|
Essays on Environment and Health-Related Science Scientific Politics and Misconduct |
(Link here to our essay about what we believe about evolution in general.)
Please note that what follows are original ideas about the deeply complex designs of life which are not yet supported by other scientists. Many scientists do, however, believe that Darwinism cannot be the full story of life, which by definition means that they also believe that some other, at least additional explanation needs to exist. In this essay, we are merely raising some possibilities about mechanisms of generation of true novelties in life which are even consistent with the most basic of sciences, namely physics. (For the most part, these possibilities would be in addition to and beyond the fine tuning Darwinian mechanism.)
We believe their there is some form of guidance to evolution at the macro level (above the micro continuous or very small step variation level, refer to our Evolution Views) and that the guidance either comes directly from the Creator of the universe or from the deepest laws of physics (thus chemistry also) created by the Creator of the universe. We believe that the random component is very small and that there is an additional mechanism which gives direction and purpose to evolution. The evidence is growing for complex adaptive evolution at the molecular level which is far beyond that explainable via genetic drift from random variations in the genes.
We are far from alone in considering that the evidence points to a more powerful mechanism at work than Darwinian selection from random variations by itself. A Biochemical Mechanism for Nonrandom Mutations and Evolution. Note this link is from the scientific "Journal of Bacteriology."
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." (Selfish genes are not determinate. The reality of evolution is far more complex than Darwinian dogma can probably explain.)
Evolution of Evolution, Gene families exhibit a nonrandom pattern of genetic variation; reference about 1/3 of the way down the link homepage.
(One Key former Darwinian scientist, Dr. D. Kenyon, has recently participated in a PBS TV program where he openly state the he no longer believes that natural law is a sufficient explanation for all of life.
Even those scientists still defending Darwinism as the source of evolution are beginning to make significant admissions; (Reference the book; "Life Evolving; Molecules, Mind and Meaning" by C. deDuve (Nobel Prize winning scientist) on page 183; "there is written into the very structure of genomes, more inevitability in vertical (macro) than in horizontal (micro) evolution, and that the degree of inevitability increases with the progression of vertical evolution.) Mr. deDuve the distinguished biologist goes on to say on page 185 about the evolution of life; ""Rerunning the tape" ---, 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.") Mr. deDuve may not have fully recognized it, but his statement is nearly an admission of the limits of the Darwinian (only selection from random variations) explanation for macro (vertical) evolution.
If one reads other books by Darwinists carefully, one finds a lot of other statements which are indirect admissions of the limits of Darwinism. We recommend the book; "Sudden Origins" by J. Schwartz Ph.D. Anthropology. Dr. Schwartz gives numerous examples of incredible life forms which are clearly not explainable by Darwinism alone. He attributes, however, the sudden changes in life forms to control genes (HOX genes) but does not at all address how did the HOX genes came to exist in the first place, nor how a complex control element could evolve, nor how the changes in HOX gene activation result in even a viable life form, let alone one which is more survivable than what existed before. Sadly, this is typical of "Darwinist" macro explanations; they leave the fundamental questions unanswered and usually just raise more fundamental questions. Dr. Schwartz seems to still be partially trapped in the Darwinian dogma, but we highly recommend his book.
We believe that the incredible complexity of life (many examples in Dr. Schwartz's book) is generally not fully appreciated. Also reference the book; "SIGNS OF LIFE, HOW COMPLEXITY PERVADES BIOLOGY" by Sole and Goodwin. (Note; this book talks about self organization but does not at a fundamental level address the basic source(s) of self organization. The book is "Less a set of answers than a guide to thinking about living systems." The authors also say, on the inside of the loose front cover; "it's generally believed that cells with identical genomes in identical environments will lead identical lives. But they don't. Why?" The explanation is not found in DNA or Darwinian dogma.
The reasons we believe that there are mechanisms beyond Darwinism include;
First of all, even with the simplest aspects of life, the Darwinian explanation requires believing the EXTREMELY IMPROBABLE EVENTS HAD TO HAVE HAPPENED LITERALLY MILLIONS OF TIMES. (See perspective at bottom of link page.) this point is generally conceded by Darwinists who merely claim (without proof) that given enough time, linear accumulation of very small changes is unlimited in its ability to create highly improbable novelty. There is no principle of science nor anything like a proof that such is the case. The Darwinists just try to show that it is not impossible and often do not try to argue how extremely improbable events have supposedly happened so many times beyond saying it is just survival selection on chance variations.
Secondly, there is no compelling scientific reason to believe that there is or could be only one source of the direction and organization of changes in evolving life. (This is especially true of more complex forms of life which consist of complex dependent, nonlinear, and interacting systems.) a single simple explanation for all the complexities of life is no more than an assumption.
Third, there is no scientific reason why there can only be a reductionist or simple materialistic matter based explanation for biogenesis or all the aspects of the evolution of life. (The most basic physics now views the deepest level of reality in terms of fields and not simple particulate matter.)
Fourth, Darwinism, by definition cannot account for the origin of life in the first place. (For survival of the fittest to take place, by definition, life must exist to begin with!) there is no reason to believe that any probable self catalytic systems can generate the necessary complexity to account for the origin of life.
It is, in any case, often argued by its proponents that Darwinian evolution “must” be correct as the full explanation for life since there is no other scientific explanation which does not require injecting a creator or designer and which would still allow survival of the fittest to be a part of the process. The idea that there is no other possible theory is simply not true as we list below a number of other possible "scientific" theories (admittedly speculative) which could be true. Remember that all science was at some point just a speculative theory, only something that could be true. What science is supposed to be about is testing to see if such theories are in fact true or not.
It is true that no other source of information besides DNA
and RNA been found to date. In the past, the same could be said of other
information transmission sources such as radio waves. Radio waves can be a
guiding field of electromagnetic information. Radio waves guide the receivers to
output a signal which we can interpret and act on. Certainly as was the case in
the past with radio waves, a lack of a scientific finding does not prove
nonexistence. Ironically this is what Darwinists say about all the obviously
missing Darwinian evolution postulated links in virtually every form of life.
One partial explanation for cell (life) behavior not being predicted simply from
DNA comes from the book;
"UNRAVELING
DNA, The most important molecule of life" on page 66
referring to DNA it reads; "the stunning discovery that the same DNA region
encoded information about two proteins". This violation of DNA dogma would
explain how one could get different cell behavior from the same genome (set of
DNA based genes). The book also talks about the fact that there is actually more
than one DNA code (cell mitochondria in one case) which is also a violation of
the DNA dogma. clearly if DNA does not fully determine behavior, the logical
conclusion is that there is an additional factor or factors which yield the
determination. The hypothesis below present some possible elements of other
factors which may be determinate to some degree in life.
None of the possible, but as yet only hypothetical, conceptual elements outlined below (each of which go beyond the simple DNA dogma), would in any way be in conflict with a belief in a creator or god; nor are they dependent on a belief in god. They could, however, be elements of how god creates life in his own time frame. These elements represent other partial possible explanations for which scientific evidence may or could exist as possible components of biogenesis and the evolution of complex life. Each hypothetical concept would, however, also point in some measure to a designer, with admittedly strong implications (not proof) for the existence of a designer/creator, which is why atheistic scientists will generally attack these and other such concepts which point out the limits of Darwinian science dogma.
If, however, evolution studies are done in the true spirit
of science, all possible concepts should be considered and tested against the
physical evidence where possible. We believe the following concepts/possible
elements are probably worthy of scientific efforts to prove or disprove that
they at least have some validity as possibly playing a role in the origin and
evolution of life;
1) Some fractal function contained in the genes or in an external field of some sort, plus limited Darwinism or some other simple rule source at work which couples with the environment into the gene/RNA structures which is superimposed on and/or selects from truly random changes in the genes. (In other words, there may be a Darwinian component which is guided by some rule (this could account for the chaotic profusion of new life forms in the burgess shale (Precambrian explosion) for example, and other of the numerous anomalies in the history of life if viewed only through the Darwinian dogma.))
2) An intelligence field which pervades the universe (like the quantum instantaneous action at a distance field found in the aspect/bell experiments) where this field is not amenable to reductionistic science and which may interact with matter only at cell component level, possibly only through the cell centrisomes. Einstein once said; "it is possible that there exist emanations that are still unknown to us. Do you remember how electrical currents and "unseen waves" were laughed at?" The same may be true of some field involved with all of life.
3) Design like laws at or below the quantum level (well below the molecular level) where there is something like a hidden variable which provides an organizing function and is not random but which looks random due to rule being buried in a lot of information and the complex nature of the total information landscape in which life exists. (Trying to find this rule would be like looking at a portion of the numerals which make up the number “pi” (the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle) which gives the appearance of a purely random source when in fact there is a simple underlying rule which determines the numerals.)
4) A Lamarckian like process involving some form of quantum level interaction field which exists for each species which provides a feedback from the environment and which somehow acts on the genome. There could be some form of potential field which collapses somewhat like the quantum function collapse to a macro reality according to the “experiment” run by life through the forces of physics together with the life form interactions with the forces and fields which are physical in the environment.
5) Virus or prion like entities which have not yet been detected, which provide some form of positive feedback mechanism from the environment such that the environment largely determines life forms by the laws of physics projected into the entity from the environment. (As one gets close to very simple geometries (simple virus for example) and subatomic levels (smaller types of life or elements of life) the influence of quantum effects is greater and quantum effects are not reductionistic and at that level are essentially "fields" which may couple to the environment in subtle yet determinate ways.)
6) Laws which may only be detectable at system levels (laws which cannot be found by reductionistic science (looking at the pieces which make up life.)) which provide some form of positive feedback field and/or nonlinear effects to change the morphology of life in discontinuous but integrated ways. where do the emergent properties come from like those in an ants nest? Maybe a similar effect operates on the cells and directs evolution at a level which is not yet understood.
7) Symbiosis as an element of much greater import than generally accepted which produces some form of resonance in the physical fields which govern matter. (If, for example, the mitochondrial invasion of some simpler cell form acted to produce higher order cell forms, and if this cooperation (harmony/resonance) is what made higher order life forms possible, then it could be that symbiosis (cooperation) and not selfish genes is what “tunes in” to the laws of the universe and the environment and creates harmonious structures. )
Again, the above are all hypothesis/conjectures, but with
what is known about the fundamental nature of fields in the structure of the
universe, these concepts appear to be consistent with what is known by present
day sciences and reasonable testable conjectures.
Since many if not most of the Darwinian explanations using simple survival of
the fittest based upon random mutations seem to be at least counterintuitive
relative to macroevolution (truly novel life creations), the idea that true
science is to be an open process would seem to require that such hypothesis as
the above and others like them be investigated.
These ideas certainly cannot be dismissed out of hand on the basic of any hard science which comes from the laboratory.
The progress of science often starts with ideas which are outside the existing paradigm, but when given a fair analysis and testing, such ideas can either prove to be true or close to some truth. In such cases, this then brings the models (paradigms) used by science to a higher level accuracy and value in describing the actual world. The only reason not to test such ideas would be the fear of disproving current paradigm's with all that implies to those making a living in the field.
A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism (includes a long list of scientists who dissent.)
Other ideas about the possibility of there being more than Darwinian evolution at work in the world.
The watchmaker is not blind after all!
Progress towards complementarity in genetics.
Non-neutral evolution; "The evidence is good that evolution has been selectively tweaking this one gene known to affect our brain size." Note the word "selectively". How is that selection being done?
Adaptive evolution that requires multiple spontaneous mutations.
Exploring the theory of evolution, its extensions, problems, and alternatives.
Extrapolation from Micro to Macro
Another possible Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory.
Some thoughts on convergent evolution (a telling issue).
Biosemiotics: Towards a New Synthesis in Biology.
Darwinism: Science or Philosophy.
Quantum bio-physics in living organisms. Some edge of science stuff at this link, but what if there is even a grain of truth in what they say?
After Darwin’s Black Box:, Where Does a Laboratory Scientist Go to Contribute?