WHY DARWINISM IS FALSE By: Jonathan Wells Discovery Institute May 18, 2009

Jerry A. Coyne is a professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at The University of Chicago. In Why Evolution is True, he summarizes Darwinism—the modern theory of evolution —as follows: “Life on earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive species—perhaps a self-replicating molecule—that lived more than 3.5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time, throwing off many new and diverse species; and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection.”1 Coyne further explains that evolution “simply means that a species undergoes genetic change over time. That is, over many generations a species can evolve into something quite different, and those differences are based on changes in the DNA, which originate as mutations. The species of animals and plants living today weren’t around in the past, but are descended from those that lived earlier.”2

According to Coyne, however, “if evolution meant only gradual genetic change within a species, we’d have only one species today—a single highly evolved descendant of the first species. Yet we have many… How does this diversity arise from one ancestral form?” It arises because of “splitting, or, more accurately, speciation,” which “simply means the evolution of different groups that can’t interbreed.”3 If Darwinian theory were true, “we should be able to find some cases of speciation in the fossil record, with one line of descent dividing into two or more. And we should be able to find new species forming in the wild.” Furthermore, “we should be able to find examples of species that link together major groups suspected to have common ancestry, like birds with reptiles and fish with amphibians.” Finally, there are facts that “make sense only in light of the theory of evolution” but do not make sense in the light of creation or design. These include “patterns of species distribution on the earth’s surface, peculiarities of how organisms develop from embryos, and the existence of vestigial features that are of no apparent use.” Coyne concludes his introduction with the bold statement that “all the evidence—both old and new—leads ineluctably to the conclusion that evolution is true.”4 Of course, “evolution” is undeniably true if it means simply that existing species can change in minor ways over time, or that many species living today did not exist in the past. But Darwin’s claim that all species are modified descendants of a common ancestor, and Coyne’s claim that DNA mutations and natural selection have produced those modifications, are not so undeniably true. Coyne devotes the remainder of his book to providing evidence for them. Fossils Coyne turns first to the fossil record. “We should be able,” he writes, “to find some evidence for evolutionary change in the fossil record. The deepest (and oldest) layers of rock would contain the fossils of more primitive species, and some fossils should become more complex as the layers of rock become younger, with organisms resembling present-day species found in the most recent layers. And we should be able to see some species changing over time, forming lineages

showing ‘descent with modification’ (adaptation).” In particular, “later species should have traits that make them look like the descendants of earlier ones.”5 In The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin acknowledged that the fossil record presented difficulties for his theory. “By the theory of natural selection,” he wrote, “all living species have been connected with the parent-species of each genus, by differences not greater than we see between the natural and domestic varieties of the same species at the present day.” Thus in the past “the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great.” But Darwin knew that the major animal groups— which modern biologists call “phyla”—appeared fully formed in what were at the time the earliest known fossil-bearing rocks, deposited during a geological period known as the Cambrian. He considered this a “serious” difficulty for his theory, since “if the theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited long periods elapsed… and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures.” And “to the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.” So “the case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”6 Darwin defended his theory by citing the imperfection of the geological record. In particular, he argued that Precambrian fossils had been destroyed by heat, pressure, and erosion. Some of Darwin’s modern followers have likewise argued that Precambrian fossils existed but were later destroyed, or that Precambrian organisms were too small or too soft to have fossilized in the first place. Since 1859, however, paleontologists have discovered many Precambrian fossils, many of them microscopic or soft-bodied. As American paleobiologist William Schopf wrote in 1994, “The long-held notion that Precambrian organisms must have been too small or too delicate to have been preserved in geological materials… [is] now recognized as incorrect.” If anything, the abrupt appearance of the major animal phyla about 540 million years ago—which modern biologists call “the Cambrian explosion” or “biology’s Big Bang”—is better documented now than in

Darwin’s time. According to Berkeley paleontologist James Valentine and his colleagues, the “explosion is real, it is too big to be masked by flaws in the fossil record.” Indeed, as more fossils are discovered it becomes clear that the Cambrian explosion was “even more abrupt and extensive than previously envisioned.”7 What does Coyne’s book have to say about this? “Around 600 million years ago,” Coyne writes, “a whole gamut of relatively simple but multicelled organisms arise, including worms, jellyfish, and sponges. These groups diversify over the next several million years, with terrestrial plants and tetrapods (four-legged animals, the earliest of which were lobe-finned fish) appearing about 400 million years ago.”8 In other words, Coyne’s account of evolutionary history jumps from 600 to 400 million years ago without mentioning the 540 million year-old Cambrian explosion. In this respect, Coyne’s book reads like a modern biology textbook that has been written to indoctrinate students in Darwinian evolution rather than provide them with the facts. Coyne goes on to discuss several “transitional” forms. “One of our best examples of an evolutionary transition,” he writes, is the fossil record of whales, “since we have a chronologically ordered series of fossils, perhaps a lineage of ancestors and descendants, showing their movement from land to water.”9 “The sequence begins,” Coyne writes, “with the recently discovered fossil of a close relative of whales, a raccoon-sized animal called Indohyus. Living 48 million years ago, Indohyus was… probably very close to what the whale ancestor looked like.” In the next paragraph, Coyne writes, “Indohyus was not the ancestor of whales, but was almost certainly its cousin. But if we go back 4 million more years, to 52 million years ago, we see what might well be that ancestor. It is a fossil skull from a wolf-sized creature called Pakicetus, which is bit more whalelike than Indohyus.” On the page separating these two paragraphs is a figure captioned “Transitional forms in the evolution of modern whales,” which shows Indohyus as the first in the series and Pakicetus as the second.10

But Pakicetus—as Coyne just told us—is 4 million years older than Indohyus. To a Darwinist, this doesn’t matter: Pakicetus is “more whalelike” than Indohyus, so it must fall between Indohyus and modern whales, regardless of the fossil evidence. (Coyne performs the same trick with fossils that are supposedly ancestral to modern birds. The textbook icon Archaeopteryx, with feathered wings like a modern bird but teeth and a tail like a reptile, is dated at 145 million years. But what Coyne calls the “nonflying feathered dinosaur fossils”—which should have come before Archaeopteryx—are tens of millions of years younger. Like Darwinists Kevin Padian and Luis Chiappe eleven years earlier, Coyne simply rearranges the evidence to fit Darwinian theory.)11 So much for Coyne’s prediction that “later species should have traits that make them look like the descendants of earlier ones.” And so much for his argument that “if evolution were not true, fossils would not occur in an order that makes evolutionary sense.” Ignoring the facts he himself has just presented, Coyne brazenly concludes: “When we find transitional forms, they occur in the fossil record precisely where they should.” If Coyne’s book were turned into a movie, this scene might feature Chico Marx saying, “Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?”12 There is another problem with the whale series (and every other series of fossils) that Coyne fails to address: No species in the series could possibly be the ancestor of any other, because all of them possess characteristics they would first have to lose before evolving into a subsequent form. This is why the scientific literature typically shows each species branching off a supposed lineage. In the figure below, all the lines are hypothetical. The diagram on the left is a representation of evolutionary theory: Species A is ancestral to B, which is ancestral to C, which is ancestral to D, which is ancestral to E. But the diagram on the right is a better representation of the evidence: Species A, B, C and D are not in the actual lineage leading to E, which remains unknown.

It turns out that no series of fossils can provide evidence for Darwinian descent with modification. Even in the case of living species, buried remains cannot generally be used to establish ancestordescendant relationships. Imagine finding two human skeletons in the same grave, one about thirty years older than the other. Was the older individual the parent of the younger? Without written genealogical records and identifying marks (or in some cases DNA), it is impossible to answer the question. And in this case we would be dealing with two skeletons from the same species that are only a generation apart and from the same location. With fossils from different species that are now extinct, and widely separated in time and space, there is no way to establish that one is the ancestor of another—no matter how many transitional fossils we find. In 1978, Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History wrote: “The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”13 Nature science writer Henry Gee wrote in 1999 that “no fossil is buried with its birth certificate.” When we call new fossil discoveries “missing links,” it is “as if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is: a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices.” Gee concluded: “To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be

tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story —amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”14 Embryos So evolutionary theory needs better evidence than the fossil record can provide. Coyne correctly notes: “When he wrote The Origin, Darwin considered embryology his strongest evidence for evolution.” Darwin had written that the evidence seemed to show that “the embryos of the most distinct species belonging to the same class are closely similar, but become, when fully developed, widely dissimilar,” a pattern that “reveals community of descent.” Indeed, Darwin thought that early embryos “show us, more or less completely, the condition of the progenitor of the whole group in its adult state.”15 But Darwin was not an embryologist. In The Origin of Species he supported his contention by citing a passage by German embryologist Karl Ernst von Baer: “The embryos of mammals, birds, lizards and snakes, and probably chelonia [turtles] are in their earliest states exceedingly like one another.... In my possession are two little embryos in spirit, whose names I have omitted to attach, and at present I am quite unable to say to what class they belong. They may be lizards or small birds, or very young mammals, so complete is the similarity in the mode of formation of the head and trunk in these animals.”16 Coyne claims that this is something von Baer “wrote to Darwin,” but Coyne’s history is as unreliable as his paleontology. The passage Darwin cited was from a work written in German by von Baer in 1828; Thomas Henry Huxley translated it into English and published it in 1853. Darwin didn’t even realize at first that it was from von Baer: In the first two editions of The Origin of Species he incorrectly attributed the passage to Louis Agassiz.17 Ironically, von Baer was a strong critic of Darwin’s theory, rejecting the idea that all vertebrates share a common ancestor. According to historian of science Timothy Lenoir, von Baer feared that Darwin and his followers had “already accepted the Darwinian

evolutionary hypothesis as true before they set to the task of observing embryos.” The myth that von Baer’s work supported Darwin’s theory was due primarily to another German biologist, Ernst Haeckel.”18 Haeckel maintained not only that all vertebrate embryos evolved from a common ancestor, but also that in their development (“ontogeny”) they replay (“recapitulate”) their evolutionary history (“phylogeny”). He called this The Biogenetic Law: Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. In Why Evolution Is True, Coyne writes that “the ‘recapitulation’ of an evolutionary sequence is seen in the developmental sequence” of various organs. “Each vertebrate undergoes development in a series of stages, and the sequence of those stages happens to follow the evolutionary sequence of its ancestors.” The probable reason for this is that “as one species evolves into another, the descendant inherits the developmental program of its ancestor.” So the descendant tacks changes “onto what is already a robust and basic developmental plan. It is best for things that evolved later to be programmed to develop later in the embryo. This ‘adding new stuff onto old’ principle also explains why the sequence of developmental stages mirrors the evolutionary sequence of organisms. As one group evolves from another, it often adds its developmental program on top of the old one.” Thus “all vertebrates begin development looking like embryonic fish because we all descended from a fishlike ancestor.”19 Nevertheless, Coyne writes, Haeckel’s Biogenetic Law “wasn’t strictly true,” because “embryonic stages don’t look like the adult forms of their ancestors,” as Haeckel (and Darwin) believed, “but like the embryonic forms of their ancestors.” But this reformulation of The Biogenetic Law doesn’t solve the problem. First, fossil embryos are extremely rare,20 so the reformulated law has to rely on embryos of modern organisms that are assumed to resemble ancestral forms. The result is a circular argument: According to Darwin’s theory, fish are our ancestors; human embryos (allegedly) look like fish embryos; therefore, human embryos look like the embryos of our ancestors. Theory first, observation later—just as von Baer had objected. Second, the idea that later evolutionary stages can simply be tacked onto development is biologically unrealistic. A human is not just

a fish embryo with some added features. As British embryologist Walter Garstang pointed out in 1922, “a house is not a cottage with an extra story on the top. A house represents a higher grade in the evolution of a residence, but the whole building is altered—foundations, timbers, and roof—even if the bricks are the same.”21 Third, and most important, vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their earliest stages. In the 1860s, Haeckel made some drawings to show that vertebrate embryos look almost identical in their first stage— but his drawings were faked. Not only had he distorted the embryos by making them appear more similar than they really are, but he had also omitted earlier stages in which the embryos are strikingly different from each other. A human embryo in its earliest stages looks nothing like a fish embryo. Only after vertebrate embryos have progressed halfway through their development do they reach the stage that Darwin and Haeckel treated as the first. Developmental biologists call this different-similardifferent pattern the “developmental hourglass.” Vertebrate embryos do not resemble each other in their earliest stages, but they converge somewhat in appearance midway through development before diverging again. If ontogeny were a recapitulation of phylogeny, such a pattern would be more consistent with separate origins than with common ancestry. Modern Darwinists attempt to salvage their theory by assuming that the common ancestry of vertebrates is obscured because early development can evolve easily, but there is no justification for this assumption other than the theory itself.22 Although Haeckel’s drawings were exposed as fakes by his own contemporaries, biology textbooks used them throughout the twentieth century to convince students that humans share a common ancestor with fish. Then, in 1997, a scientific journal published an article comparing photos of vertebrate embryos to Haeckel’s drawings, which the lead author described as “one of the most famous fakes in biology.” In 2000, Harvard evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould called Haeckel’s drawings “fraudulent” and wrote that biologists should “be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has

led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks.”23 But Coyne is not ashamed. He defends Haeckel’s drawings “Haeckel was accused, largely unjustly,” Coyne writes, “of fudging some drawings of early embryos to make them look more similar than they really are. Yet we shouldn’t throw out the baby with the bath water.”24 The “baby” is Darwin’s theory, which Coyne stubbornly defends regardless of the evidence. Vestiges and Bad Design Darwin argued in The Origin of Species that the widespread occurrence of vestigial organs—organs that may have once had a function but are now useless—is evidence against creation. “On the view of each organism with all its separate parts having been specially created, how utterly inexplicable is it that organs bearing the plain stamp of inutility… should so frequently occur.” But such organs, he argued, are readily explained by his theory: “On the view of descent with modification, we may conclude that the existence of organs in a rudimentary, imperfect, and useless condition, or quite aborted, far from presenting a strange difficulty, as they assuredly do on the old doctrine of creation, might even have been anticipated in accordance with the views here explained.”25 In The Descent of Man, Darwin cited the human appendix as an example of a vestigial organ. But Darwin was mistaken: The appendix is now known to be an important source of antibody-producing blood cells and thus an integral part of the human immune system. It may also serve as a compartment for beneficial bacteria that are needed for normal digestion. So the appendix is not useless at all.26 In 1981, Canadian biologist Steven Scadding argued that although he had no objection to Darwinism, “vestigial organs provide no evidence for evolutionary theory.” The primarily reason is that “it is difficult, if not impossible, to unambiguously identify organs totally lacking in function.” Scadding cited the human appendix as an organ previously thought to be vestigial but now known to have a function. Another Canadian biologist, Bruce Naylor, countered that an organ with some

function can still be considered vestigial. Furthermore, Naylor argued, “perfectly designed organisms necessitated the existence of a creator,” but “organisms are often something less than perfectly designed” and thus better explained by evolution. Scadding replied: “The entire argument of Darwin and others regarding vestigial organs hinges on their uselessness and inutility.” Otherwise, the argument from vestigiality is nothing more than an argument from homology, and “Darwin treated these arguments separately recognizing that they were in fact independent.” Scadding also objected that Naylor’s “less than perfectly designed” argument was “based on a theological assumption about the nature of God, i.e. that he would not create useless structures. Whatever the validity of this theological claim, it certainly cannot be defended as a scientific statement, and thus should be given no place in a scientific discussion of evolution.”27 In Why Evolution Is True, Coyne (like Darwin) cites the human appendix as an example of a vestigial organ. Unlike Darwin, however, Coyne concedes that “it may be of some small use. The appendix contains patches of tissue that may function as part of the immune system. It has also been suggested that it provides a refuge for useful gut bacteria. But these minor benefits are surely outweighed by the severe problems that come with the human appendix.” In any case, Coyne argues, “the appendix is still vestigial, for it no longer performs the function for which it evolved.”28 As Scadding had pointed out nearly thirty years ago, however, Darwin’s argument rested on lack of function, not change of function. Furthermore, if vestigiality were redefined as Coyne proposes, it would include many features never before thought to be vestigial. For example, if the human arm evolved from the leg of a four-footed mammal (as Darwinists claim), then the human arm is vestigial. And if (as Coyne argues) the wings of flying birds evolved from feathered forelimbs of dinosaurs that used them for other purposes, then the wings of flying birds are vestigial. This is the opposite of what most people mean by “vestigial.”29 Coyne also ignores Scadding’s other criticism, arguing that whether the human appendix is useless or not, it is an example of

imperfect or bad design. “What I mean by ‘bad design’,” Coyne writes, “is the notion that if organisms were built from scratch by a designer— one who used the biological building blocks or nerves, muscles, bone, and so on—they would not have such imperfections. Perfect design would truly be the sign of a skilled and intelligent designer. Imperfect design is the mark of evolution; in fact, it’s precisely what we expect from evolution.”30 An even better example of bad design, Coyne argues, is the prevalence of “dead genes.” According to the modern version of Darwinism that Coyne defends, DNA carries a genetic program that encodes proteins that direct embryo development; mutations occasionally alter the genetic program to produce new proteins (or change their locations); and natural selection then sorts those mutations to produce evolution. In the 1970s, however, molecular biologists discovered that most of our DNA does not encode proteins. In 1972 Susumu Ohno called this “junk,” and in 1976 Richard Dawkins wrote: “A large fraction of the DNA is never translated into protein. From the point of view of the individual organism this seems paradoxical. If the ‘purpose’ of DNA is to supervise the building of bodies, it is surprising to find a large quantity of DNA which does no such thing.” From the point of view of Darwinian evolution, however, there is no paradox. “The true ‘purpose’ of DNA is to survive, no more and no less. The simplest way to explain the surplus DNA is to suppose that it is a parasite, or at best a harmless but useless passenger, hitching a ride in the survival machines created by the other DNA.”31 Like Dawkins, Coyne regards much of our DNA as parasitic. He writes in Why Evolution Is True: “When a trait is no longer used, or becomes reduced, the genes that make it don't instantly disappear from the genome: evolution stops their action by inactivating them, not snipping them out of the DNA. From this we can make a prediction. We expect to find, in the genomes of many species, silenced, or ‘dead,’ genes: genes that once were useful but are no longer intact or expressed. In other words, there should be vestigial genes. In contrast, the idea that all species were created from scratch predicts that no such genes would exist.” Coyne continues: “Thirty years ago we couldn't test this prediction because we had no way to read the DNA code. Now,

however, it’s quite easy to sequence the complete genome of species, and it’s been done for many of them, including humans. This gives us a unique tool to study evolution when we realize that the normal function of a gene is to make a protein—a protein whose sequence of amino acids is determined by the sequence of nucleotide bases that make up the DNA. And once we have the DNA sequence of a given gene, we can usually tell if it is expressed normally—that is, whether it makes a functional protein—or whether it is silenced and makes nothing. We can see, for example, whether mutations have changed the gene so that a usable protein can no longer be made, or whether the ‘control’ regions responsible for turning on a gene have been inactivated. A gene that doesn’t function is called a pseudogene. And the evolutionary prediction that we’ll find pseudogenes has been fulfilled—amply. Virtually every species harbors dead genes, many of them still active in its relatives. This implies that those genes were also active in a common ancestor, and were killed off in some descendants but not in others. Out of about thirty thousand genes, for example, we humans carry more than two thousand pseudogenes. Our genome—and that of other species—are truly well populated graveyards of dead genes.”32 But Coyne is dead wrong. Evidence pouring in from genome-sequencing projects shows that virtually all of an organism’s DNA is transcribed into RNA, and that even though most of that RNA is not translated into proteins, it performs essential regulatory functions. Every month, science journals publish articles describing more such functions. And this is not late-breaking news: The evidence has been accumulating since 2003 (when scientists finished sequencing the human genome) that “pseudogenes” and other so-called “junk DNA” sequences are not useless after all.33 Why Evolution Is True ignores this enormous body of evidence, which decisively refutes Coyne’s Darwinian prediction that our genome should contain lots of “dead” DNA. It’s no wonder that Coyne falls back again and again on the sort of theological arguments that Scadding wrote “should be given no place in a scientific discussion of evolution.” Biogeography

Theological arguments are also prominent in The Origin of Species. For example, Darwin argued that the geographic distribution of living things made no sense if species had been separately created, but it did make sense in the context of his theory. Cases such as “the presence of peculiar species of bats on oceanic islands and the absence of all other terrestrial mammals,” Darwin wrote, “are facts utterly inexplicable on the theory of independent acts of creation.” In particular: “Why, it may be asked, has the supposed creative force produced bats and no other mammals on remote islands?” According to Darwin, “on my view this question can easily be answered; for no terrestrial mammal can be transported across a wide space of sea, but bats can fly across.”34 But Darwin knew that migration cannot account for all patterns of geographic distribution. He wrote in The Origin of Species that “the identity of many plants and animals, on mountain-summits, separated from each other by hundreds of miles of lowlands, where Alpine species could not possibly exist, is one of the most striking cases known of the same species living at distant points without the apparent possibility of their having migrated from one point to the other.” Darwin argued that the recent ice age “affords a simple explanation of these facts.” Arctic plants and animals that were “nearly the same” could have flourished everywhere in Europe and North America, but “when the warmth had fully returned, the same species, which had lately lived together on the European and North American lowlands, would again be found in the arctic regions of the Old and New Worlds, and on many isolated mountain-summits far distant from each other.”35 So some cases of geographic distribution may not be due to migration, but to the splitting of a formerly large, widespread population into small, isolated populations—what modern biologists call “vicariance.” Darwin argued that all modern distributions of species could be explained by these two possibilities. Yet there are many cases of geographic distribution that neither migration nor vicariance seem able to explain. One example is the worldwide distribution of flightless birds, or “ratites.” These include ostriches in Africa, rheas in South America, emus and cassowaries in Australia, and kiwis in New Zealand. Since the

birds are flightless, explanations based on migration over vast oceanic distances are implausible. After continental drift was discovered in the twentieth century, it was thought that the various populations might have separated with the landmasses. But ostriches and kiwis are much too recent; the continents had already drifted apart when these species originated. So neither migration nor vicariance explain ratite biogeography.36 Another example is freshwater crabs. Studied intensively by Italian biologist Giuseppe Colosi in the 1920s, these animals complete their life cycles exclusively in freshwater habitats and are incapable of surviving prolonged exposure to salt water. Today, very similar species are found in widely separated lakes and rivers in Central and South America, Africa, Madagascar, southern Europe, India, Asia and Australia. Fossil and molecular evidence indicates that these animals originated long after the continents separated, so their distribution is inconsistent with the vicariance hypothesis. Some biologists speculate that the crabs may have migrated by “transoceanic rafting” in hollow logs, but this seems unlikely given their inability to tolerate salt water. So neither vicariance nor migration provides a convincing explanation for the biogeography of these animals.37 An alternative explanation was suggested in the mid-twentieth century by Léon Croizat, a French biologist raised in Italy. Croizat found that Darwin’s theory did “not seem to agree at all with certain important facts of nature,” especially the facts of biogeography. Indeed, he concluded, “Darwinism is by now only a straitjacket… a thoroughly decrepit skin to hold new wine.” Croizat did not argue for independent acts of creation; instead, he proposed that in many cases a widespread primitive species was split into fragments, then its remnants evolved in parallel, in separate locations, into new species that were remarkably similar. Croizat called this process of parallel evolution “orthogenesis.” Neo-Darwinists such as Ernst Mayr, however, pointed out that there is no mechanism for orthogenesis, which implies—contrary to Darwinism —that evolution is guided in certain directions; so they rejected Croizat’s hypothesis.38

In Why Evolution Is True, Coyne (like Darwin) attributes the biogeography of oceanic islands to migration, and certain other distributions to vicariance. But Coyne (unlike Darwin) acknowledges that these two processes cannot explain everything. For example, the internal anatomy of marsupial mammals is so different from the internal anatomy of placental mammals that the two groups are thought to have split a long time ago. Yet there are marsupial flying squirrels, anteaters and moles in Australia that strikingly resemble placental flying squirrels, anteaters and moles on other continents, and these forms originated long after the continents had separated. Coyne attributes the similarities to “a well-known process called convergent evolution.” According to Coyne. “It’s really quite simple. Species that live in similar habitats will experience similar selection pressures from their environment, so they may evolve similar adaptations, or converge, coming to look and behave very much alike even though they are unrelated.” Put together common ancestry, natural selection, and the origin of species (“speciation”), “add in the fact that distant areas of the world can have similar habitats, and you get convergent evolution—and a simple explanation of a major geographic pattern.”39 This is not the same as Croizat’s “orthogenesis,” according to which populations of a single species, after becoming separated from each other, evolve in parallel due to some internal directive force. According to Coyne’s “convergent evolution,” organisms that are fundamentally different from each other evolve through natural selection to become superficially similar because they inhabit similar environments. The mechanism for orthogenesis is internal, whereas the mechanism for convergence is external. In both cases, however, mechanism is crucial: Without it, orthogenesis and convergence are simply words describing biogeographical patterns, not explanations of how those patterns originated. So the same question can be asked of convergence that was asked of orthogenesis: What is the evidence for the proposed mechanism? According to Coyne, the mechanism of convergence involves natural selection and speciation.

Selection and Speciation Coyne writes that Darwin “had little direct evidence for selection acting in natural populations.” Actually, Darwin had no direct evidence for natural selection; the best he could do in The Origin of Species was “give one or two imaginary illustrations.” It wasn’t until a century later that Bernard Kettlewell provided what he called “Darwin’s missing evidence” for natural selection—a shift in the proportion of light- and dark-colored peppered moths that Kettlewell attributed to camouflage and bird predation.40 Since then, biologists have found lots of direct evidence for natural selection. Coyne describes some of it, including an increase in average beak depth of finches on the Galápagos Islands and a change in flowering time in wild mustard plants in Southern California—both due to drought. Like Darwin, Coyne also compares natural selection to the artificial selection used in plant and animal breeding. But these examples of selection—natural as well as artificial— involve only minor changes within existing species. Breeders were familiar with such changes before 1859, which is why Darwin did not write a book titled How Existing Species Change Over Time; he wrote a book titled The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. “Darwin called his great work On the Origin of Species,” wrote Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr in 1982, “for he was fully conscious of the fact that the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.” Yet, Mayr had written earlier, “Darwin failed to solve the problem indicated by the title of his work.” In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.” Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally. “Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.”41

In 2004, Coyne and H. Allen Orr published a detailed book titled Speciation, in which they noted that biologists have not been able to agree on a definition of “species” because no single definition fits every case. For example, a definition applicable to living, sexually reproducing organisms might make no sense when applied to fossils or bacteria. In fact, there are more than 25 definitions of “species.” What definition is best? Coyne and Orr argued that, “when deciding on a species concept, one should first identify the nature of one's ‘species problem,’ and then choose the concept best at solving that problem.” Like most other Darwinists, Coyne and Orr favor Ernst Mayr's “biological species concept” (BSC), according to which “species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.” In Why Evolution Is True, Coyne explains that the biological species concept is “the one that evolutionists prefer when studying speciation, because it gets you to the heart of the evolutionary question. Under the BSC, if you can explain how reproductive barriers evolve, you’ve explained the origin of species.”42 Theoretically, reproductive barriers arise when geographically separated populations diverge genetically. But Coyne describes five “cases of real-time speciation” that involve a different mechanism: chromosome doubling, or “polyploidy.”43 This usually follows hybridization between two existing plant species. Most hybrids are sterile because their mismatched chromosomes can’t separate properly to produce fertile pollen and ovaries; occasionally, however, the chromosomes in a hybrid spontaneously double, producing two perfectly matched sets and making reproduction possible. The result is a fertile plant that is reproductively isolated from the two parents—a new species, according to the BSC. But speciation by polyploidy (“secondary speciation”) has been observed only in plants. It does not provide evidence for Darwin’s theory that species originate through natural selection, nor for the neoDarwinian theory of speciation by geographic separation and genetic divergence. Indeed, according to evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, polyploidy “does not confer major new morphological characteristics… [and] does not cause the evolution of new genera” or higher levels in the biological hierarchy.44

So secondary speciation does not solve Darwin’s problem. Only primary speciation—the splitting of one species into two by natural selection—would be capable of producing the branching-tree pattern of Darwinian evolution. But no one has ever observed primary speciation. Evolution’s smoking gun has never been found.45 Or has it? In Why Evolution Is True, Coyne claims that primary speciation was observed in an experiment reported in 1998. Curiously, Coyne did not mention it in the 2004 book he co-authored with Orr, but his 2009 account of it is worth quoting in full: “We can even see the origin of a new, ecologically diverse bacterial species, all within a single laboratory flask. Paul Rainey and his colleagues at Oxford University placed a strain of the bacteria Pseudomonas fluorescens in a small vessel containing nutrient broth, and simply watched it. (It’s surprising but true that such a vessel actually contains diverse environments. Oxygen concentration, for example, is highest on the top and lowest on the bottom.) Within ten days—no more than a few hundred generations—the ancestral free-floating ‘smooth’ bacterium had evolved into two additional forms occupying different parts of the beaker. One, called ‘wrinkly spreader,’ formed a mat on top of the broth. The other, called ‘fuzzy spreader,’ formed a carpet on the bottom. The smooth ancestral type persisted in the liquid environment in the middle. Each of the two new forms was genetically different from the ancestor, having evolved through mutation and natural selection to reproduce best in their respective environments. Here, then, is not only evolution but speciation occurring in the lab: the ancestral form produced, and coexisted with, two ecologically different descendants, and in bacteria such forms are considered distinct species. Over a very short time, natural selection in Pseudomonas yielded a small-scale ‘adaptive radiation,’ the equivalent of how animals or plants form species when they encounter new environments on an oceanic island.”46 But Coyne omits the fact that when the ecologically different forms were placed back into the same environment, they “suffered a rapid loss of diversity,” according to Rainey. In bacteria, an ecologically

distinct population (called an “ecotype”) may constitute a separate species, but only if the distinction is permanent. As evolutionary microbiologist Frederick Cohan wrote in 2002, species in bacteria “are ecologically distinct from one another; and they are irreversibly separate.”47 The rapid reversal of ecological distinctions when the bacterial populations in Rainey’s experiment were put back into the same environment refutes Coyne’s claim that the experiment demonstrated the origin of a new species. Exaggerating the evidence to prop up Darwinism is not new. In the Galápagos finches, average beak depth reverted to normal after the drought ended. There was no net evolution, much less speciation. Yet Coyne writes in Why Evolution Is True that “everything we require of evolution by natural selection was amply documented” by the finch studies. Since scientific theories stand or fall on the evidence, Coyne’s tendency to exaggerate the evidence does not speak well for the theory he is defending. When a 1999 booklet published by The U. S. National Academy of Sciences called the change in finch beaks “a particularly compelling example of speciation,” Berkeley law professor and Darwin critic Phillip E. Johnson wrote in The Wall Street Journal: “When our leading scientists have to resort to the sort of distortion that would land a stock promoter in jail, you know they are in trouble.”48 So there are observed instances of secondary speciation—which is not what Darwinism needs—but no observed instances of primary speciation, not even in bacteria. British bacteriologist Alan H. Linton looked for confirmed reports of primary speciation and concluded in 2001: “None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of twenty to thirty minutes, and populations achieved after eighteen hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another.”49 Conclusions Darwin called The Origin of Species “one long argument” for his theory, but Jerry Coyne has given us one long bluff. Why Evolution Is

True tries to defend Darwinian evolution by rearranging the fossil record; by misrepresenting the development of vertebrate embryos; by ignoring evidence for the functionality of allegedly vestigial organs and non-coding DNA, then propping up Darwinism with theological arguments about “bad design;” by attributing some biogeographical patterns to convergence due to the supposedly “well-known” processes of natural selection and speciation; and then exaggerating the evidence for selection and speciation to make it seem as though they could accomplish what Darwinism requires of them. The actual evidence shows that major features of the fossil record are an embarrassment to Darwinian evolution; that early development in vertebrate embryos is more consistent with separate origins than with common ancestry; that non-coding DNA is fully functional, contrary to neo-Darwinian predictions; and that natural selection can accomplish nothing more than artificial selection—which is to say, minor changes within existing species. Faced with such evidence, any other scientific theory would probably have been abandoned long ago. Judged by the normal criteria of empirical science, Darwinism is false. Its persists in spite of the evidence, and the eagerness of Darwin and his followers to defend it with theological arguments about creation and design suggests that its persistence has nothing to do with science at all.50 Nevertheless, biology students might find Coyne’s book useful. Given accurate information and the freedom to exercise critical thinking, students could learn from Why Evolution Is True how Darwinists manipulate the evidence and mix it with theology to recycle a false theory that should have been discarded long ago.

Notes 1 Jerry A. Coyne, Why Evolution Is True (New York: Viking, 2009), p. 3. 2 Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, pp. 3-4. 3 Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, pp. 5-6. 4 Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, pp. 18-19. 5 Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, pp. 17-18, 25. 6 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, Sixth Edition (London: John Murray, 1872), Chapter X, pp. 266, 285-288. Available online (2009) here. 7 J. William Schopf, “The early evolution of life: solution to Darwin’s dilemma,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 9 (1994): 375-377. James W. Valentine, Stanley M. Awramik, Philip W. Signor & M. Sadler, “The Biological Explosion at the Precambrian-Cambrian Boundary,” Evolutionary Biology 25 (1991): 279-356. James W. Valentine & Douglas H. Erwin, “Interpreting Great Developmental Experiments: The Fossil Record,” pp. 71-107 in Rudolf A. Raff & Elizabeth C. Raff, (editors), Development as an Evolutionary Process (New York: Alan R. Liss, 1987). Jeffrey S. Levinton, “The Big Bang of Animal Evolution,” Scientific American 267 (November, 1992): 84-91. “The Scientific Controversy Over the Cambrian Explosion,” Discovery Institute. Available online (2009) here. Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2002), Chapter 3. More information available online (2009) here. Stephen C. Meyer, “The Cambrian Explosion: Biology’s Big Bang,” pp. 323-402 in John Angus Campbell & Stephen C. Meyer (editors), Darwinism, Design, and Public Education (East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press, 2003). More information available online (2009) here. 8 Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, p. 28.

9 Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, p. 48. 10 Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, pp. 49-51. 11 Kevin Padian & Luis M. Chiappe, “The origin and early evolution of birds,” Biological Reviews 73 (1998): 1-42. Available online (2009) here. Wells, Icons of Evolution, pp. 119-122. 12 Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, pp. 25, 53. Chico Marx in Duck Soup (Paramount Pictures, 1933). This and other Marx Brothers quotations are available online (2009) here. 13 Gareth Nelson, “Presentation to the American Museum of Natural History (1969),” in David M. Williams & Malte C. Ebach, “The reform of palaeontology and the rise of biogeography—25 years after 'ontogeny, phylogeny, palaeontology and the biogenetic law' (Nelson, 1978),” Journal of Biogeography 31 (2004): 685-712. 14 Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time. New York: Free Press, 1999, pp. 5, 32, 113-117. Jonathan Wells, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2006). More information available online (2009) here. 15 Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, p. 79. Darwin, The Origin of Species, Chapter XIV, pp. 386-396. Available online (2009) here. 16 Darwin, The Origin of Species, Chapter XIV, pp. 387-388. Available online (2009) here. 17 Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, p. 73. Karl Ernst von Baer, “On the Development of Animals, with Observations and Reflections: The Fifth Scholium,” translated by Thomas Henry Huxley, pp. 186-237 in Arthur Henfrey & Thomas H. Huxley (editors), Scientific Memoirs: Selected from the Transactions of Foreign Academies of Science and from Foreign Journals: Natural History (London, 1853; reprinted 1966 by Johnson Reprint Corporation, New York). The passage quoted by Darwin is on p. 210. Jane M. Oppenheimer, “An Embryological Enigma in the Origin of Species,” pp. 221-255 in Jane M. Oppenheimer, Essays in the History of Embryology and Biology (Cambridge, MA: The M.I.T. Press, 1967). 18 Timothy Lenoir, The Strategy of Life (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1982), p. 258.

Frederick B. Churchill, “The Rise of Classical Descriptive Embryology,” pp. 1-29 in Scott F. Gilbert (editor), A Conceptual History of Modern Embryology (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991), pp. 19-20. 19 Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, pp. 77-79. 20 Simon Conway Morris, “Fossil Embryos,” pp. 703-711 in Claudio D. Stern (editor), Gastrulation: From Cells to Embryos (Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 2004). 21 Walter Garstang, “The theory of recapitulation: a critical restatement of the biogenetic law,” Journal of the Linnean Society (Zoology), 35 (1922): 81-101. 22 See Chapter Five and accompanying references in Wells, Icons of Evolution. See Chapter Three and accompanying references in Wells, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design. 23 Michael K. Richardson, J. Hanken, M. L. Gooneratne, C. Pieau, A. Raynaud, L. Selwood & G. M. Wright, “There is no highly conserved embryonic stage in the vertebrates: implications for current theories of evolution and development,” Anatomy & Embryology 196 (1997): 91106. Michael K. Richardson, quoted in Elizabeth Pennisi, “Haeckel’s Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered,” Science 277 (1997): 1435. Stephen Jay Gould, “Abscheulich! Atrocious!” Natural History (March, 2000), pp. 42-49. “Hoax of Dodos” (2007). Available online (2009) here. 24 Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, p. 78.Notes 25 Darwin, The Origin of Species, Chapters XIV (p. 402) and XV (p. 420). Available online (2009) here. 26 Darwin, Charles. The Descent of Man, First Edition (London: John Murray, 1871), Chapter I (p. 27). Available online (2009) here. Kohtaro Fujihashi, J.R. McGhee, C. Lue, K.W. Beagley, T. Taga, T. Hirano, T. Kishimoto, J. Mestecky & H. Kiyono, “Human Appendix B Cells Naturally Express Receptors for and Respond to Interleukin 6 with Selective IgA1 and IgA2 Synthesis,” Journal of Clinical Investigations 88 (1991): 248-252. Available online (2009) here. J.A. Laissue, B.B. Chappuis, C. Müller, J.C. Reubi & J.O. Gebbers, “The intestinal immune system and its relation to disease,” Digestive

Diseases (Basel) 11 (1993): 298-312. Abstract available online (2009) here. Loren G. Martin, “What is the function of the human appendix?” Scientific American (October 21, 1999), Available online (2009) here. R. Randal Bollinger, Andrew S. Barbas, Errol L. Bush, Shu S. Lin & William Parker, “Biofilms in the large bowel suggest an apparent function of the human vermiform appendix,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 249 (2007): 826-831. Available online (2009) here. Duke University Medical Center, “Appendix Isn't Useless At All: It's A Safe House For Good Bacteria,” ScienceDaily (October 8, 2007). Available online (2009) here. 27 Steven R. Scadding, “Do ‘vestigial organs’ provide evidence for evolution?” Evolutionary Theory 5 (1981): 173-176. Bruce G. Naylor, “Vestigial organs are evidence of evolution,” Evolutionary Theory 6 (1982): 91-96. Steven R. Scadding, “Vestigial organs do not provide scientific evidence for evolution,” Evolutionary Theory 6 (1982): 171-173. 28 Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, pp. 61-62. 29 Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, p. 46. 30 Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, pp. 81. 31 Susumu Ohno, “So much ‘junk’ DNA in our genome,” Brookhaven Symposia in Biology 23 (1972): 366-70. Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (New York: Oxford University Press, 1976), p. 47. 32 Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, pp. 66-67. 33 A few of the many scientific articles published since 2003 that document the function of so-called “junk” DNA are: E.S Balakirev & F.J. Ayala, “Pseudogenes: are they ‘junk’ or functional DNA?” Annual Review of Genetics 37 (2003): 123-151. A. Hüttenhofer, P. Schattner & N. Polacek, “Non-coding RNAs: hope or hype?” Trends in Genetics 21 (2005): 289-297. J.S. Mattick & I.V. Makunin, “Non-coding RNA,” Human Molecular Genetics 15 (2006): R17-R29. R.K. Slotkin & R. Martienssen, “Transposable elements and the epigenetic regulation of the genome,” Nature Reviews Genetics 8 (2007): 272-285. P. Carninci, J. Yasuda & Y Hayashizaki, “Multifaceted mammalian

transcriptome,” Current Opinion in Cell Biology 20 (2008): 274-80. C.D. Malone & G.J. Hannon, “Small RNAs as Guardians of the Genome,” Cell 136 (2009): 656–668. C.P. Ponting, P.L. Oliver & W. Reik, “Evolution and Functions of Long Noncoding RNAs,” Cell 136 (2009): 629–641. 34 Darwin, The Origin of Species, Chapters XIII (pp. 347-352) and XV (p. 419). Available online (2009) here. 35 Darwin, The Origin of Species, Chapters XII (pp. 330-332). Available online (2009) here. 36 Alan Cooper, et al., C. Mourer-Chauviré, C.K. Chambers, A. von Haeseler, A.C. Wilson & S. Paabo, “Independent origins of New Zealand moas and kiwis,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 89 (1992): 8741-8744. Available online (2008) here. Oliver Haddrath & Allan J. Baker, “Complete mitochondrial DNA genome sequences of extinct birds: ratite phylogenetics and the vicariance biogeography hypothesis,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 268 (2001): 939-945. John Harshman, E.L. Braun, M.J. Braun, C.J. Huddleston, R.C.K. Bowie, J.L. Chojnowski, S.J. Hackett, K.-L. Han, R.T. Kimball, B.D. Marks, K.J. Miglia, W.S. Moore, S. Reddy, F.H. Sheldon, D.W. Steadman, S.J. Steppan, C.C. Witt & T. Yuri, “Phylogenomic evidence for multiple losses of flight in ratite birds,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 105 (2008): 13462-13467. Abstract available online (2008) here. Giuseppe Sermonti, “L'evoluzione in Italia - La via torinese / How Evolution Came to Italy - The Turin Connection,” Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 94 (2001): 5-12. Available online (2008) here. 37 Giuseppe Colosi, “La distribuzione geografica dei Potamonidae,” Rivista di Biologia 3 (1921): 294-301. Available online (2009) here. Savel R. Daniels, N. Cumberlidge, M. Pérez-Losada, S.A.E. Marijnissen & K.A. Crandall, “Evolution of Afrotropical freshwater crab lineages obscured by morphological convergence,” Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 40 (2006): 227–235. Available online (2009) here. R. von Sternberg, N. Cumberlidge & G. Rodriguez. “On the marine sister groups of the freshwater crabs (Crustacea: Decapoda: Brachyura),”

Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research 37 (1999): 19–38. Darren C.J. Yeo, et al., “Global diversity of crabs (Crustacea: Decapoda: Brachyura) in freshwater,” Hydrobiologia 595 (2008): 275-286. 38 Léon Croizat, Space, Time, Form: The Biological Synthesis. Published by the author (Deventer, Netherlands: N. V. Drukkerij Salland, 1962), p. iii. Robin C. Craw, “Léon Croizat's Biogeographic Work: A Personal Appreciation,” Tuatara 27:1 (August 1984): 8-13. Available online (2009) here. John R. Grehan, “Evolution By Law: Croizat's ‘Orthogeny’ and Darwin's ‘Laws of Growth’,” Tuatara 27:1 (August 1984): 14-19. Available online (2009) here. Carmen Colacino, “Léon Croizat’s Biogeography and Macroevolution, or… ‘Out of Nothing, Nothing Comes’,” The Philippine Scientist 34 (1997): 73-88. Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982), pp. 529-530. 39 Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, pp. 92-94. 40 Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, p. 116. Darwin, The Origin of Species, Chapter IV (p. 70). Available online (2009) here. H. B. D. Kettlewell, “Darwin’s Missing Evidence,” Scientific American 200 (March, 1959): 48-53. 41 Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982), p. 403. Ernst Mayr, Populations, Species and Evolution (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963), p. 10. Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution's Smoking Gun,” American Scientist 85 (1997): 516-518. 42 Jerry A. Coyne & H. Allen Orr, Speciation (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2004), p. 25-39. Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, p. 174. 43 Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, p. 188.

