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).

Claim CD013:
Potassium-argon dating of rocks from lava flows known to be modern gave ages millions to billions of years older.
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 146-147.
Response:
Argon may be incorporated with potassium at time of formation. This is a real problem, but it is easily overcome either by careful selection of the material being dated or by using 40Ar/39Ar dating instead of K-Ar dating.

In the case of the claim about recent lava yielding dates that are millions to billions of years old, H. M. Morris (1974) misstated the facts concerning these "anomalous" dates as published in Funkhouser and Naughton (1968). The main misstatements of fact by Morris are as follows:

It was not the lava that was dated, but inclusions of olivine, called "xenoliths", present within the lava. These gave anomalously old age because they contained excess argon that the enclosing lava did not.

Morris failed to mention that the lava matrix without the xenoliths was dated and found to be too young to date using potassium-argon. (Funkhouser and Naughton [1968, 4603], stated that the matrix rock "can be said to contain no measurable radiogenic argon within experimental error.") This is consistent with the recent age of lavas and the state of the art of K-Ar dating at that time. The presence of excess argon was only a problem for the xenoliths but not for the lava containing them.

Morris cited other examples of anomalous dates produced by excess argon and falsely claimed that it is a universal problem for K-Ar dating. The problem is not universal, as the majority of minerals and rocks dated by K-Ar do not contain the excess argon. Where excess argon is a problem, accurate, reliable dates typically can be obtained using 40Ar/39Ar dating, as demonstrated by Dalrymple (1969) and Renne et al. (1997) and discussed by Dalyrmple (2000).

Morris's complaints are dated in that, for the most part, geologists no longer use the K-Ar dating technique as was practiced in 1974. Instead, K-Ar dating has been largely replaced by the related 40Ar/39Ar dating technique. This change also solved other problems that Morris complained about in his discussion of the K-Ar dating technique. These complaints were as follows:

Claim: K-Ar dating techniques must be calibrated by uranium-lead (U-Pb) dating.

Response: Some calibrations between U-Pb and K-Ar were done in the 1940s and early 1950s, but the decay rates of all the different radioisotopes involved are now known to within 1 percent, making the different dating techniques independent.

With 40Ar/39Ar dating, it is possible to calibrate this dating method by using volcanic deposits created in historic volcanic eruptions -- for example, the eruption of Mount Vesuvius on August 24, 79 C.E. (Renne et al. 1997). In addition, 40Ar/39Ar dating can be compared not only with U-Pb dating techniques but also with other absolute dating techniques -- for example, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, and Sm-Nd dating techniques -- which all provide dates consistent with each other and with associated 40Ar/39Ar dates. This has been demonstrated by the dating of chondrite meteorites (Dalrymple 1991) and tektites and other ejecta and deposits created by the giant meteorite impact at Chicxulub in the Yucatan Peninsula (Dalrymple et al. 1993).

Claim: The potassium-argon is an open system.

Response: The papers cited by Morris fail to probe this point. The first paper simply demonstrates that rock altered by weathering cannot be dated. This is a common-sense conclusion understood by geologists literate in the basics of their profession; it is irrelevant to the unaltered minerals that are typically dated using K-Ar, 40Ar/39Ar, and other techniques. The final paper claims potassium is quite mobile because potassium can be extracted from iron meteorites by using distilled water. However, K-Ar dating commonly uses potassium silicate minerals, which are very insoluble in water and resist weathering. Potassium cannot be significantly leached from the minerals used in K-Ar dating, or, conversely, the minerals from which significant potassium can be leached are not the minerals used in K-Ar dating.

Claim: The decay rate of potassium is subject to change.

Response: This is simply not true.

Claim: Argon maybe incorporated with potassium at time of formation.

Response: See first point (a) above.

Claim: K-Ar ages are extremely variable.

