Note to readers: The refinement and completion of the arguments begun on this page in 1997 has now been published, and is to be found at another location. It is a more detailed refutation of Darwin's theory than is found here. The terms "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest" are further analyzed and shown to be erroneous as an explanation for evolution. You may go there at any time by clicking on the following link: CLICK HERE 

For the latest and most illuminating look at the term "Natural Selection", see how it works when applied to an economy ("Economic Darwinism"):CLICK HERE 

To get back here, click on the "Back" button of your browser.)

Note that this page uses the "down/back" reference system: to get to the reference simply "click" on the superscript ^{( )}; to get back to the original place, click "back".

As noted on the Index page, for the last 150 years, the most popular explanation for the diversity of living things in the universe (except for Biblical creation) was Darwin's theory of evolution, often explained as "survival of the fittest". Darwin's theory has been taught beginning with grade school, so that a 6 year old knows, or should, that the giraffe neck is long allowing it to feed above the other animals and thus survive when others cannot get food (in reality an idea of Lamarck's). Evidence has been accumulating for years that problems exist not only in this claim, but in other aspects of Darwin's theory including the growing belief that it is only a clever tautology, which explains nothing that we do not already know. This page examines that aspect of Darwin's theory, and finding it lacking in scientific basis, suggests that belief in Darwin's theory of evolution must be largely a matter of faith.

ANALYSIS OF DARWIN'S THEORY

In all fairness to Darwin, he did not use the phrase "survival of the fittest" (really Herbert Spencer's term, but adopted in later editions of "Origins" due to objections from his contemporaries). The mechanism he referred to was "natural selection". Darwin states:

"----I have called this principle, by which each slight variation^(a), if useful, is preserved, by the term of natural selection-----". (emphasis added)

The answer is much too simple and also much too revealing: the fittest are those who survive (Period). Why are they the fittest? Because they survived. But why did they survive? Because they are the fittest. That's all we know about them. The same answer applies to the more obscure phrase, (survival or "preservation") by "natural selection": the types that have been selected by nature are those who have survived. Both arguments are tautological. Nothing is learned about the real scientific cause of evolution or the origin of species by learning that the population consists of survivors.

It also explains nothing that we don't already know about the world around us. Yes, elephants have "survived". Yes, so have fleas, oak trees, bacteria, etc.. In Darwin's terms, these species have been selected. Quite obvious. They are here. What is the cause of their differences? It is certainly not the fact that they have survived.

A TAUTOLOGY IS A TAUTOLOGY: THE TAUTOLOGY OF DARWIN

A tautology is defined as a series of statements that comprise an argument, which statements are constructed in such a way that the truth of the proposition is guaranteed. Consequently the statement conveys no useful information regardless of it's length or complexity. Thus, for a simple example, the statement "if you can't find something (that you lost), you are not looking in the right place" is tautological. It is also true, but conveys no useful information.
As a physical example, to play a game of darts where the dart board was full of bullseyes, could be called a "tautological" game. You can't lose. Any argument containing a tautological statement is thus flawed logically and must be considered erroneous.

A tautological argument is not an argument; a tautological game is not a game. (As an aside, a great many of the later, "more advanced" books on evolution attempt to explain away this tautology by some beautiful, highly complex, arguments; e.g. Mayr and or, Gould. Upon close examination of these arguments it will be found that the conclusion is usually obtained by a metaphysical "division by zero", like the well known mathematical proof that 1 = 0. You will note that the bottom line of all of these complex arguments is always the same, namely that "natural selection is the cause of evolution".)

It should also be noted that some apologists for Darwinian logic claim that mathematical equations such as f = ma, or e = mc² could also be termed tautologies. This is a faulted attempt to vindicate Darwinism which could be termed "innocence by association"; in either case, [and in every case of a mathematical expression] the terms on both sides of the equation are defined elsewhere independently, and thus the equal sign does not mean "is defined by" but rather {hate to say it} but is equal to, thus establishing an equivalence. This equivalence may establish a new "law", hitherto unknown. "Survival = fittest" defines one term by the other: a tautology pure and simple. It must be kept in mind that the requirement for evolution to occur, by definition, is not a single function, rather two functions: (1.) is development of a novel genome (phenotype), and (2.) is survival of the phenotype. For evolution to occur, BOTH must happen. Strange as it may seem, a six legged "horse", which might be an excellent animal, does not represent evolution unless it can reproduce its lineage. This would be similar to the production of a mule, which is considered a "cross", not evolution. So survival, being an integral part of evolution, is necessary for existence; what is new about this? How does this factor become the "cause" of evolution?

But the greatest fallacy in the term "survival of the fittest" is the fact that the word "fittest" has no precise meaning whatsoever. The "survival" of an organism is dependent upon a vast permutation and combination of conditions not understood by anyone; thus the word cannot be defined and leaves the entire term devoid of the ability of meaning and thus prediction.

"Survival" in nature starts with a different genome (phenotype) each time and thus "survival" itself is different every time. No two phenotypes have ever developed under exactly identical circumstances; even eggs in the same nest have different positions, have been laid at different times, are exposed to different amounts of heat, light and other conditions. While it is true that the "new" genome would have new characteristics, the conditions that it is subjected to may differ substantially from the survival conditions of the first genome. It either survives or doesn't, under a different, continually varying, set of conditions. As is stated elsewhere on this site, the outcome of the survival of an organism is unknown until the event occurs. (See, e.g., the page referenced by "click here" at the top of this page.) Again, how is this fact the "cause" of evolution?

A CLOSER LOOK AT NATURAL SELECTION

But let us assume, as a further test of the logic in Darwin's theory, those who believe in creation are right. God created all the species, perhaps all at once, or by some other method, "Theistic evolution" perhaps. (Or, equally as effective for the purpose of argument, the species came here as seeds from another planet = Panspermia works).

Now, virtually all scientists agree that about 1% of the total species that have ever existed on the planet currently remain in existence. Let us accept this figure for the purpose of argument. The question then comes up, "why are only one percent of the species in existence today"? A proper evolutionist answer is that those species that exist today were picked by "natural selection" or "survival of the fittest", using Darwin's own definition.

Therefore, Darwin's process of "natural selection" is not unique to his theory, but operates under any and all circumstances that involve an "origin" of a species, whether it be creation, Panspermia, or some other process. Thus "survival by natural selection" or by selection of the "fittest" once again has no effect on the "origin" of species, and adds nothing by way of explanation to Darwin's theory. This objection is valid whether it is applied to Darwin's original work (1859) or any one of the myriad of variations of his theory, right up to the present day.

But if the question is "what is responsible for the differences between the separate species", we must discover what caused a viable (as opposed to random) change to the cell or group of cells (genotype) which gave rise to these new species, as well as why these changes persisted. High school mathematics can prove that the time from the assumed beginning of the universe (currently estimated at ~ 12 billion years) is insufficient to produce even one viable new gene because of the complexity of the process. Yet this process appears to have occurred, and cannot be explained by science, using either "natural selection" or "survival of the fittest" as a mechanism.^(e) The only current explanation of this process is a teleological one, and thus outside the realm of science.

[To backup for a moment, it is instructive to compare the Creationist explanation regarding "evolution". It is very simple and straightforward: God created all the species. He is the cause of the ordered variation which exists in the universe. "Natural selection", or "survival of the fittest" can be considered to have determined which of these species have survived to this day. There is no question as to their origin. While no scientific proof is contained in this statement, (or in Darwin's theory either) it is not a tautology.]

On the other hand,  Darwin's theory offers as the "complete explanation" for the order so apparent in evolution, the mechanism of "natural selection" which is only an effect:< ^(b)

Natural selection (or survival of the fittest) must be recognized for the true character of its mechanism: it is a completely random, infinitely changing, "filtering/culture media" process where the end result is the genome that survives (or prospers). Just as a filter/culture media in a laboratory does not create anything, so it is with Darwin's filter/culture, natural selection. Thus it is incapable of being the cause of anything. The characteristics of organisms which have existed on this planet are of course shaped by the "conditions of life" (gravity, heat, etc.) that are found here; but to interpret this obvious fact so as to consider it to be the "cause" of the "origin" of that organism is erroneous; it is a classic example of "circular reasoning". Thus it is a tautology.

{But the thread of logic used to arrive at this conclusion should not be foreign to anyone associated in any way with Academia. Many historians for example, treat history as, or at least imply, that history is, a force. Just for the record, History is not a Force. History is an explanation of a result or effect of some past occurrence, but not a cause or force of anything. Alfred Russel Wallace explains this all-too-common logic error in the quotation below.}

CAUSE AND EFFECT - A BRIEF DISCUSSION

"We are like children [who are] looking at a complicated machine of the reasons of whose construction they are ignorant, and like them we constantly impute as causes what is really effect in our vain attempts to explain what we will not confess that we cannot understand." (em., [brackets], added).
Alfred Russel Wallace, Species Notebook, circa 1855.

Note that this entry was made prior to Wallace's earthshaking "Ternate Paper" sent to Darwin in 1858. Wallace, racked by malarial fever, concluded, in a state of delirium, that the process of "natural selection" (not using this term) was the cause of evolution. After emerging from it, he hastily wrote the paper and thus violated his own admonition, above, having "found" the key explanation he had been looking for, for so long . After reaching this decision, he never looked back. Nothing, however, disputes the crystal clear thinking which produced the above explanation which was made about 3 years prior to writing the paper. Wallace is describing an all-to-common human ability to engage in a logic error termed "logical reversal" which will inevitably produce a cause/effect "reversal". As mentioned elsewhere on this site, this is the basis for Darwinian error.

The "myriad of effects" faced by the genome, which must be adapted to in order for any of this to occur, is what Darwin calls "natural selection". Is it logical to say that natural selection (or anything) is acting in these situations? On the other hand, if several species (as defined by biologists) are capable of surviving on Earth, is it proper to say that anything is acting on these species? Does rain act on the corn to "cause" it to grow, or is the corn (the genome) merely responding to one of many effects such as abundant phosphorous, nitrogen, heat, light, or any other factor of the environment which is necessary for it to survive. Darwin and Darwinists would have you believe that the rain specifically occurs for the purpose of selecting the corn; if this is so, what of the vast majority of the water which runs away to the ocean? Under normal use of language and logic, we are speaking of cause and effect. What is the cause of the survival?

The cause of survival is the fact that the genome, which is the only thing capable of acting, either does or does not have the potential, or capability to survive, under the conditions. (Please note no claim that this is an earth-shaking conclusion: it is self-evident). One of Darwin's fallacies is in giving natural selection a capability for acting and thus treating it as a cause^(c), rather than an effect which is all that it can be. This is the most sophomoric of mistakes, a cause/effect reversal. Wallace's quote, above, is correct and to the point. Darwin  has placed the cart before the horse. It must be concluded that "evolution" if it exists at all, is caused and directed by a biological characteristic of which we are currently ignorant. Mankind does not know a cause of evolution. The conclusion that evolution has occurred is an assumption. 

Of course it follows from this understanding of the logic involved in the process, as above, that natural selection can not be the cause of evolution, as even  eminent Darwinists such as  Professor Ernst Mayr,  believe. In like manner, natural selection cannot be the cause of the origin of species. Just as those who are interested in the cause of the existence of the universe should  be studying Physics/Astronomy, those who wish to study the scientific cause (the origin) of species would do well to spend their time studying microbiology/genes rather than natural selection. A further reading of Alfred Russel Wallace (Darwin's compatriot in his theory of evolution) would be also useful, as Wallace believed the true "cause" of evolution was unknown and was, in effect, created.⁽¹⁾

It must be concluded that the real "cause" of evolution, would be the mechanism which provides the change in the genome from which the "selection" is made. Darwin's theory assumes that infinite variability is present in the genome, and further that an "effect" (natural selection, or survival of the fittest) can somehow enhance and develop a wholly new characteristic. And while great strides have been made in biological science since "Origins" was published there is still no theory which explains, much less proves, the phenomenon of what is called evolution.

CONCLUSION

Darwin's theory of Evolution contains 2 defects, either of which is fatal to the theme:

• A claim that the "origin of species" is caused by "natural selection" is a tautology.
• The cause of variation in a species cannot be determined, or initiated, by an effect.

As might be expected, a fatally flawed theory does not work.⁽⁴⁾

Numbers ^{( )} refer to items on the Index Page

^(a)Darwin's consideration of variation, in chapter 4 of his book "Origins" as quoted above, is glossed over as a premise or a "given" (an unstated assumption), and while the term "variation" is used elsewhere in his "Origins" book, his heavy-handed emphasis on the power of "natural selection" (which term is used some 350 times) throughout the book is really what he uses in an attempt to prove the theory. This technique is successful in that the inference of the power of natural selection is so strong that the majority of books and discussions which have been written on the subject of evolution term his theory as "evolution by Natural Selection" or some equivalent description.
It should be noted that the knowledge of genes, or the laws of heredity, in his day were unknown and Darwin concluded, without any real proof, that the possible variability of species was essentially infinite. This is of course, simply a  belief; thus, the conclusion drawn from this belief, Evolution, is itself only a belief. back (a)

^(b) This statement has been verified by a most unlikely source composed mostly of pro-evolutionists, no less than the Talk.Origins Archive. To my knowledge, this statement has been in the T. O. FAQ for at least 1 year, and perhaps much longer. It is in a way comforting to know that there is some agreement between those who are dedicated evolutionists, and those who like the DT, are unconvinced of the "fact" or methodology of evolution.

from the T. O. FAQ on Natural Selection: 

"When selection is spoken of as a force, it often seems that it is has a mind of its own; or as if it was nature personified. This most often occurs when biologists are waxing poetic about selection. This has no place in scientific discussions of evolution. Selection is not a guided or cognizant entity; it is simply an effect."  (all em. added. Agreement by the DT is whole-hearted.)

from: "http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html#natsel", from the paragraph "Common Misconceptions about Selection" (copied 10/4/99)

Note that once this interpretation is made, the entire "power" of Natural Selection disappears in a cloud of smoke, and those who have depended on it as an explanation for the complexity and direction of development of all living organisms are left with the same explanation which has existed at least since 100 years prior to the Darwin/Wallace theory, none at all.

While we are at it, note that evolutionists are merely "waxing poetic" when skewing facts toward evolutionary theory; any contradictions of it however, are "creationist" and are not allowed.
back (b)

^(d) As an insight into the supposed powers of natural selection, one might naturally ask at this point, is NS operating, right this very instant, on the Moon? How about Mars, Uranus, Pluto, planets of Alpha Centauri, and so forth. If the answer is "yes", why does not NS cause species to be in existence at these places, as it has supposedly done on this planet. Suppose your answer is "no", NS is not operating in these places, and subsequently some obscure bacteria is discovered (like ice, recently discovered on the Moon); does that mean that NS really is operating there and has caused the evolution of that species? What, then, is the real nature of NS? Those who are believers in the phenomenon are quick to point out the effects of NS, but are unable to explain exactly what NS is, or how it works or is the cause of anything. Perhaps someone will kindly email the DT an explanation.
[Note to the reader]: this question was posed upon publication of this page in May, 1997; after some three years, and over 10,000 accesses to this site, not a single email has even suggested an explanation for the mechanism of Natural Selection.
The DT is not the least bit surprised. There is no rational basis for an action such as Natural Selection. It might have been no less profitable to ask for the explanation of the existence of ghosts. back (d)

^(e) For example, during the relatively short time that humans (or primates) have existed on this planet, it appears that three (3) different types of Sickle Cell Anemia may have developed in the human genome. (Keep in mind that while the fact that these three types exist, there is no evidence that they have occurred during this brief period; note however, that if you are an Evolutionist, you have little choice but to believe otherwise.) The likelihood of this occurrence is, under current scientific knowledge, ¹/_infinity, i.e., for even theoretical purposes, impossible.  back (e)

^T Dogmatic Evolutionist: one who is as devout a believer in, and defender of, the Theory of Evolution as is a Creationist with the Bible. This distinction is made to separate the bona fide scientist (who may believe in evolution in some form) from the dedicated proselytizer of Darwinism. It turns out after an analysis such as the above (and hundreds of similar arguments never refuted by the Darwinists), that they are both using the same basis for their beliefs: Faith. back (T)
 

New email address: Page created by: dbtngtms@tdtone.org
Recent email sent to the previous address may not have been delivered.

GO TO THE INDEX PAGE

This page has been viewed over 15,000 times since May, 1997.

Published Jan. 23, 2004
Revised Apr. 16, 2004

Darwin's theory of "Natural Selection" has been hailed by most biologists as well as many other scientists and lay persons alike, as one of the most significant theories of all time.  Subsequently, almost before the ink was dry on the last edition of Darwin's work, the same "selection" principle used by Darwin in the field of biology was being applied to other sections of human endeavor in an effort to explain a host of other puzzling problems.  Seemingly, any complex sequence of events which cannot be readily explained otherwise, can be analyzed and made simple by an application of the basic principle of Darwin's theory, as outlined in his book "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection", 1859.  Thus, such facets of life as the makeup of the social system, economic system, and many other imponderables can be explained by application of the theory of "Natural Selection" or in Herbert Spencer's words (later adopted by Darwin in lieu of the term "Natural Selection") "Survival of the Fittest".

Of course, the principle need for the theory arises from the desire for man to understand his own origins, and ultimately, the origin of life itself. In the belief of the majority of both the scientific minded and laymen alike, this the theory does, apparently, at least. Using this theory, one can supposedly explain how living organisms of even the simplest of sorts, once modified even in the slightest, can, through this process of "selection", reach the complexity of even the most intricate of organisms, including man himself.  And best of all, this change is seemingly accomplished without any need for intelligence to have acted in the process, since random choice by the selection (or survival) process does it all. Thus the origin of mankind has been explained and made so simple that it can be "understood" by all, from grade school on up to the most educated of persons.  The reasoning is so simple that even Thomas Huxley himself (a self educated scientist of the times and called "Darwin's Bulldog") was quoted as saying "How extremely stupid of me not to have thought of that" after reading Darwin's publication.

Huxley was by no means stupid but he, like so many other scientists including Darwin and the extremely capable Wallace, was fooled into an erroneous conclusion by accepting an exchange of "cause" for "effect" and believing he had solved the problem of the origin of species. Thus the effect of the ecology (and many other factors) acting to advance (or destroy) the life of an organism is believed to be the "cause" of the origin of that organism, rather than simply "encouraging" it to exist. This belief would have been very dear to Huxley, as he was an avid athiest and had no other basis except Darwinism to explain his personal philosophy for the origin of life.* (see below for additional coomments on "Natural Selection").

This article is the latest in a series of articles which point out a number of discontinuities in "Darwinian thought" which supposedly explain elements of our biological system; these discontinuities are almost completely ignored by the scientific community, in an attitude that supports Darwinism and protects its own system of beliefs. In an attempt to better understand the operation of the Darwinian principle involved, this particular article analyzes a small segment of our society - the automobile manufacturing industry - and considers whether Darwin's great engine of "Natural Selection" operates to produce an understanding of the "evolution" , "diversity", and "order" so evident in this industry.  It will be applied in the very same way "Natural Selection" is supposed to work in the biological system and will be used as an analogy for the process which exists in the biological world.

Proof by analogy requires the comparison of two similar situations which have characteristics in common, one situation of which is explainable, the other situation being confusing in some degree and not readily explainable. Here we have (ostensibly) an explainable situation of variability in the case of biological production, and another situation, variability in the auto industry, which is perplexing, at least in some of the same aspects.

Basically, to review, in the case of organic life, incremental change in any organism (or not even necessarily a "living" organism but perhaps also a "proto" organism - a precursor of life) which prevails in existence and is able to somehow reproduce, will come into "being" with the results that are so evident to all, the magnificent viable organic life evident all around us. This is the "bottom line" of Darwinian thought and essentially attempts to explain the origin of all life (even though this may not have been Darwin's original intention). The mechanism in the process is called "Natural Selection" and outlined in Darwin's book, as above. Again, the idea is very fulfilling to all biologists, and also to many others who require an explanation for the phenomena.

Searching for an analogy with which to compare the above process we find that there are many "Darwinian" processes which are, in important ways, similar to the development of the organic world. One of them is constantly before our eyes, thoroughly familiar to virtually all adults, and thus understandable at least in its broad outlines, to all. A Ph.D. is not at all necessary to understand it, and indeed, a grade school diploma will do just fine.  Detailed knowledge of biology is likewise not required.  This analogy arises as a result of a study of the evolution and development of the automobile manufacturing industry , in any or all countries of the world.

Variation in the output of this industry compares with and even greatly exceeds variation found in the biological world, at least if considering viable (non extinct) organisms. This figure is an estimate currently put as high as 15,000,000 species. However the number of distinct autos currently in service throughout the world greatly exceeds this number (the USA currently produces this amount of autos in the US alone, per year, and while many of these products are similar, very few of them, considering such refinements as colors, trim styles etc. are identical).

"Extinction" in the auto industry since its beginning, has been enormous (perhaps as high as 90%) and the output and direction of the industry virtually unpredictable, both as in the biological world.  The question that also arises is "what is the mechanism which is responsible for these aspects of this industry and the enormous variation in the types of output" without there being any evidence of intelligence which directs this output.

This question is essentially identical to the same questions which persisted in the field of biology prior to the "discovery" and explanation of the process of Natural Selection in Darwin's book, the "Origin of Species".

In the biological world, Creationists (virtually the only voices then in the fray), maintained that the variation, characteristics, and order of species in the biological world were a direct product of Intelligence, (a Creator). What few atheists, agnostics, and other unbelievers which existed at that time had virtually no viable belief to explain any of these conditions.

In our current society, did one single genius sit down 100 years ago and plan out the various steps which have occurred over the last century creating some sort of a "master plan" which is responsible for the industry as it is today? Obviously not. Was Divine guidance involved, in some way similar to the claims Creationists make of the organic world? There is not even an inkling of evidence of this.  Is it possible that there are inherent features of either humanity or this planet, or both, which have driven the direction of this industry?

Unraveling the mystery of this development would have many advantages for those in this industry and in particular those who purchase from this industry, so the question is not trivial. For but one instance, suppose that all the "mistakes" that have been made, such as the development of obsolete models, could have been prevented; billions, perhaps trillions, of dollars could have been saved.  This money and effort could have been well spent in other fields of endeavor such as in medicine or food production.

So one might rightly ask, is the same process which produced the order, diversity and superiority in the organic world at work in the automotive industry to produce the same conditions there?  Since there is no clear answer to this question, it is simply logical to look at Darwin's process of "Natural Selection" to see if it is applicable.  (Note that the application of "intelligence" to the variation of auto output has essentially been a dismal failure - billions of dollars have been lost as a result of basing output on "logic".  A major, but by no means isolated "gaffe", was the introduction of an automobile named the "Edsel" by the Ford Motor Co. in 1957, and was "extinct" about 3 years later; many millions of dollars were lost on the project.)

Existence of species:

• Organic world: Those species that have been "Naturally Selected" are the only organisms existing.
• Automotive world: Those vehicle types (i.e. species) that have been "Naturally Selected" (by purchase) are the only products existing.

• Organic world: Those species having characteristics compatible with their surroundings are the only organisms existing.
• Automotive world: Those vehicle types most adaptable to the needs of the buying public are the only ones existing - there is little or no evidence of "planning".

• Organic world: The immense interdependence of species has all the appearance of planning.
• Automotive world: The wide spectrum of available vehicles and similarity of features has the appearance of planning.

Using just these three examples of (natural) "selection" (there are many more - but these will suffice) which exist both in the organic and vehicular world it can be seen that in each instance a form of "Natural Selection" is the cause of the existence of any particular organic or vehicular type.

Of course this is a very general comparison both as to description and function, leaving much open to argument and question; in fact, there are thousands of characteristics both in the organic and vehicular world which must be selected in each case such that "viability" persists. A little speculation on the part of the reader however, will produce the overall picture of the fact that the existence of any type, in either world, is dependent on one thing, and one thing alone: "Natural Selection". Nothing, in either case, is predictable. So there is a good analogous agreement between the two processes. Neither is explainable by logic alone, but rather the existence of any "species" is strictly dependent on what is in fact "unknown" parameters. In the case of the organic world it is the thousands of variable possibilities made by environmental and other factors such as gene combinations; in the automotive world it is the thousands of essentially random choices made by the buying public. Again, neither are predictable.

Thus the Darwinian process of  "Natural selection" is shown to be the determining factor in this and many other processes extant in not only the organic world, but also the functioning world in which we live. But again, nothing is new about this conclusion. There is one more factor however which is crucial to the reason behind this article.

That factor is the question relating to the true scientific "origin" of species when discussing the subject of biology and Darwin's theory,: What is the "Origin" of each of these two types of "species"?

• Organic World: The "Origin" (cause) of all species is a product of an unknown action of the DNA molecule. (Exactly how does it produce "life"?) Nothing is even known about the origin of this molecule yet it appears to have existed for at least 2 Billion years unchanged; there is no evidence of any evolution in its development.

  Thus the true "Origin of Species" is unknown . The "Natural Selection" of these various species is the cause of (or is the reason) only for their type existence.

• Automotive world: The true "Origin" or cause of all species is clearly known: it is a product of the action of the automotive industry, which has been developed by humans through the process of trial and error over the past 100 years. People make their choice, by "Natural Selection" (purchase) which is the cause only of type existence.

Darwin's theory is a simplistic tautology which does not explain the true "Origin" of anything. All it explains is the survival of certain organic types which have been "selected" because of their compatibility with the environment (and other factors, as above, including the laws of chance) in which they exist.

If the only effect of this error in logic was a the necessity to revise a belief in something such as the age of the earth, characteristics of makeup of a planet such as Mars, or a new view of the characteristics of matter such as "string theory", the subject would hardly be worth discussing. Such however is not the case.

Darwin's Theory has influence far beyond these matters and any knowledgeable person whether a believer in it or not, has unwittingly been affected by its position of belief in (chiefly) Western civilization. The Theory is nothing but a very insidious tautology, that purports to provide information about a subject when in fact it only misleads one into thinking that it carries useful information when it does not. The simplest of all tautologies, "either it is going to rain tomorrow or it is not", is no less a tautology and no more informative than the idea that Natural Selection is the "cause" of the "origin" of species.

It is insidious, because of its seductive nature, (see Huxley above) in that it supposedly supplies, as above, an answer to a fundamental Human question, when in fact it only advances a fallacious method of thinking which has pervaded Western civilization. This has been going on in increasing vigor, for essentially 6 generations ~ (about 150 years).

It can be seen from the analogy above, that Natural Selection, while it shapes the characteristics of "survivors", it is completely divorced from the true scientific "origin" of them. Whether the subject is organic species, autos, economic characteristics, or any of a myriad of social, economic or scientific questions which perplex the human race, Natural Selection is not the explanation for any of them any more than the above tautology provides useful information on tomorrow's weather. (However, if the above tautology inspires one to carry an umbrella, it may [or may not] be useful.)

The pervasiveness of this type of thought can best be displayed by looking at a few common "tautological" beliefs which are routinely accepted in our society:

Both of these sayings are based on tautologies which are not evident to the one who believes in them. The basis of both of them is found in a "reversal" of "cause" for "effect".

This is precisely the basis of the Darwinian Tautology: it switches "cause" for "effect" and thus explains the "Origin" of species, when all it really explains is the "type existence" of species which are of unknown origin.

But is this a new idea? Hardly. It was said best prior to the "discovery" of Darwin's theory by none other than Darwin's compatriot, Alfred Russel Wallace. His conclusion:

"We are like children [who are] looking at a complicated machine of the reasons of whose construction they are ignorant, and like them we constantly impute as causes what is really effect in our vain attempts to explain what we will not confess that we cannot understand."
(em., [brackets], added). (unidentified "Species Notebook", P 43.) Probably 1854-55. From H. Lewis McKinney's Book "Wallace and Natural Selection"

This "bombshell" of an idea was recognized prior to Wallace's 1855 "Sarawak Law" paper which outlined 10 basic ideas on the existence of species which some say later became the basis of Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Wallace, several years later, in a fit of delirium from malaria, ironically adopted the exact opposite of this notion as the basis for Darwin's theory. Note also, that Wallace's view of evolution was considerably different from Darwin's and that this fact has been most carefully hidden, in their publications, by those who are Believers (sic) in Darwin's theory. For example, Wallace continually argued that mankind could not have been produced by the process of Natural Selection, as Natural Selection, in any case, could have no effect on those who possess conceptual thought. Note that this idea, held throughout Wallace's life, did not make it into print either. Strange, to say the least.

As above, 6 generations of the Western world have been introduced to the idea of tautological thinking being the correct process of thought with conclusions such as the following:

"You are an animal and share a common heritage with earthworms......." Biology, Visualizing Life, Johnson, Holt Rinehart Winston, 1994,

Thus the fallacy of a tautology touches the very fundamental aspect of our life. It doesn't take much thought to realize that this one concept is a major pollutant in the engine of creative thought. In my opinion, this one idea is the scam of the 2nd millennium, and with the exception of the concept of Astrology, would be the scam of all time. Anyone considering barring the teaching of Darwinism because of its religious connotations is simply emphasizing the wrong objection: Darwinism is not only bad science, it is an atrocious thought process which pollutes our entire society.

*The term "Natural Selection", prior to Darwin's time, was essentially non-existent; (there were several uses of the term "selection" regarding evolution, prior to his publication of the book "Origins"). But Darwin's use of the term [some 350 times - the phrase always spelled out in full when type was laboriously set by hand] makes him the true "originator" of the term. In Darwin's time, the term was singularly used as the explanation of the process involved ("the cause of") in evolution, but today it is used as an explanation of a number of complex phenomena, as above. A true definition of the term almost depends on the source of the reference since there are hundreds of interpretations of what it means, some substantially different from others.

However, the bottom line of its meaning is that it is the "cause of evolution". Any thinking person should immediately be suspect when finding a myriad of meanings for a term which has such an important position in the field of biology. In reality of course, neither nature nor any part of it can "select" (except in Shakespearean terms); in every case, any "selection" made is made by a living organism from a choice of needs that may or may not be available. In that respect the term "Natural Selection" is a completely bogus term since it implies an action of which it is not capable. (Just how does it select?) Again, "Natural Selection" can "do" nothing - it is completely passive. Thus it can not be a "cause" of anything. (Does a sponge "select" the water, [or the water "select" the sponge]? According to Darwin's use of the word, it does; this may be good poetry, but it is not good science). However, if one simply mistakes "cause" for "effect" as above, the term takes on the meaning of which it is always used. This process of "reversal" has a real meaning in the field of logic: it is called a "logical fallacy".

It should be carefully noted that the principle of the theory - selection - operates with great accuracy "after the fact" - that is, it apparently explains how things "got where they are" but is unable to make any predictions as to what will occur in the future.  This is a failing acknowledged by even the staunchest of believers in Darwinism. When applied to the situation under consideration, this failing displays the fatal nature of the Darwinian process.

Email address: dbtngtms@tdtone.org
(You must have an email provider to use this feature)>

Page created by: The Doubting Thomas

Published June, 1997
Rev. Dec, 2001

PROLOGUE
Darwin has been credited with the discovery of the cause of evolution by virtually one and all, scientists and layman, within and without the field of biology, for most of the time since the publication of his book "Origins", almost to the present day. It seems that only recently has it been noticed that the first publication of the complete explanation of what is called "Darwin's" theory was by another scientist named Alfred Russel Wallace, a contemporary and friend of Darwin's.

It can truthfully be said that Wallace has obtained as equal a position in obscurity as Darwin has obtained in prominence. Lately however, it is becoming common to see the theory referred to as "the Darwin/Wallace theory. A very interesting scenario is involved in the development of the theory by the two men that is beyond the ability to present here; suffice it to say that Wallace was every bit, if not more, involved in formulating the theory, and that several differences remain between his version and Darwin's that are virtually unknown and are important.

After a brief discussion of several aspects of Darwin's theory, some of the differences between the two theories, not the least bit trivial, are presented here.

SUMMARY
Of the three theories discussed on the Index page, Darwinism, Marxism, and Freudianism, most consider Darwin's theory the more important, at least from the standpoint of the effect it has had on society in the philosophical sense. What will be considered in this discussion, is some of the aspects of Darwin's theory which are fallacious, and easily proven so, but more importantly the fact that the general perception of his theory is not even remotely comparable to the facts of history which produced this "legend", which is what it has really come to be.

Let us concede, that Darwin's book "Origins" proves beyond any doubt whatsoever, that the organisms which are, or have been, alive on this planet are strictly limited to those whose characteristics are compatible with the vagaries of this planet. (Don't look for this revelation on the Evening News or in Science, for that matter). Let us also concede that the fact of survival (or his "survival of the fittest") unquestionably displays this proof. But how is it that survival can also be the "cause" of the origin of these characteristics? Where did the characteristics come from?

Alfred Russel Wallace's position on the true cause of evolution is radically different as will be seen below, involving the possible introduction of an unknown (spiritual) force in the entire matter. He raises questions about the entire issue which have not been refuted, are almost diametrically opposed to those of Darwin, and are seldom discussed, to this day; what in effect he is saying, is that the true scientific "origin" of species was unknown at his time.

In as much as the entire educational system seems to be pretty much captivated with the idea that the Darwinian thesis of Natural Selection is the "cause" of evolution, the question of whether evolution, as it is currently believed, should be taught in schools is also discussed.

THE TASK AT HAND
You may think that a person in an attempt to challenge Darwin's theory has a formidable task, but in that respect you would be wrong. Creationists, evolutionists, and other scientists have been shooting holes in the theory for a long time and most recently, cell biologists have all but completed the job: it doesn't work.^{(4) *} But proving a theory wrong is one thing, the convincing of true believers, or the Media, is quite another.

Witness for one, the results of the theory of Karl Marx, popularly called Communism. Marx's idea and philosophy was so intriguing and acceptable, that the Communists nearly conquered the entire world. Marx certainly had a fair chance at the ability to prove his theory, but it has been shown in actual practice that the theory is fallacious simply because it also doesn't work. (One easy explanation for this is that Marx failed to understand and harness a most important human force, i.e. "greed", which some believe is the basis for Capitalism. The Doubting Thomas (DT) does not completely agree with this analysis). At any rate, despite the miserable failure of the theory, Communism is still alive and well in Academia in this country (USA), and the mere fact that it doesn't work has probably had little effect on the True Believers in Marxism. Thus it is with Darwinism. So it will not be difficult to produce (another) essay on the fatality of the theory, but convincing even a small proportion of those with an interest in the theory that such is the case, is recognized as a formidable task.

SOME ASPECTS OF DARWIN AND HIS THEORY
There are far too many books, many of them textbooks, that proclaim Darwin's discovery of "natural selection" to be the most important discovery of the last two centuries, and some fervent believers claim it to be the most important discovery of all time. "Natural selection" was claimed by Darwin virtually to be the cause of evolution, and in his use of the term in the book "Origins", he gives it the power of the Creator. He steadfastly treats "natural selection" as a cause when it is really only an effect, and worse, a completely random, even "fickle" effect. (Interestingly, Darwin's "Origins" never uses the word random but uses the term natural selection some 350 times. Yes, there is a story here.) It is the belief presented here and elsewhere on this site that Natural selection completely lacks the ability to create or select anything, like all other effects (i.e. briefly, like gravity), hence it is ubiquitous. A most cursory look at "natural selection" will show that it has little or no similarity to "artificial selection", which Darwin considered to be virtually analogous. His theory has been recognized as a tautology^(2)* by many, including believers in the theory, but this aspect is not considered fatal by them, as it should be. Circular Reasoning,** also a fatal defect, is evident in his theory. Further, he is considered to be a brilliant man by almost all, yet he could not conceive or understand that man was different "in kind" from any other creature on this earth, a fact understood virtually by one and all.⁽³⁾

IS DARWIN'S THEORY ATHEISTIC?
One of the most misunderstood aspects of Darwin's theory is that it is atheistic in intent. Not so. But the perception of his theory as being atheistic, by virtually everyone, is surely understandable. Seldom does one see an explanation of it either in the Media, or in a book or text, where the fact of it being atheistic is not either openly or implicitly expressed. Certainly no one has ever claimed that it is religious in nature. In fact, the term "evolution", in and of itself, because of the method by which it is presented, is currently considered by many to depict an atheistic view of the origin of life, while a strict definition of the term does not refer to the origin of change. (It could have been included in Creation as Wallace {see below} believes). But factually, Darwin's original stated claim was only to disprove the previously held religious notion that a Creator was continually intervening in the affairs of the planet, and in kind of a "tinker-toy" fashion, keeping a suitable spectrum of species available for the use of mankind. (This concept cannot be wholly separated from a similar notion, that God had created the Earth as the center of the universe, which theory was dominant up until the time of Galileo when it was disproved, with much consternation to go around).

However, Darwin's later use of the concept of the development of all life from that "warm little pond", without any intelligent design of any kind from any source, is an idea that has very little leeway in it for any interpretation other than an atheistic one. So the conclusion is at least understandable. And most importantly those who are advocates of beliefs in naturalism, secular humanism, atheism and agnosticism such as Thomas Huxley, ("Darwin's bulldog") wasted no time in grasping this atheistic aspect of Darwin's theory and exploiting it to the limit; and when you throw into the mix those who are always looking for a new way to explain something, like many scientists and those who have a special need for a non-theistic explanation for the cause of things, and also add a willing, like-minded Media, that understanding is almost inevitable. Thus, as noted elsewhere, presentation of "Darwin's theory", or "evolution" has virtually become a stalking-horse for atheism. This aspect of the theory is the chief objection to it being taught in school (see below). The views of Wallace as shown below, if presented accurately, would negate this possibility to a great extent. There is no reason why they have not been, other than the bias toward naturalistic explanation which exists throughout the secular Media. While a full range of Darwin's opinions and beliefs are routinely presented in biological teaching, Wall ace's views have been all but forgotten.

ANOTHER, RADICALLY DIFFERENT, VIEW OF THINGS
Wallace's outline of the theory of evolution, naively sent to Darwin for his comments and those of Sir Charles Lyell, was covered in about 3% of the space of Darwin's and is very logical, clear and easy to read. In comparison, Darwin's work is most difficult to read and even his two closest associates, Hooker and Lyell, acknowledged this. Wallace and Darwin were friends and as an example, Wallace later wrote a book entitled "Darwinism" where he elaborates on Darwin's theory, in an effort to explain speciation.

The "so-called" Darwin/Wallace theory was hurriedly presented at one session by the Linnaean Society of England within a month of Darwin's receipt of Wallace's paper. Wallace's paper was read verbatim and was an outline of the major points of his beliefs in evolution. Darwin's contribution was a reading of several letters by his friends which established "priority" for the findings outlined in Wallace's work. Neither man was present, Wallace being some 8000 miles distant in the Maylay Archepelago and unaware of the proceedings. The date was July 1, 1858. A little over one year later in November, 1859 Darwin published his book "Origins" as above, and by this act has become accepted as the "father" of the theory of evolution.

But the most amazing aspect of the entire story as it later developed is a fact virtually unknown even among many biologists to this day: Wallace was clearly not an atheist. He never raised the issue with Darwin, but this must be one of the greatest divisions of thought that could occur between such two like-minded men with such otherwise similar beliefs. And of course, the fact has been all but lost on the biological community - about to the same degree as Wallace himself has been ignored.

Hard as it may be to believe in the light of past writing, Wallace's attempt with his theory was to show that evolution can occur without the "continual interference" (his phrase) of a creator, which idea was paramount at that time. His belief was essentially that God (or some Spiritual Force) created evolution itself, and thus there was no need to tinker with things along the way, and in fact Wallace maintains that this belief - he calls it a "hypothesis" -  (in the "continual interference" with nature) demeans the intelligence of the Creator.

Writers on the subject sometimes mention that a "Wallace" also discovered evolution, but hardly ever state that his fundamental beliefs were presented in a way completely opposite to those attributed to Darwin. In fact most writing implies that Wallace was atheistic in his view of evolution as was Darwin; in reality, Wallace would today (2000) be considered a "Creationist", although not attached to any specific religion (a Spiritualist).

As an illustration of Wallace's opposite set of fundamental beliefs, the following poem is quoted from the end of the last essay in his book " Essays on the Theory of Natural Selection " (1870). He attributes the poem to an unnamed "American poetess", and while discussing the fact that much is unknown in the sciences, describes it as what may be called "the highest fact of science, the noblest truth of philosophy": (Wallace's words)

These are not the ideas of an atheist. Thus it can be seen that Wallace's view of some fundamental ideas differs substantively from those of Darwin's. You would never know it from reading any of the vast amount of literature commonly available on the subject.

WALLACE'S POSITION ON MAN
Wallace also had some ideas on the origin of mankind, and differs with Darwin in these views also. Wallace presents pressing arguments that man's capabilities such as mathematics, arts, and humor, could not have been caused by "natural selection". Wallace states, after developing his argument:

"The special facilities we have been discussing clearly point to the existence in man of something which he has not derived from his animal progenitors------". He calls this a "spiritual nature". (Darwinism, p. 474)

Without naming it as such, he is discussing some of the facets of the conceptual ability of man. Virtually all humans who have considered man's abilities understand this proposition. Darwin and many scientists, along with those who are firm believers in Darwin, most often do not.

SOME CONSEQUENCES
"Ideas have consequences". The saying is ancient in origin and surely acknowledged by all. One may rightfully ask, what are the consequences of a theory such as the popular beliefs about Darwin's theory as described above? What is the effect on those who read in virtually all scientific and popular literature the statement repeated, almost universally, parrot-like, that "natural selection" is the cause of evolution? That evolution is a "fact"? How does one react to the suggestion, made by one of the leading biologists in the U. S., (Mayr) that "natural selection" somehow has the power to prevent the extinction of species?

Or worse, the explanation of Stephen J. Gould (the Harvard biologist and dedicated evolutionist) who in a Scientific American article, presents ideas such as::

"..... Humans arose, rather, as a fortuitous and contingent outcome of thousands of linked events,....."(em. added.) In other words, a scientific explanation of evolution depends on simple "luck" - (a DT interpretation). Since when is luck taught in science?

The answer to this question will largely have to go unanswered here because of the myriad of possibilities, for one, and an admitted lack of complete understanding for another. Several suggestions will be presented for consideration. One of the first concerns, and one often discussed, would be that of parents who find essentially that de facto atheism is being taught to their children in the form of a simple biological theory. One of the cures for this is of course, to be sure that the theory is correctly presented with all the objections and faults, including the much misunderstood fact that it is not atheistic and indeed is not concerned with real "first causes". A little dose of "Wallace-ism" would certainly be in order, although it probably should not extend so far as the memorization of his lovely quoted poem (as above). His ideas on the nature of man are directly contradictory to Darwin's and should be presented as such. But certainly the thoughts and ideas of Wallace should not be ignored, as they are currently.

However, there is another aspect of the perpetuation of Darwin's theory that should also be considered. To back up a little, it is a theory that has been essentially proven scientifically, mostly by the cell biologists, to be seriously faulted, in that it does not adequately explain known biological facts about life as we now know it. If it does not work properly ⁽³⁾, then it must contain some errors of logic, fact, or perhaps both. Surely it is tautological.

What is the effect on those who are learning the delicate process of the ability of reason to be taught a flawed theory? Will it establish a template which to apply to other situations that will result in erroneous conclusions? The question can not be answered with certainty. On the other hand, again, a proper presentation of the theory as well as the history of the theory would generate a healthy skepticism, which can surely do no harm.

Conclusion
It can thus be seen that the teaching of Darwin's theory is well biased toward the "naturalistic" philosophy so well displayed in the usual presentations of biologists, biological texts and throughout the Media. It's very hard to believe that if the history of the subject had been presented in a fair and unbiased manner including the role played by Alfred Russel Wallace in the founding and presentation of the theory, that the beliefs of Western Society would be so biased toward the Darwin aspect as is currently the case. Those parents and educators who have attempted to undo or at least re-orient the teaching away from the "naturalist" view currently presented would do well to include Wallace's ideas alongside those of Darwin's, which are commonly accepted to be part of science.

* Numbers refer to links found on the Index Page.

** Circular Reasoning: an assumption made in an argument that contains the acceptance as fact, of an element, or premise, which needs to be proved for the argument to be correct. Thus, Darwin has assumed that a species (or variety) possesses sufficient variability such that it either has within itself or can develop, the characteristics of a new species. He spends one whole chapter in discussion of problems with his theory yet glosses over this assumption as if it were fact; since it must be fact for his theory to be viable, and instead has been assumed, it is circular reasoning.

Darwin is asking you to believe that this assumption is correct, simply because it is evident that species are different. (Also called "Begging the Question"). (Note however that the "new synthesis", the latest version of his theory, proposes other processes such as "mutation" for the variability he assumed). No proof exists that such is the case, and yet no qualifying terminology appears in modern texts to explain the difference. Of course, in any case, whether evolution occurs in the Wallace sense (often called Theistic evolution) or by any other means, or not at all, Darwin's belief that "natural selection"/(survival of the fittest) is the "cause" of it, is strictly erroneous and in fact completely backwards, as elaborated on elsewhere; natural selection can only be (if anything) the cause of survival , not evolution. This concept in itself can be described as a form of circular reasoning.

While circular reasoning in the above instance is fatal to his theory, there are other instances where it is used, such as his description of the abilities of Natural Selection. Thus Natural Selection can "choose, act, select, select the fittest, select for the good of the being, cause ("rigidly destroy") extinction of the unfit, always chooses for the perfection of a species," and so on. After assuming these abilities exist, if anything needs to be done to validate his theory, Natural Selection will take care of it. Again, current teaching texts ignore these gross errors of reason, as the only proof offered for any of this capability is the fact that the results are there for all to see! Thus Natural Selection must be true, because of the fact that the fittest have survived, the "unfit" are extinct, the species have become more diverse, and so on; this is also a subtle combination of a tautology with circular reasoning.

But as an example, using terminology more likely to be found in a biology text with a dose of obfuscation:

"Evolution of the lines of species as different as horse and cow was ultimately caused by the guidance through natural selection of a Monte Carlo distribution of the allele frequencies in a population, in such a manner that over a long period of time the anatomical differences so easily noted today have evolved. (=Evolution produced the difference between the horse and cow.)
Thus the striking differences which need not be enumerated here are evidence of the powerful effects of evolution which have produced the myriad of species of plant and animal life in existence today."
( =The differences in the horse and the cow are evidence of the fact that evolution exists).

And similarly, as evolutionists are fond of saying, Evolution is a fact. They believe that proof of this is evident to anyone who can tell the difference between a horse and a cow. They are different! Evolution has occurred!

Page created by: dbtngtms@tdtone.org (email address)

"One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, was ... it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. ...so for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing -- it ought not to be taught in high school'."

Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London.
Keynote address: American Museum of Natural History, New York City, 5 November, 1981

Certainly one of the most beautiful, and surely the simplest, of all understanding that exists in the world of Science, is that Darwin's "Natural Selection" is the explanation for the most complex phenomenon, by far, ever known to mankind: the evolution of organic life.
Could there be something wrong here? 

The Doubting Thomas, 2001

published JUL 23, 1999
last rev. SEP 27, 2004
SEP 27, 2004

A detailed look at Natural Selection
The terms "Natural Selection" and "Survival of the Fittest" are examined in detail and shown to be erroneous as a scientific explanation for evolution.
If you don't read anything else about Darwinism, read the above. CLICK HERE

16 Theses which refute Darwinian Evolution
Note: This is an "electronic" version of the above page which explicitly sets out the arguments presented, and allows acess to the arguments and back by use of the mouse. It is easier to follow and is particularly useful when confronting dogmatic Darwinists: CLICK HERE

Natural Selection: examination by Analogy
Darwinian "Natural Selection" is examined by use of an analogy: a look at "Natural Selection" acting in the automotive industry.
This is an easy-to-read essay proving that "Natural Selection" has nothing to do with the true "Origin of Species"; it is all you need to refute Darwinian theory. CLICK HERE 

Coming Soon:
"Sexual Selection" (SS) will be analyzed in the same sense that "Natural selection" (NS) has, and it can easily be shown that the very same erroneous Darwinian logic and pattern of thought applies to this very important facet of "evolution", as is used in the understanding of NS. It is another bogus idea used to explain a feature of organic life which does not independently exist.

In reality, Sexual Selection is completely nonexistent since (again) there is no selection made, as "evolution" by SS does not have an outside influence which "selects" new species: all the actions of living organisms are an integral result of the DNA molecule and thus pre-ordained when that molecule is formed and before it begins life. Thus the Sexual Selection is not at all "random" or "intelligent", and therefore not explanatory in the sense that Darwin used it (heavily) to explain new features of evolution.

Thus, if Evolution exists in any form, (note that the DT takes no position on this possibility) it is a completely "closed" system, in the sense that all the information which is required to form a "new" species is completely contained in the DNA molecule. This molecule has (apparently) existed in its current form since the beginning of organic life. Therefore, organic life as we know it requires explanation outside of the explanation of current evolutionary theory. Truly "new" species require "new" (external) information. So-called "SS" cannot fulfil this requirement.

For example, if one looks at the building of a bird nest, or the construction of a spider web, both extremely complex actions (which have never before been seen by the organisms which construct them) one can see how intricate and complex is the DNA molecule. To assume that this complexity does not operate in all facets of SS is, simply, more Darwinian wishful thinking of the same type that produces the concept of NS. It is tautological in the sense that the choice made by, say, a female in the selection of a mate, has been pre-ordained in the genome of that female and thus is not explanatory in the formation of new life: [it is either going to rain tomorrow or it is not, and this statement (made here) will have no effect on the weather]. Likewise the "choice" made by an organism will have no effect on the "evolution" of that organism which does not already exist.

The idea is a nearly perfect example of a logical fallacy called "circular reasoning". A look at the "brilliant" minds that have adopted it (Mayr, Gould, Simpson, Dobhzansky to name a few) should give one a fair view of the (in)accuracy of much of the understanding of the entire Darwinian legacy. These individuals are classic portrayals of brilliance run amok: they are bonded to Darwin's beliefs as a mother is to her child. No amount of argument (such as that presented on this and many books or other sites on the web) will dislodge them or their followers from the beliefs of the past.

PREAMBLE:
For the last 150 years, the most popular "scientific" explanation for the origin and diversity of the living matter of the universe (except for creation) has been Darwin's theory of evolution. This theory has been taught beginning with grade school, so that a 6 year old has likely been taught that the giraffe's neck is long because of evolution through "natural selection", so that it can feed above the other animals and thus survive when others cannot get food. (Never mind that the male neck is a foot or so longer than the female neck, a sure scenario for extinction of the females and the young).

Evidence has been accumulating for years that problems exist not only in this claim, but more importantly, in regard to other aspects of Darwin's theory, not the least of which is the high improbability of the "formation" of the first living cell. ("Abiogenesis", or self formation of the cell, which is considered by most texts as a "Darwinian" evolutionary process).

It is the contention of these pages and pages to follow that virtually all commonly believed (and taught) aspects of Darwin's theory are erroneous. These beliefs are all built around the fundamental concept of Darwinian evolution by "Natural Selection", as presented in his original book "Origins" and still used today, albeit having been modified by a myriad of conflicting definitions and new understanding.

After detailed study, presented here, this popular aspect of Darwin's theory, natural selection, (aka "Survival of the Fittest") is shown to be an unexplained, non-scientific phenomena, in reality a logical non sequitur, which is considered by most evolutionists to be the primal "cause" of evolution. In practical fact, the concept as it is taught, is virtually a "stalking horse" for atheism.

If you have questions or comments, please click on the email address below to send a message. All email is answered unless requested otherwise.

Page created by: dbtngtms@tdtone.org

>

"One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, was ... it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. ...so for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing -- it ought not to be taught in high school'."

Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London.
Keynote address: American Museum of Natural History, New York City, 5 November, 1981

Certainly one of the most beautiful, and surely the simplest, of all understanding that exists in the world of Science, is that Darwin's "Natural Selection" is the explanation for the most complex phenomenon, by far, ever known to mankind: the evolution of organic life.
Could there be something wrong here? 

The Doubting Thomas, 2001

published JUL 23, 1999
last rev. SEP 27, 2004
SEP 27, 2004

A detailed look at Natural Selection
The terms "Natural Selection" and "Survival of the Fittest" are examined in detail and shown to be erroneous as a scientific explanation for evolution.
If you don't read anything else about Darwinism, read the above. CLICK HERE

16 Theses which refute Darwinian Evolution
Note: This is an "electronic" version of the above page which explicitly sets out the arguments presented, and allows acess to the arguments and back by use of the mouse. It is easier to follow and is particularly useful when confronting dogmatic Darwinists: CLICK HERE

Natural Selection: examination by Analogy
Darwinian "Natural Selection" is examined by use of an analogy: a look at "Natural Selection" acting in the automotive industry.
This is an easy-to-read essay proving that "Natural Selection" has nothing to do with the true "Origin of Species"; it is all you need to refute Darwinian theory. CLICK HERE 

Coming Soon:
"Sexual Selection" (SS) will be analyzed in the same sense that "Natural selection" (NS) has, and it can easily be shown that the very same erroneous Darwinian logic and pattern of thought applies to this very important facet of "evolution", as is used in the understanding of NS. It is another bogus idea used to explain a feature of organic life which does not independently exist.

In reality, Sexual Selection is completely nonexistent since (again) there is no selection made, as "evolution" by SS does not have an outside influence which "selects" new species: all the actions of living organisms are an integral result of the DNA molecule and thus pre-ordained when that molecule is formed and before it begins life. Thus the Sexual Selection is not at all "random" or "intelligent", and therefore not explanatory in the sense that Darwin used it (heavily) to explain new features of evolution.

Thus, if Evolution exists in any form, (note that the DT takes no position on this possibility) it is a completely "closed" system, in the sense that all the information which is required to form a "new" species is completely contained in the DNA molecule. This molecule has (apparently) existed in its current form since the beginning of organic life. Therefore, organic life as we know it requires explanation outside of the explanation of current evolutionary theory. Truly "new" species require "new" (external) information. So-called "SS" cannot fulfil this requirement.

For example, if one looks at the building of a bird nest, or the construction of a spider web, both extremely complex actions (which have never before been seen by the organisms which construct them) one can see how intricate and complex is the DNA molecule. To assume that this complexity does not operate in all facets of SS is, simply, more Darwinian wishful thinking of the same type that produces the concept of NS. It is tautological in the sense that the choice made by, say, a female in the selection of a mate, has been pre-ordained in the genome of that female and thus is not explanatory in the formation of new life: [it is either going to rain tomorrow or it is not, and this statement (made here) will have no effect on the weather]. Likewise the "choice" made by an organism will have no effect on the "evolution" of that organism which does not already exist.

The idea is a nearly perfect example of a logical fallacy called "circular reasoning". A look at the "brilliant" minds that have adopted it (Mayr, Gould, Simpson, Dobhzansky to name a few) should give one a fair view of the (in)accuracy of much of the understanding of the entire Darwinian legacy. These individuals are classic portrayals of brilliance run amok: they are bonded to Darwin's beliefs as a mother is to her child. No amount of argument (such as that presented on this and many books or other sites on the web) will dislodge them or their followers from the beliefs of the past.

PREAMBLE:
For the last 150 years, the most popular "scientific" explanation for the origin and diversity of the living matter of the universe (except for creation) has been Darwin's theory of evolution. This theory has been taught beginning with grade school, so that a 6 year old has likely been taught that the giraffe's neck is long because of evolution through "natural selection", so that it can feed above the other animals and thus survive when others cannot get food. (Never mind that the male neck is a foot or so longer than the female neck, a sure scenario for extinction of the females and the young).

Evidence has been accumulating for years that problems exist not only in this claim, but more importantly, in regard to other aspects of Darwin's theory, not the least of which is the high improbability of the "formation" of the first living cell. ("Abiogenesis", or self formation of the cell, which is considered by most texts as a "Darwinian" evolutionary process).

It is the contention of these pages and pages to follow that virtually all commonly believed (and taught) aspects of Darwin's theory are erroneous. These beliefs are all built around the fundamental concept of Darwinian evolution by "Natural Selection", as presented in his original book "Origins" and still used today, albeit having been modified by a myriad of conflicting definitions and new understanding.

After detailed study, presented here, this popular aspect of Darwin's theory, natural selection, (aka "Survival of the Fittest") is shown to be an unexplained, non-scientific phenomena, in reality a logical non sequitur, which is considered by most evolutionists to be the primal "cause" of evolution. In practical fact, the concept as it is taught, is virtually a "stalking horse" for atheism.

If you have questions or comments, please click on the email address below to send a message. All email is answered unless requested otherwise.

Page created by: dbtngtms@tdtone.org

>

"One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, was ... it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. ...so for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing -- it ought not to be taught in high school'."

Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London.
Keynote address: American Museum of Natural History, New York City, 5 November, 1981

Certainly one of the most beautiful, and surely the simplest, of all understanding that exists in the world of Science, is that Darwin's "Natural Selection" is the explanation for the most complex phenomenon, by far, ever known to mankind: the evolution of organic life.
Could there be something wrong here? 

The Doubting Thomas, 2001

published JUL 23, 1999
last rev. SEP 27, 2004
SEP 27, 2004

A detailed look at Natural Selection
The terms "Natural Selection" and "Survival of the Fittest" are examined in detail and shown to be erroneous as a scientific explanation for evolution.
If you don't read anything else about Darwinism, read the above. CLICK HERE

16 Theses which refute Darwinian Evolution
Note: This is an "electronic" version of the above page which explicitly sets out the arguments presented, and allows acess to the arguments and back by use of the mouse. It is easier to follow and is particularly useful when confronting dogmatic Darwinists: CLICK HERE

Natural Selection: examination by Analogy
Darwinian "Natural Selection" is examined by use of an analogy: a look at "Natural Selection" acting in the automotive industry.
This is an easy-to-read essay proving that "Natural Selection" has nothing to do with the true "Origin of Species"; it is all you need to refute Darwinian theory. CLICK HERE 

Coming Soon:
"Sexual Selection" (SS) will be analyzed in the same sense that "Natural selection" (NS) has, and it can easily be shown that the very same erroneous Darwinian logic and pattern of thought applies to this very important facet of "evolution", as is used in the understanding of NS. It is another bogus idea used to explain a feature of organic life which does not independently exist.

In reality, Sexual Selection is completely nonexistent since (again) there is no selection made, as "evolution" by SS does not have an outside influence which "selects" new species: all the actions of living organisms are an integral result of the DNA molecule and thus pre-ordained when that molecule is formed and before it begins life. Thus the Sexual Selection is not at all "random" or "intelligent", and therefore not explanatory in the sense that Darwin used it (heavily) to explain new features of evolution.

Thus, if Evolution exists in any form, (note that the DT takes no position on this possibility) it is a completely "closed" system, in the sense that all the information which is required to form a "new" species is completely contained in the DNA molecule. This molecule has (apparently) existed in its current form since the beginning of organic life. Therefore, organic life as we know it requires explanation outside of the explanation of current evolutionary theory. Truly "new" species require "new" (external) information. So-called "SS" cannot fulfil this requirement.

For example, if one looks at the building of a bird nest, or the construction of a spider web, both extremely complex actions (which have never before been seen by the organisms which construct them) one can see how intricate and complex is the DNA molecule. To assume that this complexity does not operate in all facets of SS is, simply, more Darwinian wishful thinking of the same type that produces the concept of NS. It is tautological in the sense that the choice made by, say, a female in the selection of a mate, has been pre-ordained in the genome of that female and thus is not explanatory in the formation of new life: [it is either going to rain tomorrow or it is not, and this statement (made here) will have no effect on the weather]. Likewise the "choice" made by an organism will have no effect on the "evolution" of that organism which does not already exist.

The idea is a nearly perfect example of a logical fallacy called "circular reasoning". A look at the "brilliant" minds that have adopted it (Mayr, Gould, Simpson, Dobhzansky to name a few) should give one a fair view of the (in)accuracy of much of the understanding of the entire Darwinian legacy. These individuals are classic portrayals of brilliance run amok: they are bonded to Darwin's beliefs as a mother is to her child. No amount of argument (such as that presented on this and many books or other sites on the web) will dislodge them or their followers from the beliefs of the past.

PREAMBLE:
For the last 150 years, the most popular "scientific" explanation for the origin and diversity of the living matter of the universe (except for creation) has been Darwin's theory of evolution. This theory has been taught beginning with grade school, so that a 6 year old has likely been taught that the giraffe's neck is long because of evolution through "natural selection", so that it can feed above the other animals and thus survive when others cannot get food. (Never mind that the male neck is a foot or so longer than the female neck, a sure scenario for extinction of the females and the young).

Evidence has been accumulating for years that problems exist not only in this claim, but more importantly, in regard to other aspects of Darwin's theory, not the least of which is the high improbability of the "formation" of the first living cell. ("Abiogenesis", or self formation of the cell, which is considered by most texts as a "Darwinian" evolutionary process).

It is the contention of these pages and pages to follow that virtually all commonly believed (and taught) aspects of Darwin's theory are erroneous. These beliefs are all built around the fundamental concept of Darwinian evolution by "Natural Selection", as presented in his original book "Origins" and still used today, albeit having been modified by a myriad of conflicting definitions and new understanding.

After detailed study, presented here, this popular aspect of Darwin's theory, natural selection, (aka "Survival of the Fittest") is shown to be an unexplained, non-scientific phenomena, in reality a logical non sequitur, which is considered by most evolutionists to be the primal "cause" of evolution. In practical fact, the concept as it is taught, is virtually a "stalking horse" for atheism.

If you have questions or comments, please click on the email address below to send a message. All email is answered unless requested otherwise.

Page created by: dbtngtms@tdtone.org

~~~~ THE DOUBTING THOMAS LOOKS AT EVOLUTION ~~~~

Pub. Apr. 7, 1998
rev. Dec. 5, 2001
last rev. Apr. 2, 2004

PREFACE
In recent years there has been increasing interest in the relationship of our closest "relatives" - the other primates - to man. A number of articles and books have been written on the subject. Cell biologists have "discovered" that there is only a 2% difference** between chimp and human DNA, often implying a similarity such as perhaps, a 2% difference between automobiles. Some, scientists and lay alike, believe that animals can "think". Most ideas of this type have their basis in Darwin's writings on the theory of evolution. Darwin's book "Origins" * attempts to show the mechanism by which development of all living things occurred through a mechanism which he terms "natural selection". His later book "Descent of Man" * extrapolates this process to the development of Homo sapiens from the primates.

This page looks at that latter conclusion plus some other ideas of Darwin's and points out that he ignored some very evident phenomena in the process, often using vague assumptions, circular reasoning and other logical errors, no less significant than those which were the basis for his book "Origins". It is suggested that the nearly universal credence given to this idea, just as to his concept of "natural selection", must be due to the nature of his conclusions, rather than to the methodology of reaching such conclusions..
* see references below

SYNOPSIS
Darwin's theory of evolution, as expressed in his "Origins" book, has been faulted for many shortcomings, not the least of which is the well recognized fact it is tautological. But it is his failure to recognize the capability of conceptual thought as being distinct and unique to mankind, which is chiefly discussed here. Because the idea is part of the aura of the Darwinian mystique it is rarely questioned. The ideas of Alfred Russel Wallace^(a), a friend of Darwin, who published the theory of evolution jointly with Darwin, are also discussed.

Wallace disagreed with Darwin throughout his life on the issue of man's nature, and clearly believed man to be unique in possessing a conceptual ability, yet this fact is never mentioned in writings on the subject in biology, as one might expect from the fact that Wallace was the "cofounder" of the theory. A portion of Wallace's rarely seen arguments are presented in a quotation.

Because there seems to be increasing belief that chimps and other primates have some ability of conceptual thought, a pathetically simple but irrefutable argument, well within the grasp of grade school mentality, is presented which shows the contrary. That Darwin did not understand this concept is shown by his conclusions. Speculation is also made about Darwin's failure to understand this concept.

MAN THE ANIMAL The paradigm according to Darwin.
Darwin's theory, as well as a multitude of other theories which discuss various aspects of life makes no essential distinction between man and any other type of animal. In this scenario, humans differ from animals such as dogs, cats, and chimps in features such as size, shape, physical characteristics and "intelligence", the latter difference which is usually explained by the larger brain of the human. Virtually all who do not believe in a unique conceptual ability of man express this belief. (Needless to say there is never any dissension from this line of thought in the thousands of animal shows on TV or at the theater, much less has any biology book or text known to this writer ever expressed a contrary view of the paradigm according to Darwin; note that the writings of both Marx and Freud, whose concepts have been discarded, were of the same belief, as mentioned on the Index page).

For example, in an analysis of primate fossils, brain case size is the major factor used to distinguish human from non-human species. Darwin made much of brain case size in an effort to back his theory. In his book, Descent, he quotes Dr. J. Barnard Davis' careful measurements which show that the mean internal capacity of the skull in Europeans is 92.3 cubic inches, in Americans 87.5, and in Australians only 81.9 cubic inches. He further states that the mean capacity of the skull of the ancient troglodytes of Lozere (cavemen) is greater than that of "modern" Frenchmen. But then Darwin was British, and nobility at that.

However, it should be pointed out that this conclusion is typical of a Darwinian "scientific" conclusion. Throughout his book, The Descent of Man, he discusses mainly the various physical similarities and dissimilarities between man and the other animals, virtually omitting reference to the intellectual side of man. An absolutely astounding statement, also contained in his book, was made by Darwin when comparing the brain of man and the brain of an orang. He acknowledged that they don't agree (in certain characteristics), but states:

".....nor could perfect agreement be expected, for otherwise their mental powers would have been the same". (emphasis added)

So typically Darwinian, this assumption, stated as fact without supporting argument, should get the medal as the most rash statement in all of his writings. In as much as even today, a century and a half away from his time, there is very little understanding and agreement about how the brain really "works", it may one of the most rash statements in science. In my opinion, the statement makes an absolute mockery of intelligence of any sort and to have it go unchallenged, by scientists and those in Academia is (or should be) cause for great alarm. But the statement proves conclusively, if more proof is needed, that Darwin understands no fundamental difference between the mind of the human and the "mind" of the remainder of the animal kingdom.

There is such a remarkable clue in the above statement, which clearly points to Darwin's pattern of thought, that it should not be overlooked and simply disregarded. If this statement were true, then the remainder of the argument presented by his Descent book is absolutely unnecessary. The facts which should point to the truth of that statement would carry the day. All that is needed is the set of premises together with some proof for them, and a logical conclusion which flows from those premises and it provides conclusive evidence, that man has descended from the line of primates and further, that evolution is a fact. All other arguments he uses would be, by comparison, superfluous. In typical Darwinian fashion, he furnishes none. Don't look for it, or even a criticism of his thought process, in your local biology book.

Also in typical Darwinian fashion, THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT HE IS TRYING TO PROVE in the book. Thus the statement is circular reasoning ^(b), which is fatal to his argument, as it essentially assumes the conclusion. It is not a new tactic, because for example, he likewise "assumes" infinite variability in species in his "Origins" book, as below, which assumption guarantees that there will be "evolution".

Many arguments both by Darwin and others, are used to prove similarity between man and the animals, one of the more important being that animals use tools. Animals use tools of course, but more importantly, and to the point being discussed here, it is generally agreed they have no understanding of tools. Simple experiments have proven over and over again, that animals develop the use of tools through trial and error or by mimicry and example, and not by the cognitive process as does man. It seems highly irregular that evolutionists can easily understand that trial and error will produce an incredibly complex object such as a living cell, and yet be unable to understand that during (an assumed) 20 M year period in the wild, chimps would not learn to use some simple "tools" by that very same trial and error process. At best this belief in tool use is wishful thinking; and the paucity of evidence supporting the idea creates the inference that it is, at worst, an article of "scientific" Faith.

But probably the best of Darwin's many arguments to show similarity between man and the animals is the fact that animals (mainly dogs) quiver, grimace, and move their feet and limbs while they sleep. He interprets this as being the result of "imagination" at work, in dreaming. (This appallingly simplistic conclusion is once again not worthy of the consideration of being "science", and it is easy to see how even a 5th grade essay containing this conclusion, might be returned to the pupil with a note to that effect). Yet many similar statements are accepted by scientists as valid proof of the ability to "think". It makes one wonder whether Darwin, with his supposed grasp of animal characteristics, had ever even seen a decapitated chicken run around the barnyard.

MAN THE HUMAN - A completely different vision
In fact one has, for all practical purposes, to leave the field of biology, anthropology, evolution, etc. (science) altogether, to find references which indicate a belief in an essential difference between humans and the remainder of the animal kingdom. Virtually all religions, and many governments (now) recognize that man is fundamentally different from all other animals. (It should be noted that the system of government known as "Communism", now almost defunct, did not recognize this feature of mankind).

This recognition takes the form of an acknowledgement that man's mental abilities are not only different in quantity but also in kind from the rest of the animals. The evidence of this recognition is a document such as the U.S. Constitution, which clearly sets out this proposition and enumerates the reasons why various rights thereby accrue to man. Animals are not even mentioned in these documents, and thus the inference is made that they are different " in kind ". (To say that "government" makes this determination, of course, is to use a figure of speech. In a democratic republic, such as the U.S., citizen acceptance determines the existence of such a document and it is obviously this will and understanding which produces this recognition).

With this understanding in mind, a more proper conclusion about "Our closest relative" is that the chimp (and of course all the other primates) are really and truly more kindred with their fleas than with any human being. And while this statement may cause apoplexy among evolutionists, a very simple argument will be presented which illustrates that animals completely lack a conceptual ability, so characteristic of homo sapiens . While the evolutionists are saying, as above, that the chimpanzee's genetic makeup is only 2% different from that of a human, implying in this as meaning the sole difference between humans and the chimps, they are speaking of a similarity only in the physical characteristics between the two, ignoring the conceptual ability of man.

WHAT DARWIN MISSED: THE DUALITY OF MAN
Because man is required to engage in animal behavior as a simple matter of existence, his animal nature is evident. In many respects this behavior is little different than that of "our closest relatives", the other primates. If an argument is made that man behaves, in this mode, with something like 98% similarly to the other primates, it would not be worth anyone's time to refute the claim.

But what of the actions of man when he is behaving in a manner unique to his species? Here we find an altogether different set of characteristics not possessed by any other living thing. Man has the unique ability of conceptual thought, whereby he can understand his surroundings, and create methods to control many of the influences in the world to which animals can only react. Thus, he can build a house to suit his individual liking, plant food, capture, and tame animals. He can investigate and understand various relationships in the world around him and put to work various effects which he discovers such as heat, electricity, physical properties etc. Man can invent a specific method of communication both in writing, and speech which will allow the transfer of conceptual thought from one being to another, from one generation to the next.

Likewise he can create things for his own amusement such as games, music, arts. He can appreciate the beauty of sights, sounds, taste, and touch, and manipulate the world around him in such a way as to accumulate these features. The list is endless of course. Where however, is there any evidence that other animals possess even the slightest of these abilities? If the most highly developed of the primates is the chimpanzee, a most cursory look at it's environment shows it to be incapable of any of the above actions. Animals are at the complete mercy of the environment for their existence. No animal species has so much as invented the simplest of competitive games to amuse themselves.

The following simple argument mentioned above is all that is required to prove that animals possess none of these human capabilities whatsoever. It is the result of common sense (deductive) logic, using the following facts which are available to all:

1. The animal closest to humans is the chimpanzee. ( 2% difference genetically accepted for purpose of argument, but see ** below.)
2. Chimps have been around for supposedly 20M years.*
3. One of the highest, or perhaps the highest concern of any animal must be the preservation of its own individual existence.
4. There is not a shred of evidence either in the past or today that any chimp has made any improvement whatsoever in its surroundings or environment to further the above concern.
* with apologies to new world Creationists, as it would be more proper to say that it appears to some that they have been around for 20M years.

In sharp contrast, the very earliest history of man, regardless of which version you choose to believe, shows intimate involvement of humans in modification of the environment in order to enhance their own and the collective well being. If this one fact alone does not indicate a fundamental difference between humans and all other animals, it once again requires explanation that has not yet been expressed by those who hold a contrary view. Yet those who have made it their lifelong vocation to study the mental facilities of man and animals inexplicably fail to either acknowledge this simple proposition, or to provide an explanation which explains away the inevitable conclusion , namely, animals have no ability for conceptual thought. Once again, this is a very simple concept which would be easily explainable to, and understood by, grade school students.

DARWIN AND WALLACE -- 2 OPPOSING VIEWS
Alfred Russel Wallace was a compatriot of Darwin's who independently developed the theory of evolution, and was the first to publish the theory as it is known today. The theories of Darwin and Wallace are so similar that they were published simultaneously in the same journal in 1859, and read together at the same inaugural presentation. Wallace eventually wrote a book entitled "Darwinism"* in which he explains and elaborates on Darwin's theory. However his views differ sharply from Darwin's on the true origins of living matter, as he was what today would be called a "creationist". He was convinced that intervention was required at least three times in the change from inanimate matter to the human being, and states that changes from non-living to living matter are:

"beyond all possibility of explanation by matter, its laws and forces ".

So clear are his ideas on the origin of all living things that it is felt appropriate to quote a portion of his conclusions here, regarding the characteristics of man, as follows:

"It will, no doubt, be urged that the admitted continuity of man's progress from the brute does not admit of the introduction of new causes, and that we have no evidence of the sudden change of nature which such introduction would bring about. The fallacy as to new causes involving any breach of continuity, or any sudden or abrupt change, in the effects, has already been shown; (in preceding unquoted arguments - DT) but we will further point out that there are at least three stages in the development of the organic world when some new cause or power must necessarily have come into action.

"The third stage is, as we have seen, the existence in man of a number of his most characteristic and noblest faculties, those which raise him furthest above the brutes and open up possibilities of almost indefinite advancement. These faculties could not possibly have been developed by means of the same laws which have determined the progressive development of the organic world in general, and also of man's physical organism.

So it can be seen that Wallace agrees with Darwin on many things but not his views on the origin of life or particularly the origin of mankind. Wallace further presents compelling arguments that man's capabilities such as mathematics, arts, and humor, could not have been caused by "natural selection". He concludes:

"The special facilities we have been discussing clearly point to the existence in man of something which he has not derived from his animal progenitors------". He calls this a "spiritual nature". ("Darwinism" p. 474)

Without naming it as such, he is discussing some of the features resulting from the conceptual ability of man. Virtually all humans who have considered man's abilities understand this proposition. Darwin and many in the field of biology and other sciences, along with those who are firm believers in Darwin, do not. Worse, they have, over time, obfuscated these differences, presenting the appearance of complete agreement between the two men, on these fundamental issues which concern much more than the simple concept of evolution.

What Wallace is saying is that during the Darwin era, there was no evidence of continuity between the development of animal species and man. (In current day jargon, the rise of an entirely new feature such as conceptual thought is properly termed a "singularity" which event is unable to be studied by science). The arguments he presented are as valid today as they were in the 1870's when they were made, and have been ignored by those who believe differently. Wallace himself until recently, has been virtually ignored for his input into Darwin's theory, most probably because of the above opinions which don't "square" with the Darwinian Paradigm as currently taught. (This is unbiased scientific presentation invariably demanded by Darwinian believers?)

However, it is a fact that there is not even a plausible hypothetical scenario for the appearance of even the simplest of cells (stage one), not a shred of evidence that plants somehow "evolved" into animals (stage two), and current research into the human mind has failed to identify even a vague notion of what "thought" is, how it originates, or how a human who uses it can be manipulated by an such ethereal concept as "natural selection" (stage three). These are all Wallacean concepts, radically different from Darwinian views. Darwin himself left no record of answering these objections. In fact, he apparently feared the latter idea and once even went so far as to caution Wallace in a letter, that his position on "man and natural selection" was dangerous to the entire theory of evolution:

"I hope you have not murdered too completely your own and my child", ⁽¹⁾ , Darwin wrote Wallace.

MAN AND THE OTHER ANIMALS - AN INFINITY OF DIFFERENCE
The gulf of difference between humans and animals is so wide that it is extremely difficult to describe it using mere words. One reason for this is that no one really understands conceptual thought, much less the workings of the mind. The current trend has been to compare a computer to a human mind, but those who understand computers know this comparison is grossly incorrect. Computers execute tasks by manipulating discrete bits of data; the human mind appears to be able to manipulate huge amounts of information simultaneously. There is really no comparison between the two methods of operation.

On the other hand those who maintain that animals have the same mental ability as man but in some reduced form, would have the obligation to explain the similarities by virtue of either a complete explanation of both systems, or alternately by describing the effects of similar actions of both of the systems. So far as the former is concerned, the information is not presently known; as regards the latter, the simple argument stated above will first have to be disproved.

Currently, millions of dollars have been and are being spent in an attempt to do so, but to no avail. The chimp has never built a house, owns no property or tools, does nothing to enhance the availability or taste of it's food, and has no knowledge of, or the ability to, maintain it's own or any other chimps health. When the weather is cold, the chimp is cold; when it is wet, the chimp is wet. When a grown chimp falls from a tree and is injured so that it cannot climb, it is food for the hyenas. It cannot communicate by a means other than grunts and shrieks, the same method as used by any group of social animals. Even though it has been subject to predation from other animals throughout it's existence, it has developed no method of defense, such as an army or force of any kind with weapons, rather it lives in trees as it has done since the beginning. This is a purely thoughtless animal existence, and the burden of proof of any conceptual ability in the chimp is on those who maintain the idea.

But Darwin was not the only person who "missed" the boat on this one. Virtually all of the prominent evolutionists, psychologists, etc. as above, together with the mass Media, hold the belief that humans differ only in degree from the remainder of the animal kingdom. The unfortunate aspect of it all is that those who believe this way, ironically, shape our views on this subject. Nowhere is this more clearly shown than in the taxonomic classification of man.

THE CLASSIFICATION OF MAN
Man is classed along with the rest of the animals in the taxonomic hierarchy under the following: Order: Primates, Family: Hominidae, Genus: homo, Species: homo, there being only one genus in the family, hominidae. From this system comes the oft cited statement that man's "closest relative" is one of the primates, the chimpanzee (bonobo if you will). There are good reasons for this classification and it is doubtless correct when considering only the animal nature of man. So far so good.

The problem arises of course, when this classification is considered as the complete description of man; all biology books and most biologists accept this description in this manner. Whether or not you agree that man has a dual nature, you are bound to agree that man's conceptual ability is a far more significant feature, to the point that it completely overshadows his animal nature, which is almost trivial by comparison if you think about it. A cursory look at the world shows clearly that many individuals, nearly completely lacking in animal abilities, are held to be superb members of the human race, Stephen Hawking *, being but one current example.

Thus it must be concluded that the taxonomic description of man is at best a deceptive, partial truth. In every way it is comparable to describing a geometric figure, say a "square", as a simple "quadrilateral " (a four sided figure) and omitting the unique characteristic of a square, that of the interior angles being equal, from the description. No responsible teacher or text would use this tactic; yet it is done universally in the field of biology. Darwin's writings as well as the writings many others support this tactic explicitly as well as by default in that no disclaimer to the classification system is ever made regarding the characteristics or dual nature, of man. According to some of the "great thinkers" of the past, Darwin, Marx, Freud, etc. 'Man is but an animal'. Is it any wonder that there are serious objections to the teaching of Darwin's theory in school.

SOME SPECULATION ABOUT DARWIN
It is very hard to resist the temptation not to attempt an explanation of his inability to understand conceptual ability. But it is also evident that a reading of many of the statements in his book "Descent" should leave one absolutely aghast at conclusions found there. For example take the following quote:

"We must also admit that there is a much wider interval in mental power between one of the lowest fishes, as a lamprey or lancelet, and one of the higher apes, than between an ape and man; yet this interval is filled up by numberless gradations."

And yet he is revered by many as the greatest man of his century, and some say of all time. The reverence must certainly be a result of the nature of his conclusions, rather than to the methodology of reaching the same.

SOME CONSEQUENCES
At least one comment on the consequences of these beliefs of Darwin and others, should be made even though the topic has been addressed at book length elsewhere. So it should be said that the failure of science (and consequently our culture) to distinguish a fundamental difference between man and the other animals has established a set of beliefs which inevitably opens the path for many divisions which are so evident in our society including, but not limited to, racial and ethnic stereotypes. After all, according to latest scientific theories, the relationship between the various races is somewhat similar to that between the human and other animals. Instead of all humans being united by the uniquely magnificent ability of conceptual thought, they are as different as the rest of the animal species are from one another. Some conclusion. Ideas do have consequences.

The fact that the scientific community is, by and large, reluctant to ascribe fundamental differences to mankind is puzzling to say the least. This is not to say that the study of evolutionary biology, for example, should dwell on these fundamental differences, but they should not be ignored and yet, in fact, they are not only ignored, these differences are almost universally denied. Darwin and his followers have created another great error of perception in omitting from consideration the most magnificent feature in the entire universe: The conceptual ability of Man. of Man.

^(a) Alfred Russel Wallace (1823-1913). He was contemporary with Darwin, a self-taught biologist who spent most of his life as a collector of biological species which he sold to museums. His theory of evolution is similar in a number of respects with Darwin's. He was the first to publish on the current theory, and together they published what is known today as "Darwin's" theory. There is some evidence that Darwin received major help from Wallace in development of the theory. This brilliant man has essentially been lost to the history of biology.

^(b) Circular Reasoning: an assumption made in an argument that contains the acceptance as fact, of an element which needs to be proved for the argument to be valid. Here he assumes that it is brain size (plus some other unspecified characteristics) which account for the differences in mental ability. Thus, he can't be wrong. For another example, in his book "Origins" Darwin has assumed that a species (or variety) possesses sufficient genetic variability such that it either has within itself, or can develop, the characteristics of a new species. He spends one whole chapter in discussion of problems with his theory and glosses over this assumption as if it were fact; since it must be fact for his theory to be viable, and instead has been assumed, it is circular reasoning. In this case, Darwin is asking you to believe that his assumption is correct, simply because it is evident that species are different. (Also called "Begging the Question")

^(**) Since human DNA (the code for reproduction of cells) consists of about 2 billion instructions, we are talking about a change of some 40,000,000 instructions. It is important to know that a change in just one instruction out of the 2 billion can make the difference between a normal human, and one with say, Sickle Cell Anemia, a fatal disease. If one were to argue that there are some 40,000,000 differences between the primates and man, one would get no argument from this quarter.

But there is another most important difference which is always omitted from the 2% argument: the other primates have 48 chromosomes as opposed to the 46 chromosomes in a human. This in itself is more than a 4% difference in genetic makeup. The real significance of this information however, is that it could possibly mean a complete reorganization in all the chromosomes in order for this to have happened; no one really knows. Those who use the 2% argument should be aware that they are presenting a partial truth in an effort to suggest a close similarity between the 2 species; this tactic should be considered nothing other than pure proselytization. Also, those who are familiar with "Haldane's Dilemma" would realize that his objection (basically that TIME is against the proposition of 40,000,000 meaningful changes occurring) is only the tip of the iceberg. And also, according to Darwinian theory, one might also conclude that the primates are really a more highly developed species than the human, with a larger number of chromosomes; it would therefore be a requirement that they "evolved" later than humans. But this possibility is in a gray area of knowledge at present but does illustrate that Darwinists are willing to grasp at straws to prove a point.

Practically speaking, it should really be an indication that there is no provable connection between the two species (really genera) and furthermore that science has no creditable knowledge of their origin. With somewhere between 5 and 15 million species on the planet, the possibility that the similarity is only another coincidence should be the guiding conclusion. The "2% argument" should be considered more in the realm of hope than science.

As a note of interest to those unfamiliar with cell biology, and as an indication of the complexity of the entire subject, each and every one of the 100 trillion cells which makes up a human, contains the entire genetic code of 2 billion instructions.

*REFERENCES

The Origin of Species  Charles Darwin, 1859
The Descent of Man Charles Darwin, 1871
Darwinism Alfred Russel Wallace, 1891
Stephen Hawking, theoretical physicist, author of the best seller, A Brief History of Time.

GO TO THE INDEX PAGE

Page created by: dbtngtms@tdtone.org (email address)

Published 7/23/99
Rev. June 4, 2004
Jan. 23, 2004  

Preamble

The ideas discussed on this page should be considered merely representative of common ideas expressed on the subject of evolution and Darwinism. Most current books, textbooks, and the general media, present at least some of these erroneous concepts as accepted fact. Contrary ideas such as those presented here are rarely mentioned, much less discussed. Note that there are many more ideas hostile to Darwinian theory, such as the (3) (yes three) billion+ year gaps in the fossil record, which are unexplainable and likewise virtually never discussed. (For example, the first of these, a discussion of the 3 1/2 Billion year gap in the "evolution" of the DNA molecule, has yet to be seen by this writer, in print.)

Currently there is no evidence for one iota of evolution in this molecule which, of course, is the basis for all living organisms which have ever existed. It seems that anyone studying biology or evolution should be more interested in the "origin" of this molecule as opposed to the "origin" of species; such, however, is not the case. From current appearances, the DNA molecule "ocurred", intact, as it is today, about 3+ billion years ago; what is its origin? Where did it come from, and how? This ought to be the abiding question in the entire field of both science and biology. Instead it is ignored in favor of a 150 year old explanation made by those who had no knowledge whatsoever of the origin of life.

Thus this essay attempts to present a more balanced view of current Darwinian theory. If you are a student, parent or other interested party in the evolution controversy, the ideas presented here should be useful. They are in most part, simple and straightforward enough to be grasped by those above the primary school level. If your school system presents these errors as fact, here is an opportunity to question their methods. Should you require assistance in this process, feel free to email the DT at the address below.

Please recognize that no Creationist themes are contained in this article. It discusses various ideas dealing strictly with the logic and science of evolution. The question "Does Evolution Exist?" is not considered. (Neither is any proof offered that "evolution" does not exist in some form.) A closely related question however IS addressed. That question is:

In other words, does Darwin's theory as currently understood, provide scientific evidence for evolution that is credible? The 16 Theses presented below argue that so far as these ideas are concerned, they fail the rules of science and logic and therefore, are in reality, a series of beliefs. If this is true, you might rightfully ask 'Why are beliefs being taught as scientific fact?'.

The arguments which follow the Theses (plus other arguments not set out by numbers) present the proof. They are unambiguous, falsifiable, and can be refuted point by point, if such arguments exist.

Natural Selection

1. There is no connection at all between the two concepts "artificial selection" and (Darwinian) "Natural Selection". Down

2. The belief in evolution, per se, is based on several logical fallacies, one in particular, a "post hoc propter hoc" type of argument. Down

3.Belief that "selection" of some kind is the cause of evolution, is an example of the process of inverse reasoning, properly called "inverse logic", which is also a logical fallacy. Down

4. The idea that any type of action (a "cause") outside of the life of the organism is the cause of evolution is a "cause/effect" reversal. Down

5. Darwinian Natural Selection is ubiquitous: Kettlewell's experiment with the moths (supposedly demonstrating selection) is no proof of any aspect of evolution. Down

6. The cause of diversity is not a "selection" process; for analogy, this concept is supported by the operation of a hypothetical Natural Selection "machine". The output of the machine (like evolution) is not caused by any form of selection, as one might conclude, rather it is a phenomenon which is unknown. Down

Survival of the Fittest

7. Darwinists define the two terms, Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest, by their effects on organisms, as opposed to stating a detailed description of the process, or mechanism of operation, of either term; they are thus each, a non-sequitor. Down

8. The term Survival of the Fittest is a tautology. It predicts an undefined winner which can only be identified by the outcome of the competition in which the competitor is engaged. Down

9. Survival of the Fittest is also ambiguous, a misleading term that is unscientific. Down

10. All organisms such as the Oak tree, Fruit Fly, and others, have aspects of their organisms which are not the "fittest" by any definition. Down

11. If Darwin's theory was truly in operation, the number of species would be reduced from what is now evident. Down

12. The "fitness" of species is limited by a factor unknown to Science. Down

13. The "Malthusian" concept would not effect "evolution" except as to the "rate" of evolution; it promotes stasis rather than evolution. Down

14. Darwin's theory can neither explain the existence of the wide variety of open niches which exist on this planet, nor can any principles or laws it establishes explain the characteristics of current existing or non-existing species, or proto-species to fill the open niches. Down

The "Five Senses Hypothesis"

15. Science Studies almost invariably operate under an assumption, not a part of Science, but rather a proper consideration of Philosophy. This assumption is called "naturalism". As science, it is erroneous. Down

16. Currently, the most prevalent interpretation of Darwinism virtually excludes all other possible scenarios as an explanation for life and all of its forms; this is a logical fallacy based on the "Five Senses Hypothesis". Darwinian Theory has inevitably become a stalking-horse for Naturalism, Secular Humanism, and other materialistic philosophies. Down

The following text is a version of the article "Natural Selection" as presented on another of the author's pages. (The arguments are identical, but the Theses have not been separately set out and there is no "Down/Back" feature as available here).

SYNOPSIS

This page explores what might be called the most fundamental belief in all of biological science, namely, whether or not the concepts contained in the terms "Natural Selection" and/or "Survival of the Fittest" are, either separately or together, a scientific explanation for the mechanism, or cause, of evolution. These two terms have been chosen for discussion not only because they launched "Darwinism" to the preeminent theory it has become, but also because of the almost universal use of them and all their derivatives, in biology books, papers, and particularly in textbooks.

Both of these terms, even though they have different intended meanings as shown below, are used almost interchangeably as the foundation of Darwin's theory of evolution, and have been, from the original publication in 1859, through to the present day. This in spite of the fact that his theory has gone through 4 or 5 versions incorporating new findings, the current version sometimes called "The New Synthesis".

While no argument is made of the status of "evolution" it is assumed throughout that evolution is not a scientific fact, contrary to another fundamental belief of evolutionists; however as above, the possibility of some sort of evolution is not ruled out either, the question not being germane to this discussion. If you are of the opinion that evolution is a proven fact, this entire discussion has to be considered as erroneous.

Also, a little off-topic to the overall discussion, a paragraph near the end explains how the Malthusian theory (relied on by many evolutionists as a "keystone" to both Darwin and Wallace) really fits into the idea of evolution. In another paragraph, predictions made using evolutionary theory are proposed and studied in attempt to test the theory.

CONCLUSION

It is shown that the process of reason that concludes that Natural Selection is a proper explanation for evolution is faulty, in actuality a process which is correctly termed "inverse logic". It is also shown that the term Survival of the Fittest, even if it were not a tautology, is not a meaningful explanation for evolution, since the organisms that survive are not in fact, the "fittest" by any standard whatsoever.

Darwin's theory takes advantage of the incredible ability of species adaptation to a variety of forms, and presents this capability in argument that explains it as the "cause" of evolution. Darwin's theory is in fact a prescription for "mono-speciation", and cannot explain the diversity so evident in the biological world. The cause of evolution, if it even exists, is currently (2000) unknown to science.

It is also suggested that the nearly rote learning of evolutionary theory is harmful to the development of the formation of the logical process of thought, particularly in the young.

Likewise it is concluded that the "Malthusian" concept is responsible for stasis rather than playing any part in "evolution" - just another example of the inverse logic of the Darwinists.

In closing, predictions made in accordance with the theory have, fortunately, not come true. It is no surprise to the DT that they have not, but Darwinists should be (but aren't) able to explain why this is so.

PREMISES AND DEFINITIONS

Believing that there is little point in proceeding in a discussion such as this without defining terms, meanings, suppositions and all other aspects of the arguments, critical terms are defined. Far too much of the discussion of this topic is carried out in an attempt to prove/disprove various aspects of what is generally called "Darwin's Theory", and because of a failure of the above, nothing meaningful is accomplished. (If you are tempted to reply by email, PLEASE read the definitions first - often a perceived disagreement is only a difference in definitions).

Thus the following definitions are established: ⁽¹⁾ (see below)

Introduction - Some Historical Background

Darwin's feelings about Natural Selection and evolution
Charles Darwin felt strongly that observations made on large scale explorations such as his voyage on the Beagle showed conclusively that many clearly different organisms, animals as well as plants, were related to one another by some as yet unknown law. In other words, evolution existed.

His belief as eventually stated, differed with the then-current Biblical-based system of beliefs in that the apparent differences were a result of deliberate Creation as described in the Bible. Darwin understood this as did others, and after years of study he proposed as an analogy for the operation of evolution, the well known method of "Artificial Selection" whereby characteristics of living organisms can be selected by breeders to produce altered characteristics of a species.

In his proposal, the action of "natural" processes takes over as the "intelligence" formerly attributed to the Creator and now does the "selection". His now famous book "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" published first in 1859, outlined how a purely natural process of selection could produce similar effects, and thus explain the development of new species without reference to supernatural intervention.

The meaning of Natural Selection as originally used by Darwin
As kind of an aside, in the book "Origins", Darwin used a strange, rather disingenuous method of introducing the term Natural Selection to the reader. It is labeled disingenuous because it is a technique used often by mystery writers to enhance the suspense connected with an effort. It should not be expected to be found in an essay on a scientific subject.

Nevertheless, Darwin takes you through a full three chapters of the book, hinting at a definition based solely on the effects of the as-yet unexplained process, all the while lauding the properties of Natural Selection, suggesting a scenario which dramatically increases the probability that the definition, once it is made, will be accepted. Then, in chapter four, he defines what has been called "the most important concept in biology (or science even)" in a mere 27 words:

"This preservation of favourable individual differences and variations, and the destruction of those which are injurious, I have called Natural Selection, (adding in a later edition) or the Survival of the Fittest."

Note that the process he describes is identical to the process used in "artificial selection", where the selector destroys those individuals which carry an injurious trait. Note importantly that the definition of Natural Selection is based on the effects of it, and the mechanism or cause is not stated. (What, exactly, does the selection?) Any reasonably suspicious person should be skeptical at this point, if not by the brevity of the explanation, by the simplicity of same and the fact that it was well known to all biologists. Darwin's reasoning seems to be, in effect, 'species have changed, and the only plausible explanation for it is that they have been "selected", therefore they have been Naturally Selected' - (which conclusion is typical of his pattern of thought, another excellent example of his ability of "circular reasoning").

In contrast to the reception of the scientific community as it is usually reported, Darwin was severally criticized by his peers for his use of the term. This criticism was sufficient to cause Darwin to first defend it as an "apocryphal" description and later to essentially abandon the term.

But Darwin meant something by the term, and the acceptance of it by the biological community of long standing shows that it conveys some kind of meaning as an explanation for a process that is otherwise not understood. So various aspects of the term will be examined below to determine, if nothing else, the perceived meaning. The story is not complete here however. Darwin himself had some misgivings in the face of criticisms, and these should be identified.

Darwin's backpedalling on "Natural Selection"
Darwin's book went through 6 editions in about a dozen years, and he had abandoned the term Natural Selection (but not the concept) after the fourth edition. In his own words, the term "Survival of the Fittest"

"is more accurate and is sometimes equally convenient." (em. added)

For those who find this difficult to believe, he went even further and stated in regard to sporting varieties of plants (which concept would apply as well to all living organisms) that

"...we clearly see that the nature of the conditions is of subordinate importance in comparison with the nature of the organism in determining each particular form of variation;- perhaps of not more importance than the nature of the spark, by which a mass of combustible matter is ignited, has in determining the nature of the flames." (em. added), (which is absolutely none - DT)

Nonetheless, in spite of this turnabout in Darwin's feelings, the term is still used routinely throughout the field of biology and appears in virtually every textbook as an explanation for the cause if evolution. Thus further discussion is necessary.

(1) Some fallacies of Natural Selection - The concept of Natural Selection as an extension of artificial selection.
On the surface, the comparison is plausible, and was likely more so in Darwin's time, when nothing was known about genetics, DNA, or cell biology. In our current state of knowledge however, it should be understood that the characteristics which can be so easily manipulated by artificial selection are simply what could be called "pre-existing traits" - alleles - of an organism, and there is agreement that no new species are produced by this process. Likewise, selection by an intelligent being is done with a particular outcome as a goal; judgment, experience and corrections are made in the process.

"Natural" selection on the other hand, is in reality a response to an "effect", the only "choice" possible being an unalterable response of an organism. This is, by any stretch of logic, not a choice at all. It was termed "selection" solely in an attempt to rationalize the idea of an intelligent act. No purpose, goal, or choice is possible; thus there is no selection. As a result, there is no connection between the two mechanisms (assuming of course that Natural Selection exists in any form). Back1

(2) The "logical fallacy" aspect of belief in evolution: the "post hoc propter hoc" fallacy.
There are two (2) aspects to belief in evolution. One is that evolution is a "fact", another is that it is only a theory. While not all biologists believe that evolution is a fact, this idea is endorsed virtually without acknowledgement in the many books and text books on biology. A statement such as ....'the overwhelming evidence of evolution' .....occurs in most books on the subject, and the word "evolution" is used often, seemingly at every opportunity. (In contrast, the difficulties with Darwin's theory, as illustrated on this page and many others, is virtually ignored).

It should be noted that a rather subtle inference is contained in the oft-stated conclusion or representation that evolution is a fact: the belief is a direct refutation not only of any contrary scientific data, but just as well to any theistic evolutionary or Creationist belief. (Those who ponder the Creationist - Evolutionist controversy should consider this).

The above Latin term "post hoc propter hoc" (literally "after this [therefore] because of this") is a recognized logical fallacy. It best describes one type of argument made for belief in evolution. It is a term which describes a logical conclusion of "causation", in an appearance-based belief, for a cause-effect relationship. Thus the various similarities in organisms, which is recognized today and extends back well before Darwin's time, is the prime factor for this belief in evolution. Darwin formed this belief early on, and stated:

"In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist, reflecting on the mutual affinities of organic beings, on their embryological relations, their geographical distribution, geological succession, and other such facts, might come to the conclusion that species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species." (em. added) [ Darwin's book Origins ]

In the above quote the mutual affinities and embryological relations, establish the criteria for the conclusion. This conclusion, on its face, is hypothetical at best. Thus, if at least these two of the above four attributes of organisms did not exist, there would be no possibility of "evolution". Even though Darwin states that the facts might allow the conclusion for evolution, he understood this limitation, seemingly better than it is understood today, and stated so in following paragraphs of his book, not quoted. He never made the statement or assumed that "evolution is a fact", as is common today and in actuality expressed doubts that it could be proven; one of these, the continuity of the fossil record is well known as one of his objections.

It should be noted that much was unknown in Darwin's day e.g., the existence of "GACT" DNA was not even suspected until recently, so that Darwin's belief would be more plausible during his era, although still a "post hoc" fallacy. (Darwin made this observation after the end of his "Beagle" voyage and it was nearly twenty years later that the conclusion was published; during this time he was trying to get supporting facts for the conclusion).

When the "post hoc" argument is made, it is usually expressed in the following terms: If event "B" follows event "A" then event "B" has been caused by event "A". The only proper logical conclusion which can be made is as follows: "If event "B" follows event "A" then the possibility exists that event "B" has been caused by event "A".

As a practical example for clarity, two known facts, evidence of an oil spill and an automobile accident, might be the basis of an argument for the "cause" of the accident to be the presence of the oil. An assumption might be made that the oil prevented control of the vehicle and thus caused the accident.

For this possibility to be true, it must at the very least be demonstrated that event "a", the oil, preceded event "b", the accident. If the oil was not present prior to the accident, then this argument cannot be made. However, this is not a "sufficient" fact to demonstrate causality, only a "necessary" one for the relationship to be true. Therefore, while the proposition MAY be true, direct proof, such as the mechanism of the involvement of the oil in the accident, must be established. Likewise all other possibilities must be examined and eliminated as being causal in order to validate the conclusion. In the study of biological evolution, the same rules apply.

In the biological world, the similarity of appearance of two distinct species, one which may follow another in time or space, unquestionably allows the possibility that one is the ancestor of the other; many thousands of such similarities exist and there is much evidence that the more recent species display these similarities; hence the conclusion that evolution based on scientific observations has occurred, is a possibility . An argument that it HAS occurred on this basis alone, would be a "post hoc propter hoc" argument, a fallacy. Just as in the example above, in order for it to be considered a "fact" not only must the mechanism be proven as to its cause, but all other possibilities must be ruled out. In a situation as complex as organic life, this is currently impossible.

But as regards the "appearance" argument, which is probably the leading or at least most provocative argument for evolution, a very simple analogy is presented which calls into question the possibility of the conclusion being valid. As an example of this line of thinking, the following analogy is offered:

If you were to give, say, 100 people a common "tinker toy"* set, and allow them to build anything that they imagine, and then have the results viewed by scientists with a typical curiosity, you would present to them a class of objects that could very well be considered "evolutionary". Resemblances would be very plain; evolutionary lines could be arranged (as eohippus - the supposed "horse" sequence).

Arguments used to "prove" evolution of the fabricated "species" could be very similar to those used to prove Darwinian evolution. This would be true for no other reason than because of the similarity of characteristics of the fundamental parts. (This process would have to assume that, just as in Darwinian evolution, the "origin" of the objects had not been witnessed, and the existence of "tinker toys" was both unrecognized or unknown).

(Note that this is NOT an argument that evolution in some form has NOT occurred; it merely presents an analogous scenario which can easily explain the reason for the belief that "evolution exists" or is a "fact" - the striking similarity between different species, [which is the "post hoc propter hoc" argument]- without ever having witnessed the event.)

*[A child's play set, consisting of a number of basic parts of different size, shape and color that can be joined together to make a variety of objects. The analogy is obviously to the four basic units that make up the DNA molecule].

The analogy as presented is similar to the situation which existed in Darwin's time, with existence of DNA unknown. With today's knowledge it should be plainly evident the "similarity" of living objects can most easily be explained by the assumption that there is only a finite number of genes available for a viable genome.

Stringent requirements of the constitution of proteins (genes), which must possess the ability to fold to themselves and likewise to the chromosome and genome, (plus many unknown requirements) should be assumed to place limits on the expression of same thus calling into question the idea of "infinite" variability. Of course this is an assumption, but being the simpler of the two assumptions (similarity of appearance vs. similarity of genes) and in the light of developing knowledge in bio-chemistry and microbiology, the one that should be made. The principle of "Occam's Razor" requires this.

But also note how this assumption explains many other features of biology, inexplicable in Darwinian terms, such as these:

• extinction: non-explainable in Darwinian terms. Even the great evolutionist Ernst Mayr admits this. See discussion about this in argument (14) below. (99% of all species have been unable to adapt and are extinct).

• stasis: the long periods in the fossil record between the appearance of a species, its extinction, and the lack of intermediate species.
(The inability of species to undergo "gradual" modification).
• diversity: the ability of near-identical species to co-exist for eons. (Despite nearly identical "conditions of life", specie identity remains unaltered).
• survival of the "non-fittest": the ability of species to exist with less than optimal features. (Even trivial adaptation has not occurred through eons - as described in Theses 10 thru 14 below).

An excellent example of this similarity is the so-called "pentadactyl limb" the five digit limb, a characteristic of tetrapod vertebrates, (amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals) such as the arm, leg and hand/hoof and wing. The similarity of structure of this feature is taken as "prima facia" evidence of descendance and thus evolution.

However this feature is increasingly recognized as one basic gene in all organisms, modified by other portions of a genome in a manner that is becoming evident to microbiologists. Also, other similar, basic features of organisms which were once thought to have arisen by "evolution" have now been shown to have developed from disparate organs and are not homologous but rather analogous, unique to a particular organism. Michael Denton's book "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" points out this overlooked fact. Just as in the "tinker toy" analogy above, the "resemblance" would be caused by the similarity of components , as opposed to an ubiquitous "selection" scheme supposedly causing descent with modification.

It stands to reason, where there is a finite number of available components, and a virtually infinite number of species (either existing or extinct), resemblance is unavoidable. The conclusion that it is "caused" by a theory such as Darwin's has to be considered more of an attractive belief, similar to the wishful thinking which produced the flurry of interest in such phenomena as "Piltdown Man" or more recently "Kettlewell's Moths" (below). Both of these, after much reflection, turned out to be erroneous conclusions. Thus when you discount the scenario of apparent similarity as being indicative of descent, the remaining evidence does not warrant a conclusion of Darwinian evolution.

Other Fallacies
But another logical fallacy surrounding evolution, not directly a "post hoc propter hoc" argument but a related fallacy, is used in the attempt to prove that evolution exists, and it is a separate argument of its own:

Because of the fact that devolution (the decrease of order and complexity) apparently exists, at least in larger animals, there is likewise a belief that evolution (the increase of order and complexity) must of necessity also exist.

Thus the evidence of blind fish, sickle cell anemia, flightless beetles, vestigial structures and other such features of devolution (assumed to be caused by random variation/natural selection), is taken as evidence of evolution. In other words, the converse of the concept of devolution, evolution, is necessarily true. Sound logic as well as scientific evidence disputes this conclusion. No evidence exists as proof of this belief.

Nothing more will be said about this belief, except to point out that complex mechanisms can operate quite well with a random missing/inoperable part, but this observation neither proves, nor should it even suggest, that the random addition of a part will improve a mechanism.

Just for a simple example, not necessarily analogous: highways are littered with parts fallen from cars; has any part ever fallen on a car and improved its function? Other, analogous, examples abound.

But three other basic ideas or facts in addition to those mentioned above play a part in the formation of the conclusion as regards biological evolution:

• first, the reality of the myriad of living organisms requires, both in the secular and scientific world, an explanation.
• secondly, widespread similarity is, at least superficially, an easily recognizable inference of relationship: it is simple and obvious.
• thirdly, but of far more importance, an all-too-common scientific adherence to a closed belief system (which is here called the Five Senses Hypothesis [Thesis 15 below]) ⁽²⁾ eliminates any other possible conclusion for the similarity other than "evolution".

These ideas set up another argument, sometimes called "False Dilemma" or "Fallacy of Exclusion". This falls into the general "post hoc" category (which argument is very common in email replies to the DT also) and is stated thus:

".....Darwin's theory is all we've got".

Thus if there is no better explanation, Darwin's theory must be true. Yes, its all you've got if you accept the above three (3) premises (the need for an "explanation", widespread similarity of organisms, and the belief in "naturalism"). Once they are accepted, the argument about evolution, per se, is over. Since all other possibilities have been excluded, evolution has to be a fact. Following, if evolution exists as a fact, then the only explanation for it is that Natural Selection, somehow, exists also.

Other failed theories of the past shows they were at least partially supported by this type of argument. Not the least of these was the flat earth theory, probably the most damaging theory to plague mankind, if Darwin's theory is not such.

Thus, a large part of the argument for evolution is of the type called "post hoc propter hoc" - evolution is the explanation for the existence of organic life - based on what is recognized to be well known logical fallacies.
Back2

(3) The real meaning of Natural Selection
Since there are thousands of books written on the subject of evolution and many of them have a proprietary definition of Natural Selection, the concept will be discussed as defined below (under Definitions).

Briefly, in the process of increasing complexity of organisms, whatever factor that makes the choice for success in the trial and error process is what has "directed" the development of the organism. This was Darwin's original concept (Natural Selection), as above, which was abandoned by him, but this very same concept nonetheless is still used today as a rational explanation for evolution.

The concept is nothing but an erroneous technique of thought sometimes called "inverse reasoning" (also termed a "Wrong Direction" fallacy - see Thesis 4 below) which mistakes cause for effect and thus "explains" the exact reverse of what is happening. Ironically, Darwin's compatriot Alfred Wallace understood this process very well, and his description of it is one of the best and most succinct available. Wallace stated:

"We are like children [who are] looking at a complicated machine of the reasons of whose construction they are ignorant, and like them we constantly impute as causes what is really effect in our vain attempts to explain what we will not confess that we cannot understand."
(em., [brackets], added). (unidentified "Species Notebook", P 43.) Probably 1854-55. From H. Lewis McKinney's Book "Wallace and Natural Selection"

This process as described by Wallace is common but by no means unique to the field of science. Many of the "great" discoveries of the past were based on it, not the least of which was the Ptolemaic view of the universe. This view was driven of course, by the belief that Man was created to be the centerpiece of the universe, and the tortured reasoning which was developed to explain it is very close to the exact opposite of the truth.

But one does not have to look back hundreds of years for examples of the phenomenon, because it is an all-to-common part of our daily colloquial existence. Many of the more common explanations of things which are not readily understood are made simpler or more meaningful by use of this technique. A few examples follow:

• Slums are the cause of poverty, hunger, inequality, etc.

(Eliminating the slums will cure these problems).
• Guns are the cause of crime.

(Take away the guns and crime will disappear).
• My car won't start in the rain.

(A mechanic will know the real cause of the problem and it is NOT the rain; see below)

All three of these statements are based on a failure to understand the real cause of a problem, and consequently attribute an easily understandable effect as the perceived cause. Society is full of them. Generally they are innocuous explanations as in case no. (3), but as in case (1) and (2) they can cause serious problems where they are relied upon as an explanation.

Likewise is this so in the field of science. Darwin's writings contain classic examples of "inverse logic". (Is it not conceivable that the reason for this common misuse is perhaps connected with the early learning of such things as Darwin's theory with its very loose, erroneous, and inverse relationship between cause and effect)? Indeed, the original Darwinian belief that something in the "conditions of life" was the explanation for "selection" falls squarely into the middle of Wallace's explanation of substituting effect for cause, as quoted above.

