Monday, May 01, 2006

Variation and Natural Selection <> Origin of the Species

I believe in variation and natural selection. There, I've said it.

If you were to listen to modern scientists talk about variations of modern species, you'd think they'd invented the notion of variation. Darwin is credited with discovering variation and natural selection, as though no one had ever noticed it before! The ignorant Biblical creationist dragged his knuckles around for thousands of years, never noticing that Billy didn't look much like Tommy. But that's absurd. While Darwin formalized it into a term, he wasn't anywhere near the first to observe it.

Up until the time that Darwin was attempting to rationalize a scientific system whereby he might obviate the need for Divine input, no one needed to come up for a term that observed that Tommy was measly 4' 5" and Billy was a 7' bruiser.

I would liken it to the way that clinical psychologists have "diagnosed" every kind of bad behavior. Hyper-tension, ADD (pronounced ADD), ADHD, bi-polar disorder, schizophrenia, chemical imbalance, separation anxiety disorder, oppositional disorder, clinical depression and (my personal favorite) conduct disorder. That's the short list, and it grows annually! Why all the terminology, and why now? I'm not one to dump on the pharmaceutical companies. If they hadn't invented Maxalt, I'd have a migraine a couple times a week. But, I do believe that they have a big hand in the tokenizing of many bad behaviors. When they invented drugs to "treat" certain "conditions", they created a market reason to formalize these "conditions". Once formalized, markets grow around these ideas: Experts, doctors, professors, schools, clinics, and the public school (Oops! Freudian slip there). But these "conditions" were described and formalized in answer to a world view that "needed" to remove personal responsibility and destroy guilt, not because formalizing these notions was any "next logical step" in a continuing march toward human scientific enlightenment.

To be sure, Darwin noticed no more than anyone else had ever noticed: That some dogs are brown and some are black; that some people have blue eyes and others, green; that some breeds of cat are more than twice the weight of other breeds. But where the genius of Darwin differed from you and I was in his ability to fabricate the remaining assertions from thin air! A trick not all can master.

Darwin noticed that 1) specimens vary in size, color, proportional distribution of various extremities such as bills, wings, feet, head, etc... 2) that in any particular environment, physical attributes of a specimen make it more suited or less suited toward survival: By differing metabolisms requiring less water or food; by coloration that seconds as camouflage; by having bigger ears for better or worse hearing.

None of these things were new (or even middle aged) to mankind. And, with these observations, I agree. But immediately after that, Darwin and I take a fork in the road because Variation and Natural Selection do not equal the Origin of the Species.

Through a series of "must haves", Darwin asserted that these slight differences from one generation to the next (not corrected for same-generational variations) must account for their gradual formation into today's manifestations of that species from a simpler form of life (full of baseless assertions). He and his intellectual progeny asserted that these variations, given countless generations and infinite time, must have accounted for all variations of life from a single and simplistic life form.

Once the need for God was removed from this perverted worldview, they needed to formulate a theory by which non-life could become life without a need for God; and they're still stuck right there! They had to explain how, without God, and despite entropy, all the matter in the universe got there and how it organized into the complex systems that make up today's cosmos; and they're still stuck right there. They had to explain how fundamental changes could be passed on to the next generation and still produce a viable and virile offspring; and they're still stuck right there. They needed to prove that the descendency of all species can be traced to a single source using their genetics; and they're still stuck right there.

Nothing beyond the antique observations of variation and natural selection has ever been proven. So don't be fooled by the slight of hand employed by Darwinists when they observe no more than anyone else ever observed, and then assert what no one had previously been foolish enough to assert.

No comments: