Basic
Worldview:
103
Science, the Bible,
and Creation
Origins
- Section Three:
Evolution, Origin of Species
Origins - Section One: Introduction
and the Basics
Origins - Section Two: Premature
Dismissals
Origins - Section Two: Application
of the Basics
Origins - Section Three: Creation
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Origin of Life
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Environment for Life 1
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Environment for Life 2
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Another Planet
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Origin of Species
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Speciation Factors
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Speciation Rates
Origins - Section Four: Time and
Age, Redshift
Origins - Section Four: Philosophical
Preference
Origins - Section Four: Cosmological
Model 1
Origins - Section Four: Cosmological
Model 2
Origins - Section Four: Dating Methods,
Perceptions, Basics
Origins - Section Four: Global Flood
Evidence
Origins - Section Four: Relative
Dating
Origins - Section Four: Dating and
Circular Reasoning
Origins - Section Four: The Geologic
Column
Origins - Section Four: Radiometric
Dating Basics
Origins - Section Four: General
Radiometric Problems
Origins - Section Four: Carbon-14
Problems
Origins - Section Four: Remaining
Methods and Decay Rates
Origins - Section Four: Radiometric
Conclusions, Other Methods
Origins - Section Five: Overall
Conclusions, Closing Editorial
Origins - Section Five: List
of Evidences Table
Origins Debate Figures and
Illustrations
Evolution
on the Origin of Species: Double-Checking the Math
Not
only does the combination of improbable factors demonstrate
the untenable nature of new species originating by beneficial
mutation, but we can also use take the numbers generated by
evolutionary scientists themselves to see whether or not the
mechanism of beneficial mutation is valid. Specifically, we
want to answer the question of whether or not beneficial mutation
is capable of generating the existing number of species (kinds
of organisms) within the timescale allotted by evolutionary
theory.
As
we begin, it is important to note for reference that genes
come in complimentary pairs, one on each chromosome in a chromosome
pair. These complimentary genes are called alleles. Conversely,
an allele is simply another term for an individual gene. And
each allele codes for either the same or a different version
of the trait that both genes control, such as “smooth”
or “wrinkled” surface texture in peas.
“Allele
– 1: any of the alternative forms of a gene that may occur at a given
locus
2:
either of a pair of alternative Mendelian characters (as smooth and wrinkled seed in the pea).” – Merriam-Webster’s
Collegiate Dictionary
According
to evolutionary sources, for just 1 new, mutated allele, just
1 mutation, to become present in even 1 percent of a population
would take between 2,000-10,000 generations depending upon
how prominent the original gene was in the population before
it mutated.
“Evolution,
Dynamics of genetic change, Processes of gene frequency change
Mutation
– The allelic variations that make evolution possible
are generated by the process of mutation; but new mutations
change gene frequencies very slowly, since mutation rates
are low. Assume that the gene allele A 1 mutates to allele A 2 at a rate m per generation,
and that at a given time the frequency of A 1 is p…If the mutation rate is 10 [to a
power of -5] (1 in 100,000) per gene per generation, about 2,000 generations will be required to change the frequency of
A 1 from 0.50 to 0.49 and about 10,000 generations to change
it from 0.10 to 0.09.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica
2004 Deluxe Edition
Notice
5 points from the quote above.
First,
notice that the term “frequency” refers to the
amount or percentage of a population that carries a particular
allele.
Second,
notice that these estimates are based upon the lowest end
of the range for mutation rates in gametes. The estimates
use 1 out of 100,000 rather than the much slower 1 out of
1,000,000 or even the lower rate among unicellular organisms.
“Evolution,
The process of evolution, Evolution as a genetic function,
The origin of genetic variation: mutations, Gene mutations
– Mutation rates have been
measured in a great variety of organisms, mostly for mutants
that exhibit conspicuous effects. Mutation
rates are generally lower in bacteria and other microorganisms
than in more complex species. In
humans and other multicellular organisms, the rate typically
ranges from about one per 100,000 to one per 1,000,000 gametes.”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
Third,
notice that A1 is the original allele and A2 is the new, mutant
form of that allele. If A1 was only present in one-half (0.5)
of the population to begin with, then it will take 2,000 generations
for A2 to cause a shift in the amount of A1 in the population.
And if A1 was only present in one-tenth (0.1) of the population
to begin with, then it will take 10,000 generations for A2
to cause a shift in the amount of A1 in the population.
Fourth,
notice that the decreasing shift described in A1’s frequency
among the population is only 1 percent. In the case where
50 percent of the population starts with A1, it will take
2,000 generations for A1 to decrease in frequency from 0.50
to 0.49, which is just 1 percent. In the case where 10 percent
of the population starts with A1, it will take 10,000 generations
for A1 to decrease from 0.10 to 0.09, which is also just 1
percent. Conversely, the loss of A1 in 1 percent of the population
is caused as A2 mutates from A1 taking A1’s place. Consequently,
the estimates of 2,000 and 10,000 generations are also the
amount of time it would take for the mutation, A2, to go from
zero to 1 percent of the population.
Fifth,
notice that the estimate does not indicate how many generations
before a new species is produced. Nor does it indicate how
many years it will take before a new species is produced.
The estimate above simply designates how many generations
it will take for a new mutation of a single gene to reach
1 percent of the population depending on what percentage of
the population already has the original allele before it mutates
and assuming that the same mutation occurs consistently in
every member of the population with the original allele in
every generation.
In
contrast, we want to use the numbers and formulas in Britannica’s
estimate as a basis for determining whether or not beneficial
mutation is capable of producing all the species that exist
today within the timescale allotted by evolutionary theory.
In order to accomplish this goal, we need to take a few preliminary
steps.
First,
we’ll need to compile a list of the factors that were
asserted by these common reference sources as relevant to
the rate of mutation and speciation. The first 2 factors can
be found in Britannica’s estimate.
1)
Mutation rate in the gametes.
2)
Starting frequency of original allele.
However,
Britannica was not attempting to estimate the number of species
that would be produced by beneficial mutation within a certain
number of years, but instead Britannica was only attempting
to present how slowly a mutation circulates throughout a population
in terms of generations. Consequently, Britannica’s
estimate only incorporated 2 factors: 1)
the rate of general mutations in the gametes and 2)
the frequency of the original allele among the population
before it mutates. But the sources we’ve already examined,
including Britannica, have asserted a number of other factors
that are directly relevant to the rate of speciation itself,
not just the rate and circulation of mutations calculated
by Britannica. In other words, once we begin to apply Britannica’s
estimates toward the goal of identifying the rate of speciation,
we need to include some factors that Britannica did not. The
first considerations for our equation involve the 2 factors,
which Britannica did include. Because of the way these 2 items
factor into the equation, we will cover them in reverse order.
Factor
A: The Initial Gene Frequency
Concerning
Britannica’s second factor, the starting frequency of
the original allele before it mutates, there are a few items
worth noting.
First,
whether Britannica chooses 50, 10, or any other percentage
of the population to start with, that percent is set according
to how many members of the population have the original allele
that is experiencing mutation. In other words, it is the number
of individuals which have the
critical allele that determines what the size of the starting
percentage is. Second, whether starting from 50 percent or
10 percent of the population, the end result in both cases is a 1 percent
portion of the population with the new mutation. Third,
because the original allele is the basis of the mutant allele,
this 1 percent is necessarily within
either the 50 or the 10 percent that had the original allele
and, therefore, served as the base group for the equation.
Fourth, although the calculation sought to determine how many
generations would be required before the mutation reached
1 percent of the population, Britannica could just as easily
have gone further to determine how many generations would
be required for the mutation to reach the full 50 percent
that had the original allele or the full 10 percent that had
the original allele. But instead, the amount of time required
to reach just 1 percent was chosen in order to emphasize Britannica’s
point concerning how long it takes for a mutant gene to become
distributed throughout a population. However, using Britannica’s
essential formula, we could just as easily start from just
1 percent of the population instead of 10 or 50 percent. And
we could likewise ask how many generations would be required
for the mutation to circulate throughout the entire 1 percent.
Britannica
can set their hypothetical starting group to any percentage
in order to demonstrate how different starting percentages
affect the number of generations. However, our calculation
cannot be as versatile. This is due to the fact that we are
attempting to inquire farther than Britannica. In order to
demonstrate the slow rate at which mutations rise in a population,
Britannica only needs to track how long it will take for
just 1 mutation to accumulate. However, our equation will
calculate the speed of speciation, a process which requires
the accumulation of multiple mutations, not just 1. And therefore,
our equation needs to have Britannica’s base process
repeat over and over again to represent the accumulation of
not just 1 but many mutations by the same members of a population.
The
reason for this is simple. The addition of other mutations
to members of the population outside that 1 percent, who do
not possess the previous mutation, will not produce the accumulation
of new genes necessary to bring about a new species. Just
as we saw that Britannica’s starting percentage had
to reflect the number of members with a particular critical
allele, our calculation must do the same. However, since
a species (or new kind of organism) is built by the accumulation
of multiple new (mutant) alleles, our starting percentage
is defined by the number of members that acquired the previous
mutation. And in Britannica’s calculation, the number
of individuals who have acquired the new mutation by the end
of the equation is 1 percent. Consequently, it will be a base
of 1 percent that we will have to start from, rather than
the base of 50 or 10 percent used for the purposes of an alternate,
more general demonstration by Britannica.
Here
our equation will follow Britannica’s model directly.
Just as the resulting 1 percent in Britannica’s equation
was within the starting 50 or 10 percent,
in the same way the resulting group that receives the next
mutation will be within the starting 1 percent.
And
just as Britannica could have calculated how many generations
it would have taken the new mutant to reach the entire 50 percent or the entire 10 percent, rather than just reaching
a level of 1 percent, our equation will track how many generations
it will take for the new mutant to permeate that entire 1 percent. In this way, we will be using Britannica’s
formula to track how many generations it will take a second
mutation to accumulate in the 1 percent of the population
that possesses the previous mutation.
And
there is an additional reason to use 1 percent: a low target
quantity, such as 1 percent, is favorable to evolutionary
theory. Effectively, in the equation, this percentage represents
the individual organisms from which the newly forming species
(or kind of organism) will emerge. The larger the percentage
that we require, the more generations it will take for mutations
to be accumulated and the longer the process of evolution
would require. By requiring only 1 percent, we not only start
with the exact percentage that results from Britannica’s
calculations already, but we give evolution the maximum amount
of time to occur. And so choosing a low target helps evolution
by requiring the least amount of time for a new species to
emerge.
Lastly,
it should be noted that 1 percent is simply a portion of the
population, not an exact numerical amount. This is the case
in Britannica’s original equation. In this way, it doesn’t
matter what the original size of the population is in terms
of actual numbers. No matter how large or how small the population
is, according to Britannica, it will still take 2,000 generations
for a normal allele in 50 percent of that population to change
to a mutated allele in just 1 percent and 10,000 generations
if the normal allele starts in only 10 percent of the population.
As such, our use of 1 percent is shown once again to be a
generous assumption in favor of evolution. Since no actual
numeric amounts are specified by Britannica or our equation,
1 percent truly is the lowest amount of the population we
can require a mutation to reach, which in turn will take the
shortest amount of time for mutations to accumulate toward
the formation of a new species.
With
these critical explanations out of the way, the essential
question arises. If Britannica calculates a 50 percent starting
gene frequency will require 2,000 generations and a 10 percent
starting gene frequency will require 10,000 generations, how
do we know how many generations a 1 percent starting frequency
will require?
The
answer comes by noticing a simple correspondence within Britannica’s
figures. It’s no secret that Britannica is trying to
demonstrate that the starting percentage directly affects
the number of generations required for the new mutation to
accumulate to 1 percent. In fact, if we look at Britannica’s
calculation, the number of generations increases and decreases
in direct proportion to any increase or decrease of the starting
percentage. If the starting percentage is divided by 5 from
50 percent down to 10 percent, the number of generations also
multiplies by a factor of 5, from 2,000 up to 10,000 generations.
Thus, it would seem very simply that by whatever number you
decrease the size of the starting percentage, the number of
generations multiplies by the same number. Consequently, by
moving the starting percentage from 10 percent down to 1 percent,
we would simply need to multiply
the number of generations by a factor of 10 as well. And
if we multiply Britannica’s 10,000 generations by a
factor of 10, the result is 100,000 generations. In other words, according to
Britannica’s basic formula, starting from 1 percent
of the population, it would take 100,000 generations for the
next mutation to fully accumulate in that same 1 percent.
Factor
B: The General Mutation Rate
Concerning
Britannica’s first factor, the mutation rate in the
gametes, we noted earlier that Britannica stipulated mutation
rates in multicellular organisms, such as animals, ranged
from 1 out of 100,000 to 1 out of 1,000,000 gametes.
“Evolution,
The process of evolution, Evolution as a genetic function,
The origin of genetic variation: mutations, Gene mutations
– Mutation rates have been
measured in a great variety of organisms, mostly for mutants
that exhibit conspicuous effects. Mutation
rates are generally lower in bacteria and other microorganisms
than in more complex species. In
humans and other multicellular organisms, the rate typically
ranges from about one per 100,000 to one per 1,000,000 gametes.”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
Then
Britannica chose the fastest rate from this range, 1 out of
100,000, as the basis of its estimates, which has the effect
of speeding up the timeframe for circulating a new, mutant
gene among the population.
“Evolution,
Dynamics of genetic change, Processes of gene frequency change
Mutation
– The allelic variations that make evolution possible
are generated by the process of mutation; but new mutations
change gene frequencies very slowly, since mutation rates
are low. Assume
that the gene allele
A 1 mutates to allele A 2 at a rate m per generation,
and that at a given time the frequency of A 1 is p…If
the mutation rate is 10 [to a power of -5] (1 in 100,000)
per gene per generation, about 2,000 generations will be required
to change the frequency of A 1 from 0.50 to 0.49 and about
10,000 generations to change it from 0.10 to 0.09…Changes
in gene frequencies due to mutation occur, therefore,
at even slower rates
than was suggested above, because forward and backward mutations
counteract each other.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica
2004 Deluxe Edition
To
be more in line with the full range of rates, we’ll
select a rate that is in the middle of the two extremes. Instead
of 1 out of 100,000 or 1 out of 1,000,000, we’ll use
1 out of 500,000, which is right in the middle of the two,
effectively the average rate of mutation. This decrease is
half of 1 order of magnitude. Ordinarily, a decrease of this
nature would probably affect the rest of the calculation exponentially.
