Did Evolution Predict Specialized Complexity?

Jerry Coyne, a dedicated defender of naturalism, and a skeptic of creationism and intelligent design declares in his book; “Why Evolution Is True”…

“The deepest (and oldest) layers of rock would contain the fossils of more primitive species, and some fossils should become more complex as the layers of rock become younger.”

The strongest evidence Jerry Coyne puts out there are fossils which in turn is supposed evidence that evolution indeed did predict specialized complexity that emerged from more primitive forms of life. Darwin himself argued that evolution of life came from a gradual sequence of simpler designs. It’s quite possible that Jerry also believes in evolution remaining the same as it wouldn’t skip a beat if we found an animal unchanged (which has been found) for supposedly millions of years.

Update: November 17, 2009…

Researchers try to study various speed levels in the story…

“A major conclusion of the work is that for some organisms, possibly including humans, continued evolution will not translate into ever-increasing fitness, Moreover, a population may accrue mutations at a constant rate — a pattern long considered the hallmark of ‘neutral’ or non-Darwinian evolution — even when the mutations experience Darwinian selection.”  Remarkably, “In some of these [fitness] landscapes, the fitness eventually levels out and the organism ceases to adapt, even though mutations may continue to accrue.”

It just another component which adds on to the growing complexity concerning explanations of evolution because of failed predictions and observations not successful ones.

Keep in mind, evolution makes no prediction at all on specialized complexity emerging. When one digs deeper into the details (beyond the fossils) here is what evolutionists are finding as they search to prove their hypothesis…

“There is no doubt that the common ancestor possessed DNA, RNA and proteins, a universal genetic code, ribosomes (the protein-building factories), ATP and a proton-powered enzyme for making ATP. The detailed mechanisms for reading off DNA and converting genes into proteins were also in place. In short, then, the last common ancestor of all life looks pretty much like a modern cell.”

Evidence of more complexity than simplicity is showing up in the research which verifies the Bible rather than verifying the simple to complex story from evolutionary scientists.

Here is another admission, this coming from last year…

“It is commonly believed that complex organisms arose from simple ones. Yet analyses of genomes and of their transcribed genes in various organisms reveal that, as far as protein-coding genes are concerned, the repertoire of a sea anemone—a rather simple, evolutionarily basal animal—is almost as complex as that of a human.”

Where is the evidence for simplicity from primitive life forms? It’s certainly not found in the genomes, is it? It’s a failed major expectation for those who believe in the story of evolution.  One can also question the fossil record as the way evolutionists see it because the data collected has to fit into a particular framework rather than allowing the evidence to speak for itself. If evolution was in fact a true hypothesis, the evidence would be showing up elsewhere as well.

Classical Science Fades With Major Media Outlets

There is a lot of competition out there, the internet has transformed news with more variety than ever before! This is one of the reasons why major media outlets that report on science have been abandoning the classic science approach for reporting.  Instead, they have settled for more bold conclusions which go way beyond the evidence especially when it pertains to evolution.

Here are a couple examples…

Science daily reports…“We have demonstrated for the first time that we can make uracil, a component of RNA, non-biologically in a laboratory under conditions found in space,” said Michel Nuevo, research scientist at NASA’s Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif. “We are showing that these laboratory processes, which simulate occurrences in outer space, can make a fundamental building block used by living organisms on Earth.”

Under specialized conditions, they create one of the pyrimidines in RNA. But in the real world, they didn’t explain how “whimpy” [sic] molecules would have survived re-entry or concentrated in significant amounts to do any good. This stuff mentioned in science daily isn’t new, Jonathan Sarfati discussed the origin of life, the same speculation in which they are trying to use today.

Responding to this evolutionary storyline which goes like this…

“Experiments conducted under conditions intended to resemble those present on primitive Earth have resulted in the production of some of the chemical components of proteins, DNA, and RNA. Some of these molecules also have been detected in meteorites from outer space and in interstellar space by astronomers using radiotelescopes. Scientists have concluded that the “building blocks of life” could have been available early in Earth’s history.”

Jonathan Sarfati writes…

Even if we granted that the ‘building blocks’ were available, it does not follow that they could actually build anything. For example, under plausible prebiotic conditions, the tendency is for biological macromolecules to break apart into the ‘building blocks’, not the other way round.  Also, the ‘building blocks’ are likely to react in the wrong ways with other ‘building blocks’, for example, sugars and other carbonyl (>C=O) compounds react destructively with amino acids and other amino (–NH2) compounds, to form imines (>C=N), a common cause of browning in foods.

Furthermore, some of the building blocks are very unstable. A good example is ribose, which is obviously essential for RNA, and hence for the RNA-world hypothesis of the origin of life.10 A team including the famous evolutionary origin-of-life pioneer Stanley Miller, in PNAS, found that the half life (t½) of ribose is only 44 years at pH 7.0 (neutral) and 0°C. It’s even worse at high temperatures—73 minutes at pH 7.0 and 100°C.11 This is a major hurdle for hydrothermal theories of the origin of life. Miller, in another PNAS paper, has also pointed out that the RNA bases are destroyed very quickly in water at 100°C—adenine and guanine have half lives of about a year, uracil about 12 years, and cytosine only 19 days.

