Home » Intelligent Design » Here Are Those Incongruent Trees From the Yeast Genome

Here Are Those Incongruent Trees From the Yeast Genome

We recently reported on a study of 1,070 genes and how they contradicted each other in a couple dozen yeast species. Specifically, evolutionists computed the evolutionary tree, using all 1,070 genes, showing how the different yeast species are related. This tree that uses all 1,070 genes is called the concatenation tree. They then repeated the computation 1,070 times, for each gene taken individually. Not only did none of the 1,070 trees match the concatenation tree, they also failed to show even a single match between themselves. In other words, out of the 1,071 trees, there were zero matches. Yet one of the fundamental predictions of evolution is that different features should generally agree. It was “a bit shocking” for evolutionists, as one explained: “We are trying to figure out the phylogenetic relationships of 1.8 million species and can’t even sort out 20 yeast.”  Read more

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

2 Responses to Here Are Those Incongruent Trees From the Yeast Genome

  1. Dr. Hunter this major failed prediction for neo-Darwinism reminds me of another major failed prediction of neo-Darwinism that you pointed out last year. Namely the failed prediction that functional proteins in sequence space would be accessible to a random search

    Proteins Did Not Evolve Even According to the Evolutionist’s Own Calculations but so What, Evolution is a Fact – Cornelius Hunter – July 2011
    Excerpt: For instance, in one case evolutionists concluded that the number of evolutionary experiments required to evolve their protein (actually it was to evolve only part of a protein and only part of its function) is 10^70 (a one with 70 zeros following it). Yet elsewhere evolutionists computed that the maximum number of evolutionary experiments possible is only 10^43. Even here, giving the evolutionists every advantage, evolution falls short by 27 orders of magnitude.
    The theory, even by the evolutionist’s own reckoning, is unworkable. Evolution fails by a degree that is incomparable in science. Scientific theories often go wrong, but not by 27 orders of magnitude. And that is conservative.
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....d-not.html

    Thus it is not surprising that neo-Darwinists are facing another major failed prediction for lining up gene trees since it is shown to be extremely unlikely that functional proteins are accessible to a random search in the first place. Both these drastically failed foundational predictions of neo-Darwinism remind me of this observation of Dr. Berlinski:

    “On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?”
    - Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003)

    There is simply no solid prediction that a person can latch onto within neo-Darwinian theory as one can with other major theories of science. In fact, to repeat, for neo-Darwinism we find, instead, drastic failure of predictions,,

    “Scientific theories often go wrong, but not by 27 orders of magnitude. And that is conservative.”

    Now there is another prediction of neo-Darwinism, at least a prediction of the atheistic form of neo-Darwinism as it is popularly taught in schools,,, a failed prediction for what we should find at the foundation of reality itself,,, a failed prediction called ‘realism’ that has failed by many ‘orders of magnitude’ as well.,, This failed prediction for ‘realism’, for the atheistic form of neo-Darwinism, held that the foundation of reality itself will be found to exist independent of whatever we ourselves do. i.e. The base of reality will be materialistic. But this is not what we find. Instead of reality existing completely independent of us and being completely indifferent to what we do,, as Dawkins had famously presumed,,,

    “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
    Richard Dawkins”

    ,, we find instead that,,,

    Quantum physics says goodbye to reality – Apr 20, 2007
    Excerpt:,, reality does not exist when we’re not observing it. “Our study shows that ‘just’ giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics,” Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. “You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism.”
    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640

    Moreover this falsification of the prediction for a materialistic reality which is indifferent to what we do exceeded even the 27 orders of magnitude failure for Darwinian processes to be able account for finding a single functional protein:

    A team of physicists in Vienna has devised experiments that may answer one of the enduring riddles of science: Do we create the world just by looking at it? – 2008
    Excerpt: the new realism model was violated by 80 orders of magnitude; the group was even more assured that quantum mechanics was correct. http://seedmagazine.com/conten....._tests/P3/

    Now I really don’t fully understand what it means for ‘realism’, (the view that a reality exist ‘out there’ independent of our observation), to be violated by 80 orders of magnitude, but seeing as the entire universe is held to have ‘only’ 80 orders of magnitude elementary particle in it, I would be inclined to think this is another major failed prediction for neo-Darwinism, at least the atheistic form of neo-Darwinism as is popularly taught in schools today.

    Supplemental notes:

    the argument for God from consciousness can be framed like this:

    1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality.
    2. If consciousness is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality.
    3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality.
    4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.

    Four intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality (Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect):
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G_Fi50ljF5w_XyJHfmSIZsOcPFhgoAZ3PRc_ktY8cFo/edit

    Schrodinger’s cat and Wigner’s Friend – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....aM4#t=510s

    Verse and music:

    Colossians 1:17,
    And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

    Keith Urban – For You
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWK1sG3spiE

  2. semi- related note:

    Vertebrate Gene Expression and Other Properties Don’t Support a “Phylotypic” Stage – Casey Luskin – June 14, 2013
    Excerpt: a new article in PLoS Genetics, “The Hourglass and the Early Conservation Models — Co-Existing Patterns of Developmental Constraints in Vertebrates,” shows that,, an analysis of the genome based on Darwinian assumptions fails to confirm many predictions of the “phylotypic” stage. This suggests that, as other papers have suggested, the phylotypic stage may not clearly exist. As the paper explains:
    “During development, vertebrate embryos pass through a “phylotypic” stage, during which their morphology is most similar between different species. This gave rise to the hourglass model, which predicts the highest developmental constraints during mid-embryogenesis. In the last decade, a large effort has been made to uncover the relation between developmental constraints and the evolution of the genome. Several studies reported gene characteristics that change according to the hourglass model, e.g. sequence conservation, age, or expression. Here, we first show that some of the previous conclusions do not hold out under detailed analysis of the data.”
    (Barbara Piasecka, Pawe? Lichocki, Sebastien Moretti, Sven Bergmann, Marc Robinson-Rechavi, “The Hourglass and the Early Conservation Models — Co-Existing Patterns of Developmental Constraints in Vertebrates Barbara Piasecka,” PLoS Genetics, Vol. 9(4) (April, 2013).)
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....73171.html

Leave a Reply