Hey everyone
Sorry for not replying to your evolution questions during the week but I felt my answer would require a more lengthy discussion.
I should start of by saying that I'm very open to the fact that evolution may be correct. I feel it should be taught in classrooms and I strongly feel that any type of creationist/intelligent design argument has no place in the science lesson. At the same time I feel that if students want to voluntarily learn about creationism/intelligent design in separate classes they should be allowed to without any complaint from anyone and without being stigmatized. However the one suggestion I would make when evolution is taught in science lessons is that students are taught aspects of the theory that remain unexplained along with the current problems of the theory rather than ignoring them and pretending they don't exist. This indeed may be beneficial to the theory since it?s through critical analysis that scientific problems are often solved - it would not be a bad idea from any point of view to get young budding scientists interested in these topics.
I have come across comments that seem to label people who still hold reservations about evolution as 'wackjobs' and comparison to Zakir Naik have also been made. Whilst these are quite amusing I know (or hope at least) that most of you are actually not this narrow minded. However given these comparisons have been made, although quite embarrassing I feel it might be good to mention that I have a PhD in cell and molecular biology and have been a postdoctoral researcher at Cambridge University for 5 years - during this time I have published several research articles in leading scientific journals (but still have managed to remain quite a cool dude
).
Ok, my main problem with evolution theory is that I feel most cellular pathways are way too complex to have evolved by a process which relies on one beneficial mutation at a time. The most basic example I'll give is the cellular pathway I worked on for my PhD and the first two years of my postdoc career - the Fanconi Anaemia pathway. So far 13 genes in the pathway are known to exist - patients with mutations in any of these genes are predisposed to cancer and congenital abnormalities and often do not make it past their teens. The proteins encoded by these genes are involved in DNA repair processes which are critical for our survival. Eight of these proteins form a stable core protein complex which is critical for DNA repair, however when just any one of these proteins is missing or is non-functional due to mutation the whole protein complex loses it's activity and the cell loses this critical DNA repair capability. But what's very puzzling is that six out of the eight members of this critical protein complex suddenly appear together in lower vertebrates such as zebrafish but are not present in closely related non-vertebrates (such as the urochordates). This was entirely unexpected in the field. Once when I was having a discussion with one of my professors regarding the pathway he commented that ''it's as if these 6 proteins came down together from outer space' (he accepts evolution as fact but was just speaking figuratively). Since every member of the complex appeared to be critical for DNA repair activity in lower vertebrates such as zebrafish it did not make sense at all that the six proteins would suddenly appear together apparently 'from out of nowhere' since none of these proteins are found in closely related non-vertebrates. Although I had accepted evolution prior to this point (i.e. even when I was a theist), it was at this point I started having initial concerns about the theory.
Throughout my career the more cellular pathways I came across the more I realized that one mutation at a time can not account for the even more intricate complexity for most critical pathways (these include pathways that regulate development, gene expression, DNA repair, DNA replication, mitosis, cytokinesis - indeed the list goes on and on) . To build most of these pathways the numerous proteins involved in the pathways would need to appear simultaneously to allow the pathway to work - one beneficial mutation at a time would just be ineffective in building the pathway and thus simultaneous favorable mutations would be needed. For example there would have to be multiple different mutations that would create each of the components of the pathway, and then multiple mutations that would allow these components to be put together for the pathway to work. But I know that this would be mathematically untenable and would spell doom for evolution theory as a whole. Of course 'miniscule scale' evolutionary processes do occur in nature - this is an undisputable fact i.e. bacteria and viruses gaining resistance to drugs through beneficial mutation. But the actual building of complex cellular pathways is a
completely different ball game - I cannot stress this point enough. As a scientist this left me in quite a dilemma. All my colleagues are certain that evolution is correct - but does this mean I should ignore my own scientific judgment? I will expand more on these points at the end of this reply.
At this point I still knew that there was masses of evidence in the fossil record and in DNA that supported evolution theory as a whole. But the creationists would always argue that God created organisms in stages and that similarities in DNA for example could just easily indeed indicate common design i.e. if two organisms are very similar of course God would create them with a similar genetic make up. In my gut I knew this was true and there was no way round it. I knew there were many big gaps in the fossil record but still knew that there were many transitional fossils that existed. However I was also aware that there were not near as many transitional fossils as one would have hoped for and even then the history of transitional fossil had been marred by controversy ranging from hoaxes to massive blunders. Although I knew I shouldn't treat all transitional fossil finds with skepticism just because of these unfortunate cases it still did little to install me with confidence. Even more recently I'm sure a lot of you are aware of the Darwinius masillae(Ida) incident. When this fossil was found last year it was claimed to be the missing link between modern higher primates and more distant species - their was a massive hoo-haa about it and numerous articles were written and numerous documentaries were made (including a special BBC documentary featuring Richard Attenborough) all hailing it to be a massive step in confirming evolution. More recently a fossil find has shown that the Ida fossil is likely no such missing link at all and that it belongs more closely to lemurs than to monkeys, apes or us. This whole episode and others like it are embarrassing and only make evolutionists seem desperate. I know if I ran my science projects like this I'd be kicked out of a job or at the very least become a laughing stock amongst my peers.
The gold standard of any scientific theory should be that it can make testable predictions which are later proven correct. Einstein's theory of gravity (general relativity) spectacularly predicted the exact extent to which starlight would be bent by gravitational fields in both our own solar system as well as binary pulsars outside our solar system. Einstein's theory of special relativity predicts how time behaves depending on ones motion - for example to test this prediction two atomic clocks were synchronized one was left on earth and the other sent on a long journey around the world in a speedy jet. When the jet landed back on earth and the two clocks were compared it was found their times differed by exactly the amount of time that special theory said they should. This is great wonderful stuff, in fact it's mind blowing. What prediction has evolution ever made that confirm the fundamentals of the theory in such a manner? Sure it's made a few predictions here and there - but none of these go a long way to actually prove the theory. For example superstring theory predicts the existence of supersymmetric particles (or
sparticles). We might be able to detect these during particle accelerator experiments in the brand new Large Hadron Collider in Geneva. However even though no-one has seen these sparticles before, string theorists themselves accept that even if they do observe these new particles predicted by the theory in these experiments, although it would provide some support for the theory, it would not prove the theory since the fundamental concepts of the theory have not been tested. Unless we find a way to predict the way in which complex cellular pathways are built by evolution and find a way to confirm these predictions, critics like myself will always have reservations about the theory.
The major prediction that evolution has probably made to date is probably the existence of a species that is an intermediate form between fish and amphibians i.e. the tiktaalik fossil - but again creationists have argued that this is simply another example of God creating organisms in stages. Another good one (that I find most impressive) was the prediction that human chromosome 2 was formed by fusion of two separate chromosomes found in apes. Problems with the findings have however been discussed in detail by some evolutionary scientists such as Will Brooks. He argues that a problem with the hypothesis of a chromosomal fusion in human ancestry lies in the complete absence of humans with 48 chromosomes. If it were true that a chromosomal split occurred in human evolution, then two distinct human groups would have been generated: one containing 48 chromosomes which were not altered by any genetic change, and a second containing 46 chromosomes including the fusion of chromosome 2. The problem is, however, that no humans have 48 chromosomes. The only possible historical explanation is that an entire population of 48-chromosome humans became extinct and was replaced by a 46-chromosome human race. For this scenario to have occurred, a very strong positive selection must have favored the diploid number of 46 over that of 48. Unfortunately for evolutionists, the paradox is that the same selection would be expected for the other apes as well. Apes, however, maintained a chromosome number of 48. Because of the known problems of infertility that go along with large genomic rearrangements, natural selection would actually operate against this proposed chromosomal fusion. The fitness for survival for such individuals would be extremely low. Taken together, the evidence supporting common ancestry between humans and chimpanzees via chromosome 2 fusion is very questionable.
Another major concern that I have is that evolution could not have occurred without life first appearing on earth. In this sense the question of abiogenesis is very relevant (don't let anyone ever try and tell you otherwise - evolutionists sometimes try to insist abiogenesis bears no impact on their own theory). In my view there is nothing close to a credible theory at the moment explaining how life first came about on earth. Other major issues also remain unexplained i.e. how consciousness evolved, where our morality comes from, why we sleep etc. I will just say that people who accept the current theories put forward are very easily pleased.
I mentioned early on in this very long reply (sorry!) that 95% of my colleagues accept evolution whereas I have sincere reservations in my gut as a scientist. This is somewhat of a problem with me as I would much rather be able to accept evolution and get on happily with my life. Am I stupid enough to think I am smarter than the rest of my colleagues and mentors? No. My reasoning is the following. Most scientists are non-theists. The reason for them being non-theists is not because of evolution (i.e. how many of you concluded Islam was false primarily because of evolution theory?). However without evolution theory, non-theism doesn't have a leg to stand on if we're being honest. I therefore understand why non-theists are so certain the theory is correct and so defensive of the theory and in some cases even get upset when someone questions the theory. This unfortunately leads to a stigmatization of those who criticize the theory even if the intention is to gain a better understanding and more proof for the theory. We all know when a theory of science becomes popular the actual evidence for it can be exaggerated and the problems unduly ignored. I sincerely feel this is the case for evolution theory and my criticisms are not based on my religious beliefs. Indeed evolution is being taught more and more to children in Islamic countries and I would certainly encourage my children to learn about the theory. Although there are a lot of staunch creationists out there, there are also a lot of Muslim scientists who feel there is no contradiction between the Quran and evolution. For an interesting article that was published in the premier journal Science see the article below:
https://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/322/5908/1637.pdfOnce again my apologies for this very long post (although tbh you guys asked for it!!)
Abu Yunus
Topic: Stories of the Qur'an - Solomon