One wonders, is it possible that a number of other species of shark could convert to “walking” if they had to? That is, they don’t need to evolve the trait from scratch; they need the circumstances that makes it a useful behavior.
In a pop science outlet, no less. What? Weren’t chimpanzees learning to talk just last year or something? It’s almost like some people want to take language seriously now.
Looking past the tabloid prose, they say they found that selection can occur at the level of the epigenome. So what becomes of neo-Darwinism if selection isn’t tied to the all-powerful but accidental gene?
Researchers: “This approach reveals an unprecedented level of fundamental genomic novelties in two nodes related to the origin of land plants: the first in the origin of streptophytes during the Ediacaran and another in the ancestor of land plants in the Ordovician.” Stuck for what to call this, some of us would call it creationism.
It doesn’t sound as though they bothered with much evolution. How would we distinguish their origin from creation? At a certain point, does evolution become creation? Just wondering.
That is, Darwinians argue that similar structures in life forms are powerful evidence of common ancestry. Is that so? It’s part of an occasional series called Long Story Short.
This is not horizontal gene transfer; the fish are eating and repurposing the enzymes rather than incorporating the genes for producing them. But if the fish can in fact steal the enzymes, that’s something to keep in mind as we hear evolutionary biologists explain to us how this and other traits evolved via natural selection acting on the random mutations of the fish’s genome (Darwinism)…
One wants to ask, how distinct ARE the genomes of these species that all look the same?
Would it be like mapping a cat’s genome and finding a German Shepherd’s GATTACA in there? What that level of distinction really tells us goes well beyond cats and German Shepherds. Or do the researchers really mean something less highly distinct? What? We search for analogies here.
“The researchers point out that, although the kind of coordination shown in the present study may rely on more simple mechanisms than full, conscious cooperation, … ” Surely no one thinks that dogs or wolves have a theory of co-operation?
It’s remarkable that “nature” has “perfected” all this even though nature is mindless and the bear is not very smart. Yet people actually believe there is no design in nature.
For years, Darwinists have howled about Dembski’s “Explanatory Filter.” It was unscientific, they claimed. It is purely subjective. Etc. Yet, thinking human beings understand statistics fairly well and they know when to look for an explanation when the odds become too one-sided. Here’s an example of a government intelligence guy explaining how a poker cheat Read More…
From 518 million years ago: The remains document the Cambrian explosion, a rapid flourishing of life-forms, and include many organisms never seen before — even at the most famous Cambrian fossil site, Canada’s Burgess Shale Carolyn Gramling, “Science News’ favorite fossils of 2019” at Science News So even more fossils just popped into existence, just Read More…
Via the Institute of Art and Ideas, Massimo Pigliucci, Zanna Clay, Tim Lewens address the question, “Is evolution wrong?” It’s not a “PR crisis.” It’s a collision with reality.
It turned out to be a badly preserved crayfish onto which someone had painted some legs. Apparently, the main market for this sort of thing is gullible tourists. Now and then, scientists get snaffled.
More data from this rapidly emerging and revolutionary new field, featuring ground-thudding insights. With coffee. 😉