Skip to comments.New evolutionary research disproves living missing link theories
Posted on 02/10/2011 4:52:11 PM PST by decimon
Genetic research proves worm has evolved to be less sophisticated than its ancestors
Evolution is not a steady march towards ever more sophisticated beings and therefore the search for the living "missing links" is pointless, according to findings published by a team of researchers led by Dr. Hervé Philippe of the Université de Montréal's Department of Biochemistry. "Aristotle was the first to classify organisms from the least to the most sophisticated. Darwin's theory of evolution continued this idea, with the concept of a hierarchy of evolution. This way of thinking has led researchers and skeptics alike to look for less sophisticated ancestors in order to prove or disprove evolution," Philippe explained. "What we now know is that evolution does not happen in a single direction when people talk about a missing link, they're generally excluding the possibility of more sophisticated ancestors."
The researchers compared the genomes of two kinds of marine worms with simple morphology Xenoturbellida and Acoelomorpha with those of other animals. They demonstrated that their previous position at the base of the bilateral symmetry animal group that includes insects, mollusks and vertebrates was inaccurate. "Instead, we determined that Xenoturbellida and Acoelomorpha are closely related to the complex deuterostomes, which is a major lineage containing sea urchins, humans and sharks," Philippe said. "I've put them in that order intentionally because it seems strange, which demonstrates our tendency to always put organisms in order of complexity." The findings mean that the worms had evolved from a more sophisticated ancestor through major simplifications.
"We did already know that most parasitic organisms had evolved to be less sophisticated than their ancestors they lost certain abilities that they no longer needed. The independently living Xenoturbellida and Acoelomorpha do not fall in this category," Philippe said. The research is a striking example for the important role of secondary simplification in evolution and is part of 20 year project that is nearing completion. The findings were published in Nature on February 10, 2011.
It is amazing to me how very much of the fossil record has to do with simplifications (i.e., Eohippus).
Not sure if I believe in Evolution, but I definitely believe in Devolution. Which are of necessity different processes. Devolution (simplifications--> the loss of information, or the loss of expression of information) is not evidence for Evolution.
The blind cave fish, or Eeohippus' losing its toes, say nothing (or at least very little) about evolution.
A couple of people have suggested that FR could use some sort of an anti-evolution ping list... Anybody wishing to be added to the list should notify me via freepmail.
I don’t think you should create an anti-evolution ping list. I think you should create an anti-macro-evolution ping list and the distinction is an important one. Or perhaps an intelligent design ping list which I would favor.
Add me to your list. Thank you.
Unless there is a purpose to evil. It seems that faith as it applies to religion and thus to life, is more important than knowledge. At least that’s the message of Christianity.
An Evolutionist would say that you’d expect just such a flux there being times when a more “sophisticated” genetic make up was more favorable and other times/environments in which a simpler form was needed.
Thank you for including me, please keep my name on your list.
Please sign me up. Thanks Wendy!
Evolution is junk science and as junk science goes, a spectacularly pernicious and dangerous flavor of it. Evolution was the philosophical corner stone of Nazism and Communism and the various eugenics movements. Worse, despite its having been thoroughly debunked over the last 100 years, its adherents still dominate discussions of it by sheer weight of numbers and decibel level.
You even see that on conservative forums like FR and in fact the argument you generally see is "Hey, you're making all of us (conservatives) look like kooks (by saying anything about evolution) and, funny thing, evolutionism appears to transcend left/right barriers. The evolutionist postings you see on FR or the Limbaugh or Coulter forums are basically indistinguishable from those you'd see on DU or anything else like that.
I vote for a lamarckian evolution ping list.
Sorry, I was addressing your concern about evil and its existence in our world.
It must have a purpose.