

### PESKY DETAILS

Essays for "Left-Brain" Christians

Bob Knight Barsch
Copyright © 2014 by Bob K. Barsch

All rights reserved

Distributed by Smashwords

First edition

Barsch, Bob Knight, 1941 -

Pesky Details: Essays for "Left-Brain" Christians

Dedication

I wish to honor my long-deceased parents. Their faith, love, sense of honor and humor, self-sacrifice, and courage remain unforgettable. I also acknowledge my wife, Mary Margaret, for those same enduring qualities that continue to inspire me with joy and acceptance.

Table of Contents

Detailed Table of Contents

Preface

Acknowledgments

A Biblical View of Nature

The Nature of Belief

The Selfishness of Virtue?

It's a Miracle!

The Gay Lifestyle - a Christian View

Mutable Rates of Radioactive Decay

Darwin - Truth in Detail

Chapter I - Variation under Domestication

Chapter II - Variation under Nature

Chapter III - Struggle for Existence

Chapter IV - Natural Selection; or the Survival of the Fittest

Chapter V - Laws of Variation

Chapter VI - Difficulties of the Theory

Chapter VII - Miscellaneous Objections to the Theory of Natural Selection

Chapter VIII - Instinct

Chapter IX - Hybridism

Chapter X - On the Imperfection of the Geological Record

Chapter XI - On the Geological Succession of Organic Beings

Chapter XII - Geographical Distribution

Chapter XIII - Geographical Distribution - Continued: Fresh-Water Productions

Chapter XIV - Mutual Affinities of Organic Beings: Morphology; Embryology; Rudimentary Organs

What are the Odds: Memo to an Eleven-Year Old Boy

Addendum - The Appearance of Necessity

About the Author

# Detailed Table of Contents

Preface

Acknowledgments

A Biblical View of Nature

Mixing Culture and Christianity

Gargoyles

A Non-biblical Prohibition

A Substitute Goddess?

Pandora's Bible

Pagan-Christian Mix

The Church Incorporates Patriotism

Evolution of Religious Traditions to Divine Mandates

A Note on Compromise

Criteria for Christian Faith

A View of Nature from the Right

Non-biblical Origins for Arrogant Attitudes toward Nature

The Beginning of God?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

John Locke (1632-1704)

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)

Emergence of the Middle Class

Thank the Western European Philosophers for Writing What We Wanted to Hear

Genocide of Native Americans Justified

Covenant Values from the Bible

"And God Saw that it Was Good"

Man's Mandate

Wildlife's Mandate

The Fall of Mankind

Retention of Biodiversity after the Fall

God Loves Nature

Respect for God's Creation

Nature's Witness

The Glory of God

More Praise

Values of Wildlife to People

Wild People are Good People

Educational and Esthetic Values of Nature

A Biblical View of Fishing and Hunting

I'm Going Fishing

Predators and Wildlife "Pests"

Use of Predators to Punish Mankind

God Cares for Predators

Predators as Symbols of Power

God Abhors a Vacuum

Predator Control

Metaphoric Predators

Natural Resource Management

Definition of "Land"

Ownership of Land and Water Resources

Ownership of Wildlife

Carrying Capacity

Protecting Carrying Capacity

God Prohibited "Clean Farming"

Heavenly Earth

Earthly Heaven

The Nature of Belief

Comparison of Faith and Assumption

Faith

Materialist Assumptions at the Crossroads

The Selfishness of Virtue?

Logical Problems of Philosophical Materialism

The Role of Information

Methodological Materialism

Philosophical Materialism Investigates "Virtue"

Direct Reciprocity

Indirect Reciprocity

Spacial Selection

Group Selection

Kin Selection

Tragedy of the Commons

Not of this World - the Judeo-Christian View

Direct and Indirect Reciprocity

Spacial and Group Selection

Kin Selection

Tragedy of the Commons

The Fine Line

It's a Miracle!

Does Free Will Exist?

Free Will Is a Miracle

Fingerprint of God

Miracles Prove God

The Gay Lifestyle - a Christian View

Dangers of the Gay Lifestyle

Percentages of MSM Infected with HIV

Number of Partners among MSM

Association of HIV/AIDS Infections with Other Diseases

Syphilis

Gonorrhea

Viral hepatitis

Cancer

Tuberculosis

Changes in HIV/AIDS Infection Rates

Percentages of MSM among Adult Male Populations

Nature or Nurture?

Brain Response to Pheromones in Homosexual Men

Cerebral Asymmetry and Functional Connectivity Different in Homo- and Heterosexuals

Ratio between the Length of the Forefinger and the Fourth Finger

Twin Studies

Effects of Prenatal Hormones

Gender Non-conformity - the Process

Hermaphroditism

Natural Selection within the Species

Rural vs. Urban Environments

Gay Men Display Maleness in their Sexuality - a Hypothesis

Gay Sexual Roles Show Preferences for Feminine Behaviors - a Hypothesis

Gay Men Who Produce Children?

Homosexual Sex in Prison

Social Orientation

The Biblical Perspective

Conclusions on the Biblical Perspective

Why the Bible Condemns Homosexuality

Judge?

Alternatives for the Christian Homosexual

Mutable Rates of Radioactive Decay

Use of the Decay Rates of Radioactive Elements to Date Rocks and other Materials

Uniformitarianism

Speed of Light

Inconsistent Radioactive Decay Rates

Inconsistencies Relative to Earth's Position with the Sun and Solar Activity

Inconsistencies Tied to the Plasma/Ionized State of Radioactive Elements

Inconsistencies Related to Ultrasonic Cavitation

Inconsistencies with Carbon-14 Dating

Darwin - Truth in Detail

Darwin's Purpose

"Species" and "Kind" Defined

Tautological Nature of "Laws of Nature"

Protein
Chapter I - Variation under Domestication

Causes of Variability

Effects of Habit and of the Use or Disuse of Parts; Correlated Variation; Inheritance

Character of Domestic Varieties; Difficulty of Distinguishing between Varieties and Species; Origin of Domestic Varieties from One or more Species

Breeds of the Domestic Pigeon, their Differences and Origin

Principles of Selection Anciently Followed, and their Effects

Methodical and Unconscious Selection

Circumstances Favorable to Man's Power of Selection
Chapter II - Variation under Nature

Individual Differences

Doubtful Species

Wide-ranging, Much Diffused, and Common Species Vary Most

Species of the Larger Genera in Each Country Vary More Frequently than the Species of the Smaller Genera

Many of the Species Included within the Larger Genera Resemble Varieties in Being Very Closely, but Unequally, Related to Each other, and in Having Restricted Ranges

Summary
Chapter III - Struggle for Existence

The Term, Struggle for Existence, Used in a Large Sense

Geometrical Ratio of Increase

Nature of the Checks to Increase

Complex Relations of All Animals and Plants to Each Other in the Struggle for Existence

Struggle for Life Most Severe between Individuals and Varieties of the Same Species
Chapter IV - Natural Selection; or the Survival of the Fittest

Sexual Selection

Illustrations of the Action of Natural Selection, or the Survival of the Fittest

On the Intercrossing of Individuals

Circumstances Favourable for the Production of New Forms through Natural Selection

Extinction Caused by Natural Selection

Divergence of Character

The Probable Effects of the Action of Natural Selection through Divergence of Character and Extinction, on the Descendants of a Common Ancestor

On the Degree to Which Organisation Tends to Advance

Convergence of Character

Summary
Chapter V - Laws of Variation

Effects of the Increased Use and Disuse of Parts, Controlled by Natural Selection

Acclimatisation

Correlated Variation

Multiple, Rudimentary, and Lowly-organised Structures Are Variable

A Part Developed in Any Species in an Extraordinary Degree or Manner, in Comparison with the Same Part in Allied Species, Tends to be Highly Variable

Specific Characters More Variable Than Generic Characters

Secondary Sexual Characters Variable

Distinct Species Present Analogous Variations, so that a Variety of One Species often Assumes a Character Proper to an Allied Species, or Reverts to some of the Characters of an Early Progenitor
Chapter VI - Difficulties of the Theory

On the Absence or Rarity of Transitional Varieties

On the Origin and Transitions of Organic Beings with Peculiar Habits and Structure

Organs of Extreme Perfection and Complication

Modes of Transition

Special Difficulties of the Theory of Natural Selection

Organs of Little Apparent Importance, as Affected by Natural Selection

Utilitarian Doctrine, How Far True: Beauty, How Acquired
Chapter VII - Miscellaneous Objections to the Theory of Natural Selection

Chapter VIII - Instinct

Inherited Changes of Habit or Instinct in Domesticated Animals

Special Instincts

Instincts of the Cuckoo

Slave-making Instinct

Cell-making Instinct of the Hive-bee

Objections to the Theory of Natural Selection as Applied to Instincts: Neuter and Sterile Insects
Chapter IX - Hybridism

Degrees of Sterility

Laws Governing the Sterility of First Crosses and of Hybrids

Origin and Causes of the Sterility of First Crosses and of Hybrids

Reciprocal Dimorphism and Trimorphism

Fertility of Varieties when Crossed, and of their Mongrel Offspring, not Universal

Hybrids and Mongrels Compared, Independently of their Fertility
Chapter X - On the Imperfection of the Geological Record

On the Lapse of Time, as Inferred from the Rate of Deposition and Extent of Denudation

On the Poorness of Paleontological Collections

On the Absence of Numerous Intermediate Varieties in Any Single Formation

On the Sudden Appearance of Whole Groups of Allied Species

On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the Lowest Known Fossiliferous Strata
Chapter XI - On the Geological Succession of Organic Beings

On Extinction

On the Forms of Life Changing Almost Simultaneously throughout the World

On the Affinities of Extinct Species to Each Other, and to Living Forms

On the State of Development of Ancient Compared with Living Forms

On the Succession of the Same Types within the Same Areas, during the later Tertiary Periods
Chapter XII - Geographical Distribution

Single Centres of Supposed Creation

Means of Dispersal

Dispersal during the Glacial Period+

Alternate Glacial Periods in the North and South
Chapter XIII - Geographical Distribution - Continued: Fresh-Water Productions

On the Inhabitants of Oceanic Islands

Absence of Batrachians and Terrestrial Mammals on Oceanic Islands

On the Relations of the Inhabitants of Islands to Those of the Nearest Mainland
Chapter XIV - Mutual Affinities of Organic Beings: Morphology; Embryology; Rudimentary Organs

Classification

Analogical Resemblances

On the Nature of the Affinities Connecting Organic Beings

Morphology

Development and Embryology

Rudimentary, Atrophied, and Aborted Organs

What are the Odds: Memo to an Eleven-Year Old Boy

Purpose of Eastern Religions

Pantheism

Buddhism

New Age Beliefs

Modern Psychology and Eastern Religion

The Jews and Christianity

What Science Says about the Nature of God

The Anthropic Principle

Complex Molecular Machines in Living Organisms

The Complex Specificity of Cellular Components

Big Bang Theory

Darwinian Gradulaism is Dead

The God of the Bible

The Character and Purposes of God

Why did Jesus Die on the Cross?

Addendum - The Appearance of Necessity

About the Author

# Preface

Controversial ideas challenge us today as they always have. We as Christians often find among these ideas an evolving worldview in conflict with our walk of faith. In logical concert with our walk of faith, which has to be reasonable, we find when we dig deep enough, that sound science and logic are some of our best friends. That is, we find our faith in God increases as our knowledge of the world and how it operates increases. We find with our growing interest and knowledge that most of the controversy between faith and "facts" originates not from the facts but from those who interpret findings and observations through the sieve of their philosophical assumptions and personal biases.

The world today is awash with information, interpretations, and hypotheses that compete for our allegiances. However, we as individuals can access information from books and other publications and some sites on the Internet to judge everything from the psychology of religion to the enigma of the origin of life. What we find upon examination of many accepted theories and "constants" is that the established worldview is often questionable, hypothetical, or incorrect. But with what does that realization leave us? One can observe that reason is on the side of God's existence and, by contrast, worldviews are often built upon incorrect assumptions, hubris and bias; not reason and logic.

On the heels of investigations in the fields of science, philosophy, history, and theology, you will be confident and content, as were your spiritual forefathers, to hold on to your Christian faith. You will understand that some educated elite have a territorial imperative to protect scholastic turf and their belief systems. They may assert that only the specialist turned generalist is qualified to investigate the details of data and integrate those findings into a philosophical worldview. However, simply because a person is gifted in mathematics, has a good memory for facts, and has knowledge related to his/her specialized profession, it does not necessarily follow that he/she is especially adept at the objective analysis or integration of research findings into a larger, logical framework. Rather, any wise person with an analytical mind can read the research and analyze and dissect ideas to derive his/her own opinion of them. One does not have to rely on the pundits of and marketing of ideas. Read the essays below and analyze and decide for yourself.

Because each specialty has its own jargon, I included definitions and notes at the end of essays, where necessary, to facilitate understanding. Most of the problem with understanding scientific, historical, and philosophical concepts relates to the use of a specialized vocabulary. In many cases, the ideas and speculations of researchers and synthesizers/philosophers will appear straight-forward and understandable, though not necessarily believable, once the reader has a grasp of the jargon.

In the light of dissection and analysis, I selected several topics that, according to the present worldview, many/most people consider to be non-controversial and settled. On the contrary, these beliefs are still open for discussion. An amusing result of my analyses is the realization that many of the formally educated in the world have based their careers upon and written stacks of books based on shaky, unproven, and weak assumptions. The other surprising part of these studies is how readily we as Christians tend to mix our inherited philosophies and culture and incorporate them into our religion. Do most Christians in America hold unbiblical views and attitudes toward God's creation? The first essay _A Biblical View of Nature_ explores that question.

The second essay _The Nature of Belief_ compares materialist assumptions (see _Definitions/Notes_ at the end of this second essay for explanations of philosophical materialism) and theories about how the world operates with faith as experienced by Christians. We note in this essay that intelligent design often is the most powerful explanation for numerous modern scientific findings and observations. At the same time we discover that materialist generalizations to account for the same natural phenomena call for a lot of loyalty and hope.

The third essay, _The Selfishness of Virtue?,_ examines why people cooperate with or help each other. For this essay we will compare scientific studies and Darwinian assumptions with biblical teachings on ethics. We will compare facts of cooperation and philosophical materialist assumptions with biblical critiques of human cooperation and the higher standards of Christian doctrine. Oddly, we will find support in Scripture for some materialist conclusions and discover by contrast the logical basis for the existence of an absolute morality.

In the fourth essay, I define the miraculous simply as God or mind intervening and changing otherwise determined chains of cause and effect. The difference between the miracles of God and the miracles of man is in orders of magnitude; granted, magnitude means a lot. Of course, God's order of magnitude is so big that he even authors and can alter the basic playing rules, the laws of chemistry and physics. Because the supernatural applies every time mind at some level alters determined cause and effect relationships, the spooky finger of God is repeatedly and constantly at the heart of our everyday use of information, judgment, and will.

Analysis of the gay lifestyle in the fifth essay finds its validity primarily in research studies. Review the studies; make up your own mind. If it is, and it is, primarily environmentally derived, should the church encourage homosexuality and continue to promote those conditions that produce it? We as the church must love homosexuals and at the same time reject the gay lifestyle as unbiblical and dangerous. Is homosexuality the problem or merely a symptom of poor choices, poor parenting, abuse, divorce, and cultural promotion? Does not the divorce rate in the Christian community render the church a promoter of homosexuality?

The sixth essay addresses the fact that rates of radioactive decay, used by geophysicists, paleontologists, and archeologists to age rocks and other materials, are mutable/changeable. That is, in certain environments, the rates of radioactive decay for some, possibly all, radioactive elements speed up and then slow down as ions pick up electrons to become atoms. Historical scientists in the fields of archeology, cosmology, paleontology, and geology, know this. Why do they not give more attention to this apparent "anomaly"? What if geophysicists and other historical scientists dated rocks by reference to the decay rates exhibited by radioactive elements in the common plasma or ionized state? What would those investigators conclude about the age of Earth, our solar system, or dinosaur fossils?

Are there good reasons to believe that radioactive elements in the Earth may have experienced long expanses of time in ionizing environments? Is it reasonable to hypothesize that they and their daughter elements in situ in the solid state rose through plasma environments to be encased by crystallizing processes in Earth's mantle? And/or weathering and erosion by water at the earth's surface may have subjected those same materials to cavitation and additional ionization. Were ancient meteorites, now radioisotope-dated to be 4.5 billion years old, subjected to millennia of ionizing solar and stellar radiation in space before falling to earth? Did streams of ultraviolet and cosmic radiation ionize materials at the earth's surface during repetitive interruptions of Earth's protective magnetic field and prior to the appearance of the planet's atmosphere? All those inevitable, recurrent events should lead a reasonable person to question whether the rocks are as old as we are told?

Consistent with inconsistencies in dating techniques, in the seventh essay, I ask how astute; how correct was Darwin? How good was his historical "science"? Were the details of his "science" reasonable? How do his speculations of the 1850s match with contemporary findings? What did he literally say and believe and was he an icon for truth or just another philosophical materialist with an agenda, a weak case, and a ready audience?

In Darwin's time it was the game of the day to write in a flowery, stilted, wordy, repetitive style. Apparently, such a prose style illustrated the education and intelligence of the author, who thereby hoped to sell himself and his ideas and opinions as complex and compelling. Unfortunately, such a style lacked clarity and made reading a boring chore. To render (take the fat out of) Darwin's rambling, stilted style, I boiled his ideas down to the meat of their meaning and then clarified and critiqued each idea. So, though I know my readers will find _On the Origin of Species_ as dry as Death Valley, California, they can perhaps find entertainment with each _Critique_. Therefore, I suggest the reader first read the _Critique_ under each topic and then, if interested, go back and read the summations of Darwin's thoughts. On the other hand, "left-brain" masochists may even choose to read the whole _On the Origin of Species_ for themselves? Well...retired, "left-brain" masochists.

Finally, for the last essay, I included a memo that I wrote to an 11-year old boy who questioned the exclusivity of Christianity. We will note that though the universe and the life it supports are complicated, the message of God is simple enough for a child to reasonably chose whom he/she follows.

This essay will serve as a personal summation of numerous conclusions found in the other essays. Of course, intelligent design, as evident in the fine-tuning of constants that enable the universe to support life and the enigma of the origin of life and of the digital information required to run the cell and sustain biological life, says little about the character of the Designer. Hypotheses about the character of the Designer remain in the theological, philosophical, and logical speculations of Christians, Jews, Muslims, and deists who embrace the science and logic of intelligent design. This essay assesses the odds that the Judeo-Christian view of the Designer is correct.

These essays are primarily for the Christian community. But I encourage philosophical materialists and post-modern relativists to read and analyze them. I welcome reasoned critique though ad hominem attacks are irrelevant because they are logically fallacious. Feelings, accreditations, and affiliations have no particular significance. Rather, let us hang our hats on evidence and reason. I invite you to step outside the noise of the herd, be it ever so formally educated and culturally embraced, in the box and observe what a host of pesky details have to say about widely accepted, but poorly examined worldviews.

# Acknowledgments

I would like to acknowledge my wife Mary Margaret for proofreading parts of the manuscript. Aside from my spouse, I would like to thank numerous individuals for their encouragement and edit of this collection of essays. However, there is virtually no one else to credit for such actions. The topics are largely abhorrently technical/boring to the general public and my take on the contents is often anathema to the specialists. So, there is no one else to thank.

No doubt, I occasionally violated specialized jargon while exploring controversial subjects that required the integration of various disciplines. For example, I communicated with a local professor of geology and asked her to review my essay _Mutable Rates of Radioactive Decay._ She was gracious enough to read the essay and informed me that geologists do not "age" rocks. They "date" rocks. This surprised me because as a biologist, I had dated women and "aged" hundreds of deer, elk, antelope, quail, doves, and squirrels. I did alter that essay to fit the jargon of geologists. My geologist friend did assure me that geophysicists did the right thing in dating rocks and used comparative controls but the specifics of those processes were outside the purview of her training. She offered no comments on my research citations and logical conclusions.

A good aspect of producing an e-book is that the author can go back and edit his/her work as new information becomes available. If a wider readership should sniff out obvious error in this collection of essays and can substantiate their findings with research studies and/or logic and reason, I will be glad to amend my work. At that point, I shall have additional persons to acknowledge for their contributions.

# A Biblical View of Nature

During the last 2,000 years, Christian missionaries wrestled with the question of how to incorporate Christianity into the cultures of the local peoples without diluting the fundamentals of biblical Christian faith. Most cultural practices by local peoples had no particular religious significance. For example, planting wheat by hand, oxen, or tractor had no bearing on a farmer's potential to practice Christianity. But if the local culture approved child sacrifice/abortion, adultery, fornication, murder, male and female prostitution, and/or idol worship, these practices were not compatible with Christian faith. Converts to Christianity were instructed that such practices were a sin against God and therefore forbidden. If one was a Christian convert, he/she either gave up sinful practices or was working toward that end.

In other areas of morality, there was room for compromise. For example, if one was a new convert to Christianity in first century Palestine and he had more than one wife, he could be a member but could not hold a position of leadership in the church (1 Timothy 3:2). Apparently, having more than one wife was not as bad as divorce at a time when a single woman on her own had few work options beyond prostitution.

In some cases, the language or idioms of the local people made it difficult for them to understand the Bible. I recall a missionary who read to his congregation Revelations 3:20, about Jesus standing at the door and knocking. Of course, this story is a metaphor for the concept of Jesus knocking on the door of one's heart (a phrase that is also a metaphor). Jesus said that if you will open your heart's door he will come in and be your friend and spend time with you and will enjoy your company. The problem for the local people of this particular culture was that thieves in their culture frequently knocked on the door to see if anyone was home. If one was home and walked toward the door, the thief would hear the home owner coming and would run away to safety. If no one walked toward the door, the thief would, after close inspection, break in and steal items of value.

The missionary realized that he would need to change the specific words of the Bible to help the people understand that Jesus does not approach the individual like a thief. He changed the words in the Bible to say something like this: "Behold, I stand at the door and call your name. If you open the door, I will come in to be with you...." With this change, the locals understood the real meaning of the scripture and the good will of God.

A review of historical and contemporary events and evidences suggest that history is replete with various adjustments Christian ministers made to appeal to local peoples. Some of these changes were reasonable and others polluted the Christian faith with extraneous non-scriptural ideas.

### Mixing Culture and Christianity

Listed below are a few examples of the mix and confusion of Christian faith with established cultural beliefs and practices:

Gargoyles

Five summers ago, I was in Paris, France. While there, I visited the Cathedral Notre Dame. I could not get inside the cathedral at the time because of some kind of labor dispute but walked around the exterior of the building. An observation of interest was the line of ferocious gargoyles along the edge of the roof of the building. The original purpose for placing gargoyles around a church building was to scare off demons. It occurred to me that the making of images to scare off demons was not a biblical application of Christianity. The Church had made Christianity more acceptable to local cultures by mixing Christian beliefs with established pagan fears and practices.

A Non-biblical Prohibition

When I was a boy growing up in Texas, most Baptist churches there taught that it was a sin against God to drink any kind of alcoholic beverages. One Sunday evening when I attended a small Baptist church in east Texas, I recall the testimony of an obese lady on the subject of alcohol: "Ole king _al-kee-hol_ has never passed these lips!" My mental response: "No, but many a buttered biscuit tarried there!"

When I was old enough to read the Bible, I realized that the prohibition against alcohol in the Baptist Church was not biblical. For example, Jesus' first miracle was the changing of the water to wine at the wedding in Cana (John 2:1-11). Note that after tasting the water that had become wine, the chief steward told the bridegroom (verses 9b-10):

Everyone serves the good wine first. And then the inferior wine after the guests have become drunk. But you have kept the good wine until now.

Because imbibing in alcohol can make people drunk, it is reasonable to assume that the "wine" served at the wedding contained alcohol.

Spend your tithe on strong drink? Deuteronomy 14:22-27 recorded proper uses of the tithe. If an Israelite lived too far from Jerusalem to carry ten percent of his farm produce to that center of worship, he was to sell the produce and take the money to:

...the place that the Lord your God will choose; spend the money for whatever you wish - oxen, sheep, wine, strong drink, or whatever you desire. And you shall eat there in the presence of the Lord your God, you and your household rejoicing together.

Here the scripture allows use of tithe monies for a family feast and the purchase of food and "strong drink". Oddly enough, I never heard these scriptures read in a Baptist church to support the doctrine of tithing.

Though the scripture condemns drunkenness, (1 Corinthians 11:21, Ephesians 5:18; 1 Peter 4:3), it supports the spending of tithe monies for strong drink taken in moderation. Why do Baptists refuse to believe the Bible in this case? I suspect the main reason is that Baptists in the South, in particular, descended primarily from Irish ancestors. Because " _ole king al-kee-hol_ " ravished many an Irishman; the Celts in the American South added to the scripture their cultural beliefs in an attempt to protect themselves from a cultural weakness. They felt compelled to label the use of alcohol in their culture as evil and chose to ignore biblical approval of moderate use.

A Substitute Goddess?

Numerous examples exist of churches elevating cultural preferences to a scriptural level. It did not escape my notice that the Church met at the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD to determine that Mary, the mother of Jesus, should have elevated status. At the time, 200 bishops convened to make a decision on Nestorianism. Nestor insisted that Mary was the mother of a man, not of God. According to Nestor, God merely inhabited the physical man we know as Jesus. The Nestorian heresy subdivided Christ into two separate beings instead of his being a person both God and man. To undermine Nestorianism, the bishops voted to proclaim Mary "Mother of God" rather than simply the mother of a man. As a result of her new title, Mary vaulted to the height of being an intercessor between God and mankind. By contrast, most Christians outside the Catholic Church believe that the New Testament allows only Jesus/the Holy Spirit to serve as intercessor between mankind and God the Father. Reference: 1 Timothy 2:5, John 14:6, Matthew 6:6, Luke 11:2, Luke 11:13, John 6:37, John 14:16-17, John 14:23, Acts 2:38, Acts 4:12, Romans 8:26-27, Romans 8:34, Galatians 4:6; Hebrews 7:25. Notably, the Bible, Old and New Testaments, contains not one reference to a legitimate prayer offered to any angel nor to any saint, living, dead, or ascended. All biblical prayers were offered only to the Triune God.

Prior to the arrival of Messiah on Earth, God chose various prophets, priests, and judges to communicate his messages to his people. These religious leaders acted as God's messengers to the people. However, following the triumph of Jesus' death on the cross, the intermediary role of the priesthood vanished forever. No person or organization after Jesus' death on the cross stands between the individual and God. After the cross, the relationship between God and the individual required direct, personal communication between that human being and a member of the Triune God.

But let us return to the designation of Mary as "Mother of God" and intercessor between God and mankind. Why arrange a meeting in Ephesus to discuss the Nestorian controversy and the religious significance of Mary being either the mother of God or the mother of a physical body occupied by God? I suggest that the bishops discussed the religious significance of Mary at Ephesus because the cultural climate there was ripe and friendly toward women religious figures. Prior to the arrival of Paul and Christian doctrine in the first century (Acts 19:23-28), the Ephesians worshiped the Greek goddess and virgin huntress Artemis. Ephesus was a good meeting place to discuss the religious significance of a particular woman because of the city's historical and cultural ties to the worship of another virgin goddess. Apparently, the bishops used cultural influences to help turn the political tide against the Nestorian heresy.

Pandora's Bible

One group that split away from biblical teaching in the early 1800's were the Mormons. The Bible contradicts the fundamental beliefs of Mormonism directly and obviously and repeatedly. I recall when I participated in Bible discussions with a Mormon friend on a daily basis. This was many years ago and at the time, I knew less about Mormon beliefs. Our daily discussions lasted thirty minutes. My Mormon friend had free rein the first fifteen minutes of the discussion to teach me about his beliefs and I led the discussion the last fifteen minutes. I learned a good deal about Mormonism from my friend, "Jim". For my part of the discussion, I simply picked up the Bible each meeting and read systematically through the book of Romans in the New Testament.

I had a lot of fun with Jim when I read the Bible. He increasingly and repeatedly grew upset and regularly interrupted my reading so he could explain what the Bible really meant. I would stop reading, listen attentively, and then thank him for his explanation and say: "Well, Jim, thank you for explaining what the Bible really means. I thought it meant..." and then I would simply read again the passage I had just read. Often I would chuckle out loud. Over time, Jim explained why the Bible was faulty and could not be trusted. My thinking was that Mormonism is a good example of a religion's ability to embrace biblical writings and then to totally ignore them or otherwise distort them to fit post-conceived ideas.

Our Mormon friends' only salvation in remaining Mormon and embracing the Bible is to not read it. Of course, it helps if one only has access to the old King James Version, which is printed in older English and is therefore more difficult to understand. For the Mormon, opening the New Testament is like opening "Pandora's box".

Pagan-Christian Mix

When I read _National Geographic_ , I frequently note how rural peoples in many parts of the world embraced a form of Christianity that is woven into the fabric of their pagan past. Certain New Testament characters are added to the old list of respected gods. Rituals incorporate the new gods and the old ways continue much as in the past because people can lose their personal identity when their gods die. Miller et al. (1979) reported that Chief Seattle "After becoming a Roman Catholic...incorporated some of the Catholic rituals into Indian ceremonies." Chief Seattle (1786-1866) was chief of the Squamish and allied Indian tribes of the Northwest, USA. The mixing of Church tradition (not biblical teaching) and native beliefs also occurred in the Southwest.

In a recent visit to the Pueblo Indian Reservation at Taos, New Mexico, I noted a similar case of interfaith coevolution. I entered the San Geronimo Church in the center of the Reservation plaza, a site the Pueblo Indians have occupied for a thousand years. Inside the church building behind the pulpit, a large mural covered the back wall. This colorful and beautiful painting depicted basic beliefs of the pueblo occupants. In the center of the mural was the Virgin Mary and on each side of Mary were large fruiting corn stalks. Mary had risen to the status of the Native American "Corn Goddess" or "Mother Earth" who provided bodily sustenance for the faithful. Mary's diminutive son Jesus wore a crown but was off to his mother's left instead of center-stage.

The mixing of native beliefs and Church tradition by the Pueblo peoples is not surprising when one considers the Pueblos' first exposure to applied Christianity by the Spanish. The occupying Spanish enslaved the Native Americans and forced them to erect the first church on site in 1619. Slavery was deemed necessary to make good traditional "Christians" of the Indians. And, cheap labor reduced the cost of spreading the faith.

Another example of the pagan-Christian mix is the Santeria faith, now extant in the United States. Santeria represents a combination of the Yoruba faith from West Africa, Roman Catholicism, and Native American Indian traditions. Yoruba arrived with slaves, entering the United States through Cuba and other parts of the Caribbean. Practitioners worship Catholic saints and/or the Orisha. The latter are considered spiritual beings who are manifestations of God (Olofi). Leadership in the religion is based on strength of communication with the Orisha. Rituals include animal sacrifice, commonly chickens.

The Church Incorporates Patriotism

Note the turn of the German church to the dark side under Hitler in the 1930s as recorded by Metaxas (2010:325):

...Germany celebrated Hitler's fiftieth birthday, and once again the sinuous Dr. Werner tied himself into a ribbon for the epochal occasion: he published another glowing tribute to Hitler in the official journal of the German Reich church: "We celebrate with jubilation our Fuhrer's fiftieth birthday. In him God has given the German people a real miracle worker...Let our thanks be the resolute and inflexible will not to disappoint....our Fuhrer and the great historic hour.

Another example of the patriotic propagandizing and distortion of biblical Christianity is reflected in one of our most cherished patriotic songs. I refer to the _Battle Hymn of the Republic_ written November 1861 by Julia Ward Howe to the tune _John Brown's Body_. Here is the third verse:

I have read a fiery gospel writ in burnished rows of steel:  
"As you deal with my contemners so with you my grace shall deal."  
Let the hero born of woman crush the serpent with his heel,

Since God is marching on.

The "hero born of woman" as recorded in Genesis 3:13-15 is commonly believed to signify Jesus who defeated Satan and the power of death by his death on the cross and resurrection to new life. The new "fiery gospel writ in burnished rows of steel represents the force/will of God as seen in the rows of armed Yankee soldiers with their steely rifles and gleaming bayonets. God's grace for salvation shall come upon those Yankee soldiers in direct proportion to the number of Southern Baptists and Methodists they can shoot with their rifles and stab with their bayonets. That is the meaning of the third verse, second line: " _As you deal with my contemners so with you my grace shall deal._ " The aim of this verse was to make the northern troops believe that killing Christians from the South would ingratiate them with Jesus and his saving grace. The war was presented to the invading northern troops as a Christian holy war. This is not to say, of course, that slavery in the South was a holy institution.

I have read that slavery as practiced in the South in the 1800s was generally/frequently horrible with separation of families, sexual abuse, torture, and humiliation. We marvel that the German church put up with Hitler and we marvel that Southern Baptists and other Christians tolerated slavery and slave trading.

The Bible provided specific guidelines on slavery. Those who would be leaders in the church were to be the servants of other Christians (Mark 10:44) and "whoever wants to be first must be slave of all." Social position meant nothing in the early church: "For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body \- whether Jew or Greeks, slave or free... (1 Corinthians 12:13). The master who was a Christian and his slave who was a Christian were to be brothers in the Lord (Philemon 1:16) for "here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all" (Colossians 3:11).

The punishment for kidnapping a brother Israelite and selling that person into slavery was death (Deuteronomy 24:7) and the Mosaic Law prohibited the return of a slave to his master (Deuteronomy 23:15). Slave trading was considered a sin in New Testament times (1 Timothy 1:10). Why did Christians in the South embrace states' rights and the "unsound doctrine" of slave trading over biblical Christianity? They, like so many German Christians during Hitler's rise to power, had mixed their culture and economic well-being with their Christianity. Patriotic feelings, tribal loyalties, and economic well-being trumped the Bible.

Evolution of Religious Traditions to Divine Mandates

The New Testament records the confrontations between Jesus and certain Jewish leaders for their elevation of human tradition to the level of scripture. For example, Pharisees and some scribes criticized Jesus' disciples for eating without ritually washing their hands. According to Mark 7:6-8:

Jesus said to them: "Isaiah prophesied rightly about you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching human precepts as doctrines.' You abandon the commandment of God and hold to human tradition."

Thus, the gambit of enculturation of biblical "Christianity" has covered a wide spectrum from the biblically valid to the diabolical. The mix continues today.

A Note on Compromise

We can understand the need to apply Christian principles to a culture without denouncing benign aspects of that culture. To do otherwise would be to dilute and pollute the basics of the Christian faith with our own ideas and the non-Christian aspects of our own culture.

Ironically, once a people embraced Christianity and applied Christian beliefs to their cultural ways of life, over time, they evolved to believe that all or many of their cultural beliefs and practices to be Christian. The only way to preserve the basics of the Christian faith is to separate in our minds the difference between the benign or neutral aspects of our culture from the basics of our Christian faith. We must objectively sift our cultural assumptions through the sieve of biblical analysis. God's word will sever bone from marrow.

Criteria for Christian Faith

Basic Christian beliefs come from the Bible, that is, from the Old Hebrew Bible and from the Apostolic Doctrine, the New Testament. The basic tenets of Christianity appear, for example, in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, Philippians 2:6-11, and Colossians 1:15-20. These words recorded/verified the beliefs and practices of the Church within a decade or two of the resurrection of Jesus. Of course, the beliefs and practices of the Church preceded Paul's recording of them. Other traditions, "revelations", and cultural beliefs that people attached to "Christianity" over the last 2,000 years are valid only insofar as they are in concert with the Old Testament and the Apostolic Doctrine as expressed in the New Testament. Traditions, revelations, and cultural and philosophical beliefs may be benign in appearance but still they can detract from the Christian faith if a people assumes them to be Christian in origin. In light of this last statement, I would like to critique some common American religious beliefs that we often assume to be Christian but which I believe to be unbiblical.

### A View of Nature from the Right

I have been a Bible-oriented Christian since the age of nine and a lover of nature all my life. To me nature is the work of God and evidence of his existence. To love nature is to acknowledge God. However, throughout my life, I regularly encountered Christian people as well as atheists and agnostics and people of other faiths who thoroughly disagreed with my values. The Christian segment commonly repeated man's mandate to rule nature, from the first chapter of Genesis, to justify their view that nature was either evil or irrelevant. When it came to paving, drilling, channeling, damming, bulldozing, developing, or exhausting natural resources for immediate economic gain, God was on their side. In fact, so doing was the Christian thing to do and destroying the animals or where the animals lived was the will of God. It was God's will that, as stated by the Greek Protagoras some 2,500 years ago: "Man is the measure of all things."

One observation of interest did not, however, escape my notice. My observation was that when nature was in the way, the developers, whether atheists or agnostics or theists, expressed the same philosophical arguments about the destiny of man to conquer nature. The main difference was that the atheists and agnostics left the Bible out of the discussion. As a result, the elevation of short term economic gain prevailed and fewer natural resources and less of nature was left for the present and for future generations to enjoy and ponder and manage and use wisely.

Because the basic beliefs of agnostics, theists, and atheists were similar, I questioned whether their philosophies about the role of mankind and of nature actually had a biblical origin. I had been a student of the Bible for decades and decided to study the book in more detail to see who was closer to the biblical view, they or I. If I was correct, where had these, my fellow Americans, obtained their philosophy?

Non-biblical Origins for Arrogant Attitudes toward Nature

I confess that I am thoroughly American. I love where I live and how I live and the people I live with. I have a full set of Americanized values and am comfortable with them. However, I recognize that many of my values are cultural, not biblical. These values are mostly theologically neutral, though some are likely anti-biblical and are therefore non-Christian. This knowledge keeps me somewhat humble in my happy, somewhat hedonistic state - of being individualistic and free in the American sense.

I trust I have set the stage to analyze our American heritage without offending too many people. But be that as it may, I am going to do a little cultural undressing anyway. The discussion to follow encompasses hypotheses and observations that I believe could explain the origin of human arrogance toward the gift of natural resources, particularly in the industrialized West.

The Beginning of God?

Many Christians have a limited view of God. They cannot believe that God has the depth/capacity to genuinely love or appreciate anything except human beings. Coupled with this small view of God is the assumption that, though God is eternal, he was eternally inactive and then woke up to a new beginning one day and decided to finally become active and do something worthwhile by making mankind.

One of the favorite Augustinian arguments used to dismiss everything else that God did in that eternity before he got the idea to create man is that "God exists outside time." That is, to God the past and the present and the future are the same because he has perfect knowledge of all events. Thus, God's full occupation has eternally been and always will be his agape love for mankind.

This argument assumes that God is not big or talented enough to love mankind and also have interest in any other things or beings he has made. Thus, the whole basis for meaning in God's existence is mankind. That is, God's meaningful eternity only began with the creation of mankind.

I suggest St. Augustine's (AD 354-430) hypothesis that God was inactive for an eternity would mean that God was basically nonexistent before he made man. Can any form of spiritual or physical life have absolutely no movement or activity in its mind for an eternity and really be thought of as being alive or conscious? I think not.

Time may well be relative, however, God's "time" in the sense that I use it in this essay simply means that in his "time," God was active and did things and had duration - an active past eternally before making man.

I am fully aware that logic is a poor substitute for experience, but because our origin is fairly recent, we can only generalize about what God did before he made man in his image. Let us guess that because God has always existed, he always made things and beings. That is not to say that those things and beings lasted but only that they existed at one "time" and that over the course of eternity, God made an infinite number of them.

The Bible gives us a hint of God's eternal activities. It notes that God made myriads of beings we know as angels (Luke 2:13). And, in Isaiah 51:6 and Psalms 102:25-27, the Bible refers to the earth and heavens as a garment that wears out. In the latter reference, the earth and the heavens "wear out like a garment" and God changes them like clothing. The implications are that the universe wears out and God makes a new one. If God has always existed, he has always done things like this.

Of course, there is no basis for a theology based on what God did before the creation of our universe. It was God's plan that we should only be privy to a limited amount of information. Only a fool would attempt to concoct a theology on the basis of non-information. We can only know the love of God in the mystery of the lives we live but we should also allow that God may have interests and experience that extend beyond the mankind project.

I do believe that God loved us enough to put us right with himself through the Cross. On the other hand, I suspect that God has been around an eternity and that he has had interests other than mankind over the course of his eternal life and activities. This hypothesis gives God room to be God and keeps me from relegating him to a myopic, robotic view. The small view of God suggests that the only thing important to God is man and therefore, man can do as he pleases with all the other things that God has made. That is: "Man is the measure of all things...," and not God. Man's existence defines the total past, present, and future interests of the eternal Creator. But, as we shall see, mankind's arrogance extends to the metaphysical world of secular society as well.

Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

"Men are not animals erect, but immortal gods." These were the words of Francis Bacon (1561-1626). Similarly: "You will be as God (or gods)..." were the words of Satan in his appeal to the pride of Adam and Eve to rebel against God and to define for themselves what was and was not ethical (Genesis 3:5b). Their decision to rebel against God introduced both death and the ideology of humanism into human history.

Francis Bacon, a strong proponent of mankind's imminence, was the father of metaphysical empiricism. Metaphysical empiricism, which houses the basic tenants of God-less, philosophical materialism, is a humanistic philosophy that embraces the following assumptions and values:

1) Antecedent conditions completely determine all events. This is a basic tenant of philosophical materialism.

2) Nothing exists except what man can detect with his five senses and measure.

3) The application of scientific method can solve all problems.

Francis Bacon was not a researcher; he was a philosopher of science. His great dream was to integrate science into all facets of human culture for the conquest of nature and empowerment of man. He believed that "knowledge that does not generate achievement is a pale and bloodless thing, unworthy of mankind." Man would become the Supreme Being in the world as "we put nature on the rack and compel her to bear witness even against herself, so that we may control her to our ends."

The aim of such a harsh view toward nature was to provide "freedom" to the individual. The individual would live in a world where war was waged against nature, not against other classes of people or political subdivisions. Through science, man would obtain economic freedom, property, health, and happiness.

We find these ideas appealing for two reasons:

1) Man is viewed as the dominant power in the world through his application of science and subsequent control of nature. We are proud of our "progress".

2) In first world countries, the application of science provided increased longevity, wealth, and leisure for a large and growing middle class.

John Locke (1632-1704)

Though possibly Christian (McDowell 1972:192), John Locke was philosophically a metaphysical empiricist who followed the lead of Francis Bacon. In accord with good empiricist script, Locke stated that the only things that exist can be known through our five senses. This view fit well with Locke's general opposition to authoritarianism. All the pomp and power and the esthetic culture of the aristocracy was often safeguarded by ethereal and impractical religious beliefs and historical traditions based on "nonsense". Non-sense ideas that could not be touched, smelled, tasted, heard, or seen were not only beyond sense, they were invalid. What really mattered were the five senses of the individual whose basic motivation was to seek pleasure and avoid pain. It was therefore the focus of ethics not to prop up the nonsense of a theocracy, aristocracy, or monarchy but to protect the rights of the individual to seek pleasure and avoid pain. One can understand the suppressed members of society applauding the writings of John Locke. One can sense "Americana" in his ideas.

The rising middle class embraced the words of John Locke because he was the philosopher of their freedom. To them and to their rising influence in the world, Locke's' words attained prominence of biblical proportions. The following are some of Locke's ideas that many assume to be the words and ideas of God Almighty.

The private ownership of property is paramount because property is the source of wealth of the upper classes:

The great and chief end, therefore, of men's uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property _and the protection of_... their inalienable rights to pursue "life, liberty, and property."

Locke further explained how to acquire property:

...and the labor of our body and the work of our hands properly belongs to us. So, when one picks acorns or berries, they thereby belong to the person who picked them up.

That is, whatever we wrest from nature by our labor becomes our personal property. In Locke's view nature has no value, esthetic or otherwise, until mankind manipulates it and brings it into use and possession as property. Thus, a tree supporting a nesting pair of bald eagles has no value until it is cut down and transformed into toothpicks, 2X4 boards, wooden spoons, and coffins for the dead. Then and only then, man bequeaths value to that tree. Many Americans readily embrace John Locke's views on the utilitarian, and only utilitarian, values of natural resources. And, they assume that his political beliefs and economics are Bible-based.

Locke's idea of getting property from nature applied well to North America in the 1700s and 1800s because the vast land and all its wealth, not "owned" by nor brought into possession by the Native Americans, was simply there for the taking and claiming. Newly arriving Europeans under the loved Lockean creed to turn labor into personal property attacked the vast natural resources of America with a passion. Application of technology and the acquisition and development of and acquisition of personal property became ethically goods in and of themselves. In a word: "progress." What was so Lockean and Baconian metaphysical empiricism became so biblical and the manifest/obvious will of God.

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)

In the arena of ethics, Bentham held that science could adequately describe the basis for all morals and legislation. His theory of psychological hedonism insisted that the motives of pleasure and pain explained all human behavior. Therefore, the primacy of the individual and of his right to pursue pleasure/happiness was the supreme good. At the social level, Bentham's practical or utilitarian philosophy stated that the right act or policy was the one that provided "the greatest happiness for the greatest number."

What could be more "American" than Bentham's emphasis on the supremacy of the individual and his/her rights to pursue pleasure/happiness? We Americans also appreciate Bentham's negative view of law: "...liberty is the absence of restraint" and "Every law is an infraction of liberty." To quote Henry David Thoreau: "That government governs best that governs least."

Again, I do not suggest that philosophers like Bacon, Locke, and Bentham were good or bad, correct or incorrect. My point is that their writings are what the rising middle class of their times wanted to hear. I further suggest that many in all socio-economic classes in the modern world continue to incorporate these ideas and values as the heart of their cultures. In America, we Christians have integrated these ideas into our concept of "Christianity" and ascribed to them the authenticity of "Scripture." Thus, we American Christians often judge the ethics of a situation based on the philosophical writings of hedonists, deists, atheists and cultural "Christians" rather than on the Bible. That is so because we assume that American philosophical ideas are God's ideas and his willful gifts to us. In the next section, I will cite a few examples how "Christian" America justified some actions that were obviously not biblical.

Emergence of the Middle Class

Following the philosophy of Bacon et al. and initiation of the technological war against nature in the late 18th century, the ideology of "liberalism" emerged. Liberalism was a movement away from rule by monarchy, aristocracy, and theocracy. Law, politics, and economy evolved to favor the primacy of the individual and the importance of self-determinism instead of the family, state, or church. The shift included the emergence of the middle class and movements toward secularism. The rising middle class embraced the writings of non-Christian philosophers to combat oppressive theocracies and/or the "divine right" of kings and the aristocracy. It appears that the ideas of Western European philosophers were not particularly original but rather that they were in tune with the spirit of the time. These philosophers merely wrote well what the populace was eager to hear.

Thank the Western European Philosophers for Writing What We Wanted to Hear

When England experienced heavy debt in the latter part of the 18th Century and taxed the Colonies to help pay that debt, the Englishmen in the New World got angry. They were taxed by a government that did not allow them to participate in that government's decisions. Subsequently, they pitched the English tea into Boston Harbor and united themselves to make war with their native England. When the Americans wanted to justify war with England, they did not go to the Bible. They called on their favorite Old World philosopher to justify their actions. They recalled Locke's words:

If a government subverts the ends for which it was created then it might be disposed; indeed, revolution in some circumstances is not only a right but an obligation.

Thereby, the Americans believed God justified their corporate actions. The words of John Locke were just what they/we wanted to hear to justify war against both our English brothers abroad as well as the Native Americans at home.

Genocide of Native Americans Justified

If we were good old boys in Georgia in the early 1830s and had a good-old-boy president like Andrew Jackson, it would be easy to look over with lust at land set aside by government treaty with and for the Cherokee Nation. We would see that the Indians had in many ways adopted the American lifestyle. Many had become Christians and built wooden houses for their homes and were wearing cotton clothes. But one thing we would also notice is that they had not really gone in and wrested "property" from nature. A good bit of the land was "wasted" because the Indians had not "brought it all under the plow". The Indians had not populated the land like the Anglos but still used much of it to support the hunting and gathering aspects of their culture.

In their hearts, the Georgia boys believed in Bacon's metaphysics of science:

We must put nature on the rack and compel her to bear witness even against herself, so that we may control her to our ends.

They would hear Bacon whisper in their ears:

_Land_ that does not generate achievement is a pale and bloodless thing, unworthy of mankind _._

Of course, Bacon used the word "knowledge," not "land" but a one word difference was not that significant of a change in Georgia. The basic idea was the same: be practical and do something useful with knowledge and land or it is wasted. And, it is a sin against God to waste anything thing when human beings, defined as "we," need it.

Again, the Americans in Georgia perhaps recalled the words of John Locke:

_..._ the labor of our body and the work of our hands properly belongs to us. So, when one picks acorns or berries, they thereby belong to the person who picked them _._

That is how we get property - we go out and take from the land that is not used and with our labor we wrest private property from nature. We work it and it belongs to us.

Being a rugged Bentham individualist and the good American and Baconian and Lockean that he was, President Andrew Jackson saw to it that we disposed of the Cherokee Nation to Oklahoma. Jackson ignored efforts, legal and otherwise, by Chief Ross to keep his people on Cherokee lands. Instead, the President collaborated with the Indian Major Ridge, his son John, and Elias Boudinot to sell out the Cherokee Nation. Major Ridge and some 500 followers represented less than three percent of 20,000 Cherokees but Jackson, pretending this small group legitimately represented the Indian Nation, signed a treaty with the few collaborators.

The forced removal of some 20,000 Cherokees from their homes in north Georgia to the Oklahoma Territory resulted in the deaths of some 4,000 men, women, and children. The infamous forced march from the Georgia Indian Reservation to Oklahoma became known as the "Cherokee Trail of Tears." The Cherokees en route died from disease and privation. Subsequently, the Cherokee killed Major Ridge, his son, and Elias Boudinot for signing the "treaty" of New Echota, which Jackson used to drive them from their homes and land. Massive and forced removal from the southeastern United States of other Native American groups in the 1830s to the Oklahoma Territory included the Choctaw, Muscogee Creek, and portions of the Seminole people.

Disposing of the Cherokees from the land sickened Congressman Davy Crockett and he subsequently fought President Jackson on the issue. As a result of his anti-American view of "progress," Crockett's political career ended and he headed west to Texas and the Alamo. By contrast, President Andrew Jackson, the hero of the Battle of New Orleans, remained in power and today we honor his memory by placing his hero face on our American $20-bills. We honor his memory in the face of his genocide/ethnic cleansing.

The purpose of the example above is to show that the expressions of philosophers like Bacon, Locke, and Bentham are so much a part of who we as Americans are, that we live them and express them and make business and politics and love and war with them. As a nation, as a people, we have with our cherished, non-biblical beliefs performed heroic feats and won justice and, we have with those same beliefs often justified the most horrific atrocities against the powerless and the land. I suggest that often our basic American values are in conflict with the covenant values as recorded in the Scriptures.

### Covenant Values from the Bible

Did you ever read God's communication with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? Did you read about God's precious promises to them; that their descendants would grow into a great nation and that through them and their descendants, all the nations of the world would be blessed (Genesis 12:1-3; 22:15-18; 26:24; 28:10-14)? When I read about how God promised to bless the patriarchs, I was astounded; I was shocked.

I was surprised our spiritual fathers felt wonderful about God's blessings because such blessings applied to other people, not just the patriarchal recipients themselves. What was there to get excited about? To my way of thinking, if God is going to bless me, then I am the person I want to benefit from the blessing. I want God to bless me with great relationships, love, and wealth and adoration. Future generations and all the nations of the earth? Who cares? Bless me if you are going to bless me, not all those other people all over the world or people that do not even exist yet. Let future generations worry about themselves. My personal pursuit of happiness is more important. After all, the "pursuit of happiness" is one of my "Unalienable Rights" as an American as per the second sentence in the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776.

And, may I remind you that people who are under covenant-type relationships with the community (whoever that happens to be), are easier to exploit. They feel obligated to others and tend to worry about the needs of others. And, certainly, history is rife with exploitation of the masses controlled by religious and/or political ideas and obligations and perceived covenants.

Indeed, it is a mixed bag and there are multiple ways of looking at the pros and cons of comparing Mother Teresa with John Wayne. Which would you rather be? Which is more American? This is not to say that John Wayne was not Godly nor that Mother Teresa particularly was, though I think she was. I am only saying that I feel more comfortable with the former than the latter image. And, I suggest this is true because a lot of who I am derives from the ideas of philosophers who championed American middle class values (personal freedom) rather than the Bible. Now, let us therefore do our best to ignore our middle class philosophical champions for a while and delve into God's Word to question what our attitudes toward nature and land use and future generations would be if we had a more biblical point of view.

"And God Saw that it Was Good"

According to Genesis 1, God made the dry land and the seas, the plants, the stars, the planets, the fish, the birds, the sea animals, the land animals, and "every creeping thing of the ground." After God created these various things and collections of things, he repeatedly observed his work and said that "it was good." Note that before God added mankind to the mix, he saw that his work "was good." After creating mankind, God referred to his work as "very good," thereby distinguishing between what was "good" and what was "very good." My point is that nature was proclaimed by God to be "good" without man, which means he loved and appreciated his work before making man in his image.

Some will argue that God was merely stating that his work was "good" because that "good" was in reference to its being beneficial to man. However, the Bible in Genesis makes no such distinction.

Some Christians try to restrict God's full attention to mankind. They say that man has erotic love and fraternal love and God has agape love for mankind. Agape love is that self-less love that always does what is best for the other person. In this case, God would selflessly love man in a way to always do what is in the best interest of man.

I am not suggesting that God does not express agape love. He does. Giving of himself on Calvary was the supreme example of God's self-giving agape love for mankind. On the other hand, it appears self-evident that God loves beauty, symmetry, order, and living things because he made them throughout eternity. I suggest that God had an eternity to produce things he loved and enjoyed before he made man and that he therefore loves not only man but other things and beings, too. The only other conclusion one can draw from the existing set of biblical premises is that God was totally inactive for an eternity before he made man. How likely is that?

Man's Mandate

God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth." (Genesis 1:28).

Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (Anonymous 1993) defines "subdue" as a verb meaning 1) to conquer and bring into subjection, and 2) to render submissive. The lexicon further defines "dominate" (have dominion over) as a verb meaning to rule over; govern; control. The command to control and govern are managerial concepts, not commands to extirpate and vanquish from the landscape. In like manner, parents are to subdue and control their own children and to integrate them as important parts of our human culture. To subdue one's offspring does not mean to exterminate them.

Man is therefore in a managerial position to control and conserve the world of nature. The Bible further describes man's position in the natural world by contrasting that position with God's mandate for nature and the importance he, God, placed upon his creation.

Wildlife's Mandate

God commanded the aquatic animals and birds to:

"Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth" (Genesis 1: 22). _Furthermore_...God made the wild animals of the earth of every kind, and the cattle of every kind, and everything that creeps upon the ground of every kind. And God saw that it was good (Genesis 1:25).

When we combine God's mandates for man and for wildlife, our logic suggests that man is to manage wildlife so that species are fruitful and multiply on the earth. And furthermore, biodiversity of species is important because God said that **everything** that creeps upon the ground is "good." But these good species existed before the "fall" of mankind as discussed in Genesis 3.

The Fall of Mankind

Genesis 2 discusses some details not covered in the general description of creation in Chapter 1. In Chapter 2, God selected a specific part of the earth called "Eden" where he provided a particular habitat for the introduction of _Homo sapiens_. The Bible did not record what was going on outside of Eden, but it did note that conditions were favorable for certain life forms in the project area.

Familiar to us are the conditions of the fall. God gave Adam and Eve permission to partake of all the fruits of plants throughout the Garden except that of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Shortly thereafter, Satan appeared in the form of a serpent and explained to the pair that they could determine what is good and bad for themselves without God if they ate of the forbidden fruit. That is, they could transgress God's law and set up their own systems of ethics and therefore be as gods or God.

Eve and Adam ate the fruit and mankind became, as noted by the Greek Protagoras (480-421 .BC.), "the measure of all things." God promptly ran them out of their wonderful living conditions and into a larger but "fallen world". What were the effects of the fall on man and beast? What were world conditions outside the Eden project?

Beyond the "Eden" project area, nature was in a state of disunion where such functions as predation, parasitism, decay, disease, death, and recycling mechanisms provided the biological community a semblance of "balance". Of interest, the death of the individual played a critical role in maintenance of the natural system. And the modification and most often injury of genetic material frequently led to congenital deformations and inherited diseases. In this "fallen" world, the fossil record indicates that species appeared and disappeared abruptly; at times regardless of climatic conditions (Stanley 1998). Our species also appeared abruptly in this world. Geneticists traced our origin through DNA studies of mitochondria to a single woman, who supposedly lived about 200,000 years ago. They called her the "Mitochondria Eve" (see "Mitochondria Eve" on "Wikipedia" Internet site, Rohde et al. 2004).

Retention of Biodiversity after the Fall

Genesis 6-9 records the story of Noah and the Flood. God observed "that the wickedness of humankind was great in the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually." Genesis 6:6 records:

And the Lord was sorry that he had made humankind on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. So the Lord said, "I will blot out from the earth the human beings I have created - people together with animals and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them."

It is noteworthy that the evil deeds of humanity grieved the heart of almighty God in his heaven. This was obviously a picture of a Creator-Father so distraught with humanity that he also decided to scrap the other associated life forms. Why would God take out his anger on wildlife species when man was the species God saw as evil? Could it be that those life forms were stepping-stone models he used on the way to creating man? Or, perhaps man's behavior paralleled that of other organisms? Was God like the sculptor who destroyed his flawed work in fury and then flung the remaining pieces of marble across the floor?

But God had too much love for his handiwork to destroy it all. He decided to save from the flood his beloved and righteous Noah and Noah's family as well as species of wildlife. God loved nature so much, even the wildlife of a fallen world, that he commanded Noah in Genesis 6:19-20:

And of every living thing, of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground according to its kind, two of every kind shall come in to you, to keep them alive.

One may argue that God was only interested in retaining wildlife species for man's overall benefit. If that is true, then we must conclude that all wildlife species benefit mankind in some way and that therefore, assuring their survival is in our best self-interest.

I think, however, that the Bible is showing us that not only does man benefit from the presence of other species but other species exist simply because God cares about them and enjoys them as magnificent and wonderful works of interest. They are a "good" in and of themselves.

Also note that God involved man in God's plan to retain biodiversity. Because God is all-powerful, he could certainly have saved wildlife species without the help of mankind. What could have been God's motive for involving us in species rescue? Could it be that God involved us in his wildlife management project so we would feel responsible for and would learn to love and respect the natural world that he created?

God Loves Nature

In Genesis 9: 9-11 God told Noah:

As for me, I am establishing my covenant with you and your descendants after you, and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the domestic animals, and every animal of the earth with you, as many as came out of the ark. I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall flesh be cut off by the waters of a flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.

Note that God made his promise to never again destroy living beings across the earth with a flood. Note that he made this covenant with Noah and Noah's descendants. Note also that God made his promise directly to address domestic animals and wildlife species that he created - because they were of value to him in and of themselves. Why else, would he address wildlife in the presence of man? I suggest that God's covenant with wildlife was a message for man who was in the position to care for and manage those species.

Other excerpts from the Bible show that God cared for and enjoyed wildlife. The Mosaic Law (Exodus 23:10-11 and Leviticus 25:1-7) stated that the Hebrew nation must not cultivate vineyards or farm lands for one year in every seven years. The volunteer crops that came up and the grapes that the vines produced every seventh year were to be left for poor people to glean and for the feeding of livestock and wildlife. It was not clear to me whether each parcel of cultivated land had its individual "sabbatical" year or whether the whole country of Israel practiced a "sabbatical year" once every seven years. The point is that taking care of livestock and wildlife needs in ancient Israel was a part of God's law.

The book of Jonah in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) also addressed God's concern and care for animals as well as for people. Of course, we are all familiar with the story of Jonah and the "whale," though the Bible (Jonah 1:17a) states "But the Lord provided a large _fish_ to swallow up Jonah..." Nevertheless, according to the story, God told the Jewish man Jonah to go to the gentile city of Nineveh and advise the citizens there to repent of their wickedness or they and their city would perish. Jonah did not want to do that; likely because he was a Jew and the Ninevites were not. So Jonah ran away from God and God forced compliance through storm and gale and incarceration of Jonah by a large, specially prepared fish that finally puked him up upon the sea shore at the city of Nineveh.

Jonah preached repentance and to his surprise and displeasure the gentiles of Nineveh from the king on down believed him. To show repentance, the king of Nineveh decreed that all the people and (note this) all the animals in the city were to refrain from eating food or drinking water. The king of Nineveh felt God might care for and empathize with the animals that would also be destroyed if God's wrath fell upon the city.

Both man and beast were to wear sackcloth and to:

cry mightily to God...and turn from their evil ways and from the violence that is in their hands...(Jonah 3:8).

The king of Nineveh was correct about God's concern for the animals as well as the gentiles. After the citizens of Nineveh repented and God forgave them, Jonah was pouting and was upset with God for sparing the city. In Jonah 4:11, God answered Jonah's private pity party with a statement of God-values:

And should I not be concerned about Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also many animals?

The Old Testament prophet Jeremiah also believed God loved animals and their habitats. When God punished his people Israel with drought because they turned away from him, Jeremiah made an interesting appeal. He pleaded with God not to punish the land and the wildlife because of man's evil deeds:

How long will the land mourn, and the grass of every field wither? For the wickedness of those who live in it, the animals and the birds are swept away ...(Jeremiah 12:4).

Jeremiah hoped God would ease the punishment of people for the sake of the wildlife and their habitats. We may assume that the prophet knew God well enough to know that his prayer was a powerful appeal to the interests of the Creator.

God further showed his compassion for domestic animals when he established the "Sabbath" day. Exodus 23:12 recorded:

Six days you shall do your work, but on the seventh day you shall rest, so that your ox and your donkey may have relief, and your home-born slave and the resident alien may be refreshed.

It would appear that the main reason for the seventh of the Ten Commandments was to honor the needs of animals, slaves, and aliens in ancient Israel.

In Psalm 36:6-6, David commented on the vastness of God's love that encompasses mankind as well as other organisms:

Your steadfast love, O Lord, extends to the heavens, your faithfulness to the clouds. Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, your judgments are like the great deep; you save humans and animals alike, O Lord.

If God's steadfast love extends to other parts of his creation beyond us, perhaps we too should show genuine respect for the other things God has made - even in a fallen world.

Respect for God's Creation

The song-writer of Psalm 104 and Psalm 147:8-9 praised God for his care of livestock, wildlife, and habitats:

You make springs gush forth in the valleys; they flow between the hills giving drink to every wild animal... By the streams the birds of the air have their habitation; they sing among the branches. From your lofty abode you water the mountains; the earth is satisfied with the fruit of your work. You cause the grass to grow for the cattle....the trees of the Lord are watered abundantly, the cedars of Lebanon that he planted. In them the birds build their nests; the stork has its home in the fir trees...The high mountains are for the wild goats; the rocks are a refuge for the coneys. You make darkness, and it is night, when all the animals of the forest come creeping out. The young lions roar for their prey, seeking their food from God.

Of interest, the writer of Psalm 104, likely David the sheep herder, did not curse nature for interfering with man's "progress". He did not complain to God about wildlife pests and predators. Rather, he praised God for taking care of wild creatures, even the predators of his livestock. He wrote in Psalms 104:31: "May the glory of the Lord endure forever." He recognized that wildlife and the natural world were creations of God and "God's glory" and that therefore, man must show respect and care for them in perpetuity.

Nature's Witness

My observations of humanity over the last seven decades led me to hypothesize that the religiosity of a person is often a measure of that individual's link with the natural world. With few exceptions, "primitive" peoples in hunting and gathering societies are religious. Likewise persons in agricultural societies tend to be more religious than those in urban settings. Scientists who are metaphysical materialists and urban populations tend to be humanists and embrace Protagoras' idea that "man is the measure of all things." This is not to say that philosophical humanists/materialists do not live in rural areas nor that religious persons do not live in cities. I only suggest that the prevailing beliefs of one faction or the other is often related to a people's relative exposure to nature compared to exposure to "sophisticated" human culture and to manmade objects that dominate landscapes in urban settings.

One could posit two explanations for land-based religiously vs. urban-based humanism. The first explanation is that urban areas are the seat of education and modern culture and that urbanites are simply better educated and more knowledgeable and have therefore reasonably cast off primitive and ignorant and irrational ideas, including beliefs in God or gods.

A second explanation for the general contrasts between urban and rural belief systems is the impact of contrasting environments. The constant bombardment of the senses with man-made objects and human culture in an urban setting are often enough to convince a person that indeed, "man is the measure of all things." In urban society, the individual often confronts the possibility of ultimate causes only in the face of personal trauma at the onset of old age or other forms of declining health or injury.

In agricultural and other more natural settings, man's influence is relatively small and the natural world looms large. That other world beyond man confronts the individual constantly. He/she senses that other world and knows by experience that in time and space, man is small. He/she senses complexity and reality beyond one's self and within one's self - complexity, self-evident mysteries, and self-awareness that words of "explanation" simply describe or gloss over.

Science has acted as a two-edged sword. Historically, humankind used scientific method to exorcise "demons" from various natural phenomena. By contrast, over the last three or four decades, scientific investigations unleashed a veritable torrent of new information that revealed complexities in nature beyond natural explanation. In virtually every field of science, microbiology, paleontology, and cosmology, the data cry out for operations of mind as the most reasonable and ultimate cause for natural phenomena (see essay _Darwin - Truth in Detail_ below). However, because materialism is a metaphysical belief often held with religious tenacity by numerous members of the community and because of long-term personal and corporate investments in materialistic philosophies, the heavens and the earth will continue to declare the glory of God to a people with their eyes narrowed and their foreheads furrowed.

The Glory of God

The Bible repeatedly states that nature points to the creative process of Mind; that is, to God: "The heavens are telling the glory of God and the firmament proclaims his handiwork" (Psalm 19:1). In Romans 1:20, Paul advised that people have a revelation of God in nature:

Ever since the creation of the world his ( _God's_ ) eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made.

Paul further insisted in verse 20 that, given the revelation of God through nature, people who reject the existence of God "are without excuse..."

Toward the end of the story of Job in the Old Testament (Job 38), God revealed himself but not the reasons for Job's suffering. Using various examples from his creation, God explained to Job that he, God, had with a great show of expertise and power created the universe and the earth and all the habitats, plants, and animals on the earth. Among God's illustrations of his power, he discussed the origin of light, the sea, and control of death and weather and human physiological processes.

God further advised Job that he, God, took care of wildlife in those areas uninhabited by man. God provided prey for the lion and her young and provided food for the raven and its young ones when they cried out in hunger. And, God knew when the mountain goats and deer gave birth. God had "let the wild ass go free..." and "given the steppe for its home..." God, not man, had cared for ostriches, wild oxen, and eagles. God's power was obvious in those areas not inhabited by man.

In Chapter 40, God advised Job to consider "Behemoth" (possibly the hippopotamus):

...which I made just as I made you. For the mountains yield food for it where all the wild animals play. Under the lotus plants it lies, in the covert of the reeds and in the marsh. The lotus trees cover it for shade; the willows of the wadi surround it. Even if the river is turbulent, it is not frightened; it is confident though Jordan rushes against its mouth. Can one take it with hooks or pierce is nose with a snare?

In concert with "Behemoth" of the Bible, a number of species of large wild animals, predominantly African species at present, continue to defy domestication, to their glory and to God's. If it is wild, it is of God.

God's last illustration of his majesty and power and expertise in the book of Job was that of "Leviathan". We can only surmise the species that was "Leviathan". The "Leviathan" of Psalm 104:26 was a large beast that frolicked in the sea and Job's "Leviathan" could not be taken with a "fishhook". In Job 41:20 God said: "Out of its nostrils comes smoke, as from a boiling pot and burning rushes." The "smoke" from a boiling pot possibly referenced a whale's breath of air and water spray when the animal surfaced to exhale and inhale.

However, Job 41:19 described another "Leviathan" as the fire-belching dragon of old Eastern and European legend. Perhaps this "Leviathan" was a metaphor for the power and controlling fury of those parts of nature that ultimately remain beyond man's control - weather, disease, the aging process, and death? Whatever "Leviathan" was meant to be, it was clear that God's intent was to illustrate his power and glory in nature and contrast that with man's comparative vulnerability and weakness. Nature was the evidence of God's power and glory and of God's existence.

More Praise

Psalm 104:

O Lord, how manifold are your works! In wisdom you have made them all; the earth is full of your creatures. Yonder is the sea, great and wide, creeping things innumerable are there, living things both small and great...These all look to you to give them their food in due season; when you give to them, they gather it up; when you open your hand, they are filled with good things. When you hide your face, they are dismayed; when you take away their breath, they die, and return to their dust. When you send forth your spirit, they are created; and you renew the face of the ground. May the glory of the Lord endure forever; may the Lord rejoice in his works...

Psalm 148:

Praise the Lord from the earth, you sea monsters and all deeps, fire and hail, snow and frost, stormy wind fulfilling his command! Mountains and all hills, fruit trees and all cedars! Wild animals and all cattle, creeping things and flying birds!

Isaiah 43:19-21:

I will make a way in the wilderness and rivers in the desert. The wild animals will honor me, the jackals and the ostriches; for I give water in the wilderness, rivers in the desert, to give drink to my chosen people, the people whom I formed for myself so that they might declare my praise.

Our biblical review insists that an important purpose of nature is to glorify God and remind us of his existence. The Psalmist's desire was: "May the glory of the Lord endure forever; may the Lord rejoice in his works..." We must conclude from our review that as Christians, one of our biblical obligations is to insure that the works of God endure. We need to conserve natural resources so that future generations can see and enjoy the glory of God as revealed in the things he has made and that the Lord may continue to rejoice in his creation.

### Values of Wildlife to People

Wild People are Good People

There is a cultist assumption among some Christian groups that nature is evil and a work of the Devil. On one hand, Christians praise God for the beauty of the earth and on the other, every creature that is not edible or wearable or very friendly to mankind is considered evil. Much of this prejudice against nature reflects the writings of Francis Bacon and other European materialist philosophers of the 17th and 18th Centuries. By contrast, the Bible states that God was responsible for all creation and that God accomplished creation of the present universe through the direct, hands-on work of the Son, Jesus (John 1:2-3).

One may ask why a good God would create a world that harbors violence, pain, and death. While violence, pain, and death are often unpleasant, those aspects of life in themselves are not evil in the sense of being sin. They are rather the result of sin or separation of man from God. They appeared with mankind's fall from the fellowship of God and subsequent ejection from Eden. God's plan was to allow disunion; that is, death and destruction in the world, a state of nature that would one day share the redemption of God's children (Romans 8:19-23). Thus, exposure to nature in all its complexity and beauty and in its subjection to pain and death, points us to God. We see the earth and the plants and the animals and we love them and we see them thrive and we see them die and we long for the Author of that transient beauty that we see in them and in ourselves. We want life and beauty to last and we turn to God who we hope will make our lives endure and thrive in harmony with nature.

Pardon my romantic Rousseau diversion. My point is that nature is not evil but exposure to nature is good for us. For example, consider David, one of the central figures in the Old Testament. Our Jewish friends often wear the Star of David about their necks because David was poet, hero, and king of Israel. His exploits were legendary. God referred to him as: "a man after my own heart" (1 Samuel 13:13-14; Acts 13:22). When we look at the human being who was so close to the heart of God, we see a shepherd who spent much of his youth following sheep across the hills and valleys of Israel. David wrote much of his poetry, many of the Psalms in the Bible, while spending years of days and nights out in the wild lands of ancient Israel. We know the country was wild because the Bible records that David protected his sheep from large predators, Asiatic lions and bears.

David's exposure to wild country and to nature enabled him in his youth to remain close to God, to face natural adversity, to acquire courage, and use his talents to write some of the most beautiful religious poetry ever recorded. Observations of the beauty of nature, of the landscape, and the stars; of life, birth, and predation did not turn David away from but to God. David was a wild man and to some extent was a good man because of his exposure to the wild lands of ancient Israel.

One of David's descendants, both through the blood of his mother and adoptive father, was the Hebrew known as "Jesus". This is the historical Jesus of Christendom, who focused on his ministry of revelation with religious zeal. During his brief public ministry of some three and a half years, Jesus spent the greater part of his time conversing with his disciples and with individuals and groups of various sizes within two hundred miles of Jerusalem. However, when Jesus wanted to talk to God face to face, he frequently fled the people and retired to the surrounding hills to seek relief. He was familiar with wild country and particularly so because he had personally put it together (John 1:1-4).

