Evolution: Fact or Fiction?
During a lecture at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981,
prominent evolutionist Colin Patterson asked his esteemed audience of
evolutionists a surprising question:
Can you tell me anything you know
about evolution, any one
thing...that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at
the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was
silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar
in the University of Chicago, a very
prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a
long time and eventually one person said 'I do know one thing--it ought
not to be taught in high school.'[1]
Many people today accept evolution is a "fact." But is this truly
the case? As indicated by the response to Colin Patterson's question, it
would seem that the case for evolution is not as rock solid as many
think. To be truly informed about the issue, we must also examine the
other side of the story. I think that we will see that evolution is by no
means a proven fact. On the contrary, there are good reasons to reject
the theory of evolution. This work is not intended to be an in-depth treatment,
but only to show a few of the problems in the evolutionary theory and,
most importantly, to stimulate critical thinking about the issue.
The Problem of Mutations
Natural selection (the mechanism of evolution) can only retain or destroy
a characteristic that already exists. What evolution needs to explain,
however, is how those characteristics got there in the first place. Thus,
it is said that mutations (random errors in copying the genetic code) in
the DNA have produced the significant changes over time. Because of the
complexity involved, however, it would take literally millions of tiny
mutations to produce even a single new organ such as a heart. To think
that such a complex organ could be constructed by such random events seems
very odd. Furthermore, about 99.9% of mutations are either harmful or
neutral (have no significant effect). Mutations simply cannot provide a
sufficient mechanism to produce changes because mutations that are both
not lethal and not neutral would need to be much more
frequent.
For example, the mathematician D.S. Ulam argued that "it was highly
improbable that the eye could have evolved by the accumulation of small
mutations, because the number of mutations would have to be so large and
the time available was not nearly long enough for them to appear." [2]
Famous astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle conceded
that the chances that life just occurred on earth are about as unlikely
as a "tornado sweeping thorough a junkyard and constructing a Boeing
747." [3]
The Problem of the Fossil Record
The fossil record simply does not
support evolution. In the 1800s Darwin admitted that "We have seen in the
last chapter that whole groups of species sometimes appear to have
abruptly developed; and I have attempted to
give an explanation of this fact, which if true would be fatal to my
views." [4] Darwin also questioned "why, if species have descended from
other species by insensibly fine graduations, do we not everywhere see
innumerable transitional forms?" [5] The issue is not about
the missing link. It is about the millions of missing
links.
The gaps in the fossil record have still not been filled, even
though many paleontologists agree that the fossil record today is
complete. In the words of prominent evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould:
"The history of most fossil species includes
two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no
directional change during their
tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking
pretty much
the same as when the disappear; morphological change is usually limited
and directionless.
2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a
species does not arise
gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors;
it appears all
at once and fully formed."[6]
As Gould says, not only do most species just suddenly appear with no
record of a long, gradual period of development, but there is also no
record of change for the species' during their stay on earth. If the
micro-mutation theory is correct (that all organs and organisms came
about through slow, small modifications), we would
expect to find some creatures with half-formed feet or a half-formed
wing. There are no examples of this in the fossil record. [7] Further,
such transitional stages during the animal's adaptation period would not
help it survive, but actually hurt it.
For example, an animal that slowly evolves wings from appendages would
become very awkward for climbing or grasping and so he would be made easy
prey.
Philip Johnson brings out the ramifications of this: "In short, if
evolution means the gradual change of one kind of organism into another
kind, the outstanding characteristic of the fossil record is the absence
of evidence for evolution." [8] Even if a few decent candidates for
ancestor status to a species could be found,
this would not be enough to rescue the theory of evolution, which
acknowledges a world-wide history of continual development.
Because of the evidence of the fossil record, many scientists are
abandoning the micro-mutation theory of Darwin (that evolution took place
gradually through many favorable mutation s) in favor of the
macro-mutation theory (that evolution occurred in
sudden jumps, not gradually over long periods of time. This is what
Steven Jay Gould argues for). However, the macro-mutation theory still
requires many intermediate species--no one holds that one organism became
another in a single generation. So the
absence of any transitional forms still posses a problem. Additionally,
it is just not likely that a structures as complex as an eye or a wing
could have been produced only through mutations in the course of a few
generations. There are definite bound
aries within which mutations must operate: "...mutations are incapable of
producing evolution because they cannot alter and effect the existing
structure of genes: they cannot create new genetic material or new
genetic potential." [9] Additionally, in order
for evolution to occur rapidly, in the course of a few generations, there
would need to be several large mutations in a short period of time. We
have already seen that large, beneficial mutations are just not frequent
enough to cause such "sudden changes."
Micro-mutationists do not accept that the fossil record disproves
their theory, arguing that the transitional forms lived, but were not
preserved. Thus, they say, evolution still happened through gradual
processes over millions of years. Macro-mutationists also hold that
their transitional forms were not preserved
(since the transition occurred during such a short period of time). In
other words, they are saying that the fossil record is not complete.
However, many paleontologists are persuaded that the fossil record is
complete. Further, it really doesn't matter whether it is complete or
not. If it is complete, then the fossil record does not support
evolution. If it is not complete, then what right do evolutionists have
to fill these gaps with imaginary animals for
which there is no evidence of their existence? Lastly, stasis (the
absence of directional change in a species during its existence) is
positive documentation that organisms remained as they were, and did not
change into other organisms.
Since there are no transitional links and intermediate forms in the
fossil record, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred.
The Problem of Probabilities
Carl Sagan (an evolutionist) and other
prominent scientists have estimated the chance of man evolving at roughly
1 chance in 10 followed by two billion zeros. [10] According to Borel's
law, anything beyond 1 chance in 10 followed by 50 zeros is
impossible. [11]
The infintesimal probability of evolution happening makes it impossible.
One Common Piece of Evidence for Evolution
Investigated
A common evidence for evolution has been what used to be
called the "biogenetic law." This states that the development of an
organism's embryo reproduces the evolutionary development of that kind of
animal. However, very few modern embryologists espouse this view today.
Columbia University biologist Walter J.
Bock concluded that this theory has "...been demonstrated to be wrong by
numerous...scholars." [12] Professor C.H. Waddington said "The type of
analogical thinking that leads to theories
that development is based on the recapitulation of ancestral stages or
the like no longer seems at all convincing or even very interesting to
biologists." [13]
The Problem of the "Ape men"
Five transitional forms which were
once considered to be ancestors of humans have been disproved. Nebraska
man's existence was hypothesized on the basis of a single tooth, which
was later shown to be a pig's tooth. Java man was found to be a gibbon,
not an "ancestor" for man. Piltdown man was found to be a hoax in 1953;
Australopithecines were found to be only ancient apes which never
"evolved" into men; and both Neanderthal and Cro-Magnan man are Homo
Sapiens themselves, and thus cannot be transitional forms for Homo
Sapiens.
Notes
1. Cited in: Phillip Johnson, Darwin
on Trial (Downers Grove, Illinois:
InterVarsity Press, 1991), p. 10. Johnson
says in the research notes of his book that
Patterson's lecture was not published, but
he had reviewed a transcript of it (p.
173). Furthermore, Patterson again stated
the same position in an interview with
journalist Tom Bethell (Bethell, "Deducing
from Materialism," National Review,
Aug. 29, 1986, p. 43).
2. Johnson, p. 38.
3. Sir Fred Hoyle, "Hoyle on Evolution,"
Nature, Vol. 294 (Nov. 12, 1981), p.
105.
4. Charles Darwin, The Origin of
Species, New York: The New American
Library, 1958, p. 316.
5. Darwin (1982 edition), p. 133.
6. Cited in Johnson, p. 50.
7. B.B. Ranganathan, Origins?
(Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1988), pp.
19-20.
8. Johnson, pp. 50-51.
9. Ranganathan, p. 9.
10. Carl Sagan, et. al., Communication
with Extraterrestrial Intelligence,
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 45-46.
11. Emile Borel, Probabilities and
LIfe (New York: Dover, 1962), Chapters
1 and 3.
12. William J. Bock, "Evolution by Orderly
Law," Science, vol. 164 (May 4,
1969).
13. C.H. Waddington, Principles of
Embryology, 1965, p. 10.
MP
Go back to Contend for the Faith.
This page hosted by
Get your own Free Home Page