In fact this incredible string of serendipity must extend all the way down to the molecular level. This is because different species have similar genes and proteins, and evolutionists must assume that these molecular similarities originated in a common ancestor. In other words, the proteins had to have been already present before the new species evolved.
Consider, for example, the human and chimpanzee. There is great similarity in most of the protein coding genes in humans and chimps, and evolutionists must assume those genes were already present in the supposed chimp-human common ancestor. So how did humans evolve? Evolutionists must conclude that it was not so much the evolution of new proteins (though that too must have occurred but that’s another incredible story) or the modification of existing proteins (though again that also must have uncannily occurred making for yet another incredible story), but the evolution of when and how many of those proteins are expressed. As one Duke University research team concluded:
The finding that neural adaptation has occurred mainly via noncoding changes is particularly important in view of the remarkable cognitive innovations in the human lineage.
Yes, that is remarkable. It would be as though the parts for the telescope or the airplane had been lying around for eons, just waiting to be used to form a new wonderful design.
Religion drives science, and it matters.
"So how did humans evolve? Evolutionists must conclude that it was not so much the evolution of new proteins ... or the modification of existing proteins ... but the evolution of when and how many of those proteins are expressed."
ReplyDeleteDo they? Okay. So what?
"Yes, that is remarkable."
No, that is a quote mine.
You are taking one sentence containing the word 'remarkable' used in context to mean 'extensive' or 'noteworthy' and using it perjoratively to mean 'dubious' or 'suspicious'.
The Duke University research team does not support your insinuations. They are casting no doubt whatsoever on the truth of evolution as a process. You are, and you are scraping the barrel to make ToE sound unlikely in order to do so.
Imagine if Galileo had built his telescope from parts that had been around for centuries, or if the Wright Brothers had built their airplane from parts that were just lying around. As silly as that sounds, this is precisely what evolutionists must conclude about how evolution works.
ReplyDeleteLenses existed for centuries before Galileo and the Wrights did co-opt elements from previous inventions, and this probably helped them to make their gliders with so little money. I'm sure there must be better analogies for your point.
Instead, evolutionists must conclude that the various parts and components, that comprise biology’s complex structures, had already evolved for some other purpose.
Not evolved for, of course.
Then, as luck would have it, those parts just happened to fit together to form a fantastic, new, incredible design.
Most times, a clumsy, loose "design" (as you like to call it), that is then further refined.
Yes, that is remarkable. It would be as though the parts for the telescope or the airplane had been lying around for eons, just waiting to be used to form a new wonderful design.
How do you tell different designs apart in biology, Cornelius? Could you mention two groups of species evolutionary biologists regard as sister groups, but belong to two different designs according to you? Which species of what we regard as the largest clade including us but not chips, belong to our same "design"?
CH: Imagine if Galileo had built his telescope from parts that had been around for centuries, or if the Wright Brothers had built their airplane from parts that were just lying around.
ReplyDeleteBoth Galileo' telescope and the Wright Brothers' airplane represent a series of adaptations. Trees were not designed for flight. Nor was sand, etc. As such, question is, how was the knowledge that performed these adaptations created?
Merely claiming this knowledge existed in some unexplainable mind in some unexplainable realm doesn't actually explain what we observe.
Scott, Geoxux,
ReplyDeleteWouldn't it be easier to simply say "Cornelius, you're only saying that because you don't know what you're talking about."
Lastyear,
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if Cornelius would say something different even if he knew what he's talking about. His mind is truly inscrutable for me.
Some of his last posts are really worrisome, I hope he's not losing it.