back to main page

The scientific errors of evolutionists’ claims

English Русский Lietuvių

Evolutionists claim that evolution is not a hypothesis, evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, however this claim is not true. The truth is that if you will carefully examine the “proofs” of evolution then you will find that all these “proofs” do not meet the criteria of strict science – many of these “proofs” are simple fakes, while other “proofs” are based of circular logic and still others are based on the faith of evolutionists – none of these “proofs” match the criteria of strict science. It is important to note that non-existence of “proofs” that match the criteria of strict science does not mean that evolution is incorrect, evolution might be still true. Evolution hypothesis is a very attractive hypothesis because it appears very realistically, the only small problem it has that currently it does not match the criteria of strict science and strictly speaking it is based on faith.

It is important to note that the text below is not intended to prove the existence of the Designer/Creator.
This text simply shows the errors of evolutionists. The text below shows that the evidences of evolution, which are provided by evolutionists, unfortunately, do not meet the scientific criteria. The text below shows that the claims of evolutionists are religious dogmas – only this, and nothing more.
The existence of the Designer/Creator is completely separate unrelated topic – the text below is not related whatsoever with this topic.

The evolution topic is completely irrelevant to Neurocluster Brain Model.
The correctness of falseness of Neurocluster Brain Model is completely unrelated to the correctness of falseness of evolution and/or Creator hypotheses.




Chapter #1: Common genetic code is a good proof of the theory of evolution – is it really so?

Evolutionists claim that common genetic code is a good proof of the theory of evolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
Evidence of common descent of living organisms has been discovered by scientists researching in a variety of disciplines over many decades, demonstrating the common descent of all life on Earth developing from a last universal ancestor. This evidence constructs the theoretical framework on which evolutionary theory rests, demonstrates that evolution does occur, and is able to show the natural processes that led to the emergence of Earth's biodiversity.
<...>
One of the strongest evidences for common descent comes from the study of gene sequences. Comparative sequence analysis examines the relationship between the DNA sequences of different species, producing several lines of evidence that confirm Darwin's original hypothesis of common descent. If the hypothesis of common descent is true, then species that share a common ancestor inherited that ancestor's DNA sequence, as well as mutations unique to that ancestor. More closely related species have a greater fraction of identical sequence and shared substitutions compared to more distantly related species.
Wikipedia

Let's examine more closely these claims of evolutionists.
In order to illustrate the idea we will provide several analogies.
Suppose we take two different books into our hands, and while reading both books, we find out that both books contain a lot of identical text – what conclusion we can draw from this fact? The conclusion is very simple – most likely both books were written by the same author.
Another example. Suppose we take two computer programs, and while examining the software code, we find out that both programs have a lot of identical program code – what conclusion we can draw from this fact? The conclusion is very simple – most likely both programs were written by the same programmer, in computer science this phenomenon is called as “reusable program code”.
Etc.
The same identical principle applies to the “common genetic code” – if two organisms share a lot of common genetic code – what conclusion we can draw from this fact? The argument of “common genetic code” can be used as evidence of the common designer/creator who created both these organisms using the fragments of the same genetic code in order to save his time and not to invent the bicycle again.
Strictly speaking, “common genetic code” does not prove the evolution, because the argument of “common genetic code” can be used as: 1) the proof of evolution, and as 2) the proof of the common designer/creator.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_reuse
Code reuse, also called software reuse, is the use of existing software, or software knowledge, to build new software, following the reusability principles.
Ad hoc code reuse has been practiced from the earliest days of programming. Programmers have always reused sections of code, templates, functions, and procedures. Software reuse as a recognized area of study in software engineering, however, dates only from 1968 when Douglas McIlroy of Bell Laboratories proposed basing the software industry on reusable components.
Code reuse aims to save time and resources and reduce redundancy by taking advantage of assets that have already been created in some form within the software product development process. The key idea in reuse is that parts of a computer program written at one time can be or should be used in the construction of other programs written at a later time.
Code reuse may imply the creation of a separately maintained version of the reusable assets. While code is the most common resource selected for reuse, other assets generated during the development cycle may offer opportunities for reuse: software components, test suites, designs, documentation, and so on.
The software library is a good example of code reuse. Programmers may decide to create internal abstractions so that certain parts of their program can be reused, or may create custom libraries for their own use. Some characteristics that make software more easily reusable are modularity, loose coupling, high cohesion, information hiding and separation of concerns.
Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reusability
In computer science and software engineering, reusability is the use of existing assets in some form within the software product development process. Assets are products and by-products of the software development life cycle and include code, software components, test suites, designs and documentation. Leverage is modifying existing assets as needed to meet specific system requirements. Because reuse implies the creation of a separately maintained version of the assets, it is preferred over leverage.
Subroutines or functions are the simplest form of reuse. A chunk of code is regularly organized using modules or namespaces into layers. Proponents claim that objects and software components offer a more advanced form of reusability, although it has been tough to objectively measure and define levels or scores of reusability.
The ability to reuse relies in an essential way on the ability to build larger things from smaller parts, and being able to identify commonalities among those parts. Reusability is often a required characteristic of platform software. Reusability brings several aspects to software development that do not need to be considered when reusability is not required.
Wikipedia




Chapter #2: Homologous structures is a good proof of the theory of evolution – is it really so?

Evolutionists claim that homologous structures is a good proof of the theory of evolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homology_(biology)
In the context of biology, homology is the existence of shared ancestry between a pair of structures, or genes, in different taxa. A common example of homologous structures in evolutionary biology are the wings of bats and the arms of primates. Evolutionary theory explains the existence of homologous structures adapted to different purposes as the result of descent with modification from a common ancestor.

homology
The principle of homology: The biological derivation relationship (shown by colors) of the various bones in the forelimbs of four vertebrates is known as homology and was one of Charles Darwin’s arguments in favor of evolution.

homology
The wings of pterosaurs (1), bats (2) and birds (3) are analogous as wings, but homologous as forelimbs.
Wikipedia

Let's examine more closely these claims of evolutionists.
In order to illustrate the idea we will provide the analogy.
Suppose we take two different devices into our hands, and by disassembling both devices, we find out that both devices contain a lot of identical/similar composing parts – what conclusion we can draw from this fact? The conclusion is very simple – most likely both devices were designed/made by the same author.
The same identical principle applies to the “homologous structures” – if two organisms have homologous structures – what conclusion we can draw from this fact? The argument of “homologous structures” can be used as evidence of the common designer/creator who created both these organisms using homologous structures in order to save his time and not to invent the bicycle again.
Strictly speaking, “homologous structures” does not prove the evolution, because the argument of “homologous structures” can be used as: 1) the proof of evolution, and as 2) the proof of the common designer/creator.



Chapter #3: Proteins of all living organisms are composed of the same 22 amino acids and this is a good proof of the theory of evolution – is it really so?

Evolutionists claim that proteins of all living organisms are composed of the same 22 amino acids and this is a good proof of the theory of evolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
Evidence of common descent
<...>
Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry
Universal biochemical organisation and molecular variance patterns
All known extant (surviving) organisms are based on the same biochemical processes: genetic information encoded as nucleic acid (DNA, or RNA for many viruses), transcribed into RNA, then translated into proteins (that is, polymers of amino acids) by highly conserved ribosomes. Perhaps most tellingly, the Genetic Code (the "translation table" between DNA and amino acids) is the same for almost every organism, meaning that a piece of DNA in a bacterium codes for the same amino acid as in a human cell. ATP is used as energy currency by all extant life. A deeper understanding of developmental biology shows that common morphology is, in fact, the product of shared genetic elements. For example, although camera-like eyes are believed to have evolved independently on many separate occasions, they share a common set of light-sensing proteins (opsins), suggesting a common point of origin for all sighted creatures. Another noteworthy example is the familiar vertebrate body plan, whose structure is controlled by the homeobox (Hox) family of genes.
Wikipedia

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Доказательства_эволюции
Доказа́тельства эволю́ции — научные данные и концепции, подтверждающие происхождение всех живых существ на Земле от общего предка.
<...>
Молекулярно-генетические и биохимические доказательства
Биохимическое единство жизни
Носителем наследственной информации во всех клетках являются молекулы ДНК, у всех известных организмов в основе размножения — репликация этой молекулы. В ДНК всех организмов используются 4 нуклеотида (аденин, гуанин, тимин, цитозин), хотя в природе встречаются не менее 102 различных нуклеотидов. Кроме того, в природе встречается 390 различных аминокислот, но белки всех организмов составляются из одного и того же набора, в котором всего 22 аминокислоты. При этом возможно 1,4ˇ1070 различных информационно эквивалентных генетических кодов, использующих те же самые кодоны и аминокислоты.
Wikipedia

Let's examine more closely these claims of evolutionists.
We will remind from biology that no known living organism can live long enough separately from other organisms. The population can exist long enough only when interacting with other populations within the ecosystem (in other words – “only the ecosystem is alive”). Some organisms eat other organisms (food chain) and it is connected in a vicious circle. Plants transform minerals into the organic substances, animals eat plants and after the death of the animal, its body is rotten by the bacteria back into inorganic substances and the food chain cycle starts all over again.

Evolutionists claim that because all living organisms are composed of the same amino acids, this supposedly proves their common descent. However, from another point of view – if different types of living organisms would be composed of different amino acids, then the only form of feeding for such organisms would be cannibalism. Cannibalism is the act of one individual of a species consuming all or part of another individual of the same species as food. The cannibalism would be necessary because only the representatives of their own species would contain the substances that are necessary for the growth of its body. However, because all organisms are composed of the same amino acids, they are able to eat each other thus forming a cycle of matter within ecosystems. Therefore, the living organisms must consist of the same amino acids in order for the ecosystem to function successfully.
In case if the Designer has designed something, then it is very certain that he has designed not a single rabbit, but instead he has designed the entire ecosystem.
Strictly speaking, the fact that “proteins of all living organisms are composed of the same 22 amino acids” does not prove the evolution, because this argument can be used as: 1) the proof of evolution, and as 2) the proof of the common designer/creator.




Chapter #4: “Poor design” of animal’s organs is a good proof of the theory of evolution – is it really so?

Evolutionists claim that “poor design” of animal’s organs is a good proof of the theory of evolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_poor_design
The argument from poor design, also known as the dysteleological argument, is an argument against the existence of a creator God based on the following reasoning:
1. An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator God would create organisms that have optimal design.
2. Organisms have features that are suboptimal.
3. Therefore, God either did not create these organisms or is not omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.

The argument is structured as a basic modus tollens: if "creation" contains many defects, then design is not a plausible theory for the origin of our existence. It is most commonly used in a weaker way, however: not with the aim of disproving the existence of God, but rather as a reductio ad absurdum of the well-known argument from design, which runs as follows:
1. Living things are too well-designed to have originated by chance.
2. Therefore, life must have been created by an intelligent creator.
3. This creator is God.

Although the phrase "argument from poor design" has seen little use, this type of argument has been advanced many times using words and phrases such as "poor design", "suboptimal design", "unintelligent design" or "dysteology/dysteological". The last of these is a term applied by the nineteenth-century biologist Ernst Haeckel to the implications of organs so rudimentary as to be useless to the life of an organism. Haeckel, in his book The History of Creation, devoted most of a chapter to the argument, ending with the proposition (perhaps with tongue slightly in cheek) of "a theory of the unsuitability of parts in organisms, as a counter-hypothesis to the old popular doctrine of the suitability of parts". The term "incompetent design", a play on "intelligent design", has been coined by Donald Wise of the University of Massachusetts Amherst to describe aspects of nature that are currently flawed in design.
Traditional theological responses generally posit that God's creation was perfect but that humanity's misuse of its free will to rebel against God has resulted in the corruption of good design.
Wikipedia

As for example, Richard Dawkins claims that the bad design of human eye and laryngeal nerve of the giraffe supposedly proves evolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
Evidence of common descent
<...>
Recurrent laryngeal nerve in giraffes
The recurrent laryngeal nerve is a fourth branch of the vagus nerve, which is a cranial nerve. In mammals, its path is unusually long. As a part of the vagus nerve, it comes from the brain, passes through the neck down to heart, rounds the dorsal aorta and returns up to the larynx, again through the neck. (Fig. 2f)
This path is suboptimal even for humans, but for giraffes it becomes even more suboptimal. Due to the lengths of their necks, the recurrent laryngeal nerve may be up to 4 m (13 ft) long, despite its optimal route being a distance of just several inches.
The indirect route of this nerve is the result of evolution of mammals from fish, which had no neck and had a relatively short nerve that innervated one gill slit and passed near the gill arch. Since then, the gill it innervated has become the larynx and the gill arch has become the dorsal aorta in mammals.

The path of the recurrent laryngeal nerve in giraffes
Figure 2f: The path of the recurrent laryngeal nerve in giraffes. The laryngeal nerve is compensated for by subsequent tinkering from natural selection.
Wikipedia

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/10/darwins_pitbull_richard_dawkin.html
The so-called intelligent design critique argues that some biological machines are too complex to evolve without help from above. Your book counters with several examples of "unintelligent design." Any favorites?

Dawkins: The recurrent laryngeal nerve is a remarkable piece of unintelligent design. The nerve starts in the head, with the brain, and the end organ is the larynx, the voice box. But instead of going straight there it goes looping past the voice box. In the case of the giraffe, it goes down the full length of the giraffe's neck, loops down one of the main arteries in the chest and then comes straight back up again to the voice box, having gone within a couple of inches of the voice box on its way down. No intelligent designer would ever have done that.
Darwin's pitbull: Richard Dawkins on evolution and unintelligent design
By Joe Rojas-Burke. The Oregonian. October 09, 2009

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AN74qV7SsjY

Evidence for Evolution: "Bad Design" (Richard Dawkins)
Length: 4 minutes

Published on May 14, 2012
Richard Dawkins demonstrates laryngeal nerve of the giraffe, which connects the brain with the larynx (voice box). The obvious path for the nerve to travel is straight from the brain into the neck and into the larynx. If you were designing the animal from scratch, that makes all the sense in the world. In mammals, however, the nerve goes from the brain down past the heart and then to the larynx..and this detour is particularly long in giraffes, making a round trip of up to 16 feet.
The reason why our ancestors had such wiring in the first place is simple: For fish it is the quickest route. However evolution couldn't start afresh with a new design when our fishy ancestors began to evolve a more mammalian-like morphology. It was forced to utilize the already present engineering and had to lengthen the wiring instead of backtracking and reversing the entire process.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pE_jHzmj3kQ

Richard Dawkins confirms his belief that the eye is a bad design
Length: 4 minutes

Published on Dec 18, 2012
Richard Dawkins talks about the human eye.

Let's examine more closely these claims of evolutionists.
We will remind from biology that no known living organism can live long enough separately from other organisms. The population can exist long enough only when interacting with other populations within the ecosystem (in other words – “only the ecosystem is alive”). Some organisms eat other organisms (food chain) and it is connected in a vicious circle. Plants transform minerals into the organic substances, animals eat plants and after the death of the animal, its body is rotten by the bacteria back into inorganic substances and the food chain cycle starts all over again.

Evolutionists claim that because all living organisms are composed of the same amino acids, this supposedly proves their common descent. However, from another point of view – if different types of living organisms would be composed of different amino acids, then the only form of feeding for such organisms would be cannibalism. Cannibalism is the act of one individual of a species consuming all or part of another individual of the same species as food. The cannibalism would be necessary because only the representatives of their own species would contain the substances that are necessary for the growth of its body. However, because all organisms are composed of the same amino acids, they are able to eat each other thus forming a cycle of matter within ecosystems. Therefore, the living organisms must consist of the same amino acids in order for the ecosystem to function successfully.

Now let’s go back to the “bad design” of animals. Evolutionists here will present you with a great bunch of examples of “poor design” of animals. Many of the examples, given by evolutionists, will be even wrong, but we will not go into the details, because the details are not important. We will just have a look from the perspective of a higher hierarchical level – from the perspective of the ecosystem.

Let's take a rabbit as an example. Evolutionists will find a thousand reasons what exactly is “wrong” within the rabbit and then evolutionists will declare that the rabbit has “bad/poor design” – anyway finally the wolf has caught the rabbit and ate it, and this proves that the rabbit has “bad/poor design” – if the rabbit would have “good design” then such rabbit would smash the wolf into the dust. However let’s analyze from the perspective of the ecosystem. If the rabbit would be super-rabbit and would smash all wolfs into the dust, then what will eat the wolf? The wolf would just die because of hunger. No animal can exist separately from the ecosystem; it is the part of the ecosystem. The “bad/poor design” of the animal is a necessary condition for the functioning of the ecosystem as a whole. Unfortunately, the rabbit must have “bad/poor design” in order the wolf could catch it and eat it. If some animal has poor hearing then this is because it is necessary to ensure that this animal could not hear when someone is sneaking up on him. If some animal has a poor vision then this is because it is necessary to ensure that this animal could not see when someone is sneaking up on him. All claims about the “bad/poor design” of the animal reveal the total lack of understanding of how the ecosystems function. Everything makes sense only from the perspective of the ecosystem. In case if the Designer has designed something, then it is very certain that he has designed not a single rabbit, but instead he has designed the entire ecosystem.

This topic is very well known to those who program and design computer games. During the creation of the computer game, one of the biggest challenges is to set up the “game balance”. In the world of the computer game the virtual agents are acting (dwarves, dragons, wizards, heroes, farmers, etc.). During the creation of the computer game a very serious technical problem is the question how to choose and how to balance the parameters of each agent in such a way that during the game one kind of agents would not overshadow or destroy all other agents (e.g. that the dragons would not destroy all the other agents). The technical question is how to balance the parameters of each agent in such a way that the virtual world of computer game would remain more or less stable. During the creation of the computer game, the game is tested with different scenarios in order to check whether the game is balanced or not. If the game is unbalanced then the programmer must make some agents visually impaired or hearing impaired or the “perfect design” of these agents must be damaged in some other way. It is enough to leave at least one “perfect” or “near-perfect” agent and this will totally destroy the game balance and will destroy the game.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_(game_design)
Balance (game design)
In game design, balance is the concept and the practice of tuning a game's rules, usually with the goal of preventing any of its component systems from being ineffective or otherwise undesirable when compared to their peers. An unbalanced system represents wasted development resources at the very least, and at worst can undermine the game's entire ruleset by making important roles or tasks impossible to perform.

Balancing and fairness
Balancing does not necessarily mean making a game fair. This is particularly true of action games: Jaime Griesemer, design lead at Bungie, said in a lecture to other designers that "every fight in Halo is unfair". This potential for unfairness creates uncertainty, leading to the tension and excitement that action games seek to deliver. In these cases balancing is instead the management of unfair scenarios, with the ultimate goal of ensuring that all of the strategies which the game intends to support are viable. The extent to which those strategies are equal to one another defines the character of the game in question.
Simulation games can be balanced unfairly in order to be true to life. A wargame may cast the player into the role of a general who was defeated by an overwhelming force, and it is common for the abilities of teams in sports games to mirror those of the real-world teams they represent regardless of the implications for players who pick them.
Player perception can also affect the appearance of fairness. Sid Meier stated that he omitted multiplayer alliances in Civilization because he found that the computer was almost as good as humans in exploiting them, which caused players to think that the computer was cheating.

Difficulty level
Video games often allow players to influence their balance by offering a choice of "difficulty levels". These affect how challenging the game is to play.
In addition to altering the game's rules, difficulty levels can be used to alter what content is presented to the player. This usually takes the form of adding or removing challenging locations or events, but some games also change their narrative to reward players who play them on higher difficulty levels (Max Payne 2) or end early as punishment for playing on easy (Castlevania).
Difficulty selection is not always presented bluntly, particularly in competitive games where all players are affected equally and the standard "easy/hard" terminology no longer applies. Sometimes veiled language is used (Mario Kart offers "CC select"), while at other times there may be an array of granular settings instead of an overarching difficulty option.
An alternative approach to difficulty levels is catering to players of all abilities at the same time, a technique that has been called "subjective difficulty". This requires a game to provide multiple solutions or routes, each offering challenges appropriate to players of different skill levels (Super Mario Galaxy, Sonic Generations).
Difficulty can also be managed by a third party or the game itself; see the Gamemaster section below.

Pacing
Balancing goals shift dramatically when players are contending with the game's environment and/or non-player characters. Such player versus environment games are usually balanced to tread the fine line of regularly challenging players' abilities without ever producing insurmountable or unfair obstacles. This turns balancing into the management of dramatic structure, generally referred to by game designers as "pacing".
Pacing is also a consideration in competitive games, but the autonomy of players makes it harder to control.

Techniques

Symmetry
The simplest game balancing technique is giving each player identical resources. Most competitive games feature some level of symmetry; some (such as Pong) are completely symmetric, but those in which players alternate turns (such as chess) can never achieve total symmetry as one player will always have a first-move advantage.
Symmetry can be undone by human psychology. The advantage of players wearing red over players wearing blue is a well-documented example of this.

Statistical analysis
The brute force approach to balancing is the mathematical analysis of game session results. With enough data, it is possible to identify unbalanced areas of a game and make corrections.

Randomization
Randomization of starting conditions is a technique common in board games, card games, and also experimental research which fights back against the human tendency to optimise patterns in one's favor.
The downside of randomization is that it takes control away from the player, potentially leading to frustration. Methods of overcoming this include giving the player a selection of random results within which they can optimise (Scrabble, Magic: The Gathering) and making each game session short enough to encourage multiple attempts in one play session (Klondike (solitaire), Strange Adventures in Infinite Space).

Feedback loops
Many games become more challenging if the player is successful. For instance, real-time strategy games often feature "upkeep", a resource tax that scales with the number of units under a player's control. Team games which challenge players to invade their opponents' territory (football, capture the flag) have a feedback loop by default: the further a player pushes, the more opponents they are likely to face.
Feedback loops can lead to frequent ties if enforced too strictly. See also Dynamic game difficulty balancing.

