- Education and Science»
- Life Sciences
If Evolution Were True
Evolution in Action
Science Seeks Answers
Science is about seeking answers to our questions. One of the most basic questions we ask begins with the words "How did this happen?" Well, in the study of biological macro-evolution, we have been given many answers to many questions, starting with Charles Darwin himself down to the present day luminaries such as Richard Dawkins and Stephen Gould.
Many times we get the same answers from academia and the scientific "community". When they cannot arrive at an answer, the safe answer is "We don't know for sure, but this IS how it happened." I believe this is called a cop-out. That's why I don't like to ask "How did this happen" without some additional qualification.
You see, asking questions presents a challenge to science and I fear either science is afraid or unwilling to offer an answer or just too plain lazy to look into the subject. Well, I have a challenge which had been dismissed by many of my college professors, probably because they don't really care or they're worried about getting home before traffic builds up on the Dan Ryan Expressway.
My question isn't about how did something happen, but rather how didn't it happen. And rather than bringing up the Intelligent Design vs Evolution debate, I will focus on the status quo that assumes evolution happened and it happened the way they think it happened. And so, here are my questions:
- IF EVOLUTION WERE TRUE, then not all the intermediates (missing links) would be extinct. Let's ignore that we cannot find any intermediate fossils or traces. Assuming they did exist, they can't all can be extinct. We should find creatures with features and DNA that belong to different yet combined animal phylum. We should find a transitional breed between skunk and rabbit or platypus and otter living today. Then again, some transitional creatures must go extinct as they could not survive. (But if they could not survive how do we get their transitioned offspring which does?) Where are the living transitional species? And what is beyond the mammal world? Too many questions, not enough scientific thought about it- those dang lazy scientists!
- IF EVOLUTION WERE TRUE, it must have happened fast and it should occur today. Look at the development of the fetus how fast he or she develops, or the metamorphosis of the butterfly. That's pretty fast compared to the gradual change of species over millions of years. I'm not talking about the fantasy of punctuated equilibrium. I do understand that if scientists and archaeologists and anthropologists and geologists decided that evolution happened fast, then the whole theory of millions of years would be thrown out and that is taboo.
- IF EVOLUTION WERE TRUE, again, it should occur today and should not have stopped. What could cause it to stop? When did it stop? Things grow. Things adapt and change within the species. We should see it (macro-evolution) happening now. We should be able to observe chickens developing to fly so they don't end up at KFC. We should see fish developing little hands so they can take the hooks out of their mouths when they get caught by a fisherman. We should see deer developing some sort of intelligence that overrides their staring into the headlights. And to observe it means we should be able see it happen anywhere in the world.
- IF EVOLUTION WERE TRUE, where's the second wave? The first wave apparently happened giving us fish, amphibians. reptiles, birds, mammals, and man. Each emerged after the other, supposedly. Why isn't there a second wave - does evolution only have one starting point? Can't it randomly start another chain, let's say, 500 hundred years ago? Another primeval creature should have arisen and dinosaurs again should be walking the earth. Earth is the only world which has the conditions for life emergence, we should see another stream or wave of it happening all over again. We should see different fish, and then fish walking out of the water onto land. Then reptiles growing bigger and bigger. We should see primates developing into humanoids, similar to us, living in caves. Where's the second wave?
- IF EVOLUTION WERE TRUE, then where are the intelligent animals? I'm not talking about smart parrots or chimps. I'm talking about the next level - a pachyderm man, an ostrich man, or even a batman (not Adam West.) I'm referring to intelligence at our level. A race of animals that develop culture. Man did it in a few million years. Come on, the reptiles have been here longer and none of them can develop into a society? No iguanas building houses and driving cars. Possibly, the movie Planet of the Apes, was a dream? Apes have been around just as long as us - their branch of the evolutionary tree offered just as much opportunity as it did for humans. We won't discriminate against knuckle-walkers - we're a tolerant society. So why haven't they evolved beyond their stinking level? They're just a bunch of losers. (Sorry for the humor, I do not mean to offend any ape lovers.)
- IF EVOLUTION WERE TRUE, then why worry about endangered species? It's survival of the fittest in this jungle we call Earth, and if they can't cut it, they can get out. Seriously, endangered species is just part of the process. Whether a species goes extinct because of a global flood, or asteroid catastrophe or at the hands of man, it's simply a part of nature and we should not interfere. Take the dodo bird, for example. He is gone, but so what? Nature has compensated for his loss. Whatever place he had in the food chain has been filled. On the other hand, if evolution were true, endangered species are replaced with new species - something will emerge. Maybe one day, again, we will see something like the dodo bird as long as evolution does its job.
- IF EVOLUTION WERE TRUE, then the opposite must be true. Evolution, as many believe, is the development and change upwards. Change is from simpler to more complex. Supposedly change is from good to better. Evolutionary believers state that more and more information is gathered to aid in the change. (Where doesthis extra info comes from, I do not know.) So, the opposite, de-evolution, must also be true. We should see loss of information. We should see frogs de-evolving into fishlike creatures. We should see whales losing their lungs and (hopefully) growing back gills. If evolution had a starting point, shouldn't de-evolution have one too? Then again, they both couldn't start at the same time, could they? They sort of just cancel each other out. If we've reached the epitome of evolution, then we should fear de-evolution is just around the corner.
- IF EVOLUTION WERE TRUE, we should see "cross" evolution. This is my term for major transistional creatures, such as half snake and half vegetable or a tree with blood flowing in it. We should see an amoeba with eyes (or even one). We should see an insect with fish scales or a dandelion that walks. I'd like to see the punctuated equilibrium of the plant kingdom, you know, you plant a corn kernel and a tomato plant grows instead.
- IF EVOLUTION WERE TRUE, then there should be species and races of mutants. Scientists have been saying that mutation is evolution in action. When a two-headed calf is born, I'm looking for a two-headed bull so we can breed two-headed cattle. Then when a rancher tells the bank he needs a loan based on his livestock of 100 head of cattle, he's getting a bargain (his 50 cows each have 2 heads!) Sorry for the humor, this is how I evolved. Really, if you interbred mutants, you should have a race of mutants.
- IF EVOLUTION WERE TRUE, there should be more than two sexes. We have asexual worms and we have duo-sexual animals (male and female). But why have 2 sexes. Why didn't a third sex arise? It's funny that both sexes for every species emerged concurrrently, but did any species have only one sex emerge and no one to mate with? I was also thinking about homosexuality. I'm only asking questions and this is in my mind: if homosexuality is normal and has been happening since the beginning of time, shouldn't there be an organ adaptation of the homosexual mammal to produce off-spring? If homosexuality is part of the Grand Evolutionary Plan set by nature, then bodies of such should be complimentary to each other so they may properly mate. Don't be offended, my question isn't so much about homosexuality but rather evolution.
- IF EVOLUTION WERE TRUE, then most creatures should have regenerative powers. There's a lizard that grows back a severed tail. Our bones grow back together and our flesh heals after having been cut. Then shouldn't we grow back a new eyeball if the original is removed? If life has been here for millions of years and developed so many wonderful things, the why can't we grow back a severed pinky? Even if it took ten years to grow, it would be worth it. Regeneration is actually the most logical process that evolution can give us yet it is rare and far between.
- IF EVOLUTION WERE TRUE, we should not hear scientists and teachers saying "we don't how it happened, but we know that it did." How can you know it did if it hasn't been observed?
Well, I hope you enjoyed my questions (and moments of humor) and I also hope I got you thinking. I have lots of questions, but I fear no one has the qualifications to answer them truthfully. And again, my questions are based on the assumption IF EVOLUTION WERE TRUE.
Test your Whale Knowledgeview quiz statistics
© 2011 Rob Lattin