Critique of the Theory of Evolution. Walter Friedman
point to take a close look at Occam’s Razor.
Occam’s Razor
This principle is also called the Law of Parsimony or the Law of Economy. In its original form the principle states the following: “Plurality should not be posited without necessity.” In other words, out of two or more competing theories the simplest one should be chosen.
There is nothing wrong with the principle; indeed, all major sciences follow it, or at least try to. But incorrect interpretations are abundant.
The statement is not unconditional; it contains ostensive conditions marked by the word “necessity.” Clearly, there are cases where an increase in plurality is unavoidable.
Consider, for example, the application of the principles of quantum mechanics to solid and liquid bodies. These principles alone are not enough. In the case of solid bodies, symmetry considerations reflecting the structure of the crystals are added to the basic principles of quantum mechanics. In the case of a liquid, the principles of quantum mechanics alone do not explain such phenomena as super-fluidity; Landau’s theory dealing with the mixture of two liquids with vastly different properties was put forward to explain this phenomenon.
It is impossible to assemble a material with DNA-like structure from the elements of the periodic table (again, see Appendix B), therefore the addition of a broader principle is, in the words of the Occam’s Razor, a necessity.
The principle is quite straightforward and easy to use; the possibility of misuse is minimal. But the evolutionists managed to misuse it because they are brain-dead.
13 : R. A. Fisher
Evolutionists claim that theoretical and experimental genetic data prove that the evolutionary theory is correct. Usually they site the works of R. A. Fisher. However, geneticists claim the exact opposite.
R. A. Fisher (1890–1962) was an outstanding British mathematician and geneticist. He is one of the two founders of the mathematical theory of statistics. However, none of his works or the works of other geneticists with a background in mathematical statistics deals, directly or indirectly, with the evolutionary theory.
Evolutionists often cite the famous Fisher theorem on the variance of species as a proof of validity of the evolutionary theory. Fisher’s variance theorem states the following: “The rate of increase in fitness of any organism at any time is equal to its genetic variance in fitness at that time.”
In the context of the Fisher theorem, variance is a mathematical term. This is how Webster’s New World Dictionary defines the square root of the variance called “deviation”: “a measure of the way items are distributed in a frequency distribution.”
There is plenty of empirical data that confirms Fisher’s theorem; one of the experiments is described in Encyclopedia Britannica.
This theorem has been confirmed experimentally. One study employed different strains of Drosophila serrata, a species of vinegar fly from eastern Australia and New Guinea. Evolution in vinegar flies can be investigated by using “population cages” and finding out how a population changes over many generations. Experimental populations were set up, with the flies living and reproducing in isolated microcosms. Single-strain populations descended from flies collected either in Popondetta, New Guinea, or in Sydney, Australia; and a mixed population was established by crossing these two strains of flies. The mixed population had the greater initial genetic variation, since it was started by combining two different single-strain populations.
Two results deserve notice. First, the mixed population had, at the end of the experiment, more flies than the single-strain populations. Second, and more relevant, the number of flies increased at a faster rate in the mixed population than in the single-strain populations. (Encyclopedia Britannica, CD-ROM 2001)
The Fisher theorem is correct—no doubt about that—but it has nothing to do with the evolutionary theory because it doesn’t state that evolution of a species causes changes in a population variance. As the article shows, an increase in fitness may be caused simply by a mixing of the fly populations, not by some kind of evolutionary process.
Actually, Fisher proved something quite opposite to the evolutionary theory.
How large is the probability that a mutation asserts itself in a sexually propagating population? Neglecting selection, R. A. Fisher showed that a once arisen mutation symbolized by a genotype Aa in a population of individuals with the genotype AA has hardly any chance to survive. In order to hand down the allele “a” to its offspring, the Aa individual has to pair with an AA individual. The probability of a loss of the allele “a” is given by Fisher as being e-1 per generation (e is the base of the natural system of logarithms). The rate of elimination is described by a Poisson-distribution:
e-1 = 0.368
The probability that the allele a does still exist after one generation is therefore
1 - 0.385 = 0.632
and after another generation:
e-(1-0.368) = 0.531
This means that in 90% of all possible cases the allele is extinguished after 15 generations. A chance loss or gain of a non-adaptive allele by a population is called a genetic drift. . . .
This example shows that the development of the abundance of forms as we know it in nature cannot be caused by the accumulation of neutral mutations. (“Mutation”)
Trying to remedy the situation, E. Mayr introduced the concept of gene flow. According to Mayr, the situation changes drastically when natural selection is introduced.
An advantageous dominant allele spreads very fast, while recessive alleles have an only low ability to assert themselves even if they provide a selective advantage. The size of population is decisive. The smaller a population, the faster the establishment of a new mutation. All new species are developed from small initial populations. E. Mayr (1942) called them founder populations. (“Mutation”)
Unlike Fisher, Mayr was a bad mathematician. He got it all wrong: a) if mutation spreads slowly (Darwin believed that it takes at least 1000 generations to develop a new characteristic), then natural selection does not make much of a difference and newly acquired characteristics will practically disappear after 15 generations; b) in order for a new characteristic to take hold, its time of spread has to be less than 15 generations, which contradicts all known scientific data.
Evolutionary biologists are infamous for manipulating both theoretical and experimental data in attempts to convince the general public that the evolutionary theory is infallible. But anyone with even a perfunctory acquaintance with science knows that their contention is hogwash.
Mathematical Statistics Misused
Starting from the 1930s, a number of astrophysicists supporting the evolutionary theory tried to assess what they call the “probability of incipience of an original cell on another planet.” They came up with different numbers ranging somewhere between 1014 and 1067 (perhaps the largest number should go to the Guinness Book of Records). All distinguished mathematicians working in the field of mathematical statistics objected to such misuse of their science. These workers include R. A. Fisher, A. Kolmogoroff, E. S. Pearson, J. Neyman, M. G. Kendall, and many others. Their objections are based on the fact that only events that could be repeated an indefinite number of times form the basis of the probability theory (the discharge of electrons from an electron gun would be an example of such events). This example shows that the evolutionists are completely unaware of how the probability theory works. Yet they base their “proof” of validity of the evolutionary theory on the probability theory!
Disputed Numbers
This is another lie propelled by the proponents of the theory of evolution: there is a consensus in the scientific community that the theory is correct. Nothing could be further from the truth. Not a single geneticist supports it; less than 10% of physicists agree with it, and those who agree have very little knowledge of atomic physics; paleontologists and biochemists are evenly split; and no one knows how many biologists disagree with it because they do not speak their minds for fear