Religion will not vanish; Creationism will flourish

Will religion vanish or will Creationism flourish?

Jay R. Feierman, the moderator of the ISHE’s human ethology group, has finally allowed me to respond to a post:”What will make religion gradually vanish,” after  he expressed yet another ridiculous opinion on religion. He may not post this follow-up. That is why it appears here and why it may appear elsewhere. I hope that it serves as a wake-up call, since it indicates what serious scientists will be discussing in 2014.

Deciphering the genetic mechanisms that operated during the past 650 Myr of animal evolution to create the seemingly infinite variety of animals that populate our planet has been one of the holy grails in biology. However, it is only recently that scientists have developed a number of experimental tools that allow study of these problems that were much more difficult to tackle in the pre-genomic era (before ca 2005).

Religion will not vanish, but evolutionary theory will vanish from any further consideration whatsoever, now that the de novo creation of genes in all cells of all individuals of all species has established this unequivocal fact: THE holy grail of evolutionary biology is Creation. That fact probably best explains why Dobzhansky was a Creationist and why he was not a bird watcher or butterfly collector. Had he been a bird watcher, he probably never would have realized and therefore not reported on the importance of Ingram’s finding “…that hemoglobin S differs from A in the substitution of just a single amino acid, valine in place of glutamic acid in the beta chain of the hemoglobin molecule.

Like all bird watchers and butterfly collectors since then, Dobzhansky might then have missed the biological fact that “Non-sexual traits that are of direct ecological importance, such as those affecting foraging and thermoregulation, are likely to diverge via ecological selection and therefore should track underlying environmental variation [4].

If he spent too much time listening to ignorant theorists, he probably would then also have missed learning the biological fact that in hummingbirds environmental variation results in “… repeated evolutionary transitions in biochemical phenotype [that] are mainly attributable to repeated amino acid replacements at two epistatically interacting sites that alter the allosteric regulation of Hb-O2 [hemoglobin-oxygen] affinity.” Therein lies the connection fo the species specific difference between hemoglobin S and hemoglobin A in primates. Clearly, without experimental evidence to support the fact that common molecular mechanisms must be involved in ecological adaptations, which must occur in all the cell types of all individuals in all species, Dobzhansky would also have dismissed the importance of the fact that exogenous changes in testosterone influence the size of the olfactory bulb in European starlings.

Simply put, if Dobzhansky had not known anything about molecular biology, or had decided to ignore what he learned and what others have learned from experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect in species from microbes to man, he would have missed the past 50 years of scientific progress, like Jay R. Feierman did. Dobzhansky might well have been remembered as a fool, as Feireman will be for telling me that

1) Variation is not nutrient availability and the something that is doing the selecting is not the individual organism. A feature of an educated person is to realize what they do not know. Sadly, you don’t know that you have an incorrect understanding [of] Darwinian biological evolution.

and for repeatedly asserting this ridiculous opinion:

2) I am absolutely certain that if you showed this statement to any professor of biology or genetics in any accredited university anywhere in the world that 100% of them would say that “Random mutations are the substrate upon which directional natural selection acts” is a correct and true statement. 

In 2014, who would you most like to emulate, Feierman or Dobzhansky? I hope that others will chose Dobzhansky and start telling people that religion is not going to go away. As more people learn about the fact that the holy grail of evolutionary biology is Creation, evolutionary theorists will be forced to heed Dobzhansky’s words and start to make sense of their theories by including experimental evidence of biological facts, since nothing about ecological adaptations makes sense except in the light of biology.

In 1996, we reported the creation of new genes in the context of sex difference in cell types at the advent of sexual reproduction in yeasts. Co-author, Teresa Binstock, included details of what was known about the molecular mechanisms for the control of sex differences in all species that sexually reproduce.

These molecular mechanisms are the same in bacteria, but nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled reproduction in bacteria is still reported in the context of mutations. For example, Nasvall et al (2013) exemplified de novo gene creation in the context of their innovation-amplification-divergence (IAD) model. However, they first attributed nutrient-dependent  gene duplication to mutation and subsequently attributed nutrient-dependent amino acid substitutions to mutations.

Similarly, in their multiple enhancer variant model, which is another way to refer to our model of molecular epigenetics and alternative splicings, Corradin et al (2013) infer that mutations are responsible for the species-specific amino acid changes of sickle cell disease. Perhaps they are not aware of the avian model of ecological variation, which exemplifies the role of hemoglobin-oxygen affinity via nutrient-dependent amino acid substitutions.

From a broader perspective on nutrient-dependent differentiation of cell types, both groups seem to have missed the differences in the cell types of bacterial isolates that enable the catalase positive or catalase-negative classification, which benefits their identification regardless of observed morphological variation in colony type. Clearly, the bird watcher mentality of such observations must be removed to proceed from what has been learned about the molecular epigenetics of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptations.

It is also clear that people will claim that my Creationist beliefs should eliminate consideration of anything Dobzhansky advocated, or what I have advocated since Jay R. Feierman first asked me in 1995 –after a thorough review of my mammalian model — “What about birds?” I thought to myself then, as I still do: What kind of ignorant MD, Ph.D asks such a question? But that is still simply a rhetorical question. There is hope for others. For example, Larry Young is the senior author of Common polymorphism in the oxytocin receptor gene (OXTR) is associated with human social recognition skills.

Excerpt: “Our findings imply that a critical role for the oxytocin system in social recognition has been conserved across perceptual boundaries through evolution, from olfaction in rodents to visual memory in humans.”

How could anyone think that the role of olfaction would not be conserved across perceptual boundaries through evolution? There’s a model for that, and no one has claimed that the model is not the best fit for what is currently known about ecological adaptations in all species.

Author: James Kohl

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.