MCCARTHY'S FOLLY

In a very curious article,  It might in fact, be a joke - but I doubt it. It wasn't published on 1st April...
http://www.macroevolution.net/human-origins-2.html#.Un4AfuLflGk

McCarthy goes to town, and produces a magnificent list of the features which humans do NOT HAVE IN COMMON with any other primates, and I reproduce it here. Dr McCarthy, if you ever read this, and wish me to remove it from this blog, I will be more than happy to do so. But here it is for the time being, in my appreciation of its excellence:

The really odd thing is the McCarthy completely fails to recognise that this is  a magnificent list in support of creation rather than the usual boring evolutionary nonsense.

He can not, and neither can any palaeoanthropologist, account for the origin of these features, and as a result, evolution is again left high and dry  ; or is that deep and sunk?

A list of traits distinguishing humans from other primates

---

DERMAL FEATURES
Naked skin (sparse pelage)
Panniculus adiposus (layer of subcutaneous fat)
Panniculus carnosus only in face and neck
In "hairy skin" region:
 - Thick epidermis
 - Crisscrossing congenital lines on epidermis
 - Patterned epidermal-dermal junction
Large content of elastic fiber in skin
Thermoregulatory sweating
Richly vascularized dermis
Normal host for the human flea (Pulex irritans)
Dermal melanocytes absent
Melanocytes present in matrix of hair follicle
Epidermal lipids contain triglycerides and free fatty acids

FACIAL FEATURES
Lightly pigmented eyes common
Protruding, cartilaginous mucous nose
Narrow eye opening
Short, thick upper lip
Philtrum/cleft lip
Glabrous mucous membrane bordering lips
Eyebrows
Heavy eyelashes
Earlobes

FEATURES RELATING TO BIPEDALITY
Short, dorsal spines on first six cervical vertebrae
Seventh cervical vertebrae:
- long dorsal spine
- transverse foramens
Fewer floating and more non-floating ribs
More lumbar vertebrae
Fewer sacral vertebrae
More coccygeal vertebrae (long "tail bone")
Centralized spine
Short pelvis relative to body length
Sides of pelvis turn forward
Sharp lumbo-sacral promontory
Massive gluteal muscles
Curved sacrum with short dorsal spines
Hind limbs longer than forelimbs
Femur:
- Condyles equal in size
- Knock-kneed
- Elliptical condyles
- Deep intercondylar notch at lower end of femur
- Deep patellar groove with high lateral lip
- Crescent-shaped lateral meniscus with two tibial insertions
Short malleolus medialis
Talus suited strictly for extension and flexion of the foot
Long calcaneus relative to foot (metatarsal) length
Short digits (relative to chimpanzee)
Terminal phalanges blunt (ungual tuberosities)
Narrow pelvic outlet

ORGANS
Diverticulum at cardiac end of stomach
Valves of Kerkring present in small intestines
Mesenteric arterial arcades
Multipyramidal kidneys
Heart auricles level
Tricuspid valve of heart
Laryngeal sacs absent
Vocal ligaments
Prostate encircles urethra
Bulbo-urethral glands present
Os penis (baculum) absent.
Hymen
Absence of periodic sexual swellings in female
Ischial callosities absent
Nipples low on chest
Bicornuate uterus (occasionally present in humans)
Labia majora

CRANIAL FEATURES
Brain lobes: frontal and temporal prominent
Thermoregulatory venous plexuses
Well-developed system of emissary veins
Enlarged nasal bones
Divergent eyes (interior of orbit visible from side)
Styloid process
Large occipital condyles
Primitive premolar
Large, blunt-cusped (bunodont) molars
Thick tooth enamel
Helical chewing

BEHAVIORAL/PHYSIOLOGICAL
Nocturnal activity
Particular about place of defecation
Good swimmer, no fear of water
Extended male copulation time
Female orgasm
Short menstrual cycle
Snuggling
Tears
Alcoholism
Terrestrialism (Non-arboreal)
Able to exploit a wide range of environments and foods

RARE OR ABSENT IN NONHUMAN PRIMATES:
Heart attack
Atherosclerosis
Cancer (melanoma)

That is a pretty extensive list, and it can be added to, if we look hard enough.

But I have had difficulty in restraining my laughter and my sense of the comic, when I read his possible 'explanation' of the origin of these features. He is a geneticist , and claims to  know about hybridisation.

There is only one other animal which possesses these characteristics, and with which our 'common ancestor' hybridised in order to produce Homo sapiens. Here is the text in full. Now stop laughing!!!!

...as it turns out, many features that distinguish humans from chimpanzees also distinguish them from all other primates. Features found in human beings, but not in other primates, cannot be accounted for by hybridization of a primate with some other primate. If hybridization is to explain such features, the cross will have to be between a chimpanzee and a nonprimate — an unusual, distant cross to create an unusual creature.

 So there's his problem. It's also the problem of every evolutionist palaeoanthropologist in sight!

So how does he resolve the problem? Quite comically is the answer.

Let's begin, then, by considering the list in the sidebar at right, which is a condensed list of traits distinguishing humans from chimpanzees — and all other nonhuman primates. Take the time to read this list and to consider what creature — of any kind — it might describe.

That's the list above. Have another look at it to familiarise yourself with the extent of the impossibility. Now here's his solution:

...it's clear that the other parent in this hypothetical cross that produced the first human would be an intelligent animal with a protrusive, cartilaginous nose, a thick layer of subcutaneous fat, short digits, and a naked skin.

...Nevertheless, even initially, these two flies in the theoretical ointment fail to obscure the remarkable fact that a single nonprimate has all of the simple, non-synergistic traits distinguishing humans from their primate kin. Such a finding is strongly consistent with the hypothesis that this particular animal once hybridized with the chimpanzee to produce the first humans. In a very simple manner, this assumption immediately accounts for a large number of facts that otherwise appear to be entirely unrelated.

Which animal is it? Which??? Come on Dr McCarthy! Spill the beans!

 What is this other animal that has all these traits?

The answer is Sus scrofa, the ordinary pig.

Not satisfied with this nonsense, he goes boldly on, where none has gone before:

... Is it not rational then also, if pigs have all the traits that distinguish humans from other primates, to suppose that humans are also related to pigs? Let us take it as our hypothesis, then, that humans are the product of ancient hybridization between pig and chimpanzee.

 There. Did you know that you're distantly related to chimpanzees and pigs? Or maybe not so distantly! About 3 million years ago, next November, the unnatural act between a pig and a chimpanzee took place , which resulted in the human race. Homo  sapiens..

Sapiens?????? !!!!!

Of course, this might explain how snoring evolved!!!!....

I was interested to read some comments by Nobel Prize winning scientists, and I append them here for your perusal.

 "I would rather believe in fairy tales than in such wild speculation. I have said for years that speculations about the origin of life lead to no useful purpose as even the simplest living system is far too complex to be understood in terms of the extremely primitive chemistry scientists have used in their attempts to explain the unexplainable. God cannot be explained away by such naive thoughts." (Sir Ernst B. Chain, Medicine, 1945)

"When confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. For me that means Protestant Christianity, to which I was introduced as a child and which has withstood the tests of a lifetime. But religion is a great backyard for doing science. In the words of Psalm 19, "The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth His handiwork." Thus scientific research is a worshipful act in that it reveals the wonders of God's creation." (Arthur L. Schawlow, Physics, 1981)

 "Upon splitting the atom, I made a startling realization: while atomic nuclei could be transmutated into different elements, their constituent parts remained as they were at the moment of Creation. The idea then current among biologists that random mutations could produce truly novel structures became to me the most absurd thing. It was at that moment that I understood that I was Born Again." (Sir John Cockcroft, Physics, 1951)

 "To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest." (Sir Ernst B. Chain, Medicine, 1945)

 "To improve a living organism by random mutation is like saying you could improve a Swiss watch by dropping it and bending one of its wheels or axis. Improving life by random mutations has the probability of zero." (Albert Szent-Gyorgi, Medicine, 1937)

 "It is not difficult for me to have this faith, for it is incontrovertible that where there is a plan there is intelligence - an orderly, unfolding universe testifies to the truth of the most majestic statement ever uttered - 'In the beginning, God.'" (Dr. Arthur H. Compton, Physics)

Source: http://objectiveministries.org/creation/dawkinswatch.html

A Summary of Refutations of Evolution

This article was written as a summary of a debate with some Christadelphians, notably one gentleman named Gilmore.

It presents a detailed summary of objections to the theory, which I raised in the course of the debate, and to which there has never been any refutation. Enjoy.

SUMMARY OF REFUTATIONS inc Rock lobster’s eye

I have presented a huge number of facts which are inexplicable on any theory of evolution.

The evolution team, with no answers at their disposal, have resorted to silly responses, have presented no facts that are contrary to the evidence I have presented, are incapable of doing so, and now have to fall back on other methods of upholding their straw hut.

Each point brought up by that armchair supporter Gilmore, who has no qualifications in evolutionary biology, palaeontology, genomics or any other relevant science such as he required me to have(and by implication others on my side), without which we are deemed to be uninformed, armchair critics, has now been refuted quite comprehensively.

The Endogenous Retroviruses

1 The endogenous retroviruses, whose genomes can be read both forward and backward, cannot, by virtue of that single fact, be the products of any chance construction. Therefore, for whatever reasons, they were divinely constructed and inserted, and provide no proof of common descent from anything.

The Chromosomal Similarities between Primates and Humans

2 The fact that the primates have 2 chromosomes more than humans cannot be explained on any grounds of common descent, similarities notwithstanding. As we all know from experience, a single chromosome added to the normal human complement produces the abnormality known as Down's syndrome. If common ancestor A had a smaller number of chromosomes than either primates or humans, then the addition of the chromosomes required to make up the number of 46 or 48 chromosomes would, as observation shows very clearly, have resulted in the decimation or entire destruction of both groups: humans and primates.

If A had more chromosomes than either primates or humans, then the necessary LOSS of chromosomes, would be no less destructive, and could not have produced viable groups.

That does not leave much room for manoeuvre.

Tiktaalik

3 Tiktaalik was described by its discoverers Ahlberg and Clack as having typical features of fish, most notably large gill arches, which showed that it was an aquatic animal, not a tetrapod in waiting.

In addition, there has never been any adequate accounting for the method by which a fish of any description could have emerged on to land and survived. Latimeria failed to save that plank from extinction. Further, tetrapod tracks have been found which predate Tiktaalik, which therefore could not be any sort of ancestral tetrapod, since its descendants were walking around in Australia before Tiktaalik existed.

There is the further fact that the pectoral fins of fish are the larger than the pelvic fins, and neither are attached to the axial skeleton. In a true tetrapod, the hind limbs are larger than the forelimbs in EVERY instance, AND ATTACHED to the axial skeleton very securely.

I was fascinated to see the diagrams, which perfectly illustrate Denton’s point that the missing parts of an organism, BOTH SOFT AND HARD, can make complete nonsense of a reconstruction. (Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis) And that the reconstruction depends entirely on the prejudices of the re-constructor! The amount of guesswork that has to go into this particular example (Tiktaalik) IS GREATER THAN 90% OF THE WHOLE ANIMAL!

In addition, I may also mention a previous article on Tiktaalik in this blog, where Nature announced tetrapod fossil footprints 18 million years OLDER than Tiktaalik.

There is also the curious fact that the pentadactyl forelimb is built on exactly the same plan as the pentadactyl hindlimb. Homology would require that the hind limb evolved from the forelimb or vice versa. But no such claim is ever made!

Speciation

4 Some speciation does occur, but never above genus level, and certainly not at or above family level. Such speciation is invariably the result of reproductive isolation for whatever reason. The other name for reproductive isolation is inbreeding to one extent or another, and inbreeding has curious effects to say the least, which may result in speciation to a limited extent.

This, however, is and has never been, a problem to creationism, because Adam named the 'kinds' - and those could not have been species since there are millions of those. Therefore, if we interpret 'families', superfamilies or orders as being the 'kinds' referred to in Genesis, then there has been, is, and will never be any 'evolution.' Variation aplenty - but only within very severe limits, as Luther Burbank and other authors such as Cuvier and Owen have pointed out.

Parasites and Hosts

5 The extremely close relationship existing between some parasites and hosts, is so close that if two birds are closely similar and might be the same species, then the only feature which can be called upon to distinguish between them is the species difference between the parasites.

This is a hallmark of creation, not evolution.

Those, I think were Gilmore's main points.

The Other Side

On the other side, there are innumerable, unrefuted and unaccounted-for phenomena, and I mention a few of the more serious ones:

Instinct

1 The biggest, and least explicable of them all, is the intangible phenomenon of instinct, which powers the behaviour of all living organisms. We have the basic, instinctive functions of life itself. Animals and plants eat, move, respond, reproduce and so on as a direct result of the possession of the instincts which power those behaviours. Without the instincts, the apparatus for any or all of those behaviours is entirely useless. Without the apparatus, the instincts are equally useless: and that leads to the inexorable conclusion that both instinct and apparatus were created simultaneously: and no amount of fudging will obscure that simple fact.

It is the spectacular example which most convincingly destroys any possibility of evolution having occurred. And we have many such to hand – not one of which can be explained by any theory of evolution and common descent, and which await any reasonable response.

I may remark on the equally spectacular and utter failure of talkorigins to even begin handling this subject.

Those spectacular and specific examples (of which many are already on this blog)include:

1 The yucca moth
2 The bucket orchid
3 The swallows of Capistrano
4 The migration of the red knot and arctic tern
5 The fungus growing ant (genus Atta)

Cellular Level

2 At cellular level, we await reasonable explanations of the origins of meiosis and mitosis

Molecular Level

3 We also, at molecular level, await any reasonable explanations of the origins of the endogenous retrovirus DNA sequences which can be read both forward and backward, and still make sense in the construction of the proteins for which they code.

On the same point, we also await explanations of the findings of the Oxford biochemical geneticists who discovered that a viral DNA sequence could be read starting at point A and producing a protein, and also be read starting at a different point B to produce a different and equally functional protein.

We may also remind readers of the Tool Kit Proteins, which having performed one function, break into two parts, each of which subserves another function and then in turn, break and repeat the procedure.

How could such ingenious devices have originated without Divine construction, and by methods of natural selection?

Anatomical Level

4 At anatomical level. we await explanation of the origin of the rock lobster’s eye: which to remind readers, is made up of SQUARE cross-sectioned cells,
a shape almost unheard of in nature, and which uses the principle of REFLECTION on to a retina (into whose origin we won’t inquire too closely at this stage), instead of the REFRACTION principle used in every other known animal eye apart from the scallop, whose eye is even MORE complex and reflection based than the rock lobster’s.

“The eye of the lobster shows a remarkable geometry not found elsewhere in nature – it has tiny facets which are perfectly square, so it looks like perfect graph paper”. Even more intriguing is that each of the sides of these square tubes are like mirrors that reflect the incoming light. This light is focused on the retina flawlessly. The sides of the tube are lodged at such perfect angles that they all focus on to a single point” http://www.scribd.com/doc/7800502/Harun-Ya...esign-in-Nature

Embryological Level

5 At embryological level we await any explanations of the origins of the vast differences between the amphibian and reptile egg. Denton is particularly cruel on the point:

“Every textbook of evolution asserts that reptiles evolved from amphibia but none explains how the major distinguishing adaptation of the reptiles, the amniotic egg, came about gradually as a result of a successive accumulation of small changes. The amniotic egg of the reptile is vastly more complex and utterly different to that of an amphibian. There are hardly two eggs in the whole animal kingdom which differ more fundamentally… The origin of the amniotic egg and the amphibian - reptile transition is just another of the major vertebrate divisions for which clearly worked out evolutionary schemes have never been provided. Trying to work out, for example, how the heart and aortic arches of an amphibian could have been gradually converted to the reptilian and mammalian condition raises absolutely horrendous problems.(Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, Adler and Adler, 1986, pp. 218-219)

The Birds Lung

6 We await any sort of convincing explanations of the origin of the one-way flow of the air in the lungs of all 10,000 species or so of birds, completely unparalleled in the animal kingdom, and therefore incapable of having originated by natural selection from anything else. The origin of flight itself, is also another evolutionary nightmare, occurring as it does in FOUR distinct and entirely unrelated groups of animals, viz. the birds, the bats, the insects and the pterosaurs.

Palaeontology

7 We await any explanations of the fact that the palaeontological record consists of series of spectacular bursts of creation of species, genera, up to phyla as in the Cambrian. We also wait for explanations of the phenomenal number of new species right up to phyla in the Cambrian layer, which is the oldest but one of the fossil bearing strata.

Non-speciation by Lenski

8 I may remind them of Lenski’s failure to produce a single new species from E. coli in 31,500 generations of the organism. At that rate of non-production of new species, we are entitled to question the likelihood of the vast number of Cambrian species evolving in the given time frame. After all, 0 new species in 25 years equates to 0 new species in 250 million years.

The Plant Kingdom

9 I may remark here that the limitation imposed upon the introduction of new material has prevented me from introducing these major causes of evolutionist insomnia which are presented in accounting for the origin of any of the major plant groups. I have in mind specifically, the origin of the angiosperms (about half of the plant kingdom), which Darwin called ‘that abominable mystery’. He had good reason to do so, since to this day, there is no adequate accounting for the origin of about half of the whole plant kingdom. The other half fares no better either.

I don’t know whether the evolution supporters know any of the relevant facts, but I do recommend that they perform some searches on the evolution of the angiosperms. Here is a good starting point: http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu/~karyla/angio where the author states:

“The flowering plants arose in the early Cretaceous (120-130 mya); however, no fossils showing a transition from gymnosperm to angiosperm have been discovered. This makes the origin of the angiosperms mysterious. From the fossil record we do know that the angiosperms underwent a rapid radiation and by the end of the Cretaceous (65-70 mya) most flowering plant families had evolved.”

Summary

That is but a sprinkling of the available material. Any claims that these points have been “answered” must include intelligently selected quotations from the relevant ‘answers’, and not merely fraudulent and strident claims that ‘they have been answered here.’ Some critical faculties should be exercised before the word ‘answered’ may be applied, and some assessment of the quality of the ‘answers’ given.

Given the inability of the theory to account for so many huge facts – and these are but a selection - I submit that supporters of the view should seriously review their position in the light of these intractable FACTS, and abandon this ‘science falsely so-called.’

HO DAWKINS! HO RUSE! HO THEOBALD! HO HO HO!

HIDING FROM A HIDING I SEE!

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:
(http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=16535)

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!)

Some amazing facts about Velvet worms

Velvet worms

Source: Vishesh Jain, Wonders of Evolution, on www.harkerbio.com

Readers please note that Vishesh Jain is a believer in evolution, and in no way does he support the opinion I express on this blog.

While spiders shoot silk, velvet worms shoot stringy goo.
Admittedly, velvet worm slime is far from silk molecularly, and spider silk departs from spinnarets on their abdomen while velvet worms use oral tubes.

Nevertheless, the slime is amazing.

Without congealing within the worm's own body, the slime is still a quick-hardening, sticky substance that sprays from two oral tubes, intertwining and lacing over its prey. This substance does not adhere to the water-repellent skin of the velvet worm, which can therefore safely approach its victim, bite a hole in its skin, and suck out its vital systems after digesting them with powerful saliva....

If you're still curious about that "weird sex," velvet worms use spermatophores, or packets of sperm, to transfer the male gametes to the female. Now this is weird enough, but there are several arthropods that do it too.

What really begs explanation is that the spermatophores are transferred from spikes on the the head of the male to the back or sides of the female. Enzymes in the female's body then break down both the spermatophore casing and the female's own skin, allowing the sperm to flow through this self-inflicted wound to her reproductive organs.

For one reason or another, the wound usually escapes infection, and velvet worms have apparently been successful enough to survive hundreds of millions of years without modification.

Velvet worms give birth in a variety of forms, ranging from oviparous(egg-laying) to ovoviviparous(egg-hatching within the body and then live-bearing) to viviparous(live-bearing). Weird.

by Vishesh Jain

An interesting 'how does instinct evolve' fact about orchids

Here is a quote from the Naked Scientists Forum (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content/latest-questions/question/2605/) - beautifully written till we get to the last idiotic sentence. But you must judge for yourself. I've broken it up into smaller paragraphs for easier reading.

There was a wonderful paper written by a lady called Jennifer Brodmann, who is a researcher at the University of Ulm, and she was on the Chinese island of Hainan looking at an orchid called Dendrobium sinense.

Now, this is a really interesting orchid because no one knew what pollinated it. It makes these beautiful flowers. It's a white flower with a red centre, but it's rewardless.

In other words, the flower doesn't give anybody anything if they come and visit it. So she decided to do a stakeout and she watched this flower , 121 hours of footage to see what came by. And 35 insects paid a visit of which the majority - over 30 - were a kind of hornet.

And she thought, "That's interesting." At closer inspection, revealed that these hornets didn't come in and spend much time loitering there. They flew in and pounced on the flower and then abruptly left.

But when they looked more closely, they saw that as the hornet was doing the pouncing, it was actually depositing a bit of pollen on the orchid, fertilizing it and also picking up some pollen to take to another flower.

So they thought, "There must be something which is attracting this hornet to this flower." So they made extracts of all the chemicals that come out of the flower and they found one really interesting one.

It's eicosen-1-ol. And this particular molecule is a pheromone made by bees. And, in fact, it's an alarm pheromone that bees make when they want to tell other bees about something exciting going on.

And what they realized is that this hornet species eats bees and it feeds the bees to its young hornet larvae.

So what the orchid is doing is making itself smell like a bee to attract a hornet, to get itself fertilised. And it's doing it by making the same chemicals that the bees would and, thereby, fooling the hornet, so a wonderful example of sexual kind of subversion going on.

The point is that the plant has evolved to have the same genetic pathway or the same synthetic pathway that can produce these chemicals because this is the way in which it gets itself pollinated, and very effectively too by the look of it.

If you want to read it, it was actually published in Current Biology, last year, Jennifer Brodmann, a wonderful bit of science.

Here's the evolutionary madness in full swing!

The plant somehow 'evolved/ figured out' how to perform this miraculous piece of biochemical wizardry!

BEFORE it did so, it wasn't pollinated at all. Remember what Brodmann found from her stakeout:

"And 35 insects paid a visit of which the majority - over 30 - were a kind of hornet."

Only hornets/wasps did the job.

Therefore, in the time BEFORE any wasps/hornets appeared on the scene, the plant was unable to be pollinated! And therefore couldn't exist!

But it did somehow (heh heh!), and then, miracle of miracles, it performed this miraculous biochemical feat, producing this wonderful chemical which attracted the wasps/ hornets and conned them into fertilising its flowers.

Do you see the role that instinct plays in all this?

The wasps MUST HAVE HAD the instincts in them which caused them to be attracted to the chemical - whether produced by the flower or not. How did they get that instinct? And how did it enter their genome?

The plant MUST HAVE HAD THE INSTINCTS and biochemical mechanisms IMPLANTED completely in ONE GO - or it would have perished! No instinct, no chemical. No chemical, no fertilisation. No fertilisation, extinction followeth immediately.

So dear evolutionary friends, explain to us how this happened.

It is a huge pity that this utterly brilliant piece of research, which deals with the wonders of the natural world, and not with test tube Biology, should be made to serve such an idiotic theory.

Just to remind you of the stupidity:

"So what the orchid is doing is making itself smell like a bee to attract a hornet, to get itself fertilised.

Heh heh heh! It knows what a bee smells like, you see, and has figured out that if it makes itself smell like one - how to do that, one wonders! - then it'll get pollinated!!!

And it's doing it by making the same chemicals that the bees would and, thereby, fooling the hornet, so a wonderful example of sexual kind of subversion going on.

Heh heh heh! It figured out how to make the chemicals, guys! I bet there are millions of graduate chemistry students who couldn't figure that one out! And look! It knows about 'subversion'! Quite a brain in that little plant!

The point is that the plant has evolved to have the same genetic pathway or the same synthetic pathway that can produce these chemicals because this is the way in which it gets itself pollinated, and very effectively too by the look of it.

Oooooh! Just look! The plant 'evolved' to have the same 'genetic pathway' or the 'same synthetic pathway' to get itself pollinated!!!!!

Somebody - allegedly intelligent - wrote that nonsense! Should get a PhD in fairy tale writing.

Come on BenV, how can you remain attached to such nonsense?

The Herring Gull Chick and its Mother's Red Spot

by Wilfred Alleyne

How Well-Researched Modern Science
Helps You to See That

DARWIN DIDN’T KNOW THE ANSWER TO

The Most Completely Overlooked and Fatal Question
Evolution Has Ever Had to Face!

A Herring Gull Chick Taps the Red Spot on Its Mother’s Beak. The Mother Then Regurgitates Fish She Has Caught – So the Chick Can Eat and Survive.

But How Does the Chick Know about Tapping Her Beak? And How Does the Mother Know About Regurgitating?

INSTINCT!

( A BBC video showing this is here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p007xvj5)


But How Did this Instinct Start? And How did it get into the Bird?

The instinct was there in the very first Herring Gull – however many millions of years ago that may be. And it was there complete and fully formed: or there would be no Herring Gulls today.

If the chick didn’t tap, it would have starved. If the mother didn’t regurgitate, again the chick would have starved. BOTH BEHAVIOURS had to appear at exactly the same time.

How did this happen?

THIS MAY BE THE MOST STARTLING AND DEVASTATING COLLECTION OF SCIENTIFIC FACTS YOU HAVE EVER READ, DEAR FRIEND...

After all...

Whoever heard of a new-born baby making a 3000+ mile journey home – on its own? Underwater, at that!

That is exactly what young eels do. Their parents migrate from rivers in Europe 3000+ miles south and southwest, down the west coast of Africa, then turn right and swim to the Sargasso Sea. They spawn there, THEN THEY ALL DIE, AND NEVER RETURN to Europe.

The young eels then swim home to Europe, which is 3000+ miles away. With no guides, no adults to lead them home.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8273000/8273877.stm)

How can they possibly manage such a navigational feat? INSTINCT is the only answer that can be given.

But how did the instinct start? And how did it get into the fish in the first place?
And it had to be there perfectly right from the word ‘go’ – or eels would be extinct too.

They HAVE to get to freshwater – there’s none in the Atlantic Ocean - or they would never reach sexual maturity, and the species would perish. So if the navigational instinct misdirected them, they would swim till they died in salt water, in the Falklands, the Azores, the Arctic Ocean or some other unsuitable place.

‘Extinct’ is probably not too strong a description.

Those are just two of the many startling illustrations of instinct in action found in this book. They are beautiful, bizarre, unbelievably complex examples – and evolution cannot account for the origin of a single one of them.

In every case as you will see, if the instinct is absent, or imperfect, species extinction would immediately follow.

HOWEVER, AND THIS IS THE ORIGINAL SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY MADE AND DETAILED IN THIS REMARKABLE BOOK:

WITHOUT INSTINCT, LIFE ITSELF WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE.

Not only these virtuoso displays of startling behaviour like those above, but EVERY SINGLE FUNCTION, of EVERY SINGLE LIVING CELL, in EVERY LIVING ORGANISM depends absolutely on instinct for its survival.

Evolution argues about how legs, wings, lungs and every other organ could have evolved. Did birds’ wings evolve from reptile forelimbs? Did feathers evolve from scales? Did fish develop legs and walk on land?

All the scientific papers written to prove any of the above cases, and many others, are now irrelevant in the light of this discovery. Imagine that! A single discovery uprooting a major scientific theory!

This happens from time to time. A very recent discovery (published in the January 2010 issue of Nature journal – one of the most prestigious scientific journals on the planet) showed that a major plank of the evolution of four-limbed animals (called Tiktaalik) was totally mistaken. Hailed as the first species of fish to walk on land, and one possible ancestor of all tetrapods, imagine the absolute horror all round when tetrapod tracks, some 18 or more million years older than Tiktaalik were found!

The Law of Asynctropy, first formally stated in this book, at a single blow destroys all such arguments and makes them totally irrelevant to the facts of every case ever presented as support for the theory of evolution...

It is the most powerful and destructive single piece of evidence ever raised against evolution, which is helpless in the face of the Law.

Take Respiration as the most important example possible.

Today, we can possibly mix all of the chemicals found in the respiratory cycle in a test tube. But respiration will not take place. The powering instinct is absent, the driving force is missing.

This simple fact has huge spin-off consequences for the existence of life itself, and for the inadequacy of evolution theory, which are drawn out in full in the text.

Instinct crosses the barrier of death, somehow.

As in the case of the eels above, there are innumerable examples where the parents die, and the offspring do the same marvellous things that the parents did, WITHOUT EVER SEEING THEM! The young of the Yucca moth (Pronuba spp) does just that.

Just as remarkably, a wasp (Eumenes spp) somehow knows the gender of its young before it collects food for it to eat when it hatches! And provides an escape route for it if the prey gets too frisky in the mud igloo the mother somehow knows how to build!

And just to add more fuel to the fire, the mother anaesthetises the grubs it catches for the young – why? So the young wasp can have fresh, non-putrefying food to eat.

She then dies. The young wasp never sees its parents – but goes on to do exactly the same things the parents did.

The naturalist who first made these observations was stunned at the ingenuity displayed – but this is not intelligence, but instinct in action.

And we’re back to the original problem. How did the instinct originate? And in some ways even worse, how did it ever enter the genome? (Assuming, of course, that it is located there. If it isn’t then the problems for evolution become even more horrendous than they are already).

Again notice – if the instinct was absent or incomplete in any way, then the species would have perished immediately it first appeared on the planet. If the young couldn’t feed, then a single generation was all that could ever have existed.

If it only had putrefying food, it would perish – and without training in anaesthesiology – the mother is able to inject a non-lethal, paralysing dose of venom into the grubs which are going to be eaten by the young wasp.

And all of that so far, is meaningless without the ‘igloo’ she builds. The young would have to forage for itself, the food grubs would scatter to the four winds, and the species would be extinct.

The full development of this concept is given in the text.

SO FAR, WE HAVE ONLY MENTIONED EXAMPLES FROM THE ANIMAL WORLD. THE PLANT KINGDOM PRESENTS NO SMALLER PROBLEMS.

One of the very biggest problems for evolution, is that plants ‘act’ with purpose. This is most obvious in the reproduction of plants (and animals, as shown in the Section on ‘Reproduction’ in the text).

That wonderful, and extremely common species called Vallisneria is a pest because of its reproductive success. But the way it reproduces is simply mind-blowing. The female flower - UNDERWATER! – produces a stigma which grows up to the surface of the water, and there is produces a substance which creates a small depression in the water round it. The male flower .... well, you’ll just have to read the book, as that would be giving the wonderful game away!

There are other huge problems too. The second biggest, is the fact that the land plants we see everywhere are supposed to have evolved from the algae (like the seaweeds). How did they get on to land and survive? The process as one evolutionist says ‘ must have been very difficult’!

Plants produce roots, which normally grow downwards into the soil and shoots which grow upwards. They could have done the exact oposite – and perished.

What makes them do this? Instinct. And how did that originate and enter the genome?

The flowering plants appear with extraordinary abruptness in the fossil record. Darwin rightly called their appearance ‘that abominable mystery’. That mystery still remains, and the instinctive behaviour of plants is an embarrassment to the evolutionary botanists. Why do they produce flowers, with pollen and ovaries?

Instinctively, in order to reproduce – because they do not learn how to do so – it is inbuilt into them, and that is a definition of instinct. But where does it come from, and how did it enter the genome?

We could go on, drawing wonderful example after wonderful example from the text, and from nature. But you owe it to yourself to read it.

Read it, and ask your evolutionary friends, teachers and professors for comment and explanation of these facts. Make sure they get a complimentary copy (it’s cheap enough for the time being), and let their cup overflow.

Are you tired of the failure of conventional biology to explain how evolution could have occurred?

Do you need examples to confound the evolutionary establishment?

Why not buy a copy today, and equip your armoury with these armour-piercing shells and bombs that can blow evolution sky-high?

Share the facts and concepts with your children. If you believe in evolution, then forewarn them of the coming deluge.

If you don’t, then here is your battle-axe with well-sharpened blade. Teach them about these facts, and let them go fearlessly into the world of evolution theory and demonstrate its inability to provide explanations for these fatal facts.

It is probably not overstating the case to say that just as Darwin’s Origin of Species overturned the existing scientific world opinion, just so this book will destroy Darwinism and everything that goes with it.

As a special introductory price, this will only cost you £4.97. Go here to order.