Dr Joseph Mizzi, Attard
Darwinian evolution
Some scientists are convinced that the Darwinian theory of evolution provides a satisfactory explanation for the origin of different life forms, including the human race. Richard Dawkins says: "The theory is about as much in doubt as the earth goes round the sun."
Other scientists are not so certain. Molecular biologist Michael Denton responds to Dawkins: "Now of course such claims are simply nonsense. For Darwin's model of evolution is still very much a theory and still very much in doubt when it comes to macro-evolutionary phenomena."
An example of such doubt is given by David Raup, one of the world's most respected paleontologists. He writes: "Darwin predicted that the fossil record should show a reasonably smooth continuum of ancestor-descendant pairs with a satisfactory number of intermediates between major groups. Darwin even went so far as to say that if this were not found in the fossil record, his general theory of evolution would be in serious jeopardy. Such smooth transitions were not found in Darwin's time."
One-hundred-and-fifty years after the publication of The Origin of Species, we now possess a rich body of fossil knowledge. Did paleontology discover the "missing links"? Raup answers: "We actually may have fewer examples of smooth transitions than we had in Darwin's time, because some of the old examples have turned out to be invalid when studied in more detail... if Darwin were writing today, he would still have to cite a disturbing lack of missing links or transitional forms between major groups of organisms."
The scientific study of fossils should be the prime witness to Darwin's case, but contrary to popular opinion, it is not. Prof. Steven M. Stanley of Johns Hopkins University wrote in 1979: "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid."
In other words, the Darwinian model is not supported by fossil evidence.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
33 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Joe Zammit
Mar 5th 2009, 20:09
Evolution has nothing to do with gravity. Gravity is proved. Evolution is just an opinion. One can hold it just the same but no one has as yet proved evolution. In case one holds it to be true, one must necessarily comes to the reasonable conclusion that the first thing or things have been created by ONE who himself had no beginning and so no end. This is God. Besides, God still creates the immortal human soul directly in each and every individual. Evolution is just an opinion, not a fact, and in case it is true, it points to the existence of God.
P Muscat
Mar 4th 2009, 09:04
What's god got to do with it? The moment someone lets his/her religious beliefs intrude into scientific thought then that thinking ceases to be science and becomes part of the fruitless noise which has retarded the development of human civilization for so long.
Evolution by natural selection is not supported solely by fossils. Most organisms do not leave fossil evidence and for several species, evolution may happen faster than the rate any fossils are formed. After all fossils then have to be discovered by scientists who specialise in evolution. The probability of this happening is very small. Fossil evidence is not so rich enough! But lack of palaeontological evidence does not necessarily disproof evolution.
There are many other observations which biologists have described and which are there to see for those who turn their attention momentarily (or permanently) away from what an ignorant catechist had told him/her during the brain-washing period of our (=most Maltese people's) childhood.
I do not rule out the remote possibility of an alternative theory to evolution by natural selection as discovered by Darwin but I am convinced that some kind of god is not the alternative.
Ramon Casha
Mar 1st 2009, 17:14
@Joe Zammit and others:
Yes, evolution is a theory. Guess what... so is gravity: The theory of gravity, put forth by Isaac Newton. Do you doubt that too?
In science, "theory" does not mean wild guess. By the time a hypothesis reaches the level of a scientific theory it will have passed heartless scrutiny by many scientists and must stand up to every attempt made to disprove it.
Evolution is as much of a fact as gravity. The theory of evolution, by which we seek to explain the phenomenon itself, has been refined and improved considerably in the 150+ years since it was first described by Darwin.
The creed of creationism has been so far primarily an American phenomenon, where many believe that the universe is around 6000 years old and came into existence literally as described in Genesis. All objections to evolution arise from the standpoint of someone who cannot see a way to make their religious beliefs fit in with the real world.
I sincerely hope that the title "Dr." preceding the name of the author of this article does not refer to a member of the medical profession.
Joe Zammit
Feb 26th 2009, 22:25
These are the words of Blaise Pascal, who was a great thinker as well as a gifted scientist: "Man is only a reed, the weakest in nature, but he is a thinking reed. There is no need for the whole universe to take up arms to crush him: a vapour, a drop of water is enough to kill him. But even if the universe were to crush him, man would still be nobler than his slayer, because he is able to know that he is dying and the advantage the universe has over him. The universe, however, knows nothing of this" ("Pensées," 347). This is true only because man has a spiritual immortal soul always created directly by God.
Joe Zammit
Feb 24th 2009, 20:02
In 1950 Pope Pius XII wrote in his encyclical Humani generis: “The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, insofar as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter”.
In the last 50 years a number of Popes had accepted evolution as a valid scientific approach to human development. But, it was St Thomas Aquinas and St Augustine who actually discovered evolution in the first place.
Joe Xuereb
Feb 24th 2009, 18:01
JZ You and your rationalised safety-valves. Even evolution would prove the existence of a god. Evoluction must have a beginng and and end and therefore, its beginning could only have been 'created' by god. So we are back to the first square that is creationism. And of course god has no beginning because he(?) is god. In passing, I have come across Pontifical pronouncements claiming the Vat.I.Can is softening towards the idea of evolution (I do not seek out such pronouncements and much less absorb them when I do). It strikes me JZ that you are mouthing said vaticanal pronouncements because it sounds convincing and erudite. Totally unaware of the glaring flaws of course. Oh dear! and there I was fooling myself into thinking you were making progress. Joey (the X-rated one), you can be so naive at times.
Joe Zammit
Feb 24th 2009, 17:17
So, reading all the underneath comments one can easily conclude that Darwin came out with an opinion on evolution but to date it has remained only an opinion. If some day this opinion were to be proved, evolution would be another proof of the existence of God. In every evolution you MUST have a beginning and end, something changes or develops into something else. What has a beginning and an end necessarily requires for its creation and existence someone who has no beginning and no end. This someone is God. So evolution would point out to the existence of God.
Joe Xuereb
Feb 24th 2009, 11:16
Congratulations JZ. You have shifted ever so slightly from your old cavalli di battaglia (war-horse) that are so dear to your heart ie homosexuality and procreation. Procreation has more than done its intended duty and has reached saturation point. Which would not, in your book, give free reign to homosexuality according to taste. You will have to work some more on that one.
Like I suggested(?), queried(?) you have now moved to the infinitely more interesting 'horse' of science. With not much success by the looks of it. But small beginnings and all that. One small step at a time as they say in talk therapy. As you shift your perspectives, success in this latest fad is more or less guaranteed. Maybe you could shift the perspective a little to the left of centre? Regression is inadvisable.
The February edition of National Geographical should, together with Stitching, be banned in Malta. It is toxic to the Maltese psyche of (too) many. To the rest it is a 'must-read'. Beg, ----, or borrow. Note that I have omitted the middle steal. That is detrimental to retailer and the thief's self-esteem. Christian tenets are possible and commonsensical - even WITHOUT rewards.
Joe Zammit
Feb 23rd 2009, 22:57
A theory in scientific context never mean a fact. A theory is always something unproven. We never speak of theories when we are certain of something. Facts are facts and theories are theories. Darwin's theory has never been proved. Not even Darwin himself could prove it. He just said what he thought. The theory of evolution is a thought, a theory, not a fact. No one has as yet proved it. Besides, even if it is proved, God will always be there as the First Cause and Creator of everything, including the all Laws of Nature. We are sure only that God has created everything. Reason speaks surely of God. Revelaton speaks surely of God. Miracles speak surely of God.
Joe Zammit
Feb 23rd 2009, 22:50
Darwin's theory encountered opposition in religious circles not so much because he proposed the evolutionary origin of living things (which had been proposed many times before, even by Christian theologians), but because his mechanism, natural selection, excluded God as accounting for the obvious design of organisms. This is the Darwin’s great mistake: that everything in nature, including the origin of living organisms, can be explained by material processes governed by natural laws. He overlooked the fact that what changes cannot be eternal. What is eternal, God, does not undergo any change.
Joe Zammit
Feb 23rd 2009, 21:43
In every evolution there is a change. In this change there is always something that was and now does not exist any more. At most it has changed into something else. This applies completely to Darwin's unproved theory of evolution. So everything that changes cannot be in existence for ever. This is a simple philosophical principle. So evolution itself proves the existence of God who has made the first thing, whatever it was.
Joe Zammiot
Feb 23rd 2009, 21:38
We include God and the Catholic Church in all our arguments because all of us have been created by God, we are being kept in existence by God, we argue because God is keeping us with a sound intellect. We include God in everything because we have been created by God to please him in everything we do. We include God in both our private and public life. God reigns supreme with his love for us. We open our hearts to him to be one with him always and everywhere. No evolution can exist without God's intervention. God is a fact. God is a reality.
Joseph Schembri
Feb 23rd 2009, 17:31
I have no idea what Joseph Mizzi is a doctor of. It certainly does not sound like biology. What I do know is that he is a protestant pastor. I also know that some protestants (like many Moslems) are pretty fundamentalist when it comes to evolution. Jehovah witnesses are amongst those who do not accept evolutionary theory. Their books are replete with ridiculous pictures such as those of lions living lovingly with lambs. Evolutionary theory is a cornerstone of modern biology and without it we would not have seen the advances in modern science that have benefited humankind. One can be a theist and still accept this important theory as the Catholic Church has amply demonstrated. Zammit stop embarassing yourself: follow the advice of other commentators and look up what the word 'theory' means in a scientific context.
Aleksandar Dimitrijevic
Feb 23rd 2009, 15:11
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html On this site you will find numerous examples of speciation, ie one species becoming another, as observed by scientist. If I, an accountant, can get hold of this information, i find it surprising that a person with a DR title attached to their name can not. Evolution is as much of a theory as gravity is. Mr. Zammit: If from nothing nothing comes, where did this god come from? You defeat your own logic in the first two sentences you make.
Jason Fenech
Feb 23rd 2009, 12:06
"From nothing, nothing comes" you state. Assuming god exists and assuming he or she created everything out of nothing, what in turn created God, since as you state, nothing comes from nothing. Since you mention probability, the chance that the universe(s) came into being out of nothing is more plausible than having a god appearing out of nothing who all of a sudden decides to get creative (probably out of sheer boredom). Believing in god is unreasonable as it's totally dependent on blind faith. No evidence points to the existence of god. And no, the bible is not evidence that god exists. Blind faith expects one to part away with reason, which if correctly employed, would eventually push faith over the edge. Why do I even bother? Because I sincerely believe that faith, especially when taken to such extremes, is detrimental to a healthy productive society and as such every effort to discredit such ridiculous claims is worth the trouble. Peace.
Patrik Larsson
Feb 23rd 2009, 06:14
Talk about beating a dead horse.
Joseph Micallef
Feb 22nd 2009, 22:14
Why do we Maltese always have to end up bringing up Catholic religion and God in anything we discuss may I ask? For me it is more nonsense and unreasonable to measure anything thinkable with the Catholic church's ruler!
J. T. Zammit
Feb 22nd 2009, 21:40
There are about 4 billion years of fossils that prove genetic changes of almost every single species that exist now and even species that are now extinct. This direct evidence of fossils is by itself sufficient proof that evolution did occur in the past. Of course, some people argue that God created fossils when creating the Earth, and God is directly modifying all genetic traits. However, this is blind faith, and faith is not even a theory or scientific at all. As a result, any serious discussion on the theory of evolution must exclude faith, since there is no evidence supporting faith and faith can not be scientifically investigated. A lot of people are misunderstanding the concept of a theory, believing that a theory is an opinion that is open to debate, whereby a theory can be discredited without any evidence. A theory can not be logically discredited with faith. A theory is strictly the logical explanation of scientific evidence. A theory maybe replaced with a better theory if more evidence is found or if previous evidence has been discredited, but it does not mean that the lack of evidence, such as faith, can discredit the proven theory of evolution.
Joe Zammit
Feb 22nd 2009, 21:22
A theory is not a fact. No one has yet proved that a theory is a fact. A theory can be probable but probability is not a fact either. No one has to date proved Darwin's theory of evolution and only by deceiving yourself you can say that it is a fact. Besides, the Catholic Church does not reject Darwin's theory. What the Catholic Church infallibly teaches is that even if we admit Darwin's theory of evolution, the first thing or things from which everything else has come had been created by God. Reason alone proves the existence of God. From nothing, nothing comes. So it is NECESSARY that God exists. To say there is no God is nonsense. Disbelief in God is unreasonable.
Joseph Schembri
Feb 22nd 2009, 20:51
I don't know why we bother to argue with people such as Zammit, who obviously had no scientific training and are ignorant of what the term 'theory' means when scientists use it.
Mr. Zammit: a theory can never be 'proven'. A theory can only gather supporting evidence as the theory of evolution has over the decades. You are free to refute it if you so prefer but you will have to refute most of modern modern biology too as this theory is the cornerstone of much of the exciting and beneficial advances in modern day biological sciences.
If that is still not clear enough remember that Newton's and Kepler's theories of gravitation formulated centuries ago have enabled people to go to the moon and safely come back. But they are 'only' theories.
Just for the record I am a practicing Catholic.
S. Calleja
Feb 22nd 2009, 20:35
@ Joe Zammit
If you're so keen on theories, then prove to me the existence of God.
"A theory is a theory and remains a theory until it is proved and becomes a fact."
You've just shot yourself in the foot.
Patrik Larsson
Feb 22nd 2009, 20:27
Joe Zammit:
Did you even read the link suggested further down? A theory in science is a powerful thing, not just an idea which can be thrown out because some pseudo scientific nut doubts it. Should we discredit atomic theory, or the theory of relativity on the same grounds as well? You are free to come up with something to replace it if you can, but to date noone has even come close.
Then you state that the teachings of the Catholic Church is a fact, something which have virtually no facts to support it. You would do your own beliefs a favour by admitting that your beliefs is based on faith. How can we take you seriously with such a statement? You are free to believe what you want, but don't try to make statements on things you obviously have no clue about.
I don't even know what your problem is. There are numerous catholics who adhere by the theory of evolution. As a starter, get a copy of "Finding Darwin's God" by Dr. Ken Miller. Ken Miller is a believing catholic and has no problem reconciling his belief with his scientific work.
Joe Zammit
Feb 22nd 2009, 19:52
A theory is a theory and remains a theory until it is proved and becomes a fact. A theory is a supposition. A theory is what we think not what is proved. A theory can be discarded by another theory. Darwin came with his theory and to date it is still a theory. It is not proved. Darwin's theory is not a fact. The teaching of the Catholic Church is a fact. God is the Creator of everything. God made everything out of nothing. This is a fact not a theory. This has been true in the past, it is true now and will remain true for ever. Darwin will never prove his theory. He is dead. And if it is proved, nothing of the teaching of the Catholic Church will subside because the first things from which everything developed have been created by God.
S. Calleja
Feb 22nd 2009, 19:42
And? What alternative theory are you proposing Dr Mizzi? Must be a theory that provides more explanation than Darwin's. Please let us know in case you might have stumbled across a scientific breakthrough.
Maybe evolution is not perfect, but it's the best we have. All evidence points to it. Unless someone comes up with a better theory backed up by evidence, then everything else will not explain much and is next to useless.
It's funny how some people convince themselves of things even though all evidence suggests the contrary. "Delusion". Dawkin's couldn't pick out a better term.
Jason Fenech
Feb 22nd 2009, 18:20
@joe zammit
Please get your facts straight. The word "theory" takes on a different meaning as when used in a scientific context. Kindly refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory for a detailed explanation.
Secondly the Vatican has recently buried the axe on the matter, as has happened many a time in history with regard to other scientific issues. But don't just take my word for it.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5705331.ece
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0804713.htm
http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSLG62672220080916
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,424942,00.html
D Attard
Feb 22nd 2009, 18:10
I think Michael Denton and Joe Zammit should have checked their dictionary - a theory is not something that still needs to be proved, a hypothesis is.
Joe Zammit...when exactly did the soul enter the human being? When it was an austrolopitecus, a homo habilis, a homo erectus or a homo sapiens? (I hope you know fossils of each kind have been found and studied). So I guess you believe that the omnipotent god designed man and woman and imbued them with a soul...and do you believe in the talking snake as well?
Jason Fenech
Feb 22nd 2009, 18:06
Clearly the author has an "intelligent design" driven agenda. When someone states that "some scientists" are dubious of evolution, that it’s not fact but just a theory, tries to ridicule put Prof. Richard Dawkins and makes pseudo-science assertions all under one roof, you can bet your head off it's one of those pesky creationists busy making fools out of themselves.
These people would have you believe that the earth is 4000 years old, that man and dinosaurs coexisted, that Noah managed to gather and fit millions of animal species on one boat and that humans once reached the venerable age of 1000 years.
If this does not speak volumes I don’t know what does.
There is no place for creationism and the likes in modern society and we should be careful not to let these people take a foothold in our country as has happened in the US.
The author refrained from mentioning the true motivation behind his letter probably out of cowardice and fear of ridicule. At no point does he reach any conclusion other than stating that there is no fossil evidence to support evolution which can be easily refuted by any A-Level biology student.
Happy birthday Darwin!
Edward Camilleri
Feb 22nd 2009, 17:41
I would suggest that the Dr. Joseph Mizzi read Modern Darwins Part II in National Geographic magazine, Feb 2009, if he still doubts the theory of evolution.
Dr. Mizzi concludes with “In other words, the Darwinian model is not supported by fossil evidence.”
In this National Geographic article there is an example of a ‘missing link’ fossil found by Neil Shubin in 2004 which is 375 million years old. The creature fits “neatly in the gap between fish and land-living animals”.
George Caruana
Feb 22nd 2009, 16:32
So what?
Joe Zammit
Feb 22nd 2009, 14:27
What Darwin said can or cannot be true. He did not prove what he said himself but based all his ideas on suppositions. That's why we speak of the 'theory' and not of the 'fact' of evolution. The Catholic Church is clear in her teaching. She does neither confirm nor deny the theory of evolution. But she infallibly states that God created everything. So even if we accept the theory of evolution, the first thing or things have been created by God. Nothing can come in existence out of nothing but ONLY through creation. Besides, the Catholic Church infallibly teaches that the soul of every human person is created directly by God. The soul is not subject to evolution because it is spiritual.
John Spiteri
Feb 22nd 2009, 14:18
The Theory of evolution does describe some of the processes, especially the variation within a species - however it fais miserably on the question it set out to answer - that of the "Origin of species". One of the most fundmental problems is that information must prexist for evolution to happen - even a minute cell of nanomillimeter proportions contains a complexity that is mind boggling. we now know of what are called molecular machines - before assembling a cell, molecules interpret information and literally construct assembly lines to produce the cell, which are then dismantled. in a nutshell, we can observe that they are acting on information to produce something in a determined and orderly fashion. we can see the DNA sequence but have no answer on what determines that sequence.
Patrik Larsson
Feb 22nd 2009, 13:08
You cite Michael Denton, as if he was an authority on the subject. He is a member of the Discovery Institute, a widely discredited "think tank" of Intelligent Design. You won't find many serious biologists who finds the theory in doubt, without an ulterior motive (as with Michael Denton). The fact that he, as a scientist, says "..still very much a theory" only shows that he finds deceipt a useful tool, as he would be aware of what a strong concept a "theory" is in science.
I don't know who David Raup is nor why you quote something he said 30 years ago. That he would be one of the world's most respected paleontologists might be true, but I'm not convinced. Even so, you will find many at least as emminent paleontologists who swear by Darwinian evolution. Take Stephen Jay Gould (who for other reasons is a strong critic of Dawkins), whose respect in the field is unquestionned. He subscribes to the theory of punctuated equilibrium, as explained by Mr. Schembri, which is but a variant of natural selection.
I don't know what you are a doctor of, but I doubt it has anything to do with biology.
Joseph Schembri
Feb 22nd 2009, 10:16
Fossil evidence can be fickle because by their very nature fossils are randomly found and present problems in dating. The new evidence provided by molecular genetics is much but much more valid than paleontology and it all points to common ancestry among most life forms on Earth... including humans. This type of evidence was not available to Darwin at the time and if it were it would have made his arguments even stronger. Also remember that one major influence on Darwin was an essay by Thomas Robert Malthus - a priest. It was another priest, Mendel, who explained how genetic traits were transmitted and thus gave a mechanism by which evolution could work but he was largely ignored at the time, including by Darwin.
Also note that many scientists now subscribe to the idea of 'punctuated equilibrium' which speaks of periods of relative stability or slow evolution 'punctuated' by sudden appearance of 'new' life forms. This can be explained by sudden environmental change leading to mass extinctions which in turn leads to rapid evolution of new species to fill the newly available ecological niches. Sudden change leaves little time for the formation of fossils.