Abstract
An overview of the current state of scientific evidence that supports or undermines the theory of neo-Darwinian macro-evolution. This is the component of evolution that defines how life originated (abiogenesis) and then developed from a universal common ancestor (single cell) to all the phyla and kingdoms presently and in the past fossil record, including the introduction of body plans, organs, tissues, epigenetic structures and the emergence of life on very limited time scales.
The Measurement Criteria
Two defining principles of Darwinian
evolutionary theory are universal common ancestry and randomly arising,
heritable variations that filtered through a competition for survival. These
variations are purposeless and undirected, and must eventually prove to be of
benefit to future generations of organisms for natural selection to be
operative.[1] The criteria for accepting
neo-Darwinian evolution as a 'scientific fact,' or even as a viable scientific
theory, would be its explanatory power to show how life emerged and then passed
on macro-evolutionary changes, such as new organs, tissues and body types, to
future progeny. In addition, the fossil record should confirm the
principle of a 'universal common ancestor' and the multitude of transitional
forms over millions of years. "The fundamental problem confronting
neo-Darwinism, as with chemical evolutionary theory, is the problem of the
origin of new biological information.
Though neo-Darwinists often dismiss the
problem of the origin of life as an isolated anomaly, leading theoreticians
acknowledge that neo-Darwinism has also failed to explain the source of novel
variation without which natural selection can do nothing…." [2]
This paper evaluates the current
evidence matches up against the criteria for accepting or rejecting the neo-Darwinian
evolutionary hypothesis.
Starting With the Universal Common Ancestor
How does
natural selection account for the origin of life? And how did our
"universal common ancestor" acquire genetic information and the ability
to transmit that information across countless future generations of organisms?
Evolutionary models that use natural selection as mechanism for variation
presuppose self-replicating cells. Yet these cells depend upon information rich
proteins and nucleic acids (DNA and RNA) in order to replicate. Current origin-of-life research to date has
failed to reveal any plausible source for this genetic information through
natural chemical processes. "Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the founders of
the modern neo-Darwinian synthesis can state flatly, 'Pre-biological natural
selection is a contradiction in terms.' Or, as Nobel Prize-winning molecular
biologist and origin-of-life researcher Christian de Duve explains, theories of
pre-biotic natural selection fail because they 'need information which implies
they have to presuppose what is to be explained in the first place.'"[3]
Dean Kenyon,
in his book Biological Predestination,
observed that the "...key flaw in origin-of-life research, was that the
experiments were intelligent ─ unlike
anything found on the primitive Earth."[4]
Kenyon elaborated further in his 1995 essay, Re-creating the RNA World, that
"…In vitro RNA selection does not demonstrate that complex
ribozymes could have arisen naturally in prebiotic soup, because the in vitro
experimental conditions are wholly unrealistic." Everything science knew about RNA was summed
up in two rules: "According to those rules, RNA does not arise from its
chemical constituents except (a) in organisms and (b) in laboratories where
intelligent organisms synthesize it."[5]
Thus, the primary principle of a universal
common ancestor is never explained by evolutionary theory. The starting point for explaining how natural
selection works is a fully functioning biological entity whose origin is simply
asserted as an article of faith in Darwinian evolutionary doctrine.
Explaining the Mutation Gap
Given a
universal common ancestor, neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory must then show at
least a plausible path to the chromosomal structures that we see in today in
living organisms. Yet the gap between genes, when traced back to a hypothetical
common ancestor, requires mutational forces that are not observable at work
today in any feasible way.[6]
Even for the smallest unit of functional variation, a multi-step mutative
process is required with intermediate steps that nearly always render the gene
inoperable. Further, most functional protein changes require simultaneous,
cooperative transformation of features, usually somewhere else on the gene, in
order to allow the organism to survive the original mutational change. Yet no mutational
mechanism has been theorized to overcome the statistically daunting
combinatorial search problem of finding just the right mutation to generate
something useful to the organism that can be passed to successive generations.[7]
Aside from having
to first assume a working gene to explain mutational variation for natural
selection to operate upon, but these mutations must follow a certain path
originating from a common ancestor organism. "Yet genomic studies are now
turning up hundreds of thousands of genes in many diverse organisms that
exhibit no significant similarity in sequence to any other known gene. These
"taxonomically restricted genes" or "ORFans" (for open
reading frames of unknown origin") now dot the phylogenetic
landscape."[8]
The
complexity of these genetic data storehouses cannot be overstated. "The
greatest known density of information is that in the DNA of living cells."[9]
The information content of one nucleotide is two bits, giving a total of 12x109
bits for one DNA molecule. Divide this by the number of bits in one KB (1024);
this results in a degree of integration of 11.72 million KB, which is 180
times as much as… [a 64MB microprocessor]."[10] Modern neo-Darwinist theory has no
explanation for how organisms achieved the efficiency, complexity and
"technology" we see in cellular activity and replication and has no
counter argument to the statistical improbability measured in achieving even
the smallest functional protein fold through "natural" processes.
Protein Folds and New Functionality
For
macroevolutionary types of changes needed to generate new phyla and body plans,
gene mutations - even coordinated simultaneous mutations in different parts of
the gene - have been proven to be insufficient to produce new protein
functions. The functionality of protein sequences is dependent upon
pre-specified folds in the protein itself. In an attempt to explain genetic
diversity, scientists have to first assume a working gene to splice, fuse or
reposition in order to generate a new heritable genetic trait. All the mutative
mechanisms proposed by scientists to date (such as exon shuffling, gene
duplication, retro positioning of messenger RNA, lateral gene transfer, gene
fission or fusion, and transfer of mobile genetic units) only change the
structure of the gene itself, and does not supply the biological information to
create new protein folds.[11]
"New
protein folds represent the smallest unit of structural innovation that natural
selection can select."[12]
Building new forms of life must extend beyond individual amino acid sequences
if innovation is to take place through Darwinian evolutionary processes.
Mutations must not only displace or modify individual genes, but must also
introduce new protein folds. This is a problem for evolutionary models, because
"…based on the physical principles of protein function, the vast majority
of protein functions cannot be performed by unfolded proteins. If mutated such
that they unfold, not only do proteins lose their functionality, but they
become vulnerable to attack by proteases that devour them."[13]
However, a slow process of minute changes over thousands of generations creates
functional gaps in the proteins. "Francisco Blanco found that the
intermediate sequences lack a well-defined three dimensional structure. Thus,
he concluded that the appearance of a completely new fold from an existing one
is unlikely to occur by evolution through a route of folded intermediate
sequences."[14]
The
functional protein fold limitation is vastly complicated by the improbability
of randomly mutating and then selecting an amino acid sequence with a useful
function that can then be successfully passed through inheritance. Counting for
all plausible trials that can be attempted to create a new protein fold with a
distinct new function, Dr. Douglas Axe concluded in the Journal of Molecular
Biology that "…the probability of successful protein fold mutations was
vanishingly small - if each and every organism that ever lived on Earth
received on new gene to pass on to future generations the likelihood of even one
successful new novel protein function and fold ever occurring was 1 in
1037."[15]
Coordinated and Interdependent Functionality
According
to evolutionary theory, small incremental changes to functions must be
'captured' through natural selection and passed to succeeding generations.
However, any system that depends for its function on the coordinated action of
many parts could not be changed gradually through mutation without losing
functionality along the way. Thomas Frazzetta notes that "…transitions
from one type to the next presumably involve a greater continuity by means of a
vast number of intermediate types. Not only must the end product - the final
machine - be feasible, but so must all the intermediates. The evolutionary
problem is, in a real sense, the gradual improvement of a machine while it is
running!"[16]
Given the
statistical implausibility of aligning two or twenty mutually beneficial
mutations simultaneously to produce a beneficial new function, evolutionary
scientists contemplated co-option as the answer, even though this still
presupposed biological information and only deferred the problem to
origin-of-life researchers. "Further research has shown the co-option
hypothesis has not been a suitable explanation for coordinated or integrated
changes. Axe and Gauger experimented on what was plausible given the time frame
available (that life was on the Earth), and showed statistically that the
smallest conceivable step needed to co-opt a useful genetic function was not
statistically plausible for even one instance to occur."[17]
Body Plans and Macroevolution
Darwin
himself understood that only beneficial variations that can be passed to future
generations will be stored in the collective memory of organisms. Yet without
beneficial variations, there are no characteristics of the organism for natural
selection to operate upon, and without natural selection there is no evolutionary
process taking place. Micro evolutionary change is insufficient to produce the
scale of changes needed to introduce new phyla and genera, yet no changes to
early-acting regulatory genes that are not detrimental or lethal to the
organism have ever been observed in mutagenetic laboratory experiments.[18]
What is critical for macroevolutionary changes at the level of new organs or body
plans is for the expression of genetic mutations very early in the
embryological cycle. As evolutionary geneticists Bernard John and George Miklos
explain, "macroevolutionary change" requires changes in "very
early embryogenesis," as mutations later in the development of an organism
will affect relatively fewer cells and tissues.[19]
"Thus, mutations that are expressed early in the development of animals
have probably the only realistic chance of producing large-scale
macroevolutionary changes."[20]
To build
new proteins, body plans and cell types, first an embryological control system
must be in place. During cell differentiation, information is bound to very
specific sites in the DNA (called transcriptional regulators), that regulate
the expression of genes at specific times in the gestational process. Mutagenic
experiments on fruit flies, nematodes, frogs, mice, and sea urchins has
repeatedly confirmed that if these genetic information is tampered with through
mutations in any way, it almost always
renders the developing organism unviable.[21]
Research has revealed that non-protein-coding regions of the genome control and
regulate the timing and expression of the protein-coding regions of the genome
like circuits. Whenever one of these developmental gene regulatory networks
(dGRN) is mutated, some process within the embryological development cycle is interrupted
or changed that has implications to other parts of the system because of their
highly interconnected and hierarchical organization.[22]
As Eric Davidson summarizes, "Since these consequences [of a mutation] are
always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits
are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is
only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop
in only one way."[23]
Thirty
years of mutagenesis experimentation has failed to uncover the mechanism for
the right mutations to occur in order to derive new proteins, tissues, organs
and body plans. Dr. Meyer explains that "…mutagenesis experiments…have
raised troubling questions about the role of mutations in the origin of animal
body plans. If mutating the genes that regulate body-plan construction destroy
animal forms as they develop from an embryonic state, then how do mutations and
selection build animal body plans in the first place? The neo-Darwinian mechanism
has failed to explain the generation of new genes and proteins needed for
building new animal forms…"[24]
Finally
there is the issue of epigenetic information. Building new body plans also
requires complex information stored in sugars and in the exterior membranes of
cells, microtubule arrays, cell membrane patterns and patterns derived from ion
channels. All of these sources of epigenetic information are necessary in the
development of organisms and are outside of the mutational mechanism proposed by
Darwinian evolutionists.[25]
Dr. Meyer summarizes: "If DNA isn't wholly responsible for the way an
embryo develops - for body-plan morphogenesis ─ then DNA sequences can mutate indefinitely and still not
produce a new body plan, regardless of the amount of time and the number of
mutational trials available to the evolutionary process. Genetic mutations are simply the wrong tool
for the job at hand."[26]
The Fossil Record
Entertaining
for a moment the hope positivist materialist neo-Darwinians hold out that a
mechanism will yet be discovered that explains both the origin-of-life mystery
and the incredibly complex replication instructions of cells, a brief look at the
fossil record is warranted. Perhaps if intermediary fossils were found that are
predicted by evolutionary models, then it would at least prove evolutionary events
happened even if evolutionary biologists cannot explain how these events could
have happened. For neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory to be validated, it must
reveal a plausible explanation for all the processes and mechanisms needed to evolve
new body plans, and complex physical structures such as eyes, wings, feathers,
echolocation, blood clotting, skin, amniotic egg, nervous systems, etc., all
within the geological 'moment' of time called the Cambrian epoch.
What does the
fossil record actually show? Darwin predicted the 'morphological distance'
between classes and phyla would come from diversity of species, to genera, and
eventually branch off to form new families. Instead, archeological evidence
from the Burgess Shale reveals significant disparity between families without
any transitional forms."[27]
Ad hoc theories were proposed to excuse the lack of transitional forms such as
the Charles Walcott's Lipalian Interval Theory in the 1920's, which argued
(without real evidence) that pre-Cambrian fossils were all located in deep sea
beds and are yet to be discovered. This theory was rejected once ocean floor
subduction was measured globally to be less than 200 million years - which
falls in the Jurassic period.
This was followed by another conjecture generally
referred to as the Artifact Hypothesis.[28]
Eric Davidson suggested that pre-Cambrian fossils were simply too small or
fragile to survive the fossilization process. Later discoveries in the
Warrawoona Group strata in Western Australia showed pre-Cambrian fossils not
only exist, but show no relation to Cambrian fossils as their body type
precursors. Cheng Jiang pre-Cambrian rocks preserved embryos of sponges, but no
hard body ancestors of Cambrian hard body animals were found.[29]
How can it be that soft tissue fossils from the pre-Cambrian era survived, but "conveniently,"
no hard body fossils have been found globally that are accepted as precursor
transitional forms for later Cambrian fossils? Statistical paleontologists have
shown that the reason there are selective 'gaps' in the fossil record where
needed transitional forms should be is not due to the fossils being
undiscovered, but due to the high probability they never existed at all.[30]
Other Ad Hoc Explanations
With the
dearth of viable evidence to support neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory, some
modern scientists simply ditch the fossil evidence and argue that "…similarities in anatomy and in the sequences
of information-bearing biomacromolecules such as DNA, RNA, and protein point
strongly to a common ancestor. They also assume that the degree of difference
in such cases is on average proportional to the time elapsed since the
divergence from a common ancestor."[31] However,
this new "Deep Divergence hypothesis" is "deeply" flawed
because it presumes a single common ancestor, presumes the Artifact hypothesis
which has been discredited, is not supported by the fossil record evidence, and
has produced wildly different (and contradictory) outcomes based on which set
of molecules were studied and how far back the molecular clock was presumed.[32]
"Many paleontologists and evolutionary biologists now concede that the
long-sought-after pre-Cambrian fossils, those necessary to document a Darwinian
account of the origin of animal life, are missing."[33]
Weighing the Evidence Fairly
The scarcity
of transitional forms in the fossil record, and the abrupt appearance of many
new body types and phyla without precursors should cast doubt on neo-Darwinian evolutionary
models that require minute changes over long periods of time.[34] No viable model or
explanation for the origin of life comes from neo-Darwinian theories - it is
simply presupposed. Neo-Darwinian theories fail to provide an account for
missing fossil transitions from this hypothesized universal common ancestor to
present day phyla - the "evolutionary tree" is missing the stump and
all the major branches.
Some
evolutionary biologists, such as George Miklos of the Austrian National
University, now argue that neo-Darwinism fails to provide a plausible mechanism
for macroevolutionary changes.[35]
However, contradictory evidence to neo-Darwinist theories has generally been
ignored or explained away by its adherents because Darwinian evolution is not
just a theory, but a positivist atheist worldview. Consider scientists who
apply to themselves the title "Evolutionary Biologist." This reveals
just how deep the bias goes.
Kuhn noted
as far back as 1962 that scientists are susceptible to being lured into a
paradigm where rigorous empirical validation, falsifiable tests, and contrary
evidence is no longer accepted or simply ignored because it is counter to their
worldview.[36]
This is why the theory of evolution is considered a "fact" by many in
the scientific community when it has been thoroughly discredited by actual data
and experimental analysis. Consideration of alternative mechanisms such as
Intelligent Design are denied by science "…not by its conclusions, but by
its methodological starting point that modern science excludes direct creation."[37] The neo-Darwinist
worldview has been discredited by Darwin's own validation criteria and needs to
be replaced with a more powerful "alternative competing hypothesis."
For similar technical articles like this, see:
Bibliography
Axe, Douglas, "Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino
Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors," Journal
of Molecular Biology 301 (2000)
Berlinski, David, The Devil's
Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions, (New York NY: Crown
Forum, 2008)
Budd, Graham and Jensen, Sôren, "A Critical Reappraisal of the
Fossil Record of the Bilaterian Phyla," Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 75 (2000)
Davidson, Eric, Evolutionary
Bioscience as Regulatory Systems Biology, Developmental Biology: 357 (2011)
Dembski, William A., Intelligent
Design: The Bridge between Science & Theology, (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity, 1999)
Frazzetta, Thomas, Complex
Adaptations in Evolving Populations, (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer, 1975)
Gitt, Werner, In the Beginning was
Information, (Green Forest, AR: First Master Books, 2005)
Gonzalez, Guillermo, and Jay Wesley Richards, The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for
Discovery, (Washington, DC: Regnery Pub., 2004)
Meyer, Stephen, Darwin's Doubt:
The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design,
(New York, NY: HarperCollins Books, 2013)
Nelson, Paul and Wells,
Jonathan, "Homology in Biology: Problem for Naturalistic Science and
Prospect for Intelligent Design," In Darwinism, Design and Public
Education, edited by J. A. Campbell and S. C. Meyer, 303-322, (East
Lansing: Michigan State Univ Press, 2003)
Ratzch, Del, The Battle of
Beginnings: Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate, (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996)
Thompson, K. S., "Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem," American Zoologist 32 (1992).
Witham, Larry, By Design: Science
and the Search for God, (San Francisco: Encounter, 2003)
[2]
Meyers, Darwin's Doubt, p ix
[3]
Meyers, Darwin's Doubt, p viii
[4]
Witham, By Design, p 103
[5]
Witham, By Design, p 103
[6]
Meyer, Darwin's Doubt, p. 217 [paraphrased]
[7]
Meyer, Darwin's Doubt, p. 218 [paraphrased]
[8]
Meyer, Darwin's Doubt, pp 215-216
[summarized]
[9]
Gitt, In the Beginning was Information,
p 192
[10]
Gitt, In the Beginning was Information,
p 194
[11]
Meyer, Darwin's Doubt, pp 221-229 [synthesized and summarized]
[12]
Meyer, Darwin's Doubt, p 191
[13]
Meyer, Darwin's Doubt, p 196
[14]
Meyer, Darwin's Doubt, p 197
[15]
Axe, Journal of Molecular Biology
301, p 585 [emphasis added]
[16]
Meyer, Darwin's Doubt, pp 232 quoting
Frazzatta, Tom Complex Adaptations in Evolving
Populations, p 20
[17]
Meyer, Darwin's Doubt, pp 254
[18]
Meyer, Darwin's Doubt, pp 254 [paraphrasing Sôren Lôvtrup].
[19]
Meyer, Darwin's Doubt, pp 259
[21]
Meyer, Darwin's Doubt, p 256 [quoting
Eric Wieschaus who lectured at the 1982 meeting of the American Association for
the Advancement of Science)
[22]
Meyer, Darwin's Doubt, pp 319-320
[summarized]
[23]
Davidson, Evolutionary Bioscience, p 40
[24]
Meyer, Darwin's Doubt,
p 257
[25]
Meyer, Darwin's Doubt, p 273 [paraphrasing Nelson and Wells, Homology]
[26]
Meyers, Darwin's Doubt, p 281
[27]
Meyers, Darwin's Doubt, p
40-44 [summarized]
[28]
Meyers, Darwin's Doubt, p
57-62 [summarized]
[29]
Meyers, Darwin's Doubt, p
63-64 [summarized]
[30]
Meyers, Darwin's Doubt, p
93-97 [summarized
[31]
Meyers, Darwin's Doubt, p 100
[32]
Meyers, Darwin's Doubt, p
101-109 [summarized]
[34] Meyers, Darwin's Doubt, p 17
[summarized]
[35]
Meyers, Darwin's Doubt, p 287
[36]
Ratzsch, The Battle of Beginnings,
p 103ff
[37]
Berlinski, The Devil's Delusion, p 60-61 [quoting C. F. Wiezsacker, The Relevance of Science]
