Creationists: How do the genes know?!?

[aggle-rithm]

Something's been bothering me, creationists. We've all been informed by the excellent Creation Science Gurus that random mutation can never lead to positive change in an species, only degradation. Thus, we do indeed see mutations, just as evolution predicts, but we never see the really cool mutations like they show on the X-Men movies that let people walk through walls and stuff. We only see things like missing limbs or extra faces or things of that nature.

OK, I'll buy that.

Here's what's bothering me, though. Genes are pretty mindless things, I'm sure you'll agree. After all, Creation Scientists are always saying, "How does a flower know it's supposed to evolve into a porcupine?" It doesn't, of course! Genetic material doesn't know squat. It just mindlessly codes for proteins.

So, how does it know, while mutating, to code only for proteins that would degrade the species? First of all, the gene that codes for proteins that produce the hind legs in a quadruped don't KNOW that's what they're doing. Second, even if they did, how do they know that failing to produce hind legs would be a bad thing? It would be bad for a dog or a cow, sure, but what about a whale? What does a whale need back legs for? They just get in the way.

Well, you may answer, mutations only TAKE THINGS AWAY, they never ADD things. So the genes don't have to know.

Really? Then why all those frogs with the EXTRA hind legs? Why are there pigs with two faces and three eyes?

Perhaps the answer is: God controls the mutations. It is He who, in his infinite wisdom, prevents mutations from ever providing beneficial changes to a species.

That leaves only one question: WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH HIM?!? That is WORSE than being indifferent, that is acting with forethought and malice! Why?

I'm sure that, among the vast volumes of scientific liturature on Creationism, there is a perfectly logical explanation for all this. I can't wait to hear it.

 

[Gate2501]

That god, what a jokester!

 

[Olowkow]

Gotta love it. He sure works in mysterious ways. Unfortunately, just a little too mysterious to be called science.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Perhaps the answer is: God controls the mutations. It is He who, in his infinite wisdom, prevents mutations from ever providing beneficial changes to a species.

That leaves only one question: WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH HIM?!? That is WORSE than being indifferent, that is acting with forethought and malice! Why?

I'm sure that, among the vast volumes of scientific liturature on Creationism, there is a perfectly logical explanation for all this. I can't wait to hear it.

I'm picturing an argument in response to what you said, going something like this:

Oh well, it's because those people have bad Karma. See, in their past lives they did something wrong and so in this life, God gave them that little "deviation" so that they learn something and grow up to be better souls.


Something like that they would say.

 

[Soapy Sam]

If there are two words I would like to see banned from any discussion of evolution, they would be "mutation" and "species", possibly the most confusing and unnecessary concepts ever invented.
There is one genepool, with overlapping ranges producing varied critters.
Those ranges change for reasons related to changes of the environment.

That's it.

 

[aggle-rithm]

If there are two words I would like to see banned from any discussion of evolution, they would be "mutation" and "species", possibly the most confusing and unnecessary concepts ever invented.
There is one genepool, with overlapping ranges producing varied critters.
Those ranges change for reasons related to changes of the environment.

That's it.

One thing I've learned from working as a programmer is that, in practice, things rarely fit into a nice, neat, taxonomic hierarchy. There are ALWAYS exceptions that have to be accounted for. Species are no exception, I'm sure.

Also, genetic variation, not just reshuffling of existing genes but the occasional odd mutation, are necessary, IMHO. Otherwise, life would have been wiped out long ago by something that targeted the impoverished diversity of organisms.

My two cents speaking as a non-biologist... (although, since my mother has a degree in biology, I no doubt inherited her credentials. )

 

[Soapy Sam]

After breakfast, I shall lecture you on C++ string handling concepts in 20th century Hungary.

Genetics and programming have much in common, including the fact that one or two classes are never enough.

I'm not denying the reality of mutation. The idea that mutation is the sole source of variation, as many creationists seem to think , is just so wrong that it's best left out of most arguments altogether. As for the concept of species- it's a useful filing trick that has led to more misunderstanding than it's worth.
It's like the fact that all days of the week, everywhere in the universe, come in 7 types. If that's not proof of Intelligent Design, what the heck could be?

 

[David Swidler]

If you want to get an excellent, eloquent picture of evolutionary processes at work, have a look at the weekly blog postings of Olivia Judson at nytimes.com, in the science section. Thanks to her column a few weeks ago, I now know the following, which might help hone your approach:

The vast majority of the DNA does not code for proteins. This "junk" DNA, once thought unimportant to varying degrees, seems to contain oodles of other information directly related not to the formula for a specific protein, but, for example, to the amount produced. Thus a mutation is more likely to affect the larger, regulatory segments of DNA, which would not corrupt the production of the proteins themselves - and of course that would be more likely to turn out bad - but the amount or frequency or whatever of their production, which would be less likely (I assert in my ignorance) to cause necessarily fatal results, and in fact might prove advantageous in some cases.

I stand to be corrected by those who actually know something.