Evolutionist’s Overreach on Eukaryote Evolution Fuels Journalistic Frenzy

ppolish (29): It's a good question. There are many, many cases of similar genes that don't make sense on common descent for which evolutionists call upon all manner of non descent explanatory mechanisms. Then when similar genes are found that can be fitted into a descent model, they are immediately declared as confirmation of evolution and a common ancestor. Cornelius Hunter

How are we certain that this "new microorganism" is ancient? Eukaryotes have been ubiquitous in the oceans for 100s of millions of years. Might this Lokiarchaeota have emerged say 50 million years ago? HGT or something? How are we certain it is ancient? ppolish

A few notes as to sequence similarity: As Dr. Hunter pointed out in his article, neo-Darwinists unfairly presuppose that Darwinian evolution is true in the computer algorithms that find sequence similarity:

"What in fact the evolutionists found was that using a highly select, prepared, refined and cleansed set of molecular sequence data, with computer algorithms whose logic assumes evolution is true to begin with, their new Lokiarchaeota species align with the eukaryotes,,"

A few notes along that line:

Do Molecular Clocks Run at All? A Critique of Molecular Systematics - Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Bruno Maresca Abstract: Although molecular systematists may use the terminology of cladism, claiming that the reconstruction of phylogenetic relationships is based on shared derived states (synapomorphies), the latter is not the case. Rather, molecular systematics is (largely) based on the assumption, first clearly articulated by Zuckerkandl and Pauling (1962), that degree of overall similarity reflects degree of relatedness. This assumption derives from interpreting molecular similarity (or dissimilarity) between taxa in the context of a Darwinian model of continual and gradual change. Review of the history of molecular systematics and its claims in the context of molecular biology reveals that there is no basis for the “molecular assumption.”.. For historians and philosophers of science the questions that arise are how belief in the infallibility of molecular data for reconstructing evolutionary relationships emerged, and how this belief became so central … http://www.pitt.edu/~jhs/articles/Schwartz&Maresca_Mol_clocks.pdf Pattern pluralism and the Tree of Life hypothesis - 2006 Excerpt: Hierarchical structure can always be imposed on or extracted from such data sets by algorithms designed to do so, but at its base the universal TOL rests on an unproven assumption about pattern that, given what we know about process, is unlikely to be broadly true. http://www.pnas.org/content/104/7/2043.abstract “The computer programs that analyze the sequence similarities, or differences, are programmed in advance to generate a tree-like pattern. In other words, the assumption of a common ancestor is built into the way in which the analysis is performed. So there is no way you would get anything other than the conclusion,,, It’s a question begging assumption.” Stephen Meyer – on the Cambrian Explosion – podcast (15:25 minute mark) http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2014-05-30T17_33_15-07_00

But even with such 'pre-filtering' of the sequences, sometimes the genetic data still refuses to cooperate with Darwinian presuppositions:

Contradictory Trees: Evolution Goes 0 For 1,070 - Whif Excerpt: One of evolution’s trade secrets is its prefiltering of data to make it look good, but now evolutionists are resorting to postfiltering of the data as well.,,, Prefiltering is often thought of merely as cleaning up the data. But prefiltering is more than that, for built-in to the prefiltering steps is the theory of evolution. Prefiltering massages the data to favor the theory. The data are, as philosophers explain, theory-laden. But even prefiltering cannot always help the theory.,,, This problem became all the more obvious in a new study that examined 1,070 different genes found in a couple dozen yeast species (yes, the data were prefiltered). All those genes taken together produced one evolutionary tree, but each of the 1,070 different genes produced a different tree—1,070 plus 1 different trees. It was, as one evolutionist admitted “a bit shocking.” Or as another evolutionist put it, “We are trying to figure out the phylogenetic relationships of 1.8 million species and can’t even sort out 20 [types of] yeast.” http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2013/06/contradictory-trees-evolution-goes-0.html

Also of note, when the unfair Darwinian 'filter' is removed from human/chimp genetic sequences, geneticist Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins found that humans and chimps share only 70% DNA similarity instead of the 98% similarity touted by Darwinists:

Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70% by Jeffrey Tomkins on February 20, 2013 Excerpt: there is a great deal of preferential and selective treatment of the data being analyzed. In many cases, only the most promising data such as gene-rich sequences that exist in both species (homologs) is utilized from a much larger data pool. This pre-selected data is often further subjected to more filtering before being analyzed and discussed. Non-alignable regions and large gaps in DNA sequence alignments are also typically omitted, thus increasing the levels of reported similarity. https://answersingenesis.org/answers/research-journal/v6/comprehensive-analysis-of-chimpanzee-and-human-chromosomes/

Of supplemental note to the Darwinian 'rescue device' of Horizontal Gene Transfer Here is a recent article (2015) by Jeffrey Tomkins which shows that the mechanism of Horizontal Gene Transfer does not even begin to explain the dissimilarity in genomes being found:

Another Horizontal Gene Transfer Fairy Tale by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. - April 6, 2015 Excerpt: First, the researchers found unique genes in a variety of fruit flies, worms, primates, and humans that had no clear evolutionary ancestry. In other words, each of these genes is specific to a certain type of creature. Scientists have previously termed these "orphan genes"—a unique type of gene that provides a clear anti-evolutionary enigma I have discussed in previous reports.3,4 Some claim these novel orphan sequences evolved suddenly out of non-coding DNA while others, such as the authors of this new report, claim they were derived from HGT. The major problem with claiming that these alleged HGT genes are imported or "foreign" (i.e., transferred into the genome from some other creature), is that many of them encode important enzymatic proteins and are key parts of the interconnected gene networks and complex biochemical pathways that are essential to the very life of the organism. The researchers stated, "The majority of these genes are concerned with metabolism." Clearly, the genes are not foreign at all, but designed to function as key parts of essential biologically complex systems. Second, the approach to supposedly identifying many of the foreign genes in animals as microbial in origin was not even based on actual complete gene sequence, but depended upon isolated regions of similarity in the proteins they encode. In mammals, genes are quite complex, and on average only about 10% of the entire gene sequence actually codes for protein, the rest contains a large diversity of regulatory sequences that determine how the gene is to function and its various types of products. In contrast, microbial genes are typically much less complex and lack these intricate and intervening regulatory regions found in animal genes. If the researchers had actually compared the genomic DNA, very little similarity would have been discovered—in other words, they didn't do their homework correctly. In fact, they admitted their claim that the gene was foreign—or where it originated from—was purely hypothetical, when they stated that "absolute certainty in the assignment of most HGT is unachievable." Third, no mechanism of HGT for any of the hundreds of alleged "foreign genes" they found was either discovered or even suggested. This is due to the fact that the only cases where such gene transfer occurs in nature typically involves a clear host-parasite relationship. Not only that, but the cells of the germline (those that produce sperm and egg) must be specifically targeted or the introgressed genes (those that were incorporated from one species into the genome of another) will not be inherited. Unfortunately, evolutionary biologists constantly resort to fictional stories cloaked in technical terminology to escape the straightforward conclusion that the genomes of different creatures were purposefully crafted. Because of their unwavering commitment to evolution, all ideas about these cleverly designed and network-integrated gene sequences being engineered by a Creator are not considered—at least not openly. http://www.icr.org/article/another-horizontal-gene-transfer-fairy Horizontal Gene Transfer 5-16-2015 by Paul Giem - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6X5sJ62NbE

Moreover, as if all that was not bad enough, 'body plans' are not even reducible to the sequential information in DNA in the first place but are reliant on 'much higher level of the organizational hierarchy':

"These different sources of epigenetic information in embryonic cells pose an enormous challenge to the sufficiency of the neo-Darwinian mechanism. According to neo-Darwinism, new information, form, and structure arise from natural selection acting on random mutations arising at a very low level within the biological hierarchy—within the genetic text. Yet both body-plan formation during embryological development and major morphological innovation during the history of life depend upon a specificity of arrangement at a much higher level of the organizational hierarchy, a level that DNA alone does not determine. If DNA isn’t wholly responsible for the way an embryo develops—for body-plan morphogenesis—then DNA sequences can mutate indefinitely and still not produce a new body plan, regardless of the amount of time and the number of mutational trials available to the evolutionary process. Genetic mutations are simply the wrong tool for the job at hand." Stephen Meyer - Darwin's Doubt (p. 281) Darwin's Doubt narrated by Paul Giem - The Origin of Body Plans - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLHDSWJBW3DNUaMy2xdaup5ROw3u0_mK8t&v=rLl6wrqd1e0&feature=player_detailpage#t=290

Verse and Music

Psalm 139:13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. Nichole Nordeman - The Unmaking (Lyric Video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQkHD15J7HI

bornagain77

Thanks for the suggestions, groovamos and 55rebel. daveS

daveS, "No, no, and no. I said none of those things. I asked you whether your relationships would lose meaning after you hypothetically deconverted." Obviously, I can't answer for bornagain77, but... The answer to that question is an resounding YES. Because, I've Been There... Done That. Going from: knowing, or at least believing, that there was a purpose to the lives I care about, and that their imminent (as in, unavoidable) death was not final; To the realization that all we were, were nothing more than animated corpses, without purpose or hope. This does have a profound effect on the way you perceive reality, and those around you. Very depressing, to say the least; to the point, where I was actually contemplated suicide, on more than one occasion. The only thing that brought me back, was to avoid religion that spouts the false doctrine of an immortal soul; Meaning: that there will be those who will be tormented/tortured with out end (for a few measly years of ignorance), for eternity....talk about SICK minds. And... All that I have come to realize about this: pico-, nano-, micro- and macro-technology--of the Highest Order, we call life, which is the undeniable (only a fool could) embodiment of Intelligent Design. It puts all of the technology that man has so far achieved--to date, into the stone-age category... all this by chance? ROFLMAO!! Every-time I turn around, I am awestruck at the pure awesomeness and Love of this Creator, who done it :P Studding law, also helped me in my perspective of who, how and why things are, the way they are. Bottom Line... It's ALL Good! 55rebel

DaveS: What do you suggest atheists do then? Read the autobiography of Sandoz chemist Albert Hofman and consider the spectacular set of coincidences that secured his role in history. And his ideas on how he was SELECTED for that role. Then go out to the woods at night, alone, with a sleeping bag. Crawl in and down some 'shrooms and let her rip. Do this say 50 times and we'll see if you come back here to tell us that all you could see was a tangle of molecules making up your brain and its constituent neurons. This is not so ridiculous as you might think. Plenty of materialists and non-committed have done it, just as have indigenous cultures through history. It would help if you would go ahead and decide that feeling disconnected is no way to live out your days. groovamos

"This site is amazing…." We agree! Mung

This site is amazing.... I jump in with a correction on a pivotal paper. One that you should really take seriously, and that I have not seen a critique with substance against. The response: naughty, naughty unhappy atheists. God did it. And some of the same players are berating Larry Moran on another thread for calling them creationists who aren't really interested in the science. REC

daveS

What do you suggest atheists do then? What would you do if at some point in your life you decided that there is no God

If God doesn’t exist then the Universe wasn't created nad our existence wasn't intentiononal, in that scenario the universe came out of Nothingness, assembled itself throught Randomness and we are here due to Luck, can you please prove me that Nothingness, Randomness and Luck exist? JimFit

BA77,

daveS, you are purposely forgetting the whole unguided vs. guided difference. There is a whole worldview difference in that!

Hm. Are you saying that if we evolved from pond scum, but under the designer's guidance, then that would be less depressing?

And again, your personal view on your relative happiness is just that, a personal view. So again, don’t argue with me, argue with the meta-studies that found atheism to be a sadder worldview than Theism. It is not me that you have a disagreement with, it is the evidence itself that contradicts your belief.

But I said that it could be true that theists are happier than atheists. It's at least plausible to me. I'm not arguing with the evidence at all.

You say that your life, and relationships, has meaning and purpose, but you hold to a worldview in which meaning and purpose are ruled out of court in its axioms. You claiming to live a life of meaning and purpose and then professing atheism in the same breath is called ‘cognitive dissonance’.

No, no, and no. I said none of those things. I asked you whether your relationships would lose meaning after you hypothetically deconverted. daveS

daveS, you are purposely forgetting the whole unguided vs. guided difference. There is a whole worldview difference in that! And again, your personal view on your relative happiness is just that, a personal view. So again, don't argue with me, argue with the meta-studies that found atheism to be a sadder worldview than Theism. It is not me that you have a disagreement with, it is the evidence itself that contradicts your belief. You claim that your life, and relationships, have meaning and purpose, and indeed they do, but you hold to a worldview in which meaning and purpose are ruled out of court in its axiomatic presuppositions. You thus claiming to live a life of meaning and purpose on the one hand, and then on the other hand, claiming atheism thus has meaning and purpose within it is called 'cognitive dissonance'. Or perhaps, 'denialism' would be a more apt term than for your mental state? Just because you intuitively know that your life has meaning and purpose does not give you the power to impart meaning and purpose into a worldview that directly denies meaning and purpose in its foundational premises. Moreover, unlike Darwinists I'll follow the evidence wherever it leads no matter what. In fact, debating Darwinists has only greatly strengthened my faith in God and has not weakened it. In fact, the overall entirety of what has now been found by modern science, and the overarching theme it has presented, has only greatly strengthened my faith in God and even in Jesus Christ in particular. bornagain77

