Here is my response regarding why I do not hold evolution - Darwinian or otherwise - to be a tenable speculation, which is from a slightly different perspective; it should be considered additional to the points made by others, all of which I am in full agreement with.

The so called “Theory of Evolution” was first proposed by Darwin based on observable, physiological characteristics. This was seized upon as an escape from the dominance of religious thought, which had held that man was a being made, and thus owned, by a mystical God.

Some - a very few - fossilized remains of human-like bones were found, and the “flow-chart” constructed which fitted the theory. Basically, the theory was, in order to explain similarities of form across species, the various species must have had a common ancestor and then “diverged” in small but cumulative ways. It was a neat story. And there are some small ways it does work—but only within species. As an explanation for the variety of species, and for the origins of the existence of man, it is thus far an unproved and unprovable hypothesis.

The fossil record theory of evolution had to rely on a few scattered bones for its evidence, from geological strata dating back 4 million years. Very little—relatively speaking—has been discovered, the majority of which are scattered bones from which final body shapes have had to be reconstructed. The evidence is scanty. The famed paleontologist, Richard Leakey said that if all the bones we had were put together in one room, they'd barely cover a couple of large trestle tables. However, with the discovery that the genome was the conveyer of hereditary material, came the “link” that paleontologists were looking for. DNA carries the information for the amino acid content of proteins and triglycerides of lipids which make up the enzymes, organs and structure of the body. Minor physical variations which were passed on to offspring within species were discovered by Mendel, and rediscovered in the early 20th Century (Mendel's work was largely ignored since no one could understand it, and it was assumed to be either wrong or faked—an attitude which persists in science and academia to this day!!). Using simple crosses, these variations could be linked to genome diversity, later discovered to be variations in DNA content and information.

This is where the major error was made. Information regarding genetics was linked to known anatomy and physiology, and assumed to be direct. In other words, the genes provided the information for the structure of the human form, different humanoid forms had been found and posited to have arisen from previous forms, with humans and apes having arisen from a common ancestor, and all animal life having sprung from the same set of cells with accumulated random errors in the DNA inherited by offspring the means of transmitting that variability.

1. Point mutation. This is when damage to the DNA from external sources such as radiation, or cellular aging, the DNA changes one of its base pairs, thus changing the code from one amino acid to another. Almost always this is deleterious.

2. Recombination. This occurs when DNA from one part of the genome breaks away and rejoins at another part of the genome. It is more regularly and frequently an event in all genomes, prokaryote and eukaryote, as small sections of DNA are exchanged between chromosomes during the phases of cell division, usually being either neutral in effect or deleterious as in Philadelphia 21, which leads to Chronic Myloid Leukemia.

3. Transposition. Small fragments of DNA known as transposons are able to “lift” fragments of DNA and transport them, in the case of bacteria into a different cell via plasmids and viruses, or in the few eukaryotes found to have them ie. Drosophila, around the cell genome.

4. Re-assortment. Possession by eukaryotic cells of two pairs of genetic information which separate randomly in cell division and then pair with the opposite from the second parent during fertilization.

Since evolution posits that changes are acquired and passed on to offspring, only changes in the germ line DNA, i.e. sperm and ova, have any significance. Changes to somatic cells are irrelevant to the theory.

Bacteria have been studied extensively for years. They have a single, looped genome, which has been fully analyzed. With a short life span [E. coli) under optimal conditions reproduces in 20 mins] they are ideal for examining generational changes. Many can swap DNA very fast, as the spread of antibiotic resistance genes demonstrates. In spite of years of treatments and environmental changes, alterations to genomes, spread of genes via phages, plasmids, transposons, no bacteria has ever shown any sign of any characteristics of anything but itself. Even bacterial types, eg. staphylococcus, tuberculosis, streptococcus, do not change into one another.

The most extensively studied eukaryote is the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster. With only 4 chromosomes and a reproductive cycle of 7 days, they have made an excellent tool for investigation. Used since 1910, when T. H. Morgan first started modern genetics with them, we have been able to study 4,940 generations. (If we assign 15 years as an arbitrary generational time for humans this is the human equivalent of looking back 74,100 years).

Drosophila, over this time have been exposed to just about every sort of mutant generator. Mutations have been found for almost all characteristics, the wings, color, eyes, thorax components, and many more. Certain genes that convey rapid mutations have been isolated. Drosophila come in every wing shape (including wingless), color and twisted up contorted variety. But in all this time, they have never shown any indication of being anything other than D. melanogaster.

There are reasons why Drosophila is more likely than humans to express an evolutionary change—they have less DNA to be changed. With only 4 chromosomes compared to humans 22, there is a smaller “target” area.

Moreover, they have transposons, which can move DNA rapidly around the cell. Humans have no transposons, and have to rely on point mutation, re-assortment and recombination. However, there is even here a difficulty. Females form their ovaries and ova while they are still themselves embryos. At birth, all of a females reproductive capacity is already “in place”. Ovaries are buried deeply, not easily exposed to environmental assault, and each ova has partially completed its cycle to final stages of release ready for fertilization. We have a better chance with males, whose sperm are made freshly and frequently, in very large amounts, and whose organ of construction is more exposed to the environment. But this means the chances of genetic mutation are halved to only one of the two needed to produce new generations.

Most mutations are deleterious, those that are not are usually neutral (for example, brown eyes to blue).

Because only one parent will be carrying the chance arisen genetic variant, it must be dominant in its expression, that is, it is expressed in the phenotype in preference to the original gene carried by the other non-mutant bearing parent. In most cases, the mutant form is recessive (again, brown eyes to blue).

There is a dilution effect. Down generations, a single mutation, which may gain expression in 100% offspring in the F1 cross, will gain less expression in the F2 as the offspring reproduce with partners without the mutant form and genetic reassortment of chromosomes will produce offspring not carrying the mutant variant. [From this, of course, comes the claim of every observed trait being evidence that we have all arisen from the same cell, female etc. If it was acknowledged cross fertilization with individuals not carrying strain occurs, we are looking at dilution. However, if we all arose from incestuous crossings among siblings, there is more chance of the trait becoming more present in a population].

From plants, prokaryotes, simple single celled organisms, and more complex organisms all studied extensively, forcibly mutated, crossed and re-crossed with selected mates, the only variation ever seen is always within the species. No specie has been seen to change into the beginnings of another.

The theory claims that the selective pressure for a species to change is survival. However, the problem with this is that species survival is directly related to the ability to produce more offspring in the face of the challenge. This means that a change has to occur quickly, yet the theory states that changes are slow, over millennia.

If the theories claim that changes occur but lie dormant until selection favors them, we have to ask how and why changes of complexity which require the entire change to be present occur, and why should they, when the organism was obviously surviving well enough. An example is that of certain insects which when clustered look like a flower. Co-ordinated changes all must occur at the same time, for each insect which carries the different colors and shapes to produce its part of the jigsaw. Given that the insects were obviously surviving well enough to produce these changes—slowly over time according to the evolutionists, we have to assume they were surviving well enough as they were in order to have got to that point. So, why would they change, and how would such a complex change occur by "random mutations"?

The issue of complexity is knotty problem for classical evolutionists. Quite apart from the frequently cited case of the mammalian eye, all aspects of which need to be in place to work, we can simply consider that of the working cell itself. Let’s look at DNA transcription to produce a protein. The correct DNA sequence must be in place. The mRNA must have been produced correctly by its DNA, and be in place; the tRNA—a different one for each amino acid—must have been correctly transcribed and formed; and the ribosomes—both units must have been correctly transcribed and their tertiary structure formed and the enzymes involved must all be present and active. The ATP pump must be working to provide the energy required. The correct solution of salts and trace elements must be present and at exactly the correct pH. The cellular pool must have all components for each amino acid present.

And this is just to form one simple protein. To suggest a small change in one gene can bring about major changes in the entire organism, in the face of such complexity beggars belief.

But there is another major problem which those who linked genetics to paleontology seem not to understand.

To return to the protein, once all the amino acids are linking into the chain, this is only the first stage. The protein then takes a tertiary conformation. Almost all proteins form an alpha-helix. Since a helix can twist right (d) or left (l) in theory this could be either. In fact, apart from a very few rare instances, all proteins are left helices. This tertiary folding is dependent, not only on the amino acids being present in the correct order, but the molecular shape and charge of the amino acids, the liquid environment the protein is suspended in, and the presence of various trace elements and minerals. Since all proteins take a (l)-alpha helix, we are left facing the conclusion that the shape, the three dimensional attribute, is something which the environment the protein is in forces on it, and that there is only one shape available to proteins because of this constraint.

The issue of tertiary structure is found in DNA, which is not linear, as the diagrams represent, but forms a twisting, twisted and twined shape manipulation of which is essential for genetic transcription and recombination to occur.

Developmental biology asks, "what makes the final body shape?" Why an elbow? How come a knee? What rounds a heel, gives a liver the exact shape and conformation it does? And the answer is, we do not know. We do know of certain complexes of gene groups which contribute certain factors involved in the skeleton, largely because of the altered effects seen when the genes are altered. The products of some of these genes, acting in concert with a multiplicity of other factors, does play a part in at least providing the cellular components required to form a developing limb bud, cranium and jaw structure. However, many of the experiments which claim an ‘effectiveness” are simply noting the presence of an essentially toxic compound useless to the body, and a malformation, as the Hox1a gene associated with slightly mal-formed hands and feet of those carrying the variant (very very rare). This does not, of itself, prove the Hox box does in fact control limb structure, since the product of the mutant gene is a shortened form of the required protein, therefore unrecognizable to the body and possibly treated as many other toxic elements are and consigned to the furthest limbs. There is some other, more positive evidence, which does support the contention that the Hox box provides some of the requirements for limb bud formation in the developing embryo up to the 12 week gestation. However, although it provides the limb bud, there is no evidence that this directs and controls the final shape, ie the anatomy of the limb.

There is no genetic evidence which demonstrates the final skeletal form is purely and solely genetically driven. And the skeletal form is the basis of all of paleontology. The evolutionists are in fact basing their entire "theory" on a mistaken link—that of genetics with skeletal form.

Ultimately, there is far too much complexity to the living cell, plant and animal, for single changes to do much other than contribute to likely elimination of the individual carrying the mutation. To suggest a single mutation can so affect an entire species is like suggesting that the fruit seller at the gates of a vast and complex industrial city can significantly affect the entire city by altering where he is standing by a few feet.!!

It is stated by scientists today, that either humans "evolved" from previous, different animals by random mutations in DNA, or we were made by a God. It is never considered that both may be wrong, and there could be other explanations for speciation, a different explanation for the "fossil record." This is due as much to the blind virtually religious fervor of evolutionists as to the same religious dogmatism of the creationists. If one does not accept that something is possible, one does not, after all, go looking for it.

I would like to propose (this should be called the Hewitt Conjecture !!) that it is perfectly possible the reason shape is largely conserved across species, and has stayed so for millions of years, is the same as that which directs tertiary formation of proteins. That it is a combination of factors, including the environment which the forms develop in, which directs the final shape, and that the shape found in all animals, (with a series of minor variations) is so, not because of “descent” from a common ancestor, but because in the environment of this world, it cannot take another. That the fact that this is a water and air based planet, that all living things are made of carbon, with some hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen thrown in, the combination of molecular shapes and charges, pH, salts, trace elements and minerals, water, temperature, gas pressures and many more, combine to effect the developing animal such that the final tertiary structure cannot be anything other than what it is, and which in almost all cases conforms to the same basic shape.

I suggest that the animal forms we see now have always existed as they do, but have minor variations within species, which can arise from a variety of sources, largely genetic recombination, and which has the effect of allowing specie continuity in the face of minor environmental changes, such as the case of pale and dark moths on trees darkened by industrial smoke pollution. It is interesting to note that the vast majority of sea dwelling animals, including the mammals, have an overall "fish" structure. The starfish and octopi are minimally represented.

There is one final point. The fossil record is not as sequential as paleontologists represent it. Fossil remains have been found "out of sequence" in the time scale and are either ignored or written off as "aberrances, or washdowns."

And fossil remains have been found in strata dated at millions of years old; they are identical to Homo sapiens sapiens. That is, us. Hundreds of examples exist. Mary Leakey, of Olduvai Gorge fame, claimed to have found a footprint identical in every respect to that of modern man, in strata identified as being 3.6 million years old. A huge variety of human artefacts, flint tools and bones identical to homo sapiens sapiens have been found in strata confidendently dated to the mid-Pliocene - 3.5 million years ago. A Professor of Geology found, in the lower Pliocene strata of Castelnodolo, near Brescia, a complete human skeleton indistinguishable from that of a modern woman. The staining in the bones, the depth and number of different strata above the skeleton and its position made it very highly unlikely it could have been a more recent burial. The inescapable conclusion is that this speciment of homo sapiens sapiens was walking around 3.5 million years ago.

Why are these facts so ignored? Because, in the words of a noted evolutionist, Professor R.A. Macalister, in 1921, "this implies a long standstill for evolution which is contrary to Darwin's theory, and therefor must be disallowed..." We will of course, overlook the sharks, which haven't changed for 150 million years !! A flat contradiction of the "fossil record" and evolution......but which never gets addressed by evolutionists. Wonder why?

Pamela Hewitt is a freelance writer/journalist living in Fremantle, Australia. She is also a medical professional, with a background in genetic research. You may contact Pamela via the Independent Individualist.

All education is discipleship.
Secular Humanists, actual signers of the Secular Humanist Manifesto, which refers to SH AS A RELIGION, were also instrumental in establishing the public school system.

Stats show that 75-88 percent of kids who grew up in Christian households, but were “publically educated”, lose their faith by their sophomore year of college. This is by design, as they are exposed to 14000 hours of proselytizing by the secular humanist “priests” of the public school system.

On the other hand, 94% of homeschooled kids KEEP their faith all the way through college. Thank GOD for homeschooling, and that someone was inspired to form the HSLDA before the ACLU saw the “threat” to their religion.

And should Engineers accept advice from non-Engineers about Engineering?

Should Doctors accept that non medical professionals health advice is just as good?

Post-modernism is ludicrous.

The author made an appeal to authority that they obviously do not posses, and made claims which are obviously incorrect.

I have no disrespect for a layman in a subject, and much respect for a well educated layman in a subject (it usually takes more work to learn it on your own).

But when someone is nothing more than an ill educated layman, and makes an appeal to authority about being some ‘medical professional’ I must point out that changing bed pans and putting catheters in someones urethra doesn't qualify them to make pronouncements in Science.

Outside knowledge might well make them qualified to discuss the evidence, but apparently the author got their Evolution “education” from Creationists talking points.

Fist of all, evolution is not at theory. It is a hypothesis. People who do not understand the nature of science do not ususally understand the difference. A hypothesis cannot be a theory until it has been proven, and so long as there is more than one hypothesis, as there is for evolution, none are theories.

Perhaps it is you who does not understand the nature of science.

All science is tentative, and nothing is ever proved! No theory, not germ theory, not the theory of gravitation, not a one is proved! Your statement denigrating the theory of evolution, and reducing it to an hypothesis because it hasn't been "proved" is simply incorrect and brings into serious question your knowledge of science and its methods.

The theory of evolution is a theory, and has been for a long time. Calling it an hypothesis does not make it one.

See the definitions on my FR home page.

Actually, MUCH in science is "proven", using scientific method and repeatable tests/demonstrations.

It's THEORIES which are not "proven" because they CANNOT be readily demonstrated on a repeatable basis. Things such as darwminism, which is based soley on assumption and inference, not scientifically verifiable fact, CLEARLY fall into the hypothesis/theory category.

Evolution does NOT happen every day; in fact, it DOESN'T happen. I do not consider "natural selection" within a species to be evolution. No short-hair, low body fat wild dogs in arctic climates is perfectly logical, but it is in no way evolution!

“And should Engineers accept advice from non-Engineers about Engineering?”

If it’s useful, YES!

There is an old story, based on a true incident, about such advice:

A big moving van took a wrong turn in town and ended up traveling on a road with an overpass with low clearance. The truck struck the bridge hard and was jammed tightly, with several feet of the van crushed into the bridge. Wreckers were called but were of no avail; firetrucks, cranes were tried, but because of the terrain and orientation of the van, could not do much. The next thing to be tried was to be the cutting away the upper part of the van by blowtorch.
While the emergency teams were waiting for the welders, one of the children amongst the bystanders asked a policeman on the scene: “Why don’t they just let the air out of the tires?” Which of course worked.

The moral of this story is obvious and the answer to your questions in your post.
Having said that, I too, think this article is poorly written, and not at all convincing.

Dolphin reveals an extra set of ‘legs’

Scientists say fins may represent throwback to ancient land-dwelling ways

FREE VIDEO

Nov. 6: A bottlenose dolphin has two sets of fins. Researchers say it is fresh evidence that ocean-dwelling mammals may have once lived on land. MSNBC.com's Dara Brown reports.

MSNBC.com

By Hiroko Tabuchi

updated 3:44 p.m. ET Nov. 6, 2006

TOKYO - Japanese researchers said Sunday that a bottlenose dolphin captured last month has an extra set of fins that could be the remains of hind legs, a discovery that may provide further evidence that ocean-dwelling mammals once lived on land.

Fishermen captured the four-finned dolphin alive off the coast of Wakayama prefecture in western Japan on Oct. 28, and alerted the nearby Taiji Whaling Museum, according to museum director Katsuki Hayashi.

Fossil remains show dolphins and whales were four-footed land animals about 50 million years ago and share the same common ancestor as hippos and deer. Scientists believe they later transitioned to an aquatic lifestyle and their hind limbs disappeared.

Whale and dolphin fetuses also show signs of hind protrusions but these generally disappear before birth.

Though odd-shaped protrusions have been found near the tails of dolphins and whales captured in the past, researchers say this was the first time one had been found with well-developed, symmetrical fins, Hayashi said.

This photo, released by the Taiji Whale Museum, highlights the extra set of fins. The tail is being held by a diver whose hand is visible at upper left.

"I believe the fins may be remains from the time when dolphins' ancient ancestors lived on land ... this is an unprecedented discovery," Seiji Osumi, an adviser at Tokyo's Institute of Cetacean Research, said at a news conference televised Sunday.

The second set of fins — much smaller than the dolphin's front fins — are about the size of human hands and protrude from near the tail on the dolphin's underside. The dolphin measures 8.92 feet (2.7 meters) and is about five years old, according to the museum.

Hayashi said he could not tell from watching the dolphin swim in a musuem tank whether it used its back fins to maneuver.

A freak mutation may have caused the ancient trait to reassert itself, Osumi said. The dolphin will be kept at the Taiji museum to undergo X-ray and DNA tests, according to Hayashi.

Click for related content

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15581204/

I love these evolutionary fairy tales.

“Dolphin reveals an extra set of ‘legs’
Scientists say fins may represent throwback to ancient land-dwelling ways”

Sure I’ll swallow that.

But, why not say:

Scientists say fins represent evolutionary reversal. Dolphins are evolving back into land animals.

Do they believe in evolution or not? Either could be the case, which means neither is science—just stuff they make up.

Hank

"Sorry but you don’t get to define the terms used in Science."

A a matter of fact, I don't have to; the definitions are firmly in place and HAVE been for much longer than either you or I have been alive.

I'm a graduate engineer and have been working within the tenants of science and logic for decades. It's part of what makes it so easy for me to see that the false religion of darwinism is merely inference and assumption.

It really looks to me like YOU are trying to change the rules, which is something I would expect of someone in a losing position (like a liberal, socialist democrat, or a global warming wacko or .....).

No offense meant; just wondering.

Engineers are not Scientists. I am a Scientist. You do not get to define the terms used in Science. Scientists have already done so a long time ago.

Evolution is not a religion, I am quite happy with the religion I have, it is called Christianity; perhaps you have heard of it. Evolution is a Scientific theory, as much as your ignorant view of actual Science may oppose that statement of clear fact.

A losing position? Isn't some posters tag line “Evolution; a doomed theory since 1865”? Yeah, shelf after shelf of journals on Molecular Evolution, Paleontology, and Genetics; all confirming Darwin's elegant theory of natural selection of genetic variation; and it is a losing position! Thanks for the laugh. If this is losing I wonder what victory would look like. You have shown your cognitive dissonance for all to see, you have little grasp of what Science is and what the reality of Scientific thought on the subject entails.

I would like to propose ... That it is a combination of factors, including the environment which the forms develop in, which directs the final shape, and that the shape found in all animals, (with a series of minor variations) is so, not because of “descent” from a common ancestor, but because in the environment of this world, it cannot take another.

So there is no interaction between DNA, RNA, or biochemistry in general but "a combination of factors including the environment" that directs organic macroscopic form? Is she kidding? How is this any different from just saying that it's Natural Selection?

She needs to seriously read up on the latest RNA research

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.