God and natural selection

Its as plain as the nose on your face those scraps of bone are unnecessary. Helen mentioned they are "attached" to things. Of course they are. But the muscles and gristle at that point in the whale body clearly don't NEED any further attachment than the backbone, and a few whales get along just fine without them, just as a few humans get along just fine without our vestigal tailbone.

Furthermore, the fossil record shows more complete, more obvious leg structures in whale species that are now extinct.

Furthermore, the occasional actual live sticking out whale LEG has been observed in whales today!

So your denial remains psychological denial.

Oh - the 'ol "no positive only deleting" mutation idea again. Any fossil evidence of BALEEN WHALES with FULLY DEVELOPED LEGS? The BALEEN whales developed AFTER the legs were lost, and the baleen mechanism of feeding is just the kind of thing that theory declares to be impossible - the development of a macro change of a positive nature.

Well, you are yourself tied to a "God wouldn't have done it that way" theory - you believe God would have described the origin of the universe literally and wouldn't have left it in a parable or poetic non-literal narrative.

What right do you have to tell us all you know God would never allow a non-literal creation story in the Bible?

The problem with this is that statistically the mutation is just as likely to happen twice as it is to happen once. Seeing that similar genetic design was used for humans, apes, and monkeys only makes it far more likely to have occurred under the right environmental conditions.
</font>[/QUOTE]Strictly nonsense. Every analysis of genetic damage from whatever source always shows there is no way for the damaging agent to seize on a particular segment. The damage is randomly distributed. At most, some segments are somewhat more likely than others to be targets . . . and that's probably a selection effect, some areas kill the organism more quickly if edited and therefore remaining edits are rarer.

I'm curious how you'll hang yourself on that issue if I give you more rope. What do you mean by "otherwise they belong with others of their type?"

LOL! Where do you GET the SAME MUTATION FROM? You have'nt solved that problem.

Note the completely contradictory logic, folks. Why pay attention to someone who reasons like this?

 

No, it couldn't! That is patently ridiculous! Radiation would cause random damage throughout the genome, it would not target this specific sequence! I must go soothe my nerves with a cup of tea--that proposition was quite jarring. </font>[/QUOTE] Not to speak for Helen... but did she say that it didn't do so?

How do you know that wide damage didn't occur resulting thinks like "junk" material or other aberrations that still persist or have been deleted over time?

Why would evolution need an excuse? It would predict this variation. </font>[/QUOTE] The problem is that if the opposite were true you would claim that evolution predicted that as well. It is a common place claim by evolutionists.

However, if both "A" and "not A" can both be explained by evolution then neither can be claimed as a prediction or as evidence in support.

For instance the whale example, I have seen people argue that since the vestigal bones are useless that is evidence for evolution. But when it is pointed out that they may not be useless... they claim that support evolution as well... that it demonstrate how a mutation can be retained because it suits a new purpose.

It is fine to say that evolution accommodates either useful or useless. It is contrary to logic to say that both useless and useful constitute evidence in favor of evolution.

 

I would say that the opposite of that is a far more frequent occurrence.

That's hardly inconsistent. When you are arguing that animals are descending from animals that were generally speaking "better" then it is reasonable to argue that speciation occurs by events that on the macro scale reduce the potential range of variation.

Yesterday's posts caused me to ponder that very point as it relates to kinds and speciation.

Imagine a bell curve that represents the range of genetic variation for an original kind by the probability that the offspring will demonstrate a given trait. The actual direction of the changes would require many more dimensions but for present I am just thinking of the absolute value from (0,0). This very much approximates variation within a species now. The range does have hard limits/boundaries... (as biologists have discovered about species. Attempts to force the species beyond those boundaries are generally catastrophic and occasionally non-persistent.)

At any event, the early offspring vary in all directions and, with a more pristine, robust genome, a wide variety of forms within a single kind would occur within a few generations.

Say the range is +/-1000 units over 4 sigma. A developing species at +500 would have a new apex but a truncated curve to the right as well as perhaps a 10 sigma range to the left. We would probably call the extreme possibilities to the left "recessive"... or they might be misinterpretted as mutations. Over time, the unreinforced characteristics to the left would be lost but the difficulty of continuing to the right hasn't diminished causing new hard limits to come progressively into focus. You are left with a new species, descended from an original kind by deletion and loss of variability with hardened limits at say 300 and 700... distinct and separate from cousins that have occupied other ranges.

Occasionally, a variation outside the established range of the new species but inside the range of the original kind is noticed. Evolutionists incorrectly interpret these as beneficial mutations when in fact the are expressions of recessive traits at the extreme edges of the bell. Even among related animals, a minority of the potential range is currently expressed. Thus the trait may seem completely novel to both the species and its kind when it actually isn't.

Let's apply that to one of UTE's favorite "evidences" for evolution. The plastic eating bacteria. Evolutionists claim that this is a novel ability resulting from a mutation that added new information.

I say that this bacteria is descended from an original kind with a more robust genome including the ability to process both organic and inorganic natural polymers. This recessive trait goes unnoticed and unexpressed because maybe it exists at 9 sigma. However, once this trait is reintroduced, it flourishes since certain types of synthetic polymers are now readily available in some environments.

Is his explanation actually backed by tangible proof? No. Is mine? No. Why? Because we aren't talking about operational science... we're talking about history.

However, my answer depends on things that we know can occur and have observed (ie. reduction of a genomes variability and information from recessive expressions). We really don't know if a genuine mutation can ever produce beneficial, retained expressions in the natural world. IOW's, the evolutionists' explanation is speculative at best.

 

Its as plain as the nose on your face those scraps of bone are unnecessary. </font>[/QUOTE] That answer seems vaguely familiar... ah yes, evolutionists used to claim that the appendix was "evidence" for evolution since it was a useless vestige. That is until it was discovered to play a role in the body's immune defenses.

 

No, it couldn't! That is patently ridiculous! Radiation would cause random damage throughout the genome, it would not target this specific sequence! I must go soothe my nerves with a cup of tea--that proposition was quite jarring.

Hope you enjoyed your cuppa tea.

In the meantime, we do know that specific areas of chromosomes are more susceptible to mutagents than other areas. If this susceptibility was similar in man and ape -- and it is you evolutionists who say we are so close -- then it makes perfect sense that the same mutagent could knock out or damage the same section of the genome.

You will find a number of references to hot spot mutations here: http://www.mad-cow.org/prion_point_mutations.html

In fact, when I plugged in 'human hotspot mutations' to Google, I got over a quarter of a million hits.

In short, mutations are not as random as you have been led to believe.

As far as speciation after the Flood is concerned, although no doubt some mutations were involved, most speciation does not require mutations, just isolation and a small breeding population. Migrating groups after the Flood had both of those in excess!

 

I don't think so since I made no such denial... I simply opened the alternatives to things other than those dictated by evolution's presupposition of naturalism.

 

Well only that...

A) There is no indication in Genesis or anywhere else in scripture that God is using a fairy tale to illustrate a "higher truth". In fact, the language is pointed in places so that it indicates a literal approach is proper. For instance the description of a day as "morning and evening", the Exodus citation of "six days", and 2 Peter's comparison of the end of the world by fire to Noah's flood if you want to expand to all of what you all typically insist is allegory.

B) Evolution restricts explanations philosophically in a way that contradicts the Bible and the God described therein. The Bible is a book that claims to be from God and says that at various times the supernatural has directly interacted with the natural though, even in the Bible, providence is the rule. God said He created the world by an act of will (His Word)... the things that appear came from the things not seen. He also said that He raised Jesus from the dead and that Jesus at various times superceded the laws of nature. I simply believe that if God had not intended for Genesis to be taken just as literal as John... God would have indicated somewhere in those 66 books rather than relying on the eventual presupposition of a philosophy that presumes He didn't do it. The Bible consistently treats the characters and events of Gen 1-11 as real and literal.

C) I am not limiting what God could or couldn't do. He could most certainly have done what you suggest... However, the scriptures that He gave us to base our knowledge of Him and His plan do not indicate that He did.

D) Contrary to these facts, science uninhibited by naturalism but rather liberated by supernaturalism (ID) opens rather than narrows the available explanations for nature.

