Alright, how about just one more post…
Does Science support the theory of evolution? A lot depends on interpretation and meaning given to the data. For example, two people can look at the fossil record with differing views. One can arrange the fossils in some sort of order from simple to complex organisms and suggest this shows evidence for evolution. However, the person has applied his own predetermined viewpoint to the data, progression of change from one type of organism to another. Another person may insist that the fossils show a different story as suggested in this web site.
However, based on hard evidence, there are scientists who think that science does not clearly support the theory of evolution. In his book Darwin’s Black Box, Prof. Michael Behe comments that there have always been since the time of Darwin, well informed and respected scientists who have found Darwinism to be inadequate.
What is belief in evolution based on? - Current beliefs in evolution are built up on data from a range of sources (Green, Stout and Taylor, 1990) such as fossil evidence, the order of fossils in the geological column, comparative anatomy, DNA relatedness, knowledge of mutations in DNA, adaptive radiation, comparative embryology and comparative biochemistry.
What are the main contentious points-
There is no explanation for the appearance of the first living cells (Abiogenesis).
Living systems are irreducibly complex.
There is a rapid appearance of life in the Cambrian rocks (Cambrian explosion).
There are gaps in the fossil records.
Living fossils show the stability of species over time.
Anatomical homology does not always relate to similar genes.
Mutations lead to loss of original function.
Mutations do not lead to larger and more complex genomes.
The evidence for early man is scant and inconclusive.
What would be the evidence if evolution were true?
If Abiogenesis occurred giving rise to the first self replicating cells from non-organic material, then it would not be unreasonable to suggest that scientists with present day knowledge could emulate the conditions necessary for this and produce (under presumed early earth conditions) the first self-replicating single cells from non-organic matter.
If these living single cells (which in the case of bacteria can divide as fast as every 20 minutes) then gave rise to more complex organisms it would not be unreasonable to be able to observe this to some extent, bearing in mind the rapid replication of such cells and the chance to study billions upon billions of them over many generations in a short space of time.
If the first easily visible creatures then gave rise to all other forms, one ought to be able to observe in the fossil records a fluid record of change over time, starting with the simplest of organisms in the lowest layers of the geological column. It would also seem unlikely that there would be records of creatures that seemed to have remained unchanged over time. Moreover, if the main mechanism for such changes was mutation there should be ample evidence that mutation in general led to beneficial changes in organisms.
What would be the evidence if creation were true? If Creation were true, it might be possible that the simplest organisms, thought to be the origin of all other life forms, turned out to be highly complex with no evidence of them forming by chance. In turn, it might be observed that these so-called “simple cells” were relatively stable and only gave rise to similar “simple cells”.
The fossil record should show the sudden appearance of creatures with no ancestors. Additionally, the fossil records should show a general stability within species.
Mistakes in copying DNA (mutations), rather than giving rise to improvements in species may give rise to loss of original intended function.
Contentions. Darwin said in his book on the Origin of Species that “a fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question”. Below are a few areas where there is some contention with the theory of evolution and where we shall look briefly at the other side of the question. It is accepted that the big bang is not part of the theory of evolution, but it is mentioned here and on this site as it forms part of current thoughts on our overall origins.
Big Bang - even if there was such a thing as the big bang, this does not begin to explain how the rich variety of life on earth came into being.
“There are an increasing number of observational facts which are difficult to reconcile in the Big-Bang hypothesis. The Big Bang establishment very seldom mentions these, and when non-believers try to draw attention to them, the powerful establishment refuses to discuss them in a fair way…”. Hannes Olof G?sta Alfven (Nobel prize for Physics in 1970). “Cosmology: Myth or Science?” in Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy 5 (1970), p. 1203.
“The Big Bang represents the instantaneous suspension of physical laws, the sudden, abrupt flash of lawlessness that allowed something to come out of nothing. It represents a true miracle—transcending physical principles”. Paul Davies, The Edge of Infinity (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), p161.
“The Big Bang is only a myth that attempts to say how the universe came into being.” Hannes Alfvn (Nobel prize for Physics in 1970). The Big Bang Never Happened, Discover 9 (June 1988), p. 78.
