Evolutionists reluctantly admit most evolution is free of selection and therefore non-Darwinian (neutral evolution). When pressed, they’ll say neutral drift is real, but they don’t like it when the dots are connected in a way that demonstrates neutral evolution refutes Darwinism, that there is a contradiction between Dawkins’ vision and neutral evolution! The way Darwinists deal with this violation of the law of non-contradiction is to pretend no contradiction exists. They’ll obfuscate and fog the issue with myriad technical terms and irrelevancies so that the illusion of non-contradiction is protected from public view. Confusion and the illusion of some higher knowledge are their friends, clarity and education of the public are their enemies.
If Dawkins had been faithful to the facts, he wouldn’t have even written The Blind Watchmaker because population genetics precludes his vision of evolution from being reality in anything but his silly Weasel simulations.
There is a simple formula from Wiki that says the rate of new mutations is the rate at which new mutations become features of every member of the population (a process called fixation).
The population size is N and the Greek symbol μ (mu) is the mutation rate.
It stands to reason a slightly deleterious mutation is almost neutral, hence, approximately speaking the rate that slightly deleterious mutations become part of every member of the population is on the same order of the slightly deleterious mutation rate. That means if every human is getting 100 dysfunctional mutation per generation, about 100 dysfunctional mutations are getting irreversibly infused into humans every generation (a ratchet so to speak).
But as bad as that is, it’s actually worse in reality. Remember broken bacterial parts in anti-biotic resistance, or blindness in cave fish, or sickle cell anemia? Those are “beneficial” (in the Darwinian sense) mutations, but destructive in the functional sense. So it is actually generous the creationists are modeling the dysfunctional mutations as slightly deleterious (whereas a fair argument might actually model some of the dysfunctional mutations as “beneficial”). So the creationists are cutting Darwinists a lot of slack, and yet, even then the dysfunctional mutations will get fixed (become members of all individuals) in a population! Not to mention, lots of bad may get purged from a population only to get replaced with new generations of bad.
[ See my derivation with the Poisson distribution in Death of the Fittest to see how the bad that is purged is replaced with more bad in addition to the ratcheted mutations that never get purged! With respect to neutral evolution, I gave a little more background on this complex topic here: Most evolution is free of selection, therefore Darwinism must be false.]
But obvious math is something Darwinism hates dealing with! The above equation should be painful evidence against evolution being some process of increasing complexity from a primordial virus to incredible minds like Newton or Einstein. Darwinist won’t come to terms with it, they won’t come to terms with even a computer simulation based on population genetic models. Oh well! But anyway, Christopher Rupe and John Sanford will be presenting the results of a computer simulation that illustrates the above equation. It’s sort of like beating a dead horse or beating living puppies. It’s not very sporting, but Darwinists keep propping up that dead horse for creationists to keep beating.
Here is the presentation that will be made August 6, 2013. The link below to the 2013 International Creation Conference (ICC) can be followed for more details:
Using Numerical Simulation to Better Understand Fixation Rates, and Establishment of a New Principle – “Haldane’s Ratchet”
Christopher L. Rupe and John C. Sanford
In 1957, Haldane first described a fundamental problem with evolutionary theory. This problem eventually became widely known as “Haldane’s Dilemma”. The essence of this problem is that even given a steady supply of beneficial mutations plus deep time, the rate that such mutations reach fixation is too slow to achieve meaningful evolution. After more than 50 years, this fundamental problem remains unresolved. ReMine has gone far beyond Haldane’s original mathematical analysis, and has developed “cost theory analysis” which strongly supports Haldane’s thesis. Here we examine this long-standing problem using an entirely different approach. We employ advanced numerical simulation of the mutation/selection process to empirically measure the fixation rates of beneficial, neutral, and deleterious mutations. We do this employing both realistic and optimized population parameters. In our numerical simulations, each new mutation is tracked through time until it is either lost due to drift or becomes fixed in the population.
We first confirm that our numerical simulations correctly tallying the fixation of neutral mutations. We show that neutral mutations go to fixation just as predicted by conventional theory (i.e., over deep time the fixation rate approached the gametic mutation rate). We also show that the reason the vast majority of neutral mutant alleles fail to go to fixation, is because they lost due to drift, and this rate of loss rapidly approached 100% as population size is increased.
We then show that given realistic distributions of mutation fitness affects, the vast majority of all mutations (including deleterious and beneficial mutations), are similarly lost due to random drift. In terms of fixations, deleterious mutations went to fixation only slightly slower, while beneficial mutations went to fixation only slightly faster, than neutral mutations.
We then perform large-scale experiments to examine the feasibility of the ape-to-man scenario over a six million year period. We analyze neutral and beneficial fixations separately (realistic rates of deleterious mutations could not be studied in deep time due to extinction). Using realistic parameter settings we only observe a few hundred selection-induced beneficial fixations after 300,000 generations (6 million years). Even when using highly optimal parameter settings (i.e., favorable for fixation of beneficials), we only see a few thousand selection-induced fixations. This is significant because the ape-to-man scenario requires tens of millions of selective nucleotide substitutions in the human lineage.
Our empirically-determined rates of beneficial fixation are in general agreement with the fixation rate estimates derived by Haldane and ReMine using their mathematical analyses. We have therefore independently demonstrated that the findings of Haldane and ReMine are for the most part correct, and that the fundamental evolutionary problem historically known as “Haldane’s Dilemma” is very real.
Previous analyses have focused exclusively on beneficial mutations. When deleterious mutations were included in our simulations, using a realistic ratio of beneficial to deleterious mutation rate, deleterious fixations vastly outnumbered beneficial fixations. Because of this, the net effect of mutation fixation should clearly create a ratchet-type mechanism which should cause continuous loss of information and decline in the size of the functional genome. We name this phenomenon “Haldane’s Ratchet”.
UD readers are invited to come to the presentation!