Essay - part 3
Evolution - is it true ? Is it fact or faith?
2. Fossil record - the absence of transitional forms.
Evolution - is it true ? Is it fact or faith?
We are not talking about peppered moths or bacterial resistance to antibiotics, which is an example of micro-evolution, if this were the case then evolution would be proven. In neither case is a new species produced, in all the experiments with fruit flies no new species is formed. We are talking about macro-evolution in which natural processes can give rise to life on earth as we now know it. In order to evolve from matter (dust) to man there are a number of key steps that must take place in the evolutionary path, if any one of these key steps is at fault then the whole evolutionary theory collapses. Now suppose that a plausible mechanism for abiogenesis is found, does that mean that there is no God? Not at all, it simply means that God has endowed his creation with the ability to produce life, however this would be identical to theistic evolution. However there is currently no plausible mechanism to generate life from non-life. There are speculations but nothing proven. People believe in evolution on the basis of their faith in naturalistic mechanisms rather than fact. Evolution as a grand theory to explain the origin of life on earth has not yet been proven and has some way to go to be proven. Some might object that abiogenesis has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, this is being disingenuous, because without it evolution cannot happen. Two key steps are examined below, chemical evolution and the evolution of the species.
Evolutionary pathway:
For evolution to be true there must be a continuous unbroken pathway from the very beginning until now.
- Origin of scientific laws
- Origin of Universe - big bang.
- Origin of Solar system.
- Origin of Earth.
- Origin of single celled creatures - chemical evolution (abiogenesis or biopoesis).
- Origin of plants and multi-cellular organisms.
- Origin of fish, animals, insects and reptiles.
- Origin of man.
We have to say that we know nothing about the origin of scientific laws that allow life to exist in the universe. We do know that the fundamental constants of nature are just right to support life. The Anthropic Principle was an attempt to explain this fortuitous fact of nature.
1. Chemical evolution:
Chemical evolution is also known as biopoesis, biogenesis or abiogenesis. Since evolution depends on a sequence of events then in order for man to have evolved the first single celled organism must also have evolved on the primitive earth. This is the problem of chemical evolution or abiogenesis in which chemical compounds combine in such a way to produce the first living organism. We are currently in the position of searching for a plausible mechanism to generate a primitive living organism from non-life. For current books on abiogenesis go here, these resources will demonstrate the fact that we are still searching for plausible mechanisms to generate life.
One of the great myths of our time is the idea that undirected process could somehow be responsible for turning dead chemicals into all the complexity of living things. The current state of abiogenesis is summarised by Klause Dose:
More than thirty years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principle theories and experiments in the field end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.
Klause Dose, "The Origin of Life: More Questions than Answers," Interdisciplinary Science Review 13 (1998), 348.
The situation is further summarized in the quotation from a text book introduction below:
"It must be admitted from the beginning that we do not know how life began. It is generally believed that a variety of processes led to the formation of simple organic compounds on the primitive earth. These compounds combined together to give more and more complex structures until one was formed that could be called living.
No one should be satisfied with an explanation as general as this. We need a detailed theory that specifies the nature of the processes leading to the synthesis of organic compounds on the primitive earth, the nature of the compounds formed by these processes, and the quantities that could have accumulated abiogenically. Then we need to know the conditions under which the simplest organic compounds combined together to give monomers such as amino acids and nucleotides, and how these monomers condensed to polymers such as proteins and nucleic acids. At present, little of this detailed information is available.
It has been argued that the course of events leading to the appearance of the first living organism is essentially unknowable since no geological record of these events has been preserved. We do not accept this argument, for even if we concede the absence of any geological record, we still have experimental evidence of a kind. We are fairly certain that life did originate on earth, and we know in considerable detail the nature of the basic components and biosynthetic pathways that are common to all living organisms. While we cannot be certain that these compounds and mechanisms were important for the most primitive organisms, it is simplest to suppose that most of them were. Thus, information about the synthesis of important biochemicals, whether monomers or polymer, under primitive-earth conditions is likely to throw light on biochemical evolution.
It must be realised that our problem differs from those faced in most scientific work in that we are attempting to reconstruct a historical process. It is not possible to test a hypothesis concerning the origin of life by running through the entire process in the laboratory. We must therefore use different criteria in evaluating a theory. We ask that postulated in a theory of the origins of life be consistent with all acceptable geological and astronomical data, and that each step be plausible in detail and be carried out in the laboratory insofar as possible. When a step cannot be investigated directly in the laboratory, say because it is too slow, related systems should be studied in such a way that extrapolation to primitive earth conditions is possible. This program is long and difficult. Quantitative equilibrium and kinetic data must be accumulated for many reactions and close attention must be paid to the geological evidence in order to define reasonable primitive earth conditions. When several prebiotic syntheses of the same compound are known, it is necessary to evaluate the relative importance of these different processes.
