By Rachel Alexander
Arizona Daily Wildcat
October 22, 1997

Darwinian Dogma

Arizona Daily Wildcat Rachel Alexander

The theory of evolution as proposed by Charles Darwin in 1859 is treated in mainstream media and public schools as the scientific explanation for how life originated. To raise a challenge or to question any of the facets of the evolution of species leads to an attack on one's character, intellect and motives. The fear of persecution for doubting the religious dogma of the dark ages has been replaced by a fear of ridicule for challenging the scientific dogma of evolution.

In his "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," Darwin maintained that macroevolution would be credible only if the "missing links" were found - the innumerable transitional species in the fossil record. In the ensuing 150 years, many new species of plants and animals were discovered, but the hypothetical links were not found. Proponents of evolution clung to two species of animals they could find which appeared to be transitional between reptiles and birds on the one hand, and fish and amphibians on the other: Archaeopteryx and lungfish.

Archaeopteryx had teeth, a long tail and claws on its wings. But it also had full-feathered wings and could fly. Clearly, Archaeopteryx was a bird. There is no fossil evidence showing the transition of a reptilian scale to an avian feather and no evolutionary scientist has come forward with a plausible theory of how a scale could have gradually formed into an exquisitely engineered flight feather through a series of intermediate steps.

The lungfish is considered the transitory species between fish and amphibians because it has characteristics of both. However, its fish-like features - fins, gills and intestine - are exactly like a fish, and its amphibian characteristics - the lungs, heart and larval stage - are exactly like an amphibian.

There is nothing transitory about it.

A favorite example of evolutionists is the horse. Since the fossil record contains a succession which somewhat resembles what Darwin predicted, most evolutionists insist this is proof of evolution. Unfortunately, even this, the only available example of Darwin's multitudes of transitional species, consists of only a few possible horse ancestors and does not reflect a gradual change at all. For example, it is claimed that the side toes of the horse gradually reduced in size leading eventually to a single hoof. Yet there is no gradual reduction reflecting this. The early Eocene horse had dog-like feet with four toes in front and three in back. Every horse after that, beginning with the Oligocene horse, had one functional front toe and concentrated its weight on the middle hoof as a step-off point.

Even with a concerted effort over many decades, including dredging the ocean floors, evolution proponents, currently led by Stephen J. Gould, realize they are not going to find the "missing links" that Darwin's theory requires. In order to preserve the theory, Gould devised a clever excuse for why there were no transitory fossils. Something he terms "punctuated equilibrium" explains that instead of requiring millions of years for one species to evolve into another, there would be long periods of equilibrium with short, sudden evolutionary bursts. When an animal was going through an "evolutionary change," it happened really fast, so fast there was only a small probability that fossils would form.

This alone is enough to discredit Darwin's theory, but Gould has the nerve to say that since the fossil record reflects his theory it must be right.

Scientists using techniques in the field of molecular biology are now able to compare the degree of similarity of certain blood proteins. Yet when the sequence of amino acids in a protein were compared across species, the results did not provide the close relationship between similar species that was expected. For example, the percentage difference in sequential order of cytochrome C proteins of the lamprey are just as different from the sequence in man as they are from any other fish. The opossum, an animal that has not changed since it first appeared in the late Cretaceous period nearly 100 million years ago, has as equally an advanced hemoglobin protein as any other modern mammal.

Attempts to explain the beginnings of life are even more suspect. Evolutionary proponents speak of the formation of a "pre-biotic soup," a chemical synthesis which accumulated the basic organic compounds necessary to form a living cell. Yet rocks approaching 3.9 billion years old, known as the "dawn rocks" of Western Greenland, and other samples from around the world, show no record of this "pre-biotic" substance.

It takes a huge leap of faith to presume, without so much as an honest attempt at a serious hypothesis, that some random collection of proteins and amino acids accidentally, by sheer coincidence, formed themselves into one of the most complex and efficient mechanisms that humans have ever seen: a living cell. Not to mention the fact that the high levels of UV radiation present at the time would have blown any large conglomeration of organic molecules to bits.

Evolutionists would have us believe that the incredibly efficient replicating mechanism that we see today in every living cell came about from primitive cells that did a poor job of replicating with a high chance of error.

While natural selection definitely plays a role in the evolution of a given species, the concept of macro-evolution - one species evolving into another - requires some serious proof for it to retain its status as the sole explanation of life on this planet. A theory as big as evolution should be able to withstand critical analysis without having to resort to name calling and flimsy pseudo-scientific evidence. Darwinian evolution theory has reached the level of impenetrable dogma which history shows is not a healthy state of affairs.

Rachel Alexander is a second-year law student.