I. The Improbability of Life
II. The Lack of a Working Mechanism of Evolution
This session really shook me, to look at all of what I've read from Dawkins and other evolutionists in a different light. It's unnerving how convincing their arguments looked to me in my teenage years, packaged up in lovely little softcovers. Reading those same arguments from a critical perspective really uncovers a chasm between the touted scientific method and the conjectures of evolutionists. Taking such a stand invites persecution, but evidence, both personal and observational, points to a Creator God. Incidentally, Crash Course just started a series on 'Big History', which adds yet more footage to support of the greatest mythology of the modern age.
I. The Improbability of Life
From my studies in high school biology, the complexity of life was already something easily apparent, so as the speaker went through his figures, I was not too surprised at the impossibly small chances he estimated for the formation of proteins, ribonucleic material and cells. Though, I was rather amused by the conviction that he had as he made his comparisons, given that the figures he was choosing were probably estimates more than anything else. One figure he rather seized on was in relation to the chirality of amino acids. He had a figure that a protein is composed of at least 410 amino acids. I'm not sure what source he derived that from. All the same, he zoomed in on the chirality of the amino acids in terrestrial life being confined to left handed enantiomers, and proceeded to base his later calculations and figures on the binary odds of each amino acid winding up left handed in a functioning protein. The probability he arrived at was 1/2^410, or 3.18*10^-124, and he used this number to go on to make comparisons with other figures, like the number of seconds that the universe has been in existence - according to evolutionists, 4.73*10^17. On the basis of other such similar comparisons, he felt that the chances of even a single protein forming by chance were infinitesimally minute.
From someone with a little more knowledge of biology, it would seem that his value for the protein probability was far too large. There are other factors that come into a protein's functionality. Structurally, the right amino acids have to be arranged in the right order, which brings in a ton of permutations. The polypeptide chain also has to fold in the right way, which also implies that the amino acids could not have haphazardly be added on to either side. The protein has remain in a stable environment for long enough, implying the need for control of other external factors such as pH and temperature for it to function for extended periods of time. Evolutionists bandy around large numbers that seem to vast to comprehend, but the fact is, after a little thought, the complexity of a single protein trumps all the billions of years of the cosmological mythos.
Evolution gained a footing in a time of scientific ignorance about the nature of cells, when they seemed like simple blobs of organic matter infused with élan vital and spontaneous generation was just being overturned. The complexity of a single cell, even a prokaryotic cell, or one of the domain archaea, should leave us agog. Can we dispense with a romantic hypothesis that the scientific method should long have rejected? Where are the observations and repeated trials that lead by logical induction to such grand notions? Rather, there are tatters of skimpy evidence stitched together by insurmountable improbabilities, shaded by the hazy cloaks of a hypothetical vast eon, as unobserved by any living human as the titanomachy or the construction of Valhalla.
II. The Lack of a Working Mechanism of Evolution
I. The Improbability of Life
From my studies in high school biology, the complexity of life was already something easily apparent, so as the speaker went through his figures, I was not too surprised at the impossibly small chances he estimated for the formation of proteins, ribonucleic material and cells. Though, I was rather amused by the conviction that he had as he made his comparisons, given that the figures he was choosing were probably estimates more than anything else. One figure he rather seized on was in relation to the chirality of amino acids. He had a figure that a protein is composed of at least 410 amino acids. I'm not sure what source he derived that from. All the same, he zoomed in on the chirality of the amino acids in terrestrial life being confined to left handed enantiomers, and proceeded to base his later calculations and figures on the binary odds of each amino acid winding up left handed in a functioning protein. The probability he arrived at was 1/2^410, or 3.18*10^-124, and he used this number to go on to make comparisons with other figures, like the number of seconds that the universe has been in existence - according to evolutionists, 4.73*10^17. On the basis of other such similar comparisons, he felt that the chances of even a single protein forming by chance were infinitesimally minute.
From someone with a little more knowledge of biology, it would seem that his value for the protein probability was far too large. There are other factors that come into a protein's functionality. Structurally, the right amino acids have to be arranged in the right order, which brings in a ton of permutations. The polypeptide chain also has to fold in the right way, which also implies that the amino acids could not have haphazardly be added on to either side. The protein has remain in a stable environment for long enough, implying the need for control of other external factors such as pH and temperature for it to function for extended periods of time. Evolutionists bandy around large numbers that seem to vast to comprehend, but the fact is, after a little thought, the complexity of a single protein trumps all the billions of years of the cosmological mythos.
Evolution gained a footing in a time of scientific ignorance about the nature of cells, when they seemed like simple blobs of organic matter infused with élan vital and spontaneous generation was just being overturned. The complexity of a single cell, even a prokaryotic cell, or one of the domain archaea, should leave us agog. Can we dispense with a romantic hypothesis that the scientific method should long have rejected? Where are the observations and repeated trials that lead by logical induction to such grand notions? Rather, there are tatters of skimpy evidence stitched together by insurmountable improbabilities, shaded by the hazy cloaks of a hypothetical vast eon, as unobserved by any living human as the titanomachy or the construction of Valhalla.
II. The Lack of a Working Mechanism of Evolution
This section of the recording was one that truly got to me, and rather disturbed me about how I know what I know. It's odd how topics in the Theory of Knowledge course are supposed to foster such critical thinking, and yet the same classrooms are venues for the dissemination of shaky evolutionary ideas. The speaker began with the universally denied Lamarckian model, followed by Darwin's natural selection, genetic drift, mutations, neo-Darwinism and punctuated equilibrium. I suppose the speaker must be defining evolution in terms of the development of new information or complexity in the genetic code resulting in phenotypical change. Of all the examples that I have heard used in support of evolution, only only remains standing, that of multiple antibiotic resistant bacteria, which is only really applicable for microevolution.
The speaker, after dismissing Lamarck's ideas; poor fellow, always remembered as a foil to Darwin; proceeds to outline natural selection as the whittling down of populations to those that can survive best in an environment. Natural selection, he posits, does not provide a mechanism of how the variety and change in the organism comes to be, but rather, only refers to the process by which some existing varieties of the organism come to predominate the population. It is a logical idea, it is certainly demonstrable, but it fails to explain how new genetic information is demonstrated and accompanying that, how new features or traits arise. If anything, natural selection demonstrates a loss of information, as apparently unsuccessful varieties are phased out and lost. It rather reminds me of the statistics of how varieties of vegetables and fruits have been narrowed down to a handful popular with the modern consumer instead of the hundreds of localised nuanced expressions of, well, Solanum lycopersicum. Thus, if one extrapolates backward on natural selection alone, one can only arrive at an earlier state that contained more complexity, interaction and kinds of life than the one we observe presently.
So, to prop evolution up, we require a mechanism that generates variation and change in a species. The speaker moved on to discuss genetic drift, which appears to have acquired a new meaning in modern biology, or was misunderstood by the speaker, I'm unsure. The speaker explained that genetic drift was the process by which the genes of an organism's parents could be recombined to produce apparently different traits in the offspring. He claims that the differences between parent and child were once interpreted to be evolutionary in nature, rather than as the result of Mendelian shuffling in zygote formation. This point seems rather odd to me, as I was taught that genetic drift refers to the fluctuations in the frequency of an allele in the population. Even so, perhaps evolution should not really be defined by a Hardy-Weinberg disequilibrium as, once again, that only measures the changes in the frequency of existing information and complexity rather than the generation of new information. I'm beginning to wonder if there is really a good, consistent definition of evolution that we can work with.
Third, mutation took the lead as the primary explanation for new alleles and genes, serving as the fount from which all diversity could arise. The speaker points out, and evolutionists also admit, that mutations are usually regressive, or have no useful effect whatsoever. There are very few alleged examples of beneficial mutation, and upon examination of a few that I can recall, I do notice that there aren't really any I know of that involve an increase in genetic information, in contrast with a modification, or deletion of existing information. Consider lactose tolerance, which as a mutation, is considered beneficial as it allows human beings to continue digesting from dairy products produced from domesticated animals beyond the infant stage. This mutation is commonly found in countries where dairy is frequently consumed, and is held to have originated in northern Europe. So, this mutation certainly helped people to survive when and where other sources of nutrition and energy were lacking. However, if one thinks about the genetic information involved, there has only been a modification to existing information, not a generation of new information. We are not producing a brand new protein, but just changing how long lactase is expressed.
Perhaps if one views evolution solely as a process by which organisms adapt to their environment, this might be the case. As I interpret things now, sure, there is certainly variation in the population of a species. In a competitive world, some traits within that variation meet greater success than others. Those with such traits survive, reproduce, and pass those traits down to their offspring. Within this framework, there is, overall, a loss of information as unsuccessful varieties are eliminated. Occasionally, mutation does come in to create a little more variation, but not to the degree where it could produce vastly new features such as whole proteins, let alone organs. Sometimes, these mutations are beneficial to the affected individuals, but even if such a case is allowed to be interpreted so, it does not show that new information can arise through such a process. Adaptive success cannot be equated with descent with the drastic modification proposed by evolutionists that allows the descendants of prokaryotes to be porcupines, penguins or platypuses.
That about covers the speakers next section of Neo-Darwinism, which combines mutations as the source of variation and natural selection as the process by which beneficial mutations are promoted and maleficial mutations are disposed. The speaker also mentions that genes regulate phenotype in a far more complicated fashion than was initially thought. It was one thought that one allele corresponded to one feature in a direct relation. Now we know that genes interact in complex pathways, regulating each other in strict sequence and delicate feedback loops, that several alleles can contribute to the expression of a single phenotype. The development of a single beneficial macro-feature would involve numerous genes mutating in just such a way that confers selective advantage, or at least, no disadvantage, each time, and resulting in a situation where, somehow, all these mutations line up to dictate the instructions for something like a vertebra or an opposable thumb. I suppose another piece of evidence against mutation is also observable from the sheer number of genetic disorders that have developed in human history, in contrast with the few mutations which may be interpreted as circumstantially beneficial. Consider haemophilia, sickle cell-anaemia, cystic fibrosis and Down's syndrome. The genetic code is a genetic circus act, balancing a thousand participants and objects in a sensitive living sculpture.
