Hi Alan,
Did your wife tell you about my science background, because you seem to spend a lot of your message to me trying to explain evolution to me? I am currently a PhD student studying evolution and population genetics, and I did my undergrad work in both Genetics and Latin. I just think you should understand who your audience is. Although, the way these message boards work, I am probably not your only audience.
First, it is important to remember one very important fact of evolutionary theoryits source. In this case, there are twoand only twomeans by which evolution can originate: natural selection and genetic mutation. It is logically necessary, therefore, that these two dynamic processes possess the constituent data from which researchers may evaluate the integrity of this theory.
The mechanisms for evolution are more complex and varied than you have stated. Your twoand only two statement is very wrong. Mutation is the mechanism that produces heritable variation. Selection, genetic drift, and migration are recognized as the major mechanisms responsible for turning variation into evolution.
Regarding the former, natural selection is a phenomenon that describes the dynamic process of an organism with a particular genotype that possesses a unique quality of survivability that is genetically transmitted to its posterity. This, in turn, generally allows for this particular genotype to become prominent in the indigenous habitat. . . .
From this finite medium, each time natural selection allows an organism to "specialize" to accommodate its environment, some of this information is lost. Thus, if one were to breed nothing but Chihuahuas, it would be impossible to produce a Great Dane; the information for such is gone!
Selection is much more complicated than adapting to an environment. For example, it can involve frequency dependent or mate-choice effects which can decrease viability but increase fertility. Furthermore, selection reduces heritable variation in a population, but this is not necessarily the information. To test whether, the information content is
reduced in a population you need to devise a way to measure the information contained in the gene pool since that is what evolves. We will see if you do.
Regarding the latter (genetic mutation), this process is accurately defined as a "transcription error" in the chemical alphabet of the DNA, and consists of threeand only threepossible phenomena to occur: rearrangement, deletion, or a combination of both.
This is your second error. There are more forms of mutation than the ones you have described. Your threeand only three statement is as wrong as your previous one about selection. For example, insertion is a type of mutation. There are also point mutations which change just one nucleotide base. (I cant tell if that is what you mean by rearrangement.) There are also recombination effects which shuffle alleles around in meiosis. Then there are polyploid and aneuploid mutations which can increase or decrease the number of chromosomes in the cell. Such mutations are very important in plant evolution and appear to have also been important in animal evolution. If the amount of information a single individual carries is effectively directly proportional to the amount of DNA it carries, then some of the mutations you left off (insertion, polyploid) are definitely capable of increasing the amount of information an individual carries.
Now, the question to be answered here is, "Can this triad "modus operandi" produce significant beneficial variations within the gene for which natural selection can preserve and exemplify to the increased "survivability" of the organism.
The short answer to this is absolutely NO! Justification for this statement is logically validated when one "does the math", so to speak, and compares such to the empirical crucible of the scientific method.
This proof is very flawed since, as I pointed out above, there are more than three types of mutations and more than two types of mechanisms. In other words, your argument is based on assumptions and limitations that dont apply to actual biology.
In this case, rearranging or deleting information in the genome may, in fact, produce a "temporary" benefit, but only in a very limitedand intrinsically destructiveway. Bacteria, for example, may obtain a resistance to streptomycin and DDT, but only through a "loss" of information (Spetner, 139-141). To be sure, bacteria that incur such a mutation substantially reduce its specificity to the ribosome, and subsequently also reduce its propensity for survivability. Genetic mutations are intrinsically a loss of "pre-existing information."
But how is Spetner measuring genetic information? The reason why I ask is because there is no standard for doing so in the field of genetics, and it should be an important part to his claims. Furthermore, his complaints about survivability do not take into account the environment. Sure the resistant bacteria incur a penalty on normal media, but they did not evolve to survive there. They evolved to survive in the presence streptomycin on which they have
higher survivability than nonresistant bacteria. One only has to look so far as the new superbugs like TB, to understand that in some environments resistance does infer long term survivability. Did Spetner record exactly what type of mutation was responsible for this resistance or did he just state that it was a loss of information? Does he tell the reader about the forward
and backward mutation rates? In other words, how likely are the resistant bacteria to evolve back to the original phenotype. Is the original information lost forever or can mutations regenerate it?
To prove such, in a simulated computer experiment, Richard Dawkins of Oxford Universityperhaps the foremost advocate of Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary theory todayargues in his highly controversial book, The Blind Watchmaker (1986) that the Shakespearian phrase: "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL", can be reached through a truly random process of these 28 letters in a mere 40-65 generations. The problem with such is that: 1) He already knows exactly what he wants to construct and strategically strives to reach the same, and 2) He assumes criteria for mutations in his computer simulation that are incongruent with actual mutations in reality (Spetner, 169-170).
I take issue with you characterization of Dawkins book as controversial. It might be among certain sections of society but the scientific community is not one of them, which is what I feel you would like to imply. Complaint 1 is not a valid criticism because this is a simulation. Whereas in nature, there are complex interactions that can determine what the best form is, simulations can be simply given what the best form is. That doesnt retract from the observation of how easy it is to evolve the best form. His picking of a publishable does not produce different result than if he had randomly generated a 28 character string and selecting for individuals that best matched it, mutating them, and selecting again. Complaint 2 might be valid, but it is my understanding that the types of mutations employed by Dawkins do relate to real word biology although they might not be a 100% replication of it. Dawkins example is constrained by a desire to keep it simple and workable for his book. Much more complex simulations have been done, and they do not show the types of problems or limitations that Spetner has claimed occur with mutation plus selection.
In conclusion, the bottom line is that, since both dynamic processes of biological evolution constitute a loss of "preexisting information," the evolutionist is mandated the burden of proof for explanation of where the genetic data originated from in the first place; it couldn't and didn't come from either of these functions (natural selection and genetic mutation)!
Your conclusion does not follow from your work. In fact, it has many flaws, the first of which is an erroneous restriction on the mechanisms of evolution and mutation. The second of which is to make appeals to information with out explaining how it is measured. You cannot claim to have proved that evolution cant add information if you havent defined a way to quantify it and measure its change. As such, your final challenge is moot.
Another related argument recently made by William Dembski (a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture) and Michael J. Behe of Lehigh University is that of "irreducible complexity."
I am familiar irreducible complexity. Neither Dembski nor Behe are experienced population biologists. If they were, theyd understand that there are known evolutionary mechanisms for generating the structures they have referred to as irreducibly complex. Their arguments rest on faulty assumptions that pieces to cellular machinery must have always functioned as they do now. That of course is not born out in evolutionary biology. There are many examples of structures that have been co-opted to do something different. A macroscopic example are bat-wings which are simply modified forelimbs. However, Dembski and Behe tend to stick to microscopic things because there isnt much literature yet one their evolution. Dembskis current favorite example of IC is the flagellum. He asserts blindly that evolution cannot explain it. However, this is not true because there are known relationships between the components of the flagellum and other cellular proteins, which suggest the historical origin. (See these posts by Dr. Larry Moran.
here and
here. )
These arguments (e.g., origin of information and irreducible complexity) provide apodictic certainty for an intelligent origin of complex design in the biosphere, and invalidate the convoluted arguments of Neo-Darwinistic theory.
Or they would if they didnt have so many problems, like not taking into account the full range of mechanisms for evolution and mutation. To address these errors, I suggest that you read
Evolutionary Biology by Douglas Futuyma, which is the standard textbook.
In this context, one is reminded of William Cliffords maxim in his Ethics of Belief, It is never permissible to believe something on insufficient evidence. My hope and prayer for you and the others on this thread is to diligentlyand honestlyinvestigate this research and reevaluate which worldview best fits the data: naturalism or theism? I think you will find that naturalism is intrinsically flawed and that theism is the only viable worldview to accommodate both philosophical and scientific information relative to this issue.
Evolution does not preclude theism; neither does the methodical naturalism of science. If you wish to hold me to such a false dichotomy, then my only conclusion is that God doesnt exist because the evidence for evolution is overwhelming whereas the evidence for God is debatable at best. However, if you dont make such a limitation on those who have faith in God, then you have a greater chance of convincing me and others. But I have to ask why God entered this discussion in the first place. Surely if evolution were inherently scientifically false, you can disprove it with out appealing to God or mentioning religion at all. However, if you do want to bring religion into this, I hear that Millers
Finding Darwins God is a descent book.
