Chapter Two: Accepting Evolution is Unavoidable

Chapter Two

Accepting Evolution is Unavoidable

The Theory of Evolution (Abiogenesis and Development)

The theory of evolution is actually divided into two parts-or almost two separate theories-that explain the emergence, development, and evolution of life on this earth. The first part, or the first theory, is concerned with explaining the emergence of the first life, or the origin of life on the earth from nonliving matter. The second part, or the second theory, is concerned with explaining the evolution and development of life from that first seed. So it makes sense for us to discuss the origin of life first, and after that we will turn to the discussion of development.

First: The Theory of Abiogenesis (The First Seed)

Biologists believe that each living cell contains the secret of material life by which replication, growth, and reproduction occur. That secret is the chromosome, the location where information is stored. The chromosomes carry DNA, consisting of non-homogeneous sequences of four different nucleotides (A-T-C-G). These four types of nucleotides represent the letters of the genetic language that are used for writing and storing information. The information is copied during the replication process when DNA is duplicated. Therefore, DNA can be considered the component that represents life, because it carries information for replicating itself and producing proteins, and therefore results in reproduction and growth. Variation can occur as a result of the mixing of male and female DNA, or due to mutations that occur specifically during the duplication process, or in some cases, due to radioactive bombardment. Another nucleic acid, known as RNA, is used as a mediator for transmitting information during DNA replication and protein production. The information in DNA is read by RNA and translated into either a new copy of DNA so that reproduction can occur, or into protein chains that affect the shape and behavior of the cell so that growth can take place. So what makes liver cells different than intestinal cells is the genes that were expressed as a plan for their construction. These pieces of information, or genes, are written in a law-abiding way, and in a precise language, in order for the meaning to reach RNA. Then, either DNA replication takes place, or protein chains are produced. Therefore, we have factories and an industry based on a law-abiding, linguistic plan (i.e. the information, or genes).

There is more than one hypothesis or theory of abiogenesis. One theory is that a group of meteors carrying amino acids struck the earth billions of years ago and a primordial soup of left-handed amino acids formed in the water on the earth. Then, either a self-replicating protein or RNA happened to form. Another theory is that chemical materials that self-replicate emerged first, until we reached life, or DNA.

Discussing the Hypotheses of Abiogenesis

None of the theories of abiogenesis have been proven with scientific evidence. Actually, they are all unproven theories or hypotheses.

The DNA and RNA present in living cells, which are considered replicators, as well as the proteins that could conceivably self-replicate, all consist of very large numbers of units or molecules. So if we were to consider the probability that they would accidentally form, or assemble, simultaneously, just once, in the correct replicable way, we would reach a number that cannot be achieved scientifically within the time limits that we are familiar with on the earth.

Even if we assumed that abiogenesis began with the simplest protein that ensures the self-replication process (and let’s accept the assumption that it’s extremely simple and consists of just a 32-amino-acid sequence), since there are 20 different types of amino acids that can form this sequence, then the number of possibilities we would have is (4.294967296 x 10+41), or approximately 4 x 1041, which is the number 4 followed by 41 zeros. This is a very large number, and it represents an extremely low probability of occurrence.

In fact, this made Dr. Richard Dawkins stumble into unrealistic assumptions in his book The Blind Watchmaker, in a desperate attempt to decrease the number of zeros on one side and increase them on the other. In this way, most atheists drop tens of zeros here, and add tens of zeros there, in a very unscientific and careless way, making imaginary assumptions in the hope of eventually reaching a number they deem acceptable and achievable within the time limits available on the earth, about a billion years at most.

Now let’s assume that the first miracle occurred: amino acids formed on the earth under the extraordinary circumstances suitable for their emergence or arrival, and they were in an environment on the earth that was suitable for one attempt at the emergence of a self-replicating protein each second for a billion years. The number of available attempts would be (31,449,600,000,000,000) or approximately 3 x 1016. If we subtracted this number from the number of required attempts, we would still need 3.9999999999999999999999997 x 10+41 attempts, approximately (3.9 x 1041), in order for it to be possible. As we can see, one attempt per second for a billion years had almost no effect on the number. Therefore, if we calculate the time required for the probability to be met at one attempt per second, the time period is approximately (4 x 1041) seconds, or approximately 1034 years, which is the number 1 with 34 zeros after it. This is an enormous number, far exceeding the age of the earth, and even the age of the universe. The age of the earth is estimated at 4.6 billion years, which is a single digit with nine digits after it, and the age of the universe is estimated at 13.7 billion years, which has just ten digits after it.

If we calculate it another way, by calculating how many attempts per second for a billion years it would take to obtain a self-replicating protein within the limits of probability, the number of attempts per second would be the result of dividing the number of required attempts by the available time, which is a billion years. The result would be: (12,718,762,718,762,718,762,718,762.718763), or approximately 1025, meaning that we would need approximately 1 with 25 zeros, or almost 10 million, million, million, million, attempts each second for a billion years in order for it to be possible. This number is extremely far-fetched.

Not only that, but the probability of sufficient amino acids existing on the earth is also very low. There are two types of amino acids: lefthanded and right-handed. The proteins that exist within the structure of life are only comprised of left-handed amino acids. Therefore, our previous attempt to have proteins would only work with the assembly of left-handed amino acids. This means that the probability of ending up with the required protein is one-half to the power of the number of amino acids in that protein. So if the number of amino acids in the required protein is fifty, for example, then the probability of all of them being left-handed is one-half to the power of fifty. This is a very low probability. By combining the extremely low probability of each of the required consecutive steps for the formation of a protein, the possibility almost disappears, becoming nearly impossible.

However, there are atheists who calculate it backwards, deriving the required numbers from the premise so as to make it possible in the end. For example, the first problem is the availability of building material: amino acids. So they resort to proposing hypotheses, such as the hypothesis that amino acids had formed due to the conditions on the earth and the abundance of lightning as earth was forming, in order to solve this problem. Another far-fetched hypothesis is that the earth was bombarded with meteors loaded with amino acids four billion years ago. When they discovered that the amino acids could only be left-handed, some of them proposed yet another far-fetched hypothesis, saying that these meteors were exposed to the light of a neutron star on their way to the earth, and so on. Therefore, the whole claim is built upon far-fetched hypotheses in order to prove that the formation of a self-replicating protein on the earth billions of years ago was completely normal. Despite the fact that all of these hypotheses are far-fetched, and that the probability of just one of them is so low that it barely exists, let alone all of them occurring in succession, some of them feel they can say that they are reasonable and acceptable.

Atheists find it very reasonable to believe that an enormous number of meteors loaded with massive amounts of amino acids specifically chose the planet Earth, which is like a grain of sand in the desert compared to the universe, even if the probability of this event is so low that it barely exists!

Atheists also find it very reasonable for these meteors to have been exposed to the light of a neutron star on their way to the earth so as to form left-handed amino acids. They find all of these hypotheses, which have an almost nonexistent probability, to be very reasonable. However, they find it far-fetched that a lawmaker is behind the law that created the self-replicating protein or DNA! They also find it farfetched that a speaker is behind the linguistic genetic plan!

I think that what has been presented is sufficient to conclude this issue. Would a rational person, who knows of the nearly nonexistent probability of an event occurring, even when factoring in the entire age of the universe, still say that it is normal for the event to occur during the one to one-and-a-half billion year period prior to the existence of life on the earth, and at the same time refuse to discuss any possibility that this event might be miraculous, and then grasp at straws to prove his hypothesis? Then, when he finds scientific evidence that some meteors might have struck the earth at some point in time, he uses this possibility and goes so far as to say that these meteors came from the depths of the galaxy like vats loaded with amino acids. But just saying amino acids doesn’t achieve their goal, so they add that these amino acid filled vats passed by a neutron star on their way to the earth, and the light polarized them, eventually causing them to transform from a mixture of right and left-handed into only left-handed amino acids. The imaginary hypotheses continue in order to escape this suffocating dilemma of probabilities.

There are other hypotheses regarding the formation of RNA and DNA, such as the one introduced by some chemists and biochemists, which suggests that it didn’t begin with proteins or nucleic acids, but rather with non-living chemical substances like polymers or clay particles that were formed in a certain replicable way.

. . . we might say that their survival machines must have been seized at a later stage by DNA. If so, the original replicators were utterly destroyed, for no trace of them remains in modern survival machines. Along these lines, A. G. Cairns-Smith has made the intriguing suggestion that our ancestors, the first replicators, may have been not organic molecules at all, but inorganic crystals-minerals, little bits of dry clay (Dawkins 1989, 21-22).

These are far-fetched hypotheses, and they continue to be just that- hypotheses that aren’t based on accurate scientific data. Depending on what occurs in certain chemical reactions in which crystals seem to replicate is nothing more than dependence on a phenomenon irrelevant to the topic of research. The truth is that replication and the passing down of information don’t occur in chemical reactions at all. Within experimental and theoretical sciences, these are merely hypotheses that have yet to be proven by anything scientifically reliable. There is no difference between them and the “Great Spirit in the sky” that arranged the pebbles on the beach, as Dawkins’ primitive tribe believes. Therefore, I see no reason to discuss or refute these hypotheses, since they are nothing more than assumptions that don’t reach a scientific level worthy of discussion or response.*

All things considered, if the discussion shifts to the sub-biological level, meaning the level of chemical reactions, then it would be best for the discussion with atheists to shift to the established principles of chemical reactions, the physics of atomic and subatomic particles, and the four forces (the weak nuclear, strong nuclear, gravitational, and electromagnetic). Since we are moving on to atomic and subatomic forces, our discussion should be about proving the existence of a god at this sub-biological level, be it molecular, atomic, or subatomic. According to the hypothesis that there is a polymer or something similar to it that began to replicate itself regularly and to evolve until it brought us to where we are today, life would have begun from that polymer, rather than from a protein, or genetic plan. If that is the case, it would be better for the discussion to be about the origin of matter. We will discuss this when we reach the topic of the big bang, and we will prove the existence of a god at this level of research and knowledge. This will be enough to prove the existence of a god regardless of the presence and evolution of physical life, and whether or not it has come into existence through the intervention of a god, and whether it evolved randomly or non-randomly or purposefully or non-purposefully.

There is a theory, or hypothesis, which suggests that life came prefabricated within certain meteorites or rocks a few hundred million years after the formation of the planet Earth. In this respect, there are experiments being conducted to determine whether it is possible for living organisms or primary replicators to survive extreme cold, extreme heat, and severe collisions. It has also been proven that some multicellular organisms can live in a state of hibernation without water at extremely low temperatures.

Another theory, or hypothesis, is that the first replicators emerged on the edge of swamps and oceans that were exposed to wet-dry cycles and severe tides as a result of the moon being closer to the earth than it is now. This, in conjunction with the sun, might have caused amino acids to concentrate in small pools, and this would have facilitated the formation of the primordial soup that is suitable for the emergence of the first replicators.

Yet another theory, or hypothesis, concerns extreme conditions, and assumes that abiogenesis occurred in either hot springs or in an extremely acidic environment. This hypothesis was introduced due to the discovery of several life forms in the depths of the oceans that are able to survive high temperatures. Some of them can also survive high levels of acidity. Therefore, the first replicators may have emerged under similar conditions, especially since these conditions were prevalent in the first several hundred million years of the earth’s existence.

Actually, an unbiased person can clearly see that the proposed theory regarding abiogenesis is not a solid scientific presentation based on facts and reality. Rather, it is research based on the foundation and the hypothesis that nothing exists but nature, and everything must be explained exclusively within the limits of nature, even if it is a series of one imaginary hypothesis after another. Achieving one of them alone is absolutely impossible, let alone achieving all of them in succession.

In fact, rationality determines that if all of these very low probabilities were achieved in succession, it would indicate the occurrence of a miracle, which would indicate that there is someone who has managed things in this way to achieve this result: the existence of life on the earth.

Since thus far there is no scientific theory that explains abiogenesis with an acceptable, scientific explanation supported by conclusive evidence, Dawkins, in his book The Blind Watchmaker, goes to the extent of discussing the possibility of a quasi-miracle occurring, like when lightning strikes a person at the very moment they expected, or when lightning strikes the same person seven times as documented in the Guinness Book of World Records. Dawkins says that what is considered miraculous in a short period of time isn’t considered miraculous over a long period of time-in other words, when sufficient time is available. This means he assumes the emergence of the cell to be a miracle, but a miracle relative to time. To refute this, it is sufficient to say that the probability of a self-replicating organism arising is almost nonexistent within the time limits we are familiar with. In fact, even if he wanted to calculate the probability at the level of the entire universe, the number of planets potentially suitable for this occurrence wouldn’t support it since he would have to include the probability of meteors being loaded with amino acids, the probability that they would strike the earth, the probability that they would be left-hand amino acids, and the probability that a nucleic acid or self-replicating protein would emerge, making it absolutely deserving of the description of miraculous, supernatural and extraordinary. Therefore, even the strongest proponents of the idea that the first emergence of modern life was a completely natural occurrence say that it happened only once, and it never recurred. This is an implicit confession that abiogenesis is a miracle, or at the very least, a difficult and far-fetched claim:*

Organisms can never be totally unrelated to one another, since it is all but certain that life as we know it originated only once on earth (Dawkins 1996, 258).

In conclusion: there is no logical, scientific explanation for the emergence of life that is supported with evidence, or even accepted by scientists.

As far as the primordial soup theory, postulating a miracle or unseen intervention to explain the availability of a primordial soup suitable for the emergence of life may not be less likely than postulating the natural availability of the soup and the subsequent formation of the protein.

We can say that postulating a divine miracle-after we prove the existence of a god-would make the issue of abiogenesis even more logical than postulating crystalline or clay replicators.

However, saying that they formed and replicated without external intervention to the point of producing life would mean that they would have to replicate many times after that first replication, and they would have to continue to produce new life, or at least a new type of primary replicator every so often, up until today, as long as the raw materials were available. This hasn’t happened before, nor is it currently happening. Therefore, it is incorrect.

Moreover, the same applies for the primordial soup theory. Even if we recreate the primordial soup in the laboratory, it isn’t expected to produce a self-replicating protein, or a ribonucleic acid, without our intervening beyond making the primordial soup. Therefore, we must assume that an outside intervention compiled chemical compounds, crystals, clay particles, or amino acids into a compound capable of selfreplicating, multiplying, and producing the first life. If this was the case, then why wouldn’t this intervention that produced life be a divine, unseen intervention, especially after we prove the existence of a god in due course?!

Abiogenesis doesn’t have a scientific explanation. It forms a gap that science and scientists have been unable to fill despite all of the laboratory capabilities available today, which, for the purpose of experimentation, provide the right conditions to simulate any time period in which biologists and biochemists would expect life to emerge, just as it would have formed four billion years ago, or even less than that.

Regarding what was mentioned above, my objective is not to reject the hypothesis of abiogenesis, or the formation of a self-replicating protein by some means if the material, conditions, and time are available. In fact, I believe in what the Imams pbut have said, and what cosmologists and biologists predict: that the universe is filled with organisms, and we are not alone. What I wanted to make clear is that abiogenesis is a dilemma that science has not solved, for it hasn’t found a way around the problem of the availability of material and conditions suitable for the emergence of life, or let us say, as we believe, the implementation of the first genetic plan, or the seed of the genetic plan, out of inorganic chemical substances that evolved until it reached its purpose: the human being, and the human genetic plan.

In conclusion, there is no hypothesis of scientific value to explain the emergence of life on the earth in a logical and acceptable way without postulating the occurrence of things that are scientifically impossible. Therefore, there is a logical and acceptable opportunity, at least up to this point, to assume the intervention of a god along with the unseen aspect in order to explain abiogenesis alongside those unlikely, or quasi-impossible-to-occur hypotheses.

However, let us examine the hypothesis that the opposing party- the atheist party-clings to, which is that inorganic primordial chemical replicators, made of crystals or clay, produced protein, or that the earth was a bowl of left-handed amino acid soup, and that the number of attempts were sufficient (just like that, without having a scientific, logical, achievable explanation for the availability of this substance). Then, after all of this we acquired our protein composed of only lefthanded amino acids. If this had happened, would it negate the truth that Dawkins and other like-minded atheists are trying to overlook: that the genetic plan is compound, complex, law-abiding, linguistic, and it achieves a purpose-as we shall demonstrate-therefore indicating a lawmaker and a speaker? If they reject that He, or a deputy of His, is the lawmaker of the genetic plan, with Him being the unseen reason behind its emergence on the earth, and if they insist that only natural causes are the reason for its emergence, then how will they negate or overlook the fact that it proceeds toward a purpose, obeys laws, and uses a language, all of which cause it to function, and indicate the purposeful one who created and spoke through its law?!

Is it possible for us to say that the plans for a building or a bridge, when successfully implemented, obey laws, are written in an engineering language, and that the one who wrote it is conscious, yet not say the same when we see the genetic plan implemented and functional? Does our language indicate that we are conscious of meanings and intend meanings, yet the genetic language does not indicate that its creator or speaker realizes and intends to achieve a particular meaning or purpose with it?!

I believe any rational person would say that if our language indicates that we are intelligent beings and that we intend to achieve meanings, then the genetic language indicates that there is a speaker and purposeful being behind it, especially since it has achieved clear purposes that have now become known to us, such as intelligence-the best survival machine.

Second: The Theory of Development and Evolution

On November 24,1859, Charles Darwin published his famous book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. In this book, he presented a theory stating that organisms on the earth (plants and animals) evolved, and did not come into existence suddenly or at once.

Although at the time Darwin did not have enough fossils to support his theory, he presented evidence that he obtained from an observation and research of hybridization and domestication during his famous global expedition on the HMS Beagle, and from the observations and research of other biologists. Most of Darwin’s evidence came from observation, comparative anatomy, and research on the lineage of modern organisms. However, scientific evidence for evolution continued to accumulate after Darwin through research, aided by technological advancements in the study of fossils, comparative anatomy, and genetics. Darwin, as well as the evolutionary biologists who came after him, concluded that the combination of variation between individuals (due to variation in their genetic plans, for instance), the process of selection carried out by their natural surroundings, and heredity, results in evolution of life suitable for that environment. If the reader understands the meaning of variations in genetic plans and nature’s preservation or selection of the favored races, then they will clearly see that evolution is inevitable, and that fossil evidence as proof of evolution is unnecessary.

Simply stated, whenever we have variation, selection, and heredity, we inevitably have evolution. Variation exists, and there is no doubt that it is present among individuals of the same species. Selection also inevitably exists, because it is an intrinsic part of nature, its demands, and the environmental changes that constantly occur, such as declining water levels, droughts, rising or dropping temperatures, or the introduction of a new predator or prey. And as long as breeding and reproduction occurs, heredity is inevitable as well. So evolution was inevitable in the past, just as it is in the present, and will be in the future, since all of its required components have and still do exist. Therefore, the issue is not debatable, because it is as clear as the earth’s spin. In addition to this, there is evidence that has accumulated from comparative anatomy, fossils, and genetics that confirms evolution, though evolution is obvious, even in the lineage of modern organisms.

Therefore, evolution occurs whenever there is variation, heredity due to reproduction, and natural selection of the fittest. For example, if we take the evolution of compound organs such as the eye, ear, and nose, the first evolutionary step would be the evolution of a sensory cell in a primitive, multi-cellular animal. These cells would then multiply in later generations, due to the fact that there is variation caused by genetic mutation that provides for this multiplication. If these sensory cells provide benefit and energy for the animal by helping it to elude enemies and acquire food, and the energy provided exceeds the cost, then animals with this trait will be more capable of surviving, and will be selected by the natural environment. With this, selection of these sensory cells takes place. So in this way, whenever the evolutionary step is of more benefit than cost to the animal, it will be preserved.

After specialized sensory cells multiply through evolutionary steps due to variation and selection, a group of cells that sense light becomes available, and another group that senses chemicals or smell also becomes available, and so on. When a group of cells that senses light exists in the animal, and variation is also present, the environment selects the most favorable cells to progress toward the optimal state. So a concave shape is favored because it senses light better, as is a lens that concentrates light and makes the image clearer, and so forth. When suitable improvement mutations are available, the animal favors (not through consciously favoring, but in accordance with the law of evolution that I have described) a system that combines and organizes the work of sensory cells with different functions as a group, rather than individually, because that makes it better able to survive. If mutation provides such a system, or provides the connection of such a system between the sensory cells and the organization of their work, then the system will be preserved. This represents the primitive nervous system, which we can say is the basis for the brain. And this is how the sensory cells evolve to become an eye, a nose, etc. In general, it is a matter of economics for the animal: if the trait acquired through genetic mutation helps the animal to obtain food and increases its ability to acquire two units of energy while the energy expenditure of putting this trait into operation is one unit, then this trait will benefit the animal, and will usually be preserved. On the other hand, when the energy expenditure of operating the trait exceeds the benefit (and using the above example, the energy expenditure would be three units), then the trait is harmful, and it will be eliminated. Elimination in this instance does not mean that an individual animal eliminates the trait, but rather it is eliminated by the entire species, meaning that animals that acquire this trait that is more harmful than beneficial will perish, because they won’t be capable of surviving or competing with their peers.

There is a difference of opinion regarding the path taken by evolution, and there are several theories to explain its course. These theories disagree about the speed of evolution and whether it always proceeds very slowly, or whether its speed is discretely variable or continuously variable. There is also the theory of extreme genetic mutation that has been abandoned, for the most part. This theory states that a compound organ comes into existence directly and at one time through a single genetic mutation.

Evidence of Evolution

The Combination of Variation, Natural Selection, and Heredity Unquestionably Results in Evolution

This can be simplified with the following examples: Europeans descended from dark-skinned (black) origins, yet today,

we find that their skin is white. Actually, they are grades of white. For example, southern Europeans are less white than northern Europeans because favored races were selected by the environment. As for the reason that nature selected white skin, it might simply be due to Vitamin D, which requires sunlight to penetrate the skin for it to be synthesized, as dark skin prevents or reduces the penetration of sunlight. In Europe, where there is less sunlight, people with dark skin are at higher risk of developing Vitamin D deficiency, which poses a threat to life and reproduction, so the fittest survive. Since variation in skin color (or pigment) will inevitably occur, light skin is selected because in an environment with little sunlight, a person with light skin is fit to survive. So in this way, an inevitable sifting process occurs, and this continues one generation after another until the skin attains a color that is suitable for the environment. The same applies to nose size, height, and other traits.

Exposure to a new environment inevitably causes an adaptation to it. In the 50,000-100,000 years since the African diaspora, there has been an opportunity for substantial adaptation, both cultural and biological. We can see traces of the latter in skin color and in size and shape of the nose, eyes, head, and body. One can say that each ethnic group has been genetically engineered under the influence of the environments where it settled. Black skin color protects those who live near the equator from burning under the sun’s ultraviolet radiation which can also lead to deadly skin cancers. The dairy-poor diet of European farmers, based almost entirely on cereals that lack ready-made vitamin D, might have left them vulnerable to rickets (our milk still has to be enriched with this vitamin). But they were able to survive at the higher latitudes to which they migrated from the Middle East because the essential vitamin can be produced with the aid of sunlight, from precursor molecules found in cereals. For this Europeans have developed the whiteness of their skin, which the sun’s ultraviolet radiation can penetrate to transform these precursors into vitamin D. It is not without reason that Europeans have, on average, whiter skin the further north they are born.

The size and shape of the body are adapted to temperature and humidity. In hot and humid climates, like tropical forests, it is advantageous to be short since there is greater surface area for the evaporation of sweat compared to the body’s volume. A smaller body also uses less energy and produces less heat. Frizzy hair allows sweat to remain on the scalp longer and results in greater cooling. With these adaptations, the risk of overheating in tropical climates is diminished. Populations living in tropical forests generally are short, Pygmies being the extreme example (Cavalli-Sforza 2000, 10-11).*

Example: The change in the color of moths from white to black as a result of the industrial revolution.

Moths benefited from their white color because the white bark of trees concealed them and they weren’t seen by birds. With the industrial revolution in Europe, tree bark blackened in some of the industrial areas as a result of the pollution caused by coal. The white moths were then exposed to birds, whereas the moths with a darker color mutation were able to remain hidden and survive. So the color of the moths changed within a short period of time, rather than requiring millions of years, because they have a short life cycle. Therefore, in the case of moths, a relatively short time period is sufficient for hundreds or thousands of generations to pass and for biological evolution to occur.

Example: The variable neck length of the ancestors of giraffes, with some having a relatively longer neck than others.

If we assume that giraffes lived where food was at a height more suitable for those with long necks than short necks, then natural selection would occur, favoring the giraffes better suited for life in that environment. Therefore, short-necked giraffes would either starve to death, or would be incapable of reproducing and mating due to insufficient food, or they wouldn’t be able to feed their young. In this way, the number of short-necked giraffes would decrease in this environment, and they might become extinct, whereas long-necked giraffes would survive and reproduce satisfactorily. So giraffes with the longneck trait would increase in number and pass these genetic traits to their offspring, and the short-necked trait would be cleansed from the giraffe genetic plan, generation after generation.

These matters are practically self-evident, and proving their validity today using genetics is the same as proving that the earth spins around the sun using images. Nonetheless, a great number of people deny it just because they think it contradicts religious scriptures.

Example: Predatory animals such as wolves vary in all aspects, just like other organisms.

If wolves exist in an environment where the prey is quick, then slow, short-legged wolves will starve to death, so they won’t pass their traits on to the next generation. With the passage of time, through natural selection, fast, long-legged wolves will develop in that environment. In a snowy environment, only white wolves will survive because the dark ones will be easily seen by the prey and won’t be able to hunt, so they will starve to death. In this way, the color of the wolf’s fur is gradually refined to white, and the same thing can happen to prey, such as when the fur of rabbits becomes white in order to aid in camouflage. As for polar bears, their white color aids them greatly in camouflage while hunting their prey, so the prey don’t notice them until it is too late. Were it not for the white color trait, they might not have been able to obtain food. The white color is not acquired suddenly, but rather through the process of evolution, just as with the evolution of moths during the industrial revolution. Both occur when genetic mutations provide the option suitable for the survival, reproduction, and establishment of one trait at the expense of another. However, the time that it took for the polar bear to evolve from the brown bear was approximately 150,000 years according to Dr. Ian Stirling. This time period is far longer than that required by the moths of the industrial revolution, the reason being the difference between long and short animal life cycles, as I have clarified previously.*

Example: Nowadays, we all say that despite significant advancements in construction, technology, and medicine, our health problems, diseases, and their complications have increased.

All of us-perhaps even some doctors-wonder, what is the reason for this?! Yet, one of the reasons is clear: it is simply that we have, with our advancements, eliminated one side of the evolution equation of our (physical) species: natural selection.

To clarify further, let’s examine any hereditary disease: diabetes, for example. The healthcare industry (doctors, laboratories, specialists, pharmacists, and medications, etc.) prolongs the life of diabetics so that they reach adolescence, have children, and pass their genes to their offspring. This causes an increase in the number of those among us who have these genes. Therefore, with our advancements we have eliminated natural selection. Had we not added health care to the equation, natural selection would have occurred, and many diabetics would have died before reaching adolescence and being able to have children, so the number of people who have these genes would have gradually decreased.

In addition, due to our residing in somewhat protected houses, many people have become incapable of withstanding the difficulties associated with living in a natural environment, such as the ability to withstand germs or insect bites.

Moreover, there is a study regarding the biological elimination that befell the natives of the New World as a result of the germs carried by pets that were brought to this region by new settlers. While Europeans had adapted to living with these germs and developed a resistance to them, the natives of the New World hadn’t, so these germs gave rise to the restructuring of these populations based on the system of evolution.

Comparative Anatomy

Comparative anatomy confirms evolution. There are many examples of this, but I will present only one: the laryngeal nerve that is found in fish, amphibians, deer, humans, and giraffes. In fish, this nerve travels from the brain to the gill after looping around the heart.

by global warming.

Now if the body of each animal was designed independently, and didn’t evolve from fish, this nerve would directly connect the brain to the upper part of the larynx since there is a just a short distance between them. However, in nature, this nerve follows the same route in animals as it does in fish. This means that it evolved from the nerve in fish, and that the elongation of the neck and the remote position of the heart in the animal’s body compelled it to stretch so that it could make a detour around the aorta, just as it does in fish. This nerve takes a long course in giraffes because it loops around the aorta, then it turns back almost an equal distance until it reaches the upper neck and connects to the upper part of the larynx. The long course this nerve takes is of no real benefit according to biologists and comparative anatomists. It has made this detour in fish and has followed the same circuitous route in the rest of the animals due to evolution. So this detour is a historical inheritance.

Therefore, the laryngeal nerve has taken this unnecessary turn because it wasn’t originally designed for each animal independently. It travelled from the brain down to where the chest starts and returned to the upper larynx. This is proof of evolution and development because in each evolutionary step, the lengthening of the nerve by tiny increments was much easier than making a direct connection. Otherwise, if the body of each animal was designed and created independently, the nerve would be directly connected, and the economical waste resulting from designing a nerve of this length as in the giraffe, for example, would be unnecessary.

The fact mentioned above is also used to oppose intelligent design, since this defect in design that occurred during the process of evolution proves that this is not an intelligent design perfectly suited for all animals. The original design led to significant lengthening of the recurrent laryngeal nerve in animals, especially the ones with long necks such as the giraffe, without adding any benefit. This invalidates intelligent design in evolution.

What has been mentioned above is a summary of how comparative anatomy is used to prove evolution, and it is also the atheist argument against intelligent design. I have tried to simplify the issue as much as possible. Illustrations may help simplify it further.

God willing, we will discuss this argument and show that the defect in body structuring that happened during the evolutionary process is not a viable argument against the law-abiding and purposeful nature of evolution. The first genetic plan is purposeful and law-abiding, and therefore indicates a lawmaker and designer who set it down in order to achieve a specific result. Indeed, the matter of the recurrent laryngeal nerve refutes the claims of those who believe that creation occurred in a single burst and who deny evolution, because all design and implementation occurring in a single burst requires negation of this defect that we see in the elongation of the recurrent laryngeal nerve. In fact, even if we were to say that the elongation of the recurrent laryngeal nerve is beneficial, it wouldn’t change the fact that it is a historical evolutionary inheritance that opposes creation occurring in a single burst.

I have presented the example of the recurrent laryngeal nerve in particular because it is not only used to prove the theory of evolution, but also to deny that evolution is law-abiding and purposeful. I will demonstrate how this conclusion is invalid, and how imperfections in the products of evolution do not in any way mean that evolution doesn’t conform to laws, but merely indicates that creation didn’t occur in a single burst. Rather, it happened in stages, and through evolution.

Figure 1: An illustration of the elongation of the recurrent laryngeal nerve in the giraffe during the process of evolution as it loops around a blood vessel and then returns to the larynx inferior to the head.*

Figure 2. An illustration of the elongation of the recurrent laryngeal nerve (in black) in the giraffe during the process of evolution as it goes around a blood vessel and then returns to the larynx inferior to the head.

Fossils

The subject of fossils is lengthy and vast, and goes back in time at least hundreds of millions of years. Fossils provide evidence of evolution in general, and evolution of the human body in particular. The 4,600 million-year history of the earth has been documented with a reasonable level of scientific accuracy, and the last several hundred million years of life on the earth have been recorded and organic fossils preserved with even greater detail and accuracy. This historical geological record clearly confirms the evolution of life and organisms on the earth.

In general, geological history and fossils are one way to prove evolution, but some critics of the theory of evolution, due to their ignorance, think that this is the strongest and only evidence for the theory. However, the fact of the matter is that it is just one of the links that infer evolution, and it may not even be the strongest when compared with the research in genetics and comparative anatomy. Furthermore, fossils are no longer studied only by historical geologists, anatomists, and anthropologists who make conclusions that an ignorant person could question. Today, it is possible to conduct precise laboratory analyses of fossils to accurately determine the geological age, and genetic analyses of fossils that are tens of thousands of years old in order to accurately identify them.

Evolution is Obvious in the Lineage of Living Organisms, at the Level of Body Parts or Even at the Level of Instincts

First and foremost, at the level of parts and how they are organized, we find that normal fish breathe air that is dissolved in water, while lungfish, such as Lepidosiren paradoxa, can breathe atmospheric air. This is considered one of the first steps taken by fish towards life on land. Some lungfish live in shallow water, and others spend the summer in mudholes covering themselves with a mucous material that protects their bodies. All of these are evolutionary steps toward life on land, aided by their capacity to breathe atmospheric air.

Lungfish breathe with their gills like other fish. They also have air sacs that are usually used for floating, but have evolved for breathing atmospheric air. Lungfish are considered to have taken a clear step toward developing their two air sacs into two true lungs at a later time, just as in the case of vertebrates that breathe air with two true lungs.

There are also fish called climbing perch, Anabas testudineus, that can climb, crawl and live on mud for long periods, and then return to the water. They are fish in every sense of the word. They even use their gill covers to crawl because their fins haven’t evolved in a way useful for walking.

The mudskipper is an amphibious fish that walks on its fins (that evolved on mud), and breathes air through its skin and developed fish gills. This animal, or fish, lives underwater and on mud. It spawns in water and its young hatch in water as well. Clearly, this is a step the fish has taken toward living on land, and evolving from swimming in water to walking on land.

Therefore, in the lineage of organisms present on the earth today, we have fish that evolved to breathe atmospheric air, fish that evolved to endure water shortage and recession in addition to breathing atmospheric air, and fish that crawl on mud in addition to breathing atmospheric air and withstanding water recession; and still others that have fins that evolved to walk on mud. The matter of change and evolution of the organ or body part of the animal is scientifically proven, so we cannot claim scientifically that evolution doesn’t exist while having this sequence and the transitional stages in front of us. As far as how this evolution occurred, it could easily have been caused by the presence of an area of muddy water. Over time, such an environment would sift the fish so that just the ones possessing superficial blood vessels in contact with atmospheric air-which represent a part (lung) that enables them to obtain oxygen directly from atmospheric air-can pass through the sieve. Therefore, this environment will sift the fish so that only the ones that can crawl on mud will be able to move from one muddy pond, in which life has become impossible, to a better one in order for life and reproduction to continue. In this way, the sifting process continues until the genetic plan suitable for this environment becomes firmly stabilized-in other words, until fish with traits suitable for this environment can survive, reproduce, and refine their traits into the most suitable ones over time. This is how evolution occurs.

Numerous cases could be given amongst the lower animals of the same organ performing at the same time wholly distinct functions; thus the alimentary canal respires, digests, and excretes in the larva of the dragon-fly and in the fish Cobites. In the Hydra, the animal may be turned inside out, and the exterior surface will then digest and the stomach respire. In such cases natural selection might easily specialise, if any advantage were thus gained, a part or organ, which had performed two functions, for one function alone, and thus wholly change its nature by insensible steps … there are fish with gills or branchiae that breathe the air dissolved in the water, at the same time that they breathe free air in their swimbladders, this latter organ having a ductus pneumaticus for its supply, and being divided by highly vascular partitions …

The illustration of the swimbladder in fishes is a good one, because it shows us clearly the highly important fact that an organ originally constructed for one purpose, namely flotation, may be converted into one for a wholly different purpose, namely respiration. The swimbladder has, also, been worked in as an accessory to the auditory organs of certain fish … All physiologists admit that the swimbladder is homologous, or ‘ideally similar,’ in position and structure with the lungs of the higher vertebrate animals: hence there seems to me to be no great difficulty in believing that natural selection has actually converted a swimbladder into a lung, or organ used exclusively for respiration (Darwin 1859, 174-75).

Second, at the level of instincts, there are different species of slavemaking ants that use slaves to serve them. In one species, this instinct has evolved so completely that the ants are incapable of feeding themselves, or taking care of their young, since the slaves do everything from building the nest, and caring for their young, to feeding both their young and old. They even carry their masters around. However, in another species in which this instinct is incomplete, we find that the ants depend on slaves only for assistance and domestic work. We find yet another species that perhaps does more work than its slaves. These differences clearly show that the slave-making instinct of the F. sanguinea and Formica rufescens is an evolved instinct.

By what steps the instinct of F. sanguinea originated I will not pretend to conjecture. But as ants, which are not slave-makers, will, as I have seen, carry off pupae of other species, if scattered near their nests, it is possible that pupae originally stored as food might become developed; and the ants thus unintentionally reared would then follow their proper instincts, and do what work they could. If their presence proved useful to the species which had seized them-if it were more advantageous to this species to capture workers than to procreate them-the habit of collecting pupae originally for food might by natural selection be strengthened and rendered permanent for the very different purpose of raising slaves. When the instinct was once acquired, if carried out to a much less extent even than in our British F. sanguinea, which, as we have seen, is less aided by its slaves than the same species in Switzerland, I can see no difficulty in natural selection increasing and modifying the instinct-always supposing each modification to be of use to the species-until an ant was formed as abjectly dependent on its slaves as is the Formica rufescens (Darwin 1859, 121).

Applying the General Principle of Cosmic “Evolution” to Life on Earth:

At the level of the universe as a whole we find-according to the big bang theory-that it had a simple beginning, then it started to multiply and become more complex. So this massive amount of matter, stars, planets, and galaxies originated from a point of singularity. God willing, we will discuss this emergence of life in detail, and see that- according to astronomical observations of the universe, and by applying the Doppler effect to them-the universe is expanding, the speed at which the galaxies are moving away from each other is accelerating, and there are new planets, stars and galaxies continuously forming as well. Therefore, the universe was, and still is, constantly multiplying, being added to, and expanding at an accelerating rate. Since life on the earth is a part of this universe, there is no problem with it being governed by the same principle of gradual cosmic “evolution”. So, the beginning would be very simple, and then multiplicity and complexity would stem from this simple beginning. Besides agreeing with science, it also agrees with the correct religious doctrine regarding creation, and the unchanging way of God as well. The seven heavens, and the potential existence (or the created existence in general), began with a simple initial emanation. Afterwards, multiplicity and complexity emerged. As we move away from the source of existence (in other words, as our knowledge decreases), we see the existing objects multiply and become complex. The differences between them increase as well. The sixth heaven has more complexity and more multiplicity than the seventh, while the fifth heaven has more complexity and more multiplicity than the sixth, and so on. Furthermore, if we study just the physical heaven itself, we find that, according to the big bang theory, it began as simple and headed toward complexity and multiplicity. So what is the problem with life on the earth being governed by the same cosmic principle, or what we could call the divine, unchanging way? Actually, the requirement of the unchanging way of God says that it must be so. Therefore, it would begin simple, then multiplicity and complexity would emerge from that simple beginning, just as this is the way of God in the seven heavens and in the physical heaven.

There are those who say that the physical universe is heading towards collapse and annihilation, so life on the earth must be heading there as well because it is subject to the same cosmic laws. With this statement, they believe they have refuted the principle of evolution, or the theory of evolution. However, this is false. In fact, this is a simplistic argument because even if we were to assume that the universe is currently heading toward collapse-when it is actually still young-this doesn’t mean that it began as complex and multiple. On the contrary, it has been scientifically proven that the universe had a simple beginning, and then the big bang took place. Afterwards, multiplicity and complexity gradually occurred. So, even the assumption that life on the the earth is inevitably moving toward collapse and annihilation doesn’t negatively impact the validity of the theory of evolution, because moving toward collapse at a later time, for instance, doesn’t mean in any way that it began as multiple and complex. The beginning could have been very simple, with just one cell for example, then multiplicity, complexity, and the diversification of life would take place. This multiplicity and complexity would then head toward collapse and annihilation, similar to what happens during the life of a human being. Life begins as a simple cell in the mother’s womb, then the cell multiplies and becomes more complex. The human being then grows, becomes old, and finally heads toward collapse and annihilation, becoming weak and eventually dying. We discussed this point in detail in the first chapter.

Degeneration (Atrophy and Loss of Organs)

Degeneration, the atrophy and loss of organs, also demonstrates evidence for evolution in instances where traces of this process remain somewhat conspicuous. This is because it is an evolutionary process, and the loss or stunting of an organ is due to the loss of its usefulness. Some examples of degeneration include: atrophied organs like the feet of some snakes, and stunted wings that aren’t used for flying in birds such as Cormorants that specialize in diving relatively deep to catch their fish. Another example is non-functional or blind organs like the eye of the blind cave fish.

The reason for this degeneration is that the organ isn’t being utilized, and it is economically costly for the animal, as I have previously explained. For example, for the blind cave fish, because it lives in the dark, the eye is useless, or of very little use, and keeping the eye open and functional is costly since it requires constant energy. When the eye of the cave fish is open and utilized, it consumes energy just like the other bodily organs, so the fish requires more food, and so living, surviving and reproduction become more difficult. Therefore, whenever the benefit of the previously evolved organ disappears, the animal species gradually eliminates it, either by decreasing its size, or closing it off with skin growth. This happens when suitable mutations become available. The animals that acquire this genetic mutation will eliminate this organ and their bodies will be more economical. Thus, they become more fit for survival, because they require less food. As such, when food is scarce , the environment selects the animals that are the most fit for survival. This is how a change occurs in animal species, and this change occurs gradually, as is always the case in evolution.

Isolated Ecosystems and the Existence of Different Biological Systems Within Them

When life evolved independently, as it did on certain islands that are isolated from the rest of the world, it produced life forms somewhat different than those in other places. This clearly indicates evolution, and the importance of natural selection. This is the case with respect to the marsupials of Australia and the animals exclusive to Madagascar, such as the Fossa. Therefore, if the existence of life on the earth is not due to evolution and natural selection, isolated places wouldn’t have had the distinctive feature of organisms that are unlike others and that only exist in those places. The only logical and rational explanation is that life evolved there independent of the other regions of the earth. Therefore, life took an exclusive course that couldn’t leave these places and reach other regions because it was restricted to that area and surrounded by natural impediments such as oceans.

The Presence of Abnormal Traits in Certain Organisms

An example of an organism with abnormal traits is the cuckoo bird. This bird parasitizes the nests of other birds by laying its eggs within their nests. Cuckoos evolved eggs in such a way in order to deceive the host bird. The cuckoo nestling also evolved to include a mechanism that aids in its survival: a pit on its back that it uses immediately after hatching to evict other nestlings and eggs from the nest. This enables it to monopolize the food so the host can support it, especially since the nestling is sometimes far bigger than the host parents. If the other eggs and nestlings remained, the food that the small host parents provide wouldn’t be sufficient for this large nestling to survive and grow if there were a competitor in the nest. The evolving of the parasite’s eggs means that the parasitic cuckoo whose eggs are more camouflaged and more similar to the eggs of the host-or let’s say that the host finds acceptable-succeeds in passing their genes to the next generation. This is unlike the birds with distinct eggs that are rejected by the host. The latter bird fails to pass its genes to the next generation. In this way, the eggs evolve. I have explained this here so the reader won’t have a simplistic understanding of how a bird evolves its eggs or how a nestling evolves a pit on its back. These statements are clear to evolutionary biologists, yet may be confusing to others.

Domestication and breeding

Domestication and breeding represent artificial evolution carried out by humans. Taking a group of animals with different traits, the best traits are chosen and maintained by breeding the animals with the traits preferred by the breeder. These animals are not bred with animals that possess undesirable traits, so over time, the herd acquires those traits preferred by the breeder and eliminates the undesirable ones. This is well-known to cattle breeders, for instance. Given time, we can imagine a similar situation occurring with breeds of chickens having significantly different traits, as well as breeds of dogs having significantly different size or appearance or even ferocity, or different breeds of pigeons, and so on.

The process of establishing preferred traits through breeding is limited to those improvement mutations available to the breeder that result in the preference of some herd members over others. However, due to advancements in genetics today, improvement mutations can be supplied in the laboratory, made to order, and then propagated in cattle herds, for example.

Genetic Evidence

There is a great deal of genetic evidence, including:

The Fusion of Chromosome 2 in Humans

This refers to two pairs of chromosomes that have fused in humans, yet remain separate in the chimpanzee, orangutan and gorilla. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, while the rest of the great apes have 24.

Dr. Jacob Ijdo from the University of Iowa says:*

The data we present here demonstrate that a telomere-to-telomere fusion of ancestral chromosomes occurred, leaving a pathognomonic relic at band 2q13. This fusion accounts for the reduction of 24 pairs of chromosomes in the great apes (chimpanzee, orangutan, and gorilla) to 23 in modern human and must, therefore, have been a relatively recent event. Comparative cytogenetic studies in mammalian species indicate that Robertsonian changes [which are chromosomes that have a central centromere (center of the chromosome) formed from 2 chromosomes that have noncentral centromeres] have played a major role in karyotype evolution (23, 24). This study demonstrates that telomere-telomere fusion, rather than translocation after chromosome breakage, is responsible for the evolution of human chromosome 2 from ancestral ape chromosomes.†‡

This illustrative video by Dr. Miller, The Collapse of Intelligent Design: Kenneth R Miller Lecture, explains the issue of the fusion of Chromosome 2 in humans.§¶

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohd5uqzlwsU

Figure 3: The Fusion of Chromosome 2 in Humans. Retroviruses common to Humans and the rest of the Primates Research by Professor John McDonald has found that:*

All but two (CERV 1/PTERV 1 and CERV 2) of the 42 families of chimpanzee endogenous retroviruses were found to have orthologs in humans.† In order to explain how this proves evolution, let’s imagine that there is a record of life events of the human species and the rest of the great apes. When we read this record, we find that they all have signs of the same specific injuries. These injuries left trace effects millions of years ago. The only explanation for the uniformity of these trace effects is that they affected a common ancestor of the modern species. Otherwise, when calculating probabilities, one would see that it is almost impossible for them to have the same quantity and quality of injuries, and to suffer the same trace effects at the same time and location.

Using an example to make this clear, let’s assume that we have two people, A and B, and we have records of both of their ancestral histories, which when reviewed show:

One of the forefathers of A (let’s assume that he is the hundredth) has a centimeter long wound in a particular location on his right arm that happened on a certain date.

We also find that one of the forefathers of B (also the hundredth) has a centimeter long wound in the same location on his right arm, and it occurred on the same date.

We find one of the forefathers of A (let’s assume he is the seventieth) injured his left eye and ended up one-eyed on a certain date.

We find one of the forefathers of B (the seventieth) injured his left eye and ended up one-eyed on the same date.

These identical and common events recurred tens of times to their ancestors in this manner.

Now, anyone looking at this history will conclude that these forefathers are the same individuals: common ancestors that unite these two individuals, A and B.

Certainly, genetic evidence of evolution is abundant. I don’t intend to go through all of it, so I will end by quoting geneticist Dr. Francis Collins, who discusses some of the evidence that he himself discovered during his study of the genetic plans of humans, certain mammals, and other organisms.*

When I contracted malaria in West Africa in 1989, that was despite having taken the recommended prophylaxis (chloroquine). Randomly occurring natural variations in the genome of the malarial parasite, subjected to selection over many years of heavy use of chloroquine in that part of the world, had ultimately resulted in a pathogen that was resistant to the drug, and therefore spread rapidly. Similarly, rapid evolutionary changes in the HIV virus that causes AIDS have provided a major challenge for vaccine development, and are the major cause of ultimate relapse in those treated with drugs against AIDS. Even more in the public eye, the fears of a pandemic influenza outbreak from the H5N1 strain of avian flu are based upon the high likelihood that the current strain, devastating as it already is to chickens and a few humans who have had close contact with them, will evolve into a form that spreads easily from person to person. Truly it can be said that not only biology but medicine would be impossible to understand without the theory of evolution (Collins 2006, 133).

The study of genomes leads inexorably to the conclusion that we humans share a common ancestor with other living things …

This evidence alone does not, of course, prove a common ancestor; from a creationist perspective, such similarities could simply demonstrate that God used successful design principles over and over again. As we shall see, however, and as was foreshadowed above by the discussion of “silent” mutations in protein-coding regions, the detailed study of genomes has rendered that interpretation virtually untenable-not only about all other living things, but also about ourselves. As a first example, let us look at a comparison of the human and mouse genomes, both of which have been determined at high accuracy. The overall size of the two genomes is roughly the same, and the inventory of protein-coding genes is remarkably similar. But other unmistakable signs of a common ancestor quickly appear when one looks at the details (Collins 2006, 133-34).

Unless one is willing to take the position that God has placed these decapitated AREs in these precise positions to confuse and mislead us, the conclusion of a common ancestor for humans and mice is virtually inescapable. This kind of recent genome data thus presents an overwhelming challenge to those who hold to the idea that all species were created ex nihilo (Collins 2006, 136).

When one compares chimp and human, occasional genes appear that are clearly functional in one species but not in the other, because they have acquired one or more deleterious mutations. The human gene known as caspase-12, for instance, has sustained several knockout blows, though it is found in the identical relative location in the chimp. The chimp caspase-12 gene works just fine, as does the similar gene in nearly all mammals, including mice. If humans arose as a consequence of a supernatural act of special creation, why would God have gone to the trouble of inserting such a nonfunctional gene in this precise location? (Collins 2006, 138-39).

Once geneticist Francis Collins had presented genetic evidence to prove the theory of evolution, he made the following comment:

At this point, godless materialists might be cheering. If humans evolved strictly by mutation and natural selection, who needs God to explain us? To this, I reply: I do. The comparison of chimp and human sequences, interesting as it is, does not tell us what it means to be human. In my view, DNA sequence alone, even if accompanied by a vast trove of data on biological function, will never explain certain special human attributes, such as the knowledge of the Moral Law and the universal search for God. Freeing God from the burden of special acts of creation does not remove Him as the source of the things that make humanity special, and of the universe itself. It merely shows us something of how He operates (Collins 2006, 140-41).

Summary

Evidence verifying the theory of evolution is plentiful, and sound arguments against the belief in single-burst creation are many. An example is the previously mentioned recurrent laryngeal nerve argument, which along with other similar comparative anatomy and historical geology arguments, conclusively prove that a progression of animals and plants existed in successive time periods.

Bacteria came into existence, followed after a long period of time by a eukaryotic cell, then later by multicellular organisms. Life gradually evolved in this manner.

Therefore, if the process of creation occurred in a single burst, and God’s purpose was the human being and the environment and the organisms around the human being, and if humans have only existed in recent times relative to the geological history of the earth, then why would God create the first groups of organisms in an order such that each newer group is similar to but more developed and evolved than the older group?

Did God create them with this gradual development over time, in order to deceive human beings, so that they would believe in evolution when seeing creation arranged developmentally in a gradual manner within the geological layers? Of course not. God wants man to know the truth as it is, and to believe in God and the creation as He made it.

The only convincing, logical, and acceptable answer to what we see in historical geology is that life began as simple, then gradually evolved and developed.

If the proponents of single-burst creation have a logical and convincing answer that has scientific value and is supported by genetic research, comparative anatomy and the lineage of modern organisms, and so on, then let them present it. As for their rejection of evolution just because they don’t like it, or because some atheists exploit it in order to refute the existence of God Almighty-this is arbitrariness and detestable stubbornness. Furthermore, because they cannot respond to the atheists, they resort to obstinance and they resort to rejecting the theory of evolution despite the established evidence for its validity, the solid scientific arguments against the belief in single-burst creation, and the fact that even the religious scriptures indicate evolution.

What can those who dispute the theory of evolution, who ignorantly and stubbornly reject it, do? Well, they could refute it in such a way as to make it scientifically invalid or require modification once they find evidence that contradicts the predictions of the theory. The theory of evolution challenges those who reject it to present one single piece of evidence-just one-that contradicts what the theory predicts. In fact, such evidence is nowhere to be found. From the time the theory of evolution was presented until now, thousands of experiments and research efforts in biology, comparative anatomy, and genetics haven’t yielded any evidence pertaining to terrestrial organisms that contradicts its predictions. This means that the validity of the theory of evolution is beyond doubt. Therefore, more than a hundred years with thousands of experiments, studies, and observable evidence all consistent with a particular theory, without exception, is enough to prove the validity of evolution.

Some of the Arguments Used Against the Theory of Evolution and Development

The Argument of Probability Used Against the Theory of Evolution

Essentially this argument is as follows: if we were to mathematically calculate the probability of complex living structures assembling, we would get astronomical figures that would clearly demonstrate the impossibility of happening by chance.

As an example, let’s look at the hemoglobin molecule, which consists of four amino acid chains twisted together. Each of these chains consists of 146 amino acids, and there are 20 different types of amino acids. The number of required attempts or possibilities for just one chain to assemble in the way needed, without knowing the correct plan, is the number 20 times itself 146 times. This is a massive number (8.92 x 10+189), or almost 1 with 190 zeroes after it. Therefore, it would be impossible for this event to occur in this manner as a result of evolution, because it would require a period of time not only longer than the age of the earth (almost 4.6 billion years), but longer than the age of the entire universe (almost 13.7 billion years). If we assumed that the time available for evolution was one billion years, then the number of attempts we would have per year would be approximately 1 followed by 181 zeroes, which would be (3.179 x 10+172) attempts per second, or approximately 1 followed by 172 zeroes attempts per second for one billion years. All of this would be in order to reach the number of attempts that would produce the correct result for only one hemoglobin chain. This is certainly beyond the limits of possibility, and impossible to achieve within the limits of life in which we live.

Nevertheless, what has been mentioned above concerns single-step evolution, which doesn’t exist in nature. What exists is evolution is cumulative steps, where each step benefits from the preceding one and doesn’t start from zero each time. This means that the previously mentioned numbers would become reasonable and achievable ones.

A haemoglobin molecule consists of four chains of amino acids twisted together. Let us think about just one of these four chains. It consists of 146 amino acids. There are 20 different kinds of amino acids commonly found in living things. The number of possible ways of arranging 20 kinds of thing in chains 146 links long is an inconceivably large number, which Asimov calls the ‘haemoglobin number’. It is easy to calculate, but impossible to visualize the answer. The first link in the 146-long chain could be any one of the 20 possible amino acids. The second link could also be any one of the 20, so the number of possible 2-link chains is 20 x 20, or 400. The number of possible 3-link chains is 20 x 20 x 20, or 8,000. The number of possible 146-link chains is 20 times itself 146 times. This is a staggeringly large number. A million is a 1 with 6 noughts after it. A billion (1,000 million) is a 1 with 9 noughts after it. The number we seek, the ‘haemoglobin number’, is (near enough) a 1 with 190 noughts after it! This is the chance against happening to hit upon haemoglobin by luck. And a haemoglobin molecule has only a minute fraction of the complexity of a living body. Simple sieving, on its own, is obviously nowhere near capable of generating the amount of order in a living thing. Sieving is an essential ingredient in the generation of living order, but it is very far from being the whole story. Something else is needed. To explain the point, I shall need to make a distinction between ‘single-step’ selection and ‘cumulative’ selection. The simple sieves we have been considering so far in this chapter are all examples of single-step selection. Living organization is the product of cumulative selection (Dawkins 1996, 45).

Dawkins gives an example to illustrate the invalidity of this argument:

Hamlet. Do you see yonder cloud that’s almost in shape of a camel? Polonius. By the mass, and ‘tis like a camel, indeed. Hamlet. Methinks it is like a weasel. Polonius. It is backed like a weasel. Hamlet. Or like a whale? Polonius. Very like a whale.

I don’t know who it was first pointed out that, given enough time, a monkey bashing away at random on a typewriter could produce all the works of Shakespeare. The operative phrase is, of course, given enough time. Let us limit the task facing our monkey somewhat. Suppose that he has to produce, not the complete works of Shakespeare but just the short sentence ‘Methinks it is like a weasel’, and we shall make it relatively easy by giving him a typewriter with a restricted keyboard, one with just the 26 (capital) letters, and a space bar. How long will he take to write this one little sentence?

The sentence has 28 characters in it, so let us assume that the monkey has a series of discrete ‘tries’, each consisting of 28 bashes at the keyboard. If he types the phrase correctly, that is the end of the experiment. If not, we allow him another ‘try’ of 28 characters. I don’t know any monkeys, but fortunately my 11-month old daughter is an experienced randomizing device, and she proved only too eager to step into the role of monkey typist. Here is what she typed on the computer:

UMMK JK CDZZ F ZD DSDSKSM S SS FMCV PU I DDRGLKDXRRDO RDTE QDWFDVIOY UDSKZWDCCVYT H CHVY NMGNBAYTDFCCVD D RCDFYYYRM N DFSKD LD K WDWK JJKAUIZMZI UXDKIDSFUMDKUDXI

She has other important calls on her time, so I was obliged to program the computer to simulate a randomly typing baby or monkey:

WDLDMNLT DTJBKWIRZREZLMQCO P WDLDMNLT DTJBKWIRZREZLMQCO P Y YVMQKZPGJXWVHGLAWFVCHQYPOY MWR SWTNUXMLCDLEUBXTQHNZVIQF FU OVAODVYKDGXDEKYVMOGGS VT HZQZDSFZIHIVPHZPETPWVOVPMZGF GEWRGZRPBCTPGZMCKHFDBGW ZCCF

And so on and on. It isn’t difficult to calculate how long we should reasonably ‘expect to wait for the random computer (or baby or monkey) to type METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL … The chance of it getting the entire phrase of 28 characters right is (1/27) to the power 28, i.e. (1/27) multiplied by itself 28 times. These are very small odds, about 1 in 10,000 million million million million million million. To put it mildly, the phrase we seek would be a long time coming, to say nothing of the complete works of Shakespeare.

So much for single-step selection of random variation. What about cumulative selection; how much more effective should this be? Very very much more effective, perhaps more so than we at first realize, although it is almost obvious when we reflect further. We again use our computer monkey, but with a crucial difference in its program. It again begins by choosing a random sequence of 28 letters, just as before:

WDLMNLT DTJBKWIRZREZLMQCO P

It now ‘breeds from’ this random phrase. It duplicates it repeatedly, but with a certain chance of random error-’mutation’-in the copying. The computer examines the mutant nonsense phrases, the ‘progeny’ of the original phrase, and chooses the one which, however slightly, most resembles the target phrase, METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL. In this instance the winning phrase of the next ‘generation’ happened to be:

WDLTMNLT DTJBSWIRZREZLMQCO P

Not an obvious improvement! But the procedure is repeated, again mutant ‘progeny’ are ‘bred from’ the phrase, and a new ‘winner’ is chosen. This goes on, generation after generation. After 10 generations, the phrase chosen for ‘breeding’ was:

MDLDMNLS ITJISWHRZREZ MECS P

After 20 generations it was:

MELDINLS IT ISWPRKE Z WECSEL

By now, the eye of faith fancies that it can see a resemblance to the target phrase. By 30 generations there can be no doubt:

METHINGS IT ISWLIKE B WECSEL

Generation 40 takes us to within one letter of the target:

METHINKS IT IS LIKE I WEASEL

And the target was finally reached in generation 43. A second run of the computer began with the phrase:

Y YVMQKZPFJXWVHGLAWFVCHQXYOPY

passed through (again reporting only every tenth generation):

Y YVMQKSPFTXWSHLIKEFV HQYSPY YETHINKSPITXISHLIKEFA WQYSEY METHINKS IT ISSLIKE A WEFSEY METHINKS IT ISBLIKE A WEASES

METHINKS IT ISJLIKE A WEASEO METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEP

and reached the target phrase in generation 64. In a third run the computer started with:

GEWRGZRPBCTPGQMCKHFDBGW ZCCF

and reached METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL in 41 generations of selective ‘breeding’.

The exact time taken by the computer to reach the target doesn’t matter. If you want to know, it completed the whole exercise for me, the first time, while I was out to lunch. It took about half an hour. (Computer enthusiasts may think this unduly slow. The reason is that the program was written in BASIC, a sort of computer baby-talk. When I rewrote it in Pascal, it took 11 seconds.) Computers are a bit faster at this kind of thing than monkeys, but the difference really isn’t significant. What matters is the difference between the time taken by cumulative selection, and the time which the same computer, working flat out at the same rate, would take to reach the target phrase if it were forced to use the other procedure of single-step selection: about a million million million million million years. This is more than a million million million times as long as the universe has so far existed. Actually it would be fairer just to say that, in comparison with the time it would take either a monkey or a randomly programmed computer to type our target phrase, the total age of the universe so far is a negligibly small quantity, so small as to be well within the margin of error for this sort of back-of-an-envelope calculation. Whereas the time taken for a computer working randomly but with the constraint of cumulative selection to perform the same task is of the same order as humans ordinarily can understand, between 11 seconds and the time it takes to have lunch.

There is a big difference, then, between cumulative selection (in which each improvement, however slight, is used as a basis for future building), and single-step selection (in which each new ‘try’ is a fresh one). If evolutionary progress had had to rely on single-step selection, it would never have got anywhere. If, however, there was any way in which the necessary conditions for cumulative selection could have been set up by the blind forces of nature, strange and wonderful might have been the consequences. As a matter of fact that is exactly what happened on this planet, and we ourselves are among the most recent, if not the strangest and most wonderful, of those consequences (Dawkins 1996, 46-49).

Here I would like to point out something important: this would be a sound argument of probabilities if directed against the theory of abiogenesis, but it cannot be used against the theory of evolution within the limits of life.

The Argument Regarding Complex, Compound Organs such as the Eye and the Sonar System of the Bat

Essentially this argument is as follows: the eye is a complex organ consisting of several parts, composed in a precise and structured way, that work as a team in an organized fashion designed to perform its function as well as possible, so it is impossible to imagine that a genetic mutation or leap occurred that led to the emergence of the eye.

In fact, this argument is based on the idea that evolution of the eye occurred in a single step, which is incorrect and irrelevant to the theory of evolution, since evolution actually occurs gradually. For example, it could be imagined that the eye evolved over the course of hundreds of millions of years, and through thousands or even millions of gradual, cumulative, evolutionary steps. Therefore, we can say that it began with a light sensitive cell hundreds of millions of years ago and the process of evolution continued until arriving at the modern eye. A system that senses light certainly gives the organism an advantage in reproduction and survival. Additionally, whenever eyesight improves, it gives the animal an advantage over other animals, at least when it comes to escaping enemies and obtaining food.

As such, every step that improves the sensation of light and vision gives it an advantage in survival and reproduction over competitors that do not possess this evolutionary step.

Therefore, it cannot be said that a partial eye doesn’t function or benefit whoever possesses it. For example, an eye without a lens provides blurry vision, giving an advantage in survival and reproduction over one without vision. So we can say that the evolution of a complex, compound system, such as the eye, is a very normal process. This is also the case for the sonar of the bat that enables some species to measure the distance between themselves and a moving target while flying (taking the Doppler effect into consideration).

The Argument that the Small Part Needed for Evolution to Begin Doesn’t Have Any Real Benefit in Order for the Evolutionary Process of Natural Selection to Produce Variation

What use is half a wing? How did wings get their start? Many animals leap from bough to bough, and sometimes fall to the ground. Especially in a small animal, the whole body surface catches the air and assists the leap, or breaks the fall, by acting as a crude aerofoil. Any tendency to increase the ratio of surface area to weight would help, for example flaps of skin growing out in the angles of joints. From here, there is a continuous series of gradations to gliding wings, and hence to flapping wings. Obviously there are distances that could not have been jumped by the earliest animals with proto-wings. Equally obviously, for any degree of smallness or crudeness of ancestral aircatching surfaces, there must be some distance, however short, which can be jumped with the flap and which cannot be jumped without the flap.

Or, if prototype wingflaps worked to break the animal’s fall, you cannot say ‘Below a certain size the flaps would have been of no use at all’. Once again, it doesn’t matter how small and un-winglike the first wingflaps were. There must be some height, call it h, such that an animal would just break its neck if it fell from that height, but would just survive if it fell from a slightly lower height. In this critical zone, any improvement in the body surface’s ability to catch the air and break the fall, however slight that improvement, can make the difference between life and death. Natural selection will then favour slight, prototype wingflaps. When these small wingflaps have become the norm, the critical height h will become slightly greater. Now a slight further increase in the wingflaps will make the difference between life and death. And so on, until we have proper wings.

There are animals alive today that beautifully illustrate every stage in the continuum. There are frogs that glide with big webs between their toes, tree-snakes with flattened bodies that catch the air, lizards with flaps along their bodies; and several different kinds of mammals that glide with membranes stretched between their limbs, showing us the kind of way bats must have got their start. Contrary to the creationist literature, not only are animals with ‘half a wing’ common, so are animals with a quarter of a wing, three quarters of a wing, and so on. The idea of a flying continuum becomes even more persuasive when we remember that very small animals tend to float gently in air, whatever their shape. The reason this is persuasive is that there is an infinitesimally graded continuum from small to large.

The idea of tiny changes cumulated over many steps is an immensely powerful idea, capable of explaining an enormous range of things that would be otherwise inexplicable. How did snake venom get its start? Many animals bite, and any animal’s spit contains proteins which, if they get into a wound, may cause an allergic reaction. Even so-called non-venomous snakes can give bites that cause a painful reaction in some people. There is a continuous, graded series from ordinary spit to deadly venom.

How did ears get their start? Any piece of skin can detect vibrations if they come in contact with vibrating objects. This is a natural outgrowth of the sense of touch. Natural selection could easily have enhanced this faculty by gradual degrees until it was sensitive enough to pick up very slight contact vibrations. At this point it would automatically have been sensitive enough to pick up airborne vibrations of sufficient loudness and/or sufficient nearness of origin. Natural selection would then favour the evolution of special organs-ears-for picking up airborne vibrations originating from steadily increasing distances. It is easy to see that there would have been a continuous trajectory of step-by-step improvement, all the way. How did echolocation get its start? Any animal that can hear at all may hear echoes. Blind humans frequently learn to make use of these echoes. A rudimentary version of such a skill in ancestral mammals would have provided ample raw material for natural selection to build upon, leading up by gradual degrees to the high perfection of bats.

Five per cent vision is better than no vision at all. Five per cent hearing is better than no hearing at all. Five per cent flight efficiency is better than no flight at all. It is thoroughly believable that every organ or apparatus that we actually see is the product of a smooth trajectory through animal space, a trajectory in which every intermediate stage assisted survival and reproduction (Dawkins 1996, 89-91).