Was
Darwin
Wrong?
Was Darwin Wrong? | Home | Intro | About | Feedback | Prev | Next | Search | |
"The basic thesis of the book is that the cosmos is uniquely fit for human existence". (p xii) "The atom-building system is designed specifically to generate the elements of life." (p76). [italics are mine] |
||
|
Part One of my review of
Nature's Destiny discussed Denton's new evolutionary views, in part II I am trying to understand
the basic thesis of Nature's Destiny. The first problem I have is that Denton is not
clear about what his basic thesis is: biocentric or anthropocentric? My second problem
is what is the nature of his basic thesis? Is it science, metaphysics or religion? I would advise the reader to pay attention to the way he formulates his thesis. One mostly encounters the expression "fit for carbon-based life"; "biocentric adaptations in the design of the cosmos"(p14); "the universe is profoundly biocentric and gives every appearance of having been specially designed for life."(p16). But also: "The basic thesis of the book, that the cosmos is uniquely fit for human existence" (xii). Remarkably, when it comes to a formulation of a falsifiable scientific hypothesis he gives: "the cosmos is uniquely fit for life"(p386) in stead off "uniquely fit for humans". My point is that Denton switches easily between life and human and mostly uses life. Why not consistently claim 'the cosmos is anthropocentric' ? A biocentric cosmos would not satisfy a theist. The Earth with life but without human life, would be a failure. |
||
| Evidence |
I think Denton does not consistently claim anthropocentric fine tuning because the evidence is
enough for life, but nonexistent for human fine tuning. His case for anthropocentric
design would be convincing if he could give
properties of nature specifically and exclusively designed for humans and
not for chimpanzees or air-breathing organisms. But he doesn't and he can't.
This will be difficult if not impossible because humans and chimps differ genetically only 1%.
Denton writes that "Six adaptations have been widely cited as being crucial to the unique
success of our species: intelligence, language, good vision, the hand, walking upright, social."
No problem with that. But those features are evolutionary adaptations under the influence
of natural selection and are no examples of fine tuning of physical-chemical laws.
From the fact that the human species has 6 unique adaptations,
I would conclude the origin of the human species is improbable. In fact Denton agrees with
me because he gives a chance of one in a million for the origin of Homo sapiens on an
earth-like planet (p388). This is hardly an inevitable event!
Further, Denton is really confusing us when he discusses 'Inertia'(!), 'The speed of nerve
conduction', 'The size of nerve axons',etc. in the chapter 'Homo Sapiens'.
These topics do not belong exclusively to humans, but by placing them in the chapter,
Denton suggests they do. When will a writer stand up who writes in an unbiased way about
these matters? (14) When I read in chapter 15 his story about the extraordinary eye of the lobster, and I realized that the lobster is in possession of the only perfect natural square in the cosmos, I can draw one and only one conclusion: the universe was designed with the lobster in mind. |
|
| the nature of his claim |
My second problem is: what is the nature of his claim ?
