Press Release/MediaAbout Us/Contact InfoDo you think you're a good person? Do you know Him?

> Home

> Age of the Earth and Universe

> Origin of the Universe (Cosmology)
Science or Pseudo-Science?

> Origin of Life (Abiogenesis)
Science or Pseudo-Science?

> Common Descent (Darwinism)
Science or Pseudo-Science?

> How Does Evolution
Supposedly Work?

> Genetics

> Mutations

> Genetic Recombination

> Gene Duplication

> Natural Selection

> Fossils

> Stasis

> “Junk” DNA – The Biggest Blunder of Evolutionary-Based Science

> Endogenous Retroviruses

 
 

“Although the vast
majority of research in evolutionary biology is focused on adaption, a general theory for the population-genetic mechanisms by which complex adaptations are acquired remains to
be developed.”

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., “Scaling expectations for the time to establishment of complex adaptations”, September 7, 2010, doi:10.1073/pnas.1010836107.
http://www.pnas.org/
content/early/2010/08/
30/1010836107.abstract

“Cellular behavior is controlled by signaling pathways which deliver information derived from the surrounding tissue and other cells to the nucleus and other parts of the cell. In order to achieve both efficient and tightly regulated signaling, cells organize their proteins into distinct cellular compartments. This organization is carried out by intracellular highways called microtubules that are specialized in protein transport.
"The most interesting finding of our study is that all these processes are interregulated. Therefore understanding the basic mechanisms of the regulation might help to tackle the primary causes of these changes during disease," says Sara Wickström.”

Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, “Protein Highways Keep Tissues Organized”, Oct 20, 2010, ScienceDaily.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/
releases/2010/10/10101
9084822.htm

 

 
 

 

 

How Does Evolution Supposedly Work?

The foundation of Darwinism is NOT that variations and adaptations can modify EXISTING features, such as larger and/or different shaped leaves, flowers, beaks, feathers, teeth, jaws, etc. Darwinism goes further by claiming that unguided evolutionary forces cause NEW features and organs to miraculously appear, such as the origin of the previous examples.

Aside from the complete lack of empirical evidence for this claim, whether now or in the past, evolutionists can't even articulate the likely steps that might cause this phenomenon to occur.

When challenged to give hypothetical genetic scenarios of how novel features appear, evolutionists retreat in silence as seen on our forum:

When likely scenarios are actually proposed, they routinely:

  1. Suggest that a particular ‘need’ produces change, and/or;
  2. Cite a mechanism that has not been scientifically proven to cause the genetic change that is claimed, and/or;
  3. Builds on component structures that appear out of nowhere, and/or;
  4. Omits specific mention of a likely genetic mechanism.

THE FOLLOWING ARE EVOLUTIONARY-BASED SCENARIOS THAT ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN HOW EVOLUTION MIGHT CREATE AN EYE.

Note that none of them even touch on the neurotransmitters that process the information in the brain:
“The brain can do nothing and perceive nothing unless thousands of its neurons (nerve cells) communicate in a coordinated fashion with thousands of other neurons.”
http://books.google.com/books?id=1QE1C5cyI4YC&pg=PA341&lpg=PA341&dq=harvard+neurotransmitter&source=
bl&ots=4qit_x4vyZ&sig=rJTQgJIdvD4gO7xnz3ghcQ599o0&hl=en&ei=l91NTLK-BsmUnQf-tMHYCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&
ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CDcQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=harvard%20neurotransmitter&f=false

Example #1

“The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.
Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.”

Evolution Library, “Evolution of the Eye”, PBS Online.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

Critique of terms used:

a. “Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper.”
No mention of a likely genetic process.

