|
Immunity, "Vestigal Organs"
and Embryology
In the preceding sections,
we examined the inconsistencies and difficulties the theory of evolution finds
itself in in the fields of paleontology and molecular biology in the light of
scientific proof and discoveries. In this chapter, we shall be considering some
biological facts presented as evidence for the theory in evolutionist sources.
In contrast to widespread belief, these facts show that there is actually no scientific
discovery that supports the theory of evolution.
Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics
One of the biological concepts that
evolutionists try to present as evidence for their theory is the resistance of
bacteria to antibiotics. Many evolutionist sources mention antibiotic resistance
as "an example of the development of living things by advantageous mutations."
A similar claim is also made for the insects which build immunity to insecticides
such as DDT. However, evolutionists are mistaken on this subject
too. Antibiotics are "killer molecules" that are produced by
microorganisms to fight other microorganisms. The first antibiotic was penicillin,
discovered by Alexander Fleming in 1928. Fleming realized that mould produced
a molecule that killed the Staphylococcus bacterium, and this discovery
marked a turning point in the world of medicine. Antibiotics derived from microorganisms
were used against bacteria and the results were successful. Soon,
something new was discovered. Bacteria build immunity to antibiotics over time.
The mechanism works like this: A large proportion of the bacteria that are subjected
to antibiotics die, but some others, which are not affected by that antibiotic,
replicate rapidly and soon make up the whole population. Thus, the entire population
becomes immune to antibiotics. Evolutionists try to present
this as "the evolution of bacteria by adapting to conditions." The
truth, however, is very different from this superficial interpretation. One of
the scientists who has done the most detailed research into this subject is the
Israeli biophysicist Lee Spetner, who is also known for his book Not by Chance
published in 1997. Spetner maintains that the immunity of bacteria comes about
by two different mechanisms, but neither of them constitutes evidence for the
theory of evolution. These two mechanisms are: 1) The transfer
of resistance genes already extant in bacteria. 2) The building
of resistance as a result of losing genetic data because of mutation. Professor
Spetner explains the first mechanism in an article published in 2001:
Some microorganisms are endowed with genes
that grant resistance to these antibiotics. This resistance can take the form
of degrading the antibiotic molecule or of ejecting it from the cell... [T]he
organisms having these genes can transfer them to other bacteria making them resistant
as well. Although the resistance mechanisms are specific to a particular antibiotic,
most pathogenic bacteria have... succeeded in accumulating several sets of genes
granting them resistance to a variety of antibiotics.306 Spetner
then goes on to say that this is not "evidence for evolution":
The acquisition of antibiotic resistance
in this manner... is not the kind that can serve as a prototype for the mutations
needed to account for Evolution… The genetic changes that could illustrate the
theory must not only add information to the bacterium's genome, they must add
new information to the biocosm. The horizontal transfer of genes only spreads
around genes that are already in some species.307 So,
we cannot talk of any evolution here, because no new genetic information is produced:
genetic information that already exists is simply transferred between bacteria.
The second type of immunity, which comes about as a result
of mutation, is not an example of evolution either. Spetner writes:
... [A] microorganism can sometimes acquire
resistance to an antibiotic through a random substitution of a single nucleotide...
Streptomycin, which was discovered by Selman Waksman and Albert Schatz and first
reported in 1944, is an antibiotic against which bacteria can acquire resistance
in this way. But although the mutation they undergo in the process is beneficial
to the microorganism in the presence of streptomycin, it cannot serve as a prototype
for the kind of mutations needed by NDT [Neo-Darwinian Theory]. The type of mutation
that grants resistance to streptomycin is manifest in the ribosome and degrades
its molecular match with the antibiotic molecule.308
Bacteria quickly become immune to antibiotics by transferring
their resistance genes to one another. The picture above shows a colony of E.
coli bacteria. | In his book Not by
Chance, Spetner likens this situation to the disturbance of the key-lock
relationship. Streptomycin, just like a key that perfectly fits in a lock, clutches
on to the ribosome of a bacterium and inactivates it. Mutation, on the other hand,
decomposes the ribosome, thus preventing streptomycin from holding on to the ribosome.
Although this is interpreted as "bacteria developing immunity against streptomycin,"
this is not a benefit for the bacteria but rather a loss for it. Spetner writes:
This change in the surface
of the microorganism's ribosome prevents the streptomycin molecule from attaching
and carrying out its antibiotic function. It turns out that this degradation is
a loss of specificity and therefore a loss of information. The main point is that
Evolution… cannot be achieved by mutations of this sort, no matter how many of
them there are. Evolution cannot be built by accumulating mutations that only
degrade specificity.309 To
sum up, a mutation impinging on a bacterium's ribosome makes that bacterium resistant
to streptomycin. The reason for this is the "decomposition" of the ribosome by
mutation. That is, no new genetic information is added to the bacterium. On the
contrary, the structure of the ribosome is decomposed, that is to say, the bacterium
becomes "disabled." (Also, it has been discovered that the ribosome of the mutated
bacterium is less functional than that of a normal bacterium.) Since this "disability"
prevents the antibiotic from attaching onto the ribosome, "antibiotic resistance"
develops. Finally, there is no example of mutation that "develops
the genetic information." Evolutionists, who want to present antibiotic resistance
as evidence for evolution, treat the issue in a very superficial way and are thus
mistaken. The same situation holds true
for the immunity that insects develop to DDT and similar insecticides. In most
of these instances, immunity genes that already exist are used. The evolutionary
biologist Francisco Ayala admits this fact, saying, "The genetic variants required
for resistance to the most diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present
in every one of the populations exposed to these man-made compounds."310
Some other examples explained by mutation, just as with the ribosome mutation
mentioned above, are phenomena that cause "genetic information deficit" in insects. In
this case, it cannot be claimed that the immunity mechanisms in bacteria and insects
constitute evidence for the theory of evolution. That is because the theory of
evolution is based on the assertion that living things develop through mutations.
However, Spetner explains that neither antibiotic immunity nor any other biological
phenomena indicate such an example of mutation: The
mutations needed for macroevolution have never been observed. No random mutations
that could represent the mutations required by Neo-Darwinian Theory that have
been examined on the molecular level have added any information. The question
I address is: Are the mutations that have been observed the kind the theory needs
for support? The answer turns out to be NO!311
The Myth of Vestigial Organs
For a long time, the concept of "vestigial
organs" appeared frequently in evolutionist literature as "evidence" of evolution.
Eventually, it was silently put to rest when this was proved to be invalid. But
some evolutionists still believe in it, and from time to time someone will try
to advance "vestigial organs" as important evidence of evolution. The
notion of "vestigial organs" was first put forward a century ago. As evolutionists
would have it, there existed in the bodies of some creatures a number of non-functional
organs. These had been inherited from progenitors and had gradually become vestigial
from lack of use. The whole assumption is quite unscientific,
and is based entirely on insufficient knowledge. These "non-functional organs"
were in fact organs whose "functions had not yet been discovered." The best indication
of this was the gradual yet substantial decrease in evolutionists' long list of
vestigial organs. S. R. Scadding, an evolutionist himself, concurred with this
fact in his article "Can vestigial organs constitute evidence for evolution?"
published in the journal Evolutionary Theory: Since
it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the
structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that 'vestigial
organs' provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution.312
A scientific study of the myth of vestigial organs: "Vestigial
Organs" Are Fully Functional. | The list
of vestigial organs that was made by the German Anatomist R. Wiedersheim in 1895
included approximately 100 organs, including the appendix and coccyx. As science
progressed, it was discovered that all of the organs in Wiedersheim's list in
fact had very important functions. For instance, it was discovered that the appendix,
which was supposed to be a "vestigial organ," was in fact a lymphoid organ that
fought infections in the body. This fact was made clear in 1997: Other
bodily organs and tissues-the thymus, liver, spleen, appendix, bone marrow, and
small collections of lymphatic tissue such as the tonsils in the throat and Peyer's
patch in the small intestine-are also part of the lymphatic system. They too help
the body fight infection.313 It was
also discovered that the tonsils, which were included in the same list of vestigial
organs, had a significant role in protecting the throat against infections, particularly
until adolescence. It was found that the coccyx at the lower end of the vertebral
column supports the bones around the pelvis and is the convergence point of some
small muscles and for this reason, it would not be possible to sit comfortably
without a coccyx.
In the years that followed, it was realized
that the thymus triggered the immune system in the human body by activating the
T cells, that the pineal gland was in charge of the secretion of some important
hormones such as melatonin, which inhibits secretion of luteinizing hormone, that
the thyroid gland was effective in providing steady growth in babies and children
and in metabolism and body activity, and that the pituitary gland controlled skeletal
growth and the proper functioning of the thyroid, adrenals, and reproductive glands.
All of these were once considered to be "vestigial organs." Finally, the semi-lunar
fold in the eye, which was referred to as a vestigial organ by Darwin, has been
found in fact to be in charge of cleansing and lubricating the eyeball.
The appendix (above), which evolutionists thought to be a vestigial
organ, has now been understood to play an important part in the body's immune
system. The coccyx at the lower end of the vertebral column is also not a vestigial
organ but provides an attachment for our pelvic organs so that they will not collapse. |
 |
There was a very important logical
error in the evolutionist claim regarding vestigial organs. As we have just seen,
this claim was that the vestigial organs in living things were inherited from
their ancestors. However, some of the alleged "vestigial" organs are not found
in the species alleged to be the ancestors of human beings! For example, the appendix
does not exist in some ape species that are said to be ancestors of man. The famous
biologist H. Enoch, who challenged the theory of vestigial organs, expressed this
logical error as follows: Apes
possess an appendix, whereas their less immediate relatives, the lower apes, do
not; but it appears again among the still lower mammals such as the opossum. How
can the evolutionists account for this?314 Beside
all of this, the claim that an organ which is not used atrophies and disappears
over time carries a logical inconsistency within it. Darwin was aware of this
inconsistency, and made the following confession in The Origin of Species:
There remains, however, this difficulty.
After an organ has ceased being used, and has become in consequence much reduced,
how can it be still further reduced in size until the merest vestige is left;
and how can it be finally quite obliterated? It is scarcely possible that disuse
can go on producing any further effect after the organ has once been rendered
functionless. Some additional explanation is here requisite which I cannot give.315 Simply
put, the scenario of vestigial organs put forward by evolutionists contains a
number of serious logical flaws, and has in any case been proven to be scientifically
untrue. There exists not one inherited vestigial organ in the human body.
Yet Another Blow To "Vestigial Organs": The Leg of the
Horse
The
latest blow to the myth of vestigial organs comes from a recent study on the leg
of the horse. In an article in the 20-27 December 2001 issue of the journal Nature,
titled "Biomechanics: Damper for bad vibrations," it is noted that "Some muscle
fibres in the legs of horses seem to be evolutionary leftovers with no function.
But in fact they may act to damp damaging vibrations generated in the leg as the
horse runs." The article reads as follows: Horses
and camels have muscles in their legs with tendons more than 600 millimetres long
connected to muscle fibres less than 6 millimetres long. Such short muscles can
change length only by a few millimetres as the animal moves, and seem unlikely
to be of much use to large mammals. The tendons function as passive springs, and
it has been assumed that the short muscle fibres are redundant, the remnants of
longer fibres that have lost their function over the course of evolution. But
Wilson and colleagues argue… that these fibres might protect bones and tendons
from potentially damaging vibrations…. Their experiments
show that short muscle fibers can damp the damaging vibrations following the impact
of a foot on the ground. When the foot of a running animal hits the ground, the
impact sets the leg vibrating; the frequency of the vibrations is relatively high-for
example, 30-40 Hz in horses-so many cycles of vibration would occur while the
foot was on the ground if there were no damping. The
vibrations might cause damage, because bone and tendon are susceptible to fatigue
failure. Fatigue in bones and tendons is the accumulation of damage resulting
from repeated application of stresses. Bone fatigue is responsible for the stress
fractures suffered by both human athletes and racehorses, and tendon fatigue may
explain at least some cases of tendonitis. Wilson et al. suggest that the very
short muscle fibres protect both bones and tendons from fatigue damage by damping
out vibrations…316 In short,
a closer loot at the anatomy of the horse revealed that the structures that have
been considered as nonfunctional by evolutionists have very important functions.
In other words, scientific progress demonstrated that what
was considered to be evidence for evolution is in fact evidence for design. Evolutionists
should take a hint from this fact, if they are willing to do so. The Nature commentator
seems to be reasonable: Wilson et al. have
found an important role for a muscle that seemed to be the relic of a structure
that had lost its function in the course of evolution. Their work makes us wonder
whether other vestiges (such as the human appendix) are as useless as they seem.317 This
is not surprising. The more we learn about nature, the more we see the evidence
for creation. As Michael Behe notes, "the conclusion of design comes not from
what we do not know, but from what we have learned over the past 50 years."318
And Darwinism turns out to be an argument from ignorance, or, in other words,
an "atheism of the gaps."
The Recapitulation Misconception
What
used to be called the "recapitulation theory" has long been eliminated from scientific
literature, but it is still being presented as a scientific reality by some evolutionist
publications. The term "recapitulation" is a condensation of the dictum "ontogeny
recapitulates phylogeny," put forward by the evolutionary biologist Ernst Haeckel
at the end of the nineteenth century. This theory of Haeckel's
postulates that living embryos re-experience the evolutionary process that their
pseudo-ancestors underwent. He theorized that during its development in its mother's
womb, the human embryo first displayed the characteristics of a fish, and then
those of a reptile, and finally those of a human. It has since
been proven that this theory is completely bogus. It is now known that the "gills"
that supposedly appear in the early stages of the human embryo are in fact the
initial phases of the middle-ear canal, parathyroid, and thymus. That part of
the embryo that was likened to the "egg yolk pouch" turns out to be a pouch that
produces blood for the infant. The part that was identified as a "tail" by Haeckel
and his followers is in fact the backbone, which resembles a tail only because
it takes shape before the legs do. These are universally acknowledged
facts in the scientific world, and are accepted even by evolutionists themselves.
Two leading neo-Darwinists, George Gaylord Simpson and W. Beck have admitted: Haeckel
misstated the evolutionary principle involved. It is now firmly established that
ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny.319
With his faked embryo drawings, Ernst Haeckel deceived the
world of science for a century. |
The
following was written in an article in New Scientist dated October 16, 1999:
[Haeckel] called this the biogenetic law,
and the idea became popularly known as recapitulation. In fact Haeckel's strict
law was soon shown to be incorrect. For instance, the early human embryo
never has functioning gills like a fish, and never passes through stages that
look like an adult reptile or monkey.320 In
an article published in American Scientist, we read: Surely
the biogenetic law is as dead as a doornail. It was finally exorcised from biology
textbooks in the fifties. As a topic of serious theoretical inquiry it was extinct
in the twenties…321 Another
interesting aspect of "recapitulation" was Ernst Haeckel himself, a faker who
falsified his drawings in order to support the theory he advanced. Haeckel's forgeries
purported to show that fish and human embryos resembled one another. When he was
caught out, the only defense he offered was that other evolutionists had committed
similar offences: After
this compromising confession of 'forgery' I should be obliged to consider myself
condemned and annihilated if I had not the consolation of seeing side by side
with me in the prisoner's dock hundreds of fellow - culprits, among them many
of the most trusted observers and most esteemed biologists. The great majority
of all the diagrams in the best biological textbooks, treatises and journals would
incur in the same degree the charge of 'forgery,' for all of them are inexact,
and are more or less doctored, schematised and constructed.322
Haeckel's fake drawings. | In
the September 5, 1997, edition of the well-known scientific journal Science, an
article was published revealing that Haeckel's embryo drawings were the product
of a deception. The article, called "Haeckel's Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered,"
had this to say: The impression
they [Haeckel's drawings] give, that the embryos are exactly alike, is wrong,
says Michael Richardson, an embryologist at St. George's Hospital Medical School
in London… So he and his colleagues did their own comparative study, reexamining
and photographing embryos roughly matched by species and age with those Haeckel
drew. Lo and behold, the embryos "often looked surprisingly different," Richardson
reports in the August issue of Anatomy and Embryology.323
In its September 5, 1997, issue, the famous journal Science
published an article revealing that Haeckel's embryo drawings had been falsified.
The article described how the embryos were in fact very different from one another.
Observations in recent years have revealed that embryos of different species do
not resemble each other, as Haeckel had attempted to show. The great differences
between the mammal, reptile and bat embryos above are a clear instance of this.
|
Science explained that, in order to be able to show the embryos as
similar, Haeckel deliberately removed some organs from his drawings or else added
imaginary ones. Later in this same article, the following information was revealed:
Not only did Haeckel add or omit features,
Richardson and his colleagues report, but he also fudged the scale to exaggerate
similarities among species, even when there were 10-fold differences in size.
Haeckel further blurred differences by neglecting to name the species in most
cases, as if one representative was accurate for an entire group of animals. In
reality, Richardson and his colleagues note, even closely related embryos
such as those of fish vary quite a bit in their appearance and developmental pathway.
"It (Haeckel's drawings) looks like it's turning out to be one of the most famous
fakes in biology," Richardson concludes.324 The
Science article goes on to discuss how Haeckel's confessions on this subject were
covered up from the beginning of the last century, and how the fake drawings began
to be presented in textbooks as scientific fact: Haeckel's
confession got lost after his drawings were subsequently used
in a 1901 book called Darwin and After Darwin and reproduced widely in English
language biology texts.325 In
short, the fact that Haeckel's drawings were falsified had already emerged in
1901, but the whole world of science continued to be deceived by them for a century.
| 
