RE: Christian Creationist vs. Scientific Worldview Debate
I had a fascinating experience reading this post. I will start by saying that I have a PhD in a biological science, and that I believe that the Theory of Evolution provides by far the most plausible explanation for what we can observe about life on earth. I will also say that I am staunchly a non-Creationist, but I could not care less what anyone else believes.
During the first part of this post then, I was quite surprised to find myself agreeing with what I took to be the central premise of the post: that it is pointless to debate Creationism vs Evolution, when one is a belief system and the other is a Theory attempting to explain scientific observations.
Having said that, I found the second half of the post to be littered with concepts that I soundly reject. I have no desire to begin a debate on this topic in general, but I do feel the need to address your attempt at explaining genetic elements of the Theory or Evolution. You state:
...when the theory failed to ever address or adequately explain where the information in genetics comes from, since natural selection produces a loss of genetic information. Furthermore, mutations creating genetic information such as new proteins with new positive functionality has not been observed. The mutation cited in the video was a very simple change inside of an existing protein. Mutating an entire new protein which is adequately built to produce positive functionality in an organism (not negative functionality) is problematic for a system of minor increments of mutational changes which evolution requires. Half of a protein, will not produce 50% of the functionality, just like trying to drive 50% of a vehicle does not work. At best, it produces neutral functionality, but more likely it produces negative functionality, meaning the organism would be selected against by natural selection, thus preventing evolution from ever happening.
This statement displays a fundamental, though not uncommon, misunderstanding of what a mutation is and the relationship between molecular biology and natural selection. In fact, this relationship in my view is one of the greatest strengths of the Theory of Evolution. A mutation is nothing more or less than a variation, a difference from the norm. On its own, it is neither positive nor negative. But variation is the fuel of Evolution.
All organisms use particular enzymes to replicate their genetic material during cell division. These enzymes have an inherent error rate, and these errors result in mutations, or variation in the resulting genetic material (genes).
Here is the really elegant part. It has been shown that when organisms (animals, plants, etc) experience stress, at the molecular level, the error rate of the enzymes I mentioned increases. This results in increased variation right when the species needs it, since increased variation increases the chance that some of that variation will provide a competitive advantage and will be selected for.
The further beauty of this is that it provides an explanation for the observed nature of evolution as occurring in fits and starts, as opposed to the incremental changes you incorrectly describe. That is, the greatest degree of variation is produced at times when a species experiences the greatest stress, and that is when the greatest evolutionary changes occur.
Thanks for getting me thinking.
Hey, thanks for taking the time to read it all. You should watch the video.
Okay, so I actually found time to watch the video. I will preface my comments by letting you know that my undergrad degree is a BSc in Genetics and I have taken courses specifically in Population Genetics. I say this because the presenter is a population geneticist and I want to be clear that I fully understand the lecture as it was delivered and none of the concepts discussed are new to me.
The presenter takes issue with the way in which Evolutionary Theory is taught in Polish high schools. I have no knowledge of Polish high school curricula, so cannot comment on those aspects. However, the presenter presents two points against Evolutionary theory: that genetic drift, which occurs in isolated populations, should not be considered evolution in action; and that his perceived absence of evidence for mutations that confer positive function argues against Evolution. I will take this opportunity to note that neither of these points are directly related to my earlier argument.
Regarding genetic drift, his point is that the genetic signature of a particular population may change over time basically by chance. This is true. The reason for this is that the traits in question do not confer any significant competitive advantage either for survival or reproduction. These traits, and variation in them, are irrelevant from an evolutionary perspective. This is why I disputed your point regarding evolution as an incremental process. If Polish high school text books are teaching this as the basis for evolutionary theory, then I agree they are misguided.
In contrast, I presented (maybe too briefly) Evolution as a process of periods of great change, interspersed with comparatively longer periods of relative stability. Think of it this way: some great source of stress is applied on a population. As I mentioned earlier, this produces changes at the cellular level that result in increased variation. To be clear, the stressor triggers increased variation. At the same time, the stressor is challenging survival at the individual level. Greater variation of a trait that is relevant to survival, in a population increases the chances that one or some variations of that trait will allow individual survival. This particular variant is then selected for as individuals without this variant do not survive. The result is that a variant of a particular trait which previously was either non existent or very rare, becomes dominant within a population/species.
On his second point, I dispute his suggestion that Evolutionary theory requires new positive functionality, or your extension, that it requires actual new (from scratch) proteins. This simply is not the case. Evolution, and natural selection depend on competitive advantage. While the process I described above may result in completely new variants of a particular trait, this is unnecessary. It is also possible for a particular variant that is “normally” competitively neutral to confer competitive advantage in certain circumstances. If this results in a change in the genetic makeup of the population through elimination of competitively disadvantaged variants, this is a Evolution at work.
Hey, I think this is great you actually know your stuff and can deal with the content. Many people I have conversations like this with, have absolutely no ability to process any of the statements I make and simply regurgitate high school biology 101. .... When I was in high school, I was not taught the version of evolution you are presenting.
"In contrast, I presented (maybe too briefly) Evolution as a process of periods of great change, interspersed with comparatively longer periods of relative stability."
So what has occurred here is the historical version of evolution we were given in generations gone by never stated this. I will trust you that the modern version of evolution is as you stated. I have heard similar things talked about by some people in various research I have done. If you study the history of evolution, it has been a constant history of bait and switch. When the theory fails to meet the present data, modifications are made, but if we are changing the theory, then why must not the new theory be reproven and begin as a hypothesis and not a theory? And why should I believe the present version of the theory, if it is going to change in 20 years, since the current description fails to meet what is actually occurring? How does it get to keep theory status, if no one believed this version of the belief set 20 years ago? Keep in mind, evolution has no mathematical proof like the laws of physics, so it is not a gradual refinement such as Newton's equations required later refinement.
Certainly the theory of evolution did not hinge around major genetic changes if we go back 40 years? Historically, it has been taught as incremental change over time.
Now all of what I said is irrelevant if we assume that the current version of the theory which was given by you is correct. It being wrong in the past is irrelevant to whether it is wrong now.
At the crux of my multi-layered reasons for disagreeing with evolution still, the two I would point out are:
Finally, thank you for your thoughtful response. I wrote all this because you took the time to watch my video and respond to me. I really appreciate it. Do not feel obligated to go through your counterpoints if you are not feeling up to it. If you did have some evidences of the sort of gradual protein formation I am looking for, I am very interested in any scientific articles related to such. Thank you for your time.