Evolutionary textbooks need rewriting again. Why not scrap them to save trees?

Each time I stumble upon a provocative article like this it makes me wonder what makes one so certain that for one evolutionary failure another evolutionary bluff is going to be the answer… Is it the blind and absolute commitment to materialism?

How multi-celled animals developed. Evolutionary discovery to rewrite text books

“New findings challenge the long-standing idea that multi-celled animals evolved from a single-celled ancestor resembling a modern sponge cell known as a choanocyte.”

Biologists for decades believed the existing theory was a no-brainer, as sponge choanocytes look so much like single-celled choanoflagellates — the organism considered to be the closest living relatives of the animals,” she said.

“But their transcriptome signatures simply don’t match, meaning that these aren’t the core building blocks of animal life that we originally thought they were.

This technology has been used only for the last few years, but it’s helped us finally address an age-old question, discovering something completely contrary to what anyone had ever proposed.”

“We’re taking a core theory of evolutionary biology and turning it on its head,” she said.

“Now we have an opportunity to re-imagine the steps that gave rise to the first animals, the underlying rules that turned single cells into multicellular animal life.”

Now, the Darwinian Police and the damage control and propaganda machine are going to get busy… The strategy never changes though:

“To us it looks like it could have evolved, so it must have evolved.” The “HOW” it evolved issue is never addressed and the testing of the hypothesis always remains in the realm of speculative, evolutionary science…

1+

116 thoughts on “Evolutionary textbooks need rewriting again. Why not scrap them to save trees?

  1. stcordova:
    Distilling sum of Entropy’s arguments:

    Muahahahahaaaaaaa! That’s all you were able to understand! Muahahahahaaaaa! Trying to ridicule me you prove my point yet again! Muahaaaahahahaaaaa!

    stcordova:
    Can you explain your point again?

    No need. You make it for me each and every time.

    So, dazz, you were saying?

    0
  2. Entropy,

    Some of the drivel you spew about biochemical structure, function, and evolution are absolute howlers. You’re not worth my time, you’re now on my ignore list.

    But, please feel free to keep responding to my comments with responses I won’t read because it’s comforting to me to know you’re wasting hours of your life feeling aggravated and frustrated.

    0
  3. stcordova: Entropy,

    Some of the drivel you spew about biochemical structure, function, and evolution are absolute howlers. You’re not worth my time, you’re now on my ignore list.

    Just a quick heads-up, Sal: AFAICR, every time that you have disagreed with Entropy, he has been right and you have been wrong, often compounded by your failure to comprehend. Also, putting someone on ignore who has consistently and accurately corrected your errors kinda works against your whole “I’m just here to hone my arguments” schtick. Announcing it makes you look fragile and petty.

    But, please feel free to keep responding to my comments with responses I won’t read because it’s comforting to me to know you’re wasting hours of your life feeling aggravated and frustrated.

    My, you are a truly impressive ambassador for the Christian faith.

    0
  4. DNA_Jock: Just a quick heads-up, Sal: AFAICR, every time that you have disagreed with Entropy, he has been right and you have been wrong, often compounded by your failure to comprehend. Also, putting someone on ignore who has consistently and accurately corrected your errors kinda works against your whole “I’m just here to hone my arguments” schtick. Announcing it makes you look fragile and petty.

    Well, since DNA_Jock has spoken, ID folks are packing their bags…
    No need to test the evolutionary speculations because they are just as good as experimental proofs… The evolutionary text books have been saved and millions of people who rely on evolutionary theory to be kept on the life-support can breath again…

    DNA_Jock: My, you are a truly impressive ambassador for the Christian faith.

    What faith are you an ambassador of other than speculative, evolutionary one?
    Your gods must be very proud of you…

    0
  5. stcordova:
    Entropy,

    Some of the drivel you spew about biochemical structure, function, and evolution are absolute howlers.You’re not worth my time, you’re now on my ignore list.

    But, please feel free to keep responding to my comments with responses I won’t read because it’s comforting to me to know you’re wasting hours of your life feeling aggravated and frustrated.

    Sal,
    Don’t let them get under your skin… They may even believe their nonsense is true…

    BTW: Have you ever noticed that Entropy and Larry Moran have almost the same arguments against yours? It is as if their minds were entangled..
    They even make the same spelling errors of rarely used words…
    I guess Entropy reads Larry’s comments, copies them and pastes them into TSZ…

    How else would you explain an phenomenon like that?

    0
  6. DNA_Jock: Just a quick heads-up, Sal: AFAICR, e

    So says the guy who claims regarding thermodynamic entropy:

    dQ/T is rarely informative

    Example of an Entropy howler, Collagen is easy to evolve even after I pointed out the intricacies in detail. He thinks non-coding regions under selection enable them to become functional proteins. Well, consider promoter regions knocked out because they were selectively advantageous to be knocked out. Does that mean they necessarily will become functional proteins. Howlers. Your recollection is flawed.

    Speaking of which, given you say stupid stuff like this about thermodynamic entropy:

    dQ/T is rarely informative

    Bye “jock”.

    0
  7. stcordova:
    Some of the drivel you spew about biochemical structure, function, and evolution are absolute howlers.

    In order to judge the quality of my comments Salvador would have to first learn to read. If they were “howlers,” like pretending that listing post-translational modifications makes collagen any less of a simple repetitive sequence, then Salvador could easily show it so. Yet, all he has is excuses not to engage. Why? Because he doesn’t understand any of it. He doesn’t understand the simplest things in molecular biology and biochemistry, and this is because he cannot read for comprehension.

    stcordova:
    You’re not worth my time, you’re now on my ignore list.

    Oh no! How scary!

    Fortunately, this is not for Salvador. I already know that he cannot read for comprehension. So, even if I weren’t in ignore, there’s no way in hell that this could reach him. This has been a demonstration for those who get lost and impressed by Salvador’s verbal diarrhea. Now they know that it’s just that, diarrhea.

    0
  8. DNA_Jock,

    How many people have told Salvador that it’s obvious that the phrase he keeps “quoting” lacks context and thus cannot be told to be a howler? How many have tried to explain how the context is important? Yet, Salvador repeats and repeats. Obviously, his lack of reading comprehension abilities keep him from understanding the importance of context. He doesn’t even know what that word means, because he’s never been able to pay attention to it.

    Howler indeed. Only Salvador’s the perpetrator, and he will remain forever unaware that he’s just shooting himself in the foot, time and again.

    0
  9. J-Mac: If plants don’t do mathematical calculations, they must’ve evolved some kind a watch to accuratelymeasure time to dawn, no matter how long the night is, 8, 10 or 12 hours.
    But, no matter what length of the night, the plants use about 90% of their sugar reserves..and since photosynthesis is quantum, they must’ve evolved some kind a of a quantum watch…I don’t have solid proof yet, but it seems pretty evident that the plants “know” in advance how long the night is going to be…as indicated by their use of starch reserves…
    Darwinism is truly marvelous thanks to the omnipotent natural selection…

    Have you never heard of phytochromes and their roles in regulating plant physiology. They have been known about and studied for at least fifty years (and there doesn’t seem to be anything quantum about their actions). I even learned about them in high school biology.

    0
  10. timothya: Have you never heard of phytochromes and their roles in regulating plant physiology. They have been known about and studied for at least fifty years (and there doesn’t seem to be anything quantum about their actions). I even learned about them in high school biology.

    “Plants make the starch reserves they produce during the day last almost precisely until dawn. Researchers once thought that plants break down starch at a fixed rate during the night. But then they observed that the diminutive weed Arabidopsis thaliana, a plant favoured for laboratory work, could recalculate that rate on the fly when subjected to an unusually early or late night 2.

    To Alison Smith and Martin Howard of the John Innes Centre in Norwich, UK, and their colleagues, this suggested that a more sophisticated molecular calculation was at work. The team hypothesized the existence of two molecules: one, S, that tells the plant how much starch remains, and another, T, that informs it about the time left until dawn.

    We’re dealing with a fundamental biological process in cells that’s doing a sophisticated arithmetic calculation,” says Howard. “No one has really thought about doing it this way before.”

    The question still remains: how do the plants know in advance how long the night is going to be?

    https://www.nature.com/news/plants-perform-molecular-maths-1.13251#/ref-link-2

    “Molecular biology and quantum mechanics developed in parallel, rather than cooperatively. Biologists hardly attended physics lectures and physicists paid little attention to biology. But in April 2007, a group of MIT-based physicists and mathematicians who worked in a rather esoteric area called quantum information theory were enjoying one of their regular journal clubs (with each member taking a turn at presenting a new paper they had found in the scientific literature) when one of the group arrived with a copy of the New York Times carrying an article which suggested plants were quantum computers (more on these remarkable machines in chapter 8). The group exploded into laughter. One of the team, Seth Lloyd, recalled first hearing about this “quantum hanky-panky.” “We thought that was really hysterical . . . It’s like, ‘Oh my God, that’s the most crackpot thing I’ve heard in my life!’” The cause of their incredulity was the fact that many of the brightest and best-funded research groups in the world had spent decades trying to figure out how to build a quantum computer, a machine that could carry out certain calculations much faster and far more efficiently than the most powerful computers available in the world today. It relies on digital bits of information that are normally either 0 or 1, to be both 0 and 1 simultaneously and therefore able to pursue all possible calculations at once—the ultimate in parallel processing. The New York Times article was claiming a humble blade of grass was able to perform the kind of quantum trickery that lay at the heart of quantum computing. No wonder these MIT researchers were incredulous. They might not be able to build a working quantum computer but, if the article was right, they could eat one in their lunchtime salad!”

    https://www.the-scientist.com/reading-frames/book-excerpt-from-life-on-the-edge-35053

    How did the brightest minds at MIT find the evidence that the omnipotent natural selection designed something they couldn’t?

    It’s called the unconditional and absolute commitment to materialism…no other evidence needed…

    0
  11. J-Mac: omnipotent natural selection

    Nobody actually says that who knows anything about biology. If they did, well, you could prove me wrong and link to it.

    0
  12. J-Mac: How did the brightest minds at MIT find the evidence that the omnipotent natural selection designed something they couldn’t?

    Let me guess, were you one of those people And did everyone applaud at the end?

    0
  13. OMagain: Nobody actually says that who knows anything about biology. If they did, well, you could prove me wrong and link to it.

    J-Mac is shooting her/him-self in the foot. Ridiculing the idea of omnipotence being that the incoherent characteristics of the magical being in the sky, I mean, The Designer.

    0
  14. Entropy: J-Mac is shooting her/him-self in the foot.

    Perhaps it’s a lack of the most basic self awareness.

    Ha ha you believe in evolutionary miracles

    But you believe in literal miracles???

    Ha ha Darwin kicked a dog, ha ha

    0

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.