Adopting this technique, scientists, biologists, atheists and agnostics, long searching for a natural explanation for apparent intelligent design, at last have a mechanism for the process. Best of all it seems, for one reason or another, this process is eminently compatible with the human psyche. Back3

(4)The inevitable result of "Inverse Logic": cause/effect reversal.
An in-depth, disciplined, study of Natural Selection will show that the mechanism behind the concept cannot be the cause of any direction of development; rather Natural Selection is only an effect which can be available for the continuing existence of a organism which is able to use the effects.

(Should you be an avowed evolutionist who bristles at the very thought of this conclusion, see the "Talk-Origins FAQ" [a quintessential evolutionary publication] on "Natural Selection", for convenience quoted below:)

"When selection is spoken of as a force, it often seems that it is has a mind of its own; or as if it was nature personified. This most often occurs when biologists are waxing poetic about selection. This has no place in scientific discussions of evolution. Selection is not a guided or cognizant entity; it is simply an effect." (all em. added. Agreement by the DT is whole-hearted. Note that the term "biologists" of necessity includes Darwin)

(continuing) If natural selection is only an "effect", how then can it be the "cause" of evolution as universally agreed? The ability of the organism to survive using these effects (and more importantly to sustain a direction of development such as the eye, immune system, or the complexity or the eukaryotic cell,) for millions of years, would be a property of a developing genome, not a property of the "conditions of life".

Darwin's second assessment, as above, restated here, is correct:

"....we clearly see that the nature of the conditions is of subordinate importance in comparison with the nature of the organism in determining each particular form of variation; - perhaps of not more importance than the nature of the spark, by which a mass of combustible matter is ignited, has in determining the nature of the flames." (em. added) (which is none - DT)

Those who believe in Darwinian evolution as currently taught in biology have accepted a cause/effect reversal as a simplistic explanation of a phenomenon which has not yet been discovered by science. Yet they fail to supply a plausible explanation for the process and to produce evidence for the continuing million/billion year increase in complexity by showing a mechanism which will supply a sustained direction of development. It ought to be noted that this very process has been considered by at least one microbiologist, the author Michael Denton, in his book "Nature's Destiny". The process is not based on Darwinian natural selection.

Assuming if, at this point the reader might agree with the above argument concerning Natural Selection, and yet still be convinced that evolution exists as outlined by Darwin's theory, further discussion is in order. Is it not possible that Darwin's preferred explanation for complexity, Survival of the Fittest, is really the explanation of the process?

In fact it will be shown (in the Survival of the Fittest section) that the concept is erroneous as well, but for a wholly different reason. Back4

(5) The Detailed Operation of Natural Selection; Kettlewell's Experiment
A very important, always overlooked, factor in addition to those listed above should be kept in mind in the detailed consideration of Natural Selection.

According to the theory, each and every living organism existing at this very instant, has been Naturally Selected (otherwise it would not be here). No Darwinist can disagree with this. Suppose that, as an investigation of the process, this type of selection is labeled "NS1". (Note that Survival of the Fittest has also operated here, but this will be ignored for the time). NS1 is the type of selection that has allowed these organisms to be "alive" at this very instant; these organisms are the result of a an unbroken line of forebears which have existed since the "formation" of the particular species. Again, there can be no disagreement. Note that it is equally as true that each and every one of its forebears , (perhaps billions upon billions of each species) also has to have been Naturally Selected (but for the minutely few selected by man). (That is to say, an unbroken line of organisms exists from the "original species" to those of the present day).

But if the time period is long, say 100 MY, and the supposed evolution has occurred, some of the organisms which started out as species "a" have now become species "b", "c" and/or "...n". According to Darwin's theory, these species "b", "c" and/or "n", have evolved and exist because they have been Naturally Selected. (Darwinists, when asked to explain the "cause" of their evolution, would have to reply that they have been "naturally selected"). Let this type of selection (where evolution has occurred) be labeled "NS2".

As a practical example we could look at two species to illustrate the two types of selection: one might be the common Carp (Cyprinus Carpio) which has existed unchanged an estimated 200 MY. The other could be Homo Sapiens which by most Darwinian beliefs has existed for perhaps 10 MY. The former is type NS1 selection, the latter type NS2 selection (where the species have evolved).

It can be easily seen here that type NS1 selection represent stasis, while type NS2 selection represents evolution. It can also be seen that the vast majority are descendants of "stable" genomes (NS1) and, if Darwin's (New Synthesis) theory were correct, a nearly infinitesimal number would carry new genetic material accounting for evolution (NS2).

Granting this incontrovertible fact, an important question of simple logic arises:

Question:
How does the latter action of Natural Selection (NS2) of new genetic material (which under Darwin's theory causes evolution) differ from the former (non evolutionary) type of Natural Selection (NS1) which has to have operated to produce the nearly infinite number, by comparison, of other organisms that have existed but not "evolved"?

Answer:
There is no difference at all.
Conceptually speaking, NS1 is identically equivalent to NS2.
Mathematically speaking, NS1 = NS2.

Thus Darwinian Natural Selection as a mechanism is completely ubiquitous in its action. It produces both stasis (NS1) and evolution (NS2) and if Darwinists are correct in the claim that it is the cause of evolution, then it is also the cause of stasis.

Consequently if some form of evolution has actually taken place, what has logically occurred in each and every case has been only adaptation (evidenced by survival) of the organism, which is solely a characteristic, or capability, of the genome, not a selection action of the environment or conditions, or anything else understood by scientists. The only "selection" made in either case is simple survival. But as above, that is true of all organisms. How then is Natural Selection (or any other type of selection) the cause of evolution?

Assuming the above argument correct, and extending this line of reasoning to other existing conditions of the planet, then it might just as sensibly and just as meaningfully be said, that the size, location and other features of say, the Grand Canyon or the Himalayas or any other feature of the Universe for that matter, is also a product of Natural Selection.

The term is therefore meaningless. It does nothing to explain either apparent design or increased complexity for which Darwin's theory is credited. There is no action such as selection. If some sort of evolution has occurred, "selection" as currently understood by science is not a proper explanatory cause.

As to Kettlewell's famous experiments with the moth, they are (or were) accepted by the biological community with un-tempered (unscientific) enthusiasm, (at least in most textbooks) in that they seemingly showed Natural Selection actually at work, a verification of the theory of selection for the first time. The account was given wide attention throughout the literature, curiously much the same as the Piltdown Man Hoax, and from a related scientific field, the Margaret Mead Hoax. (It should be noted that Kettlewell's work is still cited in biology texts as an example of Natural Selection, despite the fact that it has been essentially discredited. For example, Biology, Raven and Johnson, 2nd ed., e.g. describes the process as "evolutionary" and "a result of Natural Selection".)

Little argument can be had with the fact that Kettelwell showed some type of adaptation (called "selection") to be operating in nature, but regardless of what it is called, the conclusion that it exemplifies the cause of evolution is clearly erroneous. The moths (Biston Betularia) simply displayed an adaptation to surroundings, very similar to mimicry, a trait of virtually all organisms. This adaptation is absolutely trivial by comparison to some of the amazingly adaptive descriptions provided by Henry W. Bates, in what has come to be known as "Batesian Mimicry".

More recent review of the entire phenomena suggests that changes in the moths were a direct reaction to the sulfur/other contaminants/ in the atmosphere ("selection" by sulfur?) and this possibility, along with others, is seemingly not considered, in the unscientific explanation found in textbooks. It must be concluded that the original hasty conclusion was based strictly on a prior belief in evolution.

In any event, regardless of any change in the environment, the "cause" of the change in the moth was not "selection" but rather the ability of the organism (above) to adapt.

By switching cause with effect, a hitherto unexplainable phenomenon is thus understood, which just happens to be in accordance with prior beliefs. Wallace's succinct explanation in section (3) above applies perfectly. The fact that Kettlewell's experiment is still reported today as evidence of evolution, is nothing less than the acceptance of a failure of the scientific method being used to foster a belief, and is hard to distinguish from any type of evangelism.

In the case of the car (above) that won't start because of the rain, the real cause of the failure to start is a defect in the ignition system, not the rain, which defect would show up under other conditions such as high humidity, or the operation of a car wash.

If some form of evolution exists, either through a preordained plan (as Alfred Wallace and others believe), by a phenomena as mystifying to us as Lightning was to the ancients, or by some as-yet undiscovered ability of the genome to reorient itself, it is not as a result of "selection" but rather only made possible by the effects of the "selection" (=survival), and again, is simple, unexplainable, adaptation.

It is almost shameful to have to mention the evident fact that all living organisms are adapted to the myriad characteristics of this planet; but solely because of this fact, it is not proper to conclude that the characteristics of the planet are the "cause" of any evolution. The action of supposed evolution is an action of the organism. Again, the scientific cause is unknown.

(For those who believe that mutations are ultimately the "cause" of evolution, it is first necessary to prove that mutations which increase functional ability are "random"; see the comments on "devolution", in (3) above. Secondly, scientific proof of an increase in functionality due to mutation must be demonstrated, mutagenic activity of bacteria notwithstanding; this aspect evolution has yet to be proved. It is strictly a belief, based on the acceptance of evolution as a fact; the circle of reason is thus closed).

An additional attempt will be made by analogy, to illustrate this cause/effect relationship as it occurs in the concept of Natural Selection, by a hypothetical scenario as developed below. Back5

(6) The Natural Selection Machine
It is 100 years hence, around the year 2100, when an enterprising chap applies for a patent on a machine which produces food of the very same type we are used to eating. It is similar in a way to the mythical "horn of plenty", Cornucopia. The ingredients for food, the necessary mineral elements, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, etc., are added to the device, and from the "horn" spews forth apples, bananas, peaches, pears vegetables of all sorts and other food items. (Note that this is an amazing discovery, because at present, humans are incapable of "making" any edible food.)

Quite obviously, the secret of the molecular process used by organisms has been harnessed. But while this is truly amazing, another facet of the machine is even more amazing. It has some of the abilities of the kind we attribute today, to Darwinian Natural Selection, in that it seems to be able to select which products will be produced. The trigger for this remarkable action is dependent on the input to the machine, but not in the way you might first suppose. For example, if the machine is producing too many bananas, say, the operator simply feeds these excess items back into the machine and voila! the number of bananas is reduced, and productions of other items increased. The machine thus has a conservative nature, because nothing is wasted.

The world is of course, astonished. But let us control our astonishment for the time being, and investigate the latter feature of the machine, the ability to self-alter it's own output. The characteristic is very similar to the assumed "action" of Natural Selection as held by Darwinists, from the standpoint that some form of "evolution" seems to be occurring. It appears that when the machine encounters certain situations in the environment in which it operates, its basic method of operation is altered in some way. (This would be the type of machine proposed by Wallace [above] - we don't know how it works. {By the way, if you think this scenario is simplistic, read Dawkins' book about 'Mount Improbable'.})

In any event, we can now ask the all-important question: what is the cause of the alteration of the output of the machine??? If you have answered "the change in the input to the machine", you are a candidate for belief in Darwin's Natural Selection. It is not caused by the change in input to the machine rather the real scientific cause of the change is the capability of the machine to sense the input,and make changes to the output, by a method which we don't understand.

We have, as in Wallace's description above, vainly grasped the first relationship observed, and picked an effect as a cause. (Note that while it is true that no output changes occur unless there are input changes, that is, input changes are a necessary condition for output changes, they - like water for corn - are only necessary, not causal. (Note in this context, plants require water, light, heat, dozens of nutrients and other conditions for growth; while these are necessary, [effects of the environment] they are not causal, the cause of the growth being strictly a property of the genome).

In the same way, "selection" i.e. "survival", (Darwin's definition) is necessary for existence, but is not the cause of evolution, (if such even exists.) This is precisely one of the errors of Darwinism. Another is more clearly pointed out in the discussion which is continued below, on Survival of the Fittest. Back6

Some History
(7) As noted above, Darwin's original explanation for evolution, Natural Selection, received criticism from even his closest friends partially because of the florid language used in the definition of it, but more because of the lack of supporting evidence. For example, Darwin chiefly defined it (and the same technique is carried on to this day) by reference to its effects , which technique is not a definition at all, but rather an analogy, as opposed to a scientific explanation of the method by which it worked:

"It may metaphorically be said that Natural Selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, the slightest variations; rejecting those that are bad, preserving and adding up all that are good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life." From Darwin's book, "Origins". (Note that the word "metaphorically" was added in later editions, to deflect criticism.)

But in as much as Darwin retreated somewhat from this position, as noted above, in substituting the term Survival of the Fittest for Natural Selection, the "new" terminology must also be examined to see if it contains a scientific explanation for the process of evolution he espoused. Back7

(8) The Real Meaning of Survival of the Fittest - a Tautology
The term Survival of the Fittest is a phrase that describes the outcome of a competition where there is no possibility or even probability (such as can be done in game theory) of predicting the outcome in advance because of the variability of the conditions of the competition. By its very nature it is a tautology, regardless of the situation in which it is used. It describes only the effect, or outcome, of a competition, not the cause of the outcome, and the cause must be investigated separately. For example, if it were used to describe the outcome of an auto race such as the Indy 500 (one of the premier 500 mile races in the USA), describing the race, or outcome, as "survival of the fittest" would indicate that the victor would be unknown until the end of the race.

Likewise, if discussing the survival of a business in a collapsing economy or perhaps the survival of a race of people during the fierce competition of a war, use of the term Survival of the Fittest, while it may tend to show that the user had some fore-knowledge of the outcome, would in fact indicate that nothing would be known about the outcome until the end of the particular event. Herbert Spencer used the term to describe the result of some of his socio-political theories (Social Darwinism) on the struggle for human existence, during Darwin's day, in an attempt to explain the cause of the events. Back8

(9) The Perceived Meaning of Survival of the Fittest
Survival of the Fittest was originally used by Spencer as above, and its use was urged upon Darwin by both Spencer and Wallace as a better, more descriptive, explanation of the mechanism by which evolution occurred, as compared with Natural Selection. "Fittest" is the term which defines the condition of a survivor in the Darwinian scheme. It is not independently defined however, such that it gives the term a precise meaning, which is absolutely necessary for specificity if it is to be used in a definition.

The term is, in fact, a variable in the mathematical sense and thus ambiguous. The meaning of it becomes clear only after the action of survival has occurred. To explain the existence of species by describing them as "Survivors of the Fittest" is essentially to say "Things are the way they are because that's the way they are", which is a comparable statement of specificity. We know nothing of their characteristics beforehand, and this is precisely why Darwin's theory fails one of the great tests of a true theorem: it has no predictability. Even diehard evolutionists admit this. Survival of even a specific organism can be dependant on hundreds of separate conditions, all different.

But the term, in and of itself, also contains an implicit assumption, making it more believable, that survivors are an improved form of organism compared to those which do not survive. Spencer had this belief.

Such of course is not the case, and there is no intent here to state that any thinking biologist, Darwin included, believed this to be true. (However, his florid terminology suggests this and when introduced to young students, still learning the process of logic, the meaning will be little other than that. This is particularly true when the operation of a tautology is not properly understood; thus to a certain portion of individuals the term itself seems to be an explanation for evolution.)

And in fact, the term itself summons up a vision of continual incremental improvement in an object such as a car, watch, or other artifact made by man, as it is often used this way. Alternately, any process performed over and over is likewise subject to trial and error for the purpose of improvement, and for example, the recipe for a loaf of bread would possibly be perfected by this means. But note that in every such case, intelligence is applied in the improvements.

Not so however is this true in the field of biological reproduction. There is no intelligence available to weed out the deficient and modify the process toward a more desirable end. Here, Survival of the Fittest is far more likely to mean less complexity, and a simpler organism, since a change in conditions of existence is far more likely to require increased adaptability in the genome which is unavailable.

Thus the survivors are (of course) the fittest, but in this case a far simpler organism such as bacteria. There is little doubt that one of the great mysteries of history, the demise of the Dinosaurs, could be termed a routine application of the concept of Survival of the Fittest, where the fittest were some form of bacteria. However, this statement explains nothing, except to display the lack of meaning of Darwinian terminology. It goes without saying that this outcome is not envisioned as a form of evolution that is intended to be described by Darwin's theory.

Yet a look at the fossil record shows that something like 99% of the survivors were simpler organisms. So once again, as in the case of the term Natural Selection, a detailed look at a Darwinian process shows an entirely unlikely outcome from that outlined by the theory, in its attempt to explain the order and complexity so evident. Even so, it should be acknowledged that the fact that even 99.99% of survivors are simpler organisms, this fact is no proof (excluding statistics) that the survivors we know about today are not the 0.01% of survivors that are more fit from a complexity standpoint and thus prove the methodology of the theory. But another avenue of logic, with consideration of the word "fit", will be presented to show conclusively that such is not the case.

Discussion of the "Fittest". What is it?
Of all the barbs thrown at the concept of Darwin's theory, probably none is more prevalent than the claim that the term Survival of the Fittest is a tautology; of all the defenses of the theory, explanations of how and why it is not are likewise probably the most numerous. Darwin himself tried to give explanations of the term "fittest" in such a way that they did not appear to be synonymous with the word "survival". For example, he stated:

"Generally, the most vigorous males, those which are best fitted for their places in nature, will leave most progeny." Darwin's book, "Origins".

This statement of course is a perfect example of Darwin's habit of "circular reasoning" and is also a classic example of a tautology. (Could those males who generally produced the "least" number of progeny possibly be defined as the "fittest"?)

A perhaps more modern rephrase of the statement:

"Statistically, those animals that are the most fit for survival will create the population of descendants whose characteristics will eventually come to dominate the genome."

says identically the same thing in a somewhat more obscure manner (=obfuscation), and while the tautology is not as clearly evident, it is none the less a tautology.

In short, neither statement says anything other than the fact that the survivors (and their characteristics) will tend to survive. The statement is unquestionably true because by its very nature it cannot be false. It predicts nothing about the characteristics of the survivors, or how or why they will survive. Consequently it is meaningless and of no use to the argument or explanation.

But as above, and as in the case of the term Natural Selection, Darwin meant something by the term Survival of the Fittest also. The acceptance of it by the biological community, of long standing, shows that it conveys some kind of meaning as an explanation for a process that is otherwise not understood. So an examination of the usual use of the word "fittest" will be made to see what the true meaning of it, in a "trial and error" situation would be, and judge if this meaning is either correct, or adds to the explanation of the concept of evolution.

The Very "Fittest"
If it is speculated that the term "fittest" refers to an organism which has the best (ultimate) capability for acquiring, holding, and using all available nutrients, all the while developing or having a capability of fending off threats to its existence, this concept would indeed be an explanation for a certain possible type of organism.

For example, if marine coral were an interconnected, integrated organism, with a need for correct functioning of all of its parts to maintain the existence of the whole, it could be called a "fittest" organism, in its own right, without the reference to "survivorship" to determine its fitness. There are many coral deposits throughout the world, some which are immense in size, (such as the body of extinct coral which is currently the State of Florida, USA) but unfortunately, marine coral is really not an organism, per se, but rather a collection of organisms, similar to filamentous algae. Since there are really no such organisms in existence as described above, it must be concluded that this is not what the "fittest" is, in the sense of Darwin's meaning.

Limited Fitness
Therefore the meaning of the word "fitness" as contained in Survival of the Fittest can only be construed as the organism somehow fitter than other members of a class (in the sense of the word "best") of organisms falling into a special group such as a species, not, as above, the very fittest organism in the universe. This is consistent with the descriptions used by Darwin and also used by most evolutionists in the explanation offered for the mechanism of evolution. (Note that there is no consideration here of the meaning of the term as used by geneticists or population ecologists).

It is therefore concluded that Darwin meant this aspect of fitness, and using this description as a definition for the characteristics of survivors, it is possible to study known survivors, kind of in a "reverse engineering" sort of way, and see if they are in some manner "the best" (which would make them the "fittest"). (Yes. its still a tautology, but perhaps the meaning will become clear as the argument progresses). A few organisms will be looked at using this definition. Back9

(10) The Mighty Oak. (Family Quercus) Is it the fittest?
Trees have been around for 300 million years by some accounts. It therefore must be assumed that each species currently living, having survived either in its present form or (allowing evolution) evolved form, must represent the fittest form of its species. If Darwin's theory is correct, the principles of Survival of the Fittest, based on the "struggle for existence", combined with the action of Natural Selection would make it so unlikely as to be impossible that after this period of time there could be any "less-than-fittest" characteristic in a species such as for example, the mighty oak. If physical characteristics of the oak such as its size, shape, strength, and reproductive capacity are studied one should reasonably expect that it is impossible to make any improvements in any of them, after perhaps a 100 million year period of becoming the "fittest". It would have to be considered the "best". (Note that Darwin, Wallace and most biologists consider that organisms are "perfectly" adapted to their niches).

So when studying for example, its reproductive capability and noticing what appears to be a very inefficient system, it becomes obvious that something is wrong either in the premise (that it is the fittest) or the conclusion (that the reproductive system is inefficient). (After all, Darwinists as well as most biologists are quick to explain how the organism with the most efficient system will necessarily come to dominate a species, since inefficient forms cannot compete.)

Briefly, the method of reproduction of the oak involves the production of an acorn, a fertilized seed rounded or oblong in shape about 1/2 inch (12 mm.) in diameter which drops from the tree after maturity. This seed, if by some means covered by soil, if all else goes well, produces offspring. In and of itself, this system works well, as oaks are very plentiful throughout compatible portions of the planet. But when compared with other seed reproduction systems it is indeed nothing but archaic.

A look at the simple Dandelion, shows a seed dispersal system more efficient by at least several orders of magnitude than that of the oak. If one were to hazard a guess it might be assumed that the energy required to produce one acorn would be roughly the equivalent of the energy needed to produce one whole dandelion plant. A typical plant contains perhaps 200 seeds, and has a dispersal range of hundreds of miles by use of the wind. Likewise with a comparison to other trees, such as the Willow and the Cottonwood which have a dandelion-type seed, the oak shows a similar deficiency in seeding ability.

Thus, it is difficult to imagine Darwin's theory being at work here, constantly weeding out those trees which produce large, very costly (in the competitive sense) seeds, in favor of those trees which produce smaller and smaller seeds with a marvelous dispersal system such as the dandelion. It seems that in a matter of only several hundred thousand years (hazarding another guess) the actions of continuously choosing "the fittest" by the Darwinian process would produce the rather trivial (by comparison) changes necessary to make the oak and all of its characteristics, the "fittest" in every respect. (Note that while the oak may be more "fit" in comparison to other species of trees, it still must compete with those of its own species for survival, and thus the requirement of Darwinian fitness would be imposed).

The fact that many plants and other trees have supposedly evolved to this condition, with highly efficient reproductivity, makes the situation even more inexplicable, to the extent that the basic premise, namely that "survival of the fittest" works at all, is logically called into question. But if this situation is truly unexplainable in reference to Darwin's theory, let us look at other, similar, situations which also need explanation.

The Fruit Fly - Drosophila Melanogaster. Is it the Fittest?
A look in the animal kingdom shows the rapidly reproducing fruit fly, (about 2 weeks per generation) with a serious deficiency, that being the inability of the fly to penetrate even the thinnest of skins of any fruit, and thus release the sugar which starts the process to produce their food. Mechanisms/processes to accomplish this are available in thousands of organisms, both in the animal and vegetable kingdoms. Boring mechanisms, such as in the mosquito, stingers, such as in the bee/wasp, or a dissolving fluid such as produced by other insects, abound in nature. It is absolutely inexplicable in the Darwinian sense, that some device or method of doing this would fail to evolve over the past eons of their existence.

Thus it must be concluded that while they are survivors, they are not the "fittest". Darwin's theory cannot explain it. (Even Dawkins' metaphoric "random walk" up "Mount Improbable", explaing all random aspects of evolution, has ended up in a morass or chasm from which there is no escape; the summit is unobtainable and "selection" has mysteriously stopped.)

In all there are estimated to be at least 5, perhaps 15 million different species, only about 1.5 M of them having been cataloged. With each species having hundreds of physical characteristics required for survival, we have a right to expect that each one of them, with perhaps a few explainable exceptions, are the fittest. As can easily be seen by reference to two of the most common species, they are not.

Thousands of other examples exist, including most of the common food items such as fruits, nuts, and vegetables (do you really need an object the size of a watermelon to produce seeds?). In the animal kingdom, the most unlikely dairy cow, with its three stomachs, defies Darwinian explanation: many other milk producers get by with but one stomach.

Therefore Darwin's theory has not explained some of the simplest facets of the existing spectrum of living organisms, in the highly developed state in which they exist. For example, the current belief that the immensely complex bird feather, the mammalian immune system and other extremely complex and of necessity, synergistic systems, evolved by Darwinian means, has to be weighed against the theory's inability to explain relatively trivial deficiencies such as those mentioned above. Back10

(11) Another, Broader, more Likely Outcome of Natural Selection
It thus appears to be very possible that Darwin's theory (and all derivatives) is in reality a much better prescription for a condition which might be called "mono-speciation". His Natural Selection, which has to act ubiquitously over all organisms in a given area, would be more likely to create similarity, not diversity. It's hard to understand how, over the eons since the Cambrian Explosion, organisms could maintain the unique characteristics we see today if they were constantly evolving to the "fittest" condition, as required by his theory.

Instead of squirrels, rabbits, chipmunks, skunks, groundhogs, raccoons, and the most improbable 200 million-year-old opossum, Darwin's Natural Selection more easily predicts that there would be one genus or perhaps only one species filling these niches. The variants required need be no different than the breeds of dogs, of which there are something like 500 or so. Science does not know the answer to this proposition. (But again as above, note the possibility of the "reverse logic" involved in the consideration.) Back11

(12) Limitations of Fitness
Sections preceding this, (9) through (11) discuss fitness and illustrate organisms which are not the "fittest" but have existed for millions of years, virtually unchanged. So if the oak had a reproduction system as efficient and by comparison as simple as (say) the cottonwood or the dandelion, its very existence would severely challenge any other type of trees; and if the fruit fly had an ability to puncture the skin of most fruit it would once again drastically alter and perhaps nearly eliminate the production of fruit (at least as we know it).

An obvious conclusion drawn from these facts is that all the species that are known today are in reality, more like artifacts with arrested development of some of their features. The result is a series of organisms whose characteristics have been limited by some process unknown to science. This feature explains diversity. Again Darwin's theory cannot explain this phenomenon. Back12

(13) The Malthusian Connection to Evolution
The fact that both Darwin and Wallace cite the "Malthusian" concept, often described as the "struggle for existence" (which places a limit on the number of survivors) as the foundation for their theories is considered to be one of the great coincidences in the field of Science. (In actuality, it may not be a coincidence at all since there is growing evidence that Darwin's contribution to the theory, which appeared only after his reading of Wallace's "Ternate" paper in 1858, was not original.)

In any event, given even that the Darwin/Wallace theory is correct, the concept has nothing to do with the "cause" of evolution, rather it would affect only the "speed" or rate of same. If evolution proceeds on a "trial and error" basis, the Malthusian concept simply increases the number of trials, which would naturally increase the rate of evolution.

However, the action is immensely important to the outcome of the biological process in that it filters out the defective organisms from a population and in that respect is, in the strictest sense, a "quality control" process. The process is therefore the exact opposite of evolution and contributes to the stability of the genome.

It is basically one of the maintenance of diversity, not of the cause of diversity. Note here again, the inverse logic so typical of Darwinian thought. (We can be thankful for this process because without it, this planet would be full of deformed, dying, and dead organisms, rampant sites for the proliferation of disease, as opposed to the marvelous order currently evident. Bacteria, by far the most prolific predators and seldom if ever recognized as such by biologists, are chiefly responsible for this order. Once again, nothing in Darwinian evolutionary theory explains or accounts for it.) Back13

(14) Some Predictions at odds with Darwin's theory
As discussed above in (9) above, the very hallmark of any theory, is the ability to explain hitherto unknown processes (cause and effect relationships) which may be in question and under study. It has been noted by many critics and even supporters of Darwinism, that predictions based on the theory are not possible, and likewise, that it is not falsifiable. Many defenses are made, also, of this charge.

But hypothetical predictions about biological events can be made even though no one living today will live to see the outcome. There is nothing however, which limits speculation about events which could develop according to the theory, and then comparing current reality with what is concluded. Thus, the DT will speculate about certain species which could reasonably be expected to have evolved, assuming for the moment that Darwin's theory is sound.

Regarding the oak tree above, the query has already been made as to the unexplainable limitation of its reproductive capability. It is very hard to see how, if the oak had developed a first rate reproduction system such as the type used by bacteria or mushrooms, (with appropriate differences of course) that there would be such a variety of other plants in existence. Oaks, like many trees, have the ability to limit the growth of other plants for a considerable distance around their perimeter, and it is most likely, if they were really the Darwinian fittest, that they would be the dominant vegetation. Fruit trees, flowers, grasses and myriad other plant life might be virtually nonexistent. To say that the consequences of this would be remarkable is a gross understatement. Again, if the fruit fly had acquired the ability to penetrate the skin of most fruit, over the last 100 M years, the results would be equally remarkable and in fact, disastrous from our point of view.

But things could be worse. There is a wide open niche in the world of large mammals, (as there is in many other areas) for attack by a predator from the air. Vampire bats fill this niche to a very limited degree, as they obtain blood (their food) in a kind of hit-and-miss mode.

Let us suppose that another bat-like animal, developing under the Darwinian principle of constant, gradual, "survival of the fittest", had honed it's predatory capability to where it had developed a venom-based attack system not unlike that found in snakes. Further let us assume that the fluid it used (being the fittest) would paralyze the largest of mammals, allowing the bats to feed at will for a long period of time, similar to the way wasps provide for their young; (note that all the elements to accomplish this are available in many forms throughout existing organisms - thus the changes, again, would be trivial and consistent with genetic possibilities. Likewise, a hypothetical scenario can easily be constructed to explain the "evolutionary" steps).

This development would be the death knell for the mammalian species as it exists today, including mankind, had it occurred. Obviously it hasn't. How to explain this in the Darwinian sense?

Once again, Darwin's theory has no direct explanation, and none of the "principles" that arise from it have any; in fact, the application of his theory - millions of years for development of such complex things as the eye - somehow doesn't seem to work for the trivial possibilities that are mentioned above, which should have been "evolving" for the millions of years; how is it that they have stopped?

Worse, because there are no rational explanations for these unexplainable "non-evolutions" they are either virtually ignored or obfuscated in writings in the field of biology. This is science?

As an example, Stephen J. Gould (the Harvard biologist and dedicated evolutionist) obfuscates ideas such as these in a Scientific American article, whose prologue reads:

"The earth's creatures have evolved through a series of contingent and fortuitous events." (em. added.)

Thus, the non-evolution of the "predatory bat", an efficient oak seeding mechanism and a skin piercing feature of the fruit-fly are unexplained "fortuitous" events. (Note also that they are extremely "contingent" events - like the "evolution" of the eye - each step is contingent upon all previous steps as well as all following steps for there to be a workable eye).

Likewise the buoyancy of ice, transparency of water vapor below saturation (100% relative humidity) and opacity of water vapor at saturation (forming clouds), three of many properties of water absolutely necessary for life, both contingent and fortuitous, do not need explanation in a scientific sense. They can be ignored as they tend to show "intelligence" or "planning" in the universe, (and contradict Darwinian theory of "randomness").

At the very least, Gould recognizes that events (and of necessity non-events) can be fortuitous. He does not go so far as to explain or even suggest how millions of supposedly random occurrences can turn out that way. It's apparent that things don't work in that manner; the laws of probability and science cannot currently explain such "fortuity". Darwin's theory does not either. Yet this is exactly what is necessary for a theory which "explains" as Darwin's theory is supposed to do. Scientifically we are back in the days where the "god of lightning" is still dueling with the "god of thunder", using Darwin's (or Gould's) theory. Back14

Fallacious Theories: The Lucy Principle
Beliefs die hard, and for many reasons. Darwin's theory explains to a believer what is probably the greatest mystery of the universe, perhaps even greater than the mystery of the origin of matter, space and time. It is a Godsend to atheists, agnostics and Secular Humanists. Those who work in the field of biology must derive great satisfaction from the belief in Darwinism, in that they are working in a field that is "well understood", albeit the minor gaps which are not yet explainable.

Unfortunately, once a decision or position such as this has been taken on a subject, it is seldom reversed. Witness the unfortunate decision made by Alfred Russel Wallace. Wallace published the decision for Natural Selection (not using this phrase) in his Ternate Paper, the idea having come to him during a delirium produced by an attack of Malaria. Once published, he never budged from this position during his lifetime. Thereafter he clung to his decision, even going so far as to write a book on the "Theory of Natural Selection" and another entitled "Darwinism", upholding the decision made in delirium. This was against his prior explicit and succinct statement of the "cause/effect" reversal principle, so germane to Darwinist theory, which is quoted above and so relevant it is repeated here:

"We are like children [who are] looking at a complicated machine of the reasons of whose construction they are ignorant, and like them we constantly impute as causes what is really effect in our vain attempts to explain what we will not confess that we cannot understand."

This principle of why beliefs are hard to shed is exemplified by a memorable episode in the comic strip "Peanuts" (not exactly a paragon of science, but nonetheless illustrative), in a discussion between Charley Brown and Lucy: Lucy looks skyward and says "Charley, did you ever notice that clouds make words? Charley looks up and says to her, "Lucy, that is skywriting". Lucy looks up and says "yes, but sometimes clouds do make words."

Using this analogy, it is easy to understand how young students, years away from the ability to discriminate between scientific logic and illogic, would adopt the concept of Natural Selection as an explanation for evolution, and cling to it for the rest of their life; how else to explain the statement of one of the most respected of biologists, by all accounts an intelligent and learned person, Ernst Mayr, Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology, Emeritus, at Harvard.

He makes the statement in his book "The Growth of Biological Thought" attributing the inability of Natural Selection to PREVENT extinction as essentially non-understandable by Darwinian theory. His actual quote, while discussing the unsolved problem of extinction in the field of evolutionary biology is "(...[w]hy is natural selection so helpless to prevent it?"). (Note that this chair at Harvard is currently held by the equally renowned evolutionist Stephan J. Gould.)

This tragic misunderstanding of the power of Natural Selection, which power is so forcefully presented by Darwin in his book "Origins" , can only be explained by a commitment to the idea in the same sense as the one made by Alfred Russel Wallace above, and should raise a red flag to those who are concerned about the indoctrination of erroneous ideas in the mind of the young.

(15) The Five Senses Hypothesis [See also Addendum below]
This is an unstated belief system which, for many scientists, underlies the study of all the physical sciences. The most important feature of this belief is that all phenomena in the universe are capable of being measured, or acknowledged, by one of the five senses of man. Thus there are no forces or actions of any kind in existence which ultimately will not be discovered and recognized by these senses. (It should be understood that much instrumentation, computers, etc. aid the process). But the "bottom line" of this hypothesis is that ALL phenomena are under the purview and (therefore possible) eventual control of mankind. See also the discussion in Thesis #2 (above).

For a simple example, Gravity is considered to be well understood, as the equations of Newton and Einstein display; however, the cause of gravity is completely unknown and indeed little else is known about it; e.g., it is not known whether there is a "speed" of gravity, as there is for light waves, or its action is "instantaneous". (For that matter, [to my knowledge] it could just as well be a "repulsive" force as opposed to the "attractive" force which it is always considered - there appears to be no scientific evidence for either explanation).

Likewise, Light, Magnetism, Radiation of all sorts and other phenomena are completely unknown as to their "cause"; any who believe that we are even close to the understanding of these phenomena, are prime candidates for belief in "evolution" as outlined by the Darwinian theory. (One of the foremost prosthelytizer of evolution, Stephen J. Gould, (see also (14) above) [who incidentally, equally proselytizes Communism] states that (paraphrasing) 'Evolution is as much a fact as Gravity'. The Doubting Thomas agrees. The "cause" of "Evolution", to science, is as much a mystery as is the cause of gravity.)

When Evolution is studied under the above premise, of necessity, all other possibilities for "cause" are eliminated. Creationism, including "Theistic Evolution" (the Alfred Wallace version of Darwinian theory) of any kind, is ruled out . Ruled out as well is the possibility of a Creator, miracles, conceptual thought, free will, and many other phenomena, which are entirely possible and routinely believed in by the great majority of people, as well as many unbiased scientists.

These above ideas are often completely disdained by "scientists". This attitude, so often considered as "enlightenment" is in logical fact not only ignorance but a downright irrational belief. Since none of these possible concepts can be disproved by Science, why is the disproof of these possibilities considered as fact?

Under the Five Senses Hypothesis, the activities of all organisms including man are thus a process of simple programmed behavior, which will (hopefully) someday be understood in natural terms. This conclusion of scientific belief is most appropriately termed "naturalism". It should properly be a concept of Philosophy, but is considered by some evolutionists to be, like evolution itself, a "fact".

Without an understanding of this hypothesis, the process of much scientific investigation contains an assumption, which to the uninitiated (students) is a "hidden agenda". In order to properly understand the limits of scientific thinking, this basic assumption must be acknowledged. Needless to say, this assumption is the basis for the beliefs of Secular Humanists, and is one of the chief reasons for the objection to the teaching of Darwinism in schools.

This entire concept is termed a "hypotheses" because there is no proof whatsoever for it, and as long as there is one outstanding Question, (about anything in the field of science) there never will be; more correctly, it should be termed a "speculation", and in reality it is probably, for many, only a Hope.

(Note also, that a Nobel Prize is never given for a theoretical inquiry of the type made famous by Stephen Hawking, [A Brief History of Time] rather it is bestowed only when a theory has been "proven" by demonstration to one of the five senses, by verifiable experiment).

Further, a Nobel Prize has never been bestowed for any finding involving any type of "evolution"; Darwin, Wallace, Spencer, and all others connected with the "theory" remain uncited, in spite of the plethora of publication on the subject. In Darwin's case alone, there are thousands of books written in adulation of him and support for his theory). Back15

(16)Darwinism: the controlling paradigm
The growing controversy over the teaching of evolution in schools is in large part due to the failure to clearly state the limits of Science in the explanation of biological matters.

One would think that, in light of the above, the very first item on the agenda in Science Studies, in the very early grades, would be an explanation of the above hypothesis and the consequences of it explained and discussed. This posture would alleviate many of the objections currently causing problems in studies of evolution in the schools. A clear understanding of the premises would enable a variety of beliefs to co-exist with the theories currently held by the biological community. Dogmatic beliefs from any source would thus be acceptable.

The current system, relying on a nearly universal belief in Darwinian concepts, would be augmented with a presentation of competing theories none of which are disprovable by "science", yet all of which are scientific possibilities. Most importantly, refutations of current theory, virtually missing from the educational system, would be presented.

In passing, it ought to be noted that under the current situation, to dedicated evolutionists there is no objection to Philosophy being a part of Science, and the fact that it is absolutely unthinkable to them that any other basis of belief such as Religion be a part of it only shows a bias of the same sort that keeps Darwin's theory alive. Of course, neither Philosophy nor Religion are a proper consideration of the physical sciences. Back16

CLOSURE:
There is another belief system held to be as true and is probably more widespread than the belief in Darwin's theory; that is belief in Astrology. This theory parallels belief in evolution in the respect that it is persistent, without an explainable mechanism, and tautologous in the sense that predictions of behavior of an individual can be made based solely on time of birth, but seemingly cannot be made without this information.

Darwin's theory on the other hand, explains the reasons for characteristics of organisms after knowing whether or not they are survivors. The similarities between the two theories are so striking, that it is felt necessary to call them to the attention of the reader.

⁽¹⁾DEFINITIONS

Preamble to Definitions:
Even though a refutation of the above arguments cannot logically be made through a refutation of the definitions, virtually all email received in opposition to the arguments have objected to aspects of the definitions, this being done as an attempt to refute the arguments. This process itself is a logical fallacy.

As an explanation of the definitions, they basically describe the usage of the terms throughout the majority of books, textbooks, and papers in general secular construction. Thus, most of these publications describe living organisms as having "evolved". Natural Selection/Survival of the Fittest is the "cause" or mechanism for that evolution, while Darwin's theory establishes the guiding principles of that evolution.

Darwin's Theory: a scientific theory that explains the development, from the basic fundamental properties of the elements in the periodic table, of all the diverse living organisms in the universe, by a process that is random in its entirety. Of necessity it denies the need for miraculous intervention of any kind, but does not, except by implication, rule it out. It includes at least four (4) variations of the theory beginning with the first publication of his book "Origins" to the most recent theory often called "The New Synthesis". It differs from the "Darwin/Wallace theory", since it lacks the Wallacean "spiritual intervention". The stated and implied intent of Darwin was to displace the then-current idea that species existed strictly as a result of an act(s) of Creation, as described in Genesis.

But the vast majority of books, textbooks and references to it treat the theory as an explanation for development of all life, as above; e.g.

"[Y]ou are an animal and share a common heritage with earthworms...", a quote from "Biology" Johnson, Holt Rinehart Winston 1994. p. 453 from the booklet "Education or Indoctrination", Access Research Network.

thus the definition as above. Note that Darwin, from the second edition of "Origins" on, included the idea that life was originally "breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one;"
But see the definition "Evolution" below.

Natural Selection: The term originally used by Darwin to explain the causal mechanism which is responsible for the operation of his theory. In scientific, and to some extent lay circles, it replaced the idea that "Creation" was the causal mechanism. Darwin later abandoned this term in favor of the term Survival of the Fittest. The term Natural Selection is important because it is currently used by virtually all evolutionists as the explanation for the mechanism originally intended by Darwin, in spite of his essential retraction, as above.

Survival of the Fittest: The term later adopted by Darwin to explain the mechanism of evolution after the criticism received from so many of his peers, to Natural Selection. According to Darwin the term "is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient". The arguments on this page attempt to show that the concept of the term is, independently, both erroneous and circular (a tautology).

Evolution: a process of development of living organisms which has the capability to increase the variety and complexity of them, from the very first prokaryotic cell through to the development of the most complex of living organisms, by a trial and error process. This process is undirected by any method other than the fact of the success or failure of those organisms, which has been directed by the process called Natural Selection/Survival of the Fittest.

Please note that for the purpose of argument this definition also includes abiogenesis (the self-development of living matter from basic chemicals) because virtually all books, textbooks and evolutionists consider that cell evolution occurred in this manner, the mechanism being not dissimilar to Darwinian evolution. As above, this idea is expressed either directly, or by implication, in most literature about evolution and for that reason is included here. (It should be noted that in the field of biology alone, there are likely a 1000 definitions of "evolution" which range from a simple description of the change in length of a bird beak, to that of abiogenesis, above).

Addendum

The "Five Senses Hypothesis" is a term that was coined to "put a name on" an unacknowledged assumption made by virtually all well-known (or perhaps "well publicized") scientists whenever anything about science is discussed. The assumption is as follows:

Thus the limitation of these five senses is a restriction on what man may know.

As an example, let us assume that there is a worldwide association of worms, (yes underground worms, sometimes [ugh!] used for fishing). At the annual association meeting of the AOUW, the topic comes up about the possibilities of other living organisms, such as perhaps a "rose" (the flower) existing.

The scientist worms will have none of this, because they believe in the "Two Senses" hypothesis, that is "feel" and "taste". Everything in their existence can be explained by reference to these two senses. Thus, there is no such thing as a rose. The subject of "music" never comes up, because there is no such thing as sound. Their knowledge is thus limited by the limitation of their senses and the dogmatic application of the hypothesis.

Comments, particularly critical comments, are welcome. If you have arguments involving any of these positions, as opposed to strong feelings about them, you are invited to reply to the email address below, stating your refutation, extension, or other logical comments. Note as above, that there have been many objections to the definitions, but this is not a refutation of the arguments, even though deficient definitions can admittedly make arguments immaterial. Click on the email address below to send a message. All email is answered unless requested otherwise.

Page created by: dbtngtms@tdtone.org

Search Engine Optimization and Free Submission

16 Theses which refute Darwinian Evolution As presented by

The Doubting Thomas

Published 7/23/99
Rev. June 4, 2004
Jan. 23, 2004  

Preamble

The ideas discussed on this page should be considered merely representative of common ideas expressed on the subject of evolution and Darwinism. Most current books, textbooks, and the general media, present at least some of these erroneous concepts as accepted fact. Contrary ideas such as those presented here are rarely mentioned, much less discussed. Note that there are many more ideas hostile to Darwinian theory, such as the (3) (yes three) billion+ year gaps in the fossil record, which are unexplainable and likewise virtually never discussed. (For example, the first of these, a discussion of the 3 1/2 Billion year gap in the "evolution" of the DNA molecule, has yet to be seen by this writer, in print.)

Currently there is no evidence for one iota of evolution in this molecule which, of course, is the basis for all living organisms which have ever existed. It seems that anyone studying biology or evolution should be more interested in the "origin" of this molecule as opposed to the "origin" of species; such, however, is not the case. From current appearances, the DNA molecule "ocurred", intact, as it is today, about 3+ billion years ago; what is its origin? Where did it come from, and how? This ought to be the abiding question in the entire field of both science and biology. Instead it is ignored in favor of a 150 year old explanation made by those who had no knowledge whatsoever of the origin of life.

Thus this essay attempts to present a more balanced view of current Darwinian theory. If you are a student, parent or other interested party in the evolution controversy, the ideas presented here should be useful. They are in most part, simple and straightforward enough to be grasped by those above the primary school level. If your school system presents these errors as fact, here is an opportunity to question their methods. Should you require assistance in this process, feel free to email the DT at the address below.

Please recognize that no Creationist themes are contained in this article. It discusses various ideas dealing strictly with the logic and science of evolution. The question "Does Evolution Exist?" is not considered. (Neither is any proof offered that "evolution" does not exist in some form.) A closely related question however IS addressed. That question is:

"Does Darwinian Evolution Exist?"

In other words, does Darwin's theory as currently understood, provide scientific evidence for evolution that is credible? The 16 Theses presented below argue that so far as these ideas are concerned, they fail the rules of science and logic and therefore, are in reality, a series of beliefs. If this is true, you might rightfully ask 'Why are beliefs being taught as scientific fact?'.

The arguments which follow the Theses (plus other arguments not set out by numbers) present the proof. They are unambiguous, falsifiable, and can be refuted point by point, if such arguments exist.

16 Theses indexed to the arguments. Darwinian themes that are refuted.

Natural Selection

1. There is no connection at all between the two concepts "artificial selection" and (Darwinian) "Natural Selection". Down

2. The belief in evolution, per se, is based on several logical fallacies, one in particular, a "post hoc propter hoc" type of argument. Down

3.Belief that "selection" of some kind is the cause of evolution, is an example of the process of inverse reasoning, properly called "inverse logic", which is also a logical fallacy. Down

4. The idea that any type of action (a "cause") outside of the life of the organism is the cause of evolution is a "cause/effect" reversal. Down

5. Darwinian Natural Selection is ubiquitous: Kettlewell's experiment with the moths (supposedly demonstrating selection) is no proof of any aspect of evolution. Down

6. The cause of diversity is not a "selection" process; for analogy, this concept is supported by the operation of a hypothetical Natural Selection "machine". The output of the machine (like evolution) is not caused by any form of selection, as one might conclude, rather it is a phenomenon which is unknown. Down

Survival of the Fittest

7. Darwinists define the two terms, Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest, by their effects on organisms, as opposed to stating a detailed description of the process, or mechanism of operation, of either term; they are thus each, a non-sequitor. Down

8. The term Survival of the Fittest is a tautology. It predicts an undefined winner which can only be identified by the outcome of the competition in which the competitor is engaged. Down

9. Survival of the Fittest is also ambiguous, a misleading term that is unscientific. Down

10. All organisms such as the Oak tree, Fruit Fly, and others, have aspects of their organisms which are not the "fittest" by any definition. Down

11. If Darwin's theory was truly in operation, the number of species would be reduced from what is now evident. Down

12. The "fitness" of species is limited by a factor unknown to Science. Down

13. The "Malthusian" concept would not effect "evolution" except as to the "rate" of evolution; it promotes stasis rather than evolution. Down

14. Darwin's theory can neither explain the existence of the wide variety of open niches which exist on this planet, nor can any principles or laws it establishes explain the characteristics of current existing or non-existing species, or proto-species to fill the open niches. Down

Two Themes involving Science, used in the study of Evolution:

The "Five Senses Hypothesis"

15. Science Studies almost invariably operate under an assumption, not a part of Science, but rather a proper consideration of Philosophy. This assumption is called "naturalism". As science, it is erroneous. Down

16. Currently, the most prevalent interpretation of Darwinism virtually excludes all other possible scenarios as an explanation for life and all of its forms; this is a logical fallacy based on the "Five Senses Hypothesis". Darwinian Theory has inevitably become a stalking-horse for Naturalism, Secular Humanism, and other materialistic philosophies. Down

