On The Unverifiability Of The Main Premise Of

The Theory Of Evolution

by Henry Dalcke, Rostock, 27th of January 2020

Since the days of Gregor Mendel, it is a well-established

scientific fact that the genetic traits of sexually reproducing life
forms recombine in the process of reproduction.
To represent the many possible genetic recombinations, the
british geneticist Reginald Punnett developed a recombination-
square - later to be known as "Punnett-Square" - to predict the
different outcomes of the dominant-recessive and intermediate
inheritance of chosen genetic traits.
Depending on the number of considered traits, the result
squares the number of phenotypic recombinations, of course.
The number of traits to be recombined defines the side length
of the Punnett-Square.
The area spanned by the square includes the total number of
resulting phenotypic changes due to the recombination of the
traits in consideration.
Since recombination only works on already existing genetic
information, the number of resulting phenotypes must always
be limited. There is therefore a limited variation potential
consisting of phenotypes of recombined parental traits.
If one would now recombine all inheritable traits - insted of
only a few selected - in such a Punnett-Square, the total
number of possible resulting phenotypes would define the
minimal variation potential of the respective life form.
"Minimal" because at least the number of possible phenotypes
resulting from epigenetic reactions to the environment have to

1
be added to it.
That means that recombination plus epigenetics make for the
minimal variation potential of a life form.

The Problem:
• The number of inheritable traits is always only a rough
estimation. In the case of humans it is estimated to be
around 15.000 to 20.000 or 120.000 to 200.000 traits –
depending on which sources you trust.
This gives rise to the problem, that the side length of the
Punnett-Square cannot be specifically determined, which
blurres the limits of the variation potential.
• From a molecular-biological standpoint, it is not clearly
defined what an inheritable trait actually is.
It follows that one cannot surely say which traits actually
to consider for recombination, at all - which equally has a
negative effect on the exact definition of the limits of the
variation potential.
• The scope of epigenetic effects on the change of
phenotypes is largely unknown, which expands the
already blurry limits of the variation potential by an
unimaginable extent.
• In addition to that there are inheritable traits that are not
only influenced by just one, but several genes
(polygenetic traits). These cannot even be shown in a
Punnett-Square, but also have to be integrated into the
variation potential, which adds to it yet another unknown
number of adaptable phenotypic traits.

2
Significance:
The intrinsic, genetically pre-coded variation potential of a life
form is definitely only finite, but its limits are unknown.
Evolution would only then be scientifically evidenced, if one
found a phenotype of a life form that could without any doubt
be located outside of the limits of its respective variation
potential.
If we would only consider the easily recombinable traits within
the Punnett-Square for the human race and leave epigenetic
effects and polygenetic traits aside, we would already get an
estimated variation potential with the unimaginably large
minimal scope of 225.000.000 to 40.000.000.000 possible
different phenotypes - in which the first number obviously can't
be right, because at least 6.000.000.000 people already live on
our planet and as far as one can tell look at least noticeably
different from one another.
Nevertheless, humans do not belong to the group of life forms
with especially large phenotypic variation potentials. A look to
the Dog-likes suffices to notice that.

Conclusion:
If the overall variation potential of a life form is evidentially
finite, but its limits are that uncertain over a large area which at
least includes the phenotypic results of epigenetic reactions to
the environment and polygenetic traits, it is absolutely
impossible to know, if one ever saw a phenotype of a taxonimic
family of life forms, which could be located outside the limits of
its own variation potential and therefore could be counted as
valid empirical evidence for evolution.

3
Consequently, the most fundamental premis of the Theory Of
Evolution - namely the continuity of species - has not been
scientifically proven. Therefore the evidential value of the
evolutionary interpretation of the observable facts is based on
a mojor unprovable assumption - reducing the Theory Of
Evolution to nothing more than a mere matter of faith.