Evolution: the Evidence

Root Question: Does the available scientific evidence unequivocally support the theory of naturalistic evolution?
MM-view: No.
(what is this?)

In my opinion it is the height of unreasonableness to presume that one could provide irrefutable proof for or against either creation or evolution. Being historical events that could never be repeated in any lab, there will never be perfect verification or refutation of either theory. And yet, many supporters of evolution claim that the case is closed, that the evidence is undeniable, and that only those who are "ignorant, stupid, or insane" deny it.

This essay is intended merely to examine the strength of the evidence, rather than answer whether or not evolution is the best explanation for our existence. Even if the evidence is scant (as I believe it is), that says nothing about whether or not the theory of evolution accurately reflects history. In demonstrating that the evidence is highly equivocal I will use the following strategies:

I merely hope to demonstrate that one can be "informed, intelligent, and in their right mind" (as opposed to "ignorant, stupid, or insane") at the same time as doubting evolution.

Fossil evidence

The key issue with respect to the fossil evidence for evolution is "can the evidence be explained by evolution?" versus "can the evidence be explained by evolution ALONE?" In other words, can the facts be fit into the theory, or is the theory the only reasonable explanation for the facts? This distinction is alluded to in one of the quotes below. I believe that, while the facts can be fit into an evolutionary framework, they can also be fit into numerous other frameworks as well. Doubting evolution is fair game based on the evidence.

Humans from Primates

The question of our immediate ancestry is obviously of great interest to many people, and the idea that we are distant relatives of apes is a common idea. The exact nature of the supposed evolutionary path Homo sapiens took is highly debated among those who believe we evolved. This is most evident when admitted by those who defend evolution. After describing what he considers to be 'clear trends' in the evolution of man from apes, this author states:

He then goes on to discuss many of the areas of confusion, which amount to disagreement about well over half of the proposed evolutionary tree. Now, the interesting thing is watching him defend that statement, and attempt to put a positive spin on it, when it is quoted by a creationist ( www.christiancourier.com/penpoints/bonePushers.htm). He responds to what the creationist wrote by saying:

...the fact that there is "little consensus" on the exact structure of the hominid family tree doesn't mean there isn't a consensus on the fact that a variety of fossil hominids exist which are intermediate between humans and apes. Relationships between fossils are always going to be hard to determine, even in the presence of good fossil evidence.

The phrase "even in the presence of good fossil evidence" suggests the fossil evidence fo human ancestry is not good. But, that's just an implication. He does confess that determining relationships between intermediates is difficult, but if one has difficulty determining exactly how an intermediate is "intermediate" between two species, then one needs to ask how it is that they determined that it was intermediate in the first place.

The truth is that the evidence for human origins is even weaker than some of the other evidence we've seen. According to Henry Gee, chief science writer for Nature, all the evidence for human evolution "between about 10 and 5 million years ago--several thousand generations of living creatures--can be fitted into a small box." Thus the conventional picture of human evolution as lines of ancestry and descent is "a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices." Putting it even more bluntly, Gee concludes: "To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story--amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific." See . For the Gee quotations see: Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time (New York: The Free Press, 1999), 23, 32, 113-117, 202.

Birds from Reptiles

That there is little consensus between the evolutionist experts is further highlighted in this quote which was sent from the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution (Storrs L. Olson, Curator of Birds), to the Committee for Research and Exploration National Geographic Society (Dr. Peter Raven):

The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties in their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age---the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion. If Sloan's article [Feathers for T. rex? National Geographic, Nov 1999] is not the crescendo of this fantasia, it is difficult to imagine to what heights it can next be taken. But it is certain that when the folly has run its course and has been fully exposed, National Geographic will unfortunately play a prominent but unenviable role in the book that summarizes the whole sorry episode.

It is not widely known at the popular level, but many of the key characters seen as uniting birds and theropods are disputed. According to Feduccia, these include:

the nature of the pelvis (Martin 1991; Tarsitano 1991), the homology of the digits (Hinchliffe and Hecht 1984; Hinchliffe 1985; Martin 1991; Tarsitano 1991), the nature of the teeth (Martin, Stewart, and Whetstone 1980); Martin 1991), the hallux (Tarsitano and Hecht, 1980; Martin 1991; Feduccia 1993a), the ascending process of the astragalus (Martin, Stewart, and Whetstone 1980; Martin 1991; also see McGowan 1984, 1985 and reply by Martin and Stewart 1985), the pubis (Martin 1983a, 1983b, 1991; Tarsitano 1991; also see Wellnhofer 1985), and even the supposed unique semilunate carpal thought to be shared by Deinonychus and Archaeopteryx (and modern birds) (Martin 1991; Tarsitano 1991).

Whales from Land Mammals

In summarizing the paleontological evidence, we have noted the consistent changes that indicate a series of adaptations from more terrestrial to more aquatic environments as we move from the most ancestral to the most recent species. These changes affect the shape of the skull, the shape of the teeth, the position of the nostrils, the size and structure of both the forelimbs and the hindlimbs, the size and shape of the tail, and the structure of the middle ear as it relates to directional hearing underwater and diving. The paleontological evidence records a history of increasing adaptation to life in the water - not just to any way of life in the water, but to life as lived by contemporary whales.

The lineage he analyzed began with an already amphibious creature, and ended with two creatures that he claims "probably represents the group most likely to be ancestral to modern whales". Of course, he later claims that they "were fully aquatic whales". In a nutshell, this lineage, even if perfectly watertight, is not a full lineage from land animal to modern whale. It represents a hypothesized lineage from an animal that is assumed to be amphibious to an animal that is "most likely to be" the ancestor of modern whales. Not exactly complete, and there are those who seem to doubt that the fossils the author references were actually ancestors of modern whales. Consider the following:

Barbara J. Stahl states: "The serpentine form of the body and the peculiar serrated cheek teeth make it plain that these archaeocetes [i.e., Basilosaurus and related creatures] could not possibly have been ancestral to any of the modern whales."

The Archaeocetes, such as the Basilosaurus, are what the previous evolutionist claimed were the "most likely" ancestor of modern whales. Barbara J. Stahl then goes on to say:

the structure of the skull in [modern whales] shows a strange modification not present, even in a rudimentary way, in Basilosaurus and its smaller relatives. . . .

To make matters even worse, there is an apparent issue with the motion of these supposed ancestors of modern whales:

None of the suggested whale's terrestrial ancestors … have a vertical tail movement. However, whales (and an alleged link, Ambulocetus) do have a spinal up-and-down undulation.

In a different article (www.neoucom.edu/Depts/ANAT/Thewissen.html) another evolutionist lays out his interpretation of the fossil data in graphical form, and the reader will notice that the series of fossils that the original author assumes were all ancestors of modern whales, are presented in this scientists graphic as branches off of some other assumed similar ancestry. In fact, in the graphic, not one of the fossil types mentioned in the original article is included in the lineage leading toward modern whales; they were all assumed branches.

Once again, we find such disagreement between many experts who assume that evolution has happened.

Horse Evolution

As new fossils were discovered, though, it became clear that the old model of horse evolution was a serious oversimplification. The ancestors of the modern horse were roughly what that series showed, and were clear evidence that evolution had occurred. But it was misleading to portray horse evolution in that smooth straight line...

The author claims that the horse evolution is generally accurate, though some minor modifications might be in order. Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator of the American Museum of Natural History, has a different view:

"I admit that an awful lot of that (imaginary stories) has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable ...".

The curator of the American Museum of Natural History calls the level of mistakes lamentable. The question we ought to ask is, if there is a better model, why is it not being publicized? Perhaps there are other issues that are leaving the whole theory of the evolution of the horse in doubt. Another article summarizes the sentiments of many scientists on the horse evolution, includes this thought from an evolutionist:

G. A. Kerkut is also an evolutionist who recognizes that the theory has some faults. His main problem with the horse series is that the original fossils are not available -- everything on display is a reproduction, and there's no way of knowing which bones were really found and which were added from imagination. He wrote: G.A. Kerkut, "The Implications of Evolution," (New York: Pergamon Press, 1960), pp. 141-149:

"At present, however, it is a matter of faith that the textbook pictures are true or even that they are the best representations of the truth that are available to us at the present time. ... It makes quite a difference whether a name on a diagram represents a whole skeleton or just a tooth, ... "

That the original fossils are not available seems fairly significant, considering even the evolutionists admit that the original model was flawed. Going on:

Perhaps the best known demonstration of an evolutionary scenario is that of the horse series displayed in school and college textbooks and in museums. These charts and displays make the theory of horse evolution very neat, seemingly historical, all cut-and-dried. Actually there are important problems with the theory and some serious disagreement, even among evolutionary scientists.

When the author of the original article gave the impression that she was going to clear up all the confusion about the horse evolution, that was a rather bold claim, considering there appears to be no original fossils, an acknowledgement that the records of the original are faulty, and continued dispute between evolutionary scientists. Once again, the evidence is anything but crystal clear.

General Quotes

If the lack of conclusive fossil evidence isn't clear enough at this point, I provide some further quotes from various evolutionists, compiled in this creationist article:

In the first place, any objective paleontologist must concede that one's interpretation of the fossil record will invariably be influenced by one's presuppositions (in the case of the evolutionists, the presumption that evolution has taken place), and that everything must therefore be forced to somehow fit into that framework. This has been precisely the observation of Ronald West:

"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory." [Ronald R. West (evolutionist), "Paleontology and Uniformitariansim." Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]

Steven Stanley of Johns Hopkins, has this to say on the lack of a transitional fossil record-where it matters most, between genera and higher taxa:

"Established species are evolving so slowly that major transitions between genera and higher taxa must be occurring within small rapidly evolving populations that leave NO LEGIBLE FOSSIL RECORD." [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution and the Fossil Record, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1986, p. 460. (emphasis added)]

If that weren't enough to raise some doubts, Stanley, an affirmed evolutionist, is also objective enough to point out:

"The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid." [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]

"...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences." [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]

David Kitts acknowledges the problem and reiterates the subjectivity with which the fossil record is viewed:

"Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. The fossil record doesn't even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories." [David B. Kitts (evolutionist), "Search for the Holy Transformation," Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354.]

"Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so." [E.R. Leach (evolutionist); Nature 293:19, 1981]

Among the most well-known proponents of evolution (and a fierce opponent of Creationism), even Steven Jay Gould admits:

"At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the "official" position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count)." [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ... The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" [S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]

If those scientists who adhere to evolution have that little confidence in the fossil record's attestation to their theory, then it why do some who ascribe to the theory critize those who do not?

Supposed Observations of Evolution Today

Well, what about the evidences of evolution that we see today? For example, the breeding of animals has led to such a wide variety of different shapes and sizes that it's almost impossible to imagine any limits to what nature can do. Other examples of "change over time" (finch beaks, peppered moth, etc) have been forwarded as well. If evolution simply means "things change" then even the most ardent Creationist is an Evolutionist by definition. Nobody denies that change happens, the question is whether the changes we see are of the type that could produce legs, eyes, wings and so forth where they did not previously exist.

Three common examples of observed variation in animals today all have one thing in common; not one of them involves the advent of any new features. Centuries of breeding has given us horses that range in size from pedal bikes to automobiles, and dogs that range in size from footballs to humans. But no horse has ever become a unicorn, nor has a dog ever developed gills. All that marvelous variation was already pre-programmed into the existing genetic information. Because the genetic information already existed, breeding does not provide an explanation for how new genetic information can arise. Without new genetic information an amoeba could never become a horse.

The size of the finch beak on one island grew through the generations because a drought left an unusual selection of nuts, making a larger beak advantageous. When a flood subsequently covered the island the beak size went back to normal in a few more generations. In a similar manner, the peppered moth population used to be mostly white, with few dark, and then changed to mostly dark, with few white. Notice, however, that both white and dark moths continued to exist throughout that entire process. Moths did not suddenly appear with another set of wings, or with thumbs. Nature simply selected between what already existed; nothing new.

Consider, first, the wildly varying plants of the genus Brassica (broccoli, cauliflower, cabbages, kale, and brussel sprouts), which have been derived through artificial selection from a single species of wild mustard (Campbell, 1990, p.432). Anyone who has compared kale with brussel sprouts can see that their structures are extremely different.1 Another example of major structural change is the set of widely variant dog varieties that has resulted from selective breeding.2 Just look at the different varieties of dogs that exist today, and ask whether a Chihuahua and St. Bernard can be connected only by saltations? If such profound change can occur and speciation does, as Denton conceded, occur, then what is to theoretically stop a remote ancestor from evolving into all of the primates? What is theoretically to stop an ancient ungulate from evolving into a whale, or an ancient fish into an amphibian?

He asks the question of what "theoretically" stops the variation from extending beyond the observed limits. The limit that exists is the full range and scope of possible genes; there is no gene to create wings in cauliflower. After generations of breeding, nobody has ever been able to create a new gene. Brussel sprouts do not turn into trees and chihuahuas do not learn to fly. While the author rhetorically asks what theoretically limits that variation, science has demonstrated that such limitations do exist.

Consider the following quote from an evolutionist. Bear in mind the 'microevolution' is what has been observed (changes caused by nature selecting between different pre-existing traits), and 'macroevolution' is the advent of completely new features.

"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear No." [As reported by Roger Lewin (evolutionist), "Evolutionary theory under fire," Science, vol. 210 (4472), 21 November 1980, p. 883]

Genetics

In the realm of genetics evolutionists feel they have an answer to the question of where the new changes can come from. Mutations in the DNA provide new genetic information that selective breeding does not. This would seem to answer the problem of where the new features in species came from.

Most of the arguments from the realm of genetics are just as equivocal as the other evidences given. Part of the problem with using genetics to support or critique evolution is that the field is still developing, and major discoveries are still being made that challenge many ideas that were considered facts even recently.

Just recently the scientific community was astonished to find out that the human genome is much, much smaller than originally thought, and that the relationship between the genes and the proteins (the blueprint and the building blocks) is far different than they assumed. Unlike what had originally been assumed about DNA and proteins, there are relatively few genes, and relatively many proteins. Their research concluded that the human genome contains about 30,000 genes (most scientists figured over 100,000 before this), and about 300,000 proteins. The number of genes is surprisingly low, and in fact is only about double the number of genes in flies and worms. In other words, our blueprints aren't all that much larger or more complex than the blueprints of flies and worms. The author of the article had a chance to speak with a few prominent scientists at the time, and he reports this:

There was, however, a more disturbing implication. It took a few days to sink in. There followed a kind of appalled silence, and then the alarm bells began to ring, if only faintly. "The way these genes work must therefore be far more complicated than the mechanism long taught," whispered the Washington Post. The alarms will grow louder. For if what Craig Venter said is true--and it was accepted by James Watson when I spoke to him immediately after the press conference--the genetics textbooks will have to be rewritten and the therapeutic breakthroughs promised by the map of the genome may not come for decades, if ever. No one at the press conference disputed Venter's claims. That included the editors of Science and Nature, who made brief remarks.

When scientists are still making major discoveries that will necessitate a rewriting of genetic textbooks, using genetics as "proof" for evolution seems a bit premature.

The newness of the genetic field aside, let us assume no more major discoveries are going to be made that will require rewriting textbooks. The discovery of DNA does not offer nearly as much support for evolution as we have been led to believe. Consider some ways that genetics are used to support evolution.

Similar genes = similar ancestry

Some evolutionists are quick to point out that I have similar genes to my parents because I am related to them. Similarly, if we have genes that are similar to chimps, we must be related, right? There are several reasons to doubt this line of reasoning.

Firstly, this is a logical fallacy called "affirming the consequent." The general form of this fallacy is "if A, then B. B, therefore A." The evolutionists are claiming that "if I am related to soembody, then I will have similar genes. I have similar genes to chimps, therefore I am related to them." Another example (to illustrate the fallacy) would be "If somebodies pet is a dog then it has four legs. My pet has four legs, therefore Snowball is a dog."

Secondly, our genes are related to our size and shape much like a blueprint is related to the size and shape of a house. Things that look similar tend to have very similar blueprints (whether houses or animals), so it is just as reasonable to conclude that the Cosmic engineer wanted to build a couple of similar looking, but distinctly different, creatures that are completely unrelated.

Thirdly, there is too little time for mutations to have created all the genetic differences we see between chimps and humans. Each generation will have, on average, about 1 base pair mutation per every billion base pairs (I am being optimistic for evolutionsts, see link1, link2, and link3). Humans have about 3 billion base pairs, so each generation will have about three mutations in their entire genetic code. Chimps and humans are about 4% different (see this link), so let's split the difference and say that each species mutated halfway from some common ancestor. 2% of 3 billion base pairs is around 60 million base pair differences. The 60 million base pair difference would be divided evenly between each generation which experiences three mutations per generation, so we need about 20 million generations. Suppose each generation has kids when they are only ten years old (humans certain cannot that young!) that requires about 200 million years of evolution.

But we supposedly evolved from chimps only 3 million years ago. It just does not add up.

Mutations = the needed changes

Whereas breeding can yield a limited amount of variation based on whatever genes already exist, new information had to come from somewhere. Mutations would appear to answer that question. Each generation has some "mistakes" in the genetic code, and those mistakes could possibly add up.

The problem with this explanation is that most mutations are very harmful to life. Some mutations have no real effect either way, and a very small fraction are actually beneficial in some way.

One should also be wary of claims of discovery of beneficial mutations. Certainly there are some mutations that provide some kind of benefit in select circumstances for the organism under consideration, but these are often poor examples of 'evolution' in action for a few reasons.

Firstly, a simple change does not always involve an increase in information. Changing one letter in a sentence does not make it any longer. If mutations supposedly explain the complexity of life then we need lots and lots of new information because the simplist life forms have very small (relatively speaking) DNA compared to humans. If the beneficial mutation does not add information, then it really does not help explain where we got all this complexity from.

Secondly, Then also check just how "beneficial" the mutation really is. Sickle cell anemia, for instance, has been cited as an example of a beneficial mutation because those with it have a higher level of immunity to malaria. That's fine, except that the disease itself sounds rather unpleasant. How beneficial can something be that causes pain and may reduce one's life expectancy?

Thirdly, in what way is it beneficial? The only examples I know of are beneficial in that they allow something to eat different food, or resist different diseases. That's a far cry from adding wings or gills.

The Origin of Life

Although some evolutionists would like to think that the theory of evolution has little or no concern with the cosmos or the origin of life on earth, the reality is that scientists are deeply interested in the subject, and are assuming evolution in those fields as well (chemical evolution, cosmological evolution, etc.) The origin of both the universe and life must necessarily be explained by naturalistic causes; otherwise the evolution of life comes under question. If there are no reasonable grounds on which to conclude that life originated without the help of God, then surely questioning the naturalistic explanation of the advancement of life appears all the more reasonable.

In this section, we can rest on refutation principles 3 and 4. On the one hand, those attempting to reconstruct the origin of life scenarios have almost entirely failed, and on the other hand, the current understanding of chemistry dictates that it would be unlikely that the building blocks of life could ever have formed under the conditions assumed.

Christian De Duve wrote an article that appeared in American Scientists, September-October, 1995. Entitled, The Beginnings of Life on Earth, the article summarized the findings of 'origin of life' scientists to that point. It begins by boldly asserting:

It is now generally agreed that if life arose spontaneously by natural processes--a necessary assumption if we wish to remain within the realm of science...

In other words, God is not allowed here, no matter what. From there, the author reviews what he considers to be the important steps in the evolution of chemicals into life.

He begins by once again referring to the work of Stanley Miller in the 50's. Stanley Millar was able to produce amino acids by putting an electric charge through a combination of gasses he assumed represented the early atmosphere. As the author indicates:

Although the primitive atmosphere is no longer believed to be as rich in hydrogen as once thought by Urey, the discovery that the Murchison meteorite contains the same amino acids obtained by Miller, and even in the same relative proportions, suggests strongly that his results are relevant.

www.sigmaxi.org/amsci/articles/95articles/cdeduve.html

In other words, the current theories about what the early atmosphere was like are different from what Miller assumed, but because we have amino acids from some unknown source, Miller was probably still on the right track. What he does not mention is that scientists are now proposing an early atmosphere that is actually radically different from Miller's experiments, and would have made it altogether unlikely that any amino acids could have been produced. Consider:

... research has since drawn Miller's hypothetical atmosphere into question, causing many scientists to doubt the relevance of his findings. Recently, scientists have focused on an even more exotic amino acid source: meteorites. Chyba is one of several researchers who have evidence that extraterrestrial amino acids may have hitched a ride to Earth on far flung space rocks (Simpson, 1999, p. 26)

www.trueorigin.org//abio.asp

According to this source, scientists are not using the amino acids in meteorites as confirmation that Miller was on the right track; they are using it as a substitute! In other words, the early atmosphere would never have produced amino acids.

Christian De Duve continues, undaunted. He writes about research that is being conducted in labs to attempt to reproduce the reactions that might have occurred on the early earth. According to the author:

Besides amino acids and other organic acids, experiments in abiotic chemistry have yielded sugars, as well as purine and pyrimidine bases, some of which are components of the nucleic acids DNA and RNA, and other biologically significant substances, although often under more contrived conditions and in lower yields than one would expect for a prebiotic process.

In other words, scientists have only managed to produce 'lower yields' of the building blocks of life in 'more contrived conditions'. What that could also mean is that, under the true conditions, there is little chance of any of these building blocks being produced naturally. Furthermore, they have only managed to produce some of the building blocks, and these are being produced under conditions that would likely never be found in the 'early world'. He continues to describe several stages in the evolution of chemicals into the 'RNA world':

In the first stage, a pathway had to develop that took raw organic material and turned it into RNA. The first building blocks of life had to be converted into the constituents of nucleotides, from which the nucleotides themselves had to be formed. From there, the nucleotides had to be strung together to produce the first RNA molecules. Efforts to reproduce these events in the laboratory have been only partly successful so far, which is understandable in view of the complexity of the chemistry involved. On the other hand, it is also surprising since these must have been sturdy reactions to sustain the RNA world for a long time.

Consider carefully what is being said. The reactions that would have marked the first 'stage' in the development of chemicals into the 'RNA world' must have been 'sturdy reactions', yet 'efforts to reproduce these events in the laboratory have been only partly successful so far'. While the reactions necessarily had to be robust, scientists have not been entirely successful in reproducing them. Any rational person without a naturalistic bias would conclude that, if the reactions necessarily had to be robust, then the scientists are barking up the wrong tree, otherwise, the reactions simply are not robust, and an alternative explanation is required. Moving on to the second stage:

The development of RNA replication must have been the second stage in the evolution of the RNA world. The problem is not as simple as might appear at first glance. Attempts at engineering--with considerably more foresight and technical support than the prebiotic world could have enjoyed--an RNA molecule capable of catalyzing RNA replication have failed so far.

Here the author is a little more blunt. Efforts to duplicate this in the lab have failed. On to the third stage:

A third stage in the evolution of the RNA world was the development of RNA-dependent protein synthesis. Most likely, the chemical machinery appeared first, as yet uninformed by genetic messages, as a result of interactions among certain RNA molecules, the precursors of future transfer, ribosomal and messenger RNAs, and amino acids. Selection of the RNA molecules involved could conceivably be explained on the basis of molecular advantages, as just outlined. But for further evolution to take place, something more was needed. RNA molecules no longer had to be selected solely on the basis of what they were, but of what they did; that is, exerting some catalytic activity, most prominently making proteins. This implies that RNA molecules capable of participating in protein synthesis enjoyed a selective advantage, not because they were themselves easier to replicate or more stable, but because the proteins they were making favored their replication by some kind of indirect feedback loop.

At this point, the third stage of the evolution of the 'RNA world' could not possibly be reproduced in the lab, as we are no longer talking about chemical reactions, but selective advantages. This, of course, is purely speculative, as it could never be verified or falsified, considering we don't know what the options for selection were. We move on to the last stage:

The RNA world entered the last stage in its evolution when translation had become sufficiently accurate to unambiguously link the sequences of individual proteins with the sequences of individual RNA genes. This is the situation that exists today (with DNA carrying the primary genetic information), except that present-day systems are enormously more accurate and elaborate than the first systems must have been. Most likely, the first RNA genes were very short, no longer than 70 to 100 nucleotides (the modern gene runs several thousand nucleotides), with the corresponding proteins (more like protein fragments, called peptides) containing no more than 20 to 30 amino acids.

It is during this stage that protein enzymes must have made their first appearance, emerging one by one as a result of some RNA gene mutation and endowing the mutant protocell with the ability to carry out a new chemical reaction or to improve an existing reaction.

Note the number of 'must have', and 'most likely' statements included here. In other words, we are talking about pure guesswork. The author then summarizes the whole scenario:

What can we conclude from this scenario, which, though purely hypothetical, depicts in logical succession the events that must have taken place if we accept the RNA-world hypothesis?

On the one hand, the author admits that the scenario is purely hypothetical (and the lack of laboratory confirmation does not strengthen the case), yet on the other hand, he concludes that it 'must have taken place'. I think the author made an insightful comment when speaking of the RNA world:

Today it is almost a matter of dogma that the evolution of life did include a phase where RNA was the predominant biological macromolecule.

www.sigmaxi.org/amsci/articles/95articles/cdeduve.html (emphasis in original, emphasis added)

It is almost a matter of dogma: Considering the purely hypothetical nature of the theory, and lack of substantial empirical evidence to support it, I suggest it is not almost, but purely, a matter of dogma.

To be completely thorough, I would quote from the many scientists who doubt this version of the origin of life, and some of the many theories that have been hypothesized. Rather than waste space, I will simply point out that, when there are so many theories that differ so drastically in their fundamental assumptions one is not being unreasonable in questioning whether it is time to re-evaluate the fundamental assumptions involved in conjuring up these theories.

Once again, the evidence is anything but unequivocally supportive of naturalistic explanations.

The Big Picture

It seems fair to say that an entirely naturalistic explanation of life is lacking on three points.

First, the naturalists claim that the universe spontaneously came into being from nothing, yet this violates the first law of thermodynamics. Because the theories that relate to this field are so speculative and the field is also largely influenced by philosophy, I will not expand any more on this here.

Second, the naturalists claim that life spontaneously arose from non-living matter, yet this contradicts the discoveries of Louis Pasteur, and finds no support in the empirical sciences. This was outlined in great detail by the article written by Christian De Duve in the last section.

Third, the naturalists claim that life spontaneously became more and more complex, yet this contradicts the second law of thermodynamics, as well as the observations of science. There are no known instances of any new genetic information being added to any species, and the variation that is observed has definite limits.