OoSnap said:
"This disproves evolution how? It may have been a little surprising but not all that unexpected. We share 40-50% of our genes with that of a banana so sequence homology between bacteria of 250 million years isn't that big a deal. The bacteria share similar enzymes such as polymerases and proteases. Many proteases for instance share a great deal of sequence and structure homology from bacteria right up to mammals. Futhermore, it only takes a few key mutations and you can completely change the function of an enzyme whilst the sequence and structure remain near identical. If anything, it shows these bacteria may even be common ancestors for many bacteria in the modern day."
It disproves evolution by showing that there is no evolution.
1. You mean to tell me you wouldn't expect any kind of evolutionary change over 250 million years? The scientists sure did! Evolutionists were so shocked at this stunning lack of change that they insisted the stunning similarity was due to modern contamination in Vreeland’s experiment. But later experimeints vindicated Vreeland.
I have read evolutionists trying to explanation away to why there is no evolutionary changes in amber fossils and "living fossils" that are supposedly millions and millions of years old. They would say there weren't morphological changes but there were probably changes on the DNA/Protein level. Now scientists have discovered 250 million year old (supposedly) bacteria that hasn't evolved on the DNA level.
Evolutionists will say they didn't have evolve on the DNA level because there weren't needed evolutionary pressures or something of that effect. That's a cheap cop-out, ad hoc explanation. That's not science. Evolution can explain any result at all. It explains stasis over millions and millions of years and it explains change over millions and millions years. Indeed, a theory that explains anything, explains nothing. "Living fossils" should falsify evolution. Unchanged fossils, like this one, that are supposedly ancient, should falsify evolution, but not to the evolutionists who twist and shoehorn evidence to fit into their preconceived paradigm.
"All you've demonstrated here is that our knowledge is always improving, which in actual fact is the goal of science. We're beginning to understand more about "non-coding" or "junk" DNA now (far more than in the 70s) and it actually adds a layer of complexity and shows that mutations in genes aren't the only way evolution proceeds. These "junk" DNA transcribe RNA that helps control gene expression and is a different method of adding diversty/inducing the minor changes needed for evolution to proceed. Think about how the changing of a single genes' expression could cascade and have a knock on effect to numerous other genes. A whole field of study (epigenetics) looks at how environmental effects can alter gene expression and how these effects can be inherited and passed down to offspring. This is not contrary to the theory evolution but complimentary; adding information and data to an already robust theory."
2. All this shows that evolutionists' predictions about "Junk" DNA"or "non coding" DNA were wrong. Today, there is hardly any scientists who still believe there is Junk DNA or "non coding" DNA anymore. Every part of the DNA code is believed to have a function.There is even a recent book about it entitled The Myth of Junk DNA (Jonathan Wells Ph.D).
Just another failed prediction by evolutionists.
|
