Quote:
This seems like a particularly uninteresting take on the subject. What is his point exactly? That evolution is difficult? I think that that's the whole point of this entire excercise in the first place.
In particular, his second to last sentence seems to need a lot more explaining before I will take his thesis as valid: "If the development of many of the features of the cell required multiple mutations during the course of evolution, then the cell is beyond Darwinian explanation."
It seems like a very extreme version of the straw man argument. In my studies of evolution and genetics, I don't recall anyone arguing that simple point mutations led to the diversity of life we see today.
|
I think his point is that the mutation that allowed the e coli to metabolize the citrate isn’t the type of mutation that would ultimately lead to the development of organisms with more complex molecular systems – which is the whole argument behind evolution – over time, random mutations have resulted in simple organisms evolving into more complex organisms.
Also, if this evolved trait required not just one, but two or more simultaneous mutations, this greatly increases the odds against a “lucky” roll of the dice especially considering that the majority of mutations are harmful to organisms. Considering this occurred in only one of the experimental colonies and required 30,000-40,000 generations of the fast growing bug, this would seem to be the case. This would also indicate that such “beneficial” mutations in more complex organisms would be even less likely. I haven’t read his books, but from what I’ve gathered, he argues that Darwinian evolution can’t account for the diversity of life on our planet today, unless an outside “engineering” or “guiding” component is involved. Now, whether he attributes this to the Divine, space aliens, or whatever…I’m not sure.