Where Is Evolution Going To End Up?

This a challenging question to answer because there has been a distinct pattern of evolutionary explanations that builds itself into the realm of complexity with its stories, some of which are well beyond from what Darwin himself envisioned (spontaneous variation and natural selection) while other evolutionary explanations are well beyond from even what neo-Darwinism envisions which as a result has sparked some angry feelings among some evolutionists…

A new phrase that sounds more like a car race than science, “mating between the quickest,” Physorg reports…

“Three Australian biologists, including lead author, Professor Rick Shine, from the University of Sydney’s School of Biological Sciences, believe they have identified a new evolutionary process based on their invasive cane toad research. Professor Shine said the process, which depends on “mating between the quickest” rather than “survival of the fittest”, challenges the long-held view that natural selection is the only driving force for evolution.”

Shifting gears to another speed, this time its survival of the slowest, reports Physorg

“In the study, the researchers investigated four genetically distinct clones of Escherichia coli clones, and sampled them periodically to look for the presence of five specific beneficial mutations.They discovered that after 500 generations all lineages had acquired beneficial mutations but two had significantly more than the others, which should suggest they were more likely to survive in the long-term than the other line of bacteria.  What they found instead was that after 1,500 generations the other two lineages had gone on to dominate.”

In another article, there was a call to depart from classical Darwinian evolution…

“In some cases, less fit organisms may out-survive their in-shape counterparts, according to a study reported in the March 18 issue of Science. The finding surprised researchers who assumed less fit organisms would be the eventual losers in evolution’s fight for survival.”

One of the team researchers made a comment about how this long-term evolutionary experiment which continues to “yield surprises,” and then using the unexpected result as an insight into the “richness and complexity of evolution.”  Keep in mind, all the bacteria were still members of the same species, E. coli. And beneficial mutations are in the eye of the beholder much like how fast this alleged evolution goes or if the fit or less fit survive better. Also, sometimes what appears beneficial in one context can have negative consequences in other parts.

On another front considered to be a war zone, there is a pretty big battle for fitness definitions. Nature came out swinging by defending the terms, “inclusive fitness” or “kin selection” in response to Martin Nowak, Corina Tarnita and Edward O. Wilson last August, which argued the idea should be abandoned while keeping classical evolution as the main explanation!

In science...”Online today in Nature, nearly 150 evolutionary biologists challenge Harvard University’s Edward O. Wilson, one of the world’s most preeminent scientists, and two colleagues. At issue is the usefulness of a 50-year-old theory about the role of relatedness in the evolution of complex social systems like those of ants, bees, and humans. Wilson, along with Harvard mathematicians Martin Nowak and Corina Tarnita argue that the theory, called inclusive fitness, does not explain how these complex societies arose; in a rebuttal today in Nature and in an upcoming issue of the Journal of Evolutionary Biology, their critics say that the Harvard trio have misrepresented the literature and are simply wrong.”

“We argue that standard natural selection theory in the context of precise models of population structure represents a simpler and superior approach, allows the evaluation of multiple competing hypotheses, and provides an exact framework for interpreting empirical observations.”

The defenders of “inclusive fitness” or “kin selection” strongly disagreed and raised a concern that evolution was branching off into dead ends which had no compatibility…

“By opposing ‘standard selection theory’ and ‘inclusive fitness theory’, we believe that Nowak et al. give the incorrect (and potentially dangerous) impression that evolutionary thinking has branched out into conflicting and apparently incompatible directions,”  In fact, there is only one paradigm: natural selection driven by interactions, interactions of all kinds and at all levels.  Inclusive fitness has been a powerful force in the development of this paradigm and is likely to have a continued role in the evolutionary theory of behaviour interactions.”

Jerry Coyne released his angry mob mentality with venom (which he has done several times on creationists) because he is on the side of “kin selection”…In his blog he writes…

“The only reason this paper was published is because it has two big-name authors, Nowak and Wilson, hailing from Mother Harvard. That, and the fact that such a contrarian paper, flying in the face of accepted evolutionary theory, was bound to cause controversy.  Well, Nature got its controversy but lost its intellectual integrity, becoming something of a scientific National Enquirer.”

“Oh, and boo to the Templeton Foundation, who funded the whole Nowak et al. mess and highlighted the paper on their website. The lesson: if you’re a famous biologist you can get away with publishing dreck.  So much for our objective search for truth—a search that’s not supposed to depend on authors’ fame and authority.”

