I read about, and ordered in, a book by the physicist/astronomer Fred Hoyle. The book, published in 1983, is called The Intelligent Universe. I got it because the promo sounded as if it might be about the possibility of life outside of the solar system. It is, in a way.

Remember Hoyle is highly regarded. A teacher and researcher at Cambridge, he became Plumian Professor of Astronomy and Experimental Philosophy there. He founded the Cambridge Institute of Theoretical Astronomy, became a Fellow of the Royal Society, and Honorary Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and an associate member of the American National Academy of Sciences -- the highest honor (in the U.S.) for foreign scientists. He was knighted by the queen, and awarded a Royal Medal in recognition of his contribution to theoretical physics and cosmology.

So he's no tyro.

But very early on, he makes a really serious mistake. Denying that life could have originated and evolved on earth, he uses this analogy.

I'll quote it verbatim, just to be fair:

quote:

Imagine a blindfolded person trying to solve the recently fashionable Rubik cube. Since he can't see the results of his moves, they must all be random. He has no way of knowing whether he is getting nearer the solution or whether he is scrambling the cube still further. One would be inclined to say that moving the faces at random would "never" (sic) achieve a solution. Strictly speaking, "never" is wrong, however. If our blindfolded subject were to make one random move every second, it would take him on average three hundred times the age of the earth, 1,350 billion years, to solve the cube. The chance against each move producing perfect colour matching for all the cube's faces is about 50,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1.

But that is an absolutely, profoundly flawed analogy for evolution! His model completely ignores that there is a "way of knowing" (if evolution) is getting nearer the result: a favorable mutation.

Obviously, the measure of success is the survival advantage that a certain random mutation might give an organism ¹ over those of its fellows who have not the mutation. A favorable mutation, if replicable, becomes the platform for further mutation just because it survives. The long history of a sequence of such changes is in the fossil record. It also can be seen happening right now in bacteriology.

In fact, the original, unmodified members may die out, the new strain having out-competed them for resources.

Does anyone here know more about this issue, concerning Hoyle?

¹ Organism is not quite inclusive enough here, since he's also talking of the origins of life, and in that case he is dealing with random groups of molecules becoming able to replicate.

I'm posting a second question in Math.

(Not sure I've posted this in the right forum.)

In Britain Hoyle made his name in radio astronomy.Late in life he took it into his head that life arrived from outer space, travelling on comets. Starting with that fixed idea it was easy and natural for him to seize on any proposition in support . The quote gives one instance of his flawed thinking in denying what was termed 'chemical evolution' in favour of his pet theory of panspermia.

In his day job, and whilst still considered normal ( ), he also rejected the 'big bang' theory in favour of what was termed the 'steady state' theory.At the time this was the subject of much learned argument , with notable minds on both sides.