Creation vs. Evolution: The Other Side of the Story
By Jerry Williams "Hat Zair"
Edited by Nick Ligouri and Eric Schmidt
Printable version (.pdf)Previous Section: Introduction | Next Section: Isn't It Still Possible? | Creation and Evolution | Apologetics and Answers
Hasn't Evolution Been Proven?
Assessing the Known FactsImagine that you were about to build a complex machine, such as an automobile. You would not start, obviously, by putting parts together at random. Instead, you would begin by careful planning, such as writing out blueprints. These blueprints would specify the shape and size of the various parts, indicate how they should fit together, and give detailed instructions as to how the automobile should be assembled.
Similarly, the construction of all known living organisms is directed by genetic blueprints, known as DNA. The development of a human being can be used to illustrate this process.[36] Everyone begins life as a single cell, containing the genes from his or her parents. Step by step, these genetic instructions specify in great detail the formation of this human person. The DNA first directs the cell to divide into two cells, and gives precise instructions as to the manner in which this is to be carried out. The genes themselves are duplicated, so that each of the two resulting cells contains a complete set of the blueprints. This process is then repeated at a certain point to differentiate. Some cells are directed to become involved in the formation of the nervous system, others are appointed to the development of bone or skin tissue, and so forth. Each cell then begins to produce the unique materials suitable for the needs of the particular organ or system it is instructed to help form. The DNA goes on to specify the characteristics of each part to be constructed. An arm bone, for instance, is formed according to exact specifications: its dimensions, its shape, the type of material of which it is to consist, precisely where and how it is to be connected to other tissue, etc. The other organs and systems are likewise specified in such detail by the genetic blueprints.
Thus, the physical characteristics which make up a living organism are determined by the information encoded in its DNA blueprints. It is therefore obvious that any substantially new inheritable trait, such as a new organ, a new system or radical change in anatomy could only result through a change in the DNA. This understanding is often omitted in popular portrayals of evolution. Often in evolutionary scenarios, hypotheses are presented which assert that a particular transition occurred by means of a certain species beginning to practice a habit which, after many generations, produced some sort of change. One example could be the theory that perhaps a species of fish gradually evolved legs by coming up onto land more and more often over millions of years. Another could be the suggestion that the front legs of a reptile transformed into wings by its leaping, then gliding and eventually flying after insects. It is unclear, however, why anyone knowledgeable in biology would suggest such things, as the above discussion makes it clear that no animal could transform into another basically different kind unless its DNA code were altered; and this code is not affected by a change in habits. In other words, unless the genetic blueprints in a fish were re-written so that the information necessary to form fins changed into the information necessary to grow legs, a fish would never became an organism with legs; and no amount of flopping about on land would cause the genetic information of a fish to be so reprogrammed. Neither would the leaping of any reptile alter the genes containing the information coding for the growth of its front legs so that they would instead code for the formation of wings. No evolutionary transition, from one organism to any substantially different yet still viable type, could occur without the DNA code changing harmoniously from one program to another coherent program.
These considerations demonstrate that evolutionary theory is essentially the belief that new, complex genetic information can arise spontaneously. Any disagreement with this statement can be countered by pointing out that to go from chemicals floating freely in water (i.e., zero genes) is certainly an increase in genetic information; and to go from this to a human being (containing at least 20,000 genes) likewise represents an increase in complex genetic information. If the heart, or insect wings, or any of the other complex organs found in the living world have been produced by evolution, then at some point the genes necessary for their formation had to appear spontaneously.
Thus, if natural processes can be shown to produce truly novel genetic information (that is, new, largely distinct genes), the theory of evolution would be substantiated. This is not as tall of an order as it first sounds. If the theory is true, then new, radically different genes have appeared spontaneously many billions of times; and so it should be a simple matter for competent biologists to uncover and demonstrate how natural processes could effect this. If, on the other hand, spontaneous natural processes, unguided by intelligence, can be conclusively demonstrated to be incapable of generating new, complex genetic information, then evolution is ruled out. It is at exactly this point that evolutionary theories break down, for no natural processes are known that do in fact produce new, complex genetic blueprints.
Not that there is a lack of speculation. The conventional wisdom of evolutionary theory states that during the course of reproduction, a mistake occurs in the formation of the genetic blueprints, which produces a change in the developing offspring. These mistakes are known as "genetic mutations," and they do happen, although they are relatively rare. However, they do not create more complex characteristics, such as new organs, new systems or new genes. Actually, they cause harm, which is to be expected from any random process which tampers with specific information.[37] In our analogy of the automobile construction, it would be as when some of the information contained in the blueprints is lost or garbled due to a copying mistake. Evolutionists hold out the hope, though, that at least some genetic mutations may cause the DNA of the offspring to be altered in such a way that is referred to as a "beneficial mutation." Further, if this new characteristic gives some advantage to the creature that possesses it, then it has a greater chance of living longer, and having more offspring than those of its species which lack the new trait. According to the theory, this process continues very gradually, over many generations and millions of years, until a radically different type of organism is produced.
In the real world, however, genetic mutations are either harmful or lethal, producing many hundreds of unhealthy conditions (such as deformations, hemophilia, etc.); while others are neutral, having little or no effect. Still others cause very minor variations in genes already present; but mutations do not produce truly novel genetic information.[38] It has never been observed that they do, and it is theoretically inconceivable that they could. Mutations are relatively rare to begin with; beneficial mutations, if they exist at all, are rarer still, and thus the occurrence of harmonious beneficial mutations, in sufficient amounts to produce new genetic information, would be an event so rare as to be quite beyond our imagination. DNA blueprints being re-copied to accidentally produce an increase in complex information is analogous to having a sentence that makes good sense became a paragraph that makes good sense by means of typing errors.[39] Mutations, like tornadoes, do not produce complexity; they cause damage.
Consider also that genetic information changing gradually from one program to another substantially different one would pass through a stage in which the DNA would be useless garble until other compensatory changes could be made, which is true for any assemblage of information. For example, take a paragraph from a book and try to alter it, either by one or two letters at a time or one or two words at a time, into a paragraph saying something greatly different. Some minor changes can of course be made (e.g., changing "he" into "she" or "sit" to "stand"), but invariably a point is reached where no further changes can be made without either rewriting a large portion of the paragraph at once or destroying the sense. It would be unrealistic to think the DNA programs of living things are not subject to the same limitations, knowing that disastrous results are so often produced by very minor genetic changes and that the major categories of organisms are separated by large amounts of genetic information.
The genes themselves do not allow for very much change; their main functions to be to prevent new forms from arising. Darwin knew nothing about genetics; that information was not widely known until the early 1900s. In his book Origins, he documented a host of examples of slight variations, like that observed in the crossbreeding of plants and animals, and he extrapolated (carried it further in his imagination). It seems he thought there was no limit to the possible changes. Experienced breeders, however, flatly disagree.[40] You can breed horses to be faster, and sugar beets to be sweeter, but only up to a point.[41] Not only are there definite limits as to how much variation is possible, but the tendency is for organisms to return to a median. Artificially produced breeds left to their own devices generally die out (because they are sterile or less robust), or revert back to the norm in following generations. This resistance to change has been called "genetic homeostasis," a term advocated by Ernst Mayr (1970). In an experiment that demonstrated this point (though it was not the purpose of the experiment), the fruit fly Drosophilia melanogaster was mutated and paired, and a strain of flies was produced which had no eyes. These were inbred, and so for several generations the strain continued eyeless. Then, contrary to all expectations, flies were produced which had eyes![42] The genetic code evidently had a built-in repair mechanism that reestablished the eye genes.
Despite these results, the common view is that variation among a given population of living things is evidence of evolution in action. For instance, the numerous varieties of dogs in the world, difference in moth coloration, and insects' resistance to pesticides are often cited as examples of evolution being observed. This type of relatively minor variation within a population is termed "micro-evolution." Really major transitions, such as the fish-to-amphibians idea, are referred to as "macro-evolution." Darwinists have long held that the observed minor variations within populations can, over long periods of time, accumulate to produce macro-evolutionary changes, just as Darwin himself believed over a century ago. More recent advances, however, have caused many biologists to doubt the conventional wisdom.[43] A conference of over 150 scientists took place in Chicago in 1980 to discuss this topic, and the consensus was reported in the periodical Science: "The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanism underlying micro-evolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomenon of macro-evolution," and concluded, "the answer can be given as a clear, No."[44]
The reason for this "clear no" becomes obvious when we recall that macro-evolution means the production of new, complex genetic information, while that which is called "micro-evolution" involves merely the expression of previously existing genes. If two dark-haired people have a blond child, is that an example of evolution? No, it is not. It is rather just recessive genes in both parents being expressed in the child. In the same way, two original wolf-like canines, both containing a large amount of diverse genetic variation, could have produced the different types of dogs, wolves, coyotes, etc. that we have today, as their descendants inherited various combinations of the original genetic information.
The story of the peppered moths in England has often been offered as a particularly good example of Darwinian theory in action. Evolutionists have repeatedly related that dark moths increased in number, and light colored moths decreased, when the tree trunks upon which the moths rested became darkened from pollution. As it stands, the example would show nothing more than a shift in gene frequencies, not the emergence of new genetic information, since both light and dark moths existed both before and after this event. Thus, nothing new at all was produced, and the only change was in the ratio of light to dark moths. In any case, later studies in other parts of England have shown very poor correlation between pollution on trees and geographical distribution of dark moths.[45] Further, it is now known that peppered moths do not even rest on tree trunks during the day.[46] Textbook photographs showing the moths resting on tree trunks are the result of manual placement; dead moths were pinned or glued on the trees.[47]
Another example commonly cited is toxin resistance in insects. However, this still fails as an example of the appearance of new genetic information, since the genetic variants responsible for this resistance were apparently already present in the populations exposed to the pesticides.[48] Some have claimed substantial changes in the fruitfly Drosophilia experiments, but these claims have no basis in fact. This is significant, since over 3,000 consecutive generations have been experimented on, often with various strengths and frequencies of X-rays being employed in an effort to speed up the mutation rate. Yet a truly new kind of organism has never been observed to emerge, nor even a new gene or enzyme.[49]
Thus, in all these and many other cited cases, we have instances of nothing more than the expression or selection of genetic information that already existed. To use these as examples of evolution represents a basis misunderstanding of what is actually occurring; and thus to use them as evidence for macro-evolutionary transitions, such as the idea that invertebrates were transformed into fish, as indefensible.
In summary, to substantiate that evolution is possible, it must be shown that new DNA blueprints, able to specify the development of complex organs and systems, can arise by natural, spontaneous processes. This has never been observed. The examples which are used to support this claim are irrelevant to the topic. Furthermore, the statements which have been put forth to explain how it may have happened, such as the point mutation theories discussed above, are highly implausible. This will come into sharper focus in the following sections.
Could It Really Fly?
The Survival Chances of Intermediate FormsEvolutionists assume that reptiles evolved from some sort of amphibian, yet no plausible explanations have ever been given as to how an intermediate state of egg-laying could have existed. Amphibians deposit soft eggs in water or damp areas, which pass through a larval stage to maturity. The eggs laid by reptiles, however, are encased in a shell capable of withstanding deposition on land. They are not solid but porous, and the pores must be of a particular size; otherwise the young will either drown in its own metabolic fluid due to failure of the shells to allow evaporation, or dry out due to excessive evaporation. The egg itself must be hard enough to protect the young, but not so hard as to block its departure at hatching. It must be of the correct size to accommodate the young just before birth, and must possess a sac for containing waste, also of the right size. There must be enough nutriment in the egg to sustain it while it develops, and the hatchling must be provided with some means of breaking out of the egg.* These and other changes must occur simultaneously; for it the genes of a particular amphibian mutated to produce hard eggs equipped with only one or two of the necessary characteristics, the young would perish before hatching, and thus those mutations would all be lost. The same would be the case even if mutations could provide all but one of them. Thus gradual change from the one type of reproduction to the other is impossible, while rapid change in a single generation is ridiculous.
Another example of difficulties of transition is that from reptile to bird. It is not a matter of simply putting wings on, but numerous harmonious, simultaneous substantial changes would need to occur in order to complete this transformation. With the position of both front and back legs changing, muscles being re-articulated, bones becoming hollow, and a general upheaval of the digestive system, as well as all the other preparations for air travel, it is difficult to image how it could have survived, being neither fit for flight nor for dwelling on the ground. How could this be an advantage?
In particular, the respiratory system of birds functions very differently from that of all other air-breathing vertebrates. Rather than typical lungs which draw air in and out via a two-way flow pattern, birds have rigid lungs and an interconnected series of airsacs which direct the air around in a uni-directional flow.[50] All birds have this type of respiratory system, and the fact that it always exists in essentially the same form indicates that very little variation in design is possible without rendering the system inoperable. Since a non-functional breathing system means death within minutes, it is obvious that there is no way for this change to have occurred gradually over many generations through any series of intermediate steps.
A particular frog in Australia (species Rheobatrachus silus) has a unique way of hatching its young. The female swallows the eggs and incubates them in her stomach, which during this period ceases to perform digestive functions. After the young frogs develop and leave the mother through her mouth, her stomach begins again to operate as normal. Examples of transitional difficulties such as these are very numerous, and the claim that they all came about by chance and natural processes indicates that not much thought has gone into how these things could have possibly happened.
Thus far we have discussed difficulties of intermediates on the level of gross anatomy, that is, those features which we can see on the scale at which we are familiar. A host of examples can be drawn from the molecular level as well. Since the introduction of the electron microscope in the 1950s, the detail and structure of a great number of molecular systems have been determined.[51] A brief examination of just one example, that of the mechanism underlying blood clotting, underscores the difficulties of intermediate forms.
Any fluid which is contained within a pressurized system will leak out if the system is punctured. Whether the hole is small or large, if not completely sealed it will eventually drain itself empty. Any creature, therefore, having blood circulation must also possess a means by which to stop the flow from a wound quickly and completely, both for external cuts and for internal hemorrhages.
About 20 different kinds of proteins are involved in our blood coagulation process, and most of them have no other function outside of their use in this system. Some of the factors are involved in the formation of the clot; others are needed to localize and limit the clot formation to only the time and location needed, and still others remove the clot after the healing has progressed sufficiently. The system is extremely complex, and the various components are quite interdependent. An intermediate blood-clotting mechanism, having only a few of the necessary parts, would be simply useless. If the incipient system possessed only those proteins which regulate the clotting process, without the clotting factors themselves, no wound would be stopped. A small cut, or a typical case of internal hemorrhaging would surely bring about the demise of any organism that had such an incomplete system. On the other hand, if it had only those proteins which actually form the clot, but lacked the regulatory system, the blood would being coagulating unnecessarily, which would quickly bring about the creature's death. Thus, no organism with blood circulation could survive with any type of blood clotting mechanism that is not functional; yet such a mechanism would be indeed non-functional until all of the necessary components are present, working and compatible. An intermediate blood-clotting system, therefore, would not work.
This is not an isolated example. Complex systems abound in biology, from the molecular level up to individual organs such as the eye, the heart, and the brain. Attempts at plausible, detailed scenarios for such transformations are simply never made. Instead, the difficulties are breezed over without discussion, and it is often made to appear that there are not really any great theoretical obstacles. Taking the time to consider how these changes could have actually happened, however, and recalling that these theoretical problems coincide with an absence of transitional forms, reveals how unfounded so many of these claims are.
Are Living Things Really All That Complex?
The Case for Intelligent DesignMost of us are familiar with a simple tricycle: a metal frame, three wheels rolling on axles and a steering column in front. It consists of relatively few parts. Yet as simple as it is, upon seeing one we are instantly aware that its origin is from an intelligent source, for it could not have come into existence spontaneously by natural processes. Skipping up a bit on the scale of complexity, we can consider an adult bicycle equipped with brakes, a chain drive system, mechanisms for changing gears and a large number of adjustable and replaceable parts. Our conclusion that this object also was invented by intelligent beings is strengthened not only by the number of parts, but also by the individual complexity of each component.
Yet further up on the scale would be an automobile, complete with self-regulating devices for cooling and fuel systems, an engine harnessing the energy released from combustion, a transmission and a multitude of complicated parts. Certainly no one would suggest that a machine such as this could possibly originate by natural processes; but let us go even further up the scale to consider the complexity of a space craft. The Challenger, for example, is considered to be perhaps one of the most complex machines ever built by man. A look at even the control panel is enough to give the impression that this may be correct: various types of displays, monitors, dials, switches, buttons, etc. cover numerous square feet. The number of highly sophisticated components of this craft would obviously be very great; and few would be foolish enough to imagine that any natural, random process could have produced even one of them.
We will now take the greatest leap yet in the direction of increased complexity, and consider a living cell. If this seems to be an overstatement to some, it is because many are unaware of the technological marvels realized in living things. Human engineering has not yet advanced to the stage of being able to build a self-replicating machine. This feat would require no less than designing a complex system of instrumentation capable of finding raw materials suitable for construction, converting them into the various components necessary to make a system just like itself, putting the parts together and adjusting them properly, duplicating the information needed to perform all this activity, and passing this information on to the completed system so that it could repeat this process. Moreover, to be able to continue, this machine would need to be able to fuel itself, maintain itself, repair itself and be able to move itself about in search of raw materials. It is obvious that such an automated system would consist of extremely sophisticated equipment and machinery, and would be the result of many years of diligent effort by a multitude of highly intelligent workers.
The fact is that every living being, even the humblest amoebae of bacterium, is capable of all these things. If the above described automated system could not be produced except by design of highly intelligent beings, we have no alternative but to conclude that living things are also the result of intelligent design. At this point, many evolutionists will respond that the wonders of molecular engineering are the result of millions of years of development; but this is missing the point. If any of these highly complex components were not available at first appearance of the first living cell, it would have been incapable of reproducing itself. Without successful reproduction, there would be no descendants; and without descendants there would be no chance, even theoretically, for evolutionary development.
Besides this is the simple fact that even billions of years will not help natural processes to produce such highly sophisticated systems. To say that they could is another statement of faith, for no empirical evidence supports such an idea. Moreover, these are only the most basic requirements for the most rudimentary forms of life; the living world offers many more examples of advanced technology than this. Indeed, the list of complex innovations which exist among living things would fill many volumes. A few examples are given below.
Certain bacteria, such as E. coli and Salmonella, move through their environment by means of rod-like filaments known as flagella. Acting like propellers, these flagella are whirled about by reversible rotary motors attached rigidly to the cell wall of the bacteria.[52] Scientists have spent over 30 years studying these motors in an effort to discover exactly how they operate. The motors consist of at least 40 different kinds of proteins, and can whip around at speeds of up to 100,000 RPM.[53] By comparison, most automobile engines will explode before they reach even 20% of this speed. These micro-motors are so efficient, and so well designed, that intelligent scientists, far from inventing something that can outdo them, are merely trying to discover the brilliant ideas that make them function.
A typical garden spider uses up to six different chemicals to produce several different kinds of web thread, mixing them as required to achieve the various types needed for strength and elasticity (the spokes requiring greater strength, and the spiral pattern more elasticity). The material is not pressed out of merely one tube, but as many as 600 tiny tubes are used to squeeze out the thread fluid, which hardens upon contact with air. (More holes are used for thicker thread, less holes for thinner.) The tiny threads are not only pressed together, but are twisted together like steel cables to give greater strength. The spider's ability to traverse its web thread is a marvel of engineering, necessitating numerous complex innovations. Imagine the difficulty of trying to construct a machine with eight legs capable of moving about on threads as thin as 1/100 of a millimeter. Bear in mind as well that the fuel for this machine, as well as the raw materials for making the web thread, are the juices from dead insects.
The human eye does preliminary processing of the information it receives before sending it (by a means not yet perfectly understood) to the brain. John Stevens, in the computer periodical Byte, stated that to simulate 10 milliseconds of the processing of a single nerve cell in the retina of the eye "would require the solution of about 500 simultaneous nonlinear differential equations 100 times"; and that it would take at least 100 years of Cray supercomputer time "to simulate what takes place in your eye many times every second."[54] It is apparent that great effort would have to be involved in designing a visual system able to quickly and automatically adjust to variations in distance and light, process an enormous amount of data in a fraction of a second and send the information to the brain at 300 mph. To suppose that this system came about by chance and natural processes would seem absurd in the highest degree, as Darwin himself once admitted in Chapter VI of the Origins.
The human brain exceeds by far the complexity of any computerized system known. A comparison will illustrate this. Computer speeds are measured in floating-point operations per second, or "flops." For example, the Cray Y-MP supercomputer can perform 16 gigaflops, or 16 billion flops.[55] Within the next decades, computers may be designed that will be capable of petaflops, or many trillions of flops; but a problem to overcome will be to find a way to cool the equipment. In order for man-made machines to work at such speeds, so much electricity will be required that the heat generated would easily melt the computers. However, the human brain apparently operates at petaflops or even higher levels. Yet it fits in a one-liter container and uses just ten watts of power, only a small fraction of the power used by a typical house light bulb.[56]
Our brain is composed of billions of special cells called neurons, each of which is connected to literally thousands of others by tiny fibers. This represents many times more specific connections than that contained in the entire telecommunication systems of the whole world. In this highly organized network, any neuron can be in contact with others within a few thousandths of a second. Work has been ongoing to develop a machine capable of true thought (called "artificial intelligence"), but it seems unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, if it ever were accomplished, it is preposterous to think it would be the result of random processes. Instead, it would be achieved only by the concerted effort of many highly intelligent humans.
A portion of our skin the size of two stacked quarters contains about 240 sweat glands, 7 feet of blood vessels, 30 feet of nerves and hundreds of nerve endings. The body of one person has over 200 bones, 600 muscles, 60 thousand miles of blood vessels (veins, arteries and capillaries), 10 thousand auditory nerve fibers, 2 million optic nerve fibers and 2 million sweat glands, all put into place in an orderly manner according to the specifications of the DNA blueprint, the genetic instructions which direct the development of every living being. Our bodies are literally jam packed with engineering marvels, having parts analogous to batteries, pumps, heaters, coolers, pipes, valves, switches, filters, computers, etc., besides the waste elimination systems, the lubrication systems, and the incredibly complex defense systems. And again, all of these are far beyond the reach of modern technological capabilities.
A sound mind would not receive that all these wonders are simply the product of chance, for random processes cannot produce the kind of complexity found even in the "simplest" living cell, no matter how much time is allowed. Chance is incapable of outdoing intelligent activity. Chance could not defeat even a moderately competent chess player at chess. How then could random processes create anything like a living cell, the smallest part of which 9like a functioning protein or a gene) is complex beyond the capabilities of 20th century technology?
Some evolutionists respond that it is not chance alone that produces these things, but that natural occurrences guide the process by selecting the most fit. It is obviously true that a being with some advantage over others of its kind would tend to have greater chances of survival. However, the being would not receive any benefit before the characteristic which gives this advantage has appeared and is functioning properly; and the initial appearance of this characteristic, if not designed by intelligence, would have to occur purely by chance. It is easy to see, for example, how the rotary motor gives an advantage of efficient motility to bacteria. But such a motor would be of no use at all until all of the necessary parts were present, fully compatible and in their proper positions; and a bacterium would certainly not produce such a motor simply by wishing it had one. Therefore the initial appearance of this motor, or of the visual system, or of the heart or brain, or of the hundreds of millions of suction cups on the toes of a single gecko lizard, or of any of the multitudes of engineering marvels in living things, would have to have been produced by chance, unless they were the result of intelligent design. In the following section we shall see that chance is ruled out as a plausible means of producing these structures.
Footnotes
[36] For a discussion of this subject, see Peter Nathanielz, Life Before Birth, 1996.[37] A.M. Winchester, Genetics, 5th edition, 1977, p. 356.
[38] Pierre Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, 1977, pp. 87-107; see p. 88, where he states, "No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution." See also Erwin & Valentine, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 81 #17 (1984), p. 5482.
[39] For those who wish to check for themselves how implausible these ideas are, a section on probability is included later.
[40] Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason, 1971, p. 34; Monroe W. Strickburger, Genetics, 2nd ed., 1976, p. 82.
[41] Pierre Grasse, op. cit., 1977, p. 170; Rifkin, J., Algeny, 1983, p. 135; Lovtrup, Darwinism, 1987, p. 351.
[42] Hitching, 1982, p. 57; Fix, Wm., The Bone Peddlers, 1984, p. 190; Huxley, 1953, pp. 43-44; Koestler, 1967, p. 133.
[43] Some examples include Ricklefs, Science 199 (Jan. 6, 1978), p. 58; Saunders & Ho, Nature & System 4 (1982), p. 191, and Coyne, American Naturalist 140 (1992), p. 726.
[44] Lewin, Science 210 (Nov. 21, 1980), p. 883.
[45] Berry, Biological Journal of the Linnaen Society 39 (1990), pp. 301-322; Lees & Creed, Journal of Animal Ecology 44 (1975), pp. 67-83.
[46] Clark et al, Biological Journal of the Linnaen Society 26 (1985), pp. 189-199.
[47] Sargent et al, Evolutionary Biology 30 (1998), pp. 67-83.
[48] F. Ayala, Scientific American 239 (Sept. 1978), p. 65.
[49] Gordan Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, 1983, pp. 34, 48. The bacterium E. coli has also been studied intensively for many decades, and the time necessary for one of its members to be generated and be able to produce an offspring can be as fast as 20 to 30 minutes. (See New Scientist 129 (Feb. 16, 1991), pp. 39,40.) This represents hundreds of thousands of consecutive generations. However, no new genes or enzymes have ever been observed to emerge in this case either.
* Baby alligators, for example, are equipped with a tooth on their nose for hatching.
[50] Dunker, in Respiratory Function in Birds, J. Piiper ed., 1978, pp. 260-273; Denton, op. cit., 1986, p. 210ff; Romer, The Vertebrate Body, 1977, pp. 333-4.
[51] Various examples are described by Michael Behe in Darwin's Black Box, 1996.
[52] Denton, op. cit., 1986, pp. 222-5; Scientific American 233 (Aug., 1975), pp. 36-44; also Scientific American 265 (Sep., 1991), pp. 168-9.
[53] Nature 371 (Oct. 27, 1994), p. 752.
[54] John Stevens, Byte 10 (apr. 1985), p. 287.
[55] McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science & Technology, 1997, Vol. 17, p. 659.
[56] Science News 147 (Apr. 15, 1995), p. 235.