Many scientists have expressed the belief that if they only had a chance to explain the facts, they could convince intelligent educated people (at least) of the validity of a neo-Darwinian approach to understanding life. As the following email exchange suggests, this conventional assumption is wrong. Not all people - even intelligent ones - have minds that operate according to the same principles of rationality.

The following email conversation took place between me and a reader of an article called "Life 2.0" that I published in Newsweek International about synthetic life. The reader - a young earth creationist - was only upset by what I wrote in the very first paragraph of a rather long article. The email exchange that followed is instructive to those of us who want to convince our fellow citizens of the legitimacy of modern science and its implications for understanding life and the universe as a whole. The reader has training in engineering and math (which comes out in his remarks), so he should have the ability to understand my responses to his arguments against evolution and an old universe. But he bobs and weaves, changing arguments from one post to the next, to support his firm belief in "the accuracy of the Bible." I have had other email exchanges with other educated creationists (usually engineers), and not once has any one of them budged in any way. Unfortunately for American competitiveness, it will be very very difficult to change the insidious culture of creationist thought in America's heartland, unless we overhaul the country's educational system with a national scientific curriculum.

**********************************************************************

May 29, 2007, at 11:39 AM

Dr. Silver,

I recently read your article “Life 2.0” as published on the Newsweek section of MSNBC.com. I found the article intriguing and have been following the advances in genetics with some interest. The immense potential for both breakthrough and disaster interest me greatly, as does the immense public interest in the pursuit of such accomplishments like cures for cancer, elimination of genetic malfunctions, and advancement of food products such as crops and farm animals.

I appreciate your dedication to this cutting edge field of science and your obviously immense knowledge of it; however, I was disappointed in how your article began. Frankly, I had trouble motivating myself to complete it, given the staunch presupposition of the first paragraph. I am not attempting to argue the existence of God or the theory of evolution. What I am concerned about is the integrity of the statements you made. I have no way of proving or disproving any of the research, accomplishments, or potential of the genetic research you wrote about. However, statements such as those made in the first paragraph force me to question your reliability.

You make three assumptions in the first paragraph that you pass off as fact:

1. Life on Earth began as a single cell

3. What conclusive evidence is there that the Earth is at least 3.6 billion years old?

2. Where is the transient state fossil evidence that connects all living things to a single ancestor?

My point here is not to prove your statements false, although as you can probably discern I disagree with them. I would simply like facts to back up your statements. I don’t mind you making them if they are bounded by the disclaimer of ‘theory.’ However, you write them as scientific fact, and without proper evidence they are nothing more them journalistic and scientific irresponsibility.

Thank you in advance for your attention to my email. I trust that you will address my concerns with the same thoroughness as you addressed the fascinating subject of genetics in your article.

Thank you,

Josh Pepper

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 29, 2007 12:57 PM



Dear Josh,

If a God created the universe 10,000 or so years ago, we would only be able to see stars that were closer than 10,000 light years away from us. The light from farther stars (traveling at the speed of light) would not have had a chance to reach us yet. And yet, our telescopes can see stars and galaxies containing billions of stars that are millions or billions of light years away. Furthermore, if the universe is just 10,000 years old, vast numbers of new stars should appear in the sky every night as their light reaches us for the first time -- but this is not what happens. Give me a logical scientific explanation for these astronomical observations and I'll answer your questions.

Professor Silver

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 29, 2007, at 3:01 PM



Dr. Silver,

Thank you for your response. If a conclusive answer on this subject from me is needed for you to continue this discussion, then I suppose I will not get my questions answered. However, I will offer you an incomplete answer and hope for the best.

Your point is well-taken and is a worthy subject of concern to anyone that believes in a young Earth/universe. However, the conclusions regarding the distance of stars hinge on two presuppositions:

1. Time is constant at any observable distance.

The former is difficult to disprove, as many observations over many years and many distances has yielded pretty consistent results. I’ve read of theories on universe curvature and c-decay that don’t really conclude anything tangible in the way of a good theory. The appeal of such a theory follows a similar path as theories on the decay rate of carbon, the central assumption of radioactive dating. If the decay rate of carbon is not conclusively known over the millions of years of time it is applied, then the dates cannot be accurate. Similarly, if the value of c is not constant over large spans of time, then distances to objects in deep space cannot be accurate.

However, the latter is a more plausible fallacy based on Einstein’s theory of general relativity. As you are certainly aware, time can be affected by the influence of a strong gravitational field. This has been proven on Earth and has been observed in space as well. If time is not a constant over a billion light years, then how can we be sure of the measurement? Time dilation is a real, observable event, and its effect on the observation of deep space objects is worth considering.

