Home » Darwinism, Evolution, Intelligent Design, News » Finally some straight talk: Serious evolution is NOT happening just because small changes are noted vs. last decade

Finally some straight talk: Serious evolution is NOT happening just because small changes are noted vs. last decade

It takes about 1 million years for changes that don't just reverse/Oregon State U

From “Not So Fast: Lasting Evolutionary Change Takes About One Million Years, Researchers Find” (ScienceDaily, Aug. 22, 2011), we learn:

In research that will help address a long-running debate and apparent contradiction between short- and long-term evolutionary change, scientists have discovered that although evolution is a constant and sometimes rapid process, the changes that hit and stick tend to take a long time.

Give or take a little, one million years seems to be the magic number.

The problem seems to be that researchers were pouncing on small and easily reversible changes, and declaring them to be “evolution.”

This, in turn, is because they were desperate for actual evidence of Darwinian evolution – natural selection, acting on random mutations – as opposed to just plain evolution – stable change over time, due to a variety of causes.

A recent study was the first [!] to combine data from short periods such as 10-100 years with the fossil record over millions of years.

It determined that rapid changes in local populations often don’t continue, stand the test of time or spread through a species.

In other words, just because humans are two or three inches taller now than they were 200 years ago, it doesn’t mean that process will continue and we’ll be two or three feet taller in 2,000 years. Or even as tall in one million years as we are now.

No. And any significant, permanent change in height might require such massive restructuring that design is a necessary component for success.

This research supports the overall pattern of stasis and punctuational change. However, Uyeda says there may be different causal mechanisms at work than have often been proposed.

Then he starts talking nonsense:

“Evolutionary adaptations are caused by some force of natural selection such as environmental change, predation or anthropogenic disturbance, and these forces have to continue and become widespread for the change to persist and accumulate. That’s slower and more rare than one might think.”

If evolution that involved the development of complex new machinery depended on these forces, it would simply never occur. Natural selection cannot produce intricate machinery as needed, nor can environmental change. And “anthropogenic disturbance” has not been much of a factor before a few centuries ago.

It is sad to see a scientist talking like this, for the sole purpose of defending Darwinism.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

7 Responses to Finally some straight talk: Serious evolution is NOT happening just because small changes are noted vs. last decade

  1. Hellooo?!

    It’s called equivocation, and it has been going on for at least 150 years.

  2. Million years??? Hmmm, the ‘actual’ evidence says that is wrong as well;

    The Paradox of the “Ancient” 9250 Million Year Old) Bacterium Which Contains “Modern” Protein-Coding Genes:
    “Almost without exception, bacteria isolated from ancient material have proven to closely resemble modern bacteria at both morphological and molecular levels.” Heather Maughan*, C. William Birky Jr., Wayne L. Nicholson, William D. Rosenzweig§ and Russell H. Vreeland ;
    http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/...../19/9/1637

    These following studies, by Dr. Cano on ancient bacteria, preceded Dr. Vreeland’s work:

    “Raul J. Cano and Monica K. Borucki discovered the bacteria preserved within the abdomens of insects encased in pieces of amber. In the last 4 years, they have revived more than 1,000 types of bacteria and microorganisms — some dating back as far as 135 million years ago, during the age of the dinosaurs.,,, In October 2000, another research group used many of the techniques developed by Cano’s lab to revive 250-million-year-old bacteria from spores trapped in salt crystals. With this additional evidence, it now seems that the “impossible” is true.”
    http://www.physicsforums.com/s.....p?t=281961

    Revival and identification of bacterial spores in 25- to 40-million-year-old Dominican amber
    Dr. Cano and his former graduate student Dr. Monica K. Borucki said that they had found slight but significant differences between the DNA of the ancient, 25-40 million year old amber-sealed Bacillus sphaericus and that of its modern counterpart,(thus ruling out that it is a modern contaminant, yet at the same time confounding materialists, since the change is not nearly as great as evolution’s ‘genetic drift’ theory requires.)
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/...../5213/1060

    Dr. Cano’s work on ancient bacteria came in for intense scrutiny since it did not conform to Darwinian predictions, and since people found it hard to believe you could revive something that was millions of years old. Yet Dr. Cano has been vindicated:

    “After the onslaught of publicity and worldwide attention (and scrutiny) after the publication of our discovery in Science, there have been, as expected, a considerable number of challenges to our claims, but in this case, the scientific method has smiled on us. There have been at least three independent verifications of the isolation of a living microorganism from amber.”
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-357693

    In reply to a personal e-mail from myself, Dr. Cano commented on the ‘Fitness Test’ I had asked him about:
    Dr. Cano stated: “We performed such a test, a long time ago, using a panel of substrates (the old gram positive biolog panel) on B. sphaericus. From the results we surmised that the putative “ancient” B. sphaericus isolate was capable of utilizing a broader scope of substrates. Additionally, we looked at the fatty acid profile and here, again, the profiles were similar but more diverse in the amber isolate.”:
    Fitness test which compared ancient bacteria to its modern day descendants, RJ Cano and MK Borucki

    Thus, the most solid evidence available for the most ancient DNA scientists are able to find does not support evolution happening on the molecular level of bacteria. In fact, according to the fitness test of Dr. Cano, the change witnessed in bacteria conforms to the exact opposite, Genetic Entropy; a loss of functional information/complexity, since fewer substrates and fatty acids are utilized by the modern strains. Considering the intricate level of protein machinery it takes to utilize individual molecules within a substrate, we are talking an impressive loss of protein complexity, and thus loss of functional information, from the ancient amber sealed bacteria.

    further notes:

    AMBER: THE LOOKING GLASS INTO THE PAST:
    Excerpt: These (fossilized bacteria) cells are actually very similar to present day cyanobacteria. This is not only true for an isolated case but many living genera of cyanobacteria can be linked to fossil cyanobacteria. The detail noted in the fossils of this group gives indication of extreme conservation of morphology, more extreme than in other organisms.
    http://bcb705.blogspot.com/200.....st_23.html

    Static evolution: is pond scum the same now as billions of years ago?
    Excerpt: But what intrigues (paleo-biologist) J. William Schopf most is lack of change. Schopf was struck 30 years ago by the apparent similarities between some 1-billion-year-old fossils of blue-green bacteria and their modern microbial microbial. “They surprisingly looked exactly like modern species,” Schopf recalls. Now, after comparing data from throughout the world, Schopf and others have concluded that modern pond scum differs little from the ancient blue-greens. “This similarity in morphology is widespread among fossils of [varying] times,” says Schopf. As evidence, he cites the 3,000 such fossils found;
    http://www.thefreelibrary.com/.....a014909330

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

    further notes:

    Ancient Fossils That Have Not Changed For Millions Of Years – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4113820

    THE FOSSILS IN THE CREATION MUSEUM – 1000′s of pictures of ancient ‘living’ fossils that have not changed for millions of years:
    http://www.fossil-museum.com/f.....8;limit=30

    “The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find’ over and over again’ not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.”

    Paleontologist, Derek V. Ager

    “A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth’s geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin’s hypothetical intermediate variants – instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.”

    Paleontologist, Mark Czarnecki

    “There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways, it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration. The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps.”

    Professor of paleontology – Glasgow University, T. Neville George

    “Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them.”

    David Kitts – Paleontologist

    “The long-term stasis, following a geologically abrupt origin, of most fossil morphospecies, has always been recognized by professional paleontologists” – Stephen Jay Gould – Harvard

    etc.. etc.. etc..

    Accidental origins: Where species come from – March 2010
    Excerpt: If speciation results from natural selection via many small changes, you would expect the branch lengths to fit a bell-shaped curve.,,, Instead, Pagel’s team found that in 78 per cent of the trees, the best fit for the branch length distribution was another familiar curve, known as the exponential distribution. Like the bell curve, the exponential has a straightforward explanation – but it is a disquieting one for evolutionary biologists. The exponential is the pattern you get when you are waiting for some single, infrequent event to happen.,,,To Pagel, the implications for speciation are clear: “It isn’t the accumulation of events that causes a speciation, it’s single, rare events falling out of the sky, so to speak.”
    http://www.newscientist.com/ar.....tml?page=2

  3. correction “Ancient” (250 Million Year Old) Bacterium Which Contains “Modern” Protein-Coding Genes

  4. If Darwinists would ever ask why we see such overall stability of form in the fossil record, and such resistance to macro change in present experiments, instead of just unquestionably accept Darwinism as true, they would find that there are solid reasons for such stability:

    Poly-Functional Complexity equals Poly-Constrained Complexity
    http://docs.google.com/Doc?doc.....Zmd2emZncQ

  5. OT: There is a change that happens in life, but it certainly is not attributable to Darwinism!

    Sara Groves – Something Changed – music video
    http://www.vimeo.com/28076423

  6. This study reminds me of this ‘honest’ comment by Richard Dawkins:

    MOYERS: Is evolution a theory, not a fact?

    DAWKINS: Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.
    http://www.pbs.org/moyers/fait.....print.html

  7. If I told you once, I told you a million times:
    It’s The Horses Pulling, Not The Wagon Pushing

    I.
    Lasting Evolutionary Change Takes About One Million Years
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....154752.htm
    “The exact cause of these long-term, persistent evolutionary changes is not certain.”

    Getting Inside the Mind (and Up the Nose) of Our Ancient Ancestors
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....135351.htm
    “”This is the first real evidence for the steps that led to the evolutionary origin of jawed vertebrates.”

    II.
    Right-Handedness Evolution
    by dovhenis on March 24, 2011
    Right-Handedness Evolution
    Culture-Genetics Relationship
    http://universe-life.com/2011/.....evolution/
    Nov 12 2009 (http://www.the-scientist.com/c.....0/122.page)
    A. From “Aping the Stone Age”
    http://www.sciencenews.org/vie....._Stone_Age
    Chimp chasers join artifact extractors to probe the roots of stone tools:
    Converging lines of evidence indicate that wild chimps indeed invent distinctive types of tools within communities, and these tools get passed from one generation to the next as a kind of cultural legacy.
    For roughly 50,000 generations, Oldowan toolmaking techniques got passed from hominid experts to novices. In recent experiments, it was found that captive chimps display a similar capacity for learning how to use tools by observing more experienced comrades.
    One of the projects combines chimp, hominid and modern human data to explore the enduring mystery of why most people are right-handed. Judging by stone tools, by at least 120,000 years ago right-handedness frequently occurred among Neandertals, and archaeological record from ancient Homo sapiens that lived during the same time as Neandertals shows similar signs of a right-handed skew. Most Oldowan toolmakers from nearly 2 million years ago were probably right-handed. However, whereas wild chimp communities display a variety of hand preferences, a trend of relatively stronger right- and left-handedness does appear in chimp groups that regularly use tools, such as nut-cracking stones or sticks for poking into termite mounds to remove the edible insects.
    Researchers suspect that “specific genes contribute to human hand preferences”. Uomini hypothesizes that people and chimps share a genetic propensity to use one hand more than another on tasks that demand dexterity. Genes for right-handedness, though, have evolved in humans alone, she proposes.
    B. Adnauseam, it is culture that drives genetic changes, NOT genetics that drives cultural changes
    “Specific genes contribute to human hand preferences”? Read this above abstract again and again. Note: First comes culture. Genetics follows culture. Genes propagate in an expression conformation that maintains their evolved energy constraint level. If/when their higher stratum take-off organism attains an enhanced level of energy constraint the genes modify their expressions accordingly. This is the drive and direction of life’s evolution. This is how the horses are harnessed, to the front of the wagon, not to the rear.
    C. And also adnauseam, right-handedness is NOT an enduring mystery
    http://www.articlesbase.com/sc.....05441.html
    Just as life’s chirality was the best energy-constraining product of the early organisms, direct sun-energy fueled independent RNA genes, and therefore it was selected to survive, so a preferred-tools-handedness proved energetically advantageous, and since it happened to start with right-handedness it has been since then inducing genetic expression adjustment. And since humans, and even primates, are just fresh young novel organisms on Earth, the process is still going on, not yet completed. Just wait and see. When you return to Earth one-two million years from now you’ll hardly find any left-handed people.

    Dov Henis
    (Comments From The 22nd Century)
    http://universe-life.com/

Leave a Reply