Home » Darwinism, Evolution, Intelligent Design, News » Paper in Heredity explores non-Darwinian evolution

6 Responses to Paper in Heredity explores non-Darwinian evolution

1. 1

   markfNovember 12, 2011 at 12:54 am

   Interesting – yet another non-teleological explanation for the development of life – yet another nail in the argument:

   “Couldn’t have happened via RM+NS therefore information therefore design”
2. 2

   Chris DoyleNovember 12, 2011 at 6:09 am

   One step at a time, Mark. First things first, are you now finally in agreement with ID proponents and evolutionists like James Shapiro that life “couldn’t have happened via RM+NS”? Because that is a massive concession on your part and you should take time to explore it before you rush on to “but it’s STILL not ID!” After all, to have been so wrong for so long must surely make you very cautious about jumping to another wrong conclusion!

   Or, do you still believe in the creative power of NS+RM despite the fact that there’s still no evidence for it (after vast amounts of time and money looking for it)? Even your fellow evolutionists are starting to distance themselves from all the things (that is to say, everything) that Darwin got wrong.
3. 3

   bornagain77November 12, 2011 at 7:50 am

   The title says it all:

   Evolution of adaptive phenotypic traits without positive Darwinian selection

   Besides Darwinists being severely misleading as to the fact that Natural Selection actually reduces genetic information instead of ever creating any new functional genetic information, these following studies reveal the fact that Darwinian evolution cannot even account for the fact a parent species/kind will have a more ‘robust genome’ than its sub-species. A more robust genome that gives all indication of being ‘designed’ to ‘rapidly radiate’ in a ‘top down’ fashion, instead gradually differentiate in a ‘bottom up’ fashion.

   Biological Variation – Cornelius Hunter
   Excerpt: One hint that biology would not cooperate with Darwin’s theory came from the many examples of rapidly adapting populations. What evolutionists thought would require thousands or millions of years has been observed in laboratories and in the field, in an evolutionary blink of an eye.
   http://www.darwinspredictions......_variation

   Single male and female sheep maintain genetic diversity.
   A mouflon population (considered an ancient “parent” lineage of sheep), bred over dozens of generations from a single male and female pair transplanted to Haute Island from a Parisian zoo, has maintained the genetic diversity of its founding parents.This finding challenges the widely accepted theory of genetic drift, which states the genetic diversity of an inbred population will decrease over time. “What is amazing is that models of genetic drift predict the genetic diversity of these animals should have been lost over time, but we’ve found that it has been maintained,”
   Dr. David Coltman, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Alberta

   Allozyme evidence for crane systematics and polymorphisms within populations of sandhill, sarus, Siberian and whooping cranes.
   “This is contrary to expectations of genetic loss due to a population bottleneck of some 15 individuals in the 1940s. The possibility should be explored that some mechanism exists for rapidly restoring genetic variability after population bottlenecks.”
   Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 1:279-288- Dessauer, H. C., G. F. Gee, and J. S. Rogers. 1992.

   These following studies and video, on Cichlid fishes, are very good evidence of the ‘limited and rapid’ variation from a parent kind predicted by the Genetic Entropy model:

   African cichlid fish: a model system in adaptive radiation research:
   “The African cichlid fish radiations are the most diverse extant animal radiations and provide a unique system to test predictions of speciation and adaptive radiation theory.—-(surprising implication of the study?)—- the propensity to radiate was significantly higher in lineages whose precursors emerged from more ancient adaptive radiations than in other lineages”
   http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.g.....d=16846905

   Multiple Genes Permit Closely Related Fish Species To Mix And Match Their Color Vision – Oct. 2005
   Excerpt: In the new work, the researchers performed physiological and molecular genetic analyses of color vision in cichlid fish from Lake Malawi and demonstrated that differences in color vision between closely related species arise from individual species’ using different subsets of distinct visual pigments.
   http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....072648.htm

   Cichlid Fish – Evolution or Variation Within Kind? – Dr. Arthur Jones – video
   http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4036852

   Further notes:

   The Mirage of “Evolution Before Our Eyes” – August 2011
   Excerpt:,,,the important implication of the massive study by Oregon State University zoologist Josef C. Uyeda and his colleagues. They write in PNAS: “Even though rapid, short-term evolution often occurs in intervals shorter than 1 [million years], the changes are constrained and do not accumulate over time.”
   http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....49911.html

   Dollo’s law and the death and resurrection of genes:
   Excerpt: “As the history of animal life was traced in the fossil record during the 19th century, it was observed that once an anatomical feature was lost in the course of evolution it never staged a return. This observation became canonized as Dollo’s law, after its propounder, and is taken as a general statement that evolution is irreversible.”
   http://www.pnas.org/content/91.....l.pdf+html

   The Cambrian’s Many Forms
   Excerpt: “It appears that organisms displayed “rampant” within-species variation “in the ‘warm afterglow’ of the Cambrian explosion,” Hughes said, but not later. “No one has shown this convincingly before, and that’s why this is so important.”"From an evolutionary perspective, the more variable a species is, the more raw material natural selection has to operate on,”….(Yet Surprisingly)….”There’s hardly any variation in the post-Cambrian,” he said. “Even the presence or absence or the kind of ornamentation on the head shield varies within these Cambrian trilobites and doesn’t vary in the post-Cambrian trilobites.” University of Chicago paleontologist Mark Webster; article on the “surprising and unexplained” loss of variation and diversity for trilobites over the 270 million year time span that trilobites were found in the fossil record, prior to their total extinction from the fossil record about 250 million years ago.
   http://www.terradaily.com/repo.....s_999.html

   Music and verse:

   Rascal Flatts – Unstoppable (Olympics Mix)
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1xF1L8ZS7s

   Genesis 1:21 & 25
   So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.,,,,, each according to its kind”; and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
4. 4

   wd400November 12, 2011 at 8:32 pm

   what forces other than RM and NS are being discussed in those papers?
5. 5

   markfNovember 13, 2011 at 12:39 am

   Chris

   re you now finally in agreement with ID proponents and evolutionists like James Shapiro that life “couldn’t have happened via RM+NS”?

   I don’t have the expertise to decide. I have been aware for many years that evolutionary biologists belief that life developed through a number of mechanisms – one of which is RM+NS – and that in some cases there is controversy among them as to relative importance of the mechanisms. I have never made a secret of this and frequently brought up the point on UD. So no concession and no change of mind.

   The only point I want to make is that the more non-teleological alternatives to RM+NS the weaker the case for ID. Dembski himself has admitted that the argument for ID is an argument from elimination. The more there is to eliminate the harder it gets.
6. 6

   Robert ByersNovember 13, 2011 at 6:13 pm

   I have bumped into claims of plasticity and this YEC welcomes it. They have been forced to admit to it because they witnessed it. lizards and such.
   Selection of mutations just doesn’t work as its too quick. So they need another mechanism to explain change.
   the concept of mutation and then selection on it was always just a hunch.
   Its just too sloppy and unlikely after all.
   These new writers are just admiting another mechanism, a little, is needed.
   creationists have been saying this a long time.