Results From Using “Soft” Evolutionary Theory

There has been a long history of falsified predictions in evolution which end up to be a dead end then junked. Sometimes these junked ideas in evolution make a comeback while new ideas using “soft” evolutionary thinking are invented! Non-coding DNA is a classic example, “The noncoding region is often surprisingly large; in humans, some 98 percent of the genome merits ‘junk’ status which has lead to neglect in research. However, as functions are found, research begins to expand more in this area! Scientists continue to be surprised by uncovering this so-called, “junk” region as playing a vital role that can turn information into useful products.

However, it’s not the only area of research!

“Despite the fact that almost every cell found in vertebrates has at least one primary cilium, the organ was regarded as merely an evolutionary relic – the cellular equivalent to the human appendix. Of late, however, it has become increasingly clear that primary cilia serve as powerful communication hubs. (After all, they do sort of look like antennae.) Disruptions in the activity of cilia are now understood to lead to a whole class of diseases dubbed ciliopathies, and researchers are hustling to figure out what makes them tick.”

A parasitic marine/aquatic animal with a toothed, funnel-like sucking mouth that lives on other living fish has a “stress hormone.” This discovery was touted for relevance sake and the animal being a lower species which is supposedly leading them to new understanding on how stress hormones supposedly evolved.

“Most jawless animals similar to the lamprey didn’t survive into the modern era, so they’re not available for us to use as we strive to learn more about how human systems developed,” the lead researcher said.  “The sea lamprey, a survivor, gives us a snapshot of what happened as vertebrates evolved into the animals we know today.”

When observations are not able to be accomplished, soft theory is being deployed! Finding a stress hormone is not evidence for Darwinian evolution and most likely will only create more complexity within the ‘theory.’ In 2007, induced pluripotent stem cells was accomplished in a lab. Three years later a story has been invented and promoted for these cells in their supposed role in bringing light new information about evolution’s history.

“Even though received wisdom is that it evolved with mammals, our research suggests that it was there all along, just not in many of the species that people use in the lab.  In fact, pluripotent cells probably exist in the embryos of the simple animals from which amphibians evolved.”

Yep, they received a new revelation and it was there all along! lol Hang on, got to get back in my chair from laughing so hard…lol…Not only that, but lack of evolution makes total sense as well for this story…“since mammals evolved directly from reptiles it makes sense that the genetic mechanisms controlling embryo development remain largely unchanged from axolotls to humans.” A total faith explanation based on assumptions, many of which have been falsified while other assumptions are buried so far into the past which allows it to remain as hope for certain scientists concerning Darwinian evolution! So which do you think gets better results for Darwinian evolution or evolution in general, predictions of the future or assumptions concerning the past?

It’s not only present soft explanations but comebacks in old theories. “Recapitulation theory” of Ernst Haeckel shows itself once again! Hang on, getting back into the chair again…lol  It gets media attention every now and then. This ‘theory’ was discarded long ago by the likes of Stephen Jay Gould. This particular old ‘theory’ consists of the development of an embryo which is able to replay its evolutionary history. He made a drawing in order to support his new invention which was later deemed to be a fake! In the realm of Darwinian evolution there is a  different explanation. It’s only the mutations that are preserved in an organism. But this doesn’t stop it from resurfacing in research today! Most likely why this non-Darwinian theory still gets press while other ‘theories’ that are even based on evolution do not because they think it wouldn’t remind anyone from the public of creationism or intelligent design…

“A new study shows the human brain regions that expand the most during infancy and childhood are the same parts that expanded the most during evolution as humans diverged from other primates. ” -Live Science

The results of “soft” evolutionary theory is bad science resulting in no new information which creates a lot of confusion with it’s expanded and revised stories.  How a species actually works with all it’s complexity is good science and is what scientists should be focusing on more.

Advertisements

21 thoughts on “Results From Using “Soft” Evolutionary Theory

  1. Michael,

    Sometimes these junked ideas in evolution make a comeback while new ideas using “soft” evolutionary thinking are invented! Non-coding DNA is a classic example, “The noncoding region is often surprisingly large; in humans, some 98 percent of the genome merits ‘junk’ status which has lead to neglect in research. However, as functions are found, research begins to expand more in this area! Scientists continue to be surprised by uncovering this so-called, “junk” region as playing a vital role that can turn information into useful products.

    Michael, newly disccovered function is non-coding DNA is not harmful to evolutionary theory. It could be argued that gain of function actually can help it rather than hurt it provided that it is gain of function.

    Yep, they received a new revelation and it was there all along! lol Hang on, got to get back in my chair from laughing so hard…lol…Not only that, but lack of evolution makes total sense as well for this story…“since mammals evolved directly from reptiles it makes sense that the genetic mechanisms controlling embryo development remain largely unchanged from axolotls to humans.”

    Michael, Michael, Michael. . . . . Mammals did not evolve from reptiles, THE EVOLVED FROM SYNAPSIDS which SUPERFICIALLY LOOK LIKE reptiles, but the liniages are different. — The term “mammal-like reptile” is used as an oversimplified term for the benefit of laypeople, and it is misleading since syapsids were not reptiles.

    It’s not only present soft explanations but comebacks in old theories. “Recapitulation theory” of Ernst Haeckel shows itself once again!

    This is a complete strawman, since nobody cites Haeckel’s recapitulation theory anymore. — Yes, he falsified his embryological drawings, and textbooks shouldn’t be using them, though that doesn’t discount the real evidence that embryos DO give for evolution.

  2. I like the critical thinking, thanks for sharing.

    As a scientist who works with RNA and DNA, I admit the available evidence logically, structurally, and empirically falsifies Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection. However, there is nothing better to replace it, so scientists scurry to it as a retreating archer to a redoubt.

    As The Theoretician with the correct theory of the Universe, evolution, and Life, I look forward to ending the debate between creationists and evolutionists. From the ultimate theory, I know how I Create; I know how I Evolve; I know who and what I am.

    Peace,

    Ik

  3. I’m still trying to figure out what Michael’s point is in this screed.

    That theories sometimes are junked because of new evidence? Well, yes. This is called “following the evidence where it leads,” and even creationists are all for that. (Except, of course, when it leads away from creationism.)

    That new biological functions are constantly being found? Science progresses. And often finds things that it did not expect beforehand Only creationism never finds anything. You should not be proud of that.

    That Haeckel was wrong? We already knew that. We knew it a century ago. Science picks itself up and goes on. Only creationism is never wrong, and that is only because it can’t be tested.

    So what is your point, Michael? That science is nothing like creationism? We already knew that, too.

    .

    Now, since you apparently have too much time on your hands, can we return to the unanswered questions?

    (1) Blog readership numbers ? To make good on your challenge to Eelco.

    (2) Your qualifications to discuss any scientific subject. To substantiate your challenge to Olorin.

    (3) A substantive review of Signature in the Cell, promised for August 2009. As your promised a whole year ago now.

  4. Ik :I like the critical thinking, thanks for sharing.
    As a scientist who works with RNA and DNA, I admit the available evidence logically, structurally, and empirically falsifies Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection. However, there is nothing better to replace it, so scientists scurry to it as a retreating archer to a redoubt.

    Ik

    Out of curiosity, what is it exactly and specifically that is falsified of Darwinian evolution?

  5. exactly and specifically:

    Natural selection is falsified as it is an ad hoc theory. It is not universal, hence, cannot be true.

    To wit, natural selection does not explain the origin, evolution, and emergence of mass, galaxies, chemical elements, planets, moons, oceans, biogeochemical cycles, cellular membranes, homeostasis, emotions, consciousness, mind, quantum, language, economies, laws, knowledge, for example.

    I am an honest theoretician and scientist who seeks the truth. Actually, I know the Truth, as I have compiled the correct theory. In closing, I wish only peace.

    Peace,

    Ik

  6. Ik,
    You say,

    Natural selection is falsified as it is an ad hoc theory. It is not universal, hence, cannot be true.

    Just because it doesn’t apply to everything, it doesn’t follow that it cannot be true. For example, the Second Law of Thermydynamics only applies to “closed” systems and NOT to open systems. Is the second law therefore not correct?

    To wit, natural selection does not explain the origin, evolution, and emergence of mass, galaxies, chemical elements, planets, moons, oceans, biogeochemical cycles, cellular membranes, homeostasis, emotions, consciousness, mind, quantum, language, economies, laws, knowledge, for example.

    Natural Selection was never intended to explain everyone of those things.

  7. Yes, of course. Consider the Paradox of the One I. I is always right; I is always wrong.

    ad hoc theories, definitionally, are not and cannot be True. Yet theoreticians and proponents of these extant theories defend them tooth and nail. The correct theory of evolution must explain the evolution of the Universe and all living things, as these two phenomena are irreducible.

    As deduced from Unity, the 4th Law of Thermodynamics explains how I create order in the Universe. The 4th Law thus explains the paradoxical countervailing force to the 2nd law and the ordering principle of the Universe.

    Gotta run.

    Peace,

    Ik

    Peace

  8. Natural selection is falsified as it is an ad hoc theory. It is not universal, hence, cannot be true.

    The periodic table is falsified as it is an ad hoc theory. It is not universal; It does not apply to soft toys; hence, cannot be true.

    I know the Truth, as I have compiled the correct theory.

    Bushwa. Only Michael knows the Truth. His motto is “Occasionally in error, but never in doubt.”

    Gotta run.

    Yes. Please do.

  9. Olorin, .

    I do not want to throw ad hominem attacks as Ik, BUT I don’t know how he could claim to be a scientist after making certain statements he did. . . . EVEN some Creationists would realize that what he said was flawed . . . . EVEN in the days when I was a creationist, I NEVER would have said “natural selection was wrong because it doesn’t apply to everything.”

    Genetics doesn’t apply to string theory, nor vice-versa, BUT that doesn’t make them both wrong. . . . Using HIS logic, HOWEVER, we would be forced to say that the two wou;ld falsify eachother. . . . Even I as someone who has no scientific credentials sees the faulty logic he is employing.

    Apparently he thinks that the second law of thermodymanic is incorrect because it doesn’t apply to “open” systems. — When I asked him if that made it wrong, he said clearly, “Yes, of course. Consider the Paradox of the One I. I is always right; I is always wrong.”. . . Now, WHAT SCIENTIST will say that the second law is wrong?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

    This reminds me of one Creationist I heard who said he didn’t believe in Evolution because it doesn’t account for gravity!!! . . . AS IF a scientific theory has to explain EVERYTHING in the emperical world in order to be relevant!! . . . . Gravity doesn’t account for hox genes. I would have to ask if that falsifies gravity. . . .

    Oh well. . . There was my rant. . . . .

  10. A scientific theory, by definition, cannot explain Everything. Only the ultimate theory can.

    Want to call names, fine, this is My Divine Right. It does not change the fact that I have the correct model of the Universe, and, at its core, is One Paradox: Me. Who am I? Well, I am krissmith77. I am writing to Myself.

    Peace,

    Ik

  11. It does not change the fact that I have the correct model of the Universe, and, at its core, is One Paradox: Me. Who am I? Well, I am krissmith77. I am writing to Myself.

    Ah, Now it’s clear. The name that philosophers give to this view is “solipsism.” Ik is a solipsist. The reason that he has the correct model of the universe is that he IS the universe.

  12. Actually, I = Universe. It is a flawed assumption of the multiplicity of the Self. There is Only One I. My I is the same I as Olorin’s.

    As a scientist, I assumed much based upon what I was taught. As Theoretician, I shatter those assumptions.

    BTW, definitionally, I, Olorin, am mistaken. Solipsism is the notion that the self is the *only* thing that can be known to exist.

