Expert: Florence M Rollwagen - 3/10/2009

Question
QUESTION: Hello Florence,just so you know I am an young earth creationist and do not believe in the Darwinian myth.My question is thus.If evolution turned molecules into humans what is the mechanism for a gene to add to its gene count?Please to save time do not refer to natural selection,I am fully aware of the evolution response to use natural selection as the mechanism but natural selection is incapable of looking to the future.It is incapable of deferring success or gratification.Thank you I hope you can help

ANSWER: Hi Kevin:  Thanks for your question:

Most scientists have observed the phenomenon of gene duplication and mutation to be one of the central mechanisms for adding information to the genome.  Gene duplication is common in plants and animals.  So to answer your short question, gene duplication.  In fact, here’s a very good recent summary you can read:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090211161840.htm

Gene duplication has been observed in many species, particularly now that we have DNA techniques to uncover them.  The construction of DNA phylogenetic trees is ongoing and yielding much information.

But to address your larger question.  Natural selection is most probably the best answer to how organisms evolved.  I realize that you are opposed to this explanation, but as a scientist, I cannot let this go.

You say that NS is incapable of looking to the future and you are correct.  But scientists do not think that evolution is a mechanism that looks to the future.  We do not have the basic ground rules that YEC’s have and we do not think that evolution was driving all species towards the appearance of humans.  

“Success” and “gratification” are human constructs, not at all related to evolution.

There are many creation myths out there, and absolutely no scientific evidence to suggest that any of them are true.  If any evidence were to be presented, then these myths would have more credibility in the scientific community.

My advice is to take a few biology courses and get educated.  After all, when your car is broken you don’t go to the plumber to get it fixed.  Why should you get scientific information from anybody other than a scientist?

Hope this helps, write back if you have more questions.

FM Rollwagen, PhD



---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Thank you for your polite response but I must disagree,are you saying that mutations ADD information to the genome thus INCREASING the gene count.Then I guess that scientists have observed BENEFICIAL mutations.Please state the evidence where this has occurred?One more question that I must ask to see your response.Let me go to the fossil evidence.If evolution is true there MUST BE FOSSIL EVIDENCE even Darwin stated this.Please give evidence of one taxon order evolving into another or please show evidence from the fossil record that insects and vertebrates evolved from an common ancestor?Again thank you

ANSWER: Hi again, Kevin:  

Not just mutation, gene duplication and mutation.  That way the original gene is still functioning, and the duplicated gene is available for mutation.  Gene duplication automatically doubles the amount of information for that allele.  Yes, I am saying that gene duplication and mutation are accepted ways that information can be added to the genome.  Mutations can be silent, beneficial or deleterious, depending on how they affect the organism.  The genes for the blood clotting cascade, often cited as “irreducible complexity” appear to have evolved this way: http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html

Here is an article that simulates a mathematical construct of gene duplication and mutation:
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/reprint/120/3/841

Yes, gene duplication and beneficial mutation has been observed.  Here’s a link:
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

Beneficial mutations are easily observed in bacteria, since they have such short life cycles.  Antibiotic resistance is such an example.  In these cases, the antibiotic resistance is carried by a plasmid (genes not part of the chromosome) and can be transferred from organism to organism, as well as reproduce within the bacteria.  Another beneficial mutation is resistance to warfarin in rats (warfarin is the chemical in rat poison, and not co-incidentally is used as a human “blood thinner”.  It has the same function, just a dose difference).  The sickle cell allele is a beneficial mutation in areas where malaria is endemic, since it increases survival in individuals who are heterozygous (have one mutated allele from one parent, and the normal allele from the other parent).

The fossil evidence that I like to use in my classes is adapted from a great website by Penny Higgins.  She discusses transitional forms in detail: http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/fishibian.html  I should also add that Neil Shubin has a great book about evolution called “Your Inner Fish” which you should read.

Here is another link on transitional forms: http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Intermediate_Forms_Between_Classes  It discusses all transitions, not just fossil ones.

And yet another: http://www.livescience.com/animals/090211-transitional-fossils.html

I am not familiar with insect evolution and cannot answer your question directly.  Since the earliest insect fossil (Rhyniognatha hirsti) appeared during the Devonian period, it is hardly a vertebrate ancestor, since vertebrates were already widespread by then.  Most of the evidence for a common ancestor comes from genetics, so does not directly relate to your question.  However, if you are interested, here is a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insect_evolution

Hope this helps.  Write back if you have more questions.  And take a biology course!

FM Rollwagen, PhD



---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Hello again Dr.Rollwagen,I must say that you are very polite and do not seem too get angry at my responses.Other evolutionists will get angry without explaining their answer and say thats the way it is.I realize through my studies that evolution has become an ideology,and the one thing ideologies fear is exposure,thats why I see evolution forbids certain lines of questioning.But I notice you advised me to look up the fossil transitions on Peggy Higgins website.Her site shows no evidence whatsoever of one taxon order evolving to another all this shows is simple variations within a kind and the evolutionist says look how similar these are.The so called evolution of the horse we are always dealing with horse-like organisms.All the evolutionist will do I see is arbitrary pick and choose from the millions of fossils that are found and say these progressed into higher organisms.I sorry but again if evolution is a fact and creation is false please show from the fossil record just one TAXON order evolving into another that website provides no evidence whatsoever.Only changes within a kind which the Bible says does happen,there is no fossil with a half scale half feather all points to creation.Again thank you,please do not think I am coming off as rude and I thank you that you let me ask these questions.   P.S. The reason I do not take a biology course is because I know I will be indoctrinated with the macro-evolution nonsense and prefer to do my research and studies home school

Answer
Hi again, Kevin.  I'm really busy right now and cannot give your answer the thought it deserves.  Sit tight and I'll get back to you by Monday.

Thanks for understanding.

FMR

Hi again, I'm back.  Thanks for waiting.

One problem with your argument is that you pose that there should be (for example) a fossil showing half-feather half-scale.  When you don’t find this, you claim that evolution is wrong.

What is wrong are your assumptions.  Why would you expect to see half this /half that?  Evolution NEVER postulates such a thing.  Transitional fossils are barely different from the original ones, and barely different from their progeny.  What makes them transitional is looking at the ancestors, looking at the current species and describing the differences and similarities.  In the larger picture, all species are transitional species.  We’re all on our way to something else, either extinction or the evolution of something different.

You also cite horse evolution saying that all the creatures are horse like.  So what is horse-like?  Four legs and a tail?  Well, actually many of the horse lineage creatures are NOT horse-like.  What horses do you know that have 4 toes, teeth adapted for soft plants, and are about a foot and a half tall (hyracotherion)?  

Another argument that you give is that you don’t believe Peggy Higgins’ site.  She clearly shows the changes seen from one TAXON (fish) through another TAXON (amphibians).  Just what is it, exactly that you don’t understand?  Tiktaalik is a transitional form, having some fish-like structures and some amphibian-like structures.  Why don’t you define TAXON for me, since it certainly doesn’t relate to anything in biology such as phylum, order, class, etc.

As for taking a biology class, you can avoid the “indoctrination”, but will learn more about anatomy and physiology, animals and plants than you apparently know now.  These things will help you understand the arguments put forward for evolution.  Just remember that one person’s “indoctrination” is another person’s “education”

I must also ask you:  Is your faith so weak that it cannot stand up to an introductory biology class?  You may have to expand your horizons a little bit.  After all, a god that can create the universe can also accommodate evolution.  I challenge you to break out of your self-imposed shell and look at the bigger picture.

FM Rollwagen, PhD