Haldanen dilemmasta

http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldanen_dilemma#Paljon_j.C3.A4lkel.C3.A4isi.C3.A4_saavat_lajit

"Hänen mukaansa käy niin että jos valintapaine ei pidä populaation kasvua kurissa, populaation kasvun pysäyttää kasvavasta yksilötiheydestä seuraava ympäristön kantokyvyn ylittyminen, jonka seurauksena parasiitti -infektio, ravinnon tai pesäpaikkojen puute surmaa yksilöitä satunnaisesti."

Maalaisjärel ajateltuna eriskummallinen lähtökohta. Miten niin sattumanvaraisesti? Virus saattaa tehdä rumaa jälkeä populaatiossa, mutta koko popuulaation surmaaminen? Suattaap tuo olla joskus tapahtunutkin, mutta immuunivasteen yksilölliset erot taatusti mahdollistavat osapopulaation, joka kykenee tuottaman tarvitttavia vasta-aineita.

Ravinnon puute? Olisiko eläinlaji kykeneväinen käyttämään jotain muuta, vaihtoehtoista ravinnonlähdettä? Tai ravinnon puute aiheuttaa populaation pienemisen, joko kuolemalla tai sillä että osapopulaatio lähtee etsimään ruokaa muualta?

Pesäpaikkojen puute? populaatiosta karsintuu ne jotka eivät saa omaa pesäpaikkaansa. Tai sitten eläimen poikastuotanto muuttuu jollaintapaa, muuttujia on uskomaton määrä.

Laainatakseni jurassic parkista lainattua legendaarista repliikkiä; elämä löytää keinot. Huomaa muute leffasta että ohjaaja sairastaa erästä neurologista sairautta, luovuus, visiointi eroaa senverran tavallisesta hollywood skeidasta. Spielbergin visiointi muistuttaa jollaintapaa Jules Verneä, mielestäni.

Tuossa linkistäsi pieni lainaus, se ei kylläkään ole evolutionistien kannalta kovinkaan mairittelevaa, mutta ei kaikkia voi aina miellyttää.

Jokatapauksessa seuraava lainaus kyseenalaistaa koko kehitysoppi prosessin ja vieläpä perustellen kaiken tieteellisesti hyväksytyllä tavalla...

Bond, James Bond said:

This still doesn’t solve your problem at the level of SNP to the genome. To prove evolution you would have to demonstrate that the genome has more than a slight flexiblity to random mutations.

Evolution’s most flaw, to being scientifically validated, is the absolute inability of any natural methods to account for the generation of meaningful information in the DNA. Naturalists always try to establish scientific validity for evolution by pointing to suggestive similarities while ignoring the foundational principle of science (genetic entropy) that contradicts their preconceived philosophical bias. For example, naturalists say that evolution is proven true when we look at the 98.8% similarity between certain segments of the DNA in a Chimpanzee and compare them with the same segments of DNA of a Human. Yet that similarity is not nearly good enough to be considered “conclusive” scientific proof. For starters, preliminary comparisons of the complete genome of chimps and the complete genome of man yield a similarity of only 85 to 90% (Ross; Creation as Science). Secondarily, at the protein level only 29% of genes code for the exact same amino acid sequences in chimps and humans (Nature, 2005). As well, our DNA is found to be 92% similar to mice as well as 92% similar to zebrafish (Simmons PhD., Billions of Missing Links). So does that make us 92% mouse or are we 92% zebrafish? Our DNA is 44% similar to a fruit fly; So are we therefore 44% fruit fly? Our DNA is 18% similar to the weed thale cress; So does that make us 18% thale cress? No, of course not!! This type of reasoning is simple minded in its approach and clearly flawed in establishing a solid scientific foundation on which to draw valid inferences from! Clearly, we must find if the DNA is flexible enough to accommodate any type of mutations happening to it in the first place. This one point of evidence, (The actual flexibility of DNA to any random mutations), must be firmly established, first and foremost, before we can draw any meaningful inferences from the genetic data we gather from organisms!! Fortunately we, through the miracle of science, can now establish this crucial point of DNA flexibility. The primary thing that is crushing to the evolutionary theory is this fact. Of the random mutations that do occur, and have manifested traits in organisms that can be measured, at least 999,999 out of 1,000,000 (99.9999%) of these mutations to the DNA have been found to produce traits in organisms that are harmful and/or to the life-form having the mutation (Gerrish and Lenski, 1998)! Professional evolutionary biologists are hard-pressed to cite even one clear-cut example of evolution through a beneficial mutation to DNA that would violate the principle of genetic entropy. Yet at the same time, the evidence for the detrimental nature of mutations is overwhelming for doctors have cited over 3500 mutational disorders (Dr. Gary Parker).

”It is entirely in line with the al nature of naturally occurring mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them to be detrimental to the organisms in its job of surviving and reproducing, just as changes ally introduced into any artificial mechanism are predominantly harmful to its useful operation” H.J. Muller (Received a Nobel Prize for his work on mutations to DNA) “But there is no evidence that DNA mutations can provide the sorts of variation needed for evolution… There is no evidence for beneficial mutations at the level of macroevolution, but there is also no evidence at the level of what is commonly regarded as microevolution.” Jonathan Wells (PhD. Molecular Biology)

Man has over 3 billion base pairs of DNA code. Even if there were just a 1% difference of DNA between monkeys and humans, that would still be 30 million base pairs of DNA difference. It is easily shown, mathematically, for it to be fantastically impossible for evolution to ever occur between monkeys and man, or monkeys and anything else for that matter. Since, it is an established fact that at least 999,999 in 1,000,000 of any mutations to DNA will be harmful and/or , then it is also an established fact that there is at least a 999,999^30,000,000 to one chance that the monkey will fail to reach man by evolutionary processes. The monkey will hit a end of harmful/fatal mutations that will kill him or severely mutilate him before him. The poor monkey barely even gets out of the evolutionary starting gate before he is crushed by blind chance. This would still be true even if the entire universe were populated with nothing but monkeys to begin with! This number (999,999^30,000,000), is fantastically impossible for any hypothetical beneficial mutation to ever overcome! Worse yet for the naturalists, mathematician William Dembski PhD. has worked out the foundational math that shows the mutation/natural selection scenario to be impossible EVEN IF the harmful/fatal rate for mutation to the DNA were only 50%. The naturalist stamps his feet again and says that symbiotic gene transfer, cross-breeding (yes they, desperately, suggested cross-breeding as a solution), gene duplication and multiplication of chromosomes, alternative splicing etc .. etc .. are the reasons for the changes in DNA between humans and apes. They say these things with utmost confidence without even batting an eye. Incredibly, this is done in spite of solid evidences testifying to the contrary. Indeed, even if a hypothetical beneficial mutation to the DNA ever did occur, it would be of absolutely no use for it would be swallowed in a vast ocean of slightly detrimental mutations that would be below the culling power of natural selection! “We see the apparent inability of mutations to truly contribute to the origin of new structures. The theory of gene duplication in its present form is unable to account for the origin of new genetic information” Ray Bohlin, (PhD. in molecular and cell biology)
Comment #121357 on July 1, 2007 7:01 PM | Quote
caligula said:

Vaikka Haldanen dilemma ei ole ollut koskaan ongelma evoluutioteorialle, nyt hävisivät viimeisetkin kreationistien argumentit siitä. Meidät erottaa viimeisestä yhteisestä kantamuodosta simpanssien kanssa korkeimmillaankin säätelygeenitkin mukaan lukien alle tuhat hyödyllistä mutaatiota. Tämä luku perustuu genomivertailuihin ihmisen, simpanssin ja makakien kanssa.

Tämä luku käsittää 154 uutta geeniä n.22 000:sta ja samalla prosenttiosuudella lopuista geeneistä saamme 238 hyödyllistä mutaatioita. Tämä on ilmeisen alakanttiin laskettu, koska se ei välttämättä ota huomioon heikon valintapaineen alaisia geenejä, mutta kun varmuusrajaksi kerrotaan tuo luku kahdella, tuskin yhtään geeniä jää huomioimatta. Tämä koski siis proteiineja koodaavia geenejä, mutta säätelygeeneissä havaittu hyödyllisten mutaatioiden määrä on noin sata ja sille voidaan asettaa samanlainen turvaraja, jolloin päädymme lukuun 960. Tämä on siis maksimimäärä hyödyllisiä mutaatioita, joka erottaa meidät tuosta kantamuodosta. Eromme simpansseihin on yli kaksinkertainen, koska niille on tullut enemmän hyödyllisiä mutaatioita.