The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewFred Reed Archive
The End of Evolution
Fred Promises to Shut Up About It in the Future
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Note: I would like to recommend for readers´perusal The Unz Review, a new site of political and social thought built by Ron Unz, friend of mine and computer-wizard-turned-journalist in Silicon Valley. The Unz Review emphatically is not your usual Left-Right site. He publishes things that others won’t, at a level of intelligence that not many have, whether he agrees with them or not. For example, he disagrees strongly with my views on evolution, yet featured the most recent in the Sciece section. This is journalistically unheard of and unspeakably welcome. Take a look.

Having gotten a lot of intelligent and thoughtful mail following a recent column on Darwin, a bit of it telling tme to read Richard Dawkins, the Amway Salesman of Evolutionism (I have read him, actually), I determined to respond here rather than individually. I rpomise to shut up on the subject for a long time hereafter.

 

The Argument from Time
Even a Federal Bureaucrat Can Get A Job Done, Given Forever

A staple of evolutionary evasion is time, lots of it. This is particularly applied to the putative formation of the OC (Original Critter). One intones “billions and billions and billions of years,” the implication being that with so very, very, very much time, so many billions of gallons of sea water, surely an OC would have to form. Why, it could hardly help it.

Not necessarily. Probabilities can be more daunting than one might expect. Things that seem intuitively likely sometimes just flat are not. To illustrate the point:

We’ve all heard Sir James Jeans’ assertion that a monkey, pecking randomly on a typewriter, would eventually produce all the books in the British Museum. This may sound reasonable, even obvious, at first glance. But would the monkey in fact ever get even one book?

No. Not in any practical sense.

Consider a thickish book of, say, 200,000 words. By the newspaper estimate that there are on average five letters per word, that’s a million letters. What is the likelihood that our monkey, typing continuously (we ignore upper case and punctuation), will get the book in a given string of a million letters?

He has a 1/26 chance of getting the first letter, times a 1/26 chance of the second, and so on. The chance of getting the book in a million characters is therefore one in 26 to the millionth power. I don’t have a calculator handy, but we can get an approximation. Since 26 = 10(log 26), then 261,000,000 = 10(log 26 x 1,000,000). Since log 10 = 1 and log 100 = 2, log 26 has to be between, somewhere on the low end. Call it 1.2.

The monkey thus has one chance in 1 followed by 1,200,000 zeros. That is what mathematicians call a GBH (Gret Big Honker). For practical purposes, one divided by that rascal is zero. If you had a billion billion monkeys (more monkeys than Iwant) typing a billion billion letters a second, for a billion billion times the estimated age of the universe (1018 seconds is sometimes given), the chance of getting the book would still be essentially zero.

Well, you might say, that is asking a lot of our monkey. How about the chance that the monkey would get the mere title of a book—say, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, the original title of Darwin´s book. If my finger count was correct, that´s 117 letters and spaces. Then the probability is 1 in 26117, or 10(log 26 x 117), giving 10140 and change. Now, again taking the age of the universe as 1018seconds, our monkey would have, sigh, essentially zero chance of getting even the title. Ain´t gonna happen.

Does the chance formation of an Original Critter involve such forbidding numbers? I don´t know that it does. Nor that it doesn´t. It is difficult to calculate the probability of an unknown process of unknown complexity under unknown conditions.

Similarity
If it Looks Like a Duck, It Must Have Descended from a Duck

Another argument holds that the similarity of organisms establishes evolution from common ancestors. But similarity can equally result from modifications to a common design. Similarity in itself establishes neither.

Consider the automobile. In the Cambrian age of cars, the Model T appeared. It was primitive and poorly adapted, but under the selective prssure of the market cars became faster, more powerful, and more reliable. Some species died out—the Stanley Steamer, the Dusenberg. The survivors proliferated and became differentiated as they moved into different environmental niches: Dump trucks appeared, adapted to mines and construction sites. Ferraris learned to survive on race courses. Police cars developed the tools of predation, such as sirens.

Yet all share pistons, con rods, wheels, and cam shafts. Is this similarity due to biological evolution, or modification by engineers of an underlying design?

 

A Surfeit of Soups

Confected as Desired

When I was fifteen I was an avid reader of New Scientist, which was then written in decent English. (It has since evolved backward.) In that publication I found from time to time articles on how life might have originated chemically. The question was always how, not whether. The suggested circumstances of this origination varied greatly. They never established how life actually did originate, or showed that it could be replicated in the laboratory, or calculated other than vaguely what the chance might have been, if any, of inadvertent origination.

These different theories often required different sorts of primeval ocean, easy enough because no one really knew what the primeval oceans were like. Thus any ocean within easy rifle shot of reason could be assigned to undergird a preferred theory. Callow youth that I was, I began to suspect that the authors didn´t know what they were talking about.

That was a tad over fifty years ago. Today, glancing at “abiogenesis” in the Wikipedia, I find the same thicket of desperate hypotheses, though amplified by decades of imagination. Peruse the following list of hopeful originations and see whether it gives you a warm sensation of certainty.

ORDER IT NOW

One hypothesis, so help me, is that life began on Mars (where it conspicuously has not been discovered by a platoon of itinerant Mars landers) and drifted to the earth. That is, life began where apparently there has never been life. The flexibility of evolutionary thinking is greatly to be admired.

Note that biochemistry is no longer a new science. Lots of biochemists have passed under the bridge by now. Much research on the matter has taken place. Results: nothing. This is curious since the Original Critter, or replicating gadget, would have to have been relatively simple, no? The more complex, the less likely, with probability probably diminishing exponentially with complexity.

So, one asks grumpily, why has some chemical ubergeek with an overhanging IQ not come up with it? If he did, it would be—God help us—Intelligent Design, but it would at least be proof of principle.

To sleep, perchance to dream….

 

Fred Solves Problem, Awaits Nobel

Obama Got the Peace Prize, Didn´t He?

I subscribe to the DNA-First model. However, it is not the formation of DNA that is hard to explain, but its replication. Given the enormous times involved and a chemically complex sea, it would be surprising if the necessary nuclear bases, adenine, guanine, thymine, and cytosine, did not appear in small amounts. The only other components needed would be a pentose sugar and phosphate groups.

These are not complex and would bind to the nuclear bases to form nucleotides, as they do in the laboratory. But they would have existed in very low concentrations and had short half-lives. The question is how they got into sufficient proximity to form DNA, which is rather more compex.

I propose a new model: PCR, Paleopolymerase Chain Reaction. (No, it does not mean Politically Correct Rumination. But it could.)

Think of tidal pools along the shores of newly-formed continents. These would naturally serve to concentrate substances in the primeval ocean as the sun evaporated the water. Thus the free-floating nucleotides, though at low concentration in the ocean as a whole, would reach more-reactive levels. Given the vast times involved, very likely DNA would end up forming in these pools. Even so, concentrations would be low.

Now, these pools would get very hot in the relentless sun of those times, hot enough to beak hydrogen bonds and produce single-stranded DNA. Then, as high tide brought cooling water to the pools, the free nucleotides would bind to the single-stranded DNA. Thus the original double-stranded molecule would have become precursor to two double-stranded daughter molecules.

The only component lacking for the synthesis would be DNA polymerase. This would almost certainly be present in the oceans, probably having come in on an asteroid. This should not be surprising. It is known that organic molecules have been found in meteorites, notably carbonaceous chondrites. It is further known that the asteroid that produced the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinctions brought iridium which spread over the earth. Polymerase dispersal would seem equally likely.

The paleopolymerase would catalyze the formation of the new DNA. Every tide would carry some of the synthesized DNA into the oceans, and bring in more components to be concentrated by the sun. Cycle after cycle, the level of oceanic DNA would increase. It may well be that actual islands of DNA formed. It is not unreasonable to suspect that the primeval forests of later times grew first on these nutrient-rich islands.

