MindNuke.com

Darwin vs. Darwin: Origin of Species

All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or otherwise transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission. Brief quotes are permitted for reference purposes only provided the URL is credited: MindNuke.com

Copyright ©2007-2012 | Page Version: 1.3

“LONG before having arrived at this part of my work [chapter 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 scientific 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 fantastical variety. To some extent archetypes "bend" to imitate other archetypes. One archetype has never transformed into another archetype. Some archetypes are more adaptable then others.

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:

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 vague swipe at the which came first paradox. He didn't learn to avoid these types of questions like our orthodox scientists do.  Moreover, we refer the reader to computers software 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." By Darwin's standards, it is presently broken. Molecular hierarchy, cellular organization, and DNA can not, and will not form by slight modifications. Darwin didn't know they existed. It's now abundantly apparent that all life forms we now see 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" --better said read: "archetype."

Some form of breathing is the foundation of all life. Darwin underestimates the urgency of explaining this simple fact.

...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.

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.

 ...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. There are many decadent speculations to make up for the lack of hard data. Morphology is proving to be terribly misguided, and intermediate varieties are wishful thinking at best.

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 Darwin "sometimes felt much difficulty" is a terrific understatement. Internal organs, and beautiful superfluous details, admittedly can not both be adequately explained by the theory of evolution. 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: genetic specificity.

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 approaches a damning 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. Nothing has been proven to be vestigial despite many efforts to establish otherwise.

DNA is never created, only replicated. There is every reason to believe that all biological life forms descended from two parent forms 99% genetically identical.

Even if we observed DNA forming on Earth apart from replication. 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 never happen, but lets say for the sake of evolutionary logic "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 lack. Darwin understood his theories failed to explain organization.

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. If jumping gives a flying fish an edge on survival, it may improve over generations within limits. However, gliding will only be observed in fish with specific preexisting "flight fin" DNA.

No amount of jumping upstream will provide Salmon with this body part. Their fins may shift or scale. But the "flying fin" blueprint,  will never spontaneously appear. 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 gain 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.

Again, there is no condition more profoundly ignorant than to be blatantly wrong. And again, DNA is never created in the body -only cloned. So that DNA can't explain origin.

Here is a better title for Darwin's book: Adaptation of Species

It is generally acknowledged that all organic beings have been formed on two great laws: Unity of Type, and the Conditions of Existence.

Formed on two great laws of organic beings? If only for the doubt chapter, we wish Darwin had written a book titled: Origin of Law

MindNuke.com