Evolutionary Hypothesis Goes Into Reverse

Some scientists are exploring a part of their story which requires certain genetic instructions and changes to embryonic development. The question they are trying to explain about their story is, how did fish grow feet? They conceptualized it this way…

“A team of researchers identified two new genes that are important in fin development. They report in the journal Nature that the loss of these genes could have been an “important step” in the evolutionary transformation of fins into limbs.”

“Marie-Andree Akimenko, from the University of Ottawa in Canada, led the research. She and her colleagues began their study by looking at the development of zebrafish embryos. They discovered two genes that coded for proteins that were important in the structure of fins.”

Who gave this team of researchers a grant to come up with this? Marie should do her government and the people of Canada a great favor and give the money back! Subtracting genes from animals which are already complex and poof new information emerges in that vacated space which then affects the structure of the animal is total nonsense! Is this how evolution works?  Does anyone consider this a ‘theory’? Generally evolutionists proclaim theories are well-tested and a consensus emerges to validate it to a ‘theory’ status.

And lastly, she  continues with the nonsense by claiming “whether the fin genes were knocked out to help make the transition.” Knocked out, by what or who? Further work is needed to confirm this ‘theory’ they say. Well let me tell you something, building new skyscrapers doesn’t require bulldozers!

They are going to be knocking themselves out by removing genes from fish to see what emerges. The BBC is certain that this supposed clue was going to shed light on Darwinian evolution, then makes a promise to the public while being misleading, “A study has shed light on a key genetic step in the evolution of animals’ limbs from the fins of fish, scientists say.” Did it really “shed light on a key genetic step” in the evolutionary story?

Advertisements

15 thoughts on “Evolutionary Hypothesis Goes Into Reverse

  1. Michael: “Who gave this team of researchers a grant to come up with this? Marie should do her government and the people of Canada a great favor and give the money back! ”

    Tsssss … who are you to say this ? You have no idea what you are talking about, and still make silly remarks like this. Just because you happen to disagree on religious grounds does not mean this research is a waste of money ! I, for one, think it is very interesting.

    You cannot even answer a few simple questions !!

    Here they are again:

    (1) Blog readership numbers ?

    (2) Your qualifications to discuss any scientific subject, in response to the challenge to Olorin.

    (3) A substantive review of Signature in the Cell, promised for August 2009.

    (4) outstanding question from Upson Downes on mitochondrial Eve

  2. Michael,

    You really have no basis for mocking the research being done other than your pre-conceived notions. If you are going to claim that the research is a waste of money, then produce YOUR evidence that it is, and if you have none, then you really have no place to simply just dismiss their results.

    On, and by the way . . . .

    I still want you to refute me on what I show about the bacterial flagellum. . . .

    . . . the flagellum IS NOT EVEN IRREDUCIBLE. — G. Kuwajima was able to remove ONE-THIRD of the 497 amino acids from the flagellum, AND IT STILL WORKED PERFECTLY!!!!! . . . Also, we know that the L and the P-rings can be taken away from the flagellum, and it will STILL work. . . .

    Still waiting for a refutation . . . .

    Failure to refute can be taken as an indirect admission.

  3. In addition to the four long-suffering quesions for Michael, I have another head-banger.

    (5) Michael, why do you hate dark matter do much? It would seem that there is no reason that creationism should find dark matter offensive, and contrary to special creation.

    In fact, dark matter could even be seen as evidence for special creation. One of the biggest creationist argument is that you can’t create something out of nothing. Well, here is four times as much something that could not have been created from just as much nothing as before.

    So, how about it? Denying dark matter appears contrary to the cause of creationism. Why do you do it?

  4. Socrates Puppette submits the following entry for Stupid Remark of the Month:

    Well let me tell you something, building new skyscrapers doesn’t require bulldozers!

    Michael seems to think, in his usual benighted way, that skyscrapers are built entirely on top of the ground, wtih out anything—a bulldozer, for example—to prepare a foundation for it.

    Soc continues: “Good luck, Michael! You won’t get any building contracts from me.”

