Darwinian theory predicts that animals and animal subsystems all start of very small, and they get more and more complex as time passes, due to mutation and selection. That’s the theory. But is it true?
Here’s a striking article from Evolution News about a new PNAS peer-reviewed publication.
Excerpt:
Science progresses when investigators boldly question assumptions. Look at the assumption that a group of scientists questioned: Darwinian evolution. Eight scientists from San Diego State University, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, and Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute published a bombshell in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences:
The Precambrian explosion [they mean the Cambrian explosion] led to the rapid appearance of most major animal phyla alive today. It has been argued that the complexity of life has steadily increased since that event. Here we challenge this hypothesis through the characterization of apoptosis in reef-building corals, representatives of some of the earliest animals. Bioinformatic analysis reveals that all of the major components of the death receptor pathway are present in coral with high-predicted structural conservation with Homo sapiens. (Emphasis added.)
Apoptosis is “programmed cell death.” When a cell becomes unstable or diseased, genetic algorithms kill it in an orderly way, to prevent further harm to the organism. Specialized enzymes (especially the TNF superfamilies) switch on the program, setting locked-up destroyers called caspases loose in the cell.
[…]Corals have many of the same TNF enzymes that humans do. This got the team wondering:
The TNF receptor-ligand superfamilies (TNFRSF/TNFSF) are central mediators of the death receptor pathway, and the predicted proteome of Acropora digitifera contains more putative coral TNFRSF members than any organism described thus far, including humans. This high abundance of TNFRSF members, as well as the predicted structural conservation of other death receptor signaling proteins, led us to wonder what would happen if corals were exposed to a member of the human TNFSF (HuTNFα).
In a series of experiments, they inserted coral enzymes into human cells. The human cells died. Then they ran the reciprocal experiment, putting human TNF enzymes into coral, and its cells died too. Even the bleaching process was seen using human enzymes. The agents of death were perfectly interchangeable, despite 550 million years for evolution to have increased the complexity of the system.
[…]This is evidence against Darwinian evolution on both sides of the coin: it shows no evolutionary “progress” despite all that time, and it shows a complex system appearing abruptly right at the beginning of complex animal origins.
So you get the complexity right at the beginning, and it doesn’t change in 550 million years. It doesn’t fit with the Darwinian predictions.
WINTERY KNIGHT 
I’m nowhere near to being a biologist, but even I know that evolution doesn’t make the prediction that organisms will automatically become more complex over time. An organism doesn’t have to be complex to thrive in its environment – viruses are doing pretty well these days, and they’re as simple as it gets.
LikeLike
Look, atheists have flocked to biology for obvious reasons and there is incredible bias and pathological defenses put up to protect Darwin. We all see it.
They are so afraid that if they admit any mistakes it will open the door wider for fundamentalists who think the world is 6000 years old.
So in a way, the fundamentalists are doing harm here also. By denying the clear scientific results they must hold some of the responsibility for the immoral defensive posture of the atheists.
What biologists need to do is let the chips fall where they may–do what is right. Its a complicated little puzzle because the public doesn’t trust atheists to even watch their cat let alone with the truth of the world because they are not only blind but deceitful. So their rants that a huge percentage of people dont accept evolution is a self inflicted wound. They cut their own throats by being dishonest about their certainty on various theories and further undermine themselves by writing books that if God existed he would be terrible designer and other obvious insults to believers in God.
Until this crop of weirdos is replaced by a new generation, hopefully of more agnostics(Christians dont enter biology because who wants atheists for company and who looks for an answer they already have) instead of hard core God haters, nothing will change.
But this 6000 year denial of reality must also stop. I know its hard for these people–they feel like they are denying their faith, but many of us, when we were younger and didnt understand fundamentalism, read things into the bible that weren’t there too. Listen to your leaders, read theologians, and even ask God–would he set up a fake trail of scientific discoveries? By trying to preserve your faith all you’re doing is showing a lack thereof.
There simply is no path for an early Earth to survive on. Some type of evolution has taken place and you are showing more in common with the mindless bias of atheists when you package up everything in your neat little religious system..and like the atheists–your system doesn’t match reality. It has virtually zero support by the facts and I know that when I was younger I would have called myself a compromiser of truth if someone said this to me but I can only leave you with this: Tear down your system and relearn it by considering you are wrong about everything. Be honest and not afraid of having your mind changed and see if your view holds up.
LikeLike
You’re just wrong about creationists. I’m a biologist (master’s degree) who rejects evolution and an old earth because of the evidence, not in spite of it.
I’m certainly against people who deny clear scientific evidence and who refuse to study an issue because they don’t want to upset their faith. I speak out against Christians who do this on a regular basis. But Christians aren’t the only ones who do it and not everyone who rejects evolution and an old earth is doing it out of blind faith. Some of us have good evidence for our views and have studied the topic in depth.
LikeLike