From: Ryan E. Vachon
I've been reading your essay rebutting evolution, and I couldn't help
but notice that you said there has never been an example of a beneficial
mutation. Now, I haven't read all of the essay, but this comment
immediately makes me think of the Peppered moth of England. A mutation
that caused some moths to be dark, while others remained white, GREATLY
benefitted the mutant-gene carriers during the industrial revolution,
when soot covered and killed the lichens that the moths used to
camoflage themselves on trees. The result was that the dark colored
moths blended in better and were not eaten by birds, while the white
ones were not blending. Within a matter of years, the population has
gone from being about 2-3% dark moths, to being about 95% dark moths.
That would clearly be beneficial to the dark moths. Let us not forget
that some mutations, while detrimental in one environment, may be
beneficial in another.
I would love to hear back from you your thoughts on this. Hope to hear from you.
Sincerely,
Ryan E. Vachon
Response from Timothy Wallace:
Dear Mr. Vachon,
Thank you very much for your thoughtful response to my “Five
Misconceptions” essay.
You wrote:
>>...you said there has never been an example of a beneficial mutation. ...this comment immediately makes me think of the Peppered moth of England. A mutation that caused some moths to be dark, while others remained white...<<
You bring up an excellent point. However, the color variations that take
place within the Peppered Moth population (or most any population, for that
matter) are typically not caused by mutations, but by genetic variation.
It might help if we define these two terms:
“Mutation” refers to a “copying error” in which the genetic code of an
organism becomes corrupted. The error may—or may not—then be
perpetuated during the formation of new sets of DNA for new cells. This is
most serious when it takes place in the production of a reproductive cell
(since these will potentially send the parent's DNA, along with the error,
on to offspring).
[Since writing the essay to which you refer, I have actually learned of an
example of a “beneficial” mutation: A certain population of flightless
beetle living in a windy island environment has apparently been determined
to be a mutated version of an otherwise identical species that flies. The
flightless mutants have a distinct advantage, in that they do not risk
being blown off the island and into the sea. Their non-mutant counterparts
are at a disadvantage in this case.]
“Genetic Variation” differs from mutation, in that the observed differences
(or variations) are not the results of errors, but are normal variables,
the coding for which remains resident within the organism population's
genetic “pool.” A good example is the genetic coding for brown or blue eyes
in humans—a variation which is not caused by genetic “errors” but by
shifts in dominant and recessive gene traits, the potential of which
depends on the genetic make-up of the parents.
In the case of the Peppered Moth, the population contained both varieties
of coloring (light and dark) both before and after the industrial
revolution. Within the “before” population, those members with light
coloring had an advantage, and survived—yet darker variants were known to
make up a portion of the population, so the moths were already expressing
both varieties of their genetically-coded color potential.
In the “after” population, the advantage went to the darker-colored
variants, yet—again—their lighter counterparts consistently remained a
part of the population.
To my knowledge, it hasn't been suggested that the color varieties within
the Peppered Moth species is necessarily the result of a “mutation” rather
than simple “genetic variation.” The fascinating (and highly popularized)
change that was observed within the organism's population, would therefore
simply be the result of natural selection acting on the exisiting genetic
potential of the population.
I hope my response has adequately addressed your question. Again, thank you
for taking the time to write—and please feel free to do so again, if you
like.
Kind Regards,
TW
Reply from Ryan Vachon:
The response was indeed adequate to my questioning. I am aware that
mutations are not necessarily what caused the variation, but where
exactly did this variation come from? And how about the number of
mutations that occur in nature. For example, let's assume that there is
an insect species with 10 to the power of 8 gametes in the population (a
conservative number for insects)and a mutation rate of 10 to the -5.
Each generation, through the combination of the two parental gametes,
will have 2000 new mutations per generation. This is just a sample
population, but I'm sure you get the idea. What are the chances that of
these 2000 mutations, not even ONE in several to several thousand
generations is beneficial?
But let's get off mutation for a bit. What about the fossil record? I
agree with what was written in your paper about whale fossils showing
transition from land to sea, but how do you explain the fossil evidence
that shows the evolution of Equus from the original ancestor
Hyracotherium? This fossil record is surprisingly complete, and the
fossils found are intact.
And let us not forget about the other mechanisms for evolution beyond
mutations. How exactly to you compensate for natural selction (an event
made perfectly clear by the Peppered moth), gene flow, and random
genetic drift?
I'd also like to address the idea of the age of the Earth. I
understand that your paper's purpose was to point out weaknesses in
evolution, and because of this, I am going on the assumption that you
are in favor of Creationism. If this is not true, I do apologize, but
it seams a safe assumption. So let me ask a couple of questions. If
Creation is true, how do you explain the age of the Earth? Furthermore,
how can you account for the Flood (assuming, as we must, a literal
interpretation of the Bible)? Where did all of that water come from,
and where did it go? These are two questions that simply seem to make
the idea of Creation.
As far as evolution only being a theory, that is very true. But, to
get right to the point, so is the atomic theory. The main difference
between the two seems to be that atomic theory is a relatively “safe”
theory, while evolution threatens to shake the foundations of many
people's faith and beliefs.
Again, thank you for your time and for listening to the ramblings of a
college student. And especially thank you for responding to my email.
I have sent similar messages as the one I sent you to several proponents
of Creation, and your response has been the only one I have received to
date.
Respectfully yours,
Ryan E. Vachon
Response from Timothy Wallace:
Dear Mr. vachon,
Here are some thoughts in response to your additional
comments and questions:
>>I am aware that mutations are not necessarily what caused the
variation, but where exactly did this variation come from?<<
Good question. Many Neo-Darwinists still insist that variation potential is
a product of mutation, but modern genetics casts serious doubt on such a
simplistic notion. I don't mean this in a dismissive or condescending way.
I would encourage you to search the record yourself, and see how much
documented, empirical evidence there is, which effectively and
uniquivocally points to mutation as a likely cause of genetic variation as
a rule—or even as a likely exception—particularly as a means of
achieving something like macro-evolution.
On the other hand, to my knowledge there also is no unequivocal empirical
evidence denying that—as a rule—variable traits are inherent in the
nature of each organism. In other words, when examined without the handicap
of the Neo-Darwinist framework, they give every indication that they were
designed and made that way.
>>And how about the number of mutations that occur in nature. For example, let's assume that there is an insect species with 10 to the power of 8 gametes in the population (a conservative number for insects)and a mutation rate of 10 to the -5. Each generation, through the combination of the two parental gametes, will have 2000 new mutations per generation. This is just a sample population, but I'm sure you get the idea. What are the chances that of these 2000 mutations, not even ONE in several to several thousand generations is beneficial?<<
Again, good question. First, if we take your numbers as correct, I assume
you mean a mutation rate of 10 to the -5 _per_generation_, and I assume you
don't mean that all 2000 hypothetical mutations per generation are somehow
found _only_ in the DNA of the gametes of the hypothetical population; that
the mutations are not concentrated on the population's DNA—nor
particularly on the DNA of the population's gametes, but are spread
randomly through the organisms.
This would leave it a very rare likelihood (though by no means an
impossibility) that one of those 2000 mutations might occur specifically
within the DNA of the population's gametes. Even if one of those 2000
mutations could be said to be “beneficial” it would be meaningless in the
long run, unless the “beneficial” mutation occured specifically within the
DNA of the gametes, and could therefore become part of the genetic code to
be passed along to future generations. And even if this were to occur, the
genetic apparatus has a remarkable ability to weed out such errors (even if
you and I might wish to call them “beneficial” ones) through a correction
process that takes place when the code from both parents is paired.
Much has been written, by both creationists and non-creationists alike
(including evolutionists), who are far more knowledgeable than I am on this
topic. The consensus I have observed is that the empirical evidence for
genetic mutation as a means of beneficial change in general, and
macro-evolutionary change in particular, is slim-to-none—in spite of the
many words written to the contrary by those philosophical “defenders of the
(evolutionist) faith” who tend to downplay the empirical science that
contradicts their beliefs and (often obsolete) arguments.
See Michael Denton (1986), Phillip E. Johnson (1991), Lee Spetner (1996),
and Michael J. Behe (1996) for some more in-depth, well-documented
popular-level treatments of this topic.
