Posts Tagged ‘Creationist Claims’

Lack of any intermediary forms in any epoch would be the rule, not the exception to the rule.

This cannot be treated in complete form without writing a whole book about it. We can understand some aspects in simple thought processes, which I can cover in a few pages.

Imagine, if you will, that the earth, suddenly, and violently became frozen in ice. Both, you and your partner are showering to go to a party, clean and freshly shaved. You step out of the shower, which is turning ice-cold and freeze before you can cross the room. The entire planet hits one-hundred degrees below zero and all life freezes.

Further imagine, that some alien species, in the next million years discovers that life existed on this planet and began to explore that life, frozen in time. What would they conclude?

I will only look at three species: the entire dog family, the entire cat family, and the entire primate family. In the dog family, we would have wolves, whence dogs were bred from, every species of (dog) house pets, and foxes, and any other animal that resembled dogs, related or not. In the cat family, we would have lions, tigers, pet cats, from every possible bread, including some with six toes, seven toes, and naked cats. In the primate family, we would have monkeys, and apes of every shape and size, along with humans of every color and size.

It is the twenty-first century, so we must include that men shave their beards and some women shave their pubic hair, arm pits, and legs. Some don’t shave anything—male or female.

What would you make of this evidence? Would you conclude that there was only one subfamily of each specimen? Would you conclude that every individual specimen was a separate species? Including that shaved humans differ from unshaved humans as a species characteristic? Assume you could not acknowledge that shaving was invented.

Looking at the Precambrian or Cambrian explosions with the same information available would soon lead you to difficult thinking and some unanswered questions.

Advocates of Intelligent Design, or Creationist, are asking these questions, fervently, and drawing the conclusion that these “frozen moments” in time do not support species divergence. There is not one single intermediary specimen to show evolution of species. They all appear fully functional and complete. Proof! They must have been designed!

What should one do to find the truth? Look at the evidence for what it is! Difficult to assess. This bring us full circle to our frozen world. Do you insist on every specimen being a separately catalogued species? Did naked man evolve hair, then a tail, shrink in size, and then take to the trees as the temperature dropped?

There is one place we can enter and claim as designed. The cats and dogs, which were, in fact, selected for by agency—human agency! One could apply this same thought process for the selection of primates. They must have been selected for by an intelligent designer as not one intermediary is present to conform to evolution. Ergo, they could not have evolved without leaving a single missing link.

One, in this case, would be completely wrong. The intelligent agent that selected for the different dogs and cats were frozen in time with them—they were the primates, human in species. The many varieties of dogs and cats, including naked cats, were selected from a parent stock which still exist. In the case of the dog, we know the wolf to be the progenitor. The aliens would not know this until it was, if even possible, discovered. I have no doubts that discoveries will be made to better understand the Precambrian and Cambrian explosions.

Applying this last paragraph to these two explosions might help us understand something about the species frozen in time. Natural selection works to promote the positive characteristics. Competition for life acts as a selector. If one species of the explosion was a predator, it would, no doubt, influence selection for the perfect prey: one would expect the imperfect to be consumed by the predators, while the best at defence or escape would prosper and become frozen in time as well. The same rule would apply. One species selected for the other species at some level. It is called niche change as well. Lack of any intermediary forms in any epoch would be the rule, not the exception to the rule.


©copyright 2011-2018 all rights reserved



on March 22, 2016 in Uncategorized Comments Off

In light of new events it seems that the most likely demise of the dinosaurs was the evolution of the birds. There has been some new findings that backs this up, but we will start with the older findings first. Dinosaurs have been unearthed in China which seem to be, at least in part, covered with some feathers. These feathers were believed to have been some form of insulation and they were believed to have been colored. Coloration is only important in that it allows for both, color selection of the visible light spectrum and the eye/brain, and sexual selection for the most brightly colored individuals. Neither are points to dwell on here.

