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. -Q Querius
Does anyone see the irony that ChuckDarwin always agrees with ID when he mentions something that’s factual? jerry
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
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
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. -Q Querius
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……… Ciao chuckdarwin
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. -Q Querius
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
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=3170 martin_r
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? -Q Querius
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.htm martin_r
"WHEN YOU PEOPLE WILL FINALLY GET IT ????" They will do anything except acknowledge what exists. Andrew asauber
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
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? -Q Querius
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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. -Q Querius
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
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. -Q Querius
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.” -Q Querius
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! ;-) -Q Querius
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
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? -Q Querius
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. -Q Querius
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
Relatd @34,
It appears that so-called “junk DNA” has a regulatory function. Not long ago, this part of DNA which does not code for proteins was labelled junk since it did not code for proteins, but it can turn things on or off to varying degrees.
Geneticist Susumu Ohno originated the term in his 1972 paper, "So Much ‘Junk DNA' in our Genome". It’s worth reading. At the end of his paper, he makes some excellent conjectures regarding what was then a complete mystery. But just as it was once thought that “vestigial organs” were leftover junk from evolution (including ductless glands such as the thyroid), so too is the concept of vestigial DNA. In both cases, the assumption of evolutionary junk hindered the progress of science. However, an ID approach would have accelerated the progress of science in both cases and is obviously more pragmatic. Generally, epigenetic processes (such as methyl groups attaching to DNA) control gene expression. Non-coding DNA is being discovered to have a variety of functions. So, just as the thyroid is now known to have an important function, so too is “junk” DNA, despite the ideological prejudice of Darwinists who are still clinging to a failed racist theory from the age of wooden ships, colonialism, and slavery. -Q Querius
Ba77, I am amazed that a few posters here assign to 'evolution' some level of intelligence. It is apparent that the genetic code has built-in switches that express or hold back certain functions. Bacteria use Horizontal Gene Transfer to exchange genetic material between each other when needed. This ability existed BEFORE they were exposed to a harmful substance. It was built-in. relatd
Querius at 36, At the time, "junk DNA" was regarded as leftovers from our incredibly long evolution. Apparently, DNA was smart enough to switch off unused genetic material but it could not discard it. Imagine that. DNA just sat around one day and said, to itself, "What am I going to do with all this old stuff?" Of course, the Biologists who made that uh... determination were 100% wrong. relatd
Likewise, the genetic diversity of humans is found to have been substantially reduced, and even substantially compromised, from the original population of humans, via Darwinian processes.
"We found an enormous amount of diversity within and between the African populations, and we found much less diversity in non-African populations," Tishkoff told attendees today (Jan. 22) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Anaheim. "Only a small subset of the diversity in Africa is found in Europe and the Middle East, and an even narrower set is found in American Indians." Tishkoff; Andrew Clark, Penn State; Kenneth Kidd, Yale University; Giovanni Destro-Bisol, University "La Sapienza," Rome, and Himla Soodyall and Trefor Jenkins, WITS University, South Africa, looked at three locations on DNA samples from 13 to 18 populations in Africa and 30 to 45 populations in the remainder of the world.- New analysis provides fuller picture of human expansion from Africa - October 22, 2012 Excerpt: A new, comprehensive review of humans' anthropological and genetic records gives the most up-to-date story of the "Out of Africa" expansion that occurred about 45,000 to 60,000 years ago. This expansion, detailed by three Stanford geneticists, had a dramatic effect on human genetic diversity, which persists in present-day populations. As a small group of modern humans migrated out of Africa into Eurasia and the Americas, their genetic diversity was substantially reduced. http://phys.org/news/2012-10-analysis-fuller-picture-human-expansion.html Human Genome in Meltdown - January 11, 2013 Excerpt: According to a study published Jan. 10 in Nature by geneticists from 4 universities including Harvard, “Analysis of 6,515 exomes reveals the recent origin of most human protein-coding variants.”,,,: "We estimate that approximately 73% of all protein-coding SNVs [single-nucleotide variants] and approximately 86% of SNVs predicted to be deleterious arose in the past 5,000 -10,000 years. The average age of deleterious SNVs varied significantly across molecular pathways, and disease genes contained a significantly higher proportion of recently arisen deleterious SNVs than other genes.",,, As for advantageous mutations, they provided NO examples,,, http://crev.info/2013/01/human-genome-in-meltdown/ The Human Gene Mutation Database The Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD®) represents an attempt to collate known (published) gene lesions responsible for human inherited disease. Deleterious Mutation total (as of Jan. 26, 2023) – 352,731 http://www.hgmd.cf.ac.uk/ac/ Critic ignores reality of Genetic Entropy - Dr John Sanford - 7 March 2013 Excerpt: Where are the beneficial mutations in man? It is very well documented that there are thousands of deleterious Mendelian mutations accumulating in the human gene pool, even though there is strong selection against such mutations. Yet such easily recognized deleterious mutations are just the tip of the iceberg. The vast majority of deleterious mutations will not display any clear phenotype at all. There is a very high rate of visible birth defects, all of which appear deleterious. Again, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Why are no beneficial birth anomalies being seen? This is not just a matter of identifying positive changes. If there are so many beneficial mutations happening in the human population, selection should very effectively amplify them. They should be popping up virtually everywhere. They should be much more common than genetic pathologies. Where are they? European adult lactose tolerance appears to be due to a broken lactase promoter [see Can’t drink milk? You’re ‘normal’! Ed.]. African resistance to malaria is due to a broken hemoglobin protein [see Sickle-cell disease. Also, immunity of an estimated 20% of western Europeans to HIV infection is due to a broken chemokine receptor—see CCR5-delta32: a very beneficial mutation. Ed.] Beneficials happen, but generally they are loss-of-function mutations, and even then they are very rare! http://creation.com/genetic-entropy
Likewise, the genetic diversity of dogs has also been substantially reduced, and/or substantially compromised, from the original wolf population.
The Dog Delusion - October 30, 2014 Excerpt: In his latest book, geneticist Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig of the Max Planck Institutes in Germany takes on the widespread view that dog breeds prove macroevolution.,,, He shows in great detail that the incredible variety of dog breeds, going back in origin several thousand years ago but especially to the last few centuries, represents no increase in information but rather a decrease or loss of function on the genetic and anatomical levels. Michael Behe writes: "Dr. Lönnig shows forcefully that one of the chief examples Darwinists rely on to convince the public of macroevolution -- the enormous variation in dogs -- actually shows the opposite. Extremes in size and anatomy come at the cost of broken genes and poor health. Even several gene duplications were found to interfere strongly with normal growth and development as is also often the case in humans. So where is the evidence for Darwinian evolution now?" The science here is indeed solid. Intriguingly, Lönnig's prediction from 2013 on starch digestion in wolves has already been confirmed in a study published this year.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/10/the_dog_delusio090751.html
Michael Behe has many more similar examples of Darwinian processes reducing, and/or compromising, genetic information in his book "Darwin Devolves".
Book Review: “Darwin Devolves” By Michael Behe Dismantles Modern Evolutionary Theory - Umar Nasser - 16 May 2019 https://rationalreligion.co.uk/book-review-michael-behes-darwin-devolves-dismantles-modern-evolutionary-theory/
So thus in conclusion, ChuckyD may claim, and/or imagine, that 'de-evolution' does not exist in the real world, but the fact of the matter is that ChuckyD's very own claim that natural selection will 'jettison' organisms that use more energy is, in fact, born out in the empirical evidence and shows that natural selection, and Darwinian processes in general, will overwhelmingly tend to reduce energy costs, and/or genetic information. In short, and to quote Behe, it is now empirically shown that "Darwin Devolves", it does not, and cannot, create. i.e. Whatever ChuckyD is doing in making his easily refuted claims, he is certainly not 'doing science'. i.e. He is NOT following the evidence where it leads. Quote and verse
"This is not an argument anymore that Darwinism cannot make complex functional systems; it is an observation that it does not." - Michael Behe - Observed (1 in 10^20) Limit for Evolution - video - Lecture delivered in April 2015 at Colorado School of Mines - quoted at 25:56 minute https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9svV8wNUqvA 1 Thessalonians 5:21 but test all things. Hold fast to what is good.
bornagain77
Chuckdarwin at 31,
"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."
Besides ChuckyD being shown to be wrong in his claim that 'natural selection' jettisoned the visual system cave fish because of 'relative energy costs', (see post 33), ChuckyD's overall claim that natural selection will tend to select between 'relative energy costs' and 'jettison' the organism that uses more energy, is also antithetical to the overall Darwinian claim that complex, multicellular, sexually reproducing, organisms could have possibly evolved from 'simple', unicellular, asexually reproducing, organisms. Namely, sexual reproduction requires exponentially more energy than asexual reproduction.
Sex, the Queen of Problems in Evolutionary Biology - Jonathan McLatchie - July 13, 2011 Excerpt: There are several reasons why the origin of sex presents a problem. For starters, there is the waste of resources in producing males. Assuming a sexually-reproducing female gives birth to an equal number of male and female offspring, only half of the progeny will be able to go on to have more offspring (in contrast to the asexually reproducing species, all the offspring of which can subsequently reproduce). Thus, it is to be expected that the asexual female will proliferate, on average, at twice the rate of the sexual species. Given the disadvantage thereby confronting the sexually-reproducing species, one would expect them to be quickly outcompeted by the asexual species. https://evolutionnews.org/2011/07/spinning_fanciful_tales_about_/
So the elephant in the living room question is, (given ChuckyD's claim that natural selection will 'jettison' organisms that use more energy), "How is it possible for natural selection to select for sexual reproduction when is requires exponentially more energy than asexual reproduction? To give us a glimpse of just how antithetical sexual reproduction is to overall Darwinian claims, the following article is very illuminating,
Richard Dawkins interview with a ‘Darwinian’ physician goes off track – video Excerpt: “I am amazed, Richard, that what we call metazoans, multi-celled organisms, have actually been able to evolve, and the reason [for amazement] is that bacteria and viruses replicate so quickly — a few hours sometimes, they can reproduce themselves — that they can evolve very, very quickly. And we’re stuck with twenty years at least between generations. How is it that we resist infection when they can evolve so quickly to find ways around our defenses?” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/video_to_dawkin062031.html
In other words, since successful reproduction is all that really matters on a neo-Darwinian view of things, how can anything other than successful, and highly efficient, asexual reproduction, be realistically 'selected' for? Much slower, highly inefficient, sexual reproduction, (as ChuckyD himself inadvertently admitted), simply makes no sense on a Darwinian view of things.
The Logic of Natural Selection - graph http://recticulatedgiraffe.weebly.com/uploads/4/0/6/2/40627097/1189735.jpg?308 “every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers;" - Charles Darwin - Origin of Species - pg. 66
Any other function besides successful, highly efficient, asexual reproduction, such as much slower sexual reproduction, sight, hearing, thinking, morally noble and/or altruistic behavior, etc… etc.. would all be highly superfluous to the primary criteria of successful reproduction, and should, on a Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ view, be discarded, and/or 'eaten', by bacteria, as so much excess 'energy expending' baggage since it would obviously slow down the primary criteria of highly efficient asexual reproduction. Spiegelman's Monster is an excellent empirical example of natural selection 'jettisoning' inefficient reproduction,
Spiegelman's Monster (nonfiction) Spiegelman Monster is the name given to an RNA chain of only 218 nucleotides that is able to be reproduced by an RNA replication enzyme. It is named after its creator, Sol Spiegelman, of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Spiegelman introduced RNA from a simple bacteriophage Q? (Q?) into a solution which contained Q?’s RNA replication enzyme, some free nucleotides, and some salts. In this environment, the RNA started to replicate. After a while, Spiegelman took some RNA and moved it to another tube with fresh solution. This process was repeated. Shorter RNA chains were able to replicate faster, so the RNA became shorter and shorter as selection favored speed. After 74 generations, the original strand with 4,500 nucleotide bases ended up as a dwarf genome with only 218 bases. Such a short RNA had been able to replicate very quickly in these unnatural circumstances. In 1997, Eigen and Oehlenschlager showed that the Spiegelman monster eventually becomes even shorter, containing only 48 or 54 nucleotides, which are simply the binding sites for the reproducing enzyme RNA replicase.,,, http://gnomonchronicles.com/wiki/Spiegelman%27s_Monster_(nonfiction)
bornagain77
Querius/35 This is where I opine that Behe is mistaken:
The direction of this “evolution” is toward loss of function, not gain of function.
Either an adaptation is functional or it’s un-useful and unnecessary—it’s not loss vs. gain. Moreover, like I said before, the genetic information is never lost, it is simply not expressed. An organism’s genome is fixed. However, the relevant adaptation remains available for expression if the organism’s environment changes dramatically enough, thus the (relatively) fast inter-generational emergence of previously unexpressed characteristics, e.g., your Galapagos finches. It’s really not that difficult to understand…… chuckdarwin
A comment I made 17 years ago relevant to non coding DNA
If a sequence of the genome such as introns does not mutate over time does this mean that it must have some function? Otherwise, this sequence should be subject to rm. Since it remains the same, ns must be operating along with the rm to eliminate changes to the sequence and keep it constant. Since ns only operates on things that influence survivability, it should mean that these sequences are important for survival and changes in them inhibit viability or reproduction.
It has always been the case that junk DNA is somewhere between 0 and 100% of non-coding DNA The question is how much? And for those species where the number is above 0, does it have a purpose. Maybe the purpose has nothing to do with the survivability of the specific species. jerry
Relatd @34, Thank you for the links. Maybe it wasn't such a good idea for Darwinists to ASSUME that what we now call non-coding DNA as "junk," was it? Sadly, many Darwists still grimly insist that much or most DNA is junk. -Q Querius
Chuckdarwin @31,
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 . . .
Actually, I agree with you in part. To use an example from Michael Behe (who studied the subject extensively), humans "evolved" a way to mitigate the horrible disease, malaria, by selecting for an otherwise deleterious mutation that produces sickle cell anemia in homozygous individuals, but mitigating malaria in heterozygous individuals. The direction of this "evolution" is toward loss of function, not gain of function. In the cave fish example, I was prepared to assert, that disabling mutations in their eyes, were slightly beneficial, in that they would be less susceptible to infection from mechanical injury and this is not a new feature but a degradation of an existing one. BUT . . . Bornagain77 @33 points out something I didn't know, namely that the eyesight in cavefish is under epigenetic control over the expression or inhibition of the HSP90 gene! This is the same mechanism that regulates the variation in the beaks of Darwin's finches in a single generation.
