Natural selection Proteins can’t evolve by natural selection. Adaptation is just the environment giving yes or no answers to suggestions--variations-- living creatures come up with. A typical protein is 500 amino acids long, and for each amino acid there are 20 candidates. For a protein like that to evolve, guess--how many individual suggestions would you have to present to the environment? 20x20x20 and so on five hundred times. The entire universe isn’t big enough to write all the zeros in that number. No way proteins could evolve that way, through natural selection. And we’ve 18,000 proteins coded for in our genes. We’ve someone a lot smarter than natural selection to thank for our proteins. Hmm! Maybe viruses! We didn’t evolve by adapting Natural selection supposedly works by you adapting to the environment. But then you’d end up being just like the environment, and you’re not. In fact, the longer evolution goes on the less dependent living creatures are on any one environment. Dandelions, cats and humans do fine just about anywhere. So adaptation to the environment can’t be how they and we evolved. Genes are not the same as characteristics To natural selection, we’re each just a bundle of separate characteristics. Of each one it asks us, does your version make you fitter? If it does, natural selection says, we pass. But what actually varies between generations isn’t characteristics, it’s genes. And genes, in most cases, don’t correspond, one to one, to characteristics--each gene may help code for dozens, even hundreds of characteristics. So evolution isn’t about selecting for characteristics. We evolve as whole creatures, not as sets of separate characteristics. The variation problem Darwin based his natural selection on breeders’ “artificial selection.” That works by reducing variation. But as creatures evolve they don’t become less varied. So natural selection can’t be how they evolve.
Why bad science
School without Darwin
By “Darwin” I mean “the modern synthesis,” today’s official evolutionary theory. This is a synthesis of two physical mechanisms: natural selection, genetic mutation.
While wondering how to account for evolution Charles Darwin fell under the influence of Auguste Comte, the founder of Positivist science. Fundamental to Posivitism is reductionism: you account for any discovery or theory in terms of more fundamental sciences, psychology in terms of biology, biology in terms of physics and chemistry. The mechanism Darwin arrived at, natural selection, was pure physics.
We get “genetic mutation from Ronald Fisher. He was primarily a statistician. Also a eugenicist. In the heyday of eugenics he wanted a theory to make eugenics more impressive. He came up with a source of variation for natural selection to work on: random damage to genes. Natural selection, only 1% efficient, would work on them to remove all the harmful damage, leaving only those that were improvements! Duh! I don’t think so.
For more critiques of natural selection see: Gertrude Himmelfarb, “Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution,” Part V. Analysis of the theory [in Darwin’s “Origin”], (W.W. Norton & Company, 1959). Review in “Evolution for the Humanities.” “Origin of species, 6th edition,” review by Shaun Johnston, in “Evolution for the Humanities.”
Genetic mutation Improvement through damage Imagine, you’ve a blueprint for a combine harvester. But you really want a submarine. What are you going to do? You’ll throw darts at your combine harvester blueprint, damaging it until it’s changed into the blueprint for a submarine! Seem ridiculous? Welcome to genetic mutation. Beneficial mutations Genetic mutation is random damage to creatures’ genes. Some will make no difference, some will kill the creatures, but most will just be harmful. That harm, accumulating generation by generation, will rapidly drive the creatures into extinction. What more is there to say? Well, according to Fisher, the laws of chance dictate that every so often random damage could be beneficial! And if so, natural selection will favor those beneficial genes over the harmful genes. And if natural selection was 100% efficient it would get rid of all the harmful mutations, leaving only those that are beneficial. However, even Fisher can’t justify natural selection being more than 1% efficient. So harm accumulates 1% slower, and the creatures go extinct again, just a little bit slower. Leave out the harmful mutations Now Fisher pulls another trick. He leaves out the critical equation that would sum up the effect of a 1% efficient natural selection on both beneficial and harmful genes. Instead he applies it only to beneficial mutations, that naturally show a slow increase, which he claims is a new source of variation. He declares his mutations plus natural selection account for how evolution actually works. Was this wishful thinking by a eugenicist? Or absent-mindedness? Richard Dawkins called Fisher the greatest evolutionist since Darwin. One thing you can be sure of, though, is that no evolutionists read Fisher. His book is all maths, and anyway it’s out of print. Safely buried. Conclusion By normal standards of science, Darwinism is suspect. There is abundent evidence for evolution, but none that Darwinism is its mechanism. And it can’t account for mind. Look for alternatives.
Artists and business people don’t say, “We’ve no free will, we’re all determined.”
PHOTO BY CHARLES MILLER FROM PEXELS
Natural selection can work only by sorting among existing genes, such as those for the shapes of birds’ beaks as the food supply changes. It’s adjustment rather than real evolution. It can turn races into species. But that’s about it. For the creation of new genes, you need something else.
Author, publisher: Shaun Johnston (Mr.) Evolved Self Publishing
Sorry
CHARLES DARWIN
What shall we put in here?
For my next trick…
Uh-Oh!
To comment, please visit the forum.
Natural selection We didn’t evolve by adapting Natural selection supposedly works by you adapting to the environment. But then you’d end up being just like the environment, and you’re not. In fact, the longer evolution goes on the less dependent living creatures are on any one environment. Dandelions, cats and humans do fine just about anywhere. So adaptation to the environment can’t be how they and we evolved.
Why bad science
School without Darwin
By “Darwin” I mean “the modern synthesis” of two physical mechanisms: natural selection, genetic mutation.
While wondering how to account for evolution Charles Darwin fell under the influence of Auguste Comte, the founder of Positivist science. Fundamental to Posivitism is reductionism: you account for any discovery or theory in terms of more fundamental sciences, psychology in terms of biology, biology in terms of physics and chemistry. The mechanism Darwin arrived at, natural selection, was pure physics.
We get “genetic mutation” from Ronald Fisher. He was primarily a statistician. Also a eugenicist. In the heyday of eugenics he wanted a theory to make eugenics more impressive. He came up with a source of variation for natural selection to work on: random damage to genes. Natural selection, only 1% efficient, would work on them to remove all the harmful damage, leaving only those that were improvements! Duh! I don’t think so.
For more critiques of natural selection see: Gertrude Himmelfarb, “Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution,” Part V. Analysis of the theory [in Darwin’s “Origin”], (W.W. Norton & Company, 1959). Review in “Evolution for the Humanities.” “Origin of species, 6th edition,” review by Shaun Johnston, in “Evolution for the Humanities.”
Genetic mutation Improvement through damage Imagine, you’ve a blueprint for a combine harvester. But you really want a submarine. What are you going to do? You’ll throw darts at your combine harvester blueprint, damaging it until it’s changed into the blueprint for a submarine! Seem ridiculous? Welcome to genetic mutation. Beneficial mutations Genetic mutation is random damage to creatures’ genes. Some will make no difference, some will kill the creatures, but most will just be harmful. That harm, accumulating generation by generation, will rapidly drive the creatures into extinction. What more is there to say? Well, according to Fisher, the laws of chance dictate that every so often random damage could be beneficial! And if so, natural selection will favor those beneficial genes over the harmful genes. And if natural selection was 100% efficient it would get rid of all the harmful mutations, leaving only those that are beneficial. However, even Fisher can’t justify natural selection being more than 1% efficient. So harm accumulates 1% slower, and the creatures go extinct again, just a little bit slower. Leave out the harmful mutations Now Fisher pulls another trick. He leaves out the critical equation that would sum up the effect of a 1% efficient natural selection on both beneficial and harmful genes. Instead he applies it only to beneficial mutations, that naturally show a slow increase, which he claims is a new source of variation. He declares his mutations plus natural selection account for how evolution actually works. Was this wishful thinking by a eugenicist? Or absent- mindedness? Richard Dawkins called Fisher the greatest evolutionist since Darwin. One thing you can be sure of, though, is that no evolutionists read Fisher. His book is all maths, and anyway it’s out of print. Safely buried. Conclusion By normal standards of science, Darwinism is suspect. There is abundent evidence for evolution, but none that Darwinism is its mechanism. And it can’t account for mind. Look for alternatives.
Artists and business people don’t say, “We’ve no free will, we’re all determined.”
PHOTO BY CHARLES MILLER FROM PEXELS
Natural selection can work only by sorting among existing genes, such as those for the shapes of birds’ beaks as the food supply changes. It’s adjustment rather than real evolution. It can turn races into species. But that’s about it. For the creation of new genes, you need something else.
Proteins can’t evolve by natural selection. Adaptation is just the environment giving yes or no answers to suggestions--variations--living creatures come up with. A typical protein is 500 amino acids long, and for each amino acid there are 20 candidates. For a protein like that to evolve, guess-- how many individual suggestions would you have to present to the environment? 20x20x20 and so on five hundred times. The entire universe isn’t big enough to write all the zeros in that number. No way proteins could evolve that way, through natural selection. And we’ve 18,000 proteins coded for in our genes. We’ve someone a lot smarter than natural selection to thank for our proteins. Hmm! Maybe viruses!
Genes are not the same as characteristics To natural selection, we’re each just a bundle of separate characteristics. Of each characteristic it asks us, does your version of it make you fitter? If it does, natural selection says, we pass. But what actually varies between generations isn’t characteristics, it’s genes. And genes, in most cases, don’t correspond, one to one, to characteristics-- each gene may help code for dozens, even hundreds of characteristics. So evolution isn’t about selecting for characteristics. We evolve as whole creatures, not as set sof separate characteristics. The variation problem Darwin based his natural selection on breeders’ “artificial selection.” That works by reducing variation. But as they evolve creatures don’t become less varied. So natural selection can’t be how they evolve.
Genetic mutation
Copyright 2021 Evolved Self Publishing Author, publisher: Shaun Johnston (Mr.) Evolved Self Publishing 354 Main Street #354, Rosendale NY 12472 shaun@schoolwithoutdarwin.org Twitter: @schoolwithoutdarwin
To comment, please visit the forum.