7/30/2019 Evolution and stuff...
1/12
Abstract
One of the key differences between any other scientific theory and evolution is the amount of
controversy the latter has invited. The major share of the debate concerning evolution (especially in the
popular literature), while superficially about its scientific legitimacy and truth claim, actually stems from
the repercussions it is construed to lead to. It is generally asserted that the truth claims of worldviewsstand or fall with the truth of evolution. The present article will deliberate upon whether this assertion is
true with the Islaamic worldview.
In this regard, two things need to clear from the onset. First, this article asserts that the Quranic
narrative of the creation of man is literal. The literal reading of the relevant verses tell us that Allah
created the first man with His hands (38:75) from an extract of clay, wet earth, sounding clay or sticky
clay, all of which presumably refer to the different stage of mans creation (3:59, 23:12, 37:12, 15:26,
55:14), and then spirit was breathed into him (38:71-72). Second, while we acknowledge the scientific
legitimacy of the intelligent design movement[1], the present article would assume that the evidences
suggested for evolution are valid.
Therefore, the subject matter of this article can be articulated thus: does the evidences for evolution
discount any Islaamic theological precept, especially the possibility of God having supernaturally created
the first man?
To achieve this end, the article will first define what evolution is and draw a basic outline of the
evolutionary mechanism. Then we will move on to chalk out the implications of evolution that may
stand in conflict with any theological precept of Islaam, and consider them in turn. The article will close
with a discussion of whether the creation of Adam story according to the Quran contradicts any other
scientific idea apart from the theory of evolution.
What is evolution?
If you wish to converse with me, define your terms.Nowhere are Voltaires words more relevant than
modern discussions about evolution. Evolution is a stretchy word, in that it can be taken to mean
different things. In popular culture, evolution is only as relevant as its repercussions, and as such it is
almost ubiquitously used (especially in Muslim circles) to refer to evolution of man from apes. However,
the term entails so much more. To address the subject matter of this article, it is imperative that we at
least have a basic idea about what evolution actually is.
Very simply and generally put, evolution is the development of new species [2] from pre-existing ones.
Put differently, it is the descent of new species with gradual modification of its earlier traits. Byextension, another meaning of evolution is common descent: the idea that alllife forms gradually
developed from the same ancestral being. So the first definition is very general in that it describes a
natural process i.e. descent with modification that is generallyknown to occur. Common descent
employs a more restrictive definition, and claims all the extant species were necessarilyformed via
descent with modification. More will be said on this in a later section.
7/30/2019 Evolution and stuff...
2/12
We will first examine the general evolutionary process of descent with modification. It should be noted,
however, in order to make this essay universally accessible, the discussion is kept as simplified as
possible and technical terms have been introduced very sparingly. Also, brief philosophical
interpretations of scientific phenomenon has been introduced when needed, however such expositions
are tangential and will be discussed in greater detail in the next sextions.
The idea of gradual descent of living creatures from their pre-existing counterparts is older than we
might think, traces of this idea are found with ancient Greek thinkers like Anaximander and Empedocles.
However, Charles Darwin was the first to develop a plausible naturalistic mechanism for it. For Darwin,
evolution relied on a process he termed natural selection. How does natural selection work? To answer
this, Darwin pointed to the birds of Galapagos.
The Galapagos is a chain of volcanic islands in the Pacific. Of the diverse array of birds, reptiles and
animals found here, what particularly attracted Darwins attention are the finch birds, which vary subtly
in their physical constitution and the shape of their beak.
Figure: Different species of finch birds vary in their beak constitution.
Darwin noted, sometimes a nuanced beak grants a finch species an edge over the other finch
varieties. For example, during seasons following heavy rain, small, soft seeds are plentiful in the island,
and thus are readily available to birds with small beaks. However, during times of drought, the seeds
available in the island are encased in hard shells. The only birds with access to this food source are those
with longer beaks. As for the birds with small beaks, they die out due to starvation. So in this scenario,
the birds with long beaks have a functional advantage over birds with smaller beaks. If the drought
7/30/2019 Evolution and stuff...
3/12
condition continues, the bird population will contain an increasingly higher percentage of birds with long
beaks, as the birds with smaller beaks continue to die out. In other words, this trait of long beak will be
preserved in the bird population, and will be passed down to successive generations. So here we see
that it is as if nature is passively selecting the trait that will survive. Darwin argued, if enough number
of such traits accumulated in a species, a point will come when this species will be completely different
from its predecessor. Given enough time, all forms of life, unimaginably diverse though they may be, can
be plausibly explained in terms of natural selection.
Note that the process of natural selection does not create or produce new traits, much less species.
Rather, it passively works on already existing traits, preserving the functionally advantageous ones and
rooting out others. In our example of bird beaks, the traits long beaks and small beaks were already
there, all that had to be done is for the prevalent natural condition (i.e. drought) to be such that only the
long beak trait would survive. As a matter of fact, natural selection does not have any causal potential,
rather it is a convenient way of describing some integrated factors of relevance e.g. natural condition,
survivability etc. So the question arises, if natural selection doesnt create new traits, but only passively
selects it, then what is it that does? For example, how is it that there were birds with long beaks to beginwith?
Darwins contemporary science didnt have an answer to this, so Darwin- perhaps justifiably- attributed
the development of new traits to chance. Note that chance, like natural selection, isnt really a causal
agent; rather in this context it is a confession of ignorance. By saying new traits emerge by chance,
Darwin did by no means claim that chance is causally responsible for the creation of new traits, rather
what he meant was we dont know how new species emerge. Thanks to advancements in genetics and
molecular biology, we now have an answer to what accounts for development of new traits.
All known living organisms have a specialized strand-like molecule in their cells, referred to as the DNA.
This molecule can rightly be referred to as the information molecule, for strange as it may sound, this
single molecule contains all the instructions as regards the structure and function of an organism[3]. This
information is coded in the DNA in the form of 4 building block molecules (nitrogenous bases). This
encoding of information is strikingly similar to how a computer program works. Much like how a
computer stores information in an alphabet consisting of 0 and 1, the DNA stores information in an
alphabet with 4 letters arranged in a meaningful sequence [4].
7/30/2019 Evolution and stuff...
4/12
Figure: Left: a ball-and-stick model of the DNA molecule. Right: the bases of DNA which comprise its
four-letter alphabet. The letters are arranged in a meaningful sequence in the molecule to constitute
the blueprint of life.
How this information is translated to collectively constitute the structural and functional characteristics
of the body is a very complex and intricate discussion. Thankfully however, this is of little relevance to
our current topic. All that needs to be kept in mind is, since the information in the DNA is translated into
bodily characteristics, any change in the information content of the DNA may result in changes of the
traits themselves. This gives us a clue as to how new traits may generate in an organism: if there is
change in the DNAs information content, then there would be change in the connected physical trait,
and altogther new traits may develop. This however doesnt answer the question of origin of new traits,
merely pushes it back a notch. Instead of asking how does new traits emerge? we now face the
question how does changes in DNA sequences occur?
The DNA is significant not only in that it is the information molecule, but also because it is of hereditary
consequence. DNA is passed down from parent to offspring by means of reproduction. Of course, the
DNA is not simply drained from the parent and handed to the offspring, leaving the parent DNA-less;
rather identical copies of DNA are made in the cell and one copy is passed down. Due to its relative
simplicity, bacterial reproduction is a convenient setting to understand these processes. Bacteria
reproduce by means of a reproductive mechanism called binary fission, which consists of a single cell
being elongated first, and then splitting into two identical daughter cells. Prior to this splitting, an
identical copy of the DNA molecule is made, and each copy enters the two daughter cells. This process
of DNA-copying is called replication. Although replication is a very accurate process (it has a proof-
7/30/2019 Evolution and stuff...
