by manipulating genes that control the body plans of embryos they have created mutant mice with backbones that are 200-300 million years out of date. If genetic information that is up to 350 to 400 million years old can be retained within a genome then does this not lend the lie to Darwin’s theory of evolution via the process of ‘natural selection’?
No, not at all - the theory of evolution predicts that genes maintaining aspects essential to the fitness of an organism will be maintained. The basic body plan is quite essential to a vertebrate species, so it is not surprising that it has been maintained.
Kerner seems to be implying that there are two complete sets of body plans - an 'ancient' one, and a 'modern' one (that is the only way I could see his argument being anti-evolution.) However, this is not the case.
Structures/pathways can evolve via changes and additions of modifier genes that do not alter the underlying 'ancient' or 'basic' plan.
A hypothetical example, (though based on real biology):
Gene A makes a pigment molecule that appears green and results in green skin.
A new gene, Gene B, arises that modifies the pigment molecule made by Gene A, so that it now appears blue. This occurs at the protein level with no change whatsoever to Gene A.
Organisms with blue skin are more fit, and so selection maintains Gene B. Selection also maintains Gene A, which is also required for blue skin.
If a scientist mutates Gene B, green-skinned organisms are produced, revealing the 'ancient' or 'basic' phenotype from a few hundred million years ago.
The fact that Gene A is still around is no surprise, since it has been essential to the fitness of the species for all of that time.
Similiarly, it is no surprise that the genes for producing an ancient/basic backbone are still found in mice, since the backbone evolved by
modification, not deletion, of the original backbone plan. (Just as the theory of evolution would predict...)
The telling question that must be asked here is: If all organisms that now exist had from their very inception into the evolutionary process a blueprint of how they should evolve, then where did that blueprint come from in the first place?
No organism carries a blueprint of "how they should evolve".
All organisms have heritable genetic information that is passed on imperfectly, resulting in random mutations upon which selection may act. This is NOT a blueprint, but rather a simple fact of imperfect replication.
This plan is embodied in what are known of as Hox genes... How did the first multi-cellular animals evolving some 700 million years ago contain the basic template of information that only needed to be shuffled around in order to form a human being?"
Kerner seems to be basing his argument upon Hox genes. The appearance of the first Hox gene millions of years ago is by no means equatable to the appearance of all of the basic information required to make a human being. Again, Kerner seems to be implying that all multicellular organisms have the same set of Hox genes, just "shuffled". This is far from the truth.
I have read it and re-read it and cannot fault its logic.
Then you should look into the evidence that his logic is based upon, since he seems to be misrepresenting or misinterpreting it.
To close: Kerner seems to accept that evolution could take an ancient Hox gene, duplicate it dozens of times, shuffle it around and mutate the resulting Hox genes, helping to produce the myriad of species body plans we see today.
He accepts evolution driving the above, but does not seem to accept that the original Hox gene could have formed without the help of aliens.
Bizarre...
™ Version 4.2