Thursday, September 24, 2015

Evolutionists: We Now Have Empirical Evidence For the Evolution of Kin Recognition

Here We Go Again

In a new study out of the University of Liverpool evolutionists now say they have found empirical evidence that a genetic complex, involving dozens of protein-coding genes related to altruism, can evolve. Such a finding would be truly ground-breaking given that, at least up until now, the evolution of even a single protein has been found to be scientifically unlikely. It would be astonishing if now evolutionists have overturned a substantial body of work establishing molecular evolution to be effectively impossible. But of course evolutionists have done no such thing. There was no finding of molecular evolution, no new proteins or genes, no empirical evidence, nothing. Just another ridiculous claim made by evolutionists. It’s the same old pattern—evolutionists look at profoundly complicated biological structures, assume they evolved, and then claim they have found evidence of evolution.

Altruistic behavior creates many problems for evolution. You can see my explanation of some of them here. One problem I did not explain was the starting point: kin recognition. As I explain, evolutionists unsuccessfully tried to explain altruism using the concept of kin selection, and while that creates many scientific problems, you can’t even get to kin selection without kin recognition. How do animal siblings or cousins recognize each other.

The new study out of the University of Liverpool has found a genetic basis for kin recognition. It is a genetic complex of a couple dozen protein-coding genes and the problems with this are several.

First, it means that kin selection hinges on several proteins working together. Evolving a single protein is, from a scientific perspective, so unlikely as to be effectively impossible. But here evolution needs several proteins. Evolve just one protein and you still don’t have kin recognition. You would have to evolve several others, so the problem is even more difficult.

Second, the genetic cluster is species-specific. Apparently there is no common kin recognition mechanism across the vertebrates as evolutionists had assumed. Of course evolutionists had assumed this, for to have different mechanisms, particular to species or groups of species, would make their theory even more absurdly improbable. Kin recognition would have to re-evolve, in various ways, over and over. Well that is exactly what this new finding is suggesting. As usual, biology shows specific, particular, solutions that are unique to one or a few species, rather than falling into the expected common descent pattern.

Once again, common descent fails to serve as a useful guide. And once again evolutionists, in spite of the science, claim more proof for their theory.

11 comments:

  1. It would be astonishing if now evolutionists have overturned a substantial body of work establishing molecular evolution to be effectively impossible

    We are all waiting for this substantial body of work you are talking about. Please point to peer reviewed articles. Citing your blog articles as a substantial body of proof won't work :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. I guess you're not a regular reader. This has been extensively covered by Cornelius in the past. I guess he's very busy now and is unable to answer your question. You should be able to find his blogs covering this with Google.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I guess you're not a regular reader. This has been extensively covered by Cornelius in the past. I guess he's very busy now and is unable to answer your question. You should be able to find his blogs covering this with Google.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe you could point this body of work ?
      Because to the best of my knowledge this body of work that refute molecular evolution does not exist.

      And Mr Hunter refutation of articles does not count :°)

      Delete
  4. Cornelius,

    "Only evolutionists count."

    Why sure. You're not a real scientist if you're not an evolutionist. I'm surprised you did not already know this.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Cornelius,

    "Only evolutionists count."

    Why sure. You're not a real scientist if you're not an evolutionist. I'm surprised you did not already know this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And people say don't allow evolutionists to comment. These comments illustrate the thinking that goes on. And believe me, the sentiment that criticism is only allowed to come from evolutionists, and that those who are skeptical of spontaneous origins cannot be trusted to offer legitimate criticism, is not at all unusual. I've seen this many times from leading evolutionists.

      Delete
    2. I must have missed something. Where did Calamity say that only evolutionists could criticize evolution? All he/she asked for was the body of work that refutes molecular evolution. That seems like a reasonable request. After all, comments on a blog, mine included, do not count for anything.

      Delete
    3. Look it up- there isn't any evidence that supports molecular evolution.

      Delete
  6. Dr. Hunter,

    You are overlooking a simple solution to this: Convergent Evolution. It's magical and solves any and all problems that challenge genetic evidence that does not line up with Darwinism.

    Just bring out the convergence wand, wave it, and say a few monkey screeches and the problem is solved!

    As far as the need to evolve proteins, well duh!! We're here aren't we so obviously it happened!

    ReplyDelete