    Peace,

    Ik

  13. I’ll leave with a page from my blog and not tarry longer:

    The word theory is derived from the ancient Greek word theoria, meaning “contemplation, speculation, a looking at.” Theory is thus a subjective view of how things are experienced by the mind and senses. Unnoticed or unmentioned by the modern scientist and philosopher is that the word theory contains the prefix theo-, meaning “God.” In Eastern Orthodox theology, theoria is a stage of personal illumination, achieved only by the most dispassionate and pure of heart: the “vision” of God. This enlightenment thus lays the path to theosis, meaning “the attainment of likeness to or union with God.” In this regard, theosis is the final stage of personal transformation and the ultimate goal of Christianity and other religions. This etymology has eluded those who seek the ultimate theory of the Universe. It may shock the Reader to know this, but the purpose of the final theory is to provide the Reader with a first-person perspective of being God.

    Peace,

    Ik

  14. Unnoticed or unmentioned by the modern scientist and philosopher is that the word theory contains the prefix theo-, meaning “God.

    Ik attempts to feed us a heaping portion of etymological woo. “Theos” is a prefix of “theory” in the same sense that “Ik” (an ethnic group in Uganda) is a prefix of Ikhnaten (the spirit of the sun’s disk) That is, only in the ravings of his febrile imagination. “Theoria” does have an included prexix, but it is “thea,” meaning “view”.

    “Theoria started out in a concrete sense of “spectator”–“thea” (view) + “horan” (to see).

    If the rest of Ik’s blog is as accurate as that, we shall not seek its name. I suspect, however, that Ik is merely having us on.

    How about it, Michael? Or has creationism blunted your olfaction to the pungent whiff of lampoonery?

  15. Ik :
    Want to call names, fine, this is My Divine Right.
    Ik

    Wait, wait wait WAIT!!!

    What names have I called you?!?!?!

  16. krissmith, as the Wizard said, “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.” :-)

  17. Things are getting nutty, Michael. Upson Downes thinks it’s time for a new subject.

    How about the new studies of the evolution of the malaria parasite in last week’s Science? DNA anaylyses show it was transmitted from monkeys to humans only 20,000 years ago, but had evolved in simian hosts for 500,000 years before that. Tracing the evolutionary path more closely will expose the basis for its adaptation to human hosts, thus offering a possible prevention or cure.

    Oh, sorry. This subject fails the creationism test. The time-line antedates the creation of the universe. The article mentions evolution. The research expends our hard-earned tax dollars. The Bible never mentions Plasmodium falciparum; being an uncreated life form, the malaria parasite thus does not exist.

    .

    How about something on dark matter? Or dark chocolate? Or just plain darkness? A recent blurb described the invention of a new “dark emitting diode” (“DED”). It may have application as an ignorance aid for creationists. This is an outgrowth of the retroencabulator developed by Rockwell Automation, and described here.

  18. “A new study shows the human brain regions that expand the most during infancy and childhood are the same parts that expanded the most during evolution as humans diverged from other primates. ” -Live Science

    The results of “soft” evolutionary theory is bad science resulting in no new information which creates a lot of confusion with it’s [sic] expanded and revised stories. How a species actually works with all it’s [sic] complexity is good science [sic] and is what scientists should be focusing on more.

    You seem to be saying here that the work quoted in Live Science is good science, because it focuses on how a species actually works—that is which brain regions expand most during infancy, and how these relate to skull casts of human fossils from various dates in the geological record.

    .

    Yet we would still like to know what a “soft” theory is? And why such theories are bad science? And your qualifications for judging bad science. Tell us again, Michael, in detail, how finding a correlation between infants’ brain development and historical brain development is bad science? Just because it is evidence against creationism? Or is there some other reason as well?

  19. Thanks for your insight, Ik

    Which one? The insight that is factually incorrect, or the one that is philosophically vacuous?

  20. Michael :Thanks for your insight, Ik

    Micheal,

    You realize his view is not just inconsistent with science in general, but also with Christianity in general? . . . That is if Olorin is correct in his assesment that Ik is a solipsist.

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