Biological Macroevolution: Challenging the Unquestioned Hypothesis of Origins in Todays Higher Education

Bryan Tate History of Ideas II 3/17/10

Abstract: The theory of evolution has been considered one of the best explanations for how life on earth progressed throughout history to become the current biosphere. Additionally, the options for origin science in higher education have been largely limited to macroevolution in academic classes and through popular acceptance. This paper addresses the often-overlooked flaws in macroevolution and proposes other explanations for the evidence found in the fossil record and through radiometric dating. Evidence also supports a large portion of the current human population in the United States being inclined towards the teaching of creationism alongside evolution, as well as a statistical increase over time in the desire for multiple viewpoints to be taught in schools and colleges concerning biological origins.

Biological macroevolution is at the core of evolutionary theory, and remains a popular hypothesis for how life progressed throughout earths natural history. Today however, the theory of evolution has risen to a nigh-impervious status, a status based upon preconceived notions and assumptions founded in macroevolution. In this paper, we shall address the inconsistencies in popular conceptions of macroevolution, and statistically investigate how teaching of origin theories has proceeded in higher education. Further, we consider how future classes concerning origins and presentation of the evidence may be conducted. We shall begin with some basic definitions. Biological evolution can be defined as change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual (1). The theory of biological evolution can be dissected into two main components: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution consists of the changes in the genetic composition of a population with the passage of each generation (2). In a nutshell, microevolution is seen as the genetic changes in a population over each new generation of organisms. This is accomplished primarily through natural selection, or survival of the fittest where organisms which are able to survive, reproduce, and produce respective offspring in their present environment, will pass on their genes to the next generation.1 Macroevolution functions on a larger scale: it has been defined as evolutionary change at or above the level of species (3). Macroevolution includes the range of change, from change

at the species level (within a kind2 such as a dog species) to the evolution of higher taxonomic levels (3). The differences between microevolution and historical evolution (macroevolution) are quite distinct. Microevolution is a necessary, observable biological process regulated by natural selection. Indeed, microevolution is the common ground between advocates and opponents of evolutionary theory. Macroevolution however involves a large time-scale and involves new speciation (through new kinds forming from other kinds). This hypothesis has not been observed in our own human time-scale and likewise no new [genetic] information has ever been observed to be added to an organism (the hypothesis of evolutionary ascent). For example, the dog species or kind, often undergoes a sort of human selection in order for greater diversity in phenotypic (observable) traits to be produced. However, this same artificial natural selection is brought about through inbreeding and yielding degenerate individuals (individuals in which certain traits or genes are concentrated but others are lost (a net loss of genetic information). Another example of this evolutionary degeneration is seen in populations separated by barriers which prevent gene flow. These populations interbreed with one another and ultimately are unable to interbreed with the original/parallel population over time (once again due to adaptations within that population resulting in the reduction or loss of genes or alleles which were/are less useful in the new circumstances, due to natural selection). We must now examine the nature of a scientific theory. Scientific theories can be defined as explanations of aspects of nature that are based upon facts, Laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses. (4). Gravitational theory falls under this category. Going even further, according to Lisa Gardiner, Many different scientists challenge and test theories by developing hypotheses based on the theory and testing them with observations and predictions to see if they are in

agreement with the theory. Sometimes those tests lead the scientists to modify the theory, or in some cases even disprove a theory entirely. (4). Gravitational theory has certainly been tested extensively and continues to be explored today. Looking critically at evolutionary theory however (especially in reference to macroevolution) it can be argued that certain details have been purposefully overlooked and ambiguous evidence has been interpreted in a biased manner in order to support this theory (not to mention the lack of observable examples of macroevolution, or factual information which can be seen, tested, and observed by humans in the present). Many scientists think of evolution as a theory in the same way that electromagnetic theory and thermodynamics are defined: they can be improved upon and changed when new evidence is discovered (5). However macroevolution differs from these theories in that it is a theory pertaining to historical explanations, and is thus subject to interpretation like any origin theory. Gaps or missing links still exist between theoretical components and the most widelyaccepted interpretations are based on a derived time-scale (via carbon dating) and evidence in the fossil record. Let us now examine these two important sources of evidence interpreted by both evolutionists and creationists alike.

Carbon-14 dating is a crucial tool used by evolutionary scientists for radiometricallyaging fossils and rocks containing organic material. First of all, carbon-14 (or C-14) dating involves determining the concentration of the unstable carbon isotope C-14 in a given sample.3 C-14 combines with oxygen in the atmosphere to produce CO2 which is then incorporated into plants, consumed by animals and humans, and thus produces an equal ratio of C-14 and C-12 (C12 being the normal, stable form of carbon) in all living things (see figure 2).

The carbon dating process can only begin once an organism has died; as long as it is alive, it will continue to uptake C-14. Over time, the C-14 in an organic body will decrease as the C-14 decays into N-14. The half-life of C-14 (or time it takes for half the C-14 atoms in a sample to degrade) is 5,730 years. C-14 dating involves using the ratio of C-14 to C-12 concentrations (since C-12 is a stable isotope) and the current ratio is about one C-14 atom in 1 trillion C-12 atoms. Thus, the assumption is that the smaller the ratio, the longer the organism has been dead. (6). However this assumption is not foolproof. Current methods of dating use an Accelerator Mass Spectrometer (AMS) which has accuracy up to about 80,000 years, assuming the current ratio of C-14 to C-12 holds true. If this assumption is not true, then the method will give incorrect dates. (6). In other words, if the amounts of C-14 produced and the amount of C-14 removed from the atmosphere are not equal (in equilibrium), then the ratio of C14 to C-12 is not a constant and the starting amount of C-14 in a sample would be nearly impossible to determine. Digging deeper, the assumption that the ratio of C-14 to C-12 is a constant was made by the founder of the carbon-14 dating method, Dr. Willard Libby. In his original work, he noticed that the atmosphere did not appear to be in equilibrium (6). Furthermore, Dr. Libbys calculations showed that if the earth started with no C-14 in the atmosphere, it would take up to 30,000 years to build up to a steady state (equilibrium). (6). As Dr. Libby said in his paper Radiocarbon Dating, If the cosmic radiation has remained at its present intensity for 20,000 or 30,000 years, and if the carbon reservoir has not changed appreciably in this time, then there exists at the present time a complete balance between the rate of disintegration of radiocarbon atoms and the

rate of assimilation of new radiocarbon atoms for all material in the life-cycle. (W. Libby, Radiocarbon Dating, Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, 1952, 8) (6). Indeed, Dr. Libby ignored this inconsistency (attributing it to experimental error (6)) even though the difference was significant: According to Curt Sewell, The Specific Production Rate (SPR) of C-14 is known to be 18.8 atoms per gram of total carbon per minute. The Specific Decay Rate (SDR) is known to be only 16.1 disintegrations per gram per minute. (7). Thus, we cannot presently cite C-14 dating as a constant and accurate means of dating for a time-scale of millions of years when C-14 has not yet reached equilibrium, and yet needs only 30,000 years to do so. Additionally, the magnetic field of the earth has an effect on this dating system. The earths magnetic field helps to prevent radiation from entering the earths atmosphere. Over time, this magnetic field decreases and has been known to decrease at a significant rate: Since 1845 when the German mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss started recording this intensity, it has decreased by about 10% (8). Eventually, the field should fade altogether and the poles will reverse; this would likely happen in about 1,500-2,000 years (8). Dr. Thomas Barnes proposed that the electromagnetic current of the earth is perpetuated only through the initial inertia of the earths core (9). Thus, over time this inertia (and consequently the electromagnetic current) would decrease over time, and experimental estimates have been consistent with this observed rate of decrease. The field strength should decrease by a constant percentage each year, and the data are consistent with such a decrease, implying that the field loses half its strength every 1400 years. Such a rapid decay could not have continued for more than about 10,000 years; otherwise the initial strength of the field would have been impossibly high. (9).

Another important factor in evolutionary theory is the interpretation of the fossil record and the mechanics behind fossil formation. Generally, fossils are seen as remnants of living organisms that have been preserved within layers of material (which became solid rock over time) due to sedimentation over each preceeding layer in a time-scale. However, a great deal of evidence supports a global flood causing the formation of the bulk of fossils observed in geological strata today over a relatively short time-period, evidence contrary to what evolutionists have interpreted from this same fossil record. Dr. Snelling presents several main points as to why a global flood is the most likely source of these plentiful fossilized remains and aberrant geological formations: 1. Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level due to the ocean waters having flooded over the continents. 2. Rapid burial of plants and animals. 3. Rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas. 4. Sediment transported long distances. 5. Rapid or no erosion between strata. 6. Many strata laid down in rapid succession.

Point 1 refers to how fossils found on mountain peaks are a tie-back to when the flood would have occurred, at a time before the current mountain ranges would have been formed and when the top-most layers of todays mountains would have been deposited. Likewise, during such a flood the oceanic crust would be broken up by an upflow of molten lava, making a new ocean floor which was less-dense than the original seafloor and causing the seafloor to rise up (with the seawater on top of it) due to rising in the earths molten upper mantle (10).

Point 2 addresses the fact that many animals and plants preserved as fossils have extremely fine detail, even those animals which were particularly soft-bodied or those animals caught in the act of eating or giving birth. One exceptional example is found in a sandstone bed in Australia covering over 400 square miles which contains millions of beautifully-preserved soft-bodied marine animals such as Mawsonites spriggi, a jellyfish (of course noting how fragile jellyfish are when washed up on the beach and left out in the sun or buffeted by waves) (10). There are also examples of animals (by no means decomposed) performing conspicuous actions or having intact features which we can examine today (such as a fossilized female ichthyosaur in the act of giving birth or the intact compound lens systems in some trilobite fossils which can be studied today).4 Point 3 mentions how similar sedimentary layers are seen (with the same fossils and identical flanking strata) to cross continents and indicate rapid deposition leading to this identical layering. For example, the southern hemisphere Permian coal beds found in Australia, Antarctica, India, South Africa, and South America share the same kind of plant fossils across the region (10). Point 4 explains how sediments in rapidly-deposited rock layers had to be eroded and transported from distance sources, being carried over long distances by fast-flowing water. Processes which would otherwise describe consistent flow and erosion over hundreds of millions of years across all of North and South America, running from northeast to southwest and preserved in layers as ripple or water marks, are best explained by fast-moving catastrophic flow over these regions during a few weeks due to a global flood (10). Point 5 addresses the issue of missing erosion between these sedimentary rock layers (since rock layers from varying times of deposition should have signs of erosion and weathering

between them). If the layers containing fossils were laid down over hundreds of millions of years, then there should be obvious weathering and erosional features present for each layer (in the same way as topographical features like hills and valleys were formed due to gradual erosional processes). However this is not the case: the Grand Canyon provides numerous examples of sedimentary layers with little or no evidence of erosion between them. One sedimentary sandstone formation (composed of the Muav Limestone, Temple Butte Limestone, and Redwall Limestone (in order of deposition)) had these three strata laid down supposedly with various intervals between deposition (a few million to a hundred million years later), but contained no erosional surfaces between these layers, better supporting the idea that the layers were deposited continuously without any intervening millions of years. (10). Point 6 is an explanation for why sedimentary strata are seen today with folding, even to the magnitude of 90, without having broken. In order for sedimentary layers to fold without cracking or breaking, they must be soft and pliable. In the Tapeat Sandstone at Carbon Canyon, the layers are bent to 90 and yet showed no fracturing or breaking at the hinge of this bend (see figure 3). Normally the rock would be expected to break under such conditions, and so it is most likely that the bending occurred soon after deposition, while all the layers were still soft and pliable (12). Supposedly there is a time span of about 440 million years between the first deposit and the folding. (12). But they should have theoretically shattered if this was the case, due to the solidification of these layers and the loss of flexibility over time. It has been suggested that pressure and heat of burial allowed the hardened layers to bend in a plastic manner, however this would cause noticeable metamorphic changes or recrystallization in the rock, the likes of which are not seen here; The sandstone and limestone in the folds are identical to sedimentary layers elsewhere. (12). Thus, it can be concluded that the 440 million year gap between

deposition and folding never happened. The folding would have had to happen within a very short time-frame, perhaps a few months.

Finally, we would like to tie all these factors and considerations together in order to look critically at how evolution has been and is being taught in todays schools and in higher education. How might understanding the difference between macroevolution and microevolution change how evolution is taught in todays schools? How do people think origin theories or hypotheses should be taught in todays schools? And would students benefit from having knowledge of both sides of this controversial issue? Today, the term evolution is used interchangeably in reference to microevolution and macroevolution, when they are in fact separate entities. This confusion results in a portion of people accepting the theory of evolution based solely upon the observational microevolution segment, and accept the remainder (macroevolution) on faith. An excellent article written by Dr. Jonathan Wells touches on this fact and defines it as such: We are often told that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. And so it is--if by evolution one means change in general. But if by evolution one means macroevolution through random variations and natural selection, then the evidence is underwhelming, at best. (13). Concerning individuals who understand more of the hypotheses and proposed mechanics behind macroevolution and the link to higher education, a scientific paper has been published concerning a study about knowledge of macroevolution and consequent belief/agreement with evolution as a whole in college students. The correlation was found to be positive and according to the researchers, This suggests that as the learners knowledge of macroevolution increased there was a statistically significant increase in their acceptance of the theory of evolution. (14).

Macroevolution is thus the limiting factor in evolution-acceptance in colleges, and microevolution is a non-issue. On this same note, it may very well be argued that the same would be true for scientific evidence regarding creationism being taught as a historical theory in higher education. Currently, creation is not considered an alternative to the macroevolution hypothesis regardless of the viable interpretations of historical (mostly geological) evidence. I suspect that acceptance of creationism shall rise if the interpretations of the scientific evidence are presented for both sides and not only for [macro]evolution. On another similar note, according to some polls it seems that college students have become more open to creationism over time (15). A fascinating longitudinal study showed this relationship at Brigham Young University (BYU) among Mormon students; in 1935 36% (N = 1159) of the students agreed with the statement Mans creation did not involve biological evolution, compared with 81% (N = 1056) in 1973. (15). Likewise, In 1935 5% compared with 27% in 1973 agreed with the statement, The worlds creation did not take millions of years. (15). Additionally, another survey of nearly 2,400 science students at Ohio State University found 47% did not believe Darwins theory and fully 80% felt that if Darwins theory of evolution is taught in public schools, other views including special creation should also be taught. Also, 58% did not believe that teaching creationism in school amounted to teaching religion, and 41% concluded that Darwinism did not have a valid scientific foundation. (15). Spirituality in higher education has also been shown to have increased over time up to the present, a very possible factor in this openness to many ideas. For example, religious studies departments were established in the 1960s to 1970s following the Supreme Court case of Schempp vs. Abdington which clarified differences between the teaching of religion and the preaching of religious tenets, and declared in 1963 that religious studies could be taught and still

be distinct from the role of the church. (16). Exposure to new, non-Western spiritual practices, resulting from the Immigration Act of 1965, influenced spiritual development in both the public and higher educational realms (17). These spiritual influences can be seen even today in longitudinal studies concerning increasing levels of spirituality in college students between years of school (between freshman and junior year for example) (18).

The openness for exploration of various viewpoints within this controversial issue has become more common among college students, and it seems most prudent to avoid one-sided dogmatism which dismisses one side when discussing a subject of worldwide mystery (namely, origin theories). The theory of macroevolution must be brought down from its pedestal and placed firmly among other origin theories to allow for balanced and rational discussion. The evidences of origins and biological history are there; conclusions depend heavily on ones own interpretation or preconception. Students are willing to examine the other side of biological origins, and incorporating evidence for creationism into school curricula, especially at the college level, would provide a growing and dynamic environment for students as they explore this important topic.

Footnotes and Figures

1. Though there are varying levels of adaptability to changes in the environment, fitness is defined here at the basic level: the ability of individuals to survive, reproduce, and pass their genes off to their offspring successfully. 2. A kind is what a species was considered under the older definition (example: wolves, coyotes, dingoes, and collies would all be considered dogs (animals within the dog kind)). Under the new definition, these dogs would be considered individual dog species (11). 3. C-14 is radioactive, meaning it will decay (emit radiation) over time and become a different element. (6). Ultimately, the C-14 will be changed into a nitrogen-14 atom due to neutron in the nucleus being converted into a neutron. C-14 is constantly being formed through collisions with high-energy cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere, whereupon N-14 atoms are changed into C-14 atoms when they collide with fragmented atoms (fragmented by these cosmic rays) and a proton is replaced with a neutron (see figure 1). 4. Another notable feature found in geologic records is the presence of polystrate fossils (or fossils which run perpendicularly through multiple layers of horizontal strata). However a good deal of controversy surrounds this issue and I have found arguments from both sides to be beyond my own geological understanding and have thus omitted this discussion from this paper.

Figure 1. Source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible

Figure 2. Source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible

Figure 3. Source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n2/folded-not-fractured

Works Cited 1. Moran, Laurence. What is Evolution? TalkOrigins. 1993-1997. Web. April 13, 2010. <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html>. 2. Badgley. The Process of Speciation. Global Change 1. Regents of the University of Michigan, 2002. Web. April 13, 2010. <http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/speciation/speciatio n.html>. 3. Wilkins, John. Macroevolution: Its Definition, Philosophy and History. TalkOrigins. Version 2.1.3. 2006. Web. April 13, 2010. <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html>. 4. Gardiner, Lisa. Evidence of Evolution: What is a Theory Anyway?. Windows to the Universe. May 16, 2005. Web. April 13, 2010. <http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/cool_stuff/tour_evolution_6.html&nl=9l>. 5. Pearlstein, Ed. WHAT IS A THEORY?. Nebraska Citizens for Science. Nebraska Citizens for Science, 2005. Web. April 13, 2010. <http://www.nebscience.org/theory.html>. 6. Riddle, Mike. Doesnt Carbon-14 Dating Disprove the Bible?. Answers In Genesis. September 20, 2007. Web. April 16, 2010. <http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible>. 7. Sewall, Curt. Creation Bits No 23: Carbon-14 and the Age of the Earth. Revolution Against Evolution. 1999. Web. April 16, 2010. <www.rae.org/bits23.htm>. 8. Kelly Research Report. Earths Magnetic Field is Fading. Kelly Research Report. Feb 2006 Vol. 1 No. 1. April 16, 2010. <http://www.kellyresearchtech.com/images/krr/krr-11-magnetic-field.pdf>. 9. Humphreys, D. Russell. The Mystery of Earths Magnetic Field. Institute for Creation Research. February 1, 1989. Web. April 16, 2010. <http://www.icr.org/article/mysteryearths-magnetic-field/>. 10. Snelling, Andrew A. Geological Evidences for the Genesis Flood. Answers in Genesis. September 18, 2007. Web. April 16, 2010. <http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/geologic-evidences-part-one>. 11. Hodge, Bodie. Fixity of Species: a Lesson in Changing Definitions. Answers in Genesis. March 16, 2009. Web. April 16, 2010. <http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/03/16/fixity-of-species>.

12. Snelling, Andrew A. Rock Layers Folded, Not Fractured: Flood Evidence Number Six. Answers in Genesis. March 15, 2009. Web. April 16, 2010. <http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n2/folded-not-fractured>. 13. Wells, Jonathan. Evolution and Intelligent Design. Answers in Genesis. June 1, 1997. Web. April 16, 2010. <http://www.discovery.org/a/77>. 14. Nadelson, Louis S. and Southerland, Sherry A. Examining the Interaction of Acceptance and Understanding: How Does the Relationship Change with a Focus on Macroevolution?. Evo Edu Outreach 3 (2010): 82-88. Web. <http://www.springerlink.com/content/g72313t051514670/fulltext.pdf>. 15. Bergman, Jerry. The Attitude of Various Populations toward Teaching Creation and Evolution in Public Schools. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 13.2 (1999). Web. <http://www.trueorigin.org/edupolls.asp>. 16. Guernsey, Lisa. Religious Studies. University of Virginia: Student Research Papers. Web. <http://www.virginia.edu/100yearslawn/papers/lisa/religious.html>. 17. Waggoner, Michael D. Spirituality in Higher Education. Forest, J. and Kinser, K. (Editors) (2002) Encyclopedia of Higher Education in the United States. ABC-CLIO Publishers. Web. March 7, 2010. <http://www.uni.edu/coe/elcpe/postsecondaryed/people/waggoner_article.shtml>. 18. Pew Forum. UCLA Study: Students Become More Spiritual in College. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. February 14, 2008. Web. April 10, 2010. <http://pewforum.org/UCLA-Study-Students-Become-More-Spiritual-in-College.aspx>.