Darwinism Vs. Fruit Flies - Jonathan Wells

  • Share
    Share Video

  • Add
  • More
    Report this video as:
0 0
You have already voted for this video.
Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans - video *******www.metacafe****/watch/40...
Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans - video *******www.metacafe****/watch/4050681 This following video is a bit more clear for explaining exactly why mutations to the DNA do not control Body Plan morphogenesis, since the mutations are the ‘bottom rung of the ladder’ as far as the 'higher levels of the layered information’ of the cell are concerned: Stephen Meyer on Craig Venter, Complexity Of The Cell & Layered Information *******www.metacafe****/watch/4798685 Cortical Inheritance: The Crushing Critique Against Genetic Reductionism - Arthur Jones - video *******www.metacafe****/watch/4187488 This lack of beneficial morphological novelty also includes the highly touted four-winged fruit fly mutations: ...Advantageous anatomical mutations are never observed. The four-winged fruit fly is a case in point: The second set of wings lacks flight muscles, so the useless appendages interfere with flying and mating, and the mutant fly cannot survive long outside the laboratory. Similar mutations in other genes also produce various anatomical deformations, but they are harmful, too. In 1963, Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote that the resulting mutants “are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as ‘hopeless.’ They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through natural selection." - Jonathan Wells *******www.evolutionnews****/2008/08/inherit_the_spin_the_ncse_answ.html#footnote19 Darwin's Theory - Fruit Flies and Morphology - video *******www.youtube****/watch?v=hZJTIwRY0bs Many times evolutionists will mention evo-devo (Evolutionary Developmental Biology), or HOX genes, to try to support the Darwinian claim that minor changes/mutations to DNA can drive major morphological novelty, yet, in this following comment, from a 2005 Nature review article, evolutionary geneticist Jerry Coyne expressed strong skepticism at the proposed mechanism of 'gene switches' for evo-devo: "The evidence for the adaptive divergence of gene switches is still thin. The best case involves the loss of protective armor and spines in sticklebacks, both due to changes in regulatory elements. But these elements represent the loss of traits, rather than the origin of evolutionary novelties...We now know that Hox genes and other transcription factors have many roles besides inducing body pattern, and their overall function in development - let alone in evolution - remains murky." *******www.evolutionnews****/2010/06/scott_f_gilbert_developmental035931.html Here is a more thorough critique of evo-devo: Nature's "Gems": Microevolution Meets Microevolution - Casey Luskin - August 2010 *******www.evolutionnews****/2010/08/nature_gems_microevolution_mee037171.html#more As well, recent 'cloning studies' give evidence against DNA/Genetic reductionism: "There is now considerable evidence that genes alone do not control development. For example when an egg's genes (DNA) are removed and replaced with genes (DNA) from another type of animal, development follows the pattern of the original egg until the embryo dies from lack of the right proteins. (The rare exceptions to this rule involve animals that could normally mate to produce hybrids.) The Jurassic Park approach of putting dinosaur DNA into ostrich eggs to produce a Tyrannosaurus rex makes exciting fiction but ignores scientific fact." The Design of Life - William Dembski, Jonathan Wells Pg. 50 The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds - Douglas Axe - 2010 Excerpt Pg. 11: "Based on analysis of the genomes of 447 bacterial species, the projected number of different domain structures per species averages 991. Comparing this to the number of pathways by which metabolic processes are carried out, which is around 263 for E. coli, provides a rough figure of three or four new domain folds being needed, on average, for every new metabolic pathway. In order to accomplish this successfully, an evolutionary search would need to be capable of locating sequences that amount to anything from one in 10^159 to one in 10^308 possibilities, something the neo-Darwinian model falls short of by a very wide margin." *******bio-complexity****/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.1 The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds - Douglas Axe, Jay Richards - audio *******intelligentdesign.podomatic****/player/web/2010-05-03T11_09_03-07_00 Intelligent Design - The Anthropic Hypothesis *******lettherebelight-77.blogspot****/2009/10/intelligent-design-anthropic-hypothesis_19.html