I watched the new Fox series, “Cosmos,” a couple of weeks ago and was impressed with the conviction of Neil deGrasse Tyson, the host, as he talked about the “facts” of evolution. He went on to explain how the evolution of the eye occurred in ocean dwelling creatures first, as evidenced by the properties of light infraction through different mediums. His argument sounded plausible and seemed quite compelling. Indeed, the increasing complexity of visual processes that can be observed as we compare star fish to jelly fish to dolphins seems to support this idea.

All other branches of science require a theory to be evidenced by direct, objective observation and experimentation or testing to validate its accuracy. This is not possible when studying evolutionary processes such as sight development, however. Since it is theorized that sight developed first in now extinct trilobites from an unknown species presumed to have existed some 530 million years ago, it is impossible to observe, test or experiment how the ability to see actually developed. Furthermore, since each family of species currently in existence branches off the evolutionary tree from an unknown, unidentifiable and extinct ancestor, it is impossible to test, observe or do experiments showing the evolutionary processes that perfected sight. We can, however, dogmatically assert that vision evolved, since what we have is more valid than the scientific method. We have a rich heritage of Darwinian doctrines on which to base our subjective observation that since sight occurred in nearly all animal life forms that it did indeed evolve. This observation can further be validated by numerous examples of mutations and adaptations occurring within various species.

One such important, objective observation is from a long-term study of E. coli by Richard Lenski. One colony of E. coli evolved the previously nonexistent ability to metabolize citric acid. With a small, logical leap of faith, we can conclude from this study that if an existing function of metabolizing food sources can be spontaneously modified, then it is possible for an organism to develop an entirely new function that did not previously exist in any form. The addition of the vast amounts of genetic information needed for cells to develop a complex organ system, like vision, can then obviously happen spontaneously.

Unfortunately, exactly how this spontaneous development occurs is not fully understood. We cannot determine if it is the DNA which codes all the necessary new proteins that is first added to the cell, or whether it is the proteins which are responsible for the production of this DNA that is needed first. Perhaps it is the RNA that coordinates the communication between the DNA and protein that first magically appears and mutates into the DNA. If it were possible for us to give sight to an oyster or an earthworm through genetic engineering or gene splicing, perhaps we could gain more understanding of such developments.

Alas, time and chance and the anthromorphic properties of nature prove to be wiser and more powerful than humans, as they produced what we cannot. But, we can stand firm in our faith in the power of evolution since no other explanation of life is acceptable. After all, other theories put faith in a creator instead of in science. And we know that any theory of life that doesn’t rely on the scientific method is really just religion.

ALLEN ORTMANN

Coeur d’Alene