The dogmas of materialism are spread these days largely by a huge internet-based information infrastructure that is scattered across the globe. That infrastructure gives us a mixture of news, facts, hype, speculation, data, dogma and BS, with enough profitable clickbait and corporate PR for the infrastructure to mostly pay for itself.
One of the web sites involved in pushing materialist propaganda is the ad-heavy site www.livescience.com, where we mostly get true headlines, but often get science headlines that simply are not true, typically written by writers who are not scientists. To give some examples:
- On the Livescience site we had the utterly untrue headline "'Building blocks of life' discovered on Mars in 10 different rock samples." The story discusses some observations of biologically irrelevant chemicals on Mars, none of which are ingredients of life or building blocks on life.
- A story at the LiveScience site was entitled " 'This might be the seeds of life': Organic matter found on asteroid Ryugu could explain where life on Earth came from." The story was misleading for several reasons: (1) Scientists do not believe that life ever existed on the asteroid Ryugu or on any other asteroid. (2) There is no scientific concept of any such thing as a "seed of life," in the sense of something causing life to arise from non-life (with the exception of plant seeds, and plant seeds were not found on Ryugu). (3) No actual components of life were found on the asteroid Ryugu, and most organic molecules are not components of life.
Another story at the LiveScience site referred to a claimed discovery of the simplest amino acid (uracil) on an asteroid, in the faintest trace amount of only 13 parts per billion. The headline at the LiveScience site made the very untrue claim that this "could explain the origin of life." Living things require twenty types of amino acids, which must be massively arranged in very specially ordered arrangements to make many types of the very hard-to-achieve molecules called proteins. The discovery of one type of amino acid in the faintest trace amounts no more explains the origin of life than the discovery of a twig on the ground (making the letter "I") explains the origin of books consisting of vey much well-constructed prose.
Another article on the LiveScience site was devoted to selling the groundless idea that there is a "dark mirror" universe inside ours.
Another article on the LiveScience site had the nutty title "The 1st life in the universe could have formed seconds after the Big Bang." Anyone familiar with the incredibly high temperatures and density at such a time (preventing all chemistry and even the existence of atoms) should understand how crazy such a claim is.
Another article on the LiveScience site had the phony title "Here's what we learned about aliens in 2020," a reference to extraterrestrials. Of course, we did not learn anything about extraterrestrials in that year.
Another article on the LiveScience site had the phony title "These weird lumps of 'inflatons' could be the very first structures in the universe." We saw a visual of some strange structure that looked like a planetary nebula. The caption read, "Shown here, one of the dense clumps of inflatons that emerged during the inflation phase of the Big Bang, in the infant universe." The caption led the reader to believe he was looking at some photo of something in space. But the photo was not a photo of anything observed in space. It was merely a photo of some junk generated by an entirely speculative computer program. No actual "inflatons" have ever been observed, and the program was based on one of the innumerable speculative models of the unproven cosmic inflation theory.
The Livescience site had an article with the groundless headline "The brain stores at least 3 copies of every memory." Human beings recall things, but no scientist has ever discovered even one memory in a brain. The study the article referred to was a very bad example of Questionable Research Practices.
Livescience.com is a for-profit web site with the main purpose of generating profits for the media company that owns it.
Let us look at a recent story on the Livescience site that was a kind of textbook example of the type of misleading statements found in Darwinist literature. We have an article entitled "How fast does evolution happen?" Below the title is a subtitle stating this: "Measuring the pace of evolution is tricky, but some species can evolve as quickly as a few generations."
Right off the bat, we are being tricked. The average person reading that subtitle will think that the article will show that a new type of species can originate within a few generations. But when you carefully consider the exact wording, you should realize no such claim is being unambiguously made. The word "evolution" is a word of almost infinite flexibility, which can mean 101 different things. So when stating "some species can evolve as quickly as a few generations" an author might merely mean that some type of change -- perhaps some very trivial and not even visible change -- can occur in a species over such a time span.
Darwinists are constantly exploiting the ambiguity and flexibility of the term "evolution." The writers of Darwinist literature are constantly making statements which can be interpreted in many very different ways. They often play a game of making a statement that means little interpreted in one way, but means something gigantic when interpreted in another way. You might call this a game of "refer to something that may be a pebble or a mountain, and hope the reader interprets that as if I meant a mountain."
The Livescience article gives us this attempt to give an example of evolution, stating "In the famous example of Darwin's finches on the Galápagos Islands, different species evolved different beak shapes and sizes within a few decades to specialize in feeding on different types of nuts and insects."
