Leaving Bones on the Plate - What Not to Accept About Darwinism

NewCreationism.org ^ | 1/17/03 | Kevin Miller

[CalConservative]

Leaving Bones on the Plate "What not to accept about Darwinism" By Kevin Miller Darwinism is a wonderful concept that has the ability to explain a great deal of biological reality. However, it is becoming clear to many that the applicable domain of Darwinism is not quite as broad as once thought. Like Newtonian physics which struggled with accomdating Maxwell's theory of electro-magnetism, Darwinism is handicapped in explaining the complex and highly specified information found in living organisms. (1) It is a theory that is less than complete. Now not everyone agrees with that statement and there's quite a bit of intellectual inertia in accepting the limits of Darwinism. Darwinists feel that there's real evidence for evolution and that their belief in the theory is not only justified - but required. It's natural then to ask what leads one to have such confidence in the theory of evolution? Part of the answer is seen in the simplicity and appeal of the following reasoning process: "Micro-evolutionary changes are observed. Over vast periods of time, the smaller changes lead to larger changes and *presto-chango*, we have macro-evolution which explains the existence of all of the varied life forms on planet Earth. "   However, non-evolutionists fail to make the mental "jump" necessary to believe that small changes accumulate to large changes. One reason for this doubt has to do with a fundamental truth regarding complex systems. In a complex system, there is a direct correlation relationship between the size of any change and the number of requirements that that change must satisfy. Simply put, small changes are "easy" because they don't affect several different other parts of a given system.  And large changes are "hard" because they require the coordinated change of several other components of a given system. Consider the task of changing your oil filter versus that of changing the crankshaft on a car. The point should be clear. All changes are NOT created equal.  So there we have it - evolutionists have experimental evidence for minor changes and extrapolation, and creationists have theoretical and mathematical rationale to support their position. This is indeed the crux of the matter at hand. Can micro-evolutionary changes lead to macro-evolutionary changes? Can entirely new complex functions and features be caused by the mechanism of natural selection and random mutations even though probability theory seems to suggest otherwise? For the origins scientist, any evidence that could settle this debate once and for all has become highly sought after. The other day I ran across a "pro-evolution" website that pointed to a study that the author thought tipped the scales in favor of Darwinism. The author highlighted the good work by a team of molecular biologists that traced the evolution of the anti-freeze glycoprotein gene in Anartic notothenioid fish. (2)  He then used this reference as evidence that Darwinism could explain the origin of complex and highly specified information in living organisms. Interestingly  enough however, I read the same paper and came to a different conclusion. The Article In reading the abstract there was one statement that immediately caught my attention. It read "[t]he notothenioid trypsinogen to AFGP conversion is the first clear example of how an old protein gene spawned a new gene for an entirely new protein with a new function." I immediately thought to myself that this work could be the evidence that creationists have been demanding of evolutionists - a reasonable sequence of microbiological steps demonstrating the evolution of an entirely new and complex function.   A New Gene, a New Protein, and a New Function According to the study, the coding and non-coding nucleotides for the antifreeze glycoprotein gene share a 93-96% similiarity with those for the pancreatic trypsinogen gene. The authors make a fairly convincing argument that over the course of time this new gene has evolved through separate gene recruitment and duplication events. And according to molecular clock analysis this new gene arrived on the scene between 5 and 14 milliion years ago - perhaps coinciding with an environmental temperature affecting event. The new gene codes for a protein that circulates in the blood and has the physical properties to bind to any ice crystals, arresting further growth. This allows the fish to survive in water temperatures as low as -1.9 degrees C whereas the typical freezing temperature of most fish species is -0.7 degrees C. Fish with these antifreeze genes would naturally be selected for when water temperatures in a particular region dropped. "ID" Colored Glasses The kind of evolution that this article describes is micro-evolution. First, this study does not demonstrate the efficacy of Darwinism to generate significant amounts of genetic information. As pointed out above, the nucleotides between the gene under study and it's ancestor are very similar.(3) Second, the new function being discussed may be interesting from a mechanic's perspective, but isn't necessarily highly complex, especially when compared to other biological systems/features. (4) And lastly, the function is not highly specified because there are several other proteins that can accomplish the same job (5). In fact, various antifreeze proteins appear in a wide variety of fish such as flounder, herring, and smelt and due to stark molecular differences are thought to have evolved in independent fashion multiple times. Final Thoughts In conclusion, Darwinism will go a long way in explaining simple adaptations that have occurred in biological history and still occur today. The evolutionary analysis performed by the team that traced the origins of the glycoprotein gene was stellar and this type of work should continue unfettered. However, we must realize that fundamentally a change engine driven by random mechanism and natural selection is incapable of explaining many of the very complex features found in living organisms.(1) Thus, the final prescription is as follows - let's eat the meat, and leave the rest behind. References 1 - No Free Lunch by William Dembski 2 - Evolution of anitfreeze glycoprotein gene from a trypsinogen gene in Antarctic notothenoid fish Liangbiao Chen, Arthur L. DeVries, and Chi-Hing C.Cheng  Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 94 April 1997 3 - This begs the question where did the information for the trypsinogen gene come from.  Darwinism is very capable of taking already existing specified complex and shifting it around because this happens without a significant net increase in information.  4 - Consider the bacterial flagella described in Behe's Darwin's Black Box which requires about 40 proteins. 5 - http://www.afprotein.com/table.htm

[CalConservative]

We keep seeing re-hashes of the mechanisms for variations within species, but where is the evidence for macro-evolutionary changes?

[stanz]

Ping...from NewCreationism.org

[Bogey78O]

Exactly. Just like the astrophysicists who claim without evidence about suns going supernova. It's all just a weak theory.

[Tribune7]

Good article.

[AntiGuv]

We keep seeing re-hashes of the mechanisms for variations within species, but where is the evidence for macro-evolutionary changes?

We keep seeing re-hashes of the mechanisms for divine creation, but where is the evidence for mythological origins?

Before one jettisons evolution, one must have an alternative exegesis with at least some vague semblance of empirical evidence. That we do not have.

If you're up for a mental task, read back through the article and insert "creationism" for "Darwinism" (along with associated alterations). Might be an eye-opener. Indeed, you might find that the hypothetical What not to accept about Creationism alternative comes together in a much more effortless and sensible fashion.

Flame suit on...

[thinktwice]

I'm of the opinion that creationists and evolutionists are both right.

Some transcendental operation beyond human comprehension -- creation -- got things started, and then evolution kicked in to bring us up to where we are now.

[Buckeye Bomber]

I don't see this article as being especially well-written, nor was it peer-reviewed. Once this gets into a biology journal, bounces around for a few years, and perhaps makes it into accepted science, then come back to me.

Creationists are finding it harder and harder to stick to their guns, so they come up with this "Old Earth Creationism". Whatever. Science is looking at the fingerprint of God. The Bible is religious TRUTH, not scientific fact. Religion didn't collapse when helio-centrism became the accepted theory. It will survive the acceptance of dissent with modification also. Why? Because the fact is, Jesus didn't come to tell us how the Earth was created. He came to tell us how to join Him and God in heaven. THAT is the important truth of the world.

[Camber-G]

Just bookmarking in case this turns into another 500+ response kook fest for entertainment purposes later.

[jz638]

I'm of the opinion that creationists and evolutionists are both right.

This isn't as hard as it sounds. One describes the "why", the other describes the "how".

[LiteKeeper]

It doesn't exist...it's that simple.

[AntiGuv]

Hmmm.. Obviously enough, the fact that something clearly doesn't exist makes little difference as to whether a great many people believe in its existence...

[Finny]

Oh, man, you guys, you dont' know what it means to me to read your posts! I thought I was the only one!

For the life of me, I've never been able to figure out the extreme hostility so many Christians have toward the function of natural selection. To me, the hand of God is so apparent in how we got here over millions of years, even down to Genesis saying that God made us out of mud. Interpreting the bible literally, as a geological textbook, is crazy. The bible is a manual -- a manual of how to live properly. When civilizations ignore the laws of God, they struggle; they experience strife, disease, misery, cruelty. Eventually, they perish.

This may sound really crazy, and I expect to be flamed by posters (though I hope not by God!), but the essential gist of what people call Darwinism, is that lifeforms either adapt to changing environments, or they perish. I love the symmetry of how God has worked this, because in the physical side, the planet changes over tens of millions of years, and creatures adapt to those changes or perish; in the spiritual side, societies change over time, but if those societies do not adapt themselves to the set laws of God, they perish. I believe that Western Civilization is in danger of perishing now, because we think that God's laws are arbitrary and can be ignored; on the contrary, God's laws are as immutable as His physical laws, such as gravity and chemistry. A person would be a fool to jump off a building and say, 'I don't like the law of gravity, so I'll just ignore it.' The laws of gravity is immutable. Same with God's spirital laws. We think we can ignore them, but we do so at our peril -- vanished civilizations prove it.

That we evolved through primates under the hand and direction of God I do believe absolutely because of the evidence God had given us the ability to see and interpret; we are made in God's image -- perhaps our growth and change on this earthly plane reflects a similar growth and change that God experienced, as well, and since we are made in His image, it's His way of showing it to us. To me it's the heighth of arrogance for people to dismiss the observations of intelligent, honest, good men, and deem evolution as outside of God. Who are they to say how God has and has not worked His wonders? Might even this very long-term path from mud to our present state, be a way in which we experience one aspect of Eternal Life? In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were forbidden Fruit from the Tree of Knowldege of Good and Evil, not knowledge of the world around us, the history of the earth, physics, music, etc. I don't recall reading anywhere that anyone was forbidden Fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Math or Biology. I've always thought that is significant.

Darwin, who (contrary to popular myth) was a devout Christian (married to his first cousin, incidentally!) was very troubled by what he discovered in his studies of lifeforms the world over, because he knew that the evidence flew in the face of conventional interpretation of the Bible's geological history. It's been about 150 years since Darwin made his discoveries, based on observations in God's world, that he could not ignore. The world is STILL reeling from it.

The Bible is a manual, an instruction book, a guide book, thank God, given to us so that we can pursue our destiny with success. Yet in both the physical world and in the spirital one, we must adapt to the rules -- or perish.

I see the consistent hand of God in evolution.

[Erasmus]

Like Newtonian physics which struggled with accomdating Maxwell's theory of electro-magnetism, Darwinism is handicapped in explaining the complex and highly specified information found in living organisms.

It would be nice for this guy to leave science to the scientists.

[PatrickHenry]

This is the third -- at least -- article that has been copied from a creationist website (in the last week or two) and dumped into FreeRepublic. I've seen this kind of compulsive behavior before. I have no objection if someone finds a serious point in one of these articles and provides a link to it, or provides a reasonably-sized excerpt, but this technique of turning FreeRepublic into a creationist's core dump is an abuse of Jim Robinson's limited resources.

[AndrewC]

The articles are posted here to discuss. If you don't wish to participate then don't. Articles from "Nature" are posted here for discussion in the same way. Those that don't wish to comment don't comment on those either.

[gore3000]

This is the third -- at least -- article that has been copied from a creationist website

So what? You guys dump garbage from TalkOrigins, and absolute non-scientific junk from all over the place on these threads. As usual, you cannot discuss the issues, you cannot refute the statements so you attack the source with ad hominems. Refute the article if it is false. You cannot do that since you are just an uneducated fool that in spite of years on these threads putting down 'placemarkers' have not learned anything about the issues or science involved.

[gore3000]

Before one jettisons evolution, one must have an alternative exegesis with at least some vague semblance of empirical evidence.

There is. It is called intelligent design. It proposes that all parts of an organism are closely related and intertwined with each other. It is this that scientists, real scientists trying to find cures for real ailments, trying to discover medicines, trying to discover how our bodies work, are working on now and have been working on for over a decade.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[scripter]

However, we must realize that fundamentally a change engine driven by random mechanism and natural selection is incapable of explaining many of the very complex features found in living organisms.

Worth repeating.

[scripter]

Thanks for the ping.