Gamemaster
A game can be balanced dynamically by a gamemaster who observes players and adjusts the game in response to their emotional state (Dungeons & Dragons, Left 4 Dead).
Although gamemasters have historically been humans, some videogames now feature AI systems that perform a similar role by monitoring player ability and inferring emotional state from input. Research into biofeedback peripherals is set to greatly improve the accuracy of such systems.

Slang

Gimp
In role-playing game slang, a "gimp" is a character, character class or character ability that is underpowered in the context of the game (e.g., a close range warrior class equipping a full healing boosting armour set, despite having no healing abilities). Gimped characters lack effectiveness compared to other characters at a similar level of experience. A player may gimp a character by assigning skills and abilities that are inappropriate for the character class, or by developing the character inefficiently. However, this is not always the case, as some characters are purposely "gimped" by the game's developers in order to provide an incentive for raising their level, or, conversely, to give the player an early head-start. An example of this is Final Fantasy's Mystic Knight class, which starts out weak, but is able to become the most powerful class if brought to a very high level. Gimps may also be accidental on the part of the developer, and may require a software patch to rebalance.
Sometimes, especially in MMORPGs, gimp is used as a synonym for nerf to describe a rule modification that weakens the affected target. Unlike the connotatively neutral term nerf, gimp in this usage often implies that the rule change unfairly disadvantages the target.

Nerf
A "nerf" is a change to a game that reduces the desirability or effectiveness of a particular game element. The term is also used as a verb for the act of making such a change.
The first established use of the term was in Ultima Online, as a reference to the NERF brand of toys whose bullets are soft and less likely to cause serious injury.
Among game developers, MMORPG designers are especially likely to nerf aspects of a game in order to maintain game balance. Occasionally a new feature (such as an item, class, or skill) may be made too powerful, too cheap, or too easily obtained to the extent that it unbalances the game system. This is sometimes due to an unforeseen bug or method of using or acquiring the object that was not considered by the developers. The frequency of nerfing and the scale of nerfing vary widely from game to game but almost all massively multiplayer games have engaged in nerfing at some point.
Nerfs in various online games, including Anarchy Online, have spurred in-world protests. Since many items in virtual worlds are sold or traded among players, a nerf may have an outsized impact on the virtual economy. As players respond, the nerf may cause prices to fluctuate before settling down in a different equilibrium. This impact on the economy, along with the original impact of the nerf, can cause large player resentment for even a small change. In particular, in the case of items or abilities which have been nerfed, players can become upset over the perceived wasted efforts in obtaining the now nerfed features.
A well-known instance in which a nerf has caused many protests, but much more praise, is when Infinity Ward nerfed the Model 1887s in its video game Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. Before the nerf, the Model 1887s were able to One Shot Kill from medium-long range when all other shotguns in game were limited to short-medium range. The nerfing of the Model 1887s reduced its range to short range.
For games where avatars and items represent significant economic value, this may bring up legal issues over the lost value.

Buff
A buff (also a verb) is the opposite of a nerf: namely, a change to a game's rules which increases the desirability or effectiveness of a particular element.

Overpowered
Overpowered (often abbreviated to OP) is a common term referring to a perceived lack of game balance. It is often used when describing a specific class in an RPG, a specific faction in strategic games, or a specific tactic, ability, weapon or unit in various games. For something to be deemed overpowered, it is either the best choice in a disproportionate number of situations (marginalising other choices) and/or excessively hard to counter by the opponent compared to the effort required to use it. In the NBA, Stephen Curry is often referred to as OP, playing with an unfair advantage against the rest of the league.

Revamp
A revamp is a term for improving or modifying items, skills, abilities, or stats, as opposed to direct nerfing or gimping.

Underpowered
Underpowered, a common term, opposite of overpowered, is also a lack of game balance. However this weaker ability, item or skill shall need revamp.
Wikipedia




Chapter #5: Ernst Haeckel's embryo drawings is a good proof of the theory of evolution – is it really so?

Evolutionists use Ernst Haeckel’s embryo drawings in biology textbooks, and/or they use drawings of other authors, which are almost identical to the drawings of Haeckel.
In Haeckel’s drawings the embryos of different animals are depicted as being very similar to each other. Evolutionists claim that similarities between embryos is a good proof of the theory of evolution.
When other scientists tried to reproduce the results of Haeckel, they found out that embryos of different animals differ from each other far more than Haeckel had depicted.
You can see yourself the real photographs of embryos, and you can compare these photographs with the Haeckel’s drawings the embryos (below are photos of the embryos, which were photographed by Michael K. Richardson).
There are huge disputes about whether Haeckel’s embryo drawings are fakes or these drawings just contain only some “minor inaccuracies”.
Some evolutionists acknowledge that Haeckel’s drawings are fakes, however other evolutionists claim that Haeckel’s drawings are very good.
Despite all these controversies, evolutionists continue to use Haeckel’s embryo drawings in the textbooks and evolutionists use Haeckel’s drawings when teaching students.
Sometimes the errors of the evolutionists are multilayered like in the Russian “matryoshka doll” – when you open and remove the first matryoshka, inside you find the second matryoshka, when you open and remove the second matryoshka, inside you find the third matryoshka, and so on.
It is very easy to demonstrate that using Haeckel's embryo drawings.
Firstly (the first matryoshka), Haeckel's embryo drawings are fakes (you can see that yourself by comparing Michael K. Richardson’s photographs of embryos with Haeckel's embryo drawings), and in reality the embryos of different animals are not similar to each other.
Majority of evolutionists do not even know that Haeckel's embryo drawings are fakes from the year 1874, this fact is a big discovery for evolutionists.
And secondly (the second matryoshka), even if the embryos were similar then the objects with the similar (homologous) structure can be used as the evidence that all of these objects were designed by the same designer/creator.
Here is an analogy. If we take two computer programs, and while examining the software code, we find out that both programs have a lot of identical program code, then most likely both programs were written by the same programmer. Or, if we take two different devices into our hands, and by disassembling both devices, we find out that both devices contain a lot of identical/similar composing parts and these parts are similarly interconnected, then most likely both devices were designed/made by the same author. And so on.
This means that even if the embryos of different animals were similar, unfortunately, this does not prove the evolution, because the argument of “embryo similarity” can be used as: 1) the proof of evolution, and as 2) the proof of the common designer/creator.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo_drawing
Embryo drawing is the illustration of embryos in their developmental sequence. In plants and animals, an embryo develops from a zygote, the single cell that results when an egg and sperm fuse during fertilization. In animals, the zygote divides repeatedly to form a ball of cells, which then forms a set of tissue layers that migrate and fold to form an early embryo. Images of embryos provide a means of comparing embryos of different ages, and species. To this day, embryo drawings are made in undergraduate developmental biology lessons.
Comparing different embryonic stages of different animals is a tool that can be used to infer relationships between species, and thus biological evolution. This has been a source of quite some controversy, both now and in the past. Ernst Haeckel pioneered in this field. By comparing different embryonic stages of different vertebrate species, he formulated the recapitulation theory. This theory states that an animal's embryonic development follows exactly the same sequence as the sequence of its evolutionary ancestors. Haeckel's work and the ensuing controversy linked the fields of developmental biology and comparative anatomy into comparative embryology. From a more modern perspective, Haeckel's drawings were the beginnings of the field of evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo).
The study of comparative embryology aims to prove or disprove that vertebrate embryos of different classes (e.g. mammals vs. fish) follow a similar developmental path due to their common ancestry. Such developing vertebrates have similar genes, which determine the basic body plan. However, further development allows for the distinguishing of distinct characteristics as adults.
<...>
Controversy
The exactness of Ernst Haeckel's drawings of embryos has caused much controversy among Intelligent Design proponents recently and Haeckel's intellectual opponents in the past. Although the early embryos of different species exhibit similarities, Haeckel apparently exaggerated these similarities in support of his Recapitulation theory, sometimes known as the Biogenetic Law or "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny". Furthermore, Haeckel even proposed theoretical life-forms to accommodate certain stages in embryogenesis. A recent review concluded that the "biogenetic law is supported by several recent studies - if applied to single characters only".
Critics in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Karl von Baer and Wilhelm His, did not believe that living embryos reproduce the evolutionary process and produced embryo drawings of their own which emphasized the differences in early embryological development. Late 20th and early 21st century critics Jonathan Wells and Stephen Jay Gould have objected to the continued use of Haeckel’s embryo drawings in textbooks.
On the other hand, Michael K. Richardson, Professor of Evolutionary Developmental Zoology, Leiden University, while recognizing that some criticisms of the drawings are legitimate (indeed, it was he and his co-workers who began the modern criticisms in 1998), has supported the drawings as teaching aids, and has said that "on a fundamental level, Haeckel was correct".
<...>
Opposition to Haeckel
Haeckel encountered numerous oppositions to his artistic depictions of embryonic development during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Haeckel’s opponents believe that he de-emphasizes the differences between early embryonic stages in order to make the similarities between embryos of different species more pronounced.
<...>
Contemporary criticism of Haeckel: Michael Richardson and Stephen Jay Gould
Michael Richardson and his colleagues in a July 1997 issue of Anatomy and Embryology, demonstrated that Haeckel fudged his drawings in order to exaggerate the similarity of the phylotypic stage. In a March 2000 issue of Natural History, Stephen Jay Gould argued that Haeckel “exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions.” As well, Gould argued that Haeckel’s drawings are simply inaccurate and falsified. On the other hand, one of those who criticized Haeckel's drawings, Michael Richardson, has argued that "Haeckel's much-criticized drawings are important as phylogenetic hypotheses, teaching aids, and evidence for evolution". But even Richardson admitted in Science Magazine in 1997 that his team's investigation of Haeckel's drawings were showing them to be "one of the most famous fakes in biology."
Some version of Haeckel’s drawings can be found in many modern biology textbooks in discussions of the history of embryology, with clarification that these are no longer considered valid .
<...>
The survival and reproduction of Haeckel's embryo drawings
Haeckel's embryo drawings, as comparative plates, were at first only copied into biology textbooks, rather than texts on the study of embryology. Even though Haeckel's program in comparative embryology virtually collapsed after the First World War, his embryo drawings have often been reproduced and redrawn with increased precision and accuracy in works that have kept the study of comparative embryology alive. Nevertheless, neither His-inspired human embryology nor developmental biology are concerned with the comparison of vertebrate embryos. Although Stephen Jay Gould's 1977 book Ontogeny and Phylogeny helps to reassess Haeckelian embryology, it does not address the controversy over Haeckel's embryo drawings. Nevertheless, new interest in evolution in and around 1977 inspired developmental biologists to look more closely at Haeckel's illustrations.

Ernst Haeckel's embryo drawings
Romanes' 1892 copy of Ernst Haeckel's allegedly fraudulent embryo drawings (this version of the figure is often attributed incorrectly to Haeckel).
Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_theory
Haeckel produced several embryo drawings that often overemphasized similarities between embryos of related species. The misinformation was propagated through many biology textbooks, and popular knowledge, even today. Modern biology rejects the literal and universal form of Haeckel's theory, such as its possible application to behavioural ontogeny, i.e. the psychomotor development of young animals and human children.

Ernst Haeckel's embryo drawings
George Romanes's 1892 copy of Ernst Haeckel's controversial embryo drawings (this version of the figure is often attributed incorrectly to Haeckel).
Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Haeckel
Ernst Heinrich Philipp August Haeckel (German: [ˈhɛkəl]; 16 February 1834 – 9 August 1919) was a German biologist, naturalist, philosopher, physician, professor, and artist who discovered, described and named thousands of new species, mapped a genealogical tree relating all life forms, and coined many terms in biology, including anthropogeny, ecology, phylum, phylogeny, stem cell, and Protista. Haeckel promoted and popularised Charles Darwin's work in Germany and developed the influential but no longer widely held recapitulation theory ("ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny") claiming that an individual organism's biological development, or ontogeny, parallels and summarises its species' evolutionary development, or phylogeny.
<...>
Haeckel supported the theory with embryo drawings that have since been shown to be oversimplified and in part inaccurate, and the theory is now considered an oversimplification of quite complicated relationships. Haeckel introduced the concept of heterochrony, the change in timing of embryonic development over the course of evolution.
<...>
Controversy
<...>
While it has been widely claimed that Haeckel was charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by a university court at Jena, there does not appear to be an independently verifiable source for this claim. Recent analyses (Richardson 1998, Richardson and Keuck 2002) have found that some of the criticisms of Haeckel's embryo drawings were legitimate, but others were unfounded. There were multiple versions of the embryo drawings, and Haeckel rejected the claims of fraud. It was later said that "there is evidence of sleight of hand" on both sides of the feud between Haeckel and Wilhelm His. Robert J. Richards, in a paper published in 2008, defends the case for Haeckel, shedding doubt against the fraud accusations based on the material used for comparison with what Haeckel could access at the time. The controversy involves several different issues (see more details at: recapitulation theory).

Ernst Haeckel's embryo drawings
1874 illustration from Anthropogenie showing "very early", "somewhat later" and "still later" stages of embryos of fish (F), salamander (A), turtle (T), chick (H), pig (S), cow (R), rabbit (K), and human (M)
Wikipedia

Michael K. Richardson’s embryo photos are provided below.

https://pigeonchess.com/...embryo-picture-on-his-readers/

Richardson embryo photos
Richardson's embryo photos (Richardson et al., 1998)
Creationist foists “fraudulent” embryo picture on his readers
By Troy Britain. July 26, 2012. Playing chess with pigeons.

