Evolution under the microscope has received many very favourable independent reviews, some of which are given here. In the interest of promoting informed debate we've also included critical ones, with comments to explain why we think the criticisms are unfounded.
Easily the best evolution critique available
If there is one book that encompasses the best criticisms of evolution and weaves them together into a forceful argument, this is it.
After several chapters of history (which are neccessarily limited but exceptionally fair), Swift finally gets going into the meat of his argument, and does an exceptional job of explaining evolution along the way. The chapters on biochemistry and the critical chapter "Variation and Variability" offer the most concise and concrete exposition of the central hang-up Intelligent Design advocates (and other critics) have with evolution.
If you've read Michael Behe and Ken Miller, but want more detail, depth, and breadth, this is excellent. It is also written by someone outside the normal ID circle and its set of opponents, with a refreshing perspective free from the philosophical apparatus of irreducible complexity, complex specified information, etc.
Link to original: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0954358902
The best book I have read up to now about evolution!
In the first few chapters the author gives a concise overview over the history of natural science and the involvement of the church, including it's misconceptions. He then summarizes the development of the idea of evolution, which culminates in Darwin's theory of mutation and selection. All the arguments for evolution are made, to a point that I was wondering why I bought the book. Arguments that are made in biology textbooks for decades are repeated so that this book seems not to fulfill it's promise 'to make a distinctive and valuable contribution' and that the author would 'expose fundamental flaws in the overall theory of evolution'.
But in the second half of the book this masterpiece of an analytical mind shows that it is well worth it's price. It is awesome to read how, one by one, the 'convincing arguments' for evolution are analyzed and shown to be flawed. Especially the recent new findings in cell biology and genetics shows the impossibility of complex life to have evolved from 'simple' cells. The author also dips briefly into the issue of prebiotic evolution, debunking the common perception that, given enough time, self-replicating molecules could have risen spontaneously. The author shows that evolution of living matter from non-living matter could not have occured. I just wish the author had dealt in more detail about Popper and science philosophy in general.
There are many books where you cannot wait to finish it early, so that you might know the outcome. This book is different. The closer I came to the last chapter, the slower I read. I didn't want to finish this book - I wanted to continue to read more about the facts behind the theory of evolution. Great piece, with deep insight - a lot of biological and chemistry facts - written in easy to understand English for the scientific layperson, who is interested in evolution.
Link to original: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0954358902
An objective and courteous case against (macro) evolution
In this book, Swift brings some order to the rather fraught and emotive debate about the validity of the theory of evolution. One of its particularly helpful contributions is to separate out two forms of evolution, and to narrow down the field of controversy: the first type of evolution is that resulting from gene separation and gene mixing; the second is evolution resulting from genuinely new genetic information being produced through mutations. The two types of evolution are considered and analysed from the viewpoint of molecular biology, whereby inheritable changes in an organism or species require new macromolecules to be generated and coded in the DNA.
Swift reveals the surprising amount of variation in a population which can result from the processes of gene mixing and separation, even to the extent of a population diverging into separate 'species'. There is substantial, documented evidence that this form of evolution (which some call 'micro-evolution') happens. Swift's presentation is helpful, because it identifies considerable common ground which objective evolutionists and non-evolutionists can agree on. (It so happens that practically all the commonly quoted examples of evolution in its broadest sense turn out to be cases of micro-evolution, including Darwin's finches, peppered moths and resistance to antibiotics.)
The real controversy, of course, is whether genuinely new genetic material can be generated in an evolutionary way by mutations ('macro-evolution'). Swift looks at this in terms of molecular biology, and insists on investigating how the various macromolecules necessary for life in the cell could have evolved. Swift argues that, if an evolutionary developmental path is proposed, it must be supported by an explanation of how the necessary molecular machinery could have evolved - not simply by pointing out gradual physical changes on the outside. Given what we now know about the operation and structure of proteins and other macromolecules in the cell, Swift argues in detail that it is impossible for macromolecules to have evolved in a series of small steps. He is not saying that because the cell is so complicated it must have been designed; he is instead explaining and illustrating why the very large and specific molecules (such as proteins) in cells could simply not have evolved.
This book brings new research and knowledge to bear on arguments which were put forward in the past when the facts were not known. Swift's presentation is refreshingly objective, courteous and detached. The first few chapters, on the history of the development of modern science, could be skipped without missing any of the key arguments. At the end, although Swift has presented a strong case for why macro-evolution appears untenable, he appears resigned to its continuance simply because there is no prospect of an alternative theory of origins - at least, no naturalistic alternative. His analysis is sensible and sound; but it does not flatter the scientific community.
I would recommend that this book be read not only by non-evolutionists who will agree with much of it, but by evolutionists who may not. I found the case so convincing that I longed to read a similarly objective, detailed and courteous response by an evolutionist to the arguments from molecular biology presented by Swift, rather than simply forceful statements of disagreement or dismissal. Whether such a response is possible remains to be seen.
Link to original: http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0954358902/qid%3D/202-2204226-0008609
Most anti-evolution books written by so-called creationist Christians consist of a mixture of unconvincing science and special pleading based on untypical examples. This one is different.
The author does not address issues of science and religion directly, and fully accepts both the process of natural selection and the age of the earth as about five billion years. However, he raises doubts about the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution in terms of how it is supposed to operate at the molecular level, challenging the prevailing biological paradigm. The central argument is quite technical, but in essence it rests on the recognition that biological molecules - DNA, RNA, genes, proteins/enzymes and so on - are both highly specific and very complex, and that each operates as part of a complex system. The consequence is that it is difficult to see how they can arise by successive stages of change: a partly developed protein would not merely work badly, for example, it would in most cases not work at all. This implies that the usual explanation of evolution in terms of mutations leading to diversity, on which natural selection operates to adapt a population of an organism to its environment, fails at the first stage of mutation.
The author accepts that evolutionary change can take place by selection within the existing range of genetic material, which explains such well-known examples as melanic moths, antibiotic resistance and fossil ancestors of the horse. But he argues cogently that novel and positive genetic characteristics are so unlikely to occur via mutation as to be realistically impossible. He supports this with detailed argument, both mathematical and biochemical, and gives numerous examples of the extreme complexity of existing biological systems. In addition he cites relevant evidence from a wide range of other biological contexts including homology, convergence, cladism and the origin of life, and also the well-known absence in the fossil record of intermediate forms between phyla and between classes.
These arguments deserve to be taken seriously, and certainly appear to have some validity. Evolutionary theory undoubtedly has to face many unanswered questions (but that is hardly controversial). However the book has some weaknesses and omissions: the author does not provide any alternative mechanism to evolution to explain how the diverse range of organisms came into existence; he does not explain how it is that genetic code is universal; nor, to use an example the author quotes frequently, how it is that virtually all organisms have very similar versions of the small energy-regulating protein cytochrome-c. Also he does not adequately consider his own assumptions, for example when he calculates the probability of a simple protein of 104 amino acids arising ?by random ordering'. And when in the final chapter he offers an alternative to the evolutionary paradigm it turns out to be supernatural design.
While Christians will be happy to see the whole universe, including its biochemical complexities, as designed by God, this does not really provide the answer Swift (or evolution) needs: in Paley's terms the watch does not need only a watch designer, but also a watchmaker; if God is the designer, how did He put His design into action? No answer is given. But design is not really an alternative to mechanism.
The book is very well written and produced, with few misprints. The early chapters consist of a brief but admirably clear history of science from the ancient Greeks to the present, setting the scene for the main argument. The approach is probably too technical for a reader without any scientific background, but is carefully argued and not unduly critical of those with whom the author disagrees. This book will certainly make people think.
Link to original: http://www.christian-teachers.org.uk/digest/1003Evolutionunderthemicroscope.htm
Author's reponse:
As I mention in the final chapter, my main purpose was to show why evolution (natural selection operating on naturally occurring mutations) is not a satisfactory explanation for the origin of biology at the biochemical or molecular level. I accept that I offer no alternative mechanism; but, as I also say in Chapter 14, it seems poor reasoning to accept evolution, even though it is fundamentally flawed, just because we don't know of an alternative. And it seems unreasonable to suggest that we cannot infer the existence of a Designer unless we can also say how the design was implemented. Are Christians to deny the occurrence of miracles unless they can explain how God carried them out?
