Even after a century or more of debate, the theories of Darwin have not
found full acceptance. The emotions of the creationist, and the facts or
theories, offered by science, have not come forth with an answer to the past
of man. The what, why and when, remains a mystery, one as complex as the
tower of Babel. Considering the deep emotional beliefs of those favouring
creation, it would be best to hold back on our discussion of it. Have no fear,
full attention will be offered.
First we need address the term "evolution". I would suggest a one word
definition, "change". To evolve is no more than to change. For science and
most of us, that suggests, from a non man creature, to man, or man human.
For the most, this has meant, as described by Darwin, "Species evolved by
means of natural selection: variants that are better adapted to their
environments are more likely to survive and reproduce.". Note Darwin used
the term "natural". Today it is common to replace this with the term
"nature". Thus you will find now, that it would seem, a third party, nature at
work.
Did Darwin mean by the above, a species would create several variants to a
change, then nature would pick one? A possible selection of, one eye, two
eyes, or three? Could nature have held back on the selection, to learn the
results of four or five. For Darwin this meant mutation, aided by nature's
selection of the fittest. Can this be accurate? From several mutations, nature
selects that one change, most beneficial, man or beast? Simply put, from
many or several odds, one would be chosen.
Would Darwin have been better served by his selection of words had he
used, adapted and selected? If the "cell' of new life, male or female, or both,
carried the gene codes for new life, then any change would have, by
necessity, been available. As will be described, this would include every
possible selection, nature would ever request. Could we place a limit on
availability, No?
Remember, we are discussing the greatest mystery possible. From nothing
would come something. If need were to become a need to survive, the
selection of a change was also to become a fact. To go on, we must face
three questions. "What", what change took place, "Why", the why, or how,
it occurs. And the "When", the old question of, "The chicken or the egg".
Darwin offers us mutation as the "what", and need, as the "why". Mutation
being a unique new generation within a family. A new born with anything
from a skin mold, to a missing arm. As mutation is the key to Dr. Darwin's
theory of evolution, let us learn just what a mutation is, and it's history. To
offer, it too, "as change", is far to simple a response.
We speak of evolution being also change. But evolution is a permanent
change, one that is expected to be reoccurring. However, mutation is a single
event, not a change, not accepted as normal or permanent. The best view of
mutation, is to call it an accident, neither planned or often avoidable. The
"when" for mutation, is after conception.
Conception is the moment of life, the point where nature judges the future
of new life. But nature does not have a free hand, it is guided and limited,
guided by the genes. It is the genes that hold the future of life. An accident
in gene selection, is not one that can go beyond the possibilities offered by
genes. That is to say, there is the fable of Medusa, and her many arms. To
this time, such a mutation, is not recorded? Could it ever? As a mutation,
Yes! Could it ever occur as evolution? Only, if it were there in the genes of
man.
If nature is to make a selection, one that offers change, it must be from the
available genes. Is there a limit to what is available to nature? A question
we may never answer, but one that is a fact. Nature does not, and can not
create genes. If man, at a time in the future, is to have a feature, other than
one he possesses today, the gene must be there now. Genes that are not used?
Genes that are dormant? Yes. Is nature offered a selection, one that will be
superior for man's feature? Yes and no. There are those events in the past,
that where neither beneficial or lasted.
A well documented change that seemed to benefit, but, was shown not to
last, was recorded in caves. Small fish that "no longer had use of their
eyes.". There can be no doubt that the evolution that offered sight, was one
of benefit. Would or could we suggest that a change, that removed this
sight, a selection of benefit? There is that possibility, a fish with eyes, in a
lightless world, could bring harm to it's self. A fragile sightless eye, could be
harmed, and lead to death. Would it be mutation that removed sight? A
single fish, now blind, would lead to all fish being blind? Or could nature,
again, referred to the genes, and selected.
A recent offering of man's history and evolution, comes from work
undertaken with the backing of the National Geographic Society. On a
Indonesian island, Flores, "April, 2005", was recovered, the evidence of a race or
species, of very small man, that had once lived. Not a unique mutation, but a
total evolution. Among the statements made by those undertaking the
research, in relation to the smaller than normal brain of these "men", "nature
had let it DWINDLE". A selection by nature, beneficial to man? Or was it
again nature, reverting to a possible gene selection?
Two terms we need address, race and species. With these, we need also use
"natural selection". We all have become familiar with the term race, during
our life. But do we ever stop to think of "why or how?". It is clear that a
change has produced race, as a step of evolution. If first man, evolved in
Africa, his race was no doubt black. If race, and the several colors of skin
were to have evolved in Africa, we should expect to see this "race" step of
evolution, throughout the continent, but we do not.
Race must be one of the steps of evolution. Unlike the many other forms of
evolution, man would be part of, was race selective? A selective one, that
was limited? It, race, unlike other steps of man's evolution, did not become
inclusive? Inclusive? As we know, all the species man, became inclusive,
when the step of evolution produced man that could talk. Not man of many
lands, with similar abilities, no, all the species man, gained identical vocal
abilities.
Inclusive? The number of steps man gained, from primate to man human
were many. Even with these numbers, man remained man, a single species.
Try to visualise all the steps of mutation, that were required for the total of
life here on earth, to offer nature the countless species, and subspecies that
presently and in the past occupied, or will, on this earth.
It would seem nature was selective, with the introduction of race. Was race
a single step of evolution? If race was a mutation of skin color, what of all
the additional features that separate the races? Eyes, hair, to name just a
few. Even if we can explain, or could, the selection of white of Europe,
yellow of Asia, and the retention of black in Africa, how do we address the
numerous additional steps of change, evolutions, that were obviously
"selective"?
Subspecies, a feature not demonstrated for man. How best we describe or
display a subspecies? There are no subspecies for man, but we live among
many of them. Here, about my home in the southwest, I have several
subspecies of the species hummingbird, they return year after year. I can
identify the old timers, they, if early arrive, will stop for a visit at the
bracket, used the year before hung with their feeder. Not just a short
exploratory visit, a "Well, where is it?" visit.
Within a few days to a week, There will be several pairs visiting the feeders.
There will be Black-chinned, Blue-throated, and the copper colored toughie
the Rufous, hummingbirds all. Several subspecies, all from the same
species. How does this differ from the several race of man? My birds come
each year to nest and raise their young. In the fall, if four subspecies came,
four will head back down south.
With race, reproduction is not limited to a matching race, not as the birds
demonstrated, but any pair that wish. The result, a definition by color can
and will become all but impossible, unlike species, race can and does inter
mate. A question here? There are many. Darwin claimed in his theory that
nature selected those changes best suited. It would seem that if a change did
not benefit, man did not survive.
We can accept that the hummingbird could have benefited from a longer
beak. Even the bloom of colors. But by mutation? Did these birds go
through a dozen or a hundred version's of color and beaks, prior to nature
selecting, what nature would consider the best suited to the task? Did a
mutation take place each time? Recall, that it is the genes offered by the
parents, the possibilities of the change must have been there, for the future
of the next generation. Can we accept the idea that there were almost
countless birds in a rainbow of colors for nature to select from? If the final
color or beak size, was to be inherited from the genes, that choise must have
been there at the time nature made it's selection.
Again "nature selected", not "nature created". The possibility of gene
mutation is possible, yes, but recall the grand total of changes made by
nature, as made with all life forms of the past, and yes the future. But can
genes be there and not used? Or at times, selectively employed? Again the
answer is yes. We, man, have had this selective use of a gene, for at least
35,000 yeas, by nature. But does it grant man, his evolution?
The left hand, a normal appendage for all of us, but employed as the hand
of preference by only a minority. Within the genes of all? It would appear
so. A step of evolution? It seems not. If nature has selected it, it seems not
to respond, at least not in the history of man. From the cave art of Europe, to
today's man human, we find the left hand has been a part of man's history.
But in such numbers that it would seem to remain a mutation. Nature has
never selected it as a benefit for man, yet the gene must remain there. If not,
we are looking at a mutation that appears in at least 10 percent, of all man
human.
If anything, the left hand selection by nature, demonstrates that evolution
begins in the genes of man. Race demonstrates that nature has a vast
selection to pick from. Random mutation is out. If Darwin, with his theory
is correct, nature would not select use of the left hand, as a casual evolution
of man, but a total of man. We see this with the evolution of man's larynx. It
was not a limited pick by nature, one that appeared in any single portion of
man's range of habitation, no it evolved within man, in all areas of his world.
It is the above, that demonstrates evolution as an art of destiny. That man
would be a species, one far superior to other species, was part of destiny.
Destiny, or predestined, the human gene awaited man. The gene of
"human", was with man as he evolved. Consider, if man of earth were to
ever encounter life away from his home planet, an earth of a distant sun, and
life was there, what could he expect?
If life also began there, as here as a single cell, would it also be a history of
random mutation? Would there be even a remote chance of one life form
repeating that which is found here on earth? If man is the result of almost countless
steps of random evolution, by mutation, the selection by nature, would or
could we ever expect to find man? Or even an intelligent life form?
But if life came to our would, as a single cell, a cell that possessed a gene
for future evolution, could the answer be, maybe?
As noted, I had earlier stated we would address creation, as part of
evolution. It can only be construed, that by creation, one is saying that,
where there had been nothing, there now existed something. Where there
had been no life, now there is life.
Life, in the big bang? How can we deny, that at it's start, or conception,
earth was without life? Could a cloud of gas and fire, have contained life?
Can we accept that a mixture of nature's basic elements, in any form or
amount, under any feasible condition, given forth life? Keep in mind, this
life, even if it were only a single cell, would require all the genes of all
future life, man or beast.
Saying the above, is frequently considered claiming ones belief in God. But
it does not offer us the history of man. There can be no doubt that there had
to be a creation. This also says, where there is a beginning, there also awaits
an end. Science offers us the big bang theory as the beginning, and a
considerable amount of data demonstrated this to be fact. But, any
reasoning, tells us there can not be, a "something", from nothing.
Can the "big bang" be accepted as, even considered creation? If we need
demonstrate, that the big bang, was the result of something, there is a
possibility. One that offers a start as well as an end. Today our knowledge
of the space, the one we live in, has offered us a view of time past and an
insight to time of the future. Our gathering of knowledge has shown us that
there is what science calls, a "black hole".
The terms refers to a place in space where, progressively, all things are
pulled into. By all, we include suns as ours, and any accompanying bodies,
planets or moons. All, large or small, disappear into this place, to be
compressed to the point of non existence. Recently, it has been discovered
that there are black holes that consume other back holes. Yes, in time, all
will be consumed, even our sun, our earth. Where there had been nothing
there will again be nothing.
But, if the question above, of there being something from nothing, is a valid
question, then the next is equally so. Can there be nothing where there had
been something? Just how compressed can the volume of space be? Can it
be, so that all, yes all, is there, and yet nothing to be found? Could this
nothing be the source of a new big bang? The nothing that had, by logic,
been something? A history without ending, can only be predestined.
Predestined as our evolution had been.
It has been demonstrated that Darwin's theory of evolution, mutation and
selection by nature of the fittest, is not practical. Need, alone, can not cause
change. But nature can select from among the available genes. Need and
availability aid evolution? Are these not the story of advancement, by a
species, at least as man advanced?
As demonstrated by the left hand and it's primary use, there is still an
unknown signal. A message to the genes to select, even to destroy. It
remains hard to accept that man, man that became human, was not the goal
of evolution. To offer that man was destined, is to offer "predestined
evolution".
Now back to the title. "Evolution, Creation, Destiny". Can there be
evaluation without creation? Can evolution be demonstrated? Would it be
safe to say man, as man human, is destiny? Big bang or Black hole, there
had to be a start, as said earlier, "the chicken or the egg". Can we accept that
our sun was created? Recently I viewed a photo of space, it displays a cloud
of gas, from it, new stars were being formed. Not so unlike the start of our
sun.
If we take the rays of our sun and make electricity, are we not witnessing
evolution, change? If we offer a single cell to the future, and it becomes
man human, can we call it destiny?
A question was placed before the author. There has been offered items, rock,
once a meteorite, that science tells us may have come from Mars.
On these is the suggestion of life, a form that travailled to earth, many
ages passed. Could these be the first life here on earth? This only brings
up more questions?
Had a fragment of Mars been thrust into space, possibility by a blow,
made by a object striking the surface of the distant planet, what would
have been the results?
This now offers us several more questions.
Would this fragment have travelled directly to earth?
If placed into the orbit
of the sun, how long in time before it reached earth?
We know the extremes of heat and cold in spaces, could life of any size have
survived the trip?
We also know that life must have nourishment, in space what?
We know that life reproduces, in space would a cell, as here on earth,
become two, then four, then eight? Would reproduction take place as it had
on Mars? The extremes of space. The heat or cold, could even a single sell have survived
them? On earth the problems would only continue. Would life have found nourishment
where there had not been life?
Then, if none of the above would have prevented life reaching earth, and
reproducing, let us forget earth and look to Mars. How did first life reach
Mars?
Again the question of "chicken or the egg?".
David C. Reichelt, Curator,
the Pecos Rio Grande Museum, of Early Man.
pecosrio9@yahoo.com
If a visit to the Pecos Rio Grande Museum is made, please visit the
displays listed here. Selected from over 1,000 offered.
The weavings history of mats...
"evidence of man as human"
Texas cave art...
"Man, 35,000 BP and man human 2,000-10,000 BP"
The story and facts of "why",
Please visit all of our displays.
My favourite, the doodles,
"human" on display.
|
