So here's what I've been contemplating lately - questions about evolution that just cannot, to my mind, be answered satisfactorily by an atheist paradigm.....
OK. Let's assume that conditions after the creation of this planet were "ripe" for the emergence of life, and that the possible (if we assume the universe is infinite, and only if we make that assumption) but highly improbable event of life forming itself out of those conditions, actually occurred. You know. Like all the ingredients of a cake sitting on a counter baking themselves into an ornate wedding cake with a gust of wind. Only a kazillion times more complex, and unlikely. Or something. But let's go there. If the Universe is infinite, then the chances improve, because the number of chances of something to TRY to form a wedding cake is infinite. But, for the sake of argument only, give the atheist's that. Let's say a single living cell forms spontaneously from "ingredients", and life begins. From that single cell, other cells have to perpetuate, or the "one in an infinity" chance is lost. So we need that one-in-an-infinity cell not only to survive, but to reproduce itself, and divide. Asexual reproduction that passes on genetic code. Maybe it happened by chance that first time, due to some environmental factors that accidentally split something in two, but at some point, reproduction became an INTERNAL function, and not an EXTERNAL function, and that in itself is a leap. And from there, that single cell needs to survive, multiply, and evolve - with nothing more than it's own perpetuated genetic code (admittedly subjected to occasional random mutations) - into a multicell organism. And from there it needs to evolve into specialized cells allowing complex life-forms, and from there - take an enormous LEAP - into intelligent life forms with language. All by highly improbable chance.
But not just THAT, and this is what has been getting me lately: you need two KINDS of each thing. Complementary things. A male and a female, to account for sexual reproduction. So... one kind of mutation might happen by accident, and something evolve into the next step... but that's not enough. Because in order to perpetuate, there needs to be TWO of that same thing, right? Two separate, same species but different genders? We do not replicate asexually, but sexually. And on a Darwinian "survival of the fittest" level, this does not jive with an atheist, "happens independently of outside forces" mentality.
We can surmise the importance of sexual reproduction. It introduces genetic variability, which in the LONG TERM, ensures sustainability against disease, environmental forces, etc. But Darwinian evolution is made up of choices by creatures that did not have the benefit of an "over-arching, over millions of years, what will help my species survive" choice. The Darwinian model presupposes evolutionary behaviors that were motivated by surviving in the here and now. Survival of the fittest RIGHT NOW. And quite honestly, asexual reproduction takes less energy expenditure, and ensures the reproduction of the species FAR better in the here and now than does sexual reproduction. I wouldn't have to seek a mate to perpetuate, I wouldn't have to undergo the energy expenditure to seek a mate, or the energy expenditure TO mate. It's an inefficient system to say the least. Quite honestly, the evolution of sexual reproduction leaves more questions than answers, unless one sees that there IS an over-arching purpose to it, a reason, a WHY that happens not on the "creature" level, but above the "creature" level.
More thoughts are a-brewin' on polygenosity vs monogenosity in our creation. I've wanted to write about that for a long time.
I'm no scientist, obviously, but sometimes.... I feel that scientists don't ask themselves the right questions, and can't see the forest for the trees.
No comments:
Post a Comment