Imagine if, back in 1859, Charles Darwin explained that evolution proceeds in fits and starts. Species rapidly appear as if planted there, and then go unchanged for eons. There would have been, as we say today, no bounce. In fact Darwin would have been laughed off the stage, and he knew it. Darwin had to present a narrative of gradualism. Funny thing is, the fits-and-starts narrative is today precisely what evolutionists tell us.It seems strange that the absent minded process of evolution would leave a trail of contradictory evidence. For instance, evolution has not squared very well with the fits-and-starts pattern of the fossil record. Why should biology's evidence make evolution appear to be unlikely? Is evolution trying to deceive us? Or perhaps it is merely testing our faith. Well now we know. Enter junk DNA.
As I have mentioned before, a few years back evolutionists began to think that retroviruses could play important roles in evolution. This idea has now taken hold in a much bigger way, with the discovery of Genomic Drive. Amazing new research found that transposable elements, comprising about half of our genome and once thought to be so much junk, are the drivers behind evolution itself.
Now it makes sense that species suddenly appear and then don't change for eons. It is because those transposable elements occasionally awaken to action. The once junk DNA has gone from the dog house to the starting lineup. It turns out that transposable elements supply the genomic drive behind biology's wonders. Mutations are out, jumping genes are in.
In fact, this junk DNA is now thought to have a critical role in ensuring the survival of biological lineages. And how do they work their magic? The answer is easy. Transposable elements, they say, "do their survival work by reformatting and rearranging DNA genomes to sometimes create significant adaptive mutations that undergo natural selection." It is amazing that evolution so cleverly created its own Genomic Drive. Now, evolution is even more of a fact.
"Murdoch University scientists have developed an improved theory of evolution – a groundbreaking hypothesis which finally reconciles evolutionary theory with the fossil record..............Dr Greene, a Senior Lecturer in Molecular Genetics, said current evolutionary theory, which assumed biological lineages evolved by the slow accumulation of adaptive mutations, did not tally with the fossil record.
ReplyDelete"
Wait, what?!! I thought that there literally thousands of transitional fossils that formed one of the pillars for the truth of evolutionary theory? Are we now to believe that science was wrong about this? Say it ain't so!!
Great blog Cornelius. Keep it up!
AGS,
ReplyDeleteNo need to worry, it will take more than quote mining to make them disappear.
Whether the speciation observed in the fossil record was caused by a gradual accumulation of small changes or through punctuated equilibrium, a transitional fossil is still a transitional fossil.
Charles.
Charles: "...a transitional fossil is still a transitional fossil."
ReplyDeleteWhat you should say is rather is that, alleged transitionals, are still only alleged.
They are always highly publicized when found and only the few find out when they are debunked and laid aside.
Lucy comes to mind. Still boldly touted throughout the West while long gone from Europe as any kind of human ancestor.
The one thing Darwinists never figure out is that you can't even allege a transitional without assuming Darwinism to be true.
Usually known as begging the questing, undistributed middle fallacies and etc., amongst the wiser, but always to be found in the Darwinian literature as though it were sound reasoning!
I have bad news for transitional believers - no fossil comes with its own pedigree and none can tell you whether they were or not ancestors of anything else.
Morphological similarities do not true transitional make. No more than having a face like dog makes you a descendant of canines.
Morphology based "trees of life" simply don't work as Darwinists would be obliged to tell you if they had any honesty.
Hitch,
ReplyDeleteDo you at least agree with me when I say:
1) When we look at the fossil record we see that some species go instinct and that new species emerge?
2) There is a general pattern where the oldest fossils are of simpler organisms when compared with more recent fossils (ie: only unicellular in the oldest fossils)?
Charles.
Hitch -
ReplyDelete"Lucy comes to mind. Still boldly touted throughout the West while long gone from Europe as any kind of human ancestor."
Pardon? What exactly is your evidence for claiming Lucy is not a human ancestor? As far as I know it is widely accepted that she is.
"The one thing Darwinists never figure out is that you can't even allege a transitional without assuming Darwinism to be true. Usually known as begging the questing, undistributed middle fallacies and etc., amongst the wiser, but always to be found in the Darwinian literature as though it were sound reasoning!"
You misunderstand how scientific theories work. When you draw up a hypothesis/theory, you test it by looking for evidence which would falsify it, or evidence we would expect to find IF IT WERE TRUE. So that when you do find such predicted evidence, it is taken as verification of that hypothesis/theory.
The ape-to-human fossils are examples of such evidence. IF evolution was true, then we should expect to find such fossils. And what do you know - we do. Hurrah. Another pat on the back for evolution. That is not begging the question; it is having a prediction verified.
"Morphological similarities do not true transitional make. No more than having a face like dog makes you a descendant of canines."
But when you find a certain ape at say, 5 million years old, and then another at 4.5 million years which looks identical except slightly more human-like and slightly less ape-like, and then another a 4 million years old, again only slightly more human-like and slightly less ape-like, and then another at 3.5 million years, another at 3 million years, and so on right down to the present age, each slightly more human-like and less ape-like than the last, then what other conclusion is sensible?
Cornelius Hunter: Imagine if, back in 1859, Charles Darwin explained that evolution proceeds in fits and starts.
ReplyDeleteMaybe Darwin would have said something like this:
Darwin, Origin of Species: … although each species must have passed through numerous transitional stages, it is probable that the periods, during which each underwent modification, though many and long as measured by years, have been short in comparison with the periods during which each remained in an unchanged condition.
Darwin was a Punk Eeker.
Zach:
ReplyDeleteYes, agreed. Like a good evolutionist Darwin could appeal to a wide range of explanatory devices to fill the narrative. But gradualism was far more prominent in his theory.
Cornelius Hunter: In fact Darwin would have been laughed off the stage, and he knew it.
ReplyDeleteHe said exactly that, and wasn't laughed off the stage.
Cornelius Hunter: Like a good evolutionist Darwin could appeal to a wide range of explanatory devices to fill the narrative.
Even without his Theory of Evolution, Darwin would have been considered a scientist of the first rank. He was careful, meticulous and prolific. Beyond that, Darwin provided a testable scientific theory, setting off a scientific revolution that continues to this day. There is little scientific doubt that living organisms are related by descent.
As for the narrative, keep in mind that evolution is not just mechanisms, but history. As history, it is subject to the twists-and-turns and uncertainties of all histories.
Maybe they are related by chance not descent. Most cakes i bake have many of the same ingredients, however taste very different by changing a few.
ReplyDelete