Most researchers avoid such hurdles with the following methodology: find a trace of compound X in a spark discharge experiment, claim ‘see, X can be produced under realistic primitive-earth conditions’. Then they obtain pure, homochiral, concentrated X from an industrial synthetic chemicals company, react it to form traces of the more complex compound Y. Typically, the process is repeated to form traces of Z from purified Y, and so on. In short, the evolutionists’ simulations have an unacceptable level of intelligent interference.

On another subject, ‘missing links’ is always a great example how the media abandons classic science for hype. The BBC tries to captivate their readers with this…

“Researchers have discovered a fossil skeleton that appears to link the earliest dinosaurs with the large plant-eating sauropods.”

Could this be a gap closer? Could it piece back together the many broken pieces in this hypothesis? According to evolutionary dating flawed method, it is believed to have lived during early Jurassic. However, they start using an oxymoron,  by calling it an extinct “living fossil” because the transition is missing so they believe it could have happened much earlier for which there is no evidence! In other words, this animal appeared too late in the record therefore not an actual ancestor, then speculate there must have been a transition somewhere in history that happened.  So the BBC was a bit misleading, it’s not a gap closer! Not even close!

Trying to captivate it’s readers while giving an illusion in order to try and stir up support for naturalism being able to design life from the bottom up. Yes, classical science is fading with major media outlets!

Darwinian Evolution Getting Into Religion?

Let’s see, they keep telling us that science is science, and religion is religion, Stephen Jay Gould stated that science would stay out of religion if religion stayed out of science? Does this mean science by their definition is now unto religion?

Elizabeth Culotta wrote an article in science about the origin of religion using the evolutionary framework.

“How and when did religion arise? In the 11th essay in Science’s series in honor of the Year of Darwin, Elizabeth Culotta explores the human propensity to believe in unseen deities. No consensus yet exists among scientists, but potential answers are emerging from both the archaeological record and studies of the mind itself. Some researchers, exploring religion’s effects in society, suggest that it may boost fitness by promoting cooperative behavior.”

“And in the past 15 years, a growing number of researchers have followed Darwin’s lead and explored the hypothesis that religion springs naturally from the normal workings of the human mind. This new field, the cognitive science of religion, draws on psychology, anthropology, and neuroscience to understand the mental building blocks of religious thought.”

Now they have sociologists who are studying the propensity of humans to explain things when they happen. Also, psychologists investigating “theory of mind” explanations that compare mental states with others and evolutionary anthropologists consider the social aspects of sharing beliefs in gods to develop social cohesion. Elizabeth admits there are huge gaps when it comes to this part of evolution concerning the origin of religion.

Don’t fall for this story line, it’s explanation of nature is highly flawed let alone trying to explain where the belief in God comes from. This study has no evidence whatsoever that religion or Christianity comes from evolution, it’s only in their imagination which is confined to a certain framework evoked on the population known to be “evolution.”

Carl Zimmer vs Michael Behe On Thornton’s Work

Like many of these types of debates about evolution with few exceptions, proponents on one side or the other conduct themselves within the confines on where they feel most comfortable  in order to avoid a face to face meeting, this particular one is without exception.

Carl Zimmer, a highly regarded so-called science writer who promotes evolution while trying to attack intelligent design. He recently posted this to Michael Behe about the work Thornton had conducted, it reads as follows…

“Thornton’s new work turned up last week on a web site run by the Discovery Institute, a clearinghouse for all things intelligent design (a k a the progeny of creationism). Michael Behe, a fellow at the Institute, wrote three posts (here, here, and here) about the new research, which he pronounced “great.” Why the change of heart? Because Behe thinks that the new research shows that evolution cannot produce anything more than tiny changes. And if evolution can’t do it, intelligent design can. (Don’t ask how.)”

Carl Zimmer takes a jab at Michael Behe, falsely accusing him of being a creationist like it’s some sort of dirty word and how dare he (Behe) conclude that intelligence is the source of organized information which produces and maintains life. Zimmer also wrongly believes science and Christianity are at odds with one another which they are not.  Behe responds…

“I must say, it never ceases to amaze me how otherwise-very-smart folks like Zimmer and Thornton fail to grasp pretty simple points when it comes to problems for Darwinian mechanisms. Let me start slowly with a petty complaint in Carl Zimmer’s intro to the post. Zimmer is annoyed that I think Thornton’s latest work is “great”, yet I thought his previous work published a few years ago was “piddling”. “Why the change of heart?”, wonders Zimmer.”

What Michael Behe fails to grasp, they really do get the simple points that he likes to write about, but because he disagrees with evolution it changes full range of dynamics on how they treat him. Who would really argue over a generalization about disagreeing with one study and then later on agree with another? Behe further explains by comparing it to a crane and it’s massive promise of what it could do, Behe calls this “piddling” but later on a more detailed study comes out that demonstrated a realistic evaluation on what the crane could actually do. Thus, Behe praises the work!

I believe Zimmer understands this position, that is not to say he agrees with it, but like I pointed out earlier, it’s the conclusions of science that dictates the dynamics of how he treats him! It’s a sad commentary for those who are so well educated but act so immature.