Is Darwinism cracking at the seams?

Anomalies to the textbook version of evolution theory continue to be uncovered, but they don't seem to unsettle its adherents. One wonders how much evidence it will take to disprove the materialist model of origins.

Quotes and comments;

1. 'A good scientific theory should predict what is observed. When the theory is confronted with unexpected evidence, should the theory be jettisoned or modified?

'George Poinar at Oregon State is trying to put together the evolution of nematodes (roundworms), which he thinks originated a billion years ago as one of the earliest forms of multicellular life. Here is his explanation for their origin: “They literally emerged from the primordial ooze.” [1.]

- Now that's science boys and girls, not that silly creationist stuff; here we have hard science.
Over half seem parasitic. How can creatures that emerge from the mud be parasites? What would they be parasites on? (i.e. if the were the first or nearly the first creatures to evolve out of the mud.)

2. 'Even though Poinar just wrote a book on nematode evolution, “There’s still a huge amount we don’t know about nematodes,” he admitted – like maybe how something this complex could literally emerge from ooze.

- This 'problem' of nematode emergence is only a problem if you believe the fossil layers reveal the history of billions of years of evolution. It seems clear to me that they don't; and I offer this as evidence. Mud doesn't evolve people... at least not the mud where I live. It seems resistant to evolution for some reason.

Apparently evolution requires mud capable of evolving. Where you get this mud no one seems to know. Maybe instead of looking for the missing link, people should look for the missing mud.

How evolution can be a 'fact' when scientists don't even know where the nematode came from, I don't know. (Maybe the answer is buried in the mud.) Evolution is basically a mud science I guess; if you have evolvable mud, then you can be sure something will emerge from the mud (complete with a body of working parts).

When God fashions Adam out of the mud (clay) it's seen as a fairy tale, when the mud itself fashions a creature it's seen as science :=}
Mud without intelligence is mud my friends; don't we at least know that much after all our studies?

"It's miracle making mud folks, if you're set to create a new planetary world, get yourself some today. It's guaranteed intelligence free."

3. Evolution by subtraction:
'Clearly, a huge amount of new genetic information would have had to accompany the growth of Darwin’s tree of life from root to branch tips. It would also be expected that closely related species would have closely related genomes. That’s apparently not the case with the lab plant Arabidopsis thaliana (thale cress) and the lyre-leaved rock cress.
A press release from Max Planck Institute began, “It would appear reasonable to assume that two closely related plant species would have similar genetic blueprints.” But the lyre-leaved rock cress has a genome fifty percent bigger than the other; “Moreover, these changes arose over a very short period in evolutionary terms.”

- Over and over this is what we see; subtraction not addition (of information) This isn't evolution but devolution; just as biblical creation predicts.

Again we see researchers misled by a fallacious understanding of the fossil rocks. (Question anything, but don't question that.) Sooner or later (in an effort to save evolutionary theory) Darwinists will have to throw out the current model of the fossil record; and they'll have to do it before the continuing contradictions ruin their theory altogether. For the evolutionist, it's a case of either Darwinism being wrong or the fossil model being wrong. (In my opinion it's both.)

4. 'Birds evolved to wash themselves. Pigs evolved to lie in the mud. Can opposite outcomes be ascribed to a scientific law? Victoria Gill at the BBC News had no problem with this, announcing cheerfully and confidently alongside of a contented pig lying in slop, “Pigs have ‘evolved to love mud’”.

- Apparently it's Darwinists who evolved to love mud (see story above about nematodes) If you explain everything in terms of a dumb theory you will be forced to make a never ending series of dumb statements; like the one above for instance.
i.e. if evolution works by blind chance (i.e. is dumb) then the explanation for things is necessarily going to be simple or simplistic. Sophisticated (complex) explanations are ruled out before you start. If you ban intelligence as an explanation your available alternatives will necessarily be dumb. What we see here (and elsewhere) is intelligent people being forced to interpret the world in terms of a dumb theory. Their intelligence is being wasted.

If it's all a matter of chance why not just throw up your hands and say ''stuff happens"? (We might wonder how intelligent people can be to restrict themselves to a theory that's both dumb and impossible, but it's not a matter of intelligence but of an indoctrination into materialism.)

Of course pigs don't love anything, not even mud. It's mere equivocation to use the term 'love' so loosely. Maybe in a world of porn and hookups, no one cares about love anymore. (Materialists have turned our planet into a pornoverse.)
One of the things I most hate about Darwinism is the havoc it's played with our language. Evolution having become de rigeur, equivocation is now the flavor of the day; and has poisoned our communal conversation so thoroughly it's hard to speak sensibly on any subject. (e.g. all animals, including insects have babies, and pigs love mud, and chickens prize their eggs, and wolves have partners, and humans are animals, and birds sing, and whales compose symphonies, and apes speak, and on and on.)

Darwinspeak is a true curse; its own punishment on a culture that's rejected its creator.

5. 'She quoted Mark Bracke [Wageningen University] speculating, “Liking shallow water could have been a point in the evolution of whales from land-dwelling mammals.” After all, he said to his eager reporter, “We all evolved from fish, so it could be that this motivation to be in water could be something that was preserved in animals that are able to do so.”

- Motivation! (see above) Even if this fanciful notion were true, you cannot conflate motivation and instinct.
This nonsense is what happens when scientists reject empiricism for Darwinian daydreaming. (Can we please give up this pipe smoking speculation and get back to real science?)
There can be no real science of origins; all we have, and all we will likely ever have, are speculations of one variety or another. If there is such a shortage of scientists as we're told, why don't we take some of these useless toilers of the Darwinian sea, and employ them more profitably?

I consider the whale story one of the most preposterous of all Darwinian tales, and the most comical. (Would that I could live long enough to see this icon shattered.)

Notice that our friend (Bracke) talks about how 'we' all evolved from fish; we being all us organisms. He puts human beings and nematodes in the same class apparently. (More equivocation.)

Of course no one saw all creatures 'evolve' from fish (''we're all fish now") but apparently this doesn't matter, being an empiricist is too limiting I guess. This notion is a deduction made from the Darwinian (Lyellian) interpretation of the fossil beds. The model is nearly 100 percent interpretation, and if the interpretation is wrong, so are all the deductions made from the original premise.

In place of evolution's pseudo science of origins, biblical creation offers a history of origins. Speculation or history, take your pick. [2.]

Notes;
1. Evolution Bends to Fit the Evidence Creation/Evolution Headlines 05/02/2011
May 02, 2011 — 'A good scientific theory should predict what is observed. When the theory is confronted with unexpected evidence, should the theory be jettisoned or modified?
2. Such is the nature of unbelief that even if we could travel back in time and prove Adam wrote the first chapters of Genesis, the atheist wouldn't accept it the historical account of origins. "Well, I admit he wrote it, but he obviously didn't have a clue what he was talking about. Evolution is a fact, just look at the fossil record."