That evolution occurred is known to be a fact but howevolution occurred is not known. In particular we are ignorant of how evolutionary innovations arose. Of course biological novelties and innovations arose from a series of random chance events, but it is less than reassuring that we cannot provide more detail. How exactly did the most complex designs spontaneously arise? What mechanisms overcame, over and over, the astronomical entropy barriers, by sheer luck of the draw? As Craig MacLean’s and Andreas Wagner’s, and coworker’s, new PLOS Genetics paper begins, “Novel traits play a key role in evolution, but their origins remain poorly understood.” Could it be that evolution is not actually a fact? No, not according to evolutionists. And this new paper claims to provide the basis for how the seemingly impossible became the mundane. Read more
11 Replies to “How Did Birds Get Their Wings? Bacteria May Provide a Clue to the Genomic Basis of Evolutionary Innovation, Say Evolutionists”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Of Related Interest to ‘directed’ mutations:
Must have been bacteria. If not bacteria then symbiosis. If not symbiosis then viruses. If not viruses then changes in oxygen levels. If not changes in oxygen levels then…
The possibilities are endless. Ain’t evolution grand!
Mung was thinking the same thing….
Everything is evolution and evolution is everything….
Praise Darwin!
Verse:
Of related note; Here is Talbott’s latest article:
Well worth reading in full. Talbott is almost poetic as he goes through the intricate complexities of gene expression.
How did a rodent get long digits with membranes between them and learn to fly with them? The incremental changes required wouldn’t make them better adapted to survive. You can take any rodent on the planet and selectively breed them from here to eternity and you will never get one to fly like a bat, yet we are to believe that natural selection and mutations did?
Davem,
Not only that, but think of the brain rewiring that had to occur for flight to occur, not to mention bone density adjustments, etc.
As to the implausibility of changing one creature of trillions of cells into another creature of trillions of cells, here are a few notes:
And, just as King and Wilson predicted, the regulatory regions between chimps and humans are found to be very different. In fact the regulatory regions are ‘species specific’:
As to Wilson and King’s observation that ‘nearly every bone in the body of a chimpanzee is readily distinguishable in shape or size from its human counterpart’, that fact poses its own insurmountable difficulty for Darwinian explanations.
Of related note to ‘coordinated changes’:
Am I understanding correctly that each of the 4 groups showed identical genetic changes? For the 95 different food sources, did each of the 4 groups show the same, or 95 different genetic changes? If so, where can I learn more about directed mutation?
Great posts and links, bornagain77. Thanks!
-Q
John.P:
“Am I understanding correctly that each of the 4 groups showed identical genetic changes?”
It’s much more complex.
Just to be brief, I will say that I have read that paper with great interest, but in the end I am a little disappointed.
The authors seem to be interested only in the differences between “innovation” and “optimization”, as defined by them, a little artificially, IMO.
The differences they find are interesting, but statistically weak. Nothing really convincing, in the end.
I hoped I could find many facts which could be interpreted in an interesting way. But, in the end, the facts are rather minimal, and their implications rather trivial.
I must say that the paper referenced by our amazing BA in post #1 is much more interesting. Strangely enough (well, maybe not too strangely!) I have not read any comments on it by the other side, up to now.