E.coli!

For over 10 years, i have seen this study linked to as 'Proof of Common Ancestry!'  'Proof of Speciation!', and/or 'Proof of Gene Creation!'  But is it?  I will provide a brief peer review, for your consideration.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2430337/

Here is a later one, that uses the same data as Lenski's original.   Both have been presented to me, multiple times, as, 'Proof of Common Ancestry!'

https://ec.asm.org/content/4/6/1102.full

If all that is being said is that organisms vary within their genetic parameters, then there is no debate. E coli is unique, in that it has a wide range of adaptability, but there is NO EVIDENCE that it came from (or is going to), some simpler (or complex) genetic structure.

*..genomic evolution was nearly constant for 20,000 generations. Such clock-like regularity is usually viewed as the signature of neutral evolution, but several lines of evidence indicate that almost all of these mutations were beneficial. This same population later evolved an elevated mutation rate and accumulated hundreds of additional mutations dominated by a neutral signature.*

Pathetically, i understand this.. being a science geek, & having followed with great interest this subject for decades. I take issue with the use of the terminology, 'evolution', as it seems to use circular reasoning.. using the premise (and terminology) to prove itself. If by 'genomic evolution' you merely mean minor changes in generations, or micro evolution, that is plainly obvious. But to correlate it with macro is still a false equivalence.

Now, the study is claiming 'beneficial' mutations, among 'several lines of evidence'. I am a bit confused about the statement above, which seems to conflict with the findings of the study:

*Of the 12 populations, six have so far been reported to have developed defects in their ability to repair DNA, greatly increasing the rate of mutation in those strains.[5][19][20] Although the bacteria in each population are thought to have generated hundreds of millions of mutations over the first 20,000 generations, Lenski has estimated that within this time frame,only 10 to 20 beneficial mutations achieved fixation in each population, with fewer than 100 total point mutations (including neutral mutations) reaching fixation in each population.*

So there is a question about the results.. were 'almost all mutations beneficial'? Or were there 'only 10-20 beneficial mutations, out of millions?

That is a fine point, & may be due more to the writer, than the experiment itself.

Ok lets go to the findings, & see what conclusions they compel.

**Change in fitness** 
*All populations showed a pattern of rapid increase in relative fitness during early generations, with this increase decelerating over time* 
**Defects in genome repair** 
*Of the 12 populations, six have so far been reported to have developed defects in their ability to repair DNA, greatly increasing the rate of mutation in those strains*
**Increase in cell size, & morphological change**
*All twelve of the experimental populations show an increase in cell size concurrent with a decline in maximum population density, and in many of the populations, a more rounded cell shape* 
**Polymorphism & phylogenetic comparison** 
*Two distinct variants, S and L, were identified in the population designated Ara-2 at 18,000 generations based on their formation of small and large colonies, respectively.[25] Clones of the S and L types could co-exist stably in co-culture with each other, indicating they occupied distinct niches in the population*
**Citrate usage** 
*The inability to grow aerobically on citrate, referred to as a Cit− phenotype, is considered a defining characteristic of E. coli as a species, and one that has been a valuable means of differentiating E. coli from pathogenic Salmonella. While Cit+ strains of E. coli have been isolated from environmental and agricultural samples, in every such case, the trait was found to be due to the presence of a plasmid containing a foreign citrate transporter.[32] A single, spontaneous Cit+ mutant of E. coli was reported by Hall in 1982.[33] This mutant had been isolated during prolonged selection for growth on another novel substance in a growth broth that also contained citrate. Hall's genetic analysis indicated the underlying mutation was complex, but he was ultimately unable to identify the precise changes or genes involved, leading him to hypothesize activation of a cryptic transporter gene*

There is a bit more in this study, & lots of commentary about the findings. But the primary evidence being presented is the ability of e.coli 'to grow aerobically on citrate', that is, when oxygen is present.

Now, let us examine the claims that this is evidence for macro evolution, which predicts structural changes in the genome.

Has there been a 'structural change' in the genome? No. This is still a strain of e.coli. It is not another, more advanced bacteria, but one of the simplest, most basic ones there is, & even over thousands of generations, it is still e.coli, with a few mutations & variations, perhaps, but genetically, morphologically, & phylogenetically, **unchanged**. It is just slightly different, and almost an exact phenotype.

Here are some other facts about this study.

• E.coli is an asexual organism, able to reproduce by itself. 
• The study began in 1988, & by 2016 has increased to 66,000 generations. 
• E.coli has been found to be extremely adaptive, with ability to survive & adapt to many different conditions. 
• There are many criticisms of this study's conclusions, among peer reviewed scientists. Extrapolations not warranted by the data are made, and it has been sensationalized for marketing or hype. 
• This study provides no evidence for any structural changes in the genome. 

I like this study. I am intrigued by the findings about e.coli, & its amazing adaptability to its environment. It is similar to the shark, in its longevity & ability to live in whatever environmental variables come its way. 

But, for those who think this study provide evidence for common ancestry, you are greatly mistaken. It does not. It merely illustrates the adaptability of e.coli. 

The claim of 'new speciation!', is only an arbitrary definition, not anything compelled by any changes in the morphology or genetic structure of the organism. To claim this is 'real evolution!' is absurd. It is obviously just adaptation, & only demonstrates the viability & adaptability of this particular organism. Some organisms do NOT have this capability, but die under unfriendly conditions. So this phenomenon does not apply universally, as would be expected if this were a mechanism for macro evolution, but is unique to e.coli. 

*Lenski criticizes Van Hofwegen et al.'s description of the initial evolution of Cit+ as a "speciation event" by pointing out that the LTEE was not designed to isolate citrate-using mutants or to deal with speciation since in their 2008 paper they said "that becoming Cit+ was only a first step on the road to possible speciation", and thus did not propose that the Cit+ mutants were a different species, but that speciation might be an eventual consequence of the trait's evolution* 

So the claim of 'new speciation!' is not even claimed by Lenski, the one doing the study, even though hordes of eager Believers cling to it as 'scientific proof!' of common descent.

Natural Selection: Contrary to Common Ancestry

In this continuing series of examination of the theory (religious belief) of common ancestry, i will look at natural selection. Human breeding is also included in this inquiry.

Breeding and natural selection is the process of 'selecting' traits that are desirable, and deselecting those that aren't. Most of us grew up with the image of light colored moths, in preindustrial England, evolving into dark colored moths, as coal soot from the industrialists choked the planet with fossil fuel emissions.

What do we observe, regarding genetic diversity in an organism?

1. Lower levels of diversity tend to spell extinction of a particular haplogroup.
2. As the tips of a haplotree extend, the diversity decreases.
3. Some low diversity organisms, like sharks and cockroaches, continue for extended generations, with mimimal changes in their levels of diversity.
4. There is no evidence, of increasing genetic information, in ANY isolated haplogroup. They either have the traits needed to survive, or they don't.

This from a study about cats:

The data can help scientists monitor genetic diversity and aid in conservation efforts, Waits says. Snow leopards have low levels of genetic diversity, the researchers found, nearly half that of the other big cat species. Low genetic diversity can be a sign that a species is heading toward extinction.

Cats in general have low levels of diversity, says Marcella Kelly, a population ecologist at Virginia Tech. “I get more worried if an animal has lost diversity recently,” she says. The researchers have DNA of only one snow leopard, so they don’t know whether the animals naturally have low levels or if their genetic diversity has taken a dive.

Tiger, lion and domestic cat genes not so different | Science News

How do you even get 'low levels of diversity', if an organism is constantly creating new genetic information? If the assumptions of common descent were true, there would be new traits and variation constantly added, and haplogroups becoming more diverse, instead of less.

Natural selection and breeding, are DEVOLUTION processes.. the organism is becoming LESS diverse, genetically, with fewer traits to pick from, in their lottery picks of genes.

Natural selection is evidence AGAINST common ancestry, and does not provide any evidence that it can or did happen.

This point is critical evidence against the theory of universal common ancestry.

How can organisms 'advance' into more complexity, if they are in reality, 'devolving', and decreasing in variability?

How do you reconcile the OBSERVABLE reality of fewer traits being available, in a 'low diversity' organism, with the belief that they are constantly adding new traits, genes, chromosomes, etc? How could common ancestry be possible, when organisms DECREASE in variability, through natural or man made selection?

Article on statistical homology review

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/universal-common-ancestor/

i will examine this article, based on statistical analysis.

From the article:

In the 19th century, Charles Darwin went beyond others, who had proposed that there might be a common ancestor for all mammals or animals, and suggested that there was likely a common ancestor for all life on the planet—plant, animal and bacterial.
A new statistical analysis takes this assumption to the bench and finds that it not only holds water but indeed is overwhelmingly sound.
This is an article in a magazine about a statistical study of dna. It is a computer analysis, set up to measure probability based on assumptions of common descent.

