Re: Good bye Eve!?

From: Dick Fischer (
Date: Thu Feb 28 2002 - 19:07:23 EST

  • Next message: James Mahaffy: "Eastern section of ASA meeting."

    Glenn wrote:

    >There is a fascinating report which seriously questions the neutral theory
    >of gene mutation. It can be found in this week's Nature or information about
    >it at
    >"A comparison of the A/S ratio of polymorphism in Drosophila melanogaster
    >with that of divergence from Drosophila simulans shows that the A/S ratio of
    >divergence is twice as high—a difference that is often attributed to
    >positive selection. But an increase in selective constraint owing to an
    >increase in effective population size could also explain this observation,
    >and, if so, all genes should be affected similarly. Here we show that the
    >difference between polymorphism and divergence is limited to only a fraction
    >of the genes, which are also evolving more rapidly, and this implies that
    >positive selection is responsible. A higher A/S ratio of divergence than of
    >polymorphism is also observed in other species, which suggests a rate of
    >adaptive evolution that is far higher than permitted by the neutral theory
    >of molecular evolution." Justin C. Fay, Gerald J. Wyckoff & Chung-I
    >Wu,"Testing the neutral theory of molecular evolution with genomic data from
    >Drosophila" Nature 415(2002), 1024 - 1026

    I hope these studies will bring about changes in what has become almost
    standardized Darwinist theory. This comes from The Origins Solution
    published in 1996:

    "What has escaped general recognition is that organisms have demonstrated a
    capacity or a capability to make genetic alterations to accommodate changes
    in the environment. Although natural selection might explain how
    adaptations can be passed down from generation to generation, giving
    subsequent populations an edge in survival, it does not resolve how
    adaptive mutations arose in the first place.

    Evolutionists will say that within the gene pool of populations there is
    enough genetic variability to allow for selections to be made, which can
    give succeeding generations an advantage. The adaptive characteristic is
    expanded as it is passed down to privileged offspring. But this is an
    insufficient explanation that ignores what we see in nature.

    Organisms do appear to make unique and very specific changes in order to
    better equip themselves to survive difficulties encountered from
    environmental shifts. Some could not make accommodations and became
    extinct, but those that did survived. Specific adaptations have occurred
    in populations that have been exposed to an environmental threat, and lived
    through it. Sufficient evidence exists in nature to support this
    hypothesis: Organisms seem to be endowed with an adaptive quality enabling
    them to make specific genetic mutations when the need arises, and those
    changes may be inherited.

    Furthermore, the opposite seems to be true. Organisms tend to shed useless
    features when the need for them ceases. In other words, there is
    empirical, supporting evidence that a type of stimulus-response mechanism
    can induce adaptive changes, that may be incorporated in the DNA of
    organisms, and passed to future generations.

    In addition to environmental factors being an instrument for modification,
    usage also may play a part. Human beings developed larger brains than
    their predecessors because they used them. Increased thinking capacity may
    accrue to the children of thinking parents. And the same thing may be true
    of other physical attributes.

    Antibiotics experts have long recognized this adaptive capacity in microbes
    that have developed immunities to the drugs designed to wipe them
    out. Penicillin was introduced in the early 1940's. Soon after the
    infectious disease-causing bacteria were exposed to penicillin, they began
    producing an enzyme called beta-lactamase, which destroys penicillin and
    related antibiotics.

    In the early 1980's broad-spectrum beta-lactams were launched to kill
    drug-resistant bacteria. But the bacteria responded by mutating the gene
    encoding its defensive enzyme so that it now can ward off these drugs
    too. George Jacoby, a specialist in infectious diseases at Massachusetts
    General Hospital, remarked, "Bugs are always figuring out ways to get
    around the antibiotics we throw at them. They adapt and come roaring back." 1

    Researchers also know that certain genes have a DNA repair function. They
    even know there are several DNA repair pathways. Some genes are capable of
    repairing DNA without making error, while other genes, in their words, "are
    prone to make mistakes." 2 It is suspected strongly that these latter
    genes that repair DNA with new coded information cause mutations which
    contribute to evolution.

