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…

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

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

    Two points:

    (1) It is the nature of science, that it is continually changing (improving).

    (2) Beware of click bait headlines.

  2. Is it the blind and absolute commitment to materialism?

    How do you know that Professor Degnan is not a theist? On what basis do you make that claim?

    “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…

    Then why don’t you write a paper addressing this and publish it? Writing these OP’s won’t change anything, you know that right? Whereas if you put some actual effort into writing a rebuttal to that paper you have linked to then someone might actually read it who is working in the field.

    Complain all you like, it won’t change anything. And if all you can do is complain get used to nothing changing.

  3. By the way, you have made a claim that someone can have the majority of their brain removed and still retain normal function. I have asked you for a citation for that claim.

    Care to provide one? Or would you like me to keep asking?

  4. Neil Rickert: (1) It is the nature of science, that it is continually changing (improving).

    Really? So, I gather, ID publications should get the same break, right? Because science is continually changing, improving…

    Neil Rickert: (2) Beware of click bait headlines.

    So, you disagree with the article? Or, you just contradicted your first comment?

  5. J-Mac: Really? So, I gather, ID publications should get the same break, right? Because science is continually changing, improving…

    Of course. ID does not need to be treated differently to make it fail. It is managing that all on it’s own. It should be tested in the same arena of ideas that all science is. Hint: That’s not a blog.

    J-Mac: So, you disagree with the article? Or, you just contradicted your first comment?

    Your spin on the article is offensive. You are implying that people are lying about research in order to further an agenda to hide the truth that god exists.

    It seems you have projected what you would do in those circumstances into what other people have done. In fact you have no evidence of the sort for any such claim. Agree or disagree with the article as you like, but your spin is just offensive trash.

  6. As a side note, other than totally unrelated to the origins of life and yet famous Miller-Urey experiment that produced few amino acids, there is nothing to scrap in the science-fiction of OOL…

    Yet, materialists remain optimistic that one day life is going to be recreated in the lab, which will mean that random processes were responsible for the creation of life…
    Since life is definitely quantum, quite LIKELY supported by an unknown yet force, such as dark energy, by implementing quantum mechanics into OOL, materialism is automatically dead…

  7. J-Mac: So, you disagree with the article?

    I’m not a biologist. So I don’t make that judgment.

    I have read comments from a several biologists, who think the article overblown. There might be some interesting science there, but it won’t change everything.

  8. Neil Rickert: Two points:

    (1) It is the nature of science, that it is continually changing (improving).

    (2) Beware of click bait headlines.

    Ninja’d. (Though you said it better.)

    ETA: I’d add, though, that the “changes” and “improvements” mentioned require use of the scientific method. That’s why nobody cares too much about the ID stuff. Being new and different does not make some proposal better or newsworthy.

  9. Neil Rickert: I’m not a biologist.So I don’t make that judgment.

    I have read comments from a several biologists, who think the article overblown.

    You mean you’ve read comments by biologist other than the ones who preformed the experiments?

    What a surprise!

    By the Darwinian police and damage control propaganda machine?
    That’s how propaganda works for people like you…
    You are looking for reassurance and the propaganda machine has to provide it…😉

  10. walto: Ninja’d. (Though you said it better.)

    ETA: I’d add, though, that the “changes” and “improvements” mentioned require use of the scientific method. That’s why nobody cares too much about the ID stuff. Being new and different does not make some proposal better or newsworthy.

    So, tell us how the scientific method should be applied to prove that multicellular animals evolved from single celled ancestors?
    I’m sure you are not bluffing…
    I’m all ears…🤗

  11. Neil Rickert: I’m not a biologist. So I don’t make that judgment.

    You did the opposite actually…
    If you hadn’t, and really cared, you would have investigated it further rather than making assumptions that all is well…
    That’s the example of being biased, rather than open-minded…

    I have changed my mind many times over the years because I’m the exact opposite to you, walto and people like you…

  12. J-Mac: As a side note, other than totally unrelated to the origins of life and yet famous Miller-Urey experiment that produced few amino acids, there is nothing to scrap in the science-fiction of OOL…

    A few amino acids is far more then any ID experiments have produced regarding the OOL. I.E. nothing at all.

    J-Mac: Yet, materialists remain optimistic that one day life is going to be recreated in the lab, which will mean that random processes were responsible for the creation of life…

    Will it? I suspect at that point you’d simply say that it does not preclude the Intelligent Design of life anyway.

    J-Mac: Since life is definitely quantum, quite LIKELY supported by an unknown yet force, such as dark energy, by implementing quantum mechanics into OOL, materialism is automatically dead…

    “LIKELY” unknown force “such as”. Just more candyfloss. Mere just so stories.

  13. J-Mac: By the Darwinian police and damage control propaganda machine?

    Can you name names? Who are these people? Are you a conspiracy theorist? Does the Darwinian police prevent dissenting papers being published in every language around the world, in every journal?

    You appear to have mistaken your ideologies failure to convince for a conspiracy to keep that ideology suppressed. It’s an easy mistake to make, especially for someone who believes in that sort of thing in the first place (something somewhen might have happened, quantum!).

    J-Mac: That’s how propaganda works for people like you…
    You are looking for reassurance and the propaganda machine has to provide it…

    You can call it propaganda if you wish, but it’s real name is the current scientific understanding of the theory of evolution. And that’s what you have already defeated, apparently.

    J-Mac: So, tell us how the scientific method should be applied to prove that multicellular animals evolved from single celled ancestors?

    Science does not do proof.

    But, sometimes there are video tapes. This very recent experiment demonstrates the evolution of multicellularity: https://nai.nasa.gov/articles/2019/4/25/evolution-of-multicellularity-in-response-to-predation/

    A team of scientist from University of Montana and Georgia Institute of Technology show that de novo origins of simple multicellularity can evolve in response to predation. They subjected outcrossed populations of the unicellular green alga Chlamydomonas reinhardtii to selection by the filter-feeding predator Paramecium tetraurelia. Two of five experimental populations evolved multicellular structures not observed in unselected control populations within ~750 asexual generations.

    I guess you won’t accept that however.

  14. J-Mac: So, tell us how the scientific method should be applied to prove that multicellular animals evolved from single celled ancestors?
    I’m sure you are not bluffing…
    I’m all ears…🤗

    That’s a weird question. Presumably it was used in the link you yourself sited:

    The team mapped individual cells, sequencing all of the genes expressed, allowing the researchers to compare similar types of cells over time.

    Fellow senior author Associate Professor Sandie Degnan said this meant they could tease out the evolutionary history of individual cell types, by searching for the ‘signatures’ of each type.

  15. J-Mac: If you hadn’t, and really cared, you would have investigated it further rather than making assumptions that all is well…

    You have assumed that Professor Degnan is not a theist. On what basis do you make that claim? What “investigation” did you do rather then making an assumption that that was the case?

  16. walto: That’s a weird question. Presumably it was used in the link you yourself sited:

    As if he read it…

  17. walto: That’s a weird question. Presumably it was used in the link you yourself sited:

    1. So, you don’t know what the scientific method is?
    2. Or, it doesn’t apply to evolution?
    3. You don’t understand what it means what you quoted?
    4. You don’t care because you are too lazy?
    5. All the above?

    You don’t have to answer…

  18. J-Mac: 1. So, you don’t know what the scientific method is?

    What makes you ask that, specifically? And as noted you don’t seem to understand science as you are asking for proof.

    J-Mac: 2. Or, it doesn’t apply to evolution?

    Again, you cast aspersions on work you don’t even understand. Because it’s about “evolution” by definition it must not have followed the scientific method.

    J-Mac: You don’t have to answer…

    Much like you never ever answer pertinent questions directed at you or your claims.

    Such as you made a claim that people have had the majority of their brains removed and retained normal functioning. Prove it!

  19. J-Mac: 1. So, you don’t know what the scientific method is?
    2. Or, it doesn’t apply to evolution?
    3. You don’t understand what it means what you quoted?
    4. You don’t care because you are too lazy?
    5. All the above?

    You don’t have to answer…

    What the hell are you talking about?

  20. J-Mac: Evolution caught in action:

    What sort of “kind” is the animal in the video?

    J-Mac: Darwin surly saved us…
    I’m packing my bags….

    To go where? Back to hick town, shitsville USA?

  21. Hey, J-Mac, I’ve linked to photographs of the evolution of multicellularity. And no Intelligent Designer in sight. Why are you ignoring the precise thing you are asking for?

  22. walto: What the hell are you talking about?

    I’m saying the same thing you just did, but detailed…

    BTW: If you are too lazy to think straight, why comment here?

  23. J-Mac: I’m saying the same thing you just did, but detailed…

    In your mind perhaps. But ever wonder why you don’t get the responses you might expect?

    Ah, it’s of course because of the Darwinism Police!

    J-Mac: BTW: If you are too lazy to think straight, why comment here?

    You are someone who has made the claim that someone can have most of their brain removed and retain normal function, therefore immaterial souls exist.