~~~~~~~~~

The following text is a version of the article "Natural Selection" as presented on another of the author's pages. (The arguments are identical, but the Theses have not been separately set out and there is no "Down/Back" feature as available here).

SYNOPSIS

This page explores what might be called the most fundamental belief in all of biological science, namely, whether or not the concepts contained in the terms "Natural Selection" and/or "Survival of the Fittest" are, either separately or together, a scientific explanation for the mechanism, or cause, of evolution. These two terms have been chosen for discussion not only because they launched "Darwinism" to the preeminent theory it has become, but also because of the almost universal use of them and all their derivatives, in biology books, papers, and particularly in textbooks.

Both of these terms, even though they have different intended meanings as shown below, are used almost interchangeably as the foundation of Darwin's theory of evolution, and have been, from the original publication in 1859, through to the present day. This in spite of the fact that his theory has gone through 4 or 5 versions incorporating new findings, the current version sometimes called "The New Synthesis".

While no argument is made of the status of "evolution" it is assumed throughout that evolution is not a scientific fact, contrary to another fundamental belief of evolutionists; however as above, the possibility of some sort of evolution is not ruled out either, the question not being germane to this discussion. If you are of the opinion that evolution is a proven fact, this entire discussion has to be considered as erroneous.

Also, a little off-topic to the overall discussion, a paragraph near the end explains how the Malthusian theory (relied on by many evolutionists as a "keystone" to both Darwin and Wallace) really fits into the idea of evolution. In another paragraph, predictions made using evolutionary theory are proposed and studied in attempt to test the theory.

CONCLUSION

It is shown that the process of reason that concludes that Natural Selection is a proper explanation for evolution is faulty, in actuality a process which is correctly termed "inverse logic". It is also shown that the term Survival of the Fittest, even if it were not a tautology, is not a meaningful explanation for evolution, since the organisms that survive are not in fact, the "fittest" by any standard whatsoever.

Darwin's theory takes advantage of the incredible ability of species adaptation to a variety of forms, and presents this capability in argument that explains it as the "cause" of evolution. Darwin's theory is in fact a prescription for "mono-speciation", and cannot explain the diversity so evident in the biological world. The cause of evolution, if it even exists, is currently (2000) unknown to science.

It is also suggested that the nearly rote learning of evolutionary theory is harmful to the development of the formation of the logical process of thought, particularly in the young.

Likewise it is concluded that the "Malthusian" concept is responsible for stasis rather than playing any part in "evolution" - just another example of the inverse logic of the Darwinists.

In closing, predictions made in accordance with the theory have, fortunately, not come true. It is no surprise to the DT that they have not, but Darwinists should be (but aren't) able to explain why this is so.

PREMISES AND DEFINITIONS

Believing that there is little point in proceeding in a discussion such as this without defining terms, meanings, suppositions and all other aspects of the arguments, critical terms are defined. Far too much of the discussion of this topic is carried out in an attempt to prove/disprove various aspects of what is generally called "Darwin's Theory", and because of a failure of the above, nothing meaningful is accomplished. (If you are tempted to reply by email, PLEASE read the definitions first - often a perceived disagreement is only a difference in definitions).

Thus the following definitions are established: ⁽¹⁾ (see below)

ARGUMENT
For Listed Arguments see below.

Introduction - Some Historical Background

Darwin's feelings about Natural Selection and evolution
Charles Darwin felt strongly that observations made on large scale explorations such as his voyage on the Beagle showed conclusively that many clearly different organisms, animals as well as plants, were related to one another by some as yet unknown law. In other words, evolution existed.

His belief as eventually stated, differed with the then-current Biblical-based system of beliefs in that the apparent differences were a result of deliberate Creation as described in the Bible. Darwin understood this as did others, and after years of study he proposed as an analogy for the operation of evolution, the well known method of "Artificial Selection" whereby characteristics of living organisms can be selected by breeders to produce altered characteristics of a species.

In his proposal, the action of "natural" processes takes over as the "intelligence" formerly attributed to the Creator and now does the "selection". His now famous book "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" published first in 1859, outlined how a purely natural process of selection could produce similar effects, and thus explain the development of new species without reference to supernatural intervention.

The meaning of Natural Selection as originally used by Darwin
As kind of an aside, in the book "Origins", Darwin used a strange, rather disingenuous method of introducing the term Natural Selection to the reader. It is labeled disingenuous because it is a technique used often by mystery writers to enhance the suspense connected with an effort. It should not be expected to be found in an essay on a scientific subject.

Nevertheless, Darwin takes you through a full three chapters of the book, hinting at a definition based solely on the effects of the as-yet unexplained process, all the while lauding the properties of Natural Selection, suggesting a scenario which dramatically increases the probability that the definition, once it is made, will be accepted. Then, in chapter four, he defines what has been called "the most important concept in biology (or science even)" in a mere 27 words:

"This preservation of favourable individual differences and variations, and the destruction of those which are injurious, I have called Natural Selection, (adding in a later edition) or the Survival of the Fittest."

Note that the process he describes is identical to the process used in "artificial selection", where the selector destroys those individuals which carry an injurious trait. Note importantly that the definition of Natural Selection is based on the effects of it, and the mechanism or cause is not stated. (What, exactly, does the selection?) Any reasonably suspicious person should be skeptical at this point, if not by the brevity of the explanation, by the simplicity of same and the fact that it was well known to all biologists. Darwin's reasoning seems to be, in effect, 'species have changed, and the only plausible explanation for it is that they have been "selected", therefore they have been Naturally Selected' - (which conclusion is typical of his pattern of thought, another excellent example of his ability of "circular reasoning").

In contrast to the reception of the scientific community as it is usually reported, Darwin was severally criticized by his peers for his use of the term. This criticism was sufficient to cause Darwin to first defend it as an "apocryphal" description and later to essentially abandon the term.

But Darwin meant something by the term, and the acceptance of it by the biological community of long standing shows that it conveys some kind of meaning as an explanation for a process that is otherwise not understood. So various aspects of the term will be examined below to determine, if nothing else, the perceived meaning. The story is not complete here however. Darwin himself had some misgivings in the face of criticisms, and these should be identified.

Darwin's backpedalling on "Natural Selection"
Darwin's book went through 6 editions in about a dozen years, and he had abandoned the term Natural Selection (but not the concept) after the fourth edition. In his own words, the term "Survival of the Fittest"

"is more accurate and is sometimes equally convenient." (em. added)

For those who find this difficult to believe, he went even further and stated in regard to sporting varieties of plants (which concept would apply as well to all living organisms) that

"...we clearly see that the nature of the conditions is of subordinate importance in comparison with the nature of the organism in determining each particular form of variation;- perhaps of not more importance than the nature of the spark, by which a mass of combustible matter is ignited, has in determining the nature of the flames." (em. added), (which is absolutely none - DT)

thus for all practical purposes abandoning the original concept of Natural Selection (selection by the "conditions").

Nonetheless, in spite of this turnabout in Darwin's feelings, the term is still used routinely throughout the field of biology and appears in virtually every textbook as an explanation for the cause if evolution. Thus further discussion is necessary.

LISTED ARGUMENTS
NATURAL SELECTION

(1) Some fallacies of Natural Selection - The concept of Natural Selection as an extension of artificial selection.
On the surface, the comparison is plausible, and was likely more so in Darwin's time, when nothing was known about genetics, DNA, or cell biology. In our current state of knowledge however, it should be understood that the characteristics which can be so easily manipulated by artificial selection are simply what could be called "pre-existing traits" - alleles - of an organism, and there is agreement that no new species are produced by this process. Likewise, selection by an intelligent being is done with a particular outcome as a goal; judgment, experience and corrections are made in the process.

"Natural" selection on the other hand, is in reality a response to an "effect", the only "choice" possible being an unalterable response of an organism. This is, by any stretch of logic, not a choice at all. It was termed "selection" solely in an attempt to rationalize the idea of an intelligent act. No purpose, goal, or choice is possible; thus there is no selection. As a result, there is no connection between the two mechanisms (assuming of course that Natural Selection exists in any form). Back1

(2) The "logical fallacy" aspect of belief in evolution: the "post hoc propter hoc" fallacy.
There are two (2) aspects to belief in evolution. One is that evolution is a "fact", another is that it is only a theory. While not all biologists believe that evolution is a fact, this idea is endorsed virtually without acknowledgement in the many books and text books on biology. A statement such as ....'the overwhelming evidence of evolution' .....occurs in most books on the subject, and the word "evolution" is used often, seemingly at every opportunity. (In contrast, the difficulties with Darwin's theory, as illustrated on this page and many others, is virtually ignored).

It should be noted that a rather subtle inference is contained in the oft-stated conclusion or representation that evolution is a fact: the belief is a direct refutation not only of any contrary scientific data, but just as well to any theistic evolutionary or Creationist belief. (Those who ponder the Creationist - Evolutionist controversy should consider this).

The above Latin term "post hoc propter hoc" (literally "after this [therefore] because of this") is a recognized logical fallacy. It best describes one type of argument made for belief in evolution. It is a term which describes a logical conclusion of "causation", in an appearance-based belief, for a cause-effect relationship. Thus the various similarities in organisms, which is recognized today and extends back well before Darwin's time, is the prime factor for this belief in evolution. Darwin formed this belief early on, and stated:

"In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist, reflecting on the mutual affinities of organic beings, on their embryological relations, their geographical distribution, geological succession, and other such facts, might come to the conclusion that species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species." (em. added) [ Darwin's book Origins ]

In the above quote the mutual affinities and embryological relations, establish the criteria for the conclusion. This conclusion, on its face, is hypothetical at best. Thus, if at least these two of the above four attributes of organisms did not exist, there would be no possibility of "evolution". Even though Darwin states that the facts might allow the conclusion for evolution, he understood this limitation, seemingly better than it is understood today, and stated so in following paragraphs of his book, not quoted. He never made the statement or assumed that "evolution is a fact", as is common today and in actuality expressed doubts that it could be proven; one of these, the continuity of the fossil record is well known as one of his objections.

It should be noted that much was unknown in Darwin's day e.g., the existence of "GACT" DNA was not even suspected until recently, so that Darwin's belief would be more plausible during his era, although still a "post hoc" fallacy. (Darwin made this observation after the end of his "Beagle" voyage and it was nearly twenty years later that the conclusion was published; during this time he was trying to get supporting facts for the conclusion).

When the "post hoc" argument is made, it is usually expressed in the following terms: If event "B" follows event "A" then event "B" has been caused by event "A". The only proper logical conclusion which can be made is as follows: "If event "B" follows event "A" then the possibility exists that event "B" has been caused by event "A".

As a practical example for clarity, two known facts, evidence of an oil spill and an automobile accident, might be the basis of an argument for the "cause" of the accident to be the presence of the oil. An assumption might be made that the oil prevented control of the vehicle and thus caused the accident.

For this possibility to be true, it must at the very least be demonstrated that event "a", the oil, preceded event "b", the accident. If the oil was not present prior to the accident, then this argument cannot be made. However, this is not a "sufficient" fact to demonstrate causality, only a "necessary" one for the relationship to be true. Therefore, while the proposition MAY be true, direct proof, such as the mechanism of the involvement of the oil in the accident, must be established. Likewise all other possibilities must be examined and eliminated as being causal in order to validate the conclusion. In the study of biological evolution, the same rules apply.

In the biological world, the similarity of appearance of two distinct species, one which may follow another in time or space, unquestionably allows the possibility that one is the ancestor of the other; many thousands of such similarities exist and there is much evidence that the more recent species display these similarities; hence the conclusion that evolution based on scientific observations has occurred, is a possibility . An argument that it HAS occurred on this basis alone, would be a "post hoc propter hoc" argument, a fallacy. Just as in the example above, in order for it to be considered a "fact" not only must the mechanism be proven as to its cause, but all other possibilities must be ruled out. In a situation as complex as organic life, this is currently impossible.

But as regards the "appearance" argument, which is probably the leading or at least most provocative argument for evolution, a very simple analogy is presented which calls into question the possibility of the conclusion being valid. As an example of this line of thinking, the following analogy is offered:

If you were to give, say, 100 people a common "tinker toy"* set, and allow them to build anything that they imagine, and then have the results viewed by scientists with a typical curiosity, you would present to them a class of objects that could very well be considered "evolutionary". Resemblances would be very plain; evolutionary lines could be arranged (as eohippus - the supposed "horse" sequence).

Arguments used to "prove" evolution of the fabricated "species" could be very similar to those used to prove Darwinian evolution. This would be true for no other reason than because of the similarity of characteristics of the fundamental parts. (This process would have to assume that, just as in Darwinian evolution, the "origin" of the objects had not been witnessed, and the existence of "tinker toys" was both unrecognized or unknown).

(Note that this is NOT an argument that evolution in some form has NOT occurred; it merely presents an analogous scenario which can easily explain the reason for the belief that "evolution exists" or is a "fact" - the striking similarity between different species, [which is the "post hoc propter hoc" argument]- without ever having witnessed the event.)

*[A child's play set, consisting of a number of basic parts of different size, shape and color that can be joined together to make a variety of objects. The analogy is obviously to the four basic units that make up the DNA molecule].

The analogy as presented is similar to the situation which existed in Darwin's time, with existence of DNA unknown. With today's knowledge it should be plainly evident the "similarity" of living objects can most easily be explained by the assumption that there is only a finite number of genes available for a viable genome.

Stringent requirements of the constitution of proteins (genes), which must possess the ability to fold to themselves and likewise to the chromosome and genome, (plus many unknown requirements) should be assumed to place limits on the expression of same thus calling into question the idea of "infinite" variability. Of course this is an assumption, but being the simpler of the two assumptions (similarity of appearance vs. similarity of genes) and in the light of developing knowledge in bio-chemistry and microbiology, the one that should be made. The principle of "Occam's Razor" requires this.

But also note how this assumption explains many other features of biology, inexplicable in Darwinian terms, such as these:

• extinction: non-explainable in Darwinian terms. Even the great evolutionist Ernst Mayr admits this. See discussion about this in argument (14) below. (99% of all species have been unable to adapt and are extinct).

• stasis: the long periods in the fossil record between the appearance of a species, its extinction, and the lack of intermediate species.
(The inability of species to undergo "gradual" modification).
• diversity: the ability of near-identical species to co-exist for eons. (Despite nearly identical "conditions of life", specie identity remains unaltered).
• survival of the "non-fittest": the ability of species to exist with less than optimal features. (Even trivial adaptation has not occurred through eons - as described in Theses 10 thru 14 below).

An excellent example of this similarity is the so-called "pentadactyl limb" the five digit limb, a characteristic of tetrapod vertebrates, (amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals) such as the arm, leg and hand/hoof and wing. The similarity of structure of this feature is taken as "prima facia" evidence of descendance and thus evolution.

However this feature is increasingly recognized as one basic gene in all organisms, modified by other portions of a genome in a manner that is becoming evident to microbiologists. Also, other similar, basic features of organisms which were once thought to have arisen by "evolution" have now been shown to have developed from disparate organs and are not homologous but rather analogous, unique to a particular organism. Michael Denton's book "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" points out this overlooked fact. Just as in the "tinker toy" analogy above, the "resemblance" would be caused by the similarity of components , as opposed to an ubiquitous "selection" scheme supposedly causing descent with modification.

It stands to reason, where there is a finite number of available components, and a virtually infinite number of species (either existing or extinct), resemblance is unavoidable. The conclusion that it is "caused" by a theory such as Darwin's has to be considered more of an attractive belief, similar to the wishful thinking which produced the flurry of interest in such phenomena as "Piltdown Man" or more recently "Kettlewell's Moths" (below). Both of these, after much reflection, turned out to be erroneous conclusions. Thus when you discount the scenario of apparent similarity as being indicative of descent, the remaining evidence does not warrant a conclusion of Darwinian evolution.

Other Fallacies
But another logical fallacy surrounding evolution, not directly a "post hoc propter hoc" argument but a related fallacy, is used in the attempt to prove that evolution exists, and it is a separate argument of its own:

Because of the fact that devolution (the decrease of order and complexity) apparently exists, at least in larger animals, there is likewise a belief that evolution (the increase of order and complexity) must of necessity also exist.

Thus the evidence of blind fish, sickle cell anemia, flightless beetles, vestigial structures and other such features of devolution (assumed to be caused by random variation/natural selection), is taken as evidence of evolution. In other words, the converse of the concept of devolution, evolution, is necessarily true. Sound logic as well as scientific evidence disputes this conclusion. No evidence exists as proof of this belief.

Nothing more will be said about this belief, except to point out that complex mechanisms can operate quite well with a random missing/inoperable part, but this observation neither proves, nor should it even suggest, that the random addition of a part will improve a mechanism.

Just for a simple example, not necessarily analogous: highways are littered with parts fallen from cars; has any part ever fallen on a car and improved its function? Other, analogous, examples abound.

But three other basic ideas or facts in addition to those mentioned above play a part in the formation of the conclusion as regards biological evolution:

• first, the reality of the myriad of living organisms requires, both in the secular and scientific world, an explanation.
• secondly, widespread similarity is, at least superficially, an easily recognizable inference of relationship: it is simple and obvious.
• thirdly, but of far more importance, an all-too-common scientific adherence to a closed belief system (which is here called the Five Senses Hypothesis [Thesis 15 below]) ⁽²⁾ eliminates any other possible conclusion for the similarity other than "evolution".

These ideas set up another argument, sometimes called "False Dilemma" or "Fallacy of Exclusion". This falls into the general "post hoc" category (which argument is very common in email replies to the DT also) and is stated thus:

".....Darwin's theory is all we've got".

Thus if there is no better explanation, Darwin's theory must be true. Yes, its all you've got if you accept the above three (3) premises (the need for an "explanation", widespread similarity of organisms, and the belief in "naturalism"). Once they are accepted, the argument about evolution, per se, is over. Since all other possibilities have been excluded, evolution has to be a fact. Following, if evolution exists as a fact, then the only explanation for it is that Natural Selection, somehow, exists also.

Other failed theories of the past shows they were at least partially supported by this type of argument. Not the least of these was the flat earth theory, probably the most damaging theory to plague mankind, if Darwin's theory is not such.

Thus, a large part of the argument for evolution is of the type called "post hoc propter hoc" - evolution is the explanation for the existence of organic life - based on what is recognized to be well known logical fallacies.
Back2

(3) The real meaning of Natural Selection
Since there are thousands of books written on the subject of evolution and many of them have a proprietary definition of Natural Selection, the concept will be discussed as defined below (under Definitions).

Briefly, in the process of increasing complexity of organisms, whatever factor that makes the choice for success in the trial and error process is what has "directed" the development of the organism. This was Darwin's original concept (Natural Selection), as above, which was abandoned by him, but this very same concept nonetheless is still used today as a rational explanation for evolution.

The concept is nothing but an erroneous technique of thought sometimes called "inverse reasoning" (also termed a "Wrong Direction" fallacy - see Thesis 4 below) which mistakes cause for effect and thus "explains" the exact reverse of what is happening. Ironically, Darwin's compatriot Alfred Wallace understood this process very well, and his description of it is one of the best and most succinct available. Wallace stated:

"We are like children [who are] looking at a complicated machine of the reasons of whose construction they are ignorant, and like them we constantly impute as causes what is really effect in our vain attempts to explain what we will not confess that we cannot understand."
(em., [brackets], added). (unidentified "Species Notebook", P 43.) Probably 1854-55. From H. Lewis McKinney's Book "Wallace and Natural Selection"

This process as described by Wallace is common but by no means unique to the field of science. Many of the "great" discoveries of the past were based on it, not the least of which was the Ptolemaic view of the universe. This view was driven of course, by the belief that Man was created to be the centerpiece of the universe, and the tortured reasoning which was developed to explain it is very close to the exact opposite of the truth.

But one does not have to look back hundreds of years for examples of the phenomenon, because it is an all-to-common part of our daily colloquial existence. Many of the more common explanations of things which are not readily understood are made simpler or more meaningful by use of this technique. A few examples follow:

• Slums are the cause of poverty, hunger, inequality, etc.

(Eliminating the slums will cure these problems).
• Guns are the cause of crime.

(Take away the guns and crime will disappear).
• My car won't start in the rain.

(A mechanic will know the real cause of the problem and it is NOT the rain; see below)

All three of these statements are based on a failure to understand the real cause of a problem, and consequently attribute an easily understandable effect as the perceived cause. Society is full of them. Generally they are innocuous explanations as in case no. (3), but as in case (1) and (2) they can cause serious problems where they are relied upon as an explanation.

Likewise is this so in the field of science. Darwin's writings contain classic examples of "inverse logic". (Is it not conceivable that the reason for this common misuse is perhaps connected with the early learning of such things as Darwin's theory with its very loose, erroneous, and inverse relationship between cause and effect)? Indeed, the original Darwinian belief that something in the "conditions of life" was the explanation for "selection" falls squarely into the middle of Wallace's explanation of substituting effect for cause, as quoted above.

Adopting this technique, scientists, biologists, atheists and agnostics, long searching for a natural explanation for apparent intelligent design, at last have a mechanism for the process. Best of all it seems, for one reason or another, this process is eminently compatible with the human psyche. Back3

(4)The inevitable result of "Inverse Logic": cause/effect reversal.
An in-depth, disciplined, study of Natural Selection will show that the mechanism behind the concept cannot be the cause of any direction of development; rather Natural Selection is only an effect which can be available for the continuing existence of a organism which is able to use the effects.

(Should you be an avowed evolutionist who bristles at the very thought of this conclusion, see the "Talk-Origins FAQ" [a quintessential evolutionary publication] on "Natural Selection", for convenience quoted below:)

"When selection is spoken of as a force, it often seems that it is has a mind of its own; or as if it was nature personified. This most often occurs when biologists are waxing poetic about selection. This has no place in scientific discussions of evolution. Selection is not a guided or cognizant entity; it is simply an effect." (all em. added. Agreement by the DT is whole-hearted. Note that the term "biologists" of necessity includes Darwin)

(continuing) If natural selection is only an "effect", how then can it be the "cause" of evolution as universally agreed? The ability of the organism to survive using these effects (and more importantly to sustain a direction of development such as the eye, immune system, or the complexity or the eukaryotic cell,) for millions of years, would be a property of a developing genome, not a property of the "conditions of life".

Darwin's second assessment, as above, restated here, is correct:

"....we clearly see that the nature of the conditions is of subordinate importance in comparison with the nature of the organism in determining each particular form of variation; - perhaps of not more importance than the nature of the spark, by which a mass of combustible matter is ignited, has in determining the nature of the flames." (em. added) (which is none - DT)

Those who believe in Darwinian evolution as currently taught in biology have accepted a cause/effect reversal as a simplistic explanation of a phenomenon which has not yet been discovered by science. Yet they fail to supply a plausible explanation for the process and to produce evidence for the continuing million/billion year increase in complexity by showing a mechanism which will supply a sustained direction of development. It ought to be noted that this very process has been considered by at least one microbiologist, the author Michael Denton, in his book "Nature's Destiny". The process is not based on Darwinian natural selection.

Assuming if, at this point the reader might agree with the above argument concerning Natural Selection, and yet still be convinced that evolution exists as outlined by Darwin's theory, further discussion is in order. Is it not possible that Darwin's preferred explanation for complexity, Survival of the Fittest, is really the explanation of the process?

In fact it will be shown (in the Survival of the Fittest section) that the concept is erroneous as well, but for a wholly different reason. Back4

(5) The Detailed Operation of Natural Selection; Kettlewell's Experiment
A very important, always overlooked, factor in addition to those listed above should be kept in mind in the detailed consideration of Natural Selection.

According to the theory, each and every living organism existing at this very instant, has been Naturally Selected (otherwise it would not be here). No Darwinist can disagree with this. Suppose that, as an investigation of the process, this type of selection is labeled "NS1". (Note that Survival of the Fittest has also operated here, but this will be ignored for the time). NS1 is the type of selection that has allowed these organisms to be "alive" at this very instant; these organisms are the result of a an unbroken line of forebears which have existed since the "formation" of the particular species. Again, there can be no disagreement. Note that it is equally as true that each and every one of its forebears , (perhaps billions upon billions of each species) also has to have been Naturally Selected (but for the minutely few selected by man). (That is to say, an unbroken line of organisms exists from the "original species" to those of the present day).

But if the time period is long, say 100 MY, and the supposed evolution has occurred, some of the organisms which started out as species "a" have now become species "b", "c" and/or "...n". According to Darwin's theory, these species "b", "c" and/or "n", have evolved and exist because they have been Naturally Selected. (Darwinists, when asked to explain the "cause" of their evolution, would have to reply that they have been "naturally selected"). Let this type of selection (where evolution has occurred) be labeled "NS2".

As a practical example we could look at two species to illustrate the two types of selection: one might be the common Carp (Cyprinus Carpio) which has existed unchanged an estimated 200 MY. The other could be Homo Sapiens which by most Darwinian beliefs has existed for perhaps 10 MY. The former is type NS1 selection, the latter type NS2 selection (where the species have evolved).

It can be easily seen here that type NS1 selection represent stasis, while type NS2 selection represents evolution. It can also be seen that the vast majority are descendants of "stable" genomes (NS1) and, if Darwin's (New Synthesis) theory were correct, a nearly infinitesimal number would carry new genetic material accounting for evolution (NS2).

Granting this incontrovertible fact, an important question of simple logic arises:

Question:
How does the latter action of Natural Selection (NS2) of new genetic material (which under Darwin's theory causes evolution) differ from the former (non evolutionary) type of Natural Selection (NS1) which has to have operated to produce the nearly infinite number, by comparison, of other organisms that have existed but not "evolved"?

Answer:
There is no difference at all.
Conceptually speaking, NS1 is identically equivalent to NS2.
Mathematically speaking, NS1 = NS2.

Thus Darwinian Natural Selection as a mechanism is completely ubiquitous in its action. It produces both stasis (NS1) and evolution (NS2) and if Darwinists are correct in the claim that it is the cause of evolution, then it is also the cause of stasis.

Consequently if some form of evolution has actually taken place, what has logically occurred in each and every case has been only adaptation (evidenced by survival) of the organism, which is solely a characteristic, or capability, of the genome, not a selection action of the environment or conditions, or anything else understood by scientists. The only "selection" made in either case is simple survival. But as above, that is true of all organisms. How then is Natural Selection (or any other type of selection) the cause of evolution?

Assuming the above argument correct, and extending this line of reasoning to other existing conditions of the planet, then it might just as sensibly and just as meaningfully be said, that the size, location and other features of say, the Grand Canyon or the Himalayas or any other feature of the Universe for that matter, is also a product of Natural Selection.

The term is therefore meaningless. It does nothing to explain either apparent design or increased complexity for which Darwin's theory is credited. There is no action such as selection. If some sort of evolution has occurred, "selection" as currently understood by science is not a proper explanatory cause.

As to Kettlewell's famous experiments with the moth, they are (or were) accepted by the biological community with un-tempered (unscientific) enthusiasm, (at least in most textbooks) in that they seemingly showed Natural Selection actually at work, a verification of the theory of selection for the first time. The account was given wide attention throughout the literature, curiously much the same as the Piltdown Man Hoax, and from a related scientific field, the Margaret Mead Hoax. (It should be noted that Kettlewell's work is still cited in biology texts as an example of Natural Selection, despite the fact that it has been essentially discredited. For example, Biology, Raven and Johnson, 2nd ed., e.g. describes the process as "evolutionary" and "a result of Natural Selection".)

Little argument can be had with the fact that Kettelwell showed some type of adaptation (called "selection") to be operating in nature, but regardless of what it is called, the conclusion that it exemplifies the cause of evolution is clearly erroneous. The moths (Biston Betularia) simply displayed an adaptation to surroundings, very similar to mimicry, a trait of virtually all organisms. This adaptation is absolutely trivial by comparison to some of the amazingly adaptive descriptions provided by Henry W. Bates, in what has come to be known as "Batesian Mimicry".

More recent review of the entire phenomena suggests that changes in the moths were a direct reaction to the sulfur/other contaminants/ in the atmosphere ("selection" by sulfur?) and this possibility, along with others, is seemingly not considered, in the unscientific explanation found in textbooks. It must be concluded that the original hasty conclusion was based strictly on a prior belief in evolution.

In any event, regardless of any change in the environment, the "cause" of the change in the moth was not "selection" but rather the ability of the organism (above) to adapt.

By switching cause with effect, a hitherto unexplainable phenomenon is thus understood, which just happens to be in accordance with prior beliefs. Wallace's succinct explanation in section (3) above applies perfectly. The fact that Kettlewell's experiment is still reported today as evidence of evolution, is nothing less than the acceptance of a failure of the scientific method being used to foster a belief, and is hard to distinguish from any type of evangelism.

In the case of the car (above) that won't start because of the rain, the real cause of the failure to start is a defect in the ignition system, not the rain, which defect would show up under other conditions such as high humidity, or the operation of a car wash.

If some form of evolution exists, either through a preordained plan (as Alfred Wallace and others believe), by a phenomena as mystifying to us as Lightning was to the ancients, or by some as-yet undiscovered ability of the genome to reorient itself, it is not as a result of "selection" but rather only made possible by the effects of the "selection" (=survival), and again, is simple, unexplainable, adaptation.

It is almost shameful to have to mention the evident fact that all living organisms are adapted to the myriad characteristics of this planet; but solely because of this fact, it is not proper to conclude that the characteristics of the planet are the "cause" of any evolution. The action of supposed evolution is an action of the organism. Again, the scientific cause is unknown.

(For those who believe that mutations are ultimately the "cause" of evolution, it is first necessary to prove that mutations which increase functional ability are "random"; see the comments on "devolution", in (3) above. Secondly, scientific proof of an increase in functionality due to mutation must be demonstrated, mutagenic activity of bacteria notwithstanding; this aspect evolution has yet to be proved. It is strictly a belief, based on the acceptance of evolution as a fact; the circle of reason is thus closed).

An additional attempt will be made by analogy, to illustrate this cause/effect relationship as it occurs in the concept of Natural Selection, by a hypothetical scenario as developed below. Back5

(6) The Natural Selection Machine
It is 100 years hence, around the year 2100, when an enterprising chap applies for a patent on a machine which produces food of the very same type we are used to eating. It is similar in a way to the mythical "horn of plenty", Cornucopia. The ingredients for food, the necessary mineral elements, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, etc., are added to the device, and from the "horn" spews forth apples, bananas, peaches, pears vegetables of all sorts and other food items. (Note that this is an amazing discovery, because at present, humans are incapable of "making" any edible food.)

Quite obviously, the secret of the molecular process used by organisms has been harnessed. But while this is truly amazing, another facet of the machine is even more amazing. It has some of the abilities of the kind we attribute today, to Darwinian Natural Selection, in that it seems to be able to select which products will be produced. The trigger for this remarkable action is dependent on the input to the machine, but not in the way you might first suppose. For example, if the machine is producing too many bananas, say, the operator simply feeds these excess items back into the machine and voila! the number of bananas is reduced, and productions of other items increased. The machine thus has a conservative nature, because nothing is wasted.

The world is of course, astonished. But let us control our astonishment for the time being, and investigate the latter feature of the machine, the ability to self-alter it's own output. The characteristic is very similar to the assumed "action" of Natural Selection as held by Darwinists, from the standpoint that some form of "evolution" seems to be occurring. It appears that when the machine encounters certain situations in the environment in which it operates, its basic method of operation is altered in some way. (This would be the type of machine proposed by Wallace [above] - we don't know how it works. {By the way, if you think this scenario is simplistic, read Dawkins' book about 'Mount Improbable'.})

In any event, we can now ask the all-important question: what is the cause of the alteration of the output of the machine??? If you have answered "the change in the input to the machine", you are a candidate for belief in Darwin's Natural Selection. It is not caused by the change in input to the machine rather the real scientific cause of the change is the capability of the machine to sense the input,and make changes to the output, by a method which we don't understand.

We have, as in Wallace's description above, vainly grasped the first relationship observed, and picked an effect as a cause. (Note that while it is true that no output changes occur unless there are input changes, that is, input changes are a necessary condition for output changes, they - like water for corn - are only necessary, not causal. (Note in this context, plants require water, light, heat, dozens of nutrients and other conditions for growth; while these are necessary, [effects of the environment] they are not causal, the cause of the growth being strictly a property of the genome).

In the same way, "selection" i.e. "survival", (Darwin's definition) is necessary for existence, but is not the cause of evolution, (if such even exists.) This is precisely one of the errors of Darwinism. Another is more clearly pointed out in the discussion which is continued below, on Survival of the Fittest. Back6

SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST

Some History
(7) As noted above, Darwin's original explanation for evolution, Natural Selection, received criticism from even his closest friends partially because of the florid language used in the definition of it, but more because of the lack of supporting evidence. For example, Darwin chiefly defined it (and the same technique is carried on to this day) by reference to its effects , which technique is not a definition at all, but rather an analogy, as opposed to a scientific explanation of the method by which it worked:

"It may metaphorically be said that Natural Selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, the slightest variations; rejecting those that are bad, preserving and adding up all that are good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life." From Darwin's book, "Origins". (Note that the word "metaphorically" was added in later editions, to deflect criticism.)

But in as much as Darwin retreated somewhat from this position, as noted above, in substituting the term Survival of the Fittest for Natural Selection, the "new" terminology must also be examined to see if it contains a scientific explanation for the process of evolution he espoused. Back7

(8) The Real Meaning of Survival of the Fittest - a Tautology
The term Survival of the Fittest is a phrase that describes the outcome of a competition where there is no possibility or even probability (such as can be done in game theory) of predicting the outcome in advance because of the variability of the conditions of the competition. By its very nature it is a tautology, regardless of the situation in which it is used. It describes only the effect, or outcome, of a competition, not the cause of the outcome, and the cause must be investigated separately. For example, if it were used to describe the outcome of an auto race such as the Indy 500 (one of the premier 500 mile races in the USA), describing the race, or outcome, as "survival of the fittest" would indicate that the victor would be unknown until the end of the race.

Likewise, if discussing the survival of a business in a collapsing economy or perhaps the survival of a race of people during the fierce competition of a war, use of the term Survival of the Fittest, while it may tend to show that the user had some fore-knowledge of the outcome, would in fact indicate that nothing would be known about the outcome until the end of the particular event. Herbert Spencer used the term to describe the result of some of his socio-political theories (Social Darwinism) on the struggle for human existence, during Darwin's day, in an attempt to explain the cause of the events. Back8

(9) The Perceived Meaning of Survival of the Fittest
Survival of the Fittest was originally used by Spencer as above, and its use was urged upon Darwin by both Spencer and Wallace as a better, more descriptive, explanation of the mechanism by which evolution occurred, as compared with Natural Selection. "Fittest" is the term which defines the condition of a survivor in the Darwinian scheme. It is not independently defined however, such that it gives the term a precise meaning, which is absolutely necessary for specificity if it is to be used in a definition.

The term is, in fact, a variable in the mathematical sense and thus ambiguous. The meaning of it becomes clear only after the action of survival has occurred. To explain the existence of species by describing them as "Survivors of the Fittest" is essentially to say "Things are the way they are because that's the way they are", which is a comparable statement of specificity. We know nothing of their characteristics beforehand, and this is precisely why Darwin's theory fails one of the great tests of a true theorem: it has no predictability. Even diehard evolutionists admit this. Survival of even a specific organism can be dependant on hundreds of separate conditions, all different.

But the term, in and of itself, also contains an implicit assumption, making it more believable, that survivors are an improved form of organism compared to those which do not survive. Spencer had this belief.

Such of course is not the case, and there is no intent here to state that any thinking biologist, Darwin included, believed this to be true. (However, his florid terminology suggests this and when introduced to young students, still learning the process of logic, the meaning will be little other than that. This is particularly true when the operation of a tautology is not properly understood; thus to a certain portion of individuals the term itself seems to be an explanation for evolution.)

And in fact, the term itself summons up a vision of continual incremental improvement in an object such as a car, watch, or other artifact made by man, as it is often used this way. Alternately, any process performed over and over is likewise subject to trial and error for the purpose of improvement, and for example, the recipe for a loaf of bread would possibly be perfected by this means. But note that in every such case, intelligence is applied in the improvements.

Not so however is this true in the field of biological reproduction. There is no intelligence available to weed out the deficient and modify the process toward a more desirable end. Here, Survival of the Fittest is far more likely to mean less complexity, and a simpler organism, since a change in conditions of existence is far more likely to require increased adaptability in the genome which is unavailable.

Thus the survivors are (of course) the fittest, but in this case a far simpler organism such as bacteria. There is little doubt that one of the great mysteries of history, the demise of the Dinosaurs, could be termed a routine application of the concept of Survival of the Fittest, where the fittest were some form of bacteria. However, this statement explains nothing, except to display the lack of meaning of Darwinian terminology. It goes without saying that this outcome is not envisioned as a form of evolution that is intended to be described by Darwin's theory.

Yet a look at the fossil record shows that something like 99% of the survivors were simpler organisms. So once again, as in the case of the term Natural Selection, a detailed look at a Darwinian process shows an entirely unlikely outcome from that outlined by the theory, in its attempt to explain the order and complexity so evident. Even so, it should be acknowledged that the fact that even 99.99% of survivors are simpler organisms, this fact is no proof (excluding statistics) that the survivors we know about today are not the 0.01% of survivors that are more fit from a complexity standpoint and thus prove the methodology of the theory. But another avenue of logic, with consideration of the word "fit", will be presented to show conclusively that such is not the case.

Discussion of the "Fittest". What is it?
Of all the barbs thrown at the concept of Darwin's theory, probably none is more prevalent than the claim that the term Survival of the Fittest is a tautology; of all the defenses of the theory, explanations of how and why it is not are likewise probably the most numerous. Darwin himself tried to give explanations of the term "fittest" in such a way that they did not appear to be synonymous with the word "survival". For example, he stated:

"Generally, the most vigorous males, those which are best fitted for their places in nature, will leave most progeny." Darwin's book, "Origins".

This statement of course is a perfect example of Darwin's habit of "circular reasoning" and is also a classic example of a tautology. (Could those males who generally produced the "least" number of progeny possibly be defined as the "fittest"?)

A perhaps more modern rephrase of the statement:

"Statistically, those animals that are the most fit for survival will create the population of descendants whose characteristics will eventually come to dominate the genome."

says identically the same thing in a somewhat more obscure manner (=obfuscation), and while the tautology is not as clearly evident, it is none the less a tautology.

In short, neither statement says anything other than the fact that the survivors (and their characteristics) will tend to survive. The statement is unquestionably true because by its very nature it cannot be false. It predicts nothing about the characteristics of the survivors, or how or why they will survive. Consequently it is meaningless and of no use to the argument or explanation.

But as above, and as in the case of the term Natural Selection, Darwin meant something by the term Survival of the Fittest also. The acceptance of it by the biological community, of long standing, shows that it conveys some kind of meaning as an explanation for a process that is otherwise not understood. So an examination of the usual use of the word "fittest" will be made to see what the true meaning of it, in a "trial and error" situation would be, and judge if this meaning is either correct, or adds to the explanation of the concept of evolution.

The Very "Fittest"
If it is speculated that the term "fittest" refers to an organism which has the best (ultimate) capability for acquiring, holding, and using all available nutrients, all the while developing or having a capability of fending off threats to its existence, this concept would indeed be an explanation for a certain possible type of organism.

For example, if marine coral were an interconnected, integrated organism, with a need for correct functioning of all of its parts to maintain the existence of the whole, it could be called a "fittest" organism, in its own right, without the reference to "survivorship" to determine its fitness. There are many coral deposits throughout the world, some which are immense in size, (such as the body of extinct coral which is currently the State of Florida, USA) but unfortunately, marine coral is really not an organism, per se, but rather a collection of organisms, similar to filamentous algae. Since there are really no such organisms in existence as described above, it must be concluded that this is not what the "fittest" is, in the sense of Darwin's meaning.

Limited Fitness
Therefore the meaning of the word "fitness" as contained in Survival of the Fittest can only be construed as the organism somehow fitter than other members of a class (in the sense of the word "best") of organisms falling into a special group such as a species, not, as above, the very fittest organism in the universe. This is consistent with the descriptions used by Darwin and also used by most evolutionists in the explanation offered for the mechanism of evolution. (Note that there is no consideration here of the meaning of the term as used by geneticists or population ecologists).

It is therefore concluded that Darwin meant this aspect of fitness, and using this description as a definition for the characteristics of survivors, it is possible to study known survivors, kind of in a "reverse engineering" sort of way, and see if they are in some manner "the best" (which would make them the "fittest"). (Yes. its still a tautology, but perhaps the meaning will become clear as the argument progresses). A few organisms will be looked at using this definition. Back9

(10) The Mighty Oak. (Family Quercus) Is it the fittest?
Trees have been around for 300 million years by some accounts. It therefore must be assumed that each species currently living, having survived either in its present form or (allowing evolution) evolved form, must represent the fittest form of its species. If Darwin's theory is correct, the principles of Survival of the Fittest, based on the "struggle for existence", combined with the action of Natural Selection would make it so unlikely as to be impossible that after this period of time there could be any "less-than-fittest" characteristic in a species such as for example, the mighty oak. If physical characteristics of the oak such as its size, shape, strength, and reproductive capacity are studied one should reasonably expect that it is impossible to make any improvements in any of them, after perhaps a 100 million year period of becoming the "fittest". It would have to be considered the "best". (Note that Darwin, Wallace and most biologists consider that organisms are "perfectly" adapted to their niches).

So when studying for example, its reproductive capability and noticing what appears to be a very inefficient system, it becomes obvious that something is wrong either in the premise (that it is the fittest) or the conclusion (that the reproductive system is inefficient). (After all, Darwinists as well as most biologists are quick to explain how the organism with the most efficient system will necessarily come to dominate a species, since inefficient forms cannot compete.)

Briefly, the method of reproduction of the oak involves the production of an acorn, a fertilized seed rounded or oblong in shape about 1/2 inch (12 mm.) in diameter which drops from the tree after maturity. This seed, if by some means covered by soil, if all else goes well, produces offspring. In and of itself, this system works well, as oaks are very plentiful throughout compatible portions of the planet. But when compared with other seed reproduction systems it is indeed nothing but archaic.

A look at the simple Dandelion, shows a seed dispersal system more efficient by at least several orders of magnitude than that of the oak. If one were to hazard a guess it might be assumed that the energy required to produce one acorn would be roughly the equivalent of the energy needed to produce one whole dandelion plant. A typical plant contains perhaps 200 seeds, and has a dispersal range of hundreds of miles by use of the wind. Likewise with a comparison to other trees, such as the Willow and the Cottonwood which have a dandelion-type seed, the oak shows a similar deficiency in seeding ability.

Thus, it is difficult to imagine Darwin's theory being at work here, constantly weeding out those trees which produce large, very costly (in the competitive sense) seeds, in favor of those trees which produce smaller and smaller seeds with a marvelous dispersal system such as the dandelion. It seems that in a matter of only several hundred thousand years (hazarding another guess) the actions of continuously choosing "the fittest" by the Darwinian process would produce the rather trivial (by comparison) changes necessary to make the oak and all of its characteristics, the "fittest" in every respect. (Note that while the oak may be more "fit" in comparison to other species of trees, it still must compete with those of its own species for survival, and thus the requirement of Darwinian fitness would be imposed).

The fact that many plants and other trees have supposedly evolved to this condition, with highly efficient reproductivity, makes the situation even more inexplicable, to the extent that the basic premise, namely that "survival of the fittest" works at all, is logically called into question. But if this situation is truly unexplainable in reference to Darwin's theory, let us look at other, similar, situations which also need explanation.

The Fruit Fly - Drosophila Melanogaster. Is it the Fittest?
A look in the animal kingdom shows the rapidly reproducing fruit fly, (about 2 weeks per generation) with a serious deficiency, that being the inability of the fly to penetrate even the thinnest of skins of any fruit, and thus release the sugar which starts the process to produce their food. Mechanisms/processes to accomplish this are available in thousands of organisms, both in the animal and vegetable kingdoms. Boring mechanisms, such as in the mosquito, stingers, such as in the bee/wasp, or a dissolving fluid such as produced by other insects, abound in nature. It is absolutely inexplicable in the Darwinian sense, that some device or method of doing this would fail to evolve over the past eons of their existence.

Thus it must be concluded that while they are survivors, they are not the "fittest". Darwin's theory cannot explain it. (Even Dawkins' metaphoric "random walk" up "Mount Improbable", explaing all random aspects of evolution, has ended up in a morass or chasm from which there is no escape; the summit is unobtainable and "selection" has mysteriously stopped.)

In all there are estimated to be at least 5, perhaps 15 million different species, only about 1.5 M of them having been cataloged. With each species having hundreds of physical characteristics required for survival, we have a right to expect that each one of them, with perhaps a few explainable exceptions, are the fittest. As can easily be seen by reference to two of the most common species, they are not.

Thousands of other examples exist, including most of the common food items such as fruits, nuts, and vegetables (do you really need an object the size of a watermelon to produce seeds?). In the animal kingdom, the most unlikely dairy cow, with its three stomachs, defies Darwinian explanation: many other milk producers get by with but one stomach.

Therefore Darwin's theory has not explained some of the simplest facets of the existing spectrum of living organisms, in the highly developed state in which they exist. For example, the current belief that the immensely complex bird feather, the mammalian immune system and other extremely complex and of necessity, synergistic systems, evolved by Darwinian means, has to be weighed against the theory's inability to explain relatively trivial deficiencies such as those mentioned above. Back10

(11) Another, Broader, more Likely Outcome of Natural Selection
It thus appears to be very possible that Darwin's theory (and all derivatives) is in reality a much better prescription for a condition which might be called "mono-speciation". His Natural Selection, which has to act ubiquitously over all organisms in a given area, would be more likely to create similarity, not diversity. It's hard to understand how, over the eons since the Cambrian Explosion, organisms could maintain the unique characteristics we see today if they were constantly evolving to the "fittest" condition, as required by his theory.

Instead of squirrels, rabbits, chipmunks, skunks, groundhogs, raccoons, and the most improbable 200 million-year-old opossum, Darwin's Natural Selection more easily predicts that there would be one genus or perhaps only one species filling these niches. The variants required need be no different than the breeds of dogs, of which there are something like 500 or so. Science does not know the answer to this proposition. (But again as above, note the possibility of the "reverse logic" involved in the consideration.) Back11

(12) Limitations of Fitness
Sections preceding this, (9) through (11) discuss fitness and illustrate organisms which are not the "fittest" but have existed for millions of years, virtually unchanged. So if the oak had a reproduction system as efficient and by comparison as simple as (say) the cottonwood or the dandelion, its very existence would severely challenge any other type of trees; and if the fruit fly had an ability to puncture the skin of most fruit it would once again drastically alter and perhaps nearly eliminate the production of fruit (at least as we know it).

An obvious conclusion drawn from these facts is that all the species that are known today are in reality, more like artifacts with arrested development of some of their features. The result is a series of organisms whose characteristics have been limited by some process unknown to science. This feature explains diversity. Again Darwin's theory cannot explain this phenomenon. Back12

(13) The Malthusian Connection to Evolution
The fact that both Darwin and Wallace cite the "Malthusian" concept, often described as the "struggle for existence" (which places a limit on the number of survivors) as the foundation for their theories is considered to be one of the great coincidences in the field of Science. (In actuality, it may not be a coincidence at all since there is growing evidence that Darwin's contribution to the theory, which appeared only after his reading of Wallace's "Ternate" paper in 1858, was not original.)

In any event, given even that the Darwin/Wallace theory is correct, the concept has nothing to do with the "cause" of evolution, rather it would affect only the "speed" or rate of same. If evolution proceeds on a "trial and error" basis, the Malthusian concept simply increases the number of trials, which would naturally increase the rate of evolution.

However, the action is immensely important to the outcome of the biological process in that it filters out the defective organisms from a population and in that respect is, in the strictest sense, a "quality control" process. The process is therefore the exact opposite of evolution and contributes to the stability of the genome.

It is basically one of the maintenance of diversity, not of the cause of diversity. Note here again, the inverse logic so typical of Darwinian thought. (We can be thankful for this process because without it, this planet would be full of deformed, dying, and dead organisms, rampant sites for the proliferation of disease, as opposed to the marvelous order currently evident. Bacteria, by far the most prolific predators and seldom if ever recognized as such by biologists, are chiefly responsible for this order. Once again, nothing in Darwinian evolutionary theory explains or accounts for it.) Back13

(14) Some Predictions at odds with Darwin's theory
As discussed above in (9) above, the very hallmark of any theory, is the ability to explain hitherto unknown processes (cause and effect relationships) which may be in question and under study. It has been noted by many critics and even supporters of Darwinism, that predictions based on the theory are not possible, and likewise, that it is not falsifiable. Many defenses are made, also, of this charge.

But hypothetical predictions about biological events can be made even though no one living today will live to see the outcome. There is nothing however, which limits speculation about events which could develop according to the theory, and then comparing current reality with what is concluded. Thus, the DT will speculate about certain species which could reasonably be expected to have evolved, assuming for the moment that Darwin's theory is sound.

Regarding the oak tree above, the query has already been made as to the unexplainable limitation of its reproductive capability. It is very hard to see how, if the oak had developed a first rate reproduction system such as the type used by bacteria or mushrooms, (with appropriate differences of course) that there would be such a variety of other plants in existence. Oaks, like many trees, have the ability to limit the growth of other plants for a considerable distance around their perimeter, and it is most likely, if they were really the Darwinian fittest, that they would be the dominant vegetation. Fruit trees, flowers, grasses and myriad other plant life might be virtually nonexistent. To say that the consequences of this would be remarkable is a gross understatement. Again, if the fruit fly had acquired the ability to penetrate the skin of most fruit, over the last 100 M years, the results would be equally remarkable and in fact, disastrous from our point of view.

But things could be worse. There is a wide open niche in the world of large mammals, (as there is in many other areas) for attack by a predator from the air. Vampire bats fill this niche to a very limited degree, as they obtain blood (their food) in a kind of hit-and-miss mode.

Let us suppose that another bat-like animal, developing under the Darwinian principle of constant, gradual, "survival of the fittest", had honed it's predatory capability to where it had developed a venom-based attack system not unlike that found in snakes. Further let us assume that the fluid it used (being the fittest) would paralyze the largest of mammals, allowing the bats to feed at will for a long period of time, similar to the way wasps provide for their young; (note that all the elements to accomplish this are available in many forms throughout existing organisms - thus the changes, again, would be trivial and consistent with genetic possibilities. Likewise, a hypothetical scenario can easily be constructed to explain the "evolutionary" steps).

This development would be the death knell for the mammalian species as it exists today, including mankind, had it occurred. Obviously it hasn't. How to explain this in the Darwinian sense?

Once again, Darwin's theory has no direct explanation, and none of the "principles" that arise from it have any; in fact, the application of his theory - millions of years for development of such complex things as the eye - somehow doesn't seem to work for the trivial possibilities that are mentioned above, which should have been "evolving" for the millions of years; how is it that they have stopped?

Worse, because there are no rational explanations for these unexplainable "non-evolutions" they are either virtually ignored or obfuscated in writings in the field of biology. This is science?

As an example, Stephen J. Gould (the Harvard biologist and dedicated evolutionist) obfuscates ideas such as these in a Scientific American article, whose prologue reads:

"The earth's creatures have evolved through a series of contingent and fortuitous events." (em. added.)

Thus, the non-evolution of the "predatory bat", an efficient oak seeding mechanism and a skin piercing feature of the fruit-fly are unexplained "fortuitous" events. (Note also that they are extremely "contingent" events - like the "evolution" of the eye - each step is contingent upon all previous steps as well as all following steps for there to be a workable eye).

Likewise the buoyancy of ice, transparency of water vapor below saturation (100% relative humidity) and opacity of water vapor at saturation (forming clouds), three of many properties of water absolutely necessary for life, both contingent and fortuitous, do not need explanation in a scientific sense. They can be ignored as they tend to show "intelligence" or "planning" in the universe, (and contradict Darwinian theory of "randomness").

At the very least, Gould recognizes that events (and of necessity non-events) can be fortuitous. He does not go so far as to explain or even suggest how millions of supposedly random occurrences can turn out that way. It's apparent that things don't work in that manner; the laws of probability and science cannot currently explain such "fortuity". Darwin's theory does not either. Yet this is exactly what is necessary for a theory which "explains" as Darwin's theory is supposed to do. Scientifically we are back in the days where the "god of lightning" is still dueling with the "god of thunder", using Darwin's (or Gould's) theory. Back14

Fallacious Theories: The Lucy Principle
Beliefs die hard, and for many reasons. Darwin's theory explains to a believer what is probably the greatest mystery of the universe, perhaps even greater than the mystery of the origin of matter, space and time. It is a Godsend to atheists, agnostics and Secular Humanists. Those who work in the field of biology must derive great satisfaction from the belief in Darwinism, in that they are working in a field that is "well understood", albeit the minor gaps which are not yet explainable.

Unfortunately, once a decision or position such as this has been taken on a subject, it is seldom reversed. Witness the unfortunate decision made by Alfred Russel Wallace. Wallace published the decision for Natural Selection (not using this phrase) in his Ternate Paper, the idea having come to him during a delirium produced by an attack of Malaria. Once published, he never budged from this position during his lifetime. Thereafter he clung to his decision, even going so far as to write a book on the "Theory of Natural Selection" and another entitled "Darwinism", upholding the decision made in delirium. This was against his prior explicit and succinct statement of the "cause/effect" reversal principle, so germane to Darwinist theory, which is quoted above and so relevant it is repeated here:

"We are like children [who are] looking at a complicated machine of the reasons of whose construction they are ignorant, and like them we constantly impute as causes what is really effect in our vain attempts to explain what we will not confess that we cannot understand."

This principle of why beliefs are hard to shed is exemplified by a memorable episode in the comic strip "Peanuts" (not exactly a paragon of science, but nonetheless illustrative), in a discussion between Charley Brown and Lucy: Lucy looks skyward and says "Charley, did you ever notice that clouds make words? Charley looks up and says to her, "Lucy, that is skywriting". Lucy looks up and says "yes, but sometimes clouds do make words."

Using this analogy, it is easy to understand how young students, years away from the ability to discriminate between scientific logic and illogic, would adopt the concept of Natural Selection as an explanation for evolution, and cling to it for the rest of their life; how else to explain the statement of one of the most respected of biologists, by all accounts an intelligent and learned person, Ernst Mayr, Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology, Emeritus, at Harvard.

He makes the statement in his book "The Growth of Biological Thought" attributing the inability of Natural Selection to PREVENT extinction as essentially non-understandable by Darwinian theory. His actual quote, while discussing the unsolved problem of extinction in the field of evolutionary biology is "(...[w]hy is natural selection so helpless to prevent it?"). (Note that this chair at Harvard is currently held by the equally renowned evolutionist Stephan J. Gould.)

This tragic misunderstanding of the power of Natural Selection, which power is so forcefully presented by Darwin in his book "Origins" , can only be explained by a commitment to the idea in the same sense as the one made by Alfred Russel Wallace above, and should raise a red flag to those who are concerned about the indoctrination of erroneous ideas in the mind of the young.

(15) The Five Senses Hypothesis [See also Addendum below]
This is an unstated belief system which, for many scientists, underlies the study of all the physical sciences. The most important feature of this belief is that all phenomena in the universe are capable of being measured, or acknowledged, by one of the five senses of man. Thus there are no forces or actions of any kind in existence which ultimately will not be discovered and recognized by these senses. (It should be understood that much instrumentation, computers, etc. aid the process). But the "bottom line" of this hypothesis is that ALL phenomena are under the purview and (therefore possible) eventual control of mankind. See also the discussion in Thesis #2 (above).

For a simple example, Gravity is considered to be well understood, as the equations of Newton and Einstein display; however, the cause of gravity is completely unknown and indeed little else is known about it; e.g., it is not known whether there is a "speed" of gravity, as there is for light waves, or its action is "instantaneous". (For that matter, [to my knowledge] it could just as well be a "repulsive" force as opposed to the "attractive" force which it is always considered - there appears to be no scientific evidence for either explanation).

Likewise, Light, Magnetism, Radiation of all sorts and other phenomena are completely unknown as to their "cause"; any who believe that we are even close to the understanding of these phenomena, are prime candidates for belief in "evolution" as outlined by the Darwinian theory. (One of the foremost prosthelytizer of evolution, Stephen J. Gould, (see also (14) above) [who incidentally, equally proselytizes Communism] states that (paraphrasing) 'Evolution is as much a fact as Gravity'. The Doubting Thomas agrees. The "cause" of "Evolution", to science, is as much a mystery as is the cause of gravity.)

When Evolution is studied under the above premise, of necessity, all other possibilities for "cause" are eliminated. Creationism, including "Theistic Evolution" (the Alfred Wallace version of Darwinian theory) of any kind, is ruled out . Ruled out as well is the possibility of a Creator, miracles, conceptual thought, free will, and many other phenomena, which are entirely possible and routinely believed in by the great majority of people, as well as many unbiased scientists.

These above ideas are often completely disdained by "scientists". This attitude, so often considered as "enlightenment" is in logical fact not only ignorance but a downright irrational belief. Since none of these possible concepts can be disproved by Science, why is the disproof of these possibilities considered as fact?

Under the Five Senses Hypothesis, the activities of all organisms including man are thus a process of simple programmed behavior, which will (hopefully) someday be understood in natural terms. This conclusion of scientific belief is most appropriately termed "naturalism". It should properly be a concept of Philosophy, but is considered by some evolutionists to be, like evolution itself, a "fact".

Without an understanding of this hypothesis, the process of much scientific investigation contains an assumption, which to the uninitiated (students) is a "hidden agenda". In order to properly understand the limits of scientific thinking, this basic assumption must be acknowledged. Needless to say, this assumption is the basis for the beliefs of Secular Humanists, and is one of the chief reasons for the objection to the teaching of Darwinism in schools.

This entire concept is termed a "hypotheses" because there is no proof whatsoever for it, and as long as there is one outstanding Question, (about anything in the field of science) there never will be; more correctly, it should be termed a "speculation", and in reality it is probably, for many, only a Hope.

(Note also, that a Nobel Prize is never given for a theoretical inquiry of the type made famous by Stephen Hawking, [A Brief History of Time] rather it is bestowed only when a theory has been "proven" by demonstration to one of the five senses, by verifiable experiment).

Further, a Nobel Prize has never been bestowed for any finding involving any type of "evolution"; Darwin, Wallace, Spencer, and all others connected with the "theory" remain uncited, in spite of the plethora of publication on the subject. In Darwin's case alone, there are thousands of books written in adulation of him and support for his theory). Back15

(16)Darwinism: the controlling paradigm
The growing controversy over the teaching of evolution in schools is in large part due to the failure to clearly state the limits of Science in the explanation of biological matters.

One would think that, in light of the above, the very first item on the agenda in Science Studies, in the very early grades, would be an explanation of the above hypothesis and the consequences of it explained and discussed. This posture would alleviate many of the objections currently causing problems in studies of evolution in the schools. A clear understanding of the premises would enable a variety of beliefs to co-exist with the theories currently held by the biological community. Dogmatic beliefs from any source would thus be acceptable.

The current system, relying on a nearly universal belief in Darwinian concepts, would be augmented with a presentation of competing theories none of which are disprovable by "science", yet all of which are scientific possibilities. Most importantly, refutations of current theory, virtually missing from the educational system, would be presented.

In passing, it ought to be noted that under the current situation, to dedicated evolutionists there is no objection to Philosophy being a part of Science, and the fact that it is absolutely unthinkable to them that any other basis of belief such as Religion be a part of it only shows a bias of the same sort that keeps Darwin's theory alive. Of course, neither Philosophy nor Religion are a proper consideration of the physical sciences. Back16

CLOSURE:
There is another belief system held to be as true and is probably more widespread than the belief in Darwin's theory; that is belief in Astrology. This theory parallels belief in evolution in the respect that it is persistent, without an explainable mechanism, and tautologous in the sense that predictions of behavior of an individual can be made based solely on time of birth, but seemingly cannot be made without this information.

Darwin's theory on the other hand, explains the reasons for characteristics of organisms after knowing whether or not they are survivors. The similarities between the two theories are so striking, that it is felt necessary to call them to the attention of the reader.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

⁽¹⁾DEFINITIONS

Preamble to Definitions:
Even though a refutation of the above arguments cannot logically be made through a refutation of the definitions, virtually all email received in opposition to the arguments have objected to aspects of the definitions, this being done as an attempt to refute the arguments. This process itself is a logical fallacy.

As an explanation of the definitions, they basically describe the usage of the terms throughout the majority of books, textbooks, and papers in general secular construction. Thus, most of these publications describe living organisms as having "evolved". Natural Selection/Survival of the Fittest is the "cause" or mechanism for that evolution, while Darwin's theory establishes the guiding principles of that evolution.

Darwin's Theory: a scientific theory that explains the development, from the basic fundamental properties of the elements in the periodic table, of all the diverse living organisms in the universe, by a process that is random in its entirety. Of necessity it denies the need for miraculous intervention of any kind, but does not, except by implication, rule it out. It includes at least four (4) variations of the theory beginning with the first publication of his book "Origins" to the most recent theory often called "The New Synthesis". It differs from the "Darwin/Wallace theory", since it lacks the Wallacean "spiritual intervention". The stated and implied intent of Darwin was to displace the then-current idea that species existed strictly as a result of an act(s) of Creation, as described in Genesis.

But the vast majority of books, textbooks and references to it treat the theory as an explanation for development of all life, as above; e.g.

"[Y]ou are an animal and share a common heritage with earthworms...", a quote from "Biology" Johnson, Holt Rinehart Winston 1994. p. 453 from the booklet "Education or Indoctrination", Access Research Network.

thus the definition as above. Note that Darwin, from the second edition of "Origins" on, included the idea that life was originally "breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one;"
But see the definition "Evolution" below.

Natural Selection: The term originally used by Darwin to explain the causal mechanism which is responsible for the operation of his theory. In scientific, and to some extent lay circles, it replaced the idea that "Creation" was the causal mechanism. Darwin later abandoned this term in favor of the term Survival of the Fittest. The term Natural Selection is important because it is currently used by virtually all evolutionists as the explanation for the mechanism originally intended by Darwin, in spite of his essential retraction, as above.

Survival of the Fittest: The term later adopted by Darwin to explain the mechanism of evolution after the criticism received from so many of his peers, to Natural Selection. According to Darwin the term "is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient". The arguments on this page attempt to show that the concept of the term is, independently, both erroneous and circular (a tautology).

Evolution: a process of development of living organisms which has the capability to increase the variety and complexity of them, from the very first prokaryotic cell through to the development of the most complex of living organisms, by a trial and error process. This process is undirected by any method other than the fact of the success or failure of those organisms, which has been directed by the process called Natural Selection/Survival of the Fittest.

Please note that for the purpose of argument this definition also includes abiogenesis (the self-development of living matter from basic chemicals) because virtually all books, textbooks and evolutionists consider that cell evolution occurred in this manner, the mechanism being not dissimilar to Darwinian evolution. As above, this idea is expressed either directly, or by implication, in most literature about evolution and for that reason is included here. (It should be noted that in the field of biology alone, there are likely a 1000 definitions of "evolution" which range from a simple description of the change in length of a bird beak, to that of abiogenesis, above).

Addendum

[This was added as an aid to high school students who had problems understanding the concept: alarm bells should be going off for those who are involved in teaching].

The "Five Senses Hypothesis" is a term that was coined to "put a name on" an unacknowledged assumption made by virtually all well-known (or perhaps "well publicized") scientists whenever anything about science is discussed. The assumption is as follows:

"Nothing exists in the universe that is not perceptible to the senses of man".

That is, in other words, one (or all) of the five senses of man - sight, sound, smell, taste, or feel - are all the senses necessary to discover everything that exists in the universe. Again in other words, all scientific phenomena have been, or hopefully one day will be, discovered by use alone of these five senses. (Keep in mind, that many machines, instruments, etc. are used in sensing data about the universe, but ultimately the information is presented to mankind through one of the five senses - a needle on a graph moves, a sound is produced, etc.).

Thus the limitation of these five senses is a restriction on what man may know.

As an example, let us assume that there is a worldwide association of worms, (yes underground worms, sometimes [ugh!] used for fishing). At the annual association meeting of the AOUW, the topic comes up about the possibilities of other living organisms, such as perhaps a "rose" (the flower) existing.

The scientist worms will have none of this, because they believe in the "Two Senses" hypothesis, that is "feel" and "taste". Everything in their existence can be explained by reference to these two senses. Thus, there is no such thing as a rose. The subject of "music" never comes up, because there is no such thing as sound. Their knowledge is thus limited by the limitation of their senses and the dogmatic application of the hypothesis.

---

Comments, particularly critical comments, are welcome. If you have arguments involving any of these positions, as opposed to strong feelings about them, you are invited to reply to the email address below, stating your refutation, extension, or other logical comments. Note as above, that there have been many objections to the definitions, but this is not a refutation of the arguments, even though deficient definitions can admittedly make arguments immaterial. Click on the email address below to send a message. All email is answered unless requested otherwise.

Page created by: dbtngtms@tdtone.org

Search Engine Optimization and Free Submission