Absence of Evidence (The limitations of science)

by David Turell , Friday, March 07, 2008, 20:12 (6103 days ago) @ John Clinch

John Clinch has stated: "The knock-out thing about evolution is that it answers a very difficult question (how complexity arises from simplicity) in a very simple, beautiful, economical and elegant way." I wish it were that simple. It is simple and elegant but may not be true. Darwin did not know of Mendel's genetic work, and did not know how complicated the biochemictry of living cells happen to be. The DNA/RNA research of the past 50 years has been incorporated into a Neo-Darwin Theory, which has run into all sorts of problems. First, fossils are not step-by-step. About 600 million years ago (mya) was the Avelon Explosion in which the Ediacarans appeared de novo, with many multicelluar forms and then fizzled out. This was followed by the Cambrian Explosion at 520 mya. Again out of nowhere, with about 50 progenitor forms for 36 of the 37 currently existing animal phylla. The 37th appeared a little later. These animals had several organ systems including eyes. A few million years later the sexual "Plant Bloom" appeared, as usual out of nowhere.
 The morphologic tree of life is not matched by DNA/RNA trees. Homologous/ analagous match-ups also have trouble; and so do biochemical trees. Gould and Eldridge proposed a "Punctuated Equilibrium" Theory to explain all the starts, stops and jumps. It is a nice name but no explanation.
 I suggest reading the following books to give some background to the discussion going on: "Life's Solution, Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe", by Simon Conway Morris of Cambridge, 2003, the world's leading paleobiologist; "The Evolutionists, The Struggle for Darwin's Soul", by Richard Morris, 2001; and "Evolution, A Theory in Crisis", by Michael Denton, 1986.
 There will be a conference held next year by many of the leading lights of the Neo-Darwin scientists to sort out what they can and try new approaches. This is a web story on that meeting: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0803/S00051.htm - My own interpretation of all I have read is that the Darwin mechanism is information poor in its capacity to create new information and DNA/RNA is extremely information rich. After all chance mutation and then passive natural selection, looking at what is available to allow survival doesn't seem to create, just modify. This point of view is from the information theorists. I believe evolution occurred. It is hard to deny progressive fossil development in successive geologic layers. It is the mechanism I question. There are two key points in discussing agnosticism: The Big Bang Theory of a created universe, which allows life; and the appearance and evolution of life itself. The universe certainly looks created; life and the Darwin approach to understanding it are key to a deist or agnostic decision. If Darwin is not explanatory, then what?