Evolution Running Backwards
For Darwin’s doctrine of universal common ancestry to be demonstrably true, there must have been a common ancestor of insects and humans. That base of the family tree has just been discredited, leaving a gap in this important junction of Darwin’s tree of life.
For decades, evolutionists have taught that acoelomorphs, a kind of marine worm, were at the base of the tree that branched one way toward insects and another way toward man. Now, however, as published in Nature,1 “two large groups of marine worms are more closely related to us than are insects and mollusks, a new study shows” (Live Science). According to a co-author quoted by Live Science,
“We can no longer consider the acoelomorphs as an intermediate between simple groups such as jellyfish and the rest of the animals,” said researcher Max Telford of the Department of Genetics, Evolution and Environment, University College London. “This means that we have no living representative of this stage of evolution: the missing link has gone missing.”
To explain the confusing genomes in evolutionary terms, the researchers are having to suppose that the last common ancestor, whatever it was, was even more complex than these worms – and the living worms lost some of the genetic information contained in the ancestor:
Being such simple creatures and yet still mixing and mingling on the family tree with us complex creatures suggests these marine worms were once complex themselves, Telford said.
“This is an interesting evolutionary question,” Telford told LiveScience. “Why do animals lose complex features, and how do they do it? What genes have they lost?”
Commenting on this development in the same issue of Nature,1 Amy Maxmen titled her entry, “Evolution: A can of worms” and wrote:
The rearrangement has triggered protests from evolutionary biologists, who are alarmed that they may lose their key example of that crucial intermediate stage of animal evolution. Some researchers complain that the evidence is not strong enough to warrant such a dramatic rearrangement of the evolutionary tree, and claim that the report leaves out key data. In any case, the vehemence of the debate shows just how important these worms have become in evolutionary biology.
“I will say, diplomatically, this is the most politically fraught paper I’ve ever written,” says Max Telford, a zoologist at University College London and last author on the paper.
But rather than bemoaning the loss of evidence, or teaching the controversy, some reporters are promoting this finding as a triumph PhysOrg, read, “New evolutionary research disproves living missing link theories.”
1. Come back soon for reference.
2. Amy Maxmen, “Evolution: A can of worms,” Nature 470, 161-162 (2011), Published online 9 February 2011, doi:10.1038/470161a.
This is why you must read past the headlines and mute the Darwin Marching Band music and look at the data. Evolutionists thought they had a missing link at a critical juncture in Darwin’s tree of life, only to find, according to their own apologists, that the genetics don’t fit. To keep their story going requires more speculation about less evidence. This is no happy ending; it turns Charlie’s bedtime story into a nightmare generator.