http://creationwiki.org/Embryology
Haeckel's fraud
In an attempt to prove his theory true, Ernst Haeckel committed one of the most infamous examples of scientific fraud. In 1868, he published the series of embryos in the picture at right showing various living things placed side by side in the attempt to give the impression that there was significant similarity among them. The embryos shown in the earliest stages were altered to make them look more similar than they are in actuality. Embryologist Jonathan Wells notes that Haeckel was also very selective about the embryos he chose for his illustration. The four right-hand columns in the diagram at right are all from the same taxonomic subclass Eutheria (Placental mammals). Marsupials and monotremes were excluded, as were cartilaginous fish (sharks) and others.[6] The fraud was exposed only months following the publication of these engravings by L. Rütimeyer, professor of zoology and comparative anatomy at the University of Basel, and corroborated by other contemporaries such as William His Sr, professor of anatomy at the University of Leipzig, who published their own comparisons showing significant differences (picture at left).[8]
In 1997, the full extent of Haeckel's fraud was brought to light when Michael K. Richardson, a lecturer and embryologist at St George’s Hospital Medical School, London, published photos of actual embryos illustrating the discrepancies between Haeckel's popular diagram and genuine embryos.[9] Richardson described the situation in an interview in Science magazine as follows: It looks like it's turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology.[10] The effort involved an international team of embryologists who examined and photographed "the external form of embryos from a wide range of vertebrate species, at a stage comparable to that depicted by Haeckel" because up until that time it was apparent that "no one has cited any comparative data in support of the idea". They analyzed 39 different animals including those published by Haeckel and many that were not, such as marsupials, tree-frogs, snakes, and alligators, and they found significance differences with little conservation at the stage of development Haeckel claimed was most similar. In fact, the species in the fraudulent publication are so different that it is assumed the drawings made by Haeckel could not possibly have been done from real specimens.[11]
Richardson summarizes the extent of their findings:
“We find that embryos at the tailbud stage – thought to correspond to a conserved stage – show variations in form due to allometry, heterochrony, and differences in body plan and somite number. These variations foreshadow important differences in adult body form. Contrary to recent claims that all vertebrate embryos pass through a stage when they are the same size, we find a greater than 10-fold variation in greatest length at the tailbud stage. Our survey seriously undermines the credibility of Haeckel’s drawings, which depict not a conserved stage for vertebrates, but a stylised amniote embryo.[12]”
In an interview for the London Times, Richardson is quoted as saying:
“This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud. It’s shocking to find that somebody one thought was a great scientist was deliberately misleading. ... What he did was to take a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander and the pig and all the others looked the same at the same stage of development. They don’t … These are fakes.[13]
<...>
6. Wells, p.26
7. Mitchell, T., and Mitchell, E. Something fishy about gill slits! Answers in Genesis, March 14, 2007
8. Batten, D., Catchpoole, D., Sarfati, J., Wieland, C. The Creation Answers Book, p.113-114. Creation Book Publishers. 2007.
9. Richardson, Michael K., et al., There is no highly conserved embryonic stage in the vertebrates: implications for current theories of evolution and development Anatomy and Embryology 196(2), 1997, pp. 91-106
10. Science 277, 1997, p. 1435
11. Grigg, Russell. Fraud rediscovered Creation 20(2):49–51, March 1998
12. Richardson p.91
13. Nigel Hawkes, The Times (London), p. 14, 11 August 1997
The Creation Wiki

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs004290050082
Abstract
Embryos of different species of vertebrate share a common organisation and often look similar. Adult differences among species become more apparent through divergence at later stages. Some authors have suggested that members of most or all vertebrate clades pass through a virtually identical, conserved stage. This idea was promoted by Haeckel, and has recently been revived in the context of claims regarding the universality of developmental mechanisms. Thus embryonic resemblance at the tailbud stage has been linked with a conserved pattern of developmental gene expression – the zootype. Haeckel’s drawings of the external morphology of various vertebrates remain the most comprehensive comparative data purporting to show a conserved stage. However, their accuracy has been questioned and only a narrow range of species was illustrated. In view of the current widespread interest in evolutionary developmental biology, and especially in the conservation of developmental mechanisms, re-examination of the extent of variation in vertebrate embryos is long overdue. We present here the first review of the external morphology of tailbud embryos, illustrated with original specimens from a wide range of vertebrate groups. We find that embryos at the tailbud stage – thought to correspond to a conserved stage – show variations in form due to allometry, heterochrony, and differences in body plan and somite number. These variations foreshadow important differences in adult body form. Contrary to recent claims that all vertebrate embryos pass through a stage when they are the same size, we find a greater than 10-fold variation in greatest length at the tailbud stage. Our survey seriously undermines the credibility of Haeckel’s drawings, which depict not a conserved stage for vertebrates, but a stylised amniote embryo. In fact, the taxonomic level of greatest resemblance among vertebrate embryos is below the subphylum. The wide variation in morphology among vertebrate embryos is difficult to reconcile with the idea of a phyogenetically-conserved tailbud stage, and suggests that at least some developmental mechanisms are not highly constrained by the zootype. Our study also highlights the dangers of drawing general conclusions about vertebrate development from studies of gene expression in a small number of laboratory species.
Key words Morphogenesis Developmental biology Comparative anatomy Comparative study Embryology
There is no highly conserved embryonic stage in the vertebrates: implications for current theories of evolution and development
By M. K. Richardson, James Hanken, Mayoni L. Gooneratne, Claude Pieau, Albert Raynaud, Lynne Selwood, Glenda M. Wright
Anatomy and Embryology. July 1997, Volume 196, Issue 2, pp 91-106

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/277/5331/1435.1.summary
Summary
Using modern techniques, a British researcher has photographed embryos like those pictured in the famous, century-old drawings by Ernst Haeckel--proving that Haeckel's images were falsified. Haeckel once admitted to his peers that he doctored the drawings, but that confession was forgotten.
Haeckel's Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered
By Elizabeth Pennisi.
Science. September 5, 1997. Vol. 277 no. 5331 p. 1435. DOI: 10.1126/science. 277.5331.1435a




Chapter #6: The making of artificial cell is a good proof of the theory of evolution – is it really so?

Evolutionists claim that the making of artificial cell is a good proof of the theory of evolution.
As the proof evolutionists provide the following article.

http://www.jcvi.org/...cell-constructed-by-j-craig-venter-institute-researcher/
First Self-Replicating Synthetic Bacterial Cell

ROCKVILLE, MD and San Diego, CA (May 20, 2010) — Researchers at the J. Craig Venter Institute (JCVI), a not-for-profit genomic research organization, published results today describing the successful construction of the first self-replicating, synthetic bacterial cell. The team synthesized the 1.08 million base pair chromosome of a modified Mycoplasma mycoides genome. The synthetic cell is called Mycoplasma mycoides JCVI-syn1.0 and is the proof of principle that genomes can be designed in the computer, chemically made in the laboratory and transplanted into a recipient cell to produce a new self-replicating cell controlled only by the synthetic genome.
This research will be published by Daniel Gibson et al in the May 20th edition of Science Express and will appear in an upcoming print issue of Science.
"For nearly 15 years Ham Smith, Clyde Hutchison and the rest of our team have been working toward this publication today--the successful completion of our work to construct a bacterial cell that is fully controlled by a synthetic genome," said J. Craig Venter, Ph.D., founder and president, JCVI and senior author on the paper. "We have been consumed by this research, but we have also been equally focused on addressing the societal implications of what we believe will be one of the most powerful technologies and industrial drivers for societal good. We look forward to continued review and dialogue about the important applications of this work to ensure that it is used for the benefit of all."
According to Dr. Smith, "With this first synthetic bacterial cell and the new tools and technologies we developed to successfully complete this project, we now have the means to dissect the genetic instruction set of a bacterial cell to see and understand how it really works."
To complete this final stage in the nearly 15 year process to construct and boot up a synthetic cell, JCVI scientists began with the accurate, digitized genome of the bacterium, M. mycoides. The team designed 1,078 specific cassettes of DNA that were 1,080 base pairs long. These cassettes were designed so that the ends of each DNA cassette overlapped each of its neighbors by 80bp. The cassettes were made according to JCVI's specifications by the DNA synthesis company, Blue Heron Biotechnology.
The JCVI team employed a three stage process using their previously described yeast assembly system to build the genome using the 1,078 cassettes. The first stage involved taking 10 cassettes of DNA at a time to build 110, 10,000 bp segments. In the second stage, these 10,000 bp segments are taken 10 at a time to produce eleven, 100,000 bp segments. In the final step, all 11, 100 kb segments were assembled into the complete synthetic genome in yeast cells and grown as a yeast artificial chromosome.
The complete synthetic M. mycoides genome was isolated from the yeast cell and transplanted into Mycoplasma capricolum recipient cells that have had the genes for its restriction enzyme removed. The synthetic genome DNA was transcribed into messenger RNA, which in turn was translated into new proteins. The M. capricolum genome was either destroyed by M. mycoides restriction enzymes or was lost during cell replication. After two days viable M. mycoides cells, which contained only synthetic DNA, were clearly visible on petri dishes containing bacterial growth medium.<...>
First Self-Replicating, Synthetic Bacterial Cell Constructed by J. Craig Venter Institute Researchers. May 20, 2010.

It is important to note that the artificial cell was made by disassembling the existing living cells and by taking ready-made components from the existing living cells.
A brief digest of the article: the making of artificial cell took 15 years, a large group of scientists had been working on the project in order to produce the artificial cell, and they needed to use such and such technologies in such and such steps – to transport the gene, to remove/add specific enzymes and so on.
The summary: we have the fact – the artificial cell was made, a large group of scientists worked on this project for 15 years, in order to create the artificial cell the scientists used the most advanced tools of genetic engineering and molecular biology techniques.
Let’s raise a simple question: what can we deduce from the fact that scientists had made the artificial cell?

We have two options:
1) the artificial cell chaotically self-assembled itself;
2) the intelligence and meticulous, attentive highly skilled work was needed for the creation of the artificial cell.

Which of the two options best matches the content of the article?
Obviously the second option.
In other words, the article is a good proof that intelligence was needed for the creation of the artificial cell.
Unfortunately, the creation of artificial cell is not the proof of the theory of evolution.



Chapter #7: Vestigial structures and atavisms is a good proof of the theory of evolution – is it really so?

Evolutionists claim that vestigial structures and atavisms is a good proof of the theory of evolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
Evidence of common descent of living organisms has been discovered by scientists researching in a variety of disciplines over many decades, demonstrating the common descent of all life on Earth developing from a last universal ancestor. This evidence constructs the theoretical framework on which evolutionary theory rests, demonstrates that evolution does occur, and is able to show the natural processes that led to the emergence of Earth's biodiversity.
<...>
Vestigial structures
A strong and direct evidence for common descent comes from vestigial structures. Rudimentary body parts, those that are smaller and simpler in structure than corresponding parts in the ancestral species, are called vestigial organs. They are usually degenerated or underdeveloped. The existence of vestigial organs can be explained in terms of changes in the environment or modes of life of the species. Those organs are typically functional in the ancestral species but are now either nonfunctional or re-purposed. Examples are the pelvic girdles of whales, haltere (hind wings) of flies and mosquitos, nictitating membranes (and its homolog, the plica semilunaris in humans), wings of flightless birds such as ostriches, and the leaves of some xerophytes (e.g. cactus) and parasitic plants (e.g. dodder). However, vestigial structures may have their original function replaced with another. For example, the halteres in dipterists help balance the insect while in flight and the wings of ostriches are used in mating rituals.

Specific examples from comparative anatomy
Hind structures in whales
Whales possess internally reduced hind parts such as the pelvis and hind legs (Fig. 2b). Occasionally, the genes that code for longer extremities cause a modern whale to develop legs. On October 28, 2006, a four-finned bottlenose dolphin was caught and studied due to its extra set of hind limbs. These legged Cetacea display an example of an atavism predicted from their common ancestry.

Hind structures in whales
Figure 2b: Skeleton of a Baleen whale with the hind limb and pelvic bone structure circled in red. This bone structure stays internal during the entire life of the species.
<...>
Atavisms
Once thought of as a refutation to evolutionary theory, atavisms are "now seen as potent evidence of how much genetic potential is retained...after a particular structure has disappeared from a species". "Atavisms are the reappearance of a lost character typical of remote ancestors and not seen in the parents or recent ancestors..." and are an "[indication] of the developmental plasticity that exits within embryos..." Atavisms occur because genes for previously existing phenotypical features are often preserved in DNA, even though the genes are not expressed in some or most of the organisms possessing them. Numerous examples have documented the occurrence of atavisms alongside experimental research triggering their formation. Due to the complexity and interrelatedness of the factors involved in the development of atavisms, both biologists and medical professionals find it "difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish [them] from malformations."
Some examples of atavisms found in the scientific literature include:
Hind limbs in whales.<...>

Hind limbs in whales
Figure 2a: In July 1919, a humpback whale was caught by a ship operating out of Vancouver that had legs 4 ft 2 in (1.27 m) long. This image shows the hindlegs of another humpback whale reported in 1921 by the American Museum.
Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigiality
Vestigiality refers to genetically determined structures or attributes that have lost some or all of their ancestral function in a given species, but have been retained during the process of evolution. Assessment of the vestigiality must generally rely on comparison with homologous features in related species. The emergence of vestigiality occurs by normal evolutionary processes, typically by loss of function of a feature that is no longer subject to positive selection pressures when it loses its value in a changing environment. The feature may be selected against more urgently when its function becomes definitively harmful. Typical examples of both types occur in the loss of flying capability in island-dwelling species.
Wikipedia

Let's examine more closely these claims of evolutionists.

Evolutionists will provide you a great bunch of examples of “useless” vestigial organs of animals.
In many cases evolutionists provide incorrect examples of “useless” vestigial organs, as for example the hind legs in whales.
Evolutionists claim that whales are mammals that had lived on land and then have returned back to the ocean. When the whales walked the earth, whales had legs with which whales walked on the earth. When whales went back into the ocean, their legs vanished, and now whales have only small vestigial remnants of the legs, which are absolutely useless.
However, when evolutionists tell us this story about whales, either they do not know the anatomy of whales, or they are obviously lying.
The reality is that certain muscles are attached to these “rudimentary” leg bones of the whale. If these muscles or legs will be cut off, then without them the whale will be unable to give birth. Yes, the whale does not use those legs all the time, however when it comes time to give birth, the female whale can not give birth without them, and this means that a whale could not leave offspring, and without the descendants the evolutionary chain/branch will be cut off. And whale males use these muscles/legs to control their penis during the copulation.
As you can see from the example with hind legs of whales, many examples of “useless” vestigial organs provided by evolutionists are wrong.
But the point is not even that, the point is another thing.

For explanation we need more precise definition of terms:
1) Devolution is the process which reduces the number of structural elements of the organism.
Devolution is the phenomenon which we can observe experimentally.

2) Evolution is the process which increases the number of structural elements of the organism.
Evolution is the phenomenon which no one has ever registered experimentally, however evolutionists firmly believe that such phenomenon supposedly exist.

The structural element is one of the components in the complex structure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_element
Structural elements are used in structural analysis to split a complex structure into simple elements.
Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure
Biological structure
In biology, structures exist at all levels of organization, ranging hierarchically from the atomic and molecular to the cellular, tissue, organ, organismic, population and ecosystem level. Usually, a higher-level structure is composed of multiple copies of a lower-level structure.
Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_organisation
Each level in the hierarchy can be described by its lower levels. For example, the organism may be described at any of its component levels, including the atomic, molecular, cellular, histological (tissue), organ and organ system levels. Furthermore, at every level of the hierarchy, new functions necessary for the control of life appear. These new roles are not functions that the lower level components are capable of and are thus referred to as emergent properties.
Wikipedia

The structural elements of the body are the organs (heart, lungs, kidneys, etc.).
The structural elements of the cell are organelles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(biology)
Organelles are parts of the cell which are adapted and/or specialized for carrying out one or more vital functions, analogous to the organs of the human body (such as the heart, lung, and kidney, with each organ performing a different function). Both eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells have organelles, but prokaryotic organelles are generally simpler and are not membrane-bound.
There are several types of organelles in a cell. Some (such as the nucleus and golgi apparatus) are typically solitary, while others (such as mitochondria, chloroplasts, peroxisomes and lysosomes) can be numerous (hundreds to thousands). The cytosol is the gelatinous fluid that fills the cell and surrounds the organelles.