Feathered features acting like insulation could have evolved into feather-covered dinosaurs and the prelude to flight. This much has been speculated for a considerable time now. Old news! If this was not evidence enough for some to speculate that dinosaurs evolved into birds, then check out these extra findings. Recently, a tyrannosaurs was discovered and a bone was analysed. The bone (a femur) has been proven to belong to a female of the species as the bone was Medullary in nature. This means that this dinosaur formed extra bone matter during pregnancy which is common in birds. Mary Schweitzer

Next we have the manipulation of DNA, specifically, in chickens, which have grown different beaks and in one case longer fibulas in their lower legs. Genes determine the rate of growth in bones and these bones evolved to be shortened in birds/chickens. Shutting off the gene called IHH or Indian Hedgehog caused the bone to grow the full length again. The chicken developed long tubular fibulas like a dinosaur.

It has been argued by creationist that evolution is powerless to transform species. Commonly stated, is the argument that a mosquito is still a mosquito even if they are different species of mosquito. They still look like a mosquito; therefore, evolution is not the answer without divine guidance. When you can grow dinosaur features in a chicken by manipulating a gene, trace medullary bones in fossils and associate the same process with the bird family, along with finding feathers on dinosaur fossils, I would ask how much proof is needed to accept species change? Here, apparently, dinosaurs have changed enough in size, shape, and adaption to pass as birds.

©copyright 2011-2016 all rights reserved


Why Platos Dichotomy?

on June 21, 2014 in Uncategorized Comments Off

Plato utilized both reason and spirituality or a separate soul in his thinking and it would fall under dualism nowadays. He often referred to the gods, myths and of course observations of self by an inner observer. This was so obvious with the shadows in the cave. The word dichotomy actually means a divided opinion or contradictory opinion.

This is not why I use this title.

Plato was famous, if for nothing else, his ability to construct conversations in a way as to extract knowledge form the readers themselves. While reading his many works I often found myself asking some similar questions as did His dear Socrates.

Whether Plato was right or wrong in his thinking he had the perfect talent for making knowledge obvious to the reader. He readily insisted that knowledge was an innate instinct; that by asking the right questions your mind already knew the answers. As it turns out, there are actually two forms of knowledge. One form is innate. Certain types of knowledge are contained within the genome and passed from generation to generation.

It is either neglected or purposely ignored by many, that, the ability to learn is actually innate within the genome. As far as platos’ thinking is concerned, he was right that we actually have two sources of awareness. There is an inward source of awareness: innate knowledge. There is an outward source of awareness: observation of an observer. The brain being the observer and capable of learning new information. Note: not limited to a brain.

The word dichotomy also means a contrast between two things which are different. Innate knowledge and accumulated knowledge are different in contrast, but both are true.

©copyright 2011-2014



It has been studied and well understood that among primates different sexual calls or cries of passion are used.

Stuart Semple analyzed copulation calls from seven different female baboons. Apparently, these copulation calls are very complex vocalizations. These mating calls contain information about the status of the male she is copulating with.  The acoustic sounds are more complex when copulating with higher ranking males. Supposedly to let lower ranking males know to stay away until the higher ranking male is gone. The sound produced is longer with the high ranking males.

The sound complexity also changes when she is closer to ovulation. Yet these calls are distinct to sexual reproduction and both the males and females know this little fact. The human female has a higher pitched voice when she is closer to ovulation. The human female does not have a call for copulation—that we men know of anyway.

If lengthening or shortening pitch or duration can change a copulation call in baboons, then why can’t the same apply to human speech? Not only can pitch change, but duration as well. If other primates can alter calls to indicate different copulation situations, then why can’t humans alter every call to communicate different situations?

We can! It’s called articulated speech.

So while we listen to the erotic calls of the wild we should be mindful not to get caught with our pants down.

©copyright 2011-2014


Mystic Stories

on May 28, 2014 in Uncategorized Comments Off

Commonly, the word myth is used to connote stories based on lies. As language evolves throughout time, false meanings attach themselves to words. Because myths are no longer believed to be true, they are defined as false stories dreamt up by the ancients. I have to give credit to our ancestors. They had very wild imaginations!

Mythology is studied as a sort of science, but not taken seriously as factual. It is studied more as an abstract of ancient peoples’ social behaviour.

The word myth, is in fact, not of false origins as mythologist would have you believe. The word has its meaning based within the same context as mystic, mystery, and magic, just to name three examples. Magic was used to express wisdom—not hocus pocus—and was held with great esteem. Mystic was a means of expressing inner knowledge—knowledge itself being defined differently than it is today. Mystery, well that’s a mystery!

Mythos is the Greek word used to denote a narrative. Myth in its original meaning meant to place facts into a narrative. As a whole, the meaning would resemble the following: to uncover facts from within ones inner knowledge or logic system (however flawed that was) combine them with the knowledge passed down from generation to generation and put them into a sequence of narrative that could be “reliably” and “accurately” repeated.

Who said that these myths were accurate and reliable? I don’t return to the study of mythology because I believe these stories true! I return time and again because these stories have so many flawed facts! For example, how many myths exclude the development of some form of wisdom?

Tell me again mommy how we came to be wise. Grandmother and Grandfather were… to the next generation it would become Great Grandmother and Great Grandfather were… Finally the most that could be said would be that the first man and first woman were…

Throw a few hard won facts together into any narrative and then define narrative as trying to create a coherent story from flawed or misunderstood facts. One should take ones studies seriously or not be bothered to study at all. Important insight into early human psychological states and psychological development ferment these myths. Not only psychology, but knowledge and language origins as well.

©copyright 2011-2014


A Study Worth Following

on April 5, 2014 in Uncategorized Comments Off

As I look for new material to write about, I find myself at a loss some weeks. Most scientific news or articles are redundant, too complex in scope, or the reverse, far too simple to write about in a blog post. I try to keep my post with a mixture of my own work and that of the mainstream sciences.

This magazine article is the best I’ve read in a while now. It also adds the bonus of confirming my own work on language. Certain combinations of sounds are preferred by all languages and have an added innate knowledge base. That is, they are learned quickly enough by infants to suspect the sounds carry innate meaning. This lends support to the theory of calls and cries becoming structured into our speech articulation.

As I wrote in my book: Tilogos: A Treatise on the Origins and Evolution of Language: due to the premature development of the infants brain—not fully developed at birth—calls and cries are not allowed full development. Instead, I suspect that infants, after hearing only articulated speech after birth, have their calls and cries knowledge, replaced with the shortened digitally articulated version.

They retain the knowledge, innate in development, of the sound/concept correlation, but replace the call or cry with the newer, shorter, digital sound. If this is not true on some level, then science has to explain why some combinations of phonemes hold power over other combinations (and I am being kind). The cause cannot be the ease of combination in any case! Natural selection does not care how hard sounds are to make. Natural selection only cares that the sounds have meaning and are acted upon.


©copyright 2011-2014


Value of the Past

on March 31, 2014 in Uncategorized Comments Off

The future, as far as natural selection is concerned, has no value. True, the future can be altered with every action done in the present: it is called niche change. Also true, anyone’s alterations or actions of niche change can alter the future—it does not need to be your changes.

In my estimation, future predictions of events are based upon past analysis of analogous and homologous experience. The future of your survival also relies upon your expert and precise knowledge of mathematical systems. Good thing only your subconscious brain needs to know these calculations right?

We need two terms if we are to understand this to be the case. Conscious past: the past you know and love, or are wise enough to hate, is the obvious one that everyone understands. The unconscious past, which is responsible for your survival, is less understood.

Unconscious past is based in innate instincts and fine-tuned with learning. By example, it is what teaches your nervous system to walk. It does not exclude representation of new data which is part of your conscious past, but it does keep the calculations out of your conscious mind or conscious brain.

To keep it simple for our understanding, the conscious brain does not need to know that 2x2x2 is the reason that your finger feels pain. The unconscious brain does need to know that 2x2x2 is why you cut your finger. We just need to understand that there are two different brains doing two different past event analysis.

