Evolution for dummies
March 15, 2008 by Mark
This is going to be an ongoing project, and is intended to be an easy-to-understand guide to the principles of evolution. It’s aimed particularly at people with little or no scientific understanding of evolution, who are left confused and bewildered by the so-called creationist vs Darwinist debate. If you believe in Intelligent Design or Creationism then welcome, please feel free to read this with an open mind and ask any questions you may have, this post is intended to be neither an argument nor an attack on anyones beliefs. I have tried to include links to Wikipedia, for any terminology or phrases that may be difficult to understand.
First, it’s important I clear up a few common mis-perceptions of evolution and the scientific method. Scientific theories are built on observable facts and are open to revision as fact dictates. The theory of evolution describes the emergence of new species from preexisting species over long periods of time. The evolutionary theory would be rejected immediately if it was proved wrong by solid factual evidence, and is continually revised and improved, based on the scientific discovery of new facts. There is indeed no scientific evidence, so far, against the existence of evolution, only debates amongst scientists over its nature. In the past half a century, breakthroughs - in genetics, molecular biology, evolutionary biology, biochemistry, ecology, nuclear physics, geophysics, physiology and phylogenetics - have revolutionised, and all but proved, the evolutionary theory. Many creationists often misinterpret evolution as a hypothesis - an idea that has absolutely no proof of being correct - when infact it is a theory - an idea supported by scientific evidence - just like that of gravity. For instance, the theory of gravitation is still incomplete, yet the earth still continues to orbit the sun and scientific investigation has found that, therefore, gravity must exist; some aspects of the nature and science of gravity, are still, very much, areas of open debate.
As I’m sure you are aware, close relatives will often look alike; for instance, a child will inherit characteristics such as hair colour, eye colour or skin colour from their parents. Inherited traits are controlled by genes and coded for by particular alleles, different ‘versions’ of a gene. A child will have a random combination of their mother’s and father’s genes, hence the fact that brothers and sisters are not genetically identical. Random mutations can also occur in genes, during the various stages of sexual reproduction, giving the child some new, entirely unique, gene combinations. So, as this shows, there is genetic variation from one generation to the next; we are not exact combinations of our parents genes.
People look different to one another. In other words, there is (genetic) variation within a population. In humans, this variation is caused by random (genetic) mutations, migration (gene flow) between populations and the ‘reshuffling’ of genes during sexual reproduction. Evolution is the change over time of this genetic variation. Different forms of a gene (alleles) will become more or less common than others, driven by evolutionary forces. Surprisingly, most of the genome of a species is identical in all individuals of that species; the fact that humans and chimpanzees differ in only about 4% of their genomes, just goes to show how dramatic small changes in genetic makeup (genotype) can be.
A phenotype is any characteristic of an organism determined by an interaction between its genotype and its environment. Height, eye colour, and sexuality are common examples of phenotypes. Possessing certain phenotypes, such as camouflage or sharp teeth, may give an individual more chance of survival. For instance, if we take the example of camouflage: 200 hundred years ago, in a population of peppered moths, the vast majority would have been white, with a few of the peppered moths having black (melanic) colouration. The white moths were well camouflaged against the light-coloured trees and lichens in their habitat, so were more likely to escape predation, and reproduce. However, widespread pollution during the Industrial Revolution killed most of the lichen, and blackened the trees with soot. The white moths were now easily
visible to the Great Tits, that fed on them, and most of them died out. The black moths, on the other hand, were easily camouflaged and their numbers soared. Recently, with higher environmental standards, the light coloured peppered moths are once again common, while the industrial melanic variety thrive in cities. This is a common example of natural selection, where specific alleles confer a survival advantage and result in a change in allele frequency and genetic variation. In this example, however, the two varieties are still capable of mating, so are not yet separate species.
