First there was a big explosion.
What was born out of nothing?
Thinking man has introduced the most unpredictable force in the universe: free will. Man can direct the destiny of all life in the direction he desires.
For evolution to make sense, we must accept its explanation for the origin of all life.
Magical Thinking
So let's start there: everything that has ever existed came from this giant explosion from a single subatomic point of origin.
Then, over time, the entropic inertia of the particles from the explosion eventually somehow created stars and planets.
Right now, most planets are barren wastelands. But what about our planet? Our planet is different. We Bustling With life.
But how did life begin on our little blue planet? Well, according to our most brilliant minds, we don't know exactly. But from the information we have gathered, after hundreds of millions of years of particles churning around in this primordial soup of water, nitrogen, carbon, and other random elements, the first proteins magically created!
And from there, it was only a matter of time before proteins magically transformed into single-celled organisms, which then eventually magically morphed into more complex organisms, and so on.
Fast forward to the present day: there are trees and animals everywhere.
And we are the most complex lifeforms in the known universe: we have bones, muscles, organs (each with a specific function), eyes, ears, noses, and brains.
It's kind of interesting that this whole life thing is so incredibly complex, so multi-layered, and so completely symbiotic in its structure.
but, clearly None of this could have been intentionally designed by an intelligent designer, because we know that this all happened by a random, chaotic process of particles colliding with each other over millions of years and eventually beginning to build themselves into fully functioning organisms.
Ok, that's the end of my sarcastic rant. Let's get serious.
Theory or speculation?
What are my general thoughts on evolution?
Simply put, it is too broad, general, and confusing a theory to be considered a serious historical description of our universe.
Simply record the process human Historiography is a discipline that involves understanding specific moments involving specific historical figures with the aim of compiling a coherent story of humanity.
This involves finding primary evidence, such as documents or artifacts, relating to that moment in time, and then having a team of scholars interpret what that evidence means and connect the dots.
And that process is not 100% accurate. It's often guesswork. It's very difficult, in fact, nearly impossible, to know the full details of any single moment in history. And that's only for a small percentage of events. single for a moment.
The theory of evolution is whole Up to this point in history, life has progressed consistently and unquestionably. the rule.
The problem is that Too many There are data points across time and space, but no way to actually do it. We're not talking about a team of scholars debating political motivations during Napoleon's military campaigns, we're talking about the evolution of all life, everywhere.
It's a classic example of a theory with no supporting evidence.
Seeds of Doubt
Personally, I think our thinking about evolution needs to be updated. We need to look at it through a new lens.
The theory of evolution claims that nature selects genetic traits that will be passed on to future generations of organisms. However, we must understand that Thinking Man It works within the evolutionary model.
As conscious beings, we humans can now directly influence what and who lives. We have the power and conscious will to change the genes of unborn children or to abort them before they are born.
On a simpler scale, we plant beautiful flowers and trees in our gardens: we hold the power of life and death and therefore essentially build and shape our world.
This raises a few questions: How does evolution explain this journey of “biological construction” that humans have been on for quite some time, and if it can’t, how much weight can evolution really carry?
My first impulse is to be skeptical of the supposedly immovable object of evolution, since it seems to lack a historical explanation, and therefore a predictive analysis, of the way ecosystems have been and continue to be constructed by humans.
My point is simple: take the example of the invention of agriculture: every time people use forests or open space for farming, a new ecosystem is created.
This does not happen naturally. evolution In the garden. Human InterventionIt had to be built. Remember, I'm not saying there aren't evolutionary traits inherited by every plant and tree species. That's why hedges are pruned and branches have to be trimmed or they'll go wild.
But that's exactly what I want to say. Farmers Intervene and choose How this ecosystem works. God chooses which plants to leave and which to uproot, how to arrange the crops. He decides what will survive and what will go.
