Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Century of bird evolution knowledge overturned?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Cambridge U tells SciTechDaily the story: “Evolving “Backward” – Discovery Overturns More Than a Century of Knowledge About the Origin of Modern Birds” (January 20, 2023):

A team of researchers from the University of Cambridge and the Natuurhistorisch Museum Maastricht discovered that a crucial skull feature of modern birds, the mobile beak, had developed prior to the mass extinction event that wiped out the dinosaurs 66 million years ago.

This finding also suggests that the skulls of ostriches, emus and their relatives evolved ‘backward’, reverting to a more primitive condition after modern birds arose.

“Evolution doesn’t happen in a straight line,” said Field. “This fossil shows that the mobile beak – a condition we had always thought post-dated the origin of modern birds, actually evolved before modern birds existed. We’ve been completely backward in our assumptions of how the modern bird skull evolved for well over a century.”

Evolved “backward”? In other words, devolution? Funny, so few ever question a theory that is always being overturned by new findings.

Video showing the rotating pterygoid (a palate bone) of Janavis finalidens, which is very similar to that of living duck- and chicken-like birds. The bone was found as two matching fragments, which have been digitally fitted together. The bone is hollow and was likely full of air in life, as shown by the large opening on its side. Credit: Dr. Juan Benito and Dr. Daniel Field, University of Cambridge

Philip Cunningham points to these paragraphs from the PR:

The two groups were originally classified by Thomas Huxley, the British biologist known as ‘Darwin’s Bulldog’ for his vocal support of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. In 1867, he divided all living birds into either the ‘ancient’ or ‘modern’ jaw groups. Huxley’s assumption was that the ‘ancient’ jaw configuration was the original condition for modern birds, with the ‘modern’ jaw arising later.

“This assumption has been taken as a given ever since,” said Dr. Daniel Field from Cambridge’s Department of Earth Sciences, the paper’s senior author. “The main reason this assumption has lasted is that we haven’t had any well-preserved fossil bird palates from the period when modern birds originated.”

Bulldogs, after all, are known for being stubborn, not for being on the right track.

Comments
Martin_r @70,
Once again, natural selection and Darwinian theory of evolution has nothing to do with cave fish blindness.
Exactly. How does random mutation choose methylation or whatever epigentic suppression of blindness in cave fish, where sight can be enabled or disabled in a single generation? This is a freaking miracle at our current level of understanding, not "yet another example proving Darwinism." Martin_r @71,
. . . the same misinterpretation with another icon of evolution Peppered moth.
Yeah, I once believed this about the peppered moth until I found out the explanation was contrived. Reminds me that the same type of people who invent pseudo-Christian urban myths such as NASA determining that there was a day missing in history are also responsible for pseudo-scientific urban myths such as the peppered moth. Both are dishonest and despicable for making up stuff.
You people misinterpret the reality over and over again, and then you infest the whole world with this misinterpretation … so it fits your absurd theory …
Because it's just GOTTA be true . . . basically, they're not committed following the scientific method. This makes the racist theory of Darwinism a secular religion.
100 species changed color to dark at the same time ? :)))))))))) Seriously, do you people (Darwinists) believe in miracles ?
Thank you for the link, Martin_r, I learned something new. -QQuerius
January 28, 2023
January
01
Jan
28
28
2023
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT
Does anyone see the irony that ChuckDarwin always agrees with ID when he mentions something that’s factual?jerry
January 28, 2023
January
01
Jan
28
28
2023
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT
CD, as with the cave fish, the same misinterpretation with another icon of evolution Peppered moth. You people misinterpret the reality over and over again, and then you infest the whole world with this misinterpretation ... so it fits your absurd theory ... These species like Peppered moths were engineered to change color. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR "NATURAL SELECTION" CONJECTURE. A pepper moth can change its color whenever it wants to ... Get this:
Principal Investigator Professor Ilik Saccheri explains: ‘Although many people have heard about industrial melanism in the British peppered moth, it is not widely appreciated that dark forms increased in over 100 other species of moths during the period of industrial pollution. This raises the question of whether they relied on the same or similar genetic mechanism to achieve this colour change.’ https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2019/10/16/industrial-melanism-linked-to-same-gene-in-three-moth-species/
100 species changed color to dark at the same time ? :)))))))))) Seriously, do you people (Darwinists) believe in miracles ? Natural selection ? :)))))))))) You people completely misinterpreted what was going on ... It is clear that these species were engineered to change the color ...martin_r
January 28, 2023
January
01
Jan
28
28
2023
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT
CD,
I was challenging Behe’s “devolution” claims. The above report has nothing to do with Behe’s devolution idea.
I get that. I was reacting to your cave-fish-blindness-natural selection claim. Once again, natural selection and Darwinian theory of evolution has nothing to do with cave fish blindness.martin_r
January 28, 2023
January
01
Jan
28
28
2023
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT
Chuckdarwin @68,
Querius: Dr. Behe makes a distinction between creating a new gene and breaking an existing one. ChuckDarwin: I would certainly hope so.
Oh, good. And that's precisely the difference between evolution and de-evolution. The former creates a gene, the latter breaks one. Thank you.
A wise scholar once noted that the average doctoral thesis is nothing but the transference of bones from one grave to another.
Actually, in 1943 “The Saturday Evening Post” published an article titled “Maverick Professor” about University of Texas English Professor J. Frank Dobie who specialized in folklore and rural Texas. A quote attributed to the professor included, “I early learned, that a Ph.D. thesis consists of transferring bones from one graveyard to another.”
Since you’ve already unilaterally declared victory, I’m going to move on………
Unfortunately, I can't take any credit for the observation that people who resort to ad hominem attacks have conceded defeat in a debate. But I don't blame you for running away in the face of epigenetic evidence against Darwinian evolution. It's pretty devastating. I'm sure we'll see you in another topic for a fresh start. -QQuerius
January 27, 2023
January
01
Jan
27
27
2023
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT
Querius “Dr. Behe makes a distinction between creating a new gene and breaking an existing one.” I would certainly hope so. A wise scholar once noted that the average doctoral thesis is nothing but the transference of bones from one grave to another. Since you’ve already unilaterally declared victory, I’m going to move on……… Ciaochuckdarwin
January 27, 2023
January
01
Jan
27
27
2023
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT
Martin_r @65, Great segment by Dr. Tour, thanks! Here's a segment by Dr. Behe in which he looks at how malaria evades drugs by a single mutation versus two mutations. https://youtu.be/rc00AESiegg?t=2 Incidentally, Dr. Behe's doctoral dissertation was on sickle cell disease. Dr. Behe makes a distinction between creating a new gene and breaking an existing one. -QQuerius
January 27, 2023
January
01
Jan
27
27
2023
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT
Martin _r This is from the abstract of the Science Daily you linked:
National Institutes of Health. Epigenetic regulation is a process where genes are turned off or on, typically in a reversible or temporary manner. This mechanism differs from genetic mutations, which are permanent changes in the DNA code.The study appears in Nature Ecology & Evolution. (emphasis added)
I was challenging Behe’s “devolution” claims. The above report has nothing to do with Behe’s devolution idea. The report distinguishes between epigenetic regulation and genetic mutation. Behe’s devolution idea deals with the latter. At least according to this study, epigenetic regulation does not change the genome but rather, regulates select portions of the genome. Important is that no genetic information is lost or destroyed, which, again, Behe claims that said loss is a hallmark of devolution.chuckdarwin
January 27, 2023
January
01
Jan
27
27
2023
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT
Querius,
I understand why Chuckdarwin doesn’t want to discuss epigenetics. I think the problem stems from the fact that some genes are permanent and others seem to be designed to switch on and off, or even be enhanced.
yeah ... I have noticed your previous conversation with CD :))))) I completely agree with you ... CD perfectly understands what the existence of epigenetics means ... he perfectly understands :))))) These guys perfectly understand, they just can't admit that their religion is falling apart ... it hurts ... The same with the OoL-research. Some of these researchers spent 40 years on this project and completely failed. We can't expect that these people will admit anything ... Recently a video was published, an interview with Eric Metaxas and James Tour. Here is the best part, Dr. Tour sums it up: https://youtu.be/9qxoH7u3FXw?t=3170martin_r
January 27, 2023
January
01
Jan
27
27
2023
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT
Martin_r @63, Thanks for the excellent link! However, think I understand why Chuckdarwin doesn't want to discuss epigenetics. I think the problem stems from the fact that some genes are permanent and others seem to be designed to switch on and off, or even be enhanced. For Darwinists, it raises too many questions that evoke the necessity of additional intervention by their gods-of-the-gaps, MUSTA and MIGHTA. For example, why are only some genes switchable and others permanent? It sounds like epigenetic switches are essential to cell differentiation, which sounds like they're needed for non-colonial, multicellular organisms:
Epigenetic modifications can manifest as commonly as the manner in which cells terminally differentiate to end up as skin cells, liver cells, brain cells, etc.
These attachments to DNA, are complex and beg explanation from Darwinist fundamentalists:
At least three systems including DNA methylation, histone modification and non-coding RNA (ncRNA)-associated gene silencing are currently considered to initiate and sustain epigenetic change.
Should these be investigated as if they were designed or assumed to be random junk, some of which happen to work? -QQuerius
January 27, 2023
January
01
Jan
27
27
2023
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT
CD, here you go, from a mainstream paper, ScienceDaily (2018)
Loss of eye tissue in blind cavefish (Astyanax mexicanus), which occurs within a few days of their development, happens through epigenetic silencing of eye-related genes, according to a new study. Epigenetic regulation is a process where genes are turned off or on, typically in a reversible or temporary manner.This mechanism differs from genetic mutations, which are permanent changes in the DNA code.
an engineered/ designed feature. PERIOD. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180529132019.htmmartin_r
January 27, 2023
January
01
Jan
27
27
2023
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT
"WHEN YOU PEOPLE WILL FINALLY GET IT ????" They will do anything except acknowledge what exists. Andrewasauber
January 27, 2023
January
01
Jan
27
27
2023
04:56 AM
4
04
56
AM
PDT
CD,
Your sightless cave fish example is odd because it illustrates my point re natural selection. Every organ system requires energy, generally in proportion to its level of sophistication. In humans, for example, even though the brain comprises a mere fraction of our total weight, it uses 20 to 40% of the energy necessary to maintain a uniform basal metabolism depending on immediate environmental conditions. It was not for nothing that your mother told you to wear a hat when it is cold outside. In the real world of biology, every unnecessary organ or organ system saps energy that can be better used elsewhere. The visual system uses roughy 40% of the brain’s energy consumption. The blind cave fish doesn’t need a visual system. It does, however, require a highly developed dorsal fin to detect water movement of prey. It also requires a much more sophisticated lateral line to also detect prey. These two organ systems work very well in tandem for a species who’s environment is devoid of light. A sophisticated visual system would be excess baggage. Natural selection, by jettisoning the visual system, has made the cave fish better adapted when one considers the relative energy cost of maintaining a useless visual system in total darkness.
An excellent analysis. However, there is a small problem ... you people (Darwinists) misinterpret the reality over and over again. Natural selection DID NOTHING. Natural selection is a conjecture ... It is clear, that this fish can switch on/off the development of its eyes. A designed feature. It has nothing to do with natural selection, it has nothing to do with Darwinism. It is pure engineering ... these eyes can be switched on/off with our without your "natural selection". IT WILL BE DONE THE SAME WAY ANYTIME IT IS NEEDED. DO YOU GET IT CHUCKDARWIN ? :))))))) PS1: by the way, you people (Darwinists) were WRONG again. First you have published a paper, claiming, that random mutations caused the blindness -- so it fits your absurd theory (including natural selection nonsense). To your credit, later, after years, you have figured out, and confirmed the design -- an epigenetic switch/gene regulation switched off eyes development. You people are always wrong ... PS2: the same with cichlid fish -- "Comparative analyses showed that stripes are present in one third of East African cichlid species and evolved many times independently with stripes having been gained ~70 times and having been lost again ~30 times." This fish gets these stripes over and over again, with or without your "natural selection' ... because it was designed that way .... WHEN YOU PEOPLE WILL FINALLY GET IT ????martin_r
January 27, 2023
January
01
Jan
27
27
2023
01:02 AM
1
01
02
AM
PDT
Chuckdarwin @53,
Now you are simply being obtuse and gratuitously satirical.
Your resorting to an ad hominem attack means I’ve won the argument! Yay!
And, of course no one is suggesting that we throw our hands up and stop looking for cures for disease or genetic “defects.” We are constantly developing the means to fix evolution’s imperfect results — a form of evolution itself.
Oh, good! Do you know that every generation of humans increases humanity’s genetic load by about 100-150 deleterious mutations? If evolution created complex features, it should be able to maintain them, right? But it doesn’t, so we’re now trying to address some mutations using gene editing:
In 2015, scientists successfully used somatic gene therapy when a one-year old in the United Kingdom named Layla received a gene editing treatment to help her fight leukemia, a type of cancer. These scientists did not use CRISPR to treat Layla, and instead used another genome editing technology called TALENs. Doctors tried many treatments before this, but none of them seemed to work, so scientists received special permission to treat Layla using gene therapy. This therapy saved Layla's life. However, treatments like the one that Layla received are still experimental because the scientific community and policymakers still have to address technical barriers and ethical concerns surrounding genome editing. https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/policy-issues/what-is-Genome-Editing
So Layla, as many children, was doomed to die from evolutionary change for the worse, de-evolving a gene that provided a critical function, the lack of which initiated her leukemia. Fortunately for Layla, intelligently guided gene editing restored her to health from evolution’s “imperfect results!” I just hope the scientific community continues to approve saving children’s lives, despite “ethical concerns.” But I’m not sure how an intelligent agent using TALENs to edit a defective gene in Layla is “a form of evolution itself,” as you put it. How is it not Intelligent Design since it’s not random mutation plus natural selection? Layla would have been selected to die, right?
Unlike your omnipotent God that had (and blew) the opportunity to create perfect organisms to live in a perfect world, free of disease and death, natural selection is messier. The proverbial “making sausage” metaphor comes to mind. Less than ideal cost-benefit trade-offs are part and parcel of evolution. As Nathan Lents pointed out four years ago, calling it “devolution” adds nothing to the conversation.
I’m not sure why you’re bringing God into this discussion about bird evolution. Not only is natural selection “messier,” as you put it, but it seems like ALL the random mutations are deleterious and many lead to death. Would you agree with my high school biology teacher that it’s because evolution, after billions of years, has pretty much perfected all life on earth, so there’s no where to go but down? -QQuerius
January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT
CD at 58, I know the Bible is foolishness to you. The true nature of God is unknown to you. It appears the only God you know is the version you rail against.relatd
January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT
You can summarize your God of Christianity in one passage from Relatd’s post:
Even though God knew [Adam and Eve] would disobey in advance, He did not tell them.
You really can’t get much more dishonestly cynical than that…..chuckdarwin
January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT
CD at 53, You and Seversky must hang out a lot. Railing against God because He is just another man, or maybe He has some abilities but is not very good at making decisions? "Unlike your omnipotent God that had (and blew) the opportunity to create perfect organisms to live in a perfect world, free of disease and death, ..." You judge God but don't believe in Him? Not rational. Don't judge a being you don't/aren't sure exists. OK? A little Theology 101. God could have made perfect robots that obeyed every command. He did not. He created beings who were perfect and in a direct relationship with Him. They were given what are called preternatural gifts, including immortality. God asked them to follow ONE commandment. They had free will. God gave them the ability to choose. THEY blew it, not God. Even though God knew they would disobey in advance, He did not tell them. So what happened to man and Creation? Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—" You, yes you, and all men have Original Sin and you are subject to death. Romans 8:19 "For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God." 20 "For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope" 21 "that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God." 22 "For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now." 23 "And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies." So Creation was corrupted. The first man and woman left Eden. They were cast out for their disobedience. But Jesus Christ came and died as a sacrifice for all so that we, by repenting and turning to Him as Lord and Savior, can attain eternal life with Him and all those in Heaven. No disease, no pain, no suffering. No tears, anymore.relatd
January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT
CD “Unlike your omnipotent God that had (and blew) the opportunity to create perfect organisms to live in a perfect world, free of disease and death, natural selection is messier“ Yeah it’s called heaven you dingus ya know that thing you don’t believe in….AaronS1978
January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT
fix evolution’s imperfect results
ChuckDarwin just endorsed ID. He equates evolution with genetics. An ID position. Let’s go Finches. But then he reverts to stupidity
Unlike your omnipotent God that had (and blew) the opportunity to create perfect organisms to live in a perfect world, free of disease and death, natural selection is messier
Chuck, this is the best of all possible worlds. The argument from evil proves it. Or should I say, the argument from unwanted instances. Aside: there are birds here in the Caribbean as we pass nearby Kf. Can the thread get back on topic? Aside2: Chuck is up early in the Rockies.jerry
January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT
You referenced Nathan Lents? Really??? Can you say 'self-refuting theological argument'?
Did Nathan Lents Refute Design? Cornelius Hunter - January 21, 2022 Excerpt: We have already seen, above, the answer to this question. It lies in Lents’s view of what an intelligent designer would and would not do. Lents concludes this “bad design” evidence refutes design because he believes an intelligent designer would not allow for a vision system that has the problems Lents describes. Simply put, Lents’s argument entails an assumption about the designer. This brings us to the second problem with his argument — it is not based on empirical science, but rather on metaphysics. There is no scientific experiment one could perform to test Lents’s claim because it is not scientific in the first place. Instead, it is based on theological utilitarianism, a metaphysical position on which ID is agnostic, but evolution requires.1 Nathan Lents finds many faults with the human eye. He therefore insists that the human eye is a powerful refutation of design. What Lents does not understand is that he is not arguing against design; rather, he is making a theological argument, and in the process, he has refuted evolution. https://evolutionnews.org/2022/01/did-nathan-lents-refute-design/
also see;
Stuart Burgess Informs Evolutionist Nathan Lents on the Design Genius of the Ankle and Wrist David Klinghoffer - September 12, 2022 https://evolutionnews.org/2022/09/stuart-burgess-informs-evotlutionist-nathan-lents-about-the-design-genius-of-the-ankle-and-wrist/
bornagain77
January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT
Querius/52 Now you are simply being obtuse and gratuitously satirical. One person born blind, as the result of an anomaly, isn’t an example of “the evolution of blindness.” But you already knew that. And, of course no one is suggesting that we throw our hands up and stop looking for cures for disease or genetic “defects.” We are constantly developing the means to fix evolution’s imperfect results — a form of evolution itself. Unlike your omnipotent God that had (and blew) the opportunity to create perfect organisms to live in a perfect world, free of disease and death, natural selection is messier. The proverbial “making sausage” metaphor comes to mind. Less than ideal cost-benefit trade-offs are part and parcel of evolution. As Nathan Lents pointed out four years ago, calling it “devolution” adds nothing to the conversation….. https://thehumanevolutionblog.com/2019/02/19/devolution-not-a-thing/chuckdarwin
January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT
Chuckdarwin @51
Sickle cell is an evolutionary trade-off. I served in the Peace Corps for two years in southern Africa in an active malarial (plasmodium) area. Given that the life span of folks (mid-1970s) was 30 to 40 years, the immunity which sickle cell provided vis a vis average life span, made the trade-off an overall benefit. If you have ever observed someone in the final stages of untreated malaria, the cost-benefit of sickle cell is obvious.
A cost-benefit to human suffering? • Malaria is a horrible disease AND sickle cell anemia (SCD) is a horrible genetic defect. In 2020, life expectancy in Sub-Saharan Africa was about 61. • Malaria kills about a half million people in Sub-Saharan Africa every year, mostly children. • The homozygous sickle cell disease (SCD) results in frequent episodes of extreme pain followed by death by about age 38 in men and 42 in women.
Periodic episodes of extreme pain, called pain crises, are a major symptom of sickle cell anemia. Pain develops when sickle-shaped red blood cells block blood flow through tiny blood vessels to your chest, abdomen and joints. The pain varies in intensity and can last for a few hours to a few days. Some people have only a few pain crises a year. Others have a dozen or more a year. A severe pain crisis requires a hospital stay. - Mayo Clinic
• Even the heterozygous sickle cell trait (SCT) is dangerous for people who are athletes or put their bodies under stress. But the sickle cell defect does effectively interfere with the malarial parasites ability to infect red blood cells, thus more people reach reproductive age and unfortunately the defect is selected for and spreads. There's some good news. Research with the CXCR4 protein inhibitor, which is already being used for treating blood cancers, also interferes with the malarial parasite life cycle: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190612092938.htm
So, to say that sickle cell is “devolution” can be very misleading.
No it isn’t. A genetic defect interferes with or destroys a normal function in the body. What you’re trying to assert is that a person born blind is the “evolution of sightlessness,” or that someone born without legs is actually “evolving” into new animal. Baloney. Or do you think that research on genetic defects should be halted because it’s actually “evolution” in action?
As to your other issue, I don’t get into discussions on epigenetics because (1) it is not well understood and is still under intense debate and (2) I don’t have a good understanding of it…….
As Bornagain77 mentioned regarding blind cave fish, the gene responsible is under epigenetic control, which is very interesting! Here’s a Ted Ed talk on the basics of our current understanding of epigenetics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aAhcNjmvhc Also note that there’s no such thing as “the science is settled.” Anyone who makes such a claim is a lawyer or a bureaucrat, not a scientist or researcher. All science is continually subject to debate, experimentation, refinement, falsification, and replacement. -QQuerius
January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
12:14 AM
12
12
14
AM
PDT
Querius/46 Sickle cell is an evolutionary trade-off. I served in the Peace Corps for two years in southern Africa in an active malarial (plasmodium) area. Given that the life span of folks (mid-1970s) was 30 to 40 years, the immunity which sickle cell provided vis a vis average life span, made the trade-off an overall benefit. If you have ever observed someone in the final stages of untreated malaria, the cost-benefit of sickle cell is obvious. So, to say that sickle cell is “devolution” can be very misleading. As to your other issue, I don’t get into discussions on epigenetics because (1) it is not well understood and is still under intense debate and (2) I don’t have a good understanding of it…….chuckdarwin
January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT
Martin_r, From another post, you’d mentioned microproteins, which were new to me . . . “New universe of miniproteins is upending cell biology and genetics” https://www.science.org/content/article/new-universe-miniproteins-upending-cell-biology-and-genetics An excerpt from the link recognizes what turned out to be a long-held false assumption of “junk DNA.”
“Small proteins also promise to revise the current understanding of the genome. Many appear to be encoded in stretches of DNA—and RNA—that were not thought to help build proteins of any sort.”
Thus, once again, the assumption of something unknown in stretches of DNA and RNA as random junk slowed scientific progress and discovery. An ID approach would once again have found its utility faster. -QQuerius
January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT
The rationalizations for Darwinism sorta remind me of the old joke about two farmers bragging to each other. Farmer 1: “And my farm is so large, it takes me all day just to drive around it!” Framer 2: “Yeah, I had a car like that once.” -QQuerius
January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT
Martin_r @47, Funny, but generally the things I've seen written often follow the line, "and that new functions for junk DNA that are emerging is yet another proof of Darwin's theory of evolution." Apparently, junk DNA has been evolving at an amazing pace since it was first noted in 1970 when it originally was 100% junk! ;-) -QQuerius
January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT
Querius, The cave fish switching between eyes/no eyes is just another example of how Darwinists misinterpreted reality …. And another example of engineering masterpiece where energy is being saved …. Because eyes consume lots of energy ….martin_r
January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT
Chuckdarwin @38,
This is where I opine that Behe is mistaken:
Do you even know how sickle cell anemia works? By what process did HSP90 in cave fish come under epigentic control? Do you think ALL fish have their eyesight expression under epigentic control? -QQuerius
January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT
Relatd @44,
Meanwhile, Darwinists still want to believe that humans are the end result of unguided events. That the Human Genome is so complex by accident. That is no longer a credible position to hold.
Yes, exactly. And not to mention all the other genomes. Darwinists always seem to be astonished by the unexpected complexity and surprises that were not anticipated by their failed theory. They would prefer to erase the history of their repeated failures, which is why I like to remind them of these failures. Remember chapters in your biology book with titles such as "The Simple Cell" and that they were composed primarily of "protoplasm," a sort of living jello? It was all so simple and Science had all the answers, unlike ignorant bronze-age goat herders. How life originated was also simple. It started with the 1952 Miller-Urey experiment that produced life--well, almost did--under conditions on the early earth, which they weren't. And that these then formed into coacervates that evolved into chihuahuas through random genetic drift, which they didn't. But, the science was settled then and the rest was just a little cleanup. Except none of it was true. -QQuerius
January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT
Querius at 43, I wouldn't point to the past anymore, just the present and ongoing research that shows more and more layers of complexity. The levels of interoperability between various parts of the genome, like a computer program, are slowly, and I'm confident, more rapidly in the next few years, becoming apparent. Again, in a few years, Darwinists will melt away like snow and disappear as if they never existed - including here. Now that the Human Genome has been fully sequenced, scientists are working as fast as possible to make money... followed by advancing human knowledge in general. Various diseases have already been identified as being related to malfunctions in Junk DNA. For example, various molecular switches control cell functions. Like a factory, the cell requires raw materials and the switches make sure that precise amounts of various chemicals get to the right places. But, unlike a light switch that is just on and off, some switches are on a timer to allow enough time for the travel of the needed chemical to its destination. A malfunction can result in disease. Figuring out how to correct malfunctions will mean billions of dollars for pharmaceutical companies. Meanwhile, Darwinists still want to believe that humans are the end result of unguided events. That the Human Genome is so complex by accident. That is no longer a credible position to hold.relatd
January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply