Saturday, January 27, 2018

Early Complexity: A Case Study of Evolutionary Theory

No Matter How Perplexing

Nature does not make jumps. That old canon of natural history, as Darwin called it, goes back centuries and was heartily endorsed and adopted by evolutionary theory. Here are representative quotes from Origin, 1st edition, explaining important this doctrine was to Darwin:

I have been astonished how rarely an organ can be named, towards which no transitional grade is known to lead. The truth of this remark is indeed shown by that old canon in natural history of "Natura non facit saltum." We meet with this admission in the writings of almost every experienced naturalist; or, as Milne Edwards has well expressed it, nature is prodigal in variety, but niggard in innovation. Why, on the theory of Creation, should this be so? [194]

On the theory of natural selection we can clearly understand the full meaning of that old canon in natural history, "Natura non facit saltum." This canon, if we look only to the present inhabitants of the world, is not strictly correct, but if we include all those of past times, it must by my theory be strictly true. [206]

The canon of "Natura non facit saltum" applies with almost equal force to instincts as to bodily organs. [210]

the canon in natural history, of "natura non facit saltum" is applicable to instincts as well as to corporeal structure, and is plainly explicable on the foregoing views, but is otherwise inexplicable,—all tend to corroborate the theory of natural selection. [243]

As natural selection acts solely by accumulating slight, successive, favourable variations, it can produce no great or sudden modification; it can act only by very short and slow steps. Hence the canon of "Natura non facit saltum," which every fresh addition to our knowledge tends to make more strictly correct, is on this theory simply intelligible. We can plainly see why nature is prodigal in variety, though niggard in innovation. But why this should be a law of nature if each species has been independently created, no man can explain. [471]

In these and other passages Darwin explained the fundamental evolutionary view and prediction that evolution and natural selection produce gradual change with no sudden changes or jumps.

At this point, more than a century and a half later, that fundamental prediction of evolution has been falsified so many times by the empirical evidence it is a wonder there is anyone left believing in the theory.

One way that this prediction has been falsified, among many, is in the finding of early complexity. Evolutionists of course expected that the history of life would reveal a gradual increase in complexity. But as I have discussed many times here, life does not fit this evolutionary expectation. Instead the very earliest life forms reveal high complexity.

For example, as science writer (and evolutionist) Amy Maxmen explains, Amoebas contain hundreds of times more DNA than humans, and this “just didn’t make sense.”

amoebas date back farther in time than humans, and simplicity is considered an attribute of primitive beings. It just didn’t make sense.

The amoeba versus human comparison was just one example of how genome size contradicts evolutionary theory. What about the number of genes? Here again, evolution makes a clear prediction, as Maxmen explains:

Simple, early organisms would have fewer genes than complex ones, they [evolutionists] predicted

And here again, the evolution prediction was demolished by the science. For example, evolutionists were surprised to find sea anemones have more genes than insects, in spite of arising earlier. That, admits Maxmen, “meant animals might have been genetically complex from the start.”

These sorts of findings also contradict the evolutionary tree. Your high school biology book said that the new genetic data perfectly corroborated the traditional morphological data. Evolutionists have triumphantly celebrated the confirmation that the molecular sequence data provided to pre-existing evolutionary trees.

But that celebration was premature. In fact, study after study have found there is no such corroboration. In fact, as I have documented many times, morphological data across the species contradict the evolutionary tree (i.e., they do not fall into an evolutionary common descent pattern), and the new molecular data simply continued that trend.

Then molecular analyses did something else. They rearranged the order of branches on evolutionary trees. Biologists pushed aside trees based on how similar organisms looked to one another, and made new ones based on similarities in DNA and protein sequences. The results suggested that complex body parts evolved multiple times and had also been lost.

In other words, the scientific data contradict the theory. The result is that evolutionists have had to concoct increasingly complex and bizarre epicycles to try to explain the data. This includes complex structures evolving, then disappearing, then re-evolving, all in the same lineage, as well as independently evolving in a separate lineage. As Maxmen explains:

Furthermore, the idea that complex parts like a brain and nervous system—including nerve cells, synapses, and neurotransmitter molecules—could evolve separately multiple times perplexes evolutionary biologists because parts are gained one at a time. The chance of the same progression happening twice in separate lineages seems unlikely—or so biologists thought.

This is a tautology. Whatever we observe, evolution somehow created it, no matter how ridiculous the narrative becomes. An unfair criticism? Consider Maxmen’s conclusion:

When new data suggests a rearrangement, it must be considered no matter how perplexing the conclusion seems.

