the theory of evolution under the microscope: should it be … · 2016-12-04 · b – evolution...

© 2016 Christopher L-Blouin 1

The Theory of Evolution Under the Microscope:

Should it be Taught as Fact?

Christopher Lamontagne-Blouin MATL – Science and Technology, M.Sc - Immunology

November 19, 2016

Latest update December 4, 2016


Table of Contents Abstract 4 Introduction 5 A – Understanding the Theory of Evolution 6 1) Evolution in the World Around Us 7

1.1 Popular opinion regarding the theory of evolution 7 1.2 The public acceptance of the theory of evolution 10

2) The Basics of Evolution 15 2.1 The cell: The fundamental unit of life 15

2.1.1 How a cell operates 17 2.2 A synopsis of the theory of evolution 21

2.2.1 The mechanisms of evolution 22 2.2.2 Scientific disagreement within the framework of evolution 27

B – Evolution Under the Microscope 29 1) A Mechanistic Unlikelihood 30

1.1 Specified complexity 30 1.2 Abiogenesis: Life from nonlife 33

1.2.1 The evidence supporting abiogenesis, and its shortcomings 36 1.2.2 The probability of unguided protein formation 38

1.3 The mechanism of mutation 44 1.3.1 Examples of evolution today 47

1.3.1.1 Darwin’s Finches 47 1.3.1.2 Peppered moths 49 1.3.1.3 Anti-bacterial resistant strains of bacteria 53 1.3.1.4 Mutations in fruit flies 61

1.3.2 Mutation and the production of new information 64 1.3.2.1 New information from existing proteins 66 1.3.2.2 New information from nonfunctional genes 68

1.3.2.3 Irreducible complexity 70 1.3.2.3.1 The blood clotting cascade 70 1.3.2.3.2 The bacterium flagella 72

2) A Misleading Depiction of the Fossils 75 2.1 The fossil record as it is represented 75

2.2. The Cambrian Explosion 77 2.2.1 Conflicts between the fossil evidence and the theory of evolution 78 2.2.2 Evolutionist views of the Cambrian fossil records 85

2.3. The rationale of the fossil record 87 2.3.1 The evolutionist argument 88 2.3.2 Problems with fossil interpretations 89

2.3.2.1 Hominid fossil controversies 90 2.3.2.2 Politics involved in fossil study 97

2.4 The fossils are not the whole story 99


2.4.1 Are certain transitions theoretically possible? 99 2.4.2 Punctuated equilibrium 101

3) Flaws in the Dating Methods 104 3.1 The geological column 104

3.1.1 The science of stratigraphy 105 3.1.2 Potential problems in the geological time scale 106

3.1.2.1 Circular reasoning in the geological timeline 108 3.1.2.2 Polystrate fossils 109 3.1.2.3 Issues with the principles of stratigraphy 111

3.2 Radiometric dating 115 3.2.1 The principles of radioactive decay 116 3.2.2 The rationale or radioactive dating 120

3.2.2.1 Radiocarbon dating 121 3.2.2.2 Potassium-argon dating 124 3.2.2.3 Uranium-lead dating 126

3.2.3 Instances of questionable radiometric dates 127 3.2.3.1 Lingering carbon-14 compromising old dates 129 3.2.3.2 Misdating rocks of known age 131 3.2.3.3 The helium discrepancy 133

3.3 Molecular dating 135 3.3.1 An illustration of molecular dating 136 3.3.2 Criticisms of molecular dating 138

3.3.2.1 The assumptions 138 3.3.2.2 Fossil dating methodology 140

C – Thinking Critically About Evolution 145 1. The Nature of Science 145

1.1 Empirical versus forensic science 146 1.2 Science in practice versus the ideal 152 1.3 The theory of evolution as synonymized with science 155

2. What is critical thinking? 162 2.1 What is critical thinking 163

2.2 Fostering critical thinking in students 164 2.2.1 We need information to think critically 164 2.2.2 Training students in logical thinking 165 2.2.3 Encouraging students to be reflective 168

2.3 The importance of critical thinking 168 2.4 Thinking critically about evolution 169

Moving Forward 171 Acknowledgements 175 References 176


Abstract

In this critical literature review, a discussion of the social misconceptions regarding the

evidence, and the underlying science behind the claims of the theory of evolution brings into

question the accuracy of this theory. This literature review begins with a discussion of the social

predispositions that society has been encouraged to have regarding accepting evolution, and

associating any kind of skepticism with religious motivations. Next, the science behind

evolution is carefully detailed at many levels. From the probabilistic examination of the

unlikelihood that life could have arisen through unguided processes and gained new

information through mutation, to the examination of so-called modern-day examples of

evolution, to the fossil record which supposedly supports evolution, as well as the methods

used for dating such fossils. These evidences and counter arguments illustrate that the theory

of evolution does not warrant such a level of belief in it. The tendency to teach evolution as a

fact is criticized on these grounds. This paper essentially makes an argument explaining why we

ought to teach the theory of evolution tentatively, and with a humbler approach. A method as

to how to do this is examined as well.


Introduction

Today we are privileged with the ingenuity of science and reason. Science inspires awe

and respect in modern societies through its astonishing advancements of technology, as well its

developing understanding of the material world. Moreover, most of us get a heavy dose of the

natural sciences and/or their “impeccable” methods in our schooling beginning from early

stages through university education, often without any discussion about their limitations. The

perceived objective and evidence-based approach of practiced science has led to an increasing

acceptance in the capacity of this discipline to explain things that were once unknown. One of

the infamous unknowns is the origins of life. Given the decline of religion in society, along with

the respect science enjoys in the modern world, it is no wonder many people are inclined to

choose the theory of evolution over all other explanations. The sheer proportion of scientists

that agree with and accept the theory of evolution as the explanation for our origins is

staggering (Masci, 2015). On the other hand, there is a small minority of scientists and a good

portion of the general populace that questions the theory of evolution; sometimes on scientific

grounds and other times on religious grounds. This is often the main battleground of the

‘Science versus Religion’ debate.

Science is a valuable tool, and the evidences of science should certainly be considered

by people regardless of whether or not these evidences agree with these people’s preconceived

notions. The willingness of people to reflect on information from various sources, and to use

this broad array of information to make informed decisions is referred to as critical thinking

(Siegel, 2008). People would be doing themselves an intellectual disservice by only considering

one side of the story regarding any given topic. To think critically is a fundamental quality of any


good scientist, who ought to make efforts to obtain as much information as possible before

drawing conclusions. In a similar manner, making efforts to provide students with various

sources of information on any given topic is a fundamental quality of any good teacher.

Providing biased, one-sided perspectives robs students of opportunities to think critically for

themselves; instead pushing them to accept what they are told without question.

With these principles in mind, let us reconsider the theory of evolution. A critical thinker

would make efforts to investigate all the asserted evidences supporting this theory before

accepting it as fact. The frequent positive ‘evidences’ and opinions that we are exposed to

regarding the theory of evolution constantly reinforce our acknowledgement of this theory. Yet,

we do not typically encounter evidences which refute it. However, what if legitimate evidences

and arguments against this theory existed, but were overlooked by scientists and teachers who

felt no inclination to consider them? If teachers came across this information, wouldn’t they

have an obligation to present students with all the facts so that they could decide for

themselves what to believe?

The purpose of this literature review is to demonstrate how the purported evidence

supporting the theory of evolution is genuinely questionable, despite popular belief. Building on

this, it will be argued that the way that the theory of evolution is represented is biased, and the

way in which it is synonymized with science is imprecise. This is a problem for impressionable

school children who are not given an opportunity to think critically about the subject.

A – Understanding the Theory of Evolution


There is public controversy regarding the theory of evolution as it is at odds with many

people’s spiritual-based notions about life’s origins. On the other hand, many lay people believe

in this scientific theory despite not fully understanding the arguments that this theory makes,

nor the evidences that it is based on. In this unit, I will discuss statistics regarding how the

theory of evolution is generally perceived by people. I will subsequently provide a

comprehensive explanation of what this theory is all about, to set a framework for the

criticisms that follow.

1) Evolution1 in the World Around Us

The wide acceptance of the theory of evolution is readily observable in the media (in

news programs and documentaries, for example) as well as in colleges and universities. It is also

evident that there is a certain distrust in this theory; mostly among people whose religious

beliefs are contradicted by the theory of evolution. In this section I plan to discuss the statistics

regarding opinions about the theory of evolution, as well as why it is so highly accepted by

scientists and the public at large.

1.1 Popular opinion regarding the theory of evolution

According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, roughly 98% of

scientists agree that humans evolved over time (Masci, 2015). In addition, although many

1 The term ‘evolution’ has a broader meaning but is generally used interchangeably with the

‘theory of evolution’, which specifically is the belief that all life evolved from a single-celled

organism. In this literature review, when the term ‘evolution’ is used, I will be referring to the

‘theory of evolution,’ unless otherwise noted.


people are indifferent, more Americans believe in the theory of evolution over creationism2;

between 44%-65% according to different surveys. Furthermore, the rates of public acceptance

of the theory of evolution have remained fairly constant in the U.S.A since 1982 (Gallop, 2014;

Moore & Cotner, 2013; Newport, 2012).

Currently, evolution is being taught in U.S. public schools, which respects the majority of

U.S. citizen’s opinions that evolution should be taught in the public sector (DYG, Inc., 2000,

Gallop, 2014). Although there is consistent public pressure to include creationist teachings

alongside evolution in the public school setting (Carlson, 2005; Kruse, 2013), there has been a

steady decrease in public acceptance of creationism as a valid explanation for our origins

(Masci, 2015; Moore & Cotner, 2013; Newport, 2012). Other non-evolutionary theories are

similarly deemed invalid (Pennock, 2003). Consequently, in addition to the fact that evolution is

being taught as the scientific explanation for our origins, multiple bans against the teachings of

alternatives to evolution as a scientific theory alongside evolution in various public school

systems have been proposed as well (Berkman, 2008; Masci, 2015; Moore & Cotner, 2015).

2 There is a false dichotomy regarding creationism and the theory of evolution, because there are

more theories regarding our origins. 1) Creationism is the belief that the earth was created in six

days, as it is described in the Judeo-Christian Bible. 2) Theistic evolution, a hybrid between

creationism and evolution, is the belief that the biblical God created the heavens and the earth,

and used evolutionary processes over billions of years to create humans. 3) The theory of

intelligent design is the belief that the creation and evolution of living things from a single-celled

organism is far too improbable to have occurred as a result of natural processes, and must

therefore have been guided by an intelligent designer. Despite popular opinion, intelligent design

and creationism are not synonymous. 4) The theory of evolution is the belief that we all evolved

from a common ancestor, which itself was the product of random natural events. 5) Within the

theory of evolution there are a two main schools of thought: neo-Darwinism/phyletic gradualism,

and punctuated equilibrium. a) neo-Darwinism is the belief that all evolution has progressed via

very small changes over time, whereas b) punctuated equilibrium postulates that larger

transitions must have occurred with large changes over small amounts of time. Other theories

pertaining to the mechanisms of evolution exist as well, but will not be overviewed in this paper.


Demographically, the majority of Americans who reject the theory of evolution tend to

have high school level education or less, or tend to be of the protestant Christian faith, or

senior citizens. In contrast, the younger, irreligious, or college/university educated constitute

the majority of American individuals who believe in the theory of evolution (Kaleem, 2013; Pew

Research Center, 2013). These statistics are not very surprising considering that historically the

church played a larger role in western society, and because institutions of higher education

promote the teaching of the theory of evolution. Considering that higher educational

institutions and our future generation typically accept the theory of evolution, it seems safe to

say that acceptance of this theory will grow if these trends continue.

Outside the U.S.A. the story is a bit different. Rates of evolutionary acceptance are

lower in regions with higher rates of religious belief, such as certain Latin American and Muslim

countries (Masci, 2015). In contrast, the rates of acceptance of this theory are higher in Canada

and the U.K.; between 61-69% (The Huffington Post Canada, 2012). These rates are further

trumped by Denmark, Sweden, France and Japan (Gregory, 2008). In Canada, like most other

countries, the teaching of evolution in public schools is compulsory (Wiles, 2006).

Clearly, most notably in the U.S., a controversy exists about whether evolution should

be the leading scientific theory regarding our origins. To the general public, this controversy is

associated with religious advocates who deny evolution so as to promote their religious

doctrines. Less noticeably, however, this controversy is associated with scientific criticisms

toward the capacity of the theory of evolution to adequately explain the origins of life, based

on its limited evidence. Despite the controversy about whether evolution should be taught in

schools, it has been widely accepted as “the only scientifically defensible explanation for the


origin of life and development of species” (American Institute of Biological Sciences, 1994).

Higher education in the sciences leaves no doubt about the scientific merits of evolution. It is

being taught as the truthful scientific explanation of biological life on Earth in colleges and

universities (Kaleem, 2013).

Overall, evolution is increasingly being accepted as the truth. Other theories about our

origins are publicly deemed as unscientific, and people who do not support evolution are

perceived as disbelieving science itself. The media and textbooks discuss the theory of

evolution as if it has been proven by science. Thus, it is treated as a fact. It has even been

proposed that this theory ought to be taught in this manner (The Guardian, 2006). If this theory

is so widely accepted by scientists and by the public, it must be supported by hard evidence,

right? In the next section I will discuss my own background as a former advocate of evolution,

as well as possible reasons why this theory is so broadly accepted by the scientific community.

1.2 The public acceptance of the theory of evolution

The acceptance of the theory of evolution amongst the scientific community is nearly

unanimous (Masci, 2015). With this level of agreement, it may seem foolish to take a stand

against it. However, jumping on the majority band wagon and/or appealing to authority, in this

case the authority of science (Lemke, 1990, p.137-138), would be to commit logical fallacies.

After all, there was a time when the majority of scientists also believed that the Earth was flat,

that rotting meat prevented disease, and that morphine was an appropriate baby soother.

Neither popular belief, nor the claims of scientists, should necessarily dictate what we accept as

being true or not.


So why is evolution so widely accepted? The best way for me to answer this question is

to relate to my own experiences; growing up as a pro-evolutionary scientist. I grew up in a

secular home, never following any religion or having religious beliefs. Through schooling and

media exposure I remember believing in evolution, and being a bit disdainful of the beliefs of

religious people. Clearly ‘science’ had proven where we came from, so I found that non-secular

believers were living in a state of denial. The ‘irrationality’ of their beliefs was, and still is,

ridiculed throughout the media; making a mockery of the ‘unenlightened’ who have not

accepted evolution as the truth.

Studying biology in university, I came to understand the underlying principles of

evolution, and the story was very convincing. I very much accepted and believed in evolution,

and it greatly influenced how I perceived the world. Following my undergraduate studies, I

pursued a Master’s degree in microbiology research. My faith in evolution led me, and those I

worked with, to justify our results in terms of the ‘facts’ of evolution. Discovered mechanisms

of living organisms across all fields of science were explained as having arisen due to

evolutionary processes. This was, and still is, the common scientific practice.

Although I actively practiced scientific research and had studied about evolution during

my undergraduate studies in biology, I had never been taught to think critically about this

theory. I never questioned the methods scientists used to draw their conclusions, and I never

doubted the reliability of scientists who analyzed fossils. I had always taken for granted that

evolution was true, because it had been taught to me as fact by teachers, respected scientists

and popular culture. I could have continued my studies for just three more years and I would

have had a PhD in Biology; never once considering arguments against this belief. Only after


hearing legitimate counter arguments outside of school did I ever truly question the science

underlying the theory of evolution.

In hindsight, it is not surprising that my perspectives were skewed in favor of a belief in

evolution. In the media, “evolution is portrayed as a fact that no rational person doubts.”

(Lubenow, 2004, p.17). In fact, renowned atheist Richard Dawkins stated “Evolution is a fact.

Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt,

beyond doubt evolution is a fact” (Dawkins, 2009, p.2). Based on this description, it would

appear that any person doubting evolution must be unreasonable, petty, insane, ignorant and

foolish. Evolution has been synonymized with science and religious beliefs are treated as a

mutually exclusive world-view; a view which is incompatible with the scientific ‘proof’ of our

origins. Furthermore, religious people whose views often do not coincide with the theory of

evolution are mocked and belittled through-out the media for their ignorance. Consequently, it

is reasonable to assume that the average individual, unaware as to how to perform research

into the subject, would naturally accept the scientific consensus about evolution. What right-

minded person would even consider investigating arguments against evolution when these

kinds of stigmas are associated with skepticism? Who would even want to think critically about

evolution when it is so ‘clear’ that evolution is an absolute fact, and so ‘clear’ that one must be

completely unscientific to consider other views?

The reason for this is that all non-evolutionary theories about our origins are

automatically deemed as religious and noncredible. To illustrate this claim, I will discuss an

article written by evolutionist Robert Pennock about creationism and intelligent design (2003).

In this article, Pennock discussed how the teaching of creation science alongside evolution has


been banned in public school science class curricula in certain states of the USA. This decision is

arguably a reasonable court decision, since teaching religious doctrine as the truth about our

origins violates the separation of church from state. However, in this same article the theory of

intelligent design was also deemed as unreliable and inappropriate to be taught alongside

evolution in public schools. For clarification’s sake, the theory of intelligent design is a theory

which scientifically proposes that the origins of life are inadequately explained by the non-

directed naturalistic mechanisms of evolution. Thus, according to this theory, a non-specific

intelligent designer must have been involved. It is important to note that this theory does not

promote or defend any specific religious belief system. However, in defense of Robert Pennock

it could be deemed reasonable to assume that the theory of intelligent design may be a devious

creationist attempt to subtly teach about the Bible, since this theory does leave room for a

potential creator.

However, what is not reasonable is that Robert Pennock also criticized the idea of

teaching scientific counter arguments about the evidence of evolution alongside the evidence

that supports this theory. In other words, he believes that all information that is taught about

evolution should be information that supports this theory. His belief for this is that “Creationists

have taken this [approach] as a possible loophole, and one new strategy has been to try to get

their views into the classroom under this rubric” (2003, p.146). In other words, teaching

scientific evidence that does not support the theory of evolution is deemed as an underhanded

method for creationists to fundamentally teach their doctrine (Scott, 1996). From this

perspective, simply proposing that the scientific evidence against evolution should be

presented to students is automatically discreditable, and associated with underlying religious


motives. How can the theory of evolution ever be critically evaluated when scientific arguments

that do not support evolution are considered unworthy of study?

With all these hurdles discouraging me from seeking evidence against evolution, it is

very doubtful that I would have cared to investigate them through my own inquisitiveness had I

not incidentally been informed about them. Similarly, I believe that the majority of respected

scientists that accept evolution have also never thought it necessary to question this theory.

Passive acceptance is the opposite of what the supposedly scientific mind is supposed to do,

which is a worrisome thought considering how influential the scientific community is.

Science is a powerful authority figure and scientists are perceived as ‘wise beings’ who

have the answers that the general public cannot access (Lemke, 1990, p.137-138). Scientific

claims are rarely disputed by the general public, because there is a misconception that scientific

research is completely objective and provides indisputable truths. However, due to practical

limitations, scientific research is rarely checked up on by other scientists, so it is difficult to be

sure that scientific data is not misinterpreted or adulterated. The fact is, scientists are as

subjective as anyone else, and that the conclusions they draw are not thoroughly cross-

examined as the public is led to believe (Lubenow, 2004, p.51; McComas, 1998, p.53-70).

My point is that scientists probably believe in evolution because they were convinced by

other scientists that it was true; scientists who likely taught them about its ‘objective truth’.

These beliefs were likely supported by public depictions of evolution as fact, and the

disparaging of opposing belief systems. The rest of the public subsequently believe these

scientists, because it would be foolish to deny their intellectualism. Simply proposing that


evolution may not be true is stigmatized by public assumptions of being an irrational religious

person in denial, and is subject to ridicule.

I hope that the following logical and evidence-based arguments against the theory of

evolution can shed light on to how it is actually very intellectual to consider them.

2) The Basics of Evolution

Understanding science can seem difficult to the average individual. The content-specific

language that is used, and the depersonalized way in which science is generally delivered can

be discouraging and make it hard to grasp (Lemke, 1990, p.133-134). Consequently, many

people leave the thinking up to scientists, and accept what scientists say as law. However, in

the interest of critical thinking, everybody should have access to scientific information so that

they can evaluate scientific claims. In this section I will explain the basics about cells and

evolution so that the reader can understand the subsequent scientific counter-arguments

regarding the theory of evolution.

2.1 The cell: The fundamental unit of life

To help create an understanding, I’ll first lay out the workings of the basic cell. To begin,

cell theory is composed of four generalizations: 1) That the cell is the basic unit of life, and the

structural and functional unit of all living organisms, 2) that every living organism consists of

one or more cells, 3) that all cells come from division of other, pre-existing cells, and 4) that

cells pass their hereditary information to their offspring (Starr et al., 2008, p.55). Furthermore,

there are two main categories of cells: prokaryotic and eukaryotic. Prokaryotic cells are the


simplest form of cells that all life is believed to have evolved from, whereas eukaryotic cells are

more complex. Single-cells organisms can be either prokaryotic or eukaryotic, whereas all multi-

celled organisms are made up of the more complex eukaryotic cells (see Figure A2.1).

Figure A2.1: A simplified comparison of a eukaryotic and prokaryotic cell.

(a work of the National Center for Biotechnology Information)

All cells are made up of three main parts: the cell membrane (the skin), the nucleus or

nucleoid (the brain), and the cytoplasm (everything else inside the cell membrane). The cell

membrane is made up mostly of lipids, composed of fatty acids, and acts as a barrier. The

nucleus or nucleoid of the cell is composed of molecules called RNA or DNA, which are made up

of many individual or pairs of nucleic acids3. DNA and RNA constitute a cell’s genetic

3 There are four different nucleic acids in DNA: cytosine (c), guanine (g), adenine (a) and

thymine (t). RNA also has these four nucleic acids, but thymine (t) is substituted for uracil (u).

These nucleic acids are sequenced in very specific and varying ways; like writing letters to form

words. Pairs of nucleic acids are called base pairs.


information. Finally, the cytoplasm is a semi-fluid mixture made up of ions, sugars and proteins

(Starr, 2008, p.56; see Table A 2.1).

Macromolecule Components

Lipids Fatty acids

DNA or RNA Nucleic acids

Carbohydrates/Sugars Saccharides

Proteins Amino Acids

Table A2.1: Macromolecules and their components.

2.1.1 How a cell operates

Cells operate like very sophisticated factories (Sourcebook for Teaching Science, 2007).

Essentially, the primary information of cells is stored in DNA or RNA molecules. DNA and RNA

are very complex structures made of between 160,000 to several billion nucleic acids,

depending on the species (see Figure A2.2). These nucleic acids are similar to letters, in that

they organize in very specific and unique sentence-like sequences to form genes. These genes

hold the ‘recipe’ to make various proteins. DNA and RNA contain numerous genes, which

composes the genetic information in the cell. A single human cell, for example, has around 22

thousand genes (see Figure A2.3).


Figure A2.2: A depiction of the four RNA and four DNA nucleic acids as they are organized in

RNA and DNA, respectively.

(image obtained from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleic_acid#/media/File:

Difference_DNA_RNA-EN.svg)

Figure A2.3: A gene is the functional unit of DNA and RNA, made up of a number of nucleic

acids.

(a work of the Council for Responsible Genetics)


Proteins perform a wide array of functions. They act as enzymes and hormones, and

play roles in transport, storage, protection, and more. Proteins are formed through the

processes of transcription and translation. During these processes, a copy of a gene is

transcribed onto a strand of messenger RNA (mRNA). This strand is then transported to larger

proteins called ribosomes, which translate the code from mRNA, assembling a number of amino

acids. Once these amino acids have been assembled in a specific order and are folded in a

certain way, a functional protein is born (see Figures A2.4 and A2.5). All cells require the regular

production of numerous different proteins to survive, and all the components mentioned are

necessary for this to occur. Humans cells can make about 100,000 proteins, which all serve

essential functions.

Figure A2.4: The ribosome translates the messenger RNA, and then builds diverse proteins of

different lengths by putting together specific sequences of amino acids.

(a work of About.com Biology)


Figure A2.5: Amino acids are coded by specific nucleic acid sequences (e.g. GCU codes for

alanine).

(image obtained from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene#/media/File:RNA-codons-

aminoacids.svg)

The cells of eukaryotic organisms operate in a similar way to prokaryotic cells. However,

eukaryotic cells are much more complex and organized. Multi-cellular organisms are made up

of a number of specialized eukaryotic cells, which communicate with each other and serve

complementary functions. An example of this is the fact that brain cells communicate with

muscle cells, but operate in vastly different ways and serve very different functions. Humans

are composed of approximately 10,000,000,000,000 (1013) total cells, which are subdivided to

serve different functions, and which interact in very complex ways.

Even the least complex cell is incredibly intricate and relies on a number of interacting

processes in order to survive and be functional. The simplest free-living prokaryotic cell that

exists today, labelled as ‘simple’ because it has the smallest amount of DNA and the fewest

number of genes, is the bacteria Mycoplasma genitalia. It has 482 genes and 580,000 pairs of

nucleic acids (Fraser et al., 1995).


Cells are amazing machines capable of converting material from the environment into

energy, and capable of using this energy to perform numerous functions; including

reproduction. Although the simplest know organism possesses 482 genes, the smallest

conceivable free-living prokaryotic cell was estimated to require a bare minimum of 256 genes;

still a substantial amount of information. Whether this hypothetical organism could actually

survive is unclear, since it would be lacking many basic cellular processes (Wells, 1997).

such an organism could barely repair DNA damage, could no longer fine-tune the

ability of its remaining genes, would lack the ability to digest complex compounds,

and it would need a comprehensive supply of nutrients in its environment (Sarfati,

1999, p.123).

Clearly life is complex, and the simplest cell is no exception. In the next section I will

discuss how life is theorized by scientists to have come about, and evolved into the diversity of

life we see today.

2.2 A synopsis of the theory of evolution

The theory of evolution is considered to be the foundation of modern biology (Moore &

Cotner, 2013). The basic premise of evolution is that about 3.5 billion years ago, which is about

1 billion years after the Earth was believed to have formed (Young, 2007), random collisions of

molecules resulted in the formation of the first cell. This event has been called abiogenesis; the

creation of life in the absence of life. This first cell would have possessed all the properties of

cells mentioned above, meaning that it could reproduce and provide genetic/hereditary


information to its offspring. Over millions and billions of years, these offspring are believed to

have evolved into the huge diversity of species that we have today through the mechanisms of

evolution4.

Two types of evolutionary processes have been defined: microevolution and

macroevolution. Microevolution, also referred to by some as adaptation, is the observable

process in which small changes occur within a species over a fairly short time. Proven examples

of this process include the diversity of dogs we have observed through dog-breeding, or the

development of anti-biotic resistance by bacteria. Macroevolution, in contrast, is the proposed

process in which larger changes occur over a longer period of time. These small

microevolutionary changes that we observe are believed to accumulate to an extent that they

become quite substantial changes; namely changes in species. An example would be dog-like

ancestors from the order Canidae evolving into water-dwelling Pinnipeds (i.e. seals). The known

evolutionary mechanisms by which these processes are thought to occur are mutation and

natural selection5.

2.2.1 The mechanisms of evolution

4Note: The ‘theory of evolution’ and the ‘mechanisms of evolution’ have different meanings.

The theory of evolution is the scientific theory proposing that all life evolved from a common

ancestor. The mechanisms of evolution are described by evolutionists as the observable

processes of mutation and natural selection, as well as lesser mechanisms such as migration and

genetic drift. 5 The theories of creation science and intelligent design do not contend with the

observable/testable mechanisms of evolution. They simply believe that these mechanisms are

insufficient in explaining the huge variations that we see between species. Thus, they believe in

microevolution but not macroevolution.


The first mechanism of evolution that I will describe is mutation. Mutation is the process

in which the structure of a gene changes. This has the potential to occur whenever a cell

reproduces6. When single-celled prokaryotes, like bacteria, reproduce they create new identical

bacteria in a process called binary fission. These offspring possess the same genetic information

as their parent, unless a mutation occurs and changes the structure of one or more genes. The

somatic (i.e. non reproductive cells) of eukaryotes undergo a somewhat similar process. In a

manner not unlike bacteria, our cells ‘divide’ constantly in a process known as ‘mitosis.’ This

form of cell division is responsible for growth and regeneration in multi-cellular organisms.

Through mitosis, the ‘daughter cell’ will obtain the same genetic information as the ‘parent

cell’, unless a mutation occurs.

Whereas single-celled prokaryotes can reproduce asexually, many multi-cellular

organisms reproduce via sexual reproduction by two parents. The ‘gametes’ (the spermatozoa

and ova) from each parents undergo meiosis, which is a distinct form of cell division. When

gametes divide through meiosis they take only half of each parent’s genetic information,

determined through a seemingly random process called genetic recombination. The half-cells,

called haploid cells, from each parent combine with each other (see Figure A2.6). The result is a

full, diploid cell, called a zygote, that has a combination of genetic information from each

parent’s gamete. During gestation, this cell grows and differentiates through mitosis producing

a multi-celled offspring possessing particular genetic traits from each parent.

6 Binary fission, mitosis and meiosis are the three forms of cell division; in which a cell

reproduces.


Figure A2.6: An illustration of the three types of cell division.

(image obtained from

http://bioweb.uwlax.edu/bio203/s2008/blumer_garr/Reproduction.htm)

Any time a cell undergoes division, whether through binary fission, mitosis or meiosis,

there is a chance that a ‘copying error’ of the genetic information will occur. If this happens, a

mutation has arisen. Mutations are seemingly random changes to the genetic code, and alter

genes in fairly unpredictable ways. These changes can either be in the form of altered individual

nucleic acids, or the deletion, insertion or reorganisation of larger pieces of DNA, RNA or

chromosomes7 (Loewe & Hill, 2010) (see Figure A2.7). Since mutations influence the genetic

material, and genes, they essentially influence the development of proteins that are transcribed

7 A chromosome is a compressed structure containing proteins and nucleic acids within the

nucleus. Chromosomes compartmentalize the genetic information. Human cells have 23 pairs of

chromosomes in each somatic cell, containing their entire assortment of DNA.


and translated from these genes. Mutations have a varied array of consequences, and are the

only mechanism of evolution believed to create new information (Loewe & Hill, 2010). This

information is then believed to be directed by natural selection.

Figure A2.7: A mutation is an unguided change in the structure of DNA during cell division.

(a work of the National Cancer Institute)

Natural selection is believed to be the main driving force of evolution, and is the basis of

the expression ‘survival of the fittest.’ When mutations occur, they are believed to either

increase or decrease an organism’s chances for survival. Those that increase an organism’s

chances of surviving and/or reproducing in a given environment will be ‘selected for;’ they

confer a ‘selective advantage’ to the organism. In contrast, mutations that impede an organism

are ‘selected against.’ For example, if a bacterium were to gain a mutation that provided it


resistance against a particular antibiotic, this bacterium would have a selective advantage over

other non-resistant bacteria exposed to the same anti-biotic.

It is important to note, however, that evolution in sexually reproducing organisms via

these mechanisms can theoretically only occur if organisms obtaining a mutation somehow

become separated from the parent population; either through physical separation or the

extinction of the old population. Separation is necessary because otherwise new genes,

developed via mutation, would become integrated into the existing species during

reproduction. This would prevent the necessary increase in disparity between the mutated and

non-mutated organisms, making it unlikely for a new species to emerge (Raup, 1994).

Mutations are the only known potential mechanism that can add new genetic

information to an organism. Natural selection simply provides direction. Through these

mechanisms, during the roughly 3.5 billion years that life is believed to have existed, it is

hypothesized through the theory of evolution that a common ancestor eventually evolved into

all the single-celled organisms, protozoa, fungi, plants and animals that exist on Earth today

(see Figure A2.8).

Figure A2.8: The tree of life depicting that all organisms evolved from a common ancestor.

(a work of DNA Baser)


2.2.2 Scientific disagreement within the framework of evolution

As mentioned above, the scientific consensus regarding the theory of evolution is very

high. Thus, it may be surprising to read that there is actually debate amongst evolutionists

regarding how evolution from a common ancestor has taken place. Firstly, there is much

debate amongst taxonomists regarding the structure of the evolutionary tree of life. Molecular

and morphological evidence often do not agree, which has caused evolutionists to dispute the

common ancestry of specific groups of organisms (Meyer, 2013; Willmer & Holland, 1997; Wray

et al., 1996). Secondly, there is a disagreement regarding how the mechanisms of evolution

operate. The most common perspective, referred to as neo-Darwinism or phyletic gradualism,

is the belief that mutation and natural selection have progressed us from a single-celled

organism through very small incremental changes over time. The observable mechanisms of

evolution, mutation and natural selection, potentially support this view since we have observed

natural selection act on mutation; such as in the anti-biotic resistant bacteria example

described above. However, the neo-Darwinian approach struggles in explaining large transitions

between species. In other words, these mechanisms can explain microevolution but not

macroevolution. For example, birds and bats are believed to have evolved from land animals. If

this were so, at some point these organisms must have had forelimbs that functioned poorly as

forelimbs and as wings. Natural selection would not have favored small transitions like these,

and therefore these transitional organisms would likely not have survived long enough to pass

on their genetic information.


To account for these limitations, the theory of punctuated equilibrium was developed

by evolutionists Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge. In this view, it is believed that organisms

have historically undergone large changes within short periods of time when evolving into new

species (Gould & Eldredge, 1977). Therefore, birds and bats would have evolved from land

animals within a few generations, thus eliminating the difficulties associated with minute neo-

Darwinian changes. The issue with this view is that there is no evidence to date to suggest that

large changes, macromutations, that occur within a species in short periods of time can be

beneficial.

Evolutionary scientists are aware that the principles of macroevolution are essentially

speculative, yet most students do not learn about these issues in biology class. Instead they

learn about how scientists unanimously agree that macroevolution certainly happened, and

that scientists are simply discovering the details. Any mention of teaching the controversies of

evolution are falsely labelled as only being controversial in regards to religious and political

opinion. The controversy about the science of evolution is described as nonexistent; contrived

deceptively by creationists in order to misinform the public (Pennock, 2003).

To say that there is no controversy pertaining to the science is only partly true. Since

98% of scientists accept the theory of evolution it is clear that there is not much debate among

scientists at large (Masci, 2015). However, there is certainly a legitimate controversy regarding

the scientific evidence itself and whether or not it actually supports the theory of evolution.

Worded differently, even though fallible human scientists do not dispute much about this topic,

the raw objective evidence is certainly disputable.


Evolutionist David M. S. Watson himself said, “Evolution [is] a theory universally

accepted not because it can be proven by logical coherent evidence to be true, but because the

only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible” (Watson, 1929, p.233). This is a faulty

argument because accepting evolution on the basis of a false dichotomy in which creationism is

the only alternative is poor reasoning. In fact, there are numerous other theories of life’s origins

that have been proposed in light of the short-comings of neo-Darwinian theory (Meyer, 2013,

p.311-335) aside from what has been mentioned earlier in this paper (see footnote 2).

Unfortunately, however, the image that is portrayed when we hear propaganda about the

‘Science versus Religion’ debate mistakenly leads us to believe that if we disbelieve one

perspective, we must accept the other by default. Thus, we cannot be scientific if we believe in

religion, nor can we be religious if we believe in science. Since science has significantly

advanced society technologically and intellectually, the position of religion is presented as a

position of regressive ignorance.

The focus of this paper is not to evaluate alternatives to the theory of evolution, but

simply to illustrate its short-comings. In the next unit, I will discuss the flaws in the theory, and

leave it up to the reader to decide whether or not these evidences warrant discussion.

B - Evolution Under the Microscope

We regularly witness statements proposing that the evidence supporting evolution is

overwhelming. We are told that science has concluded, without a reasonable doubt, that all life

an earth has evolved from a single-celled organism through the mechanisms of mutation and

natural selection. We are told that there is no legitimate controversy about the evidence,


because evolution is assuredly a fact (Dawkins, 2009; Pennock, 2003; Scott, 1996). In this unit I

will discuss the logical and scientific shortcomings regarding the conclusions drawn about

evolution based on many of the evidences and arguments that have been accumulated on this

subject.

1) A Mechanistic Unlikelihood

Is evolution possible? Could it be that life created itself from non-living matter, and

proceeded to mutate and evolve into the diversity we see on earth? In this section, I will make

arguments to illustrate whether it is reasonable to conclude that the mechanisms of the alleged

formation of life, and evolution, can adequately explain the variety of life on Earth.

1.1 Specified complexity

There is an obvious difference between random letter sequences like ahfnskvyrbskwjch,

repeat sequences like hgfd hgfd hfgd hgfd, and the writings of an intelligent person. These can

be described as random, ordered or specified complexity, respectively (Sarfati, 1999, p. 118).

For example, the random events of erosion that occur as wind and water move granules of rock

can appear intricate in some cases. However, these random and unordered processes are vastly

different from, and much less specific and complex than, the intelligently guided processes

involved in the sculpting of Mount Rushmore (See Figure B1.1).


Figure B1.1: On the left is an image of Mount Rushmore located in South Dakota, USA., and on

the right are some Himalayan rock formations.

(retrieved from http://www.planetware.com/tourist-attractions/south-dakota-ussd.htm

and http://www.photoree.com/photos/permalink/825279-45966355@N00,

respectively).

Another example includes the organized nature of crystals. Crystals have been argued

by some evolutionists to be evidence that the complexity of life could have arisen naturally,

since these well-organized crystals formed on their own ‘as well’ (Sarfati, 1999, p.120).

However, even though there is a broad array of crystals, including sugars and rubies, which

have rather complex and organized structures (see Figure B1.2), crystals are organized in

repetitive arrangements of atoms. This repetitive arrangement pales in comparison to the

complexity of the organization of atoms in DNA. It would be like comparing a small book

containing the same sentence repeated over many pages, against numerous independent

novels. In fact, pro-evolutionist Leslie Orgel argued that “Living things are distinguished by their

specific complexity.” Crystals lack complexity, and random “mixtures of polymers… lack

specificity” (Orgel, 1973, p.189). To elaborate on the complexity and specificity of cells,


renowned evolutionist Richard Dawkins described a single human cell as having enough

information capacity to store all 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica, three or four times

over (Dawkins, 1986, p.115).

Figure B1.2: An example of a salt crystal with its ordered/repetitive sequences.

(a work of Atomsinmotion.com)

Clearly, evolutionists are aware of how complex life actually is, yet there is a certain gap

in their reasoning. The amount of information in the DNA or RNA of even the simplest cell far

outreaches the complexity of any non-living thing. If a sentence worth of writing were written

in the sand, no one would think that those writings arose by chance. Nobody observing Mount


Rushmore for the first time would ever be convinced that this monument came about through

random natural processes. In both of these cases we would be convinced that an intelligent

person was responsible for developing these things.

Imagine we placed an abundance of glass, steel, porcelain, ceramics, wood, plastic,

water, oil and stone in a pile. Would anyone imagine that over time this matter would form into

a fully functional house with heating, plumbing, windows and furniture? Even if these materials

were given over a billion years to interact, it is highly unlikely that a rational person would

believe this structure could arise by chance. Yet, we are led to believe that the information in

the DNA, potentially containing 120 encyclopedic volumes worth of specifically organized

genetic code in humans, simply happened. We are led to believe that a cell, a living thing that

can transform matter into energy, repair itself, reproduce and perform numerous other

complex functions, simply arose naturally.

The fact is, ordered sequences do not remotely represent the complexity found in even

the simplest living organisms, and random happenstances are inconceivably unlikely to explain

them. In the next sections I will paint a picture of how complex life is, and how improbable it is

that living matter could have been produced by non-specific processes.

1.2 Abiogenesis: Life from nonlife

‘Life can only come from life,’ a scientific law voiced by renowned 19th century French

chemist, Louis Pasteur. The understanding that only a cell can produce another cell is a basic

tenet of cell theory, and nothing to the contrary has ever been observed. Yet, scientists

supporting the theory of evolution typically believe that the first cell came into existence on its


own about 3.5 billion years ago (Taylor & Taylor, 1993). This theoretical event has been called

abiogenesis; the formation of the life from nonliving matter. I will discuss the current evidence

which is used to support the belief that life could form abiotically, and will then discuss the

short-comings of this evidence.

Firstly, it is important to note that the theory of evolution does not attempt to explain

where life arose from, simply how life diversified. However, this original organism must have

come from somewhere, so for this reason I will discuss abiogenesis.

it is also important to reemphasize the roles of proteins in order to explain the following

arguments. Proteins serve many structural and functional roles (Starr et al., 2009, p.7), and

their building blocks are amino acids. There are 20 different amino acids, which combine in

different combinations and lengths to make proteins of varying complexity (Starr et al., 2009,

p.44). In nature, amino acids exist in one of two possible conformations, described as their

chirality; either right hand or left hand (see Figure B1.3). Furthermore, amino acids have the

capacity to bind with each other in two ways; either via peptide bonds or non-peptide bonds

(see Figure B1.4). To form proteins, amino acids must specifically exist in the left hand

conformation, and all the bonds they form with one another must be through peptide bonds.

After amino acids combine to form proteins they undergo conformational alterations, which

change their shape via folding. These proteins are easily disfigured, because shifts in pH and

exposure to salts can disrupt their orientation making them non-functional (Peet, 2013; Starr et

al., 2009, p.44).


Figure B1.3: Amino acids are racemic; they exist in either the left or right hand conformations.

(images obtained from http://www.lifetein.com/Peptide-Synthesis-D-Amino-Acid.html)

Figure B1.4: Peptide bond formation between two amino acids occurs via a condensation

reaction; the release of a water molecule.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peptide_bond#/media/File:Peptidformationball.svg)


1.2.1 The evidence supporting abiogenesis, and its shortcomings

The main evidence in support of the idea that the first cell came into existence through

natural processes comes from the Miller-Urey experiment. In this experiment, conditions were

created which allegedly reflected the environment of life on Earth billions of years ago. Because

organisms that perform photosynthesis would not have existed at this point, it was believed

that the lack of atmospheric oxygen would have created a ‘reducing,’ as opposed to an

‘oxidizing’ atmosphere. This would have caused chemicals likes water, ammonia, methane,

hydrogen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and nitrogen gas to dominate the atmosphere.

Under these conditions, and with the addition of heat and an electric charge for energy, Stanley

Miller and Harold Urey created a very small yield of simple amino acids; the building blocks of

proteins (Miller, 1952). This was evidence that organic molecules could form in the absence of

biological precursors, and the results of this experiment are referenced in textbooks as proof

that life could manifest itself under the right conditions (see Figure B1.5) (Cyr & Verreault,

2009a, p.302).

Figure B1.5: A visual summary of the Miller-Urey experiment.

(image obtained from http://hazell11bio.blogspot.ca/2013_06_01_archive.html)


This experiment was expounded on eighteen years later. Sidney Fox suspected that the

first amino acids must have been transported out of the ocean, because amino acids cannot

maintain peptide bonds with each other in the presence of water. This is due to the fact that

peptide bonds are formed via condensation reactions, which necessarily result in the expulsion

of a water molecule (Boundless a, n.d; Peet, 2013). Fox thus mixed amino acids in a dry

environment, and heated them, discovering that they bonded together to form ‘proteinoids;’

random combinations of amino acids with varying types of bonds. This was deemed as evidence

that amino acids could not only be created through undirected processes, but could form into

proteins (Fox et al., 1970).

Despite the seeming merit of the above mentioned experiments, the results of these

experiments actually create a lot of uncertainty regarding the likelihood that proteins could

form in this way. First of all, it is not necessarily the case that the conditions in the Miller-Urey

experiment represent the conditions of the early Earth (Bada & Lazcano, 2003; Kuwahara et al.,

2012). However, even assuming the early Earth had a reducing atmosphere, the yield of amino

acids obtained in this experiment was very low; about one molecule in 10,000 liters of water

according to the equilibrium constant of the simplest amino acid, glycine (Peet, 2013). It is very

improbable that these amino acids could have collided with one another if they were present in

such low concentrations. In addition, water cleaves the bonds between amino acids. Thus, the

amino acids would need to be partitioned out of the water into a dry environment to ensure

that bonds could form. Fox realized this, which is why he created an artificially dry environment

to create his ‘proteinoids.’


In order to attain such a dehydrated environment, Fox believed that the first amino

acids must have been transported to cliffs near a volcano after being created in the early ocean

(Fox et al., 1970). However, these conditions would likely have been far too hot for amino acids

to form bonds. So, Fox introduced the amino acids to each other in an artificially cooler

environment to perform his research; conditions that did not represent the conditions of his

hypothesis. Furthermore, the products that Fox obtained from these interactions were not

actually proteins, but were disordered combinations of amino acids coined as ‘proteinoids,’

which dissociated easily. These proteinoids were formed using both simple and complex amino

acids, which were not necessarily representative of the simpler amino acids produced from the

Miller-Urey experiment. Finally, if these proteinoids were able to form outside the water under

‘early Earth conditions,’ there is the added questions of whether these proteinoids could have

remained intact unprotected against such high levels of solar radiation (Oktar, 2005).

Therefore, despite the claims of evolutionists, these factors create legitimate challenges

toward the idea that full and functional proteins could have developed by chance.

1.2.2 The probability of unguided protein formation

It could be argued that time could overcome the above mentioned challenges. So let us

assume, for the sake of argument, that an abundance of amino acids could have formed close

to each other despite their equilibrium constants, and that they could have developed bonds by

being relocated into a completely dry, yet not too hot or overly radiated, reducing

environment. Let us now evaluate whether or not the probability that a protein could form

through the random collisions of amino acids is reasonable.


Proteins vary greatly in size. The smallest known protein in existence contains merely 20

amino acids (Neidigh et al., 2009), whereas the largest known protein is over 27,000 amino

acids long (Wang et al., 1979). In an analysis performed by Jianzhi Zhang, the average the amino

acid length of proteins were compared across the three main domains of life: eukaryotes,

bacteria and archaea8. Zhang found that eukaryotes had a greater average protein length than

bacteria, which themselves had a greater average protein length compared to archaea.

Archaeon proteins, which were the smallest on average compared to the other domains of life,

averaged a length of over 200 amino acids (Zhang, 2000). As a conservative estimate, assuming

the first cell was very simple, we will imagine an average protein length of simply 100 amino

acids.

In order to form a functional protein, all amino acids must exist in the aforementioned

left-hand conformation, and form peptide bonds (see Figure B1.3 and B1.4). There is a 50%

likelihood that any amino acid could exist in this conformation, and a 50% chance that it could

form peptide bonds.

In probability calculations, the likelihood of any event is multiplied by itself by the

number of times that the event occurs. In the case of a 100 amino acid length protein, there

must be 100 instances in which amino acids would be present in the left-hand conformation.

50% (0.5) being multiplied by itself 100 times creates a probability of 0.5100, which is 1 in 7.8 x

1031. The likelihood that 100 amino acids could form peptide bonds with one another is the

same; 50% chance of forming peptide bonds occurring between 100 amino acids. It is important

to note that amino acids must form under these conditions, because if even a single amino acid

8 Archaea and bacteria constitute the two main branches of the prokaryote cellular architecture.


forms in the right hand conformation, or bonds with another amino acid via non-peptide bonds,

the protein that these amino acids constitute would likely not be operational.

In addition to these odds, functional proteins have very specific amino acid sequences,

and there are 20 total amino acids varieties. Thus, with 20 amino acids as possibilities, any

specific amino acid has a 1 in 20 (5%) chance of being present during protein formation.

Therefore, for a 100 amino acid length protein, there is a 5% chance that any specific amino

acid would arise for each of the 100 sites. This event has a probability of 0.05100; a 1 in 7.8 x

10131 likelihood of occurring.

However, proteins have some flexibility in their structure. In an experiment performed

by Douglas Axe, it was shown that about 5% of proteins can remain functional after large-scale

amino-acid site exchanges; up to 25% (Axe, 2000). As a conservative estimate, we will remove

25% off of the previous calculation and assume a probability of 1 in 5.8 x 1098 that 100 specific

amino acids could form by chance. Combining all three of these probabilities (1

7.8×1031 ×

1

7.8×1031 × 1

5.8×1098) gives us a 1 in 3.5 x 10162 chance that a single, specific 100 amino acid long,

operational protein could arise through random happenstance. Evidently, these odds are

incredibly low; lower than the probability of flipping heads on a coin 515 times in a row.

This unlikelihood is brought further into the light when we consider Borel’s Law in

mathematics. Borel’s Law proposes that we should not accept phenomena with very low

probabilities; specifically, a probability of 1 in 1050 (Cyr & Verreault, 2009a, p.131). Based on this

rule of thumb, the probability of a specific 100 amino acid length protein forming by chance is

considerably less likely than a probability which is automatically rejected in mathematics.


Yet, this grim probability is simply the beginning of the birth pangs of the first cell. A cell

is not complete with a single protein, but requires several proteins, saccharides, fatty acids,

nucleic acids and more; all specifically organized to interact cohesively and perform all the

functions described in cell theory. Since the probability of protein formation can be estimated,

we can answer the question; how many of these very simple proteins would have been

necessary in the formation of the original cell?

Noted above, the smallest conceivable genome to support the most basic needs of the

cell was estimated to be a bare minimum of 256 genes (Wells, 1997). This roughly means that

this organism would have a genome capable of coding for 256 proteins. If we take the odds that

a typical length protein could form, 1 in 3.5 x 10162, and multiply this number by itself 256 times

to account for the assumption that 256 similar length proteins would have been necessary for

this very basic cell [(1

3.5×10162)256], we obtain a probability of 1.9 x 1041566; the likelihood of

obtaining heads on a coin 131,840 times in a row. Unbelievably unlikely.

This calculation may not seem fair, because we are only calculating as if there is one

possible 256 gene possessing cell. In other words, we are not reducing these odds to account

for variant 256 gene cells. However, for such a bare minimum genome to accommodate all cell

functions, it would likely require very specific proteins performing very specific functions. Thus,

there would likely be little to no flexibility in the protein repertoire of this cell. Not to mention

that the proteins would likely need to be much more complex than the highly conservative

estimates used in the above calculations.

Despite the probability calculations shown above, it could also be argued that not all of

these proteins needed to form spontaneously, but could have been guided in their formation


through the use of genetic material. One such theory, the RNA World theory, proposes that

RNA preceded the formation of DNA. This could be possible since ribose, and other simple

carbohydrates, can form from formaldehyde, which itself could have been present in nature on

the early Earth. Therefore, RNA strands could potentially have been developed. Although such

strands have never been developed experimentally, it has been shown that certain RNA strands

have enzyme-like properties, in that they can ‘catalyze’ their own synthesis (Albert et al., 2002).

Therefore, were RNA able to form spontaneously, presumably it could have gradually guided its

own synthesis; perhaps eventually becoming surrounded in a protective phospholipid

membrane in the presence of enough peptides to form ribosomes. Were this the case, then the

original cell could have gradually developed this way, and been able to eventually conduct

protein synthesis. Unfortunately, many working parts would have to intertwine through chance

occurrence alone, and since nucleic acids, phospholipids and more complex carbohydrates have

never been shown to form without the guidance of existing cells, it is impossible to even

determine a probability calculation for this alleged event.

Some may make the same argument mentioned above; that there were billions of years

for this cell to arise. Thus, perhaps time could remedy our concerns. However, using time as an

abstract variable to claim that evidence that we can observe today is disprovable is a faith-

based argument. It also violates the causal adequacy principle of science in which our present

reasoning of cause and effect should direct our reasoning of past events. There is no evidence

that time can defy our present understanding of the formation of organic molecules, so

claiming that time mysteriously solves our problem is unscientific.


Furthermore, even if we accept the potential influence of time, the math continues to

paint a picture of the unlikelihood of abiogenesis. The alleged big bang occurred an estimated

14.5 billion years go. The Earth supposedly arose roughly 4.5 billion years ago, and the earliest

dated single-celled fossils, cyanobacteria, were dated to be about 3.5 billion years old (Taylor &

Taylor, 1993; Braterman, 2013). Thus, from the time that the Earth formed until the first

evidence of life, there were only roughly one billion years for abiogenesis to occur; less than 3.2

x 1019 milliseconds. In order for a single 100 amino acid length protein to form through

unguided processes, it would require approximately one hundred million opportunities each

millisecond to have realistically had a chance of materializing. This is not to mention all the

other proteins, nucleic acids, phospholipids, etc. that would have needed to form as well.

Considering that proteins theoretically take exorbitant amounts of time to form in the

absence of catalysts, which are themselves proteins, this proposition is bleak. It would be like

expecting something to travel to the moon and back at the speed of light, when it travels as fast

as a snail. The RNA World theory proposes a potential solution to this problem. However, the

inability of scientists to produce the necessary organic molecules in the lab to support this

notion causes this theory to be purely speculative.

Despite these arguments, many scientists maintain that the results of the Miller-Urey

experiment prove that life can manifest itself. They teach children that “essential chemical

elements, an energy source, liquid water and long period of time” provides us a recipe to create

life (Cyr & Verreault, 2009a, p.302). How can scientists have such a clear recipe for something

that no one has ever cooked?


Simply put, the origin of the first self-producing cell in an unsolved problem for

scientists, and many of them acknowledge this (Easterbrook, 1997). If it is not reasonable to

conclude that the first cell could have surfaced randomly, then how can we be certain that all

life evolved from this alleged ancestor? In the following section, I will discuss whether the

mechanisms of evolution, mutation and natural selection, are adequate in explaining the

diversity that would have arisen after abiogenesis.

1.3 The mechanism of mutation

The neo-Darwinian approach to the theory of evolution proposes that natural selection

acts on random mutations. Mutations purportedly create new information, and then natural

selection acts as a filter, which gradually selects favorable traits. More specifically, mutations

are believed to cause unguided small scale variations. These variations can be positive, negative

or neutral. Natural selection acts on the small scale variations, selecting those that increase an

organism’s chances for survival and/or reproduction. All changes are hereditable since

mutations make alterations to the genetic information. Therefore, mutations alter DNA and this

DNA is inherited by the offspring (see Figure B1.6) (Meyer, 2016, p.292; Noble, 2015). Over

roughly 3.5 billion years, these small incremental changes from generation to generation are

believed to have resulted in the development of all the diversity of life on Earth from the

original cell.


Figure B1.6: A abstract depiction of the neo-Darwinian mechanisms of evolution.


http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v300/n1/box/scientificamerican010

9-44_BX1.html)

It is important to reemphasize the characterizations made when we discuss evolution.

Microevolution and macroevolution are distinguishable processes. Microevolution, often

referred to as adaptation, involves small changes that occur over short periods of time.

Macroevolution involves changes in species that supposedly occur as microevolutionary

changes accumulate (see Figure B1.7). All scientists, whether religious or not, accept that

microevolution occurs because it is an observable, repeatable phenomenon. Macroevolution is

not observable or repeatable, instead it is conjecture. Thus, the possibility that macroevolution

could occur is disputed among scientists.


Figure B1.7: An depiction of microevolution and macroevolution.

(image obtained from http://images.slideplayer.com/10/2816121/slides/slide_14.jpg)

This section is essentially devoted to illustrating the short-comings of the notion of

macroevolution. If macroevolution cannot stand, then the entire concept that all life forms

evolved from a single-celled organism would fall flat. Thus the theory of evolution itself, the

definition of which is that all life evolved from a common ancestor, could not be considered

valid. In order for macroevolution to be possible, mutations must necessarily be capable of

creating new genetic information. This is because it would be impossible for one organism to

evolve into something unique if it did not obtain unique features through mutation. This section

will discuss proposed evidences for macroevolution, and whether or not the mechanisms of

evolution can justify the claims of the theory.


1.3.1 Examples of evolution today

1.3.1.1 Darwin’s Finches

Natural selection in modern day organisms has provided numerous alleged evidences

supporting evolution. The example that spearheaded the understanding of natural selection

was the analysis of unique species of birds exclusive to the Galapagos Islands. Charles Darwin

himself hypothesized that these birds, labelled as ‘Darwin’s Finches,’ gradually developed

unique characteristics compared to similar breeds mainland due to their isolation on these

islands. These birds had different beak morphologies, adapted to the types of food they ate, to

fill the different niches (see Figure B1.8). These analyses led to the logical conclusion that, over

time, birds with beaks unsuited for eating the types of food on the island were naturally

outcompeted by birds whose beaks were better equipped; survival of the fittest (Scoville,

2015).

Figure B1.8: Different beak morphologies in Darwin’s Finches.



https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Darwin's_finches_by_Gould.jpg

)

Further modern analyses into Darwin’s Finches led to the discovery that the differential

spatial and temporal expression of the genes bone morphogenic protein 4 (BMP4) and

Calmodulin (CaM) led to these variations in beak size and shape (Abzhanov et al., 2004;

Abzhanov et al., 2006). Put differently, the varied expression of existing genes, and the proteins

they code for, are apparently responsible for the differences in beak morphology.

Natural selection can clearly be observed in this example since the birds who were

better adapted to their environment went on to survive and reproduce. However, it is

questionable whether this evidence supports the theory of evolution. As mentioned earlier,

mutations are described as alterations in individual nucleic acids, or the deletion, insertion or

reorganisation of larger pieces of DNA, RNA or chromosomes (see Figure A2.7) (Loewe & Hill,

2010). Although it is possible that the genes BMP4 and CaM, or genes that regulate their

function, had been modified by mutation in the past, there is no evidence to ascertain if this

ever happened. More likely, these diverse traits were simply passed on hereditarily by the

parents.

Even if these differentiations in gene expression are the product of mutations, there is

nothing to suggest that any new information had been created. Rather, information that

already existed had simply been modified to perform essentially the same functions. The genes

BMP4 and CaM would still regulate beak morphology during embryonic development even if


the different beak morphologies had resulted from mutation in the past (Abzhanov et al., 2004;

Abzhanov et al., 2006).

Therefore, Darwin’s finches demonstrate microevolution, not macroevolution. The birds

are still birds, but with traits that have been selected from existing genes through natural

selection. No new genes have been created by mutation, and there is no indication that larger

scale changes are in the works. Existing information from the parents were likely passed down

to the offspring, and unfavorable genes were lost by natural selection. With the absence of any

evidence to imply that new information was created by mutation, is it fair to conclude that

Darwin’s Finches are proof of evolution?

1.3.1.2 Peppered moths

Numerous other cases of natural selection at work as ‘evidence’ for evolution exist as

well. A popular example is of the peppered moths. Essentially, as a consequence of coal burning

during the industrial revolution in Manchester, England, soot blanketed the country sides of

industrial areas, leading to a black coloration of the landscape. Peppered moth demographics in

the area changed as a result. Dark colored peppered moths, called Biston betularia f.

carbonaria9, first identified in 1848, grew in number to constitute about 98% of moths in the

area by 1895. The reason behind this appears to be that darker colorations came to provide

selective advantages to darker moths in these blackened environments by promoting

9 Organisms are named according to the binomial system of nomenclature. The genus or

generic name, which is written with a capital letter is always followed by the specific epithet

or species name, as well as any sub species.


camouflage against predators. These moths thus outcompeted the previously dominant light

colored peppered moths, Biston betularia f. typica (see Figure B1.9) (Miller, 1999).

Figure B1.8: Different colorations of Biston betularia; the peppered moth.

(image obtained from http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-

technology/21699900-peppered-moths)

Genetic analyses of these moths has led to the understanding that dark coloration,

carbonaria, expresses itself in a form of allelic dominance over light coloration, typica (Leed &

Creed, 1977). In allelic dominance, inherited alleles from the parent organisms have varying

likelihood of being expressed based on whether the allele is dominant or recessive. Since each

parent contributes one allele to the offspring, any dominant allele will express itself in the

phenotype (i.e. the observable characteristics) of the organism.


Organisms that are heterozygous10 on a particular locus11 of a chromosome possess a

different allele from each parent on that particular gene; one dominant and one recessive.

These organisms will invariably display the phenotype of the dominant allele. Being

homozygous on a gene, on the other hand, means that the organism obtained the same allele

from each parent; two dominants or two recessives. Recessive genes will only be phenotypically

apparent if organisms are homozygous for the recessive allele on a particular gene (Hartl &

Jones, 1998).

Figure B1.9: On the left is a Punnet square12. In regard to the moth example, let ‘G’ represent

the dominant allele for dark coloration, and ‘g’ represent the recessive allele for light coloration

in peppered moths. All offspring containing a genotype with a ‘G’ allele with express the

phenotype of dark coloration since dark coloration is a dominant trait. Thus, only the

10 To be heterozygous at a gene locus means that an organism possesses two different alleles on

the same gene. Homozygous means that they possess only one. 11 A locus, plural loci, is the location on the chromosome in which a gene is present. 12 A punnet square is a method of determining the phenotypic expression of offspring containing

dominant or recessive alleles from their parents. It is the traditional method of assessing genetics

from a Mendelian perspective.


homozygous ‘gg’ genotype possessing peppered moths would possess light coloration; roughly

25% of the offspring. The figure to the right depicts homozygous and heterozygous alleles as

they would appear on the loci, on chromosomes.


http://gherrerascience.wikispaces.com/My+Family+Pedigree?showComments=1 and

http://isogg.org/wiki/Heterozygosity, respectively)

In the case of the moths, a moth with only be light colored if it receives a recessive,

typica, allele for this gene from its male parent, and another recessive, typica, allele for this

gene from its female parent. If the offspring receives a dominant, carbonaria, allele from either

parent, the moth will appear phenotypically dark colored. Therefore, if each parent has both

alleles, about 75% of moths would be dark colored and 25% would be light colored.

Since dark colored moths are more visually apparent for predation under normal

conditions, the majority of these peppered moths essentially become food for birds and bats.

This leaves room for the light-colored moths to prosper. But, with the industrial revolution and

the changing of the color of the countryside, the phenotype of being dark-colored became

favored by natural selection. Thus, the favorable breeding proportions caused by the dominant

allele for carbonaria, combined with the phenotypic advantage for camouflage, led to a drastic

flux in the peppered moth demographics in simply 50 years; between 1848 and 1895.

The peppered moth phenomenon beautifully illustrates how natural selection can

influence population demographics. Dark moths obtained a selective advantage over lighter

moths with the coming of the industrial revolution. They survived, allowing them to breed more


and outcompete the formerly dominant lighter moths. For its clear depiction of natural

selection at work, this situation is often used as example to defend the tenets of evolution.

However, this scenario in no way supports the idea that all organisms evolved from a common

ancestor, because this situation does not imply any sort stepwise progression towards

macroevolution. The moths simply adapted to their environment as natural selection filtered

through existing hereditary genes. No new information was created, so the moths would always

remain as moths were things to continue this way.

It could be argued that the initial appearance of the carbonaria strain in 1848 came as a

consequence of a mutation. If so, this would appear to be the creation of new information.

However, in reality this would more likely be a modification of an existing gene for color; not

the creation of a new gene. Furthermore, this modification is not necessarily an improvement.

As conditions have reverted back to normal in Manchester, with the end of the industrial

revolution, we see a reemergence of the typica breed of moth (Cook, 2003). So it was only

under the artificial conditions of the industrial revolution that the allele for carbonaria proved

to be beneficial. Under more natural circumstances, this trait is specifically selected against.

Hence, if mutation were somehow responsible for the emergence of this phenotype, then it is

debatable whether this adaptation was actually an improvement.

1.3.1.3 Anti-bacterial resistant strains of bacteria

One of the most prominent ‘proofs’ of the theory of evolution in action are studies of

anti-bacterial strains of bacteria; bacteria that have ‘evolved’ resistances to antibiotics. A

growing understanding of these bacteria have even helped in the development of technologies;


namely advances in medicine. These developments have been used as an argument by

evolutionists to emphasize the necessity of teaching evolution in public school (Berger, 2009).

From this perspective, there is a moral imperative to teach children about evolution because

ignorance about this topic, according to Bill Nye, will inevitably be “holding everyone back”

(Mellino, 2015). To validate if these claims are reasonable, let us take a closer look at the

evidence pertaining to these adapting bacteria.

In order to be treated as evidence for evolution, bacteria must be able to mutate and

obtain new information not previously present. If information previously present in a

population of bacteria was simply being filtered through natural selection, then this would be

insufficient evidence to support the notion that all organisms evolved from a common ancestor.

Furthermore, it would also be insufficient if existing genes were simply modified to perform the

same function in a mildly different way. Phrased differently, the development of new

information through mutation is essential for macroevolution to be possible. Below, I will

illustrate how the development of new information has in fact never been conclusively

demonstrated in antibacterial resistance.

Bacterial antibiotic resistance occurs under three situations. In the first situation, the

bacteria already inherently possess the resistance. A famous example of this is the analysis of

the intestines of explorers who died in polar expeditions who carried bacteria with resistance to

several antibiotics. These resistances existed despite the fact that the antibiotics had not been

invented at the time the explorers died (McGuire, 1988; Wieland, 1997). Since it is unlikely that

environmental pressures promoted the survival of these bacteria, since no antibiotic were

present locally when these genes allegedly came into being, we cannot conclude that new


information was created. The information for antibiotic resistance was innate, and not

evidently a product of evolution.

The second situation which confers antibiotic resistance is the transferal of existing

antibiotic-resistant genes to other bacteria. This occurs through three processes:

transformation, transduction and conjugation. Transformation is the uptake of naked DNA from

other bacteria. Transduction is the transfer of DNA from one bacterium to the next through the

activity of viruses13. Lastly, conjugation is the direct transfer of DNA, located in plasmids14, from

one bacterium to the next via a tube-like structure called a pilus (Bergman, 2003; Davies &

Davies, 2010; Holmes & Jobling, 1996; Wieland 1997) (see Figure B1.10). Through these

transfers of genetic material, genes coding for antibiotic resistance can be transferred from one

bacterium to the next. This is an effective method for bacteria to adapt to their environment,

but also a situation which does not support evolution, since the shuffling and sharing of genes

between organisms is does not create new information.

13 Viruses are infective agents typically consisting of DNA or RNA in a protein coat. They are

able to use the genetic machinery of other cells to duplicate themselves, and infect other cells. In

transduction, bacterial viruses transfer DNA from one infected cell to the next. 14 Plasmids are small, circular DNA strands that can be transferred between bacteria during

conjugation.


Figure B1.10: An illustration of transformation, transduction and conjugation; a means for

bacteria to acquire DNA from other bacteria.

(image obtained from http://slideplayer.com/slide/9763294/)

The final situation which results in the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria is

mutation. Mutations in bacterial DNA or RNA are responsible for resistances to many

antibiotics. However, every recorded instance does not appear to have led to the creation of

new information, but rather the modification of existing information via some mechanisms.

One such mechanism is through ribosome point mutations. Since certain antibiotics act by

binding to bacterial ribosomes to inhibit their ability to manufacture proteins, these cells

invariably lose the ability to grow, divide or propagate (Bergman, 2003; Davies et al., 1971;

Davies & Nomura, 1999) (see Figure B1.11). Mutations to ribosome binding sites can reduce the

affinity of antibiotics, resulting in these bacteria developing resistance.


Figure B1.11: Ribosomes are proteins responsible for translating the genetic code of messenger

RNA into functional proteins. The activity of certain antibiotics prevents ribosomes from

performing translation.

(image obtained from https://www.broadinstitute.org/blog/it%E2%80%99s-trap)

Another such mechanism in bacteria is mutation of RNA polymerase. RNA polymerase is

a protein necessary for producing RNA chains from DNA. Thus it is essential in the transcription

process of protein formation. Certain antibiotics disrupt the activity of these enzymes15,

preventing gene transcription and translation (Gale et al., 1981; Levin et al., 1993) (see Figure

B1.12). Consequently, these cells are unable to grow or replicate. Specific point mutation can

render these proteins unrecognizable by antibiotics, thus creating resistance (Enright et al.,

15 Enzymes are proteins which catalyze (i.e. accelerate) the rate of biochemical reactions.


1998; Taniguchi et al., 1996).

Figure B1.12: RNA polymerase is an enzyme responsible for transcribing genes from DNA onto

RNA strands. Certain antibiotics make this protein non-functional.


http://www.bio.miami.edu/~cmallery/150/gene/c7.17.7b.transcription.jpg)

Yet another mutation is bacterial genes leading to antibiotic resistance is through efflux

pumps. Efflux pumps are proteins responsible for expelling antibiotics so as to keep intracellular

concentrations below a lethal concentration (Anderson, 2005). Mutations of regulatory

proteins designed to limit efflux pump synthesis can become mutated. This results in over

expression of efflux pumps, causing them to jettison higher amounts of antibiotics; thus

developing resistance (Oethinger et al., 1998; Poole, 2000; Zarantonelli et al., 1999).


I have provided only three examples of antibiotic resistance mutations. However, Kevin

Anderson (2005) created an extensive summary to illustrate the phenotypic consequences of

mutated bacteria, which confer antibiotic resistance (see Table B1.1). In all instances, like the

ones sited above, the mutations do not evidently create any new information. Existing genes,

like those coding for ribosomes, RNA polymerase or efflux pump regulatory proteins, become

modified and incidentally confer a selective advantage to these bacteria when exposed to

specific antibiotics.

Table B1.1: A table which summarizes research on antibiotics, and the phenotypes responsible

for resistance.

(table obtained from Anderson, 2005)


In fact, the data seems to suggest that mutations above actually disadvantage these

antibiotic-resistant bacteria under normal conditions. Although the deformations of proteins by

mutation confer resistance against antibiotics, they do so at the cost of fitness16 (Björkholm et

al., 2000). These organisms typically become outcompeted by wild type17 bacteria when

reintroduced into environments which lack antibiotics (Anderson, 2005; Wieland, 1997).

To better explain this scientific observation, I will use an analogy presented to me by a

friend and mentor of mine, Joel Robichaud. Imagine a person is born with an unfortunate

mutation causing her to have no thumbs. Under normal environmental conditions, this person

would be at a deficit compared to wild-type individuals in almost all tasks. However, in the

artificial environment in which all people are forced to wear handcuffs behind their backs, this

mutated person would be fortunate enough to be able to slip out of the handcuffs. Similarly, in

bacteria, the mutations conferring antibiotic resistance are only beneficial under conditions in

which abundant antibiotics are present. In all other situation, they are outcompeted by the

fitter, wild-type bacteria.

Thus, the phenomena in which bacteria develop antibiotic resistance and become

“super bugs” does not appear to support the theory of evolution. Information is either innate,

shuffled or lost, but not created.

16 Fitness is a general term used in evolutionary studies pertaining to the ability of an organism to

survive relative to its competition. 17 Wild-type is a term used in genetics to refer to non-mutated organisms. These are typically

used in comparison against mutated organisms.


1.3.1.4 Mutations in fruit flies

The final example of ‘evolution today’ to be discussed relates to fruit flies, Drosophila

melanogaster. Drosophila mating experiments have been performed by scientists for years to

help them gain a better understanding of allelic dominance, and how natural selection can act

on mutation in eukaryotic organisms. One such effort was to simulate larger scale mutations,

called macromutations. The idea was that larger scale mutation could help cross the gap that

minute mutations have failed to achieve. Theoretically, this would allow one species to change

into another; macroevolution. To achieve this, mutations were stimulated in earlier stages of

embryonic development. Since embryonic cells divide and differentiate at a high rate as the

organism develops prenatally, mutations early in development have more widespread impacts

across the organism. As an analogy, it would be as if someone drew marks on a paper before

photocopying it a hundred times. This would have a wider impact then if that person marked up

a single paper after a hundred photocopies had already been made.

Through this experiment, it was discovered that any mutation that occurred early in the

regulatory genes that affect body-plan formation of Drosphila resulted in the death of the

embryo (Nüsslein-Volhard & Wieschaus, 1980). Similarly, another early-onset mutation led to

legs growing in place where the antennae should be, creating Drosophila incapable of

reproducing (Lindsey & Grell, 1968). Yet, another example resulted in the flies developing a

second set of wings. These wings were vestigial, and prevented the animals from flying, since

nerves and muscle necessary to use the new wings were not developed in conjunction (Lewis,

1978) (see Figure B1.13).


Figure B1.13: Drosophila with early-onset mutations.

(images obtained from http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evodevo_05 and

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/body-altering-mutations-in-humans-

and-flies/ respectively)

An excellent analogy describing how early embryonic mutation, macromutations, would

be unsuccessful in creating useful large-scale changes was described by Stephen Meyer in his

book Darwin’s Doubt (2013). Using the analogy of a car, Meyers described how modifying

features of a car that no other feature is dependent on, such as the paint color or seat covers,

will not have a huge impact on the car’s function. However, changing the length of the piston

rod without modifying the crank shaft will make the car nonoperational. In the same way,

mutating genes involved in early development have a massive impact on the organism’s ability

to function since it is unlikely that compensatory changes in the overall body plan will not occur

as well. In fact, Charles Darwin himself postulated that tiny variations over time would be the

only suitable mechanism for natural selection to adequately explain the variation of species,


since “macromutations” (large variations in form) produced “deformity and death.” (Agassiz,

1874; McDonald, 1983; Meyer, 2013, p.7).

Since macromutation is inevitably harmful, numerous smaller scale mutations would

appear be the only potential candidate to create new species through macroevolution. In an

effort to test whether macroevolution was possible through these mechanisms, a longitudinal

experiment was performed by Burke and colleagues (2010). In this experiment, Drosophila

were placed under different environmental conditions over a period of over 35 years. A

variation of Drosophila that developed into adulthood 20% faster than normal were bred in

order to maximize the number of generations over the time period; creating more

opportunities for natural selection to act on mutation. Hundreds of generations of fruit flies had

natural selection forced upon them in the laboratory. The purpose of this experiment was to

compare Drosophila that were isolated and assess to what extent evolutionary mechanisms

would lead to the diversification of the species.

The results of this experiment led the researchers to conclude that little allele frequency

differentiation occurred between the different populations of Drosophila (Burke et al., 2010).

Basically, the fruit flies did not really differentiate from each other even though they were

isolated under different conditions for hundreds of generations. The Drosophila were described

as having ‘limits in variation,’ meaning that they reached a point in which they could no longer

drift apart genetically. This implies that the extremes in species variation due to the

mechanisms of evolution have boundaries.

With the ‘unlimited’ capacity of evolution to differentiate species from a common

ancestor to all living things on Earth, it may seem odd that scientists have been unable to


illustrate this in the laboratory. The reality is likely that broad definitions of species are

incapable of evolving out of those given frameworks. Dogs still remain dogs after being isolated

and exposed to different selective pressures, horses still remain horses, and fruit flies still

remain fruit flies.

As Jonathan Sarfati explains it; lacewing species and Darwin’s finches demonstrate

natural selection causing diversity within a species, nothing more. Breeding of pigeons and dogs

to develop certain traits is also not an example of evolution. The animals are being bred in such

a way to emphasize characteristics that they already possess. No new information is added (e.g.

Chihuahuas are bred by breeding small dogs over and over, eliminating genes for large size).

The fact that a Chihuahua and Great Dane can still breed (although they would not breed in the

wild, and require human intervention) demonstrates that, even though they are very distinct,

they are variations of the same ‘species,’ and can pass on possessed genes (Sarfati, 1999, p.41-

43).

Another point worth noting is that in none of the Drosophila experiments was new

information evidently created. Even in the early onset mutation experiments, the legs and

wings already existed in the genetic code of the fruit flies, but were simply relocated. The belief

that organisms can evolve into different species is simply not supported by any experiment.

Scientists have been incapable of ‘evolving’ organisms, and there is nothing to imply that

extended periods of time can remedy this.

1.3.2 Mutation and the production of new information

Examples of mutation in the field and in the laboratory have not been fruitful in


supporting the possibility of macroevolution. This is because macroevolution requires that the

mechanisms of mutation be capable creating new information (i.e. unique and functional genes

which form new proteins). It would be impossible for the first, simple cell to have any hope of

evolving into higher organisms if the production of new genetic information was not possible by

mutation, since mutation is the only postulated mechanism which can create new information.

However, even though scientists have not been able to demonstrate the development of new

information in the lab, is it at least theoretically possible for mutations to do this?

To answer this question, we must describe protein structure and function, since

proteins are fundamentally the products of the mutation of genes. Proteins have three

different levels of structure: primary, secondary and tertiary. The primary structure consists of

the specific amino acids, and their sequence. The recurring structural motifs, such as alpha

helices and beta strands, that arise from these specific amino acid sequences constitute their

secondary structure. The tertiary structure comprises the structural domains that these

secondary structures fold into (see Figure B1.14).


Figure B1.14: The different levels of protein structure.

(image obtained from http://www.particlesciences.com/news/technical-

briefs/2009/protein-structure.html)

1.3.2.1 New information from existing proteins

There are two theoretical ways in which new proteins could form. The first would be the

mutation of a functional protein into a protein with a different function. The second would be

creation of a protein from a nonfunctional section of the genome.

We will begin by dealing with the idea that a new protein could evolve from an existing

one. In a study performed by Reidhaar-Olsen and Sauer (1990), it was found that proteins had a

certain degree of flexibility in their amino acid structure. These proteins could remain


functional despite mutations resulting in shifts in some of their amino acids. Douglas Axe (2000)

likened this to a sentence with typos. Even with typos, sentences can be deciphered on account

of the context of the words which surround the misspelled words. In a similar way, proteins can

still be functional with a mutation because the amino acids surrounding the mutated sites

compensate for these changes by influencing the secondary and tertiary structure of the

protein. This enables them to perform essentially the same functions.

In a follow up experiment, Douglas Axe thoroughly investigated the impact of site

specific mutations in proteins (2000). He found that, similar to Reidhaar-Olsen and Sauer, a high

proportion of proteins were able to retain their function even when certain amounts of amino

acids on the interior chain were replaced with random amino acids through mutation. Axe

essentially determined that about 95% of mutant proteins remain functional after a single

mutation, whereas multiple amino acid substitutions, around 25%, consistently resulted in

rapid loss of protein function. However, even small mutations led to diminished efficacy of

these proteins due to the imperfect folding that would arise from these site-specific alterations

in amino acids. In other words, the proteins were still flexible enough to work after a few small

mutations, but they worked less well.

From an evolutionary perspective, the above results pose a challenge. Converting one

protein into another completely novel protein requires specified changes of many amino acid

sites. Unfortunately, any mutation within a protein would yield a protein that is less adequate

than its predecessor at performing its respective function. Larger numbers of mutations would

result in the protein becoming nonfunctional all together (Meyer, 2013; p.195-198), since the

proportion of functional protein sequences is very low; between 1 in 1024 to 1 in 1063 for a small


93 amino acid length protein (Reidhaar-Olsen & Sauer, 1990).

The tenets of neo-Darwinism would require that small mutations over several

generations result in the creation of new information. However, any mutation of an existing

protein would seemingly result in a selective disadvantage to the organism due to diminished

or loss of function. This would yield mutated progeny who would likely be weaned out by

natural selection; never propagating long enough to develop a mutation that provides new

information. Only very rarely would a new functional protein develop from the old. Yet, this

would still result in the loss of an old gene, which could have detrimental effects.

1.3.2.2 New information from nonfunctional genes

The idea that new function can evolve from existing proteins seemingly violates our

understanding of positive selection through mutation. Yet, there is still another theoretical way

in which new proteins could be developed; from nonfunctional DNA. This scenario would

appear more plausible since no functions would be lost in the process of new gene formation,

since the new information would be arising from nothing. Thus, minute mutations over time

would have neutral consequences until a new functional protein finally emerged and was

selectively advantageous (Meyers, 2013, p.198). However, randomness alone would dictate

whether or not a functional protein could arise and, like abiogenesis, these probabilities are

quite grim. Specifically, the likelihood that a functional 150 amino acid length protein could

arise by chance, when compared to all other amino acid sequences and folding possibilities, is a

lower bound estimate of 1 in 1077 (Axe, 2000).

Fortunately, this probability must be reduced on account of the number of


opportunities that this mutation has of occurring. In order to gain a better perspective, Axe

multiplied this number by the estimated number of living organisms to have ever lived on Earth

during the alleged 3.8 billion years (by his calculations) since their conception. Scientists have

estimated this number to be about 1040, which includes all microorganisms (Meyers, 2013,

p.203). The results of this imply that across all of the scientifically accepted time, and through

every living organism on the Earth, odds as low as 1 in 1037 (i.e. 1

1077 x 1040) comprise the chance

that a single functional 150 amino acid protein could have arisen through mutation alone. Not

quite impossible according to Borel’s Law, but still abysmally small.

Even if probability somehow became defied, and mutations were somehow capable of

creating new and functional proteins, these mutant organisms must someway become isolated

from the parent population in order for fixation to occur. If not, speciation18 would probably

not happen (Eldredge & Gould, 1972, p.84). With such low odds of creating new genetic

information, the original population would have to be enormous for the organism to even have

a chance of gaining such a mutation. Once this mutation occurs, the mutated organism would

somehow need to become isolated. This process of a mutant isolating itself from enormous

populations would need to happen a tremendous amount of times in order for the speciation of

all the species on Earth to have diversified. The only alternative to unreasonably high

population sizes would be an unreasonably long period of time; much longer than the

scientifically-accepted age of the Earth (Behe & Snoke, 2005).

18 Speciation is a theoretical term referring to the development of new species of organisms.


1.3.2.3 Irreducible complexity

In light of these odds, we can come to fully appreciate Michael Behe’s coined term,

irreducible complexity. The reality is, forming one gene/protein is often not sufficient enough

for the proper functioning of a biological system, but requires the coordinated activity of many

genes/proteins. In Michael Behe’s book, Darwin’ Black Box (Behe, 2006), Behe illustrates how

numerous biological systems can be defined as irreducibly complex; having a number of parts

working in cooperation to the extent that the removal of any part results in the system

becoming non-functional. There are many irreducibly complex systems, but only two will be

discussed below: the blood clotting cascade and the flagella.

1.3.2.3.1 The blood clotting cascade

Blood clotting in mammals involves the activity of a complex cascade of proteins, and

essentially has two phases: platelet activation and the coagulation cascade. Blood clotting is

triggered by damage to the endothelium lining of the blood vessels. Platelets form a plug at the

site of injury, while simultaneously coagulation factors strengthen the platelet plug (see Figure

B1.15). Meanwhile, numerous regulatory proteins keep the cascade in check so that blood

clotting is very localized. All steps are intricately coordinated by the activation of proteins, and

the steps are carefully regulated (Hoffbrand, 2002). If blood clotting doesn’t work well, the

organism will bleed out and likely die if injured. If blood clotting regulation doesn’t work well,

the organism will develop non-localized blood clots, creating a new set of problems.


Figure B1.15: The protein cascade involved in blood coagulation. Image does not include all the

regulatory factors.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coagulation#/media/File:Coagulation_in_vivo.png)

The final protein activated by the end of the signaling cascade is fibrin. Fibrin is the

protein responsible for strengthening the platelet plug, and requires the activity of all preceding

proteins. In relation to the concept of irreducible complexity, for this system to operate all

steps would have to have evolved before any selective advantage would have been conferred.

The development of the intermediary proteins would not promote a stepwise progression

toward the development of fibrin, nor would natural selection favor their presence, since the

function of blood clotting would be incomplete in the absence of all proteins. For this reason,


this system is irreducibly complex in that all parts must be present for function to arise.

Therefore, evolutionists must consider not only the unlikely probability that one new functional

gene could arise by chance alone, but that multiple specific genes that incidentally cooperate

could arise before natural selection would play any role.

1.3.2.3.2 The bacterium flagella

Many examples of biologically irreducibly complex systems exist, but the last example to

be illustrated in this section is the flagella. Flagella are tail-like extensions of certain cells which

allow them to propel themselves though liquid media. The motor-like properties of these

flagella are quite complex and are composed of about 40 different proteins (see Figure B1.16).

Like all irreducibly complex systems, removal of any of these parts results in this system

becoming non-functional (Behe, 2005).

Figure B1.16: The complexity of the bacterial flagellum.

(image obtained from http://www.conservapedia.com/File:BacterialFlagellum.jpg)

In light of the information presented in the previous section, regarding the likelihood of


random happenstances producing just a simple protein, this data paints a picture of the

impossibility to which such irreducibly complex systems could have arisen. Not only must

several proteins containing new information be created, but all proteins must fundamentally

work in tangent before the system is operational. Therefore, no step along the way would

promote the evolution of these more complex systems because the system, by definition,

requires all parts to provide function. Consequently, natural selection would not guide the

mutation process, so the mutation process must create these systems without any form of

guidance. The odds that this could happen are appalling.

The only solution to this problem would be if a mutation could have widespread effects,

thus influencing proteins on a broader scale. This would insinuate that a single gene mutation,

and the odds associated with its occurrence, could create numerous functional proteins.

However, as mentioned earlier, this could only arise by the occurrence of a macromutation; a

mutation which occur early in embryonic development. Yet, all research in this field has

demonstrated that macromutation inevitably leads to deformity or death (Agassiz, 1874;

McDonald, 1983; Meyer, 2013, p.7). Thus, the idea that the mechanisms of evolution, mutation

and natural selection, could create a simple functioning protein, let alone an irreducibly

complex system of proteins, is does not appear to be supported.

Section B1 has discussed the shortcomings of the theory of evolution from a

mechanistic and logical perspective. It was illustrated how it is counter intuitive to assume that

the specified complexity of our DNA could have arisen by chance, when much simpler examples

in the world would leave no doubt in our minds that they were produced by intelligence. Also,


the evidence does not demonstrate that life could have arisen abiotically, since calculations

yield an impossibly low probability of this event occurring. This is in addition to the lack of

evidence demonstrating whether it is even possible for proteins, DNA, complex carbohydrates

or lipids to develop through the random collisions of inorganic matter. Finally, existing

examples of mutation were discussed. None of the evidence necessarily demonstrates the

development of new information, and mathematically it is even theoretically incredibly unlikely

that mutation could produce anything new. Together, these evidences pose a problem for the

theory of evolution, which states that life came into being naturalistically, and proceeded to

develop new information through mutation.

To further demonstrate the short comings of neo-Darwinism, we can look at the field of

epigenetics. This field provides evidence that information involved in cell development is not

exclusively present in the genetic information, but in the physical shape and framework of the

cell itself. This data implies that the existing framework of specific cells create a template,

which dictates the structure of the organism. This indicates that mutation of DNA is an

insufficient explanation of diversity, since DNA is not the only information-bearing property of

the cell. Therefore, in addition to the shortcomings of mutation creating new information,

apparently unmodifiable cell structures appear to dictate some degree of the properties of the

organism. This creates further uncertainty about whether one species can evolve into another,

since certain aspects of the cell may be fixed (Meyer, 2013, p.271-287).

It is clear that there is problem with our current conception of the origins of life on

Earth. The simplified notion that conditions on Earth were just right for the first cell to form,

and the guiding hand of natural selection has led to the gradual increase of advantageous


information from mutation becomes highly questionable as we look closer at the claims. In the

next section the other alleged evidences of evolution will be discussed: the fossil record, and

the dating methods.

2) A Misleading Depiction of the Fossils

There is a rich body of fossils. We have been told that they paint a picture of the slow

evolution that has occurred over millions and billions of years. Is this the real story? In this

section I will discuss how the fossil record does not necessarily support the theory of evolution.

2.1 The fossil record as it is represented

I will begin this section by quoting Kenneth Miller, a public supporter of the theory of

evolution. In an article comparing evolution and creationism, Miller stated:

The fact of the matter is that the fossil record not only documents evolution, but that it

was the fossil record itself which forced natural scientists to abandon their idea of the

fixity of species and look instead for a plausible mechanism of change, a mechanism of

evolution. The fossil record not only demonstrates evolution in extravagant detail, but it

dashes all claims of the scientific creationists concerning the origin of living organisms.

(Miller, 1984, p.22).

Aside from insinuating a false dichotomy between evolution and creationism, Miller

clearly associated fossils as demonstrating evolution. The blanketed statement above, however,

fails to illustrate in what ways the fossil record demonstrates evolution. Let us remember what


the theory of evolution proposes; that all life evolved from a common ancestor. In order for the

fossil record to provide evidence for evolution, we would need to observe a stepwise increase

in complexity in the fossil record over time. These fossils would need to demonstrate

diversification from a common ancestor through gradual and logical transitions. In other words,

there would need to be fossils supporting the idea that major phyla of organisms gradually

transitioned into the next.

The presence of logical transitional fossils would certainly appear to have been found by

scientists from the perspective of students combing science textbooks (Cyr & Verrault, 2009a).

The fossil record has allegedly allowed scientists to develop an accurate timeline of all the life

that has evolved on Earth since its inception. The geological time scale depicts the fossils of

organisms as they have been dated across time, with different sets of species arising in

different ages; fundamentally culminating into organisms of the modern day (see Figure B2.1).


Figure B2.1: The geological time scale.


http://hudsonvalleygeologist.blogspot.ca/2012_06_01_archive.html)

It is certainly true that numerous fossils have been found as paleontologists comb the

Earth. Fossils clearly demonstrate that organisms have died in the past and been buried under

the ground, but do they provide evidence for anything else? The reality is that the dates of

fossils and taxonomical relationships are highly debated among evolutionists (Lubenow, 2004,

p.18). Furthermore, although paleontologists have found numerous fossils there is a severe lack

of transitional fossils19 (Abramson, 2009).

In the sections that follow, I will illustrate more specifically the issues that exist in

synonymizing fossils as proof of evolution.

2.2 The Cambrian Explosion

The Cambrian period is the time in the Earth’s history that has been dated to represent

life that lived approximately 540 million years ago. During the Cambrian Explosion “many new

and anatomically sophisticated creatures suddenly appeared in the sedimentary layers of the

geologic column without any evidence of simpler ancestral forms in the earlier layers below”

(Meyer, 2013, p.7). Essentially, an ‘explosion’ of new fauna20, representatives of about twenty

19 A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both

an ancestral group and its derived descendant group. 20 The fauna is the animals of a particular region, habitat, or geological period. Not to be

confused with ‘flora,’ which refers to plants.


of the roughly twenty-six total phyla on Earth, made their first appearance in the rock record

within simply a 6-million-year period, according to dating methods. This fauna seems to have

arisen spontaneously, since no precursor fossils have been discovered (Bowring et al., 1993;

Erwin et al., 2011) (see Figure B2.2).

Figure B2.2: The hierarchy of the taxonomic classification system; from broader, Domains, to

more specific, Species.

(image obtained from https://www.britannica.com/science/taxonomy)

2.2.1 Conflicts between the fossil evidence and the theory of evolution

Prior to the Cambrian period, for over 3 billion years, the fossil record showed

essentially single-celled organisms, like bacteria and algae. Toward the end of the Ediacaran


period, between 570 to 555 million years ago, more complex organisms began to appear;

organisms similar to the sponge, which possesses around ten cell types (Ruppert et al., 2004).

However, in only about the 40 million years leading up to the Cambrian Explosion (Bowring et

al., 1993), a small period of time in the geological time scale, many significantly more complex

organisms first appeared in the fossil records. These organisms, such as the trilobite, were

markedly more complex than their predecessors; possessing likely more than 50 different cell

types with greatly increased genetic information (Valentine, 2004). This was an exceptionally

large increase in biological complexity compared to that present in their late Ediacaran

ancestors (see Figure B2.3).

Figure B2.3: The image on the left is a picture of a Precambrian Dickinsonia fossil imprint. The

image on the right is a picture of a Cambrian trilobite fossil.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precambrian_body_plans#/media/File:DickinsoniaCostata

.jpg and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilobite#/media/File:Paradoxides_sp.jpg,

respectively)

To illustrate just how much more complex these organisms were, I will describe the

features of the trilobite. The trilobite possessed three body parts, as opposed to simply

possessing the bilateral symmetry21 of some of its predecessors. Its head contained three

longitudinal lobes. It had a number of pleural grooves, each possessing three pairs of legs. Its

head also possessed three pairs of legs. Finally, and more profoundly, it possessed compound

eyes providing a 360 degree field of vision (Gould, 1980). The complexity of these organisms is

anomalous because after a supposed 3 billion years of seemingly slow-paced evolution, such a

profound increase in genetic information appears to have arisen in just 40 million years.

The fact that such complex organisms arose in such a short time frame with no

precursors is unexpected for Darwinists (see Figure B2.4). However, there is another

troublesome issue for neo-Darwinism in these Cambrian fossils. The fauna discovered in the

Cambrian rock strata possessed numerous unknown animal forms and body plans. In other

words, many of these organisms had novel body structures, which are not observed in modern

day animals, nor in later fossil deposits. These organisms, such as Anomalocaris, have traits

more distinguished from each other than modern day phyla (Meyer, 2013, p.38-39) (see Figure

21 Bilateral symmetry is the property of being divisible into symmetrical halves on either side of

a unique plane. This property is very primitive, appearing in the Precambrian era.


B2.5).

Figure B2.4: The chart on the top shows the time in which different phyla appeared in the fossil

record according to dating methods. The graph on the bottom left depicts the number of phyla

that we would expect to observe according to neo-Darwinian mechanisms, whereas the graph

on the bottom right illustrates how phyla have actually appeared across the different periods.

(image scanned from Meyer, 2013, p.32)


Figure B2.5: Picture of an Anomalocaris fossil.

(image obtained from http://tylerirving.ca/?p=294)

According to Darwinian theory, and Darwin himself, we would expect to see tiny

variations over time being demonstrated in the fossil record, since larger macromutations have

thus far been shown to be harmful (Agassiz, 1874; McDonald, 1983; Meyer, 2013, p.7). Thus,

the fossil record should theoretically show a stepwise progression from organisms that are

more simple evolving into organisms that are more complex over time. Even in light of the

mathematical and mechanistic data described in section B1, a fossil record demonstrating such

a pattern would make it difficult to deny the inference that all cells evolved from a single-celled

organism. Darwin believed that continued investigation would reveal a swarm of living

creatures prior to the Cambrian period (Darwin, 1859, p.307). However, after 150 years,

scientists have still not found these Precambrian fossil intermediates.

In fact, we actually observe the opposite of what Darwin believed. As mentioned, if

Darwin’s theory were correct, we should expect to see minor differences accumulate over time.


Thus, diversity, smaller changes in forms of life, should accumulate before disparity, larger

changes in forms of life. According to paleontologists, diversity manifests itself in the

differences in family, genus and species, an example of which could as the differences in

animals of the family Canidae: bears and wolves. The differences that separate these ‘diverse’

animals are rather small compared to the shared characteristics of jaw structure, mammary

glands, etc. In contrast, disparity results in differences in phylum, class and order; such as the

differences in animals of the phylum Chordata. Organisms from the phylum Chordata are more

broadly characterized, and a wide array or animals are classified under this phylum; for

example, both mice and crocodiles (see Figure B2.2). Although these organisms both possess a

nerve cord, they are otherwise quite distinct from one another.

When we observe the fossil record, what we observe is a large disparity of organisms

during the Cambrian Explosion, which gradually diversify. In other words, disparity precedes

diversity, when Darwin’s theory would require diversity to precede disparity. Therefore, we see

a tree of life that initially has a broad array of phyla during the Cambrian period, and a

reduction in animal variability as time goes on (see Figure B2.6 & Figure B2.7) (Meyer, 2013,

p.39-44).


Figure B2.6: The top down pattern of the appearance of organisms in the fossil record; disparity

precedes diversity.

(image obtained from Meyer, 2013, p. 43)

Figure B2.7: The model on top illustrates the expectations of increased complexity and diversity

over time through the Darwinian model. The figure on the bottom shows the actual fossil


record; with the abrupt appearance of most animal groups early on, and no apparent increase

in animal variability.

(image obtained from Meyer, 2013, p.35)

Based on these evidences, neo-Darwinian theory faces four problems. The first is the

sudden appearance of Cambrian animal forms, which defies the notion that life evolved via

slow, gradual changes. The second problem is the lack of fossil intermediates connecting

Cambrian fauna with their Precambrian ancestors. This circumstance does not support the idea

that Cambrian animals evolved from Precambrian animals in the first place, since no obvious

hereditary connections can be drawn. The third problem is that the Cambrian fauna possessed

a disparity even greater than is observed in the modern day. Finally, the idea that diversity

precedes disparity is opposed by the actual characteristics of the fossils. These last two points

together bring into question whether the mechanisms proposed by neo-Darwinism, that life

has progressed from simple to complex, is a valid hypothesis (Gould, 1990, p.49; Meyer, 2013,

p.34). These fossils, combined with the arguments made in section B1, create some serious

difficulties regarding the scientific evidence regarding the current beliefs of the origins of life.

2.2.2 Evolutionist views of the Cambrian fossil record

Despite the repudiating Cambrian fossil record, it has been argued that the intermediary

organisms that are missing in the fossil record actually existed in the past, but simply have not

been found yet or did not fossilize. For example, the lack of intermediary fossils preceding the

Cambrian explosion may not have turned up due to geological conditions which buried the


fossils in the inaccessible undersea sedimentary layers (Walcott, 1910). Such fossils would

theoretically be impossible to find so the only Precambrian fossils with the potential to be

found would have to be continental (Meyer, 2014, p.56).

This creates a valid consideration that fossils have existed, but are irretrievable.

However, the logical point still stands that an explanation for lack of evidence is not the same

as evidence. If, for example, a young man attempted to buy lottery tickets in the absence of

identification, any explanation of how he came to forget/lose his ID, no matter how detailed

and realistic, would not prove that he was 18 years old. Without proof of age, most people

would agree that the shop keeper would be wise to reject this young man’s claims. In the same

avenue of thought, without proof of intermediary fossils, scientists should be hesitant in

accepting that these fossils existed.

Another argument defending evolution is that the Cambrian ancestors were either

microscopic, and thus too small to have fossilized (Davidson et al., 1995), or soft bodied, and

thus incapable of enduring the fossilization process (Wray et al., 1996). However, a very large

number of small and soft-bodied fossil species have been discovered in earlier-dated periods

(Meyer, 2013, p.61-62). For example, blue green algae, single-celled algae and eukaryotes

(Brocks et al., 1999).

Well-preserved animals lacking even a keratinized exoskeleton, including soft-bodied

members of phyla such as Cnidaria (corals and jellyfish), Ctenophora (comb jellies),

Annelida (a type of “ringed” segmented worm), Onychophora (segmented worms with

legs), Phoronida (a tubular, filter-feeding marine invertebrate), and Priapulida (another

distinctive type of worm) (Meyer, 2013, p.63-64).


With so many examples of small and soft-bodies animals being discovered in the fossil

record, it is debatable whether an inability for certain organism to undergo fossilization can be

justified by this argument.

Together, the fauna of the Cambrian explosion provide evidence against the theory that

all life evolved gradually from a common ancestor by increasing in complexity. Arguments

explaining a lack of fossils are conjecture, and certainly not evidence of anything to the

contrary.

2.3 The rationale of the fossil record

The term ‘transitional fossils’ is used to describe fossils possessing shared traits between

an ancestral group and a derived descendent group. So, when one organism of a particular

classification (e.g. fish) allegedly develops traits, which eventually lead to the development of

organisms of a different classification (e.g. amphibians), certain intermediaries must have

existed. These intermediaries must have possessed traits from the older classification (e.g. fish)

and the newer classification (e.g. amphibians).

Since the evolutionary process would not operate in a straight line, there would be

some extent of branching. Hence, some modern day organisms would fall somewhere in

between classifications. An example of this would be salmon, which possesses paired

appendages and jaws like sharks, but have bones that derive from a cartilaginous precursor, like


tetrapods22 (Newton, 2008). Thus, sharks, salmon and tetrapods, from an evolutionary

standpoint, should theoretically have a common ancestor, and salmon and tetrapods would

have had a higher23 common ancestor. Some intermediary organisms between sharks and the

common ancestor of salmon and tetrapods would have needed to exist. Transitional ancestors

of salmon and tetrapods must have also existed, as well as transitional organisms leading to the

development of all different classifications of life. Thus, there should be a tremendous amount

transitional fossils to potentially be found.

2.3.1 The evolutionist argument

Evolutionists dispute criticisms regarding a lack of transitional fossils, because all fossils

and living organisms can be considered transitional. Most post-Cambrian fossils seemingly

possess traits present in other fossils or modern-day organisms. Thus, in their view, these traits

must have been passed along hereditarily. This is because evolutionists identify characteristics

that different species share, and then assume they evolved from each other (Lubenow, 2004,

p.33).

Richard Dawkins stated in his book, The Greatest Show on Earth, “Even if not a single

fossil has ever been found, the evidence from surviving animals would still overwhelmingly

force the conclusion that Darwin was right” (Dawkins, 2009). To evolutionists, all life on earth is

an example of evolution. Shared characteristics in organisms today are proof of evolution

22 Tetrapods are a classification of animals with four feet, legs or supports. Phylogenetically they

are vertebrates which are newer than fishes. 23 The terms ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ refer to an organism’s place in the evolutionary tree. Lower

organisms are more primitive (i.e. arose earlier in evolution).


because the information ‘must’ have been derived from common ancestry. Humans and

monkeys both have opposable thumbs, which is ‘proof’ of evolution. Reptiles and birds both lay

hard shelled eggs, which is ‘proof’ of evolution. Sexual reproduction between males and

females among many different species is ‘proof’ of evolution. The fact that eukaryotic

organisms possess a cell nucleus is ‘proof’ of evolution. And the list goes on. (Dawkins 2009).

Evolutionists also argue that, since there were so many potential intermediate

organisms, and a low theoretical likelihood that organisms would withstand the fossilization

process, that advocates against the theory of evolution will never be satisfied with the evidence

that is found (Newton, 2008). Numerous fossils allegedly transitioning from one classification to

the next have been discovered, and the missing baby steps in the evolutionary tree are

criticized away by the argument that most transitional organisms simply did not die under the

right conditions to form into fossils (Newton, 2008).

2.3.2 Problems with fossil interpretations

Despite the merits of these claims, there are also criticisms against the legitimacy of

many of these fossils as actually demonstrating transitions. These include arguments against

theoretical fish-to-amphibian (Roush, 1997), reptile-to-bird (Feducia, 1993; Morell, 1993;

Shipman, 1997; Wieland, 1997), reptile-to-mammal (Kemp, 1982; Sarfati, 1999, p.53), land

mammal-to-whale (Batten, 1994; Mchedlidze, 1986, p.91), and even the purportedly complete

horse transition fossil records (Coble et al., 1991, p.500; Kruzhilin & Ovcharov, 1984; Simpson,

1950; Silver Burdett, 1987, p.361; Starr & Taggart, 1992, p.304).


The most well-articulated of these criticisms of transitional fossils come from the

evaluation of the hominid24 fossil record. Marvin Lubenow wrote an extensive book, titled

Bones of Contention, outlining the history of the study of the hominid fossil record, in which he

explained the main problem with the field of paleontology; “the fossil record is used to serve

evolution, and not objective science” (Lubenow, 2004, p.19).

2.3.2.1 Hominid fossil controversies

Before discussing specific criticisms regarding the hominid fossil record, it is important

to illustrate the currently accepted theoretical series of ancestors leading to human evolution.

Essentially, Australopithecus africanis, a famous fossil of which is known as Lucy, appeared in

the fossil record and was dated as 5 million years old. It is believed that this ape produced some

progeny that changed into some form of Homo habilis, an alleged hominid, about 1.5 million

years ago. This population gradually changed into Homo erectus, which potentially became

Homo heidelbergensis. Next, these hominids gradually developed progeny, which became

Homo sapiens, humans (Berkely; Lubenow, 2004, p.61) (see Figure B2.8).

24 Hominidae is the taxonomic family of primates, which includes humans.


Figure B2.8: Evolutionary catalogue for the emergence of humans.

(image obtained from http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_07)

The currently accepted belief of hominid evolution has not always been the same, but

has been updated as existing models have proven inadequate at explaining human origins. This

is promising in the sense that it proves how science is self-correcting. However, this record also

shows us a frantic effort to prove that humans evolved from apes. By this, I mean that

numerous questionable efforts have been made to connect the human lineage to apes. The a

priori belief is that humans evolved from apes, and all hominid fossils are interpreted to

substantiate this assumption.


For example, there was a time when scientists believed that humans evolved from

Homo neanderthalis, Neanderthals. During this time, a Neanderthal skull was found in Israel

and was dated using carbon-14 radiometric dating25. The age was determined to be only 5,710

years old; far younger than expected. This date posed a problem for the theory at the time,

because Neanderthals could not have existed around the time of Homo sapiens if their theory

was correct. It was stated, “These dates are believed to be too ‘young’ as a result of

contamination by younger carbon” (Day, 1986, P.128-129). Other dating methods were used to

assert that the fossil was in fact 20-40 thousand years old. A much less precise result, but at

least it was an older one (Lubenow, 2004, p.81-82). Eventually, it was concluded that Homo

neanderthalis was evolutionarily believed to have gone extinct, and were not the ancestors of

humans, because the young fossils indicated that humans could not have evolved from them

(Lubenow, 2004, p.119).

Another specific example is Rhodesian man, Homo heidelbergensis. A skull was found in

1921, in a cave near Kabwe, Zambia. The skull had ape-like brow ridges, but had human cranial

capacity; thought to be a transitional fossil between humans and apes (see Figure B2.9). Mining

activities had destroyed the site, and radiometric dating was not available at the time, so

accurate dating was impossible. On account of this, dates for this fossil were contrived to

attempt to rationally determine its age. However, over a period of 82 years, the fossil’s age was

conveniently reinterpreted numerous times. It was originally believed to be 11,000 years old

based on the quality of the fossil, the presence of modern animal bones near the site, the

25 Carbon-14 radiometric dating is a form of ‘absolute’ dating. This will be discussed in more

detail in section B3.


presence of bone tools, and the similarities it had to Neanderthal skulls. This age was then

increased to 40,000 years, based on eventual radiocarbon dating (Lubenow, 2004, p.159-163).

Next, it was dated to over 125,000 years, based on belief that the animal fossils present at the

site were actually extinct forms, and that the tools were from early stone age (Klein, 1973).

Finally, the age was reinterpreted to being between 300 to 400 thousand years, due to unclear

reasons, but likely motivated by the fact that Rhodesian man needed time to evolve into more

modern Homo sapiens (Tattersall, 1999, p.67-68) (Lubenow, 2004, p.164).

Figure B2.9: On the left is a picture of the Rhodesian man fossil. To the right is a highly

interpretive artist’s reconstruction of that fossil.

(images obtained from http://www.skullsunlimited.com/record_species.php?id=1842

and https://www.pinterest.com/pin/111675265738461120/, respectively)


Yet another event, in which the assumption that humans evolved from apes drove the

interpretation of facts, was when a hominid (human or human ancestor) fossil of the lower end

of the left upper arm bone was found in 1965 in Northern Kenya. This was determined to be 4.5

million years old; the oldest hominid fossil discovered at that time (Patterson et al., 1970).

Visual characteristics, and multivariate statistical analysis on its dimensions led researchers to

conclude “that the Kanapoi specimen, which is 4 to 4.5 million years old, is indistinguishable

from modern Homo sapiens” (McHenry, 1975, p.428). Instead of concluding that this fossil

belonged to Homo sapiens, which were not around 4.5 million years ago according to

evolutionary theory, it was concluded that this fossil belonged to Australopithecus africanus, an

‘ancestor’ of humans (Pilbeam, 1970, p.151). Deciding to ignore the empirical evidence

suggesting that the fossil was ‘indistinguishable’ from Homo sapiens, researchers concluded

that it belonged to a ‘known’ human ancestor; with characteristics that empirically did not

reflect those of the actual fossil (Lubenow, 2004, p.67-68).

Numerous other examples of motive-directed analyses of fossils exist as well, and are

explained in detail in the book, Bones of Contention (Lubenow, 2004). These examples illustrate

how, at least in regards to the hominid fossil record, theory greatly influences scientific

conclusions. Data is supposed to determine theory, but in regards to fossil interpretation it

would appear that theory influences the data. Fossils should be considered independent of

theories, not wrapped in them, because it is unscientific to cling to a theory which defies the

evidence (Abramson, 2009).

The reality is, is that numerous sub-divisions of hominids have been created over

minute variations, when likely many of them are the same species. The study of


Australopithecine africanus and Australopithecine robustus shows an ear canal structure

resembling those of apes, suggesting they did not walk upright (Spoor et al., 1994). So,

Australopithecine is likely an extinct ape (Oxnard, 1975; Oxnard, 1984). The study of ear canals

has even shown that Homo habilis appears to be less upright than Australopithecines, which

implies an evolutionary pattern that drifts away from humans (Spoor et al., 1994). So, Homo

habilis is most likely an Australopithecine (Wood, 1994). Thus, Australopithecines and Homo

habilis were probably just apes.

Homo erectus is more complicated. Their ear canals resemble those of humans,

suggesting they walked upright (Spoor et al., 1994), providing evidence that they could be

ancestors of humans. However, numerous other evidences imply that they were not ancestors

of humans, but humans themselves. Dating methods age Homo erectus fossils between 6000

and 1.95 million years old. These dates create challenges for evolutionists. Some fossils are ‘too

young’ for same reasons as Homo neanderthalis; there would not have been enough time for

Homo sapiens to evolve from them. Other fossils are ‘too old’ because they coincide with the

alleged ancestors of Homo erectus, Homo habilis, which are supposed to be between 1.5 and 2

million years old (Klein, 1999; Lubenow, 2004 p.119). For the fossils to align with evolutionary

theory, Homo erectus fossils are ‘supposed’ to be between 400,000 and 1.5 million years old

(Bower, 1985).

Furthermore, bones in Sima de los Huesos in Spain were discovered with a large

variation, but possessing numerous similarities with Homo erectus, Home sapiens and

Neanderthals (Shreeve, 1994; Stringer, 1993). These provide evidence suggesting that the

hominid fossils found are simply variations within the species of Homo sapiens, and not distinct


species (Lubenow p. 200-201). This makes sense, because many animals that are physically

dissimilar, like Chihuahuas and Great Danes, are also variations of the same species. They can

mate and produce offspring. Yet, if Chihuahuas and Great Danes fossils were found in the

sediment they would likely be classified as different species or more (e.g. genera) (Sarfati,

1999).

Based on these evidences, Marvin Lubenow summarized five reasons why the hominid

fossil record is unsubstantiated. 1) Fossils that are indistinguishable from human can be traced

all the way back to 4.5 million years ago, according to evolutionary time scale, which placed

them before all of their alleged hominid ancestors. 2) Homo erectus demonstrates a

morphological consistency through-out its 2-million-year history; there are no changes to

suggest that it evolved from something else or into something else. 3) Modern Homo sapiens,

Neanderthal, early Homo sapiens and Homo erectus all lived during overlapping time periods,

and places. In order for evolution to occur, newer population must become isolated from the

old ones, which is not demonstrated in the fossils. 4) All the fossils ascribed to Homo habilis

category are contemporary with Homo erectus. Thus Homo habilis fossils have never preceded

Homo erectus, so it is not seemingly possible that Homo erectus evolved from Homo habilis. 5)

There are no fossils of Australopithecus or of any other primate stock in the proper time period

to serve as evolutionary ancestors to humans. Australopithecus are dated much earlier than

hominid fossils, and there are no clear transitions to insinuate human ancestry (Lubenow, 2004,

p.332-333).

All of these arguments present problems for the ape-to-human evolution model as it

has been interpreted from the fossil record.


2.3.2.2 Politics involved in fossil study

Another concern that Lubenow mentions is the politics involved in studying fossils.

Although the property of the state, the finder and extractor of a fossil may retain the materials

as the custodian of the fossil. This individual, or group of individuals, are able to dictate who

can and cannot access these fossils for study. Hominid (human and human ancestor) fossils are

kept under strict lock and key, and are incredibly difficult for any scientist to gain access to.

“Only those in the inner circle get to see the fossils; only those who agree with the particular

interpretation of a particular investigator are allowed to see the fossils” (Lewin, 1987, p.24). On

account of this, paleontologists are typically forced to study casts, and are consequently one

step removed from their material of scientific study. Despite this, many articles and books

supporting evolution have been written by people who have never studied these fossils directly

(Lubenow, 2004, p.22-26). On account of these politics, paleoanthropology26 is seemingly

poorly regulated in regards to peer review and self-correction.

As mentioned earlier in this section, the fossils have been argued to be used to serve

evolution. By this, I mean that evolution is assumed to be true, a priori, and then the fossils are

interpreted to demonstrate this. Fossils necessarily must fit into the evolutionary scheme, and

those that do not are either omitted from discussion, or reinterpreted. Rather than

acknowledge the possibility that evolution did not occur, new explanations to illustrate how

evolution occurred are created by evolutionists. In regards to the hominid fossil record, some

human fossils have apparently been arbitrarily downgraded to appear to be evolutionary

26 Paleoanthropology is the scientific study of human fossils.


ancestors, when they are in fact human. Similarly, some nonhuman fossils have seemingly been

upgraded to make them appear to be human ancestors. “The category to which a fossil is

assigned sometimes determines the date assigned to it. Or the date of the fossil sometimes

determines the category to which it is assigned” (Lubenow, 2004, p.18).

In addition, new fossil evidences are interpreted with confidence and accepted as fact,

even if the fossil evidence is incomplete. Only when new, seemingly more credible, evidences

arise are the shortcomings of the previous evidences mentioned (Lubenow, 2004). Meanwhile,

artists’ depictions of fossils are misleading; including more information than the fossils give and

assuming numerous non-objective characteristics to misleadingly support the existing theory

(Reybrouck, 1998) (see Figure B2.9 and B2.10).

Figure B2.10: The whale ancestor, Ambulocetus natans. Image one depicts the reconstructed

fossil. Image two shows an artist’s depiction of that reconstructed fossil. The yellow portion in

image three shows the portion of the fossil that was actually found. Clearly a fair bit of

interpretation was at work.

(image obtained from https://etb-whales.blogspot.ca/2012/03/pelvic-bones-on-whales-


ambulocetus.html)

2.4 The fossils are not the whole story

Despite the fossil evidences themselves, the simple occurrence of evolution is presumed

to be the common sense explanation of shared traits. Since organisms can be distinguished

through a stepwise comparison of shared and distinguished traits, an evolutionary explanation

of diversity from common ancestry seems like a logical explanation to connect the dots.

However, the simple observation of shared traits does not automatically insinuate that the

organisms we observe have necessarily evolved from each other. Certainly they possess shared

characteristics, but so do many other things that we would never assumed possessed common

ancestry. If we found a gasoline-powered motor and a diesel-powered motor in the sand, we

could certainly acknowledge that these objects shared numerous characteristics. Would we

assume that they evolved from each other?

2.4.1 Are certain transitions theoretically possible?

Although we could speculate whether the fossils support the theory of evolution, this

evidence is certainly controversial. But, even if we accept that the fossils demonstrate sufficient

transitional characteristics to imply evolutionary processes, certain additional logical leaps must

be made as well if we are to accept that such evolutionary processes have taken place. It was

illustrated in section B1 how the mechanisms of evolution, namely mutation, cannot justify the

creation of new information. Also, natural selection inherently acts by promoting the


proliferation of advantageous traits. With these in mind, there are numerous specific

modifications in organisms that would demand explanation.

How can the theory of evolution explain the formation of the hard shelled egg from the

amniotic egg? These transitions include: the shell, the two new membranes (the amnion and

the allantois), excretion of water-insoluble uric acid rather than urea (urea would poison the

embryo), albumin altogether with a special acid to yield it water, yolk for food, and a change in

the genital system allowing the fertilization of the egg before the shell hardens. (Denton, 1985,

p.218-219; Sarfati, 1999, p.55). Such a transition would require many steps, and little selective

advantage would be conferred until the complete transition were finalized.

How can evolution explain how a common ancestor birthed progeny that individually

developed into both birds and reptiles? Birds and reptiles possess many dissimilar traits? Birds

have hollow bones, powerful muscles for flight and excellent vision. Furthermore, birds have

feathers, which are very complex and highly unlikely to be modified scales. In addition, the

avian lung differs greatly from that of the reptile (Sarfati, 1999, p63-68). Would the transition of

developing hollow bones be advantageous if flight had not developed yet? Would a common

lung diversify to the extent we see variability in bird and reptile lung structure?

How can evolution explain the transition from land dwelling mammals to whales? In

order to become a whale, land mammals (believed to be primitive hooved animals called

Mesonychids) would have had to lose their pelvis and legs while gradually adapting an

enormous lung capacity, specialized ears and echolocation, a blowhole, and more. Is it realistic

to assume that any of these transformations would have provided a selective advantage to a

land animal gradually becoming water bound (Sarfati, 1999, p.69-70)?


How can evolution explain the appearance of males and females? An asexually

reproducing organism would have had to somehow produce a unique organism of a specific

sex, not only possessing a sex organ but also having the capacity to create gametes through

meiosis. At the same time, and in the same place, another organism would have at to develop

in a similar way, but with sex organs and gametes that would complement those of the former

organisms. These organisms would need to immediately be capable of reproducing sexually,

and do so in their life times for the lineage to continue. Is it reasonable to believe that all of

these events could have occurred by chance?

Evolutionists do not have answers for these tough questions because accepting that

these events occurred naturalistically relies entirely on their faith that these events could have

somehow defied realistic probability.

2.4.2 Punctuated equilibrium

An enormous list of these gaps must be hurdled in order for evolution, particularly

through neo-Darwinian mechanisms, to be considered a reasonable explanation. It is

specifically because of the lack of gradual change in the fossil record, combined with the logical

short comings of neo-Darwinism, that Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldridge (1977) developed

the theory of punctuated equilibrium. They realized that many stepwise body modifications

would not promote natural selection, so natural selection acting on small-scale mutation could

not explain the diversity of life on Earth. Thus, they developed their own explanation as to how

evolution could have occurred, called punctuated equilibrium (Gould & Elredge, 1977).

In this model, Gould and Eldredge proposed that organisms undergo long stages of


‘equilibrium,’ in which little to no changes occur within the species, followed by more

‘punctuated’ changes, leading to speciation (see Figure B2.11). The leading mechanism believed

to cause these punctuated changes was allopatric speciation; the isolation of organisms from a

parent population to allow for genetic sequestration. However, as discussed earlier, such large

genetic changes in a short time require macromutation, which appear to be inevitably harmful.

Figure B2.11: A comparison of the tree of life from the perspective of neo-Darwinism (on the

left), and punctuated equilibrium (on the right). Notice how punctuated equilibrium is

characterized by sharper changes, to account for the unlikelihood that tiny accumulated

changes could be promoted by natural selection.

(image obtained from http://courseweb.glendale.edu/ppal/time_and_geology2.htm)


In section B2 it was shown that the problem with the analysis of fossils is that prior to

examining them, scientists follow presupposition that evolution occurred. Furthermore, the

politics surrounding fossil study seemingly make it difficult for paleontologists to infer objective

analyses.

We see many illustrations of the fossil record failing to provide salient evidence in favor

of evolution. The Cambrian Explosion surprises paleontologists by illustrating the emergence of

large amounts of genetic information in a relatively short time period. Furthermore, the fossils

demonstrate the development of disparity prior to diversity; the opposite direction of

speciation that evolution theorizes.

Richard Dawkins has stated, “Evolution could so easily be disproved if just a single fossil

turned up in the wrong date order” (Dawkins, 2009, p.147). Yet, the hominid taxonomic

categorization has been an ever changing reinterpretation of the fossils to support evolutionary

theory. These fossils have been consistently re-dated to fit within the pre-existing evolutionary

timeline. Therefore, it would appear that it is not possible to find fossils in the “wrong order,”

because the “order” is being decided rather than determined. Scientists are begging the

question by assuming that evolution occurred, and then interpreting the fossil data to prove

that evolution occurred. This is circular reasoning, not objective science.

Even if we accept that transitional fossils are simply missing, rational inquiry, with our

understanding of mutation and natural selection, creates unanswerable questions from an

evolutionary standpoint. These shortcomings have even been acknowledged by numerous

members of the scientific community. The fact that the theory of punctuated equilibrium was

developed evidences this. Yet, this evolutionary philosophy is similarly unsupported by the


evidence, because it requires that macromutation produce useful information; a process that

has been refuted by experiments on the topic. Another interesting point to note is that the

punctuated equilibrium model was produced to explain why fossils were NOT found, making it

the only scientific theory that claims to be scientific on the basis of a lack of evidence

(Lubenow, 2004, p.334).

The fossil evidence allegedly supporting evolution is not as concrete as we have been

led to believe. This, in combination with the sheer unlikelihood that life could have arisen by

itself and mutated to create all taxonomic categories of life, demonstrates how evolution is

certainly NOT a fact. In the final portion of the scientific argument against evolution, I will be

discussing the dating methods used to determine the age of the things of the past.

3) Flaws in the Dating Methods

In school and through the media, we are told how the Earth is billions of years old, how

dinosaurs lived in the Jurassic era, and how humans appeared a bit over one hundred thousand

years ago. How do scientists determine these dates? In this section I will demystify these dating

methods, and demonstrate how imperfect they are as a measure.

3.1 The geological column

The geological column is the scientifically accepted classification system of rock layers,

which makes up the Earth’s crust. It is composed of a series of rock layers, called strata or

stratigraphic layers. These layers are believed to have formed under water, and are thought to

separate the Earth’s crust into a geological time scale (see Figure B2.1 & B3.1). Fossils can be


found in these different layers, which partially directs paleontologists through the dating

process. Over billions of years, it is believed that these layers have formed, and preserved the

fossils found in them.

Figure B3.1: A cross-sectional view of sedimentary rock, demonstrating how it forms in layers,

called strata.

(image obtained from http://www.kidsdiscover.com/teacherresources/geologic-age-

dating-explained/)

3.1.1 The science of stratigraphy

The notion of the geological column was first theorized by Nicolaus Steno in 1669, who

defined the four principles of the science of stratigraphy27: the law of superposition, the

principle of original horizontality, the principle of lateral continuity, and the principle of cross-

cutting relationships (Brookfield, 2004). The law of superposition states that lower strata are

27 Stratigraphy is the science of the study of rock layers.


older than higher strata since, underwater, fluid would rest above the most recent strata while

the lower strata was being formed. The principle of original horizontality theorizes that strata

either perpendicular to the horizon or inclined to the horizon were at one time parallel to the

horizon; all strata were at some point parallel, meaning that intersecting strata belong to

different geological eras. The principle of lateral continuity states that material forming any

stratum were continuous across the surface of the earth, unless another solid body blocked

them. Finally, the principle of cross-cutting relationships states that bodies, such as fossils,

located in a stratum must have formed in that stratum at the same time.

To summarize, strata are believed to span laterally across the globe. Different strata are

separated, in a parallel fashion, depending on their age; older sediments are lower, and

younger sediments are higher. Finally, fossils found in various strata must be the same age as

the strata they are found in, because they must have died on those strata when the organisms

were younger and the strata they occupied was closer to the Earth’s surface.

This stratigraphic method of dating rocks and fossils is referred to as ‘relative dating,’ in

that it helps scientists to determine the ages of rocks and fossils as they relate to each other.

This method does not allow scientists to determine an actual quantitative age. In other words,

we can use stratigraphy to theoretically find out which rock, or which fossil, is older or younger,

but we cannot use it to find out how old the rocks or fossils are (Cyr & Verreault, 2009a, p.323-

325).

3.1.2 Potential problems in the geological time scale


The rationale regarding this relative dating method have been questioned for logical and

experimental reasons. Firstly, the method of determining the relative ages of fossils and rocks

have been criticized for begging the question (O’Rourke, 1976). As mentioned, the geological

column is divided into several geological eras. These eras are determined mainly by the fossils

found in them. These fossils are referred to as ‘index fossils’ and numerous index fossils exist.

Since fossils are believed to have evolved from simple to complex, simpler fossils are deemed as

having existed in earlier eras, and more complex fossils are regarded as more modern (see

Figure B3.2).

Figure B3.2: Example index fossils.

(image obtained from http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/fossils.html)


3.1.2.1 Circular reasoning in the geological timeline

Although still used as a model today, and depicted so cleanly by artists, geologists

realize that this method of assessing fossil age via the geological column is imperfect because of

the unpredictable nature of geological formation. Phrased differently, the strata are not easy to

distinguish, and are not always superimposed from youngest to oldest. In order to help them

assess the age of any geological column, geologists age the columns on their periods based on

how dissimilar the fossil types in each layer are (Smith, 1815; Meyer, 2013, p.15). Distinct

strata, and time periods, are identified based on stark contrasts in fossils; which possess no

transitional forms. Large transitions of fossil composition help scientists distinguish between

strata, because it is assumed that the fossils would have needed much time to diverge. Also,

since simpler fossils are expected to have arrived earlier in evolutionary history, more primitive

fossils allow scientist to label strata as older, and vice-versa.

The issues in reasoning arise in the fact that scientists identify the age of a rock strata

based on the assembly of fossils they contain. The fossils themselves are aged based on the

presumption that older fossils must be less complex, and newer fossils must be more complex.

In other words, the fossils are dated based on the assumption that all organisms evolved from a

common ancestor; from simple to complex. The evidence from this is, in turn, used to support

the notion that the stratigraphic layers support the theory of evolution, because they

demonstrate a progression from simple to complex organisms (Morris, 1977). Thus, the theory

of evolution is true, so the simple organisms are older than the complex ones. The simpler


organisms are older than the complex ones, so the theory of evolution must be true. A classic

case of circular reasoning, and an unsound conclusion.

3.1.2.2 Polystrate fossils

Aside from the logical fallacy described above, polystrate fossils have posed a challenge

to stratigraphic dating theory as well. Polystrate is a termed typically used in creation science to

refer to fossils which span numerous rock strata (Morris, 2009). Mainly tree fossils, these

remains extend across strata, which have allegedly formed over thousands to millions of years

(see Figure B3.3). One specific example, among many (Wieland, 2011), was cited by science

historian Nicolaas Adianus Rupke, who wrote about “a lofty trunk, exposed in a sand storm

quarry near Edinburgh [Scotland], which measured no less than 25 meters and, intersecting 10

of 12 different strata, leaned at an angle of about 40” (1973, p.154).

Figure B3.3: Picture of ancient tree trunk fossil spanning numerous strata.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil#/media/File:Lycopsid_joggins_mcr1.JPG)

“In nature, a well-preserved fossil generally requires rapid burial (so scavengers don’t

obliterate the carcass), and cementing agents to harden the fossil quickly” (Sarfati, 1999, p.52).

Thus, it would seem unlikely that such polystrate fossils could form so gradually over the time

frames necessary to span different strata, because of decomposition. These phenomena pose a

challenge to the geological time scale, which asserts that different strata developed slowly over

large amounts of time. How could it be that a tree managed to slowly become fossilized over

the period of time necessary to span many strata, while not succumbing to decay and

obliteration?

Evolutionists have justified the existence of these fossils with various explanations.

Polystrate fossils have been argued to be the product of subsidence28 (Waldren et al., 2005),

rapid burial with loose volcanic material (Amidon, 1997), the extension of roots into paleosols29

(Retallack, 1981), regeneration after being partially buried by sediment (Gastraldo, 1992), or

covered by deltaic30 (Godzinski et al., 2005) or glacial deposits (Hansel et al., 1999). However,

legitimate these explanations may seem, and these may in fact be accurate interpretations of

28 Subsidence is the motion of the surface of the Earth as it moves downward. Therefore,

polystrate fossils could have been ‘sucked’ into the ground, resulting in their appearance

throughout many strata. 29 Paleosols are former soils, preserved by burial underneath either sediment or volcanic

deposits. Some trees have extended roots to paleosols, potentially explaining their appearance

across numerous strata. 30 Deltaic deposits are the deposition of sediment carried by rivers. Polystrate fossils are believed

to have been buried by large amounts of sediment transported this way over a short period.


these fossils’ origins, they are all simply conjecture. These explanations have been postulated

on the a priori assumption that the geological time scale is accurate to justify the occurrence of

anomalies. Stratigraphy states that different strata formed in different geological eras, so the

appearance of fossils across many strata create legitimate uncertainty about the speed at which

these strata may form.

Moreover, if the above evolutionary explanations are correct, and polystrate fossils are

able to penetrate strata in a way that does not compromise our understanding of the geological

time scale, how can we be sure that fossils found in other strata have not done the same?

Maybe other fossils penetrated into deeper strata than the ones they lived on. Maybe other

fossils were rapidly buried by volcanic material, or deltaic-or glacier-driven sediment, burying

them deeper than other fossils of the same era. In all of these cases, fossils would falsely be

perceived as being older than they actually were because of over generalizations. If there are

certain exception which violate our general understandings of the geological time scale, how

can we be sure that there are not exceptions all over the place? Noting exceptions as they

support the theory of evolution, and then implying that there is no problem regarding evidence

supporting evolution is to commit the ‘special pleading’ logical fallacy, and demonstrates

subjective bias.

3.1.2.3 Issues with the principles of stratigraphy

In addition to the circular reasoning and polystrate fossil arguments against the

legitimacy of the geological column, the principles of stratigraphy themselves have been


criticized. The arguments essentially bring into question whether or not the principles of

stratigraphy actually represent the true nature of rock layering.

French Geologist, Guy Berthault, performed a series of experiments to analyze the

formation of strata, since stratification has had no eye witnesses and had yet to be proven

experimentally. Being aware of how different liquids inevitably settle in solution in decreasing

order according to their density, he wondered if sediments were influenced by gravity in a

similar way. Feeding sand into a dry glass tube, Berthault found that sediments formed layers in

which larger pieces traveled to the bottom, and smaller ones to the top, due to the effects of

gravity. The age of the rocks did not play a role in how the rocks arranged themselves, bringing

into question the law of superposition, which states that sediment superpose on each other

based on time. Thus, Berthault concluded that lamination31 was mechanical phenomenon, not a

chronological one (Berthault, 1986; Berthault, 1988) (see Figure B3.4).

31 A lamination is an assembly of a number of materials.


Figure B3.4: Lamination from dry flow.

(image obtained from http://www.sedimentology.fr/)

Sedimentary transport occurs more rapidly under conditions of high wind speeds and

flooding (Lischtvan-Lebediev, 1959). To recreate this, Berthault mixed water with sand in a

flume in a hydraulics laboratory, with large particles colored black and small particles white.

The purpose was to observe the impact that high sedimentary transport conditions (i.e.

erosion) may have on stratification. This was performed in order to observe experimentally how

sediments may settle after movement through water currents (Julien & Berthault, 1993). The

results of this showed that the sediment was transported along the horizontal plane – left to

right. However, the law of superposition states that the sediment should be transported along a

vertical plane – top to bottom; with older sediments fundamentally ending up lower than

younger ones. This data could imply that the law of superposition is a misconception, and will

be described more below.


Figure B3.5: The distribution of sediment through a flume. Coarser particle become sandwiched

by finer particles as they travel horizontally; not vertically as implied by the law of superposition.

(image obtained from http://www.sedimentology.fr/)

This experiment also brings into question the principle of original horizontality, which

presumes that strata are arranged according to a horizontal plane. In other words, the

assumption that rocks and fossils found to the left and right of each other must necessarily be

from the same geological era may not represent the true nature of stratigraphy. If eroding

factors, like wind and water, cause sediment to travel horizontally, while forces of gravity cause

sediment to travel vertically, this would imply that sediments can be both juxtaposed and

superposed. Therefore, fossils from similar time periods may be located beside, above or

beneath each other (Berthault, 2016).

Thus, it is possible that the law of superposition, which proposes that sediment has

organized itself chronologically, has been undermined by evidence which proposes that

chronology plays no role in rock layering. Furthermore, erosion factors appear to operate on

the horizontal plane, which would organize sediment from top to bottom as opposed to

horizontally, as it is proposed by the principle of original horizontality. With these in mind, it is

possible that the geological column as we understand it does not exist, but that fossils are

located underground as a mishmash of disorganized organic matter in rock strata that tell us

nothing of their history. This would make sense considering how many fossils are not placed in

the strata they are ‘supposed to be’ (Cupps & Thomas, 2014).


The conclusions made here are conjecture as well, since it is impossible for us to go back

in time and verify how strata have formed. Yet, they certainly illustrate the legitimate

uncertainty regarding the validity of the geological time scale. The rationale itself utilizes

circular reasoning, polystrate fossils span numerous strata of allegedly greatly diverse ages,

numerous fossils do not lie in their respective strata, and the principles of stratigraphy

themselves are questionable. In the next sections, I will overview two more recently developed

dating methods: radiometric and molecular dating.

3.2 Radiometric dating

Although debatable, if correct, the geological column can inform us of the relative ages

of rocks and fossils. However, more sophisticated techniques have been developed, which

apparently inform scientists of the ‘absolute’ ages of rocks and fossils; specific ages that we can

quantify. This method is referred to as radiometric dating, and uses our understanding of

radioactive decay.

Radiometric dating has been used in combination with stratigraphic principles, and

other methods, to develop the geological time scale (McRae, 1998). Different methods of

radiometric dating vary in the time intervals over which they are supposedly accurate, and to

the minerals in which they can be applied. The most common of these methods are

radiocarbon dating, potassium-argon dating and uranium-lead dating; although numerous

other dating methods exist as well: samarium-neodymium dating, rubidium-strontium dating,

uranium-thorium dating, chlorine-36 dating, etc. (Graham, 2009).


3.2.1 The principles of radioactive decay

To put these dating methods in context, it is important to briefly discuss the principles

of radioactive decay. All matter is made up of a number of atomic elements. Each element,

such as potassium (atomic symbol K), consists of a nucleus surrounded by a number of

electrons (Cyr & Verrault, 2009a, p.13-15) (see Figure B3.6). The nuclei of atoms contain

protons and neutrons (see Figure B3.7). The number of protons define the atomic element of

the atom. For example, the element uranium, U, is defined by the fact that is has 92 protons.

Figure B3.6: The periodic table of elements. Elements are organized, and named, based on the

number of protons they possess in their nuclei.

(image obtained from http://sciencenotes.org/printable-periodic-table/)


Figure B3.7: An atom of lithium, Li, according to the Rutherford-Bohr model. The nucleus

contains 3 protons, which represents the atomic number of Li. Since it also has 4 neutrons, it has

an atomic mass (U) of 7; 3 protons + 4 neutrons. If the number of neutrons varied, so would the

atomic mass.

(image obtained from https://learn.sparkfun.com/tutorials/what-is-electricity)

All the atoms of any given element have the same number of protons. However, their

mass is not always the same. For example, hydrogen can possess either zero, one or two

neutrons in its nucleus. Thus, its atomic mass can vary between 1 atomic unit (U), to 3 U;

hydrogen-1 (typically just called hydrogen, but sometimes protium; zero neutrons), hydrogen-2

(called deuterium; 1 neutron), and hydrogen-3 (called tritium; 3 neutrons) (see Figure B3.8).

These three variants of hydrogen are referred to as isotopes, and these isotopes exist in


different proportions in nature. For example, hydrogen-1 constitutes 99.98% of all atmospheric

hydrogen (Cyr & Verrault, 2009b, p.26).

Figure B3.8: The three isotopes of hydrogen containing the same number of protons, but

different numbers of neutrons.

(image obtained from http://www.ducksters.com/science/chemistry/hydrogen.php)

Elements have a more common isotope, in which the protons and neutrons typically

exist in a stable configuration. Other isotopes of an element are less stable. Put simply, when

elements have too many, or too few, neutrons they have a propensity to undergo radioactive

decay (Cyr & Verrault, 2009b, p.26).

Although many types, I will only discuss two forms of radioactive decay: alpha decay and

beta decay. Alpha decay occurs because the nucleus of a radioisotope has too many protons for

the number of neutrons. Alpha decay involves the release of two protons and two neutrons,

called an alpha particle. Since an alpha particle possesses two protons, it is essentially a helium


ion. The original atom loses this alpha particle, and the two protons associated with it, and

becomes a different element.

Beta decay on the other hand occurs in radioactive nuclei with too many neutrons. A

neutron releases an electron, called a beta particle, and an antineutrino. The neutron then

decays into a proton, reducing the total number of neutrons by one while increasing the

number of protons by one; thus, changing the element (Boundless b, n. d.) (see Figure B3. 9). In

all instances of decay, energy is released from the isotope. In addition, the original

radioisotope, called the parent atom, degrades into another element, the daughter atom. For

example, carbon-14, undergoes beta decay and degrades into nitrogen-14.

Figure B3.9: A depiction of alpha and beta radioactive decay in different isotopes of elements.

(image modified from http://guides.wikinut.com/How-does-Radioactive-Decay-

Work/282blx7w/)


Radioisotopes undergo decay at a rate determined experimentally, referred to as their

half-lives. The half-life of any radioisotope is defined as the amount of time it takes for one half

of the atoms of the radioactive material to decay into its daughter atom (see Figure B3.10).

Different radioisotopes have different half-lives. For example, uranium-238 has a half-life of

4.468 billion years, potassium-40 has a half-life of 1.277 billion years, and carbon-14 has a half-

life of 5,740 years (Wikipedia, 2016b).

Figure B3.10: An illustration of half-life. Half the parent atom decays into the daughter atom

after each half-life has expired.

(image obtained from http://atomic.lindahall.org/what-is-meant-by-half-life.html)

3.2.2 The rationale of radiometric dating

The understanding that elements possess different isotopes, which exists in nature in

different proportions, as well as the understanding that radioactive decay occurs at certain


rates, have allowed scientists to use this information for the purposes of dating. This method is

useful for igneous and metamorphic rocks32, which cannot be dated by the stratigraphic

correlation method used for sedimentary rocks. It is also theoretically useful for dating younger

fossils (Graham, 2009). Radiometric dating relies on the fact that certain elements contain a

number of isotopes whose half-life is known. By comparing how much daughter isotope is

present in any given rock or fossil sample, scientists can estimate the age of the material.

3.2.2.1 Radiocarbon dating

Radiocarbon dating is the only radiometric dating method used for organic matter. The

fossils themselves can therefore only be dated using this method. The dating methods in the

following subsections below are used to date the rocks in the vicinity of fossils, which are

assumed to be the same age as the fossils on account of principles of stratification mentioned

above.

In regards to radiocarbon dating, radioactive carbon can be measured in fossils to

determine roughly when they died. Essentially, all living organisms take up carbon from the

environment through the carbon cycle (see Figure B3.11). Carbon exists in the atmosphere,

combines with oxygen to form carbon dioxide (CO2), and is absorbed by plants through

photosynthesis. Carbon has three isotopes; carbon-12, carbon-13 and carbon-14. Carbon-12

32 There are three main types of rocks. Sedimentary rocks are formed by the compaction of

sediment, igneous rocks are formed by the cooling of magma, and metamorphic rocks are formed

by the transformation of other rocks under intense heat and pressure. Since potassium-argon and

uranium-lead dating base their time start point on when the rock solidifies after being exposed to

high temperatures, they are useful only for igneous or metamorphic rocks


constitutes 99% of all atmospheric carbon, carbon-13 constitutes 1%, and carbon-14 exists in

trace amounts; approximately 1 in 1012 total carbon atoms are carbon-14 (Godwin, 1962).

Figure B3.11: A simplified version of the carbon cycle. Plants consume carbon dioxide from the

atmosphere, and are ingested by animals. When these organisms die, the radioactive carbon

inside of them begins to decay. Scientists can use this understanding to date fossils.

(image obtained from http://ib.bioninja.com.au/standard-level/topic-4-ecology/43-

carbon-cycling/carbon-cycle.html)

Since plants are the bottom of every food chain, all organisms absorb carbon through-

out their lives, possessing isotopic proportions of carbon roughly equivalent to the atmosphere.

These proportion remain fairly constant in the atmosphere, since solar radiation converts


nitrogen-14 into carbon-14; constantly replenishing the supply of carbon-14. Once organisms

die, however, they no longer absorb carbon from the atmosphere. Consequently, they cease to

be equilibrated with the concentrations of the different isotopes of carbon in the atmosphere.

The carbon-14 inside these organisms begins to undergo beta decay into nitrogen-14, with a

half-life of approximately 5,740 years (see Figure B3.12).

Figure B3.12: An illustration of how carbon-14 becomes disequilibrated with atmospheric

carbon following death, allowing scientists to date fossils by measuring the beta decay of

carbon-14.

(image obtained from http://rses.anu.edu.au/services/radiocarbon-dating-

laboratory/radiocarbon-dating-background)


When scientists find fossils, they evaluate the proportion of carbon-14 that remains in

the fossil compared to the proportion that exists in the atmosphere. By comparing these

proportions, and considering the half-life of carbon, scientists can estimate how long ago a

fossil died (Arnold & Libby, 1949). This method has typically only been successful in determining

the ages of fossils of 50,000 years or less, since carbon-14 decays at a fast rate relative to other

isotopes used in radiometric dating. In other words, after 50,000 years, there is not much

carbon-14 left to measure.

3.2.2.2 Potassium-argon dating

Not all fossils are able to be analyzed by radiocarbon dating. Either too little carbon-14

remains in these fossils, or the fossils themselves are simply imprints; lacking any organic

matter. In these cases, numerous other radiometric methods of dating can be utilized.

Potassium-argon dating is one such method. Potassium is a common element found in many

materials, and consists of three isotopes. Potassium-39 is the most common, comprising

93.2581% of all potassium. Next is potassium-41, consisting of 6.7302%, and then Potassium-

40, which constitutes 0.0117%. Potassium-40 has a half-life of 1.277 billion years, and

undergoes decay to form calcium-40, 89.1% of the time, and argon-40, 10.9% of the time

(National Nuclear Data Center, 1993) (see Figure B3.13).


Figure B3.13: Potassium-40 undergoes radioactive decay into calcium-40, and argon-40 in

different proportions.

(image obtained from http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/kar.html)

Since argon is a noble gas, it is inert33 and does not bind to other atoms in the crystal

framework of rocks. When the rock is solid, argon is believed to be trapped inside; only able to

escape when the rocks have melted into molten magma. Thus, rocks can hypothetically be

dated from the point that the lava cooled and crystallized, because the radiometric clock

theoretically would reset to time zero when all the argon-40 left the molten rock. Scientists

calculate the amount of argon-40 and potassium-40 present in rock samples that they find.

Working backwards, knowing that only 10.9% of potassium-40 decays into argon-40, scientists

ascertain how much potassium-40 must have been present before it decayed. Scientists then

33 Inert substances are chemically inactive; they do not form chemical bonds.


calculate how long this must have taken by considering the half-life of potassium-40. Obviously

this method requires that all argon-40 had been fully outgassed when the rock solidified, or the

age of the rock would be misinterpreted a being older than it actually was.

Also, potassium-argon dating has been noted not to work for ages below 100,000 years,

presumably because precision would be difficult to obtain with a half-life so large (Wikipedia,

2016a).

3.2.2.3 Uranium-lead dating

The final method of dating rocks that will be discussed is uranium-lead dating. This is a

popular method of rock dating since almost all igneous and metamorphic rocks contain

sufficient uranium and lead for this dating (Graham, 2009). Furthermore, uranium lead has two

separate decay chains. Uranium-238 decays into lead-206, with a half-life of 4.47 billion years.

While uranium-235 decays into lead-207, with a half-life of 710 million years; both via a number

of alpha decays, and beta decays. This dual decay chain creates an ingrained cross-checking

mechanism to help assert a date (see Figure B3.14).


Figure B3.14: The chain of alpha and beta radioactive decays from uranium-238 and-235 to

lead-206 and-207.

(image obtained from http://creationwiki.org/Uranium-Lead_dating)

This dating method is typically used on the zircon mineral, since zircon incorporates

uranium into its crystalline structure, but strongly rejects lead. Therefore, scientists may be

justified in being confident that all the lead present in one of these crystals is a daughter atom

of uranium decay. Calculations to determine the amount of initial uranium to estimate the

length of time necessary to produce the yield of lead are performed in a similar way as

described for potassium-argon dating. Also similar to potassium-argon dating is that high

temperature may release lead from the crystals, so the start time in which the rocks can be

dated by this method begins when the magma cools (Wikipedia, 2016c). Thus, rocks are dated

with the assumption that no lead was present when the rock crystalized.

3.2.3 Instances of questionable radiometric dates

Admittedly, radiometric dating techniques are mathematically sound and, at least in

modern days, have been used with increasing scrutiny. However, there are still questionable

results that have been criticized, which potentially undermine the validity of these dating

methods.

First of all, it is important to describe the assumptions underlying the use of radiometric

dating. Radiometric dating can only provide truthful time scales if these assumptions are

correct for any given measurement. The first assumption is that the material being studied is a


closed system, and has not been contaminated. If any daughter atoms were to somehow enter

or exit the sample, this would inevitably impact the scientific interpretation of the age of the

material being studied. Evolutionists have been criticized in the past for using contamination as

an excuse to re-date rocks and fossils with unexpected results (Day, 1986, p.128-129). However,

scientists are more careful today. Today, scientists specifically take numerous samples of any

material to be studied, and use an isochron to determine if any data points violate the half-life

of the specific isotope. If the results do not line up with the isochron, these materials are

deemed as contaminated and are supposed to be discarded (Karlsson, 2011).

The second assumption involved in radiometric dating is that the initial conditions, the

concentrations of the parent and daughter atoms, are known. For the three radiometric dating

methods discussed, certain assumptions are made about the initial conditions. Essentially, for

radiocarbon dating, we assume that the atmospheric proportions of carbon isotopes were the

same when the organism died as they are today. For potassium-argon and uranium-lead dating,

we assume that no argon or lead, respectively, were present in the rock when the magma

cooled and the closure temperature was reached. If this assumption was wrong for any

method, then the dates obtained would inevitably be higher, since the presence of a higher

amount of the daughter atom would inaccurately imply more time for radioactive decay to

occur.

The final assumption is that the rate of radioactive decay, measured by the half-life, has

been the same throughout time. This is reasonable to assume since, in science, we follow the

principle of uniformity; that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe


now have always operated in the universe. Therefore, it is likely that half-lives as they have

been calculated today represent the rates of decay of isotopes in the past.

To illustrate these assumptions, I will use an analogy. Imagine we walked into a room

and saw a beaker containing 500 ml of water. This beaker was sitting under a faucet, with water

flowing into it at a rate of 1 ml per minute. If we were asked to determine how long it had been

sitting there, we would likely conclude that it had been there for 500 minutes; one minute for

each ml. However, we were not there when the beaker was placed, nor did we witness the flow

of water during the time that the beaker was filling up. Perhaps someone interfered by either

removing water, or adding water when no one was around (contamination). Perhaps the

beaker was not empty when the faucet was originally turned on (initial conditions). Finally,

perhaps the water had not flowed into the beaker at the same rate through-out the whole time

it was there (rate). Without this knowledge, or the ability to go back in time to verify, we cannot

be 100% sure that the beaker was being filled with water for 500 minutes. In a similar way, no

one was there when the rocks settled, or when fossils developed. We can rationally postulate

how old fossils and rocks may be, but if our assumptions are incorrect, so will be the dates that

we attribute (Lubenow, 2004).

In the next subsection, I will illustrate evidence demonstrating flaws in radiometric

dating. This data is by no means proof that radiometric dating is faulty, but illustrates how we

cannot be sure if the dates we obtain through these methods are accurate.

3.2.3.1 Lingering carbon-14 compromising old dates


Traditional methods for analyzing radiocarbon relied on counting beta particles

liberated from the radioactive decay of carbon-14. This technique was improved upon with a

breakthrough using an ion beam accelerator and mass spectrometer, which improved the

sensitivity of detecting radioactive decay from about 1% to 0.001%. Thus, the limits on the ages

of samples dated by radiocarbon methods increased from simply 30,000 to 40,000 years, to

theoretically about 90,000 years (Muller, 1977). In other words, some materials deemed too

old, since the radioactive carbon present had decayed to amounts too small to detect, could

now be detected and measured by radiocarbon dating.

However, this increase in sensitivity has created controversy regarding the ages of

certain materials. Certain fossils already dated with other methods were now able to be

detected by radiocarbon dating, creating conflicting evidences regarding their ages. Two such

examples include wood that was found and dated using other methods. The first to be

discussed here was fossil wood from Upper Permian rock layers found with carbon-14 still

present. The carbon-14 in this wood should have fully decayed if the rock layer, assigned as

being 250 million years old by scientists, was as old as had been hypothesized (Sarfati, 1999,

p.112; Snelling, 1998c). Another instance was wood found in Australia, buried by a basalt lava

flow. Previous dating using potassium-argon method yielded a date of 45 million years old.

Radiocarbon dating demonstrated that this wood was merely 45,000 years old; 1000 times

younger (Sarfati, 1999, p. 111; Snelling, 1998b).

Other unexpected materials have been shown to contain trace amounts of carbon-14 as

well. The most notable are diamonds; believed to have been formed from carbon materials

over periods from 1 to 3.3 billion years. Dating results using radiocarbon methods yielded


diamond ages of around 58,000 years old (Baumgardner, 2002). This result was surprising, since

certainly no carbon-14 should have been present in these diamonds if they were as old as

hypothesized. Consequently, these results have posed significant questions regarding the age of

the Earth. If radiocarbon dating has truthfully demonstrated that materials previously dated by

other methods are much younger than the dates obtained using those methods, then we must

reconsider the accuracy of these other methods.

However, these concerns have been addressed by evolutionists. They state that ages

greater than about 40,000 years old possess such little carbon-14 that it is difficult to

distinguish he carbon-14 signal from background/contamination. They claim that

contamination that arises in situ, through sample chemistry and through the instrument

background is likely the reason for the carbon-14 signals observed in the above examples

(Bertsche, 2008). There may be some merit to these claims, since background signals certainly

do present themselves in mass spectrometry, but it is debatable whether or not contamination

can fully justify the carbon-14 signals. No one can be sure, and attributing surprising data to

contamination could be seen as a scape goat method to redeem faulty dating procedures.

3.2.3.2 Misdating rocks of known age

The idea that radiocarbon dating has compromised the validity of other radiometric

dating methods is further supported by studies dating rocks of known age. The potassium-

argon method has fallen short in these studies. One such example was a dacite lava dome at

Mount Saint Helen’s volcano. This dome erupted, and the rock was formed in 1986. The rock


was then dated by potassium-argon method, and was determined to be 350,000 ± 50,000

years old (Austin, 1986).

Another volcano, Mount Ngauruhoe in New Zealand, erupted in 1975. According to eye-

witness accounts, all rocks dated had solidified between 25-51 years ago by the time they were

assessed. Hardened samples were sent for whole-rock potassium-argon dating to the Geochron

Laboratories, Cambridge, Massachusetts. The samples were sent progressively with no

indication of time, except they were described as being very young. Results show that samples

were aged between 270,000 to 3.5 million years old (Lubenow, 2004, 279-280; Snelling, 1998a,

p.279-280; Snelling, 2000); tens of thousands to millions of times older than their actual ages.

One conclusion to draw would be that some argon remained inside the rocks before

solidification. If this were the case, it would appear that the assumption that we know the initial

conditions of the rocks would be inaccurate, since we would assume zero argon prior to

calculating the age of the rock. This would inevitable cause us to overestimate the age of any

rock assessed using this method, since additional argon would be present in our analyses.

However, evolutionary scientists argue that the rocks must be a certain age, over

100,000 years old, before potassium-argon dating can be used as a measure. In other words,

potassium-argon dating does not work when the age is too low, because the half-life of

potassium-40 is so large that it is unlikely that argon-40 will have enough time to accumulate

and provide an accurate measure (McDougal & Harrison, 1999). This is a potentially reasonable

explanation; however, this interpretation shows partiality in that it assumes a priori that the

Earth is very old.


The only thing we can conclude for certain from these results is that when the age of

the rocks is known, because they cooled in our life-times, potassium-argon dating does not

work. We have no way of knowing if it would work when the rocks are older, because those

rocks are too old to have been witnessed cooling. Therefore, the dilemma is as follows; when

we know the age of the rocks, potassium-argon dating is wrong. But when we do not know the

age, potassium-argon dating is right? Clearly there is uncertainty regarding the validity of this

dating method.

3.2.3.3 The helium discrepancy

Potassium-argon dating is not the only controversial rock dating method. Dating using

radioactive uranium has also created debate. Uranium isotopes undergo numerous alpha and

beta decays as they deteriorate into lead (see Figure B3.13). Alpha decay involves the release of

two protons and two neutrons, which is helium-4. Since the radioactivity within the rocks is

believed to have been an ongoing process since the origin of the Earth, numerous sessions of

radioactive decay must have occurred over the half-life of uranium. Thus, a tremendous

amount of helium would have been released from these rocks from the time of the Earth’s

inception, if the Earth were 4.5 billion years old.

It has been argued that, if uranium has undergone radioactive decay over such a long

period, why is there not enough helium in the atmosphere to demonstrate this? It has been

calculated that the total amount of helium in the atmosphere only represents about one two-

thousandths of the amount of helium which should be present if the Earth was billions of years

old (Sarfati, 1998). In fact, the amount of helium in the atmosphere today has been estimated


to account for only two million years of uranium decay, even when the rates in which helium

escapes the atmosphere are taken into account. This also assumes that there was no primordial

helium in the atmosphere to begin with (Vardiman, 1990, p.28).

Furthermore, scientists examined the amount of helium remaining in Precambrian

rocks, dated to be 1.5 billion years old. They concluded that there was 58% radioactive

potential remaining for helium to be produced, when, according to calculations, almost none

should have been left if the earth was so old (Humphreys, 2002, p.ii-iv; Humphreys et al., 2003,

p.189; Lubenow, 2004, p.285). Altogether, these calculations provide an interesting argument

against the idea that the Earth is billions of years old.

Evolutionists have their own criticisms, however. Although the above claims are

potentially convincing, these studies have been accused by scientists for using an unrealistic

diffusion model, misidentifying the rock samples, making incorrect assumptions about the

thermal history of the rock samples, and using incorrect standard deviations (Henke, 2010).

These criticisms may stand on solid ground if their accusations are correct. However, this

debate involves assumptions on both sides, so it is difficult to be certain.

Overall, the goal of discussing radiometric dating was to create some transparency

about their methodology and uncertainty. These scientific examples and arguments relating to

radiocarbon dating, potassium-argon dating and uranium-lead dating are by no means proof

that radiometric dating is faulty, nor do they undermine the rationale underlying radioactive

decay. Radioactive decay is a testable and proven phenomenon, and nobody disputes this.

However, this data does paint a picture of how these dating methods are prefaced with

assumptions, and how data that defies the notion of an old Earth has been reinterpreted to fit


the existing mold. These reinterpretations are by no means foolish, and are ground in scientific

reasoning, but these counter-arguments are interpretations of data, not proof. So, it is not true

to say that the radiometric data results inevitably lead us to draw the conclusion that rocks and

fossils are million and billions of years old. Rather the predisposition to believe that these things

are so old it what drives the interpretation of data, which could be interpreted differently.

Therefore, although radiometric dating appears so ‘absolute’ in school and through the

media, there are actually legitimate shortcomings. The belief that fossils and rocks have been

dated so cleanly, and provide undisputable proof of evolution is simply inaccurate. In reality,

data that does not generally fit the evolutionary timeline is criticized away, and however

legitimate these claims may be, they are a clear illustration of raw data being dictated by

predispositions. So, are the dates really written in stone?

3.3 Molecular dating

The final dating method to be discussed is molecular dating. In molecular dating,

biomolecules are examined and dated relative to each other. “The molecular clock hypothesis

states that DNA and protein sequences evolve at a rate that is relatively constant over time and

among different organisms” (Ho, 2008, p.168). Using this philosophy, molecular dating has

been developed as a method used to determine evolutionary timescales between

biomolecules. Mutation rates of biomolecules are assessed through the analyses of nucleotide

sequences for DNA, or amino acid sequences for proteins. These protein or DNA sequences are

compared between varying organisms to estimate the rate that these biomolecules diverged

from a common ancestor. The rates for any given protein or DNA sequence are then


extrapolated across other organisms in order to determine a date in which they diverged.

Various methods for accomplishing this task exist. I will not discuss all of the methods in this

paper, since the details are very technical. However, a review by Frank Ruschmann summarizes

14 modern techniques, as well as their strengths and weaknesses (2006).

3.3.1 An illustration of molecular dating

For the sake of elucidating how molecular dating generally works, I will describe one

such method. This method, which uses linear regression (Nei, 1997), compares the number of

differences between two given sequences. Therefore, if a protein between two species, genera

or whatever is being compared, varies by a certain number of amino acids, the number of

amino acids that vary are noted. Differences in DNA sequences could be counted as well.

This number of different sequences is then compared to the duration of time since this

protein or DNA strand was present in a common ancestor. This is determined by finding a

calibration point; a time shown by evidence in which the most recent common ancestor

between two organisms existed. The calibration point is determined by looking at independent

evidence about dates, such as the fossil record (Benton & Donoghue, 2007). This number is

then multiplied by two, because the calibration point would represent one half of the distance

between two sequences.

Determining a calibration point, as well as the number of sequence differences in a

biomolecule, allows scientists to estimate the rate of mutation of these sequences. This is

performed more than once in case there are different potential calibration points (i.e. if

evidence for different potential times in which the common ancestor may have lived on the


Earth exist), and the points are plotted on a regression line. Determining the calibration points

to use is a science in itself (Sauquet, 2013). The rate of mutation is then extrapolated and used

to determine date of common ancestry between different organisms.

For clarity’s sake, I will provide a hypothetical example. Scientist would like to determine

the mutation rate of Protein X. To do so, they compare the amino acid sequences of Protein X

in humans, and in chimpanzees. They find that the amino acid sequence difference between

these two identical proteins is 10. One view is that humans and chimpanzees diverged as early

about 6 million years ago. This would represent the calibration point. So, the time variable

would be listed as 12 million years for any comparison of biomolecules. If there are no other

potential dates of common ancestry between chimpanzees and humans, then scientists would

conclude that the mutation rate of Protein X is 10 sequence differences over 12 million years; 1

mutation/1.2 million years.

Now let us pretend that scientists wanted to know how long ago humans and lemurs

diverged from a common ancestor. Comparing Protein X sequences in humans and lemurs,

assuming lemurs possessed this protein, indicates to them that there are 45 amino acid

sequence dissimilarities. Multiplying this number by the mutation rate, 1 mutation/1.2 million

years, would allow scientists to conclude that lemurs and humans diverged in Protein X 54

million years ago. Scientists would combine this data with mutation rates determined from

other biomolecules to predict the most likely amount of time since divergence (Note: this is just

an illustration, and does not represent any actual conclusions about human, chimpanzee and

lemur ancestry).


Molecular dating has helped scientists gain a better understanding of the alleged Tree of

Life. It enables scientists to determine, with greater confidence, at what point different

organisms may have diverged to help them fill in some of the blanks in the evolutionary time

scale.

3.3.2 Criticisms of molecular dating

Molecular dating can potentially help evolutionists draw connections within common

ancestry. However, it is not without its challenges. For the sake of brevity, I will not discuss the

criticisms for any specific method of molecular dating, but will describe criticisms which apply

to molecular dating as a whole. First of all, molecular dating results often conflict with

conclusions from other dating methods, which has created disputes regarding the taxonomic

relationships between organisms (Kennedy, 1992; Meyer, 2013; Stringer, 1993; Willmer &

Holland, 1997; Wray et al., 1996). The other main issue relates to the assumptions inherent to

molecular dating in general, as well as molecular dating of fossils, discussed below.

3.3.2.1 The assumptions

The first assumption is that evolution occurred in the first place. The entire basis of

molecular dating assumes that all organisms evolved from a single-celled organism. Similarities

in DNA and proteins are presumed to have been passed on hereditarily, while being influenced

by mutation. The similarities in genes are also proposed to be evidence for evolution

(Pennsylvania State University, 2016). In reality, we should expect similar creatures to have

similar DNA, because DNA contains the coding for our biochemical structures. Human and ape


DNA should be similar, logically, because we have numerous characteristics in common. In the

same vein of reasoning, our DNA should be dissimilar from yeast. Just like how smart phones

and computers share more components in common then smart phones and microwaves.

Molecular dating is not capable of proving the existence of a common ancestor, but rather

operates under the assumption that a common ancestor exists. Molecular dating therefore

does not provide evidence for the theory of evolution, and sponsors of this view are begging

the question.

Furthermore, “there are some puzzling anomalies from an evolutionary perspective”

(Sarfati, 1999, p.83). Dates assessing rates of mutation and the time frame between different

phyla vary greatly depending on which aspect of molecular genetics is analyzed. Protein rates

often do not align with those of other proteins, or of DNA sequences, etc. One example is

human lysosome, which is closer to chicken lysosome than the lysosomes of other mammals.

Dates that fall outside expectations of what the tree of life ought to look like, called outliers,

are omitted in calculations of common ancestry dates (Meyer, 2013, p.108).

The second assumption relates to calibration points. Molecular dating not only assumes

that evolution occurred, but also assumes that the dates obtained for alleged common

ancestors are accurate as well. The molecular clock is adjusted based on the presumption that

we know the age of a fossil ancestor. If radiometric dating, dating based on the geological

column, or dating fossils using other methods have not provided us truthful conclusions, then

the calculations of the molecular clock will be wrong. Furthermore, if the fossils we are

calibrating from are in fact not common ancestors, this will yield incorrect conclusions about

molecular dates as well (Meyer, 2013, p.109)


Finally, the third assumption is that mutation rates within a particular protein or DNA

sequence have remained constant over time. This could be a valid assumption in that mutation

could cause the modification of DNA or amino acid sequences. However, it has been shown that

“different genes in different clades evolve at different rates, different parts of genes evolve at

different rates and, most importantly, rates within clades have changed over time” (Valentine

et al., 1999, p.856). Thus, mutation rates are potentially not constant.

Overall, this data shows how the assumptions that organisms evolved from a common

ancestor, that other dating methods have successfully allowed us to determine the date of

common ancestry, and that mutation rates of any biomolecule are constant are the driving

points of molecular dating. If any of these assumptions are incorrect, so will be the conclusions

drawn using this dating method.

3.3.2.2 Fossil dating methodology

Molecular dating is not only used to compare the lineages of living organisms, but is also

used on fossils. However, dating fossils with this method is a bit trickier. DNA breaks down

through various processes after death. There are numerous causes for this. Water, oxygen,

heat, pressure, time, exposure to transition metals (such as zinc), microbe attack, and

background radiation all contribute to DNA degradation. Also, when an organism dies, DNA is

deprived of active repair mechanisms found in living cells. To remain intact, DNA must be

separated from degrading factors, otherwise degradation results in DNA strands becoming too

small to be analyzed (Lubenow, 2004, p.223). Evolutionists estimate that DNA might last tens of


thousands of years (Lindahl, 1993; Pääbo, 1993), but eventually radiation will erase all genetic

information.

Fortunately, eukaryotic cells possess mitochondria, and mitochondria possesses its own

type of DNA; mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) (see Figure B3.15). There are hundreds of times more

copies of mtDNA compared to nuclear DNA in a cell. Therefore, mtDNA has more lasting

potential and is thus assessed in fossils. mtDNA is distinct from nuclear DNA in a few ways. First

of all, changes in mtDNA are believed to come solely through mutation, since only the mother’s

mtDNA allegedly passes on to the offspring. Therefore, mtDNA from the parent should

theoretically be identical to that of the offspring, unless a mutation occurs. This makes it easier

for scientists to track the amount of time it takes for changes in mtDNA to occur, because they

only must consider mutation rates. Since there are no repair enzymes for mtDNA, it undergoes

mutation at an assumed rate of about 10x the rate of nuclear DNA (Lubenow, 2004, p. 224).

The mutation rates of fossil mtDNA is compared with similar sequences from other organisms

for dating purposes.


Figure B3.15: Mitochondria is a cell organelle in eukaryotic cells. It has its own repertoire of

DNA.

(image obtained from https://mrborden.wordpress.com/2013/11/11/week-11-cell-

biology-part-2/)

However, there are controversies regarding this method of dating. The assumption that

mtDNA is only passed on by the mother is potentially faulty since evidence shows that mtDNA

undergoes genetic recombination between both parents (Awadala et al., 1999; Zouros et al.,

1992). This would create a larger divergence in mtDNA with each generation, because each

progeny’s mitochondrial genetic information would be very distinct from its mother’s. This

would falsely be presumed as having taken a much longer time to diverge with the general

assumption held by scientists that only mutation is responsible for sequence variability

(Lubenow, 2004, p.225-226).

Also, the rate of mtDNA mutation mentioned above has been used as a standard

molecular clock. Yet, mtDNA may mutate at a rate twenty-fold of what has been estimated

(Gibbons, 1998; Parsons et al., 1997). Thus, mutations believed to take several generations may

only take a few. The violation of either of these assumption would inevitably result in the ages

of fossils dated through this method as being deemed much older than they actually are.

A final criticism relates specifically to assessing hominid fossils via the molecular dating

method. This involves the use of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method. PCR is a

technique used to multiply sample DNA for analysis. Therefore, small amounts of DNA can be

copied repeatedly in the laboratory to increase the DNA sample, and facilitate analyses. This


technique is used on mtDNA isolated from fossils to provide a larger stock of material for

research. Operating without this method would prevent scientists from having large enough

samples to work with.

The issue arises when analyzing the hominid fossil record. In addition to the above

concerns, PCR risks contamination with human DNA since humans must touch and manipulate

the fossils they examine. Therefore, when analyzing hominid fossils, there exists a risk of

preferentially copying the human DNA of the people involved in the research. This likelihood is

substantial, since living cells have better preserved DNA than fossils (Lindahl, 1993). Therefore,

ape mtDNA from fossils could falsely appear as human-like because of this occurrence, which

could lead to false conclusions. For this reason, it is difficult to get believable result for ancient

human samples using molecular dating (Kahn & Gibbons, 1997). Overall, molecular dating of

fossils provides very questionable dates, and are unlikely to unveil anything truthful in regards

to ancient humans.

Due to these issues, molecular dating has been deemed quite controversial. Its

fundamental assumptions presume that evolution must have occurred. Therefore, any evidence

it produces, although potentially enlightening in helping scientists elucidate common ancestry,

does not prove that evolution occurred. Furthermore, the methodology of molecular dating

relies on the fact that accurate calibration points have been determined, which themselves rely

on the successful fossil dating using other methods. Rates of mutation may not be constant as

well. In regards to fossil dating, the use of mtDNA is convenient but problematic, because it

uses a molecular clock which is highly disputable.


In section B3, the major dating methods were explained, and their limitations

uncovered. When observing the geological column, it has been argued that the entire dating

rationale is based on circular reasoning. The discovery of polystrate fossils potentially

undermine the theory that different strata constitute rocks and fossils of different eras, and the

stratigraphic principles themselves are questionable.

Radiometric data is more solidly grounded in proven laws and mathematics. Yet, there

are a number of anomalies, some of which create controversy regarding the basic assumptions

of radiometric dating. Carbon dating challenges the results of other dating methods, potassium-

argon dating grossly overestimates rocks of known age, and theoretical atmospheric helium

concentrations do not necessarily represent amounts we should observe if uranium decay has

been transpiring for billions of years.

Finally, molecular dating operates under the assumption that evolution is true; it does

not provide evidence for evolution. Calibration points rely on the accuracy of other dating

methods, mutation rates are potentially not-constant, and dating using mtDNA in fossils is

flawed. All-in-all, dating methodology is an imperfect science, and certainly cannot be deemed

as producing necessarily factual estimates of the ages of things from the past.

Even if these methods necessarily did produce accurate conclusions, all this would prove

is that the Earth, rocks and fossils were old. It could potentially imply that enough time existed

for abiogenesis and evolution to take place, but it is not actually evidence in favor of the theory

of evolution. An old Earth would not necessarily mean that life came about by accident and

evolved. The fact that mutation has never assertively demonstrated the creation of new

information, and the mechanistic improbability of these events still stand. The fact that the


fossil record from the Cambrian Explosion defy Darwinistic logic, and how other fossil do not

shed light on this still stands. Combining all this with the fact that dating methods are

legitimately debateable, as well as how the predisposition that evolution exists drives

interpretations of dates, illustrates a legitimate lack of scientific certainty about our origins.

Despite what we hear in school and through the media science has not ascertained where life

came from. To be skeptical of evolution is not to “ignore all the scientific discoveries that make

our technologically driven world possible,” (Luskin, 2016) but is to impartially exercise one’s

critical thinking skills despite the pressures of popular opinion.

This concludes the portion of this critical literature review as it pertains to the scientific

evidence regarding the theory of evolution. So why is it important that students be informed of

this information by teachers? In the following sections this will be discussed.

C – Thinking Critically About Evolution

We are exposed to numerous questionable claims through-out our lives. Whether it

relates to doubtful statistics in the news, debates concerning controversial subjects, or simply

the assertions of individuals or scientists. It is important that we learn to evaluate the sources

of the information we receive. It is important that we keep an open, yet skeptical, mind to help

us gather as much information as possible so we can stay informed. In this unit I will discuss

these things. Namely I will discuss the nature of science, and what it means to think critically. I

will also discuss how evolutionary theory fits into this framework.

1) The Nature of Science


Science is the objective pursuit of knowledge for the purpose of helping us better

understand the world. It involves the accumulation of information from observation and

experimentation, followed by the logical development of explanations. However, science is not

always as clean cut, or necessarily as void of bias as it is insinuated in schools and through the

media. In this section I will discuss the nature of science, and how it relates to the theory of

evolution.

1.1 Empirical versus forensic science

As mentioned above, science is essentially a tool used by scientists to learn objective

truths about the world around us. However, unbeknownst to many is the fact that science can

be divided into two categories: empirical science and forensic/historical science. Both of these

approaches are certainly scientific, in that the goal is to ascertain answers about the world.

However, the methods and proofs we obtain from using these methods vary greatly in their

level of assurance.

The differences can be explained by a quick lesson in formal logic. In formal logic, there

are different levels of reasoning: deductive, inductive and abductive. These different levels

differ in regards to the degree of certainty to which we can draw conclusions based on our

understanding of events, and of the evidence.

Deductive reasoning guarantees that a conclusion will be true, because a general rule

ensures that one event will lead to another. This reasoning is typically used in the field of

mathematics. As a concrete example, if the general rule was “x=10 and y=10,” then we could


confidently conclude that, “x=y” The conclusion that x=y would certainly be true since our

general rule asserted that it would.

Inductive reasoning differs from deductive reasoning in that it begins with the

observation, and ascertains potential conclusions that are likely, but not necessarily certain.

These potential conclusions are drawn based on a growing body of evidence, which helps

inform people, and guide them in the development of theory.

Empirical science, which is conducted by observation and experimentation, generally

follows this avenue of reasoning. An example of inductive reasoning could be, “Sam always

makes it to work on time when he leaves at 8am. Sam is leaving at 8am. Therefore, Sam should

arrive to work on time.” This reasoning is rational because experience would insinuate that Sam

should make it to work on time. However, different factors, such as traffic or car troubles, could

cause him to be late for work. Since the term “should” was used in the conclusion, it takes into

account the fact that there is some degree of uncertainty about the conclusion.

In empirical science, scientists can observe and test things in the real world which

produce tangible results. Other scientists can then repeat these experiments for validation

purposes. Scientists then provide explanations for these results, the theory, which becomes the

premise underlying future potential experiments. However, scientific theories are supposed to

be tentative due to the inductive nature of their reasoning. For this reason, scientists typically

use terms like “probably, is likely to, should, etc.,” because of the inherent uncertainty in the

premises of theories. Furthermore, scientific theories are falsifiable, in that they should have

the potential to be proven wring if the evidence forces scientists to draw such a conclusion.


The final form of reasoning is abductive reasoning, typically used in historical science. In

abductive reasoning, observations are made, and the underlying cause of such observations are

reasoned using the best possible explanation. Potential explanations are derived from the other

forms of reasoning, and there are typically a number of possible options. A concrete example

can be observed all through-out this literature review. For example: “reptiles and birds both lay

hard-shelled eggs. We can see that hereditary information gets passed on from one generation

to the next. Therefore, perhaps reptiles and birds evolved from a common ancestor.” If other

explanations existed as to why both reptiles and birds laid hard-shelled eggs, then we would

have to consider these explanations as well. Therefore, we cannot confidently conclude that

birds and lizards evolved from a common ancestor, and ought to be cautious in how we state

this conclusion.

Historical science involves looking at things from the past. Unlike empirical science, we

cannot confirm or refute this evidence through observation and experimentation, because the

events have already transpired. Therefore, we are incapable of using deductive or inductive

reasoning since we cannot evoke an event and observe what occurs. Instead, with historical

science, we simply try to determine possible premises which can explain events, based on a

growing understanding of cause and effect. This understanding of cause and effect is developed

through empirical science. Thus, we use premises that we obtained from deductive and mainly

inductive reasoning, and we apply them in order to perform abductive reasoning (see Figure

C1.1)


Figure B1.1: Different forms of formal logic. In deductive reasoning, a general rule is applied,

allowing us to assert an outcome with absolute certainty (e.g. x=1, y=4, therefore x + y = 5). In

inductive reasoning, evidence and data are collected in an effort to develop a hypothesis or

conclusion (e.g. People appear to blink if you clap your hands in front of their face. If you clap in

front of Fred’s face, he will probably blink). Abductive reasoning is the process of moving from a

set of observations and attempting to determine the best explanation (e.g. A patient has a

swollen spleen and lymph nodes. She probably has mononucleosis, but may have something

else).

(image obtained from http://www.ozassignmenthelp.com.au/deductive-inductive-and-

abductive-reasoning-the-fundamentals-of-psychology/)

When drawing conclusion using empirical science, through inductive reasoning, we

should make claims with a certain degree of uncertainty. For example: “the evidence implies


that smoking cigarettes may cause lung cancer” and so on. Scientific statements should be

stated humbly, leaving room for possible errors in the interpretation, because the nature of

inductive reasoning, by definition, is not absolute.

Abductive reasoning should clearly follow the same pattern, since it is even further

removed from fact than inductive reasoning. Thus, statements such as, “humans evolved about

100,000 years ago,” should be rephrased to, “humans are believed to have evolved around

100,000 years ago because…” However, in the media, in schools, in textbooks and even in

scientific journals, we are passively exposed to claims which state assertively that evolution is a

fact. To defend this claim, I will show a quote from an article from the environmental science

journal Ambio. It is important to note that this article is not even an article in the field of

biology, paleontology or geology, which illustrates how ingrained denoting evolution as fact has

become in general science.

Early humans used the considerable power of fire to their advantage. Fire kept

dangerous animals at a respectful distance, especially during the night, and helped in

hunting protein-rich, more easily digestible food. The diet of our ancestors changed

from mainly vegetarian to omnivorous, a shift that led to enhanced physical and mental

capabilities. Hominid brain size nearly tripled up to an average volume of about 1300

cm3, and gave humans the largest ratio between brain and body size of any species. As

a consequence, spoken and then, about 10 000 years ago, written language could begin

to develop, promoting communication and transfer of knowledge within and between

generations of humans, efficient accumulation of knowledge, and social learning over

many thousands of years in an impressive catalytic process, involving many human


brains and their discoveries and innovations. This power is minimal in other species

(Steffen et al., 2007, p.614.).

As can be observed, all the conclusions regarding events speculated to have occurred

from the past are stated as fact, despite the fact that abductive reasoning was involved in the

full interpretation. Why not iterate these statements in a way which respects the uncertainty of

the conclusions? “The diet of our ancestors likely changed,” “a shift that is believed to have led

to enhanced…,” and so on. This form of expression in regards to the theory of evolution is

misleading and manipulative, because it passively insinuates that evolution is true as a violation

of formal logical reasoning.

The title of this literature review is “The Theory of Evolution Under the Microscope:

Should it be Taught as Fact?” The purpose of this paper was fundamentally to illustrate how it

should not be taught as fact. I also mentioned in section A how it has been argued by certain

advocates of evolution that evolution should be taught as fact, since the evidence has been

argued to be so ‘overwhelming’ (The Guardian, 2006), and that alternatives to evolution should

be banned in public schools (Pennock, 2003). To demonstrate that Richard Pike from the Royal

Society of Chemistry, quoted by The Guardian, as well as Roger Pennock, Richard Dawkins, and

many others, are incorrect in their endorsements to teach evolution as fact, I will use deductive

reasoning. “General rule: We should not teach things that are not fact as if they were fact.

Observation: The theory of evolution was formulated by abductive reasoning, which by

definition means that it is not a fact. Conclusion: We should not teach the theory of evolution

as a fact.” This conclusion is further supported by the thorough scientific criticisms that have


been presented through-out this literature review, which bring into question whether evolution

should even be a potential explanation.

1.2 Science in practice versus the ideal

Science has performed wonders in terms of improvements in understanding and

technology. It is clearly a valuable tool, and should continue to be used and respected.

However, science is deemed as an objective approach to understanding the world. Partiality is

left at the door as scientists, depicted as vigilant and logical interpreters of data, unbiasedly toil

away to find indisputable answers. Scientists are depicted as humble, and are always willing to

throw away a theory when a better one rolls around. Bill Nye stated, “If we could find just one

fossil out of place, we could change the world” (Snyder, 2014). Implying that the theory of

evolution is perfect in terms of its evidence, and that a tiny uncertainty would cause humble

scientists to immediately reconsider the theory. Certainly, this is what science and scientists as

an ideal should look like. However, in practice science is as subjective and prone to egotism as

any other discipline.

The nature of science is a term used to describe the fact that science has limits, is

uncertain, can be performed poorly, and is a social process (Brickhouse, 1990; McComas, 1998).

Scientific knowledge accumulates over time to give us a better understanding of some aspect of

the world. However, questions that require political, spiritual, ethical or esthetic judgment are

typically beyond the scope of science, which searches for absolute truths through observation

and experimentation. Scientific data can provide information helpful in drawing conclusions for


the above judgments, but cannot provide an absolute answer, since they lie in a more

subjective realm. Thus, science has confines.

Science is uncertain. As mentioned above, the nature of scientific inquiry typically uses

inductive and abductive reasoning. Thus, data can help us develop theories to explain

phenomena, but there is room for error. For this reason, scientific theories are described as

falsifiable, in that they should have the capacity to be disproven. Many theories are heavily

supported by empirical science, which leaves little doubt about their accuracy. However, not all

theories are as well-supported by the evidence as others. For example, the theory of gravity is

supported by a large body of empirical research. It is a testable, observable process which has

been defined with a high level of mathematical accuracy. The theory of evolution on the other

hand, namely macroevolution, is speculated to have occurred based on conjecture regarding

certain evidences in empirical research. It is untestable, unobservable, and is defies

mathematical probability.

Science can be done poorly, and is often misused. Scientific research is not as cross

examined as is implied, because experimentation is typically a costly endeavor. However, since

science is very social, methodologies can be reviewed and criticized by the scientific

community. Yet, repeating and retesting are uncommon for practical reasons. This is especially

true in paleontology, in which gaining access to fossils is a struggle (Lubenow, 2004).

Finally, scientists are people with biases and predispositions just like anybody else.

Scientists are not necessarily humble, and often have agendas. Whether it be for money,

relevancy or pride, science research and claims are often driven by ulterior motives. Using

fossils as an explanation of our origins creates funding for paleontology research, because this


allows it to continue to be deemed as relevant. It is in the best interest of paleontologists to

support evolution for the sake of their livelihood. Many other scientists are avid defenders of

evolution. Funding comes from articles and books written on this topic. Furthermore, nobody

wants to be proven wrong. Many people are obstinate and are more concerned about winning

debates than about unveiling scientific truths.

For example, advocates of evolution, such as Richard Dawkins, are ‘all in’ in regards to

the theory of evolution. I quoted Richard Dawkins in section A, in which he described how

evolution was an undeniable fact. As an atheist, Dawkins frequently belittles and ridicules

religious people for their ignorance, and encourages such belittling and ridiculing. Making

comments such as, “Mock them, ridicule them. In public… If necessary ridicule [religion] with

contempt” (Dawkins, 2012). Pride is on the line, and it is highly unlikely that any amount of

evidence would cause Richard Dawkins to humbly admit if he had made a mistake.

Admitting a mistake would illustrate to the world that his insults and militant espousing

were misguided, since he would be the one who was in fact ignorant as a defender of a view

shown to be flawed. I use Richard Dawkins as just one example, but this is true on a large, yet

not necessarily as pronounced, scale. Scientists who believe in a theory will be biased toward

showing that that theory is true. Scientists who publically support something as being true will

likely strive to defend that claim for vanity’s sake. These predispositions not only guide research

decisions, but also the interpretations of data (Lemke, 1990).

The reason I described the nature of science is because, with the success of science, it

has become a form of authority. People accept scientific statements as fact, because of the

seeming credibility that science has attained. However, it is important to understand what


occurs behind the scenes, because accepting things as fact because they are ‘scientific’ is an

illogical approach to thinking. Science has produced a broad spectrum of theories with varying

levels of credibility. Empirical science is typically quite rigorous and well-defined, historical

science is quite presumptuous. Let us be aware of these distinctions and let us make efforts to

evaluate the evidences ourselves before we state things as ‘scientific,’ or accept them as such.

1.3 The theory of evolution as synonymized with science

Science has not ‘proven’ evolution. The abductive reasoning involved in historical

science, as well as the body of evidence against evolution, allow us to conclude that evolution is

certainly not fact. In fact, biologist Denis Noble recently wrote an article published in the

Journal of Experimental Biology basically arguing how the mechanisms of natural selection and

mutation oversimplified biology. In this article he stated:

Experimental results in epigenetics and related fields of biological research show that

the Modern Synthesis (neo-Darwinist) theory of evolution requires either extension or

replacement (2015, p.7).

Justified skepticism exists in the scientific community, but the general public does not

hear this news. As mentioned before, evolution is taught as fact in schools and through the

media. There are numerous examples of this. Comedian Louis Black once quoted former

president George W. Bush in a show, stating, “When it comes to evolution, the jury is still out.”

In an effort to belittle this ‘ignorant’ view, he went on to comically state, “What jury, where?

Evolution is a major thread in the tapestry of what I like to call REALITY!” (Black, 2008).


Therefore, according to Louis Black, to defy evolution is to live in some sort of fantasy world.

This close-minded view has been mentioned through-out this paper to demonstrate that

doubting evolution is treated with contempt and disdain. People who do not believe in

evolution are basically made fun of for being stupid.

People who disbelieve evolution are portrayed as unintelligent. Furthermore, disbelief

in evolution is generally associated with religious beliefs. It is implied that naïve religious beliefs

are the sole reason why individuals could possibly reject the ‘truth’ of evolution, because the

evidence for evolution is ‘undeniable.’ Certainly this form of rejection is true in many instances.

Many people of religious backgrounds reject evolution on the single basis that in conflicts with

their spiritual views about the world. I disagree with this approach to thinking, because

rejecting things that appear truthful simply because it conflicts with one’s predispositions is to

live in denial. Everybody should have an open-mind to look at all the evidence impartially.

We should look to where the evidence points us. If the evidence clearly contradicts the

religious beliefs of peoples, then this information should be shared to all people for the sake of

the human intellect. People should not be lied to, and should not live in denial for the sake of

maintaining false beliefs. Although I do not agree with belittling peoples’ views, I would have

sympathy for evolutionists if their claims were true. However, does the evidence for evolution

actually contradict peoples’ religious beliefs? Perhaps certain religious claims have a difficult

time being justified against scrutiny on an individual basis. But, the theory of evolution is not a

clear cut contradiction to anyone beliefs for the following reasons: the origin of life is a mystery,

the notion that all cells could evolve from a single celled organisms are highly unlikely, the fossil

record seemingly invalidates evolution, and the dating methods used in science are


questionable. Therefore, although George W. Bush may have stated his comment while being

uninformed and ignorant about what the evidence did and did not support, he was correct in

saying that “the jury is still out.”

Evolutionists go even further in this pandering. Not only do they insinuate that

disbelievers of evolution are ignorant, but it is also implied through the media that these

people are somehow a burden to society. That maintaining religious beliefs, or simply having

reservations about evolution being taught as the sole explanation of our origins in schools, is

somehow holding other people back because of their unwillingness to accept ‘science.’ To

quote Bill Nye again, he stated:

I want to close by reminding everybody what’s at stake here. If we abandon all that

we’ve learned… if we abandon the process by which we know it… if we stop looking for

the next answer, we in the United States will be out-competed by other countries, other

economies. That would be okay, I guess, but I was born here, I’m a patriot, and so we

have to embrace science education. We have to keep science education in science

(Halperin, 2014).

When you have a portion of the population that doesn’t believe in [evolution], it holds

everybody back. Evolution is the fundamental idea in all of the life sciences. … And I say

to the grown-ups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world that’s completely

inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that’s fine. But don’t make

your kids do it because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and


taxpayers for the future. We need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems (Luskin,

2015).

Our understanding of evolution came to us by exactly the same method of scientific

discovery that led to the printing press, polio vaccines, and smartphones. … What would

the deniers have us do? Ignore all the scientific discoveries that make our

technologically driven world possible, things like the ability to rotate crops, pump water,

generate electricity, and broadcast baseball? (Luskin, 2015)

I do not mean to pick on Bill Nye, but as an advocate of evolution he has made a number

of misleading statements, which confuse people about the issues. Statements like the ones just

quoted falsely synonymize the theory of evolution with science. According to Bill Nye, the

problem is not that people are not being taught the theory of evolution; the problem is that

people are not being taught science itself. If we do not teach the theory of evolution, then

somehow America will crumble economically because people will be abandoning everything

that we’ve learned. Advances in technology will somehow cease, because denying evolution

will prevent the development of scientific discoveries. Science education itself is at stake, and

humble Bill Nye just wants to make America great again. After all, evolution is allegedly

responsible for the development of numerous technologies such as: evaluating DNA evidence

to convict criminals, the application of antibiotics and the development of vaccines, and

algorithms for measuring organismic populations (Berger, 2009).


Let’s take a step back and evaluate these claims. No one is proposing that science

education be stopped. The only thing that is being proposed in some states is that creation

science or intelligent design be taught alongside evolution in the science classroom. I myself am

simply proposing that science teachers teach all the evidence regarding evolution, not just the

evidence supporting it. However, statements like those mentioned create a false sense of

urgency; as if we need to teach evolution, and avoid other teachings, or there will be serious

repercussions. This is a fear tactic. Not only are advocates of evolution insinuating that disbelief

is an absurd view, they go on to imply that disbelieving evolution is to disbelieve science.

Disbelieving science is to prevent further advancements in understanding and technologies that

have benefitted us since science’s inception. Therefore, we must learn about evolution, or

else…

Frankly, what is so valuable about the theory of evolution? Why is it so important that

people accept the theory that we all evolved from a common ancestor? I would argue that it is

very unimportant. The only thing this theory does is to provide a potential explanation for

where we came from, nothing more. As I mentioned in part A, nobody disagrees with the

empirical evidences that we observe in the laboratory. The only disagreement arises in

historical science. All scientists accept that mutation and natural selection occur. They

understand heredity, and the mechanisms of mutation, they just disagree in the untestable

notion of macroevolution. Therefore, all scientists are equally capable of developing new

vaccines. They are equally capable of intelligently utilizing antibiotics. They are equally capable

of acknowledging how DNA can be evaluated from crime scenes. They are equally capable of

developing algorithms to assess organismic populations. All because all scientists understand


and agree upon the observable and testable science which has led to these developments. All

technologies that have been developed, supposedly due to evolution, would have been

developed anyway, because the notion that we all evolved from a single-celled organism is

simply a potential explanation of our origins; one that is debatable and has been unfruitful in

scientific advances.

Therefore, Bill Nye is wrong, and his comments are deceptive. The problem is that

evolutionists take known mechanisms that everybody agrees on and ‘highjack’ them for their

theory. They then imply that people are denying these known mechanisms. To quote Marvin

Lubenow:

The evolutionist improperly introduces other mechanisms into the alleged evolutionary

process, such as the founder principle, geographic isolation, and genetic recombination.

While these are legitimate processes, they are not evolutionary processes. They do not

create unique new genetic information. Nor do these processes discriminate between

special creation and evolution. They would apply in either case. The evolutionist

smuggles these nonevolutionary mechanisms into the evolutionary process even though

they have nothing to do with evolution. These processes do account for variation, but

they cannot produce evolutionary changes that result in increased complexity; that

would demand the creation of entirely new genetic information (Lubenow, 2004, p.83).

In other words, for evolution to be possible it needs to demonstrate the capacity to

create new information. Scientists have not been successful at proving this. Other mechanisms

that are tagged along with evolution, such as genetic recombination, do not yield new


information. Everybody agrees that these other mechanisms exist, and use this knowledge in

the development of understanding and technology. Nobody disagrees with the empirical

science. Yet, Evolutionists imply that nonevolutionists do not believe in genetic recombination,

in the founder principle, etc., which suggests that they do not accept empirical scientific

evidence. These are strawman34 arguments to imply that disbelievers of evolution disbelief

empirical science on a large scale. This confuses the population at large to believe that

evolution is science, and disbelief is religion.

The fact is that there is a misconception that people who believe in religion, or people

that simply do not accept the theory of evolution, are incapable of performing laboratory

science. Yet, many great historical scientists believed in God. Galileo, Pasteur and Newton to

name a few. The reason why being religious has no impact on one’s ability to perform science is

because the only conflict that arises in science between the scientific community and religion

relates to the past. All methodology that is relevant in the present poses no obstacles.

Observation and experimentation are only possible in the present. All data regarding the past

involves interpretation because all the scientific method only applies to the past indirectly

(Lubenow, 2004, p.259). There is a high degree of subjectivity in all scientific reconstructions of

the past (Schabas, 1991), and none of these interpretations has yielded any advances in

technology. Therefore, there is no urgency to learn about any historical interpretation of the

past from a scientific perspective.

34 A strawman argument is a logical fallacy in which one party criticizes an argument from

another party, which was never made in the first place. This is false representation.


Therefore, the view that religion prevents scientific advancement is simply incorrect,

and is also harmful. People with religious backgrounds are becoming alienated from the

sciences, because they are being taught that their views and science do not coincide.

Consequently, many of these people either avoid science out of denial to avoid having to

engage with arguments that do not accord with their world-views, or they become convinced

that their world-view is wrong and embrace evolution as a scientific fact. As teachers, we

should invite ideas and embrace different ideologies. Discriminating against students because

of varying beliefs creates a stumbling block, which perturbs their learning.

Furthermore, and more important in some ways, how are students, who are our future

generation of scientists, supposed to find the real answers about our origins when they are

falsely led to believe that science has already figured everything out? Bill Nye claims that

students must accept the theory of evolution to become scientifically literate. Reality check; we

are actually making students less scientifically literate if we follow his force-feeding approach to

teaching.

As teachers, how can we approach teaching evolution in a way which encourages open-

minded comprehension and reflection? In the next section I will discuss critical thinking.

2) Critical Thinking

The inclination to think critically is something that, debatably, is lacking in society.

Maintaining beliefs without consideration for other views, trusting in authority figures without

inquiry and having a generally close-minded attitude are consequences when people do not

think for themselves. People who lack critical thinking skills simply go along with the current of


society. They rarely question what they hear through the media and are commonly too

stubborn to consider other ideas. In this section, I will discuss what it means to think critically,

and how it can be fostered by teachers; namely in regards to the theory of evolution.

2.1 What is critical thinking?

Critical thinking has been described as a regulatory process, which helps us to make

judgments (Siegel, 1980). It helps us employ reasoning so that we can independently assess and

solve problems (Bailin, 1987). Put differently, critical thinking is the process in which people

reflect on information in a way that is inquisitive as opposed to acquiescent. It involves

questioning information based on a developing understanding and, with an unprejudiced and

rational approach, drawing flexible conclusions.

A person who thinks critically evaluates problems by taking into consideration varying

perspectives. Just because something is stated with confidence does not necessarily make it

true. Actively seeking alternative views that may contradict one’s current views, and deciding

what to believe based on a growing body of knowledge is the staple of this form of thinking. It

is also important to try to elucidate the reasons behind people’s views to develop a better

understanding of the rationale of others as well as the subject at hand.

In addition, critical thinkers attempt to rationalize this information using logic, as

opposed to emotion or cultural predisposition. It is impossible, and not necessarily beneficial,

to completely separate oneself from existing beliefs. However, the idea is not to become

emotionally and culturally void, but rather to think sensibly while avoiding living in a state of

denial or close-mindedness.


Essentially, approaching an understanding of things with open-minded and logical

reflection, while considering the motivations behind the sources of this knowledge, ensures

that people are thinking for themselves.

2.2 Fostering critical thinking in students

As teachers, we can facilitate student propensity to think critically. Siegel (1980) states

that critical thinking requires us to respect other world-views, control what we believe and

think logically. Brighouse (2006) notes that we must consolidate our thoughts through ‘rational

reflection’. Thus, teachers can facilitate productive thinking by students in three ways: teaching

in a way which provides a variety of perspectives, training students in logical thinking, and

encouraging students to reflect on this information.

2.2.1 We need information to think critically

Personal, cultural and social biases seep into classrooms across all cultures. It is

important to teach with a certain degree of impartiality by making efforts to include varying

perspectives on subject matter, where possible. Distinguishing between fact, speculation and

opinion is important. Furthermore, illustrating alternative views allows students to think for

themselves and decide what they believe. The fact is, it is impossible to think critically when we

do not have all the information. Therefore, providing students with as much information on a

given subject as possible can help them to weigh the evidences in support of any particular

position, and draw well-informed conclusions.


In regards to the theory of evolution, information from textbooks and the media only

discuss evidences that support the theory. Statements are asserted as fact, and an inaccurately

perfect picture of the theory of evolution is displayed. This one-sided approach to teaching

does students an intellectual disservice. It limits the array of information they receive,

preventing them from evaluating claims.

Let’s be honest with students. Instead of stating what science has discovered by using

an objective tone, teachers should explain how scientists have come to draw any particular

scientific conclusion. Instead of stating information as fact, let’s use a more tentative approach

when we describe scientific theories. This stands for claims regarding evolution as well. For

example, instead of stating that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, teachers should explain why

scientists believe this, and what the shortcomings of their evidence is. Teachers should inform

themselves so that they can inform their students. Discussions of the evidences supporting

evolution, as well as the controversies relating to the mechanisms of evolution, the fossil

records and the dating methods are important as they would help students draw their own

conclusions from an unbiased pool of information. This information is essential in allowing

students to determine for themselves if the evidence in favor of evolution justly warrants its

acceptance as the leading scientific theory about life’s origins.

2.2.2 Training students in logical thinking

Information in and of itself will not necessarily help students to think critically unless

they can wisely assess this information. Evaluating information with clear, rational thought

allows us to acquire a valid understanding. A way to promote this could be to train students the


principles of formal and informal logic. The mathematical principles of formal logic, discussed in

section C1.1, translate into an understanding of reason in the verbal setting. It would also help

students to understand the nature of science, and the types of logic used in its methodology.

This would facilitate their ability to navigate through misleadingly ‘factual’ scientific content.

Learning informal logical principles would also promote critical thinking. We are often

bombarded with deceiving information based on poor and manipulative arguments. Studying

informal logical fallacies would help students to recognize these arguments for what they are;

either tricks to divert from the topic at hand, attribute causes to irrelevant factors, or convince

us to place emotion over rationality (see Figure C1.2). Furthermore, this training would also

prevent students from using logical fallacies in their own arguments, helping them to debate

and discuss with more refined thought processes.


Figure C1.2: A number of informal logical fallacies and their descriptions.

(image obtained from https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/poster)

I already mentioned numerous informal logical fallacies as they have been used by

supporters of the theory of evolution. Appealing to science as an authority, creating a false

dichotomy in which disbelieving the bible origin story must mean you accept the theory of

evolution, circular reasoning in the geological column and in molecular dating, jumping on the

majority band wagon of scientists, the use of strawman arguments to deceive the public about

the scientific capacities of religious people, ad hominem arguments in which religious people

are discredited before they even defend their arguments, and so on. Many supporters of the


theory of evolution use these fallacious forms of argumentation all the time, and are often not

aware that they are doing so. It is very important that students learn how to think this way; not

just in regards to evolution, but for its beneficial application across all disciplines.

2.2.3 Encouraging students to be reflective

The final point is a small one. We need to take some time to think in order for us to

think critically. In our busy lives it can be difficult to find downtime. When we earn the

opportunity to relax, most of us seek some form of entertainment to occupy ourselves.

Pondering on daily events is an activity that most of us neglect, yet this time is necessary for

reflection.

Encouraging reflection should be a goal of teachers. Students can reflect during school

hours by writing journal entries or discussing ideas with classmates. Class-wide discussions and

debates could help students to consider varying views, to broaden their horizons and make

them rethink ideas they currently hold.

As teachers, let us be more mindful of the steps we must take to help students think

critically in general, and in regards to the theory of evolution. Providing unbiased and varied

information, teaching students to think logically, and providing opportunities to reflect on this

information are all salient methods to encourage this.

2.3 The importance of critical thinking

Bailin et al. (1999) describe the value of critical thinking in terms of how it improves the

fruitfulness and discipline of thought processes. To think critically is to think productively. It


drives people to find correct answers, while trying to keep one’s own biases in check. This helps

in problem solving, since many views are taken into consideration for any given circumstance.

With the same reasoning, critical thinkers are more thoughtful in their decision-making as well.

Furthermore, the deep consideration involved allows people to better understand

themselves, and their environment. Critical thinkers use metacognition to evaluate their views.

People come to realize what they know, and what they do not know, which can direct them in

terms of the boldness to which they assert something. It also helps in directing scientists in

regards to areas of research. This fundamentally enables people to become more autonomous,

since they make efforts to find the knowledge necessary to make intelligent decisions.

Critical thinking helps us understand each other and it can prevent us from getting

caught up in trivial matters. It helps us question what we learn and encourages us to seek

answers. It helps us make wise decisions while considering a wide array of ideas. Overall, the

ability to think critically helps people to live more flourishing and worthwhile lives (Brighouse,

2006). With all of the distraction and misinformation in society today, it is easy to become

confused and misguided. Thus it is my belief that the ability to think critically is one of the most,

if not the most, important skills that can be taught to students.

2.4 Thinking critically about evolution

Critical thinking is valuable in and of itself. Unfortunately, thinking critically about

evolution is typically deemed as unnecessary, because accepting evolution has been decreed as

thinking critically. Bill Nye discusses how students will not be able to develop skeptical thought,


and will not be able to think critically about nature unless they learn about evolution

(Blumberg, 2014).

Other evolutionists, like Roger Pennock, feel like it is important to teach evolution, and

only evolution, to students (Pennock, 2003). In fact, in the article by Pennock that was

mentioned in part A, he suggested that scientists should teach evolution whenever possible so

that future generations will not be enticed to consider other theories about our origins. He also

recommended that we award scientists who teach evolution via an incentive program. This

way, students can be bombarded with the ‘truth’ of evolution in a multidisciplinary manner

while teachers get rewards for their compliance for telling students what to think.

Examples like this, as well as all the evidence I have provided thus far regarding the

evidence against evolution, show just why it is necessary that we teach people to think critically

about it. I don’t propose we do not teach evolution, but let’s teach evolution in a context in

which all the facts are provided. Let’s not teach students facts, let’s teach them how evidences

led scientists to draw conclusions. Let’s provide arguments for and against any particular idea

so students can be better informed.

Students should be given opportunities to learn about, and reflect on, counter

arguments and other theories. It is obvious that teaching students about all the facts

supporting and refuting evolution is a better method to promote critical thinking. This way they

could reflect on the fact that science truly has not ascertained where we came from. Teaching

students to think critically about evolution will strengthen their understandings of the scientific

method, and could promote a generation of more objective scientists.


Moving forward

As a final point, I will present a comical dialogue from season 2, episode 3 of the popular

television show ‘Friends.’ In this episode, Ross, a paleontologist, is having a back-and-forth

debate with his friend Phoebe, across different scenes:

PHOEBE: You know, there're a lot of things that I don't believe in, but that doesn't mean

they're not true.

JOEY: Such as?

PHOEBE: Like crop circles, or the Bermuda triangle, or evolution?

ROSS: Whoa, whoa, whoa. What, you don't, uh, you don't believe in evolution?

PHOEBE: Nah. Not really.

ROSS: You don't believe in evolution?

PHOEBE: I don't know, it's just, you know...monkeys, Darwin, you know, it's a, it's a nice

story, I just think it's a little too easy.

ROSS: Too easy? Too...The process of every living thing on this planet evolving over

millions of years from single-celled organisms, too easy?

PHOEBE: Yeah, I just don't buy it.

ROSS: Uh, excuse me. Evolution is not for you to buy, Phoebe. Evolution is scientific fact,

like, like, like the air we breathe, like gravity.

ROSS: How can you not believe in evolution?

PHOEBE: Just don't.

ROSS: Pheebs, I have studied evolution my entire adult life. Ok, I can tell you, we have


collected fossils from all over the world that actually show the evolution of different

species, ok? You can literally see them evolving through time.

PHOEBE: Really? You can actually see it?

ROSS: You bet. In the U.S., China, Africa, all over.

PHOEBE: See, I didn't know that.

ROSS: Well, there you go.

PHOEBE: Huh. So now, the real question is, who put those fossils there, and why?

ROSS: Ok, Pheebs. See how I'm making these little toys move? Opposable thumbs.

Without evolution, how do you explain opposable thumbs?

PHOEBE: Maybe the overlords needed them to steer their spacecrafts.

ROSS: Please tell me you're joking.

PHOEBE: Look, can't we just say that you believe in something, and I don't.

ROSS: No, no, Pheebs, we can't, ok, because--

PHOEBE: What is this obsessive need you have to make everyone agree with you? No,

what's that all about? I think, I think maybe it's time you put Ross under the

microscope.

ROSS: Ok, Phoebe, this is it. In this briefcase I carry actual scientific facts. A briefcase of

facts, if you will. Some of these fossils are over 200 million years old.

PHOEBE: Ok, look, before you even start, I'm not denying evolution, ok, I'm just saying

that it's one of the possibilities.

ROSS: It's the only possibility, Phoebe.

PHOEBE: Ok, Ross, could you just open your mind like this much, ok? Wasn't there a


time when the brightest minds in the world believed that the world was flat? And, up

until like what, 50 years ago, you all thought the atom was the smallest thing, until

you split it open, and this like, whole mess of crap came out. Now, are you telling me

that you are so unbelievably arrogant that you can't admit that there's a teeny tiny

possibility that you could be wrong about this?

I posted this dialogue because it quite accurately illustrates the close-minded view of

many scientists. Evolution is “the only answer, evolution is fact, fossils prove evolution,” just

like all the other imperative statements that are made on behalf of this theory. But like Phoebe

mentioned, science has been wrong numerous times in the past. Yet some people are “so

unbelievably arrogant” that they cannot even consider the possibility that evolution may not be

true. They force their beliefs on skeptics under the rubric of ‘science’ and falsely illustrate how

important it is that we accept it. As I mentioned before, I would support this motion if evolution

were a fact, and if scientific progress actually depended on it. Yet, since evolution is highly

questionable and since it has not promoted the development of any technologies, this motion

simply detracts from critical thinking.

To conclude, I realize that this topic is a touchy one, and it is not my intention to offend

anybody. I firmly believe in the principles of science, and am fervently against misinformation.

Frankly, however, it would be hypocritical for any person claiming to be scientific to be

offended. All the information here was scientifically rationalized. If anyone reading this

literature review is offended by the proposition that evolution be taught in a more humble and

critical manner, than it would demonstrate that they are not thinking critically about the theory


of evolution, but are emotionally attached to it. The public belief that science has ‘got it all

figured out’ is simply not true, and people should be informed. As teachers, let us acknowledge

this and reintroduce humility back into the sciences.

I would also like to mention that although I am not defending creationist views, I would

argue that people certainly have a right to their beliefs. People are being ridiculed for their

beliefs, because evolution is being taught as the one true explanation for our existence. People

are being alienated from science because they are led to believe that belief in evolution and

science are the same thing, and are taught that science and religion are mutually exclusive.

Furthermore, necessarily believing that evolution is fact detracts from the likelihood that

people will seek alternative, and more truthful, explanations for our origins.

However, people should know why they believe in what they believe. Believing in God,

because a person was told to believe from a young age is a bad reason. Believing in evolution

because ‘science’ has proven it, is the same bad argument. In other words, refusing to accept

evolution out of denial for one’s religious beliefs is not good. But, being misled into accepting

evolution as factual in the absence of scientific proof is no better. If we insist on teaching

evolution in schools, while rejecting all other philosophies, let’s at least give students all the

facts so that they can think for themselves. Hopefully this critical literature review has shed

some light on this topic.


Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my friend and mentor Joel (M.Sc. in biochemistry) who originally

introduced me to the idea that evolution was supported by questionable evidence. I would also

like to thank McGill for providing me a venue to explore this important topic, and how it can

influence students’ ability to think critically. I would like to thank those who proofread and

provided useful feedback on this project: high school math teachers Vincent and Omer, as well

as PhD in biology John. Finally, of course, I would like to thank my wife Krystal who was patient

and supportive over the many months spent researching and gruelling over this project.


References

Abramson, P. (2009) "A Defense of Creationism." Retrieved July 31, 2016 from

http://www.creationism.org/articles/genesis.htm

Abzhanov, A., Kuo, W. P., Grant, B. R., Grant, P. R. & Tabin, C. J. (2006). "The calmodulin

pathway and evolution of elongated beak morphology in Darwin's finches." Nature

442(7102): 563-567.

Abzhanov, A., Protas, M., Grant, B. R., Grant, P. R. & Tabin, C. J. (2004). "Bmp4 and

morphological variation of beaks in Darwin's finches." Science 305(5689): 1462-1465.

Agassiz, L. (1874). "Evolution and the Permanence of Type." Atlantic Monthly 33: 92-101.

Alberts B, Johnson A, Lewis J, et al. Molecular Biology of the Cell. 4th edition. New York:

Garland Science; 2002. The RNA World and the Origins of Life.

American Institute of Biological Sciences (1994). "Board Resolution." Retrieved October 18,

2015, from http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/voices/Science/AIBS.htm

Amidon, L. (1997). "Paleoclimate Study of Eocene Fossil Woods and Associated Paleosols from

the Gallatin Petrified Forest." Gallatin National Forest SW Montana, unpublished

Master's thesis, University of Montana.

Anderson, K. L. (March 2005). "Is Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics an Appropriate Example of

Evolutionary Change?" Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal 41(4): 318-326.

Arnold, J. R. L., W. F. (1949). "Age Determinations by Radiocarbon Content: Checks with

Samples of Known Age." Science 110(2869): 678-680.

Austin, S. A. (1986). "Excess Argon within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava

Dome at Mount St. Helens Volcano." CEN Technical Journal 10(3): 335-343.

http://www.creationism.org/articles/genesis.htm

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/voices/Science/AIBS.htm


Awadala, P., A. Eyre-Walker & Smith, J. M. (24 December 1999). "Linkage Disequilibrium and

Recombination in Hominid Mitochondrial DNA." Science 286: 2524-2525.

Axe, D. D. (2000). "Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on

Enzyme Exteriors." Journal of Molecular Biology 301: 585-595.

Bada, J. L. & Lazcano, A. (May 2, 2003). "Prebiotic Soup-Revisiting the Miller Experiment."

Science 300: 745-746.

Bailin, S. (1987). Critical and Creative Thinking. Informal Logic, IX.1, 23-30

Bailin, S., Case, R., Coombs, J. R. & Daniels, L.B (1999). Conceptualizing critical thinking. Journal

of Curriculum Studies, 31:3, 285-302

Batten, J. (1994). "A Whale of a Tale." Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 8(1): 2-3.

Baumgardner, J. (October 2003). Carbon Dating Undercuts Evolution's Long Ages. Impact. San

Diego, Institute of Creation Research. Article #364.

Behe, M. J. (2006). Darwin's Black Box. New York, NY, The Free Press.

Behe, M. J. & Snoke, D. W. (2004). "Stimulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein

Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues." Protein Science 13: 2651-2664.

Benton, M. J. D., P. C. J. (2007). "Paleontological evidence to date the Tree of Life." Molecular

Biology & Evolution 24(1): 26-53.

Berger, E. (2009). "Scientists use Darwin theory to create new technologies." Retrieved July 18,

2016 from http://www.chron.com/business/technology/article/Scientists-use-Darwin-

theory-to-create-new-1724475.php

Bergman, J. (August 2003). "Does the acquisition of antibiotic and pesticide resistance provide

evidence for evolution?" Journal of Creation 17(1): 26-32.


Berkeley. "The emergence of humans." Retrieved July 31, 2016 from

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_07

Berkman, M. B. (May 20, 2008). "Evolution and Creationism in America's Classrooms: A National

Portrait." PLOS Biology 6(5). Retrieved October 17, 2015, from

http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0060124

Berthault, G. (1986). Sedimentology, Experiments on Lamination of Sediments, Resulting from a

Periodic Graded Bedding Subsequent to Deposit, compe-rendu de l’Académie des

Sciences, Paris, t. 303, Série ii, No. 17, 1986

Berthault, G. (1988). Sedimentation of a Heterogranular Mixture. Experimental Lamination in

Still and Running Water, compe-rendu de l’Académie des Sciences, Paris, t. 306, Série ii,

PP. 717-724

Berthault, G., Lalomov, A. & Tugarova, M. A. (2011). "Reconstruction of Paleolithodynamic

Formation Conditions of Cambrian- Ordovician Sandstones in the Northwestern Russian

Platform." Lithology and Mineral Resources 46(1): 60-70.

Berthault, G. (April 29, 2016). "A priori assumptions i geological history replaced by

experimental data." Retrieved on August 5, 2016 from http://www.sedimentology.fr/

Bertsche, K. (July 10, 2008). "RATE's Radiocarbon: Intrinsic or Contamination." The TalkOrigins

Archive. Retrieved on August 7, 2016 from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/rate-

critique.html#3

Björkholm, B., Nagaev, I. Berg, O. G., Hughes, D. & Anderrson, D. I (2000). "Effects of

environment on compensatory mutations to ameliorate costs of antibiotic resistance."

Science 287(1479-1482).

http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0060124


Black, L. (January 26, 2008). "On Bush, Bible, Fossils, Evolution, and Reality." Retrieved August

13, 2016 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0gAcbAGPH4

Blumberg, A. (December 15, 2014). "Bill Nye: Creationism Is 'Raising A Generation Of Young

People Who Can't Think'." Retrieved August 14, 2016 from

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/13/bill-nye-children-

creationism_n_6317148.html

Boundless a. “Peptide Bonding between Amino Acids.” Boundless Chemistry. Boundless, 21 Jul.

2015. Retrieved 23 Oct. 2015,

from https://www.boundless.com/chemistry/textbooks/boundless-chemistry-

textbook/polymers-24/proteins-170/peptide-bonding-between-amino-acids-650-7249/

Boundless b. “Modes of Radioactive Decay.” Boundless Chemistry. Boundless, 28 Jul. 2016.

Retrieved 6 Aug. 2016

from https://www.boundless.com/chemistry/textbooks/boundless-chemistry-

textbook/nuclear-chemistry-19/radioactivity-134/modes-of-radioactive-decay-535-

3690/

Bower, B. (4 May 1985). "Human Ancestors Make Evolutionary Change." Science News 127:

276.

Bowring, S. A., Grotzinger, J. P., Isachsen, C. E., Knoll, A. H., Pelechaty, S. M. & Kolosov, P.

(1993). "Calibrating Rates of Early Cambrian Evolution." Science 261: 1293-1298.

Braterman, P. S. (October 20, 2013). "How Science Figured Out the Age of Earth." Retrieved

July 21, 2016 from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-science-figured-out-

the-age-of-the-earth/

https://www.boundless.com/chemistry/textbooks/boundless-chemistry-textbook/polymers-24/proteins-170/peptide-bonding-between-amino-acids-650-7249/

https://www.boundless.com/chemistry/textbooks/boundless-chemistry-textbook/polymers-24/proteins-170/peptide-bonding-between-amino-acids-650-7249/


Brickhouse, N. W. (1990). "Teachers' Beliefs About the Nature of Science and Their Relationship

to Classroom Practice." Journal of Teacher Education 41(3): 53-62.

Brighouse, H. (2006). On Education. Oxon: Routledge

Brocks, J. J., Logan, G. A., Buick, R. & Summons, R. E. (1999). "Archaeon Molecular Fossils and

the Early Rise of Eukaryotes." Science 285: 1033-1036.

Brookfield, M. E. (2004). Principles of stratigraphy. Malden, Massachusetts, Blackwell

Publishing.

Carlson, D. K. (May 24, 2005). "Americans Weigh in on Evolution vs. Creationism in Schools."

Retrieved January 8, 2016 from http://www.gallup.com/poll/16462/americans-weigh-

evolution-vs-creationism-schools.aspx

Coble C. R., L., D. & Hop J. (1991). Prentice Hall Life Science.

Cook, L. M. (2003). "The rise and fall of the Carbonaria form of the peppered moth." The

Quarterly Review of Biology 78(4): 399-417.

Cupps, V. R. T., B. (2014). "Is Every Fossil in Its (Evolutionary) Place?" Acts & Facts 43(6).

Cyr, M.d & Verreault (2009a). Observatory: The Human Organism. First Year of Secondary

Cycle Two. Saint-Laurent, Quebec, Éditions de Renouveau Pédagigique Inc.

Cyr, M.d & Verreault (2009b). Observatory: The Human Organism. Second Year of Secondary

Cycle Two. Saint-Laurent, Quebec, Éditions de Renouveau Pédagigique Inc.

Darwin, C. (1859). On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. London, John

Murray.

Davies, J. & Davies D. (September 2012). "Origins and Evolution of Antibiotic Resistance."

Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews 74(3): 417-433.


Davies, J. & Nomura, M. (1999). "The genetics of bacterial ribosomes." Annual review of

Genetics 6: 203-234.

Davies, L., Brzezinska, M. & Benveniste, R. (1971). "R factors: biochemical mechanisms of

resistance in amino glycoside antibiotics." Annals of the New York Academy of Science

182: 226-233.

Davidson, E. H., Peterson, K. J. & Cameron, A. (1995). "Origin of Bilateral Body Plans: Evolution

of Developmental Regulatory Mechanisms." Science 270: 1319-1324.

Dawkins, R. (1986). The Blind Watchmaker. New York, Norton.

Dawkins, R. (2009). The Greatest Show on Earth. New York, Free Press.

Dawkins, R. (August 22, 2012). "Richard Dawkins espouses Militant Atheism: "Mock them,

Ridicule them."." Retrieved August 13, 2016 from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPqqp8KVuQU

Day, M. H. (1986). Guide to Fossil Man. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

Denton, M. (1985). Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Maryland, Adler & Adler.

DYG, Inc. (2000). Evolution and Creationism in Public Education: An In-Depth Reading of Public

Opinion. Results of a Comprehensive National Survey, People for the American Way

Foundation.

Easterbrook, G. (1997). "Science and God." Science 277(5328): 890-893.

Eldredge, N. & Gould, S. J. (1972). Punctuated Equilibria: An Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism.

San Francisco: Freeman, Cooper.

Enright, M., Zawadski, P., Pickerill, P. & Dowson, C. G. (1998). "Molecular Evolution of rifampicin

resistance in Streptococcus pneumoniae." Microbial Drug 4: 65-70.


Erwin, D. H., Laflamme, M., Sarah, M. L., Tweedt, M., Sperling, E. A., Pisani,D. & Peterson, K. J.

(2011). "The Cambrian Conundrum: Early Divergence and Later Ecological Success in the

Early History of Animals." Science 334: 1091-1097.

Feducia, A. (February 5, 1993). "Evidence from Claw Geometry Indicating Arboreal Habits of

Archaeopteryx." Science 259(5096): 790-793.

Fox, S. W., Harada, K., Krampitz, G. & Mueller, G. (June 20, 1970). "Chemical Origins of Cells."

Chemical and Engineering News: 80-94.

Fraser, C. M., Gocayne, J. D., White, O., Adams, M. D., Clayton, R. A., Fleischmann, R. D., Bult, C.

J., Kerlavage, A. R., Sutton, G., Kelley, J. M., Fritchman, J. L., Weidman, J. F., Small, K. V.,

Sandusky, M., Fuhrmann, J., Nguyen, D., Utterback, T. R., Saudek, D. M., Phillips, C. A.,

Merrick, J. M., Tomb, J. F., Dougherty, B. A., Bott, K. F., Hu, P. C., Lucier, T. S., Peterson,

S. N., Smith, H. O., Hutchison III, C. A. & Venter, J. C. (October 1995). "The Minimal Gene

Complement of Mycoplasma genitalium." Science 270(5235): 397-404.

Gale, E. F., Cundliffe, E., Reynolds, P. E., Richmond, M. H. & Waring, M. J. (1981). The Molecular

Basis of Antibiotic Action. New York, John Wiley & Sons.

Gastraldo, R. A. (1992). "Regenerative growth in fossil horsetails (Calamites) following burial by

alluvium." Historical Biology 6(3): 203-220.

Gibbons, A. (2 January 1998). "Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock." Science 279: 28.

Godwin, H. (1962). "Half-life of radiocarbon." Nature 195(4845): 984.

Godzinski, M., Smith, R., Maygarden, B., Landrum, E., Lorenzo, J., Yakubik, J-K. & Weed, M. E.

(2005) Cultural Resources Investigations of Public Access Lands in the Atchafalaya Basin

Floodway, Indian Bayou South Project Area, St. Landry and St. Martin Parishes,


Louisiana. Report submitted by Earth Search, Inc., New Orleans to the U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers under contract number

Gould, S. J. & Eldredge, N. (1977). "Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution

reconsidered." Paleobiology 3: 115-151.

Gould, S. J. (1980). "Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?" Paleobiology 6: 119-

130.

Gould, S. J. (1990). Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History. New York,

Norton.

Graham, I. (October 6, 2009). "Radioactive Dating." Australian Museum. Retrieved August 6,

2016 from http://australianmuseum.net.au/radioactive-dating

Gregory, T. R. (June 10 2008). "Acceptance of Evolution in Canada." Retrieved January 8, 2016

from http://www.science20.com/genomicron/blog/acceptance_of_evolution_in_

canada

Halperin, M. (February 5, 2014). "The Best Quotes of Bill Nye's Evolution vs. Creationism

Debate." Retrieved August 14, 2016 from http://flavorwire.com/437149/the-best-

quotes-of-bill-nyes-evolution-vs-creationism-debate

Hansel, A. K., Berg, R. C., Phillips, A. C. & Gutowski, V. (1999). "Glacial Sediments, Landforms,

Paleosols, and a 20,000-Year-Old Forest Bed in East Central Illinois." Guidebook 26.

Illinois State Geological Survey.

Hartl, D. L. & Jones, E. W. (1998). Genetics Principles and Analysis: Fourth Edition. Sudbury,

Massachusetts, Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Inc.

Henke, K. R. (20 June 2010). "Dr. Humphreys' Young-Earth Helium Diffusion "Dates":


Numerous Fallacies Based on Bad Assumptions and Questionable Data"

TalkOrigins.com. Retrieved 3 October 2015 from

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html

Herr, N. (2007). "Analogy - Cell." Retrieved October 17, 2015, from

https://www.csun.edu/science/books/sourcebook/chapters/10-analogies/analogy-

cell.html

Ho, S. (2008) The molecular clock and estimating species divergence. Nature Education 1(1):168

Hoffbrand, A. V. (2002). Essential haematology. Oxford, Blackwell Science.

Holmes, R. K. & Jobling, M. G. (1996). Medical Microbiology. 4th edition. Galveston (TX),

University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston.

Humphreys, D. R. (October 2002). Nuclear Decay: Evidence for a Young World. Impact. San

Diego, Institute of Creation Research. Article # 352.

Humphreys, D. R., Baumgardner, J. R., Austin, S. A. & Snelling, A. A. (2003). Helium Diffusion

Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay. Pittsburgh, Creation Science Fellowship, Inc.

Julien, F. Y. Berthault, G. (1993). "Experiments on Stratification of Heterogenous Sand

Mixtures." Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France 164(5): 649-660.

Kahn, B. & Gibbons, A. (11 July 1997). "DNA from an Extinct Human." Science 277: 176-177.

Kaleem, J. (December 12, 2013). "Surprising Number of Americans Don't Believe in Evolution."

Retrieved January 8, 2016 from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/30/evolution-

survey_n_4519441.html

Karlsson, E. (August 12 2011). "Refuting "Radiometric Dating Methods Makes Untenable

Assumptions"." Debunking Denialism. Retrieved on August 6, 2011 from

ttps://www.csun.edu/science/books/sourcebook/chapters/10-analogies/analogy-c

ttps://www.csun.edu/science/books/sourcebook/chapters/10-analogies/analogy-c

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/30/evolution-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/30/evolution-


https://debunkingdenialism.com/2011/08/12/refuting-radiometric-dating-methods-

makes-untenable-assumptions/

Kemp, T. (March 4, 1982). "The Reptiles that became Mammals." New Scientist 92: 583.

Kennedy, K. A. R. (October 1992). "review of Continuity or Replacement: Controversies in Homo

sapiens Evolution." American Journal of Physical Anthropology 89(2): 271-272.

Klein, R. G. (3 August 1973). "Geological Antiquity of Rhodesian Man." Nature 244: 311-312.

Klein, R. G. (1999). The Human Career: Human Biological and Cultural Origins. Chicago,

University of Chicago Press.

Kruse, M. (February 13, 2013). "Creationism Still in Schools? What Would Darwin Say?"

Retrieved January 8, 2016 from http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/michael-kruse/darwins-

birthday-evolution_b_2672450.html

Kruzhilin, Y., & Ovcharov, V. (February 5, 1984). "A Horse from the Dinosaur Epoch?"

Moskovskaya Pravda, Moscow truth, trans. A. james melnick

Kuwahara, H., Eto, M., Kawamoto, Y., Kurihara, H., Kaneko, T., Obayashi, Y., & Kobayashi, K.

(December 2012). "The Use of Ascorbate as an Oxidation Inhibitor in Prebiotic Amino

Acid Synthesis: A Cautionary Note." Origin of Life and Evolution of Biospheres 42(6):

533-541.

Leed, D. R. & Creed E. R. (1977). "The genetics of the insularia forms of the peppered moth,

Biston betularia." Heredity 39: 67-73.

Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking Science: Language, Learning and Values. Norwood, New Jersey,

Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Levin, M. E. H., G. F. (1993). "Mycobacterium smegmatis RNA polymerase: DNA supercoiling,


action of rifampicin and mechanisms of rifampicin resistance." Molecular Microbiology

8: 277-285.

Lewin, R. (1987). Bones of Contention. New York, Simon and Schuster.

Lewis, E. B. (1978). "A Gene Complex Controlling Segmentation in Drosophila." Nature 276: 565-

570.

Lindahl, T. (22 April 1993). "Instability and decay of the primary structure of DNA." Nature 362:

713.

Lindahl, T. (21 October 1993). "Recovery of antediluvian DNA." Nature 365: 700.

Lindsey, D. L. & Grell, E. H. (1968) "Guide to Genetic Variations of Drosophila melanogaster."

Lischtvan-Lebediev (1959). Gidrologia i gidraulika v mostovom dorshnom. Straitelvie, Leningrad.

Loewe, L. & Hill, W. G. (2010). "The population genetics of mutations: good, bad and

indifferent." Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 365: 1153-1167.

Lubenow, M. L. (2004). Bones of Contention. Grand Rapids, MI, Baker Books.

Luskin, C. (March 20, 2015). "Real Science vs. Bill Nye the "Science" Guy." Retrieved

August 11, 2016 from

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/03/bill_nye_respon094591.html

Masci, D. (February 12, 2015). "On Darwin Day, 5 facts about the evolution debate." Retrieved

October 17, 2015, from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/02/12/darwin-

day/

McComas, W. F. (1998). The Nature of Science in Science Education. Netherlands, Kluwer

Academic Publishers.

McDonald, J. F. (1983). "The Molecular of Adaptation: A Critical Review of Relevant Ideas and

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/02/12/darwin-

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/02/12/darwin-


Observations." Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 14: 77-103.

McDougall, I.; Harrison, T. M. (1999). Geochronology and thermochronology by the 40Ar/39Ar

method. Oxford University Press

McGuire, R. (December 1988). "Eerie: Human Arctic fossils yield resistant bacteria." Medical

Tribune: 1, 23.

Mchedlidze, G. L. (1986). General Features of the Paleobiological Evolution of Cetacea.

Rotterdam, A.A. Balkema.

McHenry, H. M. (31 October 1975). "Fossils and the Mosaic Nature of Human Evolution."

Science 190: 428.

McRae, A. (1998). "Radiometric Datin and the Geological Time Scale: Circular Reasoning or

Reliable Tools?" Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale Talk Origins Archive.

Mellino, C. (January 22, 2015). "12 Must-Read Quotes by Bill Nye the Science Guy." Retrieved

July 18, 2016 from http://www.ecowatch.com/12-must-read-quotes-by-bill-nye-the-

science-guy-1882001753.html

Meyer, S. C. (2013). Darwin's Doubt. Seattle, WA, HarperCollins.

Miller, K. (1999). "The Peppered Moth - An Update." Retrieved July 17, 2016 from

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Moths/moths.html

Miller, K. R. (1984). Scientific creationism versus evolution. New York, Oxford University Press.

Miller, S. L. (September 15, 1952). "A Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth

Conditions." Science 117(3046): 528-529.

Moore, R. & Cotner, S. (January 22, 2013). "Evolution and Creationism in America's Biology

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_McDougall_(geologist)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_University_Press


Classroom." Retrieved October 17, 2015, from

https://biologos.org/blogs/archive/evolution-and-creationism-in-america%E2%80%99s-

biology-classrooms

Morell, V. (February 5, 1993). "Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms." Science

259(5096): 764-765.

Morris, H. M. (1977). "Circular Reasoning in Evolutionary Biology." Acts & Facts 6(6).

Morris, J. (2009). "A Classic Polystrate Fossil." Acts & Facts 38(10): 15.

Muller, R. A. (1977). "Radioisotope Dating with a Cyclotron." Science 196: 489-494.

National Nulear Data Center (June 1993). "ENSDF Decay Data in the MIRD Format for 40K."

Retrieved August 6, 2016 from

http://www.orau.org/ptp/PTP%20Library/library/DOE/bnl/nuclidedata/MIRK40.htm

Nei, M. (1987). Molecular evolutionary genetics. First Edition. New York, Columbia University

Press.

Neidigh, J. W., Fesinmeyer, R. M. & Andersen, N. H. (June 2009). "Designing a 20-residue

protein." Natural Structure Biology 9(6): 425-430.

Newport, F. (June 1, 2012). "In U.S., 46% Hold Creationists View of Human Origins." Retrieved

October 17, 2015, from http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creationist-View-

Human-Origins.aspx

Newton, S. (September 25, 2008). "Transitional Fossils Are Not Rare." Retrieved July 28, 2016

from https://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/transitional-fossils-are-not-rare

Noble, D. (2015). "Evolution beyond neo-Darwinism: a conceptual framework." Journal of

Experimental Biology 218: 7-13.

https://biologos.org/blogs/archive/evolution-and-creationism-in-america%E2%80%99s-biology-classrooms

https://biologos.org/blogs/archive/evolution-and-creationism-in-america%E2%80%99s-biology-classrooms

ttp://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creationist-View-H

ttp://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creationist-View-H


Nüsslein-Volhard, C. & Wieschaus, E. (1980). "Mutations Affecting Segment Number and

Polarity in Drosophila." Nature 287: 795-801.

Oethinger, M., Pdglajen, I., Kern, W. V. & Levy, S. T. (1998). "Overexpression of the marA and

soxS regulatory gene in clinical topoisomerase mutants of Escherichia coli."

Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 42: 2089-2094.

Oktar, A. (2005). "Molecular Biology and the Origin of Life: Fox's Experiment." Retrieved

October 24, 2015, from http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_13.html

Orgel, L. (1973). The Origins of Life. New York, John Wiley.

O'Rourke, J. E. (January 1976). "Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy." American

Journal of Science 276: 51.

Oxnard, C. (4 December 1975). "The place of australopithecines in human evolution: grounds

for doubt?" Nature 258: 389-395.

Oxnard, C. (1984). The Order of Man. New Haven, Yale University Press.

Pääbo, S. (November 1993). "Ancient DNA." Scientific American: 92.

Parsons, T. J., Mulniek, D. S., Sullivan, K., Woodyatt, Alliston-Greiner, R. & Wilson, M. (1997). "A

High Observed Substitution Rate in Human Mitochondrial DNA Control Region." Nature

Genetics 15: 363-368.

Patterson, B., Behrensmeyer, A. K. & Sill, W. D. (6 June 1970). "Geology and Fauna of a New

Pliocene Locality in North-western Kenya." Nature 226: 918-921.

Peet, J. H. J. (2013). "The Miller-Urey Experiment." Retrieved October 23, 2015, from

http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/tis2/index.php/evidence-for-evolution-mainmenu-

65/51-the-miller-urey-experiment.html

ttp://www.truthinscience.org.uk/tis2/index.php/evidence-for-evolution-mainmenu-6

ttp://www.truthinscience.org.uk/tis2/index.php/evidence-for-evolution-mainmenu-6


Pennock, R. T. (2003). "Creationism and Intelligent Design." Annual Review of Genomics Human

Genetics 4: 143-163.

Pennsylvania State University (2016). "Molecular Evidence for Evolution." Retrieved August 8,

2016 from https://online.science.psu.edu/biol011_sandbox_7239/node/7348

Pew Research Center (December 30, 2013). "Public's Views on Human Evolution: Religion and

Public Life." Retrieved January 8, 2016 from

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/12/30/publics-views-on-human-evolution/

Pilbeam, D. (1970). The Evolution of Man. New York, Funk and Wagnalls.

Poole, K. (2000). "Efflux-mediated resistance to fluoroquinolones in gram-negative bacteria."

Antimicrobial Agents and Chemo-therapy 44: 2233-2241.

Raup, D. M. (July 1994). "The role of extinction in evolution." PNAS 91: 6758-6763.

Reidhaar-Olsen & J. Sauer, R. (1990). "Functionally Acceptable Solutions in Two Alpha-Helical

Regions of Lambda Repressor." Proteins: Structure, Function, and Genetics 7: 306-316.

Retallack, C. J. (1981). "Reinterpretation of the depositional environment of Yelowstone fossil

forest: Comment." Geology 9(52-53).

Reybrouck, D. V. (March 1998). "Imaging and imagining the Neanderthal: the role of technical

drawings in archaeology." Antiquity 72: 62.

Roush, W. R. (September 5, 1997). "'Living Fossil' is Dethroned." Science 277(5331): 1436.

Rupke, N. A. (1973). Prolegomena to a Study of Cataclysmic Sedimentation. Grand Rapids, MI,

Baker.

Ruppert, E. E., Fox, R. S. & Barnes, R. D. (2004). Invertebrate Zoology. 7th Ed. Belmont, CA,

Brooks/Cole.


Rutschmann, F. (2006). "Molecular dating of phylogenetic trees: A brief review of current

methods that estimate divergence times." Diversity and Distributions 12(35-48).

Sarfati, J. D. (June-August 1998). "Blowing the Old-Earth Belief Away: Helium Gives Evidence

that the Earth Is Young." Creation 20(3): 19-21.

Sarfati, J. D. (1999). Refuting Evolution. Brisbane, Australia, Answers in Genesis.

Sauquet, H. (August-September 2013). "A practical guide to molecular dating." General

paleontology, systematics and evolution 12(6): 355-367.

Schabas, M. (15 March 1991). "The Idea of Normal." Science 251: 1373.

Scott, E. C. (1996). "Evolving euphemisms: balanced treatment mutates to 'evidence

against evolution'." National Center for Science Education Report 16(5): 18.

Scoville, H. (May 12, 2015). "Darwin's Voyage." Retrieved July 17, 2016 from

http://evolution.about.com/od/Darwin/a/Charles-Darwins-Finches.htm

Shapiro, J. A. (2005). "A 21st Century View of Evolution: Genome System Architecture,

Repetitive DNA, and Natural Genetic Engineering." Gene 345: 91-100.

Shipman, P. (February 1, 1997). "Birds do it... Did Dinosaurs?" New Scientist 153(2067): 26-31.

Shreeve, J. (1994). "Infants, Cannibals, and the Pit of Bones." Discover: 40.

Siegel, H. (1980). Critical Thinking as an Educational Ideal, The Educational Forum, 45:1, 7-23

Siegel, H. (2008). "Critical Thinking as an Educational Ideal." The Educational Forum 45(1): 7-23.

Silverman, E. M. (2008) Ongoing Self-Reflection. American Journal of Speech-Language

Pathology. 17, 92

Silver Burdett Company (1987). Silver Burdett Earth Science: Teacher Resource Package, Silver

Burdett.


Simpson, G. G. (October, 1950). "Evolutionary Determinism and the Fossil Record." Scientific

Monthly 71: 264.

Smith, W. (1815). "Geological Map of England and Wales."

Snelling, A. A. (1998a). The Cause of Anomalous Potassium-Argon 'Ages' for Recent Andesite

Flows t Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, and the Implications for Potassium-Argon

'Dating'. Pittsburgh, E. Walsh.

Snelling, A. A. (December 1997-February 1998b). "Radiometric Dating in Conflict." Creation

20(1): 24-27.

Snelling, A. A. (September-November 1998c). "Stumping Old-Age Dogma." Creation 20(4): 48-

50.

Snelling, A. (December 1999-February 2000). "Radioactive 'Dating' Failure." Creation 22(1): 18-

21.

Snyder, M. (February 6, 2014). "Fact Check: Did Bill Nye Tell A Huge Lie About The Fossil

Layers?" Retrieved August 12, 2016 from http://thetruthwins.com/archives/fact-check-

did-bill-nye-tell-a-huge-lie-about-the-fossil-layers

Spoor, F., Wood, B. & a. Zonneveld, F. (1994). "Implications of Early Hominid Morphology for

Evolution of Human Bipedal Locomotion." Nature 369(6482): 645-648.

Starr, C. T., R. (1992). Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life. Toleda, OH, U.S.A., Hippo Books.

Starr, S., Taggart, R., Evers, C. & Starr, L. (2009). Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life, Twelfth

Edition. Belmont, CA, Yolando Cossio.

Steffen, W., Crutzen, P. J. & McNeil, J. R. (December 2007). "The Anthropocene: Are Humans

Now Overwhelming the Great Forces of Nature?" Ambio 36(8): 614-621.


Stringer, C. B. (April 1993). "Secrets of the Pit of Bones." Nature 362: 501-502.

Stringer, C. B. (May 1993). "The Legacy of Homo sapiens." Scientific American: 138.

Taniguchi, H., Aramaki, H., Nikaido, Y., Mizuguchi, Y., Naka-mura, M., Koga, T. & Yoshida, S.

(1996). "Rifampicin resistance and mutation of the rpoB gene in Mycobacterium

tuberculosis." FEMS Microbiological Letters 144: 103-108.

Tattersall, I. (1999). The Last Neanderthal. Boulder, CO, Westview Press. rev. ed.

Taylor, T. N. T., E. L. (1993). The Biology and Evolution of Fossil Plants. New Jersey, Prentice Hall.

The Guardian. (April 2006). "Evolution Should be Taught as Fact, Says Top Scientist." Retrieved

July 17, 2015, from

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2006/apr/21/schools.evolution

The Huffington Post Canada (August 6, 2012). "Believe In Evolution: Canadians More Likely

Than Americans To Endorse Evolution." Retrieved October 17, 2015, from

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/09/06/believe-in-evolution_n_1861373.html

Valentine, J. W., Jablonski, D. & Erwin, D. H. (1999). "Fossils, Molecules and Embryos: New

Perspectives on the Cambrian Explosion." Development 126: 851-859.

Valentine, J. W. (2004). On the Origins of Phyla. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

Vardiman, L. (1990). The Age of the Earth's Atmosphere: A Study of Helium Flux through the

Atmosphere. El Cajun, CA, Institute of Creation Research.

Walcott, C. D. (1910). "Cambrian Geology and Paleontology II: Abrupt Appearance of the

Cambrian Fauna on the North American Continent." Smithsonian Miscellaneous

Collections 57: 1-16.

Waldron, J. W. F., White, J. C., MacInnes, E. & and Roselli, C. G. (2005) Field Trip B7

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2006/apr/21/schools.evolution

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/09/06/believe-in-evolution_n_1861373.html


Transpression and transtension along a continental transform fault: Minas Fault Zone,

Nova Scotia. Geological Association of Canada Mineralogical Association of Canada -

Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists - Canadian Society of Soil Sciences Joint

Meeting - Halifax, May 2005. Special Publication no. 33. Atlantic Geoscience Society,

Department of Earth Sciences, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.

Wang, K., McClure, J. & Tu, A. (August 1979). "Titin: major myofibrillar components of striated

muscle." PNAS 76(8): 3698-3702.

Wells, W. (1997). "Taking Life to Bits." New Scientist 155(2095): 30-33.

Wieland, C. (September-November 1997). "Sensational Dinosaur Blood Report!" Creation 19(4):

42-43.

Wieland, C. (December 1997). "Superbugs not super after all." Creation 20(1): 10-13.

Wieland, C. (2011). Stones and Bones. Brisbane, Australia, Creation Book Publishers.

Wikipedia. (July 23, 2016a). "K-Ar dating." Retrieved August 6, 2016 from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%E2%80%93Ar_dating.

Wikipedia. (August 3, 2016b). "List of radioactive isotopes by half-life." Retrieved August 6,

2016 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_radioactive_isotopes_by_half-life.

Wikipedia. (June 6, 2016c). "Uranium-lead dating." Retrieved August 6, 2016 from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium%E2%80%93lead_dating.

Wiles, J. R. (2006). "Evolution in Schools: Where's Canada?" Education Canada 46(4): 37-41.

Willmer, P. G. & Holland, P. W. H. (1997). "Modern Approaches to Metazoan Relationships."

Journal of Zoology (London) 224(1991): 689-694.

Wood, B. (3 November 1994). "The age of australopithecines." Nature 372: 31-32.


Wray, G.A., Levinton, J.S. & Shapiro, L.H. (1996). "Molecular Evidence for Deep Precambrian

Divergences Among Metazoan Phyla." Science 274: 568-573.

Young, D. A. (2007). "A Review of Dating Methods - Part Three: Thermochronometry,

Cosmogenic Isotopes, and Theological Implications." Perspectives on Science and

Christian Faith 59(2): 136-142.

Zarantonelli, L., Borthagaray, G., Lee, E. H. & Shafer, W. M. (1999). "Decreased azithromycin

susceptibility of Neisseria gonorrhoeae due to mtrR mutations." Antimicrobial Agents

and Chemotherapy 43: 2468-2472.

Zhang, J. (2000). "Protein-length distributions for the three domains of life." Trends in Genetics

16(3): 107-109.

Zouros, E., Freeman, K. R. Ball, A. O. & Pogson, G. H. (1 October 1992). "Direct evidence for

extensive paternal mitochondrial DNA inheritance in the marine mussel Mytilus."

Nature 359: 412, 414.

the theory of evolution under the microscope: should it be … · 2016-12-04 · b – evolution...

Documents