- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,030
- 7,265
- 62
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
So if creationism is true (creatures fully form as an act of God) then does that make evolution (descent from a unicellular common ancestor) a myth?
I posted what follows the quote in the debate forum to address the often chanted mantra of the evolutionist that creationists base their beliefs on myths and deception. While it may be true of some creationists it is certainly just as true for many evolutionists as well.
I just wanted to share this here since the main issue was scientific method and I was being told that I rejected science because I rejected the unicellular common ancestor. Here is the statement I was responding to:
This is what I responded with and the quote at the bottom was not made by a creationist, it was made by an accomplished secular scientist that dispised the myth of evolution on purly scientific grounds.
Identifying the forces responsible for the origin and maintenance of sexuality remains one of the greatest unsolved problems in biology. The mutational deterministic hypothesis postulates that sex is an adaptation that allows deleterious mutations to be purged from the genome; it requires synergistic interactions, which means that two mutations would be more harmful together than expected from their separate effects. We generated 225 genotypes of Escherichia coli carrying one, two or three successive mutations and measured their fitness relative to an unmutated competitor. The relationship between mutation number and average fitness is nearly log-linear. We also constructed 27 recombinant genotypes having pairs of mutations whose separate and
combined effects on fitness were determined. Several pairs exhibit significant interactions for fitness, but they are antagonistic as often as they are synergistic. These results do not support the mutational deterministic hypothesis for the evolution of sex.
What this is saying basically is that mutations in these recombinant genotypes do not produce a selective advantage. Creationists have emphasized the stasis of the various classes as evident proof of creation of creatures fully formed with only macroevolution demonstrated in natural science. I summarized the main points of the article quoted above and cited below:
1) Asexually reproducing organisms should have twice the fitness of sexual counterparts.
2) For sexual reproduction to provide a selective advantage deletrious mutations must be purged.
3) Multiple mutations are typically more harmful together then would be expected.
4) Genotypes with variable numbers of mutations were compared to measure their relative fitness.
5)The benefit of sex is very slight even for the highest value for a genotype with functional DNA.
Conclusion: Synergestic epistasis fails as a demonstrated mechanism for the origin and maintenance of the evolution from asexual to sexual reproduction. It should be noted that epistasis is simply that which is beyond stasis and thus evolutionary change (if you will forgive the oversimplification).
(Test of synergistic interactions among deleterious mutations in bacteria, by Santiago F. Elena & Richard E. Lenski. Nature|VOL 390|27NOVEMBER 1997)
The sensory and motor mechanism of the common bacterium, Escherichia coli, (a unicellular prokaryotic organism) has become one of the most important examples cited in the irreducible complexity argument. There must be both a selective advantage and a demonstrated mechanism for the descent from a unicellular common ancestor. The theory of descent from a unicellular ancestor is faced with a transition that still defies empirical testing. Of the many hypotheses postulated from the theoretical superstructure of evolutionary biology multiple mutations diminish selective advantage. This disparity is acknowledged by natural science (as it is in the above article) or it leads to mythology rather then demonstrative science.
There is no lack of theoretical hypothesis but the tests keep coming back null.
Grace and peace,
Mark
I posted what follows the quote in the debate forum to address the often chanted mantra of the evolutionist that creationists base their beliefs on myths and deception. While it may be true of some creationists it is certainly just as true for many evolutionists as well.
I just wanted to share this here since the main issue was scientific method and I was being told that I rejected science because I rejected the unicellular common ancestor. Here is the statement I was responding to:
This is what I responded with and the quote at the bottom was not made by a creationist, it was made by an accomplished secular scientist that dispised the myth of evolution on purly scientific grounds.
Identifying the forces responsible for the origin and maintenance of sexuality remains one of the greatest unsolved problems in biology. The mutational deterministic hypothesis postulates that sex is an adaptation that allows deleterious mutations to be purged from the genome; it requires synergistic interactions, which means that two mutations would be more harmful together than expected from their separate effects. We generated 225 genotypes of Escherichia coli carrying one, two or three successive mutations and measured their fitness relative to an unmutated competitor. The relationship between mutation number and average fitness is nearly log-linear. We also constructed 27 recombinant genotypes having pairs of mutations whose separate and
combined effects on fitness were determined. Several pairs exhibit significant interactions for fitness, but they are antagonistic as often as they are synergistic. These results do not support the mutational deterministic hypothesis for the evolution of sex.
What this is saying basically is that mutations in these recombinant genotypes do not produce a selective advantage. Creationists have emphasized the stasis of the various classes as evident proof of creation of creatures fully formed with only macroevolution demonstrated in natural science. I summarized the main points of the article quoted above and cited below:
1) Asexually reproducing organisms should have twice the fitness of sexual counterparts.
2) For sexual reproduction to provide a selective advantage deletrious mutations must be purged.
3) Multiple mutations are typically more harmful together then would be expected.
4) Genotypes with variable numbers of mutations were compared to measure their relative fitness.
5)The benefit of sex is very slight even for the highest value for a genotype with functional DNA.
Conclusion: Synergestic epistasis fails as a demonstrated mechanism for the origin and maintenance of the evolution from asexual to sexual reproduction. It should be noted that epistasis is simply that which is beyond stasis and thus evolutionary change (if you will forgive the oversimplification).
(Test of synergistic interactions among deleterious mutations in bacteria, by Santiago F. Elena & Richard E. Lenski. Nature|VOL 390|27NOVEMBER 1997)
The sensory and motor mechanism of the common bacterium, Escherichia coli, (a unicellular prokaryotic organism) has become one of the most important examples cited in the irreducible complexity argument. There must be both a selective advantage and a demonstrated mechanism for the descent from a unicellular common ancestor. The theory of descent from a unicellular ancestor is faced with a transition that still defies empirical testing. Of the many hypotheses postulated from the theoretical superstructure of evolutionary biology multiple mutations diminish selective advantage. This disparity is acknowledged by natural science (as it is in the above article) or it leads to mythology rather then demonstrative science.
"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs" (Grasse, Pierre-Paul, Evolution of Living Organisms)
This claim is not made against theology but against theoreticians who do not think about the weakness and extrapolations that create the myth of evolution. What is at stake is the scientific understanding of our origins and it is not limited to the transition from asexual to sexual reproduction. The origin of 40-50 phyla during the Cambrian explosion (biologys big bang) resulted in the stasis of most, if not all, the emergent species, phylum, and classes. Epistasis cannot be demonstrated but stasis can be conclusively demonstrated from the empirical testing. This is exactly what would be expected from the creationist model.There is no lack of theoretical hypothesis but the tests keep coming back null.
Grace and peace,
Mark
