Evolutionary Expectations Experience More Falsifications

In the realm of science, observation is very different than explanation. Firstly, biology is full of highly advanced designs that are beyond anything we ever imagined and scientist continue to learn more. Brain chemistry happens to one of them. Evolutionists claim, homology is proof that evolution is fact and often times research various organisms looking for a pattern but scientists have discovered a contradictory pattern with similarities in which they are trying to squeeze it into the evolution’s framework.

Now brain chemistry falsifies the notion of homology. According to the ‘theory’ from microbes to humans, and everything else in between, complexity evolved through simple forms into more complex forms of life. So how could evolution if it was true, produce incredible feats of engineering early on which would be so critical to humans many millions of years later? You see, scientists have discovered components of human brain chemistry in one-cell animals. The author of New Scientist writes…

“When wondering about the origins of our brain, don’t look to Homo sapiens, chimpanzees, fish or even worms. Many key components first appeared in single-celled organisms, long before animals, brains and even nerve cells existed. The finding is intriguing on its own, but much more significant when combined with a growing body of evidence that essential brain components evolved in choanoflagellates before multicellular life appeared.”

This is like discovering key components of a rocket ship from the first airplane designed by the Wright brothers. If it is impossible for intelligently design machines to accomplish such a feat, how can they expect the public to believe it can happen through errors in the genetic code (mutations) that creates highly advanced components in the simplest form of life?  Nothing in biology obtains clarity while explaining it in the framework of evolution. The data is doing the predicting while stories continue to evolve about it.

Speaking of predictions, there has been a recent discovery of a star which should not exist!  That is in terms of star evolution. They call it the “freakish star,” which is found to be in the constellation Leo. However, this is not a “freakish star” by any length of the imagination rather the star is likely to be more common. There is a wait on more confirmation from other candidates that are in line to be observed, they say.

Science daily reports on the star named, SDSS J102915+172927, which was found with a telescope in Chile….

“A widely accepted theory predicts that stars like this, with low mass and extremely low quantities of metals, shouldn’t exist because the clouds of material from which they formed could never have condensed,” [2] said Elisabetta Caffau (Zentrum fur Astronomie der Universitat Heidelberg, Germany and Observatoire de Paris, France), lead author of the paper. “It was surprising to find, for the first time, a star in this ‘forbidden zone’, and it means we may have to revisit some of the star formation models.” 

What does star formation models really explain? This newly discovered star has 4.5 millionths the heavy elements found in our sun. There of course, are going to be an array of rescue models in order to save this particular explanation (due to popularity within the establishment, not facts) or more like invoking a story that could never be verified through real-time observation. The star’s discovery doesn’t diminish the fact that the universe is quite an amazing place where we can learn about throughout our lifetimes, God’s incredible design!

Advertisements

15 thoughts on “Evolutionary Expectations Experience More Falsifications

  1. “and it means we may have to revisit some of the star formation models.”

    Which is exactly how science works. Nothing special or new.

  2. Just to be a devil’s advocate for a moment (scarey thought) – why should what is critical to human brain function have to develop late in the process? Just because it is critical does not mean it was a late evolutionary product. If evolution were true, it could so happen that brains developed as they did because this chemistry was already available.

    In the airplane to rocket analogy, putting aside the design aspect for the moment (assuming the Wright brother’s plane could evolve into a rocket for analogy sake), the rocket might never have evolved if some of the essential components weren’t already available, or it might evolve, but not be as efficient without these prior components. If, in theory, chance supposedly brings random complexity into efficient function, then there is even more chance and luck that stuff was already available long before it was needed. From a creation/design aspect, the chemistry would not need to be available at the cell level. A designer would use what ever chemistry was needed when it was needed, but the existence of the chemistry at the single cell level seems to give the evolutionist support in his case.

    I don’t know what chemistry you are talking about here in particular (guess I should go look it up in case it comes up in discussion with somebody someday). What would be interesting to see is what the explanation is by the biologist for why the cell organisms have this chemistry that ends up being so critical to human brain function. If it has no purpose, or is not as essential, then from an evolutionary perspective, why should the critter have it?

  3. Hey Walt,

    The advanced complexity (certain brain components) discovered in a single-cell animals would involve a prior grasp of knowledge on the design. The reason why the Wright brothers first plane did not have rocket components was because their information was limited at the time. Your right, existing information would be required for the rocket to have evolved from the first plane. The design of the first plane to a rocket went from simple to more complex, there was no skipping certain steps because the information was limited. The only way, advance complexity showing up in a simple structure was a prior grasp of knowledge on the design which favors a creationist point of view because God is an advanced being.

  4. Walt, you have probably noticed by now that everything that Michael says in the above comment is factually wrong.

    Why do brain components require “advanced complexity,”? Does a wing-nut in a spacecraft need to be more complex or more advanced than a wing-nut in a garden tractor? These two brain proteins are not any more complex than other proteins

    Why would a brain component involve a “prior grasp of knowledge on [sic] the design”? What prevents someone from using this wing-nut in a garden tractor without having the slightest idea of how to design a spacecraft? Or to use it in a lawn mower before spacecraft had even been invented?

    The Wright flyer[1] did not avoid rocket components because “information was limited at the time.” If Michael were not so ignorant, he would know about Chinese “fire arrow” rockets used in the Battle of Kai-Keng in 1232. Medieval European rocket artillery was picked up by the Mongols and spread to the Turks who fired them back at the Europeans. No. The reason the flyer did not have rocket components was that it was not designed to do the same job as a rocket. The first rocket did not have a propeller. Same reason.

    “[E]xisting information would be required for the rocket to have evolved from the first plane”?? News flash. Rockets did not evolve from airplanes. But this would make no sense in any case. Automobiles evolved from horse-drawn buggies. Michael would try to convince us that no one could build a buggy until they had enough “existing information” to build an automobile.

    “The design of the first plane to a rocket went from simple to more complex….” Again, the rocket did not evolve from the airplane. But, if we look at the Wright’s 1903 flyer, we see extreme complexity: an internal combustion engine with hundreds of parts, chains to dual propellers (counter-rotating to avoid torque steer), 3 sets of independent aerodynamic controls and surfaces, everything designed and redesigned for minimum weight and maximum strength. Now recall the iconic picture of Robert Goddard standing beside his first rocket in 1926: a simple sheet-metal tube, a tank of gasoline, a tank of oxygen, a couple of valves, and a burn chamber. Please tell us again what makes the first rocket more complex than the first airplane?

    “The only way, advance [sic] complexity showing [sic] up in a simple structure was a prior grasp of knowledge on [sic] the design….” So, for example, a complex, highly organized hurricane could not possibly show up in a simple random mass of tropical air unless the air had a prior grasp of how hurricane are supposed to be designed. Somehow, this just does not compute.

    “….which favors a creationist point of view because God is an advanced being.” And the converse. If a complex structured hurricane can arise from a simple mass of still air, then the creationist view is disfavored. Or if water can freeze into highly ordered complex crystals from a random liquid without a prior grasp of the structure that it should assume, then creationism is bunkum. Right? Right?

    .

    So every single sentence of Michael’s comment is not only wrong, it’s ridiculous. But hey, creationism does not appeal to the intellect. So Glenn and Lance will still LIKE Michael’s post, even though they know it’s a load of dingo kidneys.

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

    [1] They used the word “plane” to refer only to the wing. That’s where the word came from: a wing is (almost) a flat, ‘plane’ surface.

  5. . . . . . . Evolutionary Expectations Experience More Falsifications

    Michael cites an article describing the discovery .of two brain proteins in a single-cell eukaryote.

    The researchers were studying how brains function.

    They went looking for these proteins in the single-cell eukaryote because this simple organism is thought by biologists to be on the evolutionary path of animals that have brains.

    Pop quiz for Michael: Please tell us how, by any stretch of the imagination, this discovery falsifies any evolutionary expectation? In fact, it confirms an evolutionary expectation.

    .

    Only a creationist could turn that one around.

    But, that’s why scientists laugh at them.

  6. So how could evolution if it was [sic] true, produce incredible feats of engineering early on which would be so critical to humans many millions of years later? You see, scientists have discovered components of human brain chemistry in one-cell animals.

    Michael has just cited a major pieces of evidence for evolution. But somehow he gets it exactly backwards.

    One-celled organisms do not have brains or nervous systems. Therefore any designer worth his deity status would not have provided them with this unnecessary component. It would be like installing a fuel-injection pump in a horse-drawn buggy. So, Michael, please tell us why you think that the discovery of this component might demonstrate “feats of engineering”? Sounds more like a feat of stupidity, if creationism were true.

    On the other hand, evolution is not surprised that these two proteins would show up in a single-cell organism. In fact, if we actually read the New Scientist article, we find that the researchers looked at the choanoflagellate because they suspected that they might find these proteins there. Because choanoflagellates are thought to be the evolutionary ancestors of multicellular organisms.

    But the question remains, why would evolutionary selection hang onto neural proteins in a single-cell microbe that obviously has no neural system? Here is where Michael goes wrong. He does not realize that almost all proteins have more than one function. In this case, the Munc18 and syntaxin1 proteins secrete chemicals that inform neighboring microbes of their presence. Many single-cell organisms do this, using a number of relatively simple signaling compounds.[1] In this case, the chemicals happened to be capable of transmitting electrical impulses of the kind that neurons employ. Perhaps this is why these particular microbes were the ancestors of multicellular animals—because they already possessed the machinery necessary for neural functions. Quoting form the New Scientist article, which Michael has apparently not read very closely—

    “The choanoflagellates have a lot of precursors for things we thought were only present in animals,” says Fasshauer. Today, says Zakon, the nervous system seems “unbelievably complex”, but evidence from these tiny organisms suggests it was built up from several simple systems, which evolved separately for different reasons. For instance, Fasshauer suspects M. brevicollis uses Munc18/syntaxin1 to secrete chemicals, much like neurons use it to release neurotransmitters.

    By the way, Michael infers above that these proteins are present only in humanbrains. Did he not actually read the New Scientist article, or is he deliberately lying to us again?. These proteins are present in all animal brains. Except, apparently, in creationist brains.

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

    [1] In some cases, the chemicals are species-dependent, so that the bugs sense only others of their kind. In other cases, the signals are more general, and may signal the presence of prey or predators.

  7. This newly discovered star has 4.5 millionths the heavy elements found in our sun….. The star’s discovery doesn’t diminish the fact that the universe is quite an amazing place where we can learn about throughout our lifetimes, God’s incredible design!

    So a star with a very small amount of heavy elements demonstrates that God designed it.

    Michael, please explain the principles God used in designing this star. That is, why does this unusual star have anything to do with whether or not God designed the universe?

    We await your response.

    We do not, however, undertake to hold our laughter in the meanwhile.

  8. @Olorin

    Did he not actually read the New Scientist article, or is he deliberately lying to us again?. These proteins are present in all animal brains.

    I really can’t stand when people I debate with show poor to horrendous reading comprehension… I am currently having a debate with someone on Amazon.com (unrelated to creation-evolution), and the guy is showing either poor reading comprehension or not even bothering to read at all.

    Apparently I’m a “Liberal” because I argue that the American Indians were victims of genocide….and that is despite the fact I lean heavily conservative on a majority of matters. When I pointed THAT out, he now says I am trying to have it both ways… Spoken like a true “purist,” I say,

  9. Olorin: “We do not, however, undertake to hold our laughter in the meanwhile.”

    Absolutely not !

    :-) :-)

  10. Olorin says, “One-celled organisms do not have brains or nervous systems. Therefore any designer worth his deity status would not have provided them with this unnecessary component.” Non-coding dna was thought to be an unnecessary component (junk) so little research was done in the area for many years until functions were discovered. The research then started growing in that area and more functions were found with junk dna which doesn’t help the evolutionary explanation at all. As far as what you claim, you use circular reasoning, first of all, no research has been done to determine it is an unnecessary component for a one-cell animal. Like evolution, conjure thrives rather than actual observations.

    Another example would be, the one cell animal to man which got more complicated, a theme in evolution by the way. It has been estimated about 230 to 250 proteins are the minimum required for cell function. That is enormously high what one would call the miracle zone but consider the experiment Standford conducted. They used a new method to estimate the minimum required for cell function. The one cell animal they used was Caulobacter crescentus which most evolutionary labs like to use for experiments. They marked certain DNA mutations in surviving mutant bacteria for reference.

    Next, they mapped the genome to discover the areas where mutations were resisted. What they found was the bacteria had 480 essential protein-coding genes, and not only that but 532 other essential regions that regulate gene expression. 91 regions had unknown functions to the researchers, unlike you with the other one cell animal, they didn’t assume it was unnecessary components. And finally, genes which were unknown but had necessary function. So the results made the previously minimum look very small. This one celled animal required 1,000 for its basic survival rather than the previously known 230-250 estimate! It displays nature being non-flexible for mutations which is what evolution is based on producing new information that changes animals into another species. Saying evolution can happen is not enough to be called a fact, experiments have to show it! And so far not one of these mutation experiments have shown it!

    Link for Standford’s experiment: http://med.stanford.edu/ism/2011/august/shapiro.html

  11. Olorin says, “One-celled organisms do not have brains or nervous systems. Therefore any designer worth his deity status would not have provided them with this unnecessary component.” Non-coding dna was thought to be an unnecessary component (junk) so little research was done in the area for many years until functions were discovered.

    What does the two brain proteins mentioned in the post have to do with non-coding DNA?

    Absolutely nothing.

    Michael just couldn’t resist schlepping in his favorite subject. He seems unable to grasp the fact that “junk DNA” is not predicted by any evolutionary theory. Evolution does, however, allow DNA that has no function. As opposed to creationism, which does not allow for the possibility that any DNA has no function.

    The existence of junk DNA neither confirms nor denies evolution. It does, however, falsify creationism.

  12. Olorin says, “One-celled organisms do not have brains or nervous systems. Therefore any designer worth his deity status would not have provided them with this unnecessary component.” Non-coding dna was thought to be an unnecessary component (junk) so little research was done in the area for many years until functions were discovered.

    Once again, Michael fails basic reading comprehension. I said that the two brain proteins are “unnecessary” to the cell. This is not at all the same as saying that the proteins have no function in the cell. Turn signals are not necessary to the operation of a car. This does not mean that turn signals have no function in a car.

  13. It has been estimated about 230 to 250 proteins are the minimum required for cell function. That is enormously high what one would call the miracle zone but consider the experiment Standford conducted…. What [Sanford] found was the bacteria had 480 essential protein-coding genes, and not only that but 532 other essential regions that regulate gene expression.

    Michael runs off the rails again.

    The Sanford paper looks at one organism, and how much of its genome is necessary for the survival of that one organism. Other organisms may differ, both in the number of genes required, and which genes they are. Circoviridae viruses, for example, have only two (2) protein-coding genes in their entire genome. So the “old” number (230-250) is not wrong; it is the answer to a different question.
    Furthermore, any minimum number is valid only for organisms that exist today, in today’s environment. Today’s cars, for example, need fenders and lights, neither of which was required or even available in a car built in 1905.

    One of the objects of looking for a minimum set of proteins is to deduce what might not have been required in the earliest life. This will require evolutionary principles, so creationists need not bestir themselves.

  14. Michael’s favorite cosmological argument for special creation is “ex nihilo nihil”—that “something” cannot be created from “nothing.”

    The other day I ran across a lecture by cosmologist Lawrence Krauss that addresses this topic: “Life, the Universe and Nothing”. Almost an hour long. Besides being world-class in this field Krauss is an entertaining speaker. Richard Dawkins called him the Woody Allen of cosmology. (His prognosis for the ultimate fate of the universe is that “We will be ignorant and lonely, but dominant. Having lived in the United States for a long time, I’m used to that.”)

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