Register to reply

Is there any real scentisit (who is not creationism) reject evolution?

by S_David
Tags: creationism, evolution, real, reject, scentisit
Share this thread:
S_David
#19
Nov15-12, 02:37 PM
P: 599
Quote Quote by Czcibor View Post
No religion allowed... So the point of this thread is to find a modern scientist who supports ex. Lamarckism? Could be hard, according to wikipedia it presumably finally faded away round a half century ago...
Are you saying that I can not find one single non-religious biologist who argues against evolution? I need to know this
micromass
#20
Nov15-12, 02:46 PM
Mentor
micromass's Avatar
P: 18,246
Quote Quote by S_David View Post
Are you saying that I can not find one single non-religious biologist who argues against evolution? I need to know this
There are always crazy people out there. You can find people with a PhD in physics who argue that relativity is incorrect or that the sun is a huge electric battery. But those people are a very small minority.
Likewise, I'm sure you can find a non-religious biologist who argues against evolution. But those people are a very small minority.

You shouldn't be looking for biologists who argue against evolution. It doesn't matter whether you find such a person. What you should do is take an evolution textbook, work through it and read all the evidence of evolution. If you find out that the theory of evolution agrees with the experiments and the evidence, then you need to accept the theory. And then it doesn't matter who agrees or disagrees.

Like the great Richard Feynman says:

If it disagrees with experiment, the guess is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn't matter how beautiful your guess is or how smart you are or what your name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. That's all there is to it.


Even if Darwin himself comes back alive and starts arguing that evolution is wrong, it doesn't matter. The facts and evidence of evolution speak for itself.
Czcibor
#21
Nov15-12, 02:49 PM
P: 78
Quote Quote by S_David View Post
Are you saying that I can not find one single non-religious biologist who argues against evolution? I need to know this
Honestly - I don't know. There could be a well hidden guy... However, if I were supposed to look for non-religious scientists who would not support evolution, I'd look for any remaining Lamarckist - it used to be a serious theory, not based on any religion.

Or maybe for some disciples of Trofim Lysenko? He died in 1976... (for your purposes communism would not be considered as religion, right?)
S_David
#22
Nov15-12, 02:52 PM
P: 599
Quote Quote by Czcibor View Post
Honestly - I don't know. There could be a well hidden guy... However, if I were supposed to look for non-religious scientists who would not support evolution, I'd look for any remaining Lamarckist - it used to be a serious theory, not based on any religion.

Or maybe for some disciples of Trofim Lysenko? He died in 1976... (for your purposes communism would not be considered as religion, right?)
I mean religious as God-believing not an ideology-believing sense. I still do not understand, can you enlighten me, what is Lamarckism? and what it has to do with evolution?
S_David
#23
Nov15-12, 02:55 PM
P: 599
Quote Quote by micromass View Post
There are always crazy people out there. You can find people with a PhD in physics who argue that relativity is incorrect or that the sun is a huge electric battery. But those people are a very small minority.
Likewise, I'm sure you can find a non-religious biologist who argues against evolution. But those people are a very small minority.

You shouldn't be looking for biologists who argue against evolution. It doesn't matter whether you find such a person. What you should do is take an evolution textbook, work through it and read all the evidence of evolution. If you find out that the theory of evolution agrees with the experiments and the evidence, then you need to accept the theory. And then it doesn't matter who agrees or disagrees.

Like the great Richard Feynman says:



Thank you, but my point is not to support my beliefs for example or so, rather I need to know what are the scientific objections, to have unbiased opinion about evolution.

It is hard if not impossible to examine evolution, so it is not like physical or other theories which can be tested using experiments.
Drakkith
#24
Nov15-12, 03:17 PM
Mentor
Drakkith's Avatar
P: 11,844
Quote Quote by S_David View Post
Thank you, but my point is not to support my beliefs for example or so, rather I need to know what are the scientific objections, to have unbiased opinion about evolution.
What?

It is hard if not impossible to examine evolution, so it is not like physical or other theories which can be tested using experiments.
Nonsense. The theory of evolution is not a single theory. It encompasses all manner of other theories. Cell theory, DNA sequencing theory, etc. Every single one of these is tested, many are used or tested every single day.
S_David
#25
Nov15-12, 03:22 PM
P: 599
Quote Quote by Drakkith View Post
What?



Nonsense. The theory of evolution is not a single theory. It encompasses all manner of other theories. Cell theory, DNA sequencing theory, etc. Every single one of these is tested, many are used or tested every single day.
I am sorry, but how these tests related to evolution? Let us take DNA, how DNA proves evolution, for example?
Drakkith
#26
Nov15-12, 03:30 PM
Mentor
Drakkith's Avatar
P: 11,844
Also, the best evidence for evolution is that the theory itself predicts things that we then find AFTER predicting it. This is perhaps the greatest clue that any theory is correct. It predicts things that are then found to match observations after this prediction. Practically anyone with some spare time could explain why the Moon orbits the Earth, but forming a theory that both explains it, other similar events, and then makes predictions which turn out to be true is FAR more difficult.

Evolution and all the supporting theories make predictions. Things like DNA being passed on, DNA mutations, missing or malfunctioning organs of different species, and thousands upon thousands of other predictions have been observed. We can say "Ok, IF evolution is true, what should we find?" And then we make a huge list. And guess what? We find it.
Drakkith
#27
Nov15-12, 03:35 PM
Mentor
Drakkith's Avatar
P: 11,844
Quote Quote by S_David View Post
I am sorry, but how these tests related to evolution? Let us take DNA, how DNA proves evolution, for example?
Nothing PROVES evolution. Get that out of your head right now or this conversation is going to go nowhere. Stop looking for PROOF and start looking for EVIDENCE.

Anyways, DNA supports evolution by providing a means for organisms to transfer genetic information to their offspring. This information, in the form of DNA, is subject to change from random mutations, leading to the creation of new genes which lead, over time, to large changes in a species and the creation of new species. Natural selection provides a way to remove genes that do not contribute to their own replication in a species by killing off those organisms before they can pass on their genetic information. Either through being less able to keep themselves alive, or by making it more difficult to pass on their genes in some way.
micromass
#28
Nov15-12, 03:36 PM
Mentor
micromass's Avatar
P: 18,246
Quote Quote by S_David View Post
Thank you, but my point is not to support my beliefs for example or so, rather I need to know what are the scientific objections, to have unbiased opinion about evolution.
How can you know the objections if you don't know what the theory is in the first place?? You first have to learn the theory and only then can you understand the things that are not known yet!! It doesn't make sense to start with the objections.

If you want to be honest with yourself, then you need to keep an open mind. Pick up a book on evolution and work through it. Understand what they say, understand the evidence, understand the experiments. I don't ask you to accept evolution, but I ask you to study it. After you studied the theory and after you know it well, then you can ask what the objections are. And if the book you're reading is any good, it will tell you the unsolved problems with evolution. But you can't start with the objections without understanding the theory first.

It is hard if not impossible to examine evolution, so it is not like physical or other theories which can be tested using experiments.
No, that is completely wrong. Evolution is a theory that can be verified by experiments. If you research evolution a bit, then you will understand it.

Here is one (of the many) experiments that has been done. It is known that monkeys have one chromosome less than humans. The theory of evolution states that humans and monkeys had a common ancestor. So we theorize that in some way the chromosomes must have been fused together. This is a theory that we can test. If we can not verify that the chromosomes fused together, then there is a huge problem for evolution. So we need to test this.
How do we test this? We can't go back in time and observe exactly what happened. However, we can test it in a more indirect way. It is known that all chromosomes have a start and stop sequence. That is: at the start of a chromosome and at the end, there are things that say that the chromosome starts or stops here.
So if it is true that the chromosomes fused together, then we must find a human chromosome such that in the middle of it, there is a start and stop sequence. A start and stop sequence in the middle of the chromosome would be unexpected.
And guess what?? Such a thing is exactly what they found!! They searched for it and they found it. So that is direct evidence that the two chromosomes may have fused together in some point in time. And this is also evidence that the theory of evolution is right: indeed, we predicted that something like this should happen, and it did!

These are the kind of experiments we do. An other experiment is the following: the theory of evolution would imply that living beings gradually increased in complexity. So if we would find a fossil of a very complex being that lived billions of years ago, then the theory of evolution would be wrong. But we have not found such a being. In fact: all the fossils that have been found are all consistent with evolution! This is powerful evidence for evolution.

So it is not because we cannot observe something in a lab, that we can not test it.
Evolution is no different from other scientific theories: we make a hypothesis and we do an experiment to test it.

It is not true that we have to observe something in order for it to be true. For example, the (former) planet Pluto has been discovered in 1930. But it takes 247 years for Pluto to revolve around the sun. So this implies that we have never actually verified that Pluto indeed revolves around the sun. Does that means that it doesn't?? Of course not, there are other ways to test this hypothesis. So even if you cannot verify something directly, that doesn't mean that there is no way to do experiments to falsify or verify a theory!
Czcibor
#29
Nov15-12, 03:45 PM
P: 78
Quote Quote by S_David View Post
I mean religious as God-believing not an ideology-believing sense. I still do not understand, can you enlighten me, what is Lamarckism? and what it has to do with evolution?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism

It wouldn't be an evolution in the classical sense (random mutations + selection) but inheriting characteristic acquired by parents. In XIXth century it was a seriously considered alternative for Darwinism.
Ibix
#30
Nov15-12, 04:13 PM
P: 378
Lamarck argued for evolution by the passing on of acquired characteristics. Darwin argued for evolution by the passing on of innate characteristics. What does this mean? Imagine a proto-giraffe - it probably looks something like a horse. It likes to eat the tender leaves high up on trees - so it stretches upwards with its neck.

Lamarck argued that the children of this proto-giraffe would have longer necks because the parents had done a lot of neck-stretching and had acquired longer necks. These children stretch upwards too, so their children have longer necks still.

Darwin argued that some of the children of the proto-giraffe would have longer necks and some shorter necks. When push comes to shove, the ones with the longer necks have access to more food - they can reach low leaves and high leaves, whereas their shorter-necked friends can only reach the lower leaves. So the longer necked ones are less likely to die childless - so they get to pass on their innate long-necks to the next generation.

Both theories make a prediction - Lamarck says that there must be some kind of mechanism that will allow the proto-giraffe's children to have longer necks because the parents stretched their necks a lot. Darwin says that there must be a mechanism that will allow an organism to make an imperfect copy of itself.

DNA does what Darwin needs; we know of no mechanism that would allow what Lamarck was talking about - so Lamarck's ideas fell by the wayside.

DNA does not prove evolution is right - as others have noted, there is no such thing in science. But if we could not find something like DNA, something that takes a bit of your mother and a bit of your father and a few random twiddles and makes a new organism, then that would be a huge question mark over the theory.

And this is the thing - every time we have made a prediction from evolutionary theory, it has come true. No other theory of the development of life can say the same.
S_David
#31
Nov15-12, 04:34 PM
P: 599
Quote Quote by micromass View Post
How can you know the objections if you don't know what the theory is in the first place?? You first have to learn the theory and only then can you understand the things that are not known yet!! It doesn't make sense to start with the objections.

If you want to be honest with yourself, then you need to keep an open mind. Pick up a book on evolution and work through it. Understand what they say, understand the evidence, understand the experiments. I don't ask you to accept evolution, but I ask you to study it. After you studied the theory and after you know it well, then you can ask what the objections are. And if the book you're reading is any good, it will tell you the unsolved problems with evolution. But you can't start with the objections without understanding the theory first.



No, that is completely wrong. Evolution is a theory that can be verified by experiments. If you research evolution a bit, then you will understand it.

Here is one (of the many) experiments that has been done. It is known that monkeys have one chromosome less than humans. The theory of evolution states that humans and monkeys had a common ancestor. So we theorize that in some way the chromosomes must have been fused together. This is a theory that we can test. If we can not verify that the chromosomes fused together, then there is a huge problem for evolution. So we need to test this.
How do we test this? We can't go back in time and observe exactly what happened. However, we can test it in a more indirect way. It is known that all chromosomes have a start and stop sequence. That is: at the start of a chromosome and at the end, there are things that say that the chromosome starts or stops here.
So if it is true that the chromosomes fused together, then we must find a human chromosome such that in the middle of it, there is a start and stop sequence. A start and stop sequence in the middle of the chromosome would be unexpected.
And guess what?? Such a thing is exactly what they found!! They searched for it and they found it. So that is direct evidence that the two chromosomes may have fused together in some point in time. And this is also evidence that the theory of evolution is right: indeed, we predicted that something like this should happen, and it did!

These are the kind of experiments we do. An other experiment is the following: the theory of evolution would imply that living beings gradually increased in complexity. So if we would find a fossil of a very complex being that lived billions of years ago, then the theory of evolution would be wrong. But we have not found such a being. In fact: all the fossils that have been found are all consistent with evolution! This is powerful evidence for evolution.

So it is not because we cannot observe something in a lab, that we can not test it.
Evolution is no different from other scientific theories: we make a hypothesis and we do an experiment to test it.

It is not true that we have to observe something in order for it to be true. For example, the (former) planet Pluto has been discovered in 1930. But it takes 247 years for Pluto to revolve around the sun. So this implies that we have never actually verified that Pluto indeed revolves around the sun. Does that means that it doesn't?? Of course not, there are other ways to test this hypothesis. So even if you cannot verify something directly, that doesn't mean that there is no way to do experiments to falsify or verify a theory!
Interesting!! About DNA, is fusion of two chromosomes all what we find in difference between humans and apes?
S_David
#32
Nov15-12, 04:34 PM
P: 599
Quote Quote by Czcibor View Post
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism

It wouldn't be an evolution in the classical sense (random mutations + selection) but inheriting characteristic acquired by parents. In XIXth century it was a seriously considered alternative for Darwinism.
Thanks
S_David
#33
Nov15-12, 04:34 PM
P: 599
Quote Quote by Ibix View Post
Lamarck argued for evolution by the passing on of acquired characteristics. Darwin argued for evolution by the passing on of innate characteristics. What does this mean? Imagine a proto-giraffe - it probably looks something like a horse. It likes to eat the tender leaves high up on trees - so it stretches upwards with its neck.

Lamarck argued that the children of this proto-giraffe would have longer necks because the parents had done a lot of neck-stretching and had acquired longer necks. These children stretch upwards too, so their children have longer necks still.

Darwin argued that some of the children of the proto-giraffe would have longer necks and some shorter necks. When push comes to shove, the ones with the longer necks have access to more food - they can reach low leaves and high leaves, whereas their shorter-necked friends can only reach the lower leaves. So the longer necked ones are less likely to die childless - so they get to pass on their innate long-necks to the next generation.

Both theories make a prediction - Lamarck says that there must be some kind of mechanism that will allow the proto-giraffe's children to have longer necks because the parents stretched their necks a lot. Darwin says that there must be a mechanism that will allow an organism to make an imperfect copy of itself.

DNA does what Darwin needs; we know of no mechanism that would allow what Lamarck was talking about - so Lamarck's ideas fell by the wayside.

DNA does not prove evolution is right - as others have noted, there is no such thing in science. But if we could not find something like DNA, something that takes a bit of your mother and a bit of your father and a few random twiddles and makes a new organism, then that would be a huge question mark over the theory.

And this is the thing - every time we have made a prediction from evolutionary theory, it has come true. No other theory of the development of life can say the same.
That was helpful. Thanks
Darwin123
#34
Nov15-12, 04:58 PM
P: 741
Quote Quote by S_David View Post
Are you saying that I can not find one single non-religious biologist who argues against evolution? I need to know this
Hoyle is probably the best example of a nonreligious scientist who didn’t believe in evolution. His work in cosmology was once considered mainstream science. Some of his theories still resurface from time to time. Therefore, I think that a discussion of Hoyle would satisfy the rules of this forum (barely).


Hoyle was very famous with respect to one theoretical aspect of astronomy. I take it his work in cosmology was considered pretty good at one time. However, he was very poor in science outside his specialty. To me, his story is a cautionary tale on the dangers of combining overspecialization with extrapolation.

Hoyle is a scientist who seems to understand cosmology to a large degree. Even when he is wrong about cosmology, he his speculations are plausible enough to stimulate thought. However, he didn't know chemistry and he didn't know biology. He extrapolated some of the ideas that he had regarding cosmology to biology. He tried to make a biological theory consistent with his steady state model, which is wrong!

Hoyle was an astronomer who did not believe in the theory of evolution. He was not religious, and could be called an atheist He was well thought of as an astronomer, although few of his astronomical theories have been observationally confirmed. He is most famous for championing the “steady state model” of the universe. I think most of this work involved variations on general relativity. He interpreted all astronomy in terms of his “steady state model.”

Although one could consider him a “real scientist” with respect to astronomy, I do not consider Fred Hoyle a “real biologist”. His analysis of biology and chemistry was not rigorous or formal. Therefore, I don’t think that he was really a scientist in the broad sense.

I have read about some of his theories. I don’t think that he knew much about biology or organic chemistry. He made a large amount of mistakes. One calculation that he made which is commonly quoted is of the probability of a cell being formed by chance (10^-4000). However, I don’t think his analysis was really rigorous. In fact, I can’t even find a detailed reference to his calculation. Basically, he states the number without physical justification. His calculation was really numerology, not science.

Hoyles concept of the theory of evolution actually comes from Haekel, not Darwin. When debunking the theory of evolution, he looked for evidence showing that ontogeny does not recapitulate phylogeny. Since no other biologist including Darwin believed in that theory, the theory that he debunks is really a straw man. Hoyle doesn’t seem to know much about anatomy either.

His idea of extraterrestrial viruses does not make sense since biological molecules are unstable. He did not know about DNA, RNA or protein transcription. We now know that the mere insertion of a genetic sequence can’t produce a new species. He seems to think viruses are raining down on earth keeps on causing saltations which are new species.

Note that his Intelligent Design is not religious. In Hoyles mind, extraterrestrial aliens created the biosphere of the earth. These ET’s were created by earlier ET’s. This may be logically consistent with his Steady State Theory.

Hoyle did not believe in the Big Bang. His models relied on the idea that the universe always existed and always will exist. Therefore, there is an infinite series of living creatures that keep making up the next round of living creatures.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle
In his later years, Hoyle became a staunch critic of theories of abiogenesis used to explain the origin of life on Earth. With Chandra Wickramasinghe, Hoyle promoted the theory that the first life on Earth began in space, spreading through the universe via panspermia, and that evolution on earth is influenced by a steady influx of viruses arriving via comets. Wickramasinghe wrote in 2003 "In the highly polarized polemic between Darwinism and creationism, our position is unique. Although we do not align ourselves with either side, both sides treat us as opponents. Thus we are outsiders with an unusual perspective—and our suggestion for a way out of the crisis has not yet been considered".[11]
In 1982 Hoyle presented Evolution from Space for the Royal Institution's Omni Lecture. After considering what he thought of as a very remote probability of Earth-based abiogenesis he concluded:
If one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of...
—Fred Hoyle[12]
Published in his 1982/1984 books Evolution from Space (co-authored with Chandra Wickramasinghe), Hoyle calculated that the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest living cell without panspermia was one in 1040,000. Since the number of atoms in the known universe is infinitesimally tiny by comparison (1080), he argued that Earth as life's place of origin could be ruled out. He claimed:
The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.
Hoyle, a lifelong atheist, anti-theist and Darwinist said that this apparent suggestion of a guiding hand left him "greatly shaken." Those who advocate the intelligent design (ID) belief sometimes cite Hoyle's work in this area to support the claim that the universe was fine tuned in order to allow intelligent life to be possible. Alfred Russel of the Uncommon Descent community has even gone so far as labeling Hoyle "an atheist for ID".[13]

