To Be, Or Not To Be

I think nothing sums up the aggressive atheist’s bashfulness about reality like their famous “infinite monkey theory” – the idea that a monkey typing randomly would produce the works of Shakespeare, given an infinite period of time.

Having such a memorable image and a pleasantly surprising outcome, the idea has become deeply embedded; it is produced with a flourish so often that nobody ever questions it. This means anyone who tries to describe biological machinery as an engineering challenge no different than any other engineering challenge, and therefore requiring intelligence to solve, is laughingly swept aside with, “well, everyone knows if you give enough monkeys typewriters, they’ll produce Shakespeare.”  Just as Darwinism is a theory which says whatever survives must have survived, this argument also circles in on itself to handily prove anything you want, while the absurdity itself remains unexamined.

Incredibly, this yawning chasm is the Dawkinian crux of evolution: when bacteria evolve to beat antibiotics it is believed they do so randomly – aimlessly – and survive by natural selection.  But random changes must either happen all the time, or not at all.  It’s either the way of things, or it isn’t.

So if bacteria are beating current antibiotics randomly, with no intent to beat that particular antibiotic with novel pumps, sluices, ejector systems, protein slicers and various defensive machinery, they must be mutating sufficiently to defeat any conceivable antibiotic at the same time – a theoretical impossibility!  Actually this embarrassing theory is being ushered out the back on a stretcher, but the weaker human minds gravitate to dogma, and for dogma-driven biologists it’s become Zombie Science – a theory dead and decomposing, but which refuses to lie down and be buried.  Say it often enough and it must be true.

You, sir, are a zombie

Infinity is a handy mathematical concept that can never be applied practically since an unlimited quantity of anything is an impossibility.  The word is used so often that it seems real enough – like the over-used “I’m with you one thousand percent” and is produced when someone wants to express “a very large amount”.  It remains impossible to manage, being always a trillion times bigger than the largest amount you can imagine, then a trillion times bigger than a trillion times that.  Then keep doubling it every second for a trillion years.

The infinite monkey theorem confuses large spans of time with imaginary ones in which anything is possible.  The result is to pretend that infinity can be compared to a few billion years, since both seem equally difficult to imagine.  What this actually shows is the inability of the writer or speaker to conceive of a billion as quite a modest amount indeed.  Whenever a random evolutionist is asked how a complicated mechanical problem in biology came to be, all you get is a wave of the hand, a patronising, all-knowing grin and the inevitable riposte: “over billions of years, anything can happen.. take the infinite monkey theorem!”

It is the same mindset as someone who wins millions of dollars in a lottery and,  comparing this vast amount with the few hundred they’re used to spending each month, imagines it will last forever.  They are shocked to find, two years later, the whole lot has vanished and the bailiffs are knocking at the door.

I’m still not convinced

The one thing never acknowledged is that the theory works equally well in reverse.  That is, if random evolution can create perfected design over infinity, then the likelihood of it occurring in the 4 billion years of Earth’s history is a trillion trillion trillion times less likely than one trillionth of a trillionth percent, and then you must keep halving it another trillion times.

It’s actually very easy to work out the mathematical odds.  Would it take as long as a day or a monkey to write something meaningful?  Surely not – a day is a long time in terms of seconds.  We know that!  Therefore it must be possible.

All we need is 26 characters x 2 (upper and lower case), a space, 10 digits, and maybe 4 crucial punctuation marks giving a total of 67 possibilities.  The total number of different combinations represents all possible phrases, not just a target phrase such as “To be, or not to be”, but also “Harry’s cat is blue”, “He owes me 10 bucks” and so on.

Yes, it’s a gorilla

“To be, or not to be” seems a trivial goal with 19 characters and only 6 different letters, but the random theory of evolution appeals to the dogmatics precisely for this mistaken impression.  The first character has 67 possibilities: at one character a second, about a minute.  There are the same 67 possibilities for the 2nd character, 67 for the 3rd and so on.  So each letter adds to the total by multiplying all previous ones by 67.  And that’s all you need to know.

The total 2-character possibilities are 67 x 67 or 4,489 which is an hour and a quarter’s worth; the odds of the first 3 characters being exactly what we want are 67 x 67 x 67 or one in 300,763 which is 84 solid hours’ work.  It’s more than a day, but much less than a year – which is a vast amount of time!  So this doesn’t seem such a problem.

Incidentally, some mathematical sleights-of-hand are needed to get around the difficulty.  The advice, like all atheistic proclamations, is packaged with a smug insult, in much the same way that GM crops produce their own toxins: “Well, clearly you don’t understand evolution. If we stop when we get the first character we want, and retain that until we get the second character right, and keep those two together until the third is found, it becomes manageable.” 

This seems to only because the maths are reduced to 67 + 67 + 67… which is a very different thing, though it retains a faint whiff of impending vastness.

But biology can’t work that way.  A single correct element is usless when surrounded by incorrect ones and therefore as useless to evolution as if it were incorrect.  The machinery works correctly only when all elements are the right type, and specified within the DNA in exactly the correct order.

If we take a typical protein with 540 precisely ordered amino acids, that protein folds and functions correctly only when each and every element has the correct affinity or repulsion to water, the right electrical charge – and is in exactly the right place: declaring the first two correct in the future context of 540 correct ones is something which is only possible when the whole thing is correct and cannot be known in advance.

Before that mathematically distant point, the two correct ones contribute to the chaos just as much as the ones declared incorrect.  It is as if you have a puzzle of sixty t-shaped wooden pieces which only assemble to make a cube in one possible way.  Placing the first two correctly helps only if all the rest are correct.  Until that point, the true status of the first two – are they correctly placed, or not? – cannot be known.  Their correctness will even be a hindrance to the majority of all other placements, since they only react correctly to one combination out of the millions of incorrect ones.  They look wrong until the whole thing is somehow worked out correctly.

This parlour trick is used by Richard Dawkins to good advantage to claim that proteins easily evolve step by step.  By mathematical reasoning alone this is impossible in any finite Universe.  This is the magic of reality.

By the 6th character, the total number is 67 to the power 6, or 90.4 billion seconds or 2,868 years of solid 24 hour days, one character a second, no sleep, no food.  By the first 8 characters we have only a one in 406 trillion chance of getting what we wanted – four times the total number of cells in the human body but in terms of time, 12.8 million years.

That’s a long time to wait

Getting the first 12 right has a one in 8,182,718,904,632,857,329,664 or 8 million quadrillion – the total number of seconds in 36,819 universes of 14 billion years each.  Or 36,819 monkeys over the entire age of the existing Universe giving one possibility of achieving “To be, or no” – and this is assuming we find a planet which formed in the first second after the Big Bang because the Earth is less than a third this age.

The odds of producing the whole phrase are one in 49, 593, 099, 428, 404, 262, 901, 012, 946, 248, 269, 824.  If the Universe was one trillion years old (which it isn’t) and if we had one trillion monkeys each workign randomly at one keystroke per second (which we can still imagine), and if we created a further 1,572 such Universes, populated in the same way, we stand one chance – a single chance – of achieving “To be, or not to be”.  We might get quite a few such occurrences – or we might get not a single one.

Is it really worth it?

Every conceivable language is possible, including a kind of Morse code.  But the laws governing ordered systems are such that each typed character reduces the likelihood of getting an acceptable possibility following it.  This is why computer software systems reach the point of high likelihood of “failure after modification” at a certain point of complexity, because the intelligence required to know the effect of one change on every aspect of the entire system starts to exceed the capacity of any one person, or, of any one system of checks and balances put into place by fallible human beings.

This is also why you cannot win at gambling for very long, and why books are much, much harder to finish writing than they are to start.  Blogs require less organisation because each entry is a discrete unit that does not need to fit into any overall arc of logic or plot.  If Creation = Energy  x Intelligence3 then an almost-zero intelligence will require an almost-infinite amount of energy to make anything worthwhile, which is exactly what we see when using any language.

Deriving creative intelligence from a finished product means measuring the number of combinations in that field which succeed compared to those which fail.  For example, an Unmade Bed can be defined as successfully Unmade in every conceivable permutation except one or two: the states at which it can be said to be completely ordered.  Therefore to create an Unmade Bed requires a small amount of energy but almost zero intelligence than to make one called Made Bed, which requires planning and intelligence because one is aiming for the very small subset where all disordered parts are eliminated, just as a person throwing a dart at a map with the intention of precisely hitting a specific volcano in Mauii must use far more intelligence than if they were to simply throw a dart out of the window and into the street.

A person could indeed throw a vast number of darts at random, but the odds of ever hitting the volcano in Mauii remain terribly small even after the millionth throw, because the result of any throw never changes the odds of the next one, while the energy required to keep trying becomes enormous.  If we ask, from where does all this energy come from, the answer is from a dedicated system aimed at a specific purpose: typing a character, or throwing a dart – but all energy needs fuel, and all fuel needs a source.  These requirements are always kept out of the picture, to focus people’s minds on the hope that order can come out of nothing.  Unfortunately, impartial mathematics never bears this out.  In another example, a newborn baby is physically capable of forming all the vowels and consonants of any language on Earth: the muscles are all in place, although the neuronic connections are not.  By chance, it should still be possible for a newborn baby to accidentally pronounce a complicated word by fluke of exhaling and random movements of the vocal cords.  But despite billions upon billions of newborn babies watched over by adults every moment of their waking lives, there has never been a single case of this happening because the odds of any such occurrence are staggeringly small, and they remain so no matter how many billions of other random experiments are made.

Here we see the reverse of Random Evolutionism.  RE attempts to pass off an almost infinitely complex piece of work, the human body, as a meaningless assembly, unintentionally spewed out in nonsensical pieces by accident: to bend the law of order needs much creativity, which is what we see in the elaborate explanations of genetic skyhooks, memes, self-organising molecules, vast spans of time, etc etc.  This energy in the form of explanations is the evidence that something is missing in the theory itself.  Now, The Saatchi Gallery does exactly the reverse, and their intellect – if one can call it that – is to pass off a meaningless piece of rubbish as a work of creativity, in this case by Tracy Emin:

“A consummate storyteller, Tracey Emin engages the viewer with her candid exploration of universal emotions. Well-known for her confessional art, Tracey Emin reveals intimate details from her life to engage the viewer with her expressions of universal emotions. Her ability to integrate her work and personal life enables Emin to establish an intimacy with the viewer. Tracey shows us her own bed, in all its embarrassing glory. Empty booze bottles, fag butts, stained sheets, worn panties: the bloody aftermath of a nervous breakdown. By presenting her bed as art, Tracey Emin shares her most personal space, revealing she’s as insecure and imperfect as the rest of the world.” (Saatchi)

In genuine music, art, writing and science, the idea that random efforts lead to success is never taken seriously, if only because it forms a serious insult to anyone achieving anything by dint of a lifetime of research and hard work.  The very fact that doctorates, medals and awards are given for achievement is confirmation of this position.  The large number of failed attempts in all these fields compared to the small number which succeed is the ratio predicting the intelligence required: the level of rarity of a success also predicts the level of recognition granted for it.

The only exception is for writers such as Richard Dawkins, who believe the most complicated creations require no intelligence whatsoever to create.  And yet just to create their books, they claim large amounts of intelligence are required – otherwise, how can they ask for respect?  For writers such as these, the random theory of evolution is like saying we know we’ll lose, gambling against the house in a few games of roulette, but provided we keep gambling long enough, we’ll amass a vast, uncountable fortune.  If only!

Here’s the best way to write books about random evolution!

