|
Essays on Environment and Health-Related Science Scientific Politics and Misconduct |
VIEWS ON EVOLUTION:
The array of life on earth certainly changes over time and if that is the definition of evolution, then basic evolution (life forms change to some limited degree) is a fact.
The question is; what is the basis of that change? Are the profound discontinuous changes caused by Darwinism alone? Is there evidence that more than Darwinism is at work?
We are not questioning that the life on earth has changed over time or that Darwinism can produce small/continuous changes. Micro evolution (fine tuning) clearly exists and large discontinuities between life forms also exist. The question is whether or not the Darwinian mechanism is capable of producing all of the variations of life. This is open to serious questioning (or at least in the spirit of honest science should be.) Just because the Darwinian mechanism is know to exist and no other mechanism is understood, does not mean that the Darwinian mechanism "must" explain all of life.
Many are questioning the evidence for the assumption that the complete explanation is Darwinism alone. No Missing Link? Evolutionary Changes Occur Suddenly, Professor Says
We also believe that it is not even possible in principle (based on fundamental information theory and pattern detection basic limits) to ever prove the theory that only Darwinism is at work in the evolution of life. (See 5) below.) We believe that there is, in fact, substantial evidence that more than Darwinism is at work. This page contains a number of links supporting that belief. Yes there are many scientists who believe some information organizing element (creation of some sort) is needed in addition to Darwinian evolution.
It should be kept in mind that if even one of the questions raised in this site or any of the linked sites cannot be answered by simple Darwinism (the linear accumulation of incrementally additive small changes selected from strictly random variations in the genome) then by definition, Darwinism is not the whole answer to life.
We believe that when the realities of the laws of the universe and the nature of the complexities and discontinuities of life found in all living things are taken into account, it can be seen that the evolution of life is almost certainly far more complex than can be fully explained in any probable way by Darwinian processes acting alone (survival selection from random variations only) even over a very long geological time, or even the age of the universe for that matter. We believe, that Darwinian linear accumulation of small steps has profound limitations. There is no factual reason from any science discipline to believe that such a mechanism alone could have bridged the numerous discontinuities found between life forms above the species level (phyla) or even ancestral life-forms and nor does it have a significant probability of producing coordinated changes in deeply interrelated systems. Contrasting the Origin of Species With the Origin of Phyla. CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION / ORIGIN OF THE PHYLA
Darwinism probably plays a significant but limited role, and we believe there is no compelling reason (certainly no conclusive science) to even begin to prove that Darwinism is the full answer. There is nothing even beginning to approach a scientific proof that it is the entire answer. There is no scientific principle to require that only a single mechanism is at work. Refer to the Firing Line 1997 Creation-Evolution Debate; "Resolved: The Evolutionists Should Acknowledge Creation" Both sides of the debate are presented in this link.
If Darwinism cannot fully explain life, that leaves a need for something like design (if not design itself) and probably a Designer. It is the idea that accepting that Darwinism is not the whole answer and intelligent design may be there also that is a major problem for atheistic scientists. Even some scientists of faith have a problem with the idea of design since science is not to rely on God.
One only has to look, however, at the numerous supporting links mostly from scientists throughout this essay and at bottom of this page, on the questions about and limits of Darwinism to see that many scientists are moving beyond dogmatic unquestioning adherence to atheistic bias. This link site lists numerous essays questioning evolution. Scientists who believe the Darwinian dogma, on the other hand, spend essentially almost all their effort in coming up with new variations (add on hypothesis) to Darwinism to fit their findings which are often in conflict with the basic dogma. Scientists who have accepted the Darwinian dogma spend virtually no time looking for any other governing/patterning mechanism beyond or in addition to Darwinism. One reasons is that there is no funding for such an effort which would get them ostracized by the Darwin community.
There are, nevertheless simple reasons to believe that Darwinian evolution has limits and that includes the following;
1) Darwinism as the full explanation of life faces extreme improbabilities (admitted even by some Darwinists) to account for the generation of true novelty and even more so to account in some inanimate Darwinian like process for the origin of life (a somewhat separate but closely related problem.) Some scientists are even trying to INVOKE QUANTUM MECHANICS STRANGE (COHERENCE AND QUANTUM LIKE COMPUTING) PROPERTIES IN AN ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN AWAY THE EXTREME IMPROBABILITIES. We do believe that one needs to take quantum fields into account, but some scientists are trying to reason that the improbabilities are somehow resolved (how is supposed to be due to some kind of quantum parallel reality processing) before the quantum fields collapse to material reality.
Adaptive evolution that requires multiple spontaneous mutations, occur 10^8 (100 million times) more often than is explainable by Darwinian random source selection. That's quite a probability problem for Darwinism all by itself.
Recognizing the improbabilities of life, some scientists are even trying to invoke OUTER SPACE ORIGINS Only simple chemicals are known to exist in space. There is no evidence of any life form from space (let alone any intelligent life.) this concept also does not explain overcoming the extreme improbabilities associated with life. Any space origin speculation is just pushing the problem away, not really addressing it.
That these two ideas are being brought into the debate on the origins and the evolution of life only serve to show that the scientists proposing these ideas recognize that Darwinist science falls far short of being able to explain the origin and evolution of life via any of the proposed mechanisms (forms of Darwinism) without the invocation of the vast unknown of the universe or what are believed to be the parallel processing of possibilities that happens in strange ways in quantum mechanics. Neither approach offers much more than a recognition of the limits of Darwinism. (The quantum mechanical idea may get closer to the truth by bring the idea of information in "FIELDS" into play.)
2) Evolution is inherently dependent on the design and Initial Conditions of the universe. It is also deeply dependent on the laws of physics and the very special characteristics of earth. All laws of physics can only be solved to predict an outcome if the initial conditions are known and the initial conditions are never determined by the laws of physics themselves! The fact is that Darwinism is inherently completely silent on initial conditions of any and all evolution and theories which might explain in part the origin of life as well. This means science can never explain why or how things begin as they do. Science can only tell us what will happen given as a brute fact certain initial conditions. (There is a proposal that some form of no boundary condition formula may be possible, but there is no scientific evidence that such a formula would be more than a mathematical trick.)
3) There is no scientific proof or strong evidence at any level that small Darwinian changes can ever bridge the discontinuities between life forms and even significantly different life functions. It is just assumed that such is the case. DISCONTINUITIES IN THE FOSSIL RECORD ARE PROBABLY REAL AND REFLECT SOMETHING BEYOND AND ARGUE AGAINST DARWINIAN MACROEVOLUTION AS THE SOLE EXPLANATION OF EVOLUTION. Refer also to this link on "PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM". PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM AT TWENTY: A PALEONTOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
4) Darwinian evolution is certainly a factor acting within its limited power on whatever variation and potential that exists in coherent system forms in living entities operated on by the external environment which allows and shapes what life forms can survive. CONVERGENT EVOLUTION is a term used when evolutionists find very close similarities in life forms which cannot be explained by any reasonable possible ancestral relationship. Convergent evolution is very common, making it more likely that there is some form of field controlling evolution and not just survival selection acting on random gene variations alone to explain all the convergence. The existence of more than a small amount of homology and homoplasy is alone sufficient to raise serious questions about evolution being an undirected process. Unless evolution is strongly determined by the environment to a depth that effects the variations in the genes/DNA, the probability of following the same path multiple times is virtually zero and yet it clearly happens.
The truth is probably that convergent evolution indicates that something more powerful is at work than simply Darwinism. It says that if evolution were run from start (whatever its underlying mechanisms, the results would come out very much the same. This is the antithesis of Darwinian randomness. Even Nobel prize winning biochemist C. de Duve who says on page 185 of his book life evolving; "rerunning the tape--an image we should be careful not to take to literally, in any case--no doubt would not produce exactly the same script but might well come sufficiently near the original story to make it perfectly recognizable." This statement is from a Darwinist proponent is some degree of recognition of an underlying pattern and path to evolution! On the same page he quotes paleontologist S.C. Morris as saying of evolution; "within certain limits the outcome of evolutionary processes might be rather predictable." These evolutionists have been forced to make some telling admissions. Homology: A Concept in Crisis. Homology is about structural similarities found in life forms. Homology in Biology, A Problem for Naturalistic Science.
5) Darwinian evolution selects from supposedly random/unguided gene/DNA changes which are supposedly due to molecular noise, copying errors and other mutation inducing effects, but in truth, it cannot be proven, even in principle, that there is not also a guided component (undetected algorithm/pattern acting on Darwinian micro evolution which is determinate of direction and which allows bridging discontinuities to produce truly novel (macro) differences between life forms.)
That anything is purely random in its source is inherently/fundamentally unprovable, even in mathematics dealing with simple strings of numbers. If one had a set/string of numbers and examined that set in mathematical detail looking for a pattern or a rule governing how the number set came to be, just because one could find a pattern one could never say for sure that no pattern existed. For example, the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter is called Pi. The number Pi can be determined from a mathematical formula to any desired number of digits. So by definition, Pi results from a rule which determines the number values and sequence of those numbers. If one took an arbitrary set of the numbers in the decimal expansion of Pi and examined them mathematically, however, unless one guessed that the set of numbers was from the decimal expansion of Pi, the mathematical analysis would show the number set was random! Clearly this shows that even a comparatively simple situation as an analysis of the number Pi can lead one to the wrong conclusion about the existence of a determinate rule. One could conclude that no rule exists to generate the information when in fact all that was really true was that the rule had not been discovered. One can never look at a set of information of any type and conclude with any certainty that no rule of generation was the source of the information. Pi seems a good random number generator – but not always the best.
The same is true of mutation patterns which supposedly are the
source of evolution. The
information which produces all levels of life forms is like a code written in
letters (which could be represented by a coded number set), and supposedly, the set of
information which survival of the fittest selects from can never be proven to be truly random! It
is simply not possible, even in principle to prove that only random variations
are the source of information selected from! This is extremely important
and says that even if Darwinian selection is proven to be a part of
evolution (micro evolution),
it can never be proven to be the whole story of life.
In the book; "Fire in the Mind" by G. Johnson on page 129 it says (referring to
the noted mathematician GJ
Chaitin;
"Chaitin showed that it is impossible to prove whether or
not a particular number is random, whether a compression is the most
concise---it is always possible that there is more order than can be squeezed
out." To restate; this is also true of the information involved in
evolution. It can never be proven that there is not some information rule
governing the information being selected from in the process of evolution.
The reality is actually even worse in regards to evidence for the validity of the claim that only random variation is selected from, because the history of the evolution of life is (according to the Darwinists) mostly missing (supposedly lost in geological process and why according to Darwinists the vast majority of the supposed "missing links" are not found and cannot, therefore, be part of the information which at least in theory could be analyzed to determine if there was more than a survival/small continuous step pattern at work.) It is, of course, even more of a problem to find a pattern (let alone "prove" that none exists) if most of the information is missing, which again in essence the claim of the Darwinists; that the intermediates have been lost in time. The bottom line is that the proposition that Darwinism selects only from random variations is not proven and never will be. It is only a metaphysical assumption. Randomness and Mathematical Proof Undecidability & Randomness in Pure Mathematics Limitations of evolutionary processes. Link here to What evidence for a proof would look like (of Darwinian macro evolution capability) if it is ever found, which we believe is extremely unlikely based on the type and amount of information required for life.
6) Without a directed element/mechanism in evolution, Darwinian microevolution would be limited to local minima or maxima in its search. Simple life forms would get trapped in small niches and Darwinism would not produce complex nonlinear life forms and functions in anything like the quantity which covers the earth. GENETIC ALGORITHMS (Start at "II" for BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION) Link here to A SITE ON CONSTRAINTS ON BIOLOGICAL FORM
7) Darwinian evolution is probably acting on "life potential" attractors which pre exist as a result of the action or some form of undiscovered guiding law or physical phenomena, or meta phenomena (possibly indicating the existence of a "designer") or field effect from the environment which is responsible for the origin of life, new life forms above the species level, and all NOVEL MORPHOLOGIES. The environment plays a role in generating the attractors in conjunction with very complex biological systems. Epigenetic Inheritance is probably one part of such complex interrelated systems. EPIGENETICS AS THE CONDUIT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNALS (After Introduction paragraph.)
8) Evolution is not just survival of the fittest and the predominant component is actually COOPERATION FROM THE GENE LEVEL ON UP THE SCALE OF COMPLEXITY. Also refer to the book; "ACQUIRING GENOMES".
9) It is not proven that all the information in a living entity is contained in the genes/DNA, little is known about the total amount of information needed for life, and little is understood about the flow and interaction of INFORMATION AND DNA AS IT RELATES TO EVOLUTION AND THE REQUIREMENTS FOR LIFE .
10) The AMOUNT OF INFORMATION INVOLVED IN EVOLUTION AND COMPLEX LIFE FORMS may be inherently beyond the capacity of humans to ever fully understand.
11) The reductionistic materialistic approach to understanding evolution does not take into account the deepest laws of physics. In physics, it is quantum mechanics that provides a much more accurate model of reality. It is quantum mechanics which underpins all of the universe. Quantum mechanics deals with waves and probabilities and it is now recognized that the particle model of reality is too simplistic and that a "field" model (as in electrical fields, gravitational fields and other fields) account for and pervade and couple all matter. The fields are nonlinear fields are NOT AMENABLE TO THE REDUCTIONIST APPROACH WHICH IS EVEN MORE QUESTIONABLE IN BIOLOGY. The reductionistic approach now being used in the study of evolution is a very questionable approach because of the extreme complexity of life. Even life at the simplest (cellular) level is not fully amendable to reductionistic science.
12) Evolution, if defined as the observation that life changes with time to some degree and that the forms of life have changed over time, is a fact that by itself does not in any way prove Darwinian evolution is the whole explanation for life. Accumulated changes in genes is not the whole answer. Changes in species is not the same as an explanation for all of life. REFER TO THE EVOLUTION DEFINITION SHELL GAME. Again, there is a lot of room left for and a need for a designer to explain the incredible complexities of life. This gap between Darwinism and reality leads to some new theories added to Darwinism. Note the comment; "The echinoderm larva and the echinoderm adult are separate entities. The echinoderm larva does not "grow into" the adult. (Starfish belong to this family.)" They metamorphose from a larva with virtually no similarity to the adult.
We believe that the larva forms are related to some form of field is associated with life and it inevitable side bands of that extremely complex field and/or fields of more than one form of life which result in things such as parasites and other disease entities and facts, the existence of which atheists like to point out as being inexplicable as coming from a loving God. Evidence for a field theory of life and intelligence.
META QUESTIONS TO ASK DARWINISTS (MACRO EVOLUTION)
Another problem for Darwinian macro evolution theory is that interacting pairs of proteins co-evolve to maintain functional and structural complementarity! Co-evolution makes the extreme improbabilities even more unbelievable from Darwinian evolution by itself.
Numerous scientists are also questioning Darwinian macro evolution as the full explanation for life; The author of one of the main naturalism textbooks no longer believes that it can explain the origin of life! W. Smith, Ph.D. in mathematics says: "I am opposed to Darwinism, or better said, to the transformist hypothesis as such----I am convinced, moreover, that Darwinism (in whatever form) is not in fact a scientific theory, but a pseudo-metaphysical hypothesis decked out in scientific garb." (Note; he does not say that the Darwinian mechanism cannot account for micro changes (fine tuning.)
If you think the fossil record supports the continuity required for micro evolution to result in macro/novel changes, note what Darwinist Ernst Mayr admitted; "Wherever we look at the living biota … discontinuities are overwhelmingly frequent…The discontinuities are even more striking in the fossil record. New species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates." What an admission from a leading Darwinist scientist!
Scientists questioning Darwinian macroevolution on video clips.
More on Anti-Darwinian Scientists (Many more scientists listed in the links on our "macro evolution beliefs" essay.
Biographies of Creation Scientists
Lessons from the Living Cell: The Limits of Reductionism was written by S. Rothman who has a Ph.D. and has worked in experimental biology for 40 years. In the book Dr. Rothman says on page 8, in regards to genes explaining all of evolution; "equating genes and evolution in this way is just a mental sleigh of hand. Genes do not in and of themselves make and organism more or less able to adapt to the environmental exigencies it faces. This ability is an exclusive property of the whole intact organism. ---- Most important, genes and proteins are not in and of themselves responsible for the multitudinous features of life that provide for our adaptive capabilities. ---- they are transcendent qualities of the organism, and it alone. (We highly recommend the book. It makes a very good case for the failings of reductionism and the limitations and failings of the science community.)
Even Roger Penrose, a world class physicist, has doubts about evolution being based only on selection from chance variations. He has said; "To my way of thinking, there still is something mysterious about evolution, with its apparent "groping" towards some future purpose. Things at least seem to organize themselves somewhat better than they "ought" to, just on the basis of blind-chance evolution and natural selection."
(Note, only 4 of the numerous links on this page are religious sites.)
(Note, by simple definition, if even a single point (literally just one point) made on this site or any linked site or other site arguing against macro Darwinism is valid, Darwinism cannot then be the full story of life. (By definition, to be the whole story, Darwinism must be 100% right. That is extremely improbable since most points made by Darwinists arguing beyond micro evolution contain at least one assumption or extrapolation of low probability.
The Deniable Darwin "Physicists are persuaded that things are in the end simple; biologists that they are not. A good deal depends on where one looks. Wherever the biologist looks, there is complexity beyond complexity, the entanglement of things ramifying downward from the organism to the cell. In a superbly elaborated figure, the Australian biologist Michael Denton compares a single cell to an immense automated factory, one the size of a large city: On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the portholes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity. We would see endless highly organized corridors and conduits branching in every direction away from the perimeter of the cell, some leading to the central memory bank in the nucleus and others to assembly plants and processing units. The nucleus itself would be a vast spherical chamber more than a kilometer in diameter, resembling a geodesic dome inside of which we would see, all neatly stacked together in ordered arrays, the miles of coiled chains of the DNA molecule.... We would notice that the simplest of the functional components of the cell, the protein molecules, were, astonishingly, complex pieces of molecular machinery..." This is a description of the "basic simple cell" that supposedly evolved by simple addition of micro changes via Darwinism!
Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing
Why Darwinism -- like Marxism and Freudianism before it -- is
headed for extinction
And how science is discovering that the complex mechanisms of life cannot be
explained by unguided processes.
Evolution under the microscope
What Do Science Teachers Believe?
Evolution and Religion Can Coexist, Scientists Say (True only if Darwinism is not overstated and taken beyond the hard science of micro evolution fine tuning. Darwinists first need to back track to the limited facts of microevolution.)
From Darwin to Hitler Darwinism is not a benign philosophy.
Evolutionary Forces Driving Nuclear Genome; "There is now compelling evidence that secondary DNA is functional, i.e. positively selected by organismal selection, not the purely neutral or ‘selfish’ outcome of mutation pressure." (We would restate that it is being found that selfish genes are not determinate.)
Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution.
An ignored critic and the Origin of Species One of many failings of Darwinism that is conveniently not mentioned by Darwinists.
Origin of Phyla (Truly novel life forms) and the Cambrian Explosion
Biology Beyond Determinism. Evolution is far more complicated than is explainable to a reasonable probability by Darwinism.
Conflicts Between Darwinian Theory and Natural History
Evolution is NOT a fact! List of refuting points.
A CRITIQUE OF DARWIN'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION
How the Leopard Changed Its Spots. "Clearly something is missing from biology !" "Goodwin is highly critical of Darwinism, without being creationist. His book is valuable for Darwinists as well as for creationists, because it shows how a scientist who rejects the sufficiency of Darwinism, tries to improve Darwinism in a scientific way." We do not believe that he succeeds in defending Darwinian macro evolution, but the books does show that even Darwinists are beginning to recognize the failings of Darwinism beyond the micro level.
THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, EVOLUTION AND LIFE.
The Natural Limits of Evolution
15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry: A point by point response to Scientific American
Darwinism: Science or Philosophy?
Ruse Gives Away the Store, Admits Evolution Is a Philosophy
What (If Anything) Hath God Wrought? Academic Freedom and the Religious Professor
What can be taught about disputes over Darwinism (if macro evolution and origin of life are discussed?)
Scientists Find Evidence of God. (Talks about DNA and a Designer.)
Uncommon Dissent, Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing.
Does it matter what you believe? The scientific evidence; a critical choice.
Rebuttal to "29 EVIDENCES FOR MACROEVOLUTION".
A list of scientists who question Darwinism as the full explanation for the evolution of life.
Natural discontinuities in the fossil record. (Quotes many scientists.) If the discontinuities are real, then Darwinian macro evolution theory fails.
Death of the Central Dogma of biology. A blow to Darwinian macroevolution theory.
Tests and predictions of Evolutionary Theory
Examples of Bad Design Gone Bad; A refutation of "bad design" in nature claims.
Punctuated Equilibrium and Patterns from the Fossil Record
Refutation of the Blind Watchmaker theory.
Getting the Facts Straight: A Viewer's Guide to PBS's Evolution.
Should Evolution Be Immune From Critical Analysis?
A brief qualitative discussion of evolutionary theory and its weaknesses.
Some thoughts on "Convergent Evolution".
Evidence supporting "punctuated equilibrium" in evolution in contradiction to Darwinian gradualism.
Separate evolution of weakly electrical fish.
Discussion of Intelligent Design as possible science to consider as playing a major role in evolution.
"Icons of Evolution, Science or Myth?" by A. J. Wells. This book does what we will do a lot in this site, that is, quotes the very scientists who are proponents of evolution where their statements show that macro Darwinism is no more than a theory with circumstantial evidence, but which raises more questions than it purports to answer.
What biology textbooks never told you about evolution.
Did DNA replication evolve twice independently? (If DNA replication requires 2 creations, that would point towards Design.)
Coincidence, coevolution, or causation? DNA content, cell size. (Coevolution involves extreme improbabilities multiplied together.)
Another "Just-So Story" From the New York Times: Hair Loss.
Responding to evolutionist propaganda in the media.
National Association For Objectivity In Science (We agree with their points, but we believe we are all biased in our views. (Selections bottom of Link Page.))
Uncommon Descent (We believe that the proposal in this link is better than teaching Darwinism (macro) as unquestionable fact and as the total answer to life. We believe that the probabilities which seem to indicate design or something akin to design should be understood by students as well. We do not see why (as science) the students cannot be taught to look at an artifact and determine if it was made by an intelligence or came to exist through natural processes. Paleontologists do that all the time. Students should be taught enough to allow them to make their own decisions about the probable truth, but not required to blindly accept dogma.)