THE PROBLEM
A question nagged 19th Century naturalists. Explorers world over found great biological diversity, often precisely suited to local environments. Had God specially fitted each species to its own peculiar geographic niche? Or did some unknown mechanism enable reproducing populations to adapt to changing environments?
Charles Darwin (and Alfred Wallace) posited that just as plant and animal breeders affect changes by intelligently selecting breed stock for their desirable traits, even so, Nature blindly selects survivors for breeding, and so amplifies heritable variations found in those survivors. Fuzzy puppies survive cold winters better than hairless puppies. Consequently, in cold climes more fuzzy puppies grow up to reproduce than do hairless puppies, leaving greater numbers of new fuzzy puppies. Darwin called this process, "Natural Selection."
Next, Darwin grossly extrapolated from this simple principle into the vast unobserved past to envision that: (A) All biological complexity has developed by nature's influence on "survival [to reproduce] of the fittest" and (B) All life forms have descended with modification from [few or] a single progenitor - a primordial microscopic chemical accident "in some warm little pond" somewhere in the far distant past.
Do Darwin's twin theories of Adaptation by Natural Selection, and Descent with Modification from a Universal Common Ancestor, account for all the biological complexity and diversity in the world? Does evidence merit such a conclusion? Or does the popularity of these theories derive from the political power of ideological gatekeepers to suppress evidence to the contrary, and to marginalize dissenting scientific opinion?
Many adherents to Darwin's twin theories believe the evidence is overwhelming. Few are conscious of the scientific disputes surrounding nearly every evolutionary claim proffered in textbooks, in lecture halls, in scientific journals, and in the popular media.
Charles Darwin (and Alfred Wallace) posited that just as plant and animal breeders affect changes by intelligently selecting breed stock for their desirable traits, even so, Nature blindly selects survivors for breeding, and so amplifies heritable variations found in those survivors. Fuzzy puppies survive cold winters better than hairless puppies. Consequently, in cold climes more fuzzy puppies grow up to reproduce than do hairless puppies, leaving greater numbers of new fuzzy puppies. Darwin called this process, "Natural Selection."
Next, Darwin grossly extrapolated from this simple principle into the vast unobserved past to envision that: (A) All biological complexity has developed by nature's influence on "survival [to reproduce] of the fittest" and (B) All life forms have descended with modification from [few or] a single progenitor - a primordial microscopic chemical accident "in some warm little pond" somewhere in the far distant past.
Do Darwin's twin theories of Adaptation by Natural Selection, and Descent with Modification from a Universal Common Ancestor, account for all the biological complexity and diversity in the world? Does evidence merit such a conclusion? Or does the popularity of these theories derive from the political power of ideological gatekeepers to suppress evidence to the contrary, and to marginalize dissenting scientific opinion?
Many adherents to Darwin's twin theories believe the evidence is overwhelming. Few are conscious of the scientific disputes surrounding nearly every evolutionary claim proffered in textbooks, in lecture halls, in scientific journals, and in the popular media.
