The Extended Phenotype
Page
VII
I notice that Dr. Dawkins uses the feminine pronoun on this page.
He is no doubt aware that in the Bible in Genesis 1: 27 Man is referred to as him (masculine) but
that the masculine includes the feminine as Man (Mankind or humans, that is, the race) was
created male and female. This is the way that the masculine pronoun is often used, otherwise we
should have to keep referring to him and her. In a language such as German the word Menschen
is used for the race and Mann is used for men in contrast to women. There is a similar distinction
in the Greek New Testament, so that we have Anthropos and Aner.
1
The mental images that we get from the Necker Cube are strictly both
wrong as the image is two dimensional and not three dimensional. The two images that Dr.
Dawkins says are equally correct are really equally wrong !
3
On this page Dr. Dawkins repeats his idea of small steps in evolution,
mainly I think because it does not shock common sense as does a gigantic leap in evolution.
Everyone does not accept Dr. Dawkins claims that beetle and deer have a common ancestor. That
they have needs to be proved before Dr Dawkins’ assertion is accepted.
6
“Why genes chose to group themselves together in nuclei”. Genes don’t
chose to do anything . They just are. They do not have a mind. They do not think. Why then
speak about them as if they do ?
10
“Nature or nurture”. In practice we have a nature that leads us to do certain
things, but we are also affected by our upbringing (nurture) and by the constraints of the legal
system. Adultery is, for instance, not so likely to be rife where it is subject to the death penalty !
11
“Determinism”. What at any time we decide to do is affected by a lot of
factors, some internal and some external. Our moral judgement comes in here as well as other
factors such as our natural likes and dislikes. We can’t leave out our knowledge of good and evil
in determining what we do; whether or not we fear God or get a guilty conscience if we do certain
things. The matter is complex, even if we leave out of account spiritual influences.
14
“Evolution and development”. Should not this be between heredity and
development? We are programmed to develop in a certain way, but how we actually develop is
affected by external factors. “The rare possibility of mutations” that Dr. Dawkins speaks of can
presumably be left out of account.
20
“Antlions” It appears that these have a clever way of catching prey. They
dig a pit. However, some species apparently don’t go to this trouble. Why then is it necessary for
some antlions to develop the more complicated way of catching prey ?
25
“ Behaviour from nothing”. It is surprising that someone who would
probably be dismissive of the idea of creation ex nihilo is prepared to speak of things coming
from nothing.
26
Dr. Dawkins rejects the idea that we should base any policy on genetic
variation in human populations on the ground that it would be illogical and wicked. Note that he
introduces a moral thought here in using the word wicked. However, as he says, there is a
question as to what we mean by brainy. Personally I have quite a low IQ for the kind of
profession I have followed. When I went into the army and had tests I was put through one again
because my result was so bad. (My wife, incidentally, has been a member of Mensa, the high IQ
society) Persons like Winston Churchill, Thomas Edison and Nelson Rockefeller had learning
disabilities, but presumably only in certain directions; in some ways they were brilliant. My
Mother told me as a child that genius was often next to insanity. Using certain muscles can
strengthen them. Presumably using brain power can do the same, but it does not mean that the
improvement in any area of brain power is transmitted to the next generation.
30
Certainly animals have what is necessary to live in their environment, else
they would not survive in it. However, in a different environment they might well die out or on
the other hand they might become a plague. An animal’s perfection is perhaps better described as
a balance thing, than an optimal one.
One notes that Biblical thoughts never seem to be far from Dr. Dawkins
mind - he refers here to the road to Damascus !
33
Pure random genetic drift leads “inevitably to degeneration and
extinction”. That is, it leads downhill. It is difficult to see what, if anything, really leads uphill.
Again, Dr. Dawkins slips into using religious language when he refers to
what is “God-given” !
34
“Purpose for which it was designed” with reference to the human mind.
Yes, it was designed with a purpose and maybe more than one, but to find this kind of wording in
a book advocating the existence of things being the result of the blind forces of nature does not
fit.
35
Dr. Dawkins suggests that opponents of Darwinism are unlikely to be
reading his book. Well, it seems that there is at least one exception - yours truly. Further, he says
that Darwinism is “the only workable theory we have to explain the organised complexity of
life”. Maybe it is the only one that scientists can investigate, but maybe in the end their
investigations will show that it is wrong .
37
Homosexuality is a problem for evolutionists. However there may be
similar problems with paedophilia if that means copulation with girls who have not reached
puberty or with young boys. Then there are women who remain spinsters by choice and so on. It
is a question as to why all these “life styles” have not been weeded out by natural selection.