daveS, Do all your relationships then become meaningless? That question has no meaning. It's a meaningless question. Of course you could argue that it's not a meaningless question, that it has meaning, but then you're just being self-contradictory (as an atheist). Mung

BA77,

Also of note, it is impossible for atheists to live consistently within their professed worldview. i.e. to live as if their lives, and as if the lives of their loved ones, truly had absolutely no ultimate meaning, value, and/or purpose:

I'm responding to this separately because I think it's really a different issue. What do you suggest atheists do then? What would you do if at some point in your life you decided that there is no God? Let's assume that your deconversion occurred gradually, over a long time interval, so this is not a rash decision. You've gone back and read CS Lewis as WLC suggests, you've discussed this with your pastor, family and friends, and no dice---you're now an atheist. Do all your relationships then become meaningless? daveS

BA77,

daveS, so you believe in guided evolution like Behe and/or Denton do? (actually, I think both are a bit shaky on the whole common descent thing), instead of unguided evolution like Dawkins and Moran? Well if so, welcome to Theism!

No, I don't know about guided evolution. I guess that's one reason we're here on this blog. Rather, I'm just pointing out that (apparently) Behe and Denton don't find the idea of common descent to be distasteful, and that I share that view.

and as mentioned previously, atheists may claim they are just as happy as Theists, but the evidence itself says otherwise. So if you disagree with me don’t argue with me, argue with the evidence!:

That may be so, but again, I'm speaking about the common descent/depression connection specifically. I doubt that it exists. I don't think that atheists who believe in common descent find the notion to be shameful. daveS

daveS, so you believe in guided evolution like Behe and/or Denton do? (actually, I think both are a bit shaky on the whole common descent thing), instead of unguided evolution like Dawkins and Moran? Well if so, welcome to Theism! and as mentioned previously, atheists may claim they are just as happy as Theists, but the evidence itself says otherwise. So if you disagree with me, don't argue with me, argue with the evidence!:

Are atheists mentally ill? – August 14th, 2013 – Sean Thomas Excerpt: “Let’s dispense with the crude metric of IQ and look at the actual lives led by atheists, and believers, and see how they measure up. In other words: let’s see who is living more intelligently. And guess what: it’s the believers. A vast body of research, amassed over recent decades, shows that religious belief is physically and psychologically beneficial – to a remarkable degree.,,, [I hope this next part doesn’t upset too many people, but…] the evidence today implies that atheism is a form of mental illness. And this is because science is showing that the human mind is hard-wired for faith… religious people have all their faculties intact, they are fully functioning humans. Therefore, being an atheist – lacking the vital faculty of faith – should be seen as an affliction, and a tragic deficiency: something akin to blindness. Which makes Richard Dawkins the intellectual equivalent of an amputee, furiously waving his stumps in the air, boasting that he has no hands.” http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100231060/are-atheists-mentally-ill/ Are Religious People Happier Than Atheists? – 2000 Excerpt: there does indeed appear to be a link between religion and happiness. Several studies have been done, but to give an example, one study found that the more frequently people attended religious events, the happier they were; 47% of people who attended several types a week reported that they were ‘very happy’, as opposed to 28% who attended less than monthly. In practical terms, religious people have the upper hand on atheists in several other areas. They drink and smoke less, are less likely to abuse drugs, and they stay married longer. After a stressful event like bereavement, unemployment, or illness, those who worship don’t take it as hard and recover faster. All of the above are likely to be beneficial to a person’s happiness. Additionally, religious people, as a result of their beliefs, have a greater sense of meaning, purpose and hope in their lives. http://generallythinking.com/are-religious-people-happier-than-atheists/ Atheism and health A meta-analysis of all studies, both published and unpublished, relating to religious involvement and longevity was carried out in 2000. Forty-two studies were included, involving some 126,000 subjects. Active religious involvement increased the chance of living longer by some 29%, and participation in public religious practices, such as church attendance, increased the chance of living longer by 43%.[4][5] http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_health

