13. Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional
fossils--creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for
instance.
Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils
intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the
most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines
feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of
dinosaurs. A flock's worth of other feathered fossil species, some
more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of
fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny
Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and
creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that
transition [see "The Mammals That Conquered the Seas," by Kate
Wong; Scientific American, May]. Fossil seashells trace the
evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20
or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap
between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans.
Creationists, though, dismiss these fossil studies. They argue that
Archaeopteryx is not a missing link between reptiles and birds--it
is just an extinct bird with reptilian features. They want
evolutionists to produce a weird, chimeric monster that cannot be
classified as belonging to any known group. Even if a creationist
does accept a fossil as transitional between two species, he or she
may then insist on seeing other fossils intermediate between it and
the first two. These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum
and place an unreasonable burden on the always incomplete fossil
record.
Nevertheless, evolutionists can cite further supportive evidence
from molecular biology. All organisms share most of the same genes,
but as evolution predicts, the structures of these genes and their
products diverge among species, in keeping with their evolutionary
relationships. Geneticists speak of the "molecular clock" that
records the passage of time. These molecular data also show how
various organisms are transitional within evolution.
14. Living things have fantastically intricate features--at the
anatomical, cellular and molecular levels--that could not function
if they were any less complex or sophisticated. The only prudent
conclusion is that they are the products of intelligent design, not
evolution.
This "argument from design" is the backbone of most recent attacks
on evolution, but it is also one of the oldest. In 1802 theologian
William Paley wrote that if one finds a pocket watch in a field,
the most reasonable conclusion is that someone dropped it, not that
natural forces created it there. By analogy, Paley argued, the
complex structures of living things must be the handiwork of
direct, divine invention. Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species as
an answer to Paley: he explained how natural forces of selection,
acting on inherited features, could gradually shape the evolution
of ornate organic structures.
Generations of creationists have tried to counter Darwin by citing
the example of the eye as a structure that could not have evolved.
The eye's ability to provide vision depends on the perfect
arrangement of its parts, these critics say. Natural selection
could thus never favor the transitional forms needed during the
eye's evolution--what good is half an eye? Anticipating this
criticism, Darwin suggested that even "incomplete" eyes might
confer benefits (such as helping creatures orient toward light) and
thereby survive for further evolutionary refinement. Biology has
vindicated Darwin: researchers have identified primitive eyes and
light-sensing organs throughout the animal kingdom and have even
tracked the evolutionary history of eyes through comparative
genetics. (It now appears that in various families of organisms,
eyes have evolved independently.)
Today's intelligent-design advocates are more sophisticated than
their predecessors, but their arguments and goals are not
fundamentally different. They criticize evolution by trying to
demonstrate that it could not account for life as we know it and
then insist that the only tenable alternative is that life was
designed by an unidentified intelligence.
