Wednesday, February 04, 2015
Disproof is proof?
Headline:
Discovery of Bacteria That Hasn't Evolved in 2 Billion Years Is New Validation of Darwin's Theory
No it aren't, asshole.
The conventional story of evolution (which isn't exactly Darwin's) is that genes are constantly changing through "random" influence of chemicals and cosmic rays and errors in copying and repair of DNA. CHANGING, not STATIC. If a change is helpful or neutral, it continues to be passed along to the next generation. If a change is harmful, the organisms bearing the change die or attrit, and thus don't pass it on.
An organism that has NOT CHANGED in 2 billion years instantly disproves the Constant Change part of the Darwin™ Theory™. Its genes must be insulated from all of those influences. If its genes are insulated and unchangeable, how did they reach the point of being insulated and unchangeable? By evolving, of course... but how did that happen if it didn't happen?
Or perhaps this genome is so perfect that ALL alterations or miscopyings are harmful (thus die out) and NONE are neutral or helpful. If NONE have been helpful in 2 billion years, then the organism has no room to adapt to even the slightest change in its surroundings. It would have died out long ago.
It takes EXTREME NEGATIVE INTELLIGENCE and HARD WORK to do EVERY SINGLE THING the WRONG WAY without one single helpful or neutral move. You can't get there by blind chance. For instance, this was just 15 minutes of wrong moves, not 2 billion years!
The only logical conclusion is that the bacterium was designed properly the first time, and placed in an environment where it belonged. It was then able to handle small changes by epigenetic switching (also part of the design), not by altering the hard-coded genome.
Labels: Grand Blueprint
¶ 6:05 PM
