Evolution

The debate between proponents of the Theory of Evolution and those who refute it is only indirect evidence for or against a Creator and life after death.  Unfortunately, some focus on this solely and lose sight of the other types of evidence (much of it, direct) there is.  Here we will not engage in the all too common, but not necessarily so relevant, debate of Evolution vs. Biblical Creation (in Genesis) as it is too narrow and rigid in its focus and is best debated elsewhere - even Intelligent Design may be too limiting.  I am personally inclined to think an alternative explanation is just as, if not more, likely.

One has to be careful in taking the arguments at face value, as often there is much bias and lack of rational interpretation by the presenters.  For example, Kenneth Miller in his book, "Finding Darwin's God", comes to the illogical conclusion because evolution is responsible for all life on earth, this means there is a Creator.  His reasoning is that because the Creator gave 'free will' in the universe, life was able to evolve and therefore this is proof there is a Creator.  Of course, the fact is that if evolution is able to fully explain life on earth, then the need for God is lessened.  If there were no free will in the universe, that would make a Creator being present more likely, not less.

There are two parts to the theory of evolution by natural selection: (1) that species change through random mutation and natural selection over time to form new complex structures and species over many generations and (2) that species evolve within a species and better adapt to their environment (adaptation).  Because everyone accepts (2), then many who believe (1) and (2), put forward (2) as their evidence to convince us that the theory of evolution as a whole is the best explanation for life on earth as it exists today.  This is being deceptive because (2) can be true even if (1) is not.  There is only evidence for (1) where there is a slight change to a new but very closely related species (speciation).  The rest is pure speculation and unproveable extrapolation and in fact is a leap of faith.  There is no doubt natural selection plays a part in evolution but there seems to be something else (some other mechanism) at play which we have not yet discovered.

The worst part of evolutionists trying to pass off macro-evolution as fact and not just a possible explanation is they are doing a disservice to mankind and are also doing what they in fact accuse religious dogmatics of.  That is, evolutionists are misleading people to think science has explained life and therefore some people make the leap to think, at the worst, maybe there is no God or afterlife.  At best their belief is often lessened as a result of this misrepresentation.

It is hard to picture how a single self-replicating cell could have come about.  Taking this one step further, how would one cell replicate itself into the different cell types required in a multi-cellular organism.  These cells have to be made in the right sequence and have to go in the right spatial location (eg. form a brain in the head only) and have to be able to regulate the size (cells have to know when to stop producing more cells) and shape (cells have to know how to orient themselves spatially so that the correct shape results).

 

How probable is it that sexual reproduction started out of nowhere?  It seems so unlikely even considering there were so many organisms replicating to have started about by chance.  In the most probable scenario, one organism would have to have produced both male and female offspring at about the same time and it is too hard to imagine this happening by mere chance.

 

Darwin thought life was based upon a plasma like substance which was readily transformed.  As later discoveries were made, this was found not to be the case since life is in fact made up of very complex structures contained within cells.  If Darwin would have had this knowledge available to him, then he would likely have had more doubt about his theory applying to macro-evolution (formation of new species, new complex biochemical systems, and new molecular structures) as he was aware of and recognized the potential problems with his theory, unlike many of its proponents today.

 

When looking for evidence of how a species might have come about through evolution, one often sees small steps (which only explain micro-evolution) and large jumps with nothing in between (which are too large to be explained by evolution since the intermediate steps are not found).  These intermediate forms predicted by evolution are 'missing'.

The fossil record does not show the gradual change from one species into the next that we would expect from the theory of evolution.  These intermediate varieties are no where to be found! {Darwin himself noted, "The number of  intermediary varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous...Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graded organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory"}.

During the Cambrian explosion which began about 530 million years ago, over a relatively short period of only 5-10 million years, virtually every major animal group appears in the fossil record.  This is not what evolutionary theory would lead us to expect.  In other words, all these animal groups appear too suddenly.  During this period, too great a number of vastly different species originated in too short of a time to be explained only by evolution.

In fact, if a species 'B' gradually evolves from a species 'A', and over the long term, both A and B survive, then it would be logical to assume that many of the intermediate forms should also survive.  But, we do not find this to be the case.

An example is the tremendous jump from the supposed ancestor of man and chimpanzees.  There is hardly any evidence showing a progression leading from the lower species to man.

In one of his recent books, "A Devil's Chaplain", prominent evolutionist Richard Dawkins makes an illustration of a nice continuous, slightly different ("unnoticeable transformations") from the predecessor, chain of intermediate species going back to the time 6 million years ago when humans shared a common ancestor with the chimpanzee.  In his illustration, there are approximately 450,000 intermediate forms or one about every 13 years.  So why can we identify only one or two of the approximately 450,000 intermediate  forms today?  Surely, all except one or two, could not have gone extinct?  If there were all these intermediate forms, would we not have easily come across fossils in at least the thousands of these intermediate forms by now?

Evolution can explain how a type of bacteria may become resistant to a particular antibiotic; but to extrapolate this to say that over many generations we will have a new species of bacteria quite distinct from the original is pure speculation - no such observation has been made.

Evolution acting through random mutation can explain most of the diversity we see in plant and animal life.  It can account for differences in closely related species (for example, different types of monkey species).  But it has not done so for large jumps (such as speculating that fish 'evolved' legs and became tetrapods) - here, if there is evolution at play, it is working not through random mutation but via some other presently unknown mechanism.

 

If macro-evolution is completely true, then there is a lesser need for a Supreme Being.  Though many reconcile their religious beliefs (also some religious beliefs have absolutely no conflict with it) while accepting macro-evolution, the rationale remains that if it is fact, then there is not the same need for a personal God to explain the existence of life.

 

Even if one is to conclude that macro-evolution occurs as stated in the theory of evolution, it is only the appearance on the surface that it does.  More detailed investigation should lead one to believe that for it to be an adequate explanation, somehow, genetic changes essentially equivalent to miracles are taking place every time macro-evolution occurs.  There is no substantial evidence to support the viewpoint that a cumulative series of mutations, each favoured by natural selection, is the explanation.  A possible explanation might be that an external intelligent Designer is at work and directs these 'miracles' to happen (ie. creation of new species).

For macro-evolution, a mechanism other than random mutation, originating from a Designer may be at play.  This undiscovered (if discovery is even possible by man) mechanism could be one in which molecules can arrange themselves into more complex ones (such as nucleotides, RNA, and DNA) and transform one complex molecule into another.  The mechanism that allows this might be operating at the sub-atomic (quantum) level.  However, it may still not explain the creation of new sexual species because: (1) A newly formed male or female, being of a new species, would not be able to reproduce and create offspring since there would not be a suitable mate. Or (2) If it could mate and produce offspring, each succeeding generation would be some type of intermediate form and would eventually not be that different from the original species, and in fact may likely be classified as being the same.  We do not observe such intermediary forms on earth nor in the fossil record.

 

Maybe the mechanism for macro-evolution (but not micro-evolution or speciation which would be resulting from natural selection) involves the universal consciousness acting on the 'junk' DNA (which may be coded for this from the start) at the appropriate time to make these changes.  And the whole process has the appearance it is 'natural'.  Consciousness would act on several organisms or embryos of a particular species junk DNA at coordinated and planned times.  The necessary DNA material and sequencing is likely already present (and just needs to be 'activated'), as if designed for prior.

It may not even be the universal consciousness but 'individual' consciousnesses causing these bigger steps in evolution (macro-evolution).  Possibly complex instincts come about this way also.

 

The human genome consists of about 30,000 genes and has up to 300,000 different proteins.  30 to 40 percent of these proteins are being found to be unique only to that species (for humans the number is a little higher).  If it turns out that these unique proteins have important functions and can't be altered without harming the organism, then how these genes have evolutionary predecessors is going to be very hard to explain.  As it stands currently, this is a new major blow to the theory of evolution. 

Put another way, evolution works by accumulating small genetic changes.  Large jumps are too improbable and look more like miracles.  Each gene would have to be moulded one small step at a time.  However, if a gene (and thus the organism) can tolerate little or no change, having a line of evolutionary predecessors is very unlikely.

 

Complex instincts are behaviours that appear to be 'programmed' into an animal.  They are not learned behaviours and it seems impossible they could be the result of genetic mutations over time (they are behaviours and not personality traits).  Examples include design and construction of spider webs, migration from stream to ocean and returning to spawn to the same location of birth by salmon, and the migration of some bird species.  Evolution is at a loss to explain these.

 

About 97% (this number will likely be less in the future going by the preliminary results from The National Human Genome Research Institute's "ENCODE" project) of our DNA is currently considered to be junk DNA with no known purpose.  Possibly our instincts (at least the more complex ones) are 'programmed' into this junk DNA.  Maybe even this junk DNA is present to allow consciousness to act on it so as to evolve organisms as needed and/or planned for.

 

This 97% junk DNA seems to be the case across all species.  This is not what we would expect with evolution - there should be a lesser percentage for simpler forms and a greater percentage for more complex ones which have accumulated more junk DNA through the evolutionary process.  Unless evolution has a way of purging or ridding itself of too much junk DNA.

 

Genetically having certain (two or more) personality traits to somewhat of an extreme degree leads to a personality disorder in an individual.  Approximately 10% of the general population has one or more of these dozen or so recognized personality disorders.  What surprised me is why these same dozen or so unique groupings of personality traits come together so repeatedly when in fact there are so many personality traits as part of a persons genetic makeup.  Groupings of extreme personality traits should be expected to be random (they normally have no connection to one another) and there would be no identified personality disorders because too many combinations would be expressed and none would be common enough.

These personality disorders are detrimental to ones survival (and also usually socially) and should not be this prevalent according to evolution.  Possibly another gene acts on these collectively and turns them (exaggerates them) to be more extreme.  It does this only to the personality traits that make up that personality disorder.  Sometimes this may be in conjunction with an existing personality trait necessary for that personality disorder.  For example, in narcissistic personality disorder the individual would already possess very low empathy for others and this gene would act on the personality traits of optimism and/or irritability, etc..  

This gene may be part of our junk DNA and our consciousness (if we assume we have souls and therefore consciousness is separate from the brain) has some 'software' that comes with it that activates certain parts of the junk DNA (which likely has been pre-determined) to make the specific personality traits extreme for the personality disorder that is to be expressed.  In other words, the genetic material is in place already (probably by design) and consciousness may or may not 'activate' its expression.  This may also be the mechanism behind other genetic personality determinants or inclinations that are clearly detrimental for evolutionary survival.  Possible examples are pedophilia, incest, some phobias and mental illnesses, etc..  And this may even be the case for homosexuality - though not really a 'defect' except in terms of Darwinism.  

Thus, if consciousness embeds ('hard-wires' or 'programs') negative traits into the brain when it enters the body (incarnates), then why have negative components to cause suffering of the individual and others that will be impacted?  It could be that certain spiritual lessons can be learned in order to progress spiritually (through suffering) for the people effected negatively.  Later, I think consciousness might still act to further tune or mould personality traits and possibly even the physical body. 

I have no way of knowing if consciousness plays such a role and do not know if it is the case or not - I'm simply putting a hypothesis forth for further evaluation.

 

Evolution does not seem to produce major improvements - only incremental ones.  And if it does, they are a rare occurrence indeed.  This is easily evident if we compare athletic abilities (athletic performance in events such as track and field can readily be compared over the past century).  All improvements in performance can be accounted for by better training methods, nutrition, equipment, technique, etc..  We never see a sudden improvement which cannot be explained by the preceding (otherwise it would not be matched within a time frame of a few years as it always is).  This is why we never see someone shave one  second off the record for the 100 metre sprint.  Yet this should be common enough that we should have seen it more than a few times over the past century according to the theory of evolution.  

 

Seldom are the sons and daughters of great athletes as good of athletes and this also applies to all types of exceptional physical and mental talents (for example, Noble prize winner's children).  Usually, they might only be as good or better than the parent(s) if both parents are exceptional in that same way.  This is due to a 'watering down' of the genetics passed onto the offspring and this holds back evolution to an even slower pace.

 

If human evolution (Homo sapiens) has taken place over the past 50,000 years or more, we would expect to see significant differences in personality traits between the races and even ethnic groups.  Much the same way we do with different dog breeds (which all belong to the species Canis familiaris) who have evolved in about the same time range - after accounting for the fact selective breeding by humans of dogs and the genetic makeup of dogs allowing faster evolution to take place is what much of this diversity found is due to.  However, I have only found through research and personal observation, that any variations in personality traits between the different races and ethnic groups in the human species can be accounted for solely by cultural differences (ie. environmental factors) - although there is the possibility of quite minor differences in personality due to genetics.  It is as if human evolution has only been taking place for a few thousand years.  This lack or even non-existence of diversity is not what we would expect to find from evolution and in fact gives more credibility to a special Creation as an explanation for human origins.

 

Evolutionary convergence is how some animals have been found to very closely resemble unrelated animals in other parts of the world.  These animals are thought by evolutionists to have evolved independently of each other and end up appearing to be closely related species but are not.  Examples include new world army ants and old world driver ants; electric fish in Africa and South America; African and American porcupines; and true wolves and the marsupial wolf in Tasmania.

If highly intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe, we would not expect it, and nor should we, to resemble us physiologically or anatomically.  Also, evolution is an extremely slow process with no end goal in mind; so why do evolutionists think convergence is probable and expected from the theory of evolution?  It seems to be intentional and not just coincidences repeated many times with similarly occurring species.  In fact, convergence to me indirectly suggests a Designer creating species fine-tuned for their particular environments rather than mere coincidences.

Evolutionists are shown this problem with their theory but they usually rationalize it by saying that evolution works so well that the resulting adaptation to the environment is the same.  I think this may be a somewhat reasonable view at the simplest biochemical level where only one mutation is involved such as coding for a specific enzyme or protein but not for more complex systems and organs.  Evolution being so precise and predictable at every step is of course a possible explanation but I would think it the less plausible and rational of the two.

 

I would say that atavism (so called evolution in reverse) could be evidence for evolution but it does not really tell us anything about the primary mechanism behind evolution.  Also, atavism does not seem to show intermediate or transitional non-functional forms of say appendages for example as we should expect if natural selection working slowly had been the primary mechanism for evolution.

 

Evolutionists can argue that if life on earth was designed, why is there not more perfection?  For example, Richard Dawkins in his book "The Blind Watchmaker" points out what may be a design flaw in the human eye.  This may be evidence against an active designer at work but not against life after death.  Of course, since human souls are unlikely to be perfect, neither should we expect the bodies they occupy to be.  Also, it is plausible that the Designer transformed species from other ones to create diversity.  We should not incorrectly make the assumption that such a Designer was necessarily trying to achieve perfection.  A Designer transforming new species from older ones would also explain the close genetic relation between life forms - this could be more 'practical' than creating species from scratch.

 

It is a fact that more complex life forms have come into existence as time as passed on earth.  But this does not mean that this is a result of evolution.  Logically, increasing complexity of life would also make sense if reincarnation is true - it would account for this because initially there were not souls advanced enough to occupy complex life forms and as they progressed, they were able to inhabit more complex life forms.

 

It is true the genetic code is universal and used by all organisms.  Though it may appear so on the surface, this does not necessarily mean that all organisms are descended from a single common ancestor.  And even if they were, it does not automatically follow that evolution was the common pathway linking them all - it could be some other mechanism for the perpetual creation of new life forms.  Or a Designer working with the same raw material (DNA) may have moulded new species from that of their pre-decessors DNA.

 

We share 98% (after accounting for variations within the species) of the same DNA as chimpanzees.  Yet our advanced consciousness (animals are aware and humans are aware that we are aware) it seems to me should be at least 2% of the DNA to be fully accounted for by genetics alone.  In fact, differences other than consciousness are what probably account for this 2% difference.  Is it likely that consciousness would require hardly any DNA for it?

 

If we ask why the Creator allows species to go extinct, then a valid answer would be that in the bigger picture, it is the souls that matter and not the physical forms they occupy while on earth.

 

The way man is now playing around with genetics (ie. cloning sheep, making hybrids plant species, etc.), opens up a possibility for the creation of new species.  Because we have this understanding of genetics, we are the creators of these modified species - they do not change on their own.  If one thinks about this carefully, this is in fact further evidence against the theory of evolution - these life forms do not form on their own but need someone or something acting intelligently to do this to make it happen. 

 

Spirituality and religion can both explain the following but evolution does not: 

Say you sacrifice yourself or put yourself at risk for a stranger or living thing for which you get no reward or credit (for example, doing it anonymously).  Yet you will still perform this good Samaritan act even though it is contrary to what is beneficial to you and what evolution would predict.  Also, it cannot always be explained away by one adopting a code of conduct taught by ones society as this type of action will occur even without being taught - as if it is inherent to the individual.  An example of this might be for someone to put their own life in danger to save an unknown dog from drowning in a river with no one to witness the act and having no plans to tell anyone about it afterwards.  Evolutionists could argue that by doing this you feel better about yourself and therefore you also benefit (your ego and self-esteem do) and therefore the act is self-serving.  But this is really not the reason you do it because if someone were to take your place in doing this good deed, you will still feel good about the dog being saved even though you did nothing.  This contradicts evolution.

In fact, empathy for strangers (and other species not of benefit to you) would be a negative trait according to evolution since they are competitors.  Therefore, this would not make sense from an evolutionary standpoint but does if we possess souls.

 

Darwinism would not really be able to explain people who have no conscience or compassion (other than some for siblings, parents, and their children which likely has some genetic component to it; although some do not even possess this rudimentary level).  It would seem people like this would have a difficult time passing their genes on from generation to generation (even after accounting for the fact that some of these people may be able to develop compensatory traits such as additional charm, etc.).  But spiritually, these people are easily accounted for as having very unadvanced souls.

 

Another problem with the theory of evolution is that our minds can experience pleasure from things which are useless from an evolutionary viewpoint and in fact may be negative factors in that they distract us needlessly.  Examples are beautiful scenery - snow capped mountains, sunsets, etc.; and beautiful settings - a stream meandering through a country meadow.  The same holds for pleasures from other senses: smell - flowers which have nothing to do with  food or mating; hearing - music and singing; and touch - running our fingers through warm sand. In no way do these aid our ability to survive and they utilize valuable energy and distract us from doing what we need to do to survive and also make us more vulnerable to predators.

 

There are numerous examples where the current Theory of Evolution appears to be flawed.  For example, why are Scandinavians taller and slimmer (this makes them less efficient at retaining body heat in their colder climate) than people living closer to the equator?  

The orange colouration on the tiger makes it more visible to its potential prey that is not colour blind.  Thus, it is more visible to primates such as monkeys so they are not as likely to become its prey when they have ventured down from trees - it is as if this could be a certain intended order in nature (ie. primates are not to be the prey of tigers).

The zebras main predator, the lion, is colour blind yet white stripes against black stripes are still more visible to a colour blind animal from a distance (closer it would be insignificant) than say tan coloured stripes against black stripes (just note the difference on a black and white TV set to test this).  Thus, lions far away may see zebra relatively more easier before they see antelope or wildebeest than if zebra had tan and black striping.  Therefore, this puts the zebra at an evolutionary disadvantage for no real apparent benefit.  There are many other (and better) examples of these inconsistencies in the theory but I chose these specifically as they are not brought up.  Possibly species like these are brought into existence this way and succeeding generations sometimes adapt their appearance to suit their environment through the process of micro-evolution. 

 

Why are senses in humans such as the sense of smell, hearing, and maybe even eyesight not as good as those in some of the lower life forms that supposedly are our  ancestors from which we evolved?  Surely, the best possible senses are evolutionary advantages for humans with no negative drawbacks?  Could it be that a Designer has intervened and 'cutback' these senses in humans so that we do not become too dominant over their environment?  The same rationale might explain why humans need such a variety of food types to get the nutrients they require (unlike most lower life forms whose bodies are able to synthesize many of the essential nutrients on their own).

 

It seems so improbable that flight has come about via evolution independently several times.  Examples are insects (more than once?), birds (but not necessarily if they evolved from dinosaurs), reptiles (dinosaurs), and mammals.  The very sophisticated radar system (echolocation) in bats, according to evolution, would have to have developed independently in at least 2 groups of different bats and also 2 groups of birds, toothed whales, and maybe several other types of mammals at a lesser advanced level of echolocation - just a coincidence?  Also, the flight of dragon flies and humming birds which is very similar to that of  helicopter flight makes it all too inconceivable to be the result of random mutations.

 

In his book, "Darwin's Black Box", Michael Behe discusses the concept of irreducible complexity.  From what I have been able to research, no one has been able to find any real flaw in his reasoning and analysis.

For life to have started, all of the components of a single celled organism would have to come about at the same time (but not if  RNA/DNA came first) - mitochondria, cell wall, RNA, DNA, nucleus, golgi apparatus, etc.  Otherwise, it would not be able to sustain itself and reproduce.  These components could not slowly evolve because a partial organism is not alive and is of no use.  In other words, the first cell was irreducibly complex.

Behe comes to the conclusion that there is no other explanation for the irreducible complexity we see in life other than intelligent design.  It is always possible, however unlikely, that there is some other explanation that has been missed or not yet  been discovered (for example, such as intelligent design by the organism itself).  As it presently stands, I would have to agree with Behe.

 

We do not have a unified theory of physics - there is quantum physics at the sub-atomic level and for everything else general relativity applies (which simplifies to Newtonian physics when not close to the speed of light).  With the the theory of evolution, micro-evolution is explained but there is no adequate theory at the macro level.  Attempting to pass off evolution as a 'unified theory' is misleading and in fact fraudulent.

 

To summarize, there is no doubt micro-evolution can be accepted as fact.  As for macro-evolution, science has had it put to the test and so far it fails on 3 accounts:

1) The intermediate species required are not present (living or in the fossil record) that would substantiate macro-evolution.  There has not been a single observation of a new species being formed from an existing one - not even in micro-organisms where the evolutionary time scale is compressed so that we could make the relevant observations.

2) No adequate explanation for instincts - especially complex ones.

3) Irreducible complexity.

Evolutionists typically try to 'sell' macro-evolution as being micro-evolution working over a long period of time - they 'package' both together.  The truth of the matter is that micro-evolution can be true without macro-evolution (via natural selection) being true.  Based upon the evidence, it would be intellectually dishonest not to make this distinction.

Explaining the appearances of all the vast array of life forms by just evolution is an extrapolation of the theory of evolution which is not credible because of the lack of supporting evidence.  Incremental changes can be explained by evolution, but not the larger jumps.  For these, we should be stating that the scientific explanation behind them is unknown.  Trying to overstretch the limitations of the theory of evolution, only does an injustice to it and is not science!

Evolutionists are extrapolating the data to fit their theory instead of leaving this (macro-evolution) as an unknown.  This is why they hate the term "macro-evolution" as (partly) it is an attempt to mislead that large evolutionary changes are just the cumulative effects of micro-evolution (even though there is no such hard evidence) and they do not wish to acknowledge that another unknown mechanism may be responsible. 

Science has 'hung on' to and accepted lower standards of evidence for the theory of evolution (the macro-evolution part of it, more specifically) because it has been unable to come up with anything else and therefore does not want to leave the door open for a non-materialistic explanation.  Metaphysics is outside of the realm of science and therefore unacceptable to it and since micro-evolution is a fact, science chooses to extrapolate it quite liberally to try to account for macro-evolution.  Many scientists only wish to account for everything in purely materialistic and reductionist terms.  It would much better to reject macro-evolution and try a new theory to explain what we observe such as a punctuated equilibrium caused not by evolution, but by some other 'moulding' mechanism or force (which incidentally, need not be of a supernatural nature).  I'm not saying that some form of 'evolution' never took place on the macro scale - what I take issue with is that series of random mutations working in conjunction with natural selection are the underlying mechanisms responsible for it.  It may even be that there is more than one mechanism, which are yet undiscovered, responsible for macro-evolution.  And further, micro-evolution could even still be partially (though not fully) responsible for macro-evolution.. 

The evidence has been right in front of us to evaluate this theory for well over a century, yet the theory still has not progressed to being properly accepted.  Normally, when this happens in science, it usually means it is time to look to some other alternate modified or new theory and people in this area should be pursuing alternative hypotheses and theories more.  Maybe I and many others are being too quick to write it off, but it looks to me like the theory has failed.

I could have left this whole sub-section on evolution out and appeased the proponents of evolution by natural selection as the sole explanation for the complexity and diversity of life on earth, but I felt it intellectually dishonest to do so.  For I am not trying to 'sell' anything here and nor could I bring myself to do so even though fundamentalist evolutionists would probably be happy I presume (though none have contacted me ever with negative feedback) and more likely to want to contemplate the rest of the website.  Whether or not evolution fully accounts for life on earth only effects the probability of life after death marginally (though significantly if aliens manipulated everything including evidence for life after death and they also came about by chance).  However I am not alone in thinking there must be something else at play here as evolutionary biologists are largely divided into two camps.  The one with which I agree and includes prominent biologists such as Brian Goodwin, Stuart Kauffman, Steven Rose, and the late paleontologist (and evolutionary biologist) Stephen J. Gould argue that we are still missing something big and natural selection does not fully explain evolution.

Astronomer, Carl Sagan, coined the phrase that is commonly quoted by people who wish to dismiss the paranormal and that is, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?".  Interestingly, these very same people choose not to apply this to macro-evolution.

Evolution may be the best theory (materialistic) science has been able to come up with to explain life here on earth - but the fact is, it's not good enough and we should not be forced to accept it as the explanation (and likewise, nor does it mean we should have to accept supernatural explanations either).

Unless presented with evidence to the contrary, I have to make the conclusion that as it now stands, complex molecular structures and radically new species do not evolve as a series of random mutations in conjunction with natural selection.  So how do they come about then?  Well, we have to be honest and just say science does not know.

Based on the current state of knowledge, I would say the most likely explanation for the diversity and complexity that is and has been on this earth, is that somehow radically new species were transformed (or evolved) from existing usually less complex ones and evolution certainly took place.  But not through natural selection (which is the secondary and relatively minor mechanism) working on a series of many successive beneficial random mutations but through some other unknown mechanism (the primary one).  Whether or not a Designer was involved in directing it is not possible to say.

 

Previous: Scientific-Origins                                            Home                                                    Next: Paranormal

Harinder S. Sandhu
Copyright 2003-2010. All Rights Reserved.
This page was last updated on: May 18, 2010.