Specifically, if mutation rates in the gametes were to change
from 1 out of 100,000 to a slower rate of 1 out of 500,000,
the result would probably be an exponential increase in number
of generations required to circulate the new gene. But leaving
aside the issue of exponential increase, one thing is certain.
If the rate is increase from 100,000 to 500,000, which is
an increase of 500 percent, the resulting number of generations
simply cannot decrease or remain the same, but must also increase
by at least 500 percent as well. And, in the effort to remain
favorable to evolutionary theory and to keep things easy to
follow, rather than adjusting for an exponential change, since
we simply multiplied the rate by 5 from 100,000 to 500,000,
we’ll simply multiply
the original estimate by a factor of 5.
Factor
A, described above, multiplied Britannica’s 10,000
generations (which was resulted from a starting based of 10
percent) by a factor of 10 to reflect a starting base of only
1 percent. The result
was 100,000 generations. Factor
B multiplies those 100,000 generations by a factor of
5 to reflect the moderate middle range of mutation rates rather
than the fastest end of the range, which is used in Britannica’s
calculations. The result is 500,000 generations.
This
addresses the issues concerning the 2 factors utilized in
Britannica’s equation to illustrate the slow speed at
which even 1 mutant allele accumulates in a population. However,
as noted earlier, the quotes in the previous segment outlines
several other factors that were not included in Britannica’s
estimates. We now turn our attention to those remaining factors.
Factor
C: “Backward” Mutation Slow Down
As
indicated previously, forward and backward mutations counteract
each other. Taking note of this and commenting on its original
calculations, Britannica states that “Changes in gene
frequencies due to mutation occur at even slower rates than
was suggested above.”
“Evolution,
Dynamics of genetic change, Processes of gene frequency change
Mutation
– The allelic variations that make evolution possible
are generated by the process of mutation; but new mutations
change gene frequencies very slowly, since mutation rates
are low. Assume
that the gene allele
A 1 mutates to allele A 2 at a rate m per generation,
and that at a given time the frequency of A 1 is p…If
the mutation rate is 10 [to a power of -5] (1 in 100,000)
per gene per generation, about
2,000 generations will be required to change the frequency
of A 1 from 0.50 to 0.49 and about 10,000 generations to change
it from 0.10 to 0.09…Changes in gene frequencies due
to mutation occur, therefore, at even slower rates than was suggested above, because forward and backward
mutations counteract each other.” – Encyclopaedia
Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
Once
again, we want to be more than fair and to, in fact, be favorable
to evolution concerning this factor. Consequently, we will
only assume a slight slow down in the process. Let’s
do a few examples to illustrate how this factor will affect
the equation.
If
we were to assume that the frequency of “backward”
mutation was so high that 1 out of every 2 mutations were
itself a backward mutation, reversing a previous mutation,
then each forward mutation would be restored to the original
gene, and the process of evolution would never occur. Consequently,
to make sure the calculation gives evolution a fair chance
of working, we’ll assume a lower rate of “backward”
mutations than 1 out of every 2 mutations.
For
illustration purposes, suppose we were to assume that the
frequency of “backward” mutations was 1 out of
every 3 mutations. Thus, 2 of the 3 mutations would be normal
“forward” mutations and the third would be “backward”
and would reverse 1 of the other 2 mutations. If the mutation
rate were 1 out of 100,000 gametes this would mean it would
take 300,000 mutations to produce just 1 forward mutation,
which could build toward the production of a new species.
This would allow the process of change by mutation to continue
forward but at a rate that is three times slower, effectively
one third of the original rate. As we can see, factoring this
into our equation would simply require multiplying the original
ratio of mutation by 3.
We
can learn more about the impact of this factor by decreasing
the frequency of “backward” mutations to a ratio
of 1 out of 4 rather than 1 out of 3. In this scenario, every
400,000 gametes would produce 4 mutations, of which 3 were
“forward” and 1 was a counteracting “backward”
mutation, which nullified one of the 3 “forward”
mutations. This would effectively result in 2 “un-reversed”
“forward” mutations every 400,000 gametes. This
mathematically reduces to a ratio of 1 out of 200,000 instead
of the 1 out of 100,000 rate that Britannica started with.
Consequently, a 1 out of 4 “backward” mutation
ratio would require multiplying our equation by a factor of
2. So, we can see that a “backward” mutation ratio
of 1 to 3 reduces the rate to one-third, or 33 percent, of
the original speed and a “backward” mutation ratio
of 1 out of 4 reduces the rate to one-half, or 50 percent,
of the original speed.
With
these patterns in mind, we can see the following. A “backward”
mutation ratio of 1
out of 6 results in 4 “un-reversed” forward
mutations for every 600,000 gametes. This reduces to 2 out
of 300,000 and eventually to 1 out of 150,000 gametes. Consequently,
we would simply need to multiply the original 1 out of 100,000
rate by a factor of 1.5, effectively two-thirds or 67 percent,
of the original speed. Likewise, a “backward”
mutation ratio of 1
out of 8 results in 6 “un-reversed” forward
mutations for every 800,000 gametes. This reduces to 3 out
of 400,000 and eventually to 1 out of 133,333 gametes. Consequently,
we would simply need to multiply the original 1 out of 100,000
rate by a factor of 1.33, effectively three-quarters, or 75
percent, of the original speed. And finally, if there were
only 1 “backward” mutation in every 10 mutations that would
result in 8 “un-reversed” forward mutations in
every 1,000,000 gametes. This reduces to 4 out of 500,000
gametes or 1 out of 125,000. And consequently, we would simply
need to multiply the original 1 out of 100,000 rate by a factor
of 1.25, effectively four-fifths, or 80 percent, of the original
speed.
But
again, we want to be generous to evolutionary theory and to
keep things simple. So, for the purposes of our equation,
we will assume a “backward” mutation ratio of
1 out of every 22 mutations, which results in 20 “un-reversed”
“forward” mutations for every 2,200,000 gametes.
This reduces to 10 out of 1,100,000 gametes and eventually
to 1 out of 110,000 gametes. Consequently, we simply need
to multiply the original 1 out of 100,000 rate by a factor
of 1.1, effectively ten-elevenths or 91 percent, of the original
speed. This is the ratio we will assume for “backward”
mutations. We will assume that 21 out of every 22 mutations
are “forward” mutations and only 1 is a counteracting
“backward” mutation. This slows down the process
only by less than 10 percent and requires us to multiply our
equation by a factor of 1.1.
Factor
A multiplied Britannica’s 10,000 generations (which
was resulted from a starting based of 10 percent) by a factor
of 10 to reflect a starting base of only 1 percent. The
result was 100,000 generations. Factor
B then multiplied those 100,000 generations by a factor
of 5 to reflect a mutation rate of “1 out of every 500,000
gametes,” which was right in the middle of the 1 out
of 100,000 to 1 out of 1,000,000 range asserted by Britannica.
