HURDLE NUMBER 52. THE LATENT FEATURES HURDLE.
Animals contain LATENT FEATURES in their DNA that have never been “expressed” in their “evolutionary” history in their phenotype (ie:- expressed in the animals actual structure and morphology). In that case, these LATENT FEATURES could provide no possible survival benefit or competitive advantage, and could therefore not have “evolved” by Darwinian “evolution”. Here are some quotes from authoritative sources that substantiate the above statement:-
The following quote is from the book The Best American Science and Nature Writing, 2010, edited by Freeman Dyson, published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing, 2010. Article:- Modern Darwins, by Matt Ridley (Ridley went to Magdalen College, Oxford, to study zoology. Obtaining a BA degree with first class honours, Ridley continued with research on the mating system of the common pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) supervised by Chris Perrins for his DPhil degree in 1983.), pages 114 to 121:-
(Pages 119 to 121):- “An idea that is rushing through genetics and evolutionary biology - - - Evolution works not just by changing the genes, but by modifying the way the genes are switched on and off. According to Sean Carroll of The University of Wisconsin, the primary fuel for the evolution of anatomy turns out not to be gene changes, but changes in the regulation of the genes that control development.”
The author then discusses the (modern living) paddlefish:- “The pattern of gene expression that builds the bones in its fins is much the same as the ones that assemble the limbs in the embryo of - - - - - - any - - - - land-dwelling mammal. The difference is only that it is switched on for a shorter time in fish.”
The author continues (quoting Shubin):- “It turns out that the genetic machinery needed to make limbs WAS ALREADY PRESENT IN FINS. - - - - It did not involve the origin of new genes and development processes. It involved RE-DEVELOPMENT OF OLD GENETIC RECIPES IN NEW WAYS.” (My capitals.)
My comment:- In that case, a fish species comes into being by a series of “evolutionary” changes, each change adding an incremental survival benefit or competitive advantage. However, LATENT GENES (ie:- a latent “message” in the fishes DNA) “coding” for a FUTURE LAND-DWELLING EXISTENCE – “coding” for ARMS AND LEGS INSTEAD OF FINS – CANNOT PROVIDE A SURVIVAL BENEFIT TO THE FISH, and therefore CANNOT COME ABOUT BY “EVOLUTION”. These “future-seeing” genes can only come about by deliberate “software coding” of the fishes DNA.
The next quote is from the book The Greatest Show on Earth – The Evidence For Evolution, by Richard Dawkins, published by Free Press, 2009, pages 74 to 76:-
Dawkins discusses the fox breeding experiments of Dmitry Konstantinovich Belyayev (Belyayev worked for the Siberian Division of the USSR Academy of Sciences, which he helped found. In 1963, he became Director of the Institute of Cytology and Genetics (IC&G) in Novosibirsk.) He selectively bred foxes for tameness. After 20 generations THE FOXES HAD EFFECTIVELY BECOME WELSH COLLIE DOGS! They behaved like domestic dogs. They looked like domestic (Welsh Collie) dogs (piebald, black and white), with doggy ears; and they barked like dogs.
My comment:- Before the selective breeding, the foxes had DOG-LIKE FEATURES IN THEIR GENOTYPE, which were NOT EXPRESSED IN THEIR PHENOTYPE. The question is:- How could these “LATENT” dog-like features have evolved? Features that exist only in the genotype, but are not expressed in the phenotype CAN CONFER NO SURVIVAL BENEFIT OR COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE TO THE ORGANISM. However, according to the tenets of Darwinism, features can only “evolve” if they DO confer a survival benefit or competitive advantage to the organism. In that case, the “LATENT” dog-like features of foxes could not have “evolved” by Darwinian natural selection. In that case, these “latent” features are incorporated into the foxes BY SOME OTHER MEANS. There is a teleological implication here. Apparently it was “planned” in advance that the foxes could be eventually bred into dogs that would become “man’s best friend”.
The next quote is from the book – Uncommon Dissent, edited by William Dembski, published by ISI Books (Wilmington, Delaware), 2004, Article by Robert C. Koons (Professor of Philosophy at The University of Texas). Article title:- The Check Is In The Mail, pages 3 to 22:-
Page 18:-Koons quotes from the book Visions of Order, by Richard M. Weaver, published by Louisiana State University Press, 1964, page 138:-
“Species - - - contain mutants which are not related to their present needs for adaptation. In other words, MUTATIONS MAY OCCUR LONG - - - BEFORE THERE IS ANY NEED FOR THEM TO INSURE THE SURVIVAL OF THE SPECIES. What this suggests is a kind of PRE-ADAPTATION, WITH THE SPECIES BEING ARMED FAR IN ADVANCE OF SOME CRISIS IT WILL MEET IN THE FUTURE.” (My capitals and highlighting.)
The next quote is from New Scientist (magazine), December 2nd, 2017, page 7, Article:- Big-Beaked Birds:-
“North American birds called Snail Kites have evolved larger beaks IN LESS THAN A DECADE in order to eat invasive island apple snails that are much larger than the snails they used to eat.”
My comment:- Ten years is not enough time for random mutations to produce larger beaks. The larger beaks were “already there” as LATENT FEATURES in the genotype. The following quote emphasizes this point.
The next quote is from the book – Kicking the Sacred Cow: Heresy and Impermissible Thoughts in Science (ISBN 978-1-4165-2073-3), by James P. Hogan, published by Baen, 2004, page 45:-
“In 1967 - - - finches of the same species were brought - - - - to - - - Southeast Island - - - - Twenty years later, the birds - - - - were found to have given rise to a population having distinct differences - - - - - to shapes and sizes of their beaks. Clearly this WASN’T THE RESULT OF RANDOMLY OCCURRING MUTATIONS. - - - - The capacity to switch from one form to another WAS ALREADY PRESENT IN - - - THE GENETIC PROGRAM - - - switched - - - by environmental signals.”
The next two quotes are from the book The Truth About Dogs, by Stephen Budiansky (former Washington editor of the scientific journal Nature.), published by Phoenix, 2002:-
Page 29:- “Virtually all of the - - - - 300 modern breeds of dogs - - - - are of extremely recent origin, most dating to the last century or two.”
Page 37:- “The chances that all the - - - - physical changes - - - in dogs over the past 14,000 years are a result of accumulated mutations is - - - - impossible. There just has not been enough time.”