Evolution Science and Naturalism

[NeitherExtreme]

This is my attempt to explain some of my current ideas and complaints about Naturalism Evolution Science from a rational standpoint. Please note that I am not trying to propose an alternate view to Evolution, I am simply looking at it’s validity by itself. I am by no means a scientist or a trained philosopher, and certainly not a professional writer, but I would be happy to have you take the time to wander through my thoughts for a few minutes…

I’ve split this up in six general sections- Feel free to read what you want and skip the rest…
(1) My Problem with Naturalism as a whole
(2) Some of my Problems with the Theory of Evolution
(3) A History of Evolution (The Conspiracy Version)
(4) More Reasons I don’t trust the Scientific Community
(5) A Quick look at the Empirical Evidence for Evolution
(6) My proposition, how to fix the problem

(1) My Problem with Naturalism as a whole

The biggest rational problem I have with naturalism as a whole is simply that the universe is not in a state of complete entropy.

Let me explain: Naturalism assumes that the natural universe (including any parallel universes, other dimensions, etc.) is a closed system that is ruled by the laws of nature. But the eventual state of any closed system is a state of complete equilibrium or entropy (2nd Law of Thermodynamics). If the universe has always existed, then an infinite amount of time must have passed before the present, so it should have reached a state of complete entropy long ago. (I’ve heard of the never ending “expansion/contraction cycle” theory, but for that to continue forever would be describing a system of perpetual motion, which is naturally impossible.) If the universe has not always existed, I would have to assume that it had a natural beginning at some point, from nothing, and with a lower level of entropy than the current universe. That’s not good science, in fact it defies just about everything we know scientifically. My last option is to decide that the Laws of Thermodynamics, which make up some of the most basic laws upon which naturalism and science are founded, do not apply to the universe as a whole. But this would have me believing something that I can not scientifically explain in order to maintain the belief that everything can be explained by science…

So what other options are left? Only one- the natural universe is not a closed system. In my opinion, no other assumption can be supported by science and reason.

(2) Some of my Problems with the Theory of Evolution

Here’s a problem: Every time something is copied, there is the possibility for corruption, and no real possibility for improvement. A quick example is copying a picture in a copier… Will the copy look better? Make another copy of the original, then take the two new copies, find the better copy, and then copy that one twice. If you continue to do this, will the picture improve in quality? No. At best it will stay the same. The same would happen if a scribe copied a book… At best it would be the same as the original, and it could never be significantly better. (If the scribe improved it, it would demonstrate intelligence, not chance.) And we see this in our bodies as well... Every time a cell divides and copies the DNA, there is the possibility for a mistake. And when a mistake happens, it at best is neutral, and often negative or even fatal (cancer). Also, many of the modern ideas about aging revolve around the idea that DNA is slowly corrupted throughout life each time it is copied, eventually causing death. So my rational point is this: time and copying cause a net loss in order (life), not a gain.

Now I realize that changes have occurred in a species over the course of time, but it is always affectively “keeping the same” something that was good. So if some birds in a species can not eat the new food source that’s available (lets say a nut that’s bigger), only the birds with larger beaks will pass on their traits, and the next generations will have bigger beaks. But that is keeping a larger beak, which was there all along, and that’s not even coming close to making something new.

But this is where natural selection comes in, right? Wrong. Natural selection can’t bring anything that is both new and positive into the DNA. Logically speaking, tiny random changes in the DNA of a species are going to, in the overwhelming majority of cases (and possibly all of them), be either negative or neutral. And not all of these will stop the animal from procreating. So for every tiny step “forward”, there would be many more tiny steps “backward”. So there is no way that something new can be slowly introduced over thousands of generations; the net affect would actually be the corruption of the DNA over time, not improvement. So anything new would have to be, in at least some useful form, introduced “all at once”.

Of course this kind of “genetic leap” can’t happen. Life is based on complex DNA coding, this can’t just randomly appear… Large-scale mutations are only ever a scrambling of what already is- A fifth leg, a second head, a missing organ, a misplaced wing. Nothing new, and nothing beneficial.

For what its worth, I looked up mutation in Encarta, and found that it even it said that most mutations harm the organism, and some are neutral, and a very few are beneficial. Guess what was the only example for beneficial mutation… Evolution. There apparently aren’t good examples in real life, but it must happen because evolution is assumed to have happened, so therefore there must be good mutations. How’s that for circular reasoning.

Which leads me to my next topic…

(3) A History of Evolution (The Conspiracy Version)

(And I hope everyone can laugh at a little over dramatization.)

Darwin comes along with many good scientific observations and a reasonable hypothesis that states that there can be variation within a species caused by natural surroundings. This upsets many people who don’t like the idea, who claim that God created life exactly as it is. They never bother to understand the science or even think critically on the subject to realize that his initial findings are very valid, and also that they don’t conflict with any core religious beliefs. Their rejection pushes Darwin away, and he (not surprisingly) rejects religion and extends his observations (too far) to give an alternate explanation for life in general. He builds his theory on the idea of pangenesis, and believes that intermediate fossil forms must be found in abundance, and in the near future. Seems reasonable enough so far, right?

Next, the intellectual and anti-religious group of society finds Darwin’s theory to be a wonderful justification for their world-view, and a great way to silence their religious opponents. So they adopt the theory. Even though pangenesis is later shown to be nonsense, and conclusive intermediate fossils are never found, and many other problems present themselves over the course of time that Darwin never dreamed of, they doctor it up, protect it whenever it’s in trouble (and at whatever cost to science), and over the next hundred years or so force-feed it to the rest of the world under the name of reason. Once they become the established “scientific community”, they shout-down any scientific objections and continue to elaborate on the evolution scenario. Their ideas are picked up and promoted by such a large number of “unbiased” institutions such as schools, magazines, TV channels, and museums, and its place as the new “correct way of thinking” is sealed. Eventually “Millions Of Years” and “Natural Selection” become the gods of the new state religion.

Umm, moving on…

(4) More Reasons I don’t trust the Scientific Community

Regardless of my conspiracy theory described above, you have to admit that Evolution and Naturalism are pretty well untouchable in the modern scientific community. And it’s no surprise: they have a lot to lose… Scientists, Museums, Publications, Schools, and more, have staked their reputations, jobs, and personal beliefs on the validity of Evolution. Whether they are right or wrong in their theories, I think it’s pretty clear that they wouldn’t be happy with anyone who might want to “rock the boat”.

And so all new facts and findings will be interpereted through the world-view that assumes that evolution and naturalism are the foundations of science and reason, no matter how much of an insult to reason it is. Two quick examples: I have heard that early on both the discovery of the Big Bang and the discovery of DNA were considered to be possible death knells for Evoltion and Naturalism. (The Big Bang because it suggested a start and creation, and DNA because it was too complex to happen by chance.)

But instead of the whole scientific community unbiasedly studying the implications of such new developments, they responded by quickly assimilated them into Evolution Theory, even though they made the theory even less plausable than it was in the first place.

Another “scientific” response to a serious problem is apparently sweeping it under the rug. Often this is accompanied by an ongoing attempt to figure out why the problem is not a problem, sometimes at the expense of good science. Here’s an early example of this:

(Wikipedia) “In the late 19th century, thermodynamicist Ludwig Boltzmann argued that the fundamental object of contention in the life-struggle in the evolution of the organic world is 'available energy'. Since then, over the years, various thermodynamic researchers have come forward to ascribe to or to postulate potential fourth laws of thermodynamics; in some cases, even fifth or sixth laws of thermodynamics are proposed. The majority of these tentative fourth law statements are attempts to apply thermodynamics to evolution. Most fourth law statements, however, are speculative and far from agreed upon.”

I know that many people now say that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics should not apply to earth and evolution so don’t worry to much about the Law and it’s implications right now. Just pay attention to how they responded to the perceived problem… They decided that Evolution and the 2nd Law didn’t mesh. So did they question the Theory, or did they try (unsucsefully) to rewrite the Laws? They tried to rewrite the Laws, and continue opperating under the assumtion that the theory is fine as-is! And this is “science?

Let’s look at another little issue for evolutionists; the development of sexes. How did it happen? Did both sexes appear at the same time, or did one evolve first? And why was it preserved? What benefit did separate sexes serve the original (first generation) organisms? Wouldn’t it work against natural selection in those first generations since it would now take two to procreate?

Which brings me to another Wikipedia quote: “The evolution of sex is a major puzzle in modern evolutionary biology. Many groups of organisms, notably the majority of animals and plants, reproduce sexually. The evolution of sex contains two related, yet distinct, themes: its origin and its maintenance. However, since the hypotheses for the origins of sex are difficult to test experimentally, most current work has been focused on the maintenance of sexual reproduction.”

And under the rug it goes…

Let’s try the abiogenesis (life from non-life) problem:

(Wikipedia) “Beyond making the trivial observation that life exists, it is difficult to prove or falsify abiogenesis; therefore, the hypothesis has many such critics, both in the scientific and nonscientific communities. Nonetheless, research and hypothesizing continue in the hope of developing a satisfactory theoretical mechanism of abiogenesis.”

Have you noticed a patern? Sounds like psuedoscience to me…

The unfortunate truth is that very early on in Evolution’s history it morphed into an un-falsifiable belief which was adopted by the “scientific community”. It has been defended ever since instead of unbiasedly being forced to pass the scientific method. It is not falsifiable (or at least not treated as such) in a number of ways: By the timelines they created, it would take too long to actually test the theory. And when any other problem comes up it is dealt with on an individual basis, and apparently under the assumption that all the other pieces add up so well that it would be crazy to think this one problem could be a reason to question the whole thing.

Another problem is that, as seen in the example above of the 2nd Law, this pattern was developed very early on, before science had nearly the same information and understandings that they do now. It is my firm belief that if the theory of evolution had only been presented after science had all of the information currently available; it would never be accepted.

(4) A Quick look at the Empirical Evidence for Evolution


Well, I suppose before I end I need to deal (at least a little bit) with the “empirical evidence” that is presented for evolution… In my opinion there’s not a whole lot of this, and it really boils down to fossils and dating:

I realize that there are lots of fossils and that scientists have categorized them and placed them on timelines and charts that “prove” evolution… But I have yet to see a fossil or remains of any conclusively in-between species. Also, no where have they found a fossil of X animal, and below that a fossil of something that is almost X, followed by something that is no longer X. Darwin himself said that if physical evidence of intermediate life forms was not quickly found, that his theory would be unsupportable. Think about it, if humans slowly evolved over millions of years from the cave-man type image they portray, there ought to be skeletons and fossils of them all over the place. Instead, there’s a big write-up and excitement any time a “missing link” is found, and they usually end up just being a deformed person or ape, or even a deliberate hoax. And if you think that intermediate-men lived so long ago that its not surprising that there aren’t any remains left, then I would ask why there are so many dinosaur fossils so easily accessible, which supposedly lived much early than even the earliest humans? Shouldn’t the relatively young half-humans be much easier to find than dinosaurs? And this should be the case with all modern animals. Now I know that we’ve all seen pictures and charts that show how different fossils fit in the evolutionary time-line, but are those charts the only (or even the best) way to interpret the data? And is it anything close to conclusive? Frankly, I’m with Darwin on this one; the fossils speak against evolution.

Unfortunately, I can’t comment too much on dating… I’ve read a little bit about it here and there, but it’s pretty complex stuff and I won’t pretend to understand it any more than I do. But I would say that at least some of the methods had quite a bit of room for error and speculation. Also, if I understood right, dates that don’t match what they “should” be are quite common, and the assumption is usually that the “error” was in the dating method. Of course if the date matches, then Presto!, we have proof… But even if I’m being overly suspicious, and all their dates are right, a bunch of random dates, fossils (without intermediate steps), and rock layers doesn’t get very far in proving (or even suggesting) evolution as it is described to us, nor do they explain away all of the rational problems with the theory in general.

Honestly, the fact that so much “science” can be “supported” by such a small sampling of empirical evidence (and they must claim it’s a small sample since they have little or no good examples of intermediate forms) only gives me more reason to question the neutrality involved.

(5) My proposition, how to fix the problem.

So what do I think should be done with all this? Well, I think like most people that schools should clear their curriculums of anything that is not based on observable science and physics. As far as I can tell, the things that fall outside those boundaries have had very little practical benefit or application, and for the most part merely serve to satisfy human curiosity, and I think evolution falls in that category. Evolution science, since it is based on the idea of naturalism rather than science, should be considered a speculative or belief-based science. And it should not be presented as authoritative. I think that anyone or any group should be free to study science from their own world-view. But I think that scientists, teachers, publications, museums, etc., should be forthright about what they believe and how it affects their “science”.

For what it’s worth, I think that this could be done rather painlessly if it wasn’t for all the people who would feel that their personal beliefs (in naturalism) were being assaulted. In my opinion, most of science could be essentially unchanged, or at least easily survive the shift. Medicine, Physics, Mathematics, Biology (in current animals), Engineering, Mechanics, etc. would hardly be affected. Natural History, and even Evolution, could survive to some extent, although they would have to be restructured quite a bit to focus on only on what can be observed or assumed from a neutral word-view. And finally, if scientists researching in any speculative field happened to find something that could be scientifically verified (in the traditional sense), then it could of course be introduced to the rest of science.

What I am asking for is a self-aware scientific community that recognizes that no world-view is empirically provable, and that some branches of science rely heavily on an assumed world-view. I am asking for an open-minded approach to science education. I am asking for a society where the individual’s ability to believe is not trampled on by the world-views and pseudoscience of the “scientific community”.

[boagie]

Neitherextreme,


A very lengthly post, most often people do not respond well to something with a great many points to deal with. I will say this though, you infer the universe to be a closed system, I do not believe it is. I do not believe that the scientific community has made that judgement, on what basis would such an assertion be made. A closed system would infer a totality, which would thus be relative to nothing. I do not believe there is such a state. Perhaps you have news for me however, I am all ears!! Edit: Sorry, seems you do not believe the universe a closed system. I shall give it a better read and get back to you ---------later!!!! boagie

[NeitherExtreme]

Originally Posted by boagie

Neitherextreme,


A very lengthly post, most often people do not respond well to something with a great many points to deal with.

I know, and that's quite understandable. That's why I tried to break it up... It is quite a long post though, but once I started writing, it took a long time to stop. I partially just enjoyed putting all these thoughts in writing, since they've been floating around in my head for a while. Hopefully it doesn't bother anybody, and any critiques more than welcome...

Thanks for bearing with me.

[Peter]

Thanks for this interesting post, NeitherExtreme. It contains so many challenging points that it would be impossible to do the whole thing justice - at least at one go. So I will cofine myself to commenting on one or two issues.

Naturalism and the Closed Universe

Surely it is the case that the universe is a self-contained system by definition. This follows if you define the universe as "everything which exists." The trouble with a phrase such as "closed system" is that it invites us to think of one system being closed against something else, because that is how we use the term in normal dialogue. In this sense the phrase "closed system" is misleading when applied to everything which exists since, by definition, there can be nothing to contrast it with, nothing to isolate it from. This exemplifies a general problem which arises when we try to apply empirical concepts to the universe as a whole: our language and thought have evolved (or, if you prefer, developed) to deal with the situations we encounter in daily experience. We have no means of judging whether or in what way they may apply to the universe as a whole.

We need to disabuse ourselves of assumptions such as "everything can be explained by science". Science is not a body of belief but a means of investigating phenomena by validating theory against experience. This implies a piecemeal, progressive process. There will never be a time when science will explain everything. A particular scientific theory or law is the best explanation which is available at present, but as further facts become available, new theories will be developed to explain them. The classic example of this, of course, is Newton's theory of gravity being supplanted by Einstein, but the same thing applies to the second law of thermodynamics. This law provides a useful framework for understanding the behaviour of energy as we know it at present, but it is a safe bet that at some stage it will undergo a refinement analogous to that provided by Einstein to the then current understanding of space and time provided by Newton. The crucial requirement for any development of our current understanding of thermodynamics is that it should be empirically testable and should withstand repeated attempts to falsify it, and should explain more observed facts than our current knowledge.

Falsification of Evolution

The notion that evolution is not a scientific theory because it is not open to falsification has been around for a long time but was undermined almost as soon as it was stated. Evolution could be falsified, replied JBS Haldane, by "fossil rabbits in the precambrian." As Richard Dawkins states it in "The God Delusion" (p127) "evolution makes the strong prediction that if a single fossil turned up in the wrong geological stratum, the theory would be blown out of the water."

It is important to remember that science works by falsification rather than confirmation. There will never be a time when all the gaps in the fossil record have been plugged simply because fossilisation is a relatively rare process. Most skeletons do not fossilise. Thus to expect fossils to appear just before and just after a crucial change is unrealistic. What we should be looking for is rabbits in the precambrian - and, significantly, noting their absence.

Copies are Always Imperfect

Photocopying is a poor analogy for evolution. We observe that copying leads to deterioration only because we are judging the copies by standards which we ourselves impose - legibility,contrast, neatness etc. As Darwin notes in the first chapter of "The Origin of Species", improvements in animal stock had been engineered by breeders for their own profit. This is one clear example of the copying process leading to improvement. In this situation, success was defined not as fidelity to an original but as improved yields of meat, milk, wool etc. Indeed it is noticeable that agricultural stock such as cattle are not found in nature in their present state.These very species have been created by the breeding activities of early mankind. Darwin's flash of insight was to realise that what had been accomplished by breeders could also be effected by competition for food and habitat. In these cases "improvement" is not defined a priori by any outside observer imposing his/her criteria, but by the objective standard of survival.

Just some thoughts on your stimulating contribution.

Peter

[boagie]

Hi all,

Actually to point out that our biologically based terms for what we do not entirely understand or what is not really of our experience is just a natural limitation, and cannot be any other way. We know of nothing which is closed, to speculate a close universal system is beyond the imagination. I think we agree on this point -----yes? To speak of copies of things in evolutionary process is misleading, there is no platonic ideal to which a copy must have ambitions toward. Life is, relative to the physical world fluid, and takes on the physical characteristics dictated to it by the physical world, in turn these characteristics on a smaller scale go on to influence the physical world, which defines again, lifes structures-------lol!! Copies indeed are never copies but are new orders to be tested, copy does infer sameness, and any new production is relative to its changeing context/environment, sameness would be stagnation on the part of organism/environment alike, it would be decay.

Just getting use to this idea of falsification. In my own understanding, this would itself be a comfirmation of sorts, something without any basis or foundation in reality would be without falsification or comfirmation----------------Christianity, never mind, I shall get a handle on it. just winging it here folks!!

[Peter]

Hi Boagie,

You are right when you say that there is no endpoint towards which evolutionary changes are headed and that natural reproduction does not lead to exact copies. Every individual is different because of the random reallocation of genetic characteristics inherent in the reproductive process and also because of genetic mutations. Most of the resultant changes in the offspring are insignificant; of those that are significant most are deleterious leading to disease or some other maladaptation to the environment; but a very few lead by chance to a more productive interaction with the environment, enhancing the survival and reproduction of the organism. It is on these few helpful mutations that the process of evolution depends.

"We know nothing that is closed...A closed system is beyond the imagination." Speaking personally, I find that there is a group of ultimate questions and concepts : the universe as a whole, why is there something rather than nothing? etc, which I find simply baffling, well beyond my feeble imagination at least, and capable of inducing deep feelings of awe. But it remains true that if you define the universe as "everything that exists", then you cannot, with logical consistency, go on to talk about what exists or happens outside it.

The point about falsification is this: During the first half of the Twentieth Century there was a group of influential philosophers of science, the Logical Positivists, who argued that the propositions of science are meaningful and true because each one can be observed and verified directly. They believed that the general statements of science (ie laws and general theories) could all be traced back to specific observable facts. To take a simple example: you heat several jugs of water, you observe that each one boils at 100c; this leads you to formulate a general law that water boils at 100c, and you can always check this law by heating the odd pot of water if you feel like it.

Later Karl Popper pointed out that this is not actually how science works. You can never boil all the water there is to boil, so you cannot prove the general empirical statement by this means. The laws of science are always provisional: they are maintained only until an observation proves them to be untrue ie until they are falsified. In the case of boiling water, this leads to the observation that under some conditions water in fact boils at a higher temperature - when the atmospheric pressure is higher as in a pressure cooker. This falisifies the simple rule that water boils at 100c and leads to a more complex statement relating the boiling point to atmospheric pressure. Falsification has been generally recognised as the distinctive mark of scientific reasoning ever since: a statement or theory is scientific if it possible to falsify it by observation.

As Haldane and Dawkins point out, evolution woud be falsified by a single fossil turning up in the wrong geological stratum. The continuing absence of such finds maintains the theory as the best explanation of the development of life forms which we have.

Peter

[NeitherExtreme]

Thank you both for your thoughtful responses.

I think from Peter's first response (about livestock improvement), I must have failed to make my main point very clearly... Perhaps it was muddled by a long post. I agree that a species can "improve" or "change", but to an obviously limited extent: Through breeding we can get big cows, brown cows, long haired cows, good milk producing cows, etc. All the genetic "material" was in the cows in the first place, we simply make one feature more or less prominent based on which cows we choose to breed. But nothing new could be added... A poor example, but one that gets a point across would be if we decided we wanted to breed cows that could breath underwater (had gills). How could we start breeding in that direction? (I realize that random nature doesn't have a set "direction", but that really means we ought to have more influence than nature, not less) Could we ever end up with a cow with gills? No, because the DNA "programing" simply isn't there in the first place.

Here I've tried to restate my main points in a much condensed (and hopefully clearer) version:

The natural laws, including natural selection, can not produce anything new or of increased complexity. The nature of DNA rules out any big "genetic leaps" happening in one generation, even the DNA coding for the most simple organ is too complex to occur by random chance. Also, no complex coding can be added to the DNA by slow mutations that do not provide a significant advantage in the first generation. There is no foresight or intellegence behind natural selection, so any tiny mutation, even if it could have an eventual positive outcome, will not be kept any more than the much more numerous neutral and negative mutations. The net result of random additions to the DNA can not be positive. At best the net result will be neutral (maintanence of DNA integrity), but logic actually suggests that it would be slightly negative (what Boagie called decay).

There is no scientific explanation for how such an illogical and improbable thing (new positive DNA programing) could happen even once, let alone so many times as to create life as we know it. Neither has science shown good evidence that it has happened. All mutations that have been observed (and an incredible amount have been observed) have been neutral or negative, none positive. This follows the line of logic that I presented. Honestly, I think that for science to present evolution as authoritatively as it does, it ought to have both a "how" (reasoning), and good empirical examples (remember in science there ought to be more than one confirmation). As far as I can tell, they have neither...

The only "evidence" that is presented is the same that is presented for the abiogenesis problem: "Complex life exists, therefore it must have evolved." Needless to say, I don't find that to be very convincing logic... As I see it, considering the fact that complex life exists (as well as order in the universe in general), and that natural laws can't explain them, the only logical conclusion is that something outside of Nature has had significant influence on nature. And there is no way to prove that it is impossible (or even unlikely) that something exists outside of Nature as we know it. And even though this idea is not empirically provable, based on the logic presented above, I think it is the rational person's "best guess".

Hope that helps, and thanks for the responses- please keep them comming...

Edited to add: I think I painted a bit to small of a picture... There are two more responses to the problem that I find logical and reasonable to some extent: A rational person could adapt an agnostic view (I/we can't/don't know). Or they could adopt a "hopeful naturalist" view, saying that they believe that there is a natural explanation, but that there is no current reasonable theory to explain complex life and order. Personally, the agnostic view is very tempting. But in the end I find it to be a cop-out, not helpful, unfullfilling, and emotionally based on the idea that the truth is not worth seeking (which is an assumtion I'm not willing to live by).

PS- Peter, if science has indeed followed the ethic you described of "one contradictoy piece of evidence disproves the theory", then I have missjudged them, and a genuine Kudos! to them. Of course, you've probably noticed that (for better or worse) I currently trust my ability to reason more than I trust the honesty or self-awareness of the evolution community. And personally, even if all the empirical evidence that they have collected has been accurate, I don't find that it in any way outweighs the logical and scientific flaws I've stated above. Nor would it make up for the fact that they don't have any conclusive empirical examples of "new or added complexity" in present observation or of intermediate fossils.

[Peter]

Hi, NeitherExtreme,

I saw the humour in your observation that we will never be able to breed cows with gills! The truth, of course, is that cattle are complex organisms, adapted for living on land not only by their breathing processes but by their physiology, digestion, reproductive processes and other factors. They are so specialised in land-based existence that if the whole earth were to flood over completely, they would not be among the survivors. Some simpler organisms, on the other hand, may well be able to make the change to a marine environment, especially if the process of inundation were not too sudden.

When considering the process of evolution, we have to think in terms of timescales which are almost beyond our imagination. That is why we will never witness a process which is recognisable as mutation. All we will ever see is a still frame from a much longer movie. Those amphibious fishes of the present day, for example, which struggle across beaches to lay their eggs may be in the process of evolving into land creatures, or they may not. We will never know because we only have one still shot of the process to go by. Perhaps if we were able to return in 10,000 years we would have definite evidence one way or the other.

The only exception to this limitation of our knowledge that I am aware of is the development of bacteria and viruses. Because of their very short reproductive processes, these organisms mutate quickly. New viruses develop, familiar bacteria mutate into new forms - often in response to human attempts to exterminate them by antibiotics. Microbes are perhaps the only example of an evolutionary process which is fast enough to be observed by humans.

As Richard Dawkins points out in The Selfish Gene, "survival of the fittest" is only one instance of a more general law, survival of the stable. Stable things exist in nature because atoms tend to collect themselves in the most stable patterns available to them. These are called molecules, and they in turn gravitate towards their most probable and stable form of existence ie joining with other molecules in combinations which we call compounds. Those compounds known as amino acids and proteins which form the basis of life are no exception to the general rule in nature that what is most stable survives. Chemists have replicated the chemical conditions of the early earth, combining primeval substances with sources of energy such as radiation (as from the sun) or electricity (as from lightning). What happens in these experiments is that after a few weeks molecules appear which are more complex than those originally put into the mix. Amino acids, purines and pyrimidines - the building blocks of DNA - have been found to develop spontaneously in these experimental situations. These are further examples of the general rule that atoms and molecules tend to coalesce into their most stable states and combinations.

When it comes to explaining the origins of life, it seems clear to me that the naturalist approach of evolution faces a simpler and more manageable task than is faced by creationist theories. Evolution only has to assume the emergence of the life-process once (and, as indicated above, we have a partial understanding of how this could have come about.) Once life is established, evolution provides a convincing and detailed account of the amazing hand-in-glove fit which always exists between an organism and its natural habitat. Creationism has to explain the origin of life in millions of separate instances, and offers no particular insight into the close correspondence between organism and habitat.

The theory of evolution is also consistent with our knowledge of the development of other complex forms such as cultures and language. There was a time when it was generally thought that God had created each language separately and that comtemporary speech was a degenerate form of the Divine linguistic creation. Fortunately we know better now.

Peter

[NeitherExtreme]

Peter, once again thanks for you well thought out response.

Unfortunately, though, I don't think huge timescales don't make problems go away. I still think that it has to work on an individual level to work on a species level, but I guess this might be a difference in the way we see things... Out of curiosity, would agree that if my premise of "it must work for the individual" was true, that evolution could not naturally explain life as it is? (Based on the "Jump" and "Slow" scenerio problems I've already described)

The "stability" concept you brought up is an intersting one. In fact I have pondered that basic idea before one as a possible explanation for natural evolution, though I don't think I've heard anyone else describe it before. It is a more abstract idea, more difficult to say "yea" or "nay", and kind of dances around my proposed problems based on the individual. In the end though, I can't get away from those same problems... Viruses change a little and become resistant to old drugs, but does that mean that they have introduced anything "new or of increased complexity"? I don't think so; they are no closer to becoming anything other than viruses, even if the new version is more "stable". And of course the "stability" concept still falls on it's face when it comes to the major jumps along the "evolution chain": How could the "Lipid & RNA Bubble" develope organelle? How could a single cell organisim become a multi-cell organism? How would assexual organisms become sexual? All three of these situations (and I think many more) fail to be possible, as my "jump" or "slow" slow arguments show. IMO, no amount of time will get around those problems. (And if I may be so direct, but don't feel that you have to, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on those three scenerios.)

And I think it would probably be to the benefit of this conversation if I would tell you that I am not opposed to the idea of Theistic Evolution. Though it's not the exact scenerio I expect to be true, it would not offend me or throw off my beliefs if that turned out to be the reality of history. My most basic point that I see logically is not that evolution didn't happen (I am obviously in no position to say that), but that it couldn't happen through the laws of nature.

Just to head down an entertaining new path for a bit (and if you're willing to play along)... What would you think if sometime down the road we discovered that there was a section of genetic code in all animals that gives long term (over many generations) ability or direction to elvove (mutate postitively). I have thought that in the case that large-scale evolution does account for life today, that there would probably be some genes that we don't yet understand that are what is driving it. Maybe kind of like pangenesis, or maybe more like a preset direction; something other than natural selection (or long-range stability) to make it happen. If such a gene were found, would you assume that it came to be through natural laws (natural selection or stability), or would it suggest to you that there was design behind it? To me it would have to mean design, since it is not a significant benefit to the individual, and it would be a very complex gene indeed, and not one that could have appeared by chance. Just currious how our world-views would affect a hypothetical situation...

[Peter]

Thanks for these thoughts, NeitherExtreme.

It seems to me that scale does in fact make a huge difference. It answers your objection that we never observe the actual origin of a new species. Take the case of our contemporary amphibious fish. Here we may be witnessing the origin of a new species - or we may not. The two centuries or so that mankind has been systematically observing life-forms is massively too short to decide one way or the other. Because of the importance of scale, it is difficult to imagine what would count as observing the origin of a species. How would we recognise it? We certainly would not be aware of any movement or change occuring in a species within any timescale which, to this date, has been open to our awareness.

Regarding sexual reproduction and multi-cell organisms, symbiosis is a familiar concept in biology, with plenty of illustrative examples. The plant lichen is a symbiosis of a fungus and green algae; there is evidence that our mitochondria are products of a symbiotic relationship between a bacterium and our original materials. Since there is ample evidence of single cell and simple organisms joining together in a variety of ways, it is not difficult to imagine the process by which single cells would combine to form a simple multi-cell organism. The biological advantage would be an increase in survival rates and this if what would cause the union to be preserved and replicated. Sexual reproduction would originate when simple organisms, joining as described above, find advantage in exchanging genetic material.(The original mixing of genetic material would happen as a result of the natural variability of behaviour and functioning of organisms.) Once initiated, sexual reproduction would be expected to flourish since it greatly enhances the variability of offspring and therefore multiplies the chances that a particular line of descendants will be able to mutate in ways that promote survival.

A sequence of genes with the ability to evolve positively (not by natural selection)? The difficulty I have with this concept is that it implies that the gene has foresight, that there is an ability on the part of the gene to survey the life situation of the organism and come up with a creative solution to the problems which the organism faces in coping with its environment. This would require high functioning abstract intelligence which only exists in the most complex arrangements of cells (brains) in the highest functioning of mammals. Some gene-enthusiasts have been criticised for personifying the gene or ascribing human characteristics to it (eg selfishness), but no writer on genes has ever suggested that they posses abstract intelligence or foresight. So I have problems envisioning how this would work.

I can readilly accept the posssibility of genetic arrangements which throw off radically novel developments which are then put to the test of survival. A fraction of these novelties would confer biological advantage and would therefore be repeated. This avoids the contradiction of attributing foresight to an entity which is not conscious. In fact, a very good way of acheiving such radical developments is the very process which we discussed earlier - the great increase in variability of offspring conferred by the process of sexual reproduction.

Peter