Simple cells: In Darwin’s day and for some time after, people considered that living cells such as protozoa were very simple. Ernst Haeckel, Darwin’s popularizer in Germany, claimed that a cell was a 'simple lump of aluminous combination of carbon. Such cells and all cells are in fact incredibly complex and there is no scientific evidence that they can form by chance. Once formed, there is no evidence that so called simple cells become anything different. If bacteria are used as an example of “simple cells”, it is possible to study billions upon billions of them for many generations, because they are so small and can make copies of themselves as often as every 20 minutes. No studies to date have ever shown that bacteria even after thousands of generations, become anything but bacteria. Indeed, multiple passages of bacteria can lead to loss in properties not gaining of new ones. For example, the BCG vaccine is derived from the bacteria Mycobacterium bovis passaged many times forms. The passaged bacteria has lost it’s disease producing properties, although it is still able to stimulate the immune system.
“In tracking the emergence of the eukaryotic cell one enters a kind of wonderland where scientific pursuit leads almost to fantasy. Cell and molecular biologists must construct cellular worlds in their own imaginations. … Imagination, to some degree, is essential for grasping the key events in cellular history.” – B.D. Dyer and R.A. Obar, Tracing the History of Eukarytic Cells, Columbia University Press 1994, pp. 2 & 3.
“I would rather believe in fairy tales than in such wild speculation. I have said for years that speculations about the origin of life lead to no useful purpose as even the simplest living system is far too complex to be understood in terms of the extremely primitive chemistry scientists have used in their attempts to explain the unexplainable. God cannot be explained away by such naive thoughts.” Sir Ernest Chain, co-holder of 1945 Nobel prize for developing penicillin. as quoted by Ronald W. Clark, The Life of Ernst Chain (London: Weidenfield & Nicolson, 1985), pp. 147-148.
“The development of the metabolic system, which, as the primordial soup thinned, must have “learned” to mobilize chemical potential and to synthesize the cellular components, poses Herculean problems. So also does the emergence of the selectively permeable membrane without which there can be no viable cell. But the major problem is the origin of the genetic code and of its translation mechanism. Indeed, instead of a problem it ought rather to be called a riddle. The code is meaningless unless translated. The modern cell’s translating machinery consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in DNA: the code cannot be translated otherwise than by products of translation. It is the modern expression of omne vivum ex ovo [everything that lives, (comes) from an egg]. When and how did this circle become closed? It is exceedingly difficult to imagine.” Jacques Monod (Nobel Prize for Medicine in 1965, biochemist, Director, Pasteur Institute, France. “Chance and Necessity: An Essay on the Natural Philosophy of Modern Biology”, [1971], Transl. Wainhouse A., Penguin Books: London, 1997, reprint, pp.142-143. Emphasis in original).
Adaptation, mutation and selection- Adaptation, mutation and selection does not explain the rich variety of life on Earth. Even standard school text books state that mutations are rare and that most mutations are harmful not beneficial (Alderson and Rowland, 1995). By studying fossil records one can observe the stability of species over time, rather than them changing into other forms. Certain environments may select for a particular type of organism, but this is only selecting what is already there. If a particular organism out-competes others, this can lead to loss of species (the opposite of evolution).
“I just cannot believe that everything developed by random mutations…”. (Dr Dennis Gabor, winner of 1971 Noble peace prize in Science).
Professor Pierre-Paul Grasse, past president of the French Acadamy of sciences has said:- “No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution”. (Grasse, P. P., 1977).
“To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and so readily, by so many scientist without a murmur of protest”. Sir Ernest Chain, co-holder of 1945 Nobel prize for developing penicillin.
“Most biological reactions are chain reactions. To interact in a chain, these precisely built molecules must fit together most precisely, as the cog wheels of a Swiss watch do. But if this is so, then how can such a system develop at all? For if any one of the specific cog wheels in these chains is changed, then the whole system must simply become inoperative. Saying it can be improved by random mutation of one link, is like saying you could improve a Swiss watch by dropping it and thus bending one of its wheels or axes. To get a better watch, all the wheels must be changed simultaneously to make a good fit again.” Albert Szent-Gy?rgyi von Nagyrapolt (Nobel prize for Medicine in 1937). “Drive in Living Matter to Perfect Itself,” Synthesis I, Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 18 (1977) [winner of two Nobel Prizes for scientific research and Director of Research at the Institute for Muscle Research in Massachusetts].
