Loren writes:
>A few hypotheses form the "central core" of evolution. They have been
>maintained and included in nearly every version of evolutionary theory
>from Darwin till the present. IMO, the "central core" includes:
>
> I) Species originate by common descent through modification.
> II) Genetic variations are produced via "random" processes.
> (i.e. processes NOT caused by the organism itself, but
> which are, in principle, statistically describable)
>III) Selection pressures affect genetic makeup of the next generation.
>
>These few hypotheses --- by themselves --- make almost no testable
>predictions. They are, as Walter said, quite flexible and adaptable.
Loren lists three "core" hypotheses of evolutionary theory from Darwin till
present. He forgot several. For example, Darwin endorsed Lamarckian
inheritance and gave it ever INCREASING importance in his later editions and
letters. Some major evolutionists still seek it, and find it plausible.
For another example, Darwin endorsed genetic throwbacks, atavisms, or what I
call the masking and unmasking of genetic libraries -- and leading
evolutionists (such as Gould) still endorse it.
Where did Loren's three hypotheses come from. Let me explain that.
Evolutionary theory is a structureless smorgasbord of every conceivable
naturalistic mechanism. And evolutionists *select* those *natural*
mechanisms that seem to match (and therefore "explain") the data. I call
this "Natural" selection.
They ignore the mechanisms that don't fit. But they shouldn't be ignored,
as they hold the key to why life was designed as it was.
For example, suppose species could widely interbreed with other diverse
species from the system of life (in other words, suppose species did not
reproduce 'after their kind'). This would have left evolutionists with a
humungous out. Evolutionists would say this rampant cross-breeding means
there are no unique ancestors or lineages. In one stroke evolutionists
would forever explain away their nemesis -- the systematic absence of
ancestors and lineages.
Life's designer thwarted that by making organisms with the capacity for very
limited interbreeding. This is essential to make life look UNLIKE the
result of evolution.
How did evolutionists respond to that? As always they search among the next
available mechanisms. If evolution cannot occur by rampant cross-breeding,
then it must be by species somehow being modified. And you end up with most
of Loren's hypothesis #I: Species originate through internal modification
(rather than external cross-breeding).
Let's take another example. In the last century many evolutionists embraced
vitalism, the notion that life has some innate tendency to originate and
evolve. That notion still has vestiges in Gould, Kaufmann, and the
self-organizationalists. Vitalism is a powerful evolutionary explanation.
But life's designer, I say, acted to defeat all evolutionary
interpretations, so the designer left out all the vitalistic forces that
evolutionists were seeking.
How did evolutionists react? They choose a different evolutionary
mechanism, the notion that *random* change (rather than vitalistic, directed
change) was the source of evolutionary novelty. Thus Loren's hypothesis #II
was born.
Evolutionists needed something to override the randomness of hypothesis #II
and create biological designs, so Darwin added hypothesis #III, the notion
of selection.
The notion of common descent came from three observations:
1) The systematic unity of life (life was design to look
like the product of one designer).
2) The absence of transposition patterns (a plausible
evolutionary mechanism that evolutionists embrace).
3) The absence of atavistic patterns.
These three ANTI-evolutionary patterns gave life a substantial nested-ness,
and evolutionists merely adapted their theory to fit that by SELECTING
common descent from their smorgasbord of mechanisms.
The designer left out gradual intergradations of life forms, and also
designed life to NOT have ancestors and lineages. It took a while for
evolutionists to admit those patterns are true. Then evolutionists crafted
punctuated equilibria in an attempt to explain-away the absences.
Evolutionists saw von Baer's laws of embryology, and tried to interpret
these as the result of evolution -- and voila' the notion of recapitulation
was born, from thin air, based only on *pattern*, with not a scrap of
experimental evidence to back it up.
Let me sum up this parade. Evolutionists continually adapt their
smorgasbord theory to fit the available data. As the data refutes their
simplest, easiest, most plausible explanations, they move onward to the
deeper reaches of their smorgasbord. This gives life (and legs) to their
theory.
Let me pose you a challenge. A thought experiment. You are the designer.
You are to design life for survival, and to look like the product of one
designer. Here comes the hard part:
Can you design the system to resist all naturalistic (or
evolutionary) explanations? What would that system be
like? Can you describe it? Can evolutionists design a
system of life they could not explain away?
I say Life's designer did it ingeniously.
Walter ReMine
P.O. Box 28006
Saint Paul, MN 55128