continued…

It is important to note that many critics point disdainfully at the word “theory” in the Theory of Evolution. You can even hear the scare quotes when they say it. They want to intimidate individuals into thinking that because it is “only a theory” that means it is not “proven” or “provable”.

But a theory is only a conceptual understanding of concrete facts of reality. It is how we mentally organize the things in reality which we perceive. A good theory is one that is self-consistent, and equally important, consistent with observable, directly, concretely perceivable evidence. A bad theory is inconsistent and cannot be reconciled with the facts of reality that are directly perceivable.

One important distinction to draw is between Microevolution and Macroevolution.

Microevolution is the process of one species changing, mutating and altering on a genetic level within the same species. This process is not theory, hypothesis or conjecture. It is a proven, well-established fact of reality. You can witness its evidence in laboratory experiments with progressive generations of fruit flies. It is the reason people can say things like, “The child has his father’s eyes” or “The child has her mother’s smile”. Living creatures pass on genetic material to their offspring and in the case of male and female reproduction both contribute to the gene pool with the odds being in favor of dominant gene characteristics. Nearly everyone has heard all this before and takes it for granted. Sometimes they forget that it is an ever-present reminder and all-pervasive evidence of evolution at work. And sometimes they think that it means it is also evidence for macroevolution.

Macroevolution is the more problematic of the two. It is the process of one species changing, mutating and altering on a genetic level into another species altogether. As has been pointed out many times, Darwin’s book (On The Origin Of Species) is slightly misnamed because it has nothing to say on that specific topic. Many theories have been developed as possible answers, but the exact mechanism of one species evolving into another species is as of yet unknown. Fossil records clearly show the appearance and disappearance of different species, however as of yet no known fossil or theories as of yet prove how this process actually works. It is also important to note that the Human Genome Project made available for the first time objective knowledge about the close links and similarities between Human and Primate DNA. Research in this area is key to unravelling the unknowns in the field of macroevolution.

The Standard Academic Line to explain all this is that the process of random genetic mutations and fluctuations is (al)Most Certainly Responsible for Macroevolution. After this premise has been quickly asserted they go on to prove that giraffes have long necks, dark hair is dominant except when it’s not, the government should hand out more funds to save endangered bugs, weeds, cute animals and fragile ecosystems and Natural Selection is a wonderful and desirable process (think about the contradiction involved in those last two items for a while). Obviously the Liberal Minded Environmentalists are of the opinion that human beings are not a natural part any ecosystem. And personally, I think some of them are unhappy with other humans interfering with Natural Selection by curing diseases and inventing vaccinations.

But, hey now, slow down, Professor! Random genetic mutations and fluctuations are very interesting buzzwords to throw around but they still do not explain the process of Macroevolution. That’s a bit like saying water does something random and clouds appear. It does nothing to explains how clouds are formed. I suppose the word “random” is supposed to act as a kind of mysterious witchdoctor charm. What people sometimes forget is that even if a series of events is occurring in what appears to be a random pattern, the objects that a undergoing these alterations cannot change into something outside the context of their specific identity. Just because a process looks random doesn’t mean it can violate the laws of identity, logic and physics. Nothing can.