
Archive-name: talk-origins/creation/part2
Posting-Frequency: monthly
Last-modified: October 9 1996
Expires: 1996/11/09
Version: 1.7
URL: http://www.zeta.org.au/~jeffcox/creation.html 
 The talk.origins FAQ (Creation) Homepage

[20] What is the difference between natural selection and evolution?
[A] Natural selection is clearly observable in response to changes in the
frequency of existing alleles. It is likely that this type of change
happened in the past because similar changes are observed today. However
natural selection resulting from changes in the frequency of unaltered
existing alleles cannot produce novel characteristics.

Novel characteristics in organisms such as a change from invertebrates to
vertebrates clearly require many new genes with many different Nitrogen
base sequences to those in the ancestral organisms and it is assumed that
mutations produced the new genetic material. This genetic change is
different in kind to the change in the frequencies of existing genes that
are produced by natural selection. There are questions regarding large
scale change that do not apply to natural selection as a result of
existing gene frequency changes, for example the relative rates of
beneficial and deleterious mutations, the origin of new characteristics
that require many genes, and the development of multiple step processes.

Despite these differences, modern examples of natural selection are
claimed to provide support for, or according to some, proof of large scale
evolution. This is not sound logic because although natural selection
acting on mutations has been observed to produce modifications to existing
characteristics it has not been shown to produce novel characteristics.
Proof of a simple process is not proof of a more complex process that
includes the simpler one. To suggest that the variation among Galapagos
finches was produced by these processes is extrapolating beyond the data,
to say that vertebrates were produced from invertebrates by these
processes is a guess.

The current definition of evolution is satisfied by the natural selection
of existing alleles, yet the natural selection of existing alleles cannot
produce novel characteristics.

[21] Some mutations have been shown to produce changes in multicellular
organisms that appear to be beneficial. Does this show that evolution
could have happened?
[A] No. Mutations that turn off a gene may produce altered characteristics
that may be beneficial in some cases. Any one of a large number of
possible changes to the DNA of the gene could produce this outcome by
damaging the gene, or the section of DNA that regulates the expression of
the gene may be altered. Some single base substitution mutations may also
produce characteristics that may be beneficial in some cases.

These mutations are very different to the formation of a novel gene with a
number of bases in the sequence that are not found in the base sequences
of existing genes, and the evolution of very different kinds of organisms
that have novel characteristics would require genes with many base
sequences that are different to those of previously existing genes.

Many of the new genes (or duplicated genes that are significantly altered)
that are required for large scale change would need to have been produced
either by many separate base substitution mutations or by DNA strand
rearrangements where a section of DNA containing a number of bases is
inserted into a chromosome to produce a novel gene with a number of novel
bases. Such mutations are _very_ unlikely since novel genes will in many
cases require base sequence changes from existing genes at more than one
location in the base sequence of a gene.

The mutations that have been observed to produce beneficial effects are
base substitution mutations to genes that are already expressed or changes
in the genes that control the expression of functional genes. In
differentiated multicellular organisms there must be sections of DNA
separate from the protein code gene that control the expression of the
protein in different groups of specialised cells and so for a novel gene 
coding for characteristics that did not previously exist to be produced as
a result of random mutations both the novel base sequence of the new gene
and the associated regulatory genes must also be produced.

In a complex multicellular species with a limited reproduction rate, the
number of separate mutations required to produce the required number of
separate base changes in both the protein code and regulatory genes would
be exceedingly high because the vast majority of mutations will be
harmful. Natural selection can't sort the mutations before they produce an
advantage and a selective advantage may require a number of separate
mutations to occur before survival is increased. The view that evolution
did occur as a result of such unlikely combinations of mutations is not
supported by numerical calculations so it is a guess, a complex
multicellular species would be likely to be rendered extinct by the
exceedingly high number of mutations required to produce the genes for a
novel characteristic in a limited time frame.

