The scientific concept of the origin of life on earth begins with the premise that life first appeared billions of years ago with the formation of microscopic organisms out of inanimate matter. In the billions of years which followed, small organisms evolved into higher and more complex forms of life through random mutations, and one species evolved into another.
Over the years, a process referred to as "natural selection" weeded out those mutations and organisms less fit to survive than others. Thus, it was mostly the more "fit" that passed on their genetic character traits to subsequent generations. And that's how we and all other life forms got here.
On the surface, this sounds great. However, a deeper analysis of the underlying mechanism and the fossil record, leaves little doubt that mutations of a random nature could not possible have been the driving force behind the development of life on earth.
When it comes to a random process, there is always the question of whether it can produce organization. An analogy might be the old monkey on a typewriter: given enough time, can a monkey on a typewriter produce the works of Shakespeare purely by random keystrokes? Let's assume for the purpose of this discussion that this is possible — and that random mutations, given enough time, can also eventually produce the most complex life forms.
Let's begin by rolling a die (one "dice"). To get a "3," for example, you'd have to roll the die an average of six times (there are six numbers, so to get any one of them would take an average of six rolls). Of course, you could get lucky and roll a 3 the first time. But as you keep rolling the die, you'll find that the 3 will come up on average once every six rolls.
The same holds true for any random process. You'll get a "Royal Flush" (the five highest cards, in the same suit) in a 5-card poker game on average roughly once every 650,000 hands. In other words, for every 650,00 hands of mostly meaningless arrangements of cards (and perhaps a few other poker hands), you'll get only one Royal Flush.
Multi-million dollar lotteries are also based on this concept. If the odds against winning a big jackpot are millions to one, what will usually happen is that for every game where one person wins the big jackpot with the right combination of numbers, millions of people will not win the big jackpot because they picked millions of combinations of meaningless numbers. To my knowledge, there hasn't been a multi-million dollar lottery yet where millions of people won the top prize and only a few won little or nothing. It's always the other way around. And sometimes there isn't even one big winner.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Phillip Winn
I'm sure you'll get plenty of pushback on this, perhaps starting with the idea that there is a single "theory of evolution" rather than a collection of many theories, constantly, er, evolving over time.
Anyway, I'll just point out that current evolutionary theory describes a slight variation on your analogy. Instead of just coming back after billions of years in cryogenic sleep, you'd wake up at regular intervals (or perhaps supervise all along). You would throw away the random garbage, leaving only the coherent works.
Because of that -- the "survival of the fittest" bit -- you wouldn't be surprised to come along a few billion years later and not see the rejects.
Of course, you might occasionally spot a reject in production in the form of mutations, but the monkeys type very, very slowly indeed.
Anyway, I'll leave to others who might feel more passionately about defending evolution; my cursory familiarity compelled me to point that out.
2 - Dr Dreadful
Like pretty much every anti-evolutionist, the author seems to think he's hit on some fatal flaws that will bring the whole theory crashing down.
There's a lot to dissect here, so for now I'll just start with the analogy of the monkeys - which again is far from original when applied to evolution.
It's not an especially good analogy because it ignores environmental factors. As Phillip hinted at, a better scenario would be if the pages the monkeys typed burst into flame whenever they failed to type a word or passage from Hamlet. This would happen rather a lot, but eventually a page would be produced which contained the words "Who's there?" (The first line of the play.) Subsequently, a great deal more pages would incandesce, until the monkeys typed the words "Nay, answer me" (the second line). You now have the first two lines of Hamlet - everything else has been immolated. And so it proceeds until you eventually have the whole of Hamlet, an extraordinarily large pile of ashes and some disgruntled and hungry monkeys.
It's still not a perfect analogy, but it describes the mechanism of evolution rather better.
3 - teano
"Dr Dreadful: Like pretty much every anti-evolutionist, the author ... "
This is all very "cutsie" stuff. But little substance. It refutes nothing the author has said.
4 - Dr Dreadful
Bear with me, Teano. I don't want to have to repeat myself. I said, "For now..."
What is "cutsie" when it's at home?
5 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Actually, the author has a number of valid points.
One is the vehemence with which scientists will defend a flawed theory when it is challenged. The stones and bones that make up the geologic record that proves that life did evolve indicate that it evolved, not in slow orderly progressions dictated by random mutation, but by fits and starts, exploding all at once at various times in geologic history.
The changes were violent and massive, it appears, with large amounts of changes taking place all at nearly the same time.
What is indeed interesting is that nature settled on only two designs for picking up and translating visual signals. One is the multiplex eyelets found in insects, and the other is the eye, found in almost all life above an insect. A fish eye and a human eye have far more in common than they have in variance. Why only one or two designs in millions of species?
Carbon dating indicates that life did evolve over a long period of time, billions of years at least - from the way we count time, looking backwards. But the stones and bones point to something other than random mutation. So long as scientists refuse to look that fact in the face, they will continue to produce flawed theories to explain the facts.
6 - Jet in Columbus
This appears on the surface to be just another "creationist" trying to pick and choose what is theory and what is fact.
time
Anything that he agrees with is fact, anything he disagrees with is theory. A well thought out mind could post a valid thought here and the author would (and already has)just completely reject it-proclaiming with his nose up in the air "You haven't repudiated anything"
Fact-We now have telescopes that can see hundreds of millions of light years away. In the likely case that you're familiar with the term, light year-that's a measurement in distance...
Fact-If this is indeed the only orb within tens of billions of stars in the universe that just happens to be in the right place and the right time to have intelligent life on it, that indeed means we've beaten 1-in-Ten billion odds. A 50 thousand years ago contitions on this earth were much different, as they will be 50 years from now.
God's creation is rather faulty here if you ask me.
The earth is in a decaying orbit, filled with millions of massive objects aimed at it that could completely destroy it at a moment's notice.
Fact-The sun will eventually burn out, expand and destroy all that god created.
We have a galaxy bearing down on our own that in a few billion years will collide with ours causing a vast cataclysm or a drastic rearrangement of gods work.
Compare the human man of today with the human man of Jesus' time.
If we were to bring the people of Jesus's time forward to our own, they couldn't breath our present day peasoup air, drink our chlorinated and flourided water, and wouldn't live past the age of 45 years.
Why
Because the human species has EVOLVED to adapt to the current conditions. Through selective breeding, and mutation every single animal, fish and even microbes have changed in order to either be able live in its current circumstances or die trying. That's called evolution.
Now that I've looked it over and read the whole thing, instead of think, I now know that this is indeed another "creationist" trying to pick and choose what is theory and what is fact.
Picking and choosing facts to fit theories and visa verse is not only foolish, but folly...
But of course that's only my...
theory
7 - Cannonshop
What's really interesting, is that neither side seems open to the possibility that their HYPOTHESIS is flawed. "Theory" has some experimental evidence to back it up, "Fact" is a fun word thrown around to impress pundits. The six most important words in SCIENCE is "I don't know, let's find out."
Both the Creationists and the Evolutionists have this comfortable little box that they both put the question in-it's just that their boxes have different labeling.
That box may as well be labeled "Faith" since nobody has a couple million years to run an experiment, all we have is circumstantial evidence and hypotheticals to explain it that we are only BARELY able to test. Without knowing how much Carbon-13, for instance, is in the environment at a given period, you have a limited ability to extrapolate...from existing percentages. Likewise for Uranium dating. Time-distances pre-dating the discovery of these elements in nature are "Best Guesses". This doesn't mean the process is actually inaccurate, only that it MIGHT be. In that, creationists might have a point. Further, the ability to generate "life" from samplings of hydrocarbons still hasn't been done in a lab, and the actual conditions of the earth at the time it is HYPOTHESIZED that life began still aren't well-known, and haven't been accurately measured-we just don't KNOW ENOUGH yet.
The Creationists and ID people have a point there.