Response: As previously noted, K-Ar and 40Ar/39Ar dating both provide extremely consistent dates when the methods are used properly (Dalrymple 1991; 2000). The single paper (Engels 1971) cited by Morris clearly stated that variability resulted from presence of unwanted impurities in the specific mineral being dated. If the sample dated consisted of an absolutely pure mineral, there would not be any variability in the K-Ar dates obtained from them.
Links:
harlequin2, 2001. Ar-Ar dating assumes there is no excess argon? http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie024.html

harlequin2, 2001. 200 year old lava dated 2.96 billion years old? http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie023.html

Lindsay, Don, 2000. Fresh lava dated as 22 million years old. http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/hawaii.html

Stassen, Chris, 1999 (Jan.). Feedback response. http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jan99.html (4th response down)
References:
Dalrymple, G. Brent, 1969. 40Ar/36Ar analyses of historic lava flows. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 6: 47-55.
Dalrymple, G. Brent, 1991. The Age of the Earth. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Dalrymple, G. Brent, 2000 (May/Jun). Radiometric dating does work! Some examples and a critique of a failed creationist strategy. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 20(3): 14-17. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol20/6061_radiometeric_dating_does_work_12_30_1899.asp
Dalrymple, G. B., G. A. Izett, L. W. Snee and J. D. Obradovich, 1993. 40Ar/39Ar age spectra and total-fusion ages of tektites from Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary sedimentary rocks in the Beloc formation, Haiti. United States Geological Survey Bulletin no. 2065.
Engels, J. C., 1971. Effects of sample purity on discordant mineral ages found in K-Ar dating. Journal of Geology 79: 609-616.
Funkhouser, J. G. and J. J. Naughton, 1968. Radiogenic helium and argon in ultramafic inclusions from Hawaii. Journal of Geophysical Research 73(14): 4601-4607.
Morris, 1974. (see above.)
Renne, P. R., W. D. Sharp, A. L. Deino, G. Orsi and L. Civetta, 1997. 40Ar/39Ar dating into the historical realm: Calibration against Pliny the Younger. Science 277: 1279-1280.
Further Reading:
Attendorn, H.-G. and R. N. C. Bowen, 1997. Radioactive and Stable Isotope Geology. London: Chapman & Hall.

Faure, G., 1986. Principles of Isotope Geology, 2nd ed. New York: Wiley.

McDougall, I. and T. M. Harrison, 1988. Geochronology and Thermochronology by the 40Ar/39Ar Method. Oxford Monographs on Geology and Geophysics no.9. New York: Oxford. (technical)

Thompson, Timothy, 2003. A radiometric dating resource list. http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html

Wiens, Roger C., 1994, 2002. Radiometric dating: A Christian perspective. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

I guess this takes care of any credibility ICR/Morris might have when it comes to radiometric dating.

"I guess this takes care of any credibility ICR/Morris might have when it comes to radiometric dating."

You don't like the message, impune the messenger.

The article you posted, indicates the K-AR has pretty much been abandoned. Although I note that it doesn't say when it was abandoned. It's worded to make it sound like the switch took place 30 years ago, and Morris is just dredging up old out of date complaints. But I seriously doubt that is the case. Especially when you see the quote below from Dalrymple is from 1991.

If it has been a more recent switch, that would be typical of the kinds of omissions that Talk-Origins practices to try to impune the integrity of Creationists.

"Morris's complaints are dated in that, for the most part, geologists no longer use the K-Ar dating technique as was practiced in 1974. Instead, K-Ar dating has been largely replaced by the related 40Ar/39Ar dating technique." - From the talk origins shubi posted.

Dalrymple quote
"The K-Ar method is the only decay scheme that can be used with little or no concern for the initial presence of the daughter isotope. This is because 40Ar is an inert gas that does not combine chemically with any other element and so escapes easily from rocks when they are heated. Thus, while a rock is molten, the 40Ar formed by the decay of 40K escapes from the liquid.1"

1 G.B. Dalrymple, The Age of the Earth (1991, Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press), p. 91.

I also think it's instructive that the Mt. St. Helens was still dated using Potassium Argon.

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.