Instead of the several generations Waddington initially proposed to create changes in offspring, the 2013 study of cave fish showed this blindness could happen in one generation! And even more intriguing: If the blind cave fish are reintroduced to the water outside the cave, within a generation or so, offspring can again be born with fully functioning eyes. https://answersingenesis.org/aquatic-animals/fish/designed-go-blind/
Wow! The obvious question is by what process did HSP90 in cave fish come under epigentic control? Do you think ALL fish have their eyesight expression under epigentic control? -Q Querius
It appears that so-called "junk DNA" has a regulatory function. Not long ago, this part of DNA which does not code for proteins was labelled junk since it did not code for proteins, but it can turn things on or off to varying degrees. https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2022/10/butterfly-wing-patterns-emerge-ancient-junk-dna https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcell.2022.957292/full relatd
On a more serious note, it seems that blind cavefish are 'designed' to go blind in one generation when exposed to the right environmental conditions, via epigenetic modifications.
Cryptic variation in morphological evolution: HSP90 as a capacitor for loss of eyes in cavefish - 2013 Abstract In the process of morphological evolution, the extent to which cryptic, preexisting variation provides a substrate for natural selection has been controversial. We provide evidence that heat shock protein 90 (HSP90) phenotypically masks standing eye-size variation in surface populations of the cavefish Astyanax mexicanus. This variation is exposed by HSP90 inhibition and can be selected for, ultimately yielding a reduced-eye phenotype even in the presence of full HSP90 activity. Raising surface fish under conditions found in caves taxes the HSP90 system, unmasking the same phenotypic variation as does direct inhibition of HSP90. These results suggest that cryptic variation played a role in the evolution of eye loss in cavefish and provide the first evidence for HSP90 as a capacitor for morphological evolution in a natural setting. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24337296/ Designed to Go Blind - 2016 Excerpt: The fish already had the information for eye reduction in their genes, but HSP9O normally prevents this eye reduction. But HSP9O is turned off—and the eyes are reduced—under special environmental conditions. Those conditions include subtle factors, such as the electricity that water conducts, which is much lower in caves because the water has less salt. Even before they’re born, embryos have detectors that sense outside conditions and, thanks to HSP9O, change their bodies accordingly. Instead of the several generations Waddington initially proposed to create changes in offspring, the 2013 study of cave fish showed this blindness could happen in one generation!,,, And even more intriguing: If the blind cave fish are reintroduced to the water outside the cave, within a generation or so, offspring can again be born with fully functioning eyes. https://answersingenesis.org/aquatic-animals/fish/designed-go-blind/
To state the obvious, 'environmentally triggered' rapid epigenetic modification of an organism is contrary to Darwinian theory.
Michael Skinner on Epigenetics: Stage Three Alert - Cornelius Hunter - December 4, 2016 Excerpt: What Skinner and the evolutionists don't tell you is that in light of their theory, none of this makes sense. With epigenetics the biological variation evolution needs is not natural. It is not the mere consequence of biophysics -- radiation, toxins, or other mishaps causing DNA mutations. Rather, it is a biological control system. It is not simple mistakes, but complex mechanisms. It is not random, but directed. It is not slow, but rapid. It is not a single mutation that is selected, but simultaneous changes across the population. This is not evolution. As Skinner inconveniently realizes, such epigenetics are found across a wide range of species. They are widely conserved and, for evolution, this is yet more bad news. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/12/michael_skinner103338.html Why Epigenetics Contradicts Evolutionary Theory - Cornelius Hunter - November 14, 2022 Excerpt: Epigenetics (epi means “above” genetics) is a term given to mechanisms that do not alter genes in our DNA, but rather turn genes off or on (or influence whether they are turned off or on). Epigenetic mechanisms are complicated and enable organisms to adapt intelligently and rapidly to challenging environments. Here is one reason this contradicts evolutionary theory: the adaptation arises immediately, in direct response to the challenge. Not blindly. Not by random mutation. Not by natural selection. Epigenetic mechanisms are ubiquitous in biology, and extremely important. Because of epigenetics, organisms with otherwise identical genes (e.g., twins) can be quite different.,,, https://evolutionnews.org/2022/11/why-epigenetics-contradicts-evolutionary-theory/ The Science Contradicts The Theory - Cornelius Hunter - video - 42:00 minute mark https://youtu.be/HTIlHEn9hXs?t=2501
bornagain77
Of humorous note:
Evolution, You’re Drunk (Go Home!) Jan. 30, 2014 Excerpt: When asked whether de-evolution, a reversal from the complex to the simple, happens frequently, Dunn replies, sure. “But,” he adds, “I wouldn’t call that de-evolution, I’d call it evolution.” http://nautil.us/issue/9/time/evolution-youre-drunk
bornagain77
Querius 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. chuckdarwin
Pyrrhomaniac1 @29,
I haven’t yet read The Descent of Man, though I do plan on it at some point. Maybe when I retire.
As reprehensible as it is, I think its important to read The Descent of Man to gain the philosophical worldview of philosophers, academia, the leaders of empires, the captains of industry, and policymakers of the 1870s onward. Here's a link where you can start reading it immediately: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Descent_of_Man_(Darwin) It would be fascinating to hear your view of the book and its implications after you read it. I've no doubt that you will find it to be relevant to the Zeitgeist and context of "the Guilded Age." -Q Querius
@26 I've read most of The Origin of Species -- I tried reading it all, but it really drags. I think I skipped the chapters on biogeography and embryology. I found it quite interesting in many respects, though I was struck by how colonization shaped his worldview: his favored examples of natural selection at work are cases of what we today would call invasive species. Needless to say, I would not recommend it as a book about how one ought to understand evolutionary theory today -- much as one would not read Newton's Principia in order to learn physics. I haven't yet read The Descent of Man, though I do plan on it at some point. Maybe when I retire. PyrrhoManiac1
Querius at 27, "Darwinists don’t know this..." Really? Those here present evolution as 100% true - always. I think they know. It does not matter how many times evolution is shot down here. Isn't that obvious? Since the usual suspects reply to threads and start discussions as if no one here said anything to make evolution appear to be the bankrupt theory it is. Right? relatd
Relatd @20,
Speculation is not knowledge. Evolution does not describe anything – it’s not science. Evolution is fast except when it isn’t. Evolution makes a lot of changes except when it doesn’t. Evolution can go backwards if it feels like it.
Yep, exactly. Except, I'd change the "if it feels like it" to "randomly." However, I do concede that the personification of evolution in "if it feels like it" is very common in evolutionary writing.
Evolution explains nothing. Why? It’s not science. It exists primarily to give atheists the illusion that their dismissal of God is based on something scientific.
So true. And I'd also point out that evolution can rationalize ANYTHING, but has not been successful in actually predicting anything. Darwinists are in a continual state of surprise. Darwinists don't know this, but there's a term for a theory that fails to predict and is continually falsified. I wonder whether ChuckDarwin knows this term. ChuckDarwin? -Q Querius
PyrrhoManiac1 @6
We should shut down the paleontology departments, so that we’re never troubled by anyone discovering something from the past that doesn’t mesh with what we believe about what was happening.
Oh, pooh. Sour grapes. Paleontology should rather be set free from the cold, deal hands of Darwin clasped tightly around its throat. It should kick free from the nineteenth-century racist rationalization of white colonialism as is obvious from anyone who reads the full title of Darwin's Origin of the Species or his subsequent book, The Descent of Man. Have you ever actually read The Descent of Man? I would sincerely hope that you wouldn't choose to defend this horrid book. -Q Querius
Martin_r @5,
Every week there are press releases of articles that undermine prevailing Darwinian thought. I don’t think that there has ever been a theory that has proven to be more wrong. And, yet, the “true believers” refuse to let go.
Exactly! That's why Darwinism has greater similarity to religion than actual science.
I wrote something very similar elsewhere …. And I also asked, what makes Darwinists so trustworthy? Because they seem to be always wrong ….
Haha! Brilliant! -Q Querius
ChuckDarwin @9,
There is no such thing as “devolution,” regardless of what Michael Behe claims.
Spoken like a true-blue Darwinist! Yes, sightless cave fish aren't actually losing something that evolved. No, they MUSTA always been evolving, thus their sightless eyes MIGHTA been evolving since then into some amazing *New Form* of night-vision! Yeah, that's it! And I'm sure you have the confidence (i.e. Faith) that in a million years, you'll be able to say, "I TOLJA so!" Note the invoking of the gods-of-the-gaps, MUSTA and MIGHTA. -Q Querius
Ba77, So-called "extinction events" appear to be quite selective. Since there is evidence of large impacts on the Earth's surface, it appears that the 'lucky' survivors were more than just lucky. How about a pine tree that went missing for millions of years until it was discovered alive? You can grow one if you want. http://www.wollemipine.com/ relatd
CD at 16, We see you standing on the other side with your sign. For some strange reason, you simply haven't given up on IDers. relatd
CD at 14, And you fall under the "saying something over and over does not make it true" category also. You envision a 'small cabal' of IDers as if they were some secret society. You have no evidence for your claims. None that you can point to as empirical evidence. ID, on the other hand, has detected design and engineering in living things. It boils down to you not being willing or wanting to see design for yourself. relatd
PM1 at 13, Speculation is not knowledge. Evolution does not describe anything - it's not science. Evolution is fast except when it isn't. Evolution makes a lot of changes except when it doesn't. Evolution can go backwards if it feels like it. Evolution explains nothing. Why? It's not science. It exists primarily to give atheists the illusion that their dismissal of God is based on something scientific. relatd
LOL, You tell em ChuckyD, forward, backward, sideways, it's all to be considered evolution, there is never really ever any de-evolution. :) Back in the real world, here are a few more pesky scientific facts for ChuckyD to overlook,
Jerry Coyne's Chapter on the Fossil Record Fails to Show "Why Evolution is True" - Jonathan M. - December 4, 2012 Excerpt: Taxonomists classify organisms into categories: species are the very lowest taxonomic category. Species are classified into different genera. Genera are classified into different families. Families are classified into different orders. Orders are classified into different classes. And classes are classified into different phyla. Phyla are among the very highest taxonomic categories (only kingdom and domain are higher), and correspond to the high level of morphological disparity that exists between different animal body plans. Phyla include such groupings as chordates, arthropods, mollusks, and echinoderms. Darwin's theory would predict a cone of diversity whereby the major body-plan differences (morphological disparity) would only appear in the fossil record following numerous lower-level speciation events. What is interesting about the fossil record is that it shows the appearance of the higher taxonomic categories first (virtually all of the major skeletonized phyla appear in the Cambrian, with no obvious fossil transitional precursors, within a relatively small span of geological time). As Roger Lewin (1988) explains in Science, "Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are the bottom-up and the top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect." Erwin et al. (1987), in their study of marine invertebrates, similarly conclude that, "The fossil record suggests that the major pulse of diversification of phyla occurs before that of classes, classes before that of orders, orders before that of families. The higher taxa do not seem to have diverged through an accumulation of lower taxa." Indeed, the existence of numerous small and soft-bodied animals in the Precambrian strata undermines one of the most popular responses that these missing transitions can be accounted for by them being too small and too-soft bodied to be preserved. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/jerry_coynes_c067021.html Investigating Evolution: The Cambrian Explosion Part 1 – (4:45 minute mark - upside-down fossil record) video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DkbmuRhXRY Part 2 – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZFM48XIXnk Scientific study turns understanding about evolution on its head – July 30, 2013 Excerpt: evolutionary biologists,,, looked at nearly one hundred fossil groups to test the notion that it takes groups of animals many millions of years to reach their maximum diversity of form. Contrary to popular belief, not all animal groups continued to evolve fundamentally new morphologies through time. The majority actually achieved their greatest diversity of form (disparity) relatively early in their histories. ,,,Dr Matthew Wills said: “This pattern, known as ‘early high disparity’, turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head. What is equally surprising in our findings is that groups of animals are likely to show early-high disparity regardless of when they originated over the last half a billion years. This isn’t a phenomenon particularly associated with the first radiation of animals (in the Cambrian Explosion), or periods in the immediate wake of mass extinctions.”,,, Author Martin Hughes, continued: “Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on. Co-author Dr Sylvain Gerber, added: “A key question now is what prevents groups from generating fundamentally new forms later on in their evolution.,,, http://phys.org/news/2013-07-scientific-evolution.html No Positive Selection, No Darwin: A New Non-Darwinian Mechanism for the Origin of Adaptive Phenotypes - November 2011 Excerpt: Hughes now proposes a model he refers to as the plasticity-relaxation-mutation (PRM) model. PRM suggests that adaptive phenotypes arise as follows: (1) there exists a phenotypically plastic trait (i.e., one that changes with the environment, such as sweating in the summer heat); (2) the environment becomes constant, such that the trait assumes only one of its states for a lengthened period of time; and (3) during that time, deleterious mutations accumulate in the unused state of the trait, such that its genetic basis is subsequently lost. ,,, But if most adaptations result from the loss of genetic specifications, how did the traits initially arise? One letter (Chevin & Beckerman 2011) of response to Hughes noted that the PRM "does not explain why the ancestral state should be phenotypically plastic, or why this plasticity should be adaptive in the first place." https://evolutionnews.org/2011/11/no_positive_selection_no_darwi/ A. L. Hughes's New Non-Darwinian Mechanism of Adaption Was Discovered and Published in Detail by an ID Geneticist 25 Years Ago - Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig - December 2011 Excerpt: The original species had a greater genetic potential to adapt to all possible environments. In the course of time this broad capacity for adaptation has been steadily reduced in the respective habitats by the accumulation of slightly deleterious alleles (as well as total losses of genetic functions redundant for a habitat), with the exception, of course, of that part which was necessary for coping with a species' particular environment....By mutative reduction of the genetic potential, modifications became "heritable". -- As strange as it may at first sound, however, this has nothing to do with the inheritance of acquired characteristics. For the characteristics were not acquired evolutionarily, but existed from the very beginning due to the greater adaptability. In many species only the genetic functions necessary for coping with the corresponding environment have been preserved from this adaptability potential. The "remainder" has been lost by mutations (accumulation of slightly disadvantageous alleles) -- in the formation of secondary species. https://evolutionnews.org/2011/12/a_l_hughess_new/
bornagain77
@16 huh interesting comment. So you are aware your commentary has no impact on the “small cabal” of IDers but you wish to set things straight on a site that only this small cabal resides on. Got it….. AaronS1978