But 'tis not just points to their favour. As of yet, there's no direct evidence of the EXISTENCE of a Supreme Being, Creator, Deity, grand snaggleopppogus, or Great White Hanky. According to most existing literature of the major religions, God isn't granting interviews, nor is Allah, Buddha, or Muhammed. What the Creationist misses, is that it's NOT THE JOB OF SCIENCE to prove God's Existence, or the Alien Space Brothers, or Odin. God is about FAITH. SCIENCE is about "How does it WORK". Good science doesn't address theological questions, it only analyzes physical processes and properties of the universe AS IT IS, or "Why does the sun consume Hydrogen and produce Helium?", "How did I get this sun-burn?" or "How do I travel to the moon?"
Questions of God are "Do I have a Soul, where does it go, how should I live my life?" SCIENCE does not answer these questions. Science doesn't tell you what is right, or wrong, it does not provide guidance on how to treat your spouse, or children, it doesn't provide a reason why bad things happen to good people, nor does it define good and evil.
This means, basically, that science will not tell you whether or not god exists, has existed, or will exist-it's like getting an anonymous machine marked up in a language you don't know- science can tell you what it's made of, what its parts do, how they interact with one another...but it can't tell you WHO made it, or why, only what it might be for, and roughly how its parts work.
Both sides of the debate seem to be obsessed with (mis)using science to answer a question that neither side can provide empirical proof to support.
Ask a Creationist some time, "What is a work-day for an eternal being who is, by your own definition,all knowing and all powerful?" The correct answer is "As long as he wants (or needs) it to be."
The next question is "What kind of shoddy craftsman has to interfere with the workings of his device at every stage?" If god is perfect (as most Christians and other devout folk maintain he is) then he's not a shoddy craftsman. Observably, the universe works a certain way, observably, animals adapt to their environment, and tend to breed with other animals who show traits that are successful. Experimentally, selective breeding has produced most of our domestic animals. Presuming an all-powerful, and all-knowing creator who doesn't slack on the small details, is it really reasonable to assume that said creator would build a system that requires HIS direct intervention to produce intelligent life on one mote-speck of a planet around an unremarkable G2 yellow dwarf star in the unfashionable end of the western arm of a spiral galaxy that is one of thousands just like it?
Is it not more reasonable to assume that a being capable of creating a universe, would build that universe to the highest quality standards as a stand-alone, able to maintain itself for the desired period of time without constant meddling by the creator?
To a being inside that universe, would it not seem, (absent spectacular insight on the part of the observer) that these "Natural" processes are, in fact, NATURALLY Occurring, and that the mechanism follows its own internal rules, and does so seamlessly and without leaving toolmarks?
Darwin believed in god. Darwinists try to erase god and use Darwin to try and prove Gods non-existence. Creationists use science and technology, but try to use it to prove god's existence.
Both are mis-using scientific observation for their own ends.
8 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Cannonshop,
Has it ever dawned on you that both evolution (as corrected by reality on the ground) and the Bible may both be right?
True, it is not the job of the scientist to prove the existence of G-d. And it is not the job of the theologian to disprove physics or cosmology. But both might discover that they are headed in the same general direction of increasing understanding of mankind of the universe around him....
Further it must be noted here that once one gets to quantum physics, one largely leaves physics and skirts closely into the territory of metaphysics.
That question is not directed just at you but at all of the folks reading - particularly the author...
9 - Cannonshop
Indeed, Ruvy, it has. I have also found many similarities between various non-biblical texts and the bible, as well as features of Quantum Physics. The question of which truth is "truer" is one for Theologians. Physics, Quantum Physics, and various branches of science remain, for me, a path to finding out HOW the universe is constructed, and not paths to determining who, what, or whom might or might not be the motivating force. For the Bible to be right, the Vedas must be wrong, for the Vedas to be right, the bible must be wrong. This does not mean that the bible is entirely wrong, Things that are true observatiosn, or good hypotheses based on observations, or even lucky guesses don't stop being true simply because of where they are recorded. Conclusions can be tossed in science, but Data is Data, so long as it is not cooked or manipulated to support a conclusion, any scrap of data must be taken on its own merits rather than the merits of the source. If a Creationist, for instance, discovers a protein complex that he or she claims is proof of god, it may, or may not be proof of god, but it is definitely a protein complex that must be examined on its own merits. If a Physicist finds a particle that reacts to the mood of the observer, that particle must be treated as a particle, it is not proof of magic, or psychic powers on its own, and so on.
