Home » Intelligent Design » Another Day, Another Surprise for Darwinists

Another Day, Another Surprise for Darwinists

Over at PhysOrg.com, there’s a study being reported highlighting a 520 million year old fossil arthropod with a highly-developed brain. So soon in evolutionary time, and an already developed brain??? (To go beside the very complex eye of the Trilobites)

Here’s what one scientist said:

“No one expected such an advanced brain would have evolved so early in the history of multicellular animals,” said Strausfeld, a Regents Professor in the UA department of neuroscience.

Sorry, Darwinists, but IDers would expect it.

And, to add insult to injury for our Darwinist brethren, here’s this confirmation of “genetic entropy” and Behe’s QRB “rule”:

“The shape [of the fossilized brain] matches that of a comparable sized modern malacostracan,” the authors write in Nature. They argue the fossil supports the hypothesis that branchiopod brains evolved from a previously complex to a more simple architecture instead of the other way around.

Here’s the link.

Here’s how the article ends:

The fossil supports the idea that once a basic brain design had evolved, it changed little over time[Translation: ID is completely correct!!!], he explained. Instead, peripheral components such as the eyes, the antennae and other appendages, sensory organs, etc., underwent great diversification and specialized in different tasks but all plugged into the same basic circuitry. “It is remarkable how constant the ground pattern of the nervous system has remained for probably more than 550 million years,” Strausfeld added. “The basic organization of the computational circuitry that deals, say, with smelling, appears to be the same as the one that deals with vision, or mechanical sensation.”

When are Darwinists going to “give up the ghost”?

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

23 Responses to Another Day, Another Surprise for Darwinists

  1. This just goes to prove that even if the Darwinists find a Precambrian rabbit they would reject the falsification of Darwinism.

  2. ‘When are Darwinists going to “give up the ghost”?’

    Surely, you wouldn’t discourage the child’s endless sense of delighted surpise and wonder. Where would the science of Evolution be without it? It’s just ‘connecting the dots’ they have a little difficulty with sometimes.

  3. So, an allegedly 520 mya brain is not as complex as it’s alleged precursor/ancestor? That makes it even MORE difficult to retain the faith required to believe in the darwinian myth.

    Give it up darwinists, you lost a long time ago.

  4. “This just goes to prove that even if the Darwinists find a Precambrian rabbit they would reject the falsification of Darwinism.”

    Excellent point!

  5. 5
    sagebrush gardener

    Quite the contrary. It’s exactly what a Darwinist would hope for!
    – Richard Dawkins

  6. But see, when they find one like they did here, do they rejoice that their hope materialized? Of course not. They just act surprised at the unexpected amazing things that evolution can do! They never question their theory, rather they simply stretch their evolutionary faith even further and incorporate it into their belief system.

  7. The list of incredible miracles these guys believe without ever even blinking an eye at just keeps growing week after week.

  8. Of related note:

    Marine Worms Reveal the Deepest “Evolutionary” Patterns – (Oct. 9, 2012)
    Excerpt: “The fossils from the Cambrian period can cause a real headache for evolutionary biologists. Instinct tells us to expect simple organisms evolving over time to become increasingly more complex. However during the Cambrian period there was an apparent explosion of different major groups of animals, all appearing simultaneously in the fossil record. We looked at priapulid worms, which were among the first ever predators. What’s remarkable is that they had already evolved into a diverse array of forms — comparable to the morphological variety of their living cousins — when we first encounter them in the Cambrian fossil record. It’s precisely this apparent explosion of anatomical diversity that vexed Darwin and famously attracted the attention of Harvard biologist Stephen Jay Gould.”,,,
    “Our work has shown that despite many new fossil finds, including many from China in the last decade, the picture remains largely unchanged.,,,
    Priapulids are fascinating animals with much potential in evolutionary studies. They have a long history, with the earliest known species being 505 million years old, and with some of their extinct relatives being even older. They were important components of ancient bottom-dwelling marine invertebrate communities, and their predatory habits are well documented in the fossil record. However, for all their abundance and diversity, priapulids are a remarkable and often cited example of a morphologically conservative group, their overall shape and proportions having changed relatively little during their history.,,,
    http://www.facebook.com/groups.....p_activity

    Quote of Note:

    “One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, was … it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That’s quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. …so for the last few weeks I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. Question is: Can you tell me anything you
    know about evolution, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, ‘I do know one thing — it ought not to be taught in high school’.”
    Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City

    Verse:

    “So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, …” (see: Genesis 1:21 NKJV)

    OT note:

    Heaven Is Real: A Doctor’s Experience With the Afterlife – Oct 8, 2012
    When a neurosurgeon (Eben Alexander) found himself in a coma, he experienced things he never thought possible—a journey to the afterlife.
    Excerpt: Although I considered myself a faithful Christian, I was so more in name than in actual belief. I didn’t begrudge those who wanted to believe that Jesus was more than simply a good man who had suffered at the hands of the world. I sympathized deeply with those who wanted to believe that there was a God somewhere out there who loved us unconditionally. In fact, I envied such people the security that those beliefs no doubt provided. But as a scientist, I simply knew better than to believe them myself.,,,
    One of the few places I didn’t have trouble getting my story across was a place I’d seen fairly little of before my experience: church. The first time I entered a church after my coma, I saw everything with fresh eyes. The colors of the stained-glass windows recalled the luminous beauty of the landscapes I’d seen in the world above. The deep bass notes of the organ reminded me of how thoughts and emotions in that world are like waves that move through you. And, most important, a painting of Jesus breaking bread with his disciples evoked the message that lay at the very heart of my journey: that we are loved and accepted unconditionally by a God even more grand and unfathomably glorious than the one I’d learned of as a child in Sunday school.
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/n.....rlife.html

    Katie Couric interviews Dr. Mary Neal on her Near Death Experience (aired on Oct. 8, 2012) – video
    http://bcove.me/cqr1ecuu

    Music:

    Third Day – Your Love Oh Lord
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEF7IoQ3eUk

  9. corrected link:

    Marine Worms Reveal the Deepest “Evolutionary” Patterns – (Oct. 9, 2012)
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....092533.htm

  10. PaV- slightly off-topic:

    Do you think that unguided evolution is testable- ie that is produces testable hypotheses and generates testable predictions?

    If so could you please tell me what they are? Evos appear to be too cowardly to do so and dr boo-who sez that you think unguided evolution is testable and points to this thread as “evidence”.

    I think it is lying again, as usual.

  11. Joe:

    I’ve looked at TSZ post of Dr. Who. Obviously there has been a whole conversation going on and he is throwing me into the middle of it right now. So, I’m a bit at a disadvantage, and don’t care to figure out everything going on right now at TSZ. But here’s a simple response:

    First: Do I think that unguided evolution is testable? NO!

    Does it produce testable hypotheses and testable predictions? NO!

    Why the negative responses? Because what Darwinists consider “evolution” is no more than an “adaptive” response, and adaptation is not evolution.

    Second: I don’t know “who” Dr. Who is, but he doesn’t seem to know his Darwinism.

    ID predicts that “front-loading” can, and probably did occur. This is a prediction ID makes, and this newly discovered fossil fits that prediction.

    Now, what does Darwin himself predict? The exact opposite of what we find. And for two reasons:
    (a) When, e.g., Darwin treats of the evolution of the ‘eye’, he sees this happening over long eons of time (and he also sees the hand of the Creator there too!–i.e., he mentions the Creator as he marvels at what the mammalian eye can do); but this is just the opposite it happens before the elapsing of time;
    (b) Darwin believed that in the Silurian–equivalent to a kind of pre-Cambrian–if discovered, would show a whole host of fossils equal in kind to what the fossil record since the Cambrian holds. But, of course, we know that isn’t so.

    So, Darwin’s predictions are completely wrong………….as usual!

    The whole point of the post is that this finding is the complete opposite of Darwinian expectations. It’s the death-knell. But, of course, this one needs a stake run through the heart before it will die.

    All in all, Dr. Who is a bit koo-koo.

  12. ‘O Lord, you have given everything its place in the world, and no one can make it otherwise*. For it is your creation, the heavens, and the earth and the stars: you are the Lord of all.’

    That entrance antiphon to last Sunday’s Mass is the reason, is it not, why the development of empirical science has been largely the product of Judaeo-Christian cultures.

    The folly and ignominy to which the desperation of our materialist friends has plummeted them, in their determination to ‘make it otherwise’*, is surely one of the chief Wonders of the Modern World; and will undoubtedly be regarded as such by future generations.

  13. paV, parts of your post are hilarious. Then I remember that they are actually tragic – if ‘tragedy’ is not too elevated a designation for an endless Soap cum ‘pot-boiler’.

  14. Thanks PaV- Your response had the predicted effect on dr boo-who. Entertaining as heck…

  15. I think the first week was supposed to remove any doubt that evolution is true, from now it that’s to be accepted as fact.

    So don’t expect the remainder of the course to actually provide any evidence.

  16. “Giving up the ghost” is a matter of will, not intellect. Any person with a normally functioning brain can tell that the universe and life are designed. It’s not that hard. This is about rebellion to the truth, it’s not about anything else. I admit, it is kind of funny, in a tragic way, to watch people devise these intricate but ultimately ridiculous arguments to explain things that only “appear” to be designed. Yeah, right.

  17. I thought this paper from Ohno in 1996 was interesting, especially where he says that the diverse ocean life from the cambrian (everything from fish to crustaceans) must have been genetically identical.

    “Assuming the spontaneous mutation rate to be generous 10^-9 per base pair per year and also assuming no negative interference by natural selection, it still takes 10 million years to undergo 1% change in DNA base sequences. It follows that 6-10 million years in the evolutionary time scale is but a blink of an eye. The Cambrian explosion denoting the almost simultaneous emergence of nearly all the extant phyla of the kingdom Animalia within the time span of 6-10 million years can’t possibly be explained by mutational divergence of individual gene functions. Rather, it is more likely that all the animals involved in the Cambrian explosion were endowed with nearly the identical genome, with enormous morphological diversities displayed by multitudes of animal phyla being due to differential usages of the identical set of genes.” Ohno, The notion of the Cambrian pananimalia genome, PNAS, 1996

  18. JoeCoder,

    Sean Carroll and Neil Shubin echo those sentiments- using the same genes in different ways- Carroll in his books “Endless Forms..” and “The Making of the Fittest”- and Shubin in “Your Inner Fish”.

    That is how they get around having to produce new stuff- same stuff used differently. But with that it would seem that leaps are possible, ie not to be counted out.

    The point being is it would be much quicker doing it that way than having to invent and try new stuff. And thus the explosion is explaned (away).

  19. Mung,

    Do you recommend the new copies for $152+ or the used version for a penny? 1994? How did that one get through my filter…

  20. I wouldn’t spend a great deal of money on the book. Go for used.

  21. Is there more or less CSI in the more expensive copies?

    Could you write a program that decides A) if I should buy the book and then B) how much I should spend?

    How about a pseudocode?

    And please write it in a language for which there is no known compiler. Thank would be a big help.

  22. def buy_book price
    price > 0.01 ? false : true
    end

Leave a Reply