Creation or Evolution?

Where does the evidence lead?

Burkhard Schmidt

European Organization for Particle Physics, CERN, Geneva,

where the "The Large Hadron Collider“ has been build
I am a passionate experimental physicist and a convinced Christian
 Creation or Evolution ?
Outline :
 The relation between Science and Faith
 Different worldviews

 Where does the evidence lead ?

 In Physics and Cosmology
 The origin of the universe
 In Biology and Chemistry
 The origin of life
 The origin of information

 The design inference

 Science and religion
Controversial opinions:

Peter Atkins, Chemistry Professor, Oxford:

« Science and religion cannot be reconciled »

Melvin Calvin, Nobel Price in Chemistry:

«  As I try to discern the origin of the conviction [that the
universe is orderly] I seem to find it in a basic notion
discovered 2000 or 3000 years ago, and enunciated first in
the western world by the ancient Hebrews: namely that the
universe is governed by a single God and is not the
product of the whims of many gods, each governing his
own province according to his own laws. This monotheistic
view seems to be the historical foundation for modern
science. »
 Science and religion
 Nature made a survey about belief/unbelief in the scientific
community asking the following question to 1000 scientists:

Do you belief in God who answers prayer and in

personal immortality?

1916: 70% responded, 41.8% yes, 41.5% no, 16.7% agnostic

1996: 60% responded, 39.6% yes, 45.5% no, 14.9% agnostic

However, we notice that the public perception is different.

 Still, there are some famous theists in science::

Galileo, Kepler, Pacal, Boyle, Newton, Faraday, Babbage,
Mendel, Pasteur, Kelvin, Maxwell
 Science and religion
But what about the conflict between Galileo and the
Roman Catholic church?
It was a conflict between the view of Aristotle (the
earth is at the center of the universe) hold by the
catholic church and secular scientists - and the
observations of Galileo, not between science and the
Bible.
Lack of readiness to accept where the evidence
leads!

The real conflict is not between science and

religion, but between naturalism and theism,
two diametrically opposed worldviews.
 Naturalism or Theism ?
What is naturalism?
Carl Sagan, astronomer:
« The cosmos is all there is, or was, or ever shall be. »
 There s nothing but nature. The universe is a closed system
of cause and effect.
 Un Créateur est donc exclu.

What is Theism?
The Bible, Genesis 1.1 :
« In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.»
 The universe is not a closed system, but a creation, an artifact
of the mind of God, maintained and upheld by Him.
 Is there more than just nature ?

 Richard Dawkins dedicates his book “The God delusion” to

Douglas Adams in quoting him with the words:
«Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without
having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it
too? »

 Dawkins and Adams suggest that there are either fairies or

nothing.

 Fairies at the bottom of the garden my well be a delusion,

but what about a gardener, to say nothing about the owner.
 Naturalism or Theism ?
The question we want to answer tonight is:

 Which worldview sits most comfortably with

science - Naturalism or Theism?

or

 Is there scientific evidence for theism or atheism?

 Let us see where the evidence leads

 La méthode scientifique
THÉORIE
Un ensemble cohérent d’ H Y P O T H È S E S

DÉDUCTION
vérifications
INDUCTION confirmations prédictions d’observations
répétitions
obtention de
nouvelles données
DONNÉES
Résultats des observations et expérimentations

The essence of true science is a willingness to

follow empirical evidence, wherever it leads.
 The scientific method
Christian de Duve, Nobel Prize in Medicine:
«  Scientific enquiry rests on the notion that all manifestations
in the universe are explainable in natural terms, without
supernatural intervention.
Strictly speaking, this notion is not an a priori philosophical
stand or profession of belief. It is a postulate, a working
hypothesis that we should be prepared to abandon if faced
with facts that defy every attempt of natural explanation.
Many scientists, however, do not bother to make this
distinction, tacitly extrapolating from hypothesis to
affirmation. They are perfectly happy with the explanations
provided by science. Like Laplace, they have no need for
the ‘God hypothesis’ and equate the scientific attitude with
agnosticism, if not with outright atheism. »
 Science and Philosophie
 The ideal of a rational scientific observer, free of all
preconceived theories, doing investigations and coming
to unbiased conclusions is regarded by most scientists as
a simplistic myth.
 In common with the rest of humanity scientists have
preconceived ideas, worldviews that they bring to bear on
every situation.