“May not a future generation well ask how any Scientist, in full possession of his faculties and with adequate knowledge of information theory, could execute the feat of cognitive acrobatics necessary to sincerely believe that a (supremely complex) machine of information, storage and retrieval servicing millions of cells, diagnosing defects and then repairing them in a teleonomic Von Newman machine manner, arose in randomness - the antipole of information”. (Dr A. E. Wilder-Smith, deliverer of the Huxley Memorial lecture at the Oxford Union, Oxford University, 1986).
Fossil evidence- The fossil evidence shows three major characteristics that contradict the theory of evolution. Firstly, there is an absence of intermediate forms. Secondly, there are a vast number of plant, insect, fish and mammal fossils that are identical to organisms that are alive today and are described as living fossils. Thirdly, the sudden appearance in Cambrian rock of fully formed complex creatures with no evidence of earlier forms. “Virtually all of the major divisions of life (the phyla) are found in the Cambrian, the rock system which evolutionists maintain is more than 500 million years old”.
Thus, fossils show the great stability with which organisms can reproduce themselves rather than their ability to change into other forms. The fact that many species in the fossil records are not alive today does not support evolution. Species have become extinct and are continuing to do so at an alarming rate. The world-wide gene pool is diminishing, not growing. This is the opposite of what the theory of evolution proposes for life on earth.
Why then is not every geological formation full of such intermediate links. Geology assuredly does not reveal any finely graduated organic change, and this is the most obvious and serious objection that can be urged against the theory". (Darwin, Origin Of The Species).
Evolutionist David Raup, Curator of Geology at Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History said:- “The evidence we find in the geological record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be …We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than in Darwin’s time … so Darwin’s problem has not been alleviated”. (Raup, Field museum of Natural History Bulletin).
“With few exceptions, radically new kinds of organisms appear for the first time in the fossil record already fully evolved, with most of their characteristic features present”. Dr T S Kemp, Curator of Zoological collections, Oxford University (Kemp, 1999. Fossils and evolution, p. 253).
Steven Stanley, an affirmed evolutionist, was objective enough to point out:- ?The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid.? Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.
“Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether”. (Henry Gee, Nature vol. 412 p. 131, 2001).
Speaking of the Cambrian fauna, there are many that still survive, all looking much like they did over 500 million years ago. The prominent British evolutionists, Richard Dawkins, has made the following comment: “And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists”. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton Co., 1987).
George Gaylord Simpson, another leading evolutionist, sees this characteristic in practically the whole range of taxonomic categories:- "…Every palaeontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.? George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.
Comparative anatomy and biochemistry- One of the major problems of using comparative anatomy or biochemistry as evidence for evolution is that they can equally well be used as evidence for intelligent design. For example, the similarities in cars manufactured across the world is not evidence that they self assembled themselves (accepted that this is impossible as they are not living) from a lump of metal once and have evolved new features in time - rather, it is evidence of intelligent design behind making cars.
On a different note, haemoglobin, the molecule that carries oxygen around the body in red blood cells is found in all vertebrates, but also exists in earthworms, starfish, molluscs, in some insects and plants and even in certain bacteria (Blanchard, 2002). However, when scientists examined the haemoglobin of crocodiles, vipers and chicken, they found that crocodiles were more closely related to chickens based on similarity in haemoglobin than to their fellow reptiles (Blanchard, 2002). Other similar examples exist. On this basis, the whole idea of protein relatedness resulting from evolution falls down.
DNA relatedness- As with comparative anatomy and biochemistry, DNA relatedness can equally well be used as evidence for intelligent design as it can be for evolution.
Our bodies comprise millions of individual cells and each of these cells carry out complex biochemical reactions to perform the tasks relevant for that cell. At an external level we look very different from say a mouse or a banana. However, humans share the same environment as both the mouse and the banana and, like the mouse and the banana, we require oxygen, some common nutrients, minerals and water for our survival, repair and growth. Thus, there will be some commonality in the biochemical processes that go on within the cell of a human or a mouse or a banana. In the same way, there will be some commonality in gene sequences between species, thus DNA relatedness.
DNA codes for proteins so similarity in proteins (or otherwise) can also be related to similarity (or otherwise) in DNA sequence. Haemoglobin, the molecule that carries oxygen around the body in red blood cells is found in all vertebrates, but also exists in earthworms, starfish, molluscs, in some insects and plants and even in certain bacteria (Blanchard, 2002). However, when scientists examined the haemoglobin of crocodiles, vipers and chicken, they found that crocodiles were more closely related to chickens based on similarity in haemoglobin than to their fellow reptiles (Blanchard, 2002). Other similar examples exist. On this basis the whole idea of DNA (or protein) relatedness resulting from evolution falls down.
Early man- The evidence for apes becoming man is scant and inconclusive, the experts often disagree with each other. The great degree of similarity between the skeleton of an ape and a human make the limited number of bones from supposed intermediate forms difficult to assess. DNA relatedness may point to similarity of design rather than chance mutations from a simple cell and “Mitochondrial Eve” has been shown to fit a creationist’s model.
“The real question is whether we have enough imagination to reconstruct their lives [the lives of early humans].” – Robert Blumenschine, paleo-anthropologist of Rutgers University in a 1989 U.S. News and World Report cover story.
“The vast majority of artist’s conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence…Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more ape-like they make it.” - “Anthro Art”, Science Digest April 1981 pg 41.
“No-one can be sure just what any extinct hominoid looked like.” Donald C Johnson and Maitland A Edey, Lucy: The beginnings of Humankind (1981) p 286.
“The main problem in reconstructing the origins of man is lack of fossil evidence: all there is could be displayed on a dinner table.” - New Scientist 20 May 1982 pg 491.
“Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether”. (Henry Gee, Nature vol. 412 p. 131, 2001).
“If pressed about man’s ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question mark. To date, there has been nothing found to truthfully purport as a transitional specie to man, including Lucy, since 1470 was as old and probably older. If further pressed, I would have to state that there is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival of man rather than a gradual process of evolving”. Richard Leakey, world’s foremost paleo-anthropologist, in a PBS documentary, 1990.
“Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether”. (Henry Gee, Nature 2001). It should be noted that Henry Gee is not a Creationist, and does not believe that this lack of fossil evidence points to creation.
Old Earth- The theory of evolution requires the Earth to be millions or billions of years old. However, the dating techniques used to date the Earth rely on assumptions. There is other evidence to suggest that the Earth is much younger than billions of years old.
Geological column- Is the geological column rock-solid evidence for evolution? Dr Gary Parker in his book “Creation facts of Life” suggests that the different strata of the geological column represent different ecological niches that were washed into sediments during a global flood. In his book he says:- “Thus, a walk through the Grand Canyon, then, is not like a walk through evolutionary time; instead it’s like a walk from the bottom of the ocean, across the tidal zone, over the shore, across the lowlands and into the upland regions”.
“Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a phantasy”. Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, 1887, Vol. 2,
“The only certainty in this data-poor, imagination-rich, endlessly fascinating field is that there are plenty of surprises left to come”. Michael Lemonick, “How Man Began”, Time, March 14, 1994.
God, Intelligent design and Creation-
“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.” Albert Einstein (Nobel prize for Physics in 1921). Calaprice, Alice: The Quotable Einstein (Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1996).
“Although a biologist, I must confess I do not understand how life came about… I consider that life only starts at the level of a functional cell. The most primitive cells may require at least several hundred different specific biological macro-molecules. How such already quite complex structures may have come together, remains a mystery to me. The possibility of the existence of a Creator, of God, represents to me a satisfactory solution to this problem.” Werner Arber (Nobel for Medicine in 1978) a quote from Henry Margenau & Ray Abraham Varghese, eds., “Cosmos, Bios, Theos: Scientists Reflect on Science, God and the Origin of the Universe, Life and Homo Sapiens” /LaSalle, IL, USA: Open Court, 1992, p. 142.
“The more we know about the cosmos and evolutionary biology, the more they seem inexplicable without some aspect of [intelligent] design,” Townes asserts. “And for me that inspires faith.” Charles Hard Townes (Nobel prize for Physics in 1964). Greg Easterbrook “Of lasers and prayer” w Science, Vol. 277, 15 August 1997.
“I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution.” George Wald (Nobel prize for Medicine in 1967). George Wald, “Frontiers of Modern Biology on Theories of Origin of Life” (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1972), p. 187.
“When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: Creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance.” George Wald (Nobel prize for Medicine in 1967).
