Case#4
Nice fairy tale. Where's the science to back it up?
(Apparently the check is in the mail)
The problem here is that evolution is conceived differently by the creationist who sees evolution in terms of organisms becoming more complex by accumulation of novel protein-coding DNA. Hence they think small changes to existing genes is microevolution (adaption) and generation of new proteins and structures is macroevolution (speciation).
Creationists only seem to see life in the form of animals -- cat kind, horse kind and wolf kind being the favourites. Plants are hardly alive, microorganisms ignored completely and viruses definitely DEAD. So for them evolution consists of a series of impossible events such as sprouting wings for flight (a dinosaur lays an egg and a chicken hatches).
One can quote them laboratory experiments that demonstrate the production of novel proteins, but this falls on deaf ears. Indeed, considering population sizes and generation periods of higher animals (such as in cat, horses, and dogs) it is difficult to imagine how a new 'rare functional protein' could evolve.
The answer is that most functional proteins, enzyme systems and tissues (and the DNA that codes for them), were already evolved some 500 million years ago. The diversity of animal forms does not depend on new proteins, it is based more on the fine tuning and timing of action of already existing proteins during embryonic development.
I found this a revelation after reading Endess Forms Most Beautiful, although it is remarkable that the same basic tissues and biochemistry, developed by the time of the Cambrian, have served to create today's complex life forms without evolution having to 'go back to the drawing board'.
Nice fairy tale. Where's the science to back it up?
(Apparently the check is in the mail)