Evolution Trifecta

Today’s New York Times’ Science section has three incredible articles dealing with evolution.

This one is about how there may be a paradigm shift occurring over how we should view Darwinian evolution (emphasis mine):

There is certainly no consensus among evolutionary biologists, but development, ecology, genetics and paleontology all provide new perspectives on how evolution operates, and how we should study it. None of these concerns provide a scintilla of hope for creationists, as scientific investigations are already providing new insights into these issues. The foundations for a paradigm shift may be in place, but it may be some time before we see whether a truly novel perspective develops or these tensions are accommodated within an expanded modern synthesis.

This one focuses on how humans are still evolving and the evidence for that:

People have continued to evolve since leaving the ancestral homeland in northeastern Africa some 50,000 years ago, both through the random process known as genetic drift and through natural selection. The genome bears many fingerprints in places where natural selection has recently remolded the human clay, researchers have found, as people in the various continents adapted to new diseases, climates, diets and, perhaps, behavioral demands.

And this one discusses the field of Evo-Devo:

Since its humble beginnings as a single cell, life has evolved into a spectacular array of shapes and sizes, from tiny fleas to towering Tyrannosaurus rex, from slow-soaring vultures to fast-swimming swordfish, and from modest ferns to alluring orchids. But just how such diversity of form could arise out of evolution’s mess of random genetic mutations — how a functional wing could sprout where none had grown before, or how flowers could blossom in what had been a flowerless world — has remained one of the most fascinating and intractable questions in evolutionary biology.

Now finally, after more than a century of puzzling, scientists are finding answers coming fast and furious and from a surprising quarter, the field known as evo-devo…

It make take a while to get through them, especially if you’re not well-versed in science, but the articles are excellent and worth the read.

On a side note, it baffles me how Creationists can ignore or dismiss all this information.

[tags]atheist, atheism, New York Times, Science, Charles Darwin, evolution, genetics, Evo-Devo, Creationist[/tags]

"That'd be terrible. Say, great weather for the big homecoming game today....Go Iowa!!! Famous Potatoes, ..."

RegularJoe

Judge Tosses Lawsuit from Religious Workers ..."

"Kavanaugh, is that you?"

kaydenpat

"https://uploads.disquscdn.c..."

bombcat

"Psychohistory only works on vast unaware masses and not... Oh, uh, yeah, so, um, never ..."

The Mighty Damuramu (pka TOW)

Lee

This is really cool stuff… thanks for the info! I’ll definitely find a way to work this into some classroom lessons.
Lee

This is really cool stuff… thanks for the info! I’ll definitely find a way to work this into some classroom lessons.
James Collins

Many people, when they can’t provide evidence for their theory, adopt the strategy of falsehood. Such is the case with many of those who have fallen victim to the propaganda of renowned evolutionists.

If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a ‘simple’ living cell. This should be possible, since they certainly have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the ‘simple’ cell.

After all, shouldn’t all the combined Intelligence of all the worlds scientist be able the do what chance encounters with random chemicals, without a set of instructions, accomplished about 4 billion years ago,according to the evolutionists, having no intelligence at all available to help them along in their quest to become a living entity. Surely then the evolutionists scientists today should be able to make us a ‘simple’ cell.

If it weren’t so pitiful it would be humorous, that intelligent people have swallowed the evolution mythology.

Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so. It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of all the evidence CONTRARY to evolution that is readily available: Try answersingenesis.org. The evolutionists should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence ‘FOR’ evolution for THEMSELVES.

Build us a cell, from scratch, with the required raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the ‘raw’ stuff, and the argument is over. But if the scientists are unsuccessful, perhaps they should try Mother Earth’s recipe, you know, the one they claim worked the first time about 4 billion years ago, so they say. All they need to do is to gather all the chemicals that we know are essential for life, pour them into a large clay pot and stir vigorously for a few billion years, and Walla, LIFE!

Oh, you don’t believe the ‘original’ Mother Earth recipe will work? You are NOT alone, Neither do I, and MILLIONS of others!