Creation: The neo-Darwinian paradigm shift
January 7, 2014 | James Kohl
A Lapse in Watchfulness: New York Times Admits Neo-Darwinism Faces a “Paradigm Shift” Over “Failure” to Explain Body Plans
Casey Luskin November 1, 2013 5:39 AM
Excerpt: What’s that? “Every element” of the neo-Darwinian paradigm “has been attacked”? He’s not talking about the “creationists” that the New York Times loves to abuse, but, clearly, scientists who are decidedly in the mainstream.
My comment:No element of neo-Darwinism was ever supported by experimental evidence. Chelo et al (2013) said it best: “In 1927, J.B.S. Haldane reasoned that the probability of fixation of new beneficial alleles is twice their fitness effect. This result, later generalized by M. Kimura, has since become the cornerstone of modern population genetics. There is no experimental test of Haldane’s insight…” Evolutionary theorists are left to make additional unsubstantiated claims that include misrepresentations of the importance of experimental evidence that shows mutations are not fixed in the genome of round-worms. The theorists are forced to worm their way around the fact that ecological adaptations are obviously nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled.
In Kohl (2013), I wrote: “…the epigenetic effects of food odors and pheromones are involved in neurogenic niche construction as exemplified in nematodes (Bumbarger, Riebesell, Rödelsperger, & Sommer, 2013), and in flies (Swarup et al., 2013).
The nematodes are round worms that adapt to ecological variations in the availability of food with a transition from feeding on bacteria to behavior that includes feeding on other worms.
In Kohl (2013), I wrote: Differences in the behavior of nematodes are determined by nutrient-dependent rewiring of their primitive nervous system (Bumbarger et al., 2013). Species incompatibilities in nematodes are associated with cysteine-to-alanine substitutions (Wilson et al., 2011), which may alter nutrient-dependent pheromone production.
I was trying not to offend too many theorists when I wrote “may alter nutrient-dependent pheromone production.” Of course the nutrient-dependent amino acid substitution alters pheromone production. That’s the biological basis for the explanatory power of my model of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled evolution. Again, however, I was trying not to offend the theorists. It’s not a model of evolution at all. It’s the model of ecological adaptations to variations in the availability of food. Many scientists have realized that ecological variation is the raw material by which natural selection drives species diversity. Simply put, the raw material that is naturally selected is food.
Theorists, however, rail against the most obvious fact that was ever dismissed from Darwin’s theory. They dismissed his requirement that ‘conditions of life’ must be met before natural selection occurred; dismissed the fact that all organisms must eat; and dismissed the fact that the nutrient-dependent physiology of reproduction determined survival of every species that has ever lived on this planet.
Nevertheless, even after I’ve made repeated attempts to ensure that the theorists are aware that nutrient-dependent amino acid substitutions are responsible for pheromone-controlled reproduction and species diversity in all species, here’s their response: One crank dies, another rises to take his place . No matter how many times I tell them that nutrient-dependent amino acid substitutions are the determinant of different cell types in different individuals of different species, I get this: “The very paper you are citing as evidence for your claim attributes this gene creation to mutation-based processes, not to nutrient-dependent processes via amino acid substitutions.” Not one theorist will admit to the fact that Real-Time Evolution of New Genes by Innovation, Amplification, and Divergence exemplifies nutrient-dependent copy number variation and nutrient dependent fixation of amino acid substitutions that differentiate cell types in bacteria. The real problem with this report is that is shows new genes are created, they do not result from mutations in other genes.
In the context of this neo-Darwinian paradigm shift, new genes are created in precisely the same way in all species, and there is even evidence that this occurs in the human influenza virus and whales — as I have detailed here in other blog posts. What happens next is not going to randomly occur in any evolutionary theorist. All of them will suddenly accept the fact that ecological adaptations occur via nutrient-dependent amino acid substitutions, or they will be labeled “cranks” for refusing to believe a new scientific truth, and continuing to tout their ridiculous theories instead of learning anything about the conserved molecular mechanisms that enable the creation of species diversity.
Conclusion: “When it comes to unguided materialist models of evolution, natural selection is, thus far, the best game in town, and anything biologists try to replace it with is bound to have inferior explanatory power. The rejection of natural selection is the beginning of a process that will ultimately lead to the acceptance of a different kind of paradigm altogether. Namely intelligent design.”
My comment: The acceptance of the fact that organisms naturally select food and that what they eat metabolized to the species-specific pheromones that control the physiology of their reproduction will lead to acceptance of the fact that ecological adaptation occurs via nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled amino acid substitutions and the de novo creation of genes that enables increasing organismal complexity. Creation of new genes is the holy grail of evolutionary biology, not intelligent design.