Climbing Mount Improbable

In the 1995 book entitled Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins, the author posits that the difficulty that arises in understanding evolution (i.e., that all the variations of life we now witness are in fact the result of a series of mutations based on conditions and natural selection) occurs because we are too nearsighted. That is to say the arguments by creationists viz., there is a God who created all living beings, and at the top of all of God's creation there is humankind, which was created in the image of God because plants and animals do not seem to have the same refined ability to think as we, so we are a unique form of creation, are really supporting a delusion of reality based on a very myopic notion of time.

Creationists often use the argument it is impossible that we evolved from lower beings because there is just too much disparity between us and them. The conflict arises based on some religious arguments which assert human dominion over the earth.

The rise of science, which is the study of observed phenomenon, and scientific method, a form of hypothesis testing based on observation and experimentation to derive insights into the nature of matter, have shed light onto what constitutes the known universe and corrected many misconceptions. For example, it would be almost impossible now to uphold beliefs that night is actually when the serpent eats the sun, that if you sail to the horizon you'd eventually fall off the Earth...or that AIDS is a disease to punish the sinful, lightning and thunder are God's way of showing anger, that the universe is about 4,500 years old, and so on and so forth. In fact, science has given us great insights into the nature of things and clarifies our understanding of the world and ourselves.

Dawkins gives us a delightful and very readable account of how evolution produced the wonderful variations of life. Citing how even erudite physicists make the common mistake of thinking natural selection means randomness (as one physicist stated, "to think that a one-celled organism evolved to produce the human being is the equivalent of saying a hurricane blowing over a junkyard produced a Boeing 747"), and so impossible that evolution begat the human mind, he counters it with a very important clarification: sure, there is a randomness of how certain processes occur, but there is no randomness at all in how they proceed once they arise. There is no chaos in the way things are, and we know this now better than ever before by looking at how DNA behaves.

Dawkins gives us several examples of how things evolved. Central to everything is an underlying important point: things do not arise swiftly...to look at the difference between a paramecium and David Beckham is to see the vertical, steep cliffs of Mount Evolution. It is inconceivable to think either of these things are related, let alone connected in the chain of evolutionary events. But Dawkins takes us to the other side of this cliff to reveal the gentle, easily walkable slope up to the top of evolution; hence the title of his book, climbing Mount Improbable.

We still do not know the whys and wherefores of life, but these are not scientific questions after all. But if we observe phenomenon carefully enough, we can see its progress in a steady, sure and slow manner. The operative concept here is slow, which is why we become so impatient with how things really unfold. Evolution takes time, incomprehensible to our short lives here, and so we want answers to everything in the same way our dramas give us answers in as little as 30 minutes.

The variations of life are absolutely wonder-ful. How and why things evolve into the forms they are? For every environment, there seems to be a life form perfectly adapted and at home. From the depths of the oceans to the highest mountains, life exists. This should give rise to a sense of awe and wonder. It is of no importance to ask why; scientific inquiry is not in the business of asking such philosophic queries, rather, it wants to understand how things are as they occur.

So, how is it that such a thing as an eye evolved? How did things learn to fly? How does the liver, kidney, lungs, and heart develop their special functions, and how do they interact in such a way to make up a unified, whole body? In short, how do cells change, adapt and specialize to become what they are?

Dawkins dispells much of this type of inquiry as anthropocentric conjecture by pointing out much of what we think we know is based on a particular human viewpoint--which actually hinders our ability to perceive things as they are (this is another whole philosophical issue too big to broach here...I recommend reading John Searle on this...or perhaps in a future posting I'll bring up the issues of epistemology, Quantum mechanics, Heisenberg uncertainty, Godel's Theorum, Wittgenstein's oeuvre, and how that jives with human knowledge). Dawkins tells us about research in evolution through very interesting scientific experimentation. Given certain parameters based on oberved phenomenon, he tells of computer simulations of evolution that show how eyes evolved, how spiders build a web, how trees differentiate, how flight is possible, how sea shells vary, and all done in a very simple and easily understood way.

To wit, for most people, the desire to fly is one of longing and dreams. Sure, we have built airplanes of such great size and ability which allow us to fly, but not in the same way a dragon fly or a swift knows flight (note-- here we enter the realm of human reification--that is, we think about something, and then make it come true in some fabricated way). Our yearning to fly becomes even a greater yearning when Dawkins points out that the majority of creatures on earth CAN fly--meaning we are in the minority of creatures that cannot. Is this true? Yes-- because insects represent over 70% of living things on Earth, and due to their small size--their volume and weight give them a certain aerodynamic predilection to flight--flight then is simply "natural" to life. Even if you take the mammal kingdom, bats represent over half of this genus, and they have retained the ability to fly, not the other way round, they did not "learn" how to fly. Flight is a natural state of evolution.

For us the dizzying speed of a swift(the fastest bird on earth, perhaps the fastest creature of all) makes us wonder how it can fly at breakneck speed and negotiate all obstacles in its path. In contrast, this bird becomes very disoriented when perched on a tree--it can only perch for very short durations, as being still makes it confused and nervous. The proof?--swifts mate and sleep on the wing, and are in the air for most of their lives.

One thing certain is that since small things are almost as light as air, a gentle breeze gently carries them into the sky, so flight is as easy for them as walking is for us. We know small, small things always move in the air--as testament by how we catch a cold (viruses spread by sneezing), how most flower species procreate (pollen carried by insects or simply by floating), or how wings evolved on species to aid in flight.

So what would it be like to fly as an insect? It would be the same as if we were swimming in thick syrup. For an insect, the air is a thick liquid. So what's the problem with the concept of flying?

In order to understand nature, we must cast off our prejudices and see things from the perspective of the living thing itself. This will alleviate much of our ignorance and fear, for it is ignorance and fear that keeps us, in our minds, separated from all other life.

The human mind is both a curse and a blessing--we have the propensity to know things--and at the same time hide from the way things are. When the mind works to see things clearly, life is indeed a beautiful thing to apprehend and marvel. When used in supercilious ways, it gives rise to fear and the rest of our angsts.

So what's my point?

Hmm. Isn't life juicy!