[AUTHOR’S NOTE: I originally wrote this open letter as an email to a rather famous biology professor with whom I’ve communicated in the past, but while I wait for a reply, I thought I’d open up this little thought experiment to any other interested parties to participate.]
Problem: how do we get from Old World Ape to Australopithecus, or whatever first ancestor exists between a true ape/primate ancestor and human beings?
Solution: we get a population of mutated Old World Apes that now possess 46 chromosomes and Human Chromosome #2 (HC2), instead of a population of apes with 48 chromosomes due to descent with modifications due to the natural processes of sexual reproduction.
Now the question becomes, how do we get there from here?
[NOTE: Some people might suggest that chromosome count isn’t necessarily an important trait for a given species, because there have been rare documented cases of people having only 45 or even 44 chromosomes (without having some sort of obviously detrimental effect) and still being able to interbreed and reproduce with partners that have 46 chromosomes. However, to get to the point where an entire population (P1) all have 44 chromosomes, you’d need to mate male and female individuals with 44 chromosomes to get a population consisting of members with 44 chromosomes and thus considered a new species. A person with 44 chromosomes is still human and can mate with another human with 46 chromosomes, and their offspring will have 46 chromosomes. It is my contention there is no logical way to get an entire new species where every member of that species has a lower chromosome count, and we can know this with some degree of relative certainty given what we already know about dominant versus recessive genes from observation.]
Of course, that first mutation could be any of a number of morphological changes that must occur for an ape to gradually become a human, but choosing the formation of human chromosome #2 by the fusion of two ancestral ape chromosomes has benefits — this particular mutation could be considered neutral or perhaps even beneficial, unlike the loss of body fur, loss of muscle strength, or other necessary but otherwise deleterious mutations that must occur for an ape to morphologically change into a human being due to a series of tiny evolutionary steps. This would be important because the population at large would not be able to notice any sort of morphological differences that might lead to discrimination by the majority of the breeding population, which rarely or never ends well.
We begin with population Zero (P0), which is comprised only of apes with 48 chromosomes. A second breeding population, Population One or P1, becomes physically separated from population P0 and over time, mutations begin to randomly occur. At first they are very rare, but because the differences between these members of the same breeding population are very limited, we might assume these mutated offspring are able to mate with others in the population and produce fertile offspring. However, we should assume the dominant trait would be for offspring to have 48 chromosomes, not 46.
The problem is that as long as there are any members of P0 (and P1) with 48 chromosomes, that will remain the dominant genetic trait. At best, members of the population with HC2 might “evolve” from rare mutation to recessive gene, but the only way you’re going to get a population exclusively formed of members with HC2 instead of 48 chromosomes is by killing off every member of the group with 48 chromosomes, because that is the dominant trait. Also, remember that at any point in time, if there is any sort of breeding cross-contamination with P0, then any evolutionary progress would get immediately wiped out in P1. But, as we can see, as long as P1 has members with 48 chromosomes, that will remain the dominant characteristic.
In other words, we can imagine how HC2 could begin to spontaneously pop up as a rare mutation in our hypothetical scenario. We can even see the possibility that the rare mutation might become more popular over time to eventually become a recessive trait characteristic in the gene pool. As we’ve learned from genetic experts, “The final step would be a situation where those with 46 chromosomes became isolated from those with 48 and where the 46’ers did better for some reason than the 48’ers.”
That sounds perfect in theory, but how does it work in reality? It’s actually a little too perfect. Remember, in our little thought experiment, the members of the population with only 46 chromosomes wouldn’t be able to detect any differences between themselves and members of the population with 48 chromosomes. So, how does the group with only 46 chromosomes become perfectly isolated from the main group? And why does it happen? That is the crucial question — how indeed does breeding population P1 become exclusively populated by apes with only 46 chromosomes, one of which is now HC2? Not meaning to sound trite, but this is starting to sound like an act of God would be required for this to happen, but then we would no longer be talking about evolution, but intelligent design.
There would seem to be only a few ways for the entire population to exclusively be populated by members with only 46 chromosomes: every member of the population with 48 chromosomes either dies or become celibate, because as long as the population contains any members with 48 chromosomes, that will be the dominant characteristic of any offspring produced. In our hypothetical thought experiment macroevolution fails to produce a new species because dominant genes will always dominate, and recessive characteristics will always remain secondary options within the constraints of the existing genome.
According to biologist Jerry Coyne, the key factor in creating a new species is isolation of an existing breeding population. However, when we observe the reality of our natural world, we do not see evidence of new species forming from existing species, either. The cichlids of Lake Victoria became isolated and interbred for many generations, creating diverse variety over time. However, the cichlids remained cichlids. They never evolved into a new type of fish. Of course, the ichthyologists have claimed that up to 600 new species of cichlids were identified in the lake, but in reality they were just different varieties of the same basic type of fish, which is the cichlid.
At the conclusion of our thought experiment, logic tells us that a new species cannot be created by biological evolution because even if an existing population is split and becomes separated into two different breeding populations, dominant characteristics will always remain dominant, and recessive traits will never become dominant, much less exclusive to the new population. The North American black bear and the Asiatic black bear are basically the same bear, except the Asiatic version usually has a blaze marking on its chest. The North American black bear typically does not have the blaze, but some do. The point is, they don’t really seem to be two unique species of bear, but merely two varieties of the same bear species. One variety tends to have chest markings, and the other does not. Also, they live on different continents. Otherwise, it’s the same bear.
For humans to have evolved from apes, there needs to be a first step in the process. For the sake of argument, in this thought experiment we have assumed that HC2 was the first mutation and tried to understand how that mutation could become the dominant feature of an entire breeding population, and the short answer is, it simply doesn’t seem to be possible. There simply doesn’t seem to be a logical way for that separated population to develop that initially rare characteristic into a dominant trait and finally an exclusive trait no matter how much time elapses, unless we assume the laws governing sexual reproduction might have been variable over the course of time.
However, then we would be forced to contemplate a world where the laws that govern our existence have not always been consistent, so there would be no logical way to predict future events based on the past. Even if that model is true, it would prove any effort to understand our world by applying the scientific method would ultimately prove futile. My goal in this thought experiment has been to combine my limited knowledge of genetics with my limited understanding of macroevolution theory to produce a narrative by which a single step in the evolutionary process might be achieved, and elementary logic has unfortunately prevented the success of my effort. It is far easier to merely suggest that one group splintered from the other and simply “did better for some reason” than it is to contemplate and ultimately explain how it actually might have happened.
Therefore, the result of my attempts to logically construct a scenario in which macroevolution might occur have failed miserably. If macroevolution is really true, bears and elephants share a common ancestor due to generations of sexual reproduction. Apes and humans would also share a common ancestor. In essence, every living organism on Earth would share a common ancestor with every other organism. Ultimately, because of sex. The problem for me is, I simply cannot conceive of any logical means by which that first step in the process might be achieved, unless we change the rules in the past and allow them to be different than rules in the present. But then our predictions become useless.
Please, if you know, tell me how. Explain to me why. But remember, you’ve basically only got one tool in your toolbox that can be used to construct your attempted explanation, and that is sexual reproduction. You are free to talk about alleles and use more technical biological jargon if you wish because I have a dictionary and I can still look up the words I don’t understand and find their translation into common English, but the bottom line is that my rejection of macroevolution has nothing to do with any personal religious beliefs and everything to do with the logic of understanding how that first step in the process could ever happen, because I currently don’t believe it has ever happened.
I know, I know…even the Pope believes in macroevolution. However, the Pope is just a human being, and I’m not Catholic. The Pope isn’t God. The Pope does not possess the wisdom of God. Please don’t drag the Pope into this conversation. His presence would be superfluous.
Naturally (pun intended), if you are a biology professor or expert in biology and wish to explain to me any potential flaws in my little thought experiment, I will gratefully welcome in advance any evidence, advice, or input you might care to offer. I am expecting some rather strong pushback and criticisms, which is perfectly fine and naturally anticipated.
I can take the heat, as long as you can deliver with superior logic.
Speak Your Mind