New Evolution Dilemma

Tree of Life

 

New Evolution Dilemma

A new and unanticipated evolution dilemma now follows the wake of a massive new microbe discovery. Using a new technique, the number of known bacteria has been “bolstered by almost 50 percent,” according to a new article by Kevin Hartnett published in QuantaMagazine.org and re-printed in ScientificAmerica.com.

With a series of successively smaller porous filters, the University of California Banfield Group at Berkley, discovered a massive number of tiny “bacteria representing > 35 phyla… that consistently distinguished these organisms from other bacteria.” Travis Bedel’s illustration displays the magnitude of the discovery. These newly discovered ultra-small microorganisms, however, accentuates the long-standing dilemma between the theory of evolution and the scientific evidence.

Tiny Bacteria

Unlike any known bacteria, the biochemistry of these tiny bacteria are completely unique – starting with their DNA. “All the organisms they found have very short genomes,” according to Hartnett, “about one million base pairs (compare that to E. coli, which has about five million), and they all have minimal metabolic function, requiring them to use fermentation to generate energy.”

Somehow, these tiny bacteria lack many of the basic biosynthetic pathways to produce nucleotides and amino acids. “They must be dependent on other organisms in some capacity to survive. This also explains why no one’s been able to grow them in the lab,” Chris Brown said, a member of the Banfield Group.

Hartnett reports that “researchers [have] divided the 789 newly discovered tiny bacteria into 35 phyla – 28 of which were newly discovered – within the domain bacteria” based on genetic similarities. “With these new additions, there are now roughly 90 identified bacterial phyla.” Tiny Bacteria

The available evidence investigators used to classify these organisms are only estimates since the criteria for classification only required “at least 75 percent of their [genetic] code in common.”

The research, however, has only just begun. Investigators studying these tiny organisms estimate “With these new additions, there are now roughly 90 identified bacterial phyla. This is a lot more than there were a year ago, but also far fewer than the 1,300 to 1,500 phyla that microbiologists estimate we’ll have once a complete accounting is finished.”

Common Ancestor

The discovery of a new species, however, is straight forward compared to the complicated task of attempting to retrofit the evidence into an evolutionary paradigm. As Hartnett explains,

“The discovery of new organisms is fairly cut and dried: Either you’ve found one or you haven’t. Cataloging organisms, fitting them into the tree of life, involves more judgment calls.”

In the same way that a tree begins to grow from a single seed to form a trunk and branches, evolution is envisioned to originate from a single common ancestor. From this common ancestor, Darwin’s unbroken “slight successive” transitional links create the branches of the tree. According to the theory, the nodes between branches represent the last universal common ancestor (LUCA). LUCA has been variably referred to as the most recent common ancestor (MRCA).

Applying Darwin’s simple tree analogy, however, remains an elusive task requiring an ocean of “judgment calls” – not a good sign in the realm of science. In fact, scientists have yet to agree on any tree of life model. This explains why a common ancestor in Bedel’s base trunk of the tree and branches in the illustration are completely missing. Common ancestry continues as an evolution fantasy. Banfield can only hold on to hope –

“I think that much of the tree of life will come into view in the next few years.”

Evidence vs Evolution

These tiny bacteria further illustrate the massive gaps between the theory and the evidence for evolution. In the evolution industry, however, the bad news spells good news ― job security. As Hartnett explains –

“Rubin [Edward Rubin, director of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Joint Genome Institute] thinks that the development of tools like the ones used in the new study make the search for life ‘a growth industry,’ and he thinks it’s likely that growth will occur in surprising ways.”

The evolution industry keeps surviving as each new evolutionary dilemma is discounted, then hailed as an opportunity.

This principle of common ancestry forms the cornerstone principle of evolution. “The central idea of biological evolution,” according to University of California Evolution 101, “is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor.”

Ironically, however, among the 49 tree of life Evolution 101 drawings, not a single tree (0%) includes the name of a common ancestor. Bedel’s colorful indeterminate tree illustration highlights the ever-plaguing evolution dilemma – common ancestors exist only as a fantasy on the pages of biology textbooks.

Logic of ChanceIn his latest book, The Logic of Chance (2011), Eugene Koonin points out the now obvious fact: “No consensus exists on the nature of the LUCA [last universal common ancestor].” Bedel wisely escapes speculating on a common ancestor.

Amazingly, in Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation (2015), even Bill Nye succinctly recognizes this problem in microbes―“viruses do not have a common ancestor.”

American physicist, Lee Spetner in Evolution Revolution, Why Thinking People are Rethinking the Theory of Evolution (2014) simply notes: “there is no accepted evidence for Common Descent [common ancestry].”

Lynn Margulis, awarded the National Medal of Science in 1999, was not a common ancestor advocate. Commenting on population genetics in an interview by Suzan Mazur, she argued forcibly against the Evolution 101 house of cards –

“The notion is that if we accumulate enough gene change, enough genetic mutations, we explain the passage from one species to another. This is depicted as two branches in a family tree that emerge from one common ancestor to the two descendants. An entire Anglophone academic tradition of purported evolutionary description was developed quantified, computerized based on what I think is a conceptual topological error.”

Ironically, from within the bastion halls of UC Berkley, Banfield’s Group massive microbe discovery only further highlights the insurmountable dilemma facing the evolution industry. New discoveries paints only one clear picture: evolution’s common ancestry theory is following the fate of the Piltdown man.

Among the logical, the evidence against evolution is now beyond the critical point – exhausting the industry’s eternal “someday” argument.

Genesis

Scientific investigations continue to underscore a highly complex non-tree of life pattern of nature – evidence that is compatible with the Genesis account of creation. Nature eludes any mechanistic formula.

Evolution, once a theory in crisis, is now in crisis without even a cohesive theory.

Biological evolution exists only as a philosophical fact, not as a scientific fact. Evolution dogma destroys the dignity of science.

 

11 Responses to “New Evolution Dilemma”

  • D B Blair:

    Sounds like this ever-elusive unifying discovery for the faithful pro-evolution crowd is no closer , notwithstanding a boatload of research hours and money to pay for it.Could it be this whole thing has been a colossal waste of time and money (sorts like the global warming thing)?

  • Yonason:

    One more time, without the links.

    About a decade ago, there was an announcement that…

    “More than Six Million New Genes, Thousands of New Protein Families, and Incredible Degree of Microbial Diversity Discovered from First Phase of Sorcerer II Global Ocean Sampling Expedition”

    Not that is not the name of the most recent expedition, so it seems that they keep coming up with ever more discoveries of what’s there. And, while they have no shortage of just-so stories, they have no idea how it really got there.

  • Agree. During the mid-twentieth century, tracing the genetic changes in DNA was once hoped to demonstrate evolution – one mutation at a time. But further research only resulted in the demise of the then most popular modern theory of evolution: neo-Darwinism and the modern evolutionary synthesis theory of evolution, that had replaced Darwinism in the earlier in the century. Today in the aftermath of genome sequencing, the evolutionary industry has been paralyzed by the scientific evidence to develop any new cohesive consensus for the theory of evolution.

    It is interesting to note, that evolution conferences are never open to the public – or even the press.

  • Brian Platt:

    “Today in the aftermath of genome sequencing, the evolutionary industry has been paralyzed by the scientific evidence to develop any new cohesive consensus for the theory of evolution.”

    And what exactly is that supposed to mean? DNA sequencing and the whole of molecular biology is simply another tool to understand the fact of biological evolution and the mechanism by which it occurs. In fact, as predicted by evolution, genomic mapping has shown that protein sequences from different species converge as we go further and further back in time. One (who knew what they were talking about) could argue very persuasively that that DNA sequencing is the capstone of evolutionary science. It is quite literally quantifying the evolutionary progress of the building blocks of life.

    Ignorance is a choice, not a requirement. Reality is big tent – come on in, folks!

  • What you are referring to was the standard evolution dogma of the late 20th century – the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis theory of evolution. Eugene V. Koonin in The Logic of Chance, the Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution (2011), howwver, does not agree with you – stating, “The genomic revolution… effectively overturned the central metaphor of evolutionary biology, the Tree of Life.” Without a Tree of Life with known common ancestors, the theory of evolution is simply a relic on the pages of outdated biology textbooks along with Lamarckianism, Darwinism, and neo-Darwinism. Ignorance is a choice, not a requirement. Reality is big tent – come on into reality.

  • Yonason:

    @Brian Platt

    While gene mapping can show high correlation between specific genes of different species, the choice of different genes often gives contradictory results. I.e., there is NO unambiguous mapping of any species onto any twig, branch or limb of the fictitious “tree of life.”

    See here for a simple illustration of the principle.
    http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2012/03/ape-dna-evolution-conundrum/

    Reducing ignorance requires one to constantly choose to be vigilant, diligent and humble; because waiting for it to be fixed by a Darwinian random process is, as you obviously know, not the most effective remedy, to say the least.

  • Yonason:

    UPDATE TO MY LAST.

    In his latest book, “The Evolution Revolution,” Dr. Lee Spetner addresses that topic in his chapterThe False Arguments For Evolution.” He observes on p.87 “An argument for common descent would be helped if anatomical data and molecular data would always lead to the same tree. However the fact is they don’t [Heled and Drummond 2010, Rosenberg and Degnan 2010, Degnan and Rosenberg 2009, Degnan and Rosenberg 2006, Nichols 2001] phylogenetic trees based on different genes are known to give contradictory results. There was hope that the use of whole genomes, or at least large portions of genomes,…would resolve those contradictions, but that only made the problem worse [Jeffroy et al. 2006, Dalos et al. 2012]”

    Spetner also points out that evolutionists try to explain away the problems with that by invoking the ad. hoc. concept of ”Convergent Evolution,” as well as by amateurish theological arguments, false statements and, when those fail, pretending the problem doesn’t exist.

    They remind me of bacteria that, when confronted with antibiotics, will destroy whatever of themselves they have to, in order to survive. But for them to survive requires much more than inactivating an enzyme. It requires nothing less than destruction of education and of science itself.

  • Yonason:

    THIS JUST IN

    This article was posted overnight
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2015/09/evolutions-junk-science-at-university.html

    The truth – it just isn’t their thing.

  • Excellent. Spetner’s quote, though, is actually located on page 88.

  • […] trees approach has been used with varying success in developing seasonal vaccines, like the Influenza virus (the flu). Using this approach, however, for developing a malarial vaccine has been like searching […]

Leave a Reply

Book Description



Buy Now

Kindle Edition Available





Darwin, Then and Now is a journey through the most amazing story in the history of science - the history of evolution. The book encapsulates who Darwin was, what he said, and what scientists have discovered since the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859.

With over 1,000 references, Darwin Then and Now is a historical chronicle of the rise and fall of the once popular theory of biological evolution.

Connect