Here you'll find free articles on the Creation/Evolution debate.
I have published some of my lectures on the Internet, and I offer them to everyone to print, free of charge.
Please copy them and distribute them.
See a sample lecture
SOURCE: W.J. ReMine "The Biotic Message", St Paul Science: Saint Paul (USA), 1993 p:208-236
For evolution to occur, 'old' genes must be replaced by 'new', more advanced genes. This replacement has to occur in the entire population of a species if it is to evolve into another species.
Individuals with new, rare genes have to completely replace all the members of the existing population for the new genes to take over. This replacement depends on the reproductive capacity of the species, and how well the new individuals survive.
Early this century, the advent of the science of population genetics was seen as the final corroborating proof of evolution. However, in the 1950's, an evolutionary geneticists by the name of John Haldane used population genetics to calculate the maximum rate that genetic change could take place. He took into account the costs that evolution places on a species, and the results of his calculations produced a dilemma for evolutionists that few people know about.
Let's follow Haldane's logic and see if it is theoretically possible for an ape to evolve into a human in 10 million years. The calculation below takes into account the costs that the species has to forego in its evolution when the 'less fit' die.
Like Haldane, the calculation uses average figures for the costs, and perfect conditions for evolution, so that the results are the most optimistic for the evolutionist.
Note: In genetics, a trait is a characteristic such as, longer wings, whiter fur, and shorter ears.
Data: Population size = 100,000
QUESTION 1: What is the average
Cost of Substitution in populations today? (The Cost of Substitution is
the ratio of survivors with new traits to those with the old trait who
are unfit and die.)
QUESTION 2: If a higher vertebrate
is to maintain its population size, what is its Reproductive Excess -
the number of excess individuals that it can afford to lose?
QUESTION 3: How long would it take
for one nucleotide to completely replace an old one?
QUESTION 4: How many nucleotides
could be replaced in the 10 million years of our example?
QUESTION 5: Therefore, how much
of the apes genetic material would be replaced in the 10 million years
of the example?
QUESTION 6: Is this enough change
to evolve a simian into a sapien, an ape into a human?
QUESTION 7: How long would it take
to evolve an ape into a human?
This scenario is based on perfect conditions for evolution. It does not take into account the factors which work against evolution.
QUESTION 8: What factors work against
QUESTION 9: Does gene dominance
affect the Cost of Substitution?
QUESTION 10: How long would it take to
change 10% of this genetic material?
QUESTION 11: How long would it take if
90% of the time was in stasis?
BUT.... (1) Apes are said to have evolved
into humans in 5 million years
Haldane has shown mathematically that there is a flaw in the theory of evolution. Using average data and perfect conditions for evolution, he has shown that there has not been enough time for evolution to have occurred - not even for human evolution.
Evolutionists have tried to deny, overlook, talk around, explain away, and discredit Haldane's work over the past 40 years, but they have not succeeded.
Generally, evolutionists have turned a blind-eye to Haldane's work. Most textbooks ignore it. For example:-
"A few years later [following Gould's proposal of his Punctuated Equilibrium theory], punctuationists made a subtle attempt to 'decouple' genetic evolution from morphological evolution, as though the two are not closely related. Possibly a geneticist had made them aware of Haldane's Dilemma, and the decoupling was suggested as a way to avoid amplifying the problem. If that is true, punctuationists have not actually said so. Haldane's Dilemma has remained the trade secret of evolutionary geneticists." (ReMine footnote #6 - p:210) [emphasis mine]
Few geneticists acknowledge it. For example:-
"Haldane's dilemma lay in the fact that the cost of evolution appeared to be so extremely high that to bring the cost within reasonable bounds, it appeared that the rate of evolution had to be inordinately low." (D.J. Merrell "Ecological Genetics", University of Minnesota Press, 1981 p:189) emphasis mine
References to Haldane's Work
J.B.S. Haldane, "The Cost of Natural Selection",
Journal of Genetics, Vol. 55, 1957 p:511-524
APPENDIX -Attacks against Haldane's Dilemma
Here is an example of such an attack on Haldane's work.
The Attack: "..... Haldane's calculations pertain to large populations, while rapid evolutionary changes happen most frequently in small populations." E. Mayr "The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution and Inheritance", The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1982 p:594
The Defence: "In small populations, harmful genes can rapidly replace beneficial genes, simply by chance. This is a common result of genetic drift and inbreeding in small populations. In small populations, scarce beneficial mutations are almost always eliminated." (ReMine p:220)
So, the number of substitutions per generation
(K) = 4Nsv = 6x10-3
The graph below shows that as the population gets smaller increasingly greater numbers of generations are needed for each gene substitution. eg 1,667 generations for a population of 1,000 individuals.
"Kimura and Ohta conclude that if the average
selection value of beneficial mutations is one tenth percent (s=0.001)
or less, then it is unlikely that K=1 [ie one substitution every generation]
is attained unless the population size is a million or more. (ReMine footnote