No, I am not referring to the devolution of political power from London to the UK's regions.
I am referring to Devolution as contrasted with Evolution.
Why am I writing this post? Essentially, because I have been challenged on this recently, and have never written anything on it.
Devolutionists are unconvinced by Creationism as well as by Evolutionism.
Why am I a Devolutionist and not an Evolutionist?
For two main reasons.
First, it is clear that, while mutations occur, the vast majority of these are "sub-normal" (so they don't survive) rather than "super-normal" (in fact, there is no evidence of any "super-normal mutations" at all, as far as I can discover at present). However, whatever the mechanism, it is clear that existing biological organisms can be arranged in "trees". If one discounts the human tendency to consider ourselves "superior" to other organisms, the "trees" can be arranged in a Devolutionary manner just as easily as in an Evolutionary manner. Consider further that humans can be killed pretty quickly, whereas "primitive" life forms (e.g. fungi and viruses) are extremely hard to eliminate. So on the basis of "survival of the fittest", fungi and viruses are more "survivable" than humans, so should they not be considered much more "advanced" or "fit" than us?
Second, physics came before biology; and physics is not dependent on biology, while biology is dependent on physics. The Second Law of Thermodynamics makes clear the principle of entropy. It is unlikely that the reverse of entropy, which is necessary for Evolution to take place, actually took place. Further, Evolutionists offer us no evidence to believe that the reverse of entropy takes place or has taken place anywhere, nor do Evolutionists offer us any reason why entropy should be reversed on earth, and only in relation to life forms.
Not quite QED, perhaps. But that is my thinking so far.
Sphere: Related Content
Wednesday, December 07, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment