When Dr Ron Clarke, formerly of Wits University, made his discovery of Little Foot at Sterkfontein last year, the find was hailed as yet further proof that humans are descended from an ape-like ancestor.
But although evolution is the keystone of our modern world-view, the theory propounded by Charles Darwin and his followers still remains to be proved conclusively. While regarded as established scientific fact by many scientists, the theory is coming under increasing fire from other members of the scientific community. I refer specifically to molecular biologist Dr Michael Denton, whose book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, shows that new developments in science, especially in molecular biology, are challenging orthodox Darwinism.
Rapidly accumulating evidence threatens the basic assumptions of Darwinism. Although the theory appears to be correct regarding the emergence of new species, its larger claims to account for the relationship between classes and orders, let alone the origin of life, rest on shaky foundations.
Not only has palaeontology failed to come up with the fossil missing links that Darwin anticipated, but hypothetical reconstructions of major evolutionary developments – such as linking birds to reptiles – are beginning to look like fantasies.
It must be remembered that Darwin was a man of great sensibility and integrity, especially in scientific matters, and was aware that his conclusions were controversial and the evidence in many ways insufficient. He was not a ruthless crusader like his most ardent disciple, Thomas Huxley, who was known to be anti-religion.
In 1959, Julian Huxley stated: “The first point to make about Darwin’s theory is that it is no longer a theory but a fact … Darwinism has come of age so to speak. We are no longer having to bother about establishing the fact of evolution.” And Darwinist Richard Dawking has said: “The theory is about as much in doubt as the earth goes round the sun.”
Such claims, writes Denton, are nonsense. For Darwin’s model of evolution is still very much a theory and still very much in doubt when it comes to macro-evolutionary phenomena. Darwin’s theory still remains a theory of historical reconstruction – it is impossible to verify by experiment or direct observation as is normal in science. It was, and still is, impossible to demonstrate the infinitude of connecting links that are crucial to the theory.
It deals with unique events such as the origins of life, origins of intelligence and a host of other unproved evolutionary events. As Denton points out: “The raising of the status of Darwinian theory to a self-evident axiom has had the con- sequence that very real problems and objections with which Darwin so painfully laboured in The Origin have become entirely invisible.”
The only aspect of Darwin’s theory that has received any support over the past century is where it applies to microevolutionary phenomena. His general theory, that life on earth originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is a highly speculative hypothesis.
The following are a few examples of the problems that Darwinian dogmatists have not been able to give plausible or scientific evidence for:
l The fossil record provides none of the crucial transitionary forms required by the theory of evolution. The complete absence of intermediate and ancestral forms is today recognised by many leading palaeontologists as one of the most striking characteristics of the fossil record.
l The evolution of birds from reptiles and the development of feathers is a far more complex problem than has been admitted. The problems of the origin of the feather and the development of avian flight have not been solved and in addition birds possess unique adaptations that defy plausible evolutionary explanations.
l Regarding the development of the camera eye, the brain, the mammalian kidney, which the theory says came about by a process of random selection and mutations, Darwin himself admitted that: “Although the belief that an organ so perfect as the eye could have been formed by natural selection is enough to stagger anyone … I have felt the difficulty far too keenly to be surprised at others hesitating to extend the principle of natural selection to so startling a length.”
l The central axiom of Darwinian theory rests on entirely random events that are themselves blind to whatever effect they may have. As Denton points out, “The essential problem with this gigantic lottery conception of evolution is that searching for solutions by purely random search procedures is hopelessly inefficient.”
At a symposium entitled “Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution” held some years ago, some of the delegates pointed out that trial and error is totally inadequate as a problem-solving technique without the guidance of specific algorithms, which has led to the consequent failure to simulate Darwinian evolution by computer analogues. Darwinian evolution therefore lies beyond the reach of chance.
Denton writes: “Neither Darwin, Dawkins nor any other biologist has ever calculated the probability of a random search finding in the finite time available the sorts of complex systems that are so ubiquitous in nature. Even today, we have no way of rigorously estimating the probability or degree of isolation of even one functional protein. It is surely a little premature to claim that random processes could have assembled mosquitoes and elephants when we still have to determine the actual probability of the discovery by chance of one single functional protein molecule!”
One can justifiably ask the question: if Darwin’s theory is so seriously flawed, why does it continue to dominate biological thought?
Because, in spite of its problems, there is no alternative theory to replace it. The final abandonment of a theory requires that another be put forward for scientific evaluation. Until this happens, we are stuck with what has been described as the “priority of the paradigm”. This makes it possible to support popular consensus even if it is wrong.
Peter Sutton is an award-winning wildlife and agricultural journalist