[from my myspace] In Disfavor of Evolution

[intro]
I used myspace.com blogs for the past few years for my randomly-spaced blogging. Therefore, I am jumpstarting my blog here with most of those blogs, lightly edited.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original posting: Tuesday, December 16, 2008, 11:22 AM
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah, evolution! O how it is taught as fact. O how it permeates the scientific world. O how con-evolutionists—notice that I do not specify creationists—are looked down upon in our evolutionistic world.

True, evolution theory explains the existence of otherwise useless organs or body parts (such as flightless insects' wings, blind cave species' eyes, or the remnants of human tail bones) by the current species' descent from species who needed such organs or body parts and their loss of such things through adaption to other ways of living.

Yes, geological fossil records do show an almost continuous transformation of species over the course of biological time, with the gaps between subsequent evolutionary steps constantly becoming increasingly smaller and smaller as new fossils become discovered.

Indeed, the term "natural selection" and the phrase "survival of the fittest" hold some credence with the previous two bits of evidence (as well as other "facts" of evolution): natural selection helps to describe the increasing or decreasing prevalence of more advantageous or disadvantageous traits in a species over generations, while survival of the fittest helps to explain the passing-on of the traits of the stronger members of a species which inevitably leads to the decrease in the gene pool of the traits of the weaker creatures.

Okay, so I've just laid out some of the more convincing points of pro-evolutionists that are pretty well-known. Now, I feel compelled to share the counter-arguments to evolution theory that are actually legitimate and not necessarily pro-creationistic.

Remember that first pro-evolution point about the remnants of otherwise useless body parts or organs still existing? Well, the converse of that would be the appearance of useful body parts or organs. For example, did the aerodynamic bird feather develop on a flightless creature with the supposed future usefulness of flight? If so, then natural selection would not have fostered its widespread emergence until flight made its usefulness apparent, so the emergence and then prevalence of the feather should not have occurred. This example actually has some type of rebuttal theory though: "at its first appearance, a fortuitous novelty may confer subtle and invisible advantages" (Miller and Van Loon 131). That is, the emergence of the feather may have appeared due to a different more subtle reason (such as heat insulation) before eventually settling on the current more useful use (flight). However, there still remain organs that are indeed quite useful but explanations for the appearance, emergence, and development of such organs do not exist. The most striking example is the eye. Obviously, sight is wholly useful for every species that have eyes, but how did the eye even come about?

Going back to the fossils-showing-the-continuous-transformation-of-species-overtime point, it is very important to note that gaps in the fossil record still exist. In fact, "[t]here is now overwhelming evidence pointing to the conclusion that certain forms remained stable for long periods of time, only to be suddenly succeeded by new forms altogether" (Miller and Van Loon 133). Therefore, evolution theory does not explain well the often sudden changes of fossil types. One attempt to explain the lapses in the fossil record is that sudden rapid genetic transformations or mutations may have occurred in times of rapid geological change that are, of course, better adapted to the new environments and consequently get passed on through the species. The main argument against this explanation is that such an abrupt change in the hereditary instructions of a species would prove to be rather immobilizing to embryological development.

So therefore, evolution theory has holes that, in my opinion, aren't taught or aren't highlighted as strongly as they should be. Evolution is not fact; it is merely the best theory we have and should be treated as such, holes and all. I know that when I learned about evolution, it was taught as essentially absolute fact—like multiplication or gravity (oh god, gravity ... don't get me started). Things in science really should not be taught as absolute facts. What happens if we have another paradigm shift, like the ones created by Albert Einstein or Sir Isaac Newton? Do we really want to wait decades or even centuries before such better ideas are finally viewed with credibility just because the majority of the population strongly disagrees with the new idea? Well, I'm getting on a really big tangent, so I'll leave you with this: evolution is NOT fact.