Please note that his analogies don’t correspond to the theories of real biologists or chemists. The process that he describes does not even correspond to the theories of abiogenesis on earth. I suspect that he doesn’t know much about chemistry at all. His knowledge of natural history is also abysmal, but I don’t want to get into that right now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle%27s_fallacy
“According to Hoyle's analysis, the probability of cellular life evolving was about one-in-1040000. He commented:
The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.
Which is a reflection of his stance reported elsewhere:
Life as we know it is, among other things, dependent on at least 2000 different enzymes. How could the blind forces of the primal sea manage to put together the correct chemical elements to build enzymes?[4]”


If you want to sort through Hoyles mathematical arguments, get this book. Here is a link to a book where he makes the calculations themselves. I noticed that I can’t accept the assumptions that he makes in just the first few sentences. Maybe you can get further.
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho46.htm
“Fred Hoyle was a lifelong Darwin, Darwinism and evolution critic. Every Darwin critic appears to know his famous Boeing-747 story to criticise the origin of life by pure chance. The story was much quoted, often without access to the original source. Mathematics of Evolution originally circulated as copies of a hand-written manuscript back in 1987, and has now for the first time been printed.”


Please note that we know a lot more about genetics that was known in Hoyles time. Furthermore, Hoyle did not know even as much about genetics as was known then.

Worse, Hoyles doesn't understand thermodynamics. In his steady state universe, the second law of thermodynamics can't be true. So there is no thermodynamics in anything that he writes. So anytime he makes a calculation involving chemistry, watch out!
S_David
#35
Nov15-12, 05:22 PM
P: 599
Quote Quote by Darwin123 View Post
Hoyle is probably the best example of a nonreligious scientist who didn’t believe in evolution. His work in cosmology was once considered mainstream science. Some of his theories still resurface from time to time. Therefore, I think that a discussion of Hoyle would satisfy the rules of this forum (barely).


Hoyle was very famous with respect to one theoretical aspect of astronomy. I take it his work in cosmology was considered pretty good at one time. However, he was very poor in science outside his specialty. To me, his story is a cautionary tale on the dangers of combining overspecialization with extrapolation.

Hoyle is a scientist who seems to understand cosmology to a large degree. Even when he is wrong about cosmology, he his speculations are plausible enough to stimulate thought. However, he didn't know chemistry and he didn't know biology. He extrapolated some of the ideas that he had regarding cosmology to biology. He tried to make a biological theory consistent with his steady state model, which is wrong!

Hoyle was an astronomer who did not believe in the theory of evolution. He was not religious, and could be called an atheist He was well thought of as an astronomer, although few of his astronomical theories have been observationally confirmed. He is most famous for championing the “steady state model” of the universe. I think most of this work involved variations on general relativity. He interpreted all astronomy in terms of his “steady state model.”

Although one could consider him a “real scientist” with respect to astronomy, I do not consider Fred Hoyle a “real biologist”. His analysis of biology and chemistry was not rigorous or formal. Therefore, I don’t think that he was really a scientist in the broad sense.

I have read about some of his theories. I don’t think that he knew much about biology or organic chemistry. He made a large amount of mistakes. One calculation that he made which is commonly quoted is of the probability of a cell being formed by chance (10^-4000). However, I don’t think his analysis was really rigorous. In fact, I can’t even find a detailed reference to his calculation. Basically, he states the number without physical justification. His calculation was really numerology, not science.

Hoyles concept of the theory of evolution actually comes from Haekel, not Darwin. When debunking the theory of evolution, he looked for evidence showing that ontogeny does not recapitulate phylogeny. Since no other biologist including Darwin believed in that theory, the theory that he debunks is really a straw man. Hoyle doesn’t seem to know much about anatomy either.

His idea of extraterrestrial viruses does not make sense since biological molecules are unstable. He did not know about DNA, RNA or protein transcription. We now know that the mere insertion of a genetic sequence can’t produce a new species. He seems to think viruses are raining down on earth keeps on causing saltations which are new species.

Note that his Intelligent Design is not religious. In Hoyles mind, extraterrestrial aliens created the biosphere of the earth. These ET’s were created by earlier ET’s. This may be logically consistent with his Steady State Theory.

Hoyle did not believe in the Big Bang. His models relied on the idea that the universe always existed and always will exist. Therefore, there is an infinite series of living creatures that keep making up the next round of living creatures.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle
In his later years, Hoyle became a staunch critic of theories of abiogenesis used to explain the origin of life on Earth. With Chandra Wickramasinghe, Hoyle promoted the theory that the first life on Earth began in space, spreading through the universe via panspermia, and that evolution on earth is influenced by a steady influx of viruses arriving via comets. Wickramasinghe wrote in 2003 "In the highly polarized polemic between Darwinism and creationism, our position is unique. Although we do not align ourselves with either side, both sides treat us as opponents. Thus we are outsiders with an unusual perspective—and our suggestion for a way out of the crisis has not yet been considered".[11]
In 1982 Hoyle presented Evolution from Space for the Royal Institution's Omni Lecture. After considering what he thought of as a very remote probability of Earth-based abiogenesis he concluded:
If one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of...
—Fred Hoyle[12]
Published in his 1982/1984 books Evolution from Space (co-authored with Chandra Wickramasinghe), Hoyle calculated that the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest living cell without panspermia was one in 1040,000. Since the number of atoms in the known universe is infinitesimally tiny by comparison (1080), he argued that Earth as life's place of origin could be ruled out. He claimed:
The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.
Hoyle, a lifelong atheist, anti-theist and Darwinist said that this apparent suggestion of a guiding hand left him "greatly shaken." Those who advocate the intelligent design (ID) belief sometimes cite Hoyle's work in this area to support the claim that the universe was fine tuned in order to allow intelligent life to be possible. Alfred Russel of the Uncommon Descent community has even gone so far as labeling Hoyle "an atheist for ID".[13]

Please note that his analogies don’t correspond to the theories of real biologists or chemists. The process that he describes does not even correspond to the theories of abiogenesis on earth. I suspect that he doesn’t know much about chemistry at all. His knowledge of natural history is also abysmal, but I don’t want to get into that right now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle%27s_fallacy
“According to Hoyle's analysis, the probability of cellular life evolving was about one-in-1040000. He commented:
The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.
Which is a reflection of his stance reported elsewhere:
Life as we know it is, among other things, dependent on at least 2000 different enzymes. How could the blind forces of the primal sea manage to put together the correct chemical elements to build enzymes?[4]”


If you want to sort through Hoyles mathematical arguments, get this book. Here is a link to a book where he makes the calculations themselves. I noticed that I can’t accept the assumptions that he makes in just the first few sentences. Maybe you can get further.
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho46.htm
“Fred Hoyle was a lifelong Darwin, Darwinism and evolution critic. Every Darwin critic appears to know his famous Boeing-747 story to criticise the origin of life by pure chance. The story was much quoted, often without access to the original source. Mathematics of Evolution originally circulated as copies of a hand-written manuscript back in 1987, and has now for the first time been printed.”


Please note that we know a lot more about genetics that was known in Hoyles time. Furthermore, Hoyle did not know even as much about genetics as was known then.

Worse, Hoyles doesn't understand thermodynamics. In his steady state universe, the second law of thermodynamics can't be true. So there is no thermodynamics in anything that he writes. So anytime he makes a calculation involving chemistry, watch out!
Are you saying his calculations are not correct? What is the probability then the non living material becomes living, and what is the probability that the simplest form of life to evolve to a more complicated new species based on modern biologist?
micromass
#36
Nov15-12, 05:24 PM
Mentor
micromass's Avatar
P: 18,246
Quote Quote by S_David View Post
Are you saying his calculations are not correct? What is the probability then the non living material becomes living, and what is the probability that the simplest form of life to evolve to a more complicated new species based on modern biologist?
I don't think there is any way to accurately calculate that probability. There are just so many factors involved.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Evolution vs. Creationism debate - help needed General Discussion 266
More Americans accept theory of creationism than evolution Current Events 70
Evolution of Creationism General Discussion 38
Creationism VS Evolution General Discussion 1
Is evolution real. Biology 127