38
From the fact that a jet engine cannot conceivably have evolved from a
propeller driven one, it does not seem to so register with Dr. Dawkins that this throws the theory
of evolution into doubt. However, he does admit that we may wonder why animals which
according to the theory had to evolve stage by stage and survive actually function at all.
39
“God-like designer”. Here again Dr. Dawkins introduces the word God and
designer into his narrative. It all suggests that underneath his atheism he has a sneaking feeling
that after all there really is a God.
The Picasso-like face of a flat fish may appear grotesque to us, but it is
necessary if the fish when it lies flat on the bottom of the sea is not to have one eye so buried in
the sand that it is practically useless. In any case living at the bottom of the sea it is not a show
case type ! Actually it is recognised in the Bible that some parts of our bodies are not comely (1
Corinthians 12:22-24). Such parts most civilised people keep covered up.
42
“Pigs have no wings”. The weight of their bodies (as with Elephants)
would militate against them getting off the ground so that wings would probably be useless.
However, if all animals could fly, flying would cease to be a speciality and the variety that comes
from having some creatures that can fly and some that cannot, would be lost. Limitations are
essential for all creatures, else the ecological system would be likely to collapse. I understand that
earwigs have wings but don’t often use them.
47
“Judgement”. Whether some feature in a creature survives and why may
be an interesting exercise. However, unless the feature exists in the first place the question of its
survival cannot arise !
60
“Natural selection has programmed her”. It is not an accurate use of
language to talk of natural selection programming creatures. All natural selection can do is weed
out defective specimens. Natural selection hasn’t got a mind.
61
“Sharpen up their powers of discrimination”. A fish which survives a near
encounter with death may possibly be more careful next time if it comes across a similar lure, but
that heightened discrimination is not going to be transmitted to the next generation of fish. For
one thing the fish’s genes are not going to be affected, and for another fishes do not normally
have any intercourse with their offspring so that they would not be able to teach them new tricks
!
65
What to me is amazing information relating to cicadas with their 13 or 17
year life cycles is set out by Dr. Dawkins. Certainly, as any creationist or evolutionist would
admit there are no doubt good reasons for these two differing life cycles, but the problem is:
“How did these differing life cycles arise ?”. The creationist says that the cicadas were
programmed by some being with fantastic intelligence, while the evolutionist speculates that
somehow the creatures themselves as a result of chance mutations honed by natural selection
arrived at their present life cycles. Why there are two differing life cycles is very puzzling on the
latter hypothesis.
67
We are back to the idea of the arms race here. There is no real arms race.
What we really have are creatures with a built in ability to adapt with varying degrees to their
environment. In a way there is nothing new in this idea. It says in Ecclesiastes that when goods
increase, they are increased that eat them (Chapter 5:11). Presumably when food reduces there is
an opposite effect. There is no real evolution here. Incidentally there is a substantial amount of
evidence against the theory of evolution in the book of Ecclesiastes, if anyone cares to sus it out.
71
“Natural selection working on the problem”. Natural selection must largely
be a matter of population pressure and talk of it working on a problem suggests thought
processes looking for a solution. This is far removed from reality.
72
“Genes for striking”. If these were ever going to appear they have had
enough evolutionary time to do so (assuming the evolutionists’ time scale is right). Hypothetical
assumptions are always dangerous at the best of times. It is usually much safer to concentrate on
known facts. Speculating on what would have happened if Christ had not been crucified is a
waste of time. Similarly speculating on what might have happened in the biological world
if certain genetic changes had or had not taken place.
76
That evolutionists’ often come to conclusions that radically contradict one
another seems evident from Dr. Dawkins’ comments. Maybe the fact that one evolutionist has “a
working assumption” that differs from that of another, may well have something to do with this.
Evolutionary science seems to be largely carried on by using unproven assumptions.
85
Dr. Dawkins refers here to the lack of gene copying infallibility and gives
an example of Xerox copies. However I recollect that in another book he speaks of gene copying
being digital rather than analogue and therefore much more reliable than ordinary photocopies of
photocopies.
86
Terminology can be a problem, especially when one person attaches a
different meaning to a word than another. It can also be a problem when professionals dealing
with laymen hide behind technical wording to cover the weakness of any position they have
taken up.
99
Dr. Dawkins refers here to “a similar mutilation (mutation)”. He evidently
accepts that a mutation is a mutilation. Creatures are not improved by mutilating them and
neither is their underlying genetic makeup.
103
It appears that here we have statements that are somewhat conflicting. It
has been said by some that the time scale for evolution to take place is too short; others have said
it is too long. The reasons given are the “hard to imagine” ones. Whereas imagination may have
its uses for some purposes; when we are dealing with actual things and events we need more than
imagination, we need proofs.
105
Changing sizes. Whatever may be said as to increase or decrease in horse
sizes it is evident that at the present day we have horses of all sizes. There are some very small
breeds as well as the big shire horses. This sort of thing also applies to breeds of dogs. It also
applies at a higher level, that is, we have the big cats (lions, tigers etc.) as well as the family
pussies.
106
Dr Dawkins speaks here of simple and complex adaptations. Increase in
leg length is rather a trivial thing as most of the human race, for instance, have some variation in
leg length. However complex adaptations require complex changes and for evolution in the
macro sense to take place at all we would need to show how the changes took place.
Evolutionists assume that creatures changed when they were already alive and in place on the
earth. The hypothesis that they were formed before they were in place on the earth would
probably be laughed out of Court even though that explanation would solve a lot of problems.
108
We get referred here to “ Payley’s watch”. However, others have used the
simpler illustration of a mousetrap as evidence of something that does not function if it is not
complete. (Michael Ruse I see disputes that this is a convincing example) However, the point
may be made that a mousetrap will not actually function unless there is a mouse to catch and
there is also bait. It is probably true that a mouse might be caught without the bait, but the
possibility is quite remote. In the case of the watch it would be of no use without someone who
could read the time from it. It would also need a power source such as a wound up spring, or say,
a battery. The battery is not part of the watch as it needs to be replaced from time to time. The
same is true of a car. For it to be of use it needs a driver and petrol. These are not part of the car
but are necessary to it.
135
“Meiosis”. Dr. Dawkins statement here, quoting Williams is: “There is a
kind of crisis at hand in evolutionary biology”. This kind of statement I expect rarely reaches the
man in the street, who probably thinks evolutionary theory is all buttoned up and problems if any
are minor.
137
Here it is said that mutational effects are usually deleterious. One wonders
if the man in the street realises this. He probably in many cases does not know what a mutation is
and that it is really a technical word for a mutilation. If the latter word were used he might well be
shocked.
139
In this section we are given a discourse on segregation distorters and their
serious detrimental effects. Nowhere are we introduced to effects which are beneficial, which is
what we should be looking for if we are seeking to demonstrate that evolution has really taken
place.
145
“Assortive mating which manifestly has evolved”. How do we know it has
evolved and not always existed. This is what is so irritating about evolution theory - when it
comes to the crunch there is no proof, only assertions.
148
“Effects would have to be there by luck”. Luck and chance seem to be the
stock in trade of evolutionists. Conscious intention is all the time being ruled out.
154
“Mechanical laws of natural selection”. What are these laws ? We are not
told. One would suggest that there are no real laws and that any selection is just the effects of
environment, population pressure and the like.
156
“Foolhardy incursions into the hinterlands of fields far from my own”. If
Dr. Dawkins can say this perhaps he will not mind if I am doing something similar !
158
“An organism is a tool of DNA”. Rather it is an expression of DNA. DNA
is what governs the organism’s formation. The organism has a function in the scheme of life as
well as its function of carrying forward genetic information to the next generation.
164/165
“To be painfully honest, I can think of few things that would devastate my world
view than a demonstrated need to return to the theory of evolution that is traditionally attributed
to Lamark . It is one of the few contingencies for which I might offer to eat my hat”. I wonder if
Dr. Dawkins would say the same if he had to return to a creationist world view. It is clear that our
world view does affect our attitude to the creation/evolution debate. There may be a particle of
truth in Lamarkian theory as there is in most if not every error. That is what makes errors so
dangerous. The principle is found in Genesis. What the serpent said to Eve was not all error as
will be seen if the passage is studied.
171
Dr. Dawkins draws attention to the point that it has been said that for an
eye to be improved at all it would need to be improved in ten different ways at once. I would add,
perhaps more. This kind of thing could well apply to other organs. What about the brain ? Dr.
Dawkins also admits that fundamentalist orators still find the eye one of the most telling
standbys. It may be mentioned that it is not just the eye itself that needs to be considered when
considering how it came to be. There is also the question of the eyelashes and eyelids which
protect it and the ability in humans to blink. There are also the eye sockets to consider and the
eyebrows and what purpose they serve (I do not know). Then there are the tear ducts and their
use in washing out a foreign body that has got into an eye. This is apart from their use in
expressing emotion, that is, when we cry.
172
Dr. Dawkins speaks here of what is “more plausible”. It is clear that he has
to say this sort of thing when we are dealing with something that is uncertain. What we need is
proven facts, but these are singularly lacking when we are seeking to ascertain how evolution
works, if it does.
174
“Crick’s central dogma states that protein may not be translated back into
DNA”. The reason for this could be said to be that there would be no purpose in such a
translation. God could have set up such a mechanism, but He would not have done it unless a
purpose would be served by doing it. This would be involved in any intelligent setting up of a
functioning living system. However, mind would be involved in this and this it what the
evolutionist leaves out of account and causes a lot of his headaches.
181
Dr. Dawkins admits that “God and natural selection are, after all, the only
two workable theories we have of why we exist”. Which seems the more reasonable ? Natural
selection is often called the survival of the fittest. Dr. Dawkins goes on to say that fitness is a
very difficult concept. The word has been used in at least five different senses. The whole concept
is therefore very uncertain and a very dangerous prop to lean on as a reason for why we exist.
204
“A hierarchical chain of command”. Dr. Dawkins makes a good point
here. It is that sort of thing that could explain why one organism is so different from another
when only a relatively few of its genes differ from those of the other organism. The boss of any
company can make a lot of difference to a company though virtually all the staff remain the
same.
207
Dr. Dawkins appears to admit here that termite mounds and beavers dams
do not fossilise plentifully. It may be well asked why ? What about birds nests and other creature
made artefacts ?
213
One wonders how flukes fared before snails evolved (assuming they did).
Are we to assume that flukes evolved at a later date than snails ? It seems that birds are also
involved in the life cycle of flukes. The simple explanation would be that all the organisms
involved came into existence at the same time or within a very short time of each other.
223
On this page we get speculation as to origins mentioned. However, as Dr.
Dawkins rightly says it does not bear one way or the other on his present concern. In fact there is
much in Dr. Dawkins’ book that can be read and agreed with without talking about evolution at
all .
235
“The Gaia hypothesis”. One cannot realistically introduce the idea of
natural selection into the world of non-living things. There would be no population pressure and
the effects of the environment, such as wind and rain, would be minimal. However, a creationist
would I assume accept that the earth is a functioning whole and that the physical, chemical and
electrical components as well as the fauna and flora work together to make the planet a habitable
place for man, and every other living thing for that matter.
241
Dr. Dawkins imagines a case of a species of moth some of which have
stripes in one direction and some the other. The moths rest in such a way that they blend in with
the grooves in tree bark, that is, horizontally or vertically according to the way they are striped.
Natural selection will favour moths that sit in the best position according to the way they are
striped. This is all very well, but it does not tell us how or why the moths got stripes in the first
place.
244
On this page we have hypothetical cases again and accidents. However it is
highly questionable whether what is proposed would actually happen in real life. Steve Jones
wrote an article for the Daily Telegraph which appeared on Wednesday, March 26, 2003. A main
point of this article was that ideas of shared genes do not have the effects on behaviour that
theoretically they have in the past been expected to have. The same problem is spelt out in
Ecclesiates 4:8.
258/259
Dr. Dawkins points out that new mutations are unlikely to achieve , say,
restructuring of the heart so that it comes to have four chambers instead of the previous two, as
well as all the related changes that would need to be made for the new heart to function. He
admits for this sort of change to take place new developmental beginnings would be required.
Effectively this means that a more or less separate creation is needed.
264
What Dr. Dawkins says here sounds impressive but under the cover of the
language used there is, as always, an inherent weakness, as we are never told what causes a
mutilation (mutation) that improves an organism. If the organism is improved then that mutation
cannot sensibly be regarded as a mutilation. We all know that there are simple organisms, or
relatively simple ones, existing alongside the complex ones of today, that is, we have single cell
organisms as well as multicellular ones. The complex organisms do not drive out the simple ones.
295
“Homeotic mutation”. It is stated here, undoubtedly correctly, that a single
mutation may have elaborate and complex effects, but only when there is elaborate complexity
there to be altered. The million dollar question to be answered is how did the elaborate
complexity come to exist in the first place ? As the Christian Bible teaches, God made things to
work economically. This explains why a small genetic change may have a large effect on an
organism for example.
296/297
Generally speaking intelligent creationists accept that what is called micro
evolution takes place, but not macro evolution. The latter involves the coming into existence of
new organs and /or large changes in form. The general objection to macro evolutionary change is
that there are no cast iron cases of this in the fossil record, that is, there is no series from one form
to a completely different one, say, land mammal to whale. What may appear to be intermediate
forms often exist alongside what are thought to be earlier or later forms.
299
“ Payley’s watch”. I wonder if Dr. Dawkins knows of or has read the
updated version of this well known book (strictly “Payley’s Watchmaker”) which was produced
by Bill Cooper in 1997 and published by New Wine Press.
301
Strategy”. It is clear from the remarks here and those in other places that
some definitions in the field of evolutionary biology need to be clarified so that the man in the
street as well as specialists can be sure of what is being spoken or written about. The danger of
talking at cross purposes would then be reduced.
October 2003
