What Creates Innovation?

We sometimes like you use “creativity” for “innovation” or “innovation” for “creativity” but these two words contain separate meanings.  Creativity is an idea, while innovation is bringing that idea to life.

Creationists view DNA including so-called, “Junk DNA” as creativity while evolutionists view junk mutations as “innovation” thus skipping the “creativity” part because evolution has no idea, because it’s considered to be a mindless process.  Well, maybe not! However, evolutionists continue to seek something in mutations that can define “creativity” (without the idea part of it if that makes any sense) as found in such articles as this recent one in phys.org...”Insects show how DNA mistakes become evolutionary innovation.”

It continues…

“In two recently published projects, however, scientists show how typos can indeed lead to improvements. In numerous species of insects, they document the DNA errors that led to changes that are not only beneficial but also brilliant. Various species of beetles, aphids, butterflies, and moths have independently acquired genetic errors that allow them to eat highly toxic plants and then use the toxins to defend themselves against predators.”

What did Faye Flam (the reporter) offer as proof for this assumption? Mutations (copy errors in the DNA) caused the cardenolides not to bind to the enzymes required by the insects’ sodium pump. Notice, the insects are still the same species, and there was no increase in novel genetic information, or even specified complex structures.  So the mutations themselves lack the ability to explain origin like how did the sodium pump and the enzyme come into existence in the first place? Do you know what I mean?

By removing one of your fingers to slip out of the handcuffs or even removing one of your arms so your hands could never be handcuffed ever again would not be considered a new innovative mechanism but it’s only a reduced vulnerability! The article celebrated this experiment as an “evolutionary trick” that produced “convergent evolution” in different insect lineages.

The author of the article seems to forget that evolution should be producing novel information (rather than reducing a vulnerability) that leads to new species.  Flam (the author of the article) could not claim that the varieties able to ingest the toxins were new species; but rather he confessed at the end, “The way new species are born is another longstanding puzzle in evolution that DNA is helping scientists to solve.”  In other words, comeback for promised evidence of innovation without the idea behind it.

Where is the really big innovation attributable to mutations? Duplications are a form of mutation, but just because you get a second copy of your twitter feed,  doesn’t mean the second one will evolve into a new, or better feed when cosmic rays hit it. Mutations can change existing information while decaying the information but there is no evidence that it can produce novel information!

So what creates innovation? The answer is simple, nothing creates innovation, creativity is the idea that innovation brings to life and ideas as we observe them come from intelligence! Whether it be artwork, a car engine, your computer, your smartphone, or nature itself! Without creativity there is no innovation.

Fossils Create Confusion Within Evolution

One has heard many times over on how the fossil record bares out evolution. On the contrary, it only creates more confusion when invoking the evolutionary framework.  Like in other fields of science, predictions are made then later observations either confirm or falsify these predictions.

It is just mind blogging imagination that runs rampant within these predictions. Take this for an example, evolutionary scientists predicted what insect ears would look like in light of the evolution of bats.  In other words, using survival of the fittest, insects would have less developed ears prior to the arrival of bats. While bat evolution triggered somehow, a more complex ear in insects for their survival.

Sounds logical doesn’t it? In the world of evolution it does, but in the real world nature isn’t designed like that! Nothing in biology in light of evolution gains clarity.  In the Green River formation in Wyoming, scientists discovered an impressive amount of  exceptionally-preserved insect fossils. This created an opportunity to compare the fossil evidence with their prediction. Here is what they revealed…

Phys.org reports on the published article in the Journal of Paleontology which states the following…

“Tympanal ears in insects are important for both intraspecific communication and for the detection of nocturnal predators. Ears are thought, based on modern forms, to have originated independently multiple times within insects and can be found on multiple regions of the body.”

“Here we describe and document the exceptionally well preserved tympanal ears found in crickets and katydids from the Eocene Green River Formation of Colorado, which are virtually identical to those seen in modern representatives of these groups. These specimens are among the best preserved insect ears in the fossil record and establish the presence of ears in two major clades of Orthoptera 50 million years ago.”

“Also discussed and evaluated are previously described insect ears from the Mesozoic and the implications of the findings of the present study for studying the evolution of ears within insects.” 

What falsified the prediction is that evolutionary scientists expected a less complex structure of the ear in insects before bats evolved. What they discovered in the real world was the fact that insect ears from ancient times werevirtually identical in size, shape, and position to their modern counterparts.”

They wanted us to believe that insects evolved their ears 17 times in different lineages over many millions of years but the fossil record disagrees, insect ears were designed just fine before bats and the ears are almost the same as the ones in modern insects.  So there was no bat evolution impact on the design nor a slow and gradual process of the ear design from simple to complex over 50 million years in the fossil record.

What happens now? Generally like every falsification of this degree, their pattern is to spin the falsification (along with its 50 million year timeline) into claiming that it is shedding more light or giving hints about insect origins. The only light that is being shed with this discovery is the fact that the fossil record is demonstrating “abrupt appearance” rather than a slow and gradual pattern of evolution.  And “abrupt appearance” in the fossil record favors the creationist model.