Reality Checks
Promoting honest discussion
about 'sacred cows'

Origin of Life
Microbes to Man
Design - real or just apparent?
The world around us
Is there enough time?
Does it fit the facts better than the alternatives?

Admin Stuff

Contacts

Links

Evolution

Will it pass the test of time, or has it passed its 'use-by' date?

Introduction

The year 2009 has been a big one for celebrating two milestones for evolutionary thought: 12 February 2009 was the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, and 24 November 2009 will be the 150th anniversary of the publishing of Darwin's "On the Origin of Species". Given the vast increase in scientific knowledge over the last 50 to 75 years, especially in our understanding of the colossal complexity of living things (even of the simplest single-cell life form), it is probably timely to ask ourselves whether the Theory of Evolution is still credible in the light of what we now know - and if so, will it continue to be credible as our understanding of that complexity grows by many more orders of magnitude over the next century or so?

The "Theory of Evolution" is either a brilliant piece of deduction and human accomplishment, or it is the greatest bungle of modern science (if not of Western civilization, given its widespread acceptance in our education system and media, with its flow-on effect into the values and sense of purpose of society in general). Will future generations admire us for our insightfulness in this regard, or will they marvel that we held onto it so strongly when the evidence was staring us in the face that we should have been looking elsewhere.

A bit of history

One major problem with the “evolution v creation” debate (and why it never ends) is that both sides can take the same observed and agreed facts and fit them perfectly (to their mind anyway) into their own model – and in doing so “prove” to themselves that they are “right”. The creationist camp accuses the evolutionists of spinning numerous myths and just-so stories to explain away what they (the creationists) see as glaring evidence that evolution is a fallacy. And the evolutionists accuse the creationists of merely advocating a “God of the gaps”, and maintain that one day (when mankind has discovered more) these gaps will all be filled in (because “we know that evolution is true” – the evolutionists’ faith position). (Item 7 in the structure listed below, gives an opportunity to take real observations and examples which are often accepted as “proofs”, and ascertain which model they best fit in each case.)

The Forum

It is usually very difficult to conclusively “prove” that something is true. However, it is often relatively easy to prove that something can’t be true, by identifying significant things which demonstrate that it is false. Taking this approach, we have devised a structure that can be used to apply a reality check to Evolution. Essentially this collates various arguments put forward by the Intelligent Design and Creationist camps, and presents them for debate:

If materialistic evolution (i.e. "no need for God") is true, then it should hold up to scrutiny in the following key tests:

1. It must demonstrate a plausible and purely natural mechanism for the origin of the first living cell (that was self-sufficiently viable and capable of reproducing itself)

of matter and energy itself
the formation of our galaxy, solar system, and a primordial Earth capable of spawning life , and
the formation of the first living cell (that was self-sufficiently viable - and also capable of reproducing itself)

2. It must demonstrate plausible and purely natural mechanisms that would have enabled that first living cell to evolve into the vast array of higher life-forms that we observe in both the fossil record and today’s biosphere (with important but complex inter-dependencies between many of them). This mechanism must also account for:

the introduction of vast amounts of new DNA information (including surplus information that can then be discarded by “natural selection“ – the observed mechanism of speciation), and seemingly also new matching mechanisms in the cell itself (which can correctly process that new DNA information), and
the introduction of completely new functional systems (which obviously can’t be done incrementally if there is no survival advantage of any intermediate components/stages) e.g. the transition of a colony of bacteria into the first "animal" life form would need:
1. a mechanism for cell differentiation and the introduction of control systems at the organism level, to ensure reproduction and integrated development of subsequent generations
2. a mechanism for supplying nutrients to (and removing waste products from) cells that are too deep inside the organism to do this directly themselves with the external environment: This would need rudimentary mechanisms to perform the functions found in a normal circulatory system i.e. respiratory, digestive, renal, immune, (and probably lymph and nervous systems) - all (it would seem) needing to be devised and operating simultaneously for inner differentiated cells to be viable!!!
3. to demonstrate a "fitness" advantage over continuing as just a colony of bacteria
A mechanism for adding new structures and functionality
1. e.g. photosynthesis for the beginning of the plant kingdom
2. the senses (especially smell, touch, hearing, and vision): the cellular machinery of the senses themselves, the neural pathway to the brain, and the enhanced brain functionality that is able to both recognize the new stimulus and respond to it in a way that creates a survival advantage
3. legs and other mechanisms for locomotion, plus the neurological awareness and signal/coordination systems to utilize them effectively (especially in their early stages of development)
4. powered flight (independently achieved in several animal kingdoms), etc.

3. Purely materialistic evolution must explain the colossal (and highly detailed, sophisticated, and ingenious) “apparent” design we observe everywhere

In almost every aspect of every life-form

In many aspects of the non-living universe as well

Evolution’s exponents need to adequately demonstrate that design does not necessarily require an intelligent designer (and should be able to provide some examples of this that can be objectively verified by experimentation and application of the scientific method (rather than circular reasoning) – because non-intelligent design is a concept that is completely contra to human experience and reasonable expectation)

4. Formal scientific observations should progressively confirm the predictions of Evolutionary Theory as more data is collected:

The "Tree of Life"
1. The Fossil Record should confirm the steady growth of the tree over geological strata/history. Any "missing links" should be gradually found as more fossils are discovered.
2. At the molecular level, gene families and patterns across all genus and species should be consistent with the "Tree of Life" paradigm.

The level of complexity of life: Darwin and the early proponents of Neo-Darwinism would never have envisaged or predicted the level of complexity we have since found in the chemistry and structures of life. Each year of new research uncovers more layers of complexity that effectively "raise the bar" by several orders of magnitude, and all indications are that this will continue for many decades yet. Is there a point where the level of complexity becomes untenable, and we should admit that "the bar is now too high" for Evolution to have occurred as we understood? There are two primary areas where complexity may already be (or may become) a serious issue:
1. At the cellular level.
2. At the organism level - the number and complexity of components and control systems necessary to implement various basic biological functions

5. We should not observe anything in the biosphere (or non-living universe) that defies an evolutionary explanation. (Creationist literature is full of examples of various animals, plants, symbiotic relationships, etc. that on first (and then detailed) examination seem to do this. Some of these are not valid, but most of them are very valid – and many don’t require deep technical understanding to appreciate their challenge.)

6. Is there sufficient time available for Evolution to have produced what we see in both the fossil record and today's biosphere:

Is even the currently claimed/accepted geological timescale of hundreds of millions of years sufficient to give rise to the complexity and vast quantity of genetic information that is observed? (This section overlaps with 4b.)
Do we observe anything that strongly suggests that the Earth (and especially the biosphere) can’t possibly be four billion years old. (This is here for you "Young Earthers" to state your case and submit it to scrutiny.)

7. If natural evolution is true (and specific creation is not), then:

the fossil and geological record should fit significantly better with the evolutionary model than with the biblical creation model (and Genesis flood model), and
observations of the current world around us should also fit much better with the natural evolutionary model than with a "design" or "biblical creation" model, and
we would expect Man (the ultimate pinnacle of Evolution to-date) to appear more like the result of random natural forces, rather than “made in God’s image”

If evolution is true, then it should/must pass ALL the above tests. (The intelligent design and creationist camps would claim that it actually fails on all of them.)

Pretty-well every challenge we read in intelligent design creationist literature can be slotted somewhere into the above structure.

Note that the above structure concentrates on just the key issues. It doesn’t throw any mud about past errors and claims that have since been discredited (e.g. peppered moths, Piltdown Man, and Ernst Haeckel) – or some of the formative ideas that creationist have held in the past and since abandoned (decaying speed of light, etc.). Both sides of the argument have unfortunate skeletons in the closet, but airing them would muddy the waters rather than provide a clear analysis based on current knowledge and thinking. (How’s that for some mixed metaphors.)