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.