What Happens When “Divergent Evolution” Gets Falsified?

Classification is very important in evolution for explaining new discoveries which do not match up with its explanation as we shall see in a moment. Darwin’s original tree diagram described “divergent evolution,” which starts with speciation first then followed by variations that make the two branches more and more dissimilar over time. “Homologous” traits, are found on animals on the same branch according to Darwinian evolution because it comes from the same common ancestor.

But what happens when two animals that are discovered on different branches which have “homologous” traits that comes from a different common ancestor? What could be the cause of this falsification of divergent evolution? Many evolutionists would respond, those similar traits are coming from “convergent evolution.”  

So here we see a classification scheme within the framework of evolution using circular reasoning.  If the traits are homologous, that is evidence for evolution,  if they are not similar, that is also considered evidence for evolution. There have been some recent discoveries being published that use this classification scheme of  “convergent evolution.”

Natures News claims that muscles have two origins…

“Jellyfish move using a set of muscles that look remarkably similar to striated muscles in vertebrates. However, new data show that the two muscle types contain different molecules, implying that they evolved independently.”

Increasing complexity to the situation is the fact that comb jellies, on a different branch, also have striated muscles, while most other invertebrates do not! Then the claims escalate to new heights…

“These results suggest that, despite their remarkable physical resemblance, the striated muscles of jellyfish and humans are constructed using a vastly different set of genes. Steinmetz and colleagues have revealed an extraordinary instance of convergent evolution — the evolution of highly similar traits in distantly related organisms.

It gets better, after having a problem trying to get subgenera on the same branch  PLoS ONE discovered “convergent evolution” in twelve subgenera of Appalachian crayfish because of their similarities. Confounding the work of taxonomists who try to figure out what is related to what and what is not related, the paper makes an astonishing  claim that “convergent evolution” is all over the place!

When you discover similarities between, invertebrate animals, plants and vertebrate animals, the evolutionist has a real conundrum going on.  Because all three unrelated groups show similar signaling pathways in their innate immune systems!

In Nature Immunology (which should be a free publication open to all since the taxpayers pay for this research)…

“It is commonly reported that these similarities in innate immunity represent a process of divergent evolution from an ancient unicellular eukaryote that pre-dated the divergence of the plant and animal kingdoms. However, at present, data suggest that the seemingly analogous regulatory modules used in plant and animal innate immunity are a consequence of convergent evolution and reflect inherent constraints on how an innate immune system can be constructed.”

Look at how Ausubel invented an explanatory device to come up with an explanation on why traits on vastly unrelated organisms end up being similar, “nature imposes constraints on how systems can be constructed.”  So if an elephant wants to walk, according to Ausubel, nature will have it grow some legs.  What is wrong with that picture?  A constraint can no more evolve a trait than a keyboard having the ability to create your computer.  An “engineering specification” can no more cause a system to emerge than water creating a boat.

Basically, evolutionists are now trying to force a mindless process with no foresight,   that would cause organisms into the engineering department! The reason why organisms have such an incredible ability to adapt is because it’s “designed”  into the organism by a Creator (namely God) who has advanced knowledge about engineering.  Yet we see evolutionists point to new discoveries where their faith requires them to believe that very complex traits evolved two, three, or more than a dozen times independently!  “Convergent evolution” is a classification scheme used only when “Divergent Evolution” gets falsified! Reclassifying things doesn’t verify a theory, nor explain how nature functions!

In a book, “The Biotic Message” by Walter ReMine, talkes about the universal genetic code in all living things (which is an observable fact), where this same code is used to create complex organisms in hierarchies with similarities across hierarchies and within hierarchies! That my friend is evidence for a Creator!

About these ads

4 thoughts on “What Happens When “Divergent Evolution” Gets Falsified?

  1. For any given job in nature there are a limited number of possible ways to achieve it. Therefore, when nature implements its method at getting a job done–evolution–we should expect to see similarities.
    We shouldn’t, for example, expect to see an immune system that works by setting illnesses on fire or modes of transport that are irreducibly complex (like a lion with wheels instead of legs).
    Evolution is not free to make anything, it makes things that work by gradual steps. That is a finite set of options. When niches and jobs are similar convergence is what you should expect. Why would you expect each species to have its own novel way of doing the same job?

    If you really want to have a go at convergent evolution, by the way, you might enjoy looking at the nature of some marsupials in Australia. They look just like our mammals (rodents, mostly).

  2. Darwin’s original tree diagram described ”divergent evolution,” which starts with speciation first then followed by variations that make the two branches more and more dissimilar over time.

    No. Michael. You have it exactly backward.

    No wonder creationists can’t argue against evolution cogently. They have no idea how it works.

  3. In a book, “The Biotic Message” by Walter ReMine, talkes about the universal genetic code in all living things (which is an observable fact), where this same code is used to create complex organisms in hierarchies with similarities across hierarchies and within hierarchies! That my friend is evidence for a Creator!

    No, Michael. Similarities within hierarchies are evidence for evolution.

    Using a common code is also evidence for evolution. Designed artifacts use different codes for different purposes. Your modem uses a multi-symbol ODFM code to transmit data to and from the internet. Your home network uses a WPA code.. Your hard drive uses an ECC code for storing data. Your Bluetooth devices use CDMA codes. All of those codes differ greatly from each other, because each is DESIGNED to optimize its specific task. The use of a single code across a wide variety of tasks is evidence for evolution.

    ============

    Walter ReMine grew up in the city where I lived, although he was about 7 years older than my kids. Strange I never heard of this whiz kid—I knew many of the Mayo staff docs, and was in a choral group with a number of them.

  4. So if an elephant wants to walk, according to Ausubel, nature will have it grow some legs. What is wrong with that picture?

    What’s wrong with it’s dead wrong, and that’s because Michael can’t even make things up properly.

    Michael’s problem is, as is frequently the case, that he cannot, if his life depended on it, get rid of the teleological fallacy. This is the mistaken belief that everything aims toward a predetermined goal.

    Legless elephants did not “want” to walk. But, when they did grow legs, they found that these new appendages enabled them to perform an activity that they never could do before—and thereby to out-compete the legless hippopotamuses in finding and eating their favorite food, prehistoric legless creationists.

    This capability evolved slowly. See Neil Shubin’s Your Inner Fish to learn how a lobe-fin fish, Tiktaalik, grew a set of wrists by repeating the cycle of a hox gene, which allowed it to lumber about in an ungainly manner in shallow mud flats in order to reach food that other fish could not. What Tiktaalik did NOT do was to wish that it could walk and THEN grow the necessary structures.

    Once again, Michael is looking through the wrong end of his telescope.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s