Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance.
Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him.
(Matthew 13:12 – NIV)[1]
Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him.
(Matthew 13:12 – NIV)[1]
Richard Dawkins and I are very far apart on the spectrum of religious and anti-religious views. Richard Dawkins believes that God is a delusion.[2] I believe that Richard Dawkins has deluded himself into believing that God does not exist. Despite our vast religious differences, Richard Dawkins and I do have something in common. We both believe in advocating for scientific truth.[3] We just disagree about what that truth is.
In the Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins quotes the above Bible verse as an example of a system governed by positive feedback.[4] Dawkins believes that Evolution produced incredibly complex biological systems through arms races governed by positive feedback.[5] In Dawkins’ view, the competition for survival between prey and predator animals drove them to explosive Evolutionary development.
There is no doubt that prey and predator animals compete for survival. Dawkins uses the battle between cheetahs and gazelles to illustrate this.[6] A cheetah with superior gazelle-catching skills is obviously more likely to survive than a cheetah that can’t catch gazelles. A gazelle with superior cheetah-avoiding skills is more likely to survive than a gazelle that can’t escape from predatory cheetahs. Nobody denies these conclusions.
However, Dawkins uses a bait-and-switch style of advocacy to argue that these conclusions lead to the Fact of Evolution. The bait is attractive and easy to swallow: Natural Selection will tend to preserve species with superior survival ability, because superior survival ability implies superior survival chances. Again, nobody doubts this. But there is a hook hidden within the bait that Dawkins has cast out.
One can acknowledge that increased survival ability increases survival chances (the bait) without swallowing the hook: Speculation that Evolutionary forces have increased survival chances by creating massive amounts of biological complexity. As a child, Dawkins admits he was unwilling to swallow the hook of Evolutionary speculation.[7] But since that time, this hook has become buried deep inside of him.
Dawkins has a problem understanding why other people are reluctant to swallow this hook. He argues that, “it is almost as if our brains were specifically designed to misunderstand Darwinism.”[8] However, Darwinism is not hard to understand. The basic concept behind Darwinian Evolution is very simple: To travel a great distance you only have to take a multitude of small steps in the right direction.
An average person can walk a long distance by stringing together short steps in a specific direction. However, if such a person were blindfolded, his steps might be considered a good example of random mutations. A blindfolded person taking random steps is much more likely to walk around the area of his starting point than he would be to walk a significant distance in a specific direction.[9]
Reaching a far away destination through blind steps is a virtual impossibility, but achieving this goal with the aid of a compass is entirely plausible. Dawkins believes natural selection acts as a compass to guide random mutations in a specific direction. However, a plausible explanation does not necessarily imply a factual explanation. Having the capability to commit a murder does not prove a suspect’s guilt.
Dawkins concedes that the complexity of living organisms is far too improbable to have arisen by random chance.[10] However, Dawkins’ argument is that natural selection makes Evolution a non-random process. He argues that even though the small steps of genetic mutations are random, a process of cumulative selection can produce non-random change that increases survivability.[11]
Once again, Dawkins’ argument is based on a bait-and-switch strategy. One can acknowledge the theoretical plausibility of Dawkins’ logic without conceding that it provides a factual explanation for the origin of biological complexity. Conceding that Evolution theorizes a non-random process (the bait) does not make the Evolutionary origin of biological complexity a fact (the hook).
Richard Dawkins admits that the vast amount of information in biological systems requires an explanation.[12] For example, consider the single cell of a frog egg. According to Molecular Biology of the Cell (Alberts, et al.), a simple-looking frog egg “contains the genetic information needed to specify construction of an entire multi-cellular animal.”[13] The vast information content of a frog egg cell is a fact.
The origin of this vast set of information through Evolution is speculation. Egg cells may appear to be simple blobs, but the information they contain drives the automated construction of very complex biological life forms. Even if one believes that Dawkins’ explanation for generating biological information is theoretically plausible, facts require more than plausibility.
Dawkins does not deny that complex biological components, such as the human eye, could not have arisen directly.[14] The probability against that happening is far too great. Consequently, he argues that many small steps would be required. Dawkins believes that each step of Evolutionary change was so small that it became theoretically plausible.[15] Thus, in Dawkins mind, a set of small steps can transform the improbable into the certain.
However, does the plausibility of a long process of cumulative improvement imply the certainty of it? Consider this analogy from the world of golf. Does combining these factual observations prove the following conclusion?
Observation 1: A large set of average golfers have improved with practice.
Observation 2: Many golfers have become professionals through large amounts of practice.
Conclusion: Given enough time to practice, an average golfer can become a professional.
The underlying observations allegedly supporting this conclusion may be facts. Perhaps nobody can prove that this conclusion is wrong. But that does not make it a fact. The factual validity of these observations is insufficient to prove the conclusion. Anybody who knows anything about golf knows that this conclusion is obviously wrong. While this conclusion may be plausible, positive evidence for it is lacking.
It is also positive evidence that is lacking in Dawkins’ Blind Watchmaker story. For example, nobody doubts Dawkins’ contention that 6% vision is better than 5% vision and that 7% vision is better than 6% vision.[16] However, Dawkins supplies no positive evidence that small genetic changes can incrementally increase vision capability. The “bait and switch” arguments used by Dawkins do not supply this missing evidence.
If, as Dawkins believes, the complexity of the eye evolved through many small steps of cumulative improvement, then a path of small genetic modifications that incrementally increase the quality of vision is necessary. However, one could read the Blind Watchmaker cover to cover and not find one shred of empirical evidence that a path of genetic mutations that will accomplish this task actually exists.
In that sense, the Blind Watchmaker presents a hypothesis rather than a theory. It postulates a long set of small genetic mutations without providing any empirical proof that this set of mutations exist. Dawkins passionate advocacy uses “bait and switch” arguments to cover up the missing evidence. For example, his Biomorph simulation is based on a set of hypothetical genes that are all incremental in nature.[17]
However, real genes are not incremental in nature. There is no “lens gene” that will build a lens, or a “retina gene” that will build an array of light sensitive spots, or an “image processing gene” that will build a “satellite computer” capable of complex image processing.[18] In the biological world, even conceptually simple components are formed from extraordinarily complex biochemical systems.
For example, Dawkins assumes a light-sensitive spot as a starting point for the development of an eye. However, Biochemist Michael Behe has written a head-spinning description that documents the very complex set of interlocked chemical reactions necessary to make a light-sensitive spot.[19] There is no “light-sensitive spot” gene that can be incremented to make a better light-sensitive spot
Dawkins points out that some single-celled organisms have a light-sensitive spot.[20] But this does nothing at all to prove that such light-sensitive spots evolved or that these organisms are simple. For example, Chapter 8 described how single-celled bacteria move around using a complex motor system (flagellum) that has a performance exceeding “the capabilities of artificial motors.”[21] Single-cell life is neither simple nor inefficient.
A fundamental truth about biological life, whether single-cell or multi-cellular, is that it is enormously complex. Anybody who doubts this only has to read Bruce Alberts description of the complex molecular machines that make the complexity of life possible.[22] Alberts describes how cells are not a collection of randomly colliding proteins (as once thought), but an organized factory of highly coordinated molecular machines.[23]
While I disagree with Alberts’ stance on the Fact of Evolution, I agree with his assertion that students who wish to lead the next generation of biological research need to study mathematics, chemistry and physics.[24] Sadly, Alberts has written that many young biologists don’t consider these subjects very important to their future careers.[25] Having been trained as engineer, I find that ironic.
When I was an undergraduate engineering student at Penn State
Alberts has described the “elaborate network of interlocked assembly lines” that allow biological organisms to perform complex functions.[27] Nobody denies that these incredibly complex machines make biological life possible. As Alberts suggests, it seems appropriate to use principles of engineering analysis to decipher the operation of these complex biochemical machines.[28]
Evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky has written: “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of Evolution.”[29] However, it is an intimate knowledge of the laws of physics that is required to explain how biological systems function, rather than a familiarity with Evolutionary stories. This is consistent with Physicist Ernest Rutherford’s statement: “All science is either physics or stamp collecting.”[30]
According to Molecular Biology of the Cell (Alberts et al.), living organisms function according to chemical and physical laws.[31] If Biology is the study of living organisms, then a focus on chemical and physical laws should be its primary focus. Consequently, one might question whether biologists who don’t consider physics, chemistry, and mathematics very important to their careers are interested in practicing real science.
However, since the time of Darwin
The trouble with a hypothetical story is that it provides little certainty. Colin Patterson (a senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum) expressed this uncertainty in a 1981 museum talk, by asking this question: “Can you tell me anything you know about Evolution, any one thing that is true?”[32] As Chapter 6 of this book describes, Colin Patterson’s question was met with silence.
Ask yourself a similar question: Is there anything about the broad claim of Evolution (i.e., the common descent of all life forms from a single ancient ancestor) that you know for sure to be true? If you are honest with yourself, I think the only answers you could give are “not much” or “nothing at all.” As the following sections describe, there are major issues with the fossil, genetic and origin-of-life evidence for the Fact of Evolution.
My opinion on the Fossil Evidence for the Fact of Evolution
Mark Ridley is a prominent Evolutionist and an Oxford
The alleged Evolutionary origin of whales provides a perfect example of the large gaps found in the fossil record. Whales are classified as mammals, even though they are clearly aquatic animals. Evolutionists believe whales originated from a sequence of land animals that returned to life in the sea.[34] A Wikipedia article about the Evolution of cetaceans (whales, dolphins, porpoises) summarizes the proposed sequence of origin.[35]
To understand what skeptics mean by “gaps in the fossil record,” the picture of the family tree for whale Evolution contained in the Wikipedia article is worth thousands of words.[36] The closest fossil-link to the whale family in the Wiki picture is a small land animal called Pakicetus.[37] Pakicetids looked nothing at all like whales, dolphins, or porpoises. They looked more like a dog.
Hans Thewissen is a leading scientist involved in studying the alleged Evolutionary history of whales. Here is a quote from Thewissen’s website:
Pakicetids were the first cetaceans, and they are more primitive than other whales in most respects. In fact, they did not look like whales at all, and did not live in the sea. Instead they lived on land, and may have fed while wading in shallow streams.[38]
Were Pakicetids really the first member of the whale family? A skeptic might point to the drastic size difference between a dog and a typical member of whale family. For example, the Wikipedia article contains a picture that illustrates how small a human diver is when compared with various cetaceans.[39] Thewissen ignores the obvious size differences between whales and dogs to focus on a similarity in the structure of ears:
Although pakicetids were land mammals, it is clear that they are related to whales and dolphins based on a number of specializations of the ear, relating to hearing.[40]
Thewissen has also found what he considers to be another missing link in the line of whale Evolution. This missing link is promoted in a 2007 press release from Northeastern Ohio Universities Colleges of Medicine and Pharmacy (NEOUCOM):
NEOUCOM Scientist Discovers Missing Link: Dr. Hans Thewissen identifies whales' four-footed ancestor[41]
Thewissen describes Indohyus (the new missing link) as a “fox-sized mammal that looked something like a miniature deer.”[42] He believes it is the “closest known fossil relative of whales.”[43] Again, the evidence linking this small land dwelling animal to whales seems rather questionable. Among other things, Indohyus is thought to have had similar water-dwelling capability to a small modern deer called the Chevrotain.[44]
A YouTube video shows the Chevrotain (about the size of a Jack Russell Terrier) leaving its feeding ground in the African rainforest and diving into a small stream to avoid the predatory attack of an eagle.[45] While this is an interesting video, it no more proves that a deer-like animal is an Evolutionary ancestor to whales, than a man diving into water to avoid deadly gunfire proves that he is an Evolutionary ancestor to whales.
Are Evolutionist playing fast and loose with the facts when they classify these small land animals as the Evolutionary ancestors of whales? I believe there is evidence to suggest that this is the case. For example, in Refuting Evolution 2, Jonathan Sarfati describes some of the missing link promotion that was done by paleontologist Phil Gingerich of the University of Michigan:
[Gingerich wrote an article for schoolteachers] with an illustration of an animal that had splashed into the sea and was swimming and catching fish, and looking convincingly like an intermediate between land animals and whales. He also claimed, ‘In time and in its morphology, Pakicetus is perfectly intermediate, a missing link between earlier land mammals and later, full-fledged whales.’[46]
Ken Ham’s and Carl Wieland’s article A Whale of a Tale contains a pair of impressive figures that illustrate the huge gap between the fossil bones that were found and Gingerich’s imaginative picture of a swimming Pakicetus.[47] When Thewissen later uncovered more bones of Pakicetus, it became clear that Pakicetus was strictly a land animal that looked nothing like a swimming ancestor of whales.[48]
Gingerich has been searching since the 1970’s for evidence to fill in some of the huge gaps that exist in the alleged Evolutionary origin of whales.[49] This quote from a 2001 ScienceDaily article describes this effort:
[Recent fossil discoveries] resolve a longstanding controversy over the origin of whales, confirming that the giant sea creatures evolved from early ancestors of sheep, deer and hippopotami and suggesting that hippos may be the closest living relatives of whales.[50]
If scientists are actively searching for missing links, how can Evolutionists legitimately argue that a convincing fossil sequence for whale Evolution is already in place? The reality is that Evolutionary stories about the alleged land-ancestors and water-ancestors of whales are based on filling in huge gaps with imaginative speculation. I believe that presenting such speculation as fact is not in the interest of science.
However, it is clear that this is commonly done. For example, Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science (published by NAS) presents a fossil sequence that allegedly documents the “evolution of whales and dolphins.”[51] However, various Biblical Creationists (Sarfati, Ken Ham, and Carl Wieland) have pointed out the misleading nature of the Evolutionary sequence promoted in the NAS document:
- All of the species in the NAS document are drawn the same size, even though, Basilosaurus(70 feet long) is ten times larger than Ambulocetus(7 feet long).[52]
- Ken Ham’s and Carl Wieland’s article A Whale of a Tale contains an impressive illustration that highlights the vast difference between the small portions of the skeleton that were found and the artistic impressions of a complete Ambulocetus.[53]
- The missing pelvic bone of the Ambulocetus skeleton would be vital to assessing its ability to swim – according to a quote from Evolutionist Annalisa Berta that was published in Science.[54]
- Some undisputed whales are dated earlier than Ambulocetus, meaning that it couldn’t possibly be an Evolutionary ancestor for whales (assuming the dates generated by Evolutionists are accurate).[55]
If the alleged fossil sequence for whale Evolution was the only one with such major issues, it might be argued that this was an exception to an otherwise clear record of Evolutionary descent. However, Chapter 4 of Luther Sunderland’s Darwin’s Enigma presents an abundant set of quotes from Evolutionist sources which demonstrate that missing links are the rule of the fossil record rather than the exception.[56]
Missing links and controversial conclusions continue all the way up the ladder to the Evolution of humans. In Bones of Contention, Marvin Lubenow describes a project in which each of his 30 university students were assigned five human fossils to thoroughly research. The students were asked to write a one-page summary that listed the species classification and date that Evolutionists assigned for each of these fossils.[57]
In trying to complete this assignment, Lubenow’s students struggled with the lack of agreement among Evolutionary sources. To reduce their difficulty, Lubenow told his students that they could use a species classification or a date as soon as they found two Evolutionists whose opinions agreed.[58] When the students put their results together, it showed anything but a clear record of Evolutionary progress:
As the process unfolded, it became increasingly obvious that the fossils did not show human Evolution over time. If human Evolution were true, the fossils should have fallen roughly in a line going from australopithecines, through some of the Homo hablis, on up to Homo erectus, then through some of the early Homo sapiens (that’s big, beautiful you and me). Instead, the fossils were all over the place without any definite Evolutionary progression.[59]
Perhaps Evolutionists see a clear path of Evolutionary development in all species because they assume that such a path always exists. In the words of Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge, opinions formed in advance can have a great impact on the results of scientific studies:
… a priori theorems often determine the results of empirical studies before the first shred of empirical evidence is collected. This idea, that theory dictates what one sees, cannot be stated too strongly.[60]
Gould and Eldredge made that argument to explain why numerous scientists found gradualism in the fossil record when it existed only in their theories. They also pointed out the vicious circle between theories and the interpretation of supporting evidence:
The inductivist view is a vicious circle. A theory often compels us to see the world in its light and support. Yet, we think we see objectively and interpret each new datum as an independent confirmation of our theory.[61]
Although Gould and Eldredge were only intending to defend their Punctuated Equilibrium Theory (which sought to explain gaps in the fossil record), their logic suggests that skepticism should be used in evaluating so-called fossil proof. This is not what Gould and Eldredge intended to suggest when they developed Punctuated Equilibrium. But in my opinion, Gould and Eldredge were blinded by their own theory.
My opinion on the Genetic Evidence for the Fact of Evolution
Just as Darwin had hoped to find a large number of transitional fossils to prove his theory, geneticists had hoped that comparing the DNA streams of different species would yield a clear and unambiguous Evolutionary Tree of Life. At first, genetic comparisons of common proteins like Hemoglobin offered great hope. However, when geneticist began comparing many different genes, ambiguity reigned (see Chapter 13 for more details).
The reality of genetic comparisons is that comparing different genes often yields vastly different Trees of Life. Consequently, the unambiguous Tree of Life that geneticists hoped to create is anything but unambiguous. The “Names and Nastiness” label that Gould gave to the Taxonomists who seek to classify Evolutionary relationships indicates the fierce fighting over the immensely controversial Tree of Life.[62]
The gaps between species have always made generating a Tree of Life from anatomical comparisons a problematic guessing game. It was hoped that genetic comparisons would end the guessing game and provide definitive answers for Evolutionary relationships. But the exact opposite happened. Genetic comparisons have muddied the already murky waters of the Tree of Life.
While it was disappointing for Evolutionists to find that various genetic comparisons yielded different results, this was only the tip of the iceberg. Even more disappointing was the fact that genetic comparisons led to vastly different results than the anatomy-based trees promoted by morphologists. Dawkins spends a whole chapter of The Blind Watchmaker describing the intense controversy over “The One True Tree of Life.”[63]
The principle of genetic comparisons is a relatively simple one. The proteins that are vital to living organisms are formed from long strings of amino acids. Because the chances of randomly stringing together a specific string of amino acids are infinitesimally small (see Chapter 11), geneticists assume that random chance cannot be the cause for two different organisms having very similar sequences of amino acids.[64]
A homology is a technical term indicating a similarity between different organisms. Homologies can be based on comparing either anatomy or genetics. Because chance is ruled out as a likely cause for homologies, it is assumed that a common Evolutionary ancestor is the cause. However, the geneticists Koonin and Galperin state that the existence of any Evolutionary homology “is a conjecture, not an experimental fact.”[65]
Koonin and Galperin make it clear that homologies could be classified as a fact “only if we could directly explore their common ancestor and all intermediate forms.”[66] Since this is never the case, homologies can never be considered facts. One of the many issues with using the concept of genetic homologies to prove Evolution is that it ignores a third possibility – i.e., Intelligent Design (in contrast to either random-chance or Evolution).
Using a common structure for similar genes in similar organisms would hardly be considered an infeasible alternative for an intelligent designer. Even if one rejects the Biblical God, there are good reasons to consider the alternative of Intelligent Design. For example, all life forms we know of require that an enormous amount of information be stored in their DNA. The DNA functions as a blueprint that contains coded information.
The information coded in DNA is used to manufacture cellular proteins. These proteins then self-assemble to make the complex machines that drive the cellular factories described by Alberts. Without the information contained in the DNA blueprint, this isn’t possible. Warner Gitt (a specialist in Information Science) believes that our knowledge of information theory is inconsistent with random mutations generating DNA information.[67]
In opposition to this view, Physicist Paul Davies argues that natural selection could theoretically steer random mutations to generate genetic information.[68] But even if Davies is correct about this theoretical possibility, it does not imply certainty of it. For example, it is theoretically possible for a monkey to randomly type out the works of Shakespeare. Nevertheless, it is a virtual impossibility (see Chapter 11 of this book).
Davies makes it clear that the problem of generating the minimal set of information for a viable organism involves a “chicken and egg paradox” that was named “the error catastrophe” by Manfred Eigen.[69] Advocates for the Fact of Evolution avoid theoretical paradoxes like “the error catastrophe” by waving the magical wand of natural selection. But waving a theoretical magical wand is not the same as providing experimental proof.
In Not By Chance!, Physicist Lee Spetner argues that, “all mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce genetic information, and not increase it.”[70] To substantiate his argument, Spetner provides a detailed discussion of the mutations that provide bacteria with a resistance to antibiotics.[71] In all cases, Specter shows how these real mutations cause a loss in genetic information, rather than a gain.
Furthermore, the theoretical problem of generating DNA information may be dwarfed by the technical problem of storing a vast amount of DNA information in the tiny volume of a living cell. This quote from the textbook Introduction to Genetic Analysis (Griffiths et al.) describes the high level of compaction that is necessary:
The human body consists of approximately 1013 cells and therefore contains a total of about 2×1013m of DNA. Some idea of the extreme length of this DNA can be obtained by comparing it with the distance from the earth to the sun, which is 1.5×1011m. You can see that the DNA in your body could stretch to the sun and back about 50 times. This peculiar fact makes the point that the DNA of eukaryotes is efficiently packed. In fact, the packing is at the level of the nucleus, where the 2m [78.74 inches] of DNA in a human cell is packed into 46 chromosomes, all in a nucleus 0.006mm [.0002 inches] in diameter.[72]
One of the things that make this level of packing possible is a set of proteins called Histones. A fascinating thing about Histones is that they have a nearly identical structure in all multi-cellular organisms (called Eukaryotes).[73] To borrow Dawkins’ description of sudden appearance of fully formed fossils in the Cambrian Explosion, “it is as if they [fully functional Histones – in this case] were just planted there.[74]
A fundamental assumption behind Dawkins’ Biomorph simulation is that Evolution can make incremental improvements in genes to create highly optimized structures. However, the genes that manufacture the Histones have left no evidence of the incrementally increased functionality assumed by Dawkins. All multi-cellular organisms have essentially the same set of highly optimized Histones.
In What It Means To Be 98% Chimpanzee, Jonathan Marks claims, “The burden of proof in science always falls on the claimant.”[75] One can never prove that an intelligent designer created a set of fully functional Histones. Similarly, one can never prove that the Histones were created through the process of incremental Evolutionary improvement envisioned by Dawkins. Both claims lack the support of empirical evidence.
The distinguished physicist Stephen Hawking has noted that scientists have a tendency to find the result that they are seeking.[76] In promoting their theory of Punctuated Equilibrium, Gould and Eldredge described how many scientists found gradual Evolutionary change in the fossil record simply because they expected it to be there. It is also common to find what you expect in the interpretation of genetic data.
For example, in the early 1900’s, scientists concluded that human beings could be classified into races based on comparing the ABO blood type. Today’s textbooks take the exact opposite position. In What It Means To Be 98% Chimpanzee, Jonathan Marks argues that the opposite conclusions were related to scientist’s a priori assumptions about the existence of discrete racial divisions.[77] Bad assumptions make for bad science.
Marks has pointed out that “it’s very easy to come up with results that you already believe”[78] He describes how two different statistical methods were used on genetic data in the 1970’s to determine which of three races (African, Asian, and European) had the closest Evolutionary relationship. The two methods yielded opposite results and drastically different dates of divergence.[79] At least one set of these scientists was wrong.
It simply is bad science to make broad assertions in cases where limited knowledge is available. Good science requires not drawing premature conclusions based on what you don’t know for sure. This quote from a 2008 Science Daily press release summarizes how little we truly know about the genetic processes that make life forms:
Genetic recombination is a fundamental process, at the core of reproduction and Evolution," said study author Graham Coop, PhD, post-doctoral fellow in the Department of Human Genetics at the University of Chicago
Because the field of genetics has so many unknowns, bad assumptions of scientists can lead to very bad conclusions. A clear example of this can be found in a broad conclusion drawn from early comparisons among Hemoglobin molecules. In the 1960’s, a chemist named Emile Zuckerkandl made this statement about Hemoglobin comparisons:
… from the point of view of hemoglobin structure, it appears that a gorilla is just an abnormal human, or a man an abnormal gorilla, and the two species form actually one continuous population.[81]
The famous Evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson did not find Zuckerkandl’s argument very compelling, labeling it “nonsense.”[82] In this quote from a 1964 article published in Science, Simpson argued that, “if one [gene/protein] can be misleading, so can many.”[83] One of the realities of genetic comparisons is that they are used to draw broad conclusions based on very limited data.
This quote from Marks paper on What It Means To Be 99% Chimpanzee points out the clear danger involved with drawing broad conclusions based on limited genetic data:
Humans and gorillas are diagnosably distinct anatomically, behaviorally, mentally, ecologically, demographically – effectively any way that you can compare them. And if you can’t tell the human from the gorilla because you’re looking at their hemoglobin, just look at something else![84]
There is no question that Evolutionists see genetic comparisons proving Evolution. The issue is whether a blind devotion to the Fact of Evolution is influencing their judgment and leading them to draw unwarranted conclusions. My opinion is that unwarranted genetic conclusions are very common among Evolutionists.
My opinion on the Origin of Life Evidence for the Fact of Evolution
Chapter’s 7-9 of this book deal with the many circular paradoxes associated with biological life at the biochemical level. These circular paradoxes are like microscopic version of the classic riddle: “Which came first, the chicken or the egg”? Many Evolutionists seek to solve the microscopic version of the riddle by postulating a much simpler original life form that functions without any circular systems.
However, one issue with this solution is that both single-celled and multi-cellular organisms are built from extremely complex components that form circular systems. Just as there is no empirical evidence for the gradual optimization of Histones, there is no empirical evidence that a simple prototype life evolved complex circular systems through a gradual process of incremental change.
