By Potpher C. Mbulo
DARWINISM: Charlse Darwin used as evidence for his theory the fact that some organs seen in adults and embryos appear to be vestigial. According to the evolution theory such organs as the tiny buried hind-limb bones of whales are remnants of the walking legs of their terrestrial ancestors. The Creation theory has trouble explaining them, it is believed.
DISCUSSION:
Most previous evolutionists, such as Darwin's grandfather Erasmus, had inclined towards an alternative theory of the mechanism of evolution, now usually associated with Lamarck's name. This was the theory that improvements acquired during an organism's lifetime, such as the growth of organs during use and their shrinkage during disuse, were inherited. So who is believing in Lamarckism? Here is my poem for you:
The Genes Have Decreed
Darwin wondered and complained about
“Remnant whale’s legs being vestigial”
But Creationism is not in doubt
“Nothing about the whale’s bones is residual”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Now who is believing in Lamarckism?
How can a whale loose legs by Darwinism?
It is Charles and the rest of his clones
All wearing Erasmus’s aprons
Genes should preserve the whale’s legs
But Lamarck takes them away through the ages
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Please Lamarck bring them back
Darwinism is vanishing in the dark
Please Lamarck don’t cut them with a knife
Even if it goes back to aquatic life
Whales should have legs if ever they had indeed
Because the genes should have decreed
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Date: 13/01/2006
© 2006 Potpher C. Mbulo (All Rights Reserved)
But science does not support the idea that disuse of organs results in shrinkage of the organs so much that it can be inherited by the offspring of the organism. Nor is it theoretically plausible. Genetic information does not travel “backwards” from body cells into the inherited “germ-line”. It is still inconceivable that embryonic development could reverse itself so that bodily dissimprovements acquired during disuse of an animal's lifetime can encode themselves in the genes. In Darwin's time the matter was also in doubt, and Darwin himself flirted with a personalized version of Lamarckism when his natural selection theory ran into a difficulty.
That difficulty arose from current views of the nature of heredity. I was reading one of Richard Dawkins articles in which he said that in the 19th century it was almost universally assumed that heredity was a blending process. On this blending inheritance theory, not only are offspring intermediate between their two parents in character and appearance, but the hereditary factors that they pass on to their own children are themselves intermediate because inextricably merged. It can be shown that, if heredity is of this blending type, it is impossible for Darwinian natural selection to work because the available variation is halved in every generation. This was pointed out in 1867 and it worried Darwin enough to drive him in the direction of Lamarckism. It may also have contributed to the odd fact that Darwinism suffered a temporary spell of unfashionableness in the early part of the 20th century.
A temporal solution to the problem that so worried Darwin lay in the theory of particular inheritance developed by Gregor Mendel, published in 1865 but unfortunately unread by Darwin, or practically anyone else, until after Darwin's death. Mendel's research, rediscovered at the turn of the century, demonstrated what Darwin himself had at one time dimly glimpsed, that heredity is particulate, not blending. Whether or not offspring are bodily intermediate between their two parents, they inherit, and pass on, discrete hereditary particles we call genes are at play. An individual either definitely inherits a particular gene from a particular parent or it definitely does not. Since the same can be said of its parents, it follows that an individual either inherits a particular gene from a particular grandparent or it does not. This argument can be applied repeatedly for an indefinite number of generations. Word of caution here: a phenotype (what is expressed on the body of an organism) can be affected by many genes. For example, when a blackman and white woman sexually reproduce, the child does not have yellow as in “white” nor brown as in “black”. I’m having problems to express myself because English is a racist language and it is not my language. I think in my language and then translate my thoughts into English words. Anyway, I meant to say that the child is neither light skinned or dark skinned but somewhere in between. Lets proceed. Discrete single genes are shuffled independently through the generations like cards in a pack, rather than being mixed like the ingredients of a pudding. If heredity is particulate, natural selection really can work on allele frequency. But it does not cause arising of a new species (speciation).
350 years before Darwin, Martin Luther said:
“The best argument that there is a GOD - and it often moved me deeply - is this one that he proves from gensw4r53yeration of species: a cow always bears a cow, a horse a horse, etc. No goldfinch produces a siskin. Therefore it is necessary to conclude that there is something that directs everything thus.”
The Intelligent Designer insured that preservation of species is directed through genes. Natural selection accounts for the adaptation i.e. for such progressive qualities as evolution may controversially exhibit. Natural selection is the differential reproductive success of varieties in a population: What Darwinists mean, I think, in so far as they mean anything, is that what, it is important because of its consequences for the differential survival of genes in gene pools. It depletes gene pool. It does not yield species. A yellow pig can be selected while a blue one becomes less frequent in a population but ultimately the yellow pig is still a pig. Here is colour example in nature: It is infact natural selection's most famous example, the peppered moth, which has turned out to be based on bad science. The "evolution" of the peppered moth, Biston betularia, was preached that a new species has evolved from light coloured moths into dark-coloured moths.
The colour change that peppered moths underwent during the 1800s is an example of natural selection at work. Before the Industrial Revolution took place in Britain in the late 1700s, light-coloured peppered moths that blended with the lichen-covered bark of trees were far more prevalent than dark-coloured peppered moths. However, pollution from the Industrial Revolution killed the lichen on trees, leaving their dark bark exposed, and the contrasting light-coloured moths became easy prey for birds. The dark peppered moths, easily camouflaged on the dark bark, soon became far more common than the lighter varieties. Now that pollution is less, the light-coloured peppered moths are increasing again. There was no speciation. This study simply shows microevolution, or change within a kind, not a new kind coming into existence. It boils down to: when the trees are white, there are more white moths - conversely, when the trees are dark, such as from pollution, more of the dark moths survive to pass this trait along. The moths are still moths. They don't become a whole new creature.
Despite 40 years of effort, scientists have seen only two moths <span>ever</span> resting on tree trunks - they never have landed consistently on tree trunks, but hide under branches! I demand that evolution textbooks in schools to be rewritten. Unfortunately, die-hard Evolutionist Richard Dawkins dismissed the new data, saying that, "nothing momentous hangs on these experiments.”
As was first realized by the British mathematician G. H. Hardy and the German scientist W. Weinberg, there is no inherent tendency for genes to disappear from the gene pool. Sexual reproduction and genetic recombination due to crossing over see to it that genetic variation is rapidly distributed and recombined in the gene pool hence preserving the variations in a population. Even dominant phenotype in its genome carry with them recessive alleles in a hypothesized small founder population. Thus in nature it is impossible to wipe out any allele from a population because Dipolidy hides alleles for future exhibition. 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.
Even if certain genes were to disappear in a small population through a mind-blowing gigantic Genetic Drift collegial with nerve-tilting enormous catastrophic event, it does not cause speciation. Stephen J. Gould’s “evolution by jerks” and old-fashioned Darwinists’ “evolution by creeps” does not yield speciation.
A whale with no legs is still a whale. By no means I’m I suggesting that whales had legs. A flying beetle and a non-flying beetle are both equally beetles. However sexual reproduction keeps the genes shuffled, and it is in this sense that the long-term habitat of a gene is the gene pool. Any given gene in a gene pool exists in the form of several duplicate copies. That is what is meant by gene frequency in the gene pool. Some genes, such as the albino gene, are rare in the gene pool however they come to be expressed even if the immediate parents or grand parents are not albinos. Other genes are common.
I would like to demonstrate that adaptation is but a tine force that fails to shift the load uphill.
- Worker ants are sterile, but they can still affect the representation of copies of their genes in the gene pool, by favouring the reproduction of their close relatives, such as their mother or their reproductive sisters which admittedly are disadvantageous for adaptation. The result is mal-adaptive evolution. Non-adaptive is common too. In a notable theoretical advance, W. D. Hamilton proposed “inclusive fitness” as a generalization of “Darwinian fitness” which took account of such indirect, kinship effects which do not yield best traits in future generations.
- 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. This pushes a species to stasis (unchanging).Richard Dawkins says that the most obvious example of neutral theory of evolution is synonymous mutation. Since the genetic code is “degenerate” (i.e. more than one triplet codon can lead to the same amino acid), a mutation from a gene to its exact synonym, though a true mutation when viewed at the molecular genetic level, has no effect that natural selection can “notice”. Even where mutations are not synonymous at the DNA level, the proteins for which they code may exert an identical enzymic effect (for example, because the mutation has no effect on the 3-dimensional coiled structure of the protein). The final phenotypic expression of two forms of the gene can therefore be identical, and mutation from one form to the other is again neutral. Kimura and his colleagues point to evidence that the majority of gene substitutions in nature are neutral. It is, in their view, that the main cause of genetic variation preservation in wild populations is seen.
- Biologist estimate that only 1.5 % of total DNA material on the strand is used for coding protein. But more importantly, all scientists 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. Thus adaptation is tangent.
- Every biologist knows that well over 99% of mutations that alter a protein enough to affect its function are harmful. 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. It is only logical to conclude that species loose their vitality and prowess with time as rare mutations persist.
- It has been proven scientifically that crossbreeding of varieties within a species increases immunity to various diseases while inbreeding results in organisms being prone to diseases and deformity in human beings. So the very natural selection postulation of small new founder population is detrimental while none natural selection could be positive.
- Mbulo’s Thoery Of Differential Sexual Appeal Success Over Sex Of Blind Dating (MTODSAS Over SOBD). This is my theory. In my opinion, in general, the true natural selection is all about sex and not advantageous competitive traits. A male who manages to persuade a female to mate with him rather than with a rival is likely to contribute his genes to future gene pools. Genes for sexually attractive entails Willy and Nilly to have an advantage that compensates for their admitted disadvantages. Don’t you think so? I’m the only one that is both handsome and intelligent. Hahahaha!!! That is not to take away any credit from my theory. I can improve it by stating that:
Laughable as it may sound, my assumption is verifiable. My theory’s basic concepts and fundamental hypotheses are close if not to exact of experience:
Differential prowess of genuine sexual appeal over sex of blind dating is always positive disregarding illogical blind lunatics and irrespective of homosexuals and various other forms of perverts.
Hahahaha!!! I told you that can refine my theory. Seriously, genuine sexual appeal is a greater force than random sex because the later is not as common as the former hence the best adaptive survival traits are not selected because they are out of tune with genuine sexual appear. Thus at genetic level, evolution may be defined as the process by which gene-frequencies change in gene pools by natural selection but more importantly by sexual appeal. Even under this we have classes and my theory is that sex is common within a class. This theory postulates that classes are preserved within a population. Generalize it – variations are preserved by sex.
Adaptation should be viewed as a discreet force acting against many monumental discreet forces that preserve a species and those that deplete it of its prowess. It is but a tine force that fails to shift the load uphill. This is confirmed by Biogenetic law. This law has 2 provable concepts to it:
(a) Life can only come from life.
(b) Like kinds always give rise to like kinds. In all the years of observing nature, scientists have never seen this law broken or violated.
Every individual, of either sex, will tend to inherit its mother's genes for preferring its father, and its father's genes for the qualities preferred. This correlation, today technically and painfully to evolutionists is called linkage disequilibrium. Even geneticist, R. A. Fisher, held that even if the prevailing fashion in female taste is for male qualities that are deleterious to male survival, selection can tend to favour sexual attractiveness for its own sake. The genuine male quality is rarely the best traits for adaptation and survival. Thus it is shallow thinking to assume that the best traits are selected resulting in perfect organisms. Now, all in all, this is microevolution and not macroevolution. So you see that microevolution does not support perfectionism. It is Macroevolution that does but unfortunately itself has no scientific support. There is no speciation even in scientific theoretical logical argument nor in observation in nature. According to evolutionist Mark Isaak, a theory is a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena. If there is no observable phenomena, then it follows that there must be no theory. A scientific theory only is demanded and indeed arises to explain for what is observed. What can you explain for that which does not exist? So you see that evolution is not a scientific theory. It's a religion of speculation and conjecture accounting for that which is not observed.
The old Neo-Platonist idea of a Great Chain of Being, with single-celled life at the bottom and humans just below the angels, has evolved into neo-Darwinism. Plato of 428 - 347 BC), Greek philosopher, is still one of the most creative and influential thinkers in Western philosophy. Now when I say that natural selection and mutation is no more than a bullet shot into an engine of a car with the hope of improving engine performance or a computer program relying on copying mistakes to give it better functions and conclude that evolution cannot have craft perfect organism from imperfect organism, the evolutionist retaliate by saying that evolution does not necessary cause perfectionism because they don’t want to be associated with Plato. However when they turn to past animals and the fossil record, it is theoretically respectable at least to ask whether there is progressive change over time. From this perspective, progress is undeniable. I mean according to them, before a certain date, all life was prokaryotic. After that date there was prokaryotic and eukaryotic life. Another watershed date separates a time when all eukaryotic life was unicellular from a later time when it was both unicellular and multicellular. Later watershed dates separate purely aquatic life from aquatic and terrestrial life, then aquatic, terrestrial, and aerial life. Whether or not average brain size has increased, it is obviously true that maximum brain size has increased. So what is wrong with saying evolution is about perfectionism? The truth is that it is shallow thinking to assume that the best traits are a result of mutation and are selected resulting in perfect organisms.
I know of a German scientist, Haeckel, who was trying to disprove creationism but in the end his ideas discredit evolution. He attempted to use embryological development to prove evolution. Amazingly he even tried unifying theory of biology, science in general, and even religion. According to Haeckel, each animal retraces, during its embryological development, the evolutionary steps that led to its place in the natural order. Thus, a human foetus begins its development as a single cell, just as life must have begun. About eight days later the cell grows into a hollow sphere (the blastula) that is similar in morphology to the sponges. The embryo then invaginates to form a two-layered, cup-like structure (the gastrula) that is similar to coelenterates such as jellyfish and the corals. The human embryo next begins to elongate, and within 30 days it has passed through stages with gills, a tail, and fin-like limbs typical of fish and amphibians. Soon the embryo takes an obviously mammalian form, but only after two months is it clearly seen to be a primate. In Haeckel's words, “Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” literally translated as embryonic development and evolutionary development.
Although a great deal of evolutionary imaginations can be found in this most famous of Haeckel's conjectures, his attempts to reconstruct evolutionary lineages on the basis of embryological development led to phylogenies now known to be wholly inaccurate. But here is one that must be accurate: Comparative Anatomy Theory that states that like features inside two different creatures moans that they are distant cousins on the evolutionary tree, many features that the scientists use to prove like ancestry usually come from different areas on the DNA strand. According to Darwinists logic, we conclude then that they are not ancestors. Furthermore Comparative Anatomy Theory, at molecular DNA strand level, dispels ramous about vestigial organs.
Darwinists like asking the question: “Why are there imperfect organisms in creationism?” That is a very good and valid question. They are not imperfect, as you perceive them. A simple but perfect answer is that an intelligent designer insured that they be perfect food for their predators. Furthermore, He also insured that that the victims have other advantages such as high reproduction propensity. The Intelligent Designer was looking at a bigger perfect picture. But Darwinists don’t like simple answers. They claim it is unscientific. But listen to what Albert Einstein had to say:
“I believe that every true theorist is a kind of tamed metaphysicist, no matter how pure a ‘positivist’ he may fancy himself. The metaphysicist believes that the logically simple is also the real. The tamed metaphysicist believes that not all that is logically simple is embodied in experienced reality, but that the totality of all sensory experience can be ‘comprehended’ on the basis of a conceptual system built on premises of great simplicity. The skeptic will say that this is a ‘miracle creed.’ Admittedly so, but it is a miracle creed which has been borne out to an amazing extent by the development of science.” [Einstein on Gravitation, April 1950 by Scientific American, Inc.[http://www.sciam.com/]
“All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from there they return again.” Ecclesiastes 1:7
I like this verse because it also unveils a lot of other mysteries. How can a primitive King Solomon, king of ancient Israel (reigned 961-922 BC), disclose a concealed working of a rain cycle? The Intelligent Designer must have inspired him.
Indeed, what we see eventually in nature are equilibriums. If you are too fast, you might end up being a victim of your own success. A good example is a big fish in a small pond. Such a fish in evolution may have advanced in size giving it a competitive advantage of eating small fish but the limited environment will eliminate it. This is just a theoretical illustration to show that in nature things are balanced. If there is loss of balance there arises an upheaval due to the disturbance but eventually modified 2LOT brings back equilibrium.
Now lets go back to vestigial organs. Why would a whale that is recent on evolution timetable loose legs while a reptile such as a crocodile still has legs yet it is much older? Well you might say because the crocodile spends part of its life on land. My question is what about the seal that also considerably spends time on land to breed and to rear their young? Couldn’t it have re-evolved the legs? In my language there is a popular saying: “Munda wakale suvuta kulima.” It is literally translated in English as: “The field that was cultivated back in time is easier to cultivate now than the one that was never cultivated before.” Wau!!! I didn’t know that English can be so inefficient. Imagine my language uses only 4 words yet English uses 21 words to mean the same thing. Anyway the point I was making is that it is expected for a seal to easily reacquire the legs than the first time it did acquire them. I demand you give me the seal’s legs. Why would a snake loose legs yet it is on land? I demand that you give me its legs too. The sea slug is impressive design that can be used to show evolution’s falsehood. Sea slugs feed on the sea anemone. What makes this so impressive is that the anemones have poison harpoons that stick out and would paralyze anything that came in contact with it. The sea slug however, is able to put these darts inside its own stomach to store and use for its own defense. You would have to have all of these abilities from the start or the organism would die the 1st time it came in contact with the dart. A slow evolutionary process would have been deadly! What happened to natural selection? What natural selection pressures were at play? Does it only work when evolutionists decide it should when it is in favour of the theory?
Here is an illustration. What happened to a whale’s legs?
“It was fashionable for male whales to have sex with legless female whales hence leglessness propagated but legness diminished”, says a Darwinist.
My question hasn’t been answered. What happened to the legs in the first place?
“The male whale demanded that mutation should cut them off from female whale so that she cannot run away when male whale wants to have sex with her” retorts a desperate Darwinist.
OK jokes aside, Darwinists say mutations are blind and don’t listen to male whales. Fine, I give them a plus.
Now here is my other question: Why was female whale avoiding sex?
“It was a painful experience for female whale to have sexual intercourse”, answers a Darwinist.
I follow it up with my killer question: If the presumption is true about pain, in the deep blue waters, why then haven’t female whales evolved faster swimming abilities to counteract their male counterparts?
“The male whale demanded that mutation should not give female whale bigger fins for swimming faster so that she cannot swim away when male whale wants to have sex with her”
Sorry I forgot that mutations are blind and don’t listen to male whales.
A self perceived wise man says, “It is now that sex is sweet for female whales.”
Listen you fool, if sex is sweet now for female whales, it was equally pleasurable to her then before loosing her legs. Hahahaha!!!
Now I’m tired of laughing. But before I rest let me say that I know there has been a question lingering in your mind. You ask, “In Intelligent Design, why are there vestigial organs?”
Don’t attack my theory. I’m the noblelest of the aristocrat. You might get embarrassed. Hahahaha!!! They are only vestigial in your mind and not in the organism’s need. Darwinists at one time complained that the appendix is vestigial. Well has it ceased to be vestigial? Of course yes and so will the rest of your complaints. Keep smiling patiently. We shall address them in time. In fact, at one time, it was believed a human being had over 200 vestigial organs. In actuality, all the organs have been found to have important bodily functions. This is true for the appendix also. Doctors have quit removing it, as it has been proven to be a great aid in digestion.
Science News, Vol. 164 #24, December 10,1994, "Does nonsense DNA speak it's own dialect?" reported extremely significant results of genetic research. It cited the December 5, 1994 issue of Physical Review Letters containing research by molecular biologists at Harvard Medical School and physicists at Boston University strongly indicating that so-called "junk" DNA, is not "junk" after all. Their study of 37 DNA sequences containing 50,000 base pairs from a variety of organisms showed that the "junk" DNA, amounting to 90% of the human genome, is actually written in a special language. Their tests showed "language like properties" in the "junk" DNA indicating it to be distinctly different from the "code" of the genes. Plainly, this development effectively removes the "junk" which evolutionists have supposed is left over from eons of evolutionary trial and error, and enormously strengthens the argument that an Intelligent Designer made the genetic code to begin with. It has been wondered just where in the genome are the instructions that tell the genes when to "express" and when not to -- so you get fingernails on your fingers and not on your elbows, for example. It would seem the "junk" DNA, now discovered to have its own programmed language, might turn out to be the place.
I know a Darwinists hate the idea of intelligent design. They ask, “Where is God?” But since the electromagnetic field exists even in a vacuum, didn’t the discoverer of electromagnetism conceive it as a state of a “carrier,” or shouldn’t we rather endow it with an independent existence not reducible to anything else? In other words, how do we conceive a force that is not tangible in Newtonian mechanics? If we can then why can't we imagine a parallel universe that I term spiritual world? There is no scientific law that restricts such imagination or inquiry. Neither hate the game nor the player, but enjoy the moment!!! It’s not by confining of one’s neighbour that one is convinced of one’s own sanity. Chau!!!
Shalom! Shalom!
Ever-loving,
Potpher