“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle.” Francis Crick, [Crick received a Nobel Prize for discovering the structure of DNA.] Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature (1981), p. 88.
“I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.” Rocket scientist Wernher von Braun as quoted by James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard (Arlington, Massachusetts: Refuge Books, 1999), p. 253.
“The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity - omnipotent chance.” T. Rosazak, “Unfinished Animal”, 1975, p. 101-102.
The famous Harvard palaeontologist George Gayford Simpson summarized the result of evolution as “man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind”. This phrase neatly sums up the process of evolution as taught in most Schools and Universities across the World.
Although Darwin is generally thought of as the originator of a theory of evolution that has become the backbone of today’s theory, many such theories existed before Darwin’s time (Green, Stout and Taylor, 1990). In fact, Thales of Miletus (640 to 546 B.C) over 2000 years ago proposed that water developed into other elements and these elements developed into plants, then into simple animals and finally into more complex animals like man (Thompson, 1981).
Since that time evolutionary concepts were handed down through Greek philosophers such as Plato and Aristostotle (Sunderland, 1998). Darwin’s grandfather Erasmus Darwin assembled a surprisingly modern list of arguments in favour of evolution, although Charles Darwin does not give his grandfather recognition in his own work (Sunderland, 1998).
Current beliefs in evolution are built up on data from a range of sources (Green, Stout and Taylor, 1990) such as comparative embryology or embryonic recapitulation, fossil evidence, the order of fossils in the geological column, homology in anatomical structures, proteins and DNA sequences, knowledge of mutations in DNA etc.
However, those who believe in Creation may argue that some of these factors merely point to intelligent design and comparative embryology or embryonic recapitulation has been widely discredited.
Current theory of evolution. The following account of evolution is taken from the book ?Dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals? by Dr Michael Benton.
According to the Theory of evolution, life begins in the early seas also know as the primordial broth. This spontaneous appearance of complex living cells is also know as Abiogenesis.
About 3,500 million years ago single celled organisms (e.g. bacteria) were though to have arisen, although there is no sound scientific explanation of how this could have happened. These first bacteria these must have given rise to the first protozoa.
Scientists consider the moment at which multi-celled animals (or metazoa), evolved from the protozoan (e.g. organism such as amoebae) to be one of the turning points in the history of life on Earth, and to have occurred about 700 million years ago.
About 700 million years ago the first jellyfish and worms developed.
About 570 million years ago the first fishes, the trilobites developed followed by the first nautiloids and corals 65 million years later.
The first land plants were thought to have developed about 438 million years ago.
About 408 million years ago the first amphibians, insects and spiders were thought to have developed.
The amphibians were thought to develop into the reptiles about 360 million years ago.
From the reptiles apparently the first mammals and dinosaurs developed about 245 million years ago.
Birds were also thought to have developed from reptiles about 208 million years ago.
About 144 million years ago it is thought that the reptiles died out and the first modern snakes and mammals apparently made their appearance.
About 66 million years ago, mammals apparently spread rapidly and the first owls, shrews and hedgehogs developed.
About 58 million years ago the first dogs, cats, rabbits, elephants and horse apparently followed by the first deer, monkeys, pigs and rhinoceros about 37 million years ago.
About 24 million years ago many new mammals apparently appeared, including mice, rats and apes.
About 5 million years ago Australopithecus apparently appeared with the first cattle and sheep. Finally we get the appearance of modern man.
This ongoing process, according to the theory of evolution, has led to all life as we know it on our planet, including species that are now extinct, and this view is supported by the interpretation commonly given to the fossils in the geological column.
This whole process according to the theory of evolution has involved the selection of favourable characteristics (natural selection) and mutation is generally considered the way in which new gene sequences give rise to new characteristics.
Darwin’s theory of natural selection. Darwin and Wallace proposed that natural selection was the mechanism that new species arise from pre-existing species (Green, Stout and Taylor, 1990). This hypothesis / theory is based on three observations and two deductions which may be summarised as follows:-
The remainder of this page is taken with kind permission from the Biblical Creation Society website and an article entitled “Darwinism and Neodarwinism in evolutionary change”, by David J. Tyler and Arthur J. Jones (1992).
Observation 1: Offspring outnumber parents. Sometimes this is marginally the case - as when a pair of birds raise just one chick per year - but after three years, the observation becomes true. Many more animals produce large numbers of offspring - consider, for example, the number of caterpillars coming from a cabbage white butterfly, or reflect on the population of tadpoles appearing in the local pond.
Observation 2: Species numbers remain approximately constant. There are good years and bad years for all the animals we know - but we are not being overrun by robins or cabbage white butterflies or frogs. These observations lead to an:
Deduction: Observations 1 and 2 suggest that there is a struggle for survival. Some offspring die without descendants of their own. There are losers in the game of life.
Observation 3: Individuals differ in small ways, and many of these differences are inherited from parents. The observation applies to people, as we can confirm by looking at parents and children known to us. In fact, it applies to all organisms - wherever we can look closely enough.
Conclusion: Those individuals whose variations adapt them to their environment will be the most likely to survive and reproduce. This conclusion is commonly described as the principle of natural selection.
Evolution or Ecology- The above proposal of natural selection is non-controversial and not particularly complex to understand. Only after this point in the argument comes a divergence of view: some think that the above analysis is a theory of origins, whereas others consider it a theory of ecology. Darwinists take the former view, asserting that we have here a sufficient explanation of the origin of all biological species. Non-Darwinists, including creationists, are not convinced. They argue that crucial evidences relevant to any theory of origins are totally lacking.
The points made so far can all be illustrated by reference to one of the classic examples of natural selection: the Peppered Moth. Like all moths, this particular species lays numerous eggs which develop into large numbers of caterpillars (observation 1). Over the years, the Peppered Moth has maintained its population level reasonably well (observation 2) which implies that predation and death are important factors affecting overall numbers. The Moth has a variable appearance and exists in three forms: dark-coloured, light and speckled. These differences are inherited from parents (observation 3). The conclusion, that `those individuals whose variations adapt them to their environment will be the most likely to survive and reproduce’ , has been tested by observations of predation. In environments where dark surfaces predominated, the light-coloured moths were found more easily by birds and eaten. In such cases, the population came to be dominated by the dark form. This was natural selection in action. Conversely, in environments where there was a dominance of light surfaces, the light form was more numerous. Changes in the environment over time, due to the effects of industrial pollution, resulted in changes in the relative numbers of light and dark forms.
The conclusion is interpreted in different ways: Darwinists hail the Peppered Moth as an important example of evolution by natural selection; non-Darwinists accept that natural selection of an inherited characteristic is occurring, but resist the thought that this has any bearing on the origin or ancestry of the Peppered Moth. The non-Darwinian argues that adaptation potential is a necessary component of any theory of ecology, where populations respond in some way to their environment. Why is this part of a theory of ecology? It is related to the fact that the environment continually changes. If organisms are to be robust, with some powers of endurance through the generations, there must be some `oscillation potential’ . This is exactly what we see in the Peppered Moth (Tyler D. and Jones A., 1992).
Theory of ecology into theory of origins- What more is needed to make a theory of ecology into a theory of origins? Three assumptions are required, and it is vitally important for science that the assumptions be recognised and subjected to investigation.
Assumption 1
Appropriate variations constantly arise, introducing fresh information to the genetic composition of organisms. Observable variations which do not affect genetic information are not appropriate for evolutionary theory.
Assumption 2
There is no limit to the succession of variations that can occur, so that major evolutionary transformations are possible.
Assumption 3
Natural selection is the mechanism for preserving novel adaptive variations. Predation removes information represented by prey; extinction erases genetic information permanently; and reproduction transmits information to the next generation. The assumption is that selective forces act to preserve new information in survivors.
Assumptions 1 and 2 relate to the character of the variations that occur, allowing the possibility for new information to be introduced to an organism, and assumption 3 is concerned with the preservation of that new information.
These assumptions are necessary to convert the non-Darwinian theory of ecology into a Darwinian theory of origins. Consequently, only evidence for these assumptions can count as evidence for evolution. This requirement for proof is one that must be addressed by Darwinists if they are to persist in describing their theory as a scientific approach to the study of origins. (Tyler D. and Jones A., 1992).
Darwinism in crisis. Darwinism went through a crisis in the early part of the Twentieth Century, because the science of genetics was developing, and it appeared to explain away most, if not all, of Darwin’s evidences of variation. Observed variations due to artificial selection, such as in dogs or pigeons, are irrelevant to evolutionary change, as no new information is introduced and the range of variation is limited. The three assumptions appeared to be groundless. Some biologists abandoned Darwinism and embarked on a quest for alternative explanations (Tyler D. and Jones A., 1992).
Neo Darwinism- In the 1930s, leading geneticists found a way of preserving the theory of evolution by natural selection. They discovered that a variety of errors occurred in the copying of genetic information during reproduction. These errors are known as mutations. The 3 assumptions were revived: the blending of Darwinism with genetics became known as neo-Darwinism. It is our task to enquire whether these assumptions can now be regarded as proved (Tyler D. and Jones A., 1992)…
Enormous effort has been devoted to researching this area, partly to elucidate the mechanisms of evolution, and partly to explore the potential for speeding up evolutionary change to breed plants and animals with characteristics suitable for commercial exploitation. As a result, we know a great deal about different types of mutation, and the changes they bring to organisms.
Very little attention has been given to the three Darwinistic assumptions! In most cases, they have been assumed as part of the framework of knowledge of the researcher. Consequently, very little testing of the theory has taken place. Although this may seem surprising to those outside science, it is actually a very common phenomenon. Much scientific research takes place in the context of particular presuppositions, and it is rare for the foundations to be tested in formal ways.
Nevertheless, it is possible to make some assessment of the assumptions of Darwinism and neo-Darwinism. The key word in Assumption 1 is appropriate' . The implication is that some mutations will be beneficial to the organism. Unfortunately for the theory, this is not confirmed. The list of harmful mutations is long; the list of beneficial mutations is short - and questionable! In human beings, known mutations are all harmful. One case - that of sickle cell anaemia - provides some protection against malaria. However, apart from that one asset, the condition is not recommended. Sickle cell anaemia represents an assault on the way blood cells work. There is one beneficial effect, but this is counteracted by harm done to the human physiology system. A vivid demonstration of this claim has come from observations of humans (with sickle cell anaemia) operating under extreme conditions, where some have been known to collapse and die. All examples of supposedly beneficial mutations’ fit the general pattern: the trend is downward. Organisms experience the process of death by instalment' . Our conclusion is this: the first Darwinistic assumption is retained, not by scientific evidence, but by appealing to chance over extended periods of time - given long enough, favourable mutations must occur’ .
The second assumption: that `there is no limit to the succession of variations that can occur’, is similarly safeguarded only by an appeal to theory and long periods of time. No scientific investigation has ever confirmed the assumption, and all the substantial evidence suggests the contrary. One reason is that all organs of animals and plants are extraordinarily complex, and are composed of many interrelated elements. Whether we think of the eye, the ear, the nose, or any part of the body - a few mutations can be allowed, but too many leads to the complete loss of function. The mysterious complexity of living things is an indicator that unlimited variation is not possible.
We come to assumption 3: `natural selection is the mechanism for preserving novel adaptive variations’ . There is no doubt that natural selection can be understood as a force in ecology: moulding organisms according to their innate potential for variation. It can lead to the emergence of new species. The problem for neo-Darwinists is that not a single case can be identified where new genetic information has been demonstrably preserved by natural selection. All the examples are of oscillation, with no loss or gain of information.
You may have been impressed by seeing computer models of evolutionary variations - but they are all committed to these assumptions. It is relatively easy to create a theoretical world which evolves according to the rules and assumptions of neo-Darwinism. The key question is: does this theoretical world adequately represent the real world? The only way to find out is to subject the theory to scientific investigation - and the evidence shows grave mismatches between this theory and reality. (Tyler D. and Jones A., 1992).
Conclusions. So where does this discussion leave us? The dominant explanation of origins rests, not on a scientific foundation, but on philosophical and metaphysical presuppositions. What about the scientific evidences? Those that relate to the observed variations in living things are consistent with the teaching of the Bible: that God created all the different kinds of living thing, and that they reproduce after their own kind. A good foundation for the science of biology is to be found here. The concept of a created kind maintains the existence of discontinuities between the life-forms that emerged from the hand of God, and at the same time allows for limited variation. The concept of a created kind leads to the recognition of intelligent design in the way organisms are made. A creationist biology will develop tools - which are sadly lacking from the repertoire of contemporary biologists - that assist in these studies of discontinuity and design. (Tyler D. and Jones A., 1992).
God Bless
