Annoying Creationists
I think now is a good time to respond to some of joozb’s kvetching. Joozb wants to talk about kinetics and thermodynamics. The kinetics portion of the ev model is demonstrated by the rate (the number of generations required) at which the model converges depending on input parameters. How does thermodynamics enter into this model other than the increase in information in the genome being mathematically equal to the negative change in the entropy of the genome? Let’s put a little hard science into the feather pillow soft theory of evolution.
Evolutionists like to talk about the “natural selection” as being the driving force for evolution. What is a hard scientific explanation for “natural selection”? Since I know how impatient evolutionarians are, I give you the answer to this question immediately. Natural selection is nothing more than a restatement of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Any energy available to an organism that has to used for the immediate survival of the organism can not be used for reproduction. The most efficient energy using organisms will have the most energy available to use for reproduction and will be selected for.
When one applies this concept of natural selection to genetic evolution, you have a spectrum of genetic events which can be acted on by this principle. At one end of the spectrum you have immediately fatal mutations. You can also have harmful mutations that don’t immediately kill the organism but put that organism at a reproductive disadvantage to other organisms of that species. You can have neutral mutations which don’t give an advantage or disadvantage for that organism with respects to other members of that species. At the other end of the spectrum you have the so called good random mutations. These mutations confer a selective advantage and make these organisms better reproducers because of these helpful mutations. Unlike immediately fatal mutations which are well known and many have been identified, there are very few examples of good mutations which immediately confer survival benefit. Those good mutations that do confer an immediate survival benefit do not involve the de novo evolution of a gene but usually involve a single base substitution to an already existing gene or the availability of an alternative less energy efficient metabolic pathway that gives a survival benefit.
The genetic evolutionary concept requires huge numbers of neutral mutations which offer no natural selective advantage to occur in order to form highly complex genes. Consider the Kreb cycle. Each step in the metabolism of glucose requires a complex protein enzyme catalyst. In order for each of these complex enzymes to be formed, every base change must obey the law of natural selection. If the base change reduces the energy efficiency of the organism, the organism is selected against and the frequency of that base change is reduced in the gene pool. If the base change has no change on the energy efficiency of the organism, the organism will be neither selected for nor selected against and the frequency of that base change will not change in the gene pool. If the base change improves the energy efficiency of the organism, the frequency of that base change will increase in the gene pool.
So, what are the observations that we have of random point mutations and natural selection? There are scores of genetic diseases which are attributed to single point mutations. There are few occurrences of survival benefit attributed to single point mutations. Natural selection is far more efficient selecting out harmful point mutations and selecting in beneficial point mutations. Natural selection does not have high enough resolution to select for or against the many neutral point mutations that would be necessary for the de novo formation of a gene.
I’m sure Dr Schneider is aware of the arguments that I am making based on his model, since we discussed via email for a couple of months before I took these issues public but you are correct about my offer to take up the gauntlet, so I’ll email him the acceptance of his challenge.Kleinman said:
I think now is a good time to respond to some of joozb’s kvetching. Joozb wants to talk about kinetics and thermodynamics. The kinetics portion of the ev model is demonstrated by the rate (the number of generations required) at which the model converges depending on input parameters. How does thermodynamics enter into this model other than the increase in information in the genome being mathematically equal to the negative change in the entropy of the genome? Let’s put a little hard science into the feather pillow soft theory of evolution.
Evolutionists like to talk about the “natural selection” as being the driving force for evolution. What is a hard scientific explanation for “natural selection”? Since I know how impatient evolutionarians are, I give you the answer to this question immediately. Natural selection is nothing more than a restatement of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Any energy available to an organism that has to used for the immediate survival of the organism can not be used for reproduction. The most efficient energy using organisms will have the most energy available to use for reproduction and will be selected for.
When one applies this concept of natural selection to genetic evolution, you have a spectrum of genetic events which can be acted on by this principle. At one end of the spectrum you have immediately fatal mutations. You can also have harmful mutations that don’t immediately kill the organism but put that organism at a reproductive disadvantage to other organisms of that species. You can have neutral mutations which don’t give an advantage or disadvantage for that organism with respects to other members of that species. At the other end of the spectrum you have the so called good random mutations. These mutations confer a selective advantage and make these organisms better reproducers because of these helpful mutations. Unlike immediately fatal mutations which are well known and many have been identified, there are very few examples of good mutations which immediately confer survival benefit. Those good mutations that do confer an immediate survival benefit do not involve the de novo evolution of a gene but usually involve a single base substitution to an already existing gene or the availability of an alternative less energy efficient metabolic pathway that gives a survival benefit.
The genetic evolutionary concept requires huge numbers of neutral mutations which offer no natural selective advantage to occur in order to form highly complex genes. Consider the Kreb cycle. Each step in the metabolism of glucose requires a complex protein enzyme catalyst. In order for each of these complex enzymes to be formed, every base change must obey the law of natural selection. If the base change reduces the energy efficiency of the organism, the organism is selected against and the frequency of that base change is reduced in the gene pool. If the base change has no change on the energy efficiency of the organism, the organism will be neither selected for nor selected against and the frequency of that base change will not change in the gene pool. If the base change improves the energy efficiency of the organism, the frequency of that base change will increase in the gene pool.
So, what are the observations that we have of random point mutations and natural selection? There are scores of genetic diseases which are attributed to single point mutations. There are few occurrences of survival benefit attributed to single point mutations. Natural selection is far more efficient selecting out harmful point mutations and selecting in beneficial point mutations. Natural selection does not have high enough resolution to select for or against the many neutral point mutations that would be necessary for the de novo formation of a gene.
