Sunday, May 20, 2018

New Paper Admits Failure of Evolution

Pop Quiz: Who Said It?

There are many fundamental problems with evolutionary theory. Origin of life studies have dramatically failed. Incredibly complex biological designs, both morphological and molecular, arose abruptly with far too little time to have evolved. The concept of punctuated equilibrium is descriptive, not explanatory. For example, the Cambrian Explosion is not explained by evolution and, in general, evolutionary mechanisms are inadequate to explain the emergence of new traits, body plans and new physiologies. Even a single gene is beyond the reach of evolutionary mechanisms. In fact, the complexity and sophistication of life cannot originate from non-biological matter under any scenario, over any expanse of space and time, however vast. On the other hand, the arch enemy of evolutionary theory, Lamarckian inheritance, in its variety of forms, is well established by the science.

Another Darwin’s God post?

No, these scientific observations are laid out in a new peer-reviewed, scientific paper.

Origin of Life

Regarding origin of life studies, which try to explain how living cells could somehow have arisen in an ancient, inorganic, Earth, the paper explains that this idea should have long since been rejected, but instead it has fueled “sophisticated conjectures with little or no evidential support.”

the dominant biological paradigm - abiogenesis in a primordial soup. The latter idea was developed at a time when the earliest living cells were considered to be exceedingly simple structures that could subsequently evolve in a Darwinian way. These ideas should of course have been critically examined and rejected after the discovery of the exceedingly complex molecular structures involved in proteins and in DNA. But this did not happen. Modern ideas of abiogenesis in hydrothermal vents or elsewhere on the primitive Earth have developed into sophisticated conjectures with little or no evidential support.

In fact, abiogenesis has “no empirical support.”

independent abiogenesis on the cosmologically diminutive scale of oceans, lakes or hydrothermal vents remains a hypothesis with no empirical support

One problem, of many, is that the early Earth would not have supported such monumental evolution to occur:

The conditions that would most likely to have prevailed near the impact-riddled Earth's surface 4.1–4.23 billion years ago were too hot even for simple organic molecules to survive let alone evolve into living complexity

In fact, the whole idea strains credibility “beyond the limit.”

The requirement now, on the basis of orthodox abiogenic thinking, is that an essentially instantaneous transformation of non-living organic matter to bacterial life occurs, an assumption we consider strains credibility of Earth-bound abiogenesis beyond the limit.

All laboratory experiments have ended in “dismal failure.” The information hurdle is of “superastronomical proportions” and simply could not have been overcome without a miracle.

The transformation of an ensemble of appropriately chosen biological monomers (e.g. amino acids, nucleotides) into a primitive living cell capable of further evolution appears to require overcoming an information hurdle of superastronomical proportions, an event that could not have happened within the time frame of the Earth except, we believe, as a miracle. All laboratory experiments attempting to simulate such an event have so far led to dismal failure.

Diversity of Life

But the origin of life is just the beginning of evolution’s problems. For science now suggests evolution is incapable of creating the diversity of life and all of its designs:

Before the extensive sequencing of DNA became available it would have been reasonable to speculate that random copying errors in a gene sequence could, over time, lead to the emergence of new traits, body plans and new physiologies that could explain the whole of evolution. However the data we have reviewed here challenge this point of view. It suggests that the Cambrian Explosion of multicellular life that occurred 0.54 billion years ago led to a sudden emergence of essentially all the genes that subsequently came to be rearranged into an exceedingly wide range of multi-celled life forms - Tardigrades, the Squid, Octopus, fruit flies, humans – to name but a few.

As one of the authors writes, “the complexity and sophistication of life cannot originate (from non-biological) matter under any scenario, over any expanse of space and time, however vast.” As an example, consider the octopus.

Octopus

First, the octopus is an example of novel, complex features, rapidly appearing and a vast array of genes without an apparent ancestry:

Its large brain and sophisticated nervous system, camera-like eyes, flexible bodies, instantaneous camouflage via the ability to switch colour and shape are just a few of the striking features that appear suddenly on the evolutionary scene. The transformative genes leading from the consensus ancestral Nautilus (e.g., Nautilus pompilius) to the common Cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis) to Squid (Loligo vulgaris) to the common Octopus (Octopus vulgaris) are not easily to be found in any pre-existing life form.

