Reply to comment

Many thanks for your response. You wrote: “Don't you think you are doing a disservice to scientists by implying that they accept exiting theories uncritically? That basically accepts the creationists' mischaracterization of science and scientists.”

Some month ago I sent to a scientific journal a more comprehensive paper about this. The paper showed the shortcomings of the classical theory (without any references to creationism), but offered an alternative in the theory of information, entropy and Gaussian adaptation, which was rejected. So, a provocation was perhaps necessary.

To my knowledge, however, Fisher’s theorem was misunderstood for many years, it being read as saying that the average fitness of a population would always increase. In my opinion, this theorem is useless in a proof of the maximization of mean fitness.

As long as we should still trust the laws of Hardy-Weinberg and entropy (which don’t prove the maximization of mean fitness), Gaussian adpatation seems to be the only way to prove that evolution may maximize mean fitness, at least with respect to Gaussian distributed quantitative traits, because if the distribution deviates from Gaussian, there will only be an approximate maximization of mean fitness.

Nevertheless, I am very thankful to ScienceBlog for making it possible for me to write about this alternative to a greater serious audience, hopefully making it more known among scientists and creationists. I also hope that creationists should have less opportunity to disbelieve the theory of information, entropy and Gaussian adaptation.

Gkm