16 Theses which refute Darwinian Evolution

[nitsuJ]

http://www.tdtone.org/evolution/TDTns.htm Preamble The ideas discussed on this page should be considered merely representative of common ideas expressed on the subject of evolution and Darwinism. Most current books, textbooks, and the general media, present at least some of these erroneous concepts as accepted fact. Contrary ideas such as those presented here are rarely mentioned, much less discussed. From current appearances, the DNA molecule simply "ocurred", intact as it is today, about 3+ billion years ago. What is its origin? Where did it come from, and how? This ought to be the abiding question in the entire field of both science and biology. Instead it is ignored in favor of a 150 year old explanation made by those who had no knowledge whatsoever of the origin of life. Thus this essay attempts to present a more balanced view of current Darwinian theory. If you are a student, parent or other interested party in the evolution controversy, the ideas presented here should be useful. They are in most part, simple and straightforward enough to be grasped by those above the primary school level. If your school system presents these errors as fact, here is an opportunity to question their methods. Should you require assistance in this process, feel free to email the DT at the address below. Please recognize that no Creationist themes are contained in this article. It discusses various ideas dealing strictly with the logic and science of evolution. The question "Does Evolution Exist?" is not considered. (Neither is any proof offered that "evolution" does not exist in some form.) A closely related question however IS addressed. That question is: "Does Darwinian Evolution Exist?" In other words, does Darwin's theory as currently understood, provide scientific evidence for evolution that is credible? The 16 Theses presented below argue that so far as these ideas are concerned, they fail the rules of science and logic and therefore, are in reality, a series of beliefs. If this is true, you might rightfully ask 'Why are beliefs being taught as scientific fact?'. The arguments which follow the Theses (plus other arguments not set out by numbers) present the proof. They are unambiguous, falsifiable, and can be refuted point by point, if such arguments exist. 16 Theses indexed to the arguments. Darwinian themes that are refuted. Natural Selection 1. There is no connection at all between the two concepts "artificial selection" and (Darwinian) "Natural Selection". 2. The belief in evolution, per se, is based on several logical fallacies, one in particular, a "post hoc propter hoc" type of argument. 3.Belief that "selection" of some kind is the cause of evolution, is an example of the process of inverse reasoning, properly called "inverse logic", which is also a logical fallacy. 4. The idea that any type of action (a "cause") outside of the life of the organism is the cause of evolution is a "cause/effect" reversal. 5. Darwinian Natural Selection is ubiquitous: Kettlewell's experiment with the moths (supposedly demonstrating selection) is no proof of any aspect of evolution. 6. The cause of diversity is not a "selection" process; for analogy, this concept is supported by the operation of a hypothetical Natural Selection "machine". The output of the machine (like evolution) is not caused by any form of selection, as one might conclude, rather it is a phenomenon which is unknown. Survival of the Fittest 7. Darwinists define the two terms, Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest, by their effects on organisms, as opposed to stating a detailed description of the process, or mechanism of operation, of either term; they are thus each, a non-sequitor. 8. The term Survival of the Fittest is a tautology. It predicts an undefined winner which can only be identified by the outcome of the competition in which the competitor is engaged. 9. Survival of the Fittest is also ambiguous, a misleading term that is unscientific. 10. All organisms such as the Oak tree, Fruit Fly, and others, have aspects of their organisms which are not the "fittest" by any definition. 11. If Darwin's theory was truly in operation, the number of species would be reduced from what is now evident. 12. The "fitness" of species is limited by a factor unknown to Science. 13. The "Malthusian" concept would not effect "evolution" except as to the "rate" of evolution; it promotes stasis rather than evolution. 14. Darwin's theory can neither explain the existence of the wide variety of open niches which exist on this planet, nor can any principles or laws it establishes explain the characteristics of current existing or non-existing species, or proto-species to fill the open niches. Two Themes involving Science, used in the study of Evolution: The "Five Senses Hypothesis" 15. Science Studies almost invariably operate under an assumption, not a part of Science, but rather a proper consideration of Philosophy. This assumption is called "naturalism". As science, it is erroneous. 16. Currently, the most prevalent interpretation of Darwinism virtually excludes all other possible scenarios as an explanation for life and all of its forms; this is a logical fallacy based on the "Five Senses Hypothesis". Darwinian Theory has inevitably become a stalking-horse for Naturalism, Secular Humanism, and other materialistic philosophies. ~~~~~~~~~ The following text is a version of the article "Natural Selection" as presented on another of the author's pages. SYNOPSIS This page explores what might be called the most fundamental belief in all of biological science, namely, whether or not the concepts contained in the terms "Natural Selection" and/or "Survival of the Fittest" are, either separately or together, a scientific explanation for the mechanism, or cause, of evolution. These two terms have been chosen for discussion not only because they launched "Darwinism" to the preeminent theory it has become, but also because of the almost universal use of them and all their derivatives, in biology books, papers, and particularly in textbooks. Both of these terms, even though they have different intended meanings as shown below, are used almost interchangeably as the foundation of Darwin's theory of evolution, and have been, from the original publication in 1859, through to the present day. This in spite of the fact that his theory has gone through 4 or 5 versions incorporating new findings, the current version sometimes called "The New Synthesis". While no argument is made of the status of "evolution" it is assumed throughout that evolution is not a scientific fact, contrary to another fundamental belief of evolutionists; however as above, the possibility of some sort of evolution is not ruled out either, the question not being germane to this discussion. If you are of the opinion that evolution is a proven fact, this entire discussion has to be considered as erroneous. Also, a little off-topic to the overall discussion, a paragraph near the end explains how the Malthusian theory (relied on by many evolutionists as a "keystone" to both Darwin and Wallace) really fits into the idea of evolution. In another paragraph, predictions made using evolutionary theory are proposed and studied in attempt to test the theory. CONCLUSION It is shown that the process of reason that concludes that Natural Selection is a proper explanation for evolution is faulty, in actuality a process which is correctly termed "inverse logic". It is also shown that the term Survival of the Fittest, even if it were not a tautology, is not a meaningful explanation for evolution, since the organisms that survive are not in fact, the "fittest" by any standard whatsoever. Darwin's theory takes advantage of the incredible ability of species adaptation to a variety of forms, and presents this capability in argument that explains it as the "cause" of evolution. Darwin's theory is in fact a prescription for "mono-speciation", and cannot explain the diversity so evident in the biological world. The cause of evolution, if it even exists, is currently (2000) unknown to science. It is also suggested that the nearly rote learning of evolutionary theory is harmful to the development of the formation of the logical process of thought, particularly in the young. Likewise it is concluded that the "Malthusian" concept is responsible for stasis rather than playing any part in "evolution" - just another example of the inverse logic of the Darwinists. In closing, predictions made in accordance with the theory have, fortunately, not come true. It is no surprise to the DT that they have not, but Darwinists should be (but aren't) able to explain why this is so. PREMISES AND DEFINITIONS Believing that there is little point in proceeding in a discussion such as this without defining terms, meanings, suppositions and all other aspects of the arguments, critical terms are defined. Far too much of the discussion of this topic is carried out in an attempt to prove/disprove various aspects of what is generally called "Darwin's Theory", and because of a failure of the above, nothing meaningful is accomplished. (If you are tempted to reply by email, PLEASE read the definitions first - often a perceived disagreement is only a difference in definitions). Thus the following definitions are established: (1) (see below) ARGUMENT For Listed Arguments see below. Introduction - Some Historical Background Darwin's feelings about Natural Selection and evolution Charles Darwin felt strongly that observations made on large scale explorations such as his voyage on the Beagle showed conclusively that many clearly different organisms, animals as well as plants, were related to one another by some as yet unknown law. In other words, evolution existed. His belief as eventually stated, differed with the then-current Biblical-based system of beliefs in that the apparent differences were a result of deliberate Creation as described in the Bible. Darwin understood this as did others, and after years of study he proposed as an analogy for the operation of evolution, the well known method of "Artificial Selection" whereby characteristics of living organisms can be selected by breeders to produce altered characteristics of a species. In his proposal, the action of "natural" processes takes over as the "intelligence" formerly attributed to the Creator and now does the "selection". His now famous book "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" published first in 1859, outlined how a purely natural process of selection could produce similar effects, and thus explain the development of new species without reference to supernatural intervention. The meaning of Natural Selection as originally used by Darwin As kind of an aside, in the book "Origins", Darwin used a strange, rather disingenuous method of introducing the term Natural Selection to the reader. It is labeled disingenuous because it is a technique used often by mystery writers to enhance the suspense connected with an effort. It should not be expected to be found in an essay on a scientific subject. Nevertheless, Darwin takes you through a full three chapters of the book, hinting at a definition based solely on the effects of the as-yet unexplained process, all the while lauding the properties of Natural Selection, suggesting a scenario which dramatically increases the probability that the definition, once it is made, will be accepted. Then, in chapter four, he defines what has been called "the most important concept in biology (or science even)" in a mere 27 words: "This preservation of favourable individual differences and variations, and the destruction of those which are injurious, I have called Natural Selection, (adding in a later edition) or the Survival of the Fittest." Note that the process he describes is identical to the process used in "artificial selection", where the selector destroys those individuals which carry an injurious trait. Note importantly that the definition of Natural Selection is based on the effects of it, and the mechanism or cause is not stated. (What, exactly, does the selection?) Any reasonably suspicious person should be skeptical at this point, if not by the brevity of the explanation, by the simplicity of same and the fact that it was well known to all biologists. Darwin's reasoning seems to be, in effect, 'species have changed, and the only plausible explanation for it is that they have been "selected", therefore they have been Naturally Selected' - (which conclusion is typical of his pattern of thought, another excellent example of his ability of "circular reasoning"). In contrast to the reception of the scientific community as it is usually reported, Darwin was severally criticized by his peers for his use of the term. This criticism was sufficient to cause Darwin to first defend it as an "apocryphal" description and later to essentially abandon the term. But Darwin meant something by the term, and the acceptance of it by the biological community of long standing shows that it conveys some kind of meaning as an explanation for a process that is otherwise not understood. So various aspects of the term will be examined below to determine, if nothing else, the perceived meaning. The story is not complete here however. Darwin himself had some misgivings in the face of criticisms, and these should be identified. Darwin's backpedalling on "Natural Selection" Darwin's book went through 6 editions in about a dozen years, and he had abandoned the term Natural Selection (but not the concept) after the fourth edition. In his own words, the term "Survival of the Fittest" "is more accurate and is sometimes equally convenient." (em. added) For those who find this difficult to believe, he went even further and stated in regard to sporting varieties of plants (which concept would apply as well to all living organisms) that "...we clearly see that the nature of the conditions is of subordinate importance in comparison with the nature of the organism in determining each particular form of variation;- perhaps of not more importance than the nature of the spark, by which a mass of combustible matter is ignited, has in determining the nature of the flames." (em. added), (which is absolutely none - DT) thus for all practical purposes abandoning the original concept of Natural Selection (selection by the "conditions"). Nonetheless, in spite of this turnabout in Darwin's feelings, the term is still used routinely throughout the field of biology and appears in virtually every textbook as an explanation for the cause if evolution. Thus further discussion is necessary. LISTED ARGUMENTS NATURAL SELECTION (1) Some fallacies of Natural Selection - The concept of Natural Selection as an extension of artificial selection. On the surface, the comparison is plausible, and was likely more so in Darwin's time, when nothing was known about genetics, DNA, or cell biology. In our current state of knowledge however, it should be understood that the characteristics which can be so easily manipulated by artificial selection are simply what could be called "pre-existing traits" - alleles - of an organism, and there is agreement that no new species are produced by this process. Likewise, selection by an intelligent being is done with a particular outcome as a goal; judgment, experience and corrections are made in the process. "Natural" selection on the other hand, is in reality a response to an "effect", the only "choice" possible being an unalterable response of an organism. This is, by any stretch of logic, not a choice at all. It was termed "selection" solely in an attempt to rationalize the idea of an intelligent act. No purpose, goal, or choice is possible; thus there is no selection. As a result, there is no connection between the two mechanisms (assuming of course that Natural Selection exists in any form). (2) The "logical fallacy" aspect of belief in evolution: the "post hoc propter hoc" fallacy. There are two (2) aspects to belief in evolution. One is that evolution is a "fact", another is that it is only a theory. While not all biologists believe that evolution is a fact, this idea is endorsed virtually without acknowledgement in the many books and text books on biology. A statement such as ....'the overwhelming evidence of evolution' .....occurs in most books on the subject, and the word "evolution" is used often, seemingly at every opportunity. (In contrast, the difficulties with Darwin's theory, as illustrated on this page and many others, is virtually ignored). It should be noted that a rather subtle inference is contained in the oft-stated conclusion or representation that evolution is a fact: the belief is a direct refutation not only of any contrary scientific data, but just as well to any theistic evolutionary or Creationist belief. (Those who ponder the Creationist - Evolutionist controversy should consider this). The above Latin term "post hoc propter hoc" (literally "after this [therefore] because of this") is a recognized logical fallacy. It best describes one type of argument made for belief in evolution. It is a term which describes a logical conclusion of "causation", in an appearance-based belief, for a cause-effect relationship. Thus the various similarities in organisms, which is recognized today and extends back well before Darwin's time, is the prime factor for this belief in evolution. Darwin formed this belief early on, and stated: "In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist, reflecting on the mutual affinities of organic beings, on their embryological relations, their geographical distribution, geological succession, and other such facts, might come to the conclusion that species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species." (em. added) [ Darwin's book Origins ] In the above quote the mutual affinities and embryological relations, establish the criteria for the conclusion. This conclusion, on its face, is hypothetical at best. Thus, if at least these two of the above four attributes of organisms did not exist, there would be no possibility of "evolution". Even though Darwin states that the facts might allow the conclusion for evolution, he understood this limitation, seemingly better than it is understood today, and stated so in following paragraphs of his book, not quoted. He never made the statement or assumed that "evolution is a fact", as is common today and in actuality expressed doubts that it could be proven; one of these, the continuity of the fossil record is well known as one of his objections. It should be noted that much was unknown in Darwin's day e.g., the existence of "GACT" DNA was not even suspected until recently, so that Darwin's belief would be more plausible during his era, although still a "post hoc" fallacy. (Darwin made this observation after the end of his "Beagle" voyage and it was nearly twenty years later that the conclusion was published; during this time he was trying to get supporting facts for the conclusion). When the "post hoc" argument is made, it is usually expressed in the following terms: If event "B" follows event "A" then event "B" has been caused by event "A". The only proper logical conclusion which can be made is as follows: "If event "B" follows event "A" then the possibility exists that event "B" has been caused by event "A". As a practical example for clarity, two known facts, evidence of an oil spill and an automobile accident, might be the basis of an argument for the "cause" of the accident to be the presence of the oil. An assumption might be made that the oil prevented control of the vehicle and thus caused the accident. For this possibility to be true, it must at the very least be demonstrated that event "a", the oil, preceded event "b", the accident. If the oil was not present prior to the accident, then this argument cannot be made. However, this is not a "sufficient" fact to demonstrate causality, only a "necessary" one for the relationship to be true. Therefore, while the proposition MAY be true, direct proof, such as the mechanism of the involvement of the oil in the accident, must be established. Likewise all other possibilities must be examined and eliminated as being causal in order to validate the conclusion. In the study of biological evolution, the same rules apply. In the biological world, the similarity of appearance of two distinct species, one which may follow another in time or space, unquestionably allows the possibility that one is the ancestor of the other; many thousands of such similarities exist and there is much evidence that the more recent species display these similarities; hence the conclusion that evolution based on scientific observations has occurred, is a possibility . An argument that it HAS occurred on this basis alone, would be a "post hoc propter hoc" argument, a fallacy. Just as in the example above, in order for it to be considered a "fact" not only must the mechanism be proven as to its cause, but all other possibilities must be ruled out. In a situation as complex as organic life, this is currently impossible. But as regards the "appearance" argument, which is probably the leading or at least most provocative argument for evolution, a very simple analogy is presented which calls into question the possibility of the conclusion being valid. As an example of this line of thinking, the following analogy is offered: If you were to give, say, 100 people a common "tinker toy"* set, and allow them to build anything that they imagine, and then have the results viewed by scientists with a typical curiosity, you would present to them a class of objects that could very well be considered "evolutionary". Resemblances would be very plain; evolutionary lines could be arranged (as eohippus - the supposed "horse" sequence). Arguments used to "prove" evolution of the fabricated "species" could be very similar to those used to prove Darwinian evolution. This would be true for no other reason than because of the similarity of characteristics of the fundamental parts. (This process would have to assume that, just as in Darwinian evolution, the "origin" of the objects had not been witnessed, and the existence of "tinker toys" was both unrecognized or unknown). (Note that this is NOT an argument that evolution in some form has NOT occurred; it merely presents an analogous scenario which can easily explain the reason for the belief that "evolution exists" or is a "fact" - the striking similarity between different species, [which is the "post hoc propter hoc" argument]- without ever having witnessed the event.) *[A child's play set, consisting of a number of basic parts of different size, shape and color that can be joined together to make a variety of objects. The analogy is obviously to the four basic units that make up the DNA molecule]. The analogy as presented is similar to the situation which existed in Darwin's time, with existence of DNA unknown. With today's knowledge it should be plainly evident the "similarity" of living objects can most easily be explained by the assumption that there is only a finite number of genes available for a viable genome. Stringent requirements of the constitution of proteins (genes), which must possess the ability to fold to themselves and likewise to the chromosome and genome, (plus many unknown requirements) should be assumed to place limits on the expression of same thus calling into question the idea of "infinite" variability. Of course this is an assumption, but being the simpler of the two assumptions (similarity of appearance vs. similarity of genes) and in the light of developing knowledge in bio-chemistry and microbiology, the one that should be made. The principle of "Occam's Razor" requires this. But also note how this assumption explains many other features of biology, inexplicable in Darwinian terms, such as these: * extinction: non-explainable in Darwinian terms. Even the great evolutionist Ernst Mayr admits this. See discussion about this in argument (14) below. (99% of all species have been unable to adapt and are extinct). * stasis: the long periods in the fossil record between the appearance of a species, its extinction, and the lack of intermediate species. (The inability of species to undergo "gradual" modification). * diversity: the ability of near-identical species to co-exist for eons. (Despite nearly identical "conditions of life", specie identity remains unaltered). * survival of the "non-fittest": the ability of species to exist with less than optimal features. (Even trivial adaptation has not occurred through eons - as described in Theses 10 thru 14 below). An excellent example of this similarity is the so-called "pentadactyl limb" the five digit limb, a characteristic of tetrapod vertebrates, (amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals) such as the arm, leg and hand/hoof and wing. The similarity of structure of this feature is taken as "prima facia" evidence of descendance and thus evolution. However this feature is increasingly recognized as one basic gene in all organisms, modified by other portions of a genome in a manner that is becoming evident to microbiologists. Also, other similar, basic features of organisms which were once thought to have arisen by "evolution" have now been shown to have developed from disparate organs and are not homologous but rather analogous, unique to a particular organism. Michael Denton's book "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" points out this overlooked fact. Just as in the "tinker toy" analogy above, the "resemblance" would be caused by the similarity of components , as opposed to an ubiquitous "selection" scheme supposedly causing descent with modification. It stands to reason, where there is a finite number of available components, and a virtually infinite number of species (either existing or extinct), resemblance is unavoidable. The conclusion that it is "caused" by a theory such as Darwin's has to be considered more of an attractive belief, similar to the wishful thinking which produced the flurry of interest in such phenomena as "Piltdown Man" or more recently "Kettlewell's Moths" (below). Both of these, after much reflection, turned out to be erroneous conclusions. Thus when you discount the scenario of apparent similarity as being indicative of descent, the remaining evidence does not warrant a conclusion of Darwinian evolution. Other Fallacies But another logical fallacy surrounding evolution, not directly a "post hoc propter hoc" argument but a related fallacy, is used in the attempt to prove that evolution exists, and it is a separate argument of its own: Because of the fact that devolution (the decrease of order and complexity) apparently exists, at least in larger animals, there is likewise a belief that evolution (the increase of order and complexity) must of necessity also exist. Thus the evidence of blind fish, sickle cell anemia, flightless beetles, vestigial structures and other such features of devolution (assumed to be caused by random variation/natural selection), is taken as evidence of evolution. In other words, the converse of the concept of devolution, evolution, is necessarily true. Sound logic as well as scientific evidence disputes this conclusion. No evidence exists as proof of this belief. Nothing more will be said about this belief, except to point out that complex mechanisms can operate quite well with a random missing/inoperable part, but this observation neither proves, nor should it even suggest, that the random addition of a part will improve a mechanism. Just for a simple example, not necessarily analogous: highways are littered with parts fallen from cars; has any part ever fallen on a car and improved its function? Other, analogous, examples abound. But three other basic ideas or facts in addition to those mentioned above play a part in the formation of the conclusion as regards biological evolution: * first, the reality of the myriad of living organisms requires, both in the secular and scientific world, an explanation. * secondly, widespread similarity is, at least superficially, an easily recognizable inference of relationship: it is simple and obvious. * thirdly, but of far more importance, an all-too-common scientific adherence to a closed belief system (which is here called the Five Senses Hypothesis [Thesis 15 below]) (2) eliminates any other possible conclusion for the similarity other than "evolution". These ideas set up another argument, sometimes called "False Dilemma" or "Fallacy of Exclusion". This falls into the general "post hoc" category (which argument is very common in email replies to the DT also) and is stated thus: ".....Darwin's theory is all we've got". Thus if there is no better explanation, Darwin's theory must be true. Yes, its all you've got if you accept the above three (3) premises (the need for an "explanation", widespread similarity of organisms, and the belief in "naturalism"). Once they are accepted, the argument about evolution, per se, is over. Since all other possibilities have been excluded, evolution has to be a fact. Following, if evolution exists as a fact, then the only explanation for it is that Natural Selection, somehow, exists also. Other failed theories of the past shows they were at least partially supported by this type of argument. Not the least of these was the flat earth theory, probably the most damaging theory to plague mankind, if Darwin's theory is not such. Thus, a large part of the argument for evolution is of the type called "post hoc propter hoc" - evolution is the explanation for the existence of organic life - based on what is recognized to be well known logical fallacies. (3) The real meaning of Natural Selection Since there are thousands of books written on the subject of evolution and many of them have a proprietary definition of Natural Selection, the concept will be discussed as defined below (under Definitions). Briefly, in the process of increasing complexity of organisms, whatever factor that makes the choice for success in the trial and error process is what has "directed" the development of the organism. This was Darwin's original concept (Natural Selection), as above, which was abandoned by him, but this very same concept nonetheless is still used today as a rational explanation for evolution. The concept is nothing but an erroneous technique of thought sometimes called "inverse reasoning" (also termed a "Wrong Direction" fallacy - see Thesis 4 below) which mistakes cause for effect and thus "explains" the exact reverse of what is happening. Ironically, Darwin's compatriot Alfred Wallace understood this process very well, and his description of it is one of the best and most succinct available. Wallace stated: "We are like children [who are] looking at a complicated machine of the reasons of whose construction they are ignorant, and like them we constantly impute as causes what is really effect in our vain attempts to explain what we will not confess that we cannot understand." (em., [brackets], added). (unidentified "Species Notebook", P 43.) Probably 1854-55. From H. Lewis McKinney's Book "Wallace and Natural Selection" This process as described by Wallace is common but by no means unique to the field of science. Many of the "great" discoveries of the past were based on it, not the least of which was the Ptolemaic view of the universe. This view was driven of course, by the belief that Man was created to be the centerpiece of the universe, and the tortured reasoning which was developed to explain it is very close to the exact opposite of the truth. But one does not have to look back hundreds of years for examples of the phenomenon, because it is an all-to-common part of our daily colloquial existence. Many of the more common explanations of things which are not readily understood are made simpler or more meaningful by use of this technique. A few examples follow: * Slums are the cause of poverty, hunger, inequality, etc. * (Eliminating the slums will cure these problems). Guns are the cause of crime. * (Take away the guns and crime will disappear). My car won't start in the rain. (A mechanic will know the real cause of the problem and it is NOT the rain; see below) All three of these statements are based on a failure to understand the real cause of a problem, and consequently attribute an easily understandable effect as the perceived cause. Society is full of them. Generally they are innocuous explanations as in case no. (3), but as in case (1) and (2) they can cause serious problems where they are relied upon as an explanation. Likewise is this so in the field of science. Darwin's writings contain classic examples of "inverse logic". (Is it not conceivable that the reason for this common misuse is perhaps connected with the early learning of such things as Darwin's theory with its very loose, erroneous, and inverse relationship between cause and effect)? Indeed, the original Darwinian belief that something in the "conditions of life" was the explanation for "selection" falls squarely into the middle of Wallace's explanation of substituting effect for cause, as quoted above. Adopting this technique, scientists, biologists, atheists and agnostics, long searching for a natural explanation for apparent intelligent design, at last have a mechanism for the process. Best of all it seems, for one reason or another, this process is eminently compatible with the human psyche. (4)The inevitable result of "Inverse Logic": cause/effect reversal. An in-depth, disciplined, study of Natural Selection will show that the mechanism behind the concept cannot be the cause of any direction of development; rather Natural Selection is only an effect which can be available for the continuing existence of a organism which is able to use the effects. (Should you be an avowed evolutionist who bristles at the very thought of this conclusion, see the "Talk-Origins FAQ" [a quintessential evolutionary publication] on "Natural Selection", for convenience quoted below "When selection is spoken of as a force, it often seems that it is has a mind of its own; or as if it was nature personified. This most often occurs when biologists are waxing poetic about selection. This has no place in scientific discussions of evolution. Selection is not a guided or cognizant entity; it is simply an effect." (all em. added. Agreement by the DT is whole-hearted. Note that the term "biologists" of necessity includes Darwin) (continuing) If natural selection is only an "effect", how then can it be the "cause" of evolution as universally agreed? The ability of the organism to survive using these effects (and more importantly to sustain a direction of development such as the eye, immune system, or the complexity or the eukaryotic cell,) for millions of years, would be a property of a developing genome, not a property of the "conditions of life". Darwin's second assessment, as above, restated here, is correct: "....we clearly see that the nature of the conditions is of subordinate importance in comparison with the nature of the organism in determining each particular form of variation; - perhaps of not more importance than the nature of the spark, by which a mass of combustible matter is ignited, has in determining the nature of the flames." (em. added) (which is none - DT) Those who believe in Darwinian evolution as currently taught in biology have accepted a cause/effect reversal as a simplistic explanation of a phenomenon which has not yet been discovered by science. Yet they fail to supply a plausible explanation for the process and to produce evidence for the continuing million/billion year increase in complexity by showing a mechanism which will supply a sustained direction of development. It ought to be noted that this very process has been considered by at least one microbiologist, the author Michael Denton, in his book "Nature's Destiny". The process is not based on Darwinian natural selection. Assuming if, at this point the reader might agree with the above argument concerning Natural Selection, and yet still be convinced that evolution exists as outlined by Darwin's theory, further discussion is in order. Is it not possible that Darwin's preferred explanation for complexity, Survival of the Fittest, is really the explanation of the process? In fact it will be shown (in the Survival of the Fittest section) that the concept is erroneous as well, but for a wholly different reason. (5) The Detailed Operation of Natural Selection; Kettlewell's Experiment A very important, always overlooked, factor in addition to those listed above should be kept in mind in the detailed consideration of Natural Selection. According to the theory, each and every living organism existing at this very instant, has been Naturally Selected (otherwise it would not be here). No Darwinist can disagree with this. Suppose that, as an investigation of the process, this type of selection is labeled "NS1". (Note that Survival of the Fittest has also operated here, but this will be ignored for the time). NS1 is the type of selection that has allowed these organisms to be "alive" at this very instant; these organisms are the result of a an unbroken line of forebears which have existed since the "formation" of the particular species. Again, there can be no disagreement. Note that it is equally as true that each and every one of its forebears , (perhaps billions upon billions of each species) also has to have been Naturally Selected (but for the minutely few selected by man). (That is to say, an unbroken line of organisms exists from the "original species" to those of the present day). But if the time period is long, say 100 MY, and the supposed evolution has occurred, some of the organisms which started out as species "a" have now become species "b", "c" and/or "...n". According to Darwin's theory, these species "b", "c" and/or "n", have evolved and exist because they have been Naturally Selected. (Darwinists, when asked to explain the "cause" of their evolution, would have to reply that they have been "naturally selected"). Let this type of selection (where evolution has occurred) be labeled "NS2". As a practical example we could look at two species to illustrate the two types of selection: one might be the common Carp (Cyprinus Carpio) which has existed unchanged an estimated 200 MY. The other could be Homo Sapiens which by most Darwinian beliefs has existed for perhaps 10 MY. The former is type NS1 selection, the latter type NS2 selection (where the species have evolved). It can be easily seen here that type NS1 selection represent stasis, while type NS2 selection represents evolution. It can also be seen that the vast majority are descendants of "stable" genomes (NS1) and, if Darwin's (New Synthesis) theory were correct, a nearly infinitesimal number would carry new genetic material accounting for evolution (NS2). Granting this incontrovertible fact, an important question of simple logic arises: Question: How does the latter action of Natural Selection (NS2) of new genetic material (which under Darwin's theory causes evolution) differ from the former (non evolutionary) type of Natural Selection (NS1) which has to have operated to produce the nearly infinite number, by comparison, of other organisms that have existed but not "evolved"? Answer: There is no difference at all. Conceptually speaking, NS1 is identically equivalent to NS2. Mathematically speaking, NS1 = NS2. Thus Darwinian Natural Selection as a mechanism is completely ubiquitous in its action. It produces both stasis (NS1) and evolution (NS2) and if Darwinists are correct in the claim that it is the cause of evolution, then it is also the cause of stasis. Consequently if some form of evolution has actually taken place, what has logically occurred in each and every case has been only adaptation (evidenced by survival) of the organism, which is solely a characteristic, or capability, of the genome, not a selection action of the environment or conditions, or anything else understood by scientists. The only "selection" made in either case is simple survival. But as above, that is true of all organisms. How then is Natural Selection (or any other type of selection) the cause of evolution? Assuming the above argument correct, and extending this line of reasoning to other existing conditions of the planet, then it might just as sensibly and just as meaningfully be said, that the size, location and other features of say, the Grand Canyon or the Himalayas or any other feature of the Universe for that matter, is also a product of Natural Selection. The term is therefore meaningless. It does nothing to explain either apparent design or increased complexity for which Darwin's theory is credited. There is no action such as selection. If some sort of evolution has occurred, "selection" as currently understood by science is not a proper explanatory cause. As to Kettlewell's famous experiments with the moth, they are (or were) accepted by the biological community with un-tempered (unscientific) enthusiasm, (at least in most textbooks) in that they seemingly showed Natural Selection actually at work, a verification of the theory of selection for the first time. The account was given wide attention throughout the literature, curiously much the same as the Piltdown Man Hoax, and from a related scientific field, the Margaret Mead Hoax. (It should be noted that Kettlewell's work is still cited in biology texts as an example of Natural Selection, despite the fact that it has been essentially discredited. For example, Biology, Raven and Johnson, 2nd ed., e.g. describes the process as "evolutionary" and "a result of Natural Selection".) Little argument can be had with the fact that Kettelwell showed some type of adaptation (called "selection") to be operating in nature, but regardless of what it is called, the conclusion that it exemplifies the cause of evolution is clearly erroneous. The moths (Biston Betularia) simply displayed an adaptation to surroundings, very similar to mimicry, a trait of virtually all organisms. This adaptation is absolutely trivial by comparison to some of the amazingly adaptive descriptions provided by Henry W. Bates, in what has come to be known as "Batesian Mimicry". More recent review of the entire phenomena suggests that changes in the moths were a direct reaction to the sulfur/other contaminants/ in the atmosphere ("selection" by sulfur?) and this possibility, along with others, is seemingly not considered, in the unscientific explanation found in textbooks. It must be concluded that the original hasty conclusion was based strictly on a prior belief in evolution. In any event, regardless of any change in the environment, the "cause" of the change in the moth was not "selection" but rather the ability of the organism (above) to adapt. By switching cause with effect, a hitherto unexplainable phenomenon is thus understood, which just happens to be in accordance with prior beliefs. Wallace's succinct explanation in section (3) above applies perfectly. The fact that Kettlewell's experiment is still reported today as evidence of evolution, is nothing less than the acceptance of a failure of the scientific method being used to foster a belief, and is hard to distinguish from any type of evangelism. In the case of the car (above) that won't start because of the rain, the real cause of the failure to start is a defect in the ignition system, not the rain, which defect would show up under other conditions such as high humidity, or the operation of a car wash. If some form of evolution exists, either through a preordained plan (as Alfred Wallace and others believe), by a phenomena as mystifying to us as Lightning was to the ancients, or by some as-yet undiscovered ability of the genome to reorient itself, it is not as a result of "selection" but rather only made possible by the effects of the "selection" (=survival), and again, is simple, unexplainable, adaptation. It is almost shameful to have to mention the evident fact that all living organisms are adapted to the myriad characteristics of this planet; but solely because of this fact, it is not proper to conclude that the characteristics of the planet are the "cause" of any evolution. The action of supposed evolution is an action of the organism. Again, the scientific cause is unknown. (For those who believe that mutations are ultimately the "cause" of evolution, it is first necessary to prove that mutations which increase functional ability are "random"; see the comments on "devolution", in (3) above. Secondly, scientific proof of an increase in functionality due to mutation must be demonstrated, mutagenic activity of bacteria notwithstanding; this aspect evolution has yet to be proved. It is strictly a belief, based on the acceptance of evolution as a fact; the circle of reason is thus closed). An additional attempt will be made by analogy, to illustrate this cause/effect relationship as it occurs in the concept of Natural Selection, by a hypothetical scenario as developed below. (6) The Natural Selection Machine It is 100 years hence, around the year 2100, when an enterprising chap applies for a patent on a machine which produces food of the very same type we are used to eating. It is similar in a way to the mythical "horn of plenty", Cornucopia. The ingredients for food, the necessary mineral elements, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, etc., are added to the device, and from the "horn" spews forth apples, bananas, peaches, pears vegetables of all sorts and other food items. (Note that this is an amazing discovery, because at present, humans are incapable of "making" any edible food.) Quite obviously, the secret of the molecular process used by organisms has been harnessed. But while this is truly amazing, another facet of the machine is even more amazing. It has some of the abilities of the kind we attribute today, to Darwinian Natural Selection, in that it seems to be able to select which products will be produced. The trigger for this remarkable action is dependent on the input to the machine, but not in the way you might first suppose. For example, if the machine is producing too many bananas, say, the operator simply feeds these excess items back into the machine and voila! the number of bananas is reduced, and productions of other items increased. The machine thus has a conservative nature, because nothing is wasted. The world is of course, astonished. But let us control our astonishment for the time being, and investigate the latter feature of the machine, the ability to self-alter it's own output. The characteristic is very similar to the assumed "action" of Natural Selection as held by Darwinists, from the standpoint that some form of "evolution" seems to be occurring. It appears that when the machine encounters certain situations in the environment in which it operates, its basic method of operation is altered in some way. (This would be the type of machine proposed by Wallace [above] - we don't know how it works. {By the way, if you think this scenario is simplistic, read Dawkins' book about 'Mount Improbable'.}) In any event, we can now ask the all-important question: what is the cause of the alteration of the output of the machine??? If you have answered "the change in the input to the machine", you are a candidate for belief in Darwin's Natural Selection. It is not caused by the change in input to the machine rather the real scientific cause of the change is the capability of the machine to sense the input,and make changes to the output, by a method which we don't understand. We have, as in Wallace's description above, vainly grasped the first relationship observed, and picked an effect as a cause. (Note that while it is true that no output changes occur unless there are input changes, that is, input changes are a necessary condition for output changes, they - like water for corn - are only necessary, not causal. (Note in this context, plants require water, light, heat, dozens of nutrients and other conditions for growth; while these are necessary, [effects of the environment] they are not causal, the cause of the growth being strictly a property of the genome). In the same way, "selection" i.e. "survival", (Darwin's definition) is necessary for existence, but is not the cause of evolution, (if such even exists.) This is precisely one of the errors of Darwinism. Another is more clearly pointed out in the discussion which is continued below, on Survival of the Fittest. SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST Some History (7) As noted above, Darwin's original explanation for evolution, Natural Selection, received criticism from even his closest friends partially because of the florid language used in the definition of it, but more because of the lack of supporting evidence. For example, Darwin chiefly defined it (and the same technique is carried on to this day) by reference to its effects , which technique is not a definition at all, but rather an analogy, as opposed to a scientific explanation of the method by which it worked: "It may metaphorically be said that Natural Selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, the slightest variations; rejecting those that are bad, preserving and adding up all that are good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life." From Darwin's book, "Origins". (Note that the word "metaphorically" was added in later editions, to deflect criticism.) But in as much as Darwin retreated somewhat from this position, as noted above, in substituting the term Survival of the Fittest for Natural Selection, the "new" terminology must also be examined to see if it contains a scientific explanation for the process of evolution he espoused. (8) The Real Meaning of Survival of the Fittest - a Tautology The term Survival of the Fittest is a phrase that describes the outcome of a competition where there is no possibility or even probability (such as can be done in game theory) of predicting the outcome in advance because of the variability of the conditions of the competition. By its very nature it is a tautology, regardless of the situation in which it is used. It describes only the effect, or outcome, of a competition, not the cause of the outcome, and the cause must be investigated separately. For example, if it were used to describe the outcome of an auto race such as the Indy 500 (one of the premier 500 mile races in the USA), describing the race, or outcome, as "survival of the fittest" would indicate that the victor would be unknown until the end of the race. Likewise, if discussing the survival of a business in a collapsing economy or perhaps the survival of a race of people during the fierce competition of a war, use of the term Survival of the Fittest, while it may tend to show that the user had some fore-knowledge of the outcome, would in fact indicate that nothing would be known about the outcome until the end of the particular event. Herbert Spencer used the term to describe the result of some of his socio-political theories (Social Darwinism) on the struggle for human existence, during Darwin's day, in an attempt to explain the cause of the events. (9) The Perceived Meaning of Survival of the Fittest Survival of the Fittest was originally used by Spencer as above, and its use was urged upon Darwin by both Spencer and Wallace as a better, more descriptive, explanation of the mechanism by which evolution occurred, as compared with Natural Selection. "Fittest" is the term which defines the condition of a survivor in the Darwinian scheme. It is not independently defined however, such that it gives the term a precise meaning, which is absolutely necessary for specificity if it is to be used in a definition. The term is, in fact, a variable in the mathematical sense and thus ambiguous. The meaning of it becomes clear only after the action of survival has occurred. To explain the existence of species by describing them as "Survivors of the Fittest" is essentially to say "Things are the way they are because that's the way they are", which is a comparable statement of specificity. We know nothing of their characteristics beforehand, and this is precisely why Darwin's theory fails one of the great tests of a true theorem: it has no predictability. Even diehard