Eukaryotic:
(1) Cell nucleus <...>
(2) Mitochondria and Chloroplasts <...>
(3) Endoplasmic reticulum <...>
(4) Golgi apparatus <...>
(5) Lysosomes and Peroxisomes <...>
(6) Centrosome <...>
(7) Vacuoles <...>
Wikipedia

Now let’s go back to the evolutionists’ claim that “vestigial organs is a good proof of the theory of evolution”.
Here we will need logical thinking. Suppose we have a leg which has atrophied and vanished in the course of evolution, and now there are left only small remnants of the legs which do not perform any function. In order for these “vestigial organs” (the remnants of the legs) to appear, first of all, it is necessary to start with big legs, and only then the legs will decrease and decrease, until there will be left only tiny remnants of the legs.
But then the question remains unanswered: “where do the big legs came from?”.
After all, you need to start with a normal organ, in order to get a “vestigial organ”.

Vestigial organs do not prove the theory of evolution, because evolutionists claim that simple life forms evolve into new more complex life forms, and the difference between complex and simple life forms is the presence of new organs.
However, vestigial organs is the proof of devolution (i.e. proof of the degradation and decline).
Vestigial organs do not prove the theory of evolution (i.e. vestigial organs do not prove the process of increasing complexity of organisms).




Chapter #8: Natural selection causes evolution – is it really so?

Evolutionists claim that natural selection causes evolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype. It is a key mechanism of evolution, the change in heritable traits of a population over time. Charles Darwin popularised the term "natural selection"; he compared it with artificial selection (selective breeding).
Variation exists within all populations of organisms. This occurs partly because random mutations arise in the genome of an individual organism, and offspring can inherit such mutations. Throughout the lives of the individuals, their genomes interact with their environments to cause variations in traits. (The environment of a genome includes the molecular biology in the cell, other cells, other individuals, populations, species, as well as the abiotic environment.) Individuals with certain variants of the trait may survive and reproduce more than individuals with other, less successful, variants. Therefore, the population evolves. Factors that affect reproductive success are also important, an issue that Darwin developed in his ideas on sexual selection (now often included in natural selection) and on fecundity selection, for example.
Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, but the genetic (heritable) basis of any phenotype that gives a reproductive advantage may become more common in a population (see allele frequency). Over time, this process can result in populations that specialise for particular ecological niches (microevolution) and may eventually result in the emergence of new species (macroevolution). In other words, natural selection is an important process (though not the only process) by which evolution takes place within a population of organisms. Natural selection can be contrasted with artificial selection, in which humans intentionally choose specific traits (although they may not always get what they want). In natural selection there is no intentional choice. In other words, artificial selection is teleological and natural selection is not teleological, though biologists often use teleological language to describe it.
Natural selection is one of the cornerstones of modern biology. The concept, published by Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace in a joint presentation of papers in 1858, was elaborated in Darwin's influential 1859 book On the Origin of Species, which described natural selection as analogous to artificial selection, a process by which animals and plants with traits considered desirable by human breeders are systematically favoured for reproduction. The concept of natural selection originally developed in the absence of a valid theory of heredity; at the time of Darwin's writing, science had yet to develop modern theories of genetics. The union of traditional Darwinian evolution with subsequent discoveries in classical and molecular genetics is termed the modern evolutionary synthesis. Natural selection remains the primary explanation for adaptive evolution.
Wikipedia

Let's examine more closely these claims of evolutionists.

Evolutionists claim that simple organisms (i.e. organisms that have small number of structural elements) evolve into more complex organisms (i.e., organisms which have larger number of the structural elements). Evolutionists draw evolutionary trees which show how simple organisms have evolved into more complex organisms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree
A phylogenetic tree or evolutionary tree is a branching diagram or "tree" showing the inferred evolutionary relationships among various biological species or other entities—their phylogeny—based upon similarities and differences in their physical or genetic characteristics. The taxa joined together in the tree are implied to have descended from a common ancestor. Phylogenetic trees are central to the field of phylogenetics.
In a rooted phylogenetic tree, each node with descendants represents the inferred most recent common ancestor of the descendants, and the edge lengths in some trees may be interpreted as time estimates. Each node is called a taxonomic unit. Internal nodes are generally called hypothetical taxonomic units, as they cannot be directly observed. Trees are useful in fields of biology such as bioinformatics, systematics, and phylogenetic comparative methods.
Unrooted trees illustrate only the relatedness of the leaf nodes and do not require the ancestral root to be known or inferred.

evolutionary tree
A rooted phylogenetic tree, illustrating how Eukaryota and Archaea are more closely related to each other than to Bacteria (based on Cavalier-Smith's theory of bacterial evolution). Neomura is a clade composed of two life domains, Archaea and Eukaryota. LUCA, a variant of LUA, stands for last universal common ancestor.

evolutionary tree
A speculatively rooted tree for rRNA genes, showing the three life domains Bacteria, Archaea, and Eucaryota, and linking the three branches of living organisms to the LUCA (the black trunk at the bottom of the tree); cf. next graphic.

evolutionary tree
Diagrammatic representation of the divergence of modern taxonomic groups from their common ancestor

evolutionary tree
A spindle diagram, showing the evolution of the vertebrates at class level, width of spindles indicating number of families. Spindle diagrams are often used in evolutionary taxonomy.
Wikipedia

Evolutionists claim that man evolved from rock (“rock” may be called with different names however the essence remains the same).
The difference of the man from the rock is that man has more organs than a rock, as for example, man has heart, liver, lungs, etc.
This means that all these organs must have arisen sometime in the past.
Evolutionists claim that all the organs have arisen in the process of evolution.
Evolutionists claim that evolution is exactly the mechanism which creates new organs.

Now let’s go back to the evolutionists’ claim that “natural selection causes evolution”.

In order to be able to select something by using natural selection, at first these best/worst organisms/animals must already exist, and only then it is possible to select something from them.
Natural selection does not create new more complex organisms/animals, natural selection simply chooses from the already existing ones.
Natural selection does not explain where and how these new organisms/animals have arisen.
Natural selection does not explain how new species arise. Natural selection simply selects the more successful species from the existing ones; however natural selection does not explain the origin of new more complex species.
Therefore, natural selection is not the proof of the theory of evolution.




Chapter #9: Sexual crossing causes evolution – is it really so?

.... to be continued ... the text being prepared ....




Chapter #10: Genetic mutations create new information and this causes evolution – is it really so?

.... to be continued ... the text being prepared ....




Chapter #11: Bacterial resistance to antibiotics is a good proof of the theory of evolution – is it really so?

.... to be continued ... the text being prepared ....




Chapter #12:

.... to be continued ... the text being prepared ....




Content Disclaimer:
The views and opinions expressed in the articles and movies are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions held by neuroclusterbrain.com.
neuroclusterbrain.com is not responsible for the content of any third-party website. Any links to such websites are provided for educational purposes and for your convenience only.
neuroclusterbrain.com does not endorse, authorize, approve, certify, maintain, or control these other websites and does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, efficacy or timeliness of the information located at such websites.