Evidence of Evolution

Let’s begin with a quote by Richard Dawkins, “By contrast, what I, as a scientist, believe (for example, evolution) I believe not because of reading a holy book but because I have studied the evidence. It really is a very different matter. Books about evolution are believed not because they are holy. They are believed because they present overwhelming quantities of mutually buttressed evidence. In principle, any reader can go and check the evidence” (Dawkins, 2006:282). Challenge accepted. Below we will examine some of the more commonly cited evidence of evolution or evidence that evolutionists would argue is better explained by the evolution model.

Homology

Homology is a term that refers to certain similarities among animal or plant structures which supposedly show that they evolved from a common ancestor. These structures do not need to have a common function, just a similar structure. A popular example is that whales, cats, bats, and gorillas have similar forelimb bones, so it is assumed that they evolved from a common ancestor (Krogh, 2007:265). But the issue here is one of perspective. Let us examine an alternative viewpoint.

The comparative morphology example mentioned above can instead be used as proof for one Designer using similar blueprints because they work well. Two bones are needed for the forearm to twist. We wouldn’t expect more than one bone in the upper arm because it would be inefficient, all you have to do is join the forearm to the shoulder. Same idea with the five digits. Three digits would make holding certain objects difficult, four would still be clumsy, but five with one of them being an opposable thumb is just right, whereas six would be inefficient. There is no reason why good design should be attributed to common ancestry. Why do many passenger cars follow the same blueprint of having four wheels, a steering wheel, rear-view mirrors, etc? Because this blueprint works! Many examples of homology are just examples of a common blueprint that works well, and this should be attributed to one Designer.

Another interesting thought about homology is the subjectivity with which some comparable structures are attributed to evolution, while others are not. Michael Denton points out that the hind limbs of vertebrates are very similar to their forelimbs in bone structure and embryological development, “Yet no evolutionist claims that the hind limb evolved from the forelimb, or that hind limbs and forelimbs evolved from a common source” (Denton, 1996:151).

Of major concern though, is that homologous structures do not have homologous genes! “It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced; for such inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes. The attempt to find ‘homologous’ genes, except in closely related species, has been given up as hopeless” (De Beer, 1971:16). If homologous structures came from a common ancestor, we would expect their genes to have similarities, but since this is not the case, common ancestry cannot be an explanation for similar structures.

Consider this, a good template is one that can function well in many different applications. Whoever succeeds in designing such a template deserves praise for his or her ingenuity, because their template increases efficiency. Many creatures and plants seem to be made according to some template, they have similar structures. Perhaps it is time to view this as a product of the ingenuity of a Creator?

Bad design

Some might claim that certain examples of “bad design” in nature imply that a Creator was not responsible and that evolution better explains these examples. Let us examine some of these examples.

Pharynx

When we swallow, food and liquids go down our esophagus to our stomach, and when we breath, air goes down our trachea into our lungs. Sometimes food or liquids end up going down the “wrong pipe” causing people to choke or even die. Evolutionists claim that a Creator would never design such a hazardous system. A major rebuttal is that there are many causes for choking which include poorly chewed food, alcohol consumption which dulls the nerves that aid in swallowing, eating too fast or talking while eating, and walking or running with food in your mouth (The American Red Cross, 2006:26). These causes are misuses of the system, and not necessarily evidence of bad design. Any system or tool can be abused, but this does not automatically mean that it was poorly designed. Also, having a shared tube allows for the removal of extra moisture and debris in the air, using air pressure to force down food, being able to breathe with nostrils when little air is needed and the mouth when more is needed, etc. (Responses of R. Harris, Kaufmann, Chiu, O’Brien, Mennega from Howe, George F. 1981. Correspondence series. Origins Research 4(2):2-3) (Bergman and Howe, 1990:62-63). The amount of additional cells, muscles, and nerves required to maintain two completely separate pipes with overlapping functions would be highly inefficient. Especially if we consider that to allow for both speech and eating we would need two mouths, two tongues, two sets of teeth, two sets of cheeks, etc. (Responses of R. Harris, Kaufmann, Chiu, O’Brien, Mennega from Howe, George F. 1981. Correspondence series. Origins Research 4(2):2-3) (Bergman and Howe, 1990:62-63).

Flightless birds

Some evolutionists would argue that a Creator would not create flightless birds, and therefore evolution better explains their existence. First of all, a Creator is not bound by any rules to create wings solely for the purpose of flight. Wings can and do serve many other purposes like balance during running, cooling during hot weather, warmth during cold weather, mating, scaring away predators and protecting young chicks (Batten, 1990:123). Secondly, we do not know exactly how the original birds were created. It is possible that flightless birds used to fly in the past, but later lost that ability. The loss of certain functions in some organisms over time would be expected by the creation model. If anyone should claim that this is a ridiculous explanation, it is important to note that evolutionists themselves use a similar argument to explain flightless kiwi birds and moas (Murphy, 1951), and according to evolutionists themselves, the genetic changes required to change a bird like the rail from flying to flightless would be very minimal (Olson, 1973:34).

Therefore, we should be careful in assuming, at first glance, that something is an example of bad design. It could be something that was well-designed but with time it lost its original use, or something that doesn’t function as expected because it is not being used as expected.

Vestigial Organs

Vestigial organs, according to evolutionists, are organs which used to serve certain functions in previous ancestors, but now have limited, if any, usefulness. The argument is that these are leftover organs which provide evidence of evolution from more primitive life forms, and that a Creator would not design such organs. The following is a list of some of these organs and tissues as well as a brief explanation of some of the useful functions fulfilled by them. Not all evolutionists would still claim all of these organs to be vestigial, because with time and research many have come to realize that these are indeed very useful organs.

Appendix

“It is now known that the human appendix contains lymphatic tissue and helps control bacteria entering the intestines” (Batten, 1990:125).

Thymus gland

“The thymus produces lymphocytes, plasma cells, and myelocytes. It is concerned with immunity” (Greisheimer, 1972:372).

Pineal gland

The pineal gland has several hormonal functions including the timing of puberty, regulation of the estrus cycle, and reacting to light to produce more melatonin at night and less in the daytime to make us sleepier in the dark and more alert in the light (Bergman and Howe, 1990:50-52).

Hair

Eyelashes have nerves on the end to cause a reflex blink and tears when particles collides with them (Bergman and Howe, 1990:57). Eyebrows protect the eyes from sweat which can irritate them (Bergman and Howe, 1990:57). Hair on the head protects against heat loss, while body hairs create a layer of still air over the skin surface to reduce air flow to increase warmth, as well as keep perspiration from dripping off to expedite cooling, all the while providing aesthetic value and increased sensory input to detect something like a crawling insect (Robert Harris’ response) (Howe, 1982:10). Hair also protects sensitive areas from sunburn (R.E. Byers’ response) (Howe, 1982:10).

“What are beards for? Are they just for looks, or do they have functions related to typical male roles? They do seem to amplify the touch response. Do they provide sensory data when crawling through dark caves? Protection from the cold while hunting mammoths? Are they wind indicators? Love handles? Maybe such questions will stimulate some experiments to prove they are not just vestigial leftovers of ape ancestry but have a function” (Coppedge, 2004:8).

Wisdom teeth

Wisdom teeth are not always impacted, and this depends on various factors including breast-feeding duration and diet (Allford, Dorothy. 1978. Instant creation-not evolution. Stein and Day, New York, p.47) (Bergman and Howe, 1990:68). It is interesting to highlight that certain studies of the jaws of Egyptian mummies revealed that they were large due to harder foods (Harris, James and Kent Weeks. 1973. X-raying the pharaohs. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York) (Bergman and Howe, 1990:68).

Coccyx

The coccyx, or “tail bone”, supports the pelvic floor, rectum, organs used during elimination and other muscles, as well as enlarges the female birth canal during labor (Bergman and Howe, 1990:32-33).

DNA

Although genome studies show that only a small portion of the human genome actually codes for proteins, evolutionists themselves realize that some, if not most, of the non-coding DNA is regulatory in some way (Krogh, 2007:224). Also, there appears to be a direct correlation between the complexity of an organism and the amount of non-coding DNA that it has (Krogh, 2007:227).

“While only a small fraction of the genome directly encodes for proteins, every protein-encoding sequence is embedded within other functional sequences that regulate the expression of such proteins. This includes promoters, enhancers, introns, leader sequences, trailing sequences, and sequences affecting regional folding and DNA architecture” (Sanford, 2005:38).

Whale “hip bones”

Whale pelvic bones support reproductive muscles, rectal muscles, and internal organs (Bergman and Howe, 1990:70-71).

“The pelvis, by the way, is horizontal in whales and vertical in sea cows, something very odd for a useless vestige! The real reason for this must be that the sea-cows have short backs and whales long backs, and therefore their tail muscles need different types of bony origin” (Shute, 1961:55).

Conceptual problem

“The ‘vestigial organ’ argument uses as a premise the assertion that the organ in question has no function. There is no way however, in which this negative assertion can be arrived at scientifically. That is, one can not prove that something does not exist (in this case a certain function), since of course if it does not exist one cannot observe it, and therefore one can say nothing about it scientifically. The best we can do is to state that despite diligent effort, no function was discovered for a given organ. However it may be that some future investigator will discover the function” (Scadding, 1981:175-176).

Works Cited

Batten, Don (editor), Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland. The Revised & Expanded Answers Book. (23rd printing 2001) Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1990.

Bergman, J. and Howe, G. “Vestigial Organs” Are Fully Functional. Kansas City, MO: Creation Research Society Books, 1990.

Coppedge, David. “How and Why Whiskers Whisk.” Creation Matters 9.1 (2004).

Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006.

De Beer, Sir Gavin. Homology, An Unsolved Problem. London: Oxford University Press, 1971.

Denton, Michael. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. (Paperback edition) Bethesda, MD: Adler & Adler Publishers Inc., 1996.

Greisheimer, Esther M. and Mary P. Wiedeman. Physiology & Anatomy. Ninth Edition. Philadelphia, PA: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1972.

Howe, George F. “How can creationists explain human hair? Correspondence Series with replies of David Kaufmann, Robert Harris, R.E. Byers.” Origins Research 5.2 (1982).

Krogh, David. Brief Guide to Biology with Physiology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2007.

Murphy, Robert Cushman. “The Impact of Man upon Nature in New Zealand.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 95.6 (1951). JSTOR. 2 July 2008 <http://www.jstor.org>.

Olson, Storrs L. “Evolution of the Rails of the South Atlantic Islands (Aves: Rallidae).” Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 152. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1973. 1-53.

Sanford, John C. Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome. Lima, New York: Ivan Press, 2005.

Scadding, S. R. “Do ‘Vestigial Organs’ Provide Evidence for Evolution?” Evolutionary Theory 5.1, 1981.

Shute, Evan. Flaws in the Theory of Evolution. Nutley, New Jersey: The Craig Press, 1961.

The American Red Cross. CPR/AED for the Professional Rescuer. 2006.