evolutionary-foresight

HURDLE NUMBER 57. THE EVOLUTIONARY FORESIGHT HURDLE.

Evolution cannot have foresight.

To substantiate this statement, here are a couple of quotes from authoritative sources:-

This quote is from The Encyclopedia of Evolution, by Richard Milner, published by Facts On File, 1990, page 345 (entry:- Orthogenesis):-

This entry discusses the views of paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson (Professor of Zoology at Columbia University, and Curator of the Department of Geology and Paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History from 1945 to 1959. He was Curator of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University from 1959 to 1970, and a Professor of Geosciences at the University of Arizona until his retirement in 1982.) - - - -“who states that - - - EVOLUTION DOES NOT KNOW ITS DESTINATION.” (My capitals.)

The following quote is from the book The Origins of Life, by John Maynard Smith (Emeritus Professor of Biology at The University of Sussex) and E. Szathmary, published by Oxford University Press, 1999, page 25:-

“EVOLUTION BY NATURAL SELECTION LACKS FORESIGHT.” *My capitals and highlights)

There is some obfuscation regarding this issue in the scientific community; and I want to fully clarify the issue to avoid any misunderstanding.

Here is an example of the obfuscation of this issue by a prominent evolutionist who is trying to “demonstrate” the notion of “Cumulative Selection” (which would require evolution to have “FORESIGHT”).

The following (rather embarrassing!) quote is from the book The Blind Watchmaker, by Richard Dawkins, published by Penguin Books (reissue), pages 45 to 50:-

Dawkins considers the hemoglobin molecule, consisting of 146 amino acids. He tells us that “there are 20 different kinds of amino acids commonly found in living things.” He then tells us that “the number of possible ways of arranging 20 kinds of things in chains 146 links long is an inconceivably large number.” He then tells us that this inconceivable large numbers is “a one with 190 zeros after it”. He then tells us that:- “This is the chance against happening to hit upon hemoglobin by luck.”

(My comment:- What he is effectively saying is that a random search by random mutations cannot possibly “come up with” a hemoglobin molecule.)

Now Dawkins sagely explains that a process that he calls “Cumulative Selection” indeed CAN “come up with” a hemoglobin molecule. In order to demonstrate the (supposed) “power” of “Cumulative Selection”, he takes as an example the phrase (taken from a Shakespeare play) METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL.

Now Dawkins take a nonsense phrase:-

BZQU JMOX TUTN CYSO AMAU PRG

He then asks how many times a monkey on a typewriter would have to randomly type out a sequence of 28 letters and spaces before it typed the exact phrase METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL.

Dawkins now admits that the statistical odds against getting the correct phrase on the first try are (according to his own calculations) 1 chance in 10,000 million million million million million.

Now Dawkins explains that the process of (what he calls) “Cumulative Selection” can easily “reach” the phrase METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL in less than 60 attempts. To demonstrate the “Cumulative Selection” process, Dawkins sets up a computer program. This computer program generates a sequence of 28 randomly chosen letters and spaces.

WDLMNLT DTJBKWIRZREZLMQCO P

The computer now “breeds” from this random phrase. It duplicates the phrase repeatedly with single letter “mutations” in each successive duplication. Now here is the important point:- (quoting Dawkins) “The computer examines the mutant nonsense phrases, and chooses the one which, however slightly, most resembles the target phrase – METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL.” By this process of comparing each “mutation” with the target phrase, the computer soon reaches the target phrase. Dawkins now tells us that – “Chance is a minor ingredient in the Darwinian recipe, but the most important ingredient is CUMULATIVE SELECTION.” (My capitals and highlighting.)

Dawkins’ argument here effectively involves a comparison of nucleotides in a DNA sequence with letters in a sentence. If “CUMULATIVE SELECTION” can quickly produce a meaningful sentence from a nonsense phrase, so – similarly – (as Dawkins argues) “CUMULATIVE SELECTION”, starting with “nonsense DNA (ie:- where all the nucleotides are randomly assorted in a chain of DNA), can quickly produce a nucleotide sequence that codes for a hemoglobin molecule. All that is required for “CUMULATIVE SELECTION” to work is to have a TARGET PHRASE or a TARGET MOLECULE.

The problem here is that the random mutations – or the nonsense DNA have to have KNOWLEDGE of what that TARGET MOLECULE is, in order to “work towards” it (by CUMULATIVE SELECTION). The problem is that the random mutations or the nonsense DNA CANNOT POSSIBLY HAVE THAT KNOWLEDGE. Evolution cannot have foresight. A fish cannot “know” that it is “supposed” to end up “evolving” into a human. A collection of randomly assorted nucleotides in a chain of DNA cannot “envisage” the future hemoglobin molecule that it “wants” to “evolve” into, and then “choose” the “best” mutations that carry it towards this “goal”. In that case, “CUMULATIVE SELECTION” cannot possibly be a process by which molecules of hemoglobin (and similar complex and highly specific proteins) are formed.

On page 50 Dawkins actually make the following admission:-

“Cumulative selection - - - - is misleading - - - in each generation of selective breeding, the mutant phrases were judged according to the criterion of resemblance to a distant ideal target, the phrase METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL. Life isn’t like that. Evolution has no long term goal. THERE IS NO LONG DISTANCE TARGET, no final perfection to serve as a criterion for selection - - - CUMULATIVE SELECTION IS BLIND TO THE FUTURE, AND HAS NO LONG TERM GOAL.”

My comment:- Suppose that I were to write the following:-

“I wish to make a statement. The statement is that A is equal to B. The statement that I have just made is misleading. In fact A is NOT equal to B.”

This would be pretty stupid – right?

In fact, this is exactly what Dawkins has done here. First he tells us that “Chance is a minor ingredient in the Darwinian recipe, but the most important ingredient is CUMULATIVE SELECTION.”

Then he tells us that “Cumulative selection - - - - is misleading - - - Evolution has no long term goal. THERE IS NO LONG DISTANCE TARGET - - - CUMULATIVE SELECTION IS BLIND TO THE FUTURE, AND HAS NO LONG TERM GOAL.”

Dawkins needs to “get his story straight”!

The notion of “Cumulative Selection” is a kind of “mystical thinking” imputing “knowledge” (or “foreknowledge”) to random assortments of nucleotides that they cannot possibly possess. The notion of “Cumulative Selection” is in the same category as The Flat Earth Theory, The Hollow Earth Theory, The Perpetual Motion Theory, The Phlogiston Theory, Alchemy etc. The “Cumulative Selection” Theory is essentially a “crank” theory, an obfuscatory device, a “smoke and mirrors” strategy, deliberately designed to mislead.

Here are some comments from authoritative sources regarding Dawkins computer program with the “target phrase” METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL:-

Here is a quote from the book – No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot be Purchased Without Intelligence – by William Dembski (Dembski completed an undergraduate degree in psychology (1981, University of Illinois at Chicago) and master's degrees in statistics, mathematics, and philosophy (1983, University of Illinois at Chicago; 1985, University of Chicago; 1993, University of Illinois at Chicago, respectively), two PhDs, one in mathematics and one in philosophy (1988, University of Chicago; 1996, University of Illinois at Chicago, respectively)), published by Rowman and Littlefield, 2002, pages 181 to 183:-

“Choosing a pre-specified target sequence as Dawkins does here is deeply teleological.”

Here is a quote from a book edited by William Dembski (author of the above quote). The book is entitled Uncommon Dissent, published by ISI Books, 2004. The essay:- The Deniable Darwin, by David Berlinsky (who taught philosophy and logic at Stanford University), pages 263 to 306:-

(Pages 277 to 279) Berlinski states – “ The entire exercise is, however, AN ACHIEVEMENT IN SELF-DECEPTION.” Berlinsky points out that “Any definition of natural selection must plainly meet - - - - a RULE AGAINST DEFERRED SUCCESS.” (My capitals and highlighting.)

Here is another quote from the same book. This quote is from the essay by Paul Schutzenberger (Professor of The Faculty of Sciences at The University of Paris – trained as a mathematician) entitled:- The Miracles of Darwinism, pages 41 to 50:-

Schutzenberger comments on Dawkins’ demonstration of “Cumulative Selection”:- “THIS DEMONSTRATION IS BOGUS - - - The trick involved in DAWKINS’ EMBARRASSING EXAMPLE.” (My capitals and highlighting.)

(My comment:- Yes – EMBARRASSING is the right word here!)

The next two quotes are from the book God’s Undertaker, by John C. Lennox (Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University), published by Liam Hudson, 2007:-

Pages 157 to 159:- Lennox points out that – “Dawkins’ analogies depend on introducing to his model the very feature (ie:- a “target phrase”, or an evolutionary “target”, or a teleological “plan”) whose existence in the real world he denies.”

Pages 162 to 163:- Lennox comments:- “Dawkins’ model is useless as a simulation of how complexity, in the sense of getting letters in the right order, can be built up from a random sequence by an undirected evolutionary process - - - - Dawkins’ - - - - proposal - - - - - the - - -argument - - - is fatally flawed.” Then Lennox quotes Marcel Paul Schutzenberger (Professor of The Faculty of Sciences at The University of Paris – trained as a mathematician) who states that Dawkins’ model is “out of touch with palpable biological realities.”

Dawkins is not the only biologist who has engaged in this type of bogus “computer simulation”. Here is a quote from the book Life From an RNA World, by Michael Yarus (Professor Emeritus in The Department of Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology at The University of Colorado), published by Harvard University Press, 2010, pages 65 to 70:-

Yarus discusses a computer simulation where the phrase NOTHING IN BIOLOGY MAKES SENSE EXCEPT IN THE LIGHT OF EVOLUTION has to be achieved by random computer strokes. He agrees that it would require 27⁶³ = 1.5 x 10⁹⁰ strokes (on average) to achieve this phrase. However, he adds a “teleological factor” whereby (quoting Yarus) “we head toward the functional statement by accepting successively better approximations to it.” Then Yarus “backtracks” (just as Dawkins “backtracked”) by commenting ingenuously:- “People - - - sometimes claim that this kind of result is FAKED because WE INCLUDED THE TARGET STATEMENT in our program, AND THEN INTELLIGENTLY CHOSE THE INTERMEDIATES.” (My capitals.)

(My comment:- I wonder why on Earth people would claim that this result was FAKED? Surely no one could possibly be so unkind !? In case the reader did not notice, this is sarcasm!)

Let me just reiterate. Dawkins’ Theory of “Cumulative Selection” is utterly bogus, pure pseudoscience. “Evolution” cannot possibly have “foresight”; and large molecules such as hemoglobin cannot be arrived at by natural selection.