Notes from Evil Bender

It’s no secret that creationists quote mine the hell out of basically everything in order to make it seem like evolution isn’t well-supported by the evidence. In the vein of conspiracy theorists everywhere, they believe every new discovery undermines evolution, if only the evolutionists would simply admit it.

Generally speaking, one can demonstrate they’re a bunch of liars by simply reading the context of the quotes they mine, as I shall now demonstrate. Keep in mind I am a layperson, and no expert on evolutionary theory. But I am capable of a) reading comprehension, b) critical thinking and c) being honest, all of which gives me a huge advantage over creationists. So it won’t be hard even for me to demonstrate they’re being hugely dishonest.

Let’s use as the example the post which was headlining Uncommon Descent as of this morning: “It Seems Frontloading* is Everywhere“:

It seems like every other day there’s an article where scientists are discovering the presence of genes thought to have arisen late in evolution to be already present in ancient forms, so-called “living fossils”. In this case what we see in this particular “living fossil”, the shark, is the presence of genetic activity that is associated with ‘digit formation’ in limbed animals. Previously, scientists thought that there was some late phase additional activity which, we may say, was ‘added onto’ fin development.

Here’s a quote: “We’ve uncovered a surprising degree of genetic complexity in place at an early point in the evolution of appendages,” said developmental biologist Martin Cohn, Ph.D.”

As I say, these types of articles seem commonplace, yet NDE keeps on chugging along as if all of this fits in nicely with Darwinism. Just think, ‘limb-like’ genetic activity before ever there was a limb. And, so, would it be rude if we asked our Darwinist brethren: “So how did it evolve when it was present before ever it was needed?”

Here’s the article from PhysOrg.com. It’s a quick read.

Rather than waste the time of experts with this trash, I’ll answer his question.

Let’s begin by noting what the PhysOrg article actually says, in context:

While studying the mechanisms of development in shark embryos, UF scientists identified a spurt of genetic activity that is required for digit development in limbed animals.

Previous work suggested that the transition from fins to limbs involved the addition of a late phase of gene activity during embryonic development, something thought to be absent during the development of fish fins.

The finding shows what was thought to be a relatively recent evolutionary innovation existed eons earlier than previously believed, shedding light on how life on Earth developed and potentially providing insight for scientists seeking ways to cure human birth defects, which affect about 150,000 infants annually in the United States.

“We’ve uncovered a surprising degree of genetic complexity in place at an early point in the evolution of appendages,” said developmental biologist Martin Cohn, Ph.D., an associate professor with the UF departments of zoology and anatomy and cell biology and a member of the UF Genetics Institute. “Genetic processes were not simple in early aquatic vertebrates only to become more complex as the animals adapted to terrestrial living. They were complex from the outset. Some major evolutionary innovations, like digits at the end of limbs, may have been achieved by prolonging the activity of a genetic program that existed in a common ancestor of sharks and bony fishes.”

So I know what you’re thinking: why would we think adaptation trough mutation of previously available genetic material is somehow a threat to “Darwinism”? Why indeed. Taken in context, what’s surprising is that the genetic evidence shows that finned sharks and bony fishes has a lot of complexity in limb development, and that it was likely modifications of this development that accounts for the difference between progeny with fingers and those with fins.** So the only “surprising” thing is that the mechanisms in place date from an earlier time than had previously been thought.

So this discovery fits perfectly with evolutionary predictions and also demonstrates the brilliant thing about science, which, unlike creationism, modifies its ideas based on the evidence. When something contradicts a previously-held idea, the idea is rejected, not the facts. Wouldn’t it be nice if creationists took the same approach, instead of simply lying constantly?

*Roughly speaking, Frontloading refers to the presence of genetic material in the species where it has not yet found expression. It’s common for creationists to ignore the juryrigged nature of evolution in order to pretend that this proves a really awkward designer stacked unnecessary genetic code in organisms so millions of years later their descendants could put it to new use.

**The article goes on to explain that Hox gene expression plays a large role, and that longer periods of expression likely help lead to digits over fins. Again, this is no surprise to evolutionary theory.