Evolution’s Popular Missing Pieces

Okay, you keep hearing about the debate on evolution. And you may be one who just wants to say the evidence is just so convincing. And then you want to say it’s just a bunch of religious fanatics that say the other explanation is only biblical. Really? I’m a scientist in Life Sciences with a doctorate and I’m aware of a flaw in this thinking.

Time to step out of the rut. The Bible may hold some relevance, but what if the data from scientific pursuits remind us how evolution theory rests on other legs that aren’t “so there to begin with.” Like get real … and take a long look at all the evidence before you go off blasting the evolution trumpet.

Neglected Missing Pieces From Astronomy and Chemistry

Chemistry: Have you ever wondered why all the discussion on evolution focuses on events AFTER life appears in the fossil record? What about the formation of the very first life forms–from scratch. A cell from pre-biotic chemicals is the assumption.

Astronomy and Physics: What about the odds on the Universe being able to support life in the first place, that comes with a long list of ‘precise’ conditions. So many in fact to leave us with the sense that chance does not account for just right conditions. To make the assumption that’s “physics by chance” is also a “Just So Story.” We’re not talking luck, it’s probabilities that are so slim as to suggest it just shouldn’t be.

A Published Examination of Origins Scenarios–Chemistry’s Missing Piece

Let’s just go back in time for a minute and look at a book written by Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen (all Ph.D. scientists), entitled “The Mystery of Life’s Origin.” The Forward to this book is written by a chemist, Dr. Dean Kenyon, who wrote a textbook on the topic of the assumed pre-destiny of life from pre-biotic chemicals. The striking thing about the Thaxton, et al., book is that the text examines as many conceivable scenarios, as was practical at the writing of their text, for the presumed chemical origin of life scenarios offered by other scientists. Their examination is a rigorous effort to consider every aspect to what might have occurred to allow any form of initial life to form from Earth’s early conditions and chemicals.

Seriously, the results discourage any plausible explanation from surfacing. The “Mystery of Life’s Origin” (Free here as a PDF book) may be hard to find today, it was published 1984 with a fourth printing in 1992 (ISBN 0-929510-02-8). The jacket includes comments from other scientists that indicate this is a “…valuable summary of evidence against chemical evolution …” and “The authors have made an important contribution to the origin of life field.”

Are there any other books that compliment the efforts by Thaxton and his coauthors? There are the occasional papers in science journals or news magazines to suggest possible avenues from chemicals to life, but a more recent summary by Rana and Ross in their book (“Origins of Life,” ISBN 1-57683-344-5, see book link at bottom of this article) goes the next step. This book was published in 2004. The striking thing about this text is the added perspective that an astronomer (Dr. Ross) and biologist (Dr. Rana) can give us … as soon as planet Earth cooled to the point of being hospitable enough for life to start …. evidence for life appears.

How then does one go from the assumption that chemical evolution requires time to give us the first form of life and thereafter it is time and progressive conditions that allow for life to evolve to an ever more complex state. Ironically, the assumption is life starts simple and then gets complex. Why then is it that we forget to credit the simplest of life forms with complex features (structural or chemical, either way complexity exists from the very start).

Go Back to the Beginning: First, Set The Stage for Life

We’d like to draw you back to the physics and astronomy that provides a wonderful inference that our place in the universe seems to be no insignificant placement.

Drs. Gonzalez and Richards have coauthored a book that compiles scientific perspectives based on current data that tell us, as their book’s titles says it well … we live on “The Privileged Planet.” The book sub-title is “How our place in the cosmos is designed for discovery.”

This publication tells us the data say some interesting things. The fact that the universe seems so vast is really no reason to say life on earth is simply by chance. The number of facts, principles, and conditions that point to what is required to support life counters the Copernican Principle–which essentially would lead us to think our planet, Earth, is really not so special. The Earth and Moon are mated in ways that drive the tides, influence seasons, and make for eclipses that make scientific data gathering a unique earthbound activity. In fact, the book by Gonzalez and Richards cites numerous conditions, natural laws, and physical properties that fine tune the entire cosmic system that sustains life. For those who like to watch better than read, there is a DVD presentation available by the same title as the book.

But hold on, Windowview is not about promoting books and videos, but rather we are interested in viewing and considering evidence that leads us to a greater understanding to our being human and our existence.

What are we driving at here? Simply put, by recognizing that the evolution viewpoint skips over ‘missing pieces’ to what should explain life’s natural origin, we run into a rather unnatural prospect. The scientific data we have is amazing! To think it merely provide an all material explanation for our being here … is not so. Thinking that one day a material explanation will be surfacing … is maybe not worth holding one’s breath for, for the data speak clearly today.

Strip Away The Assumptions And What Have We Got?

The data all say life can show changes and to a degree we can say there is something called evolution. But the evidence is clearly temporal, over short time frames, not long ones. Go back far enough and Chemistry and Astronomy are standing there with locked arms. It’s not just a gap. It’s a hurdle. Unless we jump from the base to the summit of the mountain, it’s best to remember that evolution’s supporters don’t want to address the big questions that precede any consideration of biological evolution “a la Darwin.”

At Windowview we encourage our visitors and viewers to read more and to explore the depths of the issues. Explore, look, read, and think … and if you like … the books mentioned above are listed on our book page.

A Note About Intelligent Design

Windowview was a web site in it’s infancy long before the concept of Intelligent Design was made popular. Our concern here is not so much in promoting a movement or a term coined to designate an interesting perspective on the topic of life’s origin. There is one added consideration that’s getting lost in the media and in the debates. Science evidence does have some eye-opeing aspects that institutional blinders have cut off. Even if it does not serve evolution well … drop the assumptions and look at what answers can be stated specifically without resting on ‘the presumed.’ This is a most important exercise simply because it forces us to think outside the box. This forces us to consider some explanations others just don’t want to even mention. But what if that gets us closer to the explanation for the question as asked! Objectivity comes with some creative, yet realistic, well grounded, non-reductionist thinking.

Director 11/19/2007

Share

Jibe About On Evolution — New Tack, New Rudder, New Course

We Are About To Take A New Course

Readers of WindowView articles are aware that we are looking for perspectives. It’s ultimately about seeing between the lines — it’s a reality check of sorts. We are all about seeing what comes on ahead of us in time.

First Tack Hard Right With NOVA in November 2007

So in advance of PBS airing a new NOVA episode on the topic of evolution, we want to prepare you for a change in course. The wind is about to change, well, in fact in the closed rooms along the halls of academia we are hearing the change has already started. It’s not the petty professors but the big guys who are concerned.

Enter the spin masters, spin doctors, proponents from both sides. In years past at national society meetings such as for AAAS (that is, the American Association for the Advancement of Science) we’ve seen the technical crew and producers for NOVA declare their approach to reporting science. They at PBS and those in the majority of AAAS, today, will spin toward the traditional course on evolution. Darwin’s storyline holds sway with this crowd.

So, it is little surprise that during November 2007 that PBS will air an episode of NOVA to demonstrate the NOVA approach to reporting the goings on at the Dover trial on evolution and public education. We already know this will slant towards the traditional view of “don’t rock the boat.” The Intelligent Design proponents may get some good representation, but in the end, the pressure is still on keeping Intelligent Design (ID) in the defensive posture.

What About Having US Think?

But meanwhile the crowd that is thinking about the questions, yes indeed the really neat questions, that are being posed about evolution and what does and does NOT work … leads us to thinking about ID. Why doesn’t AAAS favor a serious look at ID? Why would PBS keep pushing back on ID and calling it religion and not science? Why? Well, because if ever we start to think for ourselves … we might find out the really neat ID questions go to the reality check we ALL need to make. The real question is: “What is the origin of life?” If something opens up this topic in a new and objective way, then why be scared to see where the question takes us? Why not assess the scientific data where it will go? Follow the evidence.

Okay, NOVA isn’t the only hull in the water. In February of 2008 there will be a new movie hitting the theaters. And this one, with Ben Stein, will ask the question: “Why suppress the questions?!” And Stein will interview parties from both sides and then it will be clear that some folks have been trying to prevent us from thinking! No intelligence is allowed? That’s the way it looks. And all of a sudden it will turn, jibe about, on the likes of NOVA or AAAS.

We Have Been EXPELLED? Check It Out in February 2008

Here is a link to seeing more about the Ben Stein movie entitled “Expelled No Intelligence Allowed. Two movie trailers can also be viewed at the site. In brief, Ben Stein is going to get more people thinking about this than any of the blindsided academics want. But then … do they own science? Who decides that the data mean something else? Why not have an education system where we open ourselves to really learning about our existence! Ooops! That might seem like we are going a bit too far. But why not! Hey, none of us gets out of here alive. So why not learn about “here” before we have to leave it behind! And where do we go after we go? What if learning about “here” tells us something about what lies on ahead of here? Why not!

Step Back And Sail To The True Horizon

Ah, that is why the WindowView is here. This is a place to think about the big picture … the larger view. Maybe proponents of evolution theory have some good points. Maybe ID gets us thinking beyond parts of evolution theory that no longer holds any weight. And maybe ID gets us to really take a new look without making assumptions a false bottom. Has science stopped digging into the truth about life and being alive? Maybe ID is all about getting that exciting feeling again … in a science exploration kind of way!

Okay, get ready to watch NOVA and learn about a courtroom battle on ID and evolution in schools. That’s November ’07. Then let us be ready to have the blinders knocked off by Mr. Stein! The wind is kicking up, I can feel it and the bow is splitting the waters before us … hang on! Here we go!

For more on science and Intelligent Design go to WindowView!

Share

Alleged “error” in Calculating Probabilities [A Real Problem for Biological Evolution]

Someone just brought to may attention to a web site in which Thomas Schneider criticizes a probability calculation of mine and he also criticizes your website in that you cited my calculation. Of course, Schneider is wrong. Here is what I wrote the person who inquired.

“Thank you for pointing out to me Schneider’s criticism of my work.

“Schneider is mistaken. He evidently did not take the trouble to understand what I was calculating. My calculation is correct. The probability 1/300,000 is the probability that a particular mutation will occur in a population and will survive to take over that population. If that mutation occurred it would have to have had a positive selective value to take over the population. If that occurred, then all members of the new population will have that mutation. Then the probability of another particular adaptive mutation occurring in the new population is again 1/300,000 and is independent of what went before – I have already taken account of the occurrence and take-over of the first mutation.

Therefore, the correct probability of both these mutations occurring and taking over their populations is the product of these two probabilities. And, as I wrote, the probability of 500 of them occurring is the probability 1/300,000 multiplied by itself 500 times. My calculation is correct and Schneider is mistaken. He is similarly mistaken about what he wrote about the article in Chance – Probability Alone Should End the Debate, at www.WindowView.org., since that article relied on my calculation.

“I would presume that since Schneider was so careless in his criticism of my calculation, his opinions on the other articles he cites must be similarly suspect.

“Please communicate with him and ask him to correct his website.”

You may want to post this answer, or a paraphrase of it, on your website to answer his criticism.

Dr. Lee Spetner, [Emertus, MIT and Author of “Not by Chance”]

Share