As a good scientific theory, it generally should predict what is observed, what happens to it when unexpected evidence comes up as a result of advancements in science? How often should it be modified or thrown away for good? In evolution, the data predicts its explanation for the ‘theory’, a way to force new evidence into the famework.
For example, mutations are considered breakthroughs of new and more advanced information (increased complexity) in order to replace the Creator (God) which are randomly produced and then selectively chosen for a particular design. So it would be expected to find in nature that closely related species would have closely related genomes. Makes sense if you believe in that story, right? That is what the Max Planck Institute expected in its research fully believing the evolutionary prediction was true. However, apparently it’s not the case with a lab plant Arabidopsis thaliana (thale cress) and the lyre-leaved rock cress.
“Genome size among the different species of the plant kingdom varies significantly. At the upper end of the currently known spectrum, scientists have identified the herb Paris or true-lover’s knot (Paris quadrifolia), whose genome is a good thousand times longer than that of the carnivorous plants from the genus Genlisea. However, these plants are so distantly related that it is almost impossible to identify the evolutionary forces at work in the individual species.”
“Therefore, researchers from Detlef Weigel’s Department of Molecular Biology at the Max Planck Institute for Developmental Biology in Tübingen working in cooperation with an international research team selected for their genome study a species closely related to the thale cress (Arabidopsis thaliana), probably the most widely studied flowering plant in genetics. The species in question was lyre-leaved rock cress (Arabidopsis lyrata) which, unlike thale cress, is unable to self-fertilise. “Thale cress and lyre-leaved rock cress shared an ancestor around ten million years ago, after which their evolutionary lineages diverged,” explains Ya-Long Guo from the MPI for Developmental Biology.”
Did the lyre-leaved cress gained new genetic information? On the contrary, “considerable elements have been lost from some parts of the thale cress genome.” In March 2011, evolution by subtraction was also discussed.
In New Scientist…
“The key changes are not in bits of DNA that humans acquired as they evolved – extra genes that we have but chimps and other animals do not – but in chunks of DNA that we lost. What’s more, the chunks in question are not even genes at all, but sequences of DNA that lie in between genes and act as switches, orchestrating when and where specific genes are turned on and off through the course of an animal’s development.”
The researchers identified 510 genetic regions present in chimpanzees but missing in humans. Only two of these have been tested so far for function. So in other words, it’s not an increased of information that designed humanity rather it was what was subtracted that created the most advanced life form on earth. This is what happens when secular scientists believe in man coming from animals.
Another subtraction or genetic loss involves the brain: the removal of a factor ostensibly limiting brain size. According to the authors and reporters, this somehow led to the expansion of the human brain, instead of a tumor, and by implication, our intelligence and rationality. This imaginative idea would appear to only make sense if brain structure and function were already pregnant with intellectual and rational possibilities. In that case, why would a factor evolve to restrict expression of such a valuable asset in lower primates? Oh yes, the data is predicting evolutionary ‘theory’ which is the only way it can explain anything with all those falsifications!