Evolution of morphological variants
December 16, 2013 | James Kohl
Excerpt 1: In sum, natural selection of random mutations is a principle of order, leading to adaptation, not a principle of disorder, leading to chaos.
After he banned me from further participation in the evolutionary psychology group he moderates, James R. Liddle responded to that statement. He wrote: “Nobody is denying the role of ecological variation in natural selection, but the selection of variants is a completely different subject from the creation of those variants.”
The excerpt clearly indicates that natural selection of random mutations leads to adaptations, but Liddle tells us “…the selection of variants is a completely different subject from the creation of those variants.” He seems to be a bit confused.
I may be able to help people like him to be less confused by theory, by replacing the theory with biological facts.
FACT: The availability of nutrients is the ecological variant of natural selection.
FACT: The complex thermodynamics of nutrient selection result in the de novo creation of morphological variants such as teeth and eyes, which are adaptations.
FACT: Biophysical constraints on the creation of physical structures assures us they cannot arise via a series of mutations.
FACT: If they did, eye regression in cave fish would require the series of mutations to be rapidly reversed.
In the context of evolutionary theory, these four facts tell us why the natural selection of morphological variants such as eyes must be considered by theorists to be a completely different subject from their Creation.
FACT: Those who do not believe in the de novo Creation of nutrient-dependent morphological variants cannot explain how the variants were naturally selected.
FACT: Therefore, they cannot explain how organismal complexity arose.
FACT: Thus, their belief in mutation-initiated natural selection exemplifies belief in nonsensical theory that has no explanatory power.
Organismal complexity is readily observed in physical structures in species from microbes to man. In evolutionary theory, organismal complexity results from natural selection for something. However, no one will tell us how different morphologicall variants are naturally selected in different species.
Predation of moths with different color by birds does not equate will snake predation of our monkey ancestors unless snakes also selected for differences in the color of the monkeys they ate. But if you ask someone like Liddle to explain the obvious species-specific differences in what he calls natural selection, it becomes a completely different subject from how the adaptation arose.
FACT: He must begin to think, and that means you, too, will probably be banned from further participation in any group led by non-thinkers.
FACT: Evolutionary theorists are typically not critical thinkers.
Here’s the rest of the post that led to Riddle’s example of someone who accepts theory, instead of thinking about the biological facts that refute it.
Excerpt 2: Dobzhansky (1937) and Mayr (1942) enabled most biologists to understand how one species could evolve into two non-interbreeding populations which, by definition, would be septe species. David Lack (1947); Colin Pittendrigh (1950); Robert MacArthur (1958), and many others showed that the differences between related species were adaptive, a circumstance earlier doubted by as committed a Darwinian as Sewall Wright (1931, p. 154). Gerhart and Kirschner (1997); Carroll (2005), and various others finished Fisher’s job, incorporating developmental biology into the evolutionary synthesis and establishing in satisfying detail how genetic systems are organized to enhance the frequency of favorable mutations and the effectiveness of natural selection in achieving adaptation.
My comment: What’s missing in the above explanation of species diversity is any mention of how mutation-initiated natural selection enables adaptations. The reason this is not mentioned is probably because no experimental evidence ever suggested that mutations could cause adaptations. The effectiveness of mutation-driven adaptations is assumed. For contrast, all experimental evidence has always suggested that ecological variation enables adaptations in species from microbes to man.
Perhaps that is an issue that Christians have in the context of evolution and belief. Like scientists, Christians may simply have looked for experimental evidence to support what otherwise seems to be a ridiculous belief in mutation-initiated natural selection. Finding no experimental evidence to support that theory, they dismiss the theory of evolution. Most scientists would also dismiss a theory that had never been experimentally tested. Perhaps theorists don’t realize that the theory of mutation-initiated natural selection was only recently tested, and never learned the results of that test. Simply put, mutations theory failed the test.
Ecological adaptation results in amino acid substitutions and species diversity. Mutations result in diseases and disorders.
ADDENDUM: In the context of yes or no test questions posed to Creationists and Evolutionary Theorists, who are typically taught to believe in different things, the answers are predictable.
Q. Does ecological adaptation via nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled alternative splicings and amino acid substitutions result in species diversity?
Q: Do the mutations that result in diseases and disorders also somehow cause species diversity?
For extra credit: Explain your answer.