Joined: Oct. 2009
|Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 20 2011,17:16)|
Luskin cites a paper from a random (retired) agronomist:
|Many of these researchers also raise the question (among others), why -- even after inducing literally billions of induced mutations and (further) chromosome rearrangements -- all the important mutation breeding programs have come to an end in the Western World instead of eliciting a revolution in plant breeding, either by successive rounds of selective "micromutations" (cumulative selection in the sense of the modern synthesis), or by "larger mutations" ... and why the law of recurrent variation is endlessly corroborated by the almost infinite repetition of the spectra of mutant phenotypes in each and any new extensive mutagenesis experiment (as predicted) instead of regularly producing a range of new systematic species...|
I don't know about these "mutation breeding programs", but I don't see how this proves anything. Artificial selection is still widely undergone in agriculture, and it has led to the varieties we have today (compare these to the wild ancestors and see the difference).
Now, artificial selection is even assisted by molecular markers, so we have direct evidence that the selected trait is encoded by variations localized on the chromosomes. So unless that guy suggests that artificially selected variation is designed (maybe God cause the variation, heh?), I'm not sure what he's up to.
Regarding his argument about new systematic species... He doesn't seem to know how species form.
That's actually an interesting point. We know (for example) that Canis familaris has been selectively bred for thousands of years... and yet they are all dogs.
The ID proponents generally consider this to be a case of front-loading... in which case, the ID proponents really need to show the genes for some of the odd domestic dog mutations exist in wolfs/coyotes. For example, they would need to show that the actual allele that creates the smushed noses of pugs or the unique traits of the dachshund (including the variety of coats, leg lengths, and sizes) already exist in precursor organisms.
That's a very interesting tack and I'm curious about the results. I would suspect that the unique mutations do not exist in wolfs or coyotes, but instead can be traced to mutations in alleles that are in wolfs or coyotes. This would neatly destroy the frontloading option.
A similar case could be done with the scottish fold cat, since we know exactly when that mutation occurred in the wild. The problem is that we really don't have an ancestral species for the domestic cats to look at.
The other option for the ID crowd would be to admit that the mutations happened and in the way science shows they occurred, but under the direction of an intelligent designer. Unfortunately, they cannot do that because it would give them the worst of both worlds. They would be forced to admit that science is right and be required to show that their designer of choice was actually involved.
Which pretty much leaves them with front-loading.
It's even worse for the YEC crowd. They must use front-loading to explain the existence of the 670+ HLA-A alleles in the human population. By definition, the YECs must accept that only 10 alleles existed at the time of the Flood and they have to get the additional 660+ alleles in less than 6000 years. Just that would be a mutation rate to turn everyone into cancer ridden piles of jello, but they also have to deal with all the other multiple alleles (not to mention all the human specific diseases that either existed on the ark or came into being since the ark... as Rick would say... "Oops").
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.