06/01/2020
One huge issue in creation vs. evolution has been whether microevolution (new species and sub-species) extrapolates to macroevolution (new genera, families, classes, orders, everything from one-celled organisms to mankind).
In order to extrapolate, you have to examine what is being extrapolated. Dr. Michael Behe's recent book, Darwin Devolves, cites recent scientific research on mutations to show that most non-harmful mutations are what are called "loss of function" mutations. In other words, sometimes if the function of a particular gene is lost or weakened, it can help an organism survive some environmental change.
The point is that loss of function is a poor basis for extrapolation. You cannot document a loss of function micro-evolution and then say, "Now, multiply by a million and you get all the macroevolution you want."
One of his prime examples in the book is the evolution of the polar bear. How did a bear go from the standard bear diet of berries and maybe some fish to an entirely high-fat carnivorous diet? How can its body tolerate that much fat, cholesterol, etc.? It turns out to be the case that a loss of function affecting one gene actually causes the polar bear to clear cholesterol out of its blood more quickly. It might be discovered that some other metabolic function is degraded, but the loss of function of this gene is the basis for its improved fitness for the polar environment, NOT some mutation that leads to greater function, higher complexity, etc.; i.e., NOT the kind of mutation that is needed to extrapolate from microevolution to macroevolution.
The polar bear issue is discussed and criticisms engaged in this linked article. I will post some related articles on other animals soon.
Computer methods of analyzing mutations are widely used because they are generally accurate. They do not suddenly lose their accuracy when I cite them.
