Evolution Intelligent Design

The Palmers’ continuing series at YouTube: Micro evolution vs Macro Evolution, Part 2

Spread the love

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… 😉 😉 😉

8 Replies to “The Palmers’ continuing series at YouTube: Micro evolution vs Macro Evolution, Part 2

  1. 1
    jerry says:

    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.

    But without new genes

    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.

  2. 2
    Seversky says:

    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:

    Claim CB102:
    Mutations are random noise; they do not add information. Evolution cannot cause an increase in information.
    Source:
    AIG, n.d. Creation Education Center. http://www.answersingenesis.or.....report.asp
    Response:
    It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term “information” undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of

    increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
    increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
    novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
    novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

    If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.

    A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:
    Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).
    RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)
    Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)
    The biological literature is full of additional examples. A PubMed search (at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) on “gene duplication” gives more than 3000 references.

    According to Shannon-Weaver information theory, random noise maximizes information. This is not just playing word games. The random variation that mutations add to populations is the variation on which selection acts. Mutation alone will not cause adaptive evolution, but by eliminating nonadaptive variation, natural selection communicates information about the environment to the organism so that the organism becomes better adapted to it. Natural selection is the process by which information about the environment is transferred to an organism’s genome and thus to the organism (Adami et al. 2000).

    The process of mutation and selection is observed to increase information and complexity in simulations (Adami et al. 2000; Schneider 2000).

  3. 3
    JVL says:

    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?

  4. 4
    jerry says:

    Okay. Could you spell out your alternative. Maybe not with all the known details at first, just the rough outline. Then answer some questions?

    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.

  5. 5
    polistra says:

    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.

  6. 6
    JVL says:

    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?

  7. 7
    ET says:

    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.

  8. 8
    ET says:

    And the wonder of it all is that neither seversky nor JVL have a high school level understanding of biology.

Leave a Reply