Wednesday, March 5, 2014

Evolution … or Epigenetics?

Is a bird really another species? Or just a dinosaur adapted to changes in environment? 

The real question is … did the dinosaur possess all the necessary genes to become a bird long before some of them altered to become birds? How birdlike were dinosaurs? Is it even the correct way to think about the problem? Were dinosaurs always basically big birds with many variations? Were they always flappers and squawkers? Were they always essentially muppets of different flavours and never the cold-blooded lizards they have been accused of being? Is the illustration above really accurate in depicting dinosaurs? Or no more relevant than depictions of "dragons" in the 12th century? Is it possible that dinosaurs looked nothing like the rendering above?

These ideas blow neodarwinism to pieces. They discredit creationism. They discredit almost all prevailing theories in the biological sciences and make them look quite simpleminded.

Some of you may have read my blog a while back about the wasps in my front yard here in Melbourne. Bizarre creatures with huge thick armour, strange colourings and iridescent wings. We had an exterminator get rid of them but it wasn't easy. They were apparently some kind of super species of wasp "evolved" for cold weather who dug their burrows underground instead of building hives in trees. A marvellous fantastic new species no doubt, according to evolutionary theory.

Here's the thing. They were the exact same wasps that I saw in my backyard in Queensland in a much more tropical climate. They simply develop differently in cold weather conditions to become these creepy fat super-wasps. Same species. Makes you wonder how many other "species" are in fact the same creature with a differing epigenetic expression.

It is impossible to talk this way about wasps for long without beginning to wonder about the parallels in human beings. It is really odd, because I know there is a "species" of humans that is tough as nails, extremely intelligent, thick and muscular, sturdy and hard-boned that also built and tunnelled underground in the million year cold of the Ice Age in Europe. This "species" is radically different from the warmer weather Homo Sapiens and seems superior in almost every regard, just like that cold weather wasp in my front yard seemed to be super amplified in comparison with its warmer weather cousins.

All of this represents a major sea change in biology that is going to trash the last 400 years of traditional wisdom on this subject. It is a huge paradigm shift. Colossal, almost as big as discovering the earth revolves around the Sun instead of the other way around. It leaves both evolutionary advocates and creationists looking like relics of the 16th century.

Does God make things that are Immanuel Kant's "The-thing-in-itself?" Think about the implications of the idea.

The instant you ponder this it becomes patently obvious why there are almost no intermediary fossils. There wouldn't be any, of course. Why would there be an intermediary step in an epigenetic transformation already built-in to the organism? There is no need for such things.


Ted Walther said...

In what way does epigenetics blow away Creationism? It provides a great explanation for how all the different species could fit onto Noah's Ark. That supports Creationism in my books.

Texas Arcane said...


Creationism claims they all piled on the ark 5000 years ago because a Bishop added up lifespans and reigns and decided that was a good round number.

The other claims that all this speciation has appeared in the last 5000 years is no more supported by the facts than any of the absurd claims by neodarwinists.

These groups are primarily motivated by their membership in a group, not their reason.

August said...

Wasps? One of these days I should upload my old driver's license picture along with my new one. I was something like 285lbs and getting totally destroyed by the standard American diet plus all the novel environmental stressors like artificial light and xenoestrogens.
I dropped down to about 170 and kept it off- except now I am trying to build muscle, so I am sitting at about 195 or so at this moment.
Epigenetics for the win. I look totally different.

Texas Arcane said...


I can only dream. I am trying to lose weight but I keep getting occupied with projects I end up hyper focused on all day long. Is there any one thing you did you would attribute your results to, other than getting regular exercise?

JeffreyJerpp said...

You should try intermittent fasting, if you have not already. It is difficult initially, but once the body adapts to only taking in one or two larger meals per day (ideally high fat/protein), you really cease to be hungry in between them.

Even shorter bouts of low intensity exercise while fasted are excellent for losing fat while retaining lean muscle mass-

cbenediccengi said...

Congrats! That's no easy feat!
I would assume you must feel a hell of a lot better too.

Neanderthals need to eat and live like a Neanderthal.

1. the paleo diet with a heavy emphasis on animal products like meat, bone broths, offal, eggs, seafood, fish, raw milk - from grass fed cows/goats (if you can your hands on it) and add in some veggies and the occasional fruit for snacking.

2. practice intermittent fasting (eat a shit-ton in one sitting - like a wolf/lion). old-school strongman, man-builder workouts. I would suggest 'twisted conditioning 2' - Bud Jeffries, as he covers all important modalities throughout the last century.

4. reap the benefits of transformation

August said...

I started with the Shangri-La Diet
( which is really more of a technique for lowering your appetite. I would put a nose clip on and then swallow two tablespoons of walnut oil in the morning. Then I'd drink water to get rid of any remaining oil in my mouth. What that did was give me 240 calories with no flavor. The no flavor is the important part. It knocked down my appetite.
Then, when my appetite was low enough, I just naturally started migrating to a low-carb paleo diet. It was easy to tell a banana would make me hungry again in two hours, whereas I could eat some brisket and not think about food for most of the day.

I got the bug and went for 1500 calories a day, keeping protein high, and probably went too fast. I didn't really exercise until recently. It is more a response to some unexplained pain I've been experiencing than anything else. I never was a gym rat; I did a little walking and had some small weights at home, but now I realize I really wasn't doing much. This was probably a good thing in retrospect- Gary Taubes suggests exercise isn't very good for weight loss, and my hunger levels now suggest to me he is right.

KW Jackson said...

Why you should never, ever, open the door on Kant.,_immanuel.html

deadman said...

Dinosaur soft tissue & feather samples found in China.
Plus, dinosaur bone carbon dating resulting in an age of 10K to 16K years old :

- deadman

August said...

I should note that my diet ended up being about
70%fat/20% protein/10%carbs.
Some of the old paleo stuff online says stuff like 'lean meats' and 'low salt'. This is because paleo really means guess what life was like for your ancestors in the paleolithic and try to apply the insights. The researchers probably guessed wrong on the two above. But the no grains, legumes, or dairy (well, except for butter because butter is animal fat and therefore fine) works pretty well, and there are also folks who feel fine with some raw dairy products in their diet too.
If you get hyperfocused on stuff it ought to be a cinch if you can get the Shangri-La diet stuff figured out. You could just spend most of the day not eating, because if you don't get hungry, it won't occur to you to eat.