How Evolution Created Evolution

Did your high school biology teacher tell you that evolution is a fact because, after all, species are observed to adapt and evolve in nature? At the time it may not have occurred to you that moths changing color and the beaks of birds changing shape hardly demonstrate that entirely new forms and designs can appear without a trace of evolutionary history. It also may not have occurred to you that those examples of adaptation, observed in the field, occur suspiciously quickly. Wasn't evolution supposed to take millions of years? But even if those problems did occur to you, what you were probably unaware of is that, ironically, adaptation is not evidence for evolution--it is evidence against evolution.

The adaptation of species to environmental pressures would seem like obvious evidence for evolution. But in recent years we have begun to understand the enormous complexity of adaptation. It is not a story of natural selection acting on undirected biological variations (that is, variations that are blind to environmental pressures).

This sort of undirected process has been the evolutionary dogma for the past century. In what was known as the Modern Synthesis, biological adaptation was described as resulting from blind variations resulting, for instance, from genetic rearrangements or unguided mutations.

No thanks to evolution we are now beginning to understand the real version of biological adaptation. What we are seeing is an incredibly complex adaptation machine that tweaks the designs of organisms in response to environmental pressures.

It is not a simple story as there are a variety of different ways such adaptations can occur. These mechanisms, broadly labeled as epigenetic inheritance, can regulate the expression of genes as well as redesign the genes. The bottom line is that the adaptations are not unguided, they benefit the organism, and they are extremely complex. The evolutionary story is completely wrong. As one evolutionist admitted, the Modern Synthesis:

states that variations are blind, are genetic (nucleic acid-based), and that saltational events do not significantly contribute to evolutionary change. The epigenetic perspective challenges all these assumptions, and it seems that a new extended theory, informed by developmental studies and epigenetic inheritance, and incorporating Darwinian, Lamarckian, and saltational frameworks, is going to replace the Modern Synthesis version of evolution.

A new extended theory? This should be interesting, for it would have to explain how evolution creates mechanisms which, themselves, cause evolution (in the form of adaptation). I sense a just-so story coming on. In fact, evolutionists are already explaining this without losing a step. For instance (from the same paper):

Epigenetic inheritance should be favored in fluctuating environmental conditions that last for more than one generation (but not for very long) and may be particularly important in the type of environments experienced by many microorganisms. In such fluctuating environments, efficient epigenetic inheritance is likely to evolve (i) if the parental environment carries reliable information about the offspring’s environment, (ii) when the response to induction is lengthy and incurs a very high cost, and (iii) when recall is not an option or incurs too high a cost.

See, that was easy. Evolution just happens. So long as there is an advantage to a new design, then it will appear. That's how evolution works. A weed eating monster would have a great time in my backyard--I wonder why one hasn't appeared?

One of the best known epigenetic mechanisms is DNA methylation in which a methyl group is added to cytosine, one of the four DNA chemical letters. The methyl group is a sort of marker that can help to regulate the expression of genes. DNA methylation is accomplished via the action of a complicated molecular machine (DNA methyltransferase) that adds the methyl group at precisely the right location in the DNA strand.

So evolution configured DNA methyltransferase and the associated molecular information that tells it where to add the methyl group, so that later the organism and its offspring could benefit when certain environmental pressures arose. That's good planning--evolution is almost as smart as evolutionists are.

And to further complicate matters, this molecular marker can, itself, be modified. That is, the mark can be marked, thus adding another layer of information to the epigenetic mechanism. In this case, the methyl group is hydroxylated. And of course a different complicated molecular machine is required for the task, and the information of when and where to go to work is needed.

Kind of like that but you're leaving out an important part ~ not yet discovered of course ~ and that's the "computer" behind methylation.

Well, that, and then the device that feeds useful data to the computer to evaluate, and then the output device that the computer uses to tell the methylation process what to do.

Don't get too snarky on this just yet ~ but your target is probably the right one, and that's the idea that evolution works "blindly". I'd like to suggest that evolution found itself working "without blinkers on" several Universes back ~ when life started ~

Yesterday's big science piece was about the question of granularity in the fundamental structure of this Universe. Recent observations suggest that there's sufficient granularity or frothiness (at the Plank Constant) to "delay" radiation of different energy values as it passes from one side of the "visible" Universe to us.

All of which is quite relevant to the question of how a quantum computer might well be a fundamental attribute of any segment of space that exceeds the Plank Constant (which is really, really, really tiny), so we might start taking a look at the constituent parts of DNA, or maybe simply occlusions in cell membranes or walls, to see if there's some data processing going on down there.

With all the damning scientific evidence that continues to come out against Evolution, I wonder how long the Darwinists can keep this joke going. The dinosaur fossils that have been found with tissue intact are more than enough evidence to send the billion/million year old earth quacks packing, but as of yet, I have not heard the scientific community rebuke these theories. They simple say they are baffled by the fossils and that's it. It is amazing to me how unscientific the scientific community can be sometimes. I realize that they are only human, but these dinosaur fossils clearly show that our current dating techniques are seriously flawed. How can tissue survive millions of years? From what we know currently, it cannot therefore, scientifically, these million year dates must be rejected.

Here's the kicker though, without the Earth being millions and billions of years old, it makes Evolution impossible. And that is the real reason why they are so slow to mock the dating theories, since it would be to mock Evolution itself.

Here's the kicker though, without the Earth being millions and billions of years old, it makes Evolution impossible.

On the contrary, bible literalists and YEC's must intrinsically accept hyper-fast evolution. If Noah collected the "kinds" 2x2, that means the vast diversity of life has sprung in the last few 1000 years, right? There really is no other way to look at that. In fact, many creationists have accepted this and have offered up some highly creative explanation as to how this must have happened.

How did anything you posted have anything to do with what I posted?

Everyone knows that without a millions and millions of years old Earth, Evolution could never have happened. That is why the dating techniques are defended without question. They are not defended because they are sound, they are defended because it's a stranglehold on science by the Darwinist and they will not give it up.

Everyone knows that without a millions and millions of years old Earth, Evolution could never have happened.

Most creationists disagree with you. Since you seem to have differing thoughts, please explain how the earth became populated with the diverse array of life we see today.

Hint: You can't just say "God did it." Please refer to the creationist sources you get your flim-flam from because there you'll find explanations for the rapid evolution that must have occurred after the Flood. ie, the huge diversity of cats today from a pair of the "cat kind" on and on.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.