51; Reasoning requires premises: axioms or truths taken for granted. Notice the premise of reasoning stated in a recent article on Science Daily: “Because all living organisms inherit their genomes from ancestral genomes, computational biologists at MIT reasoned that they could use modern-day genomes to reconstruct the evolution of ancient microbes.” They used an evolutionary assumption to reason to an evolutionary result. Isn’t this circular?
The article was about trying to put together a picture of life before the Cambrian Explosion. Their reasoning included “the ways that genes evolve: new gene families can be born and inherited; genes can be swapped or horizontally transferred between organisms; genes can be duplicated in the same genome; and genes can be lost. Only the first in that quartet, though, can sing of innovation. The other factors can only process or lose existing information. How, though, are new gene families “born”? It’s so improbable for a single gene to be “born” by chance (online book), let alone a whole family of genes, that the notion of chance giving birth to a gene is essentially falsified. Evolutionists cannot merely assume evolution to think that evolution can solve this problem.
More circularity is evident when they assumed an evolutionary timeline to determine when genes came into existence:
The scientists traced thousands of genes from 100 modern genomes back to those genes’ first appearance on Earth to create a genomic fossil telling not only when genes came into being but also which ancient microbes possessed those genes. The work suggests that the collective genome of all life underwent an expansion between 3.3 and 2.8 billion years ago, during which time 27 percent of all presently existing gene families came into being.
The article used other phrases to describe complex things “coming into being,” such as “the birth of modern electron transport,” and, “we can speculate that having access to a much larger energy budget enabled the biosphere to host larger and more complex microbial ecosystems.”
After assuming evolution to trace evolution, they ended by saying they had proved evolution. Eric Alm (MIT, Harvard) named the sudden discovery of modern electron transport the Archaen Expansion. “What is really remarkable about these findings is that they prove that the histories of very ancient events are recorded in the shared DNA of living organisms,” he said. “And now that we are beginning to understand how to decode that history, I have hope that we can reconstruct some of the earliest events in the evolution of life in great detail.”
What is remarkable is that intelligent people with PhDs can commit such logical sins with impunity. You can’t assume evolution, then use the assumption of evolution to trace evolution and prove evolution. Evolution is the issue at issue! The Cambrian Explosion has falsified evolution. Dr. Alm cannot turn around and use the assumption of evolution to try to un-falsify it. What’s even worse, he completely ignored the criticisms, and invoked chance miracles to fill in the evidential gaps.
When will evolutionists realize that they cannot invoke miracle words like genes “coming into being” and “arising” and “gaining access to a larger energy budget” and becoming “enabled to evolve larger and more complex systems”? This is what the charlatans do that skeptic James Randi debunks. They claim that miracle water can be produced with mental electricity, but it only works if you truly believe in it. Evolutionary explanations are like a Mobius strip – circular, with a twist.
There was no independent test of evolutionary theory anywhere in this futile exercise of self-fulfilling prophecy. Evolution was invoked as a divining rod, as if the spirit of a white-bearded wizard told Eric that with this magical device, he could achieve enlightenment. Whatever enlightenment he gained was the reflection of flashes of imagination inside his own willfully blind mind.