I start with the second quote: "The atom-building system is designed specifically to generate the
elements of life". The context of the quote is this:
All the elements were synthesized in the interior of the stars,
starting with the most simple: Hydrogen. Through a process of fusion
by which atoms combine with each other in various ways, gradually all the
92 naturally occurring atoms of the periodic table are built up. I think it is interesting and important that organisms depend upon (and are constrained by) highly specific properties of the chemical elements. It's also important for the question of 'replaying the tape of evolution'. (11) The properties of chemical elements (such as iron and oxygen) are preconditions for large vertebrates not often considered in the literature on evolutionary constraints. If that is Denton's message, I agree (14). But then Denton states that the atom-building system is designed to generate the elements of life. Whatever the evidence he thinks supports his claim, think about the claim itself. It is an answer to the question: "What is the purpose of the atom-building system ?", which is a teleological question. Please note that the usual kind of question in physics is "What are the causes of the atom-building system ?" (the causal problem). Please note further that we are talking about a problem of the physics of stars, not a problem of biology. Biologists ask questions such as: "What is the purpose of the lungs?", whereas physicists usually don't ask: "What is the purpose of the sun, the planets, the moon ?". Denton does not say the question for causes is unimportant, but seems to think, the answer to that question doesn't explain everything and leaves the (metaphysical) "why-question" unanswered. Now let's have a look at the claim that the cosmos is uniquely fit for human existence, the basic thesis of Nature's Destiny. For Denton that means that all constituents of life are uniquely fit for life. In line with the "purpose-question" above, Denton uses the biological concepts 'adaptation', 'adapted for', 'fit' and 'fitness' for molecules and their properties. This is unusual, if not totally wrong, because in physics there is no known mechanism which explains how the fundamental properties of atoms become 'adapted to' future functions they have in organisms living on the planet earth. This is why Denton's basic thesis is metaphysics and not science. The error is easily overlooked because we know the concepts 'adapted' and 'fitness' so well in the Darwinian context: organisms are adapted for environments, not the other way round. The purpose-question in physics is inadequate, as is the use of 'adapted' and 'fit'. There is no variation and selection process in physics, so there is no 'adaptation'. The right way to express facts would be: organisms depend on a series of unique properties of the chemical elements; they utilize them. The reader who is getting used to Denton's use of 'fitness' now easily overlooks the big jump Denton makes: For example Denton calls the basic thesis of his book: 'the cosmos is uniquely fit for humans', but in other places he jumps to: 'designed for humans'. The jump of an, in principle, harmless descriptive statement to a metaphysical interpretation. Here are a few examples:
I will give 2 examples where Denton makes a teleological interpretation of the facts, but when he comes to explaining, he uses the causal explanation. This indicates to me that Denton's teleology cannot really explain, but merely interprets. Questions : "What is iron for ?"; "Why does iron have the properties it has?" If Denton is serious about 'iron is adapted for life', then a good answer would be: "Iron has these properties because large terrestrial vertebrates need iron in combination with hemoglobin to supply their organs with enough oxygen".It would surely be an oddity on the part of a modern physicist were he to accept this explanation for the properties of iron! Next let's consider Denton's claim that the light of the sun appears to be of optimal biological utility (p47). "Remarkably, although the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation in the cosmos varies over such a colossal range, 70 percent of the electromagnetic radiation emitted from the surface of the sun is concentrated in an exceedingly narrow radiation band extending from the near ultraviolet (0.3 microns) through the visible light range into the near infrared (1.50 microns)." (p 51)Question: Why is 70% of the electromagnetic radiation emitted from the surface of the sun, concentrated in an exceedingly narrow radiation band (0.3 - 1.5 microns) ? Denton's answer: "Because the sun's surface is 6.000ºC and all stars with that surface temperature have the same radiation pattern." (p51)Why not invoke the teleological explanation? : "Because only the range 0.3 - 1.5 micron is useful for life on earth."Although he favours this kind of interpretation, he doesn't use it as an explanation. In stead he uses a causal explanation. And to me this shows that biocentric 'explanations' aren't explanations at all. And that is because the biocentric theory is a metaphysical worldview, which doesn't permit scientific explanations. If the above teleological explanation sounds absurd, that is exactly the reason why teleological explanations have been eliminated long ago from physics. Does it help if we know that physical constants where designed for life? Does a teleological explanation help us in understanding the mechanism and processes underlying the behaviour of the sun ? Of course not! If scientifically useful, the teleological explanation should be able to answer question like: Why does there exist radiation harmful to life at all in a supposedly biocentric universe? and: If the sun's purpose is deliver useful energy for life on earth, why radiating harmful radiation at all? "The sun's ultraviolet light is the chief culprit in causing genetic mutations in skin cells".