As a hypothetical first life form becomes more complicated, its origin by random processes becomes very unlikely. Consequently, there is an incentive to postulate that something as simple as Dawkins’ self-replicating molecule started the Evolutionary ball rolling. However, there is a very wide gap between a sea full of mutating self-replicating molecules and the complex circular systems of an alleged common ancestor.
To start the ball rolling, imagine a sea of competing self-replicating molecules converging into a single common ancestor with complex circular systems. Then imagine this single common ancestor diverging into a wide variety of sea-creatures, one of which crawled back onto land, and then diverged into a wide variety of land animals. This alleged evolutionary sequence has both extreme convergence and massive divergence.
The Fact of Evolution is assumed to be capable of playing whatever tune is required. It is thought to play notes ranging from a sea full of competing molecules converging to a single common ancestor, followed by a divergence of the common ancestor to all the life forms we observe today. This accordion effect and the uncertainty surrounding it are summarized in this quote from Paul Davies’ The Fifth Miracle:
As I have stressed before, the universal common ancestor was not the first living thing. A long evolutionary history must have preceded it. We know almost nothing about the circumstances that connected the first living thing to the universal ancestor.[85]
There are many competing theories for how life began. In a 1992 Discover Magazine article, Peter Radetsky described some of them. One of the competing theories is that the precursor of modern life arrived here from outer space. The famous origin-of-life researcher Stanley Miller described this theory “as garbage.” Another theory is that life began near undersea hydrothermal vents. Miller described this theory as “a real loser.”[86]
Miller had good reasons to use such derogatory language. If you are interested in honestly evaluating the evidence for origin-of-life theories, every theory other than your own looks like garbage or a real loser. That obviously means that your theory must be the one true explanation for the naturalistic origin of life. At least that is the case if you are blinded by the assumption that life had a naturalistic origin.
About 30 years ago, theories about a DNA-first or a Protein-first origin were dominant. However, DNA and Proteins are entwined in an intimate chicken-and-egg relationship, where the information stored in DNA is needed to make proteins, and proteins are needed to replicate DNA. After Thomas Cech discovered that RNA had some capability to replicate itself in 1981, the RNA-world theory became dominant.[87]
A number of scientists have done experiments intended to simulate the start of an RNA world. In 1967, Sol Spiegelman was able to get an RNA virus to replicate in a test tube environment. Evolutionists proudly proclaim that this demonstrates Evolution in action. But that depends on what Evolution means. For example, Spiegelman’s starting molecule had 3300 bases, and his ending molecule had only 550 bases.[88]
This form of Evolution (if you call it that) is about which molecules can replicate fastest. Not surprisingly, smaller molecules can replicate faster than bigger molecules. However, smaller molecules hold less genetic information. Therefore, the decrease in size between the starting and ending molecules in this experiment provides absolutely no evidence that Evolution can increase genetic information content over time.
There is also a fundamental difference between the properties of self-replicating RNA molecules and the DNA/Protein interaction in modern life forms. The RNA-letters of Spiegelman’s experiment only function is to maximize the replication properties of the RNA-string. In contrast, the DNA-letters of modern life forms generate complex protein machines that have no direct impact on the replication properties of the DNA-string.
Maximizing the replication of small RNA molecules is not the same as maximizing a complex cellular factory built from instructions contained in a huge DNA string. Rhetoric about unobservable incremental change does not provide any empirical evidence for bridging this huge gap. If you are not blinded by belief in the theory of the RNA world, there is a lot of cause for skepticism about this theory.
In The Fifth Miracle, Davies has described how the naturalistic origin of life is commonly presented to the public as a sure thing, even though many scientists “freely admit that they are baffled” when they are behind closed doors.[89] The gap between being baffled and being certain is a huge one. But if a “frank admission of ignorance” threatens funding for research projects, there is a huge motivation to make “exaggerated claims.”[90]
Davies states, “Just because scientists are still uncertain how life began does not mean that life does not have a natural origin.”[91] I would turn that statement around. Just because many scientists assume a natural cause for all events, it does not mean that life did not have a supernatural origin. Open-minded scientists are careful to avoid ruling out possibilities based on unprovable assumptions and uncertain evidence.
A Final Summary
Cooking recipes are based on taking a bunch of different ingredients and processing them in various ways to produce an edible product. In an analogous way, animals are formed from a recipe of chemical ingredients that undergo a growth process to produce an adult animal. Just as changing a cooking recipe will change the result, changing the contents of an animal’s chemical ingredients will produce a different animal.
According to Dawkins, “animals are the most complicated things in the known universe.”[92] The Fact of Evolution is based on a rhetorical story of a long process of incremental change to the chemical ingredients of an ancient self-replicating molecule. This long process is alleged to have produced the immense complexity of biological life. Dawkins clearly acknowledges how utterly complex biological life is – on this we agree.
My goal in this book has not been to argue that the rhetorical story of Evolution can be proven false. In the proper practice of science, it is not necessary to prove a rhetorical story false. Rather, it is necessary for proponents of a rhetorical story to prove why it is true. The book describes many cases where Evolutionists fall far short of that goal. Therefore, my argument has been that it is improper to label Evolution as a fact.
The rhetorical story of Evolution is based on long sequences of small genetic changes that allegedly connect all living organisms to a common ancestor. Marks has stated, “genetic inferences require genetic data.”[93] While genetic knowledge has drastically increased in the last fifty years, much about genetics is still a huge mystery. For example, the outspoken geneticist Craig Venter’s view of biology is that “we don’t know squat.”[94]
Nevertheless, the wide acceptance of the Fact of Evolution has led many scientists to draw broad genetic conclusions that are unsupported by empirical genetic evidence. For example, in The Selfish Gene, Dawkins argues that genes produce both selfish and unselfish behavior.[95] As with his explanation of cumulative selection, Dawkins weaves a rhetorical story that provides no genetic evidence for his genetic conclusion.
The long running “nature versus nurture” debate provides yet another example of jumping to genetic conclusions without genetic evidence.[96] Both sides of the debate assume that the only possible explanations for human behavior are “our genes” or “our environment.” However, an important third alternative exists – our free will. In my opinion, human behavior is impacted by all three alternatives.
Many scientists reject the free well alternative just as they reject the alternative of an Intelligent Designer. William Provine is a prime example of this.[97] The rejection of free will has led Sociologists to look for cultural reasons to explain human behavior, while Geneticists look to genes as a cause.[98] Both sets of scientists ignore the potential impact of free will, although they provide no empirical evidence to reject this alternative.
For example, consider the case of Bernard Madoff, who created a Ponzi scheme that defrauded investors of billions of dollars.[99] Is there any empirical evidence for a gene that led Madoff to commit massive fraud? Is there any empirical evidence that the cultural environment of Madoff led him to commit fraud? I believe that Madoff’s fraud was linked to his own free-will choice, and not caused by his genes or his environment.
Questionable assumptions of Evolutionary rhetoric have led Dawkins (and other scientists) to minimize the vast differences between apes and human beings.[100] To Dawkins, human beings are nothing special. In The Selfish Gene, he extols the “lesson in humility” that mankind has learned from chess playing computer programs.[101] But chess playing computers rigorously follow the intelligent instructions of a human programmer.
The inanimate metal of an airplane can’t humble the flight capability of birds. An airplanes flight capability is a result of human intelligence, as is the chess playing ability of a computer. Computers do not have the ability to think for themselves. Computer programs don’t make chess moves based on the free will decisions of the computer. Unlike children, computer programs are unable to ignore the instructions of their parents.
The stunning complexity of biological life is found everywhere you look. It ranges from the highly efficient microscopic motors that propel bacteria, to the flight capability of birds, to the intelligence of human beings. As Alberts has described, life is based on cellular factories filled with complex microscopic protein machines. At the macroscopic level, organisms contain trillions of cooperating cells that add even more complexity.
To prove that the rhetorical story of Evolution created all this complexity would require an enormous amount of empirical evidence. Evolutionists often claim that rejecting the Fact of Evolution involves rejecting a mountain of empirical proof. For example, a 2009 article published in the scientific journal Nature extols 15 gems that allegedly provide empirical validation for the Fact of Evolution.[102] But is this claim true?
The first gem listed in the Nature article is a fossil that looks like a small dog. This tiny fossil is thought to be an Evolutionary ancestor to modern whales. The alleged missing link (Indohyus) was classified as an Evolutionary ancestor to whales based on “the structure of its ears and premolars, in the density of its limb bones and in the stable-oxygen-isotope composition of its teeth.”[103]
As far as we know, a blue whale is the largest creature that has ever lived on earth.[104] Would you bet your house that comparing ear anatomy could ever prove that this tiny fossil is an ancestor to the huge blue whale?[105] A skeptic might ask whether using minute anatomical features to tie Indohyus to whales makes any more sense than arguing that Hemoglobin comparisons imply human beings are virtually identical to gorillas.
The process of cumulative selection promoted by Dawkins requires innumerable small steps to fill such gaps. Darwin
The theory of Punctuated Equilibrium does not provide empirical evidence for these missing transitional species. Instead, it is an attempt to explain why these transitional species don’t show up in the fossil record. However, missing evidence is not a form of empirical proof. Innumerable fossils that allegedly fill the huge gap between a small terrestrial animal and an ocean-dwelling blue whale simply do not exist.
In the imagination of Dawkins, innumerable small genetic changes explain how Evolution filled these gaps. However, empirical proof is based on the observation of real entities, and imaginary genetic changes do not constitute empirical proof. Empirical proof for bridging huge functional gaps would require studying real genes and real sequences of genetic mutations. Our current genetic knowledge is inadequate to do this.
The 12th Evolutionary gem in the Nature article is Darwin Darwin
The Nature article points out that changing the amount of production for a single protein (Calmodulin) during the development process can change the size and shape of a Finches beak.[109] But this does nothing to prove that very different species like apes and humans, or deer and whales, share a common ancestor. It simply proves that individual species can have a lot of diversity brought on by small genetic changes.
The Evolutionist Francis Ayala has calculated that a single pair of human parents can produce up to 102017 different children (102017 is very huge number – a one followed by 2017 zeroes).[110] Anybody who looks closely at their relatives can see how even direct ancestors and descendents can be very different. One demonstration of this is the 7’1” Wilt Chamberlain (a basketball star) who had two parents less than 5’9” in height.[111]
This is quite a lot of diversity, without any Evolution at all. Such diversity might also explain a so-called missing link between humans and apes – the Neanderthal’s. A 2010 New York Times article describes how the latest genetic research indicates a history of mating between Neanderthals and human beings.[112] The traditional definition of a species (interbreeding) suggests that Neanderthals may simply have been human beings.
Imagine that some prankster accumulated the genetic knowledge to design an artificial species that was halfway between an ape and a human being. If an Evolutionist discovered this new species, and thought it to be of natural origin, it undoubtedly would be cited as empirical proof for the Fact of Evolution. But since this new species would be the product of an intelligent design process, this would an obvious mistake.
Opinions are like broken hearts – nearly everybody has had at least one. This book has offered my opinion on how an a priori commitment to a naturalistic worldview has led many scientists to twist the truth and exaggerate the quality of the evidence supporting the Fact of Evolution. I could write a thousand more chapters to illustrate that point. But I see no point in doing that. I rest my case.
Acknowledgements
Endnotes are contained in the following section. The following shorthand notation connects the numbered endnotes to permission statements:
N(x, y, z, …) indicates endnotes numbered ‘x’, ‘y’, ‘z’.
I gratefully acknowledge permission to reproduce quotes from the following copyrighted material:
N(1): Scripture taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved.
N(19): The Access Research Network permits this document to be reproduced in its entirety for non-commercial use: Michael Behe, "Molecular Machines – Experimental Support for the Design Inference”, 1997. See section “The Eyesight of Man” at http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mm92496.htm.
N(32): The Access Research Network permits this document to be reproduced in its entirety for non-commercial use: Paul Nelson, “Colin Patterson Revisits His Famous Question about Evolution”, http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/colpat171.htm.
N(33, 110): From What is Creation-Science? by Henry Morris and Gary Parker, 19th printing, July 2004. Used with permission from the publisher – Master Books, Green Forest , AR
N(34, 51): Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 1998), http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5787. Reprinted with permission from Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science, 1998 by the National Academy of Sciences, Courtesy of the National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
N(46, 48, 54): From Refuting Evolution 2 by Jonathan Sarfati, 4th printing, April 2005. Used with permission from the publisher – Master Books, Green Forest , AR
N(52, 55): From Refuting Evolution by Jonathan Sarfati, 18th printing, May 2005. Used with permission from the publisher – Master Books, Green Forest , AR
N(46-48, 52-55): Used with the permission of Creation Ministries International – www.creation.com.
N(56): Luther Patterson, Darwin’s Enigma (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 4th ed. 1988), pp. 88-90, Chapter 4, http://www.creationism.org/books/sunderland/DarwinsEnigma/DarwinsEnigma_04Reptile.htm. Used with the permission of Paul Abramson – www.creationism.org.
N(57-59): Marvin L. Lubenow, Bones of Contention (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2004), pp. 17-19. These references (and a quote) fall within the Fair Use Guidelines of Baker Books.
N(67): Used with the permission of Answers in Genesis – www.answersingenesis.org.
N(75, 77-79, 84, 93): Jonathan Marks, What It Means To Be 98% Chimpanzee: Apes, People, and Their Genes. (c) 2002 by the Regents of the University of California University of California University of California Press
Notes and References
[2]. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (
[3]. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 2006 Edition (
[4]. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 2006 Edition (
[5]. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 2006 Edition (
[6]. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 2006 Edition (
[7]. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 2006 Edition (New York: W.W. Norton, 2006), p. 7; Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton, 1986), p. 3 from Chapter 1 “Explaining the very improbable.”
[8]. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 2006 Edition (
[9]. See “Random Walk Simulation” at http://www2.krellinst.org/UCES/archive/modules/monte/node4.html, “Brownian Motion” at http://www.math.utah.edu/~carlson/teaching/java/prob/brownianmotion/1/index.html and “Random Walk” at http://www.math.utah.edu/~carlson/teaching/java/prob/brownianmotion/4/rw.html.
[10]. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 2006 Edition (New York: W.W. Norton, 2006), p. 61; Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton, 1986), p. 43 from Chapter 3 “Accumulating small change.”
[11]. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 2006 Edition (New York: W.W. Norton, 2006), p. 80; Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton, 1986), p. 56 from Chapter 3 “Accumulating small change.”
[12]. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 2006 Edition (
[13]. Bruce Alberts, Alexander Johnson, Julian Lewis, Martin Raff,
[14]. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 2006 Edition (New York: W.W. Norton, 2006), p. 108; Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton, 1986), p. 77 from Chapter 4 “Making tracks through animal space.”
[15]. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 2006 Edition (New York: W.W. Norton, 2006), p. 108; Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton, 1986), pp. 77-78 from Chapter 4 “Making tracks through animal space.”
[16]. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 2006 Edition (New York: W.W. Norton, 2006), p. 113; Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton, 1986), p. 81 from Chapter 4 “Making tracks through animal space.”
[17]. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 2006 Edition (New York: W.W. Norton, 2006), p 76; Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton, 1986), p. 55 from Chapter 3 “ Accumulating small change.”
[18]. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 2006 Edition (New York: W.W. Norton, 2006), pp. 24-7; Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton, 1986), pp. 15-18 from Chapter 1 “Explaining the very improbable.”
[19]. Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box (New York: Free Press, 1996), pp. 18-23. Also see: Michael Behe, "Molecular Machines – Experimental Support for the Design Inference”, 1997. See section “The Eyesight of Man” at http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mm92496.htm.
[20]. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 2006 Edition (New York: W.W. Norton, 2006), p. 119; Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton, 1986), p. 85 from Chapter 4 “Making tracks through animal space.”
[22]. Bruce Alberts, “The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists,” Cell 92(3):291-4, 6 February 1998, as referenced from Science Direct, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6WSN-419K592-1/2/fc6ab6ca1e175d970b76c6a10ad6e81a.
[23]. Bruce Alberts, “The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists,” Cell 92(3):291-4, 6 February 1998, p. 291, as referenced from Science Direct, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6WSN-419K592-1/2/fc6ab6ca1e175d970b76c6a10ad6e81a.
[24]. Bruce Alberts, “The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists,” Cell 92(3):291-4, 6 February 1998, p. 293, as referenced from Science Direct, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6WSN-419K592-1/2/fc6ab6ca1e175d970b76c6a10ad6e81a.
[25]. Bruce Alberts, “The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists,” Cell 92(3):291-4, 6 February 1998, p. 293, as referenced from Science Direct, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6WSN-419K592-1/2/fc6ab6ca1e175d970b76c6a10ad6e81a.
[26]. I attended Penn State University from 1976-1980 and I received a Bachelor’s Degree is in Electrical Engineering (B.S.E.E). I attended Carnegie Mellon University in 1980-1981, and I received a Master’s Degree in Electrical Engineering (M.S.E.E) – focused on Computer Engineering.
[27]. Bruce Alberts, “The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists,” Cell 92(3):291-4, 6 February 1998, p. 291, as referenced from Science Direct, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6WSN-419K592-1/2/fc6ab6ca1e175d970b76c6a10ad6e81a.
[28]. Bruce Alberts, “The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists,” Cell 92(3):291-4, 6 February 1998, as referenced from Science Direct, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6WSN-419K592-1/2/fc6ab6ca1e175d970b76c6a10ad6e81a
[29]. The American Biology Teacher, Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution”, March 1973, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/Evolution/library/10/2/text_pop/l_102_01.html.
[30]. “Ernest Rutherford: 1871-1937,” A Science Odyssey, PBS, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/bpruth.html, 6 November 2010 (from Google Cache).
[31]. Bruce Alberts, Alexander Johnson, Julian Lewis, Martin Raff,
[32]. Paul Nelson, “Colin Patterson Revisits His Famous Question about Evolution”, http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/colpat171.htm.
[33]. Mark Ridley, “Who Doubts Evolution?” New Scientist, 90:831, 25 June 1981, p. 831, as quoted in the book: Henry M. Morris and Gary E. Parker, What is Creation-Science, 19th Printing (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1987), p. 228.
[34]. Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 1998), p. 18, http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5787&page=18.
[41]. “NEOUCOM Scientist Discovers Missing Link: Dr. Hans Thewissen identifies whales' four-footed ancestor,” http://www.neoucom.edu/releases.php?release=124.
[42]. NEOUCOM Scientist Discovers Missing Link: Dr. Hans Thewissen identifies whales' four-footed ancestor, http://www.neoucom.edu/releases.php?release=124.
[43]. NEOUCOM Scientist Discovers Missing Link: Dr. Hans Thewissen identifies whales' four-footed ancestor, http://www.neoucom.edu/releases.php?release=124.
[44]. Northeastern Ohio Universities Colleges of Medicine and Pharmacy, "Whales Descended From Tiny Deer-Like Ancestors," ScienceDaily, 21 December 2007, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071220220241.htm.
[46]. Phil Gingerich, “The Whales of Tethys,” Natural History (April 1994): p. 86, as cited in the book: Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Evolution 2, 4th printing (
[47]. Ken Ham and Carl Wieland, “AWhale of a tale,” Creation 23(4):10–14, September 2001, http://creation.com/a-whale-of-a-tale . The following JPEG files contrast an Evolutionists illustration of a complete body (http://creation.com/images/creation_mag/vol23/p11_pakicetus.jpg) with the actual bones that were found (a subset of the skull, which is colored in blue): http://creation.com/images/creation_mag/vol23/p11_ambulocetus.jpg.
[48]. C. d. Muzion, “Walking with whales,” Nature 413:259-60, 20 September 2001, as cited in the book: Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Evolution 2, 4th printing (
[49].
[50].
[51]. Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 1998), p. 18, http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5787&page=18.
[52]. Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Evolution, 18th printing (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1999), pp. 74-75. Also see: http://creation.com/refuting-Evolution-chapter-5-whale-Evolution.
[53]. Ken Ham and Carl Wieland, “AWhale of a Tale,” Creation 23(4):10–14 September 2001, http://creation.com/a-whale-of-a-tale. The artist illustration is at the top of this JPEG file (http://creation.com/images/creation_mag/vol23/p11_ambulocetus.jpg), while the bones that were found are on the bottom (in yellow).
[54]. Annalisa Berta, “What Is a Whale?” Science 263(5144):180–181, 1994 as quoted in: Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Evolution 2, 4th printing (
[55]. Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Evolution, 18th printing (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1999), p. 74, http://creation.com/refuting-Evolution-chapter-5-whale-Evolution.
[56]. Luther Patterson, Darwin’s Enigma, 4th ed. (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1988), Chapter 4: http://www.creationism.org/books/sunderland/DarwinsEnigma/DarwinsEnigma_04Reptile.htm.
[60]. Eldredge, N. and Gould, S. J., 1972, “Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phylectic gradualism,” p. 83, http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/classictexts/eldredge.pdf.
[61]. Eldredge, N. and Gould, S. J., 1972, “Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phylectic gradualism,” p. 86, http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/classictexts/eldredge.pdf.
[62]. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 2006 Edition (New York: W.W. Norton, 2006), p. 393; Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton, 1986), p. 275 from Chapter 10 “The one true tree of life.”
[63]. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 2006 Edition (New York: W.W. Norton, 2006), pp. 363-405; Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton, 1986), pp. 255-284 from Chapter 10 “The one true tree of life.”
[64]. Eugene V. Koonin and Michael Y. Galperin, Sequence-Evolution-Function: Computational Approaches in Comparative Genomics (
[65]. Eugene V. Koonin and Michael Y. Galperin, Sequence-Evolution-Function: Computational Approaches in Comparative Genomics (
[66]. Eugene V. Koonin and Michael Y. Galperin, Sequence-Evolution-Function: Computational Approaches in Comparative Genomics (
[67]. Werner Gitt, In The Beginning Was Information (
[72]. Anthony J.F. Griffiths, Jeffrey H. Miller, David T. Suzuki, Richard C. Lewontin, William M. Gelbart, Introduction to Genetic Analysis, 7th ed. (
[73]. Anthony J.F. Griffiths, Jeffrey H. Miller, David T. Suzuki, Richard C. Lewontin, William M. Gelbart, Introduction to Genetic Analysis, 7th ed. (
[74]. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 2006 Edition (New York: W.W. Norton, 2006), p. 327; Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton, 1986), p. 229 of Chapter 9 “Puncturing punctuationism.”
[75]. Jonathan Marks, What it means to be 98% chimpanzee (
[77]. Jonathan Marks, What it means to be 98% chimpanzee (
[78]. Jonathan. Marks, What it means to be 98% chimpanzee (
[79]. Jonathan Marks, What it means to be 98% chimpanzee (
[80].
[81]. Emile Zuckerkandl, “Perspectives in Molecular Anthropology,” in Classification and Human Evolution, edited by S. L. Washburn (New York: Wenner-Gren Foundation, 1963) as quoted from: George Gaylord Simpson, “Organisms and Molecules in Evolution,” Science, 18 December 1964, Volume 145, Number 3651, p. 1536, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080131152018.htm.
[82]. Emile Zuckerkandl, “Perspectives in Molecular Anthropology,” in Classification and Human Evolution, edited by S. L. Washburn (New York: Wenner-Gren Foundation, 1963) as quoted from: George Gaylord Simpson, “Organisms and Molecules in Evolution,” Science, 18 December 1964, Volume 145, Number 3651, p. 1536, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080131152018.htm.
[83]. George Gaylord Simpson, “Organisms and Molecules in Evolution,” Science, 18 December 1964, Volume 145, Number 3651, p. 1536, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080131152018.htm.
[84]. Jonathan Marks, What it means to be 99% chimpanzee, Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, 20 November 1999, http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/interests/aaa/marksaaa99.htm. Marks also discusses this Human/Gorilla Hemoglobin Comparison in his book: Jonathan Marks, What it means to be 98% chimpanzee (
[86]. Peter Radetsky, “How Did Life Start”, Discover, November 2002, http://discovermagazine.com/1992/nov/howdidlifestart153.
[87]. Peter Radetsky, “How Did Life Start”, Discover, November 2002, http://discovermagazine.com/1992/nov/howdidlifestart153.
[88]. Jeremy M. Berg, John L. Tymoczko, Lubert Stryer, Biochemistry, 5th ed. (
[92]. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 2006 Edition (
[93]. Jonathan. Marks, What it means to be 98% chimpanzee (
[95]. Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, 30th annv. ed. (
[97]. William Provine, "Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life," 12 February 1998, http://eeb.bio.utk.edu/darwin/Archives/1998ProvineAbstract.htm.
[101]. Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, 30th annv. ed. (
[102]. Henry Gee, Rory Howlett, and Philip Campbell, “15 Evolutionary Gems,” Nature, January 2009, http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf.
[103]. J. G. M. Thewissen et al., “Whales originated from aquatic artiodactyls in the Eocene epoch of
[106]. Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-10.html or http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species-6th-edition/chapter-11.html.
[107]. Henry Gee, Rory Howlett, and Philip Campbell, “15 Evolutionary Gems,” Nature, January 2009, p. 13, http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf.
[108]. Peter R. Grant and B. Rosemary Grant, “Genetics and the origin of bird species,” PNAS 94(15):7768-7775, 22 July 1997, http://www.pnas.org/content/94/15/7768.full.
[109]. Henry Gee, Rory Howlett, and Philip Campbell, “15 Evolutionary Gems,” Nature, January 2009, p. 13, http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf.
[110]. Francisco Ayala, “The Mechanisms of Evolution,” Scientific American, 1978, as referenced in the book: Henry M. Morris and Gary E. Parker, What is Creation-Science, 19th printing (
[111]. Anne Tecklenburg Strehlow, “Ask a Geneticist,” http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=98.
[112]. Nicholas Wade, “Signs of Neanderthals Mating with Humans,” 6 May 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/science/07neanderthal.html.
No comments:
Post a Comment