ALL your links are propaganda but creationist theme parks actually exist.
More propaganda from Buffalo.
This is propaganda? I have touched upon this many many times. Read carefully.
The next evolutionary synthesis: from Lamarck and Darwin to genomic variation and systems biology
…While the evolutionary
synthesis is of course compatible with evolution, the evidence to support it is actually much
thinner than is generally supposed; this is mainly because data is hard to come by in processes
that are intrinsically slow and rare. One line of supporting evidence is the existence of ring
species such as the various greenish warblers around the Himalayas where neighbouring
subspecies around the ring can interbreed, but there is a break point where the two adjacent
ones, although members of the same family, cannot and so have to be viewed as separate
species [2]. A line of work that the evolutionary synthesis cannot explain so easily is
Waddington’s remarkable set of experiments on selection [3]. The most famous of these
involved first making a phenocopy of the bithorax mutation (a four-winged fly instead of one
with two wings and two halteres) by ether treatment of wild-type flies and then interbreeding
these phenocopies under strong selection (rejecting all offspring that didn’t produce the ether
phenocopy). He found that, after ~20 generations of interbreeding and selection, he had a
population where the four-winged flies bred true without further ether treatment. Waddington
called this process, which was too fast to be initiated by novel mutations, genetic assimilation.
There is a serious underlying problem with the evolutionary synthesis: it is based on a
minimalist Mendelian view of genetics which assumes that a very small number of genes
underpin a trait and a mutant gene leads to an abnormal phenotype. While the advantage of
the formulation is that it provides a model for evolutionary genetics [4], the disadvantage is
that the approach assumes a naively simplistic view of how genes generate traits, as
Waddington pointed out in the ‘50s [5]. If more than about three genes (nature unspecified)
underpin a phenotype, the mathematics of population genetics, while qualitatively analyzable,
requires too many unknown parameters to make quantitatively testable predictions [6]. The
inadequacy of this approach is demonstrated by illustrations of the molecular pathways that
generates traits [7]: the network underpinning something as simple as growth may have forty
or fifty participating proteins whose production involves perhaps twice as many DNA
sequences, if one includes enhancers, splice variants etc. Theoretical genetics simply cannot
handle this level of complexity, let alone analyse the effects of mutation.
