Neo-Darwinism Under Attack
One of the most significant questions in the origins debate concerns the nature
of biological change. Can organisms change into an infinite array of creatures?
Or are there genetically imposed limits to the amount of change which can take
place? There are two major theories of evolutionary change: neo-Darwinism and punctuated
equilibrium. As creationists, Lane Lester and I proposed in 1984 that indeed
there are limits to change in our book, The Natural Limits to Biological Change.
Theoretically, it may seem difficult to propose that immense variety may occur
within a group of organisms yet this variety is constrained within certain genetically
induced limits. It may seem contradictory even. But in the intervening ten years,
my confidence in the proposal has only strengthened, and my confidence in any
evolutionary mechanism to accomplish any significant adaptational change has
The arguments against neo-Darwinism center around four topics: mutation, natural
selection, population genetics, and paleontology. Our major objection to the
role of mutations in evolutionary change is the clear lack of data to indicate
that mutations really accomplish anything new. While some weird-looking fruit flies
have been created in the laboratory, they are still fruit flies. Bacteria are
still bacteria. We quoted from Pierre-Paul Grasse’, the great French evolutionist.
When commenting on the mutations of bacteria he said:
What is the use of their unceasing mutations if they do not change? In sum,
the? mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around
a median? position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final
A mechanism for the creation of new genetic material is also sadly inadequate.
Sometimes, an extra copy of a gene arises due to a DNA duplication error. Evolutionists
suggest that this extra gene can accumulate mutations and eventually code for
a new gene with a different function. In reality, however, this fails to explain
how an old gene takes on a new function and new regulation pathways by the introduction
of genetic mistakes into the gene and the regulatory apparatus.
Natural selection is a conservative process, not a creative one. The famous
example of peppered moths teaches us how a species survives in a changing environment
by possessing two varieties adapted to different conditions. Antibiotic resistance
in bacteria only instructed us in the ingenious mechanisms of different bacteria to
share the already existing genes for antibiotic resistance among themselves.
Decades of research in the science of population genetics has not helped the
neo-Darwinist position. The data from protein and gene variation shed only a
dim light on the major problem of evolution– the appearance of novel adaptations.
The major significance of population genetics has been helping to understand how an
organism responds to minor environmental fluctuations. And even this can be
clouded in fundamental differences in theory.
The data of paleontology have been elaborated at length elsewhere. Gradual,
neo-Darwinian evolution is not observable in the fossil record. The rarity of
transitional forms has been called the trade secret of paleontology. Mutations,
natural selection, genetics, and paleontology have all proved to be dead ends
?Obstacles to the Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium
The coelacanth is a fish that has existed for hundreds of millions of years
according to evolutionists and was thought to resemble the ancestors of modern
amphibians. However, research into their anatomy, physiology, and life history
since their rediscovery off Madagascar in 1938 have revealed no clues to their possible
preadaptation to a terrestrial existence. The coelacanth is an example of stasis–the
long-term stability of new species–the first cornerstone of evolution. A second
is the sudden appearance of new species. One doesn’t have to look very far for statements
by paleontologists pointing to the fact that transitional forms are traditionally
Introduced in 1972 by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Gould as a description of the
pattern in the fossil record, punctuated equilibrium centers on the claims of
stasis and sudden appearance. The major vehicle of evolutionary change becomes
speciation, a process which gives rise to new species. Eldredge and Gould suggested
that where there is lots of speciation, there should be lots of morphological
differences. Where there is little speciation, there will be few morphological
Morphological Change Becomes Associated with Speciation
If morphological change is supposed to be associated with speciation, then groups
of organism that contain large numbers of species should also display large
morphological differences within the group. But there are numerous examples
of specific groups of related organisms that contain large numbers of species,
like the minnows (Notropis), which show very little morphological divergence.
This is exactly the opposite of their prediction. Sunfishes (Lepomis), however,
a group with relatively few species, show just as much morphological divergence
as the minnows. This is one more contradiction of punctuated equilibrium because
here there is little speciation but a lot of differences.
Another tricky aspect of the claims of punctuated equilibrium is that a new
species of fossil can only be recognized because of observable differences,
usually in the skeletal structure. Biological species, however, are designated
by many criteria (chromosome structure, etc.,) that cannot be detected in a fossil.
Therefore, trying to extend a paleontological description of species and speciation
will be very difficult.
What we see is that beyond punctuated equilibrium’s ability to describe the
fossil record, it is of little use to evolutionary biologists because they cannot
imagine a way to make it work with real organisms. Gould and Eldredge admitted
as much in their review of punctuated equilibrium’s progress in the journal,
Nature, in 1993 when they lamented that:
But continuing unhappiness, justified this time, focuses upon claims that speciation?
causes significant morphological change, for no validation of such a position
In addition, punctuationalists offer no new mechanisms for arriving at new genetic
information. No new theory of evolutionary change is complete without some workable
mechanism for generating new genetic information. There appears to be a general
lack of appreciation as to what a mutation is and what its effects on the organism
may be. Discussions of regulatory and developmental mutations are carried out
with no regard as to the overwhelmingly destructive effect such mutations produce
compared to mutations in structural genes. Developmental mutations can cripple an organism
or even lead to death. Thus, punctuated equilibrium raises more questions than
As I have tried to point out, the two major competing models of evolutionary
change are far from being considered accepted facts of nature. Both suffer from
serious problems from which, some say, they may never be able to recover. However,
if one sits back and views the evidence as a whole, a totally different perspective
arises as a possibility.
First, virtually all taxonomic levels, even species appear abruptly in the fossil
record. This, it will be remembered, is one of the sharper criticisms of neo-Darwinism,
and one of the two cornerstones of punctuated equilibrium. It is relevant not
only that the various levels of taxa appear abruptly but also that alongside the
higher taxonomic levels there are unique adaptations. This is the key. Unique
and highly specialized adaptations usually, if not always, appear fully formed
in the fossil record. The origin of the different types of invertebrate animals
such as the sponges, mollusks, echinoderms like the starfish, arthropods like
crustaceans, and others all appear suddenly, without ancestors, in the Cambrian
Second, there is the steady maintenance of the basic body plan of the organism
through time. One need only think of the living fossils from paleontology and
of bacteria and the Drosophila fruit flies from genetics. The basic body plan
does not change whether analyzed through time in the fossil record or through mutations
in the laboratory. This conclusion is reinforced by animal and plant breeders
through artificial selection. There is much variation, but it can be manipulated
only to a limit.
Third, we found that in the few cases where organisms have adapted to new environments,
this is predominantly brought about through very ordinary processes utilizing
genetic variation that was probably always present in the species. Mutations,
when they do play a role, produce defective organisms that survive and thrive
only in unusual and unique environments. At best the chances of mutants outcompeting
normal or wild-type organisms are minute.
?Fourth, we see the apparent inability of mutations to truly contribute to the
origin of new structures. The theory of gene duplication in its present form
is unsuitable to account for the origin of new genetic information that is a
must for any theory of evolutionary mechanism.
Fifth, we observed the amazing complexity and integration of the genetic machinery
in every living cell. What we do know of the genetic machinery is impressive;
what we have yet to learn staggers the imagination. One’s curiosity is aroused
as to how mutation, selection, and speciation could ever hope to improve or change
the machinery in any substantial way. The cellular machinery poses an even bigger
problem. The molecular workings of cilia, electron transport, protein synthesis,
cellular targeting, and so many others, are simply astounding.
The sixth and final element involves the big picture. Ecosystems themselves
are a marvelous balance of complexity and integration. One can devise schemes
of energy flow or biomass flow through an ecosystem as complicated as any biochemical
pathway or genetic regulatory scheme. At the center of all this is the wondrous
fit of an organism to its own peculiar environment. In the time before Darwin
this wondrous fit was the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer.
So, while it is clear that organisms change, there may be a limit to biological
The Natural Limits to Biological Change
Has Darwin’s theory of natural selection really shown intelligent design in
nature to be unreasonable? In view of the failure of evolutionary mechanisms
to be convincing, might biological change be a limited affair? Could the limits
of biological change arise from the very nature of the genetic code itself, the
unique set of structural and regulatory genes present in various groups of organisms
and the tight organization and coadapted nature of the entire genome? I believe
there are limits to biological change and that these limits are set by the structure
and function of the genetic machinery.
Intelligent design is not a new concept. Of course the concept itself, goes
back into the previous centuries. Intelligent design, however, is taking on
a more sophisticated form. As knowledge of informational codes and information
theory grows, the possibility of making predictions of the intricacy of the DNA informational
code grow more realistic. If DNA required intelligent preprogramming, the signs
should be unmistakable.
The mark of intelligence is not exactly hard to discern. We speak of the genetic
code, DNA transcribed into RNA, RNA translated into protein. These are language
terms. They are used not just because they are convenient, but because they
accurately describe what is going on in the cell. There is a transfer of information.
I believe that an application of information theory to the field of genetics
will yield a comprehensible theory of limited biological change.
?This is wholly reasonable because information theory concerns itself statistically
with the essential characteristics of information and how that information is
accurately transmitted or communicated. DNA is an informational code, so the
connection is readily apparent. The overwhelming conclusion is that information
does not and cannot arise spontaneously by mechanistic processes. Intelligence
appears to be a necessity in the origin of any informational code, including
the genetic code, no matter how much time is given.
More directly though, our concern was with what happens after the code is in
place. Could intelligence be required for the first cell but not afterward?
To answer that we must look at the informational content of DNA a little more
closely. Similar to what happens in language, there are two fundamental principles
involved in the expression of genetic information. First, there is a finite
set of words that are essentials of content. In organisms, this is comparable
to structural genes. Second, the rules of grammar provide for the richness of
expression using the finite set of words. In organisms, these rules or programs
consist of the regulatory and developmental mechanisms. In human languages,
given a finite set of words and a set of rules, the variety of expression goes
on and on. It is conceivable, therefore, that different groups of organisms,
maybe bats and whales for example, are characterized by different regulatory
mechanisms, i.e., different developmental programs.
There is growing interest in a biological theory of intelligent design around
the world. While many still vigorously oppose all such ideas, there is a much
greater openness than ever before. Philosophers, mathematicians, chemists, engineers,
and biologists are willing to suggest, even demand that a more rigorous study of intelligent
design in relation to biological organisms be pursued. A renaissance may be
around the corner.
Confirming New Data
It was known ten years ago that much of the information for the early stages
of development were contained in the cytoplasm or the cell membrane. This has
since been rigorously confirmed. There is information, therefore, that is possibly
not contained in the nucleus. So our emphasis on the genetic material was a
little too strong. There is at least another source of information to consider.
This seems to imply that in order to change the body plan changes are required
to be coordinated in perhaps two unrelated sources of information in the embryo.
This would make a change in the developmental pathway even more difficult to
Michael Denton’s book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, revealed that development
through the earliest embryonic stages is vastly different in amphibians, reptiles,
and mammals. Supposedly similar early structures arise from non-
and pathways in the embryo. This bears witness to our contention that unique developmental
pathways would separate the basic types, even when the structures are thought
to be homologous.
The complexity of living things continue to astound the imagination. Michael
Behe has introduced the term irreducible complexity. Irreducibly complex systems
are systems which must have all molecular components present in order to be
functional. He used the molecular machinery of cilia as an example. Cilia contain
numerous molecular components such as the proteins nexin, dynein, and microtubules
that all need to be present if a cilia is to perform at all. Cilia cannot arise
step by step.
But perhaps the most gratifying confirmation of our ideas came about recently
in the publication of a book edited by J. P. Moreland, The Creation Hypothesis.
The chapter on the origin of human language contained this passage on the complexities
of the genetic language.
In order for any organism to be what it is, its genetic program, (DNA) must
specify what sort of organism it will be and, within surprisingly narrow limits,
what specific characteristics it will assume. Such limits, innately determined,
apply as much to a human being or to a Rhesus monkey as to a special variety
of fruit fly or yeast or bacterium (p. 252).
Later after discussing the cascade of information from DNA to protein they conclude:
The whole cascading network of relationships must be specified within rather
narrowly? defined limits in order for any organism whatever to be a viable possibility.
Moreover,? the problem of biogenesis and the origin of human language capacity
are linked at their basis by more than just a remarkable analogy. It turns out
that the human genome must? include the essential characteristics of the entire
conceptual system that we find? manifested in the great variety of languages
and their uses, but within rather narrow? limits, by human beings throughout the
world (p. 254).
?The use of such phrases as "narrowly defined limits" and "great variety" applying
to both human languages and the information content of DNA is promising. If
languages require intelligent preprogramming, then so does the genetic code.
It is difficult for me to imagine that that honest men and women could study
the immense complexities of even the "simplest" creatures and not marvel, or
better yet worship, at the feet of their Creator.
? 1994 Probe Ministries International
About the Author
Raymond G. Bohlin is executive director of Probe Ministries. He is a graduate
of the University of Illinois (B.S., zoology), North Texas State University
(M.S., population genetics), and the University of Texas at Dallas (M.S., Ph.D.,
molecular biology). He is the co-author of the book The Natural Limits to Biological
Change and has published numerous journal articles. Dr. Bohlin has been named
a 1997-98 Research Fellow of the Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal
of Science and Culture. He can be reached via e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org.
What is Probe?
Probe Ministries is a non-profit corporation whose mission is to reclaim the
primacy of Christian thought and values in Western culture through media, education,
and literature. In seeking to accomplish this mission, Probe provides perspective
on the integration of the academic disciplines and historic Christianity.
?In addition, Probe acts as a clearing house, communicating the results of its
research to the church and society at large.
?Further information about Probe’s materials and ministry may be obtained by
?1900 Firman Drive, Suite 100
?Richardson, TX 75081
?(972) 480-0240 FAX(972) 644-9664
?Copyright (C) 1996 Probe Ministries