"Woese Slays Darwin"

Prabhupadanuga News

Prabhupada, Los Angeles, February 10, 1975: [...] The Darwin’s theory… He cannot give any reasonable cause. Some theory: “It may be, perhaps, for millions of years there was no…” Speculate. And he admits that “Whatever I am presenting, it is all my speculation.” We have seen his letter, some, from 150 years ago. He wrote a letter to a friend. He admitted that “Whatever I am presenting, that is speculation.” But science is not speculation. Science cannot be speculation. That is not science. “Two plus two equal to four”—this is science. And if you speculate—“Two plus two equal to five” or “Two plus two equal to three”—that is not science.[...]

__________________________________________________________
“Woese Slays Darwin”

CREATION EVOLUTION, Jan 28, 2010 — The king is dead! Long live the king! Such were the oxymoronic cries of olden times when royal succession took place. Has Charles Darwin been dethroned? One would think so, after reading Mark Buchanan’s article, “Horizontal and vertical: the evolution of evolution” in New Scientist. Buchanan sets the stage:

Just suppose that Darwin’s ideas were only a part of the story of evolution. Suppose that a process he never wrote about, and never even imagined, has been controlling the evolution of life throughout most of the Earth’s history. It may sound preposterous, but this is exactly what microbiologist Carl Woese and physicist Nigel Goldenfeld, both at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, believe. Darwin’s explanation of evolution, they argue, even in its sophisticated modern form, applies only to a recent phase of life on Earth.

Woese and Goldenfeld champion horizontal gene transfer as the overriding process that led to the genetic code and established biology as we know it. The Darwinian part is like a footnote, acting on the last episodes of biological history. Subsequent quotes show even more how far and deep this coup goes:

Earth for most of the time that life has existed – billions of years, in fact – the most ancient and prevalent form of evolution probably wasn’t Darwinian at all, Woese and Goldenfeld say.
“Biology built up a facade of mathematics around the juxtaposition of Mendelian genetics with Darwinism,” he [Woese] says. “And as a result it neglected to study the most important problem in science – the nature of the evolutionary process.”
This is all very different from evolution as described by Darwin.
Darwinian evolution simply cannot explain how such a [genetic] code could arise.
“With vertical, Darwinian evolution,” says Goldenfeld, “we found that the code evolution gets stuck and does not find the true optimum.”
“In some sense,” says Woese, “the genetic code is a fossil or perhaps an echo of the origin of life, just as the cosmic microwave background is a sort of echo of the big bang. And its form points to a process very different from today’s Darwinian evolution.”
Today, at least in multicellular organisms, Darwinian evolution is dominant but we may still be in for some surprises. “Most of life – the microbial world – is still strongly taking advantage of horizontal gene transfer, but we also know, from studies in the past year, that multicellular organisms do this too,” says Goldenfeld.
If a paradigm shift is pending, [Norman] Pace [U of Colorado] says it will be in good hands. “I think Woese has done more for biology writ large than any biologist in history, including Darwin,” he says. “There’s a lot more to learn, and he’s been interpreting the emerging story brilliantly.”

Will this be a Kuhn-style paradigm shift of epic proportions as these excerpts make it seem? If so, will the Darwin Bicentennial be the last hurrah of a dying paradigm? Will future scientists be celebrating the Woese Bicentennial some day?
Any replacement paradigm in a scientific revolution needs to explain anomalies better than the old paradigm. On page 2 of the article, Buchanan writes, “Darwinian evolution simply cannot explain how such a [genetic] code could arise. But horizontal gene transfer can, say Woese and Goldenfeld.” There’s the gauntlet. OK, how? First, they point to the universality of the code. Then, they point to its degeneracy – the fact that multiple codons in DNA can translate to the same protein in amino acids, giving the code redundancy, and thus, some tolerance to mutation. Third, they point to the remarkable error tolerance of the code:

In 1991, geneticists David Haig and Lawrence Hurst at the University of Oxford went further, showing that the code’s level of error tolerance is truly remarkable. They studied the error tolerance of an enormous number of hypothetical genetic codes, all built from the same base pairs but with codons associated randomly with amino acids. They found that the actual code is around one in a million in terms of how good it is at error mitigation. “The actual genetic code,” says Goldenfeld, “stands out like a sore thumb as being the best possible.” That would seem to demand some evolutionary explanation. Yet, until now, no one has found one. The reason, say Woese and Goldenfeld, is that everyone has been thinking in terms of the wrong kind of evolution.

So far, it sounds like they have discovered evidence for intelligent design. It’s not like followers of the Darwinian paradigm were ignorant of these properties, even if they thought little about them. Woese has challenged them to explain the emergence of an optimal code by Darwinian means, and claims they can’t. So what is his new explanation in terms of another naturalistic, evolutionary processes? Here is the key paragraph:

Goldenfeld admits that pinning down the details of that early process remains a difficult task. However the simulations suggest that horizontal gene transfer allowed life in general to acquire a unified genetic machinery, thereby making the sharing of innovations easier. Hence, the researchers now suspect that early evolution may have proceeded through a series of stages before the Darwinian form emerged, with the first stage leading to the emergence of a universal genetic code. “It would have acted as an innovation-sharing protocol,” says Goldenfeld, “greatly enhancing the ability of organisms to share genetic innovations that were beneficial.” Following this, a second stage of evolution would have involved rampant horizontal gene transfer, made possible by the shared genetic machinery, and leading to a rapid, exponential rise in the complexity of organisms. This, in turn, would eventually have given way to a third stage of evolution in which genetic transfer became mostly vertical, perhaps because the complexity of organisms reached a threshold requiring a more circumscribed flow of genes to preserve correct function. Woese can’t put a date on when the transition to Darwinian evolution happened, but he suspects it occurred at different times in each of the three main branches of the tree of life, with bacteria likely to have changed first.

In sum, horizontal gene transfer made the sharing of innovations easier. But where did the innovations come from? The answer: emergence: “the emergence of a universal genetic code” that just happened to be optimal. Don’t ask how; just believe. After all, believing the Darwinian alternative is no longer credible, so what else is there? If you are reading this explanation in utter disbelief, good. There’s hope for you. Surprised? Not if you have been reading Creation-Evolution Headlines for long. This is another in a long series of articles on evolutionary theory, from within the secular, naturalist camp, that might be titled, “Everything you know about Darwinian evolution is wrong, and our only replacement for it is to tell you that miraculous Stuff Happens sometimes.” Example: 01/22/2009: For His Birthday, Darwin Loses His Tree.
You may be thinking that Woese’s conquest only applies to microbes. King Charles gets to keep all his multicellular icons (finches, horses, whales, humans) which evolved under his reign, so he still maintains a large territory. Consider, though, that the article quoted Jan Sapp [York U, Canada] saying, “The microbial world holds the greatest biomass on Earth, but for most evolutionists it’s a case of ‘out of sight, out of mind’. They tend to focus on visible plants and animals.” Consider, secondly, that horizontal gene transfer essentially scrambles genetic signals between species and makes the construction of phylogenetic trees impossible. Consider, finally, that invoking the emergence miracle-word at the beginning of life effectively pulls the rug out from any credible naturalistic explanation of life at all. Adding “then a miracle happens” to a derivation undermines the whole derivation. We shouldn’t see Woese as a conqueror, therefore, but as a traitor, selling out the Darwin Party’s dirty little secrets to the Intelligent Design conquerors. He has revealed their basal vulnerability: they cannot account for the origin of the genetic code. That is, without miracles. Read that last blockquote and count the miracle words like emerged, arose, innovation-sharing protocol, etc. They’re pervasive.
It should be obvious now that everyone believes in miracles: i.e., instances where information became intruded into nature that was not subject itself to nature running its own undirected course. The intelligent design conquerors are very open and transparent about this. The Darwinists deceive themselves and their listeners by couching their miracles in euphemisms like it emerged, it arose, it evolved, without a clue as to how that could happen without a mind. So pay them no mind; let their bankruptcy become self-evident.

Prabhupada: No one—Not Even Darwin—Can Be Independent

Prabhupadanuga News

Carol:, Perth, Australia, on May 9, 1975: Your Divine Grace, is the intellect helpful in knowing God?

Srila Prabhupada: Yes. Unless you have got the necessary intellect, then you are no better than the animals. The animals have no intellect for understanding God, but the human being has got that intellect. That is the distinction between animals and human beings.

Otherwise, as for material necessities such as eating, sleeping, mating, and defending, both the human beings and the animals sleep, enjoy sex, become fearful, and arrange for defense. So, as for access to the material necessities of life, that is equal in the animal and the human being.

But the human being has a special intellect, more developed than the animal’s. He can understand what he is, what God is, what this cosmic manifestation is, and what the aim of life is— how we should conduct our lives. This is the prerogative for the human being. The animals have no such prerogative.

Now, if we do not utilize these special intellectual facilities, then we remain animals; we do not make any spiritual advancement. At the present moment. we are simply trying to improve our access to the material necessities of life—eating, sleeping, mating, and defending. We are thinking, “The dog is eating on the floor. If we can eat on a table, using chairs and nice dishes, that is advancement of civilization.”

We are thinking like that. The dog is sleeping outdoors, but if we sleep in a very nice apartment, lavishly decorated, that is advancement of civilization. The dog is having sexual intercourse on the street, without shame—and we are also coming to that point—but for the time being, if we have sexual intercourse in an apartment, in the name of love and so on, that is advancement. The dog is defending with his jaws and nails, and we are defending with nuclear bombs; therefore, we are advanced.

But we have forgotten that the human being has got this special intellect to understand God. That understanding we are not pursuing. For example, you are going to be a doctor in anthropology. Is it not?

Carol: Yes.

Srila Prabhupada: Where is the sense of God there?

Carol: I do it only for a living. The other side of me is something else.

Srila Prabhupada: No, I mean to say that anthropology is a big scientific department. Where is the understanding of God there?

Carol: Right. I find it difficult to reconcile the love of God with actually doing something like this study of anthropology.

Srila Prabhupada: Then why are you wasting your time speculating on anthropology?

Carol: Hmm.

Srila Prabhupada: If you cannot adjust yourself to this anthropology business, why are you wasting your time? Anthropology is a false science. There is no meaning.

Carol: I’m waiting to be led into something which is good.

Srila Prabhupada: The whole Darwinian theory is false. It has no sound basis. Darwin himself admits that it is just a theory. Theory is not science.

I can propose some theory—”It is like that.” But that is not science. Science means observation plus experimental proof. That is science.

You observe how the rules are working, and when you practically bring them to bear in your experiment, then it is science. If you simply theorize, that is not science. It is mental speculation. There is no benefit.

You can speculate, constructing a castle in the air. That is not a very good thing. You should present something which will benefit the people, something practical. That is science.

Carol: Do you think it is possible for people to live in, say, an educational framework?

Srila Prabhupada: Education—if it is not for the benefit of the people, then what is the use of such education? That is not a good education. Education means something which will benefit the mass of people. That is education. To enlighten them to do something better— that is education.

Now, this whole Darwinian theory is false. But people are giving it so much stress. First of all, no one—not even Darwin—can be independent. For instance, Darwin died. So he was under the control of something higher. No man wants to die, but he is forced to die. Is it not? Then where is his independence?

Carol: That is the illusion.

Srila Prabhupada: Yes. So if you simply live in illusion, then where is your education? If you remain in darkness, then where is your education? Illusion means darkness. So if you are in darkness, now, where is your education? And where is your philosophy?

Carol: The only way to remove this darkness is through love. Is this what you are saying?

Srila Prabhupada: Love is far away. First of all, you become educated.

Carol: How? In what way?

Srila Prabhupada: Education means right knowledge. Right knowledge. For instance, everyone wants to live. Nobody wants to die. So the inquiry should be, “I do not wish to die. Why is death forced upon me? What is that force—what is the nature of that force?”

On the other hand, if I simply resign myself—”Yes, some kind of force is there”—then where is my knowledge?

Again, I do not wish to die. So education means finding out, “Why is death forced upon me?” Nobody wants miserable conditions of life, but miserable conditions are forced upon me. So first of all, I should inquire, “I do not want these things. Who is forcing these things upon me?” This is life’s first philosophical inquiry.

Carol: I tend to approach from the other side and ask, “Who am I?” and “What is this thing that I call myself?”

Srila Prabhupada: But first, everyone has this basic problem: “I don’t want these miserable conditions, but they are forced upon me.” For instance, you are now a young girl. You do not like the idea of becoming an old woman. But you will have to become an old woman.

Carol: Oh, yes. Hmm.

Srila Prabhupada: Nature will force you. After forty years of age, you must become old, and you cannot remain so beautiful. This is forced. No one wants this. No woman wants, “I shall not look so beautiful, and my flesh shall be flabby, with no more luster.” I don’t want all these things. Why are they forced?

Carol: Suffering and pain lead people to God, don’t they?

Srila Prabhupada: Yes. That is the law. But we are so dull-headed that we do not inquire. That is my statement—that you should inquire, “Who has made this law? Who is forcing these things upon me?” After you make this inquiry, then you can inquire about God’s actual identity and your actual identity. But first of all you must be aware of your situation—that these miserable conditions are being forced upon you.

For instance, a dog cannot understand that he’s on a chain. He’s leading a life most dependent, most miserable. And yet he is jolly. He is jumping here and there. That is a dog’s life. If the master wants to kill him, the dog cannot do anything. But he is very jolly. Sometimes he even jumps.

That is a dog’s life, not human life. Human life means realizing, “I am dependent at every step, and still I am declaring myself independent. What is this nonsense?” This inquiry should be there. “I am dependent at every step, exactly like the cats and dogs, but still I am claiming, ‘I am independent.’ Why?”

Carol: Your Divine Grace, is it possible to carry out this inquiry while engaged in ordinary daily activities?

Srila Prabhupada: Yes, certainly. You can become spiritually realized in any walk of life, regardless of your daily activities.

The thing is, this is the real inquiry: “Why am I put into these conditions which I do not like? Who is forcing them upon me? Wherefrom has my life begun? What is the ultimate goal of my life?” These things should be asked. That is the proper inquiry of the human being.

Without getting answers to these questions, we cannot solve the very real problems of birth, death, old age, and disease. Instead, like Darwin, we are forced to theorize something utopian. What is the use of such so-called knowledge?

Blogs