Why Darwinism is False

8/9/2019 Why Darwinism is False

1/40

WHY DARWINISM IS FALSEBy: Jonathan WellsDiscovery InstituteMay 18, 2009

Jerry A. Coyne is a professor in the Department of Ecologyand Evolution at The University of Chicago. In Why Evolution isTrue, he summarizes Darwinismthe modern theory of evolutionas follows: Life on earth evolved gradually beginning with oneprimitive speciesperhaps a self-replicating moleculethat livedmore than 3.5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time,throwing off many new and diverse species; and the mechanism

for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection.

1

Coyne further explains that evolution simply means that a speciesundergoes genetic change over time. That is, over many generations aspecies can evolve into something quite different, and those differencesare based on changes in the DNA, which originate as mutations. Thespecies of animals and plants living today werent around in the past, butare descended from those that lived earlier.2
http://www.discovery.org/p/41http://www.discovery.org/p/41


2/40

According to Coyne, however, if evolution meant only gradualgenetic change within a species, wed have only one species todayasingle highly evolved descendant of the first species. Yet we havemany How does this diversity arise from one ancestral form? It arisesbecause of splitting, or, more accurately, speciation, which simplymeans the evolution of different groups that cant interbreed.3

If Darwinian theory were true, we should be able to find somecases of speciation in the fossil record, with one line of descent dividinginto two or more. And we should be able to find new species forming inthe wild. Furthermore, we should be able to find examples of speciesthat link together major groups suspected to have common ancestry, like

birds with reptiles and fish with amphibians. Finally, there are facts thatmake sense only in light of the theory of evolution but do not makesense in the light of creation or design. These include patterns ofspecies distribution on the earths surface, peculiarities of howorganisms develop from embryos, and the existence of vestigial featuresthat are of no apparent use. Coyne concludes his introduction with thebold statement that all the evidenceboth old and newleadsineluctably to the conclusion that evolution is true.4

Of course, evolution is undeniably true if it means simply thatexisting species can change in minor ways over time, or that manyspecies living today did not exist in the past. But Darwins claim that allspecies are modified descendants of a common ancestor, and Coynesclaim that DNA mutations and natural selection have produced thosemodifications, are not so undeniably true. Coyne devotes the remainderof his book to providing evidence for them.

Fossils

Coyne turns first to the fossil record. We should be able, hewrites, to find some evidence for evolutionary change in the fossilrecord. The deepest (and oldest) layers of rock would contain the fossilsof more primitive species, and some fossils should become morecomplex as the layers of rock become younger, with organismsresembling present-day species found in the most recent layers. And we

should be able to see some species changing over time, forming lineages


3/40


4/40

Darwins time. According to Berkeley paleontologist James Valentineand his colleagues, the explosion is real, it is too big to be masked byflaws in the fossil record. Indeed, as more fossils are discovered itbecomes clear that the Cambrian explosion was even more abrupt andextensive than previously envisioned.7

What does Coynes book have to say about this?

Around 600 million years ago, Coyne writes, a whole gamut ofrelatively simple but multicelled organisms arise, including worms,jellyfish, and sponges. These groups diversify over the next severalmillion years, with terrestrial plants and tetrapods (four-legged animals,

the earliest of which were lobe-finned fish) appearing about 400 millionyears ago.8

In other words, Coynes account of evolutionary history jumpsfrom 600 to 400 million years ago without mentioning the 540 millionyear-old Cambrian explosion. In this respect, Coynes book reads like amodern biology textbook that has been written to indoctrinate studentsin Darwinian evolution rather than provide them with the facts.

Coyne goes on to discuss several transitional forms. One of ourbest examples of an evolutionary transition, he writes, is the fossilrecord of whales, since we have a chronologically ordered series offossils, perhaps a lineage of ancestors and descendants, showing theirmovement from land to water.9

The sequence begins, Coyne writes, with the recentlydiscovered fossil of a close relative of whales, a raccoon-sized animal

called Indohyus. Living 48 million years ago, Indohyus was probablyvery close to what the whale ancestor looked like. In the nextparagraph, Coyne writes, Indohyus was not the ancestor of whales, butwas almost certainly its cousin. But if we go back 4 million more years,to 52 million years ago, we see what might well be that ancestor. It is afossil skull from a wolf-sized creature called Pakicetus, which is bitmore whalelike than Indohyus. On the page separating these twoparagraphs is a figure captioned Transitional forms in the evolution of

modern whales, which shows Indohyus as the first in the series andPakicetus as the second.10


5/40

But Pakicetusas Coyne just told usis 4 million years olderthan Indohyus. To a Darwinist, this doesnt matter: Pakicetus is morewhalelike than Indohyus, so it must fall between Indohyus and modernwhales, regardless of the fossil evidence.

(Coyne performs the same trick with fossils that are supposedlyancestral to modern birds. The textbook icon Archaeopteryx, withfeathered wings like a modern bird but teeth and a tail like a reptile, isdated at 145 million years. But what Coyne calls the nonflyingfeathered dinosaur fossilswhich should have come beforeArchaeopteryxare tens of millions of years younger. Like DarwinistsKevin Padian and Luis Chiappe eleven years earlier, Coyne simply

rearranges the evidence to fit Darwinian theory.)11

So much for Coynes prediction that later species should havetraits that make them look like the descendants of earlier ones. And somuch for his argument that if evolution were not true, fossils would notoccur in an order that makes evolutionary sense. Ignoring the facts hehimself has just presented, Coyne brazenly concludes: When we findtransitional forms, they occur in the fossil record precisely where they

should. If Coynes book were turned into a movie, this scene mightfeature Chico Marx saying, Who are you going to believe, me or yourown eyes?12

There is another problem with the whale series (and every otherseries of fossils) that Coyne fails to address: No species in the seriescould possibly be the ancestor of any other, because all of them possesscharacteristics they would first have to lose before evolving into asubsequent form. This is why the scientific literature typically showseach species branching off a supposed lineage.

In the figure below, all the lines are hypothetical. The diagram onthe left is a representation of evolutionary theory: Species A is ancestralto B, which is ancestral to C, which is ancestral to D, which is ancestralto E. But the diagram on the right is a better representation of theevidence: Species A, B, C and D are not in the actual lineage leading toE, which remains unknown.


6/40

It turns out that no series of fossils can provide evidence forDarwinian descent with modification. Even in the case of living species,buried remains cannot generally be used to establish ancestor-descendant relationships. Imagine finding two human skeletons in thesame grave, one about thirty years older than the other. Was the olderindividual the parent of the younger? Without written genealogicalrecords and identifying marks (or in some cases DNA), it is impossible

to answer the question. And in this case we would be dealing with twoskeletons from the same species that are only a generation apart andfrom the same location. With fossils from different species that are nowextinct, and widely separated in time and space, there is no way toestablish that one is the ancestor of anotherno matter how manytransitional fossils we find.

In 1978, Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural

History wrote: The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expectto empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species,genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a perniciousillusion.13Nature science writer Henry Gee wrote in 1999 that nofossil is buried with its birth certificate. When we call new fossildiscoveries missing links, it is as if the chain of ancestry and descentwere a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is: acompletely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord withhuman prejudices. Gee concluded: To take a line of fossils and claimthat they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be


7/40

tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime storyamusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.14

Embryos

So evolutionary theory needs better evidence than the fossil recordcan provide. Coyne correctly notes: When he wrote The Origin, Darwinconsidered embryology his strongest evidence for evolution. Darwinhad written that the evidence seemed to show that the embryos of themost distinct species belonging to the same class are closely similar, butbecome, when fully developed, widely dissimilar, a pattern thatreveals community of descent. Indeed, Darwin thought that early

embryos show us, more or less completely, the condition of theprogenitor of the whole group in its adult state.15

But Darwin was not an embryologist. In The Origin of Species hesupported his contention by citing a passage by German embryologistKarl Ernst von Baer:

The embryos of mammals, birds, lizards and snakes, and probablychelonia [turtles] are in their earliest states exceedingly like one

another.... In my possession are two little embryos in spirit, whosenames I have omitted to attach, and at present I am quite unable to say towhat class they belong. They may be lizards or small birds, or veryyoung mammals, so complete is the similarity in the mode of formationof the head and trunk in these animals.16

Coyne claims that this is something von Baer wrote to Darwin,but Coynes history is as unreliable as his paleontology. The passage

Darwin cited was from a work written in German by von Baer in 1828;Thomas Henry Huxley translated it into English and published it in1853. Darwin didnt even realize at first that it was from von Baer: Inthe first two editions ofThe Origin of Species he incorrectly attributedthe passage to Louis Agassiz.17

Ironically, von Baer was a strong critic of Darwins theory,rejecting the idea that all vertebrates share a common ancestor.

According to historian of science Timothy Lenoir, von Baer feared thatDarwin and his followers had already accepted the Darwinian


8/40

evolutionary hypothesis as true before they set to the task of observingembryos. The myth that von Baers work supported Darwins theorywas due primarily to another German biologist, Ernst Haeckel.18

Haeckel maintained not only that all vertebrate embryos evolved from acommon ancestor, but also that in their development (ontogeny) theyreplay (recapitulate) their evolutionary history (phylogeny). Hecalled this The Biogenetic Law: Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.

In Why Evolution Is True, Coyne writes that the recapitulationof an evolutionary sequence is seen in the developmental sequence ofvarious organs. Each vertebrate undergoes development in a series ofstages, and the sequence of those stages happens to follow the

evolutionary sequence of its ancestors. The probable reason for this isthat as one species evolves into another, the descendant inherits thedevelopmental program of its ancestor. So the descendant tackschanges onto what is already a robust and basic developmental plan. Itis best for things that evolvedlater to be programmed to develop later inthe embryo. This adding new stuff onto old principle also explains whythe sequence of developmental stages mirrors the evolutionary sequenceof organisms. As one group evolves from another, it often adds its

developmental program on top of the old one. Thus all vertebratesbegin development looking like embryonic fish because we alldescended from a fishlike ancestor.19

Nevertheless, Coyne writes, Haeckels Biogenetic Law wasntstrictly true, because embryonic stages dont look like the adult formsof their ancestors, as Haeckel (and Darwin) believed, but like theembryonic forms of their ancestors. But this reformulation of The

Biogenetic Law doesnt solve the problem. First, fossil embryos areextremely rare,20 so the reformulated law has to rely on embryos ofmodern organisms that are assumed to resemble ancestral forms. Theresult is a circular argument: According to Darwins theory, fish are ourancestors; human embryos (allegedly) look like fish embryos; therefore,human embryos look like the embryos of our ancestors. Theory first,observation laterjust as von Baer had objected.

Second, the idea that later evolutionary stages can simply betacked onto development is biologically unrealistic. A human is not just


9/40

a fish embryo with some added features. As British embryologist WalterGarstang pointed out in 1922, a house is not a cottage with an extrastory on the top. A house represents a higher grade in the evolution of aresidence, but the whole building is alteredfoundations, timbers, androofeven if the bricks are the same.21

Third, and most important, vertebrate embryos are not most similarin their earliest stages. In the 1860s, Haeckel made some drawings toshow that vertebrate embryos look almost identical in their first stagebut his drawings were faked. Not only had he distorted the embryos bymaking them appear more similar than they really are, but he had alsoomitted earlier stages in which the embryos are strikingly different from

each other. A human embryo in its earliest stages looks nothing like afish embryo.

Only after vertebrate embryos have progressed halfway throughtheir development do they reach the stage that Darwin and Haeckeltreated as the first. Developmental biologists call this different-similar-different pattern the developmental hourglass. Vertebrate embryos donot resemble each other in their earliest stages, but they converge

somewhat in appearance midway through development before divergingagain. If ontogeny were a recapitulation of phylogeny, such a patternwould be more consistent with separate origins than with commonancestry. Modern Darwinists attempt to salvage their theory byassuming that the common ancestry of vertebrates is obscured becauseearly development can evolve easily, but there is no justification for thisassumption other than the theory itself.22

Although Haeckels drawings were exposed as fakes by his owncontemporaries, biology textbooks used them throughout the twentiethcentury to convince students that humans share a common ancestor withfish. Then, in 1997, a scientific journal published an article comparingphotos of vertebrate embryos to Haeckels drawings, which the leadauthor described as one of the most famous fakes in biology. In 2000,Harvard evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould called Haeckelsdrawings fraudulent and wrote that biologists should be bothastonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has


10/40

led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not amajority, of modern textbooks.23

But Coyne is not ashamed. He defends Haeckels drawings

Haeckel was accused, largely unjustly, Coyne writes, of fudgingsome drawings of early embryos to make them look more similar thanthey really are. Yet we shouldnt throw out the baby with the bathwater.24 The baby is Darwins theory, which Coyne stubbornlydefends regardless of the evidence.

Vestiges and Bad Design

Darwin argued in The Origin of Species that the widespreadoccurrence of vestigial organsorgans that may have once had afunction but are now uselessis evidence against creation. On the viewof each organism with all its separate parts having been speciallycreated, how utterly inexplicable is it that organs bearing the plain stampof inutility should so frequently occur. But such organs, he argued,are readily explained by his theory: On the view of descent withmodification, we may conclude that the existence of organs in arudimentary, imperfect, and useless condition, or quite aborted, far frompresenting a strange difficulty, as they assuredly do on the old doctrineof creation, might even have been anticipated in accordance with theviews here explained.25

In The Descent of Man, Darwin cited the human appendix as anexample of a vestigial organ. But Darwin was mistaken: The appendix isnow known to be an important source of antibody-producing blood cellsand thus an integral part of the human immune system. It may also serve

as a compartment for beneficial bacteria that are needed for normaldigestion. So the appendix is not useless at all.26

In 1981, Canadian biologist Steven Scadding argued that althoughhe had no objection to Darwinism, vestigial organs provide no evidencefor evolutionary theory. The primarily reason is that it is difficult, ifnot impossible, to unambiguously identify organs totally lacking infunction. Scadding cited the human appendix as an organ previously

thought to be vestigial but now known to have a function. AnotherCanadian biologist, Bruce Naylor, countered that an organ with some


11/40

function can still be considered vestigial. Furthermore, Naylor argued,perfectly designed organisms necessitated the existence of a creator,but organisms are often something less than perfectly designed andthus better explained by evolution. Scadding replied: The entireargument of Darwin and others regarding vestigial organs hinges ontheir uselessness and inutility. Otherwise, the argument fromvestigiality is nothing more than an argument from homology, andDarwin treated these arguments separately recognizing that they werein fact independent. Scadding also objected that Naylors less thanperfectly designed argument was based on a theological assumptionabout the nature of God, i.e. that he would not create useless structures.Whatever the validity of this theological claim, it certainly cannot bedefended as a scientific statement, and thus should be given no place in ascientific discussion of evolution.27

In Why Evolution Is True, Coyne (like Darwin) cites the humanappendix as an example of a vestigial organ. Unlike Darwin, however,Coyne concedes that it may be of some small use. The appendixcontains patches of tissue that may function as part of the immunesystem. It has also been suggested that it provides a refuge for useful gut

bacteria. But these minor benefits are surely outweighed by the severeproblems that come with the human appendix. In any case, Coyneargues, the appendix is still vestigial, for it no longer performs thefunction for which it evolved.28

As Scadding had pointed out nearly thirty years ago, however,Darwins argument rested on lack of function, not change of function.Furthermore, if vestigiality were redefined as Coyne proposes, it would

include many features never before thought to be vestigial. For example,if the human arm evolved from the leg of a four-footed mammal (asDarwinists claim), then the human arm is vestigial. And if (as Coyneargues) the wings of flying birds evolved from feathered forelimbs ofdinosaurs that used them for other purposes, then the wings of flyingbirds are vestigial. This is the opposite of what most people mean byvestigial.29

Coyne also ignores Scaddings other criticism, arguing thatwhether the human appendix is useless or not, it is an example of


12/40

imperfect or bad design. What I mean by bad design, Coyne writes,is the notion that if organisms were built from scratch by a designerone who used the biological building blocks or nerves, muscles, bone,and so onthey would not have such imperfections. Perfect designwould truly be the sign of a skilled and intelligent designer. Imperfectdesign is the mark of evolution; in fact, its precisely what we expectfrom evolution.30

An even better example of bad design, Coyne argues, is theprevalence of dead genes. According to the modern version ofDarwinism that Coyne defends, DNA carries a genetic program thatencodes proteins that direct embryo development; mutations

occasionally alter the genetic program to produce new proteins (orchange their locations); and natural selection then sorts those mutationsto produce evolution. In the 1970s, however, molecular biologistsdiscovered that most of our DNA does not encode proteins. In 1972Susumu Ohno called this junk, and in 1976 Richard Dawkins wrote:A large fraction of the DNA is never translated into protein. From thepoint of view of the individual organism this seems paradoxical. If thepurpose of DNA is to supervise the building of bodies, it is surprising

to find a large quantity of DNA which does no such thing. From thepoint of view of Darwinian evolution, however, there is no paradox.The true purpose of DNA is to survive, no more and no less. Thesimplest way to explain the surplus DNA is to suppose that it is aparasite, or at best a harmless but useless passenger, hitching a ride inthe survival machines created by the other DNA.31

Like Dawkins, Coyne regards much of our DNA as parasitic. He

writes in Why Evolution Is True: When a trait is no longer used, orbecomes reduced, the genes that make it don't instantly disappear fromthe genome: evolution stops their action by inactivating them, notsnipping them out of the DNA. From this we can make a prediction. Weexpect to find, in the genomes of many species, silenced, or dead,genes: genes that once were useful but are no longer intact or expressed.In other words, there should be vestigial genes. In contrast, the idea thatall species were created from scratch predicts that no such genes would

exist. Coyne continues: Thirty years ago we couldn't test thisprediction because we had no way to read the DNA code. Now,


13/40

however, its quite easy to sequence the complete genome of species,and its been done for many of them, including humans. This gives us aunique tool to study evolution when we realize that the normal functionof a gene is to make a proteina protein whose sequence of amino acidsis determined by the sequence of nucleotide bases that make up theDNA. And once we have the DNA sequence of a given gene, we canusually tell if it is expressed normallythat is, whether it makes afunctional proteinor whether it is silenced and makes nothing. We cansee, for example, whether mutations have changed the gene so that ausable protein can no longer be made, or whether the control regionsresponsible for turning on a gene have been inactivated. A gene thatdoesnt function is called a pseudogene. And the evolutionary predictionthat well find pseudogenes has been fulfilledamply. Virtually everyspecies harbors dead genes, many of them still active in its relatives.This implies that those genes were also active in a common ancestor,and were killed off in some descendants but not in others. Out of aboutthirty thousand genes, for example, we humans carry more than twothousand pseudogenes. Our genomeand that of other speciesaretruly well populated graveyards of dead genes.32

But Coyne is dead wrong.

Evidence pouring in from genome-sequencing projects shows thatvirtually all of an organisms DNA is transcribed into RNA, and thateven though most of that RNA is not translated into proteins, it performsessential regulatory functions. Every month, science journals publisharticles describing more such functions. And this is not late-breakingnews: The evidence has been accumulating since 2003 (when scientists

finished sequencing the human genome) that pseudogenes and otherso-called junk DNA sequences are not useless after all.33 WhyEvolution Is True ignores this enormous body of evidence, whichdecisively refutes Coynes Darwinian prediction that our genome shouldcontain lots of dead DNA. Its no wonder that Coyne falls back againand again on the sort of theological arguments that Scadding wroteshould be given no place in a scientific discussion of evolution.

