Stasis Is Not Evolution
(Visited 433 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0 Only Darwinians would turn non-evolution or breakage into evidences for evolution.Stasis Is Not EvolutionEvolutionary backing found in analysis of mammalian vertebrae (Science Daily). If the headline makes you think you will hear evidence that backs evolution, what you will read is quite different. Darwinians at New York University are puzzled about non-evolution:The work centers on an effort to better understand why certain aspects of mammals remain consistent over time — a phenomenon known as evolutionary stasis.How’s that for an oxymoron? “Evolutionary stasis” means ‘evolutionary non-evolution.’Despite the diversity evolution has yielded, there remain consistencies across a wide range of distantly related organisms. Of particular note is the number neck (cervical) and back (thoracic and lumbar) vertebrae of mammals.“Nearly all mammals have the same number of cervical vertebrae, no matter how long or short their necks are — humans, giraffes, mice, whales, and platypuses all have exactly seven cervical vertebrae,” explains co-author Jeff Spear, an NYU doctoral student.The phrase “despite the diversity evolution has yielded” is an assertion of belief in Darwinism, not evidence. Actually, when you think about it, why hasn’t Darwinian evolution produced different numbers of cervical vertebrae? Isn’t evolution infinitely flexible?Darwin used the similarity of pentadactyl limbs as evidence for his theory. Ever since, diagrams of diverse organisms all bearing five digits have been used in classrooms to prove that humans and whales inherited them from the first fish that crawled out onto land. Giving this a name like ‘canalization’ only proves one thing: that Darwinians can explain opposite things with the same theory. Actually, this iconic drawing can be used as evidence against evolution as well as for it. Why should evolution get stuck in a rut in the first place? Watch Michael Denton explain this problem for Darwinists in a short video at Evolution News.Loss Is Not Evolution, EitherDarwinian evolution, we are told, is such a powerful, creative process, it produced humans from bacteria. When you think of the thousands or millions of genes that must have arisen to produce that kind of complexity, evidence for it should be more than abundant. But often the media tell us about cases of genetic loss of pre-existing information. That’s Darwinism in reverse.Life in evolution’s fast lane (Phys.org). Look at how much genetic information was lost in a line of yeast. The devolution is so bad, this line cannot repair its DNA as effectively as other species can. They only appear to survive against mutational load because there are so many of them.Most living things have a suite of genes dedicated to repairing their DNA, limiting the rate at which their genomes change through time. But scientists at Vanderbilt and University of Wisconsin-Madison have discovered an ancient lineage of budding yeasts that appears to have accumulated a remarkably high load of mutations due to the unprecedented loss of dozens of genes involved in repairing errors in DNA and cell division, previously thought to be essential.Signs of selection in the stomach (Phys.org). Darwinian biologists at the University of Munich are intrigued that the pathogen Helicobacter pylori, which causes stomach ulcers, adapts easily and diversifies within individuals and groups. When the germs are exposed to antibiotics, however, they cease diversifying, and only the resistant strain survives. This is a sign of a loss of genetic information – the opposite of Darwinian progress.At the initial sample from this individual, the H. pylori population was highly diverse and showed no signs of resistance to any of the antibiotics tested during growth in the laboratory. However, in a sample collected 2 years later, the level of diversity within the population was extremely low, and the bacteria had become completely resistant to a frontline antibiotic. Over the course of the intervening 2 years, the population had apparently undergone a massive reduction in size, which set the scene for the subsequent large-scale change in the structure of the surviving population.This scenario fits what Michael Behe argues in his new book Darwin Devolves. Organisms sometimes survive only by losing genetic information. When facing a threat, they will break or blunt anything that allows them to evade the threat, like a crew in a storm tossing cargo overboard to keep from sinking. That is not what Darwin had in mind. When all is said and done, the experimental population was still H. pylori, the same species at the beginning. That’s a remarkable amount of non-evolution for an organism thought to have plagued hominins for millions of years.Centre for Cancer Drug Discovery to focus on anti-evolution treatments (New Scientist). Some evolutionists treat cancer cells as models of Darwinian evolution. These surely are poor subjects to use as evidence. For one, they are not free-living organisms. For two, they are broken! They are out of control. The rapid changes in cancer cells do not imply fitness or innovation, but shifting-sideways changes that allow them to resist drugs. The article provides no evidence for the evolution Darwin had in mind. In fact, doctors are trying to force their “evolution” (if it can be called that) into dead ends so that cancer cells will die of their own evolution.