The fog of fiction blankets the landscape of facts
A review of EVOLUTION, 3rd edition by Mark Ridley
Blackwell Scientific Publications, Boston, 2004
by Don Moeller
Ridley has done an admirable job of presenting his case for evolution in this 750-page
text, Evolution, 3rd edition (2004). The text should be viewed
as a bipartate entity, which contains excellent material on quantitative genetics,
combined with a substandard collection of just-so stories supposedly supporting
evolution. The author’s intent behind peppering numerous chapters with anticreationist
discourses provides no apparent useful purpose.
There are many chapters which offer insight into the quantitative mechanisms of
gene action in populations. This information is quite sound and useful for developing
future creationist theories.
Other chapters, such as biogeography, provide challenging and thought-provoking
questions creationists will need to answer for any future cohesive theories attempting
to explain global animal distribution. Of course he overlooks how convenient it
is that Darwin invoked biogeographical distributions as evidence for evolution under
a fixed continent paradigm, while Ridley does, too, under a plate tectonic paradigm.
If evolution can explain such mutually incompatible scenarios, then it really explains
nothing.
Without a doubt, Ridley has attempted to present a thorough and relatively detailed
argument for evolution. Unfortunately, however, it seems as though Ridley is unable
to scientifically justify or adequately explain the most basic and crucial questions
haunting evolutionary theory, i.e. origin of life; origin of mitosis; origin of
linkage of genotype to phenotype; origin of sex; and others.
Regardless of its imposing size, it is reassuring that this world-recognized tome,
by a well-known author, has really presented no threatening challenge to modern
creationist theory. In fact, there is a very obvious and glaring contrast between
the mathematically well-documented and illustrated chapters on quantitative genetics
and those chapters purporting to explain those fundamental questions of evolutionary
theory. Ridley continuously challenges creationists to provide observable data and
testable hypotheses. However, he hides behind a façade of blatant just-so
stories decorated with clever tautologies to explain the difficult, and often intractable,
problems facing evolutionary theory.
Origin of life: an intractable problem for goo-to-you evolution
Chapter 18, entitled ‘The history of life’, devotes a scant three sentences
to the biochemical origin of life. The author provides no mathematical, chemical
or physical basis to support his claims of the origin of life. In fact his explanation
is incredibly naïve, blissfully ignoring well-known problems discussed in origin-of-life
scenarios. Ridley states:
‘Many of the molecular building blocks of life (such as amino acids, sugars
and nucleotides) can be synthesized from a solution of simpler molecules of the
sort that probably existed in the prebiotic seas if an electric discharge or ultraviolet
radiation is passed through it. Once the molecular building blocks exist, the next
crucial step is the origin of a simple replicating molecule’ (p. 530).
|
Photo by Ray Brooking
Mark Ridley (and other evolutionists) directs our attention away from the whale’s
jaws because there is no evidence of any transitions, in spite of jaws being well
represented in the supposed transitional fossils.
|
Unfortunately for Ridley, he is simply wrong about nucleotides—they are complex
molecules composed of sugar, nitrogenous bases and phosphate, and there is nothing
remotely like them in Miller-type discharge experiments. Even the base cytosine
does not have a plausible prebiotic simulation method, and is highly unstable. Also,
the conditions to make the bases and sugars are incompatible, so they must have
been made in different places. Then somehow they must be brought together to form
nucleosides. But even if they were brought together, they simply do not react in
water. In an anhydrous reaction, purine nucleosides will form, but only 8% of them
will be joined in the right way, with the correct carbon atom on the sugar joined
to the correct nitrogen atom on the base. Pyrimidine nucleosides will not form,
even under those artificial conditions. And that is without considering the phosphate
required for the nucleotides—this would precipitate with the abundant calcium
ions.
But even if we grant that the monomers could form, the next crucial step is to explain
how: racemates were separated into left- and right-handed amino acids; a condensation
reaction to form proteins and lipids occurs in water without dissolution of the
proteins; electric discharges won’t destroy newly formed amino acids faster
than they can form; nucleic acids form in the same solution as proteins without
cross-reactions; the polymer chain reaction would not be terminated by all the unifunctional
molecules produced, etc.1 Apparently,
Ridley is not familiar with Thaxton et al.’s text2
which thoroughly refutes his contentions. Over twenty years ago Shapiro,3 an expert in chemical evolution, addressed and
refuted the arguments Ridley is currently making.
Ridley continues further work on his biochemical house of cards and states:
‘However no one has yet discovered an autocatalytic RNA that could catalyze
its own replication. Such a self replicating molecule would be one of the simplest
imaginable living systems.’
The author is using an intractable biochemical conundrum as his sure foundation
for the construction of an even more impossible scenario. Complex enzymatic cascades
are required to construct RNA. For Ridley to posit an autocatalytic RNA is not science
but is simply wishful thinking. To imply to the reader that this system would be
representative of a ‘living system’ goes well beyond legitimate science.1
The explanation for the evolution of DNA is even more representative of the author’s
skill at devising sublime tautologies. He states:
’More complex life forms could not evolve until the mutation rate reduced.
The evolution of DNA would have reduced, or led to a reduction, of the mutation
rate’ (p. 530).
There you have it! The precision seen in the chapters on quantitative genetics and
population genetics seems to fade here. Where are the elegant equations, and illustrations
supporting this theory? The author is well aware of the hundreds of enzymes and
carefully controlled reactions which are needed to form DNA. But perhaps he is unaware
of the danger of error catastrophe in a poor copying system. Unfortunately, intractable
problems in molecular biology do not lend themselves well to diagrams.
Origin of cells: just-so stories trump science
Ridley’s text can be summed up in one phrase: ‘Sell the sizzle, not
the steak’.
|
The academic and scientific fog thickens considerably in Ridley’s discussion
with respect to the origin of cells:
‘Unadorned replicating molecular systems could have persisted, the molecules
being replicated as their component building blocks bonded to them and formed copies,
or near copies, of the whole. For this system to become more complex, it needs enzymes
and metabolic systems that enable it to harvest resources more powerfully, or exploit
the resources better by converting them into the molecular units needed for replication’
(p. 531).
So much for the precision found in the chapters on quantitative and population genetics.
Watch for the authors’ scientific ‘sleight of hand’ with the statement
that:
‘A selfish replicating molecule, that used resources manufactured by others,
but did not itself manufacture them, would have a selective advantage over other
replicating molecules … his second difficulty was probably overcome by the
evolution of cells’ (p. 532).
If the author really believed that there is a selective advantage for this ‘selfish
replicating’ molecule, why didn’t he do some of those revealing, beautiful,
oh-so-scientific calculations he discussed in chapters 7, 8 and 9? Because there
is no quantifiable science supporting these statements.
Ridley’s thought experiment laboratory is in high gear now. He states:
‘If the replicating molecules are enclosed within cells, the products of their
metabolism are confined to the cell that produced them and are not available for
any selfish replicating molecules outside’ (p. 532).
Unfortunately, the remainder of the chapter is simply an iteration of these sad
examples of evolutionary ‘just-so stories’. Mitosis, a process of cell
division which results in two identical daughter cells from the original parent
cell, is mentioned only as a process in which ‘an apparatus of mobile spindles
is formed and pulls the duplicated chromosomes apart’ (p. 533). There is no
theoretical mechanism or scientific reason provided by the author explaining the
reason for, or the mechanisms by which, this ‘first mitotic cell’, which
had spent its entire million-year life painstakingly constructing itself, should
suddenly decide to develop an incredibly complex and novel system to enable itself
to deconstruct. Although Ridley is fond of conducting ‘thought experiments’,
he fails to provide any explanation for any known biochemical and ‘genetic’
processes which could account for the evolution of mitosis and meiosis.
Floundering on fossils
Ridley glosses over significant and controversial problems within the stratigraphic
record by claiming that
‘Between the lungfish and amphibians, a series of fossil forms range from
the completely fish-like … through aquatic … and partly terrestrial
tetrapods to amphibians. The fossil evidence showing the gradual transition is noteworthy
in itself, because few evolutionary transitions are so well documented’ (p.
541).
What would be even more noteworthy would be a careful examination of the illustration
on page 65 which demonstrates no connection between these fossil forms illustrated
on page 541. In fact, this diagram favours special creation to the careful observer.
Furthermore, Gould took issue with anyone who claimed the stratigraphic record documents
‘major evolutionary transitions’.4
Ridley continues by indicating that the origin of mammals is
‘the best documented of any of the major transitions in evolution, being even
better documented in the fossil record than the origin of the tetrapods’ (p.
542).
Using the laundry list of old evolutionary standbys, Ridley mentions the teeth and
jaws as evidence of transition from reptiles, stating that ‘the bones at the
rear of the jaw were evolutionarily liberated, and went on to evolve into the ear
bones’ (pp. 542–545).
The teeth of this dolphin (an odontocete) are very different from the baleen of
whales (mysticetes). Although the ‘transition’ from teeth to baleen
is often called an ‘adaption’ by evolutionists, there is no evidence
to support this idea.
|
Just a brief examination of some of the facts, however, reveals a dramatic failure
of the fossil record to corroborate this reptilian–mammal jaw–tooth transition.
As reptiles grow, they shed their teeth in waves with every third tooth being shed,
thus providing a useful continuously functioning dentition for eating while the
animal is growing. On the other hand, juvenile mammals have a separate deciduous
dentition which is anatomically species specific. There is no fossil evidence of
a transitional reptilian–mammal dentition, that being part wave replacement and
part deciduous tooth replacement. Neither is there any fossil evidence, which would
be indicated by dental and jaw pathology, of any attempts by evolutionary mutational
processes to gradually develop such a system.
In addition, the enamel microstructure overlying the dentin surface of the teeth
is significantly different between reptiles, synapsids and mammals.5 Evidence is lacking for reptilian–mammalian transitional
dental enamel microstructure and eruption sequence patterns. In fact, the illustration
on page 543 shows only fossil animal skulls with a functioning dentition. There
are only different-appearing teeth and jaws, but no ‘transitional’ forms.
Just because the teeth and jaws of animals appear different does not corroborate
evolutionary processes.
Sexual problems
Chapter 12 is an island of reality in the author’s vast sea of just-so stories.
Here, Ridley admits,
‘sexual reproduction poses an evolutionary problem because it seems to be
half as efficient a method of reproducing as its alternative, asexual reproduction’
(p. 314).
He continues,
‘If sex is to outweigh its twofold cost, the sexual female must by this procedure
expect to produce a daughter who will be twice as fit as a simple copy of herself.’
The problem is therefore not trivial. Indeed, G.C. Williams has described it as
‘the outstanding puzzle in evolutionary biology’ (p. 314). The criteria
used by the author to determine trivial versus non-trivial evolutionary problems
is quite beyond my understanding. Apparently, the origin of life, the cell and mitosis,
etc. is trivial. Ridley probably feels that to challenge at least one of the tenets
of evolutionary theory in a rigorous mathematical manner provides legitimacy to
the myriad of intractable problems he glosses over with his tautologies and just-so
stories. In reality, the origin of the sex problem is but the tip of the enormous
iceberg of bad science.
Evolutionists admit story-telling
In Chapter 10, Ridley provides an excellent example of why there has never been
a Nobel Prize awarded for evolutionary theory. He states:
‘We need to keep in mind the status of the evolutionary biologist’s
argument here. The series of stages may in some cases not be particularly plausible,
or well supported by evidence, but the argument is put forward solely to refute
the suggestion that we cannot imagine how the character could have evolved’
(p. 263).
He continues and concludes his argument in the following paragraph:
‘It is fair to conclude that there are no known adaptations that definitely
could not have evolved by natural selection. Or (if the double negative is confusing),
we can conclude that all known adaptations are in principle explicable by natural
selection’ (p. 263).
Hopefully, at this juncture a discerning reader will realize that he is really listening
to a magician redefining science and not to a scientist who is providing any scientific
evidence to support his theories.
After providing an extremely short explanation of the effects of pleiotropy (one
gene may influence the phenotype of more than one part of the body), he states:
‘New mutations often disrupt the development of the organism. A new mutant,
with an advantageous effect, may also disrupt other parts of the phenotype, and
these disruptions will probably be disadvantageous, but if the mutant has a net
positive effect on fitness, natural selection will favor it’ (p. 276).
He has simply stated that a net positive effect will be a net positive effect. In
reality, pleiotropy entails multiple effects on numerous unrelated genetically controlled
developmental cascades, which would drastically affect all Ridley’s beautiful
single and multilocus population equations. At the least, it renders them incalculable,
at worst, it renders them useless. Specifically (with respect to pleiotropic effects
and human cranio-facial-maxillary development), there are over l00 known mutational
syndromes, which are all harmful, all pleiotropic and which alter normal anatomic
function. In each and every one of these mutations, there is attendant pathology.
If these same pleiotropic processes account for evolution of the craniofacial and
maxillary structures of the supposed ‘transitional reptile–mammal’ which
Ridley maintains were documented in the fossil record, is there evidence of any
craniofacial pathology?
Whale tales
Chapter 3, entitled ‘The Evidence for Evolution’, provides additional
examples of science which do not support evolution. There is a splendid drawing
(p. 60) of a baleen whale (whales without teeth but which have fine, long bristles
which entrap plankton), with the reader’s attention directed to the small
atrophic bone, which he called ‘pelvic’.6
Of course, Ridley would not direct the reader’s attention to the jaws, because
he would then be forced to explain to the reader how the baleen whales could have
evolved from the toothed whales or vice versa. Unfortunately for evolutionary theory,
there is absolutely no fossil evidence for any transitional half-toothed, half-baleen
whales. Ridley might, however, perform another of his famous ‘thought experiments’
(since he ‘proved’ that natural selection can explain any adaptation)
and suggest that the hypothetical intermediate whales would have a selective advantage
because they could brush their own teeth as they chewed. Knowing this, the author
directs the reader's attention to a functional modified ‘pelvic’ bone—which
does have a function.
Vestigial vanity
The author has a universal tendency to sidestep the difficult questions and then
posit questions and problems of a lesser magnitude. He demonstrates this in his
comments on vestigial organs: ‘But some homologies are immediately persuasive,
such as vestigial organs, in which the shared form appears to be positively inefficient’
(p. 59). From the broader perspective, Ridley neglects to mention that the list
of ‘documented’ vestigial organs has declined from well over one hundred
a century ago to a questionable handful today. Of course he does not provide a graph
to illustrate this because it would be obvious that the vestigial organ argument
was becoming ‘vestigial’.
A more egregious error is committed in his failure to mention a single example of
a nascent organ, one which is composed of preadaptations and is about to
‘come on the evolutionary stage’. Indeed, if there are hundreds of examples
of vestigial organs, then there must also be hundreds of examples of nascent organs.
This corollary of the argument seems to have completely escaped the author’s
notice.
Uninformed about information
|
Photo by Jake McArthur
The development of any eye poses a problem for evolution theory. The Drosophila’s
compound eye requires 2,500 genes for its assembly. The number of genes involved
in human eye (pictured) development is not yet known.
|
The most evident problem which pervades this entire text, and evolutionary theory
in general, is the lack of the discussion of information theory. To ignore such
a highly developed and sophisticated discipline is to ignore an ‘elephant
in the living room’. Without a doubt, Ridley understands and uses mathematics
and understands its importance in substantiating evolutionary arguments. A chapter
devoted to this topic would enhance his text; however, it would also immediately
derail the evolutionary argument. For that reason, I am sure, he does not consider
it.
The shadow of this giant enigma looms ominously over the entire theoretical evolutionary
landscape. There is an absolute necessity for evolutionists to provide evidence
for the routine occurrence of an untold number of information-increasing mutations.
No topic of discussion evades this shadow. The manner in which genetic information
is created, or the substantiation of information-increasing mutations, is mandated
in a legitimate discussion of the evolutionary process.
Gould recognized as much in his statement,
‘Of course, the eyes that are induced by the mouse gene are Drosophila
compound eyes, since the mouse gene is only the switch gene and another 2,500 genes
from Drosophila are required to assemble an eye.’7
Modification of regulatory genes and Hox genes does not explain the evolutionary
development of the eye. Where did the 2,500 genes directing the development of the
eye arise?
Gould poses yet another unanswerable problem for ‘info-devo’ theory.
‘How can evolution “know” where to start when faced with millions
of potentially alterable molecules and processes, none manifesting even the first
selected step of a forthcoming trend.’8
Specifically, this vast sea of potential incrementally small changes would always
be ‘below the radar’ of natural selection. In fact, the initial developmental
cascade for any discrete character (such as enamel microstructure) requires hundreds
of previously existing simultaneous and highly complex subroutines which have absolutely
nothing to do with that discrete trait. (A crude example is: the flour which makes
Christmas cookies has nothing to do with the final shape of the cookie.)
How did these elaborate subroutines ever get started, and especially without the
guidance of natural selection? This is most likely the reason why the author limits
his best examples for proof of evolution to the HIV9
(p. 45) and the diatoms (p. 64), where he states:
‘The diatoms in Figure 3.11 show that the fossil record can be complete enough
to reveal the origin of a new species; but examples as good as this are rare.’
Close inspection of the illustration indicates that there was only a 3 µm
change in the height of the hyaline (glass-like) area of the cell wall. This example
is listed under ‘Fossil evidence exists for the transformation of a species’.
No other examples are given. This is hardly convincing fossil proof for molecules-to-man
evolution!
Conclusion
Ridley’s evidence for evolution evaporates when viewed through the microscope
of information theory. For example: sickle cell anemia involves a loss-of-information
mutation,10 as does bacterial antibiotic
resistance.11 Even the usual textbook
story of the peppered moth demonstrates only gene shuffling of pre-existing traits
without any new information added to the genome, and this is without the recent
evidence that the photos were staged.12
The trade secret of paleontology is that the stratigraphic record demonstrates only
stasis. When this record is viewed through the lenses of information theory, it
demonstrates trivial morphologic changes, no transitional forms of any type, and
the outworking of natural selection on previously created traits which
are viewed as they respond to post-Flood environments.
Ridley’s text can be summed up in one phrase: ‘Sell the sizzle, not
the steak.’
References
- See: Mills, G.C. and Kenyon, D., The RNA world: a critique, Origins & Design
17(1):9–16, 1996. Return to Text
- Thaxton, C.B., The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing
Current Theories, Philosophical Library, New York, 1984. Return
to Text
- Shapiro, R., Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide to the Creation
of Life on Earth, Bantam Books, New York, 1986. Return to Text
- Gould, S.J., The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, Belknap
Press, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, p. 759, 2002; see entire Chapter 9. Return to Text
- Moeller, D., Dental fossils and the fossil record, TJ
17(2):118–127, 2003. Return to Text
- Wieland, C., The strange tale of the leg on the whale, Creation
20(3):10–13, 1998. Return to Text
- Gould, ref. 4, p. 1124. Return to Text
- Gould, ref. 4, p. 1130. Return to Text
- Wieland, C., Has AIDS evolved? Creation 12(3):29–32,
1990. Return to Text
- Sickle-cell anaemia does not prove evolution! Creation
16(2):40–41, 1994. Return to Text
- Sarfati, J., Anthrax and antibiotics:
is evolution relevant?, 15 November 2001. Return to Text
- Wieland, C., Goodbye, peppered moths: a classic evolutionary
story comes unstuck, Creation 21(3):56, 1999.
Return to Text
|
