Scientist: Evolution debate will soon be history, Do You Agree?

I love you, too.

A few weeks ago, I was walking around the edge of our pond on my back and forths of performing some yard work – the water happened to be particularly clear that day – and I caught out of the corner of my eye a fish move. I put down what I was doing and stepped over to the brim to see if I could tell what species it was, and as I began to lean down a bit, I noticed immediately that it was a very unusual fish: I could make out that its tail was long, flat and thin, and that the bulk of its 'body' (torso) seemed to be concentrated up toward the front. I wondered with great puzzlement what kind it might be as I began to look for details such as in the scales/flesh or fins, that might identify it as I paused to let my eyes focus some against the sun's glare.

I crouched down slowly next to the water to get my best view and as I did it moved again; I was able to see it had fins which were exceptionally tiny and also which looked very awkward, and as it moved them to turn and propelled itself downward toward the shallow bottom of the shelf, It became clear all at once that these tiny fins were not fins at all – well, they were quasi-fins, just as I now saw it had behind its body a quasi-fish tail, and just as it moved with a quasi-fish movement – these 'fins' were unambiguously appendages with webbed phalanges. It was a tadpole, in a stage of development I had not seen illustrated in any textbook (though afterward I looked up more detailed information on the larval stages of the common bullfrog online [the predominant species we have in our yard] and was able to find illustrations that matched).

This little anecdote of mine doesn't represent an 'aha moment' surprise, where I began subscribing to evolution. I tell it rather because it's illustrative of the obviousness of what we're looking for as to evolution, and also of what I'd consider the limits of 'what we know'; of that which I am willing to *claim* I know, let's say, rather than to speculate upon, and it coincides (I trust to your delight) with my already firm acceptance that creatures such as these pollywogs do indeed represent the remnants of some evolutionary transitional stage between fish and amphibian (we didn't need in this case to go digging for fossils, the evidence was not far outside my bedroom window all along).

To me though, as magnificently obvious as the tadpole is as a representative of some type of transition, the existence of such organismal stages, to me, is suggestive only of some very broad transition betwixt or between these two groups at some point in earth's history; between the various fish classes – extinct and extant – and the amphibian class. Though the *transitive nature* of such a present-day specimen may be obvious to us both, what is not obvious to me is the necessity that one species (as represented in the fossil record, or that an unknown similar species not yet represented) must have given rise to some other, and then to some other, and to some other again, etc., via mutations in their DNA which were selected for (linear biological descent), in order to have ended up with the result in nature that is before our eyes.

As I mentioned last time, I know what the textbooks say and what the consensus is, but I have found no evidence in my personal study that would even remotely suggest that the neo-Darwinian mechanism can explain such transformations. In the absence of a plausible mechanism satisfactory to my mind, I am not, like Gould and his followers, comfortable in averring that 'evolution happened' (that it's a fact). That seems so disingenuous and backward to me, not to mention unscientific. So I would tarry on mechanism here, for one, and put that forward as one of our points of disagreement to explore:

As to this lack of mechanism, I've cited for the direction of my view, elsewhere for instance, Behe's second book, 'Edge of Evolution', wherein an attempt was made with organisms such as bacteria and other parasites (which reproduce themselves in the trillions upon trillions in a relatively short space of time) to diligently document, plot and compare (apply) the extent of mutations that have arisen therein to populations of *other* organisms. Having explored these, nothing of an order of magnitude that could be expected to produce more than perhaps a beneficial alteration of an enzyme, or some loss of function that happened incidentally to be beneficial while overall being harmful (like we see in sickle cell disease) was determined to be possible mathematically during, for example, the entire putative history of primate evolution.

We have also inherent in this all, the fundamental problem of protein evolution – natural selection in large organisms can only operate at the phenotype level; the physical difference has to be large enough to confer advantage, but in order for it to create novel proteins (which are needed as building blocks before we can even talk about forming tissues, a muscle, tendons, ligaments, a bone...) it would have to operate at the molecular (nucleotide) level, which we know it does not, as there is no benefit to having 1/1,000th or 2/1,000th, 3/1,000th or even 999/1,000th of a protein. A protein cannot fold and function until it is completely coded for. Moreover, many, many, many proteins would need to arise at once – or at least in succession *and* somehow be conserved – in a multicellular organism like a mammal, reptile or bird, in order for perceptible advantage to be had that could then be selected for by nature to be passed on. We all know this is not what happens; this is not in dispute – it is rather ignored by science – and yet we go on believing that, although this is impossible, evolution *must* have happened this way in the past. Or else we balk and begin to talk about peppered moths, or finches.

