| | Point 1: The gain in resistance is nicely balanced by losses to the bacterium elsewhere -- slower metabolism, for one thing (known as a "fitness cost"). Just as in economics: there's no such thing as a free lunch. You gain something here; you lose something there. See this link:
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1365-2958.2002.03173.x
“Most chromosomal mutations that cause antibiotic resistance impose fitness costs on the bacteria . . .The resulting amino acid substitution (K42N) in ribosomal protein S12 causes an increased rate of ribosomal proofreading and, as a result, the rate of protein synthesis, bacterial growth and virulence are decreased.”
Point 2: in the continued absence of the antibiotic, the organism sometimes reverts back to its "pre-selected" state. In these cases, there's no net evolutionary gain. However, even in cases where the resistant bacterium persists in the absence of the antibiotic, there is still the "fitness cost" mentioned above to consider.
Darwin’s finches on the Galapagos Islands reverted back to their original “pre-selected” state. During the drought, finches with larger beaks – already existing as a minority in the population – predominated and became the majority. When the drought ended, finches with smaller beaks – the original pre-selected state – predominated and became the majority. Interesting, but hardly worth getting excited about as an example of speciation. Nothing new was created. The two varieties of finches -- big-beaked and small-beaked -- already co-existed in the population. The environment, or "natural selection", did nothing but change the proportions of these two varieties in the population relative to each other.
Genetics and molecular biology show that DNA has quaternary digital code along its spine. No material force – nothing that reduces to chemistry or physics – determines the order of bases. An “A” on one rung in no way prompts, let alone determines, an A, C, T, or G, above it – there’s no physical bond or connection. Yet the sequence is functionally meaningful to the ribosome, which uses the sequence of bases (via RNA) to make specific amino acids that are then assembled in linear fashion into proteins. Everything is specific – like text or computer code – and it is completely undetermined.
However, the fact that DNA base sequences are undetermined does not mean that they are random. The fact that the letters I am typing now are undetermined does not mean that they are random. “Undetermined”, here, means “does not need to sort through all the possible combinations to find one that is functional.”
Natural selection is in more trouble today than ever. Its empty tautological structure is now naked and apparent to anyone who cares to look at it and admit it. Philosopher Jerry Fodor has said
“In fact, an appreciable number of perfectly reasonable biologists are coming to think that the theory of natural selection can no longer be taken for granted….The ironic upshot is that at a time when the theory of natural selection has become an article of pop culture, it is faced with what may be the most serious challenge it has had so far.”
See London Review of Books article at:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/fodo01_.html
Fodor believes in evolution; he simply dismisses the idea that natural selection and adaptation had anything to do with it.
If chance governs evolution, then we can calculate the chances of a biological structure coming into existence. For example, here are the odds of a protein forming by chance:
A medium-length protein is composed of about 300 amino acids. The order of the amino acids is very specific; the protein can tolerate some variance in the order of acids but not a lot.
Since there are 20 amino acids necessary for life, the odds of the first correct amino acid appearing randomly and then getting selected are 1-in-20. The odds of the second correct amino acid appearing randomly and getting selected are also 1-in-20. The odds of those first two amino acids appearing randomly and getting selected – either one at a time, or simultaneously (it makes no difference) are 1/20 x 1/20 = 1/400. Since there are 300 amino acids that have to appear randomly and be “selected,” and since the choice of the first amino acid in no way determines the choice of the next amino acid, the total odds are 1/20^300, or 1 chance in 10^390.
It gets worse.
Between each amino acid there must be a peptide bond. Peptide bonds don’t have to form; there are other kinds of bonds that could form. In a protein 300 amino acids in length, the odds of forming peptide bonds between each amino acid are 1 in 2^299 = 1 chance in 10^90. Add this to the previous odds, and the total odds are 10^480.
It gets worse.
Each amino acid has two forms called “enantiomers” or “optical isomers”. Enantiomers are chemically identical, but mirror images of each other: one is a “left-hand” version of the molecule; the other is a “right-hand” version of it. The left-hand version – “laevo” – is the only kinds that living organisms use in building proteins. The right-hand version – “dextro” – is not used in protein synthesis. The total odds of forming a correct “L-amino acid” for each of the 300 amino acids on the protein chain are 1 in 2^300, or 1 in 10^90
The total odds for (i) 300 correct amino acids in the correct order; (ii) 299 correct peptide bonds; and (iii) 300 L-form of each amino acid, are:
1 chance in 10^(390+90+90) = 1 chance in 10^570.
According to the Big Bang theory, the universe is about 12 billion years old. This is about 10^17 seconds. You’ve got 10^17 seconds to sort through 10^570 possible combinations and find the correct one.
Look at the exponents – “17” vs “570” – and you’ll see that randomness couldn’t have had anything to do with the creation of proteins. The numbers prove that. As a matter of fact, in this particular example, it’s not just astronomically unlikely, but physically impossible: the required speed of the reactions necessary to cram in 10^570 combinations in a mere 10^17 seconds exceeds physical constraints. Lazy evolutionists are fond of reciting the mantra, "Sure it's unlikely; but, hey, we've got billions and billions of years! Anything can happen in billions and billions years!"
No it can't. "Billions and billions of years" are about 10^17 seconds, and that's not long enough to search randomly through large numbers of permutations.
We can add this as reason #3 for why Miss Rand remained agnostic toward Darwinian evolution: She didn’t believe in the kinds of mathematical miracles that are required by the theory (let alone often blithely assumed by it).
[PS: "Differential reproduction" is a long-winded term that means "Species A makes more babies than Species B", so it's just a fancy way of resorting to the same circular argument: "Species A is defined as fit because it leaves more offspring than Species B; the cause of Species A leaving more offspring than Species B is that it was fit. We'll give that fact a name: we'll call it 'differential reproduction'." Darwinists attach a number to it, called the "Selective Value" or "SV" which is stated as a percentage, and refers to the fraction by which the population of Species A exceeds that of the population norm. For example, a mutant whose average number of surviving offspring is 0.1% higher than the rest of the population has an SV of 0.1%, or 0.001. In plain English, it still means "Species A leaves more offspring than Species B." That's not a CAUSE of anything. It's a retroactive description of something that has already happened whose cause is still unknown. Big deal.]
|
|
