EVOLUTION REFUTED

The Blind Watchmaker Opens the Lily Flower

2011-07-03T00:20:00.000-07:00

This is a beautiful water pitcher.

Notice the design, the symmetry and the elegance. How it all fits together perfectly. How it is appealing to the beholder. How it is functional.

I certainly cannot imagine any glass factory producing this pitcher via a robot producing randomized actions. Indeed, I cannot imagine a million robots in one million glass factories, working 24 hours a day for 100 billion years, coming up with anything close.

Here you have a better look at the lip: Notice the beautiful symmetry. Consider the thinking that must have gone into this production. Clearly, a master craftsman was at work. Possibly a mold was used that was carefully calibrated to yield this symmetry. It is an intelligent production.

Now, what happens when we look at nature? When we see symmetry, purpose, function, beauty?

According to Oxford biologist and author of The Blind Watchmaker Richard Dawkins: "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." (Emphasis added).

Now, this is all very interesting.

Can someone really consider the possibility of a "blind watchmaker"? The gears of the watch are so small and intricate, and they require such precision, that someone who is blind would not be able to put a watch together, one which works and which is beautiful to admire. Not a chance in a billion years.

To believe in the possibility of a blind watchmaker is to exhibit a faith that is beyond the realm of reason. And just like it is impossible for a blind person to build a beautiful, technically exquisite watch, I claim that it is likewise impossible for blind forces to bring about the natural world that exists all around us, with every creature and living entity exhibiting wonderful design, function and beauty far exceeding that of the most beautiful and intricate watch.

Let us look at this lily.

We admire the beauty, the symmetry.

We love the fragrance.

Let's take a look at how it opens up.

Here you see two of the outer petals opening up. They are sealed or closed at the bottom.

The seam that we thought was part of the outer petals actually belongs to the inner petal that is underneath and between the two outer petals.

Each of the three seams that are on the outside (only one of which is shown in this photo) belongs to the petal that is hidden between the two outer petals.

In this photo of a giant red lily you can see this amazing phenomenon.

You can see how the seam has a wedge on each side just wide enough and thin enough to snuggly hold the two outer petals in place as the flower is growing.

At the right moment, the seam releases its grip and the outer petals come out smoothly -- no ragged edges-- showing how tenderly they were held by the seam.

The outer petals are held tightly at the base, thus giving the petals the support they need to fan out but not droop.

Here you have it!

The perfectly designed masterpiece.

No blind watchmaker at work here. It is too beautiful, too symmetric, too precise in its design to be a blind production.

This is an awesome production. And, for those who are not blind to it, it is another grand manifestation of the Creator who made it.

Intelligent Design Enables Science

2011-03-08T04:21:00.001-08:00

Every researcher working in an experimental science, e.g., physics, chemistry, genetics, etc., has a deep intuition that research can reveal the inner workings of the matter under investigation. There is an appreciation that everywhere there is cause and effect and that if we are intelligent enough and do our work well, we will unravel the secrets of nature.

We may not admit to a higher intelligence since such a recognition might impact the way we lead our lives. But if there were not a higher intelligence behind every single natural phenomenon experimental scientists could not very well carry out their work. There would be no reason to presuppose organization and function at every level.

The Waggle Dance of the Forager Honeybee

2011-01-30T12:31:00.000-08:00

Learned Behavior, Random Mutation or the Greatness of the Creator?

After Shabbos I simulated for a few of our guests how the forager honeybee communicates the direction of the flower source to her nest mates. I asked the group whether this phenomenon is something that could have evolved over hundreds of millions of years, something the bees could have learned on their own, or whether it could have come about by random mutation and natural selection. You can hear their responses in the above video clip.

The matter is clear though: it is NOT possible for the behavior described here to be a learned or adapted behavior that evolved over hundreds of millions of years. There is only one reasonable conclusion any honest evaluator will make: it is the programmed behavior of the Creator of the universe.

A Sophisticated System of Communication

After returning to the hive, the forager bee communicates the direction of a flower source by the direction of her “waggle run” during her figure 8 “waggle dance.” Her nest mates know that if she waggles straight upward toward the sky on a vertical honeycomb, she is signaling that when they leave the hive they are to go in the direction of the sun. If her waggle run is 30 degrees to the left of the vertical direction, they know that when they leave the hive they are to fly in a direction 30 degrees to the left of the direction of the sun. The specifics of the process are as follows:

The forager bee has a built-in guidance system that informs her of the angle between the direction of the sun and the flower source, which can be as far as eight miles away from the beehive.

She is able to copy this horizontal angle or otherwise store it in memory to the extent that she can duplicate the angle on a vertical plane.

She will duplicate the angle to the right or to the left of the upward vertical direction, depending on whether the flower source is to the right or the left of the direction of the sun.

Her nest mates know that a waggle dance in the upward direction is a signal to fly in the direction of the sun.

If the waggle run is not directly upward, her nest mates have the ability to “measure” or otherwise gauge the angle that the forager bee is making away from the upward vertical direction.

Her nest mates are able to recognize whether this angle is to the right or the left of the upward vertical direction.

Her nest mates understand that the angle of the waggle run as measured to the right or the left of the upward vertical direction indicates the angle they must follow on the horizontal plane to the right or the left, respectively, of the direction to the sun.

On leaving the hive, her nest mates are able to replicate this angle and thereby find the flower source.

...it is truly amazing...honeybees able to duplicate angles from the horizontal plane to the vertical plane, able to change the reference line from which the angle is measured, able to communicate and receive this information via a dance...all without a compass and straightedge or protractor...and even in the dark!

Scientists, with their high intellectual capacity and after extensive observation, have been able to break the communication code the bees use, but it has not been easy to do so. Indeed, it took Van Frisch more than 20 years of his life to do so; this discovery was considered an astonishing accomplishment.

Can "natural selection" explain this behavior?

And yet, I am sure there are evolutionists who will bring up the idea of "natural selection" to explain the bees' system of communication. However, this proposition is not one that reasonable people can accept. Why?

For something to be "selected," it first has to occur. Natural selection has no ability to form anything new; it has no creative powers. The best it can do is to maintain a random mutation or change that has occurred in the organism. There is no reason to suppose, therefore, that a random waggle dance in the vertical direction would be perceived by its mates as a signal to travel in the direction of the sun, for the waggle behavior to be maintained.

Can Darwin be cited to deny the existence of the Creator?

Although evolutionist are fond of denying the existence of a Creator, and they cite Darwin on their behalf, Darwin himself in his closing paragraph to The Origin of the Species (second edition), says, "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one..."

I will not argue with Darwin on the existence of the Creator.

Videos Showing the Waggle Dance

From this Video

"The forager bee communicates the direction of the flower source. It does this by a dance. This dance communicates direction and distance. Since the instructions for direction are made in reference to the location of the sun, and since the sun moves 1 degrees to the west every 4 minutes, how is it possible for the bee to provide accurate directions? Observations have shown that the bee takes into account the sun's movement. As the forager bee gives directions, every 4 minutes the angle of direction moves one degree to the west. The duration of the dance and the number of vibrations then provide information as to the distance of the flower source. The bees then store just enough nutrients for this distance and set out on their journey."

Please also see this video clip which illustrates beautifully the mapping of the angle.

References

Wolfang H. Kirchner and William F. Towne, The Sensory Basis of the Honeybee's Dance Language, Scientific American, June 1994.

Waggle Dance. Wikipedia.

Biophysicist: Scientist Gabi Avital to be Commended, Not Fired

2010-10-13T07:58:00.001-07:00

by David Lev

Dr. Gabi Avital, the outspoken former Chief Scientist of the Ministry of Education, was let go from his job last week after giving an interview to Ma'ariv, in which he said, among other things, that computers were sometimes a crutch for children, preventing them from learning math skills, and that Darwinism was an unsatisfactory explanation for how the world came to be.

In addition, Dr. Avital took issue with the opinions of scientists who say that global warming is causing major climate change, and also said that the Arabs did not constitute a major demographic threat to Jews.

While the views of Dr. Avital, who had been on the job for 10 months, were well-known, the interview in Maariv he gave at the beginning of the school year was presented in a sensationalist manner. The interview proved to be Dr. Avital's undoing: Throughout September, the media harped on how Dr. Avital's views were at odds with accepted scientific opinion, and at the end of the month, Education Minister Gideon Sa'ar fired him. Scientists who are critical of evolutionary theory are intimidated and silenced in a most intolerant manner. The hounding of Dr. Avital is reminiscent of the persecution by thought police in a totalitarian country.

According to Sa'ar, Dr. Avital's controversial views had nothing to do with his dismissal, but based on statements by prominent scientists, it's clear that his views on science – especially evolution - had a great deal with his firing, says Dr. Lee M. Spe tner, MIT trained biophysicist and author of Not By Chance, a critique of Darwin's theory of random mutations and other works.

“Scientists who are critical of evolutionary theory are intimidated and silenced in a most intolerant manner,” says Dr. Spetner. “From what I have read, all Dr. Avital suggested was that students be exposed to opinions critical to Darwin's theory of evolution. Hounding Dr. Avital for that statement is reminiscent of the persecution by thought police in a totalitarian country.”

While mainstream scientific opinion treats Darwin's views on evolution as sacrosanct, Dr. Spetner finds good reason to dispute them. “Although there is ample evidence that populations of organisms change and adapt to new environmental conditions, there is no compelling evidence that life arose by chance and evolved by natural means from some simple primitive cell into all the varieties of life that exist today,” he says.

“The significant difference between inanimate matter and a living organism is the information it contains and the way it uses that information. To establish a theory that would account for the emergence of the complex life of today would require a theory as to how that information got built up through natural means. Evolutionary biologists have not seriously addressed this crucial issue.”

Thus, he says, Dr. Avital was on legitimate ground when he said that students should be exposed to alternative views – but as he was stepping on the toes of scientists who brook no contrary views on the issue, Sa'ar, subjected to severe pressure, fired Dr. Avital.

Besides evolution, Dr. Avital challenged yet another “darling” of scientific orthodoxy – global warming. contrary to the contention of global warming enthusiasts, Dr. Avital said in the Maariv interview, “There is no evidence to correlate between the concentration of carbon dioxide and the rise in temperature. On the contrary, Al Gore's movie (“An Inconvenient Truth”) showed how the rise in temperature preceded the rise of carbon dioxide.”

But here, too, the vociferous orthodox view on global warming has prevailed, with scientists pressing Sa'ar to get rid of Dr. Avital. “His views on anthropogenic global warming represent another source of intimidation to follow a faulty pseudoscientific doctrine of a majority. Most of the leading climate scientists (those who are not feeding off the enormous funding of the global-warming bandwagon) say that there is no valid evidence of anthropogenic global warming,” says Dr. Spetner.

In the end, Dr. Avital's views on science, as well as his views on politics were just too much for Sa'ar. in the interview, the scientist criticized the government's policy on foreign workers, said that leftist writers demoralized the nation, and that leftist groups like the New Israel Fund received money from European countries, and “simply wish to fan the flames of controversy and foment unrest in Israel."

Rather than defend an independent-minded man of science, Sa'ar dropped him like a hot potato, in order to ensure “industrial quiet” for himself and avoid the barbs of those opposed to Avital, said the scientist-author.

That is a shame, added Dr. Spetner. “I think that rather than firing Dr Avital for his views on evolution and global warming, he should be commended for his courage to buck the popular trend and for courageously coming out on the side of what he thinks is right.”

(IsraelNationalNews.com)

Sophisticated Sonar of Wild Owls

2010-09-13T08:00:00.000-07:00

From the text of this video

This owl has the ultimate amplifier. It can detect a high frequency rustle which is too weak for our hearing. Its face acts like a satellite dish. The dish is formed by a ring of stiff feathers which collect and channel the sound. The dish focuses on the ears. It is like have a giant hand cupped behind each ear. To pinpoint the sound of the rustle, the owl must tune its receiver. The eyes automatically follow. The sortie begins.

The owl's flight is absolutely silent. Soft velvety feather have serrated edges that simply caress the air. As a result no wing flap interferes with the lemming's transmission.

The talons are raised into the line of the sound. The claws on each talon are extended. Perfect for catching cylindrical prey. The lemming's number is up. When you are dealing with senses this sharp and specialized, the defenses of snow can be useless.

My comments:

Which "evolved" first: the sonar and amplifier mechanism or the feathers with serrated edges?

Do we suppose it developed its sonar capability first? If so, of what value was it since as soon as it started to fly, its wings would disperse the sound waves and the owl would then lose contact with the exact location of the sound? And even if it the sonar capability were of some value, how is it that the next series of random mutations were specifically those dealing with the feathers, while everything else about the owl ostensibly remained unaffected?

Certainly no one wishes to propose that the owl had a problem, namely, the action of its feathers while flying was disrupting the source of the sound and that "nature" then went about "solving" this problem through evolution. If one does propose this, is one not in effect proposing that mutations are purposeful, goal-oriented, rather than random?

Even if one were to say that there was the slightest random mutation in the feathers that led to less sound disturbance, and that this therefore provided a survival advantage to this particular owl, how does one explain the next "fortuitous" random mutation upon one of the descendants of the above owl, which further enhanced the value of the first mutation, and so on down the line in sequence, each mutation enhancing the prior one in one of the descendants, so that today we have the owl which is the subject of the above video?

If such a series of mutations could be shown to have occurred, rather than it being simply a matter of speculation, would it not be more logical to propose that it was genetically programmed rather than random?

Note: I am not proposing that evolution of species exists and that it is genetically programmed. Rather, I am suggesting that evolution through genetic programming would make more sense than evolution through random mutations with natural selection from among those mutations.

The Miracle in the Human Brain

2010-06-27T19:37:00.000-07:00

From the script of this video,

"Eventually there will be trillions and trillions of connections between cells charged with electrical impulses...every cell in its place, every link between cells carefully organized, nothing random, nothing arbitrary...

Below are the words of Susan McConnell of Stanford University (in the video)

"What we would really like to understand is how the brain during development generates millions and millions of neurons, sends them to the right position in the brain and somehow instructs each of those individual nerve cells to form very, very specific connections with one another...

"You can think about development like a play, a play that follows a script that is written down by the genetic code, but it has no director, it has no producer, it has a bunch of actors that have never spoken their lines before, despite all this you pull the play off. To me, that is a miracle."

My own observations:

In speaking about trillions of connections between brain cells, none of which are random or arbitrary, each individual nerve cell having a very specific function, it is difficult to believe how anyone could believe that this came about by a process of random mutation and natural selection.

What is being described in this video is the most sophisticated organization and purposeful behavior that one can image. Yes, it is "a play that follows a script." Who is the author of this script? Professor McConnell asserts that it has "no director and no producer and that the actors have never spoken their lines before."

The professor says that the script is "written down by the genetic code." Is the genetic code an author, a director or a producer that is capable of writing down a script? Possibly we should be asking where the genetic code came from.

Once we understand the incredible complexity that exists in the brain and the mathematical impossibility of this complexity arising by chance, no matter how many billions or trillions or quadrillions of years one would like to allot to random rare mutations and their permutations and natural selection, one comes to the inevitable conclusion that there IS a director and producer, but certainly not a human one. The process, as Professor McConnell says is indeed a miracle. Guess who performs miracles?

The Wasp and the Scientist both Fooled by the Orchid

2010-01-04T00:10:00.000-08:00

In the November 2009 issue of Discover magazine, in an article titled, "The Entangled Bank," Carl Zimmer describes how a certain species of flowers, called tongue orchids, is able to produce the scent that "precisely mimics the pheromone made by the female of the species Lissopimpla excelsa, commonly known as the dupe wasp (page 45)."

He goes on to explain how the male wasp is fooled by the scent of this orchid into thinking it has found its mate and so he searches for her, only encouraged by the coloring of the part of the flower that exudes the aroma, which color resembles that of the female dupe wasp. Furthermore, when the male wasp lands on the flower it finds that its body "fits snuggly against" the part of the flower that exudes the aroma. Completely fooled, the male wasp extends its sexual pincers into the flowers and leaves his sperm there. Hence, concludes Zimmer, "The dupe wasp had truly been duped."

Zimmer points out that were it not for this ability of the tongue orchid to fool the wasp, the flower would become extinct since tongue orchids require the pollen from another tongue orchid to fertilize its eggs. As the wasp tries to mate with a flower it picks up some of the pollen from that flower which it then drops unto the next one when it is again fooled into mating with it.

Zimmer than says that although this deception is new to science (apparently discovered by Anne Gaskett of Cornell University), "it is just the latest twist in an evolutionary process Charles Darwin described 150 years ago."

If the reader of this blog were to read the article and substitute the phrase, "it is just the latest discovery of the wonders of Creation," it would read just as well. In fact, it would read better.

Consider the following, Zimmer gives no evidence to support the idea that what he has described is the result of a process of evolution. He simply presupposes it: Somehow the plant had the technical ability to produce the scent that matched the pheromone of the female dupe wasp. For this to occur one would think that the plant must first somehow have knowledge of the world outside of itself to establish goals to entrap the male dupe wasp: these goals would include producing exactly the right scent, developing exactly the correct color of the female wasp where it wanted the male wasp to land, and creating a physical space to enable the male was to fit snugly against it. Once it had these goals, it would then need the technical capacity to produce the desired scent...

One could also propose that all of these changes came about by fortuitous "random mutations"... if so, many questions arise, not the least of which, How did the tongue orchid survive before this occurred?, since as Zimmer notes, "If it could not fool the wasp, the plant would become extinct."

Rather, it would seem to me than an unbiased observer, in hearing about how the tongue orchid entraps the male dupe wasp, will marvel at this wonder of Nature and will have one more reason to be in awe of the Creator.

Did Darwin Believe in His Own Theory?

2009-01-01T00:26:00.000-08:00

Note: The letter below is essentially the letter that was submitted to the ngsforum, in response to the article, "The Man who Wasn't Darwin" published in the December issue of National Geographic. The letter was addressed to Chris Johns, the editor.

Mr. Johns,

In your Editor's Note you comment on Wallace's ability to record ever-so-slight variations in size, color and patterns on golden birdwing butterflies and you note that then Wallace "connected the dots." Are you suggesting that from these variations one can infer a theory of evolution of one species from another? How are these variations different from that of human beings who also differ in color, size and features?

In the very interesting article by David Quanmmen, I note the following: on page 132 he states, "Why does a giraffe have a long neck? Because the short-necked ones failed to leave offspring." He leaves unanswered whether such a thing as a short-necked giraffe ever existed. He also does not address how the giraffe happened to have such a long neck when all the other creatures in the same vicinity were apparently quite happy without one.

On the same page, he notes that Darwin had composed the Origin of the Species, "hastily after being shocked into action by Wallace's paper" which was received by Darwin in June 1858. Rather, Darwin already had a good draft going back to 1844. When he was urged to publish his manuscript in 1856, he had remarked to Joseph Hooker, "Do not flatter yourself that I shall not yet live to finish the Barnacles, and then make a fool of myself on the subject of the species." In other words, you hear Darwin himself expressing doubts about his own theory, which is why he had not published it for 12 years. I can image that he may have been thinking, among other things, "It is it really reasonable to say that a bear over time will become a whale, or that a fish that glides in the air above the water will develop wings?"

It is evidently true that once he received the letter from Wallace, "On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely from their Original Type," Darwin proceeded to publish his manuscript. He did not wish someone else to beat him in publishing the ideas and theory he had entertained. One can only wonder if Darwin would have ever published his papers, with the doubts that he had about his own theory, if the letter from Wallace had never arrived.

Additional comments not included in the letter to the National Geographic:

That Darwin himself must have had doubts about his statement, "I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale," since it was dropped from later editions of the Origin of the Species. (Why Darwin would only mention the mouth, and none of the other inconceivably complex modifications that would have to take place to turn a bear into a whale is not clear. It is also not clear why the assumption is simply that a whale has a larger mouth than a bear, as opposed to a mouth that is totally different in structure and function, and not just in size)

Even current editions of the Origin, however, still have, "...it is conceivable that flying-fish, which now glide through the air, slightly rising and turning by the aid of their fluttering fins, might have modified into perfectly winged animals." (It is difficult to conceive of how Darwin could have imagined, even on the basis of his own thinking, how the few seconds of flight would have allowed enough time for the fins to develop into wings, even if such a thing were possible without the impediment of limited time and the impediment of living in the water.)

Darwin and Wallace: Letter to the Editor of the National Geographic

2008-12-31T04:22:00.000-08:00

This blog entry has been moved to:

Did Darwin Believe in His Own Theory. Link below.

http://evolutionrefuted.blogspot.com/search/label/Did%20Darwin%20Believe%20in%20his%20Own%20Theory%3F

The Balancing Mechanism of Trees

2008-02-27T15:07:00.000-08:00

Another Example of Random Mutation in Nature?

Photo by Henry Borenson
Have you ever wondered how every tree knows to balance itself? If one branch is extended in this direction, the next one is extended in another direction, and so on. There are hundreds of millions of trees on planet earth; no two trees are the same. Yet, each one knows to balance itself. (The tree may bend, but it will remain upright.)

You will never have a branch grow too fast and increase in thickness and weight, before the tree is ready for it. Some branches can weigh several tons. Yet, the trunk of the tree, the roots and the node which connects the branch to the tree will have first grown to support that branch. What are the physical forces acting at the node that enables it to support a branch of several tons? Why does the branch not break off right there?

Certainly no one would assume or think that each tree just "happens" to stand on its own with its myriads of branches! Clearly, the tree, as it grows, obeys certain laws. These laws are built into the seed of the tree. In other words, that seed contains a most sophisticated program that will enable the tree that will grow from it to be distinct from every other tree, but still have all the characteristics of a tree, including the ability to balance and to support its branches. What is that program? Is there a scientist who can write it down on paper? And if not, if there is not a scientist who is able to fathom the intricacies involved in that program, how are they able to say that this program is the result of millions of random mutations?

Even if scientists were able to discover the program that is operative in guaranteeing that the tree will balance, how did the tree acquire that program? How did all trees acquire it? Did the balancing program exist prior to the existence of trees, from some other living organism that trees "evolved" from, and from which all trees inherited the program? What was that other living organism and what was it doing with a balancing mechanism when it wasn't yet a tree?

Or, did each tree, of the many hundreds of species of trees, each acquire the ability to balance itself by random mutations until success was achieved? How did each tree "know" that it was supposed to grow vertically? What did trees look like before they were able to balance? Did they grow horizontally on the ground? If that was the case, how does a tree lying on the ground "learn" that it needs to grow upward, against gravity, and how does it go about restructuring itself to accomplish this goal? How does each species of tree learn to do so?

If neither of these options sounds very reasonable, how did that program get into the seed?

Photo by Henry Borenson

The Random Mutation of the Cat

2008-02-22T03:06:00.001-08:00

by Henry Borenson, Ed.D.

This cat is the product of random mutations over millions and millions of years. Yes, she is the result of millions of tiny mutations, each one non-directed, non-goal oriented, not predictable, that is completely random, over an immense period of time.

Photo by Henry Borenson

She is the product of such an almost infinite series of random mutations, including her eyes, her nose, her ears, her furry covering, her ability to focus both eyes and produce one image, her respiratory system, her circulatory system, her digestive system, her excretory system, her neurological system, her ability to know when she needs to go to the bathroom as well as her ability to expel the wastes her body knows it does not need (and her knowing to cover it up), her ability to reproduce (he, not pictured here, is also a product of similar random mutations, as well as their ability to have sexual organs that match each other perfectly--sorry, I cannot tell you if he evolved first, or she did, or both evolved at exactly the same time, but with different sexual organs), and yes, also her beautiful eyes and tender appearance. (Thank goodness she did not evolve to have the voice of a rooster--that just would not do; it would not have been anywhere as pleasant as the kitten's tender "Meow" as she purrs with rapture in your arms. )

Oopps...I just realized an error. Not all you see here is the product of random mutations over millions and millions of years...certainly not the ribbon and the pendant. Even millions of years would not chance the ribbon into anything else. Only something that is already alive can experience random mutations and, over millions and millions of years, become a beautiful cat with its own, fully functioning, highly advanced respiratory, circulatory, digestive, excretory, reproductive, and neurological systems.

I realize I left out something important--the cat mentioned above resulted from the random mutations that were "naturally selected"; millions of other random mutations did not make the grade to become part of the cat. Nonetheless, since we have the Fundamental Principle that "Nothing can be selected if it did not first occur," we see that after each natural selection step there existed a subsequent fortuitous mutation, and that the sum of these accidental but fortuitous (for the cat) mutations, led over time to the cat you see above (actually, to the real thing; the above is only her photo.)

Wouldn't it be interesting to come back in a few hundred million years to see what she (and he) have become, through their progeny? Who knows where random mutation and natural selection will take this species? It is fine with me if she mutates to the point that she can speak and understand--after all, she is around humans quite a bit. But I would hate for her to no longer be a kitten--that would be a big loss for all mankind.

Copyright 2008, HenryBorenson, Ed.D.

Kindness or "Random Mutation"

2008-01-03T00:34:00.000-08:00

by Henry Borenson

Notice the wonderful way that all of our fruits are packaged by "nature." Have you ever seen one that is not packaged to protect the fruit inside? Notice how each packaging is different, yet how beautiful they all are, and how diverse in texture and color.

And how clever is the packaging of the banana! How simple to just peel off and eat. We must be so grateful that the peel or "outer packaging" with which the food is provided to us, does not stick to the fruit! Please examine this packaging next time you eat a banana. Isn't it so convenient...you will know from which side to begin the peeling, and you will be able to peel all the way to the bottom but still hold the banana by the "holder" provided to you at the bottom. Notice how the packaging of the banana so PERFECTLY fits its function!

But, you know, it is not just these fruits that nature kindly gives to us with an outer packaging to protect its content. Every fruit is presented to us with better packaging than that which we find in the supermarket with products produced by human intelligence.

In the supermarket, we can sometimes get an idea that the contents is spoiled by looking at the packaging. For example, if a can of juice looks like it is about to explode, it would be a very good idea to stay away from it. But generally speaking, we cannot tell from the outside of the milk carton, for instance, that the milk is spoiled (unless we looked for dates on the carton). With the fruits provided by "nature," anyone can see when the banana is rotten, or when it is not yet ripe (since it will be green). Likewise, with any fruit—the outer packaging will tell us when it is ready to be eaten so that the eater does not get sick. For the fruits provided by nature, there is no requirement that the consumer be able to read the contents to determine its freshness!

Yet some wish to say – these are mostly scientists who believe in neo-Darwinian evolution- that the fact that all fruits come to us with an outer packaging to protect its contents, and to let us know when the food inside is ready to be eater, is simply a matter of "random mutations" combined with "natural selection." In other, words it is purely through a series of accidents that every fruit developed an outer packaging to protect its contents, and with each fruit the outer packaging is specifically suited to that particular fruit. For example, it would not be of much help to us if the banana had come with the packaging of the walnut: we would crack the packaging and have a big mess in our hands! How tender is the banana: without a packaging, we would not be able to enjoy the fruit at all, hence the banana peel is needed; if the packaging consisted of a hard shell, we again would not be able to enjoy the banana!

How fortuitous is the process of random mutation that it can be so intelligent and purposeful, and have the foresight to protect the fruit, which is the part that is nourishing to humans, with just the right outer packaging, and then to have this packaging serve an additional purpose, namely to let us know when we can partake of this delicacy! How wondrous indeed!

RANDOM MUTATION AND NATURAL SELECTION

2007-12-27T00:21:00.000-08:00

Why the neo-Darwinan theory of evolution is flawed at its core
by Henry Borenson

An explanation of the living world around us as one that arose by "random mutation" and "random selection," as the neo-Darwinists would have people believe, is essentially a flawed explanation. You will hear statements to the effect that the added element of "natural selection" means that we are not simply saying that every living organism became what it is by pure accident. Richard Dawkins has emphasized that the element of "natural selection" takes the process out of the realm of accident. You will be told that the process of natural selection keeps what is better, stronger, or most useful for the living entity in question.

YET, PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT NOTHING CAN BE SELECTED IF IT DOES NOT FIRST OCCUR!!! The theory of random mutation asserts that the innovation occurred on its own "randomly," then it was selected. This would mean that all the "innovations" that led to a rose, a cat, an eye or a hand occurred on their own, by accident. Simply put, it would mean that a series of millions of complete accidents created the wonderful living world we see around us containing millions of species, each of which is perfect and intelligent in its functioning. WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT FROM THIS PERSPECTIVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT TO BELIEVE IN THE NEO-DARWINIAN THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS TO HAVE A FAITH IN THE POWER OF ACCIDENTS TO PRODUCE INTELLIGENT, WELL-COORDINATED, PURPOSEFUL SYSTEMS. SUCH A FAITH, I CLAIM, IS BEYOND THE REALM OF REASON.

Human Intelligence vs. Infinite Intelligence

2007-12-03T14:23:00.000-08:00

I asked my guests at the Shabbos table: If you took all the scientists in the world, including Nobel prize winners, and you provided them with all the laboratories in the world, and all the soil -- as much as they would want-- and all the oxygen, water and sunlight, can they produce a grape? They ask if we would provide them with a seed. I reply, "No." They say it is not possible.

I then repeat the question: How about a walnut? They still say, "No!"

Photo by Henry Borenson

I then inquire about a flower: Can they produce one of these? They respond, "Most definitely not!"

I then proceed, "But if you had the right seed, could you produce any one of these?" They say, "Yes." "Hence," I continue, "we see that the intelligence in a single seed, to accomplish this particular purpose, exceeds the combined intelligence of all the scientists in the world put together. What is the intelligence that gave the seed this ability, this program? It must be a level of intelligence much higher than that which is found in the combined intelligence of one million scientists. This level of intelligence must be infinitely higher. It is only appropriate to call this intelligence 'Infinite Intelligence.' (Such a level of intelligence deserves capitalization.) It is only this level of intelligence that had the ability to program each of the seeds to carry out its functions and produce a grape, a walnut and a flower.

Copyright Henry Borenson, 2008

WHY DOES THE ORANGE HAVE SEGMENTS?

2007-12-02T19:44:00.000-08:00

by Henry Borenson

One way to think about this question is to ask, "If someone were designing the orange, why would it be a good idea for it to have segments?"

The segments make it much easier to eat. I can eat one segment at a time. Each segment is individually packaged.

Without the segments, if I were to bite into the orange I would have a shower of juice upon me.

The apple is not packaged into segments. But then, I do not need it to be packaged this way. I can take one bite out of the apple and there is no shower of juices upon me. The consistency of the apple does not necessitate segments.

One can think about this and say that the orange and apple became what they are by random mutation. That is, that on their own, without any thought for the eater, the orange developed segments and the apple did not. And that the orange and the apple also developed the outer packaging to protect the food. And that they also, without any thought of the eater in mind, developed the ability to turn from green to orange to notify the eater that the fruit is ready to be eaten. Furthermore, one might say that by complete accident they possess nutrition for mankind. One can say all these things, but can one really believe it?

Evolutionists will say that plants and fruits existed prior to mankind. But they will say that these fruits and plants evolved by random mutations. What is a random mutation? It is a complete unexpected accident. Evolutionists will say that the better ones, the ones that provide a greater benefit, will then be "selected." But nothing can be selected if it does not first appear. The appearance, the random mutation, is a complete accident. Evolutionist will not say that these mutations are directed by some higher power to achieve a certain purpose. Rather, they will say, these are "random" mutations, that is, they occurred on their own with no purpose in mind.

What does this imply to us who are thinking about this matter? It implies that if indeed random mutations occurred that they were so fortuitous as to develop the same way they would if they had the wisdom that man, who would be eating the orange, would have sight to be able to detect when the fruit is ripe and ready to be eaten and and when it is not. It implies that these random mutations were so fortuitous that they accidentally developed the taste in the orange and the apple that would be appealing to the taste buds of man who did not yet exist. It implies that the random mutations were so fortuitous that they accidentally developed some of the vitamins in the orange and the apple which would be so essential for man, who did not yet exist.

One can say all these things but would an honest, thinking person do so? In no other area of life do we find otherwise intelligent people believing that accidents can so consistently produce intelligent, purposeful results. One can't help but wonder if, at least in some instances, the need to deny the existence of a Creator is so strong that possibly that is the motivating factor behind their ostensible support for random mutation. This question arises naturally when one sees the strongest proponents of evolution also writing best sellers denying the existence of G-d and "proving" the non-existence of G-d.