The speaker concludes with punctuated equilibrium, which he derides as a prime example of preconceived conclusions skewing the interpretation of evidence. The basic argument is:
1. Evolution must have happened
2. There are very few transitional forms in the fossil record.
3. Therefore, evolution must have happened quickly, moving from one distinct species to another.
This is not an argument based on evidence, but an argument from the lack of evidence to bend the facts into a determined thesis. Furthermore, it does not explain how evolution happened, but merely states that it must have happened quickly. The speaker provides an analogy of a layman fixing a broken car, with parts strewn about. If you were to return within an hour, to see a pristine automobile and a beaming layman, you might be inclined to ask him how he was able to accomplish such a feat by tinkering around without technical knowledge. If the response he provides you is 'I did it fast,' it would hardly answer your question.
So, to prop evolution up, we require a mechanism that generates variation and change in a species. The speaker moved on to discuss genetic drift, which appears to have acquired a new meaning in modern biology, or was misunderstood by the speaker, I'm unsure. The speaker explained that genetic drift was the process by which the genes of an organism's parents could be recombined to produce apparently different traits in the offspring. He claims that the differences between parent and child were once interpreted to be evolutionary in nature, rather than as the result of Mendelian shuffling in zygote formation. This point seems rather odd to me, as I was taught that genetic drift refers to the fluctuations in the frequency of an allele in the population. Even so, perhaps evolution should not really be defined by a Hardy-Weinberg disequilibrium as, once again, that only measures the changes in the frequency of existing information and complexity rather than the generation of new information. I'm beginning to wonder if there is really a good, consistent definition of evolution that we can work with.
Third, mutation took the lead as the primary explanation for new alleles and genes, serving as the fount from which all diversity could arise. The speaker points out, and evolutionists also admit, that mutations are usually regressive, or have no useful effect whatsoever. There are very few alleged examples of beneficial mutation, and upon examination of a few that I can recall, I do notice that there aren't really any I know of that involve an increase in genetic information, in contrast with a modification, or deletion of existing information. Consider lactose tolerance, which as a mutation, is considered beneficial as it allows human beings to continue digesting from dairy products produced from domesticated animals beyond the infant stage. This mutation is commonly found in countries where dairy is frequently consumed, and is held to have originated in northern Europe. So, this mutation certainly helped people to survive when and where other sources of nutrition and energy were lacking. However, if one thinks about the genetic information involved, there has only been a modification to existing information, not a generation of new information. We are not producing a brand new protein, but just changing how long lactase is expressed.
Perhaps if one views evolution solely as a process by which organisms adapt to their environment, this might be the case. As I interpret things now, sure, there is certainly variation in the population of a species. In a competitive world, some traits within that variation meet greater success than others. Those with such traits survive, reproduce, and pass those traits down to their offspring. Within this framework, there is, overall, a loss of information as unsuccessful varieties are eliminated. Occasionally, mutation does come in to create a little more variation, but not to the degree where it could produce vastly new features such as whole proteins, let alone organs. Sometimes, these mutations are beneficial to the affected individuals, but even if such a case is allowed to be interpreted so, it does not show that new information can arise through such a process. Adaptive success cannot be equated with descent with the drastic modification proposed by evolutionists that allows the descendants of prokaryotes to be porcupines, penguins or platypuses.
That about covers the speakers next section of Neo-Darwinism, which combines mutations as the source of variation and natural selection as the process by which beneficial mutations are promoted and maleficial mutations are disposed. The speaker also mentions that genes regulate phenotype in a far more complicated fashion than was initially thought. It was one thought that one allele corresponded to one feature in a direct relation. Now we know that genes interact in complex pathways, regulating each other in strict sequence and delicate feedback loops, that several alleles can contribute to the expression of a single phenotype. The development of a single beneficial macro-feature would involve numerous genes mutating in just such a way that confers selective advantage, or at least, no disadvantage, each time, and resulting in a situation where, somehow, all these mutations line up to dictate the instructions for something like a vertebra or an opposable thumb. I suppose another piece of evidence against mutation is also observable from the sheer number of genetic disorders that have developed in human history, in contrast with the few mutations which may be interpreted as circumstantially beneficial. Consider haemophilia, sickle cell-anaemia, cystic fibrosis and Down's syndrome. The genetic code is a genetic circus act, balancing a thousand participants and objects in a sensitive living sculpture.
The speaker concludes with punctuated equilibrium, which he derides as a prime example of preconceived conclusions skewing the interpretation of evidence. The basic argument is:
1. Evolution must have happened
2. There are very few transitional forms in the fossil record.
3. Therefore, evolution must have happened quickly, moving from one distinct species to another.
This is not an argument based on evidence, but an argument from the lack of evidence to bend the facts into a determined thesis. Furthermore, it does not explain how evolution happened, but merely states that it must have happened quickly. The speaker provides an analogy of a layman fixing a broken car, with parts strewn about. If you were to return within an hour, to see a pristine automobile and a beaming layman, you might be inclined to ask him how he was able to accomplish such a feat by tinkering around without technical knowledge. If the response he provides you is 'I did it fast,' it would hardly answer your question.
