Darwinism, Creationism... How About Neither?

"My point is to show to people who passively believe Darwinism is true but have never done any serious research to confirm or deny this, that Darwinism has massive flaws and identifying them doesn't have to lead us towards Creationism." 

------------------- 

Mandatory Intellectomy
Sott.net

Is Creationism true? Or is Darwinism true? And why would it have to be one or the other? It seems it hasn't occurred to many people that both might be wrong. Since both of them, despite what they might claim, are more about ideology than science, it shouldn't really be too surprising that science doesn't really support either, at least not in the form they're presented.

Most people who believe in Creationism do so because they were raised Christians, and they believe in the Bible (a bit too literally at that). On the other hand, there seem to be three main reasons why people believe in Darwinism: they've been taught it at school, they only have a vague sense of the underlying science (or the lack thereof, as we'll see), and/or they're convinced Creationism is nonsense and believe their only other option is Darwinism. There are, however, some serious problems with all three of these justifications.

First, the way Darwinism is taught in schools is extremely deceptive and would require an article of its own, but I will outline what's wrong with Darwinism in general and with the way it is presented to us.

Second, the vague knowledge of the science and facts relevant to evolution that most people have actually prevents them from seeing the countless problems of Darwinism. The notion that organisms evolved step by step is easy to swallow when you have no clear idea what exactly these steps would have to be and how exactly the mechanism of evolution is supposed to work. Without a clear sense of what the cell looks like, what it contains, how complex it is, how it works, and what DNA does, you're only left with the talking points that affirm that it all really does work and that science has proved it (and that only ignorant people question it.) You rarely get to hear how flimsy this science actually is, how elusive the proofs are, and how many scientists disagree with the mainstream narrative. Anti-Darwinian ideas are often literally banned from schools, usually on the false premise that they're not scientific. True scientific reasoning is sorely lacking in Darwinism itself however.

Third, Darwinism and Creationism aren't our only choices. This is not an election where you have to choose between two candidates. Just like with a choice between two presidential candidates, if you allow yourself to be convinced that those are your only options, you've already lost. The assumptions that anyone who isn't a Darwinist must be a Creationist and that if you're not a Creationist, you have to be a Darwinist, are false. 

There's Creationism, there's Darwinism, and then there's the truth. This rarely noticed third option is what I want to focus on in this article. And to find the truth, we must identify the lies. I won't talk about Creationism, because it's based on a fictional book and it's about trying to fit facts into the book's narrative. Besides, no amount of proof will move Creationists from their beliefs. My point is to show to people who passively believe Darwinism is true but have never done any serious research to confirm or deny this, that Darwinism has massive flaws and identifying them doesn't have to lead us towards Creationism. 

Read more

Scientists From Around the World Call for Immediate Halt to ‘Genetically Altered Children’

Derrick Broze
The Mind Unleashed 

Scientists and ethicists from around the world are warning of the consequences of failing to implement a temporary global halt on gene editing of human eggs, embryos, and sperm. 

In a letter to the journal Nature, 18 scientists and ethicists from seven countries called for a global moratorium on the type of gene editing that can result in genetically altered babies. The letter was prompted by a 2018 announcement by a Chinese scientist declaring the birth of the world’s first gene-edited twin babies.

“The 18 signatories of this call include scientists and ethicists who are citizens of 7 countries. Many of us have been involved in the gene-editing field by developing and applying the technology, organizing and speaking at international summits, serving on national advisory committees and studying the ethical issues raised.”

Fears of “designer babies” have been on the rise in the last decade as scientists move closer to producing embryos which have been genetically modified to produce children with specific, desirable characteristics. This vision was once the exclusive domain of Hollywood movies like Gattaca, but now, a future where parents are able to pick and choose exactly how their child’s genes express themselves is eerily close.

Specifically, the group is calling for a moratorium on germline cells—in this case egg or sperm cells—that can then be inherited and “could have permanent and possibly harmful effects on the species.”

“To begin with, there should be a fixed period during which no clinical uses of germline editing whatsoever are allowed,” the scientists write. “As well as allowing for discussions about the technical, scientific, medical, societal, ethical and moral issues that must be considered before germline editing is permitted, this period would provide time to establish an international framework.”

From that point on, individual nations will choose their own paths. The scientists predict that some nations may choose to continue a moratorium indefinitely or a permanent ban. They also call on any nation that chooses to allow specific applications of germline editing to first give public notice and engage in an “international consideration about the wisdom of doing so.” The group also calls for a “transparent evaluation” to determine if germline editing is justified and for a nation to gain a “broad societal consensus” over the appropriateness of the editing.

Read more

Life existed on Earth 300mn years earlier than previously thought - new findings

Comment: And that's probably a conservative estimate...

--------------------------

RT

Scientists believe that life may have existed 300 million years earlier on Earth than previously thought. They analyzed data from tiny pieces of a mineral in Australia and managed to date them back to when the planet was just 400 million years old.

 

The researchers were looking at pieces of the mineral zircon, in Western Australia. After taking the samples back to the lab, they found a ‘chemo-fossil’ or a certain mix of carbon isotopes, a study in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences stated.

Think of it as "the gooey remains of biotic life or anything more complicated," said study co-author Mark Harrison, a UCLA geochemistry professor, as cited by AP.

They were able to determine this because carbon has different weights. The carbon residue in the pieces of zircon had a greater percentage of lighter carbon, which scientists usually manage to find in remnants of life, just as if your finger decayed, Harrison said.

Read more
 

Missing link? African bones predate earliest-known humans by 400,000yrs

RT

A newly discovered fossil has shaken up science’s view of human evolution and could be the missing link between apes and humans: 400,000 years older than the oldest human bone found, the discovery could entirely rewrite our story.

For decades scientists have been stumped on the gap between humans that walked bent over and those that walked upright. Who was the mysterious ancestor that joined the ape-like Australopithecus with the human-like Homo? We could be looking at an answer. It now appears the timeline for earliest upright humans goes back not to 2.3 – but to 2.8 million years. 

Read more  (+video)

The Lost Tribe of Palau

"An incredible find on a tiny chain of islands in Micronesia provides what at first appeared to be human bones, but archaeologists quickly realised they were too small and unusual. The problem is the bones are only a few thousand years old... Was it a new species of previously unknown human? Was it a different species entirely? The biggest problem is the Islands of Palau are so remote there is no explanation as to how these human-like creatures ever arrived there in the first place. One of the most remarkable archaeological finds in history, the lost tribe of Palau contains a secret that changes our entire view of evolution..."