I think the foregoing is brilliant. It has all the requisites of a major evolutionary theory, being irreproducible, implausible, unlikely, and based on improbable assumptions. I await my Nobel.

 

POSTSCRIPT: For anyone wanting a rational and scientific, as distinct from religious or metaphysical, account of the problems with evolutionism, the two books to read are Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution and The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism, both by Michael Behe. They provide welcome relief from both Creationist twaddle and Dawkinsian speculation

(Republished from Fred on Everything by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Science • Tags: Evolution 
Hide 4 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Intelligent design arguments do not answer this dilemma. If biology is considered to be too complex to have emerged naturally, then the designers also represent a form of complexity that is also too complex to have evolved naturally. All intelligent design arguments do is “kick the can down the road”, similar to that if panspermia.

    If a second form of biology were to be discovered in space, that was inherently simpler than DNA-based biology, and that biology could have evolved tool-making intelligence at some point in the past, it is plausible that the designer race (who created Earth biology including ourselves) could be based on that biology and that THEY would have evolved naturally. In any case, it will be a long time before we get out into space sufficiently to test this hypothesis.

  2. On the other hand, it is said that humans are 3% reason and rationality and 97% emotion. I became convinced that evolution is real when I lived in SoCal in the late 80’s. You see, I was in the dating game. Over time, I came to understood that that 97% of human behavior that is not based on reason and rationality is perfectly explained by social biology (I mean To A “T”), which itself is based on evolution being real.

    That social biology explains human behavior so well (and FAR better than any other explanation) is definitive proof that evolution is real, as far as I’m concerned.

  3. Anonymous • Disclaimer says: • Website

    @Abelard: “…then the designers also represent a form of complexity that is also too complex to have evolved naturally.”

    Please explain why that is so. Why did the designer(s) have to have evolved at all? Suppose (as many do) that the designer was not contingent, but necessary? Explanations have to come to an end sometime.

    And how would you be able to establish that it could not have happened ‘naturally’? In the neighborhood I come from, ‘naturally’ means ‘without intervention by intelligence’. And that is what ID denies in the first place.

    I am just curious. It seems like you wrote a blanket statement fo the sole purpose of dismissing the possibility of ID, without said statement actually being anything more than your personal conviction. Which is fine, but that’s not how you presented it.

    Steve

  4. Fred: Thanks for the hard work. I have 3 things to say about the theory of evolution (ToE).

    First: ToE is a theory about living things. Things that can grow and reproduce. It is not a theory about things that are not alive. Therefore it cannot explain how living things came to exist in a world in which there were no living things. As you note, no theory exists that could account for the first living thing.

    Second: ToE is not capable of explaining the history of life. It is a theory of random changes. In order to account for the history of life, evolutionists are wont to say things like: “And then a giant meteor landed on the Yucatan and killed all of the dinosaurs (except for the birds, that is).” Logically, that type of statement is deus ex machina. It is not part of ToE and has no status within it. ToE cannot tell us if a force outside of the world we know acts within it.

    Third: Dawkins, Harris, et. al. are not advocating for a scientific view of the world or religion. They are repeating the arguments of the Epicurean school of philosophy that was popular in Ancient Greece and Rome (Wikipedia: Epicureanism). Epicureanism included a ToE (not Darwinian, but a ToE nonetheless). The Epicureans opposed Platonists and Stoics in the ancient world, and Christians, later on. It is not a scientific theory, it is theory espoused by some scientists, probably for political reasons, because it articulates an anti-Christian (and anti-Jewish, anti-Muslim) theology. What is truly important is not what you think, it is what your opponents think.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Fred Reed Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Not What Tom Jefferson Had in Mind
Sounds Like A Low-Ranked American University To Me
Very Long, Will Bore Hell Out Of Most People, But I Felt Like Doing It
It's Not A Job. It's An Adventure.
Cloudy, With Possible Tidal Wave