Introduction to the Mathematics of Evolution

 

Chapter 2

 

The Empty Box of Evolution

 

 

"And when you trust your television

What you get is what you got

Cause when they own the information, oh

They can bend it all they want."

Lyrics of "Waiting on the World to Change," by John Mayer

 

 

The Empty Box

 

The original theory of evolution supported the theory of "gradualism," which meant that new species would arise gradually; meaning new species would appear for the first time on the earth evenly spaced over time.

 

The original theory also meant that a high percentage of fossils would be "transitional" species, meaning species which were "between" two other species.  Because evolution was supposed to have happened slowly, in small steps, large numbers of transitional species were a requirement for the theory.

 

However, the fossil record, both before and after Darwin's death, did not support either of these theories.

 

This is how Charles Darwin explained why the data in his day did not support his theory:

 

"The geological record [is] extremely imperfect and [this] will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps.  He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory."

Origin of Species

 

Darwin thought that future discoveries would vindicate his theory.  He was wrong.

 

What paleontologists did find both before and after Darwin's death was that species did not appear in the fossil record spread out evenly over time, but rather new species appeared in "clumps."

 

Technically this is called "punctuated," meaning in a short amount of time many new species appeared; then for long periods of time very few new species appeared on the earth for the first time.

 

Nor did paleontologists find the transitional species Darwin predicted.  Valid transitional species are rare; and even when they are found, they are frequently controversial and seem to be more of a figment of someone's vivid imagination than an obvious transitional species.

 

What happened several decades ago was that the theory of evolution was dying because a growing number of scientists were starting to question its validity due to the fossil record (see: Darwin's Enigma - chapter 1).

 

It should be clearly understood by the reader that many key parts of Darwinism have been completely disproven over and over.  Many of the key concepts of Darwin's original theories are now considered false, even by the scientific establishment.

 

If we compare the theory of evolution of Darwin to a box, we can initially put four things in this box: first, gradualism; second, a large number of transitional species; third, natural selection or survival of the fittest; and fourth, common ancestry or common descent.

 

Paleontologists removed two of these things from the theory of evolution box: gradualism and transitional species.

 

The third and fourth items, natural selection and common ancestry; do not belong in the theory of evolution box because they do not delineate between the theory of evolution and creationism.  In other words they are "non-differentiating," as will be discussed in a future chapter.

 

Thus, the original theory of evolution box is empty.  There is nothing in it that is valid from a scientific standpoint; as far as Darwin's original theories are concerned.

 

 

False Theories

 

In most cases, when integral pieces of a theory are proven to be false, the theory as a whole is rejected by science.  Even when all pieces of a theory are absolutely true, theories are frequently rejected by science because "science" is not always interested in truth for a variety of reasons (generally pride and vested interests).

 

Thus, when four of the key pieces of Darwin's theory of evolution were shown to be false (or non-differentiating), any sane person would predict that science would totally and absolutely reject Darwin's theory and look for its replacement.

 

Instead of automatically rejecting the theory of evolution of Darwin, the scientific establishment found itself in a dilemma.  On the one hand the original theory of evolution had big and key chunks of it disproven, especially by the fossil record.  On the other hand, the scientific establishment wanted to maintain its cherished "naturalism."

 

What do you think they did?

 

The primary goal of orthodox science is not truth, but the goal is to avoid, at all costs, any mention of God.  Darwin's "naturalistic" explanation of how species came to be had to be protected and preserved, no matter what the scientific evidence was.

 

To abandon Darwin would have been to abandon the best "naturalistic" explanation science had for how human DNA, and the DNA of millions of other plants and animals, came to exist without God.

 

To abandon Darwinism would have been an admission that God designed and created the earth and all life on earth.  Such an admission is totally repugnant and unacceptable to the scientific establishment.  It is totally unacceptable for science to allow a discussion of God, much less to admit that He lives and that science was wrong!!

 

Thus, instead of the obvious answer that science would flatly reject the theory of evolution; science had no option except to try and "fix" the theory of evolution in order to maintain its highly coveted "naturalism."  And that is exactly what happened.

 

For example, when new species were consistently found to appear on earth in "punctuated" clumps, two well known evolutionists, Dr. Niles Eldredge (of the American Museum) and the late Dr. Stephen Jay Gould (of Harvard), coined the term "punctuated equilibrium" in 1972 to explain the fact that gradualism did not fit the data.

 

Thus, rather than admitting the theory of evolution was false, they modified the theory of evolution to fit the data.

 

Yet another double-standard is pushed on the public.

 

In other words, the way science "fixed" the theory of evolution was to ignore its flaws and replace false theories with recent discoveries.

 

In other words, they modified the theory to fit the data.  That is how they "fixed" the theory of evolution.

 

To revive the theory of evolution, and to put something in its empty box, they converted the term "gradualism" into the term "punctuated equilibria" or "punctuated equilibrium."

 

 

DNA

 

An even more dramatic example of how the theory of evolution has been modified to fit the data; is the discovery of DNA.  At no time prior to the discovery of DNA did the theory of evolution predict that DNA would be discovered.  At no time prior to the discovery of DNA was any part of the mechanism of DNA predicted by the theory of evolution.

 

Yet, when DNA was discovered, the theory of evolution suddenly became the proprietor (i.e. owner) of the creation of DNA and it was claimed that the theory of evolution explained how human DNA was formed by a long series of complete accidents.

 

This is amazing considering that the theory of evolution did not even predict the discovery of DNA or any of its many mechanisms.  Yet evolution took possession of explaining how DNA came to be.

 

Essentially, the term "evolution" was replaced with the term "neo-Darwinism."  Thus, DNA gradually became part of the "new" (or "neo") theory of evolution's empty box.

 

As the incomprehensible complexity of DNA is slowly unraveled, the theory of evolution always gets the credit for creating the complexity.

 

The reality is that as discovery after discovery is made, the scientific evidence gets further and further away from Darwin's original theory.  Yet, no matter how far the evidence moves away from Darwin's original theory, his original theory is simply modified to fit the new data.

 

This is not science, it is a scam.

 

New discoveries are simply put in the theory of evolution empty box, as if Darwin had predicted them.

 

The "theory of evolution" today is nothing more than a list of recent scientific discoveries.  Any time there is a discovery in science, the theory of evolution gets the credit.

 

 

The Theory of Evolution is Unfalsifiable

 

A scientific theory is "falsifiable" if it can be shown to be false.  For example, if someone claimed the moon was made of Swiss cheese; such a theory would have been proven false when America started landing probes on the moon.

 

A theory is "unfalsifiable" if it cannot be shown to be false.

 

For example, the Big Bang, meaning the theory that the Universe was created by an accidental explosion, is unfalsifiable because it is impossible to prove or disprove a theory that the Universe was created by an accidental explosion many billions of years ago.

 

The theory of evolution is also unfalsifiable, meaning it cannot be proven to be false.  As with the Big Bang, the reason evolution cannot be proven false has nothing to do with either truth or the scientific evidence.  The reason the theory of evolution cannot be proven false is because when a discovery is made that disproves the theory of evolution; the theory of evolution is simply modified to incorporate the new discovery.

 

Any discovery which disproves a portion of the theory of evolution is simply put into the empty box of the theory of evolution or it is blacklisted.

 

In other words, the only reason the theory of evolution is unfalsifiable is that it is a moving target.  The theory of evolution is "moved," meaning changed, every time there is a new discovery.  Sometimes it is moved so the arrow hits the target and sometimes it is moved so the arrow will miss the target so the discovery can be buried and blacklisted.

 

This behavior is unprecedented in the history of science.  Instead of science looking for absolute truth, science keeps changing a false theory to fit any new data.

 

What is happening is that whenever some new discovery is made in biology or paleontology, the discovery is simply put into the evolution box.

 

It is incredible, but even DNA was put into the box and the claim was made that random mutations of DNA, coupled with natural selection, allowed evolution to create human DNA (this is neo-Darwinism in a nutshell).

 

The concept that human DNA "evolved" from the DNA of much simpler animals; was put into the evolution box, even though there was absolutely no scientific evidence that any new DNA has ever been created, or has "evolved," by random means.

 

The concept of "natural selection" was always in the box, but even it was modified to fit the discovery of DNA.  Some claimed that "natural selection" worked at the nucleotide level; others claimed that "natural selection" worked at the gene level; but most claimed it worked at the species level after random mutations had done their job.

 

The result of this scientific nonsense is that all new discoveries in science are converted into "evidence" for evolution or they are ignored and blacklisted.

 

If the theory of evolution were equated to a painting, the painting made by Darwin would look nothing like the painting today.  Science constantly modifies the theory of evolution to fit new data.  Thus, science now claims that the data fits the theory of evolution.

 

But this is not science, it is a magic trick.

 

Science has not proven the theory of evolution is true; what science has done is define the theory of evolution to equal all scientific discoveries.

 

The "theory of evolution" is not a theory, it is a definition.