Summary of Spetner's Not by Chance
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
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.