Here we are, back again to tackle a few more of the "Fifteen Questions" for Evolutionists that are supposed to awe and stump us into acceptance of creationism. Good luck with that; from what I can tell, these questions are rehashes of tired old creationist talking-points. Here are the next few...
Q3: How could mutations--accidental copying mistakes--create the huge volume of information in the DNA of living things?
This question encapsulates creationist obsession with, and misunderstanding of, what "mutations" are. Sorry to burst your bubble, but in the DNA when we speak of "mutations" one shouldn't read that to mean detrimental mistakes exclusively, though many are. What creationists don't seem to understand is that it isn't an all-or-nothing proposition when mutations occur in the genetic code. Sometimes they have no effect at all, but they are used later in combination with more recent mutations. This is clearly demonstrated in the development of the mechanism for clotting blood; many of the parts involved were previously used for other functions and only later came to be used for blood-clotting, in conjunction with other genes (a more adequate description is given in Ken Miller's Only a Theory where he rebuts the claim that blood-clotting is too complex to have evolved. His explanation--also a key witness in the Dover Trial--is much more science-heavy than mine. I only mean to give an overview). Mutations are responsible for a number of human diseases, this is common knowledge, but the idea that mutations are always bad overlooks the fact that there are numerous beneficial mutations, such as the mutation that allowed bacteria to digest nylon (see Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True for a discussion on this experiment). That would certainly seem to be beneficial rather than detrimental, and over the long spans of time that make up earth's history these small additions in DNA add up to the large amount of information we see today. But of course, creationists don't accept an old earth, so it is obvious why they can't understand the accumulation of large amounts of genetic information; the time scale of life in their mind is far too short.
Q4: Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as "evolution" as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life? By definition it is a selective process, so it is not a creative one.
The question is really concerned with where new genetic material arises from, I think. Of course, I'm really surprised that creationists claim to accept natural selection as I thought they despised everything Darwin-related. As it is, evolution by natural selection does explain the diversity of life, but natural selection isn't the only mechanism through which evolution works. Some scientists even reject that natural selection is an adequate explanation for evolution; other supplementary mechanisms have been proposed as well, one of the more famous ones by Lynn Margulis. She proposed that symbiotic relationships is the prime driver of evolution. To return to the "creative" part of the question, I think my response to Q3 sums it up. Beneficial changes in the genetic code provide the fodder for natural selection to work with, and it is more than mutations. Genetic drift is also a mechanism for change within the genes. In sum, changes in the genes combined with natural selection drives evolution. To pretend that natural selection = evolution and then be surprised that it is a "selective" process is disingenuous. Next question, please.
Q5 How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?
The question goes on to elaborate that it seems impossible that "lucky accidents" would form a single component of the pathway much less ten, twenty or thirty, all working together at the same time. Somehow I feel that I've already answered this in dealing with Q3, but here we go. They don't all evolve at the same time, pretty simple to understand I think. Again, the blood-clotting mechanism is an example. The component parts, before every one evolves, were used for other functions previously, and other organisms like puffer fish lack several of the component parts that we have and still have a fully functioning blood-clotting system (again, see Ken Miller's book Only a Theory, pg. 62 for a more in depth discussion of this particular example). Even organisms like the sea squirt that do not have a blood-clotting mechanism possess some of the proteins involved in blood clotting. Does creationism have an explanation for that? No, but evolution does; these existing proteins are seized upon later in evolution to form a blood-clotting mechanism. When we look at the question in this light, it is not only plausible but true that these new pathways evolve just like anything else, and their complexity doesn't disprove evolution. It does not follow that if a single one of these enzymes didn't exist, the whole system falls apart; that's just not what we see in nature.
That's it for today: more questions to follow in the future. If any creationists still read this blog, what do you have to say? Do you remain unconvinced, and if so then why? I am genuinely curious to know, but I find it hard to believe when apparently the best questions creationists can come up with are still easily answered by science.
Q3: How could mutations--accidental copying mistakes--create the huge volume of information in the DNA of living things?
This question encapsulates creationist obsession with, and misunderstanding of, what "mutations" are. Sorry to burst your bubble, but in the DNA when we speak of "mutations" one shouldn't read that to mean detrimental mistakes exclusively, though many are. What creationists don't seem to understand is that it isn't an all-or-nothing proposition when mutations occur in the genetic code. Sometimes they have no effect at all, but they are used later in combination with more recent mutations. This is clearly demonstrated in the development of the mechanism for clotting blood; many of the parts involved were previously used for other functions and only later came to be used for blood-clotting, in conjunction with other genes (a more adequate description is given in Ken Miller's Only a Theory where he rebuts the claim that blood-clotting is too complex to have evolved. His explanation--also a key witness in the Dover Trial--is much more science-heavy than mine. I only mean to give an overview). Mutations are responsible for a number of human diseases, this is common knowledge, but the idea that mutations are always bad overlooks the fact that there are numerous beneficial mutations, such as the mutation that allowed bacteria to digest nylon (see Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True for a discussion on this experiment). That would certainly seem to be beneficial rather than detrimental, and over the long spans of time that make up earth's history these small additions in DNA add up to the large amount of information we see today. But of course, creationists don't accept an old earth, so it is obvious why they can't understand the accumulation of large amounts of genetic information; the time scale of life in their mind is far too short.
Q4: Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as "evolution" as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life? By definition it is a selective process, so it is not a creative one.
The question is really concerned with where new genetic material arises from, I think. Of course, I'm really surprised that creationists claim to accept natural selection as I thought they despised everything Darwin-related. As it is, evolution by natural selection does explain the diversity of life, but natural selection isn't the only mechanism through which evolution works. Some scientists even reject that natural selection is an adequate explanation for evolution; other supplementary mechanisms have been proposed as well, one of the more famous ones by Lynn Margulis. She proposed that symbiotic relationships is the prime driver of evolution. To return to the "creative" part of the question, I think my response to Q3 sums it up. Beneficial changes in the genetic code provide the fodder for natural selection to work with, and it is more than mutations. Genetic drift is also a mechanism for change within the genes. In sum, changes in the genes combined with natural selection drives evolution. To pretend that natural selection = evolution and then be surprised that it is a "selective" process is disingenuous. Next question, please.
Q5 How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?
The question goes on to elaborate that it seems impossible that "lucky accidents" would form a single component of the pathway much less ten, twenty or thirty, all working together at the same time. Somehow I feel that I've already answered this in dealing with Q3, but here we go. They don't all evolve at the same time, pretty simple to understand I think. Again, the blood-clotting mechanism is an example. The component parts, before every one evolves, were used for other functions previously, and other organisms like puffer fish lack several of the component parts that we have and still have a fully functioning blood-clotting system (again, see Ken Miller's book Only a Theory, pg. 62 for a more in depth discussion of this particular example). Even organisms like the sea squirt that do not have a blood-clotting mechanism possess some of the proteins involved in blood clotting. Does creationism have an explanation for that? No, but evolution does; these existing proteins are seized upon later in evolution to form a blood-clotting mechanism. When we look at the question in this light, it is not only plausible but true that these new pathways evolve just like anything else, and their complexity doesn't disprove evolution. It does not follow that if a single one of these enzymes didn't exist, the whole system falls apart; that's just not what we see in nature.
That's it for today: more questions to follow in the future. If any creationists still read this blog, what do you have to say? Do you remain unconvinced, and if so then why? I am genuinely curious to know, but I find it hard to believe when apparently the best questions creationists can come up with are still easily answered by science.
Comments
Post a Comment