Then there is the Grants saying it takes 32 million years to get a new bird species and all the Darwinian finches are actually one species. So Let's Go Finches jerry
Doesn’t really matter if IDers buy it or not nor would I ever be delusional enough to think my comments actually impact what IDers think. I’m simply want to make sure the record is straight….. chuckdarwin
@14 nice narrative. But I don’t think any of those IDers are buying it though despite you repeating yourself over and over again like a broken record. AaronS1978
Nice try, BA77. As with most everything else, we’ve been down this road before. Loss of (or to be technically precise, non-expression of—the information is never truly “lost”) unnecessary information, if phenotypically adaptive, is not “devolution.” It is part of the engine that drives natural selection. To use a layman’s expression, unnecessary information is “excess baggage.” IDers latch on to what they claim are novel notions about evolution for which biologists, paleontologists and other evolution researchers have no need. Things like “irreducible complexity,” “functional specificity,” “design inference,” “devolution,” “God hypothesis,” et al. and ride them into the ground. It’s as if simply saying something over and over makes it true. However, no one outside a small cabal of IDers is buying it…… chuckdarwin
I think I'm just really confused about how the researchers are interpreting their discovery. They've shown that a mobile jaw evolved in birds much earlier than they had realized. But that doesn't show that birds with fixed jaws evolved from birds with mobile jaws. For all anyone can know, there could be even older birds with fixed jaws that were contemporaneous with Janavis. Janavis is dated to about 66 million years ago, and there was already an avian adaptive radiation well underway by then. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see the evidence suggesting that extant paleognaths evolved from this extinct neognath. It could just as well be that both groups were flourishing before the end of the Cretaceous. PyrrhoManiac1
"Natural selection does not move “forward” or “backward,” it’s simply selects for success." CD, Natural Selection is poetry. It's two words placed next to each other. It's not science. It's not measurable or detectable. It doesn't do anything. Andrew asauber
Chuckdarwin,
There is no such thing as “devolution,” regardless of what Michael Behe claims. Natural selection selects for successful phenotypes. That may result from “loss” of a previously successful adaptation. Natural selection does not move “forward” or “backward,” it’s simply selects for success.
Ignoring ChuckD's fairly direct contradiction in logic, ChuckyD is not disagreeing with Michael Behe, (and John Sanford), per se,
Darwin Devolves: The New Science About DNA That Challenges Evolution Hardcover – Michael Behe - February 26, 2019 https://www.amazon.com/Darwin-Devolves-Science-Challenges-Evolution/dp/0062842617 Genetic Entropy - John Sanford Excerpt: The newest edition of Genetic Entropy (2014), has shown that genetic degeneration is not just a theoretical concern, but is observed in numerous real-life situations. Genetic Entropy has reviewed research that shows: a) the ubiquitous genetic degeneration of the somatic cells of all human beings; and b) the genetic germline degeneration of the whole human population. https://www.geneticentropy.org/latest-development Dr. John Sanford Lecture at NIH (National Institute of Health): Genetic Entropy - Mutation Accumulation: Is it a Serious Health Risk? - 2018 video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqIjnol9uh8
ChuckyD is not disagreeing with Michael Behe, (and John Sanford), per se, ChuckyD is disagreeing with the scientific/empirical evidence itself. As Michael Behe, (and John Sanford) have made abundantly clear by reference to the empirical evidence itself, It is the scientific/empirical evidence itself that is saying that unguided material processes will tend to degrade the preexistent 'immaterial' information in biological systems that is 'constraining' biological systems to be so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium. In fact, Darwinists simply have no empirical evidence that it is possible for unguided material processes to create the 'immaterial' information that is necessary to 'constrain' life to be so far put of thermodynamic equilibrium,
Top Ten Questions and Objections to ‘Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics’ – Robert J. Marks II – June 12, 2017 Excerpt: “There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated. These models contain guidance mechanisms to land the airplane squarely on the target runway despite stochastic wind gusts. Not only can the guiding assistance be specifically identified in each proposed evolution model, its contribution to the success can be measured, in bits, as active information.,,,”,,, “there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,” https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/top-ten-questions-and-objections-to-introduction-to-evolutionary-informatics/ Robert Jackson Marks II is an American electrical engineer. His contributions include the Zhao-Atlas-Marks (ZAM) time-frequency distribution in the field of signal processing,[1] the Cheung–Marks theorem[2] in Shannon sampling theory and the Papoulis-Marks-Cheung (PMC) approach in multidimensional sampling.[3] He was instrumental in the defining of the field of computational intelligence and co-edited the first book using computational intelligence in the title.[4][5] – per wikipedia
And without a 'mechanism' to create 'immaterial' information in biological systems, then it is obvious that any preexistent information in biological systems will tend to be degraded by unguided Darwinian processes. And that is exactly what we find. The vast majority of mutations are now known to be deleterious, not beneficial, in their effects.
Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 - May 2013 Excerpt: It is almost universally acknowledged that beneficial mutations are rare compared to deleterious mutations [1–10].,, It appears that beneficial mutations may be too rare to actually allow the accurate measurement of how rare they are [11]. 1. Kibota T, Lynch M (1996) Estimate of the genomic mutation rate deleterious to overall fitness in E. coli . Nature 381:694–696. 2. Charlesworth B, Charlesworth D (1998) Some evolutionary consequences of deleterious mutations. Genetica 103: 3–19. 3. Elena S, et al (1998) Distribution of fitness effects caused by random insertion mutations in Escherichia coli. Genetica 102/103: 349–358. 4. Gerrish P, Lenski R N (1998) The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population. Genetica 102/103:127–144. 5. Crow J (2000) The origins, patterns, and implications of human spontaneous mutation. Nature Reviews 1:40–47. 6. Bataillon T (2000) Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84:497–501. 7. Imhof M, Schlotterer C (2001) Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving Escherichia coli populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:1113–1117. 8. Orr H (2003) The distribution of fitness effects among beneficial mutations. Genetics 163: 1519–1526. 9. Keightley P, Lynch M (2003) Toward a realistic model of mutations affecting fitness. Evolution 57:683–685. 10. Barrett R, et al (2006) The distribution of beneficial mutation effects under strong selection. Genetics 174:2071–2079. 11. Bataillon T (2000) Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84:497–501. http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0006
So again, ChuckyD is not disagreeing with Michael Behe, (and John Sanford), per se, ChuckyD is disagreeing with the scientific/empirical evidence itself. If ChuckyD wants to stay 'scientific', instead of being a dogmatist who is impervious to reason, he needs to present some sort of scientific evidence that it is possible for unguided material processes to create 'immaterial' information, because right now he simply doesn't have any.
John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.
bornagain77
CD @9 this debate is as absurd as the whole theory-of-evolution fairy tale ... It is clear, that this is just another head/beak/jaws design. Period. martin_r
There is no such thing as “devolution,” regardless of what Michael Behe claims. Natural selection selects for successful phenotypes. That may result from “loss” of a previously successful adaptation. Natural selection does not move “forward” or “backward,” it’s simply selects for success. chuckdarwin
@pm1 I think you know the specific term for what you did on 6. You obviously know no one really thinks of doing that. But there are two parties at fault here. There’s the party that absolutely denies anything science does (this is wrong) and there’s the party that absolutely adheres to science and this is part of a religion called scientism (also wrong). The recent tribalistic aggressiveness for the vaccine, followed by follow. The science comes to mind is a good example of why you shouldn’t just follow the science. And the issue is many things are taken at face value and implemented because they rely on science and think that it is immutable, and it has the final say about reality. When systems, traditions and beliefs are over turned due to science, which later on proves to be faulty, it should serve as a lesson to exercise caution, and that the scientists are very fallible. Point in case the neuroscience of free will it took 40 years to finally correct the mistake that RP in the brain was the initiation of our action before we knew about it. Many aggressive, atheist/scientists misused that science to further their personal belief which turned into the norm. In 2012, Aaron Schruger punched the first hole through that ideology, and in 2019 he punched another hole the rest of they way effectively ending the Libet paradigm. I think personally, both sides could benefit from exercising the tiniest bit of restraint before reaching outrageous conclusions based on science. AaronS1978
Martin_r at 5, The National Academy of Sciences refers to evolution as the "cornerstone of Biology." But, as you know, it can be excluded without causing problems for Biologists conducting research. relatd
We should shut down the paleontology departments, so that we're never troubled by anyone discovering something from the past that doesn't mesh with what we believe about what was happening. PyrrhoManiac1
PaV
Every week there are press releases of articles that undermine prevailing Darwinian thought. I don’t think that there has ever been a theory that has proven to be more wrong. And, yet, the “true believers” refuse to let go.
I wrote something very similar elsewhere …. And I also asked, what makes Darwinists so trustworthy? Because they seem to be always wrong …. martin_r
PaV at 3, What would be even worse is Intelligent Design getting into schools. The true believers have an interest in promoting unguided evolution. This idea has to continue to be promoted because without it, ID could get into schools. People will connect the designer to God and atheists will have one less reason to be atheists. And since ID will be taught, the average person will have scientific backing for his belief in God. relatd
Funny, so few ever question a theory that is always being overturned by new findings.
Every week there are press releases of articles that undermine prevailing Darwinian thought. I don't think that there has ever been a theory that has proven to be more wrong. And, yet, the "true believers" refuse to let go. They say: "There's no other theory. Do you have a replacement theory?" Which means: "Even though I know I'm holding onto a piece of garbage, if I let go, then I'll be 'empty-handed'! And we all know that that would be even worse." PaV
"Discovery Overturns More Than a Century of Knowledge" If it can be overturned, it's not Knowledge, it's Belief. Andrew asauber
It took a very longtime for science to finally correct that mistake Follow the science……….. AaronS1978

Leave a Reply