I am a believer in God, as was Einstein. I am also a believer in a young Earth, though I will concede that it is possible that the Earth and the universe could be much older than the typical Creationist dates them. However, the existence of God does not hinge on the age of the Earth or the age of the universe, and as I stated before I am not attempting to debate the existence of God. I am also not trying to debate the age of the universe. All I would like to know is how you can state with the certainty at which you stated in your article that at some approximate point in the earth’s existence that a single organic cell was created from inorganic material and spontaneously reproduced into the vastly complex design in which we live today.

Thank you,

Josh Pepper

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 29, 2007 10:17 PM

Dear Josh,

Thank you for your note. I should point out first that the God imagined by Albert Einstein, Thomas Jefferson, and many other Enlightenment intellectuals is one that created the universe but has since taken a completely hands-off approach. The assumption made by most deists (as people with this belief are called) is that the universe was created in such a way that life would be bound to emerge through natural processes (what we now understand to be natural selection). Beyond this point of agreement, deist viewpoints diverge immensely. But if we stick to the basic idea, science can provide NO support either for or against a deistic view of the universe since it is one in which everything has abided by the laws of nature since the Big Bang.

On the contrary, science can speak to the question of the age of the universe, the earth, and life on earth. Numerous independent scientific investigations from physics, chemistry, and molecular biology all point to, and are all consistent with, a view of a universe that emerged from a Big Bang about 15 billion years ago, with an earth that coalesced and cooled down about four billion years ago, and a single source of life that evolved -- starting over 3 billion years ago -- into all the life forms that exist on earth today. Modern evolutionary biology is focused almost entirely on molecular studies of changes in DNA sequence, and mathematical analyses of selective forces and changes in allele frequency. I have published over thirty papers on evolution and I never once looked at a fossil (or a whole animal for that matter). It's the conservation and divergence of digital DNA sequences that provides the most powerful evidence for our current understanding of natural selection and evolution. If you think that every species is separate and distinct, then how would you think about a hypothetical hybrid between human and chimp (which would almost certainly be viable) - is it human or chimp? What about a being with 75% human DNA, or 90% human DNA, or just 25% human DNA. Where would you draw the line. I am interested in your response. If you are interested in learning more about these thought experiments, take a look at my recent book Challenging Nature.

Science can never proof anything absolutely. But with science alone, there is no reason to even postulate the young Earth/universe claim. The claim is based entirely on a belief in the literal accuracy of the Bible. Indeed, the claim has never been made in any modern non-Christian culture (such as those in Asia). You are certainly free to hold such a belief, but I hope you understand that your belief is based on Biblical revelation and not science.

Best regards,

Lee

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On May 30, 2007



Dr. Silver,

I appreciate your willingness to discuss these ideas with me. I am pleased to know that you cannot definitively dismiss the existence of God, as many scientists claim to be able to do. His role in our creation and daily lives is a much deeper subject and is a topic for another day. However, the topic of the Big Bang is a nice segue into our discussion.

The basic question I posed in my first email still stands: How can an organic cell be created from inorganic matter? If there was a “first cell”, as your Life 2.0 article suggested, then this cell had to either have existed prior to the Big Bang and have been carried throughout the process of planet formation and cooling you describe, or would have had to converted from an inorganic substance to a living cell. I assume, though, that you don’t believe in the former. So, the question of inorganic-to-organic still remains. To my knowledge, no transformation of this kind has ever been observed in nature.

Another question that still stands from my original email is the date of the start of life. You quote these dates of 15b and 4b years of the various events that shaped life as we know it today. How are these dates determined? Is it based on some kind of “molecular clock” study? I assume so, since your research does not focus on fossils.

As for speciation, I can buy into the concept of a change in species over time. That has been observed in the restructuring of DNA to create a new species. However, the problem arises in the genetics of a species. As you are obviously well aware, one species cannot breed with another species. Dogs breed dogs, pigs breed pigs, and humans breed humans. Once a DNA sequence has restructured, that new species is its own kind, and cannot breed with the parent species. Also, there is not an observed adding of information…simply a restructuring, which is an important detail.

To my knowledge, there is not evidence in nature of a hybrid between a human and a chimp. How can such a hybrid be hypothetically viable? Has a human successfully bred with a chimp?

