Mathematics shows that Naturalistic Evolution does NOT work.

----------------------------------------------

THESIS: Mathematics shows that Naturalistic Evolution does NOT work.

----------------------------------------------

LOGIC.

……………………………………….

ARGUMENT-1: Mathematics FALSIFIES the core-argument (the core theorem) of naturalistic evolution

.

P1.1. The core of (all forms of) naturalistic evolution is that random-chance creates mutations (changes) that are then used as the raw-material for Natural Selection to IMPROVE the fitness of the species. I.e., Random-Chance is the CREATIVE agent (it creates NEW genotypic and NEW phenotypic changes). Natural Selection is the DESTRUCTIVE agent. It destroys any of the changes (that random-chance offers for consideration) that reduce the fitness of the organism. Natural selection destroys such random-chance changes by destroying (killing off) the organism that has those changes.

……………………………………….

P1.2. Based on the above (p1), the key mathematician (and one of the founding fathers) of the Modern Theory of Evolution, Ronald Fisher, proposed a Natural LAW of evolution that stated that given Random-Chance induced changes (mutations), the Fitness of an organism will always INCREASE over time due to the action of Natural Selection. He derived that law (as a theorem) assuming an equal (number of beneficial mutations = number of harmful mutations) and symmetrical distribution of beneficial vs harmful mutations.

……………………………………….

P1.3. However, extensive research has shown that the distribution of beneficial-vs-harmful mutations is NOT equal and symmetrical. Instead the distribution is very heavily biased towards HARMFUL mutations. Experimental measurements (reported in the scientific literature) indicate that (a) there are NO observed beneficial mutations at all, or (b) beneficial mutations IF present are below detection limits of the experiments, or (c) beneficial mutations IF present are less than one in a million mutations. The rest are majority HARMFUL (varying from lethal to varying degrees of harmful) and some fraction are neutral.

……………………………………….

P1.4. When we add in this experimentally-determined distribution, the MATH shows that in Biologically Realistic situations (with asymmetric mutational distributions), the Fitness of the species DECLINES over time in general. … [My comment -> this means that mutations and natural selection do NOT work in reality (apart from the delusional-fantasies of atheists) to create the entire biosphere].

.

See the scientific article listed below.

.

Scientific Article: "The fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations", William F. Basener & John C. Sanford, Journal of Mathematical Biology volume 76, pages1589–1622(2018). (thanks to Bill Holbert and Michael Mote)

.

Quote (from the paper listed above)-> //

"However, through no fault of his own, Fisher did not know the molecular nature of mutations and incorrectly assumed that mutational effects (positive and negative), would be effectively symmetrical and balanced. This assumption was profoundly incorrect, and so the results seen when using a symmetrical mutation distribution have NO CORRESPONDENCE WITH BIOLOGICAL REALITY. Because the premise underlying Fisher’s corollary is now recognized to be ENTIRELY WRONG, Fisher’s corollary is FALSIFIED. Consequently, Fisher’s belief that he had developed a mathematical proof that fitness must always increase is also FALSIFIED.

.

We next modeled Fisher’s theorem with the newly arising mutations having a more REALISTIC distribution. For both the bad and the good mutations, we employed the same gamma probability distribution, but we used a deleterious:beneficial ratio of 1000:1. This is a very GENEROUS ratio, in light of many studies (see Gibson et al. (2013); Sanford et al. (2013); Nelson and Sanford (2013); Montanez et al. (2013)). The result was that fitness DECLINED CONTINUOUSLY. Malthusian fitness declined to the point of going below zero, meaning that the population was shrinking continuously regardless of the carrying capacity of the environment. The net affect of the new mutations was VERY CONSISTENTLY DELETERIOUS, and the upward pressure on fitness due to natural selection was NOT SUFFICIENT to reverse the on-going mutational DEGENERATION.

.

What we have discovered is that, contrary to Fisher’s claim, continuously increasing population fitness is not an inherent property of life. Mutations by themselves drive fitness DOWN. Natural selection may or may not be able to reverse this genetic degeneration.

.

As numerical simulations become more comprehensive (hence more REALISTIC), net gain in fitness seems to become INCREASINGLY PROBLEMATIC (See Sanford et al. 2007b; Carter and Sanford 2012; Gibson et al. 2013; Sanford et al. 2013; Nelson and Sanford 2013), consistent with the results of this paper.

.

Apart from theoretical and mathematical reasons for doubting the biological validity of Fisher’s central thesis (that fitness always increases), there is now also ABUNDANT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE AGAINST his thesis. For example, ecological observations consistently show that Fisher’s thesis is not true, and that as a general rule a natural population’s fitness is static. Essentially all natural populations have substantial genetic variance, yet most such populations DO NOT SHOW continuously increasing fitness. This is due to very low fitness heritability, associated with high levels of environmental noise (See Merila and Sheldon 2000; Kruuk et al. 2000, 2002). Furthermore, extinctions and near extinctions happen all the time, which are CLEARLY ANTITHETICAL to Fisher’s thesis. In addition, the genetic degeneration of certain organisms has been recorded within historical time frames (Carter and Sanford 2012). Lastly, many population geneticists have expressed grave concerns regarding possible conditions where human mutational DEGENERATION overwhelms the stabilizing effect of natural selection (See Lynch 2016)." …

*upper-case emphasis added (Michael Mote).

.

……………………………

P1.5. So, we see that when we add in experimentally-determined distributions of mutations, the MATH shows that in Biologically Realistic situations (with asymmetric mutational distributions), the Fitness of the species DECLINES over time in general. …

.

And this means that mutations and natural selection do NOT work in reality (apart from the delusional-fantasies of atheists) to create the entire biosphere].

 

CONCLUSION:

C1. Mathematics shows that Neo-Darwinism is FALSE for higher taxa.

I.e., In general Neo-Darwinism is incapable of originating or explaining the origin of changes for biological higher taxa, such as kingdom, phylum, class, order, family; i.e., for levels higher than varieties inside a species and closely-related species inside a genus or family at the most).

.

ARGUMENT-2: Wistar Symposium: Mathematics and LOGIC show that naturalistic evolution (Neo-Darwinism) does not work

.

P2.1. The Wistar Symposium convened biologists and mathematicians to discuss mathematical issues with naturalistic evolution, issues that show that Evolution does NOT work (i.e., based on mathematics and logic, random-chance w/wo natural selection cannot create the entire biosphere). See quotes below.

.

P2.2. Quote -> “[T]he immediate cause of this conference is a pretty widespread sense of dissatisfaction about what has come to be thought as the accepted evolutionary theory in the English-speaking world, the so-called neo-Darwinian Theory. … There are objections made by fellow scientists who feel that, in the current theory, something is missing … These objections to current neo-Darwinian theory are very widely held among biologists generally; and we must on no account, I think, make light of them. The very fact that we are having this conference is evidence that we are not making light of them.” --- (Sir Peter Medawar, “Remarks by the Chairman,” in Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution (Wistar Institute Press, 1966, No. 5), pg. xi)

 

P2.3. Quote -> “[A]n opposite way to look at the genotype is as a generative algorithm and not as a blue-print; a sort of carefully spelled out and foolproof recipe for producing a living organism of the right kind if the environment in which it develops is a proper one. Assuming this to be so, the algorithm must be written in some abstract language. Molecular biology may well have provided us with the alphabet of this language, but it is a long step from the alphabet to understanding a language. Nevertheless a language has to have rules, and these are the strongest constraints on the set of possible messages. No currently existing formal language can tolerate random changes in the symbol sequences which express its sentences. Meaning is almost invariably destroyed. Any changes must be syntactically lawful ones. I would conjecture that what one might call “genetic grammaticality” has a deterministic explanation and does not owe its stability to selection pressure acting on random variation.” --- (Murray Eden, “Inadequacies as a Scientific Theory,” in Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution (Wistar Institute Press, 1966, No. 5), pg. 11)

 

P2.4 Quote -> “[I]t seems to require many thousands, perhaps millions, of successive mutations to produce even the easiest complexity we see in life now. It appears, naively at least, that no matter how large the probability of a single mutation is, should it be even as great as one-half, you would get this probability raised to a millionth power, which is so very close to zero that the chances of such a chain seem to be practically non-existent.” (Stanislaw M. Ulam, “How to Formulate Mathematically Problems of Rate of Evolution,” in Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution (Wistar Institute Press, 1966, No. 5), pg. 21)

 

P2.5 Quote -> “We do not know any general principle which would explain how to match blueprints viewed as typographic objects and the things they are supposed to control. The only example we have of such a situation (apart from the evolution of life itself) is the attempt to build self-adapting programs by workers in the field of artificial intelligence. Their experience is quite conclusive to most of the observers: without some built-in matching, nothing interesting can occur. Thus, to conclude, we believe that there is a considerable gap in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, and we believe this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged within the current conception of biology.” (Marcel Schutzenberger, “Algorithms and Neo-Darwinian Theory,” in Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution (Wistar Institute Press, 1966, No. 5), pg. 75)

 

CONCLUSION:

C2. Mathematics shows that Neo-Darwinism is FALSE for higher taxa.

I.e., In general Neo-Darwinism is incapable of originating or explaining the origin of changes for biological higher taxa, such as kingdom, phylum, class, order, family; i.e., for levels higher than varieties inside a species and closely-related species inside a genus or family at the most).

.

ARGUMENT-3: ATHEIST Mathematician Fred Hoyle -> Mathematics shows that naturalistic evolution (neo-Darwinism) does not work

.

P3.1 The ATHEIST mathematician and scientist Fred Hoyle performed extensive calculations to determine if Naturalistic Evolution (Neo-Darwinism) would work, and he found that it does NOT work. He came to similar conclusions as in the paper listed above.

.

Dr Fred Hoyle published his math in the book titled: "Mathematics of Evolution", by Fred Hoyle.

.

Here are quotes from his book.

.

P3.2 Quote: "The criticism of the Darwinian theory given in this book arises straightforwardly from my belief that the theory is wrong" (Book: "Mathematics of Evolution", Fred Hoyle, p. xv; University College Cardiff Press, UK; republished in the US)

-- My comment: this ATHEIST mathematician and scientist comes to this conclusion based on his MATHEMATICAL evaluation of evolution.

 

P3.3 Quote: "The fine-tuning of genes produces small changes. The addition of entirely new genes, perhaps whole batteries of new genes, produces large changes, grafted onto the genetic complement of an already-existing organism."  (Book: "Mathematics of Evolution", Fred Hoyle, p. xv; University College Cardiff Press, UK; republished in the US)

-- My comment: Note that Hoyle is speaking as an atheist. So, at that point in his life, he did NOT subscribe to theism or to intelligent design. However, he recognizes that Darwinism is FALSE (that evolution cannot create the entire biosphere by gradualistic  fine-tuning of individual genes or proto-genes). His comment above is consistent with Intelligent Design (even though he would NOT have subscribed to Intelligent Design at that point in his life).

 

P3.4 Quote: "all genes in present-day organisms were here already in the metazoans that invade the Earth 570 million years ago at the beginning of the Cambrian Era, making the subsequent story of terrestrial evolution into one in which genes have been called into operation as ecologic conditions permitted to be so." (Book: "Mathematics of Evolution", Fred Hoyle, p. xvi; University College Cardiff Press, UK; republished in the US)

-- My comment: Note that Hoyle is speaking as an atheist. So, at that point in his life, he did NOT subscribe to theism or to intelligent design. However, he recognizes that Darwinism is FALSE (that evolution cannot create the entire biosphere by fine-tuning of individual genes).

 

P3.5 Quote: "Darwinian theory… The theory seemed to me to run like this: 'If among the varieties of a species there is one that survives better in the environment than the others, then the variety that survives best is the one that best survives.' If I had known the word tautology, I would have called this a tautology. People with still more bated breath, called it Natural Selection. I made them angry, just as I do today, by saying that it did nothing at all. (Book: "Mathematics of Evolution", Fred Hoyle, p. 2; University College Cardiff Press, UK; republished in the US)

 

P3.6 Quote: "Darwinian theory… You could select potatoes as much as you pleased but you would never make them into a rabbit. Nor by selecting oak trees could you make them into colonies of bats, and those who thought they could in my opinion were bats in the belfry. This made them angry too." (Book: "Mathematics of Evolution", Fred Hoyle, p. 2; University College Cardiff Press, UK; republished in the US)

 

P3.6 Quote: "Darwinian theory… Improbable happenings replaced miracles and sludge replaced God, with believers both old [theists] and new [atheists/ evolutionists] seeking to cover up their ignorance in clouds of words, but different words. … Because the old believers [theists] said that God came out of the sky, thereby connecting the Earth with events outside it, the new believers [atheists/ evolutionists] were obliged to say the opposite and to do so, as always with intense conviction. Although the new believers [atheists/ evolutionists] had not a particle of evidence to support their statements on the matter, they asserted that the rabbit-producing sludge (called soup to make it sound more palatable) was terrestrially located and all chemical and biochemical transmogrifications of the sludge were terrestrially inspired. Because there was not a particle of evidence to support this view, new believers [atheists/ evolutionists] had to swallow it as an article of faith…" (Book: "Mathematics of Evolution", Fred Hoyle, p. 3; University College Cardiff Press, UK; republished in the US) -- Note items in [] added by me for clarification as to whom Hoyle was referring.

 

P3.7 Quote: "Darwinian theory… Because there was not a particle of evidence to support this view, new believers [atheists/ evolutionists] had to swallow it as an article of faith, otherwise they could not pass their examinations or secure a job or avoid the ridicule of their colleagues. So it came about from 1860 onward that new believers [atheists/ evolutionists] became in a sense mentally ill, or, more precisely, either you became mentally ill or you quitted the subject of biology, as I had done in my early teens. The trouble for young biologists was that, with everyone around them ill, it became impossible for them to think they were well unless they were ill, which again is a situation you can read all about in the columns of Nature." (Book: "Mathematics of Evolution", Fred Hoyle, pp. 3-4; University College Cardiff Press, UK; republished in the US) -- Note items in [] added by me for clarification as to whom Hoyle was referring.

 

P3.8. Quote: "When ideas are based on observations, as the Darwinian theory certainly is, it is usual for those ideas to be valid at least within the range of the observations. It is when extrapolations are made outside the range of observations that troubles may arise. So the issue that presented itself was to determine just how far the theory was valid and exactly why beyond a certain point it became invalid. The issue was a mathematical one…" (Book: "Mathematics of Evolution", Fred Hoyle, p. 5; University College Cardiff Press, UK; republished in the US)

 

P3.9 Quote: "And the outcome of this essay? Well as common sense would suggest, the Darwinian theory is correct in the small but not in the large. Rabbits come from other slightly different rabbits, not from either soup or potatoes. Where they came from in the first place is a problem yet to be solved, like much else of a cosmic scale." (Book: "Mathematics of Evolution", Fred Hoyle, p. 6; University College Cardiff Press, UK; republished in the US)

-- My comment: so basically after a whole book of mathematical evaluation of Naturalistic Evolution (neo-Darwinism), the ATHEIST Mathematician and Scientist Dr Fred Hoyle concludes that Naturalistic Evolution (neo-Darwinism) is FALSE for its claims of large scale evolution (of claiming to explain the origin of the entire biosphere).

 

P3.10 Quote: "Natural selection turns out to be untrue in the general sense …" (Book: "Mathematics of Evolution", Fred Hoyle, p. 7; University College Cardiff Press, UK; republished in the US)  -- My comment: general sense as in being able to explain the origin of the biosphere.

 

P3.11 Quote: "The essential problem for the Darwinian theory in its twentieth-century form is how to cope with this continuing flood of adverse mutations, a far cry indeed from the trite problem of only the single mutation… Supposing a favorable mutation to occur among the avalanche of unfavourable ones, how is the favourable mutation to advance against the downward pressure of the others?" (Book: "Mathematics of Evolution", Fred Hoyle, p. 9; University College Cardiff Press, UK; republished in the US)

 

P3.12 Quote: "The reason why most mutations must be bad is of course that random changes made to any complex structure lead to many more downward steps in the operating efficiency of the structure than to upward steps. How the occasional lucky improvement is to lead to positive evolution is a puzzle that has disturbed many mathematicians. … Rare favorable mutations in such models cannot free themselves from the more frequent unfavorable ones, because an offspring to whom a rare favorable mutation occurs is inevitably saddled with all the unfavorable mutations which have afflicted its parental line." (Book: "Mathematics of Evolution", Fred Hoyle, p. 10; University College Cardiff Press, UK; republished in the US)

 

P3.13 Quote: "To anticipate the eventual outcome [of all of the mathematics in this book], it will be found that… the [neo-Darwinian] theory works at the level of varieties and species, just as it was found empirically to do by biologists from the mid-nineteenth century onward. But the [neo-Darwinian] theory does not work at broader taxonomic levels; it cannot explain the major steps in evolution." (Book: "Mathematics of Evolution", Fred Hoyle, p. 10; University College Cardiff Press, UK; republished in the US)

 

P3.14 Quote: "Favorable mutations become swallowed in the flood of bad ones, as was already noted above, so that systems which follow a single parent-to-offspring model cannot evolve in a Darwinian sense. The best that can be done is to hold the position, which is basically what bacteria have done for almost 4000 million years." (Book: "Mathematics of Evolution", Fred Hoyle, p. 20; University College Cardiff Press, UK; republished in the US)

 

P3.15 Quote: [based on the extended mathematics presented in the book]… "the usually supposed logical inevitability of the theory of evolution by natural selection is quite incorrect. There is no inevitability, jus the reverse." (Book: "Mathematics of Evolution", Fred Hoyle, p. 20; University College Cardiff Press, UK; republished in the US)

 

P3.16 Quote: [based on the extended mathematics presented in the book]… "This presents an insuperable problem for the notion that life arose out of an abiological organic soup through the development of a primitive replicating system. A primitive replicating system could not have copied itself with anything like the fidelity of present-day systems (on which the estimate lambda ~= 0.3 depends). With only poor copying fidelity, a primitive system could carry little genetic information without lambda becoming unbearably large [which would destroy the system], and how a primitive system could then improve its fidelity and also evolve into a sexual system with crossover beggars the imagination." (Book: "Mathematics of Evolution", Fred Hoyle, p. 20; University College Cardiff Press, UK; republished in the US)

 

P3.17 Quote: "Aging proceeds more or less linearly with time at first, as would be expected from a steady accumulation of defects, but eventually a stage is reached where an aging organism appears to fall over a precipice, as would inevitably be so should defects begin to destroy the efficiency of the copying process itself, when severe deleterious feedback would set in, with defects generating more defects at an increasing rate and with the copying process failing to operate at al in the ultimate limit. … degeneration of the somatic cells occurs in not more than a few tens of generations…" (Book: "Mathematics of Evolution", Fred Hoyle, p. 29-30; University College Cardiff Press, UK; republished in the US)