Richard
ThomasLewontin, New Yorkde
Nagel, Professeur Review, 9.1.1997
philosophie : York :
à New
« Nous (les scientifiques)
« Je prétends nousest
que l’athéisme nous
vrairangeons du côté
et le fait que de lades
certains science
en dépit
individus lesde l’absurdité
plus de et
intelligents certains de ses
les mieux systèmes
informés que de pensée….
je connaisse
Cela découle de notre allégeance faite préalablement au
soient des croyants religieux me met mal à l’aise. Ce n’est pas
matérialisme…. Pour cette raison, nous sommes contraints de nous
simplement que explications
limiter à des je ne croie pas en Dieu et Ce
naturelles…. quematérialisme
j’espère toutest absolu,
naturellement
car nous nequ’il n’y aitpas
pouvons paspermettre
de Dieu! Je
aune veux
divin depas qu’illeexiste
mettre un
pied dans
Dieu. Je ne veux
l’embrasure depas que l’univers soit ainsi. »
la porte. »
 Limits of scientific explanations
Science explains. But how much? Are there limits?
 Peter Atkins, professor of chemistry at Oxford:
« There is no reason to suppose that science cannot deal
with every aspect of existence. »

 Francis Collins, Director of the Human Genome Project:

« Science is powerless to answer questions such as ‘Why
did the universe come into being?’, ‘What is the meaning
of human existence?’, ‘What happens after we die?’ »

 Science can answer the ‘how’ questions, but not the ‘why’
questions connected with purpose.
 La recherche scientifique a des limites, en particulier dans le
domaine des origines.
 Science and Faith
 Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist, Oxford:
« Scientific belief is based on publically checkable evidence,
religious belief not only lacks evidence ; it’s independence
of evidence is it’s joy shouted from the rooftops. »

Question: Is ‘biblical faith’ really ‘blind faith’ ?

John 20, 31: « These things are written that you may believe »

Romains1, 20: « Car depuis la fondation du monde, ce qui ne peut se

voir de lui, savoir et sa puissance éternelle et sa divinité, se discerne
par le moyen de l’intelligence, par les choses qui sont faites… »

 These statements from the Bible show that faith,

reason and evidence belong together.
 The role of Faith in Science
 George Klein, biologist and immunologist, Budapest:
« I am not an agnostic, I am atheist. My attitude is not based
on science, but rather on faith… The absence of a Creator,
the non-existence of God is my childhood faith, my adult
belief, unshakable and holy. »

 Jean Rostand, biologiste et fervent adepte de l’évolution :

« On ne peut que croire en l’évolution ; il est bien entendu
qu’on ne peut jamais que croire et que tout la différence est
entre les téméraires qui croient qu’ils savent et les sages
qui savent qu’ils croient. »

« Par la foi, nous comprenons que les mondes ont été formés
par la parole de Dieu, de sorte que ce qui se voit n'a pas
été fait de choses qui paraissent. » Hébreux 11,3
 Science et foi
 Tant la création que l’évolution ne peuvent être
ni prouvées, ni falsifiées.

 Robert A. Millikan, physicien et Prix Nobel :

« La chose pathétique, c’est que nous avons des
scientifiques qui essaient de prouver l’évolution –
qu’aucun scientifique n’a jamais pu prouver ».

 G. A. Kerkut, zoologiste et évolutionniste :

« C’est une question de foi pour un biologiste de
croire que la biogenèse a eu lieu un jour, et il peut
choisir quelle méthode de biogenèse lui convient le
mieux ; la preuve de ce qui s’est passé n’est pas
disponible. »
Where does the evidence lead ?
 A look at Physics and Cosmology

 The intelligibility of the universe

 The existence of the universe
 The beginning of the universe
 What has particle physics to do with it ?
 Fine-tuning in the universe
The Intelligibility of the Universe
Albert Einstein:
« The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is
comprehensible. »
 The concept of the intelligibility universe presupposes the existence of
a rationality capable of of recognizing that intelligibility.

Albert Einstein writes in the ‘Letters to Solovine’:

 « You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world
… as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should
expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any
way. … The kind of order created by Newton’s theory of gravitation,
for example is wholly different. Even if man proposes the axioms of
the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree
of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a
priori. That is the ‘miracle’ which is being constantly reinforced as our
knowledge expands. »
 Not only the intelligibility is remarkable, it is the mathematical nature
of the nature of the intelligibility of
The Intelligibility of the Universe
Eugene Wigner, Nobel Laureate in Physics:
« The enormous usefulness of mathematics in natural science is something
bordering on the mysterious, and there is no rational explanation for it … it is
an article of faith. »
 Why not argue that there is a rational explanation for the intelligibility of the
universe, and that it is grounded in the nature of the ultimate rationality of
God?

John Polkinghorne, physicist and theologian, Cambridge:

« Science does not explain the mathematical intelligibility of the physical world,
for it is part of science’s founding faith that this is so. »

Keith Ward, British philosopher and theologian:

«  The continuing conformity of physical particles to precise mathematical
relationships is something that is much more likely to exist if there is an
ordering cosmic mathematician who sets up the correlation in the requisite
way. The existence of laws of physics … strongly implies that there is a God
who formulates such laws and ensures that the physical realm conforms to
them. »
 The existence of the Universe
Why is there a universe at all, why is there something rather
than nothing?

E. Tryton:
« Our universe is simply one of those things which happen from time to time. »

Steven Hawking, theoretical physicist at Cambridge:

«  The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot
answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to
describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Is the unified
theory so compelling that it brings about its own existence? Or does it need a
Creator, and if so, does he have any other effect on the universe? »
 Keep in mind that the laws we find cannot themselves cause anything.

Allan Sandage, father of modern astronomy and winner of the Crafoord Prize:
«  I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be
some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for
the miracle of existence –why there is something rather than nothing. »
 The beginning of the Universe
If the universe had no beginning, it is eternal and one might
argue that it is simply a brute fact of existence. But if it had a
beginning, it is not eternal and therefore not ultimate.

 Aristotle believed that the earth was the centre of an eternal universe
 Hindu cosmology thought in terms of the universe going through
endlessly repeating cycles
 Hebrews believed that time was linear and the universe had a beginning.
It had been created, and the creator was God, Elohim.

 Steven Hawking, in ‘A brief history of time’ :

«  Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because
it smacks of divine intervention. »
 Science has shown that the hypothesis of a beginning is
testable.
 The ‘Big-Bang’ Model
 Hypothesis of the Big Bang Model
 La validité universelle de la théorie de la relativité générale
 La présence de toute masse ou énergie provoque une courbure de l’espace-temps.
Comment les masses et l’énergie sont-elles distribuées dans l’univers ?
 Le principe cosmologique
 A grande échelle, l’énergie et la masse sont distribués de façon homogène dans l’univers
(ni position, ni direction spatiales privilégiées).
 La terre n’est donc pas au centre de l’univers, ni le système solaire,
ni même la voie lactée !
Étoiles vieil- Asymétrie
les comme matière -
l’univers antimatière
Répartition
Décalage vers ~75% H Fond Univers
matière
le rouge ~25% He cosmique « plat »
hétérogène

Théorie de l’inflation Matière Énergie

Théorie du Big Bang
Fulgurante phase
Expansion univers (début, histoire, fin?)
d’accélération
sombre sombre

Relativité Principe Théorie des Constante

générale cosmologique particules cosmologique
1917 1965 1982 1992 ~2000
 Observational Evidence: Redshift
 Observations of distant galaxies and quasars shows that
these objects are red-shifted to longer wavelength.
 The Big Bang module postulates that this is the direct
result of the expansion of the universe.
The universe has a beginning and a history.
Étoiles vieil- Asymétrie
les comme matière -
l’univers antimatière
Répartition
Décalage vers ~75% H Fond Univers
matière
le rouge ~25% He cosmique « plat »
hétérogène

