Accomplishing Innovation Through Mistakes?

Nature is remarkably designed for instance, one-cell animals that were once considered simple creatures, have mind-blowing complexity with more of it yet to be uncovered, how could such innovations be created in the first place? The story begins in science daily with an idea that claims that evolution accomplishes it through mistakes.

“Some individuals are better adapted to a given environment than others, making them more likely to survive and pass on their genes to future generations. But exactly how nature creates variation in the first place still poses somewhat of a puzzle to evolutionary biologists.”

“Now, Joanna Masel, associate professor in the UA’s department of ecology and evolutionary biology, and postdoctoral fellow Etienne Rajon discovered the ways organisms deal with mistakes that occur while the genetic code in their cells is being interpreted greatly influences their ability to adapt to new environmental conditions — in other words, their ability to evolve.”

So here we have the implication of  animals having the ability to evolve which then leads to innovation like bacteria to man because later. How can they get  from errors to innovation? Here is an interesting analogy…

“Evolution needs a playground in order to try things out,” Masel said  who had his paper published in PNAS,  “It’s like in competitive business: New products and ideas have to be tested to see whether they can live up to the challenge.”

Random mutations are like an idea formulated by intelligence? Certainly natural selection has no ability to think in order to direct what mutations are produced in the first place while knowing which ones should be tested and others that should be discarded. What’s more puzzling about that analogy is the fact that when companies are originally created, there is a purpose in place for it. It’s basically intelligently designed to either provide a particular service or sell a particular product.

In no way does innovation of companies comes from no ideas and no purpose or direction. Some companies may fail do to lack of direction and purpose or no market for what product or service they are offering. Certainly evolution with its lack of purpose, and non-thinking process doesn’t remotely compare with a business. So overlooking that error, evolutionists go into detail about accomplishing innovation through various mistakes…

“In nature, it turns out, many new traits that, for example, enable their bearers to conquer new habitats, start out as blunders: mistakes made by cells that result in altered proteins with changed properties or functions that are new altogether, even when there is nothing wrong with the gene itself.  Sometime later, one of these mistakes can get into the gene and become more permanent.”

Keep in mind, we want to see how innovations like brains, eyes, or wings, got there. All we have are protein mistakes. The gene was fine, then something happened… “Sometime later, one of these mistakes can get back into the gene,” they claimed. Is there any evidence for this claim?  None found in the article.

The explanation then takes a more bizarre turn, by invoking global and local solutions. A global solution has “a proofreading mechanism to spot and fix errors as they arise.”  Something “watches over the entire process,” wait a minute, how can an entire process that oversees errors and being able to fix them be a product of errors itself?  It appears that global solutions nothing more than about preserving integrity of the genome, not innovating brains, eyes or wings.  So that means innovation must be local…

“The alternative is to allow errors to happen, but evolve robustness to the effects of each of them.  Masel and Rajon call this strategy a local solution, because in the absence of a global proofreading mechanism, it requires an organism to be resilient to each and every mistake that pops up.”

“We discovered that extremely small populations will evolve global solutions, while very large populations will evolve local solutions,” Masel said.  “Most realistically sized populations can go either direction but will gravitate toward one or the other.  But once they do, they rarely switch, even over the course of evolutionary time.”

Using a purposeful concept, the explanation in the evolutionary framework entails a lot of strategy like a chess game! Now if an organism has an ability to use strategy in order to allow some errors to creep in, but then “evolve robustness” to their effects, did that strategy itself evolve through step by step mistakes?  The article doesn’t say.

The story plot thickens with the introduction of a contrast between “regular variation”, and what they call “cryptic variation.” Regular variation for the majority of it’s production, produces something non-useful or bad with very slim odds of producing something useful. While on the other hand, cryptic variation is supposed to produce something non-deadly and mostly harmless. Even so, cryptic variation doesn’t have the power to innovate.  Here they come up with a story about it for it to supposedly work…

“So how does cryptic variation work and why is it so important for understanding evolution? By allowing for a certain amount of mistakes to occur instead of quenching them with global proofreading machinery, organisms gain the advantage of allowing for what Masel calls pre-selection: It provides an opportunity for natural selection to act on sequences even before mutations occur.”

While Masel’s recalls Darwin’s personified depiction of his theory, yet even Darwin might have had doubts of natural selection keeping harmless variations in the junkyard for later analysis and future usage. Masel argued that “the organism doesn’t pay a large cost for it, but it’s still there if it needs it.”

So now we know how important cryptic variation is to evolution but still one asks…Is natural selection a person?  Does it have a plan?  How would natural selection have any precognition of the need for an eye, a wing, or a brain? A mistake that leads to a misfolded protein are very deadly for the organism.

Purifying selection (eliminating mistakes) and compensating selection (tolerating mistakes) are not controversial for creationists. But having those protections still won’t give you a brain, eye or a wing! The analogy they made between a business and evolution demonstrates they have the idea it’s intelligent design but they are trying desperately to invoke miracles in evolution.


Peer-Reviewed Paper Says Evolution Is Not Practical

One cannot observe birds evolve nor flowers, nor trees or humans so evolution is measured in terms of fitness which has been very elusive in evolutionary research.  In a recent paper in PLoS, called; “Experimental Rugged Fitness Landscape in Protein Sequence Space” where it makes the following statement…

“Experimental molecular evolution from randomly generated polypeptides has been employed to determine how and to what extent a functional protein can evolve according to the principles of Darwinian evolution [16]–[20]. One of the most remarkable findings of these studies is that relatively small degrees of sequence diversity, e.g., 10 different random sequence for esterase activity, are sufficient to allow Darwinian selection of random polypeptides composed of about 140 amino acid residues [17].”

“By extrapolation, we estimated that adaptive walking requires a library size of 10^70 [a one followed by 70 zeros] with 35 substitutions to reach comparable fitness. Such a huge search is impractical and implies that evolution of the wild-type phage must have involved not only random substitutions but also other mechanisms, such as homologous recombination.”

This is not something a student would not hear in their biology, in fact the response of the teacher would most likely be that evolution is an absolute indisputable fact.  But in a way, these scientists present a more realistic aspect about evolutionary theory. Proteins have been a mystery for evolutionists for many years, there have been numerous ideas on their supposed evolution which have been conjured up that makes it even more impractical while requiring scientists to have more faith in this ever-expanding complexity of naturalism as a result of more falsifications.

Evolutionary scientists admit in this paper, origins in evolution are not practical so they add more mechanisms like homologous recombination.” What is wrong with that? Take for example, a group of people who on a Friday night want to play a game of cards, but have no deck. The question is, how can they get a deck of cards without going to the store  or without the essential material  to make them?

One man stands up and says very enthusiastically, “why don’t we shuffle the deck until one of us comes up with matches?” Everyone looks at him as though he were crazy, because there isn’t a deck of cards!  You have to have a deck of cards first before you can shuffle them! It’s very simple logic!

This is exactly what “homologous recombination” is. Proteins like a deck of cards would be required in order to re-mix in a homologous way.  The solution to this problem is an incredible absurdity of evolutionary thought!  To suggest future mechanisms which wouldn’t have never existed at that time be able to solve problems with protein origins. These same origins of protein which have been deemed by evolutionists themselves to be impractical to evolve on their own!  Clearly, the research puts another dagger in evolution, it also adds vindication to creationism where nature is a design made by God!

Paper Falsifies Hypothesis For Gene Duplication

A system of flexibility is required in order for evolution to work. Gene Duplication has been structured to fit a particular system which advocates that duplicated genes have the flexibility to evolve new functions without affecting the primary gene. It’s been a long-held belief in evolution which has been recently put to the test by taking the best examples evolutionary gene duplication had to offer as well as the best information on how genetic information is supposed to arise which was described by scientists that was cited in various journals.

The first part of this paper begins with a major blow to natural selection as being the leader for creating new information…

“Research into the evolution of genes has shown that the peptides they code for are of a finicky and precarious nature, both marginally stable and prone to aggregation.  Protein folding happens to be a highly complex and synergistic process, involving a number of epistatic relationships among many residues.”

“This phenomenon, compounded with the issue of interactions between protein molecules, can significantly complicate adaptive evolution such that in the majority of cases the overall effects on reproductive fitness are very slight. Many arguably “beneficial” mutations have been observed to incur some sort of cost and so can be classified as a form of antagonistic pleiotropy. Indeed, the place and extent of natural selection as a force for change in molecular biology have been questioned in recent years.”

“Moreover, several well-known factors such as the linkage and the multilocus nature of important phenotypes tend to restrain the power of Darwinian evolution, and so represent natural limits to biological change. Selection, being an essentially negative filter, tends to act against variation including mutations previously believed to be innocuous.”

Wait a minute, hold the phone, stop the presses! Isn’t evolution supposed to have the ability to tinker with gene duplication without affecting the function of the original?  All this negative selection is not good for understanding evolution, benefit is required! Did the research turn up any? Let’s take a look…

Were selection to be completely relaxed and any manner of changes permitted, this would only serve to guarantee complete degeneration.  It would invariably lead to the introduction of null and nonsense mutations, scrambling the open reading frame (ORF), and degrading the cisregulatory elements involved in transcription—leading to the gene’s pseudogenization.  Thus, a measure of purifying/stabilizing selection seems necessary for duplicate preservation, and any evolutionary divergence would proceed under a relaxed regime rather than none at all.”

The primary purpose of this research was to see if novel genetic information can arise by gene duplication using the best available information on evolutionary gene duplication! Even with it’s best explanation and examples, it fails to pass the test! “A key problem associated with the Darwinian mechanism of evolution is that many of the putative incipient and intermediate stages in the development of a biological trait may not be useful themselves and may even be harmful.”

Where is this flexible system that evolution is suppose to work under? It’s sure not showing up with new observations concerning tested data!  The paper concludes by noting that accidental gene duplication adds to the size of some genomes.  “However, in all of the examples given above, known evolutionary mechanisms were markedly constrained in their ability to innovate and to create any novel information, he said.  “This natural limit to biological change can be attributed mostly to the power of purifying selection, which, despite being relaxed in duplicates, is nonetheless ever-present.”

This falsification of gene duplication has been advocated for decades among creationists and the modern intelligent design movement. It is interesting to note that the lead researcher Bozorgmehr, an evolutionist who came up with the same conclusion about natural limits to biological change that creationists and ID proponents have been saying!  You see, interpreting evolution as “just happens” is one thing, but testing it is quite another! The research verifies the creationist model, variants within it’s own kind while nature is in a pattern of going in reverse.  

Geologist Disagrees With Darwinian Evolution

Michael Rampino is suggesting another approach in trying to understand the story of evolution. This approach could put himself at great odds with the Darwinian school of thought. Unlike creationists who acknowledge that they have made assumptions with certain models and are prepared to discuss and debate those assumptions, evolutionists do not acknowledge that they are making assumptions rather they treat their ideas as though they were part of the laws of nature, and then try attempt to silence opposition even if the opposition is based in naturalism.

In physorg

“Matthew discovered and clearly stated the idea of natural selection, applied it to the origin of species, and placed it in the context of a geologic record marked by catastrophic mass extinctions followed by relatively rapid adaptations,” says Rampino, whose research on catastrophic events includes studies on volcano eruptions and asteroid impacts.”

In light of the recent acceptance of the importance of catastrophic mass extinctions in the history of life, it may be time to reconsider the evolutionary views of Patrick Matthew as much more in line with present ideas regarding biological evolution than the Darwin view.”

Michael Rampino believes his colleagues will be receptive to this proposal, but the religious crowd in evolution (like militant atheists) most likely will see this as pointing in the direction of creationism. Because for one, some evolutionists like to argue against a global flood that happened 4,500 years ago because they say adaption is unable to create such variety of animals so quickly.

By suggesting it can, some would say that strengthens the creation position on a global flood which would bring out the Darwinian security guards for rebuke as it gives comfort to the enemy. Make no mistake about it, they are very concerned on the way they sell evolution to the public while holding to dogmatic beliefs about it.

However, viewing evolution in catastrophic events as a prime factor, and maintaining those mass extinctions doesn’t give any evidence nor understanding on how the nervous system was created for example, nor how the eyes was created or the ears, nose or even the mouth. It just assumes that evolution did it.

Theory In Chaos: Forget Finding Natural Laws About Evolution?

The article opens with a letter from Charles Lyell who wrote to Charles Darwin in 1856.  Lyell didn’t know what to make of  various types of mollusc which abruptly disappeared from the fossil record, then all of a sudden reappear 2 million years later according to the evolutionary time frame with their structures being completely unchanged! Lyell asked Darwin to explain the observation, but he never did.

According to Keith Bennett of New Scientist, there has been no viable explanation to this day on why that happened and there isn’t one, he said.

“Because of the way evolution works, it is impossible to predict how a given species will respond to environmental change. That is not to say that evolution is random – far from it. But the neat concept of adaptation to the environment driven by natural selection, as envisaged by Darwin in On the Origin of Species and now a central feature of the theory of evolution, is too simplistic. Instead, evolution is chaotic.”

Many across the land dispute there is no controversy over evolution, it’s an absolute fact like scientific law. In fact, they interchange “evolution” with the term “science” to confuse people while attempting to make it more convincing with no avail. Keith Bennett points out…

“There is still huge debate about the role of natural selection and adaptation in ‘macroevolution’ – big evolutionary events such as changes in biodiversity over time, evolutionary radiations and, of course, the origin of species.”

Is Keith Bennett lying in his statement? Many across the United States have asked public schools to “teach the controversy” about the ‘theory’ of evolution and time after time again the public was told there was none! Bennett proposes chaos which in his mind has more flexibility in dealing with falsifications of evolution with better scientific data. He proposes a theory that advocates evolutionary changes are unpredictable, individualistic, highly sensitive to initial conditions, nonlinear, and fractal.

Bennett points out in the Quaternary period with its ice ages have many populations which did not adapt to the changes while others adapted in unpredictable ways, and many went extinct. He summarizes his proposal this way…

This view of life leads to certain consequences.  Macroevolution is not the simple accumulation of microevolutionary changes but has its own processes and patterns.  There can be no “laws” of evolution. We may be able to reconstruct the sequence of events leading to the evolution of any given species or group after the fact, but we will not be able to generalise from these to other sequences of events. From a practical point of view, this means we will be unable to predict how species will respond to projected climate changes over next century.”

It’s been the main focus to bring evolution under natural law since Darwin but Bennett’s statement reinforces there are no laws for evolution. What would that mean? It means, no predictions and no predictions means evolution could never be falsified under that particular framework of story telling. This is why Bennett has embraced such a concept so much otherwise his admission would be considered selling out evolution completely! Although a theory in chaos also brings no understanding about what goes on in nature.

The Results For Testing Natural Selection On Fruit Flies

During a speech urging the federal government to fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) then governor, Sarah Palin in October 2008 became critical of spending money for fruit fly research…

She said…

“Where does a lot of that earmark money end up anyway? You’ve heard about some of these pet projects they really don’t make a whole lot of sense and sometimes these dollars go to projects that have little or nothing to do with the public good. Things like fruit fly research in Paris, France. I kid you not.”

Being a conservative and a creationist, she was subjective to all sorts of name calling to “anti-science” rants. However, she was unaware (like most people) that fruit fly research was being used for trying to understand autism. But it’s not the only type of researching going on. A recent study performed an experiment on fruit flies to test the limits of natural selection. It was a major blow to the evolution is an indisputable fact crowd…

The experiment showed only minor changes after 600 generations and what is even more interesting, there was less so-called evolution in these organisms than in similar experiments conducted with microbes, like bacteria and yeast! And success is a lot less likely in the wild than under ideal lab conditions! The paper in Nature is called, “Experimental evolution reveals resistance to change” where it says…

“Experimental evolution systems allow the genomic study of adaptation, and so far this has been done primarily in asexual systems with small genomes, such as bacteria and yeast.  Here we present whole-genome resequencing data from Drosophila melanogaster populations that have experienced over 600 generations of laboratory selection for accelerated development.”

“Flies in these selected populations develop from egg to adult ~20% faster than flies of ancestral control populations, and have evolved a number of other correlated phenotypes.  On the basis of 688,520 intermediate-frequency, high-quality single nucleotide polymorphisms, we identify several dozen genomic regions that show strong allele frequency differentiation between a pooled sample of five replicate populations selected for accelerated development  and pooled controls.”

“On the basis of resequencing data from a single replicate population with accelerated development, as well as single nucleotide polymorphism data from individual flies from each replicate population, we infer little allele frequency differentiation between replicate populations within a selection treatment.”

“Signatures of selection are qualitatively different than what has been observed in asexual species; in our sexual populations, adaptation is not associated with ‘classic’ sweeps whereby newly arising, unconditionally advantageous mutations become fixed.  More parsimonious  explanations include ‘incomplete’ sweep models, in which mutations have not had enough time to fix, and ‘soft’ sweep models, in which selection acts on pre-existing, common genetic variants.”

“We conclude that, at least for life history characters such as development time, unconditionally advantageous alleles rarely arise, are associated with small net fitness gains or cannot fix because selection coefficients change over time.”

In other words, they were looking for a “signature” of beneficial mutations becoming fixed in the population. Despite their success in creating mutations with the fruit flies, their designed bodies resisted change. And not only that but the fruit flies went in the other direction on what secular scientists call, “reverse-evolution.” Instead of new mutations, there were variants of them. The last paragraph describing the fruit fly research displays disappointment and surprise over this…

“Our work provides a new perspective on the genetic basis of adaptation.  Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles.  This is notable because in wild populations we expect the strength of natural selection to be less intense and the environment unlikely to remain constant for ~600 generations.”

“Consequently, the probability of fixation in wild populations should be even lower than its likelihood in these experiments.  This suggests that selection does not readily expunge genetic variation in sexual populations, a finding which in turn should motivate efforts to discover why this is seemingly the case.”

Why are the planets moving backwards? We must figure out why this gap is seemingly the case in the theory of Geocentrism. Perhaps Heliocentrism is a better alternative! Nah, geocentrism is an undisputable fact, eventually this observation will be explained thus preserving it…Ok, that’s not about fruit flies and Darwinian evolution, but you get the idea. Natural selection is presumed to be a miracle worker, that can produce the brain, eyes, ears, nose, and mouth in a step by step process using mutations. However, it doesn’t work theoretically nor historically, nor experimentally. It’s a failed ‘theory’ that relies on story telling.

Sarah Palin was wrong about how valuable fruit fly research can be not only for understanding or fighting diseases, but understanding how variation works within it’s own kind, and how it disproves the idea of evolution as an “indisputable fact.”

Researchers Discovered A Well-Designed Creature

In one of the most stunning discoveries of 2010, which made scientists attempt to disprove what they actually observed in this amazing discovery!  Science Daily reports…

“They first used a microscope to look through the lenses of the two eyes detailed in the research article. They saw how the lens could make a second image grow sharper — something that could only happen with a bifocal.”

“It was my first research project, and I seriously thought I made a mistake, and then we did additional research to try to kill the hypothesis,” says Stowasser. However, their findings were confirmed with more research in addition to observing the operation of the lens and the two focal planes via a microscope. They saw the bifocal again when they used a method to project a narrow light beam through the lens. “Our findings can only be explained by a truly bifocal lens,” write the researchers.”

Some defenders of evolution use confusion and complexity in order to cover the falsifications that go on with these discoveries. For example, some argue that creationists are wrong, mutations are not random. Oh really? Did the mutations contained information gathered from a known mechanism from the outside on what to design next?  Oh it’s natural selection choosing which mutations to build such a well-designed complex tiny little creature so it’s directed right? However natural selection doesn’t manufacture the mutations that it chooses.

The reality is, mutations which are permanent changes (accidents or mistakes) in the DNA strand have a negative effect in regards to information because it looses it. Other mutations are neutral and as a result doesn’t help the evolution cause. If evolution was true, there would have to be millions upon millions if not billions upon billions of these mutations which need to have created new information and a new function. What we observe in nature are animals going in the wrong direction for evolution.

In rare cases, mutations loose information which allows a gain of a function like a beetle loses the information to make a wing on a windy island, the mutation is beneficial because the beetle doesn’t get blown out to sea and killed. Bacterial antibiotic resistance is also used as so-called ‘proof’ of evolution. Bacteria generally steals pre-existing information in order to survive the antibiotic or looses information in pre-existing activities such as enzymatic, regulatory, or transport systems which makes it less fit compared to other Bacteria that didn’t go through it.

But what about this amazing well-designed bug? It displays intelligent engineering by a creator, this is why scientists were trying to disprove the specified complexity.

The article explains that using two retinas and two distinct focal planes that are substantially separated, the larvae can more efficiently use these bifocals, compared with the glasses that humans wear, to switch their vision from up-close to distance — the better to see and catch their prey, with their favorite food being mosquito larvae…”

This is another lesson on how evolution explanations hinders science (the complexity didn’t fit evolutionary expectations which resulted in trying to disprove it) and lacks contribution to this discovery. Two eyes in one is simply a remarkable intelligent design created by God!