Arkansas Watch | Evolution disproved once again

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

I noticed that the science daily website had an article up which dethroned a group of “primitive” marine worms as a potential ancestor of us all. First I will quote their report, and then translate it into realspeak.

“Acoelomorphs were reclassified in the 1990s as an early branch of evolution - the crucial link between the very simplest animals such as sponges and jellyfish and the rest of the animal kingdom including humans, starfish, insects and molluscs.

“Now, in research published online Feb. 9 in Nature, an international team led by scientists from UCL (University College London) and the Université de Montréal have shown that neither type of worm is an early branch of evolution. They show that both groups descended from the same ancestor that gave rise to the complex groups of animals that includes vertebrates and starfish. This implies that the worms have in effect ‘evolved backwards’ into much simpler looking organisms.”

Once again, a creature that was once supposed to be a “link” between other phyla turns out not to be. A phylum is a basic body plan, such as a vertebrate like a fish or a person, or an echinoderm like a starfish. They once thought that these worms represented the common ancestor of several other groups, but once they took a close look at the genetics they realized it was a sister group, not a mother group. The supposed common ancestor remains theoretical.

To my observation, this is what invariably happens when scientists test the hypothesis that some creature belongs to a group which is the direct ancestor of two or more other groups.

They invariably find that it is only another “sister” group. That holds true at the phylum and class levels. It also happens at the order levels. For example, some years back they took the DNA of a termite entombed in amber foran estimated 40 million years. They expected its DNA to be between that of modern termites and cockroaches from which they believed termites evolved. What they found was it was no closer in DNA to a cockroach than a modern termite. Again, the supposed common ancestor was eliminated once subjected to rigorous testing.

When you get to family and below, the same techniques sometimes do find a connection between two groups. In other words, it sometimes finds that some members within the family are closer to others, indicating they may have had a common ancestor. The obvious conclusion of that data is that while there is sometimes horizontal evolution within about the family level, the various phylums,classes and, perhaps even orders of life, do not have a common ancestor. That is what a straight forward look at the data says - it’s too bad their naturalistic worldview does not allow scientists to accept the evidence from their own studies.

Did the creature “evolve backwards” and lose complexity like they claim?

I dunno, and neither do they really. It’s an assumption they are making because they are assuming evolution to be true.

But even if it did, losing information is not going to prove macro-evolution. You can’t go from bacteria to man by losing information. You need a way to gain information in the genetic code, and at a rate consistent with the changes we see in the fossil record, to prove macro-evolution. They don’t have a way to do that, and, to my knowledge, every single time they have tested for an evolutionary relationship for the connecting point between two distant groups the result is negative.

Global warming is only the second greatest scientific hoax of our time.

◊◊◊

Editor’s note: Mark

Opinion, Pages 4 on 02/16/2011