Ch

rist

ian

Bib

lica

l Ch

urc

h o

f G

od O

ffic

es:

Au

stra

lia

GP

O 1

574

Syd

ney

2001

A

ustr

alia

Can

ada

Pos

t O

ffic

e B

ox 1

25

Bro

ckvi

lle,

Ont

ario

K6V

5V

2 C

anad

a

New

Zea

land

P

ost

Off

ice

Box

242

W

aihi

298

1 N

ew Z

eala

nd

Rep

ublic

of

Sout

h A

fric

a Po

st O

ffic

e B

ox 2

624

Wil

row

Par

k 17

31

Rep

. of

Sout

h A

fric

a

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

Po

st O

ffic

e B

ox 8

224

With

am C

M8

1WZ

U

nite

d K

ingd

om

Uni

ted

Stat

es

Post

Off

ice

Box

144

2 H

olli

ster

, Cal

ifor

nia

950

24-1

442

ww

w.c

bcg.

org

www.theoriginalbiblerestored.com

w

ww

.chu

rcha

thom

e.or

g

God

, or

No

God

?

Som

e C

lues

Fro

m S

cien

ce

by

Dun

can

Mac

Leo

d

Cop

yrig

ht 2

012

C

hris

tian

Bib

lical

Chu

rch

of G

od

P.O

Box

144

2 H

olli

ster

, CA

950

24-1

442

ww

w.c

bcg.

org

www.theoriginalbiblerestored.com

ww

w.c

hurc

hath

ome.

org

May

be

free

ly c

opie

d w

ith fu

ll ac

know

ledg

men

t of c

opyr

ight

hol

der.

43

42

T

able

of

Con

tent

s In

trod

uctio

n …

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

. C

hapt

er O

ne

O

rigi

ns …

……

……

……

……

……

……

…..

Cha

pter

Tw

o

Ele

men

ts F

orm

……

……

……

……

……

….

Cha

pter

Thr

ee

Ear

th: T

he F

avor

ed P

lane

t ……

……

……

…

Cha

pter

Fou

r

And

The

re W

as L

ife

……

……

……

……

….

Cha

pter

Fiv

e

From

The

re to

Her

e …

……

……

……

……

.. C

hapt

er S

ix

N

ot A

Leg

to S

tand

On

……

……

……

……

. C

hapt

er S

even

D

o O

rgan

izat

ion,

Coo

rdin

atio

n

an

d C

ontr

ol “

Just

Hap

pen”

? …

……

……

….

Cha

pter

Eig

ht

The

Con

undr

um o

f Se

x an

d

Rep

rodu

ctio

n …

……

……

……

……

……

…

Cha

pter

Nin

e

Are

We

all J

ust “

Mut

ant P

roto

zoa”

? …

……

C

hapt

er T

en

T

he N

o-G

od D

elus

ion

……

……

……

……

.. C

hapt

er E

leve

n A

Log

ical

Nex

t Ste

p …

……

……

……

……

. E

nd N

otes

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

B

iblio

grap

hy …

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

…...

1

4

8

10

13

18

20

24

27

30

34

37

39

40

Su

gges

ted

Fur

ther

Rea

ding

B

ehe,

Mic

hael

, Dar

win

’s B

lack

Box

, New

Yor

k, T

ouch

ston

e by

Si

mon

& S

chus

ter,

199

6 Fl

ew, A

nton

y, T

here

Is

No

A G

od:

How

The

Wor

ld’s

Mos

t N

otor

ious

Ath

eist

Cha

nged

His

Min

d, N

ew Y

ork,

Har

per

One

, 20

07

Hun

ter,

Cor

neliu

s, S

cien

ce’s

Blin

d Sp

ot, G

rand

Rap

ids,

Mic

higa

n,

Bra

zos

Pres

s, 2

007

John

son,

Phi

lip, D

arw

in O

n T

rial

, Dow

ners

Gro

ve, I

llin

ois,

In

terV

arsi

ty P

ress

, Sec

ond

Edi

tion,

199

3 Sa

rfat

i, Jo

nath

an, T

he G

reat

est H

oax

On

Ear

th?

Ref

utin

g D

awki

ns

On

Evo

luti

on, A

tlant

a, G

eorg

ia, C

reat

ion

Boo

k Pu

blis

hers

, 201

0 St

ove,

Dav

id, D

arw

inia

n F

airy

Tal

es, N

ew Y

ork,

Enc

ount

er B

ooks

, 19

95

Su

gges

ted

Vie

win

g St

ein,

Ben

, Exp

elle

d, N

o In

tell

igen

ce A

llow

ed, (

as D

VD

do

cum

enta

ry),

Viv

endi

Ent

erta

inm

ent,

2008

St

robe

l, L

ee, T

he C

ase

For

A C

reat

or, (

as D

VD

doc

umen

tary

),

Illu

stra

Med

ia, 2

006

41

Bib

liogr

aphy

D

avie

s, P

aul,

God

and

the

New

Phy

sics

, New

Yor

k, S

imon

&

Schu

ster

, 198

3 D

awki

ns, R

icha

rd, T

he G

od D

elus

ion,

New

Yor

k, H

ough

ton

Mif

flin

, 20

08

Dem

bski

, Will

iam

, Unc

omm

on D

isse

nt, I

ntel

lect

uals

Who

Fin

d D

arw

inis

m U

nsat

isfy

ing,

Wilm

ingt

on, D

elaw

are,

ISI

Boo

ks,

2004

G

onza

les,

Gui

llerm

o, R

icha

rds,

Jay

Wes

ley,

The

Pri

vile

ged

Pla

net,

Was

hing

ton,

DC

, Reg

nery

Pub

lishi

ng, I

nc.,

2004

H

awki

ng, S

teph

en, A

Bri

ef H

isto

ry o

f Tim

e—F

rom

The

Big

Ban

g to

B

lack

Hol

es, N

ew Y

ork,

Ban

tam

Boo

ks, 1

988

Hee

ren,

Fre

d, S

how

Me

God

, Whe

elin

g, I

ll., S

earc

hlig

ht

Publ

icat

ions

, Fir

st E

ditio

n, 1

995

Kir

shne

r, R

ober

t, “T

he E

arth

’s E

lem

ents

,” S

cien

tifi

c A

mer

ican

, O

ctob

er 1

994

Mor

ris,

Ric

hard

, The

Fat

e of

the

Uni

vers

e, N

ew Y

ork,

Pla

yboy

Pr

ess,

198

2 Sa

nfor

d, J

.C.,

Gen

etic

Ent

ropy

& T

he M

yste

ry o

f the

Gen

ome,

Lim

a,

NY

, Eli

m P

ubli

shin

g, S

econ

d E

diti

on, 2

005

Sim

mon

s, G

eoff

rey,

Wha

t Dar

win

Did

n’t K

now

, Eug

ene,

Ore

gon,

H

arve

st H

ouse

Pub

lishe

rs, 2

004

Stro

bel,

Lee

, The

Cas

e F

or a

Cre

ator

, Gra

nd R

apid

s, M

ichi

gan,

Z

onde

rvan

, 200

4 W

ells

, Jon

atha

n, I

cons

of E

volu

tion

, Was

hing

ton,

DC

, Reg

nery

Pu

blis

hing

, 200

0

40

In

trod

ucti

on

Is

ther

e a

God

, or

isn’

t the

re?

A

thei

sts

may

rid

icul

e yo

u an

d tr

y to

mak

e yo

u fe

el f

oolis

h,

igno

rant

and

gul

libl

e fo

r ev

en c

onsi

deri

ng t

he e

xist

ence

of

God

a

poss

ibil

ity.

On

the

othe

r ha

nd,

peop

le w

ho b

elie

ve t

here

is

a G

od

may

say

you

hav

e to

“ta

ke i

t on

fai

th,”

and

mig

ht j

udge

you

for

be

ing

skep

tical

or

in d

oubt

.

You

r un

cert

aint

y ab

out

whe

ther

the

re r

eally

is

a G

od i

s no

re

ason

to f

eel a

sham

ed. D

on’t

let a

nyon

e la

y a

guilt

trip

on

you

for

a “l

ack

of f

aith

.” W

hile

som

e m

ay p

ass

thei

r en

tire

liv

es n

ever

que

s-ti

onin

g th

e ex

iste

nce

of G

od, m

any

of u

s at

som

e tim

e ha

ve f

elt g

ood

reas

on to

dou

bt it

.

How

cou

ld w

e no

t? N

earl

y ev

ery

subj

ect

we

lear

n in

sc

hool

an

d co

llege

is

ta

ught

fr

om

a m

ater

ialis

tic,

an

ti-

supe

rnat

ural

, ev

olut

iona

ry p

oint

of

view

—as

if

ther

e w

ere

no

God

. M

any

wit

h ad

vanc

ed

acad

emic

de

gree

s,

who

co

nsid

er

them

selv

es “

educ

ated

and

enl

ight

ened

,” a

re s

ure

ther

e is

no

God

. B

usin

esse

s w

e de

al w

ith

each

day

ope

rate

pri

mar

ily f

or t

heir

ow

n be

nefi

t—as

if

ther

e w

ere

no G

od. A

nd a

lot

of

peop

le w

e kn

ow l

ive

thei

r pe

rson

al l

ives

as

if t

here

wer

e no

God

to

who

m t

hey

will

so

med

ay h

ave

to a

nsw

er.

M

any

God

-dou

bter

s do

ubt

for

the

rest

of

thei

r liv

es.

Som

e,

afte

r a

peri

od o

f un

cert

aint

y, m

ake

up t

heir

min

d on

e w

ay o

r th

e ot

her:

Eit

her

they

con

clud

e th

ere

is n

o G

od a

nd b

ecom

e co

nfir

med

at

heis

ts,

or t

hey

deci

de t

here

is

a G

od.

Of

the

latt

er g

roup

, so

me—

but n

ot a

ll—ad

opt a

for

mal

rel

igio

n.

T

he f

act i

s, h

owev

er, t

hat f

ew p

eopl

e in

any

of

thes

e gr

oups

ha

ve c

onti

nued

a r

elen

tles

s, u

nfla

ggin

g qu

est

thro

ugh

rese

arch

and

ex

peri

ence

to

de

term

ine

the

trut

h of

th

e m

atte

r.

Som

e,

who

re

peat

edly

hea

r th

e m

antr

a “W

e ca

n’t

know

for

sur

e,”

even

tual

ly

buy

into

it.

The

y gi

ve u

p th

e qu

est

and

resi

gn t

hem

selv

es t

o ne

ver

know

ing

for

cert

ain

if t

here

is

or i

sn’t

a G

od. T

hese

peo

ple

wil

l no

do

ubt r

emai

n li

feti

me

agno

stic

s.

M

any

othe

rs a

ttem

pt t

o pr

ofes

s a

“fai

th,”

whi

le u

nder

neat

h th

ey’r

e st

ill

unce

rtai

n of

G

od’s

ex

iste

nce.

T

hey

aren

’t

exac

tly

hypo

crite

s—th

ey m

ean

wel

l. T

hey’

re t

ryin

g to

bel

ieve

; th

ey w

ant

to

belie

ve.

Con

scio

usly

th

ey’r

e st

rivi

ng

to

conv

ince

th

emse

lves

of

so

me

rati

onal

bas

is f

or a

ver

y w

eak

fait

h; b

ut t

his

kind

of

unce

rtai

n fa

ith

may

not

sta

nd t

he t

est

of a

dver

sity

. In

tell

igen

t, ra

tiona

l pe

ople

1

real

ize

that

any

fai

th i

n a

God

to

who

m t

hey’

re g

oing

to

com

mit

thei

r li

fe n

eeds

to

be b

ased

on

a m

uch

mor

e fi

rm f

ooti

ng t

han

mer

e se

lf-p

ersu

asio

n.

If

you

’re

read

ing

this

boo

k, y

ou’r

e pr

obab

ly s

till

unce

rtai

n.

But

cha

nces

are

you

hav

en’t

giv

en u

p yo

ur s

earc

h fo

r th

e tr

uth.

You

m

ay b

e sk

eptic

al a

bout

the

idea

of

a G

od; t

hat’

s pe

rfec

tly r

easo

nabl

e,

give

n ho

w l

ittle

you

kno

w.

But

at

leas

t yo

u ha

ven’

t m

ade

up y

our

min

d, a

s ha

ve c

onfi

rmed

ath

eist

s lik

e R

icha

rd D

awki

ns,

that

any

be

lief

in G

od is

som

e ki

nd o

f “d

elus

ion.

”

A

ll t

hat

bein

g a

skep

tic s

houl

d m

ean

is t

hat,

befo

re y

ou

deci

de t

o be

liev

e an

ythi

ng,

you

wan

t pr

oof—

or a

t le

ast

subs

tant

ial

cred

ible

evi

denc

e. Y

ou d

on’t

wan

t to

be

part

of

the

easi

ly l

ed m

ass

who

buy

into

bel

iefs

whi

ch la

ter

turn

out

to b

e fa

bles

.

The

rea

lity

is, n

ot m

any

peop

le h

ave

arri

ved

at th

eir

poin

ts o

f vi

ew—

whe

ther

th

e is

sue

is

spir

itual

or

m

ater

ial—

only

af

ter

dili

gent

ly r

esea

rchi

ng th

e fa

cts

and

care

fully

sor

ting

trut

h fr

om e

rror

. M

ore

typi

call

y, w

e te

nd t

o ad

opt

a pa

ckag

e of

bel

iefs

han

ded

to u

s by

som

eone

els

e. I

t m

ight

be

pare

nts,

pee

rs,

prof

esso

rs,

auth

ors

of

book

s w

e’ve

rea

d—w

hoev

er i

s m

ost

pers

uasi

ve,

who

ever

off

ers

the

view

tha

t’s

mos

t ap

peal

ing,

who

mev

er w

e m

ost

resp

ect,

or w

hom

-ev

er w

e m

ost f

ear

to d

ispl

ease

.

The

ide

a of

ind

epen

dent

ly s

earc

hing

out

the

tru

th o

f a

mat

ter

is s

o fo

reig

n to

mos

t pe

ople

tha

t—ev

en i

f th

ey w

ante

d to

—th

ey w

ould

n’t

know

the

fir

st s

tep

to t

ake.

Nor

, at

the

end

of

the

proc

ess,

wou

ld t

hey

nece

ssar

ily

trus

t th

eir

own

find

ings

. N

earl

y al

l of

us

have

loo

ked

at t

imes

to

som

eone

els

e to

lea

d us

to

“the

tr

uth.

”

Y

et i

n th

is “

info

rmat

ion

age,

” yo

ur e

nqui

ring

min

d ca

n fi

nd t

he f

acts

abo

ut m

ost

any

issu

e. Y

ou d

on’t

nee

d to

tak

e an

yone

els

e’s

wor

d fo

r it

, whe

n yo

u ca

n ve

rify

or

debu

nk a

lmos

t an

y st

atem

ent

you

hear

or

read

. It

can

be

a lo

t of

wor

k—br

ain

stra

in—

but

wha

t is

it

wor

th t

o yo

u to

get

the

tru

e an

swer

to

such

a

fund

amen

tal

ques

tion

as “

Is t

here

rea

lly

a G

od?”

The

ans

wer

you

fi

nd m

ay d

eter

min

e ho

w y

ou d

irec

t the

res

t of

your

life

.

In t

his

volu

me,

you

and

I w

ill

exam

ine

a sm

all

sam

plin

g of

th

e ev

iden

ce f

or t

he e

xist

ence

of

God

and

giv

e yo

ur o

pen

min

d en

ough

fac

ts d

isco

vere

d by

sci

entis

ts t

o le

t yo

u de

cide

whe

ther

or

not

ther

e is

suc

h a

bein

g. W

e w

on’t

was

te t

ime

with

unc

onvi

ncin

g ph

ilos

ophi

cal

argu

men

ts o

r th

eolo

gica

l ap

olog

etic

s. W

e’ll

con

fine

ou

rsel

ves

mos

tly

to c

aref

ul o

bser

vati

ons

and

calc

ulat

ions

by

peop

le

who

se

day-

to-d

ay

occu

pati

on

is

with

ob

serv

able

, m

easu

rabl

e

Intr

oduc

tion

2

End

Not

es

1 P

aul D

avie

s, G

od a

nd T

he N

ew P

hysi

cs, p

p. 1

0, 1

1 2 D

avie

s, p

. 12

3 F

red

Hee

ren,

Sho

w M

e G

od, f

irst

edi

tion

, p. 1

49, e

mph

asis

add

ed

4 R

icha

rd M

orri

s, T

he F

ate

of th

e U

nive

rse,

p. 1

53 (

as q

uote

d in

H

eere

n, p

. 182

) 5 M

orri

s, p

. 152

, (as

quo

ted

in H

eere

n, p

. 185

) 6 D

avie

s, p

. 21

7 S

teph

en H

awki

ng, A

Bri

ef H

isto

ry o

f Tim

e—F

rom

The

Big

Ban

d T

o B

lack

Hol

es, p

. 125

, em

phas

is a

dded

8 R

ober

t Kir

shne

r, “

The

Ear

th’s

Ele

men

ts,”

Sci

enti

fic A

mer

ican

,

Oct

ober

199

4 9 H

eere

n, p

. 179

, em

phas

is a

dded

10

Lee

Str

obel

, The

Cas

e F

or A

Cre

ator

, p. 1

67

11 S

trob

el, p

. 171

12

Str

obel

, p. 1

70

13 S

trob

el, p

p. 1

69-1

70

14 S

trob

el, p

. 171

15

Str

obel

, p. 1

74

16 J

.C. S

anfo

rd, G

enet

ic E

ntro

py &

The

Mys

tery

of t

he G

enom

e, p

. v

17 W

illia

m D

embs

ki, U

ncom

mon

Dis

sent

, Int

elle

ctua

ls W

ho F

ind

Dar

win

ism

Unc

onvi

ncin

g, p

. xvi

i 18

Jon

atha

n W

ells

, Ico

ns o

f Evo

lutio

n, S

cien

ce O

r M

yth?

pp.

235

-6

19 H

eere

n, p

. 183

20

J.C

. San

ford

, Gen

etic

Ent

ropy

& T

he M

yste

ry o

f The

Gen

ome,

Cha

pter

2

39

the

thin

gs

that

ar

e m

ade—

both

H

is

eter

nal

pow

er

and

God

head

—so

tha

t th

ey a

re w

itho

ut e

xcus

e; b

ecau

se w

hen

they

kn

ew G

od, t

hey

glor

ifie

d H

im n

ot a

s G

od, n

eith

er w

ere

than

kful

; but

th

ey b

ecam

e va

in i

n th

eir

own

reas

onin

gs,

and

thei

r fo

olis

h he

arts

w

ere

dark

ened

. W

hile

pro

fess

ing

them

selv

es t

o be

wis

e on

es,

they

be

cam

e fo

ols.

”

It

is

alm

ost

fash

iona

ble

toda

y am

ong

high

ly

educ

ated

ac

adem

ic t

ypes

to

disd

ainf

ully

dis

mis

s th

e id

ea o

f a

crea

tor

God

. T

hey

not

only

em

brac

e m

ater

iali

stic

pa

radi

gms

like

D

arw

inia

n ev

olut

ion,

the

y pu

t pr

essu

re o

n th

eir

peer

s to

do

the

sam

e. A

ny

diss

ente

rs a

re li

kely

to lo

se th

eir

teac

hing

pos

ition

s; a

nd g

ettin

g th

eir

find

ings

pub

lishe

d be

com

es a

lmos

t im

poss

ible

. T

oday

in

acad

emic

ci

rcle

s, a

s pr

evio

usly

poi

nted

out

in

Cha

pter

Fou

r, t

he t

ruth

mos

t ce

rtai

nly

does

too

ofte

n ge

t “s

uppr

esse

d.”

An

exce

llent

doc

umen

tary

by

Ben

Ste

in, e

ntitl

ed E

xpel

led:

No

Inte

llig

ence

All

owed

, als

o po

ints

ou

t ho

w t

he s

uppo

sedl

y “o

pen-

min

ded”

aca

dem

ic c

omm

unit

y sh

ows

its

into

lera

nce

of

any

diss

ent

from

th

e D

arw

inia

n ev

olut

iona

ry

para

digm

. W

e m

ight

hav

e ex

pect

ed t

o se

e th

at i

n th

e C

omm

unis

t So

viet

Uni

on i

n th

e C

old

War

day

s—bu

t he

re i

n th

e U

nite

d St

ates

, to

day?

So

muc

h fo

r “a

cade

mic

free

dom

.”

T

he

peop

le

God

th

roug

h Pa

ul

is

mai

nly

addr

essi

ng

in

Rom

ans

chap

ter

one

prob

ably

are

the

sel

f-st

yled

“in

telli

gent

sia,

” th

e hi

ghly

edu

cate

d, w

ho h

ave

enou

gh k

now

ledg

e of

the

rea

lity

of t

he

phys

ical

cre

atio

n an

d it

s in

tric

acie

s th

at t

hey

shou

ld b

e ab

le t

o se

e G

od’s

han

d in

His

cre

atio

n. B

ut f

or w

hate

ver

reas

on,

they

rej

ect

Him

. O

rdin

ary

lay

peop

le

like

yo

u an

d m

e,

wit

h ou

r li

mite

d kn

owle

dge,

are

not

nec

essa

rily

con

dem

ned—

IF w

e’re

will

ing

to

open

our

min

ds t

o w

hat

the

scie

ntif

ic e

vide

nce

is t

ellin

g us

as

we

lear

n m

ore

abou

t the

rea

l wor

ld.

T

his

volu

me

has

pres

ente

d bu

t a

smal

l sa

mpl

ing

of r

ecen

t re

al w

orld

dis

cove

ries

tha

t po

int

to t

he e

xist

ence

of

God

. If

thi

s ov

erw

helm

ing

evid

ence

has

con

vinc

ed y

ou t

here

is

inde

ed a

Cre

ator

G

od,

wil

l yo

u no

w

take

th

e ne

xt

step

? W

ill

you

exam

ine

the

evid

ence

tha

t th

e H

oly

Bib

le i

s th

e in

spir

ed W

ord

of t

he G

od y

ou

now

kno

w e

xist

s? M

ay H

e in

spir

e an

d gu

ide

you

to d

o so

!

A L

ogic

al N

ext S

tep

38

phys

ical

rea

lity

and

its

im

plic

atio

ns.

We’

ll do

cum

ent

the

sour

ces

of

that

inf

orm

atio

n, s

o yo

u ca

n ve

rify

it

for

your

self

—w

hich

yo

u sh

ould

do.

3

Intr

oduc

tion

Cha

pter

One

Ori

gins

How

did

the

uni

vers

e—in

clud

ing

the

eart

h an

d al

l lif

e on

it

—ge

t he

re?

Did

the

unf

atho

mab

ly v

ast

univ

erse

—w

ith

all

the

heav

enly

bod

ies,

the

ear

th a

nd t

he m

arve

lous

ly i

ntri

cate

fab

ric

of

inte

rdep

ende

nt l

ife

on i

t—al

l ju

st f

all

toge

ther

by

acci

dent

, al

l by

it

self

, ou

t of

not

hing

? T

here

are

tho

se w

ho w

ould

hav

e us

bel

ieve

ju

st t

hat.

Oth

ers

wou

ld h

ave

us b

elie

ve t

he c

osm

os h

as a

lway

s be

en

here

.

Let

’s j

ust

deal

wit

h ph

ysic

al m

atte

r: D

o th

e ba

sic

fact

s of

sc

ienc

e co

nfir

m t

he i

dea

of m

atte

r ha

ving

alw

ays

exis

ted,

or

did

it ha

ve

a be

ginn

ing?

Is

m

ater

ial

exis

tenc

e m

ovin

g to

war

d gr

eate

r or

gani

zatio

n an

d “h

ighe

r fo

rms,

” or

is it

ess

entia

lly

brea

king

dow

n?

O

ne o

f th

e be

st-k

now

n an

d m

ost

fund

amen

tal

law

s of

nat

ure

disc

over

ed b

y sc

ient

ists

is

the

Seco

nd L

aw o

f T

herm

odyn

amic

s—al

so c

alle

d th

e “E

ntro

py L

aw.”

Phy

sici

st P

aul D

avie

s ex

plai

ns w

hat

this

law

mea

ns:

“In

its

wid

est

sens

e th

is l

aw s

tate

s th

at e

very

day

th

e un

iver

se b

ecom

es m

ore

and

mor

e di

sord

ered

. The

re i

s a

sort

of

gr

adua

l bu

t in

exor

able

de

scen

t in

to

chao

s.

Exa

mpl

es

of

the

seco

nd l

aw a

re f

ound

eve

ryw

here

: bu

ildin

gs

fall

dow

n,

peop

le

grow

ol

d,

mou

ntai

ns

and

shor

elin

es

are

erod

ed,

natu

ral

reso

urce

s ar

e de

plet

ed.”

Aft

er

post

ulat

ing

that

ev

entu

ally

th

e un

iver

se

wil

l w

ind

dow

n an

d di

e, “

wal

low

ing,

as

it w

ere,

in

its

own

entr

opy,

” D

avie

s co

nclu

des

that

“th

e un

iver

se c

anno

t ha

ve e

xist

ed f

or e

ver,

oth

erw

ise

it w

ould

hav

e re

ache

d it

s eq

uilib

rium

end

sta

te a

n in

fini

te t

ime

ago.

C

oncl

usio

n: t

he u

nive

rse

did

not

alw

ays

exis

t.” 1

(Bol

d em

phas

is

adde

d.)

St

arti

ng O

ff W

ith

a B

ang

M

ost

scie

ntis

ts

toda

y ag

ree

that

th

e un

iver

se

had

a be

ginn

ing.

Am

ong

cosm

olog

ists

cur

rent

ly,

the

mos

t po

pula

r th

eory

of

how

tha

t be

ginn

ing

occu

rred

is

the

“Big

Ban

g” i

n it

s va

riou

s ve

rsio

ns.

Sinc

e as

tron

omer

Edw

in H

ubbl

e’s

disc

over

y in

192

7 th

at

“the

gal

axie

s ar

e no

t fa

llin

g to

geth

er b

ecau

se t

hey

are

rush

ing

apar

t in

stea

d,”

2 sci

entis

ts h

ave

extr

apol

ated

bac

kwar

d in

tim

e to

con

clud

e th

at t

here

mus

t ha

ve b

een

a ti

me

whe

n th

e he

aven

ly b

odie

s w

ere

all

toge

ther

in

one

prim

al m

ass.

Thi

s m

ass

was

sup

pose

dly

very

tin

y

4

Cha

pter

Ele

ven

A

Log

ical

Nex

t St

ep

M

any

of u

s w

ho w

ere

once

ske

ptic

al o

f G

od’s

exi

sten

ce b

ut

now

are

con

vinc

ed o

f it—

pers

uade

d by

the

evi

denc

e—ha

ve g

one

on

to

sear

ch

for

His

co

mm

unic

atio

n, i

f an

y,

to

man

kind

. T

hat

com

mun

icat

ion,

we

feel

, is

foun

d in

the

Hol

y B

ible

.

Aft

er

care

full

y ex

amin

ing

hist

oric

al

and

arch

aeol

ogic

al

conf

irm

atio

n of

th

e B

ible

’s

acco

unts

, an

alyz

ing

its

prop

hetic

pr

edic

tion

s, a

nd t

heir

sub

sequ

ent

fulf

illm

ent

over

cen

turi

es,

we’

ve

beco

me

conv

ince

d th

e B

ible

is

the

insp

ired

Wor

d of

God

. Whe

n th

e B

ible

quo

tes

God

, we

are

sure

it

is a

ccur

atel

y co

mm

unic

atin

g G

od’s

po

int

of v

iew

. In

a f

utur

e vo

lum

e en

title

d T

he B

ible

: M

yths

and

F

able

s or

the

Insp

ired

Wor

d of

God

?, w

e ca

refu

lly e

xam

ine

in d

etai

l th

e ev

iden

ce f

or th

e ve

raci

ty a

nd d

ivin

e in

spir

atio

n of

the

Bib

le.

W

e ar

e to

ld t

hat

God

cre

ated

the

uni

vers

e, i

nclu

ding

the

ea

rth

and

all l

ife

on it

. We

are

not t

old

whe

n th

is c

reat

ion

took

pla

ce,

how

lon

g ag

o, o

r ho

w l

ong

it to

ok G

od t

o co

mpl

ete

ever

ythi

ng.

Wha

t w

e ar

e to

ld i

n no

unc

erta

in t

erm

s is

Who

did

the

cre

atin

g, a

nd

that

th

e en

tire

phys

ical

re

alm

—in

clud

ing

all

life—

was

in

deed

cr

eate

d. I

t di

d no

t all

fall

toge

ther

by

acci

dent

all

by i

tsel

f ou

t of

no

thin

g, w

ith

no o

ne s

uper

visi

ng.

T

he S

crip

ture

s in

clud

e do

zens

of

psal

ms

(son

gs)

by K

ing

Dav

id o

f an

cien

t Is

rael

, w

ho w

rote

lyr

ics

in p

oetic

ver

se u

nder

di

vine

insp

irat

ion,

then

turn

ed th

em o

ver

to th

e ch

ief

mus

icia

n to

put

th

em

to

mus

ic.

Tw

o of

D

avid

’s

psal

ms

star

t of

f w

ith

this

pr

onou

ncem

ent:

“T

he f

ool

has

said

in

his

hear

t ‘t

here

is

no G

od’

” (P

salm

14:

1; 5

3:1)

. Her

e is

God

’s o

pini

on o

f an

yone

who

wil

l no

t ev

en e

nter

tain

the

pos

sibi

lity

of

God

’s e

xist

ence

. M

ost

peop

le a

t le

ast

ackn

owle

dge

that

the

re “

mig

ht”

be a

God

, tho

ugh

they

may

be

unce

rtai

n. M

any

othe

rs a

re s

ure

ther

e is

one

, th

ough

the

y m

ay n

ot

have

pro

ved

it.

A

mon

g th

e er

udit

e an

d su

ppos

edly

“en

ligh

tene

d” i

s w

here

w

e se

e a

disp

ropo

rtio

nate

rat

io o

f at

heis

ts.

Not

e w

hat

the

apos

tle

Pau

l sa

ys o

f th

is i

n R

oman

s 1:

18-2

2: “

Inde

ed,

the

wra

th o

f G

od i

s re

veal

ed f

rom

hea

ven

upon

all

ung

odli

ness

and

unr

ight

eous

ness

of

men

who

sup

pres

s th

e tr

uth

in u

nrig

hteo

usne

ss;

beca

use

that

whi

ch

may

be

know

n of

God

is

man

ifes

t am

ong

them

, fo

r G

od h

as

man

ifes

ted

it

to

them

; fo

r th

e in

visi

ble

thin

gs

of

Him

ar

e pe

rcei

ved

from

the

cre

atio

n of

the

wor

ld,

bein

g un

ders

tood

by

37

to b

e fa

lse,

doe

s th

at p

rove

any

and

all

bel

ief

in G

od i

s fa

lse,

“d

elus

iona

l,” a

nd le

ads

only

to e

vil?

Not

rem

otel

y. O

n th

e co

ntra

ry, i

n th

e fa

ce o

f al

l th

at s

cien

ce

has

unco

vere

d ab

out

the

real

itie

s of

the

mat

eria

l un

iver

se, t

o re

fuse

ev

en t

o ac

know

ledg

e th

e po

ssib

ility

of

the

exis

tenc

e of

God

is t

he

RE

AL

DE

LU

SIO

N.

Jo

nath

an

Sarf

ati

does

a

com

men

dabl

e jo

b of

an

swer

ing

Daw

kins

’s l

ates

t at

tem

pt t

o du

pe t

he g

ulli

ble.

Daw

kins

tit

les

his

volu

me

appr

opri

atel

y, T

he G

reat

est

Show

On

Ear

th. S

arfa

ti an

swer

s w

ith

The

Gre

ates

t Hoa

x O

n E

arth

? R

efut

ing

Daw

kins

On

Evo

lutio

n.

C

ount

erin

g al

l th

e fa

lse

reas

onin

g an

d m

isre

pres

enta

tions

in

Daw

kins

’s

wri

tings

w

ould

re

quir

e th

is

book

let

to

beco

me

exce

ssiv

ely

long

. Hop

eful

ly w

e’ve

incl

uded

eno

ugh

here

to h

elp

you

real

ize

that

the

rea

l de

lusi

on i

s th

e be

lief

in n

o G

od,

and

that

D

arw

inia

n m

acro

evol

utio

n is

the

real

“fa

iled

hypo

thes

is.”

Cha

pter

Ten

36

and

tigh

tly c

ompa

cted

, co

nsis

ting

mos

tly

of m

atte

r, a

nti-

mat

ter

and

ener

gy.

The

“bi

g ba

ng”

occu

rred

, th

e th

eory

goe

s, w

hen

this

mas

s ex

plod

ed i

nto

hot

gass

es,

whi

ch e

vent

uall

y co

nden

sed

into

neb

ulae

, w

hich

in

turn

coa

lesc

ed i

nto

gala

xies

, w

hich

div

ided

int

o st

ars,

pl

anet

s an

d th

e ot

her

stuf

f co

mpr

isin

g th

e un

iver

se.

The

gal

axie

s co

ntin

ue t

o th

is d

ay t

o m

ove

away

fro

m o

ne a

noth

er,

as H

ubbl

e’s

phot

ogra

phs

show

.

No

mat

ter

whi

ch v

ersi

on o

f th

e “b

ig b

ang”

(if

any

) yo

u ac

cept

, the

y al

l st

art

wit

h so

met

hing

, ho

wev

er i

nfin

ites

imal

, th

at

had

to b

e th

ere

to “

go b

ang.

” Is

it

poss

ible

for

not

hing

to

“go

bang

?” I

s it

ill

ogic

al t

o ac

know

ledg

e th

at n

othi

ng I

S no

thin

g an

d D

OE

S no

thin

g?

Tho

se

who

st

udio

usly

av

oid

cons

ider

ing

any

poss

ibil

ity o

f su

pern

atur

al c

reat

ion

here

ref

use

to a

sk,

“How

doe

s N

OT

HIN

G g

o ba

ng?”

If

they

ack

now

ledg

e th

at s

omet

hing

had

to

be t

here

to

go b

ang,

the

y re

fuse

to

ask,

“W

here

did

tha

t ‘s

omet

hing

’ co

me

from

that

wen

t ban

g?”

Oth

er q

uest

ions

som

eone

sho

uld

ask

incl

ude,

“W

hat

was

th

e de

tona

tor

that

tri

gger

ed t

he b

ang?

” If

the

bang

itse

lf h

appe

ned

acco

rdin

g to

som

e es

tabl

ishe

d la

ws

of p

hysi

cs,

whe

re d

id t

hose

ph

ysic

al l

aws

com

e fr

om?

Doe

s a

phys

ical

law

—an

d th

e re

gula

ted

pow

er b

y w

hich

it

cons

iste

ntly

and

rel

iabl

y op

erat

es—

com

e in

to

effe

ct a

ll b

y it

self

?

If i

ndee

d th

e ev

iden

ce d

oes

turn

out

to

prov

e th

at s

ome

sort

of

“big

ban

g” r

eally

occ

urre

d, d

oes

that

by

itse

lf d

ispr

ove

the

exis

tenc

e of

God

? T

o m

any,

the

con

cept

has

rei

nfor

ced

thei

r be

lief

in

God

. A

t le

ast

it

show

s th

e m

ater

ial

univ

erse

ha

d a

begi

nnin

g.

Furt

her

inve

stig

atio

ns

into

th

e un

iver

se’s

or

igin

, an

d ob

serv

atio

ns a

nd c

alcu

latio

ns b

y as

trop

hysi

cist

s, h

ave

yiel

ded

an

impr

essi

on t

hat

it w

as “

not

a ra

ndom

exp

losi

on,

whi

ch c

ould

nev

er

have

pro

duce

d th

e ga

laxi

es w

e ob

serv

e, b

ut a

pre

cise

ly c

ontr

olle

d be

ginn

ing

for

the

univ

erse

.”

If

th

e un

iver

se

trul

y di

d st

art

wit

h a

“big

ba

ng,”

w

hat

happ

ened

aft

er t

hat?

Is

all

the

rest

of

astr

onom

ic h

isto

ry m

erel

y on

e ch

ance

, ran

dom

hap

peni

ng a

fter

ano

ther

, “su

perv

ised

by

no o

ne,”

as

som

e w

ould

hav

e us

bel

ieve

? N

ot a

ccor

ding

to

man

y as

tron

omic

ob

serv

ers.

Law

s an

d F

orce

s

Fro

m

the

begi

nnin

g,

mul

tipl

e la

ws

and

forc

es

have

go

vern

ed t

he m

ater

ial

univ

erse

. Fo

ur o

f th

e m

ost

fund

amen

tal

of

them

are

gra

vity

, el

ectr

omag

neti

sm,

stro

ng n

ucle

ar f

orce

and

wea

k

5

Ori

gins

nucl

ear

forc

e. T

here

is

a ba

lanc

e be

twee

n th

ese

forc

es,

wit

hout

w

hich

phy

sica

l lif

e w

ould

be

impo

ssib

le.

Acc

ordi

ng t

o ph

ysic

ist

Ric

hard

Mor

ris,

“E

very

one

of

thes

e fo

rces

mus

t ha

ve j

ust

the

righ

t st

reng

th i

f th

ere

is t

o be

any

pos

sibi

lity

of l

ife.

