Austin L. Hughes, an evolutionary biologist at the University of South Carolina writes to the scientific community a bombshell about the evidence gathered for positive section. And it wasn’t pretty for evolutionists…
“Thousands of papers are published every year claiming evidence of adaptive evolution on the basis of computational analyses alone, with no evidence whatsoever regarding the phenotypic effects of allegedly adaptive mutations.”
I have been highly critical and skeptical of computational analyses and simulations of real life behavior…It’s not observational true science in my opinion, but just plain story telling based on many assumptions of unknowns. And it’s not only in biology either, it’s also in other fields of secular science as well. For example, outer space activity is simulated with computers and in one of the more recent attempts is the origin of the very first stars.
Hughes is actually correct in his assessment, evolution has no creditable evidence of “adaptive mutations” that changes one species into another…The vast majority of mutations are harmful to the cell which is why medical research has been focused on fighting the overwriting (mutations).
Hughes continues on with his bombshell of the current evidence for evolution (positive selection) as a major hindrance to progresswhich has been nothing more thanconfusion regarding the role of positive (Darwinian) selection, i.e., natural selection favoring adaptive mutations.”Thousands of papers Hughes writes are “poorly conceived statistical methods that fail to show how the genetic changes relate to adaptive benefits to the organism…” None of which Hughes writes are even on target, in fact he writes they are all 100 percent off target.
“Contrary to a widespread impression, natural selection does not leave any unambiguous “signature” on the genome, certainly not one that is still detectable after tens or hundreds of millions of years. To biologists schooled in Neo-Darwinian thought processes, it is virtually axiomatic that any adaptive change must have been fixed as a result of natural selection. But it is important to remember that reality can be more complicated than simplistic textbook scenarios.”
The origin of adaptive phenotypes (the bombshell) written by Austin L. Hughes an evolutionary biologist and it’s damaging case against evolution cannot be overstated. This is not to say Hughes has now become a true creationist, by no means but hopefully he will someday, Lord willing.
Updated: 04-05-2009…It also interesting to note, some believe they are using positive selection (even though it’s not physically detectable on the genome) to identify the pathogenic mechanisms of HIV in humans which is one example, that has swayed evolutionary proponent Jerry Coyne who previously stated that evolutionary biology has little to do with medicine.
Hughes then concludes…
“In recent years the literature of evolutionary biology has been glutted with extravagant claims of positive selection on the basis of computational analyses alone, including both codon-based methods and other questionable methods such as the McDonald-Kreitman test. This vast outpouring of pseudo-Darwinian hype has been genuinely harmful to the credibility of evolutionary biology as a science.”
“It is to be hoped that the work of Yokoyama et al. will help put an end to these distressing tendencies. By incorporating experimental evidence regarding the phenotypic effects of reconstructed evolutionary changes, this study sets a new standard for studies of adaptive evolution at the molecular level.”
“In addition, by providing evidence that non-Darwinian and Darwinian processes are likely to be involved in the evolution of adaptive phenotypes, it points the way toward a new, more realistic appreciation of the evolutionary process.”
There is no physical evidence for positive selection. For further reading on the subject for you techical geeks and even for the average person…AIG has a paper on bacterial mutations which explains in more detail about positive selection, and natural selection in the smallest of animals.