In Six Days (A Biology PHD looks at Evolution)

Timothy G. Standish, biology First published in In Six Days Science and origins testimony #9

Dr. Standish is associate professor of biology at Andrews University in Berrien Springs, Michigan. He holds a B.S. in zoology from Andrews University, an M.S. in biology from Andrews University, and a Ph.D. in biology and public policy from George Mason University (University of Virginia), Charlottesville, Virginia. He teaches genetics at Andrews University and is currently researching the genetics of cricket (Achita domesticus) behavior.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reading The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins was a pivotal experience for me. I had recently started my Ph.D. program at George Mason University and eagerly signed up for a class entitled “Problems in Evolutionary Theory.” The Blind Watchmaker was required reading, and with growing enthusiasm I noted glowing endorsements printed on the cover. According to The Economist, this book was “as readable and vigorous a defense of Darwinism as has been published since 1859.” Lee Dembart, writing for the Los Angeles Times, was even more effusive: “Every page rings of truth. It is one of the best science books—of the best of any books—I have ever read.” A book that was “Winner of the Royal Society of Literature’s Heinemann Prize, and the Los Angeles Times Book Award” must contain nothing but undistilled brilliance. I felt smug with confidence as I paid for the book and left the store, brimming with ebullience to start reading.

After wading through all the hyperbole, I was stunned by the ideas put forward by Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker. Rhetoric burnished the arguments with a glittering sheen, briefly giving the impression that pebbles were gems. But once each metaphor was stripped aside, the core ideas did not support the idea that natural selection could account for the origin of life and the meaningful complexity of organisms. Most startling to me was the realization that, one of the book’s core theses, in fact, violated the principle of natural selection.

Dawkins wove two ideas together in supporting Darwinism. The first idea was that, given enough chances, the improbable becomes probable. For example, flipping a coin ten times in a row and getting heads each time is very unlikely; one would only expect it to happen about 1 in 1,024 tries. Most of us would not sit around flipping coins just to see it happen, but if we had a million people flipping coins, we would see it happen many times. This phenomenon is publicized in the newspapers when lottery winners are announced. Winning a million-dollar jackpot is unlikely, but with millions of people purchasing tickets, eventually someone wins.

Dawkins admits that the odds on life starting from a random collection of chemicals is very slim, but given an immense universe and the billions of years it has existed, the improbable becomes probable. In this is echoed the logic of Ernst Haeckel, who wrote in his book The Riddle of the Universe, published in 1900:

Many of the stars, the light of which has taken thousands of years to reach us, are certainly suns like our own mother-sun, and are girt about with planets and moons, just as in our solar system. We are justified in supposing that thousands of these planets are in a similar stage of development to that of our earth … and that from its nitrogenous compounds, protoplasm has been evolved—that wonderful substance which alone, as far as our knowledge goes, is the possessor of organic life.

Haeckel was optimistic about the presence of conditions that could support life on planets other than earth, and it is in this that one of the problems with Dawkins’ argument emerges. While the universe is immense, those places where life as we know it could survive, let alone come into being, seem to be few and far between. So far, only one place has been discovered where conditions for life are present, and we are already living on it. Thus, there is not much cause for optimism that the universe is teeming with planets bathed in a primordial soup from which life might evolve. Dawkins wrote glibly of the immensity of the universe and its age, but failed to provide one example, other than the earth, where the unlikely event of spontaneous generation of life might occur. Even if the universe were teeming with proto-earths, and the spans of time suggested by modern science were available, this is still not a great argument, as if something is impossible—in other words, the odds of it happening are zero—then it will never happen, not even in an infinite amount of time. For example, even if we had our million people flipping coins, each with ten flips in a row, the odds on any one of them flipping and getting 11 heads in ten tries is zero because the odds of getting 11 heads in ten tries with one person is zero. The bottom line is that the odds on life evolving from nonliving precursors is essentially zero. Ironically, this was the stronger of the two ideas, or arguments, presented by Dawkins.

The second argument was presented as an analogy: imagine a monkey typing on a typewriter with 27 keys, all the letters in the English alphabet and the space bar. How long would it take for the monkey to type something that made any sense? Dawkins suggests the sentence spoken by William Shakespeare’s Hamlet who, in describing a cloud, pronounces, “Methinks it is like a weasel.” It is not a long sentence and contains very little meaning, but it works for argument’s sake. How many attempts at typing this sentence would it take a monkey, which would presumably be hitting keys randomly, to type the sentence?

As it turns out, the odds can be easily calculated as the probability of getting each letter or space correct raised to the power of the number of positions at which they have to be correct. In this case, the probability of the monkey typing “m” at the first position of the sentence is 1/27 (we won’t worry about capitalization). The sentence has 28 characters in it, so the probability is (1/27)28 or 1.2 x 10–40. That is about one chance in 12,000 million million million million million million! You would want a lot of monkeys typing very fast for a long time if you ever wanted to see this happen!

To overcome this problem with probability, Dawkins proposed that natural selection could help by fixing each letter in place once it was correct and thus lowering the odds massively. In other words, as a monkey types away, it is not unlikely that at least one of the characters it types will be in the correct position on the first try. If this letter was then kept and the monkey was only allowed to type in the remaining letters until it finally had the correct letter at each position, the odds fall to the point that the average diligent monkey could probably finish the task in an afternoon and still have time to gather bananas and peanuts from admiring observers. Dawkins got his computer to do it in between 40 and 70 tries.

Luckily I had taken biochemistry before reading The Blind Watchmaker. Organisms are made of cells, and those cells are composed of little protein machines that do the work of the cell. Proteins can be thought of as sentences like “Methinks it is like a weasel,” the difference being that proteins are made up of 20 different subunits called amino acids instead of the 27 different characters in our example. The evolution of a functional protein would presumably start out as a random series of amino acids one or two of which would be in the right position to do the function the protein is designed to do. According to Dawkins’ theory, those amino acids in the right location in the protein would be fixed by natural selection, while those that needed to be modified would continue to change until they were correct, and a functional protein was produced in relatively short order. Unfortunately, this ascribes an attribute to natural selection that even its most ardent proponents would question, the ability to select one nonfunctional protein from a pool of millions of other nonfunctional proteins.

Changing even one amino acid in a protein can alter its function dramatically. A famous example of this is the mutation that causes sickle cell anemia in humans. This disease causes a multitude of symptoms, ranging from liver failure to tower skull syndrome. It is caused by the replacement of an amino acid called glutamate, normally at position number six, with another amino acid called valine. This single change causes a massive difference in how the alpha globin subunit of hemoglobin works. The ultimate sad consequence of this seemingly insignificant mutation in the protein causes premature death in thousands of individuals each year. In other proteins, mutations to some, but not all, areas can result in a complete loss of function. This is particularly true if the protein is an enzyme, and the mutation is in its active site.

What Dawkins is suggesting is that a very large group of proteins, none of which is functional, can be acted on by natural selection to select out a few that, while they do not quite do the job yet, with some modification via mutation, can do the job in the future. This suggests that natural selection has some direction or goal in mind, a great heresy to those who believe evolutionary theory.

This idea of natural selection fixing amino acids as it constructs functional proteins is also unsupported by the data. Cells do not churn out large pools of random proteins on which natural selection can then act. If anything, precisely the opposite is true. Cells only produce the proteins they need to make at that time. Making other proteins, even unneeded functional ones, would be a wasteful thing for cells to do, and in many cases, could destroy the ability of the cell to function. Most cells only make about 10% of the proteins they are capable of producing. This is what makes liver cells different from those in the skin or brain. If all proteins were expressed all the time, all cells would be identical.

In reality, the problem of evolving life is much more complex than generation of a single functional protein. In fact, a single protein is just the tip of the iceberg. A living organism must have many functional proteins, all of which work together in a coordinated way. In the course of my research, I frequently physically disrupt cells by grinding them in liquid nitrogen. Sometimes I do this to obtain functional proteins, but more often to get the nucleic acids RNA or DNA. In any case, I have yet to find that the protein or nucleic acid I was working on was not functional after being removed from the cell, and yet, even though all the cell components were present and functional following disruption, I have never observed a single cell start to function again as a living organism, or even part of a living organism. For natural selection to occur, all proteins on which it is to act must be part of a living organism composed of a host of other functional protein machines. In other words, the entire system must exist prior to selection occurring, not just a single protein.

“Problems in Evolutionary Theory” was a class that made me realize the difficulties those who discount the possibility of a Creator have with their own theories. The problems with evolutionary theory were real, and there were no simple convincing resolutions.

Progressing in my studies, I slowly realized that evolution survives as a paradigm only as long as the evidence is picked and chosen and the great pool of data that is accumulating on life is ignored. As the depth and breadth of human knowledge increases, it washes over us a flood of evidence deep and wide, all pointing to the conclusion that life is the result of design. Only a small subset of evidence, chosen carefully, may be used to construct a story of life evolving from nonliving precursors. Science does not work on the basis of picking and choosing data to suit a treasured theory. I chose the path of science which also happens to be the path of faith in the Creator.

I believe God provides evidence of His creative power for all to experience personally in our lives. To know the Creator does not require an advanced degree in science or theology. Each one of us has the opportunity to experience His creative power in re-creating His character within us, step by step, day by day.

This chapter from the book In Six Days, published and graciously provided at no charge to Answers in Genesis by Master Books, a division of New Leaf Press (Green Forest, Arkansas).

"So we are back to same old evolutionist crap argument."

I think you have twisted the term "creationist crapsite".

"1)Don't publish anything that talks about design or creation because that's "supernatural" and not science. "

If ID or creation science would come up with some good data, have it peer reviewed and present a coherent explanation of the data, without resorting to misinterpretations of the Baahbull, it would be accepted by science. Until then, yall can whine all you want.

"2)And don't acknowledge any creation or ID arguments because they aren't published. "

They aren't published in science journals because they are not science. That is why you have to have all the creationist crapsites and the charlatans peddling comic book pamphlets for filthy luchre instead.