[22] Mutations are frequently observed in unicellular organisms such as
bacteria and yeast, some of these mutations appear to produce beneficial
effects. Is this similar to the evolution of multicellular organisms?
[A] No. Beneficial mutations in bacteria and yeast are not appropriate
models for speculation about beneficial mutations in multicellular
organisms with specialised cells where genes that regulate expression in
the appropriate cells are needed as well as genes that code for the
proteins that produce the novel characteristics. Many separate fortunate
and unlikely coincidences are required in a limited time to produce a new
gene in a differentiated multicellular organism, and the observation of
single fortunate coincidences in isolation is not evidence that this can
happen.

If a base substitution mutation is a roll of a million sided dice,
actually 4.2 million sides in the case of _E. coli_, then a single roll
may cause a base substitution to an expressed gene in a bacterium that
alters the surface coat protein and such a change may be beneficial for a
bacterium. A few numbers could work. A novel characteristic in a
multicellular organism such as the first appearance of bones around the
dorsal nerve cord would require novel genes. In many cases a species will
lack genes that can be duplicated and produce the useful code by
substituting a single base, so multiple rolls will be needed to make a
cell protein code gene, other multiple rolls will be needed for a gene
that regulates expression of the new protein code in the appropriate cells
(how much protein is made) and still more multiple rolls will be needed
for a gene that determines the cell types and locations where the gene is
expressed.

In mice and humans the mutation dice have 3.0 x 10**9 and 3.3 x 10**9
sides respectively, this is the number of Nitrogen bases in the haploid
genomes of these species. A significant proportion of the numbers will
produce harmful effects and one such roll will render a series of rolls
useless.

Gene regulation can involve multiple regulatory genes at each stage and
more than one gene will be needed. Unicellular organisms are not a model
for vertebrate evolution.

[23] Is it possible to definitively disprove evolution?
[A] It may be possible to definitively disprove evolution (what everybody
means by evolution, not the disingenuous definition) by calculating the
probability of the combination of random mutations that would produce
complex characteristics and comparing this with the total number of
individuals in a vertebrate species that can reasonably be assumed to have
lived over the length of geological time when significant change in the
fossil record of vertebrates of this kind is observed. We may not know
enough about the nature of genes to do this yet since one of the important
factors in the development of novel complex characteristics is the control
of the expression of particular genes in specialised cell types and the
molecular nature of this control is not currently understood. It is
reasonable to presume that the control of gene expression in specialised
cells of multicellular organisms involves a significant number of bases in
their DNA and at the current rate of increase of our knowledge of
molecular biology this information is likely to become available in the
next decade. When this is known, a person who has a very good
understanding of molecular and general biology and an aptitude for
probability calculations should then be able to prove definitively that
new kinds of life could not be produced by evolution.

[24] Are there other flaws in the explanation for the origin of all
species as a result of random mutations and natural selection following
the appearance of the first living organism?
[A] Yes. Some characteristics in organisms are produced by several genes
and in some cases these genes will not be useful in isolation. While a
single new gene may be produced by random mutations, if the new gene is
unused then it will be damaged by mutations over successive generations
and will only remain in a population for a limited time. For combinations
of several genes to be produced by random mutations not one but many
extremely unlikely events must occur in a limited number of individuals in
a limited number of generations. This is so unlikely that it is
effectively impossible, yet the evolution explanation requires this
virtually impossible change appearance of groups of complex genes to
happen repeatedly during the development of complex species from simple
ones.

This flaw in the evolution explanation is most obvious in the very early
stages of the development of life. The evolution of a self reproducing RNA
strand into a cell could not have occurred by random mutations and natural
selection because cells require combinations of genes to function and the
presence of only one or two of these genes would not produce a selective
advantage in a RNA strand if three or more genes are needed to carry out a
process.

Even if a cellular organism was formed, evolution could not produce
complex processes like photosynthesis since genes for only a relatively
small number of biochemical processes would be present in a simple
ancestral organism. Photosynthesis requires a pigment to trap photons of
light and use the energy from the photons to raise electrons to higher
energy states and additional pigments or coenzymes to transfer the energy
from the electrons to enzymes. Many additional enzymes are needed to
synthesise molecules that store energy.
The Calvin cycle never contains molecules shorter than 3 Carbon atoms and
it is far from certain that a functional biochemical pathway for
photosynthesis involving 1 or 2 Carbon intermediates could exist since
such a pathway would involve large energy jumps, possibly too large for
the energy to be transferred by electrons associated with pigments.
Without such a pathway photosynthesis could not have evolved. Even with
such a pathway many genes are needed for photosynthesis and these genes
would not be useful in isolation. Natural selection could not sort
mutations to produce these genes until many of them were present and so
the evolution of photosynthesis would require many genes for enzymes and
at least one gene for a pigment to be formed purely by combinations of
mutations.

Other examples of characteristics that require several genes include the
biochemical processes that synthesise complex molecules. These reactions
often occur in several stages, each stage of the reaction is carried out
by a different enzyme and each enzyme is coded for by a different gene.
For multiple step biochemical processes to have arisen during the early
stages of cellular evolution by the natural selection of mutated genes,
each step would have to be useful in isolation because of the small number
of enzyme genes that would have been in existence at this time. Genes
coding for enzymes that produced steps that were not functional at a given
stage of change would be damaged by mutations before the number of genes
required to produce a novel multiple step process that rendered the genes
useful could be produced by random mutations.

[25] Are there other gaps in the evolution explanation?
[A] Yes. The origin of sexual reproduction is unexplained.

[26] I have heard that some people claim evolution is now a fact. Is this true?
[A] Only some supporters of evolution attempt to claim this. When they do
they are using the word fact in a way that is different from the meaning
it has for most people. They define a fact as something that is probably
true rather than something that is definitely true. Although these people
think that evolution is almost definitely true, this is both a form of
probably true and an opinion.

When evolution is claimed to be a fact without explaining that the word
fact is used to mean something different to the usual meaning of something
that is definitely true, the claim is misleading. Such misleading
statements may result either from a lack of knowledge or understanding on
the part of the person making them or from dishonesty.

[27] My science educator claims evolution is a fact and Iam concerned
that he or she is misleading students. What can I do?
[A] You could speak to this person and politely point out that the use of
the word fact in this context is misleading and should be clarified since
the word evolution refers both to the current definition of genetic change
and to an unproved theory based on the one proposed by Charles Darwin and
Alfred Wallace. If this does not help, then it is likely that your
educator either lacks understanding of the subject or is dishonest. You
could then raise this issue with someone in the administration of the
educational institution you belong to, some consider it good manners to
move up one level of administration at a time if your complaint is not
resolved at any given level.

Most or at least many people who actually understand evolution recognise
that it is an explanation that cannot be proved to be correct, although
most biologists believe that evolution is what actually happened. Origins
is an issue that many people are interested in and when evolution is
popularised, the actual position "most scientists are convinced that ...."
often becomes distorted by oversimplification to be "what actually
happened was .." and the popularisation becomes a misleading
representation of the true picture. This distortion is worsened by a team
spirit feeling that produces a tendency to overstate the case of one side
in a disagreement.

[28] Since evolution is unproved, what are the alternatives?
[A] Some people believe that the origin of living things is unknown and
possibly unknowable, the only serious alternative to evolution is a belief
that God created living things. There are different schools of thought
among Christians who regard the bible as truth.

Many biblical creationists believe that God created different kinds of
living things but do not think that the time scale of the creation process
is important.

Young earth biblical creationists believe that God created life on earth
6000 to 12000 years ago. Some of these people believe that God created
each species individually and others think that some separate species have
arisen in this time by natural processes.

Old earth biblical creationists believe that God created life on earth
over the time scale estimated by geologists at around 4500 million years,
their views differ on the number of species God created directly and the
amount of natural variation that produced species diversity. Some believe
that all species were created separately by God and others, including this
writer, believe that God created different kinds of living things then
mutations and natural selection produced additional species within these
kinds.

Some Christians believe that God created the first living organism and
that mutations and natural selection produced the present variety of
species purely by natural processes without the active intervention of
God. Some also believe that God set up the starting conditions for life so
that it would inevitably appear.

