The Intellect of Man - A House Upon the Sand

Evolution is the gradual genetic change, or mutation, of a species over large amounts of time. Through the process of Natural Selection, the advantageous genetic mutations/traits are passed on to future generations, leading to the formation of more advanced and complex organism more highly adapted to their environment.

This theory, and I stress theory, makes a lot of sense. We see environmental adaptation happening all the time all around us, that means the theory as a whole must be true and proven scientific fact, right? Wrong.

The principle of adaptation and Natural Selection are considered to be pretty set in stone. If I creature cannot adapt to a change in its environment, then it becomes extinct, thus falling victim to Natural Selection. Not a very hard concept to understand, and it has been shown time and time again. However, just because the underlying principle of evolution has basis in fact, does not mean that the entire theory is true.

Let's start with the origins of Evolution. The theory was first transcribed and published before DNA and genetics were even truly discovered. The original theory doesn't even mention genetics, just the passing on of traits from one generation to the next. Now, you may look at that and say "That's genetics!", and you are right. Darwin didn't know that, though.

The traits about which Darwin spoke were physical traits and changes. Things about the animal that change during its life-span, not during its conception. By his logic, this is how a Giraffe would have evolved: a horse-like animal moves to an environment where it is forced, for one reason or another, to eat the leaves out of the trees rather than the grass on the ground. The animal that can reach the highest gets the most food and has an advantage over the others, so as the animals try to get the leaves, they stretch and strain their necks to get higher. The one that, literally, stretches its neck the farthest has the most advantage and will, therefore, be the most likely to pass that trait (the elongated neck, caused by stretch and strain) on to its offspring. In other words, as the creature changes itself physically, it is able to pass those physical changes to its offspring.

That is essentially about the same as saying: If someone cuts off their left hand when they're 20, and has children, those children have a chance of being born without a left hand. That, as we now know, is a preposterous idea.

As we have learned about genetics, however, the theory has adapted to incorporate the new knowledge. The modern theory now states that genetic mutations that happen at the time of, or before, conception can cause advantageous changes that will be more likely to be passed on to offspring. The theory now lines up with modern-day knowledge of the known workings of the genetic code.

Problem is: we know very little, all things considered, about the genetic code. We know what genes do, how DNA is replicated, what genes do what, but we don't know WHY they do it. DNA is used as the template for RNA, which, in turn, is used as the template to create proteins. These proteins, the building blocks of life, are what drive everything. One small chemical chain to one microscopic protein can kill an entire organism, just look at cancer. We don't know why they effect everything the way they do, we just know that they do, and that's that.

There are also massive gaps in the fossil record. Gaps which Darwin, himself, has stated were the largest problem for his theory as a whole. There are "missing links" a throughout the fossil record, where no common ancestors have ever been found, when, by Darwin's own theory, the fossil record should be rife with the fossils of transitional forms.

Problems also arise because of paraconformities. Paraconformities happen when the fossils records appear geologically backwards, and where no evidence of erosion (to displace the bones) or tectonic overthrusting can be found. This means that parent species is found to be younger than the child species. I have yet to find a decent explanation for this occurrence. Mostly, from what I have read, it is considered a "mystery" and just accepted as one of those things that will be explained by someone else some other time.

Thus we see that the foundation upon which evolution was initially created has crumbled to dust beneath the advancements of science, and the new modern theory of evolution, derived from the first, rests upon a foundation that is as equally unknown as genetics were when evolution first arose. Darwin knew traits were passed on somehow, he just didn't know why or how. Just as scientists today know that proteins drive the lifecycle, they just don't know why or how. He thought that, even though their were massive gaps in the fossil record, proof to fill these holes would show up eventually. None has yet been found. Lastly, and mostly caused by the drive of science to fill the fossil record gaps, fossils have been found in an order other than what the evolutionary cycle would dictate it must be. No theory has been conceived to explain this.

The Intellect of Man - Introduction

Evolution.

A concept that has plagued the religious mind since it's conception in the mid 1850s. It has given rise to the belief that science has proved that God does not exist, or at least is not needed. The theory challenges the religious intellect to wonder whether the stories of the bible really are true. Did God really create Adam and Even in the Garden of Eden, or is it all just some story, passed down by oral tradition until it was transcribed around 1000 B.C.E., that is meant to tell the history of the civilizations of man-kind?

Some religious minds have come to a compromise with Darwin, they call it theistic evolution: the belief that God used evolution as his tool for creating everything as we know it today. I'll admit, it has promise, some of the current theories about the beginning of life are so far fetched that without a Creator they make little to no sense. So, they believe that God used a process of mass extinction, death, and struggle to create everything in this world we see today.

Other religious minds hold to the view that evolution is a fallacy of the human conscience. Despite all the evidence supporting the theory, they throw about phrases such as "that's just the way it is" and know little to nothing about the actual theory itself. They have no knowledge to back their statements, and receive little to no credibility despite their efforts.

Then there are others who simply believe that evolution is how it is. There is no God. Everything we see today developed by random chance, under circumstances that man has recreated in the lab, so there must not be a higher power. Science has proved their is no God. End of story.

The fourth group is the group about which I most often ponder. They are those who have looked into evolution and know the holes in the theory, know the assumptions around which everything revolves. They see how chaotic the entire theory is, and the crumbling rock that is its foundations. Yet, because the idea of a God, a supreme being and Creator, seems more preposterous to them, they side with evolution because it makes the most sense. In essence, picking the lesser of two evils, because their intellect does not have the capacity of understanding or allowing the existence of God.

And so the world turns.