The problem of trying to replace intelligence through randomness  gets worse the more you look at it.  The complete works of Shakespeare would be useless without a person to read them.  All the monkeys’ output would need to be checked by intelligence, to decide on its value – for an infinite number of attempts, we also need an infinite number of intelligent entities checking everything and communicating with every other entity to know if the goal has been achieved.  Ironically an attempt to remove intelligence creates a situation in which an infinite amount of it is actually needed!

He’s got a point

A book is not composed of random characters, but layers of thought which are merely represented by letters.  The first layer might be a plot, the second, characters, the third perhaps events, the fourth some justification of the characters’ actions, and on top of all this are layers of vocabulary and writing style unique to the thinking of the writer.  It is thought which makes a book cohesive, informative or enjoyable; some universal quality of it might make it a classic.  Without intelligence, nothing can be created – if embodied life shows us anything at all, it is this.

The mind can instantly tell the difference between randomness and intelligence.  This natural ability recognises qualities related to our own; what is perceived as a grander reflection of order and consciousness has led to religion in its evolving forms.  The materialist lacks this ability and attributes everything to chaos, but the interpretative mind is active in this assessment, which makes it a projection of their own self.

The infinite monkeys concept has an interesting conclusion showing how poorly the theory even understands monkeys:

In 2003, scientists at Paignton Zoo and the University of Plymouth reported they had left a computer keyboard in the enclosure of six Sulawesi crested macaques for a month.

Not only did the monkeys produce nothing but five pages consisting largely of the letter S, they started by attacking the keyboard with a stone, and continued by urinating and defecating on it.


Hemoglobin: a sentence in the story of us

If you think those odds were bad, the odds against working genetic designs are far higher. The DNA alphabet is only 4 letters – GCAT, all arranged within the DNA in sets of 3, each set of 3 or “codon” specifying one of 20 amino acids.  An amino acid is just a fairly small molecule which can be joined to other such molecules to make much more complicated components (called proteins) which the body uses as part of its machinery.  It’s estimated there are about 2 million different kinds of proteins in the human body.  So you could say 4 letters make 20 words, and these words are combined into about 2 million completely different sentences.  The most complicated protein is called connectin, a component of muscle tissue, a sentence containing 26,926 words.  The DNA is divided into 23 chromosones, which you could call chapters, together making the story of a unique human being.

Then just print off 100 trillion copies or so and voila!  A best seller.

The protein molecule hemoglobin has 534 codon “words” specifying amino acids, which means a total of 1,602 characters.  There are start-and-stop amino acids too, but they are more like punctuation.  Hemoglobin has a very, very precise structure – and the total number of different ways it can be messed up is staggering: 20 to the power 534.  There’s no way to imagine such a number.  If you tried to write it down, it would probably go right the way around your living room.  The total number of atoms in the Universe is 10 followed by 80 zeros, but 20 just to the power 147 is 178 followed by 189 zeros!  Let alone hemoglobin, can you imagine the different ways to wrongly assemble connectin – 20 to the power 26,926.   Remember there are two million such different devices as part of the human body design, any one of which might need trillions of copies, as well as all the machinery to read, store, manufacture, error-check, and deliver them.

Human beings are not constructed in the womb – they develop: in fact, all the major organ systems are initiated within the first few weeks after conception.  If biological processes are inherently random, as Darwinism insists in all the cases from the past which we can no longer witness, where then is the corollary of this behaviour in the developments we can witness?

Biological duplication is the very opposite of this exponential drive toward a galaxy of waste.  The human body’s growth from a single cell also follows an exponential path, but creates order, without chaos.  One perfect cell becomes 2, then 4, 8, 16… until you have 100 trillion in the full grown body.  Where is the random mutation now?  We cannot just apply random mutation just to the gaps between species!  For it to be a valid process, we must apply it as equally probable in every biological process.  And these cells are not only duplicating, they’re differentiating, specialising, arranging and communicating between themselves in perfect harmony.  To prove this, look in the mirror and blink.

