Evolution is Science Turned Upside Down

Biology Forum: Biweekly Editorial
January 1, 2007
Letters to the editor are welcome. See home-page for the e-mail address. Please limit responses to 1000 words. Please cite your affiliation and credentials (i.e. PhD, etc.).
 
Evolution's Semantic Sophistry
Darwinian evolution becomes a tenable concept only because  competitive advantage, a simple descriptive observation, is converted into the active concept of natural selection by the use of semantics. Thus the mind is tricked into believing competitive advantage possesses the power to convert one species into another.  The semantics involved in this type of self-delusion will be discussed a little later.  But first, let's consider the practical problem that evolutionists face. 
 
The problem is that the motive power for evolution does not exist.  Competitive advantage can be scientifically measured and tested.  It is a reality. However natural selection can not be measured or tested.  Natural selection is nothing more than a speculative concept. That is the reason Motoo Kimura of the Japanese Institute of Genetics 7developed the hypothesis of "neutral mutation with random drift," which is now the default hypothesis of evolution among academics.3  The problem that evolutionists face is that of trying to maintain their belief system and  put flesh on a speculative concept.  That is why semantics is so important to the evolutionist. Natural selection would be a more attractive to the general public and less evanescent if it could be given a basis in fact.  To this end, some evolutionists postulate the Earth, itself as the “palpable mechanism of selection;” meaning the agent of natural selection. One biologist stated it this way: “The environment is the selecting agent in natural selection because it determines what variations are satisfactory for survival and which are not.  Any change in the environment can affect the usefulness of a given variation.  A change in the environment can render a once useful variation useless.  In this way the direction of evolutionary development can change.” 2
 
This concept is spurious because the environment cannot reach into an organism's genome and dictate when the right set of mutations will occur on the right chromosomes, at the right time.  The environment cannot control when or how, or in what part of an organism’s genome, any given organism might respond to any given set of external conditions, or whether a mutation will be good or bad (the probability is 99.9% -- 1000 to 1 -- that the mutation will be deleterious). The environment is only a backdrop against which the battle of competitive-advantage is played out between various competing genotypes, using various elements of the particular type of competitive advantage conferred on them by  their particular genotype.
 
The environmental conditions of earth, like the concept of natural selection itself, can only stand on the sidelines waiting until chance genetic variation presents organisms on the field competitive advantage.  At that point, environmental conditions can play a part, in determining competitive advantage; but only as one component of an organism's overall competitive advantage with regard to resistance to infection, healing power, intelligence, anatomy, physiology, reproductive success, etc.
 
The reason that the environment can play a part in the competition, but cannot engage in selection, is twofold: The first reason is that an organism can be perfectly adapted to its environment; and yet be outclassed with regard to other characteristics. As an example, one organism’s perfect, contemporary, environmental adaptation might be no match for a less well adapted opponent’s future genetic potential over time. The second reason is that environmental conditions can change such that what was an advantage, at one time, becomes a disadvantage at another; for example, short hair in the face of an oncoming Ice Age. Thus, changes in the environment over time will zero out the environment, as an agent capable of promoting progressive increases in complexity, i.e. macroevolution.
 
It makes no difference whether the environment is considered a selection factor in the battle for survival, or whether natural selection is thought of as a spectator choosing from what random mutation or chance symbiogenesis serve up.  Natural selection cannot select what chance variations fails to produce.  Natural selection is nothing more than the speculative postulate of an ill-informed 19th century naturalist; kept alive by the power of semantics.  Without the magical power of natural selection, there is no Darwinian evolution.  Thus, without natural selection, and in the face of the multiple contradicting facts  such as the chicken and egg relationship between DNA, RNA, and protein,  the inability of cells to produce more chromatin than the original DNA molecule possessed prior to cell division (thus unable to produce an increase in complexity), and the fact that the fossil record offers no substantial support for "gradual change" 5 or "intermediate forms," 6 evolutionists are forced to resort to semantics in order to promulgate their belief system.
 
Categories of Evolutionist Semantics: Harold R. Booher Ph.D. in science and technology, devoted an entire chapter of his book, Origins, Icons and Illusions,1 to an exposition of evolutionist semantic sleight of hand..  He classified semantics, and evolutionist use of them into various categories.  Three of those categories are paraphrased below.
 
Cognitive dissonance: Dr. Booher stated that in order to understand why semantics help maintain and reinforce the worldview of evolution we must start by stipulating that evolution satisfies certain cognitive requirements of human belief systems.  One of the most powerful cognitive pressures is the need to reduce cognitive dissonance.  That is, reduce the struggle within one's mind between contradictory facts or concepts.  The psychological mechanism of cognitive dissonance was recognized and developed into a theory by Leon Feslinger, in 1957. He postulated that this coping mechanism appears whenever individuals recognize that they have logically inconsistent beliefs or attitudes on a subject; and become motivated to reduce the inconsistency.  For example, if a person is forced to act in a manner which is contrary to his or her personal mores, he or she will experience an unpleasant feeling because of the mental conflict.  Similarly humans can experience dissonance between their belief that in nature there is a reason for everything, and the fact that they cannot find an understandable explanation for the complexities and inconsistencies displayed by nature.  The concept of evolution acts as an opiate and reduces the mental distress that comes when some humans strive for an explanation of nature's complexities. 
 
Cognitive dissonance becomes very apparent in discussions of evolution.  When one states that they do not accept evolution because it has not been scientifically proven, a typical response is ‘well what else do we have?’  But, as pointed out by Dr. Booher in quoting Norman Macbeth, ‘There is nothing in the scientific method that says one has to believe in a theory simply on the basis that it is the only one offered.  It is only our cognitive need to reduce discrepancies that make this line of thought seem acceptable.  But, it is erroneous nevertheless."
 
Logical Fallacies: Because of the need to reduce the mental anguish of cognitive dissonance when there is no factual explanation for a phenomenon, such as the inability to demonstrate an explanation for the abrupt appearance of organisms from all phyla during the Cambrian explosion, or the fact that the fossil record fails to demonstrate intermediate forms,6 some "scientists" become vulnerable to logical fallacies.  A typical illusionary explanation used in evolution, is based on circular reasoning.  In circular reasoning, the error is to reason that A is caused by B, and B is caused by A:   In the case on the evolutionist explanation for the Cambrian explosion it is stated that precursor organism's were softbodied and could not be preserved.  Therefore, because organisms that predated the Cambrian explosion were softbodied they cannot be found.  There is no scientific evidence that a precursor lineage existed, or that such organisms were all softbodied. Similarly, evolutionists "usually extricate themselves from [the] dilemma" of no "transitions between major groups" in the fossil record, and the fact that changes are "characteristically abrupt," by "invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record." 6
 
A particularly seductive type of logical fallacy is a rhetorical trick called a tautology. This is a logical fallacy in which the identity of the subject and predicate are masked, and causation is then imputed by defining one in terms of the other.    The most obvious evolutionary tautology is ‘survival of the fittest’ were the fittest are always those who survive.  Natural selection is another; because natural selection theoretically selects those  members of a species, for survival, which are well adapted.  But selection is predetermined  because those populations of organisms which survive are always those which are better adapted to their environment.  Dr. Booher has pointed out that this logical error can have a significant effect on our belief system which usually goes unnoticed.  He uses  the following example: “biologists have discarded survival of the fittest, together with the words fit, and fitness, in their normal usage; [but] laymen have noticed nothing.  They continue to talk of fitness in the old way and to regard survival of the fittest as a sound doctrine”. What Dr. Booher means is that evolutionists now use terms such as "reproductive success" and the production of "adaptive characteristics" in the face of "environmental pressures" (concepts which have never been proven experimentally), while continuing to imply survival of the fittest and therefore natural selection.
 
Semantic illusion: In the usual course of sophistry, semantics can be used in such a way as to be purposefully obfuscating.  When this happens, the reader may become puzzled,  and suspicious that  something is wrong.  But with semantic illusion, the appearance of a disingenuous statement becomes real.  It makes sense, and unless we know better, it becomes a part of our belief system.  We are familiar with certain visual illusions, but there are semantic illusory devices that are not so familiar, which can affect philosophic concepts on a level that often affects our thought processes, permanently.
 
As Dr. Booher has recorded: "It is words that are our primary tools for thinking, not pictures.  It is the illusory semantic arguments which contribute most to our current psycho-social view of evolution as an all-encompassing natural force."  Take for example the use of microevolution to illustrate macroevolution.  Microevolution is an easily observable fact of nature.  However, no one has ever demonstrated macroevolution under any circumstance. Thus, it is disingenuous to substitute pictures of microevolution (a truism only as far as intra-species adaptation and variation are concerned), when discussing macroevolution (the conversion of one species into another) because, macroevolution is not microevolution extrapolated.4  To do so is pure sophistry!
                                                                                                                                                                        E. T. Dombrowski MD  (1-1-07)
 
1. Booher, H.: Origins, Icons and Illusions; Warren H. Green Inc., St. Louis, Mo.,  pp 29 -- 39
2. Gabrielle I. E.: Biology The.Easy Way, Barron’s, third edition, 2000, p. 333).
3. Gellespi, J. H.:Molecular Evolution and the Neutral Allele Theory; in Harvey and Partridge Editors, Oxford Surveys in Evolution and Biology,
    No. 4, 1987; pp 10-37.
4. Gould, S. J.: The Return of Hopeful Monsters; Natural History Magazine, No. 86 June 1977; pp 22-30.
5. Ibid  p 24.
6. Ibid  p 25
7. Kimura, M.: The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution; Japanese Journal of Genetics, No. 66, 1991; pp 16 - 24. 
11-19-06 In Defense of Science -- The Battle Against Darwinism
This blog is written out of deep reverence for the progress of science, and a love of knowledge for knowledge sake. It is science and knowledge that have improved humankind's understanding of life on Earth, and enabled the harnessing of the laws of chemistry, physics, biology, mathematics etc. to the good of all societies.
 
True scientific insights allow mankind to explain, predict and utilize natural phenomena.  Take for example Galileo’s  solar-centric explanation of planetary motion, Keppler's laws of motion, Newton’s law of gravity, Faraday’s explanation of electromagnetic induction, Clausius’ second law of thermodynamics, and Einstein's theory of special relativity etc..  All of these theories were written in declarative sentences based on scientific experimentation, deduction, and fact.  And, they changed the world for the better. 
 
But to the contrary, Darwin's hypothesis of macroevolution with natural selection was based only on speculation, not scientific facts.  Darwin's entire treatise, The Origin of Species, was written in the subjunctive mood when describing his hypothesis, not declarative, scientific sentences.  No chapters were devoted to materials or methods.  There were no experimental results demonstrating the conversion of one species into another.  There was no quantified evidence to support the concept of natural selection.  There was only the prattle of conjecture and speculation, not scientific deductions.
 
To this day no one has ever produced life from inorganic material, or converted one species into another.  No one has ever explained the chicken and egg relationship between protein, DNA, and RNA.  You can't have one of these molecules without having the others first (irreducible complexity).  The concept of natural selection has been discarded in favor of neutral mutation with random drift (itself contradicted by the Hardy-Weinberg law, Mueller's ratchet, and Eigen's Paradox).  There are multiple competing hypotheses of evolution, such as: neo-Darwinism, punctuated equilibrium, symbiogensis, etc.  The very fact that there are so many explanations for Darwinian evolution means that none of them are correct; otherwise there would be only one.
 
When one asks the question what good has Darwin's hypothesis done for humankind, the answer is a disturbing, nothing!  No one has ever used the hypothesis to develop a treatment for disease, explain physiologic our anatomic facts, perfect medications or manufacture goods of any kind.  In fact Darwinism precipitated a plague of wars, inhumanity to man, laissez-faire oppression of the disadvantaged, and destruction of Western morals and ethics in favor of situational ethics and dissolution of our collective conscience; all in the name of accidental origin, survival of the fittest, and the concept that there is no right or wrong, or good or evil.
 
Francis Galton, Charles Darwin's cousin, coined the term eugenics, based on the concept of animal populations' struggle for existence, coupled with Darwin's natural selection and Galton's concept of survival of the fittest.  Marx, Engle, Trotsky, Hitler, Margaret Sanger, and the laissez-faire robber barons of the 19th and 20th centuries were all Darwinists and used the theory of evolution and natural selection to justify their excesses -- even the use of eugenics and forced sterilization in United States, beginning in 1907 and continuing through the 1960s and 1970s in the land of the free -- all based on Darwin's hypothesis.
In today's society, the only value of Darwinian evolution and natural selection is to fuel the egos of humanists, the situational ethics of secular humanism, and the political goals of secular progressives.  Humanism is their philosophy.  Darwinism is their religion; a religion which they are struggling to impose on the United States and the rest of the world with their one-world, world-without-borders, and separation of church and state mantra.
 
The author understands evolution and evolutionists very well.  The author was once a fully trained and devoted evolutionist and humanist (UCLA).  However, more than 40 years of practical experience in the fields of medicine, surgery, mathematics, chemistry, physics, anatomy and biology, as well as 30 years of intensive study of Darwinian macroevolution has converted the author into a zealot in defense of science, and a staunch antagonist of the pseudoscience known as Darwinism.
 
The only persons with backgrounds in science who believe in the concept of evolution are either those who know very little about the subject, or those who know a great deal about very little; because their postgraduate degrees are in very confined areas of expertise.  Such persons with advanced degrees have little perspective with which to evaluate the concepts of Darwinism and macroevolution. From the standpoint of pure science, Darwinian evolution is pure nonsense.
 
This Website is dedicated to pointing out the serious flaws and contradictions in the Darwinian hypothesis; and driving home the fact that intelligent design and irreducible complexity are far better explanations for the diversity of life on Earth.  More than that, intelligent design provides a far better explanation and predictive power for the biological observations of science than do the fanciful concepts of cladistics, an evolutionary clock that doesn't keep time, or an African Eve scenario of the progression of mankind, based on spurious population genetics.
 
By contrast, the intelligent design hypothesis predicts that careful evaluation of biological systems always leads to irreducible complexity as their origin; with the form of biological entities always perfectly matched to their function; and always employing the best possible engineering solutions.  Problems in ecology, biology, physiology, anatomy and all aspects of human endeavor are best explained by asking the question why.  The why of a question, coupled with the concept of reverse engineering leads, unerringly, to definitive solutions.  Life is not by accident.  Life is by design.  And, utilizing a design perspective is the method by which all the laws of science can be integrated into an understanding of biology.
 
The most important question any human can ever ask or answer is whether he or she exists by accident or by design.  If we exist by accident, then the religious philosophy of the humanists and secular progressives makes sense.  But, if all the ecosystems of the Earth are designed for the purpose of maintaining ecostasis in the world, and if homeostasis is the cornerstone of physiology, then each and every one of us should carefully consider the implications of living on a carefully designed planet in elegantly designed bodies.
 
ET Dombrowski M.D. (November 2006)
 

 

 

 10-9-06 Science Versus Law by Fiat -- Cellular Biology the Ultimate Arbiter

It is  time for a  civil discussion of the dispute between Darwinian evolution and Intelligent design. It is time to analyze the argument from the standpoint of basic science. Is life on Earth the result of a random chance accident or design?  The reader now becomes judge and jury.  The verdict will affect one’s understanding of science, one's philosophy of life, and one's approach to ethics.
 
Evolutionists and humanists believe ethics are situational.  Thus, they believe each individual is free to choose what is right and what is wrong..  Such a philosophy is just as much faith-based as are the philosophies of religious scholars.  The difference is that humanists couch their opinions in terms of evolutionary pseudoscience; even though the basic precepts of evolution have never been proven. Nevertheless, evolutionists and humanists arrogantly impose their philosophy on our society by legal fiat and educational indoctrination.
 
Evolutionists, Lynn Margulis and Dorian Sagan admitted as much when they stated: "The terminology of most modern evolutionists is not only fallacious but dangerously so, because it leads people to think they know about the evolution of life when in fact they are confused and baffled."  (Acquiring Genomes; Basic Books, NY,NY; 2002; Page 16)
 
It is important to understand that the pivotal battle between Darwinian Evolution and intelligent design has been removed from the field of science, and placed in the domain of jurisprudence.  What Evolutionists have not been able to win by use of logic and scientific fact, they have tried to win by the rule of law.   Unfortunately, the court systems have been poisoned by the semantics of evolution.  Evolutionists have been able to disingenuously equate intelligent design with religious philosophy. Nothing could be further from the truth.  Scientists who believe in intelligent design merely ask the question: which is the more logical explanation for the origin of life, accidental origin or design? Legal decisions should be based on the preponderance of the evidence; not semantics.  But that is not the case in today's society.  Evolutionists have preempted the debate; painting those who believe in intelligent design as religious fanatics trying to subvert the first amendment of our Constitution.  The following example exemplifies the means by which advocacy groups can use twisted public policy and the legal system to quash the tenets of true science.
 
The author has written thousands of medical legal opinions where the standard of proof for the validity of the arguments for one side or the other was based on the weight of the evidence. That means that validity is determined by 51% of the weight of evidence falling on one of the dispute, or the other. Reasonable probability is the standard that should be used in determining which is correct: evolution or intelligent design. Unfortunately, there is a hidden flaw in the legal system.  The flaw is that justice and scientific fact are trumped by the rules of law; right or wrong.  Here is an example of how it works.
 
There is a pathological condition in human beings that is congenital in nature.  It does not normally become symptomatic until the mid-thirties.  The condition is known as lumbar spondylolisthesis.  Causation can be either an elongated pars interarticularis (that portion of a vertebral lamina that connects the pedicle to the facet, or a break in the pars interarticularis.  When a person with spondylolisthesis reaches age 35, he or she can expect the onset of symptoms from the condition.  Symptoms can arise from a misstep stepping off a curb, or a slip in the shower.  Patients are told that their symptoms are congenital in nature, and normally begin in the mid-thirties. Reasonable patients look at this as part of the luck of the draw of Earth life.  They accept responsibility for the consequences, of pain, and disability.
 
However, until January 1 of 2005, if a patient, with the same congenital pathology tripped at work in California, the onset of symptoms would have been declared industrial in nature.  And, the patient would have received substantial compensation, even though the symptoms were the natural consequence of a pre-existing congenital condition.  Why would such a person have been compensated by his employer for a purely congenital problem; because the Law said so.  Until January of 2005, workers compensation law, in California, stated that a disability incurred in the course of employment and arising out of employment could not be apportioned to any other alternative causation -- unless it could be demonstrated that the alternative causation had produced symptoms prior to patient's current stated industrial exposure.  The employer had the burden of proving alternative causation.  No matter how much scientific evidence the employer might have presented, that the employee’s symptoms were the natural consequence of a pre-existing non-industrial condition, the rule of law would not have allowed apportionment to an alternative causation, unless it could have been proven that the patient was symptomatic prior to the date of the stated industrial exposure. Therefore, unless the employee was symptomatic prior to the date of injury, the employer was obligated to pay for all medical treatment and permanent partial disability even though everyone knew that the primary condition was congenital in nature.
 
From the standpoint of pure science California law was unjust.  However, employee advocates had convinced legislators that public policy should trump justice and science -- by fiat.
 
But, when the above public policy pushed the cost of workers compensation insurance so high that many employers were leaving California, the California legislature changed the Law; and placed it in conformity with science.  And so it will be that jurisprudence in our nation will eventually recognize that the intelligent design hypothesis has the preponderance of evidence on its side, as opposed to the hypothesis of Darwinian evolution.  But until the significance of the biologic evidence becomes undeniable, evolutionists will continue to use semantics and pseudoscience to hobble the presentation of intelligent design as the more probable explanation for the origin of life on Earth.
 
 
The injustice of disingenuous experts and biased judges can be driven home with an example from the February 25, 2006 issue of Science News.  Science writer, Sid Perkins, wrote an article titled "Evolution In Action".  In his article he illustrated a facsimile of a benign warning label that the Cobb County (Georgia) Board of Education directed be placed in biology textbooks which read as follows:
                                          "This textbook contains material on evolution.  Evolution is a theory, not fact, regarding the origin of living things." 

 

This textbook contains material on evolution.  Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things.  This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.

 

Approved by

Cobb County Board of Education

Thursday, March 28, 2002

Figure 6.1: The warning label that the Board of Education of Cobb County Georgia wanted placed in biology textbooks

 

This textbook contains material on evolution.  Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things.  This material should be approached with an open mind, studied caref