Although I think his criticism is not very convincing. He again uses the mousetrap analogy where every part is required for it to function as intended. That's true but the error is to assume that it always was a mousetrap. More likely it was something else which through a minor change was capable of catching mice. Now this mechanism may have some redundant parts, but if one of these redundant parts breaks the whole mechanism still works but the remaining part becomes essential. Therefore it is highly unlikely that an evolved mousetrap looks in any way similar to the moustraps we know.
An other point is gene duplication. Of course he doesn't deny that gene duplication occurrs (like some other people who claim that no new information can be added to the genome) but his concern is that a duplicated gene can mutate in such a way that it produces a protein that is harmful to the organism. Well, what can I say but that this is true. It can indeed happen but it doesn't have to. If the newly mutated gene is detrimental then it is unlikely that this copy will be inherited.
Similarly some have difficulties with this whole gene duplication issue. They ask what mechanism prevents one copy of the gene to mutate and the other one to stay the same. Well, there is no mechanism that prevents one copy of the gene to mutate. It may mutate how ever it wants. The problem is whether it gets inherited or not if a change of this gene is detrimental. So as a result only those individuals live long enough to procreate (or are more succesful) who have an unchanged version of this gene.
The last paragraph of his essay also caught my attention. There he claims that:
There is another flaw with the "we never saw this" statement. Just because one has never seen a divine designer, doesn't automatically mean one does not exist. Unless there is reason to rule out the possibility of a designer for living species, then one is possible.As far as I know, no scientist claims this. Also I'm sure that no evolutionist or even atheist on FreeRepublic made this claim (Stultis also mentioned it). But this is the problem with a devine designer: there is nothing that can falsify this hypothesis. So the only thing that can be ruled out by some evidence is the necessity of a devine designer but not its existence.
I admit, I'm no biochemist but if someone who is more knowledgeable in this field may feel free to criticize my points or those of DiSilvestro.
| MOST OF THE genetic disorders featured on this web site are the direct result of a mutation in one gene. However, one of the most difficult problems ahead is to find out how genes contribute to diseases that have a complex pattern of inheritance, such as in the cases of diabetes, asthma, cancer and mental illness. In all these cases, no one gene has the yes/no power to say whether a person has a disease or not. It is likely that more than one mutation is required before the disease is manifest, and a number of genes may each make a subtle contribution to a person's susceptibility to a disease; genes may also affect how a person reacts to environmental factors. Unraveling these networks of events will undoubtedly be a challenge for some time to come, and will be amply assisted by the availability of the draft (and complete) sequence of the human genome. |
He attacks the scaffolding effect as "conjecture." Conjecture? Given that he also disallows a major line of evidence (interspecies comparative studies) as "begging the question," that's pretty cheap.
I agree, BMCDA.
More likely it was something else which through a minor change was capable of catching mice.
Exactly. He dismisses this option (co-option!) on the basis of incredulity.
An other point is gene duplication. Of course he doesn't deny that gene duplication occurrs ... his concern is that a duplicated gene can mutate in such a way that it produces a protein that is harmful to the organism.
This is really a red herring. Organisms generally die from mutations via loss of function.
The ID business is a strange phenomenon to me. If it's possible to tell if or how things are designed, there should be no way to say, look, here, the flagella is obviously designed because that seems so complex, (irriducibly so), but that snowflake over there is not obviously designed because that follows laws of physics that are already known. One can't be evidence of design while the other isn't.