Similarly, on a larger scale, humans have been at war with nature. Humans have wiped entire gene pools off the face of the earth. So is this evolution? I thought “survival of the fittest” was a random, automatic process, outside of human control. So can humans logically and consciously choose to initiate a “random” process of gene elimination?
If he were just an animal, that would make sense, because animals are not conscious beings with the capacity for action; they are bound by instincts.
(If this is true, if humans are just cogs in the evolutionary process, Anthropogenic climate change It should be considered as one of the forces of natural selection, but that is a discussion for another time.
Obviously, humans can be slaves to animal instincts. But humans have the capacity to overcome this and become free thinkers. And it is this thinking human being that shatters the paradigm of the stereotypical progressive model of evolution. The thinking human being has introduced the most unpredictable force in the universe: free will. Humans can direct the destiny of all life in the direction they wish. It is in this way, and for this very reason, that I argue that the theory of evolution is flawed.
Show me the fossils
Current evolutionary models are themselves reductionist approaches that only marginally attempt to “predict the past” through atomistic observations of biological objects, without taking into account the past and present relationships between organisms and their ecosystems.
What that means is that how an organism behaves now (its genetic traits, etc.) is obviously the product of a complex history spanning many generations. And what evolutionary theory lacks is an exhaustive account of the generational history of the subject of its study.
Simply put, this means that there is not enough evidence to accept any evolutionary model. The biggest red flag in the evidence department is the absence of transitional fossils.
You see, evolutionary theory traditionally holds that species evolve through a process called phylogenetic gradualism, whereby species gradually diverge into different species over time. And if this were the case, there should be thousands, or even millions, of fossils that show this transition.
And that's exactly the problem: there's a gaping hole in the transitional fossil record. Some of evolution's most famous proponents, including Darwin and Dawkins, admit that the evidence for this doesn't exist at all. The evidence is so lacking that some scholars have been forced to come up with entirely new evolutionary models to explain the phenomenon.
Harvard professor Stephen Jay Gould developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which argues that in contrast to systematic gradualism, speciation actually occurs in short bursts between longer periods of evolutionary stability.
This new model should, in theory, help us validate evolution, or at least narrow down the time span of genetic mutations to a specific period of time. Suddenly, in theory, we no longer need to collect data from every period in history or every place in the world.
Needle in a haystack
But it also exerts pressure on evolutionary proponents to narrow their perspective: in a strange and paradoxical way, it broadens and complicates the quest to test evolution.
Not only is there currently a search for evolutionary change at specific times and places (like searching for the proverbial needle in a haystack), but there is also a need for an explanation and definition of what exactly “evolutionary stability” is, in order to properly contrast it with the bursts of change that occur over short periods of time.
By abandoning the search for transitional fossils, evolutionary advocates have doubled their workload: they must be able to explain not only the long-term, everyday nature of the biosphere's experiences, but also the dramatic short-term perturbations that intervene to produce such changes.
There was that word again. Intervene. Genetic changes appear to only occur with specific interventions.
And who is the only variable in the biosphere?
Humanity.
Random rules?
Make no mistake: only humans can consciously exercise authority over nature and change it. It may be tempting to gloss over generations of history with a single dogma like “survival of the fittest” — after all, we don't have any fossils of ancient plants, fish, or transitional kangaroos — but we do know that there was a conscious agent with the ability to deliberately intervene in the workings of nature.
The point is that evolution, which refers to a random process in which species compete for survival in unpredictable ways, overlooks how consciousness intervenes in this process — and often, humans do.
We construct the world today in countless ways. Look around you. Most things did not evolve to be there. They were shaped, created, and placed.
To me, the more interesting question is what actually emerges when you deliberately choose which genetic traits to grow and which to leave out?
Don't get me wrong: issues like the pro-life vs. anti-life debate are examples of the struggle with evolution and eugenics.
We are currently shaping new evolutionary paths because of our tendency to intervene, whether we know it or not. No one knows what the impact of these practices will be.
