Here’s That New Fossil Study That Found a Crack in Evolution

16 Replies to “Here’s That New Fossil Study That Found a Crack in Evolution”

1. 1
   Chris Doyle says:

   July 31, 2013 at 12:32 am

   Ah, but if you can’t find a rabbit in the pre-Cambrian, then the fossil record – no matter how unsupportive and unpredicted – still supports neo-Darwinism, right?
2. 2
   Querius says:

   July 31, 2013 at 12:55 am

   When we go where the data takes us, it might be disruptive, but it’s our only hope for scientific progress. In contrast, a series of Darwin-of-the-gaps rationalizations serves only to generate a comfortable mythology, and delay scientific progress. For example, many years ago, a plausible OOL theory based on life orginating in a clay matrix met with rejection at least in part due to it’s vague resemblence to the creation of Adam in Genesis.

   What a pity that ideological contamination was able to halt a legitimate line of inquiry. However, it should be obvious that ideological contamination is not solely an evolutionist malady. We all need to embrace the strictest discipline and integrity in pursuit of scientific understanding.
3. 3
   Andre says:

   July 31, 2013 at 12:59 am

   This article is amazing, This is what you usually read on a creationist site and today we read it in a peer reviewed journal! Amazing how truth eventually always wins!
4. 4
   Chris Doyle says:

   July 31, 2013 at 1:03 am

   Absolutely Andre. But when we say it, our arguments have already been dismissed without a fair hearing or an open mind. All of our predictions are being fulfilled but our opponents act as if neo-Darwinism has never been stronger. Madness!

   Ultimately, it will be a generational thing: with each new generation of scientists moving further away from the neo-Darwinistic paradigm and closer to Intelligent Design science.
5. 5
   Andre says:

   July 31, 2013 at 1:06 am

   I love this from the PNAS abstract 🙂

   “There are few putative macroevolutionary trends or rules that withstand scrutiny.”

   Beautiful to think that a science journal will allow such an admission to be made 🙂
6. 6
   Querius says:

   July 31, 2013 at 1:06 am

   Chris,

   It’s my understanding that Darwinists handle what might be construed as out-of-place fossils simply by assigning them to a different taxonomic classification.

   Problem solved.

   The rationale is that the ancient organism can’t possibly be the same the the modern one.
7. 7
   Andre says:

   July 31, 2013 at 1:20 am

   I mean we are constantly bombarded by the likes of Matzke, WD400, Alan Fox Dr Liddle about the undisputed matter of fact about evolutionary theory, As I’ve said before I’m too much of a skeptic to believe or trust the just so stories being sold as truth….

   I am comfortable with the instruction; “Test everything, hold on to the good”

   Now that resonates with me as truth!
8. 8
   Chris Doyle says:

   July 31, 2013 at 1:23 am

   Good point, Queries. But there are many ways to move the goalposts and neo-Darwinists are past masters at that. They could also appeal to convergent evolution: you know, when two distantly related specimens give the overwhelming appearance of being closely related.

   Future generations will look back on all the post-hoc explanations that neo-Darwinists invented to save their beautiful theory from ugly facts with scorn. Much worse than retrograde orbits in geo-centrism.
9. 9
   Chris Doyle says:

   July 31, 2013 at 1:30 am

   Querius not Queries: apologies, autocorrect thinks it knows better!
10. 10
    bornagain77 says:

    July 31, 2013 at 4:11 am

    “The ignorant babblings of creationists? Ridiculous criticisms of IDs? True they have been making such claims for years, but this time it comes from evolutionists at the University of Bath who performed a massive fossil study.”

    Not a shabby study nor credentials!

    Here are a few assorted notes that gives us a glimpse as to one of the main reasons why species are constrained to a basic type of body plan:

    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 – published online May 2013
    Excerpt: In the last decade, we have discovered still another aspect of the multi- dimensional genome. We now know that DNA sequences are typically “ poly-functional” [38]. Trifanov previously had described at least 12 genetic codes that any given nucleotide can contribute to [39,40], and showed that a given base-pair can contribute to multiple overlapping codes simultaneously. The first evidence of overlapping protein-coding sequences in viruses caused quite a stir, but since then it has become recognized as typical. According to Kapronov et al., “it is not unusual that a single base-pair can be part of an intricate network of multiple isoforms of overlapping sense and antisense transcripts, the majority of which are unannotated” [41]. The ENCODE project [42] has confirmed that this phenomenon is ubiquitous in higher genomes, wherein a given DNA sequence routinely encodes multiple overlapping messages, meaning that a single nucleotide can contribute to two or more genetic codes. Most recently, Itzkovitz et al. analyzed protein coding regions of 700 species, and showed that virtually all forms of life have extensive overlapping information in their genomes [43].
    Conclusions: Our analysis confirms mathematically what would seem intuitively obvious – multiple overlapping codes within the genome must radically change our expectations regarding the rate of beneficial mutations. As the number of overlapping codes increases, the rate of potential beneficial mutation decreases exponentially, quickly approaching zero. Therefore the new evidence for ubiquitous overlapping codes in higher genomes strongly indicates that beneficial mutations should be extremely rare. This evidence combined with increasing evidence that biological systems are highly optimized, and evidence that only relatively high-impact beneficial mutations can be effectively amplified by natural selection, lead us to conclude that mutations which are both selectable and unambiguously beneficial must be vanishingly rare. This conclusion raises serious questions. How might such vanishingly rare beneficial mutations ever be sufficient for genome building? How might genetic degeneration ever be averted, given the continuous accumulation of low impact deleterious mutations?
    http://www.worldscientific.com.....08728_0006

    Multidimensional Genome – Dr. Robert Carter – 10 minute video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8905048/

    The Extreme Complexity Of Genes – Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8593991/

    To put it plainly, the finding of a severely poly-functional/polyconstrained genome by the ENCODE study, and further studies, has put the odds, of what was already astronomically impossible, to what can only be termed fantastically astronomically impossible. To illustrate the monumental brick wall any evolutionary scenario (no matter what “fitness landscape”) must face with poly-constrained poly-functionality, I will use a puzzle:
    If we were to actually get a proper “beneficial mutation’ in a polyfunctional we would actually be encountering something more akin to this illustration found on page 141 of Genetic Entropy by Dr. Sanford.

    S A T O R
    A R E P O
    T E N E T
    O P E R A
    R O T A S

    Sator Square
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sator_Square

    Which is translated ;
    THE SOWER NAMED AREPO HOLDS THE WORKING OF THE WHEELS.
    This ancient puzzle, which dates back to 79 AD, reads the same four different ways, Thus, If we change (mutate) any letter we may get a new meaning for a single reading read any one way, as in Dawkins weasel program, but we will consistently destroy the other 3 readings of the message with the new mutation (save for the center).
    This is what is meant when it is said a poly-functional genome is poly-constrained to any random mutations.

    of related note:

    K´necting The Dots: Modeling Functional Integration In Biological Systems – June 11, 2010
    Excerpt: “If an engineer modifies the length of the piston rods in an internal combustion engine, but does not modify the crankshaft accordingly, the engine won’t start. Similarly, processes of development are so tightly integrated temporally and spatially that one change early in development will require a host of other coordinated changes in separate but functionally interrelated developmental processes downstream” (1)
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....l-systems/
11. 11
    Querius says:

    July 31, 2013 at 6:06 pm

    Nicely described, Chris. What I find annoying is speculation in the disguise of Science. For example, my BS meter goes in the red when I read headlines like:

    Male Pattern Baldness Explained by Evolution or conversely (by forwarded email)

    Cern Discovers that God Exists

    Oh, please!
12. 12
    EvilSnack says:

    August 1, 2013 at 6:18 am

    I suppose the Darwinist explanation for this is that animals achieve most of their diversity during the period of adaptive radiation to fill recently-vacated niches.
13. 13
    bornagain77 says:

    August 1, 2013 at 7:23 am

    OT: China Cry – Christian Persecution in Atheist China – full movie (The story of Nora Lam)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....DC258F183F

    sobering reminder!
14. 14
    wallstreeter43 says:

    August 2, 2013 at 1:34 am

    So much for Goulds punctuated equilibrium mascara ding as science to try to cover up for Darwinian evolution .it will start slow but once we hit critical mass a paradigm shift will take place and this rediculous theory of Darwinian evolution will be yesterday’s news.
15. 15
    wallstreeter43 says:

    August 2, 2013 at 1:35 am

    Oops , meant mascarading, not mascara. My ipad mini must hate me
16. 16
    Phinehas says:

    August 5, 2013 at 1:10 pm

    Your iPad Mini is probably just a spelling curmudgeon that didn’t know you meant masquerading. 😉