A Bogey Moment with PZ Myers (Evos "find all kinds of ways to resist learning from their failures")

Uncommon Descent ^ | September 30, 2009 | Cornelius Hunter, Ph.D.

[GodGunsGuts]

It is interesting to see how evolutionists respond to failures of their theory. For all their talk of following the evidence and adjusting to new data, evolutionists find all kinds of ways to resist learning from their failures. Consider one of the major failures of evolution, its view of the very nature of biological change. Twentieth century evolutionary theory held that biological change is a rather simple process that is blind to the needs of the organism. As Julian Huxley, grandson of Darwin confidant T. H. Huxley, put it, mutations “occur without reference to their possible consequences or biological uses.”...

[GodGunsGuts]

Ping!

[Liberty1970]

I don’t see this issue (epigenetics) as so much of a creationist vs. evolutionist thing. It is a fascinating subject though, and deserves to see the light of day. For generations students have been told that the environment can’t affect genes, and that is now wrong, under certain instances. You can call it Lamarckism or something else, but the bottom line is that the old dogma of genetic immunity from the environment is wrong. Of course, the fact that these variations are able to occur according to a pre-programmed mechanism in the genetic code itself is interesting...

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[GodGunsGuts]

I think it is a creationist vs. evolutionist thing with respect to which one provides a better explanation for the same. The reductionistic evos missed the boat entirely, wherease Biblical Creation and ID can easily encorporate design features that allow organisms to adapt to changing environments. The evos made a similar mistake with respect to “junk” DNA, because neo-Darwinism’s reductionistic, gene-centered theory of evolution assumed that non-coding DNA had to be functionless junk leftover from our supposed evolutionary past. Now we know that the non-coding regions are either entirely or almost entirely functional...just as Creationist and ID scientists predicted.

[Liberty1970]

Good points. This is indeed a case of ‘higher order’ design embedded into the genetic code, which was itself well beyond what natural processes can explain.

[count-your-change]

Bit by bit Darwinism sinks. but does evidence matter?

Notice the last part of this excerpt:

“Science News Epigenetics: DNA Isn’t Everything
ScienceDaily (Apr. 13, 2009)

Environment affects inheritance
Researchers in a group led by Renato Paro, professor for Biosystems at the Department of Biosystems Science and Engineering (D-BSSE), crossed the flies for six generations. In this experiment, they were able to prove that the temperature treatment changes the eye colour of this specific strain of fly, and that the treated individual flies pass on the change to their offspring over several generations. However, the DNA sequence for the gene responsible for eye colour was proven to remain the same for white-eyed parents and red-eyed offspring.

Contradiction to Darwin?
Environmental factors, which change the characteristics of an individual and are then passed on to its offspring, do not really fit into Darwin’s theory of evolution. According to his theory, evolution is the result of the population and not the single individual. “Passing on the gained characteristics fits more to Lamarck’s theory of evolution”, says Paro.
However, he still does not believe Darwin’s theory of evolution is put into question by the evidence of epigenetics research. “Darwin was 100 percent right”, Paro emphasises. For him, epigenetics complement Darwin’s theory. In his view, new characteristics are generated and passed on via epigenetics, subject to the same mechanisms of evolution as those with a purely genetic origin.”