January 23, 2023 | David F. Coppedge

Instant Mammals? LOL!

These evolutionists are either starting a new Darwin comedy show
or are seriously deprived of logical thinking.

 

Given the challenges facing Big Science and Big Media these days (21 Jan 2023), it’s hard to know if a paper is a product of a chatbot, a paper mill, or a spoofer. This one from University College London seems too goofy to be genuine.

Split-second of evolutionary cellular change could have led to mammals (University College London, 23 Jan 2023).

A newly-published hypothesis, led by a UCL researcher, suggests a momentary leap in a single species on a single day millions of years ago might ultimately have led to the arrival of mammals – and therefore humans.

We wouldn’t be surprised if John Martin and Paolo D’Avino are planting a hoax to see if Darwinians will take them seriously. If so, they had to get cooperation from the press office, because this could reflect badly on this once proud and honorable college founded in 1826 to spread public education to the common man. If this is “education” now, the common man and woman needs to be home schooled.

Published in the Journal of Cell Science, Professor John Martin (UCL Division of Medicine) thinks a single genetic molecular event (inheritable epigenetic change) in an egg-laying animal may have resulted in the first formation of blood platelets, approximately 220 million years ago.

In mammals and humans, platelets are responsible for blood clotting and wound healing, so play a significant role in our defence response. Unlike our other cells, they don’t have nuclei – so are unique to mammals, since other classes of animal such as reptiles and birds have blood clotting cells with nuclei.

It gets goofier. Humans are related to the duck-billed platypus?

The researchers suggest that millions of years ago a mammalian ancestor – possibly an animal related to the duck-billed platypus – underwent the very first formation of platelets, thanks to a sudden genetic change in the nucleus of its blood clotting cells that meant normal cell division did not take place causing the cells to increase in size.

The story could pass muster in the Darwin Party because it includes all the usual requirements: storytelling form, high perhapsimaybecouldness index, completely materialistic, driven by chance, and contributing to human evolution.

The paper is open access if anybody wants to check it out: Martin and D’Avino, “A theory of rapid evolutionary change explaining the de novo appearance of megakaryocytes and platelets in mammals,” Journal of Cell Science (135:24), 22 Dec 2022.

It’s not April Fool’s Day yet, but we’re not buying it. This must be a hoax. Can some of our readers browse the paper and see if there is any serious basis for the claim? Does it show signs of a parody? How can anyone believe that instant platelets became inherited by Mrs Platypus, she laid an egg and humans hatched out? (roughly speaking).

One odd thing is that a Google search for this hypothesis is not getting much traction. Perhaps the Darwin Party is trying to see if creationists will fall for their latest scam. Sorry. We know Darwinists are immoral storytellers, but this is over the top.

 

(Visited 451 times, 1 visits today)

Leave a Reply