Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Jonathan Wells on claim that Mendel now holds back genetics teaching

arroba Email

In response to “Mendel holds back genetics teaching,” a post on the way in which Nature is moving to quietly distance itself from today’s Darwinism, Jonathan Wells writes to say,

Radick is right to criticize the gene-centric view that dominates modern biology, but the problem was not Gregor Mendel, who merely described patterns of inheritance for some traits in peas and never encouraged anything like a “genes-for” approach. Even Wilhelm Johannsen, who coined the word “genes,” regarded genes as abstractions. The problem came from the Darwinian materialists’ determination to reduce heredity to material particles on chromosomes. The materialists (most prominently Thomas Hunt Morgan) were the source of what Radick calls “the doctrinaire Mendelism that came later.”

Poor Mendel.

Sure. The big problem now is how difficult it is for so many people to be honest about the problems Darwin creates. So they must pin it on others.  For now.

See also: Wells’s The Myth of Junk DNA

Follow UD News at Twitter!

And if you don’t like “gene for” genetics then you’ll love quantitative genetics. Now, who invented that field…
Hmmm. A Christian wasn't it? Bob O'H
as to:
"does ID now stand opposed to the chromosomal theory of inheritance?"
Which is,,,
The chromosomal theory of inheritance is the idea that genes, the units of heredity, are physical in nature and are found in the chromosomes. The theory arose at the turn of the twentieth century, and became one of the cornerstones of the modern understanding of genetics. OR The theory that chromosomes are linear sequences of genes. The unifying theory stating that inheritance patterns may be generally explained by assuming that genes are located in specific sites on chromosomes.
It is not ID that stands opposed to the belief that genes are the be all end all explanation for inheritance, it is the advancement of science itself that is apparently standing opposed to that gene-centric view of inheritance. In fact, the only thing that ID, as a theory, really stands opposed to is the Darwinian belief that unintelligent random processes can generate functional information and complexity that is orders of magnitude more complex than anything man has ever designed. i.e. The main contention of ID is, and always has been, that Intelligence is, by far, the most causally adequate explanation for the complex functional information that we find bursting at the seams in life. Information that lies at the basis of every biological molecule in life. Thus whether inheritance were to have been found to be gene-centric or not, which it is not, that is not the primary concern of ID. ID's primary concern is, and always has been, that the Random Mutation-Natural Selection mechanism postulated by Darwinists as the creator of all the species of life on Earth is grossly inadequate as an explanation for the information that is found at the basis of life.
Information Enigma - Stephen Meyer & Doug Axe (Where did the information come from?) - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA-FcnLsF1g
Moreover, besides Darwinian processes being grossly inadequate to explain the origin of 'simple' genes and proteins, Darwinian processes are even more grossly inadequate to explain the higher levels of information that are required to explain the origin of new body-plans.
“This book has presented four separate scientific critiques demonstrating the inadequacy of the neo-Darwinian mechanism, the mechanism that Dawkins assumes can produce the appearance of design without intelligent guidance. It has shown that the neo-Darwinian mechanism fails to account for the origin of genetic information because: (1) it has no means of efficiently searching combinatorial sequence space for functional genes and proteins and, consequently, (2) it requires unrealistically long waiting times to generate even a single new gene or protein. It has also shown that the mechanism cannot produce new body plans because: (3) early acting mutations, the only kind capable of generating large-scale changes, are also invariably deleterious, and (4) genetic mutations cannot, in any case, generate the epigenetic information necessary to build a body plan.” Stephen Meyer - Darwin's Doubt - (pp. 410-411) Functional Proteins and Information for Body Plans – Stephen Meyer - video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1140536289292636/?type=2&theater
supplemental note:
Peer-Reviewed Paper: Development Needs Ontogenetic Information that Cannot Arise from Neo-Darwinian Mechanisms - Casey Luskin - June 2, 2014 Excerpt: Jonathan Wells has published a new peer-reviewed scientific paper in the journal BIO-Complexity, "Membrane Patterns Carry Ontogenetic Information That Is Specified Independently of DNA." With over 400 citations to the technical literature, this well-researched and well-documented article shows that embryogenesis depends on crucial sources of information that exist outside of the DNA. This ontogenetic information guides the development of an organism, but because it is derived from sources outside of the DNA, it cannot be produced by mutations in DNA. Wells concludes that because the neo-Darwinian model of evolution claims that variation is produced by DNA mutations, neo-Darwinism cannot account for the origin of epigenetic and ontogenetic information that exists outside of DNA. (Read more here:) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/06/peer-reviewed_p_2086201.html
It's also kind of amazing to claim that TH Morgan forced a Darwinian interpretation on genetics, since he started out an outspoken anti-Darwinian. It was the discovery of classical genetics that made Morgan a Darwinist. wd400
I'm sorry, does ID now stand opposed to the chromosomal theory of inheritance? And if you don't like "gene for" genetics then you'll love quantitative genetics. Now, who invented that field... wd400

Leave a Reply