The claim that observations of differences in finches sparked Darwin's theory is incorrect. The differences between the finches was not even mentioned in The Origin of Species. On page 134 of his biography of Darwin, A.N. Wilson states the following:
"Peter and Rosemary Grant, evolutionary biologists from Harvard University, spent twenty-five summers studying these birds....They revealed that the beak changes were reversible -- this is hardly 'evolution.' Beaks adapted from season to season, depending on whether droughts left large, tough seeds, or heavy rainfall resulted in smaller, softer seeds."
We then have a textbook example of one of the leading deceptions of Darwinist literature, the deception of trying to pass off examples of human-directed artificial selection as examples showing the power of natural, unguided evolution. We read this:
"By the early to mid-20th century, scientists realized that evolution can happen much more quickly than Darwin ever thought by using the theory of natural selection to make crops more palatable in as few as seven years and domesticate dogs over a few generations. 'We made evolution happen,' Bonnet told Live Science. 'We could see that the change happening at this scale of a few generations (can) be quite dramatic.' "
Since these references are to human-directed artificial selection, you should not be using the term "evolution" to refer to them, and you should not be citing such things as examples showing the power of natural evolution.
We then have some examples that do nothing to show any power of natural evolution to create any type of innovations or structural improvements in organisms. We read this:
"To find out, Bonnet and an international team of researchers analyzed decades of genetic data for 19 bird and mammal species. They found that the rate of adaptive evolution was two to four times faster than previous estimates. More specifically, each generation increased its survival and reproduction by 18.5%, on average, under completely stable conditions. This means that if survival and reproduction decreased by a third, adaptive evolution would help a population recover in three to seven generations. Bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) evolved horns that were 0.7 inches (2 centimeters) shorter than before over 20 years, or three generations, because hunters had targeted those with larger horns. Snow voles (Chionomys nivalis) shrank by up to 0.1 ounces (3 grams) over 10 years, or eight generations, probably because of changes in snowfall."
None of the statements above refer to any type of innovative evolution. We have a link to a scientific paper that does not mention any type of innovative evolution. All that has gone on is that the authors have analyzed the population of 19 species scattered around the world (mostly birds), and claimed that these 19 species are doing fairly well in improving the size of their population. But why were these 19 species chosen among the 32,000 species whose population is been tracked (according to the Living Planet Index)? The authors make no claim to have made a random selection of 19 species. Nor did they pre-register a group of species before analyzing data. So we should suspect that they chose a group of species that would support the thesis they were trying to advance. No evidence of a power of evolution has been given.
We then have a statement by an evolutionary biologist that "evolution is always occurring," but such a statement is true only about evolution with the tiniest of small e's (gene pool variation), not innovative evolution. There is no evidence that visible innovative evolution is occurring anywhere in the world. We have the profoundly misleading statement quoted below:
" ' Rates of evolution can be fantastically fast because of that constant environmental change,' Michael Benton, a vertebrate paleontologist at the University of Bristol, told Live Science. But 'the shorter the time scale, the faster the rate, and this is after you have corrected for time,' he added."
Whatever is being referred to here, it is not innovative evolution in the sense of the origin of new types of proteins, the origin of new types of cells, the origin of new types of visible body structures, or the origin of new species very different from any previous species. No such things have been observed by humans studying nature. So making claims like the ones quoted above are profoundly misleading.
We then have in the LiveScience article this laughably weak bit of evidence:
"Stroud and his colleagues at the University of Miami are now using nonnative green iguanas as a case study for rapid evolution. The warm-adapted lizards are known to freeze and fall out of trees during Miami's infrequent cold snaps. 'What we saw is that some die, but some survive — and the ones that survive can actually tolerate colder temperatures than the ones we measured before,' Stroud said. 'So it suggests that evolution might be happening.' "
Evolution might be happening? A look at the paper reveals the reason for Stroud's hesitance here. The sample sizes are so small (only about a dozen animals per species) that no robust evidence has been provided that there has been any improvement in the ability of iguanas to survive in the cold.
Then the LiveScience article gives us this little attempt to provide evidence of the power of evolution to produce rapid results: " In the Triassic period (251.9 million to 201.3 million years ago), after the Permian extinction, large marine reptiles called ichthyosaurs evolved to be gigantic in less than 3 million years — more quickly than whales did — because they became the ocean's top predators." Endless similar examples could be provided of cases in which some type of dramatic innovation seems to suddenly appear in the fossil record, with little or no record of transitional intermediate forms. But no such cases prove any evidence of the power of innovative evolution or rapid evolution. To the contrary, such cases undermine the claims of Darwinists. The more rapidly things appear in the fossil record, the less credible are Darwinist claims of such things appearing because of Darwinian evolution, which cannot credibly explain complex biological innovations occurring over any time scale, and fails particularly bad in trying to explain dramatic biological innovations occurring over rapid timescales.
The person who made the previous misleading statement that "rates of evolution can be fantastically fast" was Michael Benton, who is not a biologist, but a paleontologist, a guy who studies fossils. The Livescience article ends with him making an equally misleading statement by saying, "Maybe the answer is that everything is capable of enormously crazy fast evolution, if it has to." Pretty much the only way you could get such an idea is by studying bones, for the fossil record gives us endless examples of dramatic biological innovations seemingly occurring "out of nowhere." Such cases contradict Darwinist biology, which predict that no such things should ever happen. The more you study biology and the vast level of organization required for biological innovations, the more you will dismiss the possibility of unguided processes such as Darwinian evolution producing such results.
Bone guys like Benton usually fail to study the mountainous levels of organization, fine-tuning and component interdependence in living things. The incredibly high requirements thresholds for biological innovations mean the odds against biological innovations by accidental random mutations are everywhere prohibitive.
Trying to sell us on the idea of rapid Darwinian evolution, our Livescience article has failed to provide any decent evidence for it, and has failed to provide any decent evidence for any power of Darwinian evolution to explain dramatic biological innovations. Another article on the Livescience site (by the same author as article discussed above) also tries to persuade us that evolution can work fast. It is an article entitled "Which animals are evolving fastest?"
We have a claim that some scientists think that the fastest evolving animal is "tuataras (Sphenodon punctatus), lizard-like animals found only in modern-day New Zealand." But then we are told there has been little change in the appearance of this animal, and no mention is made of anything new that the animal evolved during human history. An evolutionary biologist named Lee says such animals "have not evolved that much anatomically." The same biologist suggests that the fastest evolving animal is "the Lake Victoria cichlids."
We hear the claim that "More than 500 species of cichlids (Cichlidae, a family of fish) have evolved there over the past 15,000 years." The claim is unverifiable. We don't know how many cichlids there were or what types there were 15,000 or 10,000 or 5,000 or 2000 years ago. No mention is made of any biological innovation occurring during this time. We also hear a claim that guppies are evolving quickly, but we get no specifics about this, and only get a reference to a paper behind a paywall. It seems that our author is unable to find a single animal species that is evolving in any impressive way. We hear no mention of any new anatomical structure in any species that appeared during human history, with humans observing such a feature gradually appearing.
Read between the lines here, and you get the truth: Darwinian evolution is impotent as an explanation for visible biological innovations. We do not see Darwinian evolution acting in any very impressive way anywhere in the world, in any species.
Having the phony headline of "An Incredible Lifeform Is Evolving at Lightning Speed—Faster Than We Ever Imagined Possible," the headline above is from the Popular Mechanics site (nowadays a notorious purveyor of untrue clickbait "science news" headlines). A person reading the article about a 10-year study of water fleas will get this confession:
"Across a 10-year span, the study analyzed the genetic variance of D. pulex in a stable environment. The study showed that the organisms experienced changing selection pressures, but that they all eventually canceled out, meaning no dominant trait took over and influenced the organism’s evolution."
One of the very many reasons why Darwinism fails to explain innovative evolution is that generally speaking the early stages of new innovations are useless; and such early stages cannot be explained by gradualist ideas of a series of tiny steps, each giving a benefit.

The oldest known depictions of humans show humans looking just like current humans. There has been no major evolution of human abilities since ancient times, with the possible exception of a few minor things not visible. The ancient Greeks were as smart as anyone living today. Masterpieces of subtle philosophy such as the Dialogues of Plato are proof that before the time of Jesus there lived minds as intelligent as any living today.
Below is a diagram illustrating a very severe problem for Darwinist explanations. Each brick in the diagram represents roughly one million human lives. It has been estimated that about 100 billion people have lived since about 10,000 BC. It is also believed that the human or pre-human population was very small prior to 10,000 BC, consisting of only about 10,000 people at any one time. So under the claims of Darwinism, there was some enormous leap of macroevolution between 200,000 BC and 10,000 BC, resulting in humans that could speak, philosophize and build cities; but there has been no major evolution in humans since 8000 BC. That makes no sense; it is not believable. Why would there be evolution so enormous in only a relatively small number of lifetimes, but no major human evolution during a period in which the number of human lifetimes was many times greater?