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.
Where “Phys.org” is actually Nature Communications.
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,”
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
That would be my guess, but it’s a pretty basic mistake – even you are aware that PhysOrg does not publish papers.
^^^ 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!
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 Bornagain77,
Apparently, the practice of “straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel” is alive and well.
-Q
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.
Verse:
BA77
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.