There has been a long history of falsified predictions in evolution which end up to be a dead end then junked. Sometimes these junked ideas in evolution make a comeback while new ideas using “soft” evolutionary thinking are invented! Non-coding DNA is a classic example, “The noncoding region is often surprisingly large; in humans, some 98 percent of the genome merits ‘junk’ status which has lead to neglect in research. However, as functions are found, research begins to expand more in this area! Scientists continue to be surprised by uncovering this so-called, “junk” region as playing a vital role that can turn information into useful products.
However, it’s not the only area of research!
“Despite the fact that almost every cell found in vertebrates has at least one primary cilium, the organ was regarded as merely an evolutionary relic – the cellular equivalent to the human appendix. Of late, however, it has become increasingly clear that primary cilia serve as powerful communication hubs. (After all, they do sort of look like antennae.) Disruptions in the activity of cilia are now understood to lead to a whole class of diseases dubbed ciliopathies, and researchers are hustling to figure out what makes them tick.”
A parasitic marine/aquatic animal with a toothed, funnel-like sucking mouth that lives on other living fish has a “stress hormone.” This discovery was touted for relevance sake and the animal being a lower species which is supposedly leading them to new understanding on how stress hormones supposedly evolved.
“Most jawless animals similar to the lamprey didn’t survive into the modern era, so they’re not available for us to use as we strive to learn more about how human systems developed,” the lead researcher said. “The sea lamprey, a survivor, gives us a snapshot of what happened as vertebrates evolved into the animals we know today.”
When observations are not able to be accomplished, soft theory is being deployed! Finding a stress hormone is not evidence for Darwinian evolution and most likely will only create more complexity within the ‘theory.’ In 2007, induced pluripotent stem cells was accomplished in a lab. Three years later a story has been invented and promoted for these cells in their supposed role in bringing light new information about evolution’s history.
“Even though received wisdom is that it evolved with mammals, our research suggests that it was there all along, just not in many of the species that people use in the lab. In fact, pluripotent cells probably exist in the embryos of the simple animals from which amphibians evolved.”
Yep, they received a new revelation and it was there all along! lol Hang on, got to get back in my chair from laughing so hard…lol…Not only that, but lack of evolution makes total sense as well for this story…“since mammals evolved directly from reptiles it makes sense that the genetic mechanisms controlling embryo development remain largely unchanged from axolotls to humans.” A total faith explanation based on assumptions, many of which have been falsified while other assumptions are buried so far into the past which allows it to remain as hope for certain scientists concerning Darwinian evolution! So which do you think gets better results for Darwinian evolution or evolution in general, predictions of the future or assumptions concerning the past?
It’s not only present soft explanations but comebacks in old theories. “Recapitulation theory” of Ernst Haeckel shows itself once again! Hang on, getting back into the chair again…lol It gets media attention every now and then. This ‘theory’ was discarded long ago by the likes of Stephen Jay Gould. This particular old ‘theory’ consists of the development of an embryo which is able to replay its evolutionary history. He made a drawing in order to support his new invention which was later deemed to be a fake! In the realm of Darwinian evolution there is a different explanation. It’s only the mutations that are preserved in an organism. But this doesn’t stop it from resurfacing in research today! Most likely why this non-Darwinian theory still gets press while other ‘theories’ that are even based on evolution do not because they think it wouldn’t remind anyone from the public of creationism or intelligent design…
“A new study shows the human brain regions that expand the most during infancy and childhood are the same parts that expanded the most during evolution as humans diverged from other primates. ” -Live Science
The results of “soft” evolutionary theory is bad science resulting in no new information which creates a lot of confusion with it’s expanded and revised stories. How a species actually works with all it’s complexity is good science and is what scientists should be focusing on more.