"As the old saying goes, “ABC” or Anything But Creation.
In the case of a recent report, evolutionists look to chance and “molecular time travel” (as the article calls it) rather than the Creator as the explanation for their theory.
Recently, secular scientists revealed their speculation of alternate evolutionary histories by studying a protein they supposed existed half a billion years ago. Using a large “set of genetic variants” from “a
resurrected version of an ancient protein” they theoretically discovered “a myriad of other ways that evolution could have” occurred. Are they on to something valid or is this another unsupported speculation?
A University of Chicago graduate student and his advisor started with a “resurrected version of an ancient protein that evolved a new function some 500 million years ago.” They said that evolution “apparently wander[ed] around the space of possible mutations until it arrived at the version of the protein in our bodies today.”
This is neither a scientific statement nor a scientific procedure since no one observed the ancient protein let alone saw it evolve a new function.
Furthermore, Darwinists must assume the chance evolution of DNA and therefore genes in all their complexity. Meanwhile, amino acids are worthless without becoming attached in a specific sequence (via the genetic code) that would produce the alleged ancestral hormone receptor addressed by the article. Such a series of weighty suppositions removes this from being a true scientific investigation. It is rather an exceedingly flimsy, unconvincing story of a major evolutionary extrapolation via ‘“molecular time travel” using ancestral protein reconstruction.
Put another way, the team of evolutionists set the stage for the extremely long evolutionary history of ancestral proteins by inferring “the genetic sequences of ancient receptor proteins” and then airily announcing it was an ancestor.
Please note they could not go back in deep time to actually collect or observe these proteins, or anything else. To make matters worse, they relied upon the infamous and corrupt tree of life, “They synthesized genes corresponding to these ancient proteins [sic], expressed them in the lab, and measured their functions.” The problem is, “Even with the appropriate genes, the molecular tree of life is difficult to interpret.”
Furthermore, the article speaks of the “central role for chance in evolutionary history” and “a serial chain of chance events” that evolution somehow took. The authors also repeatedly personified evolution as if it had a will and the ability to plan—for example, stating that evolution was idiosyncratic (i.e., eccentric or quirky).
Finally, it is recognized by creationists and evolutionists alike that there is not a single empirical (i.e., observable and verifiable) fact that is known regarding true vertical evolution, also known as macroevolution. If this is true, then we can seriously question how secular biologists know, as this article boldly states, “precisely how evolution played out in the past.” ICR
They set their mouth against the heavens, and their tongue walketh through the earth.
Psalm 73:9
In the case of a recent report, evolutionists look to chance and “molecular time travel” (as the article calls it) rather than the Creator as the explanation for their theory.
Recently, secular scientists revealed their speculation of alternate evolutionary histories by studying a protein they supposed existed half a billion years ago. Using a large “set of genetic variants” from “a
A University of Chicago graduate student and his advisor started with a “resurrected version of an ancient protein that evolved a new function some 500 million years ago.” They said that evolution “apparently wander[ed] around the space of possible mutations until it arrived at the version of the protein in our bodies today.”
This is neither a scientific statement nor a scientific procedure since no one observed the ancient protein let alone saw it evolve a new function.
Furthermore, Darwinists must assume the chance evolution of DNA and therefore genes in all their complexity. Meanwhile, amino acids are worthless without becoming attached in a specific sequence (via the genetic code) that would produce the alleged ancestral hormone receptor addressed by the article. Such a series of weighty suppositions removes this from being a true scientific investigation. It is rather an exceedingly flimsy, unconvincing story of a major evolutionary extrapolation via ‘“molecular time travel” using ancestral protein reconstruction.
Put another way, the team of evolutionists set the stage for the extremely long evolutionary history of ancestral proteins by inferring “the genetic sequences of ancient receptor proteins” and then airily announcing it was an ancestor.
Please note they could not go back in deep time to actually collect or observe these proteins, or anything else. To make matters worse, they relied upon the infamous and corrupt tree of life, “They synthesized genes corresponding to these ancient proteins [sic], expressed them in the lab, and measured their functions.” The problem is, “Even with the appropriate genes, the molecular tree of life is difficult to interpret.”
Furthermore, the article speaks of the “central role for chance in evolutionary history” and “a serial chain of chance events” that evolution somehow took. The authors also repeatedly personified evolution as if it had a will and the ability to plan—for example, stating that evolution was idiosyncratic (i.e., eccentric or quirky).
Finally, it is recognized by creationists and evolutionists alike that there is not a single empirical (i.e., observable and verifiable) fact that is known regarding true vertical evolution, also known as macroevolution. If this is true, then we can seriously question how secular biologists know, as this article boldly states, “precisely how evolution played out in the past.” ICR
They set their mouth against the heavens, and their tongue walketh through the earth.
Psalm 73:9
