By: Ferry F Karwur (Senior Researcher PSKTI, Lecturer in Biology Graduate Satya Wacana Christian University, Quezon City)

Five hundred years ago, exactly 25 April 1953, the issue of three-dimensional structure of nucleic acid or DNA, the genetic information carrier material is solved through the hard work of JD Watson, Crick fhc, MHF Wilkins, and the beautiful, Rosalind E Franklin. A month later, May 30, 1953, the biological implications of these findings are outlined. As he recalled the incident 50 years ago, we rang the fierce debate between Wildfire Yatim, a senior lecturer at the University of Padjadjaran Cell Biology, and Taufikurahman, lecturer at the Department of Biological Science ITB. The debate was not half-hearted: The Theory of Evolution!

Compass presented DEBATE (23 April 2003 and May 8, 2003) was preceded by exposure to Wildfire Yatim in his article entitled "There's rebuttal to the Theory of Evolution?" In this article, the Wildfire balked Taufikurahman press release that suggested that the revised Biology.

As he balked at the proposal, Wildfire menghadapmukakan view of a Turkish author, Harun Yahya, who according to the reference Taufikurahman Wildfire reject Darwin's theory of evolution, with the four main theses of Charles Robert Darwin on biological evolution. Wildfire rejection is supported by the opinion of the biologist Darwin's Natural Selection theory proponents, such as Alfred R Wallace, Ernst Haeckel, and the data are scattered in fields of life sciences investigations.

Wildfire rejection of the idea to revise the Biology lesson on the understanding that according to him was out of date and unscientific sense of masculinity that was lashing the ITB lecturers, "I've always doubted the validity of Darwin's theory", and "not merely because I read the book- book by Turkish author Harun Yahya named as alleged Wildfire Orphans, "the Taufikurahman. Basis of denial is used Taufikurahman reject Darwin Theory of Evolution is more of a religious conviction that God is the creator of all living things in the world.

To maintain his opinion, also cited disagreement Taufikurahman from various circles, including the Bishop of Oxford Samuel Wilberforce debate with Thomas Huxley at the annual meeting of The British Association for the Advancement of Science in summer 1860. Unfortunately, in a debate moderated by the teacher's most admired Darwin C is Prof. John Stevens Henslow, the tongue of the Bishop "slip" to the question, "the grandfather or grandmother (T Huxley)-whether originating in monkeys".

Taufikurahman also argue Theory of Evolution Darwin Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge they themselves actually do not reject the Theory of Natural Selection. Taufikurahman misinterpret punctuated equilibrium and make "no sound".

Stephen Jay Gould in his article in Scientific American, October 1994, entitled "The Evolution of Life on the Earth" saying, "Natural Selection is on immensely powerful yet beautifully simple theory has held up remarkably That well, under intense and unrelenting Scrutiny and testing for 135 years ".

Furthermore, the weak points of the argument C Darwin Natural Selection theory is also used as a basis Taufikurahman reject the theory. In fact, self-critic became so remarkable for Darwin formulate his theory of C to another, namely sexual selection. With the increase of molecular data and paleontology, doubts against the Darwinian theory vaguely lost.

I suspect in response to Wildfire Taufikurahman Orphans affected (or perhaps derived from) the views contained in the book by Vernon Blackmore and Andrew Page titled Evolution the Great Debate. If this is true, then once again, unfortunately, because of the book, the author says, "This book is not about the rights and wrongs of evolution or creation science ... For there is a much more fascinating story to be of toll: the history of the idea of ​​evolution in its wake Itself and the troubled waters of religious argument "(Introduction page).

In my opinion, Harun Yahya and Taufikurahman view of biological evolution does not move an inch from the view of the origin of life on Earth embraced C. Linnaeus 250 years ago who had worn it. Their views, such as those cited Wildfire, one piece dictum C. Linnaeus. "Species tot sunt, quot diversas formas ab initio produxit Ens infinitum (as many species are generated at the beginning by the Infinite).

Actually, C Linnaeus never "hit" with the data that should be made out of an understanding of that species are fixed (fixed), when he was confronted with the plant samples sent by a student.

Plant morphology is exactly the same as Linaria vulgaris, except for a circular symmetric flowers (radially symmetrical), called peloric. In fact, Linaria original type (wild type) has a bilaterally symmetric flowers (bilateral symmetry). If you follow the nomenclature system developed by C. Linnaeus, the plant should be classified as new species. C Linnaeus noted this confusion as a monstrous flower.

Molecular proof by Enrico Coen of the John Innes Centre in Norwich, England, and Theissen G of the Max-Planck Institute in Kohl, Germany, confirmed that both the real and the odd plant Linaria vulgaris is the same plant, but the peloric have one genes whose expression was silenced (silenced) because the surface of the methylation reaction LCYC genes (Nature 401:157-161 and Bioessays 22:209-13).

The fundamental problem that must be rejected from Taufikurahman thinking is that the basic opposition to Darwin's Theory of Evolution is based on the belief that God is the creator of all living things in the world. Not that I disagree with these religious beliefs, but his way of thinking that I jumped into the realm (domain) nonilmiah (the conviction), make the belief it is beyond the reach of scientific theory, and therefore can not be justified scientifically as well.

This has lead to arguments between Taufikurahman ketidaksetangkupan Orphans and Wildfire. Wildfire trying to say Darwin's theory of evolution as scientific theory. He pointed to the inductive method which departs from Darwin's facts and observations made by himself, and merampatkannya into the arguments of the Natural Selection theory is contained in the Origin: "As many more individuals are produced than can possibly survive, there must in every case be a struggle for existence ... "

Is to be convinced more factual Taufikurahman again by local paleontological near Sangiran Solo or by the paleontologists of the caliber of Prof. Jakob Teuku that no fossils of Homo erectus may be obtained on Kalibeng formation, ie formation of the bottom of the cupola (dome) Sangiran? Homo Erectus, with the amount found to have reached nearly 80, it is only found in formations more on it, namely Pucangan formation, a formation which is formed 700000-1800000 years ago in the Pleistocene, and dome formation of a younger age, ie 125000-700000 years ago.

So the question pitched challenging "There is a rebuttal to Darwin's Theory of Evolution?" Is not a question teologisfilosofis, but a scientific question to be answered scientifically, too. The mistake most people, including the Bishop of Oxford Samuel Wilberforce and Taufikurahman, is to interpret the theory of Natural Selection outside the scientific realm, the truth would be out of reach of truth is limited by the way he earned!

Conversely, there are obstacles that must be clarified from the street think Wildfire Yatim. In the early perbincangannya, Wildfire refer to matters of evolution mechanisms. But then he hit Yahya and Taufikurahman to treat evolution as facts. Is not that the same facts that have been there during the C Linnaeus? But why C Linnaeus still adhered to the ideology of creation?

Furthermore, Wildfire Yatim not clearly conceive of Molecular Evolution as part of the purification process of Darwin's Theory of Evolution. He was even too simplistic genetic diversity as a result of the transposon-transposon.

Imbasan mutation (induced mutation) also takes place in the expansion of repetitive nucleotides (repeated DNA). The results of recent studies reveal even interactive bridges between environmental and genetic material through epigenetics, which I think is an area that should be the main event (in addition to DNA mutations and chromosomal mutations directly) in the formation of biological variability.

Another drawback lies in the Wildfire Yatim kebersikukuhan argument to theses that are struggling on the classical Darwinism: an emerging and loss of biodiversity at the level of genes, gametes, individual organisms, or at the level higher, as a result of the struggle of life.

If we want to see Darwin's theory of evolution as understood at present, we should not forget the hard work of zoologist Ernst Mayr and Julian Huxley, the paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson, George Ledyard Stebbins botanists, a geneticist Sewall Wright, the mathematician RA Fisher and JBS Haldane , Theodosius Dobzhansky and genetics expert, who successfully concluded the Natural Selection Theory C Darwin to Mendel's theory of reduction properties of G into a synthetic theory of evolution in the 1920's until the 1930s.

Synthetic theory of evolution is seen that due to the formation of new variations and variations replacing the old with the new variation.

The second stage is driven by at least six of the following. First, the processes that generate variation or mutasional processes.

Second, the processes that narrow the space of this type of variation is generated.

Third, the processes that change the frequency of any variations as a population phenomenon.

Fourth, adaptive processes, ie processes that enhance the ability of variants to adapt to the environment.

Fifth, the processes that determine the speed of evolution without the need to make distinctions within a population.

Sixth, the processes that determine the direction of change without having to make a distinction in the population.

The challenge is quite hard on the Theory of Natural Selection comes from the findings Motto Kimura, Tomoko Ohta, JL King, and TH Jukes who raises Neutral Theory of Evolution (Neutral Theory of Evolution).

C Darwin said, "Natural Selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, the slightest variations; rejecting Those That are bad, preserving and adding up all that are good; silently and insensibly working, Whenever and Wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life "(C. Darwin, The Origin Of Species, p 99).

If the evolutionary process takes place as C Darwin formulated it, there should be a significant relationship between molecular variation at the DNA level and phenotypic changes. However, it turns out there is a lapse (gap) between the morphological appearance of mutations in the nucleic acid sequence.

They found at the molecular level that the selective elimination of mutants with negative definite on the carrier and random fixation of mutants that are selectively neutral or slightly detrimental nature of the carrier occurs much more frequently in evolution than positive Darwinian selection of mutants -mutants that have been known to be beneficial (Kimura and Ohta, 1974: Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA: 2848-2852). Kimura and Ohta also found that the speed of evolution of functional amino acids in a protein has a constant velocity and is unique to each organism.

Neutral Theory of Evolution does not claim that natural selection does not take place, but this theory suggests that natural selection is not the only force acting on the mechanism of evolution. There are other important forces that work together to steer the process of biological evolution.

Thus, although natural selection takes place as an inevitable player in the stage history of biological evolution, nature still leave room for the operation of the joy, joy of life, and of course creativity, as the physicist Erwin Schrodinger cum-biologist in his book, What is Life , thus: "An organism must have a comparatively gross structure in order to enjoy the benefit of fairly accurate laws, both for its internal life and for its interplay with the external world".

To Taufikurahman, I would like to remind you that the opportunity to take part in the current change produced by the science will be the hardest-hit nation if we deliberately placing obstacles deliberately down the road that will go through as a nation-including scholarly memasung Biology at junior high or high school, especially at the university. If the stage of history have witnessed the Western hegemony of the civilized world, this is a result of one major factor: science!

Downloaded from Kompas Cyber ​​Media