Study in Nature shoots down three basic claims of evolutionary theory

No one is “forcing” God to do anything! That has to have been an ironic comment.

Like Christian physicists, Christian astronomers, and Christian meteorologists, evolutionary creationists have simply noted that there is strong agreement between:

(1) God’s self-revelation in the Bible as one who establishes order, and
(2) A creation that exhibits order that can be described in terms of math and the theories of physics, chemistry, and biology.

1 Like

Over 200 years ago, Laplace (relying on de Moivre’s earlier publications) showed that “randomness” can be mathematically described as a normal distribution with a mean and a standard deviation, and that it can be inferred from observations of a series of events. This means that a set of observations can be modeled as an orderly relationship (the mean) plus an error term (the standard deviation). This is why it is often referred to as Laplace’s “law of errors.”

Our friend T Aqua made no such assumption in his statement. He simply stated that there is a distance of 40 million differences between the two genomes.

Of course, biologists use that datum plus a bunch of others to do their work. Like all good scientists, biologists make Bayesian inferences from data and use the resulting theories to make predictions about future observations. For example, based on the observations of mutation rates + natural selection (embodied in the sub-discipline of population genetics), you can predict the expected similarities and divergences in the genomes of chimps and humans. And it turns out the observed similarities and divergences fit the expected patterns quite nicely.

@glipsnort - There’s a pretty good chance I have not explained your work as accurately or precisely as possible, so I invite you to clarify as needed. Thanks!

Chris Falter

1 Like

Randomness can be inferred from observations?!? Not happening! Show me!

Population genetics is not evolution. Mendel vs. Darwin. One you can test, the other you can’t because it’s just a magic story.

Because the model is a best fit to the similarities data (including DNA):

  1. Data explains Model.
  2. Model doesn’t explain Data.
  3. Model doesn’t explain Model.

Physics, chemistry, and biology - yes. Evolution - no (caveat: maybe, but for sure not as described - randomness, gradualism, unguided and purposeless selection, fitness, LUCA, arising).

Humans and chimps are both primates, so we are the same type of organism. All serious science demonstrates that we share a common ancestor, such as shared genetic markers like endogenous retroviruses. In fact, chimps share more DNA with humans than they do with any other living species.

They all occur randomly with respect to fitness, which is how random mutation has been defined since the 1940’s. The tendency for A’s to be substituted for G’s does not influence whether a mutation will be beneficial, neutral, or deleterious. Even if diet increases the mutation rate, all you are doing is increasing the random mutation rate. As an analogy, buying more lottery tickets does not make the lottery non-random. Just because the lottery numbers are limited to 1 to 50 does not stop it from being random. Just because lottery drawings are done at a set time each week does not change the fact that the lottery is random. The lottery is random because the numbers that are drawn are blind to the numbers on peoples’ tickets. In the same way, the processes that produce mutations are blind to the needs of the organism, so the mutations that are produced can be neutral, beneficial, or deleterious.

All of this was settled in the 1940’s and 50’s by Luria, Delbruck, and the Lederbergs. They were able to show that mutations conferring bacteriophage and antibiotic resistance occurred in the absence of antibiotics or bacteriophage. They OBSERVED that mutations were random with respect to fitness.

  1. We can observe that mutations are random with respect to fitness. A google search for “fluctuation assay” and “plate replica assay” will allow you to read all about the experiments that demonstrate random mutations done by the likes of Luria, Delbruck, and the Lederbergs. I discuss more about this in the post above this one. What we are saying is that needing a specific beneficial mutation does not increase the rate at which that beneficial mutation occurs. The processes that produce mutations are blind to what the organism needs in any given environment, and we can test that hypothesis in experiments.

  2. The fitness function is the change in allele ratios for a given allele. They are defined as departures from a Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. If you are going to deny the existence of natural selection, then you are going to have to ignore massive mountains of observations of natural selection in action.

  3. We can observe random mutations, natural selection, neutral drift, speciation, and inheritance of DNA, to name just a few. Those are all mechanisms of evolution.

We conclude evolution from massive mountains of observations, such as shared genetic markers like endogenous retroviruses. Beyond that, YEC’s are claiming that you can’t change the human genome at all without causing disease. Chimps have 40 million changes compared to the human genome, and they are doing just fine. Obviously, YEC’s are flat out wrong. Genomes can change, and they can change in ways that produce beneficial adaptations which means that mutations which change genomes can do the same.


The entire field of statistics is all about modeling random distributions. Things like Poisson distributions, regressions, and Student T-tests are all about comparing data to a random distribution. A Bio-Stats course would teach you a lot about how randomness is tested for.

You can test for common ancestry through phylogenetics. Namely, you can test for a correlation between molecular and morphological trees in animals. You can read more about It here:

In fact, there are 29 tests for evolution at that website.

1 Like

The BioLogos majority is following the evidence of how history did unfold. It is the creationists who force God to abide by their interpretation of the Bible.


Evolution is any change in population genetics. You are down and out for the count.

Hi @NonlinOrg - You posed the question to me, but @T_aquaticus answered it quite capably. I would add that:

(1) Laplace already showed this more than 200 years ago. You would do well to read his classic Théorie analytique des probabilités.

(2) Einstein received the Nobel not for his 1905 paper on relativity, but for his 1905 paper that applied statistical randomness to Brownian motion. I have also noted that Laplace applied a mathematical formulation of randomness (the normal distribution) to astronomy. In other words, biology is following the lead of other sciences in the applications of mathematical* randomness.

Grace and peace,
Chris Falter

  • As I noted in the other thread, mathematical randomness does not necessitate ontological randomness.
  1. Interesting. But no, this does not demonstrate “randomness” - it merely assumes it. Wikipedia: “Luria and Delbrück proposed that these results could be explained by the occurrence of a constant rate of random mutations”. This might help you understand:
  1. Wikipedia: “A fitness function is a particular type of objective function that is used to summarise, as a single figure of merit, how close a given design solution is to achieving the set aims.” Therefore, “no design” - “no fitness” contrary to evolution theory.

Who is guaranteeing the seven assumptions underlying Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium as follows?!?
organisms are diploid
only sexual reproduction occurs
generations are nonoverlapping
mating is random
population size is infinitely large
allele frequencies are equal in the sexes
there is no migration, mutation or selection

The only selection I know is done by intelligent organisms on themselves or on other organisms. Do you know any other? Selection never happens - it is an active effort of the living. Hence, no unguided, purposeless “natural selection” and no “mountains of evidence”.

  1. The only one truly verified from the list is “inheritance of DNA”. And that has nothing to do with evolution theory. Think Mendel vs. Darwin. “Speciation” is not even a thing if Neanderthal mated with humans.

Don’t know what YEC are saying. Once again, you are presupposing, not demonstrating evolution. We can only observe chimps and humans separate - no transition whatsoever. The fossil record might not have anything to do with either.

Thanks for your insightful comments.

Absolutely. But modeling is different than “inferred from observation”. Do you understand the difference? Theory vs. Observation.

And that means what to evolution? Why wouldn’t you expect the correlation in the absence of evolution? I would.

The model is a best fit to the similarities data (including DNA):

  1. Data explains Model.
  2. Model doesn’t explain Data.
  3. Model doesn’t explain Model.

None valid. We can discuss them individually if you prefer.

You make 2 unwarranted assumptions:

  1. speciation is a boundary rather than a gradient, and
  2. Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalis are separate species.

You have introduced no evidence for either of these assumptions. Your first assumption, in particular, does not square with the science of biology.

Really, you know how “history did unfold”? No doubt? No humility? Wow.

I do not force any interpretation of the Bible, and am not against evolution as a mechanism of creation. But these Darwinist concepts must go as illogical: randomness, gradualism, unguided and purposeless selection, fitness, LUCA, arising. See why:

What assumptions? Why don’t you explain what speciation is if a thing at all? Even Dawkins sees that species/speciation makes no sense. Are you disputing Dawkins? Remember you’re on the same side. :laughing:

I see no gradients in nature. Do you? Gradualism is a failed concept -

Wait, Darwin was an atheist? And he had minions? Can you cite sources?

The only person I have ever seen describe evolution, as you think it is, is you. If you could possibly provide a link or source to where you have seen any professional description of evolution using all of the concepts you just listed, I would be extremely interested.


Profoundly ignorant statement. Haven’t we already talked about the affect changes in policy had on the affect of fish size?

It was demonstrated in a laboratory and thus proving an example of the fitness function:

  1. 3 aquariums were set up, with the same number of randomly sized fish that were successful in reproduction in an aquarium environment.

  2. At regular intervals, a sample of fish were removed from each tank. Tank “A” would have removed the first “x” number of fish that were above a certain size threshold. Tank “B” would have removed the first “x” number of fish that were below a size threshold. And Tank “C” would have removed any sized fish until “x” were removed.

  3. After a significant time period, so that several generations of fish could be born and raised, it was shown that the tank where only the biggest fish were removed (which was to emulate some state laws that prohibited keeping fish that were too small - - thus leaving more small adults to reproduce the next generation) - - the average size of the fish, after several generations of this “selection”, was smaller than the tank where any size fish was removed. And dramatically smaller than the tank where only the smallest fish were removed.

We’ve talked about this before. And you obviously ignored the conclusion then, and you will probably ignore it again. And today it was explicitly explained to you why Entropy is not relevant to a planet basking in the incoming rays of the sun for 5 Billion years. But I think you will forget this lesson, too, in just a few days.

So I’m going to make a graphic that will help you remember these really important points:
A) If you have been orbiting a sun for 5 billion years, Entropy has nothing to do with Evolution.
B) Several aquarium experiments have proved natural selection… there’s nothing to say about it.

[ Be sure to click on the image to see how really small the surfer is; yes, I knew the image was photo-shopped when I found it. But I think it makes the necessary impression! ]

You’re illogical. Your example has nothing to do with my statement.

A. Darwin + his many minions - go read them yourself. I did.
B. Why don’t you explain it as you and your friends understand it?

You have profoundly misunderstood Dawkins. Let’s find out what he actually says about speciation:

Among sexually reproducing species, speciation is said to have occurred when the two gene pools have separated so far that they can no longer interbreed. Speciation begins by accident. When separation has reached the stage where there is no interbreeding even without a geographical barrier, we have the origin of a new species.

No and yes:

(1) No in the sense that if we humans somehow had the ability to zoom in as close as Planck space/time to everything in biology (or physics), we would be able to quantize every structure and event.

(2) Yes in the sense that–given we are not remotely close to being able to observe at Planck scale, much less process the information we would acquire at that scale–we can very successfully model events and structures with mathematical gradients.

So we have two choices:

(1) Insist that gradients not be used, which would wipe out large swaths of science and engineering, including anything that uses calculus.

(2) Use gradients and make great scientific progress.

You seem to be advocating option #1. Given the enormous strides that so many disciplines of sciences have made using calculus and mathematical gradients–what you have called gradualism–you shouldn’t be surprised that so many are choosing option #2.

Grace and peace,
Chris Falter

1 Like