Scientifically, the Evolution theory is a myth equivalent to the Flat Earth theory

[forex]

Although the public acceptance of the Evolution theory and the Flat Earth theory is quite different, they are both in stark contradiction with the knowledge gained through observation, which makes them equally pseudoscientific. The reason for the difference in public acceptance lies in the level of scientific knowledge required for understanding their pseudoscientific character. Namely, in the case of the flat Earth theory, images from space provided the public with simple observational proof that Earth is not flat but spherical, which made the Flat Earth theory very difficult to take seriously. However, in the case of Evolution theory, things are not so simple since the general public is not familiar with the empirical or mathematical knowledge about the actual capabilities of the evolutionary process, which supposedly created all the levels of biological organisation. But once the knowledge about the actual creative capabilities of this process is provided, the pseudoscientific character of the Evolution theory becomes obvious, just as in the case of the Flat Earth theory.

The evolution theory, in its most essential form, is the belief of naturalistic philosophy according to which new functional genes for structures, processes and functions of living organisms can result from the evolution process. The evolution process is a natural process where mutations and gene migration create variation in the genetic material of an organism, and then this variation is filtered by natural selection and genetic drift. This process is believed to be responsible for the rise of biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules. Now, since the evolution process is a fact known by actual experience or observation, we can determine empirically, through the scientific method, what is this process actually capable of producing and whether the above mentioned belief is a valid scientific theory or a pseudoscientific philosophy equivalent to the Flat Earth theory. In order to do that, we are going to take a look at the biggest empirical observation of evolution in action, namely, the E. coli long-term evolution experiment (LTEE).

The LTEE is an ongoing study in experimental evolution led by Richard Lenski that has been tracking genetic changes in 12 initially identical populations of asexual Escherichia coli bacteria since 24 February 1988. The populations reached the milestone of 50,000 generations in February 2010 and 66,000 in November 2016. To put this experiment into perspective, its 66,000 generations is equivalent to over one million years of human evolution, which is significant even on evolutionary time scales. Now, the most important question is what did Lenski find in this experiment with regards to the belief of naturalistic philosophy? Did he find that the evolution process produced new functional genes? Not at all. His experiment resulted in 0 - zero new genes. Most of the changes in the experiment involved streamlining the genome, deleting genes no longer needed, or reducing protein expression. The most significant change was mutational transfer of one pre-existing gene(citT) from one location to another which resulted in the ability of E-coli to grow on citrate under the oxygen-rich conditions. So, after more than 66,000 generations, the LTEE didn't produce a single functional unit of heredity - a gene. Let us now compare this empirical result with the theoretical perspective.

According to the evolution theory, chimps and humans had a common ancestor five million years ago. Meaning, over the past five million years the human genome has been acquiring genetic changes via the evolution process. And one of such changes involves 60 orphan protein-coding genes, which were identified in a recent study:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3213175/

Orphan genes are functional protein-coding genes that have no homologues in the ancestral species. According to comparative genome analyses every taxonomic group so far studied contains 10-20 percent of such genes. But let's focus only on the 60 orphan genes identified in the mentioned study. Even with this small number of genes, the discrepancy between empirically observed and theoretically assumed capabilities of the evolution process is more than obvious. Specifically, since according to the evolution theory chimps and humans had a common ancestor, the existence of 60 orphan protein-coding genes in human genome basically means they had to be produced by the evolution process in the last five million years. But, the biggest empirical observation of evolution in action(the LTEE) shows that in the equivalent of 1/5th of that time, this process has been unable to produce even a single orphan gene. This discrepancy is even more obvious in the context of the hypothetical evolution of whales, where in the time span of just 9 million years, a four legged terrestrial mammal the size of a wolf or sheep had to be transformed into a fully aquatic mammal like a whale. Since the difference between humans and chimp is negligible in comparison to the difference between a terrestrial and a fully aquatic mammal, the scale of morphological adaptations in this evolutionary scenario would have to be massive, and it would require thousands of orphan genes to be formed in a relatively short period of time. The empirical observation of the actual capabilities of the evolution process clearly demonstrated that this couldn't have happened.

Now, with that being said there must be some explanation for this inability of the evolution process to produce even a single block of new functional genetic information. Such explanation does exist and it says this is because the number of neutral mutations for any given hypothetical evolutionary adaptation, greatly exceeds the total number of mutations that occurred in the entire history of life on Earth. Let's look at this in more detail.

From the perspective of evolution theory any functional gene is basically an evolutionary adaptation by which the organism became better fitted to survive and multiply in its environment. Due to the fact that an organism cannot adapt with whatever gene it has in its DNA, the theory of evolution postulates mutations as means of DNA rearrangements that will ultimately result in adaptive genes. Thus, from the perspective of evolutionary adaptations, the mutations that result in adaptive genes are beneficial(adaptive), while the ones that don't are neutral(non-adaptive).

Let us now consider a standard evolutionary scenario involving a population that is adapting to an aquatic environment and doesn't have the genes that code structures for breathing underwater. Evolution by gene duplication is considered one of the most important source of new genes and genetic novelty in organisms. So let's suppose that a duplication mutation causes duplication of some gene, that will represent the first step in evolution of structures for breathing underwater. Since this duplication supplies a gene that is already there, further mutations are required for this gene to develop into adaptive one.

For the purpose of simplicity, let us assume that the duplicated gene is only three nucleotides long and has the following DNA sequence: CCC and that adaptive genes have the following DNA sequences: ATT, CGC, ACA and AAA. Given the fact that a gene consists of four different bases and that any base can assume one of four values (ATCG), a sequence of L basis can assume one out of 4^L values, which gives 4^3 or 64 possible sequences. In terms of beneficial and neutral mutations that means there are potentially 4 beneficial and 60 neutral mutations. This further means that the evolution process must generate 15 random mutations(60/4) before finding a beneficial one.

As we can see from the above example, most genes(60) are non-adaptive, leaving relatively small number of adapting ones(4). But since the duplicated gene is only three nucleotides long, a small number of mutations are required to convert this gene to adaptive one and finish the first step in evolution of structures for breathing underwater.

Let's now apply this mathematical rationale to experimentally measured ratio between non-adaptive and adaptive genes. Suppose the gene that codes for λ repressor protein is an evolutionary adaptation which helped the organism to survive and multiply in its environment. A study conducted by John F. Reidhaar-Olson, Robert T. Sauer investigated the informational content of the λ repressor protein and discovered, that "the estimated number of sequences capable of adopting the λ repressor fold is still an exceedingly small fraction, about one in 10^63, of the total number of possible 92-residue sequences."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/prot.340070403/full

What does that mean in terms of mathematical rationale of the above simple example? Well, since the mathematical principle is the same, that means that the evolution process must generate 10^63 random mutations before finding a beneficial one. In other words, if, as claimed by the theory, λ repressor protein is an evolutionary adaptation then the number of mutations in the entire history of life on Earth must be greater than this number.

Now let's see what are the lower and upper limit estimates for the number of mutations:

http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/5/25/953.full

This study arrived at a figure of 10^43 for the upper limit and 10^23 for the lower limit. Given these numbers, it is obvious why the evolution process is unable to produce even a single block of new functional genetic information. Simply put, the quantity of neutral or non-beneficial mutations for a single evolutionary adaptation(λ repressor protein) is 20 orders of magnitude greater than the total numbers of mutations in the history of life. In other words, due to the enormous lack of mutational resources, the evolution process is stuck in a neutral territory and it cannot proceed towards evolutionary adaptations upon which natural selection or genetic drift can act.

This makes the Evolution theory a myth equivalent to the Flat Earth theory. People believe this myth for ideological reasons, while most researchers in the field of evolutionary biology push this myth because it is imperative for them to continue to secure funding and employment. It always boils down to ‘follow the money’. Getting paid for empty storytelling about unseen past events is easy money for them. And of course,  the whole 'new-atheist' crowd believes and adores this myth because it makes them 'intellectually fulfilled atheists'.

Edited January 31, 2018 by forex

[Silvestru]

Saying that "the theory of Evolution is a myth equivalent to the Flat Earth theory"  is the same as saying that  Beethoven's Symphony number 5 is the same as a burp as we both interpret them with our ears.

The theory of Evolution is much more than a theory and has been described as :

Quote

not absolute certainty but "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent"

It costs a round the world plane trip to personally disprove the Flat earth nonsense. But good luck disproving Evolution with facts proof and data.

(To the public, theory can mean an opinion or conjecture (e.g., "it's only a theory"), but among scientists it has a much stronger connotation of "well-substantiated explanation".)

52 minutes ago, forex said:

Although the public acceptance of the Evolution theory and the Flat Earth theory is quite different, they are both in stark contradiction with the knowledge gained through observation

Wow...
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity

Quote

Kirk drew a picture of a fish and a human and with effusive disdain asked Richard if he really thought we were stupid enough to believe that a fish somehow turned into a human through just, like, random things happening over time.

 

[studiot]

1 hour ago, forex said:

or mathematical knowledge about the actual capabilities of the evolutionary process

I saw no mathematical knowledge in your extensive post.

Would you please point it out to me.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Topic previously closed with admonishment not to bring it up again.