|
|
You may freely copy
this file and print it out for reference or to discuss evolution and its
problems with other people, provided you keep my Email address on it.
This web page
operated by:-Alfred.
Comments, criticisms and suggestions gratefully
received.
www.evolution.htmlplanet.com
In The Blind Watchmaker, Richard
Dawkins explains a simple principle for generating non-randomness, ie a sieve,
but doesn't seem to realise that the results do not contain increased information, just reduced information about a more limited field of interest.
The only information comes from someone thinking about it, the particle size,
quantity, what is sieved out, why it happened. Rivers do this sieving all
the time, dumping boulders, shingle, sand and silt in different places, but
the particles themselves don't contain information, intelligence is required
to deduce it, height of water, rate of flow, source of material etc.
He then builds up a case for
repeated sieving being like evolution in that successive generations are
"sieved" by natural selection, ignoring the fact that randomness being sieved
does not produce the complex information required for improved design, but reduces information by removing information or design information that does not fit the criteria of the sieve, preventing any new design as the first part of it is outside the parameters of the design that is in the DNA, and a part design would in most cases be a hindrance as some useful feature would probably be crippled in the process. Many
scientists are now realising that at the molecular level there are many essential
processes in life that are irreducibly complex, in that they cannot be built
up slowly, in progressive small steps from some simpler workable system.
It's all or nothing, and evolution cannot supply the information to make
the transition, as evolution is based on blind chance and trial and error
and the transitions are too great, requiring multiple changes at the same time to be functional. An improvement in design cannot consist
of only one change, it takes a whole mass of changes to add a completely
new function that could be an influence on its selection by the environment.
However one single change can disable a feature that exists, which may later
on be re-enabled by that one single change being reversed, since all the
specifications were there already.
Having bluffed you into thinking
that complex information comes about by blind chance being sieved, Dawkins
then goes on to the possibility of monkeys typing the complete works of
Shakespeare. Scientists and mathematicians have calculated that if you filled
the whole universe with monkeys dedicatedly typing, and kept repairing and
supplying paper, they would never type the works of Shakespeare, the mathematical
probability is so close to zero that it won't happen.
As an example of how evolution
stumbles upon the correct formula he explains a simple test with a computer
to get 28 characters correct. The target phrase is "methinks it is like a
weasel". Since the problem of getting it correct the first time is only 1
in billions of billions he uses a series of sieves. The computer is programmed
to type lines of 28 characters exactly, (an instruction by the designer)
and to make a set of random lines, he doesn't say how many, hundreds or thousands
of lines (more instructions by the designer). The computer then analyses
the lines (more instructions by the designer) and chooses the one nearest
to the chosen target phrase (more instructions by the designer). This is
used as the seed for the next set (more instructions by the designer), but
characters that are correct are not changed (more instructions by the designer).
This means that it MUST arrive
at the correct phrase, it is failure proofed, by the programming instructions
imposed on the computer by a sufficiently intelligent manipulative source,
the designer. This actually proves there must be a creator, who was able
to encode the complex specifications required for the simplest form of life,
into the DNA. It took from 41 to 64 sets to get the correct phrase. Dawkins
calls this cumulative selection. He then uses this to explain how evolution
happens by random improvements, without any intelligent manipulative source.
If you just read this and go along with the flow of his story you feel that
it all fits together, and evolution is so simple to explain that anyone should
be able to understand it. But stop and think about his ploy. To get "methinks
it is like a weasel" the computer was limited to 28 characters and had to
define which line was nearest to the target phrase. This meant having already
been instructed on the direction to go, this requires input and control of
thought and planning, not random unguided evolution which can only work on accidental changes in a living reproducing organism, according to most evolutionist claims.
The main fault as I see it
is that if we assume that the DNA has to be 80% correct to be able to replicate,
assuming also that it is in a fully functional cell capable of reproducing,
then the very first set the computer produced would have to be at least 80%
correct, none were, end of story, no seed to start an attempt to improve
the next batch. Dawkins storytelling falls short on reason, because if the
DNA is only a few % correct there is no offspring. Also the computer had
to be programmed to perform a complex task, this takes intelligence and the
ability to enforce it upon the computer, which itself is the product of
intelligence, designed by previous designers, who had the ability to manipulate
physical materials, ie the computer had to be manufactured to run on a agreed
code, so a program such as Dawkins, could work. The first living cell had
to be manufactured to run on a specified code. If the cell is trying to run
on a random meaningless DNA non-code it won't work for long. The DNA must be
assembled according to the same coding system as the cell mechanism will
operate on, when reading it, all of which takes intelligence and design. Usually the DNA is copied into the opposite in the RNA, which then picks up its opposite to be joined into the copy being made.
This idea of monkeys typing
and producing a sensible result is often used by evolutionists to pretend
that complex molecules will form by chance, into the highly complex
specifications needed for life.
