Saturday, July 14, 2012

Wrong Again: This Time it is Striated Muscle Evolution

By now this must seem tedious but there is Bayesian value in evolution’s endless stream of failed expectations. This time it is striated muscles, in bilaterians and non-bilaterian eumetazoans. They seemed to evolutionists to have a common evolutionary origin. But now the molecular differences do not support that expectation. Instead, the considerable similarity across these various species would likely have arisen independently, via those random mutations.

But evolutionists forget about this long list of false expectations. Evolution must be a fact, regardless of the evidence.
Posted by at
Labels: ,

19 comments:

  1. Elizabeth LiddleJuly 15, 2012 at 2:21 AM

    By now this must seem tedious

    Yes, it is, Cornelius.

    Yet again, you equivocate with the word "evolution".

    How are you defining "evolution" when you assert that "evolutionists" (presumably) must hold that "Evolution must be a fact, regardless of the evidence."?

    You seem to mean "Common Ancestry must be a fact" - and of course, the evidence that bilaterians and non-bilaterian eumetazoans have a common ancestor is extraordinarily strong.

    Hence their common name "eumetazoans".

    Universal Common Ancestry is as near a fact as things get in science, precisely because of the strength of the evidence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rebel ScienceJuly 15, 2012 at 3:27 AM

      If by strong evidence you mean the fossil record, then all I can say is this: not even wrong.

      Delete
    2. Elizabeth LiddleJuly 15, 2012 at 3:57 AM

      The fossil record is part of the evidence, which only serves as independent confirmation of the morphological and genetic evidence.

      Why else do you think both groups are part of a larger group called "eumetazoans"? why do you think that a few animals are not part of this group?

      Hint: not because of the fossil record

      Delete
  2. Elizabeth LiddleJuly 15, 2012 at 4:01 AM

    Also, Cornelius, why do you think the authors concluded that striated muscles must have evolved independently?

    ReplyDelete
  3. PedantJuly 15, 2012 at 4:05 AM

    From the abstract of the cited paper:

    Here we show that a muscle protein core set, including a type II myosin heavy chain (MyHC) motor protein characteristic of striated muscles in vertebrates, was already present in unicellular organisms before the origin of multicellular animals.

    Wow! Common ancestry, anyone?

    The independent evolution of eumetazoan striated muscles through the addition of new proteins to a pre-existing, ancestral contractile apparatus may serve as a model for the evolution of complex animal cell types.

    More than 100 genes are involved in the development of striated muscle in vertebrates. Irreducible complexity reduced, a step at a time…

    ReplyDelete
  4. Elizabeth LiddleJuly 15, 2012 at 4:05 AM

    Hint:

    Steinmetz et al: Here we show that a muscle protein core set, including a type II myosin heavy chain (MyHC) motor protein characteristic of striated muscles in vertebrates, was already present in unicellular organisms before the origin of multicellular animals.

    (my bold)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Elizabeth LiddleJuly 15, 2012 at 4:06 AM

      heh.

      Delete
    2. PedantJuly 15, 2012 at 4:12 AM

      Double heh.

      Delete
    3. EugenJuly 15, 2012 at 10:24 AM

      Triple heh
      (why are we hehing?)

      Delete
    4. JohnJuly 15, 2012 at 12:02 PM

      because you luckily evolved a protein with 30,000 amino acids that allows your fingers to move?

      Delete
    5. velikovskysJuly 15, 2012 at 3:07 PM

      Eugen is a cybernetic organism created by Cyberdyne Systems to terminate evolutionists, luck has nothing to do with it

      Delete
    6. EugenJuly 15, 2012 at 5:01 PM

      H7fdsdf 3uy sxfff jk6...*slam* sorry, my flux capacitor is not working properly.

      Thanks for your confidence, Velikovsky.

      :)

      Delete
    7. RitchieJuly 16, 2012 at 2:55 AM

      Flux capacitor?

      OH MY GOD IT'S ALL TRUE...!

      Now where's my hoverboard?

      Delete
    8. BlasJuly 16, 2012 at 5:25 AM

      Elizabeth Liddle said

      "Steinmetz et al: Here we show that a muscle protein core set,..., was already present in unicellular organisms before the origin of multicellular animals."


      I have no access to the papaer, could you please explain how they show that?
      Thanks.

      Delete
  5. Elizabeth LiddleJuly 15, 2012 at 4:53 AM

    Game to love, I think.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Elizabeth LiddleJuly 15, 2012 at 5:12 AM

    If anyone is genuinely interested in the evidential support for a eumetazoan clade, there was a nice phylogenomics paper in Current Biology in 2009.

    It gives all the methodology, including the statistical tests (for those still laboring under the delusion that evolutionary hypotheses are untestable and/or untested).

    ReplyDelete
  7. UnknownJuly 15, 2012 at 7:17 AM

    So this headline is essentially correct:

    Wrong Again: This Time it is Striated Muscle Evolution

    Just not in the way our host intended?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JohnJuly 15, 2012 at 1:09 PM

      The authors themselves said they were wrong. It's just that they were basing their predictions on the wrong type of evolution. Now they realized some convergent evolution was going on and that originally confused them. Now light has been shed. Now everything makes sense.

      The question now is how can similar structures in organisms be evidence for common descent if similar structures in organisms currently thought to be closely related are "known" to have arisen independently.

      Delete
  8. olegJuly 18, 2012 at 2:59 AM

    Hunter's complete absence from this thread seems rather conspicuous.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)