Darwinism Evolution Intelligent Design

Evolutionary biology’s favorite fish evolve according to an existing genetic program

Spread the love

And not according to the Darwinian claim:

It may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working, wherever and whenever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life.

Stickeblack/Andrew MacColl

From ScienceDaily:

Genetic analysis of sticklebacks shows that isolated populations in similar environments develop in comparable ways. The basis for this is already present in the genome of their genetic ancestors. Evolutionary biologists from the University of Basel and the University of Nottingham report these insights in the journal Evolution Letters.

Many examples can be found in nature of evolution producing the same characteristics repeatedly and independently. Similar adaptations to similar environmental conditions have been documented in numerous animal and plant species, even if primarily on the level of external characteristics. The extent to which similar populations have also made use of the same genetic variants during their evolution, however, is little known. Paper. (open access) – Quiterie Haenel, Marius Roesti, Dario Moser, Andrew D. C. MacColl, Daniel Berner. Predictable genome-wide sorting of standing genetic variation during parallel adaptation to basic versus acidic environments in stickleback fish. Evolution Letters, 2019; DOI: 10.1002/evl3.99 More.

That’s a lot of information to be just randomly packed into evolution many millions of years in advance.

See also: Darwinism: Misfits do better than theory predicts (sticklebacks featured)

and

Emeerging view that evolution is predictable (sticklebacks featured)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

4 Replies to “Evolutionary biology’s favorite fish evolve according to an existing genetic program

  1. 1
    Kal says:

    Sounds similar to Spetner’s 2014 summary in “The Evolution Revolution: Why Thinking People are Rethinking the Theory of Evolution”.

    He sums this up in his book’s Epilogue –

    “THE RELEVANCE OF EVOLUTION HAS BEEN EXAGGERATED FAR beyond what could be supported by theory and data. I have shown in this book that evolution is limited by the evolutionary capabilities built into organisms. Science has so far not shed any light on where those capabilities came from. The Darwinian theory of random variation and natural selection is unable to account for them. From all I have said here, one must conclude that the claim of Common Descent, and consequently macroevolution, is not supported by evidence and is therefore not believable. Yet the Darwinists have been calling it a fact (Gould 1981, Lewontin 1981, Futuyma 1986, 15). I have shown it has no theoretical backing and there are no data that can be said to support it. Add to this that it is counterintuitive, and it is impossible to understand how it can be called a “fact.”

  2. 2
    Kal says:

    As Spetner said, adaption and micro-evolution are seen everywhere in nature. No one denies this fact, whether creationist or evolutionist.

    “An organism thus has the built-in ability to adapt to a new environment heritably by altering its DNA. These adaptations occur just when they are needed, because they are triggered by an input from the new environment. Since they are triggered by the environment, their occurrence in a population is not rare. They will occur in a large fraction of the population, leading to rapid evolutionary changes — possibly even in one generation!”
    “The Evolution Revolution: Why Thinking People Are Rethinking The Theory Of Evolution”.

  3. 3
    Mung says:

    It may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working, wherever and whenever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life.

    It’s Godlike!

  4. 4
    Mimus says:

    This sort of result is precisely what we’d expect if Darwin’s quote were true. If populations start with the same starting material and are exposed to the same environment, then natural selection will affect them in the same way.

Leave a Reply