Even before Darwin scientists knew that completely new kinds of species appeared rather abruptly in the fossil record. And a century later—when scientists uncovered the genomes of different species—they discovered that if evolution were true, then genes that build highly complex designs must have been around long before those complex designs appeared on the scene. Over and over, evolutionists have come to realize, very early life not only must have been extremely complex, but it even must have anticipated the later complexity by having the right genes all ready to go. Evolutionists even have a word for this. They call it “preadapted” genomes. Of course evolutionists insist all this must have spontaneously arisen, for no reason. It was just lucky.Now these two problems with evolution—the abrupt appearance of new species and preadapted genomes—might seem to be unrelated. Of all the many falsifications and problems with evolution, and there are many, what do these two have to do with each other?
Well it turns out evolutionists have found a way to play the one against the other, so they cancel themselves out simultaneously, in their minds. In a clever argument, they say that the preadapted genomes paved the way for the abrupt appearance of fantastic designs that came later. Of course none of this actually solves the problems, but it sounds very scientific and impressive:
The genomes of taxa whose stem lineages branched early in metazoan history, and of allied protistan groups, provide a tantalizing outline of the morphological and genomic changes that accompanied the origin and early diversifications of animals. Genome comparisons show that the early clades increasingly contain genes that mediate development of complex features only seen in later metazoan branches. Peak additions of protein-coding regulatory genes occurred deep in the metazoan tree, evidently within stem groups of metazoans and eumetazoans. However, the bodyplans of these early-branching clades are relatively simple. The existence of major elements of the bilaterian developmental toolkit in these simpler organisms implies that these components evolved for functions other than the production of complex morphology, preadapting the genome for the morphological differentiation that occurred higher in metazoan phylogeny. Stem lineages of the bilaterian phyla apparently required few additional genes beyond their diploblastic ancestors. As disparate bodyplans appeared and diversified during the Cambrian explosion, increasing complexity was accommodated largely through changes in cis-regulatory networks, accompanied by some additional gene novelties. Subsequently, protein-coding genic richness appears to have essentially plateaued. Some genomic evidence suggests that similar stages of genomic evolution may have accompanied the rise of land plants
So for some reason all kinds of genes arose spontaneously for no known reason, and later all kinds of species with fantastic new designs appeared abruptly, but not to worry because the former made possible the latter.
Evolutionists say without evolution nothing makes sense in biology, but it seems that with evolution nothing makes sense in biology. Religion drives science and it matters.
I never would have believed this type of transparent hogwash would pass for science before. Darwinists have completely lost any credibility they had with me before learning how 'religiously motivated they are. Thanks for your hard work Dr. Hunter in helping to expose this shameless sham.
ReplyDeleteOT: Dr. Hunter, you may appreciate this video I found today:
ReplyDeleteTimescapes - video - from the 2010 astronomy photographer of the year
http://www.timescapes.org/trailer.asp
This one is not too bad either:
Baja California Timelapses - video (speaks a tension between time and timelessness that brings a holiness to mind and eye)
http://vimeo.com/11892211
Cue the hound dogs.
ReplyDeleteA much more logical approach (one that I disagree with, but would at least make logical sense), would be to say that the complexity was front-loaded. That the preadaptation was there, but not for some other purpose, but primarily for the purpose of providing future adaptation.
ReplyDeleteFront-loading hypothesising requires the arbitrary choice of the "goals".
DeleteWithout having read the paper*, it seems a pretty trivial observation. The past makes possible the present. If you like to paint targets around the places arrows landed, all of history will look like a Byzantine conspiracy.
ReplyDelete* By the way, I loathe Valentine's reification of phyla.
But in this case, the the target was painted first and the arrow landed on it. Or a better analogy would be that the train tracks were built long before trains were invented.
DeleteHow do you know this, Tess? Is man the final destination?
DeleteIf you can identify the targets and provide a sound justification for your methodology to do so, you shall be awarded the prestigious Geoxus Prize of Orthopaedics (sorry, that's the most appropriate category available).
DeleteThis is yet another example of how creationists take only a small part of evolutionary theory serious, while ignoring the rest in favor of their own creationist assumptions.
ReplyDeleteHere, Cornelius assumes that a particular feature that evolved in the past was designed with one particular context in mind. As such, it should not be useful in some other context in conduction with other features. However, this isn't part of evolutionary theory.
For example, the means by which bacteria signal each other was eventually repurposed to signal individual cells in multicellular organisms. This is precisely what we would predict if the knowledge of how to build the biosphere was created via a form of conjecture and refutation.
Here, Cornelius assumes that a particular feature that evolved in the past was designed with one particular context in mind. As such, it should not be useful in some other context in conduction with other features. However, this isn't part of evolutionary theory.
DeleteBut it is part of Cornelius' religious beliefs that we are the final goal of Creation.
Maybe you can explain to me why this paper then uses the word "preadaptive." I doubt that the scientific papers on the evolution of cell signalling use the word "preadaptive." I think this paper uses this word because it seems like the system is tailor made for the later function without a contemporaneous utility. I could be wrong though, not having read the paper.
DeleteYes, you are wrong. The authors devote a short section to the subject. Here's a snippet:
DeleteThe regulatory genes involved thus fully qualify as preadaptations; they were evolved to function in one adaptive context [...] which then proved useful in a new adaptive context
I agree that the term "preadaptation" is misleading and has teleonomical connotations. I don't understand why the authors didn't choose to use "exaptation" instead, a term they consider synonymous to their "preadaptation".
I doubt that the scientific papers on the evolution of cell signalling use the word "preadaptive."
That was mentioned as an example of preadaptation in this very paper.
Over and over, evolutionists have come to realize, very early life not only must have been extremely complex, but it even must have anticipated the later complexity by having the right genes all ready to go.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, Cornelius? Are you lying or being stupid?
CH -
ReplyDeleteOf course evolutionists insist all this must have spontaneously arisen, for no reason. It was just lucky.
Haven't you grown out of insinuating the age-old fallacy that evolution is blind chance?
It is not blind chance.
http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/evonotchance.html
It's not difficult to grasp.
But you will continue to peddle this fallacy because it suit your crooked agenda.
Ritchie said:
Delete"It is not blind chance.
http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/evonotchance.html
It's not difficult to grasp."
To me is really difficult to grasp. According to your link natural selection is a law like the gravity, or the heat transfer where you know the result of the changes produced by that laws.
"Their evolution will not proceed in just any direction, but only in those that make them better adapted to their surroundings."
But then it says:
"There is no scientific evidence that humans' existence was inevitable or that evolution in general has any predetermined goals."
To me this is contradictory, you have a not-ramdom process with fixed results and then humans are the result of that natural selection law or you have ramdom process and the result of that process cannot be predetermined.
Even if law-like processes were involved, it does not mean that the ultimate composition of life (and existence of life, for that matter) were not due to blind chance.
DeleteTessa, blind chance was ruled out by most evolutionists years ago
DeleteBlas -
DeleteTo me this is contradictory, you have a not-ramdom process with fixed results and then humans are the result of that natural selection law or you have ramdom process and the result of that process cannot be predetermined.
Then you are very much confused.
Evolution always works in the same direction - towards greater fitness. But this is a relative term. For a population which lives in a cold climate, adaptation to the cold will represent greater fitness. For a population that lives in a rocky environment, the ability to easily navigate rocks will be greater fitness.
'Fitness' just means 'best suited to the environment'. And many environments themselves fluctuate. So predicting exactly what species will be around in, say, 1 million years becomes all but impossible.
Having ruled out blind chance years ago, evolutionists are left with explaining how natural selection worked on early organisms to "contain genes that mediate development of complex features only seen in later metazoan branches".
DeleteRitchie said
Delete“Fitness' just means 'best suited to the environment'. And many environments themselves fluctuate. So predicting exactly what species will be around in, say, 1 million years becomes all but impossible.”
Two obsevation:
1)If it is not predictable is ramdom. If the result of a force or a process can be many diferents things on what depends one result or other? Chance On what depend that human exist or not if it nos necessary acording to evolution? Chance. Then evolution is ramdom.
2)Natural selection works in one way in different enviroments. So it will depend of the caracteristics of the enviroment that are ramdom variable. The ramdom mutation can be selected if it is produced at the right moment in the right place. Only then natural selection can act. Then also if we assume natural selection is not ramdom, the result is ramdom. Then evolution is a ramdom process as the supposed non ramdom process of evolution is applied by chance. Example, mammals were natural selected but only because the dinosaurs were extinct.
Ritchie, evolution exists only in the minds of evolutionists. No one has ever observed an unbounded and directional change in the history of science.
DeleteAdaption via selection of existing traits is not evolution (bird beaks, etc).
Mutation that increases survival under a specific stress (like sickle cell anemia) comes with a price tag on overall fitness. Mutations that break things in order to allow some narrow survival advantage are not evolution either. These appear to have a small backwards direction, but are bounded (e coli, etc).
Evolution is the process by which all of life is descended from one supposed common ancestor. No mechanisms that we observe in operation support such a process.
Blas,not being able to predict the outcome does not mean the outcome is random. Eclipses were unpredictable for most of history, but they weren't random.
Deletevelikovskys
Delete"Blas,not being able to predict the outcome does not mean the outcome is random. Eclipses were unpredictable for most of history, but they weren't random."
Ok, we can say as far as we know it is ramdom, but maybe it is predictable.
But if we found that it is predictably, man existance should predictably an necessary.
You cannoy have the cake and eat it.
Blas -
DeleteCan you tell me exactly the trajectory of a single raindrop which will fall on Salisbury plains at 28th April 2058?
Of course you cannot. Because there are too many factors to take into consideration. The wind for one - whether there will be any objects in the way for another.
Now a determinist would argue that all these things are POSSIBLE to work out, in theory, but in practice such a thing is surely far too complicated for us to do.
Does that mean gravity is random? No. The raindrop will not fall in a totally random direction. It's main path of motion will, generally speaking, be down.
Neal -
DeleteAdaption via selection of existing traits is not evolution.
Yes it is. That's natural selection right there.
Mutation that increases survival under a specific stress (like sickle cell anemia) comes with a price tag on overall fitness.
Not necessarily. Mutations can be entirely beneficial.
Mutations that break things in order to allow some narrow survival advantage are not evolution either.
Again, yes they are. If a mutation confers an overall survival advantage, however slight, then it is a beneficial mutation. And evolution is simply the accumulation and spread of such mutations throughout a population's gene pool.
It clear you have no clue whatsoever what evolution actually is.
These appear to have a small backwards direction, but are bounded (e coli, etc).
Lenski's E.Coli bacteria study demonstrated random mutation and natural selection producing an increase in information in the genome. That is evolution under the microscope - observable, demonstrable, repeatable, testable.
Evolution is the process by which all of life is descended from one supposed common ancestor.
Specifically, that's common ancestry.
No mechanisms that we observe in operation support such a process.
Yes there are. Here, educate yourself, why don't you:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIMechanisms.shtml
Neal -
DeleteNo mechanisms that we observe in operation support such a process.
Just out of curiosity though, what mechanisms support the idea of Goddidit? What mechanisms are even PROPOSED for such a scenario? Be really specific please...
This is a good imagine. We can suppose that the formation of drops is ramdon forgetting that given all the information we would be able to say when and where are formed. Once a drop is formed knowing initial speed and position aplying the gravity law we can know exactly where the drops go.
DeleteBut as the formation of drops is ramdom, the pattern of the rain is still ramdom no matter the existance of a fixed process is part of it. In the same way, also assuming that natural selection is not ramdom, evolution is. Gravity needs the drop to bring it back, NS needs the organism to be selected, the appearence of what we see is ramdom.
According with your link:
“The organisms with beneficial changes enjoy a competitive advantage, and these changes are passed on throughout the population and become common; those with deleterious changes are at a disadvantage, are less likely to reproduce, and do not pass these changes on, causing them to disappear out of the population.”
But this is not observed. Procariotes reproduce every 20 minutes, how could slower reproductive eucariotes be selected? And if there is a big advantage how procariotes are still there and NS did not make disappear the population? The same question coul be done with unicellular and multicellular organism, organism asexual reproduced and sexually reproduced. Why NS do not make disappear the cold blood reptils when appeared warm blood reptil that led to mammals? Whay it do not happened again when appeared warm blood reptil that led to birds?
But mutation is random. The first key process of evolution is random mutation.
DeleteThese mutations are each put through the filter of natural selection. The beneficial ones are kept and prosper, while the disadvantageous ones are removed.
Thus, while we cannot predict specific mutations, we can predict that the species as a whole will evolve in a way that suits its environment.
Ritchie
Delete"But mutation is random. The first key process of evolution is random mutation."
That make all evolution is ramdom.
"will evolve"
How do you know? There are still advantageous mutatons left?
That make all evolution is ramdom.
DeleteIt makes the direction evolution goes in random, but it does not alter the fact that evolution is directional. If only beneficial mutations acculumlate, then the gene pool can only improve.
How do you know? There are still advantageous mutatons left?
Oh yes, of course. The present is not an end-point for evolution. Make no mistake, animals are still evolving now. So are humans. How could we not in an ever-changing world?
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/are-we-still-evolving/
Ritchie:
Delete"If only beneficial mutations acculumlate, then the gene pool can only improve."
Yes that is right bad mutations cannot be fixed, so gene pool can,in theory, only improve given an enviroment, a changing enviroment can led to extintion also with "good" mutations.
So gene pool can only improve, but does it?Is the gene pool of insects and spiders better than a million years ago? Is now the gene pool of a crocodile, a coelacanth or other living fossils better than when they appeared?
If the gene pool is today better than in the past why half of the living species are in risk of extintion?
But the improvement of the gene pool do not explains why procariote become an eucariote, an unicelular animal became a multicelular animal, an asexual reproductive life become sexual reprodutive, a reptil become a mammal or a bird.
"Oh yes, of course. The present is not an end-point for evolution. Make no mistake, animals are still evolving now. So are humans. How could we not in an ever-changing world?"
1. You have no way to demostrate that there are good mutation left. Are there infinite mutation and changes allowed? Why species go extint then? Don´t you say that evolution have restrictions? that has to work with what it has Do not make that that evolution will end in some point?
2. The changing enviroment do not produce the right mutation, that should happen in advance, so the changing enviroment is not the cause of improvement of the gene pool.
I couldn´t/wouldn´t see a boring video of 59´ to listen 3´minutes of explanations but I got that the examples it shows are adaptations to the enviroment. Are that adaptations reversibles? are trully new genes? or we will found like antibiotic resistance eisted before the antibiotics?
What surprise me was an affirmation that I never heared from an evolutionist:
9:07 Normal rules of evolution do not apply to us.
Do not mean that the evolution ended with us?
Blas -
DeleteSo gene pool can only improve, but does it?Is the gene pool of insects and spiders better than a million years ago?
Not in any objective sense. 'Better' is a relative term.
Their environments keep changing and their gene pools evolve to keep up with the changes in their environment.
Is now the gene pool of a crocodile, a coelacanth or other living fossils better than when they appeared?
Again that's a relative term. A million-years-old crocodile is just as suited to its environment as a modern croc.
If the gene pool is today better than in the past why half of the living species are in risk of extintion?
Oh that's easy - humans. We are currently in the process of causing a great extinction.
But the improvement of the gene pool do not explains why procariote become an eucariote, an unicelular animal became a multicelular animal, an asexual reproductive life become sexual reprodutive, a reptil become a mammal or a bird.
Well these are new questions, certainly. But there is nothing in these which CONTRADICTS the idea of evolution, is there?
You have no way to demostrate that there are good mutation left. Are there infinite mutation and changes allowed?
I don't think you grasp the scale of how many genes you have and how many ways there are for genes to mutate. We are talking billions here. The idea that any species has got as good as it is possible to be is silly.
Why species go extint then?
Because they are out-competed by other species.
The changing enviroment do not produce the right mutation, that should happen in advance, so the changing enviroment is not the cause of improvement of the gene pool.
True. Animals react to the changes in their envirnoment, not in anticipation of them.
Do not mean that the evolution ended with us?
No, it means the normal rules do not apply to us. A reference to the fact that through our civilisation we take care of the weak - the old, the sick, the disabled. We shield our species from the rigours of ruthless natural selection.
Ritchie
Delete“Their environments keep changing and their gene pools evolve to keep up with the changes in their environment.”
How do you know? Their phenotypes looks very similar.
“Again that's a relative term. A million-years-old crocodile is just as suited to its environment as a modern croc.”
And the crocodiles that lived during all this time in similar enviroments didn´t change?
“Well these are new questions, certainly. But there is nothing in these which CONTRADICTS the idea of evolution, is there?”
No, I asked the same question before. Not necessary contradicts evolution but I do not see natural selection could be the force that led that changes.
“I don't think you grasp the scale of how many genes you have and how many ways there are for genes to mutate. We are talking billions here. The idea that any species has got as good as it is possible to be is silly.”
1) Nothing in the universe has infinite forms to exists. There are few types of galaxies, few types of starts, not infinite kind of planets, there is a finite number of natural elements, there are a few types of atomics particles. Why should life have infinite forms?
2) Many components of life has only small possibility of variation, histones, ribosomes, the genetic code, the replication machinery, the sodium chanels are almost the same since the UCLA of the eucariotes. May be the theoretical variants are billion but since life started seems only few works for many things
3) May be posibilities are billions but you said that adding a pair of legs to tetrapods is out of the rich of evolution, so many of that billion of possibilities are out of reach for evolution.
How do you know that there is no end? On what you base your assertion? Faith?
“Because they are out-competed by other species.”
“We are currently in the process of causing a great extinction”
“No, it means the normal rules do not apply to us”
So, with man, normal evolution ended, and the only evolution left is human evolution.
“Animals react to the changes in their envirnoment, not in anticipation of them.”
So Lammarck is correct.
Whenever the gross improbability of evolution is pointed out, evolutionists say that it isn't evolution that is improbable, it is abiogenesis.
ReplyDeleteThey change the subject. Bu then when you say "okay, then abiogenesis is highly unlikely," they say, "Well, we hope have an answer for you someday. After all, we solve the problem of evolution. So we have faith that science can do anything." I really envy such pure simple faith.
natschuster
DeleteWhenever the gross improbability of evolution is pointed out, evolutionists say that it isn't evolution that is improbable, it is abiogenesis.
Whenever a Creationist troll dishonestly claims evolution is a gross improbability, evolutionists point out that the Creationist troll hasn't done any validated calculations and doesn't have near enough information to even begin to compute actual probabilities.
But that doesn't stop the Creationist troll from repeating the lie.
Let me offer an analogy and the darwinists can tell me why it does not work.
ReplyDeleteWe send men to Mars and they find a fabulously complex computer. It has all of the hallmarks of our computers and some complex engineering unknown to man. One of the astronauts says, "This sure looks designed!" the other says, "well, it merely looks designed. After all, this is a big universe and it was bound to happen somewhere. And keep in mind that all sets of cards dealt in a casino are themselves highly improbable but the existence of SOME set of cards is vitually guaranteed." The first astronaut then says, "So I guess it's not designed?" Second astronaut, "Nope, it just appears that way."
Now let's think about the most complex "computer" in existence: Life. Billions of times more complex than a computer, error correction mechanisms, redundancies, multiple interdependent moving parts. It just "appears" designed, but given the fact that cards can be dealt in a casino, it merely looks designed.
So now "designedness" is "computerness". Is the "computer inference" comping soon?
DeleteVery persuasive,Collin. Here's another,I use a golf club to advance the ball. Sometimes I use my foot for the same purpose.By Geoxus' First Theorem of Computer Inference, " if a designed object performs an action then any object that performs that action or something analogous is designed",another nail in the coffin of Darwinism
DeleteThorton:
ReplyDeleteAre you agreeing with me?
And do evolutionists have any figures about how probable evolution is?
natschuster
ReplyDeleteThorton:
Are you agreeing with me?
I agree 100% that you're a lying Creationist troll.
Thorton:
ReplyDeleteThese people did some math:
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2011.1
Here's some math stuff:
ReplyDeletehttp://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.1
natschuster
ReplyDeleteThorton:
These people did some math:
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2011.1
Yep, they calculated a totally meaningless number based on a ridiculous scenario that no one in science says or thinks happened, and self-published it with zero professional peer review.
It got a good laugh from the scientific community too.
Didn't Behe's book have all kinds of math?
ReplyDeleteSubsequently, protein-coding genic richness appears to have essentially plateaued.
ReplyDeleteThis is about backwards of what Darwinian theory predicts.
Whole genomic analysis is the deathknell of Darwinism. Unless they come up with some kind of "multiverse" theory.
Really? What does Darwinian theory predict?
Delete