Darwin’s theory of evolution today is widely regarded as valid. This is quite comfortable for many people as it serves as an analogy of democratic or communist ideology transposed on the animal kingdom. But is Darwin’s theory coherent? Does positive data prove Darwin? These questions today are posed most of all by religious groups in the United States, there are also some scientists who challenge said theory on grounds of a lack of objectivity towards it.
First and foremost we have to clarify a few things, that is the role of Genetics, which are said to further prove Darwin, and the theory and its parts itself.
We have a given population of beings. These beings are all somewhat alike. They can interbreed with one another and produce offspring. There exists variety among them, which means that even though they all look similar, they are not identical to each other. They all live in one given environment. The individuals within this population, which henceforth we will call a “species”, for they show abovementioned traits, compete with one another. Due to the factor of variation, some feature traits better suited for survival in given environment, we say they are better “adapted” or “fitter” than others. Now those individuals which are fitter procreate more while those less fit procreate less or die, depending on their level of fitness. Thus, the traits featured by the fitter individuals are spread throughout the species, made the norm, and the process starts anew, higher and higher.
This is the core of the theory. I have left out some factors because they essentially do not alter this core concept.
How do Genetics tie in?
Genetics, logically speaking, are superfluous in regards to evolution. Say I have a car, the manufacturer produces two variants, one with air conditioning, one without. Mine is the car without. Even though my car’s blueprint says it might be able to have air-conditioning, it does not.
Likewise in genetics. There are genes that lie dormant in organisms. If these genes were decoded and used, they would make an elephant of a fly, or so do scientists believe. But this is totally irrelevant thoughtplay in regards to evolution since fitness is not decided by “dormant, but possible” traits, but by traits that actually show.
Now to the theory of evolution itself: let us ponder, how would the record of excavated fossils look if Darwin’s theory were valid? The theory, as stated above, suggests a steady alteration of a given species traits. Due to variation , there are always individuals fitter than others, at any given point of time. We conclude, that we should have findings of an endless stream of fossils which all look similar but not identical, and if ordered by age, they would make a nice and even “upward” curve of evolution. Change would be steady and proportional to time, and this would show in fossil findings.
But do we have such a fossil record? Absolutely not. There are always individual fossils found which can be allocated to one certain species, and then others which can be allocated to another species. Scientists discuss the “missing links” for example between mammals and reptiles, however there are “links” missing everywhere!! Why is it, that there is one species with a fossil record, and another, different species? If Darwin were right, the concept of species itself would not exist since we would only excavate an endless stream of “intermediary” forms. Since evolution is said to be ongoing and steady so should be the change in the physical appearance of fossils, but it is not. It is radical and absolute. We can discriminate between species 1 and species 2.
Now it has been suggested that such a “stream of forms” does not show in the fossil record because there were natural disasters or similar things. This point would have to be proven in every case of a supposed connection between two species, wherever scientists think that one species evolved out of the other.
All of this does not say that “selection”, another Darwinian terminus, does not take place. It does. Individuals which feature traits which make them less fit within a population do of course not procreate as much as fitter individuals. They may even die. This is common sense. We do not need Darwin to tell us that weak individuals die and strong prosper. But Darwin also says that the fittest individuals procreate the most, until the whole species features their traits. I think this is a funny theory. How should that practically work? Superpotency on the part of the original male individual who features the trait, genetic dominance of the trait itself, maybe then said trait would become more widespread. But this does not as of itself suggest that every other animal which does not bear the trait dies away. Unless there is some outside influence, they will all live on. Mediocre individuals will not stop reproducing just because there are individuals fitter than them.
What in most cases today is called “evolution”, for example the reduction of horselike-mammal’s feet to the stumps horses walk upon, or the degeneration of eyesight in cavefish in Africa is a phenomenon which we all may witness everyday: If we do not use something, it degenerates. Human miners lose eyesight because they work in darkness all day long. I would not call them more evolved. Overwheight people loose the ability to walk, their muscles degenerate, that’s not evolution.
What is mistaken for evolution today is actually degeneration, an absolutely apparent truth.