The other problem is that all the evolutionary examples I've read or heard the Darwinists cite are of what I've come to call 'front-loaded' evolution: An ancient wolf gives rise to all the dog breeds we have today (and their exquisite, dramatic diversity) through selection of already extant genes (in this case artificial more than natural selection), or the wild cabbage (Brassica oleracea) gives rise, likewise through the selfsame mechanism of allele segregation (not random mutation), to our cabbage, Broccoli, cauliflower, kale, Chinese kale, Brussels sprouts, savoy, kohlrabi, and even to a particular tree-like form from which they make walking sticks. If we can get, through segregation of genes only (front-loaded evolution), creatures as dissimilar as the Great Dane and the Chihuahua, whose skulls are so morphologically dissimilar that if a paleontologist had never heard of a 'dog' and encountered these on a dig for the first time, he would surely classify them as distinct species and opine they shared only a very distant mammalian common ancestor, then why do we look to other mechanisms for an explanation of those (small f) families of organisms we've exhumed from the earth?

In the dog example, the only documented mutation is the gene for the wrinkly skin of the Shar Pei, which is damaged through duplication, not 'evolved': http://www.plosgenetics.org/a... which also causes periodic fever disorder and early death in these creatures. We cannot, as I've heard so many Darwinists (including Dawkins) do, extrapolate front-loaded evolution (already extant genes being merely segregated to produce great diversity) into 'rear-loaded' evolution, where we infer that, because DNA has occasional copying errors, these errors must have by 'happy accident' (to quote Bob Ross) – and *without* the aid of natural selection – stumbled upon first a foldable (and useful) protein combination, and then other protein combinations that are exquisitely complimentary and perfectly self-coordinated, as well as – by chance also – all the necessary accompanying regulatory genes to tell the protein not merely 'where' to go (where physiologically to work with the other novel proteins arising alongside it to help eventually form a ligament to complement this or that bone, and another to work with these others to eventually help form a tendon, etc., so we can arrive at an arm – yes, we appear to be talking about a teleological process), but 'when' to go (when to develop in utero).

If front-loaded evolution has been observed (not inferred) to produce such impressive morphological change, why then do we insist that the Darwinian (rear-loaded, hypothesized) kind of evolution must be responsible for the evolution of groups such as the elephant and horse families, which exhibit a very similar range of (limited) diversity? Recall that, outside of these ranges which are fairly well-documented in the fossil record (they're always finding new species of dinosaurs, for example, which fit neatly within the known main dinosaur groups), the ancestors are 'hypothesized', are 'debated'... 'candidates' are proposed: In a word, outside of the bush-like periphery of diversity in all the broad taxonomical groups, the ancestral trees tend to break down.

I think also that this is one of the problems in disproving evolution: The definition of evolution itself seems to be very unclear: 'Which evolution are we talking about?'. If the definition is unclear, then of course no one will be capable of proving it wrong and thus winning the much-coveted trip to Disneyland: Every time some scientist succeeds in disproving (or in demonstrating to a mathematical certainty) that a portion of the theory is wrong (even inadvertently, as in the article I cited above), before his criticism has even been examined, another direction of 'possible evolution' is appealed to – the goal posts are moved – or worse, the unknown is appealed to (one of my points above was that, “We don't know, therefore Darwin,” is as unscientific and as full of child-like faith as, “We don't know, therefore God.”).

It might then behoove us both to first agree on the definition of evolution that is being meant: If you are talking about 'change in allele frequency in populations over time', then you, myself and Kent Hovind are evolutionists. If you add in limited common [biological] descent as I have above with recent examples like dogs and wild cabbage, you likely still have me and Behe (and most of the ID crowd, a member of which, incidentally, I do not count myself). If, to be an 'evolutionist' I must agree there's evidence sufficient to show that humans (and all extant organisms) evolved linearly – nucleotide-to-nucleotide, cell division-to-cell-division, egg-to-egg-, placenta-to-placenta – from an amoeba-like creature, in a way that has not been demonstrated to even be possible and in fact one whose data from known observations show us that such a thing is impossible, then naturally I'm out.

We know such 'rear-loaded'/ground-up evolution is not possible due to the data that has been examined (we know from knowledge, not 'hope' from ignorance). Any time we make a model based on data (say, as Behe of whom I'm so fond has done) it is of course an extrapolation. But as with my examples it is an extrapolation of what we *know* evolution to be capable of, and in the precise *direction* that it has been documented. I'm not comfortable in dealing with some vague notion of 'change over time' as other might be, or of 'offspring varying slightly from their parents' and extrapolating that, which notions are so fast and loose that any number of other factors can and have been able to account for them.

------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------

Something is definitely going on with the frog example I mentioned – I've already agreed there's smoke there, if not fire, and that might be able to serve as a point of agreement from which we can in the future launch. Such is what I would consider among the *best* evidences of large-scale (or of any) transition, but all it tells us is that numerous, numerous organisms have culled this mode of development – from somewhere – as they arose onto the earth scene. If we insist this apparent recapitulation in the tadpole *must* be due to common biological descent, however, then we're on very shaky ground, I think, because we have so many other examples in nature of complete modes of reproduction that are said to have arisen independently (as well as countless morphological structures), outside of common ancestry. Viviparity, for example, is said to have arisen independently at least 100 times[!] in squametes alone: http://www.faculty.biol.vt.ed... They now are quite certain mosasaurs and plesiosaurs at least, among the marine reptiles, gave birth to live young like cetaceans, etc.


I've given my reasons as to why I am not impressed with scientific consensus in much detail elsewhere, so I won't belabor them further here – you know what I think about the role of bias (and even active and passive intimidation) in forming scientific consensuses on controversial subjects like evolution. There is a reason gravity is not hotly-contested, and evolution is. When you start from the premise that, as you say, “We know life tends to evolve using whatever its environment provides,” that is, from the firm conviction that what I've termed 'rear-loaded'/ground-up biological evolution took place, then of course nothing outside of rear-loaded biological evolution taking place will be viewed as an available possibility. This is, in fact, the very type of knowledge filtration that I complain is going on in today's science, yet there are, for any problem, a large number of possible solutions, some of which can align themselves in the same seeming direction for a long time without being the correct one. We talked last time about the geocentric model of Ptolemy, for instance, and how for the better part of two millenia the explanations it produced as well as the predictions it made comported quite satisfactory with the observed motions of the heavenly bodies. What I've endeavored to make known here though (in the limitations of space and my time at least), is that the evolution model under consideration today does not even explain what we observe. Right now, I'd assert, the superseded geocentric model is more predictive and explains far more in its respective arena than the Neo-Darwinian model does with respect to evolution.

What it boils down to, I think, is that we have data – enormous amounts of data: fossils, genetic and morphological information, etc.) which must be interpreted, but as firmly as you may believe the Darwinian interpretation of this data is, there are other, quite reasonable and equally as intelligent people who do not agree that it is reasonable. The morphological data with respect to the higher primates does not, for instance, agree with the DNA data: http://www.news.pitt.edu/news... (there is so much more that could be argued on the human-ape data – perhaps one day...), and I just read last week how turtles are likewise now thought to be more related to birds when genetics are considered, notwithstanding that all morphological studies have places turtles near reptiles like lizards and snakes: http://www.sciencedaily.com/r... Cladistically, bats and whales must be grouped together due to their sole possession of prestin:

"Although the bat and whale biosonars originated independently and differ substantially in many aspects [2], we here report the surprising finding that the bottlenose dolphin, a toothed whale, is clustered with microbats in the gene tree constructed using protein sequences encoded by the hearing gene Prestin."

Link: http://www.cell.com/current-b...

The point is, interpretation is everything, and from where I'm standing, the whole theory appears cacophonous. I've listed examples of convergence in the past such as the octopus/human eye, the Thylacine/North American wolf skeletons, and the various marsupials, which many hardcore evolutionists have admitted are extremely unlikely to have occurred via random mutation plus natural selection in even a single instance. Homology itself, though routinely cited as evidence in favor of evolution, is overturned on this basis by analogy; by the so many much more striking examples of morphological convergence outside of common ancestry. (Not to tarry here too long on this; I could cite examples all day long, but this goes to interpretation; to what I consider to be incorrect interpretation by the Darwinists).

As to a theory of my own, wild or sound, what I'm admitting is that I don't know *how* life came to be here on this planet, as we find it today. I would, however, not be looking for an explanation in the current Darwinian proposals which have failed us, but to which nonetheless most hang on for lack of a replacement, expecting that, if we only tweak it enough, it will somehow all come together. I would be looking in the direction of something completely outside of what has been considered thus far (in the direction perhaps of fields and energy as I've mentioned – including conscious energy; consciousness), and I would be looking away from uniformitarianism, not only as it is applied to geology a la Lyell, but also away from what I see are its more universal philosophical underpinnings; as it has been applied to matter, elemental and chemical evolution. If my cited article above suggested nothing else, it suggested that we are thinking of biology all wrong.

.