Wednesday, 16 February 2011



I'm glad to see a few crawling out from their hidey holes to attack the thesis I am presenting. Welcome! And good luck - you'll need it!

Unfortunately, none seems able to address the question being asked on this humble blog!

So I again challenge any R-E-A-L-L-Y S-E-N-I-O-R evolutionists to come forth and debate this vital topic.

Ho Dawkins of Oxford! Ho Ruse! Ho Theobald of Talk Origins!
Ho Anybody! Ho ho ho!

This is the internet - you MUST have seen, and be seeing this challenge.

So where are you guys?

Come forth and defend your miserable theory! Let the Sword of Instinct slice your hopeless defence into little pieces and serve them up for breakfast.

After you get your faces out of the cornflakes, that is.

Then perhaps you can explain to your poor, misled and misguided undergraduate and postgraduate students why you couldn't answer a few simple but very serious questions.

Go to the naked scientist forum for a taster of the questions you have to answer - then put my book on your required reading booklists. If the universities don't apply the boot to your tender spots, that is!

Isn't Biology pathetic! Can't face a few nasty questions!

Here's the forum link:

Hey! I just noticed - there have been over 54 THOUSAND VIEWS of my thread!

Heck, I must have made those organisers a real packet if they get paid on clicks! They threw me off because they couldn't answer the points I raised.

What a surprise! (Hey you organisers of naked scientists - if I am misrepresenting you, then either come over here and argue the toss, or let me back on to carry on ruining evolution theory for you!)


  1. Asyncritus, you really need to stop doing this to yourself. You are not proving anything with your deceptive testimony. Your misrepresentation of countless scientific papers and proven evidence for evolution is a sign of desperation, a search for some twig of a branch that has already broken off the tree. I actually took the time to read through every post on the nakedscience and dawkins forums, to see just how far you would go. You've been given more than enough chances to redeem yourself, to make one single logical argument that doesn't include some deceptive tactic or complete evasion of evidence that contradicts your concept of reality. You have fallen too many times on your self-proclaimed "Sword of Instinct" to make it worth anyone's time. But I'm going to be nice, and lay this out plain and simple for you, so that you might actually learn something about evolutionary theory, and keep you from wasting any more of your time.

    Evolution consists of eight (8) very simple principles. Each of these principles have been proven again and again through tireless experimentation and observation of the natural world. If you can accept these principles then you, by default, accept evolution.

    The first four were proposed by Darwin, and are as follows:

    1. Varation occurs within populations of species. This should be easily accepted, as we see this in humans. Darwin observed this directly by breeding pigeons, where he discovered previously unseen traits occur in subsequent generations.

    2. The larger the number of offspring per generation in a population, the greater the chances of seeing variation. This explains why insects, the most speciose group of animals have 20,000 times more species than all vertebrates combined. It's also why fish make up half of all known vertebrate species.

    3. Some variants have a greater propensity for survival, and thus have a greater chance of passing on beneficial, heritable traits to the next generation. If that doesn't make logical sense to you, then you're a lost cause.

    4. The environment (abiotic and biotic factors) can actively put pressure on variants within a population, and select for beneficial traits. Abiotic factors include things such as climate, sunlight, geography. Biotic factors include things like predation and food supply. Changing any of these factors can have an effect on a population.

    That is all that Darwin could confidently conclude about evolution. Beneficial traits are carried over from generation to generation, species to species, throughout geological history. This is why there is so much redundancy in life, everything from morphological features down to physiological processes. What his theory (Descent with Modification, not technically called Evolution at that time) lacked was a mechanism for all of this variation he (and anyone with eyes) witnessed. He tried to explain the mechanism, but since the discipline of Genetics had not been discovered yet, he had no good answer. This is where creationists typically leap upon Darwin, despite the fact that we currently understand the mechanisms that drive evolution. Darwin was simply describing what anyone with a reasonably active brain and a pair of eyes could deduce about evolution.

  2. Mendel's research provided the stepping stone for modern genetics, by deducing that heritable traits are derived from genes, although his data came a bit too late for Darwin to have his "Eureka!" moment. After Genetics officially became a sub-discipline of Biology, we began conducting studies that put Darwin's theories under rigorous scrutiny. Lo and behold the four basic principles he proposed above were all sound and substantiated through a myriad of genetic experimentation. In the mid-20th century, scientists around the world then gathered to put together what we call the Modern Synthesis of Evolutionary Theory, which included Darwin's original four principles, plus four (4) new principles that provide the genetic basis for evolution. These new principles are as follows:

    5. DNA is the source of genetic information for all organic life.

    6. Genes are the sections of DNA that code for biological activity. They can be small (e.g. one codon, or three base pairs) or they can be large sections that produce chains of amino acids which make up proteins.

