What are the Odds?

An expert in “frog evolution” has demonstrated that frogs in different continents “evolved” the same sorts of characteristics. Now just ask yourself: what are the odds that “evolution,” which works via random processes, would “evolve” the same kinds of characteristics on different continents?

Yet, that is what our evolutionary biologist friends would ask us to believe. Do you believe? Do I hear an ‘Amen’? I guess not.

Yes, biogeography might explain some of this, but not in the cases our authors looked at.

Now, given that DNA is an information resource (prescribed by, and within, the genome), ID would fully expect that the common genome of the frog family would express itself in similar ways–even across continents–given that “new” information is unlikely (infinitely unlikely) to arise, and that genetic mechanisms present within the genome only need to be triggered (or, ‘found’ within the phenotypic phase space of the genome).

Here’s the Phys.Org article.

“All around the world, any given location is likely to have frogs that either climb trees, burrow, live on the ground or live in water,” Wiens says. “One of the things we’ve found is that frogs that use the same microhabitat tend to be very similar, both in their morphology and in their performance. For example, all around the world, frogs that live in trees usually have expanded pads at the tips of their fingers and toes that help them cling to smooth surfaces. Similarly, frogs that live in water have thick leg muscles and heavily webbed feet that help them swim faster.”

Given a certain “microhabitat”, a certain phenotypic response is triggered. This is called: ADAPTATION.

I’ve said a million times: if Darwin has called his book the Origin of Adaptations, and edited it accordingly, I’d be fully supportive of it. But “adaptation” is NOT “evolution,” no matter how much the Evo-Bio Brethren tell us it does.

“The really cool thing we found is what happened in Australia. There all the different habitat types have all evolved from tree frogs. After the tree frogs went from South America to Australia, some stayed in the trees, but others became burrowing, aquatic and terrestrial frogs,” Wiens says.“The species of tree frogs that evolved to use these new microhabitats show no trace of their tree frog ancestry, and are basically indistinguishable from unrelated burrowing, terrestrial and aquatic species on other continents.

Isn’t it amazing how “random forces” can make distinguishable frogs ‘indistinguishable’? Of course, based on ID thinking, this is what we would EXPECT: a genome that interacts with its environment will produce phenotypic changes driven by conserved, intrinsic DNA mechanisms.

Finally,

This pattern of evolutionary conservatism over time coupled with long-distance dispersal can explain similarity in many different organisms from all around the world, Wiens says. However, the pattern remains relatively poorly studied.

Why is it “poorly studied”? Because Darwinists run the show. IDers would have stumbled upon–actually have gone looking for–this type of pattern long ago.

And, “evolutionary conservatism”? Talk about your oxymoron.

Day after day, these kinds of experimental results are reported; but Darwinism, daily contradicted, lives on. We can kill bacteria. But we can’t seem to be able to kill this ‘bug.’

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

7 Responses to What are the Odds?

  1. Yeah, but didn’t read the post above that talks about the multiverse and the fact that there is an infinite number of universes? So, I guess there is a universe somewhere where frogs don’t look alike and experience evolutionary divergence. :P

  2. Well, take the tree frogs, grow them up in ponds, see if they loose their fleshy pads and grow muscled legs. Of course,these experiments were done one many groups more than a hundred years ago. They don’t work, these differences don’t arise from different developmental paths in a shared genome.

  3. wd400, are you sure about that? Those types of plastic responses are exactly what happens with many species of lizards and other types of animals.

  4. AMEN, AMEN,AMEN, Excellent thread.
    Evolutionists MUST invoke convergent evolution like crazy to explain things.
    iTs so unlikely that mutations happily arrived, selected on greatly, and over time frogs everywhere have something in common but not from common descent.
    its just unbelievable that anyone could think this is common sense.
    I think convergent evolution is the soft underbelly of error in evolutionary biology.
    like form and function is so common in unlike creatures or creatures claimed not to be from common descent that its like a secret disaster coming down the intellectual road.
    evolution is a dumb hypothesis if I may say so without meaning a reflection on its proponents. We all are decieved by concepts before we study them carefully.

  5. wd400:

    What “lifepsy” wrote in [3] is correct. On an Adriatic Sea island towards the end of last century, a species of lizards was transported–as an experiment–to another island in the Adriatic where this lizard did not exist. Then war broke out in the region. They didn’t go back for 35 years. When they did go back, the lizards had changed their size, their mating habits, and their feeding habits, developing cecal valves in their stomach to boot. 35 years!???!! The only logical, sensible explanation for this is that something in the environment triggered a response which effected the developing phase of newer generations. IOW, epigenetics! Not population genetics!

  6. PaV, since lifepsy is too modest to site his own video and article I will:

    Phenotypic Plasticity – Lizard cecal valve (cyclical variation)- video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEtgOApmnTA

    Lizard Plasticity – March 2013
    Excerpt: So in this study, plasticity experiments were conducted. When the lizards were taken off a plant diet and returned to their native insect diet, the cecal valves in their stomachs began to revert within weeks. As the authors conclude, this pointed heavily to plasticity as a cause. We can infer that the this gut morphology likewise arose in similar fashion when coming into contact with the plant diet.
    http://biota-curve.blogspot.co.....icity.html

    i.e. the changes in the lizards are much faster and dramatic than is commonly believed, and the changes are certainly not attributable to ‘random’ Darwinian processes but are ‘in built’ responces!

  7. Well, there is very little evidence that trans-generation epigenetics is a major player in adaptation (with the exception of some plants). In those cases,there is genetic control of the epigenetic pathways. In contrast there are many examples of genetic adaptation.

    But if you are so sure that the Adriatic lizards there is an easy experiment to be done. Get some wall lizards, feed them an all-plant diet and wait for cecal valves to pop up. Or cross the island populations with mainland ones and see how the traits segregate.

Leave a Reply