Welcome to evolution for which lack of evidence is evidence, the contradiction of the claim is evidence and a theory about everything thus becomes a theory about nothing—as was elucidated within the article: Is evolution a theory about everything or nothing?.
Note the following remarks.
Philip S. Skell noted:
Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive — except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed — except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.[1]
Do-While Jones stated:
Notice that if things are similar, it is evidence of evolution. It shows they have a common origin. But, if things are different, it is evidence of evolution. It shows that they have changed over time. Since similarity is evidence of evolution, and difference is evidence of evolution, everything is evidence of evolution![2]
Jones also wrote:
Here’s where the evolutionists go wrong. Whenever two similar species have similar genetics, they claim it is proof of a common ancestor. For example, the fact that human DNA is similar to chimpanzee DNA is claimed as proof of a common ancestor. But, when humans and hummingbirds have identical genes (which apes lack) it is claimed to be proof that the same genes can evolve independently. Evolutionists aren’t consistent.[3]
With regards to Game Theory, Benjamin Wiker pointed out the following:
By using games with fewer rules than Candy Land, the Darwinian game theorists are claiming “to uncover the fundamental principles governing our decision-making mechanisms.” We’d better take a closer look, starting with their presuppositions … The answer seems to be that whatever has survived must be the most fit; therefore whatever exists must have been the result of natural selection. Fairness exists; therefore, it must be the result of natural selection. Q.E.D. It is always convenient to have a theory that cannot possibly be proved wrong.[4]
Stuart Wolpert wrote “Scientists discover organism that hasn’t evolved in more than 2 billion years” (Phys, February 3, 2015 AD) wherein we learn that “A section of 1.8 billion-year-old fossil-bearing rock” contains fossils that are “essentially identical to fossils 500 million years older and to modern microorganisms.”
The tagline reads (emphasis added for emphasis):
An international team of scientists has discovered the greatest absence of evolution ever reported—a type of deep-sea microorganism that appears not to have evolved over more than 2 billion years. But the researchers say that the organisms’ lack of evolution actually utterly refutes Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.
Just kidding, that would make much too much sense. The report does not state that the scientifically verifiable evidence “utterly refutes” but actually states that “the researchers say that the organisms’ lack of evolution actually supports Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.”
The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences which is important as pop science news reporting, where most people learn their alleged science is one thing, but a prestigious peer reviewed journal is another thing altogether; that’s where, like, you get the truth and stuff.
In the abstract for vol. 112, no. 7, 2087–2092, J. William Schopf, Anatoliy B. Kudryavtsev, Malcolm R. Walter, Martin J. Van Kranendonk, Kenneth H. Williford, Reinhard Kozdon, John W. Valley, Victor A. Gallardo, Carola Espinoza and David T. Flannery team up to conclude:
Sulfur-cycling fossil bacteria from the 1.8-Ga Duck Creek Formation provide promising evidence of evolution’s null hypothesis
The study notes:
Although the apparent 2-billion-year-long stasis of such sulfur-cycling ecosystems is consistent with the null hypothesis required of Darwinian evolution—if there is no change in the physical-biological environment of a well-adapted ecosystem, its biotic components should similarly remain unchanged—additional evidence will be needed to establish this aspect of evolutionary theory.
You can readily discern that they are playing the this one’s just right card in claiming that these organisms just happened to hit upon the right place, right time and right genetics to not need to change as they got it right 2-billion-years ago, they are in “stasis.”
“The rule of biology is not to evolve unless the physical or biological environment changes, which is consistent with Darwin,” said Schopf, who also is director of UCLA’s Center for the Study of Evolution and the Origin of Life. The environment in which these microorganisms live has remained essentially unchanged for 3 billion years, he said. “These microorganisms are well-adapted to their simple, very stable physical and biological environment,” he said. “If they were in an environment that did not change but they nevertheless evolved, that would have shown that our understanding of Darwinian evolution was seriously flawed.”
Schopf said the findings therefore provide further scientific proof for Darwin’s work. “It fits perfectly with his ideas,” he said.
So evolution predicts change so change is evidence for it and it also predicts lack of change so lack of change is evidence for it.
The abstract noted:
The recent discovery of a deep-water sulfur-cycling microbial biota in the ∼2.3-Ga Western Australian Turee Creek Group opened a new window to life’s early history.
Indeed, a history of originally created kinds and change within the kinds but not from one kind into another.
The abstract continues:
The marked similarity of microbial morphology, habitat, and organization of these fossil communities to their modern counterparts documents exceptionally slow (hypobradytelic) changethat, if paralleled by their molecular biology, would evidence extreme evolutionary stasis.
That’s right folk; it slices, it dices, it chops, in does not change, it changes exceptionally slowly, it remains in stasis—it does it all!!!
Back to Wolpert’s article:
…the bacteria look the same as bacteria of the same region from 2.3 billion years ago—and that both sets of ancient bacteria are indistinguishable from modern sulfur bacteria found in mud off of the coast of Chile.
“It seems astounding that life has not evolved for more than 2 billion years—nearly half the history of the Earth,” said J. William Schopf, a UCLA professor of earth, planetary and space sciences in the UCLA College who was the study’s lead author. “Given that evolution is a fact, this lack of evolution needs to be explained.”
In other words, we know that is it a fact, I mean come on and stuff, but now we need to keep force evidence into the theory no matter how much we discredit ourselves along the way.
Wolpert notes that “Charles Darwin’s writings on evolution focused much more on species that had changed over time than on those that hadn’t” and which ones have changed exactly, changed from one “species” (whatever that is) into another?
Notes:
[1] Philip S. Skell, “Why Do We Invoke Darwin? – Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology,” The Scientist, August 29, 2005 AD—Skell is a Member of the National Academy of Sciences and Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University
[2] Do-While Jones, “Comparative Anatomy Vindicated,” Disclosure, Jan 2012 AD, Vol 16, Issue 4
[3] Do-While Jones, “Daffy DNA – New research links lobsters with cockroaches,” Disclosure, Feb 2015 AD, Vol 19, Issue 5
[4] Benjamin Wiker, “Playing Games with Good and Evil: The Failure of Darwinism to Explain Morality, Crisis,” Discovery, 1 May, 2002 AD—FYI: Candy Land is a “Hasbro” board game for children ages 3 and up.