Saturday, March 10, 2012

Another Evolutionary Just-So Story Was Just Refuted (But Another One Replaced it)

According to evolutionists the gorilla split off from the human-chimp lineage 10 million years ago, and then the chimp and human split from each other 6 million years ago. But then a funny thing happened. Remember all those unique human hearing genes that evolutionists said must have undergone “accelerated” evolution? The story was that these hearing genes rapidly evolved because of human language.

Well now it turns out the gorilla sports the same feature: accelerated hearing genes. So now we have “accelerated and parallel” evolution:

A comparison of protein coding genes reveals approximately 500 genes showing accelerated evolution on each of the gorilla, human and chimpanzee lineages, and evidence for parallel acceleration, particularly of genes involved in hearing.

Or as one journalist put it:

One curious find was the evolution of genes associated with hearing, which seem very similar between humans and gorillas.

None of this is a problem for evolution, of course, as one evolutionist explained:

Our most significant findings reveal not only differences between the species reflecting millions of years of evolutionary divergence, but also similarities in parallel changes over time since their common ancestor.

You remember learning that with evolution species split and move apart. Now, amazingly, we know they also evolve together. Differences, similarities, whatever. In any case, it’s Evidence 1, Evolution 0:

We found that gorillas share many parallel genetic changes with humans including the evolution of our hearing. Scientists had suggested that the rapid evolution of human hearing genes was linked to the evolution of language. Our results cast doubt on this, as hearing genes have evolved in gorillas at a similar rate to those in humans.

But another evolutionist demonstrated that, evidence be damned, that old just-so-story is still serviceable:

Scally adds that it could well be that there has been a parallel acceleration in these genes for two entirely different reasons – that human hearing has developed because of speech and gorilla hearing has developed to serve an entirely different, but as-yet-unknown, purpose.

So hearing genes somehow undergo accelerated evolution due to the development of language, except when they don’t. It all makes perfect sense with evolution. Or as evolutionists are always reminding us, nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. Meanwhile evolutionists continue with their mental cartwheels.

Religion drives science and it matters.

25 comments:

  1. Scientists keep discovering now data about nature. The new data challenge their previous understanding of nature, so they make new hypotheses that stand or fall in the face of new data. And they keep searching for new evidence to challenge their hypotheses...

    This is normal science, unlike religion, which seeks no new data about nature and fights to the death against changes in its dogmas. Where are the laboratories in the cathedrals?

    Keep shooting yourself in the foot, Professor, by citing these examples of science at work.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Scientists love to say they know what they continually prove they don't know. There are no known necessary and sufficient conditions that explain the biota via descent with modification, either in terms of UCA or SA. Why can't scientists have that itsy bitsy quantity of epistemological humility required to just QUIT saying UCA is known to be a fact?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jeff

    Scientists love to say they know what they continually prove they don't know. There are no known necessary and sufficient conditions that explain the biota via descent with modification, either in terms of UCA or SA. Why can't scientists have that itsy bitsy quantity of epistemological humility required to just QUIT saying UCA is known to be a fact?


    Why can't Creationists have that itsy bitsy quantity of intellectual honesty required to just say what they really mean:

    "There are no known necessary and sufficient conditions that explain the biota via descent with modification that I would personally accept."

    There are plenty of necessary and sufficient conditions known and accepted by mainstream science. You can read about such mechanisms online, or there any number of good science textbooks available, or you can take courses in them at most colleges and universities.

    Science can't do anything about religiously motivated willful ignorance however.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  5. There are NO known necessary and sufficient conditions that explain the biota in terms of whatever the original ancestors were, either in terms of UCA or SA. That's why we don't know whether UCA or SA is true via deductive or inductive logic applied to empirical observations.

    We may never be able to conceive of such necessary and sufficient conditions. What conditions of biological variation we are aware of don't even remotely account for all the evolutionary trajectories posited by those who believe in UCA.

    I'm not here to defend any group. I'm just pointing out the sheer hypocrisy of the UCA'ists who are so oblivious to their own lack of epistemological humility.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jeff

      There are NO known necessary and sufficient conditions that explain the biota in terms of whatever the original ancestors were, either in terms of UCA or SA.


      JeffMar 10, 2012 08:13 AM

      There are NO known necessary and sufficient conditions that explain the biota in terms of whatever the original ancestors were, either in terms of UCA or SA that Creationists like Jeff will personally accept.

      For the rest of us there's tons of evidence:

      The Scientific Case for Common Descent

      Science can't do anything about religiously motivated willful ignorance like Jeff's. Oh well.

      Delete
  6. So let me see if I have this straight.

    You accept that:

    ...the gorilla split off from the human-chimp lineage 10 million years ago, and then the chimp and human split from each other 6 million years ago.

    And you accept the evidence that:

    A comparison of protein coding genes reveals approximately 500 genes showing accelerated evolution on each of the gorilla, human and chimpanzee lineages, and evidence for parallel acceleration, particularly of genes involved in hearing.

    So you accept that evolution, in some form, has happened but have a problem with scientists adjusting details of the theory in light of new evidence, even though that is how science is supposed to proceed?

    What should they be doing then, in your view?

    And how would an ID explanation be better?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ian:

      ======
      So let me see if I have this straight.

      You accept that:

      ...the gorilla split off from the human-chimp lineage 10 million years ago, and then the chimp and human split from each other 6 million years ago.
      ======

      No, you missed the "According to evolutionists ..." part.

      I don't "accept" religiously-driven, scientifically ludicrous dogma. That would be the evolutionists.

      Call me strange, but I actually think science matters.

      Delete
    2. Cornelius Hunter

      Call me strange, but I actually think science matters.


      What you really mean is lying about science to earn your DI paycheck matters.

      But we understand.

      Delete
    3. CH -

      I don't "accept" religiously-driven, scientifically ludicrous dogma. That would be the evolutionists.

      Oh the self-delusion there would be hilarious if it wasn't so alarming!

      No, Cornelius, that is EXACTLY what you DO accept.

      Religiously-driven, scientifically ludicrous dogma, such as 'Science can operate without assuming naturalism'.

      Religiously-motivated? Check.
      Scientifically ludicrous? Check.
      Dogma? Check.

      Call me strange, but I actually think science matters.

      If you think assuming naturalism is unnecessary for performing science then you have no concept of what science actually is. That has been clear for rather a long time on here.

      Delete
    4. Mixing of genes like this does not jive with the objective nested hierarchy evolutionary scenario that Darwin pushed as his primary support for evolution.

      Of course evolution is an assumed fact, so accelerated and parallel evolution is just another story pulled from the hat of tricks to avoid falsification of the theory.

      In the own words of evolutionist Theobald, "Unlike organisms, cars do have a mix and match of characters, and this is precisely why a nested hierarchy does not flow naturally from classification of cars.
      ...If it were impossible, or very problematic, to place species in an OBJECTIVE nested classification scheme (as it is for the car, chair, book, atomic element, and elementary particle examples mentioned above), macroevolution would be effectively disproven. More precisely, if the phylogenetic tree of all life gave statistically significant low values of phylogenetic signal (hierarchical structure), common descent would be resolutely falsified."

      Delete
  7. Pedant: Keep shooting yourself in the foot, Professor, by citing these examples of science at work.

    Cornelius would only shooting himself in the foot if he was attempting to present a rational, scientific argument. However, you're being charitable in assuming this is the case.

    On the other hand Cornelius wouldn't be shooting himself in the foot if his goal is to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt about evolutionary theory.

    FUD doesn't need to make logical sense. It doesn't need present a rational argument. All it needs to do is produce fear, uncertainty and doubt. The means by which this occurs is irrelevant. And Cornelius knows this.

    Nor would you and I be Cornelius' target audience. He knows we're not buying it. But this doesn't matter. All that matters is producing FUD.

    Nor would he be interested in actually determining what happened as the designer is inexplicable, which would make determining this impossible. This is why he quote mined Watson in his earlier post using the term "inexplicable".

    So, I'd suggest that, Cornelius isn't criticizing evolutionary explanations with the goal of creating knowledge. He's criticizing evolutionary explanations to create FUD. And, somewhere, some creationist just bought it hook line and sinker. As such, he's not shooting himself in the foot. He just hit another home run.

    Science, integrity, rationality, honesty be damned.

    ReplyDelete
  8. One curious find was the evolution of genes associated with hearing, which seem very similar between humans and gorillas.

    Here's a hint darwinists: It's a "curious find" because your myth is false. How many anomalies must the evidence produce before the darwin-worshippers abandon their faith???

    As a creationist, I accept God can use some of the same design patterns in different species (which is why our genome has similarity to the kangaroo's, despite the darwinian predictions the genomes should be totally different)

    The reason darwin's fairytale tree of life was chopped down was because the evidence contradicted it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. National Velour: Here's a hint darwinists: It's a "curious find" because your myth is false.

      If you mean, "myth" in that you think evolutionary theory is prophecy, then yes. It would be false. But scientific theories are not prophecy, as this would require it to tai into account a near infinite number of unrelated, yet parallel aspects that could effect it's predictions.

      As such, it's unclear why you'd this this was even possible in the first place.

      Are you an instrumentalist in that scientific theories do not actually represent reality, but are merely instruments which are useful for predicting what we'll experience?

      Do you even know what your position is? Do you realize there is more than one theory of epistemology and how we make progress in science?

      Or are you just here to attack a theory you personally find offensive to your religious beliefs?

      National Velour: As a creationist, I accept God can use some of the same design patterns in different species […]

      Science creates theories about how things *are* in reality, that would have necessary consequences on the state of the biosphere today. And then it uses empirical observations to test those theories for errors.

      But since nothing would be necessary for God (or an abstract designer which has no limitations) there would be no necessary consequences for the current state of the biosphere.

      For example, an all knowing and all powerful supernatural being could have also created the universe last 1,000 years ago, 10 years ago, last thursday or even 30 seconds ago, with the mere appearance of age, implanted false memories, etc.

      In other words, God having created the biosphere would have no necessary consequences for the current state of the biosphere.

      A theory that explains everything explains nothing. This is faith.

      (National Velour: which is why our genome has similarity to the kangaroo's, despite the darwinian predictions the genomes should be totally different)

      Which is yet another one of your misrepresentations of evolutionary theory. Go figure.

      Delete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  10. National, were your ears burning?

    ReplyDelete
  11. The point of a just-so story is that it avoids falsification. "Refuted just-so story" is an oxymoron.

    Some people were wrong and Dr. Hunter is being petty. Nothing new on this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  12. As a creationist, I accept God can use some of the same design patterns in different species (which is why our genome has similarity to the kangaroo's, despite the darwinian predictions the genomes should be totally different)

    Would National Velour care to cite the predictions of Darwin - or anybody - that the genomes of kangaroos and humans should be totally different?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Cornelius, instead of saying what you believe evolution can't do and hasn't done, will you please state what you believe evolution can do and has done?

    Will you also please state what you believe in regard to the relationship between chimps, gorillas, and humans?

    And, what do you believe science does show in regard to the diversity of life on this planet?

    ReplyDelete
  14. It could only be that we looking like primates have the same genes as primates.
    How else?
    Yet this is not evidence of biological relationship.
    its just evidence of like dna for like parts.
    How else?
    If there is a creator there would just be one computer program.
    My fellow YEC wrongly strive to find differences between man and primates.
    They will not be found as its the same body from the same equation.
    god simply put a being made in his image into the best body to be confortable.
    What other body on earth would suit better?
    Otherwise just to prove we are not from apes God would of had to make us so totally different from the general plan in nature.

    ID folks rejecting gEnesis have more problem explaining our looking like apes but still the great difference in intelligence should be the great clue.

    ReplyDelete
  15. CH -

    Wait, what?

    Scientists find even more evidence of common ancestry with gorillas - and this is evidence AGAINST evolution?

    Huh?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hopeless. These guys have been brainwashed to first accept evolution regardless of evidence. Secondly to consider anyone who questions it as brainwashed. The school system in america needs to be reworked in order to get kids to think critically. They've been taught evolution just as they've been taught things like 2+2=4. It's going to be very hard to peel that kind of indoctrination from these guys minds.

    It has to start from early which is why evolutionists resist any mention of advocating critical thinking in schools in relation to evolution. Minds are being stolen. It takes some of the supposed best scientists decades to finally look at the evidence and stop believing the theory. Truly hopeless.

    There just seems like there is no point even trying sometimes. Anything you present can be interpreted however they want and, because of how their minds are conditioned to work, they see NOTHING wrong with it. Their reality is just this theory. How easily can someone change another's reality? It is how they see the world.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Temi

    They've been taught evolution just as they've been taught things like 2+2=4.


    Since both 2+2=4 and evolution are demonstrably true, what's your point?

    It's going to be very hard to peel that kind of indoctrination from these guys minds.

    Go ahead, give it a shot. Give me a better, more coherent explanation for the genetic data showing the relationship between humans, chimps, and gorillas. One that explains the details, such as the time line for the lineage split. Not just the standard "GAWDDIDIT" non-explanation.

    If you manage that, then we'll tackle the phylogenetic data for the rest of the animal kingdom.

    Have at it sport!

    ReplyDelete
  18. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Another tedious set of comments by the usual suspects, who even if they have a life, have to be starved for entertainment. Prof. Hunter, can't your blog software ban these idiot gadflies who pollute the comments on post after post with serial regurgitations of the same tired ad hominems? Sheesh.

    ReplyDelete