The zebrafish and the sea squirt, for all of their differences, share a common development stage. At an analogous development stage the two species share a tadpole larval body plan. But new research shows some surprising differences in the gene expression at this stage.Regulatory proteins influence form, so evolutionists expect to find conserved gene expression of regulatory proteins at this conserved development stage. But this was not found. In fact, the expression of regulatory genes was no more conserved than other genes, in spite of the evolutionary expectation. As evolutionists admitted, the finding is “particularly puzzling.”
Embryonic development was an area of evidence Darwin thought substantially supported his theory. But myriad problems have been found. Evolution is not supported by all biological evidence, as is so often claimed. Indeed, much of the evidence is downright puzzling. In this case, what we must believe is that while these separate lineages evolved, they maintained this development stage while the expression of the relevant regulatory genes diverged. It is yet another false evolutionary expectation explained away with just-so, “gee isn’t evolution clever,” stories. How curious.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDr. Hunter,
ReplyDeleteCould you please indicate who you were quoting when you put “particularly puzzling” in quotations?
It doesn't seem to be in the article you referenced. From that article...
"We compared two organisms that share a prototypical tadpole larval body plan but are separated by over half a billion years of divergent evolution: the zebrafish (Danio rerio) and the ascidian Ciona intestinalis
...
We found an extensive overall divergence in gene expression profiles between the two species
...
Thus, a broad divergence in gene expression profiles is compatible with the conservation of similar body plans across large evolutionary distances."
If I am understanding this correctly, had the gene expression profiles NOT diverged "across large evolutionary distances" then that would have been surprising.
Let me guess, if they had said that you would of probably quoted that as evidence against evolution too. No matter what, you seem to interpret any data as showing evolution in a bad light while refusing to offer any counter explanations (i.e. hypotheses).
"How curious."