However because molecules
break down more readily than they can be joined together in the exacting
order required for life, then as the monkeys type, large areas of the data
should fade into oblivion. Also all near natural "prebiotic simulation"
experiments produce a racemized 50% left and 50% right handed chiral amino
acids, left and right handed are never mixed interchangeably in living things. Nearly all biological polymers must be homochiral (all its components monomers having the same handedness. Another term used is "optically pure" or "100% optically active" ) to function.
All amino acids in proteins are left-handed, while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are right-handed. A wrong-handed amino acid in the DNA or polymer would prevent it folding properly, and as the exact folding is important to its function, it would be impaired. Also when polymers are being copied to match a template, ie the thing being copied,
Usually evolutionists consider
only the DNA or RNA as if it can copy itself, in some prebiotic soup where it can
obtain any chemistry it needs to make a copy of itself, but in actual fact
unwanted chemistry would attach to the DNA and ruin it. Also the DNA never
can copy itself, this is done by special reading and copying mechanism and
the RNA, all of which must be protected by a cell environment, to stop unwanted
chemicals joining in the wrong places and destroying the system completely.
None of these problems are countered in Dawkins computer program, nor, as
far as I know, by any evolutionist.
Decisions were made ahead
of time, about the goal to be strived for, but Dawkins says
"The 'watchmaker' that is cumulative natural selection
is blind to the future and has no long term goal". (p50)
He also says
"This belief, that Darwinian evolution is 'random'
is not merely false, it is the exact opposite of the truth. Chance is a minor
ingredient in the Darwinian recipe, but the most important ingredient is
cumulative selection which is quintessentially non-random." (p49)
If the "most important
ingredient is cumulative selection which is quintessentially non-random",
how does it know the direction to go? Might it not add in one generation
and remove in the next, because it hasn't, as yet, provided a useful function?
In Dawkins experiment, the order in which the correct components arrive is
not important, it would take much longer if the letters had to arrive in
the order of speech, from left to right. What would happen in real life if
the heart evolved before the blood and veins, and all that before a respiratory
system, would the creature survive?
Also the computer program
depended on random changes to the selected sentence, while not having any random
changes in its own program data, or to the stored target sentence. As each new set represents a new generation, the operating program and the stored target sentence should have to be copied to the next generation , as it would in a real life situation, with the same probability of errors, entropy
at work, which may well corrupt the required stored target sentence,
and the ability of the computer program to compare the results, if
it runs at all. So Dawkins program is nothing like a real life process, its
just a big joke, on those silly enough to believe it. But remember, it took
intelligence to do even this simple task, so how much more essential was
intelligence to build the reading and copying mechanism, program its
DNA, and enclose it in a cell wall to protect it, for the first living cell?
References
This means that evolution style random formation would have brought the formation of the copy of the template to random terminations throughout its length. Also how could the template be correct, if formed as part of the random unguided processes of evolution, random inclusion of the wrong handed monomers would destroy the future usefulness of the product due to early termination breaking the data stream, causing incomplete products.
Also as a very high proportion on unifunctional molecules are produced, then as the monkeys type half of the
characters would be erroneous symbols, which would destroy the sense of anything
they typed, and also the preponderance of unifunctional molecules would put
an end to the building of long polymers in that direction, acting as the
end of the chapter. Also trifunctional amino acids, joining three ways, would
cause random branching of polymers that could then not be folded properly,
which is a very important feature in getting processes to work correctly,
particularly in the DNA. Any system that can so randomly mutate, as
in Dawkins tests, will logically mutate the program DNA, (it's the DNA that
has the program specifications that run the cell mechanism) and the target
sentence as well, since these have to be copied to the new cell, for the
next generation, and the program is much longer than Dawkins sentence, so will have many more mistakes in it each time, and is unlikely to run more than a few times.
That's strange, because evolution
cannot organise a change for the next generation, it can only make a selection
if a random, or accidental change has occurred, and by chance, circumstances
are favorable at that time for it to be beneficial, so it can be selected. How can it be "quintessentially non-random" if it doesn't know where it is going with its design for the next generations?
We know from observation that mutations are usually harmful to the species,
usually losing genetic information. In experiments with fruit flies 3,000
identified mutations of Drosophila melanogaster didn't produce
a more successful fruit fly, but plenty of disasters, yet Dawkins assumes that any mutation will be
in the right direction, no doubt this is because of his religiously held belief in evolution,
as it is unscientific, considering the damage done by observed mutations.
Q1:- Joyce, G. F., Visser, G.M., van Boeckel, C.A.A., van Boom, J.H., Orgel, L.E. and van Westrenen,J.,1984. Chiral selection in poly(C)-directed synthesis of oligo(G). Nature, 310:602-4.
( ern's ref 12(3) p266)
Comments, criticisms and suggestions gratefully received.
alfredem@paradise.net.nz.
Go to Home Page.
