forex

The simplest empirical and mathematical refutation of the theory of evolution

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

According to the most generous interpretations of the fossil record, the longest possible time frame for the theorized evolution of a land dwelling animal into a whale is 9 million years. Now, transforming a four legged terrestrial mammal the size of a wolf or sheep, into a fully aquatic mammal like a whale requires many new genes to be formed. For a demonstration let us compare the two structurally highly similar organisms - human and chimp.

http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1002379

This study identified 60 new protein-coding genes that originated de novo on the human lineage since divergence from the chimpanzee. The functionality of these genes is supported by both transcriptional and proteomic evidence. 

Thus, despite the great morphological similarity between humans and chimps just this one study identified 60 de novo genes.

The scale of morphological adaptations in whale evolution would have to be massive: a remodel of the skull and muscles to move the nostrils to the top of the head, the conversion of front legs into flippers, a reconstruction of the skeleton including a ball joint that allow the tail to move up and down, reorganization of kidney tissues to accommodate the intake of salt water, lungs dramatically enlarged and renovated to withstand the intense pressure of deep dives, the inclusion of a blubber layer for insulation in cold water, reproductive organs would have to move from the exterior of the animal's torso to inside, and many, many more. So here we are talking about hundreds and hundreds...even...thousands of new genes which would have to be formed in 9 million years. 

Now let's go to the biggest observation of evolution in action - Lenski's E-coli experiment, which is an ongoing study in experimental evolution led by Richard Lenski that has been tracking genetic changes in 12 initially identical populations of asexual Escherichia coli bacteria since 24 February 1988. After more than 67.000 generations, which translated into whale generations is equivalent to around one million years, the experiment produced 0 - zero new genes. Most of the changes in this experiment involved streamlining the genome, deleting genes no longer needed, or reducing protein expression. The most significant change was mutational transfer of one pre-existing gene(citT) from one location to another which resulted in the ability of E-coli to grow on citrate under the oxygen-rich conditions. 

Hence, according to the evolution theory, the processes of evolution should have produced hundreds and hundreds or even thousands of new genes in 9 million years, but the knowledge gained through observation and experimentation shows that in the equivalent of 1/10th of that time, these processes are completely impotent in their ability to produce even one new gene.

Now, of course there must be some explanation for this inability of evolution to produce even a single block of new functional genetic information. Such explanation exists and it says that it is mathematically impossible for evolution to do something like that because the ratio between non-adaptive and adaptive DNA sequences for any given environment is many orders of magnitude larger than the number of all mutations that occurred in the history of life. What that means?

Well, the theory of evolution view structures, processes or functions of organisms as adaptations that resulted from natural selection and by which the organism becomes better fitted to survive and multiply in its environment. 

For example: Meiosis as an Evolutionary Adaptation for DNA Repair

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221919264_Meiosis_as_an_Evolutionary_Adaptation_for_DNA_Repair .

But given the fact that an organism cannot adapt to a new environment with whatever sequence it has in its DNA, the theory of evolution postulates mutations as means of DNA rearrangements that will ultimately result in adaptive DNA sequences and thus enable the organism to survive and multiply in its environment. 

In reality however, this theoretical view has one fundamental problem. If we presuppose an aquatic environment to which an organism without morphological structures for breathing under water is adapting, then random DNA rearrangements(mutations) have equal potential to rearrange some duplicated gene into sequences that are beneficial in aquatic environment but also into sequences that are either beneficial in various non-aquatic environments or completely useless(junk). But given the fact that the number of 'non-aquatic' and junk sequences greatly exceed the number of those that are beneficial in an aquatic environment the evolutionary process lacks the mutational resources to find adaptive ones. For example, given the absurd assumptions that only one average eukaryotic gene codes for some proto morphological structures for breathing under water and that 10^500 different sequences from its pool of 10^810(*) possible sequences are adaptive ones, it mathematically follows that evolutionary process requires 10^310 mutations to extract the information for these morphological structures.

* The length of an average eukaryotic gene is 1346 bp. A gene consists of four different bases. Any base can assume one of four values (ATCG). A sequence of L basis can therefore assume one out of 4^L values, which gives 4^1346 or 10^810 possible sequences. 

Now let's see what are the lower and upper limit estimates for the number of mutations produced since the origin of life:

http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/5/25/953.full

Since this study arrived at a figure of 10^43 for the upper limit, it is obvious why is impossible for evolutionary process to produce the gene for morphological structures for breathing under water. Simply put, the quantity of non-adaptive DNA sequences is 267 orders of magnitude greater than the total numbers of mutations in the history of life. In other words, due to the enormous lack of mutational resources it is impossible for the  breathing underwater adaptation to enter the gene pool of a population and increase its frequency through natural selection.

Therefore, both empirical and mathematical facts show that the theory of evolution, according to which new functional genes for structures, processes or functions of living organisms can result from the process of evolution, is completely without basis in science. 

Of course, evolution is a fact, nobody denies that.  Fact is a truth known by actual experience or observation. Evolution is based on mutations, gene migration, natural selection and genetic drift. The first two create variation while the latter two sort variation, and this is something that we know by actual experience or observation which makes evolution a fact. But from the premise that evolution is a fact, it does not follow that evolutionary process can produce every level of biological organisation. Likewise, it is a fact that humans can jump, but from that it doesn't follow that they can jump from Earth to the moon. That is way the theory according to which evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules, is just the belief of naturalistic philosophy, and as we have shown, this belief is totally contradicted by empirical science and mathematics.
 

Edited by forex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I suppose that depends how you define evolution.

 

 

Quote
Follow 0
 
forex

The simplest empirical and mathematical refutation of the theory of evolution

 

I see no maths in your proposition.

Further you are talking about  a more general usage of 'evolution' than the specific theory mentioned in your title.

So which is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, forex said:

According to the most generous interpretations of the fossil record, the longest possible time frame for the theorized evolution of a land dwelling animal into a whale is 9 million years. Now, transforming a four legged terrestrial mammal the size of a wolf or sheep, into a fully aquatic mammal like a whale requires many new genes to be formed. For a demonstration let us compare the two structurally highly similar organisms - human and chimp.

You have posted almost identical drivel before. Multiple times.

You are using a typically dishonest pseduoscience / creationist tactic of taking some data from one source (humans vs chimps) and then using some magic handwaving to say "therefore this other case must be really huge". I assume either you are too lazy to find data on whales or you know it wouldn't support your claims.

2 hours ago, forex said:

Now let's go to the biggest observation of evolution in action - Lenski's E-coli experiment, which is an ongoing study in experimental evolution led by Richard Lenski that has been tracking genetic changes in 12 initially identical populations of asexual Escherichia coli bacteria since 24 February 1988.

This is a stunningly stupid argument.

2 hours ago, forex said:

Of course, evolution is a fact, nobody denies that.

So, just out of curiosity, what in your view drives evolution? God? Aliens? Magic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
!

Moderator Notesf

Creationism isn't a legitimate argument here at SFN (or anywhere reason is used), based on years of witnessing first hand an utter lack of evidence in support. Don't bring it up here again.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.