5/12
reading mechanism), there is a very small possibility of error in copying. Sometimes letters in the DNA
sequences are randomly misplaced (e.g. an A instead of a T), sometimes a length of DNA is inverted, and
so on. Now although the possibility of these errors is ridiculously low, it is still a non-zero possibility (1 in
100,000,000), and given enough time and generations, it is not unlikely to find such errors. These errors
are called mutations. Besides copying errors, another source of mutation is damage of the DNA by
environmental conditions, like exposure to ultraviolet radiation.
Mutations are almost never a good thing. If someone makes a random mistake while copying, it is very
unlikely that it will somehow render the copied text better than the original in any way; it is vastly more
probable that it would constitute a nuisance e.g. a spelling mistake. With DNA, the case is much more
serious. Since the structure and function of the body depends upon the sequence of bases in the DNA,
any error in copying this information is likely to spell trouble for the body. It is hardly surprising, then,
that many of the fatal diseases are genetic in nature. However, given enough generations, positive
mutations e.g. mutations that are somehow beneficial for the organism, might show up. The most
common example of this is the well-known phenomenon of bacterial development of antibiotic
resistance. In a population of bacteria subject to antibiotic treatment, a change may feasibly happen inthe region of the DNA that codes for antibiotic resistance (mutations tend to be more common under
harsh environmental conditions). Recall from our earlier discussion on natural selection that if such a
new trait confers a functional advantage to an organism, then natural selection will preserve it.
Antibiotic resistance is obviously a functional advantage for the bacterial cell under antibiotic treatment,
and therefore nature selects for this trait and preserves it in the population[5]
. As a result, mutant,
antibiotic resistant bacterial populations develop. This is a plausible solution to the riddle which
confronted Darwin: mutation can account for novel traits in an organism.
Mutations are said to be no more than random, chance variations in the DNA sequences. What does
chance refer to in this context? Stephen C. Meyer explains:
When scientists say that something happened by chance, they do not usually mean to deny that
something caused the event in question. (Some interpretations of quantum physics would stand as an
exception.) Instead, they usually mean that the event in question occurred because of a combination
of factors so complex that it would have been impossible to determine the exact ones responsible for
what happened or to have predicted it. Imagine that I roll a die and it turns up a five. That outcome
was caused or determined by a number of factorsthe exact force applied to the die, the orientation
of the die as it left my hand, the angle at which it first hit the table, and so on. Saying that the five
turned up by chance does not deny that the event was determined or caused by physical factors, but
instead that the exact combination of physical factors was so complex that we cannot know them
exhaustively and, therefore, could not have predicted the precise outcome.[6]
The important take-away point here is, the expression chance/random mutation doesnt render
mutations indeterminate, rather it only denotes a confession of ignorance. True randomness entails a
totally indeterminate process, which mutations are not. There are indeed complex underlying molecular
factors which lead to mutation, but they are so complex that exactly determining them is not feasible.
Therefore, mutations are not necessarily blind as are often construed, they are indeed determinate.
7/30/2019 Evolution and stuff...
6/12
We may not be able to exactly circle what determines them, but thats a defect in our knowledge and
not a reality of nature. We will get back to this discussion in a later section of this article.
So to tie this discussion to the big picture of natural selection by means of summary, mutation is
responsible for physical changes in the organism. If such changes confer any functional advantage to
that organism, for example access to food source or defense against inhibitory conditions, then thesetraits- and consequently the organisms who posses them- would become more prominent in the
population. With successive accumulation of such new traits, a point will be reached when the organism
will become a different species altogether.
Types of Evolution
With a basic idea of the evolutionary mechanism now behind us, we can examine how evolution is
implemented in nature, with examples of each case. For simplicitys sake, evolutionary workings in
nature can be addressed at different levels:
1. Microevolution. As discussed earlier, a new trait may feasibly develop in a population of organismsdue to the mutation-natural selection mechanism. However, this new trait often only results in varieties
within the same species, as opposed to producing a new species altogether. When antibiotic resistance
develops in a bacteria, it does not transform the bacteria into a different bacterial species, just a mutant
strain of the same species. This phenomenon of intra-species evolution is called microevolution.
