Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

In Six Days (A Biology PHD looks at Evolution)
In Six Days ^ | 02/17/05 | Timothy G. Standish, PHD biology

Posted on 02/17/2005 3:10:32 PM PST by DannyTN

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

Edited by John F. Ashton

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).


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: bible; blindwatchmaker; bookexcerpt; charlesdarwin; commondescent; creation; creationism; crevo; crevolist; darwin; dawkins; design; evolution; gmu; humanorigins; insixdays; intelligentdesign; origins; richarddawkins; sitchin; treeoflife; uva
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 281-294 next last
To: DannyTN

It's simple but nobody has done it.

Well then, lead!

PS I read a post about your daughter earlier. Congrats on a sharp specimen, but you'd better watch when she turns 14 (unfortunate voice of experience, sigh) :))


21 posted on 02/17/2005 3:42:11 PM PST by furball4paws (It's not the cough that carried him off - it's the coffin they carried him off in (O. Nash -I think))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
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!

My God the writer COMPLETELY missed the point of Dawkins' example.

Cumulative selection is the key to understanding evolution. No one in their right mind (except creationists) argues that proteins and other macro-molecules arose in one step.

Evolution by its very definition postulates that these processes occured gradually.

Why is this simple concept so repeatedly misunderstood?

22 posted on 02/17/2005 3:42:44 PM PST by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: antihannityguy

Can you site a source for that?


23 posted on 02/17/2005 3:43:28 PM PST by FactsMatter (:))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Stultis

bttt for later read.


24 posted on 02/17/2005 3:43:30 PM PST by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: nyg4168

Dinosaurs and humans did not co-exist.

Where is your evidence. If you read the Bible there are various passages about dragons and the leviathan. Dinosaur is a relatively new term invented in the 1800s I believe,

Carbon dating does tell us how old organic material is.

But it is frequently misused and is inaccuarate over a certain number of years

Light travels at a set speed, and millions of years must have passed for us to see starts that are millions of light years away.

Tere is evidence that the speed of light has slowed from the mid 1800s and if calculated backwards is near infinite 6000 years ago.


25 posted on 02/17/2005 3:43:44 PM PST by antihannityguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
This article is pretty much a joke. This guy complains that nobody has found another planet that's like the Earth, when we currently have no ability to find another planet like the Earth. There are approximately 10^22 candidate solar systems out there, and we can't even check one of them other than our own.

He also seems to be of the opinion that evolutionary biology requires fully functioning complex proteins to form spontaneously. This is a bizzare argument. All that is required in the first "spark" is that you have an amino acid that is capable of self-replication. That is, it bonds with the surrounding material in the "primordial ooze" until it's formed two copies of itself, then splits apart from there. That's the logical starting point of evolution. Once there are trillions of copies you might expect some further mutation.

As for this "intelligent design" concept, it's just a cop-out. It finds God to be wherever you can't explain, and conversely finds him in nothing that you can explain. Just because you don't understand how something works doesn't mean that there isn't a natural reason why it works.
26 posted on 02/17/2005 3:44:59 PM PST by Moral Hazard (Sod off, Swampy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: antihannityguy
Do you think that, maybe, just maybe the reason for the 'slow down' in c is because we have much better equipment now that is much more reliable and has far greater accuracy?
27 posted on 02/17/2005 3:45:50 PM PST by FactsMatter (:))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Moral Hazard
As for this "intelligent design" concept, it's just a cop-out. It finds God to be wherever you can't explain, and conversely finds him in nothing that you can explain.

Its bad for science, yet its even worse for religion.

28 posted on 02/17/2005 3:46:58 PM PST by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
I think we have misinterpreted the data and when rightly understood it won't show billions of years old at all.

There is way too much evidence that says the universe is billions of years old. Fortunately there was and event called SN1987A that gave us conclusive evidence that out distance measurement methodologies are valid.

29 posted on 02/17/2005 3:48:27 PM PST by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: FactsMatter

I believe the Institute for Creation Research has a very good web site www.icr.org with many other interesting facts that Darwinists overlook


30 posted on 02/17/2005 3:50:07 PM PST by antihannityguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
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.

Never mind that we are not yet able to detect a planet the size of the earth at a similar distance from a similar star, even if that star were as close as Alpha Centari, Epsilon Eridani or other very very nearby stars.

IOW, if we were near one of those nearby stars, we couldn't detect the earth!.

31 posted on 02/17/2005 3:52:06 PM PST by El Gato (Activist Judges can twist the Constitution into anything they want ... or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nyg4168

This is the same argument that I've heard wherein a Catholic Priest, when questioned on some theology replied: "Well my son, I don't know about that, but if we are going to hell, there are 500,000,000 of us going together."


32 posted on 02/17/2005 3:54:45 PM PST by Frumious Bandersnatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Comment #33 Removed by Moderator

To: antihannityguy
Dinosaurs and humans did not co-exist.

Where is your evidence. If you read the Bible there are various passages about dragons and the leviathan. Dinosaur is a relatively new term invented in the 1800s I believe.


Well, as anti-evolutionists are keen to point out, you cannot prove a negative. (You cannot prove that God didn't create the world, for example) But you can have enough evidence to make any rational person believe a negative has been disproved. In this case, the overwhelming evidnce (and lack of evidence to the contrary) would lead any rational person to believe that humans and dinosaurs did not co-exist.

"Dinosaur" may be a recently new term, but humans have seen the evidence of giant lizard fossils in the ground for millenia. The only mention of Dragons in the Bible is in Revelation, which is a vision interpreted as a prophecy.

Carbon dating does tell us how old organic material is.

But it is frequently misused and is inaccuarate over a certain number of years.


Frequent misuse does not mean it is wrong. I frequently misuse my calculator; that doesn't mean the calculator is wrong.. And apparently science has figured out that it can be inaccurate after a certain time period, and thus we know when and when not to rely on it so we're not being fooled.

Light travels at a set speed, and millions of years must have passed for us to see starts that are millions of light years away.

Tere is evidence that the speed of light has slowed from the mid 1800s and if calculated backwards is near infinite 6000 years ago.


Well, first of all, I think that measurements of the speed of light were not quite as accurate in the 1800s as they are today, so I'm not persuaded it has changed. And second, that's quite a leap to say it was infinite 6000 years ago without presenting an awful lot of observations and math.

For me, it all boils down to this: If you've ever been around scientists, you know they are always testing and criticising and poking holes in theories. The search to understand the world around us. That's the point of science. If there were credible evidence of creation in six days 6,000 years ago, you better believe the science world would publish and recognize it. It's just irrational to believe that hundreds of thousands of scientists have for centuries been involved in a consiracy to distort evidence in order to deny the biblical account of creation.
34 posted on 02/17/2005 4:00:39 PM PST by nyg4168
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
IOW, if we were near one of those nearby stars, we couldn't detect the earth!.

Other than by the copious radio frequency emissions, but even that method is only possible out to less than 100 light years, since we've not been putting out much of that stuff any longer than that.

35 posted on 02/17/2005 4:01:51 PM PST by El Gato (Activist Judges can twist the Constitution into anything they want ... or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws

Thanks for the ping, but I'm not going to bother the evolution list for stuff like this.


36 posted on 02/17/2005 4:04:46 PM PST by PatrickHenry (<-- Click on my name. The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
...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...

Using the 10 heads in a row analogy stinks. It has to assume that once you flip heads 10 times in a row, it will now always be heads on any flip. Randomness can no longer apply

Rather, try this one on for size.

Take 10 identical coins and mark them 1 to 10.
Place them in your pocket.
Now take one out...there is one chance in 10 that you will get the number 1.
Now put it back in your pocket.
Pull a coin. The chances that 2 will follow 1 are not 1 in 10 , but 1 in a hundred.
With each new coin taken out, the risk is multiplied by 10.
So that 10 following 9 is 1 in 10,000,000,000.

Now try that with all the things that are required to make life.

Randomness ? Not a chance.
37 posted on 02/17/2005 4:06:36 PM PST by stylin19a (Marines - end of discussion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moral Hazard
All that is required in the first "spark" is that you have an amino acid that is capable of self-replication.

And somehow from this these amino acids figure out how to grow organs, arms, legs, brains, eyes, DNA Chains billions and billions of molecules long.

It would take one smart amino acid and a whole lot of punctuated equilibrium to do that.

For me, evolution is not believable until this process can be explained, which of course it cannot be based on current evolutionary theory. That is why Gould came up with punctuated equilibrium which explains nothing.
38 posted on 02/17/2005 4:09:11 PM PST by microgood (Washington State: Ukraine without the poison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: nyg4168

Well, as anti-evolutionists are keen to point out, you cannot prove a negative. (You cannot prove that God didn't create the world, for example) But you can have enough evidence to make any rational person believe a negative has been disproved. In this case, the overwhelming evidnce (and lack of evidence to the contrary) would lead any rational person to believe that humans and dinosaurs did not co-exist.

Well then to quote you "But you can have enough evidence to make any rational person believe a negative has been disproved. In this case, the overwhelming evidnce (and lack of evidence to the contrary) would lead any rational person to believe" that there is no MISSING link, as one has never been found despite the many fraudulent attempts.


Frequent misuse does not mean it is wrong. I frequently misuse my calculator; that doesn't mean the calculator is wrong.. And apparently science has figured out that it can be inaccurate after a certain time period, and thus we know when and when not to rely on it so we're not being fooled.

How ever you are wrong if you go around touting that incorrect number on your calculator as correct

It's just irrational to believe that hundreds of thousands of scientists have for centuries been involved in a consiracy to distort evidence in order to deny the biblical account of creation.

However evolution has only been around for a about 170 years, as for your conspiracy theory, how about the lack of discourse in public schools. Secular educators refuse to even acknowledge that evolution has problems. Although one is sincere, they can be sincerely wrong.


39 posted on 02/17/2005 4:16:26 PM PST by antihannityguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Moral Hazard
All that is required in the first "spark" is that you have an amino acid that is capable of self-replication.

You've found an amino acid that can self replicate?

40 posted on 02/17/2005 4:28:20 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 281-294 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson