horizontal gene transfer Intelligent Design News

Why horizontal gene transfer is bad news for Darwinism

Spread the love

From the (actual*) ID Facebook page:

[The modern synthesis] is called a synthesis because it is a synthesis between two different mechanisms of evolution. That is what the word synthesis means. The synthesis in this case is: natural selection acting on random mutation (Darwinism) AND horizontal gene transfer (HGT). Darwinism is vertical and HGT is horizontal. So no, HGT is not Darwinism and Darwinism is not HGT. This vid gives the general idea of the difficulty one would face explaining the proposition to one of Darwin’s followers:

The problem HGT creates for Darwinism is that Darwinism has typically functioned as a “must be” explanation for evolution. If genes can be horizontally transferred between bacteria and animals, each and every case of claimed evolution in those animal life forms that have proved capable of it must be tested against HGT. They cannot be simply classed as evidence for Darwinism. Just think of the impact this will eventually have on “Darwinizing the culture.” First, if evolution happens by a variety of means, but mostly not Darwinian – and often just reverses itself – much Darwinism will crumble insofar as it was credited as simply the only “scientific” explanation.

Then, once each mechanism must be evaluated on its actual strength, the hype around “Evolution is a fact, Fact, FACT!” starts to dissipate. Another outcome is that whether nature shows evidence of design becomes, in principle, testable.

That is, it is testable if we are do not accept Lewontin’s principle, to take the side of “science” (naturalism), despite its explanatory failings. Nope. Or Dawkins’ counsel that something like Darwinism has just got to be true. And nope.

Note: A friend offers, “NS acting on RM” is strictly “Neo-Darwinism” and “NS acting on random variation” is “Darwinism.” However, most people simply do not bother with the “neo-” prefix. Every “aren’t I good?” girl knows what she believes, and she do, she do, she do, she do, she DO believe in Darwin. So do soulful TV airheads.

Note 2: (actual*)? Yes, there is a fake ID Facebook page.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

5 Replies to “Why horizontal gene transfer is bad news for Darwinism

  1. 1
    Dionisio says:

    Very interesting OP. Thanks!

  2. 2
    Dionisio says:

    That is, it is testable if we are do not accept Lewontin’s principle, to take the side of “science” (naturalism), despite its explanatory failings. Nope. Or Dawkins’ counsel that something like Darwinism has just got to be true. And nope.

    if we are do not accept?

    if we do not accept ?

    if we are to not accept ?

  3. 3
    dgw says:

    Consider the case of E Coli. Lenski has done experiments for 25 years on the evolution of these organisms. Results are meager. On the other hand, E Coli can be synthesized to express Green Fluorescent Protein. Given an E Coli with a GFP gene, is it more likely to have arisen from Lenski’s lab or by design (HGT from phage insertion)? What is the probability it could have arisen from RM+NS? I think we will find that RM+NS is an impoverished explanation for the appearance of any substantial new function.

  4. 4
    humbled says:

    Each and every new scientific discovery today “is bad news for Darwinism”. 😉

  5. 5
    mahuna says:

    “NS acting on RM” is strictly “Neo-Darwinism” and “NS acting on random variation” is “Darwinism.”

    OK, I had never seen quit this distinction before. Since Darwin wrote before Father Mendel’s papers on hybridizing plants were published, I don’t believe Darwin himself would made a distinction between “variation” and “mutation”. After all, if the mutation has no visible effect, it wouldn’t even be identified as a variation.

    That is, something as simple as hair color in humans (and dogs) must have first appeared as a mutation, assuming all humans originally had dark skin and black hair like one of the modern East African tribes. I suppose I should look such things up in “Descent of Man”, but I’m sure Darwin would have used “variation” to describe the differences in hair color among humans.

    Is there some undercurrent wherein modern Evolutionists are somehow considered heretics who misrepresent the pure version of Evolution imagined by Darwin? Darwin of course had no idea what he was talking about because of the primitive nature of Biology in the 19th century.

Leave a Reply