1. No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime storyamusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.
― Henry Gee, "In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life"
Dr Henry Gee (born 1962 in London, England) is a British paleontologist and evolutionary biologist. He is a senior editor of "Nature," the scientific journal.
Henry Gee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The import of the above is that, although Charles Darwin anticipated proof of his theory on the fossil record....well, it simply isn't to be found there.
2. So....if fossil evidence cannot be proof of Darwin's theory.....what is?
For many who subscribe to his view, they must, therefore, turn to the study of organic and molecular chemistry to 'prove' relationships.
The basics include DNA, RNA, and proteins made at the direction of the previous two.
3. One current hypothesis is that diversity is based, not on the DNA, i.e., genes, but on if, or how much of a gene's product is produced, so that "...evolutionary changes within this regulatory DNA lead to the diversity of form."
Sean Carroll, professor of molecular biology, genetics, and medical genetics at the University of WisconsinMadison. "Endless Forms Most Beautiful: A New Revolution in Biology," The Skeptical Inquirer, November-December, 2005, p. 48-53
According to this view, the same genes could produce different structures. This would eliminate the objections to Darwinism base on the impossibility of constructing different DNA for each new form.
4. Given as an example of 'the regulatory DNA theory' is the fruit fly with an extra pair of wings.
Let's see how this works: Fruit flies, Drosophila melanogaster, normally has a pair of wings, and a pair of 'balancers,' tiny appendages that stabilize the insect as it flies. But E.B. Lewis was able to produce mutations that produced four-winged fruit flies, and he showed this was due to regulation of gene producing the Ubx protein: if the Ubx protein is prevented, then 'balancers' become normal looking wings. A gene complex controlling segmentation in Drosophila
5. Well, isn't this proof of the idea that evolutionary diversity could come from the same DNA?
Not really.
The wings don't work.
Why? Because only one part of the requirements exist: the muscles, tendons, etc., haven't formed.
Although it requires an extensive understanding of anatomy, this itself argues against Darwin's thesis. The functioning wing is not the only part that had to develop, since it is merely one part of a tightly integrated system which is necessary in order to allow proper functioning....think of a crab. The system, the 'endophragmal system'- A Text-book of Zoology - Thomas Jeffery Parker, William Aitcheson Haswell - Google Books
- involves muscles, tendons, tissues and sensory organs and the special mediating structure between the soft tissue of the arthropod and the exoskeleton itself.
So....for Darwin to be correct, distinct structures evolving prior to or in conjunction with, the fully-formed system must occur.
Or else it is not evolution.
"Evolution" is not simply the formation of one structure, organ, arrangement, or enzyme....it requires each in its exact timing event.
5. Let's not forget that the order of events is critical, and therefore limited by the timeframe.
Consider this complication: an entire system must be fully in place before it could work at all, a property called irreducible complexity.
a. DNA is by far the most compact information storage system in the universe. Even the simplest known living organism has 482 protein-coding genes. This is a total of 580,000 letters,7humans have three billion in every nucleus. (See The programs of life, for an explanation of the DNA letters.)
DNA: marvellous messages or mostly mess? - creation.com
A new DNA section for each new structure in a system?
And each formed in the correct order?
Due to a totally random process?
b. "Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 10 to the 50th power has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence (and even that gives it the benefit of the doubt). Any species known to us, including the smallest single-cell bacteria, have enormously larger numbers of nucleotides than 100 or 1000. In fact, single cell bacteria display about 3,000,000 nucleotides, aligned in a very specific sequence. This means, that there is no mathematical probability whatever for any known species to have been the product of a random occurrencerandom mutations (to use the evolutionists favorite expression)."
I.L. Cohen, "Darwin was Wrong," p. 205.
This means that it is impossible for an organism to be built by natural selection working on small changes, i.e., Darwin's theory.
Neither fossils nor fruit flies lend credence to Darwinian evolution.
― Henry Gee, "In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life"
Dr Henry Gee (born 1962 in London, England) is a British paleontologist and evolutionary biologist. He is a senior editor of "Nature," the scientific journal.
Henry Gee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The import of the above is that, although Charles Darwin anticipated proof of his theory on the fossil record....well, it simply isn't to be found there.
2. So....if fossil evidence cannot be proof of Darwin's theory.....what is?
For many who subscribe to his view, they must, therefore, turn to the study of organic and molecular chemistry to 'prove' relationships.
The basics include DNA, RNA, and proteins made at the direction of the previous two.
3. One current hypothesis is that diversity is based, not on the DNA, i.e., genes, but on if, or how much of a gene's product is produced, so that "...evolutionary changes within this regulatory DNA lead to the diversity of form."
Sean Carroll, professor of molecular biology, genetics, and medical genetics at the University of WisconsinMadison. "Endless Forms Most Beautiful: A New Revolution in Biology," The Skeptical Inquirer, November-December, 2005, p. 48-53
According to this view, the same genes could produce different structures. This would eliminate the objections to Darwinism base on the impossibility of constructing different DNA for each new form.
4. Given as an example of 'the regulatory DNA theory' is the fruit fly with an extra pair of wings.
Let's see how this works: Fruit flies, Drosophila melanogaster, normally has a pair of wings, and a pair of 'balancers,' tiny appendages that stabilize the insect as it flies. But E.B. Lewis was able to produce mutations that produced four-winged fruit flies, and he showed this was due to regulation of gene producing the Ubx protein: if the Ubx protein is prevented, then 'balancers' become normal looking wings. A gene complex controlling segmentation in Drosophila
5. Well, isn't this proof of the idea that evolutionary diversity could come from the same DNA?
Not really.
The wings don't work.
Why? Because only one part of the requirements exist: the muscles, tendons, etc., haven't formed.
Although it requires an extensive understanding of anatomy, this itself argues against Darwin's thesis. The functioning wing is not the only part that had to develop, since it is merely one part of a tightly integrated system which is necessary in order to allow proper functioning....think of a crab. The system, the 'endophragmal system'- A Text-book of Zoology - Thomas Jeffery Parker, William Aitcheson Haswell - Google Books
- involves muscles, tendons, tissues and sensory organs and the special mediating structure between the soft tissue of the arthropod and the exoskeleton itself.
So....for Darwin to be correct, distinct structures evolving prior to or in conjunction with, the fully-formed system must occur.
Or else it is not evolution.
"Evolution" is not simply the formation of one structure, organ, arrangement, or enzyme....it requires each in its exact timing event.
5. Let's not forget that the order of events is critical, and therefore limited by the timeframe.
Consider this complication: an entire system must be fully in place before it could work at all, a property called irreducible complexity.
a. DNA is by far the most compact information storage system in the universe. Even the simplest known living organism has 482 protein-coding genes. This is a total of 580,000 letters,7humans have three billion in every nucleus. (See The programs of life, for an explanation of the DNA letters.)
DNA: marvellous messages or mostly mess? - creation.com
A new DNA section for each new structure in a system?
And each formed in the correct order?
Due to a totally random process?
b. "Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 10 to the 50th power has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence (and even that gives it the benefit of the doubt). Any species known to us, including the smallest single-cell bacteria, have enormously larger numbers of nucleotides than 100 or 1000. In fact, single cell bacteria display about 3,000,000 nucleotides, aligned in a very specific sequence. This means, that there is no mathematical probability whatever for any known species to have been the product of a random occurrencerandom mutations (to use the evolutionists favorite expression)."
I.L. Cohen, "Darwin was Wrong," p. 205.
This means that it is impossible for an organism to be built by natural selection working on small changes, i.e., Darwin's theory.
Neither fossils nor fruit flies lend credence to Darwinian evolution.
