Article 5
If this is your first visit to this site please read the Glossary
Introduction
Theory or Not Theory - That Is The Question The term 'evolution' refers to the PROCESS of evolution. In other words you could state that the horse evolved from a much smaller animal. But if you were discussing the process and using words to describe the process you would refer to the description as the 'theory of evolution'. In other words you would say 'Darwin's theory of evolution' and NOT 'Dwain's evolution', and likewise you would say the 'evolution of the horse' NOT the 'theory of evolution of the horse'. Thus calling it a theory does not diminish its obvious truth and scientific validity despite the fact that there can never be any scientific method of verifying its truth, other than common sense.
The Process The force behind the process of evolution is a very simple one - the replication of biological entities; in other words - biological reproduction. When a cell is fertilised by a sperm it creates a unique entity. It may be very similar to its parents but nevertheless will be genetically different - genetically unique. When cells divide they will not be exactly the same as each other. In most cases the difference is not obvious - as regards the difference within a species. For example: humans beget humans, sheep beget sheep, elephants beget elephants etc. Nevertheless there is a difference, no matter how slight, betwen every individual within any particular species. In most circumstances the difference is irrelevant - but not always.
Sheila the ewe (female sheep) Now imagine a scenario where the grass was attacked by a fungus, or that the climate changed whereby the nettles grew faster and the grass grew slower. Suddenly this sheep which liked eating nettles would have an advantage and would get stronger and more healthy when at the same time the other sheep might get slightly weaker and less healthy. In that case the slight variation in the eating habits of this sheep would, or could, make a difference between surviving or dying. Or one could imagine a situation where some of the chemicals in the nettles went into the flesh, or blood, of the sheep and the flies which lay their eggs on the sheep didn't like the smell, or taste, of that nettle-loving sheep and didn't lay its eggs on that sheep. If, due to some climate change, there was an increase in the number of flies this sheep may not get any maggots (baby flies) and may end up being more healthy and vigorous that the other sheep with the maggots which would be getting weaker. I know that this example may seem extreme, or petty, but it is only a change in climate or environment which gives free reign to those biological entities which happen to be more 'suitable' (or 'adapted') than others.
STOP !! Evolution is NOT about improving, NOT about progress, NOT about becoming superior. It is NOT even about adapting. It is only about CHANGE - RANDOM 'genetic' change. To use terms like 'Sheila evolved to become a nettle eater' or 'Sheila adapted to the changing environment', or to use terms like 'the survival of the fittest' is totally misleading (usually 'fittest' is understood in terms of strength which in a lot of cases is furthest from the truth). It is the survival of the MOST SUITABLE - and nothing more - within that particular climate and that particular environment and at that particular time. The fact is that most 'species' only exist for a limited period of time - it is only a temporary state of being the 'fittest'. To use terms like 'adapted' gives the impression that the species purposefully changed in order to survive. No species could be capable of that. The most important viewpoint to have when investigating or thinking about evolution is with the full understanding that evolution is totally PASSIVE. It is NOT ACTIVE. It CANNOT be active. When I use the term 'passive' I mean that, as in the example above, Sheila never decided to eat nettles in order that it may survive better if the grass started to disappear. It was merely a case of being slightly genetically different - as ALL sheep are (to each other) - to a point where it just HAPPENED that Sheila either liked the smell or the taste of the nettles. That is all there is to it. It was a random slight difference. In this particular case the genetic difference won't make any difference as regards the species. Grass is growing and the nettles are growing and whether her offspring eat nettles will be up to chance. Unless there was a climate, or environmental change Sheila will just be another sheep and no more.
Progress or Not progress There must have been cases where the genetic changes where not helpful for the survival of that particular biological entity. Where are these species now? - they are dead! Random changes can either have a positive, negative, or neutral effect on the species - and that depends on chance. The opposite example to Sheila could be those humans who are totally allergic to peanuts. If they eat even one peanut they can go into severe shock and often die as a result. This is only a slight genetic change and yet it is a devastating difference. That is certainly not progress or improvement. It is just change. It is just chance. If the climate hadn't changed at the time of the dinosaurs humans would not be in the 'dominant' position in the species hierarchy that we are now (please do NOT think that I mean we are better or superior - we are NOT! - though there are many fools who think so). When the climate changed and the dinosaurs died off there was an enormous amount of environmental resources available for those who could exploit it. Those animals who could exploit it would reproduce at an enormous pace thus giving rise to many genetic variations (as is usual), which could find their own niche in the new environment available.
Another Trip-up To Watch Out For Unfortunately there are some 'investigators' (academics) of evolution who seem to expect EVERY attribute of a species, and every action and every process has to be directly connected with evolution. For example those who are attempting to investigate altruism ask the question - 'how does altruism help in the survival of the species (of Man)?'. But altruism may have no influence in the survival of Man. It may even turn out to be the 'weakness' and the cause of Man's ultimate extinction! Don't forget - EVERY species will become extinct in the long run. So, in effect, every positive attribute could, eventually, become a negative attribute and even be the cause of the extinction of that species.
Final Word When you think of evolution think of words like 'chance' and 'luck' and 'random genetic changes' and forget about words like 'design'. There is no design in nature. That which isn't suitable for surviving at any particular point in time etc doesn't survive. That which is suitable does - and reproduces. So from now on when you hear the phrase - 'the rats have evolved to become immune to the usual rat poisons' - you should realise just how incorrect that phrase is. The correct phrase should be something like this - 'the rats which were immune to the rat poison have survived and multiplied' - it is just the case that the rats who weren't immune are . . . . dead!
The Overall Picture Take for example a tree. It begins as a seed (one could even begin the process earlier) and the sapling, the young tree, the mature tree, the old tree and the rotting dead tree. Or take, for example, a human being, it begins with the egg and sperm (though they began life earlier) and then the embryo, the baby, the infant, the child, the youth, the young adult, the adult, the elderly person, the old person and the dead body. That is existence. All these process are contained within the next larger processes which are contained within the next more larger process, which are contained within the largest process - existence. Nothing is static, not (biological) entities, not species, not planets, not solar systems, not galaxies, not the universe. Humans seem to be totally incapable of investigating processes without giving them a value (in human terms), somehow thinking that existence behaves according to human values. Well it DOESN'T. To put a VALUE on any of the processes is irrational. Change is change - that is all there is to it! - no more. To consider anything more 'superior' to anything else is to be a blind unknowing fool. Is Hydrogen less 'value' then Helium? Is a worm less value than a human? Is a mouse less value than an elephant? Is a member of a tribe in Borneo less value than a 'modern' human living in the West? The answer to ALL those stupid questions is NO! NO! NO! Many humans blindly consider that the evolution of the human as a social species means that modern humans are 'better' than humans who are still in tribal 'backward' communities. All they do is demonstrate that without any doubt whatsoever they are just as backward, stupid and irrational as those whom they consider as being lower on the ladder of human evolution. So, leave the notion that progress, superiority, purpose and improvement are connected with evolution. Also leave the notion that ALL attributes of any organism are totally and irrevocably linked to evolution. Evolution should not be seen as another religion to be believed in. It is merely a way of explaining SOME of the processes involved in biological existence and survival. Common Ancestors - A Problem In Logic Most of us have seen the diagram of the 'tree of life' scribbled by Darwin. In general terms this could be considered correct and, in general terms, visually explains evolution. But there is a slight problem - though this problem does not weaken the theory at all - it just allows a more rational and reasonable viewpoint.
The logic is very simple. In other words there may have been more than ONE single start to life on this earth. To be so blind as to think that the start of life on this earth should or could be unique would be to believe in magic. One may as well believe in god. That is not to say that there was more than one start. It is just allowing for rational and reasonable assumption that if something is natural it could happen - more than just once. Updated: 3rd October 2009
|
If you want to contact me if there is a specific point you want to make or you want to ask a question about an incident in life which you would like explained within the UT Instinct theory. If you intend to argue a point, or correct an error in the logic - if there are any ;0) PLEASE ONLY DO SO AFTER YOU HAVE CAREFULLY READ EVERYTHING IN THE RELEVANT SECTION. Use the form (if visible) on all the Chapters and Articles pages or email me (especially if it is a longish piece of text).
|