The concept of using DNA sequencing to argue evolution is admittedly an intriguing concept. We humans do have some commonality in DNA sequence with every other living thing. We even share some similarity with bacteria, such as yeast. How, though, do you make the step from common properties or sequences to common ancestor? In order to argue a common ancestor, you must be able to demonstrate either the adding of genetic information over time or the existence of a standard DNA. I don’t think either can be proven, though. Mutations, as I understand them, involve a degradation of genetic structure and never provide any beneficial changes to life. If we shared an ancestor with a bird, for instance, you would either need to prove that we have in our DNA the information necessary to grow feathers or that the genetic information in birds to grow feathers was added at some point in history. You can argue commonality all you want, but I don’t believe you can argue links. If anything, I believe the commonality of design argues for a common designer, not a common ancestor.

I acknowledge Einstein did not believe in the God of the Bible. However, I do appreciate his views on religion and science. I particularly like this quote:

---"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind ...a legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist."

Thanks again for your willingness to indulge my curiosity and answer my questions. I look forward to your response.

Josh

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 30, 2007 1:54 PM



Dear Josh,

Before probing these questions further, it is important to clear up some misunderstandings expressed in your last letter.

(1) With modern technology, scientists can easily convert inorganic molecules into organic molecules (this is called organic synthesis). Organic molecules are defined as compounds containing multiple carbon-carbon bonds. I can create systems of organic molecules that are even self-replicating to a certain extent, and within a few years, it will be possible for machines to be programmed to create self-maintaining and self-replicating cells from scratch.

(2) You state:

As you are obviously well aware, one species cannot breed with another species. Dogs breed dogs, pigs breed pigs, and humans breed humans. Once a DNA sequence has restructured, that new species is its own kind, and cannot breed with the parent species.

This is incorrect -- related species can breed together. The most well-known example is of donkeys and horses creating mules. But in fact, cows were created by breeding together two species, domestic sheep were created by mixing together three species, and the llama comes from two species in different genera. (See my book for more details.) In plants, quite distant hybridizations can be made, and they are responsible for all the major crops in the world today. Chimps and humans share 97% of their DNA in common and exhibit only a single chromosomal change. In fact, chimps and humans have all the same genes -- only their expression is different. More distant animal species can easily breed together, therefore, it is quite likely that chimps and humans could form hybrids.

Out of curiosity, do you consider Neanderthals to be members of the human species? Their DNA has been sequenced and it is about 0.5% different from ours. Each human being is about 0.1% different in DNA sequence from each other. Where would you draw the line between different species.

(3) You state:

Once a DNA sequence has restructured, that new species is its own kind, and cannot breed with the parent species. Also, there is not an observed adding of information…simply a restructuring, which is an important detail.

and

In order to argue a common ancestor, you must be able to demonstrate either the adding of genetic information over time or the existence of a standard DNA. I don’t think either can be proven, though. Mutations, as I understand them, involve a degradation of genetic structure and never provide any beneficial changes to life.

I am very curious to know where you got this information from. It is rather outdated (from before the discovery of DNA structure in 1953). Single base mutations are simply changes in the DNA sequence, for example from ACGAAT to ACTAAT. This not a "degradation." Most random mutations are not advantageous to the organism, but some are. Furthermore, we can select mutations to create new varieties of crops. Corn, for example, was bred out of an inedible weed. That's a good example of artificial selection.

Second, it is easy to explain how NEW genetic information can be added to a genome. This is one common mechanism: during replication a gene gets duplicated so there are now two copies instead of one on each chromosome. One copy continues to carry out the same function, but the second is free to evolve -- if it picks up a new useful function, it will be selected for survival. This process of duplication and divergence has occurred over and over again, over millions of generations, expanding the size of the genome from 100 to 1,000-fold, and increasing the complexity of the organisms that the genome codes for. Molecular biologists have constructed a very detailed map of when and where each gene duplication occurred. Take a look at a modern book on genetics (such as mine) and you'll gain a much better understanding of this.

Does this have any impact on your thoughts.

Best regards,

Lee Silver

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On May 31, 2007

Dr. Silver,

It seems as if we are developing quite a number of sub-discussions. I’ll attempt to address all of them…forgive me if I miss a thought in which you were interested.

I understand that organic synthesis is possible. The trouble I have is that it is in a lab environment. Is there an example of this phenomenon in nature, outside of the realm of human initiation?

The subject of human initiation brings up the subject of genetic engineering, the method by which, as you justifiably point out, many of today’s farm animals and crops are created. The possibility of many of these mutations or hybrids is obvious, as they have been demonstrated in practice. However, science has been able to take hybridization to a point not observed in nature. Mules, for example, are most often sterile when created in nature…a natural cross-breeding that is obviously not ideal for carrying on a species. As I understand it, most cross-breeds or hybrids are human-initiated and often require additional human interaction to carry on the breed.

