Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Another Truism Dies


A new paper can be found at Phys.Org undermining the idea that what drives evolution is the “decoupling” of DNA with phylogenic structures. This idea is implicit in the twin ideas of pseudogenes and gene duplication: both allow the DNA to become “uncoupled” from the structures they code for and so RM becomes permissible. Well, this paper shuts down this idea.

Given the success of cichlids, understanding the evolution of these two jaws has become an important line of inquiry for biologists. “We’re trying to gain a better understanding of the origins and maintenance of biodiversity,” says Albertson. Researchers have long thought that the two sets of jaws are evolutionarily decoupled and can evolve independently of one another, pushing the boundaries of morphological evolution. However, Conith and Albertson demonstrated that such decoupling does not appear to be the case for cichlids, challenging a quarter-century-old assumption. “What we’ve found is not just that the evolution of the two sets of jaws is linked, but that they’re linked across multiple levels, from genetic to evolutionary,” says Albertson.

To my eyes, this leaves little left of Darwin’s ‘gradualism’, that even Darwin’s “Bulldog,” Thomas Huxley didn’t even buy.

But alas, fundamentals of evolutionary theory are found to be contradicted by empirical evidence, (time and time again), and it is all a big yawn for the Darwinian community.
I'm glad you highlighted that. It's a great point and I would have missed it otherwise. The press release calmly quotes the researcher: “we need to rethink the fundamentals of evolutionary mechanisms,” That is truly incredible - or it should be except we see things like that all the time. Is anyone really going to "rethink" things? I doubt it. Life just goes on and nobody makes the big correction to the entire world of biology. "Hey everybody, time to rethink your fundamentals. Everything you've been teaching is wrong". Nobody does that. But nobody tells Dr Albertson, Professor of biology at UMass Amherst that he shouldn't have said it, or he's wrong (or right). Nobody pays any attention at all. That's evolutionary biology. Day and and day out - the "fundamentals" get overturned on an ordinary day. This should be a historic moment, remembered forever in the scientific community and broadcast widely. But nothing comes of it. Someone will say "Albertson is wrong, he's overstating it". Where's the refutation? All you have to say is "the researcher is wrong" and that's enough to falsify their research? It's just endless nonsense like this. Silver Asiatic
Querius that is spot on. No other theory in science gets such 'kids gloves' treatment from its practitioners. Imagine if Anton Zeilinger, via empirical evidence, released a paper telling us that we seriously need to "rethink the fundamentals" of Quantum Theory? It is no stretch of imagination to say that it would be earth shattering news across the scientific community. But alas, fundamentals of evolutionary theory are found to be contradicted by empirical evidence, (time and time again), and it is all a big yawn for the Darwinian community. All Bob can do is complain that PaV cited inappropriately, completely ignoring the fact that the paper shows "we need to rethink the fundamentals of evolutionary mechanisms,” I've never seen anything like it, nor would I have imagined such would be possible in the scientific community.. Yet, as Bob himself, (a professor who teaches this crap at a college), gives ample witness to, empirical evidence, especially when it falsifies "fundamental evolutionary mechanisms', is simply ignored by Darwinists. Here are a few more examples where falsifying evidence is simply completely ignored by Darwinists as if it did not matter.
Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are now found to be ‘directed’. Darwin’s theory holds that Natural Selection is the ‘designer substitute’ that produces the ‘appearance’ and/or illusion of design. Natural Selection, especially for multicellular organisms, is found to grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute. Darwin’s theory holds that mutations to DNA will eventually change the basic biological form of any given species into a new form of a brand new species. Yet, biological form is found to be irreducible to mutations to DNA, nor is biological form reducible to any other material particulars in biology one may wish to invoke. Darwin’s theory holds there to be an extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. Charles Darwin himself held that the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Yet, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, the fossil record is consistently characterized by the sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within the group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. Moreover, Fossils are found in the “wrong place” all the time (either too early, or too late). Darwin’s theory, due to the randomness postulate, holds that patterns will not repeat themselves in supposedly widely divergent species. Yet thousands of instances of what is ironically called ‘convergent evolution’, on both the morphological and genetic level, falsifies the Darwinian belief that patterns will not repeat themselves in widely divergent species. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Yet as Doug Axe pointed out, “Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.” Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Yet as Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig pointed out, “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as modern versions of it.” Charles Darwin himself stated that, ““The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God. Yet ‘our conscious selves’ are certainly not explainable by ‘chance’ (nor is consciousness explainable by any possible reductive materialistic explanation in general), i.e. ‘the hard problem of consciousness’. Besides the mathematics of probability consistently showing that Darwinian evolution is impossible, the mathematics of population genetics itself has now shown Darwinian evolution to be impossible. Moreover, ‘immaterial’ mathematics itself, which undergirds all of science, engineering and technology, is held by most mathematicians to exist in some timeless, unchanging, immaterial, Platonic realm. Yet, the reductive materialism that Darwinian theory is based upon denies the existence of the immaterial realm that mathematics exists in. i.e. Darwinian evolution actually denies the objective reality of the one thing, i.e. mathematics, that it most needs in order to be considered scientific in the first place! Donald Hoffman has, via population genetics, shown that if Darwin’s materialistic theory were true then all our observations of reality would be illusory. Yet the scientific method itself is based on reliable observation. Moreover, Quantum Mechanics itself has now shown that conscious observation must come before material reality, i.e. falsification of ‘realism’ proves that our conscious observations are reliable!. The reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought holds that immaterial information is merely ’emergent’ from a material basis. Yet immaterial Information, via experimental realization of the “Maxwell’s Demon” thought experiment, is now found to be its own distinctive physical entity that, although it can interact in a ‘top down’ manner with matter and energy, is separate from matter and energy. Darwinists hold that Darwin’s theory is true. Yet ‘Truth’ itself is an abstract property of an immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution. i.e. Assuming reductive materialism and/or Naturalism as the starting philosophical position of science actually precludes ‘the truth’ from ever being reached by science! Darwinists, due to their underlying naturalistic philosophy, insist that teleology (i.e. goal directed purpose) does not exist. Yet it is impossible for Biologists to do biological research without constantly invoking words that directly imply teleology. i.e. The very words that Biologists themselves use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution.
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
PaV and Bornagain77, Apparently, the practice of "straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel" is alive and well. -Q Querius
Bob O'H: It's nice to have "peer review" at work here at UD. I changed the wording a little bit. The paper can be downloaded at the bottom of the PR. PaV
^^^ and still no comment from Bob on the elephant in the living room fact that the paper "tells us that we need to rethink the fundamentals of evolutionary mechanisms,” Typical! ,,,, Pathetic, but typical! bornagain77
Golly gee wiz Bob, do you think that PaV might have been led to the Nature Communications article by the Physorg press release?
That would be my guess, but it's a pretty basic mistake - even you are aware that PhysOrg does not publish papers. Bob O'H
Golly gee wiz Bob, do you think that PaV might have been led to the Nature Communications article by the Physorg press release? Or do you think Phyorg is now in the business of peer-reviewing papers? And Bob, while we are at it, instead of worrying about the non-problem of exactly who PaV chose to cite as his source, why are you not far more concerned about the real problem for evolution that was highlighted in the paper itself? As the Physorg press release stated, "we need to rethink the fundamentals of evolutionary mechanisms,"
Physorg: Jaws: How an African ray-finned fish is helping us to rethink the fundamentals of evolution - Sept. 16, 2021 Excerpt: "This tells us that we need to rethink the fundamentals of evolutionary mechanisms," said Albertson, (professor of biology at UMass Amherst),,, More information: Andrew J. Conith et al, The cichlid oral and pharyngeal jaws are evolutionarily and genetically coupled, Nature Communications (2021). https://phys.org/news/2021-09-jaws-african-ray-finned-fish-rethink.html
Bob, seeing that you are a Darwinian Atheist who teaches this crap at a college, that, i.e. rethinking "the fundamentals of evolutionary mechanisms," would seem to be a pretty dog gone big problem for you personally, and, if you were honest, that problem should concern you far more seriously than PaV being specific in his citation. Yet, not a peep from you about this serious problem for you of needing to "rethink the fundamentals of evolution", Your very unbalanced response to PaV, regarding the actual issue at hand, brings this verse to mind
Matthew 7:5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
A new paper is out at Phys.Org
Where "Phys.org" is actually Nature Communications. Bob O'H

Leave a Reply