Contrary to the very successful 100+ year propaganda campaign to the contrary, supernaturalism is not contrary to or distinct from science. Which is very logical if you consider it for even a moment. If a design answer is "true" then it obviously cannot be "unscientific". As a matter of fact, naturalism itself is contrary to science since it may very well preclude true explanations.

 

So let me get this straight... you are saying that the experiments performed on a very small percentage of late, corrupted species establishes a rule that precludes all possibility of lightening striking the same location so to speak?

And this from someone who thinks evolution's explanations of abiogenesis are not only plausible but likely?

Oh and you might want to read more closely the whole explanation I give. I said that this mutation might have been retained because of the coincidental occurrence of a plague that favored creatures with it. That explains why it persisted.

 

That if they were not marsupial... they would be placed firmly inside the canine group closely related to wolves or foxes or some other species.

 

Yes I have. I have offered a more pristine and robust genome in the original kinds. It would also be a genome more open to mutations resulting from various environmental causes if for no other reason- proportion.

 

Looking up the whale 'hip bones' on the net, I came across this article from Aplogetics Press and is reprinted here in its entirely with their permission, which you will see on the bottom of the linked page:

------------

Hey, Cut That Out…On Second Thought, Hold That Scalpel!
by Brad Harrub, Ph.D.

In 1931, German scientist Alfred Wiedersheim listed 180 human organs as being vestigial or rudimentary (Wiedersheim, 1931). Today, that list has been all but demolished—thanks to our advancing knowledge of human physiology. However, it appears that the endless evolutionary quest for a vestigial organ will plague us even into the twenty-first century. In the April 2000 issue of the Journal of Neurosurgery, five authors published a paper titled “The Apical Ligament: Anatomy and Functional Significance.” After studying 20 human cadavers, the authors concluded that the apical ligament [the apical ligament extends from the dens of the second vertebrae to the sphenoid bone on the skull] is best described as a vestigial structure that offers no significant added stability to the craniocervical junction [the area where the skull meets the vertebrae] (Tubbs, et al., 2000). They also noticed that this ligament was absent in 20% of the specimens examined. However, time and future investigations are not on the authors’ side. Consider the following.

As late as 1997, Encyclopaedia Britannica described the appendix in the following manner: “The appendix does not serve any useful purpose as a digestive organ in humans, and it is believed to be gradually disappearing in the human species over evolutionary time” (p. 491). However, the importance of this alleged “vestigial organ” was being discussed in medical textbooks as long ago as 1976. As one scientist admitted: “The appendix is not generally credited with significant function; however, current evidence tends to involve it in the immunologic mechanism” (Bockus, 1976, p. 1135). Current medical textbooks describe the appendix as a “well-developed lymphoid organ” (Moore, 1992, p. 205) whose “mucosa and submucosa…are dominated by lymphoid nodules” and whose “primary function is as an organ of the lymphatic system” (Martini, 1995, p. 916). Even with this knowledge, the appendix still is mentioned in some evolutionary literature as being vestigial. But this reasoning begs the question: If our ancestors used an appendix in some earlier function, from which ancestral stock did it “devolve”? The “old” and “new” world monkeys must be more highly evolved than humans, because they do not possess an appendix—which leaves one to rationalize that monkeys must have evolved from humans!

A review of the medical literature documents one of the last alleged vestigial organs in humans to be the vomeronasal organ (also referred to as Jacobson’s organ), which is found on the nasal septae. In the 1970s, this particular organ was regarded as vestigial, but recently was discovered to be more common than previously reported. A study conducted in 1998 found that physicians, using routine nasal examinations, identified the vomeronasal organ in only 16% of the people examined. Yet when nasal endoscopes were employed in the same procedure, the figure jumped to 76% (Gaafar, et al., 1998). Additionally there is now impressive evidence substantiating the fact that this organ has a specific sensory function in humans (Gaafar, et al., 1998; Berliner, et al., 1996).

Vestigial structures are those structures in man and animals that evolutionists claim to be degenerate, and thus useless. We are told that these structures, while of no value to present-day animals, were at one time useful to their evolutionary predecessors. These structures are said to be “leftovers” that eventually will be lost completely through evolutionary processes of selection. The following table contains just a few examples of alleged vestigial organs that still can be found in some modern biology textbooks.


Alleged Vestigial Organs in Man

Tonsils
Adenoids
Coccyx (tail bone)
Nictitating membrane of eye
Thymus
Appendix
Little toe
Wisdom teeth
Nipples on males
Parathyroid
Nodes on ears (“Darwin’s points”)
Ear muscles (for wiggling)
Pineal gland
Body hair

While space does not permit an examination of each of these, suffice it to say that we now know there are no vestigial organs in the human body. Even many of the so-called vestigial organs in animals (e.g., legs in the python, hip bones in the whale, etc.) are now known to have important functions.

Another point that needs to be considered is this: If man does have 180 vestigial organs (organs that once were functioning), then in the past he would have had more organs than he now has. In the past, he would have been developing the organs that he presently has, plus he would have had the 180 functional vestigial organs. So the farther back we go in time, the more complex the organism becomes (see Wysong, 1976, pp. 398-399).[Note from Helen: I've been arguing this for a LONG time!] Rather an interesting evolutionary twist, wouldn’t you say?

Those evolutionists who keep up with the scientific literature rarely discuss this issue any longer. Actually, when you consider that there are no evidences of the transitional stages between functioning organs and useless organs, then these so-called useless appendages would prove devolution, not evolution. Evolution is the rise of new, different, and functioning organs, not the wasting away of already-present, complex organs. Creationists ask: “Where are all of these nascent [new—BH] organs? Vestigial organs show degeneration, devolution, not evolution” (Wysong, p. 398).

Evolutionists may continue to promote this line of thinking, but given time and additional research, the true function of each and every organ will become clear. We must understand that without “vestigial organs,” it is much more difficult for evolutionists to claim that all animals are similar, and thus have descended from a common ancestor. As Wysong noted:

Not too long ago man was imputed to have 180 vestiges. Organs like the appendix, tonsils, thymus, pineal gland and thyroid gland were on the list. Today, all former vestigial organs are known to have some function during the life of the individual. If the organ has any function at any time, it cannot be called rudimentary or vestigial.... As man’s knowledge has increased the list of vestigial organs decreased. So what really was vestigial? Was it not man’s rudimentary knowledge of the intricacies of the body? (p. 397).

Dr. Wysong’s point is well made. It turns out that scientists actually used the word “vestigial,” not to mean a “useless” organ, but instead to say, in reality, “we’re ignorant of what this organ’s function is at this point in time.” As our ignorance wanes, so, ironically, does the number of alleged vestigial organs.

REFERENCES

Encyclopaedia Britannica (1997), “Vestigial Organs,” (London: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.), 1:491.

Berliner, D.L., L. Monti-Bloch, C. Jennings-White, V. Diaz-Sanchez (1996), “The Functionality of the Human Vomeronasal Organ (VNO): Evidence for Steroid Receptors,” Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 58[3]:259-65, June.

Bockus, Henry L. (1976), Gastroenterology (Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders).

Gaafar, H.A., A.A. Tantawy, A.A. Melis, D.M. Hennawy, H.M. Shehata (1998), “The Vomeronasal (Jacobson’s) Organ in Adult Humans: Frequency of Occurrence and Enzymatic Study,” Acta Otolaryngology, 118[3]:409-12.

Martini, Frederic H. (1995), Fundamentals of Anatomy and Physiology (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall).

Moore, Keith L. (1992), Clinically Oriented Anatomy (Philadelphia, PA: Williams and Wilkins).

Tubbs, R.S., P. Grabb, A. Spooner, W. Wilson, W.J. Oakes (2000), “The Apical Ligament: Anatomy and Functional Significance,” Journal of Neurosurgery, 92[2 Supplement]:197-200, April.

Wiedersheim, Alfred (1931), The Science of Life (New York: Doubleday).

Wysong, R.L. (1976), The Creation-Evolution Controversy (East Lansing, MI: Inquiry Press).

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2050

-----------

note the reference to the 'whale hip bones' please...

In the meantime, a series of evolutionist discussions on these bones in the whale and some excellent photographs may be found here:
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/mpm/mpm_whale_limb.html

At no point is the thought even entertained by them that this might have something to do with excellent design. For those bones do anchor the sexual organs in the whales.

 

Note the completely contradictory logic, folks. Why pay attention to someone who reasons like this? </font>[/QUOTE]Yeah Paul your refutation of what I said and my logic was so complete that I guess I must give up my beliefs and agree with you.

You showed no contradictions within that statement. Perhaps you think my wording was confusing? Maybe you didn't understand me?

But there is absolutely nothing contradictory about saying that information and complexity can be lost without destroying the line. If that were true then the earth would be lifeless. My point still stands. We know that changes can occur in populations due to inherited genetic expressions. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to argue that there was more information in the ancestor than in the descendent.

What we don't know and can probably never prove is that there is any system by which demonstrably novel traits arise from genetic information not derived from an ancestor.

 

I work with DNA every day. I work with radiation every day. My area of study is anti-cancer natural products. There are regions of DNA that are more vulnerable to damage than others due to various structural and sequential properties. However, there is no mechanism for directly targeting a single specific site among the billions of bases in our DNA. Radiation would be the worst starting point. Scott J's fanciful proposal at least has the benefit of being so unfounded on reality that it is unanswerable rationally. . . However, I've never been much for vague deus ex machina "and then they all got run over by a train" solutions.

 

Coming from someone who believes in the extraordinary fairy tales evolutionists tell that are "unanswerable rationally" and can't even put "God in the gap"... I'll take that as a compliment.

 

On second thought Petrel, please establish that "reality" as you now perceive it is the absolute rule for all of natural history... then we'll talk about how plausible evolution is.

Your condescending tone while responding in naturalism's closed-minded paradigm is not as impressive as you seem to think.

 

I personally don't think God appreciates being stuffed into the gaps like the little Dutch boy's finger in the dike. I think he put together creation well enough that there isn't any need to go cramming any holes with wild suppositions.

 

You often refer to this "hotspot" idea. Yesterday I gave you an example from vancomycin resistance to see how that fits into your "hotspots" when you asserted that such "hotspots" were all that was involved in antibiotic resistance. I'd still like to know how deletions and insertions leading to a new IC pathway are just "hotspots" going back and forth.

I asked the same question the last time you brought it up. I still have not received an answer on this or many other questions.

As far as such hotspots explaining genetic homologies, you expect us to believe that because certatin areas are more or less prone to mutation means that radiation could have caused the same mutations in so many areas in so many lineages? I hope you enjoyed your tea as well.

 

God didn't consider it "wild supposition" when He said He made the universe. Though I guess the wild suppositions made by evolutionists in order to deny that He actually did anything directly aren't very much appreciated by Him. Especially when those suppositions are based on a naturalistic philsophical assumption that directly contradicts the person and activities of the God described in the Bible.

 

Oh yeah, my tea was quite good, thank you. Twining's English Afternoon tea, decaffeinated.

Scott J., I'm not trying to impress you, I think I would need to be quite out of character in order to.

 

You creationists always say that while at the same time disregarding the literal teaching of scripture as to the sun rising and moving across the sky as the cause of day and night. You accept the rotation of the earth, contrary to the plain literal words of the bible, merely because you've accepted the evidence for it. Then you require we disregard other evidence, evidence for evolution and the age of the earth.

Sorry, you're not going to make me feel guilty for doing the very thing you also do when it suits you.

It is true that the primary evidence for the common descent of life and the age of the universe was left by God in the universe itself, not in the Bible. But that was also His choice, and it ill behooves us to argue with Him that He should not have done it that way.

But you will never get back to the idea that the sun has a chamber it rests in during the night.

You are confusing science with philosophy and theology.

The snowflakes are beautiful. I call them a miracle of design. I also acknowledge that they are formed by an individually unique history of a flake plunging through air with supersaturated water vapor in varying degrees of concentration and temperature.

I'm telling you both are true and not in contradiction with each other. Your viewpoint is I cannot believe that. Well my viewpoint is that your are thereby depriving yourself from being in touch with an aspect of God.