    7. Genes control biological activity. Your genotype (genetic code) defines your phenotype (physical manifestation).

    8. Mutations in your DNA can change your genes. Thus, changing your genotype can change your phenotype.

    Those are the basics of evolution. We have scientific proof of each and every one of those principles, and are thusly irrefutable facts.

    Since the Modern Synthesis, we have incorporated other findings that only further support evolutionary theory, such as genetic drift, linked traits, phenotypic plasticity, epigenetics, and sexual selection. Darwin even knew about sexual selection before we confirmed it, as it is something easily observed in our world today.

    Evolution does not seek to explain how life began. If that's where your deep resentment resides then you're barking up the wrong tree. Go yell at physicists, chemists, and the currently proposed Abiogenesis theory. Evolution simply explains the diversity of life today.

    As for your "Sword of Instinct", let me explain how instincts work. Instincts are behavioral reaction patterns that are activated through specific signal pathways that are set up by our genes. It is different from a learned behavior in that it is performed the first time correctly. Flying, for example, is not an instinct, because fledglings have to practice, and learn to fly. The act of flapping the wings, however, is an instinct, despite the fact that the fledgling has no idea how to fly. So if a gene that programs a specific instinct is changed through mutation, the instinct will subsequently change. This is why some birds don't actually fly. They lack those instincts due the lack of the genes that set up that signal pathway, because they simply don't need to fly under their current environmental conditions. Instincts that are beneficial to the organism will be favored, and passed on to the next generation. Those that are deleterious will be removed.

    Evolution does not seek to explain how instincts began. Again, your argument is misplaced in that respect. Evolution simply explains the diversity of instincts we see today.

  3. So you have a choice now, Asyncritus. You can either keep bleating like a blind sheep, or you can find a way to better the lives of others. What you are attempting to do here is essentially halt scientific progress through religious sanctimony. We've seen where that gets us. It's called the Dark Ages.

    Your lack of respect for Science is quite clear, and so I don't expect you to understand any of this. You will likely ignore all evidence that contradicts your viewpoint (as you continue to claim that evolutionary biologists are doing, which is another deceptive misrepresentation). If you in some way fear the Evolutionary Theory destroys your God, or religious beliefs then you should read the book, "Finding Darwin's God" which is a beautiful exposition that details how and why evolution in no way discredits the existence of a higher power. You might learn something.

    As a Christian, you should be open to progress. At the very least you should respect others, respect their viewpoints, and know when to let things go. Your blog is incredibly disrespectful, tactless, and is deception in its ugliest form. You should be ashamed of yourself.

  4. Hi Dasyatis

    Thanks for taking the time to comment - albeit futilely once more.

    I was happy to see you going to nakedscientists forum, but you failed to draw the obvious conclusion - which is simply that there is no answer to the problems I posed on that thread and which are now on this blog.

    You say:

    Evolution does not seek to explain how instincts began.

    You are so right! It does not, it cannot, and will never be able to do so.

    But it is incumbent on the theory of origins to account for the origins of this most important phenomenon.

    If you read my book, you would see that it goes far beyond the miraculous items I raised on nakedscientist.

    Instinct underlies EVERY behaviour that makes up life. Evolution's failure to even recognise the problem is a massive condemnation and a tremendous illustration of its incapacity.

    It is for those reasons that I have no respect for the theory and its supporters. I'm sorry to say it so strongly, but as I see it, it has successfully destroyed the faith of many, and actively prevented even more from even bothering to invesitgate the possibility of the existence of a God.

    And that, in my opinion, is unforgivable, and deserving of the severest censure.

    You said:

    Again, your argument is misplaced in that respect. Evolution simply explains the diversity of instincts we see today.

    The fact remains that evolution cannot explain the origin of a single one of the instincts we see today. Not one.

    I challenge you to put forward an explanation of the origin of any one you like. Try the migration of the eels, or the Pacific golden plover. These are only two examples, and trust me, there are multitudes of others: some of the most spectacular are on this blog and in my book.

    It's very little use berating me unless you can produce an intelligent and evidenced example of how an instinct sould have evolved and entered a genome.

    I call on the fair-minded readers of the blog to demand explanations from the great ones of the evolutionary world: Dawkins, Theobald and Ruse may be good examples to start with.

    I have no fear of evolutionary theory - it is entirely helpless in the face of the facts I have brought forth and will now continue doing.

    As they say, only let a lion loose, and it is well able to look after itself.

  5. Despite your continued ranting and raving over your self-proposed glory, my comments completely refute your "Sword of Instinct". I do not need to bother explaining the instincts of eels or birds migrating to breed. Instincts are heritable traits linked to genes, and if those genes mutate then the instinct is altered. Thus we can extrapolate that instincts can (and indeed do) evolve, and thus evolution can explain the occurance of all instincts. Therefore your argument is rendered moot. So why would I want to read your book, which is likely filled with the same repetitive garbage you have on this blog?

