The Five Crises in Evolutionary Theory

Probe Ministries ^ | Dr. Ray Bohlin

[medved]

Check out the links to Wistar Symposia materials at:

http://library.thinkquest.org/29178/wistar.htm

[gore3000]

Uhhhh .. can you explain how 'selective breeding' works then?

In breeding, humans select traits already existing in a species and mate individuals with those traits to reinforce the trait. The genes for these traits already exist in the species, no new traits are created therefore it does not give any proof for evolutionists. Evolution needs new genes for the miriad different species out there. Breeding creates no new genes.

[queenofsardonia]

Wow, that was great. I am going to bookmark this just so other people may read what you have written. Thanks.

[Junior]

Breeding creates no new genes.

But nature does.

[gore3000]

"Breeding creates no new genes. -me-

But nature does.

Actually your link does not prove that. It shows that a duplicate gene was perhaps altered slightly by mutations. It does not show the creation of a new gene.

[rwfromkansas]

bump

[rwfromkansas]

Yawn....this is not the type of evolution being discussed by the author and you know it.

[Pure Country]

How did Chicago style hot dogs evolve into the best in the world?

What about Waldo, Ohio bologna? Anyone been there?

[Junior]

Duplicating a gene gives more genetic material to work with -- it increases the available information. In other words, a new gene has come into being which can then mutate to accommodate new features. You're always wanting to know how new information is introduced into the genome -- researchers have discovered a mechanism that does just that.

[rwfromkansas]

I have to barf saying this, but I agree with you. Indeed, it is misinformation that somehow all monkeys turned into people. We are just one branch of an ape family that evolved from a common ancestor in the evolutionary theory.

I am not an evol, but I do know that "why are there monkeys today" is not a valid argument....

[gore3000]

Darwin was not a saint. His words carry no higher meaning. The site I work at has nearly 5,000 biologists and none of them reads Darwin.

Interesting admission. Biological science and Darwinism have nothing to do with each other. Evolution has not helped in any of the great biological discoveries of the 20th century and those discoveries have almost always contradicted evolution.

One great example is genetics, the finding that an individual gets half his genes from the mother and half from the father. Darwin thought that mutations would spread easily through a population by mere natural selection. The problem that genetics poses is that the chances of survival of even a favorable mutation from generation to generation is cut in half each time. This makes the spread of favorable mutations throughout a population almost impossible and has created great consternation in the evolutionist community.

BTW - I don't think any evolutionists here have read Darwin either.

[medved]

1. The unsubstantiation of a Darwinian mechanism of evolution

Uhhhh .. can you explain how 'selective breeding' works then?

Oh - it doesn't?

That's funny - and I thought that it had been used for years on everything from food to fauna ...

Breeders have never once bred one kind of animal into another. Moreover, you can take the extreme values they get for any one species, such as great danes and chihauhaus and turn them loose in the forest and, five generations later, all which will be left is your ordinary 50-lb. hunting dog seen all over the world, or the norm for the given species.

Likewise, breeders in the 1800s told Chuck Darwin he was full of $#!T and that all anybody trying to breed a new kind of animal would ever get would be sterile individuals and individuals which returned boomarang-like to the norm for the species they were working with.

Guess what? The scientists who conducted the famous fruit-fly experiments in the early 1900's saw only sterile individuals and individuals which returend, boomarang-like, to the norm for fruit flies. These experiments with a creature which produces new generations every few days went on for many years and involved everything known to cause mutations, electricity, radiation, chemicals, temperature extremes, and deliberate efforts to combine mutants, and all they ever got was fruit flies.

The results presented so overwhelming a case against evolution that a number of the scientists publically disavowed evolution. The most notable such case was Goldschmidt with his "hopeful monster" theory, who afterwards claimed to be being subjected to something like the "two minute hate" sessions described by Orwell by his colleagues.

[gore3000]

Duplicating a gene gives more genetic material to work with -- it increases the available information. In other words, a new gene has come into being which can then mutate to accommodate new features.

There are two problems with your example. The first one is that as far as we know, these double genes have existed for a long time, we have no evidence that one is a new gene. The second problem is that the duplicate gene performs a pretty similar function to the other gene. It does not provide a big change needed to for example create a new species. The reason for this similarity in function is pretty simple. Different functions require not only a different code in each DNA base pair, but also different length genes. Therefore a duplicated gene will not be able to code for a significantly different function than the gene from which it was duplicated.

[steve-b]

It shows that a duplicate gene was perhaps altered slightly by mutations. It does not show the creation of a new gene.

Not a bad effort. Keep practicing your definition-twisting games and you can get a job on Clowntoon's legacy-polishing team.

[John O]

Ever looked at some of the DNA work going on today?

Care to explain some of what is found insofar as identical strands being found in *different* species?

If you disassemble several different microsoft computer programs you will find snippets of reused code. Looks like common DNA strands in differing species is a good argument for intelligent design. Find what works and keep using it.

[I normally avoid these threads as the evolution religionists refuse to be converted and I already know the truth]

God Save America (Please)

[<1/1,000,000th%]

The problem that genetics poses is that the chances of survival of even a favorable mutation from generation to generation is cut in half each time.

Its really about having enough kids with the mutation and whether the mutation gives the kids some advantage that allows them to have more kids than the kids that don't have the mutation. Maybe like a mutation that makes people want to have a lot of kids. Aren't too many 9 or 10 child families anymore.

I'm still waiting for a computer game that simulates this. Maybe a Sims expansion?

[massconservative]

The term natural selection as used by Darwin simply means an ability to produce more offspring. The human eye, or any eye for that matter, caused considerable consternation for Darwin himself as it certainly would not be a positive mutation unless fully functioning. Therefore, it is inconceivable that "natural selection" would have continued to select for each infintesimal improvement that would eventually lead to a usable eye. The term "guided natural selection" is a contradiction. Guided would imply an intelligence such as in human-engineered selective breeding. But, after intelligently directed selective breeding for hundreds of years, thousands in the case of goldfish, no new species has been created. If there is a guidance mechanism in natural selection, it would seem a powerful argument for intelligent design, which is what the debate is all about.

[longshadow]

I am not an evol, but I do know that "why are there monkeys today" is not a valid argument....

Good for you. (Really; I'm not trying to be sarcastic).

[gore3000]

Its really about having enough kids with the mutation

You ignored my whole post on how Darwin's theory of how mutations spread was absolutely wrong. Here it is again:

Darwin thought that mutations would spread easily through a population by mere natural selection. The problem that genetics poses is that the chances of survival of even a favorable mutation from generation to generation is cut in half each time. This makes the spread of favorable mutations throughout a population almost impossible and has created great consternation in the evolutionist community.

Let me repeat again, genetics (a real science which unlike evolution provides proof, experiments, a definite theory, logical consistency, and even formulas) refutes your view and Darwin's. You can have a dozen children, but still the chances are that only half will have the mutant gene, and only half of that half would likely be passed on, and of the grandchildren of your children the chances are that only half of that quarter of your progeny would pass on that trait. This makes it almost impossible for Darwinian theory to be true except in certain parts of Arkansas where sex with immediate family members is common.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

You can have a dozen children, but still the chances are that only half will have the mutant gene, and only half of that half would likely be passed on, and of the grandchildren of your children the chances are that only half of that quarter of your progeny would pass on that trait.

This is where the "selection" part comes in. You assume no selection.

How about a mutation that gives immunity to HIV? The half of the children without the mutation die and have NO children. ALL of the children now have the mutation.

This scenario is playing out in Africa as we speak. The mutation is a missing protein on the surface of the T-cells that prevents the virus from entering the cell.