Jerry Coyne wrote a book titled Why Evolution Is True which I read many years ago by now and have oforgotten completely, but I just ran across a presentation by him on You Tube on the same subject as his book. And as usual I find him claiming things are facts which right before our very eyyes show themselves clearly NOT to be facts. Funny how tht is with these scientists who are so committed to evidentiary proof and scientific reasoning etc etc etc.
Capturing URLs is very difficult for me byut you can find the talk at Why Evolution Is True by Jerry Coyne if you want to check it out.
The first point he makes that I want to address is that "evolution occurs" which he isllustrates with the fact that "populations change" meaning they change genetically over time . So a herd of something or other ove time will coe to look a bit different than it stat out looking and mayve eventually quite a bit different and so on. OK, no problem.
But my problem is that this is not evolution. This is variation, genetic variation that is built into the creature's genome wnand which is completely confined tot aht genome. I've talked about this in previous posts. Each generation is slightly different from the previous because of sexual recombination of the genes, or alleles which are alternate versions of a gene. father donates one allele, mother donates the other and together they produce a trait in the offspring tht slightly differs fromn the same trait in the parents, not always but usually. Over many generations these changes can add up to very big differences especially since different individuals come into the reproductive line and contribute alleles.
this is not evolution. You can't get from one species to another this way, youi can only get variations on the same species this way. that is because the variations occur within the existintg geness and those casame genes are inherited from generation to generation, only with different varersions of them show ing up in greater or smaller numbers by chance.
Evoutohnj guys like Dawkins and Coyne talk as if this sort of change is open ended, that it goes beyond the collection of traits belonging to that particular species or organism. They seem to take it for granted without giving it a second thought. but how could it? The change occurs withint he given properties of the genoe, it needs nothing new added to it for the change to occur. if mutationj should occur, which is the usual idea of how you gent something new, the mutation is a change to the gene that is built into the genome so whatever change the mutation adds stays withint tht genome for tht species or orgnaism and it is a change in a particlar trait, it doesn't change the trait itself, just gives it a diffdfernte color or texture or other characteristic tht pertains onoly to tht trait. Whatee is already in the genome defines the limit of what sort of characteristics are possible. It's already there in the genome. You can't get something brand new tht isn't alreayd potential withinjt he genme. So it isn't evolution. You can call it microevolution, or some do, but it isn't evolution, it's merely built in variation, what Mendel showed could make peas with blue flowers or pink flowers, what we all know can make for blue eyes or brown eyes and so on. It's there already and that is all that is there.
Anher way change is limited to the genome is in the fact that if a particular trait is heavlily selected over many generations it will become genetically fixed or homozygous as one allele will be paired with the same allele and the variant allele will cgradually drop out of the poulation. When you get a lot of homozygosity, which is what greeders get when they get a purebred animal, which supposedly could also occur in the wild though I think it's really only seen in the cases of bottleneck suck as the cheetah,. Anywayh this is often the \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\Variation, or "efolution" sotops happening when you get homozygosity to a great degree in a population. So at the point when you are geetting the most well established traits, as in a sdomestic breed, that's when you stop getting vevolution as it were. Youj can never get outside thegenome.
So, no, evolution does NOt OCCUR, OR AT LEAST THIS IS NO PROOF OF IT.
cO cOYNE'S FIRST OINT IS THAT EVOLUTION OCCURS, THEN HIS SECOND OINT IS THAT IT OCCURS GRANTUALLY, USUALLY, NOT ALWAYS BUT USUALLY, WHICH HE GOES ON TO SAY MEANS THAT YOU DON'T GET A POPULATIO OF DINOCAURS SUDDENLY TURNING INTO TA POPULATION OF BIRDS, IT HAPPENS GRADUALLY OVER LONG PERIODS OF TIME.
eXCPET IT CAN'T BECUASE DINOCAURS CAN ONLY VARIY ACCORDING TO THEIR DINOSAUR GENOME, THEY CANNOT PRODUCE ANY OF THE TRAITS OF A BIRD THAT ARE NOT ALREADY POSSESS ED BY THEMSELVES AS THEIR OWN TRAITS. yET cOYNE JUST BLITHLELY CARRIES ON, AS THEY ALL DO, AS IF IT'S JUST A FACT THAT REPTILES GRADUALLY CHANGED INTRO BIRDS OVER TIME. fUNNY HOW THEY THINK THEY ARE APPEALING TO EVIDENCE. wHERE IS THE EVIDENCE HERE?
THE HIS POINT THREE IS SPECIATION. THE BRANCHING OF A SPECIES INTO TWO DIFFERENT SPECIES. hIS NEXT POINT IS GOING TO BE THT SUCH BRANCHED SPECIES CN TRACE THEIR ANCESTRY BACK TO A COMMON ANCESTOR, REVERSING THIS PICTURE.
hIS FITH POINT IS THAT NATURAL SELECTION IS WHAT CAUES EVOLUTION, IT'S THE EMCHANISM THAT BRINGS ABOUT THE FITNESS OF THE CREATURE TO THE ENVIRONMENT.
hAVING LISTED THE FIFE POINTS HE CONSIDERS TO BE CONSTITUENTS OF EVOLUTION HE IS NOW GOING TO GO ON TO GIVE THE EVIDENCE FOR THEM. i CAN HARDLY WAIT.
i THOUGHT HE AS GOING TO GO BCK THROUGH HIS LIST AND START WITH SHOWING EVIDENCE FOR POPULATIONS CHANGING IN SUCH A WAY THAT THEY CAN EVOLVE FROM SPECIES TO SPECIEAS. wELL, HE GOES INSTEAD TO THE IDEA THT THINGS EVOLVED FROM SIMPLE TO COMPLEX AS SUPPOSEDLY SHOWN IN THE FOSSIL RECORD, WHICN HE CLAIMS IS VERY WELL UNDERSTOOD NOW, THEY KNOW ALL THE DIFFERENT LAYERS AND THEY KNOWN THE DAING OF THEM AND SO ON. aS FOR EVIDENCE OF SIMPLE TO COMPLEX WELL THAT'S A PRETTY SUBJECTIVE THING BUT IT'S GOOD ENOUVHG FOR HIM APPARENTLY TO DECLARE IT A FACT. iT ALL JUST looks LIKE WHAT WE WOULDE EXPECT OF THINGS EVOLVING FROM ONE KIND OF CREATURE TO ANOTHER. jUST LOOKS THTA WAY TO US. THAT'S SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.
fROM SHICH HE MAKES THE SUDDEN LEAP TO THE DECLARATION THAT THIS VIOATES THE CLAIM THAT LIVING THINGS WERE ALL MADE AT ONE TIME. wELL, SURE IT DOES IF IT'S TRUE BUT HE HAS'T REALLY PROVED IT THOUGH HE THINKS HE HAS.
sO NOW i HAVE TO POINT OUT AGAIN THAT THE LAYERS OF ROCK IN WHICH THE FOSSILS ARE FOUND COULD NOT POSSIBLY EVER HAVE BEEN ON THE EARTHLS SURFACE DURING SOME LONG PERIOD OF MILLIONS OR HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF YEARS, OR EVEN FIVE MINUTES FOR THT MATTER SINCE NOTHING WHTEVER DCOULD LIVE N OR ON SUCH A SURFACE, A HOMOGENEUOUS SLAB OF SEDIMENTARY ROCK STRAIGHT AND FLAT AND IN SOME CASES MANY HUNDREDS OF GFEET THICK COVERING THOUSANDS UPOHN THOUSANDS OF SQUARE MILES, SPANNING CONTINENTS. i GET THE IMPRESSION THAT THIS FACT HAS NEVER CROSSED THEIR MINDS. iT ALMOST DIDN'T EVEN CROSS MINE. NOBODY EVER BRINGS IT UP, EVERYTHING ABOUT HOW THE ROCKS REPRESENT TIME PERIODS IS JUST DECLARED AS FACT AND THEIR PHYSICAL CHARCTERISTICS ARE RDLY CONSIDERED AT ALL. VERY ODD BEAUSE WHEN YOU DO CONSIDER THEM YOU CAN'T BY ANY AMOUNT OF CLEVER REARANGINGS OF THIGS MAKE THEM FIT INTO THE SCENARIO OF A TIME PERIOD ON PLANET EARTH. yOU CAN'T. yOU CAN'T. IT ISN'T POSSIBLE. tHOSE ROCKS DO NOT REPRESENT TIME PERIODS. THEY ARE NOT TIME PERIODS, THERE NEVER WERE ANY TIME PERIODS. tHOSE ROCKS WERE ALL LAID DOWN BY THE SAME PROCESSES, WHATEVER THOSE PROCESSES WERE, AND MOST PROBABLY ONE AFTER ANOTHER IN A FIARLY SHOT PERIOD OF TIME. THERE IS NOTHING ABOUT THEM THAT SUGGESTS LONG PERIODS OF TIME OR ANY KIND OF HABITABLE ENVIRONETN WHERE ON LAND OR IN SEA. tHE Y ARE NOT TIME PERIODS, THEY ARE NOT TIME PERIODS. THEY ARE ROCKS IN WHICH ARE BURIED BAZILLIONS OF LIVING THINGS FROM SIMPLE TO COMPLEX, FROM SEA CREATURE TO LAND CREATURE.
tHERE'S ANOTHER WAY OF GOING ABOUT THIS WHICH ISN'T QUITE SO DRASTIC AS THE WHOLE THING COMING DOWN TO A SLAB OF ROCK, AND THAT'S THE IDEA THT EACH TIME PERIOD DID HAVE A NORMAL SURFACE, IN MANY OF THEM IT WAS A SEASCAPE SURFACE, AND THE LAND SURFACES COME KHIGHNER UP IN THE STRATA. aNYWAY WITH A NORMAL SEA SCAPE THIS ROCK THAT ENDS UP IN THE GEOLOGICAL COLUMN WOULD HAVE BEEN FORMED AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA, COLLECTING THE DEAD CREATURES IN IT. fOR SOME REASON THIS PARTICULAR SEDIENT COMES TO AN END, QUITE STRAIGHT AND FLAT NEVERTHELESS, AND ANOTHER STARTS TO FORM ABOVE IT, AND THIS NEXT ONE FOR SOME REASON CAPTURES A SDIFFERENT SET OF CREATURES THAT APPEAR TO HAVE EVOLVLVED FROM THOSE IN THE EALIER TIME EPPRIOR WITHHICH IS REPRESENTED BY THE SEDIMENTARY ROCK BENAEATH IT. tHEN THIS NEXT PERIOD COMES TO AN END TAND A NEW SEDIMENTARY DEPOSITION STARTS AON TOP OF THE PREVIOUS ONE, A NEW SEDIMENT AND A NEW COLLECTION OF CREATURES GET BURIED IN IT THT LOOK LIKE THEY EVOLVED FROM THE CREATURES IN THE ROCK NOW BEENEATH IT.
eVENTUALLY WE START GETTING LANDSCAPES AND NOW IT'S HARDER TO EXPLAIN HOW THE SEDIMENT CONTINUES TO ACCUMULATE AT THE BOTTOM AS ALWAYS, ON TOP OF THE PREVIOUS ROCK, BUT JUST TO LOOK AT THE STRATA YOU HAVE TO CONCLUCE THAT THEY AREWERE ALL FORMED BY THE SAME PROCESSES. nOW WE'RE GETTING LAND ANIMALS INSTREAD OF SEA CREATURES.
iN THIS SCENARIO AT LEAST THERE IS A LIVING SCPACE FOR THE ANIMALS RATHER THAN JUST WROCK BUT IT STILL DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE THAT IT WOULD ALL COME DOWN IN THE END TO THAT ROCK OAND ONLY THAT ROCK STACKED ON THE ROCKS FROM THE PREVIOUS SIME PERIOD. aND THERE IS STILL THE QUESTION WHY ON EARTH WOULD TIME ON THIS PLANET SORT ITSELF INTO LAYERS OF ROCK ANYWAY? wHY WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO IDENTIFY A PARTICULAR ERA OF EVOLUTION BY A PARTICULAR ROCK? nONE OF THIS MAKES ANY SENSE AT ALL AND YET THEY GO ON TLAKING AS IF IT MAKES SENSE.
cOYNE SAYS A LOT MORE THAT i'D LIKE TO THINK ABOUT SO i SUPPOSE i'LL AHVE TO LISTREN TO IT AGAIN AND COME BACK TO IT. bUT THERE ARE A FEW THINGS i CAN TOUGH CH ON AT THIS POINT.
hE CONSIDERS VESTIGIAL ORGANS TO BE EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION. HE DOESN'T USE THE TERM JUNK dna FOR SOME REASON BUT THAT'S WHAT HE SEEMS TO BE TALKING ABOUT WHEN HE TALKS ABOUT BROKEN GENES THT CAN BE SHOWN TO HAVE ONCE CODED FOR A LOST FUCNTION OR VESTIGIAL ORGAN. hE THINKS CREATIOMNIST CAN'T ACCOUNT FO R THESE THINGS BUT ACTUALLY i THINKI i CAN AND i'VE BEEN SAYING IT FOR YEARS NOW. wE LIVE IN A FALLEN WORLD, AND EVERYTHING IS DETERIORATING. oUR BODIES ARE SUBJECT TO ALL KINDS OF DETERIORATION PROCESSES, DISEASES AND DEATH. iT'S SEEMED TO ME THT WHA TJUNK dna IS IS A RECORD OF MANY FORMER FUNCTIONS THAT WERE POSSESSED BY US BEFORE TEH fALL WHEN WE HAD GREAT STRENGTHS AND POWERS AND PROTECTIONS OF ALL SORTS THAT WE'VE SINCE LOST. hE MENTIONS THE ABILITY TO MAKE vITAMIN c WHICH MANY ANIMALS HAVE BUT WE DON'T, OUR GENE FOR IT IS BROKEN. hE ALSO SAYS THAT HUMAN EMBRYOS AT FOUR WEEKS HAVE WHAT LOOKS LIKE A OK SAC ONLY IT'S EMPTY. hE SAYS THERE ARE THREE GENES, ALL BROKEN, THAT CODE FOR YOKYOYOLK. iNTERESTING. sO i'D SAY THAT IS PROBABLY A PROVISION gOD BUILT INTO THE EMBRYONIC STANGE FOR NOURISHING THE NEW BABY THAT SUCCUMBED TO THE DISEASE PROCESS OF THE fALL, MUTATIOHNS BEING A VERY EFFECTIVE TOOL OF THAT DESTRUCTIVE PROCESS. tHERE ARE MANY THINGS WE SEEM TO BE ABLE TO LIVE WITHOUT THAT NO DOUBT WE'D BE A LOT STRONGER IF WE HAD THEM, WOULD LIVE LONGER AND BE LESS SUSCEPTIBLE TO DISEASES AND ALL THAT. a YOLK SAC IS PROBABLY ONE OF THOSE PROTECTIVE DEVICES WE NO LONGER HAVE.
i DON'T KNOW HOW TO EXPLAIN OUR GETTING A THICK COAT OF HAIR AROUND THE AGE OF SIX MONTHS IN THE WOMB THOUGH. a GENE GONE CRAZY? aN ADAPTATION TO THE ICE AGE WE NO LONGER NEED? nO IDEA REALLY. oR THE VESTIGIAL LIMBS OF WHALES AND DOPHINS. bUT i'LL PRAY ABOUT IT.
aPPARENTLY WE ALSO USED TO HAVE MUCH MORE POWERFUJL SMALLING ABILITY AS THAT IS ANOTHER CAPACITY LOST TO BROKEN GENES ACCORDING TO cOYNE.
wHAT HE CALLS EXAMPLES OF BAD DESIGN, OR MAHY OF THEM ANYWAY, ARE ALSO EXPLAINABLE IN TERMS OF LOST FUNCTIONS DUE TO THE fALL. iT'S REALLY TOO BACD THAT SOME CREATIONJIST APPARENTLY DON'T THINK OF THIS WORLD AS FALLEN, SO THEY ARE ALWAYS LOOKING FOR PERFECT DESIGN AND THAT SORT OF THING, BUT THIS WORLD IS FAR FAR FAR FROM THE PERFECTIONS OF THE ORIGINAL CREATED WORLD AND THT FACT SHOULD EXPLAIN A LOT OF THINGS THAT OTHERWISE EVOLUTION EXPLAINS BWETTER.
mA6YBE THAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH THE EXAMPLE HE GIVES OF THE OCEANIC ISLANDS WHICH MADE NO SENSE TO ME AT ALL. i CAN'T SEE HOW CREATIONISM HAS ANY HARDER TIME EXPLAINING THAT SOME KINDS OF ANIMSAL WOULD BE FOUND ON DISTANT ISLANDS RATHER THAN OTHER KIDNS. THERE IS NO REASON TO THINK EVOLUTIONH EXPLAINS THAT BETTER AT ALL.
i
to e congtinued
