Final Paper

The end of the evolution creation debate

2015

The following examination of evolution is based solely on

information from peer-reviewed mainstream scientific
publications. In addition, information has been obtained by
direct correspondence with world leading mainstream scientific
experts to obtain the very best information possible. The first
part of the paper on evolution has also been reviewed by
expert scientists. This will be followed by an examination of the
biblical perspective of Creation, principally the first eleven
chapters of Genesis. Concluding comments will offer resolution
between the two positions as well as strategies for maintaining
a balance between the two perspectives.
Preliminary observations.
Scientists who advocate evolution are neither Darwins
bulldogs nor Rottweillers. Scientists are reasonable and mostly
courteous, and also flexible in their positions and open to
change in the light of any new evidence. However, any
conservatism scientists do exhibit in their fields is an
advantage because the pace of new discoveries and
information has accelerated in the last 25 years to such a
degree that converting this new data into intelligible
explanations consistent with current theories demands time
and validation.
However, some unfortunate trends have developed within
mainstream science. The use of derogative language by even
some eminent scientists towards those who oppose evolution or
propose alternative theories (such as theistic evolution) can
hardly enhance their own reputations or that of mainstream
science. This trend may be a reaction to justified provocation,
but it doesnt look good when such language is used in the
public domain such as on Internet sites.

Another unfortunate feature in the dialogue used between

scientists and those who oppose evolution is resorting to ad
hominem arguments. It is often not what is said, but rather who
said it, with a preoccupation on a persons qualifications rather
than the content. Qualifications are important, but should not
exclude people from contributing to discussion. A PhD in
science has not prevented some from advocating a young earth
nor did having a theological degree as ones principal
qualification prevent Darwin from formulating his book Origin
of species.
On a far more sophisticated level, scientists are publishing
psychological papers that claim that religious belief is an
impediment to obtaining knowledge; principally the acceptance
of new ideas. The claims even go so far as to state that the
conservatism of scientists itself can be an impediment to
accepting new scientific advances in knowledge. Whilst this is
most certainly true based on historical and contemporary
observations regarding religion and science, it should be noted
that it is equally true that many of our scientific discoveries
were made and supported by committed religious people.
On the other hand, no other group of scientists have been
subjected to such vilification for such an extended period of
time as mainstream Darwinian scientists. Their critics claim
that they have impaired cognitive faculties, distorted
conclusions from their biases and are engaged in a surreptitious
agenda to undermine organised religion. The opposite is true.
The few scientists who use science as a basis to make
philosophical assertions such as atheism and who ridicule
religion are asked by their scientific peers to desist from such
counter-productive agendas.
Scientists who advocate evolution should be treated as any
other scientist in any other scientific discipline. They should be
trusted, supported and respected irrespective of the issues
their work raises. Scientists do bring their own set of
presuppositions to the evidence, but attempt to minimise these
and to interpret the data as objectively as possible. Human
cognitive faculties are constrained by the limitations of our
nature, but the biblical reference to the darkness of human
minds refers primarily to religious truths, which are not

incomprehensible, but easily understood, and the darkness of

mind lies in their rejection as foolish and therefore worthless
or such truths being accepted and then distorted into evil or
futile practices.
The commercialisation of the evolution creation debate has
led to an explosion of material from paid debates, films and
publications and ranges from childrens books to complex
material on DVDs and superficial, populist books. The quality of
this material is questionable and it simply channels scarce
resources from the public into the hands of a few. This in turn
diverts money from valuable research projects, which are
extremely expensive and diverts money from at times woefully
under-resourced secondary school materials. British studies
have confirmed the lack of quality resources for secondary
schools. Perhaps a public boycott of any form of
commercialisation would facilitate the demise of these
materials. There is available on-line and in university
libraries, high quality materials for the public to gain
information on evolution that are free and institutions would
greatly appreciate any financial support for research.
Evolutions origin with Darwin
Charles Darwin has been criticised both by his peers in the
past and present critics as being a plagiarist. One good
example to test this criticism is that of the
ornithologist Blyth cited by critics as one who Darwin
plagiarised. It is quite easy to come to this conclusion when
reading an 1835 article for example, by the
naturalist Blyth. Blyth stated that species change gradually
over time and these changes become more pronounced with
each successive generation. Moreover, it is the strongest that
prevails over the weaker, the dominant bull for example, will
scare away the weaker and thus preserve its stock. It is the
struggle for existence that produces the strongest members
of a species. Likewise, the most agile members among species
obtain the most food and therefore can transmit their
superiority to the maximum offspring thereby preserving and
transmitting this advantage to the next generation. The
concept of change was however, within narrow parameters.

Blyth asserted that acquired variations were not transferable

to offspring and uses the example of skin colouration. When
European people relocated to the tropics and tanned, their
offspring remained pale. This led to the preservation of original
species, irrespective of the environment and was therefore a
non-Lamarckian viewpoint.
Blyth also remarked on the high degree of speciation among
birds especially with reference to microhabitats and variation in
feather colour corresponding to each particular vegetation
type. Camouflage was intended for preservation and many
examples are cited from moths to arctic mammals. However,
what Blyth advocated was that the original species were the
best adapted to their environment and therefore stasis was
imperative to survival.
Rather than seeing plagiarism in Darwins work, one can see
how it is at this juncture that Darwin deviated so markedly from
mainstream science. The ornithologist Blyth admired the agility
of the hunter and the camouflage of the hunted, as one of
many examples of Gods kind acts to mitigate the agility of the
hunter. This also ensured a balance of numbers in
species' populations. For Darwin, rather than admiration for
nature, he saw the whole fact of predation, and predation in its
extreme form of parasitism, as contrary to the whole concept of
a good God. This may well have been the stimulus for him to
formulate his concept of an impersonal law operating in nature
to substitute a contradictory view of a good God and cruelty in
nature. Darwin reinvented an existing form of natural selection
held by naturalists. They believed it was a means to preserve
existing species by extinguishing the weakest and
preserving the strongest and thereby maintaining the fixity in
species. Darwin applied natural selection in a novel manner
from preservation of fixity to elimination of stasis within
species, and the preservation of variations within species and
not the fixity of those species.
Blyth is just one of many sources that critics claim Darwin
stole from, and it is even claimed that it was the cause of his
delayed publication of Origin. A long delay would aid people to
forget Darwins poached sources, like Blyth. The truth is
that Blyth lived until 1874, 15 years after Origins first

publication and he didnt make any claims of being plagiarised.

