Home » Intelligent Design » Defoliating Darwinism

Defoliating Darwinism

This is a FYI post. As I’m given to say: another day, another bad day for Darwinism.

Years ago, it became apparent that with whole gene analysis (WGA), either the case for, or against Darwinism, and vice-versa, would happen. Population genetics looks at very small part of the genome, a limitation that is obviated through WGA. And, so, ‘new discoveries’ are happening. In this particular case, it has to do with angiosperms (flowering plants).

What they’ve found is that new features appear early on in its phylogeny, and then, only later, is there great speciation, or diversification. This is pretty much OPPOSITE of Darwinian expectations. Darwin would presumably argue that through diversification of species, little-bit by little-bit, some new feature would emerge, and, with that new feature, a new genus, or a new family would be detected. They’re finding it’s the other way around. Looks like Darwinism is losing.

Here’s a wonderful quote:

“Evolution is not what we previously thought,” said Smith, who works in the laboratory of Brown biologist Casey Dunn. “It’s not as if you get a flower, and speciation (rapidly) occurs. There is a lag. Something else is happening. There is a phase of product development, so to speak.”

And another:

“During the early evolution of these groups,” Smith said, “there is the development of features that we often recognize to identify these groups visually, but they don’t begin to speciate rapidly until after the development of the features.”

AD,ABDFD

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

5 Responses to Defoliating Darwinism

  1. It is as if in the early stages the flower had scaffolding or outside support of somekind to get a foothold before it was exposed to selection pressures.

  2. What they’ve found is that new features appear early on in its phylogeny, and then, only later, is there great speciation, or diversification.

    That’s pretty much what I would expect. But then, I don’t claim to be a Darwinist.

  3. Neil:

    I’m not sure what to make of your comment.

    Let me say this. If you’re familiar with the ONLY diagram that appears in “Origins”, the supposed “Tree of Life”, then you would trace out, over time, all these bifurcations on the tree; and, with sufficient time, that is, sufficient generations, and sufficient branching events, noticeable differences would arise: viz., ” . . .development of features that we often recognize to identify these groups visually, . . ..” Darwin would have assume that most of the intermediates would be wiped away through imperfect preservation of fossils, leaving just the tips of the branches.

    What these scientists are reporting is that you have bifurcations taking place right at the beginning which, themselves, are ALREADY establishing phylogenetic differences. They’re describing a “nested heirarchy”; which also Darwin does; but, as they say, “evolution is not what we previously thought.” Why? Because Darwin’s “nested heirarchy” happens because lots of branches, and evoutionary fits and starts, have been “trimmed away”. But here we see nothing being trimmed away. And, of course, since this is so, there are NO intermediates—which is, of course, what the fossil record tells us.

    This makes Darwinism an argument from ignorance in comparison with simple, direct “branching” events. Thus, Darwinian “gradualism” becomes no more than a myth.

  4. My expectation is that genetic variation would mostly lead to greater genetic diversity within the breeding population, so that there would usually not be speciation just because of genetic innovation. However, the environment also changes over time, and it will sometimes happen that some of the variants within a population can exploit features in the changed environment. When that happens, there is likely to be explosive growth of that variant into a new niche. And that’s about when speciation would occur. It would leave a fossil record of punctuated equilibria, even though the genetic change was still gradual.

  5. Neil:

    If I understand you correctly, then there appears to be this problem:

    You seem to be suggesting that as time moves forward, genetic change slowly happens and accumulates, but not speciation. Then, when environmental change happens, coming as it does after a long period of time, speciation then takes place.

    But these scientists are saying that in a short period of time speciation takes place, and then only after a long period of time does radiation take place—that is, an explosion of forms.

    Remember, they say: “Evolution is not what we previously thought.”

Leave a Reply