"You are burying your head in the sand and taking comfort that there are many evolutionist ostrich people with their heads buried next to you."

I understand that ostriches do not bury their heads in the sand. That it is an old wives tale, like all the trash creationists spout. The science is there for anyone to study and draw conclusions it is correct. For those that will be driven from their church if they talk about real science, it is understandable they will live in fear of being shunned. However, that is no excuse for attempting to put mindless superstition in kids science classes.

My view on the type of energy involved in "let there be light" is it is some type of primordial energy. The Hebrew language would have no other terms for energy other than heat or light. No writer in Hebrew thousands of years ago, given a picture from God of cosmic rays or some such, would ever be able to find a word to describe it.

So, I think it might be a good bet that light in the passage could be any one of a number of different types of energy. It might even be a type of energy we no longer are able to observe.

"Obviously, there is much physical evidence to dispute the argument that God created the universe in six days some 6,000 years ago. The religious response to that seems to be that God created a "mature" universe that looks to us like it is billions of years old when in fact it is not. My question, then, is why would God try to trick us like that?"

A trick me thinks not. Is the sky really blue or does God trick our eyes???

There are several different levels of meaning in many passages of the Bible. Both your interpretation, which I agree with btw, and mine are probably true.

In the first sentence of Genesis 1 where it says In the beginning (at first) created God the heavens and the Earth, created is the word bara. Bara and Bar meaning son have the same roots. The first sentence literally is, "At first, God sired the whole universe." Bara has the sense of God the father and the son in the same word. Then later when it talks about the Spirit of God, using ruach from the root for breathe. Thus in the first few sentences we have the whole Trinity described and a general idea of its role in Creation.

Then right after that we have the "let there be light" passage. But since Jesus the Son was already present before the beginning, this was not the creation of Jesus but a description of how an omnipotent God in three persons effected the start and continuation of everything we now see (including the process of evolution which allows life to adapt to a changing universe).

Jesus is part of creation as the light of the world, but He is more than that as well. Like I said, the Bible is written on more than one level at the same time. Hebrew is a holy language that contains more insights than we can imagine.

Well if you think the light on Day 1 must have been energy, that might explain why you think Morning and Night could only have been accomplished by having a Sun on Day 1 instead of Day 4.

But I think the more likely explanation is that initial light and/or energy allowed the first morning and night without the Sun.

You do understand that day and night are caused by the rotation of the Earth on its access with the Sun shining on half of it at a time, don't you?

You can rationalize all you want or claim faith over what the Bible says, but the fact is you can't have day and night without the Sun being present. The ancients would not have known this little fact, but that is no reason for you not to apprehend it.

You can rationalize all you want or claim faith over what the Bible says, but the fact is you can't have day and night without the Sun being present.

As I said before, all you need is a directed light source. It doesn't have to be the sun. As long as light hits one side of the earth and not the other and the earth rotates, you can have Day and Night.

Given that God's record says, He created light first and separated it from the darkness. I don't see where you have a problem. Just because you aren't told how He created the light or what was the source, He had the necessary item to pull off Day and Night. Light!!!

I just think it's foolish to think that the ONLY option God had for providing light was to create a Sun.

You are open to entertain a form of energy from an unknown source and possibly even an unknown type of energy. But you aren't willing to consider it possible that God pulled off generating light without a Sun.

I don't understand that closedmindedness. One (energy) is so close to the other (light), but you insist scripture must be wrong.

You seem to want to take a literalist view, until that idea fails to meet your idea of what the Bible says.

There is no indication that the light first created before the Sun came from any source or that source would cause night and day on earth. You seem to postulate a 24 hour blinking light cycle or some other idea that is clearly not Biblical.

I wouldn't be so quick to charge someone else with not believing God's word from now on, if I were you. Just because your pastor told you the Bible says that there were 24 hr days does not mean the Bible really says that. Why do you want to give the morning and evening passage more weight than the creation of the Sun? It is obvious the morning and evening are part of the thought poetry of the Hebrew in Gen 1.

I think I have shown there are far better reasons to say that the Bible shows much deeper and more accurate meanings than most literalist pastors would consider. This is probably because they lack adequate training and are rather simplistic. That is ok. Before most people could read, the Roman Catholic church devised the mass to teach the basics of the Bible without any literacy at all.

You have yet to post an Scripture to back up your interpretation. The Sun was created on the 4th day, yet you claim it was there on day 1.

Both Danny and Raycpa have used Scripture to support their ideas on the source of the light and they are correct. God was the source of the light. I will throw another passage into the ring.

Rev 21:23 - And the city has no need of the sun or of the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God has illumined it, and its lamp is the Lamb.

Until you cite Scripture to support your claim that the Sun was present on Day 1 and NOT created on Day 4, then you are the same as those who you accuse of not supporting their ID theories with scientific evidence. Provide evidence and maybe you will be taken seriously.

JM

I assume your rant was directed at me. I don't think there is any doubt the Bible says the Moon and Sun were created on the fourth "day". I can't believe you didn't know this verse:

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the dayand the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
The Holy Bible : King James Version. 1995 (Ge 1:14-19).

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.