If random evolution were a genuine aspect of biological processes, then the odds of these cells wandering from what they are supposed to be through history would be the same within the human body now – the growth of the fetus is even said to be a mirror of our evolutionary journey.  But 100 trillion specialised, arranged, and perfectly co-ordinated cells is precisely the opposite of random wandering.  And the same perfected system of copying is present in the building of every single life form now on Earth: every genus, every species, every member.

Not only that, some life forms have remained consistent for getting on to half a billion years.  Individual variations within species are normal, but they are variations within a strictly defined set of parameters, and these depend on genetic parameters. Species are known for consistency – some have remained constant for hundreds of millions of years.  Where then, is the randomness on which Darwinism relies? The argument that forms such as the ant, the fly, the wasp – or even the coelacanth – do not change because they are successful is incorrect since all forms must be successul to exist even a few moments: whether we wish the problem away to the distant past, or try to deal with it in the present, mathematically we can prove that there is order within the Universe, and not chaos.

With the odds against successful biological machinery being so astronomical, so impossibly and unimaginably vast, it’s small wonder the materialists need to completely ignore them.

1,728 letters make up the blueprint for assembling the hemoglobin molecule, and even a small error can ruin the mechanism, causing dangerous and painful conditions such as sickle cell anemia. The fetus uses a specialised version of it which functions more effectively within the conditions of the womb.

“Hemoglobin is a remarkable molecular machine that uses motion and small structural changes to regulate its action. Oxygen binding at the four heme sites in hemoglobin does not happen simultaneously. Once the first heme binds oxygen, it introduces small changes in the structure of the corresponding protein chain.

These changes nudge the neighboring chains into a different shape, making them bind oxygen more easily. Thus, it is difficult to add the first oxygen molecule, but binding the second, third and fourth oxygen molecules gets progressively easier and easier. This provides a great advantage in hemoglobin function.

When blood is in the lungs, where oxygen is plentiful, oxygen easily binds to the first subunit and then quickly fills up the remaining ones. Then, as blood circulates through the body, the oxygen level drops while that of carbon dioxide increases. In this environment, hemoglobin releases its bound oxygen.

As soon as the first oxygen molecule drops off, the protein starts changing its shape. This prompts the remaining three oxygens to be quickly released. In this way, hemoglobin picks up the largest possible load of oxygen in the lungs, and delivers all of it where and when needed.” (Protein Data Bank)

Red blood cells travelling through an artery: each red blood cell contains around 300 million hemoglobin molecules, each of which can carry 4 oxygen molecules for delivery to the cells.  Notice the folded structure of the artery wall and surrounding tissue, allowing it to expand, and absorb changes in flow pressure

Hemoglobin molecule has four iron platforms to which four oxygen molecules magnetise – thus making oxygen evenly distributable within fluid – a theoretical impossibility, but essential for our embodied life – and removable by cells at the far end of the hemoglobin’s journey.   What are the odds?  Go figure!

About iain carstairs

I have a great interest in both scientific advances and the beauty of religion, and created about 15 years ago with the aim of finding common ground between the scientist and the believer, and to encourage debate between the two sides.
This entry was posted in Biology, Designs in nature, Evolution, William Shakespeare and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to To Be, Or Not To Be

  1. Yuzem says:

    Hi, great post.
    I may be missing something but it seems that there is something wrong with your calculations.
    You say that 90.4 billion are 47.8 years of solid 24 hour days – My result is 1046972 years (90458382169÷60÷60÷24)
    Then 406 trillion = 12.8 million years.
    4,060676776×10¹⁴÷60÷60÷24 = 4699857379
    I didn’t check the rest but let me know if there is something I missing or if I’m correct because I’m not a mathematician.

    • Thanks for the comment – and now, I see we are both wrong..!

      You forgot that as we’re counting seconds, dividing by 60 then 60 then 24 gives days, and dividing that by 365 gives years. Which gives the correct figure of 2,868 years. I think in my first draft I must have been estimating 60 characters per second, which would give 47.8 years, and I didn’t spot the error.