[29] What is the "fine tuning" argument?
[A] Many biblical creationists believe that God created different kinds of
living things with the potential for a limited amount of change by natural
selection to enable adaptation to a new or changing environment. It annoys
them when others observe this fine tuning process in operation and claim
that it is evidence for a completely different type of change, large scale
change to produce very different kinds of living things.

[30]Does the fossil record show that Darwin was right?
[A] No. The fossil record does not show the gradual change from one kind
of life to another that Darwin predicted but reveals long periods when
relatively little change took place and episodes when large amounts of
change took place in a short period of geological time. All the major
animal phyla appeared in a rapid "explosion" of life forms at the
beginning of the Cambrian period and is dated about 600 million years ago.

[31] Many people think that the fossil record and the similarity of DNA
from different groups of organisms indicates direct biological connections
between species. Is this view consistent with creation?
[A] Yes. God may have created kinds of organisms by modifying existing
species, deliberately altering the Nitrogen base sequence in the DNA of
gametes or zygotes (such as unfertilised or fertilised ova) so that
females produced offspring that were significantly different to
themselves. God may also have ensured the survival of successive
generations of individuals that were changed in this way.

This progressive creation by designed modification explanation is a modern
alternative to the older explanation of the individual creation of each
species. Progressive creation by modification is consistent with evidence
from DNA similarity studies.

[32] Is progressive creation by modification a form of evolution?
[A] No. The sculpting of one species into another at the molecular level
would produce similar fossil and DNA evidence to the evolution explanation
but this explanation is not evolution.

In the evolution explanation, random mutations sorted by natural selection
is the process that is thought to have produced new kinds of living
things.

In the progressive creation by modification explanation God deliberately
produced new kinds of living things with specifically designed genes. In
this explanation, new kinds of living things are produced by the
deliberate modification of the DNA in existing species by God. Random
mutations sorted by natural selection is not the process that produced new
kinds of living things according to this explanation and so progressive
creation by modification is NOT a form of evolution.

The term mutation is inappropriate to describe multiple changes in base
sequence that arose directly from the active intervention of God.
Researchers using recombinant DNA do not describe the alterations in base
sequence they produce with restriction enzymes and other techniques as
mutations, and creation events where God adds designed base sequences to
an existing species to form a new kind are also different to mutations.

[33] Is the progressive creation by modification explanation consistent
with the available evidence?
[A] The fossil record shows the appearance of increasingly complex kinds
of living organisms over time and the remains of some species that may be
intermediate stages between major groups. This is entirely consistent with
the modification of existing species by the active intervention of God to
produce specifically designed sequences of Nitrogen bases in the
chromosomes of gametes or zygotes. These creation events could produce new
kinds of living things with new characteristics when a number of new genes
are formed in this way. Mutations and natural selection could then produce
different species within these newly created kinds of organisms,
explaining the great diversity of form we observe among living species and
in the fossil record. Over geological time, progressive creation by
modification would produce increasingly complex kinds of living things
together with some intermediate stages and this is what the fossil record
shows.

The similarity of base sequences in the DNA of extant (living) species is
consistent with progressive creation by modification since only a small
proportion of the bases in the chromosomes of existing species would need
to be changed by God to produce each new kind of living organism. Since
current species are, in this view, descended from ancestors that are
common to other species then DNA similarity would be expected.

The biochemical similarity of extant species is consistent with
progressive creation by modification over geological time. In this
explanation the increase in complexity of organisms is produced by the
deliberate modification of existing genes or by the replacement of
sections of DNA that do not code for proteins with genes that code for new
proteins or functional lengths of RNA. Kinds that are created
modifications of existing species would retain the same basic
biochemistry, so different kinds of living organisms that are descended
from a common ancestor as a result of creation by modification will have
similar biochemistry.

Homologous (related) structures present in fossil and extant species such
as the pentadactyl (5 digit) limbs of vertebrates are consistent with
creation by the modification of existing kinds of living things to produce
new kinds with the same body plan since only a small proportion of the
genes in an existing species would need to be changed to produce, for
example, a kangaroo from a quadruped.

