Consider the following claims:
Darwinism requires that the Fundamental Theorem [of Natural Selection] does not apply most of the time.
Walter ReMine
Biotic Message
and
a relative lack of natural selection may be the prerequisite for major evolutionary advance
Mae Wan Ho
Beyond neo-Darwinism
and
Concerning this theory [Darwinian evolution], I believe that we might question (or at least note) the following:
….
(10) The internal contradiction in its major theoretical cornerstone — Fisher’s fundamental theoremStanley Salthe
Analysis and critique of the concept of Natural Selection
and
many genomic features could not have emerged without a near-complete disengagement of the power of natural selection
Michael Lynch
opening, The Origins of Genome Architecture
Distinguished evolutionary biologist Michael Lynch recently published a much anticipated book, The Origins of Genome Architecture. Curiously, in this magnificent 494-page book, only an obligatory mention of the name of Charles Darwin was made. Darwin was mentioned passingly on 3 pages in the chapter entitled “GenomFart”.
It was also in this book Lynch demonstrated his great irritation with the advocates of Natural Selection (like Richard Dawkins). So great was his irritation that he gave the hard core Darwinists the ultimate insult, he likened them to ID proponents!
the uncritical acceptance of natural selection as an explanatory force for all aspects of biodiversity (without any direct evidence) is not much different than invoking an intelligent designer
Michael Lynch
The Origins of Genome Architecture, p 368
Why the disdain for Natural Selection? It follows beautifully from Fisher’s Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection.
Lynch is one of the world’s foremost experts in population genetics. Population genetics is the sort of anomalous discipline in biology that has a rich tradition of mathematics, and one that commands both respect and disdain. Lynch himself points this out, “It is well known that most biologists abhor all things mathematical…”
What sort of things do population geneticists do? They mathematically describe the evolution of populations. They quantify the amount of natural selection going on in a population. If natural selection is like the notion of force in physics, then it only makes sense to attempt to quantify how much or how little of this “force” must be in operation.
A central figure creating the ability to quantify and measure the amount of selection acting in a population is R.A. Fisher. Fisher was a first rate mathematician, and his work is celebrated in ID circles as it led to the formalization of the Explanatory Filter and other means of complexity analysis.
But in addition to the groundwork Fisher provided for design detection, he has provided much ammunition for ID proponents in the field of population genetics. Make no mistake, Fisher is a Darwinist, hailed by Stephen Gould as a “patron saint”, so the irony is that he continues to be an unwitting hero for the ID hypothesis.
If his Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection gave population geneticists the tools to measure the amount of natural selection in a population, what would happen if these sophisticated techniques demonstrated Natural Selection had to be next to non-existent for evolution to advance? Answer: Darwin’s theory would be formally disproved! And in fact that is the case, and it is only quietly acknowledged in the literature (as hinted by the quotations above).
How can we measure natural selection? Without going into the deep details, we conventionally assert selection exists if there has been a reduction in diversity in a population. For example, let’s say we have a population of fruit flies and apply a pesticide to the population such that only 1 in 1000 fruit flies survives. The diversity of the population is severely reduced, and we can assert the pesticide applies a very strong selection force on the population.
It’s actually a bit clumsy to use the fundamental theorem of natural selection to describe the strength of natural selection and the reduction of diversity. With some degree of gyration one can probably do it using Fisher’s Fundamental theorem. But the bottom line, according to Fisher’s fundamental theorem, as “fitness” increases, diversity must decrease! [I’ll save the technicalities in the notes below and comment section.]
As an aside, Fisher’s theorem was controversial and misunderstood until the Creationist George R. Price reformulated it. The new version of Fisher’s Fundamental Theorem by creationist George Price can be found at Wiki here.
The Wiki biography comments:
[Price] thus clarified Fisher’s fundamental theorem of natural selection, which had caused some controversy and misunderstanding. He believed that this equation had been a gift from God, a miracle after a religious experience.
And given that Fisher’s theorem essentially destroys any hope of Darwinism being true, I would have to agree with George Price, that Fisher’s Theorem and Price’s reformulation was a gift from God. After Price’s renounced Darwinism and became a creationist, he managed to publish his ideas in the prestigious scientific journal Nature in the article, and The Journal of Theoretical Biology. It is noteworthy he published in the prestigious journal Science on Science and the Supernatural.
In Death of Altruist we read:
Price made his final revisions to “The Logic of Animal Conflict” the following February. In a cover letter, he explained to Maynard Smith that he had made a few changes to accommodate his newfound belief in creationism. “I think I found wordings that you won’t object to, and that won’t shock Nature’s readers by making them suspect what I believe,”
Ah the irony of it all!
But let me return to the issue of Fisher’s Fundamental Theorem, and particularly Lynch and Salthe’s observations. Recall Lynch wrote:
the uncritical acceptance of natural selection as an explanatory force for all aspects of biodiversity (without any direct evidence) is not much different than invoking an intelligent designer
I highlighted the word “diversity” for a reason. How does fitness improve according to Fisher’s Fundamental Theorem or Price’s Equation? Answer: by reducing diversity.
If we presume that all life descended from a single species and diversified, how can we logically argue that diversification happens through a process of removing diversification! Some may invoke things like allopatric (geographic) speciation or sympatric speciation where mutant forms are isolated somehow from the parent population, but is this not essentially a means of protecting new species from the culling effects of natural selection? It’s surprising the illogic of Darwinian claims has not been readily apparent!
Consider for example the problems of evolving a 3-chambered heart to a 4-chambered heart. The IDEACenter website has a wonderful treatment of the problem. See: The Vertebrate Animal Heart: Unevolvable, whether Primitive or Complex.
If we have species with 3-chambered hearts, how can species with 4-chambered hearts evolve? Let’s say a creature with a 3-chambered heart gives birth to a creature with a 4-chambered heart. This of course would be a saltational miracle in light of the fact a LOT of associated plumbing and developmental pathways have to be in place to make this possible. If the plumbing is hooked up in the wrong way, death results, no reproduction, no evolution.
But even granting this miracle set of mutations can happen, what role can selection possibly play? It has to allow both changes to exist simultaneously. If selection for the 4-chambered heart overtakes the population, then the 3-chambered hearts are eliminated (which is definitely not the case since reptilian 3-chambered hearts still exist). If selection for the 3-chambered heart takes place, then 4-chambered hearts are eliminated (which is clearly not the case since mammalian 4-chambered hearts exist).
Of course, one will argue that the two kinds of heart architectures might fall in separate niche’s (either geographically or via other means) and thus we prevent competition between the 3-chambered and 4-chambered heart. But competition is at the heart of natural selection. Thus I’ve demonstrated that in order for natural selection work, we have to prevent natural selection from working!
One of course would object and say that such saltations from 3 to 4 chambers violates Darwinian gradualism. Fair enough, but one is still confronted with the same problem. Let’s say one part of the population has pre-cursors to 4-chambered hearts and the other part of the population does not. For the 4 chambered heart to evolve, selection pressure has to be non-existent on the pre-cursors, exactly in the spirit of what Mae Wan Ho asserted: “a relative lack of natural selection may be the prerequisite for major evolutionary advance”. And if one thinks of it, this is actually a more forceful statement of the problem posed by irreducible complexity. But I save development of that brainstorm for another day…:-)
This contradiction between Fisher’s Fundamental Theorem and Darwinism has not been lost upon those I quoted above, and it has not been lost on those who research molecular evolution. In the 1960’s and 70’s, a problem emerged in trying to reconcile the existence protein polymorphisms (another word for “diversity”) and the “fact” of natural selection. Heated debates ensued, but the molecular quants like Jukes, King, and Kimura prevailed in putting forward the idea of non-Darwinian evolution for molecular evolution. See: Non-Darwinian Evolution and Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution.
This fine tradition of “non-Darwinian” evolution has been quietly handed down and slowly extended to other domains of evolution, not just molecular. Lynch’s latest book is rich with Kimura’s math, and if one wishes to see the ID perspective on population genetics and Kimura’s math, I highly recommend Genetic Entropy by renowned Cornell geneticist John Sanford or Biotic Message by Walter ReMine.
And I close with this thought. Fisher’s Fundamental Theorem and its logical consequences cannot be properly taught in the School District of Dover Pennsylvania since Judge Jones ruled it unconstitutional to critically study the ideas of Charles Darwin. I’m grateful that the internet still provides a means for spreading the truth.
NOTES:
1. Walter ReMine has a wonderful exposition of Fisher’s fundamental theorem in his book Biotic Message. He explains Fisher’s Theorem by likening genotypes to bank accounts. Consider you have a portfolio of 2 bank accounts, one account starts with 10,000 earning 10% interest and the other starts with 10,000 at 5%.
The composite starting value of the portfolio is $20,000 with an instantaneous mean interest rate of 7.5% [ 7.5% = (10% + 5%) / 2].
However the mean interest rate of the portfolio will not be 7.5% forever, but will eventually move asymptotically toward 10% over time. The portfolio will thus become over-weighted and less diversified toward the more “fit” account bearing 10%. Fisher-Price describes the evolution toward an over-weighted portfolio.
How are interest rates related to the notion of selective fitness? This follows from Fisher’s Malthusian notion of fitness as is readily seen in this Wiki treatment Fitness
Wabs = N_after/N_before
Wabs = absolute fitness
N_after = number of individuals or money after selection
N_before = number of individuals before
For example, using the money analogy with an interest rate of 10% we can say a generational cycle is 1 year. Let
N_after = $11,000
N_before = $10,000
Wabs = 1.1 or a 10% increase
It can be see from the theorem it is a bit clumsy to actually apply it in terms of trying to analyze something like heart evolution, but I believe it is still correct, and I hope it suffices to at least get the discussion of these issues going.
2. I provided my take on Massimo Pigliucci’s review of Michael Lynch’s book in Michael Lynch: Darwinism is a caricature of evolutionary biology
3. To the formalists out there, I concede that reduction of diversity is formally only necessary, but not sufficient condition to assert the existence of selection since it is possible survival might be owing only to luck and not “fitness” as Raup pointed out in his book Bad Genes or Bad Luck! But Lewontin essentially pointed out (in Santa Fe Winter 2003) enforcement of this formalism would effectively discredit the concept of fitness and natural selection altogether! Kimura also shows the problem of distinguishing the effect of random walks from the effects of selection. Good luck often trumps good genes!!!!
4. A thriller movie actually W delta Z came out this year with Price’s equation as a central theme.
5. NAS member Masatoshi Nei is extending Kimura’s ideas to domains outside of molecular evolution. See: Prominent NAS member trashes neo-Darwinism