This site contains a growing number of Questions and
Answers about various aspects of Evolution.
Please email me, if you have any question/comments
you would like to have answered or like to see on this page.
last update: february18, 2005
041117a: Can evolution be directly observed?
041117a:
No it can't. Evolution requires the random change of genetic material
by mutation. These changes occur very seldomly. Living cells have a
very effective repair mechanism and mutations, if they occur, are
removed. Evolutionary changes of species require millions of years
according to evolution theory.
Detailed Answer
041117b: Are the antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria a proof for
evolution?
041117b:
No, they aren't. Evolution is the formation of new, more complex and
better adapted species due to mutation and selection. Antibiotic
resistance is caused mainly by gene transfer, and not by mutation. The
bacteria are indeed better suited for the local environment, which
contains the normally deadly antibiotic. But
can this really be called "evolution"? I do not think so, and here are
my reasons.
Detailed Answer
041117c: What is Haldane's dilemma?
041117c:
(from: ReMine, W.J. (1993): The Biotic Message. St.Paul Science. Saint
Paul, Minnesota, USA.)
"In the 1950s the evolutionary geneticist, J.B.S. Haldane, calculated
the maximum rate of genetic change due to differential survival. He
reluctantly concluded there is a serious problem here, now known as
Haldane's Dilemma. His calculations show that many species of higher
vertebrates could not plausibly evolve in the available time."
Detailed Answer
041118a: What is "survival of the fittest"?
041118a:
"survival of the fittest" means that from all offspring in a population
the one with the best adaption to the environment survives. "Survival
of the fittest" is the selection machanism in "Mutation and Selection",
a central dogma in evolution theory. Without selection, no evolution.
Can "survival of the fittest" be used as an argument for evolution? No.
Detailed Answer
041118b: What is a biological clock (sometimes called protein clock, or
genetic tree)?
041118b:
A protein clock is used to describe the relation between species (far
or close), and from this data, the time when the two species separated
in evolutionary timeline is calculated. This approach looks nice, since
the older the branching is, the more distant is the relation and the
more different the protein structure should be. Frogs are more
different from humans than cows. Thus the frog proteins should be more
different from human ones than cow ones.
But actually, this might not be the case.
Detailed Answer
041118c: Is the "Theory of evolution" a theory in the scientific sense?
041118c:
A theory is not just some fancy idea, or something that is unproven.
In order for a theory to count as a real scientific theory, some
criteria have to be fulfilled. And the "Theory of Evolution" does not
fulfill these criteria; so, in a sense, it does not qualify to be
called a theory.
Detailed Answer
041118d: Are vestigial organs proof for evolution?
041118d: No, they are not! ...answer to be continued....
041119a: Are relaxin and insulin (both are proteins) examples that
falsify the "protein clock"?
041119a:
Yes, they are. This question and its answer relates to 041118b.
Detailed answer
041121a: Why do so many people think that evolution has occured? Why do
so few people question evolution?
041121a:
Only very few people actually know the details (especially the
problematic details) about Darwin's evolution theory. But the mass
media reports about evolution as if it was a fact (Scientists know that
..... Science found that....). Schools and universities teach evolution
as if it was proven. Only rarely one can find people questioning
evolution openly. Thus no alternative to the theory of evolution is
taught.
Or to quote Morris,
“The main reason most educated people believe in
evolution is simply because they have been told that most educated
people believe in evolution” (Morris, 1974, p. 26).
Detailed Answer
041121b: Is the change in color of the peppered moth (biston betularia)
from light grey to black an example of "evolution under your own eyes"?
041121b:
No it is not.
Is was found that a black version of the peppered moth is prevalent in
areas where tree barks were darkened because of industrial polution.
once the polution decreased and the tree trunks became lighter in color
again, more moths were white, too.
Huxley wrote in 1958 that this is an example for "evolution under your
own eyes". The change form white to black and
back to white occured within one century. Huxley's explanation was that
sudden mutation caused a few of the moths to become black. Thus they
were
not as easy to be found and eaten by birds than the white ones, who
were
clearly visible on the blackened tree trunks. Thus mutation led to
selection
and to a new species - a prime example fro evolution!!
....actually not. Here are the counter arguments.
Detailed Answer
041130a: Are the theories concerning evolution unfallible? How many
apects about evolution were thought to be true, only to be proven wrong
at a later time?
041130a:
Many Darwinistic ideas were found to be untrue. Here are some
examples:
- Lamarckism: the passing of aquired traits to offspring
- Haeckels "Biogenetic Law": "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny", or
the development of an embryo (ontogeny) is a speeded-up replay of the
evolution of the species (phylogeny).
- Vestigial organs.
- the tree of life: all organisms share the same anchestor (first,
it was a tree of life, then it
looked more like a bush, now
it is viewed as a ring. More
on that later).
- the concept of the "missing link"
041130b: What are the "icons of evolution"?
041211a: Are there respected scientists who question evolution?
041211a:
Yes, there are many. Here I list a few (in alphabetical order).
Prof. Anthony Flew, British philosophy
professor.
Prof. John Haldane, British philisophy professor
Dr. Brad Harrub, University of Tennessee, Memphis
Prof. Dr. Loennig, Director at the Max Planck Institute in
Koeln, Germany
Prof. Gerald Schroeder, Israeli physics professor.
Dr. Bert Thompson, former professor, College of Veterinary
Medicine, Texas A&M University, now Director at Apologetics Press
and many others
A list of more than 350 scientists can be found on the Discovery
Institute press
release of April 1, 2004.
050102a:
Are living organisms badly designed?
050102a:
Some scientists think so. There is an essay on the web about so-called Jury-Rigged
Design.
My answer to this essay is: No, there is no evidence for 'bad design'
in
nature.
Detailed Answer
050110a:
Is there fraudulent 'evidence' for evolution?
050110a: yes, there is plenty. Some famous examples are
1. Haeckel's fraudulent embryo charts: He deliberately faked embryo
drawings to show
that many organisms show a similar form in their embrionic state.
2. The Piltdown man: an ape jaw and a human skull was fabricated to
look like the 'missing link' between apes and humans.
3. Archaeoraptor liaoningensis Sloan: a Chinese farmer glued a
few fossils together so that they looked like a feathered dinosaur with
a tail. The finding of this 'missing link' was proudly announced by
National Geographic in 1999. Later the fraud was uncovered and national
Geographic had to apologize for their story. (external link to
http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_ap01.asp)
Especially the last example shows how eager pro-darwinists are to
embrace, even relentlessly push forward the evolutionist idea. There
was serious doubt by scientists that Archaeoraptor
liaoningensis Sloan is really an authentic fossil. Still National
Geographic wanted the story to get out as soon as possible, and they
did. Luckily, the fake fossil was later unveiled as what it was: a fake!
050111a:
Are the famous 'Darwin finches' of the Galapagos islands proof for
evolution?
050111a: No, they aren't.
Closely related species in a certain geographical area (like the
thirteen species of finches in the Galápagos Islands —species
which, by the way, are now known to be interbreeding!)—may well have
arisen from a single, original species (a.k.a., a “common
ancestor”). But that says nothing about where that single
original species came from. “A finch ‘changing’ into a finch”
does not offer any explanation whatsoever as to how finches originated
in the first place. Such instances are textbook examples of
sorting already-present genetic information (and far more rapidly than
evolutionists would expect!). But they are not examples of
generating new information. Furthermore, studies have now shown
that many changes are actually the result of a built-in capacity to
respond (i.e., adapt) to cyclically changing climates. For
example, while a drought might result in a slight alteration in the
specific size of a finch’s beak, whatever changes take place during
such a period of stress rarely are permanent. The finch’s beak
generally returns to the original condition once the drought
ends. This same type of argumentation applies to the other
examples (anoles, mole rats, ants, pigeons, and fruit flies)
(Quote adapted from http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_ap01.asp)
050112a:
Do human embryos posses gill slits?
050112a: No, they don't. The story that they supposedly did, was
started by Haeckel, a 19th century German biologist. He thought that
the skin pouches of a human embryo were gill slits, even though they
only superficially resemble each other. To strengthen his point that
embryos resemble "ancestral" animals, Haeckel even faked drawings. And
even though the fakes, made in 1866, have been already discredited in
the 1870ies, they continue to pop up - even in modern biology textbooks
used in the 21st century.
In a letter to Science, researcher
Michael Richardson wrote: “Sadly, it is the discredited 1874
drawings that are used in so many British and American biology
textbooks” (Science, 281:1289, August 28, 1998).
Biologist, and pro-evolutionist Stephen J. Gould wrote in 2000:
“We should not therefore be surprised that Haeckel’s drawings entered
nineteenth-century textbooks. But we do, I think, have the right
to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling
that has led to the persistence of those drawings in a large number, if
not a majority, of modern textbooks”.
Another quote, this time from "Life: An Introduction to Biology",
a high school textbook by George Gaylord Simpson and William Beck:
“The human embryo does not have any differentiated gill tissue, and the
gill-like pouches do not have open gill slits as in fishes. Fins
are lacking. The tail is not at all like any fish’s tail.
Indeed, the resemblance to an adult fish is vague and superficial”
(1965, p. 240).
“It is now firmly established that ontogeny does not recapitulate phylogeny” (p. 241,
emphasis in orig.).
The question now is: why are these faked drawings of Haeckel so
persistent? Are
there no better proofs for evolution than 130 year old fake drawings?
If so, evolution is in real trouble!
050114a:
Evolution requires the appearance of new information and new genes.
"older" and "simpler"
organisms generally have less genes than "more advanced" organisms. Can
mutation be a mechanism for the formation of new infromation and new
genes?
050114a: No, it cannot. Whenever mutation occurs, information is changed, but not created.
David DeWitt of Liberty University wrote: “Successful
macroevolution requires the addition of new information and new genes that produce new proteins that are found in new organs and systems” (2002,
emphasis in original).
Take the following illustration:
By "mutating" one character in the following sentence, I changed its
information content, but I
did not add any new information.
I know that you are in your house. -> I knew that you are in your house.
This is an example where the "mutation" leads to a new information,
which is in a sense "positive", since it still is grammatical correct.
But at the same time, the original information is lost.
Detailed
Answer
050114b:
Isn't David Quammen’s article "Was Darwin wrong?" in the November 2004
Issue of National Geographic a fatal blow for creationism and
Intelligent Design Theory?
050114b: No, not at all! David Quammen just compiled a collection of
old and outdated scientific "evidence" for evolution. There is a very
good rebuttal by
Dr. Bred Harrub and Dr. Bert Thompson on the TrueOrigin website.
050128a:
Mammals are thought to have evolved from reptiles. The first mammal was
a small, rat-like creature. How sure are scientists about that?
050128a: Not sure at all. It is right, in many evolution textbooks you
will find drawings of a 'evolutionary tree', for example this one. The mammals are linked to
reptiles via a small rat-like animal thought to be the first mammal.
But many of those illustrations show a dotted line, indicating that
scientists are not very sure about the link between reptiles and
mammals. Still, the drawings are very
suggestive.
Nature had an article in its January 13, 2005 issue about recent fossil
findings that strongly suggest that this speculation is wrong.
Detailed
Answer
karthaus@photon.chitose.ac.jp