Читать книгу Critique of the Theory of Evolution - Walter Friedman - Страница 7

Some species have undergone considerable changes in genetic makeup after being subjected to changes in the environment. For example, indiscriminate use of penicillin caused mutations in certain types of bacteria; all of these changes are described in greater detail in medical literature. Biologists call such changes “microevolution” because they occur within a single species. Presumably, extreme cases of microevolution caused macroevolution.

Man-made microevolution definitely exists; but what about naturally occurring cases of microevolution? Do they exist? Darwin claimed that he observed a case of natural microevolution where the wingspan of a certain type of insect was changed due to a change in wind direction. Initially, the wind at the Galápagos Islands was blowing toward the shore, affording equal chance of survival to all members of the species. Then, as Darwin ascertains, undetermined climatic factors caused the wind to change direction for several years in a row, blowing toward the ocean and thus rendering the island more hospitable to those insects with a larger wingspan. Darwin’s claim, however, was never verified and the method of measurement that he employed was not disclosed in any of his books.

It would be helpful at this point to present one of many methodologies capable of determining whether an appreciable change in the wingspan has really occurred. As the reader knows, one or two measurements is not enough; a large number of observations is required to determine the average length of the wings before and after a change in the wind direction. What is a reasonably large number of observations? From a statistician’s point of view, ten thousand is a very good number. Of course, a larger number would provide even more reliable data, but a number as large as, say, one hundred thousand is not realistic because it would take forever to complete the experiment. Besides, an increase in precision is negligible when extremely large numbers are used.

Now that we have made, in our thought experiment, ten thousand measurements before the change in wind direction and ten thousand after, what would be the next step? We could compute the average lengths of the wings before and after the change in wind direction and compare them. This, however, is not a good idea—a distortion, or something that the statisticians call “bias,” can creep into the measurements. Bias could occur because not all coastal areas are equally represented in the sample, or because of a prevalence of one sex over the other, etc. In fact, there are a number of reasons, both known and unknown, that could cause such a bias.

Luckily, though, statisticians know how to eliminate such bias, so results are usually fairly objective. The following is one of the best methods of removing a bias: an integer number is assigned to each of the 10,000 insects with the numbers ranging from 1 to 10,000, then a table of random numbers is used to select insects from the group. We might end up with about 2,000 objects, but it is almost guaranteed that the selection is random. (You could gain more insight into the theory of random numbers if you consult a wonderful book on statistics, The Advanced Theory of Statistics by M. Kendall [vol. I is for beginners in the field; it contains all the data you may need on random numbers].)

Suppose that the average length of the wings before the change in wind direction is 2" and 5" after the change. In this case, you can say with absolute certainty that a change in the wind direction resulted in a change in the wingspan. But what if it was 2" before and 2¼" after? The difference is much smaller now, perhaps due to an error of measurement. Then again, the wind might have caused it as in the previous case. You are not so sure anymore. Luckily, there are statistical methods that allow you to determine with 95% certainty whether the difference in mean values is statistically significant or not.

Darwin did not use any statistical method; therefore, the validity of his conclusion is in question. But there is an even more troubling aspect of his story—there was no appreciable change in the wind direction in the region where he conducted observations. There is only one natural phenomenon, El Niño, that can cause long-term changes in wind direction, but geophysical data shows that the weather remained stable in the region where Darwin took his measurements.

There is only one possible explanation—Darwin committed scientific fraud. The history of scientific fraud is as old as science itself, so there is no surprise here.

As it stands now, naturally occurring microevolution is yet to be observed. As for the man-made microevolution, it occurred in an extremely small number of species—less than 1%—so no definitive conclusion about its effect on the commonality of species can be reached. Most likely, a vast majority of the species possesses a very rigid molecular structure that doesn’t allow for appreciable changes in molecular arrangements.

There is yet another way of looking at things. Let us try to transport the methodology that proponents of microevolution use to another branch of natural science, this time physics, and see what kind of conclusion it leads to.

This faulty methodology has been known for centuries. It could be described in short as an “assertion that an effect observed in a particular case actually takes place in all cases under investigation.”

It is a well-known fact that uranium decays into lead. These elements are situated next to each other in the periodic table. But if the decay process were extrapolated to all other elements, one would come to the conclusion that all elements transmigrate into their right-hand side neighbors. Of course, every physicist would say that this is rubbish. Evidently, the proponents of microevolution use totally unscientific methodology.

To sum it up, proponents of the evolutionary theory use the kind of methodology that no other branch of natural science would ever use, which makes their theory essentially pseudo-scientific crap.