If simple figuring shows the math and logic behind the modern synthesis to be so flawed, why isn’t that obvious to the evolutionists themselves? Beats me! Why didn’t the emperor realize he wasn’t wearing any clothes?
Rosendale, NY (PRWEB) October 26, 2012
How sound is the mathematics behind the "modern synthesis," today’s dominant evolutionary theory, asks Shaun Johnston in his October Issue of the Month. On his website, http://www.takeondarwin.com, Johnston claims that mathematics is faulty.
Johnston first expresses the theory in words, as follows: the definition of each species (its genes) is maintained and evolves through two processes acting in succession. First, as is bound to happen to complex molecules at room temperature, genes randomly decay. Second, competition among individuals of the species to survive to reproduce will lead to genes favoring survival getting passed on more frequently to following generations. As a result of these two processes, instances of decay that help creatures survive to reproduce will come to predominate in the gene pool until, over many generations, they amount to significant evolutionary progress.
Drawing on common knowledge about nature and modern genetics Johnston then points out what he believes are errors in this theory that he sees as masked by faults in the mathematics lying behind it.
"Imagine you’ve in your hands the blueprint for a complex mechanism, say a Mars lander, or a living creature such as an elephant," Johnston begins. "It’s going to be an extremely detailed, precisely-drawn document. Now, you throw off a million copies of that blueprint, making one or more changes at random to each one. Are any of those copies likely to be an improvement? Bear in mind, there are vastly more ways in which such a blueprint can be made less functional than more functional, so you are bound to create many more copies that are less-functional."
He continues, "According to the modern synthesis, evolution involves only the very-occasional more-functional versions becoming more frequent in future generations. But for that you need a process 100% efficient at detecting and eliminating the huge number of less-functional, harmful, versions. In fact, the efficiency of natural selection is nowhere near 100%, it's closer to 1%. So in each generation, a vast amount more harm will pass to the next generation."
A second concern Johnston raises is that there are too many coding pairs in the genome--billions--for specific changes among them to be selected for in mere millions of generations. It would need billions of generations, at least. He goes on to refer to points raised by Erwin Schrodinger and Alfred Wallace, which he claims have never been rebutted. The full article is published here.
"What’s exciting about the possibility that the mathematics behind the modern synthesis is faulty is the opportunity it presents to young evolutionists to use some simple figuring of their own to arrive as something more plausible, more convincing. Send it here," he says, referring to the website http://www.takeondarwin.com, "and we’ll publish it."