Theobald was able to run rigorous statistical analyses on the amino acid sequences in 23 universally conserved proteins across the three major divisions of life (eukaryotes, bacteria and archaea). By plugging these sequences into various relational and evolutionary models,

What is being done here, is entering data from amino acid sequences into a computer model.. a program based on the assumption of descent. They project evolutionary sequences, to draw a conclusion of probability.

he found that a universal common ancestor is at least 10^2,860 more likely to have produced the modern-day protein sequence variances

Probability cannot be measured, statistically, unless you have assumptions about the data. By assuming common descent, and projecting from the simplest sequences (assumed to be the earliest in the tree of life) to the later, more complex ones, a figure can be calculated, to project probability. Details about the data and calculations are omitted.

He ran various statistical evolutionary models, including ones that took horizontal gene transfer into consideration and others that did not. And the models that accounted for horizontal gene transfer ended up providing the most statistical support for a universal common ancestor.

Points about this article:
1. The data, parameters, and assumptions for each computer model are not revealed or defined.

2. Conclusions ABOUT the study are trumpeted, but not the actual data and methods of calculations.

3. Flawed assumptions, that apply circular reasoning, using the premise to prove the conclusion, are present.
From the journalist:

Microbiologists have gained a better understanding of genetic behavior of simple life forms, which can be much more amorphous than the typical, vertical transfer of genes from one generation to the next

This is asserted, but is an assumption that contradicts itself.. the vagaries of 'amorphous transfer of genes', is not established, is unevidenced, and assumed.

With horizontal gene transfers, genetic signatures can move swiftly between branches, quickly turning a traditional tree into a tangled web.

This is assumed and unevidenced. It is a conjecture based on the assumption of common descent. No actual data or studies have DEMONSTRATED the belief in 'horizontal gene transfer', which insinuates the 'tangled web', i.e., that genes flow easily between phylogenetic types, plugging into any organism equally. Attempts have been made for over a century, to show, by experimentation, that organisms can move from one genotype to another, without sucess.

4. The flawed conclusions by journalists, and those promoting the belief in common descent override any scrutiny as to what this study actually shows.

5. Computer models can be programmed to generate a desired outcome, and are not empirical, especially when dealing with something as vague as 'probability!'

6. The article is a cheerleading piece, singing the praises for common descent, and glossing over what was actually done, leaving it to the imagination and wishful thinking of True Believers to see, 'Evidence!', in a contrived computer model that shows probability, if you assume common descent.

7. The desperation of the True Believers, to see this as 'Evidence!', is a tragic commentary on the decline of critical thinking and skepticism. This is not evidence of anything, except the creative ability of man to deceive himself, with smoke and mirrors. There is NO EVIDENCE of 'new!' genes, chromosomes, genomic structures, or anything resembling common descent. It is conjecture and assumptions, trumpeted as 'proof!'

How is this evidence of common descent? Did anyone actually read it, with scientific scrutiny? Is confirmation bias the only thing needed to see 'proof!', in these studies?

Common Ancestry Study Examined, Part 2

This is the second part, of an examination of a 'study', purported to be 'Proof of Common Ancestry!'

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2993666/

We devised a computational experiment on a concatenated alignment of universally conserved proteins which shows that the purported demonstration of the universal common ancestry is a trivial consequence of significant sequence similarity between the analyzed proteins.

Ok.  So this is a computer model, comparing similarity of proteins.  The data is from somewhere else, and is just protein building blocks from the genomes used.  They seem to think that 'common ancestry', is a 'trivial consequence'.  Everything factual and logical seems to defy a conclusion of 'common ancestry!,' yet the conflicts are swept aside, and the mantra is merely rechanted by the True Believers.

This conclusion and assumption is unwarranted by the facts.  Any similarities of proteins, as building blocks, ARE 'trivial', and does not indicate common ancestry any more than intelligent design.

The nature and origin of this similarity are irrelevant for the prediction of "common ancestry" of by the model-comparison approach. Thus, homology (common origin) of the compared proteins remains an inference from sequence similarity rather than an independent property demonstrated by the likelihood analysis.

This is a rational conclusion, that flies in the face of the intent of the study.  The 'homologies' of the proteins..  that is, the VISUAL  similarities are merely the age old fallacy of 'Looks Like!' belief.  They reject a purely homology based 'proof', and admit that even a 'sequence similarity', is an inference for common ancestry,  based on perceptions of 'likelihood', and plausibility. 

How this is seen as 'Proof!', of common ancestry,  when they expose the flaws in 'seeing!' homology as evidence, remains a mystery of progressive Indoctrination. 

A formal demonstration of the Universal Common Ancestry hypothesis has not been achieved and is unlikely to be feasible in principle. Nevertheless, the evidence in support of this hypothesis provided by comparative genomics is overwhelming.

Amazing.  They state clearly and openly that there is NO DEMONSTRATION  of common ancestry in this study, but go on to glibly assert it as 'supported!'  The facts of homologous similarity of proteins do not compel a conclusion of common ancestry,  yet they will reaffirm belief, to fool the gullible into thinking they have 'Proved!' it with this study.

Why is 'demonstrating the universal common ancestry hypothesis,' 'unlikely to be feasable?'  Because it has been tried for over a century with no success?  Because it is a religious/philosophical BELIEF, with no corroborating scientific evidence? 

If common ancestry is a natural process,  why is demonstrating it unfeasable?  It should be easy to demonstrate the transition between organisms, the mechanism for increasing complexity,  and the abundance of transitional forms, that would indicate this constant 'evolving' of living things.

In a recent, remarkable Letter to Nature, Theobald applied an information-theoretical approach to offer just that: a formal, homology-independent test for the hypothesis of the common ancestry of the extant cellular life forms [4], a claim that is further reaffirmed in the accompanying News and Views article by Steel and Penny [5]. Following the general information theoretical framework for statistical tests of common ancestry laid out previously by Sober and Steel [6], Theobald reports a likelihood ratio test of the common ancestry hypothesis for genes represented by orthologs in the three domains of life. According to Theobald, "...when comparing a common-ancestry model to a multiple-ancestry model, the large test scores are a direct measure of the increase in our ability to accurately predict the sequence of a genealogically related protein relative to an unrelated protein." [4]. It is interesting to note that this "formal demonstration of the common ancestry of life" seems to quickly gain quite some following. Thus, the Wikipedia article on the Last Universal Ancestor quotes Theobald's study as the principal argument in support of the UCA [7].

Here the authors criticize another study, and their conclusions, that garnered much attention, and was even used in wiki to support belief in UCA (universal common ancestry).  They note, with interest, that the assertions from this study 'quickly gained quite some following,' which they would like to replace, it seems, with their own study.


We maintain, however, that the purported formal demonstration of the Universal Common Ancestry of all known cellular life forms is illusory. Indeed, in the quoted key sentence, the claim that the sequence of one of the universal proteins (e.g., a bacterial version) predicts another (e.g., the corresponding archaeal version) is simply a restatement of the fact that these proteins display a highly statistically significant sequence similarity.

So this other, more popular study, that gained quite a following, is disputed, as being just another 'similarity!' of homology proof.  Theobald's study only restated 'sequence similarity!', that these authors found 'illusory'.  But THEIR study, another computer model, will actually prove common ancestry by showing a more compelling likelihood from statistical analysis.  I hope to examine that claim next.

I realize that studies like this are difficult to wade through, to see what is actually being said.  Masked in techno babble,  and constant asserted, dogmatic 'conclusions', with no clear cut compulsion from the evidence (which is vague and often undefined), the reader can be bluffed to think, 'How sciency that sounds!  They must really be smart!'

But if you can sift through the BS, all you find are assertions and beliefs, that the facts do not compel.  Only low information bobbleheads are fooled by these bluffs.

Common Ancestry: A Study Examined

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2993666/

This study, from a US government site, has been thrown at me several times, as 'Proof!' of common ancestry. I have not provided a rebuttal, as i don't debate links, if they are used as a proxy debating tactic, but the claims here are central to the belief in common ancestry, and deserve examination. 

I will not go through the complete study all at once, to keep the short attention span indoctrinees from accusing, 'Gish Gallup!!' :O. ;)

But i will examine the study, and offer a peer review, inasmuch as I can. I am conversant with the terminology, and am not bluffed by techno babble deflections, used to obscure, not illuminate, understanding. 

I fully expect the usual howls of, 'Liar!', 'Refuse!', 'Ignore!', 'Ignorant!', and other such scientific terms of endearment that progressive indoctrinees use as substitutes for reason. I'll try to not get sidetracked from this study with those deflections. 

Italics are from the study, with my remarks following. 

It is common belief that all cellular life forms on earth have a common origin.

Of course it is 'common belief!' This has been EXCLUSIVELY indoctrinated by progressive institutions for decades. But the bandwagon appeal is a fallacy. 

This view is supported by the universality of the genetic code and the universal conservation of multiple genes, particularly those that encode key components of the translation system.

This is the central fallacy of common ancestry.. the 'Looks Like!' plausibility, morphing into 'settled science!' Similarity of components, design, or construction does NOT indicate common ancestry. Books did not evolve from simpler forms, since you can construct a 'tree', showing simpler, child targeted books evolving into complex ones. It is circular reasoning to assume 'common ancestry!', because of similarity in genomic architecture or components. The similarity of genomic architecture is at least an equivalent argument for Intelligent Design. 

A remarkable recent study claims to provide a formal, homology independent test of the Universal Common Ancestry hypothesis by comparing the ability of a common-ancestry model and a multiple-ancestry model to predict sequences of universally conserved proteins.

The only thing 'Remarkable!', i see is the blatant dogmatism, assertions, and unscientific conclusions offered for something laced with philosophical opinions and assumptions. Similarity of proteins in genomic architecture is NOT 'evidence of common ancestry!', and yet this is the central claim, over and over, sometimes shrouded in irrelevant comparisons or meaningless techno babble. 

This was the abstract summary, or background, presenting the conclusions they perceive from this computer model study. Later i can examine the specific claims, to see if those conclusions are warranted. 

The observation that this study is regarded as 'proof of common ancestry!', tells me more about indoctrination, and religious devotion to atheistic naturalism.. that something transparently INEVIDENCED, is trumpeted as 'proof!' Skepticism and critical thinking are dying traits, replaced by mandated conformity of belief. Desperation, not science, is the only proof of common ancestry.

Evidence for The Creator: Mass Delusion

Here is another evidence of the Creator..

Mass Delusion

IF.. this is a godless universe, like many people believe,
THEN.. everyone who believes in God is deluded. They can't (or won't) face reality, but need a crutch to face the emptiness and meaninglessness of their existence. So they fabricate a delusion about a God Who created them for some purpose. This can only be a delusion, a psychotic fantasy for deluded fools, ..if.. this is, indeed, a godless universe.

But if humanity is so prone to delusion, how have the atheists escaped this propensity? Are they superhuman? Do they have more courage? Are they just smarter?

No, i concede the presence of a propensity for delusion, in the human animal. But it is just as likely, if not more so, that the unbelievers in God are the deluded ones. With all the evidence taken together, it seems more plausible to conclude the 'delusion!', to be with those who deny the Creator. Unwilling to face their accountability to the Creator, they have constructed (or have been indoctrinated into) delusional fantasies, that ignore the most basic Truth of the universe: 

You are accountable to your Creator. You are not your own god.

They prefer the comfort of a delusion, rather than face accountability to the Creator.

So mass delusion, and the tendency for humans to be deceived, indoctrinated, and manipulated by agenda driven ideologues, is also evidence of a supernatural conflict.. a battle for the souls of men. And this battle could only be real if there IS a supernatural dimension, and a God Who ordered it.

Evidence for the Creator: The Universe

This is a significant factor, that just about everyone considers at some point in their life.
The majesty, awesomeness, terror, and vastness of the universe fills us, with a sense of worshipful wonder. The naturalistic explanations and beliefs are too far fetched. Reflecting on the abstracts of infinity, eternity, life, and the Creation brings us to a sense of holy awe, of all that 'God hath wrought..'

Ps19:1 ..The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork.

Romans1:18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator..

Poets, gurus, philosophers and wise people from every corner of the human experience look in AWE, at the wonder of The Creation.  But years of Indoctrination,  and/or complete immersion in man-made trivialities can numb the senses, and scar the Soul of man, so he cannot hear the music of the spheres.

“The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of the spheres.” ~Albert Einstein 

Hardened materialists seem to lose the worshipful wonder of the Creation..  oh they still marvel and have reverence for the natural world,  but they have lost the Source, and see only the created.  They exchange the Truth of The Creator for a lie, and their souls are deadened to the Wonder of the Creator seen though the creation. 

No Creator? No morality. No equality. No natural law. No America

 In a godless universe, the concepts of morality, inherent rights, and human equality do not exist, except as delusional platitudes

How can they?

Morality, to be a Real Thing, has to be imbedded in the psyche of man. With no Embedder, right and wrong are meaningless platitudes, constructed by man, for manipulative purposes. In a godless universe, amorality, or whatever you want is all there is. Any attempts to 'standardize' a moral code is just arbitrary opinions enforced by human power.

Human equality is a delusion, in a godless universe. Humans are just animals, at different stages of evolution, and the smarter and more 'fit' will be the ones to survive. Delusional, superstitious, and simple minded sheep are there to be exploited by the more highly evolved, advanced humans, and should be managed by the same. Power, deception, intimidation, brutality, manipulation, and anything necessary to achieve this goal is a positive. The ends justify the means.

Natural Law, like morality, can only exist as a Real Thing, if it was embedded by a Creator. An 'inherent right' carries with it an Embedder of these rights. The Enlightenment definition of Natural Law is the inherent right of everyone to life, liberty, and property. But in a godless universe, these are empty platitudes.. no Creator? No Natural Law. Rights are privileges granted by the ruling elite, and are not inherent.

America was founded upon principles that can only come through a Creator.

The 'self evident' truths that this nation was founded upon hinges entirely on them being embedded by a Creator, that EVERYONE senses, inherently.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.. ~the Declaration of Independence

The foundations of America are premised upon a Creator, embedding Natural rights and equality. In a godless universe, the foundations of America are built upon a lie.. a delusion of equality and inherent rights.

Evidence for God: Hysterical Hostiliy

Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist that there is no God. ~Heywood Broun

If there was no God, human fantasies would be individual choices, and easily dismissed. But if there IS God, it could follow that some, living in denial of this reality, would lash out in hysterical, irrational hostility.

I observe an outrage.. an irrational hysteria against God, ESPECIALLY, the God of the bible, among militant atheists.  Every forum with a religio/philosophical topic is a magnet for these militant, hostile atheists,  who seem to be on a crusade,  or personal vendetta against God.  They mock, ridicule, and bully those who express any kind of faith in God, which is nothing but the typical human expression of religious bigotry. 

The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not. ~Eric Hoffer

The very presence of this irrational, highly emotional bias against God is evidence of some deep seated issues with the Creator. It is a 'daddy issues!', psychological phenomenon, where unjustified, intense hostility is directed at a Figure who is not the cause of the irrational obsession, merely the target.

It can be expressed by the pop meme,

'There is no God!! ..and I hate Him!!'

Evidence for The Creator: Foxhole Atheists

In any time of war or danger, the old saying, 'There are no atheists in foxholes,' rings true. No matter how steely the mind, or the conviction of skepticism, in a crisis, humans revert to the default position:

They cry out to God for help.

I see no biological or natural explanation for this phenomenon in humanity, which leaves it as a primal instinct.. a deep seated 'knowing', or at least feeling, that there is a God who can help us, and we involuntarily cry out. This is not a thought out process, but an instinctive response in a crisis. In the deepest recesses of our being, we 'know' that our Creator is there.

I experienced this as a young atheist. I was raised in an irreligious, secular home, where God was not mentioned (except as an epithet!). I became a full fledged atheist, with the corroborating Indoctrination from the State propaganda centers.

I was involved in a crisis, where fire was involved, and instinctively cried out to God, whom i did not know nor believe in. When the crisis abated, i continued in my atheistic beliefs, and remained there for many years.

I have no data, but everyone i have ever known (that has told a tale of crisis), shares this unique human trait. Crying out to The Creator, in times of emotional, physical, or spiritual anguish is the default condition, and is the majority human experience. I know of NO ONE, who has gone through any trauma, crisis, or danger who clinged to atheistic beliefs to cope. Everyone looks to their Creator for help, because He is there, able to assist and strengthen us in times of need.

Delusion

There are 2 basic, mutually exclusive possibilities, for the origin of life and the universe:

Intelligent Design
Atheistic Naturalism

or more colorfully, 

Goddidit 
Nuthindidit

All other Questions in life hinge on the assumption of one or the other of these base worldviews.

I have listed the Big Questions of life before, but to provide a more complete philosophical overview, I'll repeat them:

Origins
Meaning
Morality
Destiny

These are The Big Ones: How, Why, What, & When.
They are questions of matter, purpose, law, & time.

HOW did i (and everybody else) get here?
WHY are we here? Is there a purpose to our existence?
WHAT do we do? Are there rules for our existence?
WHEN we die, what happens? Is there a soul?

The conclusions drawn, from either assumption, are completely different:

IF.. the God made assumption is true, THEN:
How? - Goddidit
Why? - There may be a reason or purpose that God has made us.
What? - There may be rules, or standards of morality, for our behavior.
When? - We might have a soul, and face an eternal destiny.

Now, IF.. we assume a godless universe, the answers are logically different.
How? - Nuthindidit. Natural processes, without intelligent intervention
Why? - No purpose or meaning is possible. We are a random accident in a meaningless, purposeless universe
What? - No absolute morality is possible. Good, evil, virtue, and morality are human constructs made up to manipulate people 
When? - No soul, no existence beyond the physical.

These are the logical possibilities, and the conclusions, from either assumption.

Why do so many people believe in a standard of morality, or a sense of significance and purpose, or a feeling of spirit/soul within them?

2 possibilities:

- Those things are real, inherent to our existence
- those things are delusions

The dilemma we humans have, is figuring which assumption to believe. Is the universe purposeful, directed, with eternal significance and consequence? Or is it a random accident of nature, with no direction, significance, or consequence?

Delusion is common, in the human experience. How does one arrive at an objective, empirical conclusion, on this most basic question of humanity?

How would one distinguish from a genuine 'experience' of God, vs a sentimental feeling, or angst driven psychosis?

What if this 'feeling' of longing, remorse, and emptiness is just a chemical reaction in the brain, with no spiritual significance? What if 'religious experience', is just a delusion, as many skeptics claim?

It seems that if you reject these 'callings' from God, or at least the feelings of Something More, eventually they go away, and you become settled and convinced they are all contrived.. from fear, wishful thinking, or manipulation.

The problem i have with this conclusion, is the exclusion of themselves, by the skeptics, of the psychological motivations.

IF.. belief in God is a delusion.. wishful thinking to pretend significance and eternal purpose in a meaningless, insignificant universe, how do they exclude themselves? If there is such a major propensity in humanity to believe in a delusion, might the skeptic also be deluded, by pretending there is no God, no accountability, no sin, and no eternal consequence for their words, thoughts, and actions? What if constant denial and 'hardening the heart', toward spiritual matters only dulls or deadens the spiritual perceptors in every human? That possibility is equally valid.

If it an easy projection on the majority to assume, 'delusion!', for believing in God, i submit that the reverse is an equally valid assumption. The skeptic is merely responding from fear and wishful thinking, pretending there is no God, so as to avoid the responsibility and accountability he might have, toward his Creator.

If delusion is as widespread as it appears, then what else can you conclude, but widespread delusion, regarding the mysteries of life?

Correction Compulsion

I have observed a phenomenon i call "correction compulsion', that seems very prevalent in religious circles.  I say 'religious', because it is not unique to Christianity,  but is common in other religious beliefs,  including atheism.

This phenomenon expresses itself by 'correcting' somebody who makes a statement,  observation,  or presents an opinion, that does not cover all possibilities, nor exceptions in a completely balanced way. 

Here are some flaws i see in this practice:

1. It is judgemental. Just because someone makes a single point does not mean they are excluding an exception or balanced perspective.  The correction implies the 'corrected' is bigoted, superficial, or ignorant.
2. It is arrogant.  The corrector is presuming the full intent or agenda of the corrected, based only on a single comment or point.
3. It is divisive. It presents the discussion,  whatever it is, in a challenging,  polemical way, and implies accusations, not respect.
4. It becomes a knee jerk response, looking for controversy, rather than listening to what others actually say.
5. It is based on dogmatic certainty of omnipotence.. believing that the corrector's opinion is the Final Say, when there is often differences of perception and opinion.

I see this practice as being very widespread in 'Christian' circles. It is sometimes masked in a pretense of 'Defending the Faith!', or a pretense of some ominous attack on Truth or Orthodoxy. But the devil is not behind every tree.

I also illustrate this theme with a hypocritical article, 'correcting!' a practice i see as an imbalance.  The ironies of this life are delicious..  :D

Evidence for The Creator: Mitochondrial DNA

This article is about mitochondrial DNA, and the discovery some years back, of a 'marker', that was passed down to daughters, tracing actual descent. It leads to the Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA), in genetic lines, and provides hard science for timelines, descent, and relationships.

From wiki:
In human genetics, the Mitochondrial Eve (also mt-Eve, mt-MRCA) is the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all currently living humans, i.e., the most recent woman from whom all living humans descend in an unbroken line purely through their mothers, and through the mothers of those mothers, back until all lines converge on one woman.

It is a problem for the theory of common descent, as it clearly shows the lines of descent in a particular genetic haplogroup.

For example, we can trace the descendancy in canids.. dogs, wolves, coyotes.. even though they have some differences morphologically, they show evidence of descent, and share a common mother.. the Most Recent Common Ancestor that they ALL descended from.

This marker does not cross over to other speculated ancestors. Humans, for example, share a common MRCA, which shows we all descended from the same mother, and did not evolve seperately, in different geological regions, as was once proposed. Neanderthals were human. Pygmies, Mongols, Eskimos, Europeans, Africans.. every race, region and body type of human beings all share the MRCA.. a marker showing descendancy and relationship with all other humans. Chimps, monkeys, apes, or any other speculated 'cousins', do not have this HUMAN MRCA marker, but their own, showing their lines of descent.