But it gets worse. As Darwin’s God has explained, The Cephalopods demonstrate a highly unique level of adenosine to inosine mRNA editing. It is yet another striking example of lineage-specific design that utterly contradicts macroevolution:

These data demonstrate extensive evolutionary conserved adenosine to inosine (A-to-I) mRNA editing sites in almost every single protein-coding gene in the behaviorally complex coleoid Cephalopods (Octopus in particular), but not in nautilus. This enormous qualitative difference in Cephalopod protein recoding A-to-I mRNA editing compared to nautilus and other invertebrate and vertebrate animals is striking. Thus in transcriptome-wide screens only 1–3% of Drosophila and human protein coding mRNAs harbour an A-to-I recoding site; and there only about 25 human mRNA messages which contain a conserved A-to-I recoding site across mammals. In Drosophila lineages there are about 65 conserved A-sites in protein coding genes and only a few identified in C. elegans which support the hypothesis that A-to-I RNA editing recoding is mostly either neutral, detrimental, or rarely adaptive. Yet in Squid and particularly Octopus it is the norm, with almost every protein coding gene having an evolutionary conserved A-to-I mRNA editing site isoform, resulting in a nonsynonymous amino acid change. This is a virtual qualitative jump in molecular genetic strategy in a supposed smooth and incremental evolutionary lineage - a type of sudden “great leap forward”. Unless all the new genes expressed in the squid/octopus lineages arose from simple mutations of existing genes in either the squid or in other organisms sharing the same habitat, there is surely no way by which this large qualitative transition in A-to-I mRNA editing can be explained by conventional neo-Darwinian processes, even if horizontal gene transfer is allowed. 

Lamarck

In the twentieth century Lamarckian Inheritance was an anathema for evolutionists. Careers were ruined and every evolutionist knew the inheritance of acquired characteristics sat right along the flat earth and geocentrism in the history of ideas. The damning of Lamarck, however, was driven by dogma rather than data, and today the evidence has finally overcome evolutionary theory.

Indeed there is much contemporary discussion, observations and critical analysis consistent with this position led by Corrado Spadafora, Yongsheng Liu, Denis Noble, John Mattick and others, that developments such as Lamarckian Inheritance processes (both direct DNA modifications and indirect, viz. epigenetic, transmissions) in evolutionary biology and adjacent fields now necessitate a complete revision of the standard neo-Darwinian theory of evolution or “New Synthesis " that emerged from the 1930s and 1940s.

Indeed, we now know of a “plethora of adaptive Lamarckian-like inheritance mechanisms.”

There is, of course, nothing new in this paper. We have discussed these, and many, many other refutations of evolutionary theory. Yet the paper is significant because it appears in a peer-reviewed journal. Science is, if anything, conservative. It doesn’t exactly “follow the data,” at least until it becomes OK to do so. There are careers and reputations at stake.

And of course, there is religion.

Religion drives science, and it matters.

38 comments:

  1. If this blog article could be shared with everyone on the internet instead of news articles claiming the octopus came from space, evolution would be abandoned.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Excellent. I enjoy watching dirt worshippers jump up and down and foam at the mouth when they realize that they can't get around the obvious fact that living organisms were designed and engineered into existence by a superior intelligence. This is what they are fighting against with all their might because theirs is a synagogue of Satan, the father of lies and deception.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Where are the usual dirt worshippers? I need somebody to ridicule and insult.

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

    ReplyDelete
  4. LOL. Are you really so desperate to quote biased scientist who want to prove panspermia?. Here is a response to the article:

    https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2018/05/14/octopuses-as-aliens-from-another-planet/

    There are many more on the internet. The argument is still the same its complex to its god or aliens in a nutshell. I am not convinced that it disproves evolution.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Another brain-dead dirt worshipper heard from. Thank God for dirt worshippers.

      Everything disproves evolution, moron. Evolution is stupid nerd superstition. It is easily disproved by the curse of dimensionality. That's it. Nothing else needs to be added to this refutation.

      But, just for grins and giggle, even if evolution was a plausible hypothesis (it isn't, it's a pile of crap), it suffers from the same fatal condition as all optimizing mechanisms: overfitting and getting stuck in local optima.

      Now go back to licking dirt, ape-man.

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

      Delete
    2. Hi Lukas- Too bad Jerry Coyne nor any other evolutionist has a scientific explanation for the existence of octopi.

      Delete
    3. LOL. Are you really so desperate to quote biased scientist who want to prove panspermia?.

      Yes, they are. Any poo they can fling at evolutionary theory is good poo. Anything to help the Creationist cause. They don't care this paper is basically evidence free speculation. The part about cephalopods from space is just laughable. We still have the genetic phylogenies showing how octopi are closely related to squid and how they still fit neatly into the evolutionary tree of life.

      Delete
    4. Stupid brain-dead dirt worshipper trying to make a point about bias:

      Yes, they are. Any poo they can fling at evolutionary theory is good poo. Anything to help the Creationist cause.

      This would actually be funny if it weren't so stupidly ironic.

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

      Delete
  5. Joe G.: Thanks for the kind reply. As for the article Jerry Coyne maybe does not know the answer to it however I was just pointing out that evolutionist have tackled it and also this is old news and was tackled it in the past:

    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/octopus-dna-origins/

    So I do not get why many people here like Hyrum S. or others were cheering that this is true without checking it. So it showed that people are not interested in the truth, they just want their beliefs confirmed. However I thank you for such a nice and polite reply.

    Louis Savain: Insults and mockery are the weapons of the desperate and blind, so I have nothing to say here. Thanks for showing how desperate and blind you are.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

      Moron.

      Delete
    2. Lukas- You need to reread what Hyrum S posted. He is against the news articles about alien octopi.

      However it is a cinch that evolution by means of blind and mindless processes cannot account for their existence

      Delete
    3. Oh I was aware that the paper wasn't accurate at all about the coming from space part.
      I was cheering the fact that even an evolutionist paper is admitting that spontaneous generation of life on earth isn't plausible.
      Saying octopi came from space is just kicking the bucket down the road.

      Delete
    4. Hyrum S. did you actually read the paper or only this blog post? When you would read it and even other articles about it then you would see that its not a evolutionist paper at all. Its just a speculation with flimsy evidence at best. Its in the same category as papers who claim that we have psychic powers or big foot exists. So again how could you have taken it seriously is beyond me?

      So my point stands that you are not interested in the truth only the confirmation of your believes.

      Delete
    5. The truth is evolution is a facade to more important problem of "why?", by distracting with an explanation of the "how?".

      There is a hidden assumption scientists make. Why is reality this way? The scientist never asks this question because it apparently impedes his ability to observe the natural world. Why should gravity attract instead of repulse? The scientist would answer, "because gravity doesn't repulse." This doesn't answer the question "why?".

      Consider evolution.
      Why should life evolve? Why should there be a code for DNA before it had even evolved? Why should there even be life in the first place? "Scientific fact" is used as a shield against these metaphysical ponderings.
      The truth is what is held as "scientific fact" today will be discarded tomorrow. All in the search of truth.

      And the truth hurts.
      The truth is evolution is a bad theory because it can't predict what we don't know yet.
      Dr. Hunter can tell you the number of blog posts in which he's shown that evolutionary theory has predicted something that was vitally crucial to our understanding of biology.

      And as far as I've read, the paper still believes in evolution. It just doesn't believe in terrestrial spontaneous generation of life and hence still kicks the issue of the origin of life down the line without hitting a solid wall.

      Delete
    6. The truth is evolution is a facade to more important problem of "why?", by distracting with an explanation of the "how?".

      There are no fields of science anywhere which concern themselves with "why" certain phenomena happen. "Why" is a philosophic question, not a scientific one.

      The truth is evolution is a bad theory because it can't predict what we don't know yet.

      This is demonstrably false. Evolution can predict (generally) what paths species will take given certain changes in environmental pressure. One example is insular dwarfism whereby species tend to evolve smaller body sizes when confined to small geographic ranges, especially islands. The problem with predicting is we usually don't know when and how specific environments will change, especially now with human produced climate change rapidly happening.

      Delete
    7. There are no fields of science anywhere which concern themselves with "why" certain phenomena happen. "Why" is a philosophic question, not a scientific one.

      Ernst Mayr on Darwin: "First he was a brilliant observer. Everything he saw he asked questions about. He wanted to know **why** things were a certain way."

      Elsewhere Mayr has elaborated that evolution, unlike many other theories, asks the "why" questions.

      Delete
    8. The resident dirt worshipping prevaricator wrote:

      There are no fields of science anywhere which concern themselves with "why" certain phenomena happen. "Why" is a philosophic question, not a scientific one.

      Funny. The field of medicine is 100% about the causes of diseases. A typical question in medicine is: why does this patient have an inflammation? An answer might be: because the patient contracted a pathogen.

      In physics, a scientist might ask why did a body accelerate? Answer: because a force was applied.

      Science is all about why-type questions because they are the best questions. Evolutionists don't like why questions because they are not scientists. They are a superstitious bunch. And yet, paradoxically, they tell us all the time that the species exist because they evolved.

      Dirt worshippers are the most dishonest POS on the planet. They are traitors to their own species. They are a synagogue of Satan, the father of lies. It is our duty as human beings in search of truth to ridicule and insult this lying bunch of aholes at every opportunity.

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

      Delete
    9. Thank you, Cornelius, for flinging the fecal matter right back at the lying sack of s--t. Evolutionists speak with a forked tongue.

      Delete
    10. Simply yet another example of why this isn't about science. It never was.

      Delete
    11. Thanks CH for equivocating between the physical reasons why phenomena happen and the philosophical reasons why Hyrum was griping about. We can always count on you to twist things for Jesus.

      Delete
    12. There are no fields of science anywhere which concern themselves with "why" certain phenomena happen.

      Except for archaeology and forensics

      "Why" is a philosophic question, not a scientific one.

      That is total nonsense

      Evolution can predict (generally) what paths species will take given certain changes in environmental pressure.

      Evolution by mans of blind and mindless processes does not make such a prediction. And you cannot provide a reference to the scientific theory that makes it.


      especially now with human produced climate change rapidly happening.


      BWAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      Strange that the first half of the 20th centuries warming was allegedly due to natural causes and it was as rapid as the warming allegedly caused by humans.

      Delete
    13. Is it not a philosophical belief which drives the theory of evolution? Creationism is as guilty on this account, and it's because life is a philosophical issue.
      If you were to take evolution as 100% true, there are several important ramifications:
      (my favorite one) Given the human brain of each individual person ultimately came about by random processes/causes, and the brain being the source of thought, there is no point in arguing about *anything* because your thoughts are as random as mine and therefore have no validity.
      Also abortion is ok.
      Euthanasia isn't just ok, it's an objective good.
      No particular reason why human trafficking shouldn't be a thing (considering humans have no right to be treated better than cattle).
      Let's see what else, you would be able to perform any kind of experiments you wanted on a person (living or dead) because they're just an organic mass.
      There is more but I think you get the picture.

      Delete
    14. Is it not a philosophical belief which drives the theory of evolution?

      No, it is not. Evolution is the scientific explanation for a large collection of empirical observations. It is based 100% on physical evidence and 0% on philosophical or religious ideas. In that respect it is no different from geology or chemistry.

      Given the human brain of each individual person ultimately came about by random processes/causes

      (facepalm) Evoution isn't random. There is a random component (genetic variation) and a non-random part (selection). I wish I had a dollar for every Creationist I've seen butcher the basics of the science they're attacking.

      your thoughts are as random as mine and therefore have no validity.

      Humans are a social species and have evolved social behaviors, such as altruism and cooperation. Again I wish I had a dollar for every ignorant Creationist who argues "evolution says it's everyone for themselves".

      Delete
    15. Evolution is the scientific explanation for a large collection of empirical observations.

      I didn't know that. So how does evolution explain the origin of centrobin? (see here: http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2018/05/centrobin-found-to-be-important-in.html)

      Oh, gee, that's right, it doesn't. Another own goal.

      Delete
    16. LOL! You're so funny CH. Still with the "science doesn't know everything therefore it doesn't know anything!"

      You really need a new writer. :)

      Delete
    17. I just love the way the little brain-dead dirt worshipper thinks he can insult those who call him out on his incessant BS by accusing them of being "creationists." LOL.

      Yes, we are creationists, ahole. And we are damn proud of it. We don't give a rat's ass if you got a problem with it. If human beings can create limited designs and engineer new complex products, what can one say about a vastly superior intelligent civilization?

      All dirt worshippers can go ahead and eat their own fecal matter and see if we care.

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

      Delete
    18. All dirt worshippers can go ahead and eat their own fecal matter

      Cornelius you must be really proud of supporters like Louis so eloquently arguing your anti-Evolution position.

      Delete
    19. Cornelius is anti-evolution because he is orders of magnitude smarter than you. Dirt worshippers have the IQ of watermelons.

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

      Delete
  6. Very serious paper, that by Steele et al!
    In particular this: "One plausible explanation, in our view, is that the new genes are likely new extraterrestrial imports to Earth - most plausibly as an already coherent group of functioning genes within (say) cryopreserved and matrix protected fertilized Octopus eggs.
    Thus the possibility that cryopreserved Squid and/or Octopus eggs, arrived in icy bolides several hundred million years ago should not be discounted (below) as that would be a parsimonious cosmic explanation for the Octopus' sudden emergence on Earth ca. 270 million years ago."
    The quality of reviewers for that journal must be as abysmal as space is deep.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Joe G.: Using a paper that has a conclusion which is bogus to begin with. If the conclusion is bogus so is the evidence because you cannot have a bogus conclusion when the evidence is solid.

    Hyrum S.: So quoting a bogus paper which supports panspermia which is a theory that claims there is life in space which contradicts religion is okay? So who is the creator gods or aliens now? So using it for creationism is wrong.

    Why should there by life in the first place?: Because it happened. Its the same question why has someone won a million dollars or was born in a rich family. Call it luck if you will. You can this way ask a million questions all the time in every day life.

    Why should life evolve you ask, because everything is evolving/changing, our technology is evolving and changing. Everything is changing. So is life changing. There is change that is all.

    Also science is making progress to answer these things. So far evolution has the evidence on its side and creationism has none of it. After reading several posts here, its like reading a repeated rhyme - its too complex therefore aliens, gods or magic. No real scientific work.

    Second thing Hyrum S. also please if evolution theory is a myth or wrong then explain me why can we create new breeds of dogs or other animals like cats? Why are dogs changing if we breed them? If evolution is a myth then this would not be possible, life would not change.

    Also I do not fear the truth. I sincerely do not care because my life would not be changed if creationism would be true. It would not made a impact on my life.

    Also strange that some of my replies were never published here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Breeding dogs isn't evolution. It's a way to trigger gene expression and not the creation of new genes.
      I don't believe things can't change, I just don't see evolution as the answer to why there are so many different designs.

      "Why should there by life in the first place?: Because it happened."

      Precisely the answer a scientist would give. It still doesn't answer the question: why something instead of nothing?.
      Heck, evolution can't even answer how "because it did".

      "our technology is evolving and changing."

      technology does not advance by random chance but is infact driven intelligent designers with a "goal" in mind. This isn't to discount accidental discoveries, but if you wait for water to boil without heating it up you'll be waiting a long time for that water to randomly boil.

      "After reading several posts here, its like reading a repeated rhyme - its too complex therefore aliens, gods or magic. No real scientific work."

      Because the origin of life is an inherently philosophical question and one that can't be determined by science because, well, we weren't there to observe it.
      As I've mentioned several times, saying life came from space just pushes the issue back instead of being an answer for it. Creationism on the other hand, when you think deep enough, leads you to some satisfying understanding of the nature of the creator. Creationism doesn't push the issue back, but rather finds it's source.

      Also if evolution is true then I still hold that there is no point in arguing with arbitrarily random intelects.

      Delete
    2. Lukas- By your standard there are many bogus peer-reviewed papers. Every paper that says ATP synthase evolved via natural selection and drift is bogus. The same goes for any bacterial flagellum

      Delete
    3. Ghost,
      "Given the human brain of each individual person ultimately came about by random processes/causes

      (facepalm) Evoution isn't random. There is a random component (genetic variation) and a non-random part (selection). I wish I had a dollar for every Creationist I've seen butcher the basics of the science they're attacking."

      Every living thing is ultimately caused by random events, according to evolution. Natural selection is ultimately as well, because even though certain environments may "promote" certain adaptations or evolutions, the circumstances creating the environment in which natural selection operates is random.
      (side note: natural selection is not directed in that if a component for say, bat sonar were selected for it wouldn't recognize it as such and purposefully select mutations to create a completely functioning sonar. In other words, natural selection does not have a plan for completing a design.)
      Mutations are random, natural selection is random. Therefore your brain is ultimately random. If your brain produces thought then your thoughts are ultimately random as well and therefore have no validity,

      "your thoughts are as random as mine and therefore have no validity.

      Humans are a social species and have evolved social behaviors, such as altruism and cooperation. Again I wish I had a dollar for every ignorant Creationist who argues "evolution says it's everyone for themselves"."

      Your not even wrong. I said there was no point in arguing with anyone about anything to try and convince them they are wrong/I am right because for example, if I were to tell a machine 1+1=2 and I knew there was a random 50/50 chance of the machine saying I agree/I disagree then there would be no point in telling the machine it was wrong if it said 1+1 does not=2. This is if evolution is true.
      Challenge me that I'm wrong, I dare you.

      Delete
    4. Mutations are random, natural selection is random

      No. Natural selection is has a non-uniform probability distribution. That means in the long run certain outcomes will inevitably occur more than others. It's the same reason casinos make money on games like roulette, because the non-random probability distribution gives the house a 5% built in advantage.

      If you can't be arsed to learn even the slightest bit about the theory you're attacking then there's no point in continuing. Enjoy your willful ignorance. Science and the rest of society will continue to grow and learn while ID-Creationism sits and rots.

      Challenge me that I'm wrong, I dare you.

      No reason to mud wrestle with a pig. You just get all dirty, and the pig likes it.

      Delete
    5. Reading comprehension isn't your thing.

      I've been studying evolution in layman terms for maybe five six years now? Consider it a hobby.

      "Natural selection is has a non-uniform probability distribution."

      [sic] "Natural selection is ultimately as well, because even though certain environments may "promote" certain adaptations or evolutions, the circumstances creating the environment in which natural selection operates is random."

      I agree with you that natural selection may provide a probability for certain designs to occur.
      However I can't lay it out any simpler than in my above statement without repeating myself.

      "No reason to mud wrestle with a pig. You just get all dirty, and the pig likes it."

      Then you agree that there is no point in arguing with randomly produced thoughts if evolution is true.

      Or you just admitted that you're out of your intellectual league. /sarcasm

      Delete
    6. That means in the long run certain outcomes will inevitably occur more than others.

      Not necessarily, especially given a changing environment.


      There was an experiment involving fruit flies. and after more than 600 generations they could not get a beneficial trait to become fixed. And that was in the controlled environment.


      If you can't be arsed to learn even the slightest bit about the theory you're attacking

      There isn't a scientific theory of evolution. We are attacking evolutionism. And unlike you, I learned about it by reading what the experts say. You learned about natural selection by reading what a computer programmer had to say.

      Delete
  8. Lukas
    "Why should there by life in the first place?: Because it happened."
    This is circular reasoning.

    ReplyDelete