Théorie de l’inflation Matière Énergie

Théorie du Big Bang
Fulgurante phase
Expansion univers (début, histoire, fin?)
d’accélération
sombre sombre

Relativité Principe Théorie des Constante

générale cosmologique particules cosmologique
1917 1965 1982 1992 ~2000
 Observational evidence: CMB
 The hot Big Bang module predicts the cosmic microwave
background radiation (CMB).
 CMB is a relic from the time when radiation decoupled from
matter.
 Through the expansion of the universe the CMB shifted from
about 3000K to 2.73K, the temperature it has today.
 The universe is expanding, it had a beginning and it a has a
history.
Étoiles vieil- Asymétrie
les comme matière -
l’univers antimatière
Répartition
Décalage vers ~75% H Fond Univers
matière
le rouge ~25% He cosmique « plat »
hétérogène

Théorie de l’inflation Matière Énergie

Théorie du Big Bang
Fulgurante phase
Expansion univers (début, histoire, fin?)
d’accélération
sombre sombre

Relativité Principe Théorie des Constante

générale cosmologique particules cosmologique
1917 1965 1982 1992 ~2000
 Implications: Dark-Matter and -Energy
 Dark energy is the most popular way
Mati¸re
sombre Atomes
to explain recent observations that the
froide 4% universe appears to be expanding at
23%
an accelerating rate.
 Dark matter is hypothetical matter that
does not interact with the electro-
magnetic force, but whose presence
nergie can be inferred from gravitational
sombre
73%
effects on visible matter
Étoiles vieil- Asymétrie
les comme matière -
l’univers antimatière
Répartition
Décalage vers ~75% H Fond Univers
matière
le rouge ~25% He cosmique « plat »
hétérogène

Théorie de l’inflation Matière Énergie

Théorie du Big Bang
Fulgurante phase
Expansion univers (début, histoire, fin?)
d’accélération
sombre sombre

Relativité Principe Théorie des Constante

générale cosmologique particules cosmologique
1917 1965 1982 1992 ~2000
The beginning of the universe
Visualization of The Big Bang model
and of the expansion of the universe
The universe in Temperature and time
 For the very early phase after the Big Bang
no description by known physics is possible
(<10-43s)
 The time until around 10-12s after the Big
Bang can only be explored in theoretical
physics.
 At particle accelerators such as the LHC
one tries to explore the physics from 10-12s
after the Big Bang onwards.
 After 10-6s quarks form protons and
neutrons.
 After 10s the nucleosynthesis starts.
 Until about 10000 years after the Big Bang,
the universe was radiation dominated, later
on it was matter dominated.
 After 380.000 years atoms electrons and
nuclei combined into atoms, hence radiation
decoupled from matter and the universe
became transparent. The relic is the CMB.
 CERN – LHC and LHCb

 After the Big Bang all matter should have been annihilated by it’s
counterpart, antimatter. However, we know that our universe is matter
dominated.

 A difference in the behavior of antimatter and matter has already been

observed, but it falls far short of accounting for the excess of matter
over antimatter in the early universe.

 The 2008 Noble Prize in physics has been given to Nambu, Kobayashi
and Maskawa who developed a precise theoretical framework
(spontaneous broken symmetry) in which LHCb will try to understand
why matter dominates over antimatter in the Universe.
 Fundamental Forces / Interactions
 Gravitational force:
 Only attractive, controls the large-
scale motions of galaxies, planets,
but also of falling apples.

 Electromagnetic force:
 Holds electrons in the outer reaches
of atoms. It can be attractive or
repulsive.

 Strong force:
 Glues quarks to one another to form
neutrons and protons and and keeps
the nuclei together

 Weak force:
 Causes transmutation of the
elements, e.g. HHe in the sun, and
plays a role in radioactive decay
 Elementary Particles
 An elementary particle is a
particle not known to have
substructure; that is, it is not
known to be made up of
smaller particles.