Really, there's been a degeneration of scientific ethics in the last few generations, it seems-the unfortunate cooking-of-data and manipulation of experiments in the Global Warming debate is just as much an example of dogmatism in 'science' as the Evolution/Creation debate continues to be. In both cases, both sides have a nasty habit of unquestioningly supporting their own point of view while ignoring any point of data that disrupts that point of view's conclusion. Both sides have a nasty habit of starting with a conclusion, then snipping information to fit, rather than the other way 'round, and both sides refuse to submit their hypotheses and experimental work to peer-reviewers holding the opposing viewpoint.
Science does not progress when it becomes dogmatic, whereas religion flourishes when it is rooted in tradition. Each has a place, neither should ever serve as a substitute for the other.
10 - teano
"...refuse to submit their hypotheses and experimental work to peer-reviewers..."
Right. Try sending anything against evolution to a science magazine. See how open-minded they are toward peer review. They're about as closed minded as fanatics get.
11 - Dr Dreadful
Try sending anything against evolution to a science magazine. See how open-minded they are toward peer review. They're about as closed minded as fanatics get.
Or - they recognize a complete load of bollocks when they see it.
12 - Dr Dreadful
Cannonshop: Darwin believed in god. Darwinists try to erase god and use Darwin to try and prove Gods non-existence.
Slight correction. Darwin did originally believe in God - he wanted to be a minister at one point - but his research led him to become agnostic.
As Ruvy points out, there's no logical conflict between accepting the theory of evolution and a belief in God. Most scientists don't believe in God not just because of evolution but because, well, they're scientists. The physical evidence, as you rightly observe, doesn't point to his active and ongoing involvement in the universe - so one might as well proceed as if he doesn't exist.
Statistically, I seem to recall that the percentage of cosmologists, astrophysicists and quantum physicists - those who actually deal with the origins and building blocks of the universe - who believe in God is even lower than in the general science community. To me this is interesting, because from my - admittedly lay - reading on these subjects, I do see quite compelling evidence for some sort of design.
I will note here that to Josh's credit, he does not attempt to bring God into the equation in his article.
13 - tenao
"Dr Dreadful - they recognize a complete load of bollocks when they see it"
You don't sound very open minded yourself. You have a blanket staement for whatever is against evolution, regardless of what it says? That's really "scientific." I see why evolutionists believe in the lunacy they believe in.
14 - rationalrevolution
And the Christian view of origins starts with a fable recorded by ancient goat herders, made up from their own imaginations (well actually the Jewish version is a revision of more ancient Sumerian and Babylonian versions).
15 - Jordan Richardson
Actually, Dr. Dreadful, what led Charles Darwin to his agnosticism was the passing of his daughter in 1851. His findings were being used by atheists and dissenters to attack the positions of the Church and Darwin did think that religion was a sort of "tribal" strategy because of some of his discoveries, so to speak, but it wasn't until later that his scepticism became his dominant philosophy.
16 - Dr Dreadful
#13:
Merely responding to yours in the same tone, Tenao.
The reason why creationist/intelligent design/whatever-you-want-to-call-them papers don't get peer-reviewed is that they're usually based on shoddy science. The ones that do get published either (a) are often literature reviews, not original research, (b) don't really address the topic of evolution anyway, or (c) appear in journals with sympathetic review boards or relaxed review standards.