For

exa

mpl

e, i

f el

ectr

ical

for

ces

wer

e m

uch

stro

nger

tha

n th

ey a

re,

then

no

elem

ent

heav

ier

than

hyd

roge

n co

uld

form

…. B

ut e

lect

rica

l re

puls

ion

cann

ot

be t

oo w

eak.

If

it w

ere,

pro

tons

wou

ld c

ombi

ne t

oo e

asily

, an

d th

e su

n [a

nd p

resu

mab

ly a

ll ot

her

star

s] …

wou

ld e

xplo

de li

ke a

ther

mo-

nucl

ear

bom

b.”

In a

n ex

pand

ing

univ

erse

, th

e fo

rce

caus

ing

the

expa

nsio

n ne

eds

to b

e pr

ecis

ely

bala

nced

wit

h gr

avita

tiona

l fo

rce.

Mor

ris

adds

, “I

f ou

r un

iver

se h

ad b

een

expa

ndin

g at

a r

ate

that

was

slo

wer

by

a fa

ctor

of

one

part

in

a m

illio

n, t

hen

the

expa

nsio

n w

ould

hav

e st

oppe

d w

hen

it w

as o

nly

30,0

00 y

ears

old

, w

hen

the

tem

pera

ture

w

as s

till

10,

000

degr

ees.

” T

oo-r

apid

exp

ansi

on o

n th

e ot

her

hand

w

ould

kee

p m

atte

r fr

om g

ravi

tati

ng t

oget

her

to f

orm

bod

ies

on

whi

ch a

ny li

fe c

ould

dev

elop

.

In a

dditi

on t

o th

e la

w o

f gr

avit

y, I

saac

New

ton

disc

over

ed

seve

ral

othe

r im

port

ant

law

s of

phy

sics

, on

e of

whi

ch i

s ca

lled

“cen

trif

ugal

for

ce.”

Thi

s fo

rce

caus

es a

cir

clin

g bo

dy t

o be

pul

led

outw

ard,

aw

ay f

rom

the

cent

er o

f th

e ci

rcle

. It

is a

bal

ance

bet

wee

n ce

ntri

fuga

l fo

rce

and

grav

ity

that

kee

ps s

atel

lite

bodi

es i

n or

bit

arou

nd t

heir

mot

her

bodi

es—

e.g.

, pl

anet

s ar

ound

sta

rs.

If g

ravi

ty

wer

e m

uch

stro

nger

tha

n ce

ntri

fuga

l fo

rce,

the

pla

nets

wou

ld b

e dr

awn

into

the

sta

rs a

nd c

onsu

med

. If

cen

trif

ugal

for

ce w

ere

muc

h st

rong

er,

they

wou

ld f

ly o

ut i

nto

spac

e an

d ev

entu

ally

rea

ch n

earl

y ab

solu

te z

ero

tem

pera

ture

, mak

ing

any

life

on

them

impo

ssib

le.

A

noth

er

forc

e,

the

“cos

mol

ogic

al

cons

tant

” (t

he

ener

gy

dens

ity

of e

mpt

y sp

ace)

, is

acco

rdin

g to

phy

sici

st S

teph

en W

einb

erg

“rem

arka

bly

wel

l ad

just

ed i

n ou

r fa

vor.

” If

it

wer

e gr

eate

r an

d el

ectr

ical

ly

posi

tive

, it

w

ould

ke

ep

mat

ter

from

co

ales

cing

in

to

heav

enly

bod

ies;

if

it w

ere

grea

ter

but

nega

tive,

it

wou

ld k

eep

the

univ

erse

fro

m c

ontin

uing

to

expa

nd a

nd w

ould

for

ce i

t ul

timat

ely

to

colla

pse

back

ont

o it

self

. In

eit

her

case

, li

fe w

ould

be

impo

ssib

le.

Tho

ugh

rela

tive

ly s

mal

l, th

is f

orce

is d

isce

rnab

le.

M

ore

than

thi

rty

dist

inct

phy

sica

l fo

rces

reg

ulat

e al

l th

at

goes

on

in t

he u

nive

rse,

eac

h w

ith a

ran

ge o

f di

ffer

ing

poss

ible

m

agni

tude

s. T

hose

men

tione

d ab

ove

are

just

a f

ew e

xam

ples

. N

ot

only

do

all

requ

ire

prec

ise

sett

ings

acr

oss

thei

r re

spec

tive

poss

ible

ra

nges

, but

they

all

mus

t be

in b

alan

ce w

ith o

ne a

noth

er f

or li

fe to

be

poss

ible

any

whe

re i

n th

e un

iver

se—

and

they

AR

E,

in f

act,

in t

hat

6

Cha

pter

One

sele

ctio

n,

whi

ch

supp

osed

ly

acco

unt

for

all

mac

roev

olut

iona

ry

deve

lopm

ent

from

th

e im

agin

ed

prim

al

sing

le-c

elle

d cr

eatu

re

to

hum

anity

. B

ut h

e ei

ther

ign

ores

or

is i

gnor

ant

of t

he f

act

that

al

mos

t no

mut

atio

ns a

ctua

lly im

prov

e a

spec

ies,

muc

h le

ss s

end

it in

an

upw

ard

evol

utio

nary

dir

ectio

n. H

is “

Mou

nt I

mpr

obab

le,”

whe

re w

e se

e a

stee

p cl

iff

in f

ront

, but

whe

re i

n ba

ck s

mal

l st

eps

asce

nd a

mild

gr

adie

nt,

coul

d no

t po

ssib

ly h

ave

enou

gh s

teps

to

get

us e

ven

to t

he

firs

t mul

ti-ce

lled

crea

ture

.

To

get

to t

he h

ighe

r fo

rms—

if s

uch

a th

ing

wer

e po

ssib

le a

t al

l—w

ould

req

uire

the

clim

bing

of

WH

OL

E R

AN

GE

S of

Mou

nt

Impr

obab

les

on m

ultip

le p

lane

ts!

Inst

ead

of a

few

bill

ions

of

year

s,

we’

d be

ta

lkin

g qu

adri

llion

s or

qu

intil

lions

of

ye

ars.

“N

atur

al

sele

ctio

n”

has

alm

ost

no

oppo

rtun

ity

to

wor

k w

hen

alm

ost

no

posi

tive

mut

atio

ns e

ver

occu

r. A

s po

inte

d ou

t in

Cha

pter

Nin

e,

mut

atio

ns d

o no

t ad

d in

form

atio

n to

the

gen

ome,

but

eit

her

lose

or

dis

tort

it.

D

awki

ns r

epea

tedl

y re

fers

to w

hat h

e ha

s no

t yet

pro

ved

as if

he

ha

d.

He

adm

its

the

occu

rren

ce

of

DN

A

is

a “s

tagg

erin

gly

impr

obab

le e

vent

,” b

ut h

e re

ason

s, “

It m

ust

have

hap

pene

d, b

ecau

se

here

we

are”

! N

ow th

ere’

s re

al c

onvi

ncin

g pr

oof.

App

lyin

g su

ppos

ed “

prob

abili

ty”

to t

he p

ossi

bili

ty o

f li

fe

havi

ng s

pont

aneo

usly

gen

erat

ed,

Daw

kins

rea

sons

thu

s: “

Supp

ose

it w

as s

o im

prob

able

as

to o

ccur

on

only

one

in

a bi

llio

n pl

anet

s …

ev

en w

ith

such

abs

urdl

y lo

ng o

dds,

lif

e w

ill s

till

have

ari

sen

on a

bi

llion

pla

nets

—of

whi

ch E

arth

, of

cou

rse,

is

one.

” W

here

is

the

prob

lem

with

this

rea

soni

ng?

D

awki

ns

is

eith

er

dish

ones

t or

co

nven

ient

ly

igno

rant

of

W

ickr

amas

ingh

e an

d H

oyle

’s m

athe

mat

ical

cal

cula

tion

of th

e R

EA

L

odds

ag

ains

t ev

en

a pr

otei

n sp

onta

neou

sly

gene

ratin

g as

be

ing

high

er t

han—

not

the

supp

osed

num

ber

of p

lane

ts i

n th

e un

iver

se—

but

the

num

ber

of

atom

s!

The

y ha

ve

show

n th

at

spon

tane

ous

gene

rati

on is

not

“im

prob

able

”—it

is I

MP

OSS

IBL

E!

T

o be

fai

r, i

n ot

her

chap

ters

of

The

God

Del

usio

n D

awki

ns

mak

es m

any

valid

poi

nts

rega

rdin

g th

e ev

ils

perp

etra

ted

in t

he n

ame

of r

elig

ion.

No

thin

king

per

son

even

sup

erfi

cial

ly a

cqua

inte

d w

ith

eith

er h

isto

ry o

r cu

rren

t ev

ents

cou

ld a

rgue

the

con

trar

y. H

owev

er,

he p

rete

nds

no g

ood

ever

cam

e fr

om p

eopl

e ac

ting

on

thei

r re

ligio

us b

elie

fs.

Not

hing

cou

ld b

e fu

rthe

r fr

om t

he t

ruth

, as

any

ho

nest

sur

vey

wou

ld q

uick

ly s

how

.

In p

oint

ing

out

all

the

“evi

l” o

f re

ligio

n, h

e is

beg

ging

the

qu

esti

on:

Giv

en t

he f

act

that

mos

t be

lief

in a

God

or

gods

tur

ns o

ut

The

No-

God

Del

usio

n

35

Cha

pter

Ten

The

No-

God

Del

usio

n

Ath

eist

aut

hor

and

biol

ogis

t/phi

loso

pher

Ric

hard

Daw

kins

w

as r

ecen

tly

fam

ous

for

his

best

selle

rs T

he G

od D

elus

ion

and

The

G

reat

est

Show

O

n E

arth

: T

he

Evi

denc

e fo

r E

volu

tion.

In

hi

s in

trod

ucti

on t

o T

he G

od D

elus

ion,

he

expr

esse

s th

e ho

pe t

hat

the

read

er,

upon

fin

ishi

ng h

is b

ook,

will

hav

e be

com

e an

ath

eist

lik

e hi

mse

lf.

D

awki

ns s

eem

s to

lov

e th

e “s

traw

man

” ta

ctic

of

eith

er

mis

repr

esen

ting

the

othe

r si

de’s

arg

umen

ts in

suc

h a

way

as

to m

ake

them

eas

y to

ref

ute,

or

sele

ctin

g an

aut

hent

ic b

ut w

eak

argu

men

t—ag

ain

one

he c

an e

asily

kno

ck d

own.

An

exam

ple

of t

he l

atte

r is

his

us

e of

Fre

d H

oyle

’s s

uppo

sed

argu

men

t th

at t

he c

hanc

es o

f li

fe

orig

inat

ing

spon

tane

ousl

y on

ear

th a

re n

o gr

eate

r th

an t

hat

of a

hu

rric

ane

blow

ing

thro

ugh

a sc

rap

heap

and

acc

iden

tally

ass

embl

ing

a fu

lly

func

tion

al B

oein

g 74

7 je

t pla

ne. (

Daw

kins

not

icea

bly

fails

to

disp

rove

Hoy

le’s

ass

ertio

n, b

y th

e w

ay.)

Hoy

le’s

re

al

cont

ribu

tion

to

the

issu

e of

sp

onta

neou

s ge

nera

tion

of

life

on

eart

h is

his

cal

cula

tion

of t

he o

dds

agai

nst

such

a

thin

g: o

ne in

1040

,000

pow

er, o

r 50

0 ti

mes

the

num

ber

of a

tom

s in

th

e kn

own

univ

erse

(s

ee

Cha

pter

Fo

ur)!

W

e’re

no

t ta

lkin

g “i

mpr

obab

le”

here

. W

e’re

tal

king

IM

PO

SSIB

LE

! D

awki

ns h

as

conv

enie

ntly

igno

red

this

quo

tati

on f

rom

Fre

d H

oyle

.

In C

hapt

er F

our

of T

he G

od D

elus

ion,

ent

itled

“W

hy T

here

A

lmos

t Cer

tain

ly I

s N

o G

od,”

Daw

kins

cite

s m

ostly

wea

k ar

gum

ents

fo

r G

od’s

exi

sten

ce,

such

as

Hoy

le’s

“74

7 ar

gum

ent”

(w

hich

he

refe

rs t

o la

ter

as if

he

had

disp

rove

d it

, whe

n in

fac

t he

had

not

).

He

devo

tes

cons

ider

able

spa

ce t

o ar

gum

ents

in

The

Wat

chto

wer

for

de

sign

of

one

spec

ies

afte

r an

othe

r. H

e su

rely

kno

ws

that

arg

umen

ts

from

rel

igio

us t

ract

s ar

e no

t th

e m

ost

conv

inci

ng o

nes

for

a G

od, b

y an

y m

eans

.

Wha

t D

awki

ns

seem

s to

st

udio

usly

av

oid

deal

ing

with

(e

xcep

t to

rid

icul

e or

dis

mis

s th

em a

s “r

elig

ious

ly m

otiv

ated

”) a

re

the

disc

over

ies

of s

cien

tists

suc

h as

tho

se w

e’ve

cite

d in

pre

viou

s ch

apte

rs,

whi

ch

leav

e lit

tle

room

—to

a

trul

y op

en

min

d—fo

r re

ject

ion

of a

hig

her

crea

tive

pow

er.

D

awki

ns c

ites

anot

her

of h

is b

ooks

, en

title

d C

limbi

ng M

ount

Im

prob

able

, to

exp

lain

how

evo

lutio

n su

ppos

edly

occ

urre

d “s

tep

by

step

” th

roug

h a

seri

es

of

smal

l ch

ange

s (m

utat

ions

) an

d na

tura

l

34

exac

t bal

ance

! D

id it

“ju

st h

appe

n” th

at w

ay?

W

itho

ut

thes

e an

d m

any

othe

r ph

ysic

al

law

s—al

l op

erat

ing

in b

alan

ce—

ther

e w

ould

not

hav

e be

en t

he f

orm

atio

n of

el

emen

ts

and

com

poun

ds,

muc

h le

ss

gala

xies

, st

ars

and

plan

ets

on w

hich

lif

e co

uld

deve

lop.

Did

the

law

s an

d fo

rces

of

natu

re a

ll ju

st h

appe

n by

acc

iden

t?

7

Ori

gins

Cha

pter

Tw

o

Ele

men

ts F

orm

The

mos

t ba

sic,

pri

mal

ele

men

t in

the

uni

vers

e is

hyd

roge

n.

Acc

ordi

ng t

o th

e bi

g-ba

ng t

heor

y, d

urin

g th

e in

itia

l ex

plos

ion

of

mat

ter,

the

re w

as o

nly

hydr

ogen

at

firs

t, w

ith i

ts o

ne p

roto

n, o

ne

neut

ron

and

one

elec

tron

. A

t so

mew

here

“be

twee

n on

e se

cond

and

fi

ve m

inut

es [

afte

r th

e pr

esum

ed in

itial

exp

losi

on],

con

ditio

ns w

ould

ha

ve b

een

suita

ble

for

nucl

ear

reac

tion

s to

hav

e oc

curr

ed. T

he m

ajor

pr

oces

s w

ould

hav

e be

en t

he f

usio

n of

hyd

roge

n nu

clei

to

form

he

lium

.…”

6 The

se t

wo

elem

ents

tog

ethe

r ev

en n

ow s

till

for

m m

ost

of th

e m

atte

r of

the

entir

e un

iver

se.

C

osm

olog

ists

pos

tula

te t

hat

late

r, a

s ou

ter

tem

pera

ture

s of

st

ars

cool

ed,

trac

e am

ount

s of

the

oth

er e

lem

ents

, fo

rmed

by

the

fusi

ng t

oget

her

of s

mal

ler

nucl

ei i

nto

larg

er o

nes,

mas

sed

toge

ther

an

d sp

un o

ff f

rom

sta

rs i

nto

orbi

t ar

ound

the

m.

The

se s

till-

mol

ten

spec

s (b

y co

mpa

riso

n in

siz

e to

the

ir m

othe

r st

ar)

coal

esce

d to

for

m

mol

ten

plan

ets,

on

som

e of

whi

ch t

he o

utsi

des

cool

ed i

nto

the

solid

cr

usts

we

asso

ciat

e w

ith

plan

ets

like

Ear

th.

A

s va

riou

s el

emen

ts w

ere

form

ed b

y nu

clei

of

sim

ple

atom

s m

ergi

ng t

o fo

rm m

ore

com

plex

one

s, c

ondi

tion

s de

velo

ped

by

whi

ch t

hose

ele

men

ts n

eces

sary

for

lif

e co

uld

form

in

just

the

ri

ght

conf

igur

atio

ns a

nd p

ropo

rtio

ns.

O

ne o

f th

ese

esse

ntia

l co

ndit

ions

is

the

rati

o of

the

siz

e of

th

e pr

oton

(on

e of

thr

ee m

ain

com

pone

nts

of a

ll at

oms)

to

the

elec

tron

. The

pro

ton

is 1

,836

tim

es t

he w

eigh

t of

the

ele

ctro

n. I

f th

e ra

tio

of t

he t

wo

wer

e m

uch

diff

eren

t, th

e re

quir

ed m

olec

ules

cou

ld

not

deve

lop

into

the

com

poun

ds n

eces

sary

for

lif

e. A

ccor

ding

to

cosm

olog

ist

(and

ath

eist

) St

ephe

n H

awki

ng, “

The

rem

arka

ble

fact

is

that

the

valu

es o

f th

ese

num

bers

see

m to

hav

e be

en v

ery

muc

h fi

nely

ad

just

ed t

o m

ake

poss

ible

the

dev

elop

men

t of

lif

e.”

7 We

mig

ht a

sk

Mr.

Haw

king

, “W

ho d

id t

he a

djus

ting

? D

o fi

ne a

djus

tmen

ts j

ust

happ

en?”

As

vari

ous

elem

ents

fo

rmed

, a

phen

omen

on

calle

d “r

eson

ance

” ex

iste

d in

the

nuc

leus

of

each

ato

m.

Stab

le n

ucle

i ar

e no

rmal

ly in

a s

tate

of

“gro

und

ener

gy,”

with

the

posi

tive

pro

tons

and

ne

gativ

e el

ectr

ons

in

bala

nce.

C

ollis

ions

of

nu

clei

pr

oduc

e “e

xcite

men

t”

and

lead

to

fo

rmat

ion

of

othe

r el

emen

ts

and

com

poun

ds.

The

pot

entia

l fo

r th

is k

ind

of e

xcite

men

t va

ries

fro

m

one

elem

ent t

o an

othe

r.

8

It

was

eas

y to

im

agin

e an

ori

gina

l si

ngle

-cel

led

orga

nism

th

at

was

so

si

mpl

e it

coul

d ha

ve

spon

tane

ousl

y co

me

to

life

som

etim

e in

the

mur

ky p

ast.

Tod

ay,

to a

ny h

ones

t, kn

owle

dgea

ble

bioc

hem

ist,

such

a n

otio

n m

ust

seem

nai

vely

chi

ldis

h. W

e ci

ted

earl

ier

the

calc

ulat

ed

odds

ag

ains

t ev

en

the

nece

ssar

y pr

otei

ns

havi

ng c

ome

toge

ther

by

chan

ce,

in t

he r

ight

ord

er,

as r

equi

ring

m

ultip

le t

imes

all

the

ato

ms

in t

he k

now

n un

iver

se—

and

that

sti

ll do

esn’

t gi

ve u

s ev

eryt

hing

els

e ne

eded

to

mak

e th

e ce

ll fu

ncti

on,

or

the

need

ed D

NA

so

it c

ould

rep

rodu

ce!

Are

We

All

Just

“M

utan

t Pro

tozo

a”?

33

sam

plin

g of

som

e of

thes

e re

aliti

es.

“E

very

cel

l con

tain

s an

est

imat

ed o

ne b

illio

n co

mpo

unds

. T

hat’

s as

man

y as

75,

000,

000,

000,

000,

000,

000,

000

(75

sext

illio

n)

com

poun

ds p

er p

erso

n—gi

ve o

r ta

ke a

bill

ion—

and

amon

g th

ese

com

poun

ds

are

appr

oxim

atel

y fi

ve

mill

ion

diff

eren

t ki

nds

of

prot

eins

….

[The

se p

rote

ins]

can

hav

e m

ore

than

one

fun

ctio

n or

el

ectr

ical

cha

rge,

the

y al

l kn

ow w

here

to

go a

nd h

ow t

o ge

t th

ere,

w

hen

to a

ct,

how

fas

t to

rea

ct,

and

whe

n to

sto

p. N

earl

y ev

ery

chem

ical

rea

ctio

n is

hel

ped

alon

g by

one

or

mor

e of

the

300

0-pl

us

diff

eren

t en

zym

es.

Som

e of

the

se c

hem

ical

rea

ctio

ns t

ake

only

a

mill

iont

h of

a s

econ

d.

“T

he

nucl

eus

of

each

ce

ll co

ntai

ns

23

pair

s of

ve

ry

com

plex

chr

omos

omes

(D

NA

), w

ith

100,

000

gene

s th

at c

an b

e fu

rthe

r br

oken

dow

n in

to s

ix b

illio

n ch

emic

al b

ases

. T

here

are

on

ly f

our

kind

s of

the

se b

ases

, abb

revi

ated

A, G

, C, a

nd T

; ye

t the

se

four

bas

es,

whi

ch a

re r

elat

ivel

y si

mpl

e co

mpo

unds

, ap

pear

in

such

va

ryin

g co

mbi

natio

ns t

hat t

hey

tell

the

cel

l, an

d ul

timat

ely

the

body

, ev

eryt

hing

th

at

it ne

eds

to

know

ab

out

grow

ing

up,

surv

ivin

g,

figh

ting

, fle

eing

, dig

estin

g fo

od, b

reat

hing

, thi

nkin

g, p

umpi

ng b

lood

, el

imin

atin

g w

aste

s, a

nd p

erpe

tuat

ing

the

spec

ies.

The

fir

st f

ew c

ells

in

an

embr

yo a

lrea

dy k

now

wha

t a p

erso

n’s

heig

ht w

ill b

e, h

is o

r he

r pr

open

sity

to

be o

bese

, th

e co

lor

of h

is o

r he

r ey

es,

the

num

ber

of

curl

s in

his

or

her

hair

, whe

ther

he

or s

he w

ill h

ave

mus

ical

ski

lls, i

f hi

s or

her

tee

th w

ill

grow

in

croo

ked,

and

whe

ther

he

or s

he i

s vu

lner

able

to

cert

ain

dise

ases

suc

h as

bre

ast

canc

er o

r H

unti

ngto

n’s

chor

ea. S

ome

scie

ntis

ts c

all t

he D

NA

-cod

ed in

stru

ctio

ns th

e B

ook

of

Lif

e; it

’s a

boo

k li

ke n

o ot

her.

“Eac

h ce

ll ha

s an

ass

igne

d lo

catio

n, a

see

min

gly

lifet

ime

role

, hu

ndre

ds to

thou

sand

s of

task

s to

acc

ompl

ish,

and

a d

istin

ct lo

ngev

ity.

Eac

h ce

ll is

als

o pr

ogra

mm

ed t

o ta

ke c

are

of i

ts o

wn

need

s—as

wel

l as

the

ent

ire

bein

g. P

roof

of

this

bec

ame

evid

ent

with

clo

ning

. If

the

nu

cleu

s fr

om a

ski

n ce

ll is

pla

ced

insi

de a

fem

ale

egg

afte

r its

nuc

leus

ha

s be

en r

emov

ed t

he s

kin’

s (h

idde

n) D

NA

Boo

k of

Kno

wle

dge

can

dupl

icat

e an

ent

ire

indi

vidu

al.”

40 (

Bol

d em

phas

is a

dded

.)

In

the

mid

-Nin

etee

nth

Cen

tury

, w

hen

Cha

rles

Dar

win

was

do

ing

his

rese

arch

and

wri

ting,

cel

ls o

f th

e bo

dy w

ere

not

know

n to

be

muc

h m

ore

than

tis

sue

buil

ding

blo

cks

or c

ondu

its f

or b

ody

flui

ds. N

o on

e ha

d ye

t se

en t

he m

yria

d ch

emic

al p

roce

sses

tha

t ta

ke p

lace

ins

ide

each

cel

l of

all

livin

g or

gani

sms.

It

was

all

too

easy

to

over

sim

plif

y ho

w b

odily

met

abol

ic f

unct

ions

wor

ked.

No

scie

ntis

t at

th

at

time

coul

d ha

ve

conc

eive

d ho

w

unfa

thom

ably

co

mpl

ex th

e fu

nctio

ning

of

a si

ngle

cel

l is.

Cha

pter

Nin

e

32

A

s on

e he

lium

nuc

leus

col

lides

with

ano

ther

in

a st

ar,

it pr

oduc

es a

n un

stab

le e

lem

ent

call

ed b

eryl

lium

. T

hen,

as

Har

vard

as

tron

omy

depa

rtm

ent

chai

rman

R

ober

t K

irsh

ner

desc

ribe

s it,

“a

noth

er h

eliu

m n

ucle

us c

olli

des

wit

h th

is s

hort

-liv

ed t

arge

t, le

adin

g to

the

for

mat

ion

of c

arbo

n….A

del

icat

e m

atch

bet

wee

n th

e en

ergi

es

of h

eliu

m, t

he u

nsta

ble

bery

lliu

m a

nd th

e re

sulti

ng c

arbo

n al

low

s th

e la

st to

be

crea

ted.

Wit

hout

thi

s pr

oces

s, w

e w

ould

not

be

here

.” 8

(Bol

d em

phas

is a

dded

.)

“A

stro

phys

icis

t Sir

Fre

d H

oyle

is c

redi

ted

wit

h th

e di

scov

ery

of

the

reso

nanc

es

of

carb

on

and

oxyg

en

atom

s.

Wor

king

w

ith

Will

iam

Fow

ler,

Hoy

le d

isco

vere

d th

at,

by a

ll ri

ghts

, th

e ca

rbon

at

om,

whi

ch s

eem

s to

hav

e be

en u

niqu

ely

desi

gned

to

mak

e lif

e po

ssib

le,

shou

ld e

ithe

r no

t ex

ist

or b

e ex

ceed

ingl

y ra

re.”

For

a

carb

on a

tom

to

form

, th

ere

need

ed t

o be

jus

t th

e ri

ght

reso

nanc

e.

Hoy

le p

redi

cted

wha

t th

at r

eson

ance

wou

ld b

e be

fore

phy

sici

sts

corr

obor

ated

it.

The

y fo

und

it t

o be

alm

ost

exac

tly

wha

t H

oyle

had

th

ough

t it

wou

ld b

e. “

Whe

n H

oyle

the

n ca

lcul

ated

the

cha

nces

th

at s

uch

reso

nanc

es s

houl

d ex

ist

by c

hanc

e in

the

se e

lem

ents

, he

said

tha

t hi

s at

heis

m w

as g

reat

ly s

hake

n.”

9 (B

old

emph

asis

add

ed.)

How

m

any

case

s of

fo

rces

be

ing

in

prec

ise

“bal

ance

,”

prop

ortio

ns b

eing

“fi

nely

adj

uste

d,”

elem

ents

in

a “d

elic

ate

mat

ch,”

an

d at

oms

bein

g “u

niqu

ely

desi

gned

” fo

r lif

e m

ust

we

enco

unte

r be

fore

we

ques

tion

whe

ther

it

all

coul

d ha

ve h

appe

ned

by a

ccid

ent,

all b

y it

self

? If

you

hav

en’t

see

n en

ough

yet

, rea

d on

.

9

Ele

men

ts F

orm

Cha

pter

Thr

ee

E

arth

: T

he F

avor

ed P

lane

t

Cou

ld a

lif

e-su

ppor

ting

pla

net

have

for

med

jus

t an

ywhe

re i

n th

e un

iver

se?

Acc

ordi

ng t

o as

tron

omer

Gui

llerm

o G

onza

lez,

“Y

ou j

ust

can’

t fo

rm a

hab

itab

le p

lane

t an

ywhe

re; t

here

’s a

larg

e nu

mbe

r of

th

reat

s to

lif

e as

you

go

from

pla

ce t

o pl

ace

to p

lace

.” 10

(Bol

d em

phas

is a

dded

.)

T

he S

un’s

Saf

e L

ocat

ion

T

here

are

thr

ee b

asic

kin

ds o

f ga

laxy

in

the

univ

erse

: T

here

ar

e ir

regu

lar

ones

with

no

disc

erni

ble

shap

e or

pat

tern

of

mov

emen

t; th

ere

are

elli

ptic

al g

alax

ies,

sha

ped

som

ewha

t li

ke a

n eg

g in

spa

ce;

and

ther

e ar

e sp

iral

gal

axie

s, s

hape

d ra

ther

lik

e a

pinw

heel

, w

ith

arm

s ex

tend

ing

out i

nto

spac

e aw

ay f

rom

thei

r ce

nter

.

Irre

gula

r ga

laxi

es a

re t

he w

orst

pos

sibl

e su

ppor

ters

of

life

-ha

rbor

ing

plan

ets.

Acc

ordi

ng t

o G

onza

lez,

irr

egul

ar g

alax

ies

are

“dis

tort

ed a

nd r

ippe

d ap

art,

wit

h su

pern

ovae

goi

ng o

ff t

hrou

ghou

t th

eir

volu

me.

T

here

ar

e no

sa

fe

plac

es

whe

re

ther

e ar

e fe

wer

su

pern

ovae

exp

lodi

ng,

like

we

have

bet

wee

n ou

r sp

iral

arm

s.”

11 I

n th

e es

timat

ion

of m

any

astr

onom

ers,

irr

egul

ar g

alax

ies

wou

ld b

e un

like

ly to

hav

e an

y st

ars

wit

h li

fe-h

arbo

ring

pla

nets

.

In e

llipt

ical

gal

axie

s, t

he s

tars

hav

e “v

ery

rand

om o

rbits

, lik

e be

es s

war

min

g in

a b

eehi

ve. T

he p

robl

em f

or l

ife

in t

hese

gal

axie

s is

th

at th

e st

ars

visi

t eve

ry r

egio

n, w

hich

mea

ns th

ey’l

l occ

asio

nally

vis

it th

e da

nger

ous,

den

se in

ner

regi

ons,

whe

re a

bla

ck h

ole

may

be

activ

e.

In a

ny e

vent

, yo

u’re

les

s lik

ely

to f

ind

Ear

th-l

ike

plan

ets

in e

llipt

ical

ga

laxi

es b

ecau

se m

ost

of t

hem

lac

k th

e he

avy

elem

ents

nee

ded

to

form

them

.

“Mos

t el

lipt

ical

gal

axie

s ar

e le

ss m

assi

ve a

nd l

umin

ous

than

ou

r ga

laxy

,” w

hich

is

“on

the

top

one

or t

wo

perc

ent

of t

he m

ost

mas

sive

an

d lu

min

ous.

T

he

bigg

er

the

gala

xy,

the

mor

e he

avy

elem

ents

it

can

have

, be

caus

e it

s st

rong

er g

ravi

ty c

an a

ttra

ct m

ore

hydr

ogen

and

hel

ium

and

cyc

le th

em to

bui

ld h

eavy

ele

men

ts. I

n th

e lo

w-m

ass

gala

xies

, w

hich

mak

e up

the

vas

t m

ajor

ity,

you

can

have

w

hole

gal

axie

s w

itho

ut a

sin

gle

Ear

th-l

ike

plan

et.

The

y ju

st d

on’t

ha

ve e

noug

h of

the

heav

y el

emen

ts to

con

stru

ct E

arth

s.”

12

10

Sa

nfor

d th

en r

elat

es n

earl

y a

cent

ury

of a

ttem

pts

at p

lant

im

prov

emen

t by

gene

ticis

ts in

duci

ng m

utat

ions

, fro

m w

hich

“al

mos

t no

mea

ning

ful

crop

im

prov

emen

t re

sulte

d. T

he e

ffor

t w

as f

or t

he

mos

t par

t an

enor

mou

s fa

ilure

, and

was

alm

ost e

ntir

ely

aban

done

d.”

“In

conc

lusi

on,

mut

atio

ns

appe

ar

to

be

over

whe

lmin

gly

dele

teri

ous,

and

eve

n w

hen

one

may

be

clas

sifi

ed a

s be

nefi

cial

in

som

e sp

ecif

ic s

ense

it

is s

till

usu

ally

par

t of

an

over

all

brea

kdow

n an

d er

osio

n of

info

rmat

ion.

” 38

“For

m

any

peop

le,

incl

udin

g m

any

biol

ogis

ts,

natu

ral

sele

ctio

n is

som

ethi

ng l

ike

a m

agic

wan

d. S

impl

y by

inv

okin

g th

e w

ords

‘na

tura

l se

lect

ion’

—th

ere

is n

o li

mit

wha

t on

e ca

n im

agin

e ac

com

plis

hing

….

The

en

tire

fi

eld

of

popu

lati

on

gene

tics

was

de

velo

ped

by a

sm

all,

tigh

tly

knit

gro

up o

f pe

ople

who

wer

e ut

terl

y an

d ra

dica

lly

com

mit

ted

to t

he P

rim

ary

Axi

om…

. For

the

mos

t pa

rt,

othe

r bi

olog

ists

do

not

even

und

erst

and

thei

r w

ork—

but

acce

pt t

heir

co

nclu

sion

s ‘b

y fa

ith.

’ Y

et i

t is

the

se s

ame

popu

lati

on g

enet

icis

ts

them

selv

es w

ho h

ave

expo

sed

som

e of

the

mos

t pro

foun

d li

mit

atio

ns

of n

atur

al s

elec

tion

. B

ecau

se n

atur

al s

elec

tion

is

not

a m

agic

wan

d bu

t is

a v

ery

real

phe

nom

enon

, it

has

very

rea

l ca

pabi

litie

s an

d ve

ry

real

lim

itat

ions

. It i

s no

t ‘al

l-po

wer

ful.’

The

ide

a th

at t

he h

uman

spe

cies

is

the

resu

lt o

f bi

llio

ns o

f be

nefi

cial

mut

atio

ns t

o w

hat

star

ted

out

as a

sin

gle-

celle

d pr

otoz

oan

is t

otal

ly d

ebun

ked!

Mut

atio

ns a

lmos

t ne

ver

add

info

rmat

ion

the

way

they

wou

ld b

e re

quir

ed to

if D

arw

in’s

theo

ry o

f m

acro

evol

utio

n w

ere

true

. T

he

few

th

at

have

ev

er

been

ev

en

thou

ght

to

be

“ben

efic

ial”

to

the

orga

nism

sti

ll c

onst

itute

d a

loss

or

an a

lteri

ng o

f in

form

atio

n, b

ut n

ot a

n ad

ding

of

it. W

e ar

e N

OT

the

res

ult

of

billi

ons

of m

utat

ions

to

any

orig

inal

one

-cel

led

life

for

m. B

illio

ns o

f m

utat

ions

wou

ld h

ave

resu

lted

in

an o

vera

ll l

oss

of i

nfor

mat

ion,

not

th

e ad

ditio

n of

inf

orm

atio

n th

at w

ould

hav

e be

en n

eces

sary

for

an

upw

ard

evol

utio

nary

dev

elop

men

t in

to t

hous

ands

of

spec

ies

from

on

e si

ngle

-cel

led

prot

o-lif

e fo

rm.

G

enet

ics

has

prov

en s

uch

a th

ing

to b

e ut

terl

y im

poss

ible

. It

N

EV

ER

HA

PPE

NE

D!

R

ealit

ies

Dar

win

ism

Can

’t E

xpla

in

T

here

are

who

le v

olum

es w

ritte

n by

sci

enti

sts

who

se o

wn

empi

rica

l fin

ding

s ar

e in

con

flic

t wit

h th

e id

ea o

f ev

olut

ion—

at le

ast

the

Dar

win

ian

vers

ion

of i

t. M

ost

of t

hese

res

earc

hers

do

beli

eve

in

som

e fo

rm o

f ev

olut

ion,

but

the

ir o

bser

vatio

ns s

impl

y ca

n’t

be

expl

aine

d by

th

e D

arw

inia

n pa

radi

gm.

Let

us

ex

amin

e a

brie

f

Are

We

All

Just

“M

utan

t Pro

tozo

a”?

31

Cha

pter

Nin

e

Are

We

All

Just

“M

utan

t P

roto

zoa”

?

We’

ve b

rief

ly a

nsw

ered

Ten

et 2

, su

bdiv

isio

n c,

of

Dar

win

’s

theo

ry o

f m

acro

evol

utio

n—th

at t

he m

ain

agen

ts o

f ev

olut

iona

ry

chan

ge i

n or

gani

sms,

and

fro

m o

ne k

ind

of o

rgan

ism

int

o an

othe

r,

wer

e m

utat

ion

and

natu

ral

sele

ctio

n. T

he a

ssum

ptio

n th

at m

utat

ions

ar

e us

ually

ben

efic

ial

is i

nher

ent

in t

his

beli

ef.

Thi

s as

sum

ptio

n is

pa

rt o

f w

hat J

. C. S

anfo

rd c

alls

the

“Pri

mar

y A

xiom

.”

H

e em

phat

ical

ly a

sser

ts t

hat

“peo

ple

are

hurt

by

mut

atio

n….

If w

e in

clud

e al

l ge

netic

pre

disp

ositi

ons

to a

ll pa

thol

ogie

s, w

e m

ust

conc

lude

tha

t w

e ar

e al

l hig

hly

‘mut

ant’

…. M

utat

ions

are

the

sou

rce

of i

mm

easu

rabl

e he

arta

che—

in f

act,

they

are

inex

orab

ly k

illin

g ea

ch

of u

s….

“C

an w

e sa

y m

utat

ions

are

goo

d? N

earl

y al

l he

alth

pol

icie

s ar

e ai

med

at

redu

cing

or

min

imiz

ing

mut

atio

n…. H

ow c

an a

nyon

e se

e m

utat

ions

as

go

od?

Yet

acc

ordi

ng t

o th

e Pr

imar

y A

xiom

, m

utat

ions

are

goo

d be

caus

e th

ey c

reat

e th

e va

riat

ion

and

dive

rsit

y w

hich

al

low

s se

lect

ion

and

evol

utio

n to

oc

cur,

cr

eatin

g th

e in

form

atio

n ne

eded

for

life

.” 33

Aft

er e

xpla

inin

g th

e im

port

ant

diff

eren

ce b

etw

een

rand

om

vari

atio

n an

d de

sign

ed v

aria

tion,

San

ford

rem

inds

us

that

, si

nce

in

Dar

win

ian

evol

utio

nary

the

ory

“no

gene

tic v

aria

tion

by d

esig

n is

al

low

ed,”

it

ca

n th

us

“ver

y re

ason

ably

be

ar

gued

th

at

rand

om

vari

atio

ns a

re n

ever

goo

d.”

34

T

he h

ighe

r on

e go

es i

n cl

assi

fica

tion

of

orga

nism

s, t

he m

ore

gene

tic i

nfor

mat

ion

is c

onta

ined

in

DN

A a

nd g

enet

ic m

ater

ial.

Yet

Sa

nfor

d te

lls

us,

“The

ov

erw

helm

ingl

y de

lete

riou

s na

ture

of

m

utat

ions

can

be

seen

by

the

incr

edib

le s

carc

ity

of c

lear

cas

es o

f in

form

atio

n-cr

eatin

g m

utat

ions

.”

35

Aft

er

citin

g gr

aphs

by

re

sear

cher

s th

at in

dica

te h

ow “

bad”

mut

atio

ns o

utnu

mbe

r “g

ood”

on

es b

y as

muc

h as

100

to

one,

San

ford

ass

ures

us,

“E

very

thin

g ab

out

the

true

dis

trib

utio

n of

mut

atio

ns a

rgue

s ag

ains

t th

eir

poss

ible

ro

le in

for

war

d ev

olut

ion.

” 36

Yet

, if

mac

roev

olut

ion

wer

e tr

ue, m

illio

ns o

r bi

llio

ns o

f su

ch

bene

fici

al,

info

rmat

ion-

addi

ng m

utat

ions

wou

ld h

ave

been

req

uire

d fo

r li

fe t

o ha

ve g

one

from

“si

mpl

e” o

ne-c

elle

d or

gani

sms

to t

he

incr

edib

ly c

ompl

ex h

uman

bod

y an

d br

ain,

reg

ulat

ed a

nd c

ontr

olle

d by

the

DN

A o

f hu

man

s (w

ith

thou

sand

s of

tim

es t

he i

nfor

mat

ion

than

that

of

a on

e-ce

lled

orga

nism

)!

30

T

he

spir

al

gala

xy

(suc

h as

ou

r M

ilky

W

ay)

“opt

imiz

es

habi

tabi

lity,

be

caus

e it

pr

ovid

es

safe

zo

nes

…

and

Ear

th

happ

ens

to b

e lo

cate

d in

a s

afe

area

, w

hich

is

why

lif

e ha

s be

en

able

to

flou

rish

her

e….

Plac

es w

ith

acti

ve s

tar

form

atio

n ar

e ve

ry

dang

erou

s, b

ecau

se th

at’s

whe

re y

ou h

ave

supe

rnov

ae e

xplo

ding

at a

fa

irly

hig

h ra

te. I

n ou

r ga

laxy

, the

se p

lace

s ar

e pr

imar

ily

in th

e sp

iral

ar

ms,

w

here

th

ere

are

also

ha

zard

ous

gian

t m

olec

ular

cl

ouds

. Fo

rtun

atel

y, t

houg

h, w

e ha

ppen

to

be s

itua

ted

safe

ly b

etw

een

the

Sagi

ttari

us a

nd P

erse

us s

pira

l arm

s.

“A

lso,

we’

re v

ery

far

from

the

nuc

leus

of

the

gala

xy,

whi

ch

is a

lso

a da

nger

ous

plac

e. W

e no

w k

now

that

ther

e’s

a m

assi

ve b

lack

ho

le a

t th

e ce

nter

of

our

gala

xy.

In f

act,

the

Hub

ble

tele

scop

e ha

s fo

und

that

nea

rly

ever

y la

rge

near

by g

alax

y ha

s a

gian

t bl

ack

hole

at

its n

ucle

us. A

nd b

elie

ve m

e—th

ese

are

dang

erou

s th

ings

!

“Now

, put

all

this

toge

ther

—th

e in

ner

regi

on o

f th

e ga

laxy

is

muc

h m

ore

dang

erou

s fr

om r

adia

tion

and

othe

r th

reat

s; th

e ou

ter

part

of

the

gal

axy

isn’

t go

ing

to b

e ab

le t

o fo

rm E

arth

-lik

e pl

anet

s be

caus

e th

e he

avy

elem

ents

are

not

abu

ndan

t en

ough

; an

d I

have

n’t

even

men

tione

d ho

w th

e th

in d

isk

of o

ur g

alax

y he

lps

our

sun

stay

in

its

desi

rabl

e ci

rcul

ar o

rbit.

A v

ery

ecce

ntri

c or

bit

coul

d ca

use

it t

o cr

oss

spir

al a

rms

and

visi

t the

dan

gero

us in

ner

regi

ons

of th

e ga

laxy

, bu

t be

ing

circ

ular

it

rem

ains

in

the

safe

zon

e.”

13 (

Bol

d em

phas

is

adde

d.)

L

ocat

ion,

Loc

atio

n, L

ocat

ion

G

onza

lez

conc

lude

s, “

In te

rms

of h

abita

bilit

y, I

thi

nk w

e ar

e in

the

bes

t po

ssib

le p

lace

. T

hat’

s be

caus

e ou

r lo

catio

n pr

ovid

es

enou

gh b

uild

ing

bloc

ks t

o yi

eld

an E

arth

, w

hile

pro

vidi

ng a

low

le

vel o

f th

reat

s to

life

. I r

eall

y ca

n’t

com

e up

wit

h an

othe

r pl

ace

in

the

gala

xy t

hat

is a

s fr

iend

ly t

o lif

e as

our

loc

atio

n.”

14 (B

old

emph

asis

add

ed.)

Not

onl

y is

the

sun

loc

ated

in

the

mos

t op

tim

al p

art

of t

he

univ

erse

for

a l

ife-

supp

orti

ng p

lane

t, bu

t of

all

the

plan

ets

in t

he

sola

r sy

stem

, on

ly o

n E

arth

do

we

find

the

exa

ct c

ombi

natio

n of

co

nditi

ons

nece

ssar

y fo

r ca

rbon

-bas

ed li

fe a

s w

e kn

ow it

. Mer

cury

is

too

hot.

Ven

us h

as a

toxi

c at

mos

pher

e. M

ars

is to

o co

ld a

nd d

ry.

G

onza

lez

expl

ains

it

this

way

: “T

here

’s a

con

cept

inv

ente

d by

ast

robi

olog

ists

cal

led

the

Cir

cum

stel

lar

Hab

itabl

e Z

one.

Tha

t’s

the

regi

on a

roun

d a

star

whe

re y

ou c

an h

ave

liqui

d w

ater

on

the

surf

ace

of a

ter

rest

rial

pla

net.

Thi

s is

det

erm

ined

by

the

amou

nt o

f lig

ht y

ou g

et f

rom

the

hos

t st

ar.

You

can

’t b

e to

o cl

ose,

oth

erw

ise

11

Ear

th:

The

Fav

ored

Pla

net

too

muc

h w

ater

eva

pora

tes

into

the

atm

osph

ere

and

it c

ause

s a

runa

way

gre

enho

use

effe

ct,

and

you

boil

off

the

oce

ans.

We

thin

k th

at m

ight

be

wha

t ha

ppen

ed t

o V

enus

. B

ut i

f yo

u ge

t to

o fa

r ou

t it

gets

too

col

d. W

ater

and

car

bon

diox

ide

free

ze a

nd y

ou e

vent

uall

y de

velo

p ru

naw

ay g

laci

atio

n…. I

t’s

only

in th

e ve

ry in

ner

edge

of

the

Cir

cum

stel

lar

Hab

itab

le

Zon

e w

here

yo

u ca

n ha

ve

low

en

ough

ca

rbon

dio

xide

and

hig

h en

ough

oxy

gen

to s

usta

in c

ompl

ex a

nim

al

life

. And

that

’s w

here

we

are.

” 15

Is t

his

all m

ere

“coi

ncid

ence

”?

Cha

pter

Thr

ee

12

form

ulat

e an

y so

rt

of

purp

ose,

an

d bl

ind,

in

anim

ate

forc

es

are

supp

osed

ly

all

evol

utio

nist

s th

ink

drov

e th

e w

hole

pr

oces

s of

ev

olut

ion.

So

why

are

the

y ev

en s

pecu

lati

ng (

and

thes

e th

eori

es a

re

pure

sp

ecul

atio

n)

on

wha

t th

e “p

urpo

se”

of

sex

mig

ht

be?

If

mac

roev

olut

ion

is s

cien

tifi

cally

pro

ven

to h

ave

occu

rred

, th

en

the

ques

tion

s of

how

sex

ori

gina

ted

and

how

it

has

been

pas

sed

dow

n fr

om o

ne g

ener

atio

n to

ano

ther

sho

uld

at l

east

be

aske

d an

d so

me

subs

tant

ial t

heor

y be

ava

ilabl

e to

ans

wer

thos

e qu

estio

ns.

O

nce

we

unde

rsta

nd t

he d

iffe

renc

e be

twee

n ho

w b

ody

cell

s di

vide

and

rep

rodu

ce o

n th

e on

e ha

nd a

nd h

ow r

epro

duct

ive

cell

s (g

amet

es)

divi

de a

nd r

epro

duce

, w

e w

ill h

ave

a cl

ue a

s to

the

m

agni

tude

of

the

prob

lem

of

the

orig

in o

f se

x an

d it

s pe

rpet

uatio

n do

wn

thro

ugh

unto

ld g

ener

atio

ns. T

he n

ucle

us o

f ev

ery

cell

cont

ains

tw

o st

ring

s of

ge

nes

know

n as

“c

hrom

osom

es.”

(T

he

“hig

her”

or

gani

sms

have

mor

e se

ts o

f ch

rom

osom

es,

the

“low

er”

spec

ies

few

er.)

Eac

h bo

dy c

ell

divi

des

so t

hat

ever

ythi

ng i

s co

mpl

etel

y re

plic

ated

in

bo

th

daug

hter

ce

lls—

a pr

oces

s ca

lled

“mit

osis

.”

Rep

rodu

ctiv

e ce

lls,

on

th

e ot

her

hand

, sp

lit

each

pa

ir

of

chro

mos

omes

so

that

onl

y on

e ch

rom

osom

e of

eac

h pa

ir (

per

pare

nt)

beco

mes

eit

her

a sp

erm

cel

l (i

n th

e m

ale)

or

an e

gg c

ell

(in

the

fem

ale)

. T

his

proc

ess

is c

alle

d “m

eios

is.”

Mei

osis

tak

es p

lace

in

prep

arat

ion

for

the

com

bina

tion

of s

perm

and

egg

in

the

sexu

al

repr

oduc

tion

proc

ess

itsel

f.

A

s H

arru

b an

d T

hom

son

poin

t ou

t, “W

ith a

ll du

e re

spec

t, th

ere

is n

ot a

n ev

olut

ioni

st o

n th

e pl

anet

who

has

bee

n ab

le t

o co

me

up w

ith

an a

dequ

ate

(muc

h le

ss b

elie

vabl

e) e

xpla

nati

on a

s to

ho

w s

omat

ic [

body

] ce

lls r

epro

duce

by

mito

sis

(the

reby

mai

ntai

ning

th

e sp

ecie

s’

stan

dard

ch

rom

osom

e nu

mbe

r in

ea

ch

cell)

, w

hile

ga

met

es a

re p

rodu

ced

by m

eios

is—

whe

rein

that

chr

omos

ome

num

ber

is h

alve

d so

tha

t, at

the

uni

on o

f m

ale

and

fem

ale

gam

etes

dur

ing

repr

oduc

tion,

the

sta

ndar

d nu

mbe

r is

rei

nsta

ted.

” 32

(Bol

d em

phas

is

adde

d.)

If

th

e im

poss

ibili

ty

of

evol

utio

n ac

coun

ting

for

sexu

al

repr

oduc

tion

—no

t so

muc

h th

e “w

hy,”

but

the

“ho

w”—

isn’

t eno

ugh

to m

ake

you

doub

t th

e w

hole

the

ory,

ple

ase

read

on.

In

the

next

ch

apte

r, w

e ex

amin

e th

e ph

enom

enon

of

the

geno

me

in m

ore

deta

il.

The

Con

undr

um o

f Se

x an

d R

epro

duct

ion

29

In

rea

l li

fe,

the

theo

ry h

as l

ost

man

y ad

here

nts,

bec

ause

re

cent

res

earc

h ha

s re

veal

ed s

exua

lly r

epro

duce

d or

gani

sms

doin

g be

tter

in s

tabl

e en

viro

nmen

ts a

nd a

sexu

ally

rep

rodu

ced

orga

nism

s do

ing

bett

er in

uns

tabl

e on

es—

the

oppo

site

of

wha

t the

theo

ry w

ould

pr

edic

t.

The

“ta

ngle

d ba

nk h

ypot

hesi

s” i

s na

med

for

a d

epic

tion

in

Dar

win

’s O

rigi

n of

Sp

ecie

s of

a d

iver

se g

roup

of

crea

ture

s al

l co

mpe

ting

for

lif

e’s

nece

ssit

ies

on a

“ta

ngle

d ba

nk,”

as

he p

ut i

t. In

su

ch c

ondi

tions

, th

e or

gani

sms

that

are

mos

t di

vers

ifie

d in

the

ir

rang

e of

cha

ract

eris

tics

wou

ld h

ave

the

adva

ntag

e fo

r su

rviv

al.

B

ased

on

this

par

adig

m, o

ne w

ould

exp

ect

sex

to o

ccur

mos

t pr

edom

inan

tly

in

smal

l or

gani

sms

that

pr

oduc

e pr

olif

ical

ly

and

com

pete

mos

t he

avily

with

eac

h ot

her.

Yet

in

real

lif

e, t

he s

mal

ler

orga

nism

s ar

e th

e on

es i

n w

hich

we

still

fin

d as

exua

l re

prod

ucti

on,

whi

le

sex

is

foun

d in

vari

ably

in

la

rger

on

es

that

pr

oduc

e co

mpa

rativ

ely

few

off

spri

ng.

Thu

s, t

his

theo

ry,

whi

ch w

as o

nce

popu

lar,

now

has

few

adh

eren

ts.

T

he n

ext

idea

as

to w

hy s

ex e

xist

s is

nam

ed f

or a

cha

ract

er

out

of A

lice

In

Won

derl

and—

the

Red

Que

en, w

ho t

old

Alic

e ho

w i

t ta

kes

all t

he r

unni

ng o

ne c

an d

o ju

st to

sta

y in

the

sam

e pl

ace.

Cal

led

the

“Red

Que

en h

ypot

hesi

s,”

the

conc

ept

is t

hat

in t

he c

ompe

titiv

e w

orld

of

natu

re, o

rgan

ism

s ha

ve t

o co

nsta

ntly

mov

e an

d ch

ange

jus

t to

m

aint

ain

exis

tenc

e.

Sinc

e th

ey

mus

t co

nsta

ntly

be

tr

ying

to

im

prov

e,

sex

is

thou

ght

to

have

co

me

abou

t as

on

e of

th

ose

impr

ovem

ents

m

any

spec

ies

had

to

mak

e.

Yet

w

ith

all

its

“ine

ffic

ienc

ies,

” is

sex

ual

repr

oduc

tion

rea

lly a

n im

prov

emen

t (i

f yo

u be

lieve

in e

volu

tion

) at

all?

Man

y ev

olut

ioni

sts

doub

t tha

t.

One

mor

e su

ppos

ed e

xpla

natio

n of

sex

is

the

“DN

A r

epai

r hy

poth

esis

.” T

he b

asic

idea

see

ms

to b

e th

at d

elet

erio

us c

hang

es c

an

be

esse

ntia

lly

elim

inat

ed

by

the

sexu

al

repr

oduc

tion

pr

oces

s,

beca

use

to s

how

up

in th

e of

fspr

ing,

they

wou

ld h

ave

to h

ave

been

in

both

par

ents

. If

suc

h a

chan

ge w

as i

n on

ly o

ne,

it c

an b

e ov

erco

me

by th

e go

od g

ene

in th

e ot

her

pare

nt.

T

he f

act

that

bad

gen

es a

re o

ften

pas

sed

on t

o of

fspr

ing

wou

ld s

eem

to c

all t

his

idea

into

que

stio

n. C

erta

inly

if th

e pu

rpos

e of

se

x is

to p

reve

nt s

uch

a th

ing,

it h

as n

ot b

een

tota

lly

effe

ctiv

e.

O

ne t

hing

we

shou

ld n

ote

abou

t al

l th

e th

eori

es d

escr

ibed

ab

ove:

The

y de

al o

nly

with

the

“w

hy”

of s

exua

l re

prod

uctio

n, w

hen

supp

osed

ly i

n ev

olut

ion

ther

e is

no

“why

,” t

here

is

no p

urpo

se

invo

lved

. For

the

re t

o be

any

pur

pose

, the

re m

ust

be a

“be

ing”

of

som

e ki

nd t

o ha

ve t

hat

purp

ose.

Bli

nd,

inan

imat

e fo

rces

do

not

Cha

pter

Eig

ht

28

Cha

pter

Fou

r

And

The

re W

as L

ife

The

Law

of

Bio

gene

sis

esta

blis

hes

that

lif

e ca

n co

me

only

fr

om o

ther

lif

e. T

he S

econ

d L

aw o

f T

herm

odyn

amic

s sh

ows

all

mat

ter

is b

ecom

ing

incr

easi

ngly

ran

dom

and

cha

otic

—no

t bet

ter

orga

nize

d, a

s th

e th

eory

of

evol

utio

n de

man

ds.

Yet

des

pite

the

se

prov

en r

ealit

ies,

man

y w

ith e

duca

ted,

sup

pose

dly

ratio

nal m

inds

stil

l be

lieve

in

the

Dar

win

ian

theo

ry o

f ev

olut

ion—

that

lif

e on

ear

th

som

ehow

cam

e in

to e

xist

ence

spo

ntan

eous

ly,

all

by i

tsel

f. T

hen,

st

arti

ng

wit

h th

e si

mpl

e lo

wer

fo

rms,

li

fe

evol

ved

into

be

tter

-or

gani

zed

and

mor

e-co

mpl

ex

“hig

her”

fo

rms

(by

a pr

oces

s of

“m

utat

ions

fol

low

ed b

y na

tura

l se

lect

ion,

” “s

uper

vise

d by

no

one”

)—

and

culm

inat

ed in

the

hum

an s

peci

es.

G

enet

icis

t J.

C. S

anfo

rd h

as h

is o

wn

expr

essi

on f

or t

his

idea

: “M

oder

n D

arw

inis

m i

s bu

ilt,

mos

t fu

ndam

enta

lly,

upo

n w

hat

I w

ill

be c

allin

g ‘T

he P

rim

ary

Axi

om.’

The

Pri

mar

y A

xiom

is

that

man

is

mer

ely

the

prod

uct o

f ra

ndom

mut

atio

ns p

lus

natu

ral s

elec

tion

.” 16

Doe

s C

harl

es

Dar

win

’s

theo

ry

of

mac

roev

olut

ion,

as

ou

tlin

ed in

his

oft

-quo

ted

but l

ittle

-rea

d T

he O

rigi

n of

Spe

cies

, rea

lly

disp

rove

the

exi

sten

ce o

f G

od,

or h

as t

he “

disp

roof

” its

elf

actu

ally

be

en d

ispr

oved

?

B

elie

f in

m

acro

evol

utio

n ha

s at

tain

ed

such

a

stat

e of

en

tren

ched

fu

ndam

enta

list

orth

odox

y—th

e bl

ind

fait

h of

ev

olut

ioni

sts

(in

spite

of

all

the

evid

ence

to

the

cont

rary

)—th

at

disa

gree

men

t is

no

long

er p

erm

itte

d in

mos

t ac

adem

ic c

ircl

es.

“The

pro

pone

nts

of ‘

Dar

win

ian

liber

alis

m’

tole

rate

no

diss

ent

and

rega

rd a

ll cr

itici

sm o

f D

arw

in’s

fun

dam

enta

l te

nets

as

fals

e an

d re

preh

ensi

ble.

” 17

“Cri

tics

[o

f D

arw

inia

n ev

olut

ion]

ar

e th

en

labe

led

unsc

ient

ific

; th

eir

arti

cles

ar

e re

ject

ed

by

mai

nstr

eam

jo

urna

ls,

who

se e

dito

rial

boa

rds

are

dom

inat

ed b

y th

e do

gmat

ists

; th

e cr

itics

ar

e de

nied

fu

ndin

g by

go

vern

men

t ag

enci

es,

who

se

nd

gran

t pr

opos

als

to t

he d

ogm

atis

ts f

or ‘

peer

’ re

view

; an

d ev

entu

ally

the

cr

itic

s ar

e ho

unde

d ou

t of

the

sci

enti

fic

com

mun

ity

alto

geth

er.

“I

n th

e pr

oces

s,

evid

ence

ag

ains

t th

e D

arw

inia

n vi

ew

sim

ply

disa

ppea

rs, l

ike

wit

ness

es a

gain

st t

he M

ob. O

r th

e ev

iden

ce

is

buri

ed

in

spec

iali

zed

publ

icat

ions

, w

here

on

ly

a de

dica

ted

rese

arch

er c

an f

ind

it.

Onc

e th

e cr

itic

s ha

ve b

een

sile

nced

and

co

unte

r-ev

iden

ce h

as b

een

buri

ed,

the

dogm

atis

ts a

nnou

nce

that

13

ther

e is

no

scie

ntif

ic d

ebat

e ab

out

thei

r th

eory

, an

d no

evi

denc

e ag

ains

t it

. U

sing

suc

h ta

ctic

s, d

efen

ders

of

Dar

win

ian

orth

odox

y ha

ve m

anag

ed t

o es

tabl

ish

a ne

ar-m

onop

oly

over

res

earc

h gr

ants

, fa

culty

ap

poin

tmen

ts,

and

peer

-rev

iew

ed

jour

nals

in

th

e U

nite

d St

ates

.” 18

Who

sa

ys

polit

ics

has

noth

ing

to

do

wit

h sc

ienc

e an

d ed

ucat

ion?

It h

as E

VE

RY

TH

ING

to d

o w

ith b

oth!

Des

pite

the

enf

orce

d or

thod

oxy

of D

arw

inis

m i

n ac

adem

ic

circ

les,

the

re a

re a

gro

win

g nu

mbe

r of

hon

est

scie

ntis

ts o

ften

ris

king

th

eir

care

ers

by

voic

ing

thei

r m

isgi

ving

s—ba

sed

on

thei

r ow

n em

piri

cal

find

ings

—ab

out

one

aspe

ct o

r an

othe

r of

the

the

ory

of

evol

utio

n. A

nd d

espi

te t

he a

ttem

pts

of D

arw

inia

n fu

ndam

enta

lists

to

pain

t th

em a

s “r

elig

ious

fan

atic

s,”

mos

t of

the

m h

ave

no r

elig

ious

ag

enda

. M

any

in f

act

are

stil

l ev

olut

ioni

sts.

The

se s

cien

tists

sim

ply

are

poin

ting

out

the

dis

crep

anci

es b

etw

een

the

Dar

win

ist

para

digm

an

d th

eir

own

scie

ntifi

c fi

ndin

gs.

Si

nce

evol

utio

n as

a

dogm

atic

be

lief

is

cons

ider

ed

a “d

ispr

oof

of G

od”

(tho

ugh

som

e G

od-b

elie

vers

als

o em

brac

e m

acro

-ev

olut

ion)

, w

e ne

ed t

o as

k so

me

ques

tions

. Fi

rst,

wha

t ar

e th

e fu

ndam

enta

l te

nets

of

the

Dar

win

ian

theo

ry o

f bi

olog

ical

evo

luti

on?

Seco

nd,

whi

ch o

f th

ose

tene

ts (

if a

ny)

are

scie

ntif

ical

ly e

stab

lishe

d,

and

whi

ch a

re n

ot?

Thi

rd, d

o an

y of

the

pro

vabl

e te

nets

of

Dar

win

’s

theo

ry b

y th

emse

lves

pro

ve th

e ov

er-a

ll th

eory

of

mac

roev

olut

ion?

Bas

ics

of D

arw

inia

n E

volu

tion

The

fu

ndam

enta

l te

nets

of

D

arw

inia

n ev

olut

ion

are

esse

ntia

lly

two:

1.

All

lif

e tr

aces

its

des

cent

to

a co

mm

on a

nces

tor—

prob

ably

a “

sim

ple”

sin

gle-

celle

d or

gani

sm o

f so

me

kind

tha

t w

as s

pont

aneo

usly

gen

erat

ed b

y ra

ndom

na

tura

l pr

oces

ses

acti

ng u

pon

wha

teve

r el

emen

ts a

nd

com

poun

ds e

xist

ed o

n th

e pr

imor

dial

ear

th.

2. T

he s

impl

e fo

rms

of l

ife

evol

ved

into

mor

e an

d m

ore

com

plex

hig

her

form

s—by

a c

ombi

natio

n of

in

heri

tabl

e ch

ance

va

riat

ions

(m

utat

ions

) an

d “n

atur

al

sele

ctio

n”—

until

ul

timat

ely

the

hum

an

spec

ies

cam

e in

to b

eing

, ev

olvi

ng o

ut o

f pr

imat

e an

cest

ors.

The

ent

ire

proc

ess

occu

rred

ove

r m

illio

ns

of

year

s,

but

with

no

ex

tern

al

caus

al

or

guid

ing

fact

or;

and

at n

o tim

e w

as t

he p

roce

ss i

n an

y w

ay

Cha

pter

Fou

r

14

Cha

pter

Eig

ht

T

he C

onun

drum

of

Sex

A

nd R

epro

duct

ion

T

he v

ast

maj

orit

y of

bot

h pl

ant

and

anim

al s

peci

es p

rocr

eate

by

a p

heno

men

on k

now

n as

“se

xual

rep

rodu

ctio

n.”

If D

arw

inia

n ev

olut

ion

is

true

, se

x m

ust

have

ev

olve

d as

w

ell.

Yet

if

it

deve

lope

d by

a s

erie

s of

ran

dom

ste

ps s

uper

vise

d by

no

one—

if s

ex

evol

ved

by a

n al

mos

t end

less

ser

ies

of m

utat

ions

fol

low

ed b

y na

tura

l se

lect

ion—

it b

oggl

es t

he m

ind

to t

ry t

o co

ntem

plat

e th

e ne

arly

in

fini

te n

umbe

r of

“m

irac

ulou

s co

inci

denc

es”

that

wou

ld h

ave

been

re

quir

ed t

o oc

cur

on c

ount

less

fro

nts

wit

hin

ever

y la

st s

peci

es t

hat

repr

oduc

es s

exua

lly.

“T

he e

volu

tion

of

sex

(and

its

acc

ompa

nyin

g re

prod

uctiv

e ca

pabi

lity)

is

not

a fa

vori

te t

opic

of

disc

ussi

on i

n m

ost

evol

utio

nary

ci

rcle

s, b

ecau

se n

o m

atte

r ho

w m

any

theo

ries

evo

lutio

nist

s co

njur

e up

(an

d th

ere

are

seve

ral)

, th

ey s

till

mus

t su

rmou

nt t

he e

norm

ous

hurd

le o

f ex

plai

ning

the

ori

gin

of t

he f

irst

ful

ly f

unct

iona

l fe

mal

e an

d th

e fi

rst

full

y fu

nctio

nal

mal

e ne

cess

ary

to b

egin

the

pro

cess

….

Sexu

al r

epro

duct

ion

requ

ires

org

anis

ms

firs

t to

pro

duce

, an

d th

en

[to]

mai

ntai

n, g

amet

es (

repr

oduc

tive

cells

—i.e

., sp

erm

and

egg

s).”

31

(Bol

d em

phas

is a

dded

.)

T

here

are

fou

r po

pula

r th

eori

es a

ttem

ptin

g to

exp

lain

why

th

ere

is s

uch

a th

ing

as s

exua

l re

prod

ucti

on:

the

“lot

tery

pri

ncip

le,”

th

e “t

angl

ed b

ank

hypo

thes

is,”

the

“re

d qu

een

hypo

thes

is,”

and

the

“D

NA

rep

air

hypo

thes

is.”

The

“lo

ttery

pri

ncip

le”

reco

gniz

es t

hat

asex

ually

rep

rodu

ced

orga

nism

s m

erel

y pe

rpet

uate

the

sam

e lim

ited

set

of c

hara

cter

istic

s fr

om o

ne g

ener

atio

n to

the

nex

t. T

his

is s

een

as a

kin

to s

omeo

ne

buyi

ng m

ultip

le lo

ttery

tick

ets,

but

all

the

sam

e nu

mbe

r. P

rese

ntin

g a

lim

ited

arr

ay o

f ch

arac

teri

stic

s, t

hey

wou

ld b

e le

ss a

dapt

able

to

chan

ging

env

iron

men

ts.

If t

hey

coul

d no

t al

ter

thei

r ch

arac

teri

stic

s w

hen

thei

r en

viro

nmen

t w

ent

from

a f

ores

t to

a p

rair

ie, f

or e

xam

ple,

th

ey m

ight

die

off

.

Sexu

ally

re

prod

uced

or

gani

sms

keep

va

ryin

g th

eir

com

bina

tions

of

ch

arac

teri

stic

s du

e to

ea

ch

pare

nt

cont

ribu

ting

diff

eren

t co

mbi

natio

ns o

f th

em. A

s an

env

iron

men

t ch

ange

s, a

t le

ast

som

e of

the

ir d

esce

ndan

ts h

ave

a ch

ance

to

surv

ive.

Thi

s is

lik

e bu

ying

lott

ery

ticke

ts w

ith

all d

iffe

rent

num

bers

.

27

Did

Som

eone

Mak

e It

?

A p

aleo

ntol

ogis

t w

alki

ng a

long

a d

ry r

iver

bed

in t

he R

ift

of

Eas

t A

fric

a ca

n sp

ot a

cru

de t

rian

gle-

shap

ed s

tone

wit

h ch

ip m

arks

al

ong

the

edge

s an

d be

cer

tain

he

has

foun

d so

met

hing

des

igne

d,

fash

ione

d, w

orke

d an

d m

ade.

It’

s pr

obab

ly a

spe

arhe

ad o

r an

axe

of

som

e ki

nd m

ade

by a

“pr

imiti

ve”

trib

esm

an c

entu

ries

ago

.

Som

e of

the

sam

e pe

ople

who

wil

l adm

it th

at s

omet

hing

that

cr

ude

was

mad

e w

ill

look

at

the

mul

tipl

e lib

rari

es o

f in

stru

ctio

n m

anua

ls i

n th

e hu

man

gen

ome,

the

con

volu

ted

loop

s of

fee

dbac

k an

d co

ntro

l m

echa

nism

s th

at d

eter

min

e no

t on

ly h

ow t

he o

rgan

ism

de

velo

ps b

ut h

ow i

ts t

hous

ands

of

vita

l fu

nctio

ns a

re c

ontr

olle

d an

d re

gula

ted—

a co

mpl

ete

mul

tipl

e-fa

cilit

y pl

ant

mor

e ex

tens

ive

by f

ar

than

tha

t w

hich

bui

lt an

d la

unch

ed o

ur e

xped

ition

s in

to s

pace

—an

d sa

y it

all

just

fel

l to

geth

er b

y ac

cide

nt,

all

by i

tsel

f, o

ut o

f no

thin

g! I

t de

velo

ped

by a

ser

ies

of t

rilli

ons

of f

avor

able

mut

atio

ns,

follo

wed

by

“nat

ural

sel

ecti

on,”

“su

perv

ised

by

no o

ne.”

And

the

y ca

ll G

od-b

elie

vers

“de

lusi

onal

”?

Cha

pter

Sev

en

26

supe

rvis

ed o

r di

rect

ed.

Non

e of

the

org

anis

ms,

or

any

part

s of

th

em

or

thei

r fu

ncti

onin

g m

etab

olic

sy

stem

s w

as

in

any

man

ner,

sh

ape,

or

fo

rm

“des

igne

d,”

desp

ite h

ow m

uch

it m

ay a

ppea

r so

.

Ten

et n

umbe

r tw

o ab

ove

actu

ally

con

sist

s of

sev

eral

sub

-te

nets

: (a

) In

itial

ch

ange

s in

an

or

gani

sm

usua

lly

occu

rred

by

m

utat

ion.

(b)

The

mut

atio

ns m

ust

have

bee

n in

heri

ted

by s

ubse

quen

t ge

nera

tions

. (c

) T

hose

mut

atio

ns w

hich

mad

e th

e sp

ecie

s “m

ore

fit”

pr

evai

led,

ove

r th

ose

whi

ch d

id n

ot,

by “

natu

ral

sele

ctio

n.”

(d)

Aft

er

mul

tiple

suc

h ch

ange

s an

d se

lect

ions

, on

e sp

ecie

s ga

ve r

ise

to a

new

sp

ecie

s—a

proc

ess

repe

ated

thou

sand

s of

tim

es o

ver

mill

ions

of

year

s,

in t

he d

irec

tion

of m

ore-

com

plex

“hi

gher

” lif

e fo

rms,

cul

min

atin

g in

th

e de

velo

pmen

t of

the

“hum

an s

peci

es.”

It s

houl

d be

not

ed t

hat

wha

t is

bei

ng q

uest

ione

d in

thi

s ch

apte

r is

th

e co

ncep

t of

m

acro

evol

utio

n,

not

that

of

m

icro

evol

utio

n.

Mic

roev

olut

ion

is

basi

call

y ad

apta

tion

wit

hin

a sp

ecie

s or

gen

us. M

icro

evol

utio

n—ad

apta

tion

—ha

s be

en r

epea

tedl

y de

mon

stra

ted,

and

is n

ot h

ere

in q

uest

ion.

Bec

ause

ada

ptat

ion

wit

hin

a sp

ecie

s or

gen

us (

kind

) ha

s ta

ken

plac

e, D

arw

in a

nd a

ll b

elie

vers

in e

volu

tion

sin

ce h

ave

begg

ed

the

ques

tion

of

whe

ther

tha

t m

eans

one

spe

cies

eve

ntua

lly g

ave

rise

to

an

othe

r sp

ecie

s or

ge

nus—

mac

roev

olut

ion.

B

ut

NO

SU

CH

C

HA

NG

E h

as e

ver

been

pro

ven

to t

ake

plac

e!

T

enet

#1:

Spo

ntan

eous

ly G

ener

ated

?

How

lik

ely

is i

t th

at t

he f

irst

lif

e fo

rmed

all

by

itse

lf w

itho

ut

any

outs

ide

caus

al a

genc

y? H

ow l

ikel

y is

it

that

eve

n th

e ne

cess

ary

prot

eins

—ba

sic

buil

ding

blo

cks

of l

ife,

but

FA

R F

RO

M b

eing

lif

e it

self

—co

uld

com

e in

to e

xist

ence

all

at

once

in

the

sam

e pl

ace,

with

al

l com

pone

nt a

min

o ac

ids

form

ing

alm

ost s

imul

tane

ousl

y an

d in

the

corr

ect n

eces

sary

ord

er, b

y ra

ndom

eve

nts?

One

of

the

mos

t lo

udly

her

alde

d su

ppos

edly

“sc

ient

ific

” ex

peri

men

ts e

ver

cond

ucte

d oc

curr

ed i

n 19

53. A

gra

duat

e st

uden

t at

th

e U

nive

rsit

y of

Chi

cago

nam

ed S

tanl

ey M

iller

, w

orki

ng i

n th

e la

bora

tory

of

Har

old

Ure

y, r

epro

duce

d w

hat

was

ass

umed

to

be t

he

atm

osph

ere

of t

he p

rim

ordi

al e

arth

. B

y se

ndin

g el

ectr

ical

spa

rks

thro

ugh

it to

si

mul

ate

light

ning

, he

m

anag

ed

to

prod

uce

som

e re

sidu

es c

onta

inin

g a

few

am

ino

acid

s. N

ews

med

ia j

umpe

d on

the

re

port

of

th

is

expe

rim

ent

wit

h sc

ream

ing

head

line

s su

ch

as

“Sci

enti

sts

Alm

ost

Cre

ate

Lif

e!”

W

hat

few

ha

ve

hear

d si

nce

(and

no

ev

olut

ion-

teac

hing

15

And

The

re W

as L

ife

text

book

ha

s ad

mitt

ed)

is

that

th

e ex

peri

men

t ul

timat

ely

was

di

scre

dite

d fo

r se

vera

l re

ason

s.

Mill

er’s

pr

esum

ptio

n of

w

hat

elem

ents

com

pris

ed t

he p

rim

ordi

al a

tmos

pher

e ha

s si

nce

been

so

alte

red

as t

o m

ake

the

find

ings

of

his

expe

rim

ent

irre

leva

nt.

To

repe

at t

he e

xper

imen

t us

ing

wha

t is

now

bel

ieve

d to

hav

e be

en t

he

mak

eup

of t

he e

arly

atm

osph

ere

wou

ld n

ot y

ield

eve

n am

ino

acid

s;

but i

ndee

d if

it c

ould

, the

gap

bet

wee

n th

at a

nd a

ctua

l lif

e w

ould

stil

l be

inca

lcul

able

. To

say

that

by

the

crea

tion

of

a fe

w a

min

o ac

ids

“sci

enti

sts

‘alm

ost’

cre

ate

life”

is

abou

t as

bel

ieva

ble

as s

ayin

g th

at a

n as

tron

aut

who

has

n’t

yet

even

boa

rded

his

spa

cesh

ip h

as

“alm

ost c

ross

ed t

he u

nive

rse.

”

Ano

ther

an

d of

t-ov

erlo

oked

re

ason

th

e M

iller

ex

peri

men

t co

nstit

uted

no

“pro

of”

of D

arw

inia

n ev

olut

ion

is th

at, w

hile

Dar

win

’s

theo

ry r

equi

res

no

outs

ide

agen

cy

to h

ave

been

inv

olve

d in

the

ev

olut

iona

ry p

roce

ss, t

he M

ille

r ex

peri

men

t, in

ord

er t

o pr

oduc

e an

y am

ino

acid

s, r

equi

red

an o

utsi

de a

genc

y—M

iller

him

self

and

the

ap

para

tus

wit

h w

hich

he

crea

ted

the

arti

fici

al “

light

ning

.”

A

stro

phys

icis

ts C

hand

ra W

ickr

amas

ingh

e an

d Fr

ed H

oyle

ca

lcul

ated

the

odd

s ag

ains

t al

l of

the

nec

essa

ry p

rote

ins

for

life,

w

ith

thei

r co

mpo

nent

am

ino

acid

s fo

rmin

g in

one

pla

ce a

t th

e sa

me

time

and

in t

he r

ight

ord

er b

y ch

ance

. The

ir f

indi

ng w

as th

at

the

odds

aga

inst

suc

h a

rand

om o

ccur

renc

e w

ould

be

1040

,000

pow

er

to o

ne.

The

num

ber

of a

tom

s in

the

ent

ire

know

n un

iver

se i

s on

ly

abou

t 10

80 p

ower

. It

is

clea

r th

at s

uch

a th

ing

is I

MP

OSS

IBL

E,

“eve

n if

the

who

le u

nive

rse

cons

iste

d of

org

anic

sou

p.”

19 N

ot o

nly

that

, bu

t al

l th

e m

atte

r of

the

uni

vers

e w

ould

hav

e to

be

in o

ne

cont

iguo

us m

ass,

not

div

ided

int

o bi

llion

s of

sep

arat

e bo

dies

, an

d it

stil

l w

ould

be

impo

ssib

le!

Min

d yo

u—w

e’re

no

t ev

en

talk

ing

abou

t a

com

plet

e “s

impl

e” o

rgan

ism

com

ing

to l

ife,

but

onl

y ab

out

one

of t

he p

rote

ins

need

ed f

or t

hat l

ife!

The

dif

fere

nce

betw

een

havi

ng th

e ne

cess

ary

prot

eins

for

life

an

d ha

ving

an

actu

al o

rgan

ism

mig

ht b

e ill

ustr

ated

by

cont

rast

ing

a sm

all p

ile o

f bu

ildin

g m

ater

ials

dum

ped

from

a s

ingl

e tr

uck,

ver

sus

a ca

refu

lly

desi

gned

and

ful

ly c

onst

ruct

ed h

igh-

rise

bui

ldin

g.

Fo

r th

e sa

ke o

f ar

gum

ent,

how

ever

, let

us

supp

ose

that

a f

ew

“pri

miti

ve,”

“si

mpl

e” o

ne-c

elle

d lif

e fo

rms

man

aged

to

com

e in

to

bein

g al

l by

the

mse

lves

. In

the

abs

ence

of

othe

r lif

e, w

hat

wou

ld

nour

ish

them

? W

hat w

ould

they

eat

—ea

ch o

ther

? If

nat

ural

sel

ecti

on

elim

inat

ed a

ll b

ut th

e bi

gges

t, st

rong

est,

or “

fitte

st,”

then

wha

t wou

ld

that

on

e or

gani

sm

eat?

If

th

e si

ngle

ce

lls

divi

ded

and

ther

eby

mul

tiplie

d, t

hen

the

com

petit

ion

for

none

xist

ent

food

wou

ld b

e ev

en

Cha

pter

Fou

r

16

(the

ent

ire

libra

ry).

[B

old

emph

asis

add

ed.]

“A c

ompl

ete

hum

an g

enom

e co

nsis

ts o

f tw

o se

ts o

f 3

billi

on

indi

vidu

al ‘

lett

ers’

eac

h. O

nly

a ve

ry s

mal

l fr

acti

on o

f th

is g

enet

ic

libr

ary

is r

equi

red

to d

irec

tly

enco

de t

he r

ough

ly 1

00,0

00 d

iffe

rent

hu

man

pro

tein

s, a

nd t

he u

ncou

nted

num

ber

of f

unct

iona

l hu

man

R

NA

mol

ecul

es w

hich

are

fou

nd w

ithin

our

cel

ls.

Eac

h of

the

se

prot

ein

and

RN

A m

olec

ules

are

ess

enti

ally

min

iatu

re m

achi

nes,

eac

h w

ith h

undr

eds

of c

ompo

nent

par

ts,

each

with

its

ow

n ex

quis

ite

com

plex

ity,

desi

gn,

and

func

tion

. B

ut

the

geno

me’

s li

near

in

form

atio

n,

equi

vale

nt

to

man

y co

mpl

ete

sets

of

a

larg

e en

cycl

oped

ia, i

s no

t eno

ugh

to e

xpla

in th

e co

mpl

exity

of

life

.” 29

Sanf

ord

goes

on

to s

how

tha

t th

e li

near

cod

es a

re o

nly

the

begi

nnin

g;

they

on

ly

desi

gnat

e ho

w

cells

ar

e to

be

bu

ilt

and

mai

ntai

ned.

T

hen

mul

tiple

ov

erla

ppin

g co

des

also

co

ntro

l th

e th

ousa

nds

of f

unct

ions

goi

ng o

n in

a t

ypic

al c

ell.

“In

addi

tion

to

mul

tiple

ov

erla

ppin

g,

linea

r,

lang

uage

-lik

e fo

rms

of

gene

tic

info

rmat

ion,

the

gen

ome

is f

ull

of c

ount

less

loo

ps a

nd b

ranc

hes—

like

a co

mpu

ter

prog

ram

. It

ha

s ge

nes

that

re

gula

te

gene

s th

at

regu

late

gen

es.

It h

as g

enes

tha

t se

nse

chan

ges

in t

he e

nvir

onm

ent,

and

then

ins

truc

t ot

her

gene

s to

rea

ct b

y se

tting

in

mot

ion

com

plex

ca

scad

es o

f ev

ents

tha

t ca

n th

en m

odif

y th

e en

viro

nmen

t. So

me

gene

s ac

tive

ly r

earr

ange

the

mse

lves

, or

mod

ify

and

met

hyla

te o

ther

ge

ne

sequ

ence

s—ba

sica

lly

chan

ging

po

rtio

ns

of

the

inst

ruct

ion

man

ual!

“Las

tly,

ther

e is

goo

d ev

iden

ce th

at li

near

DN

A c

an f

old

into

tw

o- a

nd t

hree

-dim

ensi

onal

str

uctu

res

(as

do p

rote

ins

and

RN

As)

an

d th

at

such

fo

ldin

g pr

obab

ly

enco

des

still

hi

gher

le

vels

of

in

form

atio

n. W

ith t

he t

ypic

al n

on-d

ivid

ing

nucl

eus,

the

re i

s re

ason

to

bel

ieve

ther

e m

ay b

e fa

bulo

usly

com

plex

thre

e-di

men

sion

al a

rray

s of

D

NA

, w

hose

3-

D

arch

itect

ure

cont

rols

hi

gher

bi

olog

ical

fu

nctio

ns.”

30

A

ll t

his

incr

edib

ly m

inia

turi

zed

orga

niza

tion,

coo

rdin

atio

n an

d co

ntro

l “j

ust

happ

ens,

” ac

cord

ing

to t

he f

aith

ful

apol

ogis

ts f

or

the

reli

gion

of

D

arw

inia

n ev

olut

ion.

Sa

nfor

d’s

“Pri

mar

y A

xiom

” (w

hich

his

boo

k qu

oted

her

e to

tally

dis

prov

es)

is th

at a

long

se

ries

of

mut

atio

ns a

nd “

natu

ral

sele

ctio

n”—

“sup

ervi

sed

by

no

one”

—m

ade

all t

his

happ

en.

R

ight

!

Can

we

agre

e th

at o

rgan

izat

ion,

coo

rdin

atio

n an

d co

ntro

l DO

N

OT

“ju

st h

appe

n”?

W

hat

is a

n ac

cide

nt?

It is

a r

esul

t of

a L

AC

K o

f con

trol

!

Do

Org

aniz

atio

n, C

oord

inat

ion

and

Con

trol

“Ju

st H

appe

n”?

25

Cha

pter

Sev

en

D

o O

rgan

izat

ion,

Coo

rdin

atio

n

and

Con

trol

“Ju

st H

appe

n”?

B

iolo

gica

l lif

e is

, if

not

hing

els

e, o

rgan

ized

. O

rgan

izat

ion

is

obse

rvab

le a

t ev

ery

leve

l, st

artin

g at

the

sin

gle

cell.

In

high

er f

orm

s,

cells

in

turn

are

gro

uped

int

o tis

sues

; tis

sues

int

o or

gans

, gl

ands

, bo

nes,

m

uscl

es,

vess

els;

al

l th

ose

into

sy

stem

s,

each

of

w

hich

pe

rfor

ms

spec

ific

fun

ctio

ns—

all

of w

hich

are

coo

rdin

ated

in

such

a

way

as

to s

usta

in th

e or

gani

sm a

nd e

nabl

e it

to p

erfo

rm th

e ne

cess

ary

task

s fo

r su

rviv

al.

A

t th

e ce

llula

r le

vel,

ther

e is

no

t on

ly

supr

eme

orga

niza

tion

but

reg

ulat

ion—

cont

rol,

if y

ou w

ill.

The

sub

stan

ce

know

n as

D

NA

(d

esox

yrib

ose

nucl

eic

acid

) is

th

e co

mpo

nent

su

bsta

nce

of g

enes

and

chr

omos

omes

(st

ring

s of

gen

es)

that

are

in

the

nucl

eus

of e

very

liv

ing

cell

. T

oget

her,

alo

ng w

ith

mol

ecul

es

calle

d nu

cleo

tide

s, t

hey

form

the

“ge

nom

e,”

whi

ch i

n tu

rn c

ontr

ols

all m

etab

olic

fun

ctio

ns p

erfo

rmed

in e

ach

cell

.

Acc

ordi

ng

to

gene

tics

expe

rt

John

C

. Sa

nfor

d,

“The

co

mpl

ex n

atur

e of

the

gen

ome

can

only

be

appr

ecia

ted

whe

n w

e be

gin

to

gras

p ho

w

muc

h in

form

atio

n it

co

ntai

ns…

. If

you

co

mpi

led

all

the

inst

ruct

ion

man

uals

as

soci

ated

w

ith

crea

ting

a

mod

ern

auto

mob

ile, i

t wou

ld c

ompr

ise

a su

bsta

ntia

l lib

rary

…. T

here

is

sim

ply

no h

uman

tec

hnol

ogy

that

can

eve

n be

gin

to s

erve

as

an

adeq

uate

an

alog

y fo

r th

e co

mpl

exit

y of

a

hum

an

life.

Y

et

the

geno

me

is t

he i

nstr

ucti

on m

anua

l en

codi

ng a

ll th

at i

nfor

mat

ion—

as

need

ed f

or li

fe!”

Sanf

ord

goes

on:

“W

e ha

ve t

hus

far

only

dis

cove

red

the

firs

t di

men

sion

of

this

‘bo

ok o

f lif

e’—

whi

ch is

a li

near

seq

uenc

e of

4

type

s of

ext

rem

ely

smal

l mol

ecul

es c

alle

d nu

cleo

tides

. The

se s

mal

l m

olec

ules

mak

e up

the

ind

ivid

ual

‘ste

ps’

of t

he s

pira

l-st

airc

ase

stru

ctur

e of

DN

A.

The

se m

olec

ules

are

the

let

ters

of

the

gene

tic

code

, an

d ar

e sh

own

sym

boli

cally

as

A,

T,

C,

and

G.

The

se l

ette

rs

are

stru

ng t

oget

her

like

a li

near

tex

t. T

hey

are

not

just

sym

bolic

ally

sh

own

as l

ette

rs,

they

are

ver

y lit

eral

ly t

he l

ette

rs o

f ou

r in

stru

ctio

n m

anua

l. Sm

all

clus

ters

or

mot

ifs

of th

ese

mol

ecul

ar le

tters

mak

e up

th

e w

ords

of

ou

r m

anua

l, w

hich

com

bine

to

form

gen

es (

the

chap

ters

of

our

man

ual)

, whi

ch c

ombi

ne to

for

m c

hrom

osom

es (

the

volu

mes

of

our

man

ual)

, whi

ch c

ombi

ne to

for

m th

e w

hole

gen

ome

24

mor

e fi

erce

. Sur

ely,

if th

e th

eory

of

“sur

viva

l of

the

fit

test

” w

ere

at

wor

k he

re,

ther

e w

ould

soo

n be

few

er o

f th

ese

orga

nism

s, n

ot

mor

e. T

he l

ast

few

wou

ld m

ost

like

ly s

tarv

e to

dea

th b

efor

e th

ey

coul

d re

prod

uce,

and

cer

tain

ly i

n an

y ca

se b

efor

e th

ey h

ad c

hanc

e to

ta

ke th

e ve

ry fi

rst s

tep

in a

ny u

pwar

d ev

olut

iona

ry p

roce

ss.

And

The

re W

as L

ife

17

Cha

pter

Fiv

e

Fro

m T

here

To

Her

e

In t

he l

ast

chap

ter,

we

foun

d th

at T

enet

#1

of D

arw

inia

n ev

olut

ion—

that

life

ori

gina

ted

spon

tane

ousl

y in

som

e pr

imor

dial

so

up—

is

utte

rly

unsu

ppor

tabl

e,

disp

rove

d by

co

untle

ss

know

n sc

ient

ific

fac

ts a

nd b

y m

athe

mat

ics.

Doe

s T

enet

#2

of D

arw

inia

n ev

olut

ion

stan

d up

any

bet

ter

to

scie

ntif

ic s

crut

iny?

Let

’s s

ee.

The

re w

ere

four

sub

-ten

ets

to T

enet

#2

of t

he t

heor

y of

bio

logi

cal

mac

roev

olut

ion.

Let

us

exam

ine

each

, one

at

a ti

me.

a) “

Cha

nges

in

a

spec

ies

of

orga

nism

oc

cur

by

mut

atio

n.”

Do

mut

atio

ns o

ccur

in

natu

re?

The

y m

ost

cert

ainl

y do

. b)

“M

utat

ions

m

ust

be

inhe

rite

d by

su

bseq

uent

ge

nera

tion

s.”

Can

so

me

mut

atio

ns

be

gene

tical

ly

inhe

rite

d? S

ome

mut

atio

ns a

re i

n fa

ct p

asse

d on

to

the

next

gen

erat

ion.

c)

“T

hrou

gh ‘

natu

ral

sele

ctio

n,’

thos

e m

utat

ions

tha

t m

ade

the

spec

ies

‘mor

e fi

t’

prev

aile

d ov

er t

hose

w

hich

di

d no

t im

prov

e th

e sp

ecie

s.”

Are

m

ost

mut

atio

ns o

f a

natu

re th

at “

impr

oves

” an

org

anis

m o

r m

akes

it m

ore

fit?

Far

fro

m i

t! (

We

will

exa

min

e th

is i

ssue

in

mor

e de

tail

in

a la

ter

chap

ter.

)

Her

e is

whe

re w

e be

gin

to h

ave

a pr

oble

m.

Alm

ost

no

mut

atio

ns a

re t

o th

e be

nefi

t or

im

prov

emen

t of

an

orga

nism

. M

ost

have

lit

tle

or n

o ef

fect

on

it a

t al

l, an

d ar

e la

bele

d as

ge

neti

cally

“ne

utra

l.” O

f th

ose

few

tha

t ha

ve a

ny s

igni

fica

nt

effe

ct, h

owev

er, n

earl

y al

l ar

e of

a d

egen

erat

ive

natu

re. I

n fa

ct, i

n th

e op

inio

n of

man

y ge

netic

ists

, any

mut

atio

ns th

at w

ould

con

trib

ute

to a

n up

war

d ev

olut

iona

ry s

pira

l are

vir

tual

ly n

on-e

xist

ent.

20

d) “

Aft

er m

ulti

ple

such

cha

nges

and

sel

ecti

ons,

one

sp

ecie

s ev

entu

ally

gav

e ri

se t

o an

othe

r sp

ecie

s—a

proc

ess

repe

ated

tho

usan

ds o

f ti

mes

ove

r m

illio

ns o

f ye

ars,

in

th

e di

rect

ion

of

bett

er-o

rgan

ized

, m

ore-

com

plex

‘h

ighe

r’

life

form

s,

culm

inat

ing

in

the

deve

lopm

ent

of

the

‘hum

an

spec

ies.

’ ”

Whi

le

adap

tatio

ns w

ithi

n sp

ecie

s an

d ge

nera

ove

r tim

e ha

ve

been

re

peat

edly

de

mon

stra

ted,

ev

olut

ioni

sts

have

18

was

fou

nd t

here

con

flic

ted

wit

h hi

s th

eory

, bec

ause

suc

h di

verg

ence

of

for

ms

shou

ld a

ppea

r on

ly a

fter

mill

ions

of

year

s of

evo

luti

on. H

e re

ason

ed t

hat

the

reco

rd w

as i

ncom

plet

e an

d th

at m

ore

prim

itiv

e fo

rms

wou

ld s

omed

ay b

e fo

und

in lo

wer

str

ata.

A l

ower

str

atum

tha

n th

e C

ambr

ian

has

in f

act

been

fou

nd.

But

the

fos

sil

life

for

ms

foun

d in

it

have

not

bee

n sh

own

to h

ave

give

n ri

se to

the

Cam

bria

n fo

rms

for

the

mos

t par

t.

“Dar

win

’s

theo

ry

clai

ms

that

ph

ylum

- an

d cl

ass-

leve

l di

ffer

ence

s em

erge

onl

y af

ter

a lo

ng h

isto

ry o

f di

verg

ence

fro

m lo

wer

ca

tego

ries

su

ch

as

spec

ies,

ge

nera

, fa

mili

es

and

orde

rs.

Yet

th

e C

ambr

ian

expl

osio

n is

inc

onsi

sten

t w

ith t

his

pict

ure…

. D

arw

inia

n ev

olut

ion

is ‘

botto

m-u

p,’

refe

rrin

g to

its

pred

ictio

n th

at lo

wer

leve

ls in

th

e bi

olog

ical

hie

rarc

hy s

houl

d em

erge

bef

ore

high

er o

nes.

But

the

C

ambr

ian

expl

osio

n sh

ows

the

oppo

site

….

[T]h

e C

ambr

ian

patte

rn

‘cre

ates

the

im

pres

sion

tha

t [a

nim

al]

evol

utio

n ha

s pr

ocee

ded

from

th

e to

p do

wn…

.’ N

ever

thel

ess,

evo

lutio

nary

bio

logi

sts

have

bee

n re

luct

ant

to a

band

on D

arw

in’s

the

ory.

Man

y of

the

m d

isco

unt

the

Cam

bria

n fo

ssil

evi

denc

e in

stea

d.”

28

Su

rpri

se, s

urpr

ise!

Not

a L

eg to

Sta

nd O

n

23

A

N

atio

nal

Aca

dem

y of

Sc

ienc

es

book

let

on

Dar

win

’s

finc

hes

pret

ty m

uch

does

the

sam

e th

ing.

“R

athe

r th

an c

onfu

se t

he

read

er b

y m

enti

onin

g th

at s

elec

tion

was

rev

erse

d af

ter

the

drou

ght,

prod

ucin

g no

lon

g-te

rm e

volu

tiona

ry c

hang

e, t

he b

ookl

et s

impl

y om

its

this

aw

kwar

d fa

ct…

. [T

]he

book

let

mis

lead

s th

e pu

blic

by

conc

ealin

g a

cruc

ial p

art o

f th

e ev

iden

ce. T

his

is n

ot tr

uth-

seek

ing.

It

mak

es o

ne w

onde

r ho

w m

uch

evid

ence

the

re r

eally

is

for

Dar

win

’s

theo

ry.”

26

Su

ppos

e al

l th

e ch

ange

s in

the

bea

ks o

f G

alap

agos

fin

ches

ha

d be

en p

rove

n to

go

in o

ne c

onsi

sten

t di

rect

ion—

whi

ch t

hey

mos

t em

phat

ical

ly h

ave

not.

Wou

ld t

hat

prov

e m

acro

evol

utio

n (w

hich

re

mem

ber

requ

ires

on

e sp

ecie

s gi

ving

ri

se

to

anot

her

spec

ies)

? W

ould

it

at a

ny p

oint

dem

onst

rate

one

spe

cies

“ev

olvi

ng”

into

an

othe

r? N

ot r

emot

ely.

Aft

er a

ll th

e ex

tens

ive

obse

rvat

ion

of t

hese

bi

rds

and

all

the

chan

ges,

gue

ss w

hat?

The

y’re

ST

ILL

FIN

CH

ES!

T

here

is

even

goo

d re

ason

to

ques

tion

whe

ther

the

mul

tiple

var

ietie

s of

G

alap

agos

fi

nche

s re

pres

ent

any

dist

inct

(f

rom

on

e an

othe

r)

“spe

cies

” at

all

!

Dar

win

’s T

ree

of L

ife

vs. t

he F

ossi

l Rec

ord

D

arw

in t

houg

ht t

hat

all

life

form

s m

ight

be

desc

ende

d fr

om “

one

prim

ordi

al f

orm

…. T

he O

rigi

n of

Spe

cies

incl

uded

onl

y on

e il

lust

ratio

n, s

how

ing

the

bran

chin

g pa

ttern

tha

t w

ould

res

ult

from

this

pro

cess

of

desc

ent w

ith m

odif

icat

ion.

Dar

win

thus

pic

ture

d li

fe a

s a

tree

, w

ith

the

univ

ersa

l co

mm

on a

nces

tor

at i

ts r

oot,

and

mod

ern

spec

ies

as i

ts ‘

gree

n an

d bu

ddin

g tw

igs.

’ H

e ca

lled

this

the

‘g

reat

Tre

e of

Lif

e.’

“O

f al

l th

e ic

ons

of e

volu

tion,

the

tre

e of

lif

e is

the

mos

t pe

rsua

sive

, bec

ause

des

cent

fro

m a

com

mon

anc

esto

r is

the

foun

datio

n of

Dar

win

’s t

heor

y. N

eo-D

arw

inis

t E

rnst

May

r bo

ldly

pro

clai

med

in

1991

that

‘th

ere

is p

roba

bly

no b

iolo

gist

left

toda

y w

ho w

ould

que

stio

n th

at a

ll or

gani

sms

now

foun

d on

the

eart

h ha

ve d

esce

nded

fro

m a

sin

gle

orig

in

of

life.

’ Y

et

Dar

win

kn

ew—

and

scie

ntis

ts

have

re

cent

ly

conf

irm

ed—

that

the

earl

y fo

ssil

reco

rd t

urns

the

evo

lutio

nary

tree

of

life

upsi

de d

own.

Ten

yea

rs a

go it

was

hop

ed th

at m

olec

ular

evi

denc

e m

ight

sav

e th

e tr

ee,

but

rece

nt d

isco

veri

es h

ave

dash

ed t

hat

hope

. A

lthou

gh y

ou w

ould

not

lea

rn i

t fr

om r

eadi

ng b

iolo

gy t

extb

ooks

, D

arw

in’s

tree

of l

ife h

ad b

een

upro

oted

.” 27

In D

arw

in’s

day

, th

e lo

wes

t kn

own

stra

ta l

evel

in

whi

ch

foss

ils h

ad b

een

foun

d w

as t

he C

ambr

ian.

Dar

win

kne

w t

hat

wha

t

Cha

pter

Six

22

begg

ed th

e qu

estio

n of

whe

ther

one

type

of

orga

nism

ca

n, b

y th

is m

eans

, ev

er g

ive

rise

to

anot

her

kind

of

orga

nism

.

Such

a t

rans

form

atio

n ha

s N

EV

ER

bee

n de

mon

stra

ted,

ei

ther

in

the

foss

il re

cord

or

by o

bser

vatio

n! T

here

is

evid

ence

som

e ge

nera

may

hav

e di

vers

ifie

d in

to s

ever

al s

peci

es (

such

as

cani

dae

givi

ng

rise

to

w

olf,

fo

x,

jack

al,

ding

o,

etc)

. E

ssen

tially

, th

is

“gen

us”

(usi

ng

the

term

inol

ogy

of

Men

del,

who

ba

sed

his

clas

sifi

cati

ons

on

Bib

le

term

s)

corr

espo

nds

to

the

bibl

ical

te

rm

“kin

d.”

If s

ome

gene

ra h

ave

dive

rsif

ied

into

spe

cies

, tha

t doe

s no

t by

itse

lf p

rove

mac

roev

olut

ion.

The

not

ion

that

“be

nefi

cial

” m

utat

ions

pas

sed

on b

y he

redi

ty

(fol

low

ed b

y na

tura

l se

lect

ion)

com

pris

e th

e en

tire

exp

lana

tion

for

ho

w a

one

-cel

led

prot

o-lif

e “e

volv

ed”

into

the

div

ersi

ty o

f li

ving

or

gani

sms

we

have

to

day—

incl

udin

g hu

man

ity—

is

utte

rly

disp

rove

d. T

hose

who

ins

ist

on b

elie

ving

it

are

sim

ply

belie

ving

in

fair

y ta

les!

Geo

ffre

y Si

mm

ons,

M.D

., po

ints

out

, “So

me

scie

ntis

ts t

hink

th

at

one

bene

fici

al

mut

atio

n ha

ppen

s pe

r 20

,000

m

utat

ions

. O

r re

vers

e th

is:

19,9

99

out

of

20,0

00

mut

atio

ns

are

usel

ess,

da

nger

ous

or q

uick

ly d

ilute

d ou

t. T

o ca

lcul

ate

the

mat

hem

atic

al

likel

ihoo

d of

man

’s D

NA

hav

ing

so c

ome

corr

ectl

y—by

mer

e ch

ance

—m

ulti

ply

6,00

0,00

0,00

0 by

a

num

ber

just

sh

ort

of

infi

nity

.

“Nes

se a

nd W

illia

ms

estim

ate

the

like

liho

od o

f an

y ge

ne

bein

g al

tere

d as

one

in

a m

illio

n pe

r ge

nera

tion—

and

mos

t of

ten

thes

e ch

ange

s ar

e ei

ther

let

hal

or l

ead

to f

reak

s. H

ow c

ould

so

man

y ef

fici

ent

and

effe

ctiv

e ch

ange

s ha

ve t

aken

pla

ce s

o qu

ickl

y?”

21

(Bol

d em

phas

is a

dded

). A

ssum

ing

the

imag

ined

suc

cess

ion

of o

ne

spec

ies

by a

noth

er c

ould

hav

e ev

er o

ccur

red—

muc

h le

ss in

the

orde

r ge

nera

lly

pict

ured

—th

e ti

me

requ

ired

for

the

pro

cess

to

happ

en

pure

ly b

y ch

ance

wou

ld b

e m

ulti

ple

quad

rilli

ons

of y

ears

, no

t ju

st a

few

bill

ion.

Fro

m T

here

To

Her

e

19

Cha

pter

Six

Not

A L

eg T

o St

and

On

In

thi

s ch

apte

r, w

e’ll

exam

ine

thre

e of

the

mai

n pi

llars

of

supp

osed

pro

of o

f th

e D

arw

inia

n th

eory

of

evol

utio

n: c

ompa

rati

ve

anat

omy,

sm

all-

scal

e ch

ange

with

in s

peci

es (

calle

d m

icro

evol

utio

n),

and

foss

il ev

iden

ce f

or D

arw

in’s

sup

pose

d “t

ree

of l

ife.

” W

e w

ill

quot

e sc

ient

ists

who

se f

indi

ngs

debu

nk t

he i

dea

that

any

of

thes

e ph

enom

ena

cons

titut

e “p

roof

” of

Dar

win

ian

mac

roev

olut

ion.

Com

para

tive

Ana

tom

y

Evo

lutio

nist

s ar

gue

that

si

mila

ritie

s in

an

atom

ical

st

ruct

ure

betw

een

one

orga

nism

and

ano

ther

pro

ve c

omm

on a

nces

try.

But

in

real

ity, t

here

are

sim

ilarit

ies

in c

erta

in fe

atur

es b

etw

een

two

orga

nism

s on

di

vers

e si

des

of th

e “t

ree

of li

fe;”

whi

le k

indr

ed s

peci

es e

xhib

it no

ticea

ble

diff

eren

ces

in th

ose

sam

e an

atom

ical

feat

ures

—su

ch a

s, fo

r exa

mpl

e, e

ye

stru

ctur

e.

“E

ven

the

sim

ilari

ties

cl

aim

ed

by

evol

utio

nist

s ar

e am

bigu

ous,

for

the

y do

not

sha

re t

he s

ame

deve

lopm

enta

l pa

ttern

. Fo

r ex

ampl

e, t

wo

clos

ely

rela

ted

spec

ies

of f

rog,

Ran

a fu

sca

and

Ran

a es

cule

nts,

hav

e ey

e le

nses

tha

t ar

e si

mila

r bu

t th

ey f

orm

ver

y di

ffer

ently

in

embr

yolo

gica

l de

velo

pmen

t. D

id t

hese

tw

o sp

ecie

s ev

olve

th

eir

eye

lens

es

inde

pend

ently

? T

here

ar

e m

any

such

si

mila

riti

es th

at d

evel

op d

iffe

rent

ly o

r ar

ise

from

dif

fere

nt g

enes

, and

th

ey

seri

ousl

y ch

alle

nge

the

clai

m

that

th

ey

coul

d ha

ve

aris

en

thro

ugh

com

mon

des

cent

.” 22

(Bol

d em

phas

is a

dded

.)

“E

volu

tion

ists

cla

im t

hat

the

Lin

naea

n hi

erar

chy

[of

plan

t/an

imal

cla

ssif

icat

ion]

is

a cr

ucia

l te

st t

hat

thei

r th

eory

has

pas

sed.

B

ut f

rom

the

pla

cent

al a

nd m

arsu

pial

s to

mol

ecul

ar c

ompa

riso

ns,

natu

re i

s fu

ll o

f de

viat

ions

fro

m t

hat

patte

rn.

If t

he t

heor

y pr

edic

ts

the

Lin

naea

n hi

erar

chy,

the

n do

the

man

y de

viat

ions

dis

prov

e th

e th

eory

? N

ot

acco

rdin

g to

ev

olut

ioni

sts.

In

stea

d,

they

em

ploy

a

num

ber

of a

d ho

c ex

plan

ator

y de

vice

s, f

rom

con

verg

ent

evol

utio

n an

d no

n-gr

adua

listic

evo

luti

onar

y ch

ange

to m

assi

ve h

oriz

onta

l gen

e tr

ansf

er a

nd c

ompu

tatio

nal

adju

stm

ents

. But

if

evol

utio

n ca

n ex

plai

n th

e m

any

devi

atio

ns f

rom

the

Lin

naea

n hi

erar

chy

so w

ell,

it ca

n ha

rdly

cla

im t

he g

ener

al h

iera

rchi

cal

patte

rn o

f th

e sp

ecie

s as

a

cruc

ial t

est.”

23

20

Smal

l-sc

ale

Cha

nge

Wit

hin

Spec

ies

L

et’s

loo

k at

a f

avor

ite e

xam

ple

cite

d by

evo

lutio

nist

s of

ch

ange

s w

ithin

a s

peci

es—

Dar

win

’s G

alap

agos

fin

ches

—an

d as

k w

heth

er t

hese

cha

nges

pro

ve t

hat

any

net

long

-ter

m e

volu

tiona

ry

deve

lopm

ent i

s go

ing

on a

t all

amon

g th

e G

alap

agos

fin

ches

.

Tho

ugh

Dar

win

spe

nt c

onsi

dera

ble

time

on t

he G

alap

agos

Is

land

s, h

e m

akes

littl

e m

entio

n of

the

finc

hes

in h

is w

ritin

gs. I

t see

ms

that

oth

ers

have

ext

rapo

late

d co

nclu

sion

s m

any

year

s la

ter

that

the

va

riat

ions

in

be

ak

size

s of

th

e 14

su

ppos

ed

“spe

cies

” on

th

e ar

chip

elag

o so

meh

ow d

emon

stra

te e

volu

tiona

ry c

hang

e go

vern

ed b

y “n

atur

al s

elec

tion.

”

In th

e 19

70s,

Pet

er a

nd R

osem

ary

Gra

nt s

pent

ext

ensi

ve ti

me

and

deta

iled

rese

arch

on

the

Gal

apag

os o

ver

a nu

mbe

r of

yea

rs. T

hey

note

d th

at d

urin

g ti

mes

of

norm

al r

ainf

all,

the

aver

age

beak

siz

e of

the

mor

e ab

unda

nt f

inch

es w

as s

mal

ler,

whi

le d

urin

g pe

riod

s of

dro

ught

the

few

er b

irds

had

lar

ger

beak

s. T

hey

conc

lude

d th

at

natu

ral s

elec

tion

favo

red

thos

e w

ith

larg

er b

eaks

, bec

ause

thes

e w

ere

need

ed t

o cr

ack

the

hard

er,

less

abu

ndan

t se

eds

duri

ng t

he d

roug

ht

peri

od.

But

rat

her

than

a c

onti

nuou

s tr

end

in t

he s

ame

dire

ctio

n (t

owar

d ev

er-l

arge

r be

ak s

ize)

, the

ave

rage

siz

e of

the

fin

ch b

eaks

re

turn

ed

to

whe

re i

t ha

d be

en

befo

re,

once

nor

mal

ra

infa

ll re

sum

ed.

A

noth

er s

urpr

isin

g fi

nd t

hat

the

Gra

nts

mad

e w

as t

hat

on

som

e is

land

s, t

here

wer

e nu

mer

ous

case

s of

int

erbr

eedi

ng b

etw

een

som

e of

th

e “s

peci

es.”

So

me

of

the

hybr

ids

prod

uced

ac

tual

ly

seem

ed t

o do

bet

ter

than

the

ir p

rede

cess

ors.

“So

Dar

win

’s f

inch

es

may

not

be

mer

ging

or

dive

rgin

g, b

ut m

erel

y os

cill

atin

g ba

ck a

nd

fort

h. T

heir

suc

cess

in

hybr

idiz

ing,

how

ever

, rai

ses

a qu

esti

on a

bout

w

heth

er th

ey a

re s

epar

ate

spec

ies

at a

ll.”

24

“T

hank

s to

yea

rs o

f ca

refu

l re

sear

ch b

y th

e G

rant

s an

d th

eir

colle

ague

s, w

e kn

ow q

uite

a l

ot a

bout

nat

ural

sel

ectio

n an

d br

eedi

ng

patte

rns

in D

arw

in’s

fin

ches

. Fi

rst,

sele

ctio

n os

cill

ates

wit

h cl

imat

ic

fluc

tuat

ions

and

doe

s no

t ex

hibi

t lo

ng-t

erm

evo

luti

onar

y ch

ange

. Se

cond

, the

sup

erio

r fi

tnes

s of

hyb

rids

mea

ns t

hat

seve

ral

spec

ies

of

Gal

apag

os f

inch

es m

ight

be

in t

he p

roce

ss o

f m

ergi

ng r

athe

r th

an

dive

rgin

g.”

25

A

tel

evis

ion

docu

men

tary

of

the

Gra

nts’

res

earc

h on

the

G

alap

agos

det

ails

the

ear

ly f

indi

ngs—

whi

ch s

eem

to

supp

ort

the

evol

utio

nary

not

ion—

but

conv

enie

ntly

om

its t

he l

ater

con

flic

ting

find

ings

in w

hich

the

earl

ier

supp

osed

“ev

olut

ion”

was

rev

erse

d.

Not

a L

eg to

Sta

nd O

n

21