Positive
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Evolution Isn’t Random?

“Challenges Decades of Scientific Understanding”

One of the hallmarks of evolutionary thought is that evolution is the result of random, chance processes. But a new study, referred to by the popular press as a “landmark discovery,” challenges “decades of scientific understanding” by suggesting that maybe evolution isn’t as random as was thought. So get ready for the details of this latest installment of “Everything we previously thought about evolution is wrong” (yes, this happens a lot!).

The researchers analyzed the pangenome (defined as “a complete set of genes within a species”) of 2,500 bacteria, all belonging to the same species. Within that pangenome, they identified gene families and then compared those families. And what they discovered is “nothing short of revolutionary.”


“We found that some gene families never turned up in a genome when a particular other gene family was already there, and on other occasions, some genes were very much dependent on a different gene family being present.”

The researchers have essentially discovered an invisible ecosystem where genes can cooperate or can be in conflict with one another.

“These interactions between genes make aspects of evolution somewhat predictable and furthermore, we now have a tool that allows us to make those predictions,” said Dr. Domingo-Sananes.

“From this work, we can begin to explore which genes ‘support’ an antibiotic resistance gene, for example. Therefore, if we are trying to eliminate antibiotic resistance, we can target not just the focal gene, but we can also target its supporting genes,” said Dr. Beavan.

“We can use this approach to synthesize new kinds of genetic constructs that could be used to develop new drugs or vaccines. Knowing what we now know has opened the door to a whole host of other discoveries.”


Now, you may notice that the researchers didn’t actually uncover anything about molecules-to-man evolution. They did good observational science, comparing genes and gene families across bacteria—genes that already exist. They didn’t make some startling discovery about how bacteria acquire brand-new functional genes (information) for new forms or features, something that is required for evolution to occur and has never been observed. What they peered into was the intricacies of DNA! They’re simply taking a closer look at God’s incredible handiwork.

And this new research may lead to discoveries in “medicine, synthetic biology, and environmental science.” It’s worth noting that the applications of this research don’t really have anything to do with supposed evolution but rather deal primarily with observational science (science that’s testable, repeatable, and observable).

So despite the headlines, this study doesn’t have anything to do with unobserved evolution but has everything to do with God’s design in even the smallest of his creations.

by Ken Ham on January 29, 2024
Featured in Ken Ham Blog

Scientists are now discovering what God already new from the very beginning in science. Why am I not surprised?
That was an interesting article.

It really doesn't take a genius, to understand that [i]something[/i] will never come from [i]nothing[/i].
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@LadyGrace [quote]It really doesn't take a genius, to understand that something will never come from nothing.[/quote]

Amen sister, amen!!
Kygirl · F
This image illustrates Ken Hamm's errors and fallacies.


During WWII, workers on US airfields noticed that returning planes had bullet holes in certain places and not in others. Were the engines and cockpits bullet-proof? NOPE. It's survivorship bias. Planes that got their engines or cockpits shot up didn't make it back to base.

Similarly, the mutation patterns that got Ken Hamm so excited are patterns of mutation that survived long enough to be measured. It's still natural selection, just like Darwin described.
@JimboSaturn Umm, I'm not sure science has really ruled out a different species can thrive and live with distances of the sun and just because life here is based upon water doesn't actually mean another life form can not live and thrive with different ecosystems? Basing our ideas on what we have found is also why we are naive and arrogant.
JimboSaturn · 51-55, M
@thewindupbirdchronicles Just an example of reverse thinking.
Kygirl · F
@ElwoodBlues
I've met Ken Ham in person several times at World View Weekends and he teaches the truth and The Word of God.
G0ddess · F
Some ppl take more pride in originating from a monkey rather than God it’s pathetic but you can’t cast pearls before swine
This message was deleted by its author.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
DocSavage · M
@GodSpeed63
[quote] I have yet to see one, let alone read it[/quote]
When are you going to admit you don’t know what you’re talking about ?
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
Do you understand that the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection doesn't say that evolution is the result of random, chance processes?

Would you like me to take you through why that is so?

Perhaps we could copy that Ken Ham character into the conversation?
DocSavage · M
@newjaninev2
He doesn’t know the meaning of the word “failure “
( too many syllables)
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@newjaninev2 @DocSavage [quote]afraid, huh? [/quote]

Yes, you're afraid. You're scared that you will discover the Truth of God and face the fact that He lives and His Word is the Truth.
DocSavage · M
@GodSpeed63
The Truth of God ( [c=BF0000]Subject to change without notice. Terms and conditions apply [/c])
Zonuss · 41-45, M
Evolution of humanity is false [b]secular[/b] indoctrination.
DocSavage · M
@Zonuss
[quote] Bible in itself is not about religion [/quote]
The culture that it involved, was Bronze Age , Middle East. They thought the Earth was flat, and had no idea what was on the other side of it.
Regardless, it has nothing to do with secular science , evolution, or the supernatural. So, what the fu[k are you trying to prove ? That the rapture is occurring, and we should all turn to god ?
Bollocks !
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Zonuss so at any moment we’ll see prostitutes wearing tiaras and flying around on dragons?
Cool!
DocSavage · M
@Zonuss
So what are you saying ? That the bible is a book of prophecy . That god warned us of the political situation 2,000 years in advance, as part of revelations , and now you think it’s coming true ?
Don’t see it happening.
DocSavage · M
As the man said. [b]Prove it[/b]
I've often wondered where this common idea of evolution being a [i]random[/i] process came from.

Consider how in Lotto it is inevitable that [i]one[/i] particular set of numbers (out of all the millions) comes up. When that particular set of numbers comes up, we call it random.

Now think of how the atoms of some elements combine easily with the atoms of other elements to form molecules - with reliably the same structures (because the physical properties of each element determine what's possible for it).
Now imagine the orders of magnitude of those atomic elements roiling around in the primordial seas of earth, especially around the volcanic vents in the deep oceans. Here, the order of magnitude makes it inevitable that multi-quadrillions of the same atomic elements combine into quadrillions of the same molecules - the proto proteins. This makes it impossible for the first RNA not to come into existence in such abundance as to trigger the beginnings of living forms so small that we need an electron microscope to see them. And these in their turn are in such abundance that trillions form into single-celled organisms.
Far from being random, it could never have not happened.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@hartfire Cosmology, abiogenesis, and evolution, in a nutshell

Hydrogen is a colourless, odourless, gas that, given enough time, turns into an elephant 😀 🐘
@newjaninev2 I love nutshells, elephants and the endless wonders of science and life. Thank you! 😊
I SO encourage in-depth reading! keep on that!

[quote]the evolutionary trajectory of a genome may be influenced by its evolutionary history, rather than determined by numerous factors and historical accidents.

[/quote]
so if you are trying to quote "Science" then you[b] MUST give attribution[/b]
Link the scientific article,, NOT the musings of Mr Hamm whose scholarship is [i]Dubious at best[/i] he harms your cause..

I am actually rather familiar with this subject, and tho random Mutation is a driver of evolution, it is the existential Success of SOME few of those mutations that are the framework of how life proceeds

but your logical fallacy is that if a thing exists, it is because "[i]"someone" did it[/i]
the research does not have that in it.

but i understand the Deist point of view and am okay with
[center]Science reveal the works of Providence
[/center]
Dr. Domingo-Sananes. and Dr. Beavan. are reputable researchers as is Dr McInerny who you left out
here is the link to their paper:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2304934120
@DocSavage sorry "doc" proof is why I dint inject myself with bleach like the past president said
Germs are not mentioned in the bible.. so you gonna drink that dirty water?
"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation, so that belief can be preserved.".
DocSavage · M
@SatyrService
You’re preaching to the wrong choir.
@DocSavage preaching is what YOU do
not into indoctrination myself
so lets just both back away
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
[quote]evolution is the result of random, chance processes[/quote]

Do you understand that the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection doesn't say that evolution is the result of random, chance processes?

Would you like me to take you through why that is so?

Perhaps we could copy that Ken Ham character into the conversation?
DocSavage · M
@GodSpeed63
Proof is there, but you won’t look at by your own admission. You don’t read books, and you’ve never watched anything debunking intelligent design. The fact you don’t read it , doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Your policy of willful ignorance makes your opinion null and void.
You can’t prove something true or false if you have no knowledge of what you’re talking about. ( a fact you made obviously clear )
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@GodSpeed63 It looks like you and your little 'god' have run away yet again
DocSavage · M
@newjaninev2
Not surprising. He doesn’t want to interfere with our free will.
Kygirl · F
For a design you have to have a designer.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Kygirl Yup, which of course is why the pathways of evolution aren't designed. They're shaped by sex, death, and constantly changing environments.
AthrillatheHunt · 51-55, M
@Kygirl or an architect .
JollyRoger · 70-79, M
I checked Ken Ham's story against the information attributed to Dr. Domingo-Sananes. I'm not sayng that he's wrong in his interpretation of what I found, but I did not see where his conclusions were supported by her report. In other words: He's drawing his own conclusions and is abusing a scientist's name to make them fit. I'd like to read Dr. Domingo-Sananes own conclusions on this topic.
DocSavage · M
I would say “prove it” but we both know you can’t.
Here’s another creationist idiot who discovered that evolution can be guided by humans. Atheist have known this for years.
Ken Ham , only acknowledges evolution because even he can’t deny it any longer. The evidence is too overwhelming and he can’t spread his bullsh!t any thinner to cover all of it.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@DocSavage [quote]The evidence is too overwhelming and he can’t spread his bulls!t any thinner to cover all of it.[/quote]

I would say “prove it” but we both know you can’t.
DocSavage · M
@GodSpeed63 [quote] I would say “prove it” but we both know you can’t [/quote]
Prove what ? That Both Ray Comfort and Ken Ham lie about evolution ?
Been there, Done that. Go suck a banana.
JimboSaturn · 51-55, M
I used to try to use that idea as well when I was religious.

Ken Ham is a nutcase though.
Lovesungoddess · 18-21, F
Getting advice from Ken Ham is not a reliable source.
@Lovesungoddess Might as well get advice from a baked ham.
JimboSaturn · 51-55, M
Ken Ham?!! YYYYYEeeeehaawwww
whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M
@GodSpeed63 Do you always answer a question with a question?
I am prepared to make my case for abortion either on the grounds of a womans right to choose or on the grounds of saving a soul from a poor outcome in life and I accept responsibility for that choice. It is you who choose to push the difficult choices onto a mythical being as a way of not having to accept responsibility. Thats the problem with being at the top of the food chain. You have to be a grown up sometimes and not expect the grown ups to clean up your mess. And living gets messy..😷
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@whowasthatmaskedman [quote]I am prepared to make my case for abortion either on the grounds of a womans right to choose or on the grounds of saving a soul from a poor outcome in life and I accept responsibility for that choice.[/quote]

Then, you make yourself a hypocrite.
whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M
@GodSpeed63 Now dont start being rude or we might have words about a person who professes to believe in a higher power, but doesnt live up to those standards unless it suits them. I admit life is complex and there are hard, unpleasant choices with no clear winner at times. You claim your god is perfect, yet allows all this. Or are you OK with your god being a psychotic mass murderer? If so, please explain how you justify it?
Lovesungoddess · 18-21, F
I think that neither you nor the blogger understand "complex systems".
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@SomeMichGuy [quote]I think that neither you nor the blogger understand "complex systems".[/quote]

Going by what you just said, you just gave testimony that you understand "complex systems" way less than we do.
whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M
@GodSpeed63 "Who is "we" paleface? You take a single unprovable concept with escape clauses to cover all eventualities and avoid responisibility and dare accuse others of not dealing with complexities? The very idea of religion is to avoid seeking a true explanation..😷
DocSavage · M
@GodSpeed63
The most complex thing you ever tackled was a “where’s Waldo” picture.
AthrillatheHunt · 51-55, M
If I wanted to read an article from scientific America I would read scientific America . Lol
https://similarworlds.com/nature-outdoors/4927845-After-44-years-theres-still-no-place-for-my-arm-when-I-sleep
Right, because Ken Ham is a reliable source of anything.

Honestly can anybody look at that guy and assume he isn't descended from an ape?
DocSavage · M
@GodSpeed63 [quote] I'm glad you agree, Doc [/quote]
Yeah, so far we agree on a lot of things. Christians can’t come up with any proof. Ken Ham lies about evolution, and light years. And I’ve demonstrated that your god is not alive . We’re definitely on a roll.
DocSavage · M
@LordShadowfire
Don’t sweat the small stuff. Remember he’s a Christian. He assumes no one else has read the bible, so of course he’s going to take everything out of context. You just need to pay attention to what he’s trying not to say, rather to what he actually says.
@DocSavage I'm not sweating anything, if we're being completely honest with each other. I find him highly amusing.

 
Post Comment