Defying Evolutionary Logic: Complexity Found In Simplicity

It’s coming a pattern in science, what has been deemed to be primitive is no longer. Charles Darwin envisioned simplicity evolving into complexity which is still held for the most part today. The assumption is turning into a mix bowl of soup. Jellyfish are considered to be one of the simplest forms of life so there are things scientists have taken for granted over the years as a result…

Why do Jellyfish have two dozen eyes but yet has no brain? New research has shown that scientists are now beginning to discover, these eyes do in fact have specialized functions…

Live Science reports…

“The skyward gaze of one set of eyes belonging to box jellyfish provides evidence that these creatures — which lack a conventional brain — are capable of sophisticated behavior. New research has shown that one species of jellyfish uses one set of eyes to navigate and keep itself close to home.

“It is a surprise that a jellyfish — an animal normally considered to be lacking both brain and advanced behavior — is able to perform visually guided navigation, which is not a trivial behavioral task,” said lead researcher Anders Garm of the University of Copenhagen. “This shows that the behavioral abilities of simple animals, like jellyfish, may be underestimated.”

Also, the innate immune system which is found in all plants and animal life which comprises the cells and mechanisms that defend the host from infection by other organisms in a non-specific manner was considered simple. However, this is no longer the case as this discovery was quite amazing!

“When scientists can’t believe their eyes, it is very likely that they are on to something quite extraordinary. This was precisely the case for Arturo Zychlinsky and his colleagues at the Max Planck Institute for Infection Biology in Berlin. White blood cells that cast net-like structures to ensnare pathogens? No one had ever seen the likes of it before. Now the first patients are reaping the benefits of this discovery.”

The surprise discovery of complexity found in what was assumed to be a “simple” system subsequently led to other fruitful leads about how the immune system operates, and how serious diseases ensue when mutations disrupt the works.  The question is, which world view expects simplicity in lower forms of life, and which world view is normally wrong about it?

The proteasome is a garbage collecting complex machine whose job is to dispose of the protein “trash”. What could be one of the more simpler things to do than trash collection? Right? Well as it turns out, even this is more sophisticated as previously assumed as it uses two different mechanisms to determine which targets to destroy!

Physorg says…

“This signal, known as the degron, is composed of two components: an unstructured ‘initiation region’ within the target protein and a proteasome recognition tag. This tag typically consists of a chain of ubiquitin molecules, but some proteins get steered to the proteasome with the help of ubiquitin-binding ‘adaptor’ proteins. “These two pathways work in parallel with and independently from each other, and converge at the initiation step,” explains Tomonao Inobe of the RIKEN Brain Science Institute in Wako, Japan.”

“By analyzing the efficiency with which different synthetic protein constructs get degraded by the proteasome, Inobe and colleagues in Andreas Matouschek’s laboratory at Northwestern University in Illinois, USA, have uncovered important structural details of the recognition mechanisms used by the proteasome to manage these distinct pathways.

Incredible! Creationists believe God created all things, He is advanced in knowledge far beyond humans and has build this universe for Himself. So in other world creationists are more likely to be looking for complexity in lower life forms than what is considered simplicity by evolutionary standards! Slow and gradual from simple to complex in evolutionary teaching is fading away with the evidence!


4 thoughts on “Defying Evolutionary Logic: Complexity Found In Simplicity

  1. Complexity abounds, therefore God did it.

    Michael! Answer me this: How do you even make the logical conclusion that complexity equals design? This is a non-sequitor argument.

  2. It’s also an argument from personal incredulity, giving Michael a twofer on logical fallacies for this post.

  3. Why do Jellyfish have two dozen eyes but yet has no brain? New research has shown that scientists are now beginning to discover, these eyes do in fact have specialized functions

    Jellyfish have two dozen eyes, specialized for different functions: spotting prey, navigation, water depth. Humans have only two eyes, which are not specialized at all. By Michael’s logic, humans are less complex than jellyfish.

    Or perhaps only creationists are less complex than jellyfish, since they also seem to have no brain.


    Because of his ignorance of the subject matter, brainless behaviors amaze Michael. He is unaware, for example, that if someone were to disconnect his brain, he would still have muscle reflexes. He is unaware that the escape response of a cockroach does not involve any mental activity; a quick light change is transmitted directly to the leg muscles. He is unaware of the walking mechanism of crabs, which involves neurons in the legs.

    And of course he is utterly ignorant of the technology of neural nets, which mimic networks of neurons, whether or not they reside in a brain. It is common for even relatively simple neural nets to “solve” rather complex problems—that is, to produce a predictable outpuit for any desired combination of input signals.

    How do neural nets achieve these results? Well, engineers do not design them for a particular function. Instead, they present the nets with many different inputs, keep the ones that produce proper outputs, and discard the others. Biologists would call this process EVOLUTION BY NATURAL SELECTION.

  4. In this post,, Michael gives us three exam,poles that supposedly provide evidence for special creation over evolution.

    The question, however, is: if this is evidence for creation, why did no creationists ever predict any of these phenomena?

    > Complex behavior without a brain? Discovered by evolutionary biologists, who provided an evolutionary explanation.
    > Cellular nets to ensnare pathogens? Discovered by evolutionary biologists.
    > Two mechanisms for garbage collection? Michael is to o ignorant to know that one of them is much older than the other one. That is, they evolved at different times.

    This is actually the main reason that creationism is not science. Not because it is wrong, but because creationism has never in its entire history birthed a single scientific discovery. of any physical phenomenon. Creationism is vacuous, useless, worthless, ineffectual, futile, bootless, barren.. The list would be longer if I had a bigger thesaurus.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s