(12) George C. Williams developed an argument in Plan and Purpose in Nature (13), which I am unable to forget. If the sun exists to serve the planet earth, he asks, why should the sun radiate in all directions ? As a consequence the earth is able to intercept less than a billionth of the sun's light. The rest is radiated in space in all directions (for no use). The efficiency of the sun's use of energy in illuminating the earth, is microscopically small. Clearly a wasteful design! I could add that, since the sun has a finite lifespan and finite resources, it seems doubtful that the sun's purpose is to deliver a constant flow of energy to the earth for an unlimited time. Williams goes on to suggest that a reflector would strongly improve the efficiency of the sun. A reflector? Yes, that's what a human engineer would use to prevent wasteful radiation in all directions. So why could the sun-designer not use a reflector? Why impose such constraints upon the design of the sun? Denton does not discuss this inefficiency. Denton does not discuss at all how one could establish the design-criteria of the sun-designer, let alone in sufficiently precise way to handle the kind of objections Williams made. These considerations are further evidence that Denton's biocentric theory is not a scientific theory at all. Denton's conclusion 'Cosmological Fitness by Design' is really not much different from 'Biological fitness by Design'. And the last concept is supernatural creation of biological species. 'Fitness by design' is neo-creationism, is metaphysics, falls outside science. The inconsistency in Denton's story is that 'design' conflicts with "the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science." (p xviii), which he accepted. One difference with creationism is that Denton positions the supernatural at the origin of the universe and reduces the number of interventions to one. Another difference is that he needs evolutionary processes to produce life on the basis of the initial fine tuned conditions, which is vastly more ambitious than any creationist scenario. Science would need a couple of centuries to figure out how life is generated on the basis of an initial set of physical conditions. Denton told a nice story inspired by many scientific facts, but surely a metaphysical story. A fascinating metaphysical story, which relates human beings to many details of the cosmos. He showed that many unexpected physical details of the universe do matter for human existence. |
|
Is DNA uniquely fit for its task?
In Chapter 7 Denton discusses the question if DNA is uniquely fit for its task as
carrier of genetic information. Of course it is fit, otherwise we would not be here and
there would not exist a million species.
It is not scientifically nonsense to say that some properties of DNA are optimal. For example
mathematical simulations suggest that the 3-dimensional packing of DNA is optimal
(15). |
| |||
|
What about the ribose component of DNA? Schöning et al (17)
have synthesised a chemical analogue of RNA, which is derived from a sugar ring that contains
four carbons (tetrose) instead of the more usual five found in ribose. This simple RNA called TNA,
can form stable double helices with itself and also with complementary
RNAs and DNAs. The cross-pairing properties and the simplicity of its self-assembly make TNA a
good candidate for a natural nucleic acid and a possible precursor of DNA. Deoxy-ribose can replaced by a simpler sugar: threose. This kind of DNA, called TNA, can be assembled by natural enzymes. The amazing thing about TNA is that even though the sugar-phospate backbone is one carbon atom shorter than RNA or DNA, it still shows excellent base-pairing (20). What about amino acids? There are 20 amino acids occurring in proteins. Can other amino acids be incorporated into proteins? Schultz team has added now more than 80 different non-natural amino acids to proteins. Chin et al have developed a technique that potentially expands the eukaryotic genetic code with an arbitrary unnatural amino acid (21). So clearly those 20 are not the only possible amino acids. Concluding: Denton challenges the idea that any alternative DNAs could outperform natural DNA in terms of replication, stability, interaction with proteins, etc. On the other hand without those scientists searching for alternatives, we would never know if better alternatives exist at all. |
|||
|
The ethical issue
Osmium-oxide is the most poisonous substance on Earth.
Concentrations in the air of more than 2 parts per 10 billion (=1010) parts cause
blindness, lung- and kidney damage. This is an extreme low concentration.
So it is extremely effective.
Conclusion: Osmium-oxide is uniquely fit for killing humans. In other words:
Osmium-oxide gives every appearance of having been specially designed for damaging human life.
Or is it just a coincidence...?
Notes |
 |
homepage: www.wasdarwinwrong.com | http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho31.htm |
| Copyright © 1998 G.Korthof . | First published: 11 Sep 1998 | updated: 8 Nov 2003 FR: 12 Aug 2005 |