      I’ll change the text, as 2,868 years is an even more impressive length of time. Thanks again

      • Yuzem says:

        Ahhh! How could I forgot the conversion to years?
        Thank you very much for your fast reply, you saved me from posting the wrong numbers in another post.

      • I guess news travels fast on the internet! I checked the next calculation and it was sound, so as far as I know, the other info is correct.

        I could check it randomly of course, but I’ve worked out it would take eleven trillion years and by that time I don’t think it will matter much

  2. flockysheep says:

    I have an interest in both science and Art and enjoyed your article. however I think your take on “random” needs some more thought, while genetic mutation are random and more likely to lead to an impaired or non functional biology, hence the name “mutation”, evolution is not about single point mutations its a 4 billion year long assemblage, made from independant parts working in an environment. You cannot consider biology without the total landscape and the time frame, anymore than you could consider the development of a fetus without a womb or a gestation period. Something even as simple as plant growth is a consequence of the entire history of evolution right back to nucleosynthesis as well as the present immediate environment. Once you have laws you don’t have random. Atoms cannot stick together at random, the degrees of freedom in a physical system (laws of physics) place constraints on random. As do all of chemistry, planetary formation, geology, ecology, geochemistry and biology.
    Every step in the history of us (our biology) from planet formation to abiogenesis reduces the degrees of freedom and reduces the impact of random consequences (a meteorite could still take out the planet though) physics, chemistry, carbon based chemistry and biology are seem as negative entropy.
    Most organisms evolve by means of two processes natural selection and sexual reproduction. The first determines which members of population survive and reproduce, and the second ensures mixing and recombination among the genes of their offspring. This mixing allows creatures to evolve much more rapidly than they would if each offspring simply contained a copy of the genes of a single parent, modified occasionally by mutation. Selection is simple: if an organism fails some test of fitness, such as recognizing a predator and fleeing, it dies.

    Selection is the key and in you monkey test you get nothing because not only have you eliminated selection you have eliminated reproduction and a fitness landscape.

    Even a genetic algorithm to write Shakespeare would improve the odds if you selected for fitter passages. Its been done and it proves the point.

    Your Shakespeare test is a fail anyway – evolution succeeded in getting monkeys to type Shakespeare in about 1580. It took 4 billion years though.

    • Thanks for reading, anyway! Fortunately my purely common-sense analysis is vindicated by an expert of 44 years in molecular biology – James A Shapiro, who cites 1200 publications to show that Darwin was wrong, about literally everything!

      Biologists have long agreed that the “tree of life” concept is dead and buried, but nobody dares say so. When New Scientist produced a cover of the tree of life with the title “Darwin was Wrong”, the chief randomisers went beserk. Dawkins even led a boycott of the magazine. Can you imagine, a boycott of a scientific publication because they dared to disagree with a 19th century guesser!

      Unlike the minds of the fluke-aholics, the genome is no place for random activity – it’s geared to specifically reject errors (how did that happen through errors? If errors make error detection machinery, then errors construct error-proof machinery to eliminate errors. This means errors have improved the system, but then the error-prevention machinery prevent new errors from improving it still further! Talk about a randominium topsy turvy world -it doesn’t make any sense!) and the codon mapping is geared to make errors negligible as far as is possible to do. Out of 10 to the power 40 possible aminoacid-codon mappings, the existing one is the strongest for error tolerance. Now that is lucky; like finding the one grain of sand you were looking for, on Mars.

      Darwin was wrong about purely vertical inheritance – even the simplest one-celled creatures rewire their genome: not randomly over generations, but on the spot in response to threats. They then code the new machinery into DNA – or retrieve cassettes of pre-configured DNA to assemble new products – and send the new DNA pieces to other microbes, so they also can be immune to the threats. This is commonly observed, and known for decades but nobody dares say “non random”. Horizontal inheritance even works between different species, but nobody quite knows how or why; it’s harder to track the history of horizontal inheritance because it’s seamlessly incorporated into the genome, but it is observed in the present, and all the tools to accommodate it are present.