For speciation to occur, two populations must first be reproductively isolated. Common prezygotic (before birth) reproductive barriers include different mating times (temporal), different mating rituals (behavioural), anatomical differences (mechanical), incompatible ‘eggs and sperm’ (gametic) and different habitats (geographical). There may also be postzygotic (after birth) barriers such as infertility, as seen in zonkeys and zorses. Allopatric (geographic) speciation is the most common way that new species emerge.
Imagine a population of grazing mammals, inhabiting a great rolling plain, stretching for miles on end. There is genetic variation in this population, due to random mutations, but the population is so large that the mutations have little effect on the population as a whole. A small minority of the grazing mammals possess particularly strong jaws and thick hides, but gain no selection advantage on the fertile plains. One summer, the plains suffer a severe drought, and much of the habitat drys up and turns to desert. Most of the population migrate south, away from the drought, while the rest die of starvation or otherwise migrate north. Only a very small population (see founder effect) migrate north, into the rugged hills, where the climate is more cold and vegetation coarse. Individuals with a strong jaw and thick hide are now better adapted to their environment, and are more likely to survive the harsh winters and hence reproduce, during the following spring. Consequently, more offspring with strong jaws and thick hides are born, and the allele frequency for these traits increases. The genetic variation of the species is changing, through natural selection; evolution is occurring. Although similar to their cousins on the plains, the new population now have their own mating rituals, based on dualling with their strong jaws, unrecognised by their cousins. The two populations are no longer able to reproduce, so have diverged into two separate species.
This is a very simple guide to evolution and the science behind it obviously much more refined than I’ve described, or even know how to for that matter, but will hopefully serve as a solid foundation for future reading and help you understand some of its core principles. 
I’d very much appreciate it if you could recommend any useful websites, on evolution, and will add them to this list:
TalkOrigins
Understanding Evolution
Science Daily
Evolution Society
Wikipedia
Evolution Blog
Evolution New
EvoWiki
CreationWiki
You give the impression that this is anopporunity for discussion by “open minds” but the paragraph that follow betray your evolutionary bias. The peppered moth episode hwas debunked years ago, so you are not starting with anything novel.
Try the following as a ground breaker:
The earth’s formation has two hypotheses, one by Creationists, the other by evolutionists. Each contradicts the other. Each is far removed from the other and no plausible means has been found to reconcile the two. One must assume that one has to be totally false.
Taken from the popular textbook used extensively in high schools across the nation, Biology, co-authored by Miller/Levine offers the following:
The formation of the earth is attributed to a collision with a large planet that “produced enough heat to melt the entire globe” and “radioactive decay generated enough heat to convert Earth’s interior into molten rock”.. In addition, “Earth’s early atmosphere probably contained hydrogen cyanide, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen, hydrogen sulfide and water”. It further states,” Had you been there, a few deep breaths would have killed you!” (p 423)
According to this text, early earth had an atmosphere that was so hot that everything was melted. Gases were so toxic that life was impossible. But, despite these deadly impediments and through the magic of evolution, life began to emerge anyway as the earth cooled into a solid crust. In the same text, it describes how Pasteur’s experiments proved that the hypothesis of spontaneous generation, also called abiogenesis, life arising from non life, was not possible (p 13). The text goes on to say that ”A stew of organic molecules is a long way from a living cell, and the leap from non life to life is the greatest gap in scientific theories of earth’s early history”. (p 425) Although stated in a matter of fact fashion, the implications are profound. Having no explanation for the impossible gap from life to non life, not even speculation, is crucial and foundational to how life could have even begun under an evolutionary scenario that begins with an impossibility. But these factors are ignored, seemingly inconsequential and no hypothesis is offered for how evolution was able to overcome these insurmountable barriers to life’s formation. The text adds “About 3.8 billion years ago, Earth’s surface cooled enough for water to remain a liquid” (p 424).
