# The State of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution in 2023 Gregory F. Coppola **************Apocalypse Like Right Now************** April 12, 2023 # Introduction This essay explores the case *******against******* the (Darwinian) theory of ****************************************undirected evolution****************************************. We refer to proponents of undirected evolution as ********atheists********. The conclusions are as follows: - the default position should be ***********agnosticism***********, not *******atheism*******, until the data suggests otherwise, following the principle of **************maximum entropy************** - the theories of ********************undirected evolution******************** (atheism) and ******************intelligent design****************** are exhaustive - i.e., there are only the two alternatives - the theory of evolution is not like other theories in science - there are major “mysteries” remaining at every level of the atheist theory - the onus is on the atheists to fill out their theory - the theory of evolution is a research program not a theory - a research program cannot be falsified - the onus is on atheists to make falsifiable predictions, or admit that they don’t have a theory - evolution is mostly a set of “just so” stories, that superficially use the word “because” to describe the past, but don’t actually predict when evolution will take place - we identify a fallacy, the ******************functional fallacy****************** - the belief that a deep understanding of biological processes as they function today implies an understanding of the *******genesis******* of these processes - the everyday operation of biological functions **is** well-understood, but the genesis of these is not # Only Two Options We begin by discussing that there are apparently only two alternatives for the explanation of the human race. We believe that this can be shown to be an exhaustive list. The two alternatives are: 1. **intelligent design** - we are a product of design by an *****************intelligent being***************** 2. **undirected evolution** - we are a product of a series of **********undirected********** events - proponents of this theory are called ********atheists******** We believe that the definition of **********undirected********** that fits the intuition and practical usage of this term is: - definition of **undirected** - arising **without** intelligence Thus, as a matter of definition, there are the only two options: - either we are a product of “an intelligent designer” or we are not More precisely, consider any object $X$, which could be either: - the universe - the planet earth in its place in the universe - any given species on planet earth - humans We say that either $X$ is a product of an “intelligent cause”, or else it is not. If $X$ is not the product of an “intelligent cause”, then it is a product of an “undirected” cause. # A Priori, the Default Position Should Be Agnosticism ## Artificial Intelligence is a Program to do Science There are certain areas of unclarity in the question of how science can be done. We believe that in 2023 the philosophy of science should be informed by reference to artificial intelligence. That is, artificial intelligence tools do *****science*****. However, unlike humans, in order for a computer program to do science, it has to follow a specified procedure. Thus, artificial intelligence programs force us to specify science as a procedure. When humans do science, because the “software” for doing science exists in the human’s brain, a human being doing science does not need to *******consciously******* be able to explain optimal science. Humans have been doing science since the first appearance of language. But, the ability to describe science as an algorithm dates only the 21st century. Thus, it has long been possible with **do** science, without exactly knowing what that actually means. However, when a computer does science, because it is following a specific program, either the equations implemented in the program work, in which case artificial intelligence succeeds wildly, or they don’t, in which case the program can predict either nothing, or else nothing impressive. Practice has shown that neural networks are trained by the maximization of certain equations. ## Maximum Entropy Training ChatGPT is trained using cross-entropy using the principle of maximum entropy. The principle of ***************maximum entropy*************** is: - principle of ******************************maximum entropy****************************** - find the most uniform distribution consistent with available information In other words, given a data set, the principle of maximum entropy dictates we should pick the probability distribution that is the ************least biased************ ****************between predicting alternatives that the dataset does not support. ## Agnosticism In the context of the debate between intelligent design or undirected evolution, ***if there were*** no evidence to choose between alternatives, the default position should be one of agnosticism. However, in 2023, we do have abundant data-driven reasons to doubt whether undirected evolution is possible. # The Necessity of Falsifiability in Science ## The Burden of Proof in Science The way that science is ********supposed******** to work is that, in order to introduce a significant new theory, the proponent of that theory should make: - clear, falsifiable predictions - predict more than it mis-predicts ## Research Program versus Falsifiable Theory However, there are certain cases in the history of science, where something else is able to arise: a ******research program******. A research program is the *project* to look for a falsifiable theory. A research program cannot be falsified. ## Chomsky’s Minimalist Program Chomsky wrote of his “Minimalist Program”: > It is important to recognize that the Minimalist Program (MP) under development in this work, and since, is a program, not a theory, a fact that has often been misunderstood. (The Minimalist Program, 2015, page vii) > In other words, *******nothing******* can falsify the minimalist program, because it is not a specific theory. As the old saying goes: > It’s good work if you can get it. > The idea that a scientist can be at work and taken seriously without a falsifiable theory is a deeply corrosive and dangerous concept. The conclusion of the Vienna Circle is that the difference between a productive scientific theory, and meaningless metaphysical speculation, is that a scientific theory is falsifiable. A research program can only make sense if it is considered tentative. There must be a time limit on research programs, otherwise, since they are not scientific, an unending research program cannot be falsified. ## The Politics of Science ### A Research Program Requires Political Clout Only someone with either a lot of clout, or a lot of resources can begin a “research program”. An unknown researcher or young PhD student is not allowed to start a research program. Only the leading and/or most powerful scientists of a time period can engage in a research program. ### The Manhattan Project A positive of example of a research program could be the creation of the atomic bomb in the Manhattan Project (1939-1945). That took roughly six years of intense research and work before it was possible to say whether or not the nuclear bomb was actually possible. However, a span of six years is reasonable to look. ### The Potential for Degeneracy in a Research Program It is reasonable to embark on a research program, because it is reasonable that a theory needs investment of time and resources in order to develop. The research program can become degenerative when it becomes institutionalized. Then, for reasons of personal interest, a group of researchers, invested in a research program, can engage in means to protect the theory from criticism for its failure. There is the danger that many researchers will prefer to defer the declaration of bankruptcy until after their retirement. But, the presence of “zombie” theories created by this political process can greatly retard the overall progress of science. ### Chomskyan Linguistics In the case of Chomsky’s “Minimalist Program”, the search for a “finite number of finitely valued parameters” has gone on for significantly over 40 years. Critics of Chomsky have been pointing out since the 1980’s that they did not believe the “Minimalist Program” would never work The question in 2023 is, who can force the minimalists to accept that their theory isn’t working? In the case of Chomskyan linguistics, the question is moot because the most talented students have switched to the field of computational linguistics (the application of artificial intelligence to the problem of human language) long ago. After the invention of ChatGPT and other language model-based technologies, this trend is certain to only accelerate. But, proponents of the “Minimaist Program” cannot be dislodged as long as they control the peer review process. Certainly, many researchers will prefer to delay their realization of the futility of the Minimalist Program until retirement. ## Darwinian Evolution is a Research Program Darwinian theory is more like the minimalist program than the Manhattan project. Darwin first proposed his theory in his 1859 book *********************On the Origin of Species*********************, 164 years ago. DNA was discovered in the middle of the 20th century, and the human genome was sequenced around the year 2000. ### Darwinian Theory is not Falsifiable As Is The undirected evolution hypothesis is still not in a position to be falsified. It is still a research program. A fully-fledged theory would be able to: - concretely explain the origin of life - concretely explain the evolution from the first life to the animal forms we see today - predict when evolution ********will not******** occur, as when it will As we will see below, none of these are true in the case of Darwinian evolution. ### Still Major Gaps in the Darwinian Theory There are *****major***** gaps in the Darwinian story, especially the origin of DNA-based life itself. But, Darwinian theory is still considered not only the dominant theory, but the only ********possible******** theory. While a theory ******should****** have the onus of proving itself by making correct predictions (and minimizing incorrect predictions), the Darwinian theory is the politically powerful theory. When discussing Darwinian theory, the onus, in our scientific culture, is on the critics of undirected evolution to explain why the theory is ***not*** true. But, this is not possible to disprove a research program. So, the situation should be reversed, and we should start saying that the onus is on the **********proponents********** of Darwinism to produce a full, falsifiable theory, before further criticism can begin. # The Pattern of Debates in Evolutionary Theory The pattern of a debate between skeptics and adherents of Darwinian theory typically goes like this: - debate pattern in Darwinian theory - skeptic - it seems that the Darwinian theory does not explain $X$ - adherent - we’re working on it - Intelligent Design isn’t science - your question isn’t science Let us consider some concrete questions posed by the skeptics. ## Example Criticisms of Darwinian Theory ### **The Origin of Life** Fred Hoyle made the argument that the creation of DNA life, at the outset of the universe as a product of undirected physical and chemical causes, is like saying that a tornado could blow through a wreck yard and create a Boeing 747. Richard Dawkins has called this a “misunderstanding”. But, is it a really a “misunderstanding”? Or, is Dawkins just engaged in the practice of ****sophism****, by resorting to name-calling instead of debate? ### **The Complexity of Human DNA** Back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that there is in no way enough time to create the 3 billion DNA character sequence of DNA through a “random walk in DNA space. This is a fact written about by John Lennox and Stephen Meyer. Richard Dawkins has asserted that this is a “confusion” because the Darwinian theory isn’t just one of a random walk, but there is also natural selection. But, is this really a “confusion”, or just another instance of sophism? ### **The “Mousetrap” Argument** Daniel Behe has suggested the analogy of a mousetrap. A mousetrap has several parts: the wooden base, the clamp that traps the mouse, the spring that drives the clamp, and the cheese that entices the mouse. Behe’s assertion is that, the mousetrap could not “evolve” except all at one time. The individual parts of the mousetrap have no way to evolve separately, because the various parts do not confer any advantage individually. Thus, there would be no way for natural selection to reward the creation of the individual parts of the mousetrap. Critics of Behe’s argument would say that it is theoretically ********possible******** that the individual parts of a mousetrap could evolve separately, because there might in theory have been some advantage to the individual parts. Who is right? ## Correct Analysis of the Debate ### Questions versus Theories On the most superficial level, there is a sense in which it is correct to say that these questions put by the skeptics to Darwinian theory “aren’t science”. The reason for this is that questions are only the *beginning* of science. Questions, in and of themselves, are not the ultimate product of science. The ultimate product of science is a theory, and none of the three questions reviewed are theories that make predictions. But, on the other hand, the asking of good *********questions********* is certainly a ****part**** of science. Albert Einstein is remembered, aside from being an adorable character, for his ********theories******** that predicted exciting observations, like the bending of light around the sun. Einstein is not considered a great scientist for his questions. But, Einstein ***was*** a great asker of questions. By asking the right questions, Einstein was able to find the right answers. But, simply asking the questions is not the final product. ### ********************The Correct Criticism to put to Darwinians******************** The response by Darwinists to the critics takes the form: - it’s *****conceivable***** that stuff could randomly bounce around and create DNA-based life - it’s ****conceivable**** that random mutations guided by natural selection can create human life - it’s ***********conceivable*********** that individual parts of an animal can evolve separately, and be assembled later Of course, any of these things are ***********conceivable***********. But, the onus is on the proponents of a theory to make concrete, falsifiable predictions. The resort to the “conceivability” of evolution reveals the lack of a concrete theory for the mechanism of action of, e.g., the creation of DNA: if we really could explain the creation of DNA, e.g., we should be able to create new DNA organisms in a lab. But, the goal of science is to make predictions. We must insist that the onus is on the advocates of ****************Darwinian theory**************** to fill in the **********MAJOR********** gaps in that theory. It is not the job of the skeptic to prove Darwinism wrong, but the job of the proponent of Darwinism to prove that theory right. Thus, the proper analysis of the debate pattern above is: - analysis of the debate pattern - the questions posed by the skeptics to the Darwinists are not “science” in the sense that they are only questions, not theories - but, the questions arise as a result of the ****lack**** of a complete falsifiable theory by the Darwinists - the onus should be on Darwinists to explain the gaps in the story - as a “research program”, Darwinism can *****never***** be disproven, but a research program that is still unsuccessful must be distinguished from the successful examples of science # The Difference Between Evolution and the Other Sciences A list of great scientists in history might be given like “Copernicus, Newton, ******Darwin******, Einstein”. However, one name on this list—Darwin—is not like the others. Whereas Copernicus, Newton and Einstein gave falsifiable theories that predicted concrete phenomena without mispredicting, Darwin gave only an idea for a ****************research program**************** which is not complete and which is not falsifiable. ## Classic Figures in Science ### **Copernicus: Heliocentrism** Copernicus (1473—1543) proposed that the earth goes around the sun, rather than the sun going around the earth. The theory that the earth goes around the sun was first proposed by the ancient Greek philosopher Aristarchus of Samos in the 3rd century BCE. Copernicus added astronomical data and an explanation of how the heliocentric model (that the earth goes around the sun) was a better explanation the data than geocentric model (that the sun goes around the earth). The fact that the earth goes around the sun is something that can be verified on a daily basis, especially from satellites. ### **Newton: The Laws of Motion** Isaac Newton (1643—1727) is arguably the greatest scientist of all time, and made many contributions. In this section, we consider his arguably greatest contribution: the laws of motion. The laws of motion explain how force creates acceleration, how gravity creates a force, and how objects continue in motion until acted on. These laws immediately explained the motion of the planets, but also make falsifiable predictions. Newtwon’s theory makes concrete predictions about both celestial bodies and objects on earth, that are falsifiable, but have shown to be accurate, at least at macro scales. These predictions are used on a daily basis in engineering of virtually every kind. ### **Einstein: The Theory of Relativity** Albert Einstein (1879—1955) developed the theory of relativity, which predicts the interaction of time and space, and matter and energy. Einstein’s great prediction was when he predicted that light would bend around the sun. This prediction was verified in 1919, when a group of researchers measured the predicted phenomena from two different mountaintops during a solar eclipse. One team, led by astronomer Arthur Eddington, went to the island of Principe off the west coast of Africa, while the other team, led by Frank Dyson, went to Sobral in Brazil. Since then, Einstein’s theory has been investigated many times, and its predictions tested and verified in many different environments. ## Darwin: The Theory of Evolution Darwin’s theory is very different than the other commonly listed heroes of science. Darwin’s “theory” says that human beings, and the other species, evolved in an **********undirected********** way, starting with a first simple form of life, so that all living beings form part of a “tree of life”. Unlike the theories of Copernicus, Newton and Einstein, however, Darwin’s theory did not make any predictions about the future. Or, perhaps it would be more accurate to say: Darwin’s theory did not make any *******correct******* predictions about the future. That is, if Darwin’s theory ****does**** predict anything, it would tend to ************over-predict************ evolution, even though the fossil record and recorded history indicate stasis. Aside from mispredictions, Darwin’s theory at best simply *************fits the past*************. ## Just So Stories Darwinian stories have been criticized as being “just so stories”. This term comes from the 1902 book “Just So Stories” by Rudyard Kipling. In the book “Just So Stories”, the author runs through a series of clearly intended to be fictional stories “explaining” the origins of the features of animals. For example: - “just so” story explaining why the *giraffe* has a long neck - In the early days, the giraffe had a short neck like all other animals. - But one day, the giraffe ate from a tree with such succulent leaves that it stretched its neck to reach them. - The stretching was so intense that the giraffe's neck became longer, and its descendants inherited the trait. It is clear from the context around this book, that this is intended a humorous work of fiction, meant to stimulate the mind of a child. The “Just So Stories” make no pretense to seriously explain the world. ## Freudian Analysis Sigmund Freud (1856—1939) was a prolific psychologist, and a source of many important ideas that have so reshaped the world, e.g., about the ************subconscious************, that we can now take it for granted. However, this is an important “criticism” of ********certain strains******** Freudian analysis, in the sense that, the way many “Freudian analysts” practice, the theory is not falsifiable. For example, a Freudian may explain the alcoholism of a client as a result of the fact that the alcoholic’s mother did not love them enough. But, then another alcoholic will come along who investigation shows ***was*** loved by his mother. Then the Freudian analyst might say that this does not contradict the theory, because, in this case, the alcoholic was *********smothered********* by a mother that loved him *****too much*****. So, while superficially, this sounds like an “explanation”, because it uses the word “because”, on a scientific level, this theory is vacuous. This is because, for a given person, we cannot predict whether they are an alcoholic based on knowing their relationship with their mother. A man ignored by his mother can be an alcoholic, and a man loved by his mother can be an alcoholic, so neither conclusion can be drawn. As it stands, the theory does not make a concrete prediction about unseen data given seen data. One caveat to this is a ************statistical prediction************ can be scientific, if properly and consistently specified: - statistical relationship - a theory of a relationship between 1) a client’s relationship with their mother, and 2) alcoholism, *****could***** be meaningful if - there is a statistical relationship between a man’s relationship with their mother and his propensity to be an alcoholic - the law is stated in probabilistic terms, rather than absolute terms ## What is a Scientific Explanation? ### The Word “Explanation” In ordinary usage, the term ***********explanation*********** means an answer to the question ***why***. An explanation for the phenomenon $P$ is a sentence of the form “$P$ occurs **because $R$”,* where $R$ is a ********reason.******** In ordinary usage, ***any*** answer of the form “$P$ occurs because However, in the realm of science, not just ***any*** explanation of the form “$P$ occurs because $R$” is considered valid. In science, in order for an ***********explanation*********** to be valid, it must, on an intuitive level, “add value”. ### Why Referring to God is ********Usually******** Bad Science This is precisely the reason that theories invoking the concept of God are ********normally******** not accepted as science. For example, consider the force of gravity. Dropped objects (ignoring wind resistance), accelerate towards the earth at a speed of 9.8 m/second$^2$. This can be referred to as a “law”. It is ***not*** an explanation of this fact to say that objects accelerate towards the earth when dropped because “this is God’s will”. The statement that dropped objects accelerate towards the earth “is God’s will” adds, on an intuitive level, no value to our theory, because it does not help us to predict anything that we couldn’t have predicted with the original law. When an object is dropped towards the earth, the position of that object (ignoring wind resistance), can already be predicted with the law of gravitation. The addition of the purported explanation that it is “God’s will” does not help us to predict anything additional. Thus, it is considered a spurious explanation. ### **************************************************Minimum Description Length************************************************** We have seen at an intuitive level that an “explanation” must “add value” in order to be scientifically meaningful. We can formalize this idea using the concept of **minimum description length**. The principle of minimum description length says that the ******description length****** of a dataset $D$ according to a theory $T$ (measured in bits) is a sum of: 1. the size of the theory $T$ (measured in bits) 2. the amount of space taken to describe the data $D$, using the theory $T$ (measured in bits) That is: - the larger a theory is, the more it is penalized - the more a theory predicts, the better it is, because with a better theory, we can further ********compress******** the data So, using the principle of **************************minimum description length**************************, we can say that: - in order to justify a new amount of theory, that theory must help to predict more (compress the data more) than it costs ## The Just-So Nature of Darwinian Theory ### Just A Difference of Pretensions? While the Just-So story about the giraffe is transparently intended to be fictional, it is interesting to ask, what is the practical difference between Darwin’s explanation, and the playfully fictional explanation of the giraffe? Well, first of all Darwinian theory is ********intended******** to be serious science. But, does that make it so? A ******************seriously intended****************** Darwinian-style explanation for the long neck of the giraffe would something like: - Darwinian-style explanation for why the giraffe has a long neck - giraffes have an advantage because they can eat leaves that no other animal can eat - so, once a ******random****** mutation produced a longer neck, giraffes were better able to survive - giraffes with long necks multiplied due to their fitness What is the actual scientific difference between the “just so” story, in which the giraffe’s neck grew because it willed its own neck to grow, and the Darwinian theory, in which random mutations produced the longer neck? Well, the answer must be, that, a priori, there is no difference. That is, both are post hoc explanations. Only, one theory is ******intended****** as fiction, and the other theory is intended as *******science*******. Now, this the Darwinian theory ****does**** have the merit that it could work across many different animals, which is positive, in terms of being scientific. In other words, if many different animals display the same pattern, then it is fair to say that evolution is a pattern. ### What Would Make Darwinism Scientific? **Predicting When Evolution *Does* and Does ***Not*** Occur** But, on the negative side, we must add that, this is only true of the Darwinian theory **if** the theory could tell us: 1. when will an animal grow a longer neck 2. when will an animal ***not*** grow a longer neck Darwinian theory has never been developed to the point that it can do this. This is similar to the problem in the case of the Freudian analyst, who says that alcoholism can either be a result of too little or too much love from one’s mother. In order to be a true scientific statement, the theory of evolution must not just “use the word because” or “sound plausible”, but it must predict something: it must find a non-trivial pattern in the data. **The Giraffe Example Revisited** To say that a giraffe has grown a long neck because of undirected evolution would require us not just to explain the giraffe, whose neck ***has*** “grown” to be long, but the theory must also explain when an animal ********will not******** “grow” a long neck. In other words, if it is so much better for survival to have a long neck, why don’t more animals grow long necks. From another perspective, why was it so important for a giraffe’s neck to grow at the time that it did? Was there really so little to eat in the savannas and grasslands of Africa, that the fastest remedy was to grow a long neck? All of the other animals seem to be doing fine eating off of the ground. **Conclusion** These questions are, in some sense, rhetorical, because, in science, things normally proceed by 1) the creation of a theory that makes predictions, and 2) the evaluation of those predictions. So, concretely, the criticism of Darwin’s theory is that, either: 1. it does not make general predictions that can be falsified 2. if it does make predictions, then they are false So, the Darwinian theory cannot make predictions without them being wrong. Thus, it is not a meaningful scientific theory. # Seven Phenomena still not Explained by Atheists ## How did the Universe Get Here? The first problem for the atheist thesis is the existence of a universe at all. The universe exists according to laws. The atheist thesis is that even the universe itself is an accident, but who wrote the laws. We now know that the universe had a very intricate beginning in the big bang. The initial moments of the big bang had to apparently be very carefully “managed” in order to grow the universe fast enough that it could expand into a universe, but not so fast that it would grow so fast that all of the galaxies shot out so fast that they could not later cohere. On an interview with Piers Morgan, Richard Dawkins was asked what happened before the big bang. In a rare moment of frankness, Dawkins admitted: > I don’t know, and you don’t know, and the [physicists] don’t know, and it doesn’t help to postulate that God did it. > The very concept of an orderly universe requires an explanation. ## How is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life? Given the basic existence of a patterned universe, the next challenge for the atheist is the apparent fact that our universe is “fine-tuned” for life. That is, there are physical parameters in the laws of physics that could have, apparently, been set to a range of different values. However, it has been observed that only an infinitesimally small fraction of possible parameter settings would support life. The idea that there could be ********only one******** universe, and that these parameters could have been chosen randomly (without design) is widely regarded being as improbable to the point of impossible. Richard Dawkins describes it thus: > The fundamental constants of the universe could be regarded as fine-tuned it looks as though we've got six knob six dials that you can twiddle and it's as though somebody's come along and twiddled these six dials so that they're exactly the right value if they were a tiny bit wrong maybe there'd be nothing but hydrogen in the universe and so you couldn't have chemistry or maybe there would be no hydrogen in the universe so again you couldn't have at least a sort of chemistry that that gives rise to life how do we handle this fine tuning problem. (Richard Dawkins, God and Science, 2018) > Of all the solutions to this question on offer, Dawkins most **********reasonable********** response is that there are actually an infinite number of universes, whereas only a small fraction of theses universes, which all run in parallel, actually support life. According to Dawkins, we only think our universe is special because of the “anthropic principle”, which says that, because we are in this universe, we are here to ask the question. But, we don’t have to worry because our universe “isn’t special”, it’s just one out of an infinite number of universes. The problem with this theory is that it is a flagrant violation of Ockham’s razor, in every way. There is no “anthropic principle” mentioned anywhere in the philosophy of science, but there **is** always some variation of Ockham’s razor. In science, as is summarized by minimum description length, a theory has to pay for its extra theoretical entities. To posit an ********infinite******** number of universe that does *******nothing******* except save the atheist hypothesis on just one of its complications is an ********infinite******** violation of Ockham’s razor. ## How did Random Action create a Self-Replicating Machine? The atheist explanation for human life is that, at every stage, something random happened. In the case of the origin of life, the theory is that matter in an early stage on earth was just swirling around, and then, by accident DNA-based life arose. But, DNA is a self-replicating physical structure. In the year 2023, the entire human race has not engineered a self-replicating structure. The closest things that we can find to a self-replicating physical structure invented by humans is: 1. a computer virus - but a computer virus only propagates itself in ********software******** space, not in hardware space - the computer virus relies on the prior existence of the computer as a platform 2. 3d-printer - a 3d-printer can print some of the parts to build a 3d-printer - but, even a 3d-printer ******cannot****** entirely self-replicate So, humans have not invented an object that can self-replicate, but, according to atheists, DNA was created by the ************random swirling around************ of matter, without any designer. ## How did the first DNA/RNA Life Begin? In general, there is more to the complexity of DNA than just the ability to self-replicate. The process of transcription, in which a DNA is transcribed to RNA, and then the RNA is converted into proteins, is a machine more complicated than anything created by humans. Once DNA exists, atheists could theoretically hope that human DNA can evolve from worm DNA. But, the existence of DNA must be explained without recourse to the evolution that works inside of the DNA system. Even human beings cannot create something as complicated as DNA, and its attendant biological processes. But, this is meant to have just arisen randomly from stuff bouncing around. ## How did the first Sexually Reproductive Life Begin? Once life begins, the next mystery is the arising of sexually reproduction. So, in other words, we begin with life asexually reproducing DNA, itself a miracle. But, then, also completely by accident, the atheist theory is that, one day, the asexually reproducing DNA began to split into two sexes: male and female. Aside from this being just another example of an unexplained phenomenon, the arising of sexual reproduction raises another question: how can one being begin sexually reproducing on its own? Wouldn’t the beginning of sexual reproduction require the simultaneous arising of a male and its female mate at the same time? This is pushing the explanation of “it just happened” to a new limit. ## How did Science-Doing Humans Arise Randomly? Humans are able to talk, do math, and do science. Humans have had computer science for roughly 100 years already in 2023. The ability to create an algorithm that can actually do science has only arisen in the past year, with ChatGPT and related technologies. The field of computer science is a major, well-funded field with many of the top minds in any field. Human DNA is meant to have evolved totally randomly, without any design. The time taken to develop artificial intelligence suggests that a ****very**** small fraction of programs are actually able to do science. Thus, the selection of a program at random that can do science must be seen to be incredibly small. The chance that human, science-doing DNA could be found at random is another mystery for the atheists. ## Why is there No Evolution in the Fossil Record? If there weren’t enough problems for the atheist position, the final problem we want to note is that: **************evolution is not in the fossil record**************. As Gould notes, the pattern in the fossil record is ******stasis******: that is, animals appear abruptly, remain for millions or hundreds of millions of years, and then disappears. The fossil record does ***not*** show species evolving gradually from one another. Some say that this is an artifact of the incompleteness of the fossil record. But, as Gould notes, *****stasis is data*****. That is, while the fossil record is incomplete, the fossil records that ***are*** present constitute a data set, which demonstrates stasis. Thus, not only is the process of random evolution inherently seemingly unlikely, it is made all the more unlikely by the fact that evolution cannot be observed to be happening, either in the fossil record, or in recorded human history. # The Functional Fallacy We identify the following pattern of fallacious thinking in the field of biology. Scientists, like Richard Dawkins, who have spent a lot of time researching the biological functions of life then feel entitled to give an opinion that undirected evolution is possible. For example, in *******************************The Greatest Show on Earth******************************* or in ****************Climbing Mount Improbable****************, Dawkins lists a laundry list of biological phenomena. This makes it seem like he has an authority to claim that evolution is true, because he is knowledgeable about the *********functions********* of biological entities. However, only the ability to *******explain******* undirected evolution entitles someone to say that undirected evolution is true. We can summarize this theory as follows: - the ******************functional fallacy****************** in evolutionary biology - the pattern of thinking that, because one knows a lot about biology, this entitles them to say the evolution is definitively true, even though they don’t have a theory of how undirected evolution would work # Conclusion Undirected evolution might turn out to be true. We are not saying that evolution is definitely ********not true********. What we ****are**** saying is that evolution is definitely **********not proven.********** It is definitely not proven to the standards that things are “proven” in other sciences. Moreover, undirected evolution isn’t explained at all, with *****major***** gaps remaining in the story at ************multiple independent but critical junctures************, even in 2023, 164 years after Darwin’s publication of *****************The Origin of Species*****************.
Inscription number 1,094,887
Genesis block 785,138
File type text
File size 38.12 KB
Creation date Apr 12,2023 9:57 pm