Animal groups do not evolve greater and greater new designs as time goes by, but rather are at their maximum level of diversity early in their history. And species must be constrained in how much they can change. 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. As one of the evolutionists explained: read more
16 Replies to “Here’s That New Fossil Study That Found a Crack in Evolution”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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?
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.
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!
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.
I love this from the PNAS abstract 🙂
Beautiful to think that a science journal will allow such an admission to be made 🙂
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.
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!
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.
Querius not Queries: apologies, autocorrect thinks it knows better!
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:
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.
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:
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!
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.
OT: China Cry – Christian Persecution in Atheist China – full movie (The story of Nora Lam)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....DC258F183F
sobering reminder!
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.
Oops , meant mascarading, not mascara. My ipad mini must hate me
Your iPad Mini is probably just a spelling curmudgeon that didn’t know you meant masquerading. 😉