Darwin
BMJ 2005; 331 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.331.7530.1479 (Published 15 December 2005) Cite this as: BMJ 2005;331:1479All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
It surely will not do to plug the gaps in a scientific theory with a
non-scientific theory.
Does anyone suppose that the first chapters of Genesis are
scientifically testable? Nevertheless it should be evident that they have
a value of a different sort which goes beyond scientific testability.
Everyday a friend sends me a biblical quotation. I don't take them
literally but I nearly always find them inspiring.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Dear Sir,
A timely debate, given the recent ruling on 20 December over the
teaching of intelligent designs in Dover, Pennsylvania.
It should be pointed out that creationism and evolution are not
mutually exclusive options. Michael Innis states that "Perhaps the
“Intelligent Designer” devised “Evolution” as His/Her/Its Modus Operandi."
- not a statement that could be taken as scientific, due to the fact it is
not falsifiable, but at the same time seems inherently logical if one has
belief in a supreme being. This will not, however, be a discussion of
whether there is a supreme being or not, as this is the BMJ...
It was stated by Dr Hayes that mutations are only deleterious: if he
had any practical experience with molecular genetics I am sure that he
would have been aware that it is remarkably easy to create new phenotypes
with a simple mutation to a single base pair of a gene, and often the new
proteins produced can be more effective than their natural counterparts.
He states that there is no way to account for the presence of this
information. However, 'additions' to this code can frequently come about
due to genes duplicating themselves within the genome, and then being
affected by a random mutation that changes their function slightly. Often
the expression of these mutant proteins would lead to cell death, but
sometimes they may survive with no ill effect, and sometimes they may have
a beneficial effect upon the cell.
Also, consider mitochondria and chloroplasts: once they were single
celled organisms happily producing energy by themselves, now they have
been incorporated into animal and plant cells, and their genome has been
incorporated into our own. Also, consider the mechanism of viruses,
inserting their own genome into ours, effectively adding to the genome and
altering cell function as they do so. With viruses and bacteria being the
most primitive of organisms, yet being able to build up or amend a genome
in this fashion, does the construction of our genome seem so unlikely?
From a theological point of view, one must perhaps consider why such
a complex system would have been produced, when there are so many inherent
flaws: genetic problems account for 33% of spontaneous abortions, many
cancers are a result of the genetic machinery going haywire, many other
people suffer from cripppling genetic diseases. It is not a perfect
system, and hence this points towards the fact that it is one that has
evolved in the manner of not fixing and refining a problem, but rather
getting around it - surely a divine creator, drawing from scratch, would
have fixed something that ran a little more smoothly?
Dr. Sodera states that humans cannot evolve from apes - this is to
ignore the concept of evolution and divergence. Humans did not evolve
from chimpanzees, nor did chimpanzees evolve from the lesser mammals we
know today. However, we share a common ancestry, and it is since this
ancestor that our genes have been mutating and diverging, and had the
opportunity to allow us to become the species we are today. Also, to rely
on the use of simple combination mathematics to try and baffle the reader
rather trivialises the topic: aspects such as optimization and selection
pressures must be considered, which all of a sudden reduce the level of
'chance' required... also, this totally ignores the concept of the
possible evolution of RNA-based organisms prior to the advent of proteins
being the functional molecules of choice.
I cannot state that there is no such being as a creator, just as
someone else cannot state that such a being exists. However, given the
evidence presented - and there is an enormous amount of it about - one
would have to be heavily in favour of an evolution based approach to life.
All creationists tend to do is to bite and snipe at the arguments
presented for evolution, without providing actual positive evidence of
their own. The BMJ is a journal of science, and as such both the writers
and their respondants should adhere to a method of scientific thinking.
I look forward to reading from respondants who, instead of relying on
propagandist texts (such as the much quoted Behe here) are able to present
reasoned arguments from their own experience.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Dear Respondent,
Evolution could not have been employed by an intelligent designer since it
is not an intelligent suggestion.
Evolutionary phylogenies are conclusively discredited by karyotypes.
Meiosis/gametogenesis effectively prevent generation of novel inheritable
karyotypes.
Exquisitely orchestrated and integrated synergism of chromosomes in
execution of vital functions requires inheritance of complete and original
karyotypes.
Karyotypes are extremely intolerant of addition/subtraction of
chromosomes (even of native chromosomes).
Evolution thus absolutely imposs.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Without offering the public the opportunity to see the true evidence
base
which comprises a wealth of evidence against evolution, the New York
Natural
History Museum’s new Darwin exhibition is, by definition, a scientific
fraud of
the highest order.
You don’t have to be a religious fundamentalist to question evolution
theory
- you just have to have an open and enquiring mind and not be afraid of
challenging dogma. The scientific evidence against evolution is
overwhelming, a large body of which I have recently published in the
comprehensive new book ‘One small Speck to Man ~ the evolution myth’ (see
www.onesmallspeck.com).
Whatever stone I have unturned, I have found two things: Firstly, that
there is
no such thing as simplicity in living things – the deeper you go in
examining
living things, the more complexity you find. Secondly, when viewed
objectively, all the evidence points against evolution.
Indeed, it can be stated categorically that:
anyone who has no doubt that chimpanzees are our distant cousins, or that
fishes and worms share a common ancestry with humans, either has not
studied the wealth of evidence to the contrary… or is living in a state of
denial.
For example:
Natural selection: no one denies the reality of variation and natural
selection.
For example, chihuahuas and great danes can be derived from a wolf by
selective breeding. Therefore, a chihuahua is a wolf, in the same way that
people of extremely short stature and small brain capacity are fully human
beings. However, readers may be surprised to learn that there is no sound
evidence (fossil, anatomical, biochemical or genetic) that any creature
did
give rise, or could have given rise, to a completely different creature.
In
addition, by their absence in the fossil record for (supposed) millions of
years
along with the fact of their existence during the same time period, many
animals such as the coelacanth demonstrate the principle that all
creatures
could have lived contemporaneously in the past.
Complexity: 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.
Birds: the evidence base does not support the notion that birds
evolved from
dinosaurs: leaving aside the colossal problem of feather origination, both
medical and anatomical evidence show that the unique bird lung system
cannot have arisen step-wise from a dinosaur precursor. Furthermore, the
fossil of scipionyx confirms that bipedal dinosaurs had typically
reptilian,
non-avian lung systems.
Proteins: the critically-positioned amino acids at the active sites
within
enzymes and structural proteins show that the origination of complex
proteins by step-wise modifications of supposed ancestral peptides is
impossible.
Even if all the necessary enzymes are available and the Earth is taken to
be
4.5 billion
years (1017 seconds) old, this is still not enough time to ensure the
generation of even one specific average-sized protein (there being 10130
possible permutations of a 100-amino acid chain). 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.
Nor does the evidence support the notion that whales evolved from
terrestrial
quadrupeds, or that ultimately, the human knee joint evolved from a fish
pelvic fin.
Apes becoming human: some might protest that surely it has been
proved
that we evolved from apes. In fact, the answer is a categorical ‘no’.
Australopithecines, for example, were simply extinct apes that in a few
anatomical areas differed from living apes. If some of them walked
bipedally
to a greater degree than living apes, this does not constitute evidence
that
apes evolved into humans – it just means that some ancient apes were
different from living apes.
False science should be exposed wherever it is smeared. For example, the
Ape-Man series on BBC in 2000 showed australopithecines with human-like
great toes despite the fact that, 5 years previously, it had been shown
conclusively by the fossil specimen STW573 that the australopithecine had
a
thumb on its foot, not far removed from the chimpanzee form. So, only
humans could have made the (supposedly) 3.5 million-year-old Laetoli
footprints.
Furthermore, the public must not be hoodwinked by the non sequitur that
apes became human by gradually increasing their brain size: it is a fact
that
some healthy humans who are alive today have brains that are smaller in
volume than that of a gorilla. And, since living humans can also have
large
brows and sloping foreheads, these features are also not in themselves
indicators of sub-human-ness.
Fossilisation times: regarding fossilisation times, shells can be
fossilised in
less than 12 months. Experiments from Japan have recently shown that fresh
wood can become fossilised in only a number of years. Recently, a
fossilised
T rex femur has revealed undecayed tissues still elastic suggesting that,
most
likely, T rex died relatively recently. Other dinosaur and Megalania bones
from Montana also have appearances compatible with a relatively recent
demise.
Genetics: what about genetic similarity as proof of common ancestry?
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.
To question is the foundation stone of science. Suppressing, and
laughing
and sneering at intelligent people, who with honesty, integrity and a
considerable amount of synaptic effort have found evolution to be a
completely flawed theory, is a form of terrorism so powerful that it can
kill
free thought. Our best protection is the facility for open discussions
without
fear of intimidation, harassment or mockery, in order to ensure that the
truth
can be seen by all. Then everyone will see that our great, great….great
grandparents were never apes.
Incidentally, mutations in bacteria are not examples of one organism
turning
into another (the bacteria remain the same organism) and tell us nothing
whatsoever about how your brain came into existence.
So, for those who look up to Darwin as some sort of hero, his complete
failure to address properly the myriad flaws in his ideas (which even in
his
time could have been easily identified) makes him, by definition, a very
poor
scientist.
Competing interests:
Author of 'One small Speck to
Man - the evolution myth'.
www.onesmallspeck.com
Competing interests: No competing interests
Editor,
Perhaps the “Intelligent Designer” devised “Evolution” as
His/Her/Its Modus Operandi.
Michael Innis
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Mr Balaji Ravichandran states:
“I'll give you some straight forward examples of evolution. A human
foetus in its early stages of development looks almost identical to that
of a fish! Now that the genomes of a dozen animals have been sequenced,
please take the time to read the analytical data comparing these
sequences. You can see the proof of evolution for yourself. Oh, and by the
way, the genetic code remains the same for every organism from E. coli to
H. sapiens. And the genes coding for the proteins involved in all vital
functions of the body are remarkably conserved. Eg. Cytochromes.”
Reply:
I understand that the belief that embryos pass through consecutive
stages of evolution was discredited years ago, although I confess that
that is the view that I was taught whilst a medical student in 1982.
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. The key thing is the differences! Evolution needs to
account for the existence of these immensely complex sequences to start
with, and come up with credible mechanism whereby the differences could
have occurred. There is not even a proposal of a molecular mechanism that
could account for this.
Mr Balaji Ravichandran states:
“You want a typical example of evolution occurring everyday? Consult
a microbiologist - he will tell you about the emergence (yes, evolution)
of multiple-drug resistant pathogens everyday. MRSA, anyone?”
Reply:
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.
Mr Balaji Ravichandran states:
“Many are under the illusion that evolution cannot explain the
complexity of the human brain”
Reply:
For all this, you cannot explain “ensoulment”, or how it is that man
is unique amongst living creatures in that he has a will, an affect and
cognitive thought processes, and self awareness. Man alone also has moral
responsibility and a conscience, and he prays!
Mr Balaji Ravichandran states:
“Finally, to all the evangelists. For many people, the Bible (or any
other religious text) is no more than a book. Please do not present that
as evidence (or for that matter, even an argument) against evolution.
Then, the whole debate becomes utterly meaningless, which on a basic
level, it already is!!!”
Reply:
I believe that the Bible is the Word of God. It matters because there
is a world of difference between believing that man came from unliving
chemicals and believing that, man is unique, the pinnacle of the creation
of an almighty God, and therefore accountable to Him. Evolution is, I
believe, a lie and a strong delusion. I believe that if we won’t accept
the testimony of the Bible, all the evidence we need is still there in the
world around us to prove that evolution is fallacious. If only we will
open our eyes and look!
How we view man certainly affects the way that we practice medicine.
Finally let me say that creation science is not wacky as you would
suggest, neither are creation scientists fools. Much genuine research has
been published on this subject and is available.
By all means let us have more scientists contributing to this
discussion from both sides of the argument.
Kind regards,
David.
Competing interests:
Christian evangelist
Competing interests: No competing interests
I am surprised by some of the examples used by Mr Balaji Ravichandran
in his refuting of creationism. Take the statement "And the genes coding
for the proteins involved in all vital functions of the body are
remarkably conserved. Eg. Cytochromes." This does not contribute to
refuting intelligent design anymore than it does to promote evolution.
If I were a designer, why should I re-invent the wheel, particularly
if it works well in the first place? Looking at the design of the Intel
microprocessors from the granddaddy chip 8086 to the 80486 (the last
before the Pentium series), the basic architecture of the old 8086 was
actually quite well-preserved. Similarly the new models of the PowerPC
chips were added onto the basic architecture of the basic 1st generation
micro-processor. These would have grave implications for his statement on
neuroanatomy - "the structural-functional correlation of the vertebrate
nervous system has been faithfully conserved for their vital functions,
and successively improved to result in the complexity of their primates."
As for the emergence of multi-resistant MRSA, or whatever bug is
wreaking havoc in nosocomial infections at your hospital, might I
respectfully suggest that he was merely drawing attention to the well-
recognised phenomenom of natural selection. I think most creationists
would not deny natural selection. It is whether such is necessary and
sufficient for evolution, and whether evolution is both necessary and
sufficient in explaining the diverse variety of living organisms we see
today that is the arguing point between the creationists and the
evolutionists.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Firstly, I am surprised to see the flurry of responses from
creationists, and the muteness of scientists who read the BMJ. This policy
of appeasement is what gives the creationists and fundamentalists the
upper hand.
Secondly, to Dr. Mackereth, I have not suggested that Dawkins proved
the theory of evolution. Indeed, he did not. The evidence of evolution is
present all the biomedical literature published in the last 50 years. I
cannot list down the all the evidence, however; and reading the responses
on this website, I get the impression that it is likely to be of little
use. But forget not that BMJ is no religious journal, only scientific.
Thirdly, to Dr. Hayes, clearly, you are no geneticist. Else, you
wouldn't be frivolously arguing the case against evolution. You say,
"random mutation is the only mechanism available to the evolutionist to
explain the development of new structures and forms, but it is
demonstrably insufficient to explain the interlocking complexity of the
'simplest' life form." Your statement could not be more wrong and
demonstrative of scientific ignorance. Have you been reading any
scientific journal for the past two decades? Please show me one scientific
paper in an established journal, that presents evidence against evolution.
[No religious journals, please!]
I'll give you some straight forward examples of evolution. A human
foetus in its early stages of development looks almost identical to that
of a fish! Now that the genomes of a dozen animals have been sequenced,
please take the time to read the analytical data comparing these
sequences. You can see the proof of evolution for yourself. Oh, and by the
way, the genetic code remains the same for every organism from E. coli to
H. sapiens. And the genes coding for the proteins involved in all vital
functions of the body are remarkably conserved. Eg. Cytochromes.
Many are under the illusion that evolution cannot explain the
complexity of the human brain. Please... evolutionists (i.e., scientists)
never argued that evolution was the sole contributor to the cortical
complexity of the human brain. The illusion is understandable, because
most of us are of the belief that human brain is incredibly complex when
compared even to our nearest ancestors. Well, as a student involved in
neuroscientific research, I can vouch for the fact that this is merely an
myth. From the formatio reticularis to the medullary centres of the brain
stem, the structural-functional correlation of the vertebrate nervous
system has been faithfully conserved for their vital functions, and
successively improved to result in the complexity of their primates.
(Oh... our nearest ancestors are not that stupid, by the way. In fact, do
understand our language to some extent!.)
You want a typical example of evolution occuring everyday? Consult a
microbiologist - he will tell you about the emergence (yes, evolution) of
multiple-drug resistant pathogens everyday. MRSA, anyone?
Finally, to all the evangelists. For many people, the Bible (or any
other religious text) is no more than a book. Please do not present that
as evidence (or for that matter, even an argument) against evolution.
Then, the whole debate becomes utterly meaningless, which on a basic
level, it already is!!!
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Mr Charles Darwin – who rejected a career in medicine.
The piece on Darwin, considering it is published in a
medical journal, inexcusably omits that he studied medicine
in Edinburgh from October 1825. Darwin couldn’t stomach the
subject, found it "dull", and left in 1827 — without an MD
but with profuse relief. Even before this, whilst at school,
he had helped his doctor father, Robert, in Shrewsbury, by
taking histories from patients and making up prescriptions.
This hands-on experience clearly hadn’t warmed him to the
subject.
It was whilst skipping medical lectures that Charles met the
Scot, R.E Grant. This estimable gentleman had been a medical
doctor for a decade but had eschewed it in favour of marine
biology and investigating the natural world. (We modern
doctors can only dream of the joy of having such open-minded
characters washing around our medical schools). They took
countless walks together around the Firth of Forth, with
incessant conversation and specimen collection. Grant, a
Lamarkian and, moreover, an evolutionist, fed to overflowing
the avid curiosity of young Darwin.
That Darwin’s eclectic grandfather Erasmus, also a
physician, was an evolutionist of sorts, and an early
priming influence upon his grandson, and that Charles was
then exposed to the breadth of Grant’s fantastic knowledge,
and, further, that young Darwin had a constitutional and
unquenchable interest in the natural world — was a amazing
and serendipitous collection of circumstances. One wonders
whether the rest of his life was devoted simply to finding
the evidence for what he, inchoately albeit, already knew
before the age of 20. Medicine, understandably, could have
no place in the life of this human cauldron of brilliance.
William G Pickering
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
ID is just easier to grasp
It strikes me that when an explanation can't be easily understood you
always find people that will readily invoke the supernatural. So, whenever
they're asked to explain something complex they can respond, "magic".
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests