state that evolution of a species causes changes in a population variance. As the article shows, an increase in fitness may be caused simply by a mixing of the fly populations, not by some kind of evolutionary process.
Actually, Fisher proved something quite opposite to the evolutionary theory.
How large is the probability that a mutation asserts itself in a sexually propagating population? Neglecting selection, R. A. Fisher showed that a once arisen mutation symbolized by a genotype Aa in a population of individuals with the genotype AA has hardly any chance to survive. In order to hand down the allele “a” to its offspring, the Aa individual has to pair with an AA individual. The probability of a loss of the allele “a” is given by Fisher as being e-1 per generation (e is the base of the natural system of logarithms). The rate of elimination is described by a Poisson-distribution:
e-1 = 0.368
The probability that the allele a does still exist after one generation is therefore
1 - 0.385 = 0.632
and after another generation:
e-(1-0.368) = 0.531
This means that in 90% of all possible cases the allele is extinguished after 15 generations. A chance loss or gain of a non-adaptive allele by a population is called a genetic drift. . . .
This example shows that the development of the abundance of forms as we know it in nature cannot be caused by the accumulation of neutral mutations. (“Mutation”)
Trying to remedy the situation, E. Mayr introduced the concept of gene flow. According to Mayr, the situation changes drastically when natural selection is introduced.
An advantageous dominant allele spreads very fast, while recessive alleles have an only low ability to assert themselves even if they provide a selective advantage. The size of population is decisive. The smaller a population, the faster the establishment of a new mutation. All new species are developed from small initial populations. E. Mayr (1942) called them founder populations. (“Mutation”)
Unlike Fisher, Mayr was a bad mathematician. He got it all wrong: a) if mutation spreads slowly (Darwin believed that it takes at least 1000 generations to develop a new characteristic), then natural selection does not make much of a difference and newly acquired characteristics will practically disappear after 15 generations; b) in order for a new characteristic to take hold, its time of spread has to be less than 15 generations, which contradicts all known scientific data.
Evolutionary biologists are infamous for manipulating both theoretical and experimental data in attempts to convince the general public that the evolutionary theory is infallible. But anyone with even a perfunctory acquaintance with science knows that their contention is hogwash.
Mathematical Statistics Misused
Starting from the 1930s, a number of astrophysicists supporting the evolutionary theory tried to assess what they call the “probability of incipience of an original cell on another planet.” They came up with different numbers ranging somewhere between 1014 and 1067 (perhaps the largest number should go to the Guinness Book of Records). All distinguished mathematicians working in the field of mathematical statistics objected to such misuse of their science. These workers include R. A. Fisher, A. Kolmogoroff, E. S. Pearson, J. Neyman, M. G. Kendall, and many others. Their objections are based on the fact that only events that could be repeated an indefinite number of times form the basis of the probability theory (the discharge of electrons from an electron gun would be an example of such events). This example shows that the evolutionists are completely unaware of how the probability theory works. Yet they base their “proof” of validity of the evolutionary theory on the probability theory!
Disputed Numbers
This is another lie propelled by the proponents of the theory of evolution: there is a consensus in the scientific community that the theory is correct. Nothing could be further from the truth. Not a single geneticist supports it; less than 10% of physicists agree with it, and those who agree have very little knowledge of atomic physics; paleontologists and biochemists are evenly split; and no one knows how many biologists disagree with it because they do not speak their minds for fear of losing their jobs. The only group of specialists who support it wholeheartedly are the anthropologists.
Much support for the evolutionary theory comes from Scientific American. But the magazine earned an awful reputation because of unqualified support of another unscientific theory, the so-called Superstring Theory, which defies any experimental verification. Less than 1% of physicists believe that there is any truth to the story of the Superstrings. Perhaps Scientific American should change its name to Idiot’s Guide to Science.
14 : Hobbits
Recently, the skeletons of “small people” or “hobbits” who stand only 90 cm (3 feet) tall were discovered on a remote Indonesian island; anthropologists believe that the hobbits and humans have a common ancestor.
The group of archeologists who discovered these small people were interviewed on 60 Minutes; they say that the first unearthed skeleton was that of a woman. It seems these evolutionists were using circular logic: these beings are humans → this skeleton more closely resembles the human female skeleton → this is a hobbit female → these beings are humans. When this type of logical deduction is used, the first step in the chain of inferences coincides with the last one. In reality, no one knows how to distinguish a female hobbit skeleton from a male one because not a single hobbit has been captured alive or dug out of a fresh grave.
Not a single physicist or chemist uses this type of logical deduction; only the evolutionists are stupid enough to put it to use.
Actually, the very existence of small people proves that the evolutionary theory is incorrect.
What kind of advantage could such small size possibly have? A little body requires a little amount of food—clearly, this is an important advantage. But this is the only advantage. Now, let’s take a look at the disadvantages.
1) Attacks by birds of prey. Often, predatory birds attack little children but almost never attack human adults because of their size. The hobbits were as small as human children, so they would have been in constant danger of being attacked.
2) Small people can’t hunt in places with tall grass because their vision is blocked by it.
3) Small people can’t cover large distances in search of food because their leg muscles are too weak to carry them for prolonged periods of time.
Clearly, the number of disadvantages is larger than the number of advantages. If the principle of natural selection is correctly applied, it proves that these small people are fiction.
Anthropologists are notorious for the bending and twisting of data to fit it into their wacky theories. One of them told 20/20 that the seven year itch is, in fact, a four year itch—it takes four years for an animal couple to raise cubs, and after that the partnership is kaput. Apparently, she had statistical data showing that the number of divorces peaks after four years of marriage, so, in her view, humans follow the same pattern as their animal cousins. There is a problem with this assessment, though—while it takes four years for certain animal species to raise offspring, a vast majority of animals stay with their progeny for only two years, so the whole theory of human-animal behavioral resemblance breaks down.
Some anthropologists decided to look for an explanation of certain characteristics of human behavior beyond the animal world because the animal socialization, in their words, is too primitive. Ants,