  5. Here’s another book for Michael’s “Book Referral” section.[0]

    Here Be Dragons How the Study of Animal and Plant Distributions Revolutionized Our Views of Life and the Earth, by Dennis McCarthy (Oxford University Press 2009). There is a review in Science 328:1637 (25 June 2010).

    Biogeography is the one subject that creationists have absolutely no explanation for. Why the Noachian flood managed to sweep onlyt marsupials to Australia, and no mammals at all, for example. How 10-ton dinosaurs could make a journey to another continent across thousands of miles of open ocean, yet mice could not manage to float to islands 50 miles offshore.

    Alfred Russel Wallace founded this area with his remark that “[e]very living species has come into existence with a pre-existing closely allied species.”[1] Biogeography provided much aof the evidence for the later theory of plate tectonics and continental drift.

    More recently, molecular systematics offers insight[2] into interactions between evolutionary and geological history.[3]

    ==========

    [0] We hereby take notice that Michael has not yet added Stephen Meyer’s Signature in the Cell to his list of creationist bathroom tissue. Oh well.

    [1] Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 16(2d series), 184 ((Sept 1855).

    [2] “sheds light,” in Michael’s terminology.

    [3] A recent Scientific American article traces the major influence of paleo life on the geologic makeup of the Earth’s minerals.

  6. Michael,

    I have noticed that when Creationists like challenge scientists to debates, Creationists claim that when the scientist declines, some of the Creationists (Harun Yahya, for example) declare that it is because the scientists have no real support. . .

    Well, what’s to stop Eelco and I from assuming the same of you when we challenged you and you do not take us at out challenges? – Should we assume there is a difference? And if so, then what’s the difference?

  7. This finding from Nature must have hit close to home. Michael has pulled out all the stops.

    Subtracting genes from animals which are already complex and poof new information emerges in that vacated space which then affects the structure of the animal is total nonsense! Is this how evolution works?

    You’re right, Michael. That is not how evolution works. As usual, your perceptual blinders force you to see evolution incorrectly.[1]

    Bones are an ancient development; ancestral fish had genes for making bones.[2] Then some fish developed genes (actinodin, or “and”) for producing a collagen-like structure. The hox genes that direct the body plans of all animals[3] directed the and genes to act at locations that resulted in fins.

    The and genes have another effect. They inhibit the expression of genes that direct bone growth. The Canadian experimenters found that “zebrafish with reduced and expression showed abnormal expression of genes that regulate the growth of limbs and digits”—that is, bones. Remember that there are two types of fish—one with collagen-like fins,, and the other, the “lobe-fin fishes” with bony fins. The latter are the one that developed into tetrapods. Tiktaalik was a lobe-fine fish.

    Michael snorts that limb genes must have magically appeared in a void left by loss of fin-producing and genes. What void? The bone-development genes were already there. Note that the researchers could grow limb-like structures in place of fins in their zebra fish I’d call that a startling demonstration. Michael, YOU SHOULD ACTUALLY READ THE ARTICLE before going off on one of your tirades.

    .

    The relevant principle that Michael cannot understand is that evolution is not like design. Design is unlimited, arbitrary. God can make a crocoduck if he chooses. But evolution must build upon what already exists. Sometimes this principle seems to turn itself inside out, and the new structure—the spiny fin—actually represses a previous capability. As one of the Canadian researchers put it,

    “We tend to think that new genes bring new functions, but this study shows that the presence of genes constrains or directs development in certain directions,” says Meyer. “Gene loss is actually a creative force in evolution.”

    As typical in scientific research, the investigators have further questions, and plans for answering them. Introducing the and genes into mice to study their repressive effects on a tetrapod. And looking for other factors that might have led to loss of the and genes.

    In stark contrast to creationist work, where every question has the same, uninformative answer, and no further investigation is ever needed. Or even allowed.

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

    [1] Michael conveniently omits th citation to the Nature news article, “How fins became limbs”, to delay checking his quotes for accuracy and context. For those with Nature access, the original article can be found at Zhang, J. et al. Nature 2010 doi:10.1038/nature09137.

    [2] Teleosts. Even earlier fish, such as sharks, had a precursor cartilaginous skeletal structure.

    [3] Except a few primitive species such as sponges.

  8. And lastly, she continues with the nonsense by claiming “whether the fin genes were knocked out to help make the transition.” [sic] Knocked out, by what or who?[sic]

    Knocked out by evolution. Duh.

    Like the human citric-acid cycle that our ape cousins still have, but humans do not, because one of the four genes mutated in the human lineage. That is, it was “knocked out.” It doesn’t work.

  9. Michael,

    Let me ask you this again. . .

    I notice that Creationists like to point to unwillingness of Scientists debating with them and then claim that it is because the evolution side is wrong, or at least has little evidence. . . (Examples, Harun Yahya’s challenge against Richard Dawkins, and Kent Hovind’s $250,000 challenge.)

    –Now, why shouldn’t Eelco and I assume something similar of you when you ignore and refuse to take us up on our challenges to you? — Why shouldn’t we interprete your silence on our challenges to you as a sign that you have no evidence to back yourself up?

  10. ut won’t work. How many times have i laid opt the evidence initially, without any response. For example, just above on July 2, 2010 at 4:26 pm | #7, describing in what way Michael misread the Nature news article that he cities.

    Michael is big on making claims, but never backs them up.

    Let’s face it. Michael depends upon his anonymous source for all the sciency-sounding stuff, and for access to the journals.[1] Michael himself doesn’t have a clue. The only time he answers is to go off on a generality about how science works, which is unfailingly hilarious.[2]

    Besides com0plete ignorance of the subject matter of science, Michael can’t seem to get his head around the concepts of science, how it works, and what scientists consider reasonable. That’ why some of the things Michael says sound so bizarre—like a blind man trying to discuss chiaroscuro.

    PS: Second new set of style sheets in a week. Easier to read than the last one.

    ==========

    [1] Don’t I wish I had access to PNAS! But even the on-line edition for individuals is $300/year.

    [2] In fact, he doesn’t even know very much about intelligent design, or even about biblical creationism.

  11. Pingback: Nicholas J. Matzke’s Analysis On Creationism « New Discoveries & Comments About Creationism

  12. There is not a shred of validity to the Darwinian model. That does not mean that evolution did not occur. The fundamental question has always been the same. How did it occur? This includes –

    How many times did life originate? No one has the foggiest.

    Once present, was evolution guided? If so, how?

    Is evolution still in progress? My position is no.

    This is no place for me to present my evolutionary science as much of it has already been published in refereed journals. I recommend visiting my website where you can find in detail my thesis that the atheist Darwinian notion of natural selection has no validity whatsoever and that the entire sequence was planned from beginning to end.

    jadavison.wordpress.com

  13. John,

    How many times did life originate? No one has the foggiest.

    This has nothing to do with evolution…This is Abiogenesis whish is completely separate.

    Once present, was evolution guided? If so, how?

    Natural Selection is the guide. This is basic.

    Is evolution still in progress? My position is no.

    Why not? What’s stopping it? Why should it stop? And what would cause new heritable traits to stop accuring in populations?

    I recommend visiting my website where you can find in detail my thesis that the atheist Darwinian notion of natural selection has no validity whatsoever and that the entire sequence was planned from beginning to end.

    Actually we see natural selection occuring, therefore it is valid. A variation occures, and it either gets selected out or favored.

  14. krissmith

    Evolution has stopped because it was planned. Just as ontogeny stops when the adult is produced, so phylogeny has stopped when that plan has been realized. That is my position which is elaborated in my publishd papers as well as my unpublished essays which are now available from Lulu Publishers –

    “The Unpublished Evolution Papers of John A. Davison.”

    There has not appeared a new Genus in the last 2 million years. I have extended this to claim that a new varifiable species has not appeared in historical times. So far not a single scientist has effectively responded to my challenge.

    This is no place for me to present my thesis. I recommend my weblog where you will find both my papers and my ongoing exposure of the most failed hypothesis in the history of science – Evolution by Natural Selection

    jadavison.wordpress.com.

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