Skip to comments.Tweaking the Genetic Code: Debunking Attempts to Engineer Evolution
Posted on 12/01/2009 9:22:15 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
A new concept making its way through the scientific community holds that just a few key changes in the right genes will result in a whole new life form as different from its progenitor as a bird is from a lizard! This idea is being applied to a number of key problems in the evolutionary model, one of which is the lack of transitional forms in both the fossil record and the living (extant) record.
The new concept supposedly adds support to the "punctuated equilibrium" model proposed by the late Harvard paleontologist Stephen J. Gould. Dr. Gould derived his ideas from the research of geneticist Richard Goldschmidt, who believed that evolution proceeded by large influential "macro-mutations" rather than small gradual changes. Goldschmidt affectionately termed this the "Hopeful Monster" theory and the name stuck.
With the longstanding neo-Darwinian model, one would expect to see many transitional organisms representing small gradual changes brought about by random genetic mutations acted upon by natural selection. While this model has many scientific difficulties, the biggest problem is that the entire fossil record is highly discontinuous, with an overwhelming absence of transitional forms between virtually all major taxa. It is quite obvious that the historical record of life does not provide the needed evidence for gradual evolutionary change.
As a paleontologist, Dr. Gould was painfully aware of these pervasive gaps in the fossil record and proposed a controversial evolutionary model in which new life forms arose suddenly, explaining the absence of transitional forms. Since the neo-Darwinian view is the predominant evolutionary model, Gould's idea was never widely accepted.
Does the "Neo-Hopeful Monster" Solve Human Evolution's Problems? ...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
For the record, this post is being posted in News/Activism by the express permission of Jim Robinson, founder and owner of Free Republic:
Debate on church doctrine and or threads on specific religious matters may be best posted in the religion forum, but the defense of religious freedom, especially against those who wish to deprive us of same belongs front and center on FR.
They banned God and prayer and creationism from public schools and public places, but Ill be damned if theyre gonna ban Him or it from FR!
PS I got a number of PMs asking what happened to me. I was on vacation, and am now catching up on piles of work. Thanks for thinking of me :o)
All the best—GGG
“...with an overwhelming absence of transitional forms between virtually all major taxa. It is quite obvious that the historical record of life does not provide the needed evidence for gradual evolutionary change.”
Ping to that.
oh contraire, the evos say there are tons of transitionals...NOT BECAUSE THEY EXIST, but because their religion requires it, so they name them transitionals, self fullfilling prophecy at its best.
Why does an anti-materialist need a vacation?
[[the evos say there are tons of transitionals...]]
They point to homological similaritiesd and clai mthem to be transitionals, while ignoring two key points- similar features and systems often arise through wholly different processes, wholly unrelated processes- suggesting not common descent, but unique creation- and two, ignorign the fact that there are vast differecnes biologically between the two supposedly related species- differences which reach into the billions- even the differecnes between the tow suppsoedly most comm,onl;y cited ‘close rel tives are in the billions- biological differences that evolution can not account for- but, we’re told, because the two species share homological similarities like hands, ears etc, these two species are related despite beign able to acco8unt for those vast biological differecnes. Science has mopre than proven the homological argument fails on all fronts- but amazingly, ALL the supposed ‘transitions’ are named as transitions based on superficial homological similarities- which is nothign more than another scientific slight of hand akin to climategate (These scientists making htese claims KNOW evolution can’t account for hte vast biological differecnes, but they hide the coutnerevidence, intimidate those who bring such coutnerevidence to hte table, ridicule, malign, ostracise them, and keep them out of the ‘peer review’ process while feigning innocent to the charges.
Same s**t, different bag.
Hoping you sailed off the end of the earth last weekend.
The world is not flat. When I dig out of the piles of work that yet remain on my desk, perhaps I will explain to you how we know this.
Most of the druids who follow your postings are not reachable, nor can they complete even the simplest homework assignments.
To be kind I have to say that your conclusion is overly simplistic for several reasons:
1) If fossil examples of a pre-macro change parent and a post-macro change offspring were discovered next to one another the relationship would be denied because of a lack of a transitional example.
2) Mutations are not all parametrically uniform, nor are mutation rates linear. They run the gambit from minor and insignificant, to incrementally beneficial, to catastrophic and to significantly beneficial. The distribution between the categories isn't Gaussian and the beneficial nature not always equal within a dynamic environment.
If you would like to see a few of the many transitional fossils all you need to do is take a trip to a museum and look at Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and Homo sapiens. This is a beautiful series of transitional fossils.
Why do the creationist/i.d crowed keep asking for the evidence whe it is here. All you have to do is go to a museum and see it for yourself.
....but but but those are all the same “kinds”....
I am sure that will be the attempted misdirection and avoidance offered up.
There is a pretty good (not perfect) site that contains a lot of information on transitional fossils:
The creationist/i.d crowd discounts thart web site due to the well known liberal bias that real science has. You should know by now if you do not belive that that Man walked with 100+ species of large meat eating dinos within the last 4,351 years you are a facist liberal.
Funny how anything posted by Brian Thomas is taken without question as being delivered by the Burning Bush by some, but anything from a legitimate science source is dismissed the data is even seen. Science deniers are not evil or stupid, they are simply wrong. To those who have been taught since childhood to not question God or test their faith science can be frightening. However, many are highly intelligent and not all are or remain blind ideologues, I've even seen GGG's position moderate over the last year or so.
One day, in the future, archeologists might dig up the bones of one of the wrestlers from WWF, and claim they found another example of Neanderthal man.
I find it odd that scientists claim to find different ‘species’ of ‘man’, due to skull size and shape.
If one were able to duplicate (as a model) the skulls of all humans alive today, there would be a nice bell curve based on size and shape. Yet we are all homo sapiens. Or so they claim.
Welcome back from vacation.
I also see that your ‘opponents’ in debate seem not to have sharpened their communication or debating skills during the lapse, but did find some nice sticks that they chewed the ends off of, to use to poke at you with.
Until they checked the DNA and dated the material. Modern forensic archaeological tools are no longer limited to a shovel, whisk broom, and a micrometer.
Their tools now are the plaster trowel (see the plaster “skull” of the Lucy animal), the forced fit (Lucy’s crushed pelvis), the artist’s pen (Ardi the composite), and the hopeful hype of Ida (the human ancestor, not human ancestor, the relegation to the basement ancestor of something).
Ethical Use Policy
Nothing on our website may be reprinted or reproduced for other websites and media in whole or in part beyond these guidelines without obtaining permission from ICR. This applies to the website pages, content, graphics, audio and video, etc.
You used 262 words in your intro in violation of the IRC's policy.......someone owes "Natural Plagiarizer" an apology.
It also says “non-commercial use”. GGG fails this also.
Thanks, nice to be back :o)
Thanks for the ping!