Climbing Mount Improbable
23
“ Accidental improvements”. These are so improbable that we would need very
strong evidence that there are in fact such things in nature. Artificial selection, as in the breeding
of dogs by humans stands in contrast to any accidental happenings in nature. Selective breeding,
say, of dogs has its limitations as I am sure Dr. Dawkins knows. The results are still dogs. It is just
that the genome of dogs contains a substantial amount of variety which can be selected by
humans. It would probably be impossible to do the same thing with a platypus, at least to any
significant extent (see also page 27).
36
“Partial solution that spiders have adopted”. Adopted implies that they have taken
on something, whereas the spiders almost certainly must have had their protection from the
beginning, else they would never have survived at all. If they had survived without the solution to
their problem there would have been no significant problem for them to solve anyway.
74
“The great majority of mutations do make things worse. It is true that a small
minority of mutations may make things better - that’s ultimately why evolution by natural
selection is possible at all”. Dr. Dawkins is being honest when he introduces the word may when
speaking of favourable mutations. What is needed, before we say that there has been any real
evolution at all, is proof that there have been mutations that have definitely made things better.
172
Concerning the problems of seeing, Dr. Dawkins says: “The different solutions to
problems pop up here, there and everywhere, suggesting, yet again, that they evolve rapidly and
at the drop of a hat.” What is suggested to yours truly is that the different eye systems didn’t
evolve but were deliberately designed. If eyes evolve rapidly favourable mutations must be
always appearing, whereas Dr. Dawkins has told us (see above) that they only may happen.
Therefore they may not happen at all. It is not just eyes that have different solutions popping up
all over the place, but it is quite usual for different creatures to have different ways of dealing with
the same problems: some birds catch fish in their mouths, others with their talons, for instance.
174
“A trilobite eye... looks just as advanced as a modern compound eye”. This is
what we would expect if organisms are today substantially as they were when created. It is pure
assumption to say that eyes evolve so rapidly that there are unlikely to be any intermediate forms
in the fossil record. Without definite evidence of intermediate forms there is no evidence that
things have evolved. Because of the lack of fossil evidence for evolution we get books written
with titles such as: “Evolution - the fossils say No”.
177
It seems that someone else has thought of the mountain range idea besides
myself, in this case for showing the different eye types. What this shows is that there is no real
evolutionary tree of eye types; rather they are dotted about in the animal kingdom. If the matter
were investigated, and if I were a betting man, I would bet that the same is true of ear types, hand
types etc. For instance one doesn’t have to be a zoologist to see that the hands and feet of some
reptiles are more like ours than the feet of the hooved animals that are supposed to be higher up
the evolutionary tree.
205
“Dyed-in-the-wool Darwinist like me ”. According to my dictionary this means
“fixed in ones opinions” or “too fixed in them”. This is being very frank, because there is not
much difference between being “dyed-in-the-wool” and being bigoted. It shows that Dr. Dawkins
has insight into his own predilections, which gives me some hope that he may be able to change
his mind.
221
“Caterpillars have.. reinvented”. Here we are back to using language that implies
the existence of an inventor. In this case Dr. Dawkins makes the inventor caterpillars, though if
pressed he would probably say it was only sloppy language, but the question is: “If the
caterpillars did not do the inventing, who did ?” If we say it was chance we are only admitting our
ignorance. Dr. Dawkins I think must admit this. After all he has said as much himself elsewhere.
231
Dr. Dawkins says that homeotic mutants are freakish and unlikely to survive in
nature. This is really evidence against the theory of evolution. What is needed as evidence for the
theory are examples of mutations that are likely to survive in nature. Such mutations are
conspicuous by their absence in Dr. Dawkins books.
232
“Foolhardy speculation”. Dr. Dawkins admits to a foolhardy speculation in saying
that what may be a homeotic mutation in the wild has been evolutionarily successful. He also
speaks of his idea as a tentative conjecture on the following page. What the sceptic wants to read
about are examples beyond reasonable doubt of mutations that are clearly successful.
242
“As ever, the temptation to impute conscious intention should be resisted”. Amen.
The temptation arises because the writer is shutting out all the time the thought that the
organisms have been programmed to do what they do, because this would point to the existence
of a programmer. Dr. Dawkins is himself a programmer when he writes a program that creates
biomorphs on a computer.
243
“The coloured and fragrant flowers of the world, then, although they may seem to
be placed there for our benefit, are definitely not so”. We are, even Dr. Dawkins would probably
admit, the last known species to appear on this planet. Is it therefore unreasonable to think that
what came into existence before us was intended to benefit us ? After all we appreciate the sight
and scent of flowers, as well as the taste of honey that the bees produce. Had we appeared on a
planet that had only so-called primitive organisms on it we would I expect had a pretty dismal
existence, if we could exist at all.
244
The world is full of plants and insects, not to mention other creatures that exist for
the benefit of each other. These organisms must have come into existence at the same time or
within a very short space of time of each other. If this were not so it is difficult, if not impossible,
to see how the organisms could have survived for long, if at all.
246
The recycling mechanisms that exist are evidence that wisdom was used in the
setting up of the eco-system . Unintended mutations are not going to produce that which shows
wisdom in its organisation. They would simply produce a muddle.
247
The AIDS virus arose because people engaged in unnatural practices; practices
that were unhygienic. As we know today, it is necessary to wash and clean ourselves otherwise
we may well become diseased, and similarly if we eat food that has gone off. It was pointed out
to me as a child that venereal diseases arise because of the lack of sexual purity. The rules as to
this that we find in the Bible are not there because the writers were killjoys, but because the
instructions were necessary to protect mankind against disease.
248
Computer viruses are programs written by someone with a mind. The same is true
of the viruses in nature. They are the product of a mind. If not, why not ?
249
“Computer viruses are designed by the creative efforts of mischievous or evil
humans, while biological viruses evolve by mutation and natural selection.” Is it not more
reasonable to think that biological viruses also came into existence by the machinations of some
superior evil intelligence ?
251
We may wrap it up in more technical language, but what is happening in the living
world is that creatures are being fruitful and multiplying as they were instructed to do according
to the Bible (Genesis 8:17). The means by which they multiply is by replicating as mankind also
does. However, Dr. Dawkins does not see further than that and makes reproduction the be all and
end all of existence, at least that is the message that I am picking up. The Bible on the other hand
says much more than that as I have no doubt Dr. Dawkins himself knows. It appears that his six
year old daughter thought so also (see page 236). This makes me wonder whether she still does or
whether Dr. Dawkins has persuaded her otherwise. Because we live in a so-called scientific age
that is no reason why we should dismiss the wisdom of our forefathers, except where we have
overwhelming evidence that they were wrong. Dr. Dawkins books do not supply that evidence.
259
A replicator had only to come into existence once according to Dr. Dawkins . One
single replicator or in fact many replicators could have been destroyed by something or other as
soon as they came into existence, so that others had to come into existence before the replicating
system could get under way. Going on to improvements, Dr. Dawkins would very likely admit
that it would probably need a number of them to come into existence before an improvement
established itself. After all, creatures do not all reach an age when they reproduce. It is therefore
far from certain that one living cell coming into existence for the first time would live to
reproduce.
262
“Catch-22 of the origin of life”. Dr. Dawkins will know that this is something of a
trump card with the creationists. However, the present writer would say that the problem exists
right down the line. New information must come from an intelligence as well as the machinery by
which that information is read and the system that results in the production of a replicating body.
Intelligence is necessary for the creation of living bodies as much as the other ingredients such as
air, water and dust. There must also be a power source such as we have in the Sun.
263
“Bacteria of several different kinds got together... to form the ‘eucaryotic cell’” All
this is assumption. It does not appear to rest on anything more than Dr. Dawkins say so. If it
were in fact so it might well be asked why all bacteria did not do the same. However, they
obviously did not because we still have bacteria with us today. The eucaryotic cells have not been
chosen by natural selection to displace bacteria.
267
“In a way, the remarkable thing is that cell lineages stop dividing when they are
supposed to”. There is nothing remarkable about this if we think that the genetic programs were
set up by a being with an intelligent mind. Without intelligence being involved the most crazy
products might come into existence, as if a house were erected by someone with complete
mental incapacity. When we get cancer the cell dividing system goes haywire with disaster
impending for the organism.
279
Biologists make problems for themselves by assuming an evolutionary scenario
and then trying to explain the existence of practices in the light of that scenario. A creationist has
not the same problem though he might well wonder why organisms behave in the way they do.
What they do may well have more than one object. It may be for the survival of the organism
directly, but it may also work for the survival of the whole eco-system, for if the eco-system
collapsed so would the individual organism.
June 2001