| |
|
Did you know
that Darwin had serious doubts about his own theory and
expressed them in detail? |
What you are about to read are the
lesser quoted writings of Charles Darwin -to say the least. Most will
probably be surprised to read them for the first time. What follows in
bold are quotes from Darwin's most famous book: 'Origin of
Species':
“LONG before having arrived at this part of my work [chap.6], a crowd
of difficulties will have occurred to the reader. Some of them are so
grave that to this day I can never reflect on them without being
staggered…” -Charles
Darwin
The caps are Darwin's. We will review the "crowd" of difficulties that
staggered Darwin, because these difficulties still exist. Darwin was not as sure
of his theories as the scientific community is now, he goes on to say
here:
“…but, to the best of my judgment, the greater number are only
apparent, and those that are real are not, I think, fatal to my theory.”
So the many difficulties are not real, or not fatal to his theory? To
his best judgment. He thinks. Not the most scientist
pronouncement put to paper. Darwin's uncertainty is one thing, but the
following admission betrays the title and point of his book:
“Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as
we see them, well defined?”
This question is especially important in light of DNA and
Information
Theory. DNA is essentially a dynamic biological software language/database.
In nature we see a definite number of plant and animal archetypes. Each
one codependent upon another archetype. These archetypes can reproduce
fractal generations to a seemingly infinite variety. To some extent
archetypes "bend" to imitate other archetypes. One archetype
has never transformed into another archetype. Some archetypes are more
adaptable then other archetypes. Dogs do not become cats,
no matter what. Cherry trees do not become rose bushes.
We agree with Darwin on this point. It is staggering to
imagine "natural" selection accounting for highly specified archetypes
across the entire globe. What sends him into further bewilderment, and
rightfully so, is how the first archetypes came into being:
“Can we believe that natural selection could produce, on the one
hand, organs of trifling importance, such as the tail of a giraffe,
which serves as a fly-flapper, and, on the other hand, organs of such
wonderful structure, as the eye, of which we hardly as yet fully
understand the inimitable perfection?”
Perfection = Balance. Beauty. Codependence. Organization. Sentience. These are the
"fatal flaws" in Darwinian theories. The eye has been perfect for as long
as we have studied it. But it should cause equal problems to the
fly-swatting tail. Both could save your life.
"Organs of extreme perfection and complication. To suppose that the
eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to
different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for
the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been
formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the
highest possible degree.”
This
is a fatal admission in our day. No self respecting internet atheist would
concede to such a thing. They sound exactly like present day
speculations too:
“…I can see no very great difficulty (not more than in the case of
many other structures) in believing that natural selection has converted
the simple apparatus of an optic nerve merely coated with pigment and
invested by transparent membrane, into an optical instrument as perfect
as is possessed by any member of the great Articulate class.”
This is Darwin's embarrassing swipe at the
which came first paradox.
He hasn't learned to avoid these types of questions like our orthodox
scientists do. Darwin did freely confess it "absurd
in the highest possible degree". To which we agree with
Darwin. Moreover, we altogether agree with computers and logarithms that
have proven 100% lucky formation of a single cell "statistically
absurd to the highest possible degree".
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which
could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight
modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
According to Darwin, if it could be demonstrated that
complex organs can't spawn without slight improvements over ages of
time, the theory Natural Selection will absolutely break down. It is
absolutely broken by Darwins standards. Molecular hierarchy, cellar
organization, and DNA can not, and will not be proven to form by slight
modifications. Darwin didn't know they existed. It is abundantly apparent that all life forms are
copies:
“I can, indeed, hardly doubt that all vertebrate animals having true
lungs have descended by ordinary generation from an ancient prototype,
of which we know nothing, furnished with a floating apparatus or
swimbladder.”
The lungs and the fly-swatting tail are difficult to contemplate for the
father of evolution. Is Darwin suggesting that lungs came as an
adaptation to a floating device? Yes he is. We too can barely reflect on
this. Darwin envisioned an ancient "Prototype" which we find find
to be much more self evident truth. Although, better said, we say "Archetype."
Some form of breathing is the foundation of all life. Darwin betrays the
urgency of explaining this simple but thought provoking fact of life.
We still don't have a rational sounding explanation for oxygen or water,
let alone breathing.
“...we must be extremely cautious in concluding that any organ could
not possibly have been produced by successive transitional gradations,
yet, undoubtedly, grave cases of difficulty occur, some of which will be
discussed in my future work.”
Darwin was honest with himself, but overextended. In other words, don't
rule out Darwinism just because its invisible? Or lacks conclusive
evidence? And is virtually miraculous? Acceptance of no God by faith. Discussion
would have to be good enough
for his theory. Darwinism, like most belief systems, contains a morsel of
truth in a meal of faith. We also discuss some of the other grave cases of
difficulty later in our work. Cases Darwin did not address on his own:
“...if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking
most closely all the species of the same group together, must assuredly
have existed; but the very process of natural selection constantly
tends, as has been so often remarked, to exterminate the parent forms
and the intermediate links. Consequently evidence of their former
existence could be found only amongst fossil remains, which are
preserved, as we shall in a future chapter attempt to show, in an
extremely imperfect and intermittent record.”
We concede to Darwin on this point. If his theory were true, it couldn't
be proven. The missing links would be exterminated and the fossil record
is extremely imperfect. ToE is one of the only (standing) scientific
theories with so many fancy excuses for the lack of hard data.
Morphology is proving to be terribly misguided, and true
intermediate varieties are no where to be found.
“Organs of little apparent importance. As natural selection acts by
life and death, by the preservation of individuals with any favorable
variation, and by the destruction of those with any unfavorable
deviation of structure, I have sometimes felt much difficulty in
understanding the origin of simple parts, of which the importance does
not seem sufficient to cause the preservation of successively varying
individuals. I have sometimes felt as much difficulty, though of a very
different kind, on this head, as in the case of an organ as perfect and
complex as the eye.”
That he "sometimes felt much difficulty" is a terrific understatement. "Perfect" design. Beautiful yet superfluous details. It
flat out cant be explained by anything Darwin theorized. -We know more
now than he did then. The fly-swatting tail and the antenna of the
Giraffe exists for the same reason the seemingly more perfect eye
exists: DNA programmed these organ specifications.
“If green woodpeckers alone had existed, and we did not know that
there were many black and pied kinds, I dare say that we should have
thought that the green color was a beautiful adaptation to hide this
tree-frequenting bird from its enemies; and consequently that it was a
character of importance and might have been acquired through natural
selection; as it is, I have no doubt that the color is due to some quite
distinct cause, probably to sexual selection.”
Charles Darwin is here approaching a very dangerous point against his
own theories. Color. While we are no strangers to the allure of colors,
this begs a question. Why do we see colors at all? Sexual selection?
Colors only make up a tiny percentage of the light spectrum. If humans
had infrared vision, as some animals do, day and night could be
meaningless. Our eyes would be better 'fit' for survival. Instead, human eyes are more 'fit' for enjoying beauty.
“We are profoundly ignorant of the causes producing slight and
unimportant variations; and we are immediately made conscious of this by
reflecting on the differences in the breeds of our domesticated animals
in different countries, more especially in the less civilized countries
where there has been but little artificial selection.”
There is no condition more profoundly ignorant than to be blatantly
wrong. All variations are important and the cause producing them across
all species is one. This is the logical conclusion, but it tends to
support 'creation' more so than 'natural selection'. This is precisely
the reason his ignorance is so profound, because it requires an
explanation nearly the magnitude of God to justify.
DNA is the programming language of biological software. It is only
replicated; along fractal varieties of the species archetype. There is
every reason to believe that all biological life forms descended from
two parent forms 99% genetically identical. More critical to the theory
of evolution than the question of transitional species, is the question
of non-perfectly designed species and non-complied DNA material.
-Neither exists.
Even if we observed DNA forming on earth apart from replication, say at
the bottom of the ocean. This would be like finding the following line
of HTML at the bottom of the desert, on a slip of paper:
"<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; margin-left: .5in;
margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; margin-bottom: .0001pt"><font
face="Arial Unicode MS">"
It would be astonishing. It would never happen, but lets say for the
sake of argument "it just did" -it wouldn't explain the existence of a
single website. Not apart from a coherent design effort.
“Summary of Chapter. We have in
this chapter discussed some of the difficulties and objections which may
be urged against my theory. Many of them are very grave…”
What strikes us is Darwin's frankness about the severity of problems.
Especially compared with the viewpoints expressed by modern day
theorists. We see the same glaring paradoxes today. Not taking creation
as a serious possibility, the imagination draws a blank.
One of the most illogical and unscientific suggestions reported today is
that an animal such as a 'raptor' could evolve into another such as a
'pelican'. Darwin knew this was not observable or even rational. Yet it
is required to fully believe in ToE:
“We have seen in this chapter how cautious we should be in concluding
that the most different habits of life could not graduate into each
other; that a bat, for instance, could not have been formed by natural
selection from an animal which at first could only glide through the
air.”
Any animal that glides can essentially become a bat? False. We know for
fact that highly specific DNA would have to be "copied" from a working
original. We have no difficulty following the law of adaptation to a
point: If jumping gives a flying fish an edge on survival, it may
improve over generations. However, gliding will only be observed in fish
with specific preexisting "flight fin" DNA.
No amount of jumping upstream provides Salmon with this body part. Their
fins may shift or scale. But the "flying fin" blueprint, cannot, and
will not, spontaneously appear. The DNA instructions and material
itself is not generated by life experience. Some lucky fish
may be distantly related to the gifted flying type and that feature may
reemerge. -But flying fish will never graduate into a new avian species or
acquire non-inherent body variations.
“We are far too ignorant, in almost every case, to be enabled to
assert that any part or organ is so unimportant for the welfare of a
species, that modifications in its structure could not have been slowly
accumulated by means of natural selection.”
Here is another foundation of ToE. Slow accumulation of more fit
designs. Here is the problem, that doesn't explain origin. At all.
Rather it explains the gradual adaptation of preexisting life forms.
Remember the title of the book? A more accurate tile would be:
Adaptation of Species The difference between what Darwin addressed,
and what he set out to address, is vast.
“It is generally acknowledged that all organic beings have been
formed on two great laws: Unity of Type, and the Conditions of
Existence.”
Two great laws of organic beings? Darwin's book attempts to genuinely,
albeit imaginatively, explore the "Condition of Existence", but does
nothing to explain the "Unity of Type." The unity of type,
follows the unity of law. There was not, and is not, a viable natural explanation
for the origin of physical laws. Of
which, life is the apex.
|
|
