I would agree that there are no good theories. However, to say a lot has been written about the mind, would be an understatement.
The point was… how did this fish survive if it had to wait around for millions of years for its lighted fishing lure to develop and evolve.
True, that’s why I put it in quotes and put non-coding in parentheses right after it. The point I was making was not that that part of DNA actually was junk, but that science really doesn’t understand it very well, and given that it is 98% of the structure, that speaks to a rather thin understanding of how DNA works.
I never understood why this was used as an example of evolution since it doesn’t seem the moths had in fact evolved. There have been a very large number of experiments done with fruit flies, with researchers selecting for one characteristic or another and breeding only the flies that most strongly exhibited the trait they were looking for.
I pointed this out before: the issue is not with the concept of evolution but with its mechanism. That is, the church can accept some forms of evolution, but not neo-Darwinsim as it is commonly presented.
According to the researchers, they do know how the flagella were re-created:
Darwinism relies on two assumptions: randomness and time, neither of which seemed involved in the mutations of the bacteria in this experiment.
This is just another way of saying what I said - the connection to the information was repaired. It is still not the same thing as evolving a complex mechanism in the first place. So the fact that it took place in a short period of time does not prove the info for flagella did not evolve slowly.LeafByNiggle:
According to the researchers, they do know how the flagella were re-created:
Remarkably, this happened because the mutants had rewired a cellular switch, which normally controls nitrogen levels in the cell, to activate the flagellum.
Which is fine because what this experiment is illustrating is not evolution, nor is it an alternate explanation for evolutionary changes. It is just a demonstration of a genetics repair mechanism.
How did Silcon Valley survive waiting for Bill Gates to come along?
Yes, mutations happen all of the time and populations would naturally gain or lose mutations depending on the fate of individuals born with them. That’s kind of the whole point of his theory.
That fish wasn’t there yet. All that had to survive and reproduce were that fish’s ancestors. Those ancestors were not the same as the modern Anglerfish.
The normal mechanism for building a flagellum was destroyed, and that path was not repaired. An entirely different path was constructed that actually consisted of co-opting a switch used for an entirely different purpose. It would be like your car blowing the fuse to the starter, and rewiring itself so it could use the fuse to the radio.
Of course it doesn’t prove anything regarding the evolution of flagella. It does, however, provide evidence that Darwinian evolution has a lot of 'splainin to do.
What seems even more unwarranted is to assume that such a restoration of function could occur randomly in four days.
This is the kind of argument that led to my suspicions about the inadequacies of Darwinism. On the one hand we are told that English moths demonstrate evolution because when the white ones are removed we are left with a predominance of black ones, even though the coloration returns to normal when the selection pressure is removed. But on the other hand we are told that when one generation of bacteria is genetically incapable of growing flagella, and the next generation grows them, that this is not an example of evolution.
In your analogy, that would still be a lot easier than building a starter from scratch. I don’t know what you mean by the “normal path.” Darwinian evolution does not speak about paths. It does speak about information that gets inherited. And that is the hard part. That is what takes millions of year to evolve. Finding a different “path” to the information that evolved and was still sitting there in the genetics is not the same thing as developing that information in the first place. The researchers have no way of knowing for sure that they destroyed all traces of the flagella blueprint. What happened in a few days was significantly different from what the bacteria did over millennia.
Not at all. Darwinian evolution makes no claims about how this particular experiment should have turned out.
It is not an assumption. It is an observed fact. So of course it is warranted. It was somewhat surprising. So
That is evolution on a very small scale because the changes are brought about by selection pressure, and the information on how to build both black and white coloration had already evolved eons ago. The selection pressure does not need to build up a complicated structure from nothing, so it is not surprising that the results occur in short order.
This is not evolution because the result was achieved through direct gene manipulation and not through selective pressures.
If the information that selects between black or white colors is not in the DNA, it is in some other part of the genetic inherited structure. Darwinism does not say that everything has to go through the DNA specifically. Darwin didn’t know about DNA. But the distinction between that experiment and the flagella experiment is that the later used gene editing rather than selective pressures.