There may arise at some stage in the historical reconstruction the problem of deciding between two equally plausible but substantially or entirely different theories of the origins of life. How is a decision to be made in these circumstances? We can dispose of this problem by saying that we do not yet have one plausible, detailed, and complete hypothesis; we do not need to discuss the matter until we have two."
Introduction to 'The Origins of Life on the Earth', Stanley L Miller, Prentice-Hall, 1974.
"We need a pathway, a succession of chemical steps leading from the first building blocks of life to the RNA world. Chemistry, however, has so far failed to elucidate this pathway. At first sight, the kind of chemistry needed seems so unlikely to take place spontaneously that one might be tempted to invoke, as many have done and some still do, the intervention of some supernatural agency. Scientists, however, are condemned by their calling to look for natural explanations of even the most unnatural-looking events. They must even, in the present case, eschew the facile recourse to chance, as I hope to have made clear" [p24 - my italics Vital Dust : Life As a Cosmic Imperative by Christian De Duve. 1995]
"Above the molecular level, the simplest fully living unit is almost incredibly complex. It has become commonplace to speak of evolution from amoeba to man, as if the amoeba were the simple beginning of the process. On the contrary, if, as must be necessarily be true, life arose as a simple molecular system, the progression from this state to that of the amoeba is at least as great as from amoeba to man. All the essential problems of a living one-celled protozoan, and these are only elaborated in man or other multicellular animals."
G G Simpson, The meaning of evolution, Yale Univ. 1967.
The problem with all the above aspects of origins is that if they occur by evolution they occur too slowly to be observed today, also the conditions on the early earth are thought to have been in reducing conditions so this could not be observable today. As far as the evolutionist is concerned the fact that we are here means it must have happened, in doing this God is automatically eliminated as a possible cause. The best one can do is theorise, or speculate, as to how it could have happened, based on current knowledge and laboratory results, to get proof on how it actually happened is not possible. Chemical evolution or abiogenesis has not yet found a mechanism for how the first single celled creature could have evolved. Suppose that man was able to make a living cell in the test tube from raw chemicals, what does that demonstrate, simply that intelligence is required to create life.
The evidence from molecular biology.
In some protein molecules there can be differences in the amino acid sequence for different species without changing the proteins function. Two examples being haemoglobin and cytochrome C. The assumed evolutionary sequence goes: cyclostome » fish » amphibian » reptile » mammal however looking at the percentage difference in the haemoglobin of lamprey (cyclostome) and other species we get: Carp 75; Frog 81; Chicken 78; Kangaroo 76; and human 73. We would expect that the carp would be much closer to the cyclostome, followed by the frog, but at a molecular level there is no hint that fish and amphibians evolved from cyclostome.
2. Fossil record - the absence of transitional forms.
Darwin suggested that all of the forms of life we see on earth today are descended from more primitive ancestors by slow gradual changes over millions of years of time. This is so slow that it would be impossible to observe during our lifetime. If this actually happened then the fossil evidence should show a gradual change from one species of animal into another. In Darwin's day, and still today, the fossil evidence does not show these intermediate life forms. It shows the final species which would be expected with special creation. For current books and links on transitional forms go here.
Matthews in his introduction to a 1971 publication of Darwin's Origin of Species, says
"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproven theory - is it then a science or faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof."
Concerning the fossil record Goldschmidt says
"The facts of greatest general importance are the following. When a new phylum, class, or order appears, there follows a quick, explosive (in terms of geological time) diversification so that practically all orders or families known appear suddenly and without any apparent transitions
." American Scientist, Vol. 40 p97 (1952)
"Not one change of species into another is on record... we cannot prove that a single species has been changed." Charles Darwin, My life and letters.
"Firstly, why if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transition forms? Why is not nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?"
His explanation later goes on to say:
"But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? It will be more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter on the Imperfection of the Geological Record; and I will here only state that I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed. The crust of the earth is a vast museum; but the natural connections have been imperfectly made, and only at long intervals of time."Charles Darwin, Origin of species.
"It is good to keep in mind... that nobody has ever succeeded in producing even one new species by the accumulation of micro mutations. Darwin's theory of natural selection has never had any proof, yet it has been universally accepted."
R Goldschmidt, Material basis of Evolution, Yale Univ. Press.
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
He goes on to try explain how an eye could evolve by the process of natural selection
"Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound."
Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, Chapter 'Difficulties'
Dr Colin Patterson a zoologist on the staff of the Natural History Museum commenting on his book, Evolution, wrote "I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustrations of transitional forms in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living creature, I would certainly have included them." Later he added, "I will lay it on the line, there is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument".
Luther Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma, Master Book Pub. 1987.
Conclusion:
Darwin himself is sceptical as to how evolution could produce something as complicated as the human eye. When Darwin wrote 'Origin of species' he hoped that the transitional species would be discovered with time, this has not happened. The next question is what about future discoveries concerning transitional forms and advances in chemical evolution. If the various species were created after their kind as Genesis suggests then they will not be found, advances in chemical evolution can at best show how life could have evolved it can never prove that life did evolve in that manner, evolution is unprovable. The inability to explain how the first living organism evolved and the lack of transitional forms demonstrate that the theory of evolution is at best a theory, it is not a proven fact. Despite this the majority of people believe evolution to be proven. The theory of evolution is held by faith rather than being based on fact. The belief in creation is therefore a valid alternative for Christian and non-Christian alike.
"Today life moves at such a speed that we are all concerned about where it is heading and whether it is assuming the qualities that are desirable. Progress in the various fields of human endeavour has brought problems in its train. This is not unexpected and these problems are being tackled with vigour. But more than ever before, man is compelled to search for meaning and significance in areas of personal, professional and social involvement. He needs to know his ultimate origin in order to find a purpose for living and to see that purpose reflected, however dimly, in the broader life of the world around him. If that origin is sought in the primeval chaos, from whose random motions life is said to have spewed forth, then no satisfying meaning will likely be found. A tremendous amount of money and effort has been channelled along the lines of trying to demonstrate the plausibility of the chemical evolution of life. An impressive amount of data has accumulated. The fact remains that the probability that vital processes could have arisen and developed without directive forces is exceedingly small. Incredibly small some would say; but that depends on where one has fixed one's cut-off value for credibility. The scientist, who so desires, may keep faith with the tenets of his training and yet find, as many have done, that meaning and significance will emerge as he acknowledges the wisdom of his Creator.
"Chemical evolution An examination of current ideas, S E Aw, University Education Press, Singapore. 1976, page 147.
Psa 139:13-17 (NIV) For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. 14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. 15 My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, 16 your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be. 17 How precious to me are your thoughts, O God! How vast is the sum of them!
Recommended books:
For a more up to date list of books see my books page
Abiogenesis:
- Biogenesis : Theories of Life's Origin by Noam Lahav
- A Case Against Accident and Self-Organization by Dean L. Overman, Wolfhart Pannenberg
- At Home in the Universe : The Search for Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity by Stuart Kauffman
- Origins of Life by Freeman J. Dyson
- The Emergence of Life on Earth : A Historical and Scientific Overview by Iris Fry.
- Not By Chance, by Lee M. Spetner
- The Molecular Origins of Life : Assembling Pieces of the Puzzle by A. Brack (Editor)
- Science and Earth History : The Evolution/Creation Controversy by Arthur N. Strahler. Chap 53 and 54.
Transitional fossils:
- Bones of Contention : A Creationist Assessment of the Human Fossils by Marvin L. Lubenow
- Evolution: The Fossils still say No!, Duane T Gish, Creation-Life Publishers. (Good summary of the fossil evidence). Love him or hate him he is still doing well at Amazon.
- Science and Earth History : The Evolution/Creation Controversy by Arthur N. Strahler. Chap 41 to 45.
- The Biotic Message - Walter ReMine
- Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution by Robert L. Carroll
- Evolution of the Vertebrates : A History of the Backboned Animals Through Time by Edwin Harris Colbert, Michael Morales (Contributor)
- Systematics and the Fossil Record : Documenting Evolutionary Patterns by Andrew B. Smith
Creationist books:
- Darwin on Trial, Phillip E Johnson, IVP, 1991, 1993.
- Reviews: Review-1, Review-2
- Critiques: Critique-1, (more book Reviews), Critique-2
- Reason in the Balance, Phillip E Johnson
- The Creation-Evolution Controversy, R L Wysong, Inquiry Press. (Scientific perspective)
- The Genesis Flood, J C Whitcomb and H M Morris, Baker Book House. (Classic treatise on subject from creationist view)
- Darwin's Enigma, Luther D Sutherland, Master book pub.
- The Rise of the Evolution Fraud, M Bowden, Sovereign publications (222pp, Deals with historical aspects)
- Ape-men: Fact or Fallacy, M Bowden, Sovereign publications (267pp 2nd ed.)
- Science vs. Evolution, M Bowden, Sovereign publications (256pp)
- True Science agrees with the Bible, M Bowden, Sovereign publications (Published in 1998)
For a refutation of this essay go here
| Creation Essay | |||
| Preface | Bible | Evolution | Appendices |
| Home |