RSR: Evo Devo -- Darwin's Other Shoe
* Waiting for it to Drop: And it's a really big shoe! Is Evo Devo killing Natural Selection? Listen in as Real Science Radio co-hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams enjoy the September 2009 Creation magazine! The pro-evolution magazine New Scientist rejected one of Darwin's two major theories when they published their cover story: Darwin Was Wrong about the Tree of Life, which theory they indicated was as important as his theory of Natural Selection, because without Darwin's Tree of Life developmental pathway theory, his idea of Natural Selection would never have been accepted, they say.
* Why have evolutionists turned against Darwin's Tree of Life? Because of the thousands of species genetically evaluated, more than half are clearly not the product of a developmental biological pathway represented by a tree (or a bush, or any other hierarchical scheme for that matter). Now the second shoe is dangling. Geneticists have found the basic blueprint for the overall animal kingdom in virtually every creature they've investigated! Now Darwin's second shoe is about to drop. For if evolution were true, then by the genetic mapping of the animal kingdom, it is becoming obvious that millions of years before creatures with structures like eyes, hearts and limbs had evolved, the sophisticated regulatory genes that develop those structures had already come into existence! Ironically, survival of the fittest will see the death of the unfit theory of Darwinism, because by the relentless march of scientific observation, countless evolutionists will be compelled to admit that it simply does not fit the evidence. And thus: Darwin Was Wrong about Natural Selection! For if evolution were true, then sophisticated regulatory genes appeared 50 million years before they were needed. So there would have been simply no role for a selection-for-survival mechanism. Normally, it's three strikes and you're out. But Darwin's dead, so he only gets two.
* July 2012 Update on Evolutionists Doubting Natural Selection: At CMI, see the section in Dominic Statham's article on the Altenberg 16 for a brief account of leading evolutionists who are beginning to admit that Natural Selection cannot explain biological diversity.
* Kangaroos: The director of Australia's Kangaroo Genomics Centre, Jenny Graves, says that, "There [are] great chunks of the human genome… sitting right there in the kangaroo genome." And the 20,000 genes in the kangaroo (roughly the same number as in humans) are "largely the same" as in people, and Graves adds, "a lot of them are in the same order!" CMI's Creation editors add that, "unlike chimps, kangaroos are not supposed to be our 'close relatives.'"