Monday, November 19, 2012

Evolutionists Solve Eye Evolution (Again)

Recently we discussed a paper from 2008 in which evolutionists claimed to have solved the long-standing question of how the eye evolved. It is a problem that famously once made Darwin shudder but the evolutionists claimed that now, with our advanced scientific knowledge, “the gap in understanding of the molecular evolution of eye components is all but closed.” That was quite a claim and, not surprisingly, there was no such breakthrough. In fact, the “explanation” that the evolutionists provided was simply that the key cellular signal transduction pathway in our eyes came from a very similar pathway in yeast that senses certain types of signaling chemicals known as pheromones. The evolutionists had no explanation for how the yeast pathway arose in the first place or exactly how it could morph into the animal vision system. It was yet another example of evolution’s trivial, non scientific, solutions that do nothing but generate vacuous headlines. Well evolutionists have done it again. This month they “solved” the problem of eye evolution yet again. Apparently that 2008 solution didn’t take, but this new solution is no better.

You may have seen the Wall Street Journal article from earlier this month proclaiming the new discovery of how vision evolved. The headline read, “A Relief to Darwin: The Eyes Have It.” Or perhaps you saw the press release trumpeting the new “Breakthrough study” that “Pinpoints Evolutionary Origins of Sight.”

The paper itself was no less triumphant. It claimed to reveal “a simple route to animal vision.” But in fact the evolutionists discovered no such thing. It was all yet another abuse of science.

As with the earlier 2008 paper, the new study appeals to yet another signal transduction pathway as the progenitor of later vision systems. This time instead of yeast, the paper appeals to a pathway in placozoa. As with the yeast system, the placozoa system probably detects signaling chemicals.

As usual, the evolutionists “solve” the problem simply by pushing it back in time. The evolution narrative continues to push complexity to earlier stages where it somehow and fortuitously appears. As the evolutionists conclude: “Our results are compatible with the view that the last common neuralian ancestor might have been more complex than generally assumed.”



So the new study makes evolution even more heroic and implausible. What it does not show is precisely what the paper and the articles claim that it shows: how vision evolved.

Evolution is more ludicrous with each passing week. It is a religiously-motivated movement that force-fits scientific findings to its truth. Its unending trail of vacuous discoveries is nothing more than a reflection of the underlying religion. As John Ioannidis has put it, “claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.” That is a good description of evolutionary science.

Religion drives science and it matters.

2 comments:

  1. "Religion drives science and it matters", Is completely false, and opposite to the truth.

    Throwing up our hands and saying "God did it" gets us no farther, gains us nothing.

    In contrast, science is continually testing and improving. This is why we make new progress.

    Also false is the claim that the 2008 paper had no explanation for the origin of a light sensor from a different type of sensor. Like the new paper, the 2008 paper shows that light sensors differ from "cousin" receptors in the lysine residue that binds to a light-reactive chromophore. This is fully sensible, and gives us deeper understanding. Other details can still be learned by the scientific method.

    "Godddidit" gets us now where. With that attitude, we'd all still be hunter-gatherers allowing our fates to be determined by superstitions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Todd Oakley:

      In contrast, science is continually testing and improving. This is why we make new progress.

      Your argument is with yourself, not me. It is not good science to mandate that your theory is a fact when the science doesn’t back you up.


      Also false is the claim that the 2008 paper had no explanation for the origin of a light sensor from a different type of sensor. Like the new paper, the 2008 paper shows that light sensors differ from "cousin" receptors in the lysine residue that binds to a light-reactive chromophore.

      Agreed, but it is not that simple. Unfortunately this sort of just-add-water abuse of science is common in evolutionary theory. A few residues are different, so there you have it, that is how you get a photoreceptor from a pheromone detector.

      A classic example of this photoreceptor magic is in the much celebrated work of Nilsson and Pelger who explained that although Darwin “anticipated that the eye would become a favorite target for criticism,” the problem “has now almost become a historical curiosity” and “the question is now one of process rate rather than one of principle.” So the problem is solved? Um, well, not exactly. As the evolutionists write:

      Taking a patch of pigmented light-sensitive epithelium as the starting point, we avoid the more inaccessible problem of photoreceptor cell evolution. Thus, if the objective is limited to finding the number of generations required for the evolution of an eye’s optical geometry, then the problem becomes solvable. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/06/new-cambrian-arthropod-vision-system-no.html

      Incredible. This is what passes as highly-proclaimed evolutionary “science.” Claim victory and then skip the problem (the proof is left to the student) because, after all, we all know evolution is a fact.


      Other details can still be learned by the scientific method.

      I’m sorry but insisting your theory is a fact when the science doesn’t back you up is not “the scientific method.”

      Delete