In summary, evolutionists state that the earth was so hot that everything was molten. Toxic gases were prevalent, there was no water until 3.8 billion years of cooling and life without life was impossible. Somehow, without explanation or any scientific data, evolution was able to overcome these devastating obstructions to the formation of life. It is amazing that somehow people continue to believe an impossible scenario that defies explanation, logic and science and freely admits in print the impossibility of life’s formation. The chasm of having life come from non life is one that is espoused and admitted by evolutionists. It can not be breached. If life has no way of beginning, how can it evolve? It is a car without an engine, expected to take a journey. The real tragedy is that this nonsensical episode is taught in our public schools.
The book of Genesis explains as follows:
Genesis details what God did on each day, it is perfectly clear. Each day’s events are mentioned as “the evening and the morning”. One evening plus one morning will always equal one 24 hour day.
With God who needed only to “breathe” to bring life into existence, He was establishing the 24 hour day and the seven day week, observed ever since.
Genesis also gives us proof that no long periods of time could have elapsed and still have nurtured life. Consider the sequence of events and the logical and methodical process that “puts all the pieces together”.
Initially, He created the heavens and earth without form and void of life. Without form and void, means that no life existed prior to His Creation. No dinosaurs or any other life on a planet could exist on one that was without form and totally barren of any kind of life. One can only speculate how long God allowed this condition to exist. It is possible that He allowed a formless, void mass to remain suspended for an interminable period of time. But for whatever period of time He chose, nothing matters because a formless, void mass could not support life no matter how long it lasted. It would not seem feasible that an omnipotent God would create a formless, lifeless mass unless He planned to develop it further and sooner rather than later. This dispels the erroneous concept of “theistic evolution” It is also strongly implies that, once given form, the earth was covered with water for “ He moved the Spirit of God upon the waters and gave it light, dividing light from the darkness and on the second day He divided the waters, those above and below the firmament”. These waters contained no life because marine life was not created until the fifth day. This substantiates that no life and therefore no fossils could have existed before the first day of creation.
These two scenarios give the same message. According to the evolutionary postulate, it was a toxic, molten earth with no way to bridge the gap from life to nonlife and environmentally incapable of supporting life of any kind, plant or animal. Reinforced with the admission that life is not possible from non life, there is an outright admission by evolutionists that their scenario is thoroughly impossible. We can only conclude that the evolutionary scenario has to be false. Without the possibility of life, there could be no fossils. Because of the hostile and deadly environment as described and taught by the evolutionists, they, themselves, substantiate reasons for the impossibility of their beliefs.
Creationism’s message is that no life could have existed until the creation. “ In the beginning…” a formless and void earth also could not support life until He formed it, separated the land from the waters, provided a sun and moon, vegetation and then animal and human occupation.
There are no other postulates!
Hello there
Thank you for kindly taking the time to read through this post, and for having the good will and patience to describe, to a humble heretic and good-for-nothing Atheist, the esoteric wisdom of Genesis in the name of the almighty lord your God
Yes, I am indeed what you would call an ‘evolutionist’, although in the UK there is no such thing. In a country that values rational, clear-minded thought and where biblical evangelism hasn’t got as much of a foot hold as in the great U.S of A, evolution triumphed over the creation myth more than 100 years ago. Evolution is grounded in methodological naturalism and observable facts, where as creationism relies on faith alone and exaggerating flaws in out-of-date evolutionary theories, rather than tackling the modern evolutionary synthesis with quantifiable evidence. Evolution has nothing to prove to creationists, as, according to the principles of Ocham’s Razor, the modern evolutionary synthesis is still by far the most likely explanation for life, as it exists today.
Creationists often target the apparent lack of evidence surrounding the numerous hypotheses accounting for the formation of complex organic molecules, and the ‘spontaneous’ emergence of primitive life from them, said to have occurred at around 4.5 billion years ago; when the earth cooled to a point where water vapour first became liquefied. On the contrary, science has not held the view that life emerged ‘spontaneously’ from non-life since the early 19th century and these arguments often criticise somewhat antiquated scientific theory. As you rightly deduced from your textbook, the scientific study of a process as distant and exotic as abiogenesis can be very slow and sporadic. However, thanks to recent breakthroughs in synthetic, molecular, and cell, biology over the past few years, abiogenesis is now in fact an increasingly refined area of Natural Science.
Scientists have observed the spontaneous formation of lipid bubbles; sheltering metal ion catalysed inorganic reactions, producing organic molecules such as ascetic acid and pyruvate, near hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor. This process is a primitive version of the one used today by chemosynthetic cyanobacteria to synthesise proteins and has been replicated in the laboratory, under temperatures in excess of 100°C and chemical conditions simulating those of Archean Earth. Given time, the presence of CO2, CH4 and N2 – once abundant in Earth’s primal atmosphere and ocean, due to violent volcanic eruptions and hydrothermal vents – and the presence of nucleic acids, these organic molecules, encased in a bilayer lipid membrane, would have formed the first prokaryote cells i.e. the common ancestors of all life on earth.
Synthetic Biologists are now becoming increasingly close to creating synthetic life, by adapting techniques from genetics, biochemistry, molecular biology and cellular biology, to synthesise artificial chromosomes, proteins and other organic molecules and insert them into a bilayer lipid membrane like that described above. If man does indeed succeed in creating life from non-life in less than 100 years, then surely it would be common sense to suggest that nature could manage the same in 4.5 billion years.
On the subject of peppered moths, yet another common manipulation of scientific debate committed by creationists, no such idea was ever ‘debunked’, the researcher was merely attacked for poor experimental procedure and manipulating statistical results. John Coyne - responsible for originally uncovering these inaccuracies in, and re-evaluating, the data – said himself that the “moth story is a sound example of evolution produced by natural selection” and that his call for additional research was only to “resolve uncertainty regarding bird predation as the cause of the natural selection and evolutionary change”. In biology lessons, the story remains a simpler example of natural selection than other camouflaged animals, in which the phenotype is more often that not polygenic and beyond an A Level or High School syllabus.
The book of Genesis was written 2,500 years ago, at a time when people still believed the earth was flat and that it was the centre of the solar system. God made light on the first day (Genesis 1:3) and the sun and stars the day later (Genesis 1:6)? No he didn’t. Light comes from the chemical and atomic reactions of Hydrogen and Helium in the Sun. These chemical and atomic reactions cause energy in the Sun to be released as photons of light. God couldn’t have created light and then create the sun a day later. They are intrinsically one and the same thing.
Just out of interest, why do you believe the Christian creation story anyway, when there are so many of other, more logical, religious creation stories? What makes you so sure that your one is right? Has your God presented you with observable evidence, or do you rely on faith? If so, what makes your faith in the Christian creation story any better than that of Jews, Muslims, Aborigines or Taoists, for example, in theirs?
Scientists, and other freethinking people, believe in evolution because it is observable in the material world and can be understood through methodological naturalism. The fact an ancient text – which, for some unknown reason, many people continue to live by - disagrees with the modern evolutionary synthesis is of no importance to Science. Evolution remains a theory, supported by facts, while creationism is still less than a hypothesis, based on blind leaps of faith.
Kindest Regards,*
Mark
* and a generous abundance of wholly secular love
p.s. if presented with quantifiable, replicatable evidence, I would question the modern evolutionary synthesis immediately. You are presented with such evidence infavour of evolution, yet still you remain stubborn? Please, I beg you tell me, why is this?
Mark: When you list the breakthroughs in biology that have “all but proved the evolutionary theory”.
While this is correct, I think it’s also important to mention the work in the non-biological sciences. For example, geophysics and nuclear physics have given us techniques to date the planet which are in remarkable agreement with the biological record.
One piece of the puzzle that I read about recently was that such a long timescale was needed; geophysicists in Darwin’s day objected that the Earth’s core would have cooled down by now if the Earth were billions rather than millions of years old. It wasn’t until the discovery of radiation that this was solved. Evolution actually predicted an unknown mechanism for heating the Earth’s core, which was only discovered later.
The work done by mathematicans and computer scientists should also be mentioned, though this, perhaps, isn’t quite as impressive.
Now this isn’t a flaw in Mark’s presentation by any means. But I think it’s important to keep in mind that science is quite a coherent whole, and you can’t just reject the bits you don’t like. Rejecting evolution also requires rejecting the nuclear physics that allows us to date the Earth; the same nuclear physics that makes nuclear power work. If you don’t agree that the Earth is 4.65 billion years old, you would also, to form a complete theory, have to come up with an alternative explanation as to why the atomic bomb works, or why evolutionary programming works.
Giving facts to an ignoramus is as dangerous as handing them a loaded gun. Eventually the ignoramus will shoot themselves in the head.
Brilliant point!
Forgive me, you are very much correct! Of course, it is the work of geophysicists, nuclear physicists, and mathematicians, for example, that give biologists a time scale to work with in the first place. As with anything as distant as abiogenesis, where the opportunity for direct study is rare, the more abstract, mathematical sciences are particularly essential. It is only recently, thanks to tip-offs, as to the conditions on primal Earth, from these and other schools of science, that biologists have been able to observe and replicate the phenomena that I described above.
Unfortunately, my study of physics and mathematics has been mostly non-academic since Secondary School, so it’s a bit of a ‘blind spot’ for me, that I hope to remedy at University.
That’s cool, Mark. Consider it another argument you can use in the future.
While evolution is mostly the property of biologists and the associated arts, it’s important to remember that science is a coherent whole. You can’t pick and choose what to agree with, because rejecting one part has far-reaching consequences into other well-established fields too.
Ronald, I think you will find this page useful.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
MH, thanks for your suggestion but as a retired applied scientist in Biology, it is abhorrent to me to read only biased, one sided views. this typifies the evolutionary modus of denying all that opposes their view no matterwhat or how much evidence is presented. It is more of the “don’t confuse me with the facts…” syndrome, May i suggest, in reciprocity, that you read the book of Genesis. The truth may set you free!
Mark, faith is an essential component derived from the prepondderence of evidenc. I prescribe that it takes more to believe in evolution than in Creation. The adhesive bond of atheism seems the paramount factor for adherence to evolution. If evolution were to be unequivically and totally exposed for the myth that it is, then one would, heaven forbid, cause one to believe in a higher power. What atheist wants to consider that?
Also,in the past 4.5 billion years, no life has been formed from non life. You say maybe it will happen in the next 100 years. Or maybe it will take another4.6 billion more. False hope springs eternal., doesn’t it? You state that abiogenesis can be slow. what you mean is that it it is so slow as to be non existent! According to you, the UK has an exclusive capture of and values clear, rational thought and you mention evolution having observable facts. Please share some of these with us. And as a biologist, I know of no effort that comes even remotely close to making synthetic life and neither do you!
Dear Ronald, I am an extraordinarily patient person but, still, you fail to present any sound, quantifiable evidence, from up-to-date methodological studies, in favour of your beliefs. It appears that, once again, you have succeeded in twisting and misinterpreting my words. You really do have quite the knack for intentional ignorance
“denying all that opposes their view no matterwhat or how much evidence is presented.” - please do enlighten me, if you can, with some genuine, quantifiable evidence
You are misusing the words faith and myth, the definitions are as follows:
faith
n.
Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
myth
n.
Story believed to be true by people who attach religious or spiritual significance to it, concerning the origins of the world or how the world and the creatures in it came to be in their present form.
By its definition, the modern evolutionary synthesis could not be a myth, and faith is a belief that disregards observable evidence.
It’s obvious that, no matter what I say, you are too far stuck in your ways; voluntarily deaf to the voice of reason. To be blunt, only for the benefit of less indoctrinated, open minded creationists, do I give you the benefit of the doubt, and continue to engage in rational debate.
I didn’t say that abiogenesis was slow, I said that research into abiogenesis was slow and sporadic, until recently. You mentioned that you are a retired Biologist, so it is understandable that you’re not up-to-date with the latest developments.
There are dozens of projects across the globe, working on creating synthetic life - both from scratch and through inserting natural DNA into synthetic cells. I’m sure there are many more, but the ones I know of are the Synthetic Yeast Genome Project, Delhi College of Engineering and Synthetic Genomics. Here are a few articles on the subject, just in case anybody’s interested
Scientific American
J.Craig Venter Institute
Science Daily
Progress in Synthetic Biology is happening so rapidly that the first entirely synthetic life form is expected, by some, to be finished in less than a decade.
PLEASE just read this and save us all some hot air. I have taken the time to read a reasonable amount of literature on Intelligent Design and have found nothing, other than blind faith, to warrant believing in such non-sense. Unless you are in denial and know, deep down, that you are wrong; then surely you have no reason not to read, with a truly open mind, about evolution?
Mark, may I refer you back to reading my March 15 statement. What more do you need? In typical evol fashion, you are compelled to accuse me of intentional ignorance and other insulting aspersions, something I did not do. can’t you respond with inelligence sans insult? It only emphsizes your frustration and weakness in response!
Ronald Cote, a biologist, so you say - Who cares? Your self-proclaimed title is nothing but contrary. Stop the blither. If you are who you claim, reference at least one publication supporting your claim. No - the bible is not a scientific reference, let alone a history book. You are scientifically literate aren’t you?
My regards to Mark.
I’m sorry Ronald, but still you fail to present an argument. What more do I need? Well, quantifiable evidence is often a good place to start.
You must realise Ronald, that spouting scripture and and attacking antiquated science does nothing but strengthen the case against Intelligent Design. I am young, my mother is a cultural Catholic and my father is agnostic but with a personal interest in the bible, I have been free to chose what I believe in and, as I have said in other posts, am sometimes almost as interested in the beliefs of the world’s Religions as I am in Science; I have no particular loyalty to an ideology, - my creed is peace, free thought and compassion - I am perfectly aware of the arguments for Intelligent Design and am very sorry, but the whole thing just stinks of a desperate attempt to hold onto the past. There are traditions, such as Yoga and Buddhism, that offer a much faster route to spiritual maturity and are compatible with modern science. What, I sincerely ask you, makes Abrahamic religions so unique and special that they would even have their followers denounce reason? It took hundreds of years for Christianity to accept that the World was round and that the Solar System is heliocentric; inevitably, people hold on, kicking and screaming , to the security of old ways.
You are entitled to your freedom of conscience as much as I am mine, and I have no desire to steal away the moral support given to you by your beliefs. However, please, I implore you, do not try and pass off Intelligent Design as scientific theory. Until it has solid, repeatable, quantifiable evidence in favour of it, ID is non-science, or a hypothesis at best, by its very definition.
Interestingly, Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Pope Benedict XVI are both in favour of evolution.
#12, I care since I made a good living from applying my biolgical knowledge to R&D on space and medical applications. What are your contributions for which you are proud? It also seems that many other evols get upset that I am a scientist and biologist based on the many concerns that someone with a degree of credentials could possibly unravel their ridiculous myth.
Ronald Cote, the biologist, former employee of NASA and NIH… etc. Dr. Cote? Seriously, no one cares about your claimed credentials - especially a questionable one. Your writings work against your credentials, though I seriously doubt you even have one in life sciences. Regardless, have you found at least one paper supporting your opinions? Furthermore, I have yet to find any publication with “Ronald Cote”. I assume this is your alias? One would think that if you are proud as say, then your contributions only adds to your name. Mr. Cote, with all due respect, all you could have done is support your view with sound reasoning if not scientific evidence.
I have no intention of mooting with your stupidity as you have on other sites. My sincere apologies to Mark if these posts have been retrogressive.
This is a great site Mark. Godspeed to you.
#16, Maybe you don’t care about my “claimed”credentials and experiences and that bothers me not, one iota. Nor is anything changed because of it like all other evol tools of denial, denigration and the old standby, name calling. And what in blazes do you think Biology is? By definition, biology is the study of “life” and, stupidly, you state your doubt that I “have one in life sciences”. You unashamedly display your ignorance, in print to the world. That is gutsy, but not brilliant!!
In your display of ignorance, you also allude to any publications bearing my name. More display of ignorance! When you work for a corporation, writing publications is not part of the work experience. The end product is of essence, not notoriety. Results of my scientific performance produced publications called paychecks. Complex projects requiring teams of scientists don’t exist to produce publications, only products of benefit to man. While on the subject, what publications have !@fld31 produced? I assume that as an alias! I can certainly understand why you would use an alias. Mine is not an alias but my real name. You should curtail any future blogging for fear of making yourself sound any stupider!
Hello, is this the year 2008?? My name is Charles Darwin and I have come from the future to tell you an important Message, Evolution is true, why can’t you idiots accept that.
You see, 4.5 Billion years ago the earth’s surface cooled down causing life to be created from molecules. This life then spread across the planet and evolved into human beings. I would like to hear the thoughts of the intelligent Evolutionists about things such as that “Bible Code”
Hello Charles
Do you not mean the past 
I haven’t read enough about the “Bible Code” to justifiably form an opinion yet. However, one thing I find quite funny is how academics, on both sides of the debate, long ago seem to have lost all desire for meaningful discussion and stooped into personal insults and ’straw person’ arguments!
17# Just chill for a moment Ronald
Anyone interested in abiogenesis should read this brief introduction; this is one of the areas of the Evolutionary Synthesis most commonly attacked, and completely misunderstood, by creationists.
21 Mark, no matter how much wishful guessing or wishful thinking, even evols admit that life from non life remains absolutely impossible. The foundation of evolution starts with an impossible scenario. Impossible+impossible=impossible. What is it you don’t understand about this? Even your hero, Dawkins has no answer and had to resort to the ridiculous speculation that life came from aliens. Now that is an act of supreme desperation for a theory that is in desparate straights!
That linked page said that life would have appeared from simpler imitation life, which would have evolved from the random chemicals floating around. I know that the chances of random chemicals just becoming life are unbelievably small, but what are the mathmatical chances of chemicals becoming simple imitation life and then eventually proper life?
Also if someone resorts to “Oh yeah, Life was brought to Earth by Aliens obviously” that is a VERY weak arguement.
Back when Earth was being formed, what is the likelihood that another planet would have been formed already and evolved sufficiently intelligent life to go spreading life to the universe? Was Earth just late in forming?
Firstly Ronald, please would you kindly stop using the term ‘evols’? It is, at best, derogatory; at worst, it strikes me as outright ignorant and offensive. The Evolutionary Synthesis is accepted by the vast majority of scientists; the few that do not accept it (almost invariably) argue so from a religious perspective, attacking uncertainties in the evolutionary synthesis (yes, there are still many) rather than presenting an alternative theory that is, scientifically, both logically viable and quantifiable. Until the co-called ‘Creation Scientists’ present an alternative scientific theory, their arguments will never, ever be taken seriously. If, however, they continue to remain incapable of doing this, then they should leave real science to real scientists and resign Creationism to itself rightful throne, the fluffy fairy-world of Religion.
I agree with you, that Dawkins’ remark was a bit careless and irresponsible; but, never did he present this as an actual theory for abiogenesis, it was merely a response during an informal interview, when he was asked, hypothetically, what it would mean for Intelligent Design to be true. The context in which he said it was on the subject of God and intelligent design; Like myself, Dawkins is not fundamentally against the concept of a God, but merely states that there is no quantifiable evidence in favour of one, and hence any intelligent scientist should presume its none existence - very much in the same way we presume the nonexistence of fairies, Santa Claus, or the ‘Flying Spaghetti Monster’. Here are two hypothetical situations: first, that any such God would either exist outside of the universe - in which case she is of no interest to Scientists - or otherwise exist within this universe - in which case she, also, would have arisen through evolution - could have seeded or guided life on Earth. There is no more scientific evidence in favour of biblical genesis as there is for the ‘theory’ that aliens seeded life on Earth, so how is it that you find yourself able to reject one but not the other?
We know that it is possible for life to exist in this universe, we are solid proof of this. However, we are yet to find a single shred of quantifiable evidence showing a God at work in this universe. Therefore, although the odds of Aliens evolving over billions of years, developing the technology to reach Earth, seeding life here without leaving any trace of their presence, and then disappearing, is hilariously unlikely; there is still more reason to believe this, than God-guided genesis. Any free-thinking, clear minded and rational person will see these ideas for the vulgar, infantile myths that they are.
A universe with a God would be very different than one without, therefore the existence of God is very much a scientific question. The age of religion is coming to an end. Ironically, religious extremism is sealing the coffin on religion itself. Whether or not you like it, we are witnessing the dawn of a new era; one in which the clear light of science will thin the oily fog of religion, giving us a new window into the pure, serene beauty of this universe and the minds through which we experience it, void of supernatural mysticism.
#23 Hello Mr. Confused
To be honest, I don’t think we know enough to predict any of the odds associated with life in other parts of the universe without guessing, as we’ve absolutely no idea how common life is yet.
The creationist idea of Abiogenesis has not been held by scientists since the 1850s(!), and is ridiculously far from the real theory. A simplifed (but still confusing :() description of the theory is as follows: simple molecules react to form polymers, very few of which would form catalytic cylces of self-recplicating polymers (e.g. protein enzymes or RNA ribosomes); these continue in this manner to form self-reproducing macromolecular systems, or hypercycles; under experimental conditions, simulating those on early Earth, these systems have shown a tendency to become encased in a phospholipid bilayer, similar to that found in living cells. These liposomes, sheltering complex hypercylces, are known as protobionts and exhibit some of the properties associated with life, including very simple reproduction, metabolism and the maintenance of an internal chemical environment different from that of their surroundings. These stages have been observed under experimental conditions, with a number of them being observed at deep sea vents, where conditions are most similar to those of early Earth. The one stage that is yet to be seen is the transformation from Protobiont (simple imitation life) to Prokaryote (single celled organisms); although this theory is now generally accepted, in one of its many forms, and extensive experimental work is currently underway to actually observe this final stage in ‘real life’.
The figure often parroted, for the apparent impossibility of abiogenesis is the 1 in 2.04 x 10 (to the power of) 390 of the standard creationist “generating carboxypeptidase by chance” scenario, publshed by the Institute for Creation Research. This probability is calculated assuming that molecules just react randomly, failing to recognise that molecules react in very specific patterns. Given the correct conditions, many of the complex molecules that are needed for life can form in a relatively short time and experiments exploring different conditions have resulted in the formation of surprisingly large amounts of complex molecules. ‘If you combine the Law of Truly Large Numbers with the horrendous vastness of the universe and the inconceivably huge amount of luminous matter within it, it is nigh inevitable that an event as improbable as abiogenesis would occur somewhere.’ (from evowiki) The statistical model used to produce this calculation is not even used by biologists. Ronald, I implore you to do some serious reading on statistics of probability, as I fear your understanding of them is less than sound. A good place to start would be this page, which I linked to earlier, or this eBook
This was a really fun read, great references, nice site. I shall stay tuned for the purpose of education and entertainment.
Thanks Brian!