 Elementary particles are the

basic building blocks of the
universe from which all other
particles are made.

 In the Standard Model, the

quarks, leptons, and gauge
bosons are elementary
particles
 Grand Unification of Forces
 The LEP experiments showed
that the effect of the strong force
becomes weaker as energies
increase. This is a good indication
that at incredibly high energies,
the strengths of the
electromagnetic, weak and strong
forces are probably the same.
 The energies involved are at least
a thousand million times greater
than particle accelerators can
reach…
 Although we cannot recreate
conditions with energy high
enough to test these ideas
GUT,LHC
Super symmetry, directly, we can look for the
Technicolor, etc. consequences of ‘grand
unification’ at lower energies, for
instance at the LHC
 The missing Higgs Boson
 The ‘weak force’ and the ‘electromagnetic force’ can be described within the
same theory, which forms the basis of the Standard Model.

 In order for this unification to work mathematically, it requires that the force-
carrying particles have no mass. We know from experiments that this is not
true.

 Peter Higgs et al. suggested that all particles had no mass just after the Big
Bang. As the Universe cooled and the temperature fell below a critical value,
an invisible force field called the ‘Higgs field’ was formed together with the
associated ‘Higgs boson’. Particles that interact with the ‘Higgs Field’ are
given a mass via the Higgs boson.

 This idea provided a satisfactory solution and fitted well with established
theories and phenomena. The problem is that no one has ever observed the
Higgs boson in an experiment to confirm the theory.

 LHC
The technical problem is that we do not know the mass of the Higgs boson
itself, which makes it more difficult to identify. Physicists have to look for it by
systematically searching a range of mass within which it is predicted to exist.
The yet unexplored range is accessible using the LHC, which will determine
the existence of the Higgs boson.
 The fine-tuning of the universe
 Copernican principle:
By overturning the idea that the earth is fixed at the centre of the universe
a process of demoting the earth significance started, which has resulted in
the widespread view that the earth is a fairly typical planet orbiting a fairly
typical sun which is positioned in one of spiral arms of a fairly typical
galaxy which – the multiverse theorists will add – is in a fairly typical
universe.

 The remarkable picture which is gradually emerging form modern physics

and cosmology is one of a universe whose fundamental forces are
amazingly and delicately ‘fine-tuned’ in order for the universe to be able to
sustain life.

 Paul C.W. Davies, Physicien et Mathématicien:

« There is for me the powerful evidence that there is something going on
behind it all… It seems that someone has fine tuned nature’s numbers to
make the universe… the impression of design is overwhelming. »
 The fine-tuning of the universe
For live to exist on earth an abundant supply of carbon is
needed. Carbon is formed in stars through the Triple-alpha
process:
4
He + 4He  8Be* (7.37MeV, t1/2 = 2x10-16s)
8
Be* + 4He  12C* (7.65MeV)
 Energy levels fine-tuned
w.r.t. each other within 4%
12
C + 4He  16O* (7.16MeV)
 Energy levels fine-tuned
w.r.t. each other within 1%

Fred Hoyle, mathematician and astronomer:

« Nothing has shaken my atheism as much as this discovery.»
« A super-intellect has monkeyed with physics as well as with
chemistry and biology. » 
 Fundamental physical constants
 Example: The fine structure constant α characterizes the
strength of the electromagnetic interaction. It is a dimension-
less quantity, and thus its numerical value is independent of
the system of units used. Its value is:

 This constant
Richard has a great
Feynman, influenceet
Physicien onPrix
a large number of
Nobel:
physical phenomena,
« It has been a mysterymore
everthan any
since otherdiscovered
it was fundamentalmore
quantity. Our
than fifty universe
years would
ago, and all not
goodbetheoretical
the same ifphysicists
this constant
put
would be smaller
this number up or
on bigger by just
their wall and an infinitesimal
worry amount.
about it. » 
Therefore one can suppose that in practical no other case a
universe could have been formed capable to produce live.
 Fundamental physical constants
 Gravitational force:

 Coulomb force:

 The ratio of the electromagnetic force constant to the

gravitational force constant is 1036.
 An increase in only one part in 1040, only small stars can exist
 A decrease in only one part in 1040 there will be only large
stars in the universe.
Edward Harrison,
The large cosmologist:
ones produce elements in their thermonuclear furnaces; and it is
« Take your
only the choice:
small onesblind
thatchance thatenough
burn long requires
to multitudes of universes,
sustain a planet with life.
or design that requires only one… many scientists, when they admit their
Paul C.W.Davies:
 views, incline towards the teleological or design argument. »
« The precision a marksman would need to hit a coin at the far
side of the universe, 13.7 billion light years away.»
 Some conditions needed for life
 Right distance to the sun to have liquid water
A change of a few % and all life would cease;
 Surface gravity and temperature are important
for a life-sustaining atmosphere (Oxy.-rich etc.);
 Correct rotational speed to avoid large
day-night temperature variations
 Planet must be orbited by a large moon to
stabilize the earths’ axis and allow for seasons
 etc.

 Arno Penzias, Noble Prize in physics for the discovery of CMB:

« Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out
of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly
the right conditions required to permit life and one which has an
underlying (one might say supernatural) plan. »
Spre ce concluzie ne conduc dovezile?
 O incursiune în Biologie şi Chimie

 Natura şi scopul evoluţiei

 Microevoluţia and Macroevoluţia

 Originea vieţii
 Biogeneza and Abiogeneza
 ADN-ul şi originea informaţiei
 Darwin’s Theory
« Selecţia naturală
examinează cu atenţie cele
mai mici variaţii, respingând
pe cele rele, dar prezervând
şi adăugând pe cele
favorabile »

 Avantaj funcţional

Vasta majoritate a mutaţiilor observate în

laborator au efect patogen.
Nimeni nu se aşteaptă ca un program
pe computer să evolueze prin modificari
aleatorii modificându-şi codul informatic
 Nature and Scope of Evolution
 Microevoluţia : variaţii  Macroevoluţia :
în anumite limite ale Modificări la scară largă
complexităţii; variaţii care determină apariţia
cantitative ale organelor de noi structuri; variaţii
şi structurilor deja calitative la nivelul
existente. organismului cu formare
de noi structuri; apariţia
a noi gene.

Deşi unii biologi refuză să facă o diferenţă între cele două,

totuşi termenii sunt folosiţi pentru a descrie un nivel de evoluţie
în cadrul speciilor.
Macroevoluţie – microevoluţie
Macroevoluţia între Microevoluţia în cadrul
diferite specii speciei

Trecerea de la amibe la pluricelulare, Dezvoltarea, ca exemplu, a diferitelor

de la peşti la reptile, de la reptile la specii de canide pornind de la o formă
mamifere etc. primitivă, probabil lupul.
Date paleontologice şi interpretarea lor
Perioade geologice
 Pleistocen
 Pliocen
 Miocen
 Oligocen
 Eocen
 Paleocen
Interpretarea
 Cretacic
evoluţionistă

Familii de animale
 Nagetiere = rozătoare
 Fledermauese = şoarece-chel
 Wale = balene
 Raubtiere = carnivore
 Insektenfresser = insectivore
 Paarhufer = copite cu număr
par de degete

Date paleontologice
 Datarea fosilelor
 Charles Darwin, în ‘Origine speciilor’ 1859:
« Numărul speciilor de tranziţie care au existat în trecut ar trebui să fie
întradevăr enorm. De ce atunci nu există asemenea fosile intermediare în
toate formaţiunile şi în toate straturile geologice? Geologia nu sustine cu
siguranţă o asemenea lanţ organic evolutiv şi acesta este probabil cel mai
evident argument care poate fi adus împotriva teoriei mele. »

 David Raup, Field Museum of Natural History, ce posedă una

din cele mai mari colecţii fosile din lume:
«  Suntem la 120 de ani după Darwin, şi întelegerea noastră despre datarea
fosilelor a crescut foaret mult. În prezent avem un sfert de milion de specii
de fosile, dar situaţia nu s-a schimbat prea mult. Înregistrarea fosilelor
întâmpina mari dificultăţi, şi în mod surprinzător, posedăm un numar încă
şi mai mic de specii de tranziţie decât în timpul lui Darwin. »
O teorie des revizuită

H = homo
(erectus şi
ergaster)

M = mari maimuţe

R = ramapitecul (astăzi
urangutanul)

A = australopitecul
(astăzi o maimuţă)
 Cu timpul, mai multe date şi mai multă
claritate ?
 Howell Clarke, paleontolog:
« Cu cât vei cunoaşte mai mult, cu atât va fi mai dificil… »

 Carl F. von Weizsäcker, fizician şi filozof:

« Ştiinţa nu risipeşte misterele naturii, ci nu face decât să ne
aducă şa secrete şi mai profunde. »

 Pierre-Paul Grassé, Encyclopoedia Universalis :

« Rolul selecţiei naturale în marile procese evolutive este
mai mult decât improbabilă şi încă nu a fost dovedită...
Mecanismul real al evoluţiei rămâne să fie descoperit »
Explozia cambriană
 La începutul Cambrianului, asistăm la
apariţia bruscă în straturile fosilifere a
majorităţii grupurilor de animale complexe
acum aprox. 530 milioane de ani în urmă.
De asemenea asistăm la diversificarea
anumitor organisme precum microfosiles,
fitoplancton, calcimicrobi. Cu aproximativ 580
milioane de ani în urmă majoritatea
microorganismelor erau simple, unicelulare,
uneori organizate în colonii. În următorii 70
sau 80 de milioane de ani, rata schimbărilor
evolutive a accelerat exponenţial.
 Acest fenomen este atât de izbitor încât
oamenii de ştiinţă l-au numit «explozia
cambrienă» sau «big bang-ul
paleontologiei».
 Biogeneza and Abiogeneza
 Terminologie:
termenul Biogeneză este folosit în sprijinul afirmaţiei că doar viaţa
poate produce viaţă, în contrast cu ipoteza Abiogenezei care
susţine că viaţa poate apărea din elemente lipsite de viaţă în
condiţii favorabile, desi aceste condiţii rămân încă necunoscute.

 Louis Pasteur (1862): Aer cu germeni (nepurificat)

Pasteur a demonstrat falsitatea

teoriei potrivit căreia « viaţa putea
apărea pornind de la nimic şi că Cuptor
microbii pot fi produşi spontan ».
Pompă

 Omne vivum ex vivo

Soluţie
sterilă
 Evoluţia chimică = etape către viaţă ?
Atmosfera Supa Proteine, acizi
primordială primordială nucleici Celule

1)
3) 4)

2)

6)

5)

1) Aminoacizi 2) baze azotate 3) peptide (succesiuni formate dintr-un număr

restrâns de aminoacizi, spre deosebire de proteine) 4) proteine 5) acizi nucleici
(constituenţi ai celulei vii) 6) celula proteică (organism viu unicelular având o
membrană celulară)
Stanley Miller (1953)

 Când un amestec de
amoniac, metan, apă şi
Descărcări hidrogen este supus la curenţi
electrice
electrici, se formează acizi
aminaţi.
 Oamenii de ştiinţă au
intervenit în experiment în mai
multe faze, manipulând
Încălzire mediul
 19 din 20 de aminoacizi
esenţiali au putut fi astfel
Amestec de apă obţinuţi, dar şi multe alte tipuri
şi aminoacizi
Apă în
fierbere
 Sunt necesari aminoacizi puri
pentru a forma proteine
 Formarea macromoleculelor
 ADN-ul sau proteinele s-au format pornind de la
molecule care au două posibilităţi de a se «lega».
 Combinarea lor creează lanţuri DESCHISE,
care permit formarea de lanţuri mai lungi.

 Experimentele care reproduceau «supa

primordială» au produs, în mare parte molecule
DNA Proteins care se leagă într-un singur mod. Mai mult chiar,
Condensation reaction
diferitele tipuri de molecule nu sunt în număr
proporţional unele cu altele.
 S-au format doar lanţuri scurte şi ÎNCHISE Nu a
fost posibilă crea lanţuri lungi
(macromolecule), necesare pentru a avea
Primeval soup fiinţe vii.

Probabilitatea de a forma lanţuri scurte

de 100 de aminoaciyi este de 1 la 1/2100:
1 of ½ 100 = 1 of 1030
 Originea structurii proteice
 Proteinele sunt structuri extrem de specializate alcătuite din lanţuri lungi
de molecule de aminoacizi, care nu pot fi obţinute prin simpla infuzie de
energie asupra elementelor de bază din care sunt formate.

Paul Davies:  « A face o proteină prin simpla injectare de energie este

ca şi cum am exploda o dinamită sub o gramadă de cărămizi şi, ne-am
aştepta să obţinem o casă.  »
 Este necesară inteligenţa unui arhitect şi talentul unui constructor

 Şansă oarbă?
 Există 20 de aminoacizi implicaţi în formarea proteinelor.
 Probabilitatea să plasăm un aminoacid la locul potrivit este de 1/20.
 Pentru a face un lanţ de 100 de aminoacizi, probabilitatea este de ...the
probability is 1 of 20100, which is 1x10130.
Doar atunci obţinem o singură proteină...

 Cum ne explicăm auto-organizarea?

 Stephen Meyers:  « Teoriile auto-organizării explică foarte bine ceea ce
nu trebuie explicat. Ceea ce trebuie explicat nu este originea ordinii...ci
originea informaţiei. »
 Originea vieţii
 Michael Denton, genetician:
«  Ruptura dintre materia moartă şi lumea vie reprezintă cea mai
dramatică şi fundamentală dintre toate discontinuităţile din
natură. Între o celulă vie şi cel mai complex sistem non-biologic,
ca de exemplu un fulg de zăpadă, este un abis atât de vast şi
absolut încât este de neconceput.  »

 Klaus Dose, biochimist:

«  Mai mult de 30 de ani de experimenţe asupra originii vieţii în
domeniul evoluţiei şi chimiei moleculare ne-a condus la
înţelegerea imensităţii problemei originii vieţii pe pământ decât
găsirea vreunei. În prezent toate discuţiile asupre principalelor
teorii din domeniu sfârşesc ori într-un punct mort At present all
discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field
either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance. »
Irreducible Complexity
What
Michaeldid Darwin
Behe, had to say
biochemist: 
aboutflagellum
  « The bacterial this ? is a
complex structure that could not
‘The origin ofthrough
have evolved species’ 1859:
naturalistic
means.
« If It becomes
it could useless if any
be demonstrated
one of its
that any constituent
complex parts is
organ
removed, and thus could not have
existed which could not
arisen through numerous,
possibly have
successive, slightbeen formed
modifications;
by numerous,
therefore, successive
it is hopelessly
improbable that the proteins
slight modifications, my
making
theory up would
the flagellar motor
absolutely
could have come together all at
break down.»
once, by chance. » 
Vidéo sur le flagelle de
www.npn.jst.go.jp/index.html
 DNA
 Like a computer hard disc, DNA contains the
database of information and the program to
produce a specific product.
 Every one of the 10-100 trillion (1013)cells in
the human body contains a database larger
than the Encyclopedia Britannica, it contains
3.5 billion letters.
 The actual length of the DNS tightly coiled in
a single cell of the human body is about 2m.

Werner Loewenstein:
 It is now widely accepted that a living cell is
« This
an genetic
informationlexicon goes back
processing a long,living
machine; long way.
Not things
an iotaareseems to have
instructed bychanged over two billion
the genetic
software
years; encoded
all living beings in
onDNA.
earth, form bacterai to
humans, use the same sixty four word code.»
 However, there is more to life than DNA
 The design inference

Stephen Meyers:
« DNA does not imply the need for an intelligent
designer because it has some similarities to
a software program or to human language. It
implies the need for an intelligent designer
because … it posses an identical feature
(namely information content) that intelligently
designed human texts and computer
languages possess. »