Mathematically Measuring Evolution.
When judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective. Morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms. Using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish. We cannot do this by just looking at the physical features of the creatures. A human may ‘look’ more complex than a frog but how much more in quantitative terms cannot be determined by morphology.
Biochemical level.
On the biochemical level the difference between two proteins can be quantified exactly and the results can be used to measure similarity or difference between species. What is needed is a common thread that runs through living things.
Cytochrome c is a small hemeprotein found loosely associated with the inner membrane of the mitochondrion. Cytochrome c is a highly water soluble protein, and is an essential component of the electron transport chain. Has a fundamental role in biological oxidation. Note found in a wide range of organisms from bacterial to mammals. It is about 100 amino acids long, has the same 3D configuration and possess an identical active site. What does vary between different organisms is the amino acid sequences. In Dayhoff’s Atlas of Protein Structure and Function there is a matrix with nearly 1089 entries showing the percentage sequence difference between thirty three different cytochromes taken from multiple species.
We can use cytochrome c sequences to classify species into groups and these groups do correspond precisely with the groups arrived at on traditional grounds. The sequential divergence becomes greater as the taxonomic distance between organisms increases. But each identifiable subclass of sequences is isolated and distinct. Every sequence can be unambiguously assigned to a particular subclass. No sequence or group of can be designated as intermediate with respect to the other group. They are equally isolated from the members of other groups.
If evolution is true then the existence of cytochrome C in ‘higher forms’ is the result from evolving from a common ancestor. We would expect to see a logical progression in distance, measurable in percentage of difference as we move up the hierarchy of evolution. As we progress along the presumed evolutionary path from single cell organisms, to multi cell, fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals to humans we should see the changes in cytochrome C accumulate.
But that is not the case.
Compare Rhodospirillum rubrum [bacteria] and Eucaryotic organisms. Percentage of difference.
Horse 64%, Pigeon 64%, Tuna 65%, Silk worm 65%, Wheat 66%, Yeast 69%
As far as bacterial cytochrome is concerned there is no intermediate between it and other eukaryotic cytochromes.
Within the Animal kingdom.
Compare phylum Arthropoda with phylum Vertebrata. Percentage of difference.
Horse 27%, pigeon 25%, turtle 26%, carp 25%, lamprey 30%.
All vertebrate types, [from cyclostomes and mammals], are uniformly distant from the insects.
Compare lamprey [cyclostome] with jawed vertebrates. Percentage of difference.
Carp [fish] 75%, frog [amphibian] 81%, chicken [bird] 78%, kangaroo [marsupial] 76%, and human [placental] 73%.
No trace of traditional evolution at the molecular level. Man is as close to a lamprey as a fish.
But let’s go further up the evolutionary trail and see if there are intermediates.
Let’s compare a fish, with amphibian, reptile, or mammal.
Comparing a carp, we have the following percentage of difference.
Horse 13%, rabbit 13%, chicken 14%, turtle 13% and bullfrog 13%.
Again an extraordinary mathematical exactness in the degree of isolation is apparent. Although cytochrome C sequences varied among terrestrial vertebrates, all of them are equal distance from a fish. No chronological sequence of evolution.
Can the same degree of isolation be quantified isolating other proteins?
Comparing hemoglobin between a snail and various vertebrates we find the following degree of difference.
Lamprey 85%, carp 87%, frog 87%, chicken 85%, kangaroo 85%.
On the evidence of protein sequences the lamprey cannot be classified as primitive with respect to other vertebrates, nor considered and intermediate between higher vertebrates and none vertebrates.
If evolution were true, and creatures gradually evolved from one to another, there should be intermediate forms. Intermediate forms should be found in living creatures, in the fossil record, and at the bio chemical level. As to the fossil record none are found.
But some now argue the reason we find none in the fossil record is because every creature is a transitional species. That also has been proven false, for if single cell organisms, evolved into multiple cell, into fish, into amphibians, into reptiles, mammals and finally man we should see progression in the percentage of difference in cytochrome C between the hierarchies , but we do not. As other evolutionary ‘disciplines’ interpret the evidence with ‘fuzzy’ parameters and ‘gray’ guidelines, being more subjective than objective, bio chemistry differs with mathematical precision and disproves evolution.
When judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective. Morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms. Using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish. We cannot do this by just looking at the physical features of the creatures. A human may ‘look’ more complex than a frog but how much more in quantitative terms cannot be determined by morphology.
Biochemical level.
On the biochemical level the difference between two proteins can be quantified exactly and the results can be used to measure similarity or difference between species. What is needed is a common thread that runs through living things.
Cytochrome c is a small hemeprotein found loosely associated with the inner membrane of the mitochondrion. Cytochrome c is a highly water soluble protein, and is an essential component of the electron transport chain. Has a fundamental role in biological oxidation. Note found in a wide range of organisms from bacterial to mammals. It is about 100 amino acids long, has the same 3D configuration and possess an identical active site. What does vary between different organisms is the amino acid sequences. In Dayhoff’s Atlas of Protein Structure and Function there is a matrix with nearly 1089 entries showing the percentage sequence difference between thirty three different cytochromes taken from multiple species.
We can use cytochrome c sequences to classify species into groups and these groups do correspond precisely with the groups arrived at on traditional grounds. The sequential divergence becomes greater as the taxonomic distance between organisms increases. But each identifiable subclass of sequences is isolated and distinct. Every sequence can be unambiguously assigned to a particular subclass. No sequence or group of can be designated as intermediate with respect to the other group. They are equally isolated from the members of other groups.
If evolution is true then the existence of cytochrome C in ‘higher forms’ is the result from evolving from a common ancestor. We would expect to see a logical progression in distance, measurable in percentage of difference as we move up the hierarchy of evolution. As we progress along the presumed evolutionary path from single cell organisms, to multi cell, fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals to humans we should see the changes in cytochrome C accumulate.
But that is not the case.
Compare Rhodospirillum rubrum [bacteria] and Eucaryotic organisms. Percentage of difference.
Horse 64%, Pigeon 64%, Tuna 65%, Silk worm 65%, Wheat 66%, Yeast 69%
As far as bacterial cytochrome is concerned there is no intermediate between it and other eukaryotic cytochromes.
Within the Animal kingdom.
Compare phylum Arthropoda with phylum Vertebrata. Percentage of difference.
Horse 27%, pigeon 25%, turtle 26%, carp 25%, lamprey 30%.
All vertebrate types, [from cyclostomes and mammals], are uniformly distant from the insects.
Compare lamprey [cyclostome] with jawed vertebrates. Percentage of difference.
Carp [fish] 75%, frog [amphibian] 81%, chicken [bird] 78%, kangaroo [marsupial] 76%, and human [placental] 73%.
No trace of traditional evolution at the molecular level. Man is as close to a lamprey as a fish.
But let’s go further up the evolutionary trail and see if there are intermediates.
Let’s compare a fish, with amphibian, reptile, or mammal.
Comparing a carp, we have the following percentage of difference.
Horse 13%, rabbit 13%, chicken 14%, turtle 13% and bullfrog 13%.
Again an extraordinary mathematical exactness in the degree of isolation is apparent. Although cytochrome C sequences varied among terrestrial vertebrates, all of them are equal distance from a fish. No chronological sequence of evolution.
Can the same degree of isolation be quantified isolating other proteins?
Comparing hemoglobin between a snail and various vertebrates we find the following degree of difference.
Lamprey 85%, carp 87%, frog 87%, chicken 85%, kangaroo 85%.
On the evidence of protein sequences the lamprey cannot be classified as primitive with respect to other vertebrates, nor considered and intermediate between higher vertebrates and none vertebrates.
If evolution were true, and creatures gradually evolved from one to another, there should be intermediate forms. Intermediate forms should be found in living creatures, in the fossil record, and at the bio chemical level. As to the fossil record none are found.
But some now argue the reason we find none in the fossil record is because every creature is a transitional species. That also has been proven false, for if single cell organisms, evolved into multiple cell, into fish, into amphibians, into reptiles, mammals and finally man we should see progression in the percentage of difference in cytochrome C between the hierarchies , but we do not. As other evolutionary ‘disciplines’ interpret the evidence with ‘fuzzy’ parameters and ‘gray’ guidelines, being more subjective than objective, bio chemistry differs with mathematical precision and disproves evolution.