    If you cannot think straight sufficiently to realize that your claim is based on a misunderstanding then accusing others of being too lazy to think straight reflects even worse on you then it otherwise would have.

    Who is this person who and their brain removed and then continued with normal function J-Mac?

  24. Hmm, I’m starting to come up with a guess as to who has had most of their brain removed actually…

  25. If humans don’t need brains to function, as J-Mac claims, then more then evolution textbooks will need to be torn up!

    Do you need me to remind you of what you said J-Mac or have you remembered? Are you functioning normally?

  26. The current steps of the scientific method:

    Warning: the current scientific method steps do not apply to evolutionary theory, which is considered science, especially Test with an experiment ,but it MUST apply to ID, which is not considered science…

    No wonder so many lazy and ignorat people are drawn to evolutionary theory…

  27. Neil:

    (1) It is the nature of science, that it is continually changing (improving).

    Bad science keeps changing, good science lasts, perhaps only the domain of applicability gets better defined.

    For example this simple law:

    F = ma

    aside from adjustments of relativity and nano/quantum scale phenomenon has stood the test of time. Engineers build skyscrapers with it (where the net sum of the vector F = 0), space probes are sent around the solar system.

    Classical Electromagnetism, Maxwell’s equations have stood the test of time, and Richard Feyman quipped that in 10,000 it will recognized as the greatest achievement of the 19th century ( not the American Civil war, or Darwin’s theory or evolution).

    Quantum Mechanics — Oh, my science. If any law was deemed to be most fundamental, even perhaps more so than the 2nd law of thermodynamics, it would be this one. Much of chemistry and the Gross Domestic Product is based on the discovery of QM.

    Evolutionary theory, in contrast, keeps getting corrected. It’s not standing the test of time, because, like GeoCentrism, it is simply wrong. GeoCentrism wasn’t corrected and improved, it was dispensed with.

    Abiogenesis and Evolutionary theory ought to have been disposed of by now except for the fact we don’t see God working miracles so evidently today as he did when he made all life. So, I can’t blame scientists for clinging to a belief even when all actual theory and experiment disagree with the notion life arose naturally.

  28. J-Mac: Warning: the current scientific method steps do not apply to evolutionary theory, which is considered science, especially Test with an experiment ,but it MUST apply to ID, which is not considered science…

    So your complaint is that scientists are insisting that the scientific method applies to Intelligent Design?

    I can only think of a few reasons why that might be:

    You know that Intelligent Design is not science, and therefore cannot be tested by the scientific method
    or
    ?

    Actually I can only think of the one.

    J-Mac: No wonder so many lazy and ignorat people are drawn to evolutionary theory…

    Seems to me the lazy people are on the Intelligent Design side. You see, the paper you referred to in the OP was actually written and published. Someone spent time and effort making it happen. If you go and look at the Intelligent Design journals when was the last thing published?

    And as noted several times already, you claim your complaint against this work is a scientific one. Well, the appropriate response is to rebut it in the same arena it was published.

  29. stcordova: So, I can’t blame scientists for clinging to a belief even when all actual theory and experiment disagree with the notion life arose naturally.

    Can you name those theories and cite those experiments? Or is “all” about it?

  30. Neil Rickert,

    Two points:

    (1) It is the nature of science, that it is continually changing (improving).

    (2) Beware of click bait headlines.

    There needs to be a radical pull back of the claims this theory makes. Maybe the claims that are not testable get removed.

  31. stcordova: Evolutionary theory, in contrast, keeps getting corrected. It’s not standing the test of time, because, like GeoCentrism, it is simply wrong.

    Ironic that you think that something that is continually being corrected is getting less correct not more…

  32. colewd: Maybe the claims that are not testable get removed.

    What is left of your theories if that is done? Can you test if atoms are designed?

    What of your position is testable? What of J-Mac’s? What of cordovas?

    Answer: Jack squat. That’s what’s got you all so riled up I think. Here we have photographs of the evolution of multicellularity and you just don’t like the implications….

  33. Here is basic freshman quantum mechanics for chemistry students. The notion of electron energy states and probability “orbitals” comes from Schrodinger’s equation and the Heisenberg Uncertainty principles of QM. Add a dash of Pauli Exclusion principle (that combines QM and SPECIAL relativity), and one gets a lot of the physical basis chemistry from first principles of Quantum Mechanics.

    This stuff has stood the test of time, and not many, if any chemists expect it will substantially change:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ewf7RlVNBSA

    Contrast real science like this freshman chemistry tutorial with evolutionary theory. There is no comparison.

