Evolutionary theory tends to explain one theory on top of another theory and in some cases the theory is quite the opposite of the original. For example, gradual accumulation of small variations was thrown right out the window when attempts were being made to explain the abrupt appearance of the flowering plants (angiosperms) in the fossil record.
Darwin considered this observation in the fossil record a serious “abominable mystery” which he had no answer for. But fast forward to the present time, and now it’s being explained in a particular way, which throws out the original theory and adding to it with an opposite theory…
In science daily, “Rapid Burst of Flowering Plants” described evolution of the flowers and plants as an “explosion” with a “burst of diversification” Gradualism which is very critical in evolution was nowhere to be seen, perhaps it must have gotten blown up as well…DNA analysis from living flowering plants studied by evolutionary scientists says ancestors of most modern trees diversified extremely rapidly.
Next example of story telling in evolution is a new law called; “survival of the weakess.” And who thought evolution was getting simplier to understand? Three species were tested as the story unfolds below…
“LMU researchers have now simulated the progression of a cyclic competition of three species. It means that each participant is superior to one other species, but will be beaten by a third interaction partner. “In this kind of cyclical concurrence, the weakest species proves the winner almost without exception,” reports Professor Erwin Frey, who headed the study.”
How does two opposite theories in evolution explain anything at all? It doesn’t make any logical sense perhaps this is why they didn’t explore the philosophical question.
A scientific paper written by Forterre and Gadelle discusses topoisomerases which are DNA-processing molecular machines and of course they were trying to explain how these highly complex and designed machines evolved with very little homology to hang a phylogeny.
They write, “Topoisomerases are essential enzymes that solve topological problems arising from the double-helical structure of DNA, as a consequence, one should have naively expected to find homologous topoisomerases in all cellular organisms, dating back to their last common ancestor. However, as observed for other enzymes working with DNA, this is not the case.”
What a major bombshell. The observational data is falsifying common ancestry. However, the power of story telling becomes a key component to save face what has been observed as conflicting with evolutionary theory.
In this example, something very rare happened, the paper mentioned “intelligent design” but it wasn’t much nor a conclusion. Generally scientific papers which are published avoid mentioning ID at all costs. Here is what they said, “An intelligent designer would have probably invented only one ubiquitous Topo I and one ubiquitous Topo II to facilitate the task of future biochemists.”
Wow, I had to read that again, no doubt when other militant evolutionists see this, those two are going to get a lot of angry letters, and scorn to even consider such a proposal. Although, it wasn’t their conclusion. Of course they are not creationists, but really believed it had “evolved” despite the evidence, they begin to do some major story telling…
“Alternatively, they could have evolved from protein modules that were already working with DNA, if the first steps in the evolution of DNA genomes occurred in the absence of any topoisomerase activity, i.e. before the emergence of long double-stranded DNA genomes.”
“Two arguments favour the latter hypothesis: first, whereas RNA polymerases and RNA-binding proteins are obvious candidates to be direct ancestors of DNA polymerases and single-stranded DNA-binding proteins, ‘RNA topoisomerases’ that could be direct ancestor of DNA topoisomerases are unknown.”
“Secondly, it is likely that double-stranded DNA genomes with complex DNA-replication mechanisms (i.e. concurrent symmetric DNA replication) were preceded by single-stranded or even short double-stranded DNA genomes replicated by simpler mechanisms, such as asymmetric DNA replication, and/or rolling circle (RC) replication (75) (Figure 3).”
“These simple systems probably did not require topoisomerases, as it is still the case for their modern counterparts (the RC replication of some replicons require supercoiled DNA, hence gyrase activity, but only for the recognition step of the initiator protein). If this scenario is correct, topoisomerases probably originated when more complex DNA genomes (long linear or circular DNA molecules) were selected in the course of evolution, together with more elaborate replication machineries.”
One thing you find when evolutionists are story telling, they generally want to come across as being sure of all what they just said. This hypothesis is no exception. Evolution likes to have it both ways, like survival of the strong and weak, from slow evolutionary changes to explosions of change, from claiming similarities disprove intelligent design to now differences disprove intelligent design as well, because they believe in their bias complex theory is suppose to be assumed to be true. Very bad science indeed!