Instances of microevolution are all too common, and we observe them directly. A very popular example
of microevolution is selective breeding of dogs, cattle, poultry and so on, which result in varieties within
the same species i.e. different types of dogs, healthier meat producing animals etc.
7/30/2019 Evolution and stuff...
7/12
Figure: Due to selective breeding, different varieties of dogs have been produced. However, all of those
varieties still fall under the umbrella of one subspecies of domestic dogs: Canis lupus familiaris. This is an
example of evolution within the species i.e. microevolution.
2. Macroevolution. Also called primary speciation, macroevolution refers to evolution above the species
level. When changes in an organism are big enough to bridge the inter-species barrier and produce a
new species altogether, the phenomenon would be called macroevolution. In contrast to
microevolution, macroevolution can almost never be observed directly, because the time it takes for
enough traits to accumulate and produce an entirely new species is too long. Bacteria however, due to
their short generation time, are a promising aspect of study in this regard. An instance of
macroevolution was said to be recorded in the laboratory of Michigan University microbiologist Richard
Lenski[7]
, where E. colibacteria developed the ability to utilize citrate as a food source. It has been
claimed that this new trait is significant enough to count as macroevolution i.e. the new citrate-utilizing
bacteria are not merely a variant ofE. coli, rather a species completely different from E. coli[8]
.
It would be useful to briefly contrast microevolution and macroevolution to develop a deeper
understanding of the two ideas. Macroevolution may appear to be an extension of microevolution in
that the difference between them is only quantitative. Microevolution asks for small changes within a
narrow limit, while macroevolution envisions changes big enough to surpass the inter-species barrier.
Due to the modest claim microevolution makes, it is completely uncontroversial and directly observable.
Macroevolution, on the other hand, has scarce direct experimental evidences. This is not a flaw on the
theorys part though, because macroevolution does advance enough scientific evidences to assume a
scientific status.
7/30/2019 Evolution and stuff...
8/12
3. Common descent. While macroevolution describes a plausible process through which organisms
couldor are known to evolve, common descent categorically claims that this is the process through
which all organisms didevolve. Put differently, common descent generalizes the evolutionary
mechanism for all forms of life. There is a qualitative difference between macroevolution and common
descent, in that macroevolution states a scientific process, but common descent states a historical fact.
We are not saying that any of this somehow discounts the warrant for common descent, for all we know
the generalization may be a valid one, and scientists have indeed advanced evidences to support this
theory. An interesting question here is, can someone accept macroevolution yet reject universal
common descent? It is hard to see why not. Surely it is at least plausible that some organisms evolved
while others did not. So common descent is not a direct, much less necessary implication of
macroevolution, rather it is a qualitatively and quantitatively different from the latter.
The tree of life is a direct implication of the theory of common descent. It shows how all life forms,
including man, share a common ancestor. The branches of the tree represent the divergence of new
species from pre-existing ones via natural selection.
7/30/2019 Evolution and stuff...
9/12
Figure: The tree of Life.
4. Origin of Life. Darwins Origin of species deliberated only upon how new species were formed from
7/30/2019 Evolution and stuff...
10/12
already existing prior species. As for the question of the first life or evolution of life form non-life,
Darwin had precious little to say. Subsequent scientists like Thomas Huxley and Ernst Haeckel did not
deem this issue very significant, which was due to their lack of knowledge of the intricacies of cellular
structure and mechanism, and also perhaps because of their commitment to naturalism. However, with
advancements in biochemistry and molecular biology in the 20th century, the true complexity of the cell
and its diverse mechanics revealed itself in full glory, and the challenge of explaining life from non-life
via natural processes seemed all too real. The evolution of life from non-life stands distinctly apart from
other forms of evolution. This is because the evolutionary mechanism of mutation-natural selection
detailed above only applies to biological entities capable of growth and reproduction, not prebiotic
chemicals. Still, this issue almost invariably comes up in discussions about evolution. Whether it is a part
of evolutionary biology or not is a semantical dispute, and need not concern us.
Evidence for Evolution
As a conclusion to the scientific discussion of evolution, it would be beneficial to look at the evidences
suggested for evolution. As noted in the abstract, the article asserts that the evidences for evolution are
valid. Hence, we will not enter a detailed synopsis of the evidences, and simply list them.
From the foregoing discussion, we find that evolution makes the following claims about reality.
1. Through mutation and natural selection, changes and variations occur within a single species.
2. Through successive mutations and natural selection, a species develops into an entirely different
species.
3. All forms of life evolved from pre-existing forms of life, and an universal ancestry can be traced back
to the first life.
4. The first life arose from nonliving chemicals through natural processes.
As for (1) i.e. microevolution, it is a commonly observed phenomenon, and therefore as certain as any
other fact about nature e.g. plants produce oxygen. As for (4) i.e. origin of life, the debate is not about
whether life didoriginate from non-living chemical matter through natural processes, rather it is about
whether such an event mayplausibly happen or not. If it does seem plausible that life could evolve from
prebiotic chemicals, there is no reason to go for an alternate hypothesis, scientists contend. The field of
chemical evolution seems very controversial, while certain hypotheses do show promise, we do not
have a rigorous theory for the spontaneous origin of life from non-life yet. Again, this hardly concerns us
since we are asserting that the evidences for evolution are valid.
Things get more interesting as we look at (2) and (3), which are macroevolution and its generalized
implication common descent, respectively. As noted earlier, both of these are very lengthy processes,
and thus it is not feasible to observe their functioning in a laboratory. However, indirect evidences have
been suggested for them, for example:
1. The fossil record has been interpreted to denote evidences for common ancestry, while divergences
of fossilized traits denote the branches of the tree of life i.e. development of new species. The human
fossil record contains several extinct species of the same genus Homo, for example Homo
7/30/2019 Evolution and stuff...
11/12
neanderthalensis, Homo erectus and Homo habilis.
2. Anatomical homology or similar features of living creatures suggests that they share a common
ancestor. For example, the forelimbs of bat, porpoise, horse and human are homologous.
3. Molecular phylogeny or similarity in genetic material implies common ancestry, which is possibly the
most popular evidence today. For example, the base sequences of human and chimp DNA are 98%
similar.
4. Vestigiality or the existence ofuseless (vestigial) organs like appendix or the fifth toe imply that
these traits were possessed by our evolutionary ancestors, but they gradually lost their function.
5. Similarities in early embryological stages between different animals suggest that they share a
common ancestor.
These are possibly the most well-documented evidences for common descent. With this, we close the
scientific discussion on evolution.
Notes and Bibliography
1. For more information, see Bradley Montons Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends IntelligentDesign.
2. A species is, simply defined, an unit of living creatures with a high degree of similarity. Apparently
there is some disagreement about the biological definition of a species. It is popularly defined as a group
of living organisms who can engage in sexual reproduction to produce fertile offspring. For example, a
horse and a donkey can procreate to produce a mule. A mule, however, is not fertile i.e. not capable of
producing offspring. As such, a horse and a donkey are not of the same species. Things get more
7/30/2019 Evolution and stuff...
12/12
complicated when we get to the organisms that are not able to reproduce sexually, e.g. (some, but not
all) microorganisms. For microorganisms, species is defined on the basis of morphological and
biochemical characteristics, and degree of similarity in genetic material.
3. For some viruses however, it is the RNA that acts as the information molecule, not the DNA.
4. Adenine, Guanine, Cytosine and Thymine; usually referred to by their initials i.e. A, G, C and T.
5. This portrayal is accurate for single-cells bacteria only. For multicellular life like animals and plants,
the issue is much more complex. However, the general theme is uniform in both cases, namely that
mutations account for changes in traits and positive traits are preserved.
6. Stephen C. Meyer, Signature in the Cell.
7.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
8. This claim has not gone unchallenged however, see
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/09/richard_lenskis_long_term_evol051051.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experimenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experimenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experimenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experimentTop Related