b. “simple light-sensitive spot”
No explanation for the initial evolution of each complex component that makes-up the spot or the response triggers that activate the flagella. Read how complex “spots” are:
“These eyes constitute the simplest and most common visual system found in nature. The eyes contain optics, photoreceptors and the elementary components of a signal-transduction chain. Rhodopsin serves as the photoreceptor, as it does in animal vision. Upon light stimulation, its all-trans-retinal chromophore isomerizes into 13-cis and activates a photoreceptor channel which leads to a rapid Ca2+ influx into the eyespot region. At low light levels, the depolarization activates small flagellar current which induce in both flagella small but slightly different beating changes resulting in distinct directional changes. In continuous light, Ca2+ fluxes serve as the molecular basis for phototaxis. In response to flashes of higher energy the larger photoreceptor currents trigger a massive Ca2+ influx into the flagella which causes the well-known phobic response.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9431675

c. “ … evolved into a retina,”
No explanation for the evolution of the components of a fully formed retina, the optic nerve, or the independent specific mental and neural capacity required for interpreting the information. The following describes the components of a retina:
“The retina is a highly specialized tissue lining the innermost portion of the eye. It contains millions of specialized photoreceptor cells called rods and cones that convert light rays into electrical signals that are transmitted to the brain through the optic nerve. Rods provide the ability to see in dim light while cones allow for sharp and color vision. The macula, located in the center of the retina, is where most of the cone cells are located. It is very small (500µ or about the size of a ballpoint). The fovea, a small depression in the center of the macula, has the highest concentration of cone cells. In front of the retina is a chamber called the vitreous body, which contains a clear, gelatinous fluid called vitreous humor.”
http://eyerepublic.com/retina-vitreous/retina-faq/29-anatomy-retina.html

Example #2

“This ancient animal probably had very simple eye spots with no image-forming ability, but still needed some diversity in eye function. It needed to be able to sense both slow, long-duration events such as the changing of day into night, and more rapid events, such as the shadow of a predator moving overhead. These two forms arose by a simple gene duplication event and concomitant specialization of association with specific G proteins, which has also been found to require relatively few amino acid changes. This simple molecular divergence has since proceeded by way of the progress of hundreds of millions of years and amplification of a cascade of small changes into the multitude of diverse forms we see now. There is a fundamental unity that arose early, but has been obscured by the accumulation of evolutionary change. Even the eyes of a scorpion carry an echo of our kinship, not in their superficial appearance, but deep down in the genes from which they are built.”
PZ Myers, “Eyeing the Evolutionary Past”, March 6, 2008, Seed Online.
http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2008/03/eyeing_the_evolutionary_past.php?page=3

Critique:

a. “ … but still needed some diversity in eye function. It needed to be able to sense …”
An organism senses a need? This suggests that a particular need produces change:
“Contrary to a widespread public impression, biological evolution is not random, even though the biological changes that provide the raw material for evolution are not directed toward predetermined, specific goals.”
“Science, Evolution, and Creationism,” 2008, National Academy of Sciences (NAS), The National Academies Press, 3rd edition, page 50.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11876&page=50

b. “ … very simple eye spots,”
Refer to above “Example #1.”

c. “ … simple gene duplication event”
There is NO scientific proof that gene duplication can create genes with more complex functions. Research papers reflect this admission by using words “most likely”:
“Duplicate gene evolution has most likely played a substantial role in both the rapid changes in organismal complexity apparent in deep evolutionary splits and the diversification of more closely related species. The rapid growth in the number of available genome sequences presents diverse opportunities to address important outstanding questions in duplicate gene evolution.”
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2F
journal.pbio.0020206&ct=1&SESSID=9999360a804131d0f0009da33ced0db9

An erroneous example cited is the claim that, over 100 million years ago, two genes of the yeast S. cerevisiae supposedly evolved from one gene of another specie of yeast (K. lactis).
Refer to:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v449/n7163/abs/nature06151.html
What is the evidence for their claim? Nothing but the presupposition that Darwinism is true so the very existence of two genes that total the same functions of the one gene proves that they must have evolved from each other:
”The primary evidence that duplication has played a vital role in the evolution of new gene functions is the widespread existence of gene families.”
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2F
journal.pbio.0020206&ct=1&SESSID=9999360a804131d0f0009da33ced0db9

