Science Draak

And a scientific alternative.

I found this book in the library by chance, I was looking for some books on geology but instead stumbled upon this little gem. It is written by Peter M. Scheele and it advertises itself as the end of evolutionary theory.

This however, is far from accurate, and the books promotes a lot of misconceptions and false information in order to get its point across. It’s main alternative for instance, is based on two falsehoods.

In this review, I’m going to take a closer look at the two main points the book makes, and how a review of those points shows the problems with the ideas this writer brings forth. Then I will shortly go into detail on the alternative and how, without those two points, the whole alternative is ridiculous, based upon a false premise.

When I quote from the book, I will translate it to English myself (It’s a Dutch book) and try to accurately represent the book. This is a bit of a challenge, because the book is written in a strange way. The author also tries to explain many concepts in an informal way, causing a lot of problems not only for translation but also for the ideas he tries to represent, making it a bit harder to translate. I will do my best though.

I would also like to add that the author seems to have a certain kind of arrogance, when reading this book, you always have the feeling that he feels he’s right, no matter what, and that he’s some kind of self glorified rebel against the system. A sensation that doesn’t exactly make the book more fun to read.

Shall I make a spry remark, one which might just make the news?

The whole problem of missing morals and values in society, and the heavy need for social discussion about this, finds its origin in the acceptance of evolutionary theory. (p.26)

The book is separated into two sections. The first section primarily focuses on “why” the theory of evolution is wrong and on the evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution, the section tries to make a case against the theory of evolution as a viable explanation for all the observations surrounding it, specifically focusing on change in “kinds” and genetics . It should be noted that the author has no problem with micro-evolution, and mostly addresses macro evolution.

The second section of the book focuses on the authors own alternative idea, called Degeneration. It focuses on a sort of decay of genetic material throughout time and tries to show that this is a constant event, that the variation we see is a negative development only (in the long run) without any sort of positive development.

I will focus on both sections, specifically the two main arguments that are made in the first, that are used as the main evidence for the alternative idea in the second section.

“Evolution is the formation of higher kinds out of lower kinds through natural selection” (p.23)

This is one of the problems that is repeated in the book a lot. The book focuses on a straw man version of evolution. In this version, evolution is working up towards a higher goal, a strong goal so to speak. “kinds” is one of the keywords often used in the book, but a definition is never really given. Basically (according to the book) the theory of evolution explains that mutations and natural selection lead to an increase in information. That the changes through mutation can be selected, and overall, the “kind” evolves into a higher stage.

The problem with this is that it doesn’t represent evolution at all. Not only are the words “kind” and “information” unexplained in the book. The whole idea of evolution going in any specific direction, is completely wrong.

Mutations are random, but only in the effect they have on the genes they alter. Adding, removing or making changes in DNA, the positive, negative or neutral effect of such changes are based on the environment they are in.
For example, if a bacteria develops a trait to gobble up calcium, and it is in a high calcium environment, this trait is very positive, and would definitely give the bacteria a better chance at surviving and multiplying. The bacteria gets a higher fitness so to speak.
This same trait would be nearly useless in a low calcium environment, and under those conditions can be seen as negative.

In evolution, there is no speak of higher or lower kinds, or species for that matter. It all depends on adaptation to changing environments. So the argument presented above, doesn’t hold any ground, and the conclusion that is connected to it (That the evidence doesn’t support it) thus doesn’t actually apply to the real theory of evolution, but purely to the straw man portrayed in the book.

This situation is even worse in the second major point that the book brings up in it’s attack on evolution. It is one that focuses on DNA, on the genetic side of evolution. I’m adding in a page from the book, that shows the problem that is presented quite clearly.

In the book, it describes DNA as a code, and in that code are sections that specifically program certain functions in the body. The example in the picture (click for larger version) focuses on Hemoglobin and explains that this code has to be made in a specific way, or the function won’t do its duty. The example shows that if through a mutation, something were to change in the code. One wouldn’t have Hemoglobin, but something else, and thus hemoglobin wouldn’t work anymore.

There are a couple of things wrong with this explanation of DNA.

1. DNA is not a code. It will “code” for certain functions, but it doesn’t share any similarities with a code like we know in computers, or a code in a language (where words mean specific things, change a letter, the meaning is gone).

2. There is not a specific “single” code for most of the functions in ones body. In the case of Hemoglobin, we can take a quick look at this page to see that there are currently 693 different variants of hemoglobin, most of which function just fine, despite having those differences that came about through mutations.

So the point that the book tries to make, is another straw man. DNA, the genetic code doesn’t function in the way the book explains it, it isn’t a code.

——————-

The second section of the book deals with the alternative presented by the author. The book sadly enough takes a bit of a more religious role in this section and one can see that the author plays a bit with a double edged sword. At one side he’s trying to scientifically prove the theory of evolution, wrong. At the other side he’s trying to prove creationism right. But he doesn’t accomplish either one, and it goes wrong from the start.

The degeneration theory deals with five parts, or concepts, namely:

1. There was creation.
2. There is variation.
3. There is typological differentiation.
4. There is degeneration.
5. Humans are spirits.

I’m going to focus on the first and the fourth, as those correlate specifically with the points he made before, that were wrong.

There was creation.

This is based upon the previous misconception of DNA and how it is a code. Basically the argument is very simple. DNA is a code, and this code cannot have come from evolution, thus it is a creator that made it. We have already shown that DNA doesn’t function as a code, that it works even with many different variations, so the authors support for this idea, simply doesn’t exist.

It is interesting to note, that the author specifically makes a connection between DNA and BASIC (A computer programming language), saying that they show similarities, while in reality they don’t.

There is degeneration

This part of the book focuses on genetic change, on mutation and macro evolution. It follows the logic from before, about evolution stating that “kinds” evolve into higher beings. (Which, it doesn’t state at all). It concludes that this isn’t happening, that there is no evolution that goes higher and higher. Based on this conclusions, he then states that the only other option out there, (the one he invented) is degeneration.

One of the bigger problems with this, is that he doesn’t provide any evidence whatsoever that really supports this fact. There’s a lot of talk about how evolution “can’t explain something”, most of which is simply false as I have shown before. But then it steps from that and simply concludes that degeneration is a reality. After that, he continues to focus on the repercussions of his idea, noting a decay that can only end in complete decay of life.
Unless there is a creator of course, who adds new life to it. And thus a creator is the only logical conclusion (according to the author).

The author focuses on the lack of positive mutations, on mutations that add “information” to DNA, and says that it is logical, because it never existed. It is funny, because a simple Google search for me, presents me with ample evidence on the contrary. Evidence of Nylon eating bacteria that have evolved new traits entirely, new traits that have no match any where else on this world, because Nylon didn’t exist until humans started making it. There are many examples of traits having evolved, new traits with new abilities that have never been seen before in an organism.

Conclusion

The book promises a scientific view on evolution, on its problems and promises an alternative that supports the evidence that is found, but it delivers on none of these promises. It’s view on evolution is mostly made out of straw men and the arguments against it deal with those straw man entirely, while neglecting and ignoring evidence that doesn’t fit the authors goals.

In light of such evidence, of the real evidence, his alternative is just weak, and the book is trying to scrounge together a few points, and then extrapolates on them heavily as though it was a reality. Degeneration is an idea that doesn’t have any actual evidence backing it up though, the author would do better to try and find some actual evidence in support of his ideas, before he calls them scientific.