So, while the dingo, dog, wolf and coyote can be traced to a MRCA, humans, apes, and monkeys cannot. Each genetic haplogroup has its own MRCA, and they do not intersect or overlap. There is no evidence of descent.

From wiki:
Mitochondrial DNA is the small circular chromosome found inside mitochondria. These organelles found in cells have often been called the powerhouse of the cell. The mitochondria, and thus mitochondrial DNA, are passed almost exclusively from mother to offspring through the egg cell.
...
Mitochondrial DNA was discovered in the 1960s by Margit M. K. Nass and Sylvan Nass by electron microscopy as DNase-sensitive threads inside mitochondria, and by Ellen Haslbrunner, Hans Tuppy and Gottfried Schatz by biochemical assays on highly purified mitochondrial fractions.



Time to most recent common ancestor, aka 'mitochondrial clock'.

Source:
News this Week | Science

Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate.
For example, researchers have calculated that "mitochondrial Eve"--the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people--lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new
clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old.
...
The most widely used mutation rate for noncoding human mtDNA relies on estimates of the date when humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor, taken to be 5 million years ago. That date is based on counting the mtDNA and protein differences between all the great apes and timing their divergence using dates from fossils of one great ape's ancestor. In humans, this yields a rate of about one mutation every 300 to 600 generations, or one every 6000 to 12,000 years..

..aka, circular reasoning.. you presume the descendancy of apes and humans, THEN calculate a 'rate!'. It is convenient if the data fits within (and is based upon) the preconceived assumptions.

The researchers sequenced 610 base pairs of the mtDNA control region in 357 individuals from 134 different families, representing 327 generational events, or times that mothers passed on mtDNA to their offspring. Evolutionary studies led them to expect about one mutation in 600 generations (one every 12,000 years). So they were “stunned” to find 10 base-pair changes, which gave them a rate of one mutation every 40 generations, or one every 800 years. The data were published last year in Nature Genetics, and the rate has held up as the number of families has doubled..

So the ACTUAL, MEASURED rates, from real life data and evidence, is suspected, while the ASSUMPTIONS are clung to with dogmatic certainty. The measured, scientifically based rate is dismissed, in favor of the assumed and believed rate that fits the status quo dogma.


Mitochondrial DNA carries a genetic indicator of matrilineal descent, and can trace that descendancy all the way back, to a Most Recent Common Ancestor.. the mt-MRCA. It is ONLY passed on by FEMALES.. mother to daughter. The males get it from their mother, but it stops there. Only the DAUGHTER can pass it on.

For this reason, the mt-MRCA has been called 'mitochondrial eve,' ..not because the crafters of the phrase believe in the Genesis account of human origins, but as a cultural reference, to western civilization. Most people in western civilization catch the reference to a single 'Mother of all Humanity.' 

The significance of the discovery of the mt-MRCA is often ignored and overlooked:
1. All of humanity, alive and dead, that has testable dna samples, can be traced to this 'mitochondrial eve'. She is the only, single human ancestor we can identify, and all of us descended from her.
2. Neanderthal, Pygmies, Eskimos, Norwegians, Aborigines.. any and ALL human people groups, alive or dead (with traceable dna), are descended from this mitochondrial eve.
3. This 'marker', within the mtDNA, is also present in other organisms, and THEIR ancestral lineage can also be traced. Canids have clear lines of descent, from the original mt-MRCA, in their respective haplogroup/clade/phylogenetic type.
4. This mitochondrial 'marker' does NOT cross genetic boundaries, but is exclusive to the particular haplogroup. Apes and chimps do not have the human mt-MRCA, nor do humans have any indication of sharing common ancestry with ANY other species/clade/phylogenetic type. Humans are descended from humans. Apes from apes, canids from canids, equids from equids.

The discovery of the matrilineal ancestry 'indicator', in the mtDNA has been a scientific boon. It has refuted many assumptions and beliefs, that are abundant in the theory of universal common ancestry, and are a problem for those who believe this theory.

I predict as more information is discovered, especially in genetics, the theory of common ancestry will join the flat earth, the 4 humours, and spontaneous generation, in the dustbin of debunked scientific theories. It has become a Religious Belief, complete with fanatical True Believers, who defend it with jihadist zeal, but they are unable to debate the science behind their beliefs.