 

P3.18 Quote: "The mere existence of the aging process shows, indeed, that statements on frequently hears, to the effect that the Darwinian theory is as obvious as the Earth going around the Sun, are either expressions of almost incredible naivete or they are deceptions. … Even so, with such widespread evidence of senescence in the world around us, it still seems amazing that so many people think it "obvious: that the biological system as a whole should be headed in the opposite direction, traveling from inferior to superior, traveling as it were from age to youth." (Book: "Mathematics of Evolution", Fred Hoyle, p. 30; University College Cardiff Press, UK; republished in the US)

 

P3.19 Quote: "not all mammalian DNA could possibly be utilized in the production of working proteins. If it was, lambda would be ~10 and the genetic load exp - lambda would be impossibly heavy. It is a probably correct speculation that the amount of expressed DNA is large as it can be without deleterious mutations becoming impossibly destructive." (Book: "Mathematics of Evolution", Fred Hoyle, p. 91; University College Cardiff Press, UK; republished in the US) -- My comment: ENCODE indicates that about 90% of DNA in the human genome is functional  (either for coding or for gene expression and regulation. This is strong evidence for Bio-Functional Information insertion in the not too distant past (to create humans) because otherwise as per Hoyle's quote above, we would have long gone extinct.

 

P3.20 Quote -> "Finding the neo-Darwinian theory to work only weakly in the general situation…" (Book: "Mathematics of Evolution", Fred Hoyle, p. 98; University College Cardiff Press, UK; republished in the US)

 

P3.21 Quote -> "provided inferior genes are separated from a superior form by only a single base pair … a large advantageous mutation can be found, by populations as large as 10^8 in a few generations and b species with populations of order 10^6 in a few hundred generations. But when genes are not posied on the very edge of important selective significance, when they are separated from important advantage by two or more base pairs, the advantage cannot be found [by neo-Darwinism]." (Book: "Mathematics of Evolution", Fred Hoyle, p. 100; University College Cardiff Press, UK; republished in the US)

 

P3.22 Quote -> "The chance of seeing a particular base-pair right in a particular gene in G generations is ~10^-9 G, and the chance that two base pairs are set right in the same gene is ~(10^-9G)^2. For a total of 2N genes in a population of N individuals the probability of one emerging in a repaired condition after G generations is therefore ~2N(10^-9G)^2, which to be of order unity requires G ~= 10^9/(2N)^(1/2). A mammalian population with 2N = 10^6 would require G ~= 10^6 generations, which is so long that further errors would accumulate in every individual before the two base pairs were corrected in any individual." (Book: "Mathematics of Evolution", Fred Hoyle, p. 100; University College Cardiff Press, UK; republished in the US)

 

P3.23 Quote -> "From this example we can say that for any discarded gene properly to be recovered in a practical situation, it is necessary that the genes in question shall not differ from a working condition by more than one or two base-pair errors. Once genes drift by more than this from a working condition they can be considered to have gone permanently dead, thereby explaining an otherwise mysterious conclusion of classical biology, that once species become highly specialized they tend to become extinct. … Once the errors accumulate to several base-pair mistakes per gene, the original properties become irrecoverable, and should the environment change so that the original properties are needed again, the species plunges to disaster and becomes extinct." (Book: "Mathematics of Evolution", Fred Hoyle, p. 101; University College Cardiff Press, UK; republished in the US) --- My comment: This same reasoning applies to the origin of new genes out of random sequences. Naturalistic evolution can discover new functioning genes ONLY if there are already NON-functioning sequences in the organism/ species that are within 2 base pairs of the NEW functioning gene that is desired.

 

P3.24 Quote -> "The problem for the neo-Darwinian theory is, not to explain situations like the peppered moth involving only a single error on a single gene, but the evolution of thousands of genes each requiring a specific arrangement of hundreds of base pairs if they are to function at the level of even the simplest organisms." (Book: "Mathematics of Evolution", Fred Hoyle, p. 102; University College Cardiff Press, UK; republished in the US)

 

P3.25 Quote -> "[L]ittle or no latitude is permitted for the t-RNAs, and so the nucleic acid which codes for the t-RNAs can have very little latitude indeed, with hundreds of base pairs involved for each t-RNA." (Book: "Mathematics of Evolution", Fred Hoyle, p. 102 ; University College Cardiff Press, UK; republished in the US) -- My comment -- so this could have arisen by neo-Darwinian gradualistic mechanisms.

 

P3.26 Considering the protein Histone-4. Quote -> "Essentially, the same amino acid chain being found also in other animals and even in plants we have a case in histone-4 where more than 200 base pairs are conserved across the whole of biology. The problem for the neo-Darwninan theory is to explain how the one particular arrangement of base pairs came to be discovered in the first place. Evidently not by random processes, for with a chance of 1/4 of choosing each of the correct base pairs at random, the probability of discovering a segment of 200 specific base pairs is 4^-200, which is equal to 10^-120. Even if one were given a random choice for every atom in every galaxy in the whole visible universe, the probability of discovering histone-4 would still only be a minuscule ~10^-40. … Without histone-4 being exactly right, cells could n ot divide properly and nothing in the whole biological system would work correctly." (Book: "Mathematics of Evolution", Fred Hoyle, pp. 102-103; University College Cardiff Press, UK; republished in the US)

 

P3.27 Quote -> "It is a mistake to suppose that science is an unswerving pursuit of objective truth. Partially it is, but only to the extent that the truth does not turn out to contradict what has already been taught in the educational process." (Book: "Mathematics of Evolution", Fred Hoyle, p. 104; University College Cardiff Press, UK; republished in the US)

 

P3.28 Quote -> "Edward Blyth was well aware of the precision of adaptation at the level of varieties of species,  but not above the level of species he maintained. The argument he gave was a powerful one, and in the later enthusiasm for the Darwinian theory it was never answered properly. Most species are limited to a geographical area, with good adaptation to the conditions well inside the area but with less and less good adaptation toward its boundaries. Why, Blyth asked, if species can evolve to the great extent that would be needed to explain the differences between genera, families, orders and classes can they not evolve to the lesser extent that would maintain adaptation to and beyond the boundaries of their respective areas? Instead of doing so, however, species stay obstinately fixed, disappearing as the limits of their habitats are reached. According to Blyth, this fact, which was the rule not the exception, proved that the capacity of the species to adapt must be limited, making what today we call the Darwinian theory (but which Blyth considered in 1837) untenable." (Book: "Mathematics of Evolution", Fred Hoyle, p. 105; University College Cardiff Press, UK; republished in the US)

 

P3.29 Quote -> "[S]uch connections have not been found. Each mammalian order can be traced backward for about 60 million years and then, with only one exception, the orders vanish without connections to anything at all. … The story is the same for other classes of animals, the case of insects being particularly well documented. … The striking feature of these long records is that they contain little evidence of change; and they too fade away to nothing instead of connecting to other orders of insects." (Book: "Mathematics of Evolution", Fred Hoyle, p. 107; University College Cardiff Press, UK; republished in the US)

 

P3.30 Quote -> "The theoretical presumption of evolution for a common ancestor is not there in the insect record, just as it is not there for mammals, or for any other class of animal or division of plant. Still less is there evidence of evolution connecting different classes and divisions, subkingdoms or kingdoms. … it now seems unlikely that the postulated connections will ever be found." (Book: "Mathematics of Evolution", Fred Hoyle, p. 107; University College Cardiff Press, UK; republished in the US)

 

P3.31 Quote -> "To the excuse sometimes offered that insects fossilize better than mammals, the reply is that, if insects fossilize so well, why is it that the insect record also fades away before connections between the insect orders are found?" (Book: "Mathematics of Evolution", Fred Hoyle, p. 107; University College Cardiff Press, UK; republished in the US)

 

P3.32 Quote -> "Fine-scale adaptation, which so impressed Wallace and his contemporaries, comes from the ability of species to optimize adaptation with respect to single base-pair changes. Wherever a gene can improve performance by a single base-pair change, mutations will find the change and selection will operate to promote it. What mutations cannot do is to find improvements which demand the simultaneous change of several base pairs." (Book: "Mathematics of Evolution", Fred Hoyle, p. 108; University College Cardiff Press, UK; republished in the US)

 

P3.33 Quote --> "What mutations cannot do is to find improvements which demand the simultaneous change of several base pairs. Once the range of improvements conferrable by single base-pair changes have become exhausted, a species cannot evolve further. It becomes limited in its environmental range, exactly as Blyth pointed out so many years ago. Boundaries to its habitat are inevitably reached because the range of genetic adaptation has become exhausted. Although improvements may lie only a few base pairs away, they cannot be found."  (Book: "Mathematics of Evolution", Fred Hoyle, p. 108; University College Cardiff Press, UK; republished in the US)

 

P3.34 Quote --> "It was the fine-scale changes that so greatly impressed Wallace and his contemporaries, and which do indeed fit the tenets of the neo-Darwinian theory. What the mathematics shows is that nineteenth-century biologists were correct so long as they remained within the range of practical experience. Where the situation went wrong was in making a huge extrapolation from the safe ground of practical experience, and still more wrong in persisting with the erroneous extrapolation in more recent times, long after ample evidence was available to show that an incorrect guess had been made." (Book: "Mathematics of Evolution", Fred Hoyle, pp. 108-109; University College Cardiff Press, UK; republished in the US)

 

P3.35 Quote -> "Quite apart from the impossibility of arriving at such proteins as histone-4 by random mutations -- that is, by random trials ..." (Book: "Mathematics of Evolution", Fred Hoyle, p. 116; University College Cardiff Press, UK; republished in the US)

 

P3.36 Quote -> "Quite apart from the impossibility of arriving at such proteins as histone-4 by random mutations -- that is, by random trials -- the above considerations show that it is opportunity not the speed of evolution which is the problem for the Darwinian theory, the problem is the one emphasized already in Chapter 6, that opportunities are confined to those which can be reached by only single base-pair changes on the DNA." (Book: "Mathematics of Evolution", Fred Hoyle, p. 116; University College Cardiff Press, UK; republished in the US)

 

P3.37 Quote -> "Kimura states that for evolution at such a rate that one new gene with [fitness] s = 0.01 is substituted throughout a species in 100 generations, the cost is so great that "no mammalian species could tolerate it, while for one new gene substituted every two generations each parent must leave e^15 ~= 3.27 x 10^6 offspring for one of the offspring to survive and reproduce." (Book: "Mathematics of Evolution", Fred Hoyle, p. 116; University College Cardiff Press, UK; republished in the US)

 

P3.35 Quoting J.B.S Haldane (Journal of Genetics, 1057, Vol. 55, pp. 511-524)… 'Haldane makes a statement that is both unequivocal and checkable: "The unit of evolution, the substitution of one [form of gene] by another, if carried out by natural selection based on juvenile deaths, usually involves a number of deaths equal to about 10 to 20 times the number in a generation, and perhaps rarely being 100 times this number." (Book: "Mathematics of Evolution", Fred Hoyle, p. 117; University College Cardiff Press, UK; republished in the US)

 

P3.36 Quote: "When genes are tied to each other, as they are when reproduction from generation to generation follows an asexual binary fission model or a budding model, there can be no positive evolution. Rarer advantageous mutations are swamped by more frequent deleterious mutations. The best that natural selection can do subject to a specified environment is to hold the deleterious mutations in check. When the environment is not fixed there is a slow genetic erosion, however, which natural selection cannot prevent." (Book: "Mathematics of Evolution", Fred Hoyle, p. 135; University College Cardiff Press, UK; republished in the US)

 

P3.37 Quote: "With mutations uncoupled, natural selection cannot turn back deleterious mutations if they are very small, and over a long time a large number of small disadvantages escalate to a serious handicap. This long-term inability of natural selection to preserve the integrity of genetic material sets a limit to its useful life, a limit estimated in Chapter 5 to be some 10^6 to 10^7 generations." (Book: "Mathematics of Evolution", Fred Hoyle, p. 136; University College Cardiff Press, UK; republished in the US)

 

P3.38 Quote: "Opportunity consists of improved adaptations to an environment that can be achieved by only a single base-pair change on the DNA. Should two or more base-pair change be required before an advantage can occur, even large populations are unlikely to discover it. Thuse opportunity exists only when genetic material is already very close to an improved state." (Book: "Mathematics of Evolution", Fred Hoyle, p. 137; University College Cardiff Press, UK; republished in the US)

 

P3.39 Quote: "What was in no way guaranteed by the evidence, however, was that evolutionary inferences correctly made in the small for species and their varieties could be extrapolated to broader taxonomic categories, to kingdoms, divisions, classes and orders." (Book: "Mathematics of Evolution", Fred Hoyle, p. 137; University College Cardiff Press, UK; republished in the US)

 

P3.40 Quote: "The argument given a quarter of a century earlier by Edward Blyth, an argument which really proved that species cannot adapt outside fairly narrow limits was side-stepped instead of being answered. There was also the difficulty that the fossil record did not support Darwin's concept of major changes…" (Book: "Mathematics of Evolution", Fred Hoyle, p. 137; University College Cardiff Press, UK; republished in the US)

 

P3.41 Quote: "There is the very major difficulty for evolution in the large that the chromosomes of widely separated taxonomic groups are very different -- reptiles are very different from mammals. So how did the chromosome structure of reptiles change into that of animals? If we say by internal mutations, many small steps would be needed, since a large change of structure occurring in one step to one individual would be sterile, because it would be unmatched in individuals of the opposite sex." (Book: "Mathematics of Evolution", Fred Hoyle, p. 138; University College Cardiff Press, UK; republished in the US)

 

P3.42 Quote: "This picture is strongly supported by the mathematical discussions of previous chapters, which showed that changes involved a multiplicity of base pairs can never be discovered by internal mutation. Changes even much smaller than those just discussed cannot arise spontaneously." (Book: "Mathematics of Evolution", Fred Hoyle, p. 139; University College Cardiff Press, UK; republished in the US)

 

P3.43 Quote: "The mistaken extrapolation from evolution in the small to evolution in the large that followed the Darwinian theory of 1859 led society into a bog which has only grown deeper with the passing years." (Book: "Mathematics of Evolution", Fred Hoyle, p. 139; University College Cardiff Press, UK; republished in the US)

 

P3.44. Dr Fred Hoyle presents detailed and extended mathematics in his book that shows how Neo-Darwinism is FALSE in its claim to explain the origin of higher taxa in the biosphere.

 

CONCLUSION:

C3. Mathematics shows that Neo-Darwinism is FALSE for higher taxa.

I.e., In general Neo-Darwinism is incapable of originating or explaining the origin of changes for biological higher taxa, such as kingdom, phylum, class, order, family; i.e., for levels higher than varieties inside a species and closely-related species inside a genus or family at the most).

 

 

ARGUMENT-4: Biological Information-- New Perspectives (Symposium at Cornell University) -> Mathematics shows that naturalistic evolution (neo-Darwinism) does not work

 

P4.1 The proceedings of the symposium present 24 detailed scientific papers that cover three major themes which unite to show that naturalistic-evolution (neo-Darwinism does not work).

 

P4.2 The three major themes are (a) the amazing extent and sophistication of biological information, (b) the many difficulties associated with creating such biological information solely using the mutation/selection process and (c) the extreme difficulties associated with preventing the systematic degradation of such biological information given only the mutation/selection process.

 

CONCLUSION:

C4. Mathematics shows that Neo-Darwinism is FALSE for higher taxa.

I.e., In general Neo-Darwinism is incapable of originating or explaining the origin of changes for biological higher taxa, such as kingdom, phylum, class, order, family; i.e., for levels higher than varieties inside a species and closely-related species inside a genus or family at the most).

 

ARGUMENT-5: Mathematics -> NOT enough time for human evolution

 

P5.1 Scientific Article -> "The waiting time problem in a model hominin population", by John Sanford, Wesley Brewer, Franzine Smith & John Baumgardner, Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling volume 12, Article number: 18 (2015)

 

P5.2 Quote (paper above): "To establish a string of two nucleotides required on average 84 million years. To establish a string of five nucleotides required on average 2 billion years."

 

P5.3 Quote (paper above): "Results -- Biologically realistic numerical simulations revealed that a population of this type required inordinately long waiting times to establish even the shortest nucleotide strings. To establish a string of two nucleotides required on average 84 million years. To establish a string of five nucleotides required on average 2 billion years. We found that waiting times were reduced by higher mutation rates, stronger fitness benefits, and larger population sizes. However, even using the most generous feasible parameters settings, the waiting time required to establish any specific nucleotide string within this type of population was consistently prohibitive."

 

P5.4 Quote (paper above): "Conclusion -- We show that the waiting time problem is a significant constraint on the macroevolution of the classic hominin population. Routine establishment of specific beneficial strings of two or more nucleotides becomes very problematic."

 

P5.5 My comment -> Chimps vs humans have a difference of 1300 genes. So, if we assume equal distance from the chimp-human common ancestor that gives us new 650 genes needed to evolve from common-ancestor to human (and similarly 650 new genes needed to evolve from common-ancestor to chimp).

"The typical confirmed human gene has 12 exons of an average length of 236 base pairs each, separated by introns of an average length of 5,478 base pairs." (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Web/Newsltr/Spring03/human.html)

So, the typical human gene is 2832 base pairs long, which would result in a protein that is 944 AA long.

This means that to develop 650 genes we need to develop 1.84 MILLION base pairs to move from the alleged common-ancestor to humans (or chimps) over a period of the alleged 6 million years (that evolutionists propose for the time-frame for human evolution from chimp-human common-ancestor).

The paper above shows that "To establish a string of two nucleotides required on average 84 million years. To establish a string of five nucleotides required on average 2 billion years."

 

So just to establish 5 base-pairs requires 2 BILLION YEARS. And to establish the needed 1.84 MILLION base pairs would require TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS of years (if that were even possible).

 

So, the scientific literature shows that there is simply NOT enough time for human evolution to have occurred by naturalistic means (from the alleged chimp-human ancestor).

 

CONCLUSION:

C5. Mathematics shows that Neo-Darwinism is FALSE for the origin of human beings.

I.e., In general Neo-Darwinism is incapable of originating or explaining the origin of changes for biological higher taxa, such as kingdom, phylum, class, order, family; i.e., for levels higher than varieties inside a species and closely-related species inside a genus or family at the most).

 

 

CONCLUSION: Mathematics shows that Naturalistic Evolution does NOT work.

Mathematics shows that Neo-Darwinism is FALSE for higher taxa and for the origin of human beings.

I.e., In general Neo-Darwinism is incapable of originating or explaining the origin of changes for biological higher taxa, such as kingdom, phylum, class, order, family; i.e., for levels higher than varieties inside a species and closely-related species inside a genus or family at the most).