[[Why does creationism need to exist?]]
[[If yoi interpret the Bible one way, but a veritable mountain of real-world observation says the opposite, then maybe the problem ain’t with science. ]]
[[The by your account the people who say that the objective of the creationists is simply to make science conform to their theology are right.]]
—Really? Because:
The Natural Limits to Biological Change
Neo-Darwinism Under Attack
Raymond G. Bohlin, Ph.D.
“One of the most significant questions in the origins debate concerns the nature of biological change. Can organisms change into an infinite array of creatures? Or are there genetically imposed limits to the amount of change which can take place? There are two major theories of evolutionary change: neo-Darwinism and punctuated equilibrium. As creationists, Lane Lester and I proposed in 1984 that indeed there are limits to change in our book, The Natural Limits to Biological Change. Theoretically, it may seem difficult to propose that immense variety may occur within a group of organisms yet this variety is constrained within certain genetically induced limits. It may seem contradictory even. But in the intervening ten years, my confidence in the proposal has only strengthened, and my confidence in any evolutionary mechanism to accomplish any significant adaptational change has waned considerably.
The arguments against neo-Darwinism center around four topics: mutation, natural selection, population genetics, and paleontology. Our major objection to the role of mutations in evolutionary change is the clear lack of data to indicate that mutations really accomplish anything new. While some weird-looking fruit flies have been created in the laboratory, they are still fruit flies. Bacteria are still bacteria. We quoted from Pierre-Paul Grasse’, the great French evolutionist. When commenting on the mutations of bacteria he said:
What is the use of their unceasing mutations if they do not change? In sum, the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect.
A mechanism for the creation of new genetic material is also sadly inadequate. Sometimes, an extra copy of a gene arises due to a DNA duplication error. Evolutionists suggest that this extra gene can accumulate mutations and eventually code for a new gene with a different function. In reality, however, this fails to explain how an old gene takes on a new function and new regulation pathways by the introduction of genetic mistakes into the gene and the regulatory apparatus.
Natural selection is a conservative process, not a creative one. The famous example of peppered moths teaches us how a species survives in a changing environment by possessing two varieties adapted to different conditions. Antibiotic resistance in bacteria only instructed us in the ingenious mechanisms of different bacteria to share the already existing genes for antibiotic resistance among themselves.
Decades of research in the science of population genetics has not helped the neo-Darwinist position. The data from protein and gene variation shed only a dim light on the major problem of evolution— the appearance of novel adaptations. The major significance of population genetics has been helping to understand how an organism responds to minor environmental fluctuations. And even this can be clouded in fundamental differences in theory.
First, virtually all taxonomic levels, even species appear abruptly in the fossil record. This, it will be remembered, is one of the sharper criticisms of neo-Darwinism, and one of the two cornerstones of punctuated equilibrium. It is relevant not only that the various levels of taxa appear abruptly but also that alongside the higher taxonomic levels there are unique adaptations. This is the key. Unique and highly specialized adaptations usually, if not always, appear fully formed in the fossil record. The origin of the different types of invertebrate animals such as the sponges, mollusks, echinoderms like the starfish, arthropods like crustaceans, and others all appear suddenly, without ancestors, in the Cambrian period.”
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/natlim.html
“Or are there genetically imposed limits to the amount of change which can take place?”
Yes there are. Genes are responsible for protein translation and contain regulatory elements, enhancers.
“Our major objection to the role of mutations in evolutionary change is the clear lack of data to indicate that mutations really accomplish anything new. While some weird-looking fruit flies have been created in the laboratory, they are still fruit flies. Bacteria are still bacteria.”
No one is making the claim that single mutations dramatically change an organism into something wildly different. However, inhibiting a single gene can result in the loss of function in an organ or prevent the development of a body part such as a limb. It can even go in the other direction. Laboratory studies on chicks reveal that single mutations can cause atavistic growth of teeth which were inhibited by another gene. This is a laboratory induced reversal of a loss-of-function mutation. We also have fossils of primitive birds possessing teeth.
Mutations change the amino acid. You may have ‘silent site’ mutations, moderately disabling, or lethal changes in the nucleotide sequence. They can have a variable effect on fitness, from highly advantageous to highly disadvantageous. Most mutations are simply neutral until another mutation causes a significant change in the amino acid sequence. The advantage of any mutation will depend on the affect that any corresponding morphological change has on the organism’s niche. If there is no morphological change, that that will also affect survivability.
One example is the decline in mean viability in Terumi Mukai (et al) Drosophila (fruit fly) experiment. Another is the changes of fitness effects of single mutations isolated in experimental populations of E. Coli and yeast. Also, many mutations are pleiotropic (affect more than one character).
Whether or not the mutations happened gradually or within a short period of time is an empirical question, not a theoretical one.
The end result of “fixing” advantageous genes in a population can sometime be that an existing structure is modified to gain a new function. For example, sesamoid bones often develop in connective tissue in response to embryonic movement. Such bones are the origin of novel skeletal elements, such as the extra “finger” of the giant panda and the patella (kneecap) in the leg of mammals, which is lacking in reptiles (Müller and Wagner 1991)
“Natural selection is a conservative process, not a creative one.”
Some genes are conserved, others are not conserved.
“First, virtually all taxonomic levels, even species appear abruptly in the fossil record. This, it will be remembered, is one of the sharper criticisms of neo-Darwinism, and one of the two cornerstones of punctuated equilibrium. It is relevant not only that the various levels of taxa appear abruptly but also that alongside the higher taxonomic levels there are unique adaptations. This is the key. Unique and highly specialized adaptations usually, if not always, appear fully formed in the fossil record. The origin of the different types of invertebrate animals such as the sponges, mollusks, echinoderms like the starfish, arthropods like crustaceans, and others all appear suddenly, without ancestors, in the Cambrian period.”
We are very fortunate to have the fossils that we have. Geological activity destroyed most of them. The significant data is not the number of intermediate fossils that we have but their location in rock layers. If you find a mammal fossil in pre-Cambrian rock then you have evidence that evolution is false.
There is much more to say. Shall I go on? Any questions?