      The large number of known cases (millions in humans) of multiple-site duplicated components (some of them thousands of bases long) in the DNA show that random wanderings didn’t generate them. How could they, in a system so highly organised and totally geared to reject and elininate errors? But the arrogant view of DNA as a place of infinite failures was made clear when Dawkins trumpeted that “the genome is full of dead and useless designs which never worked.. 99% of it is junk.” But this isn’t so. The complexity of the organism is proportional to the size of this “junk” and not to the number of genes. An apple, by comparison, has almost twice the number of genes as man. A grain of rice has about 30% more than us.

      Even the notion of the “gene” has no basis in reality. What we call a “gene” is not one strip but a series of separated areas brought together by RNA processes at assembly time in a way we don’t understand. So the random theory of DNA can’t be a causative factor: the causation producing “the gene” is a precision mechanism on another level we don’t yet understand.

      But never mind these ideas, a Scientific American study published in Oct 2010 proved that “natural selection” has had a neglible effect on the human genome. A broad-ranging study of SNPs showed that it only acted where natural environmental pressures remained constant for tens of thousands of years. Tens of thousands: as the authors say, “an exceptionally rare occurrence.” Oh dear. Hardly the quick fix we need for engineering. It’s a bit like watching a builder using emery cloth to shine the gatepost on a house and then concluding the whole nation of cities – skyscrapers, bridges, castles, cars, motorways and cathedrals – must have been built by a small piece of fine sandpaper. And then intense debates begin about how much water the sandpaper was dipped into first, or if perhaps there was a coarser sand on one side and so on. But these are all elaborations on a supposition which is completely wrong.

      These RM-NS theories are dead. Darwin was a creative thinker but he was wrong about natural selection being a shaping force – selection is not a creative act. It doesn’t make anything. Dawkins tries to conflate it in people’s minds, but it shows he doesn’t understand what he’s talking about. It’s as if he were to say manufacturers and factories don’t make things that go into shops, the shoppers make them by selecting or rejecting what is there. For his proof, he goes into a shop and says – “See? Shoppers! Selecting! Slam dunk proof!” It’s a bizarre idea from crazy land. Something has to create the functional novelty first and that shaping force is, as far as we can see, a property of the genome itself. But nobody dares say that in case the idea of “natural intelligence” creeps in.

      The Darwinists, quite literally, flee in terror and barricade the door at the merest mention of natural intelligence, or start slashing at imaginary foes with bayonets. All discussion is forbidden, verboten. You should see some of the online comments in response to Shapiro, from randomites! It’s really ugly: when I simply mentioned “intelligence manifested by the genome” I was asked, “which god are you going to bring to the party, along with the stench of manure?”

      The fossil record, observed lab results, and just the behaviour of bacteria in response to antibiotics disproves virtually all of Darwin’s guesswork. But Shapiro took 150 pages and 1200 scientific references and 40+ years of experience to point it out – better that people buy his book and read from an expert than me try and try and nail Darwinist jelly to the wall with a hammer and a handful of nails.

      Darwinism has become a Zombie Science: it refuses to lie down and be buried. Meantime it’s just wandering blindly about, frightening children and holding back progress. Small wonder we can’t engineer antibiotics when we’re hamstrung by guesswork from the age of quill pens and chimney sweeps, and anyone who dares suggest Darwin might possibly have been slightly wrong get castigated and kicked out by the Chief Randomisers like Dawkins et al. My guess is another twenty years will need to elapse, during which all the random zealots and 19th centuiry boycotters will have to die before new theories are explored with the vigor required and the field completely cleared out to make real progress in studying natural genetic engineering.

      Until then we’ll have to abandon hope of antibiotics and real knowledge about living matter. But it will be worth the wait. Meantime – vestigal organs, backwards facing retina, Junk DNA, anyone?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s