  34. stcordova: Contrast real science like this freshman chemistry tutorial with evolutionary theory.

    Compare a freshman tutorial to the totality of evolutionary theory and note that the complex one is updated more often then the the freshman one?

    That’s only a valid comparison if you are trying desperately to prove a point, despite knowing you are wrong.

  35. stcordova: first principles of Quantum Mechanics.

    You obviously know nothing about the history of QM. Why don’t you take a brief look at the Wikipedia page, for a start?

    To you it looks like it was always there as-is. But like everything else, even your despised evolutionary theory, it was constantly updated until it was not…

  36. It’s also ironic that salvador is hoping that “as we discover more” a young cosmos becomes more likely. So when it’s convenient (evolution) things being updated is bad but when it’s an agenda advancing topic (age of the universe) it’s a good thing that can be used to rebut objections that there’s no evidence of a young universe.

    ahhh just wait

    What was that bit of work you kept referring to on young cosmos salvador? The gene-editing company I believe it was, that was going to demonstrate Intelligent Design in the human genome? What came of that? For years you were referencing that when asked about the real world uses of ID.

    I’ll tell ya what came of that – jack fucin crack all. Or you’d never stop crowing.

  37. OMagain,

    What is left of your theories if that is done? Can you test if atoms are designed?

    What of your position is testable? What of J-Mac’s? What of cordovas?

    It’s all testable depending on the definition established. If fine tuning is an indication of design then atoms can be shown to be finely tuned.

    What cannot be tested is the claim of universal common descent.

  38. colewd: It’s all testable depending on the definition established. If fine tuning is an indication of design then atoms can be shown to be finely tuned.

    It is also an indication of determinism.

    What cannot be tested is the claim of universal common descent.

    Or any historical event, we have evidence that support it but cannot test if Pangea existed.

  39. colewd: It’s all testable depending on the definition established.

    Go on then. GIve a definition then test it.

    colewd: If fine tuning is an indication of design then atoms can be shown to be finely tuned.

    Like J-Mac, you fall back to “if that then this”. Yes, if fine tuning is an indication of design then everything that follows is designed.

    If. If. If.

    It’s for you to show that it is. For me to agree for the sake of argument with your premise is somewhat missing the point, no?

    colewd: What cannot be tested is the claim of universal common descent.

    Ah, so you realize that really here what you are doing is admitting that no, my position cannot be tested. But neither can some other, unrelated position.

    Cold comfort indeed.

    Out of interest, what paragraph and line does the first error appear here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ ?

    Or perhaps you are just unaware of it? Pubmed link if, like sal, that adds legitimacy: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20463738

  40. OMagain,

    Out of interest, what paragraph and line does the first error appear here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ ?

    Start with cytochrome c claims. Also notice this.

    These mechanisms include such concepts as natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection, neutral evolution, and theories of speciation. The fundamentals of genetics, developmental biology, molecular biology, biochemistry, and geology are assumed to be fundamentally correct—especially those that do not directly purport to explain adaptation. However, whether microevolutionary theories are sufficient to account for macroevolutionary adaptations is a question that is left open.

    Without assigning a mechanism is there really a theory here? Design has a testable mechanism which is a mind.

  41. colewd: Start with cytochrome c claims. Also notice this.

    I’m sorry, that’s not very specific. Can you be specific?

    colewd: Without assigning a mechanism is there really a theory here?

    You list mechanisms then ask without the mechanisms is there a theory?

    Re-read what you just quoted.

    colewd: Design has a testable mechanism which is a mind.

    Except that’s simply not true is it? You conflate several things here. Earlier you referred to fine tuning and atoms. No “mind” we are familiar with can do such things. So what sort of “mind” are you planning to involve in your test here? What is your proposed test of design’s mechanism, exactly?

    Earlier I asked you to speculate on if the designer designed at the beginning of the universe or intervenes as and when. You replied that such speculation was above your pay grade. Yet here you are conflating our minds with the designers mind. You are saying that if our minds can design macro evolutionary changes then that shows that whatever “mind” you happen to be talking about at that time can also do it. I.E. The mind of god outside the universe.

    So, colewd, I’d love to see your proposal for testing the idea that minds are responsibly for macroevolutionary adaptations.
    That the same mind that made atoms made those adaptations too. But that’s not what you are really saying is it? You are dissembling, deliberately. Obfuscating. Hiding.
    I freely admit that minds could be responsible for such things. That should not give you succor however, because it grants you nothing. You are not talking about the sort of mind I’m talking about are you? Unless of course your god, your designer is some sort of alien, like us and with a mind like ours. Are you an ancient alien worshipper colewd?

    Unless you are you have to admit that the “mind” you are thinking of as a mechanism for macroevolutionary change is in fact the mind of god.

    So why don’t you just say as much? When you are asked to critique a scientific statement and respond with theology, as you have done here with your “minds” speil, whether you realize it or not, you should stop and think if this is really going to get you anywhere.

    Where is the first error with the cytochrome c claims? Be specific! Or accept that the one hand waving away evidence instead of following it is you!

  42. OMagain,

    So, colewd, I’d love to see your proposal for testing the idea that minds are responsibly for macroevolutionary adaptations

    I propose the same test that Richard Dawkins used to test cumulative selection in the Blind Watchmaker. Richard un expectantly tested mind as a mechanism that can generate a sequence by using the target sequence in his algorithm.

    Regarding cytochrome c it now is known to have multiple applications in different species. One mutation and a mouse is born without a forehead.

    Regarding mechanism Theobald assigned them to micro evolution. Without a mechanism you may not have a theory of macro evolution. We all agree there is a theory of micro evolution.

  43. I was wondering how long it would take J-Mac to see a note on that article, mistake the note for the article, and write an ignorant OP.

  44. colewd: I propose the same test that Richard Dawkins used to test cumulative selection in the Blind Watchmaker.

    But there the “mind” that write the computer program was a human mind, not a mind of god or the intelligent designer.

    If A and B and C can all do a thing then showing that B can do it does not preclude it being done by A or C.

    Again, you are conflating “minds” with “god”.

    colewd: Richard un expectantly tested mind as a mechanism that can generate a sequence by using the target sequence in his algorithm.

    Gobbledygook. The target sequence was set by a mind and the computer program was written by a mind. A human mind. The program then generated the sequence in the expected number of trials, on average.

    So your test that minds (god) can create macro evolutionary jumps across deep time is that Dawkins wrote a computer program?

    colewd: Regarding cytochrome c it now is known to have multiple applications in different species. One mutation and a mouse is born without a forehead.

    And upon what paragraph and sentence does the error appear in Theobalds work?

    Is it then your claim that cytochrome c has no variants, has no evolutionary history and can only exist in it’s current form across all life?

    That might not be your claim. I asked for specific examples, you throw back a general example. Perhaps you can explain specifically what you are getting at?

    Why does the fact a mutation causing a mouse to have no forehead demonstrate it was and could only have been intelligent design?

    You know that natural rock arches still fall if a supporting rock is removed, right?

    colewd: Regarding mechanism Theobald assigned them to micro evolution. Without a mechanism you may not have a theory of macro evolution. We all agree there is a theory of micro evolution.

    What stops lots of microevolution adding up into macro evolution? What’s the defining line between micro and macro?

    If you accept the mechanism of pennies then why do you deny that pennies can be added up into dollars?

    I’ll also help you out here. If macro evolution cannot be extrapolated from micro evolution it means that you believe in a meddler interventionist god. How else do macro evolutionary changes get made?

    Feel free to explain to me how your deity does not interfere in real time and yet macro evolution happens without that interference?

    It seems you’ve never actually connected up all the disparate pieces of your particular worldview. Evolution does not do macro, therefore god must do. But that means that god made a shit universe in the first place that it has to keep patching up in real time.

    Pathetic really. I bet your god is bullied by all the other gods who are capable of making universes that can sustain macroevolution without constant interventions!

    So which is it colewd, macroevolution and a shit interventionist god or evolution did it and you get your perfect universe back?

  45. colewd: I propose the same test that Richard Dawkins used to test cumulative selection in the Blind Watchmaker.

    Can you be more specific? What exactly would you do and how?

  46. Or, do you think that your designer wrote a computer program? As that’s what you seem to be saying. How will you test that?

  47. From the abstract of the original paper:
    “A widely held—but rarely tested—hypothesis for the origin of animals is that they evolved from a unicellular ancestor, with an apical cilium surrounded by a microvillar collar, that structurally resembled modern sponge choanocytes and choanoflagellates…”

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1290-4

    A widely held but rarely tested hypothesis?

    What’s new? The evolution of animal multicellularity is assumed and reluctantly tested just in case it could be wrong…
    This paper is a great example what happens when someone actually bothers to test the widely assumed hypothesis…

    What’s the solution?

    Another hypothesis based on an assumption that evolution must have happened that will not be subjected to the scientific method testing in order to avoid the embarrassment of the Long Term Evolutionary Experiment that had to be downgraded to the longest running Long Term Evolutionary Excuses…

Leave a Reply