Darwinism and the Deterioration of the Genome

True.Origin ^ | 8/7/06 | Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

An evaluation of DNA/RNA mutations indicates that they cannot provide significant new levels of information. Instead, mutations will produce degradation of the information in the genome. This is the opposite of the predictions of the neoDarwinian origins model. Such genome degradation is counteracted by natural selection that helps maintain the status quo. Degradation results for many reasons, two of which are reviewed here. 1) there is a tendency for mutations to produce a highly disproportionate number of certain nucleotide bases such as thymine and 2) many mutations occur in only a relatively few places within the gene called “hot spots,” and rarely occur in others, known as “cold spots.” An intensive review of the literature fails to reveal a single clear example of a beneficial information-gaining mutation. Conversely, thousands of deleterious mutations exist, supporting the hypothesis that very few mutations are beneficial. These findings support the creation origins model.

[orionblamblam]

Hey, good job on ignoring additional information added by replication errors, retro virii and other mechanisms.

[gondramB]

>>Instead, mutations will produce degradation of the information in the genome.<<

Wow, this guy with PhD in biology has proved that evolution is impossible. Thats really amazing.

Columbia Pacific University, where he got his PhD must really be proud. Its not often that a mail order degree school produces such and amazing discovery.

[silverleaf]

I hear rustling ... the winged monkeys of evo freepers are on the way!

[RFC_Gal]

Krusty Krab Pizza Placeholder

[A. Pole]

I tend to think that God allowed the evolution to take place, but that evolution is driven by much more intricate and intelligent mechanism than crude rolling of the dice.

[Matchett-PI]

Must We Have a Separation of Church and Science?

Listen to this story...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5617850

Talk of the Nation, August 4, 2006 · Can a world class scientist also be a devout Christian? Some big names in science say "absolutely." But balancing a scientific career with religious beliefs does involve some challenges.

Guests

Francis Collins, author The Language of God; director, National Human Genome Research Institute (National Institutes of Health)

Owen Gingerich, author, God's Universe (forthcoming from Harvard University Press); senior astronomer emeritus, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory; research professor emeritus (astronomy and history of science) Harvard University

[netmilsmom]

That's how I feel but got blasted by people here all the same.

I'm glad I homeschool!

[muleskinner]

'(let's make him out to be a religious wacko with no credentials..."

Let's let him publish his thesis in a scientific journal where others can make a good study of it. Sure, he can publish at an internet creationist site, but no one of scientific import will take it seriesly.

[gondramB]

My last post may have been too harsh - if he's really a Professor at Medical University of Ohio then he must have some qualifications.

[muawiyah]

Genes get shuffled around and duplicated. DNA Methylation is a real phenomenon that requires no mutation at all to effectuate a change in gene expression.

I think most everybody already knew that mutations are generally not beneficial ~ presumably some are, but they are very rare.

Then, there's another possibility ~ that you get some of your genes (speaking of species now) from exogenous sources ~ e.g. viruses.

The oceans are full of them ~ millions have been identified, but there may be billions or trillions of different genes already produced that can survive and reproduce in bacteria or algae, and they're just floating around out there waiting for some mechanism to transport them right into your genome.

It has been proposed by highly experienced DNA researchers that we simply construct ourselves an "artificial life form" and start plugging these wild genes into it to see what they do.

This, of course, reduces "evolution" to an afterthought that may or may not have some sort of effect on critters, but which is, in any case, not terribly necessary for there to be genetic change in a species.

It also addresses the "parallel evolution" question quite directly ~ rather than arguing that somehow "natural selection" (at best a "force", and at worst a "supernatural being") drives critters to adapt with similar solutions, all we have to do is find the "gene" in the vast viral reservoir in the surface of the ocean and plug it in.

In the long run it's all probably much more like changing sparkplugs in a car than relationships with invisible forces.

[GSlob]

"then he must have some qualifications." Nah, just unevolved neanderthal.

[A. Pole]

But balancing a scientific career with religious beliefs does involve some challenges.

Balancing a scientific career with the atheism requires much harder challenge as science itself is based on the Christian worldview.

The Origin of Science

...as Whitehead pointed out, it is no coincidence that science sprang, not from Ionian metaphysics, not from the Brahmin-Buddhist-Taoist East, not from the Egyptian-Mayan astrological South, but from the heart of the Christian West, that although Galileo fell out with the Church, he would hardly have taken so much trouble studying Jupiter and dropping objects from towers if the reality and value and order of things had not first been conferred by belief in the Incarnation. (Walker Percy, Lost in the Cosmos)

To the popular mind, science is completely inimical to religion: science embraces facts and evidence while religion professes blind faith. Like many simplistic popular notions, this view is mistaken. Modern science is not only compatible with Christianity, it in fact finds its origins in Christianity. This is not to say that the Bible is a science textbook that contains raw scientific truths, as some evangelical Christians would have us believe. The Christian faith contains deeper truths-- truths with philosophical consequences that make conceivable the mind's exploration of nature: man's place in God's creation, who God is and how he freely created a cosmos.

In large part, the modern mind thinks little of these notions in much the same way that the last thing on a fish's mind is the water it breathes. It is difficult for those raised in a scientific world to appreciate the plight of the ancient mind trapped within an eternal and arbitrary world. It is difficult for those raised in a post-Christian world to appreciate the radical novelty and liberation Christian ideas presented to the ancient mind.
(The Origin of Science)

[gondramB]

>>Balancing a scientific career with the atheism requires much harder challenge as science itself is based on the Christian worldview.<<

I'm pretty sure that Aristotle was not a Christian.

[Rippin]

Does any serious person actually not see that Dawkins' "Methinks it is like a weasel" example undermines his own thesis? I've never seen a written defense addressing the kinds of problems raised here.

[A. Pole]

I'm pretty sure that Aristotle was not a Christian.

First he was not a scientist, he was a philosopher. The science as we know it was develo[ed in the Middle Ages by the Roman Catholic Church, yes using some ideas of Aristotle modified by scholasticism.

Second the philosophy of Aristotle was theocentric itself with God being the First Mover.