Comments on Evolution Perplexity Article;

In the Seattle Times Feb 10, 2002 addition, there is an article titled; "Studying and evolution perplexity: Why do harmful genes survive?"  The article was about several genes known to be harmful and speculates on why such genes would survive assuming evolution is only determined by survival of the fittest.  

In the article, there are some reasonable speculations and scientific like reasoning.  As usual, however, no laboratory experiment exists, it seems, showing that this does actually happen in fact from Darwinian evolution.  This article makes some points about harmful genes variations which also have some other effect which is helpful in survival.

Even if the reasoning were valid, the article does not explain why evolution would not have modified the genes to keep the survival benefit while eliminating the harmful effect.  That point is not even brought up.

The article does point out that genes have more than one effect.  This alone is one of the many arguments which reasonably makes Darwinian evolution far less likely to be a full explanation of the evolution of life.  Genes which have multiple effects (which is not at all unusual) are far less likely to have a net beneficial effect if modified at random than would be the case if all genes had only single effects.

It should also be noted that the author of the article had to sneak in a hint of atheistic bias.  This is shown in the third paragraph when the author uses the term "cold logic of human evolution" almost certainly meaning something to the effect that there is no purpose, no guidance, and no direction to evolution.   This is not science, of course, but merely scientifically unfounded philosophical speculation.

Science is in fact pointing in the direction that the underlying laws of the universe are structured so as to produce life essentially as we know it.  There are scientific reasons (at least as good, and we believe better than, Darwinian evolution reasoning) which points to the probability that the nature of life was determined more by the environmental (landscape if you will, governed by the laws of physics of the universe) much more than by survival selection from random gene variations.  We discuss this in our more detailed review of the book "Fire in the mind" for which we have provided in very short book reviews.

The subject newspaper article is. however, at least useful in pointing out that evolution is in fact very complex and that there are things it does not explain well which the proponents call "perplexities" to avoid admitting the failings of Darwinism (macro evolution) theory explicitly.   

Darwinian evolution (other than microevolution) interpreted as a complete explanation for life is in fact mostly perplexities one if one looks at the hard facts (without first mistakenly accepting Darwinism as a filter of all information.)   Darwinian micro evolution facts provide very little of a compelling explanation for all of life based on unquestionable and objective experimental facts.  What we believe Darwinian macroevolutionists do not understand.

Our evolution views.