Evolution A Theory
Philosophy and Science
The Theory of Evolution is an amazing thing. It is the greatest religion in the world - a religion that requires both less and more faith than any other religion. Evolutionists have more faith and more faithful adherents than any other religion. The basics of Evolutionary Theory are simple. It accepts all, rejects none and embraces a need in humans to believe (in something). Evolutionists fall into two categories. The first category is the majority. It is comprised of those that believe without true knowledge because ‘science’ says so. They are blind to the reality of their beliefs, but accept because it is practical. The philosophy of the theory is easy to embrace. For these, it takes little faith and grants great license. The second group is the hard-core faithful. They know the truth of the theory. They believe with a faith rivaling even that of a suicide bomber believing they receive blessings by blowing themselves up - as long as they take some enemies with them to the after life.
The majority of evolutionists do not truly understand the science of the theory. They accept the theory because it is easy to believe. The primary advantage to believing evolution is relief. The philosophy of belief is readily acceptable. To an evolutionist, because we are descended from primordial ooze, there are no absolutes or moral imperatives. Anything is permissible without consequence. Every major religion requires accountability. There are ‘rules’ in the religion. To be a ‘faithful follower’ one must abide by the rules. To ascend to a higher level on must obey the guidelines of that religion. This is true of all religions except evolution. With evolution comes freedom.
The religion of evolution is all accepting. There are only two absolutes. The first absolute is that the theory explains everything. The second absolute is that there are no absolutes. One can embrace evolution and any other religion in the world and still be right. The defining characteristic of evolution, the religion, is the importance of self. Again, there are no moral imperatives except what is ‘best’ for the individual. All of ‘society’s’ or any other religion’s rules are subject to interpretation. Evolution explains the existence of societies and religions by simple extension. From fish to primates, there exists a social order. The higher the level of intelligence the more sophisticated the social order. Therefore, humans, having the highest intelligence, have the most sophisticated social order. However, that order is secondary to the imperatives of the individual. Society’s rules do not necessarily apply. “It is only wrong if you get caught,” is the ‘optimal’ awareness of self. Further, if one does something that is ‘wrong’ by ‘society’s’ standards, it is society’s fault.
There exists some ‘manifest’ inconsistency in society’s norms if one does something that society calls wrong. For example, an individual steals a TV to pay for a drug habit. There is a flaw in society. Society’s social order has not evolved enough to encompass that individual. It is society’s repression or discrimination of that individual that caused the individual to ‘turn’ to the escape of drugs. The ‘laws’ of society do not bind that individual because society repressed or discriminated against the individual. Therefore, the theft of the TV is not really a crime. It is a ‘cry for help’ to a society that ignores one’s needs.
How liberating is a philosophy or religion that requires no accountability? It is freedom to the ‘unknowing’ faithful to live within such bounds. One can, literally, get away with murder - as long as one ‘justifies’ their actions within a framework of faulty society based on no absolutes. The lynchpin is the idea of ‘survival of the fittest’. By justifying ones actions, one is ‘more fit’. The unknowing faithful accept the science of evolution without scrutinizing its framework. There is truly bliss in ignorance. The vast majorities of evolutionists do not understand its science, but accept without knowledge because of its ‘easy out’ philosophical ramifications. Most accept because it gives them liberty without conscience.
Evolution, the religion, can accept any action, belief, or behavior - as long as it does not threaten the religion. Even the‘unknowing’ ‘believer’ in evolution will defend the theory. The reason is simple, by threatening the theory; one threatens liberty without conscience. That would mean a ‘believer’ might actually be ‘accountable’. That is unconscionable. An attack of the theory is a galvanizing, unifying factor bringing a defense stronger than many religions could muster. If the theory fails, then too the philosophy of life fails…
That is a brief summary of the ‘unknowing’ majority. The theory itself is relatively unimportant. What is important is the philosophy of life the theory allows one to embrace. “I can do anything to anyone - without consequences - if I don’t get caught - and maybe even if I do!”
However;
There is another group of evolutionists. These are the hard-core faithful. They are a minority. They know and understand the scientific elements of the Theory of Evolution. They are those with the greatest faith. Their faith is greater than many religions in the world. To understand why this minority maintains a greater faith than some of the most ‘religious’ individuals in the world, one has to understand the science of evolution not just the philosophy of evolution.
Understanding the basics of the science of evolution requires knowing the difference between some terms. In science, some terms have different meanings than how they are ‘commonly’ used. The two most important terms related to scientific definition are law and theory. A scientific law or natural law is an absolute. That is, something defined as a natural or scientific law is absolute. It is proven. The ‘action’ or event is constant. An experiment serves as the proof of the law. For the proof to be acceptable, it has to be constant and consistent. The proof is contained in the experiment. The experiment contains certain elements. The experiment has to have a predictable, reproducible result every time. Using the Law of Gravity, if one drops a weight from a (any) height, the weight falls to the ground (or gravity source). The result is predictable. The result is reproducible. No matter how many times one drops the weight, it falls (unless acted upon by an outside force - another scientific law). It does not matter what distance the weight is from the source of gravity it falls to the source. This is a definitive proof. It has consistent reproducible results every time (there are even mathematical proofs that show the consistency of the reproducible results).
Conversely, a scientific theory is a model to explain an event without a proof. There is no experiment that yields a reproducible, predictable result. Additionally, the theory itself does not explain the event within existing known laws. Succinctly, a theory is never a fact, but instead is an attempt to explain one or more facts.
How does this difference between theory and law apply to the Theory of Evolution? First, let us ‘define’ the basics of the theory. According to the theory life, species, and humans evolved vertically [1] from non-living matter through the millennia to its present state. It bears noting that the Theory of Evolution itself is evolving. Scientists are at a loss to explain (or prove) the ‘original’ theory. They keep modifying the paradigm in an attempt to ‘explain’ the errancy in the original theory.
Evolutionists will argue that a ‘reproducible, predictable’ experiment does not exist because ‘nature’ takes millions of years and generations to produce a higher order of being. To date, science has discovered NO ‘missing links’. That is, science has discovered no ‘cross-species’ that bridges a gap between two completely different species [like fish to squirrel]. Many species have been found that contain one or more ‘elements’ of a lower species but a singular missing link at any stage of the evolutionary chain has yet to be found. Evolutionary scientists attribute this lack of a ‘missing link’ to a ‘beneficial’ mutation [a modification of the original model or paradigm]. That is, in a relatively small number of generations, a singular mutation occurs which radically alters the essential nature of a species (for the better). Again, there is no evidence of such an occurrence as it is a theory. One should note in current scientific studies, there are many examples of mutations. These mutations are either neutral (having no affect on the subject) or detrimental, causing negative affects.
Additionally, scientists have been trying since pretty much the beginning of ‘scientific study’ to create life. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein aside, the re-animation of dead tissue or the creation of life from non-living matter remains elusive (do not think scientists are not trying it).
The millennium of generations is another matter to consider. Since the first studies in genetics and recessive versus dominant genes, there has been an experiment that encompasses “millennia”. The “fruit fly experiment” is still in use in both high school and collegiate biology. The basics of the experiment are simple. Four variations of a fruit fly (drosophila) (red eyes - curly wings, red eyes - straight wings, black eyes - curly wings, and black eyes straight wings) are cross bred to examine dominant and recessive genes. The relatively short life cycle of the drosophila allows this experiment to be conducted in a single semester. This experiment has been reproduced literally billions of times. (Consider the math, if this experiment is done in 10,000 schools world wide - a significantly low estimate -, with an average of five generations per experiment over 20 years that is a million generations of drosophila [2].) The results have always been the same… A predictable gene drosophila is the product. That is, one can predict the results of the offspring before the offspring hatches. Consider that this experiment is repeated year after year, in school after school (it has even in been done in outer space), the results are always the same and always predictable.
In the entire history of this experiment, no one has ever bred anything other than a drosophila. If evolutionists are correct, a ‘beneficial’ mutation SHOULD have occurred. Evolutionists contend that a ‘beneficial’ mutation will occur in a ‘radical’ environment and manifest itself in a relatively short number of generations. Knowing the conditions in one’s high school, one could extrapolate that the ‘radical’ environment requirements are easily met. Consider just the differences in environments between a high school in Maine and one in California. Add temperature differences, other factors like concurrent experiments in the same lab, or the differences between Earth and outer space and the geometrically exponentially HUGE possibility for a ‘beneficial’ mutation is mathematically astronomical. Yet, this uncontrolled controlled experiment has consistently produced a predictable result. There is no record of anything other than a drosophila ever resulting from this experiment.
One might argue that some ‘beneficial’ mutations have, in fact, occurred but not been reported. Considering the astounding significance of such a mutation, it stretches the limits of ‘suspended disbelief [3]’ to accept that. Very few college or high school science teachers would not recognize the importance of such a mutation (not to mention the students recognizing its importance). The fact is no one has ever reported such a ‘beneficial’ mutation.
In its modified paradigm, the Theory of Evolution fails to provide a proof for its three basic tenets. 1. That life can come from non-living matter. 2. That there is any significant evidence of a ‘missing link’ or a ‘beneficial’ mutation. 3. That within a millennia of generations a beneficial mutation will manifest.
When one considers a scientific theory, one must weigh the theory against scientific or natural law. The theory of evolution, in its basic essence, requires the ‘suspension of disbelief’ in Natural Law. That is, the theory of evolution contradicts Natural Law. Specifically, the Theory of Evolution contravenes the Law of Entropy (also known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics). The Law of Entropy states that a system goes from order to disorder. This is a Natural or Scientific Law. It is a ‘proven’ law, in that it provides a predictable, consistent, reproducible result (that is also demonstrated by a mathematical proof). An example of the Law of Entropy is an ice cube left on a kitchen counter. The ice cube reacts to its environment and becomes ‘room temperature’. If the room is warmer than freezing, the ice cube melts (at the same time slightly lowering the overall temperature of the room). In the scientific community, the Law of Entropy is so fundamental, “if anyone has a theory that violates the Law of Entropy then, without any discussion, that theory must certainly be wrong.”
Every ‘beneficial’ mutation ‘step’ up the evolutionary ladder from primordial ooze to human beings is a direct violation of the Law of Entropy. That means that One of the most fundamental natural laws has had to be broken thousands of times by random chance (a non-reproducible chance) to ‘create’ a higher order of being. Here is where the Theory of Evolution meets faith. For a scientist to believe the Theory of Evolution, they have to believe that a “fundamental bedrock” of Natural Law is flawed. An evolutionary scientist (the knowledgeable hard-core faithful) must ‘believe’ a theory that “must certainly be wrong”.
Disbelieving the Law of Gravity with great faith will not allow one to fly. Disbelieving the Law of Entropy with great faith will not ‘make’ evolution true. Regardless of the paradigm, scientifically, the theory of evolution must be false if it violates the Law of Entropy. There exists no modern (or historical) paradigm for a theory of evolution that does not violate the Law of Entropy. It is with great admiration, one must respect the ‘faith’ of a person intimate with the SCIENCE of evolution. They know they are believing in a theory that (by definition) MUST be wrong - and dedicating their lives to trying to prove it right.
To put it in a simple (borrowed) form: It takes much more FAITH to believe we evolved from a rock, than it does to believe that God created the Universe.
Consider this:
The Theory of Evolution exists as an effort to explain facts. It exists without any incontrovertible evidence, and in direct violation of Natural Law. It is accepted as truth when it, by definition, is fundamentally flawed and must be wrong. The Theory of Evolution is in reality a philosophy and religion of convenience. It absolves the individual of any responsibility. It creates in itself a ‘social structure’ of complete selfishness, allowing the believer to act how they want without restraint. While for the ‘unknowing’ majority, it is a religion of license, for the knowing it is the greatest faith. It is a faith that actually defies Natural Law and its consequences.
As stated, it takes more faith to believe the Theory of Evolution than it does to believe, “In the beginning, God”.
The bottom line is this:
The Theory of Evolution is not so much science as it is a philosophical/theological argument to disbelieve in God.
-------
Notes:
[1] Vertical evolution is the change in an object/species to a higher (more complicated) object or species. This is different from horizontal evolution that is the adaptation of an object or species to its environment without a ‘fundamental’ change in species.
[2] The number of generations does not take into account: the number of drosophila per experiment (a minimum of eight - one male and one female per variation). Calculate the number of students participating with their own ‘batch’ of flies (if there are 10 students per class per experiment). The companies that provide the drosophila (the drosophila has a two week life cycle so one company providing ALL the drosophila for the experiment has to hatch a minimum of 26 generations a year of eight flies per school [minimum]). Factor in the fact that the drosophila experiments are not 20 years old but actually 100 years old. [This math is almost impossible - but trying to calculate the actual number of generations of flies over a 100 years results in numbers well into the billions]. This does not take into account the additional research labs world-wide that use the drosophila in genetic experiments (conduct a Google search for either drosophila or “fruit fly experiment”).
[3] Suspended disbelief is that state where one ignores the unbelievable, in fact accepts the unbelievable as ‘true’. - An example from modern culture, “Harry Potter” requires one suspend their disbelief in magic. For the sake of the story one believes there exists a society of magic users practicing magic while the ‘World as we know it’ calmly continues around us.
The majority of evolutionists do not truly understand the science of the theory. They accept the theory because it is easy to believe. The primary advantage to believing evolution is relief. The philosophy of belief is readily acceptable. To an evolutionist, because we are descended from primordial ooze, there are no absolutes or moral imperatives. Anything is permissible without consequence. Every major religion requires accountability. There are ‘rules’ in the religion. To be a ‘faithful follower’ one must abide by the rules. To ascend to a higher level on must obey the guidelines of that religion. This is true of all religions except evolution. With evolution comes freedom.
The religion of evolution is all accepting. There are only two absolutes. The first absolute is that the theory explains everything. The second absolute is that there are no absolutes. One can embrace evolution and any other religion in the world and still be right. The defining characteristic of evolution, the religion, is the importance of self. Again, there are no moral imperatives except what is ‘best’ for the individual. All of ‘society’s’ or any other religion’s rules are subject to interpretation. Evolution explains the existence of societies and religions by simple extension. From fish to primates, there exists a social order. The higher the level of intelligence the more sophisticated the social order. Therefore, humans, having the highest intelligence, have the most sophisticated social order. However, that order is secondary to the imperatives of the individual. Society’s rules do not necessarily apply. “It is only wrong if you get caught,” is the ‘optimal’ awareness of self. Further, if one does something that is ‘wrong’ by ‘society’s’ standards, it is society’s fault.
There exists some ‘manifest’ inconsistency in society’s norms if one does something that society calls wrong. For example, an individual steals a TV to pay for a drug habit. There is a flaw in society. Society’s social order has not evolved enough to encompass that individual. It is society’s repression or discrimination of that individual that caused the individual to ‘turn’ to the escape of drugs. The ‘laws’ of society do not bind that individual because society repressed or discriminated against the individual. Therefore, the theft of the TV is not really a crime. It is a ‘cry for help’ to a society that ignores one’s needs.
How liberating is a philosophy or religion that requires no accountability? It is freedom to the ‘unknowing’ faithful to live within such bounds. One can, literally, get away with murder - as long as one ‘justifies’ their actions within a framework of faulty society based on no absolutes. The lynchpin is the idea of ‘survival of the fittest’. By justifying ones actions, one is ‘more fit’. The unknowing faithful accept the science of evolution without scrutinizing its framework. There is truly bliss in ignorance. The vast majorities of evolutionists do not understand its science, but accept without knowledge because of its ‘easy out’ philosophical ramifications. Most accept because it gives them liberty without conscience.
Evolution, the religion, can accept any action, belief, or behavior - as long as it does not threaten the religion. Even the‘unknowing’ ‘believer’ in evolution will defend the theory. The reason is simple, by threatening the theory; one threatens liberty without conscience. That would mean a ‘believer’ might actually be ‘accountable’. That is unconscionable. An attack of the theory is a galvanizing, unifying factor bringing a defense stronger than many religions could muster. If the theory fails, then too the philosophy of life fails…
That is a brief summary of the ‘unknowing’ majority. The theory itself is relatively unimportant. What is important is the philosophy of life the theory allows one to embrace. “I can do anything to anyone - without consequences - if I don’t get caught - and maybe even if I do!”
However;
There is another group of evolutionists. These are the hard-core faithful. They are a minority. They know and understand the scientific elements of the Theory of Evolution. They are those with the greatest faith. Their faith is greater than many religions in the world. To understand why this minority maintains a greater faith than some of the most ‘religious’ individuals in the world, one has to understand the science of evolution not just the philosophy of evolution.
Understanding the basics of the science of evolution requires knowing the difference between some terms. In science, some terms have different meanings than how they are ‘commonly’ used. The two most important terms related to scientific definition are law and theory. A scientific law or natural law is an absolute. That is, something defined as a natural or scientific law is absolute. It is proven. The ‘action’ or event is constant. An experiment serves as the proof of the law. For the proof to be acceptable, it has to be constant and consistent. The proof is contained in the experiment. The experiment contains certain elements. The experiment has to have a predictable, reproducible result every time. Using the Law of Gravity, if one drops a weight from a (any) height, the weight falls to the ground (or gravity source). The result is predictable. The result is reproducible. No matter how many times one drops the weight, it falls (unless acted upon by an outside force - another scientific law). It does not matter what distance the weight is from the source of gravity it falls to the source. This is a definitive proof. It has consistent reproducible results every time (there are even mathematical proofs that show the consistency of the reproducible results).
Conversely, a scientific theory is a model to explain an event without a proof. There is no experiment that yields a reproducible, predictable result. Additionally, the theory itself does not explain the event within existing known laws. Succinctly, a theory is never a fact, but instead is an attempt to explain one or more facts.
How does this difference between theory and law apply to the Theory of Evolution? First, let us ‘define’ the basics of the theory. According to the theory life, species, and humans evolved vertically [1] from non-living matter through the millennia to its present state. It bears noting that the Theory of Evolution itself is evolving. Scientists are at a loss to explain (or prove) the ‘original’ theory. They keep modifying the paradigm in an attempt to ‘explain’ the errancy in the original theory.
Evolutionists will argue that a ‘reproducible, predictable’ experiment does not exist because ‘nature’ takes millions of years and generations to produce a higher order of being. To date, science has discovered NO ‘missing links’. That is, science has discovered no ‘cross-species’ that bridges a gap between two completely different species [like fish to squirrel]. Many species have been found that contain one or more ‘elements’ of a lower species but a singular missing link at any stage of the evolutionary chain has yet to be found. Evolutionary scientists attribute this lack of a ‘missing link’ to a ‘beneficial’ mutation [a modification of the original model or paradigm]. That is, in a relatively small number of generations, a singular mutation occurs which radically alters the essential nature of a species (for the better). Again, there is no evidence of such an occurrence as it is a theory. One should note in current scientific studies, there are many examples of mutations. These mutations are either neutral (having no affect on the subject) or detrimental, causing negative affects.
Additionally, scientists have been trying since pretty much the beginning of ‘scientific study’ to create life. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein aside, the re-animation of dead tissue or the creation of life from non-living matter remains elusive (do not think scientists are not trying it).
The millennium of generations is another matter to consider. Since the first studies in genetics and recessive versus dominant genes, there has been an experiment that encompasses “millennia”. The “fruit fly experiment” is still in use in both high school and collegiate biology. The basics of the experiment are simple. Four variations of a fruit fly (drosophila) (red eyes - curly wings, red eyes - straight wings, black eyes - curly wings, and black eyes straight wings) are cross bred to examine dominant and recessive genes. The relatively short life cycle of the drosophila allows this experiment to be conducted in a single semester. This experiment has been reproduced literally billions of times. (Consider the math, if this experiment is done in 10,000 schools world wide - a significantly low estimate -, with an average of five generations per experiment over 20 years that is a million generations of drosophila [2].) The results have always been the same… A predictable gene drosophila is the product. That is, one can predict the results of the offspring before the offspring hatches. Consider that this experiment is repeated year after year, in school after school (it has even in been done in outer space), the results are always the same and always predictable.
In the entire history of this experiment, no one has ever bred anything other than a drosophila. If evolutionists are correct, a ‘beneficial’ mutation SHOULD have occurred. Evolutionists contend that a ‘beneficial’ mutation will occur in a ‘radical’ environment and manifest itself in a relatively short number of generations. Knowing the conditions in one’s high school, one could extrapolate that the ‘radical’ environment requirements are easily met. Consider just the differences in environments between a high school in Maine and one in California. Add temperature differences, other factors like concurrent experiments in the same lab, or the differences between Earth and outer space and the geometrically exponentially HUGE possibility for a ‘beneficial’ mutation is mathematically astronomical. Yet, this uncontrolled controlled experiment has consistently produced a predictable result. There is no record of anything other than a drosophila ever resulting from this experiment.
One might argue that some ‘beneficial’ mutations have, in fact, occurred but not been reported. Considering the astounding significance of such a mutation, it stretches the limits of ‘suspended disbelief [3]’ to accept that. Very few college or high school science teachers would not recognize the importance of such a mutation (not to mention the students recognizing its importance). The fact is no one has ever reported such a ‘beneficial’ mutation.
In its modified paradigm, the Theory of Evolution fails to provide a proof for its three basic tenets. 1. That life can come from non-living matter. 2. That there is any significant evidence of a ‘missing link’ or a ‘beneficial’ mutation. 3. That within a millennia of generations a beneficial mutation will manifest.
When one considers a scientific theory, one must weigh the theory against scientific or natural law. The theory of evolution, in its basic essence, requires the ‘suspension of disbelief’ in Natural Law. That is, the theory of evolution contradicts Natural Law. Specifically, the Theory of Evolution contravenes the Law of Entropy (also known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics). The Law of Entropy states that a system goes from order to disorder. This is a Natural or Scientific Law. It is a ‘proven’ law, in that it provides a predictable, consistent, reproducible result (that is also demonstrated by a mathematical proof). An example of the Law of Entropy is an ice cube left on a kitchen counter. The ice cube reacts to its environment and becomes ‘room temperature’. If the room is warmer than freezing, the ice cube melts (at the same time slightly lowering the overall temperature of the room). In the scientific community, the Law of Entropy is so fundamental, “if anyone has a theory that violates the Law of Entropy then, without any discussion, that theory must certainly be wrong.”
Every ‘beneficial’ mutation ‘step’ up the evolutionary ladder from primordial ooze to human beings is a direct violation of the Law of Entropy. That means that One of the most fundamental natural laws has had to be broken thousands of times by random chance (a non-reproducible chance) to ‘create’ a higher order of being. Here is where the Theory of Evolution meets faith. For a scientist to believe the Theory of Evolution, they have to believe that a “fundamental bedrock” of Natural Law is flawed. An evolutionary scientist (the knowledgeable hard-core faithful) must ‘believe’ a theory that “must certainly be wrong”.
Disbelieving the Law of Gravity with great faith will not allow one to fly. Disbelieving the Law of Entropy with great faith will not ‘make’ evolution true. Regardless of the paradigm, scientifically, the theory of evolution must be false if it violates the Law of Entropy. There exists no modern (or historical) paradigm for a theory of evolution that does not violate the Law of Entropy. It is with great admiration, one must respect the ‘faith’ of a person intimate with the SCIENCE of evolution. They know they are believing in a theory that (by definition) MUST be wrong - and dedicating their lives to trying to prove it right.
To put it in a simple (borrowed) form: It takes much more FAITH to believe we evolved from a rock, than it does to believe that God created the Universe.
Consider this:
The Theory of Evolution exists as an effort to explain facts. It exists without any incontrovertible evidence, and in direct violation of Natural Law. It is accepted as truth when it, by definition, is fundamentally flawed and must be wrong. The Theory of Evolution is in reality a philosophy and religion of convenience. It absolves the individual of any responsibility. It creates in itself a ‘social structure’ of complete selfishness, allowing the believer to act how they want without restraint. While for the ‘unknowing’ majority, it is a religion of license, for the knowing it is the greatest faith. It is a faith that actually defies Natural Law and its consequences.
As stated, it takes more faith to believe the Theory of Evolution than it does to believe, “In the beginning, God”.
The bottom line is this:
The Theory of Evolution is not so much science as it is a philosophical/theological argument to disbelieve in God.
-------
Notes:
[1] Vertical evolution is the change in an object/species to a higher (more complicated) object or species. This is different from horizontal evolution that is the adaptation of an object or species to its environment without a ‘fundamental’ change in species.
[2] The number of generations does not take into account: the number of drosophila per experiment (a minimum of eight - one male and one female per variation). Calculate the number of students participating with their own ‘batch’ of flies (if there are 10 students per class per experiment). The companies that provide the drosophila (the drosophila has a two week life cycle so one company providing ALL the drosophila for the experiment has to hatch a minimum of 26 generations a year of eight flies per school [minimum]). Factor in the fact that the drosophila experiments are not 20 years old but actually 100 years old. [This math is almost impossible - but trying to calculate the actual number of generations of flies over a 100 years results in numbers well into the billions]. This does not take into account the additional research labs world-wide that use the drosophila in genetic experiments (conduct a Google search for either drosophila or “fruit fly experiment”).
[3] Suspended disbelief is that state where one ignores the unbelievable, in fact accepts the unbelievable as ‘true’. - An example from modern culture, “Harry Potter” requires one suspend their disbelief in magic. For the sake of the story one believes there exists a society of magic users practicing magic while the ‘World as we know it’ calmly continues around us.
posted by Unchained Slave at 10:25 AM
2 Comments:
Note on Note #2: After conducting a 'Google' search on drosophila, I discovered a couple of articles where scientists are actually trying to produce a 'random' 'beneficial' mutation. They are not relying on the 'radical' environments of school labs to produce their 'expected' result... They are intentionally creating 'radical' environments to produce a 'beneficial' mutation.
They are still breeding drosophila...
This is the best article on evolution I've ever seen. I've always thought of it as more of a religious belief than a science, but now I can put my finger on it and explain why.
I always thought that evolution contained a fundamental flaw in another way, as well. Supposedly, survival is the catalyst of evolution. Species evolve in order to survive.
But, we are also told that it take millions of years for a species to evolve.
Doesn't this mean the species would have to survive for millions of years, even without evolving? So then, why to they need to evolve to survive?
In order for evolution to have any merit on this basis, evolution would have to take place nearly spontaneously, as soon as survival required it. But of course, as you have pointed out, we have never observed a species evolving, not even with a before and after picture.
Thanks for this wonderful post!
Post a Comment
<< Home