Tag: MITTENS

One Percent of Zero

Although AI has many limitations, including the more serious ideological restraints imposed by its highly-converged creators, the requirement for it to be capable of correctly crunching numbers puts it leagues ahead of the average scientist, particularly the average biologist, in grasping the obvious fact that there is absolutely no chance that evolution by natural selection can account for more than a very small and insignificant fraction of the genetic diversity that separates one species from another.

I put a few questions on the subject to the Gemini AI and the results are completely in accordance with the logic presented in MITTENS. Notice that I did not feed it anything more than the current mid-range estimate for the date of the Chimpanzee-Human Last Common Ancestor and the fastest-ever-observed mutational fixation in a gene.

VD: Given the average length in years of a human generation, and assuming that the Chimpanzee-Human Last Common Ancestor lived 9 million years ago, how many human generations has it been since the Chimpanzee-Human Last Common Ancestor?

GEMINI AI: It has been approximately 360,000 human generations since the Chimpanzee-Human Last Common Ancestor.

If it has been 360,000 human generations since the Chimpanzee-Human Last Common Ancestor, and it takes 1,600 generations for natural selection to fixate a gene throughout the human population, what is the maximum number of genetic fixations since the Chimpanzee-Human Last Common Ancestor?

The maximum number of genetic fixations since the Chimpanzee-Human Last Common Ancestor is approximately 225. Here’s the calculation:

  • Generations since the Chimpanzee-Human Last Common Ancestor: 360,000
  • Generations per fixation: 1,600
  • Maximum fixations: 360,000 / 1,600 = 225

What is the approximate number of genetic fixations required to account for the genetic distance between modern humans and modern chimpanzees?

It’s difficult to give an exact number of genetic fixations required to account for the genetic distance between humans and chimpanzees. However, we can make some estimations:

  • Overall Genetic Difference: Humans and chimpanzees share about 98.8% of their DNA. This means there’s roughly a 1.2% difference.
  • Focusing on Single-Nucleotide Changes: Studies have estimated that there are approximately 35 million single-nucleotide differences between human and chimpanzee genomes.
  • Considering Other Changes: When you factor in indels and chromosomal rearrangements, the total number of genetic differences is likely much higher.

When you say that there is a 1.2 percent difference in DNA between humans and chimpanzees, approximately how many genetic fixation events are required to account for that difference?

To determine the approximate number of genetic fixation events required to account for a 1.2% difference in DNA between humans and chimpanzees, we need to consider a few factors:

1. Genome Size: The human genome is approximately 3 billion base pairs long.

2. Difference in DNA: A 1.2% difference means there are 3,000,000,000 * 0.012 = 36,000,000 base pair differences between humans and chimpanzees.

3. Fixation Event Size: A fixation event refers to a single mutation that becomes fixed in a population. This could involve a single base pair change or a small number of changes. For simplicity, let’s assume an average fixation event involves 100 base pairs. This is a rough estimate, as fixation events can vary in size.

4. Calculation: Divide the total number of base pair differences by the average fixation event size: 36,000,000 / 100 = 360,000

Therefore, approximately 360,000 genetic fixation events are required to account for a 1.2% difference in DNA between humans and chimpanzees, assuming an average fixation event size of 100 base pairs.

Given the maximum possible number of fixation events since the Chimpanzee-Human Last Common Ancestor is 225, is it rational to assert that evolution by natural selection has accounted for 360,000 fixation events in the last nine million years?

Given that our calculation shows a maximum possible number of 225 fixations through natural selection, it is highly improbable that 360,000 fixation events could have occurred in the last nine million years solely through this mechanism.

What is your best estimate about the specific probability, to the nearest one-tenth of one percent, that 360,000 fixation events could have occurred in the last nine million years solely through the mechanism of evolution by natural selection?

Given the vast difference between the maximum possible number of fixations through natural selection (225) and the estimated number of fixations required to account for the genetic distance between humans and chimpanzees (360,000), it is extremely unlikely that natural selection alone could account for all those fixations. Therefore, the probability that 360,000 fixation events could have occurred solely through natural selection is extremely low, essentially approaching zero for any practical purposes.

Now, notice that despite arbitrarily reducing the size of the average fixation event to one percent of the observed 36,000,000 base pair differences between modern humans and modern chimpanzees on the basis of absolutely nothing, the AI still concluded that the probability that humans could have evolved from the Chimpanzee-Human Last Common Ancestor as “essentially approaching zero for any practical purposes”. But the real probability is around one percent of approaching zero, as I asked it one further question.

What is the average size, in base pairs, of observed genetic fixation events?

