Mutations do not produce real change

[nebula]

From: The Impotence of Darwinism

Written by Dr. Ray Bohlin

<snip>

Mutations Do Not Produce Real Change

While most evolutionists will acknowledge that there are limits to change, they insist that natural selection is not sufficient without a continual source of variation. In the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis, mutations of all sorts fill that role. These mutations fall into two main categories: mutations to structural genes and mutations to developmental genes. I will define structural genes as those which code for a protein which performs a maintenance, metabolic, support, or specialized function in the cell. Developmental genes influence specific tasks in embryological development, and therefore can change the morphology or actual appearance of an organism.

Most evolutionary studies have focused on mutations in structural genes. But in order for large scale changes to happen, mutations in developmental genes must be explored. Says Scott Gilbert:

"To study large changes in evolution, biologists needed to look for changes in the regulatory genes that make the embryo, not just in the structural genes that provide fitness within populations."{6}

<snip>

What I have been describing so far is what is often referred to as microevolution. Evolutionists have basically assumed that the well-documented processes of microevolution eventually produce macroevolutionary changes given enough time. But this has been coming under greater scrutiny lately, even by evolutionists. There appears to be a real discontinuity between microevolution and the kind of change necessary to turn an amoeba-like organism into a fish, even over hundreds of millions of years.

Below is just a quick sampling of comments and musings from the current literature.

"One of the oldest problems in evolutionary biology remains largely unsolved. . . . historically, the neo-Darwinian synthesizers stressed the predominance of micromutations in evolution, whereas others noted the similarities between some dramatic mutations and evolutionary transitions to argue for macromutationism."{9}

"A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (microevolution) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life's history (macroevolution)."{10}

"A persistent debate in evolutionary biology is one over the continuity of microevolution and macroevolution — whether macroevolutionary trends are governed by the principles of microevolution."{11}

While each of the above authors does not question evolution directly, they are questioning whether what we have been studying all these years, microevolution, has anything to do with the more important question of what leads to macroevolution. And if microevolution is not the process, then what is?

Natural Selection Does Not Produce New Body Plans

The fundamental question which needs addressing is, How have we come to have sponges, starfish, cockroaches, butterflies, eels, frogs, woodpeckers, and humans from single cell beginnings with no design, purpose or plan? All the above listed organisms have very different body plans. A body plan simply describes how an organism is put together. So can we discover just how all these different body plans can arise by mutation and natural selection? This is a far bigger and more difficult problem than antibiotic resistance, a mere biochemical change. Now we have to consider just how morphological change comes about.

The problem of macroevolution requires developmental mutations. Simply changing a protein here and there won't do it. We somehow have to change how the organism is built. Structural genes tend to have little effect on the development of a body plan. But the genes that control development and ultimately influence the body plan tend to find their expression quite early in development. But this is a problem because the developing embryo is quite sensitive to early developmental mutations.

<snip>

But these are the mutations needed for altering body plans. However, evolutionists for decades have been studying the wrong mutations. Those dealing with structural genes, microevolution, only deal with how organisms survive as they are, it doesn't tell us how they got to be the way they are.

<snip>

To sum up the current dilemma, significant morphological change requires early developmental mutations. But these mutations are nearly universally disadvantageous. And microevolution, despite its presence in textbooks as proof of evolution, actually tells us precious little about the evolutionary process.

Read the whole article here

[Guest]

[~candice~]

Fascinating, thanks for sharing Neb.

[nebula]

I would like to hear discussion on what he says about natural selection and it's inability to give rise to the developmental mutations required for one organism giving rise to another organism with completely different features (anatomical and/or physiological)?

[winsomebulldog]

A growing number of scientists and philosophers are saying with greater confidence that Darwinism, as a mode of explaining all of life, is failing and failing badly.

These scientists would be........?

Probably more philosophers that scientists. Philosophers are allowed to argue about everything without needing to prove anything.

The fact is that scientists who doubt evolution are < 0.2 % of the total, which is ridiculously small. There are probably more scientists who doubt the big bang or believe the earth is flat.

Ciao

- viole

As a response to a question asking for evidence (ie. specific names) this is even more poorly offered than the original statement. You have tossed out a number, implying that it is definitive, yet you have not offered any actually evidence. Please, provide some kind of link that can show us where there is evidence of a broad poll of the entire scientific community that indicates < 0.2% of all scientists have questions about the effectiveness of Darwinism as an explanation for all life.

As to your suggestion that doubting the Big Bang would be perhaps more common, I can only say that you are likely right. At least in that it is beginning to be a bit of an issue among those in the field that the Big Bang has more than a few holes in it, as theories go.

I'm not saying I necessarily support whatever these sites claim, but it is a fact that there is significant debate in the scientific community about the validity of the Big Bang.

http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp

http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/big-bang-theory7.htm

I'll assume your comment about the earth being flat is mere sarcasm.

[Valoran]

I would like to hear discussion on what he says about natural selection and it's inability to give rise to the developmental mutations required for one organism giving rise to another organism with completely different features (anatomical and/or physiological)?

What exactly is there to discuss?

The article is simply the same old assertion of "macroevolution is impossible!" expanded and fleshed out with pseudoscientific babbling in order to give it a semblance of credibility. I read through the entire article, and honestly failed to find a single piece of hard data or evidence that the author uses to back up his claims. If you see any, can you please point out to us what they were?

[nebula]

I do not see how this is addressing the point about developmental mutations that the author mentions.

[Guest]

I do not see how this is addressing the point about developmental mutations that the author mentions....

It Appears The Epigones Of Scientism Just Can't Seen To Admit

Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. Romans 8:21-22

Mutations Are A One Way Path To Extinction

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Genesis 1:31

And Since The Alleged Natural Selection Of Mankind Is So Overwhelmingly Skewed Toward Belief In God

Deep calleth unto deep at the noise of thy waterspouts: all thy waves and thy billows are gone over me. Psalms 42:7

One Must Wonder Just Where That Leaves The Lonely, The Few, The Godless Atheist

Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

And who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it, and set it in order for me, since I appointed the ancient people? and the things that are coming, and shall come, let them shew unto them.

Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any. Isaiah 44:6-8

But Perhaps At Some Fantasy Evolutionary Dead End Or Another

He that begetteth a fool doeth it to his sorrow: and the father of a fool hath no joy. Proverbs 17:21

Unless They Should First Believe

Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead? Acts 26:8

And Live

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

~

Believe And Be Blessed Beloved

Love, Joe

[Guest]

When Will They Ever Learn

Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?

The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,

Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.

He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. Psalms 2:1-4

~

.... What I'm being asked to believe instead, is that the Christian God created us and just happened to place very detailed genetic signatures in humans and other primates but desperately doesn't want us to believe in common descent. That makes no sense whatsoever....

God?

Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust. Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth. The glory of the LORD shall endure for ever: the LORD shall rejoice in his works. Psalms 104:29-31

Desperate?

For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged. Romans 3:3-4

Surely Sir, You Mock

Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night. Psalms 1:1-2

~

Believe

And the child Samuel ministered unto the LORD before Eli. And the word of the LORD was precious in those days; there was no open vision. 2 Samuel 3:1

And Be Blessed Beloved

The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:35-36

Love, Joe

[nebula]

One of the overall points that he seemed to be making was:

Microevolution valid

Macroevolution not valid.

So I guess I was targeting certain things he was saying in the full article but perhaps you are specifically wanting to discuss natural selection.

How many mutations does it take for an organism to change from being classified from one Family to a different Family? Or from one Order to another Order? Or from on Class to another Class?

Can we find a population of an organism exhibiting mutated changes causing them to be evolving into a species that would deem being reclassified into another Family, Order, or Class from the parent population?