Also, what Darwinists fail to present is a feasible step-by-step scenario how each gene could:
- split their functions in a precise manner so that neither function would be disabled until ‘random chance’ completed the event;
- become fixed in the population during each new step:
“A duplicated gene newly arisen in a single genome must overcome substantial hurdles before it can be observed in evolutionary comparisons. First, it must become fixed in the population, and second, it must be preserved over time. Population genetics tells us that for new alleles, fixation is a rare event, even for new mutations that confer an immediate selective advantage. Nevertheless, it has been estimated that one in a hundred genes is duplicated and fixed every million years (Lynch and Conery 2000), although it should be clear from the duplication mechanisms described above that it is highly unlikely that duplication rates are constant over time.”
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2F
journal.pbio.0020206&ct=1&SESSID=9999360a804131d0f0009da33ced0db9

d. “concomitant specialization”
This apparently means that two genes have similar yet specialized functions. Evolutionists devise all sorts of redundant and scientific sounding terms when they want to make something sound complicated. This term adds nothing to describe what caused the genetic process to occur.

e. “of association with specific G proteins”
Because of the split in function between the two genes, the molecular switch (G protein) must also be modified to coincide with the specific regulation needed to precisely regulate the new gene. There is NO explanation of how that might occur:
“Moreover, in order for the organism to respond to an every-changing environment, intercellular signals must be transduced, amplified, and ultimately converted to the appropriate physiological response.”
http://edrv.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/24/6/765
See movie on G-proteins: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NB7YfAvez3o&feature=related

Example #3

The following two links are video presentations that attempt to explain the evolution of an eye. They both use the same progressive steps but forget to mention how the components appeared and/or any mention of what genetic change was used to create new features to appear.

Video narration by Richard Dawkins on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEKyqIJkuDQ
‘Scientific’ highlights from the video:
“Skin cells like these often have a little light sensitive pigment to start with, so something interesting could happen …”
“Let’s drop ourselves lightly into a shallow pit and things begin to get better …
“I brought in a simple in-home camera … now I can resolve images must more accurately.”
“Let’s go on and now just imagine some of those cells happen to secrete a little mucus. It collects into a blob … and lodges in the pinhole. Real progress, I’ve got a crude lens, now the incoming light can be focused.”

Video narration by NCSE's executive director, Eugenie Scott on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOtP7HEuDYA&feature=related
Ms. Scott uses the same steps but uses ‘next’ repeatedly while pulling in component parts out of thin air. Her most scientific moment comes when she states, “If it can grow, it can evolve ...”

Upon discovering that none of the known genetic mechanisms can account for how evolution supposedly occurs, evolutionists are now devising even more absurd fables. This new mechanism is called “preadaptation”:

  • “The process by which parts accumulate until they’re ready to snap together is called preadaptation. It’s a form of “neutral evolution,” in which the buildup of the parts provides no immediate advantage or disadvantage. Neutral evolution falls outside the descriptions of Charles Darwin. But once the pieces gather, mutation and natural selection can take care of the rest, ultimately resulting in the now-complex form of TIM23 …
    “You look at cellular machines and say, why on earth would biology do anything like this? It’s too bizarre,” he said. “But when you think about it in a neutral evolutionary fashion, in which these machineries emerge before there’s a need for them, then it makes sense.””

    Brandon Keim, “More ‘Evidence’ of Intelligent Design Shot Down by Science,” August 27, 2009, Wired Science based on “The reducible complexity of a mitochondrial molecular machine,” Yale University, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 106 No. 33, August 25, 2009.
    http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/08/reduciblecomplexity/

So, complex parts with absolutely NO purpose miraculously assemble themselves, and then “snap” together to form a complex cellular machine? They’re kidding, right?

An example that evolutionists use to claim that evolution can make a new feature appear is the appearance of a cecal in a lizard: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm

Here are the problems with that claim:

  1. 1% of ALL scaled reptiles posses cecal valves, so latent DNA is the most likely answer to how they appeared. Example: Organisms restore latent DNA for features several generations AFTER the feature has disappeared:
    • “Here we show that Arabidopsis plants homozygous for recessive mutant alleles of the organ fusion gene HOTHEAD5 (HTH) can inherit allele-specific DNA sequence information hat was not present in the chromosomal genome of their parents but was present in previous generations. This previously undescribed process is shown to occur at all DNA sequence polymorphisms examined and therefore seems to be a general mechanism for extra-genomic inheritance of DNA sequence information. We postulate that these genetic restoration events are the result of a template-directed process that makes use of an ancestral RNA-sequence cache.”
      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7032/abs/nature03380.html
    • “Here, we show that a rice triploid and diploid hybridization resulted in stable diploid progenies, both in genotypes and phenotypes, through gene homozygosity. Furthermore, their gene homozygosity can be inherited through 8 generations, and they can convert DNA sequences of other rice varieties into their own. Molecular-marker examination confirmed that this type of genome-wide gene conversion occurred at a very high frequency. Possible mechanisms, including RNA-templated repair of double-strand DNA, are discussed.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17502903?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.
      PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA

  2. If cecal valves miraculously appeared without latent DNA, evolutionists need to explain in detail how random genetic changes could possible create an exact genetic duplicate of the cecal valve that previously ‘evolved’ by random genetic changes.
    Evolutionists refer to this as ‘convergent evolution,’ which is an absolutely ridiculous premise supported ONLY by the presupposition that evolution is true … so it must have occurred!
  3. Since the valves supposedly evolved in just 35 years, it should NOT be difficult to find the beginnings of a valve, which might display an actual evolution-in-process event.

EVEN EVOLUTIONISTS ADMIT TO NOT KNOWING HOW EVOLUTION SUPPOSEDLY WORKS:

  • “Although the vast majority of research in evolutionary biology is focused on adaption, a general theory for the population-genetic mechanisms by which complex adaptations are acquired remains to be developed.”
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., “Scaling expectations for the time to establishment of complex adaptations”, September 7, 2010, doi:10.1073/pnas.1010836107.
    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/08/30/1010836107.abstract
  • "Students should realize that although virtually all scientists accept the general concept of evolution of species, scientists do have different opinions on how fast and by what mechanisms evolution proceeds.”
    The American Association for the Advancement of Science, Educational Benchmarks, (F) Evolution of Life
    http://www.project2061.org/publications/bsl/online/ch5/ch5.htm#F
  • “Scientists are still uncovering the specifics of how, when, and why evolution produced the life we see on Earth today."
    Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History's website, “Foundational Concepts: Evolution” page
    http://www.nmnh.si.edu/paleo/geotime/main/foundation_life3.html
  • “But they are trying to figure out how evolution happens, and that's not an easy job.”
    University of California Museum of Paleontology and the National Center for Science Education
    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_50
  • “The ability to generate novelty is one of the main mysteries in evolutionary theory.”
    “How Evolution Learns From Past Environments To Adapt To Present Environments”
    , ScienceDaily, November 10, 2008.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081107071822.htm
  • “Much of the recent experimental work on natural selection has focused on three goals: determining how common it is, identifying the precise genetic changes that give rise to the adaptations produced by natural selection, and assessing just how big a role natural selection plays in a key problem of evolutionary biology—the origin of new species.”
    Scientific American Magazine, “The Evolution of Evolution: Testing Natural Selection with Genetics”, December 18, 2008.
    http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=testing-natural-selection&print=true

 
 

“A mathematical analysis of the experiments showed that the proteins themselves acted to correct any imbalance imposed on them through artificial mutations and restored the chain to working order … The authors sought to identify the underlying cause for this self-correcting behavior in the observed protein chains. Standard evolutionary theory offered no clue.”

Princeton University, “Evolution's new wrinkle: Proteins with cruise control provide new perspective,” November 10th, 2008, Physorg.com
http://www.physorg.com/news145549897.html

 
 

Join Our Email List
Email:  

 

 
 

“The apparently random self-assembly of molecular threads into the proteins that make the body work
is far less frantic than previously thought, Michigan State University scientists say. That discovery could be a
key to help unlock the nature of some diseases.
How proteins spontaneously "fold"
from wiggling chains of amino acids into a wide variety of functional - or malfunctioning - three-dimensional molecules
is one of the biggest mysteries in biochemistry.”

Michigan State University, “Scientists post lower speed limit for cell-signaling protein assembly”, July 29, 2010, Physorg
http://www.physorg.com/
news199639666.html

“But they are trying to figure out how evolution happens, and that's not an easy job.”

University of California Museum of Paleontology and the National Center for Science Education
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_50

 

 
 

 

 

“Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men,
according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.”
Colossians 2:8

© 2010, Who Is Your Creator, All Rights Reserved

website statistics