Citation
17 - Dr Dreadful
#15:
Jordan, I stand partially corrected on the reason for Darwin's agnosticism. However, his observations in the field did lead him to question religious orthodoxy - for example, why God would have created exquisite creatures which lived in the deep ocean where no-one could see them.
18 - kurzweilfreak
Wow, what a completely incorrect article. Has the author actually done any study into evolutionary theory? Of course we don't see billions of failed "experiments" lying around, they died before reproduction, that's why they failed and hence didn't pass along their genes. Darwin hypothesized about evolution, publishing in 1853. We've come QUITE a long way in the last 155 years.
Actually learn something about the modern theory of evolution as supported by all the evidence instead of trying to knock down your cartoon idea of what you think it is. It's pointless to refute the author when the author doesn't even know what he's talking about. Evolution is a cumulative process. Geez, read a frigging book for a change and learn something before you think you know better than the whole of modern science. It's really not that difficult a concept to grasp.
19 - rationalrevolution
Most of this article and discussion totally miss the point anyway. While there certainly has been much scientific evidence to overturn some aspects of assumptions about the details of prior evolutionary concepts, all of these scientific advances offer nothing but more scientific evidence for other naturalistic material mechanisms for evolution. In order for "Intelligent Design" to make any advances there has to be "evidence" AGAINST naturalistic material mechanisms. And this is where ID has failed, is failing, and will always fail. The real issue is an issue of naturalistic processes vs. "supernatural" processes. ID doesn't really just rail against "Darwinian evolution", it rails against all naturalistic mechanisms. If, for example, it were proven that "natural selection" didn't account for all of the shaping of the characteristics of an organism (actually this has already been shown), this may be evidence against a purely Darwinian model, but it isn't evidence against evolution in general or against naturalistic development.
What IDers propose (Behe and Dembsky) is that they can "scientifically determine" that a given thing is impossible to have been produced via natural processes. That is their claim, and the math and procedures that they use to support this claim (specified complexity) is thoroughly and irrefutably complete bunk and total garbage. Without the ability to determine that it is impossible for something to have developed naturally, there is no science behind "Intelligent Design". ID is nothing more that reheated Aristotelian philosophy cloaked in Christian theology. Its ancient Medieval nonsense.
20 - Matthew T. Sussman
Is the facade of evolution crumbling a little bit over a long period of time?
21 - Cannonshop
Who's tested it? Where can I read said tests??
Seriously. Seriously, rejecting it as medieval nonsense without testing the man's assertions is just as much medieval nonsense.
22 - Dr Dreadful
Test what, Cannonshop?
The burden of proof is on Josh (or on Behe. Not clear who you're referring to here). He's the one challenging the established theory here.
23 - Jet in Columbus
This is about as silly as the ones who say we never landed on the moon.
The facts can be placed right in front of their eyes and they'll still call evolution as a theory.
24 - Dr Dreadful
Well, evolution is a theory, Jet. The problem here is with the creationists'/IDers misrepresentation of what a theory is.
25 - teano
It's strange how all those who keep yelling the author is "missing the point" are the ones who are missing the point. Have you people not read the article, or have you all just not comprehended it? There's a study that he cites that proves his point and you people just keep rehashing the same old evolutionist nonsense.
"An article in a 2007 issue of Current Biology, also available on ScienceDaily.com, reports that a multi-national team of biologists has concluded that developmental evolution is orderly and not random ... " Darwin was wrong.
Here's are excerpts of the article:
"A multi-national team of biologists has concluded that developmental evolution is deterministic and orderly, rather than random, based on a study of different species of roundworms... These results demonstrate that, even where we might expect evolution to be random, it is not"
The researchers were Karin Kiontke, a post-doctoral fellow in New York University's Department of Biology, NYU Biology Professor David Fitch, researchers from the University of Paris, the Israel Institute of Technology, and the Max-Planck Institute for Developmental Biology in Germany.
It takes some serious arrogance to keep throwing out the same tired old stuff when science itself proves, not just Greenberger, that Darwin was wrong.