    So my only questions to you is: why have you singled out evolution?

    I think your problem is that you are too narrow-minded, like most creationists. Evolution is just a scapegoat taking the heat for the multitude of reasons that faith is taking a nose-dive. I would accept Science in general as a reason people don't cling to their bibles anymore, but focusing on evolution just proves that you can't do any better than try and follow in the footsteps of all the other failed creationist hucksters. What about physicists? They claim that the existence of God is impossible because the Universe is created purely by random events. That sounds much worse than anything evolution claims, and yet you're fixated on it for whatever reason. I don't buy your excuse that this "issue with instinct" is the reason you so vehemently deny evolution.

    If you don't fear evolutionary theory, then why bother with this oppressive crusade? This kind of behavior is the biggest reason people are losing faith, because religion has always gone through phases of oppression and acceptance (you do know that the Pope accepts evolution, right?). Plenty of Christians believe in evolution, and plenty of scientists believe in God. But when you get incompetent braggarts like you professing some kooky idea, it sours the core messages of religion, which is to promote tolerance, morality, and free will. Again, your argument is rendered moot.

    I find it amusing that you actually posted the link to the forums where you've tried to push this propoganda. You failed miserably (especially on the Dawkins forums), and were kicked off because you couldn't handle the facts. You were spewing repetitive nonsense by the end, and even verbally abusing other members of the forum. I personally think they let you hang around way longer than you should have, which leads me to believe they were actually trying to be nice to you. Funny.

  6. Your comments don't even begin to address the questions being asked.

    Answer this:

    Choose an instinct - nice spectacular one, for instance the migration of the eels.

    1 How did it arise?

    2 How did it enter the genome of the eels?

    Provide an answer from any papers you may wish to consult.

    I still haven't stopped laughing at your comic explanation of the origin of the butterfly life cycle! (on nakedscientists) Explanation! Bring it over here so I can deal with it as it deserves. In fact I think I'll copy it over and comment constructively.

  7. Your personal attacks are typical. You can't answer the questions, so attack the messenger!

    Try again - this time try and answer the question. You use a lot of words, but say very little that's relevant to the issue being brought forth.

    Evolve a little.

  8. You say:

    "I do not need to bother explaining the instincts of eels or birds migrating to breed. Instincts are heritable traits linked to genes, and if those genes mutate then the instinct is altered."

    But you do need to bother, my friend.

    Evolution, may I remind you, first came to prominence in 'On The Origin of Species by Natural Selection'.

    Note the word 'Origin'.

    That's what you're being asked for here - the ORIGIN of instincts (in LIVING creatures, so you can't dodge out with the 'abiogenesis' ploy.)

    But of course, you, Dawkins, Ruse, Theobald and the host of others, cannot even BEGIN to account for any one of these things.

    You want to be embarrassed as a supporter of evolution? Go look at talkorigins on the subject of instinct, and be amazed. Go on Dawkins' forum and look for an answer. They threw me off because they had no answers - neither did naked scientists.

    And neither do you.

    Why not admit it? Because it blows a great hole clean through the sinking evolutionary ship?

    I think it does. It is the most unanswerable argument ever produced against evolution.

    Unless, of course, you can prove me wrong.

    So prove already.

  9. Your words are hollow and meaningless. What you have just done is convinced me that you have failed. By banning me you admit that my presence is a threat to your idea. By threatening to delete my posts you admit that I have already proven you wrong.

    I have done what I came here to do, and that is to show the fallacy of your arguments, and let the few people who may actually read this understand why you are wrong.

    You don't want to receive harsh criticism for your outrageous ideology? Don't start a blog.

    Evolution is a scientific process, not a belief. It happens whether or not you believe in it.

    - Dasyatis

  10. Hi Dasyatis

    I honestly do not want to ban you - or anybody else for that matter.

    But face it, you are attacking ME, personally.

    That is not permissible on this blog - it is, on Dawkins' forum - boy do those foul-mouthed filth-spewers generate personal attacks!

    I thought better of you, because of the way you began this exchange: but you have quickly degenerated into the mire of ad hominems. Too bad.

    You are being asked - in fact every evolutionist is required - to generate a competent, evidenced account of how any instinct could conceivably have originated and entered the genome.

    Simple enough, one would have thought - given the prevalence of instinctive behaviour in every living organism on the planet.

    But no. You resort so swiftly to ad homs!

    It's the old old thing isn't it: you can't answer thepoints being raised, so why not attack the messenger? That'll strengthen the case considerably!

    If you can answer, or even attempt to answer the questions, then you are most welcome to remain and debate with me. I'm happy to do so: but I will never insult you, and I expect the courtesy to be returned.

    Thank you for your contributions anyway, and I look forward to some more - RELEVANT ones, mind you.

    Sincerely yours