Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
see in and around us - to include all life forms. Truly then, Nature is the Creator. Nature
is a mindless god of sorts. But, by what power does this god create all the fantastic
variety and creativity that we see around us? - especially when we look at the workings
of living things?
As far as the variety of life forms are concerned, the theory of evolution proposes
that the nature created and is still creating the huge variety of living creatures via
particular competitive environments over vast spans of time. Nature is said to do this by
preferentially selecting those life forms that survive and pass on their genes to their
offspring the best. This "natural selection" uses competition for survival. The
advantageous traits from the less advantageous ones. More and more traits are added
or subtracted in this way until a creature's offspring are fine tuned to the particular
environmental niche that they occupy. The whole process is often referred to as, "The
Survival of the Fittest." This is rather a neat idea, but exactly how does it work? Does
study by H.B. Kettlewell, he was wondering why the peppered moth was more
commonly dark than specimens that had been collected and saved from earlier times in
England’s history. The peppered moth had been generally much whiter in color, but
now it was much blacker. Why this change? It was suggested that when the industrial
revolution arrived in England, the pollution had turned the bark of the trees a much
darker color. Since light colored moths are much easier for birds to see on a dark
background, they were preferentially eaten. However, the few darker moths survived
better to pass on their darker coloring to their offspring. Pretty soon, there were lots of
dark moths and very few light colored moths - or so the story went. In reality, England's
peppered moths do not generally rest on tree trunks (despite what some of the staged
seemed to confirm Kettlewell's main hypothesis that England's peppered moths were in
fact getting darker over time. Still, this is still not necessarily an example of evolution
in action.
abilities for inherited variation that are not dependent upon mutational
changes but upon the built-in variety potential of a given gene pool of allelic options. He
found that some allelic traits were "dominant" while others were "recessive." Each trait
was coded for by two separate allelic codes on equivalent positions on two separate but
matching chromosomes. As long as one of the codes was the dominant code, it would
block out the other code. So, an individual with two different codes for the same allelic
positions would express the dominant trait. For example, if one parent had two
dominant color codes and the other parent had two recessive color codes at the allelic
position coding for hair color, then the offspring would all be the dominant color (i.e.,
brown vs. blond). However, if each parent had one dominant and one recessive color
offspring would be dominant in color and one-quarter recessive (The offspring with both
dominant and recessive codes would express the dominant color. Only those offspring
with both recessive codes would express the recessive color). If both parents had both
recessive color codes then all the offspring would have the recessive color.
allows for a huge variety of expressed morphologies or phenotypes. However, since the
codes only swap with each other at set locations, the body parts themselves maintain
their usual orientation with each other. In other words, genetic recombination will not
cause an eye to grown on a baby's foot or an ear to grow inside its stomach. The
swapping of options is random, but limited as to exactly where the swapping can and
cannot take place. For example, it works much like interchangeable parts on a car. If I
don't like the hubcaps on my car, I can swap them out for new ones that still fit in the
same location, but they may look very different. I can also swap out the steering wheel
for a very different looking one, but it still fits in exactly the same place on the car and it
This same thing happens during genetic recombination. One particular position on a
chromosome might code for eye color. Many different interchangeable parts or codes
for eye color have the potential to occupy and "work" in this spot. But, codes for eye
color would not work so well if they were placed where the code for nose size is
supposed to go. This would be like trying to put a hubcap where the carburetor is
supposed to go. Some parts are simply not interchangeable, and the process of genetic
recombination knows this. So, during the process of genetic recombination, the genes
or allelic options themselves have not been changed, just their expression (i.e., The
hubcaps, steering wheels, carburetors, and all other part options are still the same. It is
just that some parts are used to make some car "expressions" while other part types are
There are many different variations and complications, but this is the basic idea that
Mendel discovered. In other words, great diversity can be had through a selection
process that picks between previously established traits or allelic part options. This is
why breeding has been such a thriving occupation for centuries. Selective breeding
based on the potential of genetic recombination alone (for the most part) is responsible
for the great varieties of cats, dogs, horses, and even humans, as well as a host of
other breeds - to include Darwin’s famous finches. Mendelian genetics and other types
of genetic recombination are the primary reason why children do not look exactly like
that this process (as it ideally works) has nothing to do with mutation so nothing new as
far as the "gene pool potential" is concerned is created. No unique genetic functions
are evolved during this process (i.e., An exchange of one type of hubcap for another
type of hubcap that already existed in the pool of hubcap options does not make the
A mutation, on the other hand, is a change in a specific gene that was not originally
inherited. The different white and black colors in the peppered moth are clearly the
result of genetic recombination at work. The peppered moth gene pool already
contained codes for both the light and the dark colors of peppered moths. Nature did in
fact play a role in selecting the most common color from this pre-established pool of
options but it did not create the options in this case (at least not in observable time).
examples of evolution in action because clearly, they are not making anything new as
far as the gene pool is concerned. For example, no matter how much selection
pressure is applied to England's peppered moth, a green peppered moth will never
evolve via genetic recombination alone. Why? Because the code for green color is not
in the peppered moth's genetic pool of options (i.e., If there are no green hubcaps at
Wal-Mart, where I do my hubcap shopping, my car will simply have to do without green
hubcaps). The only way to get this option to come into the gene pool of options is for
random mutations or mistakes in the genetic code to create this option de novo.
This mutant creature and its offspring will most likely die off because of this deficiency.
Of course, after the die off occurs, this particular mutation would be removed from the
gene pool of options for this "kind" of creature. In this way, nature in fact limits
mutational change to the genes of most creatures. For many creatures, such as
mammals, mutations are fairly rare to begin with; on the order of one mutation per gene
per 100,000 generations. 1 Understand also that the majority of even this relatively
small number of mutations are detrimental in nature (The ratio of detrimental vs.
beneficial mutations is thought to be around 1000:1 - with the rest being "neutral" as far
as function is concerned). One major problem is one of how to eliminate the detrimental
mutations as fast or faster than the much lower rate of beneficial mutations. For
humans this is turning out to be quite a mysterious problem. In fact, it seems that the
Such problems certainly are a challenge for natural selection to keep up with and get
rid of much less overcome to use in some fantastically beneficial way. Clearly natural
selection is a real force of nature, but it is limited by the genetic options that it can pick
from. New options can only be added through mutation of the original options - and this
survived? What about sickle cell anemia for example? Sickle cell
blood cells. When it has the mutation that causes sickle cell anemia, it does not carry
oxygen as well. It also has a tendency to "sickle" or polymerize into a shape that is
inflexible and unable to pass through very small vessels called capillaries.2 This causes
the individual with sickle cell disease a great deal of pain and eventually an early death.
So, why has nature preserved or "selected" to maintain this mutation in our particular
human gene pool of options? Nature has done this because of another even more
needed for the malaria parasite to survive. So, those with sickle cell anemia, or even
sickle cell "trait" (one sickle cell allele - instead of the two possible sickle cell gene
alleles) survive better in an environment where there is malaria. However, this survival
comes at a high cost. They have a less functional hemoglobin molecule. A loss of
random mutations than a new function that is not dependent upon the loss of or
The evolution of new genetic functions that relies on the disruption of pre-
established functions is a quick and easy process that happens all the time. The
evolution of antibiotic resistance to all the various antibiotics that we have developed is
based on this process. The de novo development of the antibiotic function in a colony
of bacteria is dependent upon the fact that all antibiotics are quite specific in their
interactions with particular intra-bacterial target sequences. Any little disruption of the
target sequence will interfere to one degree or another with the antibiotic's interaction
with this sequence. This interference results in equivalent resistance to the antibiotic.
Obviously then, the ratio of interfering mutations involving this target sequence is very
large when compared to the total number of potential mutations that could affect this
sequence. This high ratio of what will "work" compared with what will not "work" creates
a very small gap between what is and what might be more helpful in the current
situation or "environment".
The problem is that there are other cellular functions that are not dependent upon
function. Several such enzymes have been shown to evolve de novo in living
organisms such as bacteria. However, given the much higher specificity of the average
evolve a new beneficial enzyme than it is to evolve the much simpler antibiotic-type
function. Some examples of enzyme evolution include the evolution of the lactase and
nylonase functions in bacteria.3 However, such examples are extremely limited and
highly constrained by both environment as well as the starting genetic real estate of the
population of bacteria. Many if not most types of bacteria simply cannot evolve certain
specific enzymatic function regardless of the size of their population, high mutation
rates, and tens, hundreds, or even millions of generations of time. Of course, the
problems only get worse from here on out. Functions of far greater complexity exist
inside living cells. For example, many functions require the simultaneous action of
evolve just one relatively simple enzymatic-type function, imagine how hard it would be
to evolve any function of the level requiring such a specific multi-protein system as is
unique proteins all working together at the same time in a specific orientation with each
other). Interestingly enough, no such function that requires multiple proteins working in
specified concert has ever been shown to evolve in real time. It just doesn't happen
even when all the required parts needed to produce some fabulously beneficial function
are already present inside the same cell as parts of other systems of function. The
problem is that the parts themselves, if left to themselves, just don't know how to self-
assemble to form much of anything. They need outside information telling them how to
assemble in specified ways to produce higher and still higher levels of functional
codes or the insight of an intelligent mind, the parts are no more creative in their
interactions than a junk pile during an earthquake (even if that earthquake lasts for
millions, billions or even trillions of years - - nothing more complex than a pile of
So, natural selection is a real force of nature. However natural selection is very much limited
to a pre-established gene pool of options. Natural selection generally interacts with Mendelian
laws and other laws of genetic recombination to create diversity. Mutations are almost always
detrimental and are therefore selected against, as a rule, by natural selection. And, even the
mutations that are beneficial are limited to the lowest levels of functional complexity. There
simply are no examples of real evolution producing anything of the level of complex function
that requires multiple proteins working in a specified orientation at the same time. Natural
selection is therefore a force that generally acts against the other natural force of
evolution (random mutations) and even at its best is not much of a help to the popular
theory of evolution.
. Harlen Bretz
Debates:
Ladder of Complexity
Evolving Bacteria
Irreducible Complexity
Crop Circles
Function Flexibility
Neandertal DNA
Human/Chimp phylogenies
Geology
Fish Fossils
Matters of Faith