Another Evolution Pillar Demolished

JOURNAL OF CREATION 29(2) 2015 || BOOK REVIEWS Another evolution pillar demolished The Evolution Revolution—Why Thinking People are Rethinking the Theory of Evolution Lee Spetner Judaica Press, Brooklyn, NY, 2014 Jerry Bergman ost examples of evolution used Mby its supporters today to doc- ument their theory are termed ‘microevolution’ by some evolutionists. Creationists call this ‘variation within the Genesis kinds’. Evolutionists argue that macroevolution from one genus to another is simply large-scale microevolution, which, when allowed to operate for long periods of time, will produce macroevolution or major This lecture caused Spetner to won- changes in all life forms. Spetner der about the source of the enormous documents why many cases of this so- amount of biological information ex- called microevolution evidence does isting in DNA in all life forms. For not support common-ancestry evo- this reason he posed a question about lution from single cells to humans by the source of genetic information to mutations and natural selection. Professor Glass. Glass responded that he never really thought about this problem (p. 7). Thus began Spetner’s Spetner’s conversion intellectual journey, researching the A common stereotype is that most dilemma of new information coming people who reject Darwinism are un- into existence as life progressed. He educated Christians who rejected evo- ended up publishing a few papers on lution due to their religion. Spetner is the topic in peer reviewed scientific one of many persons that contradict journals, including Nature and The this theory. Spetner, a Jew with a doc- Journal of Theoretical Biology. In his torate from MIT in science, rejected research, after reading Dawkin’s book Darwinism due to his intensive and The Blind Watchmaker, Spetner con- extensive research on the subject. He cluded that the standard explanation writes that his journey, which ended for Darwinism, according to its lead- in rejecting Darwinism, began at a ing advocates, lecture by leading American geneticist “… didn’t make sense. Random and anti-eugenicist (Hiram) Bentley errors in copying the DNA and Glass (1906–2005) at Johns Hopkins natural selection were supposed to University (figure 1), where Spetner account for the evolution of all life was then teaching information theory. from some simple primitive cell. I 40 BOOK REVIEWS || JOURNAL OF CREATION 29(2) 2015 could not understand how random mutations and natural selection could account for the information buildup in what is called Common Descent. Could those DNA copying errors really bring new information into living organisms?” (p. 7). His study led him to write his first book, Not By Chance!, published in Israel, then later in the United States. The common view of Darwinists was that the “vast amount of information contained in trees, fish, elephants, and people” came from “random mutations and natural selection.” Spetner concluded that this view was scientifically Figure 1. Johns Hopkins University where Lee Spetner was professor. bankrupt. The problem was the fact that: environment affects bacterial gene rap idly to Devil’s Hole’s very high av- “Natural selection is supposed to be expression by inactivating these genes erage temperature and meager food the magic that makes evolution . A key evidence for the conclusion resources. Their adaptation to this happen, but all natural selection that microevolution cannot account for harsh environment required only a few does is eliminate the less adaptive the changes that have been observed to years, which was far too rapidly for the organisms and allow the more adap- occur in many life forms includes the necessary set of random mutations to tive ones to survive and proliferate. fact that they occur with a speed that achieve this task (p. 65). Where do those more adaptive ones is far greater than can be accounted for come from? Apparently, that’s what To evaluate the phenotypic-plas- by the “Neo-Darwinian mechanism random mutations are supposed to ticity theory, Spetner reviewed in some accomplish” (p. 8). of random mutations and natural detail Sean Lema and his team’s pup- This book examines in detail selection” (p. 65). fish research. They took newly hatched one solution to part of this problem– Another problem is that supporters pupfish from the Amargosa River and the theory that much adaptation is a of Neo-Darwinian theory have always reared them in the adverse conditions result of complex inbuilt systems that been vague about how the long strings typical of Devil’s Hole. The biological respond to the environment, and not of mutations that their theory requires effects of this major environmental random mutations that are selected by can happen at just the proper time to change included alterations in their natural selection. allow each mutation in the sequence to thyroid secretion levels. The behaviour A major section of the book doc- have selective value over the previous changes that occurred were attributed uments Professor Spetner’s theory that non-mutation state (p. 66). to arginine vasoticin hormone changes much of the ‘microevolution’ observed and other adaptations. The researchers also found several in nature is a result of complex inbuilt Phenotypic-plasticity theory mechanisms, such as epigenetics, that DNA regulation differences between are influenced by the environment to Many other examples exist of what the pupfish that were moved from inactivate certain genes and activate is now called the phenotypic-plasticity the Devil’s Hole to the experimental others. Many examples of this pro- theory. A well-documented example is refuge environment. Their findings cess are well known in bacteria. If the pupfish that evolved very rapidly supported the phenotypic-plasticity certain types of sugar are present in in response to environmental changes theory, and could not be explained the environment, and the preferred that occurred when they were moved by the mutation/natural selection evo- sugar type is lacking, the bacteria is from their original home into Devil’s lutionary process (p. 65). stimulated to produce the enzymes Hole in Death Valley, the hottest and In another example, after David necessary to utilize less preferred sug- driest location in North America (p. 64). Reznick moved 200 guppies from ar types. If the preferred type of sugar After the pupfish were relocated, Aripo to a tributary, changes occurred is present, the bacterium does not their inbuilt ability to adapt to this in only two years in the newly hatched need to waste energy and resources environment involved alterations of guppy population, which was “much to produce the enzymes required to both their body shape and their be- too short for random mutations and digest the other sugar type. Thus, the haviour to allow them to adapt natural selection to have an effect” 41 JOURNAL OF CREATION 29(2) 2015 || BOOK REVIEWS (p. 72). Again, no new information was held sway when Reznick began grad ex plain some trait variation, it causes produced in the guppy’s DNA, but an school in 1974. Scientists had studied problems for constructing phenotypic altered expression of existing infor- evolution in controlled laboratory trees. As millions of potential traits exist mation occurred. Spetner documents experiments, but watching it happen that could be compared, theoretically that even the famous well-documented in a natural setting in a human life- millions of different trees could be pro- evolution of Darwin’s finches is also an time was considered improbable at duced, some of which will be misleading example of this process. He writes that, best, more likely impossible. … due to phenotypic-plasticity events in just 17 years or less, Reznick says, ‘People … doubted (pp. 88–89). “… the finches had diversified into I would live long enough to see the Related to phylogenic trees are the various niches. If this diversifica tion results’.”1 many problems that exist in evolutio- occurred in less than seventeen years, It turned out that he did see clear nary convergence explanations for why did Darwin’s Galapagos finches evidence of rapid changes in 1981 when similar traits in very different life [as claimed by evolutionists] have to he forms. This is a concept that has been take two million years? They could “… returned to Trinidad’s swift illustrated with many examples, both have done it much more rapidly, streams to test his theory. He trans- by Spetner and others. A good example and perhaps they indeed did. The planted guppies from a site where is the auditory system of mammals diversification can be accounted for they had to fend off cichlids, an and that of certain insects, such as the by a built-in response of the finch’s aggressive, wide-mouthed fish, to South American rainforest katydid, genome to an environmental input” a new site with no predators and which has a hearing system analogous 2 (p. 76). no other guppies. Reznick also in- to that of the vertebrates (p. 89). Spetner gives many other ex- troduced cichlids to guppy sites The theory postulates that life amples of rapid evolution that are far without predators. He found that forms which are placed on very dif- better explained by inbuilt variation or within four years—a mere six to ferent parts of the phylogenic tree and regulation systems than by mutations eight generations—male guppies that do not have a recent common and natural selection. had significantly changed their re- ancestor, must have independently Spetner concluded by opining that productive patterns. Those trans- evolved remarkably similar organs or biologists need to planted from a high-predation site structures. In this case, very similar “… stop pretending evolutionary to a stream without predators were hearing systems in life forms that were events occur through random mu- larger, matured later and repro- located on drastically different parts of tations and find out how they really duced more slowly.

Load more