Also of note, it is impossible for atheists to live consistently within their professed worldview. i.e. to live as if their lives, and as if the lives of their loved ones, truly had absolutely no ultimate meaning, value, and/or purpose:

The Heretic - Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? - March 25, 2013 Excerpt:,,,Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/heretic_707692.html?page=3 Darwin's Robots: When Evolutionary Materialists Admit that Their Own Worldview Fails - Nancy Pearcey - April 23, 2015 Excerpt: When I teach these concepts in the classroom, an example my students find especially poignant is Flesh and Machines by Rodney Brooks, professor emeritus at MIT. Brooks writes that a human being is nothing but a machine -- a "big bag of skin full of biomolecules" interacting by the laws of physics and chemistry. In ordinary life, of course, it is difficult to actually see people that way. But, he says, "When I look at my children, I can, when I force myself, ... see that they are machines." Is that how he treats them, though? Of course not: "That is not how I treat them.... I interact with them on an entirely different level. They have my unconditional love, the furthest one might be able to get from rational analysis." Certainly if what counts as "rational" is a materialist worldview in which humans are machines, then loving your children is irrational. It has no basis within Brooks's worldview. It sticks out of his box. How does he reconcile such a heart-wrenching cognitive dissonance? He doesn't. Brooks ends by saying, "I maintain two sets of inconsistent beliefs." He has given up on any attempt to reconcile his theory with his experience. He has abandoned all hope for a unified, logically consistent worldview. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/04/when_evolutiona095451.html Existential Argument against Atheism - November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen 1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview. 2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview. 3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality. 4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion. 5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true. Conclusion: Atheism is false. http://answersforhope.com/existential-argument-atheism/

bornagain77

BA77,

Hey REC, I can imagine it can be pretty dog gone depressing believing that you came from pond scum. So here is a song to cheer you up:

I've never been able to wrap my mind around this. Why should I find the idea that humans evolved from "pond scum" (or something vaguely similar) depressing? Or that we are literally cousins of present day chimpanzees? It's never caused me the least amount of distress (and presumably the same can be said for Behe, Denton, and some others posting here). daveS

REC

Doesn’t add much (or necessarily subtract from) the science

Please answer the following question Science works with A) Determinism B) Randomness JimFit

"Doesn’t add much (or necessarily subtract from) the science," Science is impossible without God. (Plantinga; Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism, CS Lewis Argument from Reason, Boltzmann Brain, Moreover, Denial of 'purpose' does not make the necessarily presupposed 'purpose' in science, i.e. teleology, disappear from science:

Design Thinking Is Hardwired in the Human Brain. How Come? - October 17, 2012 Excerpt: "Even Professional Scientists Are Compelled to See Purpose in Nature, Psychologists Find." The article describes a test by Boston University's psychology department, in which researchers found that "despite years of scientific training, even professional chemists, geologists, and physicists from major universities such as Harvard, MIT, and Yale cannot escape a deep-seated belief that natural phenomena exist for a purpose" ,,, Most interesting, though, are the questions begged by this research. One is whether it is even possible to purge teleology from explanation. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/design_thinking065381.html

As to: "I don’t know of any support for the evolution of humans from freshwater algae." Perhaps they were referring to something other than pond scum in the Washington Post headline?

“Newly discovered “missing link” shows how humans could evolve from single-celled organisms”

You may claim to be happy as an atheist, but on average, atheists are found to be less happy than Christians:

Are atheists mentally ill? - August 14th, 2013 - Sean Thomas Excerpt: "Let’s dispense with the crude metric of IQ and look at the actual lives led by atheists, and believers, and see how they measure up. In other words: let’s see who is living more intelligently. And guess what: it’s the believers. A vast body of research, amassed over recent decades, shows that religious belief is physically and psychologically beneficial – to a remarkable degree.,,, [I hope this next part doesn't upset too many people, but...] the evidence today implies that atheism is a form of mental illness. And this is because science is showing that the human mind is hard-wired for faith... religious people have all their faculties intact, they are fully functioning humans. Therefore, being an atheist – lacking the vital faculty of faith – should be seen as an affliction, and a tragic deficiency: something akin to blindness. Which makes Richard Dawkins the intellectual equivalent of an amputee, furiously waving his stumps in the air, boasting that he has no hands." http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100231060/are-atheists-mentally-ill/ Are Religious People Happier Than Atheists? - 2000 Excerpt: there does indeed appear to be a link between religion and happiness. Several studies have been done, but to give an example, one study found that the more frequently people attended religious events, the happier they were; 47% of people who attended several types a week reported that they were ‘very happy’, as opposed to 28% who attended less than monthly. In practical terms, religious people have the upper hand on atheists in several other areas. They drink and smoke less, are less likely to abuse drugs, and they stay married longer. After a stressful event like bereavement, unemployment, or illness, those who worship don’t take it as hard and recover faster. All of the above are likely to be beneficial to a person’s happiness. Additionally, religious people, as a result of their beliefs, have a greater sense of meaning, purpose and hope in their lives. http://generallythinking.com/are-religious-people-happier-than-atheists/

footnote:

BRUCE GORDON: Hawking's irrational arguments - October 2010 Excerpt: The physical universe is causally incomplete and therefore neither self-originating nor self-sustaining. The world of space, time, matter and energy is dependent on a reality that transcends space, time, matter and energy. This transcendent reality cannot merely be a Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions, for such things are causally inert abstract entities that do not affect the material world. Neither is it the case that “nothing” is unstable, as Mr. Hawking and others maintain. Absolute nothing cannot have mathematical relationships predicated on it, not even quantum gravitational ones. Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency - a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.” Anything else invokes random miracles as an explanatory principle and spells the end of scientific rationality. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/

bornagain77

"Yeah, they, and us, were both created, and are sustained in our being, by God. I would say that is a pretty big common denominator!" A nice theistic expression. Doesn't add much (or necessarily subtract from) the science, so knock yourself out. "Hey REC, I can imagine it can be pretty dog gone depressing believing that you came from pond scum." I don't know of any support for the evolution of humans from freshwater algae. Using the methods detailed in this, and many other papers, you could test that hypothesis, but I'd wager it would be strongly rejected. If I reworked your statement to something actually true--no, I don't find the implications of evolution depressing or distressing. REC

Hey REC, I can imagine it can be pretty dog gone depressing believing that you came from pond scum. So here is a song to cheer you up: Life Got You Down? Just Remember You Got Opposable Thumbs! - music video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_s8y9a12saU bornagain77

as to:

"We probably have a lot more in common with Loki. than that."

Yeah, they, and us, were both created, and are sustained in our being, by God. I would say that is a pretty big common denominator! Here is another fact, in regards to single celled organisms, that doesn't bode well for the Darwinian claim that we 'spontaneously', for no particular reason whatsoever, emerged from pond scum. It turns out that, for as far back as has been measured, there is virtually no evidence for Darwinian evolution occurring in bacteria:

Static evolution: is pond scum the same now as billions of years ago? Excerpt: But what intrigues (paleo-biologist) J. William Schopf most is lack of change. Schopf was struck 30 years ago by the apparent similarities between some 1-billion-year-old fossils of blue-green bacteria and their modern microbial counterparts. "They surprisingly looked exactly like modern species," Schopf recalls. Now, after comparing data from throughout the world, Schopf and others have concluded that modern pond scum differs little from the ancient blue-greens. "This similarity in morphology is widespread among fossils of [varying] times," says Schopf. As evidence, he cites the 3,000 such fossils found; http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Static+evolution%3A+is+pond+scum+the+same+now+as+billions+of+years+ago%3F-a014909330 Scientists discover organism that hasn't evolved in more than 2 billion years - February 3, 2015 Excerpt: Using cutting-edge technology, they found that the bacteria look the same as bacteria of the same region from 2.3 billion years ago -- and that both sets of ancient bacteria are indistinguishable from modern sulfur bacteria found in mud off of the coast of Chile. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150203104131.htm The Paradox of the "Ancient" (250 Million Year Old) Bacterium Which Contains "Modern" Protein-Coding Genes: “Almost without exception, bacteria isolated from ancient material have proven to closely resemble modern bacteria at both morphological and molecular levels.” Heather Maughan*, C. William Birky Jr., Wayne L. Nicholson, William D. Rosenzweig§ and Russell H. Vreeland ; http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/19/9/1637