    Recent outbreaks of tuberculosis have fostered new research into this
    disease. It has been demonstrated that due to a mutation, the bacterium
    causing TB is now resistant to isoniazid, the main drug used in
    treatment. Thanks to a hard-working research community, a genetic basis
    has been identified for TB drug resistance. 3

    What has been recognized already at the level of the microbe can also be
    witnessed at the highest levels of life. Among human populations, skin
    color affects the absorption of vitamin D from sunlight. Higher latitudes
    have decreased sunlight, lighter skin improves absorption, and
    lighter-skinned peoples are found at higher latitudes.

    Sickle cell anemia is a genetic disease affecting some black
    populations. This gene is recessive and appears to afford enhanced
    resistance to malaria. The sickle cell trait may have been a genetic
    response to an environmental danger.

    There is an increased risk of inheriting the genetic disorder, Tay-Sachs
    syndrome, among Ashkenazi Jews, and this has been traced to Polish ghettoes
    in World War II. Though, like sickle cell, the disease is fatal where one
    inherits the gene from both parents, yet the Tay-Sachs gene has been
    correlated to an increased resistance to tuberculosis, the scourge of the
    ghettoes in those days.

    On the other side of the coin, there have been found in caverns fish,
    crayfish, and beetles that no longer have vision. Indentations still
    remain where eyes once scrutinized the world millions of years
    ago. Through countless succeeding generations, born in total darkness,
    eyes were jettisoned by these creatures as needless encumbrances.

    Researchers have begun preliminary investigations in this general area of
    inheritance affected by environmental factors. A conference was held in
    Pittsburgh in September, 1992, on "male-mediated toxicity."

    After 3 days, the consensus was that there is an urgent need for studies to
    elucidate mechanisms underlying tantalizing evidence that many different
    types of paternal exposure induce changes in sperm or semen that could
    affect children's health. 4

    In the not too distant future we may discover how adaptive genetic
    mutations may be shaped by environmental forces, something that was
    postulated by the earliest pioneers of evolution theory, J. B. Lamarck and
    Charles Darwin. 5

    Genetic adaptations made by microscopic organisms, insects, animals, and
    humans point in the direction of change through time through genetic
    mutations which could be affected by usage or the environment, and are
    inherent as part of our immune-response system. These factors may induce
    the production of enzymes triggering genes that modify the DNA. The
    modified DNA may cause beneficial adaptations for succeeding
    generations. And who might have had the foresight to endow His creatures
    with such a beneficial characteristic? How about a benevolent Creator-God?

    The explanation supported by some of our most eminent biologists today,
    however, is that chance mutations occur spontaneously and accidentally in
    populations affording enhanced survivability to the lucky descendants that
    inherit those beneficial adaptations. But consider: Which answer better
    fits the evidence?

    How would God give organisms adaptability? There are at least two
    possibilities. Maybe God intervened directly, making the necessary
    adaptations on an "as required" basis when a particular need or threat
    arose or subsided. Or, perhaps God built into his creatures the inherent
    capability to make necessary adjustments which could then be passed to
    succeeding generations.

    Either a "hands on" or a "hands off" approach could account for adaptive
    accommodations, but the "hands off" method looks to be superior. In the
    case of sightless creatures found in caves, it is unlikely that God took
    sovereign action to cause them to shed properties no longer needed.

    Although Darwin predicted that need-generated accommodations could be
    inherited, this concept has been discarded by Darwinists today. To every
    instance of environmental adaptation, the Darwinist maintains the fortunate
    organism was only lucky it already possessed within its DNA a specific
    sequence which became expressed as an adaptive quality for enhanced
    survival through selection. Perchance we are lucky, but perhaps, we are

    An explanation that better fits the evidence is that a force of direction
    was exercised either at the inception or throughout. Through a process we
    are only beginning to uncover, an incredible intelligence, the evidence
    supports, wrought His creation through time to culminate in man. And He
    did it without directly controlling or manipulating the mechanism."


    1. Ann Gibbons, "Exploring New Strategies to Fight Drug-Resistant
    Microbes," Science (21 August 1992), 1037.
    2. G. Strobel, "Mutated plant sheds light on DNA repair," Science News,
    Vol. 144, No. 13, 198.
    3. Peter Aldhous, "Genetic Basis Found for Resistance to TB Drug," Science
    (21 August 1992), 1038.
    4. Richard Stone, "Can a Father's Exposure Lead To Illness in his
    Children?" Science (2 October 1992), 31.
    5. Ruse, Darwinism Defended, 32.

    Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution -
    "The answer we should have known about 150 years ago"

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 28 2002 - 18:51:56 EST