Evolution: Beautifully Not Progressive

Evolution categorically is not progressive. While Darwin may have been ambiguous in this regard in the “Origin of Species,” one has to consider the time period the “Origin” was published in. Furthermore, one has to hope that those truly in appreciation of Darwin’s ideas and thinking agree in this regard. There are no goals or destinies for life. Evolution by natural selection is beautifully not progressive in that species can stay the same or even devolve due to natural selection. Take this quote from Steven Jay Gould in “Full House,”

"Life therefore began with a bacterial mode. Life still maintains a bacterial mode in the same position. So it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be-at least until the sun explodes and dooms the planet. How, then, using the proper criterion of variation in life's full house, can we possibly argue that progress provides a central defining thrust to evolution if complexity's mode has never changed?"

This understanding has to be central when describing life. After all, it’s only in understanding that evolution is not progressive that we are able to honestly marvel at life itself. In his latest book titled, “Our Cosmic Origins: from the Big Bang to the Emergence of Life on Earth”, Armende Delsemme misses the point several times when referring to evolution. At one point, he describes evolution as a process untiringly trying to find the path toward progress. Simply stated, those words ake the fun out of evolution; They absolutely deflate the excitement that surrounds Darwin and natural selection and speciation. Evolution in no way is untiringly searching for a path towards progress. Later, Delsemme mentions goals. He refers evolution as a journey towards complexity whose goal is not yet apparent. Here, he replaces “path toward progress”, with “journey toward complexity.” Next, evolution has no goals, much less are they ever apparent. Gould held the idea we’re here because we’re here, not because we had to be here.

Pikaea is the oldest known chordate. It was preyed upon heavily by predators such as trilobites and was on the decline as the Cambrian came to a close. But for whatever reason, Pikaea survived the Cambrian while its predators faced extinction. Only by happenstance was Pikaea then there for natural selection and speciation to eventually give rise to fish, and earlier ancestors of mammals. The point being, there is no clear, apparent journey or path to complexity. Rewind the evolutionary tape, play it again, and you might not get the same result.

“Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”

That said, get it right next time, Delsemme, when referring to it in your book.

John




Comments:

Yes, thinking a chordate was around by chance to lead to our other ancestors and ultimately us is pretty unbelievable. Pikaea by the way was discovered in the Burgess Shale and it's pretty unbelievable that site was ever discovered.... and then it's pretty unbelievable, again, that the event that caused the fossilization in the way it did to preserve those soft bodies, is also unbelievable. Unbelievable.


Mike, Ken Miller gave an awesome presentation last year on just that question. Although, im not sure he addressed which is better. Thats a question I don't think anybody can answer. However, creationists always use irreducible complexity in nature as evidence for creationism. Evolution has proven things once considered to be irreducibly complex, well, not irreducibly complex... just complex i guess. So whats that say? I don't know, but the dynamics of all that (evolution capable of producing something that was thought to be irreducibly complex) really is one of my passions in biology... i love that stuff. Evolution produced the bacterial flagellum... wow.

The Current Bio-Medical Theory: How Can It Help?

"Bacteria and parasites cannot cause disease processes unless they find their own peculiar morbid soil in which to grow and multiply". That being said, it would seem to be of crucial importance to maintain a state opposite morbid as no parasite or bacteria could survive in such an environment! A healthy state would certainly be opposite that of a morbid one. However, I don’t feel “healthy” truly describes the state we’re looking for. “Balanced” is a state recognized globally by many cultures and can be defined in several terms. However, regardless of the terms by which it can be defined, “balanced”, in all cultures, is recognized as a state where bacteria, parasites, and ultimately disease absolutely cannot exist. That being said, it’s clear what we must do in order to never get sick again. How does the current biomedical theory help us accomplish this? Well, it really can’t.

Today, almost all human food is processed or preserved. Nearly all contains unnatural chemicals like aspartame. Even our drinking water is chemically treated. The above partnered with all the negative electromagnetic pollution we are bombarded with by cell phones, computers, TV’s, etc. all ultimately forces the body out of balance, effectively weakening our immune system and making us susceptible to disease. Then, when we do finally get sick, we take a drug to treat the symptoms. The current bio - medical theory focuses on this step and today, drug treatment is the main method of treatment for disease. In terms of the current bio - medical theory, this is about as fundamental as it gets. I don’t understand it? It is a fact that drugs don’t cure anything. The body cures itself! It is a fact that when the body is balanced, overall body pH is alkaline. Cancer and virtually all disease cannot exist in an alkaline environment. Furthermore, one hundred percent of those with cancer have an acidic body pH. Even more shocking is what happens to those cancer patients who bring their bodies back into balance - their symptoms disappear! They effectively cure cancer. On a global level, the current bio-medical theory is not a very popular one. Such unpopularity is not due to lack of legitimacy. It’s simply because for thousands of years most cultures have been focusing on the “balanced” state I have been talking about.

In many cultures, herbologists use herbs to bring the body back into balance. Acupuncture is also an effective means for detoxifying the body and helping it back into balance. Drugs merely treat a symptom. Essentially, drugs miss the big picture; the current bio medical theory misses the big picture. Do I think the current theory should be abandoned? Of course not, however, if I could change it or add something, I would love to see it focus more on prevention and less on treatment.

John




Comment:

Hi, I'm going to stand by what I said... I heard this guy Kevin Trudeau talking about cancer and alkalinity in the body and I thought it was total bologna.... i did a lot of research and found that specifically was actually true.... cancer cannot exist in an alkaline environment. Shoot a gamma ray through someone (regardless of pH) and, sure, it'll cause all kinds of mutations, but in an alkaline environment, cancer won't persist (or so I've read).


JMcneil, as health professionals, maybe we can start prescribing a new pill, to be taken 3-4 times a day, every day.... we would call it AHD (A Healthy Diet). I don't think heath professionals stress it enough. With todays foods, people need to be more educated about the serious consequences of an unhealthy diet (stressing, we're not just talking about getting fat)