Macro Evolution is False Part Two Thousand Four Hundred and Thirteen
I noticed that the science daily website had an article up which dethroned a group of "primitive" marine worms as a potential ancestor of us all.
"Acoelomorphs were reclassified in the1990's as an early branch of evolution -- the crucial link between the very simplest animals such as sponges and jellyfish and the rest of the animal kingdom including humans, starfish, insects and molluscs.
Now, in research published online February 9 in Nature, an international team led by scientists from UCL (University College London) and the Université de Montréal have shown that neither type of worm is an early branch of evolution. They show that both groups descended from the same ancestor that gave rise to the complex groups of animals that includes vertebrates and starfish. This implies that the worms have in effect 'evolved backwards' into much simpler looking organisms."
Once again a creature that was once supposed to be a "link" between other groups turns out not to be. And notice that the "ancestor that gave rise to complex groups" is now not named. It used to be the worms in question here, but further evaluation of the genetic evidence falsified that hypothesis. The supposed common ancestor remains theoretical.
To my observation, this is what invariably happens when scientists test the hypothesis that some creature belongs to a group which is the direct ancestor of two or more other groups. They invariably find that it is only another "sister" group. That holds true at the phylum and class levels. When you get to family and below, the same techniques sometimes, even often at the genus level, find a connection. The obvious conclusion of that data is that while there is sometimes horizontal evolution within about the family level, the various phylums, classes, and perhaps even orders of life do not have a common ancestor. Too bad their naturalistic worldview does not allow scientists to accept the evidence from their own studies.
Did the creature "evolve backwards" and lose complexity? I dunno, and neither do they really. It's an assumption they are making because they are assuming evolution to be true. But even if it did, losing information is not going to prove macroevolution. You can't go from bacteria to man by losing information. You need a way to gain it, and at a rate consistent with the changes we see in the fossil record, to prove macroevolution.
Global warming is only the 2nd greatest hoax of our time.
"Acoelomorphs were reclassified in the1990's as an early branch of evolution -- the crucial link between the very simplest animals such as sponges and jellyfish and the rest of the animal kingdom including humans, starfish, insects and molluscs.
Now, in research published online February 9 in Nature, an international team led by scientists from UCL (University College London) and the Université de Montréal have shown that neither type of worm is an early branch of evolution. They show that both groups descended from the same ancestor that gave rise to the complex groups of animals that includes vertebrates and starfish. This implies that the worms have in effect 'evolved backwards' into much simpler looking organisms."
Once again a creature that was once supposed to be a "link" between other groups turns out not to be. And notice that the "ancestor that gave rise to complex groups" is now not named. It used to be the worms in question here, but further evaluation of the genetic evidence falsified that hypothesis. The supposed common ancestor remains theoretical.
To my observation, this is what invariably happens when scientists test the hypothesis that some creature belongs to a group which is the direct ancestor of two or more other groups. They invariably find that it is only another "sister" group. That holds true at the phylum and class levels. When you get to family and below, the same techniques sometimes, even often at the genus level, find a connection. The obvious conclusion of that data is that while there is sometimes horizontal evolution within about the family level, the various phylums, classes, and perhaps even orders of life do not have a common ancestor. Too bad their naturalistic worldview does not allow scientists to accept the evidence from their own studies.
Did the creature "evolve backwards" and lose complexity? I dunno, and neither do they really. It's an assumption they are making because they are assuming evolution to be true. But even if it did, losing information is not going to prove macroevolution. You can't go from bacteria to man by losing information. You need a way to gain it, and at a rate consistent with the changes we see in the fossil record, to prove macroevolution.
Global warming is only the 2nd greatest hoax of our time.
posted by Mark Moore (Moderator) at Saturday, February 12, 2011
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home