Nor is there any evidence from the lab to support Darwinian claims:

Scant search for the Maker Excerpt: But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms. - Alan H. Linton - emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=159282

bornagain77

Who needs a cause when the effect can spontaneously arise. StephenB

A correction: where you say: "In all they found a whopping 3.3% of the Lokiarchaeota proteins to be similar to eukaryotic proteins." You should probably say they found 3.3% of Loki. proteins to be MOST similar to eukaryotic proteins. 26% are most similar to archaeal proteins, and 29% are most like bacterial proteins. So the 3.3% eliminates all proteins we share in common that are more similar in sequence to bacterial proteins or archael proteins. We probably have a lot more in common with Loki. than that. What is interesting is that some of that 3.3% of Loki proteins are thought of as Eukaryote specific. Neat bug, and a nice paper. REC

tjguy: "E" for effort. Cornelius Hunter

Larry Moran v Albert Einstein, AE v LM, LM v AE - back and fore, back and fore, back and fore... I just can't make up my mind. The Poster Boy for mindless chaos v the Poster Boy for intelligent design. Will someone please put me out of my misery and explain who and why? Axel

In regards to King and Wilson observation that the stark morphological and behavioral differences between humans and apes,, "must be due to variations in their genomic regulatory systems", that prediction has now, according to Richard Sternberg, finally been confirmed:

Richard Sternberg PhD – podcast – On Human Origins: Is Our Genome Full of Junk DNA? Part 2. (Major Differences in higher level chromosome spatial organization) http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2014/11/on-human-origins-is-our-genome-full-of-junk-dna-pt-2/ "Where (chimps and humans) really differ, and they differ by orders of magnitude, is in the genomic architecture outside the protein coding regions. They are vastly, vastly, different.,, The structural, the organization, the regulatory sequences, the hierarchy for how things are organized and used are vastly different between a chimpanzee and a human being in their genomes." Raymond Bohlin (per Richard Sternberg) - 9:29 minute mark of video https://vimeo.com/106012299

also of note to regulatory regions:

A Listener's Guide to the Meyer-Marshall Debate: Focus on the Origin of Information Question -Casey Luskin - December 4, 2013 Excerpt: "There is always an observable consequence if a dGRN (developmental gene regulatory network) subcircuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way." - Eric Davidson http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/12/a_listeners_gui079811.html

Thus, where Darwinists most need plasticity in the genome to be viable as a theory, (i.e. developmental Gene Regulatory Networks), is the place where mutations are found to be 'always catastrophically bad'. Yet, it is exactly in this area of the genome (i.e. regulatory networks) where substantial, ‘orders of magnitude’, differences are found between even supposedly closely related species. Needless to say, this is the exact opposite finding for what Darwinism would have predicted for what should have been found in the genome. bornagain77

Well, can't blame 'em for trying. When you don't got much, you gotta make as much of what little you do got as you can. tjguy

ba77, I don't usually like to go to answersingenesis for my science, but thanks for the links. Mung

Of related interest, Jeffrey Tomkins recently authored two papers on just this topic:

Information Processing Differences Between Archaea and Eukarya—Implications for Homologs and the Myth of Eukaryogenesis by Change Tan and Jeffrey P. Tomkins on March 18, 2015 Abstract In the grand schema of evolution, a mythical prokaryote to eukaryote cellular transition allegedly gave rise to the diversity of eukaryotic life (eukaryogenesis). One of the key problems with this idea is the fact that the prokaryotic world itself is divided into two apparent domains (bacteria and archaea) and eukarya share similarities to both domains of prokaryotes while also exhibiting many major innovative features found in neither. In this article, we briefly review the current landscape of the controversy and show how the key molecular features surrounding DNA replication, transcription, and translation are fundamentally distinct in eukarya despite superficial similarities to prokaryotes, particularly archaea. These selected discontinuous molecular chasms highlight the impossibility for eukarya having evolved from archaea. In a separate paper, we will address alleged similarities between eukarya and bacteria. https://answersingenesis.org/biology/microbiology/information-processing-differences-between-archaea-and-eukarya/ Information Processing Differences Between Bacteria and Eukarya—Implications for the Myth of Eukaryogenesis by Change Tan and Jeffrey P. Tomkins on March 25, 2015 Excerpt: In a previous report, we showed that a vast chasm exists between archaea and eukarya in regard to basic molecular machines involved in DNA replication, RNA transcription, and protein translation. The differences in information processing mechanisms and systems are even greater between bacteria and eukarya, which we elaborate upon in this report. Based on differences in lineage-specific essential gene sets and in the vital molecular machines between bacteria and eukarya, we continue to demonstrate that the same unbridgeable evolutionary chasms exist—further invalidating the myth of eukaryogenesis. https://answersingenesis.org/biology/microbiology/information-processing-differences-between-bacteria-and-eukarya/

As to the Washington Post headline that stated:

"Newly discovered “missing link” shows how humans could evolve from single-celled organisms"

Jeffrey Tomkins might have a few issues with that claim as well since he can't seem to find any evidence that we evolved from some ape-like ancestor much less a single celled organism:

Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70% - by Jeffrey P. Tomkins - February 20, 2013 Excerpt: For the chimp autosomes, the amount of optimally aligned DNA sequence provided similarities between 66 and 76%, depending on the chromosome. In general, the smaller and more gene-dense the chromosomes, the higher the DNA similarity—although there were several notable exceptions defying this trend. Only 69% of the chimpanzee X chromosome was similar to human and only 43% of the Y chromosome. Genome-wide, only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to human under the most optimal sequence-slice conditions. While, chimpanzees and humans share many localized protein-coding regions of high similarity, the overall extreme discontinuity between the two genomes defies evolutionary timescales and dogmatic presuppositions about a common ancestor. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v6/n1/human-chimp-chromosome The Myth of 98% Genetic Similarity (and Chromosome Fusion) between Humans and Chimps - Jeffrey Tomkins PhD. - video https://vimeo.com/95287522 Human Origins(?) by Brian Thomas, M.S. - December 20, 2013 Excerpt: Three major pillars supporting a human-chimp link crashed in 2013. 1. Genetic similarity (70% instead of 98%) 2. beta-globin pseudogene (functional instead of leftover junk) 3. Chromosome 2 fusion site (encodes a functional feature within an important gene instead of a being a fusion site) All three key genetic pillars of human evolution (for Darwinists) turned out to be specious—overstatements based on ignorance of genetic function. http://www.icr.org/article/7867/

Verse and Music:

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Third Day - Children of God - with Lyrics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9RqVRBtjM4

Supplemental quotes:

"A number of hominid crania are known from sites in eastern and southern Africa in the 400- to 200-thousand-year range, but none of them looks like a close antecedent of the anatomically distinctive Homo sapiens…Even allowing for the poor record we have of our close extinct kin, Homo sapiens appears as distinctive and unprecedented…there is certainly no evidence to support the notion that we gradually became who we inherently are over an extended period, in either the physical or the intellectual sense." Dr. Ian Tattersall: - paleoanthropologist - emeritus curator of the American Museum of Natural History - (Masters of the Planet, 2012) "Although humans and chimpanzees are rather similar in the structure of the thorax and arms, they differ substantially not only in brain size but also in the anatomy of the pelvis, foot, and jaws, as well as in relative lengths of limbs and digits (38). Humans and chimpanzees also differ significantly in many other anatomical respects, to the extent that nearly every bone in the body of a chimpanzee is readily distinguishable in shape or size from its human counterpart (38). Associated with these anatomical differences there are, of course, major differences in posture (see cover picture), mode of locomotion, methods of procuring food, and means of communication. Because of these major differences in anatomy and way of life, biologists place the two species not just in separate genera but in separate families (39). So it appears that molecular and organismal methods of evaluating the chimpanzee human difference yield quite different conclusions (40).” King and Wilson went on to suggest that the morphological and behavioral between humans and apes,, must be due to variations in their genomic regulatory systems. David Berlinski - The Devil's Delusion - Page 162&163 Evolution at Two Levels in Humans and Chimpanzees Mary-Claire King; A. C. Wilson - 1975 The Red Ape - Cornelius Hunter - August 2009 Excerpt: "There remains, however, a paradoxical problem lurking within the wealth of DNA data: our morphology and physiology have very little, if anything, uniquely in common with chimpanzees to corroborate a unique common ancestor. Most of the characters we do share with chimpanzees also occur in other primates, and in sexual biology and reproduction we could hardly be more different. It would be an understatement to think of this as an evolutionary puzzle." http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/08/red-ape.html

bornagain77

Amazing. Mung