The 1 out of 500,000 rate was much more moderate than the
extremely favorable 1 out of 100,000 rate selected by Britannica
from the absolute fastest end of the available range. The result was 500,000 generations. Factor C simply multiplies those 500,000 generations by 1.1 to reflect
a very small “slow-down” caused by counteracting
“backward” mutations. The
result is 550,000 generations, which is subsequently a
very small change to the overall product.
Factor
D: Beneficial Mutation Ratio
Britannica’s
original estimates operated as though all mutations produced
by the ratio of either 1 out of 100,000 or 1 out of 1,000,000
were beneficial mutations when in reality, those were simply
mutation rates for mutations in general, which as we have
seen are predominantly harmful, lethal, or negligible. We
know that Britannica’s equation was assuming that all
of the mutations were beneficial because Britannica’s
equation operated on the assumption that the same mutation
survived for 2,000 to 10,000 generations. Because they result
in no survival advantage, mutations that are either harmful,
lethal, or negligible are eliminated by natural selection
and do not last for thousands of generations.
“Evolution,
Causes of evolutionary change – Mutations occur regularly but are usually infrequent, and most of them produce unfavorable traits…In
most cases, such mutant genes are eliminated by natural selection
because most individuals that inherit them die before producing
any offspring.” – Worldbook, Contributor:
Alan R. Templeton, Ph.D., Rebstock Professor of Biology, Washington University.
Consequently,
only beneficial mutations, mutations that actually provided
a manifested advantage, survive natural selection to rise
in frequency.
“Gene
– The mutation
generally has little or no effect; when it does alter an organism,
the change is frequently lethal. A
beneficial mutation will rise in frequency within a population
until it becomes the norm.” – Encyclopaedia
Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Heredity,
Heredity and evolution, The gene in populations, The Hardy–Weinberg
principle – In 1908, Godfrey Harold Hardy and Wilhelm
Weinberg independently formulated a theorem that became the foundation of population genetics. According to the Hardy–Weinberg principle, two or more gene alleles
will have the same frequency in the gene pool generation after
generation, until some agent acts to change that frequency.”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Heredity
and evolution, Selection as an agent of change, Natural selection
and Darwinian fitness – Sexual
reproduction under simple (Mendelian) inheritance is a conservative
force that tends to maintain the genetic status quo in a population.
If a gene frequency is 1 percent in a population, it tends
to remain at 1 percent indefinitely unless some force acts
to change it. Outside of the laboratory, the most powerful force for changing gene
frequencies is natural selection.” – Encyclopaedia
Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Species
– Interbreeding
only within the species is of great importance for evolution
in that individuals of one species share a common gene pool that members
of other species do not. Within
a single pool there is always a certain amount of variation
among individuals, and those whose genetic variations
leave them at a disadvantage in a particular environment tend to be eliminated
in favour of those with advantageous variations. This process of natural selection results in the gene pool's evolving
in such a way that the advantageous variations become the
norm.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe
Edition
Therefore,
since Britannica’s equation operates on the assumption
that all mutations are beneficial, in order to properly calculate
the possibility of speciation occurring by beneficial mutation,
we need to factor into our equation how rare beneficial mutations
are in comparison to mutations in general. This is an only
an assumption and so we will err on the side of being favorable
to evolutionary theory. As a result, we’re going to
generously assume that at least 1 out of every 20 mutations
is beneficial. This
in turn requires us to multiply our equation by a factor of
20. Incidentally, it should be noted that here again we’re
favoring evolutionary theory by assuming beneficial mutations
are more frequent than backward mutations, to which we assigned
a ratio of 1 out of 22.
Factor
A multiplied Britannica’s 10,000 generations (which
was resulted from a starting based of 10 percent) by a factor
of 10 to reflect a starting base of only 1 percent. The
result was 100,000 generations. Factor
B then multiplied those 100,000 generations by a factor
of 5 to reflect a mutation rate of “1 out of every 500,000
gametes,” which was right in the middle of the 1 out
of 100,000 to 1 out of 1,000,000 range asserted by Britannica.
The 1 out of 500,000 rate was much more moderate than the
extremely favorable 1 out of 100,000 rate selected by Britannica
from the absolute fastest end of the available range. The result was 500,000 generations. Factor C multiplied those 500,000 generations by 1.1 to reflect
a very small “slow-down” caused by counteracting
“backward” mutations. The
result was 550,000 generations, which is subsequently
a very small change to the overall product. Factor
D multiplies those 550,000 generations by 20 to reflect
a hypothetical ratio between mutations in general and the
much rarer beneficial mutations needed for evolution. The
result is 11,000,000 (11 million) generations.
Factor
E: Environmental Considerations
Microsoft
Encarta denoted that mutated alleles are usually recessive,
which means that their traits are not expressed unless the
genes in the complimentary pair are both the mutant allele.
“Evolution,
XI MUTATIONS, A Gene Mutation – Mutations are usually recessive, and their harmful effects are not expressed
unless two of them are brought together into the homozygous
condition. This is most likely to occur as a result of
inbreeding, the mating of closely related
organisms that may have inherited the same recessive mutant
gene from a common ancestor.” – "Genetics,"
Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.
This
is important because, as stated earlier, if an organism only
has 1 mutant allele and the trait will not be expressed, then
there will be no resulting advantage and the trait will likely
be removed by natural selection. Even in the immediately preceding
segment describing Factor D, we noted that only mutations
that actually produce a benefit will survive natural selection
to rise in frequency from generation to generation. And even
further information on this point will be presented under
Factor F below.
However,
Britannica’s calculation operates on the assumption
that all mutations produced by the general mutation rates
will automatically survive long enough to last for 2,000 to
10,000 generations without being removed by natural selection.
Thus, Britannica’s calculation does not include this
factor at all. Even as indicated by the quote immediately
above, the only way that both complimentary alleles in an
organism could be the same mutation is if that mutation was
passed on in the individual gamete inherited by both parents
during reproduction. This is especially true since in our
equation we will focus on the animal kingdom as the focal
group of our calculation. And animals predominantly reproduce
by sexual reproduction, in which half of the alleles are received
from each parent during fertilization.
“Animal
– Primitive members
of all major taxa of animals reproduced sexually, and
virtually all animals still do at some time or another.”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
Consequently,
if the same mutation has to be present in both gametes that
participate in fertilization and the mutation rate in each
parent is 1 out of 100,000 normally we would have to multiply
100,000 x 100,000 to create the combined ratio of occurrence.
It is the same as if we had 2 coins and asked what the odds
were of getting heads-up on both coins. The odds of getting
heads-up on either coin individually are 1 out of 2. But when
the 2 coins are used together, there is only 1 chance in 4
that the coins will both come up heads. Consequently, the
ratio of 1 out of 2 is multiplied by itself to create a combined
ratio of 1 out of 4. Similarly, the odds of getting a 1 using
one six-sided dice are 1 out of 6. But the odds of getting
ones on 2 separate six-sided die is 1 out of 36. The “6”
in the ratio is multiplied by itself to create the new combined
ratio. In the same way, if the odds of 1 mutation in the gametes
are 1 out of 100,000, then the odds of getting the same mutation
in 2 gametes is 1 out of 100,000 x 100,000, or 1 out of 10,000,000,000.
Here we’re going to be so enormously favorable to evolutionary
theory that if there is somehow any unfairness in any of the
rest of our equation, this one factor is enough to more than
make up for it.
Rather
than assuming a ratio of 1 out of 10 billion for both gametes
to have the same mutation, which would require squaring our
current calculations, we’re instead simply going to
assume a ratio of 1 out of 4. This simple ratio reflects the
principles of a basic Punnett’s square. A Punnett’s
square is a means of arranging the 2 alleles from each parent
to display the ratio of the potential combinations of those
4 total alleles in the offspring. For illustration, Britannica
provides the following example using flowers in their article
on “Heredity” under the subheading “Basic
features of heredity.”
(Caption)
“Figure 1: Mendel's
law of segregation. From T. Dobzhansky, "Evolution,
Genetics, and Man (1955);" John Wiley and Sons, Inc.”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
Britannica
provides the following explanation of this diagram.
“Heredity,
Basic features of heredity, Early conceptions of heredity
– An example of one of Mendel's experiments will illustrate
how the genes are transmitted and in what particular ratios.
Let R stand for the gene for purple flowers and r for the
gene for white flowers (dominant genes are conventionally symbolized by capital letters and
recessive genes by small letters).” – Encyclopaedia
Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
For
our study, there are 4 features from this chart that are important.
First, notice that 2 separate generations are being depicted
here as indicated by the designations “F1” and
“F2.” Second, notice that although the plant is
self-pollinating, both a male and the female “parent”
is represented, which is designated by the male and female
symbols in the upper left hand corner of the diagram. Thus,
the situation is analogous to sexual reproduction involving
one male and one female parent in animals. Third, notice,
particularly from Britannica’s explanation that the
capital letter R represents dominant allele and the lowercase
“r” represents the recessive allele. And fourth,
notice that the female component, represented vertically on
the left-hand side by the designation “ovules”
and the male component, represented horizontally by the designation
“pollen” across the top, are both comprised of
one dominant allele and one recessive allele, which they are
potentially contributing to the offspring. As the results
of the square demonstrate, particularly the white flower in
the lower right-hand corner, when both parents contain one
dominant and one recessive allele, there is precisely a 1
in 4 chance that the offspring will contain both recessive
alleles.
This
translates directly to the assumption used in our equations,
except that in the case of the flowers, the dominant and recessive
alleles represented the specific trait of coloration, whereas
in our equation, the dominant allele represents any normal,
pre-mutated allele and the recessive allele represents the
recessive mutation. Consequently, applying this basic genetic
principle, if each parent has 1 mutant allele and one normal
allele, the Punnett’s square demonstrates a simple 1
in 4 chance of the offspring having both recessive, mutant
alleles.
(The
graphic below, Mutation Figure 1, is a Punnett’s square
depicting the distribution of recessive mutant alleles. In
the graphic, capital "A" designates the original, unmutated
allele and lowercase "a" designates the mutated form
of this allele.)
Consequently,
in order to keep the process as simple as possible as well
as remaining favorable to the prospects of evolutionary theory,
we will simply assume a ratio of 1 out of 4 to account for
the role that the recessive nature of mutations plays in the
likelihood of speciation by beneficial mutation. This will
also prevent discrediting our equation by including such an
astronomical factor as multiplying a ratio of 1 out of 100,000
gametes times itself, which would create an insurmountable
obstacle to evolutionary due to the resulting improbability
of 1 out of 10,000,000,000 (10 billion). So in short, we will
simply multiply our
equation by a factor of 4.
Factor
A multiplied Britannica’s 10,000 generations (which
was resulted from a starting based of 10 percent) by a factor
of 10 to reflect a starting base of only 1 percent. The
result was 100,000 generations. Factor
B then multiplied those 100,000 generations by a factor
of 5 to reflect a mutation rate of “1 out of every 500,000
gametes,” which was right in the middle of the 1 out
of 100,000 to 1 out of 1,000,000 range asserted by Britannica.
The 1 out of 500,000 rate was much more moderate than the
extremely favorable 1 out of 100,000 rate selected by Britannica
from the absolute fastest end of the available range. The result was 500,000 generations. Factor C multiplied those 500,000 generations by 1.1 to reflect
a very small “slow-down” caused by counteracting
“backward” mutations. The
result was 550,000 generations, which is subsequently
a very small change to the overall product. Factor
D multiplied those 550,000 generations by 20 to reflect
a hypothetical ratio between mutations in general and the
much rarer beneficial mutations needed for evolution. The
result was 11,000,000 (11 million) generations. Factor
E multiplies those 11,000,000 generations by a factor
of 4 to reflect the necessity for recessive mutations to be
present in both alleles rather than just 1 in order to avoid
elimination by natural selection in less than 2,000-10,000
generations. The result
is 44,000,000 (44 million) generations.
Factor
F: Recessive Limitations
As
we have seen earlier in this study, natural selection is a
process by which particular traits become advantageous when
there is a change in an organism’s environment. Evolutionary
and genetic theory assert that gene frequencies will remain
constant rather than shift unless there is a corresponding
change in environment that causes one of the alleles to suddenly
become more advantageous. Conversely, so long as alleles,
even mutant alleles, do not provide an advantage, they will
not rise in frequency at all.
“Heredity,
Heredity and evolution, The gene in populations, The Hardy–Weinberg
principle – In 1908, Godfrey Harold Hardy and Wilhelm
Weinberg independently formulated a theorem that became the foundation of population genetics. According to the Hardy–Weinberg principle, two or more gene alleles
will have the same frequency in the gene pool generation after
generation, until some agent acts to change that frequency.”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Heredity
and evolution, Selection as an agent of change, Natural selection
and Darwinian fitness – Sexual
reproduction under simple (Mendelian) inheritance is a conservative
force that tends to maintain the genetic status quo in a population.
If a gene frequency is 1 percent in a population, it tends
to remain at 1 percent indefinitely unless some force acts
to change it. Outside of the laboratory, the
most powerful force for changing gene frequencies is natural
selection.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004
Deluxe Edition
“Species
– Interbreeding
only within the species is of great importance for evolution
in that individuals of one species share a common gene pool that members
of other species do not. Within
a single pool there is always a certain amount of variation
among individuals, and those whose genetic variations
leave them at a disadvantage in a particular environment tend to be eliminated
in favour of those with advantageous variations. This process of natural selection results in the gene pool's evolving
in such a way that the advantageous variations become the
norm.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe
Edition
And
Microsoft Encarta specifically included the need for an accompanying
change in environment as a requirement if a beneficial mutation
was to actually promote fitness and, therefore, contribute
to the eventual origin of a new species (or new kind of organism).
“VI
SPECIATION – Because
all the established genes in a population have been monitored
for fitness by selection, newly arisen mutations are unlikely
to enhance fitness unless the environment changes so as to
favor the new gene activity, as in the gene for dark color
in the peppered moth. Novel
genes that cause large changes rarely promote fitness and
are usually lethal.” – "Evolution,"
Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.
Consequently,
if there is no accompanying change in environment, gene mutations
are forced by the constant work of natural selection into
1 of 2 categories. If there is no accompanying change in environment,
either the mutation will escape removal by natural selection
because it is a negligible mutation which does not produce
any “novel” or significant change at all to the
organism or if the mutation does produce a “novel”
and significant change to the organism, it will be a novel
change that does not promotes fitness, in which case natural
selection will eliminate it.
However,
changes in environment can include anything from a climatological
or ecological change to the organism’s current environment
to a portion of the population moving to a new location where
the environment is slightly different. Therefore, the chances
for a change of some kind are not as unlikely as one might
think. Nevertheless, given that gene mutations occur at times
that do not in any way consider or correspond to such environmental
changes, we’re going to assume that such environmental
changes only occur as often as half of the time when a related
mutation occurs.
“Evolution,
III DARWINIAN THEORY – The
basic rules of inheritance became known to science only
at the turn of the century, when
the earlier genetic work of Gregor Mendel came to light…The discovery was then made that inheritable changes in genes, termed
mutations, could
occur spontaneously and randomly without regard to the environment.”
– "Evolution," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia
99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Evolution,
The process of evolution, Evolution as a genetic function,
The origin of genetic variation: mutations, Gene mutations
– …mutations are random events with respect
to adaptation; that is, their occurrence is independent of any possible consequences.” – Encyclopaedia
Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
This
is effectively a 50-50 chance, which is a generous assumption
that favors evolution. And a fifty-fifty chance that a beneficial,
rather than harmful mutation will also be accompanied by a
change in the environment is quite favorable to evolution.
The optimistic nature of the fifty-fifty chance becomes even
more apparent when we consider the added necessity, not only
for a beneficial mutation to be accompanied by a change in
environment, but the need for there to be a correspondence
between the mutation and the environmental change. After all,
a beneficial mutation producing white fur in a usually snowy
environment will not contribute to the development of a new
species if the accompanying change in the environment is a
change involving greater warmth and the loss of most of the
snowfall. From this example, we can see that simply having
a beneficial mutation and an accompanying change to the environment
will not suffice for evolutionary purposes unless the mutation
and the environmental change correspond to one another in
some way. Such correspondence between the two further adds
to the improbability of the required scenario. And in this
light, we can see that a fifty-fifty probability for this
factor is indeed quite generous.
Furthermore,
anything greater than a 50-50 chance would start to require
a relationship in which mutations actually do occur not randomly,
spontaneously, or independently but with regard for the consequences in a particular environment. As
indicated by the quotes above, evolutionary science rejects
any non-random, non-spontaneous version of mutation, any version
of mutation in which the mutation occurs with regard for the
effect in a particular environment, because it inherently
involves mutation that entails tailoring toward anticipated,
beneficial consequences in the environment, which is synonymous
with foresight and teleology. In other words, because of the
improbabilities inherent to chance events such as mutations,
the suggestion of mutations occurring suddenly at the most
ideal and convenient times just when an environmental change
also happens to occur and providing the exact mutation that
is perfectly functional and is suitably adapted to that new
environment has strong indications toward foresight and teleology.
Consequently, because a chance greater than fifty-fifty starts
to entail foresight and evolution must avoid foresight, we
will assume simply a fifty-fifty, or 1 out of 2, probability
for this factor.
While
Britannica’s estimates do not take this factor into
account at all, in order to account for the required accompanying
change in environment, we will need to
multiply our equation by a factor of 2, to reflect the
favorable 50-50 chance we’ve assigned to this event.
Factor
A multiplied Britannica’s 10,000 generations (which
was resulted from a starting based of 10 percent) by a factor
of 10 to reflect a starting base of only 1 percent. The
result was 100,000 generations. Factor
B then multiplied those 100,000 generations by a factor
of 5 to reflect a mutation rate of “1 out of every 500,000
gametes,” which was right in the middle of the 1 out
of 100,000 to 1 out of 1,000,000 range asserted by Britannica.
The 1 out of 500,000 rate was much more moderate than the
extremely favorable 1 out of 100,000 rate selected by Britannica
from the absolute fastest end of the available range. The result was 500,000 generations. Factor C multiplied those 500,000 generations by 1.1 to reflect
a very small “slow-down” caused by counteracting
“backward” mutations. The
result was 550,000 generations, which is subsequently
a very small change to the overall product. Factor
D multiplied those 550,000 generations by 20 to reflect
a hypothetical ratio between mutations in general and the
much rarer beneficial mutations needed for evolution. The
result was 11,000,000 (11 million) generations. Factor
E multiplied those 11,000,000 generations by a factor
of 4 to reflect the necessity for recessive mutations to be
present in both alleles rather than just 1 in order to avoid
elimination by natural selection in less than 2,000-10,000
generations. The result
was 44,000,000 (44 million) generations. Factor F multiplies those 44,000,000 generations by 2. And the result is 88,000,000 (88 million) generations.
Factor
G: New Species Threshold
As
indicated earlier, Britannica’s calculations are not
designed to determine whether or not a sufficient number of
beneficial mutations could occur in order to produce the current
number of species on earth in the timeframe allotted by evolutionary
theory. Consequently, it simply was not necessary for Britannica
to include the following factor. However, in order to determine
if beneficial mutation is a viable method for producing all
the species on the planet today, our equation will need a
factor that represents how many new genes are required before
a new species is produced.
For
a comparative reference for this factor, we notice that Britannica
states human beings have 30,000-40,000 genes.
“Human
Genome Project – February 2001 declared that the human genome actually contains only about 30,000 to 40,000 genes,
much fewer than originally thought.” – Encyclopaedia
Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
Similarly,
in the quote below, Discover magazine asserts that both humans and chimps have between
20,000 and 30,000 genes. Since according to these 2 quotes,
20,000 is the low end and 40,000 is the high end of the range,
to be fair we’ll go with the middle number of 30,000,
which is asserted by both sources. Likewise, notice that both
quotes below assert that the gene code of humans and chimps
are 98 percent the same, leaving only a 2 percent difference.
“Now
that scientists have decoded the chimpanzee
genome, we know that 98 percent of our DNA is the same…Human
and chimps each have somewhere between 20,000 and 30,000 genes,
so there are likely to be nucleotide differences in every
single gene.” – “The 2 Percent Difference,”
by Robert Sapolsky, DISCOVER, April 2006
“Chimpanzee,
Taxonomy – Genetic analysis suggest that humans and chimps diverged four million to eight million years ago
and that at least 98 percent of the human and chimpanzee genomes
are identical.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica
2004 Deluxe Edition
Notice
also that according to the Britannica quote above, humans
and chimps “diverged” four million years ago,
a statement which indicates the common ancestry of the two
groups according to evolutionary theory.
This
is important because the question arises, if humans and chimps
diverged as species and presently only have 2 percent genetic
difference, how much genetic difference was required before
the 2 groups actually constituted separate species? In other
words, exactly how many new, different genes does it take
to produce a new species? If, in the case of humans and chimpanzees,
it requires 2 percent difference before a separate species
can be said to “diverge” then 2 percent of 30,000
genes is 600 genes. The more new genes have to come about
by mutation, more time that evolution is going to require.
So again, to be more than favorable to evolutionary theory,
we want to assume a relatively low number. Consequently, we’ll
cut the number down to only 30 new alleles, which is just
one-tenth of 1 percent of all the genes in the human and chimp
genomes. In other words, we are assuming that a new species
(or new kind of organism) arises when they acquire less than
a 1 percent difference in genetic material from their originating
species. Likewise, this small figure should also account for
the variety of genome sizes present in the animal kingdom
and hopefully represent a number that is reasonably average.
This
consideration means that in order for a new species to emerge,
30 beneficial mutations will have to accumulate according
to the processes described above. As such, we will need to
multiply our equation
by a factor of 30 to represent the recurrence of the entire
process 30 times, once for each new allele acquired along
the road to a new species.
Factor
A multiplied Britannica’s 10,000 generations (which
was resulted from a starting based of 10 percent) by a factor
of 10 to reflect a starting base of only 1 percent. The
result was 100,000 generations. Factor
B then multiplied those 100,000 generations by a factor
of 5 to reflect a mutation rate of “1 out of every 500,000
gametes,” which was right in the middle of the 1 out
of 100,000 to 1 out of 1,000,000 range asserted by Britannica.
The 1 out of 500,000 rate was much more moderate than the
extremely favorable 1 out of 100,000 rate selected by Britannica
from the absolute fastest end of the available range. The result was 500,000 generations. Factor C multiplied those 500,000 generations by 1.1 to reflect
a very small “slow-down” caused by counteracting
“backward” mutations. The
result was 550,000 generations, which is subsequently
a very small change to the overall product. Factor
D multiplied those 550,000 generations by 20 to reflect
a hypothetical ratio between mutations in general and the
much rarer beneficial mutations needed for evolution. The
result was 11,000,000 (11 million) generations. Factor
E multiplied those 11,000,000 generations by a factor
of 4 to reflect the necessity for recessive mutations to be
present in both alleles rather than just 1 in order to avoid
elimination by natural selection in less than 2,000-10,000
generations. The result
was 44,000,000 (44 million) generations. Factor F multiplied those 44,000,000 generations by 2. The result was 88,000,000 (88 million) generations.
Factor G multiplies
those 88,000,000 generations by 30 to reflect the need for
this process to repeat 1 time for every new allele acquired
on the road toward the emergence of a new species. The
result is 2,640,000,000 (2.640 billion) generations.
Factor
H: Generations per Year
There
is one last factor to include before our equation will be
complete. This factor also was not necessary to Britannica’s
equation since Britannica’s estimate was designed only
to reflect the number of generations, not the number of years,
required for 1 mutation to reach 1 percent of the population.
In contrast, because our calculation is designed to reflect
whether or not beneficial mutation could produce the current
amount of species on earth within evolution’s allotted
timeframe, we’ll need to convert generations to years.
Once again, on this last point, we want to make sure to be
generous and favorable to evolutionary theory. And we also
to take into account the diversity in the animal kingdom.
For these reasons, we will assume that the average time for
a generation is roughly 1 week, or one-fiftieth of a year.
In other words, we will assume that a generation passes and
a new generation arises to replace it once a week. Thus, since
we are assuming that 50 generations pass in 1 year, to convert
the number of generations in the equation to years, we will
simply need to divide
our equation by 50.
Factor
A multiplied Britannica’s 10,000 generations (which
was resulted from a starting based of 10 percent) by a factor
of 10 to reflect a starting base of only 1 percent. The
result was 100,000 generations. Factor
B then multiplied those 100,000 generations by a factor
of 5 to reflect a mutation rate of “1 out of every 500,000
gametes,” which was right in the middle of the 1 out
of 100,000 to 1 out of 1,000,000 range asserted by Britannica.
The 1 out of 500,000 rate was much more moderate than the
extremely favorable 1 out of 100,000 rate selected by Britannica
from the absolute fastest end of the available range. The result was 500,000 generations. Factor C multiplied those 500,000 generations by 1.1 to reflect
a very small “slow-down” caused by counteracting
“backward” mutations. The
result was 550,000 generations, which is subsequently
a very small change to the overall product. Factor
D multiplied those 550,000 generations by 20 to reflect
a hypothetical ratio between mutations in general and the
much rarer beneficial mutations needed for evolution. The
result was 11,000,000 (11 million) generations. Factor
E multiplied those 11,000,000 generations by a factor
of 4 to reflect the necessity for recessive mutations to be
present in both alleles rather than just 1 in order to avoid
elimination by natural selection in less than 2,000-10,000
generations. The result
was 44,000,000 (44 million) generations. Factor F multiplied those 44,000,000 generations by 2. The result was 88,000,000 (88 million) generations.
Factor G multiplied
those 88,000,000 generations by 30 to reflect the need for
this process to repeat 1 time for every new allele acquired
on the road toward the emergence of a new species. The
result was 2,640,000,000 (2.640 billion) generations. Factor H divides those 2,640,000,000 generations by 50 to reflect
a hypothetical average of 50 generations per year in the animal
kingdom. And the final result of the equation is
52,800,000 years.
In
other words, according to these favorable estimates for evolution,
it takes a little over 53 million years to accumulate enough
mutant alleles to produce a new species (or new kind of organism).
Just
for comparison, it should be noted that this figure of 50,000,000
years for speciation to occur by beneficial mutation is not
necessarily very far off from the number of years asserted
by evolutionary theory itself by 1 order of magnitude (which
is to say by a factor of 10), at least as far as gradual evolution
is concerned. (The difference between gradualism and punctuated
equilibrium in evolutionary theory will be discussed in a
later segment.) Evolutionary theory itself asserts that it
takes millions of years for speciation to occur, as indicated
by the example of humans and chimps, which are said to have
diverged 4 to 8 million years ago.
“Chimpanzee,
Taxonomy – Genetic analysis suggest that humans and chimps diverged four million to eight million years ago
and that at least 98 percent of the human and chimpanzee
genomes are identical.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica
2004 Deluxe Edition
Now,
we arrive at the point of comparison. We need to compare the
calculation of 52,800,000 years per speciation cycle to the
actual timeframe allotted for the origin of species by evolutionary
theory. As stated earlier, to accomplish this comparison we
will simply examine whether or not these rates would be sufficient
to bring about just the organisms in one single kingdom, the
animal kingdom. This is ideal because we know a great deal
about the animal kingdom, including a count of how many species
we’ve identified and the evolutionary timeframe for
the approximate origin of the first animals. Here again, even
in these figures, there will be room for additional favorable
assumptions to be granted on behalf of evolutionary theory.
Consequently,
the first step is to identify a target number of species and
the allotted timeframe in which they would have to be produced
by this process of beneficial mutation. According to Worldbook
Encyclopedia, the animal kingdom is the largest of the 5 kingdoms
of organisms and there are over 1 million species in the animal
kingdom alone.
“Classification,
Scientific, Groups in classification – The kingdom Animalia is the largest kingdom. It has more than 1 million
named species. These species include the organisms that
most people easily recognize as animals, such as human beings,
deer, fish, insects, and snails.” – Worldbook,
Contributor: Theodore J. Crovello, Ph.D., Professor of Biology
and Dean, Graduate Studies and Research, California
State University,
Los Angeles.
To
be favorable to evolutionary theory, we’re going to
assume only 1 million species need to be produced. However,
in reality, this number could be much higher since secular
sources currently estimate that there are anywhere from 10
to 30 million species that currently exist and are yet to
be identified or discovered.
“Evolution
– More than 2,000,000
existing species of plants and animals have been named and
described; many more remain to be discovered—from
10,000,000 to 30,000,000 according to some estimates…The virtually infinite variations on life
are the fruit of the evolutionary process.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
Of
that 10 to 30 million, if even one-tenth to one-fifth were
animals, then beneficial mutation would have to produce anywhere
from 2-3 million to 6 million species in the allotted timeframe
instead of just 1 million. To be even more realistic, since
the animal kingdom is the largest of the kingdoms, we would
expect that quite a large percent of the additional 10-30
million species to be animals, in which case beneficial mutation
would have to account for perhaps 15 to 20 million species.
And even this doesn’t factor in all of the extinct species
and requisite intermediary or transitional forms that are
not present today or in the fossil record. So, once again,
the number of 1 million is extremely generous to evolutionary
theory.
According
to evolutionary theory, animals have only existed on earth
since the Vendian time period of evolutionary history, which
spans from about 670 to 570 million years ago.
“Animals,
Evolution and paleontology, Appearance of animals –
Animals first appeared in the Vendian,
soft-bodied forms that left traces of their bodies in shallow-water
sediments.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe
Edition
“Animal,
Ecology and habitats, Evolution of ecological roles –
This was probably more common in the
Vendian (the last interval of the Precambrian, from 670 to
590 million years ago on certain geologic time scales).”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Period,
III PERIODS OF THE PROTEROZOIC EON – The Sinian Era is divided into two informal geologic periods-the
Sturtian Period (from 800 million to 610 million years before
present) and the Vendian Period (610 million to 570
million years before present).” – "Period,"
Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.
So,
the question is this: Can beneficial mutations produce over
1 million species of animals since the start of the Vendian
Period? Once again, here we’ll take the higher number
of 670 million years to be favorable to evolutionary theory
and allow the maximum amount of time for the 1 million species
of animals to come into being through beneficial mutation.
This leaves us with 1 final item to cover before performing
our calculation.
The
second step is to explain that the rate of speciation will
assume an exponential, rather than strictly linear, increase
in the number of species. In other words, this calculation
could be performed to determine how long it would take one
animal species to evolve and produce over 1 million animal
species on earth today. However, this would not be fair to
evolutionary theory. According to evolutionary theory, each
new species that evolves would itself undergo a process of
evolution. So, if you start with one species experiencing
evolution, in time another species will develop and then you
will have 2 species experiencing evolution simultaneously.
Thus, in time, both species will in turn produce 2 more species,
at which point there would be 4 species evolving, not just
1 species evolving in linear fashion. Consequently, the process
is exponential according to evolutionary model and so in order
to be fair our equation will also work exponentially.
(For
an explanation and illustration contrasting linear to exponential
speciation, please see Speciation
Figure 1.)
This
exponential effect should work dramatically in favor of evolutionary
theory because, working exponentially, it only takes 21 cycles
to go from 1 to 1 million. If you start with 1 and then multiply
by 2, the product is 2. From here multiplication becomes exponential.
The existing 2 each produce 1 more, resulting in 4. Then each
of the 4 produces 1 more, resulting in 8. Consequently, the
progression doubles every time, starting with 1 and then proceeding
upward to 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048,
4096, 8192, 16384, 32768, 65536, 131072, 262144, 524288, and
finally 1048576 (1,048,576). At the 21st “doubling”
the number breaches the barrier of 1 million. In other words,
in order to produce 1 million species from just 1 starting
species, the duration required for speciation would only have
to repeat 21 times. After 21 back to back speciation cycles,
over 1 million species would be produced from just a single
species.
At
last, we are ready to begin our calculation to “check
the numbers” and see if the origin of species by beneficial
mutation is mathematically feasible according to the probabilities
and factors outlined by evolutionary and secular sources.
In
order for beneficial mutations to be a viable mechanism for
the origin of species, it would need to be able to produce
over 1 million animal species in 670 million years or less
that according to evolutionary theory have occurred since
the emergence of the first animal.
According
to these favorable estimates, it would take 52,800,000 years
for just one cycle of speciation to occur. In fact, it’s
going to take 52,800,000 years for each new cycle of speciation. As we noted, factoring this equation
so that the number of species undergoing speciation is multiplied
exponentially every round, starting with 1 species as the
first cycle, it would only take 21 cycles of speciation in
order to go from that 1 lonely animal species to over a million.
But at 52,800,000 years for each speciation cycle, 21 cycles
simply will not occur in 670 million years.
In
670 million years, there would only be enough for 12.7 cycles
of speciation. To be favorable to evolution, we’ll round
up to 13. If we start with 1 animal species, after 670 million
years and 13 cycles of speciation there would only be 8,192
species, which is a long way short of the required 1 million
that we observe today. Even if we assume that there are as
many as 8 original animal species at the start of the process
and continue to calculate exponentially, after 670 million
years, there would still only be 65,536 species. In fact,
we could assume that there were as many as 64 original animal
species at the start of the process but after 670 million
years calculating exponentially we would only have 524,288
species, not the 1 million to perhaps tens of millions that
are said to exist on earth today.
Assuming
an average mutation rate of 1 out of 500,000, assuming only
1 in 22 mutations is a “backward” mutation, assuming
1 in 20 mutations is beneficial, assuming only 30 new genes
are required for a new species, assuming the accumulation
of mutations only has to occur in a portion as small as 1
percent or the population no matter what the size, assuming
that generations pass in one week’s time, and compounding
this process exponentially as new species are produced, there
simply isn’t enough time for beneficial mutation to
produce all the animal species that we observe today, let
alone the potentially tens of millions more that have yet
to be discovered or the intermediary forms and other species
that have become extinct.
Perhaps,
though, it might be suggested that these calculations and
results are close enough or that maybe if we adjusted the
numbers slightly the evolutionary model might be vindicated
as plausible. But we must remember that the numbers and rates
that we employed in our calculations were generously biased
in favor of the evolutionary model. Provided such generous,
numerical accommodations, we must conclude that if the evolutionary
model doesn’t work under these terms, then it doesn’t
work at all. And, if we were, in fact, to adjust our figures
in order to more closely reflect the actual probabilities
and rates, the result would be even more decisively damaging
to the viability of evolutionary theory.
As
a result of this information and these critical factors asserted
by secular and evolutionist sources, we are left to conclude
that beneficial mutation is simply not a tenable mechanism
for causing the origination of new species. However, in addition
to the inadequacy of the explanatory mechanism of evolutionary
theory, we can also evaluate the validity of the evolutionary
origin of species by comparing it to the evidence of biological
history itself preserved in the form of the fossil record
itself. This brings us to our next segment of our expanded
commentary on evolutionary theory.