“Life is Older than Earth Itself” — Moore’s Law (Today’s Most Popular) Posted: 23 Aug 2013 08:42 AM PDT
Excerpt: “The team takes Moore’s Law back to zero complexity and the origin of life, by measuring the complexity of life and the rate at which it has increased from prokaryotes to eukaryotes to more complex creatures such as worms, fish, amphibians and eventually mammals.”
For contrast, we have the article linked above, which contributes nothing to the understanding of anything. What’s worse… it begins and ends with an untestable hypothesis (akin to a “Just-So” story). It is, in a phrase, “evolution for dummies.” If you are among those who doesn’t accept what’s portrayed in yet another rendition of academic nonsense, now is the time to declare that you are a creationist, before someone else does it for you. (Whatever happened to the contributor Clarence ‘Sonny’ Williams?) See: Kohl is a creationist mole on this list…, or anything else Williams wrote about me.
For contrast, see anything contributed by Mark Flinn: I prefer to focus and learn from the positive contributions that I can get from others… I guess I don’t really understand why Jim has such a visceral objection to random mutations providing genetic variation for the little changes that eventually provide the differences among species… I’ve repeatedly explained, my objection is because there’s no model for that, but the lack of any model has not been discussed.
Excerpted from the article linked above: “The application of Linear regression of genetic complexity on a log scale extrapolated back to just one base pair…” Moving forward to changes in base pairs that enable nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled protein biosynthesis and degradation with amino acid substitutions along a continuum of ecological, social, neurogenic, and socio-cognitive niche construction manifested in the adaptive evolution of our brain and behavior requires a leap of faith in something.
Although articles like the one linked above seem to inspire that faith, whatever inspired beliefs accompany that “faith” seem to be kept quiet for fear of exposure that the believers believe in NOTHING, or that EVERYTHING in the cosmos, including the origin of life, is automagical (i.e., life comes from base pairs). As an alternative, Darwin’s ‘conditions of life’ are obviously nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled, which means that Darwin was a creationist and that evolutionary psychologists are probably largely unaware they are followers of an unchanged creationist paradigm.
Addendum posted 9/8/13
This fact is perhaps inadvertently noted by Nessa Carey, who is a visiting professor at Imperial College London and the author of The Epigenetics Revolution. In her brief essay “The Genome in Turmoil” she wrote:
“The French naturalist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck picked up on this concept in the early 19th century, proposing that organisms acquire characteristics during their lifetime that can be passed on to offspring, although his ideas were widely discredited by Darwin’s successors. When evidence supporting complex patterns of epigenetic modification emerged in the 20th century, many biologists remained resistant.”
Discredited by Darwin’s successors, but not by Darwin? Again, Darwin appears to be a Creationist, who thought that his ‘conditions of life’ were passed on to offspring. After evidence of epigenetic modification by olfactory/pheromonal input was thorougly detailed, what might Darwin’s successors and their minions be waiting for? Why do many biologists resist the most obvious facts well into the 21st century? Darwin was a Creationist, and his successors bastardized his theory into an unrecognizable form of mutation-driven evolution that has never been scientifically supported by evidence from any species.
