Chapter XIV - Mutual Affinities of Organic Beings: Morphology; Embryology; Rudimentary Organs
Classification
Darwin discussed the criteria used to taxonomically classify organisms. From Linnaeus' time in the eighteenth century until the 1960s, taxonomists/typologists used basic anatomy and structural comparisons for classification purposes. Darwin was concerned that -
Some authors look at it (classification) merely as a scheme for arranging together those living objects which are most alike, and for separating those which are most unlike (Page 395). Rather...the characters which naturalists consider as showing true affinity between any two or more species, are those which have been inherited from a common parent, all true classification being genealogical; - that community of descent is the hidden bond which naturalists have been unconsciously seeking, and not some unknown plan of creation... (Page 400).
Critique
In the 1960s, analysis of protein sequences enabled molecular biologists to derive quantitative differences between organisms. As a result of these DNA analyses -
...all the classes traditionally identified by morphological criteria could also be detected by comparing their protein sequences... however...as more protein sequences began to accumulate during the 1960s, it became increasingly apparent that the molecules were not going to provide any evidence of sequential arrangements in nature, but were going to rather reaffirm the traditional view that the system of nature conforms fundamentally to a highly ordered hierarchic scheme from which all direct evidence for evolution is emphatically absent. Moreover, the divisions turned out to be more mathematically perfect than even most die-hard taxonomists would have predicted (Denton, 1986:276-278).
If Denton's observations based on protein sequence data are in question, then so are the molecular clock estimates and the phylogenetic trees produced by molecular biologists. Insofar as mutation rates in a species are concerned, the key factors are population size and reproductive rates. So, what validity exists for development of a molecular clock that ignores both population size and frequency of reproduction?
Analogical Resemblances
This section featured Darwin's speculations on the origin of analogical resemblances. Analogical features, of dissimilar origin, refer to the structural similarities shared by organisms from different classes. For example, the body shapes and other structural components of sharks and porpoises, of mice and shrews, of bats and extinct pterosaurs, and of coyotes and the extinct Tasmanian wolf are similar. The assumption here is that such organisms as those listed above share similarities in form because they are adapted to similar niches, living situations. Darwin also discussed mimicry of body shapes and colors that is common among some insect species. He believed that analogical resemblances resulted from natural selection acting on random variation.
Critique
To Darwin's limited credit, Behe (2014:201), whose calculations defined the limits of random mutation, reported:
Another study from the group led by Sean Carroll showed that males of a certain species in the genus Drosophila in the past 15 million years have gained a spot of color on their wings. The reason is that the gene for a pigmentation protein called Yellow protein (which actually produces dark pigmentation) has gained a new switch sequence for a particular regulatory protein. This result is important because it shows random mutation not only breaks switches, but occasionally makes new ones, too, just as it occasionally makes proteins with new functions such as antifreeze protein in notothenioid fish.
We can appreciate Darwin's opinions on mimicry and analogous forms shared by disparate species, all operating within the realm of microevolution and the limited powers of random mutation. However, his general theory that all organisms derive from a common ancestor through wholly natural processes asks the statistically impossible from random mutation. In concert, his theory fails to fill the gaps among disparate classes or organisms; that is, gradualism is out of sync with the abrupt appearances and disappearances of species as displayed in the fossil record.
On the Nature of the Affinities Connecting Organic Beings
I am going to scale down Darwin's usual flowery rhetoric and paraphrase some of his basic concepts. This will seem a bit tautological/redundant but will help us understand his thinking. Under this topic, I begin with page 409:
Dominant species from dominant genera inherited advantages that enabled them to dominate subordinate organisms. Thus, the dominant genera dominated wide areas and numerous living situations and dominated smaller groups that were less dominant. Because of their dominance, the dominate genera increased in number and were therefore derived from few orders and even fewer classes than were genera less dominant. For example, not one new class of insect was discovered in Australia since the discovery of that land mass.
I think Darwin meant to say that the class Insecta was an example of a dominant group that has a wide distribution and numerous genera and species and the genera were so widely spread and successful that no genera were discovered in Australia that were not known elsewhere?
Darwin discussed what he called "aberrant groups". These "groups" comprised:
forms which have been conquered by more successful competitors, with a few members still preserved under unusually favorable conditions (Page 409).
Presumably, Darwin classed "primitive" species as "aberrant"? He talked about the bizcacha, a primitive rodent that showed linkage to marsupials:
...rodents and marsupials branched off from a common progenitor, and both groups have since undergone much modification in divergent directions (Page 410).
His point was that inheritance and not creation explained the affinities used to classify organisms into groups. He was adamant:
We shall never, probably, disentangle the inextricable web of the affinities between the members of any one class; but when we have a distinct object in view, and do not look to some unknown plan of creation, we may hope to make sure but slow progress (Page 412).
Critique
Repetitive tautologies ad nauseam. Dominant species groups are larger in number than those species groups that are fewer in number. Those that are fewer in number are less dominant and are therefore inferior. Those species that survive have a higher rate of survival than those that do not survive. Those that are weak or lower in number have lower rates of survival. Those that have lower rates of survival experience higher mortality rates and are the species groups most likely to become extinct. The reason inferior species groups are inferior and have lower rates of survival than do groups that are superior and have higher survival rates is because the superior forms have more (superior) variation for natural selection to act upon.
I repeat quite repetitiously: the fossil record and comparative biochemistry supported abrupt events of rapid speciation and some changes in size through microevolution within the species, absence of intermediate forms, unbridgeable gaps among taxonomic classes, and rapid extinction. "Punctuated equilibria" as described by Eldredge and Gould (1972) was less of a model of process but rather a photo snapshot of the fossil record. These two authors did, however, speculate about process. They suggested that branching evolution was a rare event that occurred rapidly in geographically isolated, small populations found along the periphery of larger populations. This view is, of course, non-Darwinian.
Darwin believed speciation in isolation was not the norm. New species do not develop simply because they are isolated; they only evolve through their competitive interactions with other species; "...neither migration nor isolation in themselves effect anything" (Page 349). Darwin knew that the abrupt appearance of complex alterations in structures and organs suggested intelligent design; so he down-played the possibility of abrupt speciation in isolation.
In contrast, Eldredge and Gould (1972; 95) stated:
...most morphological divergence of a descendant species occurs very early in its differentiation, when the population is small and still adjusting more precisely to local conditions.
/>
Their vision of "allopathic evolution" left little room for a near-infinite number of gradations ever so slowly molded through intense competition. Thus, "allopathic speciation" was non-Darwinian "Darwinian gradualism" in a hurry. It was not a bad guess because we observe microevolutionary selection and genetic drift operating within the existing gene pools of small populations in isolation. However, the process of speciation has thus far remained in the realm of guesswork; nothing more. My hypothesis of programmed "epigenetic niche-matching" (see Definitions/Notes at the end of this essay) at this point, appears to have greater explanatory power for the origin of species than Eldredge and Gould's allopatric speciation (1972). Remember, Darwin adamantly opposed all forms of saltation because he believed rapid changes in complex beings bordered on the miraculous:
The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several paleontologists - for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick - as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection. (Page 311).
Morphology
In this section, Darwin discussed homology of body parts. "Homology" simply meant that, for example, the arrangement of bones in the wing of a bat, the hand of a person, and the foot of a bear are arranged in a similar pattern. He stated:
...we can only say that so it is; - that it has pleased the Creator to construct all the animals and plants in each great class on a uniform plan; but this is not a scientific explanation (Page 414).
To Darwin, all reality must fall under the umbrella of philosophical materialism. Because philosophical materialism excludes belief in God, God does not exist, and therefore God could not have created anything. In addition the fact that the body parts of organisms occurred in similar patterns indicated that they derived from a common ancestor rather than a common Creator.
"Serial homologies" showed that organisms derived from a common ancestor. These homologies or similar patterns of organs and structures were those that appear in the same individual. For example, every person has a right side and a left side, which illustrates common origin. Also, the bones of the skull evolved from modified vertebrae:
How inexplicable are the cases of serial homologies on the ordinary view of creation! Why should the brain be enclosed in a box composed of such numerous and such extraordinarily shaped pieces of bone, apparently representing vertebrae? (Page 415).
Critique
What kind of vertebrate forbearer did Darwin have in mind? Does the fossil record provide any evidence of an ancient progenitor with an ossified backbone of vertebrae and a boneless skull to house its brain? How did Darwin know the skull is comprised of modified vertebra and why did he forbid God's structural use of the quadruped model in different species?
Likely, Darwin would have us question why all makes of manufactured automobiles have round wheels. Could it be that wheels are a common element used in the making of automobiles because they work well and are necessary to its function, given the current laws of physics? Are we to assume that the evolution of the automobile shows common ancestry rather than the operation of creative mind? In living organisms the protein cytochrome c occurs in bacteria, yeast, plants, and all animals. This protein performs complex functions such as regulation of "programmed death" of cells to transportation of individual electrons across cell membranes as required for energizing those cells. I suggest that cytochrome c exists in the cells of all organisms because it functions well. Its complex role in the life of organisms does not yield readily to simplistic, generalized explanations.
Perhaps if Darwin could have discussed the evolution of the behavior of cytochrome c transferring electrons back and forth, one at a time, across cellular membranes, intelligently, he would have been more believable. Would he have postulated that cytochrome c, supported by natural selection acting on unlimited variation or possibly a "want-to" habit or habit of disuse, would learn through innumerable miniscule, trial and error steps to capture and transport electrons, which comprise waves of energy, across mitochondria membranes? More likely, had he been aware of the functional complexities in the cell at the biochemical level, he never would have attempted the Origin?
"Serial homologies"? Being bilaterally symmetrical or having two feet and two hands shows that these attributes, because of their duplication, derived from a common ancestor? The big toe on the human foot is the superior toe and we see the other inferior toes in relatively lower states of evolutionary development, moving toward the state of perfection enjoyed by the big toe? Rather, I suggest that virtually all of those organs and structures, which the gradualist worldview classified as developmentally inferior, are present because they remain functionally important to the organism. That view of functional necessity includes bilateral symmetry, all six legs on insects, eight legs on spiders, and all pedicellariae on the starfish. Human beings may have hands homologous with their feet, which can suggest that they evolved initially from a distant quadruped that had four undifferentiated feet, though I have never heard of such an animal. Or, we can observe that at the biochemical level, all mammalian species tested are equally distant from the class Reptilia and that fossil evidence of the numerous intermediate forms required to support Darwinian gradualism is not in the rocks.
I will also refer to Wells' (2000:62) observation:
...biologists have known for decades that homologous features are not due to similar genes, so the mechanism that produces them remains unknown.
The origins of "homologous" features are not homologous and therefore common descent cannot explain their origins.
Development and Embryology
Darwin offered numerous opinions on the metamorphoses of various classes of animals from egg to adult and how natural selection explained the structural characters of some stages of development. He stated that often the characters of the early stages of development were used to classify organisms into their related classes because of ancestral linkages represented in embryonic stages. He firmly believed that the embryonic stages of different classes, such as those of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish resembled each other and that the different classes therefore evolved from a common ancestor.
In the case of insect metamorphosis, Darwin stated that the changes in the organisms were fast and slow:
The metamorphoses of insects, with which everyone is familiar, are generally effected abruptly by a few stages; but the transformations are in reality numerous and gradual, though concealed (Page 417).
By "concealed," perhaps he meant the rapid, innumerable slowly-developed changes took place unobserved at micro-scales within a chrysalis or pupa stage?
Darwin quoted Von Baer to show that comparative embryology confirmed evolutionary ties to common ancestry among animal classes:
...the embryos of mammalia, of birds, lizards, and snakes, probably also of chelonia are in their earliest states exceedingly like one another, both as a whole and in the mode of development of their parts; so much so, in fact, that we can often distinguish the embryos only by their size (Page 418).
This belief persisted into my college years in the early 1960s when our professors taught that Von Baer and Haeckel had confirmed that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny". That is, the development of embryos reflected both the levels of classification and the evolutionary steps of ancestors. Darwin believed that embryological comparisons offered one of the strongest points of support for his macroevolutionary theory that all organisms evolved naturally from a common ancestor.
As is the case in embryology, the young of mammals showed evolutionary links to distant ancestry. Darwin noted that the stripes on the young of African lions and the spots on the young blackbird showed useless links to ancestry:
No one supposes that the stripes on the whelp of a lion, or the spots on the young blackbird, are of any use
to these animals (Page 419).
Oddly, he expressed no opinion on the spots found on deer fawns.
This section included Darwin's opinion that natural selection, rather than retention of inheritance from ancient ancestors, had caused the different stages that appear in the metamorphosis of insects. That is, the steps in the process of invertebrate metamorphosis are functionally necessary for the survival of the individual. He stated:
Most of our best authorities are now convinced that the various larval and pupal stages of insects have thus been acquired through adaptation and not through inheritance from some ancient form (Page 425).
His discussion included opinions on why the development of the young of invertebrates are so variable and how natural selection determined the details of metamorphosis. Basically, "the larvae...obey more or less closely, the law of common embryonic resemblance" (Page 420), illustrating linkage to common ancestry.
Critique
Oddly enough, Darwin said that the metamorphosis of insects was abrupt but developed slowly. I suspect that he had problems with the metamorphosis of insects and other invertebrates because such changes are remarkably complex and rapid. Any process that displays enormous complexity and requires lots of information and specified programs for change reeks of vitalism/programming/intelligent design. Of course, Darwin had no knowledge of the complexity of living cells and of the biochemical processes required to achieve metamorphosis in organisms. One would think that Darwin would have used the metamorphic steps of at least some invertebrates to illustrate recapitulation of his phyletic (gradual) model of evolution of species from lower to higher forms. He did insist that such abrupt metamorphic changes had to evolve gradually.
The life cycle of the sheep liver fluke, for example, might illustrate how the steps of metamorphosis recapitulate phyletic evolutionary steps? The adult flukes in the sheep deliver eggs down the host's bile duct and the eggs are incorporated into the host's feces and pass out to the ground. Eggs that fall into the edge of a pond develop into a free-swimming individual miracidium. This individual bores into specific snail species, Lymnea bulimoides or L. columella. The miracidium then eats its way into the pulmonary chamber or lymph vessels of the snail and transforms into a sac-like sporo-cyst. The latter structure has three to eight germ cells, each of which develops without fertilization into a different, individual larval state called a radia. Each radia has a mouth and short gut and within about a week, each radia breaks out of the sporo-cyst and migrates to other organs in the snail, typically its liver. After the migration to other organs in the snail, the radia may reproduce, again without fertilization, for one or two generations. Next, each original radia develops into several new larvae called cercaria. Each cercaria has a tail and disc-shaped body for swimming, oral and ventral suckers, and a forked gut. The cercaria burrows out of the snail and swims about freely for several hours and then attaches itself to a blade of grass near the water's surface. Here it transforms into a hardened cyst known as a metacercaria. When a sheep or other suitable hosts eats the grass and ingests the metacercaria, the larvae exit the cysts and bore through the digestive tract of the new host and find their way to the liver. In the liver, they borrow around and do considerable damage before entering the bile duct where they develop into adult flukes. The gradual evolution of a fluke's life cycle at the biochemical level would be difficult to explain. Thus, Darwin simply passed off such complex changes as adaptations that appear abruptly but which had to have evolved from unknown ancestors ever so slowly.
I suggest a good Darwinian argument about the fluke would be: "Why would God, if he exists and is good, make a liver fluke?" But then the theists would merely counter that we live in a fallen and imperfect world, and... the fallen world is complex to the miraculous level and programmed remarkably well.
Now let us address (again as Darwin repeatedly was inclined to do) "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny;" that is, the early stages of development of an organism recapitulate the evolutionary stages of the organism's ancestry. For example, during some stages of development, the embryos of mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians resemble each other. Darwin believed that evidence from embryonic studies provided the strongest support for his theory of macroevolution of all organisms from a common ancestor. Phil Johnson (1993:73) stated:
Although it is true that vertebrates all pass through an embryonic stage at which they resemble each other, in fact they develop to this stage very differently. After a vertebrate egg is fertilized, it undergoes cell divisions and cell movements characteristic of its class; fishes follow one pattern, amphibians another one, birds yet another, and mammals still another. The differences cannot be explained as larval adaptations, since these early stages occur before larvae form and thus are apparently not exposed to natural selection. Only by ignoring the early stages of development can one fit Darwin's theory to the facts of embryology, but it was precisely the early stages that Darwin claimed were the most significant... That vertebrate embryos develop along different pathways, only to converge in appearance midway through the process, then diverge again until they finally generate (in diverse ways) similar bone structures in their limbs are facts well known to embryologists.
Furthermore, Jonathan Wells, embryologist with the Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture, confirmed that Ernst Haeckel in the 1860s had faked the information in his comparison of the embryonic development of seven vertebrate classes (Strobel 2004:49). Haeckel had cherry-picked the samples. For example, he used illustrations of four placental mammals but left out marsupials and monotremes (platypus and echidna), mammals that showed differences in their embryonic development. Haeckel also picked representative reptiles, birds, and amphibians, and fish that appeared similar as embryos and left out those species that did not fit the scheme so well. He used a salamander to represent amphibians instead of a frog because the latter did not fit expectations ..."and then he went further by faking the similarities." Because embryos in the earlier stages look far more different from each other, Haeckel omitted them from his comparisons.
Additionally, the so-called "gill pouches" or "gill slits" in the mammalian embryo have nothing to do with gills:
Even fish don't have gills at that stage. In humans, the ridges become one thing; in fish they become gills. They're not even gill slits. To call them gill-like structures is merely reading evolutionary theory back into the evidence. They're never gill-like except in the superficial sense that they're lines in the neck area. As British embryologist Lewis Wolpert said, the resemblance is only illusory (Strobel, 2004: 51).
In On the Origin of Species Darwin wrote:
It seems to me, the leading facts in embryology, which are second to none in importance, are explained on the principle of variations in the many descendants from some one ancient progenitor.
Veritas... truth is in the details and the details of modern embryology proved Darwin's assumptions incorrect.
Rudimentary, Atrophied, and Aborted Organs
It was Darwin's belief that "on the view of descent with modification, the origin of rudimentary organs is comparatively simple..." (Page 431). To support this belief, Darwin again turned to observations of domestic breeds of animals:
We have plenty of cases of rudimentary organs in our domestic productions, - as the stump of a tail in tailless breeds, - the vestige of an ear in earless breeds of sheep, - the re-appearance of minute dangling horns in hornless breeds of cattle... (Page 431). Furthermore...for the balance of evidence clearly indicates that species under nature do not undergo great and abrupt changes. But we learn from the study of our domestic productions that the disuse of parts leads to their reduced size; and that the result is inherited (Page 431).
Natural selection could only produce changes in structure and function that occurred in "small stages". Inheritance could produce "monstrosities" but natural selection only operated through "small stages". Natural selection had no power over rudimentary organs that had diminished use or influence,
which explained the high rate of variations in such organs.
The "principle of economy of growth" explained why organs diminished through disuse. This "principle" was a hypothesis that the organism mysteriously transferred needed resources away from organs of diminishing use to organs with more vital functions. Basically, the presence of rudimentary organs represented useless inheritance and illustrated the macroevolutionary development of new life forms from a common ancestor.
Darwin provided a number of examples of species with rudimentary organs; for example, rudimentary mammae in male mammals, flightlessness in some birds, rudimentary teats in cattle, remnants of a pelvis in the boa-constrictor, the wing of the penguin adapted to a new use, and the nascent development of mammary glands in the platypus.
Critique
Few would argue against the fact that one's physicochemical components are the result of inheritance from ancestors, including one's own parents. But it takes a leap of faith to believe that flightlessness in some birds, the appendix in humans, and the occasional appearance of small canine teeth in the upper jaws of some mule deer are the kinds of information that confirm Darwin's theory that all organisms evolved naturally from a 1-celled ancestor. Rather, organs and structures formally thought useless are often found to have functions vital to survivability. For example, the "junk" DNA in every organism does not indicate useless, rudimentary material inherited from an ancient ancestor:
The vast areas of DNA that do not code for proteins, once dismissed as "junk", are now known to conceal important regulatory regions (Hall, 2010:67).
Note that extant members of the same class always have homologous organs that function for different uses and different degrees of use. The observation that moles have small eyes and deer have larger, better-seeing eyes says nothing about mammals evolving from reptiles. The fact that polled Hereford cattle have no horns and horned Herefords have horns is not a fact that ties birds and reptiles together. The fact that most cormorants fly very well but the cormorant species Phalacrocorax harrisi in the Galapagos is flightless points to a loss of genetic potential, not to a link with a reptilian ancestor. The fact that some cave salamanders have no eyes indicates a genetic loss within the limits of the class and produces no general theory applicable to some imagined connection between the amphibian and the amniotic egg nor to the idea that God did not design and program salamanders.
We should not assume that man's brain derived from a 1-celled organism nor that 1-celled organisms arose naturally from nonliving materials because we observe that domestic chickens fly poorly. And are we to assume that because both men and women have nipples, both sexes derived from some ancient ancestor that was physically bisexual...maybe from a species of earthworm that was male on one end and female on the other? I fail to see any real merit in wild speculations tied to metaphysical materialism. Rather, we note that as knowledge of the complexities of the mechanics of biological life increases, explaining the origin of those mechanisms by simplistic generalities and tautologies has strained credibility beyond belief. As Henri Bergson (1859-1941) observed:
At every step the theory of a mechanical production of complicated structures by blind process of variation and selection presents us with fairy-tales that have all the incredibility of childhood's lore, and little of its beauty.
Definitions/Notes
Abduction: A process of reasoning that attempts to select the best among competing hypotheses to explain past events/conditions. Historical scientists in the fields of geology, evolutionary biology, paleontology, cosmology, archeology, and forensic science study existing evidence, processes, and conditions to select the best hypotheses among competing explanations, to hypothesize about the possible causes of past events and conditions (Meyer 2009:150-172 and Lipton 2004).
Adaptive radiation: A single ancestral group abruptly produces a number of species that are equipped and preprogrammed with biological information to physically and behaviorally adjust to new environmental conditions. See epigenetic niche-match below.
Allopatric speciation: In their paper Punctuated Equilibrium, Eldredge and Gould (1972) postulated that new species develop in isolation along the periphery of a parent species' range. The parent population supposedly develops genes in the gradual, Darwinian pattern and then stores mutations of those genes in "junk DNA." Somehow the relatively small offspring population retrieves and fixes these random mutations through inbreeding. When natural barriers disappear, the new and improved offspring species in isolation spreads out with its superior traits and replaces the parent species across the parent species' range. Thus, competition occurs between species rather than among individuals within the species, the Darwinian model.
Rapid "allopatric speciation" and replacement of parent species could explain the abrupt appearance and disappearance of species and the lack of intermediates in the fossil record. Allopatric speciation was a kind of round-about Darwinian gradual evolution in a hurry.
Eldridge and Gould coined the name "Punctuated Equilibrium" to describe recurrent patterns in the fossil record; that is, the sudden appearance of species and the persistence of those species without significant morphological change over the life of the species, followed by abrupt extinction.
Darwin intermittently embraced speciation in isolation: "Although isolation is of great importance in the production of new species, I am inclined to believe that largeness of area is still more important, especially for the production of species which shall prove capable of enduring for a long period, and of spreading widely" (Page 108). His problem with speciation in isolation was that microevolutionary changes could be relatively rapid in small populations where surroundings/environments were less diverse. In addition, how did adjustment to more localized and less diverse habitats equip evolving species to out compete the well-established parent species? Where was phyletic gradualism and where was the opportunity for the development of all those innumerable intermediate steps shaped by competitive pressures that produced complex beings from a single 1-celled organism? Speciation in isolation amounted to Darwinian gradualism in a hurry. Such speciation events were too fast, too vitalistic, too spooky, and therefore not natural enough.
On the other hand, localized speciation or Darwinian gradualism in a hurry could explain the pattern of gaps in the fossil record. So, in order to cover all the bases, Darwin offered some support for speciation in isolation, particularly when he addressed the absence of intermediates in the fossil record.
Analogous: Analogous organs or structures are those that serve similar functions or are similar in appearance in different organisms but have different genetic origins. The wings of insects and wings of birds are analogous. The Tasmanian wolf (Thylacinus cynanocephalus), which was a marsupial, had a predatory niche and morphology analogous to that of the placental coyote (Canis latrans).
Deduction: A process of reasoning from the general to the specific. The logician holds a particular fact to be generally accepted as true. Given the first fact or premise as true, the resultant premise or subclass of the first premise must also be true. For example: "All mammals have hair; humans are mammals; therefore humans have hair." If the first two premises are held to be true, the deduced conclusion must also be true. The format of the argument just illustrated is known as a syllogism.
Denudation: Processes of weathering and erosion by wind and water that removes the rock strata and subsequently the fossil evidence they contained.
Epigenesis: Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (1993) defined this term: "...a. the theory that an embryo develops from the successive differentiation of originally undifferentiated structures...b. the approximately stepwise process by which genetic information, as modified by environmental influences, is translated into the substance and behavior of an organism." In the first case, for example, a single-celled, undifferentiated, fertilized human egg manages to produce many different cells to form a human being, everything from brain tissue to finger nails without chang
es in its DNA sequences. The program utilizes a number of means to determine gene activation and gene suppression during the development of complex organisms.
In the second case, interaction of the organism with environmental influences can produce heritable changes in gene expression. For example, research groups (Bygen et al. 2001, Pembrey et al. 2005, Kaati et al. 2002) found that the plane of nutrition of a group of people in rural Sweden influenced their descendants' risk of death from diabetes or heart failure.
New research studies in the field of epigenetics continue to explore environmental influences on gene expression. Nestler (2011) provided several examples of how experiences can remove epigenetic marks on chromosomes that control behavior. For example, researchers have shown that maternal behavior affected gene expression in the offspring of rats without altering germ cells. Rat pups are born with methyl marks on particular genes. These methyl marks, which increase sensitivity to stress, diminish in number if the pups have a relaxed and nurturing mother. However, pups with a nervous and less attentive mother tend to retain the methyl marks and will grow up to repeat the poor mothering performance of their own mothers. The mother rat's behavior physically altered the chromosomes of the offspring, thereby programming to a considerable degree their behaviors as adults.
Examination of the human immune system provides another example of genome change through environmental influences. Our immune systems can alter our own genomes to produce more effective antibodies to fight invading pathogens. I suggested that a similar pattern of preplanned epigenesis might explain how organisms rapidly create new sister species to fill empty environmental niches. See Epigenetic niche-match below.
The suppression or expression of genes often depends upon the "top-down" context in which the gene is located. Animal forms "...need tightly integrated networks of genes, proteins, and other molecules to regulate their development - in other words, they require developmental gene regulatory networks... Developing animals face two main challenges, first, they must produce different types of proteins and cells and, second, they must get those proteins and cells to the right place at the right time" (Meyer 2013:363). Developmental gene regulatory networks fall within the epi- (beyond/above) gene category. These comprise hierarchical preprogrammed information systems for which the neo-Darwinian mechanism (natural selection acting on the random mutation of genes) cannot account.
Epigenetic niche-match: This is my hypothesis to account for the adaptive radiation/abrupt appearance of 300+ new species of cichlid fishes in Lake Victoria, Africa since the lake was dry some 12,400 (carbon-14) years ago. Numerous new species of cichlid fishes developed without physical isolation and in an abrupt and apparently programmed/nonrandom manner. My comments under Critique, Geographical Distribution explain "epigenetic niche-match":
I suggest the possibility that the process of rapid genetic change already exists about and within each of us. A parallel process that could explain rapid genetic changes takes place regularly within our own immune systems. Our immune systems can produce billions of different-shaped antibodies to confront invaders. When the system finds an antibody that fit's the invading germ, the antibody sticks to and targets the invader so a white cell can approach it and make the kill. Incredibly, the immune system creates new antibodies to fit new invaders and then over the course of time, alters its own DNA to improve the fit of the antibody.
The immune system changes its own DNA in several ways. The system can take a gene's RNA and "cherry pick" for the needed information or even splice the DNA itself to create antibodies with new, improved shapes. Thirdly, through a process called "somatic hyper mutation," "the cell intentionally allows a very high level of mutation in just the variable regions of the heavy- and light-chain genes" (Behe, 1998, 129).
Ergo, if the immune system can alter DNA to fit environmental threats, why could not the physiological systems of species in like manner be programmed to alter DNA to fit environmental opportunities in the form of new niches? One might say: "God abhors a vacuum." This idea is non-Darwinian and reeks of vitalism and planning/preprogramming, but we now see it operating at the level of our own physiology.
Having offered a reasonable hypothesis to explain the rapid appearance of sister species, I am well aware that epigenetic niche-match cannot account for the explosion of whole new body plans that occurred with the sudden appearance of disparate phyla in the Cambrian.
Eukaryote: Any organism comprised of one or more nucleated cells.
Evo-devo: Evolutionary developmental biology studies the construction processes of animal bodies and speculates on how these bodies may have evolved. Evo-devo suggests that organisms can evolve rapidly through mutations of regulatory genes. The first 1-celled organisms with nucleated cells contained master regulatory (Hox) genes that are similar or the same in all eukaryotes (organisms with nucleated cells). For example, the regulatory genes that control the genes that form eyes and heads and limbs are the same/very similar for a honey bee and for a human being. Thus, the same master genes regulate the formation of the corresponding parts of the bodies of honey bees and human beings. Because the regulatory genes are the same or nearly so in all species with nucleated cells, evo-devo theory suggests/insists that the first cells with nuclei could with the same regulatory collection of master regulatory programs (the "tool box") produce through rapid change/evolution all species from a common ancestor - which quite fortuitously contained all the regulatory genes in the "tool box" needed to construct a worm or a person. Imagine that...a 1-celled organism some 500 + million years ago housing the protein switches required to turn on genes that can produce a human being's head. Now, that is foresight.
Because the same regulatory genes control gene expression across species boundaries from insects to persons, evo-devo provides strong support for the argument of common descent. However, because random gene mutation cannot account for the assembly of new structures and molecular machines nor new body plans, there is no Darwinian explanation for the origin of the tool box of regulatory genes nor for the hardware those master genes control. See "Mutation" below for information drawn largely from Behe (2014) on the limits of random mutation.
Experimental science: Experimental scientists attempt to disprove hypotheses by collecting measurable and comparable data on controlled and test situations. With repeated confirmation of findings, such research can lead to the formation of general laws that have predictive value under the same conditions as those in the experiments.
Habit: Darwin believed that organisms could change their behavior and thereby modify their structure or body parts through increased or decreased use. Increased use enabled the giraffe to elongate its neck and decreased use of sight eliminated the eyes of some cave salamanders. The subsequent changes in body parts, initiated by changes in habit or behavior by the parent, were heritable by the offspring. See Lamarckian evolution below.
Historical science: These studies encompass such disciplines as geology, evolutionary biology, paleontology, cosmology, archeology, criminology, and forensic science. Such disciplines examine current evidences, in light of existing processes to select the best hypotheses among competing explanations, to describe past events and conditions. See "Abduction" above.
Homologous: Homologous organs or structures of a species are those that are modified for different functions, have the same genetic origins, and are shared by another or other species. The "hand" of a bat, the front hoof of a deer, and the hand of a man would be considered homologous features.
Induction: A method of reasoning from the specific to the general. In experimental science, the investigator formulates a hypothesis and then collects data aimed to disprove it. With the accumulation of measurements, observations, and other data under controlled and test conditions, the scientist disproves his/her hypotheses or fails to do so. With repeated experiments, the researcher's conclusions can lead to the establishment of general laws that have predictive value.
Junk DNA: The discovery of what was
first thought to be nonfunctional regions of the genome were called "junk DNA". Neo-Darwinists believed the "junk DNA" comprised the by-products of random mutations and provided evidence that natural selection had a primary role in the origin of genetic information. Over the last 20 years, however, evidence to the contrary has proven that "junk DNA" regulates the use of protein-coding regions of the DNA. Meyer (2009:407) listed vital functions of "junk DNA"/ nonprotein-coding regions of DNA: "1) regulate DNA replication, 2) regulate transcription, 3) mark sites for programmed rearrangements of genetic material, 4) influence the proper folding and maintenance of chromosomes, 5) control the interactions of chromosomes with the nuclear membrane (and matrix), 6) control RNA processing, editing, and splicing, 7) modulate translation, 8) regulate embryological development, 9) repair DNA, 10) aid in immunodefense or fighting disease..." and 11) code functional genes. The neo-Darwinian mechanistic process of natural selection acting on the random mutation of genes cannot account for the origins of epigenetic information housed in the nonprotein-coding regions of DNA.
Lamarckian evolution: Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) believed that the individual organism acquired favorable characters by use of different parts of the body. For example, the giraffe grew a longer neck because it habitually reached for forage higher in the trees. The favorable characters were then passed on to the offspring. Thus, organisms evolved over time in complexity through the use and disuse of their body parts. Lamarck believed the evolution of simple to complex organisms was a natural process. Both he and Darwin, who borrowed a number of ideas from Lamarck, ignored the complex mechanics behind physiological and structural changes that would have been required to accommodate adaptation through the use and disuse of body parts. These two synthesizers apparently suffered from a deplorable lack of curiosity.
Macroevolution: The philosophical materialist view that all organisms evolved from the same 1-celled ancestor through totally natural means.
Materialism/philosophical materialism/scientific materialism: The belief/assumption that the arrangement and interactions of basic "particles" (detections of "excitations" or "ripples" in a force field, which "fills space like an invisible liquid" [Kuhlmann 2013]) determine all existence/events. Because all existence is determined, free will is an illusion. Because there is no free will, nor spirit, nor mind, God does not exist.
Microevolution: Changes within the species or genus based on variation within the genetic potential/boundaries of the class.
Mutation: Darwin believed that there was something inherent in the organism that produced heritable variation when it tried to adjust to its surroundings/environment. That is, Darwin believed Lamarckian evolution explained the origin of variation. Neo-Darwinists reject the mysteries of Lamarckian evolution and embrace random mutation in the DNA as the source of variation and hold to the Darwinian idea that natural selection acting on unguided gene mutations is the basic mechanism that accounts for the macroevolution of all species from a single progenitor species.
Ironically, embryological studies have revealed that cytoskeletal arrays and patterns of sugar codes and varying electric fields in the embryonic cell membrane, not genes, control gene function/expression and subsequently the implementation of the body plans of developing organisms. Thus, that which controls gene expression in embryogenesis is epigenetic and beyond the influence of random gene mutation. Darwinists must therefore successfully and adequately address the origins of developmental controls housed in embryonic cell membranes to validate the materialist view of evolution.
Most do not question the evolution of species from species (see Epigenetic niche-match above). The question is, however, not the role of mutation in changing organisms but the power of random mutation to make significant changes. Random mutations are restricted to operations with the existing DNA machinery of an organism through accidental substitutions, deletions, insertions, inversions, gene duplications, and genome duplications (Behe 2014:67). Virtually all of these mutations represent impairment of function. Under adverse conditions, an overall loss of genetic function occasionally provides survival value. The development of the sickle trait is an example of a random "injury" to the human genome that provided survival benefits in malaria-infested areas.
The mutation that created "Sickle Eve" required the substitution of one amino acid for another among billions in human DNA, but that genetic change was enough to provide resistance to the malaria parasite. That is the good of the sickle mutation, which provides protection against malaria if one parent has the mutation. The down side of the sickle mutation is that when both parents have the sickle trait, their children seldom survive beyond the age of ten. Thus, natural selection will over time eliminate the mutation in malaria-free areas. In like fashion, a mutant strain of malaria, which developed immunity to the parasiticide chloroquine, declines and the original strain of malaria returns where chloroquine is no longer used. These kinds of observations show that random mutations can produce net benefits only in "desparate times" (Behe 2014:77).
The poster-child of gene mutation is the HIV virus. HIV produces an average of one mutation for every copy of itself. Of interest, HIV over the last few decades has produced an estimated one hundred billion billion (1020) copies of itself and therefore an equal number of random mutations. Notwithstanding all the neo-Darwinian evolution of the HIV virus, "Its basic genetics have changed very little in the past decades." (Behe 2014:137).
And, notwithstanding, the 10,000-year malaria-humankind war of Darwinist proportion and 1020 mutations of HIV, neither set of human-parasite nor human-virus interactions produced a single new functioning protein or gene nor molecular machine nor single new protein-protein binding. This fact is astounding but not surprising, given that the odds of random mutation providing five to six changes required in amino acids to produce a new functional binding between proteins is one in 1020. But let us assume the organism needs two such protein bindings in order to produce some new protein function. The odds of producing two new binding sites between proteins by random mutation grows to 1040. According to Behe (2014:135), 1040 is "more cells than likely have ever existed on earth."
Given the fact that the celium, a hair-like structure that moves some 1-celled organisms about, contains several hundred protein parts, what is the probability of random gene mutation producing such a machine? Ever? Because the probability is reasonably zero, some researchers have turned their focus away from gene mutation as the creator of new body plans to the mutation of regulatory genes as an appropriate mechanism for Darwinian macroevolution.
To focus on mutation of regulatory genes as the basic mechanism underlying Darwinian evolution, one has to overlook questions on the origins of master regulatory (Hox) genes, control regions, switch sequences, developmental gene regulatory networks (dGRNs), and genetic circuitry. One must simply begin by assuming the existence of a "hope chest" or "tool box" of preexisting, complicated biological information and biological machinery that defies explanation. You assume that the "tool box" housing all that genetic information appeared quite fortuitously and you go from there.
With the "tool box" that was full of regulating information, random mutation simply tweaked the smallest gear the smallest amount and thereby produced 3 phyla of new organisms in the Precambrian, all of which carried the same "tool box" of regulatory genes. In a few million years, random mutation again tweaked small gears in the "tool box" housed in those 3 groups of organisms and the Cambrian exploded with 12 of 18 extant phyla. That is, some 3 enigmatic, undifferentiated Precambrian phyla macroevolved rapidly through random mutation and natural selection into complex Cambrian forms; e.g., annelids (worms), arthropods (trilobites), mollusks (clams), chordates (cartilaginous fish), and echinoderms (starfish). My question is, if a magic tool box appeared in the Precambrian that anticipated and subsequently created wholly new and complex body forms, where did the preplanned tool box come from?
Meyer (2013:268,315) noted that the complexity and specificity of gene regulat
ory systems renders them all but impossible to alter without destroying function. Changes to gene regulatory systems that could create large-scale changes in animal body plans are not viable, and small changes in those systems that are viable produce minor changes. This is not to say that some investigators have not intentionally rearranged parts of regulatory genes to produce interesting modifications in the lab, for example, in yeast cells (Behe 2014:269-276). The appropriate question is whether random mutation, that is, without the help of multiple engineered steps by intelligent agents, could produce such modifications and whether such modifications could enhance survivability of a species in the wild state.
Behe (2014:200-201) suggested that random mutation of gene switches may account for some varieties of dogs, for a spot on the wing in the fruit fly (Drosophila spp.), developed over a period of 15 million years, and for the development of the antifreeze protein of notothenioid fish. These evolutionary changes, Behe classified as minor. For a detailed and convincing account of the powers and limits of random mutation, see Behe's 2014 book The Edge of Evolution.
Natural selection: Darwin observed considerable variation within species. He believed organisms acquired variation of characters through the use and disuse of their body parts (Lamarckian evolution) and that variation regularly appeared as a function of a natural "rule" or "law". Observations that resisted explanation fell into these categories.
Organisms used or reduced use of their body parts in response to their surroundings, including competitive relations within and between species for limited resources. Organisms had virtually unlimited ability to change. Some newly acquired variations or traits would offer a slight improvement in survival and reproductive success for the individual.
Because acquired, advantageous variations were heritable, such advantages would, over long periods of time, spread throughout the population. The species would thus slowly improve and evolve into a new species, replacing the parent species through competition. Darwin called this selective process for improved characteristics that gradually evolved new species "natural selection." The slow evolution of a widely distributed species population, as opposed to speciation in small isolated population, was known as "Darwinian gradualism". Darwin posited that natural selection acting on unlimited, natural variation could explain the development of complex organisms like man from a 1-celled ancestor.
Neo-Darwinism: This belief represented a melding of Darwinian phyletic, gradual evolution with modern genetics. Darwin believed simply that organisms were plastic and subject to constant change and/or they acquired new variation through the use and disuse of body parts. Neo-Darwinism embraced the idea that the source of variation in the individual organism was due to the random mutation of genes. Neo-Darwinists otherwise embrace the Darwinian, materialist view that all species gradually evolved from a common 1-celled ancestor through natural selection acting on variation.
Occam's razor: The best choice among competing hypotheses is the one that explains a set of observations with the fewest new assumptions. That is, the simplest answer that explains the phenomenon is the best one.
Prokaryote: Cellular organisms, such as bacteria and blue-green algae. The genetic material of these organisms is not encased within a nuclear membrane.
Protein: In order to understand the basic complexities of cells and their constituent parts, you need to have some idea of what a protein is. Protein is a basic nutrient important in the development and maintenance of the human body. You can get the protein your body requires by eating meat, eggs, beans, and dairy products. And, if you are not squeamish, you can get protein from eating crickets and grasshoppers too. Those kinds of proteins are what we are talking about here but I want to emphasize their important functions in living organisms. This will be a simplified presentation for two reasons: 1) the simplified version is all I understand and 2) proteins and their functions are recognized but not fully understood by the experts.
Proteins are what make the cell work. Virtually everything the cell does, various kinds of proteins accomplish. Bruce Alberts, President of the National Academy of Sciences, introduced this issue with an article entitled. "The cell as a collection of Protein Machines" (Behe et al, 2000:66). In his article Alberts stated:
We have always underestimated cells...The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines...Why do we call the large protein assemblies that underlie cell function protein machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts.
If you go inside a factory that makes automobiles, you will find all kinds of tools and parts and numerous machines and robots and computerized systems full of information for ordering the assembly of vehicles. Intelligence is required for building all the tools and machines and for all the electric wiring and energy inputs and for the creating of all the various computer programs that guide the robots and control other machinery. In like fashion, the cell, which is much more complicated in its operations than any automobile factory, uses a wide variety of proteins and combinations thereof to carry out all the functions of the cell, including self-replication.
Just as the particular shape and constituent parts of a hammer or screwdriver or engine block or engine part determines its effective use, each protein has its specific shape and molecular and chemical constituents in order to function individually or in unison with other proteins. DNA provides the specific digital information required for the making of all the proteins the cell requires to function and to replicate.
The DNA code is in the form of four chemical compounds called nucleotide bases; that is, quinine (G), adenine (A), thymine (T), and cytosine (C). The specified sequence of these nucleotide bases on the DNA molecule is what determines ultimately the shape and chemical constituency of a particular protein. The production of a relatively simple protein requires the specific sequencing of about 150 nucleotide bases. Making a more complex protein may require a specified sequence of 250 nucleotide bases. Of interest, there is no explanation for the origin of the specified sequences of nucleotide bases along the spiraling DNA molecule. The chemical properties of the nucleotides nor of corresponding amino acids determine a single genetic code (Meyer 2009:248).
This is how the cell makes a protein from the DNA code. A molecule called the "messenger-RNA" goes over to a section of the DNA and copies the particular sequence of nucleotide bases in the same medium, that of nucleotide bases. The messenger-RNA then travels over to the ribosome and delivers its sequential information there. The ribosome is a molecular machine that translates the sequence of nucleotide bases into 3-letter "codons". "Each codon consists of three bases and directs the cell to attach a specific amino acid to a growing chain of other amino acids" (Meyer 2009:103). Once the DNA code is translated into the specific sequence of amino acids in the ribosome, the specified sequence of amino acids (polypeptide) automatically takes the right functional shape to form the specified protein. This protein then takes its place in the translation, transcription, and replication processes required for the cell to function. Thus, proteins are not just meat that you eat but are the tools and complex molecular machines and housing the cell requires to work.
Punctuated equilibrium: Paleontologists Eldredge and Gould (1972) used "punctuated equilibrium" to describe the recurrent pattern of the rapid appearance of species, stasis of species, and abrupt disappearance of species as revealed in the fossil record. These two authors speculated that species in isolated populations, peripheral to the range of their parent species, developed rapidly and subsequently spread over wide areas once barriers to migration disappeared. See discussion of "allopatric speciation" above.
Phyletic evolution or Darwinian gradualism: This is the cornerstone of Darwin's theory of the gradual evolution of 1-celled organisms into human beings by purely natural or materialistic me
ans. Darwin speculated that within the population of a widely distributed species, small variations that provide an improved chance for survival occur in the individual. The new improvement, be it ever so small, enables the recipient to reproduce successfully more often than other members of the same species in the face of existing or changing environmental conditions.
With the given reproductive advantage, the individual's progeny perpetuate the favorable variation and pass it on to their offspring throughout the population. Over a long period of time, those members of the population that lack the favorable variation reproduce relatively fewer and fewer offspring to carry their inferior characters while those individuals within the population with the favorable variation grow in numbers until eventually they alone comprise the species. Thus, innumerable steps are required for the gradual evolution of a species population into a new variety and eventually into a new species. Darwin called the interactive process of environmental factors acting on heritable variations, whereby a species slowly improves, "natural selection".
Unfortunately for Darwin's theory of gradualism within a population (phyletic evolution of a species population), the fossil record has failed to show the hundreds of thousands of connecting/ intermediate steps between species. Rather, the rocks show that species appeared abruptly, lived without significant morphological changes, and disappeared abruptly.
If Darwin's model of phyletic evolution was correct, a single species would evolve into a new species by replacing the parent species. If a new species can only appear with the extinction of the parent species, what is the mechanism for the phyletic evolution of two or more species from the same parent species? Darwin struggled with this little sticking point.
Saltation: A sudden or abrupt appearance or disappearance of a species.
Tautology/tautological: A fallacy in logic. A restatement of an idea in different words
that may give the false appearance of providing additional information.
Vitalism/vitalistic: The belief that the physical and chemical properties of an organism
cannot explain all of the organism's functions. Many operations vital to the function of species at the cellular/molecular level are self-regulated and dependent upon preprogrammed digital information.
Literature Cited
Associated Press. 2010. Teeth may be oldest evidence of modern man. The Courier-Journal. Tues 28 Dec., Louisville, KY.
Behe, M.J. 1998. Darwin's black box. Simon & Schuster, New York. 307 pp.
Behe, M.J., W.A. Dembski, and S.C. Meyer. 1999. Science and evidence for design in the universe. Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute. Vol 9. Ignatius press, San Francisco. 234 pp.
Behe, M.J., and D.W. Snoke. 2004. Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues. Protein Science. 13:2651-2664.
Behe, M.J. 2007. The edge of evolution: the search for the limits of Darwinism. Free Press. New York. 336 pp.
Bygen, L. O., G. Kaati, and S. Edvinsoon. 2001. Longivity determined by ancestors' overnutrition during their slow growth period. Acta. Bio. Theroret. 49: 53-59.
Cloud, J. 2010. Why genes aren't destiny. Time Magazine. 175:49-53.
Darwin, C. 1859. The origin of species. Signet Classics. September 2003. New American Library, Penquin Group (USA) Inc. New York. 495 pp.
Denton, M. 1986. Evolution: a theory in crisis. Alder & Alder, Bethesda, MD. 368 pp.
Durant, W. 1933. The story of philosophy. Garden City Publishing Co., Inc. Garden City, New York. 592 pp.
Dyke, G. 2010. Winged victory. Scientific American. 303(1): 68-75.
Lein, D., and M. Hawrylycz. 2014. The genetic geography of the brain. Scientific American. 310(4): 70-77.
Eldredge, N., and S.J. Gould. 1972. Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism. In T.J.M. Schopf, ed., Models in Paleobiology. Freeman Cooper. San Francisco: 82-115.
Eliot, C.W., ed. 1909. Plutarch's lives. P.F. Collier & Son Corporation. New York. 389 pp.
Feduccia, A., T. Lingham-Soliar, and J.R. Hinchlifte. 2005. Do feathered dinosaurs exist? Journal of Morphology. 266:125-166.
Fischman, J. 2011. Part ape - part human. National Geographic. 220 (2): 120-133.
Freedman, D. H. 2013. Are engineered foods evil? Scientific American. 309(3): 80-85.
Gingerich, P.D. 1977. Patterns of evolution in the mammalian fossil record. 469-500 in Hallam, A., ed. Patterns of evolution, as illustrated by the fossil record. Elsevier, Amsterdam. 591 pp.
Hall, S.S. 2010. Revolution postponed. Scientific American, 303 (4): 60-67.
Kaati, G., L. O. Bygen, and S. Edvinsson. 2002. Cardiovascular and diabetes mortalitydetermined by nutrition during parents' and grandparents' slow growth period. Eur. J. Genet. 10:682-688.
Lipton, P. 2004. Inference to the best explanation, 2n edition. Routledge. London and New York. 219 pp.
Johnson, P.E. 1991. Darwin on trial. Inter Varsity Press. Downers Grove, IL. 220 pp.
Johnson, T.C., C.A. Scholz, M.R. Talbot, K. Kelts, R.D. Ricketts, G. Ngobi, K. Beuning,
I. Ssemmanda, and J.W. McGill. 1996. Late Pleistocene desiccation of Lake Victoria and rapid evolution of cichlid fishes. Science 273(5278): 1091-1093.
Kuhlmann, K. 2013. What is real? Scientific American. 309(2): 40-47.
Lamb, T.D. 2011. Evolution of the eye. Scientific American. 305(1): 64-69.
Landau, M. 1989. Protein sequences and Denton's error, Creation Evolution Journal 9(2): 1-7.
Marean, C.W. 2010. When the sea saved humanity. Scientific American. 303 (2): 32-41.
Mayr, E. 1997. This is biology - the science of the living world. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 322 pp.
Matheson, R. 1951. Entomology for introductory courses. Cornell University Press. Ithaca, NY. 629 pages.
Meyer, S. C. 2009. Signature in the cell. HarperCollins Publishers. NY. 611 pp.
Meyer, S. C. 2013. Darwin's doubt. HarperCollins Publishers. NY. 498 pp.
Nester, E.J. 2011. Hidden switches in the mind. Scientific American. 305(6):76-83.
Newman, S.A. and R. Bhat. 2009. Dynamical pattering modules: a "pattern language" for development and evolution of multicellular form. Int. Dev. Biol. 53:693-705.
Pembrey, M., L. O. Bygren, and G. P. Kaati. 2005. Sex-specific, sperm-mediated transgenerational responses in humans. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 14:159-166.
Prothero, D.R. and T. H. Heaton. 1996. Faunal stability during the early Oligocene climatic crash. Paleogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 1 (27):257-283.
Schweitzer, M. 2010. Blood from stone. Scientific American, 303(6): 62-69.
Stanley, M. 1998. Macroevolution. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. 332 pp.
Stone, R. 2010. Dinosaurs' living descendants. Smithsonian. 41(8):54-62.
Storer and Usinger. 1957. General zoology. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., NY. 664 pp.
Strobel, L. 2004. The case for a creator. Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI. 340 pp.
Tattersall, I. 2014. If I had a hammer. Scientific American. 306(4): 54-59.
Wells, J. 2000. Icons of evolution. Regnery Publishing, Inc. Washington, DC. 338 pp.
Wood, B. 2014. Welcome to the family. Scientific American. 311(3): 42-47.
Woodward, T. 2006. Darwin strikes back. Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI. 223 pp.
Wong, K. 2012. First of our kind. Scientific American. 306(4): 30-39.
What are the Odds: Memo to an Eleven-Year Old Boy
MEMO
SUBJECT: What are the odds?
TO: RJ
FROM: Bob
DATE: 16 January 2012
You had a question about Eastern religions and their "bible" last Wednesday (4 Jan 2012) in church. I tried to provide you some information on this topic but time was short and I suspect my comments were rushed and did not make a lot of sense. Therefore, I am writing down some information and ideas that compare Christianity with other beliefs. You will see that Christi
anity is reasonable and that the odds of other religious beliefs, including philosophical materialism, being correct are somewhere between slim and zero.
First I will discuss the general reason behind the origin of Eastern religions and then the logical problems with pantheism, a fundamental belief of most Eastern religions.
Following the discussion on pantheism and other tenets of Eastern religions, I will say a few words on how Jews, Christians, Muslims, and deists view God as a person with a mind and will and the power to act. Next will follow a summary of scientific findings that point toward the validity of creation of the universe by willful acts of mind.
By the way, a deist is simply a person who believes nature and reason show that God as a person exists. But deists do not believe God is interested in us enough to communicate with us for any reason. Thus, the deist God got things started and programmed and then he went away and left us to run things as we see fit.
What separates Christianity from Judaism, Islam, and deism is belief in the deity of Jesus Christ and the honor and trust we put in him and his word. We also note that the Jewish Bible, our Old Testament, provides several dozen predictions about the Jewish Messiah. Because Jesus fit all of those predictions, it is highly probable that Jesus is Messiah/God and that Judaism by itself, Islam, and deism are in the low-odds corner of being correct. Only God could predict messianic events that would occur hundreds of years in the future, now 2000 years in the past.
I am not going to say much about humanism in this memo. Humanism is the belief that all that matters in life are human values and accomplishments. Generally, humanists say that God does not exist or it is not possible to know whether he exists or not. A lot of formally educated people in middle class America fall into this category. A lot of them believe that science and the application of human reason can solve all problems. Humanism appeals to those who are educated and comparatively successful and accomplished in human society. Humanism allows them to feel that they are the center of importance.
Purpose of Eastern Religions
Eastern religions include Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, and others. The purpose of these religions is not to search for objective facts or truth. Their purpose is to help people get along together and to help the individual cope with the stress of living and the thought of dying. For example, prior to the birth of Confucius, people died in large numbers (hundreds of thousands) in tribal wars in China. Confucius came up with a lot of sayings that he hoped would help people to live in peace rather than war. His search was not about God's existence or character.
In a similar way, Hinduism and Buddhism are not about the existence of God as a person in and of himself but about learning to live in harmony with one's self, other people, and the earth. While these faiths can offer some interesting ideas and helpful ways of facing evil and pain in life, they are self-focused and not based on a search for reality nor for facts.
Pantheism
The "god" of pantheistic Eastern religions is everything that exists, including all stuff, energy, thoughts, and the laws of nature. Everything is the same stuff. Therefore, the rocks and the person, and the hat the person is wearing are god. "God" is a state of being in the mind. In Hinduism, for example, followers can become identified with Brahman (a god state of being) and thereby become divine while still on the earth. Inside man below the subconscious level is "Being Itself": "I am the Ancient One. I am Man, the Lord. I am the Being-of-Gold. I am the very state of divine beatitude" (Smith 1958:52). This idea harks back to Genesis, first chapter, where Satan told Eve that she and Adam should eat of the forbidden fruit because they would be like God, knowing good and evil for themselves.
In Hinduism all roads lead to god because god is not another person of superior abilities but is a perfected state of the human mind. Thus Hinduism has many idols that represent God. Any idol or thing that helps the individual arrive at the god-like state of being in his or her mind is a right path to follow.
We can see the appeal of pantheism because one gets to be his own god. The other great thing about this belief, is that you don't have to worry about a big God making demands on you about anything. You are your own god and your own compass. And, of course, if you get some leadership role in the religion, you can be important!
An aside issue about pantheism is that there is no real difference between saying that "everything that exists is god" and "everything that exists, exists". There is no real difference between designating everything as a spiritual god and simply saying that everything that is, is really there. In the study of logic, this kind repetitive wording is known as a tautology, or in everyday words, you say the same thing in different words twice or more times without really providing additional information. Salesmen, politicians, and scientists who really have no new information to add, commonly use this re-phrasing technique. If we say that people and dogs and Planck's law and the step ladder and death are all spiritual things, we feel better about them all and achieve a sense of belonging and control because we have knowledge of all things. To my mind, confining "reality" and belief to what makes me feel good is invalid.
Buddhism
Buddha's religion was "without authority, without ritual, without theology, without tradition, without grace, and without the supernatural...a religion without God..." (Smith 1958:108). Buddhism incorporates the idea of reincarnation and escape from desire and the world through enlightening meditation. Buddha had no intention that people should worship him in idol form. He said before he died: "When I am gone, don't bother to pray for me; for when I'm gone, I'll be really gone." But after he died, people made idols of Buddha and today people worship those idols in the Far East, places like China and Japan. The appeal of idols is that they are relatively little gods of man's own making. They are visible, not living materials, and they allow us to largely define what we want to believe and how we want to act. We don't have to wait on the guidance of an invisible Holy Spirit of a powerful God who thinks and wills and acts. We can rely on ceremony and ritual to order life completely.
New Age Beliefs
Over the last 50 years or so New Age beliefs have spread across the United States. Silver City has a lot of "New Agers." There are about as many New Age beliefs as there are New Age believers. For the most part, these people adopt the idea that they and everything else is god (pantheism) and they often think of themselves as Buddhists rather than Hindus because of the Hindu idea that some people are destined to be low class in this life because they did bad things in past lives. Again, New Age religion is all about what the religion does for the individual. Everything that matters is in the mind and heart of the New Age person and the question of whether God exists or not does not matter.