[34] Is the similarity of vertebrate embryos evidence of evolution?
[A] No. The similarity of the early embryos of different species of
vertebrates is evidence for common descent but it does not indicate the
process that produced the change, the similarity of embryos is entirely
consistent with progressive creation by modification.

[35] Is the presence of vestigial limbs evidence of evolution?
[A] No. The presence of vestigial limbs in snakes is evidence that
suggests an ancestor with limbs, and therefore common descent, however
both progressive creation by modification and evolution are consistent
with this. Once a species has reached a high degree of adaptation to an
environment there is no particular reason for God to continue changing the
species to remove vestigial limbs.

[36] Some kinds of species seem to appear in the fossil record in simpler
or more primitive forms that the forms that are currently found on earth.
Why would God create "primitive" or simpler forms of species rather than
producing the more advanced forms straight away?
[A] Some of these apparently simpler forms may have been intermediate
stages as it seems that God chose to create new kinds of species by
modifying existing ones, however the intermediate stages would have been
ecologically useful. God was managing ecosystems as well as anticipating
more complex kinds of life, and there is no particular reason why changes
would have to occur quickly. A slow pace of change would have produced
more stability in ecosystems.

Introducing a new kind of animal in a form with limited effectiveness as a
predator would have allowed changes to ecological balance to occur slowly.
Natural selection could produce small changes in prey species such as
modifications in instinctive behaviour that would allow a prey species to
survive in the presence of a new predator. A new highly effective predator
arriving in an ecosystem would be likely to cause extinction if there were
multiple prey species or produce a small population if there was only one
species of prey.

[37] Are "transitional" fossils evidence of evolution?
[A] Some fossils appear to be the remains of organisms with
characteristics that are intermediate between those of major groups.
Examples include _Archaeopteryx_, a bird that had a number of
characteristics similar to those of reptiles, and Therapsida, an order of
reptiles that had some characteristics similar to those of mammals. These
examples are commonly quoted as representing transitional stages in the
evolution of more advanced or complex groups, however they would also be
animals that were well adapted to a particular environment before
environmental change rendered them extinct. Transitional forms are
consistent with progressive creation by modification since God was
designing ecosystems as well as species and these extinct forms of life
would have occupied ecological niches that were later filled by more
advanced species.

[38] What is a kind?
[A] The creation account in Genesis tells us that God created animals and
plants "according to their kind". Some interpret this to be each species
but in some cases the term kind may also apply to a higher level of
classification such as a genus or family. The arbitrary nature of
classification means that kinds and our classification systems don't
necessarily match. Among different kinds of life to humans a kind may be a
family in the classification system, for example kangaroos and wallabies
appear to be a single kind although they belong to different genera.

An example of two different kinds are the the fossil Australopithecus
species including Australopithecus afarensis, A. africanus, A.boisei and
A. robustus that are thought to include a common ancestor of humans, and
the early Homo species, Homo habilis and H. erectus.

All the Australopithecus species were one distinctly apelike kind. They
had relatively small brains <450 cc, thick skulls, faces that jutted
forward with a strongly protruding jaw, very large molars and premolars, a
conical chest that was narrow at the top and broad at the bottom, little
neck with no waist, an extremely apelike build with twice the body mass of
humans of equivalent height, long and very muscular arms, short legs, toes
that were long and curved, a high degree of sexual dimorphism and the
occipital lobes at the back of the brain were larger than the frontal
lobes.

Homo species have larger brains, thinner skulls, flatter faces, smaller
molars, a barrel shaped chest, a longer neck and a waist, a leaner build
more typical of modern humans, shorter and less muscular arms, longer
legs, shorter and straight toes, sexes of approximately equal sizes, and
the occipital lobes at the back of the brain are smaller than the frontal
lobes.

The genus Australopithecus is thought to have evolved into the genus Homo
over the course of about 1.5 million years and approximately 10**13
zygotes, a relatively large number of base changes would need to have been
produced in this time and beneficial mutations may not be sufficiently
probable to explain this change.
