Rebuttal to the
Columbus Dispatch Article Titled,
"Plantsí evolution affects what many can safely eat".
|In their latest attempt
to fabricate reasons why Intelligent Design should not be taught in
public schools, the Columbus Dispatch has published an article
authored by Steve Rissing that thoroughly misrepresents a well known
concept in biological science (Dispatch "Biology and
Society" column 5/26/02).
In his article, Rissing boldly states, "Wheatís relationships to other grains arose via macroevolution, the process that intelligent design creationists reject". He further volunteers that "monocots and dicots are evidence for macroevolution". Since Rissing offers no scientific explanation to support his conclusion, one can only assume he is referring to a speciation episode.
While several evolutionists generally accept speciation as macroevolution, the scientific accuracy of this blanket conclusion is not so simple. The recognized definition of biological speciation, is, "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups" (originally proposed by Ernst Mayr). While Mayrís definition has secured some acceptance in the evolutionary community, it has many fundamental problems. First, there are abundant examples of plants and animals that do not reproduce sexually or choose to reproduce sexually on an infrequent basis. Second, the definition cannot be applied to extinct creatures. Last, it does not propose the mechanism(s) by which speciation can happen. It just says, if they donít interbreed, they are a different species.
The mechanisms of adaptation and variation via mutation, genetic drift and gene flow can apply as viable pathways for a speciation event. However, macroevolution requires the further addition of new information to the gene code, so treating speciation as a generic term for macroevolution is not scientifically valid. Adding information to the gene code is also required to justify the idea of simplicity to complexity. Observations of mutation, genetic drift, gene flow etc. do not add any information that would result in higher levels of complexity or the creation of new organs. Hence, there is no mechanism or observation to date in support of macroevolution.
Wheat conforms to Mayrís definition of speciation because it typically does not cross-pollinate with the ancient wheat it is thought to originate from. However, it has not evolved into anything but wheat-- meaning there is no effective increase in information to the genetic code. Thus, biological speciation in the absence of any additional genetic information is expected to exist in the creationist and intelligent design model.
Monocots and dicots are two classes of flowering plants called angiosperms. Angiosperms appear suddenly in the fossil record without any transitional ancestral evidence. Darwin called the origin of angiosperms an "abominable mystery", so suggesting they are evidence for macroevolution is totally without merit.
The fundamental reason why creationists reject macroevolution is there has been no observable experimentally reproducible mechanism proposed for it to occur. Instead of attempting to manufacture data by using slippery definitions, militant evolutionists need to prove the hard science or recognize their theory has been falsified.
E-mail your comments or questions to Dr. Young
Copyright © 2002 Patrick Young. All rights reserved. We are happy to grant permission for items on Dr. Youngís web pages to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed (1) Patrick Young must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific creationists.org/patrickyoung.html Web site URL must be noted; (3) Dr. Youngís name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; (7) articles may not be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites; (8) Links directly made to figures, images etc that are part of an article are forbidden but links to the complete article posted on the creationists.org/patrickyoung.html Web site are permitted.
Top | Home