Today’s New Reason To Believe

By Otis F. Graf, Jr., Ph.D.

Bio: Dr. Graf received his doctorate in aerospace engineering from the University of Texas at Austin in 1973. He has worked for NASA and the IBM corporation. He recently retired from IBM.

Does biological evolution tend towards a direction? And does that direction lead to intelligence that enhances survivability? Many scientists have assumed that it does, particularly those involved in the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) Institute. However, a recent article casts doubt on the idea that smartness inevitably gives survival advantage. Research has shown that an ability to learn can have dangerous evolutionary side effects, raising questions as to why and how humans paid the hidden costs in order to become super intelligent. One researcher even speculated that some of our diseases are a byproduct of intelligence.

The New York Times article pokes a finger in the soft underbelly of the Darwinian evolutionary model. That is, how to explain the extraordinary technological and rational intelligence of humans. Most naturalists attempt to show that Darwinian evolution leads inevitably to higher and higher intelligence or, in the words of Carl Sagan, to “the functional equivalent of humans.” In the absence of evidence, they apply “Darwinism of the gaps” argument and say that since human intelligence exists, evolution caused it. SETI extrapolates this conclusion across the cosmos by assuming that human functional equivalents are common “out there.”

Even Richard Dawkins assumes this point. In his book The God Delusion, Dawkins says that “a Zeitgeist progression” carries humanity ever upward.¹

Unfortunately, the data does not help the naturalists’ cause. Evolution does not exhibit any such directedness. Fazale Rana discussed this problem in a TNRTB article “Evolution Loses Its Direction.” He writes, “Fossil evidence reveals that evolutionary change is seldom directional.”

An Astrobiologyarticle by Charles Lineweaver signals more trouble for the Darwinian model.² Lineweaver (Australian National University) writes that “the issue of whether intelligence is a convergent feature of evolution is possibly the single most important issue in astrobiology.” Lineweaver points out that the “convergentists” are mostly physical scientists (such as Carl Sagan) whereas the “nonconvergentists” are mostly biologists. Presumably, physical scientists are influenced by their deterministic equations and biologists have a better appreciation of the contingencies of Darwinian evolution.

Lineweaver comes down firmly on the side of the nonconvergentists, calling the idea of convergent intelligence the “Planet of the Apes” hypothesis, after the 1968 movie. He cites a portion of life’s history that can be thought of as a series of experiments carried out over periods of 50 – 200 million years. Those “tests” took place on South America, Australia, North America, Madagascar, and India. Each region was isolated by the splitting of ancient continents, and no “functional equivalents” evolved during the past 50 – 200 million years. However, modern humans popped up in Africa in a relatively short period of time. Lineweaver writes, “There is no evidence for the Planet of the Apes hypothesis. Human intelligence is not a convergent feature of evolution. Rather it is a species-specific trait—like the beautiful yellow crest of a sulfur-crested cockatoo.” He also gives the example of the elephant’s distinctive long nose. The elephant’s ancestors may have had progressively longer noses as they evolved to the present, but this does not mean increasing nose length is a general feature of evolution, much less a feature that should be anticipated throughout the cosmos.

Lineweaver concludes by saying, “The fossil record and the living results of five large-scale, long-term experiments suggest there is no convergence toward human-like intelligence.” This means that, from a Darwinian point of view, human intelligence is no more remarkable or expected than fancy bird plumage or the long nose of an elephant.

There is still no naturalistic explanation for the unique intellect of humanity, except to say “evolution did it.” That intellect is able to uncover the secrets of the 14-billion-year history of the universe as well as probe the interior of a neutron. In an interview with New Scientist magazine, University of Oxford mathematical physicist Roger Penrose expressed astonishment at human intellectual abilities in light of their supposedly evolutionary origins. ³

What I always find is very remarkable is the understanding of mathematics; because most of the mathematics that is done as mathematics is completely beyond any experience. How can people wandering around in the Pleistocene, or whenever they wandered around, how could they have conceivably built up the kind of intellect that enables us to talk about infinite sets, concepts which are completely outside any immediately useful purpose. So there is something there in consciousness somehow that is able to achieve all sorts of things beyond what it was designed for, if you like. And quite why that is the case is a great mystery, but it seems to be the case.

However, all such data is congruent with a Creator God who fashioned man in his image. Current scientific research is also consistent with RTB’s creation model while the contingencies of the Darwinian model give no insight as to why humans are so uniquely endowed.

1. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006), 271-72.
2. Charley Lineweaver, “‘Intelligent Life in the Universe: From Common Origins to the Future of Humanity’ by Peter Ulmscheider,” Astrobiology 5, no. 5 (October 1, 2005): 658-61.
3. Podcast from the online edition of New Scientist Magazine, November, 2006. The associated article is in the November 18, 2006, edition.

Posted by Fazale ‘Fuz’ Rana, Ph.D.

Newly Discovered Example of Convergence Challenges Biological Evolution

I love TiVo. It’s a lot of fun to pause live TV (particularly when the big game is on), rewind it, and play it back again.

Biological evolution has nothing in common with TiVo, however. As the late evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould highlighted in his book Wonderful Life, if one were to push the rewind button, erase life’s history, and then let the tape run again the results would be completely different each time.

The very essence of the evolutionary process renders evolutionary outcomes nonrepeatable. According to the concept of historical contingency, chance governs biological and biochemical evolution at its most fundamental level. Evolutionary pathways consist of an historical sequence of chance genetic changes operated on by natural selection, which, too, consists of chance components. As a consequence, if evolutionary events could be repeated, the outcome would be dramatically different every time. The inability of evolutionary processes to retrace the same path makes it highly unlikely that the same biological and biochemical designs should appear repeatedly throughout nature among unrelated organisms.

Contrary to what’s expected, evolutionary biologists note that biological convergence is widespread. As I noted last week, convergence refers to the extensive pattern in nature where unrelated organisms possess nearly identical anatomical, physiological, behavioral, and biochemical characteristics. According to the evolutionary paradigm, undirected natural processes yielded the identical outcome because the forces of selection channeled evolutionary pathways to the same endpoint.

Researchers Brian Beatty and Bruce Rothschild have uncovered another remarkable example of biological convergence. From an evolutionary standpoint, it appears as if toothed and baleen whales developed the ability to dive deep into the ocean independently from each other. (Go here for a popular article on this discovery and here for a technical paper.)

For whales to dive, they must have physiological adaptations that allow them to avoid decompression syndrome. Rapid pressure changes—such as what occur during deep diving—can force air bubbles out of the blood vessels. When this happens, it can cause the blood vessels to rupture, denying cells of blood, oxygen, and nutrients. This loss causes the cells to die, leaving lesions behind.

The scientists used this principle to assess susceptibility of ancient whales to decompression syndrome. They analyzed vertebrae of 331 individual modern and 996 fossil whales. The conclusion was that the two lineages of whales must have evolved the ability to avoid decompression syndrome independently. This scenario contravenes the expectation of most evolutionary biologists, who postulated that the shared ancestor of toothed and baleen whales must have had the ability to dive deep without suffering from decompression problems.

According to Erich Fitzgerald, an Australian paleontologist, “They have come up with a quite surprising story.” The surprise expressed by Fitzgerald stems from the notion that evolutionary outcomes should not repeat. Yet, in this instance and others it appears as though evolution has generated the same outcomes over and over again.

Biological convergence not only raises questions about the validity of biological evolution, it also points to the work of a Creator. As I argue in my new book The Cell’s Design designers and engineers frequently reapply successful strategies when they face closely related problems. Why reinvent the wheel? It’s much more prudent and efficient for an inventor to reuse the same good designs as much as possible, particularly when confronted with a problem he or she has already solved.

The tendency of engineers and designers to reuse the same designs provides insight into the way that a Creator might work. If human engineers, made in God’s image, reutilize the same techniques and technologies when they invent, it’s reasonable to expect that a Creator would do the same. If life stems from the work of a Creator then it’s reasonable to expect that the same designs would repeatedly appear throughout nature. Use of good, effective designs over and over again would reflect His prudence and efficiency as a Divine Engineer.

It looks as if life is God’s TiVo.

Posted by Fazale ‘Fuz’ Rana, Ph.D.

Newly Discovered Example of Convergence Challenges Biological Evolution

“It’s like déjá vu all over again.” This expression, attributed to Hall of Fame catcher Yogi Berra, has become synonymous for something that happens over and over again—and probably shouldn’t.

Evolutionary biologists are confronted with their own form of déjá vu, known as convergence. This term refers to the widespread pattern in nature in which unrelated organisms possess nearly identical anatomical, physiological, behavioral, and biochemical characteristics. The wings of birds and bats represent one textbook example. Birds and bats belong to different groups, with birds assigned to the class Aves and bats to the class Mammalia. According to the evolutionary paradigm, undirected natural processes yielded the identical outcome (wings, in this case) because the forces of selection channeled evolutionary pathways to the same endpoint.

This explanation doesn’t square up, however. If biological systems are the product of evolution, then the same biological systems should not recur throughout nature. Chance governs biological and biochemical evolution at its most fundamental level. Evolutionary pathways consist of a historical sequence of chance genetic changes operated on by natural selection, which, too, consists of chance components. The consequences are profound. If evolutionary events could be repeated, the outcome would be dramatically different every time. The inability of evolutionary processes to retrace the same path makes it highly unlikely that the same biological and biochemical designs should repeatedly appear throughout nature.

The concept of historical contingency embodies this idea and is the theme of Stephen Jay Gould’s book Wonderful Life. To help clarify the concept of historical contingency, Gould uses the metaphor of “replaying life’s tape.” If one were to push the rewind button, erase life’s history, and then let the tape run again, the results would be completely different each time. The very essence of the evolutionary process renders evolutionary outcomes nonrepeatable.

And yet, over the last decade or so, evolutionary biologists have discovered a number of examples of convergence at the organismal and biochemical levels. (For more information, see these articles on convergence and repeated evolution.)

In my most recent book, The Cell’s Design, I document over one hundred examples of convergence at the biochemical level and argue that the widespread occurrence of the multiple repeated origins of a wide range of biochemical systems raises significant questions about the validity of evolutionary explanations for life’s origin and diversity.

Scientists from Purdue University have really uncovered another remarkable example of biochemical convergence in plants. (See here for journal article and here for popular article.) These researchers demonstrated that a specific enzyme (known as a cytochrome P450-dependent monooxygenase) appears—from an evolutionary vantage point— to have independently emerged in two separate instances in lycophytes and angiosperms. This enzyme plays a key role in the synthesis of lignins.

Lycophytes, such as clubmosses, are an ancient lineage of vascular plants that appeared about 420 million years ago. From an evolutionary standpoint, they represent a separate branch from the lineage that produced flowering plants.

All vascular plants make use of a class of large, complex molecules called phenolic lignins in the xylem. The phenolic lignins are polymers. These types of compounds are large molecules comprised of repeating subunit molecules (called monomers.) The different types of vascular plants produce lignins consisting of characteristic subunits. For example, gymnosperms produce lignin made up of guaiacyl monomers. Angiosperms manufacture lignins composed of a mixture of guaiacyl and syringyl monomers. Plant scientists generally regard lignins derived from syringyl monomers as exclusive to angiosperms. This view implies that the enzymes used to make this monomer must have evolved relatively late in evolutionary history when angiosperms appeared on the scene.

Interestingly, there are lycophytes that possess lignins composed of the syringyl monomer. The Purdue researchers determined that the enzyme (ferulic acid/coniferaldehyde/coniferyl alcohol 5-hydroxylase, a cytochrome P450-dependent monooxygenase) that directs metabolites down the pathway that yield syringyl monomers must have evolved independently in lycophytes and angiosperms to yield enzymes that perform identical functions.

Like Yogiisms, this conclusion makes little sense within the evolutionary paradigm, particularly in light of all the other examples of biochemical convergence. It looks as if evolution has repeated itself over and over again—and it shouldn’t have.

Paleontologist J. William Schopf, one of the world’s leading authorities on early life on Earth, has made this very point in the book Life’s Origin.

Because biochemical systems comprise many intricately interlinked pieces, any particular full-blown system can only arise once…Since any complete biochemical system is far too elaborate to have evolved more than once in the history of life, it is safe to assume that microbes of the primal LCA cell line had the same traits that characterize all its present-day descendents.

This pattern, expected by Schopf and other evolutionary biologists, is simply not observed at the biochemical level. An inordinate number of examples of molecular convergence have already been discovered. And undoubtedly more will be uncovered in the future.

Next week I’ll visit the topic of convergence all over again by describing another newly discovered example and discuss how “repeated evolutionary outcomes” provide evidence for the work of a Creator.