A superficial reading through this thread might give the impression that my argument is nonsensical and full of logical errors, at least when relying on the authority of orthodox posters. Here once again the concrete application of my
argument:
The upright gait was only one of many traits which had to evolve in us after our separation from chimps. For that to happen, the structures of bones, of muscles and of tendons had to gradually change. Let us ignore that in fact the bone structure (involved in the upright-gait evolution) alone consists of several bones with each several traits.
So let us make the completely unrealistic assumption that one 'progressive' single-step mutation in the genetic factor of each (i.e. bone, muscle and tendon) structure is enough to entail a relevant increase in fitness.
Let us further assume that the probability of such progressive mutations in newborns is each as high as 10^-5. So we conclude that among 10^15 newborns (i.e. a billion newborns of a million generations), only one individual will carry all three necessary mutations.
Because a change in only one or two of the three involved structures cannot lead to a relevant increase in fitness (rather the contrary), it becomes obvious that the upright gait cannot have evolved in a neo-Darwinian way.
Assuming that "the probability of such progressive mutations in newborns is each as high as 10^-5" and using my upper limit of a billion newborns per year,
Cosima 'refutes' my argument in this way:
10^9*10^-5=10^4. We can expect one beneficial mutation to occur in as many as 10000 individuals per generation.
So after the first year of our thought experiment we have:
10000 individuals with mutation A
10000 individuals with mutation B
10000 individuals with mutation C
Actually this means:
- 10000 individuals with a relevant change only in the bone structure (i.e. without changes in the muscles and tendons)
- 10000 individuals with a relevant change only in the muscle structure
- 10000 individuals with a relevant change only in the tendon structure.
The assumption that a mutation having a probability of 10^-5 per birth (and normally affecting 0.25 byte of the DNA) changes all the many components of the proto-chimp/human body in such a coordinated and effective way that a substantial increase in fitness is the result, is so mind-bogglingly absurd that only blind dogmatism can explain such a belief.
The following is correct:
The probability that any one of these individuals has any two mutations is unlikely and the probability that any one individual has all three is infinitesimally small at this point.
But its continuation is nothing more than wishful thinking:
But, since each of these mutations increases fitness independently, we can assume that these individuals will do better than the others. Increasing their numbers in the next generation. So lets say the number of individuals inheriting each one of the 3 mutations doubles each generation.
Cheers, Wolfgang
