Evolution 2.0: Breaking the Deadlock Between Darwin and Design

This book adds nothing of value to the debate between "evolution" and "creationism". It appears the the author wants the books to somehow be perceived as an important contribution, but it isn't in my opinion.I received this book today and because I read at a rate of 2000 words a minutes with 85% comprehension, it didn't take long to go through it. it's a very light read, so that helped as well.My biggest objection is that he misrepresents both evolutionist positions and also creationists. lumping them into their respective most extreme positions.He also acts as if he is the one who suddenly discovered that DNA is a code. That is well understood by almost everyone who is familiar with DNA. The remarkable mechanisms that are built and controlled by DNA are absolutely amazing.The one thing that I agree with him on is that the remarkably powerful control code that is DNA could not come about randomly, there must have been a coder.. What not accept that this points to God?I have also ordered a copy of "Evolution: A view from the 21st Century" by Shapiro. It will arrive tomorrow. I expect it to be much more enlightening than Evolution 2.0 was!By the way, I'm an Electronics Engineer and have been studying this topic from both the scientific and the Christian points of view since the mid 1970s. i have over 100 books on the subject and consider myself to be a "Creationist".

Author (and computer scientist/engineer) Perry Marshall wrote in the Introduction of this 2015 book, “Everything we know from computer science provokes a huge question: ‘How do you get a code without a coder?’ … ‘How can code write itself?’ These questions challenge the boundaries of science and religion.” (Pg. xxii) He goes on, “As I distanced myself from the extremes, I found myself reading more scientific papers and fewer popular books and websites… That science is what this book is about.” (Pg. xxiv)He explains, “This is not a religious book… This is a science book, provoked by my burning question: If blind evolutionary forces can produce eyes and hands and ears and millions of species, then why don’t engineers use Darwinian evolution to design cars or write software?... Rather than brushing aside ‘ultimate questions,’ the new discoveries I was making only served to intensify and reframe ancient questions that lie at the boundary between science and religion. Where did life come from? Where do we get our ability to think and choose? In this book you’ll discover vital principles from the information sciences that neatly explain why… Darwinism is still plagued with problems, never able to silence its critics… You’ll also find that the Creationists and ID advocates leave out vital parts of the story: Darwinists underestimate nature, and Creationists underestimate God.” (Pg. xxiv-xxv)He adds, “In this book, I offer a … brand new paradigm for biology. I will show you that scientists create new species in the lab every day, and I’ll show you how they do it. I’ll also demonstrate that to the extent science can prove anything, science proves design in DNA. In other words, I’ll prove that BOTH SIDES, the Creationists and the Darwinists, are right.” (Pg. xxvi)He recalls, “I realized … [that] my belief in God was connected to my sense that the cosmos and the human body itself could not possibly be here without a Designer… My drive came from the belief that there had to be some fort of mathematical formula or underlying foundation that would demonstrate the possibilities of evolution, and show its limitations… the remaining force that kept me from sliding into atheism was my engineering instincts… I was going to let science and engineering answer this question for me.” (Pg. 6-7)He notes, “I never found a radiation mutation experiment that definitively produced a useful new feature that wasn’t already there. I hunted for a Darwinian explanation for this… Strangely, I could not find one… In later chapters, you’ll see many fascinating experiments where new mechanisms do develop in the lab---fast… However, radiation-induced mutations always appear to be neutral and usually harmful… Could that mean that when fruit flies adapt, they don’t transform through random copying errors, but instead by some other mechanism?... I needed to find out.” (Pg. 33-34)He observes, “Yes, there is surely some vanishingly small number of beneficial mutations that were generated by random accidental copying errors. But there’s no way to be certain they were random… In other words, one scientifically untestable theory (‘an intelligent designer created new species’) has bene duking it out with another scientifically untestable theory (‘the mutations that create new species are random and accidental’). It is impossible for science to validate either assertion. So our deadlock between Darwin and Design shouldn’t be all that surprising.” (Pg. 75)He explains, “If you major in biology, you will eventually study Transposition… I found there are two versions of evolution: There’s real-world evolution practiced by scientists and medical researchers. And there’s a largely fake, dumbed-down version that they bicker about in bookstores and Kansas school board meetings… Transposition, it turned out, was just the teeny, tiny top of a huge iceberg. Transposition may be the most common system of evolutionary development, but it’s not the only one. And every single one of these mechanisms is modular, contextual, and follows formulaic patterns.” (Pg. 91)He suggests, “Are cells sentient? I truly do not know the answer… Perhaps it’s not a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer. Perhaps living things have various degrees of self-awareness… Evolution is ultimately driven by cells’ desire to multiply, to fill the Earth, to use every available resource to its maximum potential, and to populate every ecological niche with fantastic beauty and diversity.” (Pg. 112)He outlines 5 evolutionary processes: “1. Epigenetics; 2. Transposition; 3. Horizontal Gene Transfer; 4. Hybridization; 5. Symbiogenesis… And what happens when we combine Transposition (cells rearranging their own DNA), Horizontal Transfer (cells exchanging DNA), Epigenetics (organisms passing acquired traits to offspring through cells switching DNA sequences on and off), and Symbiogenesis (organisms merging together) with Genome Duplication (two species merging to form a third)?... we can in principle get from any one spot on the tree of life to any other. Also remember the retrovirus… which leads to organisms borrowing code from code inserted into the virus’ own DNA… Most important, what we’ve learned about Evolution 2.0 is: *It’s not slow or gradual; it’s fast. *It’s not accidental; it’s organized. *It’s not purposeless; it’s adaptive. *Natural selection isn’t the star of the show; natural Genetic Engineering is.” (Pg. 144) He summarizes, “Evolution 2.0 is… the cell’s capacity to adapt and to generate new features and new species by engineering its own genetics in real time.” (Pg. 145)He wonders, “Do cells read their DNA?... Might they have the ability to locate advantageous instructions from other cells’ DNA and add those instructions to their own genome? If so, then organisms would evolve their bodies by evolving their FNA language first. How might they ‘know’ how to do this? Currently our understanding of this is very limited. However, we are beginning to clearly see what cells do.” (Pg. 169)He concludes, “All this further persuaded me that all we presently know about Origin of Life clearly infers a designer. I cam to this conclusion because of the utter absence of any chemical explanation for Origin of Information. The logical inference was: (1) The pattern in DNA is a code, (2) all the codes whose origin we know are designed, so (3) therefore we have every reason to believe DNA is designed. None of the thousands of people I interacted with offered hard evidence to support any other explanation.” (Pg. 194)He admits, “I’d been raised a young Earth Creationist, and had initially been inoculated against these fascinating truths. I had to grow up and embrace a more nuanced understanding of God and nature.” (Pg. 248) He continues, “I had to outgrow my youthful notions of God. The six-day Creationist God I grew up with gave way to a richer conception of the Divine, that of a master programmer who would spin a strand of code that fills the whole Earth with beauty… The God I imagined as a child yielded to one who weaves a complex story, a story not just for children but for adults, a grand epic tale. A God who invested himself into that tale by creating human beings in his image… One who beckons us to live in the tension of paradox and mystery.” (Pg. 265)This is a creative approach to creation/evolution issues, that will be of great interest to those studying such matters.

Marshall's efforts in writing the book are admirable, and I almost loved it. However, the main point Marshall makes is:"1. DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.2. All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.3. Therefore DNA was designed by a mind."So he writes most of the book to justify the logic aforementioned, which is admirable. However, it is clear how the premise is wrong, which invalidates the conclusion. Yes, there is no evidence for a natural phenomenon that creates coded information, so if that is the null hypothesis, then we have failed to reject it. But that does not mean that the null hypothesis is true! In other words, the argument is simply: there is no evidence that we know of, therefore it is not possible. And that is a logical fallacy, it is an incorrect assumption.He goes on to point out how atheists were never able to prove him wrong, scientifically. Well, obviously atheists would also be wrong, scientifically. "If you cannot show evidence for God's nonexistence, then you cannot make a scientific claim of it" Therefore, this is a great book for individuals who are either atheists or religious, but not for individuals who are scientists or strictly scientific inclined, like me.I do applaud how Marshall goes after both atheists and creationists, that makes the book better and more balanced, but he also continuously insists to blame poor old Darwin for his random mutation claims. Yes, they were wrong, and yes, evolution is not based on randomness... but we have known better for the past 100 years already. Let's move on to current data.I love the idea for the prize, that made me buy this book, but I humbly write the first 1 star review of my life because I felt misled. I thought that this book would be unbiased, based on science, but it's sadly not. If I am missing something major here, please disapprove my review. However, if you are looking for a scientific, unbiased book, I would suggest something like: The Gene, by Siddhartha Mukherjee.

In Primary and Secondary level, I had some ammunition against random evolution. I independently read Origin (Charles Darwin) but also The Seal of God (D F Payne): 2001 A Space Odyssey presented a colourful naturalistic alternative of pre-evolved intelligence. I later toyed with Theistic Evolution: C S Lewis focused his attacks on Philosophical Evolution (where evolution is taken nonbiologically as improvement rather than biologically as change). At Tertiary level, Biblical Anthropology ridiculed random evolution and promoted Young Earth belief, yet Lewis (Miracles) had underlined that early Genesis was poetic or semipoetic (St. Jerome; John Calvin). CSL also noted how some were atheists, as he had been, through wish-fulfilment—they did not wish there to be a universal creator (Sheldon Vanauken’s A Severe Mercy). I tended towards Young Earthism. Later, Intelligent Design highlighted deific intelligence reflected in biological design, postulating randomness at microevolutionary level but deific intervention at macroevolutionary level. Both postulations satisfied me (and, I think, Anthony Flew: There is a God), but not Perry Marshall (Evolution 2.0). He brought to my attention scientific evidence of intelligence without iterative intervention, intelligence predating biology but intervening (as deism) to begin intelligent biology, effectively creating cell intelligent evolution. Pre-Marshall I had moved from Young Earth to Old Earth, courtesy of Kevin Logan (Responding to the Challenge of Evolution): Old Earth ID? I think that Old or Young Earth positions are incidental to God’s process of creation, and given that process now think cell intelligent evolution (intelligence combining the steps of micro~ and macro~evolution) a better position that Intelligent Design (combining random microevolution and intelligent macrocreation). My main field being theology, not science, I apologise for any misunderstanding of the key terms, but heartily recommend Marshall’s book, a satisfying resolution to a great conflict.

Very interesting and well researched discussion why the simplistic view of "survival of the fittest" won't work. Mr Marshall has clearly spent considerable time going through the literature and is well up-to-date with modern science. His arguments steer a middle way between the "Creationists" who flatly deny all the evidence we have for immense periods of time having passed since the Earth was formed and life evolved, and the traditional "Darwinists", who think random mutations can produce evolvong life forms. As I was brought up and taught believing the latter, and having had no patience with people believing God somehow magicked everything into existence, I found this book extremely interesting. It is wel lworth a read, and has changed my perception of the world!

This is a fascinating book which opens up a whole new approach to our thinking about the issues of evolution, intelligent design, and the role of DNA in the change and development of past and present species of living things..it is quite hard- going for the layman at times and requires a good deal of concentration, but it is an excellent book which I would recommend to anyone who has questions, and wants answers about the whole matter of evolution.

Swestbooks provided a very good service, the book is not so good, nothing really new in it.

If you have not contaminated by the neo Darwin philosophy then this book is for you.