This just passed through my head (as a lot does - mostly wind) in regards to Evolutionary Theory. Please let me know if anyone else you know of has thought of it previously or if there are flaws in my logic or if it is unclear, which I am positive it will be - this is quickly thought out and quickly written:
One of the most pivotal of Evolution's tenets is that of Natural Selection. Creationists do not argue Natural Selection insofar as it describes "the survival of the fittest," or "adaptation over time" but do make the point - and a very valid one I do believe - that Natural Selection cannot create information, merely weed out that which is useless or, at least no longer used (or not needed in a specific location at a specific time, e.g. long fur coats in the tropics). Creationists and ID'ers note that all change from any one species to another within the same family ("Equine Poppa" to horse, zebra or donkey) is a loss of genetic information. One may find a useless fin here or there, but its always on a fish, never a tapir. Men have nipples, yes, but it would look mighty funny if we didn't. My point is, we see useless things occasionally, but never something that actually bears tremendous potential. Natural Selection supposedly gets rid of what we do not use therefore "whittling us up" to ever slightly larger potentials by whittling out the unused or unprofitable.
This point pops up a lot in discussions, and rightly so. There is no proof whatsoever of any mutation ever giving us a gain in information. Sorry, Wolverine's "healing factor" remains in the realm of comics and Hollywood. What has popped into my head is that, well, even if something terrifically useful were formed by mutation/chance/alien space bats it's usefulness would be in direct proportion to how much it was put to use. We don't see bumblebees with wings that, aeronautically speaking, could allow the creature to fly at hundreds of miles an hour but the creatures just don't do so... that seems ludicrous and real evolutionary scientists would tell you that just isn't the way evolution works.
One might say, but look at the potential the human body has! Look at the human mind! We only use 10 to 20 percent of that! Think of the potential! [Editor's note: the 10% theory is a myth - but I don't think it means "power" so much as "potential" anyway.]
Bingo.
We might see chimpanzees who can be taught to ride a bicycle, but I don't know any chimpanzees that can make a bicycle. Ironically, the human mind is far more powerful than any of us know (or possibly can know), and certainly if it were to come about during a thousand millennia through chance, adaptation and environment, it would still not be the wonder we see now. Even by Evolutionists own standards, mutation and natural selection would only allow a brain of fractionally more potential that what we currently use.
How can Evolution therefore account for the sheer immensity of the human mind, especially in regards to its seemingly unlimited potential? The Creationist standpoint that the mind of Man was designed as such by a Being who wished to make Man in His own image does not seem so incredible now.
4 comments:
I would just like to point out your figure of brain usage is incredibly off. I didn't write this, but I would suggest the following article: http://neurofeedback.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2007/6/5/3001163.html
It does away with the notion that only 10-20% of your brain is used. Almost all of it is. And, natural selection isn't the only way evolution happens. There is something called "sexual selection" where specific genes are passed on through the mating preferences of animals, having nothing to do with practicality of function of the trait. I don't want to insult your ideas; I am merely suggesting you maybe check your figures and definitions. Arguing against only part of a theory while ignoring other pieces of it does not work. Perhaps you could study the idea more and make a better, more complete argument against evolution?
Cheers!
-Kristi
Thanks Kristi!
We always appreciate new voices and intelligent insight, so please don't make this your only visit.
We should never be afraid of having our ideas insulted (that would mean we are too proud) or of being wrong (which I have often been). There is no other way to grow or to find the truth. People may be wrong, truth cannot be.
We seek the Truth here. So, you need not worry about insulting ideas! We welcome your comments and honor your input! Thank you!
You are most definitely correct - we should never take only part of a theory and tear it apart without regards to the remaining. That is like taking a verse of Scripture out of context for Christians or Jews.
On the other hand, we have a good bit on the 'whole of evolution' here on this site, or at least links to other sites that do. I was just making an observation, not a full critique. It should be noted though that scientific theories are accepted because they account for and explain all the known data and conceivably predict new data better than other competing theories. So, really, if one point of the theory falls apart, though it doesn't necessarily destroy any set paradigm by the theory, it may certainly weaken it.
For the record, I studied Evolutionary Theory in University - and finding the evidence (not lacking per say, more 'jumping to some pretty ridiculous conclusions) actually started my study into Metaphysics and Religion. My first job was as in the chem labs at Sealed Air Corp, so we (at least try) to keep it somewhat intelligently based.
If we use 'laymen's speak' it's because most readers do too.
So, to get to the points: 1) natural selection and 2) mental potential.
1) Natural selection; I won't argue that is the only way Evolution purportedly happens; I don't think I ever did. I don't know anyone who would. I said it was one of its key tenets. Certainly 'sexual selection' is part and parcel. In fact, if anything, that would help this theory: "where specific genes are passed on through the mating preferences of animals, having nothing to do with [the] practicality of function of the trait." This is certainly true! But even though (as I infer from your statement) conscious beings find mental capacity to be a sexually desirable trait (I whole-heartily agree), it does not account for the original rise of those mental traits.
In the long run, though Darwin's science was very good in regards to observing the natural world around him, basing an entire worldview on his theories goes too far. As you said in your note, "Arguing against only part of a theory while ignoring other pieces of it does not work." Thus, we must also gauge Evolutionary Theory with the same ruler. (e.g., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, etc)
2) I want to thank you for the article. It is very interesting indeed. If I might suggest though, we look at the underlying implications of what Dr. Karen has written. That though Dr. Karen attempts to show how the brain may work, she does not explain why it works that way. Those would be, not scientific observations, but metaphysical ones.
"Taxi drivers needed to know a gazillion streets well and their brain activity expanded to accommodate it. Stroke survivors with restricted usable limbs had to find a way to use their injured side and their brain accommodated to permit it."
This quote, specifically, seems to show that because our neural pathways are intricately networked, the brain constantly remapping itself (I don't think any serious thinker, particularly Einstein, who purportedly originated this idea, has ever thought the human brain to be linearly driven) we have great potential! It was never the argument that we use 10 to 20 percent of the brain's power but the brain's potential. How it works is a great mystery and wonder, yes, but even, if ever, in discovering that, we do not discover the potential to something until it is measured by other greatness. Which even the taxi drivers can show in this illustration.
I think it is wonderful the potential that is granted to us. I cannot see how that came about by chance.
the saying could also just mean, "get off your lazy butt and do something more with your life!"
Kristi, good to have someone new on the site! Thanks for contributing. On your point about ‘sexual selection’, www.biology-online.org defines it as “A form of natural selection in which, according to Darwin's theory, the male or female is attracted by certain characteristics, form, colour, behaviour, etc., in the opposite sex; thus modifications of a special nature are brought about in the species.” Indeed, if an animal is choosing who to mate with based on colour of plumage, for example, then having the right colour feathers definitely has practical value. Anything that helps you pass on your genes to the next generation has practical value in this way. It seems to me that this is still natural selection at work.
I’m interested in what you said about natural selection not being the only way evolution happens. My understanding was that you needed a mutation, and that mutation needed to be passed on to the subsequent generations in order to result in a new species. Whether the mutation has functional value, or just aids in attraction to the opposite sex, it is still ‘selected’ for in some way, which we can call natural selection. So we have mutation of genes (or changes in genetic information) plus natural selection. Is this an overly simplistic representation? Am I missing something?
Post a Comment