By: Potpher C. Mbulo
Let me give you a brief history: Evolution is not a science because it is not determined by subject matter or energy but by it's the method of dealing with evidence. I would like to prove that those that foster their pattern of hypotheses as gospel truth use questionable sources and random statistics to support their PREDETERMINED conclusion through self-serving views usually with a commercial intent or personal publicity.
That is the way so-called men of "knowledge" eat any package of superstitions and pass their ideological dung they purport as science to all those whose minds have never yet gathered enough momentum to objectively take an independent view of facts. These men are so optimistic about believing in impossible positive mutations and slimmest occurrences that both those that are pessimistic and those that are objective or evenly balanced are considered uneducated and unscientific. Sorry for the usage of the word men the best word is males/females.
One ancient Greek "scientist" placed meat in a jar and sealed it. After a number of days had passed, he opened the jar and discovered that the meat had developed into maggots. Oh, how he exclaimed, "Behold, maggots evolve form dead animals!" Suffice it to mention that the Greek died at his appointed time, but unfortunately fathered many generations of modern superstitions, evolution being the prime heir. Tortuous evolution of history has forged many old traditions to be abandoned while others have survived. It's ironic and sad to realize modern western world rejects using tealeaves to plan her day yet many pore over an astrology column in a newspaper each morning. Old traditions die hard!
Lamarckism: Developed by Lamarck (1744-1829). He believed that there was some intrinsic force in organisms that leads to improvement or evolutionary change.
Darwinism: By Charles Darwin (1744-1829) Pure Darwinism is also known as natural selection and says that adaptation is the cause of evolution. Darwin was blank in genetics.
Mendelianism: By Mendel (1822-1884) He believed that all species originate from macro-mutations and that a new species is formed at once by one individual in a population by becoming the first representative of the new species.
Neo-Darwinism: This is the latest theory that attempts to explain the origin of species. It basically modernization of pure Darwinism by infusing genetics. It says that adaptation and the origin of diversity are the two major components of evolution. It is also known as evolutionary synthesis because the architects of the theory unified evolution theories in paleontology, taxonomy, genetics and botany while accepting Darwinism.
Dr Ernst Mayr is one of the architects of evolutionary synthesis (neo-Darwinism) of the 1930s and 1940s. Dr. Mayr argues that geographical speciation also known as allopatric speciation is what causes new species to appear. He believes some founders, a few individuals establish a new founder colony beyond the existing species boarder. He believes this new founder population rapidly changes genetically and acquires the reproductive characteristics that are needed for becoming a different species. There it is again - "THE PRIMITIVE PEOPLE MUST HAVE HAD SPROUTED WINGS IN THEIR BACKS". Well then he continues that then the "evolved species" can still remain so even if it meets again with the "original species". He claims that that is probably why gradual origin of new species is not found by paleontologists. The trouble is that no one has see or witnessed speciation. He further says that then the species enters a stage of stasis (unchanging) for many million years until finally becoming extinct. Like all neo-Darwinists, he opts to believe that speciation is a rare occurrence.
First of all, the question is what is a species? It has been generally accepted that a species is a population that can not interbreed with another population though they occur in one environment at the same time. This means they are reproductively isolated or in short - speciated.
Having said that, let me go into the analysis.
ANALYSIS:
New alleles originate by mutations. A mutation affecting any gene is an accident that is rare and random. Now all scientist in genetics agree that most mutations occur in somatic cells. These are cells that have nothing to do with reproduction. Thus these mutations die with an individual. Geneticists estimate that in humans an average of only one or two mutations occur in each cell line that produces a gamete and these are only mutations that can be passed to children. Now we see that not all evolutionary change is necessarily adaptive. At the molecular level, in particular, there is growing support for the idea that most evolutionary change is actually neutral. It is also known as anti-Darwinism. The “neutral theory of evolution” has been most effectively championed by the distinguished Japanese geneticist Motoo Kimura. The neutral theory is not about genes doing nothing useful. It about stating that different forms of the same gene are indistinguishable in their effects. Therefore a mutation from one form of the gene to another is neutral in that the change has no effect upon the phenotype where natural selection could act upon. In short a mutation is in the dark. Chance determines where it will strike and how it will alter a gene. So the idea that a new founder population rapidly changes genetically is here by dismissed and rendered null and void.
Most point mutations (those affecting a single base) in DNA are harmless. I say so because much of DNA in eukaryotic genome does not code for protein products. In this respect most of them have no effect on the organism.
Even mutations of structural genes (those that code for protein) may occur with very little or no effect on the organism because of redundancy in the genetic code. Of coarse I agree that a single-point mutation can have a significant impact on phenotype (what is expressed) as in for example, sickle-cell anemia.
Every biologist knows that over 99% of mutations that alter a protein enough to affect its function are harmful. Could you kindly tell me of a mutation that is beneficial? In this respect what is the overall net contribution to a gene pool? NEGATIVE contribution!!!. Now, natural selection only favors the best from the available variations in a gene pool of a population. Strictly speaking new alleles do not arise on demand. Therefore it is not scientific to think big muscles of one who works with a hammer will have children with big muscles. It is equally unscientific to presume that the giraffe's neck is a result of stretching its head high to get leaves from tree branches. Though organism could be refined products of thousands of generations within a population, a random change in gene is not likely to improve the genome any more than firing a gunshot blindly through the hood of a car is likely to improve engine performance.
Another point I would like to make is that survival of the fittest and elimination of the unfavorable ones hypothesis as in Darwinism is measured only by the relative contribution an individual makes to the gene pool of the next generation. But does that mean the species gets extinct due to this hypothesis? No! Not at all. Does it mean there are special genes that yield ideal characteristics among the available ones in a gene pool of a population or a founder population to make adaptation perfectly suit a species to an environment? Again No! not at all.
Duplications of chromosomes or segments thereof are also mostly harmful. The examples in humans are:
Down's syndrome (mongolism) which results of chromosome pair 21 failing to separate during meiosis.
Philadelphia chromosome (Ph1) this is a result of translocation of one of the long chromatids of chromosome pair 22 during meiosis. This is translocated to chromosome 9 causing chronic myeloid Leukemia
Some examples of diseases resulting from abnormal genes (mutant genes) are: hemophilia, sperocytosis, acute intermittent phorphyria, cystic fibrosis of the pancreas, galectosaemia, phenylketonuria, haemoglobinopathesis, etc.
There are a number of mechanisms that have been scientifically proven to be responsible making the species not to change. I will ride with you through some of them.
Recombinations:
Though mutations are a source of new genes, they are so infrequent at any locus that generation to generation, their contribution to genetic variation is negligible. I mean members of a population owe nearly all their differences to the unique recombinations of the existing alleles each individual brawls from a gene pool. In this respect, sexual reproduction within a population recombines old alleles into fresh assortments every generation thus preserving the varieties within a species.
Preservation Of Genetic Variation
What prevents natural selection from extinguishing a population's variations:
1. Diploidy: Diploid character of eukaryotes hides a considerable amount of genetic variation in form of recessive alleles in heterozygotes. The recessive alleles (assumably harmful in a present environment) can persist in a population through the propagation by heterozygous individuals. For example, if 0.01 is the frequency of recessive alleles, then 0.99 (99%) copies of that recessive allele are protected in heterozygotes, and only 1% recessive alleles are present in homozygotes. The conclusion is that the rarer the recessive allele, the greater the degree of protection afforded by heterozygosity. You should understand that we are dealing with large numbers here in a population.
2. Balanced Polymorphism: The example of such is heterozygote advantage such as in sickle-cell anemia. Here for instance a specific recessive allele at the locus causes sickle-cell anemia in homozygous individuals. However, heterozygotes are resistant to malaria. This is an important advantage in tropical regions where the disease is the major cause of death. Surprisingly in Africa (where I'm living) the frequency of sickle cell anemia is generally highest in areas where the malaria parasite is most common. Some study was taken that showed that in some tribes, if the recessive allele accounts 20% of hemoglobin loci in the pool and this is a very high frequency for gene that is disastrous in homozygotes. At this frequency (q = 0.2), 32% of the population consist of heterozygotes resistant to malaria (2pq), and only 4% of the population suffer from sickle-cell anemia
3. Hybrids of Crops: It has been proven scientifically that crossbreeding of varieties within a species increases immunity to various diseases. So the very natural selection postulation can be detrimental while none natural selection could be positive.
CONCLUSION
In summary what was I saying? Organisms are locked into historical constraints. Neo-Darwinism in its postulation does not scrap anatomy and build each new complex structure from scratch. It merely opts for existing structures and adapts them to new situations. Gene constraints preserve the species.
Natural selection can be detrimental to progression of new species. This is not to say that I admit that new species do form or did ever form. Adaptations are often compromises. For example, a seal spends part of its time on rocks, it would do better if it had legs. We humans owe much of our versatility and athleticism to our flexible limbs that make us prone to sprains, torn ligaments and dislocations.
If I were an evolutionist, I would say neo-Darwinism has failed to explain the origin of species. Look at this: When a storm blows insects hundreds of miles over an ocean to an island, the wind does not necessarily select the best genes from a gene pool so as to be better suited to a new environment. In this respect, not all alleles fixed by genetic drift in a gene pool of a small founding populations are better suited to that environment than alleles that are lost. So similarly the bottleneck effect can cause non-adaptive or even mal-adaptive evolution.
World Population Growth Rate of humans in recent times is about 2% per year. Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years. Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one "couple" just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 10 to the89th. The universe does not have space to hold so many bodies.
The various nucleotides essential for building RNA and DNA molecules require radically different environmental conditions for their assembly. Cytosine and uracil need near boiling water temperatures, while adenine and guanine need freezing water temperatures. Thus, it seems highly unlikely that under natural conditions all four building blocks would come together under adequate concentrations at the same site.
With all these hiccups of neo-Darwinism theory, it is only fact to say that it remains a mammoth task for evolutionist to dives new theories for we can not expect the present postulation to have craft perfect organisms. Natural selection only operates on a better than basis yet genes remain the stubborn constraints to any present or future theories. Time is running out. Who knows Jesus might come soon before you make anymore theories on the matter.
I know for sure that man has never answered the question of why did the life come into being. If the preceding question of "how" seems too difficult: if "how" seems to be at the borders of scientific method then the question "why" is clearly beyond scientific method. One notable scientist of evolution, Mark Twain once argued, "Why shouldn't truth be more stranger than fiction?" "Fiction, after all has to make sense." A scientist refutes the story of creation on account of failing to answer the question of "who created God?" Listen, God does not exist, but He is the existence. All things that exist have an origin and are but created. God has no beginning and no end and He is Spirit thus the laws of science can not apply to Him. Why do evolutionists find it easier to accept that the universe is limitless in terms of boundaries and yet fail to attribute omniscience to God? Why can't they go a little further and ask: what was the source of the energy at the center of the universe before the first big bang since all things have sources and beginnings? It's comforting to know that a true scientist will admit that the laws of science and gathered facts do not support evolution. Why then do so called men of knowledge believe in evolution? The answer is that I have already told you: - "THE PRIMITIVE PEOPLE MUST HAVE HAD SPROUTED WINGS IN THEIR BACKS". Then I m' not wrong to claim that evolution is based on belief and not on laws of science and thus Evolution (Cosmic Evolution Biogenesis and neo-Darwinism) is a religion and not a science. Unfortunately evolution requires more faith than creation. Evolutionists have plenty of faith but no ears so they won't here the facts that are shouted into their face. Yes, absolutely no ear but plenty of wasted faith.
Shalom! Shalom!
Ever loving,
Potpher C. Mbulo