Of interest, Jesus went into the desert to be tempted by Satan (Luke 4:1-13). While there, Satan offered Jesus political power, religious popularity, and food. Jesus rejected all three but stayed in the desert where the Bible (Mark 1:12-13) records that the angels appeared and cared for Jesus, who remained for some time with the wildlife species in the area.

Jesus had a cousin named John, who was a wild man. Matthew 11:11 quotes Jesus: "Truly I tell you, among those born of women, no one has arisen greater than John the Baptist..." Jesus' words described a preacher who survived in the wild lands of Israel by eating wild honey and grasshoppers. A favorable recommendation from God Almighty for a wild man should be adequate to let us know that a wild man can be a good man and that the trappings of "civilization" and human "progress" have no particular Godly significance in themselves.

My last example of a good wild man is that other son of Abraham, Ishmael. Genesis 16 records that Ishmael would be:

...a wild ass of a man, with his hand against everyone, and everyone's hand against him; and he shall live at odds with all his kin.

One might ask how anyone can love a wild boy who is so fiercely independent that he generally disliked other people and was disliked by them. However, we do not know the wild heart of Ishmael. We can assume that though he got along poorly with other people, Jehovah God still favored him. Note in Genesis 21:20:

...God was with the boy, and he grew up; he lived in the wilderness, and became an expert with the bow.

The father of Arabia was not a Muslim but Jehovah God of his father Abraham was his God and cared for him. Ishmael was a person of worth to Jehovah God and he was "a wild ass of a man".

Educational and Esthetic Values of Nature

Adam may have been the first taxonomist? Genesis 2:19 states:

So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature that was its name.

God's motive for having Adam name/classify the different "kinds" of animals was because "it is not good that the man should be alone..." (Genesis 2:18-19). God's plan was to help Adam feel at home by naming other animal "kinds" that occupied the Eden project area. Familiarity with the species of native fauna and flora where one lives helps him/her to feel at home and a degree of belonging, connectedness, and contentment. It apparently gave God joy to see Adam participate in God's creative activity by classifying/naming other species and thereby becoming familiar with the same things God created and enjoyed.

We want to know about our flora and fauna simply because God made us to be interested in the other life forms about us and how they function in their environments. For example, 1 Kings in the Bible notes that Solomon was a person of wisdom and a man of diverse interests who composed three thousand proverbs and was well known for his views on how nature worked. As is true today, knowledge of the natural world was of vital interest to people who lived three thousand years ago. 1 Kings 4:33-34 notes that Solomon:

...would speak of trees, from the cedar that is in the Lebanon to the hyssop that grows in the wall; he would speak of animals, and birds, and reptiles, and fish. People came from all the nations to hear the wisdom of Solomon; they came from all the kings of the earth who had heard of his wisdom.

The Bible also shows that man could gain theological incites by observing nature. Paul stated in Romans 1:19-20 that people who reject the existence of God are without excuse:

...for what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are have been understood and seen through the things he has made.

In the book of Job, participants in Job's ordeal repeatedly cited natural phenomena to address his inexplicable suffering. Job observed that God was responsible for his personal suffering because the life of every living thing and likewise the breath of every human being is in God's hand. Job noted that the animals and birds and plants live and die by the will of God (Job 12:7-9). Why should man be different?

In Matthew 6:25-34 Jesus presented his famous "sermon on the mount." To the people gathered about him, he advised them to observe nature in order to reduce stress and anxiety tied to getting a living and struggling for status and acceptance in a competitive world. In verse 26, Jesus advised his listeners:

...look at the birds of the air; they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?

Thus, a person is more valuable than a bird, but though man is worth more than many sparrows (Matthew 10:31), birds still have value to God because "...not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father" (Matthew 10:29).

Jesus stated in Matthew 6: 28-29 that Solomon in all his glory was not clothed as well as the wild lilies and that "if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you..." Of course, Solomon and all his glory was accessible to the few while even the poor of ancient Israel had access to the glory of wild flowers, which in God's opinion were more wonderfully glorious than King Solomon and his obvious wealth.

When the prophet Isaiah joyously wrote about the restoration of the people of Israel with the Lord their God, he pictured a natural setting for the medium of that reunion (Isaiah 55: 12-13):

For you shall go out in joy and be led back in peace; the mountains and the hills before you shall burst into song, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands. Instead of the thorn shall come up the cypress; instead of the brier shall come up the myrtle; and it shall be to the Lord for a memorial, for an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off.

Apparently, escape from man and his constructs and exposure to natural or near-natural settings was an esthetic and Godly experience for Isaiah. We could ascertain from these biblical references that retention of natural landscapes is of importance to the exercise of Judaism and the Christian faith.

A Biblical View of Fishing and Hunting

Hunting, fishing, and gathering were traditional and enjoyable activities in biblical times. Part of the joy in hunting is not only taking the animal for food but preparing the meat for personal and corporate consumption. The Scripture states that to obtain game through the hunt and then to fail to prepare that meat represents the epitome of unnatural laziness. The Scripture always condemns laziness and, in the case of Proverbs 12:27, supports hunting as a legitimate pursuit: "The lazy do not roast their game, but the diligent obtain precious wealth." Thus, the meat hunter is diligent and value-driven.

In Genesis 9:3-4, God told Noah and his family:

Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and just as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.

Thus, God allowed humankind to eat the meat of animals so long as the hunter did not consume the blood of the killed animal: "...who hunts down an animal or bird that may be eaten shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth" (Leviticus 17:13). This prohibition against eating/drinking blood likely reflected the idea that the life was in the blood and God was the giver of life and owner of life in all living things. Therefore it was a sin against God to acquire life in a godless, Draconian way by consuming that life-force.

The Law of Moses further restricted the killing and eating of "unclean animals". Leviticus 11 defined "unclean" animals as "all creatures that swarm" - "whatever moves on its belly," "whatever has many feet," "every animal that has divided hoofs but is not cleft-footed or does not chew the cud," etc. These restrictions appear odd in light of God's previous plans to assure retention of all these "unclean" species through the Great Flood in Noah's time and in light of the fact that God created them in the first place. Possibly, God knew that the marvels of his created life forms would lead to worship of the animals unless 1) the people killed and ate the species or 2) the species were "unclean"?

Of interest, God once again declared all creatures "clean" and suitable for human consumption through the apostle Peter, at least from a religious standpoint, after the resurrection of Jesus. It is now, therefore, "profane" for trout fishers to look down on catfish fishers. Acts 10:11-15:

He saw the heaven opened and something like a large sheet coming down, being lowered to the ground by its four corners. In it were all kinds of four-footed creatures and reptiles and birds of the air. Then he heard a voice saying, "Get up Peter; kill and eat." But Peter said, "By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is profane or unclean." The voice said to him again, a second time, "What God has made clean, you must not call profane."

In the Old Testament, God gave special recognition to persons who were good hunters, e.g., Nimrod, and Esau. Genesis 10:8 provides a note on the hunting prowess of Nimrod:

Cush became the father of Nimrod; he was the first on earth to become a mighty warrior. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord; therefore it is said, "Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the Lord".

Genesis 25 - 27 tells the story of Esau and Jacob and of parental favoritism in a dysfunctional family. Esau made a number of bad decisions, including marrying the wrong women (two of them) and trading his birthright to his younger brother Jacob for a bowl of oatmeal. Esau acted unwisely and made stupid mistakes but the Bible also recorded in Genesis 25:27 something positive about Esau: "... (he) was a skillful hunter, a man of the field..." and "Isaac loved Esau, because he was fond of game; but Rebecca loved Jacob." Note that being a "skillful hunter" was a concept given positive recognition in the Bible in spite of Esau's poor choices. Because of the positive recognition given hunters and hunting in the Bible, we can assume that God approved of hunting, at least for the purposes of obtaining food.

The classic hunter and gatherer in the Bible was John the baptizer. John was the cousin of Jesus, as noted above in _Wild People are Good People,_ and he lived outside the mainstream of society. He obtained food by simply gathering what he could find in the hills and streams of Israel. His main sources of nutrients were grasshoppers and wild honey (Mark 1:6).

Gathering grasshoppers requires considerable stalking ability and a quick hand. The gathering of honey in the wild requires climbing trees and cliffs and confrontation with bees \- uneasy labors for the faint-hearted. Today, we would tend to look down on such an uncivilized anomaly as John but, again, Jesus praised John as the greatest human in the history of mankind (Matthew 11:11). Hunting and fishing and gathering were obviously acceptable activities in Bible times.

I'm Going Fishing

When Jesus selected his twelve disciples, four of the twelve he chose were commercial fishermen: Andrew, Peter, James, and John. Catching and eating fish were activities approved by God as vital parts of ancient Jewish culture.

One of the most picturesque stories in the New Testament followed the resurrection of Jesus. In John 21, the Bible records that the disciples of Jesus had some free time and Peter decided to get out on the lake to relax and consider all the impacts tied to the recent crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. John 21:3 notes: "Peter said to them (other disciples): "I am going fishing." Six of Jesus' disciples were with Peter at the time and they agreed to go fish with him.

Peter and the other six men fished all night with their nets and caught nothing. About daybreak, they approached the shore and saw a man standing near the water's edge. The man on shore asked them if they had caught any fish. They replied that they had not. The man on shore told them they would catch some if they would throw the net on the right side of the boat. They did so and the net encompassed one hundred fifty-three large fish.

While they were straining to bring in the load of fish, John, who was perhaps more sensitive to his surroundings than some of the other disciples, made a creative leap in his mind. He realized that the man standing on shore about a hundred yards distant was the resurrected Jesus. He turned to Peter with his revelation: "It is the Lord!"

Peter grasped the idea immediately. He threw on his fisher's coat and dove into the water and swam that hundred yards to shore. One of the interesting things about Peter's actions was that he no longer needed to experience the miracle of walking on water. Rather, he knew he could swim and he knew he could get to God without another show of the supernatural. He no longer needed to prove anything but just wanted to be with Jesus.

On shore, the resurrected Jesus was doing something heavenly. He was cooking fish and hushpuppies (bread) on a charcoal fire for the mortals. Jesus also told Peter to "bring some of the fish you have caught" and "come and have breakfast." On the shores of the Sea of Tiberius, over a breakfast of fish and hushpuppies, the resurrected Jesus gave Peter his marching orders for serving the church.

The implications of the resurrected Jesus cooking fish appear obvious. There is something heavenly about what we might consider mundane earthly tasks like catching and cooking fish. Such an observation can provide hypotheses about the earthly aspects of the heavenly life. The obvious conclusion from the story of the resurrected Jesus cooking fish is that catching, cooking, and eating fish are legitimate pursuits insofar as the biblical record is concerned.

### Predators and Wildlife "Pests"

Use of Predators to Punish Mankind

God used various wildlife species to warn and/or punish evil people in biblical times. For example, God addressed "faithless" nations in Ezekiel 14:15. He said that he had the option to "send wild animals through the land to ravage it, so that it is made desolate, and no one may pass through because of the animals..." In our day and time we have eliminated or controlled large, dangerous predators to the extent that God has little left with which to threaten us, or so it would seem? But let us not forget that small microbes still loom large and dangerous and God can still call on other life forms to punish faithless nations and human arrogance. Some other references on the subject of God's using wildlife to warn/punish humankind include: Leviticus 26:22, Deuteronomy 28:26, Ezekiel 14:21, Psalms 36:13, and Revelation 6:7-8.

God Cares for Predators

Psalms 104:21 states that "...the young lions roar for their prey, seeking their food from God" and God inquired of Job (Job 38:39):

Can you hunt the prey for the lion, or satisfy the appetite of the young lions, when they crouch in their dens, or lie in wait in their covert?

The message in these verses is obvious: God makes predation possible. He cares for predators and assures their continuance. Of course, such theology might confuse a wildebeest at the personal level unless the individual understands the role of death and the will of God in a fallen world.

Large predators are powerful animals and in their power, they glorify God. In the _Chronicles of Narnia,_ C.S. Lewis noted that Jesus is a lion and he is not a tame one.

Predators as Symbols of Power

Peter admonished the early Christians (1 Peter 5:8) to:

Discipline yourselves, keep alert. Like a roaring lion your adversary the devil prowls around, looking for someone to devour.

In this case, note that the devil is "like" a lion by way of analogy or comparison. That is, the devil's behavior reminds one of the hunting and stalking behavior of a lion. This is not to say that the lion is demonic or "evil" in any way. In fact, in Hosea 5:14, God uses the same lion analogy to describe his own behavior. He said to Israel during one of that nation's periods of faithlessness:

For I will be like a lion to Ephraim, and like a young lion to the house of Judah. I myself will tear and go away; I will carry off, and no one shall rescue.

These two analogous stories illustrated the ferocious aspects of the authors of evil and of good to a people familiar with the powers of a large and living predator.

By contrast, Revelation 5:5 referred to the conquering Jesus as "the Lion of the tribe of Judah". As noted above, the Messiah is not "like a lion"; rather, he **is** the Lion. His power, attitude, and ferociousness to protect good and to dispense with evil are closer yet to that of the large powerful predator who sends chills down the spine.

God Abhors a Vacuum

In the book of Ezekiel, God took upon himself the task of punishing the nations who mistreated his people Israel. God explained that he would use Babylon to punish Egypt. He said in Ezekiel 32:13-14:

I will destroy all its livestock from beside abundant waters; and no human foot shall trouble them anymore, nor shall the hoofs of cattle trouble them. Then I will make their waters clear, and cause their streams to run like oil says the Lord God.

God's plan as noted in the Bible was to remove both people and their livestock from the land and waterways. Once the people and the livestock were gone, hoof action along the stream banks would cease and the streams would clear up. The riparian clean-up was a good tradeoff in comparison to having the land occupied by a nation who had polluted the land and had mistreated Israel. This story indicated that God cares for people, he will punish people by removing them from the land, and he views ecosystem health to be more important than having the land occupied by an evil generation of human beings.

The Old Testament records several other instances where God displaced evil peoples from the land and replaced them with wildlife. In Isaiah 13:19-22, God was angry with the kingdom of Babylon. God said that hyenas, jackals, ostriches, "goat-demons," and "howling creatures" will replace human beings. In Isaiah 34, God expressed his plan to replace human habitation with wildlife in the land of the Edomites. Wildlife species that would fill areas formally occupied by humans would include the hawk, the hedgehog, the owl, the raven, the jackal, the ostrich, the wildcat, the hyena, the "goat -demon," and the buzzard. Verses 16 -17 included the Lord's comments on the reproductive success of these wildlife species:

Not one of these shall be missing; none shall be without its mate. For the mouth of the Lord has commanded, and his spirit has gathered them. He has cast the lot for them, his hand has portioned it out to them with the line; they shall possess it forever, from generation to generation they shall live in it.

Some additional references to God's replacing humans with wildlife species include: Jeremiah 9:11, Jeremiah 50:39, and Zephaniah 2:13-14.

Predator Control

The Israelites left slavery and the land of Egypt under the leadership of Moses, possibly in the thirteenth century B.C. God's promise, as repeated to Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3; 13:14-18; 15:4-5; 13-18; 17:1-8; 18:17-19; 22:15-18), was that through Abraham's descendants, all the nations of the earth would be blessed. Christians view this promise as God's plan to reveal himself to humankind through the introduction of the Jewish Messiah or Christ. A key part of God's plan was for the Israelites to enter the land of Canaan west of the Jordan River and displace the inhabitants. Displacement of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Girgashites, Perizaites, Hivites and Jegusites was considered necessary by God because they were "wicked" (Deuteronomy 9:4). Worship of idols and practices associated with idol worship angered God, including the sacrifice of children, cult male and female prostitution, and "sex with other flesh" (Deuteronomy 12:31; 23: 17-18; Isaiah 5:5; 57:5; 1 Kings 14:24; 2 Kings 23:7; Jude 1:7).

Of interest, the "promised land" or land of Canaan was fertile and relatively productive and God could simply have removed the indigenousness peoples there and made way for occupancy by his chosen people, the Jews. However, God chose to displace the inhabitants of Canaan in portions in order to leave a remnant to control wildlife pests and predators. Deuteronomy 7:22 states:

The Lord your God will clear away these nations before you little by little; you will not be able to make a quick end of them, otherwise the wild animals would become too numerous for you.

Predator control by God was promised as one of the rewards for obedience. In Leviticus 26:6, God said:

And I will grant peace in the land, and you shall lie down, and no one shall make you afraid; I will remove dangerous animals from the land, and no sword shall go through your land.

Asian lions and bears and hyenas were common enough in ancient Israel to endanger human beings and to make raising livestock a tenuous industry. The black-backed jackal, a coyote-size canine, was and still is abundant in the land of Israel and is capable of predation on adult sheep, lambs, and goat kids. Also, numbers of herbivores that supported the large predators were common enough to depress the production of agricultural crops. Therefore, local control of large predators and other wildlife species was necessary to protect food production in an agricultural society, particularly one armed with spears, bows and arrows, and sling shots.

Local control and management of predators and wildlife pests of agricultural crops appear to be practices ordained by God for the protection of food production and people's lives. However, as noted earlier in this essay, God cares for large predators and other wildlife species and selective control and management, not species extermination, appear to be God's goal.

Metaphoric Predators

The Bible used predators as metaphors for powerful forces, both good and bad. Ezekiel 34, for example, describes the return of the Israelites to the Promised Land. God referred to the Jews as "sheep" and of himself at the "shepherd". The "sheep" are brought back into the land of Israel and God reestablishes the Davidic kingdom (verses 23-25):

I will set up over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he shall feed them: he shall feed them and be their shepherd. And I, the Lord, will be their God, and my servant David shall be prince among them; I, the Lord, have spoken. I will make with them a covenant of peace and banish wild animals from the land, so that they may live in the wild and sleep in the woods securely.

The scripture appears in these verses to announce the return of the children of Israel, the "sheep," to the Promised Land, where the Messiah or Christ, "my servant David," will feed them and be their "shepherd." God will eradicate enemies of the "sheep"; that is, "wild animals" from the land. Because God used several metaphors in this text, it is probable that the "wild animals" to be eradicated are not literally wild animals but human enemies.

### Natural Resource Management

Definition of "Land"

The word that we interpret as "land" appears in the Bible about 1,700 times. When we see "land" in the Bible, we understand the meaning of the word because of its place in context. The concept of "land" in the Bible was often interchangeable with the word "home". Listed below are several phrases that illustrate use of the word "land" in the Old Testament and probable contextual explanations:

1) "Haran died before his father Terah in the _land_ of his birth..." (Genesis 11:28). Haran lived and died where the landscape and way of life were familiar to him.

2) "Now the Lord said to Abram, 'Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the _land_ that I will show you.' " (Genesis 12:1). Land in this case is a geographical area with fertile soils and adequate precipitation for the production of livestock and crops.

3) "...so that I may give you the best of the _land_ of Egypt, and you may enjoy the fat of the _land_ " (Genesis 45:18). The most productive soils in Egypt were in Goshen, the delta area of Egypt.

4) "They covered the surface of the whole _land_ , so that the _land_ was black; and they ate all the plants in the _land_..." (Exodus 10:15). A plague of locusts covered the physical landscape occupied by the political, racial, and cultural population that was the country/nation of Egypt.

5) "For the Lord your God is bringing you into a good _land_ , a _land_ with flowing streams, with springs and underground waters welling up in valleys and hills, a _land_ of wheat and barley, of vines and fig trees..." (Deuteronomy 8:7-10). Israel is to take possession of a geographical area that is fertile and well-watered.

6) "So the _land_ had rest forty years" (Judges 3:11). The people/nation/country of Israel under the leadership of Othniel were free from enemy aggression for forty years.

We can see from the notes above that the word "land" had multiple meanings to the people of ancient Israel. Land meant landscape, a way of life, a geographical location, fertile and well-watered soils, prosperity, and human beings of a particular culture... home. Why did the ancient Hebrew use the word "land" in various contexts with a variety of meanings? They did so because the tie between the familiarity and fertility of the landscape and the happiness and well-being of the people was so intermixed that the people did not separate their natural or community surroundings from their personal identity. They were so close to the concept of "land" that they did not separate who they were and how they lived from natural resources. Your land was your field, the pasture for the sheep, the flowing Jordan River, the lions in the wilderness, the religious and political leaders in the local synagogue, family and community, and the presence of God almighty who was everywhere. Theirs was a land-based economy and culture.

Contrast that concept of land-based identity with current values of "land". The ability of the land to provide food, clothing, culture, and a sense of identity mean little today where so many people live in totally man-made worlds of industrial parks, suburbs, and massive urban centers. The productivity of the soil compares poorly with its monetary values for the construction of shopping malls, housing developments, and golf courses. Ultimately, of course, the productivity and availability of the land will determine our health, happiness, and ability to survive. In the long term, wisdom and management not unbridled entrepreneurial development will provide hope for the future. We must not forget the value of God's gift to us of the land and all its meanings and significance to people. The land is worth far more than its exploitation and speculations for short-term monetary gain. Land is not just a commodity for sale but our life and cultural identity.

Ownership of Land and Water Resources

Who owns the land? God owns the land. In Leviticus 25:23, God says that he owns the land and he would not allow the people to sell his land:

The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine; with me you are but aliens and tenants.

The ancient Israelites were to retain possession of the land but they were to remember that they were aliens and only temporary managers of land resources. They had to manage the land within the guidelines allowed by God on God's land. One of the caveats for being a tenant on God's land was that a family was to retain ownership of the land in perpetuity. Leviticus 25:25-28 provides guidelines for the family member who "falls into difficulty" and sells land. A next of kin was to make every effort to buy back the land to keep it in the family. If the original seller's economic conditions improved, he was allowed to buy back the land where he once was God's tenant. Obviously, God wanted people to develop family pride and identity in their care for specific partials of land to assure care, wise use, and conservation - for future uses. He wanted people to feel a strong tie to the soil and other natural resources.

The scriptures noted above define the kind of attitudes we should have toward land ownership and management. We never "own" the land and other natural resources. We cannot simply do with the land whatever we want. We must consider how important the land is to God and to God's purposes and we must manage land in line with the scripture and God's values. God has a plan for and concern for future generations and he wants his land managed for the long term welfare of people and the wise use of natural resources. Selling God's land for short term economic gains and ignoring the value of that land for future generations is not biblical.

Psalm 95:5 further states that marine and land resources belong to God: "The sea is his, for he made it, the dry land, which his hands have formed." In this scripture God affirms his ownership of all marine resources as well as land resources. Again, management of natural resources must reflect God's long term view for management and care of those resources for future generations as well as for present human populations. We must also recall that nature is valued by God as a good in itself. Sacrifice of long-term economic and cultural needs by tenants for short-term economic gains is wrong - in light of the fact that God owns the resources and requires that those resources be managed in line with his values. Those values include the wise use and conservation of current resources for the sake of future generations of new tenants.

Ownership of Wildlife

God owns wildlife, not the state and not the people. Psalm 50:10-11:

For every wild animal of the forest is mine, the cattle on a thousand hills, I know all the birds of the air, and all that moves in the field is mine.

Comments made above concerning the management of other natural resources also apply to the management of wildlife by the "aliens and tenants" who are on God's land.

Carrying Capacity

The carrying capacity of the land is a measure of the ability of the land resource to sustain a species of animal over a long period of time. The ability of the land to sustain life forms can vary greatly from season to season and from year to year. In desert and semi-desert environments, carrying capacity often varies with and is positively correlated with the amount of precipitation.

Excessive use of the vegetation on arid and semi-arid lands usually reduces the number of plant species that are palatable to grazing and browsing animals. As a result of over-use, less palatable and less nutritious plants replace more desirable, more nutritious plant species on the land. With excessive stocking rates of herbivorous animals on the landscape, the long-term ability of the land to sustain those animals diminishes significantly. Overstocking the land with domestic herbivores can produce short-term economic gains but reduces the ability of the land to provide for the needs of future generations of people.

The Bible records an incident where excessive grazing brought conflict within a family. When Abraham and his family, including his nephew Lot, moved from Iraq along the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers and westward to the area that is now Israel, they had hundreds of head of cattle, sheep, goats, donkeys, and camels. The families of Abraham and of Lot used the land as though all the range was open for grazing and browsing by their livestock. Genesis 13:5-12 records that the land could not support both the families and livestock of Abraham and his nephew Lot in the same landscape. The Bible also indicates that there was a kind of social carrying capacity that the two families and herds of livestock exceeded because of competition and strife that arose between the two families over grazing locations and water use.

Because the land was not overpopulated with people, Abraham solved the problem of competition for grazing and browsing areas by asking Lot to select where he wished to pasture his animals. Abraham would then move his family and livestock to another location some distance from his nephew's family and grazing and browsing animals. Lot selected the well-watered plain of the Jordan River, which included the city of Sodom, and Abraham retreated to the hills and oaks of Mamre where soils were relatively shallow and water was less abundant.

Of interest, Abraham recognized that "...the land could not support both of them living together..." soon after their arrival in the area. That is, Abraham took action to solve the conflicts before land abuse reduced the abundance of palatable plant species. He recognized negative social interaction as a valid reason for solving land use conflicts.

Protecting Carrying Capacity

Chapter 20 of Deuteronomy established the rules of warfare. According to the Law of Moses, the ancient Israelites were not allowed to cut down any trees that produced food and use them to erect siege works during times of war. Verse 20:

You may destroy only the trees that you know do not produce food; you may cut them down for use in building siege works against the town that makes war with you, until it falls.

Note that even to gain strategic advantages during war, God did not allow the people to remove food bearing trees. They could use other trees to help besiege a town that made war with them, but even that activity must cease once the town fell. The conservation of some renewable natural resources for future use was therefore deemed by God to be important in ancient Israel.

The Law of Moses also addressed the taking of a wildlife surplus and the protection of the reproductive segments of wild bird populations. Deuteronomy 22:6-7 allowed the Hebrews to take wild baby birds and eggs from nests but prohibited the take of the incubating adult. Because birds that lose eggs/young often nest again the same year and nest in following years, this prohibition provided a controlled harvest and the long-term protection of wild bird populations.

God Prohibited "Clean Farming"

"Clean farming" is the practice of cultivating and harvesting as much of the land as is physically possible. "Clean farming" is a common practice on large corporate farms where farmers bring into cultivation all lands that have potential to produce crops. Under clean farming practices, farmers frequently reclaim wetlands and wooded areas along field boundaries to maximize harvest and profits. Such practices often destroy valuable habitats needed by waterfowl and other wildlife.

"Clean farming" is a euphemism that suggests moral action against social depravity because the other alternative is "dirty farming" and associated wastefulness. Oddly enough the law of God in Leviticus 19:9 decreed a measure of "dirty" farming or at least, inefficient harvesting and wastefulness by the "tenants and aliens" on God's land:

When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very edges of your field, or gather the gleanings of your harvest. You shall not strip your vineyard bare, or gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the alien; I am the Lord your God.

It is obvious that in ancient Israel, cleanliness was not "next to godliness." Godliness not only allowed but required an element of inefficient farming/harvesting in ancient Israel. That is the biblical vision for farming. Such inefficient harvesting not only benefited the "poor and the alien" but also provided food and cover for wildlife species.

Of course, the "poor and the alien" could only glean produce from the fields if they were allowed access to those fields. Obviously, the public had access to God's land regardless of who "owned" the fields. Again, we see Americanized concepts of private property rights out of sync with the old biblical laws and regulations.

After a thousand years of practice, the old Mosaic laws that prohibited "clean farming" and allowed trespass on privately owned fields were still in use in the times of Jesus. Matthew 12:1-2 says:

At that time Jesus went through the grain fields on the Sabbath; his disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. When the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, "Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.

Note that the Pharisees, who were anxious to catch Jesus breaking Jewish laws and traditions, did not chide him for trespass or stealing grain but condemned him for harvesting grain on the wrong day of the week.

### Heavenly Earth

In his suffering, Job realized that God will care for mankind on the heavenly earth. Job 5: 22-23 explains that under God's administration, mankind will experience completeness and harmony with the earth:

At destruction and famine you shall laugh, and shall not fear the wild animals of the earth. For you shall be in league with the stones of the field, and the wild animals shall be at peace with you.

As a result of God's care, man need not fear destruction or famine or wild animals because man will be in harmony with the earth and the animals. Note that one does not obtain harmony and peace by controlling the earth or eliminating species of animals. Rather, God's intervention leads to a kind of Messianic Age on the earth where there is peace and harmony between mankind and nature. Back to Eden.

The book of Isaiah has a lot to say about the Jewish Messiah and the Messianic age. Isaiah 40:3-5 describes the forerunner who will announce and prepare the way for Messiah and Isaiah 50:4-9 predicts Messiah's Gethsemane experience (see Matthew 26:36-46). Isaiah 53 describes Messiah's sufferings in graphic detail and Isaiah 7:14 states that a virgin will give birth to Messiah.

Isaiah 7:21-25 appears to describe the Messianic Age after Messiah returns to Jerusalem. Human populations will be below the carrying capacity of the land and persons that remain on the land will live well with:

...a young cow and two sheep, and will eat curds because of the abundance of milk that they give; for everyone that is left in the land shall eat curds and honey.

In this agrarian age, the relatively low human population will thrive while briars and thorns reclaim formally cultivated fields. The vegetated fields and hills will be used for livestock grazing and people will enter these areas reclaimed from cultivation "with bow and arrows" for protection of livestock and/or to hunt. The remnant of people left will be people of the land (Isaiah 7:23-25).

Isaiah 41:17-20 describes what may be a reference to the Messianic Age. But whether these passages refer to that time period or not, they do assure Israel that the future holds hope for good times. Increased moisture conditions are to prevail in the future:

I will open rivers on the bare heights, and fountains in the midst of the valleys; I will make the wilderness a pool of water and the dry land springs of water. I will put in the wilderness the cedar, the acacia, the myrtle, and the olive; I will set in the desert the cypress, the plane and the pine together, so that all may see and know, all may consider and understand that the hand of the Lord has done this, the Holy One of Israel has created it.

The "plane" tree is the sycamore. This genus in the southwest United States grows in rocky areas along creeks and rivers with significant subterranean moisture. The only places I have seen sycamore trees and pine species growing together are in riparian corridors. These observations suggest Isaiah predicted a future Israel with annual precipitation of around 18 - 30 inches, increased subterranean moisture, and riparian corridors.

Another promise of increased moisture and wetlands for Israel follow Messianic intervention on the earth (Isaiah 35:4-10). Isaiah 35:4 -6a describes the kinds of miracles that Jesus performed:

Here is your God... He will come and save you... Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf unstopped; then the lame shall leap like a deer, and the tongue of the speechless sing for joy.

It is biblical to view wetlands as a blessing in the reign of Messiah. Verses 6b - 10 in Isaiah 35 verify the blessings and intent of God's intervention - to provide abundant moisture and wetlands:

For waters shall break forth in the wilderness and streams in the desert; the burning sand shall become a pool, and the thirsty ground springs of water; the haunt of jackals shall become a swamp, the grass shall become reeds and rushes.

Ezekiel 47 describes another idealistic vision of "heaven on earth". It may well be a picture of the time when Messiah rules out of Jerusalem. God shows Ezekiel a spring that runs out of the Temple and flows southeast toward a body of saltwater, the Mediterranean Sea. Verse 7 notes that the river goes down "into the Arabah" and that its banks are lined with a lot of trees. The "Arabah" is the wadi or wash that follows the Jordan Rift Valley from the Sea of Galilee to the Dead Sea and on to the Gulf of Agaba and the Red Sea. It is biblical to think of a riparian corridor as a blessing from God.

Concerning the productivity of this new river, Ezekiel 47:12 and 9-10, respectively, state:

On the banks, on both sides of the river, there will grow all kinds of trees for food. Their leaves will not wither nor their fruit fail, but they will bear fresh fruit every month, because the water for them flows from the sanctuary. Their fruit will be for food, and their leaves for healing.

Wherever the river goes, every living creature that swarms will live, and there will be very many fish... People will stand fishing beside the sea from En-gedi to En-eglaim; it will be a place for the spreading of nets; its fish will be of a great many kinds, like the fish of the Great Sea.

We observe that God's intent will be to create a new river and riparian corridor and to bless Israel with an abundance of fishing opportunity and high diversity of fish species. It is biblical to think of riparian corridors and high diversity of fish species as important blessings from God. But what constitutes good urban planning on the heavenly earth?

New Jerusalem will be the administrative capital of heaven on earth. The Messiah will reign from the newly constructed temple in the inner city (Ezekiel 48:35b). The inner city will cover around 1.8 square miles or 1,150 acres (Ezekiel 48:17-18). An exurban area of open space and scattered homes, covering some 11 square miles (7,000+ acres) will encompass the inner city (Ezekiel 48:15). Thus, we see God will provide open space and green belts for the enjoyment and use by future urban and exurban dwellers of New Jerusalem.

### Earthly Heaven

Will we see "Fido" and "Puff" again; that is, will we see our pets in heaven? What I commonly heard when I was a child growing up in a Christian home was that animals do not have "souls" and that they therefore do not go to heaven. I did not hear this at home but at church. I loved my pets, which were varied and numerous, and felt sad when they died because I suspected that I would not be able to relate to them ever again as individuals. And, for the most part, that is how I related to them on this planet, not only as representatives of their class but as individuals.

My pets and those I shared with my two siblings included a raccoon, two ring-tailed cats, a fox squirrel, a series of opossums, armadillos, a pony, a goat, a sea gull, a Harris hawk, red-tailed hawk, an alligator, hamsters, and hunting and cur dogs, house cats, wild and domestic rabbits and hares, bantam chickens, ducks, and numerous wild and domestic fishes. Some of these animals were beautiful and/or affectionate. They all fascinated me and I loved them all, some more than others. I questioned the idea that they did not have "souls" and therefore simply disappeared when they died.

As I grew older and attended the public schools, a wonderful thing happened - I learned to read. When I read the Bible, I noted some things that conflicted with what I sometimes heard at my church. Because I loved nature, some of the scripture I read fascinated me. For example, John 1:1-4 said that Messiah was the representative of God and was God who created the physical universe. Likewise, Colossians 1:15-16 revealed that Messiah was God's agent of creation:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created...all things have been created through him and for him.

This idea shed a new light on who Jesus is and on his power and on his interests. Messiah was no longer the figure with the big Italian eyes looking up toward the heavenly and spiritual heaven in the heavenly skies. He was, rather, the God who personally put together the biological information and cellular complexity that produced and continued to produce armadillos and insects and prickly pears and cottonwood trees. He personally planned and put together all those parts of nature that fascinated me and that I personally loved.

In addition, all things created were created "for him," which said that the purpose of creation was to please Messiah. Therefore, the purpose of created things is to give great pleasure to the Creator. The same things that fascinate Messiah, fascinate me. Thus, in a particular sense, I was made in his image.

I further noted in the scripture, in Romans 8:19-23 in particular:

For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God; for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of glory of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning in labor pains until now; and not only creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies.

Indeed, that will be a heaven worth waiting for! It will be tactile and will include a sense of the physical that is real to us now. It will be familiar because heaven will include nature as we know it on earth, only it will be in perfect harmony and we will occupy redeemed bodies to enjoy and love it. Will "Fido" and "Puff" be there as individuals? I do not know but my hypothesis is that they or representatives of them will be.

One wonders why so much of the Christian community fails to emphasize the importance of nature to God. I suggest that we fail to do so because we believe that God is not great or big enough to love us and the other parts of his creation at the same time. We are jealous of God's having ever had any other loves or interests beyond us. Also, I suggest that we ignore some aspects of God's character because we want to justify the unsustainable use and abuse of natural resources for short term, personal gain. Such ideas are not biblical.

### Literature Cited

Anonymous. 1993. Webster's encyclopedic unabridged dictionary of the English language. Gramercy Books. New York. 2230 pp.

Holy Bible, New Revised Standard Version. Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1989. Grand Rapids, MI. 1085 pp.

Rohde, D. L., S. Olson, and J.T. Chang. 2004. Modelling the recent common ancestry of all living humans. Nature. 431(7008): 562-566.

Stanley, S.M. 1998. Macro-evolution. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, MD. 332 pp.

Strobel, L. 2004. The case for a creator. Zondervan. Grand Rapids, MI. 341 pp.

# The Nature of Belief

In this essay, we will briefly compare philosophical materialist (see _Definitions/Notes_ at the end of this essay) assumptions and faith. We will note that sound science is neutral toward religious or philosophical convictions and toward scientific assumptions about the nature of the physical world. We will see that the materialist assumptions that free will is an illusion and that God does not exist are often based on faith and illogic and that palpable individual experience often underlies religious belief. We will see that, in effect, everyone lives by a measure of faith and often by willful distortion or spin of evidence. The just live by faith and the philosophical materialists live by faith in assumption.

### Comparison of Faith and Assumption

_Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary_ (Anonymous 1993) has nine definitions for "faith". The first definition for faith is "confidence or trust in a person or thing." Other definitions address beliefs in God, in systems of ethics and doctrines, and beliefs without proof. Certainly, the materialist philosophy that assumes there is no God and that free will is an illusion, falls within the realm of faith or assumptions that lack proof.

_Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary_ (1993) has seven definitions for the word "assumption". The first definition for "assumption" is "something taken for granted; a supposition." The second definition is "the act of taking for granted or supposing" and the rest of the definitions deal with the assumption of the Virgin Mary, arrogance and presumption, the assumption of power, etc. Thus, when we compare first uses of the words "faith" and "assumption," we find difficulty in telling the difference between the two.

Faith

In the early 19th century, Emanuel Kant's _Critique of Pure Reason_ effectively changed the direction of philosophical thought from faith in reason to formation of ideological models of "reality." Kant created a black hole in the foundation of materialist beliefs. Gone forever were the basic assumptions of materialist faith that nothing exists beyond what we can sense and measure or explain with mathematical applications. Gone was the faith that everything that exists can be measured and explained and that free will is an illusion. See _Addendum_ at the end of this book for more on Kant's logic and an example of faulty assumptions based on cause-effect observations.

Notwithstanding Kant's difficult-to-decipher use of language, intellectual leaders across the globe recognized and acknowledged that his logic and conclusions were/are irrefutable. The people who disagreed with Kant's conclusions because they did not like them had only one choice: be illogical and cling to the old assumptions. Pre-Kantian dogmatism still hangs on today in the assumptions and beliefs and writings of certain philosophical materialists, some of which are scientists and educators. It is an interesting faith representing an old, illogical metaphysic.

Others who still wanted to express their intelligent ideas on how things were, assumed Kant to be correct and used his logic as a springboard to launch their own various concocted +worldviews to set the "true" and best courses for the individual and/or society as a whole to pursue. Philosophical thought moved from the idea that reason and science can explain everything to ideological explanations for the meaning of life. The latter philosophers included Fichte, Schopenhauer, Comte, Mill, Marx, Nietzsche, and Kierkegaard (Aiken 1963). From their writings emerged ideas that affected hundreds of millions of persons as names were provided political persuasions: communism, national socialism; pragmatism and democracy. Of course, logical positivism and philosophical materialism were still in the mix; but only as the few in a crowd of wannabe solutions.

So that I will not be thought/caught simply as a name-dropper, I wish to say a bit more about the last fellow mentioned, Soren Kierkegaard. Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) was the father of existentialism. Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) was the existentialist who left God out of his worldview and in lieu of God, substituted the "superman" or "ubermensch" of humanism. Nietzsche proposed, like Plato, that the intellectual giants in society were the ones who should rule the world. By contrast, Kierkegaard's existentialism was at its roots, Christian.

Kierkegaard reasoned that, as per Kant, reason and science and math often have practical application but are no longer complete guides in the realm of personal experience/reality. They are simply tools one uses in life. He argued that ultimately, the only truth one could be sure of is personal, subjective experience. Thus, if one experiences God in one's life; no one can logically argue with that experience. Others may argue that they do not experience God, but they cannot argue with the personal experience of Soren Kierkegaard. The logic is infallible:

...for existence itself is fantastic, and can only be reached subjectively by the paradoxes of inner reflection and self-consciousness (Aiken 1963).

Christianity has embraced the existential, personal relationship with God through Christ for 2,000 years. Christians often express this personal experience with God as "being born of the Spirit" (John 3). Thus, faith is not blind faith but relationship based on personal experience.

Materialist Assumptions at the Crossroads

Prior to Einstein, we assumed Newton's laws to be infallible. In fact, the application of Newtonian physics gave birth to the Industrial Revolution. Subsequently, Einstein's laws of relativity invalidated Newton's laws in some ways or at least rendered them inadequate (D'souza 2007). Newtonian physicists slowly gave up their assumptions about Newton's laws because the mathematical evidence for error was overwhelming. In addition, Einstein's theories did not threaten basic materialist assumptions about the origin of the material universe.

By contrast, paleontological studies, "Big Bang" explanations, the fine tuning of the universe, evidence of biochemical complexity, and inexplicable origins of biological information continue to challenge materialist assumptions about the origin of the universe and of the life it supports (Strobel 2004)

Insofar as evolutionary theory is concerned, the general pattern for the appearance of new species is that species, as per the geological record, appear and disappear abruptly without evidence of intermediate steps (Johnson, 1998). In addition, species morphology, with the exception of some species changing in size, remains unchanged for the life of the species (Stanley 1998). Mammalian species typically exist for a million or two million years and those species show no morphological change, with the exception mentioned above. Thus, the fossil evidence shows that over the life of the species, natural selection had no power to change the bone structure of species. The only assumptions left from the Darwinian gradualism model for the origin of species is that species give rise to other species and the process is strictly a natural process without involvement of God or intelligent design. The latter assumption is a matter of faith/assumption held with religious tenacity by all those who cling to the hope that there is no God, or if he does exist, that he got things started, quickly lost interest and went away.

The "Big Bang" explanation for the origin of the universe has proven an embarrassment to many philosophical materialists. Cosmologists currently conclude that the universe had a beginning and developed from a point, which by definition has no dimensions. That is, the universe developed from nothing. This explanation harmonizes with the biblical view that intelligence created the universe from nothing.

Another cosmological bane to materialism was the discovery that the physical constants necessary for life to exist in the universe; e.g., the strong nuclear force, the gravitational constant, Planck's constant, the ratio of neutron mass to the proton mass, the exact magnitude of the black hole _Sagittarius A_ in our Milky Way galaxy, and the expansion rate of the universe are finely coordinated in a specified, highly calibrated manner required for life to exist. Cosmologists have designated this fine-tuning enigma the "Anthropic Principle" or "Weak Anthropic Principle." The probability that all those fine-tuned physical constants and resultant conditions appeared by fortuitous chance and/or physicochemical necessity is "infinitely" small. Thus, given the competing hypotheses and our personal experiences of the willful action of the human mind, the assertion that Mind arranged it all is a reasonable abduction.

To hold on to the wholly materialist view, some cosmologists hypothesized that there must be a near-infinity of other universes out there somewhere with a near-infinity of different sets of physical constants. We in our universe just happen to be, well, lucky...beyond belief. Unfortunately, if there are other universes out there, there is no evidence for any of them nor will there ever be because they are and will remain beyond observability (Ellis 2011). The existence of other universes is not, in the scientific sense, a hypothesis because there is no way to test it; to disprove it. Of course, neither can one disprove the existence of God. Perhaps the multiverse hope falls into the realm of religious hope?

For detailed accounts of the irreducible complexity of the biochemical world and the enigma of information in the cell, read Behe (1996) and Meyer (2009). If you search the scientific literature on evolution, and if you focus your search on how molecular machines developed or on the evolution of information in macromolecules, you will find silence.

Indeed, intelligent design is apparent in the origin of information in the cell. The chance of 150 amino acids lining themselves up to produce a "simple" short functional protein by chance are one in 1074. Steven Meyer (2009:219) further observed:

...of course, the odds of producing the suite of proteins necessary to service a minimally complex cell by chance alone are almost unimaginably smaller. Indeed, the improbability of that event - calculated conservatively...at 1 chance in 1041,000 \- completely dwarfs the probabilistic resources of the whole universe.

For an effective critique of the hypothesis for cellular "self-organization and biochemical predestination," see Meyer (2009: 229-252). Like the probabilities arising by chance, physicochemical necessity is unable to account for the origin of life.

At present and in the future, thoughtful students with less personal investment in the materialist philosophy, will find their old professors' faith in materialism questionable. However, the picture these enlightened students will form of the Mind behind our existence remains to be seen, for humanism is arrogant and jealous of its own right to power and position. The image of an absentee and/or evil God is likely to emerge.

### Definitions/Notes

_Abduction:_ A process of reasoning that attempts to select the best among competing hypotheses to explain extant evidences of past events, based on known processes. Historical scientists in the fields of geology, evolutionary biology, paleontology, cosmology, archeology, and forensic science study existing evidence, processes, and conditions to select the best hypotheses among competing explanations, to hypothesize about past events and conditions. The goal of abduction, unlike experimental science, is to explain past events, not to derive natural laws that have predictive value.

_Deduction:_ A process of reasoning from the general to the specific. The logician holds a particular fact to be generally accepted as true. Given the first fact or premise as true, the resultant premise or subclass of the first premise must also be true. For example: "All mammals have hair; humans are mammals; therefore humans have hair." If the first two premises are held to be true, the deduced conclusion must also be true. The format of the argument just illustrated is known as a syllogism.

_Existentialism:_ A philosophical belief that subjective, personal experience is the test for reality and meaning in life. The world of logic and reason and science are only tools one uses to help make meaningful decisions at the personal level.

_Humanism:_ A secular belief that man, as a social being, shall determine all values and meaning for the human race. As the Greek Protagoras (490 BC - 420 BC) observed: "Man is the measure of all things."

_Logical positivism:_ The purpose of this belief was to substitute a universal language, based on verifiable scientific findings, in the place of all words in all languages. Every word in the new language was to be a symbol of sensory experience, mathematically verified. Any words that symbolize unverifiable concepts were to be replaced because they are unscientific and therefore meaningless. Logical positivism was an example of applied philosophical materialism.

_Philosophical materialism/materialism_ **:** The belief/assumption that the arrangement and interactions of basic "particles" (detections of "excitations" or "ripples" in a force field, which "fills space like an invisible liquid" [Kuhlmann 2013]) determine all existence/events. Because the arrangements and interactions of tiny particles fully determine all existence, free will is an illusion. Because there is no free will, nor spirit, nor mind, God does not exist.

### Literature Cited

Aiken, H.D. 1963. The age of ideology. The New American Library of World Literature, Inc. New York. 283 pp.

Anonymous. 1993. Webster's encyclopedic unabridged dictionary of the English language. Gramercy Books. New York. 2230 pp.

Behe, M.J. 1996. Darwin's black box. Touchstone. New York. 307 pp.

D'souza, D. 2007. What's so great about Christianity. Regnery Publishing, Inc. Washington, D.C. 348 pp.

Ellis, G.F.R. 2011. Does the multiverse really exist? Scientific American. 305(2):38-43.

Johnson, P.E. 1998. Darwin on trial. Inter Varsity Press. Downers Grove, Illinois. 220 pp.

Kuhlmann, K. 2013. What is real? Scientific American. 309(2): 40-47.

Meyer, S.C. 2009. Signature in the cell: DNA and the evidence for intelligent design. HarperCollins Publishers. New York. 611 pp.

Stanley, S.M. 1998. Macro-evolution. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, Maryland. 332 pp.

# The Selfishness of Virtue?

The purpose of this essay is to analyze what scientific observation and philosophical materialism have to say about why people help or cooperate with each other. We will then compare those materialist views/observations/assumptions with the Judeo-Christian view as presented in the Bible. Are we just selfish brutes as suggested by the philosophical materialists and some scientific observations? Or is there reason to support the existence of an absolute ethic, in which people can choose to participate? If so, where did that ethic come from? Can there be any right or wrong action without an absolute standard?

We discussed some obvious problems with the application of materialist views in the essay _The Nature of Belief_ above. In this essay we will look at additional logical problems with the basic assumptions of philosophical materialism; in particular, the problem of ethics.

### Logical Problems of Philosophical Materialism

According to the philosophical materialist, free will is an illusion because the arrangement of and interactions of tiny "particles" fully determine all existence/events. The physicochemical composition of the observer determines his/her conclusions, not a priori, patterns of logic. Thus, given materialist assumptions, the materialist philosophy at the start logically invalidates itself. That is, philosophical materialism is, logically, an illogical belief. In the philosophical materialist view, the only realities are matter or energy, things man can measure, evaluate, and repeatedly verify. Thus, nothing exists if man, who has no free will to/but to evaluate alternatives, is unable to quantify it.

Without free will, there is no valid basis for ethics. This is not to say that philosophical materialists do not have ethics because most of them believe, contrary to their personal philosophy, that there are things people ought and ought not to do. But philosophical materialists, notwithstanding what they by their actions espouse, mentally assert that the physical conditions of a person totally determine that individual's every thought and action. Therefore neither good nor evil exists and the judicial system is a determined farce. The philosophical materialist believes he/she has no choice but to believe everything that he/she advocates or believes.

Because computer-like arrangements of parts not only determine but also comprise every thought, self-awareness is nothing more than the interaction of small particles. Thus, if mankind builds a computer with enough power, the machine with all its programmed reactions will become a sentient, self-aware being like a person. This is the case because man has no mind but only a brain that functions like a determined machine. Notwithstanding the obvious and often inexplicable origins and complexities of biological life, life and the inanimate world are nothing more than the arrangements of tiny particles and the interactions of those particles. If you pitched a large book of the complete works of Shakespeare upon the beach, the philosophical materialist would conclude that there was no difference between the ripples in the sand or the ink and paper that comprise the book and the ideas in the book. Ideas/information and ripples in the sand and paper and ink merely reflect the mechanically determined arrangements and interactions of the same small particles, the same stuff.

In addition, the philosophical materialist believes all existence is measurable and repeatedly verifiable. Thus, the existence of everything depends upon the ability of the researcher to observe and measure it and or the capacity of equipment to record all new forms of reality.

Ironically, the role of sound science is to obtain reliable information. However, philosophical materialism is unable to encompass the concept of ideas, the mysterious stuff that comprises information. The philosophical materialists have, in a word, been unable to delve below the concept of symbol to reveal the maybe, perhaps "info-particle".

### The Role of Information

As noted by Meyer (2009:15), information, which originates from thought/intelligence:

...doesn't have mass or charge or length in millimeters... A blank magnetic tape, for example, weighs just as much as one 'loaded' with new software - or with the entire sequence of the human genome.

Thus, the something that information is, is in a domain separate from matter or energy. The philosophical materialists must therefore assume that information comprises small particles that have no mass nor energy and therefore are not composed of bosons (particles with mass) nor fermions (particles with energy). As noted above, perhaps philosophical materialists will posit the existence of a new particle, the info-particle that requires a new mechanical dimension? Throw it into the dimension gap. Or compulsively ignore it. If it isn't energy or matter, it doesn't matter. Information is no exception.

Thus, until the philosophical materialist finds the info-particle, which has neither mass nor charge, he/she must conclude that information is non-existent. Never mind the fact that the chief goal of sound science is the pursuit of and validation of factual information. For the sake of reason, let's skip the contradictory fanaticism of philosophical materialism for now and talk about methodological materialism.

### Methodological Materialism

Approximately half of American scientists are theists and therefore not philosophical materialists but methodological materialists. The methodological materialist believes that we should follow scientific investigations as far as they can take us. After all, we observe that much of the physicochemical world runs on dependable and observable cause-effect relationships. The more we know, the better prepared we are to face future events and to willfully steer them in ways that support our values. In addition, under the umbrella of methodological materialism, we do not experience the contradictory need to swallow the illogical conditions tied to the metaphysic of philosophical materialism; for example, denial of logical operations, validity of information, and ethical behavior. In fact, all philosophical materialists are in practice and actions methodological materialists. How else would one speak with authority, believing his/her words were merely random or determined responses to his/her physicochemical composition? Thus, we are all of "necessity" methodological materialists, regardless of metaphysical assumptions and orientation.

Being a methodological materialist, I think it highly fortuitous to find that nature acts with considerable regularity. I love "facts" and on a regular basis run my beliefs through the sieve of my concepts of physical reality and reason. I trust sound science as far as it goes and logic and reason more than feelings. I recognize that philosophical materialism is a metaphysical belief that does not merit reasonable allegiance, notwithstanding the advocacy of _National Geographic_ , _Nature_ , _The Smithsonian_ , and _Scientific American_.

I think mind matters and matter and energy matter. I think reality is not just in my brain and that though I am real, there are probably realities beyond my conception of them. It would seem foolishly egocentric to think otherwise. I love the idea of using science and math to find out as much as possible about the universe and ourselves. But then, I am a theist, a biblical Christian theist, and a methodological materialist. I reason that I am logical, have varying degrees of choice, and that I am a reasonable human being, presently.

In light of those thoughts, I want to compare scientific observations and philosophical materialist assumptions about the exercise of virtue with some biblical views on that same topic. I suggest the two views are often complementary, and that the former is simply incomplete or presumptuous. Science, though a fun enquiry/journey, can only go so far. In practice, we in our self-awareness know this.

### Philosophical Materialism Investigates "Virtue"

As noted above, philosophical materialism is the belief that every event is the result of the determined arrangements of tiny particles/excitements in an invisible force field. Determined events include human consciousness and thought, which are not simply caused by arrangements of matter and energy but **are** particle arrangements and particle interactions. Some scientists are pure determinists/ physicalists/ reductionists. To these pure philosophical materialists, "virtue" is merely a display of selfish behavior in the context of the human community.

Because, a person is virtuous only in relation to other persons or beings, a study of behavior in social contexts should uncover the roots of "good" and "bad" behavior. Recently, I read an article in _Scientific American_ by Martin A. Nowak (2012) called _Why We Help._ In his article, Dr. Nowak summarized findings to date that explain from scientific studies why organisms in social contexts assist one another. Because of its clarity and research references, I selected Dr. Nowak's review and work to compare the scientific materialist and biblical views of virtue, or why we cooperate and help each other.

Dr. Nowak, writing for _Scientific American_ , approached the problem as a philosophical materialist. His assumption was that evolution through natural selection has programmed every organism, including mankind, to act in a fashion to assure the individual's survival or that of its genes in near relatives. Dr. Nowak's review and research included studies under categories of social interactions: direct reciprocity, indirect reciprocity, spacial selection, group selection, and kin selection. I will summarize the research and materialist assumptions and then compare those findings and assumptions with biblically relevant materials. My assumptions are that the research is correct, that materialist assumptions can be incorrect, and that the Bible is correct. From thesis to antithesis to synthesis. What a surprise it would be to find the two worldviews are not always antithetic but often complementary.

Direct Reciprocity

Dr. Nowak cited a study of interactions among vampire bats to illustrate direct reciprocity. Vampire bats return to the same roost every night and therefore associate with the same individuals repeatedly. Studies indicate that the bats are familiar with and recognize the other vampire bats at their roosts as individuals. If one vampire bat returns to the roost sated with a blood meal and another, who has not fed is at the roost, the latter will beg for food and the former will often regurgitate blood into the hungry bat's mouth. On future occasions, the previously generous bat, now hungry, is likely to receive a meal from the same bat it fed in the past. These vampire bats apparently know each other and remember who was good to them in the past. This behavior fits the concept of: "Scratch my back, and then, I'll scratch yours."

Dr. Novak also programmed some computer simulations that indicated that the practice of direct reciprocity encourages "forgiveness" for occasional defection from the patterns of this social behavior. Dr. Novak stated that he had found evidence for the evolution of forgiveness, though his observation was that forgiveness within the spacial group can benefit the group. This kind of "forgiveness" over time enhanced the survival of group members. His computer simulations, programmed by himself and colleagues with what was assumed to be valid information, showed that "forgiveness" within the group was not selfless and therefore apparently not particularly virtuous.

Critique/Summary

Simply stated, organisms help and "forgive" others because others will help and forgive them in the future, enhancing the individual's and the group's likelihood of survival and successful reproduction.

Indirect Reciprocity

As noted above, direct reciprocity involves helping another individual who will remember you and your "righteous" deeds and will therefore reciprocate on your behalf in the future when you need help. In a similar manner, indirect reciprocity applies to helps by the group on behalf of the individual who previously assisted one or more members valued by the group. Among primates, other than mankind, indirect reciprocity pays higher dividends for helps given those with high status in the group.

A particularly good investment in self-interest is to associate with and/or assist the noteworthy and powerful in the group. Nowak cited studies of Japanese macaques. Among these monkeys, low-ranking monkeys that groomed high-ranking members of the group increased the likelihood being groomed by others.

Critique/Summary

We are benevolent toward those in our group who are needy and toward our leaders and the rich and famous because such helps and associations can increase our status in society. Social status is perceived to be directly correlated with group protection/care and improved access to limited natural resources. Group protection and improved control of natural resources are perceived to increase the individual's likelihood of survival and successful reproduction.

Spacial Selection

This category of cooperation can appear among organisms that experience repeated interaction, normally because the individuals live in close proximity to one another. In the case of humans, spacial selection operates among persons or neighbors in the same social network. Spacial selection is also observed among lower life forms that are close enough in location to interact.

Among populations of yeast cells, clumps of cooperative cells develop. At a personal cost of energy, these clumps of cooperative yeast cells produce an enzyme used to digest sugar. Within the clump of cooperatives, the sharing of enzyme enhances survivability of the interactive clump. Adjacent to the cooperative clumps of yeast cells are defector yeast that use enzymes produced by the cooperatives without contributing to the cost of enzyme production. Though undisturbed clumps of cooperatives benefit, researchers found that the theft of enzymes by defector cells provided them a reproductive advantage in well-mixed populations of yeast cells.

Critique/Summary

The philosophical materialist assumption is that humans are like yeast cells.

Group Selection

Cooperation and sacrifice for the greater good improves the reproductive potential of the group. Nowak (2012) stated:

Mathematical modeling by researchers, including me, however, has helped show that selection can operate at multiple levels, from individual genes to groups of related individuals to entire species.

Critique/Summary

The individual cooperates and assists others within the group (species) always to improve his/her ability to survive or successfully reproduce? Can "group selection" explain all cooperation among humans by noting that "people help people because they are people?" That idea is not new, but do we always help others because so doing insures our personal survival or reproductive success or is there in mankind a sense of right and wrong and a desire to be truly noble? Tying the word "selection" to the word "group" provides no measure of validity to materialist assumptions.

Kin Selection

Cooperation among genetically related individuals is the basis for kin selection. Individuals assist other individuals in direct proportion to the numbers of genes they have in common. The philosophical materialist believes that the principle reason for struggle is self-preservation and secondly for the survival of offspring. The "love" we feel is selfish and we cooperate with others to assure the survival of our genes in ourselves and to a proportionally reduced extent in our offspring and other near-kin.

Critique

Numerous actions question the generalized application of kin selection to the behavior of _Homo sapiens_ ; for example, anonymous self-sacrifice, self-sacrifice for unpopular values/causes, abortion of offspring, adoption of unrelated children, intermarriage among different races, guilt and self-loathing, and suicide.

Tragedy of the Commons

People face a dilemma in public goods games. Each member in the group benefits when all members cooperate. However, the individual who defects from the arrangement has the opportunity to increase his personal benefits, at least in the short term. In the case of using natural resources available to everyone, defectors benefit themselves but reduce the ability of basic resources to support their own needs and that of others in the future.

Ecologist Garrett Hardin (1968) described the classic example of abuse of communal resources by defecting users. He called the abuse of communal resources "The Tragedy of the Commons". Hardin observed that livestock farmers who shared communal pastures inevitably overgrazed those shared lands instead of protecting them for future use.

Education on the values of conservation and the wise use of natural resources can help some people change their views about defection for short-term, personal profits. In addition to the influences of education on personal decisions, Nowak noted that people were more likely to sacrifice short term, personal gains or defer gratification if others witnessed their expressions of generosity.

### Not of this World - the Judeo-Christian View

Jesus said (John 18:36): "...My kingdom is not of this world..." He also stated that "God is love." Thus, the biblical view is that the God of love created the universe, that God's people will have values not of this world; that love and justice and an absolute ethic exist, and that these ideas ought to govern relationships among people. However, in the application of love, justice, and ethics, the Bible concurs with many of the findings of science.

Direct and Indirect Reciprocity

We note, for example, that the successful operations of both direct and indirect reciprocity require that the helper must be individually identified for reciprocation of assistance. However, the Bible states that gifts/helps must be given anonymously. Anonymous assistance negates the possible operation of direct and indirect reciprocity. Note scriptural citation below:

Matthew 6:2-4: So whenever you give alms, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogue and in the streets, so that they may be praised by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your alms may be done in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

The Bible also states that we must honor all members of the group equally regardless of their social status and associate with group members that have low status. That is, the Scripture assumes that favoring or helping others for the sake of reciprocation is wrong/sinful/hypocritical. Christians are to respect all people equally and therefore no benefits are gained by favoring those with status in society (see _Indirect Reciprocity_ above). In a word, the Bible supports scientific findings that verify direct and indirect reciprocity. The Word tells us that we eliminate the possibility of reciprocal benefits to be ethical and to please God. See scriptural references below that undermine indirect reciprocity and thereby also confirm its validity.

1 Corinthians 12: 22-23: On the contrary, the members of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and those members of the body that we think less honorable we clothe with greater honor, and our less respectable members are treated with greater respect; whereas our more respectable members do not need this.

Romans 12:16: Live in harmony with one another; do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly...

Spacial and Group Selection

Studies by Gore et al. (2009) showed that spacially grouped yeast cells benefited themselves by sharing an enzyme that digests sugar. It is likely that self-interest also inspires humans who live in near proximity to cooperate with one another. Thus, though helping our nearby neighbors or others in our social network appears kindly, we may be no more ethical in so doing than a yeast cell.

At a higher level, humans in a group may be inspired to cooperation or self-sacrifice for the group. The philosophical materialist concludes that people in a group or tribe or social network use teamwork to improve survivability and thereby the reproductive potential of group members.

The studies of spacial selection appear to be in the realm of fact for yeast cells and speculations about self-interest tied to many human group functions are reasonable. In addition, the Bible supports the idea that selfishness and self-interests are tied to natural socialization processes that knit people together in human society. Scripture does not deny the values of self-preservation and socialization. On the other hand, Scripture goes well beyond group values and natural responses and demands a lot more of Christians.

What actions would reach beyond the pale of the measurable, the expected, the natural: loving your enemy...and looking to the interests, survivability and reproductive advantages of those not in your group. The "enemy" of course, is the individual or group of individuals who compete for the same resources, who strive to reduce survivability and reproductive advantage of competing forces. Contrarily, Christians are to be not of that world:

Matthew 5:44: But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven...

Matthew 5:46-47: For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?

Leviticus 19:33-34: When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien. The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself...

Kin Selection

According to the Bible, God retained certain bloodlines (the genetics) of specific persons. God separated out, in particular, the genes of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to form the Hebrew nation. His repeated promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was that their offspring would be abundant and that through the Hebrew bloodline, all the nations of the world would be blessed:

Genesis 12:1-2: Now the Lord said to Abram, "Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you. I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing."

Genesis 22:17-18: I will indeed bless you, and I will make your offspring as numerous as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of their enemies, and by your offspring shall all the nations of the earth gain blessing for themselves, because you have obeyed my voice.

Genesis 28:13-14: ...I am the Lord, the God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac; the land on which you lie I will give to you and to your offspring; and your offspring shall be like the dust of the earth, and you shall spread abroad to the west and to the east and to the north and to the south; and all the families of the earth shall be blessed in you and in your offspring.

Numerous modern day Jews interpret God's promise to mean that the contributions of Jewish inventers, scientists, educators, entertainers, and artists would enrich the lives of the species. By contrast, Christians believe God's promise heralded the coming of the Jewish Messiah, the spiritual savior of those who trust in him regardless of bloodlines or ethnicity.

One wonders whether the Jews or the Christians are correct in their interpretations of the blessings brought to the species by God's kin selection for the Hebrew nation. Few would question the contributions made by the Jewish community over the years. In like fashion, few would question the contributions made by those who are not Jewish. For example, D'Souza (2007:97) provided:

...a partial list of leading scientists who were Christian: Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Brahe, Descartes, Boyle, Newton, Leibniz, Gassendi, Pascal, Mersenne, Cuvier, Harvey, Dalton, Faraday, Herschel, Joule, Lyell, Lasvoisier, Priestley, Kelvin, Ohm, Ampere, Steno, Pasteur, Maxwell, Planck, Mendel.

Obviously, numerous national, ethnic, and religious groups have made and continue to provide creative leaps in the sciences and arts. It is therefore reasonable to believe that the coming of Emanuel (god with us) through the Hebrew nation was the planned blessing through Abraham's seed rather than cultural or scientific contributions made by members of any particular ethnic group. God's plan was to bless the world with himself; not with just television, health care, and the atomic bomb.

God chose Abraham and his descendants to bless the world with himself because God trusted the character of Abraham. The philosophical materialist would say that God was loving his own genes in his offspring. However, because God is a spiritual being and has no DNA, it would appear that God loved particular people because they shared his values or had the potential to do so. God knew those specific individuals could and would fit into his plan to bless all the families of mankind. And, indeed, God did work through the Hebrew lineage to bless all mankind with himself, with Emmanuel, the Messiah:

Isaiah 9:2: The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who lived in a land of deep darkness - on them light has shined.

Isaiah 9:6: For a **child** has been born for us, a **son** given to us; authority rests upon his shoulders; and he is named Wonderful Counselor, **Mighty God** , Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Scripture is clear on the importance of shared spiritual values over the value of bloodlines. The following quotes provide additional support for the messianic purpose of the Hebrew nation:

Isaiah 42:6: I am the Lord, I have called you in righteousness, I have taken you by the hand and kept you; I have given you as a covenant to the people, a light to the nations, to open the eyes that are blind, to bring out the prisoner from the dungeon, from the prison those who sit in darkness.

Isaiah 11:10: On that day the root of Jesse shall stand as a signal to the peoples; the nations shall inquire of him, and his dwelling shall be glorious.

Tragedy of the Commons

Many who are Christian and politically on the right today embrace the exploitation of common resources for individual short-term profit. Most on the right support supply-side economics and deregulation of environmental laws now aimed at protecting the public's air, water, land, and wildlife, and ignore public needs for maintenance of infrastructure. All that negative feeling revolves around the rights of the individual to pursue property, personal happiness and freedom without responsibilities toward society and governing authority. In a word, nature is good only insofar as its exploitation provides immediate benefits for those individuals who stand to benefit most in the present.

My first essay in this collection, _A Biblical View of Nature,_ addressed what I believe to be the philosophical roots and non-biblical basis of this social phenomenon. I suspect that Nowak's review of the "Tragedy" is undeniable and paints a sorry picture of the selfish nature of many members of our species. The unbiblical embrace and elevation of "Tragedy" economics to biblical status by some segments of the Christian community is remarkable in that it is not biblical, though thought so. This is not to say that many good Christians are not politically conservative, but rather, that political conservatism is not particularly biblical.

### The Fine Line

Though I find that materialist assumptions that explain **every** human action in terms of particle arrangement, self-preservation and reproductive advantage unfounded, I do think the philosophical materialist view is often correct and that distinguishing ethical action from self-aggrandizement is frequently difficult if not impossible. How can one know the difference? Often one cannot. The apostle Paul acknowledged that he did not fully trust his own motives:

Romans 7:14-15: For we know that the law is spiritual; but I am of the flesh, sold into slavery under sin. I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.

1 Corinthians 4:3b: I do not even judge myself. I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart.

### Definitions/Notes

_Particles and force fields:_ Elementary particles are not tiny objects like billiard balls but are small ripples or excitations in a force field. Particles are merely quantized/measured parts of universally distributed force fields, which fill the universe like some form of liquid. Thus, the distinctions between a particle and a force field are arbitrary: "...particles of quantum field theory do not have well-defined locations: a particle inside your body is not strictly inside your body. An observer attempting to measure its position has a small but nonzero probability of detecting it in the most remote places of the universe" (Kuhlmann 2013: 43-44).

The presence or absence of particles in a vacuum depends upon whether the observer is accelerating or not through the area. I often thought there had to be something, maybe just relationships among particles, in space for there to be any validity to the concept of space-time. How could time, or rate of change, change anything in empty space unless the space had something in it subject to change or something that altered or influenced ripples in a force field? So, that is the ethereal nature of elementary "particles" and of the assumed, invisible force fields that apparently enable them to appear. Ergo, the basis of philosophical materialism is the nature and location of ripples or excitations in an assumed, invisible force field - the exact/same excitations/ripples that may be detected simultaneously in different locations in the universe.

_Physicochemical:_ Refers to the use of the laws of physics and chemistry to explain the nature of matter and energy.

_Reductionism:_ A facet of philosophical materialism that insists that the whole of any form of matter or energy is comprised of the combined, individual properties of its constituent, elemental particles. Contrary to the reductionist view, Kuhlmann (2013:43) explained: "But quantum physics allows objects to become entangled, operating as a unit despite no obvious material links among them. In that case, the putative particles no longer have definite properties; only the system as a whole does."

### Literature Cited

D'Souza, D. 2007. What's so great about Christianity? Regnery Publishing, Inc. Washington, DC. 348 pp.

Gore, J., H. Youk, and A. van Oudenaarden. 2009. Snowdrift game dynamics and facultative cheating in yeast. Nature. 459:253-256.

Harden, G. 1968. Tragedy of the commons. Science. 162 (3859): 1243-1248.

Kuhlmann, K. 2013. What is real? Scientific American. 309(2): 40-47.

McDowell, J. 1972. Evidence that demands a verdict. Vol. I. Thomas Nelson Publishers, Atlanta, GA. 387 pp.

Nowak, M.A. 2012. Why we help. Scientific American. 307(1):34-39.

The Holy Bible - New Revised Standard Version. Zondervan Bible Publishers. Grand Rapids, MI. 1085 pp.

# It's a Miracle!

_So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them._ Genesis 1:27

In what aspects are we the image of God? By definition, God is eternal, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-wise, present everywhere, and perfect in love, mercy, and justice. He is Sovereign. But we are none of those things. And because God is not a physical being, aside from his incarnation as Jesus on the earth, how can we possibly be in the image of our creator? I suggest that we are like God or potentially like the Father in all those areas mentioned above but less so in measurements of magnitude. God is forever and we are a moment; God is all-powerful and we are weak though some of us accumulate more power than others during our abbreviated lives (I have enough power to willfully reach for the salt shaker). God is all-knowing and all-wise and perfect and just and merciful. By contrast, we are much less so and are subject to error constantly.

Like God, we have minds to weigh and consider the consequences of our choices. Like God, who is creative in the making of good and perfect things, we have a measure of conscious will and freedom and creative ability. Of course, God is limited to being Godly, which we are not, but like God, within the limits of who we are, we have a measure of free will.

### Does Free Will Exist?

The basic assumption of philosophical materialism is that there is a measurable reason for everything; that antecedent causes determine every event and these causes and their effects follow unerringly the laws of nature; that is, the laws of physics and chemistry. This belief that the laws of nature determine every event is called determinism or philosophical materialism, with other related metaphysical categories; for example, metaphysical naturalism, physicalism, reductionism, and positivism. If determinism guides all processes of cause and effect, there is no free will and "free will" is an illusion.

Some philosophers of science believe that man is basically a complex machine and that when, not if, technology builds a good enough computer, that machine will become sentient like a person and have a sense of self-awareness. This materialist belief is founded on the concept that a person is nothing more than the sum of his/her physiology and chemistry operating through predetermined neural responses.

Rather, I suggest no man-made computer will ever be sentient and that self-awareness, though self-evident to the person, will remain inexplicable. When I willfully reach for the salt shaker, and I sometimes purposefully do that just to prove I can and to see if I can observe the cause and processes of my willful behavior, the process of initiation and carrying out my purpose leaves me dumbfounded. Of course, I know that sparks spawned by chemical reactions leap by the hundreds of thousands across synapses and that information flows like floods of a tsunami over millions of nerve cells. I know there are physical mechanisms involved in the specific shuttling about of all that information and in innumerable calculations. But I also am aware that, within the limits of my power, the "I" that I am is willfully initiating many of the observed processes. I am aware that information itself is in the realm of mind and that ideas and symbols that point to mind reach beyond the material bases of their expression. When it comes to ideas and information and their expressions, scientific descriptions can be helpful but they always fall short.

On the other hand, it is reasonable to pursue scientific investigations and results as far as we can. That is true because science is a tool to learn as much about our environment and the limits of ourselves as we can. But to assume that nothing exists except those things and relationships that are measurable and understandable by man is logically invalid. When we encounter round pegs, the philosophical materialist insists that they do not exist unless they fit square holes. Indeed, to be a materialist philosophically is to wear blinders and ignore the obvious.

Perhaps the most obvious problem with the materialist/determinist stand is that it does not allow for logical or rational conclusions. Every determinist/materialist scientist and/or philosopher must ignore or leave his/her role as a materialist in order to derive logical conclusions. That is true because the materialist philosophy a priori concludes that the investigator's findings only reflect his/her physicochemical physiology rather than the rigors and set patterns of logical thought. In a word, scientific investigation requires a certain freedom of thought that lies outside the physical world of material causality.

Nevertheless, materialists have and will continue to ignore the obvious and will willfully push the logic of their having no choice nor say in the reasonableness of their cause. For example, a patron saint of philosophical materialism, Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) believed that natural law and the mechanics of the body determined and comprised human thought. Then he had the audacity to write his " _Ethics_ " to help people make the right choices. Perhaps he had no choice but to help others exercise their illusions of free will? Logically, it is impossible to argue for or against the existence of free will unless free will exists. But what is the reach of that freedom?

Freedom of thought readily carries over to freedom of choice. Within obvious limits, we all believe in free will. The atheist Emmanuel Kant (1724-1804) observed that we have a judicial system that punishes. Our society also rewards persons, showing that we believe most people are responsible for their actions. Kant did not, however, realize the implication of embracing the free will argument. Had he been a biologist, he might have wondered how the world that was assumed to be wholly determined gave rise to the power of choice. He might have observed that to will and to act is to change the orders of causes and effects in an otherwise determined system. He might have wondered how a materialist would be forced to believe that the determined system determined that thought will not be determined but free. What is the source of that appearance of freedom in an otherwise determined universe? How could determinism determine that free will develop to alter the determined chains of causes and effects?

### Free Will Is a Miracle

Some folk search for the miraculous to prove the existence of some special power in the universe. Others scoff at the idea of miracles because they hope/insist that God does not exist. In the first case, some miracle chasers long for the great power of the universe to prove himself, and in the second case, the miracle debunker fears God might show up in the complexes of the common. Could it be that the miraculous, purposefully ignored by the materialist and totally unrecognized by the would-be faithful, is obvious and all about us and a vital part of our everyday lives?

Perhaps, the first thing to do, when thinking about an idea, like the idea "miracle," is to define it so we will know what we are talking about. The first definition for "miracle" in Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary (1996) is:

...an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.

That definition limits the actions of God to rare events that are beyond natural explanation. That is, only God does miracles, God only does miracles, and everything else; God does not do. If the event or observation happens frequently enough, then the happening is common and not miraculous and God is therefore not the cause. But that leaves us with lots of things that the religious believe God does that are not "miraculous" and that the materialists assumes to be under the umbrella of "scientific law". Frequently, the latter category encompasses any recurrent event whether it can be readily measured, evaluated, and scientifically explained or not. Often, to both the religious and to the materialist, God is not responsible for everyday events. In contrast, for Isaac Newton:

...natural laws were God's ordinary or regular ways of acting in the world. Miracles were God's extraordinary or irregular ways of doing so (Gonzalez and Richards 2004:242-243).

To avoid the tautological nature of extant definitions for the miraculous, I am going to redefine "miracle" as:

An event or action that apparently contradicts known scientific laws...and is hence thought to be due to supernatural causes, especially to an act of God.

I think that was what my old collegiate dictionary of vintage 1960 said. It provided a more workable definition of the word. Under my old collegiate definition of "miracle", any intervention that breaks or alters the chains of causes and effects as determined by the laws of physics and chemistry would be a miracle, and of course, inexplicable.

Any act of free will is a miracle because the laws of nature may set limits but they do not absolutely control or determine that act. An act of free will, in contrast to a natural event, acts upon the chains of causes and effects and reorders them to suit its own motives, desires, and goals. Of interest, according to the theory of human evolution, man improved his chances for survival and progressively developed a larger brain by acting upon and altering the events ordered by deterministic laws and thereby changed their outcomes/consequences to his own advantage. Thus, the theory of Darwinian evolution at a critical point, that of human evolution, contains within its proposed processes, a fundamental contradiction of materialist principles - that freedom of choice trumps absolute determinism. Life itself is a contradiction of efforts to explain away its origins as mindless.

### Fingerprint of God

Men and women have and exercise free will, at least within the framework of their limited powers. This being the case, the question arises: where did that power to select between alternatives, to create new alternatives, to imagine possibilities; to alter chains of determined causes and effects come from? As noted above, mindless determinism could not have established a situation in which the antecedent events, which are all determined, determine that the succeeding events shall be decided rather than determined. In a word, what is the source of decision, of the power of choice, of free will that by definition cannot be wholly determined?

The presence of mind that allows us to evaluate and weigh the possible consequences of differing choices, including analysis of our own motives, and to choose between alternative actions all fall outside the realm of the materialist philosophy.

Free will exists. Therefore, free will, of logical necessity, was injected into the determined, physical universe from outside the system. The "system" in this case is the universe as governed by universal laws of chemistry and physics as we know and measure them.

Willful mind outside the physicochemical universe, and not contingent upon it, has ever so methodically and slyly placed his fingerprint upon the universe. That "fingerprint" is life and the presence of willful minds that we use and experience every day. This "fingerprint" of God is in the forms of all living things because all life is the prototype of man and represents the unfolding plan and design to create beings with free will. Even an earth worm can learn certain things and can enhance its survival by selection between alternatives offered it. The earth worm just does not have enough knowledge nor ego and hubris/arrogance to presume itself to be the top life form in the universe.

### Miracles Prove God

The religious often discredit the miraculous all about us and in us because they assume, as do the materialists, that the common is explicable and understandable. I disagree. To both of these groups, the miraculous has the definition that it is an obvious act of God and therefore proves the existence of God because only God does miracles. I agree; the will and power to decide and to act falls into the realm of the miraculous and both proves the existence of God and shows how we mirror our Creator in a relatively small degree by our exercise of free will.

Of course, God is more powerful than we are. We exercise free will within boundaries, often within the boundaries of the laws of chemistry and physics. God, on the other hand, can change the rules/laws. This idea is in concert with the hypothesis of certain cosmologists who argue that there have to be an infinite number of other universes beyond our own with infinite arrangements of differing sets of physical laws governing each.

The concept of other universes with different physical laws governing them is a popular but non-falsifiable hypothesis some theoretical physicists propose. An infinite number of universes and unlimited varying sets of physical constants would help some cosmologists theoretically skirt around the improbable fine-tuning of numerous constants required for life to exist in our universe. But aside from that non-falsifiable hypothesis, both the religious and the materialists assume natural laws need not be constant. Thank God, however, those operations are usually dependable. For the dependability of physical and chemical laws enables us to willfully manipulate and change their orders of operation and thereby produce and identify the everyday miracles in our lives.

### Literature Cited

Guillermo, G., and J. W. Richards. 2004. The privileged planet. Regnery Publishing,

Inc., Washington, DC. 443 pp.

The Holy Bible - New Revised Standard Version. Zondervan Bible Publishers, Grand

Rapids, Michigan. 1085 pp.

Webster's encyclopedic unabridged dictionary of the English language. 1994.

Gramercy Books, New York. 2230 pp.

# The Gay Lifestyle - a Christian View

This essay provides "A Christian View" of the gay lifestyle rather than _the_ Christian view. The reason for my use of "a" rather than "the" is because I address my personal assessment of this controversial subject rather than the view held by many Christians. My view, in concert with my other essays in this collection, may appear anomalous to the current worldview embraced by most persons. Worldviews over time shift this way and that and consequently, today's anomalies could evolve into tomorrow's paradigm. But regardless of what one thinks, there are so many people in the world that one's thoughts are sure to find company.

Speaking of good company, I know several gay men whom I love and respect. Because I am heterosexual and because of my biblical beliefs, I do not love them homosexually. These men are, for the most part, moral, respectful, and kind. One out of six remains somewhat hostile though I do not know what he is angry about. Because I do not fear my gay friends, I suppose I would not be considered "homophobic," the typical brand for those who think homosexuality represents a perversion of the natural sex drive. On the other hand, though I do not fear gay men, I continue to fear for my gay friends. I suggest that my fear for my friends is valid.

In this essay, I will cover the confirmed dangers of the gay lifestyle, the questions of nature vs. nurture, and the biblical perspective on homosexuality. Most of my statements on the dangers of the gay lifestyle and the nature or nurture question will be based on data provided by scientific studies, including reports from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In discussions of research studies and the biblical view of the gay lifestyle, I have attempted to present the pros and cons of both sides of the issue. As in my other essays, I found the details of this study fascinating and the anomalous view often surprisingly reasonable and therefore believable.

### Dangers of the Gay Lifestyle

Since the epidemic began in the early 1980s through 2007, AIDS killed 636,000 people in the US. That is more Americans than were killed during WW II and about eleven times as many Americans as died during the Vietnam War. Every year more than 18,000 people die from AIDS in the US and an estimated 50,000 Americans become newly infected with HIV annually. The CDC estimates that 1,148,200 persons aged 13 years and older in the U.S. are living with HIV infection. That estimate includes 18.1%, some 207,000 persons, who are unaware of their infection (CDC 2010a). "AIDS" merely refers to the later stages of HIV infection.

Men who have sex with men (MSM) account for 63% of new HIV infections in the US and heterosexual transmission is responsible for 25% of new HIV cases in the US each year (CDC 2013). In the latter case, women most often get the disease from infected bisexual males. If women infect men with HIV, they most often do so because bisexual men infected those women with the virus. There are virtually no records of lesbians infecting each other with HIV. HIV infection spread by shared needles among drug users represents only 8% of new infections annually, therefore, in the US, MSM are the ultimate cause for most HIV transmissions and therefore most AIDS related deaths in our nation. Logic suggests therefore that MSM are most often the victims of AIDS related illnesses and mortalities in our country as well. If anyone should be homophobic, it should be gay and bisexual men and the women who have sex with bisexual men.

Percentages of MSM Infected with HIV

In a study of gay HIV rates, Steven Goodreau and Matthew R. Golden (Reinberg 2007) of the University of Washington, Seattle reported:

We found that even if gay men behave the same way heterosexuals do - in terms of sexual partner numbers - gay men would still have a huge HIV epidemic. One reason HIV remains epidemic among gay men is that anal sex is much more conducive to the transmission of HIV transmission than is vaginal sex. That puts gay men at much higher risk overall.

In addition, HIV is more easily transmitted through the penis than via the vagina or the anus. Heterosexuals tend to maintain the same role (insertive vs. receptive), while gay men can switch roles - making the transmission of HIV more likely. So, for gay men and straight men who have the same number of partners and have unprotected sex, gay men are more likely to transmit and receive HIV...that's why you can get huge epidemics among gay men and virtually none among heterosexual men.

**The study estimated that as many as one in five gay men living in cities may be HIV-positive.** The 20% of MSM in urban having HIV, as estimated by the researchers above, seems high. However, the CDC Abstract 1441 (2012) stated that: "In all, two-thirds (67%) of MSM who met sex partners over the Internet were HIV positive."

Number of Partners among MSM

Diggs (2002) reported:

Prior to the AIDS epidemic, a 1978 study found that 75 percent of white gay males claimed to have had more than 100 lifetime male sex partners: 15 percent claimed 100-249 partners; 17 percent claimed 250-499; 15 percent claimed 500-999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1000 lifetime male sex partners. Levels of promiscuity subsequently declined, but some observers are concerned that promiscuity is again approaching the levels of the 1970s. The medical consequences of this promiscuity is that gays have a greatly increased likelihood of contracting HIV/AIDS, syphilis and other STDs... (sexually transmitted diseases).

In another study reported by the CDC (2001), prevention outreach workers conducted two kinds of surveys, "HITS" and "MOS", at gay bars in the cities of New Orleans, Baton Rouge, and Monroe, Louisiana. For the survey "HITS," participants had to be at least 18 years of age, had sex at least once over the last 12 months with another man, and been a resident of Louisiana for at least 1 year. "MOS" was a self-administered survey of MSM in gay bars.

According to both surveys, most of MSM had 3 or more sex partners during the last 12 months (HITS, 54% had 4 or more; MOS, 57% had 3 or more). According to the HITS survey, 75% of MSM reported having had at least 1 casual or non-primary sex partner over the previous 12 months.

Let us put together several bits of data from the studies mentioned above to estimate the probability the average active gay man has for exposure to HIV infection. On average, about 20% of men in urban gay bars and 67% of gay men who find partners through the Internet are HIV infected. If sexually active gay men in these categories have on average 3 or more partners per year, their chances of having sex with an HIV-infected man over a 2-year period is 100% or greater. Ignoring the math is unwise.

### Association of HIV/AIDS Infections with Other Diseases

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2011) reported:

Individuals who are infected with STDs are at least two to five times more likely than uninfected individuals to acquire HIV infection if they are exposed to the virus through sexual contact...STDs also appear to increase the risk of an HIV-infected person transmitting the virus to his or her sex partners. Studies have shown that HIV-infected individuals who are also infected with other STDs are particularly likely to shed HIV in their genital secretions.

Syphilis

The _Syphilis - CDC Fact Sheet_ reported that the bacterium _Treponema pallidum_ causes syphilis. They noted:

Syphilis is passed from person to person through direct contact with a syphilis sore. Sores occur mainly in the external genitals, vagina, anus, or in the rectum. Sores also can occur on the lips and the mouth. Transmission of the organism occurs during vaginal, anal, or oral sex...Syphilis cannot be spread through contact with toilet seats, doorknobs, swimming pools, hot tubs, bathtubs, shared clothing, or eating utensils.

The number of reported cases of this STD increased 11.8 percent during the time period 2005-2006. The syphilis rates increased in males each year between 2000 and 2006 from 2.6 to 5.7 percent. MSM accounted for 64% of reported syphilis cases in 2006.

CDC (Abstract 1220, 2002) reported that among Boston MSM, being HIV-positive was the "most significant predictor of a new syphilis diagnoses in 2002." In like manner, CDC researchers led by Dr. James Heffelfinger (Abstract 1222, 2002) estimated that the proportion of all syphilis cases among MSM increased from 5 % to 60 % between 1999 and 2003. Similarly, CDC researchers (CDC, 2001) reported an outbreak of syphilis in southern California in 2000 among MSM. The proportion of primary and secondary syphilis cases among MSM climbed from 26% in 1999 to 51% in 2000. The CDC report stated:

These data suggest that concern about HIV infection may be declining among MSM and emphasize the importance of strengthening efforts to prevent HIV infection in this population in the United States.

MSM with syphilis are more susceptible to HIV/AIDS transmission because of open sores associated with syphilis infections. Fortunately, antibiotics; e.g. penicillin G, effectively treat syphilis infections. Nevertheless, Wikipedia, on-line encyclopedia, reported:

In the developed world, syphilis infections were in decline until the 1980s and 1990s due to widespread use of antibiotics. Since the year 2000, rates of syphilis have been increasing in the USA, UK, Australia and Europe primarily among men who have sex with men.

Prior to 1940 and the discovery of antibiotic treatments, about 20 percent of untreated persons with syphilis died of the disease. Boskey (2009) reported that congenital syphilis, passed from mother to unborn child, when untreated, killed up to 40% of infected developing infants and newborns. Bisexual men may provide a linkage of syphilis infections between gay men and congenital cases?

Gonorrhea

Gonorrhea ( _Neisseria gonorrhoeae_ ) is a bacterium commonly spread through sexual contact. If untreated, the disease can cause infertility in both females and males. When spread to the blood or joints, gonorrhea can be life threatening. Formerly, antibiotics successfully treated the disease in adolescents and adults, however, drug-resistant strains increasingly appear and successful treatments are becoming more difficult.

CDC (1997) researchers reported significant and disproportionate increases of gonorrhea infections among MSM in San Francisco, Seattle, and Portland. Incidence of gonorrhea among MSM generally doubled in a 2 to 3-year period in the mid-1990s. The report stated:

The findings in this report indicate that, despite a continuing decline in overall rates of GC (gonorrhea) in the United States, the incidence of GC in MSM may be increasing in several U.S. cities. This increase cannot be explained by such factors as improved case ascertainment or increased screening in this population. This report also documented increases in rectal GC in several clinics, an indicator of unprotected anal intercourse. Although complete data were unavailable, preliminary observations from Portland, San Francisco, and Seattle linked GC cases in MSM with attendance at certain local clubs and other places frequented by MSM. Observations from Seattle further implicated sexual activities with anonymous partners and the use of illicit drugs and alcohol on the increase in GC cases among MSM.

CDC (2011) further noted:

Men who are infected with both gonorrhea and HIV are more than twice as likely to have HIV in their genital secretions than are those who are infected only with HIV. Moreover, the median concentration of HIV in semen is as much as 10 times higher in men who are infected with both gonorrhea and HIV than in men infected only with HIV. The higher the concentration of HIV in semen or genital fluids, the more likely it is that HIV will be transmitted to a sex partner.

Viral hepatitis

Viruses most often cause hepatitis (inflammation of the liver). The common types of viral hepatitis are Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, and Hepatitis C. Hepatitis A appears only as a new infection that usually lasts for about 6 months. Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C sometimes begin as acute infections but they can also produce lifelong infections. According to CDC (June, 2010) 15%-25% of patients with chronic hepatitis over time develop serious liver conditions; e.g., liver damage, cirrhosis, liver failure, and liver cancer.

MSM are vulnerable to infections of Hepatitis A and Hepatitis B because the former is spread when a person ingests microscopic amounts of fecal matter from a carrier and the latter by exchange of body fluids; i.e. semen and blood. Hepatitis B is 50-100 times more infectious than HIV. Sexual activity renders the transmission of Hepatitis B easy.

Hepatitis C was largely unknown 25 years ago. However, today it is the most common cause of liver cancer and in the U.S. more people now die of this disease than from AIDs (Gorman 2014). Contact with the blood of an infected person allows the transmission of Hepatitis C virus. CDC (June, 2010b) stated:

Having a sexually transmitted disease or HIV, sex with multiple partners, or rough sex appears to increase a person's risk for Hepatitis C...Symptoms of chronic viral hepatitis can take up to 30 years to develop. Damage to the liver can silently occur during this time. When symptoms do appear, they often are a sign of advanced liver disease.

Cancer

Stengel (2011:20) reported that gay men are 95% more likely to receive a cancer diagnosis than are straight men. That is, gay men are almost twice as likely as straight men to receive a cancer diagnosis. The data were based on a survey of 120,000 Californians.

Tuberculosis

New multidrug-resistant groups of the TB microbe _Mycobaterium tuberculosis_ have appeared in recent immigrants and some HIV patients (Lehrman 2013). These TB microbes are called the _Beijing group_ because the highest concentrations of cases were found in the Chinese capital. Infection by the Beijing group proceeds to full-blown TB rapidly and transmission to uninfected persons can be "lightning-fast." Lehr reported:

### HIV and TB seemed to be acting synergistically in their attacks on people's immune systems...Not just HIV but also diabetes seems to interact synergistically with the organism to manipulate the immune response in ways that facilitate transmission and activation.

As noted above, approximately 20% of active gay men in American cities and 67% of gay men who find partners through the Internet are HIV positive. Note that HIV infection does not have to progress to the level of AIDS to significantly impair the immune system. Thus, gay men who are HIV positive are especially susceptible to new drug-resistant and highly contagious forms of TB. Unsavory details have overtones of being socially and politically incorrect but that does not render them false.

### Changes in HIV/AIDS Infection Rates

Paddock (2008) reported that HIV infection at the time of his investigation increased at a rate of 12% per year among 13-24 year-old American MSM.

### Percentages of MSM among Adult Male Populations

A study by Lieb et al. (2009) estimated that the percentages of MSM in the US South among the adult male populations in rural, suburban, and urban areas were 1%, 4%, and 9%, respectively. In Washington, District of Columbia, 17.4% of adult males were MSM.

### Nature or Nurture?

Most/many of us believe humans often exercise their abilities to make choices among alternatives. That is, we think most of us regularly exercise various degrees of free will. For example, a person of strong will who was brought up in an environment that promoted homosexuality or heterosexuality, can still choose to rebel and act against his/her natural and/or environmental influences. Such actions over time may well reorient the human brain against one's original, cultural or inherited orientation. Thus, parents nor society are always responsible for the choices and behaviors of their children/citizens. Rather, research of various outcomes merely shows us what most people historically have done under given conditions.

Numerous individuals have conducted research to determine if the predominate cause of homosexuality is inheritance or environment. Some conclude that sexual preference is the result of some combination of both. Most liberals want to believe that sexual orientation is biological in origin and most conservatives believe social orientation to be the causative factor. With the given research findings, both sides claim that science supports their different views. It would appear that some of the research and interpretation of the data on the origin of homosexual behaviors has involved "cherry picking" and other forms of bias.

I have attempted to present the best known and most often cited studies on the question of sexual orientation. At the end of each brief of research findings, I have written pros and cons statements that support and denigrate, respectively, the research. May the truth, be it oftentimes illusive, prevail.

Brain Response to Pheromones in Homosexual Men

Studies have showed that homosexual men respond to certain pheromones in men's sweat in a manner similar to that of heterosexual women. The testosterone derivative 4,16-androstadien-3-one (AND), detected in male sweat, is a candidate compound for human pheromones. Savic et.al. (2005) stated:

In contrast to heterosexual men, and in congruence with heterosexual woman, homosexual men displayed hypothalamic activation in response to AND. Maximal activation was observed in the medial preoptic area/anterior hypothalamus, which according to animal studies, is highly involved in sexual behavior.

Pro-gay lifestyle

This study showed that gay sensory behavior is rooted in the brain.

Con-gay lifestyle

Addictive sexual behaviors initiated by choice and/or socialization transform neuron connections in the brain. Nestler (2011) described several research studies that showed how parental behaviors and drugs physically altered the brains of rats. Similarly, a 10-year study of orphaned Romanian children showed that those remaining institutionalized lost ten IQ points on average and developed smaller brains compared with randomly selected orphans placed into foster care at the beginning of the study (Nelson et al. 2013). These studies showed that the quality of care-giving produced significant, physical changes in the brains of rats and human beings after birth.

Cerebral Asymmetry and Functional Connectivity Different in Homo- and Heterosexuals

Savic and Lindstrom (2008) used PET and MRI on 90 volunteers to show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual men and women. They tested 20 homosexual men, 20 homosexual women, 25 heterosexual men, and 25 heterosexual women. They found that heterosexual men and homosexual women had significantly asymmetrical hemispheric volumes with the right hemisphere being larger for both classes. In contrast, the researchers found no significant asymmetry in volumes of right and left brain lobes for heterosexual women or homosexual men.

Tests for functional connectivity within the brain showed that heterosexual women had more widespread connections from the left amygdala and heterosexual men from the right amygdala. In addition, connections from the amygdala tended to connect different parts of the brain for men than for women. The researchers stated: "The connectivity pattern in homosexual subjects was almost reciprocal in relation to the same-sex controls."

Pro-gay lifestyle

This research showed that the brain determines sexual orientation.

Con-gay lifestyle

Numerous studies have confirmed the changing physical state of the brain. For example, subjection of children to 100 hours of intensive instruction on reading caused the brains of the subjects to physically rewire themselves and to create new white matter that improves communication within the brain (Keller and Just, 2009).

Another example. The bases of addiction for drugs and behaviors like compulsive gambling entail rewiring of neuron connections in the brain. Rerouting pathways for the release of orexin that creates cravings and of dopamine that provides a sense of well-being (Borgland et.al. 2006) are tied to changes in environmental stimuli.

New research studies in the field of epigenetics continue to explore environmental influences on gene expression. Nestler (2011) provided several examples of how experiences can remove epigenetic marks on chromosomes that control behavior. For example, researchers have shown that maternal behavior affected gene expression in the offspring of rats without altering germ cells. Rat pups are born with methyl marks on particular genes. These methyl marks, which increase sensitivity to stress, diminish in number if the pups have a relaxed and nurturing mother. However, pups with a nervous and less attentive mother tend to retain the methyl marks and will grow up to repeat the poor mothering performance of their parent. The mother rat's behavior physically altered gene expression in the offspring, thereby programming to a considerable degree their behaviors as adults.

Furthermore, jumping genes (retrotransposons) during early development migrate about the cell, copy themselves, and insert their DNA sequences within the genome of the cell (Gage and Muotri 2012). These retrotransposons in brain cells may activate nearby genes and thereby influence brain function. Researchers found that exercise increased retrotransposition in mice. The investigators speculated that the degree of retrotransposition in the individual mouse may reflect environmental conditions.

Insofar as asymmetry between the brain lobes of heterosexual men and homosexual women or symmetry between the brain lobes of heterosexual women and homosexual men, I suggest the hypothesis that just as compulsive behaviors change the circuitry of the brain and social orientation increases the white matter in the brain, social sexual orientation can change the volume and circuitry of the brain. Such neural, physical changes over time would explain the difficulty persons have with altering compulsive behaviors rooted in altered brains.

Ratio between the Length of the Forefinger and the Fourth Finger

Williams et al. (2000) reported:

In women, the index finger (2D, second digit) is almost the same length as the fourth digit (4D), although it may be slightly longer or shorter; in men, the index finger is more often shorter than the fourth.

These researchers found that homosexual women tend to have significantly greater differences in the lengths of the second and fourth digits of the right hand (more of the masculine pattern) than do heterosexual women. The authors noted that the differential lengths of the second and fourth digits do not develop in female children until the second year. However, because the pattern of finger lengths are sensitive to androgens (male hormones), the authors postulated that androgenic steroids acting before birth might influence sexual orientation.

The researchers did not find any significant differences in the second-digit: fourth-digit ratio between heterosexual and homosexual men for either hand (P>0.09). They did report, in reference to another study:

The ratio was significantly more masculine in men with two or more older brothers than in men with no older brothers...and men with more than one older brother, who are more likely than first-born males to be homosexual in adulthood, are exposed to more prenatal androgen than eldest sons.

Thus, the researchers concluded that the presence of additional testosterone and androsterone, which promote male characteristics, perhaps accounted for the increased incidence of homosexuality in younger brothers with several older brothers. The authors recognized the problem of any correlation between homosexuality and increased male hormones:

Although hyper-androgenization of homosexual men might not fit some cultural expectations, homosexual men display several hyper-masculine characteristics, including a greater mean number of sexual partners in a lifetime than heterosexual men.

Pro-gay lifestyle

Men who have several older brothers display the male pattern of greater differences between the 2D and 4D more so than do their older brothers. Correlated with this observation is the fact that the more older brothers a boy has, the more likely he is to be homosexual.

Williams et al. (2000) found that:

The right-hand 2D:4D ratio of homosexual women was significantly more masculine... than that of heterosexual women, and did not differ significantly from that of heterosexual men.

This finding showed that exposure to more prenatal androgen (testosterone and androsterone) could explain at least in part the origin of homosexuality in women.

Con-gay lifestyle

The researchers above found no significant differences between homosexual and heterosexual men in the male pattern ratios for digits 2 and 4. It seemed odd that they searched for additional evidence from other studies (boys with older brothers are more likely to be homosexual than their brothers or boys with fewer brothers) in an attempt to negate their principal finding of no significant differences between 2D:4D ratios for homosexual and heterosexual men.

Contrary to the findings described above, Frisch and Hviid (2006) found that the presence of older siblings increased the probability of heterosexual marriage. These researchers interviewed 2 million Danes for their data.

Most women who are lesbian were abused as children by men (McMillen and Stern, 2000: 92). We offer the hypothesis that association in the early parts of their lives with males who abused them had a profound effect on the wiring of and molding of their brains and the subsequent 2D:4D masculine ratios of the right hand that appear in lesbian women. Otherwise we would have to assume that prenatal conditions either assumed or encouraged the victims' subsequent abuse.

Furthermore, research by Nestler (2011) showed that patterns of mothering by laboratory rats affected methyl markers on the chromosomes of their offspring, controlling gene expression and reactions to stress as the rat pups matured. Similarly, parental and cultural orientation of human babies may epigenetically alter gene expression in human offspring.

Twin Studies

A caveat exists concerning the validity of "twin studies". Researchers have assumed for decades that because identical twins have the same DNA, differences between them register environmental influences. It is true that identical twins have the same DNA but recent studies have indicated that varying epigenetic effects after birth can influence gene expression without altering the information in genes. Gage and Muotri (2012), who studied laboratory rats, reported that retrotransposons (jumping genes) copy themselves and insert their sequences into brain cells as well as the cells of other organs. Retrotransposons can influence the expression of nearby genes in the cell. In the brain these "jumping genes" can create differences in brain function and may account for differences in behavior between identical twins. According to Gage and Muotri (2012) retrotransposition occurred in the brain after birth and during early development of the rat pup. In addition, studies of mice have shown that novelty and challenge in the environment increased neurogenesis. Thus, let us review the results of "twin studies" discussed below with the aegis of informed reservation.

Bailey and Pillard (1991) determined from a study of twins that when one identical twin was gay, the probability of the other twin being gay was 52%. In the same study, fraternal twins and adopted brothers with gay brothers were less likely to be gay, 22% and 11%, respectively. However, Bailey et al. (2000) used the Australian twin registry to sample 4,900 twins. Based on that larger sample, the researchers found twin concordance for identical twins for homosexuality was only 30%. That is, an identical twin with a gay twin brother and the same genes as his gay brother had a 70% chance of remaining heterosexual. What could explain why one identical twin brother was gay and the other remained straight 70% of the time? Genetics do not explain the difference.

In another twin study, Langstrom et.al. (2010) used data from a population-based 2005-2006 survey of all adult twins (20-46 years) in Sweden. They sampled 3,826 pairs of identical and fraternal twins. They concluded that for men, genetic effects explained 34% - 39% and the individual-specific environment explained 61% - 66% of the reasons for same-sexual behavior. For women, genetic effects explained 18% - 19% and environment accounted for 64% - 66% of same-sex behavior.

Langstrom et al. (2010) and Bailey and Pillard (1991) reported that twin concordance for homosexuality was greater for identical twins than for fraternal twins and even less between natural and adopted brothers. The hypothesis has prevailed that genetics explain the differential rates of same-sex behaviors.

Pro-gay lifestyle

Whether nature or socialization determines homosexuality, the individual has no choice and his/her sexual orientation is immutable.

Con-gay lifestyle

The researchers above assumed that degree of genetic affinity explained greater concordance of sexual orientation for identical than for fraternal same-sex twins. From this observation the researchers assumed that a genetic propensity for homosexuality explained a percentage of homosexual orientation.

Based on the same observation of higher concordance for homosexuality for identical than for fraternal twins, we suggest another hypothesis: We suggest that the closer the genetic affinities, the more likely the individual is to have a similar response to like socialization pressures.

We also propose a hypothesis to account for discordance in sexual orientation between identical twin brothers. In the case of identical twins, which are genetically identical, individual identity is acquired not by physical traits but by sometimes adopting radically different and individualized behaviors. A competing personality as part of an identical twin pair could at an early age diverge from his twin brother's developing male orientation and into the feminine world to secure a distinct identity. This is, of course, just a hypothesis but at this point, that is all we have and until adequately tested, one reasonable assumption/hypothesis/guess is as valid as another. The differences between a hypothesis and an assumption is that the former is stated with an open mind while the latter is likely to remain untested and assumed to be true. Genetic sameness and sibling rivalry, not genetic sexual orientation, could explain the occasional discordance in sexual orientation between identical twins.

Effects of Prenatal Hormones

Spong (1986) reported:

...research consistently seems to support the assertion that sexual orientation is not a matter of choice; that it is not related to any environmental influence...

Spong specifically referred to endocrinological work by German researcher Gunter Dorner. Dorner controlled output of testosterone and other hormones normally released by the hypothalamus of rat brains during the fetal development of those animals. Dorner found that varying the amount of sex hormones available during fetal development affected the sexual orientation of the experimental animals in adulthood. From these observations Dorner concluded that the availability of sex hormones from the mother to the fetus could determine sexual orientation in humans as well.

In addition, recent studies confirmed Dorner's previous investigations. Panzica et al. (1995) found that differences in sexual behavior depend upon neonatal exposure to gonadal steroids. Fetal hormones are one of the primary influences that cause sexual differentiation of the brain and sex organs. Brain and sex organ differentiation can occur at different times and rarely, the brain and the sex organs may have different sex orientations, creating transsexualism in the individual (Garcia-Falgueras and Swaab 2010).

Pro-gay lifestyle

The exposure of varying amounts of sex hormones during fetal development can explain the inherited and immutable physical conditions of homosexuality and transsexualism.

Con-gay lifestyle

To account for current rates of adult homosexuality, the incongruous release of or blockage of testosterone would have to occur in about 1 in 20 cases of human fetal development. There are no data that show this phenomenon occurs during human gestation. Certainly, if a researcher alters exposure to estrogen or testosterone in any mammal, regardless of age, those hormones or a reduction of them will affect the animal physiologically and likely behaviorally. No surprise. Whether or not such alterations occur with any regularity in the development of human fetuses is another question.

Research on environmental correlates for human homosexuality appear to contradict conclusions by Dorner and Panzica et al (1995). With a sampling of some 5,000 twins in Australia, Bailey et al. (2000) found that twin concordance for identical twins for homosexuality was only 30%. That is, when one identical twin is gay, the chances are 70% that his brother will mature to be heterosexual. Are we to assume that under the conditions noted above, identical twins in the uterus received significantly different doses of sex hormones from their mother's hypothalamus?

Incredibly, Garcia-Falgueras and Swaab (2010), the authors cited above, stated that "There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation." This statement illustrates the biased assumptions some researchers carry with them into their research on the origins of sexual orientation. Findings of strong environmental correlates for homosexuality are readily available; e.g., Frisch and Hviid (2006), and Langstrom et al. (2010).

Gender Non-conformity - the Process

Studies have found that the best way to predict homosexuality in adults is to observe gender non-conformity in children (Bailey and Zucker 1995, Rieger et al. 2008). Examples of non-conformity in children would be the boy who consistently adopts girl activities and the girl who consistently adopts boy behaviors and activities. The gender non-conforming boy will wear jewelry and play with dolls and the gender non-conforming girl will take the heads off his dolls.

Bem (2000) hypothesized that children who rebel against the cultural roles set for their sex feel an affinity with the opposite sex and different from same-sex individuals. He further speculated that the feeling of being different from members of the same sex may develop later in life to sexual arousal.

Pro-gay lifestyle

These studies show that homosexual tendencies appear in early childhood, suggesting inheritance as the source of sexual orientation.

Con-gay lifestyle

Because cultural and parental values rather than genetic inheritance most often determine sexual roles in society, gender non-conformity represents rebellion against parental values or a hiding place from parental rejection; the place where one is less likely to fail.

Hermaphroditism

Hermaphroditism and pseudohermaphroditism are physical conditions in which the individual possesses both testicular and ovarian tissue. Hermaphroditism is rare with only 500 recognized cases. Various studies have estimated the occurrences of male and female pseudohermaphroditism to be 3 to 15 per 100,000 people and 1 to 8 per 100,000 people, respectively (Fallon, 2002). These physical anomalies reflect recognized enzyme deficiencies and the resultant aberrations of several chromosomes.

Pro-gay lifestyle

The presence of pseudohermaphrodites in society proves that confusion of sexual orientations can be genetic.

Con-gay lifestyle

The incidence of pseudohermaphroditism at the level of 1 to 15 per 100,000 people shows how rarely genetic aberration explains homosexual orientation.

Natural Selection within the Species

Although natural selection has not been shown to create new species, the process certainly affects the gene pools of species. The production of domestic varieties of plants and animals attests to the power of man's selection in deriving useful or favorable varieties of dogs, cattle, grains, and vegetables. From the standpoint of genetics, selection can only operate to retain those characters that are beneficial and are reproduced or are linked to beneficial characters that are reproduced. It begs the question to ask what is the beneficial reproductive value to homosexual "genes" of not duplicating themselves?

In addition, seeing that gay men do not reproduce and that promiscuity, which is prevalent among the class, is tied to the prevalence of several serious STDs, how did nature retain such a deleterious genetic condition in the gene pool over a million generations? The genetics of homosexuality does not fit logical theory. Possibly, the bisexual participants of the MSM class have retained not only their genes for bisexuality but also the genes for homosexuality? Homosexual men and women do not have gay fathers.

Pro-gay lifestyle

Current humanitarian values do not encompass Darwinian principles of survival of the fittest, which modern civilization deems objectionable and irrelevant.

Con-gay lifestyle

The question before us is not value-based but a scientific question of the mechanics of selective pressures against the likelihood of maintaining genes that have no means of maintaining themselves through the process of reproduction.

Rural vs. Urban Environments

Lieb et.al. (2009) reported that MSM in the US South constituted 1% of adult males in rural areas, 4% in suburban, and 9% of adult males in urban areas. Frisch and Hviid (2006) reported similar findings with their survey of 2 million Danes. Their study found that people born in rural areas were more likely to marry a member of the opposite sex than people born in urban areas. Same-sex marriages are legal in Denmark.

Pro-gay lifestyle

Gays migrate from rural areas to large urban centers because they feel more accepted by urban society. Because rural areas tend to be more conservative, gays will be less likely to report their sexual orientation. Thus, false reporting biases the rates of reported homosexuality downward in rural areas.

Con-gay lifestyle

Are we to assume that 8 of every 9 MSM in rural areas migrate to urban areas? Because only 20% of the US population is rural, the migration of MSM from rural areas could not account for the relatively high percentages of 4% MSM in suburban and 9% MSM in urban areas. Aside from the obvious math, the research by Frisch and Hviid (2006) cited above confirmed that people **born** in rural areas were more likely to marry persons of the opposite sex than were those **born** in urban areas.

Rural areas tend to be more conservative religiously, which means that those environments tend to support traditional, biblical roles of heterosexuality. In that environment, higher percentages of males grow up to be heterosexual. The stats show that the person born in the city is 9 times more likely to be homosexual than the person born on the farm.

Gay Men Display Maleness in their Sexuality - a Hypothesis

Williams et al. (2000) suggested that hyper-androgenization (excessive male hormones) explains why:

...homosexual men display several hyper-masculine characteristics, including a greater mean number of sexual partners in a lifetime than heterosexual men... _and_ ...that adult homosexual men have more circulating androgens, larger genitalia and more 'masculine' auditory evoked potentials than heterosexual men.

Aside from anecdotal information, I know little about the "hyper-masculine" homosexual. However, it appears to me that gay men are males sexually because they display aggressive behaviors aimed primarily at the goal of orgasm. Typically, females require comparatively more commitment, more assurances, more persuasion, more courting, and more foreplay than do males before sexual intercourse. In contrast to men, women deal with a range of hormones that influence their moods and that determine their availability for sex. Generally, women want more than sex; they want love and security as well. Men want love too but they more often will settle simply for sex. I therefore suggest that gay men with altered/rewired brains remain fundamentally males physiologically, sexually; behaviorally. If so, it is not inheritance that makes them different but early social experiences/orientation (see _Social Orientation_ below).

Pro-gay lifestyle

Whether nature or nurture, homosexuality is hard-wired in the brain and is therefore the physical identity and the core of the person. Under these conditions, homosexuality should be accepted and promoted as a natural condition, not a perversion.

Con-gay lifestyle

MSM are still males in their sexual behaviors. The only thing different is that their male behaviors involve having sex with other males. They do this because past experience with women in their early years have rendered them impotent toward women and/or because a passive or absent father failed to induct them into the male gender role. In the latter case, the gay man is seeking male acceptance/approval his father failed to provide.

Gay Sexual Roles Show Preferences for Feminine Behaviors - a Hypothesis

Many gay men find the display of feminine/effeminate behaviors in other gay men sexually attractive. I suggest that such men long for sex with the opposite sex but emotionally find it much easier to relate to a readily available man acting like a woman than with the complications of a woman being a woman.

Pro-gay lifestyle

Some gay men have high levels of androgens, which places them in a class of "super-males". Often gay men during a singular encounter switch roles from that of the passive receptor to that of the male aggressor.

Con-gay lifestyle

Thus, the gay role is either male or "female" as long as the other party is not a woman. It appears therefore that gay behavior can mimic either sex as long as a male plays the "male" or "female" sex role. This role playing appears to incorporate a psychological block against what a physical woman represents rather than rejection of a representative safe "woman" who physically remains a man.

Gay Men Who Produce Children?

This concept is at best a misnomer. Bisexual men could produce children but how does a man have a child or several children and then over time discover that he is really gay? Subsequently he continues after his revelation to live the rest of his life as a gay man? Notwithstanding the possibility of artificial insemination, "gay" men produce children because they experience orgasm with a woman. At a stage in their lives, they find a woman sexually exciting and then their physiology/genetics change them into a gay man?

Pro-gay lifestyle

People are genetically programmed to change gender preferences over time.

Con-gay lifestyle

"The Devil made me do it?" Words like morality, free-choice, commitment, character, perseverance, sacrifice, and love have meaning to those with a biblical orientation. Others pursue the wind ...and reap the whirlwind.

Homosexual Sex in Prison

McMillen and Sern (2000:93-94) reported:

When tempted, some otherwise heterosexual men try out homosexual sex. Among prison inmates, about 30% practice homosexuality of their own free will. Immediately on release from prison, however, almost all of them return to exclusive heterosexuality. For these men, homosexual intercourse is merely an optional way for sexual release. This illustrates that _homosexuality_ describes what someone does, not what someone _is_.

Pro-gay lifestyle

Homosexuality exists in most of us, just more so in some than in others.

Con-gay lifestyle

My wife and I have 4 dogs that illustrate, I think, the point about an "optimal way for sexual release". Our 4 dogs consist of an Australian sheep dog, which is a spaded adult female, a lab-mix adult male that is castrated, an adult male English pointer, and a male 4-month old English pointer. Periodically, the adult male English pointer tries to mount the adult, spaded Australian sheepdog female and the old lab-mix neutered male dog tries to mount the 4-month old male English pointer. Would anyone conclude that any of the three male dogs we own were created by God to be homosexual? No doubt Kinsey (Bullough, 2006) could provide another invalid report; this time on sexual preferences among incarcerated American dogs?

Social Orientation

A number of studies have shown that homosexuality in males develops from homes where the mother is controlling/smothering and the father is distant/unaffectionate or over-controlling (Bieber and Gundlach et al., 1962, Braaten and Darling, 1965, Lung and Shu, 2007, Nicolosi, 1991, McMillen and Stern, 2000, Satinover, 1996; Seutter and Rovers, 2004). McMillen and Stern (2000:94-95) stated that most lesbians as children were abused by men and that the presence or absence and behavior of fathers determined sexual orientation:

For both boys and girls, fathers are the most important factor in sexual orientation. More than 80 percent of gay men (but only 18 percent of straight men) have emotionally distant fathers...A smothering mother who is also a spiteful wife may influence homosexual tendencies...These mothers often baby and restrict their boys by discouraging sports, preventing dates, and forcing them into girlish activities - such as knitting, sewing, and bubble baths.

Bearman and Bruckner (2002) found that males with a female twin, but no older brother, were twice as likely to express same-sex attraction. Their findings supported the hypothesis that less gendered socialization in early childhood and preadolescence explained same-sex interest in some males. These researchers found that, if present, the older brother of the male twin provided a male role model and altered the feminization of boys with a fraternal female twin. Their research suggested that parents of opposite-sex twins are more likely than other parents to provide unisex treatment.

Frisch and Hviid (2006), following interviews of 2 million Danes, found that men who did not know who their fathers were, whose fathers were distant or often absent, who lived with both parents for a relatively short period, and who were from broken homes were less likely to marry heterosexually than were children raised in intact families. Homosexual marriage rates were higher for women whose parents were married for a short time and whose mothers were absent or whose mothers abandoned them during the child's teen years.

The researchers above found that the probability of heterosexual marriage, as opposed to homosexual marriage in Denmark, increased 1.6% among sons and 1.0% for daughters for each additional year one's parents stayed married.

Thus, single parent homes can contribute to the development of homosexuality among offspring. Increased rates of homosexuality are to be expected with increases in out-of-wedlock births in America. Mundy (2012:33) reported that the percentages of children born to unmarried mothers for all ethnic groups in America were 5% in 1960 and 41% in 2010. Obviously, cultural values and parental influences or the lack thereof, which are associated with sexual orientation, have changed in America.

Recent studies by Nestler (2011) involving laboratory rats showed that maternal behavior and exposure to addictive substances affect chemical mechanisms (epigenetic tags) that control gene expression in the offspring. Thus parental behavior and other environmental conditions during the development of human infants are likely to alter gene expression and behavior later in life. These studies suggest possible mechanisms to explain how poor parenting can physically alter the brains of infants.

A corroborative study revealed the psychic and physical scars tied to early years spent without loving, responsive caregivers. Nelson et al. (2013) selected 136 children aged from 6 to 31 months from Romanian orphanages. These children, which were examined and judged to be free of birth defects, were randomly divided into two groups. One group remained institutionalized and the other children were placed into foster care. The scientists also monitored children never institutionalized as a control.

The researchers found that all the children who were institutionalized had smaller brain volumes and lower IQ scores than those raised in foster care. After 2.5 to 4 years into the study, the average IQ of the institutionalized group was in the low to middle 70s, whereas it was about 10 points higher for children in foster care. The IQ for children never institutionalized was above 100 and for institutionalized children was below 80. Institutionalized children suffered higher levels of anxiety disorders; e.g., attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, than did children who had never been institutionalized. Levels of anxiety and depression for children in foster care were about half of that suffered by those who remained institutionalized. This study showed how poor parenting/care giving physically affects the brains, levels of anxiety and depression, and behaviors of children. It is therefore reasonable to hypothesize that cultural promotion and poor parenting generate homosexuality in children.

In primitive cultures where children are not institutionalized and competition for male roles is minimized, homosexuality is relatively rare (Baron, 1993). This information shows the importance of environment to sexual orientation.

Obviously, cultural promotion makes a big difference. Same-sex relations between men and boys were promoted and accepted in ancient Greece, illustrating the influence of cultural acceptance on the prevalence of homosexual relations. In America, as societal acceptance and social environments that promote homosexuality increase, individuals will be more likely to try homosexual lifestyles.

Pro-gay lifestyle

Physical differences in the brains of homosexual men and straight men show that being gay has a physical basis.

Con-gay lifestyle

We concur with McMillin and Stern (2000), Bearman and Buckner (2002), Frisch and Hviid (2006), and Nestler (2011). Environmental/social conditions largely determine homosexual orientation in the individual. Of course, within limits, human beings have and exercise free choice. Thus, some people from healthy family backgrounds will choose to cross the line and experiment with dangerous gay lifestyles, particularly with the rise of cultural promotion.

### The Biblical Perspective

Dan O. Via and Robert A. J. Gagnon (2003) provided two different views on homosexuality. Via presented the liberal view that homosexuality is acceptable to God and Gagnon expressed his view that the Bible condemns homosexuality. Both authors claimed to use the Bible to support their opposite views. In one area, both authors were in agreement. Via stated in response to Gagnon (Via and Gagnon, 2003:93):

Professor Gagnon and I are in substantial agreement that the biblical texts that deal specifically with homosexual practice condemn it unconditionally.

Via explained that one must interpret the Bible in light of current scientific knowledge and extant cultures. Via believes that God made some people to be homosexual and therefore expression of homosexual behaviors cannot be sin. Also, some homosexual couples live fruitful and peaceful lives, which shows that homosexual behaviors are acceptable. Via believes that homosexual couples in committed relationships can/do live the "abundant life" described in John 10:10b: "I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly."

By contrast Gagnon did not have to turn the Bible on its head to support his view that homosexuality is wrong. Listed below are some key Bible verses that address homosexuality and different interpretations made by those pro and those con.

Genesis 19:1-9a

The two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of Sodom. When Lot saw them he rose to meet them, and bowed down with his face to the ground. He said, "Please, my lords, turn aside to your servant's house and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you can rise early and go on your way." They said, "No; we will spend the night in the square." But he urged them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; and they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we many know them." Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, and said, "I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Look, I have two daughters who have not known a man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof." But they replied, "Stand back!" and they said, "This fellow came here as an alien, and he would play the judge! Now we will deal worse with you than with them."

Pro-gay lifestyle

The evil of Sodom was not that males were having sex with males but that males were going to gang-rape unwilling males.

Con-gay lifestyle

Homosexual practices, which were considered sin by the Jews, are what made the proposed actions of the Sodomites abominable to God. See references below from both the Old and New Testaments.

Ezekiel 16:49-50

This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it.

Pro-gay lifestyle

God destroyed Sodom because the city had abundance but did not help/support the poor and needy.

Con-gay lifestyle

According to Gagnon (2003: 58), God destroyed Sodom because they ignored the needs of the poor in their midst and because they committed abominable acts such as male-male intercourse:

...Ezekiel read the Sodom story in the light of the Levitical prohibitions of male-male intercourse; that is, he interpreted male-male intercourse per se as an abomination.

Leviticus 18:22

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

Pro-gay lifestyle

This citation represents one of the old Levitical laws put in place to assure hygiene and ritual purity. Homosexual acts by committed couples do not separate the individual from God. Homosexuality is increasingly accepted in our culture and is therefore, though considered "unclean" in Bible times, not an absolute sin against God. For example, in context, the text also prohibited (Leviticus 18:19) having sex with one's wife during her menstrual period. Certainly, no priest, pastor, or rabbi now believes the latter prohibition still has merit worth mentioning.

Con-gay lifestyle

The text Leviticus 18:20-23 also prohibits the sacrifice of children to the god Molech, incest, and bestiality. If those promoting homosexuality want to throw out this part of the Scripture, then they must also conclude that, in view of our enlightened culture, God approves of the sacrifice of our children to the god Molech, abortion, and our having sex with animals and immediate family members. That is the company of condemned actions associated with homosexual acts in the Bible.

Leviticus 20:13

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Pro-gay lifestyle

This verse addressed physical and ritual uncleanness; not intentional sin that would separate a person from God. Likewise, note that the punishment for breaking the Sabbath was death (Exodus 35:2). Who today in our enlightened world would vote for capital punishment for those who have to work on the Sabbath? In like manner, who in our world and time and level of knowledge, would deny the abundant life for dedicated homosexual couples because of ancient purity customs found in the old Mosaic Law?

Con-gay lifestyle

The New Testament reaffirms the Old Testament condemnation of homosexual acts (see New Testament references in this text) and specifically abrogates/minimizes the Mosaic demands concerning the keeping of the Sabbath (see Romans 14:5 and Colossians 2:16-19). Note that Leviticus 20:8-16 required capital punishment also for cursing one's parents, adultery, "incest" with in-laws, and bestiality. Inclusion of these sins along with homosexual acts shows that the latter was more than just a matter of outdated Jewish purity rites.

Romans 1:26-27

For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

Pro-gay lifestyle

Via (Via and Gagnon, 2003: 14) stated:

Given what we now know about the genetic, social, and psychological causes of homosexuality, and the graciousness of God's creative intention, it is difficult to accept Paul's view that universal human rebellion and God's wrath, in their mutual interaction, are the primary cause of homosexuality.

Helminiak (1995:71-72) stated that Paul's condemnation of homosexuality in Romans was not because it was a sin against God but because it represented an impurity associated with the culture of the idolatrous Gentiles.

Con-gay lifestyle

Gagnon (Via and Gagnon, 2003:42) rebutted:

If the authority of Scripture means anything, those who seek to overturn its core values must meet an extraordinary burden of proof. The evidence must be strong and unambiguous that it not only makes the witness of Scripture pale by comparison but also directly refutes the reasons for the Bible's position. For example, it would not be enough to prove that (1) the only models for homosexual behavior in antiquity were exploitative, or (2) modern science has demonstrated that homosexuality is congenital and fixed. One would also have to prove that the Bible condemned homosexual practice (3) primarily on the grounds that it was exploitative (e.g., because it abused boys), or (4) on the grounds that all participants in homosexual behavior experienced desires for the opposite sex...none of these points can be substantiated.

1 Timothy 1: 9-11

This means understanding that the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me

Pro-gay lifestyle

According to _Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language_ (1996), "sodomy" means 1) anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex; 2) copulation with a member of the same sex; 3) bestiality. One cannot take these verses literally without concluding that oral sex between Christian husband and wife is sin and that heterosexual intercourse outside the bounds of marriage as readily accepted in modern culture, is sin.

Con-gay lifestyle

"Sodomy" in the scriptural context referred to homosexual intercourse and was not a reference to oral sex. In fact, Proverbs 5:15-20 admonished the husband-lover to "drink from your own well", to reserve your "springs" for "the wife of your youth," and allow "her breasts (to) satisfy you at all times..." These biblical metaphors appear to be direct references to the proper contexts for oral sex and heterosexual intercourse within the framework of marital love-making **.**

In this scriptural text, however, homosexual behavior appears to have equal negative standing with heterosexual intercourse outside marriage. The popular acceptance of fornication and adultery as currently displayed throughout entertainment media illustrates how out of sync America is with the Bible. In like manner, the will to bend the Scripture to embrace homosexual behavior is no surprise.

Note the grouping of homosexual acts in 1 Timothy 1 with the sins of matricide and patricide, murder, fornication, slave trading, lying, and perjury.

Jude 7

Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

Pro-gay lifestyle

"Sexual immorality" and "unnatural lust" in this case do not refer to homosexual acts but to the intended gang rape of angels (unnatural flesh) reported in Genesis 19.

Con-gay lifestyle

"Unnatural lust" refers directly to same sex eroticism. The Sodomites did not know that the unfamiliar men at Lot's home were angelic; thus, they could not have knowingly lusted for angelic flesh.

Conclusions on the Biblical Perspective

I reviewed Spong (1984), Helminiak (1995), and Via and Gagnon (2003) to see what some religious scholars had to say about biblical support for homosexual behaviors. I found the logic of theologians who support homosexuality to be weak and narrow and strained. In short...not biblical. By contrast, I found the writings and logic of Robert A. J. Gagnon sound and in obvious concert with the Bible. I think Gagnon proved repeatedly that the Bible supports heterosexuality and that:

Every narrative that has anything to do with human sexuality (in the Bible) presumes the sole legitimacy of opposite-sex unions (Via and Gagnon, 2003:75).

Why the Bible Condemns Homosexuality

I have several hypotheses on this topic but I do not know for certain why the Bible considers homosexuality wrong:

Because God said so

According to Scripture (Matthew 19:4-5), God's plan included heterosexuality, not homosexuality **:**

Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife...?"

God divided mankind into male and female sexes so they could be joined in body and spirit through the institution of marriage.

Procreation

Because the Bible has no accounts of children being reared by same-sex couples and because the Bible prohibits homosexual relations, we may assume God intended that children be reared by heterosexual couples within the bounds of marriage.

Disease

As noted above, gay men who are sexually active are subject to a number of dangerous diseases. Rural environments and families with positive male role models have relatively low incidences of homosexuality. Societies would be wise to foster those specific values and conditions to prevent STD's and increased risks of cancer and tuberculosis that are tied to the gay male lifestyle.

### Judge?

The Scripture (1 Corinthians 5:11-13) states:

But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother or sister who is sexually immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber. Do not even eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging those outside? Is it not those who are inside that you are to judge? God will judge those outside...

Thus, beyond our duty to vote in the secular world, the only people we as the church are allowed to judge as wrong are those inside the church who practice homosexuality, greed, gluttony, adultery, bestiality, fornication, wrongful divorce; etc. Practicing homosexuals in the church must work on changing toward a heterosexual lifestyle, remain celibate, or leave the congregation. Scripture does not allow us to judge those outside the church.

The Christian community has several problems regarding its stand on those believers who pursue same-sex eroticism. One is that the Bible condemns homosexual practices. Another is that the social environment and rebellious choice largely determine at an early age who becomes homosexual. Thus, homosexual orientation begins early in child development when people are too immature to make wise choices. That is, learned and/or adopted behaviors during early childhood influence the wiring of the brain and its neural connections.

When we review the social correlates tied to homosexuality, we find them prevalent in the church: divorce and broken homes, distant and/or over-bearing (unloving) fathers, smothering/domineering mothers who disrespect their husbands, and parents who abandon their children. At present, the church appears powerless to effectively address the flawed heterosexual relationships in its midst that produce sexual perversion. In other words, the church has become an extension of the world and its values. Therefore the church should not be surprised at secular society's acceptance of the symptoms those flawed relationships continue to produce. As Pogo observed: "We have met the enemy...and he is us."

As the church, our only hope is that, in opposition to the prevailing global culture, we must teach young men how be good husbands and fathers and we must teach young women how to be good wives and mothers. The upside of the problem of homosexuality, is that because the condition's primarily cause is environmental, we are only one generation away from healing solutions.

### Alternatives for the Christian Homosexual

In human history, only 500 cases of hermaphroditism have been confirmed and the rate for pseudohermaphroditism is only about 1 per 10,000 population. If one finds himself or herself in one of these relatively rare categories, I suggest he/she pick his/her favorite sex, have the appropriate physical changes made, take the right sex hormones, and stick faithfully to the preferred sex. Being gay is a different matter.

Disease and death stalk the active gay male lifestyle. Therefore, homophobia and celibacy constitute a reasonable fear and practice, respectively, for the Christian who is gay. Because environmental correlates have rewired the brains of gay men, altering same-sex addictions is as difficult as re-wiring the brains of heroin and nicotine addicts, alcoholics, or compulsive gamblers.

On the other hand, we might receive inspiration from heterosexual males in our prison systems who often find sex release through same-sex relations. My hypothesis is that a gay Christian male who is a part of the church may, with the combinations of strong sexual urges and a strong sense of biblical morality, successfully re-wire his brain over time and find sex release through heterosexual marriage in the Christian context. Remaining faithful to his wife would take dedication to the Word, but then, married heterosexual Christians obviously find that marital faithfulness requires a lot of willful dedication to God's Word too. "Obviously" is apropos because half of Christian marriages end in divorce.

At the very least, I suggest the Christian gay man who cannot control his sexual urges masturbate in order to remain physically celibate. That way, one need not fear the spread of STDs and he will retain a clear conscience toward society.

Lesbian couples are more likely to remain monogamous than gay men and are a lot less likely to have or to spread STDs. To date, the CDC confirms no incidence of HIV spread between lesbians. On the other hand, lesbian couples should not attempt to parent children because good/loving fathers and intact families are key environmental correlates for the development of heterosexual adults. Only a good male role model can usher a boy into manhood (Eldredge 2001).

### Definitions/Notes

_CDC:_ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

_HIV/AIDS: HIV_ is the acronym for human immunodeficiency virus. The virus damages the immune system and thereby interferes with the body's ability to fight disease. AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome) refers to the late stages of HIV.

_MSM:_ Men who have sex with men, including both gay and bisexual men.

### Literature Cited

Bailey, J. M., and R. C. Pillard. 1991. A genetic study of male sexual orientation. Archives of General Psychiatry. 48(12):1089-1096.

Baily, J. M., M. P. Dunne, and N. G. Martin. 2000. Genetic and environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 78(3):524-536.

Bailey, J. M., and K. J. Zucker. 1995. Childhood sex-typed behavior and sexual orientation: A conceptual analysis and quantitative review. Developmental Psychology. 31(1):43-55.

Bearman, P. S., and H. Bruckner. 2002. Opposite-sex and adolescent same-sex attraction. American Journal of Sociology. 107(5):1179-1205.

Bem, D. 2000. Exotic becomes erotic: Interpreting the biological correlates of sexual orientation. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 29(6):531-547.

Bieber, T. B., H.J. Dain, P. R. Dince, M. G. Drellich, H. G. Grand, R.R. Gundlach, M. W. Kremer, A.H. Rifkin, and C. B. Wilber. 1962. Homosexuality - a psychoanalytic study of male homosexuality. Basic Books, Inc. New York. 358 pp.

Borgland, S. L., S. A. Tdaha, F. Sarti, H. L. Fields, and A. Bonci. 2006. Orexin A in the VTA is critical for the induction of synaptic plasticity and behavioral sensitization to cocaine. Neuron 49(4):589-601.

Boskey, E. 2009. What is congenital syphilis? Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs). Online site: About.com

Braaten, L. J., and C.D. Darling. 1965. Overt and covert homosexual problems among male college students. Genetic Psychology Monographs. 71:269-330.

Bullough, V. L. 2006. The Kinsey biographies. Sexuality & Culture. 10(1): 15-22.

CDC. 1997. Gonorrhea among men who have sex with men - selected sexually transmitted diseases clinics, 1993-1996. MMWR, Weekly. 46(38):889-892.

CDC. 2001. Outbreak of syphilis among men who have sex with men—Southern California, 2000. MMWR, Weekly. 50(07):117-120.

CDC Abstract 1220. 2002. STD trends among MSM at the largest health center caring for gay men in New England, 1997-2002; Poster. CDC. 2012 National STD Prevention Conference.

CDC Abstract 1222. 2002. Estimates of the number of cases of primary and secondary syphilis occurring among men who have sex with men in the United States, 1999-2002; Poster. CDC. 2012 National STD Prevention Conference.

CDC Abstract 1441. 2012. The internet is a significant factor in the MSM syphilis epidemic. Summaries of Highlighted Research. 2012 National STD Prevention Conference.

CDC. 2010a. Monitoring selected national HIV prevention and care objectives by using HIV surveillance data - United States and 6 U.S. dependent areas. HIV Surveillance Supplemental Report 2012:17(3), part A.

CDC. 2010b. Viral hepatitis-information for gay/bisexual men. www.cdc.gov/hepatitis

CDC. 2011. The role of STD detection and treatment in HIV prevention - CDC Fact Sheet. www.cdc.gov/std/hiv/STDFact-STD-HIV.htm

CDC. 2013. HIV/AIDS. Basic statistics. How does HIV affect different groups of people? Available online September 2013.

Eldredge, J. 2001. Wild at heart. Thomas Nelson, Inc. Nashville, Tenn. 241 pp.

Fisher, M.A. 2009. Why women are leaving men for other women. CNN Living.

Internet site: articles.cnn.com/2009-04-23/living/o.women.leave.menfor.women

Frisch, M., and A. Hviid. 2006. Childhood family correlates of heterosexual and homosexual marriages: A national cohort study of two million Danes. Archives of Sexual Behavior 35(5):533-47.

Gage, F. H., and A. R. Muotri. 2012. What makes each brain unique? Scientific American. 303(3):26-31.

Garcia-Falgueras, A, and D. F. Swaab. 2010. Sexual hormones and the brain: An essential alliance for sexual identity and sexual orientation. Endocrine Development. 17:22-35.

Gorman, C. 2014. A new shot against hepatitis C. Scientific American. 310(4):56-57.

Helminiak, D.A. 1995. What the Bible really says about homosexuality. Alamo Square Press. San Francisco, CA. 119 pp.

Keller, T. A., and M.A. Just. 2009. Altering cortical connectivity: remediation-induced changes in the white matter of poor readers. Neuron 64(5):624-631.

Lehrman, S. 2013. The diabolical genius of an ancient scourge. Scientific American. 309(1):80-85.

Lieb, S., D. R. Thompson, S. Misra, G. J. Gates, W. A. Duffus, S. J. Fallon, T. M.

Liberti, E. M. Foust, and R. M. Malow. 2009. Estimating populations of men who have sex with men in the southern United States. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine. Published online: 13 November.

Lung, F. W., and B.C. Shu. 2007. Father-son attachment and sexual partner orientation in Taiwan. Comprehensive Psychiatry. 48:20-26.

Lowry, R. 2012. Just not the marrying kind - a deepening trend in out-of-wedlock births shouldn't be impossible to reverse. Time Magazine. 179(9):13.

Mundy, L. 2012. Woman, money and power. Time Magazine. 179(12):28-34.

McMillen, S. I., and D. E. Stern. 2000. None of these diseases. Fleming H. Revell, a Division of Baker Book House Co. Grand Rapids, MI. 285 pp.

Nelson, C.A., III, N.A. Fox, and C.H. Zeanah, Jr. 2013. Anguish of the abandoned child. Scientific American. 308 (4):62-67.

Nicolosi, J. 1991. Reparative therapy of male homosexuality: A new clinical approach.

Northvale, Jason. Aronson, New Jersey. 361 pp.

Panzica, G. C., N. Aste, C. Viglietti-Panzica, and M.A. Ottinger. 1995. Structural sex differences in the brain: Influence of gonadal steroids and behavior correlates. J.

Endocrinology. 18:232-252.

Reinberg, S. 2007. Number of partners doesn't explain gay HIV rate. Online site: Health Day News. Thursday, September 13. The Washington Post.

Rieger, G., J. A. Linsenmeier, L Gygax, and J. M Bailey. 2008. Sexual orientation and childhood gender nonconformity: Evidence from home videos. Developmental Psychology. 44(1):46-58.

Satinover, J. 1996. Homosexuality and the politics of truth. Baker Books. Grand Rapids, MI. 336 pp.

Seutter, R. A., and M. Rovers. 2004. Emotionally absent fathers: Furthering the understanding of homosexuality. Journal of Psychology and Theology. 32:43-49.

Slavic, I., H. Berglund, and P. Lindstrom. 2005. Brain response to putative pheromones in homosexual men. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the Untied States of America. 102(20):7356-7361.

Slavic, I., and P. Lindstom. 2008. PET and MRI show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects. Stockholm Brain Institute, Dept. of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute. Stockholm, Sweden. 6 p.

Spong, J. S. 1984. Living in sin? HarperCollins Publishers, New York. 256 pp.

Stengel, R. (Managing Editor). 2011. Health & Science. Time Magazine. 177(21):20.

Via, D.O., and R. A. J. Gagnon. 2003. Homosexuality and the Bible. Fortress Press, Minneapolis, MI. 117 pp.

Williams, T. J., M. E. Pepitone, S. E. Christesen, B. M. Cooke, A. D. Huberman, N. J. Breedlove, T. J. Breedlove, C. L. Jordan, and S. M. Breedlove. 2000. Finger-length ratios and sexual orientation. Nature. 404:455-456.

# Mutable Rates of Radioactive Decay

### Use of the Decay Rates of Radioactive Elements to Date Rocks and other Materials

Geophysicists, paleontologists, and archeologists use the rates of radioactive decay to estimate the age of materials in the earth's crust; e.g., rock strata, bones, fossils, and archeological sites. Scientists can monitor the disintegration rates of various radioactive elements and determine the amount of time it takes for half of the atoms of each to degrade into daughter elements. The amount of time required for half of the atoms of a radioactive element to decay into daughter elements is designated the "half-life" of the radioactive element. For example, at current rates of gamma ray emission, it takes about 704 million years for half of the atoms of uranium-235 to decay into daughter elements. The final product of the uranium-235 chain is lead-207, which is stable. The ratio of uranium-235: lead-207 atoms in a rock sample therefore provides an estimate of how much time elapsed since the encapsulation of the uranium sample within the rock. With a half-life of 704 million years for uranium-235, the oldest Earth rock was estimated to be 4.03 billion years old (Zimmer 2001:91). But what assurance do we have that the rates of radioactive decay are constant?

### Uniformitarianism

Most scientists assume and insist that the decay rates of radioactive elements are constant/consistent. That is in part true because most scientists embrace the assumptions of Lyell's uniformitarianism. Charles Lyell (1797-1875) was the British lawyer and geologist who authored _Principles of Geology_. In his book Lyell popularized James Hutton's concept that all the forces that shaped the earth in the past were the same slow processes we observe today. That is, the relatively constant and slow weathering and erosion and deposition of Earth materials by wind and water and land upheavals and subsidence were responsible for most of the geologic formations we observe today. Such slow processes requiring millions or hundreds of millions of years explained the lay of the land rather than catastrophic worldwide events such as massive floods and extraterrestrial events.

The idea that Earth was millions or even billions of years old fit well with materialist explanations for the origin of species through slow natural processes. Thus, the assumption that rates of weathering and erosion have remained dependably constant and the vision of an old Earth transferred to other observed phenomena such as the speed of light and radioactive decay rates.

### Speed of Light

Physicists measure the speed of light by the parameter known as the "fine structure constant" or "alpha". Alpha is a measurement of the strength of the electromagnetic force. Alpha equals the charge of an electron squared divided by Planck's constant times the speed of light. Therefore, a change in alpha is viewed to represent a change in the speed of light. Some physicists have gathered data that show the speed of light is variable.

Steve Lamoreaux of Los Alamos National Lab in Los Alamos, New Mexico and colleague Justin Torgerson analyzed the energies of neutrons in the natural nuclear reactor of Oklo in Gabon, West Africa (Meshik 2005). The Oklo data in this analysis showed that alpha decreased by more than 4.5 parts in 108 since the Oklo natural reactor started up and was operative for a few hundred thousand years, about two billion years ago. These two researchers posited that alpha varied significantly in the past. Thus, the speed of light increased during the active life of the Oklo natural reactor two billion years ago. Possibly the charge of electrons produced by the fission of uranium ore at Oklo over its radioactive life differed "significantly" from those of today?

Of course, if the speed of light as a constant could fall into question, can we be absolutely sure the rates of radioactive decay have remained constant?

### Inconsistent Radioactive Decay Rates

Inconsistencies Relative to Earth's Position with the Sun and Solar Activity

Daily email from Stanford University News reported on "The strange case of solar flares and radioactive elements" (Stober 2010). Author Dan Stober reported that researchers from Stanford and Purdue University confirmed changes in the decay rates of radioactive elements on Earth relative to the Earth's position with the Sun. The researchers speculated that neutrino particles or some other mystery particles from the Sun produced the observed changes in the decay rates of radioactive elements.

These observations conflicted with what is taught to students in the classroom that the decay rate of a specific radioactive element is a constant. The reliability of such a "constant" is important, for example, when archeologists use decay rates of carbon-14 to estimate the age of ancient artifacts or when geophysicists use the decay rates of uranium-235 to estimate the age of rocks.

Inconsistencies Tied to the Plasma/Ionized State of Radioactive Elements

Wang et al. (2006) reported similar but more extreme examples of changes in radioactive decay rates. These researchers reported a difference in the half-life of beryllium of 0.9% relative to location of that element in metallic or insulating environments. More drastic were the half-life changes in rhenium-187 when atoms were fully ionized (bare nuclei) in the plasma state. The half-life of rhenium transformed into osmium dropped from 41.6 billion years to 33 years (Bosch et al. 1996). Geophysicists have used the rhenium-osmium method as an isotopic clock to date rocks.

One may ask how common is the plasma state of elements, that ionizing phase that apparently has a profound effect on the decay rates of some or perhaps all radioactive elements. The fact of the matter is that by far the most common phase of matter in the solar system and in the universe is the plasma or ionized state; that is, 99.9% of the universe is plasma. The Sun and other stars are plasma and the matter in interplanetary and interstellar space is largely plasma. On Earth the plasma state of matter occurs wherever matter is super-heated; e.g., most flames, lightning, and nuclear reactions. But we must ask if the long-lived radioactive elements used to age Earth rocks; for example, thorium and uranium, were ever subject to the plasma or ionized state during their tenure beneath or on the Earth's crust. To answer that question, we must investigate the development of the zircon crystal.

Zircons, which are the oldest known materials on Earth, are hard crystals of zirconium silicate. The zircon crystal's chemical make-up and structure resist normal weathering events, which renders them a useful dating tool. Because zircons, during their formation, readily incorporate radioactive elements into their crystalline structures, geophysicists commonly compare the ratios of parent radioactive elements to daughter elements found in zircons to estimate the age of the crystals.

As stated earlier in this essay, geophysicists used the ratio of 235U:107Pb found in a zircon from Australia and determined its age to be 4.03 billion years. Thus, that particular zircon is the oldest known Earth rock. But what are the chances that the zircon in question captured that particular uranium series/nuclides in the solid state intact after it was exposed to or while it was exposed to ionization events in the Earth's mantle? Such events could have increased rates of radioactive decay, rendering the zircon and its contents much younger than they appear. A little library research and logic can help us derive hypotheses about that question.

Research by some geophysicists supports the possibility of parent and radioactive daughter elements (nuclides) remaining in situ/in closed systems/in the solid state while under high pressure and temperature conditions. Beattie (1993) noted that annealing of alpha decay damage was more rapid than the time scale of decay of radioactive nuclides at high temperatures, thermal conditions that also reduced alpha-recoil. Alpha-recoil, which fractionalizes the nuclides from one another, is the result of radioactivity. My interpretation of those observations is that decay events among parent and daughter radioactive elements diminish in severity in high temperature environments; for example, in igneous intrusions/hot plumes from the Earth's core. Such intrusions formed the Hawaiian Islands and the Mid-Atlantic ridge. That is, the U-Pb sample found in the world's oldest known zircon may have experienced millennia of solid state exposure to ionization events prior to its incorporation by the zircon in Earth's mantle. The mantle itself exists in a viscous state of both solid and liquid materials.

The 235U-107Pb sample found in the oldest known zircon may have been held together over time in a closed system by enormous pressures and temperatures, long before rising in the mantle and being encompassed by the developing zircon. The origin of the sample may have been deep in the earth's mantle or Earth's outer core. Heavy elements like uranium are believed to occur in such locations where ionizing conditions may exist.

Theory suggests that ionizing conditions may exist where Earth's liquid outer core meets the planet's solid inner core. In the outer core, charged iron ions circulate and create electric currents that produce Earth's geomagnetic field. Stokstad (1996) estimated that the boundary between the solid inner core and the fluid outer core produced a flow of electric currents of about a billion amps. A billion amps may be sufficient to shake the electrons off atoms in the boundary area between the Earth's core and mantle.

In addition, geophysicists estimate that temperatures in Earth's core reach about 5,4300 C to 6,0000 C. Given that plasma conditions exist on the surface of the Sun at an estimated 5, 5000 C, the tremendous pressures in the earth's mantle and core, electric currents generated in the outer core, and/or possibly an ionizing nuclear-breeder reactor in the core-mantle boundary region (De Meijer and van Westrenen 2008) or in the center of the core itself, one would expect to find plasma environments within or below the earth's mantle.

Aside from those possibilities, there are a number of researchers who believe that the Earth's core, like that of the Sun, is composed of plasma (He et al. 2010). As noted above, clusters of radioactive parent and daughter elements in the solid state or closed systems may have experienced ionizing events prior to capture by crystallizing zircons in the Earth's mantle and prior to their transport in hot plumes or igneous intrusions from deep in the mantle, through the crust and to or near the Earth's surface.

But zircons at Earth's surface could also have experienced long periods of ionization in the past through exposure to cosmic radiation and solar events. Cosmic radiation from outside the solar system and "solar wind" from our Sun have bombarded the Earth with energetic, charged particles since the appearance of the planet. At present, the Earth's magnetic field and atmosphere protect the surface of the plant from extreme ionization events. However, molecular oxygen and ozone that protect the earth from extreme ultraviolet radiation have only been a part of Earth's atmosphere for some 400 million years out of a possible 4.2 billion years. In addition, periodic reversals of Earth's magnetic field in the past, such as the Laschamp event some 41,000 years ago, could have reduced the strength of that protective shield to 5% of its current strength. Cosmic radiation during the Laschamp event was strong enough to increase the radioactive isotopes beryllium-10 and carbon-14. Thus, there can be little doubt that zircons at Earth's surface were exposed to ionizing conditions during previous reversals of Earth's magnetic field and prior to the development of molecular oxygen and ozone in the planet's atmosphere.

Aside from the oldest known Earth rocks, there is the question of dating the oldest chrondrites that fall to earth as meteorites. A.E. Rubin (2013) reported that radioisotope dating shows some of these chondrites to be 4.5 billion years old. However, there can be no doubt that all chondrite samples since their formation and prior to their fall to Earth, were subject to the ionizing effects of cosmic radiation from stars and "solar wind" produced by our Sun (Stahler 2013:49). Because ionization can affect the rates of decay of some, maybe all, radioactive elements, geophysicists and astrophysicists, who use radiometric techniques to date chondrites, may be incorrect.

Thus, should not geophysicists consider the real possibility that the uranium series housed by the oldest known zircon crystals on Earth, or the oldest chrondrites may well have been ionized for long periods of time before their discovery? What if geophysicists dated zircon crystals based on the decay rates of radioactive isotopes in the ionized state, what would we all conclude about the age of oldest known zircons or the age of the planet? The findings might be factually correct though politically and culturally unacceptable?

Inconsistencies Related to Ultrasonic Cavitation

Cavitation occurs under natural conditions; e.g., rapid wave action of water and river water cascading over rocks. The water pressure against the rocks creates low pressure bubbles. Vapor gases evaporate into the bubbles that disfigure and collapse, creating high temperatures to 10,0000 C and pressures equivalent to several hundred atmospheres. The release of energy creates a shock wave and a visible bluish light. Extreme cavitation such as that produced by water purification devices can breakdown organic molecules and produce plasma-based mechanisms of energy.

The power of cavitation to break molecular bonds and to create plasma-based mechanisms of energy may explain its influence on the decay rate of thorium-228. Cardone et al. (2009) found that cavitation of thorium-228 dispersed in water increased the radioactive decay rate of that element 10,000 times greater than the standard "constant" rate. Skepticism of Cardone's recent findings are appropriate at this time, pending validation. However, extreme cavitation can produce temperatures hotter than the surface of the sun and shock waves that tear electrons from the surrounding fluids, rendering heat and pressure conditions favorable for thermonuclear fusion (Xu and Butt 2005).

It is reasonable to hypothesize that most radioactive materials weathered and eroded by water experienced cavitation and increased rates of radioactive decay. The abundance of soil, much of it the product of the weathering of rock and erosion by water, shows that cavitation could be a continual process operative at Earth's surface.

Inconsistencies with Carbon-14 Dating

In 1949, Dr. Willard Libby and his colleagues at the University of Chicago developed radiocarbon dating to determine the age of carbonaceous materials/organic remains. The radioisotope carbon 14 (14C) exists in the atmosphere in what are assumed to be consistent quantities. When plants photosynthesize atmospheric carbon dioxide in the presence of sunlight to produce organic material, they incorporate 14C approximately in proportion to the relative abundance of that radioactive element in the atmosphere. When the plant dies or is eaten, it no longer takes in 14C and the radioisotope declines exponentially with a half-life of around 5,500 years. A comparison of the ratio of 14C in a sample to the percent of 14C naturally occurring in the atmosphere therefore provides an estimate of the age of organic remains. Radiometric dating with carbon-14 is not considered appropriate for dating materials over 60,000 years old because that isotope in the sample is much reduced in volume after ten half-lives of about 5,500 years each.

Unlike other radiometric dating methods; for example, potassium-argon, uranium-lead, or rubidium-strontium dating, radiocarbon dating allowed for a few control tests. Dr. Libby successfully carbon dated the wood from an ancient Egyptian royal barge, the age of which was verified from historical documents. Comparison of tree ring counts of bristle cone pine trees, some individuals aged to 4,800 years, with radiocarbon dating of the same individuals provided another cross check. Thus, radiocarbon dating has proved to be a fairly accurate method for dating organic/carbonaceous materials.

Though anomalies do exist, modern methods of carbon dating are accurate with even minute samples. Investigators now use laser mass spectroscopy to accelerate charged atomic particles to high velocities and then count the 14C atoms as they separate from the sample. The method is often accurate but contamination problems are common in exposed samples.

Contamination problems, however, may not explain all apparent anomalies. An organization of doubters has appeared. The "Paleo Group" (2013) claim to be a group of "consultants in geology, paleontology, chemistry, engineering, and education who perform research on fossils." This private sector group performed multiple radiocarbon tests on such items as marble, ancient coal deposits, amber, diamonds, and dinosaur bones. They used the most modern techniques, including laser mass spectroscopy, to age their samples. Surely, contamination was not an issue in radiocarbon dating diamond, amber, and marble samples? These investigators discovered that of all those materials, assumed to be multi-millions of years old based on potassium-argon, uranium-lead, and rubidium-strontium radiometric methods, contained 14C. Radiocarbon dating of the same samples showed each to be a few thousand carbon-14 years old.

The Paleo Group researchers acknowledged one hypothesis that could account for the presence of 14C in samples previously thought to be millions or billions of years old. Possibly, ordinary carbon was synthesized to 14C by strong radiation from radioactive materials or by other ionization events? As noted above, reversal of Earth's magnetic field during the Laschcamp event some 41,000 years ago allowed cosmic radiation and solar wind to synthesize 14C on Earth.

Notwithstanding reluctance to publish negative findings, the scientific community must, in order to retain a sense of integrity, explore the reasons 14C is prevalent in dinosaur bones, diamonds, marble, amber, and "ancient" coal deposits. Such investigations are needed to put to rest with sound science, the seemingly surprising claims of the "Paleo Group".

I suggest researchers radiocarbon date the soft tissue recently reported by Schweitzer (2010) to exist in the bones of dinosaurs. After all, how does soft tissue persist for 67 million years in the remains of any creature? One would think that observation in itself would raise a red flag, or at least a questioning eyebrow. Just an "anomaly"? The word "anomaly" does not explain process; it simply means with a shrug of the shoulders: "We don't know, care, or want to know."

I also recommend geophysicists research the decay rates of radioactive materials in the plasma state and use those decay rates to estimate the age of zircons. This request seems reasonable because Earth's long-lived radioactive elements in the solid state may well have passed through ionizing environments prior to cooling at or near the earth's surface. And, those same materials at or near Earth's' surface may also have experienced millions of years of exposure to cavitation, solar wind, and cosmic radiation.

Another reason to research the decay rates of radioactive elements in the plasma state would be to explore the possibility of storing radioactive wastes in ionizing environments. In ionized environments, the radioactivity of some, maybe all, of those materials would neutralize over relatively short periods of time. For example, the half-life of rhenium transformed to osmium diminishes from 42 billion years to 33 years when fully ionized (Bosch et al. 1996). Under fully ionized conditions, a ton of rhenium-187 would diminish by half in 33 years and to 16 pounds in 230 years.

### Literature Cited

Beattie, P. D. 1993. The generation of uranium series disequilibria by partial melting of spinel peridotite; constraints from partitioning studies. Earth Planet Sci. Lett. 117:379-391.

Bosch, R., T. Faestermann, J. Friese, F. Heine, E.Wefers, K. Zeitlhack, K. Beckert, B. Franzke, O. Klepper, C. Kozhuharov, G. Menzel, R. Moshammer, F. Nolden, H. Reich, B. Schlitt, M. Steck, T. Stohlker, T.Winkler, and K. Takashashi. 1996. Observation of bound-state B-decay of fully ionized 187Re: 187Re-187Os Cosmo chronometry. Phys. Rev. Lett. 77(26):5190-5193.

Cardone, F., R. Mignani, and A. Petrucci. 2009. Piezonuclear decay of thorium. Physics Letters A, 373(22):1956-1958.

De Meijer, R. J., and W. van Westrenen. 2008. The feasibility and implications of Nuclear georeactors in Earth's core-mantle boundary region. South African J. of Sci. 104:111-118.

He, F., X. Zhang, B. Chen, and M. Fok. 2010. Calculation of the extreme ultraviolet radiation of the earth's plasmasphere. Science China. 53(1):200-205.

Meshik, A. P. 2005. The workings of an ancient nuclear reactor. Scientific American. 293(5) _:_ 82-91.

Paleo Group. Available online (May 2013) at www.dinosaurc14ages.com or "fossil carbon dating and paleochronology."

Rubin, A.E. 2013. I pity astronomers. Scientific American. 308(2): 36-41.

Schweitzer, M. H. 2010. Blood from stone. Scientific American. 303(6):62-69.

Stober, D. 2010. The strange case of solar flares and radio elements. Stanford University News. (Available online, August 23).

Stokstad, E. 1996. Earth's heart is in a spin. New Scientist. 2039:18.

Wang, B., S. Yan, B. Limata, M. Aliotta, H. W. Becker, J. Cruz, N. De Cesare, A. D'Onofrio, and Z.Fulop. 2006. Change of the 7Be electron capture half-life in metallic environments. The European Physical J. A-Hadrons and Nuclei. 28(3):375-377.

Xu, Y. and A. Butt. (2005) Confirmatory experiments for nuclear emissions during acoustic cavitation. Science Direct. Nuclear Engineering and Design 235(2005): 1317- 1324. Available online at www.sciencedirect.com.

Zimmer, C. 20001. How old is it? National Geographic. 200(5):78-101.

# Darwin - Truth in Detail

Theories of the wholly natural/materialist evolution of species are not new. Durant (1933:72-75) reported that Greek culture produced pre-Darwinian evolutionists 2,500 years ago. Anaximander (610-540 B.C.) posited multiple universes and evolution of land animals from the sea:

...astronomic history periodically repeated itself in the evolution and dissolution of an infinite number or worlds...that life had first been formed in the sea, but had been driven upon the land by the subsidence of water; that of these stranded animals some had developed the capacity to breathe air, and had so become the progenitors of all later land life...

Furthermore, Anaxagoras (500-428 B.C.) speculated that man's intelligence was linked to the development of the "opposable digit" or "the power of manipulation that came when the fore-limbs were freed from the tasks of locomotion." Anaxagoras was apparently an evolutionists who attributed ultimate causes to intelligent design. Plutarch (46-51 A.D - 120-130 A.D.) recorded that Anaxagoras: "was the first of the philosophers who did not refer the first order of the world to fortune or chance, nor to necessity or compulsion, but to pure, unadulterated intelligence..." (Eliot, editor 1909:39).

Heraclitus (530-470 B.C.) hinted at evolutionary struggle, natural selection, and law:

Where there is no strife there is decay: "The mixture which is not shaken decomposes..." In this flux of change and struggle and selection, only one thing is constant, and that is law.

Empedocles (fl. 445 B.C., in Sicily) noted:

Organs arise not by design but by selection. Nature makes many trials and experiments with organisms, combining organs variously; where the combination meets environmental needs the organism survives and perpetuates its like; where the combination fails, the organism is weeded out; as time goes on, organisms are more and more intricately and successfully adapted to their surroundings.

Finally, Leucippus (fl.445 B.C.) noted that "Everything is driven by necessity" and Democritus (460-360 B.C.) taught that "there is no design; the universe is a machine." Thus, we see that Darwin's ideas were not new and that those old ideas and assumptions persist today in the minds of philosophical materialists and in the publications of some popular magazines.

For decades, _National Geographic_ has been a champion of Darwin's model on evolution of species, at least in theory. Today, authors still line-up the "ancestors" of modern man ( _Homo sapiens_ ) in an ascendant fashion to illustrate Darwin's model of phyletic, gradual evolution (Fischman 2011). They show _H. erectus_ coexisting in time with _Australopithecus boisei_ , _A. robustus_ , _A. sediba_ , _H. rudolfensis_ , _H. habilis_ , _H heidelbergensis_ , _H. neanderthalensis_ , and our own species _H. sapiens_. Of interest, some paleontologists continue to place _H. rudolfensis_ and _H. habilis_ in the more primitive genus _Australopithecus_. The point is that all those hominid species, "ancestors" and modern man, coexisted with our proposed ancestor _H. erectus_. Coexistence of progenitor and descendant species does not fit Darwin's model of macroevolution.

Aside from the non-Darwinian aspect of _H. erectus_ co-existing with its predecessor and descendent species, the fossil evidence does not allow us to reasonably place in direct lineage coexisting species. Wood (2014:45) noted:

The presence of multiple evolutionary branches at any one time makes it much more difficult to identify direct ancestors of modern humans than paleontologists anticipated even 20 years ago.

Supposedly, modern humans and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor some 5 to 8 million years ago. So, how many species could we compress into those few million years if we had to line them up in direct lineage leading from tree-dwelling simian to human being? Tattersall (2014:56) noted that most mammal species persist for around 3 million years. Thus, we could squeeze two or three species between the common simian ancestor we share with chimps and ourselves.

That is not gradual evolution and it is not reasonable, until proven otherwise, to think that random gene mutation is capable of accomplishing such evolutionary leaps. As Behe (2014:179) observed: "...random mutation cannot take multiple coherent molecular steps." This is not to say that speciation does not occur through mutation but rather that undirected, random mutation has shown itself to be severely limited in what it can do. See "mutation" in "Definitions/Notes" at the end of this essay. Mutation that is not random falls into the category of design or programming.

In the fallacious alignment of our "ancestors," evolutionary biologists and paleontologists have thrown in a few new players; e.g. _H. heidelbergensis_ between _H. erectus_ and _H. sapiens_ (Wong 2012) and a possible want-to-be or two. Neanderthal man has fluctuated between being a separate species and a subspecies of modern man. However, no investigators argue with the coexistence of _H. erectus_ with its ancestor genus _Australopithecus_ and its supposed descendent species that included modern man. Paleontological speculators and some evolutionary biologists continue to ignore the fact that these kinds of information are in direct opposition to Darwin's theory of the gradual evolution of populations into new species and they ignore the confusion that reasonably should follow the fact of multiple evolutionary branches coexisting. They fall back on the speculations of rapid evolution of species in isolation. We'll tackle this issue in the discussion of "punctuated equilibrium" and "epigenetic niche match" later on in this essay.

Darwin believed that speciation through geographic isolation occurred rarely but that the gradual evolution of whole populations into new species best explained the origin of species. The problem with speciation of isolated, small populations was that microevolutionary changes based on existing gene pools could be rapid and small areas lacked the variable landscape features needed to stimulate variation in the species. Species changes in small, relatively simple habitats suggested mysterious, non-Darwinian saltation processes. Rather, natural selection acting on random variation within a large, wide ranging population required innumerable, infinitesimally small steps to account for the production of and coordinated changes in complex organs, structures, and functions. Complexity conjoined with abrupt appearances of complexity smacked of mind and active planning and conflicted with Darwin's agenda to render the origin of species a wholly natural, mindless process.

At the college level, I found the origin of species of relatively minor importance because my education focused on ecology and population biology. My interest and concern was primarily with extant populations in the context of their environments. Evolutionary biology was an ethereal sideline and theories on the origin of species was of interest but not critical to my function. My job was to identify and quantify how members of a living species survived and prospered or failed to do so. One can manage environments and populations to benefit or deter species without speculations on their origins. However, I did understand Darwinian gradualism as a theoretical explanation for the possible origin of species. And that is why I chuckled when I read in _National Geographic_ that our "ancestors" coexisted with us and with each other.

As a Christian, I had few problems with evolutionary theories because the complexity of nature and my own sense of self-awareness spooked me well beyond a need to explain away God. Aside from early questions tied to materialist evolution and philosophy, the investigations of numerous individuals; e.g., Behe et.al. (1999) and Behe (1996 and 2014), Meyer (2009 and 2013), (Stanley (1998), (Strobel (2004), Wells (2000), and Woodward (2006) have shown that Darwin was incorrect in the specifics of his claims for the origin of species. These authors presented a lot of information that refuted the hopes and claims of those trying to hold on to some semblance of Darwinian gradualism.

Another reason Darwinian gradualism posed no significant threat to my faith in God was that I saw no conflicts with species of plants and animals developing from other species of plants and animals through random and nonrandom evolutionary processes. I noted that Genesis did not explain the processes God used to make life from the elements of the earth and that God made various "kinds" of organisms that were equivalent to our present classification of organisms at the family and subfamily level. That the family or subfamily produced numerous genera and species did not differ with the biblical rendition of creation.

Furthermore, the biblical record noted in Genesis 2:2: "And on the seventh day God finished the work that he had done..." I speculated that God rested from his project, not because God needed rest, but because he had completed the information systems and hardware planning for the Earth project. He wanted to take a moment to admire his completed work and he wanted to set an example for laboring mankind. Take time and pleasure in the work of your hands and mind and of his "hands" and mind...and "smell the roses."

Some Christians have argued that God quit working after creation and therefore creation does not change/evolve. However, in response to accusations against Jesus for "working" on the Sabbath, Jesus said in John 5: 17b: "My Father is still working, and I also am working." Could it be that what God finished in Genesis 2:1 ("Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all their multitude") referred to software/information programming? In like manner, when Bill Gates finished the software program "Windows 95" in the mid-90s, he completed it. Of course, the whole purpose of the finished program was that it was usable for investigating numerous new possibilities and for manipulating, generating, storing, and sharing information.

I suggest that in initial creation, God established the hardware and software plans for running the Earth project and for subsequent creation, replication, and sustaining of life in all its complexity and beauty. By definition, "evolution" simply means **ordered** development like the opening of a flower, all programmed and planned by God in detail. God's software program was designed to provide biological life and ultimately the arrival of choice, developed to the highest degree in us human beings. This concept of God's completion of complicated software to operate within the confines of his natural laws fits well with the observed complexity of operations from the functions of living cells to the fine-tuning of the universe with the specifics required for life to exist. Part of this programming and fine-tuning we observe in the genetic variation that allows species to adapt to changes in their environments.

We observe, for example, change in body form, as did Darwin, in the production of domestic varieties of plants and animals. It would never occur to us, as it did to Darwin, that God did not create pigeons because domestic pigeons develop from wild pigeons. Darwin's thoughts now appear ridiculous because the appearance and retention of varieties within the species, though based on random mutation and selective breeding, does not produce new species. Notably, even the HIV virus which has an enormous mutation rate and has over the last few decades produced a hundred billion billion (1020) copies of itself, remains "a complete stick in the mud," having "developed nothing significantly new and complex" (Behe 2014:137-139,155). One may therefore rightly question Darwin's imagined conflict between the production of varieties/breeds of species through domestication processes and the biblical rendition of creation.

God said in Genesis l: "Let the earth put forth vegetation..." and "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures..." and "Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind..." Obviously, God did not mention any processes but he did produce organisms at the "kind" or "family" level that could produce thousands of species within the boundaries of each "kind". Some theologians assume God's designation of "kind" is the same as our designation of "species". But, like Darwin, they are incorrect in that assumption. The biblical "kind," as noted above, was most often used for the general classification of species groups, sometimes at the "family" or "subfamily" levels of current classification.

We note in the Law of Moses (Leviticus 11:22) God's list of edible insects:

Of them you may eat: the locust according to its kind, the bald locust ( _long-horned grasshoppers_ ) according to its kind, the cricket according to its kind, and the grasshopper according to its kind.

Obviously, in this reference, the Bible does not equate "kind" with "species" because there are numerous genera and species of crickets and of grasshoppers. For example, the Bible considers the locust a "kind" and the grasshopper a "kind" of animal. Modern taxonomists classify both of these "kinds" as members of the short-horned grasshopper family Acrididae. Matheson (1951:161) stated that the family Acrididae contains an estimated 8,000 different species. Similarly, the single class "cricket" and single class "bald locust" (long-horned grasshoppers), which the Bible classified as individual "kinds" are equivalent to the modern insect families Gryllidae and Tettigoniidae, respectively.

In like fashion, God said (Genesis 1:24):

...let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind: cattle and creeping things and wild animals of the earth of every kind.

In this reverence, one of the "living creatures of every kind" is the classification "cattle". Modern taxonomists place all genera and species of cattle into the family "Bovidae". Thus, the biblical "kind" in this reference refers to a family of mammals, not to a species. In Genesis 1:25, the Bible says that God made the wild animals of earth of every kind and the cattle of every kind..." The latter "kind" referred to bovine categories within the family Bovidae but possibly above the species level. Leviticus 11:29 refers to "...the weasel, the mouse, the great lizard according to its kind." Each of these animal groups could be considered a "kind" at classification levels above that of our current designation "species". Note that the Bible does not refer to "kinds" of cattle, mice, or grasshoppers, a demarcation we might take as a reference to our current classification "species".

Thus, the biblical "kind" refers to classifications often above the genus level; at the level of subfamily or family. Certainly, Noah would have had a relatively easier time of boarding on the ark one "kind" of deer, bovine, canine, feline, etc. rather than thousands of individual species. The "kinds" of animals could later microevolve numerous sister genera and species as programmed. The point is that speciation was planned and logic suggests that programming requires a Programmer.

I for one, think it reasonable to believe that God is responsible for the complex programming observed in the functions of biological life and in the fine-tuning of the universe. And, I suspect that Darwin's simplistic view of the functioning of biological organisms and his love of the materialist philosophy are largely responsible for his materialist, evolutionary theory. I suggest that the acceptance of his theory has played well with certain segments of society primarily because of its simplicity of explanation and because of its apparent ability to explain the origins of life without consideration of a supreme being. You might say that Darwin pushed the envelope on application of "Occam's razor"; that is, the simplest explanation with the fewest new assumptions is probably the best one. He basically and simplistically began his work _On the_ _Origin of Species,_ for example, with the simple assumption: "Once upon a time in the warm sea, there was a fully formed, functioning cell..." Darwinist Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919) in like manner described the cell as a "simple little lump of albuminous combination of carbon" (Behe 2014).

Darwin assumed the cell was simple and he assumed that the first 1-celled organism displayed the mechanistic laws of nature because the cell appeared, in his opinion, without the help of a designer... because wholly natural mechanisms produced all life forms. That was the simple, circular thinking characteristic of assumptions that appear repeatedly throughout the _Origin_.

Darwin's work does appear simplistic now, particularly when one looks at details in the _Origin_. In lieu of simply relying on statements from theoretical, evolutionary biologists and other true believers, I decided to make an analytical page-by-page study of Darwin's _On the_ _Origin of Species_ and decide for myself if Darwin's views had merit. Darwin's ideas, though presented in rambling, flowery language in his original work are fairly easy to understand and any biology student at the college level, assuming he/she has a great deal of patience, can understand and evaluate the _Origin_. One of the reasons for the simplicity of Darwin's work was that he did not have access to highly specialized information as we do today. He based his ideas on every day observations of the natural world, interpretations of which are open to question by the average observer.

For discussion purposes, I referenced the same topical captions used by Darwin in the _Origin_. First I will address Darwin's reason for writing the _Origin,_ will provide generally accepted definitions for "species" and the biblical "kind," and will discuss the tautological (see Definitions/Notes at the end of this essay) character of Darwin's persistent designations of "laws". I will then proceed to select representative examples of Darwin's arguments from each section and follow each with a critique. For this review and critique, I used _The Origin of Species._ Signet Classics. September 2003. New American Library, Penguin Group (USA) Inc.

### Darwin's Purpose

As a philosophical materialist, Darwin's goal was to provide a materialist, mechanistic explanation for the origin of species. Thus, he addressed competing explanations, those forced upon him, that failed to comply with his set purpose. He frequently used numerous anecdotes, personal observations and opinions, highly questionable logic, abundant tautologies, and generalities as though they produced "facts" and invented "principles", "rules" and "laws of nature" to support his materialist assumptions. He assumed the role of a crusader-attorney in passionate efforts to push his case.

Sound experimental science is based the testing of hypotheses and on repetition of experiment with control and test conditions for comparison. The _Origin_ by contrast is the product of a historical scientific investigation. Such investigations rely on the formulation of competing hypotheses and adopting those inferences that lead to the best explanations (Meyer 2009). Historical sciences include such disciplines as paleontology, archeology, cosmology, geology, forensic science, and criminology. Investigators, in the light of known processes, examine current evidence and hypothesize on past events (causes) that could have produced that evidence.

In the case of _On the Origin of Species_ , I have taken Darwin's opinions and hypotheses and offered some of my own and those of others to show how easy it is to derive logical but contrary opinions to Darwin's interpretations, tautologies, anecdotes, "facts", "principles", "rules," and "laws of nature". Because the average biology student at the college level can do this, one wonders why the world was so ready to embrace Charles Darwin. Why do many still strive and strain to save Darwinian gradualism?

### "Species" and "Kind" Defined

A _species_ is a group of individuals having many characteristics in common and differing from all other forms in one or more ways. The individuals of a species are all derived from a common ancestry, are related by "blood," and can breed with one another to produce fertile offspring that resemble the parents. As a general rule separate species do not interbreed, though hybrids between species do occur occasionally. (Storer and Usinger, 1957:232).

Another definition from Ernst Mayr (1997:129):

_A_ _species_ ...is a group of interbreeding natural populations that is reproductively (genetically) isolated from other such groups because of physiological or behavioral barriers.

The biblical " _kind_ " of plant or animal referred to a classification of organisms above the species level and equivalent to the "family" or "subfamily" class used by modern taxonomists. Of interest, Behe (2014:218) mathematically calculated that random mutation could not account for the origin of complexity in organisms above the classification of either genera, families, and/or orders.

### Tautological Nature of "Laws of Nature"

Members of every discipline regularly violate the rules of logic by using tautological statements. As explained under _Definitions/Notes_ at the end of this essay, a tautology is a restatement of a concept in different words to produce the illusion that the author has thereby provided additional information when in fact he/she has not. Darwin regularly "discovered" new "laws of nature" and affirmed them tautologically throughout _On the Origin of Species_. When it comes to tautologies, Darwin would be classed as a frequent flyer. Watch for them.

One of the best ways to recognize a "law of nature" as opposed to a tautology is to question whether or not the "law" describes repetitive phenomena that can be expressed in precise mathematical terms. For example, the laws of motion, gravitation, conservation of energy, and thermodynamics can be mathematically expressed and have calculable and predictable values.

By contrast, Darwin often did and other philosophical materialists frequently do imply that their repetitive observations fall under the veil of "scientific laws," implying both causal relationships and a kinship with the mathematical precision of the law of gravity. I will illustrate this ruse with an illustration.

Cell biologist Stuart Newman of New York Medical College has proposed that unattached, individual cells may have the power to self-organize into groups in different ways to produce new body plans (Newman and Bhat 2009, Meyer 2013:301). This process occurs under the direction of "regulatory genes" that quite fortuitously and inexplicably hold vast amounts of genetic information within the unattached cells. Newman hypothesizes that the unattached, disorganized cells get together and form new body plans through self-organizing, epigenetic processes absent of the neo-Darwinian processes of gene mutation and natural selection.

In his theoretical illustration, Newman describes how certain epigenetic processes proceed by specific stages, reminiscent of the programmed development of a fertilized egg. What Newman glosses over is any physicochemical origin/source of the specified, functional information required for his hypothetical model of self-organization to work. Of course, the development of a fertilized and undifferentiated egg into a human being in nine months requires a cataract of stages, mind-boggling in both number and complexity, guided by specified epigenetic and genetic sources of biological information.

Because digital information is the basis of cellular function, any valid model for evolution must address its origin, source. Rather, Newman designates developed stages, implying understood processes, to give the impression that he has addressed and explained basic causal operations at the cellular level. He has therefore confused his hypothesized, proximate results ("observed" stages) with explanations for the origin of the ultimate controls/causes of cellular functions; that is, biological information.

I am going to compare Newman's "Dynamical Patterning Modules" (Meyer 2013:301) with my "Darwinian equivalents". My "Darwinian equivalents" are the kinds of tautological phraseology Darwin was fond of using to give the impression that a biological process or stage was understood in detail and explained in materialist terms. I suggest that my "Darwinian equivalents" contain as much information as Newman's "explanations" for complex developmental stages, be they real or hypothesized:

Newman's Dynamical Pattering Modules

Stage l - Causes adhesion among a group of unaggregated cells, allowing for multicellularity. (" _Darwinian Equivalent"- Law of loose cells sticking together.)_

Stage 2 - Takes a group of aggregated cells and allows co-existence of alternative cell states within the group. (" _Darwinian Equivalent" - Rule of differentiated cells still-sticking together.)_

Stage 3 - Takes an aggregated group of different types of cells and allows separation of cells into multilayered tissues. (" _Darwinian Equivalent" - Principle of tissue-forming.)_

Stage 4 - Takes a group of aggregated cells and causes formation of interior cavities. (" _Darwinian Equivalent" - Law of hole-making.)_

Stage 5 - Takes an aggregated group of cells and causes elongation of tissues within a plane. (" _Darwinian Equivalent" - Rule of cigar-shape formation.)_

Stage 6 - Takes an elongated tissue and chemically induces oscillation of cell patterns allowing segmentation of a body plan. ( _"Darwinian Equivalent" - Principle of the chemical formation of body divisions.)_

As can be clearly seen from the rather comical effect above, sets of words can produce the appearance of sense and the appearance of the details of a step-wise process. However, simply putting a name or several names on observed stages of embryonic development or hypothesized stages of some imagined biological process produces only the appearance of a causal connection within and between stages. The question is not that aggregates of cells go through stages during embryogenesis but what ultimately causes them to do that? Without information on the origin of digital information that guides cellular processes, why would anyone assume that complex and fully functional body plans appeared rapidly through some process of unguided, spontaneous generation?

In like fashion, Darwin's adding the word "law" or "rule" or "principle" to identify a repetitive occurrence provided no information on ultimate causes of and regulation of any process. His word "law" was simply an iteration to affirm his materialist philosophy that wholly natural processes produced all life forms and to leave the impression that the causes of the process were understood/explained. Nor does Newman's hypothesized model of self-organization for the production of new body plans address the origin of the specified, functional information required for his model to work (Meyer 2013: 300-309).

### Protein

This essay refers repeatedly to the complexities of the cell and to the DNA digital code required to produce proteins. Therefore, it is important to have some knowledge of proteins and their functions and their origins in order to grasp the significant gap between what really happens in the cell and the simplistic assumptions of Darwinian gradualism. This write-up will provide a brief overview of a few cellular functions required to produce proteins in that factory that is the cell.

Protein is a basic nutrient important in the development and maintenance of the human body. You can get the protein your body requires by eating meat, eggs, beans, and dairy products. And, if you are not squeamish, you can get protein from eating crickets and grasshoppers, too. Those kinds of proteins are what we are talking about here but I want to emphasize their important functions in living organisms. This will be a simplified presentation for two reasons: 1) the simplified version is all I understand and 2) proteins and their functions are recognized but not fully understood by the experts.

Proteins are what make the cell work. Virtually everything the cell does, various kinds of proteins accomplish. Bruce Alberts, President of the National Academy of Sciences, introduced this issue with an article entitled. "The cell as a collection of Protein Machines" (Behe et al, 2000:66). In his article Alberts stated:

We have always underestimated cells...The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines...Why do we call the large protein assemblies that underlie cell function protein machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts.

If you go inside a factory that makes automobiles, you will find all kinds of tools and parts and numerous machines and robots and computerized systems full of information for ordering the assembly of vehicles. Intelligence is required for building all the tools and machines and for all the electric wiring and energy inputs and for the creating of all the various computer programs that guide the robots and control other machinery. In like fashion, the cell, which is much more complicated in its operations than any automobile factory, uses a wide variety of proteins and combinations thereof to carry out all the functions of the cell, including self-replication.

Just as the particular shape and constituent parts of a hammer or screwdriver or engine block or engine part determines its effective use, each protein has its specific shape and molecular and chemical composition in order to function individually or in unison with other proteins. DNA provides the specific digital information required for making all the proteins the cell requires to function and to replicate.

The DNA code is in the sequential form of four chemical compounds called nucleotide bases; that is: guanine (G), adenine (A), thymine (T), and cytosine (C). The specified sequence of these nucleotide bases on the DNA molecule is what determines ultimately the shape and chemical constituency of a particular protein. The production of a relatively simple protein requires the specific sequencing of about 150 nucleotide bases. Making a more complex protein may require a specified sequence of 250 or more nucleotide bases. Of interest, there is no explanation for the origin of the specified sequences of nucleotide bases along the spiraling DNA molecule. The chemical properties of the nucleotides nor of corresponding amino acids determine a single genetic code (Meyer 2009:248).

The cell makes proteins by application of the DNA code. A molecule called the "messenger-RNA" goes over to a section of the DNA and copies the particular sequence of nucleotide bases in the same medium, that of nucleotide bases. The messenger-RNA then travels over to the ribosome in the cell and delivers its sequential information there. The ribosome is a molecular machine that translates the sequence of nucleotide bases into 3-letter "codons". Each codon consists of three bases and directs the cell to attach a specific amino acid to its growing chain of other amino acids (Meyer 2009:103). Once the DNA code is translated into the specific sequence of amino acids by the ribosome, the specified sequence of amino acids (polypeptide) then takes the right functional shape to form the specified protein. This protein then takes its place in the translation, transcription, and replication processes required for the cell to function. Thus, proteins are not just meat you eat but are shaped and constructed to be the tools and complex molecular machines and housing the cell requires to function. On to the critique of Darwin's work.

# Chapter I - Variation under Domestication

Darwin believed that man's process of selection for varieties of domestic plants and animals was basically the same biological process that nature uses in the wild to create species. That is, he did not recognize a difference between micro- and macroevolution. Microevolution produces varieties within the genetic potential of a species through selective breeding by man or by natural selection. By contrast, macroevolution is the theory that all life forms evolved from the same 1-celled organism through natural selection acting on random variation.

In the case of domestic varieties, according to Darwin, man selected which plants or animals with specific characteristics will reproduce, and in nature, the process of natural selection chooses which individuals will survive to reproduce. Darwin believed that domestic varieties of the same species were in the process of becoming new species.

Critique

Today, we see the comparison of Darwin's phyletic evolution (gradual changing of a whole population of organisms into a new species) with the development of domestic varieties a bit ludicrous... in light of the fact that breeders of dogs and pigeons and wheat have, notwithstanding random mutations, failed to produce anything but varieties of those species. Genetic engineering/modification, however, by intelligent design may enable us to produce some mixed creatures from parental materials? Maybe mankind will realize Darwin's dream that man can make new species, with monsters in the mix?

Causes of Variability

Darwin believed that the "nature of the organism" and its environment produced variation in the individual (Pages 31-32). He provided several examples to explain how "the nature of conditions" caused variation in a species. He said that the amount of food can affect the size of the individual and the nature of the food can affect the species' color. Climate influences the toughness of the skin and the density of the hair (Page 32). His belief was that such changes were newly acquired and were incorporated into the nature of the organism and that those new characters were heritable by the individual's offspring.

Darwin explained:

Many facts clearly show how eminently susceptible the reproductive system is to very slight changes in the surrounding conditions.

By contrast, surrounding conditions do not affect the reproductive systems of rabbits and ferrets because "they breed freely" in hutches (Page 33).

The "nature of the organism" had obvious influence on "variation" because Darwin observed that frequently species produced similar looking offspring under different environmental conditions. It appears that what Darwin meant by "variation" was the production of individuals that looked different from the parental stock. The "nature of the organism" was an obscure concept, something that resisted change in the individual and at the same time, something that enabled the individual to change its physiology and structure in response to environmental changes or in response to changes in its own behavior.

Critique

Darwin's view that the amount and quality of food alter inheritable characters and create additional variation in the species found some validation in recent epigenetic studies. John Cloud (2010:51) reported:

...if you over stimulate genes for say, obesity or a shortened life span, your kids can inherit these over activated sequences. That could mean a lifetime of battling unfavorable gene expression.

However, contrary to Darwin, the production of calluses on the skin from use and seasonal thickening of the fur of animals in winter are physiological reactions that do not represent newly acquired variation in the individual. It is surprising that Darwin failed to notice or mention that numerous mammals in temperate and colder climates have different coats of hair in summer and in winter. The variation that appears in domestic varieties generally reflects variation in the extant gene pool or gene mutation, which would most often reduce survivability in the wild.

Darwin noted that the "nature of the organism" obviously influenced available variation because he noticed that species frequently produce like offspring in different environments. That is, the "nature of the organism" controls available variation by not changing its form regardless of the different habitats it occupies. And, on the other hand, the "nature of the organism" is thoroughly plastic and readily changes its structure and organs in response to changes in its environment or in response to changes in its own behavior.

Unbelievably, in the first case, Darwin observed that numerous species were apparently the same in different environments, which discredited his assumptions about the organism changing itself in a Lamarckian manner to fit its surroundings. In the second case, from his imagination, Darwin reaffirmed his belief that the "nature of the organism" created variation by automatically adjusting its own structure and organs to better fit its environment. Darwin's purpose here was to ignore his observations and, from his basic Lamarckian assumptions, insist that organisms were flexible and were constantly evolving into new organisms.

If changes in the living conditions produce variation in the organism, variation represents a vitalistic, programmed, and/or epigenetic response to the environment. Such concepts point to highly complex, programmed adaptations. See "Epigenetic Niche-match" in "Notes/Definitions" at the end of this essay.

I find it hard to understand why Darwin failed to question the complexity of physiological processes required to produce variation in a species. He appears to have looked at generalized results, all of which he classed as "principles," "rules," or "laws of nature" to gloss over the complexity of the unknowns inherent in his observations. "Law" was the gap-word for the inexplicable; an iteration insistent upon belief in metaphysical materialism.

Effects of Habit and of the Use or Disuse of Parts; Correlated Variation; Inheritance

Darwin believed that "changed habits produce an inherited effect..." and the "increased use or disuse of parts" can change the inheritable characters of an animal or plant (page 34). It was a simple law of nature that if an animal stretched its neck to reach higher forage, for example, the giraffe, the individual animal would get a slightly longer neck and would pass that character on to its offspring. Acquiring a slightly longer neck produced a new "variation". And, if the giraffe stretched its neck less often because forage was closer to the ground, the individual giraffe would develop a shorter neck. Thus, Darwin was a firm believer in the mysteries of Lamarckian evolution.

As was his practice, Darwin cited examples of the laws of variation from his observations of domestic animals. He observed that the wing bones of the domestic duck weigh less proportionate to the rest of the bird's bones and the leg bones of the domestic variety weigh relatively more than they do in the wild duck. Darwin said that the reasons for these changes and differences between the wild duck and the domestic duck were because the domestic duck flies less and walks more than does the wild duck. He also noted that utters of domestic goats and cows were larger from use in countries where people milked those domestic animals for food/drink.

By "correlated variation," Darwin simply meant that when a variation appears (a plant or animal that looks different from its parents), the resultant animal/plant is often different from its parents in several structures. He stated:

...if man goes on selecting, and thus augmenting, any peculiarity, he will almost certainly modify unintentionally other parts of the structure, owing to the mysterious laws of correlation ...the number and diversity of inheritable deviations of structure, both those of slight and those of considerable physiological importance, are endless (Page 35).

Thus, Darwin believed in the total plasticity of biological life; that individual animals and plants change and that over time they, through numerous generations, can change into limitless different kinds of beings. He believed that the individual changes in its inheritable characteristics simply by the use or disuse of its parts.

Darwin further noted that "The laws governing inheritance are for the most part unknown" (Page 36). It appears he meant laws other than those based on his observations as described above. I assume this is the case because Darwin produced emphatic/dogmatic statements about the total plasticity of species and how the individual acquires inheritable changes in its physiology and structure through changes in its behavior.

Critique

Again, Darwin's belief that the giraffe's neck grew longer because the animal stretched its neck to reach higher browse, was a Lamarckian and vitalistic concept. Why would an organism be organized/programmed to a point where it acquires a specifically needed character by simply repeatedly expressing that need? Imagine the first pre-mammalian mother deciding that she could better nourish her offspring by the development of a mammary system; and the system begins in infinitely small steps to accommodate her vision for the future. All she has to do to get the system started is to behave like she is providing some form of pre-milk for her offspring. The organism would have to be programmed to accommodate new biological information that can produce complex changes in the structure and functions of organs.

Another example: how could natural selection, operating through environmental pressures ever select for a reduction in the 6-ounce femur in a whale? And if the reduction of the whale's femur occurred because of disuse, what is the origin of the program for instigating small changes of no apparent survival value? Of course, neo-Darwinists believe random mutation is the answer to all evolutionary changes.

However, the chances of random mutation producing anything new are remote. Random mutation simply shuts down or deregulates gene expression; it cannot produce new regulatory systems, genetic circuitry, nor molecular machinery through the development of new protein-protein interactions. Behe (2014:154) observed:

Since we see no new protein-protein interactions would develop in 1020 cells, we can be reasonably confident that, at least, no new cellular systems needing two new protein-protein interactions would develop in 1040 cells \- in the entire history of life...

As noted above, Behe (2014:155,154,135,172) said that "In 1020 copies, HIV developed nothing significantly new or complex" such as protein-protein interactions, and that the probability of developing a functional fit between two proteins through random mutation is also about one in 1020. Thus, any new cellular system that required two new protein-protein interactions, could expect to achieve those add-ons through random mutation with one chance in 1040 cells. According to Behe, that's more cells than likely have ever existed in the history of the world. Such odds play poorly for Darwinian evolution through random mutation when one considers, for example, that the common and abundant cilium, a hair-like paddle used to move some 1-celled organisms around, is composed of hundreds of integrated protein parts.

Character of Domestic Varieties; Difficulty of Distinguishing between Varieties and Species; Origin of Domestic Varieties from One or more Species

Darwin believed there were so many different breeds of domestic animals because these animals descended from several distinct wild species. He believed that the appearance of varieties of domestic animals was a step toward creating a new species. He referred to varieties of domestic species as "incipient species." He noted:

...domestic races of the same species differ from each other in the same manner as do the closely-allied species of the same genus in a state of nature, but the differences in most cases are less in degree (Page 38).

Critique

Darwin believed that there was so much variation among domestic species because those domestic species were derived from the crossbreeding of different wild species. Darwin was generally wrong about domestic species originating from the cross-breeding of different wild species and he was incorrect about domestication creating new species. Domestic plants and animals, regardless of numerous varieties and random mutations, remain within their respective species boundaries.

Breeds of the Domestic Pigeon, their Differences and Origin

In this section, Darwin described his views on the breeding of domestic pigeons. He concluded that through selective breeding, mankind had produced breeds that would pass for distinct species if encountered in the wild:

Altogether at least a score of pigeons might be chosen, which, if shown to an ornithologist, and he were told that they were wild birds, would certainly be ranked by him as well defined species (Pages 42-43).

Darwin also used his observations on the breeding of pigeons to conclude that slight changes accumulated through successive generations could produce new species. His observations of domestic pigeons enabled him to conclude that species produce new species.

Critique

Darwin thought domestication could produce new species. Today we view the production of domestic varieties of plants and animals to as a result of random mutation and microevolution within species boundaries.

Principles of Selection Anciently Followed, and their Effects

Darwin was redundant in this discussion of how man has developed varieties of domestic animals through selection. He noted that variation is acquired by the individual plant or animal by changes in the species' behavior or by environmental conditions that cause the individual to change in a Lamarckian fashion. The variation acquired by the parent then passes to the offspring and man then selects the characters he wants to breed for by breeding among offspring with the desired characters. What Darwin was fishing for in this section was an emphasis on the process of selection for slight changes. In the case of domestic varieties of plants:

...the continued selection of slight variations, either in the leaves, the flowers, or the fruit will produce races different from each other chiefly in these characters (Page 50).

Critique

Selection by man for desired characteristics in domestic varieties and the development of select varieties has been rapid, relative to Darwin's concept of time required for the gradual evolution of species populations. Thus, because the development of domestic varieties has been relatively fast and because domestication failed to produce new species, Darwin's use of the microevolutionary process of domestication of plants and animals was not applicable to his concept of the gradual evolution of all species from a single progenitor. If domestication affirms any "law of nature," it supports the stasis of the species class. Darwin continued to emphasize the gradual evolution of species because the rapid production of complexity in organisms smacked of programming by an intelligent agent.

Today scientists use particle guns to inject DNA fragments into plant cells to improve the genetic health of and fruit production by tomatoes. The tomatoes remain in the same species and the genetic change fostered by intelligent agents is heritable by the offspring (Freedman 2013). There is nothing Darwinian about any process performed by intelligent agents.

Methodical and Unconscious Selection

In this section, Darwin expressed his view that man selected for domestic varieties of plants and animals and that the selection process that made huge differences in domestic species was slow and worked on insensible changes. He shared an anecdote on the development of the English pointer to make his point that the selection process was slow and "insensible":

It is known that the English pointer has been greatly changed within the last century, and in this case the change has, it is believed, been chiefly effected by crosses with the foxhound; but what concerns us is, that the change has been effected unconsciously and gradually, and yet so effectually, that, though the old Spanish pointer certainly came from Spain, Mr. Borrow has not seen, as I am informed by him, any native dog in Spain like our pointer (Page 51).

In this instance, Darwin was working on his case to prove that selection in the state of nature could likewise produce all existing species from the same primitive ancestor (1-celled organism). His thoughts ran along these lines because he believed species were capable of unlimited change. Species were totally plastic and had the potential to become every other species, given time and the power of natural selection.

Critique

Notwithstanding his observations of domestic breeds of plants and animals and access to anecdotes about domestication processes, Darwin failed to notice that breeders of dogs, pigeons, horses, and wheat always produced dogs, pigeons, horses, and wheat. He stated that breeders generally were not aware of what they were selecting for in the production of domestic animals and that the process of domestication was slow, much like the gradual evolution of a species population through natural selection. To the contrary, I do not believe breeders have been blind to what they were looking for in the process of domestication and I believe they often obtained results rapidly. Nor do I believe that domestic species resulted from the blending of several different species in the wild. As stated above, Darwin's comparisons of domestication with his concept of macroevolution were invalid.

Circumstances Favorable to Man's Power of Selection

This section is a jumbled and redundant. Darwin declared:

A high degree of variability is obviously favorable, as freely giving the materials for selection to work on... (Page 55).

The only limits on the production of variability would occur if the species did not change its behavior and thereby increase or decrease the use of its parts or if environmental conditions do not change the species. In this case, man would have less variation available to select for in the domestication of plants and animals.

Darwin also noted:

When the individuals are scanty all will be allowed to breed, whatever their quality may be, and this will effectually prevent selection (Page 55).

Under the process of developing domestic species, Darwin dismantled his earlier statements on the total plasticity of species to produce unlimited variation:

No doubt, as Mr. Wallace has remarked with much truth, a limit will be at last reached. For instance, there must be a limit to the fleetness of any terrestrial animal... (Page 57).

This seems reasonable. It is not likely dog breeders will develop a greyhound that runs 600 miles per hour (966 kilometers per hour).

Darwin's concluding statement for this section and Chapter I:

Over all these causes of Change, the accumulative action of Selection, whether applied methodically and quickly, or unconsciously and slowly but more efficiently seems to have been the predominant Power (Page 58).

Critique

Darwin's concluding remark at the end of Chapter 1 was overstated and preachy. He failed to distinguish between variation expressed within species boundaries and his theory of the gradual evolution of a population of organisms into a new species. His supposition that microevolutionary processes apply to the macroevolution of all life forms from a common primitive ancestor (1-celled organism) was incorrect. I quote Denton (1986:86):

For Darwin, all evolution was merely an extension of microevolutionary processes. Yet, despite the success of his special theory, despite the reality of microevolution, not all biologists have shared Darwin's confidence and accepted that the major divisions in nature could have been crossed by the same simple sorts of processes. Skepticism as to the validity of the extrapolation has been generally more marked on the European continent than in the English speaking world. German zoologist, Bernhard Rensch, was able to provide a long list of leading authorities who have been inclined to the view that macroevolution cannot be explained in terms of microevolutionary processes, or any other currently known mechanisms.

Darwin noted that "Selection" was the "predominant Power" that produced "Change" (Page 58). Notwithstanding the needless capitalized letters for emphasis, Darwin only observed that man's selection produced domestic varieties of plants and animals. Perhaps he capitalized "Power" and "Selection" and "Change" to emphasize concepts he would subsequently apply to his macroevolutionary theory. But what has remained obvious about the domestication process is that breeders derived dogs from dogs and pigeons from pigeons without changing the species into a new species. I repeat myself in order to respond to Darwin's redundancy.

One can only guess at what Darwin meant by:

When the animals are scanty, all will be allowed to breed, whatever their quality may be, and this will effectually prevent selection (Page 55).

Because this statement was made in the middle of a discussion on parallels between domestication of species and macroevolution in the wild, I suspect Darwin was saying that inbreeding in a small population in isolation provides little variation for natural selection to act upon. This interpretation would explain his doubts about the importance of speciation in small isolated populations.

# Chapter II - Variation under Nature

In his introduction to _Variation under Nature_ , Darwin briefly discussed the terms "species" and "varieties". He said that naturalists had various definitions for "species" but that most people believed a species was a type of plant or animal created by God in an individual act. He noted also that "The term 'variety' was almost equally difficult to define" (Page 59).

Darwin supported the idea that when the "conditions of life" changed, the individual changed. The changes that the environment produced in the individual plant or animal made that plant or animal a new variety and the offspring of that plant or animal inherited those changes (page 59). Again Darwin fully embraced the vitalistic theories developed by Jean Baptiste Lamarck in the early 1800s.

Critique

The changes Darwin observed represented physiological and structural variation extant within the genetic boundaries of the species. He did not observe species evolving gradually into new species.

Individual Differences

Darwin defined "individual differences" as the "many slight differences which appear in the offspring" from the same parents in a confined locality. He said that these individual differences "afford materials for natural selection to act on and accumulate..." (Page 60). But he noted:

These facts are very perplexing, for they seem to show that this kind of variability is independent of the conditions of life (Page 61).

However, Darwin believed that a change in environmental conditions and/or in the individual animal's behavior caused adaptive physiological changes in the individual and that these changes could pass to the offspring. Thus, when he encountered different variations in the offspring from the same parent stock in the same geographical area, he was puzzled. He reasoned that such variations existed because they were "of no service or disservice to the species" and were therefore not subject to natural selection. Darwin noted that variation within the offspring of the same parents, which he could not explain, continued because "Natural Selection" had no "Power" to "Change" it.

Critique

Hypotheses to explain the origin of apparently extraneous variation in a gene pool include programming for future environmental conditions and genetic alteration caused solely by random gene mutation, or both. In addition, many behavioral and structural characters first considered extraneous by scientists and other observers, are later found to be beneficial or even necessary for the survival of the species.

Darwin believed that a change in behavior or environment mysteriously produced new variation in an individual's structure and physiology. His belief that such changes were heritable by the offspring was definitely a vitalistic, Lamarckian concept. He generally glossed over mysterious observations/beliefs and filed them under "principles" or "laws" or "rules". These are the same "laws" of determinism that forced Darwin to write _On the Origin of Species_. As a philosophical materialist, lacking all but the appearance of free will, he apparently had no particular logic nor choice but to do so.

Doubtful Species

In this section, Darwin said: "It should be added that De Candolle no longer believes that species are immutable creations" (Page 67). It appears Darwin believed that if he could show that "species" and "varieties" were interchangeable and arbitrary classifications, he could show that the creation of new forms of plants and animals was a wholly natural process. He noted that the systematists/taxonomists of his day differed a lot in their methodology for classification and in their classifications of the same plants and animals. Thus, Darwin concluded that species of plants and animals were ill-defined and unstable because the individuals and their populations were fluid and always changing. Such changes over long periods of time produced new species.

Darwin stated:

Hence I look at the individual differences, though of small interest to the systematist, as of the highest importance for us, as being the first steps towards such slight varieties as are barely thought worth recording in works of natural history... A well marked variety may therefore be called an incipient species... (Page 68).

Critique

Darwin believed that species were in the process of changing into new species and that there were few cases where change, given great spans of time, was limited. Thus, his purpose in this section was to push the idea that classification of organisms was arbitrary and difficult because populations were constantly changing into new species. Of course, many of his conclusions about the origin of species were based on his observations of varieties of domestic plants and animals. To date, the breeding of domestic plants and animals has allowed none to escape its species boundaries.

Wide-ranging, Much Diffused, and Common Species Vary Most

The title of this subject needs little elaboration. Generally, species that are abundant and widely distributed have a more varied gene pool than species that are localized and small in population size. In Darwin's view, large populations evolved into new species that replaced their progenitor species. Speciation in small, isolated populations seldom occurred because smaller ranges provided more simplistic living conditions that would create less variation in the species for natural selection to act upon.

Smaller populations were also subject to the deleterious effects of inbreeding.

Critique

In this section, Darwin was correct and incorrect. He believed that widely distributed species developed more varieties that were developing into new species. He was correct about widely distributed species generally displaying greater genetic diversity. He was correct thinking that small isolated species with small ranges frequently lose genetic potential through inbreeding. He was generally incorrect, however, to think that wide ranging, large populations of a species are in the process of creating new species.

This fundamental cornerstone of Darwinian gradualism has been dropped, I think I can safely say, by most evolutionists in favor of Gould and Eldridge's (1977) "allopatric speciation" and more recently by "evolutionary developmental biology" ("evo-devo"). See "Definitions/Notes" at the end of this essay for a brief explanation of "evo-devo".

I see "allopatric speciation" as "Darwinian gradualism in a relatively small isolated population where speciation approaches warp speed." According to Gould and Eldridge, the fossil record does not support the evolution of large, well established and widely distributed populations. I will discuss Gould's hypothesis later in this essay.

Species of the Larger Genera in Each Country Vary More Frequently than the Species of the Smaller Genera

Darwin said that species from genera with more species, had more varieties within the species; that is, they had more variation for natural selection to act upon. He stated:

All that we want to show is, that, when many species of a genus have been formed, on average many are still forming; and this certainly holds good (Page 71).

Critique

We could observe that when a species or genus has a lot of genetic potential or produces numerous phenotypes (different body forms), the chances of some offspring successfully responding to environmental changes are better. We cannot say, as Darwin supposed, that the potential of most species to change is without boundary. His statement that "many ( _species_ ) are still forming" (Page 71) from large genera was a hypothesis and possibly tautological. Genera with many species may rapidly produce new sister species (see _epigenetic niche-match_ under _Definitions/Notes_ ) in a nonrandom, non-Darwinian fashion. Or, perhaps genera with many species have a lot of species. Again, Darwin was trying to establish support for the gradual evolution of a large, widely distributed populations into new species, as opposed to rapid speciation in small isolated populations.

Many of the Species Included within the Larger Genera Resemble Varieties in Being Very Closely, but Unequally, Related to Each other, and in Having Restricted Ranges

Within this topic Darwin again attempted to show that life is fluid/plastic and that the classification of species is unfounded and arbitrary:

We have seen that there is no infallible criterion by which to distinguish species and well-marked varieties... (Page 71).

He said that there are relatively small differences among species from large genera (those with numerous species) and that those differences are comparable to those found among varieties within some species:

Now Fries has remarked in regard to plants, and Westwood in regard to insects, that in large genera the amount of difference between the species is often exceedingly small (Page 72).

Darwin further noted that "some sagacious and experienced observers" concurred with his view. He failed to identify these prominent and important observers.

Critique

Today DNA sequencing processes distinguish genera, species, and individual differences. Cytochrome c sequence analysis, for example, showed equal distances at the biochemical level between the various classes of organisms (Denton 1986:274-307). That is, each taxonomic class appears distinct from other classes. By contrast, while the hardware (body type) of various species are radically different, the master regulatory genes from insect to human being are the same. That observation questions the power of random mutation to change regulatory genes, suggests common descent, and makes one wonder about the origin of complex gene regulatory programs. I wonder how these kinds of information would have impacted Darwin's need to show connectedness among the classes of organisms.

### Summary

Darwin concluded:

...the amount of difference considered necessary to give to any two forms the rank of species cannot be defined (Page 73).

He further noted that species with numerous varieties were analogous to genera with numerous species. He said that the species of large genera and the varieties from species with numerous varieties, were more similar than those species from small genera and those varieties from species with fewer varieties. He hypothesized that species were therefore not created individually by God:

And we can clearly understand these analogies, if species once existed as varieties, and thus originated; whereas, these analogies are utterly inexplicable if species are independent creations. (Page 73)... _and_ , Thus the larger genera tend to become larger... _and_ ...the larger genera also tend to break up into smaller genera (Page 73).

Critique

Darwin's arguments noted above against creation by God is equivalent to saying that God could not have made wild pigeons because intelligent agents developed domestic varieties from wild pigeons. As pointed out previously, Genesis 1 said that God made animals of every "kind". Darwin, as have some theologians, assumed that man's classification "species," which he repeatedly asserted to be arbitrary, was the same classification as God's class "kind". But Darwin was clearly incorrect about the biblical definition for "kind". In Leviticus 11:22, as noted in the _Introduction_ above, the Bible referred to both grasshoppers and crickets as "kinds" of animals. Thus the biblical "kind" obviously refers to a class above the genus level because there are numerous genera and species of grasshoppers and crickets.

If animals breed and plants cross pollinate and produce viable offspring in the wild, they are members of the same species. And, if they do not, they are not members of the same species whether taxonomists can tell them apart or not. That definition is not as arbitrary as Darwin would have us believe, nor does saying so produce supposed connections among distinct/disparate classes of organisms.

In his statement that "...the larger genera also tend to break up into smaller genera," Darwin appeared to embrace a kind of "top-down" adaptive radiation of new genera from a single founder species. Because "genus" is an abstract classification and not an organism, it is unclear how a single species produces other members in the hierarchy above the species level without large evolutionary leaps.

# Chapter III - Struggle for Existence

Darwin described in his introductory remarks for this chapter "how species arise in nature;" that is, how "that varieties, which I (Darwin) have called incipient species, become ultimately converted into good and distinct species... (Page 74). He explained that there are slight variations among individuals and varieties and these slight modifications provide benefits, which the individual passes on to its offspring. Because food and water and other resources are limited relative to the number of offspring, there is a struggle for existence and those individuals who inherited beneficial modifications from their parents will have greater chances to survive and reproduce. Darwin further noted:

I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term Natural Selection, in order to mark its relation to man's power of selection. But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer of the Survival of the Fittest is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient (Page 75).

Critique

It is now common knowledge from paleontological studies that, unlike the Darwinian model, species appear and disappear abruptly. Aside from changes in size, mammalian species, for example, do not change in their morphology (bone structure) throughout their existence as a species. Thus, according to empirical information, natural selection showed no power to change species morphologies (e.g., Prothero and Heaton 1996 and Eldredge and Gould 1972).

Tattersall (2014:56) noted that the average lifespan of an established mammalian species is 3 to 4 million years. Because our species diverged from a common ancestor shared by modern chimpanzees only 6 to 8 million years ago, there could only be two or three species leaps between us and our simian ancestry. Not Darwinian.

The Term, Struggle for Existence, Used in a Large Sense

Darwin gave examples of his perception of the "struggle for existence" in the natural world. He pointed out that the struggle was not only to assure the life of the individual but also its opportunity to reproduce successfully. He pointed out that predators compete with each other for meat and that plants compete for water and mistletoe berries compete with other fruit for dispersal of seed by fruit-eating animals.

Because wolves and dogs snarl over food and plants without adequate sunshine or water welt and die, the struggle for existence appears obvious. Most school children acknowledge and recognize the "struggle for existence" among plants and animals.

Critique

As noted above, all the obvious snarling and struggle of individuals within and between species failed to impact the morphology of animal species during the life of the species, according to the fossil record.

Geometrical Ratio of Increase

Darwin discussed the tendency of plant and animal populations to increase geometrically. That is, without natural controls on populations of species, the numbers of individuals increase at an increasing rate. Unchecked by predation, disease, or limited natural resources, plants and animals would in a relatively short period of time fill all available space. Darwin's conclusion: "A struggle for existence inevitably follows from the high rate at which all organic beings tend to increase" (Page 76).

Critique

The struggle obvious to Darwin because of the tendency for species to increase geometrically, as noted above, had no power to change the morphology of species that appear in the fossil record during the existence of those species. In other words, the fossil record has failed to produce the numerous intermediate links between species. Species appear abruptly and do not change in bone structure, except for occasional changes in size, for the duration of the species. Microevolutionary selection within extant gene pools and random gene mutations that do not allow the individual to escape the species class could account for changes in size.

Nature of the Checks to Increase

On pages 79-81, Darwin discussed examples of the decimating factors that suppress populations of plants and animals. He provided examples of species populations in the struggle for their existence. He discussed the tendency of species to produce more offspring than the natural resources can sustain in the ensuing struggle for survival.

Critique

Darwin did not present new information here. He previously noted that species produce more offspring than natural resources can sustain and therefore there is a struggle for existence. Under the guise of providing additional information, he noted that because there are predators and disease and limited resources, species must struggle for existence. Of course, he could not have known that future paleontological studies would show that the morphologies of species fail to change over time regardless of the struggles of individuals. Most mammalian species, for example, abruptly disappear intact from the fossil record after a life of 1 to 4 million years (Prothero and Heaton 1996, Eldredge and Gould 1972, Stanley 1979, Tattersall 2014:56).

Complex Relations of All Animals and Plants to Each Other in the Struggle for Existence

Darwin noted that Scotch fir trees were planted on an ungrazed portion of English heath. He was surprised that a host of new species appeared where the Scotch firs were planted. He assumed that the "new" species of plants were somehow associated with the presence of Scotch firs. He believed that there existed some affinity caused by the presence of the Scotch firs that allowed a whole new set of plant species and more vigorous examples of existing plants to appear with the firs. He saw these developments as expressions of complex relations of plants to their environment.

Darwin further noted that when cattle were allowed to graze, they repressed, controlled, and sometimes eliminated the Scotch firs. He believed excessive grazing illustrated the influence of herbivory on plants (a reliable conclusion). He observed that when farmers removed cattle from the pastures, the plants responded positively. These observations illustrated the complexity of relations in nature and provided obvious examples of the struggle for existence.

Darwin said that there was a fly in Paraguay that laid its eggs on the navels of newborn horses and cattle. The maggots of this fly killed the newborn cattle and horses, and thereby prevented feral individuals of those domestic species from occupying large areas. He was likely referring to the screwworm fly ( _Cochliomyia hominivorax_ ). Darwin believed that the fly controlled the numbers of grazing and browsing animals, which in turn controlled the plant life. He thought that if certain insectivorous birds were to decrease in the area, the flies would become too numerous and would devastate their prey animals, some of which controlled and determined the plant life that was allowed to exist.

It would appear that Darwin's vision of the complex interactions among herbivores, parasites, and plant life provided additional information to emphasize that there had to be an ongoing struggle for existence among species, and that the struggle enabled selective forces to change species into new species.

Critique

As noted by Darwin, the relationships of plants and animals to each other and to their environments are often complex. However, programming of biological information rather than random chance under the direction of natural selection readily explains biological and ecological complexities. Remember, the fossil record, as redundantly stated above, shows species appear and disappear abruptly without gradual, step-wise changes.

Struggle for Life Most Severe between Individuals and Varieties of the Same Species

Plants and animals most similar in their structure, physiological needs, and behavior are most likely to compete with each other when resources are limited. This statement appears obvious and logical. Under this topic, Darwin cited several examples of closely related species displacing each other. In consolation, Darwin attempted to ease his harsh vision of nature's war for survival:

When we reflect on this struggle, we may console ourselves with the full belief that the war of nature is not incessant, that no fear is felt, that death is generally prompt, and that the vigorous, the healthy, and the happy survive and multiply (Page 87).

Critique

Darwin gave examples of species displacing other species but provided no examples of species turning into other species. He also failed to note that species often disappear rapidly, not because of competition among species but because new predators appear; e.g., microbes.

It is not clear how Darwin knew that animals being killed experience no fear. Perhaps the fearlessness of animals was another one of his numerous "rules" or "laws" or "principles" of nature.

# Chapter IV - Natural Selection; or the Survival of the Fittest

In his usual rambling way, Darwin asked his readers to focus on the obvious struggle for existence in the natural world and on the power of selection by man to produce domestic varieties of plants and animals from wild stock. He further noted that the relations of "all organic beings" are "infinitely complex and close fitting" to each other and to the "physical conditions of life" (Page 88). His conclusion from his observations was that nature provided a strong power of selection to fine tune and produce new species of plants and animals. The process by which nature produced the slow changes in plants and animals to produce new species, he called "Natural Selection or Survival of the Fittest" (Page 88):

...natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, the slightest variations; rejecting those that are bad, preserving and adding up all that are good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life (Pages 91-92).

He defined "nature" as the "aggregate action and product of many natural laws," and "laws" were "the sequence of events as ascertained by us" (Page 88).

Critique

It is redundant for me to state that according to the fossil record, species appear and disappear abruptly without the evidence of change required to support Darwinian gradualism. In addition, the power of selection man has used to acquire domestic plants and animals from wild stock has failed to create new species.

Darwin's concept of his "natural law" was virtually anything that he believed happened or appeared repeatedly without a natural explanation. It simply was; e.g., the appearance of the fully functioning, replicating, living cell from the primordial soup. He believed in the application of "Occam's razor;" that the simplest explanation for phenomena is more likely to be accurate than more complicated explanations with more assumptions. Thus, anything that happened or was assumed to happen repeatedly, was the result of a "law of nature" and required no further elucidation. One is prone to wonder if Darwin would have written _On the_ _Origin of Species_ had he known of the complex machinery and digital information required for the operation of a 1-celled bacterium.

Sexual Selection

Darwin noted that sexes of animals within a species were different. He hypothesized that often females selected specific males because they were more physically fit or more melodious or more beautiful than other males. Those males selected therefore had a greater chance of breeding and passing on their sexually preferred characteristics to their offspring. And those males rejected produced few or no offspring. This process, Darwin called "selection". He further noted that some sexual dimorphism was not related to sexual selection:

The tuft of hair on the breast of the wild turkey-cock cannot be of any use, and it is doubtful whether it can be ornamental in the eyes of the female bird... (Page 96).

Critique

Darwin made numerous statements without any knowledge of their validity. A case in point was his conclusion that a turkey beard on a gobbler has no survival value and likely no sexual appeal to the hen. Such statements provided no real support for his cause and had no scientific merit. The question as to the origin of female bird preferences for "beautiful" males apparently never entered Darwin's mind? If an observation provided a mystery, it was deemed irrelevant and fell into the abbess of "laws," "rules," and "principals" of nature.

The concept of sexual selection does provide a bit of a conundrum. Why does all-powerful natural selection allow a female bird to select for bright colors and outlandish courting behaviors in the male bird, open displays that can subject the male to higher rates of predation? Why do not female birds fall in love with reclusive males, well-camouflaged? Of course, there are numerous possible answers/hypotheses. Perhaps there is an absolute concept of beauty, often shared among different species? For example, humans find the colors in flowers that attract pollinators or the colors in birds and fish that attract suitors, pretty. The concept of beauty as an absolute, though repeatedly experienced in the worlds of many organisms, does not fit Darwin's philosophical materialism.

Illustrations of the Action of Natural Selection, or the Survival of the Fittest

Darwin provided several examples of how natural selection/survival of the fittest produced new varieties and subsequently new species of plants and animals. All of the examples were hypothetical because he had no real data to use. He said of wolves preying on deer:

...the swiftest and slimmest wolves would have the best chance of surviving and so be preserved or selected... (Page 97).

The stocky and fat, slower wolves would catch fewer deer, I suppose, and would therefore be subject to starvation. Darwin noted:

...according to Mr. Pierce, there are two varieties of wolf inhabiting the Catskill Mountains, in the United States, one with a light greyhound-like form, which pursues deer, and the other more bulky, with shorter legs, which more frequently attacks the shepherd's flocks (Page 97).

Darwin imagined a kind of bird that "could procure its food more easily by having its beak curved" and if nature produced an individual or individuals with curved beaks, those birds would have higher survival rates and would pass on the curved beak to more offspring. Over a span of time the entire species would change and prosper because of the development of the curved beak. He described his vision of the gradual evolution of a large continuous population:

...each newly-formed variety would generally be at first local, as seems to be the common rule with varieties in a state of nature; so that similarly modified individuals would soon exist in a small body together, and would often breed together. If the new variety were successful in its battle for life, it would slowly spread from a central district, competing with and conquering the unchanged individuals on the margins of an ever-increasing circle (Page 98).

From his imagination, Darwin described relationships between pollen-devouring insects and flowering plants evolving together, tree species evolving from having female and male flowers on the same individual trees into male and female trees ...to "be advantageous on the principle of the division of labour..." (Page 100). He provided other hypothetical examples to illustrate how natural selection or survival of the fittest worked to produce new species. These examples illustrated how:

...Natural selection acts only by the preservation and accumulation of small inherited modifications, each profitable to the preserved being; and as modern geology has almost banished such views as the excavation of a great valley by a single diluvia wave, so will natural selection banish the belief of the continued creation of new organic beings, or of any great and sudden modification in their structure (Page 102).

Critique

Imagination produces non-evidence - long-legged wolves chasing deer and short-legged wolves catching sheep? Try submitting that observation today for publication in the _Journal of Mammalogy._ Darwin said that evolution was a slow process and that species do not change rapidly. It is common knowledge now that the fossil record supports the pattern of the abrupt appearance and abrupt disappearance of species and the persistence of species' morphologies unchanged during the lives of the species (Stanley 1979; Eldridge and Gould 1972). The purpose of Darwin's imaginary examples of the evolution of whole populations from a core area within the extensive range of a large population was to support his concept of the gradual evolution of a species population. The abrupt appearance of new species and physiological and structural complexities pointed to programming and was too vitalistic and mysterious to accept.

On the Intercrossing of Individuals

In this relatively short discussion, Darwin talked about sexual reproduction by plants and animals that possess both male and female parts. He also discussed hybrid vigor that results from crossing varieties within a species and the detrimental effects of inbreeding within small populations of plants and animals.

Critique

Inbreeding in small isolated populations can reduce gene frequency/available variation. Thus, Darwin speculated that speciation occurred through the gradual evolution of whole, large populations with extensive ranges.

Circumstances Favourable for the Production of New Forms through Natural Selection

In this section, Darwin described the best conditions for the production of new species. As noted above, he believed large, continuous populations provided the best conditions for the production of new species. For example, large land masses provide room for large populations of plants or animals. Species with access to large ranges also must contend with varying environments that expose the species to differing selective forces. Competition, Darwin believed, was more intense for species that had large ranges than for species in isolation:

Although isolation is of great importance in the production of new species, on the whole I am inclined to believe that largeness of area is still more important, especially for the production of species which shall prove capable of enduring for a long period, and of spreading widely (Page 108).

Darwin believed species in isolation were less subject to modification than species in large, continuous habitats because smaller populations provided less variation for natural selection to act upon. Also, he said that the inorganic conditions of a smaller areas were more uniform and natural selection would therefore modify all the individuals of the same species in the same manner (Page 107).

Regarding the production of new species, Darwin ended this section:

That natural selection generally acts with extreme slowness I fully admit (Page 110)...I can see no limit to the amount of change, to the beauty and complexity of the co-adaptations between all organic beings, one with another and effected in the long course of time through nature's power of selection, that is by the survival of the fittest (Page 111).

Critique

Notwithstanding my obvious redundancy, the paleontological record supports the pattern of species appearing abruptly, living out their lives without substantial changes in their morphology, and disappearing abruptly (Stanley, 1979). Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge (1972) reviewed the fossil record in the 1970s and determined that the process of evolution happens in spurts and then stays unchanged for the life of the species. Gould and Eldredge called their new model of evolution "Punctuated Equilibrium". Of course, "Punctuated Equilibrium" is primarily a snapshot of species history in the fossil record and not an explanation of process.

Gould and Eldredge provided a hypothetical model for the process of speciation that they called "allopatric speciation". This model might be described as Darwinian gradualism in the parent population, followed by speciation conducted with apparent lightning speed (geologically speaking) once a small segment of the population is isolated, peripheral to the parent species' range. Gould believed natural selection occurred between species rather than between individuals within the species. The competition between species occurred once the isolated, new offspring species regained access to the parent species' or to a sibling species' range (Meyer 2013: 144).

One of the chinks in the theory of "allopatric speciation" concerns the step-wise development of beneficial mutations in genes housed by but not expressed in the parent population. How did the parent population develop superior genes ever so gradually in the Darwinian fashion but fail to make any use of those superior traits? How did the parent population develop multiple add-on, beneficial traits that failed to benefit the parent population?

According to the "allopatric speciation" model, relatively small populations of offspring, isolated from the parent population, extract beneficial changes in organs and structures inherited from the parent population. These beneficial mutations were originally stored by the parent population in "junk" DNA or non-coding portions of the DNA.

With greater chances for inbreeding in a small population, favorable traits have a greater statistical chance of appearing and being "fixed" or expressed and retained in a relatively small population. Of course, inbreeding within a small population virtually always leads to deleterious losses of genetic diversity. But, for the sake of the "allopatric speciation" argument, let us ignore that recurrent negative effect.

Thus, the offspring species in isolation, through inbreeding and random selection, finds and fixes the superior traits, formally stored in the junk DNA of the parent population, and then evolves rapidly by random chance into a superior species. Natural barriers over time diminish and the offspring species gains access to the large range of its parent species. Subsequently, the superior offspring species replaces the parent species through inter-species competition. Not surprisingly, the "allopatric speciation" hypothesis depends upon mutation of extant genes and offers no explanation whatsoever for the origin of the highly specified information those genes provide. For a formidable critique of neo-Darwinian hypotheses on the mechanisms underlying "allopatric speciation," see Meyer (2013: Chapters 7-14) and Behe and Snoke (2004) and Behe (2014).

Darwin was aware of the dangers of rapid speciation to his materialist model. Structures and organs were too complex and functionally fine-tuned to undergo coordinated changes unless developed step-wise ever so gradually. Rapid speciation in isolation offered no support for Darwin's vision of gradual evolution by wholly natural causes.

Meyer (2013:37-38) explained Darwin's obsession with gradualism:

...In the Origin, he ( _Darwin_ ) sought to counter the famous watch-to-watchmaker design argument offered by theologian William Paley. Paley had argued that just as complex structures such as watches necessarily issue from intelligent watchmakers, the complex structures in living organisms must likewise owe their origin to a designing intelligence. With natural selection, Darwin proposed a purely natural mechanism for constructing the complex organs and structures (such as eyes) present in many forms of life. His mechanism of natural selection worked by constructing such systems one tiny step at a time, discarding the harmful variations and seizing upon the rare improvement. If evolution progressed by "whole watches" - that is, by entire anatomical systems like the trilobite's eye - then biology would have fallen back to the old absurdity of imagining that a watch could fall together purely at random and all at once. Thus, unless Darwin's evolutionary mechanism worked gradually by preserving the tiniest of random changes over many millions of years, it didn't work at all.

The fossil evidence asks: What is left of the Darwinian model for evolution? The answer - nothing except the assumptions that all species evolved from a common primitive (1-celled) ancestor and that intelligence was not involved in the creation of biological life in its myriad forms. Nothing is left but hope and faith...hope and faith in metaphysical materialism.

Extinction Caused by Natural Selection

Darwin repeated his gradualist model for evolution of species. He noted that because biological organisms tend to increase geometrically, each area will be fully stocked (Page 111). Thus, because of competition for limited resources, the "favored forms" will increase in number and the "less favored forms" will decline in number. Species with the largest number of individuals will have the greatest chances of producing favorable variations within a given time period. As new species in the course of time are formed through natural selection, others will become rarer and rarer, and finally extinct (Page 112). Extinction, like evolution, by the necessity of competition, must also occur ever so slowly.

_Critique:_ It is apparent that Darwin believed that species developed gradually over time and that those species and varieties of species that were less adapted to their environments, in like fashion, slowly faded into extinction. He failed to recognize the role played by the abrupt appearance of new predators in the extinction of species. For example, the introduction of foxes, house cats, and rats into Australia in the last century caused the extinction of numerous native species within fifty years. A virulent strain or introduced microbe can exterminate a population of plants or animals in a short period of time in an obviously non-Darwinian fashion.

Divergence of Character

The principle, which I have designated by this term ( _divergence of character_ ), is of high importance, and explains, as I believe, several important facts (Page 112).

Darwin's wordy statement appears to apply, though vaguely so, to rather simple concepts in this section. He referred to an observation that varieties within a species have more in common than they do with other species. He also restated his belief that varieties within a species are incipient species. He then continued to explain how a variety becomes a new species with his usual reference to the microevolutionary and simple mutation processes involved in the process of domestication:

As has always been my practice, I have sought light on this head from our domestic productions (Page 113).

Darwin used several examples, including selection for swifter horses. Horse breeders tested their horses and kept the fastest horses to breed and they eliminated the slower individuals from their breeding stock. Over time, this selection process produced the fastest horses. Darwin used this illustration to show how natural selection produces new species in natural settings:

Here, then, we see in man's productions the action of what may be called the principle of divergence, causing differences, at first barely appreciable, steadily to increase, and the breeds to diverge in character, both from each other and from their common parent.

This change in character in the animal through selective breeding appears to be what Darwin called "the principle ...of high importance"...that "explains several important facts" (Page 112).

Darwin further explained that the more diversified the members of a species become, the more often they will successfully fit into varied environments within their range. For example, a theoretical species of carnivore might have numerous varieties slightly modified to climb trees better, or use water better, or eat and utilize different food sources more efficiently than competing varieties or other competing species (Pages 113-114).

Additional observations convinced Darwin that:

The truth of the principle that the greatest amount of life can be supported by great diversification of structure, is seen under many natural circumstances (Page 114).

He believed that complex environments produced high species diversities because competition was most intense in complex environments:

In an extremely small area, especially if freely open to immigration, and where the contest between individual and individual must be very severe, we always find great diversity in its inhabitants (Page 114).

Critique

Darwin referred to "the principle" and then talked about his "principle" of how selection works on variation to produce new species and then talked about "the principle" that a varied environment has more species because competition (selective pressure) is more intense in more complex environments. This principle or these principles, for Darwin, "explained several important facts" (Page 112). Because Darwin's model was theoretical and the organization of his ideas loose and rambling, it is difficult to determine where in his mind existed the line between "fact" and speculation. He did not appear to distinguish between the two.

I do, of course appreciate the observation that, generally more species occur in more complex environments, but whether competition within and between species is more intense in simple or more complex environments is a matter of speculation. How does one measure such relationships and their intensities? Again, as noted above, it is odd to me that Darwin made such bold statements with little or no justification, aside from the need to support his case for the macroevolution of species within the acceptable framework of his philosophical materialist beliefs.

Darwin's statements about severe competition between individuals "in an extremely small area" (Page 114) appeared to support evolution within small, isolated populations and contradicted his usual emphasis on evolution of whole populations widely distributed over large areas.

The Probable Effects of the Action of Natural Selection through Divergence of Character and Extinction, on the Descendants of a Common Ancestor

In this section, Darwin provided a theoretical diagram, his evolutionary tree of life, to represent his view that new species, new genera, and new sub-families derive from a common ancestor. He noted that natural selection acts on new variations that appear in a large genus with numerous species and the fit survive to reproduce and pass on their advantages to their offspring. These offspring do the same thing and over a thousand or a million or more generations of this repeated occurrence, new species and new genera develop by wholly natural means. These new genera and species successfully fill all the new and changing living situations that the world offers (Pages 116-124). That the tree of life diagram represented a gradual process of evolution, Darwin fully admitted:

In the diagram, each horizontal line has hitherto been supposed to represent a thousand generations, but each may represent a million or more generations... (Page 122).

Critique

Darwin's evolutionary tree of life graphically presented his speculations on the gradual evolution of species once again, just with a different theoretical format. By contrast, Gingerich (l977) showed that the major orders of placental mammals appeared over a relatively short time period during the Paleocene and Early Eocene. Orders as diverse as rodents, primates, bats, whales, carnivores, and hoofed mammals appeared fully formed over a period of about ten million years. That explosion of mammalian orders must be considered rapid in light of the observation that the average life span of a mammalian genus is about 8 million years (Stanley 1998:83). That burst of evolution left little time for the many intermediate forms required under Darwin's gradualist model.

At this point, Darwin had created a problem. His tree of life icon conflicted with his model for the gradual evolution of a whole population, widely distributed over a large land area, into a new species. His evolutionary tree of life could only develop if single parent species gave rise to two or more new offspring species at the same time; particularly if, as Darwin insisted, the improved offspring are always in the business of replacing the inferior parent species. If the parent species always evolved into a new species, Darwinian gradualism would have only produced a single species on the planet. Thus, the tree of life model brings to mind the question of how multiple species derive from the same parent species without some form of physical isolation.

In Darwin's gradualist model, the offspring variety with superior modification spreads throughout the area occupied by the parent species and through competition, replaces the parent species. In this phyletic model, how do multiple varieties compete with each other and with the parent species to from two or more different species...without physical isolation and with continual crossbreeding? Under _On the Absence or Rarity of Transitional Varieties_ below, Darwin answered this question; albeit, with obvious awkwardness and rather comic effect.

He made an attempt to reign in his two disparate icons - the gradual evolution of a population and the evolutionary tree of life in light of the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record. He decided that there must be a "neutral zone" within the parent population. From this part of the parent species range, new modifications travel outward in **different** directions and modify different parts of the same population. Somehow, the offspring varieties evolve into separate species ever so gradually and without physical isolation.

At the same time, the various transitional forms that spread from the same "neutral zone" and are superior to the parent species, do not last as long as the various offspring species they eventually evolve into. This explains why the intermediate forms are not in the fossil record? Let's see...the superior and different varieties spread across different parts of the landscape and gradually replace the inferior parent population without replacing each other. And though they are superior offspring, they do not persist long because their own improved offspring ever so gradually but quickly replace them in order to explain their absence from the fossil record? Sounds like inexplicable twaddle to me.

Another problem. Darwin's tree of life (page 117) shows opposite stems branching from the parent stem. That is, each parent stem terminates with a fan-shaped diversion of sister species continuing on after replacing the parent species. Subsequent renditions of the evolutionary tree of life have offered trees with alternate branching of species while the main branch, representing the parent species, continues to coexist with its offspring. I suppose Darwin was happy enough with the apparent support and felt no need to correct his followers. As noted earlier in this essay, neo-Darwinists now ignore Darwin's insistence on replacement of the parent species by improved offspring species.

On the Degree to Which Organisation Tends to Advance

Darwin's opening statement:

Natural Selection acts exclusively by the preservation and accumulation of variations, which are beneficial under the organic and inorganic conditions to which each creature is exposed at all periods of life.

Thus, Darwin encapsulated in a single sentence his hypothesis to explain the origin of species. The question remained, however, as to the ultimate goals of his gradualist model? He said that the goals of his model for evolution among the Vertebrata was toward the development of intellect and the "structure to man clearly..." (Page 124). Other criteria for the goals of gradual evolution included the differentiation of parts and specialization of function and "the standard of high organization..." (Page 125).

Of course, the question of why numerous primitive species still exist and often remained unchanged through time required a ready answer. Darwin said that such species live under relatively simple conditions where competition is reduced and natural selection has little opportunity to modify them. Also, he said that some of these primitive species live in small, confined spaces where the number of individuals is relatively small and therefore less variation is available for natural selection to act upon (Pages 125-126).

Another argument to explain why some "primitive" species have remained unchanged by evolution was that they are more complex than thought, showing that they had evolved to a relatively complex, static state:

...for every naturalist who has dissected some of the beings now ranked as very low in the scale, just have been struck with their really wondrous and beautiful organization" (Page 126).

Critique

Darwin had a lucid moment when he considered the initial origin of apparently complex but "primitive" beings:

But as we have no facts to guide us, speculation on the subject is almost useless (Page 127).

It seemed odd that the vitalistic goal of natural selection was the perfection of intellect in man. That made me feel good, special, and almost loved by natural selection. Quite oddly, natural selection anticipated Shakespeare, Mozart, and calculus through the process of selecting for the most aggressive bacteria. And, we see that the "primitive species" that remained unchanged for several hundred millions of years were unchanged because their simple systems functioned in areas of low competition and secondly, because they were actually very complex organisms that had reached evolutionary perfection. That was the really great thing about Darwin's materialist model of evolution...it explained everything, albeit in contradictory terms if necessary.

Convergence of Character

Darwin doubted that two species from "widely distinct" genera in the same living conditions would converge to form a single genus. However, in like environments, species from related genera would develop the same "organization" and eventually produce a single genus:

...and thus the descendants of two distinct genera would converge into one (Page 127).

Complex environments would have numerous species but there would be smaller populations of those species. With smaller populations, these species would be more subject to extinction by environmental extremes and predators. Dominant, better adapted species would spread over wide areas and would cause the extinction of many species; this being the primary cause for extinction of rare species. He noted that invaders in the southeast corner of Australia had reduced the number of endemic species there and such processes limited the creation of new forms/species (Page 129).

Critique

To date, there is no evidence that different species from different genera in like environments evolved together to produce a new genus. Again, Darwin ignored the obvious impact of new predators on endemic species. It is likely that many marsupials in Australia disappeared and thereby failed to produce new varieties of themselves simply because introduced foxes, domestic cats, and rats killed and ate them. The introduction of the European hare into Australia fit into Darwin's view of loss of endemics by displacement. Such displacement provided as much support for gradualism as did the development of varieties of domestic pigeons from the rock dove.

Summary

Because of the apparent relatedness of groups of species, Darwin concluded that species were not independently created. He produced a theoretical "tree of life" or "diagram" to illustrate how he believed species gave rise to numerous other species and genera.

Critique

Denton (1986:125) noted:

...today zoologists find it impossible to relate the major groups of organisms in any sort of lineal or sequential arrangement.

The relatively rapid diversification of complex organisms; e.g., whole phyla of animals extant today, during the Cambrian explosion/radiation left no evidences for family tree linkages to previous organisms. Up to the time of the Cambrian radiation, there is no support for common descent. After the Cambrian, the fossil evidence supports a pattern of rapid, adaptive radiation of groups of organisms. Insofar as the Darwinian model of gradualism is concerned, evidence trumps materialist theories.

# Chapter V - Laws of Variation

Darwin believed there were two factors that caused variation in the species: 1) the conditions of life (environmental conditions) and 2) the nature of the organism. He stated that the "nature of the organism" was more important in creating variation in the species than was the organism's environmental conditions. He believed this to be the case because it was common knowledge that numerous species occupied highly variable habitats without notable differences within the species class.

According to Darwin, changed conditions of life created plasticity in the individual and the nature of the organism became more flexible and responsive to environmental changes. Darwin was not sure if natural selection acting on small successive changes or changes in the nature of the organism played a bigger part in the production of variation. On the other hand, because individuals within the same species frequently occupy such disparate living conditions, Darwin conceded that species have "a tendency to vary, due to causes of which we are quite ignorant" (Page 134).

Critique

Today we have an improved understanding of the mechanics of random mutations; e.g., insertions, deletions, gene duplication, and mobile DNA transpositions. We understand that random mutation works only with pre-existing machinery (Behe 2014:38, 62) and that all random mutations are diminishments and that they do not have the power to construct new protein-protein interactions (Behe 2014:77). Thus, we cannot account for the mechanics of new adaptations that lead to periodic and explosive speciation events on the planet like the Cambrian explosion. Oddly, Darwin thought natural selection played a role in the production of variation? Perhaps he had forgotten that natural selection can fix or undo variation in a population but has no power to create new variation? See _Mutation_ at the end of this essay under _Definitions/Notes_.

Effects of the Increased Use and Disuse of Parts, Controlled by Natural Selection

In this section, Darwin discussed the loss and gain of the structural parts of species. He believed that species could modify themselves by their behaviors. For example, if an individual bird flew less often, it would lose some of its ability to fly and would pass that diminished ability on to its offspring. Over time, if individuals of a bird species continued to fly less, the species would evolve to a flightless state. The ostrich is a result and example of this process. To support his belief, he referred again to his observations of domestic species:

...I think there can be no doubt that use in our domestic animals has strengthened and enlarged certain parts, and disuse diminished them; and that such modifications are inherited (Page 135).

By contrast, if individuals of a bird species flew more frequently, this change in behavior would create variations aimed at producing more powerful flight. In addition to the behavior of a species producing variation, natural selection would act upon and select for variations that were favorable to the species' survival. Darwin also suggested the possibility that offspring could inherit some effects of mutilations suffered by their parents:

...the remarkable cases observed by Brown-Sequard in guinea-pigs, of the inherited effects of operations should make us cautious in denying this tendency (Pages 135, 136).

Critique

Darwin's belief that behavior causes heritable changes in an organism's structure and organs may be in line with the new field of epigenetics. It also reminds one of Jean Baptiste Lamarck's vitalistic theory. Lamarck believed that the individual could strive for and acquire improvements in its lifetime and those improvements would pass on to its offspring. As each generation thereby improved, the species achieved perfection in adaptations to its surroundings. Oddly, Darwin never questioned the mysterious, vitalistic, teleological, programming components of his hypotheses on the "use and disuse of parts." That may be because his goal was to discover the "laws" of variation. Anything inexplicable or too complicated to understand fell into the black hole of "law" or "principles" or "rules" with total acceptance and without further question. Just get up from the obvious questions left on the table and walk away.

Changing the structure and behaviors of organisms would require changes in biological information, a something that has neither mass nor charge (Meyer 2009). The best inference to explain the origin of biological information is that an intelligent agent was responsible. The capability to make that inference should qualify as vitalistic.

Of interest, when I was in college, my professors ignored Darwin's behavior-caused structural and functional changes in the organism that were heritable by the offspring. Also, they failed to mention that offspring could inherit injuries to their parents. Perhaps my professors did not want to tarnish the memory of the icon of biological "science."

Acclimatisation

This discussion addressed the capacity of species to adjust to different climates. Darwin noted that dogs, as do a number of other domestic species, adjust to and live in cold and in hot climates. He accredited this ability of domestic and other species to adjust to changes in climates to "habit" and to "use and disuse of parts," often governed by natural selection (Page 141).

Critique

It appears that Darwin made no distinction between physiological adjustment of the individual to changing weather conditions and microevolutionary changes within the limits of the existing gene pool of a population. An example of microevolution would be the survival of smaller individuals within a species population isolated on an island. Because food resources are often scarce in small, isolated islands of habitat, the smaller individuals within a population are more likely to survive and produce offspring than are larger members of the population. Thus the island population microevolves toward smaller size without the introduction of new heritable characters or additional random mutations. If you take your pet cat to Alaska from Florida and it grows a thicker coat of fur, you will not have observed a recently acquired competitive edge in your pet.

To Darwin, organic beings were "plastic". Their "habit" and "use and disuse of parts" produced unlimited variation for natural selection to act upon. Variation without limit in species was apparently one hypotheses that rose in his mind to the level of established "law." Evolution with limits would cast doubt on his vision of all species evolving gradually from a 1-celled ancestor. Microevolutionary changes and simple, random mutation within a population and physiological adjustments of the individual to seasonal changes, which are empirically obvious, offered no evidence for escape from the species class nor support for the gradual evolution of all species from a single primitive ancestor.

Correlated Variation

I mean by this expression that the whole organization is so tied together during its growth and development, that when slight variations in any one part occur, and are accumulated through natural selection, other parts become modified (Page 141).

Darwin noted several examples to show how the appearance of various physical characters in plants and animals are often linked. He observed, for example, that white cats with blue eyes are often deaf and cats with the tortoise-shell color are female. Thus, a small variation that appears in a species will also produce other coordinated changes in other organs and structures. He referred to another scientist who had interesting observations on the evolution of snakes:

In snakes, according to Schlegel, the form of the body and the manner of swallowing determine the position and form of several of the most important viscera (Page 142).

Thus, alterations in "habit" can produce other fortuitous and linked changes in the species. Darwin said that the associated and heritable changes may provide no survival value to the individual:

Hence modification of structure viewed by systematists as of high value, may be wholly due to the laws of variation and correlation, without being, as far as we can judge, of the slightest service to species (Page 142).

Critique

For Darwin, the "law" of variation explained why species were "plastic" and variation unlimited. This "law" explained why so much coordinated, fine-tuning among complex organs and structures continued to develop in a mysteriously synchronized manner during the evolution of species into new species. We are expected to assume that because tri-colored cats are observed to be female; blind, random forces synchronized the production of irreducible complexities (Behe 1996) and derived complex information systems in the cell (Meyer 2009).

Contrary to Darwin's simplistic view, we now know that at the molecular and biochemical level, irreducible complexities appear. Cilia, for example, are little whip-like structures found on many cells, including protozoa and some cells in the human esophagus. These are little molecular machines that operate in synchrony to move fluids across the cell (Behe et al. 1999: 120-123). I suppose it was just fortuitous chance that simultaneously developed the two hundred protein parts required for the irreducibly complex cilium to function? Without each part being fully developed and operational, the cilium fails to function. It is therefore difficult to see how all those working parts developed slowly and in synchrony through the innumerable steps required of Darwin's gradualism. And, if such complexity appeared abruptly, intelligent design provides a more acceptable explanation than do chance or chemical/physical necessity. Darwin usually favored necessity; that is, "laws" of nature, whenever his theory hit a brick wall. If it was mysteriously complicated and reeked of intelligent design, it was just some "law," "principle," or "rule" in operation.

And, what are the probabilities of the chance appearance of variation through the production of new proteins and genes? Chemical engineer Douglas Axe investigated the probabilities of the evolution of a single functional protein by chance. He calculated that the probability of producing a functional protein of modest length (150 amino acids) by random selection was 1 in 1074 (Meyer 2013:185-204). The number 1074 is a 1 followed by 74 zeroes. For comparative purposes, there are 1065 atoms in the Milky Way Galaxy and 1080 elementary particles in the known universe.

Natural selection cannot play a role in evolution prior to the appearance of a functional protein. Thus, the neo-Darwinian model of gene evolution by chance is mathematically challenged in the extreme. Insofar as necessity is concerned, neither attraction nor repulsion among the specific nucleotide bases attached to the sugar-phosphate backbone of the DNA molecule can explain the functional sequences that comprise that molecule's specified, digital information (Meyer 2009:232-252). That is, neither chance nor necessity can explain the origin of the functional/specified arrangements of these nucleotide bases. By contrast, intelligent agents in our everyday world generate and receive specified/functional information continuously, providing a steady stream of solid information that verifies the existence, the intents, and the power of intelligent design.

Multiple, Rudimentary, and Lowly-organised Structures Are Variable

Darwin classified numerous, repeated phenomena as "laws" and "rules" or "principles". This subject addressed one of his "rules". He noted that when a part or organ appears in relatively large numbers in an individual, such as the vertebrae in snakes, the organisms tend to have variable numbers of those parts. By contrast, quadrupeds only have and always have four legs, a constant number of parts. Darwin said: ". ...beings which stand low in the scale of nature are more variable than those which are higher" (Page 145). Because natural selection has little chance to act on structures that are not specialized for specific functions, rudimentary and lowly organized organs persist in species. Thus, we have the "rule" concerning multiple, rudimentary, and lowly-organized structures.

Critique

Odd it is that "lowly" organisms changed so little over hundreds of millions of years. Darwin covered all bases by noting that primitive organisms remained unchanged for two reasons: 1) because natural selection had no power to change their less specialized structures into more specialized structures and/or 2) because the "lower" organisms had evolved to a state of evolutionary perfection (see _On the Degree to Which Organization Tends to Advance_ above). Are we to believe that a lack of specialization represents advanced levels of evolutionary perfection? Are we to believe that the "lower" organisms are "simple" at the biochemical level?

Different species of snakes have different numbers of vertebrae to accommodate species differences in size, which represents a form of anatomical specialization. In like fashion, most humans have a specific number of teeth, 16 in the mandible and 16 in the maxilla. These teeth include specialized incisors, canines, premolars, and molars. People born with small mandibles and maxillae sometimes have a single set instead of two sets of molars above and below. Most of these people get along fine with fewer teeth though the teeth are specialized rather than "primitive" structures. On the other hand, a person born without one or more limbs faces considerable adjustments to survive well. These observations, which do not show that teeth are "primitive" and limbs more evolutionary "advanced," provide no support for Darwin's vision of all organisms arising from a 1-celled ancestor through natural selection acting on unlimited variation.

A Part Developed in Any Species in an Extraordinary Degree or Manner, in Comparison with the Same Part in Allied Species, Tends to be Highly Variable

This subject constitutes another "rule of high generality" (Page 146). Darwin believed for example, that if a species had wings that differed a lot from the wings of other species in the same genus, the wings of that species would show a lot of variability. To make his point, he referred to his regular and trust-worthy data source, the domestication of species. He said that in domestic species, the rudimentary organs or those for less specialized purposes are variable. In pigeons he observed this variability in such organs: "the beaks of tumblers, in the beaks and wattle of carriers, in carriage and tail of fantails..." (Page 148). Species tend to revert to their inherited characters and to change due to inherent variability, both in nature governed by natural selection. Because of the changes in character are evident, for example, in domestic varieties, Darwin dismissed God as creator:

On the view that each species has been independently created, with all its parts as we now see them, I can see no explanation (Page 147).

Critique

This discussion was representative of Darwin's repeated argument that microevolutionary changes in populations and/or mutation within the species boundaries, as illustrated in the production of domestic varieties, proved his vision of the gradual, macroevolution of all species from a common 1-celled ancestor. It would seem a bit of a leap to conclude that God had nothing to do with the appearance of the rock dove because man derived numerous varieties of domestic pigeons within the species.

Specific Characters More Variable Than Generic Characters

A specific character is a character that differentiates a species within a genus from other species in that genus. A generic character is a character that links a species to other species in the same genus. Darwin provided an example of how specific characters are more variable than generic ones. If all the plants in a genus had blue flowers, the color blue would be a generic character. If some species in the same genus had blue flowers and some species had red flowers, the color of each species would be a specific character (Page 149). And, when a genus has species with red and other species with blue flowers, both colors are more likely to appear in a single species. Darwin said:

... that specific characters are more variable than generic, because they are taken from parts of less physiological importance than those commonly used for classing genera (Page 149).

Darwin believed that the greater variation in specific than in generic characters indicated evolutionary derivation from a common ancestor:

On the ordinary view of each species having been independently created, why should that part of the structure, which differs from the same part in other independently-created species of the same genus, be more variable than those parts which are closely alike in the several species? (Page 150).

Critique

Darwin's argument that greater variation occurs in specific than in generic characters is tautological. This is true because a genus is not an existing organism. Genus is simply an abstract category showing the anatomical similarities between/among sister species. Because taxonomists place species in the same genus class because of characters they have in common, it stands to reason that those relationships are based on characters species have in common. Thus, it is tautological to say that generic characters shared by sister species show small variability. They are not supposed to. If they did, the taxonomist would not place two discordant species into the same genus.

Darwin noted high variability within the species category? If one observes all the varieties of domestic breeds, one would conclude that gene pools at the species level (species are real organisms), show a lot of inherent variation. Darwin felt he was logical in saying that species belong to genera because they are similar in some characters and God did not make species because variation exists within the species. Not convincing.

Again, Darwin's question:

On the ordinary view of each species having been independently created, why should that part of the structure, which differs from the same part in other independently-created species of the same genus, be more variable than those parts which are closely alike in the several species? (Page 150).

That is: why would some parts shared by species of the same genus be more alike and other parts shared by the species of the same genus be more variable? Darwin apparently ignored the survival value of variation within the species boundary. Extensive variation in a wild population enables that population to adjust to radical and rapid changes in environment. Thus, the population can adjust to new or recurrent external pressures much as the immune system adjusts to invasions of decimating and variable microbes. Adaptability within the species does not mean God did not program species to be adaptable nor that God did not program species to produce sister species.

Secondary Sexual Characters Variable

Darwin said that the differences in secondary sexual characteristics between male and female gallinaceous (chicken family) birds illustrated that those characteristics are more variable than other species characters (Page 150). Darwin explained that the secondary sexual characters tend to be highly variable because sexual selection is more forgiving than natural selection. Rejection of a suitor is not final because the individual may find another mate and reproduce at a reduced rate but death through natural selection is final.

Generic similarities in the genus showed that natural selection had preserved those features that aided survival and variation in the secondary sexual characters showed that the species in the same genus derived from a common ancestor.

Critique

More variation in the secondary sexual characters among species in the same genus indicated a common ancestor and less variation at the genus level of classification showed that natural selection had preserved characters that are necessary for survival. I question that.

How odd it is that over millions of years, sexual selection failed to "perfect" the secondary sexual characters of species. I suppose that if every man was a gentleman there would be more blonds? Rather, I suggest that there is a lot of selection for variety in mates and that it is the fixed variation itself that has survival value for the species. Within a species, individuals show considerable variation because variation within the gene pool enables the species to make microevolutionary adjustments to new or changing environmental conditions. Sexual selection has survival value because it helps to retain variation in the species.

As noted above, basic characters at the genus level are the product of an abstract classification system. Taxonomists place white-tailed deer into the same genus as mule deer because both species have certain characters in common. It is a bit of a jump to say that, because taxonomists place some species into the same genus, bacteria mechanistically evolved into human beings.

Concerning the power of natural selection and the total plasticity of species, Stanley (1979) and Eldredge and Gould (1972) would remind us that species do not change, except in size, in their morphology (bone structure) over the life of the species. Thus, the species, during the existence of the species, does not change structure natural selection has repeatedly demonstrated no power to change the morphology of established species.

Distinct Species Present Analogous Variations, so that a Variety of One Species often Assumes a Character Proper to an Allied Species, or Reverts to some of the Characters of an Early Progenitor

Darwin defined "analogy" as:

That resemblance of structures which depends upon similarity of function, as the wings of insects and birds. Such structures are said to be _analogous_ , and to be _analogues_ of each other (Page 161).

Darwin relied on his observations of domestic species to explain the appearance of analogous variations among species and the reappearance of characters from an early progenitor. He repeatedly referred to microevolution in domestic species because "...we do not know the common ancestors of any natural group..." (Page 154). In this section, he discussed characters in domestic pigeons, Swedish turnips, and domestic varieties of horses and asses.

In the case of domestic pigeons, Darwin observed that different varieties will, for example, grow feathers on their feet, a character that wild stock did not display. He also noted that different varieties commonly produce evidences of the same parental stock; i.e., slate-blue contour feathers with two black bars on the wings, white loins, and a bar at the end of the tail:

...are characteristic of the parent rock-pigeon...I presume that no one will doubt that this is a case of reversion... (Page 153).

Darwin concluded that the varieties of domestic pigeons came from a common ancestor and were therefore not "closely related acts of creation" (Page 153). Darwin further talked about the spinal stripes and transverse bars on the legs of horses and asses to show that varieties of each of these species descend from a common ancestor and were not individually created.

Critique

We observe that domestication of species has not produced new species. I also suggest that today it is unreasonable to confuse the ultimate cause of "bird" with the proximate production of "fantail pigeon" by intelligent (human) selection. Darwin's reasoning that God could not have created the wild pigeon because man's intelligence selectively bred varieties of domestic pigeons was logically fallacious. Darwin would have us believe that God could not have been the ultimate creator of mankind because different races of man cross and produce mixed races of human beings.

# Chapter VI - Difficulties of the Theory

In this chapter, Darwin provided hypotheses to counter some of the most obvious objections to his theory of the mechanistic evolution of all species from a common, 1-celled ancestor. The first problem he faced was the absence of the innumerable transitional forms in the fossil record between "progenitor" and offspring species. The "crowd of difficulties" included the question of how natural selection acting on variation produced complex interdependent structures like the eye and at the same time accounted for the smallish tail the giraffe uses to swat at flies? Why does inter-species crossing produce no offspring or sterile offspring and crossings of varieties within a species produce hybrid vigor? How does a bat evolve from a wingless four-footed ancestor? And, foremost in Darwin's model was his mantra: "natura non facit saltum." Speciation cannot be abrupt. That is, speciation, in order be a wholly natural process, **must not** occur rapidly but ever so gradually by innumerable, infinitesimally small steps. That is Darwinian gradualism and everything else is not.

Critique

Good questions. The mantra "natura non facit saltum" is the foundation of Darwinian evolution and everything else is not; that is, is not Darwinian. We shall see that no weaseling can successfully skirt the evidence. Of interest, neo-Darwinists have largely ignored Darwin's concern with abrupt speciation because now we know that is how speciation happens. Neo-Darwinism is fundamentally non-Darwin.

On the Absence or Rarity of Transitional Varieties

The main reason transitional forms (missing links) failed to appear in the fossil record is because that record was incomplete (Page 162-162). Another reason for the absence of transitional forms was that they were relatively short-lived. A single species that inhabited a vast area would have access to various habitat types; for example, plains, rolling hills, and mountainous terrain. Varieties of this species would evolve through natural selection acting on variation to specialize in the mountains and on the plains. Darwin called the area between the evolving plains variety and evolving the mountain variety the "intermediate zone."

In Darwin's mind, the intermediate varieties developed in the "intermediate zone"/"neutral territory" and then spread out to replace the parental types across the different habitat types. Thus, the population of each of the innumerable steps, developed in the relatively narrow "intermediate zone" comprised relatively few individuals compared to the parent populations they replaced. Because they were relatively few in number, the innumerable intermediate forms were more subject to extermination by disease, adverse weather, and predation and were therefore less likely to appear in the fossil record.

Darwin insisted that the evolution of whole populations over a large continuous area provided the best fit with his gradualist model though physical isolation also played a part in speciation:

...many perfectly defined species have been formed on strictly continuous areas; though I do not doubt that the formerly broken condition of areas now continuous, has played an important part in the formation of new species... (Page 163).

Critique

Darwin insisted that the gradual evolution of species took place in large continuous populations. But, in an effort to explain the lack of intermediates in the fossil record, he suggested that the innumerable transitional forms were short-lived and few in number; that is, there were innumerable transitional forms but each form had few representatives to be fossilized for the record.

Unfortunately, the role played by the intermediate species/variety in the "neutral territory" was not clear. In Darwin's illustration, the missing link coexisted in time and was spatially adjacent to and connected with the species/varieties it replaced. The superior characters of the transitional form enabled it to replace the individuals of the same species across the landscape and then the transitional form died off precipitously because the numbers of individuals with the superior characters in the neutral territory were few in numbers. These superior individuals were more subject to extinction and died from stochastic events because there were fewer of them?

Thus the transitional forms existed in some form of isolation without physical isolation and their superior characters enabled them to replace adjacent varieties of the same species across the landscape. The superior characters of transitional forms expanded across the landscape while the superior individuals themselves remained in the neutral territory where stochastic events eliminated them. One unfortunate factor tied to being short-lived was that the transitional forms had little time to evolve gradually?

Was Darwin talking about the splitting of species through some form of isolation in the context of the gradual evolution of an entire population? This section represented considerable weaseling to make some kind of attempted mix from conflicting observations; e.g., lack of intermediates in the fossil record, rapid extinction of parental stock by superior progeny that evolved gradually, and isolating mechanisms without physical isolation. A certain amount of the _Origin_ is difficult to read and understand simply because it is pure contradictory, mumbo-jumbo nonsense.

Odd it is that with physical isolation, speciation events still failed to provide the evidence of the innumerable intermediate forms. So, in Darwin's mind, there had to be a narrow "neutral" or "intermediate zone" within a wide-ranging, continuous population for the production of superior intermediates that were inferior in numbers. And, of course, two or more incipient species had to evolve simultaneously from the same base population in order to provide support for branching in the evolutionary tree of life.

On the Origin and Transitions of Organic Beings with Peculiar Habits and Structure

In this discussion, Darwin provided a number of examples of species he considered to represent transitions between different species' habits of life. He cited flying squirrels and flying lemurs as illustrations of how bats evolved wings for flight. The former species used the skin flap joining their bodies and legs to glide between trees. This ability enabled them to escape their enemies and access food resources more quickly than similar, competing species. The structure of these species show how a bat developed flight from a gliding ancestor. Likewise, the flying fish that leaps out of the water and glides in the air to escape its enemies is a species transitioning toward actual flight.

The mink is a good swimmer. It catches fish like an otter in the water and on land forages like a weasel. The mink therefore represented a transition between the habits of an aquatic otter and a terrestrial weasel.

Some species show transition primarily in their habits and not their structure. The change in habit/behavior can change the structure of the species and sometimes a developing change in structure will change the habit of the species. A colleague of Darwin's observed an example of a change of habit:

In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, almost like a whale, insects in the water (Page 170).

Another example of species change of habit without change of structure is the way the water ouzel ( _Cinclus mexicanus_ ) gathers food. This bird is highly aquatic in its search for food but its structure is that of a thrush:

...the acutest observer by examining its dead body would never have suspected its sub-aquatic habits ... (Page 170).

Darwin also noted examples of birds using their rudimentary wings for functions other than flying:

Yet the structure of each of these birds is good for it, under the conditions of life to which it is exposed, for each has to live by a struggle. (Page 170).

Thus, rudimentary structures diminished by a lack of use can assure the survival of a species but not as well as that of the extinct ancestor's perfected structure, in this case, the flying wing.

Darwin's observations of what he considered poorly adapted species led him to conclude that God did not create these species:

He who believes that each being has been created as we now see it, must occasionally have felt surprise when he has met with an animal having habits and structure not in agreement (Page 170).

Darwin also noted that the transitional forms are less likely to appear in the fossil record because their lack of perfection of parts did not enable them to survive as well as the perfected forms; e.g., gliders as opposed to the descendent flyers (Page 170).

Critique

Pre-bats and pre-pterosaurs (flying reptiles) have not appeared in the fossil record. Facts have more merit than structured theories.

According to Darwinian evolutionary theory, the transitional forms were superior to their predecessor species in their ability to survive and therefore replaced them. Thus, the transitional forms should appear as frequently in the fossil record as their ancestors. But Darwin insisted that the transitional forms were hard to find in the fossil record because they were inferior to their successor, improved species. Therefore the fossil record is replete with the successors but not the transitional forms that preceded them. Darwin obviously struggled with uncooperative fossil evidence. The lack of transitional forms in the fossil record fails to support Darwinian gradualism. That is fact.

Organs of Extreme Perfection and Complication

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances...could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree (Page 170).

Thus, Darwin acknowledged the apparent inability of natural selection to produce highly specialized, complex organs but also noted the materialist mandate: "Vox populi, vox Dei". That is, science, does not trust the voice of the people nor the voice of God.

We are not sure what Darwin meant by "science" but he did provide his views on how natural selection could make an eye in spite of his own expressed doubts about his views. After all, why stumble over the origin of the eye when one willingly accepts the unknown origin of life to be a wholly natural process:

How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated... (Page 172).

If the phenomenon is complicated beyond generalized explanation, philosophical materialism assumes that mind had nothing to do with it; including the materialist author's mindful use of logic and subsequent conclusions.

Darwin noted that it is not possible to trace the development of the eye through a study of ancestors. Therefore he pointed out how existing animals in different classes have different forms of eyes, some primitive; some advanced. Some members of the class Articulata (previous classification system included insects, segmented worms, and spiders) for example, possess:

...an optic nerve simply coated with pigment, the latter sometimes forming a sort of pupil but destitute of lens or other optical contrivance (Page 173).

Insects have more advanced eyes:

With insects it is now known that the numerous facets on the cornea of their great compound eyes form true lenses and the cones include curiously modified nervous filaments (Page 173).

Darwin also referred to the "eye" of the lancelet (classed as a primitive vertebrate), which has "a little sack of transparent skin, furnished with a nerve and lines with pigment..." (Page 174). The primitive "eyes" of some species enable them to distinguish light from darkness.

Darwin asked us to consider "the diversified, and graduated range of structure in the eyes of lower animals" (Page 173). Given innumerable ancestors and great expanses of time, natural selection acting on variation could produce the eye of a human or eagle (Page 173). Because of the complexity of the eye, its appearance depended upon a very gradual process.

Others objected:

...that in order to modify the eye and still preserve it as a perfect instrument, many changes would have to be effected simultaneously, which, it is assumed, could not be done through natural selection... (Page 173).

Darwin answered that his study on the variation and evolution of domestic animals showed that not all modifications happened simultaneously but were "extremely slight and gradual" (Page 173).

Critique

Today, evolutionary biologists still struggle to explain the gradual evolution of the eye. Lamb (2011) stated that the Cambrian explosion some 490 million to 540 million years ago provided the groundwork for the evolution of the complex eye. He described the Cambrian explosion as: "This burst of evolution..." He further noted that:

the eye evolved from a light-sensing but nonvisual organ into an image-forming one by around 500 million years ago.

In reference to the appearance of the lens, the researcher said:

We do not know exactly when this modification happened, but in 1994 researchers at Lund University in Sweden showed that the optical components of the eye could have easily evolved within a million years. If so, the image-forming eye may have arisen from the nonvisual proto-eye in a geologic instant.

We see (no pun intended) wonderful and natural selection gradually working ever so slowly, scrutinizing every opportunity to evolve complex organs ...rather at lightning speed with the accompanying descriptors "explosion," "burst of evolution," and "geological instant". Once again, Darwinian gradualism in a hurry...a lens in one million years? That is about a third of the life of single mammalian species. The fossil record remains mute on the ever so gradual, albeit abrupt development of irreducibly complex organs.

Seldom do fossil remains provide information on soft body parts like eyes. Also, transitional forms of organisms are essentially absent from the fossil record. Thus, no information is available that shows how a nerve evolves sensitivity to light. We therefore have only guesses about the origin of the eye, the cell, the blood clotting system or other complex biological systems; for example, the origin of coded information housed in the DNA molecule.

Michael J. Behe (1998) described examples of "irreducibly complex" molecular machines and biological systems that could not have evolved step-wise as posited by Darwin. The bacterial flagellum, for example, which is used as a propulsion motor for some 1-celled organisms, has forty different working parts. Each part must be fully functional for the molecular motor to work. There is no survival value in having a less than fully functioning and therefore fully developed flagellum with its integrated working parts. According to every day observations, intelligent agents are always responsible for the production of complicated machinery. Perhaps we should forgive Darwin's naivete; he did not have an inkling of the inexplicable working complexity of cells and biological information systems.

Modes of Transition

Darwin speculated on organs changing functions through numerous "transitional grades". He stated that if organs developed by any means other than by

...numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down" (Page 175).

He said that the swim bladder in fishes, for example, originally developed for the purpose of flotation and later for respiration:

( _The_ ) swim bladder is homologous, or "ideally similar" in position and structure with the lungs of the higher vertebrate animals; hence there is no reason to doubt that the swim bladder has actually been converted into lungs, or an organ used exclusively for respiration" (Page 176).

Darwin provided what he considered evidence of organs changing into other organs in different classes of animals. He noted that the folds in the sides of the neck area that appear during the embryonic development of higher vertebrate animals and "the loop-like course of the arteries" show the former location of fish gills (Page 176). He noted that the embryos of fish, reptiles, amphibians, birds, and mammals go through developmental stages that resemble each other. Thus, Darwin and others assumed that the embryonic development of vertebrates appeared similar because those observers assumed similar structures derived from corresponding embryonic parts. This belief lead Darwin to conceive a close relationship between embryonic development and evolutionary history. Based on observations of embryonic development of different vertebrate classes, Ernst Haeckel coined his "Biogenetic Law": "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." That is, the development of the human embryo, for example, includes fish and reptile stages, showing genetic linkage.

This section ended with a discussion of species reproducing at a younger age and thereby losing the characters of old age. A professor Cope and "others" in the United States had insisted on this "mode of transition". Darwin noted that he did not know how rapidly a species might change in order to reproduce at a younger age but he believed that the characters of old age and youth developed through slight modifications over long periods of time. Darwin provided no observations from professor Cope to substantiate animals reproducing at a younger age.

Critique

Darwin hypothesized that the swim bladder of fishes developed into the lungs of higher vertebrates; i.e., amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. However, the 12 January 1010 issue of Time Magazine (Verbatim section, 22) reported that paleontologists had recently found a set of fossilized footprints in Poland that show four-legged animals on land some 400 million years ago. If true, air-breathing animals were on land before or coexisting with the first appearance of bony fishes in the sea. Given this recent evidence, again, if true, the ancestral fish air bladder evolved simultaneously with or after the appearance of an air-breathing quadruped. Perhaps the quadruped entered the water and lungs evolved into the fish air bladder? Otherwise it seems rather ingenuous of terrestrial quadrupeds to have evolved simultaneously with or even before their fish ancestors?

Oddly enough, _National Geographic_ nor _Smithsonian_ nor _Scientific American_ nor _Nature_ rushed to report the "new" quadruped. Instead, they ignored it. Likely, they recognized its appearance as an anomaly not representative of evolutionary laws?

Speaking of "laws," Ernst Haeckel's "Biogenetic Law" was discredited. To quote Denton (1986, 146):

There is no question that, because of the great dissimilarity of the early stages of embryogenesis in different vertebrate classes, organs and structures considered homologous in adult vertebrates cannot be traced back to homologous cells or regions in the earliest stages of embryogenesis. In other words, "homologous" structures are arrived at by different routes.

Special Difficulties of the Theory of Natural Selection

This section provided several examples of organs and processes that Darwin's theory of gradual development does not appear to explain. Examples included questions as to the origin of electric organs in some fishes, luminous organs in species from different families of insects, eyes in the octopus and squid as opposed to those of vertebrate animals, the development of "hair-claspers" in species of parasitic mites representing different families, and the various complex mechanisms of flower fertilization. Because like organs and complicated processes appear in species from different families and, in some cases, different orders, Darwin believed that these organs and processes were not the result of inheritance from a common "progenitor". For example, the eye of the octopus and the eye of a vertebrate animal both require "transparent tissue, and must include some sort of lens for throwing an image at the back of a darkened chamber" (Page 180). Because the eye of the octopus and the vertebrate animal did not come from a common ancestor, nature got lucky:

As two men have sometimes independently hit on the same invention, so in the several foregoing cases it appears that natural selection working for the good of each being, and taking advantage of all favorable variations, has produced similar organs, as far as function is concerned, in distinct organic beings... (Page 180).

Darwin insisted that complex functions and like organs in disjunct species appear through natural selection acting upon slight gradations over long periods of time. He saw no way for the complexities of living organisms to develop rapidly:

...as indeed is shown by that old, but somewhat exaggerated, canon in natural history of "Natura non facit saltum"... Why should not Nature take a sudden leap from structure to structure? On the theory of natural selection, we can clearly understand why she should not; for natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can _never_ take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps (Page 184) (emphasis, mine).

Critique

Contrary to Darwin, the fossil record is now complete enough to show that species appear and disappear abruptly and that adaptive radiation/speciation is, relative to the Darwinian model, explosive (Denton 1986, Stanley 1979, Johnson 1991, Wells 2000).

Insofar as the development of the eye in mice, octopuses, and fruit flies is concerned, all derive from the same or similar gene. The gene is:

...so similar that you can put the mouse gene into a fruit fly that's missing that gene and you can get the fruit fly to develop its eyes as it normally would (Strobel 2004:54).

Furthermore, neurobiologists recently discovered that though mice and men have 90% of the same/similar genes, expression patterns for those genes in the brains of men and mice differ a third of the time, producing different brain functions (Lein and Hawrylycz 2014). And, in comparing gene function in the brains of monkeys and humans, these researchers discovered that:

The fundamental similarity of genetic activity in human and monkey brains points to the wiring among the neurons, rather than the genetic activity within the cells, as the likely source of our distinctiveness.

Genes within informational context, not gene mutation accounts for species distinctions. Meyer (2009: 471-476) discussed the _distal-less_ gene that regulates the development of insect legs, sea urchin spines, and mouse legs. Odd it is that all that evolution and gene mutation over hundreds of millions of years failed to produce significant changes in genes that regulate the development of eyes and limbs of such disjunct classes of organisms. Rather, as Meyer noted, it is the "large informational context in which the gene finds itself" that determines gene expression:

Indeed, the function of many genes and proteins is determined "top-down," by the larger system-wide informational and organism context - by the needs of the organism as a whole.

In other words, epigenetic (above/beyond gene) information of unknown origin, can be more important to gene expression than gene mutation, the hallmark mechanism of neo-Darwinism.

Darwin had no idea just how lucky nature had to be to independently produce from scratch the same/similar eye gene in the octopus and the vertebrate animal. Douglas Axe calculated that the chances for producing a simple, functional protein of modest length (a specified sequence of 150 amino acids) to be 1 chance in 1074 (Meyer 2013:185-204). With there being some 1065 atoms in the Milky Way Galaxy, imagine the likelihood of nature hitting upon the idea of making the same/similar gene for the eye twice. Also, throw in all those other functional proteins and genes needed for all the different nerve and muscle connections required by the eyes to function in the different species. There are a lot of big numbers out there, but doubtless, probabilities for the multiple eye project used a bunch of them.

The facts do not fit Darwin's speculations. Given our current level of knowledge, holding on to Darwinian gradualism requires a lot of fortitude, hope, and blind loyalty to a materialist philosophy.

Organs of Little Apparent Importance, as Affected by Natural Selection

Darwin discussed the parts of species that appear to provide no particular survival values; e.g., the tail of the giraffe, the down on fruit, and the color of hair of quadrupeds. He provided speculations that might explain the presence of apparently unimportant parts. He suggested that perhaps the part just appeared unimportant but was in fact important to the survival of the species. Secondly, the part may just have been inherited from an ancestor that had a more important use for the character. Thirdly, if one considers the great amount of variation among domestic breeds, one may conclude that the "organs of little apparent importance" should not create much concern.

Critique

Darwin's assumptions that "organs of little apparent importance" were of little importance were nothing but assumptions that provided no information and therefore no support for his theory of gradual evolution. He did say that what appeared to be useless organs or parts may in fact provide useful functions. Darwin ignored that possibility when he argued that "rudimentary" or assumed to be useless body parts among species merely pointed to common ancestry. Otherwise, a character of some importance could represent analogous developments; for example, dorsal fins in dolphins and sharks.

Utilitarian Doctrine, How Far True: Beauty, How Acquired

Some protestors of Darwin's theory told him that the beauty and complexity ("perfection") common in nature pointed toward creation by a supreme being. Darwin made efforts to counter such arguments. He said that if there was beauty in nature before the appearance of man, that beauty was not created for man's delight. He asked if we are to believe that the shells of long extinct forms were created so modern man could appreciate their symmetry under his microscope. He was also of the opinion that flowers and fruit were colorful to attract insects that fertilize flowers and animals that eat the fruit and spread the seed (Page 189). The reason some birds, fishes and butterflies are gorgeous is because the females of the species selected for beauty. Darwin did admit:

...the reception of a peculiar kind of pleasure from certain colours, forms, and sounds... first developed in the mind of man and of the lower animals, is a very obscure subject" (Page 190).

Darwin further addressed "perfection" in nature:

Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in a species exclusively for the good of another species...If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection (Page 190).

In view of nature's "perfection," he suggested that there were flaws in the human eye, that plants and animals from Europe were eliminating native species considered to be perfectly adapted to habitats in New Zealand, and that the death of a stinging bee represented imperfection in nature. Another example of inefficiency and imperfection in nature is the production of "dense clouds of pollen by our fir-trees, so that a few granules may be wafted by chance on the ovules" (Page 194).

Critique

Judeo-Christianity contends that nature was beautiful before the appearance of man because Genesis 1 states that God, who had an eye for beauty, created the heavens and the earth to be "good," not perfect, before he made mankind. God's concept of "good" is translated to mean harmonious, beautiful, and complex. The Bible also states that man's disobedience led to a fallen state of imperfection in the natural world. Creative mind is also behind Darwin's unanswered quest concerning the origin of the aesthetic in man and other animals.

As per Darwin:

Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modifications in the species exclusively for the good of another species...

Perhaps natural selection did not determine that a lone, dying widow woman will all her belongings to her beloved cat? Nor did natural selection determine that we make laws to protect and preserve rare and endangered species and their habitats? What "modifications" from what source produced a non-utilitarian appreciation in mankind for beauty in other species? Certainly the love of mankind for other species defies the self-preservation mandate of natural selection and would prove deadly to Darwin's theory because inter-species love that leads to a sacrifice of resources for the preservation of other species could not have been produced through natural selection. Thus, Darwin's words oft quoted after his death contradicted/"annihilated" an early affirmation of faith in the mechanics of his evolutionary theory:

The love for all living creatures is the most noble attribute of man.

# Chapter VII - Miscellaneous Objections to the Theory of Natural Selection

Through the next thirty-six pages, Darwin discussed specific questions that cast doubts on this general theory of macroevolution. He did not organize the questions, comments, nor his answers under any topics. Possibly his lack of organization in this uncomfortable section reflected purposeful obfuscation? I will address some of the issues he wrestled with along with his comments in the order he wrote about them.

(1) A "distinguished German naturalist" objected that Darwin considered all organic beings as imperfect. Darwin countered that species "are not as perfect as they might have been" (Page 196). He said that if they were perfect then invading species would not be able to supplant them from their native habitats.

Critique

I discussed the lack of perfection at the end of the last chapter. I am not sure that predation by exotic rats, house cats, and red foxes on native Australian marsupials speaks to "imperfection" in the native species. If prey species were perfect, I suppose imperfect predators would vanish rapidly?

(2) If species represent an improvement from their ancestors, one would think that through time, each species would last longer than its predecessors. Darwin said that annual plants survive only a year but survive through their seed and that natural selection was responsible for that survival technique.

Critique

Darwin's answer was a diversion in this case. He never addressed the question of the longevity of a species, nor of the individual, theoretically living longer than its less adapted predecessor. Rather he said that some individual plants live only a year but perpetuate the species through their seed (Page 197).

(3) Why do so many species remain unchanged through the ages? Darwin believed that they remained unchanged because natural selection had brought them to high level of survivability.

Critique

The pattern of speciation is that species appear and disappear rapidly without transitional forms and that they do not change in morphology/structure over the life of the species. Thus, the Darwinian pattern must be that natural selection produced perfected species abruptly to the point that they, in their state of evolutionary perfection, remained unchanged...and then they mysteriously, abruptly disappeared? This is an example of the problem of trying to meld Darwin's speculations with the fossil evidence.

Darwin said that some primitive organisms that were simple persisted for a long time because they lived in simple environments where natural selection had little chance to improve them. Or, simple organisms were complex and had reached perfection in their evolutionary journey. They survived unchanged because they were primitive and simple, complex and perfectly evolved?

(4) "The celebrated paleontologist, Bronn, at the close of his German translation of this work, asks, how on the principle of natural selection, can a variety live side by side with the parent species" (page 197). Darwin said species that range over wide areas inhabit different habitats and the species changes in those different locations to better fit different living conditions. He believed that most species developed without isolation but through the evolution of varieties within the parent species range: "Moreover, in the case of animals which wander much about and cross freely, their varieties seem to be generally confined to distinct regions" (Page 197).

Critique

Contrary to the implications in his response to Bronn, Darwin insisted that the superior offspring virtually always replaced the inferior parent species. Darwin's evolutionary "tree of life" displayed opposite branching rather than alternate branching (Page 117). Alternately arranged limbs would have suggested that the parent species coexisted with the offspring species for long periods of time. In Darwin's model, the varieties or "incipient species" were continuously in the process of eliminating the parent species across its range in all habitat types without physical isolation.

By contrast, the fossil record confirms that "Animals that wander much about and cross freely" assure that a species remains morphologically unchanged throughout the life of the species. Thus, natural selection has shown little if any power to change established species. In contrast, a new and varied environment may offer opportunities for a founder species to rapidly produce new sister species to fill empty niches (living situations). See _Epigenetic niche-match_ under _Definitions/Notes_ at the end of this essay - a more reasonable hypothesis for speciation.

(5) Bronn also insisted that distinct species always differ in numerous characters, not just one part. How then did the many parts achieve modification at the same time through variation and natural selection?

As was his practice, Darwin referred to observations on the development of domestic varieties to respond to Bronn's inquiry. Breeds of dogs, for example, differ in their structure and potential behavior though we cannot trace the development of the characters of the different breeds. Darwin thought it important to note that such alterations occurred through slight changes over long periods of time. He also said that the different parts of the organism could take turns evolving:

...we should not see great and simultaneous changes, but first one part and then another slightly modified and improved" (Page 198).

Critique

Darwin's reference to microevolutionary changes within a species through domestication, fail to support his general theory of the macroevolution of all species from a common (1-celled) ancestor. We do observe, of course, that tall people, tend to have larger feet than short people and that small breeds of dogs are relatively small in all their characters. Thus, genetic linkage of characters is commonly observed. We can illustrate the importance of this genetic linkage in changing species through microevolutionary processes. For example, if we disposed of all large dogs and allowed only small dogs in the existing gene pool to reproduce, we would over a few years produce a population of small dogs. Selection for small dogs would illustrate a microevolutionary process but would still not answer Bronn's question as to _how_ multiple characters evolve simultaneously and gradually in the Darwinian macroevolutionary model. Darwin suggested that the various organs and structures take turns evolving.

(6) Bronn noted "that many characters appear to be of no service whatever to their possessors, and therefore cannot have been influenced through natural selection" (page 198). Bronn suggested that the length of ears and tails in different species of hares and mice and folds of enamel in the teeth of many animals were examples of characters that serve no particular purpose.

Darwin provided several answers to Bronn's attack on natural selection. First, one should not assume that certain structures are of no use to a species. Secondly, a useless character may simply have been connected to the inheritance of a useful modification. Thirdly, the character may simply be the result of "spontaneous variations". Finally, unknown causes may "act persistently" until all the members of a species are modified (Page 199). Darwin considered the "spontaneous variations" and inheritable tag-along characters to reflect "the laws of growth," which meant that he believed such things happened repeatedly enough to be classified as a "law" of nature.

Darwin then proceeded to discuss examples of species that had variations with no apparent survival value and were therefore not the product of natural selection. One example was found in the sunflower type of plants that have compound flowers, each with ray flowers and disc flowers. There is no apparent reason for the same plant to produce flowers with different structures. He noted that "The acquisition of a useless part can hardly be said to raise an organism in the natural scale..." (Page 203). He considered the appearance of a useless modification to be a state of retrogression: "and so it must be with many parasitic and degraded animals" (Page 203).

Critique

The source of variation in a population is mutation. Mutations nearly always represent a diminishment or rearrangement of gene parts. Within the gene pools of species exist numerous hurtful and neutral mutations. Congenital diseases, the result of inherited mutations, range in severity from lethal to inconvenient. Most mutations occur in the non-protein coding/"junk DNA" and can therefore persist from generation to generation without affecting the carriers. Over time, natural selection will tend to weed out harmful variations from a population in the wild.

Often, biologists formulate guesses as to the usefulness of a structure or behavior in a species without knowing. Darwin was aware of this problem and cautioned others not to jump to judgment:

...we ought, in the first place, to be extremely cautious in pretending to decide what structures now are, or have formerly been, of use to each species" (Pages 198-199).

At other times, to support his cause, Darwin often ignored his own advice and judged that various structures were of no use to the organism or had evolving uses. He readily classed such structures or organs as "rudimentary" or "incipient." "Rudimentary" organs and structures showed evolutionary linkage to ancestry that had required those organs and structures to survive. And, "incipient" organs/structures showed that the organism was evolving toward a new species. All this script evolved in light of Darwin's caution to others to refrain from judging the usefulness of certain organs/structures.

Darwin created a bit of a comic effect when he insisted that unknown causes may "act persistently" until all the members of a species are modified (Page 199). That is, "...we do not know the cause of change but if the unknown cause keeps changing the species, the species will change." Now that is something to write home about! Contemporary materialists commonly use the Latin "de novo" to skip over unknown processes. Latin sounds educated and thereby adds needed weight to comments on the unknown.

We see again Darwin founding "laws" of nature to "explain" his numerous inexplicable observations. He decided that "spontaneous variations" and inheritable tag-along characters should be placed into the "laws of growth." The placement of such observations into the class "law" readily eliminated all explanatory difficulties.

(7) A distinguished zoologist, Mr. St. George Mivart" stated that natural selection is incompetent to account for the incipient stages of useful structures" (pages 204-205). Darwin responded:

Mr. Mivart passes over the effects of the increased use and disuse of parts, which I have always maintained to be highly important..." (Page 204).

That is, Darwin believed that if a giraffe ancestor, for example, stretched its neck to feed in the tops of trees, that effort would produce a longer neck over time and the offspring of the animal would inherit longer necks. Darwin described this process as "the inherited effects of the increased use of parts" (Page 206). In like manner, complex structures and organs would diminish if the organism reduced the use of those parts. In Darwin's mind such processes fell under the "laws of growth" and therefore required no explanation. That is just the way nature operates.

Mivart also noted that the giraffe was a large animal and that during a drought, smaller body size that required less forage would be an advantage. Darwin suggested that the large body of the giraffe prevented predation except by lions and the long neck of the animal enabled it to watch for predators. He observed that "Sir S. Baker remarks, that no animal is more difficult to stalk than the giraffe" (Page 206).

Mivart then asked if natural selection were so potent, why had not other hoofed animals developed long necks like the giraffe. Darwin noted that in England the horses and cows browse the lower branches of shrubs heavily and that if sheep were there, there would be no advantage to the sheep to strain its neck and thereby lengthen it to acquire forage that is already taken. Darwin wondered why there were no large-bodied, hoofed animals with long giraffe-like necks in South America but he did not hazard a guess on that question:

...we cannot explain why, in many quarters of the world, hoofed quadrupeds have not acquired much elongated necks or other means for browsing on the higher branches of trees (Page 208).

Because of counter arguments by Mivart, Darwin conceded that conditions existed where natural selection had little power to change structures:

For instance, if the number of individuals existing in a country is determined chiefly through destruction by beasts of prey, - by external or internal parasites, etc., - as seems often to be the case, then natural selection will be able to do little, or will be greatly retarded, in modifying any particular structure for obtaining food ...Lastly, natural selection is a slow process, and the same favorable conditions must long endure in order that any marked effect should thus be produced (Pages 207-208).

Critique

Darwin's belief that animals' behaviors would change their structure and be inherited by their offspring was "Lamarckian". The Frenchman Lamarck believed that improvements acquired through behavior by an individual in its lifetime would pass on to the offspring.

Darwin said that predation could negate the power of natural selection. This belief may explain why Darwin largely ignored the roll of predation in formulating and explaining his theory of the gradual evolution of species through competition, variation, and natural selection. As a population biologist, I would distrust any model for evolution of species that largely ignored the effects of predation, parasitism, and disease.

I agree with Mivart that natural selection cannot explain the nascent development of complex organs or structures. Darwin suggested that if the giraffe stretches its neck to reach foliage, the body quite simply accommodates the needs of the individual by changing complex organs and structures. And, quite fortuitously, the offspring inherent the new complex changes.

(8) Unidentified persons asked Darwin why the ostrich did not gain the ability to fly and why bats and seals on islands without other mammal species did not evolve into terrestrial species. Darwin had ready answers for these questions. The ostrich did not gain the powers of flight because:

an enormous supply of food would be necessary to give to this bird of the desert force to move its huge body through the air.

The reason the seal did not give birth to new species of terrestrial mammals is that it would have to begin "hunting for food in shallow water, then in streams or lakes" to evolve toward terrestrial species. Islands do not provide those aquatic habitats that would be required for the seal to slowly change into new species. And, bats:

Bats might, indeed, like many birds, have had their wings greatly reduced in size, or completely lost, through disuse; but in this case it would be necessary that they should first have acquired the power of running quickly on the ground, by the aid of their hind legs alone, so as to compete with birds or other ground animals; and for such a change a bat seems singularly ill-fitted (Pages 208-209).

Critique

So much of what Darwin had to say was based on specious speculations. But wishing to address the argument rather than the author...I suppose one guess is about as good as another? The bat is ill-fitted to some changes? What happened to the power of species being so thoroughly plastic in their abilities to change?

(9) Why are some animal species more intelligent than others; for superior intelligence would be a benefit to all species? Darwin said that some races of savages are smarter than others and that he did not have a good explanation for the difference.

Critique

Darwin had no answer for the question. We do not know how Darwin measured the IQs of "races of savages".

(10) Mivart questioned the development of mimicry in insects. According to Darwin, "there is a constant tendency to indefinite variation" (Page 209). Mivart noted that with innumerable minute variations aimed randomly in all directions, the variations would tend to "neutralize" each other. How could such unstable minute modifications:

...ever build up a sufficiently appreciable resemblance to a leaf, bamboo, or other object, for Natural Selection to seize upon and perpetuate? (Page 209).

Darwin responded that the habitat offered unlimited objects for variable species to conform to in color and structure. Some insects already visually fade into some aspects of their habitats; therefore they have a head start on evolving mimicry. And, birds see a lot better than we do, so every small change in the prey makes a difference.

Critique

I hypothesize that rapid changes in the appearance of a species would alter its form enough to provide survival value. However, microscopic changes in the shape and/or color of an insect would not be noticeable to an insectivorous bird unless the evolutionary process continued in one direction over many millennia under the direction of some mysterious vital force. There are two formidable difficulties with the gradual appearance of noticeable changes toward the goal of mimicry: 1) random mutations occur about once every hundred million births and 2) random mutation is unable to make cumulative beneficial steps toward a goal (Behe 2014:68, 112- 113). I think Darwin would have to give up his theory on the gradual development of characters or his theory that evolution was an undirected random process in order to account for intricate, microscopic, nascent mimicry among species.

(11) Mivart also inquired about the evolution of baleen in species of whales. How did such structures arrive at a state of usefulness from minuscule beginnings that had no survival value? Darwin approached this problem by discussing the various bills extant in the duck family. Some ducks have bills for sifting mud and water to obtain food much like a whale uses its baleen to sift small food items from the ocean. Some duck species are well suited for this dabbling and sifting process and the bills of others, such as some species of geese, are more adept at grazing grasses. The merganser duck has small recurved "teeth" in its bill for catching fish, its main food source. Thus, the bill of the duck evolved different structures to accommodate the various food habits of the different species. In the same manner, all steps in the development of the baleen of the whale could have been beneficial to the incipient species of whales.

Critique

Mivart inquired as to how complex structures like the baleen in some species of whales developed when there was no particular selective value for minuscule, incipient beginnings of such structures. Darwin failed to address Mivart's question. Instead he changed the subject and merely pointed out that various species of ducks have specialized mouth parts for foraging. He just as well could have stayed with species of whales and said that different species of whales evolved different mouth parts for different methods of foraging. The basic question that Darwin failed to address concerned the process of evolving complex organs and structures from infinitesimally small beginnings, which have no apparent survival value.

Let us paraphrase Darwin's logic. Mivart asked how the beginning, infinitesimally small buddings of baleen helped evolving whales to forage for food. Darwin answered: "Some whales have teeth and some whales have baleen." End of argument.

Mivart's question addressed a conundrum inherent in Darwin's theory of the gradual development of complex structures and processes in organisms. Microbiologist Michael Behe (1998) addressed this problem of "irreducible complexities" of some organs and physiological processes in his book _Darwin's Blackbox_. In his book, Behe discussed, for example, the biochemical complexity of a bacterial flagellum and the blood clotting system. Because the flagellum cannot function without each of its forty parts, how did each incipient part get to its state of interaction with the other parts, as required for the structure to function, through separate actions of natural selection? Because the blood clotting system requires a cataract of interacting, complex processes to function, how did natural selection develop the complex functions required in each step and then organize them in time and space? The problem is that if the system as a whole, with each step properly functioning, does not work, the organism dies. And, the system offers no survival value unless it has all of its parts/steps in place. Had Darwin had an idea of how complex organs and organisms are at the molecular and cellular level, he likely would not have written the _Origin_.

(12) Mivart further questioned Darwin on the development of the flatfish (flounder). How did species developing into the flatfish benefit by the slow movement of the eye from one side of the head to the other? Darwin noted that the eyes of the baby flatfish are symmetrically located on each side of the head as in most other fish species. He said that the baby fish has a tendency to lie on one side and when it does, it looks up and strains the eye to move across the head. The head of the young flatfish is not hardened bone but is cartilaginous with less resistance. Thus, the use of the eye tends to enable it to move across the fish's head. Darwin believed that organisms could use the structures of their bodies and that use would transform the structure in a beneficial manner in concert with the desires and behavior of the individual. The offspring of the organism would inherit the favorable change caused by the actions of the parent. Darwin also noted that the bottom of the flatfish was white because of a lack of light and inferior because of the disuse of parts (Page 215).

Critique

Darwin answered Mivart's question on the evolution of the flatfish by referring to the development of the young flatfish. Again, Darwin failed to address Mivart's question as to how the evolving steps toward the structure of the flounder benefited the fish in each step. Instead, Darwin ignored the question and stated that when the fish tried to look up, the eye began to migrate across the head and the bottom side of the flounder regressed to a state of inferiority from disuse. Darwin failed to acknowledge the vitalism underpinning his Lamarckian views. Whatever happened in nature that was baffling or inexplicable simply fell into the gap of "law" - whether the hypothesized phenomenon occurred or not. Darwin basically said that "each step in the movement of the founder's eye benefited the fish because the head of the young founder is cartilaginous and relatively soft and the eye kept moving through the soft parts of the fish's head because the fish kept looking up." My paraphrase; Darwin's logic.

(13) In reference to the possession of prehensile tails by South American monkeys, Mivart noted:

It is impossible to believe that in any number of ages the first slight incipient tendency to grasp could preserve the lives of the individuals possessing it, or favour their chance of having and of rearing offspring (page 216).

Darwin commented on a species of mouse that structurally has no prehensile tail but still grasps limbs with it. Thus, the non-prehensile tail still had some value for balance in the limbs of a tree but not as much as a prehensile tail. African monkeys do not have prehensile tails but their tails help maintain balance when these animals leap from limb to limb.

Critique

All those back-and-forth explanations/guesses/hypotheses remind me of lawyers trying to create reasonable doubt in defense of a weak case. Provide some possible answer because the theory dies in the absence of possibilities provided in large part by the force of personality (presumed intelligence in this case).

(14) Mivart questioned Darwin on the evolution of the mammary system in mammals:

Is it conceivable that the young of any animal was ever saved from destruction by accidentally sucking a drop of scarcely nutritious fluid from an accidentally hypertrophied cutaneous gland of its mother? And even if one was so, what chance was there of the perpetuation of such a variation? (Page 216).

Darwin responded that mammals descended from a marsupial that had already developed mammary glands within the marsupial sack. Even further back in time, the fish ( _Hippocampus/_ seahorse) developed a pouch where the eggs hatch and the young are retained for a period of time. Darwin further cited an observation of these fish by an American naturalist, Mr. Lockwood, who believed that the young fish are nourished by a secretion from cutaneous glands in the sack. Thus it is easily conceivable that more advanced species would develop the mammary system. Darwin said that some of the cutaneous glands in the sack would over time form breasts owing to the "principle of specialisation". He did not know if such specialization of the skin glands would occur because of "compensation of growth, the effects of use, or of natural selection" (Page 217).

Critique

Darwin did not address Mivart's specific question on how the incipient mammary system initially developed. Rather, Darwin referred to a questionable observation by a colleague who was apparently incorrect about the development an incipient mammary system in the seahorse genus _Hippocampus_. Odd it is that Darwin believed that some early mammalian mother desired to feed her offspring milk and that willful action initiated the development of the first incipient mammary system. How fortuitous it was that the offspring inherited the Lamarckian-acquired characters imagined and behaviorally initiated by their parents. Who would have guessed that early pre-mammals were so god-like in their creative abilities; thanks to the operations of some "law" of nature? Mivart's unanswered question on the development of the mammary system applied well to marsupial, monotrematous, and placental mammals.

Darwin's diversion from Mivart's basic question equates well with the thought processes of modern Darwinists who ignore the improbabilities of chance (1 in 1077) producing a single functional protein of modest length (150 amino acids) but insist that random chance can produce new genetic information and new body plans by the fortuitous mixing of mutated, extant genes stored in "junk" DNA (Meyer 2013: 185-204).

Behe (2014:153-154) calculated the probabilities of three proteins randomly joining together to form a new multiprotein structure. Such a process would require the formation of two new protein binding sites through random mutation. Because studies of the malaria parasite reveal no new protein binding sites in the production of 1020 malaria cells, it is reasonable to conclude that it would take a minimum 1040 cells by random mutation to produce the two coordinated binding sites required to make a new three-protein structure. Of interest, Behe (2014) noted that 1040 is the estimated total number of cells that have existed in the history of the planet.

Thus, producing a new three-protein structure is beyond the reasonable capability of random mutation. Given these improbabilities, one wonders how the cilium (the tail of some 1-celled organisms), which is made of hundreds of protein structures, evolved without intelligent intervention/programming.

(15) This discussion addressed the origin of the organs called pedicellariae in sea urchins and star fish. The pedicellariae are the small pincer like structures that starfish and sea urchins have for cleaning and for the capture of minute prey. Of these structures, Mivart asked:

What would be the utility of the first rudimentary beginnings of such structures, and how could such incipient buddings have ever preserved the life of a single Echinus? (Pages 218-219).

Darwin argued that these structures evolved "from simple granules to ordinary spines, to perfect tridactyle pedicellariae" (Page 219). He further stated that these gradations/steps currently exist in different species in the starfish family Echnodermata and sometimes in the individuals of this family. Furthermore, each gradation of ordinary spine to perfect tridactyle pedicellaria was important to the survival of each intermediate. In other words, each step in evolution of the pedicellaria from the first budding spine was beneficial to early starfish and sea urchins.

Critique

Darwin assumed that the pedicellariae developed from spines. In regard to such developments, if true, Meyer (2009:534) stated:

... proteins represent the smallest functionally significant (and selectable) step in evolution. And building new proteins requires new genetic information.

What could be the source of the information required to switch incipient spines at the DNA level into pedicellariae? The development of complex information is commonly associated with intelligent programming.

Darwin noted that the spines and pedicellariae and all steps in between provided survival value. He also believed that "primitive" and "advanced" gradations in the same individual showed the evolution of the specialized claw in the lobster. But if each structure in the same individual had a vital function, why were some structures classified as "primitive" and others as "superior" on the scale of evolution? I suppose it was part of the script needed to support Darwin's vision of macroevolution. A similar line of thinking would lead one to conclude that the fingers of the human hand were all evolutionary steps toward perfection illustrated in the development of the opposable thumb. But what is the

reproductive advantage of having five thumbs?

Darwin noted:

...natural selection is incompetent to account for incipient stages of useful structures" (Page 226)

And he urged others to be cautious in their judgments about the usefulness of small developing or devolving organs:

...we ought in the first place, to be extremely cautious in pretending to decide what structures now are, or have formerly been of use to each species" (Pages 190-199).

However, Darwin was apparently one of those rare individuals who was qualified to make such judgments on a regular basis, depending on the needs of his script. In the case of the evolution of pedicellariae in starfish and sea urchins (Page 220), for example, Darwin said that "...every gradation, from an ordinary fixed spine to a fixed pedicellaria, would be of service."

Thus, "rudimentary" organs of no known use to the organism resulted from the disuse of parts and showed evolutionary linkage to ancestral forms and "incipient" buds were always useful and showed the evolution of a new species. Only Darwin could tell if his script required an organ to be rudimentary and useless or incipiently useful. He therefore threw caution to the wind and failed to take his own advice in his search for supporting evidence.

As noted under item (14) _Critique_ above, providing two new binding sites required for making a new three-protein structure is beyond the ability of random mutation. Also, random mutation has no coherent path aimed at any goal; so, the possibility any add-on protein structures to an existing protein structure, produced in a step-wise fashion, are obviously well beyond the pale of probability and reason (Behe 2014:112-122). Thus, a series of beneficial mutations to improve the benefits of a diminishing gene mutation or to improve on a new protein structure through random mutation are improbable to level of the miraculous.

(16) Mivart asked how natural selection derived similar pincer structures in starfish and in bryozoans, widely separated classes of animals in different phyla. Darwin conceded that he nor his colleagues knew the origin of the pincer structures developed in bryozoans "but it by no means follows from this that such gradations have not existed" (Page 221). However, he did note that in the case of crustaceans (crayfish and lobsters), the appendages on the individual animal show gradations to the development of the claw of the lobster. Darwin continued his discussion of the development of pincer structure in different species of Bryozora. Developed, poorly developed, and modified "pincers" appear on the same individual and often differ between species, illustrating the gradations in evolution of the pincer structure.

Critique

I suggest that the appendages of the lobster do not show the evolutionary steps in the development of the pincer any more than the toes on a person's foot illustrate the evolution of the "more perfect," Darwin's phraseology that would apply to the big toe in a human. Comparison of "primitive" and "advanced" structures among species to illustrate the stages of evolutionary development is also questionable, particularly among living, successful species. If a species is abundant, we would have to assume that its organs are "perfected" by natural selection and beneficial though comparatively "primitive" on the evolutionary scale. To be repetitive in concert with Darwin's redundancy, I believe that by comparing the "advanced" and "primitive" structures of bryozoan species, all Darwin could safely say was that existing, successful species are adapted to different living conditions. His classification of organs as "primitive" and "perfected" or "advanced" were so designated to support his theory of gradual evolution. These classifications were not based on complexity nor functionality of structures (see _Critique_ under Item 15 above).

(17) Mivart in reference to the flowers of orchids and the movements of climbing plants, stated:

...the explanation of their origin is deemed thoroughly unsatisfactory - utterly insufficient to explain the incipient infinitesimal beginnings of structures which are of utility only when they are considerably developed (Page 222).

Darwin again compared organs in existing species to illustrate the "primitive" beginnings of plant parts and behaviors that could account for the gradual development of the various processes of pollination in members of the orchid family and of the climbing ability of different species of vines. Darwin stated that "the inquiry may be pushed further backwards" to address the origin of parts of organs, to the point that:

it is as useless to ask, as it is hopeless to attempt answering, such questions... _for_...natural selection is incompetent to account for the incipient stages of useful structures..." (Page 226).

Darwin believed that climbing plants, for example, initially acquired their ability to climb because of "inherited effects of use" and "by habit" (Page 226). That is, plants pass on to their offspring their behavior acquired through the individual plant repeatedly seeking to use different parts of its environment... vitalistic Lamarckian concepts. That is, a plant "wants" to climb and so some mysterious "law of nature" provides the precise, heritable biological information required for the production and operation of modified and new protein structures needed for the task.

Critique

I concur with Darwin that "...natural selection is incompetent to account for the incipient stages of useful structures..." (Page 226). All we know is that at the molecular and cellular level, the functions and structures of organisms are complex. Any student or specialist or synthesizer must depend on philosophical and/or theological beliefs to produce humble hypotheses as to the origin of those complexities. See Behe (1996) for detailed discussions of what he called "irreducible complexities" and Meyer (2009, 2013) for the source of complex information systems in the cell and Behe (2014) for information on the powers and limits of random mutation.

In this section, Darwin was caught between the need to show that "primitive" organs were useful and had survival value in their nascent states of development and the need to illustrate that rudimentary organs were of low or no use, showing that the same organs evolved from a more primitive ancestor. Thus, the "incipient" or "rudimentary" organs had to be useful in one instance and useless/obsolete in another to support his general theory.

Darwin repeated his speculation on the development of the giraffe's long neck, imitations of objects by insects, the lamellae in waterfowl, the lamellae of whalebone, the migration of the lower eye in the flounder, the mammary system in mammals, the pedicellariae in starfish, structures for pollination in orchids, and twinning in vines (Pages 226-227). He said that the various parts of the giraffe such as the elongated neck and legs derived from a process of:

...prolonged use of all parts together with inheritance ...aided in an important manner in their co-ordination" (Page 226).

That is, when the giraffe stretched its neck to reach forage, the continual stretching elongated the neck and legs and other parts of the body in a coordinated fashion and the animal passed the change in body shape to its offspring.

Concerning imitation of objects by insects, the whole process began with an "accidental resemblance to some common object..." (Page 226). Supposedly, the early insect did not look like the object but over time began to accidentally look like the object a little bit at a time over a great expanse of time. Maybe the insect started looking like its surroundings because, in Lamarckian fashion, it wanted to?

Darwin repeated his belief in the Lamarckian, vitalistic process of plants and animals mysteriously acquiring new, heritable characters simply through use of their environments. Such events filtered through Darwin's philosophical materialism were not vitalistic but fell into the simplistic vacuum of "law" and therefore required no further explanation. It is interesting that Darwin never questioned the origins or mechanisms behind his classifications of natural "principles," "rules," and "laws". He failed to provide any mathematical representations/formulas or other explanations to support or explain these claims of mechanism.

I would consider an insect's incipient, accidental mimic of an object to be a fortuitous saltation. Darwin considered such an accident to represent a gradual, continual step-wise series of innumerable lucky accidents prior to the engagement of natural selection. Only a specific philosophical worldview could determine that such evolutionary steps were slowly developed over enormous spans of time by natural selection acting on randomly acquired variation. As noted above, mutation occurs on average one time in one hundred million births (Behe 2014:68, 113) and the laws of probability would not allow those changes that were incipient and required multiple cumulative mutations to achieve a stage of selective value. Random gene mutation, which represents a diminishment of function, has no goals.

(18) Mivart:

It has often been asked, if natural selection be so potent, why has not this or that structure been gained by certain species, to which it would apparently have been advantageous (Page 227)?

Darwin answered that "it is unreasonable to expect a precise answer to such questions"... (Page 227) because we have no information on the evolutionary history of species. Darwin stated that the reason some species do not have the beneficial structures that would enhance their survival is because evolution requires "many coordinated modifications". He noted that possibly "the requisite parts did not vary in the right manner or to the right degree". Also, "destructive agencies" (predation and disease) (Page 228) can prevent the work of natural selection by decimating populations. And, if living conditions do not persist for long periods of time, natural selection will not have the time required to act on and solidify/fix variations in the population.

Critique

The argument above illustrates the power of a tautological theory to prove itself. However, Darwin did not argue from the point that the survival of species shows that the poorly adapted species are not well adapted to survive. Instead, he blamed predation and disease, rapid weather/habitat changes, and the limited ability of species to change their organs, structures, and behaviors in complicated "coordinated" ways...to explain why, given the potency of natural selection, some species do not possess more beneficial body parts. Of course, the immutable morphologies/bone structures of species over the lives of the species, as reflected in the fossil record, conflicted with Darwin's concept, held in previous arguments, that species were thoroughly plastic and completely open to alteration.

(19) Mr. Mivart believed that "an internal force or tendency" was behind the creation of new species (See _Epigenetic niche-match_ in _Citations/Notes_ at the end of this essay). Mivart also said that new species appear rapidly. Darwin vehemently opposed both views. He stated that there is "no need, as it seems to me, to invoke any internal force beyond the tendency to ordinary variability" (Lamarckian evolution) (Page 228) in concert with the powers of natural selection to explain the process of evolution. Secondly, he was appalled that Mivart believed birds, bats, and pterodactyls (flying reptiles) appeared suddenly in the fossil record:

This conclusion, which implies great breaks or discontinuity in the series, appears to me improbable in the highest degree (Page 229).

Darwin insisted that abrupt variations appeared in domestic species because domestic species are more variable. Also, he noted that the "abrupt variations" that appear in domestic species actually represent characters that reappear from the past, characters that developed through gradual processes. He observed that such abrupt "reappearances" constitute doubtful species. Here, contrary to all his previous references to the production of domestic varieties as incipient species, Darwin recognized the process of rapid microevolution acting within the genetic limits of species.

The reason that abrupt variations in domestic species do not last in nature, according to Darwin, is because so few appear and then the individuals are lost to "accidental causes of destruction" (Page 229) or by inbreeding. He chaffed at the highly improbable idea that "several wonderfully changed individuals appeared simultaneously in the same district" (Page 229) in order to breed and create a new species.

At this point in the debate, Darwin repeated some of his arguments for the relatedness of species that illustrated development over long periods of time as opposed to the abrupt appearance and/or creation of individuals. The observation that the species and genera of large families are so similar showed they were "formerly connected". Also, the doubtful species that inhabit outlying islands show they derived from mainland species.

Darwin also repeated his observations that the homologous parts (example, the wings of bats and hands of humans) of allied species show gradation from the primitive to the more advanced. That is, for example, that the foot of chimpanzee is not as adapted for upright walking as the foot of a man.

In addition, species could not have been created (God did not do it) and were obviously evolved from one another because genera characters are less variable than the characters of the species. Darwin believed that only evolution could account for this observation and for the fact that:

species...in the larger genera are more closely related to each other and present a greater number of varieties than do the species in the smaller genera (Page 230).

Then, surprisingly, Darwin out of context recanted that some (species) have developed in an "abrupt manner" (Page 230). He then preceded to argue against himself, stating that the reason abrupt changes appear in the fossil record is because the record is "fragmentary" (Page 231).

He then made his argument on the evolutionary relatedness of organisms with an appeal to embryology, stating that there was no evidence of abrupt transformations in the study of embryological development:

It is notorious that the wings of birds and bats, and the legs of horses or other quadrupeds, are undistinguishable at the early embryonic period, and that they become differentiated by insensibly fine steps... _and_...existing species during the early stages of their development so often resemble ancient and extinct forms belonging to the same class (Page 231).

Darwin continued to plead his case against the rapid appearance of species:

He who believes that some ancient form was transformed suddenly through an internal force of tendency into, for instance, one furnished with wings, will be almost compelled to assume, in opposition to all analogy, that many individuals varied simultaneously...He will further be compelled to believe that many structures beautifully adapted to all the other parts of the same creature and to the surrounding conditions, have been suddenly produced; and of such complex and wonderful co-adaptations, he will not be able to assign a shadow of an explanation (Pages 231-231)...To admit all this is, as it seems to me, to enter into the realms of miracle... (Page 232).

Critique

Darwin condemned Mivart's view of some vital force guiding the appearance of variation in the species. Oddly enough, and as stated above, Darwin believed that one of the "laws" that created variation in a species was what he called "habit". If an animal or plant changed its behavior, that change mysteriously created differences in the body of the organism and the changes passed on to the offspring. The only difference between Mivart and Darwin was that the latter thought of the process of change as a materialistic "law" and the former classified the process as an inexplicable mystery. Darwin was quick to fill in the gaps of information with the concept of "law". He was incorrect and Mivart was correct about there being no known predecessors of winged bats and flying reptiles. The fossil record continues to support the abrupt appearance of those volant animals.

Darwin had a problem explaining "abrupt variations" appearing in domestic species. Such changes, he insisted, developed gradually in wild species and then reappeared in domestic species. Furthermore, such changes did not produce new species but simply represented inherent variation existing within the species. Here Darwin's insistence on the gradual development of species characters conflicted with his observations of the abrupt appearance of variation in domestic plants and animals. He was forced to conclude that these abrupt changes, which he formally said showed varieties to be incipient species, were within the boundaries of the species' existing inheritance (microevolution within the species gene pool). To support gradualism, Darwin was forced to believe that the numerous characters accounting for the Great Dane and the Chihuahua breeds of dogs developed slowly among wolf populations in the wild and simply reappeared under the selective pressures of domestication. He was caught once again in self-contradiction.

Darwin's belief that species come from species seems logical. We see similarities in anatomy among species that have much in common. However, the rapid appearance of complex structures such as the bat's wing makes us wonder how such a complex structure developed rapidly from a wingless ancestor in a Darwinian gradualist manner. Also, a lot of genetic information is required to change a hand into a wing. How did that vast amount of DNA information evolve ever so slowly by random chance or physicochemical necessity? Too, the abrupt appearance of 12 of 18 extant phyla in the Cambrian without known predecessors, provides no support at that point in time for common descent.

To further illustrate the connectedness of species, Darwin said that the generic characters are less variable than the characters of the species. However, that result is simply an artifact of the classification system. If the generic characters were variable, the species would not be in the same genus. Taxonomists place different species in the same genus based on common anatomical characters; thus, the "genus" is an abstract category of similarities among species. The genus is not an organism. Species of the same "genus" vary little in those characters they are classed as having in common. Of course.

Darwin stated that evidence of the numerous intermediate forms was lacking because the fossil record was "fragmentary" (Page 231). However, today paleontologists and evolutionary biologists agree that evidence for Darwinian gradualism is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record.

In concert with the fossil evidence, Eldredge and Gould (1972) conceived the theoretical model "punctuated equilibrium." Their "model" merely described what the fossil record shows: species appear abruptly and remain unchanged in their bone structures for the life of the species and then they disappear abruptly. As far as evolutionary process is concerned, these two authors theorized that species in genetic isolation evolve rapidly on the borders of a parent species' range. Eldredge and Gould speculated about the process in isolation that produces new species and whole new body plans. It seems the members of the isolated population retain mutations previously stored by the parent population in the non-protein coding portions of DNA," the so called "nonfunctional" regions of the DNA.

Ironically, recent research has shown that 80% of the "genome performs significant biological functions, dispatching the widely held view that the human genome is mostly 'Junk DNA'" (Meyer 2013:400). One would expect "junk DNA" to comprise most of the genome if it evolved through random gene mutations, the hallmark mechanism of neo-Darwinism.

Nevertheless, neo-Darwinism speculates that new genetic information arises in the daughter population from a random shuffling of mutated, duplicated genes in those nonfunctional regions of the DNA. And, subsequently new traits rapidly arise through inbreeding in a relatively small population. This hypothesized process of speciation Eldredge and Gould called "allopatric speciation." For detailed and formidable critiques of the creation of new genetic information through random mechanisms as envisioned by neo-Darwinists, see Meyer (2013:185-254), Behe and Snoke (2004), and Behe (2014).

Gould believed that the offspring species would compete with and replace the parent species or inferior sister species with the removal of barriers in the landscape. Thus, "survival of the fittest" applied to competition among species, not competition among individuals within a species. "Punctuated equilibrium" was a picture of the fossil record. "Allopatric speciation" was a hypothesis aimed at explaining discontinuances in that record. For a critical overview of these concepts see Meyer (2013: 136-152).

Prothero and Heaton (1996) provided examples of "punctuated equilibrium" in their White River Studies in South Dakota. They found that species of hoofed animals had a species life or around 1.5 million years. The species they studied appeared and disappeared abruptly from the fossil record and failed to change significantly in their bone structure for as long as those species existed. The obvious "evolutionary" pattern for species from such studies is that natural selection had no power to change the basic structure of established species. Thus, the stratigraphic data fail to support Darwin's model for the gradual macroevolution and extinction of species.

Embryological studies have confirmed that Darwin's use of embryology to show the relatedness of animal classes was invalid. This is correct because the organs and structures of developing birds, reptiles, amphibians, and mammals that resemble each other in their various embryonic and adult stages usually have different genetic and locational origins (Denton 1986:142-156 and Johnson 1991:72-73). The assembly process and origin of organs and tissues among the classes varies too much to support the recapitulation of evolution in the various processes of embryogenesis. I will provide additional explanations and citations later in this paper when I respond to Darwin's repeated misuse of embryology to support gradualism.

In contrast to the neo-Darwinian claim for the production of variation through gene mutation, that mechanism fails to explain many differences among different classes of organisms. For example, the eyes of mice, octopuses, and fruit flies derive from the same or similar gene. In fact, the gene is:

so similar that you can put the mouse gene into a fruit fly that's missing that gene and you can get the fruit fly to develop its eyes as it normally would (Strobel 2004: 54).

The expression of the gene and development of the eye depends on a top-down regulatory system mysteriously housed in the context of the organism. Epigenetic (beyond gene) information of unknown origin rather than gene mutation explains the production of a fruit fly eye from the eye gene of a mouse. This observation is a problem for the neo-Darwinian hypothesis that random mutation of genes housed in "Junk DNA," those that regulate body-plan construction, can explain the creation of new, functional genetic information (Meyer 2013: 185-279).

Ironically, Darwin observed the complicated and rapid process of embryogenesis and noted:

...it is incredible that an animal ...should not bear even a trace in its embryonic condition of any sudden modification; every detail in its structure being developed by insensibly fine steps (Page 231).

I suppose Darwin believed that the development of a single undifferentiated cell, the fertilized egg, into a human being in a period of nine months provided a good picture of the gradual step-wise development required by his vision of the evolution of all organisms from a common (1-celled) ancestor? Rather, it appears to me that the 9-month development of a human from a single undifferentiated cell illustrates a constant stream of programmed and highly complex, and definitely abrupt changes. But then, Darwin saw only what he wanted to see.

At the end of this chapter in the _Origin_ , Darwin addressed his problem with any process that provided for the rapid appearance of species. He insisted that rapid speciation by "an inguinal force or tendency" (Page 231) was not possible. Complex structures such as wings and the accommodating cooperative structure changes needed for flight could not possibly appear abruptly through natural causes. And how would several individuals with the same incredibly complex modifications appear at the same time for breeding purposes? In other words:

...these great and sudden transformations have left no trace of their action on the embryo. To admit all this is, as it seems to me, to enter into the realms of miracle, and to leave those of Science (Page 232).

Like most philosophical materialists, Darwin was a practical and not a logical determinist. Taken to its logical limit, materialism does not leave room for free will and logical conclusions. Rather than the discipline of logic, it is the physiology of the materialist, according to his/her own philosophy, that fully determines all of his/her thoughts and responses. The logic that enables us to do science depends on the existence of mind, ideas and information, and the mysterious exercise of will and judgment, all of which the materialist must by philosophical necessity assume to be forced illusions.

# Chapter VIII - Instinct

Darwin noted that many instincts are so wonderful and their origins so mysterious that a discussion of them would appear to "overthrow my whole theory" (Page 233). Notwithstanding the obvious difficulty of explaining the origin of behaviors of animals, Darwin made the effort. He started out by _not_ defining the subject: "I will not attempt any definition of instinct" (Page 233). He then proceeded in his usual rambling manner to discuss what he refused to define and to compare it with "habit". "Habit" was considered a behavior that an organism acquired by changing its behavior in response to changes in its environment or changes in its body or perhaps by some chance event, or because the organism itself exercised personal judgment. Once repeated and acquired/fixed, the physiological changes produced by changes in "habit" could pass to the parent organism's offspring in some mysterious fashion, but always by some "law" of nature.

Animals, even primitive ones, illustrate some judgment and make decisions though they often behave to their benefit without knowing the purpose of their actions. When an organism behaves in a certain way without knowing why it does so, that organism acts by instinct.

Habit and instinct are related. Humans, for example, may memorize a song and sing that song. If interrupted in the middle of the song, the person often has to go back to the beginning of the music piece to recall all the words and finish the song. In a comparative way, a caterpillar that is in the process of making a "hammock" is taken out of the "hammock" and placed into another one at a different stage of completion, forgets where it is in construction and starts from the beginning. Darwin reported from his "experiment," that the caterpillar "was much embarrassed" (Page 234) in its confusion.

Instincts are acquired by the offspring through the changing of habits of the parents. Habits are heritable; however:

It can be clearly shown that the most wonderful instincts with which we are acquainted, namely, those of the hive-bee and of many ants, could not possibly have been acquired by habit (Page 234).

Complicated behaviors vis-à-vis instinct develop piece-meal over long periods of time:

No complex instinct can possibly be produced through natural selection, except by the slow and gradual accumulation of numerous slight, yet profitable, variations (Page 235).

Because instinctual behaviors are important to the individual's survival, natural selection works on instincts and eliminates those that are not beneficial and assures the continued development of beneficial instincts. Thus, natural selection produces complex instincts but the organism can develop habit through individual changes in behavior; sometimes through willful changes. But no organism develops instincts nor habits except for self-benefit:

Again, as in the use of corporeal structure, and conformably to my theory, the instinct of each species is good for itself, but has never, as far as we can judge, been produced for the exclusive good of others (Page 235).

To illustrate the latter point, Darwin preformed an experiment with ants and aphids. He observed the ants stroke the aphids with their antennae in order to stimulate the release by the aphids of "sweet excretion" devoured by the ants. Subsequently, Darwin removed the ants and similarly stoked the aphids with a hair. The aphids did not, however, release the excretion eaten by ants. Next, he replaced an ant among the aphids and the aphids began to release the viscous excretion for the ant to eat. Darwin concluded from his experiment that the release of the "sweet excretion" by the aphids "was instinctive, and not the result of experience" (Page 236). He further concluded that the ants benefit from the food source provided by the aphids and that the aphids benefit from ridding themselves of the viscous excretion. Summarized:

Although there is no evidence that any animal performs an action for the exclusive good of another species, yet each tries to take advantage of the instincts of others, as each takes advantage of the weaker bodily structure of other species (Page 236).

Natural selection has numerous variations of instincts to act upon, even within the same species. For example, some birds of the same species build different kinds of nests in the northern and southern parts of their range. And, animals of the same species differ in how much they fear man. Those individuals with little or no exposure to man show little fear for man and those persecuted by man are more fearful. Such observations illustrated variations within species upon which natural selection acts to improve the survivability of instincts within species. Darwin ended this chapter with:

But I am well aware that these general statements, without the facts in detail, will produce but feeble effect on the reader's mind. I can only repeat my assurance, that I do not speak without good evidence (Page 237).

Critique

A lot of animal behaviors appear to be genetic/automatic. Most animals also appear to have abilities to learn, and thereby alter their behaviors. The origin of the tremendous amounts of chemically coded information required for an organism to function at the molecular and cellular level remains unknown. Certainly, in his time, Darwin's attempts to explain such phenomena as animal behavior and thought processes in materialist terms lacked merit.

On Page 234, Darwin said that a caterpillar, disoriented when taken from its partially completed "hammock" and placed into one built to a more advantaged stage, "was much embarrassed". He failed to explain how he determined the emotional state of this larva.

Darwin said that the instinct of no species exclusively benefit's the survival of another species. Perhaps, in Darwin's day there were no governmental laws aimed at the protection of rare and endangered species? Possibly, people in Darwin's day did not hang bird houses and bird feeders in their back yard?

Darwin observed ants caress aphids' abdomens with their antennae. In each case, the aphid raised its abdomen and excreted a "sweet juice," which the ant consumed. Next, Darwin removed the ants and caressed the aphids with a hair to see if the aphids would similarly excrete. They did not and Darwin concluded that the positive response of the aphids to the ants showed that the interaction was "instinctive and not the result of experience". I suppose that what Darwin meant by "experience" was that the ants and aphids did not develop the apparently mutualistic interaction by a process of learning?

My question is: what kind of evidence on the origin of aphid-ant interactions could Darwin possibly derive from his caressing aphids with a hair, whether the aphids responded positively or negatively to his experiment? Perhaps his earlier decision to not define the subject (instinct) of his discussion added to the confusion? His conclusions from such observations and rationale appear to me to lack merit in spite of his assurances that "I do not speak without good evidence" (Page 237).

Inherited Changes of Habit or Instinct in Domesticated Animals

Under this general topic, Darwin discussed the behaviors of domestic animals, including dogs and cats. He cited the various behaviors of bird dogs, retrievers, and herding dogs. He believed that these different breeds of dogs developed because man selectively bred dogs for specific, different behaviors. He also stated that man caused changes in the behaviors of dogs by rewarding desired behaviors and punishing undesired behaviors. Additionally, the environments of domestic animals removed them from exposure to dangers in the wild and the domestic animals lost their natural fear of predators. Changes in the habits of domestic animals, whether environmental or man-induced, were inherited by the offspring of those domestic animals. Thus, domestic animals developed because of man's selection among "spontaneous variations" (Page 237) and because the offspring of domestic animals inherit habitual behaviors learned by their parents:

Hence, we may conclude, that under domestication instincts have been acquired, and natural instincts have been lost, partly by habit, and partly by man selecting and accumulating, during successive generations, peculiar mental habits and actions... (Page 239).

Critique

To say that man's selective breeding of animals explained the _origin_ of behaviors in domestic species is incorrect. Selective breeding, a microevolutionary process, to produce breeds of dogs from a parent stock provided no information on the origin of behaviors and thought processes in the wolf nor ultimately in the various breeds of dogs.

Darwin's idea that the offspring inherit, through some Lamarckian evolutionary process, new behaviors initiated by their parents fell under his category of the "law of habit". He believed that "habit" could produce or diminish natural instincts. His views on the subject of instinct, which he refused to define, were speculative.

Special Instincts

Under this topic, Darwin discussed the gradual development of instincts in the cuckoo, the "slave-making instinct of certain ants," and the "cell-making power of the hive bee" (Page 240).

Instincts of the Cuckoo

It is supposed by some naturalists that the more immediate cause of the instinct of the cuckoo is, that she lays her eggs, not daily, but at intervals of two or three days... (Page 240).

Darwin took this anecdotal information and further speculated about the disadvantages associated with the rather random laying behavior of the European cuckoo. If the female bird incubated the eggs as they were laid, the young would hatch at different intervals and some would mature before the others and the female would leave with the more mature young and the male bird would be left to tend and feed those remaining by himself. To avoid this circumstance, the female hit upon the habit of laying one egg at a time in the nests of other species of birds.

The European cuckoo lays only one egg per parasitized nest, lays relatively small eggs, and the newly hatched cuckoo has the practice of pushing its foster siblings out the nest so it is the only baby bird left to be tended by its foster parents. One Australian species of cuckoo illustrates evolving steps toward the laying of one egg in the host nest because it on occasion lays more than one egg per nest. In the case of egg size, "In the Bronze cuckoo the eggs vary greatly in size, from eight to ten times in length" (Page 241). In addition, a "Mr. Ramsay" stated that two of the Australian cuckoos select to lay their eggs in the nests of other bird species with eggs of similar color. "Mr. Ramsay" also noted that the Australian bronze cuckoo produced eggs of various colors to accommodate this egg-placement behavior. Thus, Darwin said of these observations: "natural selection might have secured and fixed any advantageous variation" (Page 242).

Insofar as the instinct of the baby European cuckoo to expel its foster siblings to their deaths from the nest, Darwin observed:

I can see no special difficulty in its having gradually acquired, during successive generations, the blind desire, the strength, and structure necessary for the work of ejection; for those young cuckoos which had such habits and structures best developed would be the most securely reared (Page 242).

Darwin argued that early on, a young bird developed an "unintentional restlessness" (Page 242) and this habit was passed on to its offspring who acquired the instinct at a younger age.

Darwin then proceeded to compare parasitic egg-laying behaviors in the genus _Molothrus_ (cowbirds). Three species of cowbirds vary in the degree they successfully parasitize the nests of other species. Darwin believed the varying degrees of nest parasitism among species of the same genus showed gradations in evolutionary development, with one species being superior to the others.

Critique

"It is supposed by some naturalists..." (Page 240). To support a theory with suppositions and found discussion on anecdotal information is beyond or beneath the realm of science but well within the realm of advocacy. Darwin repeatedly used such "information" and speculations to provide "evidence" of the truth of his theory of the gradual evolution of all species from a common ancestor; that is, bacterium to mathematician. One is prone to wonder how some bacteria decided to remain in their class while others proceeded toward the evolution of mathematician.

Darwin discussed the variations among several species of cuckoos in egg size, number of eggs per parasitized nest, and colors of eggs. He noted that all these different characters provided natural selection ample opportunity to work upon and fix "advantageous variation". In addition, the variation among and within the cuckoo species showed the evolutionary advancement of species and individuals, illustrating the gradual development of new and advanced characters in the living birds. Rather, I suggest, ecologically speaking, each species possesses specific characters that enable it to better survive within its specific living situation than other members of the same genus. There are good reasons for the differences among the species of cuckoos. We cannot assume, as Darwin did, in order to support his theory of gradualism, that some species of cuckoos are more advanced along the scale of evolution than others. The yellow-billed and black-billed cuckoos in America, for example, are sympatric (co-exist spatially) in much of their ranges. Because no two species can successfully occupy the same niche, we must assume that each is adapted to different living situations, not that one species is at some lower step of phyletic evolution as Darwin would have us believe.

Darwin also noted in this section that the female cuckoo laid eggs in the nests of other birds because if she laid eggs daily in the same nest and began incubation with the laying of the first egg, the young would hatch and mature at different times. Farm boys know that the wild and domestic birds they observe do not begin incubation until the full clutch of eggs is laid. What was Darwin thinking?

Slave-making Instinct

Darwin described the slave-making behavior in the ant species _Formica sanguinea_ and _F. refescens._ These species of ants, found in western Europe, collect the pupa of other species of ants in their genus and raise them as their own offspring. They prefer to enslave members of the species _F. fusca_. Observations suggested that _F. refastens_ requires the service of its slaves to perform all the work of the group, including the building of the nest, carrying out migrations, collection of food, and feeding and care of young and adults. By contrast, slaves of _F. sanguinea_ merely assist in such activities.

Darwin guessed at how the slave instinct may have developed gradually in a step-wise manner. He speculated that the master ants originally robbed the pupae from the nests of related species for food. They subsequently failed to eat all the foreign pupae and some developed into adults and followed their own instincts to serve their hosts.

Critique

One guess is as valid or invalid as another with such surface observations. The real question might be to ask how at the molecular level, information changes developed to program slave-making behaviors in certain species of slave-making ants.

Cell-making Instinct of the Hive-bee

Darwin described nest-building by the humble bee (bumble bee), the _Melilpona_ (stingless bees), and the hive bee (honeybees). In his mind, he believed that the "hive bee" made complex nests that required highly evolved behaviors, that the humble bee made relatively crude nests, and that the _Melilpona_ constructed nests of moderate complexity. The humble bees:

...use their old cocoons to hold honey, sometimes adding to them short tubes of wax, and likewise making separate and very irregular rounded cells of wax (Page 248). ...The Melilpona itself is intermediate in structure between the hive- and humble-bee, but more nearly related to the latter; it forms a nearly regular waxen comb of cylindrical cells, in which the young are hatched, and, in addition, some large cells of wax for holding honey (Page 248).

Darwin then proceeded with an excess of 3,000 words to describe his observations and the observations of others to conclude that the making of the hive by the honeybee was complex but understandable and therefore not too complex to show that such complexity could evolve through gradual steps. The nest-building of the above bee species showed gradations in the complexity of nest-building and therefore the gradual evolution of bee nest construction.

Critique

When Darwin tried to illustrate the development of complex behaviors or structures in species by assigning some as "primitive" and others as more advanced on the scale of evolutionary development, he violated fundamental ecological principles. No two species can occupy the same ecological niche (living situation) because the better adapted species will replace the less adapted one. Thus, because the honeybees, the bumble bees, and stingless honeybees coexist in time and space, each is best adapted to survive in its specific ecological niche. Because each species is most fit to survive in its own living situation, it would be erroneous to assume that the body plans and/or behaviors of one species of bees were more advanced on some evolutionary scale than those of the others.

Objections to the Theory of Natural Selection as Applied to Instincts: Neuter and Sterile Insects

Darwin was concerned about the origin of sterile female workers in some social insects; e.g. some ants and bees. What could be the reproductive advantage of producing sterile offspring? Darwin also believed that species changed because their new behaviors affected their structures and their offspring inherited these changes or "habits". But sterile members of species could not pass their Lamarckian-acquired "habits" to the next generation:

For peculiar habits confined to the workers or sterile females, however long they might be followed, could not possibly affect the males and fertile females, which alone leave descendants (Page 261).

Darwin, as was his usual mode of operation, solved the apparent problem involving sterile offspring through the reasoning process called abduction. By abduction, one hypothesizes about possible events in the past, in the light of known processes, that could explain current observations/evidence. Darwin hypothesized that species of social ants experienced increased rates of survival by producing the sterile female workers.

The assumption here is the same that I made above: species are adapted and often fine-tuned to survive in their respective ecological niches, and therefore the characters they possess and reproductive strategies they display are functional and necessary for their reproductive success and survival, including the production of many sterile offspring.

Thereby, Darwin maneuvered about the reproductive advantage of producing non-reproducing offspring. The next problem he needed to explain was the observation that some ant species produced two distinct forms of sterile workers. How did natural selection accomplish this feat? Darwin speculated that long ago, fertile parents produced a wide array of forms of sterile offspring and those parents that produced more of the existing two forms had higher rates of survivability than those that produced more of the intermediate forms between the two extant forms. Progressively, over time there were fewer and fewer intermediate forms until only the two extant forms remained. Darwin believed that "division of labour" (Page 260) explained the benefits derived from the production of different forms of sterile offspring.

Darwin needed examples of ant species that produced different forms of intermediate worker ants. A colleague "Mr. F. Smith" assured him that the driver ant ( _Anomma_ ) of West Africa produced "gradations of structures between the different castes of neuters in the same species" (Page 259).

Critique

Darwin hypothesized that some species of social ants experienced increased rates of survival by producing sterile female workers. This tautology means: some social ants that survive produce sterile offspring.

Darwin was correct in his assumption that the production of sterile workers benefits the colonies of some social bee and ant species. If sterile workers were not beneficial, they would not be produced on a regular basis. The ecological principle that most species are fine-tuned to survive in their relative ecological niches is generally sound. Darwin was not, however, consistent in the application of ecological principles when deriving "evidence" from extant species to support his theory of macroevolution. Repeatedly he stated that the characters and behaviors of some related, extant species showed gradations in evolutionary development; not that the behaviors and characters of each were fine-tuned to assure the survival of each in its own ecological niche. He repeatedly classified structure and behavior as "primitive" or "intermediate" or "advanced" to illustrate examples of step-wise gradualism in extant species and even within the structures of single individuals. These evolutionary classifications were out of sync with the ecological concept that species, their reproductive strategies, and behaviors are most often fined tuned and necessary to assure the survival of each species.

How did Darwin recognize which structures and behaviors in the sterile workers were more beneficial/advanced than others? One also wonders how the addition of worker ants with the minutest change in behavior or structure, recently inherited from parents, could improve the chances of survival of an ant colony? And, of course, the change had to reflect innumerable, minute changes because, otherwise, the alteration would represent a case of forbidden saltation. Cannot have that; rapid alteration of complex organs, behaviors, and structures approaches the unnatural and unscientific: "To admit all this is, as it seems to me, to enter into the realms of miracle..." (Page 232).

If Darwin had not been apprehensive about the implications of rapid changes, he might have been able to come up with other possible hypotheses to encompass the appearance of sterile ant castes. Perhaps the queen with mutation of her sex cells ... in one step, produced numerous sterile workers with the beneficial modification in behavior or structure? But she could only transfer that beneficial modification through her fertile offspring, not through her sterile offspring. Thus, rather quickly, numerous queen ants might appear within the species with the ability to pass on to their sterile offspring the beneficial modification. But how often would a slight/minute elongation of a sterile soldier's mandible, for example, occur? Would hundreds, thousands, or millions of such fortuitous mutations be required to establish the elongated mandibles found in some soldier ants? What is the probability of such repeated, cumulative, and favorable mutations in the same structure?

Mutation at a particular site along any chain of DNA occurs once in a hundred million births. If two or more mutations or a new protein-protein binding or two are required to produce a functionally improved mandible in an ant species, the probabilities of producing such cumulative modifications by blind chance could jump from the highly improbable to the virtually impossible; say, one blind chance in 1040 (Behe 2014:112-116,146). And, in concert with Darwin, if a larger, functionally improved mandible showed up all of a sudden, how would one explain such a fortuitous event?

Darwin struggled to incorporate the presence of specialized structures in sterile worker ants and bees into his gradualist model. One wonders what concoction of borrowed antidotal observations he would have come up with to accommodate the innumerable evolutionary steps required to produce complex one-celled organisms that reproduce asexually. Perhaps a bacterium would simply, in Lamarckian fashion, long to become a human mathematician and then would simply begin the long journey in that direction - in small steps of course. Lest we forget: "natura non facit saltum;" that is, "nature does nothing in jumps." Of course, a random mutation in a gene represents a non-Darwin leap.

# Chapter IX - Hybridism

The view commonly entertained by naturalists is that species when intercrossed, have been specifically endowed with degrees of sterility, in order to prevent their confusion (Page 263).

Darwin noted that this statement "seems at first highly probable..." (Page 263). His view was that natural selection working on variation was not responsible for the inability of related but different species to produce infertile offspring. Secondly, Darwin also acknowledged that the crossing of different species also can fail to produce any offspring. He felt it was important to recognize that there is a difference in crossing different species that produce infertile hybrids and those crosses that produce no offspring. He also said that varieties within the species produce offspring that are fertile.

Critique

This subject leaves little for fruitful discussion. Different species by definition do not, generally, interbreed and if they do, they do not produce offspring, but if they do produce offspring, the offspring are infertile. A species is a group of organisms that successfully interbreeds and produces fertile offspring. All else is speculation.

Darwin's speculation in this discussion was that God did not make separate species because cross-breeding closely related species results in varying degrees of sterility. If degrees of sterility show degrees of relatedness between different species, God could not have been involved in the creation of new species. If species give rise to sister species, God had nothing to do with the appearance of species. In the case of domestic varieties of pigeons, God could not have made wild pigeons because man derived varieties of the species from wild birds. Perhaps Darwin's studies of theology while at Christ College, Cambridge, from 1827 -1831 provided him with special insights on God's limits?

Degrees of Sterility

Discussion of this topic included experiments and observations of horticulturalists. Horticulturalists Kolreuter and Gartner, "two conscientious and admirable observers" (page 264) after devoting their lives to their experiments and findings, derived contradictory conclusions. Kolreuter observed that crossing different varieties and species of plants produced set degrees of productivity and sterility. By contrast, Gartner noted varying degrees of sterility or productivity over time with continued, controlled pollination experiments. Darwin disagreed with Gartner:

...an occasional cross with a distinct individual or variety increases the vigor and fertility of the offspring, and on the other hand ... a very close interbreeding lessens their vigour and fertility... (Page 265) and....some degree of sterility between distinct species is a universal law of nature (Page 266).

Following the discussion of inter-species and inter-variety breeding of plants, Darwin talked about relative sterility among animal crossings. He noted that the crossing of species of animals was more likely to produce no offspring or sterile offspring than was the crossing of plant species. An example of successful interspecies cross breeding was that of the hare and the rabbit:

It has lately been asserted that two such distinct species as the hare and rabbit, when they can be got to breed together, produce offspring, which are highly fertile when crossed with one of the parent-species (Page 268)... and...With our domesticated animals, the various races when crossed together are quite fertile; yet in many cases they are descended from two or more wild species (Page 268).

Darwin believed, for example, that domestic dogs and domestic cattle resulted from the crossing of multiple species of wild canine and bovine species, respectively.

Critique

Again, Darwin failed to say how the cross-breeding of plant "species" and varieties or his "evidence" on the derivation of domestic animals related to his theory of the gradual evolution of all species from a single ancestor species. Perhaps his "evidence" illustrated the general plasticity of and connectivity of species and their inherent ability to develop into other forms or other species without divine interference?

Can one crossbreed the cottontail and the jackrabbit and produce viable offspring? Did the domestic dog derive from different species, as Darwin claimed, or does the domestic dog merely represent the genetic potential of the one wolf species _Canis lupis_? How sound were Darwin's observations and anecdotal evidence?

As noted above, we must conclude that Darwin had special insights from his observations and those of others. The variation in degrees of sterility among inter-species crossings proved to Darwin that God did not produce species. A cross between a donkey and a horse produces a mule and therefore God had nothing to do with the appearance of the horse nor donkey and therefore all species evolved naturally from a common 1-celled organism?

Laws Governing the Sterility of First Crosses and of Hybrids

In this case, Darwin addressed the concept suggested by typologists/taxonomists that the purpose of sterility was to maintain species identity. He noted that typologists had classified species on the basis of their "systematic affinity," that is, according to their similarity in structure. In general, Darwin agreed with the typologists in their classification schemes, but he pointed out that degrees of sterility resulted from crossing plants of different species. That is, varying degrees of sterility indicated varying degrees of connectivity and therefore varying distance from common ancestry.

Crossing of plant species from different families inevitably produced no seed, crossings between species of the same genus produced sometimes no seed and sometimes viable seed in varying amounts. Crossings of varieties within a species produced viable seed and often abundant seed as a result of hybrid vigor. Similar degrees of sterility occurred in the crossing of animal species and varieties. Generally, the closer plants and animals were related in their classification by typologists, the more likely they were to consistently produce viable offspring.

Because of the large amount of variation in degrees of sterility among the crossings of widely separated and closely related species, as classified by the typologists, Darwin concluded:

Now do these complex and singular rules indicate that species have been endowed with sterility simply to prevent their becoming confounded in nature? I think not. For why should the sterility be so extremely different in degree, when various species are crossed, all of which we must suppose it would be equally important to keep from blending together (Page 273).

Critique

If two different organisms freely breed or cross-pollinate and produce viable offspring that survive in the wild, the two organisms are classified as the same species. If two species when crossed do not produce offspring, these organisms are classified as different species. If two different species produce sterile offspring in the wild, the two species are closely related but different species. One could say that relatedness among different classifications of plants and animals suggests the possibility of common descent and one could argue with a degree of probability that species, as programmed, derived rapidly from sister species (the fossil record shows no intermediate, evolutionary steps).

The non-Darwinian and mysterious development of some 300 endemic species of fish from a handful of cichlid species in Lake Victoria, Africa over the last 12,400 carbon-14 years is a good example of rapid speciation from a few founders (Johnson et al. 1996). Such rapid speciation without isolation is not Darwinian nor "allopatric" as proposed by Eldridge and Gould (1972). See "Allopatric speciation" under _Definitions/Notes_ at the end of this essay.

I suggest that the claim by Darwin's opponents that the degree of sterility was God's way of preserving species identity was correct. We note in the Mosaic Law (Leviticus 19:19a) that God forbid the cross breeding of different kinds of animals: "You shall keep my statues. You shall not let your animals breed with a different kind..." Perhaps this scripture represented God's desire to preserve the genetic integrity of engineered "kinds" of organisms? The story of Noah's ark (Genesis 6-9) also testifies to God's desire to preserve species diversity.

In like manner, contemporary biologists take measures to preserve species integrity. Biologists today frequently test the genetic purity of small populations of endangered species and subspecies to guard against the introduction of rogue genes and to reduce the deleterious effects of inbreeding. In New Mexico, fish biologists frequently place structures in trout streams to prevent invading rainbow trout from spawning with the native, closely related Gila trout.

Origin and Causes of the Sterility of First Crosses and of Hybrids

Darwin stated:

...the sterility of first crosses and hybrids might have been acquired through the natural selection of slightly lessened degrees of fertility... _for_ ...it would clearly be advantageous to two varieties or incipient species, if they could be kept from blending... (Page 275).

The problem of natural selection producing degrees of sterility arises in the process of passing that character from parent to offspring, when crosses produce fewer and fewer offspring to carry on the character of decreased sterility. Darwin concluded:

...it would be superfluous to discuss this question in detail; for with plants we have conclusive evidence that the sterility of crossed species must be due to some principle, quite independent of natural selection (Page 276).

Next, Darwin discussed the causative agents in plants of sterility in first crosses and hybrids. In some cases:

...the male element fails to reach the ovule, as would be the case with a plant having a pistil too long for the pollen-tubes to reach the ovarium...Again, the male element may reach the female element but be incapable of causing an embryo to be developed... _and_... Lastly, an embryo may be developed and then perish at an early period (Page 277).

Darwin observed that some wild animals, for example, the elephant, fail to breed in captivity. He believed that "change in the external conditions" were responsible for this form of sterility.

Darwin did say that hybrids of two different species may fail to reproduce because "the reproductive system, independently of the state of health, is affected..." For example the cross between a horse and a donkey can produce a sterile yet healthy mule. Inbreeding of hybrids can mask the effects of cross-breeding between species but breeding of varieties within the same species can produce hybrid vigor. Darwin finalized this section with a comment on "the principle of life" that apparently addressed the phenomenon of hybrid vigor:

...according to Mr. Herbert Spencer, being that life depends on, or consists in, the incessant action and reaction of various forces, which, as throughout nature, are always tending towards an equilibrium; and when this tendency is slightly disturbed by any change, the vital forces gain in power (Page 280).

Critique

Darwin did not, once again, make much of an effort to tie his discussion on the sterility of first crosses and hybrids to his special theory of natural selection (a microevolutionary process) nor to his general theory of macroevolution. He did posit that degrees of sterility indicated degrees of relatedness, suggesting common descent and relative distances from common ancestry. In Darwin's mind, God could not have produced various kinds of organisms if species or varieties derived from other species.

Reciprocal Dimorphism and Trimorphism

Darwin believed that some species of plants produced two or three different forms. Individual plants in the same species would look alike in structure but the sexual parts would differ. The flowers of one form had elongated stamens and a relatively short pistil, a second form had elongated pistil and short stamens, and a third form might have stamens and pistil of equal length. Artificial pollination among the three forms within the same species of plant produced varying amounts of sterility, dwarfism, and vigor. Crossings of forms within the species that produced sterility or dwarfism, Darwin called "illegitimate". Crossings between species that produced sterility, reduced fertility, or dwarfism, he labeled as "hybrid".

Critique

Numerous species produce abundant variation through their offspring. This variation in body form or polymorphism enables species to adjust to different or changing environmental conditions. Some species may produce fewer offspring than other varieties of the same species. Generally, species with lower rates of reproduction experience higher rates of individual survivability and those species that have high rates of reproduction also have high mortality rates. Thus, total numbers of offspring produced may not indicate degree of relatedness among varieties or between species. When Darwin's cross-pollination experiments failed to produce offspring, he obviously attempted to cross-pollinate different species.

Darwin classed crossings that produced no offspring "illegitimate" and "hybrid" if the crossing produced sterile or dwarfed offspring. Thus, species crossings that produced no offspring indicated less relatedness between the parents than did crossings that produced sterile or deformed offspring. Our observations that the offspring of a horse crossed with a donkey produces a sterile mule and the artificial insemination of a feline species with sperm from a canine species produces no offspring are not surprising. Horses and donkeys are related species of organisms, cats and dogs less so.

But the root of the problem for Darwinian evolution is not in the relatedness of species, but the inexplicable origins of biological information required to produce species differences. Neo-Darwinism is unable to account for speciation events because any change in the production of functional molecules requires changes in biological information. The neo-Darwin mechanism of random mutation cannot produce new functional molecules because:

... (1) it has no means of efficiently searching combinatorial sequence space for functional genes and proteins and, consequently, (2) it requires unrealistically long waiting times to generate even a single new gene or protein. It has also shown that the mechanism cannot produce new body plans because; (3) early acting mutations, the only kind capable of generating large-scale changes, are also invariably deleterious, and (4) genetic mutations cannot, in any case, generate the epigenetic information necessary to build a body plan (Meyer 2013:411).

Fertility of Varieties when Crossed, and of their Mongrel Offspring, not Universal

By definition, varieties within a species are of the same species because crosses among them produce fertile offspring. However, under domestication, for example, some varieties within a species produce more offspring than others. Thus, a person who classifies "species" based on relative fertility among individuals, may conclude that two varieties, one of which produces few offspring and another that produces numerous offspring are different species.

Critique

If two individuals when crossed produce fertile offspring that survive in a wild state, they are by definition the same species. As stated under _Critique, Reciprocal Dimorphism and Trimorphism_ , above, the production of varying numbers of offspring may reflect the relative survivability of individuals in the species, another case of variation within the species boundary that can assure species survival under new or changing environmental conditions. Relative sterility among varieties of the same species does not necessarily reflect degree of relatedness and certainly provides no evidence that all organisms derived from a common ancestor.

By contrast, occasionally, closely related but "different species" breed in the wild and produce fertile offspring. For example, genetic studies indicate that the red wolf ( _Canis_ _rufus_ ) of the southeast United States is a cross between the gray wolf ( _Canis lupus_ ) and the coyote ( _Canus latrans_ ). Darwin made no attempt to incorporate his specific theory of natural selection nor his general theory of the gradual evolution of species into new species into his discussion of the varying fertility among varieties. His point in these discussions was that God did not individually create the parent stock because man artificially produced classifications such as "hybrids" and "mongrels" through cross-breeding. In addition, degrees of sterility showed relative relatedness of organisms on the evolutionary tree of life, illustrating that God was never involved in speciation.

Hybrids and Mongrels Compared, Independently of their Fertility

Independently of the question of fertility, the offspring of species and of varieties when crossed may be compared in several other respects (page 287).

Darwin quantified "the question of fertility" by counting the varying numbers of seeds produced as a result of crossing two different species of plants or two varieties of plants. In this discussion, Darwin referred to experiments by several colleagues, all of whom produced varying results in comparing the offspring of crosses between two distinct species and the offspring of crosses between varieties within the same species. For example, the offspring of a cross between two different species produced hybrids that were observed to show less variation of form than the offspring of a cross between two varieties (mongrels) within the same species. And, "hybrids between very closely allied species are more variable than those from very distinct species..." (Page 287). Darwin pointed out that this rule of crosses between closer related individuals producing more variation in the offspring was obvious in the production of domesticated plants and animals that show a lot of variant forms.

He observed that the causes of variability in domestic species resulted from "the reproductive system being eminently sensitive to changed conditions of life" (Page 288). That is, plants and animals taken from the wild and placed into the new conditions of domestication will produce more variation in their offspring than the parent species did in the wild. Of interest, Darwin also believed that domestic plants and animals were the hybrids of numerous distinct species in the wild. These different species when crossed to produce domestic plants and animals:

...are descended from species (excluding those long-cultivated) which have not had their reproductive systems in any way affected, and they are not variable; but hybrids themselves have their reproductive systems seriously affected, and their descendants are highly variable (page 288).

Darwin concluded:

Independently of the question of fertility and sterility, in all other respects there seems to be a general and close similarity in the offspring of crossed species, and of crossed varieties. If we look at species as having been specially created, and at varieties as having been produced by secondary laws, this similarity would be an astonishing fact. But it harmonises perfectly with the view that there is no essential distinction between species and varieties (Page 290).

Critique

Darwin was correct in his final statement for this section that "there is no essential distinction between species and varieties" (Page 290). That is, he was correct if he meant to say that varieties of the same species are the same species. All dogs are of the same species as wild wolves, for example, but though the same species, varieties of dogs are often different in structure, size, and behavior. Thus, "species" and "variety" are valid and useful classifications.

Darwin switched from theoretical and historical scientist to theologian in his statement:

If we look at species as having been specifically created, and at varieties has having been produced by secondary laws, this similarity would be an astonishing fact (Page 290).

Perhaps Darwin meant that the similarity among varieties of the same species could not have microevolved from a species that God created? Perhaps he was saying that God would not have programmed a species to produce varieties nor sister species which were, in his mind, the result of the laws of nature and chance events? What did he mean by "this similarity"...that varieties in the same species are similar in structure or that more closely related varieties, as among closely related species, when crossed produce greater variation on their offspring than do crosses among more distinct forms? Darwin did believe that varieties were "incipient species" and that all species were therefore at one time evolving varieties from a parent species. Thus in a discussion of varieties and species, his goal was to say that one does not differ from the other and that both are plastic and in a constant state of flux and evolution toward new species.

Darwin's specific theory of microevolution through the power of natural selection and his general theory of the macroevolution of all organisms from a common ancestor are easy to understand. By contrast, the specific "evidences" he used to support his general theory were often obscure and based on anecdotal observations, tautological reasoning, and obscure relationships with numerous possible explanations. I suggest that the popularity of his writing hinged upon the popularity of his general philosophy of the materialistic evolution of organisms, not on the clarity and power of his reasoning at the evidential level.

# Chapter X - On the Imperfection of the Geological Record

A big problem with Darwin's general theory of the gradual evolution of all organisms from a common ancestor was and remains the absence of innumerable transitional links in the fossil record. Darwin suggested several possible reasons for this absence of transitional links. He suggested that the:

...innumerable transitional links... existing in lesser numbers than the forms which they connect will generally be beaten out and exterminated during the course of further modification... (Page 293).

Thus, the first reason the "innumerable transitional links" failed to show up in the geological record was because there were relatively fewer of these species/varieties than there were of the species they evolved into or evolved from. Secondly, the geological record was too incomplete to support Darwin's general theory.

Darwin noted that we cannot expect to find transitional links between coexisting, related species. For example, when we look at two related forms such as the horse and the tapir, we should not expect to find transitional links between them. Rather, transitional forms remain in the geological record that point to a common ancestor of both the horse and the tapir. The same is true for the fantail and the pouter pigeon, both of which were bred from the common rock pigeon. There are not transitional links between the fantail and the pouter pigeons but there are transitional forms between each and the rock pigeon.

In the case of the rock pigeon and the fantail and pouter pigeon, the original form and the two descended forms coexist. Thus, Darwin believed: "It is just possible by the theory, that one of two living forms might have descended from the other..." (Page 294). He further noted that in such a case, the parent species would have remained unchanged for a long period of time while:

...It's descendants had undergone a vast amount of change; and the principle of competition between organism and organism, between child and parent, will render this a very rare event; because in all cases the new and improved forms of life tend to supplant the old and unimproved forms (page 295).

He concluded that "the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great" (Page 295).

Critique

According to Darwin's model of gradual evolution, a variety or intermediate form of a species acquired a favorable character that enabled it to replace the parent species across the parent species' range. Thus, the new variety or intermediate form spread out across the parent species' range and replaced the inferior members that constituted the parent form. However, Darwin needed to incorporate into his gradualist model some explanation for the absence of those innumerable intermediate forms in the fossil record. He decided to point out that the fossil record was incomplete and/or stochastic events; e.g., drought, predation, and disease had eliminated the "thousands" or even "a million" intermediate forms. The stochastic events were able to eliminate the intermediate forms because 1) those forms were relatively few in number though they had replaced the inferior parent population across its range and 2) they were localized though they had replaced the parent population across its range, and 3) though the intermediate forms were superior to and therefore replaced the parent forms, which appeared in the fossil record, they themselves, because they were not superior enough, did not persist long enough to appear in the same strata. Thus Darwin reconciled his vision of gradualism with the absence from the fossil record of the thousands and millions of intermediates. Those recalcitrant stratigraphic data!

Insofar as the completeness of the fossil record is concerned, Denton (1986:160) stated:

Since Darwin's time the search for missing links in the fossil record has continued on an ever-increasing scale. So vast has been the expansion of paleontological activity over the past one hundred years that probably 99.9% of all paleontological work has been carried out since 1860.

Stanley (1979:39) concluded:

The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic ( _gradual_ ) evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualist model can be valid.

Because the rock pigeon coexists with the domestic fantail and pouter pigeon, Darwin conceded that rarely, the parent form and evolved forms coexist. Such a situation represented a "very rare event" because it conflicted with the gradualist model of superior transitional forms replacing the parental population through competition. Note also that, according to the fossil record, _Homo erectus_ coexisted with its progenitor genus _Australopithecus_ and all its offspring species, including _H. sapiens_. Not Darwinian.

Today, neo-Darwinists continue to line up co-existing species and genera and designate one as directly parental to the other. Thus they ignore Darwin's insistence upon the gradual evolution of a population into a new species and replacement of the parental species by the improved descendent species. That is, they deny one of the basic tenets of Darwinian evolution. Oddly, as was his usual practice, Darwin refrained from labeling the fantail and the pouter variety of pigeon as "primitive" or "advanced" in order to provide evidence for gradual evolution at work.

On the Lapse of Time, as Inferred from the Rate of Deposition and Extent of Denudation

Some of Darwin's opponents suggested to him that the earth had not existed long enough to accommodate the slow development of innumerable connecting links between the species. Darwin retorted that the earth was old. He referred to Sir Charles Lyell's work presented in _Principles of Geology_ (1830-1833). Darwin described weathering by wind and water of rocks and of the slow deposition of materials to produce sedimentary layers hundreds of feet thick. The remarkable thickness of some of these layers illustrated the immense age of the earth. He further mentioned the slow erosion of hard cliff faces by the action of waves:

It is good to wander along the coast, when formed of moderately hard rocks, and mark the process of degradation. The tides in most cases reach the cliffs only for a short time twice a day, and the waves eat into them only when they are charged with sand or pebbles; for there is good evidence that pure water effects nothing in wearing away rock (page 298).

Darwin noted the rounded boulders at the bases of retreating cliffs, "showing how little they are abraded and how seldom they are rolled about!" (Page 298). It obviously took a long time to make a rock round when it rolled around only twice a day with the tide.

Darwin mentioned the slow process of weathering, erosion, and deposition producing such geological features as escarpments, eroded volcanic islands, uplifts at faults, and sedimentary strata. He cited the work of a "Professor Ramsay" who had collected "actual measurements in most cases" (Page 297) of a mass of conglomerate rocks comprising the surface of different parts of Great Britain. Professor Ramsay had determined that the Paleozoic strata were 57,154 feet thick, the secondary strata, 13,190 feet, and the Tertiary strata, 2,240 feet thick. The total 72,584 feet, Darwin calculated, was "very nearly thirteen and three-quarters British miles" (Page 298). Trying to grasp the amount of time required to produce sedimentary rocks 13 British miles thick:

...impresses the mind almost in the same manner as does the vain endeavour to grapple with the idea of eternity (Page 298).

In addition, a "Mr. Croll" had calculated that it would take certain rivers six million years to reduce the average elevation of "their areas of drainage" by 1,000 feet. Darwin further quoted Mr. Croll to illustrate the quantity of a million years:

...take a narrow strip of paper, 83 feet 4 inches in length, and stretch it along the wall of a large hall; then mark off at one end the tenth of an inch. This tenth of an inch will represent one hundred years, and the entire strip a million years (Page 298).

To illustrate how species could possibly change over long periods of time, Darwin pointed out that some breeders of "higher animals" had produced "sub-breeds" in the relatively short period of a hundred years. However:

It is not to be supposed that species in a state of nature ever change so quickly as domestic animals under the guidance of methodical selection (Page 299).

Wild species change slowly because so few individuals within the population in the same area possess the same favorable modification, and, the modification has little effect because the existing species is well adapted to its living situation. Darwin concluded:

...we have no means of determining, according to the standards of years, how long a period it takes to modify a species... (Page 299).

Critique

According to Charles Lyell, geological processes such as weathering, erosion, and deposition operate at the same rates now as they did in the past. This assumption was labeled "uniformitarianism". Of course, some geological processes cause rapid change; e.g., flooding, volcanism, seismic events, and asteroid impacts. The assumption that Lyell's assumption of uniformitarianism for geological processes also applied to the rates of radioactive decay was obviously an assumption that may but may not be correct. If the rates of radioactive decay vary (see essay above: _Mutable_ _Rates of Radioactive Decay_ ), then our data that indicate the earth to be about four and half billion years old are likewise incorrect.

How did Professor Ramsay in the mid-1800s measure the Paleozoic strata to be 57,154 feet (10.8 miles) thick?

To illustrate how species change over long periods of time, Darwin pointed out that domestic species can change into "sub-breeds" in a short period of time, a hundred years. This observation created problems because Darwin did not recognize differences between variation within the limits of a class (a domestic species) and the macroevolutionary change of species into new classes of organisms. He noted that domestic species changed rapidly but rapid change suggested the interference of selection and planning by mind, in the case of domestic species, by the super- or unnatural selection of man's mind. Insofar as wild species were concerned, however, the appearance of new species had to occur ever so slowly by natural selection acting on chance events and/or Lamarckian changes in the species. Rapid speciation in the wild was therefore not acceptable because it implied interference by mind. Darwin concluded that rapid changes in species did not happen in the wild because 1) so few individuals are produced that possess the favorable character and 2) the species is so well adapted already to existing conditions that the favorable character provides little benefit. Thus, he held tenaciously to his concept of gradual evolution whereby the population as a whole through minuscule steps changes into a new species over vast amounts of time, replacing/displacing the inferior parent species. In regard to rapid speciation, Darwin noted: "To admit all this is, as it seems to me, to enter into the realms of miracle..." (Page 232).

Let's see...domestic species change rapidly because mind guides the selection process and wild species change ever so slowly because minute changes have such a small influence on the population, and because mind is not or cannot influence the creative process. Darwin referred to the domestication process by mind as "the guidance of methodical selection" (Page 299).

One wonders what Darwin would have thought of current paleontological records that show the general pattern of the abrupt appearance and disappearance of species and higher classes of organisms? What did he think of the "Cambrian explosion"? Wells (2000:35) noted:

But the Cambrian fossil pattern didn't fit Darwin's theory. Instead of starting with one or a few species that diverged gradually over millions of years into families, then orders, then classes, then phyla, the Cambrian starts with the abrupt appearance of many full-formed phyla and classes of animals. In other words, the highest levels of the biological hierarchy appeared right at the start.

Darwin floundered over the Cambrian problem: "several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks" and he called this observation a "serious" problem which:

...at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.

Wells said "many" fully-formed phyla and classes of animals appeared suddenly in the Cambrian while Darwin described the number of those sudden appearances as "several". The fact is that of 18 phyla of living animals, 2 appeared late in the Precambrian and 12 appeared abruptly and fully formed in the Cambrian with no evidence of predecessors (Wells, 2000:37-41).

One wonders what Darwin would have thought of the production of 300+ endemic species of cichlid fishes in Lake Victoria, Africa since the lake was dry 12,400 carbon-14 years ago. What would he have thought of the stratigraphic evidence of nearly all the orders of Mammalia, from flying bats and swimming dolphins to climbing primates, in a period of about 10 million years, the species life-times of 3 - 4 mammalian species, during the Paleocene and early Eocene? Likely, he would have reasoned that natural selection was more powerful and rapid than he first thought and that speciation without isolation was a matter of gradual evolution at lightning speed? His model of the gradual evolution of species was operative always... except when it repeatedly was not.

On the Poorness of Paleontological Collections

The fossil record is poor for a number of reasons:

(1) Paleontologists commonly described species based on the finding of a single and often broken bone.

(2) Bones and other evidences often come from a single collection spot.

(3) Collectors had surveyed a small part of the earth's surface.

(4) No organism without hardened body parts was preserved.

(5) Shells and bones on the bottom of the ocean decay and disappear because of the lack of deposition of sediments. Darwin observed that "the bright blue tint of the water bespeaks its purity" (Page 299), which meant to him that the waters of the oceans were largely free of materials for deposition.

(6) When sedimentary beds with fossils were raised and exposed above sea level, "rainwater charged with carbonic acid... dissolved them..." (Page 300).

(7) "Lastly, many great deposits requiring a vast length of time for their accumulation, are entirely destitute of organic remains, without our being able to assign any reason..." (Page 300).

In his usual rambling and unorganized fashion, Darwin continued to explain beyond "lastly" the main reasons for imperfection in the fossil record. He believed the lines between geological formations represented vast amounts of time:

The frequent and great changes in mineralogical composition of consecutive formations, generally implying great changes in the geography of the surrounding lands, whence the sediment was derived, accord with the belief of vast intervals of time having elapsed between each formation (Page 301).

Darwin failed to explain the relationship between the paucity of the fossil record and his belief that the absence of deposition between formations represented great expanses of time. Apparently, he thought his conclusions too obvious to need explanation. Perhaps he thought that if there were great expanses of time and no depositions during those times, there were no fossils; all the evidence had weathered and eroded away. The evidence of all those intermediate life forms was forever hidden in the lines of non-information that divided the rock formations. The oddly synchronized fossilization of the millions of intermediate forms with the denudations represented by the lines dividing the rock strata was a remarkable if unfortunate coincidence.

At this point, Darwin interjected another reason for a lack of marine fossils in the record. He reasoned that wave action destroyed those fossils formed along the coastline. He subsequently reasoned that fossils in the shallow oceans could only persist across thick supplementary layers if the substrate was sinking. If the substrate rose, carbonic acid in rainwater would erase them. Then he recanted:

These remarks apply chiefly to littoral and sub-littoral deposits. In the case of an extensive and shallow sea, such as that within a large part of the Malay Archipelago, where the depth varies from 30 or 40 to 60 fathoms, a widely extended formation might be formed during a period of elevation, and yet not suffer excessively from denudation during its slow upheaval... (Page 302).

That weathering and erosion (Darwin's "denudation") had occurred over wide areas, was evident. The presence of magmatic and metamorphic rocks, which had formed deep within the earth's crust, across wide areas of the earth's surface was evidence of denudation of the overlying rock layers. The weathering and erosion of those vast areas accounted for the disappearance of much of the fossil record.

In conjunction with land upheavals, subsidence, and denudation, new species will form to take advantage of "new situations" (Page 304). Notwithstanding the constant changes of the earth's surface and the creation of new species better adapted to new environments, the fossil record insofar as mammalian remains were concerned, was depauperate because such remains were "accidental and rare" (Page 300).

Critique

It is still, as it was in Darwin's day, overwhelmingly true that the first representatives of all the major classes of organisms known to biology are already highly characteristic of their class when they make their initial appearance in the fossil record (Denton, 1986:162).

Furthermore, as stated above, vertebrate species appear and disappear abruptly and, aside from microevolutionary changes in size, do not change their bone structure over the life of the species. That is, natural selection shows no power to change the morphology of established species.

Though most scientists agree that the average longevity of a mammal species is 3 to 4 million years (Tattersall (2014:56), Prothero and Heaton (1996), in their fossil studies in South Dakota, found that the species life of artiodactyl ungulate species was some 1.5 to 2 million years.

Notable in the study of the White River fauna in the South Dakota Bad Lands by Prothero and Heaton was a drop in mean temperature of 11 degrees C during the Orellan. Despite the dramatic changes in climate and vegetation, the species showed amazing evolutionary stability.

Insofar as the completeness of the fossil record is concerned, as stated above, Denton (1986:160) noted that 99.9% of all fossil evidence has been discovered since 1860. Darwin's innumerable intermediates have remained hidden in absentia within those lines (a line has no dimension) of no-data between the geologic strata. It seemed rather subversive of that infinitude of intermediate forms to establish themselves only on those parts of the earth where weathering and erosion would erase all evidence of their existence, where either fortuitously or unfortunately, the intermediates were forever fallen into the cracks?

Of interest, the arrangements of many geologic strata register deposition tied to catastrophic events; e.g., floods, volcanic and seismic activity, and asteroid impacts.

On the Absence of Numerous Intermediate Varieties in Any Single Formation

Darwin derived a number of speculations to explain why evidence of the numerous intermediate gradations between species failed to appear within any single rock stratum. He failed to specifically organize his thoughts; summarily, I attempted to do that by concept:

1) The rock formations required less time to develop than the species required to change.

2) Species that appeared abruptly in a rock formation did so because they moved to that place from another location.

3) The abrupt disappearance of a species from a rock formation showed that environmental conditions changed and the species had moved out of the area.

4) Different species in the ocean are unevenly distributed and therefore different rock formations demonstrate the varied distributions.

5) Species fossils are absent from formations because when those formations rose above sea level, weathering and erosion destroyed the fossils.

6) Darwin said that some geologists thought some rock formations were older than some species because the species moved into and out of locations, leaving no evidence of numerous intermediate steps. A species would leave an area, undergo modification, and then return and be classified as a different species.

7) Darwin complained "that naturalists have no golden rule by which to distinguish species and varieties..." and "It is notorious on what excessively slight differences many paleontologists have founded their species..." (Page 307). Darwin believed that different "species" instead of intermediate graduations between species appeared in the fossil record because scientists were unable to tell the differences between species and intermediates. To further make his point, he noted that taxonomists often classified the fossil remains of living species as different species when there was "no differences whatever" between them (Page 308).

8) For species widely distributed and those "that propagate rapidly and do not wander much" (Page 308), speciation occurred in localized areas. Local transformations/varieties/gradations "do not spread widely and supplant their parent-forms until they have been modified and perfected in some considerable degree" (Page 308). Thus, with all the intermediate gradations confined to small geographical areas, the probability of finding them in the fossil record is small.

9) Evolution of a species requires a long period of time, however, the parent species may go unchanged for a longer period of time. Thus, there are a lot more formations with the unchanged parent species than there are with the fossils of intermediate forms.

10) The fossil record is not complete enough to reveal intermediate connections between related species. The incompleteness of the fossil record explains, for example, our inability to identify the parent species for domestic plants and animals. Darwin concluded: "What geological research has not revealed, is the former existence of infinitely numerous gradations, as fine as existing varieties, connecting together nearly all existing and extinct species" (Page 309).

Critique

In this critique, I will discuss an apparent contradiction of Darwin's views on the amount of time required for speciation versus strata formation, Gould and Eldridge's evolutionary model "punctuated equilibrium," Darwin's rebuttal of the coexistence of parent and offspring species, and fossil evidence of four-legged animals on land coexisting with or before their boney fish "ancestors". This seemed to be the best approach to adequately critique Darwin's speculations about why the myriad of intermediate forms failed to appear in the fossil record. Basically, the fossil record does not contain evidence of numerous intermediates because organisms do not evolve gradually; that is, there is no evidence of numerous intermediates because they never existed.

From Item 1 above, we note that evidence for speciation is absent in the rock formations because the strata developed faster than species evolved into new species. On the other hand, Darwin said that:

... Bronn and Woodward, have concluded that the average duration of each formation is twice or thrice as long as the average duration of specific forms (Page 305).

I smell a contradiction? From Phil Johnson (1993:50):

The fossil record was revisited in the 1970s in works by Stephen Jay Gould, Niles Eldredge, and Steven Stanley. Gould and Eldredge proposed a new theory they called "punctuated equilibrium" ('punk eek' to the irreverent), to deal with the embarrassing fact: the fossil record today on the whole looks very much as it did in 1859, despite the fact that an enormous amount of fossil hunting has gone on in the intervening years. In the words of Gould:

1) Stasis. "Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless."

2) Sudden appearance. "In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"

Notwithstanding the fossil evidence, neo-Darwinists continue to designate sister species and genera, coexisting, as "advanced" species and genera and others as "primitive" ancestors in evolutionary lines of ascent. For example, _Homo erectus_ coexisted with its founder genus _Australopithecus_ and with all of its offspring species, including Neanderthal man ( _Homo sapiens neanderthalensis_ ) and modern man ( _Homo sapiens sapiens)_. How did _H. erectus_ evolve into _H. neanderthalensis_ and into _H. sapiens_ in a Darwinian fashion and coexist with them? Without saltation events, where are the innumerable tiny gradations between coexisting parental and offspring stock, one evolving into the other? How is it that the parent species, isolated from its offspring species, failed to continue to evolve? In the Darwinian model, a species population gradually evolved into a new species with improved offspring competing with and replacing progenitors. Isolation could produce coexisting and related forms, but these would not line up as ancestor and successor species but as sister species pointing back to some unknown, ancestral archetype. Darwin (Pages 294-295) noted:

It is just possible by the theory, that one of two living forms might have descended from the other for instance, a horse from a tapir; and in this case direct intermediate links will have existed between them. But such a case would imply that one form had remained for a very long period unaltered, whilst its descendants had undergone a vast amount of change; and the principle of competition between organism and organism, between child and parent, will render this a very rare event; **for in all cases** the new and improved forms of life **tend** _(weasel-word)_ to supplant the old and unimproved forms (emphasis, mine).

In the case of human evolution, we have an obvious problem with the inability of random mutation to have created modern chimpanzees and our own species from a common ancestor over a span of 6 million to 10 million years. Studies of mutation rates in the war between the malaria parasite and humans has provided some insights into the limits of random mutation. Behe (2014:60-61) observed:

...The likelihood that _Homo sapiens_ achieved any single mutation of the kind required for malaria to become resistant to chloroqine - not the easiest mutation, to be sure, but still only a shift of two amino acids - the likelihood that such a mutation could arise just once in the entire course of the human lineage in the past ten million years, is minuscule - of the same order as, say, the likelihood of you personally winning the Powerball lottery by buying a single ticket.

On average, for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would need to wait a hundred million times ten million years. Since that is many times the age of the universe, it's reasonable to conclude the following: _No mutation that is of the same complexity as chloroquine resistance in malaria arose by Darwinian evolution in the line leading to humans in the past ten million years._

Had Darwin been alive today and apprised of our more complete fossil record and the numerical limits of gene mutation (natural variation), would he have attempted to compile some form of _On_ t _he Origin of Species_? For example, how would he have white-washed a finding reported under _Verbatim_ by _Time_ magazine, January 12, 2010? This note stated:

"It blows the whole story out of the water"... Jenny Clack, a paleontologist at Cambridge University in England, on a set of fossilized footprints found in Poland that show four-legged animals on land nearly 400 million years ago, well before the date scientists had given for animals' emergence from the sea...

I think it clever of those land dwelling quadrupeds to have evolved in a Darwinian gradualist fashion in concert with or even before the first appearance of their bony fish ancestors.

On the Sudden Appearance of Whole Groups of Allied Species

Darwin observed:

The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several paleontologists - for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick - as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species" (Page 311).

In an attempt to save his theory from that "fatal objection," Darwin restated that the fossil record was inadequate; the world was large and the areas sampled small. Furthermore, the intervals of time as represented by the cracks of no data between rock formations were likely immense and "... longer perhaps in many cases than the time required for the accumulation of each formation" (Page 312).

Darwin further suggested that the transitional forms likely developed in a localized area and then spread rapidly to displace the parent species. Once the fortuitous adaptation had developed:

...a comparatively short time would be necessary to produce many divergent forms, which would spread rapidly and widely, throughout the world (Page 312).

Thus, the new species would only appear to have appeared abruptly in the fossil record.

A "Professor Pictet" had reviewed Darwin's work and told him that he could not see how transitional gradations had received any advantage from rudimentary forms of the bird's wing. Darwin countered that the penguin makes good use of its "wings". He also imagined that over time the penguin could develop the ability to fly by first flapping its wings at the water's surface and then gliding would evolve.

Darwin then noted several new discoveries that illustrated how paltry the fossil record was in the mid-1800s. He said that recent fossil findings had required Professor Pictet to alter his "great work on Paleontology" (Page 312). In addition:

Cuvier used to urge that no monkey occurred in any tertiary stratum; but now extinct species have been discovered in India, South America, and in Europe, as far back as the Miocene stage (Page 313).

Darwin also noted that the discovery of the fossilized Archaeopteryx, with a long lizard-like tail bearing a pair of feathers on each joint, and with its wings furnished with two free claws shows "how little we as yet know of the former inhabitants of the world" (Page 313).

He discussed the distribution of sessile cirripedes and teleost (modern fish) in the fossil record. A fossilized cirripedes was a member of a common extant genus as were the teleost fishes, fossils of which dated back to the Jurassic and Triassic. His point was that there existed predecessors to groups of species that paleontologists first thought appeared abruptly in the rock strata. Few but ancient specimens showed that the species modified locally and then spread widely rapidly and subsequently made their "abrupt" appearances in the rock strata.

Critique

Of interest, Darwin believed the lines, which by definition have no breadth, between rock strata provided evidence for the lack of fossils and for the immense periods of time that he imagined existed between the deposition of rock formations. "Evidence" derived from the absence of information provided by nothing existing between the rock formations could be considered at best - speculative. Only repetition can re-reply to Darwin's redundancy.

And, what was Darwin thinking in his speculation that species would evolve favorable characters within a localized area; within a species population and then would in a "s **hort time**... **produce many divergent forms that would spread widely** " (Page 312). Perhaps he had forgotten his earlier statement under _Illustrations of the Action of Natural Selection, or the Survival of the Fittest_ :

If the new variety were successful in its battle for life, it would **slowly** spread from a central district, competing with and conquering the unchanged individuals on the margins of an ever increasing circle (Page 99).

Thus, Darwinian gradualism was fast and/or slow, depending upon the needs of the metaphysical, materialist script. Unfortunately, the production of many divergent forms in a "short time" did not support his vision of the gradual evolution of "innumerable gradations:"

We have seen in the last chapter that whole groups of species sometimes falsely appear to have been abruptly developed; and I have attempted to give an explanation of this fact, which if true would be fatal to my views (Page 323).

Thus, Darwin's concession of the production of many forms in a short period of time was fatal to his "views" on the gradual evolution of all species from a common ancestor. Salvaging gradualism was quite a chore, given the add-on idea of isolation without isolation, gradualism in a hurry to address the absence of intermediates, and the abrupt appearance of allied and unallied species groups in the rock strata; e.g. the Cambrian explosion.

Next, Darwin abandoned the subject; understandably, of the abrupt appearance of whole groups of allied species in rock formations. He talked about how birds might have developed wings and the ability to fly through small slow changes. Why he changed the subject was not clear.

Insofar as the incompleteness of the fossil record is concerned, I defer to Michael Denton (1986:160-161):

Since Darwin's time the search for missing links in the fossil record has continued on an ever-increasing scale. So vast has been the expansion of paleontological activity over the past one hundred years that probably 99.9% of all paleontological work has been carried out since 1860. Only a small fraction of the hundred thousand or so fossil species known today were known to Darwin. But virtually all the new fossil species discovered since Darwin's time have either been closely related to known forms or, like the Poganophoras, strange unique types of unknown affinity.

On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the Lowest Known Fossiliferous Strata

Darwin recognized his nemesis:

that, though we find in our geological formations many links between the species which now exist and which formerly existed, we do not find infinitely numerous fine transitional forms closely joining them all together; - the sudden manner in which several groups of species first appear in our European formation; - the almost entire absence, as at present known, of formations rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian strata, - are all undoubtedly of the most serious nature (Page 318).

To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer (Page 316).

Nevertheless, Darwin was willing to provide unsatisfactory conjectures that might explain the lack of fossil evidence prior to the Cambrian period and to explain the subsequent "Cambrian explosion" of animal phyla. To account for the absence of Precambrian fossils, he speculated that there were vast continents where oceans now exist and ancient oceans previously existed where land masses now occur. Thus, the Precambrian fossilized layers under the pressure of water "might have undergone far more metamorphic action than strata which have always remained nearer to the surface" (Page 318). That is, water pressure destroyed the Precambrian fossils.

On the absence of Precambrian fossils, Darwin further speculated:

...that the world at a very early period was subjected to more rapid and violent changes in its physical conditions than those now occurring; and such changes would have tended to induce changes at a corresponding rate ( _more rapid_ ) in organisms which then existed (Page 316).

Darwin also recognized problems in the fossil record that pointed toward stasis and microevolution within distinct/established species:

Some of the most ancient animals, as the Nautilus, Lingula, etc., do not differ much from living species; and it cannot on our theory be supposed, that these old species were the progenitors of all the species belonging to the same groups which have subsequently appeared, for they are not in any degree intermediate in character (Page 315).

Critique

Darwin showed remarkable insight into the problems facing his general theory that all life forms evolved from a common ancestor:

1) The fossil record failed to show the innumerable intermediate life forms required to support the gradual evolution of species from ancestral forms.

2) The abrupt appearance of specialized life forms in the rock formations indicated that species did not develop gradually, a basic tenet of Darwin's model.

3) Fossil evidence showed that "predecessors" were either distinct, specialized forms or were species closely related to existing life forms and were therefore "sister species" equally distant from some hypothesized archetype.

A hundred, fifty years of additional paleontological investigations since 1860 solidified the non-Darwinian patterns of speciation noted above.

Of interest, Darwin speculated that prior to the Cambrian, the early earth experienced "rapid and violent changes in its physical conditions." Thus, organisms were forced to gradually evolve in a hurry to adapt to the rapidly changing conditions? What happened to Darwin's total commitment to Lyell's uniformitarian principles and the ever so gradual evolution of species? That is, 12 of the 18 major phyla of animals presently living developed abruptly to accommodate rapid changes in the landscape during the Precambrian and Cambrian Periods?

But at other times the rock formations, rather than species, developed too rapidly to accommodate the enormous amounts of time required for ancient life forms to evolve in the gradualist Darwinian fashion. Darwin had previously noted:

Although each formation may mark a very long lapse of years, each probably is short compared with the period requisite to change one species into another (page 304).

Thus, species groups and, alternatively, rock formations developed either rapidly or ever so slowly but always in a Darwinian fashion, depending upon the changing needs of the gradualist script to explain the absence of intermediates in the fossil record. Darwin hoped that if others would not believe that the water pressure of inundating oceans had erased the Precambrian evidence of gradualism, maybe colleagues would accept these additional attempts to explain away the abrupt appearance of 12 of 18 existing animal phyla during the Cambrian. By contrast, fossil evidence from the Precambrian strata fails to illustrate any linkage to the Cambrian.

Paleontologists have uncovered only four or five types of fossil forms in Precambrian strata; e.g., _Dickinsonia, Spriggina, Charnia, Kimberella_ (a possible mollusk), and sponges. The first three are variously, speculatively thought to be lichens, protozoans, or possibly cnidarians (phylum that includes hydra, jellyfish, sea anemone, and coral). In order for _Dickinsonia, Spriggina,_ _Charnia,_ and _Kimbrella_ to be ancestral to multiple Cambrian phyla, they would have to be undifferentiated and simple in structure. And thus they, relatively speaking, are. However, because of their relative simplicity, these Precambrian forms share no clear affinities to any Cambrian phyla. The Cambrian fauna included annelids (segmented worms), arthropods (insects, crustaceans, spiders etc.), Cambrian mollusks, echinoderms (starfish family), and chordates (four species of jawless fish) (Meyer 2013:74-75, 82-84). On the other hand, if any of the few Precambrian forms did evolve toward any particular Cambrian phylum, all of which are highly differentiated, they would have to evolve through multiple, distinct descendant lines in order to produce numerous complex organs and structures:

Heads, jointed limbs, compound eyes, guts, anuses, antennae, notochords, stereoms, lophophores (a tentacle feeding organ), and numerous other distinguishing characteristics of many different animals...(Meyer 2013:94).

The fact that the highly differentiated Cambrian phyla arrived without affinities to organisms from the late Precambrian shows that the production during the Cambrian of nearly all animal types (phyla) extant today was "explosive". Of course, the phylum Porifera (sponges) appeared abruptly in the Precambrian without evidence of predecessors and has continued to the present.

# Chapter XI - On the Geological Succession of Organic Beings

In this chapter, Darwin made generalized statements on thirteen topics without topical subdivisions:

1) Darwin believed that the fossil record every year revealed more missing links to support his theory.

2) Species appeared in various depths of the formations fully formed for the first time "but as Bronn has remarked, neither the appearance nor disappearance of the many species embedded in each formation has been simultaneous" (Page 320).

3) Darwin stated that various species from different genera change at different rates. For example, the fossil of an existing crocodile was found with the fossils of many extinct mammals and reptiles. Darwin's assumption was that the crocodile did not change but that certain extinct mammals and reptiles changed into present life forms that now coexist with the extant crocodile. Thus, other species changed but the crocodile did not. Also, numbers of mollusks from the fossil record remained unchanged and coexist today with new forms that evolved from extinct mollusks.

4) Life forms on land seem to have changed at a more rapid rate than those in the sea.

5) Higher/more complex life forms changed more rapidly than did lower life forms. "We can perhaps understand the apparently quicker rate of change in terrestrial and in more highly organized productions compared with marine and lower productions, by the more complex relations of the higher beings to their organic and inorganic conditions of life..." (Page 321).

6) "The amount of organic change, as Pictet has remarked is not the same in each successive so-called formation" (Page 321).

7) The reappearance of fauna in a rock formation is due to the immigration of the species into that area.

8) The reasons some species change faster than others is because some variations are more competitive, there is comparative freedom intercrossing, some varieties are better adapted to environmental changes, and/or they compete well with species new to the area.

9) Different rock formations developed over varying amounts of time; therefore, the fossil record showed that species changed at different rates in the different strata. Because we know the rock formations represent different spans of time, we know that... "Each formation, on this view, does not mark a new and complete act of creation, but only an occasional scene, taken almost at hazard, in an ever slowly changing drama" (Page 322).

10) Extinct species do not reappear when the same conditions to which they were adapted recur because new life forms are better adapted than are the extinct species to the recurring environmental conditions.

11) "Groups of species, that is, genera and families, follow the same general rules in their appearance and disappearance as do single species, changing more or less quickly, and in a greater or lesser degree" (page 322). Although "I am aware that there are some apparent exceptions to this rule..." (Page 322).

12) "We have seen in the last chapter that whole groups of species sometimes falsely appear to have been abruptly developed; and I have attempted to give an explanation of this fact, which if true would be fatal to my views" (Page 323).

13) Generally, the number of species in a group (genus?) that appears in the fossil record tends to increase and then diminish in number toward extinction. The gradual increase in the numbers of species in a group as found in the fossil record fit well with Darwin's model for the evolution of all life forms from a common ancestor.

Critique

Darwin stated his belief that in his time new fossil evidence provided missing links that supported his general theory of macroevolution. The fact was and remains that the species and higher classes of "organic beings" appeared abruptly in the fossil record fully formed and distinct. Today, the innumerable intermediate gradations required to support Darwin's general theory are not in the fossil record. Where are they? And, if they do not exist; then species and genera came into being abruptly.

The speculations Darwin derived to support his theory were based on circumstantial "evidence" and often anecdotal and/or irrelevant observations from colleagues. For example, Bronn tried to offer Darwin some comfort in face of the fact that species appear abruptly in and disappear abruptly from the fossil record. Bronn noted that though species are abrupt in their appearances and disappearances, most of them appear and disappear at different times. What is comforting about that?

Darwin readily classified organisms as "simple" and "primitive" and others as "higher," more complex life forms. We should question whether Darwin's "simple" organisms were in fact less complex than the "complex" ones. Single-celled organisms at the molecular level, in terms of the information required for their complex functions, are highly complex. Who is in a position to say that the life cycle of the liver fluke is less complex than the metamorphosis of an amphibian? In Darwin's time, of course, investigators were not aware of the complexity of "simple" organisms.

Secondly, Darwin stated that complex organisms evolved more quickly than simple organisms. That was because he noted that a number of species in the fossil record were the same as extant species. Contrary to Darwin's observations, populations of "simple" organisms such as microbes quickly adjust to new environmental pressures through random mutations and microevolutionary changes because they have high rates of reproduction and large populations. The relatively "simple" HIV virus makes a living thwarting the immune systems of its hosts through regular and rapid evolutionary changes. Thus, contrary to Darwin, "simple" organisms are more likely to experience evolutionary changes than are "complex" organisms. Notably, the production of a hundred billion billion (1020) copies of HIV and an equal number of mutations over the last several decades have changed the basic genetics of HIV very little (Behe 2014:137).

Darwin said that the amount of "organic change" varied in the different rock formations and that some strata required different amounts of time to form. From these observations, he concluded that (in passive voice) the strata were not individually created (by a creator). In active voice: God did not create the rock formations because within the formations, "organic change" varied and the formations took varying amounts of time to form. But without the appearance of intermediate forms in the rock formations, how did Darwin conclude the strata varied in "organic change"; that is, that the individual species changed? And, are we to assume that God did not create the rock strata because those formations differ in thickness and/or resistance to weathering? In like manner, is it reasonable to assume that Frank Lloyd Wright could not have planned and built the home in Pennsylvania called "Falling Water" in 1935 and Gammage Auditorium in Tempe, Arizona in 1959 because completion of these structures required different amounts of time? Darwinian nonsense.

Aside from the obviously absurd notion that God can only accomplish his work abruptly or spontaneously, God could have used an expansive inundation event, volcanism, asteroid impacts, glaciation, earth quakes, tsunamis, and plate tectonics to bend and shuffle, transport, erode, and rearrange rock strata. Some modes of change were rapid; others slow but just as sure. C. S. Lewis noted that a slow miracle was just as sure and miraculous as a fast one.

Darwin was repetitive in his observation that species seemed to appear and disappear abruptly from the rock layers because in the past organisms emigrated out of and immigrated into the same area. Odd it is that, unfortunately, the intermediate forms failed to abide anywhere long enough to leave indelible impressions of themselves.

Today no credible paleontologist/evolutionary biologist would question the fact that the fossil record supports the abrupt appearance of species on the earth and their abrupt disappearance. That is the established pattern, which in Darwin's own words, was fatal to his model of gradualism (see Item 12 above).

Item 11 above was of some interest:

... genera and families, follow the same general rules in their appearance and disappearance as do single species, changing more or less quickly, and in a greater or lesser degree (Page 322).

Here Darwin was weaseling in an attempt to cover all bases just in case future fossil evidence continued to show that species appear and disappear from the earth abruptly. He conceded that they did possibly in fact; maybe, did appear/change/evolve "more or less quickly, and in a greater or lesser degree". I can see him saying this and holding his hands close to his chest and wrangling them as though he were struggling to shape some recalcitrant clay ball...Darwinian gradualism in a hurry...Darwinian weasel-speak. The process is ever so slow except when it often is rapid. The latter process he earlier noted as "fatal to my views" (Page 322).

That the number of sister species in a genus increase over time does not suggest that all organisms derive from a common 1-celled ancestor. Rather, this production of sister species represents microevolution within the programmed limits of the gene pool and the obvious limits of random mutation. In Christian thought, God abhors a vacuum and has programmed the genera/family after their kind (genetic limits) to fill the various environmental niches. See "epigenetic niche-match" in _Definitions/Notes_ at the end of this essay.

On Extinction

Darwin believed that species and genera most often became extinct because natural selection acting on variation gradually replaced populations of parent species with new, more competitive offspring. Because natural selection acted slowly, the process of extinction through competition was also gradual. He said that on occasion the extinction could be rapid if, for example, land subsided and allowed the union of two previously isolated bodies of water. The inhabitants of those two bodies of water would mingle and intensified competition could eliminate numerous inferior species. However, Darwin said that catastrophic events did not cause massive extinctions:

The old notion of all the inhabitants of the earth having been swept away by catastrophes at successive periods is very generally given up... (Page 323).

Darwin returned to his theme of extinction through natural selection and the replacement of parent species by new, improved life forms:

The competition will generally be most severe, as formerly explained and illustrated by examples, between the forms which are most like each other in all respects. Hence the improved and modified descendants of a species will generally cause the extermination of the parent species...(Page 326).

On occasion some parent species might escape extirpation by their improved offspring because they were isolated from the main population and others by the development of some specialization: "from being fitted to some peculiar line of life..." (Page 326).

Darwin continued to explain his thinking on the problem of the apparent sudden disappearance of species in the various rock strata. He repeated that the apparently rapid disappearance of life forms in the strata was due to their gradual disappearance during the immense expanses of time represented by the lines separating the various rock formations:

...we must remember what has been already said on the probable wide intervals of time between our consecutive formations; and in these intervals there may have been much slow extermination (Page 327).

The apparent sudden disappearance of species from the fossil record was also due to abandonment of areas by those species because of environmental changes. These same groups of species were extant in other locations not sampled by paleontologists.

Darwin again conceded (as previously repeated) that some species groups experienced "unusually rapid development" (Page 327) and thereby rapidly displaced other species. He concluded:

Thus, as it seems to me, the manner in which single species and whole groups of species become extinct accords well with the theory of natural selection (Page 327).

Critique

Darwin is often difficult to follow because of a lack of organization of his thoughts. He flits in and out of topics and returns, abandons them abruptly, and generally rambles about his general themes of gradual evolution through natural selection acting on random variation. Notwithstanding the shot-gun pattern and rambling, I will continue to critique his scattered topics, iterations, and speculations. In large part, I can do this by analysis of his direct statements.

At present, contrary to Darwin's views, catastrophic events are blamed for the sudden extinctions of species. World-wide climatic changes related to impacts by asteroids and comets are prime suspects in these mass extinctions. The Yucatan asteroid impact and associated volcanism are blamed for the disappearance of the dinosaurs some 65.5 million years ago. Geomagnetic reversals that have periodically reduced the strength of Earth's magnetic field by 95%, including the Lashcamp event 41,000 year ago and the Brunhes - Matoyma reversal some 780,000 years ago, may also have contributed to species extinctions. The later reversal subjected Earth's life forms to increased cosmic and solar radiation for extended periods of time, hundreds or thousands of years. Paleontologists continue to wrangle over various abducted theories as to the causes for the periodic and rapid disappearance of 50 - 90% of all species from Earth.

Darwin believed that species populations gradually went extinct because their improved offspring, within the same population, ever so slowly out-competed them and replaced them. I think it odd that Darwin largely ignored the role of predation in the extinction of species. For example, consider the rapid extinction of numerous marsupial species on the continent of Australia by the introduction of the rat, the red fox, and the domestic cat. Another example: the Nile perch was introduced into Lake Victoria, Africa, in the early 1950s. In 1970, small cichlid fish comprised 80% of the biomass of the fish in the lake. By 1980, the predacious Nile perch comprised 80% of fish biomass and 200 of the 400 species of cichlid fishes had vanished from the lake in ten years. What role did the competition component of the gradualist model play in those rapid extinctions?

I recall my astonishment when viewing Prothero and Heaton's (1996) graphic depiction of the longevity and extinctions of thirty-eight extinct species of artiodactyl ungulates (even-toed, hoofed animals) from the Black Hills of South Dakota. The duration for most species was 1.5 - 2 million years, encompassed by some 6 million years during the Chadronian, Orellan, and Whitneyan ages. These two investigators showed that species, which experienced no notable change in morphology/bone structure, appeared and disappeared in the rock strata abruptly. During the first third of the Orellan age, the study location experienced a decline in temperature by about 13 degrees C, which dramatically changed plant communities. Oddly enough only one species of hoofed animal in the study appeared abruptly and no species disappeared in conjunction with radical climate change. The beginnings and endings of the other species studied showed no linkage to the change in climate and resultant alterations in vegetation.

I wondered why all those species of even-toed hoofed animals failed to respond to climate change. Why did Darwin's theory of natural selection acting on variation fail to change species faced with radical changes in climate and vegetation? The point here is that, presented with empirical information, Darwin's speculations appear incorrect. The scientist can collect the information but when the historical scientist leaps beyond the information in some effort to fit a preconceived model of evolution, he/she has left the role of scientist and adopted the role of speculator/philosopher. Charles Darwin's _On_ t _he Origin of Species_ was largely a body of quasi-scientific speculations and hypotheses most often out of sync with empirical data.

As historical scientist, my abduction/speculation is that most species disappear from the fossil record abruptly because of predation. Their immune systems struggle through time with the increasing virility of the ultimate predators, microbes. After a few million years, the microorganisms ultimately overwhelm the immune systems of their hosts and thereby exterminate the prey/host species. Thus the race for survival is not a matter of competition between parent and improved offspring, as Darwin speculated, but between predatory microbes and the genetic limits of the immune systems of their prey species. That is my abduction/hypothesis and it explains the fossil evidence better than Darwin's speculation that superior offspring replace their parent species ever so gradually.

Back to Darwin and his back-peddling. He once again was caught in the middle. The fossil record indicated that species appeared and disappeared abruptly. The abrupt appearance of complex organisms smacked of vitalism/creation/intelligent design and the abrupt disappearance of species left little time for the gradual replacement of parent species by improved offspring. Aside from that, Darwin had to face the real possibility that future investigations might repeatedly confirm that species appeared and disappeared abruptly.

He decided to compromise. Definitely, most species changed through innumerable gradations except when they did not. In fact, some species groups experienced "unusually rapid development" (Page 327) and thereby rapidly displaced other species. This concession he conceded "accords well with the theory of natural selection" (Page 327). Thus, he changed his mind and decided that natural selection could act in a hurry when necessary to accommodate evidence supporting the rapid appearance and disappearance of species in the fossil record. Of course, rapid speciation did not accord with the innumerable gradations required of his original theory of gradualism. Thus, as previously repeated, gradual macroevolution occurred ever so slowly except when it was ever so rapid, and subsequently was, as Darwin conceded: "fatal to my views" (Page 322). That is, Darwin's weaseling to account for the absence of intermediates in the fossil record was fatal to his gradualist, evolutionary model. But, when it comes to Darwinism, one oppositional opinion is about as good as another...even if the same individual produced both.

On the Forms of Life Changing Almost Simultaneously throughout the World

In Darwin's time, paleontologists agreed that fossilized groups of related species appeared in the same rock strata widely distributed around the world. Darwin stated that natural selection explained this phenomenon:

This great fact of the parallel succession of the forms of life throughout the world, is explicable on the theory of natural selection (Page 329).

Darwin said that the dominant, most competitive species were most variable and that they therefore spread widely. Secondly, the "old forms" were inferior and therefore disappeared ever so gradually "as new and improved groups spread throughout the world" (Page 330).

Critique

One could easily argue that closely related forms appeared abruptly and then dispersed and filled the numerous ecological niches (different living situations) as programmed/planned. Microevolutionary processes and random mutation operating within the limits of the genetic potential of each "kind" of organism filled the ecological niches with the related specialists and generalist species. For example, the appearance of 300+ new species of cichlid fishes in Lake Victoria from a handful of founders in less than 12,400 carbon-14 years was non-Darwinian. This event, to be discussed later, occurred without physical isolation of populations, which left no room for Eldridge and Gould's (1976) "allopatric speciation." Such rapid speciation suggests vitalism and programming of processes by an intelligent agent.

Furthermore, DNA analyses supported discontinuances among the various classes of organisms and thereby failed to support evolution of species from common ancestry. Comparison of protein sequences, that of cytochrome C, for example, provided measurable relatedness and discontinuances among groups of organisms (Denton, 1986: 274 - 306). The horse (mammal), the chicken (bird), the turtle (reptile) and the bullfrog (amphibian) are equally distant from the carp (fish) at the genetic, molecular level. In like manner, humans, tuna fish, sesame, and fruit flies are molecularly equidistant from bacteria. Actually, a human is closer to a bacteria than are baker's yeast or the sunflower. Monkeys, pigs, horses and rabbits are molecularly equidistant from bacteria. Thus, the primitive members of classes tested were as distant from their single-celled "ancestors" as were more "advanced" members of classes. The fossil evidence that showed the abrupt appearance and disappearances of species groups and the data comparing protein sequences that illustrated discontinuances among classes counter Darwin's general theory of the gradual evolution of species from a common ancestor.

This is not to say that species do not give rise to sister species through gene mutation. But rather, reptiles do not turn into birds through _random_ gene mutation.

On the Affinities of Extinct Species to Each Other, and to Living Forms

The principle of descent with modification explained several observations:

1) "The more ancient any form is, the more, as a general rule, it differs from living forms" (Page 331),

2) some extinct species have characters in common with existing, but distinct species, and

3) the species fossils in a given strata are more closely related to those in adjacent strata than to those species located in rock layers more distant in time, 4) primitive fish and reptiles had more characters in common than do existing fish and reptiles. The theory of descent with modification was the only way to explain these observations.

Darwin stated that, with the analysis of early fossil forms, the hoofed quadrupeds were:

...now divided into the even-toed or odd-toed divisions... _and_ the Hipparion is intermediate between the existing horse and certain older ungulate forms (Page 332).

Furthermore, fossil evidence showed connections between birds and reptiles with the bird-like dinosaur _Compsognathus_ and the feathered _Archaeopteryx_. Insofar as whales were concerned, the fossil remains of _Zeuglodon_ in the Tertiary and _Squalodon..._

are considered by Professor Huxley to be undoubtedly cetacean, and to constitute connecting links with the aquatic carnivora (page 332).

However, Darwin acknowledged that extinct forms were not "directly intermediate" steps to existing species. They showed that existing species derived naturally from unknown intermediates related to the extinct forms found in the fossil record. The fossil evidence supported only the existence of distinct though related species but the innumerable intermediates required to support his general theory remained in absentia:

He who is acquainted with the distribution of existing species over the globe, will not attempt to account for the close resemblance of distinct species in closely consecutive formations... (Page 336).

The fact that numerous extinct forms differed little, if any, from existing species presented a problem for theories of evolutionary change. Darwin suggested that such species changed little over the vast expanses of time because their living conditions changed so little. He believed that ancient progenitors could have survived after some of their offspring varieties disappeared. The wild/feral rock pigeon, for example, outlived some of its offspring varieties under domestication.

Critique

The discovery of distinct species in the fossil record that are obviously related to both extinct and existing species provided, in my opinion, apparent support for Darwin's theory that species derived from other species. Therefore, I will discuss this particular question of relatedness among species at some length.

There is a vast difference between the observation that varieties of domestic pigeons derived from the wild/feral rock pigeon and the supposition that all organisms evolved from the same 1-celled ancestor by random mutation. In the case of horse evolution, for example, Denton (1986:184) questioned whether the evolutionary line from _Eohippus_ to the modern horse might "be an extension of microevolution." He noted that modern horses occasionally give birth to "polydactyl" (several-toed) horses. Conceivably, horse breeders could today reproduce extinct species of horses from the gene pool of extant horses? Darwin would have, no doubt, woven such relatedness into his general evolutionary theory. But does relatedness support or discredit Darwin's general theory? For though species are related in some fundamental ways, classes above the family level remain disconnected by apparently unbridgeable gaps?

We see, for example, that at the cellular level, bacteria and human beings are much alike:

Molecular biology has also shown that the basic design of the cell system is essentially the same in all living systems on earth from bacteria to mammals. In all organisms the roles of DNA, RNA and protein are identical. The meaning of the genetic code is also virtually identical in all cells. The size, structure and component design of the protein synthetic machinery is practically the same in all cells. In terms of their basic biochemical design, therefore no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth (Denton 1986:250).

We also see connectedness in the diversity of species of cichlid fishes in Lake Victoria, Africa. Carbon-14 dating indicated that Lake Victoria was dry 12,400 carbon-14 years ago. Since the lake filled, some 300+ new species of cichlids, 90% developed from the single genus _Haplochromis_ , appeared to fill 300+ new aquatic niches. Coordinated changes in body structure, in body organs, and in the DNA coded information required for each species to fill its relative niche were, simply stated, complex and were also accomplished in a non-Darwinian rush. The rapid and complex changes in the recoding of abstract information required for the organisms to function suggests programming intelligence, nonrandom mutation, and natural selection operating at a miraculous pace. In other words, seeing that the mutation rate for the various loci, regardless of species, is between 10-9 to 10-10 with duplication at each reproductive event (Denton, 1986:267), how did all those behavioral, structural, organ, and information refinements occur to produce 300+ new species of cichlid fishes in 12,400 years or less? Of interest, those 300+ species arose abruptly, geologically speaking, without the aid of physical isolation as required for the Elderidge and Gould (1976) model "allopatric speciation."

Other points of apparent connectedness between extinct and living forms appeared in the Yixian formation of China. Fine-grained soil materials laid down in the early Cretaceous covered numerous species preserving tissue impressions often in detail, including the feathers of birds and the skins of amphibians and reptiles. In the 1990s paleontologists discovered specimens of reptiles surrounded by striated auras of what many classified as "proto-feathers." Most paleontologists agreed that the striated auras were feathers though others said that in the process of decomposition, the beta-keratin that adds rigidity to the reptilian skin produced the auras and the illusion of "proto-feathers." Feduccia et al (2005) stated that they had found integument structures, very similar to "proto-feathers," preserved within the rib area of a _Psittacosaurus_ specimen from Nanjing, China, an ornithopod dinosaur unconnected with the ancestry of birds.

The "proto-feathers" comprised single filaments, multiple filaments joined at the skin, paired barbs shooting off a central shaft (Stone, 1010), and fuzzy auras around fossilized bone.

The proto-feather paleontologists found that small fibers on one specimen, _Shuvuvia deserti_ , tested positive for beta-keratin. The proto-feather theorists believed the keratin in this specimen derived from feathers because adult bird feathers contain "almost exclusively" beta-keratin while reptilian skin and bird beaks and claws contain both alpha and beta keratin (Schweitzer, 2010). Logically speaking, this beta keratin could have derived from reptilian skin.

Photos of Jurassic bird fossils ( _Confusiusornis)_ from the Yixian formation were of interest. Fossilized specimens of this bird revealed details of the vain structure of the primary feathers of the wings. However the contour feathers that covered the bodies of the specimens were not decipherable. The remains were discolored and blotchy, indicating that processes of decomposition had obliterated feather remains. There was no way to discriminate feathers from other soft tissue parts. Paleontologists assumed that similar auras and discoloration of specimens found on dinosaur fossils included feathers. They may be correct, however, I suggest one refer only to photos, and not to artist renditions, to compare the feathers and auras on bird fossils with "proto-feathers" and auras associated with the "feathered dinosaurs".

Some photos of the Yixian fossils are available on the Internet. Artistic renditions, which are popular with neo-Darwinian groups, are promotional and not to be trusted. The introduction of the new fossil _Bambiraptor_ makes a case for caution against misrepresentations.

Wells (2000:125-129) reported on the introduction of _Bambiraptor_ at a Symposium on Dinosaur Bird evolution held in Fort Lauderdale, Florida in April 2000. A family found the _Bambiraptor_ fossil in Montana in 1993 and submitted it to paleontologists in 1995. Cladists examined the fossil and determined it to be the "remarkable missing link between birds and dinosaurs" because its skeletal features looked like those of the predicted ancestor of _Archaeopteryx_. Unfortunately, the fossil was from strata some 75 million years younger than _Archaeopteryx_. Undaunted, the cladists had a likeness of _Bambiraptor_ reconstructed and covered with feathers for display at the symposium though the fossil did not provide a shred of evidence for the existence of "proto-feathers".

The proto-feather scientists failed to mention in presentations I have read that the "proto-feather" theropod fossils were located in "...deposits that are at least 25 million years younger than those containing the earliest known bird _Archaeopteryx"_ (Feduccia et.al, 2005). Furthermore, Stone (2010) reported that "feathered dinosaurs" were extant from 155 to 80 million years ago while Dyke (2010) set the proliferation of numerous species of Ornithurines (modern birds) back to a minimum 100 million years ago. Early birds such as _Archaeopteryx_ and _Confuciusornis_ appeared in Jurassic sediments, which means they predated the "proto-feather" theropods. Indeed, it was tricky of these early birds to arrive ahead of their theropod ancestors.

In their critique of the "feathered dinosaurs," Feduccia et.al. (2005) observed that the tridactyl hand of the theropod dinosaurs comprised digits 1, 2, 3 and that of bird wing digit identity was 2, 3, 4. This difference, if correct, indicated a wide gap between coexisting proto-feathered theropods and birds.

Nevertheless, Chris Organ of Harvard compared protein sequences from the soft tissues of _Tyrannosaurus rex_ (the largest theropod) with those of "a multitude of other organisms" and found sequences from _T. rex_ grouped most closely with extant birds, followed by crocodiles (Schweitzer, 2010:69). The assumption here is that _T. rex_ was more closely related to modern birds than to extant crocodiles. Soft tissues from _T. rex_?

DNA analysis of soft tissue from the 65-million year old bones of Triceratops by William Garstka and a team of molecular biologists showed the sample to be 100 percent identical to turkey DNA (Wells, 2000:131). Apparently, someone in the vicinity of the analysis had eaten a turkey sandwich. Otherwise, the triceratops and the turkey with the same DNA would have been the same organism. Contamination can be a problem but may go unnoticed when the outcome of the data analysis is important to investigators.

Finally, against the case of birds being feathered dinosaurs, there exists the physiological gap between birds and reptiles. I defer to Michael Denton's (1986:210-212) comments on the unique respiratory system of birds:

In all other vertebrates the air is drawn into the lungs through a system of branching tubes which finally terminate in tiny air sacs, or alveoli, so that during respiration the air is moved in and out through the same passage. In the case of birds, however, the major bronchi breakdown into tiny tubes which permeate the lung tissue. These so-called parabronchi eventually join up together again, forming a true circulatory system so that air blows in one direction through the lungs. This unidirectional flow of air is maintained during both inspiration and expiration by a complex system of interconnected air sacs in the bird's body which expand and contract in such a way so as to ensure a continuous delivery of air through the parabronchi. The existence of this air sac system in turn has necessitated a highly specialized and unique division of the body cavity of the bird into several compressible compartments. Although air sacs occur in certain reptilian groups, the structure of the lung in birds and the overall functioning of the respiratory system is quite unique. No lung in any other vertebrate species is known which in any way approaches the avian system. Moreover, it is identical in all essential details in birds as diverse as humming birds, ostriches and hawks.

Just how such an utterly different respiratory system could have evolved gradually from the standard vertebrate design is fantastically difficult to envisage, especially bearing in mind that the maintenance of respiratory function is absolutely vital to the life of an organism to the extent that the slightest malfunction leads to death within minutes.

Thus, if the theropod dinosaurs did acquire feathers, they still had to make a lot of soft tissue changes to become birds, which actually predated them by 25 million years. Likely, a clade or line of early birds, distinct from the theropod dinosaurs, appeared to give rise to modern birds, which are now known to have predated and then coexisted with the "feathered dinosaurs" 100 to 80 million years ago (Dyke, 2010). It is going to be interesting to see how these and additional discoveries play out in the future.

Speaking of relatedness and recurring gaps in the fossil record, our own species history questions the power of Darwinian evolution. Supposedly, _Homo sapiens_ evolved from _H. erectus,_ supposedly via _H. heidelbergensis,_ rather suddenly some 200,000 years ago. Bear in mind that _H. erectus_ as a species coexisted, unchanged, with its ancestor genus _Australopithecus_ in the early days and with all of its offspring species, including _H. sapiens,_ during the latter days of its species existence. Consider these details:

1) _Homo erectus_ obviously did not evolve into any other species in the Darwinian gradual sense; otherwise it could not have coexisted with its offspring species. Of interest, remains of _H. erectus_ found near Dmanisi, Georgia and on the island of Java, Indonesia are as old as or older than those from Africa, where the species supposedly evolved.

2) _H. erectus_ as a species survived for about 2 million years with minor structural changes, which questions the power of natural selection to change species.

3) The innumerable intermediates between the genus _Australopithecus_ and _H. sapiens_ are absent.

4) _H. sapiens_ appeared some 200,000 years ago in Africa culturally sophisticated and with obviously advanced cognitive abilities (Marean, 2010); dare we say, abruptly. Although, the Associated Press (2010) reported the discovery in Israel of a tooth, likely from modern man that dated back 400,000 years. For the sake of scientific advancement, let's just ignore that observation as an anomaly.

5) The neo-Darwinian mechanism of random mutation is unable to account for the cumulative changes required to make a human being from a pre-chimpanzee ancestor (Meyer 2013:248):

Behe showed that the problem of coordinated mutations was particularly acute for longer-lived organisms with small population sizes - organisms such as mammals or, more specifically, human beings and their presumed prehumen ancestors. Behe estimated, based upon relevant mutation rates, known human populations sizes, and generation times, the time required for two coordinated mutations to occur in the hominid line. He calculated that producing even such a modest evolutionary change would require many hundreds of millions of years. Yet, humans and chimps are thought to have diverged from a common ancestor only 6 million years ago. Behe's calculation implied that the neo-Darwinian mechanism does not have the capacity to generate even two coordinated mutations in the time available for human evolution - and thus does not explain how humans arose.

Darwin's simplistic evolutionary model, in which offspring species replace the inferior parental species obviously does not fit the coexistence of _Homo erectus_ with its predecessor genus _Australopithecus_ and with all of its offspring species, including us. How did _H. erectus_ evolve into new distinct species through obviously inadequate random mutation gradually and then coexist with all of its offspring species without changing over a period of 2 million years? And finally, does the lack of change within _H. erectus_ for the life of that species support Darwin's claims for the powers of natural selection acting on random variation?

Tattersall (2014:56) stated that the rate of speciation in the human line was dramatically rapid because the longevity of a mammal species is 3 to 4 million years and the time dividing modern man from our common ancestor with modern chimpanzees is only 7 million years. Thus, there was time for only two or three leaps from tree ape to modern humans. Did not that trail to novel and obviously radical, coordinated alterations in the human line in a relatively short span of time demand non-random processes? Reasonably speaking - yes.

On the State of Development of Ancient Compared with Living Forms

Darwin's evolutionary theory necessitated that superior offspring replaced inferior individuals within the parent population and that the march of evolution was continually toward a "degree of perfection or highness" (Page 337). That is, macroevolution always moved toward increased perfection of more specialized and improved organization... except when it did not. It did not, for example, proceed if an organism remained in a state of simple living conditions. Under simple environmental conditions, the species may even degrade to a more simple state of organization. Numerous species of bivalve mollusks for example remained unchanged since their appearance in the "Cambrian explosion" some 500+ million years ago. Protozoans were another example of lowly forms that natural selection failed to improve because they exist under "simple conditions of life" (page 338). Thus, though exceptions exist all around us, the general answer that natural selection continued to move organisms toward perfection "must be admitted as true, though difficult of proof" (Page 337).

At this point, Darwin discussed ranking the higher and lower groups of organisms relative to their evolutionary development by several criteria. He suggested one could put crustaceans (lobsters) and cephalopods (octopi and squids) together to see which would win in "the law of battle" (page 339). He also noted that those groups with the higher numbers of members would illustrate evolutionary advancement because higher numbers of different kinds "implies a great displacement of lower forms..." (Page 339). Furthermore, the introduction of various plants and animals from Great Britain into New Zealand had caused the extinction of numerous endemic species in the latter country. From this observation Darwin concluded that "...the productions of Great Britain stand much higher in the scale than those of New Zealand" (Page 339).

To conclude this topic, Darwin briefly talked about the recapitulation of past evolutionary processes during embryonic development. This was an iteration of his belief that the embryonic stage of an organism represented a lag in evolution, a pictorial history of the evolution of previous lower forms. By contrast, organization and specialization were more perfected in the organism's adult stage.

Critique

Darwin said that his theory of the general march of evolution toward perfection "must be admitted as true, though difficult of proof" (Page 337). Darwin's general theory of macroevolution was "difficult of proof" in his day and it remains today without that proof. As pointed out in my last critique, at the cellular level, any eukaryotic 1-celled organism is as complex as any vertebrate animal:

In terms of their basic biochemical design, therefore no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth (Denton, 1986: 250).

Thus, those organisms that Darwin deemed simple proved to be at the biochemical level more advanced than any machine produced by the cumulative intelligence of mankind.

Darwin's criteria for designating the "degree of perfection or highness" (Page 337) now appear simplistically incorrect. For example, if you place two organisms into a confined area, the one that survives a scrape between them is higher and more advanced on the scale of evolutionary development? There are more species of ants than there are of primates; therefore ants are higher on the evolutionary scale than monkeys or man? Generalist species such as foxes, house cats, and rats released into New Zealand caused the extinction of numerous endemic species and therefore cats and rats represented improved forms of specialization and "perfection and highness". I suggest that most of the New Zealand fauna disappeared, not because of competition with superior beings, but simply because the foxes, cats, and rats ate them. From the ecological point of view, Darwin's generalized speculations that left out the role of predation provided little if any information.

Insofar as Darwin's assertion that developing embryos of the different classes of animals display ancestral patterns of evolution, he was incorrect. This erroneous concept was still popular during my college days. We were told: "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny". However, we now know that in the early stages of development, the embryos of fishes, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and birds are dissimilar. In more advanced stages those same embryos attain superficially similar characters that have different origins and derive from non-homologous parts (Strobel, 2004: 47-52). Because the early stages of the embryos of the various classes differ, current information contradicts Darwin's erroneous opinion that the early stages of embryonic development duplicate the evolutionary changes of ancestors.

Wells (2000:106-107) reported:

So recapitulation continues to rear its ugly head. Although biologists have known for over a century that it doesn't fit the evidence, and although it was supposedly discarded in the 1920s, recapitulation continues to distort our perceptions of embryos. Furthermore, although biologists have also known for over a century that Haeckel's drawings are fakes, and that the earliest stages in vertebrate development are not the most similar, textbooks continue to use those drawings (or almost equally misleading photos) to convince unsuspecting students that Darwin's theory rests on embryological evidence.

On the Succession of the Same Types within the Same Areas, during the later Tertiary Periods

Darwin noted that numerous extinct species from the fossil records of North and South America and Australia were closely related to existing species on each continent, respectively. He attributed these connections by location to the theory of descent with modification. He also pointed out that species groups appeared and disappeared to change the faunal constituents:

...we know that Europe in ancient times was peopled by numerous marsupials... _and_ ...in America the law of distribution of terrestrial mammals was formerly different from what it now is (Page 341).

The reason for the shifts in continental faunas was "great geographical changes permitting much intermigration" (Page 341). Darwin also mentioned that the mega faunas (large animals) once present in North and South America and Australia had become extinct without leaving descendants -

But in the caves of Brazil, there are many extinct species which are closely allied in size and in all other characters to the species still living in South America; some of these fossils may have been the actual progenitors of the living species (Page 342).

Critique

Perhaps Darwin was correct to think that species microevolve daughter species. But if they do, the process is rapid, nonrandom, and proceeds without innumerable intermediates. What the fossil record shows is that species appear and disappear abruptly and that they remain essentially unchanged in their morphology for as long as they endure.

According to the Darwinian model, improved offspring through infinitesimal gradations within a species population gradually replace their parent species. Contrary to this model, species frequently disappear rapidly because of the introduction of a new predator. The Nile perch was introduced into Lake Victoria, Africa in the early 1950s. In the ten-year period from 1970 to 1980, the Nile Perch eliminated half of 300+ species of Cichlid fishes in the lake. Other examples: the mega faunas of North America, South America, and Australia were extinct within about 10,000 years following the arrival of modern man. And, numerous species of Australian marsupials disappeared in 100 years or less with the introduction of foxes, domestic cats, and rats. Of interest, competition in conjunction with available variation and natural selection had nothing to do with these rapid extinctions.

The tautological nature of Darwin's theory was inclusive enough for us to believe that placental introductions ate the marsupials because the latter were unable to survive, and were therefore less fit. Such generalized tautological nonsense provides no real predictive information on causes or processes. "Survival of the fittest" often means "survival of the survivors".

# Chapter XII - Geographical Distribution

Darwin noted that the fauna and flora of the different continents at approximately the same latitudes were often different. Furthermore, species groups isolated on their respective continents were often more similar when compared with species on other continents. He insisted that the same observations held true for marine environments somewhat isolated from each other. The fauna on the east shores of South America, for example, were often more closely related to each other than those on the west shores of the same continent. From these observations, he concluded:

The dissimilarity of the inhabitants of different regions may be attributed to modification through variation and natural selection, and probably in a subordinate degree to the definite influence of different physical conditions (Pages 348-349).

In the gradual evolution of species, isolation was important:

Thus the high importance of barriers comes into play by checking migration; as does time for the slow process of modification through natural selection" (page 349).

However, new species do not develop simply because they are isolated; they only evolve through their competitive interactions with other species:

If a number of species, after having long competed with each other in their old home, were to migrate in a body into a new and afterwards isolated country, they would be little liable to modification; for neither migration nor isolation in themselves effect anything (Page 349).

Critique

Darwin's observation that species groups on isolated continents were more closely related than they were to species groups on other continents provided support for common descent. Few would argue, for example, that five parent species of cichlid fishes gave rise to 300+ new species of cichlids during the last 12,400 years in Lake Victoria, Africa. Nor would anyone argue the point that _Canis lupus_ , the wolf, was the parent of numerous varieties of dogs, _C. familiaris_ , nor that the Alaskan brown bear ( _Ursus middendorffi_ ) gave rise to the polar bear ( _Thalarctos maritimus_ ) in a period of 10,000 years, nor that insects and other arthropods, starfish and sea urchins and other echinoderms, and chordates appeared in quantum leaps during the Cambrian Period, nor that bats, rodents, carnivores, whales, horses, and cattle appeared abruptly at the end of the Paleocene and early Eocene Epochs. How did random mutation at an average rate of 10-9 to 10-10 per base pair replication (Denton, 1986, 267) give rise to so many favored and complex variations over relatively short periods of time? The problem from the Darwinian view point, was not that ancestor species gave rise to new sister species but that new species and even new phyla and orders of species appeared quickly to fill niches throughout the world. Because the Darwinian model failed to explain these events, I would like to offer an alternate hypothesis I will designate as "epigenetic niche-match". The basis for my hypothesis follows.

I suggest the possibility that the process of rapid genetic change already exists about and within us. A parallel process that could explain rapid but directed genetic changes takes place regularly within our own immune systems. Our immune systems can produce billions of different-shaped antibodies to confront invaders. When the system finds an antibody that fits the invading microbe, the antibody sticks to and targets the invader so a white cell can approach it and make the kill. Incredibly, the immune system creates new antibodies to fit new invaders and then over the course of time, alters its own DNA in a highly organized manner to improve the fit of the antibody.

The immune system changes its own DNA in several ways. The system can take a gene's RNA and 'cherry pick' for the needed information or even splice the DNA itself to create antibodies with new shapes. Thirdly, through a process called "somatic hyper mutation," the cell "intentionally" allows a very high level of mutation in just the variable regions of the heavy- and light-chain genes (Behe, 1998: 129).

Ergo, if the immune system can alter DNA to fit internal environmental threats, why could not the physiological systems of species alter DNA to fit environmental opportunities in the form of new niches? One might say: "God abhors a vacuum." This idea is non-Darwinian and reeks of vitalism and preplanning/programming, but we now see a comparable process operating at the level of our own immune systems. But what biochemical mechanisms could account for complex and rapid adjustments to new environmental opportunities?

New research has shown that DNA can change in response to environmental factors and that those changes may pass to the offspring:

The vast areas of DNA that do not code for proteins, once dismissed as "junk," are now known to conceal important regulatory regions. Some DNA stretches produce small bits of RNA that can interfere with gene expression. And, chemical "tags" on DNA that do not change its sequence - that are thus "epigenetic" - can also influence gene expression and can be modified by environmental factors over the course of a lifetime. This environmentally modified DNA may even be passed on to offspring (Hall 2010:167).

In addition, sequences of DNA called "jumping genes" or "retrotransposons" migrate within the genome of the cell and attach in locations where they may activate genes and influence the functioning of individual cells. Retrotransposons, which comprise up to half of the DNA building blocks (nucleotides) in the genome, can create variability in brain cells and may thereby facilitate rapid adaptations to new environmental conditions (Gage and Moutri 2012).

Furthermore, Meyer (2009: 457, 465) noted that a mark of intelligent design is the conception of outcomes before they exist:

Those outcomes are then actualized by arranging the many disparate parts of the system without the need to develop and maintain functional "intermediate forms" or structures along the way to the desired functional end point...In the cell, protein-coding regions of the genome provide formatting, bracketing, and indexing codes that enable the cell to locate and express specific modules of stored genetic information, the expression of which may be needed to respond to specific environmental stresses or changing developmental conditions.

These observations at the biochemical level may account for rapid speciation and the mechanics of epigenetic matching to changing or new environments.

As noted above, epigenetic matching to environmental niches is apparent in the rapid speciation of cichlid fishes in Lake Victoria, Africa. Darwinian gradualism cannot account for the explosion of cichlid species that developed rapidly in the same body of water without physical isolation. The abrupt appearance of species without isolation also leaves little room for "allopathic speciation" as proposed by Eldredge and Gould (1972). I suggest that only "programming" could account for 300+ new body plans for new species that appeared in such a short period of time. The evolution process was apparently explosive, epigenetic, and preconceived to fill new environmental niches with numerous sister species.

Of course, programmed evolution illustrates definitive limits:

It is now well established that the pattern of diversity at the molecular level conforms to a highly ordered hierarchic system. Each class at a molecular level is unique, isolated and unlinked by intermediates. Thus molecules, like fossils have failed to provide the elusive intermediates so long sought by evolutionary biology. Again, the only relationships identified by this new technique ( _protein sequencing_ ) are sisterly. At a molecular level, no organism is "ancestral" or "primitive" or "advanced" compared with its relatives (Denton, 1986:290).

Furthermore, Meyer (2013: 411) noted that natural selection acting on random mutation, the hallmark mechanism of neo-Darwinism, cannot account for the production new genetic information because:

(1) it has no means of efficiently searching combinatorial sequence space for functional genes and proteins and, consequently,

(2) it requires unrealistically _long waiting times_ to generate even a single new gene or protein. It has also shown that the mechanism cannot produce _new body plans_ because;

(3) early acting mutations, the only kind capable of generating large-scale changes, are also invariably deleterious, and

(4) genetic mutations cannot, in any case, generate the _epigenetic_ information necessary to build a body plan.

Having offered a reasonable hypothesis to explain the rapid appearance of sister species, I am well aware that _epigenetic niche-match_ cannot account for the explosion of whole new body plans; e.g., the sudden appearance of disparate phyla in the Cambrian.

Several years after I formulated my hypothesis _epigenetic niche-match_ to account for rapid speciation, I read about geneticist James Shapiro's proposal "natural genetic engineering" (Meyer 2013:332-335). Shapiro, now at the University of Chicago, observed that at the cellular level, organisms within a population frequently modify themselves to adjust to environmental stimuli. Under environmental stressors, organisms induce mutations in a directed manner to help ensure their survivability. They respond in a "cognitive" and directed manner in total opposition to random genetic changes fundamental to the neo-Darwinist model for evolution. Shapiro's view of evolutionary process favors preprogrammed adaptive capacity or "engineered" change. It occurred to me that Shapiro's conclusions, based on a wide range of data/observations, paralleled my own views on a process of rapid speciation, which I fondly labeled _epigenetic niche-match_.

Insofar as Shapiro's views of evolutionary process are concerned, what is the meaning of _natural_ in his "natural genetic engineering" in contrast to "cognitive" or "directed manner" and "preprogrammed adaptive capacity?" What is the source of all that precise engineering void of random mutation and natural selection, the hallmarks of neo-Darwinism? Perhaps it's epi-natural though common, still spooky! For all of our experience links inexplicable, obvious engineering to an engineer.

Single Centres of Supposed Creation

Darwin observed that some creationists believed that God created individual species or species groups where they now exist. To counter this belief, Darwin said that modification by descent and migration explained the distribution of organisms. He noted that the relatedness of species and species groups was closer in regional areas than it was across isolated continents. Also, species on islands frequently showed close affinities to species on the nearest mainland.

However, species located on continents or other large land masses were:

...kept nearly uniform by intercrossing; so that many individuals will go on simultaneously changing, and the whole amount of modification at each state will not be due to descent from a single parent (Page 353).

Thus, God did not create a single pair of organisms to perpetuate their "kind" but the species as a whole evolved to produce a new species through natural selection acting on random variation. Secondly, species migrated to all available, favorable habitats.

Critique

It would seem odd for anyone to argue that species did not cross land bridges between continents or fly or float to islands of available, favorable habitats. The Bible recorded that God told Noah:

Bring out with you every living thing that is with you of all fish - birds and animals and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth - so that they may abound on the earth and be fruitful and multiply on the earth...And every animal, every creeping thing, and every bird, everything that moves on the earth, went out of the ark by families (Genesis 8:17-19).

The biblical account indicated that various "kinds" (classification at or above the genus level) of animals migrated away from one location by "families" or related groups to occupy habitats across the planet. They had to migrate from their point of release to accomplish the biblical mandate to "abound on the earth and be fruitful and multiply..."

Darwin ended this section with his classic model for gradual macroevolution. He stated that on large land masses, species would approach stasis through interbreeding but the population as a whole would change ever so slowly through innumerable intermediate steps into a new species. Again, the fossil record did not and does not support this gradualist model, which represents Darwin's core hypothesis for the origin of species.

Means of Dispersal

In this section, Darwin discussed the dispersal of species. Sea levels rose and fell and thereby controlled the dispersal of species but the locations of continents remained fairly stable. Geologists reported:

...abundant evidence of great oscillations in the level of the land or sea; but not of such vast change in the position and extension of our continents... (Page 354).

During different geologic ages, species could disperse across land bridges to other continents or to islands to populate them. Likewise, populations of marine organisms would reunite when increased ocean levels flooded across land bridges. Seeds of many plants flushed by rivers into ocean currents might float for a thousand miles or more and still be viable. Migrating birds might carry seed in bits of dried mud on their feet and beaks to distant destinations. Migrating locusts could cross hundreds of miles and deposit grass seed they had ingested. The root structures of trees washed into the ocean could transport rock and seed-bearing soil for miles across salt water.

Darwin placed various plant seeds and fruits into sea water for varying amounts of time to test their germination and floatation rates. He thereby showed that the dispersal of numerous species of plants common to Great Britain could disperse by sea water to locations hundreds of miles distant.

Critique

It is common knowledge that many species use apparently ingenuous ways to disperse widely. This observation appears to have no particular relevance to Darwin's general theory of macroevolution. In addition, the biblical account of creation required the various kinds of animals to "abound on the earth;" that is, to disperse to favorable habitats across the planet.

Dispersal during the Glacial Period+

The upper elevations of mountains in America and Europe support species of animals and plants that are closely related to species from more northern latitudes. During glacial events, these species spread south across low lands in America and Europe. When the climate warmed again, those species that required colder climates retreated to higher elevations in the mountains, which explained the current spotty and isolated distributions of those species.

In like fashion, when ocean levels rose with the advance of warmer conditions, marine species on both the west and east shores of the American continents had greater opportunity to migrate between oceans. These migrations explained the similarities among groups of species in both locations.

Darwin provided these observations and explanations to counter beliefs by persons such as Gmelin who in 1747 erroneously concluded "that the same species must have been independently created at many distinct points..." (Page 360). Darwin said:

We cannot maintain that such species have been created alike, in correspondence with the nearly similar physical conditions of the areas; for if we compare, for instance, certain parts of South America with parts of South Africa or Australia, we see countries closely similar in all their physical conditions, with their inhabitants utterly dissimilar. (Page 365).

Critique

The proximate effects of climate change on the distribution of species is of considerable interest but has no particular bearing on questions of ultimate causes.

Darwin observed that species assemblages are different on different continents along the same latitudes under similar climatic conditions. This observation lead Darwin to conclude that those assemblages evolved naturally where they were found. God had nothing to do with the appearance nor distribution of species. In other words, disparate species that filled similar niches on different continents showed that natural selection was responsible for the production of anomalous, unrelated species. And, the presence of related species on different continents proved that those species had dispersed widely from the common location of their evolutionary origin.

If Darwin could come up with a possible explanation or hypothesis that might explain the general mechanics of some process, he assumed it had far-reaching explanatory power and proved that God was not involved in the process of speciation. For example, if oaks grow from acorns; God did not create oaks nor acorns because acorns, not God, had produced the oaks. His reasoning at the biological level was simplistic; his leaps to ultimate causes, speciously and purposefully exclusive. Surely he was aware of the biblical mandate in Genesis 8 for wildlife species to "abound on the earth;" that is, "reproduce and disperse across the earth."

Alternate Glacial Periods in the North and South

In this section Darwin again discussed evidence for recurring glacial periods around the planet in both the northern and southern hemispheres. He cited numerous examples of closely related species of plants and animals found under similar climatic conditions but widely distributed around the world. With the advent of colder climate, artic and temperate species moved to formerly warmer locations. With global warming, those species groups moved to new areas that provided more temperate or alpine habitats. In like fashion, tropical species moved into higher elevations afforded by mountains or expanded to different latitudes with the warming of climate. These migrations explained the present wide but often localized distributions of artic, temperate, and tropical species across the planet.

Critique

General explanations for plant and animal distributions around the planet have not changed much since Darwin's time. The distribution of organisms on the planet does not conflict with the biblical mandate for organisms to fill their designated niches on Earth.

# Chapter XIII - Geographical Distribution - Continued: Fresh-Water Productions

Darwin discussed his speculations on methods of the distribution of freshwater plants and animals among sources of fresh water. The speculations were several; e.g., movement of plants and animals by tornados, movement of tiny seed and eggs on the feet, bills, and bodies of waterfowl and wading birds, and adjustment of marine species to freshwater habitats.

Critique

Darwin conducted some interesting experiments and provided observations and speculations on the dispersal and geographic distribution of organisms; however, the discussion had no particular relevance to his general theory of macroevolution.

On the Inhabitants of Oceanic Islands

Darwin's statement in the opening paragraph of this section:

In the following remarks I shall not confine myself to the mere question of dispersal, but shall consider some other cases bearing on the truth of the two theories of independent creation and of descent with modification (Page 378).

Darwin said that the lack of biodiversity on oceanic islands and the fact that introduced species often prosper on those locations indicated that God did not create enough life forms to fill all the living situations in isolated islands.

When species found their way to an isolated island, natural selection acting on available variation often modified the species, which explained the presence of endemic organisms restricted to specific islands. Insular species that were not different from species on adjacent, large land masses had remained unchanged because repeated immigration and interbreeding prevented expression of variation. In some cases, groups of competing/interacting species arrived at an island at the same time and the continued interactions among species prevented modification.

To explain the presence of some endemic trees on specific islands, Darwin speculated that a plant in herbaceous form might arrive on an island and grow into a taller plant and gain an advantage -

...by growing taller and taller and overtopping them. In this case natural selection would tend to add to the stature of the plant, to whatever order it belonged, and thus first convert it into a bush and then into a tree (Page 381).

In this section, Darwin again speculated on possible ways plants and animals could cross hundreds of miles of ocean to inhabit island habitats.

Critique

Perhaps God used islands for the specific isolation and production of unusual organisms? Darwin would have us assume that God would have done a better job on the island of New Zealand if he had introduced to the island more advanced organisms such as foxes, rabbits, rats, and house cats. God's statement that creation was "good" before the appearance of man (Genesis 1:24), the story of Noah's ark, and the prohibition of interbreeding animal "kinds" (Leviticus 19:19) showed that biodiversity and its preservation are important to God.

Absence of Batrachians and Terrestrial Mammals on Oceanic Islands

Darwin observed that amphibians and terrestrial mammals were typically absent from oceanic islands, particularly those islands separated by 300 miles or more from a continent or other large land mass. He further observed that imported amphibians commonly thrived on such island habitats and therefore asked: "But why, on the theory of creation, they should not have been created there, it would be very difficult to explain" (page 381). And how odd it was that God did not create terrestrial animals on oceanic islands but he did create volant species on a number of them: "Why, it may be asked, has the supposed creative force produced bats and not other mammals on remote islands?" (Page 382).

Where relatively shallow seas separated continents or other land masses, both land masses often shared the same species, which showed that successful migration, not creation, accounted for the distribution of species.

Critique

As I stated previously, migration of species to favorable habitats does not conflict with the biblical account of species dispersal. In the biblical story of Noah and the ark, God told Noah:

Bring out with you every living thing that is with you of all flesh - birds and animals and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth - so they may abound on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply on the earth (Genesis 8: 17).

Inherent in God's command was the assumption that organisms would "abound on the earth" only if they moved to locations some distance from their point of release.

Darwin asked why God did not create amphibians and terrestrial mammals on oceanic islands. It is just as reasonable to ask why the power of natural selection acting on virtually inexhaustible variation among all those marsupial mammals isolated in Australia failed to give rise to advanced placental mammals.

On the Relations of the Inhabitants of Islands to Those of the Nearest Mainland

Darwin asked:

...why should the species which are supposed to have been created in the Galapagos Archipelago, and nowhere else, bear so plainly the stamp of affinity to those created in America?" (Page 385)...Facts such as these admit of no sort of explanation on the ordinary view of independent creation; whereas on the view here maintained, it is obvious that the Galapagos Islands would be likely to receive colonists from America... (Page 385).

On island groups like the Galapagos, Darwin maintained that the close affinity among species on the different islands was because "...natural selection would probably favour different varieties in the different islands" (Pages 386-387). This section was largely an iteration of Darwin's contention that God did not create species now found in isolated habitats but that species migrated there from nearby populations and then natural selection acting on variation modified them in varying degrees.

Critique

Darwin was redundant. The last three sections in Chapter XIII addressed his protestation that God did not create species on oceanic islands. Apparently he believed he provided additional information if he repeated his basic concepts often enough.

I critiqued Darwin's oceanic island examples in the last two sections. Furthermore, the process of microevolution and genetic drift explained the affinities and differences among species on isolated islands compared with those on the nearest mainland. But what is the difference between microevolution within the limits of a gene pool and Darwin's macroevolutionary concept that all species derive from a common 1-celled ancestor through wholly natural means?

Here is the difference. As discussed previously, protein sequence (DNA) analyses showed that distinct gaps exist among classes of organisms and that species within those classes are equally distant from species members of other classes. Thus, no species at the molecular level is "primitive" or "advanced" in an evolutionary sense. For example, at the molecular level, cytochrome c sequence analysis, showed that the horse (mammal), the rabbit, the chicken (bird), the turtle (reptile), and the bullfrog (amphibian) are equally distant from the carp (fish) (Denton 1986:276-307). Microevolution and random mutation certainly occur within a species and might have occurred within classes such as mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish but comparative biochemistry indicated unbridgeable gaps exist between those classes.

But, was Denton correct?

Matthew Landau (1989) provided an interesting critique of Denton's use of protein sequence analysis to illustrate the biochemical gaps among classes of organisms. As stated above, Denton said that cytochrome c percent sequence differences showed that, for example, horses, pigeons, tuna fish, silk moths, wheat, and yeast were equally distant from bacteria. According to Denton, this lack of relatedness between the bacteria and the other organisms provided no evidence for intermediates between bacteria and the higher organisms. Furthermore, according to Denton (1986:285), at the molecular level, the protein sequence analyses provided no evidence for evolutionary transition from fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal or bird.

Landau agreed with Denton by saying that the cytochrome c studies showed that mammals, birds, insects, vascular plants, and yeast were equally distant from existing bacteria. However, he said the reason that the evolutionary advanced organisms were related equally to modern bacteria was that all those higher organisms and extant bacteria were equally distant in evolutionary time from an ancient archetype ancestor. That is, for example, the cytochrome c in the modern bird or mammal, as in the modern bacterium, have evolved for equivalent periods of time through different life forms to reach their present adapted state, from one common ancestor species. They all had equal amounts of time to evolve their specific forms of cytochrome c and remained through all those millions of years equidistant from the early bacteria. If so, then protein sequence analysis has no value in depicting primitive nor highly evolved extant species. All individual organisms would be equally distant from a common ancestor. However, if that is true, differences between groups reveal equal distances from a common ancestor and therefore reveal no relative evolutionary distances among them.

When protein sequences showed percentages differences, for example, between the horse and pigeon or between the pigeon and the tuna, Landau said the data showed that the horse was more recently evolved than the pigeon and the pigeon more recently evolved than the tuna and all three more recently evolved than the bacterium. Thus, according to Landau, distinct protein sequence differences indicated the measurable, relative amount of time since a class of organisms evolved from a common ancestor but at the same time, all classes are equally distant from out-of-class ancestors. Apparently one's interpretation of the protein sequence data depends on what one wants to "prove".

Landau failed to offer any explanations for how the higher classes of fungi, plants and animals developed their specific cytochrome c proteins and managed at the same time over millions of years to arrive at a point of equidistance from that protein's make-up as it appears in modern bacteria. Also, the obvious gaps between classes at the molecular level was not an anomaly but a pattern:

The classification system that is derived from these comparative molecular studies is a highly ordered non-overlapping system composed entirely of groups within groups, of classes which are inclusive or exclusive of other classes. There is a total absence of partially inclusive or intermediate classes, and therefore none of the groups traditionally cited by evolutionary biologists as intermediate gives even the slightest hint of a supposedly transitional character (Denton, 1986:286).

Because cytochrome c performs complex, necessary functions in the cells of living organisms, we cannot assume that all cytochrome c differences among species represent random ticks on a molecular clock. Among its functions, this protein is involved in mitochondria regulation and apoptosis (programmed cell death) in plants and animals. For example, apoptosis is the process that separates the fingers and toes in the human fetus and divides the hooves of ungulates. Apparently the complex operations of cytochrome c are as individually specific as species are different in their physiology and morphology. Thus, what hypothesis could explain the cytochrome c percent sequence differences among eukaryotic organisms (organisms with nucleated cells) and their molecular equidistance from bacteria? Saltation. Punctuated bursts of speciation, as demonstrated repeatedly in the fossil record, could explain the persistent and prevailing gaps among classes of organisms and the concomitant appearance of specialized protein sequences.

Anomalous to the anomaly above, but perhaps correctly, Wells (2000:49-53) questioned the use of protein sequences to show relationships among groups of organisms:

A 1996 study using 88 protein sequences grouped rabbits with primates instead of rodents; a 1998 analysis of 13 genes in 19 animal species placed sea urchins among the chordates; and another 1998 study based on 12 proteins put cows closer to whales than to horses.

Various investigators have used molecular studies of extant Cambrian phyla to date their emergence from a common ancestor in the Precambrian, notwithstanding the absence of fossil evidence. The molecular clock studies varied, depending upon the molecules sequenced. Meyer (2013:106) noted that the studies placed the time of emergence:

anywhere between 100 million and 1.5 billion years before the Cambrian explosion (some molecular clock studies, oddly, even place the common ancestor of the animals after the Cambrian explosion).

Protein/molecular sequencing and the ticking of the molecular clock, in the absence of fossil data, have provided rough estimates. As the querulous professor Norm Smith at the University of Arizona once quipped to me: "The key to 'good science' is knowing when to stop collecting data."

# Chapter XIV - Mutual Affinities of Organic Beings: Morphology; Embryology; Rudimentary Organs

### Classification

Darwin discussed the criteria used to taxonomically classify organisms. From Linnaeus' time in the eighteenth century until the 1960s, taxonomists/typologists used basic anatomy and structural comparisons for classification purposes. Darwin was concerned that -

Some authors look at it ( _classification_ ) merely as a scheme for arranging together those living objects which are most alike, and for separating those which are most unlike (Page 395). _Rather_...the characters which naturalists consider as showing true affinity between any two or more species, are those which have been inherited from a common parent, all true classification being genealogical; - that community of descent is the hidden bond which naturalists have been unconsciously seeking, and not some unknown plan of creation... (Page 400).

Critique

In the 1960s, analysis of protein sequences enabled molecular biologists to derive quantitative differences between organisms. As a result of these DNA analyses -

...all the classes traditionally identified by morphological criteria could also be detected by comparing their protein sequences... _however_...as more protein sequences began to accumulate during the 1960s, it became increasingly apparent that the molecules were not going to provide any evidence of sequential arrangements in nature, but were going to rather reaffirm the traditional view that the system of nature conforms fundamentally to a highly ordered hierarchic scheme from which all direct evidence for evolution is emphatically absent. Moreover, the divisions turned out to be more mathematically perfect than even most die-hard taxonomists would have predicted (Denton, 1986:276-278).

If Denton's observations based on protein sequence data are in question, then so are the molecular clock estimates and the phylogenetic trees produced by molecular biologists. Insofar as mutation rates in a species are concerned, the key factors are population size and reproductive rates. So, what validity exists for development of a molecular clock that ignores both population size and frequency of reproduction?

Analogical Resemblances

This section featured Darwin's speculations on the origin of analogical resemblances. Analogical features, of dissimilar origin, refer to the structural similarities shared by organisms from different classes. For example, the body shapes and other structural components of sharks and porpoises, of mice and shrews, of bats and extinct pterosaurs, and of coyotes and the extinct Tasmanian wolf are similar. The assumption here is that such organisms as those listed above share similarities in form because they are adapted to similar niches, living situations. Darwin also discussed mimicry of body shapes and colors that is common among some insect species. He believed that analogical resemblances resulted from natural selection acting on random variation.

Critique

To Darwin's limited credit, Behe (2014:201), whose calculations defined the limits of random mutation, reported:

Another study from the group led by Sean Carroll showed that males of a certain species in the genus _Drosophila_ in the past 15 million years have gained a spot of color on their wings. The reason is that the gene for a pigmentation protein called Yellow protein (which actually produces dark pigmentation) has gained a new switch sequence for a particular regulatory protein. This result is important because it shows random mutation not only breaks switches, but occasionally makes new ones, too, just as it occasionally makes proteins with new functions such as antifreeze protein in notothenioid fish.

We can appreciate Darwin's opinions on mimicry and analogous forms shared by disparate species, all operating within the realm of microevolution and the limited powers of random mutation. However, his general theory that all organisms derive from a common ancestor through wholly natural processes asks the statistically impossible from random mutation. In concert, his theory fails to fill the gaps among disparate classes or organisms; that is, gradualism is out of sync with the abrupt appearances and disappearances of species as displayed in the fossil record.

On the Nature of the Affinities Connecting Organic Beings

I am going to scale down Darwin's usual flowery rhetoric and paraphrase some of his basic concepts. This will seem a bit tautological/redundant but will help us understand his thinking. Under this topic, I begin with page 409:

Dominant species from dominant genera inherited advantages that enabled them to dominate subordinate organisms. Thus, the dominant genera dominated wide areas and numerous living situations and dominated smaller groups that were less dominant. Because of their dominance, the dominate genera increased in number and were therefore derived from few orders and even fewer classes than were genera less dominant. For example, not one new class of insect was discovered in Australia since the discovery of that land mass.

I think Darwin meant to say that the class Insecta was an example of a dominant group that has a wide distribution and numerous genera and species and the genera were so widely spread and successful that no genera were discovered in Australia that were not known elsewhere?

Darwin discussed what he called "aberrant groups". These "groups" comprised:

forms which have been conquered by more successful competitors, with a few members still preserved under unusually favorable conditions (Page 409).

Presumably, Darwin classed "primitive" species as "aberrant"? He talked about the bizcacha, a primitive rodent that showed linkage to marsupials:

...rodents and marsupials branched off from a common progenitor, and both groups have since undergone much modification in divergent directions (Page 410).

His point was that inheritance and not creation explained the affinities used to classify organisms into groups. He was adamant:

We shall never, probably, disentangle the inextricable web of the affinities between the members of any one class; but when we have a distinct object in view, and do not look to some unknown plan of creation, we may hope to make sure but slow progress (Page 412).

Critique

Repetitive tautologies ad nauseam. Dominant species groups are larger in number than those species groups that are fewer in number. Those that are fewer in number are less dominant and are therefore inferior. Those species that survive have a higher rate of survival than those that do not survive. Those that are weak or lower in number have lower rates of survival. Those that have lower rates of survival experience higher mortality rates and are the species groups most likely to become extinct. The reason inferior species groups are inferior and have lower rates of survival than do groups that are superior and have higher survival rates is because the superior forms have more (superior) variation for natural selection to act upon.

I repeat quite repetitiously: the fossil record and comparative biochemistry supported abrupt events of rapid speciation and some changes in size through microevolution within the species, absence of intermediate forms, unbridgeable gaps among taxonomic classes, and rapid extinction. "Punctuated equilibria" as described by Eldredge and Gould (1972) was less of a model of process but rather a photo snapshot of the fossil record. These two authors did, however, speculate about process. They suggested that branching evolution was a rare event that occurred rapidly in geographically isolated, small populations found along the periphery of larger populations. This view is, of course, non-Darwinian.

Darwin believed speciation in isolation was not the norm. New species do not develop simply because they are isolated; they only evolve through their competitive interactions with other species; "...neither migration nor isolation in themselves effect anything" (Page 349). Darwin knew that the abrupt appearance of complex alterations in structures and organs suggested intelligent design; so he down-played the possibility of abrupt speciation in isolation.

In contrast, Eldredge and Gould (1972; 95) stated:

...most morphological divergence of a descendant species occurs very early in its differentiation, when the population is small and still adjusting more precisely to local conditions.

Their vision of "allopathic evolution" left little room for a near-infinite number of gradations ever so slowly molded through intense competition. Thus, "allopathic speciation" was non-Darwinian "Darwinian gradualism" in a hurry. It was not a bad guess because we observe microevolutionary selection and genetic drift operating within the existing gene pools of small populations in isolation. However, the process of speciation has thus far remained in the realm of guesswork; nothing more. My hypothesis of programmed "epigenetic niche-matching" (see _Definitions/Notes_ at the end of this essay) at this point, appears to have greater explanatory power for the origin of species than Eldredge and Gould's allopatric speciation (1972). Remember, Darwin adamantly opposed all forms of saltation because he believed rapid changes in complex beings bordered on the miraculous:

The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several paleontologists - for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick - as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection. (Page 311).

Morphology

In this section, Darwin discussed homology of body parts. "Homology" simply meant that, for example, the arrangement of bones in the wing of a bat, the hand of a person, and the foot of a bear are arranged in a similar pattern. He stated:

...we can only say that so it is; - that it has pleased the Creator to construct all the animals and plants in each great class on a uniform plan; but this is not a scientific explanation (Page 414).

To Darwin, all reality must fall under the umbrella of philosophical materialism. Because philosophical materialism excludes belief in God, God does not exist, and therefore God could not have created anything. In addition the fact that the body parts of organisms occurred in similar patterns indicated that they derived from a common ancestor rather than a common Creator.

"Serial homologies" showed that organisms derived from a common ancestor. These homologies or similar patterns of organs and structures were those that appear in the same individual. For example, every person has a right side and a left side, which illustrates common origin. Also, the bones of the skull evolved from modified vertebrae:

How inexplicable are the cases of serial homologies on the ordinary view of creation! Why should the brain be enclosed in a box composed of such numerous and such extraordinarily shaped pieces of bone, apparently representing vertebrae? (Page 415).

Critique

What kind of vertebrate forbearer did Darwin have in mind? Does the fossil record provide any evidence of an ancient progenitor with an ossified backbone of vertebrae and a boneless skull to house its brain? How did Darwin know the skull is comprised of modified vertebra and why did he forbid God's structural use of the quadruped model in different species?

Likely, Darwin would have us question why all makes of manufactured automobiles have round wheels. Could it be that wheels are a common element used in the making of automobiles because they work well and are necessary to its function, given the current laws of physics? Are we to assume that the evolution of the automobile shows common ancestry rather than the operation of creative mind? In living organisms the protein cytochrome c occurs in bacteria, yeast, plants, and all animals. This protein performs complex functions such as regulation of "programmed death" of cells to transportation of individual electrons across cell membranes as required for energizing those cells. I suggest that cytochrome c exists in the cells of all organisms because it functions well. Its complex role in the life of organisms does not yield readily to simplistic, generalized explanations.

Perhaps if Darwin could have discussed the evolution of the behavior of cytochrome c transferring electrons back and forth, one at a time, across cellular membranes, intelligently, he would have been more believable. Would he have postulated that cytochrome c, supported by natural selection acting on unlimited variation or possibly a "want-to" habit or habit of disuse, would learn through innumerable miniscule, trial and error steps to capture and transport electrons, which comprise waves of energy, across mitochondria membranes? More likely, had he been aware of the functional complexities in the cell at the biochemical level, he never would have attempted the _Origin_?

"Serial homologies"? Being bilaterally symmetrical or having two feet and two hands shows that these attributes, because of their duplication, derived from a common ancestor? The big toe on the human foot is the superior toe and we see the other inferior toes in relatively lower states of evolutionary development, moving toward the state of perfection enjoyed by the big toe? Rather, I suggest that virtually all of those organs and structures, which the gradualist worldview classified as developmentally inferior, are present because they remain functionally important to the organism. That view of functional necessity includes bilateral symmetry, all six legs on insects, eight legs on spiders, and all pedicellariae on the starfish. Human beings may have hands homologous with their feet, which can suggest that they evolved initially from a distant quadruped that had four undifferentiated feet, though I have never heard of such an animal. Or, we can observe that at the biochemical level, all mammalian species tested are equally distant from the class Reptilia and that fossil evidence of the numerous intermediate forms required to support Darwinian gradualism is not in the rocks.

I will also refer to Wells' (2000:62) observation:

...biologists have known for decades that homologous features are not due to similar genes, so the mechanism that produces them remains unknown.

The origins of "homologous" features are not homologous and therefore common descent cannot explain their origins.

Development and Embryology

Darwin offered numerous opinions on the metamorphoses of various classes of animals from egg to adult and how natural selection explained the structural characters of some stages of development. He stated that often the characters of the early stages of development were used to classify organisms into their related classes because of ancestral linkages represented in embryonic stages. He firmly believed that the embryonic stages of different classes, such as those of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish resembled each other and that the different classes therefore evolved from a common ancestor.

In the case of insect metamorphosis, Darwin stated that the changes in the organisms were fast and slow:

The metamorphoses of insects, with which everyone is familiar, are generally effected abruptly by a few stages; but the transformations are in reality numerous and gradual, though concealed (Page 417).

By "concealed," perhaps he meant the rapid, innumerable slowly-developed changes took place unobserved at micro-scales within a chrysalis or pupa stage?

Darwin quoted Von Baer to show that comparative embryology confirmed evolutionary ties to common ancestry among animal classes:

...the embryos of mammalia, of birds, lizards, and snakes, probably also of chelonia are in their earliest states exceedingly like one another, both as a whole and in the mode of development of their parts; so much so, in fact, that we can often distinguish the embryos only by their size (Page 418).

This belief persisted into my college years in the early 1960s when our professors taught that Von Baer and Haeckel had confirmed that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny". That is, the development of embryos reflected both the levels of classification and the evolutionary steps of ancestors. Darwin believed that embryological comparisons offered one of the strongest points of support for his macroevolutionary theory that all organisms evolved naturally from a common ancestor.

As is the case in embryology, the young of mammals showed evolutionary links to distant ancestry. Darwin noted that the stripes on the young of African lions and the spots on the young blackbird showed useless links to ancestry:

No one supposes that the stripes on the whelp of a lion, or the spots on the young blackbird, are of any use to these animals (Page 419).

Oddly, he expressed no opinion on the spots found on deer fawns.

This section included Darwin's opinion that natural selection, rather than retention of inheritance from ancient ancestors, had caused the different stages that appear in the metamorphosis of insects. That is, the steps in the process of invertebrate metamorphosis are functionally necessary for the survival of the individual. He stated:

Most of our best authorities are now convinced that the various larval and pupal stages of insects have thus been acquired through adaptation and not through inheritance from some ancient form (Page 425).

His discussion included opinions on why the development of the young of invertebrates are so variable and how natural selection determined the details of metamorphosis. Basically, "the larvae...obey more or less closely, the law of common embryonic resemblance" (Page 420), illustrating linkage to common ancestry.

Critique

Oddly enough, Darwin said that the metamorphosis of insects was abrupt but developed slowly. I suspect that he had problems with the metamorphosis of insects and other invertebrates because such changes are remarkably complex and rapid. Any process that displays enormous complexity and requires lots of information and specified programs for change reeks of vitalism/programming/intelligent design. Of course, Darwin had no knowledge of the complexity of living cells and of the biochemical processes required to achieve metamorphosis in organisms. One would think that Darwin would have used the metamorphic steps of at least some invertebrates to illustrate recapitulation of his phyletic (gradual) model of evolution of species from lower to higher forms. He did insist that such abrupt metamorphic changes had to evolve gradually.

The life cycle of the sheep liver fluke, for example, might illustrate how the steps of metamorphosis recapitulate phyletic evolutionary steps? The adult flukes in the sheep deliver eggs down the host's bile duct and the eggs are incorporated into the host's feces and pass out to the ground. Eggs that fall into the edge of a pond develop into a free-swimming individual miracidium. This individual bores into specific snail species, _Lymnea bulimoides_ or _L. columella_. The miracidium then eats its way into the pulmonary chamber or lymph vessels of the snail and transforms into a sac-like sporo-cyst. The latter structure has three to eight germ cells, each of which develops without fertilization into a different, individual larval state called a radia. Each radia has a mouth and short gut and within about a week, each radia breaks out of the sporo-cyst and migrates to other organs in the snail, typically its liver. After the migration to other organs in the snail, the radia may reproduce, again without fertilization, for one or two generations. Next, each original radia develops into several new larvae called cercaria. Each cercaria has a tail and disc-shaped body for swimming, oral and ventral suckers, and a forked gut. The cercaria burrows out of the snail and swims about freely for several hours and then attaches itself to a blade of grass near the water's surface. Here it transforms into a hardened cyst known as a metacercaria. When a sheep or other suitable hosts eats the grass and ingests the metacercaria, the larvae exit the cysts and bore through the digestive tract of the new host and find their way to the liver. In the liver, they borrow around and do considerable damage before entering the bile duct where they develop into adult flukes. The gradual evolution of a fluke's life cycle at the biochemical level would be difficult to explain. Thus, Darwin simply passed off such complex changes as adaptations that appear abruptly but which had to have evolved from unknown ancestors ever so slowly.

I suggest a good Darwinian argument about the fluke would be: "Why would God, if he exists and is good, make a liver fluke?" But then the theists would merely counter that we live in a fallen and imperfect world, and... the fallen world is complex to the miraculous level and programmed remarkably well.

Now let us address (again as Darwin repeatedly was inclined to do) "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny;" that is, the early stages of development of an organism recapitulate the evolutionary stages of the organism's ancestry. For example, during some stages of development, the embryos of mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians resemble each other. Darwin believed that evidence from embryonic studies provided the strongest support for his theory of macroevolution of all organisms from a common ancestor. Phil Johnson (1993:73) stated:

Although it is true that vertebrates all pass through an embryonic stage at which they resemble each other, in fact they develop to this stage very differently. After a vertebrate egg is fertilized, it undergoes cell divisions and cell movements characteristic of its class; fishes follow one pattern, amphibians another one, birds yet another, and mammals still another. The differences cannot be explained as larval adaptations, since these early stages occur before larvae form and thus are apparently not exposed to natural selection. Only by ignoring the early stages of development can one fit Darwin's theory to the facts of embryology, but it was precisely the early stages that Darwin claimed were the most significant... That vertebrate embryos develop along different pathways, only to converge in appearance midway through the process, then diverge again until they finally generate (in diverse ways) similar bone structures in their limbs are facts well known to embryologists.

Furthermore, Jonathan Wells, embryologist with the Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture, confirmed that Ernst Haeckel in the 1860s had faked the information in his comparison of the embryonic development of seven vertebrate classes (Strobel 2004:49). Haeckel had cherry-picked the samples. For example, he used illustrations of four placental mammals but left out marsupials and monotremes (platypus and echidna), mammals that showed differences in their embryonic development. Haeckel also picked representative reptiles, birds, and amphibians, and fish that appeared similar as embryos and left out those species that did not fit the scheme so well. He used a salamander to represent amphibians instead of a frog because the latter did not fit expectations ..."and then he went further by faking the similarities." Because embryos in the earlier stages look far more different from each other, Haeckel omitted them from his comparisons.

Additionally, the so-called "gill pouches" or "gill slits" in the mammalian embryo have nothing to do with gills:

Even fish don't have gills at that stage. In humans, the ridges become one thing; in fish they become gills. They're not even gill slits. To call them gill-like structures is merely reading evolutionary theory back into the evidence. They're never gill-like except in the superficial sense that they're lines in the neck area. As British embryologist Lewis Wolpert said, the resemblance is only illusory (Strobel, 2004: 51).

In _On the Origin of Species_ Darwin wrote:

It seems to me, the leading facts in embryology, which are second to none in importance, are explained on the principle of variations in the many descendants from some one ancient progenitor.

Veritas... truth is in the details and the details of modern embryology proved Darwin's assumptions incorrect.

Rudimentary, Atrophied, and Aborted Organs

It was Darwin's belief that "on the view of descent with modification, the origin of rudimentary organs is comparatively simple..." (Page 431). To support this belief, Darwin again turned to observations of domestic breeds of animals:

We have plenty of cases of rudimentary organs in our domestic productions, - as the stump of a tail in tailless breeds, \- the vestige of an ear in earless breeds of sheep, - the re-appearance of minute dangling horns in hornless breeds of cattle... (Page 431). _Furthermore_...for the balance of evidence clearly indicates that species under nature do not undergo great and abrupt changes. But we learn from the study of our domestic productions that the disuse of parts leads to their reduced size; and that the result is inherited (Page 431).

Natural selection could only produce changes in structure and function that occurred in "small stages". Inheritance could produce "monstrosities" but natural selection only operated through "small stages". Natural selection had no power over rudimentary organs that had diminished use or influence, which explained the high rate of variations in such organs.

The "principle of economy of growth" explained why organs diminished through disuse. This "principle" was a hypothesis that the organism mysteriously transferred needed resources away from organs of diminishing use to organs with more vital functions. Basically, the presence of rudimentary organs represented useless inheritance and illustrated the macroevolutionary development of new life forms from a common ancestor.

Darwin provided a number of examples of species with rudimentary organs; for example, rudimentary mammae in male mammals, flightlessness in some birds, rudimentary teats in cattle, remnants of a pelvis in the boa-constrictor, the wing of the penguin adapted to a new use, and the nascent development of mammary glands in the platypus.

Critique

Few would argue against the fact that one's physicochemical components are the result of inheritance from ancestors, including one's own parents. But it takes a leap of faith to believe that flightlessness in some birds, the appendix in humans, and the occasional appearance of small canine teeth in the upper jaws of some mule deer are the kinds of information that confirm Darwin's theory that all organisms evolved naturally from a 1-celled ancestor. Rather, organs and structures formally thought useless are often found to have functions vital to survivability. For example, the "junk" DNA in every organism does not indicate useless, rudimentary material inherited from an ancient ancestor:

The vast areas of DNA that do not code for proteins, once dismissed as "junk", are now known to conceal important regulatory regions (Hall, 2010:67).

Note that extant members of the same class always have homologous organs that function for different uses and different degrees of use. The observation that moles have small eyes and deer have larger, better-seeing eyes says nothing about mammals evolving from reptiles. The fact that polled Hereford cattle have no horns and horned Herefords have horns is not a fact that ties birds and reptiles together. The fact that most cormorants fly very well but the cormorant species _Phalacrocorax harrisi_ in the Galapagos is flightless points to a loss of genetic potential, not to a link with a reptilian ancestor. The fact that some cave salamanders have no eyes indicates a genetic loss within the limits of the class and produces no general theory applicable to some imagined connection between the amphibian and the amniotic egg nor to the idea that God did not design and program salamanders.

We should not assume that man's brain derived from a 1-celled organism nor that 1-celled organisms arose naturally from nonliving materials because we observe that domestic chickens fly poorly. And are we to assume that because both men and women have nipples, both sexes derived from some ancient ancestor that was physically bisexual...maybe from a species of earthworm that was male on one end and female on the other? I fail to see any real merit in wild speculations tied to metaphysical materialism. Rather, we note that as knowledge of the complexities of the mechanics of biological life increases, explaining the origin of those mechanisms by simplistic generalities and tautologies has strained credibility beyond belief. As Henri Bergson (1859-1941) observed:

At every step the theory of a mechanical production of complicated structures by blind process of variation and selection presents us with fairy-tales that have all the incredibility of childhood's lore, and little of its beauty.

### Definitions/Notes

_Abduction:_ A process of reasoning that attempts to select the best among competing hypotheses to explain past events/conditions. Historical scientists in the fields of geology, evolutionary biology, paleontology, cosmology, archeology, and forensic science study existing evidence, processes, and conditions to select the best hypotheses among competing explanations, to hypothesize about the possible causes of past events and conditions (Meyer 2009:150-172 and Lipton 2004).

_Adaptive radiation:_ A single ancestral group abruptly produces a number of species that are equipped and preprogrammed with biological information to physically and behaviorally adjust to new environmental conditions. See _epigenetic niche-match_ below.

_Allopatric speciation:_ In their paper _Punctuated Equilibrium_ , Eldredge and Gould (1972) postulated that new species develop in isolation along the periphery of a parent species' range. The parent population supposedly develops genes in the gradual, Darwinian pattern and then stores mutations of those genes in "junk DNA." Somehow the relatively small offspring population retrieves and fixes these random mutations through inbreeding. When natural barriers disappear, the new and improved offspring species in isolation spreads out with its superior traits and replaces the parent species across the parent species' range. Thus, competition occurs between species rather than among individuals within the species, the Darwinian model.

Rapid "allopatric speciation" and replacement of parent species could explain the abrupt appearance and disappearance of species and the lack of intermediates in the fossil record. Allopatric speciation was a kind of round-about Darwinian gradual evolution in a hurry.

Eldridge and Gould coined the name "Punctuated Equilibrium" to describe recurrent patterns in the fossil record; that is, the sudden appearance of species and the persistence of those species without significant morphological change over the life of the species, followed by abrupt extinction.

Darwin intermittently embraced speciation in isolation: "Although isolation is of great importance in the production of new species, I am inclined to believe that largeness of area is still more important, especially for the production of species which shall prove capable of enduring for a long period, and of spreading widely" (Page 108). His problem with speciation in isolation was that microevolutionary changes could be relatively rapid in small populations where surroundings/environments were less diverse. In addition, how did adjustment to more localized and less diverse habitats equip evolving species to out compete the well-established parent species? Where was phyletic gradualism and where was the opportunity for the development of all those innumerable intermediate steps shaped by competitive pressures that produced complex beings from a single 1-celled organism? Speciation in isolation amounted to Darwinian gradualism in a hurry. Such speciation events were too fast, too vitalistic, too spooky, and therefore not natural enough.

On the other hand, localized speciation or Darwinian gradualism in a hurry could explain the pattern of gaps in the fossil record. So, in order to cover all the bases, Darwin offered some support for speciation in isolation, particularly when he addressed the absence of intermediates in the fossil record.

_Analogous:_ Analogous organs or structures are those that serve similar functions or are similar in appearance in different organisms but have different genetic origins. The wings of insects and wings of birds are analogous. The Tasmanian wolf ( _Thylacinus cynanocephalus_ ), which was a marsupial, had a predatory niche and morphology analogous to that of the placental coyote ( _Canis latrans_ ).

_Deduction:_ A process of reasoning from the general to the specific. The logician holds a particular fact to be generally accepted as true. Given the first fact or premise as true, the resultant premise or subclass of the first premise must also be true. For example: "All mammals have hair; humans are mammals; therefore humans have hair." If the first two premises are held to be true, the deduced conclusion must also be true. The format of the argument just illustrated is known as a syllogism.

_Denudation:_ Processes of weathering and erosion by wind and water that removes the rock strata and subsequently the fossil evidence they contained.

_Epigenesis:_ _Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language_ (1993) defined this term: "... **a**. the theory that an embryo develops from the successive differentiation of originally undifferentiated structures... **b**. the approximately stepwise process by which genetic information, as modified by environmental influences, is translated into the substance and behavior of an organism." In the first case, for example, a single-celled, undifferentiated, fertilized human egg manages to produce many different cells to form a human being, everything from brain tissue to finger nails without changes in its DNA sequences. The program utilizes a number of means to determine gene activation and gene suppression during the development of complex organisms.

In the second case, interaction of the organism with environmental influences can produce heritable changes in gene expression. For example, research groups (Bygen et al. 2001, Pembrey et al. 2005, Kaati et al. 2002) found that the plane of nutrition of a group of people in rural Sweden influenced their descendants' risk of death from diabetes or heart failure.

New research studies in the field of epigenetics continue to explore environmental influences on gene expression. Nestler (2011) provided several examples of how experiences can remove epigenetic marks on chromosomes that control behavior. For example, researchers have shown that maternal behavior affected gene expression in the offspring of rats without altering germ cells. Rat pups are born with methyl marks on particular genes. These methyl marks, which increase sensitivity to stress, diminish in number if the pups have a relaxed and nurturing mother. However, pups with a nervous and less attentive mother tend to retain the methyl marks and will grow up to repeat the poor mothering performance of their own mothers. The mother rat's behavior physically altered the chromosomes of the offspring, thereby programming to a considerable degree their behaviors as adults.

Examination of the human immune system provides another example of genome change through environmental influences. Our immune systems can alter our own genomes to produce more effective antibodies to fight invading pathogens. I suggested that a similar pattern of preplanned epigenesis might explain how organisms rapidly create new sister species to fill empty environmental niches. See _Epigenetic niche-match_ below.

The suppression or expression of genes often depends upon the "top-down" context in which the gene is located. Animal forms "...need tightly integrated networks of genes, proteins, and other molecules to regulate their development - in other words, they require developmental gene regulatory networks... Developing animals face two main challenges, first, they must produce different types of proteins and cells and, second, they must get those proteins and cells to the right place at the right time" (Meyer 2013:363). Developmental gene regulatory networks fall within the epi- (beyond/above) gene category. These comprise hierarchical preprogrammed information systems for which the neo-Darwinian mechanism (natural selection acting on the random mutation of genes) cannot account.

_Epigenetic niche-match:_ This is my hypothesis to account for the adaptive radiation/abrupt appearance of 300+ new species of cichlid fishes in Lake Victoria, Africa since the lake was dry some 12,400 (carbon-14) years ago. Numerous new species of cichlid fishes developed without physical isolation and in an abrupt and apparently programmed/nonrandom manner. My comments under _Critique, Geographical Distribution_ explain "epigenetic niche-match":

I suggest the possibility that the process of rapid genetic change already exists about and within each of us. A parallel process that could explain rapid genetic changes takes place regularly within our own immune systems. Our immune systems can produce billions of different-shaped antibodies to confront invaders. When the system finds an antibody that fit's the invading germ, the antibody sticks to and targets the invader so a white cell can approach it and make the kill. Incredibly, the immune system creates new antibodies to fit new invaders and then over the course of time, alters its own DNA to improve the fit of the antibody.

The immune system changes its own DNA in several ways. The system can take a gene's RNA and "cherry pick" for the needed information or even splice the DNA itself to create antibodies with new, improved shapes. Thirdly, through a process called "somatic hyper mutation," "the cell _intentionally_ allows a very high level of mutation in just the variable regions of the heavy- and light-chain genes" (Behe, 1998, 129).

Ergo, if the immune system can alter DNA to fit environmental threats, why could not the physiological systems of species in like manner be programmed to alter DNA to fit environmental opportunities in the form of new niches? One might say: "God abhors a vacuum." This idea is non-Darwinian and reeks of vitalism and planning/preprogramming, but we now see it operating at the level of our own physiology.

Having offered a reasonable hypothesis to explain the rapid appearance of sister species, I am well aware that _epigenetic niche-match_ cannot account for the explosion of whole new body plans that occurred with the sudden appearance of disparate phyla in the Cambrian.

_Eukaryote:_ Any organism comprised of one or more nucleated cells.

_Evo-devo:_ Evolutionary developmental biology studies the construction processes of animal bodies and speculates on how these bodies may have evolved. Evo-devo suggests that organisms can evolve rapidly through mutations of regulatory genes. The first 1-celled organisms with nucleated cells contained master regulatory (Hox) genes that are similar or the same in all eukaryotes (organisms with nucleated cells). For example, the regulatory genes that control the genes that form eyes and heads and limbs are the same/very similar for a honey bee and for a human being. Thus, the same master genes regulate the formation of the corresponding parts of the bodies of honey bees and human beings. Because the regulatory genes are the same or nearly so in all species with nucleated cells, evo-devo theory suggests/insists that the first cells with nuclei could with the same regulatory collection of master regulatory programs (the "tool box") produce through rapid change/evolution all species from a common ancestor - which quite fortuitously contained all the regulatory genes in the "tool box" needed to construct a worm or a person. Imagine that...a 1-celled organism some 500 + million years ago housing the protein switches required to turn on genes that can produce a human being's head. Now, that is foresight.

Because the same regulatory genes control gene expression across species boundaries from insects to persons, evo-devo provides strong support for the argument of common descent. However, because random gene mutation cannot account for the assembly of new structures and molecular machines nor new body plans, there is no Darwinian explanation for the origin of the tool box of regulatory genes nor for the hardware those master genes control. See "Mutation" below for information drawn largely from Behe (2014) on the limits of random mutation.

_Experimental science:_ Experimental scientists attempt to disprove hypotheses by collecting measurable and comparable data on controlled and test situations. With repeated confirmation of findings, such research can lead to the formation of general laws that have predictive value under the same conditions as those in the experiments.

_Habit:_ Darwin believed that organisms could change their behavior and thereby modify their structure or body parts through increased or decreased use. Increased use enabled the giraffe to elongate its neck and decreased use of sight eliminated the eyes of some cave salamanders. The subsequent changes in body parts, initiated by changes in habit or behavior by the parent, were heritable by the offspring. See _Lamarckian evolution_ below.

_Historical science:_ These studies encompass such disciplines as geology, evolutionary biology, paleontology, cosmology, archeology, criminology, and forensic science. Such disciplines examine current evidences, in light of existing processes to select the best hypotheses among competing explanations, to describe past events and conditions. See "Abduction" above.

_Homologous:_ Homologous organs or structures of a species are those that are modified for different functions, have the same genetic origins, and are shared by another or other species. The "hand" of a bat, the front hoof of a deer, and the hand of a man would be considered homologous features.

_Induction:_ A method of reasoning from the specific to the general. In experimental science, the investigator formulates a hypothesis and then collects data aimed to disprove it. With the accumulation of measurements, observations, and other data under controlled and test conditions, the scientist disproves his/her hypotheses or fails to do so. With repeated experiments, the researcher's conclusions can lead to the establishment of general laws that have predictive value.

_Junk DNA:_ The discovery of what was first thought to be nonfunctional regions of the genome were called "junk DNA". Neo-Darwinists believed the "junk DNA" comprised the by-products of random mutations and provided evidence that natural selection had a primary role in the origin of genetic information. Over the last 20 years, however, evidence to the contrary has proven that "junk DNA" regulates the use of protein-coding regions of the DNA. Meyer (2009:407) listed vital functions of "junk DNA"/ nonprotein-coding regions of DNA: "1) regulate DNA replication, 2) regulate transcription, 3) mark sites for programmed rearrangements of genetic material, 4) influence the proper folding and maintenance of chromosomes, 5) control the interactions of chromosomes with the nuclear membrane (and matrix), 6) control RNA processing, editing, and splicing, 7) modulate translation, 8) regulate embryological development, 9) repair DNA, 10) aid in immunodefense or fighting disease..." and 11) code functional genes. The neo-Darwinian mechanistic process of natural selection acting on the random mutation of genes cannot account for the origins of epigenetic information housed in the nonprotein-coding regions of DNA.

_Lamarckian evolution:_ Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) believed that the individual organism acquired favorable characters by use of different parts of the body. For example, the giraffe grew a longer neck because it habitually reached for forage higher in the trees. The favorable characters were then passed on to the offspring. Thus, organisms evolved over time in complexity through the use and disuse of their body parts. Lamarck believed the evolution of simple to complex organisms was a natural process. Both he and Darwin, who borrowed a number of ideas from Lamarck, ignored the complex mechanics behind physiological and structural changes that would have been required to accommodate adaptation through the use and disuse of body parts. These two synthesizers apparently suffered from a deplorable lack of curiosity.

_Macroevolution:_ The philosophical materialist view that all organisms evolved from the same 1-celled ancestor through totally natural means.

_Materialism/philosophical materialism/scientific materialism:_ The belief/assumption that the arrangement and interactions of basic "particles" (detections of "excitations" or "ripples" in a force field, which "fills space like an invisible liquid" [Kuhlmann 2013]) determine all existence/events. Because all existence is determined, free will is an illusion. Because there is no free will, nor spirit, nor mind, God does not exist.

_Microevolution:_ Changes within the species or genus based on variation within the genetic potential/boundaries of the class.

_Mutation:_ Darwin believed that there was something inherent in the organism that produced heritable variation when it tried to adjust to its surroundings/environment. That is, Darwin believed Lamarckian evolution explained the origin of variation. Neo-Darwinists reject the mysteries of Lamarckian evolution and embrace random mutation in the DNA as the source of variation and hold to the Darwinian idea that natural selection acting on unguided gene mutations is the basic mechanism that accounts for the macroevolution of all species from a single progenitor species.

Ironically, embryological studies have revealed that cytoskeletal arrays and patterns of sugar codes and varying electric fields in the embryonic cell membrane, not genes, control gene function/expression and subsequently the implementation of the body plans of developing organisms. Thus, that which controls gene expression in embryogenesis is epigenetic and beyond the influence of random gene mutation. Darwinists must therefore successfully and adequately address the origins of developmental controls housed in embryonic cell membranes to validate the materialist view of evolution.

Most do not question the evolution of species from species (see _Epigenetic niche-match_ above). The question is, however, not the role of mutation in changing organisms but the power of random mutation to make significant changes. Random mutations are restricted to operations with the existing DNA machinery of an organism through accidental substitutions, deletions, insertions, inversions, gene duplications, and genome duplications (Behe 2014:67). Virtually all of these mutations represent impairment of function. Under adverse conditions, an overall loss of genetic function occasionally provides survival value. The development of the sickle trait is an example of a random "injury" to the human genome that provided survival benefits in malaria-infested areas.

The mutation that created "Sickle Eve" required the substitution of one amino acid for another among billions in human DNA, but that genetic change was enough to provide resistance to the malaria parasite. That is the good of the sickle mutation, which provides protection against malaria if one parent has the mutation. The down side of the sickle mutation is that when both parents have the sickle trait, their children seldom survive beyond the age of ten. Thus, natural selection will over time eliminate the mutation in malaria-free areas. In like fashion, a mutant strain of malaria, which developed immunity to the parasiticide chloroquine, declines and the original strain of malaria returns where chloroquine is no longer used. These kinds of observations show that random mutations can produce net benefits only in "desparate times" (Behe 2014:77).

The poster-child of gene mutation is the HIV virus. HIV produces an average of one mutation for every copy of itself. Of interest, HIV over the last few decades has produced an estimated one hundred billion billion (1020) copies of itself and therefore an equal number of random mutations. Notwithstanding all the neo-Darwinian evolution of the HIV virus, "Its basic genetics have changed very little in the past decades." (Behe 2014:137).

And, notwithstanding, the 10,000-year malaria-humankind war of Darwinist proportion and 1020 mutations of HIV, neither set of human-parasite nor human-virus interactions produced a single new functioning protein or gene nor molecular machine nor single new protein-protein binding. This fact is astounding but not surprising, given that the odds of random mutation providing five to six changes required in amino acids to produce a new functional binding between proteins is one in 1020. But let us assume the organism needs two such protein bindings in order to produce some new protein function. The odds of producing two new binding sites between proteins by random mutation grows to 1040. According to Behe (2014:135), 1040 is "more cells than likely have ever existed on earth."

Given the fact that the celium, a hair-like structure that moves some 1-celled organisms about, contains several hundred protein parts, what is the probability of random gene mutation producing such a machine? Ever? Because the probability is reasonably zero, some researchers have turned their focus away from gene mutation as the creator of new body plans to the mutation of regulatory genes as an appropriate mechanism for Darwinian macroevolution.

To focus on mutation of regulatory genes as the basic mechanism underlying Darwinian evolution, one has to overlook questions on the origins of master regulatory (Hox) genes, control regions, switch sequences, developmental gene regulatory networks (dGRNs), and genetic circuitry. One must simply begin by assuming the existence of a "hope chest" or "tool box" of preexisting, complicated biological information and biological machinery that defies explanation. You assume that the "tool box" housing all that genetic information appeared quite fortuitously and you go from there.

With the "tool box" that was full of regulating information, random mutation simply tweaked the smallest gear the smallest amount and thereby produced 3 phyla of new organisms in the Precambrian, all of which carried the same "tool box" of regulatory genes. In a few million years, random mutation again tweaked small gears in the "tool box" housed in those 3 groups of organisms and the Cambrian exploded with 12 of 18 extant phyla. That is, some 3 enigmatic, undifferentiated Precambrian phyla macroevolved rapidly through random mutation and natural selection into complex Cambrian forms; e.g., annelids (worms), arthropods (trilobites), mollusks (clams), chordates (cartilaginous fish), and echinoderms (starfish). My question is, if a magic tool box appeared in the Precambrian that anticipated and subsequently created wholly new and complex body forms, where did the preplanned tool box come from?

Meyer (2013:268,315) noted that the complexity and specificity of gene regulatory systems renders them all but impossible to alter without destroying function. Changes to gene regulatory systems that could create large-scale changes in animal body plans are not viable, and small changes in those systems that are viable produce minor changes. This is not to say that some investigators have not intentionally rearranged parts of regulatory genes to produce interesting modifications in the lab, for example, in yeast cells (Behe 2014:269-276). The appropriate question is whether random mutation, that is, without the help of multiple engineered steps by intelligent agents, could produce such modifications and whether such modifications could enhance survivability of a species in the wild state.

Behe (2014:200-201) suggested that random mutation of gene switches may account for some varieties of dogs, for a spot on the wing in the fruit fly ( _Drosophila_ spp.), developed over a period of 15 million years, and for the development of the antifreeze protein of notothenioid fish. These evolutionary changes, Behe classified as minor. For a detailed and convincing account of the powers and limits of random mutation, see Behe's 2014 book _The Edge of Evolution_.

_Natural selection:_ Darwin observed considerable variation within species. He believed organisms acquired variation of characters through the use and disuse of their body parts (Lamarckian evolution) and that variation regularly appeared as a function of a natural "rule" or "law". Observations that resisted explanation fell into these categories.

Organisms used or reduced use of their body parts in response to their surroundings, including competitive relations within and between species for limited resources. Organisms had virtually unlimited ability to change. Some newly acquired variations or traits would offer a slight improvement in survival and reproductive success for the individual.

Because acquired, advantageous variations were heritable, such advantages would, over long periods of time, spread throughout the population. The species would thus slowly improve and evolve into a new species, replacing the parent species through competition. Darwin called this selective process for improved characteristics that gradually evolved new species "natural selection." The slow evolution of a widely distributed species population, as opposed to speciation in small isolated population, was known as "Darwinian gradualism". Darwin posited that natural selection acting on unlimited, natural variation could explain the development of complex organisms like man from a 1-celled ancestor.

_Neo-Darwinism:_ This belief represented a melding of Darwinian phyletic, gradual evolution with modern genetics. Darwin believed simply that organisms were plastic and subject to constant change and/or they acquired new variation through the use and disuse of body parts. Neo-Darwinism embraced the idea that the source of variation in the individual organism was due to the random mutation of genes. Neo-Darwinists otherwise embrace the Darwinian, materialist view that all species gradually evolved from a common 1-celled ancestor through natural selection acting on variation.

_Occam's razor:_ The best choice among competing hypotheses is the one that explains a set of observations with the fewest new assumptions. That is, the simplest answer that explains the phenomenon is the best one.

_Prokaryote:_ Cellular organisms, such as bacteria and blue-green algae. The genetic material of these organisms is not encased within a nuclear membrane.

_Protein:_ In order to understand the basic complexities of cells and their constituent parts, you need to have some idea of what a protein is. Protein is a basic nutrient important in the development and maintenance of the human body. You can get the protein your body requires by eating meat, eggs, beans, and dairy products. And, if you are not squeamish, you can get protein from eating crickets and grasshoppers too. Those kinds of proteins are what we are talking about here but I want to emphasize their important functions in living organisms. This will be a simplified presentation for two reasons: 1) the simplified version is all I understand and 2) proteins and their functions are recognized but not fully understood by the experts.

Proteins are what make the cell work. Virtually everything the cell does, various kinds of proteins accomplish. Bruce Alberts, President of the National Academy of Sciences, introduced this issue with an article entitled. "The cell as a collection of Protein Machines" (Behe et al, 2000:66). In his article Alberts stated:

We have always underestimated cells...The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines...Why do we call the large protein assemblies that underlie cell function protein machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts.

If you go inside a factory that makes automobiles, you will find all kinds of tools and parts and numerous machines and robots and computerized systems full of information for ordering the assembly of vehicles. Intelligence is required for building all the tools and machines and for all the electric wiring and energy inputs and for the creating of all the various computer programs that guide the robots and control other machinery. In like fashion, the cell, which is much more complicated in its operations than any automobile factory, uses a wide variety of proteins and combinations thereof to carry out all the functions of the cell, including self-replication.

Just as the particular shape and constituent parts of a hammer or screwdriver or engine block or engine part determines its effective use, each protein has its specific shape and molecular and chemical constituents in order to function individually or in unison with other proteins. DNA provides the specific digital information required for the making of all the proteins the cell requires to function and to replicate.

The DNA code is in the form of four chemical compounds called nucleotide bases; that is, quinine (G), adenine (A), thymine (T), and cytosine (C). The specified sequence of these nucleotide bases on the DNA molecule is what determines ultimately the shape and chemical constituency of a particular protein. The production of a relatively simple protein requires the specific sequencing of about 150 nucleotide bases. Making a more complex protein may require a specified sequence of 250 nucleotide bases. Of interest, there is no explanation for the origin of the specified sequences of nucleotide bases along the spiraling DNA molecule. The chemical properties of the nucleotides nor of corresponding amino acids determine a single genetic code (Meyer 2009:248).

This is how the cell makes a protein from the DNA code. A molecule called the "messenger-RNA" goes over to a section of the DNA and copies the particular sequence of nucleotide bases in the same medium, that of nucleotide bases. The messenger-RNA then travels over to the ribosome and delivers its sequential information there. The ribosome is a molecular machine that translates the sequence of nucleotide bases into 3-letter "codons". "Each codon consists of three bases and directs the cell to attach a specific amino acid to a growing chain of other amino acids" (Meyer 2009:103). Once the DNA code is translated into the specific sequence of amino acids in the ribosome, the specified sequence of amino acids (polypeptide) automatically takes the right functional shape to form the specified protein. This protein then takes its place in the translation, transcription, and replication processes required for the cell to function. Thus, proteins are not just meat that you eat but are the tools and complex molecular machines and housing the cell requires to work.

_Punctuated equilibrium:_ Paleontologists Eldredge and Gould (1972) used "punctuated equilibrium" to describe the recurrent pattern of the rapid appearance of species, stasis of species, and abrupt disappearance of species as revealed in the fossil record. These two authors speculated that species in isolated populations, peripheral to the range of their parent species, developed rapidly and subsequently spread over wide areas once barriers to migration disappeared. See discussion of "allopatric speciation" above.

_Phyletic evolution or Darwinian gradualism:_ This is the cornerstone of Darwin's theory of the gradual evolution of 1-celled organisms into human beings by purely natural or materialistic means. Darwin speculated that within the population of a widely distributed species, small variations that provide an improved chance for survival occur in the individual. The new improvement, be it ever so small, enables the recipient to reproduce successfully more often than other members of the same species in the face of existing or changing environmental conditions.

With the given reproductive advantage, the individual's progeny perpetuate the favorable variation and pass it on to their offspring throughout the population. Over a long period of time, those members of the population that lack the favorable variation reproduce relatively fewer and fewer offspring to carry their inferior characters while those individuals within the population with the favorable variation grow in numbers until eventually they alone comprise the species. Thus, innumerable steps are required for the gradual evolution of a species population into a new variety and eventually into a new species. Darwin called the interactive process of environmental factors acting on heritable variations, whereby a species slowly improves, "natural selection".

Unfortunately for Darwin's theory of gradualism within a population (phyletic evolution of a species population), the fossil record has failed to show the hundreds of thousands of connecting/ intermediate steps between species. Rather, the rocks show that species appeared abruptly, lived without significant morphological changes, and disappeared abruptly.

If Darwin's model of phyletic evolution was correct, a single species would evolve into a new species by replacing the parent species. If a new species can only appear with the extinction of the parent species, what is the mechanism for the phyletic evolution of two or more species from the same parent species? Darwin struggled with this little sticking point.

_Saltation:_ A sudden or abrupt appearance or disappearance of a species.

_Tautology/tautological:_ A fallacy in logic. A restatement of an idea in different words

that may give the false appearance of providing additional information.

_Vitalism/vitalistic:_ The belief that the physical and chemical properties of an organism

cannot explain all of the organism's functions. Many operations vital to the function of species at the cellular/molecular level are self-regulated and dependent upon preprogrammed digital information.

### Literature Cited

Associated Press. 2010. Teeth may be oldest evidence of modern man. The Courier-Journal. Tues 28 Dec., Louisville, KY.

Behe, M.J. 1998. Darwin's black box. Simon & Schuster, New York. 307 pp.

Behe, M.J., W.A. Dembski, and S.C. Meyer. 1999. Science and evidence for design in the universe. Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute. Vol 9. Ignatius press, San Francisco. 234 pp.

Behe, M.J., and D.W. Snoke. 2004. Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues. Protein Science. 13:2651-2664.

Behe, M.J. 2007. The edge of evolution: the search for the limits of Darwinism. Free Press. New York. 336 pp.

Bygen, L. O., G. Kaati, and S. Edvinsoon. 2001. Longivity determined by ancestors' overnutrition during their slow growth period. Acta. Bio. Theroret. 49: 53-59.

Cloud, J. 2010. Why genes aren't destiny. Time Magazine. 175:49-53.

Darwin, C. 1859. The origin of species. Signet Classics. September 2003. New American Library, Penquin Group (USA) Inc. New York. 495 pp.

Denton, M. 1986. Evolution: a theory in crisis. Alder & Alder, Bethesda, MD. 368 pp.

Durant, W. 1933. The story of philosophy. Garden City Publishing Co., Inc. Garden City, New York. 592 pp.

Dyke, G. 2010. Winged victory. Scientific American. 303(1): 68-75.

Lein, D., and M. Hawrylycz. 2014. The genetic geography of the brain. Scientific American. 310(4): 70-77.

Eldredge, N., and S.J. Gould. 1972. Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism. In T.J.M. Schopf, ed., Models in Paleobiology. Freeman Cooper. San Francisco: 82-115.

Eliot, C.W., ed. 1909. Plutarch's lives. P.F. Collier & Son Corporation. New York. 389 pp.

Feduccia, A., T. Lingham-Soliar, and J.R. Hinchlifte. 2005. Do feathered dinosaurs exist? Journal of Morphology. 266:125-166.

Fischman, J. 2011. Part ape - part human. National Geographic. 220 (2): 120-133.

Freedman, D. H. 2013. Are engineered foods evil? Scientific American. 309(3): 80-85.

Gingerich, P.D. 1977. Patterns of evolution in the mammalian fossil record. 469-500 _in_ Hallam, A., ed. Patterns of evolution, as illustrated by the fossil record. Elsevier, Amsterdam. 591 pp.

Hall, S.S. 2010. Revolution postponed. Scientific American, 303 (4): 60-67.

Kaati, G., L. O. Bygen, and S. Edvinsson. 2002. Cardiovascular and diabetes mortalitydetermined by nutrition during parents' and grandparents' slow growth period. Eur. J. Genet. 10:682-688.

Lipton, P. 2004. Inference to the best explanation, 2n edition _._ Routledge. London and New York. 219 pp.

Johnson, P.E. 1991. Darwin on trial. Inter Varsity Press. Downers Grove, IL. 220 pp.

Johnson, T.C., C.A. Scholz, M.R. Talbot, K. Kelts, R.D. Ricketts, G. Ngobi, K. Beuning,

I. Ssemmanda, and J.W. McGill. 1996. Late Pleistocene desiccation of Lake Victoria and rapid evolution of cichlid fishes. Science 273(5278): 1091-1093.

Kuhlmann, K. 2013. What is real? Scientific American. 309(2): 40-47.

Lamb, T.D. 2011. Evolution of the eye. Scientific American. 305(1): 64-69.

Landau, M. 1989. Protein sequences and Denton's error, Creation Evolution Journal 9(2): 1-7.

Marean, C.W. 2010. When the sea saved humanity. Scientific American. 303 (2): 32-41.

Mayr, E. 1997. This is biology - the science of the living world. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 322 pp.

Matheson, R. 1951. Entomology for introductory courses. Cornell University Press. Ithaca, NY. 629 pages.

Meyer, S. C. 2009. Signature in the cell. HarperCollins Publishers. NY. 611 pp.

Meyer, S. C. 2013. Darwin's doubt. HarperCollins Publishers. NY. 498 pp.

Nester, E.J. 2011. Hidden switches in the mind. Scientific American. 305(6):76-83.

Newman, S.A. and R. Bhat. 2009. Dynamical pattering modules: a "pattern language" for development and evolution of multicellular form. Int. Dev. Biol. 53:693-705.

Pembrey, M., L. O. Bygren, and G. P. Kaati. 2005. Sex-specific, sperm-mediated transgenerational responses in humans. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 14:159-166.

Prothero, D.R. and T. H. Heaton. 1996. Faunal stability during the early Oligocene climatic crash. Paleogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 1 (27):257-283.

Schweitzer, M. 2010. Blood from stone. Scientific American, 303(6): 62-69.

Stanley, M. 1998. Macroevolution. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. 332 pp.

Stone, R. 2010. Dinosaurs' living descendants. Smithsonian. 41(8):54-62.

Storer and Usinger. 1957. General zoology. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., NY. 664 pp.

Strobel, L. 2004. The case for a creator. Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI. 340 pp.

Tattersall, I. 2014. If I had a hammer. Scientific American. 306(4): 54-59.

Wells, J. 2000. Icons of evolution. Regnery Publishing, Inc. Washington, DC. 338 pp.

Wood, B. 2014. Welcome to the family. Scientific American. 311(3): 42-47.

Woodward, T. 2006. Darwin strikes back. Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI. 223 pp.

Wong, K. 2012. First of our kind. Scientific American. 306(4): 30-39.

# What are the Odds: Memo to an Eleven-Year Old Boy

MEMO

SUBJECT: What are the odds?

TO: RJ

FROM: Bob

DATE: 16 January 2012

You had a question about Eastern religions and their "bible" last Wednesday (4 Jan 2012) in church. I tried to provide you some information on this topic but time was short and I suspect my comments were rushed and did not make a lot of sense. Therefore, I am writing down some information and ideas that compare Christianity with other beliefs. You will see that Christianity is reasonable and that the odds of other religious beliefs, including philosophical materialism, being correct are somewhere between slim and zero.

First I will discuss the general reason behind the origin of Eastern religions and then the logical problems with pantheism, a fundamental belief of most Eastern religions.

Following the discussion on pantheism and other tenets of Eastern religions, I will say a few words on how Jews, Christians, Muslims, and deists view God as a person with a mind and will and the power to act. Next will follow a summary of scientific findings that point toward the validity of creation of the universe by willful acts of mind.

By the way, a deist is simply a person who believes nature and reason show that God as a person exists. But deists do not believe God is interested in us enough to communicate with us for any reason. Thus, the deist God got things started and programmed and then he went away and left us to run things as we see fit.

What separates Christianity from Judaism, Islam, and deism is belief in the deity of Jesus Christ and the honor and trust we put in him and his word. We also note that the Jewish Bible, our Old Testament, provides several dozen predictions about the Jewish Messiah. Because Jesus fit all of those predictions, it is highly probable that Jesus is Messiah/God and that Judaism by itself, Islam, and deism are in the low-odds corner of being correct. Only God could predict messianic events that would occur hundreds of years in the future, now 2000 years in the past.

I am not going to say much about humanism in this memo. Humanism is the belief that all that matters in life are human values and accomplishments. Generally, humanists say that God does not exist or it is not possible to know whether he exists or not. A lot of formally educated people in middle class America fall into this category. A lot of them believe that science and the application of human reason can solve all problems. Humanism appeals to those who are educated and comparatively successful and accomplished in human society. Humanism allows them to feel that they are the center of importance.

### Purpose of Eastern Religions

Eastern religions include Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, and others. The purpose of these religions is not to search for objective facts or truth. Their purpose is to help people get along together and to help the individual cope with the stress of living and the thought of dying. For example, prior to the birth of Confucius, people died in large numbers (hundreds of thousands) in tribal wars in China. Confucius came up with a lot of sayings that he hoped would help people to live in peace rather than war. His search was not about God's existence or character.

In a similar way, Hinduism and Buddhism are not about the existence of God as a person in and of himself but about learning to live in harmony with one's self, other people, and the earth. While these faiths can offer some interesting ideas and helpful ways of facing evil and pain in life, they are self-focused and not based on a search for reality nor for facts.

### Pantheism

The "god" of pantheistic Eastern religions is everything that exists, including all stuff, energy, thoughts, and the laws of nature. Everything is the same stuff. Therefore, the rocks and the person, and the hat the person is wearing are god. "God" is a state of being in the mind. In Hinduism, for example, followers can become identified with Brahman (a god state of being) and thereby become divine while still on the earth. Inside man below the subconscious level is "Being Itself": "I am the Ancient One. I am Man, the Lord. I am the Being-of-Gold. I am the very state of divine beatitude" (Smith 1958:52). This idea harks back to Genesis, first chapter, where Satan told Eve that she and Adam should eat of the forbidden fruit because they would be like God, knowing good and evil for themselves.

In Hinduism all roads lead to god because god is not another person of superior abilities but is a perfected state of the human mind. Thus Hinduism has many idols that represent God. Any idol or thing that helps the individual arrive at the god-like state of being in his or her mind is a right path to follow.

We can see the appeal of pantheism because one gets to be his own god. The other great thing about this belief, is that you don't have to worry about a big God making demands on you about anything. You are your own god and your own compass. And, of course, if you get some leadership role in the religion, you can be important!

An aside issue about pantheism is that there is no real difference between saying that "everything that exists is god" and "everything that exists, exists". There is no real difference between designating everything as a spiritual god and simply saying that everything that is, is really there. In the study of logic, this kind repetitive wording is known as a tautology, or in everyday words, you say the same thing in different words twice or more times without really providing additional information. Salesmen, politicians, and scientists who really have no new information to add, commonly use this re-phrasing technique. If we say that people and dogs and Planck's law and the step ladder and death are all spiritual things, we feel better about them all and achieve a sense of belonging and control because we have knowledge of all things. To my mind, confining "reality" and belief to what makes me feel good is invalid.

### Buddhism

Buddha's religion was "without authority, without ritual, without theology, without tradition, without grace, and without the supernatural...a religion without God..." (Smith 1958:108). Buddhism incorporates the idea of reincarnation and escape from desire and the world through enlightening meditation. Buddha had no intention that people should worship him in idol form. He said before he died: "When I am gone, don't bother to pray for me; for when I'm gone, I'll be really gone." But after he died, people made idols of Buddha and today people worship those idols in the Far East, places like China and Japan. The appeal of idols is that they are relatively little gods of man's own making. They are visible, not living materials, and they allow us to largely define what we want to believe and how we want to act. We don't have to wait on the guidance of an invisible Holy Spirit of a powerful God who thinks and wills and acts. We can rely on ceremony and ritual to order life completely.

### New Age Beliefs

Over the last 50 years or so New Age beliefs have spread across the United States. Silver City has a lot of "New Agers." There are about as many New Age beliefs as there are New Age believers. For the most part, these people adopt the idea that they and everything else is god (pantheism) and they often think of themselves as Buddhists rather than Hindus because of the Hindu idea that some people are destined to be low class in this life because they did bad things in past lives. Again, New Age religion is all about what the religion does for the individual. Everything that matters is in the mind and heart of the New Age person and the question of whether God exists or not does not matter.

Part of the appeal of the New Age movement is linked to rejection of organized religion. New Agers commonly reject organized religion because they reject past attempts by governments to mix religion and politics to control or abuse others. New Agers often feel that the Western application of science, reason, and religion are responsible for most of the wars in the last 200 years and they reject science and the Christian religion in the name of personal and societal peace. Again, the important quest by the New Age movement is for harmony and not for facts or truth or God. A way of life that provides harmony with self, others, and the earth (environment) is the only "truth" of importance.

### Modern Psychology and Eastern Religion

A strong connection often exists between the practice of psychology and Eastern religions. Many psychologists are New Age believers. That is because the goal of Eastern religion focuses on behaviors that help people cope with pain and isolation and bad feelings about themselves rather than on objective reality. Therefore, the goals of Eastern religion and psychological counseling or often similar.

This is not to say that we do not have a lot of Christian psychologists and psychiatrists. Christians in those fields are not pantheists but believe God is a real person and that Jesus through his death on the cross has paid for all our sins. Of course, a lot of personal problems are tied to one's personal history and how he or she was brought up. That is, a lot of our problems often are psychological in origin as well as sometimes physical.

### The Jews and Christianity

Abraham and Isaac and Jacob experienced God as a person who actually existed. God to them was not the trees or moon or wooden idols or a feel-good feeling inside themselves. He was their Creator who thought and planned and programmed and made things and loved the people he had made. God was a person with will and mind who lived as an individual. He had purpose and was perfect and creative.

In Judaism and Christianity, although God is a person who cares about people getting along, he, himself, is the focus of existence, not created people and their personal goals. How people feel nor the practicality of getting along are the tests of what is real. What is fact and real and true is what matters. As Jesus said in John 8:32: "You will know the truth and the truth will set you free."

Judeo-Christianity holds to the truth that the person of God is real. We also believe that God is perfect and that he alone determines or defines what is good and what is evil. God and pleasing God is the focus of our desires to live the meaningful life. There is little room for self-pride when one focuses on what God desires instead of on one's self.

### What Science Says about the Nature of God

Pantheistic Eastern religions say that everything that exists is god and that we are god and that some mysterious, mindless, blind force is responsible for the existence of everything. However, the Bible says that God is a person who has will, mind, and purpose and who loves us dearly as individuals. The question is: what picture of God do we get from science and history? Is God some blind, vague force that includes all matter and energy and the laws of nature or is he a person with will, power, purpose, planning, and programming as portrayed in the Bible?

The Anthropic Principle

Physicists in the 1960s revealed that certain constants in the universe are fine-tuned for the possibility of human life to exist. Behe et al. (2000:57) stated:

Even very slight alterations in the values of many factors, such as the expansion rate of the universe, the strength of gravitational or electromagnetic attraction, or the value of Planck's constant...ratio of neutron mass to the proton mass, the strong nuclear force... would render life impossible" (Behe et al.:2000:57).

The "dials" for these constants are so precise that "the impression of design is overwhelming." That is, the fine-tuning of the constants in the universe overwhelmingly support the picture of God as a person who plans and programs and willfully carries out his plans with precision. Blind chance cannot account for such perfect coordination of the physical constants required to allow life to exist in our universe.

Complex Molecular Machines in Living Organisms

"Molecular machines are incredibly complex devices that all cells use to process information, build proteins, and move materials back and forth across their membranes" (Behe et al, 2000:66). Bruce Alberts, President of the National Academy of Sciences, introduced this issue with an article entitled, "The cell as a collection of Protein Machines". In his article Alberts stated:

We have always underestimated cells...The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines...Why do we call the large protein assemblies that underlie cell function protein machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts.

In like manner, Behe et al. (2000:67) discussed the whip-like flagella of certain bacteria. He noted that the ion-powered rotary engines that turn the flagella include a rotor, a stator, O-rings, bushings, and a drive shaft. To operate, the mechanisms require the coordinated interaction of some forty complex protein parts. Behe noted:

Yet the absence of any one of these proteins results in the complete loss of motor function. To assert that such an "irreducibly complex" engine emerged gradually in a Darwinian fashion strains credulity.

From our everyday experiences, we regularly observe that complex machines are the product of intelligent design, in our case by human ingenuity. Living cells are far more complex than any man-made machine, and therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the mind of God designed complex molecular machines found in living organisms.

The Complex Specificity of Cellular Components

The cell requires information to function:

In the case of DNA, the complex but precise sequencing of the four nucleotide bases adenine, thiamine, guanine, and cytosine (A, T, G, and C) - stores and transmits genetic information, information that finds expression in the construction of specific proteins...DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software we've ever created (Behe et al. 2000).

Because of the lack of attraction or repulsion among the four nucleotide bases, there is no accounting for how A, T. G, and C line up along the DNA molecule's phosphate backbone to provide information translated into amino acid sequences for the production of functional proteins. Neither chance nor chemical and physical necessity can explain the origin of this information system.

One may ask how a functional protein first appeared on the earth. To function the living cell requires the production of numerous functional proteins. But even a relatively simple functional protein requires the specific lining up of around 150 amino acids. Physical and chemical necessity could not line up the amino acids correctly because, though differential bonding affinities exist among certain amino acids, they do not determine "the specific sequences of amino acids that actual proteins now possess" (Meyer 2009:236). Thus, there are only two other ways the amino acids could align themselves up to produce a "simple" functional protein: pure chance or intelligent design.

Of course, the right amino acids have to be available and that is a problem. But even were the right amino acids available in some ancient sea, what would be the probability of their lining up by chance? According to Stephen Meyer (2009:206-207), that likelihood is about 1 blind chance in 10195; that is a 1 followed by 195 zeros. That probability is small, considering that there are 1065 atoms in our galaxy. These are not good odds for the chance hypothesis for the accidental appearance of a relatively simple functional protein. So imagine what the chances are for the accidental appearance of a more complex protein of some 250 amino acids and much more so for that of a whole functioning cell.

Because in our own experience, information is a product of mind and will, we are led to conclude that mind is behind complex information and subsequent functions in the DNA molecule. This arrangement cannot be the work of some mindless pantheistic force nor do the observed facts point toward some mystical ideas that we are gods. Instead, we see exhibited in scientifically confirmed functions carried on in our own bodies - the work of superior intelligence beyond ourselves.

Big Bang Theory

Physicists who use math to study the origin and structure of the universe are called "cosmologists". Cosmologists at present believe the entire observable universe had a beginning at a point. By definition, a point has no dimensions. Thus, these physicists believe that the universe has not always existed but had a beginning and that our universe came from nothing. This theory matches well with the origin of the universe as stated in the Bible.

From the Muslim tradition comes the "kalam cosmological argument" (Strobel (2004:97-100): "No thing comes into being from nothing without a cause." That cause, and not the preexisting nothing, is the person of God.

Because pantheistic Eastern religions believe that everything that exists is God, the pantheistic god cannot be eternal because that god, being the universe and all its matter and energy, had a beginning in the "Big Bang". By contrast, the Person who produced the Big Bang from nothing is eternal...just as stated in the Bible. The Big Bang theory is based on mathematical calculations/conclusions and the observation that all matter in the universe is moving away from a common point of origin. If correct, this cosmological idea points to a Creator who exists as a person with mind and will and power.

Darwinian Gradualism is Dead

The fossil record shows that species appear and disappear abruptly. The fossil record also reveals the pattern that the bone structures of species remain unchanged (except for some microevolutionary changes in size) as long as the species remains in existence. Nor does the fossil record provide evidence of the numerous intermediate steps required of Darwin's vision for the gradual evolution of species. Note that natural selection has not demonstrated the ability to change species morphology (bone structure) over the existence of the species.

A good example of the non-Darwinian appearance of new species occurred at Lake Victoria, Africa. According to carbon-14 dating, the lake was bone dry 12,400 years ago. Since the time the lake was dry, 300+ new species of cichlid fishes appeared in the lake. This eruption of new species parallels the production of new genetically unique antibodies by the human immune system rather than the gradualist, materialist view held by Darwin. The programming of information for the rapid appearance of numerous new species looks like planning and programming by a Creator. No blind pantheistic nor materialist forces can account for the rapid speciation of 300+ new species of cichlid fishes in Lake Victoria in just 12,400 years.

### The God of the Bible

Though science favors the concept that God is a person, we still would like to know more about him. In his book _Case for Christ_ , Lee Strobel interviewed Louis S. Lapides (Strobel 1998:171-187). Lapides, an ethnic Jew, came to trust in Jesus Christ as God and Savior because of his reading about the Jewish Messiah in the Old Testament. Lapides noted:

Isaiah revealed the manner of the Messiah's birth (of a virgin); Micah pinpointed the place of his birth (Bethlehem); Genesis and Jeremiah specified his ancestry (a descendent of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, from the tribe of Judah, the house of David); the Psalms foretold his betrayal, his accusation by false witnesses, his manner of death (pierced in hands and feet, although crucifixion hadn't been invented yet), and his resurrection (he would not decay but would ascend on high); and on and on.

Lapides stated that the Old Testament provides more than four dozen major predictions about the Messiah. Interestingly, Jesus fit them all.

Lapides further reported that there was no chance that Jesus was not the Messiah foretold and described by the numerous Old Testament predictions. He noted that the odds are so astronomical that they rule that out. Peter W. Stoner (1888-1980) mathematically calculated the odds and figured out that the probability of just eight prophecies being fulfilled by any one person is one chance in a hundred million billion. "That number of millions of times is greater than the total number of people who've ever walked the planet!"

Lapides continued:

He ( _Stoner_ ) calculated that if you took this number (a hundred million billion) of silver dollars, they would cover the state of Texas to a depth of two feet. If you marked one silver dollar among them and then had a blindfolded person wander the whole state and bend down to pick up one coin, what would be the odds he'd choose the one that had been marked? _The odds would be..._ the same odds that anybody in history could have fulfilled just eight of the prophecies.

Furthermore, Strobel (1998:183) reported that mathematician Peter W. Stoner computed that the probability of fulfilling 48 prophecies by Jesus was one chance in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion.

Therefore the odds are good that Jesus as reported in the Bible is the Jewish Messiah and God and creator of the universe.

The Character and Purposes of God

One of the earliest church creeds declared the basic beliefs about Jesus and his ministry. Paul recorded this creed in 1 Corinthians 15:

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, and then to all the apostles.

Craig L. Blomberg, PH.D, is one of the country's foremost authorities on the four gospels. Dr. Blomberg is professor of New Testament at the Denver Seminary. He said that Paul was given the above creed about A.D. 35. The creed had already been put together and was being used in the early church before Paul received it. Dr. Blomberg stated:

Now, here you have the key facts about Jesus' death for our sins, plus a detailed list of those to whom he appeared in resurrected form- all dating back to within two to five years of the events themselves! (Strobel, 2000:35).

The recording of the fundamental or core beliefs of the Christian faith within two to five years of the resurrection of Jesus is important. That brief period left no incubation time for the production of religious myths. At the time of their recording, the facts of Jesus' life, death, and reappearance were still affirmed in the minds of numerous eye witnesses.

Why did Jesus Die on the Cross?

Jesus suffered and died on the cross because he so _loved_ us. Andy Stanley encapsulated John 3:16 to the basic message of God's plan:

God loved; God gave.

We believe; we receive.

There you have it, RJ. The memo above barely scratches the surface. But those are some of the reasons we study the Bible at church instead of the writings of Eastern or other faiths. In conclusion, the odds are good that if you put your trust in Jesus, you will have done the only reasonable thing. We love you.

### Literature Cited and/or Source References

Behe, M.J., W.A. Dembski and S.C. Meyer. 2000. Science and evidence for design in the universe. Ignatius. San Francisco. C.A. 234 pp.

Behe, M.J. 1996. Darwin's black box. Touchstone. New York. 307 pp.

Denton, M. 1986. Evolution: a theory in crisis. Adler & Adler. Bethesda, MD. 368 pp.

Frydland, R. 2002. What the rabbis know about the Messiah. Messianic Literature Outreach. Columbus, Ohio. 146 pp.

Johnson, P.E. 1991. Darwin on trial. InterVarsity Press. Downers Grove, Ill. 220 pp

Kaiser, W.C. Jr. 1995. The Messiah in the Old Testament. Zondervan. Grand Rapids, MI. 256 pp.

Meyer, S.C. 2009. Signature in the cell. HarperCollins Publishers. New York. 611 pp.

Stanley, S.M. 1998. Macro-evolution...pattern and process. 1979. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, M.D. 332 pp.

Smith, H. 1958. The religions of man. Harper & Row, NewYork. 371 pp.

Strobel, L. 1998. The case for Christ. Zondervan. Grand Rapids, MI. 297 pp.

Strobel, L. 2004. Case for a creator. Zondervan. Grand Rapids, MI. 340 pp.

Wells, J. 2002. Icons of evolution...science or myth? Regnery Publishing, Inc.

Washington, D.C. 338 pp.

Woodward, T. 2006. Darwin strikes back...defending the science of intelligent design. Baker Books. Grand Rapids, MI. 222 pp.

# Addendum - The Appearance of Necessity

All science is based on certain assumptions. These assumptions derive from cause-effect observations and a strong faith in what Emanuel Kant called "pure reason" (Zweig 1970). An example of "knowledge" based on pure reason would be the tautological discoveries of mathematics. Kant noted that math incorporates conclusions a priori to sensory experience and therefore, there exists no necessary connection between the numbers and the world we experience with our senses. Because math usually works, we assume that it works and fits material reality in every case.

Kant further stated that we cannot reasonably/logically know what will occur in every instance unless we have observed every event. This is because we make assumptions based on a sample of observed cause-effect events. In regard to faulty assumptions about cause-effect events, Kant said:

...everything which we call metaphysic would turn out to be a mere delusion of reason, fancying that it knows by itself what in reality is only borrowed from experience, and has assumed by mere habit the appearance of necessity.

Recall the old story about the flock of barnyard chickens that illustrated faulty assumptions about "appearance of necessity" based on the chickens' observations of causes and effects: A farmer bought a bunch of baby chicks and placed them into the chicken house. He put a cardboard box into the corner of the chicken house and placed soft wood shavings across the bottom of the box and suspended a naked 100-watt light bulb about five inches above the soft wood shavings for warmth. He also provided water and nutritious chicken food in the box. When the farmer introduced the babies into their new home, they peeped happily and ran about eating and drinking and socializing and performing other such chicken behaviors.

Several weeks past in this happy fashion and all but two of the baby chicks survived and sprouted white feathers. Because sickness and death was a rare event among their number and because they were young and life was warm and good, the chicks were happy and satisfied in the care of the farmer. They grew and prospered and when fully feathered, they were released into the bigger world of the fenced chicken yard.

In their bigger and exciting world, the chickens continued to grow and began to feel hormonal influences that broadened their desires beyond simple food and water and warmth and the acceptance of their fellows. They discovered sexual desires and a number of the young roosters began to express cocky behaviors that exuded confidence in themselves, their assumptions, and their rights to prominence.

They developed assumptions about all kinds of things. One assumption was that life was good and exciting and that they exercised considerable control in their areas of interest among their fellows. When the farmer appeared, they all ran out and completed about his feet for the milo and corn and oats he cast about for their consumption and pleasure. Cause-effect relationships had led them to believe that life was good and that the intelligence behind their good experiences was reliable. They had faith in the way things had always happened.

One day, following the farmer's mindful observation that the chicks had grown to a favorable size, he walked into the chicken yard carrying an ax.

# About the Author

**BOB KNIGHT BARSCH** has a B.S. degree in Wildlife Management from Texas A&M University and an M.S. degree in Wildlife Ecology from the University of Arizona. Bob is retired after working thirty-three years in the field of wildlife biology and management with the Arizona Game and Fish Department and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. He is the author of numerous popular essays, a number of which appeared in his first book _Hunting and Gathering_. He has received awards from sporting and professional organizations for outstanding contributions to the management of wildlife resources. The author continues to find investigations of controversial subjects a fun and fruitful hobby.

