CHAPTER 8:  EVOLUTION:  THE BASICS PRINCIPLES OF THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY

As stated earlier, there are two aspects of scientific proof, empirical and methodological.  Modern empiricism is best represented by probabilism which theory answers most data?  Things like the fossil record are empirical data.  The bridge between the empirical and methodological was said to be falsificationism was this empirical correlation between a theory and the observable data predicted by the theory, or the product of retroductive ad hoc reformulations of a theory?  Neo-Darwinian theories such as "punctuated equilibrium" are examples of ad hoc reformulations.  Finally there was simplicism--the intrinsic elegance, beauty, symmetry, economy, or coherency of a theory.  The logical coherency of the evolutionary theory apart from observed data is probably best regarded as an aspect of simplicism.

The evolutionary theory must address at least three very different questions satisfactorily:

1)     the pre-biological--how did random chemicals banging around create a sustainable life form?

2)      the ecological--how did these earliest life forms survive in the absence of other life forms or a self supporting eco-system? and

3)     the biological--by what mechanism did species change and ascend upward to man? 

But before addressing this, it is necessary to give some brief background on the evolutionary theory.

Random genetic mutation, natural selection, and time

Most adherents of the evolutionary theory have no idea what the theory teaches.  A good example was the Church and State seminar in Spring 1998 at Hastings College of Law.  One student in class observed that we can see evolution taking place because our generation is taller than the last.  Even if the theory of evolution were true, the fact that the present generation is taller than the last would have nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

The sine qua non of evolution is that a species develops through random genetic mutations and natural selection which causes the superior gene to pass to the entire species over vast periods of time.  Darwin originally developed this theory not while on the voyage of the H.M.S. Beagle, but after reading Malthus in October 1838, two years after he had left the Beagle.

In October 1838. . . I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavorable ones be destroyed.  The result of this would be the formation of a new species.  Here, then, I had at last got a theory by which to work. . .^[1]

The randomness of this process is stressed by evolutionary literature.  Jacques Monod writes that "chance alone is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere.  Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution."^[2] 

Because this process is infinitesimal however, one must provide vast quantities of time.  Darwin writes:

I can see no limit to the amount of change, to the beauty and complexity of the co-adaptations between all organic beings, one with another and with their physical conditions of life, which may have been affected in the long course of time through nature's power of selection, that is by the survival of the fittest.^[3]  *  *  * 

That natural selection generally acts with extreme slowness I fully admit. . . I do believe that natural selection will generally act very slowly, only at long intervals of time.^[4]  *  *  * 

As natural selection acts solely by accumulating slight, successive , favourable variations, it can produce no great or sudden modifications; it can act only by short and slow steps.^[5]

To illustrate this process of random genetic mutation, natural selection, and time, let's take the hypothetical example of a broad leaf plant.  As free radicals and cosmic rays bombard the DNA structure of each plant of this particular species in the jungle, the DNA in each plant is slightly altered.  Most changes have no effect.  Those with no change have a reproductive constant of 0.0000.  The exponential multiplication of biological entities conforms to the standard exponential equation, q / q₀ = e^kt, where q = total quantity of an organism, q₀ = original quantity of an organism, t = time, and k is a doubling constant.  If, after a period of time, the organism has neither increased nor diminished, q / q₀ = 1.  This occurs when k, the doubling constant, equals zero.  If k is positive, e.g., .0000023, the quantity will grow over time.  This predicts the rate at which bacteria in a petri dish will multiply (until they outgrow the dish and all die.)  If k is slightly negative, it represents a slowly decreasing population.  If there is only one such creature, it depicts the doubling time.  Obviously you can't have one and a half oak trees.  But if k = .00693, our oak tree would roughly double every hundred years.  That is, at the end of 100 years there should be roughly two oak trees, at the end of another 100 years there would be four such oak trees, etc. 

Most populations are stable.^[6]  That is, while some plants reproduce themselves two, three, or fifty times over, and others die before reproducing themselves, the average plant reproduces exactly one reproducing-plant in its lifetime.  If a population is not stable, it is either growing or shrinking.  Since oak trees are a stable population, if a particular strain of oak were doubling, it would eventually replace the other strains of oak.  But the doubling rate is only accurate with large numbers of subjects, like ten million bacteria in a petri dish.  A single oak tree may be superior to its surrounding trees, and yet be destroyed by fire.  It will never double, or even have offspring under those circumstances.  In a bacteria colony with ten million living bacteria however, anomalies tend to even out.  The doubling rate is therefore far more accurate a prediction once large numbers are involved.

Returning to our example of a broad leaf plant, of those random mutations that produce a measurable effect, the effect is usually deleterious.  We can see this for example in persons exposed to radiation.  The Chernobyl disaster killed many people.  Cancer and leukemia developed.  However, there is not one single instance in the history of radiation exposure where the effect was to produce a genetic change in healthy cells that improved them.  Shooting a bullet into a computer may upgrade the computer's capabilities.  The odds however, are against it.  So it is with people whose DNA is bombarded by radiation and randomly altered.  We do not know what the odds are of improving the gene code.  We do, however, know that they are slim.  And so it is with our plants.  For example, one plant may have a slightly yellowed leaf, and be slightly less able to carry on photosynthesis.  Its doubling constant is -.0000061.  That is, its likelihood of producing no offspring is slightly higher than its likelihood of producing two surviving offspring.  Eventually the odds will probably catch up with it, and it will ceases to exist as a strain of plant.  Another mutation may cause the skin of that plant to be slightly less resistant to insects.  Its doubling constant is -.0000000371.  Its line will eventually perish as well.  For another, the flavor of the pollen is slightly altered, and is less attractive to insects.  It too will slowly go on to distinction, giving way to healthier and more "survivable" samples of its species.  Finally, evolutionary theory posits, through the process of random mutations, one of the plants develops a slight notch in its leaf.  In the jungle where it lives, water typically runs off the edge of the leaves.  With the notched leaf however, the water drips off before it gets to the tip of the leaf.  Some water therefore lands closer to the stalk of the plant.  If this turns out to be beneficial to the plant's survival, the notched leaf plant has a chance of multiplying itself slightly greater than its odds of becoming extinct.  If it can make it past the critical period of time (during which time, the minuscule mathematical advantage of survivability has not yet manifested itself into numerical superiority, and a hungry herbivore could thwart its dreams of world domination with one bite), its genetic trait will eventually be passed on to all plants of that species.  Over hundreds or perhaps thousands of years, all other non-notched plants die off.  Those that were weakened of course die off first.  The notched leaf was more survivable, so it eventually replaced the old form of the species.

One can think of this process like playing "Don't Pass, Don't Come" on a craps table, where the odds are roughly 49.5% in the player's favor, 50.5% in the houses favor.  The player will win some and lose some.  The winnings and losings are almost equal.  Little by little however, the money leaks out of the pocket of our gambler and into the coffers of the casino.  The process is slow if he is only making bets of a few dollars against an original stake of $500.  Given enough time however, the laws of probability demand that our friend will eventually loose his entire stake.  So it is with evolution.  The species whose mutations render them slightly less survivable will slowly go on to extinction.  It may take thousands or ten of thousands of years, but it will happen.  Those that are slightly more survivable will eventually dominate.  Their genes will eventually be found in all the plants.

Does this process as described above actually occur?  Perhaps.  But even most creationists believe in some form of "micro-evolution."  Everyone recobnizes we are subject to ultra-violet radiation, ozone, and other oxidizing agents that can damage or mutate DNA  As we examine the above illustration of micro-evolution in a broad leaf plant, it highlights the silliness of maintaining that evolution is true because our generation is taller than the previous.  According to the theory of evolution, random mutations which happen to be beneficial to survival and reproduction will accumulate over a period of time through the process of natural selection, and should eventually come to dominate a gene pool.  We are not "striving" to become taller.  Such striving would not be a random genetic mutation but a drive of our specie if this woman were correct.  Moreover, for all we know, tall people are more subject to osteoporosis and spinal injury, which would be deleterious to reproduction and survival.  Finally, even if someone's tallness were the result of genetic mutation, and even if it were beneficial, one generation is hardly enough time for this genetic trait to be passed to the entire succeeding generation unless the fellow possessing this gene produced offspring with every woman in the world.  (A daunting task by any measure.)

To attribute the height difference between two succeeding generations to evolution is therefore to utterly fail to apprehend the most basic concept underlying the evolutionary theory.  The statement, however, is not an isolated event of ignorance, but is emblematic of the profound lack of understanding the theory holds among its adherents.  The student raising this argument was not the exception.  More frequently than not, adherents of the evolutionary theory do not even understand the theory.  They do not believe it to be true because of the intrinsic logic of the theory, nor because of the compelling nature of the evidence (the leading evolutionists are still waiting for evidence to validate their theory).^[7] 

It is believed true as a matter of faith.  It is a world view which they have come to adopt.  This faith is not rooted in evidence or logic.  It is typically a religious faith rooted in the assurances of an authoritative source of truth.  Typically, that priesthood includes supreme court justices and the scientific academy.

This lack of understanding is not however limited to the masses.  We shall see that even the great exponents of evolutionary theory make statements that clearly reveal that they do not understand their own theory.

The beak of the finch

The sine qua non of the evolutionary theory requires that 1) random genetic mutation 2) isloated by natural selection  3) over vast periods of time  4) produces new species and new complex organs and life forms.

Without all of these elements, the theory of evolution is not even under discussion.

Random genetic mutation is not evolution unless natural selection, vast quantities of time, and new species, life forms, or complex organs are produced.  Random genetic mutation took place in cells exposed to the radiation at Chernobyl.  These random genetic mutations produced cancer and other horrible deaths.  These victims, however, certainly did not have a greater chance of reproducing survivable offspring than the population at large.  Quite the contrary, they had received a death sentence.  This was not evolution.  Genetic mutation without natural selection is not evolution.

Natural selection is not "evolution" when it was not precipitated by random genetic mutation.  Imagine that a herd of cattle possesses genes for both Black Angus, and Texas Longhorn.  The cattlemen selectively breed the cows and bulls to isolate the better tasting Black Angus beef.  When a bull or cow is born that is predominantly Texas Longhorn, it is not used to reproduce.  It slaughtered for meat.  When an animal is born that appears to have a higher percent of Black Angus traits, it is used to reproduce.  Eventually, our cattlemen have a fine herd of Black Angus.  This is natural selection, cows selected because they taste good.  But whether this selection process were guided or random, it is not evolution.  The Black Angus were not the result of a Texas Longhorn steer that had one sperm cell bombarded by a fortuitous a cosmic ray.  Both strains were already present in the herd.  For a change to qualify as "evolution," a minimum of two things must be present.  There must be  1) random genetic mutation and  2) natural selection which isolates and favors the mutated gene until it dominates.  (Vast quantities of time would not be needed if man were to be guiding the reproductive process as with our cattle.)

But when a diversity of genes already exist within a gene pool, dominant traits, recessive traits, etc, and natural selection favors one set of genes over another in a given climate or set of circumstances, this is not evolution.

If we understand this, then we can begin to understand the truly pathetic state of the evolutionary theory as it exists today.  The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time by Jonathan Weiner^[8] is held up by modern evolutionists as one of the great triumphs of the evolutionary theory.  As the result of a drought in the Gallapagos Islands from 1977 to 1982, there occurred a shortage of the small seeds on which finches normally feed.  Because there remained only larger seeds, those finches with smaller beaks had a much higher mortality rate.  The finches with larger beaks had a greater chance of surviving to reproduce.  Accordingly, the average size beak increased.  However, the larger beaks were not the result of random genetic mutation.  There were present within the finch genes for larger and smaller beaks.  When the wet season returned in 1982-83, smaller seeds flourished, and the gene for smaller beaks was again favored by nature.  The average beak size returned to what it had previously been.^[9] 

Both trends are examples of natural selection. . . the birds best suited for survival survived.  Neither of these events, however, are examples of evolution.  The genes for larger birds with larger beaks and the genes for smaller birds with smaller beaks were already present in the bird population.  Evolution is not simply natural selection of pre-existing genetic traits.  It is, at a minimum, random genetic mutations favored by natural selection.  Neither did sufficient time elapse from 1977 to 1982 for a random change introduced in 1977 that yielded an infinitesimally higher chance of survival than its peers to spread through the entire population of finches.  Indeed, the highest chance or survival is not a bird with a large beak, nor a bird with a small beak, but a bird with both genes present so that, in future generations, no matter what the conditions of the island, some offspring will survive.  Unfortunately, this elementary logic proved too much for the  scientific community that swooned over Weiner's work.

In response to the kind of nonsense that would call re-shuffling of existing genes "evolution," eminent French zoologist Pierre Grass writes:

In spite of the intense pressure generated by artificial selection (eliminating any parent not answering the criteria of choice) over whole millennia, no new species are born.  A comparative study of sera, hemoglobins, blood proteins, interfertility, etc., proves that the strains remain within the same specific definition.  This is not a matter of opinion or subjective classification, but a measurable reality.  The fact is that selection gives tangible form to and gathers together all the varieties a genome is capable of producing, but does not constitute an innovative evolutionary process.^[10]

Johnson similarly writes: "selective change is limited by the inherent variability of the gene pool.  After a number of generations the capacity for variation runs out.  It might conceivably be renewed by mutation, but whether (and how often) this happens is not known."^[11]

Notwithstanding this, The Beak of the Finch  has not simply been lauded by simpletons and kooks while the rest of the evolutionary community seeks to distance themselves in embarrassment.  It has been lauded at the highest levels of the evolutionary priesthood.

A great illustration of this occurred when Danny Phillips, a fifteen-year-old High School junior from the Denver area had been so foolish as to criticize the unscientific nature of a pro-evolutionary Nova program on National Public Television being used in his school.  He wrote a lengthy paper on the subject.  His critical insight was initially well received by school administrators.  They agreed that the program was conclusory, and offered no scientific basis for the extraordinary claims it made.  As the matter gained national attention, Danny was predictably cast by CBS and Darwinist Eugenie Scott as a fundamentalist simpleton and an opponent of rational thought.  "If Danny Phillips doesn't want to learn evolution. . . that's his own business.  But his views should not prevail for eighty thousand students who need to learn evolution to be educated."^[12]  Danny had drawn so much attention however that Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences, wrote an article in the Denver Post to try to shore up any damage done to the religion of evolution by the critical comments of a 15 year old boy.  First, of course, there was the ad homonim mantra that Danny's position was religious, and not scientific.  What was most amazing however was his comment that "those interested in understanding how science works may wish to read a recent book, The Beak of the Finch, by Jonathan Weiner, which describes new studies on the Gallapagos islands that confirm and elaborate on Darwin's original work.  Evolution is happening all around us."^[13] 

This, remember, coming from the president of the National Academy of Sciences, the big gun brought in to silence a 15 year old boy in an evolution v. creation debate!  No wonder Philip Johnson, professor of law at Bolt Hall (University of California, Berkeley) writes:

I remarked to one of my senior colleagues that the scientific community was baffled at its failure to convince the general public to believe in evolution.  *  *  *  My colleague commented, "It's just that the people don't understand the theory."  "Oh no," I blurted out in answer.  "The people understand the theory better than the scientists do."  My colleague looked at me as if he were trying to decide whether I was joking or insane, and we let the matter drop.^[14]

Johnson was not kidding.  Judging from the statements made by each of them in the debate, Danny Philips held a far clearer understanding of the evolutionary theory than the president of the National Academy of Sciences.

Conclusion

Random genetic variation, natural selection and vast amounts of time. . . these three elements are the sine qua non of the evolutionary theory.  The Beak of the Finch is a marvelous example of natural selection.  No one would dispute this.  But the theory of evolution is not simply the process of natural selection.  It must also involve random genetic mutation and vast amounts of time.  It must be able to produce new species and new complex organs.  Without all these elements, one is neither speaking about the classic theory of evolution, nor providing meaningful evidence in support of the theory.  But by naively relying on only one of these three elements, these hopeful scientists see confirmation of the evolutionary theory wherever they look.  "Evolution happens all around us." (Alberts, supra.)  The rest of us are still looking.

All lies and jest

Still, a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest.

Simon and Garfunkle

Chapter 8: Evolution: The Sine Qua Non