When The Data Predicts Evolutionary ‘Theory’

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!

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “When The Data Predicts Evolutionary ‘Theory’

  1. Michael: “In evolution, the data predicts its explanation for the ‘theory’, ”

    Eh ? New data usually forces adaptation of the theory. Perfectly normal, and happening all the time.

  2. If Michael could only understand what evolution claims and what it does not claim, he would have at least a start in criticizing it. But this post is good only for a few laughs.

    > LAUGH #1

    For example, mutations are considered breakthroughs of new and more advanced information (increased complexity)

    Mutations are simple changes: one amino acid substitutes for another; a gene copies itself too many (or too few) times, a methyl group attaches to a DNA location. Breakthrough? Increased complexity? Advanced information? Creationists have not the slightest understanding of what mutations are or what they do.

    > LAUGH #2
    Michael wonders how two plants could be closely related yet one has “lost” a considerable part of the genome of another.

    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.”

    This is not ignorance, but a failure in reading the cited Max Planck Institute paper. The functional genes of the two plants are almost identical. What was lost was what creationists love to call “junk DNA.”[1] Far from showing that these plants are not evolved from a recent common ancestor, this sudden decrease “Through their analysis, the scientists have laid the foundations for further insights into how evolution in plants can take effect on the level of genes and molecules” Once again, Michael endorses a paper that shows just the opposite of his contention.

    > LAUGH $3

    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.

    Michael’s mistaken belief is that “more advanced” is the same as “more complicated,” which in turn equates to “more information.” Yet, in the same post, he does not question that two plants that are almost exactly the same in appearance have genomes of grossly different sizes.[2] And the reason for hominids is the same as for Arabidopsis. Almost all of the differences in DNA are either non-functional, or produce small regulatory changes—small changes which nevertheless can produce major phenotypical differences.[3]

    > LAUGH #4

    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.

    Removing something that limits size should not result in a size increase! Really, Michael! Even you have sunk to a new low..So, for example, the Army Corps of Engineers should have been surprised when blowing up the levee on the Mississippi allowed the river to expand and flood 130,000 more acres.

    This imaginative idea would appear to only make sense if brain structure and function were already pregnant with intellectual and rational possibilities.

    One word, Michael: WHY???

    .

    Once again, Michael has demonstrated not only that he has no knowledge whatever of the theories he attempts to demolish, but he can’t even read a scientific paper correctly.

    Reason #613 why scientists laugh at creationists.

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

    [1] Thus providing even more evidence against the creationist claim that all non-coding DNA is necessary. One wonders why Michael keeps shooting himself in the foot like this.

    [2] Of course, consistency is generally unknown among creationists. Their only criterion is whatever confirms their faith.

    [3] Michael has certainly never seen the well-known diagram that morphs an ape skull into a human skull by means of progressive changes in a geometric grid. He would be surprised by how simply such “affine transformations” (the mathematical term) can occur—if his faith even allowed him to see the diagrams, that is.

  3. In evolution, the data predicts [sic] its [sic] explanation for the ‘theory’, a way to force new evidence into the famework [sic]

    We really didn’t have to read past the first paragraph of this post to know that Michael has no idea what he’s talking about.

    Date “predicts” nothing. Data just are.

    Explanations are not “predicted.” Explanations conform to the data

    .

    Yet another scientific word salad from the master chef of them all.

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