Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Now Evolutionists Say Evolution Created Evolution (Again)

arroba Email

It’s another rags-to-riches evolutionary story, this time with epigenetics going from dog house to white house. First evolutionists denied epigenetics, then they said epigenetics are inconsequential and now they say epigenetics may be instrumental in, err, the origin of the human brain. That’s quite a turn around. When (i) leading evolutionists such as Jerry Coyneare saying epigenetic characters are not usually inherited past one or two generations and so are not “going to change our concept of evolution,” while (ii) research papers are concluding that epigenetic changes, coordinated with genetic changes, “could play a role in the evolution of the primate brain,” then you know something is wrong. Evolutionists are having to rewrite their story at an ever increasing rate to try to adjust to the data, and it isn’t making sense.  Read more

Evolutionists must accept evolution for it is the only theory which is compatible with their materialist worldview. I just put together this fun video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTBze6a5vQA I love these excerpts of a hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy. If the world was really built this way, what signs would there be? Apparent age is built from the beginning. Even sitting in a bar would start with the memory of a fulfilled life. Here all is held outside the laws of nature until the "commencement of life cycle" (at 2:36). Evolutionists have no choice. Evolution is a bad theory but the best they have. Whilst we can sit back and enjoy (even if we have no idea how it really is all here). Bobby
Most people have an intuitive sense that random chance events, such as genetic mutations, are not likely to create the entire biological world from a once lifeless planet. But if that was a non starter, how about those random mutations first creating profoundly complex molecular machines which then proceed to orchestrate the evolutionary process?
Let's not forget that random chance mutations also created the complex biological machinery necessary to repair random chance mutations. It would appear that random chance mutations are just too much of a good thing, even for evolution. Back in the day someone wrote a book, The Incoherence of the Philosophers. I propose the title for a new book, The Incoherence of the Biologists. Mung
The sheer serendipity required by evolutionary thought is amazing. Someone has to say this because evolutionists won’t. They are so deeply embedded in the front lines they are oblivious to the state of evolutionary thought. They cannot step back and realistically assess their theory.
The new name for that phenomenon is "skepticism." Mung
"Most people have an intuitive sense that random chance events, such as genetic mutations, are not likely to create the entire biological world from a once lifeless planet. But if that was a non starter, how about those random mutations first creating profoundly complex molecular machines which then proceed to orchestrate the evolutionary process?"
Exactly. Well written and hard to argue with. "Not likely" is being quite generous! If evolution was never even able to get started, then the argument about how it happened is moot from their point of view. Also, if God was involved in the creation of the first life, then it opens up a whole other can of worms when it comes to how things came to be as they are now. So for evolutionists, it is vital to keep God out of it at all costs. Problem is, they have no idea how life could have begun by totally natural means and the more we learn, the more difficult the problem is becoming. This gaping whole in the evolutionist's arsenal means that the scales are clearly tipped towards the ID position. I personally think it would mean revisiting the whole issue of common descent as well. tjguy
Here is a podcast by Dr. Bohlin, which I found yesterday, that gives a brief, easy to understand, general overview of the inadequacy of the Darwinian mechanism: The Impotence of Darwinism - Dr. Ray Bohlin - podcast https://www.box.com/s/rh6pee1bnr4zymxf52zm homepage: http://www.probe.org/atf/cf/%7B3db354b7-83ad-49c0-95c3-d23bb106154d%7D/PROBERADIO01-23-12.HTML bornagain77
notes: Stark Differences Between Human and Chimp Brains - Brian Thomas, M.S. - Oct. 5, 2012 Excerpt: The researchers used a new technique to peer in unprecedented detail at the methylation patterns of human and chimp DNA that they harvested from brain tissue of three cadavers of each species. They compared only those DNA sequences already known to have basically the same genes, ignoring the vast majority of DNA. If humans and chimps are close relatives, then they should have similar DNA methylation patterns in the areas of chromosomes that they have in common such as similar gene sequences.2 However, this team found major differences. In particular, human and chimp DNA methylation patterns, called "methylomes," were very different between the two species’ brain tissue. The data statistically indicated that "major principal components separate humans and chimpanzees," according to their report in American Journal of Human Genetics.1,3 A second observation is that the very genes that were differently methylated "exhibit striking associations with several disorders, including neurological and psychological disorders and cancers."1 These data show that methylation patterns in many cases can tolerate very little disruption, thus presenting another impossible hurdle for the evolutionary model to overcome. If humans evolved from chimpanzee-like creatures, then some unknown evolutionary process must have altered their methylomes. But since methylomes apparently cannot tolerate that much alteration, then the evolutionary story must be in error. Human and chimp species-specific and irreducibly complex methylomes refute human evolution.,,, (Zeng, J. et al. 2012. Divergent whole-genome methylation maps of human and chimpanzee brains reveal epigenetic basis of human regulatory evolution. American Journal of Human Genetics. 91 (3):455-465.) http://www.icr.org/article/7067/ New Genes, New Brain - October 2011 Excerpt: “This is one of the first studies to look at the role of completely novel genes” in primate brain development,,, A bevy of genes known to be active during human fetal and infant development first appeared at the same time that the prefrontal cortex,,, Finally, 54 of the 280 genes found to be unique to humans were also highly expressed in the developing prefrontal cortex,,,, “We were very shocked that there were that many new genes that were upregulated in this part of the brain,” said Long, who added that he was also taken aback by synchronicity of the origin of the genes and the development of novel brain structures.,,, (From the PLoS article, author’s summary: We found these genes are scattered across the whole genome, demonstrating that they are generated by many independent events,,, Our data reveal that evolutionary change in the development of the human brain happened at the protein level by gene origination,,) http://the-scientist.com/2011/10/19/new-genes-new-brain/ The Extreme Complexity Of Genes - Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8593991/ Time to Redefine the Concept of a Gene? - Sept. 10, 2012 Excerpt: As detailed in my second post on alternative splicing, there is one human gene that codes for 576 different proteins, and there is one fruit fly gene that codes for 38,016 different proteins! While the fact that a single gene can code for so many proteins is truly astounding, we didn’t really know how prevalent alternative splicing is. Are there only a few genes that participate in it, or do most genes engage in it? The ENCODE data presented in reference 2 indicates that at least 75% of all genes participate in alternative splicing. They also indicate that the number of different proteins each gene makes varies significantly, with most genes producing somewhere between 2 and 25. Based on these results, it seems clear that the RNA transcripts are the real carriers of genetic information. This is why some members of the ENCODE team are arguing that an RNA transcript, not a gene, should be considered the fundamental unit of inheritance. http://networkedblogs.com/BYdo8 bornagain77

Leave a Reply