>>...What about the fossil record? I agree with what was written in your paper about whale fossils showing transition from land to sea, but how do you explain the fossil evidence that shows the evolution of Equus from the original ancestor Hyracotherium? This fossil record is surprisingly complete, and the fossils found are intact.<<
I haven't studied this series in great detail, and so can't give you all
the accurate names and dates, but I do offer the following as a general
response to this excellent question:
Let's go back a few decades, first. The orginal sequence presented to us
was Eohippus (Hyracotherium) -> Miohippus -> Merychippus -> Pliohippus ->
Equus, supposedly smoothly spanning some 60 million years. The sequence has
been published in numerous books as “fact” and has been incorporated into
innumerable museum exhibits as “fact.” Yet as long ago as the early 1970s
it was already clear that this smooth sequence was more fabrication than
fact. Evolutionists like J.B. Birdsell (1975), G.G. Simpson (1953),
Macfadden (1992), and S.J. Gould (1996), among others, have conceded that
the “surprisingly complete” sequence to which we are STILL subjected in the
popular “science” media, was long ago found to be plain wrong.
Why? 1) at least three different members of this so-called
ancestor/descendant sequence were found to have coexisted, 2) “advanced”
foot structures were found on specimens assumed to be “older” than their
“primitive” counterparts, 3) the members of the sequence are not found in
the same regions or on the same continent (i.e., the “sequence” was
assembled from samples without regard to the members' geographical or
chronological relationships), 4) serious and legitimate doubts have been
raised as to whether some of the sequence members really belong in the
ancestry of Equus at all [H. Nilsson (1954), G.A. Kerkut (1960)], and 5)
there remain rather large and embarrassing gaps between ALL of the
specimens (i.e., each one appears in the fossil record (usually not in the
popularly depicted sequence) wholly in its own form, continues without
indicating any transitional change between itself and either its alleged
ancestor or its alleged descendant, then “vanishes.” The record is scarcely
one of “surprising completeness”—but, frankly, reveals more of a
“surprise” that editors and curators are taking so long to undo the lie
perpetuated by their silence and inaction on this matter.
>>...And let us not forget about the other mechanisms for evolution beyond mutations. How exactly to you compensate for natural selction (an event made perfectly clear by the Peppered moth), gene flow, and random genetic drift?<<
Again, mutation is highly questionable as a valid and empirically
verifiable “mechanism” for evolution. You'll have to explain to me why
there should be a need to “compensate” for natural selection, gene flow or
random genetic drift. These terms describe observable natural phenomena,
which have yet to be demonstrated empirically to even _suggest_
macro-evolution as a possibility, notwithstanding the popular habit of
evolutionism proponents of invoking them as “mechanisms” as needed.
>>...I'd also like to address the idea of the age of the Earth... If Creation is true, how do you explain the age of the Earth?<<
What “age” might you be refering to? I don't at all mean to be facetious. I
know of no popularly touted “billion-year” dating method, for example, that
is not based at least in part on non-verifiable assumptions, and there is
tremendous discontinuity among them all. I therefore see no reason to treat
any of them with anything less than a great deal of skepticism.
If you would like to discuss dating methods in greater detail, I would not
be opposed to the idea, though I would ask that you save us both some time
by first reading David Plaisted's article “The Dating Game” at:
http://www.trueorigin.org/dating.php
>>...how can you account for the Flood (assuming, as we must, a literal interpretation of the Bible)? Where did all of that water come from, and where did it go? These are two questions that simply seem to make the idea of Creation.<<
[You don't seem to have finished your sentence, but I assume you meant to
end it with something like “...seem to make the idea of Creation look like
pure hogwash.”]
A great deal of scientific thought and empirical data have been applied to
this subject, with results that have favored the Creationist/Diluvialist
position. Very briefly:
1) The Flood is the best explanation for most of the sedimentary,
fossiliferous rock found in the earth's crust. For example, fossils are
formed only by rapid burial, not by slow immersion, and most fossils
evidence not only rapid burial, but also (often) violent and catastrophic
conditions. Also, throughout the globe there are places were sedimentary
rock sections (often spanning alleged “millions” of years on the
uniformitarian timescale) are bent, folded and buckled; this could only
have happened to still-wet (i.e., soft) sedimentary layers, since rock that
has dried and hardened is far too brittle to create such formations—even
if it becomes infused with water again later.
For more on this, see J. Woodmorappe (1993 [Flood Geology], 1996 [Noah's
Ark—A Feasability Study])
2) Where the water came from is answered in the same source that indicates
that it came: Genesis 7:11 tells us that water came from “fountains of the
deep” and “floodgates of the sky.” Still today, there are “fountains of the
deep,” as huge reservoirs of subterranean water are known to exist, under
varying levels of pressure. The oceans are dotted with places where
“springs” of hot, pressurized water flow into them, and volcanic eruptions
contain more water than any other element. Genesis 1:6-7 tells us that
there apparently was once a body of water (very possibly in the form of
water vapor) suspended above the atmosphere. Genesis 2:5-6 indicates that
the earth was not watered by rain during antediluvial times, but that the
apparent superabundance of subterranean water of that time generated a mist
from below instead. It is interesting that there is no water vapor “canopy”
covering the atmosphere now, and it has been suggested that the “floodgates
of the sky” amounted to the precipitation of that vapor “canopy,” bringing
it all down to the surface of the earth during the 40-day rain.
3) Where the water “went” is not hard to imagine: It's probably right here
with us. If the Flood is a real, historical event, it is highly likely that
the face of the earth was transformed dramatically from its original
appearance by the event. There is no reason to assume the present
continents, their positions, or (particularly) their mountains to be
anything like the antediluvian configuration, or that the volume of water
exposed on the earth's surface was always (or previously) the same as it is
now. The ocean basins are considered even by uniformitarianists to have
likely been formed and transformed through massive crustal (if not
catastrophic) changes. In fact geological catastrophism has gained more
support in recent years—ironically even among firm non-creationist
scientists.
>>As far as evolution only being a theory, that is very true. But, to get right to the point, so is the atomic theory. The main difference between the two seems to be that atomic theory is a relatively “safe” theory, while evolution threatens to shake the foundations of many people's faith and beliefs.<<
Atomic theory attempts to organize and explain known phenomena which are
both repeatable, observable and measurable; it thus begins with empirical
science. Evolutionism, on the other hand, starts with a belief that
(essentially) everything just ... “happened” and tries to postulate certain
unrepeatable, unobservable and unmeasurable phenomena as the “way” it all
just ... “happened.” Having done this, evolutionism further seeks to invoke
a compatible explanation for any and all repeatable, observable, and
measurable phenomena, no matter how such explanations complicate or
contradict all or part of the original, fundamental belief. This is not
quite a scientific approach.
In fairness, creationism also begins with a belief. So the _real_ question
we should be asking ourselves is: Which framework fits the empirical data
best (i.e., without the need to explain much in the way of numerous
(sometimes embarrassing) anomalies). To answer this question objectively,
one needs to study the data and then listen fairly to the arguments of both
sides, asking exactly the kinds of questions you have asked here. It makes
no difference to the objective student what the implications of each
framework would be if it were correct. If it's truth, logic, and a genuine
scientific approach that one is after, the consequential implications are
secondary, though not unimportant, and not always as unattractive as they
may seem at first.
All of your questions are top notch, thoughtfully presented, and
well-deserving of answers. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to
address them with you. I would encourage you to keep asking questions—not
only to challenge the anti-evolutionist element, but also to put
evolutionism to a fair test.
>>Again, thank you for your time and for listening to the ramblings of a college student...<<
It has been a pleasure. I'm sorry to learn that others have not bothered to
reply to your inquiries, and again I apologize for the delay in my own
response this time. (I usually try to reply within a day or two, but I have
been “swamped” lately with other matters, and have had to turn my attention
away from all but the most pressing e-mail communications for the most
part.)
Kind Regards,
TW
Reply from Ryan Vachon:
I thought that in this message, I would sort of move away from the technical
aspects of the evolution/Creation debate, and focus a little more on some
personal questions that I have about Creation. Specifically, I am confused
about the Flood.
You said that the water may have come from sub-terranean chambers. I suppose
I can accept this. Right now, I'm not too concerned with where the water came
from, or where it went. What I would like to know, is, if Noah's Ark is true,
how could two of each animal fit onto one ship (without fighting to boot...),
and even more importantly, how could a species recover from being decimated to
two members? I mean, the complications (likely lethal) that would arise from
such continuous inbreeding would cause some very extreme problems for future
generations (to say the least). As well, one disease could cause immediate
extinction for numerous species. It just seems like an improbability that
such events could happen without drastically reducing the variation of life on
the planet.
Respectfully yours,
Ryan Vachon
Response from Timothy Wallace:
Dear Mr. Vachon,
>>I thought that in this message, I would sort of move away from the technical aspects of the evolution/Creation debate, and focus a little more on some personal questions that I have about Creation...<<
Fair enough.
>>You said that the water may have come from sub-terranean chambers. I suppose I can accept this. Right now, I'm not too concerned with where the water came from, or where it went. What I would like to know, is, if Noah's Ark is true, how could two of each animal fit onto one ship (without fighting to boot...)...<<
Keep in mind that antediluvial conditions were vastly different than they
are today. You and I were both raised in an education system steeped in
uniformitarianist assumptions (billions of years, everything has been
pretty much the way it is for many thousands of years, etc...). It
sometimes takes substantial effort to free one's thinking from such
presuppositions, in order to appreciate the historical account preserved in
the biblical record.
Note that the animals were _brought_ to Noah, apparently by an act of God
Himself (Genesis 6:20). Note also that both man and animal were vegetarian
up until that point (Genesis 1:29-30). And note that animals did not have
an inherent fear of man until after the Flood (Genesis 9:2). When one takes
into account all of these conditions, the behavior of the animals becomes
much less of an apparent problem, in terms of getting along with one
another and submitting to human oversight.
Woodmorappe's feasability study (to which I referred you in an earlier
post) goes into far greater detail than is possible here, and in fact I do
not yet have my own copy of this book. However, suffice it to say that
(based on the biblical specifications) the ark afforded a volume equivalent
to 522 standard railroad livestock cars, spread over three decks, which
were divided into rooms (literally “nests”).
This volume would accommodate some 125,000 sheep, and since the average size
of a land animal is less than that of a sheep, much less than its full
capacity would have to be devoted to animals. It has been estimated that
today there are roughly some 18,000 species of land mammals, birds,
reptiles, and amphibians. Doubling or tripling this to account for extinct
species still wouldn't likely over crowd the ark. Add to this the fact that
many of what are called “species” by modern standards would very likely
fall into the same biblical “kind” category, both very likely having
descended from ark-borne ancestors, whose potential for genetic variation
included the vast variety we see today.
>>...and even more importantly, how could a species recover from being decimated to two members?<<
Again, the two members were selected and led by their Creator to the ark
for their preservation. Note also that not all kinds were represented by
only two members—some boarded by sevens (Genesis 7:2). Furthermore, it
seems apparent that some kinds actually were either “decimated” or perhaps
better described as ill-equipped to survive well in the very different
post-diluvial environment and so became extinct soon after the Flood.
>>...As well, one disease could cause immediate extinction for numerous species. It just seems like an improbability that such events could happen without drastically reducing the variation of life on the planet.<<
Yes, disease could have done great damage, and may even have appeared and
had some effect during that year's voyage. Nevertheless, there's little
point in pondering the event at all without acknowledging the Creator's
deliberate role in initiating, overseeing and concluding the event, as well
as His immutable ability to act with sovereignty in preserving that which
He is pleased to preserve under any circumstances.
And indeed, you have hit the nail on the head: The variation of life on the
planet _has_been_ drastically reduced. The fossil record contains an
incredible variety of creatures we do not see today, the dinosaurs being
only one (very popular) class. This has surely been a further consequence
of man's fall, rather than a reflection of the Creator's desire or the
excellence of His handiwork in its original condition.
I hope my responses have been sufficient. If you are interested in more
details, you would likely benefit from Woodmorappe's book, which gets
rather technical in places (it's a bonafide, serious feasibility study).
Otherwise, I might be able to direct you to a few URLs if there are other
specific questions or details (assuming I am unable to provide an adequate
general answer in the first place).
Kind Regards,
TW
