Evolution: A Non-Starter?

Would you believe evolution created you if you were shown that it could not?

If you Google the definition of “evolution” you will be confused. Because the language of “evolution” today has morphed into many related, and important, discussions around things like genetic drift and population genetics.

But what about the power of evolution beyond genetic drift and population genetics? Can evolutionary processes really explain the origin and existence of all living forms? Including human beings?

To answer the question about origins we must consider evolutionary processes in their only explanatory form. And this form–originally proposed by Darwin–continues as the basis for all evolutionary thought: heritable variation combined with natural selection.

That’s it. Evolutionary processes to create human beings from the first living life form rely only on two easily understandable process steps:

  1. Heritable variation. That is, with each parent to child replication certain biological traits are “inherited” in the child’s genome. And these variations can be advantageous or injurious to survival.
  2. Natural Selection. According to evolutionary theory natural selection is the mechanism in nature that “preserves” organisms with advantageous variations to reproduce and “rejects” those with injurious variations to die before reproducing.

That’s it. Expert evolutionist Richard Dawkins once described evolution as being “bewilderingly simple.” And it is. Regardless of the wording of the various descriptions of “evolution” out there, the process said to create new beings on earth remains the simple 2-step process above.

Here is the question for inquiring minds: can the simple 2-step process of evolution operating blindly in nature really explain the origin of human beings?

Nobody questions the first step of evolution: heritable variation. Darwin called this “descent with modification” and variation in parent-to-child reproduction is an observed fact of nature.

But what about natural selection? What does it do in nature?

We say it did nothing.

Surprised?

Below we present the kernel of discovery on which The Natural Selection Paradox hinges. We urge you to read The Natural Selection Paradox, maybe in the abridged version. But below we show in simple flowchart form a new way to look at natural selection.

In the flowchart below, starting at “Time 1” (in the distant past) Organism 1 produces a new organism at Time 2. In our example, the new organism is produced with heritable variation. That is, Modified Organism 2 “descended with modification” from Organism 1, fulfilling the first step of evolution’s 2-step process, shown at Time 3.

Natural selection now must operate at Time 4 to either preserve Modified Organism 2 to reproduce, or to reject Modified Organism 2 (it dies by starvation, by being eaten, or by natural disaster) before reproducing.

We can grasp the idea that nature operates to “reject” certain organisms before they can reproduce. We see organisms that starve for lack of resources, organisms that get killed by stronger or faster organisms, and the occasional unlucky victim of natural disaster.

But what about those that are “preserved” to reproduce? What does natural selection do for those?

Study the flowchart below to find out.

To help answer the question, imagine the flowchart exactly as shown above, but without the step of natural selection at Time 4. How does Modified Organism 2’s destiny change at Time 5 without natural selection operating in nature? Below we reproduce the flowchart with natural selection removed.

Do you see that the fate of Modified Organism 2 that descended with favorable variations remains in nature unchanged? That is, natural selection did nothing for Modified Organism 2. And we submit that natural selection does nothing for all the organisms born with favorable variations.

Human beings are said originate as a result of this process being repeated over and over and over again to “Time 7,” the present time. We are “Modified Organism n” where “n” is a very large number.

Do you still believe in evolution as an explanation for your existence?

If so, you must believe you were created by innumerable repetitions of Step 1 (heritable modifications) alone. Natural selection did nothing.

We don’t believe that.

Why don’t you join us?

Seriously, why not?

4 thoughts on “Evolution: A Non-Starter?

  1. Forgive my ignorance, I’m not a scollar in genetics. Here how I see this:
    Nature doesn’t “reyect” the not favorable “errors in replication (mutations)” of DNA, they survive less up to their age of reproduction and have less weight in the next generation.
    In the billion of years from the first seeds of life, I can track a slowly progressive eficience in survival (interrupted by cataclysmic geological events with emergence of new forms of life), in both cases more resistant to the ecosistem an his predators. Their less adapted antecessors are replaced because of their poor adaptation to the “struggle” for sustain their lives.
    And the development of DNA ciences is illuminating the mecanics of metabolism, organogenesis, evolution ¿and life some day?

    1. You are very close to explaining current evolutionary thinking accurately. But in evolutionary thinking to say an organism “survives less” is the same as saying nature “rejected” it. “Less adapted ancestors” are “replaced, but they are replaced by organisms for which natural selection did nothting. Natural selection had nothing to do with the adaptations they were born with, and natural selection does nothing to “allow” them to survive. Does that make sense? Thank you for the great comment!

Leave a Reply