| View Blog
|
|
| Evolutionary Difficulties
|
|
|
I wanted to spend some time on the subject of the “Mitrochondrial Eve” (MRCA)…some of its misconceptions as well as some surprising results in the study of mitrochondrial organelles and its apparent molecular phylogeny. But first, I have had a number of inquiries, probably prompted by some of Journeyman’s older articles on “Evolution through random mutation”, which unfortunately he pulled from the site. Even though my field of study (microbiology with a focus on virology) is strongly influenced by evolutionary models and micro evolutionary thesis, I have always been a “skeptic” at heart. I feel that being a skeptic is necessary for true scientific pursuit. A skeptic will even look at unpopular or forbidden concepts, such as creation by design. The reason I said “forbidden” is that openly questioning modern conceptual models of evolution are about as popular as a scientist in the field of meteorology speaking openly against the theory of human caused global warming. They find themselves not having their grants renewed, as well as possible censure, reprimand or dismissal. A true scientist must be an investigator looking not only on those things that he can observe (a qualitative analysis) but on those things that should be there…but are not. The absence of those expected observations can be vitally important in the search for truth. I hope I can convey this in a manner that is easy to understand not reverting to jargon more familiar to those in the scientic community.
Modern evolutionary thesis has its basis in Darwin’s concepts of natural selection and “slow change” through mutation. Most scientists have left the idea of mutation as condition of adaption to a changing environment, as environmental changes (which includes climate) have been found to happen very rapidly. Volcanic eruptions, meteor impacts, floods, poisoning of the oceans through deep fissure venting etc. If “slow change” takes hundreds of thousands of years, the idea that adaptation mutation to rapid environmental change is not feasible. The next theory, still following the idea of slow change is evolution through random mutation.
First let me explain natural selection. Actually Darwin’s example of “Peppered Moth”, although a rather poor analogy, does give a basic concept of natural selection. In Britain there is a species of moth known as the “peppered moth” (Biston betularia), that has two primary varieties, one white with light black peppering…and one black with light whitepeppering. During England’s industrial revolution much of London was covered with black soot due to heavy use of coal. The dark moth had an “advantage” over white moth in its ability to blend into its surroundings. Birds could see the white moths but the coloring of the black moths acted
as a natural camouflage against the soot covered brick buildings. The numbers of white moths vastly decreased and the dark moths flourished. Now remember this did not have anything to do with mutation but a “natural selection” within the gene pool. It is interesting that as time passed, the use of coal decreased and the soot was cleaned up, the population of white moth increased to reach a natural equilibrium within the species. The point here is that when one within a species has an advantage over another, the one with the advantage will survive and the other will not. And so, theoretically, if there was a beneficial mutation within a species, that helped it to survive, whereas those others of the species did not have that advantage, the mutation (if carried on a genetic level) would pass to its offspring and eventually change the characteristic traits of that species.
So, what is this “mechanism” for mutation? As mutation through adaptation to environmental changes is no longer thought to be feasible, the next most plausible theory is evolution by random mutation.
Evolution through random mutation though also has some inherent difficulties.
OK, let’s look at some of the biggest problems. As a species changes, this mutation is on a incredibly slow and micro evolutionary level. Also these mutations must also be sequential. Imagine walking through the desert and finding parts of a automobile. Also imagine you had never seen one before and had no idea of its use. As you found the first part (say, a license plate), you attached it to the next part ( a piston ring), and attached it to the next part (an ashtray) and the next part (a tail light)..etc..etc. When you had all of the parts, would it be a vehicle…or a huge pile of junk? When you put a vehicle together, it is done on an assembly line and its assembled in a sequential order. B is attached to A, C is attached to B, D is attached to C, E is attached to D. From the smallest gene formation to a macro evolutionary level formation of an organism or a complex species is in a specific sequence. I can believe that if I threw the parts of a watch in the air, maybe the first two parts
might fall to the ground in the order necessary to assemble the watch. But what about every piece not only falling in the exact order necessary to assemble the watch, but actually falling in the exact spot and position to insure its self-assembly. Now if that wasn’t bad enough, the organism or species has to be able to replicate or reproduce…must be a true mutation not just a defect or anomaly in that it this trait will pass to its offspring…and it must survive.
Survival is an issue. On both a micro and macro evolutionary level, “irreducible complexity” is a viable problem. I realize that this has been rejected by the scientific community at large, and yet the peer-reviewed papers refuting the concept as well as the 2005 court case “Kitzmiller vs Dover” danced around the issue and their analogies were completely inadequate. Michael Behe, a biochemistry professor, coined the phrase “irreducible complexity” and defines “such a complex system as one composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.” The analogy he uses is rather poor but serves a purpose. A mouse trap is composed of 6 or 7 parts. The spring, lever, bait holder etc. If any of the parts are removed, the trap will not work. It only has a function if all the pieces are present and working in harmony with each other. Let’s look at it on a macro level. A blow hole on a whale has no use..and gives no advantage to the individual within that species until it is complete and operational. A fin on a fish is not useful until it is complete and operational. A gill or a lung does not give the individual within that species an advantage over another within that species until complete and operational. In fact, the transition kills the species. The partially developed blow hole…drowns the whale. The partially developed fin does not help the fish escape the predator…it makes the fish,,,fish food to a predator. The partially developed gill or lung drowns the fish. Many evolutionists seeing this problem with no solution began to look at evolution in staggered jumps with partial or complete development. This “punctuated equilibrium” was found not to be science but science fiction. An ancient hominid biped stands at the foot of a monolith…and the next thing you see is modern man headed on a ship to Jupiter. 2001 A Space Odyssey, Stanley Kubrick. Evolution must also be simultateously complementary. A fish to evolve unto a land animal must not only evolve in its respirtory system from gill to lungs, but its skin, eyes and digestive system. All must be present , complete and functional in order for it to survive its new environment and natural predators.
Between the problem of this random sequential and complementary complexity and lack of viability till completion of this transition, modern evolutionary thesis through random mutation has many more problems than there are answers. So what are the answers? That is what a skeptic and true scientific inquiry is searching for.
|
|
Posted by Unamuno on 2008-06-15 05:45:14 | Rating: | Views: 76
|
|
| |
|
|
| Blog Comments
|
|
|
|
I'm no scientist, but a modest, casual student of biological and earth sciences. I've always found the evolutionary debate/theory to have more holes in it than a certain block of cheese.
Even prior to my current belief in creationism, I would often shake my head at the evolutionist, with questions such as...where are all the fossils of these so-theorized "pre-evolved" species from which our "better versions" have derived themselves??? and...if life is so efficient in adaptation, how do we explain the species that are now extinct???
Questions are good, I'm glad to see the trained mind questioning that which is absurd. I cringe knowing that these theories are peddled into the heads of our school children as being factual.
food for thought-
re: the hybrid line of thinking that says we've been cross bred b/w primates. There's NEVER been a successful case of this SINCE we were not DESIGNED that way. The only species that has come close to surviving cross breeding is the mule (horse plus donkey). Consequently, this anomaly cannot reproduce. btw, the Messiah rode to His crucifiction on a donkey, and will ride back into Jerusalem on a white horse. ?interesting?
|
|
Posted by paperlily
on 2008-06-15 11:29:06
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, traditional human evolutionary theory sees the emergence of modern man (homo sapien) some 400,000 to 250,000 years ago as distinct from other hominans, its immediate ancestor of the genus Homo being Paranthropus.
|
|
Posted by Unamuno
on 2008-06-17 03:07:48
|
|
|
|
|
Your Blogs are a gift to this community. Thank you for taking your time to share your insights. I am an electronics engineer, with an intrest in all sciences.
|
|
Posted by stillkickin
on 2008-06-21 13:54:24
|
|
|
|
|
yes, but doesn't the concept predate all life as having emerged from some type of single-cell amoebae? Where is the evidence of interim stages, and what a silly thought that we could exist in these trans-morphemic conditions?
|
|
Posted by paperlily
on 2008-06-23 01:05:59
|
|
|
|
|
First, there is now a quite large amount of fossil evidence available, but still the amount of evidence regarding transitional life forms is much less than would be expected for the slow change model of random mutation. Also I think how you look at the evidence and what view of origins you would expect it to support has alot to do with the interpretation and conclusions from this evidence. Preconcieved ideas are always a problem during this type if investigative discipline What I see is an member of a species that is dead and mostly likely extinct. Did it die through disease, accident, pretator or through a environmental change? The point is did it die because it could not adapt? Did it die because it did not have an advantage over another species? Did it die because the mutation was not benificial but in fact condemned this individual in this species to death? Two things I expect to see in the evolution by randon mutation model. One, a plethra of transitional fossils of every species, through every stage. Remember this is happening over millions of years. Second, I would expect to see "living trasitions" all around us...in a constant, random change. But I don't. And that is another problem.
|
|
Posted by Unamuno
on 2008-06-28 00:12:38
|
|
|
|
|
|
Email This to a Friend 
