Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
David Pratt
May 2004, May 2014
Part 1 of 3
Contents
Part 1
1. Darwinism under fire
2. The origin of life
3. Genes, mutation and natural selection
Part 2
4. The fossil record
5. Common descent and common design
Part 3
6. Saltation, symbiosis, self-organization
7. Chance, creation and design
8. Theosophy: evolution from within
1. Darwinism under fire
Darwinian evolutionary theory claims that all living creatures are related by descent from common ancestors, and
ultimately from bacteria. All the members of any particular species show slight physical variations, which are said to
result mainly from random genetic mutations. Most mutations are harmful and are eliminated by natural selection,
whereas offspring who inherit characteristics that render them better adapted to their surroundings are more likely to
survive and reproduce. Over the course of time, modifications in successive generations of the same species have
allegedly given rise to new species and ultimately to the amazing diversity of life we see today.
Many scientists have challenged the central role that neo-Darwinism, or the modern synthetic theory of evolution,
assigns to random genetic mutations (mostly involving errors in the replication of DNA). Robert Wesson says that Many
evolutionists have always been uncomfortable ... with the idea that progress is simply a matter of selection of the best
mistakes, and that organisms have responded to their conditions and needs more purposefully than strict Darwinian
theory can allow.
1
The same objection is echoed by Lyall Watson: It is abundantly clear from the fossil record that when
organisms do change, the modifications which occur are of a kind which improve fitness far more often than can be
expected from changes taking place on a purely random basis.
2
There is no empirical evidence that unguided trial and error will produce anything but the most trivial results. The
probability of a cell developing by chance alone is staggeringly remote. The same applies to complex structures such as
wings and feathers or the human eye and brain, which would require a long series of useful mutations in exactly the right
order. Furthermore, all the intermediate, unfinished stages would have to offer some competitive advantage otherwise
they would be weeded out by natural selection.
Darwinists attach increasing importance to regulatory genes. These genes can turn other genes on or off, so that new
organs, supposedly already encoded in the genes, can appear very quickly and simply. But there is no satisfactory
explanation for how such an intricate system arose in the first place, or how regulatory genes know which other genes to
activate or deactivate; here too, Darwinists simply fall back on their blind faith in happy accidents. Moreover, DNA merely
contains the code for the sequence of amino acids in proteins; it is not known to carry instructions for the assembly of
proteins into cells, tissues, organs and entire body forms. In other words, genes do not contain the blueprint for the
formation of organisms during embryogenesis. Many biologists now think that epigenetic factors within the cell explain
the origin of form, but this is little more than a speculative hypothesis. Some scientists invoke self-organization but
giving the problem a name is not the same as explaining it.
Most evolutionists still agree with Darwin that new species arise solely by accumulating slight, successive, favourable
variations. But dissident scientists argue that although genetic change and natural selection partially explain variations
within species, or microevolution, they are completely inadequate to explain macroevolution, i.e. the emergence of
higher types. Rupert Sheldrake remarks:
The main problem that Darwin and Darwinians have always faced is to account for the origin of species
themselves, or of genera, families, and the higher orders of living organization. The idea that such large-scale
evolutionary processes all took place gradually over very long periods of time has been challenged again and
again. ... Why do plants and animals fall into distinct types, such as ferns, conifers, insects, and birds, rather
than lying on a continuous spectrum of living forms?
3
A crucial problem facing gradualistic models of evolution is the conspicuous absence of a continuous sequence of
transitional fossils between major groups of species e.g. between invertebrates and fish, fish and amphibians,
amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and birds, and reptiles and mammals. Existing fossils do not give a clear indication of
how the fins of fish became the legs and feet of amphibians, how gills became lungs, scales became feathers, and legs
became wings. It is becoming increasingly implausible to attribute this problem to the imperfection of the fossil record.
Contrary to neo-Darwinist expectations, most species suddenly appear on the scene, live for millions of years essentially
unchanged, and then die out. Recognizing this, some Darwinists argue that, instead of emerging gradually, new species
originate in sudden, rapid bursts of evolutionary creativity, with the result that no transitional fossils are left behind but
this theory still accepts the dogma that new species are the result of random, undirected mutations.
Information science has clearly demonstrated that the new information needed to transform one species into another
cannot emerge by chance; some form of intelligence is required. Mutations typically cause a corruption or loss of existing
genetic information. Experimentally induced genetic mutations in rapidly reproducing species such as fruit flies
(Drosophila) have succeeded only in producing deformed or less viable flies, e.g. flies with extra pairs of legs or extra
wings. After thousands of generations fruit flies remain fruit flies and show no sign of metamorphosing into dragon flies,
butterflies, or anything else.
Similarly, animal and plant breeders have been able to create many new breeds and varieties of domesticated animals
and cultivated plants, but they have failed to produce any changes significant enough to give rise to a completely
different species. Animals and plants showing extreme variations are usually sterile or weak and tend to revert to the
ancestral type or eventually die out.
Darwinists often assume that any given feature of a species must have some adaptive value and then speculate about
the selective pressures that have given rise to it. Darwin admitted that he had exaggerated the role of natural selection
and that it was wrong to assume that every detail of structure had some special survival value. If adaptation alone were
the core of evolution, writes Fritjof Capra, it would be hard to explain why living forms ever evolved beyond the blue-
green algae, which are perfectly adapted to their environment, unsurpassed in their reproductive capacities, and have
proved their fitness for survival over billions of years. He says that genotypic change is only one side of evolution, the
other being creativity, the creative unfolding of life toward forms of ever increasing complexity.
4
But what is the source of
this creativity? And is it really true that new types of organisms always descend from ancestral creatures through a
series of physical modifications, whether gradual or rapid?
An article in Trends in Ecology and Evolution in 2008 acknowledged that there exists a healthy debate concerning the
sufficiency of neo-Darwinian theory to explain macroevolution.
5
Biologist Scott Gilbert has stated: The modern synthesis
is remarkably good at modeling the survival of the fittest, but not good at modeling the arrival of the fittest.
6
According to
palaeontologists James Valentine and Douglas Erwin, neo-Darwinism fails to account for the origin of new body plans
and consequently biology needs a new theory to explain the evolution of novelty.
7
In 2009 Eugene Koonin stated that
breakdowns in core neo-Darwinian tenets such as the traditional concept of the tree of life or the belief that natural
selection is the main driving force of evolution indicate that the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond
repair.
8
About 850 scientists have signed the following statement: We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random
mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian
theory should be encouraged.
9
Conventional evolutionary theory depicts life as a purely physical and mechanical process, devoid of purpose and
intelligence. It is unable to explain where our bodies came from, let alone our minds. Wesson writes:
There is something of self-hate in the materialist approach. It depreciates the life of the mind and works of
imagination and character. It demeans the richness and wonder of nature. It seems to make unnecessary
further thinking about the mysteries of existence, of life and the universe.
10
Darwinism continues to reign because most materialistic scientists cannot conceive of a less implausible alternative.
Many are afraid to criticize its shortcomings too loudly for fear of giving ammunition to their arch-rivals, the biblical
creationists. There appears to be a widespread belief that the only alternative to blind chance is the biblical Jehovah!
The intelligent design movement presents evidence pointing to some sort of designer, without linking this concept to a
specific religious faith. Most scientists dismiss any talk of intelligent, nonphysical agencies as not science or as religion
masquerading as science. Geneticist Richard Lewontin stated:
We take the side of science ... because we have a prior commitment ... to materialism. ... [W]e are forced by
our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that
produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.
Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
11
Another biologist put it this way: Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from
science because it is not naturalistic.
12
In other words, anything that contradicts mechanistic materialism is unscientific,
no matter how well supported by empirical data.
The defects of standard Darwinism are considered in more detail in the sections that follow, and a variety of alternative
ideas are examined. Theosophy, for example, rejects the materialistic assumptions on which Darwinism is based and the
notion of a continuous transformation of physical forms, leading from microbes to man. It regards evolution as essentially
a development of the consciousness that animates successive physical forms, and sees evolutionary innovations on the
physical level as a reflection of processes taking place on deeper, subtler, more mindlike levels of reality.
References
1. Robert Wesson, Beyond Natural Selection, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1994, pp. 224, 226.
2. Lyall Watson, Supernature II: A new natural history of the supernatural, London: Sceptre, 1987, p. 87.
3. Rupert Sheldrake, The Presence of the Past: Morphic resonance and the habits of nature, New York: Vintage,
1989, p. 280.
4. Fritjof Capra, The Turning Point, London: Flamingo, 1987, p. 310.
5. Michael A. Bell, Goulds most cherished concept, Trends in Ecology and Evolution, v. 23, no. 3, 2008, pp. 121-2.
6. John Whitfield, Biological theory: postmodern evolution?, Nature, v. 455, 2008, pp. 281-4, nature.com.
7. Quoted in Stephen C. Meyer, Darwins Doubt: The explosive origin of animal life and the case for intelligent design,
New York: HarperOne, 2013, p. 292.
8. Eugene V. Koonin, The Origin at 150: is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight?, Trends in Genetics, v. 25, 2009,
pp. 473-4.
9. dissentfromdarwin.org.
10. Beyond Natural Selection, p. 308.
11. Quoted in Darwins Doubt, p. 386.
12. Scott C. Todd, A view from Kansas on that evolution debate, Nature, v. 401, 1999, p. 423.
2. The origin of life
Most scientists believe that the emergence of life began with the chance formation of the first self-replicating molecule in
a prebiotic soup rich in organic compounds, amino acids and nucleotides. Then, driven by natural selection, ever more
efficient and complex self-reproducing molecular systems evolved until finally the first simple living cell emerged.
However, the earliest rocks fail to provide any evidence that a prebiotic soup ever existed, and the original assumption
that the earths early atmosphere was a favourable mixture of ammonia, methane and hydrogen and contained no free
oxygen has also been called into doubt. Instead, it is now widely believed to have been a mixture of carbon dioxide,
carbon monoxide, nitrogen and water vapour, and to have included significant amounts of free oxygen. Such
atmospheric conditions would have hampered the production of amino acids and other molecules necessary for life, and
broken down any organic molecules that did form.
1
All modern life forms contain genes made of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), which contains nucleobases, whose sequence
encodes instructions for making proteins. However, DNA is unable to manufacture proteins by itself. Protein synthesis
requires ribonucleic acid (RNA) and a tightly integrated sequence of reactions, involving over a hundred different
proteins (including enzymes, which catalyze chemical reactions). This poses a chicken-and-egg problem: which came
first, nucleic acids or proteins?
Fig. 2.1. DNA has the form of a double helix, a spiral consisting of two DNA strands
wound around each other. Each strand is composed of a long chain of nucleotides.
Each nucleotide consists of a deoxyribose sugar molecule to which is attached a
phosphate and one of four nucleobases: adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C),
and thymine (T). The two DNA strands are held together by the hydrogen bonds
between pairs of bases; A only bonds with T, and C with G. Segments of DNA that
code for the cells synthesis of a specific protein are called genes, which are
packaged into threadlike structures called chromosomes. When a cell divides, its
DNA replicates by separating into two single strands, each of which serves as a
template for a new strand.
Fig. 2.2. Highly simplified diagram of protein synthesis (or gene expression). During transcription, the
sequence of nucleobases on a strand of DNA is reproduced on a molecule called messenger RNA (mRNA)
by an enzyme known as RNA polymerase. Next, mRNA migrates from the cell nucleus to a structure called a
ribosome in the cytoplasm, where a process known as translation takes place. With the help of transfer RNAs
(tRNAs) and specific enzymes, a chain of amino acids is built up, with each amino acid being specified by a
three-nucleotide sequence (a codon) on the mRNA. The amino-acid chains then fold into functional proteins.
The full complexity of protein synthesis is staggering (see animation).
RNA is less complex, but also less stable, than DNA, and uses the same chemical alphabet, except that uracil is
substituted for thymine. Many biologists believe that early in the earths history there was an RNA world, which
eventually developed into the DNA, RNA and protein world of today. It was thought that this would solve the chicken-and-
egg problem, because as well as being able to store information, certain RNA molecules possess some of the catalytic
properties of proteins. But the theory does not solve the problem of the origin of RNA. Synthesizing and maintaining RNA
constituents, particularly ribose (a sugar) and the nucleobases, have proven either extremely difficult or impossible under
realistic prebiotic conditions.
2
Various additional hypotheses have been proposed e.g. that life originated in deep
oceanic hydrothermal vents, or on the surface of clay or iron pyrite (fools gold) but none provides a convincing
explanation for the origin of the cells genetic code and information-processing system. Some scientists have suggested
that the first living organisms might have been carried to earth from other planets (e.g. Mars) or outer space but this
merely moves the problem elsewhere.
Each of the 60 trillion cells in the human body contains a 2-metre-long string of DNA coiled into a tiny ball about 5
thousandths of a millimetre in diameter in the cell nucleus. The information storage density of DNA is many times that of
our most advanced silicon chips.
3
DNA can store information on protein synthesis so efficiently that all the information
needed for an organism as complex as a human weighs less than a few trillionths of a gram. Geneticist Michael Denton
remarks:
To the sceptic, the proposition that the genetic programmes of higher organisms, consisting of something
close to a thousand million bits of information, equivalent to the sequence of letters in a small library of one
thousand volumes, ... were composed by a purely random process is an affront to reason.
4
Physicist Paul Davies has said that the spontaneous generation of life by random molecular shuffling is a ludicrously
improbable event.
5
Douglas Axe calculated that the probability of producing a functional protein of modest length (150
amino acids) at random is only about 1 in 10
74
(i.e. 1 followed by 74 zeroes). Moreover, chains of amino acids will only
fold into a protein if they are joined by a chemical bond known as a peptide bond with a probability of 1 in 10
45
. There
are thousands of kinds of amino acid, but living organisms contain only 20 kinds, and although amino-acid molecules
occur in both right- and left-handed forms, only left-handed amino acids are found in the protein of living organisms the
probability of this is also about 1 in 10
45
. This means that the odds of producing even one functional protein of modest
length by chance from a prebiotic soup is no better than 1 in 10
164
. If we assume that a minimally complex cell needs at
least 250 proteins of, on average, 150 amino acids, the probability of a living cell arising by chance is just 1 in 10
41,000