One of Nature’s Attempts to Become More Complex
A new paper was published last week on a remarkable single-celled organism, Oxytricha trifallax, that has two nucleus’ and 16,000 chromosomes (recall that humans have 46). The organism uses one nucleus to store its active DNA and the other nucleus to store an archive of the genome. Amazingly, Oxytricha trifallax, disassembles the archived copy into a quarter-million pieces and then rapidly reassembles them into a new and improved version. This reassembly occurs at mating time as the organism and its mate exchange about half their genome.Creating and maintaining a backup copy of the genome, disassembling that copy, integrating disassembled material from an external source, reassembling the whole thing to produce improved, rejuvenated chromosomes—it all just smacks of blind mutations.
Incredibly evolutionist Laura Landweber explains that Oxytricha trifallax is “one of nature’s early attempts to become more complex despite staying small … People might think that pond-dwelling organisms would be simple, but this shows how complex life can be.”
One of nature’s early attempts to become more complex? This is a typical example of the underlying Aristotelian thought that pervades evolution. Evolutionists have no idea how Oxytricha trifallax amazing capabilities could have evolved by random variation such as mutations. So they describe it in teleological language. This isn’t science.
Of course the idea that Oxytricha trifallax evolved doesn’t come from the science. It comes from a dogmatic commitment to evolution.
Religion drives science, and it matters.
Cornelius Hunter: A new paper was published last week ...
ReplyDeleteHeh. What will those crazy "evolutionists" come up with next!
Cornelius Hunter: Evolutionists have no idea how Oxytricha trifallax amazing capabilities could have evolved by random variation such as mutations.
Not simple mutation: Think whole genome duplication.
Unguided evolution can't account for any duplication.
DeleteJoe G: Unguided evolution can't account for any duplication
DeleteNonetheless, the original post suggested that the evolutionary explanation was simple mutation, when genome duplication is the hypothesis.
Umm that duplication was allegedly a blind mutation. Blind, not "simple". However given that unguided evolution can only do the simple then even entire genome duplications would be simple in that respect.
DeleteJoe G: Umm that duplication was allegedly a blind mutation.
ReplyDeleteMutation usually refers to the change in the nucleotide sequence.
Joe G: even entire genome duplications would be simple in that respect
Genome duplications are fairly common in nature.
Z:
ReplyDeleteMutation usually refers to the change in the nucleotide sequence
And when you double the sequence you have changed it.
Genome duplications are fairly common in nature.
So what?