Plants Fails Evolutionary Predictions

Creationists believe nature is designed with a purpose from a highly advanced and loving being, namely God. There is no story that requires one to conceptualize numerous revisions and updates when falsifications are discovered. Rather, learning about the actual advanced design of nature is the only thing that gets updated. Readers in secular publications are always promised that “clues about evolution” are being discovered, but are they?

New Scientist seems to think so…

“For the first time, a systematic protein interaction map—or interactome—has been constructed for a plant…The map shows that “there are few proteins that are highly connected,” said Christian Landry, an assistant professor of Biology at Laval University, who did not participate in the research. “This kind of structure gives robustness to the network because if you target proteins randomly, you are more likely to hit peripheral proteins” and not significantly disrupt cell function.”

When mapped 8,000 proteins which is about 30 percent of the plant’s protein-encoding gene in order to observe how they network together when inserted into yeast cells did not fulfill evolutionary expectations…

“The researchers also looked at the impact of these networks on evolution.  The protein products of duplicated genes, for example, might be expected to take on different functions, as one can maintain the original task while the other is free to accumulate mutations. But the researchers found that most gene duplicates in Arabidopsis tended to interact with many of the same proteins, even though those duplicates had originated more than 700 million years ago, suggesting that the interactome somehow reduces the freedom of duplicated proteins to diverge.”

Wait a minute! Gene duplication followed by subsequent mutations is considered to be the mechanism for adding new information to the genome which in turn provides new functions to the organism! This is how evolutionary scientist claim that man came from things like bacteria.

This is not the only study to falsify evolution’s prediction on gene duplication, back in 2008 galactose use pathway in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, commonly known as baker’s yeast was studied. Rather than observing new functions, scientists only observed functions diving among two or more genes! In other words, the function was going downhill rather than uphill to new functions.

In this recent study which confirms the previous one on gene duplication, evolutionary scientists expanded the story of evolution by suggesting  yeast, worms, and humans have all come to the same design when evolving independently for two billion years! Isn’t this invoking a miracle or was this something natural selection planned all along?

This is another example of trying to rescue evolution from major disaster by suggesting it goes up or down or sideways, fast or slow, you name it they claimed it can do it all. I call it prediction modifications where evolutionary scientists fit in the contrary data to make it sound like it was expected all along which is something that is used quite often in evolution. A theory could never be falsified by this method which is based on blind faith rather than allowing the evidence to go where it may lead which is creationism!

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Plants Fails Evolutionary Predictions

  1. From your first paragraph it is obvious that creationism is nothing but religion. It indeed has nothing to do with science.

  2. @Michael

    Wait a minute! Gene duplication followed by subsequent mutations is considered to be the mechanism for adding new information to the genome which in turn provides new functions to the organism! This is how evolutionary scientist claim that man came from things like bacteria.

    And so it does add new information, and I have given you several examples in the past of it happening, though you have ignored it. Also, gene duplication is not the only mechanism since a simple rearrangement of already existing material also creates new information.– But you seem to have missed the point in your actual quote. The portion you highlighted says, ” But the researchers found that most gene duplicates in Arabidopsis tended to interact with many of the same proteins, even though those duplicates had originated more than 700 million years ago,…” but Michael, this is not news. In many cases this is to be expected, and you don’t have to be a geneticist to know or suspect this. So I fail to see how any “evolutionary prediction” has been falsified.

    You may have falsified your own strawman about evolution, but not any actual prediction being made.

  3. Creationists believe nature is designed with a purpose from a highly advanced and loving being, namely God. There is no story that requires one to conceptualize numerous revisions and updates when falsifications are discovered.

    A defining characteristic of scientific theories that they do require revisions and updates when falsifications are discovered. If, as Michael claims, creationism does not require modification when falsified, what does this say about creationism as science?

    The rest of us have always known that creationism is not science, but it is gratifying to hear Michael confirm it.

  4. It is good to know the Truth.
    But it is better to speak of canoes and beaver dams.

    Ahhhhhhh.

  5. When mapped 8,000 proteins which is about 30 percent of the plant’s protein-encoding gene in order to observe how they network together when inserted into yeast cells did not fulfill evolutionary expectations…

    Michael fails basic reading comprehension.

    New Scientist is written for lay readers, and not for scientists. It is these unsophisticated readers who would think that “[t]he protein products of duplicated genes, for example, might be expected to take on different functionss.” The New Scientist article nowhere states that this is an evolutionary prediction.

    .

    Michael fails reading comprehension again—

    But the researchers found that most gene duplicates in Arabidopsis tended to interact with many of the same proteins, even though those duplicates had originated more than 700 million years ago, suggesting that the interactome somehow reduces the freedom of duplicated proteins to diverge.

    “Wait a minute!” Michael wails. “Gene duplication followed by subsequent mutations is considered to be the mechanism for adding new information to the genome which in turn provides new functions to the organism!” Here, Michael turns New Scientists “most” into his own “all,” and NS’s “reduces” into his own “prohibits.” Yes indeed; most duplicates do interact with the same proteins—because they are similar or identical to the original.[1] Bit some of them do not, and go forth to produce novelty. Similarly, a reduction in freedom does not prohibit divergence; it merely lowers the percentage.

    Kris, I see this last as an example of delusion masquerading as deceit. Michael is so intent on proving his point that he actually sees different words than the ones printed on the page before him, changing them into what he wishes they had said.

    (We are still not anywhere near adding entire sentences to quotations, but it’s a start.)

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

    [1] Michael may wish to review Prof. Behe’s account of the blood-clotting cascade, which he introduced as a paradigm of irreducible complexity. All of the 12 human clotting factors are variations of the same duplicated original, and they all interact with the same other proteins. Yet the original single factor alone would not clot our blood at all,, while the 12 duplicates do. So duplication, even without changed interaction, can lead to a new function.

  6. . . . . . . . Plants Fails Evolutionary Predictions

    Stupid plants. We need a No Seedlings Left Behind Act to make sure the next crop passes the predictions.

    But they’re not the only ones. Michael fails grammar on this title, also. Maybe we need a No Creationist Left Behind Act. No, wait. They already have Tim LaHaye.

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