Biogeography


14/40

Theological arguments are also prominent in The Origin ofSpecies. For example, Darwin argued that the geographic distribution ofliving things made no sense if species had been separately created, but itdid make sense in the context of his theory. Cases such as the presenceof peculiar species of bats on oceanic islands and the absence of all otherterrestrial mammals, Darwin wrote, are facts utterly inexplicable onthe theory of independent acts of creation. In particular: Why, it maybe asked, has the supposed creative force produced bats and no othermammals on remote islands? According to Darwin, on my view thisquestion can easily be answered; for no terrestrial mammal can betransported across a wide space of sea, but bats can fly across.34

But Darwin knew that migration cannot account for all patterns ofgeographic distribution. He wrote in The Origin of Species that theidentity of many plants and animals, on mountain-summits, separatedfrom each other by hundreds of miles of lowlands, where Alpine speciescould not possibly exist, is one of the most striking cases known of thesame species living at distant points without the apparent possibility oftheir having migrated from one point to the other. Darwin argued thatthe recent ice age affords a simple explanation of these facts. Arctic

plants and animals that were nearly the same could have flourishedeverywhere in Europe and North America, but when the warmth hadfully returned, the same species, which had lately lived together on theEuropean and North American lowlands, would again be found in thearctic regions of the Old and New Worlds, and on many isolatedmountain-summits far distant from each other.35

So some cases of geographic distribution may not be due to

migration, but to the splitting of a formerly large, widespread populationinto small, isolated populationswhat modern biologists callvicariance. Darwin argued that allmodern distributions of speciescould be explained by these two possibilities. Yet there are many casesof geographic distribution that neither migration nor vicariance seemable to explain.

One example is the worldwide distribution of flightless birds, orratites. These include ostriches in Africa, rheas in South America,emus and cassowaries in Australia, and kiwis in New Zealand. Since the


15/40

birds are flightless, explanations based on migration over vast oceanicdistances are implausible. After continental drift was discovered in thetwentieth century, it was thought that the various populations might haveseparated with the landmasses. But ostriches and kiwis are much toorecent; the continents had already drifted apart when these speciesoriginated. So neither migration nor vicariance explain ratitebiogeography.36

Another example is freshwater crabs. Studied intensively by Italianbiologist Giuseppe Colosi in the 1920s, these animals complete their lifecycles exclusively in freshwater habitats and are incapable of survivingprolonged exposure to salt water. Today, very similar species are found

in widely separated lakes and rivers in Central and South America,Africa, Madagascar, southern Europe, India, Asia and Australia. Fossiland molecular evidence indicates that these animals originated long afterthe continents separated, so their distribution is inconsistent with thevicariance hypothesis. Some biologists speculate that the crabs may havemigrated by transoceanic rafting in hollow logs, but this seemsunlikely given their inability to tolerate salt water. So neither vicariancenor migration provides a convincing explanation for the biogeography of

these animals.37

An alternative explanation was suggested in the mid-twentiethcentury by Lon Croizat, a French biologist raised in Italy. Croizat foundthat Darwins theory did not seem to agree at all with certain importantfacts of nature, especially the facts of biogeography. Indeed, heconcluded, Darwinism is by now only a straitjacket a thoroughlydecrepit skin to hold new wine. Croizat did not argue for independent

acts of creation; instead, he proposed that in many cases a widespreadprimitive species was split into fragments, then its remnants evolved inparallel, in separate locations, into new species that were remarkablysimilar. Croizat called this process of parallel evolution orthogenesis.Neo-Darwinists such as Ernst Mayr, however, pointed out that there isno mechanism for orthogenesis, which impliescontrary to Darwinismthat evolution is guided in certain directions; so they rejectedCroizats hypothesis.38


16/40

In Why Evolution Is True, Coyne (like Darwin) attributes thebiogeography of oceanic islands to migration, and certain otherdistributions to vicariance. But Coyne (unlike Darwin) acknowledgesthat these two processes cannot explain everything. For example, theinternal anatomy of marsupial mammals is so different from the internalanatomy of placental mammals that the two groups are thought to havesplit a long time ago. Yet there are marsupial flying squirrels, anteatersand moles in Australia that strikingly resemble placental flying squirrels,anteaters and moles on other continents, and these forms originated longafter the continents had separated.

Coyne attributes the similarities to a well-known process called

convergent evolution. According to Coyne. Its really quite simple.Species that live in similar habitats will experience similar selectionpressures from their environment, so they may evolve similaradaptations, or converge, coming to look and behave very much alikeeven though they are unrelated. Put together common ancestry, naturalselection, and the origin of species (speciation), add in the fact thatdistant areas of the world can have similar habitats, and you getconvergent evolutionand a simple explanation of a major geographic

pattern.39

This is not the same as Croizats orthogenesis, according towhich populations of a single species, after becoming separated fromeach other, evolve in parallel due to some internal directive force.According to Coynes convergent evolution, organisms that arefundamentally different from each other evolve through natural selectionto become superficially similar because they inhabit similar

environments. The mechanism for orthogenesis is internal, whereas themechanism for convergence is external. In both cases, however,mechanism is crucial: Without it, orthogenesis and convergence aresimply words describing biogeographical patterns, not explanations ofhow those patterns originated.

So the same question can be asked of convergence that was askedof orthogenesis: What is the evidence for the proposed mechanism?According to Coyne, the mechanism of convergence involves naturalselection and speciation.


17/40


18/40

In 2004, Coyne and H. Allen Orr published a detailed book titledSpeciation, in which they noted that biologists have not been able toagree on a definition of species because no single definition fits everycase. For example, a definition applicable to living, sexually reproducingorganisms might make no sense when applied to fossils or bacteria. Infact, there are more than 25 definitions of species. What definition isbest? Coyne and Orr argued that, when deciding on a species concept,one should first identify the nature of one's species problem, and thenchoose the concept best at solving that problem. Like most otherDarwinists, Coyne and Orr favor Ernst Mayr's biological speciesconcept (BSC), according to which species are groups of interbreedingnatural populations that are reproductively isolated from other suchgroups. In Why Evolution Is True, Coyne explains that the biologicalspecies concept is the one that evolutionists prefer when studyingspeciation, because it gets you to the heart of the evolutionary question.Under the BSC, if you can explain how reproductive barriers evolve,youve explained the origin of species.42

Theoretically, reproductive barriers arise when geographicallyseparated populations diverge genetically. But Coyne describes five

cases of real-time speciation that involve a different mechanism:chromosome doubling, or polyploidy.43 This usually followshybridization between two existing plant species. Most hybrids aresterile because their mismatched chromosomes cant separate properlyto produce fertile pollen and ovaries; occasionally, however, thechromosomes in a hybrid spontaneously double, producing two perfectlymatched sets and making reproduction possible. The result is a fertileplant that is reproductively isolated from the two parentsa new

species, according to the BSC.But speciation by polyploidy (secondary speciation) has been

observed only in plants. It does not provide evidence for Darwinstheory that species originate through natural selection, nor for the neo-Darwinian theory of speciation by geographic separation and geneticdivergence. Indeed, according to evolutionary biologist Douglas J.Futuyma, polyploidy does not confer major new morphological

characteristics [and] does not cause the evolution of new genera orhigher levels in the biological hierarchy.44


19/40

So secondary speciation does not solve Darwins problem. Onlyprimary speciationthe splitting of one species into two by naturalselectionwould be capable of producing the branching-tree pattern ofDarwinian evolution. But no one has ever observed primary speciation.Evolutions smoking gun has never been found.45

Or has it?

In Why Evolution Is True, Coyne claims that primary speciationwas observed in an experiment reported in 1998. Curiously, Coyne didnot mention it in the 2004 book he co-authored with Orr, but his 2009account of it is worth quoting in full:

We can even see the origin of a new, ecologically diversebacterial species, all within a single laboratory flask. Paul Rainey and hiscolleagues at Oxford University placed a strain of the bacteriaPseudomonas fluorescens in a small vessel containing nutrient broth,and simply watched it. (Its surprising but true that such a vessel actuallycontains diverse environments. Oxygen concentration, for example, ishighest on the top and lowest on the bottom.) Within ten daysno morethan a few hundred generationsthe ancestral free-floating smoothbacterium had evolved into two additional forms occupying differentparts of the beaker. One, called wrinkly spreader, formed a mat on topof the broth. The other, called fuzzy spreader, formed a carpet on thebottom. The smooth ancestral type persisted in the liquid environment inthe middle. Each of the two new forms was genetically different fromthe ancestor, having evolved through mutation and natural selection toreproduce best in their respective environments. Here, then, is not onlyevolution but speciation occurring in the lab: the ancestral formproduced, and coexisted with, two ecologically different descendants,and in bacteria such forms are considered distinct species. Over a veryshort time, natural selection inPseudomonas yielded a small-scaleadaptive radiation, the equivalent of how animals or plants formspecies when they encounter new environments on an oceanic island.46

But Coyne omits the fact that when the ecologically differentforms were placed back into the same environment, they suffered a

rapid loss of diversity, according to Rainey. In bacteria, an ecologically


20/40

distinct population (called an ecotype) may constitute a separatespecies, but only if the distinction is permanent. As evolutionarymicrobiologist Frederick Cohan wrote in 2002, species in bacteria areecologically distinct from one another; and they are irreversiblyseparate.47 The rapid reversal of ecological distinctions when thebacterial populations in Raineys experiment were put back into thesame environment refutes Coynes claim that the experimentdemonstrated the origin of a new species.

Exaggerating the evidence to prop up Darwinism is not new. In theGalpagos finches, average beak depth reverted to normal after thedrought ended. There was no net evolution, much less speciation. Yet

Coyne writes in Why Evolution Is True that everything we require ofevolution by natural selection was amply documented by the finchstudies. Since scientific theories stand or fall on the evidence, Coynestendency to exaggerate the evidence does not speak well for the theoryhe is defending. When a 1999 booklet published by The U. S. NationalAcademy of Sciences called the change in finch beaks a particularlycompelling example of speciation, Berkeley law professor and Darwincritic Phillip E. Johnson wrote in The Wall Street Journal: When our

leading scientists have to resort to the sort of distortion that would land astock promoter in jail, you know they are in trouble.48

So there are observed instances of secondary speciationwhich isnot what Darwinism needsbut no observed instances of primaryspeciation, not even in bacteria. British bacteriologist Alan H. Lintonlooked for confirmed reports of primary speciation and concluded in2001: None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been

shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independentlife, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of twenty tothirty minutes, and populations achieved after eighteen hours. Butthroughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidencethat one species of bacteria has changed into another.49

Conclusions

Darwin called The Origin of Species one long argument for his

theory, but Jerry Coyne has given us one long bluff. Why Evolution Is


21/40

True tries to defend Darwinian evolution by rearranging the fossilrecord; by misrepresenting the development of vertebrate embryos; byignoring evidence for the functionality of allegedly vestigial organs andnon-coding DNA, then propping up Darwinism with theologicalarguments about bad design; by attributing some biogeographicalpatterns to convergence due to the supposedly well-known processesof natural selection and speciation; and then exaggerating the evidencefor selection and speciation to make it seem as though they couldaccomplish what Darwinism requires of them.

The actual evidence shows that major features of the fossil recordare an embarrassment to Darwinian evolution; that early development in

vertebrate embryos is more consistent with separate origins than withcommon ancestry; that non-coding DNA is fully functional, contrary toneo-Darwinian predictions; and that natural selection can accomplishnothing more than artificial selectionwhich is to say, minor changeswithin existing species.

Faced with such evidence, any other scientific theory wouldprobably have been abandoned long ago. Judged by the normal criteria

of empirical science, Darwinism is false. Its persists in spite of theevidence, and the eagerness of Darwin and his followers to defend itwith theological arguments about creation and design suggests that itspersistence has nothing to do with science at all.50

Nevertheless, biology students might find Coynes book useful.Given accurate information and the freedom to exercise critical thinking,students could learn from Why Evolution Is True how Darwinistsmanipulate the evidence and mix it with theology to recycle a falsetheory that should have been discarded long ago.


22/40

Notes1 Jerry A. Coyne, Why Evolution Is True (New York: Viking, 2009), p.3.2 Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, pp. 3-4.3 Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, pp. 5-6.4 Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, pp. 18-19.5 Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, pp. 17-18, 25.

6 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, Sixth Edition (London: JohnMurray, 1872), Chapter X, pp. 266, 285-288. Available online (2009)here.7 J. William Schopf, The early evolution of life: solution to Darwinsdilemma, Trends in Ecology and Evolution 9 (1994): 375-377.James W. Valentine, Stanley M. Awramik, Philip W. Signor & M.Sadler, The Biological Explosion at the Precambrian-CambrianBoundary, Evolutionary Biology 25 (1991): 279-356.James W. Valentine & Douglas H. Erwin, Interpreting GreatDevelopmental Experiments: The Fossil Record, pp. 71-107 in RudolfA. Raff & Elizabeth C. Raff, (editors), Development as an EvolutionaryProcess (New York: Alan R. Liss, 1987).Jeffrey S. Levinton, The Big Bang of Animal Evolution, ScientificAmerican 267 (November, 1992): 84-91.The Scientific Controversy Over the Cambrian Explosion, DiscoveryInstitute. Available online (2009) here.Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution (Washington, DC: RegneryPublishing, 2002), Chapter 3. More information available online (2009)here.Stephen C. Meyer, The Cambrian Explosion: Biologys Big Bang, pp.323-402 in John Angus Campbell & Stephen C. Meyer (editors),Darwinism, Design, and Public Education (East Lansing, MI: MichiganState University Press, 2003). More information available online (2009)here.8 Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, p. 28.
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=side&itemID=F391&pageseq=313http://www.evolution-facts.org/New-material/Cambrian%20Explosion.pdfhttp://www.iconsofevolution.com/http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3545http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=side&itemID=F391&pageseq=313http://www.evolution-facts.org/New-material/Cambrian%20Explosion.pdfhttp://www.iconsofevolution.com/http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3545


23/40

9 Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, p. 48.10 Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, pp. 49-51.11 Kevin Padian & Luis M. Chiappe, The origin and early evolution ofbirds, Biological Reviews 73 (1998): 1-42. Available online (2009)here.Wells, Icons of Evolution, pp. 119-122.12 Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, pp. 25, 53.Chico Marx in Duck Soup (Paramount Pictures, 1933). This and otherMarx Brothers quotations are available online (2009) here.13 Gareth Nelson, Presentation to the American Museum of NaturalHistory (1969), in David M. Williams & Malte C. Ebach, The reformof palaeontology and the rise of biogeography25 years after'ontogeny, phylogeny, palaeontology and the biogenetic law' (Nelson,1978), Journal of Biogeography 31 (2004): 685-712.14 Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time. New York: Free Press, 1999,pp. 5, 32, 113-117.Jonathan Wells, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism andIntelligent Design (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2006). Moreinformation available online (2009) here.

15 Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, p. 79.Darwin, The Origin of Species, Chapter XIV, pp. 386-396. Availableonline (2009) here.16 Darwin, The Origin of Species, Chapter XIV, pp. 387-388. Availableonline (2009) here.17 Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, p. 73.Karl Ernst von Baer, On the Development of Animals, withObservations and Reflections: The Fifth Scholium, translated by

Thomas Henry Huxley, pp. 186-237 in Arthur Henfrey & Thomas H.Huxley (editors), Scientific Memoirs: Selected from the Transactions ofForeign Academies of Science and from Foreign Journals: NaturalHistory (London, 1853; reprinted 1966 by Johnson Reprint Corporation,New York). The passage quoted by Darwin is on p. 210.Jane M. Oppenheimer, An Embryological Enigma in the Origin ofSpecies, pp. 221-255 in Jane M. Oppenheimer, Essays in the History ofEmbryology and Biology (Cambridge, MA: The M.I.T. Press, 1967).

18 Timothy Lenoir, The Strategy of Life (Chicago: The University ofChicago Press, 1982), p. 258.
http://dinosaurs.nhm.org/staff/chiappeworks.htmhttp://www.marx-brothers.org/info/quotes.htmhttp://www.darwinismandid.com/http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=side&itemID=F391&pageseq=414http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=side&itemID=F391&pageseq=415http://dinosaurs.nhm.org/staff/chiappeworks.htmhttp://www.marx-brothers.org/info/quotes.htmhttp://www.darwinismandid.com/http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=side&itemID=F391&pageseq=414http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=side&itemID=F391&pageseq=415


24/40

Frederick B. Churchill, The Rise of Classical DescriptiveEmbryology, pp. 1-29 in Scott F. Gilbert (editor), A ConceptualHistory of Modern Embryology (Baltimore, MD: The Johns HopkinsUniversity Press, 1991), pp. 19-20.19 Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, pp. 77-79.20 Simon Conway Morris, Fossil Embryos, pp. 703-711 in Claudio D.Stern (editor), Gastrulation: From Cells to Embryos (Cold SpringHarbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 2004).21 Walter Garstang, The theory of recapitulation: a critical restatementof the biogenetic law, Journal of the Linnean Society (Zoology), 35(1922): 81-101.22 See Chapter Five and accompanying references in Wells, Icons ofEvolution.See Chapter Three and accompanying references in Wells, ThePolitically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design.23 Michael K. Richardson, J. Hanken, M. L. Gooneratne, C. Pieau, A.Raynaud, L. Selwood & G. M. Wright, There is no highly conservedembryonic stage in the vertebrates: implications for current theories ofevolution and development, Anatomy & Embryology 196 (1997): 91-106.

Michael K. Richardson, quoted in Elizabeth Pennisi, HaeckelsEmbryos: Fraud Rediscovered, Science 277 (1997): 1435.Stephen Jay Gould, Abscheulich! Atrocious! Natural History (March,2000), pp. 42-49.Hoax of Dodos (2007). Available online (2009) here.24 Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, p. 78.Notes25 Darwin, The Origin of Species, Chapters XIV (p. 402) and XV (p.420). Available online (2009) here.

26 Darwin, Charles. The Descent of Man, First Edition (London: JohnMurray, 1871), Chapter I (p. 27). Available online (2009) here.Kohtaro Fujihashi, J.R. McGhee, C. Lue, K.W. Beagley, T. Taga, T.Hirano, T. Kishimoto, J. Mestecky & H. Kiyono, Human Appendix BCells Naturally Express Receptors for and Respond to Interleukin 6 withSelective IgA1 and IgA2 Synthesis, Journal of Clinical Investigations88 (1991): 248-252. Available online (2009) here.J.A. Laissue, B.B. Chappuis, C. Mller, J.C. Reubi & J.O. Gebbers,

The intestinal immune system and its relation to disease, Digestive
http://www.hoaxofdodos.com/http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=side&itemID=F391&pageseq=430http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=side&itemID=F937.1&pageseq=40http://www.jci.org/articles/view/115284http://www.hoaxofdodos.com/http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=side&itemID=F391&pageseq=430http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=side&itemID=F937.1&pageseq=40http://www.jci.org/articles/view/115284


25/40

Diseases (Basel) 11 (1993): 298-312. Abstract available online (2009)here.Loren G. Martin, What is the function of the human appendix?Scientific American (October 21, 1999), Available online (2009) here.R. Randal Bollinger, Andrew S. Barbas, Errol L. Bush, Shu S. Lin &William Parker, Biofilms in the large bowel suggest an apparentfunction of the human vermiform appendix, Journal of TheoreticalBiology 249 (2007): 826-831. Available online (2009) here.Duke University Medical Center, Appendix Isn't Useless At All: It's ASafe House For Good Bacteria, ScienceDaily (October 8, 2007).Available online (2009) here.27 Steven R. Scadding, Do vestigial organs provide evidence forevolution? Evolutionary Theory 5 (1981): 173-176.Bruce G. Naylor, Vestigial organs are evidence of evolution,Evolutionary Theory 6 (1982): 91-96.Steven R. Scadding, Vestigial organs do not provide scientific evidencefor evolution, Evolutionary Theory 6 (1982): 171-173.28 Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, pp. 61-62.29 Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, p. 46.30 Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, pp. 81.

31 Susumu Ohno, So much junk DNA in our genome, BrookhavenSymposia in Biology 23 (1972): 366-70.Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (New York: Oxford UniversityPress, 1976), p. 47.32 Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, pp. 66-67.33 A few of the many scientific articles published since 2003 thatdocument the function of so-called junk DNA are:E.S Balakirev & F.J. Ayala, Pseudogenes: are they junk or functional

DNA? Annual Review of Genetics 37 (2003): 123-151.A. Httenhofer, P. Schattner & N. Polacek, Non-coding RNAs: hope orhype? Trends in Genetics 21 (2005): 289-297.J.S. Mattick & I.V. Makunin, Non-coding RNA, Human MolecularGenetics 15 (2006): R17-R29.R.K. Slotkin & R. Martienssen, Transposable elements and theepigenetic regulation of the genome, Nature Reviews Genetics 8(2007): 272-285.

P. Carninci, J. Yasuda & Y Hayashizaki, Multifaceted mammalian
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8222310?ordinalpos=105&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSumhttp://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-function-of-thttp://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-function-of-thttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071008102334.htmhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8222310?ordinalpos=105&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSumhttp://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-function-of-thttp://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-function-of-thttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071008102334.htm


26/40

transcriptome, Current Opinion in Cell Biology 20 (2008): 274-80.C.D. Malone & G.J. Hannon, Small RNAs as Guardians of theGenome, Cell 136 (2009): 656668.C.P. Ponting, P.L. Oliver & W. Reik, Evolution and Functions of LongNoncoding RNAs, Cell 136 (2009): 629641.

34 Darwin, The Origin of Species, Chapters XIII (pp. 347-352)and XV (p. 419). Available online (2009) here.35 Darwin, The Origin of Species, Chapters XII (pp. 330-332).Available online (2009) here.36 Alan Cooper, et al., C. Mourer-Chauvir, C.K. Chambers, A. vonHaeseler, A.C. Wilson & S. Paabo, Independent origins of New

Zealand moas and kiwis, Proceedings of the National Academy ofSciences USA 89 (1992): 8741-8744. Available online (2008) here.Oliver Haddrath & Allan J. Baker, Complete mitochondrial DNAgenome sequences of extinct birds: ratite phylogenetics and thevicariance biogeography hypothesis, Proceedings of the Royal Societyof London B 268 (2001): 939-945.John Harshman, E.L. Braun, M.J. Braun, C.J. Huddleston, R.C.K.Bowie,

J.L. Chojnowski, S.J. Hackett, K.-L. Han, R.T. Kimball, B.D. Marks,K.J. Miglia,W.S. Moore, S. Reddy, F.H. Sheldon, D.W. Steadman, S.J. Steppan,C.C. Witt & T. Yuri, Phylogenomic evidence for multiple losses offlight in ratite birds, Proceedings of the National Academy of SciencesUSA 105 (2008): 13462-13467. Abstract available online (2008) here.Giuseppe Sermonti, L'evoluzione in Italia - La via torinese / HowEvolution Came to Italy - The Turin Connection, Rivista di

Biologia/Biology Forum 94 (2001): 5-12. Available online (2008) here.37 Giuseppe Colosi, La distribuzione geografica dei Potamonidae,Rivista di Biologia 3 (1921): 294-301. Available online (2009) here.Savel R. Daniels, N. Cumberlidge, M. Prez-Losada, S.A.E. Marijnissen&K.A. Crandall, Evolution of Afrotropical freshwater crab lineagesobscured by morphological convergence, Molecular Phylogenetics andEvolution 40 (2006): 227235. Available online (2009) here.

R. von Sternberg, N. Cumberlidge & G. Rodriguez. On the marinesister groups of the freshwater crabs (Crustacea: Decapoda: Brachyura),
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=side&itemID=F391&pageseq=375http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=side&itemID=F391&pageseq=358http://www.pnas.org/content/89/18/8741.full.pdf+htmlhttp://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13462.abstracthttp://www.tilgher.it/chrCorrelati/upload/doc/RB011Edit_ing.pdfhttp://www.tilgher.it/chrCorrelati/upload/doc/riv_t4a4f12o793.pdfhttp://mlbean.byu.edu/home/Research_and_Collections/Crandall4.pdfhttp://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=side&itemID=F391&pageseq=375http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=side&itemID=F391&pageseq=358http://www.pnas.org/content/89/18/8741.full.pdf+htmlhttp://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13462.abstracthttp://www.tilgher.it/chrCorrelati/upload/doc/RB011Edit_ing.pdfhttp://www.tilgher.it/chrCorrelati/upload/doc/riv_t4a4f12o793.pdfhttp://mlbean.byu.edu/home/Research_and_Collections/Crandall4.pdf


27/40

Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research 37 (1999):1938.Darren C.J. Yeo, et al., Global diversity of crabs (Crustacea: Decapoda:Brachyura) in freshwater, Hydrobiologia 595 (2008): 275-286.38 Lon Croizat, Space, Time, Form: The Biological Synthesis.Published by the author (Deventer, Netherlands: N. V. DrukkerijSalland, 1962), p. iii.Robin C. Craw, Lon Croizat's Biogeographic Work: A PersonalAppreciation, Tuatara 27:1 (August 1984): 8-13. Available online(2009) here.John R. Grehan, Evolution By Law: Croizat's Orthogeny andDarwin's Laws of Growth, Tuatara 27:1 (August 1984): 14-19.Available online (2009) here.Carmen Colacino, Lon Croizats Biogeography and Macroevolution,or Out of Nothing, Nothing Comes, The Philippine Scientist 34(1997): 73-88.Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought (Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press, 1982), pp. 529-530.39 Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, pp. 92-94.

40 Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, p. 116.Darwin, The Origin of Species, Chapter IV (p. 70). Available online(2009) here.H. B. D. Kettlewell, Darwins Missing Evidence, Scientific American200 (March, 1959): 48-53.

41 Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought (Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press, 1982), p. 403.

Ernst Mayr, Populations, Species and Evolution (Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press, 1963), p. 10.Keith Stewart Thomson, Natural Selection and Evolution's SmokingGun, American Scientist 85 (1997): 516-518.

42 Jerry A. Coyne & H. Allen Orr, Speciation (Sunderland, MA:Sinauer Associates, 2004), p. 25-39.Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, p. 174.

43 Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, p. 188.
http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-Bio27Tuat01-t1-body-d2.htmlhttp://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-Bio27Tuat01-t1-body-d3.htmlhttp://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=side&itemID=F391&pageseq=97http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-Bio27Tuat01-t1-body-d2.htmlhttp://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-Bio27Tuat01-t1-body-d3.htmlhttp://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=side&itemID=F391&pageseq=97


28/40

44 Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolution (Sunderland, MA: SinauerAssociates, 2005), p. 398.

45 Wells, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and

Intelligent Design, Chapter Five (The Ultimate Missing Link), pp. 49-59.

46 Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, pp. 129-130.

47 Paul B. Rainey & Michael Travisano. Adaptive radiation in aheterogeneous environment, Nature 394 (1998): 69-72.Frederick M. Cohan, What Are Bacterial Species? Annual Review of

Microbiology 56 (2002): 457-482. Available online (2009) here.48 Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, p. 134.

National Academy of Sciences, Science and Creationism: A View fromthe National Academy of Sciences, Second edition (Washington, DC:National Academy of Sciences Press, 1999), Chapter on EvidenceSupporting Biological Evolution, p. 10. Available online (2009) here.Phillip E. Johnson, The Church of Darwin, The Wall Street Journal(August 16, 1999): A14. Available online (2009) here.

49 Alan H. Linton, Scant Search for the Maker, The TimesHigher Education Supplement (April 20, 2001), Book Section, p. 29.

Frederick M. Cohan, What Are Bacterial Species? AnnualReview of Microbiology 56 (2002): 457-482. Available online (2009)here.

50 Paul A. Nelson, The role of theology in current evolutionaryreasoning, Biology and Philosophy 11 (October 1996): 493 - 517.Abstract available online (2009) here.Jonathan Wells, Darwins Straw God Argument, Discovery Institute(December 2008). Available online (2009) here. Jonathan Wells,Darwins Straw God Argument, Discovery Institute (December 2008).Available online (2009) here.
http://www.wesleyan.edu/bio/cohan/cohan/cohan-annual_review.pdfhttp://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=10http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/chofdarwin.htmhttp://www.wesleyan.edu/bio/cohan/cohan/cohan-annual_review.pdfhttp://opt/scribd/conversion/tmp/scratch2416/%20http://www.springerlink.com/content/n3n5415037038134/http://www.discovery.org/a/8101http://www.wesleyan.edu/bio/cohan/cohan/cohan-annual_review.pdfhttp://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=10http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/chofdarwin.htmhttp://www.wesleyan.edu/bio/cohan/cohan/cohan-annual_review.pdfhttp://opt/scribd/conversion/tmp/scratch2416/%20http://www.springerlink.com/content/n3n5415037038134/http://www.discovery.org/a/8101


29/40

arwin Under the Microscope

Michael J. Behe

Michael J. Behe, associate professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, isthe author of "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to

Evolution."

BETHLEHEM, PA Pope John Paul II's statement last week that evolutionis "more than just a theory" is old news to a Roman Catholic scientist likemyself.

I grew up in a Catholic family and have always believed in God. But beginning in parochial school I was taught that He could use naturalprocesses to produce life. Contrary to conventional wisdom, religion hasmade room for science for a long time. But as biology uncovers startlingcomplexity in life, the question becomes, can science make room forreligion?

In his statement, the Pope was careful to point out that it is better to talkabout "theories of evolution" rather than a single theory. The distinction is

crucial. Indeed, until I completed my doctoral studies in biochemistry, Ibelieved that Darwin's mechanism -- random mutation paired with naturalselection -- was the correct explanation for the diversity of life. Yet I nowfind that theory incomplete.

In fact, the complex design of the cell has provoked me to stake out adistinctly minority view among scientists on the question of what causedevolution. I believe that Darwin's mechanism for evolution doesn't explain

much of what is seen under a microscope. Cells are simply too complex tohave evolved randomly; intelligence was required to produce them.

I want to be explicit about what I am, and am not, questioning. The word"evolution" carries many associations. Usually it means common descent --the idea that all organisms living and dead are related by common ancestry. Ihave no quarrel with the idea of common descent, and continue to think itexplains similarities among species. By itself, however, common descentdoesn't explain the vast differences among species.


30/40

That's where Darwin's mechanism comes in. "Evolution" also sometimesimplies that random mutation and natural selection powered the changes inlife. The idea is that just by chance an animal was born that was slightlyfaster or stronger than its siblings. Its descendants inherited the change andeventually won the contest of survival over the descendants of othermembers of the species. Over time, repetition of the process resulted in greatchanges -- and, indeed, wholly different animals.

That's the theory. A practical difficulty, however, is that one can't test thetheory from fossils. To really test the theory, one has to observecontemporary change in the wild, in the laboratory or at least reconstruct adetailed pathway that might have led to a certain adaptation.

Darwinian theory successfully accounts for a variety of modern changes.Scientists have shown that the average beak size of Galapagos fincheschanged in response to altered weather patterns. Likewise, the ratio of dark-to light-colored moths in England shifted when pollution made light-coloredmoths more visible to predators. Mutant bacteria survive when they becomeresistant to antibiotics. These are all clear examples of natural selection inaction. But these examples involve only one or a few mutations, and the

mutant organism is not much different from its ancestor. Yet to account forall of life, a series of mutations would have to produce very different typesof creatures. That has not yet been demonstrated.

Darwin's theory encounters its greatest difficulties when it comes toexplaining the development of the cell. Many cellular systems are what Iterm "irreducibly complex." That means the system needs severalcomponents before it can work properly. An everyday example ofirreducible complexity is a mousetrap, built of several pieces (platform,hammer, spring and so on). Such a system probably cannot be put together ina Darwinian manner, gradually improving its function. You can't catch amouse with just the platform and then catch a few more by adding thespring. All the pieces have to be in place before you catch any mice.

An example of an irreducibly complex cellular system is thebacterial flagellum: a rotary propeller, powered by a flow of acid, thatbacteria use to swim. The flagellum requires a number of parts before it

works -- a rotor, stator and motor. Furthermore, genetic studies have shown


31/40


32/40

: !

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=S1mZb1lIWEQ

..

:

: :

1

2

) Perpetual motionis impossible (

3) Levo (

4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1mZb1lIWEQhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1mZb1lIWEQ


33/40

DNA

> >

5 1/01

) 32 (

6 > < 10) 243 (

7 1962 >< > <

10)50 ( ><

10) 512(

8 1987 >< ><

100 20


34/40

20 = 20)100= (1.25*10) 130 (

10) 130 (

: :

:

:

1

< > < > 2

3

4 1.55

001

4 1953) Piltdown (


35/40

5

6 Morqwitz1979 : ><

Prokaryotic

DNA

: Eukaraotic

<

The same genetic trait

8:><

Taxonomy >< CarolusLinnaues 7071 1778 ><

><

9:


36/40

> < 1987

35

:01

Jancey1975

::

1

2

1959> < Rendle Short

> < > <

3 Tim White > < 1987 302

Fossils 1.5 Homo habilis


37/40

1987

:< > 4 Herbt Spencer

Malthus 66711834

Spencer Spencer

< >

Beagle

Walace

5:

DNA

6 : :


38/40

1969 Dr. Eyenge Steiner Socio Biology ><

1977 >< Edward Wilson

><

7: ( ) 21 :1989 Science

1*01) 14 ( DNA

DNA DNA

46

5*01-) 01 (

E.Col DNA4.5 51DNA

3 100.000

4500 1500

( ) :


39/40

:

8> < : 18791955 1905

><

Linus Pauling 1953 1962

1983

Maxwell> < 1970><

Morowitz1979

: Wiberforce< ><

> >< ><


40/40

A. Cressy Morrison

> < 1944< > < >

> >

:

Trofin D. Lysenko

> < Lysenko

><

1926 1946 Lysenko

: 9:

0

Documents

Why Darwinism is False