Max, who is a M.D., and has a Ph.d -- I'm not sure in what by I'll assume a hard science, is disputing positions by biochemist Dr. Duane Gish; peditrician Ross Olson and Dr. Lee Spetner.
Now, all four of these people know more about this subject than myself, and I strongly suspect everybody else on this thread.
The creationists argue that a beneficial mutation has never been observed in a human. Max says "so what" they happen in bacteria, and nobody ever had a reason to look for them in people, anyway. He does admit they are rare.
The creationists say mutations do not add information to the genome. Max says they do. Max publishes an interesting and fair account of a debate on the subject with Spetner here
The conclusion is nobody seems to knock anybody out. I would give the win to the creationists but that may be my bias.
I was impressed with Max. He agreed that "macro-evolution" has never been observed. I won't claim that "macro-evolution" is impossible or should be discounted.
I do believe quite strongly that random mutations and natural selection fail remarkably in explaining biodiversity.
One think I found humorous was that both sides used the phrase "straw man"
You might say that Edward E. Max wrote the book on Immunology, Immunopathology, and Immunity. For sure, Gish doesn't specialize in B-lymphocyte research and I gather neither does Olsen. From the article:
As described below, Gish has rejected the idea of somatic mutation of antibody genes, stating at a public debate with me that "a sick person would die" before high-affinity mutated antibodies could evolve. This claim reveals Gish's ignorance of immunology.More on the same exchange:
I challenged Gish to explain the flaws in these published experiments or to cite a single scientific study that contradicted them. As I expected, Gish could do neither; moreover, he could not offer any support for his claim that somatic mutation is controversial. I then lamented the fact that Dr. Gish could claim expertise in biochemistry and yet deny a phenomenon so important and well-accepted that it is taught to first-year biochemistry students; I had found discussions of antibody mutation in all five introductory biochemistry textbooks that I examined in a recent visit to a local bookstore. Gish responded that the question of antibody genes was a deep mystery and that anyone who solved it would get the Nobel prize. I then pointed out that a Nobel Prize had in fact been awarded to Susumu Tonegawa several years ago for exactly that achievement. Gish appeared to be ignorant not only of somatic mutation but also of the basic biochemistry of antibody genes that received considerable publicity in newspapers, magazines and TV when Tonegawa's award was announced.Gish likes to "win" debates by bamboozling the credulous faithful who pack his audiences. He opens his mouth and pops out with something like his responses above to answer the guy who makes his living studying the immune system. Joe Bozo in the crowd whoops with delight.
I haven't yet read through Spetner's debate with Max but Max's article is right on the money.
The creationists argue that a beneficial mutation has never been observed in a human. Max says "so what" they happen in bacteria, and nobody ever had a reason to look for them in people, anyway. He does admit they are rare.
I think he means they occur less commonly than harmful ones. But they're the ones that stick and spread, so they're what the genome tends to be made of: stuff that was historically an improvement at one point.
The conclusion is nobody seems to knock anybody out. I would give the win to the creationists but that may be my bias.
You also think gore's not doing too badly.
I was impressed with Max. He agreed that "macro-evolution" has never been observed.
I notice he's using "macro-evolution" at the level of perhaps taxonomic order. From the debate link:
I agree that there are no definitive examples where a macroevolutionary change (such as the development of cetaceans from terrestrial mammals) has been shown to result from a specific chain of mutations. And I agree with your further comment that "we have no way of observing a long series of mutations." But you go on to say that "our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist." An equally reasonable conclusion, in my view, would be that our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that such a series of mutations did NOT occur.We can't trace mutations in the genomes of any but the most recent fossils. You're impressed that he concedes that? OK. I'm not impressed when creationists want too much for the absence of certain kinds of evidence that could not possibly be expected to survive.
A magical creator can do anything, so no matter how someone else characterizes a C's position, the C can say, "That's not it! That's a strawman! God could have done it any number of other ways to account for anything you'll ever see."
By comparison, evolution is a fairly specific mechanism, a buildup of small changes which were good enough to prosper. It never ever says, for instance, that just the right new protein jumps together from loose amino acids all by itself.