Important Note: The mutations we discuss in this session are the random mutations that Neo-Darwinists claim to be the driving force of macro-evolution. There is increasing evidence that in fact most mutations aren’t completely random, but are directed to specific areas of the genome where changes can stimulate adaptation. This is additional evidence for design, not random processes.
In Part 1, we look at what mutations are, what they can do, and how that restricts the amount of change possible in an organism. Gene sequencing now makes it possible to match adaptations to specific mutations, so in Part 2 we look at the textbook examples of microevolution in light of gene sequencing. In every example of microevolution used to support Darwinism, mutations only degraded existing genes. No new genes were created. But without new genes, Darwinism is limited to microevolution. Discussion questions
Even MORE important note: The Canadians who work here really like that bear in the picture. Okay, okay. The bear has told us to tell everyone that he is a Boss Bear and that we really like him … if we know what is good for us. He is trying to find fast food kitchen dumpsters owned by people who do not also have rifles. We explained that we don’t know anyone who has either a fast food kitchen dumpster or a rifle. We also explained that it is our moral duty to tell him that dumpster food is not altogether healthy anyway. Then we just ran… 😉 😉 😉
There is a reason micro evolution (genetics) never adds to macro evolution (Evolution.)
We (believers in ID) have been led to believe that DNA is the secret to life just as the Darwinists have because some researcher proclaimed it without evidence 65+ years ago. So ID dutifully reinforces this error.
Genes are not the source of Evolution. Even with a host of new genes, it would not make a difference. This is just reinforces the error.
This has been the greatest misinformation campaign in the history of the world.
Get rid of the DNA model.
So Jerry and the Palmers are saying that evolutionary biology has been pulling a fast one on us by pretending that genes are the source of new information when they really have no idea where it comes from? The whole thing is just another vast conspiracy theory? Again.
They could just have visited the Talk Origins Archive Index of Creationist Claims:
Jerry: Get rid of the DNA model.
Okay. Could you spell out your alternative. Maybe not with all the known details at first, just the rough outline. Then answer some questions?
Is that fair?
This has already been done several times.
Essentially it is a mystery. What we know is that it cannot be due to changes in DNA. It is not in the genetic code.
Read Stephen Blume’s books first and then ask questions. He shows why we do not know how Evolution has happened but it is definitely not due to changes in DNA. Besides the origin of protein problem there are several others. Read also Stephen Meyer’s book on his analysis of the possibilities of other codes existing that govern this process.
Notice Seversky does not provide any information supporting any hypothesis he has. He just points to others as if they have the information, There are several fallacies in Seversky’s comments here but he refuses to acknowledge them. Also I disagree with the Palmers and then Seversky includes ms as saying essentially the same thing. Which I don’t.
In his case, one is nearly always the Fallacy of Omission,
I’m suggesting that science/biollogy focus more efforts on finding what causes the progression during gestation. Certainly the building blocks needed are DNA but they have no clue as to what determines where and when each building block should be placed.
They also have little information on how the billions of molecules in each cell move about and where or why individual molecules show up at the right places at the right times.
I’m sure there are some information for this but it is more characterized by its lack of knowledge then by how much they know.
Aside: The anti ID people would abandon the DNA model in a heartbeat if they had evidence for how Evolution occurred naturally that did not involve DNA. But they don’t so they make believe DNA is the be all and end all.
Love the Canadian bear joke. Hopefully you ran faster than the other guy who was still explaining the physics of dumpster lids and hinges in fine mathematical detail.
Jerry: This has already been done several times.
I’m sure. BUT I just want to make sure that I/we are clear what your alternative is.
Essentially it is a mystery. What we know is that it cannot be due to changes in DNA. It is not in the genetic code. Read Stephen Blume’s books first and then ask questions. He shows why we do not know how Evolution has happened but it is definitely not due to changes in DNA. Besides the origin of protein problem there are several others. Read also Stephen Meyer’s book on his analysis of the possibilities of other codes existing that govern this process.
Okay, does that mean you don’t have an alternate hypothesis? I’m just asking to make sure I don’t misrepresent your view.
I’m suggesting that science/biollogy focus more efforts on finding what causes the progression during gestation. Certainly the building blocks needed are DNA but they have no clue as to what determines where and when each building block should be placed.
What do you mean by ‘placed’? In DNA or . . . .
They also have little information on how the billions of molecules in each cell move about and where or why individual molecules show up at the right places at the right times.
I think they are just all milling about and gravitate to ‘the right places’ because of chemical affinities.
I’m sure there are some information for this but it is more characterized by its lack of knowledge then by how much they know.
That may be but I suspect much of the nitty-gritty technical details are in obscure biochemical journals.
Aside: The anti ID people would abandon the DNA model in a heartbeat if they had evidence for how Evolution occurred naturally that did not involve DNA. But they don’t so they make believe DNA is the be all and end all.
I’m asking for your alternative hypothesis so that your model can be examined and tested out. I understand that you think the currently accepted paradigm is inadequate; I’d just like to know what your alternative is.
Science kinds of works that way. Newton’s physics laws ruled until they were seen to be lacking. And, eventually, Einstein came along to propose new laws that covered Newton plus more. I accept that our current ‘laws’ or hypotheses about evolution might be lacking, they are only models. I’d just like a different vessel to contemplate before abandoning ship as it were.
That kind of falls in line with the general ID stance that ID is a better explanation. So, I’m asking you, what’s your better explanation?
Alternative to what? There isn’t any scientific theory of evolution. And the reason for that is there aren’t any known naturalistic mechanisms capable of producing the diversity of life.
The DNA model is total BS. Transcription into mRNA then translation into a polypeptide can only produce microevolutionary events. And we already know that these cannot accumulate into macroevolution.
The hypocrisy is blatant. Neither JVL nor anyone else has offered any detail. Theirs is the mechanistic position that lacks a viable mechanism.
The science of ID is in the detection and study of design in nature. JVL, ever the infant, refuses to accept that and wants ID to match what his position needs to present. Total. Desperate. Loser.
And the wonder of it all is that neither seversky nor JVL have a high school level understanding of biology.