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
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. -QQuerius
January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT
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
January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT
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
January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT
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
January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT
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
January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT
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
January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT
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
January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT
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. -QQuerius
January 24, 2023
January
01
Jan
24
24
2023
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PDT
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? -QQuerius
January 24, 2023
January
01
Jan
24
24
2023
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT
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/fullrelatd
January 24, 2023
January
01
Jan
24
24
2023
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT
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
January 24, 2023
January
01
Jan
24
24
2023
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT
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
January 24, 2023
January
01
Jan
24
24
2023
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT
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
January 24, 2023
January
01
Jan
24
24
2023
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT
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." -QQuerius
January 24, 2023
January
01
Jan
24
24
2023
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT
@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
January 24, 2023
January
01
Jan
24
24
2023
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT
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
January 24, 2023
January
01
Jan
24
24
2023
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT
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? -QQuerius
January 24, 2023
January
01
Jan
24
24
2023
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT
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. -QQuerius
January 24, 2023
January
01
Jan
24
24
2023
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT
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! -QQuerius
January 24, 2023
January
01
Jan
24
24
2023
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT
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. -QQuerius
January 24, 2023
January
01
Jan
24
24
2023
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT
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
January 24, 2023
January
01
Jan
24
24
2023
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT
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
January 24, 2023
January
01
Jan
24
24
2023
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT
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
January 24, 2023
January
01
Jan
24
24
2023
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
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
January 24, 2023
January
01
Jan
24
24
2023
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT
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
January 24, 2023
January
01
Jan
24
24
2023
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT
@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
January 24, 2023
January
01
Jan
24
24
2023
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT
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
January 24, 2023
January
01
Jan
24
24
2023
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT
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
January 24, 2023
January
01
Jan
24
24
2023
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT
@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
January 24, 2023
January
01
Jan
24
24
2023
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT
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
January 24, 2023
January
01
Jan
24
24
2023
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply