Now for this next part, I am going to respond before I quote. You will see why.
Helen tries to make a point that it took so long to get from single cell life to multicellular life with their short generation times that it is not possible to then get to complex life with their longer generational times in the time that remains. She is confusing two different things here and hoping you don’t notice.
In short, she hopes that you are unware that there is vastly more genetic variation among the prokaryotes (bacteria, which are almost all single celled) than there is among the eukaryotes (plants, animals, etc.). I have pointed this out to Helen several times with many different references and she has never responded with any substance. Only once did she even acknowledge a post and that was to say that she did not personally like the individual being cited, ignoring that facts don’t care if you like the messenger or not. So there is not a problem with getting enough favorable mutations.
The truth is that the barrier to the evolution of complex life was not how many mutations needed to accumulate. Far more beneficial mutations have accumulated in the single celled organisms than have accumulated in the multicellular organisms since. No, the two most likely road blocks were the evolution of eukaryotes or the evolution of the differentiated cells of multicellular life. The most likely choice is the evolution of the eukaryotes. This happened through a symbiotic relationship between multiple single celled organisms living as a single cell. The remnants of the merger can be seen in the organelles of your own cells and of other eukaryotes. They still function much like their own little cells and even have their own genes completely separate from those in the nucleus. And this jump from prokaryote to eukaryote was likely a difficult step and the one that prevented the jump from single celled life to more complex life. We are, after all, only 500 million years after the Cambrian Explosion and look at what has developed since. Almost everything you know.
Let YEism explain why chloroplasts are still much like blue-green bacteria or why your mitochondria are essentially little bacteria living in your cells.
So, a statement was made about how the fossil record shows jawless vertebrates evolving into jawed fish and then amphibians and then reptiles. How does she respond?
“
The mathematics and genetics of this occurring make it impossible. How many mutations would all that take? Considering that all known mutations reduce specificity, how are they going to get the increases in specificity required? Considering also that the evidence points to at least a thousand expressed negative mutations to one potentially positive expressed mutation, how are they going to get past the millions of negative mutations to get positive on top of positive on top of positive, etc., to get a hand from a fin? It is pure imagination and has not a shred of genetic evidence which makes it more than that.”
Hmmm. Notice something? There is absolutely nothing in there that addresses the statement. These fossils exist. She does not even attempt to deny that they exist. She instead tries to slip in a fallacious argument about genetics which has no factual basis, as shown above.
And there is genetic evidence, contrary to the claim. In the same way the genetic testing can tell you if your daddy is your daddy, genetic testing can and does confirm the relationships suggested by the fossils. It is called the twin nested hierarchy and is a huge problem for any YE model but is a natural consequence of common descent. And don’t let anyone try and confuse you with talk about similar animals being naturally similar genetically and with talk of the same genetic bits being used over and over. The testing is mostly on rare genetic events that have no bearing at all on such things. But YEers are good at obfuscation. They must be by the nature of what they are defending.
If you want to do some reading about how genetics supports evolution, try
The Making of the Fittest.
Then there is another statement about the evolution of mammals from reptiles. (If you want to see the sequence, go to the archives at the bottom of the main page and look for a post by me with the word “transitionals” in the title. Or, here is the URL
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=13522 ) Again, these fossils exist. A long, detailed line of fossils connecting reptiles and mammals. There is not even an attempt to say that they do not exist. They unquestionably do. Instead it is the same discredited response about accumulating mutations and generational times which ignores reality.
