@layman,
Quote:One answer will occur immediately to anyone properly educated in conventional evolutionary theory: random mutation...
As for genetic mutations specifically, the crucial point was already made by Oxford University biophysicist Norman D. Cook in 1977: “Biological intervention through enzymes and enzyme systems is the principal mechanism of in vivo mutation.” Biologists commonly interpret such mutations as random errors in vital processes such as DNA replication, but “if ... changes in the genetic material are indeed mediated by other cellular molecules, then the idea of ‘randomness’ lacks all but the most trivial descriptive meaning, referring only to our knowledge of the mutation event.”[8].
Furthermore, as British radiologist B. A. Bridges pointed out: even studies of radiation-induced mutation in bacteria have shown that cellular repair systems are “necessary for nearly all of the mutagenic effect of ultraviolet and around 90 percent of that of ionizing radiation.”
We are no longer free to imagine that evolution waits around for “accidents” to knock genes askew so as to provide new material for natural selection to work on. The genome of every organism is actively and insistently remodeled as an expression of its context. Genetic sequences get rewritten, reshuffled, duplicated, turned backward, “invented” from scratch, and otherwise revised in a way that prominently advertises the organism’s accomplished skill in matters of genomic change. The illustrations of this skill are so extensive in the contemporary literature that there is no way to review it adequately here.
This article is quite long, and is only one in a series of four by this author, Stephen L. Talbott. If you care to ask who he is, you could look here (and elsewhere, of course).
http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/people/view/stephen-talbott
Among other things, he is a contributor to that website, entitled: "The Third Way--Evolution in the era of genomics and epigenomics."
The "third way" phrase is presumably borrowed from James Shapiro, the molecular biologist from the University of Chicago who advocated taking a (third) view of evolution, i.e., something beyond the false dichotomy of "either ID/Creationism or neo-darwinsim). You can see that if you look at the "rationale" tab at the website, and under the "people" tab, you can see some of the prominent evolutionary theorists who contribute to it.
In part it says there:
Quote:Most of the scientists referenced on this web site have come to a wide range of conclusions about different aspects of evolutionary change. Many see evolution as a complex process with distinct mechanisms and stages rather than a phenomenon explainable by a small number of principles. The divergences and multiplicity of ideas, opinions and theories on this website are necessary since many fields of evolutionary biology remain relatively unexplored.
The Third Way web site provides a vehicle for new voices to be heard in evolution debates. It will be a forum for accessing empirical data on areas that have been glossed over by Neo-Darwinian viewpoints. The goal is to focus attention on the molecular and cellular processes which produce novelty without divine interventions or sheer luck.
Those who already "know" all the answers to evolution (i.e., Neo-Darwinists) will have no desire to look at websites such as this. Those with more eclectic tastes may find it interesting, however.
They reject BOTH divine intervention and "sheer luck," and much scientific research is cited there.