Biologists Complain About Latest Falsification

Common ancestry is a universal story which focuses on molecules to man. It’s role in the story especially this particular animal is vitally important when trying to explain evolution, but if is true, it must be demonstrated with hard evidence. For a vast amount of years, evolutionary biologists have been using acoelomorph, a type of worm, claiming to be a common ancestor that branched off into a certain way that lead towards insects, and then other way that lead towards humans.

A new study revealed in Live Science throws in a major wrinkle (enhancing the complexity)…

“We can no longer consider the acoelomorphs as an intermediate between simple groups such as jellyfish and the rest of the animals,” said researcher Max Telford of the Department of Genetics, Evolution and Environment, University College London.  “This means that we have no living representative of this stage of evolution: the missing link has gone missing.”

Here we go again, forwards, no backwards, no sideways, philosophy each time the data is not agreeing with evolution. This study produces a complicated twist to the evolutionary story. Scientists assume a common ancestor which is missing, have no clue what it is but they believe it’s more complex than these worms.

“Being such simple creatures and yet still mixing and mingling on the family tree with us complex creatures suggests these marine worms were once complex themselves, Telford said. “This is an interesting evolutionary question,” Telford told LiveScience.  “Why do animals lose complex features, and how do they do it?  What genes have they lost?”

The evolutionary story is not making any sense in light of this study. In most theories, this is not a good sign. Evolutionary biologists are not happy about this at all especially when the worm is so important for teaching Darwinism. In Nature, titled; “Evolution: A can of worms” it says…

“The rearrangement has triggered protests from evolutionary biologists, who are alarmed that they may lose their key example of that crucial intermediate stage of animal evolution. Some researchers complain that the evidence is not strong enough to warrant such a dramatic rearrangement of the evolutionary tree, and claim that the report leaves out key data.”

“In any case, the vehemence of the debate shows just how important these worms have become in evolutionary biology. “I will say, diplomatically, this is the most politically fraught paper I’ve ever written,” says Max Telford, a zoologist at University College London and last author on the paper.”

More complexity in a theory is not good, however a well-respected publication, phys.org which has been quoted numerous times in the past, reports…

“Revisited human-worm relationships shed light on brain evolution”

“An international team of researchers, including a neuroscientist from the University of Florida, has produced more evidence that people have a close evolutionary connection with tiny, flatworm-like organisms scientifically known as “Acoelomorphs.”

This is very misleading, the original paper did not say anything about shedding light on brain evolution! But they did finally admit to the falsification…

“New evolutionary research disproves living missing link theories”

“Evolution is not a steady march towards ever more sophisticated beings and therefore the search for the living “missing links” is pointless, according to findings published by a team of researchers led by Dr. Hervé Philippe of the Université de Montréal’s Department of Biochemistry.”

Evolutionary scientists believed for many years that they had a vital link in the evolutionary story only to have it falsified because the genetics didn’t agree with what they were claiming.  In order to make evolution look better and hold off criticism is to use less evidence and rely more on speculation. This demonstrates, evolution is fiction not fact and the only reason it’s still considered a ‘theory’ rather than an hypothesis is because of the following it has. The evidence leads us towards special creation which make a lot more sense!

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Biologists Complain About Latest Falsification

  1. Michael boldens certain portions of quotes which shows his ignorance of what could be classified as a “falsification” or a “verification” of evolution. He boldens the quote ““This means that we have no living representative of this stage of evolution: the missing link has gone missing.”” — The problem with the impression he is giving is that we do not need “living intermediates.” We just need intermediates in general; living or extinct, it does not matter.

    Michael then apparently cannot even read his own quoted. He then claims as he quotes the following:

    This is very misleading, the original paper did not say anything about shedding light on brain evolution! But they did finally admit to the falsification…
    “New evolutionary research disproves living missing link theories”

    He quotes the bold as if he thinks this is a major blow to evolutionary theory… But you need to actually read the quote itself… It says that the “evolutionary research itself IS what falsified a certain perception….That is a huge difference than what Michael is saying.. The quote means that evolutionary theory WAS the falsification of the FORMER perception, not the other way around!!!

    Interestingly, a certain quote Michael includes in this post clears up a certain misunderstanding that he has about evolution… Michael throws out phrases like “fitness nirvana,” and also “more evolved” and “backward and forward evolution.” — But in his own post, he quotes the following:

    “Evolution is not a steady march towards ever more sophisticated beings and therefore the search for the living “missing links” is pointless, according to findings published by a team of researchers led by Dr. Hervé Philippe of the Université de Montréal’s Department of Biochemistry.”

    This is something I have explained to Michael many times, and he has completely ignored… The funny detail here is this: If he objects to this again, he will be contradicting his own posts…not that that matters because he has contradicted himself before on various occasions (For example, he cites a “peer reviewed” intelligent design paper, and then claims later to me that Creationists are banned from publishing in peer-reviewed papers).

  2. Biologists complain about the reclassification of acoelomorphs in the tree of life in the same way that astronomers complain about reclassifying Pluto in the solar system.[1].

    And reclassifying accelomorphs has the same effect on the whether or not life evolves as reclassifying Pluto has on whether or not planets revolve around the Sun.

    Newe discoveries about accelomorphs lead biologists to think that they were not the ancestors of all the bilaterians, but only of one major branch of that large family. They were initially classified on the basis of morphology. The new classification is based upon genetics, which is more accurate, and upon additional data, from micro-RNA.

    Michael probably also missed the part in the Live Science article that said that biologists had never been certain how to classify these two groups of worms, ant at they had been reclassified once before.

    But then Michael misses a lot of things.

    One might note that the headline of the Live Science story is not “Lowly Worms Lose Their Place in the Tree of Life,” but rather “Lowly Worms Get Their Place in the Tree of Life.”

    .

    “Evolution in Crisis” has been a major creationist slogan for a century and a half. Just like the Apocalypse, the end of evolution is just around the corner. They know that because … because it always has been just around the corner, and nothing ever changes in creationism. So it must still be just around the corner. Lo here, and lo there—scientists were wrong about this little piece, and aren’t sure exactly how that little piece happened. But, so far. . . .

    The 2300 peer-reviewed papers per years must be an elaborate plot to spend our hard-earned tax dollars to keep 504,000 liberal scientists employed. Must be.

    ==========
    [1] For those creationists who still cling to biblical geocentrism, Pluto was kicked out of the Organization of Planets a couple years ago and now heads up the Kuiper Club.

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