Most Commonly Held Evolutionary Principle Is Weak

Random is random or not? One of the most universal held principles in evolution or in this case in particular; molecular evolution, is the claim that naturalism evolves more important DNA sequences faster over time than less important DNA sequences.

Recently, this principle has been tested, and it would found to be pretty weak…In a peer review publication…

“We (meaning scientists) test this hypothesis in yeast using gene importance values experimentally determined in 418 lab conditions or computationally predicted for 10,000 nutritional conditions.

In no single condition or combination of conditions did we find a much stronger negative correlation, which is explainable by our subsequent finding that always-essential (enzyme) genes do not evolve significantly more slowly than sometimes-essential or always-nonessential ones. Furthermore, we verified that functional density, approximated by the fraction of amino acid sites within protein domains, is uncorrelated with gene importance.

Thus, neither the lab-nature mismatch nor a potentially biased among-gene distribution of functional density explains the observed weakness of the correlation between gene importance and evolutionary rate. We conclude that the weakness is factual, rather than artifactual. –PLOS

The question evolutionary theory could never answer as it’s faith based driven is why naturalism would select more important genes to evolve faster than less important ones? That sounds more purposeful than random.

The results from the experiment was a shock to scientists. It’s suppose to be one of their strongest principles for evolution in which they believe in. Yet, some of doesn’t even have a priority of gene importance at all according to the results.

Liberal professors argue, theories evolve over time as man’s understanding progresses. This is true, but in this case like others, you can tell the hypothesis is not going to evolve over time as scientists continue to believe in the basic principle, but rather it’s the explanation on why the data is not matching up with the principle that will be evolving.

Another example outside living cells is the Nebular hypothesis. Many things which have been observe do not match up with this hypothesis. Venus is one of them.

The Nebular hypothesis says the nebula spiralled inwards which would cause all the planets to rotate the same way. Venus rotates the opposite way. Some have tried to explain away by suggesting a huge it had a bulge on which gravitational tidal forces that affected it’s rotations, but there is no such “bulge” as Venus is even rounder than Earth.

Also the surface of Venus is young. Even the likes of nature magazine admits to the surprise…

“Planetary spacecraft have provided an extraordinary wealth of discoveries: the oddly young surface of Venus, the ancient landscapes of Mars, the volcanoes of Io, the geysers of Triton, the lakes of Titan, the ocean of Europa.”

As knowledge grows evolutionary theory gets weaker (not the beliefs of it). What we were seeing is not an hypothesis evolving with new discoveries, but rather the explanations are evolving  in order to fit the framework of the Nebular hypothesis (which hasn’t changed) because observational data is not matching up with the hypothesis.

The only time this practice ceases to happen on a evolutionary hypothesis is when the majority of the scientists start believing in something else with evolution in mind. Then the data has to match the new hypothesis.

Back in the old days, when it was believed by scientists that planets orbited the sun in a full circle rather than in elliptical orbit was eventually changed but this doesn’t happen much at all with basic principles in modern science today. Even with a history of it in science.

Commonly held evolutionary principles as a whole are weak with an every quest to explain away conflicting observational data, it’s not even in the same class as the theory of gravity.


11 thoughts on “Most Commonly Held Evolutionary Principle Is Weak

  1. Great ! Something new !

    But why do you focus on randomness ? This is not a major part of evolutionary theory, of course, which has natural selection as its main driving process, and that is not a random process at all.

    Another worry: why do you call this theory a ‘faith’ ? It is a theory.
    Scientists do not believe in theories, they test them and abandon them if proven wrong. So far evolution is doing pretty well, though.

  2. Ok, let’s see in talking origins it states…

    “Uranus is rotating more or less perpendicular to the plane of the ecliptic. This may be the result of an off-center collision between two protoplanets during formation.”


    There is no observational data to confirm such an explanation. It’s just an explanation which is not testable neither observable, nothing to back it up. It’s story telling. In fact, this explanation in similar form has been used for other planets and earth’s moon as well. Same results no observational data to confirm such an explanation.

    You have to put much faith in that site in order to believe it…

  3. There is lots of theory, and simulations of such encounters, to back this one up, mostly involving just gravity. An off-center collision can do it, but tides can do quite a bit as well, and sometimes are the main cause (eg. for Venus). does not require any faith at all. Thinking is all that is required. And talking about it to others helps (can be fun too !).

    But just calling it story telling is not very nice behaviour, I think.

    Coming back to Venus, I’ll just quote said website:
    “Venus is rotating retrograde but extremely slowly, with its axis almost exactly perpendicular to the plane of its orbit. The rotation of this planet may well have started out prograde, but solar and planetary tides acting on its dense atmosphere have been shown to be a likely cause of the present state of affairs. It is probably not a coincidence that at every inferior conjunction, Venus turns the same side toward Earth, as Earth is the planet that contributes most to tidal forces on Venus. ”

    So no off-centre encounter for Venus, probably, but just tidal forces. Although personally I think the tidal forces are not just acting on the atmosphere, but act on the planet itself as well. But I am not a planetary scientist.

    I hope you are aware of the power of tidal forces ? You have been to the beach ?

  4. Simulations are assumptions by humans, it’s not reality. You need faith, saying in short, well this situation could have happened or that other situation could have happened, yet not knowing what really happened for sure is speculation, very faith based.

    Let me tell you a little bit about understanding science which is still a work in progress for secular scientists. During the 1960s Howard Temin proposed that RNA reproduces itself by connecting back to the DNA. Similar to that of the HIV virus. It’s called; reverse transcription. He was laughed at by the scientific community for years and years. The scientific community in it’s own wisdom declared that reverse transcription by RNA was impossible. No way, no how, they believed. We are talking about a testable theory here unlike computers trying to replicate the past. Mad Cow disease comes along, and Temin becomes an icon. RNA replicating itself by connecting to DNA was no longer laughed at. He wins the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997.

    Temin lived in a time where science was applying logic to neutral data. For example, science discovered the nuclear bomb that killed a lot of people. However from that same discovery other things were built in the medical field that saved lives like X-ray machines, and so on.

    However, social construction of science was introduced by a man named Jerome Ravetz which then became popular in the 1970s through 1990s. Intrinsically valuational a term coined by this understanding of science claiming data is not neutral but has good purposes and bad purposes. The quest for secular scientists to define knowledge or understanding data, wages on.

    This is because scientists have a limited understanding of nature, of experience, of non-experience, and they have been wrong. Your foundation in which you believe on, is very shaky, still a work in progress that leads to more gaps in the speculation area of the past.

    Now back to the moon which is why tidal forces happen on earth. Without the moon (which by evolutionary theory should not be active) the earth cannot survive, just like the heat from the sun which travels through 8 minutes in 270 below zero temp in space which then cools the heat by the time it hits the Earth but still plenty of heat available so we can survive, are not accidents by nature. The Universe is very finely tuned, which leaves no room for many random accidents if those accidents were even possible to begin with.

  5. You forgot to put my post in, before answering, so your answer to that post is standing on its own now.

    Of course simulations are based on assumption by humans – all of science is. Science is not reality itself, it is describing reality. The rest of your text I do not understand at all – you’ve lost me completely there. As for tides, tidal forces act both ways, and the sun produces tides on the earth as well.

  6. I disagree, all of science is not based on assumptions. The very word “assumption” means; something is taken for granted or accepted as true without proof.” So all of science could not be based on “assumptions. If reality was just a mere assumption, it wouldn’t be reality.

    Venus shows no evidence for a massive off-center collision as you assume it might. Venus has a very circular orbit. A collision of that level would have affected it’s orbit. None observed. It’s axial tilt is only 2 degrees, this would have also been affected by such a huge collision. The axial tilt shows no indication of such an impact.

    And on a side note, Venus according to evolutionary theory, should have a magnetic field, but it has none. According to evolutionary theory, Earth and Venus should be very similar as they are claimed to have been made from the same materials, but they are not…Also, it’s surface is young looking as it has very sharp rocks on it’s surface. Rocks over time in 900 degrees heat gets saggy, and soft but that wasn’t observed by two spacecrafts which landed on Venus. So it’s not showing the erosion it should if it was billions of years old.

    The assumptions you hold too are not valid explanations for what is being observed.

  7. You haven’t really read what I wrote: the off-centre collision idea, if true anyway, was proposed for Uranus, not for Venus. It doesn’t work for Venus, and I’ve never said it would. I’ve said its tidal forces! I’ve been trying to get the idea of tidal forces across in many posts now …
    More Venus stuff, so I won’t have to type so much:

    There are, of course, no “evolutionary theories” for planets, just astrophysical ones.

    As for the more philosophical question: ‘science’ and ‘reality’ are not the same thing. Science tries to describe reality, and explain ‘it’. Scientists first tries to lay out the facts, which in itself is quite hard, as we humans are not particularly good observers (we need lots of tools), and not that clever either. But once we think we know the facts (the ‘reality’), scientists comes up with assumptions, models, hypothesis, theories, etc., to try and expain the facts. But science can never completely proof such explanations (one can only proof things in mathematics). Perhaps frustrating, but that’s the way it is.

    I think you want to stick to describing the facts only, and not explain things. But if that is true, you should certainly try to do a better job, and not say things like ‘young looking’. Looks can be deceiving.

    Some talk on what science is:
    This also states that “Not everyone agrees about how science works exactly.”
    Which is fine, of course.

  8. Those three links have nothing to do with the observations in my previous post like for example, the surface shows “awesome volcanism.” That was not one of my points. They haven’t come up with what you call an “assumption” for why the rocks would be sharp (hard), rather than saggy and soft as the result of being under heat (900 degrees) for such a long time. Personally, I wish they could do more with Venus as it’s an interesting planet.

    As far as how science works…

    Science represents a structured discipline of systematic examination for the purpose of obtaining knowledge. Most if not all agree with that statement. There is no dispute there. What the dispute is, is how people arrive at their conclusions. Many different opinions, and I mentioned two of them in a previous post where you got lost…

  9. The first link is on why Venus is counterrotating (your original post !!) and its relation to the Nebular hypothesis, the second on the surface and atmosphere of Venus, and the third on its magnetic field. What else do you want ? These answer all your points *if* you care to actually read the text. The stuff on volcanoes is extra: these links contain more material than needed, sure. But simply ignoring all the stuff in there that *does* answer your questions, and then point out one thing that does not (volcanoes), is mind-boggling.

    You still refuse to even think about tidal forces. And you don’t like answering my first two questions in my first reply either.

    Why am I going to all this trouble ?

  10. WOW, You didn’t even get the basic premise right for either the established evolutionary theory or the findings of the PLOS paper. The “established” hypothesis for why “important” homologous genes are similar between species is because they are “evolving” slower than “unimportant” genes. This is the first but not the last interpretation you completely f’d up. This concept only makes sense if you believe that we all evolved from a common ancestor and therefore are distantly related maintaing similarities at the nucleotide level (being a bible thumper you may find this one hard to swallow too). The paper challenges the established belief that the reason some genes are so well conserved between species (like certain proteins involved in DNA replication and sugar metabolism) is because they are so critical for life that the organism will not tolerate change (what you should read here is that if a mutation arose in these genes the organism would die and therefore the mutation would not increase in abundance). Which brings us to the second interpretation you butchered…the findings of the paper. The paper concluded that “important” and “unimportant” genes do not differ in the rate of evolutionary change. In other words, important genes do not evolve more slower or faster…but the same as all other coding sequences. The reason that scientists believe that “important” genes changed slower than “unimportant” genes is because of the conservation of sequence between homologs in distantly related species. This is why the authors of the PLOS paper also conclude that when you compare sequence homology among species with vastly different evolutionary rates that data actually does imply that “important” genes evolve slower than “unimportant” ones. This manuscript does nothing but embolden evolutionary theory, in that our pretictions about how gene importance and evolutionary rates will be more accurate in future studies. Your misinterpretation of this paper’s findings and pretty much science theory as a whole is interesting. Judging from your english usage your either in high school or a non-native speaker. If your a high schooler please go to college and for damn sake pay attention in class. If your not from the US, apply to US schools and get a better education! I am all for dissent, if your education matched your enthusiasm I would welcome your theories. After all Darwin was ridiculed till after his death and Mendel’s work was not discovered till well after his death. Unfortunately the church played a part in the squelching of that knowledge too and your just keeping the “faith”.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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