ee Spetner received the Ph.D. degree evolution is not random, they mean only regulatory changes evolutionists in physics from MIT in 1950 and that natural selection produces a non- have suggested so far, insertions Ljoined the Applied Physics Labora- random result from the random genetic and inversions, are ways of turn- tory at Johns Hopkins University the fol- variation. ing existing genes OFF and ON. If lowing year. He spent most of his career they turn ON a regulatory gene, The second requirement of NDT is they can bring into play a complex doing research and development on in- that the random mutations which fuel it formation processing in electronic systems, must also, on average, add information to function or a whole system of and in teaching information and commu- the genome. If evolution built up the functions, but the information nication theory. In 1962 he accepted a year’s must already be in the genome. complexity of life, then it must also have fellowship in the Department of Biophysics built up the information underlying that at Johns Hopkins where he was to solve Most evolutionists, on the other hand, complexity. problems in the extraction of signal from hold that a large evolutionary change oc- noise in DNA electronmicrographs. During A minority of evolutionists say that curs through a long chain of small steps that fellowship, he learned much about macroevolutionary change is more often a (cumulative selection). They maintain that biology. single, large, random change than it is a the mutations in these small steps are chain of small ones. They say that large copying errors, which everyone agrees are Between 1964 and 1970, Dr. Spetner changes in phenotype come mainly from random. But, according to Spetner, the published several papers in the chance of getting the necessary professional literature dealing mutations is just too small if it’s with various aspects of evo- ‘Whoever thinks macroevolution can done through cumulative se- lutionary theory. His work lection. (See sidebar on page 5 appeared in Journal of Theo- be made by such mutations is like the for Spetner’s probabilistic retical Biology, Proceedings merchant who lost a little money on analysis.) 2nd International Congress an Biophysics, IEEE Transac- every sale but thought he could make Regarding the requirement tions on Information Theory, that the random mutations and Nature. He then returned it up on volume.” which fuel NDT must, on av- to his regular work, but he —Spetner, 1997 erage, add information to the continued to follow the de- genome, Spetner examines the examples of adaptive muta- velopments in molecular bi- mutations of regulatory genes, but Spet- ology and genetics. His vast reading on tions that are touted as prototypes of mac- ner rejects the notion that such genetic roevolution (resistance of bacteria to an- evolution has gained him a true command rearrangements can serve as the random of the subject. tibiotics, resistance of insects to pesticides, variation required by NDT. He does so for breeding of “quantitative traits,” and ad- The first three chapters of the book are two reasons: aptation of soil bacteria to new nutrients) introductory but important. Chapter 1 (1) There is good reason to be- and finds them all wanting. He explains provides some historical background, lieve that these complex genetic how none of these mutations adds new chapter 2 explains some essential facts rearrangements are not random. information or any new molecular capa- about biology, and chapter 3 describes the They seem to be deliberate acts bility. Instead, they all destroy information. neo-Darwinian theory of evolution. performed on behalf of the cell In a memorable line, he says, “Whoever The core of Dr. Lee Spetner’s chal- (or the organism) which involve thinks macroevolution can be made by such lenge to neo-Darwinian theory (NDT) is in special enzymes and structures. mutations is like the merchant who lost a chapters 4 and 5. He points out that evo- Insertions are made so they can little money on every sale but thought he lutionists have repeatedly stressed that be precisely removed, and in- could make it up on volume.” NDT is based on random genetic changes, versions are made so they can be Spetner points out there are several meaning changes which are not related to precisely reversed. examples of mutations that permit bacteria the needs of the organism, and not biased to live on a new nutrient and that seem to (2) The claim that evolution is toward adapting the organism to its envi- add a lot of information. In fact, some due to such mutations of regu- ronment. The question is not whether evo- experiments have shown the introduction latory genes does not account for lution is random but whether the genetic of an entirely new enzyme (as opposed to how information can build up in variation on which natural selection works the degradation of an existing one), and is random. When evolutionists say that the genome. The only kind of ...continued on page 7
July/August 1997 A Newsletter of the Creation Research Society 4 the population (1/500) is power. And this is only for convergence in a 1/300,000. For this to single species transition. For convergence of a happen 500 times in a complicated organ such as a wing or a kidney row, the number of steps or an eye, the probability would be much petner presents the following analysis estimated to be necessary to achieve a new smaller because one would need to allow for showing why the probability of getting species, the odds are 1/300,000 multiplied by many species and thus many thousands of S the needed mutations through cumula- itself 500 times. The odds against that hap- steps. tive selection is just too small. pening are about 3.6 X 10 to the 2738th power Evolutionists object to these calculations G. Ledyard Stebbins, one of the archi- to one, or the chance of its happening is about on the basis that many genotypes may lead to tects of NDT, has estimated that to evolve a 2.7 X 10 to the minus 2739th power. This is, the same phenotype, so the number of choices new species would require about 500 steps. of course, an essential impossibility. at each step (a million) is too high. But since For each of these steps, a mutant with a The evolutionist naturally counters that it genotype determines phenotype, freedom in positive selective value must appear and must is unreasonable to assume there is only ONE genotype choices must translate to some de- be lucky enough to survive and to eventually point mutation at each step that will have a gree into freedom in phenotype choices. If the take over the population. Since Stebbins is an positive selective value. If at each of the steps one million genotype choices at each of the expert in the field, and Spetner knows of no in the process there is more than ONE po- 500 steps of transition to a new species equate prominent evolutionist who disagrees with his tential adaptive mutation, then the odds for to only 10,000 phenotype choices, the total estimate, he accents this figure as a reasonable evolution improve accordingly. So Spetner number of branches in the 500 steps is still 10 typical value. investigates how many possible adaptive mu- to the 2000th power. The odds against coming Assuming that for each step there is only tations there must be at each step for evolution out at the same place twice would still be ONE point mutation (one specific base of one of a species to have a “reasonable” chance. essentially impossible. specific nucleotide) that has a positive selec- For evolution to have a one in a million Moreover, current research is showing tive value, the odds that this specific nucleo- chance (1 X 10 to the minus 6th power) of that phenotype convergence does imply tide base will randomly appear depends on producing a new species through 500 steps, genotype convergence. The genes controlling how may reproductions occur during each the odds that a specific change of a specific eye development in both insects and verte- step. Based on George Gaylord Simpson’s nucleotide will both occur during a step and brates have been identified, and they are 94% estimates regarding the allegedly well un- survive to take over the population must be identical. This makes convergence so im- derstood evolution of the horse, it can be 0.9727 for each step, or about 36 out of 37 (the probable that the authors of the study say the calculated that there are about 50 million probability of each step must be multiplied by consensus view that the vertebrate eye and the births during each evolutionary step. itself 500 times to reach the probability of all insect eye evolved independently “has to be The chance that a specific nucleotide will 500 steps occurring). For that to be true, for reconsidered.” Another recently found ex- mutate in one birth is known to be 1 in 10 to each step there must be 1,080,000 potential ample of convergence in the genotype in- the 10th power (Spetner did some of the copying errors with a positive selective value. volves the enzyme lysozyme in the cow and original work on this). So the chance this will In other words, only with that many possible langur monkey (to which Spetner devotes occur over 50 million births (50,000,000 X 10 adaptive mutations does one reach the nec- several pages). to the minus 10th power) is 1 in 200. But since essary probability (0.9727 or 36 out of 37) that The diversity that exists in potential there is a roughly equal chance that the base of at least one of the potential adaptive mutations recombinations of existing base sequences the nucleotide will change to any one of the will both occur and survive to take over the does not, as is sometimes claimed, avoid the other three bases (the four nucleotide bases are population. probability problem. Given that about 6,700 adenine, guanine, thymine, and cytosine), the But NDT can find no refuge here. If at of the approximately 100,000 genes of the odds of getting a specific change of a specific each of the 500 steps in the transition from one human genome come in two versions in the nucleotide is l/200 X l/3 = l/600 (i.e., one species to the next there are over one million same person (one of each member of a chance in 600). potential adaptive mutations, it would be es- chromosome pair), there are 10 to the 2017th Since such a mutation (a point mutation) sentially impossible for the same trait to ever power different possible combinations of is the smallest possible mutation, any selective evolve in two different species. The amount of genes. In order for one of these recombina- value it has must also be small. Simpson said freedom is just too great. Yet, evolutionists tions to yield a base sequence with a positive a “frequent [selective] value” of evolutionary claim this has happened repeatedly in what is selective value through the relatively tiny mutations is about 0.1%, meaning the mutant’s called convergent or parallel evolution. There number of recombinations that can actually be average number of surviving offspring is 0.1% are thousands of examples, but some of the achieved in an evolutionary step, a great many higher than the rest of the population. Sir more striking involve ultrasonic echolocation of the potential recombinations (10 to the Ronald Fisher, one of the world’s experts on systems, electrostatic imaging systems, elec- 1998th power, without considering the sur- the mathematics of evolution, showed the tric generators, visual systems, and the vival factor!) would have to be adaptive. If odds that a single mutation having a selective mammalian brain. that is the case, there is again no place for value of 0.1% will survive are 500 to 1 against For convergent / parallel evolution to convergent evolution. its survival (because most mutants, like most occur, two lines of descent would have to — Ashby L. Camp other members of a population, are wiped out make the same random choices at many of the by random effects). 500 steps of speciation. With one million So the chance that a specific change potential choices at each step, if only 100 of (base) of a specific nucleotide will both occur the 500 choices needed to be the same, the during a step (1/600) and survive to take over odds against it would be one in 10 to the 600th
July/August 1997 A Newsletter of the Creation Research Society 5 doubt it, because your religion (that in For additional information about the which you place your faith) is atheistic function of the appendix, and for the most evolution. thorough treatment of the entire subject of vestigial organs, the reader is referred to of an organ’s function (and ultimately One problem experienced by evolu- the CRS monograph by Bergman and disappearance of the organ itself) certainly tionists, such as yourself, is the mistaken Howe (1990). doesn’t fit this definition. notion that the appendix once had the function of the cecum (digestion of cellu- How do evolutionists know that the References lose). However, man and many herbivo- appendix is not, in fact, a nascent organ; Bird, W.R. 1989. The Origin of Species Revisited, rous mammals have both a cecum AND an Volume 2. Phiolosophical Library, New York. i.e., one that is just beginning to develop appendix. That the appendix does, indeed, Noble, Ian. 1997. School mural bugs young Chris- in humans? Or, perhaps monkeys, which have a function was noted by the prominent tians - Creationists uncomfortable with evolu- have no appendix, are more evolutionarily tionary art theme. North Shore News, North evolutionary paleontologist Romer (1970, advanced than lemurs, apes, and humans. Vancouver, B.C. Canada. (See
naturalism, The Blind Watchmaker. same number of birds were originally Spetner ends that chapter with another created; all the others derived from these. great line. He says, “The dust jacket of The book includes a 32-page appendix Dawkins’ book says, ‘There may be good which explains in more detail some of the reasons for belief in G_d, but the argu- recent experiments have shown that bacte- biological functions discussed in the book. ment from design is not one of them.’ I ria can mutate to produce new functions It ends with an 18-page section of refer- would put it differently: There may be when they are needed. BUT these mutations ences and a 10-page index of people and good reasons for being an atheist, but the were not point mutations. Rather, they subjects. appear to be mutations which are triggered neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is not I consider this book to be must reading for by environmental stimuli and which turn one of them.” those interested in the creation-evolution ON existing genes. In other words, they are Chapter 8 is an epilogue in which issue. not random and do not add information. He Spetner discusses the implications of the believes this kind of plasticity may be de- conclusion that evolution cannot be Ashby L. Camp has a J.D. degree from Duke Uni- versity School of Law and a M.Div. degree from signed into living creatures to allow them to random. Unlike NDT, which denies Harding University Graduate School of Religion. He exploit changing environments, a subject he creation, he says his nonrandom evolu- has studied the issue of origins for many years and is explores in chapter 7 under the title “the tionary hypothesis poses no contradiction the author of The Myth of Natural Origins: How nonrandom evolutionary hypothesis.” to creation. Rather, it is perfectly consis- Science Points to Divine Creation (Tempe, AZ: Ktisis Publishing, 1994). Information about his book is Chapter 6 is devoted to exposing the tent with the suggestion of Rabbi David available at: flaws in Richard Dawkins’ popular ode to Luria (in his commentary to the Midrash)
July/August 1997 A Newsletter of the Creation Research Society 7