When Evolutionary Theory Gets It Wrong

Evolutionary theory tends to make certain predictions about cells, tissues and organs.  A long history of evolutionary errors, twists, turns and dead ends would lead to a build-up of junk.  Recent examples show instances where nothing could be further from the truth.  Other reports show complexity being pushed farther down the tree of life.

1. Primary cilia not evolutionary relics:  An article at PhysOrg said, “It’s safe to say that cilia, the hairlike appendages jutting out from the smooth surfaces of most mammalian cells, have long been misunderstood – underestimated, even.”  The article goes on to say that many believed they served no purpose, being “regarded as merely an evolutionary relic – the cellular equivalent to the human appendix.”  The discovery that many debilitating or life-threatening diseases can be traced to defects in primary cilia were some of the first clues scientists had been wrong.  They are currently viewed as the antennae of the cell.  “Of late, however, it has become increasingly clear that primary cilia serve as powerful communication hubs,” the article pivoted.  “(After all, they do sort of look like antennae.)”
2. Astrocytes are not evolutionary glue:  The star-shaped cells in the brain called astrocytes were long thought to be mere scaffolding or glue for the more-important neurons.  An article on Science Daily said, “Astrocytes are a subtype of a group of brain cells known as glia (which means ‘glue’ in Greek).  Glial cells are the most abundant cells in the human brain – outnumbering neurons by a factor of ten to one.  Until very recently, glial cells have been thought to be the less exciting sisters of neurones [sic], merely providing them with structural and nutritional support.”  New findings show that they can “taste” the blood flowing through the brain, and increase or decrease the breathing response to regulate carbon dioxide levels in the blood. 
3. Stress hormones and immunity: did they evolve?:  An article on immune reactions in PhysOrg noted that even mild ones impose significant energy costs.  An “evolutionary anthropologist” found this out, but did not present a theory for the origin of immune systems, nor for their evolution over time.  Any understanding in evolutionary theory was put into future tense: “Understanding the costs of immunity and the immunomodulatory actions of hormones are central to understanding the role of immunity in human life history evolution.”  Later, the article admitted that evolution has been assumed, not demonstrated: “The metabolic responses to mild, acute infections and injury in humans have been relatively unexplored, despite the fact that much work in evolutionary anthropology relies on the assumption that immune maintenance and activation impose costs.”
   PhysOrg.  The discovery supposedly “sheds light on how stress hormones evolved.”  Yet the only support for evolution is that the sea lamprey has one stress hormone, and humans have more than 30.  Evolution was assumed in this article, too: “Most jawless animals similar to the lamprey didn’t survive into the modern era, so they’re not available for us to use as we strive to learn more about how human systems developed,” the lead researcher said.  “The sea lamprey, a survivor, gives us a snapshot of what happened as vertebrates evolved into the animals we know today.”  He did not say where the lamprey’s hormone came from, or why, if lampreys evolved into the animals we know today, they still are doing fine in the seas today.  A baloney-detecting reader challenged that assumption in the comments.
4. Junk no mo:  Science Daily printed another study that shows the concept of “junk DNA” is dying or dead.  The headline was, “Redundant Genetic Instructions in ‘Junk DNA’ Support Healthy Development.”  This was another nail in the coffin: “The noncoding region is often surprisingly large; in humans, some 98 percent of the genome merits ‘junk’ status.  But according to David Stern, a Princeton professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, scientists increasingly believe ‘junk DNA’ is crucial for turning the information encoded in genes into useful products.”
5. Pluripotency goes way back:  “Mexican Salamander Helps Uncover Mysteries of Stem Cells and Evolution,” headlined Science Daily.  Yet the only evidence was pluripotency being found farther back in the evolutionary story than thought.  “We’ve produced evidence that pluripotency – the ability of an embryonic stem cell to become absolutely any kind of cell – is actually very ancient in evolutionary terms,” claimed Dr. Andrew Johnson of the UK National Stem Cell Network.  “Even though received wisdom is that it evolved with mammals, our research suggests that it was there all along, just not in many of the species that people use in the lab.  In fact, pluripotent cells probably exist in the embryos of the simple animals from which amphibians evolved.”  Somehow, he believed that the lack of evolution made evolutionary sense: “since mammals evolved directly from reptiles it makes sense that the genetic mechanisms controlling embryo development remain largely unchanged from axolotls to humans.”  Johnson also had to explain the evolutionary loss of this capability in certain lines of frogs.
       In a breathtaking display of faith in evolution, Johnson called on convergent evolution, backwards evolution, the power of suggestion, and some new declaration of independence known as the “freedom to evolve” –

   Dr Johnson said “Within our new theory of evolution pluripotency came first and so germ plasm would have to have evolved independently several times in species within the branches of the tree, for example in frogs and many fish.  This is a process called convergent evolution – where a common advantage leads to several species developing features that make them appear more similar, rather than less.
       “What is the advantage of germ plasm such that it would have evolved several times?  We had to resolve the argument that germ plasm wasn’t necessary because pluripotency did the job just fine.  We knew that with germ plasm pluripotency is not necessary, because the embryos contain primordial germ cells anyway.  This explains why the Nanog gene became dispensable, and was lost from the DNA but it doesn’t explain what is the advantage to having germ plasm.”
       Dr.  Johnson and his colleagues suggest that the evolution of germ plasm liberates the soma of an organism to evolve more rapidly, simply because the embryo doesn’t need to induce germ cells – they are already there because of germ plasm.  As a result of this, the genetic mechanisms that control the soma are free to evolve, because they are no longer occupied with producing the signals that induce primordial germ cells from pluripotent embryonic cells.

Sometimes “evolution” itself becomes a vestigial organ or junk-DNA word to a news story.  An article on Science Daily, for instance, was titled “Quantum Entanglement in Photosynthesis and Evolution,” but then had nothing further to say about evolution.  Instead, the article marveled at the efficiency of the structures of photosynthesis.  They employ quantum effects in their handling of electrons.  As a result, they “are so efficient at converting light into energy – doing so at 95 percent or more.”  Some of the most primitive microbes on earth, the cyanobacteria, accomplish this trick.  Nothing was said about how the efficient light-harvesting structures could have evolved.  Instead, the conclusion took a biomimetic turn: “this understanding of quantum energy transfer and charge separation pathways may help the design of solar cells that take their inspiration from nature.”

There are too many baloney links in here to discuss in detail.  Convergent evolution is not a “process.”  It’s more like a rescue device to save Darwin from the evidence.  “Freedom to evolve” is freedom to go extinct, if one deviates too far from the design inherent in the organism.  Finding complex structures farther back the line than thought does not “shed light” on the evolution of that structure.  And more.
    It is sickening to see evolution take the credit for marvel after design marvel.  Evolutionists are masters of spin, turning falsification into hymns to Darwin, packaging contrary evidence with Darwin wrapping paper, taking each dart thrown at them by nature and offering it as a candle to the bearded Buddha.  Evolutionists are blinded by their assumptions, unfeignable in their faith.  The evidence is exactly opposite what their theory would have predicted, yet they cling to it, mesmerized by the shadows projected on the cave of their darkened eyeballs, presuming that the self-generated visions they imagine are “shedding light” on evolution.