The unconscious past is what makes the predictions about the time flow from present into future and automatically makes adjustments in your behavior. Your unconscious brain is where the knowledge of space/time relativity is stored and it is this that I refer to as brain relativity. It is considered past because you already know it. At the same time, it is present/future oriented. Confused?

©copyright 2011-2014


First Causes in Language

on March 22, 2014 in Uncategorized Comments Off

“Sound trumps meaning in first language learning” ScienceDaily.

First, let me console my friends and followers. Sound does not trump meaning. Sound and meaning are one and the same in the brain. First sound meaning, trumps secondarily learned meaning, is the correct means of expression.

The article is very interesting and I take this quote:

“[Children] do not always rely on the most predictive information available when learning their first language. Instead, children disproportionally value the phonological information.”

The link to the article:–+ScienceDaily%29

Since I am writing and you are reading, I can’t deal in phones or phonemics: you can’t hear me. Calls and cries are first cause. I will use the word “food” as a cry. The “F” in food is phonological information. Being “first cause” the “F” allows for grouping. Grouping for food will become classed as both food and a type of food. Fudge will become secondarily grouped into the food classification without conflict of interest. It starts with the sound “F.”

The conflict of phone over meaning comes into play when nouns are used “wrongly” in accordance with the innate meanings. Foundation is not something to eat. It is something to build on.

True, you might say that apple does not start with the letter “F” and it is food. That is the whole point! Apple does not start with the letter “F” so it does not need to compete with the meaning of food and is accepted as the noun for that type of food without conflict. The brain sees food and hears apple: no conflict of calls or cries, thus words. Read into it the placing of nouns onto objects and not setting up different categories of things.

The link to the published study is:

©copyright 2011-2014




It is not often that I will get to critique scientific findings. A bone, called the Hyoid, which is used in speech, was discovered in Israel in 1989. Scientist x-rayed the Hyoid bone of this Neanderthal and found it to be similar to modern humans (our linage). Normally, I would be ecstatic about this finding.

The first thought I had was: this would change everything! Upon reflection, this is not the only part of anatomy that produces language. Similar, or exact in shape and function, ignores the other parts of anatomy.

Second, even if all of the other “voice” mechanisms were the same, it does not follow that language was the same in kind.

True, Neanderthal would be able to produce the same sound-wave vibrations, but articulation proper, does not necessarily ensue. We very well could have shared the exact same calls, cries, grunts, and other noises. Unique to humans is not the ability to communicate well. Unique to humans is our ability to communicate very well by means of articulation.

Even chimpanzees can sit and scream eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee all day long. You don’t hear too many chimps saying A E I O U in short rapid secession.

Just a thought!–+ScienceDaily%29

©copyright 2011-2014


Music Through Time

on March 15, 2014 in Uncategorized Comments Off

It appears as though my theory of Brain Relativity controlling Language Relativity is true on the musical level as well. I would be hard to fathom any sound in nature, musical or otherwise, which are not produced one note after another. More to the point, one sound vibration after another.

True, you could have several sounds, from several sources, all happening at the same time. Every sound from every source would be in a time constructed order. I am working on a video to better describe this process and I will link to it on another post. Key here, is that the sounds themselves, matter very little if they have no structured order to them.

Imagine listening to Sweet Emotion (Aero Smith) without any order to the swift words of the song. Hard to do? What if the words were sang in Greek? What if you don’t understand Greek? When speaking, the brain tries to grasp the jest of what is being said by what is going on in the context of the situation. You might not be able to figure out what is being actually spoken, but your brain would understand that what was being spoken was ordered structure.

As soon as your brain makes the realization that it is music being played, meaning is wiped clean and the brain sees only this ordered structure. Any words added to the music, in any language, would now have the flow of music to carry the ordered structure. Ordered structure is nothing more than grammar or grammatical form, syntax or syntactic form.

I have included a link below for an interesting study done on music. The authors of the study conclude that: “Specifically, it’s syntactic and not semantic processing that is key”. Semantic is the term that refers to meaning.–+ScienceDaily%29

©copyright 2011-2014



Get every new post on this blog delivered to your Inbox.

Join other followers: