Myths of creationism

When Amoebas Evolve

A paper in the January/February Journal of Eukaryotic Microbiology dispels “the myths of intelligent design” by examining the evolution of amoebas and other unicellular organisms.

Proponents of intelligent design claim the Cambrian explosion of 545 million years ago, when the body plans of the ancestors of most animals developed, occurred too rapidly be explained by the gradual process of Darwinian evolution. Biologists Mark Farmer and Andrea Habura point out in their paper that unicellular protistan evolution lasted 1 billion years, providing the genomic diversity from which multicellular organisms arose during that remarkably fertile period.

Evolution skeptics also claim that no one has ever seen the development of a new species, a myth Farmer and Habura tackle by outlining a case in which amoebae became symbiotically dependent upon infecting bacteria. The symbiotically dependent amoebas developed into an undeniably separate species, because attempts to interbreed with the parent stock would infect and kill them.

Intelligent design proponents often question why fossils do not show transitional forms as one species evolves into another. The protist fossil record is exquisitely detailed, allowing the authors to do exactly that. The biologists also refute the creationist claim that biochemical changes in organisms are too complex to occur without a designer by explaining the way in which the malaria parasite’s resistance to the drug chloroquine likely evolved.

“A detailed understanding of protistan biology,” Farmer and Habura conclude, “offers scientists and laypersons alike the ability to address current attacks on evolutionary theory, and to refute the claims of [intelligent design] creationists who insist on invoking supernatural explanations to account for observable phenomena.” 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Barry Loberfeld||

  • ||

    That's it? That is a really weak article from both points of view.

  • ||

    Here is another point of view if you're interested. This article seems a bit one sided as though this debate has a forgone conclusion?

  • blueGrass||


    Really? Though evolutionary theory may not have all of the correct answers, it's a safe bet the "intelligent design" has none.

  • ||

    When discussing "Intellegant design" you must look at the obvious, What caused the BIG Bang Boom! We may not be able to explain how and why but if you look around you will see that no species could have evolved with the beauty and sounds of our multiple bird species that we have around the world. Also, our innerself "conscience" would not be as tuned as it is. If evolution was a proven fact, wouldn't other animals such as dogs have one also? Amoebae's are not neccesarily a species or even in our own building block. Scientists just need an excuse to request increased funding for their own faulty beliefs. Show me how an amoebae evolved into a human being! Not hypothesis's but factual traces.

  • Boss Tweed||

    " will see that no species could have evolved with the beauty and sounds of our multiple bird species that we have around the world. .."

    Funny, I dont't see that at all. All you are doing is throwing out completely unfounded assertions.

    The fact that you can't image how something could have have happend is not proof that the thing you can imagine is true.

  • nfl jerseys||


  • Athletic Shoes||

    so perfect


Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.