In other words, the plausibility of evolution is not a consideration. No matter “how perplexing” are the data, we must find a way to force fit it into the theory.

Religion drives science, and it matters.

46 comments:

  1. Darwinism is the religion of cretins, dirt worshippers, cowards and jackasses.

    ReplyDelete
  2. quote: "Simple, early organisms would have fewer genes than complex ones, they [evolutionists] predicted"
    ===

    The only thing here that is simple and primitive was the lack of education. experience and understanding on the part of Darwin and his early followers. Their entire outlook and way of viewing things was entire superficial and one-dimensional, incapable of looking beyond the surface and into deeper reasons for what they outwardly observed. If blind undirected forces with eternal loads of deeptime weren't true, the alternative (a supreme sovereign who did actually create all thing) was unacceptable, so materialism had to be true. A big part of that worldview was what motivated them at the start of their search. This was certainly of Darwin who resented God for not saving his daughter and you can see it everywhere in his argument from poor design. For example the parasitic wasp and caterpillar example where he is not so much talking about the wasp and caterillar so much as he is expressing his feelings against the creator because of his daughter.

    "With respect to the theological view of the question: This is always painful to me. I am bewildered. I had no intention to write atheistically, but I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars ..."

    The biblical example of where the prophet Samuel chooses the elder handsome son of Jesse, but is told by God that this one is not his choice:

    “Do not pay attention to his appearance and how tall he is, for I have rejected him. For the way man sees is not the way God sees, because mere man sees what appears to the eyes, but Jehovah sees into the heart.”

    This same theme is repeated throughout the texts. Darwin and others had a preconcenved idea formulated by bias and prejudice from deep down in their of the way things should be and set out to fit square pegs in round holes as evidence for evolution. Hence in the beginning, based on ignorance and massive amounts of lack of understanding they allowed their preconcenved worldview to work as blinders to tunnel-vision their dogma as the only authoritive proof. But it's odd that at the beginning with Argument from Poor Design, that most focus with chosen examples were focircumstances that pained the heart. Onlt later other disconnected from emtion examples appear like the Giraffe neck, etc. Still they had no idea how complex and sophisticated things actually were at the beginning. Since even they well new that pure dumb luck causing something to insta-poof into extistence really wasn't something they believed in real life experience, they therefore had to fabricate a fable of countless eons of an eternal deep time where eventually nothing gets lcky and something appears. I've always hated blind faith, it's really a type of intellectual laziness for religious people and agnostics and atheists alike.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Here is another aspect of complexity that relegates Darwinism to the pile of BS theories. If Darwinism were true, one would expect the most complex organisms to have the fastest reproduction rate, right? Well, we observe the exact opposite in nature: the most evolved organisms (e.g., humans, apes, etc.) have the slowest rates of reproduction.

    Conclusion: Darwinism is the religion of cretins, dirt worshippers, liars, cowards and jackasses.

    ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mapou: “the most evolved organisms (e.g., humans, apes, etc.) have the slowest rates of reproduction.“

      Except that an evolutionist would say that an amoeba was just as evolved as a human. Only those biased by their own delusional self-worth would say that humans are the most evolved.

      Delete
    2. Billy the spear shaker opened his stupid mouth and out came demons, abominations, lies, deceits and cretinous BS.

      ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

      Delete
    3. Except that an evolutionist would say that an amoeba was just as evolved as a human.

      An evolutionist doesn't have a mechanism that can account for the existence of an amoeba or a human.

      Delete
  4. "Holy cow this is sooooo complex, therefore JESUS!"

    You Creationists need a new writer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Idiot. Go grow some brain cells. Jackass.

      Delete
    2. Here's an idea, timmy. Go out and find some supporting evidence for your evidence-free position and then we can discuss it. Or just continue to prove that you are an angry loser. Your choice.

      Delete
  5. Dr. Hunter, I see that you have nothing but the sharpest and brightest ID minds commenting on your site. You must be very proud.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Compared to you and ghostrider I am a super genius. At least I don't have to lie and bluff my way through a discussion on biology, evolution and science, like you do.

      Delete
    2. Dirt worshippers can't stop whining. Grow up, you gutless cretin.

      Delete
    3. This is priceless. Less than an hour after posting my comment criticizing the quality of ID comments on this site, Joke and Mapou chime in, proving my point. These two are the gifts that keep on giving.

      Delete
    4. This is priceless as once again willie tries to distract from the fact it doesn't know much of anything about biology, science and evolution.

      Delete
    5. Buzz off, you dirt worshipping maggot. Your opinion is worth less than dirt.

      ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

      Delete
  6. "Except that an evolutionist would say that an amoeba was just as evolved as a human."

    To say that you need evidence that there was a less evolved form of life. How look a less evolved form of life?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Blas: "To say that you need evidence that there was a less evolved form of life. How look a less evolved form of life?"

    There is no such thing as more or less evolved. That is just imposing human ego on biology.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LoL! So the organisms that came after the simple replicating molecules aren't more evolved or is willie just talking out of its arse again?

      Delete
    2. Joke: "LoL! So the organisms that came after the simple replicating molecules aren't more evolved or is willie just talking out of its arse again?"

      No, they aren't more evolved. They are just different. Evolution is about change over time. In many cases this involves increased complexity, but this isn't always the case. But increased complexity doesn't mean more evolved, it just means more complex.

      Delete
    3. Billy dirt worshipper is not human. He's fully possessed by an unclean spirit. He's an accomplished weaver of lies and deception.

      ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

      Delete
    4. Then according to ToE the first organisms were simple or complex as they are now?

      Delete
    5. No, they aren't more evolved.

      Anything that is different from the original is more evolved. Anything that has been evolving for more generations than something else is more evolved.

      So yes, the organisms that came after the simple replicating molecules would definitely be more evolved than those simple replicators.

      Delete
    6. Joe, you are arguing with a jackass, a complete ahole. He knows very well that the point I made about evolution and reproduction rates makes Darwinism look like the stupid pseudoscientific pile of crap that it really is.

      So the jackass realized that the best way to respond is to come up with an argument that totally circumvents the point and changed the focus to something else, something stupid.

      All Darwinists are gutless jackasses.

      Delete
    7. Joke: "Anything that is different from the original is more evolved. "

      No, it is just different. Saying "more evolved" is like saying "more dead".

      Delete
    8. If one organism changed, ie evolved, and the other stayed the same, ie didn't evolve, then the one that evolved is clearly more evolved.

      Saying "more evolved" is like saying "more dead".

      Yeah cuz in willie's world populations of dead organisms evolve.

      Delete
    9. Yo, moron. 'Evolution' is synonymous with 'change.' One can say "something have evolved a lot" in the same sense as "something has changed a lot."

      Now go back to licking dirt, you dirt worshipping maggot.

      Delete
    10. Joke: “If one organism changed, ie evolved, and the other stayed the same, ie didn't evolve, then the one that evolved is clearly more evolved.“

      Hence your ignorance of evolution. Don’t shoot the messenger just because he points out the obvious.

      Delete
    11. willie, I know more about evolution, biology and science then you ever will. And there wasn't any message just your usual unsupported tripe.

      Delete
    12. WS,

      The idea that complexity increases over time is a central theme in regards to evolution of common descent. The phrase of "being more evolved" is common throughout secular literature and is most definitely used in secular academia lecture halls.

      The problem is that there are recent discoveries that contradict the conventionally accepted view which is what this post by Dr. Hunter is all about.

      Obviously, there is early complexity which the theory of evolution incorrectly predicts. Dr David Ferrier of The Scottish Oceans Institute as well as others are working on explaining but to my knowledge have yet to explain it except to say it seems less complexity can equal more evolved.

      Delete
    13. Thank you for that comment, Chuck. But you are arguing with a jackass. You know that, don't you?

      The dirt worshipper is not interested in your well-reasoned argument. He'll trample it like a filthy swine and walk away.

      Delete
    14. Chuck,

      There is no rule in evolution that it leads to higher complexity. There are plenty of examples of reductions in complexity. Complexity often comes with a cost. If the benefits do not outweigh the costs, there is a good chance that the more complex may not survive.

      Delete
    15. The original point of this discussion, which the dirt worshipper managed to obfuscate (by being a jackass as usual), is that the most complex organisms on earth (e.g., humans, apes and higher mammals) have the slowest reproduction rate. This is the opposite of what one would expect if Darwinism were true. Therefore Darwinism is a pile of pseudoscientific crap.

      Now go lick some more dirt with your dirt worshipping buddies.

      Delete
    16. more evolved = more change > less change.

      For example if humans have as ancestors some extinct population then it is clear that humans are more evolved as there has been many more generations of change in the human lineage.

      Delete
    17. WS,

      I am speaking of the general agreement by evolution proponents that observed complexity distributions generally have increased since the beginning of life on Earth. This is observed and modeled and can be thought of as a general rule that the generation of complex organisms is an unavoidable feature of evolution.

      Are you saying complexity does not increase with time?

      We agree organisms can become simpler which is the problem because that is not what is expected by the theory.

      Delete
    18. Mapou: “The original point of this discussion, which the dirt worshipper managed to obfuscate (by being a jackass as usual), is that the most complex organisms on earth (e.g., humans, apes and higher mammals) have the slowest reproduction rate.”

      So?

      This is the opposite of what one would expect if Darwinism were true.”

      That is the stupidest thing I have heard since Joke claimed that wavelength equals frequency. Thanks for the laugh.

      Delete
    19. That is the stupidest thing I have heard since Joke claimed that wavelength equals frequency.

      Wow, still desperate for attention. I didn't make that claim in a vacuum. My claim was in context and clarified. Not only that I have demonstrated the two are interchangeable in specific contexts.

      On the other hand willie thought that water stretched the wavelength of a radio signal as it tried to propagate its way through that medium. That after having more than a year to research and think about it.

      And to top it off willie thought that water changes to ice via some molecular code.

      I guess after complete moronic claims like that the fool has to quote-mine me in order to try to score some imaginary points.

      Pathetic, really. But a prime example of evolutionary thought.

      Delete
    20. Ok William Spearshake, let me defend the "more evolved" position without resorting to name calling.

      Evolution = change over time. There is scant evidence that amoeba have changed in any meaningful way in the last billion years. Presuming UCD, Humans have changed radically over the last billion years. Our billion year ago ancestor was an amoeba, or something like it. Our ancestors eventually became fish, then lizards, non-ape mammals, apes, and eventually humans. We have changed, evolved, lots!

      Amoeba, evolved little. Humans, evolved lots. Ergo humans are more evolved.

      Amoeba are extremely well adapted to their environment. This, however, is why they are not very evolved.

      Delete
    21. Dirt worshipper: Thanks for the laugh.

      I hear a jackass braying. LOL.

      Delete
    22. "Ok William Spearshake, let me defend the "more evolved" position without resorting to name calling."

      That would be a welcome change around here.

      bfast, I am not arguing that have not changed more since our billion year old ancestor than an amoeba has from its billion year old ancestor. Although, we have no idea how much amoebas have changed at the molecular level in the last billion years.

      What I disagree with, and so do most evolutionary biologists, is the idea that something is more evolved than something else. That implies that we are better or more improved than our billion year old ancestor. That is a subjective interpretation, and one that we can't answer. All we can say with certainty is that we have changed significantly from our billion year old ancestor.

      Delete
    23. What I disagree with, and so do most evolutionary biologists, is the idea that something is more evolved than something else.

      That is totally false. Evolutionary biologists will tell you that humans are more evolved than there extinct ancestors. That is due to the fact the we have kept changing while the extinct populations have not.

      That implies that we are better or more improved than our billion year old ancestor.

      No, it doesn't. That's just stupid talk. More evolved does not equal more improved.

      Delete
  8. Spearshake, "What I disagree with ... is the idea that something is more evolved than something else."

    Actually, humans have one feature that places us head and shoulders, light years, ahead of any other organism. We are the only creature I know of with cumulative intelligent self-adaptation. With our use of language, and especially written language, we have been able to build knowledge upon knowledge. This one adaptation has allowed us to explore world far smaller than the amoeba can. It has allowed us to explore the very edges of our universe. It has allowed us to completely dominate most species. (There are a few entities, mostly viruses, that still elude us.)

    Because of our cumulative intelligent self-adaptation I contend that the claim that we are "the most evolved" is true from virtually any perspective you can find.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Good thread. yes evolutionism must keep re inventing things to make things work.
    The emergence of complex biology in different lineages must shake their faith. It does!
    The complexity of biology being explained by smal steps changing populations seems so porrly done its embarrassing.
    its like its opposition to cHristianity is why it was really embraced.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not sure if you have read Dr. Hunter's entire blog but the opposition to Christianity and the religion of evolution is a recurring motif for many posts by Dr. Hunter.

      I haven't made it through every post yet but I have seen many posts that discuss this atheistic point of view.

      Delete
    2. You misunderstand my post. I'm a long time reader here.
      i mean the evolutionist, and friends, genre.
      I was referring to evolutiondom.

      Delete
  10. bFast: This one adaptation has allowed us to explore world far smaller than the amoeba can.

    Where humans go, bacteria go. You might think of humans as spaceships for bacteria.

    bFast: It has allowed us to completely dominate most species.

    Bacteria have a biomass that is thousands of times greater than that of humans. Indeed, bacteria eat humans for breakfast.

    ReplyDelete