evolutionists admit this. Survival of even a specific organism can be dependant on hundreds of separate conditions, all different. But the term, in and of itself, also contains an implicit assumption, making it more believable, that survivors are an improved form of organism compared to those which do not survive. Spencer had this belief. Such of course is not the case, and there is no intent here to state that any thinking biologist, Darwin included, believed this to be true. (However, his florid terminology suggests this and when introduced to young students, still learning the process of logic, the meaning will be little other than that. This is particularly true when the operation of a tautology is not properly understood; thus to a certain portion of individuals the term itself seems to be an explanation for evolution.) And in fact, the term itself summons up a vision of continual incremental improvement in an object such as a car, watch, or other artifact made by man, as it is often used this way. Alternately, any process performed over and over is likewise subject to trial and error for the purpose of improvement, and for example, the recipe for a loaf of bread would possibly be perfected by this means. But note that in every such case, intelligence is applied in the improvements. Not so however is this true in the field of biological reproduction. There is no intelligence available to weed out the deficient and modify the process toward a more desirable end. Here, Survival of the Fittest is far more likely to mean less complexity, and a simpler organism, since a change in conditions of existence is far more likely to require increased adaptability in the genome which is unavailable. Thus the survivors are (of course) the fittest, but in this case a far simpler organism such as bacteria. There is little doubt that one of the great mysteries of history, the demise of the Dinosaurs, could be termed a routine application of the concept of Survival of the Fittest, where the fittest were some form of bacteria. However, this statement explains nothing, except to display the lack of meaning of Darwinian terminology. It goes without saying that this outcome is not envisioned as a form of evolution that is intended to be described by Darwin's theory. Yet a look at the fossil record shows that something like 99% of the survivors were simpler organisms. So once again, as in the case of the term Natural Selection, a detailed look at a Darwinian process shows an entirely unlikely outcome from that outlined by the theory, in its attempt to explain the order and complexity so evident. Even so, it should be acknowledged that the fact that even 99.99% of survivors are simpler organisms, this fact is no proof (excluding statistics) that the survivors we know about today are not the 0.01% of survivors that are more fit from a complexity standpoint and thus prove the methodology of the theory. But another avenue of logic, with consideration of the word "fit", will be presented to show conclusively that such is not the case. Discussion of the "Fittest". What is it? Of all the barbs thrown at the concept of Darwin's theory, probably none is more prevalent than the claim that the term Survival of the Fittest is a tautology; of all the defenses of the theory, explanations of how and why it is not are likewise probably the most numerous. Darwin himself tried to give explanations of the term "fittest" in such a way that they did not appear to be synonymous with the word "survival". For example, he stated: "Generally, the most vigorous males, those which are best fitted for their places in nature, will leave most progeny." Darwin's book, "Origins". This statement of course is a perfect example of Darwin's habit of "circular reasoning" and is also a classic example of a tautology. (Could those males who generally produced the "least" number of progeny possibly be defined as the "fittest"?) A perhaps more modern rephrase of the statement: "Statistically, those animals that are the most fit for survival will create the population of descendants whose characteristics will eventually come to dominate the genome." says identically the same thing in a somewhat more obscure manner (=obfuscation), and while the tautology is not as clearly evident, it is none the less a tautology. In short, neither statement says anything other than the fact that the survivors (and their characteristics) will tend to survive. The statement is unquestionably true because by its very nature it cannot be false. It predicts nothing about the characteristics of the survivors, or how or why they will survive. Consequently it is meaningless and of no use to the argument or explanation. But as above, and as in the case of the term Natural Selection, Darwin meant something by the term Survival of the Fittest also. The acceptance of it by the biological community, of long standing, shows that it conveys some kind of meaning as an explanation for a process that is otherwise not understood. So an examination of the usual use of the word "fittest" will be made to see what the true meaning of it, in a "trial and error" situation would be, and judge if this meaning is either correct, or adds to the explanation of the concept of evolution. The Very "Fittest" If it is speculated that the term "fittest" refers to an organism which has the best (ultimate) capability for acquiring, holding, and using all available nutrients, all the while developing or having a capability of fending off threats to its existence, this concept would indeed be an explanation for a certain possible type of organism. For example, if marine coral were an interconnected, integrated organism, with a need for correct functioning of all of its parts to maintain the existence of the whole, it could be called a "fittest" organism, in its own right, without the reference to "survivorship" to determine its fitness. There are many coral deposits throughout the world, some which are immense in size, (such as the body of extinct coral which is currently the State of Florida, USA) but unfortunately, marine coral is really not an organism, per se, but rather a collection of organisms, similar to filamentous algae. Since there are really no such organisms in existence as described above, it must be concluded that this is not what the "fittest" is, in the sense of Darwin's meaning. Limited Fitness Therefore the meaning of the word "fitness" as contained in Survival of the Fittest can only be construed as the organism somehow fitter than other members of a class (in the sense of the word "best") of organisms falling into a special group such as a species, not, as above, the very fittest organism in the universe. This is consistent with the descriptions used by Darwin and also used by most evolutionists in the explanation offered for the mechanism of evolution. (Note that there is no consideration here of the meaning of the term as used by geneticists or population ecologists). It is therefore concluded that Darwin meant this aspect of fitness, and using this description as a definition for the characteristics of survivors, it is possible to study known survivors, kind of in a "reverse engineering" sort of way, and see if they are in some manner "the best" (which would make them the "fittest"). (Yes. its still a tautology, but perhaps the meaning will become clear as the argument progresses). A few organisms will be looked at using this definition. (10) The Mighty Oak. (Family Quercus) Is it the fittest? Trees have been around for 300 million years by some accounts. It therefore must be assumed that each species currently living, having survived either in its present form or (allowing evolution) evolved form, must represent the fittest form of its species. If Darwin's theory is correct, the principles of Survival of the Fittest, based on the "struggle for existence", combined with the action of Natural Selection would make it so unlikely as to be impossible that after this period of time there could be any "less-than-fittest" characteristic in a species such as for example, the mighty oak. If physical characteristics of the oak such as its size, shape, strength, and reproductive capacity are studied one should reasonably expect that it is impossible to make any improvements in any of them, after perhaps a 100 million year period of becoming the "fittest". It would have to be considered the "best". (Note that Darwin, Wallace and most biologists consider that organisms are "perfectly" adapted to their niches). So when studying for example, its reproductive capability and noticing what appears to be a very inefficient system, it becomes obvious that something is wrong either in the premise (that it is the fittest) or the conclusion (that the reproductive system is inefficient). (After all, Darwinists as well as most biologists are quick to explain how the organism with the most efficient system will necessarily come to dominate a species, since inefficient forms cannot compete.) Briefly, the method of reproduction of the oak involves the production of an acorn, a fertilized seed rounded or oblong in shape about 1/2 inch (12 mm.) in diameter which drops from the tree after maturity. This seed, if by some means covered by soil, if all else goes well, produces offspring. In and of itself, this system works well, as oaks are very plentiful throughout compatible portions of the planet. But when compared with other seed reproduction systems it is indeed nothing but archaic. A look at the simple Dandelion, shows a seed dispersal system more efficient by at least several orders of magnitude than that of the oak. If one were to hazard a guess it might be assumed that the energy required to produce one acorn would be roughly the equivalent of the energy needed to produce one whole dandelion plant. A typical plant contains perhaps 200 seeds, and has a dispersal range of hundreds of miles by use of the wind. Likewise with a comparison to other trees, such as the Willow and the Cottonwood which have a dandelion-type seed, the oak shows a similar deficiency in seeding ability. Thus, it is difficult to imagine Darwin's theory being at work here, constantly weeding out those trees which produce large, very costly (in the competitive sense) seeds, in favor of those trees which produce smaller and smaller seeds with a marvelous dispersal system such as the dandelion. It seems that in a matter of only several hundred thousand years (hazarding another guess) the actions of continuously choosing "the fittest" by the Darwinian process would produce the rather trivial (by comparison) changes necessary to make the oak and all of its characteristics, the "fittest" in every respect. (Note that while the oak may be more "fit" in comparison to other species of trees, it still must compete with those of its own species for survival, and thus the requirement of Darwinian fitness would be imposed). The fact that many plants and other trees have supposedly evolved to this condition, with highly efficient reproductivity, makes the situation even more inexplicable, to the extent that the basic premise, namely that "survival of the fittest" works at all, is logically called into question. But if this situation is truly unexplainable in reference to Darwin's theory, let us look at other, similar, situations which also need explanation. The Fruit Fly - Drosophila Melanogaster. Is it the Fittest? A look in the animal kingdom shows the rapidly reproducing fruit fly, (about 2 weeks per generation) with a serious deficiency, that being the inability of the fly to penetrate even the thinnest of skins of any fruit, and thus release the sugar which starts the process to produce their food. Mechanisms/processes to accomplish this are available in thousands of organisms, both in the animal and vegetable kingdoms. Boring mechanisms, such as in the mosquito, stingers, such as in the bee/wasp, or a dissolving fluid such as produced by other insects, abound in nature. It is absolutely inexplicable in the Darwinian sense, that some device or method of doing this would fail to evolve over the past eons of their existence. Thus it must be concluded that while they are survivors, they are not the "fittest". Darwin's theory cannot explain it. (Even Dawkins' metaphoric "random walk" up "Mount Improbable", explaing all random aspects of evolution, has ended up in a morass or chasm from which there is no escape; the summit is unobtainable and "selection" has mysteriously stopped.) In all there are estimated to be at least 5, perhaps 15 million different species, only about 1.5 M of them having been cataloged. With each species having hundreds of physical characteristics required for survival, we have a right to expect that each one of them, with perhaps a few explainable exceptions, are the fittest. As can easily be seen by reference to two of the most common species, they are not. Thousands of other examples exist, including most of the common food items such as fruits, nuts, and vegetables (do you really need an object the size of a watermelon to produce seeds?). In the animal kingdom, the most unlikely dairy cow, with its three stomachs, defies Darwinian explanation: many other milk producers get by with but one stomach. Therefore Darwin's theory has not explained some of the simplest facets of the existing spectrum of living organisms, in the highly developed state in which they exist. For example, the current belief that the immensely complex bird feather, the mammalian immune system and other extremely complex and of necessity, synergistic systems, evolved by Darwinian means, has to be weighed against the theory's inability to explain relatively trivial deficiencies such as those mentioned above. (11) Another, Broader, more Likely Outcome of Natural Selection It thus appears to be very possible that Darwin's theory (and all derivatives) is in reality a much better prescription for a condition which might be called "mono-speciation". His Natural Selection, which has to act ubiquitously over all organisms in a given area, would be more likely to create similarity, not diversity. It's hard to understand how, over the eons since the Cambrian Explosion, organisms could maintain the unique characteristics we see today if they were constantly evolving to the "fittest" condition, as required by his theory. Instead of squirrels, rabbits, chipmunks, skunks, groundhogs, raccoons, and the most improbable 200 million-year-old opossum, Darwin's Natural Selection more easily predicts that there would be one genus or perhaps only one species filling these niches. The variants required need be no different than the breeds of dogs, of which there are something like 500 or so. Science does not know the answer to this proposition. (But again as above, note the possibility of the "reverse logic" involved in the consideration.) (12) Limitations of Fitness Sections preceding this, (9) through (11) discuss fitness and illustrate organisms which are not the "fittest" but have existed for millions of years, virtually unchanged. So if the oak had a reproduction system as efficient and by comparison as simple as (say) the cottonwood or the dandelion, its very existence would severely challenge any other type of trees; and if the fruit fly had an ability to puncture the skin of most fruit it would once again drastically alter and perhaps nearly eliminate the production of fruit (at least as we know it). An obvious conclusion drawn from these facts is that all the species that are known today are in reality, more like artifacts with arrested development of some of their features. The result is a series of organisms whose characteristics have been limited by some process unknown to science. This feature explains diversity. Again Darwin's theory cannot explain this phenomenon. (13) The Malthusian Connection to Evolution The fact that both Darwin and Wallace cite the "Malthusian" concept, often described as the "struggle for existence" (which places a limit on the number of survivors) as the foundation for their theories is considered to be one of the great coincidences in the field of Science. (In actuality, it may not be a coincidence at all since there is growing evidence that Darwin's contribution to the theory, which appeared only after his reading of Wallace's "Ternate" paper in 1858, was not original.) In any event, given even that the Darwin/Wallace theory is correct, the concept has nothing to do with the "cause" of evolution, rather it would affect only the "speed" or rate of same. If evolution proceeds on a "trial and error" basis, the Malthusian concept simply increases the number of trials, which would naturally increase the rate of evolution. However, the action is immensely important to the outcome of the biological process in that it filters out the defective organisms from a population and in that respect is, in the strictest sense, a "quality control" process. The process is therefore the exact opposite of evolution and contributes to the stability of the genome. It is basically one of the maintenance of diversity, not of the cause of diversity. Note here again, the inverse logic so typical of Darwinian thought. (We can be thankful for this process because without it, this planet would be full of deformed, dying, and dead organisms, rampant sites for the proliferation of disease, as opposed to the marvelous order currently evident. Bacteria, by far the most prolific predators and seldom if ever recognized as such by biologists, are chiefly responsible for this order. Once again, nothing in Darwinian evolutionary theory explains or accounts for it.) (14) Some Predictions at odds with Darwin's theory As discussed above in (9) above, the very hallmark of any theory, is the ability to explain hitherto unknown processes (cause and effect relationships) which may be in question and under study. It has been noted by many critics and even supporters of Darwinism, that predictions based on the theory are not possible, and likewise, that it is not falsifiable. Many defenses are made, also, of this charge. But hypothetical predictions about biological events can be made even though no one living today will live to see the outcome. There is nothing however, which limits speculation about events which could develop according to the theory, and then comparing current reality with what is concluded. Thus, the DT will speculate about certain species which could reasonably be expected to have evolved, assuming for the moment that Darwin's theory is sound. Regarding the oak tree above, the query has already been made as to the unexplainable limitation of its reproductive capability. It is very hard to see how, if the oak had developed a first rate reproduction system such as the type used by bacteria or mushrooms, (with appropriate differences of course) that there would be such a variety of other plants in existence. Oaks, like many trees, have the ability to limit the growth of other plants for a considerable distance around their perimeter, and it is most likely, if they were really the Darwinian fittest, that they would be the dominant vegetation. Fruit trees, flowers, grasses and myriad other plant life might be virtually nonexistent. To say that the consequences of this would be remarkable is a gross understatement. Again, if the fruit fly had acquired the ability to penetrate the skin of most fruit, over the last 100 M years, the results would be equally remarkable and in fact, disastrous from our point of view. But things could be worse. There is a wide open niche in the world of large mammals, (as there is in many other areas) for attack by a predator from the air. Vampire bats fill this niche to a very limited degree, as they obtain blood (their food) in a kind of hit-and-miss mode. Let us suppose that another bat-like animal, developing under the Darwinian principle of constant, gradual, "survival of the fittest", had honed it's predatory capability to where it had developed a venom-based attack system not unlike that found in snakes. Further let us assume that the fluid it used (being the fittest) would paralyze the largest of mammals, allowing the bats to feed at will for a long period of time, similar to the way wasps provide for their young; (note that all the elements to accomplish this are available in many forms throughout existing organisms - thus the changes, again, would be trivial and consistent with genetic possibilities. Likewise, a hypothetical scenario can easily be constructed to explain the "evolutionary" steps). This development would be the death knell for the mammalian species as it exists today, including mankind, had it occurred. Obviously it hasn't. How to explain this in the Darwinian sense? Once again, Darwin's theory has no direct explanation, and none of the "principles" that arise from it have any; in fact, the application of his theory - millions of years for development of such complex things as the eye - somehow doesn't seem to work for the trivial possibilities that are mentioned above, which should have been "evolving" for the millions of years; how is it that they have stopped? Worse, because there are no rational explanations for these unexplainable "non-evolutions" they are either virtually ignored or obfuscated in writings in the field of biology. This is science? As an example, Stephen J. Gould (the Harvard biologist and dedicated evolutionist) obfuscates ideas such as these in a Scientific American article, whose prologue reads: "The earth's creatures have evolved through a series of contingent and fortuitous events." (em. added.) Thus, the non-evolution of the "predatory bat", an efficient oak seeding mechanism and a skin piercing feature of the fruit-fly are unexplained "fortuitous" events. (Note also that they are extremely "contingent" events - like the "evolution" of the eye - each step is contingent upon all previous steps as well as all following steps for there to be a workable eye). Likewise the buoyancy of ice, transparency of water vapor below saturation (100% relative humidity) and opacity of water vapor at saturation (forming clouds), three of many properties of water absolutely necessary for life, both contingent and fortuitous, do not need explanation in a scientific sense. They can be ignored as they tend to show "intelligence" or "planning" in the universe, (and contradict Darwinian theory of "randomness"). At the very least, Gould recognizes that events (and of necessity non-events) can be fortuitous. He does not go so far as to explain or even suggest how millions of supposedly random occurrences can turn out that way. It's apparent that things don't work in that manner; the laws of probability and science cannot currently explain such "fortuity". Darwin's theory does not either. Yet this is exactly what is necessary for a theory which "explains" as Darwin's theory is supposed to do. Scientifically we are back in the days where the "god of lightning" is still dueling with the "god of thunder", using Darwin's (or Gould's) theory. Fallacious Theories: The Lucy Principle Beliefs die hard, and for many reasons. Darwin's theory explains to a believer what is probably the greatest mystery of the universe, perhaps even greater than the mystery of the origin of matter, space and time. It is a Godsend to atheists, agnostics and Secular Humanists. Those who work in the field of biology must derive great satisfaction from the belief in Darwinism, in that they are working in a field that is "well understood", albeit the minor gaps which are not yet explainable. Unfortunately, once a decision or position such as this has been taken on a subject, it is seldom reversed. Witness the unfortunate decision made by Alfred Russel Wallace. Wallace published the decision for Natural Selection (not using this phrase) in his Ternate Paper, the idea having come to him during a delirium produced by an attack of Malaria. Once published, he never budged from this position during his lifetime. Thereafter he clung to his decision, even going so far as to write a book on the "Theory of Natural Selection" and another entitled "Darwinism", upholding the decision made in delirium. This was against his prior explicit and succinct statement of the "cause/effect" reversal principle, so germane to Darwinist theory, which is quoted above and so relevant it is repeated here: "We are like children [who are] looking at a complicated machine of the reasons of whose construction they are ignorant, and like them we constantly impute as causes what is really effect in our vain attempts to explain what we will not confess that we cannot understand." This principle of why beliefs are hard to shed is exemplified by a memorable episode in the comic strip "Peanuts" (not exactly a paragon of science, but nonetheless illustrative), in a discussion between Charley Brown and Lucy: Lucy looks skyward and says "Charley, did you ever notice that clouds make words? Charley looks up and says to her, "Lucy, that is skywriting". Lucy looks up and says "yes, but sometimes clouds do make words." Using this analogy, it is easy to understand how young students, years away from the ability to discriminate between scientific logic and illogic, would adopt the concept of Natural Selection as an explanation for evolution, and cling to it for the rest of their life; how else to explain the statement of one of the most respected of biologists, by all accounts an intelligent and learned person, Ernst Mayr, Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology, Emeritus, at Harvard. He makes the statement in his book "The Growth of Biological Thought" attributing the inability of Natural Selection to PREVENT extinction as essentially non-understandable by Darwinian theory. His actual quote, while discussing the unsolved problem of extinction in the field of evolutionary biology is "(...[w]hy is natural selection so helpless to prevent it?"). (Note that this chair at Harvard is currently held by the equally renowned evolutionist Stephan J. Gould.) This tragic misunderstanding of the power of Natural Selection, which power is so forcefully presented by Darwin in his book "Origins" , can only be explained by a commitment to the idea in the same sense as the one made by Alfred Russel Wallace above, and should raise a red flag to those who are concerned about the indoctrination of erroneous ideas in the mind of the young. (15) The Five Senses Hypothesis [See also Addendum below] This is an unstated belief system which, for many scientists, underlies the study of all the physical sciences. The most important feature of this belief is that all phenomena in the universe are capable of being measured, or acknowledged, by one of the five senses of man. Thus there are no forces or actions of any kind in existence which ultimately will not be discovered and recognized by these senses. (It should be understood that much instrumentation, computers, etc. aid the process). But the "bottom line" of this hypothesis is that ALL phenomena are under the purview and (therefore possible) eventual control of mankind. See also the discussion in Thesis #2 (above). For a simple example, Gravity is considered to be well understood, as the equations of Newton and Einstein display; however, the cause of gravity is completely unknown and indeed little else is known about it; e.g., it is not known whether there is a "speed" of gravity, as there is for light waves, or its action is "instantaneous". (For that matter, [to my knowledge] it could just as well be a "repulsive" force as opposed to the "attractive" force which it is always considered - there appears to be no scientific evidence for either explanation). Likewise, Light, Magnetism, Radiation of all sorts and other phenomena are completely unknown as to their "cause"; any who believe that we are even close to the understanding of these phenomena, are prime candidates for belief in "evolution" as outlined by the Darwinian theory. (One of the foremost prosthelytizer of evolution, Stephen J. Gould, (see also (14) above) [who incidentally, equally proselytizes Communism] states that (paraphrasing) 'Evolution is as much a fact as Gravity'. The Doubting Thomas agrees. The "cause" of "Evolution", to science, is as much a mystery as is the cause of gravity.) When Evolution is studied under the above premise, of necessity, all other possibilities for "cause" are eliminated. Creationism, including "Theistic Evolution" (the Alfred Wallace version of Darwinian theory) of any kind, is ruled out . Ruled out as well is the possibility of a Creator, miracles, conceptual thought, free will, and many other phenomena, which are entirely possible and routinely believed in by the great majority of people, as well as many unbiased scientists. These above ideas are often completely disdained by "scientists". This attitude, so often considered as "enlightenment" is in logical fact not only ignorance but a downright irrational belief. Since none of these possible concepts can be disproved by Science, why is the disproof of these possibilities considered as fact? Under the Five Senses Hypothesis, the activities of all organisms including man are thus a process of simple programmed behavior, which will (hopefully) someday be understood in natural terms. This conclusion of scientific belief is most appropriately termed "naturalism". It should properly be a concept of Philosophy, but is considered by some evolutionists to be, like evolution itself, a "fact". Without an understanding of this hypothesis, the process of much scientific investigation contains an assumption, which to the uninitiated (students) is a "hidden agenda". In order to properly understand the limits of scientific thinking, this basic assumption must be acknowledged. Needless to say, this assumption is the basis for the beliefs of Secular Humanists, and is one of the chief reasons for the objection to the teaching of Darwinism in schools. This entire concept is termed a "hypotheses" because there is no proof whatsoever for it, and as long as there is one outstanding Question, (about anything in the field of science) there never will be; more correctly, it should be termed a "speculation", and in reality it is probably, for many, only a Hope. (Note also, that a Nobel Prize is never given for a theoretical inquiry of the type made famous by Stephen Hawking, [A Brief History of Time] rather it is bestowed only when a theory has been "proven" by demonstration to one of the five senses, by verifiable experiment). Further, a Nobel Prize has never been bestowed for any finding involving any type of "evolution"; Darwin, Wallace, Spencer, and all others connected with the "theory" remain uncited, in spite of the plethora of publication on the subject. In Darwin's case alone, there are thousands of books written in adulation of him and support for his theory). (16)Darwinism: the controlling paradigm The growing controversy over the teaching of evolution in schools is in large part due to the failure to clearly state the limits of Science in the explanation of biological matters. One would think that, in light of the above, the very first item on the agenda in Science Studies, in the very early grades, would be an explanation of the above hypothesis and the consequences of it explained and discussed. This posture would alleviate many of the objections currently causing problems in studies of evolution in the schools. A clear understanding of the premises would enable a variety of beliefs to co-exist with the theories currently held by the biological community. Dogmatic beliefs from any source would thus be acceptable. The current system, relying on a nearly universal belief in Darwinian concepts, would be augmented with a presentation of competing theories none of which are disprovable by "science", yet all of which are scientific possibilities. Most importantly, refutations of current theory, virtually missing from the educational system, would be presented. In passing, it ought to be noted that under the current situation, to dedicated evolutionists there is no objection to Philosophy being a part of Science, and the fact that it is absolutely unthinkable to them that any other basis of belief such as Religion be a part of it only shows a bias of the same sort that keeps Darwin's theory alive. Of course, neither Philosophy nor Religion are a proper consideration of the physical sciences. CLOSURE: There is another belief system held to be as true and is probably more widespread than the belief in Darwin's theory; that is belief in Astrology. This theory parallels belief in evolution in the respect that it is persistent, without an explainable mechanism, and tautologous in the sense that predictions of behavior of an individual can be made based solely on time of birth, but seemingly cannot be made without this information. Darwin's theory on the other hand, explains the reasons for characteristics of organisms after knowing whether or not they are survivors. The similarities between the two theories are so striking, that it is felt necessary to call them to the attention of the reader. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (1)DEFINITIONS Preamble to Definitions: Even though a refutation of the above arguments cannot logically be made through a refutation of the definitions, virtually all email received in opposition to the arguments have objected to aspects of the definitions, this being done as an attempt to refute the arguments. This process itself is a logical fallacy. As an explanation of the definitions, they basically describe the usage of the terms throughout the majority of books, textbooks, and papers in general secular construction. Thus, most of these publications describe living organisms as having "evolved". Natural Selection/Survival of the Fittest is the "cause" or mechanism for that evolution, while Darwin's theory establishes the guiding principles of that evolution. Darwin's Theory: a scientific theory that explains the development, from the basic fundamental properties of the elements in the periodic table, of all the diverse living organisms in the universe, by a process that is random in its entirety. Of necessity it denies the need for miraculous intervention of any kind, but does not, except by implication, rule it out. It includes at least four (4) variations of the theory beginning with the first publication of his book "Origins" to the most recent theory often called "The New Synthesis". It differs from the "Darwin/Wallace theory", since it lacks the Wallacean "spiritual intervention". The stated and implied intent of Darwin was to displace the then-current idea that species existed strictly as a result of an act(s) of Creation, as described in Genesis. But the vast majority of books, textbooks and references to it treat the theory as an explanation for development of all life, as above; e.g. "[Y]ou are an animal and share a common heritage with earthworms...", a quote from "Biology" Johnson, Holt Rinehart Winston 1994. p. 453 from the booklet "Education or Indoctrination", Access Research Network. thus the definition as above. Note that Darwin, from the second edition of "Origins" on, included the idea that life was originally "breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one;" But see the definition "Evolution" below. Natural Selection: The term originally used by Darwin to explain the causal mechanism which is responsible for the operation of his theory. In scientific, and to some extent lay circles, it replaced the idea that "Creation" was the causal mechanism. Darwin later abandoned this term in favor of the term Survival of the Fittest. The term Natural Selection is important because it is currently used by virtually all evolutionists as the explanation for the mechanism originally intended by Darwin, in spite of his essential retraction, as above. Survival of the Fittest: The term later adopted by Darwin to explain the mechanism of evolution after the criticism received from so many of his peers, to Natural Selection. According to Darwin the term "is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient". The arguments on this page attempt to show that the concept of the term is, independently, both erroneous and circular (a tautology). Evolution: a process of development of living organisms which has the capability to increase the variety and complexity of them, from the very first prokaryotic cell through to the development of the most complex of living organisms, by a trial and error process. This process is undirected by any method other than the fact of the success or failure of those organisms, which has been directed by the process called Natural Selection/Survival of the Fittest. Please note that for the purpose of argument this definition also includes abiogenesis (the self-development of living matter from basic chemicals) because virtually all books, textbooks and evolutionists consider that cell evolution occurred in this manner, the mechanism being not dissimilar to Darwinian evolution. As above, this idea is expressed either directly, or by implication, in most literature about evolution and for that reason is included here. (It should be noted that in the field of biology alone, there are likely a 1000 definitions of "evolution" which range from a simple description of the change in length of a bird beak, to that of abiogenesis, above). Addendum [This was added as an aid to high school students who had problems understanding the concept: alarm bells should be going off for those who are involved in teaching]. The "Five Senses Hypothesis" is a term that was coined to "put a name on" an unacknowledged assumption made by virtually all well-known (or perhaps "well publicized") scientists whenever anything about science is discussed. The assumption is as follows: "Nothing exists in the universe that is not perceptible to the senses of man". That is, in other words, one (or all) of the five senses of man - sight, sound, smell, taste, or feel - are all the senses necessary to discover everything that exists in the universe. Again in other words, all scientific phenomena have been, or hopefully one day will be, discovered by use alone of these five senses. (Keep in mind, that many machines, instruments, etc. are used in sensing data about the universe, but ultimately the information is presented to mankind through one of the five senses - a needle on a graph moves, a sound is produced, etc.). Thus the limitation of these five senses is a restriction on what man may know. As an example, let us assume that there is a worldwide association of worms, (yes underground worms, sometimes [ugh!] used for fishing). At the annual association meeting of the AOUW, the topic comes up about the possibilities of other living organisms, such as perhaps a "rose" (the flower) existing. The scientist worms will have none of this, because they believe in the "Two Senses" hypothesis, that is "feel" and "taste". Everything in their existence can be explained by reference to these two senses. Thus, there is no such thing as a rose. The subject of "music" never comes up, because there is no such thing as sound. Their knowledge is thus limited by the limitation of their senses and the dogmatic application of the hypothesis.

[Sornaensis]

Er... Whoever wrote that wasted a lot of time on a big, long rant that added up to, uh, nothing. Bummer, eh?

[nitsuJ]

i guess!

[Sornaensis]

And wtf @ Oak tree rant. Clearly this person doesn't understand the concept of a niche. Oh and they need to review their knowledge of Natural Selection.

[Universal Mind]

Nitsuj, I don't know about everybody else, but I can't read an entire book every time you start a thread, and I think you have started about five of them since I got up this morning.

[Taosaur]

I feel comfortable speaking for all of us when I say, tl;dr

[Ne-yo]

Nitsuj, I don't know about everybody else, but I can't read an entire book every time you start a thread, and I think you have started about five of them since I got up this morning. You're saying that like the Internet is going to be gone tomorrow. You do realize you don't have to read it all in one day right? Im sure the thread isn't going anywhere soon. In the biological world, the similarity of appearance of two distinct species, one which may follow another in time or space, unquestionably allows the possibility that one is the ancestor of the other; many thousands of such similarities exist and there is much evidence that the more recent species display these similarities; hence the conclusion that evolution based on scientific observations has occurred, is a possibility . An argument that it HAS occurred on this basis alone, would be a "post hoc propter hoc" argument, a fallacy. Just as in the example above, in order for it to be considered a "fact" not only must the mechanism be proven as to its cause, but all other possibilities must be ruled out. In a situation as complex as organic life, this is currently impossible. I like this a lot. I wonder how does 29 + stack up against it?

[Universal Mind]

You're saying that like the Internet is going to be gone tomorrow. You do realize you don't have to read it all in one day right? Im sure the thread isn't going anywhere soon. Oh really?

[juroara]

I don't think dwarnism evolution is the entire picture, nor does it answer all of the questions I'm glad to see free thinking individuals openly questioning if science is ignoring something. which I feel, it is. its really tragic that people would take questioning so defensively and automatically jump to the conclusion that those questioning have some fundamentalist agenda that said, this is a really long thread Xb

[Mes Tarrant]

I'm gonna have to agree with UM about a) the length of this post (you need to lay off the copy-paste for a while there bud and start to come up with your own words) and b) the high number of threads you've started. Take a breather. You only JUST joined DV, and you practically live in R/S. Go explore other pastures!