It’s tricky to give a precise “average size” for genetic fixation events in base pairs because these events encompass a range of changes. For single base changes (the most common type of mutation), the average size of a fixation event is one base pair.

So, the next time someone asks you why you don’t “believe in evolution”, you can tell them that the current scientific evidence, analyzed by the latest technology, indicates that the mathematical probability of evolution is one percent of zero.

And with that, I think we’ve got the title of my next nonfiction book.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Collapse of the Conventional Evolutionary Model

Chinese researchers are methodically dismantling the conventional model of human evolution, specifically, the so-called “Out of Africa” theory:

In the early 1960s, researchers started the field of molecular evolution based on the genetic distance phenomenon of protein sequences among species, and proposed a molecular evolutionary theory different from the natural selection theory, the molecular clock hypothesis and the neutral theory. This theory holds that the genetic distance of gene sequences can be used to infer the phylogenetic relationship between different species. The greater the genetic distance, the farther the phylogenetic relationship and the longer the evolutionary time. Researchers then deduced a molecular model of the origin of modern humans based on this theory, the recent out of Africa hypothesis. African populations have the highest genetic diversity among all racial groups, which was interpretated to mean that Africans have a more ancient most recent common ancestor than other populations. Modern humans are considered to have first appeared in Africa who then migrated to Eurasia and largely replaced the indigenous populations. Although the neutral theory is a very valuable null hypothesis, it cannot fully explain the phenomenon of genetic diversity, which therefore deems the out-of-Africa model, at best, uncertain. In 2008, a new theory of molecular evolution, known as the maximum genetic diversity theory, was published, offering a reinterpretation of the phenomenon of genetic distances. A large genetic distance does not necessarily mean a long evolutionary time, but can also reflect a large phenotypic difference. The increase in genetic distance over time is not infinite, as implied by the neutral theory, but has an upper limit, which is mainly determined by the phenotypic complexity of the species. Several lines of tests show that the genetic distances or genetic diversities are largely at the upper limit levels. Based on the maximum genetic diversity theory, new research has independently re-discovered the out of East Asia model of modern humans that was first proposed in 1983. It also provides autosomal DNA support for the multiregional hypothesis. Multiple lines of tests, including ancient DNA analyses, lend robust support to the out of East Asia model as the more accurate representation of modern human origins.

From the MITTENS perspective, the most significant statement in the abstract is that the conventional model “cannot fully explain the phenomenon of genetic diversity”. Even more interesting is the translation of the explanation provided in the British media:

The reason that his MGD theory holds, he said, is that more complex organisms like humans require many more parts of their DNA work together in concert, meaning that there’s less room for mutations acting like genetic ‘improvisations’ to survive.

‘A simple thought experiment can explain,’ Dr Huang wrote in an article published this past November in the Chinese-language journal Prehistoric Archaeology. ‘You can create three different groups of organisms — yeast, fish and humans — using the same gene sequence, and then let these three organisms diverge for a long time or about 500 million years. A gene in yeast will change a lot, such as 50 percent, and its corresponding gene in fish will also change more but less than yeast, such as 30 percent,’ he continued, ‘[but] its corresponding gene in humans will change very little, such as 1 percent.’

This documented trend in the history of various species suggests that dramatic mutations in more complex creatures are less likely to survive evolution’s long haul.

In other words, the scientists are finally looking at genetic fixation, and observing that “there is less room for mutations” in more complicated organisms for genetic change. In other words, even more generations are required for the same sort of genetic change that has been observed in simpler organisms; based on the example given, the fastest genetic fixation observed in laboratory bacteria, which is 1600 generations per fixation, would require 80,000 generations in humans.

And now that the scientists are starting to look at both fixation and genetic diversity, it is only a matter of time before they start comparing their observations to the available time scale and correctly conclude that the evolution by natural selection for the genetic distance between two observed genetic sequences is mathematically impossible. As the scientific documentation improves, it will inevitably become absolutely undeniable that dramatic mutations in more complex creatures could not have survived evolution’s long haul because no evolution by natural selection took place at all.

Just remember that you first heard about MITTENS here… Because you’re obviously not going to read about the Mathematical Impossibility of The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection in the converged science journals anytime soon.

In the eight years since Dr Huang and his team first presented their ‘out of East Asia’ theory at an international academic conference in 2016, he has been unable to find an academic journal outside of China that is willing to publish the theory. ‘We tried to submit the paper to many journals and were rejected, so we gave up,’ Huang said. ‘Any intellectual who wants to overturn popular opinion will experience the same difficulties,’ he opined. ‘But it’s fine as long as what you’re promoting is true and you don’t care how long it takes [to be accepted].’

DISCUSS ON SG