Large italic print on the back cover of this book claims that it contains:
"A clearly-written presentation of a major problem with evolution"
Most of the book is indeed clearly-written. Swift explains the standard text-book account of protein synthesis very well and illustrates it with excellent diagrams. However, the alleged "major problem with evolution" turns out to be little more than a sophisticated version of Astronomer Fred Hoyle's graphic but long since discredited attempt at equating the evolutionary explanation of life as we see it with a "Whirlwind in a junkyard assembling a Boeing 747" .
Life depends on proteins and they are assembled as linear chains of the 20 amino acid building blocks. For a protein of length "n", the number of different sequences that are possible is easily calculated as 20 raised to the power of n (20^n). This quantity is what one protein researcher termed the "Evolutionary scare number" and the chance of a specific sequence arising spontaneously via the random selection of each amino acid residue is 1 in 20^n.
In presenting his version of Hoyle's argument, Swift attempts to leave his readers with this:
PAGE173:"Finally, a brief comment is in order about the suggestion that large multifunctional proteins might have been built up by combining functional domains. Whether or not this has occurred, the important point to note is that domains are generally at least as large as small proteins - typically around 150 amino acids, but often larger. We have already seen that proteins of this size are very improbable structures, so there is no need to discuss this option further in the present context."
The "logic" of this "brief comment" is very revealing. Swift's conclusion is that there is no need to discuss the "suggestion" that large proteins evolved via the concatenation of smaller, independently evolved, sub-units. His reason for this is that the scare number 20^150 makes the spontaneous appearance of the sub-units far too improbable. Consequently, Swift invites us to accept his implicit assumption that only "typical" small proteins can be candidates for the sub-units. He emphasises this as an "important point to note" and moves rapidly on to his conclusion.
However, just three pages earlier on Page 170, Swift reminds us that the small protein proinsulin folds into a stable 3D shape and is only 86 amino acids long. His "brief comment" invites us to conclude that evolution is somehow prevented from using proteins as short as that as sub-units for concatenation. Any suggestion that such atypical oddities somehow don't count is rather like arguing that because average house size is now 5 rooms, two-room flats are impossible and our ancestors could never have lived in caves, igloos, tents or, like chimps, in nests made of a few twigs. Evolution has been famously "opportunistic" in adapting existing structures for new roles as the environment changes. To suppose that Natural Selection is incapable of, as one famous phrase puts it, "tinkering together such contraptions" is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature and demonstrable history of the process.
Recent advances in the mathematical modelling of protein folding have been spectacular and Trp-Cage (the shortest known protein that folds spontaneously into a stable 3D shape) is only 20 residues in length. Also on page 170, Swift acknowledges the current existence of short unfolded proteins that act as hormones, transmitters and regulators. He then tries to suggest that only folded enzymes can be concatenated to form larger enzymes. Again, Natural Selection sees no such constraint. There is nothing in nature that prohibits the combination of unfolded short proteins to make a longer one that does fold. In terms of the house analogy, such a restriction would be like saying that a row of separate but adjoining high-street cottages could never be "knocked together" to form a large trinket and souvenir shop. Such an action would completely change the function performed by the cottages in response to the arrival of large numbers of tourists whose ancestors never had the money or access to a suitable transport infrastructure to visit the area.
The shortest known protein that can be seen to be biologically active is Lambda-bar. It is of length 2 and it inhibits protein synthesis in e-coli bacteria when they are invaded by the Lambda virus. The corresponding evolutionary scare number is 20^2 = 400 and that many proteins would hardly cover the head of the proverbial pin let alone a whole planet.
In support of his central Hoyle style fallacy, Swift correctly argues that gene duplication and subsequent evolution of new functions is "unlikely". However, the yeast genome has recently been sequenced and it shows strong evidence for 53 gene duplications leading to the hypothesis that the whole genome was duplicated at some time in the past. This was a "highly unlikely" one-off event but it does seem to have happened. HOX genes are highly conserved and they also strongly indicate multiple gene duplications. There are many other examples. Winning a lottery is "unlikely" but winners do exist. The life-forms we see are all winners descended from long, long lines of winners. That's how evolution by cumulative natural selection works. Swift would have his readers conclude that "Unlikely" really means "Impossible". The evidence and theoretical considerations demonstrate otherwise.
Finally, a brief comment is in order about genes not being able to acquire new "useful" information. Swift seems not to know that antibodies in his circulation are proteins that are "matured" in their ability to bind to disease causing organisms. The process that achieves this remarkable feat involves the cumulative natural selection of random point mutations to his DNA. Swift insists that such a mechanism is "impossible".
So the reality (as indicated by the evidence) is that the scare numbers don't scare, "unlikely" gene duplications often result in new functions and our antibody DNA constantly acquires new information for use in the fight against disease.
Author's response:
First, I draw readers' attention to the discussion that 'Emo Bright' and I have had in the forum entitled ‘Can evolution really see?’ on the Brights’ website www.the-brights.net . Most of the points made in his review have already been discussed, so readers who are interested in more details could find them there. And I’ll keep my comments here brief.
What’s disappointing is Emo’s repetition of arguments he has made there even though they have been answered, as if they had not been.
It is totally wrong to compare my analysis with Fred Hoyle’s 747 from a junkyard: I specifically examine the possibilities for biological macromolecules evolving gradually, not appearing in one improbable step.
Typical proteins require a minimum length of about 70 amino acids in order to fold (which they need to do to have enzymatic or structural activity). In the book I consistently apply this figure - which is evident when the references to other lengths are taken in proper context, and it is disingenuous of Emo to suggest otherwise.
Although we now know of some shorter polypeptides that fold, I have pointed out previously that they are atypical (e.g. see Biophysical Journal vol 88 (Jan 2005) pp 147-155) and cannot realistically be seen as models for protein evolution.
What is really disappointing is Emo’s attempt at sleight of hand: because some very short polypeptides which do not fold are biologically active in the sense of being e.g. hormones, he makes out that this negates the importance of folding; but he knows full well that this is not so, because (as I have pointed out previously) their activity depends on others that do e.g. hormone receptor.
It's worth noting that recent advances in mathematical modelling of protein folding, far from explaining how proteins might have originated, have highlighted how exceptional foldable sequences of amino acids are.
I do not say that only typical small proteins can be combined to form larger ones, or that the subunits need to be able to fold.
Emo repeats current evolutionary thinking that similar sequences of different genes strongly indicate gene duplications. But gene duplication is one of the issues I challenge in the book, especially the simplistic thinking that focuses only on the protein-coding sequences of DNA and ignores the importance of the associated control sequences (e.g. pp163-9). The control sequences are also an important consideration in the supposed evolution of proteins, not only the need to fold (e.g. pp181, 192f).
Emo may try to belittle these arguments by referring to 'scare numbers', but what is required from evolutionists is not dismissive comments but properly reasoned responses. And it’s time they stopped relying on evolution’s fortuitous opportunism to somehow or other stack the odds in its favour.
Neither do antibodies provide a model for protein evolution. Although they include variable sections which permit adaptation to different antigen challenges, importantly they include non-variable sections which fold and which are essential to their function.
And yet another physicist unable to grasp evolution
Ok, I do think criticism is important. I think all scientific ideas must be continually criticized and be subjected to increasingly stronger checks for their validity. On the issue of evolution, though, books are invading the market with an old idea, that of evolutionary design. Not surprisingly, most of the opposition to the idea is proposed by physicists, or biochemists, unable to see the forest on the trees around them. Bottom line of all these critics is that the high complexity of the biological world, specially at the molecular level, demand an intelligent design behind it.
This, nevertheless, is no more than a different philosophic way of looking at the issue. Once one adopts a more reasonable scientific interpretation of the world, that in which, by doing science we are IMPOSING our explanations on it, not necessarily observing the truth, the problem vanishes. Complexity is in our minds, not in the world!!! It is our incapability of interpreting the world, not it's intrinsic characteristic! The source of complication is in the structure of our brain, in our way of thinking.
Whatever is the right interpretation (which we most surely will never know), the heuristic power of the theory of evolution and it's ability to explain the world around us can't be denied. And the old, entrenched idea we are still trying to get rid of is not evolution, but creationism itself...or wasn't the world flat 500 years ago? And now, the same people that once denied scientific explanations of nature's phenomena are grasping to molecular complexity (since animal diversity is already explained) to try to propose a 2000 year old idea. Molecular complexity is creationism's last stand.
Link to original: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0954358902
Author's response:
As I say in Chapter 1, one of the failings of the classical Greek philosophers was their non-empirical approach - they assumed an elegant idea must be true and did not look to see if it accorded with reality. Unfortunately, many today are inclined to fall into the same error with evolution: There is no doubt that part of the appeal of evolution is its elegance and heuristic power of explanation. But this leads many modern biologists (and others) to believe evolution must be true simply because it is such an elegant theory, even though there is evidence that is inconsistent with it. There is no point in agreeing that a scientific theory should be exposed to criticism and checks if we are not actually willing to allow the facts to challenge the theory. And it really is time evolutionists stopped using 'creationism' as an excuse not to look at the facts.
It seems to me that the complexity of molecular biology is real, not just a construct of our imagination, and that it cannot realistically be attained in an evolutionary manner (gradual increase in complexity through mutation/variation and natural selection at the molecular level). No amount of evidence for evolution at the level of the whole organism is any evidence at all for evolution at the biochemical level, because fundamentally different processes are involved.
The author of Evolution under the microscope is a hydrologist. He claims to write 'firstly for biologists because it is primarily they whom I want to challenge to take a fresh look at the facts'.
I am a biologist. I hope I am capable of looking freshly at facts. But I have to confess that David Swift's book pushed me back to the debates around the end of the nineteenth century, rather than giving me a new understanding of the present. His book is a compendium of examples which Swift does not believe could have evolved through natural selection. He cites R.A. Fisher's Genetical Theory of Natural Selection (unusually for an anti-evolutionist) but he would have done well to refer to Fisher's 1954 essay 'Retrospect of criticisms of natural selection' as well. In that essay, Fisher reviewed three types of objection: 'The first is opposed to evolutionary theory of all kinds, while the second and third... can only be evaded by evolutionists of other [non-Darwinian] schools by postulating a creative power in living matter equivalent to the ingenuity of a benevolent creator. They are all, in somewhat different ways, difficulties less of reason than of imagination' (my emphasis). It is worth noting also that Fisher dealt with the possibility that this demolition was mere naturalism in his Eddington Memorial Lecture Creative Aspects of Natural Law (1950).
The heart of Swift's thesis is his chapter 'Chance and necessity' where he expounds what he calls the 'improbability of macromolecules', reminiscent of Michael Behe's theme in Darwin's Black Box (1996) which centres on 'irreducible complexity', another difficulty less of the reason than of the imagination and which has been heavily criticised by many commentators.
The danger of Evolution under the microscope is that, like Behe's book, it will be taken up and quoted by anti-evolutionists as providing 'scientific' warrant for the inadequacy of Darwinian ideas. It does not. Although Swift is reasonably well-read (judging by his extensive bibliography), he fails to give proper credence to the flexibility of genetic output in terms of new genetic material and the resulting possibilities of fresh variation (mutation is much more than base change, which is Swift's definition, p.131). Indeed he speaks of the 'prohibitive improbability' of the acquisition of new 'useful' genes (p.230). For example he dismisses hox genes in a single paragraph (p.327). He does not discuss the debates around and subsequent resolution of Haldane's 'cost of selection' calculations (p.148). He confuses 'convergence' with 'coevolution' (p.250). He is wrong to claim that evolution involves 'substantial advancement ... through the progressive assimilation of small improvements' (p.296).
I normally enjoy books with which I disagree because they challenge and make me examine my own preconceptions. I confess that reading David Swift's book became a melancholy chore. I cannot recommend it.
Author's response:
With apologies for the length of this, but if I don't respond to the various points then some will think there's weight to them.
I'll start with the one point where Prof. Berry is right - that I should have used the term 'convergent evolution' on p250 rather than 'co-evolution'. However, using the incorrect term does not affect the validity of the point I make in that section (p252) that evolution which is clearly due to gene segregation is misused to support the notion of evolution through the accumulation of constructive mutations.
Apart from that, I think his review clearly exemplifies someone who is so caught up in the evolutionary paradigm that (despite his claim to the contrary) they are unwilling to consider the facts that are inconsistent with it.
This is seen most clearly in his citing Ronald Fisher�s comment that the difficulties with the theory of evolution lie less in reason than in the imagination. A comment such as this is placing the theory of evolution above criticism or falsification: because in effect it is saying that no matter how strong a reasoned argument is presented, the evolutionary response is simply that there must be something wrong with it, even if we cannot see (or even imagine) what the solution to the problem is.
Regarding naturalism: In writing my book I deliberately avoided arguing from or against a philosophical (in the sense of ideological) position - with, perhaps, the exception of accepting the philosophy of the scientific method. Unlike some 'creationist' or 'Intelligent Design' writers, neither do I consider naturalism to be primarily a philosophical position. Rather, I think most people accept naturalism empirically - because natural processes have been found to explain so much of the world around us. (Part of my reason for giving the historical introduction to the book was to outline how the naturalistic outlook grew out of the development of science.) However, in the book I explain why natural processes, at least as we currently understand them, appear to be inadequate to account for the origin of biological systems. Unfortunately, evolutionists reject such arguments without explaining how/why they fail; and to do so is to maintain their position for philosophical (ideological), not scientific, reasons.
For example, I recognise the power of natural selection acting on variations to effect substantial improvement, but present reasons why this cannot account for the complexities of molecular biology. Prof. Berry offers no answer to any of the substantial difficulties that I identify.
Any fair reading of my book will acknowledge that I recognise there is considerable genetic flexibility and that it can be a source of significant variations, as well as point mutations. Similarly, a fair reading would recognise that I mention Haldane's dilemma only in the historical context of the reasoning that lead Kimura to propose his neutral theory of protein evolution, not as a current argument about evolution. Even so, I don't know of a satisfactory resolution of Haldane's point.
Prof. Berry complains that I give only a brief mention of hox genes (I don't 'dismiss' them). I recognise that the similarities of hox genes in different animal phyla is seen by many as supporting a common origin; but I then give examples, especially of genes involved in eye development, where the similarities are too good to be consistent with an evolutionary explanation, because the organs concerned 'evolved' independently.
I am astonished that Prof. Berry contests that evolution involves substantial advancement through the progressive assimilation of small improvements. Certainly, evolution includes lesser things than this, such as moths adapting their wing colour to changes in their environment; but surely the most important claim of evolution is that higher plants and animals did not appear suddenly by some supernatural event, but from simpler organisms through the gradual assimilation of small naturally-occurring improvements. I could give many examples from standard evolutionary textbooks to support this, but it would take too much space and I think there is no need. I will only mention Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker (even though it's more polemic than scientific), Chapter 3 entitled 'Accumulating small change'. Astonished - and disappointed, because this comment, more than any other, betrays Prof. Berry's prejudice and desire to try to rubbish criticism of evolution at any cost.
David Swift never meant to challenge evolution theory. He was perfectly happy with the neo-Darwinian synthesis and all that followed therefrom. Yet as the 1980s and 90s dawned, he could not help reflecting on the implications of molecular biology. Something was terribly wrong with evolution theory, which is generally regarded as the foundation of modern biology. In fact he realized, plenty in biology made no sense in the light of what he knew about molecular biology. While many intelligent design books have been written, this one offers some important features. It is disinterested, independent and exhaustive.
Disinterested
According to his own account, David Swift was initially perfectly happy with the status quo in science. In fact, he still considers that "one of the chief successes of the theory evolution was finally to throw off the church's hold over science" (p. 10). He has no philosophical or religious position which would cause him to be critical of Darwinism (p. 384). Indeed, as he earlier remarks: "I accept the principle that biological macromolecules could evolve progressively; but the scenario cannot get off the ground because in practice the first step is much too big - it is necessary for many amino acids to be right for a protein to have any utility at all on which selection could be based." (p. 243)
While he finally tentatively supports the idea of a supernatural intelligent designer, he nevertheless remarks that Sir Fred Hoyle's idea of an intelligent universe, is also perfectly acceptable to him (p. 400). Thus, as the author himself points out, it is biological facts, not philosophy, which motivated this work.
Independent
The author appears to have come to his conclusions on intelligent design entirely independently of the broader intelligent design community of scientists. He cites only Michael Behe and that only briefly. Perhaps the fact that he lives in England allowed him to be less aware or interested in other intelligent design titles. For example, throughout the book he cites the example of peppered moths as "an especially prominent example" (p. 114) of studies demonstrating the action of natural selection. He obviously has not read Jonathan Well's book Icons of Evolution. The significance of such an independent approach is that it allows this book to provide corroboration on the problems with evolution and the implications of molecular biology.
Exhaustive
The book begins slowly with an overview of science from the ancient Greeks to the neo-Darwinians. His point is that each advance was a reaction to foregoing attitudes and conclusions. While this is all very well, he might better have directed the reader's attention sooner to his main argument. Perhaps a brief examination of Victorian attitudes followed by developments in the neo-Darwinian synthesis, would have sufficed. At any rate, the author does not begin his discussion of modern molecular biology until page 115.
David Swift never mentions the term "irreducible complexity," but his focus is similar. Nevertheless in that he concentrates on individual macromolecules, his discussion centres on an organizational level lower than Michael Behe's "molecular machines" in Darwin's Black Box. The two discussions at the two levels of complexity, however dovetail nicely.
The author begins by establishing that evolution is dependent upon random mutations. This means that macromolecules are astonishingly improbable. Indeed, he declares: "... the universe is not big enough or old enough, not by a factor of trillions of trillions of ..., for the complexities of life to have risen by random association of simple organic molecules or random mutations to proteins or nucleic acids." (p. 139 quoted as in book)
Firstly he examines the probability of spontaneous appearance of even one macromolecule, for example cytochrome c. Next he discusses the many known variations on the cytochrome c theme. Do these prove that the molecule could have risen gradually? Apparently not. Firstly he examines the many positions in the cytochrome c molecule where no variation is found or presumably possible. Next he examines other important macromolecules such as ubiquitin, histone H4, actin, and rubisco, all of which have high numbers of amino acid positions which are invariant. The situation stems, he declares from the requirement for precise folding and precisely located active sites. Without these, the molecule has no activity. The flexibility in choices of amino acids in peripheral positions does nothing to overcome the prohibitive improbability of deriving the critical interior of each molecule (p. 155).
Next he considers phylogenetic trees based on variations in "homologous" molecules. It is the author's contention that such trees show at best how relatively inconsequential changes might have taken place. What they do not show however is how an efficient modern protein could develop from a crude early form. Indeed, the author declares, when proteins first appear, they are already in fully functioning form (p. 157).
Concerning arguments involving sequence or gene duplication as sources of novel molecules, the author discusses the cases of haemoglobin and myoglobin, and ferrodoxin. He demonstrates that these molecules work only when fully three dimensional with active sites in appropriate positions. Smaller parts of the molecules would be of no benefit and would be selected against. Moreover a protein needs to be a minimum of 70 amino acids long for folding to occur properly. This process is highly sensitive and even slight variations in sequence can result in failure. Indeed he declares that "the criterion for folding by itself, is probably enough to defeat any attempt at finding a protein randomly." (p. 176). But there is more bad news. Every gene for a protein also requires at the same time, the operation of numerous control sequences in order for the macromolecule to be expressed. And even if it were produced, the protein requires the cooperative action of numerous other proteins in order for it to be effective. These simultaneous requirements push the probabilities for random development of macromolecules basically down to never never land.
Theme
In case the reader, in the midst of all the detail, misses the point of the discussion, the author frequently restates his theme. For example, he declares "... there is a prima facie case that biological macromolecules are extremely improbable structures and cannot realistically be attained at random." (p. 175) Further he elaborates "macromolecules are extremely improbable polymers due to the high degree of specificity in the midst of unlimited potential diversity" (p. 183). Later he states specifically: "there is no way the complexity of biology could have arisen by chemistry. Whereas our previous knowledge had meant that a natural explanation seemed possible, now we know it is out of the question" (p. 217). Similar summary statements appear on pages 250, 363 and 407. It is impossible to read the book and miss the point.
What about natural selection?
While the author agrees that the operation of natural selection is real and has important implications for ecology, he now realizes that evolution and natural selection are not the same thing (p. 220). While the effects of natural selection are to shuffle and segregate various alleles, macroevolution requires new information in the form of new genes. Natural selection cannot provide that (p. 247). The popular examples of resistance to antibiotics and insecticides, he points out, upon closer examination turn out to be deleterious mutations to already existing genes (pp. 235-244). Based on his new understanding of macromolecules, he declares that "the fundamental evolutionary principle of incremental progress fails completely at the level of molecular biology" (p. 318). That is the death knell for the neo-Darwinian synthesis. As a parting shot on this topic, the author considers Darwin's famous challenge that his theory would absolutely break down if any complex organ could be identified which could not arise gradually. Well, there is bad news for Darwin, says David Swift: "every organ fails Darwin's test, because every organ is dependent on complex biological structures in order to function." The author includes eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells in this category and ends up with the statement: "Indeed. I suggest every biological macromolecule is, in itself, of a complexity which could not arise incrementally" (p. 386, italics his).
Other contra-indicators to evolution
Based on his conclusions from molecular biology, in similar vein, the author discusses origin of life speculations, the popular endosymbiosis theory for the origin of the eukaryotic cells, and the origin of sex. In every case he considers molecular details which are devastating to evolution. Also he considers cladistics and homology. As far as the latter subject is concerned, he comes to conclusions similar to Paul Nelson and Jonathan Wells, although he does not cite their work. On this topic he concludes: "If evolution does not explain homology, then the facts of homology are at odds with the theory of evolution and cast doubt on it" (p. 333).
No discussion of origins is complete without reference to the fossil record. Based on molecular biology and population genetics, David Swift had already concluded that primordial organisms were equipped with all the genetic information they would ever need and that these early populations rapidly diversified by gene segregation into clusters of related taxa (p. 250 and 257). This sounds very close to archetypes or the modern creationist concept of baramins (created kinds). With a view such as this, the author is obviously going to be critical of modern conclusions on the fossil record. Indeed what he sees is a record of sudden appearances in the strata: "no phylum can be traced from a preceding one in the fossil record, in fact we cannot account for the origin of a single phylum: they all appear abruptly. This is also true of lower taxonomic groups such as classes and orders, and possibly lower still" (p. 295)
Attitudes
Lastly the author considers why scientists are so reluctant to reject evolution in view of the overwhelming evidence against it. Naturally this brings him to a discussion of paradigms and methodological naturalism. Not surprisingly, the widespread prejudice in science against anything smacking of the supernatural has not escaped his notice. In the end he turns his attention to the argument to design, and the criteria for recognizing suitable phenomena. Interestingly he declares that Paley was, in fact, right: "We now know that all living organisms and, indeed, many of their parts considered independently, are unequivocal examples of design without a viable natural explanation" (p. 403). On this amazing note, the author finds himself prepared to contemplate the supernatural. It is a conclusion entirely consistent with science, he says.
Recommendation
David Swift's writing style is clear, interesting and with occasional glimpses of humour. The book does not include a lot of footnotes, but that probably makes it easier to read. This work is ideal for university students and scientifically literate adults who seek a current introduction to problems with evolution and an indication of where the evidence leads. This book is a bombshell which we will surely want to distribute on university campuses everywhere.
Link to original: http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-14-t-000700.html
© Leighton Academic Press