Theory of Evolution (continued)
– An alternative point of view on evolution
The selection mechanism leads to a certain “specialization” and specialization is something that rather counteracts evolution, although newly formed species may subsequently undergo a distinct partial evolution to a higher communicative and cognitive stage. Specialization means that a life form develops specific attributes or behaviors to protect itself (e.g., a horny shell or spines), or to attack (e.g., claws, tentacles), or to reproduce (e.g., make a nest), etc. The other aspect of specialized adaptation is that the life form in question loses its “generality” and as a result it is impossible or more difficult to adapt if environmental conditions favor or require opposite properties.
Once the process of specialization is sufficiently advanced, it is practically irreversible. This is expressed in the Dollo principle, named after the nineteenth-century Belgian who first recognized this law. Perhaps we can better explain this with an example of technology. For example, if one tried to convert a jet aircraft into a submarine step by step, while the new models must continually provide transport across the ocean, the stock of wrecks at the bottom of the ocean would soon be replenished with carcasses of the new constructions. A good example of the difficulties that evolutionary adaptations entail in practice can be found in the tooth of our current population. The average size of the jaw bones has been reduced over the past few millennia, while the volume of the teeth has remained about the same, resulting in toothaches, sacrificed molars, dental braces, etc.
We may therefore conclude that it is difficult or impossible for living beings to switch from one specialized form to another, although this is sometimes suggested in the context of pseudo-evolutionary inventions. The mixing of two existing species is also not possible, given the genetic barrier already mentioned, which also has an irrevocable character. Nevertheless, we see that in this case too, deformed materialistic scientists cannot resign themselves to the laws of nature, and that they undertake against their best judgment macabre and absurd laboratory attempts to mix species.
While the development of specialization has been stimulated by less favorable conditions, which introduce stress, anxiety, aggressiveness, temporary emergency measures and other similar reactions in the affected species, in my opinion, the available evidence suggests that the development to a higher form of life (the actual evolution referred to here) is rather promoted by conditions that are as “paradisiacal” as possible. It is stimulated by factors such as: curiosity, free learning time, calmness, self-control (resulting in the postponement of the immediate satisfaction of needs), mutual communication within a species. This can only happen to creatures that have kept enough “generality” and thus remain more apt to transition to greater possibilities.
This can be compared somewhat with social prosperity: war leads to highly specialized and dangerous mechanisms, as well as dictatorial social structures that end up having a stagnant effect. In peacetime, on the other hand, the overall prosperity and development of a population can increase. Whether a higher cultural and technological level will be achieved in these periods depends on other external factors, such as location and natural resources, but the decisive driving force comes from the population itself and is determined by non-material factors such as spiritual climate, social cohesion, and organizational effectiveness. These non-material factors will be decisive, and their quality will have a fertilizing effect on collective inventiveness and stimulate will stimulate work force as well as exchanges.
From the above, we can draw a picture of evolution that differs profoundly from what is usually presented to us in publications and taught to our schoolchildren. We obtain an evolution in which the central and more general forms of life accumulate “sui generis” an ever-higher degree of information processing. Meanwhile, under the pressure of changing circumstances, rather accidental separations also occur, in the sense of specializations. The latter will stand the test of time with varying degrees of success, eventually undergo a partial evolution or disappear definitively, while the central (less “specialized”) part of life continues to unfold systematically.
In this way, a “normal” biological stock is created, in which the less or more evolved species live side by side and often in symbiosis with less or more specialized species, and in which certainly not only the “fittest ones” survive. This is consistent with what we can observe today (if we disregard the large-scale destruction of life forms by modern man), as well as with reconstructions of the past, based on the soil archive of fossil remains.
At the same time, it also becomes clear where exactly the weak point of materialistic evolution lies. In a futile attempt to construct an elaborate theory of evolution based on a blind and foolish principle, Darwinists have loaded the scientific literature with a mass of hypothetical constructs, which are constantly undermined by new discoveries. Typical of this are the established family trees of life in which fossil forms are interconnected by lines of descent – often established without any form of evidence. Almost every paleontologist has conjured one out of his drawing pen, but they all have one feature in common: man is preferably depicted on a side branch. However, the location on these family trees (in the center or on a distant lateral branch, connected by a vertical, oblique, or horizontal line) seems to me to be mainly dictated by emotional preferences and/or ideological considerations.
My preference is for a representation in which today’s human being is central and directly connected to the basis of life forms. Such a scheme, for example, has no problem with fossil hominids that turnout to be much older than their relatives with more primitive or “less evolved” traits. The more primitive ones simply belong to extinct branches, whose origins are considerably older than what is now usually assumed. Therefore, they end up rather speculatively at misleading heights of the genealogical trees. The main problem is that there are simply far too few hominid fossils to give us an accurate overall picture of the course of evolution towards modern humans. After all, it concerns periods of millions of years and areas with continental dimensions. Because of their greater brain capacity, hominids were able to adapt more easily to new conditions and, as a result, migrated and explored more than most other species, making paleoanthropological research even more challenging. The current results are largely premature conclusions about degrees of kinship, which only apply until new discoveries undermine existing theories.
The best argument for the “vitalistic” evolutionary picture defended here is man himself. Its versatility and its unprotected body testify to the element of “generality” as an important condition for the evolution towards a being with ever more and higher possibilities, while its intelligence and communication capabilities are the result of the continuous internal orientation towards an increasing capacity for information processing. The school of his long childhood is not a superfluous luxury, but in the longer term it made an essential contribution to the evolution of man as a species. On an individual level, it leads to the necessary short-term evolution of a human life.
In this context, embryonic human evolution seems interesting. According to the “biogenetic law of Ernst Haeckel”, which was valid in the past, the human embryo goes through all the stages of its species evolution. Until the third month, the embryo has a tail, and the gill sacs resemble the same organs in embryonic fish. Until the fourth month and sometimes even after birth, the fetus has a hair coat. After six months, the originally side-facing eyes are forward. Although the biogenetic law is no longer taken seriously, I believe that the development of the human embryo reflects something of the evolutionary intermediate stages of the primordial cell to the current human being. The development of the embryo does not reflect the morphological changes of adult individuals of early human filiation. But it seems to me to reflect the successive stages at which an embryo or fetus of one of our forerunners, during its development, took a new course in our direction, because of minor but significant changes in inherited genetic information.
It is interesting here that the head of the embryo already occupies an important place at a very early stage, and also that there are no monkey climbing arms or monkey prognathism (extended muzzle). Is this perhaps the reason why there is less interest in biogenetic law? The already well-established story of our tree-climbing ape-like precursors, who then began to walk standing in the drought-stricken savannah, doesn’t seem to fit. Maybe sooner or later it will be swept off the scientific desks. To complete this rough overall picture, we still must respond to the creationist comment that no fossil intermediate link has been found and that each species suddenly appears completely finite and in large numbers. First, it is necessary to clarify what is meant by intermediate links. Fossil skulls e.g., that are intermediate between the present human and the ape-like skulls, are already available in many sizes and shapes. This does not mean that they represent a transition from monkey to human or vice versa. As explained above, the genetic gap between two fully formed species (in this case, today’s apes, and humans) is unbridgeable.
The intermediate stages to the specializations, starting from the previously outlined center of the evolutionary tree, most likely brought new difficulties and dangers, so it seems plausible that only a limited number of individuals were able to successfully pass through the initial stages of ramifications. Once a successful adjustment took place, it must logically soon have led to rapid multiplication. Moreover, it is assumed here that most of the ramifications, including those of species closely related to us, are more distant in time than is generally assumed. What we now very sporadically find in gorges, underground or caves, are in the first place the advanced stages of development, which are closer to us in age. The chances of finding a fossil of an early branch or transition stage are extremely slim for the reasons mentioned above.
All this does not mean that we are “descendants of apes”, but that we have a common ancestor with these animals, which until now is not precisely defined. Is that bad? All things considered, it is just as “bad” as discovering that we all once existed as a fertilized egg, after which we evolved into an embryo, a fetus, an “ignorant” baby, etc. The most important thing for us as human beings is not who we were at an earlier stage, but what we became from the moment we were able to distinguish between good and evil. Very important is also the way we interpret these ethical concepts: based on personal preferences, in the service of ideologically constructed priorities, superstitiously subject to idols, or in the service of the Creator, who reveals himself to us and expresses his will through the Bible.