A THEORY IN CRISIS (1)

The book by Michael Denton, "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, is a

secular critique of evolution. It is thoughtful, logical,

empirical, and well-written. Denton is sympathetic and fair,

showing rare insight and compassion towards Charles Darwin. he

distinguishes MICRO-evolution form MACRO-evolution. The first

occurs within genotypes.

Darwin's Galapagos finches illustrate micro-evolution,

as does the circumpolar overlap among species of

gulls, and the many varieties of fruit flies in the Hawaiian

islands. However, selective breeding of pigeons, chickens,

turkeys, cattle, horses, dogs, cats and many other domestic

animals yields similar results over less time.

MACRO-evolution, the second type, had to occur if evolution were

to get the first cell, or to leap across genotypes, say, from a

reptile to a bird.

While MICRO-evolution is evident in the

geographical distribution of many living species (2) and in

selective breeding, it sustains only Darwin's special theory of

evolution--variation within genotypes. the general theory, change

across types on the other hand, (MACRO-evolution) requires upward

rather than lateral movement.

For MACRO-evolution the problem is how fully developed viable

life-forms might arise completely by accident. Denton cites Monod

who said, "Chance alone is at the source of every innovation of

all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but

blind (3). Chance supposedly gave rise to the first

organism--perhaps a bacterium, alga, or protozoan. Later, the

theory says, chance resulted in complex invertebrates and plants,

followed by fish, then amphibians, reptiles, and, finally,

mammals.

According to Denton, proof of such a sequence requires at least

one of two kinds of evidence: either an unbroken chain of

transitional fossils or surviving intermediates, or; plausible

reconstructions of such series together with their respective

ecological niches.

The trick is to show how each link could be

viable enough for the next to get going. Only by establishing

complete transitional series can the hypothesized connectedness

in the hierarchy of genotypes be made plausible--empirical proof,

of course is a much taller order. here the issue is mere

plausibility. If such transitions ever happened, intermediate

forms should be found in the fossils and in living organisms.

Existing classes should overlap. Clear boundaries ought to be

exceptional rather than normative.

Though Darwin hoped fossil transitions would appear eventually,

none did. Only trivial cases of micro-evolution, hardly

rivaling selective breeding, were evident. Nor for more than

a hundred years would any accurate measure of distances between

existing classes become possible.

Or, take the Coelacanth. On the basis of fossil evidence,

evolutionists believed it was an intermediate between fish and

amphibia. reconstructions showed Coelacanth to have both

amphibian and fish-like characteristics. Later, live Coelacanths

turned up in the Indian Ocean near Cape Province, south Africa.

They were fish! The reconstructions had been wrong. All of which

shows that fossils provide a poor basis for detailed inferences

about proposed links between classes.

However, Denton points out that advances in microbiology make

possible a new sort of evidence. It is now possible to compare

directly the basic building blocks--the proteins--of living

things. Denton notes that proteins determine "all the biology of

an organism, all its anatomical features, its physiological and

metabolic functions....(4)." It is hard to believe that protein

structure and evolution could be unrelated. Denton writes:

The amino acid sequence of a protein from two different

organisms can be readily compared by aligning the two

sequences and counting the number of positions where the

chains differ (5).

And these differences

can be quantified exactly and provide an entirely novel

approach to measuring differences between species.....

As work continued in this field, it became clear that

each particular protein had a slightly different sequence

in different species and that closely related species had

closely related sequences. When the haemoglobin sequences

in different mammals, such as man and dog, were compared

the sequential divergence was about twenty percent, while

when the haemoglobin in two dissimilar species such as

man and carp were compared, the sequential divergence was

found to be about fifty percent (6).

Such comparisons make possibly the testing of hypotheses,

suggested by neo-Darwinian orthodoxy. For instance, suppose

bacteria have been around much longer than multi cellular species,

e.g. mammals. Suppose further that bacteria are more closely

related to plants than fish, amphibia, and mammals, in that

order. If so, we should see evidence of these facts in the

sequences of amino acids of common proteins. For example, all the

mentioned groups use cytochrome C, a protein used in energy

production. the differences in that protein should fit an

evolutionary sequence. However, bacterial cytochrome C compared

with the corresponding proteins in horse, pigeon, tuna, silkmoth,

wheat, and yeast show all of them to be equidistant from the

bacterium. The difference from bacterium to yeast is no less

than from bacterium to mammal, or to any of the other classes.

Nor does the picture change if we choose other classes or

different proteins. The traditional classes of organisms are

identifiable throughout the typological hierarchy, and the

relative distances between them remain similar regardless of

hypothesized evolutionary sequences. for example, Denton observes

that amphibia do not fall between fish and terrestrial

vertebrates. Contrary to the orthodox theory, amphibia are the

same distance form fish as are reptiles and mammals (7).

In all comparisons, the hypotheses of general evolution is false.

Denton writes:

The really significant finding that comes to light from

comparing the proteins' amino acid sequences is that it

is impossible to arrange them in any sort of evolutionary

series (8).

The upshot is that

the whole concept of evolution collapses (9) [because]

the pattern of diversity at a molecular level is unique,

isolated, and unlike by intermediates (10).

Moreover accidental design adjustments, as necessary for

general evolution, are logical disasters. Random

mutations from radiation, replication errors, or other

proposed sources, rarely result in viable design

adjustments, never in perfect more advanced designs.

Evidence for general evolution is altogether lacking and

predictions from the theory are false. Darwin confessed

the distinctness of specific forms and their not being

blended together by innumerable transitional links is a

very obvious difficulty (11).

Still he insisted on gradual change due to natural selection

which he said can produce no great or sudden modifications; it

can act only by short and slow steps (12).

More than a century later the fossil record still does not fit

Darwinian orthodoxy. Ironically, by admitting this "trade secret

of paleontology" (13). Harvard professor Stephen Jay Gould has

achieved fame and glory. From Darwin forward, everywhere in the

biological hierarchy researchers came to uncrossed chasms. Yet

they pretended the gaps did not exist. This set the stage for

Gould's saltational theory - an idea Darwin explicitly rejected.

Gould's idea id like the fantasies of Fred Hoyle (14) and Francis

Crick (15) about extraterrestrial civilizations. While Gould,

along with colleague Niles eldridge, proposes miraculous sudden

leaps in evolutionary progress (16), Hoyle and Crick, propose

panspermia--life-seeds form some extraterrestrial civilization.

All such theories merely postpone thinking. Denton rejects them

and concludes that perfect design implies supreme intelligence.

But, unlike Gould, Eldredge, Hoyle, and Crick, he does not reach

his own proposal by wild imagination, but by a ruthless

application of logic.

He notes that the design problem and its solution find a nearly

perfect analogy in the difficulty of generating texts in a

language. While the number of possible texts is large, the number

of nonsensical strings is larger by orders of infinity. It is an

understatement to say that the probability of generating by chance

even one grammatical text of just a few hundred words is

vanishingly small. Any such string implies intelligence.

In the same way, viable sequences of life's material are an

infinitesimal proportion of possible arrangements. The question

is how a viable sequence could arise by accident. Denton

considers the odds. He cites Hoyle and Wickramasinghe who

estimate the chance of a single living cell spontaneously coming

into existence as 1 in 10^40,000 tries (one to the 40,0000th

power)--"an outrageously small possibility...even if the whole

universe consisted of organic soup (17)." Referring then to the

"elegance and ingenuity of an absolute transcending quality,

which so militates against the idea of chance, ...." he asks:

"Is it really credible that random processes could have

constructed a reality, the smallest element of which--a

functional protein or gene--is complex beyond...anything

produced by the intelligence of man?" (18)

In the end, Denton suggests, the advocates of orthodox evolution

are like Lewis Carroll's Red Queen. When Alice protested that

there's no use trying to believe impossible things, the Queen

said:

"I dare say you haven't had much practice...When i was your age I

did it for half an hour a day. Why sometimes I've believed as

many as six impossible things before breakfast." (19)

REFERENCES

1. A review of Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis.

Denton is a molecular biologist and medical doctor. He's NOT a

creationist and none of his arguments and evidences relate to

religious considerations.

2. the geographical distribution of organisms was, Denton says, Darwin's

main source of inspiration: "the origin of all my views." See Charles

Darwin, the Origin of Species, 6th ed., 1872, reissued in New York:

Collier, 1962, p. 25 (as cited by Denton, op. cit., p.45)

3. Jacques Monod, Chance and Necessity, London: COllins, 1972, p 110 (as

cited by Denton, op.cit., p.43).

4. Denton, op. cit. p.303

5. Ibid., p. 275

6. Ibid., p. 276

7. Ibid., p. 285

8. Ibid., p. 289

9. Ibid., p. 291

10 Ibid., p. 290

11. See Charles Darwin, op. cit., p. 307 (as cited by Denton)

12. C. Darwin as cited by Denton

13. Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb p.194

14.Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe & Evolution from Space

15. Francis Crick and L.E. Oregel, "Directed Panspermia," Icaus, 19,

341-346, also see Francis Crick, "Life Itself," simon % Schuster

16. Niles eldridge and Gould, "Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to

phyletic gradualism," in TJM Schopf, ed, Models in Paleobiology pgs.

82-115

17. Hoyle, F. "Evolution from space" pgs 24 & 323

18. Denton, op cit. p. 342

19. Lewis Carroll, "Alice Through the Looking glass. p 100