My Pet Peeve: The Dogma of the Theory of Evolution

There is something that bothers me with scientists that constantly justify observations by the book of the Theory of Evolution.  It bothers me because I feel like the word adaptation and evolution are badly used, causing confusion.  In fact, if you look at documentation, most prominently Darwin's book "On The Origin of Species", written in 1859, he ends with the Theory of Evolution, but that theory is based on creature observations at a macro level (shapes, sizes, colors, behavior, habitats and so on).  Darwin had no clue that DNA existed back in the day.

However, modern scientists, in full knowledge of DNA and how it is propagated through generations, and call any change occurring in a population "evolution", where it could just be "adaptation".

Why the confusion?  Darwin used the word "adaptation" a lot in his research, and so do many biologists, because they often observe how an animal or plant species has adapted to a different environment through what Darwin called "natural selection".

Here's my beef.  Differences in species does not automatically mean their DNA has changed into a superior state that is better adapted to an environment.  In fact, most species, humans included, have multiple balanced sets of genes that allow for adaptation to many different environments.  For example, people that live in hot regions of the world but have white skin will adapt to the heat by producing more melanin in their skin to absorb more UV light and prevent skin damage this way.  They will also feel more comfortable than other white-skinned individuals over a short period of time because their bodies, using genes in their DNA, will produce proteins that makes the heat more tolerable.  This is adaptation.

Now if this same person chooses to mate with a person with dark skin who is by default much better adapted to hot climates, the result will be a genetic mix of the two parents with features from a DNA that is better adapted to colder climates and DNA that is better adapted to warmer climate.  The offspring is a mutant, a mix of two different compatible species who may or may not be able to survive better than its parents where they live.... but at least it's an unusual mix of genes that otherwise would not have been combined.

I talk a bit more about this peeve in my video below:

It is possible that genetic errors are inserted into this new generation due to transcription errors.  In recorded human history, no transcription mutation has resulted in a human being that was better adapted to an environment, thus helping that new individual in surviving better than the others of his generation and allowing him to better propagate the mutated gene down the line.  Frankly, our history tracking genes has been too short to really know for sure.

This is why Richard Lenski started his bacteria experiment many years ago:  to see if bacteria populations (E. Coli in this case) would eventually "evolve" beneficial genes and eventually lead to an evolved E. Coli that some day may become an entirely different species as speculated by Charles Darwin.  The logic is sound for an experiment and so far it has gone through 67,000 generations.  E. Coli has only a 20 minute period per generations, so if we translate that in human years, it is similar to going through 67,000 human generations, which means 1,340,000 human years.

To put it in perspective, the expectation here is that the bacteria changed genetically just as much as human beings within those generations.  We think the first member of the "Homo" genus appeared 2,800,000 years ago from a more primitive form, the Hominids, starting with Homo Habilis.

There is excitement around the Lenski experiment because a couple years ago, one of the cultures has started to gain the ability to eat citrate instead of just glucose.  That and all 12 original cultures have changed and have different characteristics than what they started off with even though their environment hasn't changed.  It is a fascinating experiment, really.

Honestly, it seems insufficient for a bacteria to only have one beneficial DNA mutation over all those generations and within the same amount of generations, humans have gone from Homo Habilis to modern day humans.  Homo habilis and its more advanced cousin, homo erectus, were significantly less advanced in brain capacity and ability to move about than homo sapiens (us).  It just doesn't compute to me.

What the reports and documents don't show is whether these changes are due to mutations within the populations or simply adaptation using the genetic code available within the flasks.  DNA is complex with genes responsible for coding protein, regulator genes, DNA responsible to help pack and unpack chromosomes (structural DNA) and more.  We don't know yet if those changes seen in the E. Coli colonies were just existing genes unlocking in the right sequence allowing for citrate processing, or if it's a real beneficial mutation.  We're just now gaining the right tools to just start to determine this sort of thing.

I don't keep the secret that I'm a believer of the Intelligent Design theory.  Don't worry, I don't believe in any mysterious all powerful being that happen to be there to create life.  I just think, given the facts, it makes more sense that very different species were designed by scientists a long time ago and what we see as leaps in the genealogical trees of evolutionary species are just different attempts in lab work, with the Earth being the lab.

There is no proof of this of course.  It is something I believe makes more sense than abiogenesis plus massive fast evolutionary jumps between versions of species. 

It just looks a lot more like new versions after an update and until there is proof that such jumps are possible through random beneficial mutations over a reasonable amount of generations, I will continue to believe an intelligent hand must have been involved to explain the bones we dig up in our soil.

Many deist professionals are also strong believers of Intelligent Design, but they celebrate the issues with evolutionist proofs by just saying, "it must be God".  There is no proof of that either.

Fortunately, some of these researchers do make good points in favor of Intelligent Design while trying to prove their god-theory, like this excellent writer that explains that it would be very difficult to explain how come over 80% of our DNA is actually useful and retained over so many random mutation generations.

I just think there is a severe lack of doubt in the scientific community surrounding the Theory of Evolution and wish my colleagues would keep a more open mind about different possibilities that we may not be able to prove yet (such as the ancient presence of extraterrestrial scientists on the planet that would have left a long, long time ago).

These scientists speak about evolution as if it was a certainty and being considered experts, creates certainty within the general population and then this certainty then infiltrates our schools.

Doubt is the basis of science because it raises questions and that's good.

So, dear reader, the next time you hear some explanation about some animal behavior or newfound species by the blanket answer "it must have evolved this way ....".  Think about what I just wrote here.  Evolution is like dogma these days, but it is far from being the only way life could have appeared on the planet so long ago.

Food for thought.