DNA Evidence on Complexity Undermines Evolution
As Scientists gather more and more information from their new tools, such as DNA analysis, it becomes more obvious that the theory of (macro)evolution must be wrong. It may not be obvious to the scientists who have the blinders on tight and show a dogged unwillingness/inability to interpret evidence outside of naturalistic pre-suppositions, but to more objective observers it is clear that something is wrong with Darwinism.
A recent (October 07) New Scientist article by Laura Spinney highlights this trend. The article was "Evolution: Hacking Back the Tree of Life". Spinney noted that DNA analysis of some "primitive" creatures repeatedly shows examples of "advanced" genes and systems in certain members of the class. The only way evolution (and I mean macro, or large scale evolution here rather than minor variations within type) could explain this is if the feature or genes in question were developed quickly, then lost in most members of the class, but then preserved in the branch that became the more "advanced" animals. She quotes an evolutionist in Germany as saying, "The whole concept of a gradualist tree, with one thing branching off after another and the last to branch off, the vertebrates, being the most complex, is wrong,".
(CONTINUED - CLICK FRIDAY BELOW AND SCROLL DOWN FOR REST OF ARTICLE)
posted by Mark Moore (Moderator) at Friday, November 16, 2007
1 Comments:
To demonstrate the house of cards they have built, they hypothesize that the common ancestor of vertebrates and invertebrates is a critter they name Urbilateria that lived between half a billion and a billion years ago. No fossils of this hypothetical species have been found. But they have found a modern animal that does much the same thing, called Platynereis. This is the creature that they think is most unchanged since the alleged "common ancestor".
Now vertebrates, and some invertebrates like fruit flies, have a central nervous system. Most invertebrates though, have a "more primitive" diffuse neural net. One would expect, if evolution could increase complexity, that the neural net evolved first, and later the more complex central nervous system arose. Instead, they were surprised to find that the "primitive" invertebrate Platynereis (the one that most reminded them of the still-missing common ancestor) has neurons which share molecular fingerprints with vertebrate neurons during development. In addition, "genes known to be important in patterning the vertebrate CNS also divide the worm's nervous system into domains. What's more, domains with corresponding gene expression patterns give rise to the same types of neurons in both".
Their conclusion is that whole classes of invertebrates such as echinoderms and hemi-chordates, have lost complexity from their common ancestor, the fictional Urbilateria. Not everyone agrees but examples are popping up all over: "While controversy continues to rage over convergent evolution versus loss, it has emerged that Urbilateria is not the only very early animal ancestor that was more complex than some of its descendants" Spinney reports.
Dr. David Miller has found a genus of coral which has a version of a gene that was thought to be exclusive to vertebrates. "All the textbooks tell you that adaptive immunity is a specific characteristic of vertebrates," Miller says, "yet at least one of the proteins is clearly present in our animal." Was adaptive immunity then LOST in all the other animals between corals and vertebrates on the evolutionary scale? Why? It seems like it ought to be too useful a trait to be cast off so easily.
And this jewel, "Last month, Marcus Davis of the University of Chicago and colleagues reported that a species of paddlefish shows patterns of gene expression during development that were previously thought to be exclusive to land-living vertebrates - in other words, those with limbs. This paddlefish is the living species that most closely resembles the bony fish of the Palaeozoic era, which lived more than 250 million years ago. Davis concludes that primitive bony fish may have had something like limbs, which were lost in their descendants (Nature, vol 447, p 473)."
So in numerous cases what they find are the genes for advanced traits, that should have only evolved hundreds of millions of years later, in super-primitive creatures. These genes are missing in huge chunks of creatures that are supposed to be between us and them on the evolutionary scale. So is there nothing new under the Sun? Did all the genes for these advanced traits really show up very very early in the story of life? And did they then get lost by almost all creatures alive, only to re-emerge later in modified form?
The Cambrian Explosion is a big enough problem for evolutionists. That is where virtually every known body plan shows up in the fossil record in a geological blink of the eye (5-10 million years). Now not only do the body plans all show up in a brief explosion, but apparently advanced traits like a central nervous system and an adaptive immune response system do too. These advanced traits are then "lost" (despite their usefulness) in most of the invertebrate classes. This evolutionary scenario should strain the credulity of an honest observer to the breaking point. They already can't explain what evolutionary mechanisms produced the life forms of the Cambrian Explosion, now to have us believe that complex traits sprang up and then mostly disappeared before that or as it was happening is just too much. They can't explain the "simple" nervous system or immune system evolving in that space of time, much less the complex ones evolving and then devolving again.
Starting with advanced traits and paring down to simpler ones in not evolution anyway, it is de-evolution. The evidence suggests that, if macro-evolution is true, that these creatures have lost complexity. But even if they have, that is no explanation for evolution. What they have to explain is how you get a man from an amoeba, and you can't do that by losing complexity.
Post a Comment
<< Home