Nowak, Tarnita and Wilson remained adamant with their position“Inclusive fitness theory is neither useful nor necessary to explain the evolution of eusociality or other phenomena,” they said.

Science Daily came to the defense of “Inclusive fitness” with their story…

“Bees are probably the most useful group for studying why eusocial organisms have workers that do not reproduce, but the authors got a lot of their basic facts about bees wrong. For example, the authors argue that having defensible nests is the most important consideration for eusociality, but they ignore the fact that there are thousands of nest making animals that are not eusocial,” said Wcislo, a specialist in the biology of bees.”

And finally, evolution of the weakest! According to science daily only the weak survive…

“Conventional rules of survival tend to favor the strongest, but University of Pittsburgh-based researchers recently found that in the emerging world of self-healing materials, it is the somewhat frail that survive.”

Keep in mind, this particular article is not a story about evolutionary theory, rather it’s about a quest to mimic biology in creating flexible materials.  Still, the headline illustrates the pervasiveness of evolutionary lingo! But one could argue that this article is about a Creator with an amazing purposeful design, “In short, a little bit of weakness gives a material better mechanical properties.”

So where is evolution going to end up? It’s leading to nowhere but a dead end, it’s not a search for truth, but how nature could be manufactured without an intelligent mind, God. Yet, it’s a fact, the evidence points to His wisdom which has designed some of the most amazing things we observe in nature. The evolution ‘theory’ is nothing more than invented stories that only attempt to replace God. By so doing, the confusion increases, building faith in naturalism with a framework that has no direction nor a foundation!

About these ads

4 thoughts on “Where Is Evolution Going To End Up?

  1. @Michael

    This a challenging question to answer because there has been a distinct pattern of evolutionary explanations that builds itself into the realm of complexity with its stories, some of which are well beyond from what Darwin himself envisioned (spontaneous variation and natural selection) while other evolutionary explanations are well beyond from even what neo-Darwinism envisions which as a result has sparked some angry feelings among some evolutionists…

    So what is your point here, Michael? That there are disagreements? That is absolutely normal. Disagreements in no way invalidates Evolution anymore than the fact that there are hundreds of denominations and disagreements about Christianity invalidates the said religion.

    So where is evolution going to end up? It’s leading to nowhere but a dead end, it’s not a search for truth, but how nature could be manufactured without an intelligent mind, God.

    First of all, Michael…all you gave was a bunch of quotes with no actual science behind them, so you cannot make such a statement based on what you give.

    Second of all, even if Evolution were to turn out to be wrong, that hardly validates your point of view.

    Yet, it’s a fact, the evidence points to His wisdom which has designed some of the most amazing things we observe in nature.

    If the “design” in nature points to how wise God is, then God must be a realy impractical person, since there is so much in nature both here and in the rest of the universe that does nothing for the benefit of us here on earth. To say that the design in nature points to God’s wisdom is to insult God.

    The evolution ‘theory’ is nothing more than invented stories that only attempt to replace God.

    Creationism is a demeaning insult to God; it makes him look like a dishonest, unintelligent, impractical, deceptive magician. Creationism has no support, either scientifically or Biblically. Creationism has nothing to do with the Bible, and it nor Theological Reasons that I reject Creationism, among OTHER reasons as well.

    By so doing, the confusion increases, building faith in naturalism with a framework that has no direction nor a foundation!

    If you want to call “naturalism” faith, then that depends on how you wish to define “faith.” — Certainly you can say we have “faith” that the scientific method works, but we have that “faith for a reason; that being we have actually seen it work many times….

    Now how many times have you seen God directly create anything, Michael? — I thought not.

  2. The evolution ‘theory’ is nothing more than invented stories that only attempt to replace God.

    With considerably greater accuracy, we could say that Genesis is nothing more than invented stories to replace knowledge.

    The difference is that the scientific stories are subject to expansion and modification as our knowledge increases. Whereas the biblical stories slink away into the shadows as knowledge increases.

    .

    No, that’s not quite true. Creationists’ problem is not that they believe the biblical stories, but that they have no idea what these stories mean.. In their ignorance of theology, they interpret the stories as historical records—a concept that was not even known among the people who first wrote them down. Like other ancient tales (such as the Odyssey) their true purpose was moral instruction, not historical record.

    Adam and Eve’s Fall, for example, instructs us that mankind has two different natures,which are frequently in conflict. Whether or not this story actually happened is beside the point. It doesn’t matter. Do we take no lessons about overweening ambition from Macbeth, merely because the events portrayed never actually happened?

    So creationists not only delude themselves as to the scientific import of Genesis, they also entirely miss all of the theological significance that should be their central concern

    Seems ironic, doesn’t it? In some circles, this is called “lose-lose.”

  3. @Olorin,

    Creationists’ problem is not that they believe the biblical stories, but that they have no idea what these stories mean..

    All too true. Many Creationists feel that if their particular interpretation of the Biblical stories is true, than none of the Bible can be true. With this comes the slippery slope fallacy.

    Well, we know that not all stories in the Bible are literal. It is possible that the conquest of Cana’an of Joshua, for example, never happened; the latest archeological evidence seems to indicate that the Israelites were originally Canaanatites. [1] Literally, the story of the conquest would not be true; figuratively, the peasants that rebelled against the establishment were simply writing the account of the conquest for the purpose of distinguishing them from from the old ways, and what better way of doing that than depicting themselves as destroying them.

    Also, as another example, I am inclined to believe that the Nativity in the Gospel of Matthew is allegorical, and for several reasons:

    1. It depicts Magi as worshiping Jesus in Chapter 2. To my understanding, such a thing actually went against their religion.

    2. The story of the “Slaughter of the Innocence” doesn’t even come across as historical. IT would have been a really stupid thing for Herod to have done. Herod was evil and cruel, having killed several of his own sons, but he was certainly not stupid. — To gain the point of this story, we have to take into account who Matthew was writing to: to fellow Jews. He was trying to depict Jesus as the “new Moses.” As Moses was almost killed by an evil king, so shall Jesus be almost killed by an Evil King; as Moses saved his people, so shall Jesus save his people.

    I personally believe that Jesus was born sometime AFTER the death of Herod in 4 BC. Luke places Jesus’s birth during the census of Quirinius in the year 6 AD (Luke 2:1,2). [2] Since Luke places Jesus’ life span to about 30 years (Luke 3: 23). Now this would place Jesus’ crucifixion in the year 36 AD and no later. [3]

    Now, why do I believe Luke to be more literal than Matthew? Well, it has to do with the fact that Luke claims to have researched to make an orderly account to know the truth. (Luke 1: 3,4). Matthew makes no such claim. And considering that Matthew is much more fantastic, the process of elimination favors Luke.

    Now, does this make Matthew wrong? No, not if he simply intended to depict Jesus as Moses. And he seems to have done a good job of that.

    Over all, the issue is not if the Bible is true; I personally believe it is, and I believe that many of the stories in it are in fact literal… but not everything in it is. — Now, if only Creationists could wrap their minds around that fact, they might not resort to such silly apologetics. [4]

    ______________________________
    [1] “The Bible’s Buried Secrets.” PBS/NOVA, November 8, 2008. Available online here: http://video.pbs.org/video/1051895565

    [2] Josephus, the Jewish historian, places the census at the 37th year after the Battle of Actium (The Antiquities of the Jews 18: 26) The Battle of Actium occurred in September 31 BC, so therefore the census was in 6 AD.

    [3] The last year of Pontius Pilate’s governorship of Judea was 36 AD, and therefore Jesus’ death can be no later. Therefore if Jesus preached for 3 years as is traditionally believed, he roughly began at the age of 27.

    [4] No offence to ALL apologetics; there are some I do agree with. For example, I will agree with Christian apologists that the Book of Daniel contains true prophesy and was written in the 6th century BC, and not in 164 BC during the Maccabean revolt. I am a fan of J.P. Holding’s website (tektonics.org), but I other apologetics websites such as “Apologetics Press” really irk me.

  4. Michael’s literalist thesis falls apart completely when we come to the parables f Jesus.

    Even one-dimensional Michael probably does not believe that there was an actual historical Good Samaritan, or a histroical Prodigal Son. Yet these non-historical stroies have a much greater effect on us than a bland injunction to love our neighbor, or to forgive those who stray.

    In fact, we can engage much deeper levels of understanding with stories than with statements of fact. Michael may think of John Steinbeck’s “Of Mice and Men” as nothing more than an imaginary tale of unending squalor and vulgarity. The rest of us, however, will be forever changed by Lennie’s purely fictional death.

    .

    We do strive for evidence and objective reality in science, because we employ it to explain the world we live in. But fiction has a similar importance to our lives. Different but equal.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s