I misspoke previously about the breeding across a species. What I was shooting for was that two dogs are not going to produce a cat, or a pig and a parrot are not going to produce a flying pig. I understand these are drastic changes, but you must concede that something of a drastic change must occur at some point to develop such distinct differences as mammals, reptiles, fish, and birds. I know you have not studied fossils, but there have been no fossils discovered that prove any transitional states between, for example, a lizard and a bird. There may be some similarities in DNA, but similarity does not prove connection.

You mention the difference between chimps and humans being very small. Yes, I understand that chimps have one more chromosome than humans. However, there are significant differences within the “common” chromosomes. Where did your 97% come from? Are you looking at substitutions only, or are you also looking at insertions/deletions? Did this number come from a full study of the entire genome? Couldn’t you argue that any difference at all could be due to a unique creation, not a process of evolution?

I can buy that Neanderthal is of the same common human ancestor as modern humans. That is easily supported by the Bible and is also easily concluded through science. However, how can you trust that the DNA of an unearthed Neanderthal is complete and correct? Doesn’t DNA have a “shelf life?” Could that 0.5% actually be much smaller if you account for some DNA degradation?

Admittedly, I am over my head when trying to discuss gene replication. One obvious standout in your statement, though, is that a copied gene “is free to evolve.” As I understand it, a gene is coded to perform a particular function. Is there a known mechanism where a gene can reprogram itself to perform a different function, such as fur turning to hair or gills turning to lungs? I can buy the concept of a duplicated gene in a genome, but I am skeptical of the reprogramming of a gene. Can you elaborate? Is there a current example in nature of an animal receiving a reprogrammed gene and developing a new function?

Thanks,

Josh

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 01, 2007 8:34 AM



Dear Josh,

We've had a good conversation, but it doesn't make sense to proceed further unless you are willing to take standard university courses in genetics, molecular biology, and developmental biology (on top of prerequisites in chemistry, physics, and discrete mathematics) . There is an enormous conceptual framework and experimental foundation for our modern view of the universe - including organic life - that can't be explained in an email message or two. But it would only be useful to begin to learn the foundational science if you started with a mind that was open to the possibility that your current views might be wrong. I would be happy to send you a copy of my genetics textbook for free (normal price is $139), if you would like -- just tell me where to send it. {I have no idea how old your are or what your educational background is, but I admire your willingness to participate in this discussion.}

For my own edification, I would like to know the source of two claims that you raised in a previous message. First is the idea that mutations necessarily cause "genetic degradation." Second is the idea that new genetic information can't emerge or be added into an existing genome. If these claims were true, then evolution would not be able to occur. (Conversely, if both claims are false, then mathematical analysis can show that evolution almost certainly MUST occur within biological organisms of the kind that exist on earth.) Although neither claim is accurate, I've heard them used in arguments made by many other people who oppose the idea of biological evolution. If you could provide me with citations for primary sources, I would be very appreciative.

Best regards,

Lee Silver

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Silver,

I appreciate your time in discussing these subjects with me. I understand you are a busy man, and it says a lot about you that you would take time with a random person to answer some pretty involved questions. My background is in Mechanical Engineering and Mathematics, but I have a curiosity about a number of subjects. I would very much appreciate a copy of your textbook. That is a very generous gesture, and I would be honored to accept it.

I am more than willing to consider the possibility that I am wrong about many things. I am generally very open-minded about the world. However, I will not be swayed in my belief in God or the accuracy of the Bible – having those doubts would defeat the purpose of faith. However, I firmly believe science and religion can exist in harmony with each other. The Bible is not explicit on the age of the universe, so that is a subject I am open to explore. However, the Bible is explicit in its claim that man was uniquely created; therefore, I cannot buy in to a macroevolutionary world. I do feel it is important, though, to understand all sides of a subject and be able to come to an educated conclusion. Hence, my curiosity and determination to understand your world.

I do hold to the fact that you have not provided me with a proof of connectivity between genomes that shows a large-scale evolutionary progression over time. You also have not provided proof of events you have observed in a lab setting demonstrated in nature, without human interaction. I hope further study on my part will clear up many of those questions.

Admittedly, I cannot quickly grab citations for the two claims I made that you are curious about. One gathers nuggets of information from various sources over the course of time, and this is one of those cases where I cannot recall the research paper or book where I got that information. I will continue to look and will be glad to provide your references when I can run them down.

Again, thank you very much for your time. Your knowledgeable, respectful writing is a testament to both you and to Princeton. I look forward to receiving your book and reading it.

Thanks,

Josh