A number of other factors influenced Darwins delay, but when
he published, he timed it right and many peers received his
work favourably. In addition, he was pressured by a number
of scientific figures to publish lists of people to acknowledge, as
contributing in some way to his own work.
Other critics claim Darwin redacted his journals and notes
about his iconic Beagle voyage to alter the timing of the
change of his belief in the fixity of species to his new found
understanding of evolution. In other words, critics claim Darwin
remained unchanged by his Galapagos voyage at the time, but
altered his journals later to forge the date of his discovery of
evolution to the time of his global voyage. This assertion by
critics is based on studies of posthumous publications of
Darwins private notes and journals, which are compared with
his earlier works and signs of redaction or alteration being
detected.
This criticism ignores the prodigious literary output of Darwin
at the time and how insignificant was the issue of the timing of
his shift from fixity of species to evolution when considering the
vast array of subjects and data Darwin wrote about. Darwin did
take an extended time to formulate his theory, referring to the
Beagle as his Cambridge and on his return employing five
famous naturalists to process the specimens and notes he
collected. Some historians have also stated that in fact the
Galapagos finches played an insignificant role in the
formulation of his theory.
Changes did occur between editions of certain works related
to his voyage, but did not involve falsification of information.
Darwin stated they involved condensation and correction.
The 1839 and 1845 versions of his voyage are in the main
highly descriptive with the later version omitting extended
geological data. There is little theoretical formulation
in either versions regarding species and both accounts are
descriptive of extinction of species rather than why extinction
occurs. There is little formulation of a theory of evolution in
these editions which proves the claims of redaction or
falsification of his journals are groundless. Darwin's theory of
evolution was the product of years of research following his

voyage on the Beagle and culminated in the publication of "The

Origin of Species" in 1859. Darwins critics assert plagiarism
and redaction as a strategy to undermine the theory of
evolution. If you denigrate the author, it can reduce the
credibility of their theory.
Definition of Evolution
This section will define the theory of evolution avoiding the
vast literature that involves the disputes concerning semantics
and philosophical considerations about the theory. It is the
mechanics of the theory that is imperative not disputes about
terminology. Certain theories have had a great influence in
moulding the theory of evolution.
The belief in the fixity of species has much to commend itself.
It is observable even to the casual eye. Apple trees produce
apples not oranges and lions do not breed with zebras. There is
little change in species without human interference. It is
testable by repeatable experiments and produces consistent
results that at least among animals, cross breeding is
impossible; no viable offspring can be produced, if at all.
However, the big issue is having a scientific explanation as to
how species originated into this relatively stable equilibrium,
which was what Darwin sought to address.
The other major theory is the belief in the inherent
adaptability of species. Species possess within themselves the
latent ability to change when the external environment alters.
They develop over time traits that guarantee survival and these
are passed on to their offspring. Species also possess on the
microbiological scale, the ability to respond and adapt to
external change such as resistance to disease, climate change
or dietary changes as a few examples. Change in species
comes from within the species itself. The classic example is the
giraffe whose neck lengthened over time as it tried to reach
foliage and hence long-necked giraffes developed as an
adaptation to the environment. It is an internal mechanism as
opposed to Darwins external mechanism, the internal
mechanism to adapt versus the external mechanism that
selects.

This theory teaches that as the environment changes so a

species adapts. Darwin taught the reverse: a species changes
and the environment selects particular changes within
a species and that this process is random. Scientists have also
questioned whether adaptations to the environment in a
particular generation are heritable and therefore do not benefit
their offspring. This is based on the scientific knowledge of the
mechanics of genetics. Therefore fixity of species and the
internal adaptability of species are rejected in favour of
Darwin's theory.
The current Darwinian theory of evolution is based in general
terms on the replication of biological information within
organisms. Stability of an organisms biological information is
essential for its viability and each organism possesses a range
of mechanisms that preserve this stability. However, some
variation is needed to survive changing environments. With
each successive copy in the subsequent generation, variation
occurs. Variation means there must be a master copy. Evolution
is the difference between the last living copy and the original
master copy. Sometimes the difference is minute, which is
stasis of the species over time. At other times, variations
accumulate gradually, which eventually translates into changes
in the species. Copies themselves become like originals for new
lineages, which radiate into new species.
Variations are principally the outcome of pure chance
irrespective of the multitude of causes for genetic variation.
Chance is central to the theory as each variation of the DNA in
general terms, is totally random. Each chance variation of the
genetic code or nucleotide sequence is then selected.
Variations and selection must coincide for evolution to occur
and this event is purely by chance. So the process is illogical,
but the outcome produced is logical. Beneficial variations or
alleles must be widely diffused within the species population
for selection to operate effectively.
Natural selection itself does not make dinosaurs into birds or
reptiles into mammals. Natural selection operates solely on the
rate of reproduction of a particular variation. It can limit
reproduction, which leads to extinction or it can foster
reproduction, which leads to survival. It is like a sickle that

reaps or spares certain variations. Therefore, extinction is a key

element in establishing which species survive and which
members within a species continues.
Gradualism is a key component of evolution as large-scale
genetic variation in species can be fatal or deleterious. The
principle behind an original variation that is selected applies to
subsequent superior variations of that original beneficial allele
in that they are also random and are selected. The collection of
variations eventually leads to changes in the organism, but
although the whole process is non-directional, each step to
change requires an unbroken chain of intermediates or the
process is disrupted. It should also be noted that as the process
is generally identical for all degrees of evolution, the distinction
between macro and microevolution isnt valid unless a
threshold exists within species whereby genetic variation is
exhausted or the viability of the species is compromised. The
evidence suggests this threshold exists in many laboratory
studies of evolution, but not true for many fossils found in the
field, which suggests such thresholds between species have
been crossed.
Chance
DNA is a logical structure so it is assumed there is a logical
process behind the production of a blueprint for organic life, a
blueprint that has an almost 2 billion year history. Rates of
evolution can be calculated mathematically with precision in
units called Haldenes or changes in DNA over time based on
molecular clocks. It is the process of evolution itself that
cannot be reduced to mathematical formulas because it is
based on chance.
Evolution operates by random mutations being selected.
Random or chance is an essential element of evolution as one
world expert stated by private email. However, chance needs to
be defined as it does not mean chance as something virtually
without limitation as in the chance of winning the lottery.

Random or chance mutation means an absence of correlation

to and independence from any environmental pressure on an
organism to adapt. Scientists seek to quarantine mutation from
any external impulse from the phenotype to genotype. A
number of scientists disagree with the above scientific
consensus over random mutation.
They believe that biological processes are responsive to the
environment and this applies also to genetic mutation. For
example, there is the coordinated response of the immune
system to pathogens or the many examples of organisms
developing adaptive measures to their environment. Mutations
are produced when and where needed, the rate and degree of
mutation increasing or decreasing according to the selection
pressures. Epigenetic causes effect production of genetic
mutations.
Some scientists posit quite radical positions with respect to
epigenetics. They claim that regulatory mechanisms in an
organism link stimuli from the external environment to genetic
mutation. Glands produce hormones when stimulated by the
external environment and this affects gene expression. Such
environmentally induced evolution, as opposed to random
mutation, is diffused in entire populations, and therefore is
immune to selection pressure as it corresponds to
environmental change and such changes in populations
become permanent.
In addition to epigenetics, there are claims that some
processes themselves are non-random. For example, rather
than randomness in mutation, certain biases exist in
reduplication of genes. Some bacteria belonging to broad
clades share similar nucleotide content even though they were
exposed to different environments. They are either GC or AT
biased and therefore conclusions have been drawn that it is not
natural selection that is operating alone on mutations, but the
replication machinery itself working better on either GC or AT
sequences. In addition, species also display a preference for a

particular codon to encode amino acids, even though there are

synonymous codons available.
There are other directional features of evolution that
contradict the randomness of mutation according to some
studies. Gene acquisition and loss are claimed to be directed
evolution in mutation that leads to phenotypic changes. Studies
in Salmonella have shown that adaptive processes may be the
explanation for gene loss in successive laboratory generations.
This is an example of reductive evolution whereby a genome is
reduced because gene loss decreases energy expenditure in
gene reduplication and is therefore beneficial to the organism.
Likewise, Eukaryote gene acquisition from Prokaryote sources
have occurred and been retained. For example, in certain fungi
the isocitrate lyase gene has conferred certain metabolic
benefits to fungi and this gene has been acquired from ancient
Prokaryote sources; one example among many of gene
transferral.
There are also phenotypic constraints on evolution.
Convergent evolution confirms that there are only so many
designs for flight or sight that are viable for organisms.
Allometry placed constraints on evolution as connected
anatomical structures when evolving had to accommodate
changes which if too random would compromise a species
viability. For example, whales when evolving had to
accommodate the larger structure of the head and therefore
other anatomically connected parts had to remain small or the
viability of the organism would have been compromised.
Evolution isnt random, but is adaptive and directional
according to some scientific opinions.
The scientific consensus rejects non-random mutations. They
do accept genetic mutations from epigenetic causes such as
carcinogens or radiation. However, a heat induced mutation, for
example, does not produce phenotypic changes related to heat
tolerance in an organism. One world leading scientist in
America has stated that all claims for non-random processes in

mutations are utter rubbish! His dictum is quite clear: any

adaptive, non-random and directed processes in evolution are
themselves a product of random mutations.
Research at Princeton University on mitochondrial metabolic
processes relating to ATP production has led to the conclusion
that random mutation and selection can lead to the production
of self-regulatory structures in an organism. Protein chains
located in the mitochondria acted like a system thermostat able
to correct imbalances in the system produced by mutations.
The organism then possesses an inherent ability to control the
system from external stimuli by controlling energy production
in response to those stimuli and in turn this controls
evolutionary change. Such self-correcting behavior could not be
random. It is species themselves developing the ability to adapt
to their environment rather than a random process of evolution.
Some scientists conclude from these studies that organisms
even have the ability to steer their own evolution to greater
biological complexity. Organisms act like adaptive machines
possessing the ability to steer their own evolution. The caveat
on this conclusion is that this very ability is the result of random
mutation as stated by the researchers at Princeton who
conducted this research.
However, natural selection is non-random and favours or
targets variations able to survive. Evolution combines both
random and non-random processes: mutation and selection.
Common Ancestors
Darwins great unique insight that he repeatedly mentions in
his book Origin of Species is how he was the first to recognize
that all species originate from one common ancestor and not
multiple ancestors as was the prevailing view in his time. This
perspective is still the current view of science. Scientists
believe species are an artificial construct. There are no
boundaries between species. One prominent museum curator
of paleontology explained by private email: we are a poorly

designed composite of fish, reptile and mammal parts.

Populations are fluid and not fixed in form.
Common ancestry can be counter intuitive. For example,
cladistics has posited a closer association of lungfish with cows
that were formerly more closely associated with salmon.
Common ancestry is substantiated by certain studies; an
extensive statistical test of the amino acid sequences of
conserved proteins across all organisms by one scientist, led to
the conclusion that only one common ancestor could have
produced the current protein sequences that exist amongst
most if not all organisms. The common genetic code, along with
other cycles such as the Kreb cycle used by all aerobic
organisms points to a commonality of origin.
However, the elusive origin of DNA and the irreducibility of
the three classes of original organisms (Eukaryotes, Prokaryotes
and Archaea) are fundamental challenges to the central dogma
of universal descent from a common ancestor. Many
microbiologists now doubt a single common ancestor existed
because of the three irreducible domains of life.
Some scientists have expressed exasperation at the public
continuing to reject evolution. US surveys have published
results which do show a correlation between the levels of
education and the acceptance of evolution. However, what
scientists perhaps fail to grasp is the sheer enormity of what
the public are asked to accept; namely, the fact that a humans
ancestor was a zebra fish swimming in water. Such a
transformation seems to come straight from the pages of
science fiction. This is probably one of the main obstacles to
public acceptance of evolution and not conservative religious
views which may simply compound these attitudes.
Dissemination of Evolution
One serious deficiency that needs to be addressed and
revised is the presentation of evolution by publicly funded
institutions. Since research for this paper began three years

ago, quite a number of these issues have been addressed.

However, the websites of many universities and museums still
contain outdated and inaccurate information. High school
curricula are even more inadequately presented. The
Darwinian method of drip-feeding fragments of information
should be replaced with an overall simplified version of the
theory of evolution in its entirety. The isolated fragments of
evidence or examples of evolution that are presented often
are distorted or inaccurate and one ends up with an Easter
Bunny evolution once these inaccuracies are exposed. This
can undermine the credibility of evolution. Commercial nature
publications and programs are often even more inaccurate. A
few notable examples of the many that require revision are
examined below.
Artificial Selection as evidence for evolution
Artificial selection in breeding certain species is used as an
aid to understanding evolution; the many dog breeds are one
popular example because dog breeding produces such a large
variety of animals. One famous scientist even cited this
example as proof of evolution in a public address. Some
scientists even consider artificial selection as equivalent to
natural selection. Huxley and Darwin also favoured pigeon
breeding as an example because of its long history to
demonstrate evolution. Artificial breeding figured large in
Darwins research as demonstrated by a large portion of his
book Origin devoted to this topic. Darwin noted how the best
specimens to reproduce were selected by breeders and through
this process were eventually able to produce the most desirable
outcome as long as the breeder had sufficient numbers of
livestock to make these beneficial changes effective. These
facts, Darwin believed, could be extended to natural selection
and artificial selection aided the understanding of evolution.
The earliest critics of this example were Wallace and
Wilberforce. They claimed that artificial selection disproved
evolution or at a minimum, was not a helpful example to use.
Regression to original species occurred if selection ceased. This
meant that selection whether artificial and by extension natural
selection, was temporary in its effects only. Artificial selection
also produced the least fittest: domesticated varieties did not

survive in the environment to the same degree as native

species. Again, the temporary nature of evolution would be
demonstrated by naturally selected varieties of a species being
the least fittest to survive the environment as for artificially
selected species returned to the wild.
In addition, artificial selection offers evidence for limited
change, but it is questionable if this can be extended to the
unlimited change of natural selection. Finally, artificial selection
reinforces the idea that selection is dependent on an external
intelligent agent to occur. By extension, natural selection could
also share this same dependency. It is therefore debatable
whether artificial selection that is used so often as evidence for
evolution, especially in High School curricula, is sustainable
evidence for evolution.
The Peppered Moth
The peppered moth is also promoted as evidence for
observable evolution. It is cited extensively in high school
textbooks and university websites and endorsed by world
famous scientists. In this example of evolution, the colour of the
tree bark does determine moth numbers as has been observed,
and is quite logical. Dark tree bark equates to predatory birds
feeding on light coloured moths and then switching to dark
coloured moths when the tree bark reverts to its original white
colour over time due to reduced pollution.
Groundless criticisms were levelled about this example with
respect to scientific methodologies and photographic records.
However, what this example clearly demonstrates is that when
natural selection operates on a species and then the selection
pressure is withdrawn, the effects of evolution disappear. It
makes evolution appear ephemeral and transient, not effectual
and permanent. Perhaps certain species of Brazilian butterflies
would make a better example. Although it is not observable
evolution, but deduced by genetic analysis, it is a good
example of Mullerian evolution whereby
certain Brazilian butterflies mimic the colouration of poisonous
species in order to deter predation.

Another good, similar example for evolution with respect to

butterflies is what is termed "Batesian mimicry."A particular
female butterfly of the Papilio species has developed two forms:
one with a particular colouration that avoids predation and
another form without such colouration. The first
form mimics the colouration of another species less popular
with predators. The "supergene" in the first form responsible for
this change has been identified. This is a far clearer example of
species evolving under a selection pressure.
Human chimp relationship
The similarity between the genome of humans and chimps is
universally quoted and promoted as definitive evidence for
evolution. Unfortunately, the statistical figures used are a
distortion of the facts. It is claimed on official websites and in
publications at both secondary and tertiary levels that there is
a 99% similarity.
Firstly, this 99% similarity refers to only 3% of the genome;
specifically the protein coding region and is therefore an
extremely biased statistic to quote. The figure of 99%
may also need revision to 95% similarity for this particular
region as well. For the overall genome comparison, one public
genome institution stated by personal email that the figure
would be around 89% and this figure was not exact because not
all genetic material can be aligned. Another world leading
scientific expert on genetics explained by personal email that
the figure was perhaps even lower, as diversity even between
individuals of the same species was very high due to the
mobility of certain genes. Comparisons between humans and
chimps on mRN1 sequence variation are also very high in
comparison to protein coding regions.
The similarity between human and chimp genomes does
prove a number of important facts. The coding regions of
mammals are very stable and havent diverged greatly over
time. The irrefutable fact, as one leading scientist explained by
personal email, is that irrespective of the precise figures,
chimps are our closest relatives among mammals. Perhaps one
of the most helpful ways to demonstrate this is with simplified
diagrams of particular genetic material compared between a

range of mammals. For example, for Cytochrome C Isoleucine,

humans and chimps are the most similar whereas horses
diverge by 12 amino acids. Recent modifications of numbers
have been made such as one world-famous nature magazine
publishing a recent article on human evolution and
incorporating a revised figure of 90% human chimp genome
similarity.
The human chimp genome similarity is cited as evidence that
both share a common ancestor. However, the human
chimp relationship is often biased in diagrams and even
museum displays. A linear progression is portrayed starting
from some ape-like ancestor often carrying some sort of
implement through to Homo erectus and then to some bearded
caveman. This stereotypical depiction is quite chauvinistic.
Perhaps a blond-haired blue-eyed woman could be used instead
of the caveman. Perhaps this is avoided because of concerns
that plausibility or sensibilities might be stretched! But this is
what evolution proposes and should therefore be presented in a
more balanced manner.
The remedy for these shortcomings is to update or correct
information and eliminate biases. Manipulating statistics to
strengthen the plausibility of evolution simply undermines the
credibility of the theory and unfortunately, in some educational
contexts this practice still continues. The drip-feed method of
Darwin of presenting fragments of evidence should be
abandoned.
At an early educational stage, simple diagrams could be
shown how organisms began as unicellular and then
evolved through a number of transitional and intermediate
species into a wide variety of matching contemporary flora,
fauna and human races. Certain species that have maintained
stasis over a long period of time could also be depicted. This
would show the theory of evolution in its entirety and also
demonstrate both the unity and diversity of organic life. Many
tertiary text books on Genetics already contain such diagrams
in their introduction. This method should filter down through
the various levels within the education system.
The Origin of Life

Many scientists exclude the origin of life from the process of

evolution. Evolution is stated as simply accounting for the
origin of species because the processes involved with the origin
of life will differ markedly from those related to biological
evolution. However, many scientists have realised that
evolution is based on the presupposition of a materialistic
natural scientific process for the origin of life. There is the top
down approach to the subject as in cladistical studies
that analyse the metabolism of certain amino acids to reveal
the first possible pathways from free amino acids in an abiotic
environment and the bottom up approach that starts with the
first possible inorganic chemical processes that eventually led
to the origin of life.
The starting point for the process of life's
origin is disorganised inorganic elements and the end point of
the process is a primal self-replicating organic cell.
The organisation of inorganic elements into a stable prebiotic
structure requires either a spontaneous reaction or a substitute
for the energy produced by enzyme catalysis.
Recent Harvard scientific experiments have produced nucleic
acid precursors using hydrogen cyanide and hydrogen sulfide
exposed to sunlight or UV radiation. Other scientists believe the
UV radiation from sunlight was an insufficient energy source to
have produced stable prebiotic organised structures.
The alternative energy source that is commonly examined is
hydrothermal vents where a combination of high heat,
pressure and accumulation in pockets or pores of the
vents, constituted a crucible for chemical prebiotic structures to
form from chemical elements. These prebiotic structures
themselves were subject to the process of natural selection and
were therefore evolving through a number of stages of prebiotic
chemically structured and organised intermediates.
Some other research indicates that other processes were
involved in the organisation of prebiotic precursors. Certain
montmorillonite clays attracted and concentrated RNA
nucleotides into strands or polymers that then developed

further into structures that could store genetic information

and catalyse chemically.
There is additional discussion and research into whether
these prebiotic entities were initially metabolising or replicating
structures. The commonality of certain metabolic cycles among
biological species suggests these were the possible earliest
chemical reactions that eventually formed into the initial
prebiotic structures. These initial metabolic structures then
incorporated a replication system which eventually led to
organic life. However, initial metabolising prebiotic structures
are ruled out because of the fragility of such systems whereas
initial replicating prebiotic structures are considered as not only
stable compared to metabolic systems, but also these
replicating reactions have been validated
by laboratory experiments.
Some research has even suggested an alternative
evolutionary mechanism called "kinetic" selection rather than
natural selection operating upon the various prebiotic
intermediates to organic life. Kinetic selection is when the most
rapid and stable replicating prebiotic structures survived whilst
the slower ones went extinct.
The final step from the prebiotic to the biotic seems logical as
biotic structures are simply a complex set of self-regulated
processes encased in a cell membrane. The most logical
hypothesis is that prebiotic life evolved into a synthesis of RNA
nucleotides produced by prebiotic starting materials into an
RNA precursor.
The reasoning behind a lot of research is to develop a single
explanatory framework that encompasses both chemistry
and biology. Chemical reactions can be reduced to simple
demonstrable laws and if biological life is a series of chemical
reactions and processes then the evolutionary process likewise
can be reduced to a similar set of laws.
Explanatory challenges to the origin of life
There is the assumption that life arose from non-life. Yet the 3
states for inorganic matter are generally thermodynamically

more stable than organic matter which requires greater energy

input. Not only are thermodynamic patterns different, but the
relationship between the two, the inorganic and organic with
respect to these patterns is not very well understood. This not
only relates to thermodynamics, but in a more general sense
with respect to chemical reactions that have remained constant
for millions of years as opposed to biological selection which is
far more difficult to determine. It is also difficult to account for a
teleometric biological world that has defined goals like hunting
and surviving emerging out of an inanimate non-thinking
universe.
In addition to these difficulties, primordial processes and
conditions with regard to temperature, pH levels and pressure
in aquatic or non-aquatic, aerobic or anaerobic conditions are
all speculative. Although molecular replication is an established
empirical fact, non-enzymatic replication may also have been
too fragile to have occurred. The structure of DNA and RNA
which possesses a sugar based backbone is also problematic to
account for. Finally, no synthesis of a replicating entity under
prebiotic conditions has been achieved according to some
scientists. This means that life beginning as a highly complex
replicating system of RNA nucleic acids is unlikely according to
a number of scientists. Further research will no doubt clarify
these outstanding issues in the future.
Final Comment on Presentation Of Evolution
One final comment regarding the presentation of
evolution that palaeobotanists have made: they conceive
evolution in whole environments. It is not only examining the
strata of evolving plants, but also how insects that pollinate or
feed off the plants evolve with the plants. Perhaps evolving
food chains rather than isolated species would be a more
meaningful presentation of evolution within the limitations of a
fragmentary fossil record and the inclusion of the prebiotic
pathways of evolution to organic life. This would offer a more
balanced and complete presentation of evolution.
Is evolution observable?

One criticism of evolution is that it is not observable. In

response, people who promote evolution and even some
scientists have responded with what I call an explosion of
contemporary examples of evolution which are claimed to be
observable.
The issue for scientists to demonstrate observable evolution
has existed since the theory was first published. When Huxley
gave his customary public scientific lectures, which often
simply involved regurgitating Darwins theories and studies on
rock pigeons, all he could offer was evidence of evolution that
was intra-species. He realised that he was unable to
demonstrate evolution according to the strict standards of
science, which requires repeatable, observable and testable
evidence.
Today, hundreds of studies are published of observable
evolution. They range from decade long studies of the
Galapagos finch: beak sizes increasing by 4%, finches of
differing species breeding to produce new species and stasis in
beak size among all the finch species on one island due to
tourists feeding them rice. Droughts and floods on another
island are considered responsible for natural selection taking a
double swing at finch populations and thereby producing
different changes in the same species.
There are theories that birds grew wings to escape predators
based on current observations of chickens running towards
trees when threatened by predators. There is human resistance
to kuru disease, Tibetan altitude tolerance due to genetic
changes, human malaria resistance in a number of ways,
thickening human bones over the centuries as proof of
evolution, anti-biotic resistant bacteria, pesticide resistant flies
and Gulexpipiens plens mosquitoes resisting insecticides.
Grasses evolve to be able to grow on tailings laced with heavy
metals, new corn seed stock have increased yields compared to
old corn stock seeds, algae evolving from photophilic to
photophobic properties, the list is endless. Many reputable
people and journals cite these contemporary examples of socalled observable microevolution as evidence for
macroevolution.

This explosion of examples whereby many biological

phenomena are attributed to an observable evolutionary
process can trivialise evolution. Common sense explanations of
biological facts have become equated with examples of and
therefore evidence for evolution. In an attempt to make
evolution the norm, it could make it become the mundane. The
challenge for scientific and educational institutions is to edit,
publish and publicise meaningful studies and research that
support or demonstrate evolution. Many publicised examples of
evolution often have one common denominator: they make
evolution appear rapid rather than the gradualism which
underlies the theory; perhaps a reaction to the need to make
evolution observable. Whilst most of the examples cited above
are legitimate examples of evolution, judicious care should be
exercised as to what constitutes evidence and what is simply
assumption.
Although scientists under laboratory conditions are not able
to transform "bacteria into ducks," there are many excellent
laboratory experiments conducted that reveal how evolution
works. There have been innumerable studies on bacteria. These
experiments are an evolutionists dream come true because
under laboratory conditions in a relatively short time frame,
thousands of generations can be produced and observed.
These studies are crucial, because by tracking genetic changes
in each generation, scientists can determine the impact of
original mutations selected. In other words, is there sufficient
benefit in an original mutation to have it selected, an important
question to determine. They can also determine how these
original mutations, once diffused in the population, are further
randomly mutated and selected so that an accumulation of
mutations and selection transforms the ancestor into
descendants that have novel capabilities in response to
selection pressures. It is a means to understand the mechanics
of evolution on a micro scale.
For example, the E. Coli experiments on the bacteria evolving
the ability to metabolise citrate in an aerobic environment were
valuable. E. Coli is a rather broad name as some strains do
carry a plasmid encoded citrate transporter to uptake citrate in
aerobic conditions. Normally, E. Coli can metabolise citrate
once inside the cell, but not transport it into the cell in

an oxic environment. The extensive experiments did document

the evolution of the E. Coli, tracking mutations in its genes
(nadR and pykF), whereby they gained novel genetic regulatory
elements and unlike the laboratory samples from which they
originated, could metabolise citrate in aerobic conditions in a
low glucose environment.
The example of E. Coli evolving such novel abilities is touted
as evidence for observable evolution whereby random genetic
mutations under certain selective pressures result in adaptation
to new environments by observable changes in the organism
itself. Further information on the trajectory of mutations,
including mapping the speed of evolution over many
generations, delays and plateaus, and rates of change
proportional to genetic variance, grant additional insight into
how organisms adapt by genomic variation. However, scientists
have sounded some cautionary notes regarding these
results. Microorganisms often after a few generations plateau in
their genetic variation or convergence directs change in one
direction only and is no longer random.
The biggest issue is again the fact that evolved organisms in
the laboratory are completely incapable of surviving in
their original environment so that artificial selection can be
deemed as antagonistic to the survival of the species.
Contemporary observable examples of evolution are limited
to within species only. They do offer valuable insights into how
evolution works. However, evolution from one species into
another is observable, but it requires a broader definition for
what observable means. Inter-species evolution can be
observed in the fossil record and will be examined below.
The fossil record and some examples examined
Fossils are a source of information for a broad
range of scientific disciplines. They are not just utilised as
evidence for evolution, but can help
palaeontologists reconstruct ancient environments. For
example, the distribution of Dactylioceratidae fossils helps
delineate ancient landmasses because these ancient sea

creatures used sea corridors between the continents in their

migratory patterns.
Specific to evolution, Darwin regarded fossils as critical
evidence, but just lacked sufficient specimens. Today, the
picture is obviously a lot clearer in comparison and there are a
number of important perspectives that need to be examined.
The majority of organic life is extinct and only a fragmentary
record of the past remains. Palaeobiologists have surveyed a
wide range of fossil species and found that the norm is rapid
appearance, stasis and then extinction. It is the rapid
appearance that is so difficult to account for, and whilst many
scientists have put forward a number of plausible explanations,
a number of
palaeobiologists honestly claim that their
current understanding cannot explain this rapid appearance.
Species pop up into the fossil record, remain stable and then
become extinct.
The fossil record normally has a diverse pattern dendritic in
shape rather than a linear progression of singular lines. The
fossils which represent where
species divide into
branches are not common in the fossil record. Many branch
extinctions occur. However, fossils do enable palaeontologists
to reconstruct
certain soft tissue structures and
determine additional information like whether a species
was ectothermic or endothermic, thereby supporting
classification of species. Although stasis in a species is the
norm, there are a number of species that demonstrate
significant change over time and it is these examples that are
cited by scientists as proof of evolution.
Evolution of the horse
Scientists acknowledge that the horse did not evolve in a
simple linear progression. This form of representation is
outmoded. In the past, palaeontologists believed the evolution
of the horse from the Eocene was a jerky uneven development.
Recent discoveries of fossil beds are far more complete and an
orderly progression of the geological record and parallel
development of the species in the fossil record reveals quite a

smooth transition from one form to another under various

selection pressures.
As the environment changed from tropical rainforest to
woodland to arid grasslands, so there were corresponding
changes in horses such as a 3 to 1 toed foot so that the
correlation between selection pressure and change in
morphology is very clearly documented and preserved in the
fossil record with an abundance of transitional fossils. One
expert on North American horse evolution stated that rather
than the older linear progression so often presented as how
horses evolved, the pattern is very bushy, but one can
navigate their way thru the complex record and trace out the
lineage that
leads to the modern horse. In fact, she claims
it is as if Nature was experimenting with various forms of
feet, teeth and bodies and discarding certain types by way of
extinction of those branches. Horse evolution is therefore an
excellent example of the randomness of evolution, how there
are many pathways taken and randomly extinguished
according to natural selection. It is like random mutation, but
revealed in macro structures
as random
morphological development with certain macro structures
randomly selected.
Macroevolution observed in reptile to mammalian evolution
The evolution of the horse is within a species or a band of
related species, but the evolution of a certain lineage of reptiles
into mammals is an observable example of macroevolution.
Observable should not be restricted to the here and now. The
evidence for evolution is preserved in the fossil record and
extends to extant mammal species retaining remnants of this
evolutionary link in the genome and embryonic development of
mammals. Scientists believe the original selection pressure was
competition for food from dinosaurs, which caused a certain
line of reptiles to adopt nocturnal feeding habits.
A long catalogue of evolutionary developments such as
changes in teeth, skeletal structures and morphological
structures that indicate changes in thermal regulation and
metabolic rates, demonstrate this transition from reptile to
mammal, but scientists focus principally on the evolutionary

development of the jawbones and the ear bones. A recent

populist documentary We hear with the bones reptiles ate
with promotes this well documented example of evolution.
Basically, a reptilian jawbone consisting of a number of bones
evolved into a mammalian jawbone consisting of a single bone.
The reptilian ear made up of a single bone evolved into the
mammalian ear made up of several bones. This resulted from a
gradual reduction in size of the reptilian jawbones, which
migrated to and attached to the ear bone.
Some transitional specimens possessed both a mammalian and
reptilian jaw joint to the skull. The fossil record is extensive with
recent discoveries in China adding to the North American and
European specimens. One particular fossilised skull clearly
shows a complete mammalian ear structure, but still attached
to the jawbone with ossified cartilage.
In extant species, reptilian and mammalian embryos develop
with the ear and jaw firmly attached, but as they develop the
reptilian jawbones and ear bone remain attached, but the
mammalian jawbone and ear bones detach. Scientists claim
this is a remnant of mammals reptilian origin and another
source to confirm what the fossil record indicates. Medical
journals likewise acknowledge this evolutionary link in human
embryos to reptilian origins and this link is not considered a
controversial issue.
Reptiles spawned their young thru egg laying and so the
ability to produce nutrients in egg fluid should leave some trace
in mammalian genomes. Egg-laying mammals retain a reduced
genetic set (1 out of 3 genes) for producing nutrients in egg
yolk because they also rely on lactation to rear their young.
Other mammalian lines that produce live young still possess
some inactive genetic fragments associated with producing egg
yolk nutrients. This genetic footprint in mammals is considered
additional evidence for the evolution of mammals from
reptiles.
The transition of a particular reptile line into mammals is
observable in the fossil record and supported by additional lines
of evidence. It is a wellsupported example of
evolution between species, not just within species. This

example also demonstrates how evolution works. A long series

of selection of variations leads to a new species. Randomness is
demonstrated by the fact that out of 20 different lines, like the
bushy patterned evolution of the horse, only 3 lines of this
particular reptile lineage survived the process of evolution into
mammals.
Human Evolution
The sheer quantity of information involving when humans
appeared and how many humans, and their particular
migratory patterns, is literally overwhelming. Coupled with this
volume of information is the continuous stream of new
discoveries which one Max Planck scientist labelled as at times
annoying because they keep challenging current time frames
and perceptions of human evolution. Nevertheless, human
evolution is the best example for evolution because the fossil
record is extensive and DNA studies clarify the complex
relationships between the various forms of hominids.
At least 50 years prior to Charles Darwin and his book
Origin, nineteenth century scientists had documented quite
clearly the antiquity of man evidenced by ancient human
activity such as extinct animal bones found with arrowheads,
carved by blades or burnt by cooking fires. Some extinct
animals were also discovered alongside fossilised human
bones. In addition, nineteen-century archaeologists published
detailed and excellent studies on the development of human
culture and how it was a long and slow process. European
anthropologists had also throughout the nineteenth century
been uncovering Neanderthal specimens together with
evidence of cultural elements, indicating a more complex
picture to human origins. Charles Darwin, in the Englishspeaking world, explicitly connected human origins to Old
World Monkeys in his published works.
The current rate of new discoveries and further
understanding of genetics has yielded a basic picture of
humans evolving from early forms such as Australopithecus, a
muddle in the middle (in the words of
one paleoanthropologist) to Homo sapiens today.
Australopithecus is a pivotal species as evidence for evolution.

Exhaustive studies on the skulls of Australopithecus by CT

scans have led one world leading expert on this species to
unequivocally state that they were bi-pedal. In response to my
enquiry on whether Australopithecus were bi-pedal, this expert
explained that changes in locomotion are reflected by changes
in physiology, principally the organ of balance in the skull. His
explanation was that Australopithecus changed from an
arboreal environment to a more terrestrial one.
The significance of this fact cannot be overlooked: a walking
upright ape can only be explained rationally as an intermediate
between a human and an ape, not as a precursor to current
species of apes which do not possess such a developed level of
locomotion. This is why I would argue that human evolution is
one of the strongest evidences for evolution, unless
Australopithecus was a unique species that went extinct with
no connection to any descendant species at all.
The other significant fact about Australopithecus is that this
one characteristic of bi-pedalism is what defines us as human
and what marks Australopithecus off from apes even though it
still retained features predominantly of an ape. It is building on
one form of bi-pedalism on the previous one reflected in the
morphological changes with each descendant species. Bi-pedal
development is clearly evidenced in descendant species like
Homo erectus. One world expert explained how Homo erectus
developed the ability to run and move with extensive agility.
This bi-pedal development is reflected in the fossil record as
morphological changes and is key evidence to support
evolution. Bi-pedalism was central to the evolution of humans
granting them superiority in hunting and other abilities
compared to other species by greater access to protein diets
that led to further brain development.
The key fact that is demonstrated by the evidence is that the
various specimens at various stages of evolution exhibited in
the fossil record are biologically connected. Morphology and
genetics are the evidence that confirm this connection. At
many different evolutionary stages, specimens of hominids and
even Homo sapiens exhibit a mosaic bone structure. They
have composite skeletons composed of archaic and modern

features. One recent discovery of 12000 year old

Homo sapien skeletons revealed not only a combination of
archaic and more contemporary bones, but they even had a
23% unique skeletal structure. This combination of retaining
ancestral structures and developing new skeletal
structures at each stage of development proves a common
ancestor must have existed.
A number of genetic analyses also demonstrate unity
amongst contemporary hominids. Non-African Homo sapiens
share a small percentage of DNA with two other branches of
hominids, Neanderthal and Denisovan. All Homo sapiens and
Neanderthals are deficient in a common mammalian sialic acid
due to a common genetic mutation. Four hundred thousand
year old bones of a Homo Heidelbergnesis specimen with
Neanderthal features share some mtDNA with Denisovans that
are geographically distant. Genetics therefore proves a unity
among contemporary hominids.
Finally, Homo erectus is a species that engaged in widespread
continental migration within and without Africa and therefore
possessed behaviours that enabled it to engage in such
migration like the use of fire, hunting and tool making. Earlier
specimens retained features closer to apes like similar brain
capacity and dentition whilst later specimens with dietary
changes evolved with changes in dentition, far larger brain
capacity and body size. This species that endured with such
longevity demonstrates on either end of its evolutionary
continuum signs of connection with apes early in its
evolutionary history and closer affinity with Homo sapiens at
the later stages.
The isolation of particular genes in research like the human
gene Prdm9 and its genetic position compared to related
species like chimps provides clues as to how certain genes are
responsible for rapid and extensive development that provides
insights into, and an explanation, for the unique features of
Homo sapiens. The final stage of evolution for Homo sapiens
was quite recent when the more robust features of earlier
hominids became reduced and the human brain case became
more spherical. This is attributed to "neutral evolution" with

additional factors like Homo sapiens cooking their food thereby

further reducing masticatory muscles.
Therefore the evolution of apes into humans is strongly
supported by clear evidence from a number of sources and
offers the most logical explanation for this evidence.
The evolution of the whale
The evolution of the whale from a fully terrestrial mammal
( Pakicetus 54 million years ago) to a fully aquatic mammal
( Basilosaurus 35 million years ago) is considered on par with
the evolution of the horse as a clear example of evolution. The
transitional fossils demonstrate this gradual evolution over a
period of 19 million years, though this has been reduced to
around 10 million years by some scientists. The evidence for
this is extensive and highly detailed genetic and anatomical
evidence is used to document this transition most notably the
migrating nostril from the snout to the top of the head and a
shared unique auditory structure between aquatic mammals
and their land based ancestors.
The evidence also includes not only the gradual
transformation of the ankles from land based to aquatic based
skeletal structures, but also a very clear period of an
experimental phase of dentition, particularly Basilosaurus, a
fully aquatic whale. This ancestor to the modern whale
possessed various stages of the full set of land-based
mammalian teeth. The number of types would vary from a full
set of four different types to a partial set ranging from one to
three different types of mammalian teeth. During different
phases of evolution, different whale specimens possessed
variations of these teeth and even possessed both teeth and
baleen. The fossils reveal a clear transition from land-based
mammalian teeth to the monophyodont dentition of modern
whales. This is just one of the many structures that
demonstrate this transition which is really on par with reptilian
to mammalian evolution.
So strong is this evidence for evolution that this example (in
particular the animal Rodhocetus Kasrani) was used in a
2005 USA court case in which scientists debated the truth of

evolution. Opposition to evolution was based on proposals that

the irreducible complexity of a variety of biological structures
contradicted evolution. The judge ruled in favour of evolution
based on the example of whale evolution and also because
irreducible complexity was not supported by mainstream
science.
Revisions to evolution
Sometimes new discoveries do create revisions for time
frames in evolution, but do not contradict evolution itself.
Recently, a fully aquatic whale fossil was discovered on
Seymour Island. Based on Strontium isotope dating, it is 49
million years old. The discovery does require a revision of whale
evolution. However, the discovery has not been accepted
unanimously by scientists who consider the specimen to be
from a later date, around 35 mya. However, the expedition
palaeontologists are adamant stating by private email that it
was unequivocally a 49 mya specimen.
The example of the evolution of the whale demonstrates that
a watertight legal case can be formulated with detailed genetic
and anatomical evidence and extensive research and yet be
undermined by a contradictory discovery. This recent discovery
contradicts such a vast amount of research and physical
evidence with regard to this gradual transition from land based
mammals into a fully aquatic species by drastically reducing
evolution time frames or extending dates of transitional
specimens in age.
The evolution of the whale is just one example of revision.
The evolution of the whale has been revised from 19 to 4 to 10
million years from a protracted process with a smooth set of
transitional fossils made either redundant or time frames in
need of adjustment. There are also other examples of
discoveries that have led to many revisions of certain earlier
examples of evolution.
The well-publicised discovery of what was touted as an
intermediate between fish and tetrapods was the lobe-finned
fish Tiktaalik. A later discovery of fossilised tetrapod footprints

that pre-dated Tiktaalik converted this organism from a

common ancestor to tetrapods to a sister branch so that
both tetrapods and Tiktaalik now both share a common
ancestor.
Likewise, Archaeopteryx has been considered an intermediate
between birds and dinosaurs. However, this species is not
endothermic like birds, as it possessed antorbital foramina,
an ectothermal structure, a structure which birds lack so their
accessory antorbital sinuses differ. Archaeopteryx had real
feathers, but for thermoregulation not for flight, not true
feathers though, being only collagen fibres, as was typical for
the Sinotherapods and Sinosauropteryx. Archaeopteryx was
a therapod and not avian, unlike Protarchaeopteryx and
Caudipteryx which had real feathers and were therefore ancient
flightless birds not therapods. Archaeopteryx is not therefore, a
transitional species between dinosaurs and birds. New
discoveries are constantly necessitating revision and redefinition of these classic examples of evolution.
Positively, more recent discoveries of particular cynodonts (a
transitional reptile to mammal species) in
China (e.g. Liaocondon hui, a new cynodont species) have
strengthened the case for reptile to mammal evolution and
provide clearer observable evidence for macroevolution. It
offers additional evidence as a clearer transitional fossil
possessing an auditory structure close to mammals yet
retaining some reptilian vestiges.
The fossil record provides evidence for evolution and its
processes, but new discoveries continue to press scientists to
adjust their time frames and classifications. However, it does
not render the theory of evolution as obsolete.
Cladistics
The key principle of evolution being descent by modification
from a common ancestor is the common explanation for the
patterns of relationships among organisms
that cladistics produces. Cladistics analyses and constructs
patterns or relationships of the distribution of differentiated
characters amongst species. This means that the process of

evolution is a branching process into groups that share

common traits derived from common ancestors. Relational
proximity of one species to another is defined with respect to
the patterns that are formed. Therefore homology of characters
is foundational to the patterns produced and methodology is
critical for determining shared common traits. Characters are
both morphological and molecular and sometimes patterns are
combined or compared with stratigraphy. Shared derived
characters means common ancestry and also unbroken
development or the traits are lost. Changes in those characters
from reconstructed ancestral patterns show the history of
evolution and can help scientists understand how evolution
works.
This history of evolution can foster a better understanding of
speciation, radiation and colonisation patterns of species,
recovery of true relationships obscured by geographic diversity,
the geographic origin of species, speed of anatomical change,
survival rates and identify times of divergence.
Derived characters in sister taxa have additional changes to
the same character found in common ancestors so by
extrapolation biologists can reconstruct the history of biological
change and even the common ancestors themselves. Character
changes in descendants can also be mapped and inferences
drawn to explain these developments. This has been aided
considerably by the addition of molecular data
to cladistics reducing dependence on morphology alone.
Cladistics helps in identifying more accurate patterns: for
example, vultures are now grouped with storks rather than
falcons based partly on molecular data. One of the biggest
contributions that cladistics has made is linking molecular
development to morphological development. This facilitates
understanding how evolution works because scientists create
gene phylogeny and then map genes in the phylogeny of
organisms.
For example, molecular analysis and patterns produced have
demonstrated that flat worms are not basal and therefore its
shared common ancestor possessed a thru gut which flat
worms dropped. Patterns of metazoan Hox or homeotic genes

across a range of species have shown that duplication of this

gene set is correlated with increasing morphological complexity.
So evolution can be understood in terms of changes in
genotype to changes expressed in phenotype. These patterns
of change are visible in cladograms.
Shared derived characters between really distant organisms
shed light on distant common ancestors which must have
possessed that character in some form. Cladistics demonstrates
convergent evolution and means the same trait in different
organisms helps to understand what selection pressures
existed to produce the same trait in differing organisms.
Patterns of convergent evolution, whether molecular or
morphological, also reveal the limitations of evolution under
selection pressures; only wings are produced for flight whether
in birds, insects or bats.
Cladistics has many critics. One world expert is highly critical
of all aspects: the underlying hypothetical philosophy, the
methodology (character selection, out-groups, lack of interdisciplinary engagement and the type of parsimony used) and
even the language of non-sequiturs produced like non-avian
dinosaurs.
Other scientists state that cladistics does not reflect how
evolution works: it does not always bifurcate, ancestors exist
parallel with descendants and do not always become extinct,
molecular evolution rates vary in cladistical data sets and may
not reflect evolution accurately and cladograms are too
simplistic and do not take into account the complexity of the
processes like reticulate evolution or anagenesis. Hundreds of
cladistical analyses do exhibit a lack of congruence when
patterns are based on a combination of molecular,
morphological and fossil data. Possibly, the most valid criticism
of cladistics is by scientists who work in many different fields
unanimously stating that the relationships produced
by cladistics do not correlate with what they see in their
fieldwork.
Scientists who engage in cladistics do recognise their critics'
reservations and take quite stringent methods to adjust their
methods to valid criticisms made. For example, the

indiscriminate inclusion of characters has been improved by the

introduction of character weighting indexes. In response to
critics who see an inconsistency between cladograms and what
they see in the field, the majority of research projects in the
field by scientists of every discipline universally present their
results in a cladistical format thereby validating this
methodology.
Cladistics has made a significant contribution to
understanding evolution. One major obstacle is the lack of fossil
intermediate species and their corresponding genomes that
makes reconstruction of phylogeny often a series of
correlations based on hypothesis only. Improved genomic
recovery methods and fossil discoveries will in the future
validate or alter current patterns of organisms based
on cladistics. Irrespective of the purported flaws or circularity of
the method, the patterns produced by cladistical analysis are
best explained by the theory of evolution.
Concluding comments
In summary, species have changed over time and this is a
universally accepted fact. How species change has been
determined to be a combination of genetic and environmental
selection factors. This is proven from contemporary examples
and the fossil record. The main supporting lines of evidence are
a universal genetic code, commonalities amongst species,
smooth transitional fossil record and embryological
similarities.
Evolution cannot be demonstrated conclusively (like the first
and second law of thermodynamics can be) due to the difficulty
in duplicating natural conditions, the long duration of time
involved and the randomness of this process.
Evolution may have occurred at a particular point in time in
the history of life on Earth, but rather than occurring at one
point and radiating outwardly, the possibility exists that life
began in various places on earth and subsequent evolution
occurred. At times it would have been convergent and at other
times quite unique. More than likely there were multiple

common ancestors and not singular ones as with each passing

decade, the evolutionary process increases in complexity.
Recommendations for Christians regarding the theory of
evolution
Evolution is currently the best scientific explanation for the
origin of species. There are no scientific alternatives to
explain our current natural environment. Therefore, it is
incumbent on Christians to approach this issue in a fair and
consistent manner as with any other scientific discipline
irrespective of the issues raised. Such an approach would entail
giving an unprejudiced hearing to what the
mainstream scientific community have to say. It also means
giving a critical and careful examination of material
from alternative scientific organisations not recognised by
mainstream science. However, evolution does not constitute a
threat to the religious faith of Christians.
This is not an academic paper, but simply an information paper.
The second half of the paper will examine Creation. (Author:
David Kaldor)