44 Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolution (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2005), p. 398. 45 Wells, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, Chapter Five (“The Ultimate Missing Link”), pp. 4959. 46 Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, pp. 129-130. 47 Paul B. Rainey & Michael Travisano. “Adaptive radiation in a heterogeneous environment,” Nature 394 (1998): 69-72. Frederick M. Cohan, “What Are Bacterial Species?” Annual Review of Microbiology 56 (2002): 457-482. Available online (2009) here. 48 Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, p. 134. National Academy of Sciences, Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second edition (Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences Press, 1999), Chapter on “Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution,” p. 10. Available online (2009) here. Phillip E. Johnson, “The Church of Darwin,” The Wall Street Journal (August 16, 1999): A14. Available online (2009) here. 49 Alan H. Linton, “Scant Search for the Maker,” The Times Higher Education Supplement (April 20, 2001), Book Section, p. 29. Frederick M. Cohan, “What Are Bacterial Species?” Annual Review of Microbiology 56 (2002): 457-482. Available online (2009) here. 50 Paul A. Nelson, “The role of theology in current evolutionary reasoning,” Biology and Philosophy 11 (October 1996): 493 - 517. Abstract available online (2009) here. Jonathan Wells, “Darwin’s Straw God Argument,” Discovery Institute (December 2008). Available online (2009) here. Jonathan Wells, “Darwin’s Straw God Argument,” Discovery Institute (December 2008). Available online (2009) here.

arwin Under the Microscope Michael J. Behe Michael J. Behe, associate professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, is the author of "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution." BETHLEHEM, PA Pope John Paul II's statement last week that evolution is "more than just a theory" is old news to a Roman Catholic scientist like myself. I grew up in a Catholic family and have always believed in God. But beginning in parochial school I was taught that He could use natural processes to produce life. Contrary to conventional wisdom, religion has made room for science for a long time. But as biology uncovers startling complexity in life, the question becomes, can science make room for religion? In his statement, the Pope was careful to point out that it is better to talk about "theories of evolution" rather than a single theory. The distinction is crucial. Indeed, until I completed my doctoral studies in biochemistry, I believed that Darwin's mechanism -- random mutation paired with natural selection -- was the correct explanation for the diversity of life. Yet I now find that theory incomplete. In fact, the complex design of the cell has provoked me to stake out a distinctly minority view among scientists on the question of what caused evolution. I believe that Darwin's mechanism for evolution doesn't explain much of what is seen under a microscope. Cells are simply too complex to have evolved randomly; intelligence was required to produce them. I want to be explicit about what I am, and am not, questioning. The word "evolution" carries many associations. Usually it means common descent -the idea that all organisms living and dead are related by common ancestry. I have no quarrel with the idea of common descent, and continue to think it explains similarities among species. By itself, however, common descent doesn't explain the vast differences among species.

That's where Darwin's mechanism comes in. "Evolution" also sometimes implies that random mutation and natural selection powered the changes in life. The idea is that just by chance an animal was born that was slightly faster or stronger than its siblings. Its descendants inherited the change and eventually won the contest of survival over the descendants of other members of the species. Over time, repetition of the process resulted in great changes -- and, indeed, wholly different animals. That's the theory. A practical difficulty, however, is that one can't test the theory from fossils. To really test the theory, one has to observe contemporary change in the wild, in the laboratory or at least reconstruct a detailed pathway that might have led to a certain adaptation. Darwinian theory successfully accounts for a variety of modern changes. Scientists have shown that the average beak size of Galapagos finches changed in response to altered weather patterns. Likewise, the ratio of darkto light-colored moths in England shifted when pollution made light-colored moths more visible to predators. Mutant bacteria survive when they become resistant to antibiotics. These are all clear examples of natural selection in action. But these examples involve only one or a few mutations, and the mutant organism is not much different from its ancestor. Yet to account for all of life, a series of mutations would have to produce very different types of creatures. That has not yet been demonstrated. Darwin's theory encounters its greatest difficulties when it comes to explaining the development of the cell. Many cellular systems are what I term "irreducibly complex." That means the system needs several components before it can work properly. An everyday example of irreducible complexity is a mousetrap, built of several pieces (platform, hammer, spring and so on). Such a system probably cannot be put together in a Darwinian manner, gradually improving its function. You can't catch a mouse with just the platform and then catch a few more by adding the spring. All the pieces have to be in place before you catch any mice. An example of an irreducibly complex cellular system is the bacterial flagellum: a rotary propeller, powered by a flow of acid, that bacteria use to swim. The flagellum requires a number of parts before it works -- a rotor, stator and motor. Furthermore, genetic studies have shown

that about 40 different kinds of proteins are needed to produce a working flagellum. The intracellular transport system is also quite complex. Plant and animal cells are divided into many discrete compartments; supplies, including enzymes and proteins, have to be shipped between these compartments. Some supplies are packaged into molecular trucks, and each truck has a key that will fit only the lock of its particular cellular destination. Other proteins act as loading docks, opening the truck and letting the contents into the destination compartment. Many other examples could be cited. The bottom line is that the cell -- the very basis of life -- is staggeringly complex. But doesn't science already have answers, or partial answers, for how these systems originated? No. As James Shapiro, a biochemist at the University of Chicago, wrote, "There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations." A few scientists have suggested non-Darwinian theories to account for the cell, but I don't find them persuasive. Instead, I think that the complex systems were designed -- purposely arranged by an intelligent agent. Whenever we see interactive systems (such as a mousetrap) in the everyday world, we assume that they are the products of intelligent activity. We should extend the reasoning to cellular systems. We know of no other mechanism, including Darwin's, which produces such complexity. Only intelligence does. Of course, I could be proved wrong. If someone demonstrated that, say, a type of bacteria without a flagellum could gradually produce such a system, or produce any new, comparably complex structure, my idea would be neatly disproved. But I don't expect that to happen. Intelligent design may mean that the ultimate explanation for life is beyond scientific explanation. That assessment is premature. But even if it is true, I would not be troubled. I don't want the best scientific explanation for the origins of life; I want the correct explanation.

‫الجزيرة : علماء أمريكيون يؤكدون بطلن نظرية‬ ‫داروين !‬
‫•‬

‫اضغط على الرابط وشاهد الفيديو‬ ‫‪http://www.youtube.c...h?v=S1mZb1lIWEQ‬‬ ‫اذا كنت ممن يبحث عن الحقيقة شاهد الفيديو واقرأ هذا الموضوع ول تقول أنه طويل ..‬ ‫نظرية دارون تستند إلى ثلثة من الفتراضات الرئيسة التي سنحاول مناقشتها موضوعيا وعلميا فيما‬ ‫ً‬ ‫ً‬ ‫يلي:‬ ‫أول: الفتراض الول أن الحياة قد نشأت على الرض وتطورت مصادفة ودون خالق‬ ‫ً‬ ‫وهذاالفتراض يتعارض مع القوانين الثابتة والحقائق العلمية التالية:‬ ‫1 ـ العلم الحديث يكشف لنا كل يوم أن الكون الذي نعيش فيه نظام بيئي متزن لدرجة متناهية في الدقة‬ ‫وهذا أمر ل يمكن أن يحدث مصادفة، ولعل ما اكتشف من دور الكائنات الدقيقة المتخصصة في‬ ‫دورات العناصر وإكساب خصوبة التربة ـ وكذلك التوازن بين حرارة الجو وما يحتويه من بخار‬ ‫وثاني أكسيد الكربون، وأخيرا ما تأكد حديثا من دور غاز الوزون في طبقات الجو العليا في حماية‬ ‫ً‬ ‫ً‬ ‫كل صور الحياة على الرض من فتك الشعة فوق البنفسيجية قصيرة الموجه ـ كل ذلك ل يمكن أن‬ ‫يحدث مصادفة، بل هو دليل على القصد والتدبير في الخلق والبداع·‬ ‫2 ـ القول إن الخلية الحية وجدت مصادفة وتطورت تلقائيا ـ يتعارض مع قوانين الديناميكا الحرارية‬ ‫ً‬ ‫في الكيمياء الطبيعية التي تنص على أن الطاقة ل تفنى ول تستحدث كما أنها تقطع كذلك باستحالة‬ ‫وجود الماكينة التي تدور تلقائيا إلى ما ل نهاية من دون بذل شغل أو طاقة، )‪Perpetual motion‬‬ ‫ً‬ ‫‪ ،(is impossible‬وهذا يعني أن إتمام أي تفاعل لبناء أي من الجزيئات أو النسجة الجديدة يقتضي‬ ‫وجود قوة مدبرة توفر القدر المطلوب من الطاقة، كما ونوعا، وكذلك، فإن عليها أن توفر الظروف‬ ‫ً‬ ‫ً‬ ‫ّ‬ ‫المثلى لتمام التفاعل وتحديد اتجاهه، ثم بعد بناء الجزيئات الجامدة تأتي المعجزة في منحها طاقة‬ ‫الحياة من مصدر الحياة التي ل تنضب ـ سبحان الحي القيوم ـ فهذه قدرة لم يستطع أحد أن ينسبها‬ ‫لنفسه·‬ ‫3 ـ تتميز الكثير من الجزيئات البيوكيميائية في الخليا الحية بأن لها تركيبا نوعيا ونشاطا ضوئيا فإذا‬ ‫ً‬ ‫ً‬ ‫ً‬ ‫ً‬ ‫كنا دائما نجد أن الخليا الحية ل تحوي إل المشابهه اليساري الدوران )‪ (Levo‬وهذا مثال واحد‬ ‫ً‬ ‫لكثير من صور الختيارية والنوعية العالية ـ فهل يتسنى أن يحدث هذا مصادفة؟‬ ‫4 ـ أن أحدث ما وصل إليه العلم في مجال البيولوجيا الجزيئية والتكنولوجيا الحيوية والهندسة‬ ‫الوراثية ـ تتم فيه التجارب حاليا لنقل صفات وراثية من شريط الجينات من كائن عديد الخليا إلى‬ ‫ً‬

‫بعض البكتريا والمل بناء جزيئات جديدة ـ ورغم أن علماء الهندسة الوراثية الذين يحاولون إعادة‬ ‫بناء الحماض النووية بعد إلحاق أجزاء مأخوذة من جينات أخرى ـ أي أنهم يستعملون جزيئات حية‬ ‫تامة الصنع في عمليات إعادة البناء ـ ومع ذلك وبالرغم من أنهم يستخدمون لبنات بناء جاهزة‬ ‫وصلتهم عبر عصور وقرون التاريخ تامة الصنع فهل يمكن أن يكابر النسان في أنها قد تكونت‬ ‫مصادفة من غير صانع أو خالق ـ فسبحان ال الخالق البارئ المصور·‬ ‫ّ‬ ‫فإذا أضفنا إلى ذلك أن إلحاق هذا الجزء من شريط ‪ DNA‬إلى جزء آخر هو تفاعل كيمياوي يحتاج‬ ‫لتمامه لتوافر الطاقة والظروف المثلى لتنشيط الجزيئات لتمام التفاعل· وهذا يقطع أيضا باستحالة‬ ‫ً‬ ‫حدوث الحياة مصادفة أو تلقائيا، ولعل قوانين الطاقة في أحدث صورها والمرتكزة على قوانين‬ ‫ً‬ ‫<آينشتين> للنسبية وصور تحول الطاقة وارتباطها مع الكتلة والزمن وسرعة الضوء ـ تؤكد استحالة‬ ‫إتمام التفاعل دون توافر الحد الدنى من طاقة التنشيط والعوامل والظروف المساعدة بما يحدد اتجاه‬ ‫التفاعل وخصوصا أن المواد الفاعلة ذاتها يمكن أن تتجه لكثر من اتجاه طبقا للتركيز، ونسبة المواد‬ ‫ً‬ ‫ً‬ ‫المتفاعلة، ونوع ومقدار الطاقة المتوافرة والظروف الملئمة· وكل ذلك يؤكد استحالة العفوية في بناء‬ ‫أو تطوير بناء الجزيئات فضل عن النسجة والكائنات الحية المكونة من بليين الذرات والجزيئات‬ ‫ً‬ ‫والخليا·‬ ‫5 ـ بتطبيق قوانين الحتمال الحصائي أمكن حساب احتمال تكون جهاز لدغ الثعبان في الحية‬ ‫الرقطاء دون غيرها من الثعابين بتأثير عامل المصادفة فقد وجد أن هذا الحتمال واحد في كل 10/1‬ ‫أس )23( احتمال أي أنه واحد في كل مئة ألف بليون بليون مصادفة·‬ ‫6 ـ قام العالم <شارلز إيجين جاي> بحساب احتمال التكون بعامل المصادفة لجزيء بروتين واحد،‬ ‫فوجد أن هذا يمكن أن يحدث مرة كلما مرت فترة زمنية لتقل عن 01 أس )342( من السنوات،‬ ‫ّ‬ ‫وهذا يزيد على بليين أضعاف عمر الرض، وهذا هو احتمال تكون جزيء واحد فقط من البروتين‬ ‫غير المتخصص·‬ ‫7 ـ في العام 2691م، قاما عالما الكيمياء الحيوية <ماكولم ديكسون>، <أيدويب> بحساب احتمال‬ ‫تكون جزيء البروتين ذاتيا نتيجة مجرد التقاء جزيئات أحماض أمينية في مخلوط منها ـ وقد تبين أن‬ ‫ّ‬ ‫ً‬ ‫هذا الحتمال لكي يتحقق يقتضي حجما من مخلوط الحماض المينية المعروفة يصل إلى أضعاف‬ ‫ً‬ ‫حجم الكرة الرضية بمقادر 01 أس)05( ضعفا كل ذلك لمجرد تكون جزيء بروتين واحد من النوع‬ ‫ً‬ ‫العادي غير المتخصص، أما احتمال تكون جزيء بروتين متخصص مثل <الهيموغلوبين>، فإن‬ ‫الحساب قد وصل إلى ضرورة توافر حجم من مخلوط الحماض المينية ل يقل عن 01أس )215(‬ ‫ضعف حجم الكون كله· فما أروع قدرة الخالق سبحانه وتعالى الذي منح أجسامنا الحياة والقدرة على‬ ‫ً‬ ‫أن تبنى هذه الجزيئات بدقة بالغة ليل ونهارا حتى ونحن نيام، حقا ما أروع قدرة الخالق سبحانه‬ ‫ً‬ ‫ً‬ ‫ً‬ ‫وتعالى·‬ ‫8 ـ وفي العام 7891م قام العالمان <والس>، <سيمونس> بدراسة احتمال تكون جزيء بروتين‬ ‫متكون من 001 حامض أميني في ترتيب معين ـ ولما كانت الحماض المينية المعروفة 02‬

‫حامضا، فإن هناك 02 احتمال للحامض في الموضع الول، وهكذا، وتصبح احتمالت شغل‬ ‫ً‬ ‫ً‬ ‫الحماض المئة في جزيء البروتين = 02)001( = 52.1 * 01أس )031( أي احتمال في كل‬ ‫01أس )031( احتمال·‬ ‫وإذا أخذنا في اعتبارنا مليين الجزيئات في مليين الخليا نجد أن الحتمالت الحصائية تقطع‬ ‫باستحالة البناء الذاتي بالمصادفة لتكون جزيئا بروتينا واحد فضل عن الخلية الحية الكاملة·‬ ‫ً‬ ‫ً‬ ‫ً‬ ‫ّ‬ ‫وهكذا ثبت بقوانين الحتمالت فضل عن قوانين الطاقة استحالة الفتراض الول لنظرية التطور‬ ‫ً‬ ‫وهو أن الحياة نشأت مصادفة وتلقائيا·‬ ‫ً‬ ‫ثانيا: الفتراض الثاني أن هناك سلما التطور:‬ ‫ً‬ ‫وتقول نظرية التطور: إن السلم قد بدأ بالكائنات وحيدة الخلية وتحت تأثير الظروف البيئية تم التطور‬ ‫إلى كائنات أكثر قدرة وأكثر تعقيدا بتفوق الصلح في الصراع من أجل البقاء مع انقراض الفراد‬ ‫ً‬ ‫القل صلحية في التنافس والصراع، وهذا الفتراض الثاني تنقضه الحقائق التالية:‬ ‫1 ـ رغم مرور مليين السنين منذ بدأت الحياة على الرض فمازلنا نرى كائنات دقيقة وحيدة الخلية‬ ‫وعديد من الكائنات التي لم تنقرض رغم أنها ضعيفة بسيطة التركيب ول أدل على ذلك من أننا‬ ‫نكتشف فيروسات جديدة كل يوم كما نكتشف أنواع البكتريا ذاتها في حفريات الفراعنة·‬ ‫2 ـ حين أعلن <دارون> نظرية التطور كان ل يعلم شيئا عن قوانين <مندل> للوراثة ـ وعلم الوراثة‬ ‫ً‬ ‫ـ وهو علم راسخ الركان ـ يقطع بأن الكائنات تتوارث صفاتها الوراثية عن طريق الجينات الوراثية‬ ‫للبوين بغض النظر عن الظروف البيئية بينما تصر نظرية التطور على القول إنه يتم تطور صفات‬ ‫الكائنات بتأثير ضغط البيئة والتنافس من أجل البقاء·‬ ‫3 ـ حاول علماء التطور الستعانة بحفريات وهياكل الكائنات المدفونة لمحاولة عمل سلم التطور‬ ‫ولكن رغم الجهود المضنية فمازالت هناك فراغات في السلم ل يتسنى ملؤها كما أن العمر‬ ‫الجيولوجي للرض وهو نحو 4 بليون عام وعمر الحياة على الرض الذي قدر بنحو 55.1 بليون‬ ‫ُّ‬ ‫عام ـ ل يتيح الوقت اللزم للتطور التلقائي ـ فعلماء التطور قد حسبوا أن تطور الحصان من صورته‬ ‫القزمية إلى حجم الحصان الحالي قد احتاج زمنا ل يقل عن 100 مليون سنة ـ وهذا معناه أن عمر‬ ‫ً‬ ‫الحياة على الرض ل تسعف تفسير التطور التلقائي إلى ما يسمى بالكائنات الراقية من النباتات‬ ‫والحيوانات ـ فضل عن عدم توافر الوقت اللزم لتفسير تطور النسان من الكائنات غير العاقلة·‬ ‫ً‬ ‫4 ـ الهتمام بالحفريات حمل بعض النتهازيين على تزييف الكثير من الهياكل العظمية ومن أشهر‬ ‫المثلة ما حدث العام 3591 من العلن عن أن ما سمي ببقايا النسان الول )‪ (Piltdown‬قد تبين‬ ‫أنه بقايا عظام مزيفة تماما·‬ ‫ً‬

‫5 ـ بعض علماء التطور كانوا يفسرون تميز بعض أجسام الحيوانات بألوان زاهية بأنه تحقيق‬ ‫للنتخاب الجنسي لضمان جذب الذكور ـ وقد كانت الصدمة كبيرة حين أوضحت الكشوف الحديثة أن‬ ‫عيون الكثير من هذه الحيوانات الملونة ل تميز اللوان·‬ ‫6 ـ أوضح عالم الفيزيقا البيولوجية الميركي ‪ Morqwitz‬العام 9791م أن هناك تحديا رئيسا يواجه‬ ‫ً‬ ‫ً‬ ‫نظرية <دارون> للتطور ـ وهو أن خليا الكائنات الحية على وجه الرض تنقسم إلى نوعين:‬ ‫الولى يسمى ‪ Prokaryotic‬وهي كائنات وحيدة الخلية خالية من الغشية والجسام الخلوية‬ ‫المتخصصة ومن أمثلتها البكتريا والطحالب الخضراء ، والمزرقة والميكوبلزم وتكون المادة‬ ‫الوراثية فيها متمثلة في حامض نووي منفرد ‪·DNA‬‬ ‫أما النوع الثاني فيسمى ‪ Eukaraotic‬وتتميز بأن خلياها مزودة بأجسام متخصصة مثل: النواة ـ‬ ‫الميتوندريا ـ الليسوسومات ـ والكلوروبلستيدات··· إلخ ـ كما أن المادة الوراثية تنتظم في‬ ‫كروموزومات تحوي الكثير من الجينات وهذه بدورها تحوي أحماضا نووية مع البروتينات‬ ‫ً‬ ‫المتخصصة ويشمل النوع الثاني مختلف أنواع النباتات والحيوانات وكذلك النسان و<البروتوزوا>‬ ‫ً‬ ‫والخليا الفطرية ومعظم أنواع الطحالب ـ ول يدخل في ذلك الفيروسات لنها تمثل قسما ثالثا متميزا‬ ‫ً ً‬ ‫بذاته وموضع التحدي أنه ل توجد أي صورة وسيطة بين النوعين من الخليا مما ينفي نظرية التطور‬ ‫من الكائنات البسيطة إلى الكائنات عالية التخصص·‬ ‫ول يفوتنا هنا أن نذكر أن خليا ‪ Prokaryotes‬البسيطة تقوم بوظائف عالية التخصص وبالغة‬ ‫الهمية في دورات العناصر على سطح الكون وإكساب التربة خصوبتها وتحلل الكثير من المخلفات‬ ‫العضوية··· إلخ، وهذا يلفت النظر إلى أن حقيقة الحياة على الرض هي أن كل مخلوق له وظيفة في‬ ‫إطار من التكامل والتزان البالغ الدقة والحساسية·‬ ‫7 ـ أعلن العالم الفرنسي ‪ Jack Monod‬في الستينيات أن حدوث الطفرات الوراثية هو أداة تحقيق‬ ‫سلم التطور تحت تأثير المصادفة والحاجة إل أن البحوث التي أجريت على <الدروسوفل> وغيرها ـ‬ ‫قد أثبتت أن الطفرة ل تنشئ نوعا جديدا ولكنها تعطي انتخابا محدودا لفراد من النوع ذاته بصفات قد‬ ‫ً‬ ‫ً‬ ‫ً‬ ‫ً‬ ‫تتفاوت ولكن في حدود الوعاء الوراثي المحدد للنوع ذاته ‪·The same genetic trait‬‬ ‫8 ـ أسس علم التقسيم ل تتفق مع نظرية <دارون>:‬ ‫علم تقسيم الكائنات ‪ Taxonomy‬بدأ قبل مئة عام من مجيء <دارون> بوساطة العالم ‪Carolus‬‬ ‫1707 ‪Linnaues‬م ـ 8771م، وقد أعلن <لينيوس> التسمية من اسمين، اسم الجنس متبوعا باسم‬ ‫ً‬ ‫النوع والنواع، تعرف بأنها المجموع ذو الصفات المشتركة التي تتكاثر جنسيا لعطاء أجيال جديدة‬ ‫ً‬ ‫مماثلة وسليمة· ولم يستطع <دارون> أن يوائم بين نظريته في سلم التطور وبين مقتضيات التقسيم·‬ ‫9 ـ فشل نظرية التطور في التنبؤ بالمستقبل:‬

‫لقد أعلن عالما الوراثة <والس، وسيمونس> 7891م تلك الحقيقة، وأوضحا أنه إذا كانت نظرية‬ ‫التطور مبنية على المصادفة ـ وإذا كنا نعلم أيضا أنه يصعب على النسان أن يتنبأ بطريقة قاطعة عن‬ ‫ً‬ ‫مسار كرة تهبط فوق سطح يحوي أكثر من مئة دبوس وتنتهي بخمس عشرة فتحة ـ إذا كان التنبؤ هنا‬ ‫مستحي ً ـ فكيف يمكن التنبؤ بمصير أكثر من 53 مليون نوع من الكائنات التي تتعايش حاليا مع‬ ‫ً‬ ‫ل‬ ‫بعضها بعضا ومع النسان على ظهر الرض· وإذا كنا ل نستطيع التنبؤ بالمستقبل ـ فكيف نستطيع‬ ‫ً‬ ‫أن نقطع بما نسميه سلم التطور عبر مليين السنين التي سبقتنا، إن مجرد وجود تشابه وتماثل في‬ ‫وحدات البناء للجزيئات الجامدة والحية لهو دليل واضح على وحدة الخالق البارئ المصور سبحانه‬ ‫ّ‬ ‫وتعالى جل شأنه·‬ ‫10 ـ تعدد النواع وتميز الصفات الفردية:‬ ‫يذكر العالم الميركي ‪ Jancey‬العام 5791م أن عالمنا يزدحم بالكثير من المخلوقات التي ل يتيسر‬ ‫تفسير وجودها على أساس نظرية التطور والصراع من أجل البقاء وفي الوقت عينه، فإن أفراد كل‬ ‫نوع يتميز بصفات فردية ل تتكرر مثل لون فروة الجسم وزركشة الطيور، فهي خصائص ل تتكرر‬ ‫مما يدل على قدرة الخالق المبدع·‬ ‫:‬ ‫ثالثا: الفتراض الثالث أن النسان من نسل القرود والشمبانزي والغوريل‬ ‫ً‬

‫1 ـ ولعل أول دليل على بطلن هذا الفتراض الثالث هو ما ثبت من عدم توافق التكاثر التناسلي بين‬ ‫النسان وأنواع القرود والشمبانزي والغوريل· وهذا معناه في ضوء علم التقسيم أن النسان نوع‬ ‫منفرد وراثيا·‬ ‫ً‬ ‫2 ـ وقد حاول بعض علماء الجنة مجاراة نظرية التطور فزعموا أن جنين النسان مزود بفتحات‬ ‫ّ‬ ‫ً‬ ‫خياشيمية زائدة وأنها تمثل مرحلة تطور النسان من الحيوانات المائية مثل السماك ـ إل أنه أخيرا‬ ‫في العام 9591م استطاع العالم <راندل شورت> ‪ Rendle Short‬الذي قضى حياته في دراسة‬ ‫تشريح جسم النسان ـ أن يثبت خطأ هذا التفسير وأثبت أن ما يسمى بفتحات خياشيمية ليست زائدة بل‬ ‫هي عبارة عن ثنيات في النسجة لزمة لتثبيت الوعية الدموية في جنين النسان· وقد كان هذا التفنيد‬ ‫قاطعا حتى إن <جوليان هاكسلي> في كتابه عن التطور في صورته الجديدة قد اضطر للتسليم بما‬ ‫ً‬ ‫أثبته عالم التشريح <راندل شورت>·‬ ‫3 ـ نشر فريق علماء النثربولوجي المكون من عشرة مختصين بقيادة ‪ Tim White‬الستاذ في‬ ‫جامعة <كاليفورنيا بيركلي> العام 7891م ـ نتائج دراساتهم المضنية لفحص 203 من هياكل وعظام‬ ‫الحفريات ‪ Fossils‬لما سمي ببقايا إنسان ما قبل التاريخ الذي يفترض أنه عاش في جنوب شرق‬ ‫ُّ‬ ‫أفريقيا منذ أكثر من 5.1 مليون عام، والذي يسمى ‪ Homo habilis‬والذي كان يعتقد أن له صلة‬ ‫ّ‬ ‫النسب في التطور بين النسان الحالي كما نعرفه وبين أجداده المزعومة من القرود أو الغوريل أو‬ ‫ً‬ ‫الشمبانزي· وقد أثبتت نتائج دراسة الفريق الميركي أن ما سمي بإنسان ما قبل التاريخ يختلف تماما‬ ‫ُّ‬

‫عن النسان الحالي لن العظام قد أثبتت أنه يتحرك على أربع وأنه ليس منتصب القوام كالنسان، كما‬ ‫أن طوله أقصر بشكل واضح، كما أن عظام الرأس وتجويف المخ تختلف تماما عن النسان الحقيقي،‬ ‫ً‬ ‫ً‬ ‫وقد اختتم فريق علماء النثربولوجي الميركي تقريرهم العلمي في العام 7891م بأن هناك فرقا‬ ‫شاسعا يعكس فراغا واضحا زمنيا وتشريحيا من ناحية التطور بين ما سمي بإنسان ما قبل التاريخ‬ ‫ُّ‬ ‫ً‬ ‫ً‬ ‫ً‬ ‫ً‬ ‫ً‬ ‫والنسان الحقيقي، وأنه من المقطوع به أن هناك تغييرا دراميا ضخما قد حدث نتج منه ظهور‬ ‫ً‬ ‫ً‬ ‫ً‬ ‫النسان على الرض بحيث يصعب تصور ارتباط النسان الحقيقي بما يفترض أنه نشأ من نسلهم ـ‬ ‫حيث إن النسان الحالي متميز تماما ظاهريا وتشريحيا وسلوكا وعقل وقدرة وملكات عن أي كائن‬ ‫ً‬ ‫ً‬ ‫ً‬ ‫ً‬ ‫ً‬ ‫آخر·‬ ‫4 ـ أصل شعار البقاء للصلح: كان <دارون> في نظريته يشبع ويعكس فكريا معتقداته الجتماعية‬ ‫ً‬ ‫والفلسفية التي اعتنقها كواحد ممن عاصروا وتتلمذوا على الفيلسوف النكليزي ‪Herbt Spencer‬‬ ‫كما كان كل منهما يدين في فلسفته لفكر الفيلسوف القتصادي النكليزي 1766 ‪ Malthus‬ـ 4381م‬ ‫وهو من أوائل من تناولوا مشكلة ازدحام وتزايد السكان وتعبير الصراع من جل البقاء والبقاء‬ ‫للصلح فهي تعبيرات من وضع ‪ Spencer‬كتعبير عن فكره في الفسفة المادية اقتصاديا واجتماعيا،‬ ‫ً‬ ‫ً‬ ‫وإذا كان ‪ Spencer‬يعتقد أن المجتمعات البشرية تتزاحم بشكل مضطرد مما يضطرها للتنافس من‬ ‫أجل المستقبل، وأن هذا التنافس في نظره من المحتم أن يتحول إلى صراع، وأن الفوز في صراع‬ ‫البقاء سيكون للنسان القوى والفضل، وقد عبر عن ذلك بالصراع بين الخير والشر، وضرورة‬ ‫تنحي الشر ـ كما قام بتطبيق فكرة هذا التنافس الذي كان سائدا في وقته بين الرجل البيض المتقدم‬ ‫ً‬ ‫وبين الشعوب الملونة المتخلفة ـ وكان من الطبيعي أن يرى أن الفوز في الصراع لبد وأن يكون‬ ‫للشعوب البيضاء الوروبية على الملونين المتخلفين لنهم أفضل وأقوى ـ وهذه هي الفلسفة نفسها‬ ‫التي استخدمها الستعمار البريطاني والوروبي لتبرير احتلله وحروبه الستعمارية وراء البحار·‬ ‫كما كانت هي نفسها الخلفية الفلسفية في فكر ووجدان <دارون> حين قام برحلته على ظهر السفينة‬ ‫‪ Beagle‬ـ وكان من الطبيعي أن يحاول تعميم هذه النظرة الفلسفية عن الصراع من أجل البقاء على‬ ‫سائر الكائنات وأن يربط بين ما سجله من ملحظات عن أوجه الشبه والخلف بين الكائنات وبين‬ ‫نظرية البقاء للصلح، فكانت نظريته عن أصل النواع والنشوء والتطور، وانضم إليه فيها زميله‬ ‫البريطاني المعاصر ‪ Walace‬في ذلك الحين·‬ ‫5 ـ الخصائص الفردية المميزة لكل إنسان:‬ ‫أثبتت دراسات البيولوجيا الجزيئية أن كل إنسان متميز عن النسان الخر في صفات فردية ل‬ ‫تتكررمثل بصمات أصابع اليدين والقدمين والحامض النووي ‪ DNA‬الذي أصبح أحد وسائل الدلة‬ ‫الجنائية فضل عن تركيب الشعر ومجموعة الدم ونوع أجسام المناعة وبصمة الصوت والرائحة وهي‬ ‫ً‬ ‫كلها ثوابت ل تتكرر بين بليين البشر وهذا يقطع بعدم صحة افتراض أن الحياة والتطور كانا بعامل‬ ‫ً‬ ‫المصادفة ـ بل هي أدلة قاطعة على أن النسان من صنع ال الذي خلقه وجعل كل إنسان متميزا‬ ‫مستقل ومسؤول وميزه بملكاته وقدراته ليؤدي أمانة عمارة الرض وإقامة الحضارة النسانية·‬ ‫ً‬ ‫ً‬ ‫6 ـ برهان جديد على أن النسان من صنع ال: ولقد استحدث أخيرا علم جديد هو: البيولوجيا‬ ‫ً‬

‫الجتماعية ‪ Socio Biology‬ويقود هذا التجاه ‪ Dr. Eyenge Steiner‬منذ العام 9691م ـ وهو‬ ‫أستاذ الكيمياء الحيوية في جامعة <ييل> في أميركا ـ وقد أوضح أن النسان ليس وليد سلم التطور،‬ ‫بل إن العلم برهن على أن النسان له من المميزات البيولوجية والذهنية والنفسية والروحية التي‬ ‫تمنحه القدرة على الكلم والتفكير وترتيب السباب والستنتاج المنطقي والمناقشة والتعارف‬ ‫والتعاون وتسخير غيره من الكائنات وصور البيئة لتكوين مجتمعات حضارية، كما أنه يتمتع بملكات‬ ‫البداع العلمي والدبي والفني وكذلك يتمتع بمشاعر وصور التعبير عنها كما يستطيع التحكم فيها‬ ‫وفي سلوكه وعواطفه على أسس من النبل والخلق والمثل العليا، كما ينفر طبعه عن الشذوذ‬ ‫والسلوك غير الخلقي وهذه كلها صفات مميزة للنسان عن كل الحيوانات والكائنات الخرى، ول‬ ‫أثر لها على ما يسمى بسلم التطور مما يقطع بعدم صلة النسب بين النسان والحيوان· وفي العام‬ ‫7791م تبنى علماء جامعة <كاليفورنيا> هذا العلم الجديد ونشر العالم الميركي ‪Edward Wilson‬‬ ‫الستاذ في جامعة <كاليفورنيا> كتابه الجديد في هذا المجال، وقد انتهى فيه إلى أن ما نلحظه من‬ ‫تشابه بين النسان والحيوان في وحدات التركيب الخلوي والجزيئي رغم التميز القاطع للنسان ـ هو‬ ‫الدليل الناصع على وحدة الخالق العظم·‬ ‫7 ـ )وفي أنفسكم أفل تبصرون( الذاريات:12: في مارس 9891م، نشرت مجلة ‪ Science‬الميركية‬ ‫تقريرا عن مشروع قومي ممول من وزارة الصحة الميركية بميزانية قدرها ثلثة بليين من‬ ‫ً‬ ‫الدولرات ولفترة زمنية مقدرة بخمسة عشر عاما ـ ويهدف المشروع إلى وضع خريطة توضح‬ ‫ً‬ ‫مكنون التركيب الجزيئي للحامض النووي في جينات جسم النسان والمسؤولة عن نقل صفاته‬ ‫الوراثية· وقد ذكر التقرير أن جسم النسان يحتوي على مئة تريليون خلية أي 1*10أس )41( من‬ ‫الخليا الحية يحوي كل منها ‪ DNA‬في جينات كروموزومات النواة فيما عدا خليا الدم الحمراء‬ ‫والتي ل تحتوي نواة منها، ومن العجب أن يتماثل ‪ DNA‬في الفرد نفسه من النسان في هذه اللف‬ ‫من البليين من الخليا ولكنها تختلف تماما عن أي إنسان آخر و ‪ DNA‬مع البروتينات والنزيمات‬ ‫ً‬ ‫المتخصصة تكون الجينات التي بدورها تكون الكروموزومات الثابتة العدد في كل نواة تحتوي 64‬ ‫ّ‬ ‫كروزموزوما·‬ ‫ً‬ ‫ورغم تماثل الكروموزومات في الشكل، إل أنها تتفاوت في وظائفها ودورها في توريث مختلف‬ ‫الصفات، وكل كروموزوم يمكن تمثيله بخيط طوله خمسة أقدام وقطره 5*10أس )-10( بوصة هل‬ ‫يمكن أن يحدث كل ذلك مصادفة وتلقائيا؟‬ ‫ً‬ ‫ويستطرد التقرير ليوضح أن خلية بكتريا ‪ E.Col‬يحوي جزيء ‪ DNA‬فيها 5.4 مليون وحدة من‬ ‫الحماض المينية المرتبطة بنسق ثابت بينما في خلية الخميرة نجد أن جزيء ‪ DNA‬فيها يحوي 15‬ ‫مليون وحدة من الحماض المينية ـ أما جينات النسان فتحوى كل منها 3 بليون وحدة ـ وعدد‬ ‫الجينات في النسان تبلغ 000.001 مئة ألف من الجينات لكل كروموزوم· ولم يتيسر حتى الن‬ ‫التعرف إلى أكثر من 0054 من تلك الجينات ومن بينها أمكن تحديد موقع 0051 جين فقط على‬ ‫الكروموزومات المختلفة ـ أي أننا أمامنا أمد طويل لنفهم مجرد تركيب خليا النسان ورسم خريطة‬ ‫كاملة لها ـ أفليس ذلك أدعى لهل العلم أن يتواضعوا لقدرة ال الخالق البارئ المصور وهم بحكم‬ ‫ّ‬ ‫علمهم أكثر الناس معرفة بتلك القدرة الفائقة ـ وصدق ال العظيم فقال: )وفي أنفسكم أفل تبصرون(·‬

‫وإذا كنا ل نستطيع أن نزعم أن مصنعا للتكنولوجيا الحيوية قد ظهر مصادفة وبصورة تلقائية في‬ ‫ً‬ ‫مكان ما وأصبح مستمرا في إنتاجه من دون العقل المدبر أو قوة الطاقة القادرة فكيف ل يهزنا خلق‬ ‫ً‬ ‫ال في أنفسنا وفيما حولنا وكل ذلك دليل على قدرته وتدبيره وهل يستساغ بعد ذلك أن نركن إلى‬ ‫القول: إن الحياة والنسان كانا وليدي المصادفة·‬ ‫8 ـ ماذا قال العلماء عن نظرية التطور: ومعروف أن <ألبرت إينشتين> 9781 ـ 5591م هو‬ ‫صاحب قوانين النسبية منذ العام 5091م، وما ارتبط بها من تحديث قوانين الطاقة وميكانيكا الكم‬ ‫الدقيق والطبيعة النووية، وإن تلك القوانين تؤكد على أن صور ومقدار الطاقة في الكون محكومة‬ ‫بقوانين كمية ثابتة يمتنع معها حدوث أي تفاعل تلقائي أو مصادفة، ولذلك فقد كان <أينشتين> العالم‬ ‫اللماني الذي هاجر إلى الوليات المتحدة هربا من النازية ـ كان دائما حريصا على اليمان بالديان‬ ‫ً‬ ‫ً‬ ‫ً‬ ‫والكتب السماوية وقال إن تعاليم التوراة والنجيل هي الملذ الذي يجب أن يلجأ إليه النسان حتى ل‬ ‫يضل طريقه وهدفه في الحياة وحديثا نجد عالم الكيمياء الميركي ‪ Linus Pauling‬والستاذ بجامعة‬ ‫ً‬ ‫كاليفورنيا بيركلي ـ والحائز على جائزة نوبل عامي 3591م ـ 2691م طوال حياته بالضافة إلى‬ ‫جانب منجزاته المعروفة في نطاق الروابط الكيمياوية متفانيا في العمل من أجل السلم وتحريم‬ ‫ً‬ ‫السلحة النووية حفاظا على سعادة النسان وحضارته ـ وقد ذكر في احتفال إقامته له الجمعية‬ ‫ً‬ ‫الكيمياوية الميركية عام 3891م أنه يهتم بالعمل على التقدم المستمر للمعرفة النسانية وأنه يعتبر أن‬ ‫هدف المعرفة يجب أن يكون معرفة ال بعيدا عن أي طواغيت وأنه بذلك يمكن أن يتحقق اللتقاء بين‬ ‫ً‬ ‫العلم والدين لضمان تحقيق عالم أفضل·‬ ‫أما العالم الميركي ‪ Maxwell‬فقد ذكر في كتابه <العلم يعود إلى ال> 0791م أن نظرية <دارون>‬ ‫قد استنفدت أغراضها في زمن إعلنها، حيث كان يسود فكر العصر الفيكتوري في إنكلترا ـ ولما‬ ‫كانت شتى العلوم قد استحدثت فيها الكثير من الضافات العلمية التي تميزت معالمها ولم تقف عندما‬ ‫كان معروفا في أوائل القرن التاسع عشر وقياسا على ذلك فإنه لبد من مراجعة مدى سريان نظرية‬ ‫ً‬ ‫ً‬ ‫التطور لنها قد أصبحت ل تتلءم مع مستحدثات العلم في القرن العشرين فضل عن مطلع القرن‬ ‫ً‬ ‫الواحد والعشرين·‬ ‫كما أن عالم الطبيعة البيولوجية الميركي ‪ Morowitz‬العام 9791م، قد كتب أنه أمر مخز للنسان‬ ‫ٌ ٍ‬ ‫أن يسرح بذهنه ليتصور أنه من سللة قرد عريان غير عاقل· ويضيف: أنه لذلك كان طبيعيا أن القس‬ ‫ً‬ ‫البريطاني ‪ Wiberforce‬حين اشترك في مناظرة عن نظرية <دارون> للتطور ـ أمام <جوليان‬ ‫هكسلي> الكاتب والفيلسوف البريطاني الملحد كان طبيعيا أن يستطرد القس في مناقشته فيسأل‬ ‫ً‬ ‫<هكسلي> ـ ترى هل كان عن طريق جده لمه أم جده لبيه ما اتصل بنظرية <دارون> من أن‬ ‫أصله من نسل قرد؟‬ ‫ويعلق <مورفيتز> أنه من المؤلم أن يظل النسان الذي أقام الحضارة وأضاف الكثير من المبتكرات‬ ‫والتكنولوجيا ـ تحت وطأة أنه من سللة قرد أبله، ويضيف أن النسان المادي الذي لم يسعده عالمه‬ ‫المادي، في حاجة الن إلى أن يعود ويقرن عالم الروح بالمادة ليصبح إنسانا غير حيوان·‬ ‫ً‬

‫ولعل هذا اليقين هو ما دعا العالم الميركي ‪ A. Cressy Morrison‬الرئيس السابق لكاديمية‬ ‫العلوم في نيويورك وعضو المجلس التنفيذي لمجلس العلوم القومي بالوليات المتحدة إلى إصدار‬ ‫كتابه <النسان ل يقف وحده> العام 4491م، وذلك ردا على كتاب <جوليان هكسلي> <النسان‬ ‫ً‬ ‫يقوم وحده>·‬ ‫وهكذا فإننا نجد أن نظرية <داروين> وهي إحدى معالم فكر القرن التاسع عشر أصبحت غير قابلة‬ ‫لن تستمر أساسا لتدريس علوم الحياة والبيولوجيا الجزيئية ـ وإذا أضفنا إلى ذلك أن تلك النظرية قد‬ ‫ً‬ ‫استغلتها التجاهات الفلسفية اللحادية والمادية الجدلية وبخاصة الشيوعية والوجودية··· إلخ، لدعم‬ ‫معتقداتهم المادية التي تنكر الجانب الروحي والديني ـ فإن علمنا الن بأن العالم يراجع تلك النظريات‬ ‫المادية والشيوعية وبعد أن ثبت فشلها في عقر دارها ـ يضيف: علينا عبء أكبر في ضرورة مراجعة‬ ‫خلفياتنا العلمية والفلسفية حتى ل نتمسك بما قد ثبت بالدليل القاطع بطلنه علميا·‬ ‫ً‬ ‫وقد أسيء استخدام نطرية التطور حتى في مجال النتاج الزراعي والتعليم الجامعي في النظام‬ ‫الشيوعي السوفييتي، حيث تسلط عالم الزراعة السوفييتي ‪ Trofin D. Lysenko‬بحكم صلته‬ ‫بـ<جوزيف ستالين> على جميع الكوادر العلمية في التحاد السوفييتي، وكان أداة اضطهاد واعتقال‬ ‫وطرد للكثير من علماء الوراثة الروس بسبب أن ‪ Lysenko‬قرر تحريم تدريس الوراثة أو عمل أي‬ ‫أبحاث على أساس قوانين <مندل> الوراثية، ظنا منه أنه يخدم الشيوعية، ويبعد مظنة اليمان بالخالق‬ ‫ً‬ ‫للصفات الموروثة في تربية النباتات، وصمم على أن تحسين أصناف القمح يمكن أن يتم لمجرد تغيير‬ ‫العوامل البيئية دون انتخاب الصفات الوراثية· وقد استمرت هذه المهزلة في التاريخ المعاصر من‬ ‫العام 6291م حتى العام 6491م، وبعد انتهاء الحرب العالمية الثانية بدأ الجمود ينحسر، وكان فشل‬ ‫‪ Lysenko‬في تحسين إنتاج القمح هو الذي دعا الدولة إلى إتاحة الفرصة أمام فكر علماء الوراثة‬ ‫ليعودوا إلى الظهور ويعود تدريس الوراثة في المدارس والجامعات السوفييتية بعد تحريمه عشرين‬ ‫عاما·‬ ‫ً‬ ‫واليوم نحن على مشارف القرن الواحد والعشرين، وقد انحسرت موجة الشيوعية واللحاد :9:،‬ ‫وأصبح العالم كله يراجع فكره، ومعتقداته فعلينا أن نعلن رأينا واضحا في شأن عدم الستمرار في‬ ‫ً‬ ‫تبني نظرية النشوء والتطور حتى يتم تحرير البيولوجيا الجزيئية وكذلك أفكارنا من تلك المزاعم التي‬ ‫تصر على أن تفقد النسان إنسانيته·‬
‫0‬
‫•‬

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful