"The lowdown on the ScienceDaily announcement, “Giving Ancient Life Another Chance to Evolve: Scientists Place 500-Million-Year-Old Gene in Modern Organism.” But this announcement is extremely misleading, and typical of the shameless hype that so often accompanies breaking news in evolutionary biology.
The so-called “500-million-year-old gene” is an artificially
The procedure was this: Two groups of evolutionary biologists constructed hypothetical phylogenetic trees of bacteria, based on similarities and differences in their DNA.
A third group inferred from these hypothetical trees the DNA sequence of what they believed to be the ancestral version of a .jpg)
particular gene, and the group featured by Science Daily “resurrected” the hypothetical ancestral gene by synthesizing its inferred DNA sequence in the laboratory.
The artificial gene was not 500 million years old. In fact, its inferred DNA sequence, like the phylogenetic trees on which the inference was based, depended heavily on the neo-Darwinian assumptions with which the researchers began. Like so much other arguments for Darwinian evolution, this began by assuming evolution is true.
Q: Does anyone know what Darwinists would do if it occurred to them that Darwinism is nonsense?"
Denyse O'Lear
.jpg)
The artificial gene was not 500 million years old. In fact, its inferred DNA sequence, like the phylogenetic trees on which the inference was based, depended heavily on the neo-Darwinian assumptions with which the researchers began. Like so much other arguments for Darwinian evolution, this began by assuming evolution is true.
Q: Does anyone know what Darwinists would do if it occurred to them that Darwinism is nonsense?"
Denyse O'Lear