’t jump down your throat.

Read more »

Anybody who’s developed a modicum of chops with Google ads knows how utterly Darwinian Google is. Most of your ads vanish forever after being seen by (maybe) a few thousand eyeballs.

1% of the advertisers get 50% of the traffic. Everyone else fights over the scraps. And every ounce of your AdWords education costs you money.

As an advertiser, you know Read more »

An Amazon reader named Gordon loves Evolution 2.0, but asks: Read more »

Newsweek article “The Secrets of the Human Cell” explains:

“Each of those 100 trillion cells functions like a walled city. Power plants generate the cell’s energy.

Factories produce proteins, vital units of chemical commerce.

Complex transportation systems guide specific chemicals from point to point within the cell and beyond.

Read more »

The legendary atheist and evolutionary theorist Richard Dawkins appeared on WBUR, Boston’s National Public Radio affiliate. He was debating Design advocate George Gilder.

Dawkins was a professor at Oxford University. One of his admirers had created a special endowment for him, The Charles Simyoni Chair for the Public Understanding of Science.

Minutes before the show began, Dawkins announced that he wasn’t going to debate Gilder, but insisted that Gilder talk for the first 15 minutes, then Dawkins would talk for the final 15 minutes.

I thought that was… shall we say, odd.

Anyway, a caller asked Dawkins about the Origin of Life. Dawkins replied that it was “a happy chemical accident.”

A happy chemical accident?

What do you think of that answer?

–