[__ Science __ ] The New Origin of Species

[AIG.com]

A Harvard-trained geneticist shows how new findings have shattered Darwin’s best guesses about the origin of species.

Continue reading...

 

[Barbarian]

Well, let's take a look...

Since species are defined by traits, the question of the origin of species is a question of the origin of traits. However, since traits must be inherited from generation to generation in order to constitute a species, the question of the origin of species is, ultimately, a question of the origin of heritable traits. The field of science concerned with inheritance is the field of genetics. Consequently, the question of the origin of species is, ultimately, a question of genetics.

Didn’t Darwin examine genetic data?

Hardly, Jeanson explains. “In 1859, genetics wasn’t even a field of science. The term genetics wasn’t invented until after the turn of the century. The molecule that we know now as the substance of heredity, DNA, wasn’t recognized as such until nearly 100 years after Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species. The DNA information, the genomes, from species was not uncovered until now. In other words, when Darwin proposed an answer to the question of the origin of species, he did so nearly a century and a half before any scientist would possess the only direct scientific data with which to answer it. Darwin took a massive scientific risk.”

First off, Jeanson is wrong about the founding of genetics as a science. Mendel did the foundational work in Darwin's lifetime, although Darwin seems to have been unaware of Mendel's discoveries.

But he's right that Darwin took a risk. You see, most scientists of the time thought that heredity was in the blood, and it was like mixing paint. So Darwin's critics asked how a new trait wouldn't just be wiped out like a drop of red paint in a barrel of white paint. Darwin had no explanation, but pointed out that the data supported his theory.

Later, when Mendel's work was rediscovered and it was realized that heredity was like sorting beads rather than like mixing point, Darwin was again vindicated.

Let's go on....

Still, risk or no risk, Darwin observed plenty of nature firsthand, and his power of inductive reasoning proved quite persuasive, right?


Again, Jeanson is quick to comment. “The inherent danger in the process of inductive reasoning (trying to derive general principles from specific examples) is the finiteness of mankind. Despite our best efforts, it’s nearly impossible to identify all potential answers to a question. In addition, some new answers arise with time. Consequently, the process of inductive reasoning is inherently limited and time-bound.”

Jeanson is apparently unaware that all of science is inductive. We can only observe the phenomena and infer the rules from it. Nothing else humans can do works better, and the spectacularly successful run of science confirms that. How could a PhD in science not know the nature of scientific inquiry?

Let's go on...

Jeanson says, “Evolution postulates that all species arose over millions of years from a common ancestor. In contrast, recent genetic data indicate that species arose from a whole slew of ancestors that lived just a few thousand years ago. This is consistent with Genesis, which teaches that God supernaturally created ‘kinds’ of creatures—the progenitors to modern species—a few thousand years ago.”

He's apparently unfamiliar with the data from Fitch are Margoliash in the 1960s who analyzed DNA from a wide variety of living things, and found the same family tree for all living things that was first noticed by Linnaeus in the 1700s. I think he's confused about the data that shows most modern species are only a few tens of thousands of years old. I'm sure everyone can see how both data sets are consistent with each other. Fitch and Margoliash look at the roots and limbs; data on today's organisms looks at the twigs on the ends of the branches.

Going on...

The biggest genetic question in these discussions is the question of the source of genetic variety—DNA differences among species. Evolution assumes that all genetic differences are the result of DNA copying errors, or mutations. My book documents four independent lines of evidence that indicate the vast majority of DNA differences were present in the first progenitors in hidden, or genetically silent, form. This fact profoundly alters how we understand the origin of species.

Apparently, Jeanson is not aware of the amount of human genetic diversity. Adam and Eve could have had at most, four alleles for each gene locus. Yet most human gene loci have dozens of alleles. All the others had to have evolved. "Hidden, or genetically silent form" is not an option. There is no way any human with two sets of chromosomes could have dozens of alleles for the same gene locus. A sophomore biology student knows better than this.

This is quite a step back for creationism, which in recent years, was moving to a more scientific approach to creationist doctrines.