Darwin

Vij Sodera writes-: "Countless examples could be cited to show that
there is no evidence that any creature ever did evolve, or could have,
evolved into a completely different creature. Period. However, a single
example is sufficient to show that the only fact about evolution is that
it is a myth. The fossil and biological evidence shows unequivocally that
the bird lung cannot have and did not evolve from amphibian or reptilian
formats. If it did not evolve then it must have been as it is from the
beginning."

I think that Vij Sodera displays a non-scientific attitude when he
states that no creature ever evolved, or could have evolved into a
completely different creature. The correct scientific attitude is to state
that the present-day theory of evolution has many weak/incomplete points
and that it cannot presently explain many biological phenomena eg. how the
bird lung evolved from amphibian lung forms. However, it is totally
unscientific to fixedly claim that a scientific theory of evolution cannot
ever possibly explain these phenomena. The beauty of a scientific theory
is that it is constantly modifiable as new evidence and new understandings
come into being. That is the fundamental nature of science!
Vij Sodera concludes that if the bird lung did not evolve, then it must
have been as it is from the beginning. This statement represents flawed
scientific reasoning for two reasons. First of all, an "absence of
evidence" of evolution is not the same thing as "evidence of absence of
evidence". The truth is that we do not presently know whether the bird
lung could have evolved from another primitive lung form, but it is still
theoretically possible that it could have occurred. Secondly, the
statement that "it must have been as it is from the beginning" is not a
scientific statement, but merely a personal opinion. Many people belief
that an "intelligent designer" created all forms of life and that all
those forms have existed unchanged from the beginning. That particular
belief is not scientific because it cannot be tested. Whether an
individual person decides to adopt that particular belief is
individualistic, and people are free to adopt any belief. However, one
cannot claim that a non-testable belief (non-modifiable theory) is a
scientific belief.

I think that it scientifically useful for critics, like Vij Sodera,
to criticise the theory of evolution. Sound criticism will force
proponents of any particular scientific theory of evolution to modify
their theory in order to decrease its falsifiability factor and thereby
strengthen its believability factor. Scientific hypotheses can
theoretically become more solid (more believable) as new evidence and new
understandings are incorporated as "evidence". By contrast, non-scientific
statements, like a fixed belief "that the bird lung must have existed
unchanged from the beginning" or "human beings cannot have evolved from
apes", have no scientific validity, and provide no scientific insights.

Jeff Mann.

Competing interests:
None declared

The attempts at reconciling reality with a single religion's texts is, well, farcical. The only means of obtaining a record vaguely similar to the biblical account is by putting on very strong blinders and a filter that disallows independant thought.



The purpose of science is not to come in with a preconcieved agenda ready to prove. It is to openly propose an idea, that is then subjected to refutation. Now, let's keep that in mind, okay?



We've come a long way since Darwin, and I hope people will bear with me as I offer a quick synopsis of the elements that evolutionary theory did predict, and why those predictions are validations of the theory.



Heritable traits originally were debated because a child does not come out looking exactly like mother or father, but a mix of both. What constitutes something that is passed on, and why do some show up and not others? Lamarckian inheritence was quickly disproved (the "effort makes it so" version of heritable characteristics) by showing that a one-armed blacksmith has two-armed children before and after his accident. Nature is also not perfectly uniform: some creatures are smaller than the group, some larger, and these variable characteristics of individuality argue against a perfect creation.



Now, the general idea is that characteristics were passed from one generation to the next, with some variation. Gregor Mendel showed through cross-breeding experiments that the first impressions, that a child is a mix of parents and not an either-or copy, were apparently correct. Moreso, they could be predicted in their outcome. Now a general theory of "genetics" had been included: rules for the passing of variable traits and how they are expressed: the idea that information could be in an organism, but not shown.



Remember all of these were novel ideas that are now taken for granted.



The source of this information, which appeared to be in every cell of a plant and half-contained in the germ cells of other organisms, was only isolated and figured out as the primary material after plasmids were introduced between unicellular organisms. DNA. Otherwise an acid contained in every cell.



Why cells? Why on earth have an organism grow from a single cell, why have it spread out in individual compartments capable of individual suffocation when a solid organism without dispersed nutrient needs would be more "perfect?"



Because, in some sense, embryology does recapitulate phylogeny. We all, at some point, came from a single cell.



The idea that "new" information cannot be created is also a fallacy: the primary trait of adaptability in life is repetition. Once repetition is present, variablility in repetition can be introduced without killing the organism. Redundant DNA sequences can be altered ofen without mortality, so the failsafe of making an extra copy of a gene (we have two) in addition for sequence repetition (like double-posting on a board on accident) allows "new" information to be encoded in a genome. A segmented worm is a simple organism with repeating body segments; as these change, single sections can become divergent in function without killing the organism.



The key to the absence of absolute mortality in the face of mutation is that life is not perfect. Redundancy and backups, the mantra of software architecture folks, is applicable in any circumstance of information. This imperfection puts the lie to a divine creation and to the idea that mutations are all deleterious. It is the imperfection in the replication process that keeps an individual from dying, and the species from passing quietly due to a minor change in the environment.



Behe and his fellows attempt to use information theory to demonstrate that information is fragile and to therefore conclude that new information cannot be added. How do many here create a report that is very similar to a previous one? One pulls up a copy, alters it, and saves it as a new copy. Information is added, the original is untouched. DNA sequences are not all-or-nothings, they can and do repeat, often.

My admonishment would be to be like Gregor Mendel: hold your faith while not attempting to reconcile what you see with what you think you should see based on an anectdotal account passed down orally for thousands of years. The Bible is an inspired work; it is not a science textbook.

Competing interests:
None declared

Frankly I am amazed at the lack of serious thought being given to
this whole matter. To suggest that design has no scientific basis and that
the debate is about "religion versus science" as is so often touted by the
media is a
complete misunderstanding of the issues involved. Shall we rebuke Newton,
Boyle, Hooke and Faraday because they believed that the science pointed to
Design? All these gentlemen were part of the Royal Society and Einstein,
no friend of the Christian position, spoke of the harmony of natural law
and acknowledged design in the Universe.

It is not science which is in the dock when a growing group of
scientists in the US and Europe challenge Evolution, it is in fact a
religion masquerading as science which is at stake - that is materialistic
humanism which worships the goddess of matter and proposes that matter can
produce life - what Pasteur dismissed as idle nonsense 150 years ago. No
experimental fact across all the sciences denies the straightforward
principle that machines and order imply a prior intelligence. Furthermore
the Creationist position has never denied natural selection, but that is
only like its cousin artificial selection which brings out the latent
information already there in the rich ancestory of each kind, whether it
be dogs, cats or whatever.

Fundamentally information is selected out by natural selection, not
inserted in, so that the evidence of loss of information and in some
instances whole species by extinction ( not gain ) is strong evidence
against the
evolutionary model of origins. The laws of information science strongly
favour the Creationist position.

The motto of the Royal Society is 'nothing by mere authority' - so
pertinent to this matter. I suggest that it is high time that the
underlying religious ideas of evolution are exposed by serious scientific
debate in all our Universities. The old dogmas are ripe for challenge.

Professor Andy C. McIntosh,
Professor of Thermodynamics,
University of Leeds, UK

Competing interests:
None declared

So, it seems every evidence in fact points 'against' evolution! I'm
no expert on evolution; after all, I'm just a second year medical student.
Nonetheless, I can counter most of the arguments provided by the
creationists here, with the basic prerequisites of a scientist, as
elegantly suggested by Vij Sodera.

Firstly, let me respond to the arguments put forth by Dr. Sodera. You
say "any anatomist will testify to the mind-blowing complexity of every
part of the human body, not least the brain – the most complex structure
in the known universe. Yet evolutionists continue to promote non sequiturs
such as human consciousness arising from simple chemistry in 1017 seconds
by only the blind process of natural selection". Of course, the every part
of the human body is complex, including the brain. But, are you suggesting
that the anatomical parts of primates, or even other vertebrates are any
less complex? By the way, we don't know how consciousness arises in the
brain. But, that is no licence to stab the 'theory' of evolution, even
according to your own definition of science. And nobody has yet proved
that primates do not have a subjective consciousness. We do not possess
the technologies required to probe consciousness deep enough... at least,
not yet. For further information, I suggest Michael Gazzaniga's 'The
Cognitive Neurosciences III'.

Then, Dr. Sodera goes on to say "In addition, the astronomical number
of folding permutations available to such a protein will not allow it to
achieve its correct 3-D shape in the finite time available without other
proteins being already in place to guide the process." This argument is
demonstrative of his basic lack of understanding of protein chemistry.
Does he suggest that a proprotein polypeptide upon sythesis, immediately
works out all the possible permutations and combinations before it assumes
a tertiary or quaternary conformation? Of course, not. Ever heard of the
concept called 'energy funnel'? Besides that, the 3-D protein structure is
not merely determined by amino acids, but also the way the chemical
structures interact with themselves... Hydrophobic interactions, van der
Waal forces, hydrogen bonds, anyone? Ever heard of proteins called
'chaperones' that help in protein folding? Concept called 'protein
targeting and trafficking'?

He then argues, "While chimps may share up to 99% of their genes with
humans, the fact is that so do mice. Furthemore, details of ape, mice and
human chromosomes show that we are not modified chimpanzees. And without
studying the complete genomes of the other 2000-odd mammals, it is non-
science to declare that chimps are our closest cousins. It is also well
documented that amongst many other features, the chromosome size and
number of vertebrates from fish to mammals do not show an evolutionary
pattern." Yet another scientific murder! Complexity of an organism is not
reflected in its genetic structure, nor the number of chromosomes, nor
their size. Chromosomes are structures important primarily for
segregation, linkage, and recombination during meiosis, and are species
specific, only in the sense that genomes are large part of the genomes are
species-specific. They do not carry genetic information. The base-pair
sequences do. There is this simple concept which says the protein coding
regions of genomes (exons) are broken by non-coding regions called
introns. Human beings have the most complex intron-exon pattern, giving
rise to immense possibities of alternative splicing, at least partly
explaining the fact that organismal complexity is not reflected merely in
the genome size and chromosome number. And mice do not share 99%
similarity with us... But, comparative analyses published in journals like
Nature only argue strongly towards evolution and NOT against it! I suggest
consultation of any good genetic textbook to further explore this point...
Eg. Stryer, Lehninger and Watson.

"Mutations in bacteria are not examples of one organism turning into
another." Is that so? Perhaps he should study the genetic similarities
between Streptococci and Enterococci, or if he wants to go above the intra
-species differences, should perhaps compare Mycoplasma, Chlamydiae and
Rickettsiae.

Finally, he is right to say, " To question is the foundation stone of
science." But the question must be rational, at least in the sense that
one must have the least bit of up-to-date knowledge in the field one
assumes proficiency. I do not see how the fact that essential sequences
vital for the survival of organisms being conserved argues against
evolution. Are we saying this is science? Perhaps, if I had known enough
archaeology, I'd happily respond to Dr. Sodera's arguments therein.

Secondly, to Dr. Innis, who designed the 'designer'? Where is your
'designer'? Any scientific proof of your 'designer' other than gaps in
evolution and the Bible? Again, to Dr. Mackereth, neuroscientists, in the
past decade have been questioning the existence of what we often take for
granted - free will, and also our exclusivity in possessing cognition and
self-knowledge. In fact, recently evidence has been obtained to the
contrary. These are, unfortunately, not known to most people around the
world.

Dr. Mackereth also says, "I understand that in each case of drug
resistance acquired by bacteria, this is due to a loss of genetic
information, not due to new information being created . The cell wall
loses certain markers, so the antibiotic is no longer able to bind. This
therefore is not an example of evolution of a new species in action." I'm
sorry to disappoint you again. But, you are wrong. Random mutations in
bacteria can result in gain-of-function mutations too, which is how
penicillin resistance and resistance to other beta-lactam antibiotics
first evolved, by the 'evolution' of organisms which produce beta-
lactamase enzymes. Of course, processes like conjugation plays a role in
spreading resistance within and across species. But, several cases of gain
-of-function mutations have been recorded. I would suggest consulting
Topley and Wilson's Microbiology and Microbial Infections for further
information and references.

You go on to say, "The similarity between creature DNA is not proof
of evolution. It might just as well be proof of an all wise designer using
similar means for similar purposes." Why did your designer preserve the
sequences in the active sites of enzymes from E. coli to H. sapiens?
Couldn't he have just created us with different enzyme systems and
functionalities altogether? Why go through the trouble of conserving vital
structures from the molecules levels of DNA, RNA and proteins, to the
levels of complex organs?

And then, Dr. Au-Yeung, "If I were a designer, why should I re-invent
the wheel, particularly if it works well in the first place?" Then, your
designer is not so powerful after all. Seems he had to create the
invertebrates and early vertebrates with limited anatomical and
physiological complexities, and then had to improve successfully learning
from his mistakes. Perhaps, certain mistakes proved fatal, resulting in
loss/extinction of intermediate forms, and infirm species... Hang on, am I
talking Intelligent Design or Natural Selection?

Competing interests:
None declared